![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Hypothetical situation, although it happens all the time :
You are on the button with Ace-rag, let's say A7o for this example.
Everyone folds to you....the small blind and big blind are both average players.....you raise. The small blind folds and the big blind calls.
The flop comes with an A and a pair like :
A88
The big blind checks to you...what should you do?
I have decided in this situation to check, and to bet or just call on the turn....you are either beat with very few outs (if he has an 8 or a A with a better kicker)...or you are far ahead and want him to catch a pair on the turn....thus a bet just costs you money (either your hand is a loser or you will make him fold and possibly cost yourself future bets).
Let's say a K comes....and he bets...well, at this point, if he bets and you raise, and he only has a K, he is inclined to fold (of course, raise if you know its a opponent who will call you down with a K). so, a call on the turn is still the best solution. notice that a lot of players can lay down a K if you raise on the turn, due to your strong pre-flop raise and your tight image (or at least my tight image), but will not lay down an A (in which you are tied anyway) or an 8.
If he checks, a bet is now probably correct, as you don't want to give him any more free cards with a K or a hand like QJ.
On the river, if a blank falls, call or bet (if he checks)
Thoughts?
Basically agree. Against suspicious players you can sometimes bet the flop. On the other hand against tricky players and a few other types of players it may be better to check on fourth st. as well as the flop.
I don't like this strategy, tell me where I'm wrong please.
Our hero, the good doctor, goes for a steal with A7o. Let's assume a 10-20 game so on the steal he is betting 20 to win 15.
The flop comes A88 giving our doctor a huge lead over every hand that does not have an 8 or an ace with a better kicker. However, AJ, AQ, AK would most likely reraise the preflop bet so we're worried about a hand with an 8 and a A9 or AT.
There's $45.00 in the pot and our hero can probably win it with a very expected bet on the flop. A check here just looks like a trap anyway. So at this point risking 10 to win $45.00 is a helluva lot better bet than betting 20 to win 15 preflop.
Bet the flop, win it there. Why give a free card to T9, J9, a three flush, or a smaller pocket pair.
The answer Sammy, is related to the size of the pot. Try again.
I suppose what you are getting at is some sort of pot odds situation whereby you try and insure that your opponent does not have the correct odds to draw to beat you, if you are in fact behind.
So, with $45.00 in the pot if you bet and the opponent is on a flush or straight draw he is getting the right price to call, but if you bet the turn, if checked to, then he is not. But, you did say that against some opponents you would check the turn as well giving your opponent two chances to draw out. Are we now entering bluff inducing territory?
BTW Although Oz and El Supremo have a nice ring to it the title I think best befits your position here is Professor, and I mean that in a good way. So, in November when I come to Vegas I'll bring you a nice shiny red apple for your desk.
The pot is so small that you can afford to lose it to runner-runner draws by giving a free flop card. If the opponent is behind and catches something on the turn, he will make a huge FToP mistake by countinuing with his hand. However, if he was ahead on the flop, you are making an even bigger FToP mistake by betting (and getting raised) the flop. This is David's logic (I think).
It does not prove the play to be absolutely correct though. If he chooses to play this tricky when somewhat strong, what will he do next time when he does not have the ace? Will he still check the flop against a blind hand? If yes, he will leak EV.
If he played like that against me, checking his ace behind (and I have a nagging feeling he would rather bet out against the Fekali family members), he would get his ass raised every time when he bet. Of course, knowing that, he would then be forced to call without the ace almost every time. As he doesn't like crapshoots, I expect to get the upper hand here very often.
That said, I still prefer betting out, but only because of my style of play. I cannot afford to water down my stealing hands by checking when having the goods.
I hope David has something to add to this, as I do value his opinion (as I often stated). In no way should this post be understood as another S&M attack.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
of course, it all depends who your opponent is. if your opponent is a tough, aware opponent, then you should bet all the time...whether you have an A or KK or 22 (I would)...if it is an average/weak opponent, less aware opponent, then I think the check is better.
That's the thing. A check here looks so suspicious that I wonder if it's worth it. I'm sure I'd at least bet the flop here, although there's a chance I'd check the turn and hopefully pick off a bluff on the river.
Izmet:
You write:
"If [David S.] played like that against me, checking his ace behind [an A88 flop], he would get his ass raised [by me in the blind] every time when he bet. Of course, knowing that, he would then be forced to call without the ace almost every time. As he doesn't like crapshoots, I expect to get the upper hand here very often."
I disagree, although I think we might just differ over your premise: that A7 with an A88 flop head-up after one raise is merely "somewhat strong" against most hands.
But if you agree that A7 and an A88 flop is a pretty overdog against most callers in the blind of steal-raises, what if you're implying, generally, is that an effective counter to a player that slowplays such hands is to play fast when they show flop strength and the board is scary (i.e., when they bluff), which in turn forces him to surrender enough hands to give you a long-run advantage.
I think David makes a simpler and deadlier adjustment: he only bets big hands on the flop and bets them until you wake up. He might lose some bluffing opportunities on the flop (he'll have to wait for the turn, where he was perhaps doing a lot of his bluffing already), but he can afford to give those up if he knows he'll be raised, as you say, "every time" he's loaded. If only done on a tit-for-tat basis, this adjustment is going to cost you a lot more than the benefit of the bluff you picked off.
I'm thinking about this (warning, bragging ahead) because I recently was in an analogous situation, where I the flop was TT8 after I called a steal raise from the blind. I bet and 3-bet the flop because I thought it would look "funny." It did, and after a lot of bets my T8 was paid by king high. Needless to say, these aren't losses that one can hope to recoup through some sort of further adjustment.
When it's used flexibly and correctly, there just isn't any defense to slowplaying outside of the illusory margin of hope the underdog receives from the better hand.
They are the kind of thought provoking stuff that, when you think about them, even if you don't arrive at a final answer, spur you to understand the game more deeply.
Oops, I apologize for missing your post, Chris (special thanks to John who brought it to my attention via his praising subject line, we're not worthy), here's my late reply:
I am very aware of the pros in David's (and yours) thinking, I often rope-a-dope a lone opponent in these situations (non-vulnerable hand, smallish pot), especially when she (see Izmet taking a stroll thru PC land) shows some strength preflop.
However, there are very important issues to consider here. I have been taught very early that it is not that important how one plays a hand in certain situation but how well one balances one's plays. In other words, do not lose your awareness of the bigger picture.
In this sense, if one plans to steal on similar flops, one needs to bet out with the goods too.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Sammy:
I think you have an undue fear of free cards (I think a lot of players do).
Without a piece of this flop the blind is a huge underdog: 11-1 with a pocket pair, 14-1 at best with middle cards with backdoor draws. The blind can have a lot of hands that are virtually-dead 2% dogs here. With two bets in the pot you can give free cards all day. And if they're the sort who get itchy when they see a scary board and sense weakness, or pay off if they catch anything, letting them out on the flop is a leak.
Chris,
First of all, where the hell have you been!!?
Second, My point was, as you probably read, that if one is willing to put up $20.00 (assuming a steal raise at 10-20) to win $15.00, then for a mere $10.00 bet on the flop $45.00 is there for the taking when yoy are more than likely way ahead.
Furthermore, by betting the flop you give away no information because 90% of the time you would bet when checked to. The only time you wouldn't bet is when you're way ahead. Therefore, the only way the big blind is putting any more money in the pot is when he can beat a pair of aces. So what have you gained by letting him in?
Free cards are scary because SMZ, Brier, Hanson, Feeney, Landale, Lepore, Fekali, Jalib, Carson, Cooke, Caro, Badger, skp, scott, Rick, Rounder, Jones, Krieger, Warren, Brunson all seem to think that giving a free card to someone who is drawing to beat you is a bad thing.
Please don' take that away from me, it's the only thing they all seem to agree on. Sure hope this doesn't start another AQ like thread. :-)
Where have I been? In the archives mostly.
I'm not sure I get your point about the flop bet versus the steal-raise. When you have aces and your opponent is the blind defender with a paired flop, well that's a big improvement, you're way ahead, the pot is bigger and the risk is smaller to boot. But whether a flop bet is twice is good or a hundred times as good as the steal-raise has nothing to do with whether you should make it. The questions are (1) how often will my opponent fold to a bet on the flop (or call the flop but automatically fold without a miracle on the turn compared to his assuming that a flop check means has a reasonable chance), and, if often, (2) is giving him a chance to lose more money on the hand worth risking the pot and a few more bets?
It can be a tricky business reconciling the need to maximize earn and avoiding free cards. For one thing, "giving" away chances to win in a poker game is so antithetical to the gist of things that free card advice tends to have a certain dismissive don't-be-a-sucker-just-don't-it tone, suggesting that slowplaying is a kind of optional trick. And it's true that in limit hold ‘em slowplaying is often out of the question because the pot is so large relative to the bet and your opponents' chance of winning. They'll either gladly pay to draw anyway or the amount you must risk to keep them around is huge compared to the extra bets you'll win when they don't. (So the question goes: do you really want to risk the entire pot for a couple of measly bets?).
I think there are also some emotional wrinkles. Slowplaying is negatively associated with bewildered newcomers (but notice how often this gives them an advantage) and trap-happy types that play poker in order to be sneaky. There may also be a practical reason to avoid free cards more than hand-EV dictates: players don't tend to go on tilt by winning too many undersized pots but they do when their opponents suck out a lot. But the fact remains that saving the slowplay for the nuts is a huge leak. Keeping a rational opponent away from the free cards in this case means giving him money.
In this particular case, let's say that your tightish or solid opponent will fold without a piece of the flop if you bet. If you check, however, he'll helplessly give some weight to the chance the his pocket pair is the best hand, or some weight to the idea that if he pairs he'll win, and some weight to the chance of his KQ-KT already being the best hand, and also some weight to the chance that you'll give it up if he bets regardless of what he probably has because you missed too (and that you'll think he slowplayed the flop, etc.). I say "helplessly" because even if he considers that you might be trying to trap, these other notions will inevitably swirl about creating, for you, a certain healthy confusion. Let's further say that this translates into your winning an average of 2 more small bets ($20) on average when he loses but only lose the $45 pot plus three small bets about 15% of the time when you're already ahead. This gives slowplaying versus betting the flop an EV of $6 per hand, more than half a small bet.
The only problematic thing about this hand is that there's a reasonable chance you're not ahead. He can easily have an 8 or a better ace. He might even trap you for a bit more than if you played it straightforwardly because you'll give more weight to the chance that he's bluffing (depending on who he is). All this means is that not betting the flop doesn't give you the additional advantage of saving you bets when he's ahead. Call it a wash.
Took you a long time to get around to "even if it depends then it doesn't matter." :-)
I appreciate your insights though especially the paragraph about creating swirls of doubt in his mind. Perhaps it's still a flaw I have that I put myself in my opponents situation and think what I would do. The flaw is they generally don't think the way I do and I have to work on figuring out how they do think.
thanks for the input.
I might have been a little confusing in that last paragraph. By "a wash" I mean that in this case slowplaying doesn't give you an advantage when you're behind (whereas it might in other cases). But since the chance of you being way ahead is so great you should still check the flop.
Chris- I think a lot of this depends on the limit. In a lower limit game, then I think you can trick the bulk of your opponents by checking the flop. They'll assume you missed, then start firing bets on the turn and the river while you meekly call... but in a mid limit game I think most opponents are fairly aware of what's probably going on if their lone opponent checks an A high flop after trying to steal the blinds.
Or at least that's the case up at the Soaring Eagle in Mt. Pleasant, and certainly the case against (many) 10-20 at the Med Club in Denver (Yes, there are a ton of bad, bad players in that game, but surprisingly many of them have an idea of where they're at on the flop. You'll see some laydowns in that game that you wouldn't expect.)
Anyway, against fairly cognizant players I'll usually bet the flop, check the turn, then call or bet the river.
Well, both approaches are about fooling people because their aim is to get paid by the worst hand. I grant you, your way more assuredly deceives those opponents that will chase you for a bet and reevalute. My way, however, puts a much larger universe of opponents there on the turn capable of making a mistake.
One of the problems is that the blind checked, which a lot of the time means "take it and I don't care if you have a dog." And if you bet close to 100% of the A88 flops after stealing-and-missing, checking when you hit must be wrong.
But if you check down some dogs for fear of a check-raise by an ace (don't you?), they'll know there's a chance that you have nothing. When the pot is laying them 4-1 on the turn, they're silly to assume that a pair is worthless, or that they only have 4 outs to a gutshot instead of 10, or that the chance of buying the pot is zero. Checking the flop buys you a whole group of players on the turn with a dilemma that wouldn't be there if you had bet. It doesn't make any difference of a lot of them smell a rat, they'll all have to make a decision with limited information and it won't always be the right one. Of course, the other players, that minority who were willing to pay a bet to see the turn will now also be more alert, but a lot of them were only going to give you one small bet anyway because the chance of you having an ace is so great. I see it as a quality of deception vs. quantity of players thing.
I might have been a little confusing in that last paragraph. By "a wash" I mean that in this case slowplaying doesn't give you an advantage when you're behind (whereas it might in other cases). But since the chance of your opponent being way behind is very good you should still check the flop.
I might have been a little confusing in that last paragraph. By "a wash" I mean that in this case slowplaying doesn't give you an advantage when you're behind (whereas it might in other cases); slowplaying here doesn't add anything and probably subracts a little. But since the chance of your opponent being way behind is very good you should still check the flop.
.
yes, free cards are scary. yes, you should not give free cards away.
however, in this specific instance, what is the free card worth? the free card can only give someone a lower pair than your aces. so what are you worried about? if a K, Q, J, T, or 9 shows up, and your opponent pairs...he may call or bet into you now. which is what you want. but if he did not have one of these cards before hand, he will probably just muck his hand due to your pre-flop strength.
if you want me to do the math for you, just let me know.
Doc,
You have become a very dangerous thinker. If you keep posting soon the masses will cease muttering their dogmatic "bet, raise or fold" mantra. Not good.
Take care.
I'll take that as a compliment.
Correct read again. Your posts demonstrate intelligence and infectious enthusiam.
Good luck, and remind me not to call your raises.
HELLO TO EVERYONE FROM HOUSTON TEXAS. SOME FRIENDS AND I HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE RAKE IN LOCAL GAMES. THEY SAY IT IS TO HIGH FOR PROFITABLE PLAY ON A ROUTINE BASIS. I AGREE THAT GAME RUNNERS DO EARN EXTREME PROFITS. A FOUR GAME A WEEK HOUSE WILL GROSS A SIX FIGURE INCOME A YEAR. MY FRIENDS ARE WINNERS AND THEY FOR THE MOST PART PLAY OUT OF STATE. THEY WILL NOT PLAY IN LOCAL GAMES EXCEPT ON RARE OCCASIONS. MY POSITION IS THAT AS LONG AS THE TOTAL MONEY ON THE TABLE BELONGING TO THE PLAYERS IS STABLE OR ENCREASING. THE GAME CAN BE PROFITABLE NO MATTER WHAT THE RAKE IS . HOWEVER WHEN THE POOL OF MONEY BEGINS TO DECREASE THE GAME CHANGES DRAMATICALLY. MY POSITION IS THESE GAMES ARE PROFITABLE. WHAT IS YOUR OPINION?
HI!! I'm kind of new to hold em, and I have a question regarding the "blinds". Does this mean that the two people who are "in the blinds" are actually blind? Thanks.
It's a good question, one seldomly asked. It's even more seldomly answered. I'll let others elaborate.
BTW there's a guy who plays on Planet Poker with the handle mrmiami. I'm pretty sure from the way he plays that he is blind.
The term "blind" does not refer to visual acuity. A blind is a forced bet made by a person before they receive their cards. Now once everyone receives their cards, the first person to the left of the big blind must either call the blind bet, raise the bet, or fold. They cannot check. This initiates the action and forces everyone to pay to see a flop.
In 7-stud there are players who will automatically check when they receive their last card; they "check blind" without even looking. (Why? because they play better when they don't know what they have...)
The "blinds" in Holdem must post their money BEFORE they get their cards; they are in affect betting "blind" without looking at their cards. This "blind" money takes the place of antes. Since the button and blinds move clockwise around the table and everyone takes their turn as the blinds.
- Louie
Louie maybe I am mistaken but I have always viewed blind money as something fundamentally different than antes. I see blind money as a forced bet which allows the player in the blind the following privileges:
1. Unless the pot is raised he can continue with the hand at no additional cost. Everyone else must pay money to continue with the hand.
2. By putting up the blind money, the player gets to see the next 8 hands at no initial cost.
3. When a pot gets raised, the player in the blind is typically getting much better pot odds to continue than anyone else.
Antes on the other hand are not bets. They are simply money that every player contributes to the pot on every single hand. A player who puts up an ante in 7 card stud does not have any privileges over any other player since they all put up antes on every hand.
I guess in a larger sense antes and blinds have the effect of creating initial action. But I view them as fundamentally different. Is this right?
You're right, they affect the action differently.
I meant they take the place of antes in the sense that there is an initial pot to contest. Without blinds nor antes, sensible players playing against other sensible players would either only ever start with the nuts (AAA in stud) or choose to play "go fish" instead.
- Louie
SammyB, Jim and Louie,
I can't believe such a simple question produced such an entertaining and informative thread. Kudos guys.
Rick
No they're sighted. But in Colorado the term "stealing" is taken quite literally so if you come here and play in my game and try to steal, remember that they'll throw you in jail.
I'm a beginning 7-stud and holdem player in Houston. Closest casino is 3 hrs. drive. Looking for games in the Houston area for practice. ???
e-mail me danpoling@hotmail.com
You are in the small blind. Everyone folds to the cutoff seat.
Q1. Cutoff is a typical player. What hands do you just call with? What hands do you raise with?
Q2. Cutoff is a loose player. What hands do you just call with? What hands do you raise with?
Thanks, Puggy
my thought is this...if you feel the bb will not raise and the button has folded or called,then go ahead and put in your half bet....the cut off either has a hand or simply stealing the button for position....your question is quite good but so very complicated that a direct answer would take some real debate...personnally if i`m holding premium cards I dont want to drive out the last few bettors by raising until I see the flop.if i got nothing i want to see the flop as cheaply as I can and hope to hit my hand..if its rags then I might continue to slowplay my premium pair..any scare cards and i`m raising or folding.. loose playrs(knowledgeable) play more small gap connectors and small pairs so put them on a random hand with slight positive expectation. typical player(knowledgeable) put him on anything but definitely give him the benefit of the doubt and use caution... lets see if this gets you and I a debate going and more clarification to your question...again good question made me think...
jg
Sorry guys, this question wasn't phrased correctly at all.
I meant to say that in all situations, the cutoff seat RAISES, then its up to you in the small blind!
Pugg
I have seen a amazing thing on hold'em 20-40 table . In the and , there is George which is a good player and there is Bozo ( not real name but I don't know his ) which is a begginner . There are other people in the hand . There are only George and Bozo when the river is turn and 500$ in the pot . The board is 5 Q K - 8 - K and no flush possibilies . Georges bet , Bozo calls , Georges shows AK and bozo throws his two cards , the dealer takes the board and Georges ' cards and start to mix the cards and someone ask to see Bozo's card which are face down on the table yet . Bozo says : " He has 3 kings and me 3 queens " . HUH ? . The dealer turns bozo's cards , QQ he has . He didn't realize his Full house . He losts the pot with a winning hand because he throws away face down his QQ . Is there someone who could tell a funniest story ?
Board is [AAT63] player A bets, player B accidentally drops his hand face up which is (66) and raises while they are still face up, I point out it was a silly raise (accompanied by condesending sarcasm), player A re-raises, player B calls, and player A has A9.
After exhaling my coffee through my nose, I have to admit that I'M the idiot since had B not exposed his hand A wouldn't have thought his 3 Aces beat B's apparent 3-6s and wouldn't have reraised.
------------
Someone else had a story where the lady in the BB called the pre-flop raise heads-up and called the player down including on the river. She had (42o) the board was K99-3-K. The raiser had (22). While dragging the pot she said "I knew he was bluffing".
- Louie
My favorite story is from Jan Fisher, Card Player Magazine, Aug. 4, 2000
"
Later, I went to the Colorado Belle and was playing $2-$5 hold'em. Again, I was telling the story when all of a sudden, everyone at the next table (also a $2-$5 hold'em game)began shouting, "A royal flush on the board." I stood up and looked. Sure enough, the dealer had put up a community royal. Two players still were in the hand. One man bet $5 and the other threw his hand into the muck and said, "I can't beat a royal flush!"
"
Recently at a 3-6 game, the final board was Q68Q6. At the showdown, both players checked, and one turned over his pocket fours. The other player mucked upon seeing the pocket pair, and a split turned into one guy dragging the pot by simply showing his hand and saying nothing! Know the rules...
GB
I was almost Bozo once.
I had been playing 3/6 for 7 or 8 hours, was tired, and had been getting sucked out on a LOT.
I had KK and the flop was Ks 4c 10d. Turn is 8d. I had been betting and raising as much as I could, but the guys at the table I was at had been playing any two suited to the river all day and had been hitting against me.
So in my mind I am screaming "NO FREAKING DIAMOND" and sure enough, a damned diamond hits the river. The 4 of diamonds. I immediately get pissed because those guys hit their baby flushes, so pissed in fact that I don't even notice I have the full house. What an IDIOT, I FINALLY have those suckout artists right where I want them and I don't even know it. One guy bets, the other guy calls and I make what I think is a crying call.
They both turn over little suited diamonds. I disgustedly throw my KK down on the felt face up. The dealer grabs it and notices my boat just as the he is mucking my hand. He immediately grabs them again and the floor is called.
One of the suckouts is arguing vehemently that I mucked my hand, the dealer explains that I did not muck it, he did. Floor awards me the pot.
Even though it only cost me $12, I still feel like a bozo over that one.
On the upside, the guy beefing about my being awarded the pot tilted and blew the rest of his chips.
Lesson learned.
In my constant attempt to plug leaks in my game, I have found a really large one (perhaps). I don't know how to play/protect my big blind. I often find myself calling a raise with the BB against 1 or 2 opponents and mucking my hand if I don't pair AND if there is no K or A.
I do this often. Can anyone give some tips/rules/strategies for playing and protecting the blinds? A link to a web page would be cool too.
TIA - Malik
what stakes?
6-12
10-20
20-40
it makes a huge difference!!
let us know; maybe someone can help.
it's a problem for everybody.
-Chris
I play mostly 6-12 and sometimes 15-30.
It doesn't matter what the limit is. Muck the blinds, muck the blinds, muck the blinds. Full games, short games, lose games, tight games. It doesn't matter. In the small blind, muck. In the big blind, if they raise, muck. From the small blind I see about 8% of the flops. From the big blind, I see about 13%, because sometimes they don't raise.
Sound wacky? It is. Doubtful anyone here would agree with this way of playing. It started as an experiment a few years back, and it worked, so I've stuck with it. Sounds like you are longing for a change. Give it a whirl. The fringe benefits are enormous. You'll get respect when you slam a pot from the button with one of those bets you saved in the blinds. That's all I do. I take the money that "should" go in from the blinds, and put it in when it "shouldn't" go in at other times. Keeps 'em guessing, bigtime. And at the end of the day, or week, or year, it feels like I was in the catbird seat on virtually every hand I played. That's because I was. It's a dandy view.
Tommy
While I don't agree with this approach totally, it sure is an interesting take on the subject and has a lot of intuitive appeal to it.
Well, you do often have to fold after the flop. But I wrote a kind of long winded essay on this in my book.
But to get you thinking about it, look for a thread in the archives. Just a sec, let me check on that... Ah, yes, it was started by Abdul Jalib on 8/19/98, and titled "Big Blind Defense on the Flop". Also, look for a post by Tom Weideman responding to "Boris" on 7/10/98 in a thread titled "Big Blind".
I meant to start a thread about this, and then the site was real slow (connection, network, whatever) for a while, and then I was away for awhile.
I won't quote the whole essay, but in "Inside the Poker Mind" you point out that it is a mistake to call a legitimate raise w/AQ, because you are likely beaten and/or dominated. I agree with you, and felt the same way before reading your essay. But, under normal game conditions, I find it hard to fold AQ and similar hands when my BB has been raised. I am already halfway in the pot, but it doesn't seem to be a matter of pot odds, like 55 or 98s would be. It just seems like too good a hand to throw away for one bet.
How do you play in this situation? Would you prefer smaller cards that are less likely to be dominated? I have won, and lost, some nice pots this way, and would like an expert opinion or two on the subject.
Thanks, B$
Can't fold AQ in the blind except for the tightest utg raises. This hand is borderline in the blind against a tigh early raise but nevertheless playable as you are a BIG favourite if that raise happens to be suboptimal.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
I'm confused. In another thread I got mildly reprimanded for saying that AQ was generally my cutoff point for calling raises (or reraising) from the BB. Now, two posters seem to agree with me.
You know how we can make a poker analogy for most of life's events? I like to make music analogies for most of poker's events. I think of AQ the same way as diminished chords. Handy, but sometimes hard to figure out when to properly apply.
Tommy
Izmet's talking about a very tight early raise, not just any raise. Not that I'd likely actually throw the AQ away there, but yeah it's probably close.
Question. Forget the AQ for a sec and let's say you've got AJ or KJ or KQ in the big blind. Are you more likely to muck these hands from the BB in multiway pots or heads up pots?
For instance, if a solid player open-raises from an early seat and everyone folds, I tend to me MORE likely to throw away these hands from the BB than if the hand is multiway. My buddy says this thinking is exactly backwards. What say you?
Tommy
Good question. First, I should say that I tend to play all those hands in either case. But that may be a bit liberal against solid early raisers. Ideally, I probably should find more times to muck them. Anyway, I lean toward your buddy's thinking. If I have a preference, it's probably to play them head up rather than very multiway. They're not very good multiway hands.
You know, as I think about it, what I personally would need to fold those hands, (with the possible exceptoin of the KJ) for one raise in the BB is a player who is *very tight with his raises, *and who plays very well postflop. What you more often see when someone is *super tight is that he'll be somewhat weak-tight postflop. I don't mind playing those hands against that guy because I feel I'll know where I'm at.
I said, "What you more often see when someone is *super tight is that he'll be somewhat weak-tight postflop. I don't mind playing those hands against that guy because I feel I'll know where I'm at."
I should have added that if the guy is *so tight that you can count on his early raise to mean only, say, AA, KK, QQ, or AK, then those hands (AJ, KJ...) probably have to just be folded, even if he is so predictable and weak-tight that, overall, you'd really like to play a lot of hands against him.
The earlier thread had to do with raises generally. This one is about early raises. It's a huge distinction.
I think using AQo as a cutoff for defending against early raises is fine when it comes to defending with big unsuited cards. But this is an area where suited makes a big difference. If you flop a flush draw, you'll have the odds to continue (barring something like an AAK flop) and your positional disadvantage is almost nil. As long as he raises with more than just pairs I like the middle suited connectors here.
4-8 holdem; very little pre-flop raising, avg. five/six seeing flop...
utg. limps, three call, button raises ( AA, KK, QQ, JJ or AK ). wk/tight - if the flop hits him hard he'll let you know it; no slowplaying for him. the four limpers are apt to have anything ( but not complete trash ).
you call with a small pair ( 2's - 6's ) from the SB. all of sudden the BB three-bets ( he doesn't like having his blind raised but he has never been one to throw $$ around - best guess, 98s at worst. maybe a big hand, but his face says not.) all the limpers call as does the button; at least we can rule out AA -- he didn't cap it and with AA he would have.
now, here's the deal:
-seven way action for three bets. -BB will bet if he flops a hand or big draw; not much ck/rsg in this game. -button will bet top pair or an over-pair if it's checked to him but won't bet with less. he'll raise ( if there's a bet ) with top-two or a set but not with less. -the limpers prob. won't bet without something serious. -if you hit your hand it's going to be a helluva pot; if you miss the flop you should get to see the turn for one bet, or ( possibly though not likely ) for free. AM I THE ONLY ONE OUT THERE WHO WOULD LOVE TO PLAY THIS EXACT SITUATION OUT FOR MY NEXT HUNDRED SMALL BLINDS... or am I just a "big pot" junkie?
by rough est. this sit. should earn you in the area of 30-35 small bets when you win it ( 15% of the time ??? ) and cost around 4.5/5 SB when you miss [ or OUCH!, get a big hand cracked ].
sounds pretty good to me.
comments, PLEASE!!!
-Chris
Sounds like a really loose table. All the 1 bet callers, called 2 more bets?
I somewhat like your hand, but with this kind of table, even if you hit your set, every possible draw in the world is going to call you to the river. Too many drawers/callers is not good for a made hand. Besides, there should be a few other pocket pairs higher than yours. Don't discredit the set over set posibility (and it will probably hit on the turn or river) 
Your made hand (flopped small set) will get beat more often than normal at this table, which negates the positive 30-35 small bets you estimated winning.
Only 1/2 of the hold'em seats have names-sb,bb,utg,cutoff,button. I think we should name them all. Here are my suggestions: SB (small blind) BB (big blind) UTG (under-the-gun) SG (shotgun - you bet these hands much like UTG) MM (middleman - 1st of the middle positions) V (the vise - caught halfway between the BB and the button) TS (trap seat - easy to be trapped into thinking you have some position here; also to be trapped in the betting) SS (steal seat - the last seat where you will tend to be given full value for opening raise, thus a good stealing position) Cutoff Button
Comments?
I do think we need a convention for naming the seats for the purposes of posting. Chris Alger and others have a suggestion. See Chris's post under the "$15-$30 Huck Seed Problem" in the Medium Stakes Hold-Em forum. Maybe we can get Mason or David to offer an opinion.
Jim Brier authored an excellent quiz regarding Limit Hold'em. It contains questions regarding pre-flop, flop, turn, and river play. Each question has a point value and there is a solutions manual. Every answer has a detailed explanation as to why it's the right choice. I found it to be an excellent resource as a beginning player. I think it would be really helpful if David and Mason could take a look at it and maybe post it on the site for others to use so Jim doesn't have to keep on emailing it to people. Obviously people will disagree on some of the answers but we can then discuss the situations on the board. Thanks.
Jeff Gagliardi
I got the quiz from Jim also...and I second Jeff's statements. The quiz was very well written and answered. It's a great help for those who are ok players...as well as a great refresher course for those that think they are good players. Even if you think you are a very good player and don't need the quiz, I think it is useful just to be able to go through it and think out how to play certain hands and why.
Mason Malmuth had an article in a recent issue of Card Player, if I'm not mistaken. In it he describes the different earnings expectations of players of varying ability at different limits.
In it he said that, in a 3-6 game a good player can make $4 per hour and an excellent player can make $12. However, I have read that only 5% of all low limit players are consistent winners.
What exactly is a 'consistent winner'? Is someone who wins 3 out of 4 sessions and averages 1/2 BB per hour at this level a consistent winner, and therefore in the top 5th percentile among these players? Or, by consistent winner, do you mean that they earn much more than this?
I started out playing low limit and have had no difficulty moving into mid limit. However, when I played low limit I averaged a bit lower than 1BB per hour. I will also note that I believe that I was one of VERY VERY few people who actually won in that game PERIOD. I can think of only a couple of other people in that game whose winnings exceeded losses. I think I was one of the top 2 people that played at that table.
Any comments or feedback?
-SmoothB-
A consistent winner is a player who wins consistently. PERIOD.
SmoothB,
Winning 75% of your sessions doesn't always means you will earn more than someone who wins only 60% of his sessions so focusing on winning sessions can be counterproductive. Here is an example.
Where I play, they have both 15/30 and 20/40 holdem. If I change tables within a limit, I'm still on one session. If I change tables to the other limit, I'm starting a new session. Since the limits are close, I move back and forth in an effort to stay in the best game (along with using the change list within my limit). Now if I focus on session wins, I might leave a good 15/30 game early and switch to the 20/40 limit in order to "book a win". Now at the 20/40 I may end up in a bad game where I can't change tables (maybe there is only one game at the other limit or it is a forced move). Now I run a little bad in the 20/40 and I am stuck. A seat opens in a very good 15/30 (which will have more long run profit potential) but I pass since I'm stuck and hate putting red ink in my logbook. So I play more time in the bad game and less in the good because I am focusing on winning sessions.
A more common manifestation of the above problem is staying up all night to play in a bad or average game because you are stuck. On the other hand, you go home quiet a bit earlier than usual because you are ahead (yet the game is very good).
The first paragraph is just my twist on what Caro, Sklansky, Mason, and Feeney among others have focused on. Switch fairly often to play in good games and don't be afraid to get up a loser if the game is bad. Then find a better game if you have time or go home early. Your percentage of winning sessions will go down but your overall expectation should go up.
Regards,
Rick
It all depends on how high the rake is, how fast the game plays, and how bad the players are. There are 3-6 games in some places that aren't super-loose, there are slow dealers/players, and many low-limit games have excessive rakes. If one or more of those describes your game, it's likely that Mason's figures would be too high, and that few players would beat the game at all. The reason only 5% of low-limit players are consistent winners is that almost everyone who wins in 3-6 will play higher quickly. Very few decent players will stay in 3-6 grinding out a few bucks per hour.
The game was 3-6 dealers choice (1/2 holdem, 1/2 omaha and other games)
rake was * 10% up to $4 * <--- Note - this is high
I made about $4 an hour in this game, and now I have been making slightly over 1BB per hour playing mid limit (10-20 up to 40-80) over the last 900 hours
I do not believe that ANYONE made 1BB per hour in that game. I don't think anyone made more at that table than I did.
I don't doubt the values in Mason's tables - but I think they only apply to Vegas style rake games.
As for 'consistent wins' - I am not sure I know what people mean by consistent. It does NOT mean that someone wins 100% of the time - I assure you that even Doyle Brunson could not win at that table every time he played there.
I also know that consistent does not mean winning 2 really hot sessions, and then not winning again for a month, but still managing to be ahead a tiny amount for the month.
Since my sessions were all of about the same duration (8-12 hours) I consider them equivalent. I won slightly more than 2/3 sessions. 3 of those losing sessions were in close succession - every hand that night ended in showdown and I won no more than 2 hands on each of those evenings. Don't get me wrong - I wasn't in very many pots - I just had the misfortune of having some very nice hands get snapped off at the river, draws never got there, etc.
I know that even Doyle Brunson couldn't have booked a win if he were in my shoes on those nights.
Anyway, I still considered myself a consistent winner even though I only won 2/3 sessions. Is that appropriate?
-SmoothB-
I think if you win 2/3 of your sessions you would definitley be a consistent winner. Of course if your losing sessions were a lot bigger than your winning sessions then this would change things. However, assuming that the size of your winning sessions are roughly equal to the size of your losing sessions, then I would say that 2/3 is very good.
Ok thanks for the clarification. My wins were actually bigger than my losses, as it happens. If it weren't for 3 BRUTAL sessions in close succession, I am sure that my hourly rate would have been about 1BB per hour and my win rate more like 75%. As it is I won 2/3 BB per hour with 2/3 winning sessions.
SmoothB
When they say 'consistent', I think they mean someone who has managed to beat the game over at least 500 hrs.
As most of you know I moved mid year from Phoenix to Chicago - the players are a lot different in the two locations - Phoenix is a lot more like LA but not as many maniacs and in Chicago there are more tighter passive games which I like but the opportunity for profit is not as great.
I went over my stats just yesterday and found my hourly rate has come down to just about 1/2 my phoenix rate and I am playing on average higher limits since I moved - I play various limits so I prefer to keep my rate in $$ trems rather than bb per hour.
So your point about MM discussing Vegas is probably a valid one. I am sure they vary in different parts of the country.
Does this mean that only 5% of all low limit players make ANY money in the long run? That is remarkable, but I believe it must be true, at least in the high rake games I've seen.
-SmoothB-
From my experience I doubt that even 5% of low limit players are winners. This is just my opinion so I could be wrong, but almost every single player in so.Cal low limit games play terrible and just push their money back and forth. Of course to beat the games the players have to beat the drop and since almost all the players play really bad, I don't think that more then 2 or 3 percent have a significant enough edge to beat the drop.
I'm hoping to get some insight on how the Hold'em games are generally at the Orleans Hotel. I have only played at the Mirage and Bellagio before on my visits to Vegas. I play small stake games.
How are the games and the quality of players?
Thanks for any information.
Rich
For those interested Bob Ciaffone has written a pretty good article on image in the new issue of Card Player.
Taking a poll. I know this has been talked about before, but what's the consensus on what sort of odds you need preflop to call with any two suited in the big blind or (assuming less than a 5% chance of being raised) the button? If you have a rule against 23s assume 53s or 92s or something similar.
Also, assume you make a flush on the last card. You only opponent, whom you also put on a flush, bets into you. He plays pretty much any two suited and won't 3-bet without the nuts. How big does your flush have to be to raise (assuming no straight flush possibility)?
The "odds" before the flop are only relevent when I have a small or medium pair. Suitedness is utterly irrelevant, since I only play pairs, AK, AQ, and maybe AJ or KQ from the BB when facing a raise. And I almost never call. Pump or dump.
Example: Small blind, I've got Q-10, suited or not. Five players limp. I still muck. (I only play four-chip eight-chip games.) Example: Big blind, I've got K-J, suited or not, one player raises and three people call. I fold.
Doubtful this helps in your search for a "consensus." lol
As a newbie here, I can't help but wonder if anyone else plays the blinds this way. My image is NOT a tight one, since I play all sorts of wacky hands when I have the chance to stab at a pot as the opener. But I fold my blinds almost every time. Basically, If I'm not leading at a pot, I don't play. Anyone else do that?
Tommy
Is there every any scuffling over who gets to sit on your right? And how do you ever get a "whacky" hand without a card below a jack unless you're paired? I can't imagine your image being affected one way or the other if you play QTs and a lot worse in the sb after a bunch of limpers.
Hi Chris,
Sorry. I sent a wrong signal.
1) Yes, there is some scuffling. When a seat comes open, the person to my right often changes seats. That's because I ALWAYS raise before the flop if I'm in (except for an occasionally limp on the button or from the big blind).
The seat changing works out perfectly for me, since generally the ones with the wherewithal to move from my right to my left are players who don't see lots of flops. When selecting seats, I give no heed to who is on my right. All I care about are the two players on my left, since I gain one position on every hand that they fold, and I can more easily rob their blinds.
2) I did not understand your question: "How do you ever get a 'wacky' hand without a card below a jack unless you are paired."
By wacky hand, I meant hands like K-4 and Q-8. When I play those hands, I am always first to open, and I always raise. Granted, it doesn't happen very often, but when it does, I almost always end up taking the pot before the flop or playing heads up against the big blind. For instance, if I've folded the last 40 hands, and I'm in the cutoff seat, and I see that the button is going to muck, and the small blind is ultra tight, and the big blind will check and fold if they miss the flop, I'll raise with almost anything.
3) You can't imagine that folding q-10 in the small blind with five limpers does not affect my image? Let's say you are playing against a guy who folds his small blind nine out of ten times for three years, raise or no raise. What would your image be of that player? Wouldn't you put him on a good hand when he finally plays?
Here's another example of a play I often make that I've only seen one other player do. Raise before the flop, get reraised, and fold, before the flop. I do that about once every eight hours.
I've been wondering lately if my view of limit hold'em is drastically different from the views of other professionals. I've heard many good things about 2+2, and after one week I find them justified. I vowed to never discuss "my way" here. But it looks like I don't play against any of the regulars here, so what the heck. There is much to be learned in this forum, and I'm listening!
Tommy
you play different than me for sure. id love to sit on your right if the games are the least bit tight. also it cant be right to fold when reraised before the flop every 8 hours unless you are playing real trash against people that only reraise with big pairs. also it cant be right to raise all the time when you come in.
Thanks for replying, Ray. Believe me, I'm as mystified as you are. I've been playing this way for three years now, 40 hours per week, and if I told you my stats, there is no way you or anyone else would believe me.
It could be an odd case of finding a peculiar quirk that happens to work in the 20-40 and 40-80 games I play in, but would be disasterous anywhere else. I don't know. Obviously, this style puts me in many unusual situations on the later streets. That is, they are unusual situations to my opponents, but not to me, because I've had lots of practice in those "impossible" situations. Perhaps some of my profit comes from those later-street ramifications.
I say this next thing with the highest respect for you and your work. Perhaps some things that "can't be right," can be right.
Tommy
Tommy:
No, you didn't send the wrong signal, I need to check my sarcasm. Sorry. And welcome!
Chris
I think "pump or dump" is a very strange theory. For instance if you are in the big blind with K-Js and four other caller. You are now getting 9.5 to 1 to call. I would call with these odds. It would be great to sit to your right.
"For instance, if you are in the big blind with K-J suited, and four other callers, you are now getting 9.5 to one to call."
Those odds feel far to short to me to justify playing when virutally the only way to win is to make a hand that will win at the showdown. And between here and there, more bets have to go into the pot, out of position. I'd rather save those bets for situations where I have a good chance of winning without a showdown, namely, hands with few players when I am last to act. Is that really so crazy?
Tommy
Besides making a winning flush is about 25/1 not good eneough for me.
Tommy you sound like me - get ready for a bashing - these stepford guys have been brain washed - but you gotta love them.
Dang, Rounder, I had a good read on you after reading ONE of your posts a week ago. I'll make you a deal. I'll take your blinds, and you take mine. Then we'll take turns pounding the stepfords with our saved bets. lol
Seriously though, I don't mind the bashing. I get the feeling you folks have covered some topics over and over already. But hey, I just got here!
Tommy
stick around tommy and get a feel for everybody before you form opinions about anyone in particluar from a small sampling of their posts. we got rid of most of the obnoxious people that had hidden agendas posting. so whats left are people that want to genuinely help those that ask. although you dont usually get the answers to your questions that you may be looking for. you may think you have a good read on rounder but he changes a little at a time along the way. i think we have him finally trained( he is going to slam me for this) to see poker as the majority of champs do, we have at this site. if you had an all around poker tournament leaving out the worlds top players the posters at 2+2 would definitely in my opinion be the favorites all the way through. good luck.
Hey Ray bring on the "worlds top" I've played most of them and I ain't scared.
:-)
Thanks Ray. I'll monitor Rounder's changes as they evolve, but I still say my initial read was right, mainly because he told me so!
I'm not adverse to "seeing poker as the majority of champs do." I do dozens of things straight from the book: never tilting, bankroll nurturing, game selection, playing hours, maintaining the zen state, etc.
But when it comes to actually playing the cards, I'm admittedly off the beaten path on just a few specific things. Are you going to train me or shall I pee in the corner with Rounder? :-)
Tommy
i cant help with any of that zen stuff. try john feeney or ed i. i think that they may be from part of that mold somewhere way back when. you dont need my training as the rest of the group will whip you into shape in no time.
I think you are getting 25:1 with implied odds. Remember there are four other players in this hand so when you do get the flush I think you are going to make more than 25 small bets profit. Plus there are times when you will flop JJx, or KJx and will win with these.
Is there a mathematical way to factor in those times when you flop a flush draw and miss, or flop top pair and get beat?
Also, that the winning hands will win less than they would in last seat. Stuff like that.
My gut tells me that when everything is weighed in, thinking in terms of pot-odds-before-the-flop is a meaningless exercise, for any hand.
Tommy
You got that right - you can figure on projected pot size but making bad decisions just cuz the pot is big is a loser IMHO.
Some of the stepfords keep pumping the pot then say hell it is so big I have to do it some more. Seems counter productive to me.
Rounder,
I have an idea what you mean by "stepfords," but only from context. Care to elaborate on meaning and history, just to appease a word junkie?
Tommy
Its based on the movie 'stepford wives'. All the wives in stepford were gradually being replaced by aliens or robots and they were all had the same characteristics.
You're in the big blind and there's an early raise and everyone folds to you. You just sat down and never saw him before. Do you just drop everything below AQ or can you profitably play some other hands? If you play some other hands, what do you like: AJo, KQo or 76s?
In this situation I like the AJ. What's this some kind of test???
I think 76s has to be better. If your opponent has bigger cards, AJo is much worse than 76s. If your opponent has a pair, AJ is only a bit better, expecially since your position gives your opponent so much more flexibility.
With 76s, you'll hit the flop more often, know where you stand when you do, and your opponent will be the one making the mistakes, such as giving you a free card on the flop when he's ahead, betting your hand when he's behind and raising and paying off when your big draw comes in.
Chris,
I'll post mine without reading the other answers.
With suited garbage (e.g. 92) in the big blind, I want about eleven to one. But 53 suited has straight value also so I would be happy with seven or maybe nine to one. And Kx suited has just enough high card strength and rarely gets beat by flush over flush that I would only need about nine to one (I rate the 53 suited higher because the king has so little value in a raised pot).
Now even in an eleven-handed game, I wouldn't play 92 suited on the button even if I was getting ten to one. The chances of flush over flush increase and your two pair value goes way down with that many opponents. But I may be guilty of fuzzy thinking here. If so, I hope I will be corrected.
I could play getting worse odds if the opponents were meek post flop but paid off on the river. I might need more against opponents who are aggressive post flop but can lay down a hand on the river.
If I put a river opponent on a flush I would want at least a queen high to raise but the situation would really dictate my move.
Regards,
Rick
If I think I can win about 27 small bets if I make a hand, I will call one raise with 92s out of the bb. It makes a difference where the raise is coming from. The earlier the better i.e, I would rather call UTg's raise as opposed to a button raise. This is because:
(a) it can't be 3 bet
(b) I am looking to hit the flop hard and want to be in a position to either checkraise and catch several players in for 2 bets or be in a position to close the betting on the flop with a call.
I am not in the hand with the rags you described I just don't call raises with hands like that.
If I were in the unraised hand and hit the flush under these circumstances I would probably raise the weak player if my flush was 9 high or better.
This subject was just what the doctor order for my game. I guess I'm in a rut where I'm not getting playable cards. To overcome my dry run of cards I've been streching position to the max. In the SB 92s has been looking really good. In the BB 34s to one raise looks good. Small pairs in early position. How dangerous is this type play? During one recent session I went over 3 hours without playing a single hand. Finally received KK in mid position. My table image so so tight the pot was very small. That followed more hours of Q8s and J9S in early position which I folded.
How do you pro's handle this type situation? Do you start playing any two suited cards in unraised pots? How far do you if any stretch starting hands just to get in the game? Or as some posters lead me to beleive, do you really just keep folding?
Thanks!
My favorite written material on this subject is a short section in Larry Phillip's book, Zen and the Art of Poker.
His words hit home because I used to do it all the time. Still do now and then, but not nearly as often. After folding and folding and folding, it's like a little switch goes off in my mind that says, "Okay, since I've been such a good boy for so long, I have now EARNED the right to play a marginal hand."
Other writers have talked about letting the cards dictate short-range image, and then adjust to how you are being perceived at that time. So after many many folds, I might take a stab at a pot with a questionable hand if the situation is just right, after the cards forced an ultra-tight image on me. I think this is a good play, but not to be overused. And it's not the same thing as playing a marginal hand out of frustration, or from having "earned the right" after many preflop folds.
That said, the hands you mentioned are best folded all the time, no matter what, because you are out of position from the blinds. I'd rather three-bet with 3-4 from the button than call one bet with it from the BB.
Tommy
Look, you are gonna have times when the cards just freeze up on you - wait it out - be patient we are all playing with the same 52 cards (although I sometimes think some don't quite have a full deck to play with
:-)
Your cards will come. If you HAVE to loosen up do it on the button where your position will make up for the lack of quality in your hands.
I have a question for Tommy about his very-rarely-call-a-raise-in-the-blinds strategy espoused below in the "any two suited" thread.
You said that you'd rather save that bet for some time when you are in late position. If I understood things right you take that "saved" bet from the blinds and use it later. Since you saved a bet earlier you feel that you can use it to play a marginal hand in stealing position such as KXo. Do I have that right?
Do you keep a mental ledger of "saved bets in the blinds" which you use later on?
My real question is whether or not the steal plays with marginal hands is really related to your blind play or did they both just come up in the same thread? If you have success stealing with the hands you do then they should be played regardless of what you did earlier in the blinds. Or is it that your refusal to defend the blinds earns you a tight enough image that you don't get called when you raise pre-flop as much as you would have otherwise?
By not calling in the blinds but raising with weak hands in late position you are risking the same amount of money but with a better edge, an edge you wouldn't have if you didn't establish yourself as a tight player with your play in the blinds?
I may have this totally wrong, I'm just a little confused.
"I may have this totally wrong, I'm just a little confused."
You have it EXACTLY right.
1) Yes, the steal plays ARE directly related to the blind play.
2)No, I do not keep a mental ledger of saved bets in the blinds to be used later.
3)Yes, the refusal to defend the blinds earns respect for the occasional steals.
The tricky thing about late position steals is that lots of times we see a flop anyway. But I've always got position, and I've always got at least some sort of hand, and I'm almost always in against one or two of the blinds.
So the play of the hand on the flop and after is part of the whole package. Typically there are only two critical spots in the play; when they check the flop, and if I bet the flop, when they check the turn.
Lately I've been using this general guideline. (This assumes I flop no pair and no draw.) If an ace or a king flops, I bet after they check. If no one check-raises, I try to determine if their mindset is, "I must improve to play on." If I think it is, then I bet again if they check the turn, and if I was right, I take the pot there. If anyone calls the turn, I almost never bluff on the river.
If no ace or king flops, I very often check the flop if I get a feeling that a bet would not win the pot right there, especially if two other players are in. Likewise, if I bet the flop and get called, it's time to "feel the table" and figure out how well they like their hand. I'll often check the turn if they check.
Some of this is crazy, I know. But by being in these kind of spots so frequently, and by checking more often than I "should," it gives strong credence to those times that I DO bet.
Also, many times the checking reverts to a common free-card situation, where I would not have called if they bet out, and then I hit what I need after checking. The end result of all this is that the opponents are often nervous because they have no idea if I'll bet or check, and their discomfort makes them easy to read.
Against players in the blinds who will bet out on the flop if they have any piece, and who will check raise me just as a test, I don't get out of line. If I raise preflop, I've got a legit hand.
I like the phrase "optimum frequency." In these situations, it comes in layers. Preflop, on the flop, on the turn. Ultimately, it is the long range ramifications of these decisions that make the most difference, not what happens on any specific hand. (This assumes many familiar faces, which is the case where I play.)
Tommy
Thanks Tommy. Very interesting thoughts. We don't see too many discussions here about how player image might turn -EV to +EV in some situations.
What I wonder though is why people don't simply read you as really tight on the blinds and reletively loose in stealing position? What makes people keep the tight image of you in late position? Is this just a natural tendency of most players? Once they made a "read" on you then tend not to adjust with more information? Or is it that the blind tightness, occuring nearly every round reinforces the image so much that they forgot that last steal attempt with K4o?
The answer is that because I am almost always last to act, I do not have to show losing hands. They are already mucked in mid battle, or as last to show, not revealed on the river.
And most of the hands I win are won on the flop or turn, again, not shown.
You know how we sometimes torture ourselves by counting the dealers since our last won pot? Well, sometimes I keep track of how many dealers since I had to show a hand. It's a big part of my game.
But you're right, many players do know what I'm doing, and adjust appropriately. But many don't. I try to only go after that second group.
Tommy
Tommy,
Do you play a lot of big bet (pot limit and no limit)? I look for players who try to defend their blinds in big bet games. I think defending or over-playing the blinds is common mistake in big bet, but I've seen very few players with your philosophy in limit games. Are there limits where you find this play less effective?
PM
I play no pot-limit, but lots of no-limit. Everything is this discussion about defending blinds has been in the limit context, with 20-40 and 40-80 in mind.
The whole idea of "defending blinds" in no limit is utterly and completely different than in limit, since in order to defend, one must call bets that are typically 5 to 20 times the size of the blind, rendering the initial blind essentially irrelevant.
The 6-12 and 9-18 games around here use a blind structure of one-chip three-chips. Those games are typically more multiway, but my blind play does not vary significantly from what's been described so far.
I "should" play more pots from the blinds in those games. But then, when I'm in the smaller games, it means I'm on the list for a bigger game, and my mindset is like that of an athlete doing stretches. I fold some playable hands, just to practice folding.
Tommy
I wonder if anyone has seen this before - I started with 33 and, without making a set, wound up winning with it on power. Just a post for fun here, although I'm sure I'll get advice whether I ask for it or not.
Full 9-handed 3-6 no-fold-em hold'em game at Casino Arizona. Usually about 6 people see each flop, with very little raising. Very passive game. I am on the button with 33. Four limp before me, I limp, both blinds call. We are 7-handed. The flop comes 444. Everyone checks (I told you the game was passive), and I don't like my hand very much. A flop bet rarely gets anyone out, and I have 6 people, each of whom is presumably drawing to 2 overcards to beat me. I also check.
The Turn comes: 444 2
Everyone checked to me again. At this point the thought gradually seeped into my head: "I have the boss hand here!" My 33 is the current best hand. Now I bet, and I had only one caller - she muttered something about "keeping me honest." The River card was a 9, and when I bet, she folded.
Just posted for your amusement.
Dick
Well, you didn't ask for play analysis but what the hell...you played well if you are correct that you would get a plethora of callers to a flop bet. The river bet is a little more dicey..I would make it if I thought my opponent would call with Ace high.
I have seen some funnier things happen:
Once on Paradise, the board had 5 different ranks, I bluffed and lost when my lone opponent called with 8 high! I am still scratching my head on that one. I figure that this fella must have hit the wrong button.
And once in live play, I was on the button with 87 or something but picked up a draw. There was a bet on the flop which I called along with one another player. No bets on turn and river. I miss and muck immediately on the river before my opponents showed. I then see them chop the pot with 7 high.
There's no end to some of my boneheaded moves but I am sure you got other things to laugh about so I'll leave it at that.
I recently saw a fun 20-40 hand.
No pre-flop raise, 5 players see flop which comes 4 6 9 rainbow. UTG bets out, fold, fold, raise, button re-raise. UTG calls and first-raiser calls. T comes on the turn, UTG checks, next player checks, button bets, UTG folds, second player calls. Ace comes on river, both players check.
The first player (who put in the first pre-flop raise) refuses to open his hand, saying it can't be good. The second player also refuses. Finally dealer tells first player to turn over, revealing 75, for a busted open-end straight draw. Button (who three bet!) mucks -- turns out button had 53, also a busted open-ender!
Boy was button's read on his opponent wrong!
Happy quads to you, NW Card Hack
My favorite story like this is once in a live game bluffing with an unmatched T6 and getting called by T7!
Reminds me of the time I had 33 in mid position, 4-8 game at Bellagio about a month ago.
UTG raises, second re-raises, fold, I fold.
Of course, flop comes 33X.
I have been playing more short handed lately. Can anyone give me any feedback on the following?
Let's say the game is 5 handed. Everyone is else is playing nearly every hand and they won't fold for a raise if they hold any face card.
Opponents have very loose preflop raising requirements. One guy was on a heater and actually raised with 72 offsuit on the button. Every hand is raised preflop.
1) What should someone limp in with or raise with from various positions?
2) What should someone defend their blind with?
3) In general, how should one play postflop if most players will not fold a hand containing any pair and will chase any reasonable draws?
Games like this are normally very easy to beat - out of all the times I've played short handed I think I've only gotten stuck twice and I usually come away a big winner.
When the game gets like this, I normally don't have to adjust my play very much and I can still come away winner because my opponents are playing too loosely. I loosened up my play to some extent, raising before the flop with any hand I would normally limp in with, including some that I would normally not play at all (like KJ offsuit UTG). I will also raise even after a limper with Ax and medium pocket pairs if I think I can knock out everyone after me.
One problem is that recently I found myself in this situation: a couple of players were playing hyper aggressively, checkraising with second pair on the turn, slowplaying big hands occasionally, and sometimes ramming both big hands and mediocre hands. It was impossible to put anyone on a hand - they played almost every hand and would change up their play. If someone had a big hand, they might check and call till the river on one hand, and then ram it the next. And they would do the same with mediocre hands.
Maybe I finally met my match for once. I got stuck about 50 BB in a 12 hour session, about half of which was played 5 handed.
The problem is that I was playing tighter than anyone else - I actually folded a few hands pre flop. So when I did come in for a raise I would get little action. I tried to change up my play, raising with ace-rag and pocket sevens types of hands and that helped a bit. I ran into a few problems -
1) I wasn't getting enough playable hands to make up for all the blinds I was paying
2) I wasn't getting action on my big hands
3) No one would fold any pair so semibluffs weren't working, and I wasn't getting great odds to draw anyway
4) I wasn't connecting with the flop often enough - IE AJ type hands would not flop a pair, etc.
Every time I would get a hand like AJ I would bet the flop if checked to no matter what came. But even if the flop came rags, someone would seem to flop a pair or a draw or better. Then on the turn I would be faced with another decision if I didn't improve - bet again knowing that a pair won't fold? Check and call, knowing that I might be folding the best hand to a semibluff?
I will post a couple of hands that I am sure I played badly under this thread.
-SmoothB-
1) Playing shorthanded, loose aggressive player to my left (I know bad idea - I moved shortly thereafter.)
1 limper, I had 99 in the cutoff, I raised, LA called, one blind folded. We saw the flop 4 handed.
Flop came A 8 4 with 2 spades. Checked to me, I bet, LA called, everyone else folded.
Turn was an offsuit T. I check, he checked along.
River was T of spades putting 2 spades on the board. I checked, he bet, I folded. I put him on a flush draw on the flop after he just called me. He often won't ram draws short handed.
After he folded he told me that he only had an eight. Since I checked the turn and river he said he thought I had a pocket pair like 7's and that his 8 was good.
He might have been lying - when I fold he often claims that he had a weaker hand than he really did to get me to call in future hands.
Here is another hand with the same guy.
2) I am in the BB with AsQc. Flop came Td 5d 2c. I checked, it got checked around.
Turn was Ad putting 3 diamonds on board. Here is my first mistake - I checked - he bet, folded around to me. I looked at him closely and noticed that he had pulled his shirt up to cover his mouth, and I could see him grinning nervously under there. He is a tricky loose aggressive player but he has a lot of tells - but he is also capable of acting. I just called.
The river brought another diamond putting 2 on the board. I checked, he bet without hesitation, and I folded.
On the turn I put him on a pretty big diamond, say the king. I knew that he did not have a flush because he would have bet the flop. On the river I don't think there was any way I could call.
Should I have checkraised the turn? Thing is if he did have any diamond in his hand he would not fold.
3) I had A7 of clubs UTG. I limped in, LA limped, another bad player limped. We took the flop 5 handed.
Flop came Tc 5c 2h. I bet, LA called, bad player raised, folded to me, I called, LA called.
Turn was 2s. Pair on board.
I checked, LA checked, bad player bet, I thoght for a minute and folded. I knew that that bad player respected/feared me a little and I knew he would not raise me without a very big hand, so I put him on a set. I folded. LA called.
River was 2c putting 3 2's on board and making my flush. Now I'm glad I folded.
LA checked, bad player bet, LA thought for a minute and made a crying call.
LA had J4 of clubs, bad player had pocket queens.
It turs out I saved myself 2 BB, but did I make a good laydown? It turns out I had more outs than I thought. Any club except the 2 or Q, any ace. I think the decision was very close since there were 6.5 BB in the pot at the time that the bad player bet, and I wasn't sure if LA would call. Since the board was paired I needed somewhat better than 5:1 odds for my flush.
Let's say I had called. Now let's say that a differnet club came on the river. There would still be a pair of 2s on board - lets also assume that this club wouldn't put 2 pair on board.
Would it normally be correct to bet my flush into this paired board after this bad player had showed so much aggression from the flop on? Normally I won't do this - am I missing bets?
4) Here is another hand - I'm not sure if I played it a bit weakly.
Full table, AQ of spades in the SB. Not raised preflop, I don't raise. We take the flop 5 handed.
flop comes 952 with 2 spades. I bet, all fold to the button who raises. I call.
This player really fears me - he later claimed that he had never beaten me in a hand until this hand!
Turn was an offsuit queen giving me top pair, nut kicker, and nut flush draw. We were heads up. He had raised me automatically on the flop so I got the feeling he had a big hand. I checked, he bet without hesitation, I called.
River was a blank. I checked and called. He had flopped a set of fives.
Should I have lost more money on this hand?
5) Another hand. I had Ac Qs in mid position. I limped, LA player on my left raised, we saw the flop 5 handed.
Flop was Q 9 4, all clubs. I had top pair, nut kicker, and nut flush draw. I bet, LA raised, all folded. I just called.
Turn was a blank. I checked and called.
River was K of spades. Clubs never got there. Check and call. He had Jx of clubs for a flush.
Should I have lost more bets here too? This guy has a lot of tells and I could just tell that he had AQ beaten.
The thing is, I know that it seems that I played a lot of these hands weakly. I know that most forum posters would recommend to ram these hands. But it turns out that, even if I didn't play them well, I minimized my losses on them.
Like I've said, I have a tight image, so I normally don't get raised by these players unless they have big hands.
Comments?
-SmoothB-
Here is another hand that I played pretty weakly. This was a bad session for me and I think part of the problem was that I was playing sub-optimally. A few bad suckouts early on, followed by playing stuck in a fast and loose short handed game was the recipe for disaster.
I had AKo in late position. 4 limpers, I raise, cutoff and button fold, we take the flop 6 handed.
Flop comes A T 4 rainbow. Checked to me, I bet, one caller, mid position player checkraises. I call, early position caller calls. Down to 3.
This player knows me well and he knows my tight reputation. The other player didn't know me.
I normally don't get raised or checkraised by less than big hands. IE if someone raises me or bets into me on a later street after i've bet and they've called, they almost always have top pair beaten.
On the turn, the flop checkraiser checked. Now I was left with a decision. There were no draws on the board that he could have checkraise-semibluffed with, and the turn was a blank. Was I going to fall for another checkraise? I decided to bet out again. This time they both just called.
River was another blank, both checked to me, I just checked and turned over AK and took the pot. The flop checkraiser mumbled 'damn kicker' and mucked his hand.
Did I play this too weakly? I like the turn bet because if he raised again I might fold. But should I have bet the river?
I think I was playing pretty weak tight this session.
I am aware of the fact that most people percieve me to to be a little too rock like, so I do change up my play quite a bit. For example, here is a hand to consider:
I raised preflop with 98 of spades on the button. 6 people saw the flop.
Q 65 rainbow with one spade. BB bet, 3 callers, I raised with my gutshot hoping for the free card. I also nearly had enough callers to make this a value bet anyway with my gutshot and backdoor flush draws.
Turn was another queen, same three callers called, and I called. Pot now had around 13BB in it (thanks to me) so I had approximately the odds to call. Plus, I wanted to throw this hand in face up to show what I was raising with.
River was a blank, bet, 1 caller, I threw my hand in face up and said 'You got me, I missed my gutshot'. the table laughed and a very stuck player took down a nice pot with trip queens.
I will often raise good with good draws on the flop if
1) the pot was raised preflop 2) There are at least 2 others in the pot (so it is really a value bet anyway) 3) I think the raise won't knock out anyone 4) I think my tight image might earn me a free card on the turn with this play
Any comments?
-SmoothB-
The AK hand. I don't really like the way you played the flop, but, as always, it depends. I think you can slow down on an individual hand if you've been ramming it previously. Short handed, the others can get a better read on you, so you need to throw them a few more curveballs than normal. Usually, though, in a full game, you'd want to play this hand strongly, probably three betting the flop, and for sure firing on the turn (if not checkraising). Big hands against you can and will happen, but their likelyhood decreases greatly shorthanded. Your top pair/top kicker is almost nut like and should be played as such.
What limit are you playing? What where are you playing? LV, LA? etc... what was the environment like?
Comments about the plays, I think you played them all fine. The times you lost, since you were raised I don't think it would be correct to ram and jam even though you had top pair/top kicker/top flush draw, etc... since ramming and jamming will lose the advantage of getting people to fold and there's no way the re-raiser will fold what is most likely a better hand than yours.
Smooth B, too many hands to comment on...I might suggest that you post them under different threads so that people can respond to the ones they want to respond to.
Overall, I am sure that I would have lost a lot more bets on almost all of the hands you have set out above. Particularly, the shothanded hands...It is tough to get the monster flops (i.e. top pair-top kicker and nut flush draw) that you got in some of your hands. You need to play them harder particularly so in shorthanded games (unless you are up against a maniac who will take your checks to mean weakness and will burn a lot of chips with incessant bluffing).
If you like shorthanded poker, there's lots of it on Planet Poker. I have not played shorthanded there yet (no experience) but have watched some. Some of the players are very very good while others are very very bad. I may start playing short if I run lucky for a while and build a bit of a bankroll at Planet.
The SH games sure look challenging and appear to be a lot more fun. At least, you don't have to sit there for what seems like hours to get a playable hand as you do in ring games.
1) River was T of spades putting 2 spades on the board. I checked, he bet, I folded. I put him on a flush draw on the flop after he just called me. He often won't ram draws short handed.
This is a complicated situation where you put yourself in a situation of having to read your opponent too well. By checking the turn, you invite a steal bet on the river by an aggressive opponent. Read “Inducing Bluffs” Theory of Poker. Typically, most aggressive players with a flush draw will try to leverage the Ace on the flop (with a raise) to make you fold under-pairs (like Queens). When you show weakness on the turn you have basically announced to your opponent that you don’t hold an Ace. With a ten or a flush draw he would most likely bet to win the pot. You induce a bluff on the river by checking the turn and then you don’t collect on your play by paying him off. When I read the post I thought that an 8 was a possibility and that you should call.
2) Should I have check-raised the turn? Thing is if he did have any diamond in his hand he would not fold.
Fundamentally, you may want to adjust your thinking on matters such as this. If you check-raised the turn (and could see his cards) you actually wouldn’t care much if he called. He’s making an error when he calls so you make money, if he folds, you still make money. Evaluating the play in retrospect is not a valid way of calculating your expectation. A raise is a much better play. The reason is: Assuming he does have a flush draw (and nothing else) and will bet the turn and river you make two bets when he misses the flush. Many opponents will give up on a bluff here, so you may only win one bet. If he makes his flush, you lose one bet. If you check-raise, and he calls (he will call with a decent flush draw) you win two bets when he fails to complete his flush and you lose two bets if the forth flush card comes. Forgetting for the sake of this argument that you have effectively stopped a bluff on 5th street, don’t forget that he is ~3.9 :1 to make his flush. When I’m a 4:1 favorite and someone lets me make an even money bet, I WANT TO BET A LOT!
3) Flop came Tc 5c 2h. I bet, LA called, bad player raised, folded to me, I called, LA called.
On this night, from the hands you’ve detailed, it looks like you may have a little of what I call , “one raise poker syndrome”. On each of the hands you talked about, your aggression stopped after the first raise! I give you credit for making some good reads, but you are making the game very difficult on yourself if you don’t take control of the betting in more of these situations. I would have a strong desire to make my Ace a good over-card. When you hold the nut draw you have an advantage over other players because "you know where the nuts are" (Doyle Brunson). In a short-handed game, you seem to be giving too much credit to the strength of your opponents’ hands. It is tough to flop a big hand short-handed. I recommend reading Sklansky’s articles on Baye’s theorem so that you have a better feel for the likelihood of hands occurring.
4) flop comes 952 with 2 spades. I bet, all fold to the button who raises. I call.
Against the type of opponent you’re describing I usually would have bet the turn here. It gives you freedom to get away from your hand on the river against a straight-forward opponent who has flopped a set, and you may have just out-drawn an over-pair to the 9. Could you absolutely rule out a hand like 6-7 spades?
When playing short-handed, it is important to “turn up the volume”. Bet’s and raises don’t signify “hand strength” as much as they do in full handed game. Your fluctuations will be larger, and generally you will find yourself playing more hands for more bets. If you are constantly relying on your ability to read every hand *just right* by calling, it will make things difficult. In addition, you must put theory and position to work for you to make “the other guy” make the tough decisions.
Good luck
I have been thinking about preflop raising in loose games.
In some of these games, depending on the lineup, my preflop raises will often thin the field, but often times they won't.
In the first example, when my raised do thin the field, I tend to raise with big pocket pairs, AK and sometimes AQ offsuit. I do not raise with suited hands and I even limp with AK suited a lot of the time from early position. And ALWAYS just limp with AQ suited.
In later position, with several limpers and no raise, I raise with AK suited, AQ suited, AJ suited, KQ suited, and sometimes KJ suited or QJ suited. Of course I also raise with the big pocket pairs. The only offsuit hand I'll raise with is AK offsuit.
From the blind, in a full loose game, I will only raise with AA, KK, AK suited. Sometimes with QQ. I will always call a raise with them but I will seldom reraise unless I think I can thin the field.
I strongly believe that many players loose far too much money by playing too loosely in the blinds. In fact, it has come to the point where the only hands I'll play in the first 3 positons are AA, KK, QQ, AK, AQ, KQ suited, and pocket pairs down to 8's. I won't play KQ offsuit in early position. I will only raise with AA, KK, QQ, and AK offsuit.
If I'm playing with strangers, I will adhere to this. WHen I play with people who know me, I will occasionally mix my play up a little bit so they will remember in the future. It's funny but if 1 out of 1000 of your preflop raises is with 98 suited, people will still think it's more like 10%.
Comments?
-SmoothB-
Smoothster, where do you play? I'm not trying to be funny with this, so please don't take it the wrong way. It's just that I've noticed that the games in LV, Reno and the Bay Area (the three regions that I play) have completely different characters, and that my strategies need to change when i'm playing in different areas. As an example, I can sometimes three bet a raise with KQ suited in many Bay area games because I'm sure to get the volume that I need to play it. I usually just call in the same spot in reno, but I may muck it in vegas. all of this is, of course, dependant on the current game conditions. I was just wondering on your venue because you sound like your strategies fare well in your games, but I was wondering how they hold up in games of different textures.
Excellent point about the raise with "98s" - you don't need to do it often to make them THINK you do it often.
BTW, I like your E/P calling requirements but unless the game features alot of pre- flop raising you might be giving up quite a bit by mucking "group 3" suited's... QJ, JT, and to a lesser extent AT and KJ.
I believe ( from reading many of your posts ) you possess the talent to know when you have flopped just enough to "have 2nd place locked up" and that you can therefor avoid the traps these hands often lead to.
Then again, I don't recall you asking my advice; nor do I think your system is bad IMHO it may just not be optimal.
Keep us posted, ( no pun intended )
Chris
Thanks for the nice response. I would also like to think that I can figure out when I have 'second place locked up', but there is no one that can avoid this situation 100% of the time.
After thinking about it I can admit that I will call one raise in the blind with hands like QJ suited and the like. I'll often do it with AT suited too. But only if several people are in, and I also play VERY cautiously if I get top pair type flops.
-SmoothB-
Personally i have been trying to cut down on my pre- flop raising a little in my loose games because it has not been doing very well for me.
A freind of mine has suggested raising with big suited cards in late pos. after a few callers because if you do not like the flop they usually check to you and you can take the free card.
I think i will try this for a little while and see how it works out. I think i will only do it with AK AQ AJ and A10 suited. I would hate to make a flush and still lose.
These are low limit games where they do tend to check to the pre flop raisers.
I just wanted to add a note.
In general, if you have, say, a king high flush, don't be too worried about ace high flushes beating you.
I can honestly say that I have NEVER had a king or queen high flush beaten by a bigger flush in holdem if we are using both cards to make the flush.
I play tight so I hardly ever loose because my hand is dominated like this.
I can remember a couple of circumstances where I had KQ suited and was drawing to a flush, missed, and found out that AT suited was drawing too. But in general, if someone is drawing to a bigger flush, it is much less likely to get there anyway - more cards are out and you have fewer outs.
If I am in late position with a king high flush, and someone bets from early position, I will gladly raise. After all, assuming they DO have a flush, what is more likely - that they are betting the one flush better than you or the several that are worse?
If you get 3 bet you can go into check and call mode.
-SmoothB-
I would tend to agree with your preflop hand selections. Just make sure your play isn't too predictable for your more astute opponents. Occasionally you have to raise with a non-raising hand to confuse your opponents. Raising with the 98s UTG or pocket Fives will keep them honest and they will stop automatically raising when babies come on the flop.
Bruce
I have read in 2+2 books about factoring in the size of the pot and the number of callers when deciding whether to call with 2nd pair.
For example, lets say you are in the cutoff seat with AJ suited. You limp after several other limpers (maybe it is wiser to raise here) and the button raises. Everyone calls.
The flop comes K J 2 rainbow, none of your suit. Bet from early position, 2 other callers. What do you do? The preflop raiser remains to act after you.
From what I have read it seems like the best choice is to call. I have come to believe that this is probably not a good idea and I will generall fold here. With the preflop raiser left to act behind me, I have to worry about AK, AA, KK, JJ, etc and a subsequent raise.
Therefore I fold.
I look at these examples more as if they were from Omaha. With more people in, you have to assume that second pair has LESS value than it would if fewer people were in. Sure I might be folding the best hand for a bet from QT - ie betting their open ender. But with this hand I have few if any outs if I am not in first place right now, and there are too many people drawing against me if I am in first place.
S&M seem to indicate that this may not be the correct play, however.
Here is a less clear example -
Let's say you limp in on the button with 76 of spades after 5 limpers, and then the BB raises. All call. 7 people see a flop of:
T 6 3 with one spade. The pot is huge. BB, the pre flop raiser, checks, and UTG bets. All call. What is the correct choice here? You have a valid concern that the BB might checkraise. You have second pair/no kicker, with backdoor flush and straight draws.
Here I think the correct play is also to fold. You can't count on a seven being good because you have to worry that it might make 98 or 45 a straight. The pot is definitely large enough for these hands to call one bet with their gutshot draws.
You may also be drawing dead if you take one off to try to make 2 pair or trips. What would UTG bet here? There are no draws (except gutshots) - what could a solid UTG player have?
If UTG is solid my best guess would be TT or 66 for a set. JT suited is also a possibility if the game were loose and UTG anticipated many callers.
In this case I would also fold, although, again, it seems that the conventional wisdom indicates otherwise.
I have experimented with my play, and I find that the following recipe has always yielded the best results:
1) In general, avoid playing most hands in early position PERIOD!
2) Play a lot looser in late position if many people limp in - ie hands like JT suited, AT suited, medium pocket pairs, etc. Raise with the better ones - big suited connectors, big pocket pairs, etc. Try to tie people to a big pot when you flop something big.
3) Cut hands loose immediately if you don't get a big flop! Throw away second pair. Even if the pot is large.
Rather than chase when I flop second pair, I prefer to do the following:
Draw to gutshots (and better draws, of course) if lots of people are in and there isn't much action (assuming they are gutshots to the nuts and there is no 2 flush on board.) Actually, when I am on the button, if I flop a gutshot to the nuts and a lot of people are in I always raise. My tight image makes most people fear that I have flopped a set when rags flop. All of these people will call that extra bet, and I will usually get checked to on the turn unless the high card on board pairs.
This move also helps me get paid off handsomely when I do flop top set when rags flop. IE if the flop is 9 5 2 rainbow and I raise on the button, do I have a set or a gutshot draw? I could have 87 suited just as easily as 99 or 55 in my hand.
-SmoothB-
Let me give an example of a hand that I got trapped in because the pot was big, and why I try to discipline myself to cut these hands loose despite pot odds.
It was a pretty loose game. I had 87 of clubs in the BB.
Lots of limpers, maniac raised in late position ( I was keeping him on my right like I should.) I called the one bet from the BB because there were so many people in this pot. Someone limp reraised and I called the third bet.
The flop came JhTc9c. I flopped the bottom end of a straight with an open ended straight flush draw to boot! What could be better? I bet out, preflop limp raiser raised, 3 callers, maniac 3 bet, i capped it. All called.
Turn was a offsuit 7. Now I wasn't feeling very good about this hand. I started worrying about KQ being out there, and any 8 gave someone the same straight I had. Ouch - bad card! I also realized that even if I had the best hand on the flop, there were very few cards that would not ruin my hand. Any Q made any K a straight - any K made a Q a straight. Any 8 or 7 could give someone else a bigger straight or the same straight.
For all I knew, someone might have had a bigger club draw. And if someone had a set, which the action might indicate, any board pair would give someone a full house.
I realized that I more than likely needed 2 different non club low cards to make my hand hold up, assuming KQ wasnt already out there. My dream flop now looked like the most expenisve miracle flop I had ever seen.
I checked, bet, maniac raised, I called both bets *sigh!* and other guy called.
River was an offsuit 8 completely counterfeiting my straight! There was now a straight to the J on the board and no flush. Checked to the maniac who bet, we all made crying calls, playing the board, unable to fold, hoping to get our money back.
Maniac turned over KQ *OF CLUBS* and took down a massive pot. I was drawing completely dead the whole time. No wait - I had one out - the 6 of clubs. The J of clubs would, of course, give the other guy the bigger straight flush.
-SmoothB-
You just can not fold big hands in limit HE without loosing a fair amont of money first.
I was just involved in my 2nd set over set over set sitation in 1 mounth. I have a small pocket pair in late pos. and 7 callers to me, i call flop bottom set, betting gets capped with no flush or str8 draw possible.
I bet the turn and it is raised and reraised by solid players by the time it gets back to me ,i fold.
Some times you just have to loose money befor you know you are beat.
Set over set is one thing and a good player SHOULD lose money when they flop a set, different story to flopping the ignorant end of a straight good players usually know when they are beaten with this weak hand.
Of course it is easy to get tangled up in a hand and lose sight of the fact that you have no chance what so ever. I used to do it with regularity until about 2 years ago.
SB I routinely muck hands when I flop bottom end of the straight and paints make up the top end. 9TJ flop is death to a 87 hand - any real multi way action and I'm outta there.
I know what you mean. I would have mucked this hand on the turn after all that action, but I had the flush draw to go with it. I was hoping that my flush might be good if it hit. And I had the 2 outter for the straight flush draw. (I didn't know at the time that the J of clubs would give someone a bigger SF.)
-SmoothB-
When you talk about A-J offsuit, I refer you to the part that says "A-J offsuit is junk in a multiway pot with loose players". This hand should often be folded against several players. For EXACTLY reasons like the one you mention. It is a very difficult hand to play precisely.
The second example of your 6-7. If you you call 2 bets before the flop you will be faced with many flops like this. I would raise, and folding would be my least favorite play.
Also, You may need to adjust your mindset when playing Hold'em. Many of your thoughts are those of an Omaha player. You are against monster draws less frequently in Hold'em and you can't always be concerned with them.
I'm not sure what you mean about often folding AJ preflop vs. "several" players. If you limp with AJ in a loose game, you're almost always going to have a least 2 opponents (the blinds) and usually at least 3, so are you suggesting that one should normally fold AJ unless a raise can get it down to 2?
I think folding AJ in late position after 4 or 5 loose limpers, none of whom are likely to have a better hand, has to be a mistake.
Dropping AT, KT and KJ to a big field makes sense, but a preference for ordinarily folding AJ in a loose game strikes me as way too tight.
I think you misunderstood me. I will gladly play AJ offsuit in an unraised pot after several loose limpers. I was referring to playing AJo UTG. I won't play it here in any game. Well, I suppose I would play it in a near ideal game.
And my original post actually refers to AJ suited, if it makes any difference. I might be more inclined to play this hand UTG in a loose game, especially if it wasn't very aggressive.
-SmoothB-
I was paraphrasing hpfap. In a structured game A-J loses a lot of value (hands with implied odds gain the value). I consider several players to be more than 6. Playing a spread limit game, the hand can be played versus more players because of the increased leverage that the flop bet has.
The reason that I compare holdem in multiway pots to Omaha is that, with more cards out in players hands, the best hand at showdown becomes closer to the nuts.
For example, in Omaha, if there is a bet and a raise before it gets to you, and you hold a queen high flush (3rd nut flush) with no redraws, you fold. You know with this action you are going to see at LEAST a K high flush, probably a nut flush, and if the board pairs you'll see a full house.
In holdem it seems the conventional wisdom is this:
If you flop second pair in an unraised pot where 3 people saw the flop, and there is a bet and a call, fold. (Unless you have a big draw too.) The pot is too small to chase if you are behind, and you don't have many outs.
If you flop second pair in a raised multiway pot, call or raise. You have odds to chase 2 pair or trips or a back door draw, etc.
I do not agree with this. With more people in the pot, and especially when the pot is larger, there will be more people in at showdown and the winning hand will be somewhat closer to the absolute nuts.
Sure, you may APPEAR that you have the odds to call - assume you have 7 outs to trips or 2 pair, plus a little extra equity because of backdoor draws you might fall into.
But I believe this is incorrect. You must take into account the times when you are drawing dead (ie to a flopped set), or when the cards you need to make 2 pair will make someone a straight, etc. When you factor all of this in I think it is not profitable to chase.
Rather than chase to improve mediocre hands to decent hands, I would MUCH rather do the following:
1) Raise in late position with draws that might be more of a longshot, but are draws to the nuts nonetheless. IE raise with gutshot draws, maybe even if there is a 2 flush on the board, but never if the board is paired. I do this for a few reasons:
a) My hand will be the nuts if it hits.
b) No one will put me on a straight.
c) My tight image will probably get me a free card on the turn which I would very much like. If a flush comes and there's a bet I can fold even if my straight made it.
d) I will get more action on big hands (ie flopped sets, etc) when rags flop in the future.
Of course, I won't bet these gutshots on the flop if it is checked all the way around to me. But if there is an early position bet and several callers I will gladly raise.
-SmoothB-
In your first example: "lets say you are in the cutoff seat with AJ suited. You limp after several other limpers (maybe it is wiser to raise here) and the button raises. Everyone calls.
The flop comes K J 2 rainbow, none of your suit. Bet from early position, 2 other callers. What do you do? The preflop raiser remains to act after you"
Here, you are getting anywhere from about 10:1 to 15:1 on your immediate call, depending how many were in the pot BTF. You can reasonably expect a raise, so your effective odds are probably about 5:1 to 7:1 or so to draw at your 8:1 shot. Since not all of your outs are clean, specifically an ace might make someone else a straight or AK two better pair, you would need considerably better than 8:1 (including implied odds) to make up for the times you get there on your draw and lose. Therefore folding here is probably a good move since the pot is not that big.
On your second example: "you limp in on the button with 76 of spades after 5 limpers, and then the BB raises. All call. 7 people see a flop of:
T 6 3 with one spade. The pot is huge. BB, the pre flop raiser, checks, and UTG bets. All call. What is the correct choice here? You have a valid concern that the BB might checkraise. You have second pair/no kicker, with backdoor flush and straight draws"
with 7 in BTF that makes 14 small bets plus 5 more when it gets to you makes for 19:1 immediate pot odds, or 10:1 if you get check-raised. Since you only need 8:1 to draw to two pair, plus you have backdoor straight and flush possibilities, I think you have a clear call on the flop. The pot is more than big enough to make up for those times when you make two pair and lose to a straight (or other backdoor draw), which will really not be very often. I think you are losing too much equity if you fold here. Unless you can reasonably expect both a check-raise and a reraise with possible cap, I don't think you can fold here.
In general, second pair should probably be folded more often than not, but it is extremely situational dependent and not an automatic play. Position, pot size, flop texture, and number of players make for variables which have to be considered before giving up on second pair.
dave in cali
I agree with this. I'd drop the AJ, but in the 76 scenario you have 5 outs and two weak backdoors in position getting 20-1 plus implied (always assume bb at least calls) or 13-1 if bb raises. You have more than enough overlay to cover the nightmare scenarios. Folding here is a big mistake, IMO.
In addition to not considering the odds and the hands they're up against, the real mistakes players make with second pair is failing to consider the chance of being raised and the chance that the turn screwed up their draw. Avoiding these mistakes by simply failing to play second pair, however, is wrong. I'd love to play against players that always folded on the flop unless they had top pair or better. I'd raise them more often before the flop too.
That'll teach me to respond from memory without reading the original post. I agree with your play of A-J suited.
Wow! I have been posting a lot lately!
I have decided that from now on I'm not even going to look at my blind hands anymore. I keep getting screwed - it seems that every time I get a free ride with something like 85 offsuit and flop bottom 2 pair, I end up getting soaked for a lot of money that I could have saved if I had mucked it without looking.
Ok, maybe I'll look to see if I flop a set, or a straight or a flush. But if I flop top pair with J8 offsuit I end up losing more money than I ever win.
Maybe the best thing to do is to just leave the table whenever you get the blinds, and then come in and post in mid position and play the last 5 positions or so. This gives you your free roll when you actually have position, and you don't get sucked into playing hands that look good out of position - like KQ and AJ type hands.
It puzzles me that even many players that play professionally pay little attention to the importance of position. I admit that when I started playing i didn't appreciate it much either. But I see supposed 'pros' limping in UTG with AJ offsuit and stuff like that.
I would much rather play 76 suited on the button. Then when the flop comes Q 7 2 and I get checked to, I can bet and watch everyone fold. After all, I'm a rock - I probably have AQ or something.
-SmoothB-
You have to play the blind hands well. You need to reduce the cost of paying the blinds from 1½ small bets per round to as small a number as possible. If you just focus on playing the hands well, the math will take care of itself. The reason it is so difficult to play hands well from the blinds is, of course, your bad position. Both of your suggestions will cost you more than playing the hands as well as you can, but I understand your sentiment.
You make a lot of good points.
As S&M note in their book, you should be a good enough player to get away from, say, a bad King when you take a free flop and the board comes something like K-Q-10.
The best way to approach those "free" or cheap blind hands is to figure out before the flop comes what would be the best flop for your hand. In the case of 8-5o, obviously the best flop would be 4-6-7. Not always so obvious is that when the flop comes like this and a 2-flush hits the board, you are still in trouble due to the flush draws. Conversely, flopping a flush when you have a piece of cheese is also just asking for trouble.
As far as playing behind the button, I don't prefer to do that, because THESE hands are the ones that get me in trouble. I know that I'm in position, and I know that I'm already committed to the pot for both blinds, so my tendency is to play any reasonably possible hand from that position.
As far as A-Jo UTG, I'm going to raise with it ... as I would with 7-6 on the button. ;-)
Good post.
SB - anyone ignoring position is not playing smart poker, it's what I look for when assessing other players skill level IE: what hands are they calling and raising with and in what position are they doing it) - I think you are correct in your blind assesssment - I lose more hands (and money) in unrised pots where I flop fairly strongly and lose with hands I wouldn't consider playing if I had a choice. I do take my breaks as the blind approacnes and post in better position as you suggested. I'd recomment this for anyone who wants to get that little edge.
a lot of times in unraised family pots when im first to act either in SB or BB(if SB folded preflop) ill check dark before the flop. im not exactly sure this helps me but at least it makes playing a little more interesting.
brad
it seems that part of your complaint here is related to a complaint someone else had a couple months ago about many posts on the forum having to do with playing hands in the blinds. Since you already have $$ in the pot, and often get a free ride, or more than enough odds to call, you wind up playing many hands in the blinds that you would never play in other positions. Face it, you just won't have the trouble of having to decide how to play two pair - nines and fours, when you are not in the blind. This is exactly why the blinds are so difficult to play out of, and why there are so many posts concerning how to play out of them.
But still though, playing bottom two pair, sevens and sixes, on the button, is still somewhat problematic. I guess it's better than playing AJ UTG and flopping top pair, jacks, but not that much better....
As for those problem hands, I am always worried when I play KQo or AJo no matter what position. UTG I usually fold AJ and KQ unless the game is very weak, in which case I probably raise. I certainly fold these hands for a raise from all but the most maniacal players.
I think the idea posted by you and Rounder about skipping the blinds and posting in a later position is not really that great. Although I must say that Rounder's clarification of doing this when it is time for a break makes it a better idea than doing it frequently or all the time. However, you are usually posting a dead small blind, so it doesn't count towards your call, thus costing you $$. You pay your blinds every round to get dealt so many hands, usually nien or ten, so you should take all the opportunities you can. Playing well out of the blinds (or early position) is one of the things that will make you a winning player.
One more thing, I am sure your stance on mucking without looking is purely rhetorical.... what if you got dealt AA in the SB?
Dave in Cali
my mindset when getting a free ride or patial free ride in the blinds is as mentioned ask muself what ideally fits my hand and if it dont flop it muck time period...
jg
SmoothB,
When you mentioned the idea of not looking at your hand, I couldn't help but chuckle. Check out the article (by yours truly) called "Smoking for Profit."
http://members.aol.com/tomium/index.html
Tommy
Excellent article! My thoughts exactly!
I am completely convinced that most players would make more money at poker if they never looked at the hands they get in the 1st 4 positions. That is definitely not to say that there aren't any hands that can't be played profitably from early position - on the contrary! But i feel that most players LOSE more money by playing hands like AJ offsuit UTG than they make when they get AA in the blinds.
Thanks for directing me to this great article!
-SmoothB-
Thanks! :-)
Exactly what does "beaten the hard way" mean, as it applies to bad beat bonuses. I am currently being denied a bad beat jackpot on a site in which their parameters for payout are;
"QUALIFYING HANDS: Hold'em: Aces full of Jacks or better beaten the hard way. Both cards in losing and winning hands Play. No Kickers. Example: AAJ44 on the board (widow) with AJ and 44 is good. AAA97 with JJ and AQ is not good."
This has been copied directly from their site. I was involved in a Texas Hold'em hand where I held JJ, had A79AA hit the board, and was beaten by someone holding KK. Seems to me since we both used both cards, I qualify. Am I wrong? My hand had no kicker, and while it didn't contribute to the Aces, i still used both cards, as did my opponent. If I am wrong, am i to assume that if AA7JK was the board and I held AJ to winner's AK, then i would have a properly beaten hand? Is that what "beaten the hard way" means? This doesn't quite make sense if this is the case, and should be defined more clearly if so. I'm not sure why or how the hand should be differentiated in that wayas we both have used both cards w/o a kicker to full hand potential. Please enlighten my feeble mind, as I am at a loss for answers.
I'm not absolutely sure if this is what is meant by beaten "the hard way", but at Canterbury Park, in order to qualify as Aces full for the jackpot, you must have an ace in your hand. The hand you were involved in would not have qualified. The example hand you give with aces full over aces full would and would qualify. The last example hand which you copied from the web site should make it clear that your hand is no good. The losing hand was your exact hand--three aces on the board, two jacks in your hand.
I agree with your example that my hand was exactly the same as thiers, however, the rule specifically states that the hand must be beaten by a hand with no kicker, and in AAA97 with JJ beaten by AQ, Q is obviously a kicker. While i see your point about needing an ace, that is not stated in the rules. I'm wondering if "hard way" inherently means For that specific type of hand, you must hold an Ace.
I usually play stud at Canterbury, where none of these considerations apply. My Aces full of Kings beats Aces full of Jacks example would not qualify. Aces full must be beaten by four of a kind or better. Perhaps that's what's meant by "the hard way." Anyway, both cards in your hand must play. There was a jackpot hand at Canterbury recently where someone playing T3o made four tens and was beaten by a straight flush. Four tens with a three covers the same amount of ground as four tens with an ace, so the kicker was good.
I don't understand your complaint when the rules you copied specifically say that your hand does not qualify:
"AAA97 with JJ and AQ is not good."
If JJ is no good against AQ it is obviously no good against KK.
You got Aces full the EASY way, with three aces on the board. The rule you copied down specifically says your hand is no good so why do you think it is?
The reason i don't think it's the same is because AAAJJ beaten by AAAAQ with him hold AQ is because the rule specifically states no kicker, which the Q obviously is. If the way i made the hand is called "easy way" it seems to me that it should be better clarified.
esp that have a texas hold em table. any help appreciated. thanks Nick
Try this site it has all the info you require. hole'em is played in all casinos mostly pot limit.
http://www.poker-in-the-uk.com/
I have noticed that paradise poker holem has slightly differn rules to holdem I played last time I visited the casino. Say the board is A Q 5 5 7 and I have A 10 and my opponent has A J and we both get to the show down
In paradise he would win because his Jack is higher than my 10.
At the local casino it would be a split pot because we both have AA 55 Q
Can anybody elaborate on how tied hands are generally ranked in holdem ?. Is there a standard way its done ?
mark,
I've never seen it done the way you describe in holdem. It is always best five cards. Contact Paradise and see if there is a flaw in the software.
Regards,
Rick
Either you misread a board or something really freaky happened. Paradise will split the pot as it should, I've seen them do it correctly time and time again and have not seen what you describe once.
Were you maybe confused by the odd bet left after the split going to the first to the left of the dealer?
If what you say about your jack beating his ten when there is two pair and a higher kicker on the board, then I would not play there at all. There must be some sort of flaw here, either in their software or your recollection of the situation. Contact the administrator and clarify before playing again.
please post the hand number. I've never seen this happen in over 25,000 hands.
Capital Casino Sacramento CA. 4-8 Hold’em
Hand 1: I’m in the cut off seat with AsAc. Two limpers, I raise. Button calls as do the limpers. Flop Jc2hKc. Middle position player (MPP) bets second limper folds I make it two bets, the button cold calls two bets and the (MPP) calls . Turn is a Jd. MPP bets and I just call thinking that he might have made a set. Button calls. River is a 2. MPP bets I call and the button raises. MPP and I both make crying calls. Button turns over 2c4c. Mpp player shows me AK and ask “ what did you have” and I show him my pocket Aces.
Hand 2: Less than an hour later I’m in the SB with AsAc again. It is two and a half bets to me and I cap the betting. BB cold calls 3 bets. Six players see the flop. The flop is 10c3c6d. I bet and get four callers. BB is one of them. Turn is a Jc. Ok, pocket aces might very well be second or third best against a flush now, but I have a chance of making the nut flush on the river. I want to find out how my aces are doing so I bet. It’s raised so now I know my aces are had. Four players are in to see the river. The river brings 6c. BINGO!. There’s my nut flush so I think. I bet and the BB raises. All fold to me and I make another crying call. The BB turns over 63o. My oh my, imagine that. Playing 6-3 off suit to the river. This idiot as he turned up his cards said in a cocky way “I missed” and laughed.
Hand 3: Two nights later, same club. I have KK in an early position I raise. Middle position player the button and the BB all call. (the button remember must post a $3 drop fee here). Flop is J rag rag. I bet and the middle position player calls and the rest fold. Turn is another rag. I bet and get called. The river is a 5s. No flush or straight possible. I bet and get called. MPP turns over J5o. Imagine that! Playing J5 off suit to the river and having to pay all the way.
Hand 4: Don’t ask. Same kind of stuff, I have pocket KK and get sucked out by someone else’s poor play on the river.
Now I hear that these types of players will eventually lose their money. I believe that and have seen it. But, it’s a real drag being on the receiving end of their stupid play when they get lucky and hit.
LESSON LEARNED: Abandon low limit Hold’em. I want to play in a game where a player can be rewarded for thinking and applying good poker theory and skill not punished. I’m by far not an expert, but I have studied the game and read the post here daily. Medium stakes Hold'em here I come.
If you have a hard time beating low limit hld'em where players play terrible how the hell do you expect to beat better players? There is a big misconception about winning pots, and winning money over the long run. In a medium stakes game that is not as loose and crazy as a 3-6 game you will have a better chance of your good hands holding up but so what. Think about those times when you have like one pair, and win a pot of like 20bb. This won't happen very often but in a tighter game it is even more rare. Last night I won a $300 pot in an $8-$16 game with a pair of queens and a lousy Jack kicker. These loose players give excess action and that turns into more long term profit then winning a higher percentage of pots (due to fewer suck-outs) against players who are playing better. Of course there are several other factors involved but you need to deal with the bad beats. Its part of the game. Learn to beat the idiots before you challenge better players.
By the way losing with pocket Aces is something that happens plenty and is nothing to get all bent out of shape about. The last 12 times I flopped top two pair, I only won twice and the of the last 6 times I flopped a set, I only won twice. It's simply a part of the game that you have to deal with. The lost pots are more then made up for by the excess action you recieve when your hand holds up.
Goat,
I understand what you mean. It's not that I'm having a hard time beating these players generally. In fact I'm quite a bit ahead and feel confident going into a game at this level. I was just whining from my last two outings and making a point that at times weak players can through a wrench at good common sense poker play.
Sure I know the higher stake games will generally be tougher, but not always. A real good friend of mine who I teach with who plays mid-level Hold’em does very playing 2-3 days a week and we are very comparable players (he is ahead over 7K for the year). Maybe one can avoid some bad beats at the mid level due to less suckouts.
Rich
I think you are missing an important point.
Those players who suck out on you make you money.
Every time someone calls your raise with AA when they have 95 offsuit, you make money. Even if you end up losing the hand, you made money from their stupid call.
Everyone remembers all of the times that some bad player made a runner runner gutshot straight with 63 offsuit and beat them after they flopped a set of aces. But you forget all of the other times when these players were paying you off all the way with a pair of sevens against your trip aces.
Better players in bigger games will not suck out on you as much, but they will also not be paying you off with trash hands. You will make less.
One important note - I find many players who complain about bad beats when they flop big hands. Someone always sucks out on them, so they say. They are losing players overall. But when I actually play with them, I notice that they have a lot of leaks in their game that cause them to bleed chips. They are not losing because of the bad beats. They are losing because of these slow but steady leaks that they can't pin down.
-SmoothB-
Your post reminds me of a hand I was involved in several nights ago on low limit paradise poker.....
I had pocket KKs..... checked preflop (maybe that was my mistake)... several players including blind with 95offsuit.
Flop comes KJx where x is a really low card. I bet, maybe one caller, and blind calls with 95!!!!!!
Turn comes a Q. I bet, and only the blind calls this time.
River comes a T. I check, blind checks, and takes down the pot...
Ok, I'll make an exception. Someone that calls your raise with 95 offsuit does NOT make you money when they know that they are going to back into a runner runner gutshot straight.
In these cases, they cost you money when they call and they cost you MORE money when they reraise. But that is why I don't play online poker.
-SmoothB-
How was this guy doing otherwise? Did he make other similar plays? Did they lose or win?
I'm not sure why a cheat would play low limit.
Nope, he does horrible.... He's one of the worst players I know and one of the players I look for. If I see him in a game I'm ALWAYS playing that game... preferably to his left... :)
I used this story as an example of how callers can win with crap. I doubt he's cheating otherwise he's doing a really horrible job of it!
It seems to me your play is alright, but just having bad luck. With the poor players you mention in your post playing at your local card room, it should be a profitable/beatable game. Make sure you can beat the low limit game before you move up so you don't lose your bankroll too quickly. Better luck next time.
No such game - you'll find loose players or maniacs at all levels - I saw a guy in Vegas at Harras during the carnival of poker take down a $60k pot in a PL HE game with a 5h3h and a back door flush. He beat a set of T's on the river.
During the Orleans open I had AA (mostly black A's) snapped heads up 7 times by sets (one hand quad 8 beat them) They are called BAD BEATS and if you play poker they are a part of life - if they didn't exist all the little fishies who live to draw out on AA would be playing roulette and we tight guys would be beating each others heads in for a couple bucks an hour.
BTE if you have a pocket pair and spike a 3rd on the board it ia a SET otherwise it is trips.
You have described 4 cases where you were the favorite before the flop, raised, as you should, and got called by someone with cheese and/or trash. What would you rather happen, you raise and get called by 63o, or you raise and someone correctly folds KQo because they know you only raise with AA, KK, or AK and they will likely be dominated? It sucks when you take several of these bad beats in a row, but you will only find the players to be tougher and more difficult to beat when you go up in stakes. Take your licks and keep playing those good cards, you will eventually win if you are really a good player. The long run is a very long time and in the short term standard deviation rules, which is what happened to you here.
dave in cali
Flop: Jc2hKc
Your Hand: AcAs
Player X bets, you raise and Player Y coldcalls.
Turn: Jd
X bets again and this time you just call.
I would generally raise here again where I have 1 or 2 opponents left to act behind me (I improve my chances of winning the pot plus I would think that X may look for the checkraise if he really hit trips).
I would generally just call or fold if there were several players left to act behind me (the pot is protected and it is way less likely that X is betting a hand worse than AA).
I would generally just call if it was heads-up between me and X (no real reason to protect my hand. I am either way ahead or way behind. That is, X will not fold a Jack and I don't want him to fold a King. While I may want him to fold a flush or straight draw, he probably will not so fold even if I raise. The extra bet that I miss out on when I fail to raise his flush draw on the turn maybe recouped as there is a fair chance that he will bluff on the river if he misses.)
If you think that, by playing against better opposition, you'll win more because you'll get sucked out on less, you are mistaken.
Before you can tackle mid limit you must be able to beat low limit. I would consider breaking even over a long period of time in a 3-6 california game good enough, since the rake is so big that it's very tough just to break even.
I would MUCH rather play against these bad players in a 10-20 game than play against a table full of solid players.
After all, when the pros look for a game, they don't say 'Damn that 10-20 has lots of calling stations - I'll never make a hand hold up in there - I better go to that tough 15-30 game over there.'
-SmoothB-
Smooth,
Your point is well taken and clear. I will give this some more thought since other respondents have made similar comments as well. Bad beats come and go but I will analize my game for leaks in an effort to avoid being a long term loser. My first experience of two consecutive losing nights was not any fun at all.
Rich,
I have played hold-em from 4-8 to pot limit. In every game I have played in there has been a suck out in them, and some of them were egeregiously bad.
For example: I was under the gun with AA's in a 10-20 game and brought in for a raise. Second in had KK's and reraised. Two other players called and I capped, all called. To make a long story short: The winner of the pot had A5 off and caught a 5 on the flop and a 5 on the river.
Another example (10-20 again):
Early position raiser (had AA's, very loose player though). Me AToff (loose call I know) Flop: Kd,Qd,Js. Players in hand: 5. Capped around flop. Blank turn (7c). River 7d. Winner: Jd5d.
Moral of story: suckouts happen, period. Be happy when they happen in low limit. There is nothing more frustrating than losing a $600 pot to an moron who plays Jd5d against a early position raise. (I do acknowledge my own idiocy in calling with AT though).
Kiss of Death?
3/6 Canterbury last nite.
Fairly loose, but not maniacal table.
I look down from the SB in seat 3 and see the dreaded AA. Oh no. 4 players are already in, and fearing the dreaded suckout I dang near toss them in (NOT). Instead, I raise - BB and all 4 call.
Flop comes AJT rainbow. I check, BB checks. UTG bets, Seat 8 and the Cutoff call, I do a rare (for me) smooth call on the flopped set. BB raises. UTG calls, Seat 8 goes all in, Cutoff and myself call. These players have all seen me play flops that hit me very, very fast, and I believe my opponents have put me on KK.
Turn is a T to give me Aces full. I check. BB checks, UTG bets, and player to my right in the Cutoff raises! I am pretty sure that BB is checkraising, so I call. BB does indeed raise. UTG is wondering what is going on, but calls. Cutoff calls. I figure no one is concerned about my hand so I raise. BB caps it. All call.
River is a blank.
I bet. BB raises, UTG is clearly married to his hand and calls. Cutoff finally surrenders. I reraise. BB and UTG call.
BB had AT for tens full of aces and UTG had TJ for tens full of jacks.
This hand should underwrite some future suckouts!
I've hit a rush of one situation over and over lately and am curious how others routinely deal with it.
You raise before the flop with say, Ad-Qd, and the flop come Qc-7c-2c. How deep into the hand do you proceed and what criteria would make you give up immediately?
Yes, this is a tough situation that we've all been in.
In this situation, if I'm checked to I'll bet it. You still probably have the best hand, and you can't afford to give a free card. Checking and calling is by far the worst play.
If I'm bet into, I will probably raise. If you bet on the turn and get checkraised, I will probably lay it down depending on who is doing the checkraising. If it is a player capable of a checkraise semibluff, I may call some of the time but will fold if another of that suit comes and he bets. (After all, if he doesn't have one of that suit he has to worry that I do and he would be dumb to bet again without a flush.
This is definitely a hand to proceed cautiously with.
-SmoothB-
In this situation, you have to consider a few things, such as how many are in the hand, who they are, and the action when it gets to you. Heads up, I would rarely give it up here unless you either have a very good read or another club comes on the turn. With multiple players, I would probably give it up most of the time. You are either beaten already, drawing to a runner-runner full house, or you have a flush draw against you and you will not be sure if you are already beat or not. If you bet, you will usually get raised by the person holding the Ac. If someone else bets, you are not going to get anyone to fold who has the Ac or Kc, even if you raise. This is pretty much a bad situation any way you look at it.
Look at it like this, there is some % of the time when you flop top pair, good or top kicker, with your AK and AQ type hands. A very small % of the time, there will be a three-flush on the board which you don't have any of. It is rare that this happens, but if you just let it go when it does happen, you probably won't be losing out much at all. Following through to the end here is likely to cost you more $$ than you stand to gain. Fold most of the time unless it is heads up or three way, and then still be cautious.
Dave in Cali
Too situation specific. Hard to comment in a vacuum but here goes:
If it's heads-up or 3 way, I am not going to muck on the flop.
If they check, I bet. If they bet and I have last position, I usually call. If the turn is a blank, I raise on the turn. The turn raise (as opposed to the flop raise) usually allows me to:
1. fold for a cheaper price if a club hits and he bets
2. increase my chances of giving the club draw only one shot to get there as many players with the trump Jack or lower will fold to a raise on the turn for fear that they may be drawing dead (obviously the guy with the trump Ace ain't going nowhere. Trump Kings may or may not call). If I get reraised, I muck and it costs me the same as calling twice.
If it's multiway...well, I don't know what I would do...would need more details of the hand in question to offer any meaningful comment.
It depends on the types of players in the game. If the game was tight, where only one or two players called my raise, I probably would not give it up easily, because it's less likely that they will have made a flush or be drawing to it. But, if three or more call my preflop raise, I'll take a stab at it if I have position, otherwise I'll give it up. I use the twos company threes a crowd rule.
Regardless of the number of opponents I'd play it fast on the flop unless it's 2 bets before it gets to me. I'd also play it fast on the turn unless another club hits. If another club hits, I'd bet into one or two opponents but fold to a raise (a lot depends on the raiser). I'd fold if someone else bet first (again depending on the bettor). Even if no other clubs come I'd check and call on the river (certainly if I have more than one opponent left), hoping to recoup some of the money I'd lose to a slowplayer by picking off a bluff here and there.
Anyone who flops a flush and sticks around will probably win a lot of my chips. I think it's also important to realize that if your adversary is aggressive and doesn't give you enough credit for knowing this, you've hit an above-average flop.
Chris, in a limit game, I've often played this hand in much the manner you describe. By nature, I'm seldom inclined to back down because the board looks scary. However, over time, it's started to become apparent that this may be the riskiest manner of playing this particular flop -- especially against a full field (i.e., 4 or more players). As others alluded to, the number of opponents is the most important aspect of this situation (also see Bob Ciaffone's article "How Many Enemy" in his book "Improve Your Poker.")
While I'm still mulling this over, as Dave noted above, the most profitable play may be simply to immediately give up the hand against more than 1 or 2 opponents. After all, this sort of situation is only going to come up less than 5% of the time, and the laydowns will be more than compensated by the money saved on the hands where you are drawing nearly dead.
Thanks to all for the responses.
I suspect the best thing would be to either play it hard or give it up quick, and to get good at picking your spots for doing either.
It just came out here in Los Angeles (BTW, is it true that Poker Digest comes out a week late on the East Coast?). Dan’s article primarily covers the topic of the correct use of the free card raise with a come hand. I forgot to take copies home but will pick some up tomorrow.
After a quick read at work, I think it is excellent but there may be some interesting threads that will develop based on the content, which in many cases goes against conventional wisdom.
Anyway, congratulations Dan for another fine article.
Regards,
Rick
Agreed. One of the best articles I've seen. I read it three times and left it out for review.
Tommy
A situation and then some questions...
I have QJo on the button and limp in after several limpers. No raise pre-flop.
Flop: QKx
It's checked to me and I bet. It's a passive game and no one has shown they will not bet top pair (and many will bet second and third pair) so I figure my Q is probably good. I get one caller.
Turn: J
I get bet into. I'm a little worried but he may just be betting jacks or a lower two pair. I call.
River: J
He bets out, I raise, he reraises. Now I'm thinking, okay he probably doesn't have a straight, he really likes that jack! Then I worry about KJ and just call.
He turns over T9 and I take it down.
As soon as he showed I felt like an idiot for not raising back at him. There is no way he would not have bet the flop with KJ, he couldn't have the king, at best he could also have QJ for the split. I wasn't worried about KK because there was no pre-flop raise.
After thinking about this hand and a few others I realized that when I try to read someone I spend a lot of effort trying to put them ON a hand and I don't particularly try to put them OFF certain hands (other than the obviously unlikely). I tend to try and put his betting and the current board together to think about what he has and I was not going back and thinking about the flop. Either I should have thought about the flop or on the flop catalogued him as "probably no King."
What I'm wondering is how people tend to go through the process of reading hands here. Is it sort of an all at once thing jumping back and forth in your mind between the current betting round and previous or do you drill important notes into your head on each round so you wont need to think back about previous rounds once you are on the river? I think that just realizing that I was lax should help me be more careful in the future but I'd like to hear others' opinions. I am relatively new to poker (about 1 1/2 years) but have had pretty good results so far and I spend a lot of time studying with the books and reading this forum.
Paul Talbot
Paul, this is a very interesting question. The type I would like to see more of on this forum.
I would start by watching closly when not in a hand. Practice this on every hand by targeting at least one and see if you are correct. Determine if players are aware of proper starting requirements then if he respects them. If he is tricky or clueless player your task becomes more difficult, even impossible preflop, and a waste of time early. But, by the end you should have some idea from his beting pattern and whatever tells you can find.
Personally I am only concerned with the hands that can beat me and try to eliminate those. If I can't I play accordingly. So much depends on the players ability to represent continuity in his betting pattern.
I think you have a good fondation and are aware of the above since you automatically ruled out AA,KK,QQ, and eventually KJ before the turn because of the flop check and then no checkraise. On the river you can also rule out JJ because of your hand. What you want to note early in the session is how often a player deviates from standard opening requirements, or if he is even aware of opening requiremnets. You want to note what he raises with and what type hands he will coldcall with. Whether he repects the game as tight or passive. I will stop here but there is much more and I look forward to other comments.
PS: Oh yea, very important. Does he wait for the turn to spring his bigger hands ?
To answer your question: I work forward then back if I have a problem. But it starts even before the current hand or flop. The more you conscentrate and watch quitely the easier it gets. Last actions count more than early action. Hope this helps and that you get lots of response. I think this is more important than knowing how much is in the pot, exactly. Good luck.
Not only reading hands but combo that with reading people.
It takes time and close attention to detail to get good at putting people on a RANGE of hands and sometimes "guessing" their exact hand BUT it must be combined with player assessmant for a more accurate "guess".
I'm not the world's best hand reader. But I usually reduce the set of hands they could have in stages. ie, if they are a typical player and they raise middle position w/ one limper, I give them credit for 99-AA, AJs+ AQ+. If they are a maniac, I can't put them on a hand preflop( a maniac in my home game has been known to raise 23s). If they are a rock that's too many hand, like another player in my home game I give him credit for AA, KK or QQ when he raises. That's it. A re-raise is AA for that guy.
But once the flop comes, you can start to eliminate hands from that set. ie, an A on the flop and there's a bet and a raise from teh pre-flop raiser...he's got atleast one, so he's got AQ, AK, or AA.
Hope that helps some.
i cant agree more with the advice given already, but remember this you maximized your hand at that moment. while you are stacking you checks think back to every bet and then think as to how you could have put him on this hand. im sure he was pissed that his supposed nut straight was beaten, but he was struggling from the word go with that middle straight. well played you got the goal :) money makes us happy
I think you played the hand spot on perfect. A few comments.
'It's checked to me and I bet. It's a passive game '
Of course you should bet here. Especially if this is a passive game without much checkraising. You probably have the best hand, and you might get a weak king in the blind to fold.
'I get bet into. I'm a little worried but he may just be betting jacks or a lower two pair. I call.
Of course you can call, but I seriously doubt that you are getting bet into with a worse hand than yours. Normally in these situations, depending on the opponents, if I bet and get called on the flop, and then get bet into on the turn, I won't raise with less than top 2 pair. People usually won't lead at you with less unless they have a good read on you - if they are straightforeward players. Obviously there are some players who are capable of betting into me with draws here even after I showed aggression on the flop but I'm not talking about them.
My first instinct would be to put him on the straight. Whenever a third paint card shows up and a former check-and-caller shows aggression, this is my first instinct.
Here is a hand I played recently:
I had QQ in the BB. 3 limpers, loose player raises, I just call, limpers call.
No one knows that I have a monster so I should expect action if I get a good flop.
Flop comes A Q 7 rainbow. I bet, get 1 caller, rest fold.
Turn comes offsuit J. I bet, get raised. I suspect that I have the best hand, but I am aware that most players will call with a gutshot to the nuts on the flop - and he was correct to do so. I call.
Blank on the river, I check and call, take down the pot with my set.
As for your play on the river - I would have done the same. I think making it 4 bets is way out of line. This would not be the first player that tried to slowplay top 2 pair on the flop.
I definitely think HIS 3 bet was way out of line. 3 betting on the river with a pair on board?
-SmoothB-
When he bets out the turn it is very likely that the J improved his and so you think about what types of hands could like the J AND have not bet the flop. Also take into consideration the he could have flopped a big hand, but was slowplaying it, but now is betting out because of the 3 straight on the board(scary board not wanting to allow a free card.) Hand he could have possibly been slowplaying are KQ, KK, QQ, XX, KX, or QX. You can eliminate KK, QQ due to no pre-flop raise. The hands that could have liked the J are JT(pair with open-ended), AT(nuts), T9, QJ(unlikely), KJ(probably would have bet out on the flop or c-r you. He could also have JJ(if he doesn't raise pre-flop with that hand). When J falls on the river, you can eliminate JJ so the only hand that can beat you is the very unlikely KJ or even more unlikely KK, QQ. You can almost completely eliminate those hands so it is safe to re-raise. If I hadn't know the result I would have put him on a straight, T9 or AT until he 3 bet you on the river, which would give me the impression that he had XX for the lower full house. He was pretty stupid to 3 bet you on the river when there is a pair on the board and he doesn't even have the nut straight.
Althought you may think you have a pretty good read on a player, don't get married to it. For example in the hand in question we pretty much eliminated the possibilty of any hand beating you. However, if you had 4 bet and he 5 bet, don't reraise him again because you are SURE that he does not have KJ, KK, or QQ. My point is to keep using all the information that you are given, don't get married to a hand, or a certain read. BTW, hand reading gets much tougher when you start playing 20-40 and higher because players get much trickier. For example, really tough players will sometimes raise with hands like 87s UTG. They will make the play very rarely, but enough so that when the flop comes 965 and you have 65 you can never be *sure* that you have his overpair beat. You'll also find yourself getting checkraise with bottom pair...all in all a much more interesting game.
I think you may be further along than you think. Don't try to put an opponent on a hand. Try to think of all the hands they could have and then assign probabilities to their having them.
I wasn't worried about KK because there was no pre-flop raise.
Good example. KK was a possible hand; his probability of having it was close to zero.
After thinking about this hand and a few others I realized that when I try to read someone I spend a lot of effort trying to put them ON a hand and I don't particularly try to put them OFF certain hands (other than the obviously unlikely).
An example: Your opponent could have one of four hands, one of which has a 40% probability of occuring, the other three each have a 20%. If you put him on ONE hand, you'll put him on the 40%er. But that hand will be wrong more than half the time. Keep all the possible hands in mind, and then keep revising as the hand progresses.
In the hand you present, what are all the hands he could have had on the flop? the turn? the river? What are the odds of his having each one?
The reason hand reading is so important in hold 'em is that the limited number of options combined with the predictability of opponents' behavior makes it easy, with a little logical analysis, to make exactly the right play. But often it's not possible to put someone on the right hand because there isn't enough logic to their play. After the hand is over you can figure out what they were thinking, but during the hand there weren't enough clues to figure it out.
The key to this hand is that there is no way he should 3-bet the river without a full house. Most of the full houses out there beat yours. Unless you know your opponent I think that's the end of the inquiry. You should call. If you consider possibilities that aren't logical (such as the actual hand he had), then you also have to consider other possibilities that rule out raising, such as slow-played pocket kings or a screwy way of playing KJ. I know you think that KJ is unlikely, but then who takes bad odds to go for the dummy end of a gutshot only the bet into the leader on the turn and 3-bet after the board pairs? When there's not much logic to their play, it's hard to use logical against them.
As for the process, I try to consider the full range of hands my opponent could have before and on the flop, and use the betting action from the flop onward to narrow it down. In this particular case I would not have guessed the straight.
In a Holdem game, which seats is which in numbers?
Thanks Johan
1 is to the dealer's left. Then clockwise. Ignore the button, unless you plan to use the new seat numbering plan suggested by Jim only for this furom.
This question is pretty much for all limits, but assume your opponents are reasonably solid, non-maniacal players typical of games in the 5-10 to 20-40 range. When against two players who both figure to have big hands, and thus will probably give you a reasonable amount of action, how far can you go with a smallish pocket pair?
Here's an example hand from last night, where I think I played correctly, but I'd like to start a general discussion about similar situations.
I have 55 3rd UTG.
UTG limps. UTG is a semi-tight, very passive player. He will raise preflop only with AA-QQ. He loves to slowplay, even when he flops top pair for instance. He will also generally always pay off when he has a good hand, even when he looks to be beaten (that is, he won't call overcards often but he will call with top pair good kicker no matter what comes).
The next player(2nd) also limps. He is a decent player, pays off too much, normal raising standards. The game has been not too tight, and fairly passive in general, so I call. One more loose caller, and a good player raises. This player would not raise AQ here. Everyone including blinds fold back to UTG.
UTG reraises. I am 100% certain that he has AA. It is rare in poker that you can be certain of anything, but in this case I am. The next player also calls.
So here's where my decision comes in. With blinds etc. there are 12.5 small bets in the pot, so I'm getting just over 6-1. I think the good player is unlikely to reraise, since he also will know that UTG has AA. combined with the fact that the loose player will probably call and two of the players are very likely to pay me off if I hit a set, I think it is a call. Does anyone disagree?
What if the good player is a maniac and might cap preflop(bad), but give good action after the flop(good)?
What if some other factors were changed, like the 2nd player were not in the pot?
Remember, I'm particularly looking for general comments not comments on this specific hand.
Also, for a somewhat similar discussion, check out a thread in the archives about TT in the big blind vs. two raises. I tried to find it to link to, but I couldn't. Anyone out there particularly remember the name of that thread?
David
Too bad you addressed your question too all limits ! i beleive it answers differently at differnt levels.. If i were playing 4/8/8 with this read and this hand, I would have to call maybe six or 8 dollars . I know at this level I may get paid off well if I hit and also I can tell if others hit.
But at 15/30 or or 20/40 I'd dump the fives, because first it's now going to cost me $30/40 to call and I'll probably get reraised. I want to have more to go to war here. Maybe TT. For me its a matter of economics and game situation. If I had this read and therefore control, with a fat stack in the bigger passive game maybe my attitude would change.
If the maniac is going to take it up I bail if I know there is AA no matter which limit. In this situation current odds dont matter because others may drop.
"I want to have more to go to war here. Maybe TT."
Not to be anal or anything, but TT in this situation is slightly worse than 55 in this situation. You are certain to be up against either AK, AA, or AA and another overpair to TT so your high card value is worthless. With TT you can flop a set and lose to a straight. On the otherhand, you can make a straight and have a set pay you off, although a board of KQJ9 would be pretty scary for a set a queens.
Good point, thanks.
I'm mot as sure.
Flopping a set for your TT is much more likely to give drawing opponents outs simply because they are more likely to play J9 than 64 and so forth.
However, to balance, the TT makes bigger flushes, higher straights and will occasionally be far superior when an opponent makes a set in the 66-99 range.
My whole take on this is that TT is about the same as 55 in the above situation. However, are you really certain the re-raise isn't on AKs?
What about calling? My guess is that folding is very marginally superior to calling, but that either one probably has about the same EV of 0. So, if your bankroll is even a tiny bit too small, fold and wait for lower variance.
Of course under normal circumstances TT is far superior to 55. In this hand however, the five and ten high flush are identical since you are up against two players with overcards or overpairs.
It's also harder for my opponents to put me, a tight player, on a set of fives, while if I got real aggressive they might put me on TT.
The pot is large enough that you should just call. And depending on the action and the flop, you may want to take a fourth street card assuming that you do not flop a set.
Thanks for setting me straight. I think I only tried this one because no one seemed interested, I also think I misread the post. Thanks also for letting me throw around input without taking the oppurtunity to hang me.
I knew this would turn in to a discussion of this particular hand (not that there is much discussion)...
I'd still like to talk more about when in general I can call multiple bets in these situations, but for completeness I'll finish out the hand.
After I called, the loose player folded surprisingly, and the good player called.
The flop came 468 with a two flush. The limp-reraiser did not bet, but I was fairly certain he was still slowplaying. Checked to good player who bet, which told me that he definitely had an overpair. Limp-reraiser calls, as do I. Since both players seem to have overpairs, I figured I had 6 fairly clean outs even though the two fives made a four straight and one of the sevens made a possible flush. And of course the pot was huge.
The turn was a seven that did not make a flush possible. I noticed that the good player in late position was loading up to bet so I checked behing the limp-reraiser, who then checkraised as expected. I made a definite mistake here and made it three bets. It looked like the good player had had his suspicions confirmed and was going to fold anyway, but I should have called to try to get one more bet out of him, and then raised the river.
As expected, the limp reraiser called me down with his aces, and I won a very large pot.
David
A question for those who play regularly (3-5 sessions a week).
In mid-limit HE, how often do you manage to get away from hands where you run into a bottom set? In this fairly typical example, let's say you hold A-Q, and raise preflop, getting 1 or 2 callers. The flop comes Q-7-2 rainbow, you bet and get called, the turn an offsuit 5, you bet and get raised.
At this stage, it's usually fairly obvious you are against a set, two pair, or some idiot who thinks his K-Q is good.
Having run into much more than my fair share of hidden sets on the turn lately, I'm curious what percentage of players manage to get away from top-pair, top-kicker when the board is non-threatening. Or maybe better put, what percentage of the TIME do you manage to escape from this situation?
I have been check raised in that sitation a half dozen times in the last 2 mons. and i paid it off every time if it was heads up. I think i one once.
I just do not fold top pair or a over pair to the board if there is only 1 or 2 players. Unless there is 4 to a srt8 or flush out.
Earl,
With only one or two callers I am usually going to pay off. The time you can get away with laying down top pair good kicker against a set is when a decent player calls your bet on the flop with several yet to act with a semi-disconnected board.
When he springs to life with a raise on the turn, the chances are very good that he has a set. There is a lot more to it of course but it is getting late for me these days ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Rick has a good point here about disconnected boards and folding top pair. here's an example....
Say you have AK and raise in early position BTF, and you get a couple callers.
Flop comes K 7 3 rainbow. Seems like a good flop for your hand, right? So you bet and a decent player calls you. If you bet the turn and get raised, he almost certainly has either 77 or 33 in the hole. You have to consider WHAT THEY WOULD CALL YOU WITH when making these decisions. Now you may have to pay off anyway, especially if it is heads up. But say there was a two-flush on board and several callers, then you got raised by a tight player on the turn. You can probably go ahead and safely fold now, knowing you are beat.
What they would call you with is probably the most important thing to consider when you think you might be up against two pair or a set.
dave in cali
In terms of rating the "most important thing", I'd list it in order of:
1. Number of opponents seeing the flop (more players results in more likelihood of running into a flopped set).
2. Who the player is.
3. What they would call / raise with (which is necesarrily related to #2).
4. How big the pot is.
A set is comprised of a pocket pair and 3rd card on the board. You are describing trips which are a bit easier to put someone on but a set is probably the hardest hand to put someone on - you have to know your players and how they are likley to be playing it is hard to get away from top top with a raggy board and some times it just costs you money.
for sure it seems the higher the pair on board the more likely trips are out there with a good number seeing the flop. I get caught against more sets then trips simply because sets can be disguised more easily .
jg
The board as he describes it is Q 7 5 2. He really is talking about someone waiting until the turn to pop his set of 7's or deuces.
GB
Sometimes you will be up against opponents whom you know will NEVER raise unless they can beat top pair. There are some opponents that will never raise unless they can beat TOP TWO PAIR.
If you are up against one of these opponents, you can lay your hand down. But if you do you should never show this laydown because if you do you will make yourself a target.
It also depends on YOUR reputation. If you raise preflop with AK and the flop comes Kxx, you might well get raised by KQ on the turn if someone suspects that you raised preflop with QQ or JJ. They might be testing you to see where you are. Although most people would make a raise for information on the flop when it's cheaper, but tricky players do change up their play.
Fact is most of the time you will have to pay it off if the board is ragged. Also consider the opponent. I play against some people who respect my tight image and will only raise me if they know they can beat the best reasonable hand that I could have.
IE I raise preflop with AA. Flop comes Kxx. If I bet I won't get raised by these players unless they can beat AK or AA. They won't necessarily fear KK (ie top set) but will assume I have 1 of the other 2 and only raise me if they can beat those.
Little do they know that I really raise with QJ suited, and bet a board of KTx with 2 of my suit. :)
Don't be too predictable or always play the same hand the same way.
-SmoothB-
I posted this question in a different manner below, which gives rise to the following topic: Does anyone EVER lay down top pair, top-kicker when all blanks fall and you get reraised on the turn? If so, beyond an obvious tell, what criteria convinces you to make this decision?
if the raiser is a tight player...or if there are many people still in on the hand.
i.e., flop is 732 - you have A7.
If my opponent is very predictable, I can lay it down. You know, the guy that only bets when he has it, and never bluffs. I think it takes a more aggressive opponent to bluff raise, so I don't think I'm making a mistake here to lay it down if my opponent is easy to read.
If my opponent is a good player, it's a judgement call based on what you think of your opponents abilities and what you think he thinks of your play. Think about how you played your last few hands before making any laydowns. If your opponent is a good player, he will notice how you play your hands. If you think your opponent might thing you are weak, then you better call him.
No way! I will not fold top pair, top kicker against a top notch player headsup. The most I will do against an attractive female opponent is fondle (or maybe suck on) her top pair, if there's a chance to get away with it.
Off topic, speaking of the smarter gender, for some reason I prefer she-players three-way to headsup. More action that way, see, the only problem is you sometimes get confused and don't know where you're at, who is on the come and if the backdoor outs are clean when you are looking for the opening. But, as the Latin wiseguys say, de gustibus non est disputandum, I have a friend who enjoys the backdoor action of his male softspoken San Francisco friends one on one. For some reason he has trouble with women, he wants to raise but nothing happens. So he goes for game selection, he sayz, young clueless kids or rich Armani guys, that's it. The kids will show you how to suck out properly and the Armani guys are the most profitable to suckout on. I can't fight that logic, that's for sure. Makes sense.
Gotta go now, I'm meeting this girl later, my personal trainer. We were working on the limp-reraise lately (although she kinda dislikes limpers when she opens). Believe me, it's very demanding, she is pushing me hard and even wants me to try some blue pills, but I gotta do this by myself.
Back to the topic, you guys seem to fold your thing too much and I find that painful. I just go limp as a noodle, tuck it to one side and call. Or I might clench my teeth, tie it into a knot and reraise. It scares the shit out of some people, 'cause it makes my eyes bulge out.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Well, just like any situation in poker, if you NEVER lay this down then you will get run over because people will only raise you when they have you beaten, and they know that you won't lay the hand down.
On the other hand, if you ALWAYS lay it down, you will become a target and will be bluffed incessantly.
The only solution is to try to get a read on your opponent, and fold sometimes, reraise sometimes, etc.
Read Bluffing and Game Theory in the theory of poker.
-SmoothB-
You make some valid points. And game theory might indeed be one answer, because when playing with all new players, it's impossible not to make some mistakes.
However, I'm not convinced that this will ever be a reraising situation -- it looks like a long-term negative, because more often than not, you will be reraising a better hand. It appears to be one of the rare situations where (depending upon pot size) calling is good, folding is better, and raising the worst. As Bob Ciaffone wrote, "You are a favorite to get beat when you get raised on the turn and have only one pair."
From all of the responses and the lack of literature, it appears that this situation might still be an untapped area of limit poker theory.
I didn't mean to say that your reraise should be made at random. Only in certain situations against certain opponents.
For one thing, against someone who never bluffs, you should lay it down a good percentage of the time. I have laid down top pair top kicker against these types of players many times because I know that they will simply NEVER raise unless they can beat me.
Most opponents will do this.
My suggestion to reraise was offered for use against a certain type of opponent. There are some players out there who will always bet or always raise with any 4-flush or open ender on any street. It's hard to believe but it's true. This is ridiculous thinking and these players can't win in the long run.
But against someone like this, it is important to try to get a read on them, and reraise them if you are over 50% sure that they are betting on the come. This will save you money in long run if it teaches them that raising on the come will cost them 2 more bets when they don't have the right odds.
In general though, what you said is true - top pair is almost certainly beaten if you are raised on the turn. One of the beautiful things in this game is this:
1) Most players will NEVER raise on the turn unless they can beat top pair
2) Most players will NEVER lay down top pair-good kicker unless the board looks really scary.
If people were more aware of this they could make more money. if you know that someone has top pair top kicker and they are type 2, simply never try to bluff them no matter how big the pot is.
If you know that someone is type 1, dump your hand unless you have the odds to draw out on them (ie for trips or bigger 2 pair, gutshot, flush draw, etc.)
I have laid down top pair top kicker on many occasions. One time I showed the laydown to a LA player who I had been convinced had a set or a straight. He in turn showed me his hand - 2nd pair with a 3 kicker. Now, who profited more by that exchange? Me by far. He tries to bluff me constantly now, and I nearly always call him now. By letting him bluff me successfully, I have opened up many opportunities to make far more money in the future from his excessive bluffing.
Incidentally, there were only about 4.5 BB in the pot at that point anyway so I did not lose a big pot.
-SmoothB-
It might take me staring down the barrel of a 44 Magnum for me to lay down top pair, top kicker. I might be more inclined to do this if I am check-raised by a rock. A raise when I am first to act is a positional tactic by my opponent too many times.
Bruce
There are some easy cases: You raise with AK, are cold called by a player who rarely bluffs, and the board is K862 rainbow when he raises or 3-bets the turn. This is an easy laydown. Most of the time folding is wrong because he could have a vulnerable two pair or the same hand.
I think you just need to consider pot size and ballpark the set-two pair-bluff ratios and occasionally surrender, less often when the game is "tough." Do I ever do it? Rarely, but I think I should more often.
Good thoughts. To pot-size, add in number of opponents before the flop, and the probable hands each one would play, and I'm getting convinced. This question all came about because I had an incredible session where I was thumped on many hands where someone hit bottom set at the same time I hit top pair. Sometimes you can go a comlete session where that never happens, and then there comes a day where the percentages whap you in the head.
I have trouble believing that most raises on the turn represent a hand that can beat top pair top kicker.
For example, Suppose I am on the button and limp with QsJs and 6 players including the blinds take the flop. The Flop comes Jc7s6d. The small blind bets and two players call. Now I know many of you would raise now, but let's suppose you call. The turn is a 2s. The small blind bets out again and gets 1 caller. Now I raise. I plan to bet if I improve, otherwise check. If I get re-raised, I will call and fold if I don't improve. Since I was going to call if the river was a brick anyhow, I either lose the same or win more. These kinds of raises on the turn with decent but not terrific hands are a normal part of my game. Such raises should guarantee that few people will "get-away" from top-pair-good-kicker when I do have a terrific hand.
Your situation is significantly different from being the leader on every street and getting reraised on the turn. A player who leads the betting with an apparent big hand and gets reraised on the turn, "is a favorite to get beat."
For example, your situation would be much different had the SB raised pre-flop. But having any 1 of 6 players betting out on the flop or the turn isn't that significant -- there are many hands they can show up with here, including draws. You are correct that a raise on the flop isn't likely to eliminate callers behind you, so a raise on the turn when a non-threatening card hits is likely best (as in a NL hand). But you are in some danger calling the flop with top-pair/middle kicker and a draw on the board (what do you do when the turn comes with a possible straight?).
I was talking specifically about unimaginative players. Of course I will often call down with top pair top kicker against certain opponents, and always fold vs. people that I know will only raise with something better than what I have. (If I don't have any real outs.)
That's why you have to evaluate the situation. There are some people I will reraise with top pair/top kicker in the situation you describe. IE if someone calls my preflop raise, and then calls the flop, and raises the turn when a blank comes that puts a second suited card on the board, I might well reraise if I think they are semibluffing with a pair and a 4-flush. This kind of thing is routine and that's why you have to be able to put people on hands.
But for passive unimaginative players, you can be sure that they can always beat top pair top kicker when they raise here.
-SmoothB-
hi started out 3 days ago at paradisepoker.com it's a web site where you play live tables against other people. rake is reasonable and credit card fee is refunded per hours you play. played some hold em, won 2 grand then lost it all back and then another 800 lost on top of that. so i love the game but i NEED A GOOD BOOK before i even think about playing again. which one can you folks recommend. nothing too basic but nothing too far out in theory land either. something very practical would be nice. i do some things very well, certain situations are easy for me to capitalize on. other parts of the game i fall flat usually. (sidenote: on my recent stint at this site the higher limit tables (15/30, 20/40) seemed easier to crack then the lower limit ones, lots of clueless high rollers half the time who think they can overbet their way through every hand.., semitight play worked like a charm. it was on the 3/6, 2/4 tables where i lost my ass) anyways, im a semipro gambler, having had decent winning years on sportsbets and especially 21 so far. would really like to add hold em to my repertoire.
thanks in advance.
So you stepped down from the high limit tables to 3/6 for some real hold'em challenge? Those high rollers were too easy to beat, I suppose... I like your competitive spirit, you are my kind of guy.
But seriously, why don't you go back to those nice 'n easy, moneysplashing clueless 20/40 games? This is what my sis Angelina does on ParadisePoker, she simply won't touch a game below 15/30 because she can't play a lick and would get burned in 2/4 or (Allah forbid) 0.50/1. I thought about that a lot, but it makes perfect sense, after reading your comments (one would expect higher limits to be tough, but as in life, the most obvious thing is always a smokescreen). Why risk your money on those tough low limit games? Boy, I'd sure hate to lose $2800 on a 2/4 table the way you did. In three days! Talk about tough play.
Anyway, click on the "Books" link on the left. Any book you find there will help you, of that I am sure.
---
Izmet Fekali (Duh!)
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
A bit down I inquired about what odds one needs to play weak suited cards such as 32s and 72s in the blinds or on the button. It appears that some experienced players avoid these holding more often than the literature suggests because they doubt these cards can be profitable, are looking for better spots for their money and generally want to play more selectively than weaker players. While I don't think this is terrible, my conclusion is that they're losing value. In most cases, you should play any two suited cards when you are getting preflop odds of 5-1 to 7-1 depending on the situation. This is not very different than what S&M or Abdul Jalib recommend, and in some cases it's identical, but since I rarely see the play of 32s suited defended I though I'd give it a shot.
Consider some percentages: the chance of flopping a flush is .84%, of flopping a flush draw without a board pair is 9.3%, of flopping 2 pair is 2% and of flopping an open set is 1.4%. I believe all of these hands have a positive expectation after the flop, based on experience and various turbo sims with 32s and 72s calling all raises in the small blind and flopping the draw. The combined chances of flopping these hands is about 13.5%, which converts to odds of 6.4-1 against. I realize that the flush draw completely dominates this number and that flopping a three-deuce flush draw is nothing to sing about. But I'm sure that any competent player with a flush draw is going to average at least a small bet with this flop even when he's out of position against only one or two opponents. If I'm wrong, it is probably because the hand fares worse than I think against a larger field. On the other hand, the expectation for the open set or bottom two pair is substantially higher, on the magnitude of a couple of big bets or more. One-gappers such as 64s, of course, should play even better. I'm less sure about what you should do against loose opponents that constantly play Txs from any position. Know where they're at, I suppose.
Anyway, these numbers suggest that one should play any two suited cards in the sb for half a bet against even one limper (getting 5-1, but remember the big implied odds). You should also play any two suited (1) in the big blind for a raise if there are one but more often two or more callers, (2) on the button against 4 limpers plus the blinds, and (3) on the button against a raise and five or more callers (including the blinds). The place you want to be most selective is on the button versus a raise because the price compared to the implied odds is the worst of these scenarios. And as Abdul Jalib points out, anything but random cold-callers are bad news for hands like 92s and 32s, so here I'd stick to those cards with straight potential, such as 64s and better.
I really do not agree with this, and I have seen others who DO believe in it get creamed over and over.
For one thing, you have to remember that:
1) Small 2 pair often don't hold up.
2) Small trips often don't hold up (but are more likely that bottom 2 pair
3) Every time you make your flush on the turn, there is a 20% chance (rougly) that another of that suit will come on the river, and you will surely lose.
4) If the hand is multiway, giving you the odds to play the hand in the first place, there is a greater chance that a bigger flush will be out there.
5) If your tiny suited cards make a straight, they will lose to bigger straights some percentage of the time.
6) Flushes and straights will lose to full houses some percentage of the time.
Ok, so you will flop 2 pair, trips, or a 4-flush 13.5 percent of the time. But you will only complete that flush about 1 time in 3, so well change the numbers to about 10% for making 2 pair or trips on the flop, or a flush by the river.
When you subtract away a certain amount to take into effect the times that these hands don't hold up, not to mention the extra money you must invest to draw, I think you will see that you need far better than 7:1 odds preflop!
I won't even mention the fact that you are woefully out of position.
In short, I think these 'bargains' are far from it. It has been shown from TTH simulations that EXTREMELY few hands can be played profitably in the blinds - so I tend to play very tightly in them indeed.
Now, playing too tightly in the blinds can be treacherous - you will have people steal against you all the time. To counter this, I like to do the following:
1) Keep a loose passive calling station on my left. When I am in the SB they will be in the BB and will act as my first line of defense. Ever try to steal the blinds with Q9 suited against a calling station? They will call you down with a pair of deuces, you don't know where they are, they have just as much chance of flopping a pair as you do, man there is just no future in it.
2) Keep a loose aggressive player to my right. When I am in the BB they are in the small, and since I have already gotten them stuck and put them on tilt, they will usually call and possibly reraise. Who wants to tangle with that?
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I believe that more good players lose money for the simple fact that they play too loosely in early position than for any other reason.
-SmoothB-
I agree with everything on your list, but I don't see how it refutes anything I wrote. That particular hands "often" lose doesn't provide any insight about whether or when they should be played.
Comparing the probability of flopping a flush draw and actually making the flush is an apples or oranges thing. Obviously, actually making a flush is most valuable, but you can't tell how valuable because the cost of getting there varies so much. The 13% number simply defines a profitable situation that one should be willing to buy for one bet or half a bet.
When you say one must play tightly in the blinds because the simulations show that they're unprofitable, I think you may be giving to much weight to their fundamentally unprofitable nature. That issue is how to make the best out of bad situation. If you're typically folding Q7s in the small blind after several limpers because Q7s is a crappy hand and you're out of position (all true) then you've got a leak.
My point in that post was simply to demonstrate that 7:1 odds is not enough, in my opinion, to justify calling with a particular hand. You must factor in the reverse implied odds that occur when those 'profitable situations' actually turn out to be situations where you are drawing dead (to a bigger flush or straight) or very very thin (bottom 2 pair vs. top 2 pair or a set.)
There was acually a good article about these 'bargains' in the blinds in a recent Card Player or Poker Digest - I can't remeber the title or author though.
Sure, 1/2 small bet looks like a tiny investment for what could turn into a big hand, with good odds for getting there. But drawing dead is extremely costly, and many times this small 1/2 SB investment will propagate into a loss of several BB when you are drawing dead or slim.
I was just making the point that this should be taken into account, and that the odds one is getting must be factored upward to account for them.
BTW, I would call 1/2 bet in the SB after several limpers with Q7 suited - but I would proceed VERY cautiously with the hand - I'd probably check and fold a queen high rag flop - and I would never call a raise with Q7 suited in any position after any number of limpers.
-SmoothB-
Roy cooke was the author of the CardPlayer article. It was about a month or two ago.
What I love about hold'em:
"If you are typically folding Q-7 suited in the small blind .... you have a leak."
I DO fold that hand in that spot, and I think of this play as a PLUGGED leak. Ain't it grand, that there are so many ways to win?
Tommy
I don't know if I'm adding anything to what Chris has said, but consider that you're dealt hand X in the big blind, and have a choice of either playing for a raise or folding. For the sake of argument, say that playing the hand will cost $8 in 10-20 game. This is $2 less than you would lose if you folded that same hand for a raise. Therefore, not playing the hand costs $2 each time the decision arises. It's analagous to splitting 8's in blackjack.
I suffer from the common tendancy to defend my blind with inferior hands. I know this. But let me ask a question. Let's say I am in a loose aggressive game with the small blind (1/2 bet). Lets also say that it is a nine handed game and I have 7 limpers before me. Is there ANY hand that I should muck? I think I could throw in the half bet without even looking and have +EV for every combination of cards(forget about the option to raise). Does anybody care to comment?
For you mathematical types, assume that there is a 15% chance that the BB will raise.
Let's say that there are 8 limpers, you are faced with paying 1/2 SB to see the flop with the BB left to act.
Many people claim that, since you are getting literally 19:1 odds on this call, and EVERY 2 card combination, including 72 offsuit, stands better than 19:1 chance of winning if all hands continue to showdown, then you should call this partial bet with ANYTHING. I couldn't disagree more.
For one thing, you must consider that some of that time, the BB will raise. Now if there is no reraise, you will be getting, again, 19:1 odds to call. By this logic you are getting the correct price to call with 72 offsuit AGAIN.
Also consider that some of the time that 72 offsuit wins is when it catches 2 running 2's or 7'2 on the turn and river. But you obviously won't call a turn bet when you flop zip. So that knocks down the odds a bit.
There must be some percentage of the time that 7-2 offsuit actually wins because of flushed. Not likely, but you won't be chasing any flushes with this hand either to find out.
So lets examine the profiable situations you can be in with 7-2 offsuit.
flopping trips - about 1%
flopping 2 pair - about 2 %
You'll flop a shaky straight draw some of the time too, but it will never be to the nuts.
So you'll get a flop worth pursuing 3% of the time. That right there is 33:1 against.
Also consider the times that you make trips or 2 pair on the flop and it gets beaten anyway. This will actually happen quite often.
Indeed, I believe that you should throw those cards in for that partial bet most of the time. The small amount of money you might scratch out from getting great odds on your call are offset by the times when you flop a good hand and get beaten.
That's just my opinion and keep in mind that it is probably not shared by most players. I can assure you, however, that TTH simulations indicate that, even when faced with calling just a partial bet, VERY few hands can be played profitably from the SB, BB, or UTG.
-SmoothB-
Ditto. But you knew that. Good post.
Here's another reason for mucking most hands in that spot. You get the button next hand. That's when the round really starts. It sucks to get strung out from the small blind, then try to focus on the key late-position hands while you're beating yourself up over a recent sloppy play.
Tommy
Well, I'm probably not as extreme as SmoothB, but I definitely agree that calling with any two cards is wasting money. You do not flop enough trips or two pair to get much out of this.
However, with high odds and decent implied odds as well, you should play hands that can get a flop where they feel fairly comfortable about calling, such as cards that make straight or flush draws, as well as of course small pairs etc.
In general I will call a half bet with any pair, any reasonable suited cards (like Q8 suited, but not 24 suited). I will also call 1/2 bet with some hands that I would never play at a full table in any position - JT offsuit, 75 suited, etc.
I am only going to do this because it gives me a cheap opportunity to get a little mix in my play.
-SmoothB-
I think with many limpers even 24s is playable. But basically we agree for once.
Ever try to make a 24 type hand ever win a pot? It is really tough I assure you.
The only time I think it's profitable is if you play 24 and you flop an ace and another wheel card. If you make that straight anyone with a big ace or 2 pair is going to give you action and won't lay it down if you give action back - the board looks too 'ragged' for there to be any big hands out there. If you're lucky someone else has a set and you can cap it with them.
One time I got 25 offsuit in late position. A very tight preflop raiser raised UTG - I knew he had AA. He actually got 3 more limpers (these guys didn't know him like I did) and I showed my 25 to the player next to me, who had mucked. I said 'If make this straight I am going to win a huge pot because that player will never lay AA down.
Sure enough the flop came K34 giving me an open ender. He checked, someone bet, he checkraised, all called.
Turn came a blank, be bet they called.
River came an ace! He bet, got raised, he reraised, all call.
He had a set and the other guy had AK.
My cards were in the muck where they belonged so I didn't win a penny. But with me in there that pot would have been huge.
I would have known he was going to checkraise. So when he did checkraise, and got 3 callers, I would have made it 3 bets with my open ender - the old 'call raise' as I like to call it. (I love doing that!)
On the turn I only would have called if he bet out, or checked through.
On the river I could have raised it and both of them would have called all bets. Maybe AA would cap it for me.
Anyway, this hand really happened but I wansn't in it because I never play those types of hands.
-SmoothB-
I couldn't agree more! If you call with anything, you are highly susceptible to the worst hand in poker-2nd or third best! On the other hand, almost any drawing hand is great, and A-x suited, or two high cards may even be a raise. Especially A-x suited. Even if three people fold, you get a net of plus 1 bets, and make a larger pot if you flop nuts or 1 draw to nuts. I know-the people likely to fold in this spot are the worst of players, but I believe it is worth the bet to not risk a full house draw with hands like....7-2o. In any case, this is exactly the kind of play that will separate the above average from the great over the long haul. Any responses/thoughts would be great! PS-this is different for tournament play......
If your strategy is to try an flop a set or two pair and be done otherwise then I think you have a marginal call with any two cards in the small blind (only). My personal take is that there are so many better spots for my money in these games that I'd stick with the marginally playable hands like 53o and forget about J6, Q2 and so forth. I'd play any two suited cards.
You still cannot play two random cards even if you are getting 19:1. The probability of taking two random cards (unpaired) and flopping two pair, trips, a full house, or quads is about 28:1 against. A hand like Nine-Four offsuit, Eight-Trey offsuit, Seven-Deuce offsuit should still be mucked. Being able to flop a pair with these hands would be virtually worthless. Most any hold-em book discusses play out of the blinds and what hands are worth playing for a single raise.
Even for 1/2 a bet at 19:1, you should still fold your worst hands. T2o, 83o, 27o, just won't make you enough $$ in the long run to even call the 1/2 a bet. Now if it was 15/30 and you only had to call 1/3 of a bet, you could play more hands because your odds would be even higher, but I would still fold the bottom of the barrel hands anyway.
dave in cali
i could think of a zillion hands not to play 27 os j3s etc look for reasons not to play in the blinds rather than the other way around.taters
In Lou Krieger's book "More Hold-em Excellence" there is a story about a lady who tried to call a bluff on the river heads up with K-high saying "I knew you didn't have anything" only to find her opponent had A-high. The author says that if the woman really knew her opponent didn't have anything she should have raised, but that it is NEVER correct to just call on the river with K-high.
I don't know if I agree with this advice. Calling makes money if the odds that your opponent is bluffing with a hand worse than yours are better than the odds that the pot is giving you on your call. Raising makes money if the odds that your opponent is bluffing with a hand worse than yours PLUS the odds that your opponent will fold a hand better than yours is better than HALF the pot odds (since your raise cuts the pot odds in half). Which of these will make more money?
For example, if the pot is offering 8-1 on your call and the odds of your opponent bluffing with a hand worse than yours is 4-1, you are making 4/5 of a bet on your call (for every 5 times you call in similar situations you lose 1 bet 4 times and win 8 bets 1 time for a total of 4 bet won). Now by raising the pot odds become 4-1 which is the same as the odds of your opponent bluffing with a hand worse than yours. In order to make any money on a raise you now must win some additional hands when your opponent folds a hand that would beat you, and the odds of this would have to be less than 18-7 for raising to make more than the 4/5 of a bet you would make by calling (check this: out of 25 calls you would lose 2 bets 18 times and win 8 bets 7 times for a total of 20 bets won out of 25 or 4/5). So in this example your opponent would have to fold a hand better than yours more than 7 times out of 25 to make raising better than calling. Even in this example this could be a fairly close call so I don't think calling is clearly always wrong.
Now against a player who bluffs with the correct frequency, we will never make any money by just calling. Our only hope of making money against such a player would be to raise, and then we only make money if he will fold a hand better than ours at a rate greater than half the pot odds.
From my recent trip report:
"I raised in an early position with K-Q offsuit, and only she called. The flop came with 2 clubs but all small cards. Once again, she raised me when I bet out. I called. The turn came another small card, and I made up my mind to check-call until I was convinced she had me beat. The river came an offsuit 10, and she bet again. Now I had to think. I had put her on a draw, and it did not appear that the board had helped her hand. She didn't have an Ace, because she was aggressive enough that she would've reraised before the flop. She might've accidentally made a pair, but I believed that I had her beat before the flop, and the board didn't look like she could've improved, so I called her river bet. She turned out the K-J offsuit, and sighed as she said, "if you can call, you can win." I said, "just barely", and turned out the K-Q offsuit. ... This really deflated what had heretofore been a quite aggressive player."
I agree with your assessment that Krieger's advice is wrong. There are situations, such as the above, where a raise is a negative play: you will only get called when you are beat. Your analysis is superb and I recommend that advice over any poker advice that says "NEVER" call (or "ALWAYS" raise). As noted in my post, there are other advantages to making a call, even when you might not win the hand -- opponents knowing (thinking) you are bluff-proof will REALLY slow them down.
Another example would be Eric Seidel's call in the WSOP with Ace-high.
These words and many like them permeate poker literature. So it must be. Such is the nature of our game. From those hazy words, tangents flow, to explain the exceptions to the primary advice given. This serves only to bog down the initial concept and distract from the intended lesson.
One of the "rules of writing" is to avoid wishy-washy words and phrases. They weaken content and damage credibility. But with poker writing, these words and phrases are unavoidable. It's understandable that a writer might tire of such qualifiers, and occasionally write, "never" or "always" instead of writing, "almost never" or "almost always." I sypmathize with the poker-writer's quandry, and therefore cut them some slack when perfect accuracy is sacrificed to forcefulness.
Sometimes its probably best to maybe say what most often applies, I think. :-)
Tommy Angelo
not too loose but fairly aggressive game, I have a fairly tight image so far.
I am dealt AsTs and raise in middle position, second in (UTG has limped but is generally a poor player), no reraise, 5 players see the flop.
flop is Qd Jd 4s. UTG bets, I call, both blinds call. I did not expect to be raised here, and suspect that with my gutshot, ace overcard, and backdoor nut flush possibility, it was worth peeling one off.
Turn is 8s, giving me the nut flush draw. UTG bets, I call, BB calls.
River is Td, making a three flush and three straight on board. BB checks, UTG bets. I make a (extremely rare for me) bluff-raise on the river. I guess it wasn't quite a complete bluff, since I did have a pair of tens, but I am pretty sure that I was probably beaten by UTG. I have represented either the flush or the AK straight with my raise. BB folds. UTG thinks for a while and folds. WHEW!!! I (of course) muck this one without showing!
comments welcome.
dave in cali
Nice play. That's a risky play on the river. UTG more than likely didn't even have a straight. He was representing the hand that you represented with your raise. He probably had a pair. It would be a very poor play on his part if he laid down a straight. I will occasionally make a play like this on the river against the right opponent. It doesn't have to work that often to show a nice profit. When you get caught then they are more inclined to pay you off when you have the nuts.
Bruce
Sweeeeet!
I tried a similar play about a year ago and got lucky, very lucky. The guy called my spunky river raise and I turned over my hand. My hand was black, and the board was all black, but I did not have a flush. Like you, I had a middle pair. The guy was making a crying call, expecting me to turn over a hand that beat his. He mucked right away, then lurched, and lunged for his hand, but it was already mucked. He said we were tied. I think he told the truth. Just goes to show you, it's a good idea to calmly turn your hand over when called on the river. First, it's fair. Second, you just never know what might happen.
Tommy
Here are my comments:
"not too loose but fairly aggressive game, I have a fairly tight image so far.
I am dealt AsTs and raise in middle position, second in (UTG has limped but is generally a poor player), no reraise, 5 players see the flop."
Fine so far.
"flop is Qd Jd 4s. UTG bets, I call, both blinds call. I did not expect to be raised here, and suspect that with my gutshot, ace overcard, and backdoor nut flush possibility, it was worth peeling one off."
Of course it is worth taking a card. It's not even close.
"Turn is 8s, giving me the nut flush draw. UTG bets, I call, BB calls."
You might want to raise here. There may be 18 cards in the deck that will win for you if you get it heads-up, and if your opponent will also fold occasionally, it has to be worth it.
"River is Td, making a three flush and three straight on board. BB checks, UTG bets. I make a (extremely rare for me) bluff-raise on the river. I guess it wasn't quite a complete bluff, since I did have a pair of tens, but I am pretty sure that I was probably beaten by UTG. I have represented either the flush or the AK straight with my raise. BB folds. UTG thinks for a while and folds. WHEW!!! I (of course) muck this one without showing!"
You are now making a pure bluff. It is hard to believe that your pair of tens can be any good. This simply comes down to accessing your risk versu reward. That is given the size of the pot do you think that your opponent will fold often enough to make it worth the two bets? In most cases the answer will be no. I also agree that you should never show this hand.
MAson wrote: "You might want to raise here. There may be 18 cards in the deck that will win for you if you get it heads-up, and if your opponent will also fold occasionally, it has to be worth it."
This can also cost you the pot... IF you raise the turn and your opponent calls your turn bet there is now more money in the pot on the end which may induce your opponent to call, and also he will be much less likely to give you credit for the flush OR the str8 on the end!
Sean
That's what poker is about -- balancing these ideas. Also notice that if you are exactly right and your card comes you will now like it.
"You are now making a pure bluff"
agreed. UTG had me beat with at least a pair por queens or better, I suspect.
"do you think that your opponent will fold often enough to make it worth the two bets? "
I also agree that the answer is almost always no. Most opponents will pay off the raise with top pair, which is why I very rarely make these plays.
I think raising the turn is certainly a consideration to be made. It is a semi-bluff raise, and in most cases would probably be a better play than just calling. You may decide to follow through on the river with a bluff bet if you miss, but it costs you the same as making a pure bluff raise on the river, and is probably successful more often. Therefore I think raising the turn would have in fact been a better play.
Dave in Cali
I have only been playing a few months. I am doing OK, breaking even on most outings. The problem that seems to get me are straights. Especially ones that make on the river. For some reason I don't pick them up. I end up having to paying off big time. Last time I had two pair go up in flames after someone hit a gutshot. Any tips? I know every straight has either a 5 or 10 but never both. Thanks!!!
You will run into a lot of straights when you play low limit games. Notice that the ratio of hands that are won with straights/flushes to the number won with top pair/good kicker is much higher in these loose games than in tighter games.
And, if you are playing well, you will run into those straights when you make 2 pair because you will be playing cards that are either broadway straight cards, or middle range cards that are suited and connected.
What can you do? It will happen. And in low limit games it is often nearly impossible to read anyone's hand because they are playing random suited trash.
I can assure you of one thing - if you are in a passive game and on the river there is a bet and a raise, and a 4-straight is on board, dump top pair-ace kicker every time.
-SmoothB-
I like SmoothB's advice here. If you are playing tight-aggressive poker, when you enter a pot you will usually be in the lead when most of the money is put in. Your opponents are almost always chasing you. In a low limit game, you will have more opponents and it will be harder to get your good hands to hold up. However, when you win you will win big and in the end you will win more money than otherwise. In many of these suckouts the only thing you can intelligently ponder is whether or not you could have saved a bet somewhere. At the river, based on the board cards and previous betting, you can occasionally fold on the end and save a bet but you have to very careful here because there is an entire pot at stake. If you play a lot of poker, you will occasionally go through long periods where you are getting sucked out and you will be losing money. In April and May, I was getting badly suckout in the $30-$60 game and I lost about 8 grand over this two month period. However, that ended in June and I have hand four winning months in a row now primarily because my hands are holding up.
SmoothB & Jim Brier... THANKS !!! Thats kinda of what I thought but had a hard time living with the results. It goes along with the fact that I seldom win with a straight. Usually I am taking pots with 2 pair, boats and flushes. I don't play many small or mid conectors unless from the unraised BB and SB if they are suited. Does it sound like I am on the right track? Thanks Again!!!
I feel that top notch players don't make nearly as high of a percentage of straights as mediocre/bad players.
Straight draws are far weaker than flush draws. Even open enders - even though they have 8 outs to the 4 flushes 9 outs, they are still much weaker.
For one thing, when you make a nut flush, there is no way anyone can beat you on the turn unless they already have 2 pair or a set. And then the board must pair for them to win and this will happen about 20% of the time. (Assuming of course that your opponent has 2 of the 12 cards needed to pair the board, leaving at most 10.)
Even if you make the nut straight on the turn, you have a lot more ways to lose. Maybe you'll split the pot. A flush can come and beat you. A board pair can beat you. Your straight can be counterfeited and you'll split the pot, or lose to a higher straight.
When you make the nut flush, you know there is no way you'll be splitting that pot.
As an aside, I have learned that, in a multiway pot, it rarely correct to draw to an open ender to the nut straight AT ALL.
Unlike holdem, Omaha hands in multiway pots are almost always won by the nuts or close to it. If a runner runner flush comes someone will have it. If the board pairs someone will have a full house. The odds of a straight getting there and still being good on the river are too small to warrant drawing.
Furthermore, if a low comes, you are drawing for 1/2 the pot - it's useless.
-SmoothB-
I wondered if you good players go through streaks like that. I had one similar to yours on Paradise ($7300) and then won $9800 in 10 days, getting into the black for a 4th consecutive month. This should encourage those who think it will never end. It does, and when the good hands start holding up, good results naturally follow. But you have to have an adequate bankroll.
I haven't been on a real heater in quite awhile. You know those days when you win 3 hands in a row, or 15 out of 20 hands? Just hasn't happened to me in weeks.
I'm still winning, and I have to be thankful for that. I can't complain though - when I started playing poker I started out on a heater. I won 8 of the 1st 10 sessions I ever played and I have ALWAYS played poker in the black, at every moment of my career - even from the beginning. I don't think there are many out there that can truthfully make that claim.
-SmoothB-
Producers of a new TV travel series are looking for people making exciting and unusual trips who are interested in being filmed. We would love to follow a UK based person travelling somewhere to take part in a poker game, perhaps to Aruba or Costa Rica in October.
If you'd like to know more please call Beth on 020 83242637 or mail me on Beth@chapter-one.co.uk
I've been evaluating how I play these hands in early position in loose games.
Let's say I get AA UTG and raise with it, and get 4 callers.
Flop comes Kxx, I bet, get 2 callers. Let's say these 2 callers are loose fishy types that will stick around with any pair or draw including gutshots. Also keep in mind that I have no idea what these guys are calling with - if they decide to play a hand, and it could be anything, they are going to play it no matter how many raises go in B4 the flop.
Ok, so 2 call.
Turn comes what looks to me to be a blank, but could be anything to them. I bet and they both call.
Now lets look at a few different river cards.
1) A 3 flush appears, even if it was runner runner. I will check and call.
2) A card comes putting a straight on the board and completing an open ender. I will check and call.
3) A card comes making a straight, but it would have been a gutshot. However, it would be a gutshot that would complete a straight for a reasonable hand. IE board is K 8 6 2 and a 7 comes on the river giving T9 a straight. What should one do against 2 opponents?
4) Total blank hits, no straight or flush possible on the board. What should one do here against 2 opponents?
Since I am getting 2:1 odds on a bet on the end, might it not be worthwhile to bet out most of the time, hoping that at least one if not both players will call with inferior hands?
I think I lose a bit in these situations becasue I don't bet out on the river as often as I should.
-SmoothB-
These kind of hands cost me more money than just about any other. Playing these kind of fish there is no such thing as an x on the board.
They will call raises in any position (who plays position anyway) and suck out as long as there is ANY possibility of hitting a hand no matter what the odds or implied odds.
And limits don't really matter to these types they populate al limits. Last year at the carnival of poker I witnessed an amazing hand where the winner had a 5-3 heart flush had only a backdoor flush chance and called huge pot sized bets from a guy who had a big set from the flop.
Pot was over 60K.
Rounder, How long do you suppose he hung onto the 60 grand? lol
About 1 hour is my guess.
Of course, he walked out of the card room with all of it. These types love to hit and run.
But then he went and blew it all at the craps table.
Another big surge for the poker economy!
-SmoothB-
I would tend to bet out even with a 3-flush runner-runner because most of the time they won't have it. They've been calling with inferior holdings the entire hand, give them one more oportunity to do so. Except for a 4-flush or 4-straight (and sometimes a 3-straight in high or mid-high cards) I think it pays to bet.
Of course the important follow up question is when you do bet out and then get raised, do you pay the person off? Unless I know ther person well and I'm sure he got his gutshot or flush I'll pay him off. Sans tells and knowing the player well, I don't have a better approach. It seems that when they raise they almost always have the better hand, but I don't want to get people thinking they can bluff me with three-suited on the board. This problem is especially hard against passive players who will just check and call with top pair, medium kicker and the like the same as they would meekly play a draw. I suppose against such opponents; 1) you'll be making a lot of money of them anyway, and 2) if they really are passive the raise is probably legit.
Still, when you don't have a tell on your opponent or know him very well, how do you all handle this situation? How often do you pay off?
Like Talbot, my first and only concern would be what to do it I get raised on the river, cuz I'm betting out.
I'm surprised there aren't more comments about speed of play laced into the stories here. It is often a pivotal piece of info to receive. More importantly, playing with a consistent tempo at limit poker is essential to being unreadable, even when you're last to act on the river, partly because of how it affects future hands, IMO. For instance . . .
Talbot's reasoning about not wanting to fold to a river-raise because they might run over you later is legit, but ONLY if you hesitate before folding. If you fold fast, like nothing happened, they'll put YOU on a bluff attempt, and think nothing of it when a similar situation comes up later.
There IS plenty of time to plan a quick fold. It takes time for a player to put out two bets on the river. Make up your mind then, and if folding, do it fast, a split second after you are official 'in turn.'
As to when to fold and when to pay off, I think it's almost always right to fold in this spot. The board is virtually irrelevent. The only exception would be against a exceptionally fine player, if a scare card hits.
With no scare card, I'd fold every time if the fold is in tempo. If I stop to think, I'm then more inclined to call, since I don't want them to know I'd fold a big hand here.
Tommy
If I have at least 2 opponents on the river, and there was no clear draw on the flop, I will normally just check the river because I have absolutely no idea what they have in their hands. I will assume that they each flopped some kind of pair since no draw was out there, so collectively there are a lot of outs against me and I have NO IDEA which ones will improve them.
There is one player in particular that is REALLY bad. He always seems to do the opposite of what he should. Get a load of this!
I have seen him call a raise preflop with J2 offsuit and then call all the way to the river if he hits either card on the flop.
He will ALWAYS call the flop with overcards, even if there was a raise preflop and the preflop bettor bets out.
He will NEVER raise without the nuts or close to it.
Anyway, check out this bizzarre deviation from his normal play:
I had this guy on my left where he belongs. I had KK in mid position. I raise, he 3 bets it!
BB calls both bets.
Flop comes ragged, J high.
BB checks, I bet, subject of this discussion (heretofore known as FK for Fisher King) looks quizzical and calls, BB folds.
Turn comes a blank, I bet, he folds, I take down the pot.
After the hand was over he told me he had AA! I said 'really? I had kings! You folded the winner.'
He said 'Dammit I thought you had a set of jacks! Those aces never seem to hold up so I mucked em.'
I could not believe it! He'll call all the way to the river with bottom pair EVERY TIME, and call the flop and turn with overcards EVERY TIME, but he wouldn't call with AA much less raise!
Gotta love it. :)
-SmoothB-
I would have told him "good laydown". You want him always to throw those aces away. Encourage him.
SmoothB,
You say they call with any pair, presumably to the river, and yet you will check-call if a runner-runner three-flush appears on the last card. The chance of someone making a flush in that situation, if they can have any piece of cheese, is low. The chance of somebody calling with a piece of cheese that you beat appears high.
It is not true that you can't put your opponents on hands on the river. It's just that you have to put them on a very wide range of hands. As an example, if a check-calling fish plays any hand preflop, and then any pair, any overcard, or any backdoor draw on the flop, then you can actually calculate the exact odds of having the best hand, and if they will call to the end with any pair, you can calculate the EV of a river bet (though possible raises by the fish complicates the matter somewhat). The key point is that even though it's harder to put a fish on a hand, it is easier to find the right play against him. In all your cases, I think it's bet and collect.
I think you are giving up a lot on the river by playing this way.
--- Carl
Has anyone purchased the version 4 upgrade for TTH yet? I am interested in whether this upgrade is a significant improvement over version 3.
Any feedback is greatly appreciated.
-SmoothB-
I have it. I hadn't used TTHv3.0 very much, and still haven't used v4.0 that much (altho my lady friend is learning with it). But I have noticed many more options.
From the Appendix, these are the most significant upgrades from V3.0:
Extensive testing to improve the quality and realism of the Automatic Advisor.
Hidden profiles ... adjustment of playing style based on number of opponents. Less predictable play on the flop.
A feature I have tested called "Challenge Mike". You and the automatic advisor play the same number of hands to see who wins (or loses) the most money (I lost "only" 279 to his loss of 435).
5 new bet variables for cold calling.
"Toughness settings" to allow you to include or exclude specific seats, and also a "raising" setting with different levels of pre-flop raising (I leave mine set at normal).
Unlimited heads-up raising.
Implements the concept of surrendering the lead.
Implements the concept of reduced threat for coordinated flops under certain circumstances.
Elimination of "semi-bluff" check-raises on the river.
I don't recall if V3.0 had this or not, but you can set up a spread-limit game in V4.0 (i.e., NL or PL).
How much is the upgrade for owners of 3.0?
Ken
Around 25 dollars for the upgrade, I think.
-SmoothB-
Here is one laydown I once made that I am extremely proud of. I think I played it perfectly on every round of play (not to boast or anything.) I would appreciate any feedback.
I was in the BB with pocket sevens. 2 limpers, 1 guy raised (I'll tell you more about him in a minute.) 1 late position caller, i called as did the other limper.
The preflop raiser I mentioned will only raise preflop with AA KK or AK PERIOD. No exceptions. Furthermore, he will never lay any kind of hand down. If he had AK and only had overcards to the board he will call the flop and turn and maybe the river sometimes. So if I hit my set I will really cash in.
Flop came K T 7 rainbow. Chaching! No sense trying to slowplay against this calling station so I bet out. Limper calls, he raises, everyone folds to me. Now I have to make a decision. Does he have AA or AK, or KK? If I 3 bet it he will definitely cap it with KK, or just call with AA or KK. So I 3 bet it, limper calls both bets cold, preflop raiser looks perturbed and just calls. Chaching! AK!
This pot is HUGE. Ok, I knew that guy had a king. The other calling station must have had a T. He could have had an open ender but I just knew he had a ten. In a second I'll tell you how I became convinced.
Turn cames a beautiful T. Now I was full! I bet out, limper raised, preflop raiser exclaimed 'Son of a bitch!' and called both bets cold, I 3 bet, both called. This pot was now ENORMOUS.
Now here comes the sad part of the story.
The river brought a second king.
I just started at that river card for a long while in disbelief.
In all there were only 6 cards in the deck that could have ruined my hand - another king, another ten, or another of what the T guy had.
I was obviously in third place now.
I checked, the guy with the ten was smart enough to also check, AK bet, I folded in this huge pot for ONE MORE BET. Then ten guy called.
Sure enough, K guy had AK, other guy had a ten.
Incidentally, I don't want you to think that I make huge laydowns like this all the time. It was just one of those hands where you KNEW you had a perfect read on both of your opponents.
Comments?
-SmoothB-
I would have made the -EV crying call on the river though because the pot was huge and I would have been PISSED!
Not to knock any wind out of your sails, but this seems an obvious lay down to me-not sure what you want to hear. With that board, obviously there was a bigger full house. This is not that much out of the ordinary hand in poker, IMO.
Smooth,
At the beginning of the story, I thought you were going to end up laying this hand down WITHOUT another kind coming.
As it went down, yes this is a bigtime laydown if its not routine. Love your enthusiasm. All it takes is a split second to stop and realize, "there is no hand I can beat." And then fold. Way to go.
Just a little horn-blowing music:
Today I played no-limit and layed down top-and-bottom two pair on the flop. That the flop was scattered, with no flush draw, actually made it easier to fold than if there had been a draw possible. If took three years of frequent no-limit play to get this rare laydown into the "easy" category.
Tommy
Well, logically it is pretty obvious you are beat, but there are a lot of players who are too stubborn to fold. So I'll give you props for discipline.
I think that opponent exclaiming "son of a bitch" and calling was a tell.
no text
On the river there's not a whole lot you can beat. Good laydown.
Bruce
So the final board was K,10,7,10,K?
With two players who have been calling until this point... I'm missing something here this is a routine laydown. Your hand is totally counterfitted(sp).
Sean
It's more routine, then my cup of morning coffee. Essentially you have third pair.
I am thinking about taking a trip to Vegas right after the New Year. The problem is that I am concerned that tourism might be kind of slow right after the New Year (Jan 2-8 or so) and that the only ones in the games will be the local rocks.
Is this a valid concern? Between now and the New Year, when would be a good time to go? Is thanksgiving weekend pretty fishy?
What about the weekend between Xmas and new years? I was at Foxwoods that time last year and the games were great. Or maybe they are always great.
Are the poker games good during Comdex and other big conventions?
Thanks for any feeback you can provide.
-SmoothB-
Most of the Comdex geeks don't gamble. Furthermore, they make it expensive for you to get rooms while their convention is in town.
Why not go to Reno for the big tourney during that time? If you don't play tourneys, you should have plenty of great side action to choose from.
When I lived there -- which was admittedly a long time ago -- Vegas was like death during the holidays. Early January seems a bit better, but not much -- that's probably why Rio held the Carnivale during that time.
Its been 10 years, but I was in Vegas Christmas week and as Earl said, it was deadly.
Check out vegas during the national finals rodeo. 10-20 to 20-40 action is great then because a lot of cowboys think that something called "Texas" anything should be easy for them. Reno, as other's have mentioned, might be a better option after christmas. February is a nice time in vegas, as the strip properties try to draw in the Chinese with their Chinese New Years promotions. Lots of money floating around then.
I think you can forget about Vegas. Since, they cancelled the Carnivale of Poker all that action will move to Reno for the World Poker Challenge. The Reno Hilton is offering a special rate of $25 a night. Check out the schedule at pokerpages.com.
I have often read something that I cannot understand, so I will isolate the issue and ask for feedback.
I always read posts from people who say things like this:
2 really fishy calling stations limped in after the BB, so I raised next in with K9 suited to isolate them because I knew I could outplay them after the flop.'
How do you outplay a calling station?
As far as I know, calling stations don't really PLAY at all - they just call a lot. You can't bluff them if you draw and miss - they probzbly won't fold an overcard to the board so you lose if an ace hits. So what can you do?
If one of them bets and you have nothing do you raise? They won't fold. Do you fold?
And what if the poker gods decided to give them a hand that dominates you this time? IE one has AT and the other KQ? Or maybe AK?
-SmoothB-
Or maybe K-K. Unless you have a dominating hand over a dominatED hand, the idea of "isolation" is mostly just a misguided ego thing (thrust out chest, imitate KGB in Rounders, and say, "I can push this guy around" and you'll have the idea down pat). Failing to respect your opponents -- even the calling stations -- can be one of the most expensive mistakes. This isolation craze has caught on and now I even see very weak players mumbling about "isolating" someone and I see players "isolating" with hands where they are the ones isolated. Ya gotta love it.
Maybe this explains some of the crazed raises I have been seeing lately. They are isolating my AK! Yup, ya gotta love it.
Its a riot to watch two calling stations duke it out. Rasing and rerasing to the showdown. The other day I saw a hand that almost made me laugh out loud . Board showed 9K485 no flush, the winner flipped over J9o and the loser Q8o. The pot was huge, made me wish I had played my K4o cheese. But not to worry they capped it for me a few hands later when I flopped a monster. I only try to isolate a player when A)I know its someone I can beat, B)I beleive the other player(s) will fold. I equate isolating to bluffing. Drive the smart players out who hold weak drawing hands to go heads up with a calling station.
"How do you outplay a calling station?"
LOL! Good question. Here's one on semantics.
How can you 'isolate' two players?
Tommy
With the 2 & 2 forums being split into so many threads, perhaps it would be useful if there were a search mechanism that reached multiple forums at a time. I suggest a search tool which allows you to include/exclude whichever forums you want to search.
Depending on the efficiency of the search mechanism, this might very well result in fewer hits on the server (i.e. better response time for everybody). I spend a lot of my time here jumping around looking in all the threads for the latest response to various posts. Since I don't lurk here constantly, but rather am a periodic visitor, I naturally lose my place and forget where this or that post was placed. Finding them again takes a lot of clicking.
Lavatory, Head, Dumpster, Boys, Girls, Gents, Ladies, Outhouse, Sh--house, Urinal, Labode, Crapper, Mens, Womens, etc.
I see your point I wouldn't know where to start looking for a "STOOL"
Rectum Borealis
Has anyone run across a couple of friends of mine who went to Vegas a couple weeks ago? Dennis is heavy set bald guy, semi maniac. Russell is thin, clean cut, blonde kid (actually about 33 but looks young.)
Last I heard they were going to play 15-30 at the Bellagio or Mirage. Haven't heard from them in weeks! How are they doing?
A fellow Montanan
A bunch of us were trying to figure out how many regular poker players there are in the Los Angeles area. By "regular" we mean people who play in a public cardroom more than once a week. Estimates ranged from a high of 100,000 (which seems way too high to me) down to 10,000.
Any ideas? Also any ideas on how many regular players there are in Las Vegas? And what percentage play at high, medium or low stakes?
A while back I took a crack at this and couldn't get much of a response - I was thinking of Skalnsky saying he maybe helped 5000 players win which I think he was talking about a total population of 100,000. I don't think it is anywhere near that number. Hell there probably aren't more than 150 poker offering casinos in America and Canada many small rooms.
And except for the bigger ones "regulars number under 100 I really doubt if there are over 30,000 "regualr players and less than 5,000 serious players (people who play 2000 or so hours a year) in the states.
I count 45 casinos in california - you make of that what you want.
There are 64,783 regular poker players in Los Angeles.
There are 9,221 regular poker players in LV.
High stakes 16.78%
Med Stakes 41.172%
Small stakes 42.048%
Just where did you get those stats and what is the defination of a regular.
Thanks
Rounder,
Tongue-in-cheek response by Sammy...who BTW I welcome back...no one posts wittier stuff than this guy.
/
OK, so it's not the most important question in the world. Just curious.
We all know that in wild games, where each hand is capped preflop with several people in to see the flop, it is best to play super tight and stick to group 1 hands.
But what about games where there is always one, but usually no more than 1, raise preflop?
Let's say that there are 5 or 6 seeing each flop and it always costs 2 bets to see the flop.
In these games I think I have been giving up a bit by playing too tightly. I will stay clear of Axs and suited connectors, hands I would normally play in late position for one bet with several limpers.
Is it a good idea to focus on big suited cards, like QJ suited, etc? What about medium pocket pairs, like 88? I don't really like playing medium pairs for a raise because I will need to hit a set to continue.
Sometimes I will even steer clear of AJo type hands but I believe this is wrong.
Any advice?
-SmoothB-
SB I think the hands you are stearing clear of are profitable in games you describe.
Axs, suited coupled, coupled and big cards + pairs all can make big hands against the 5-6 multiway multibet hands. It's the big pairs that have a hard time winning these type of pots.
I think the key is to be playing better cards than the rank and file here. they are playing most hands with just about any 2 cards. I find these type of games hard to play - impossible to put anyone on a hand and you are having to play marginal hands for more than one bet. Tight player like me does not like this sort of action but if you find yourself there I thinkit is the only way to play it.
I was in just such a game yesterday 10-20 - usually capped pre flop - I happened to have a lot of hands that looked good for this type of game - I had Abigs, KQs and QJs several times & many times flopping flush/straight draws with 2 over cards 15-18 outs and big big pots - BOY it cost me a fortune - never once hitting one hand in 4 hours. BUT I don't regret how I played I just can't think of one mistake I made so I guess that is the way it goes.
Axs and 88 are for sure playable.
I don't like AJ off.
QJs and the like are probably playable too although they clearly are not as good as 88 or even 22.
I like wild small games, 3-6 to 10-20. Playing tight is the wrong approach in these games. I don't do well with high pairs, when 6-9 people see the flop. I think you have to gamble some, how else can you win 900 in a 3-6 game. You do have to make good decisions on the flop and a lot of backdoor hands become profitable when 8 players cap. Of course there is volitility. I don,t like to grind and even when down to case 100 i'd prefer to shoot it up in wild 3-6 or 4-8 game, but maybe that's why I don't play for a living.
In that type of game I play any pocket pair or A-x suited from any seat. Other than that, I play super tight in all seats but the cutoff or button, where I am very liberal. I think THE most important think in a game like that is to play super-ultra tight from the blinds: pocket pairs, AK, AQ, A-x suited. Just wait your turn for the catbird seat, and see the flop with anything that strikes your fancy.
Tommy
Tommy,
Why do you feel that position is more important is these types of games than a more normal type of game? I've always believed that position is much more important in tight aggressive games.
I think position is equally important in both types of games. A golf analogy: When a player works hard to tweak his swing, and works at hitting a flat-faced wedge out of the rough, and hitting from bad lies and hilly lies and all that stuff, there is one thing that never changes: keep your eye on the ball. I equate keeping your eye on the ball in golf with being the last to act at poker. It's a constant essential.
I agree with the common wisdom that it's best to tighten up starting requirements in a game like the one you described. Makes sense, since bluffing is less profitable.
Put those two together, and it then makes sense to pretty much only enter a pot with a good hand from a late seat in that type of game.
(Xavier, Sorry I didn't reply to an earlier question. The no-limit game I wrote about a while back is at Lucky Chances in Colma, CA.)
Tommy
I am posting this on RGP and the Hold'em General Theory Forum of 2+2. This is a question regarding limit hold'em. In his book, Getting the Best of It, David Sklansky wrote an essay entitled, The Eight Mistakes In Poker. Personally I think it is one of the best if not the best essay ever written on Poker (at least that I've read). The eight mistakes in poker consist of:
Betting when you should have checked.
Folding when you should have called.
Folding when you should have raised.
Calling when you should have folded.
Calling when you should have raised.
Checking when you should have bet.
Raising when you should have folded.
Raising when you should have called.
I have participated in and read the 2+2 forums ever since they started. I have read a lot of discussion on playing hands on 2+2 and RGP. I think it is fair to say that most of the participants on the 2+2 forums have read Hold'em for Advanced Players and for the most part follow and agree with the strategy precepts outlined in the book. There has been some recent discussion on RGP about the 2+2 forums and the advice given on the 2+2 forums. I have observed a few things regarding these discussions which leads me to believe that there are some expensive mistakes that at some of the players (including me) who follow the precepts laid out in Hold'em for Advanced Players make fairly consistently. I don't believe that this indicates a problem with the book necessarily but more of a problem with interpreting the material presented in the book and the expectation of what the book should provide for the aspiring limit hold'em player. In fact when I read Ray, Mason's, and David's comments on the 2+2 forums I often find a very different line of thinking than is presented by a lot of posters on the 2+2. In light of Sklansky's essay, the discussions on RGP about 2+2 posters, the 2+2 posters, and the material presented in Hold'em For Advanced Players, I would be interested in reading opinions on the following:
What probably are the most expensive mistakes made by players who follow the strategy precepts outlined in Hold'em for Advanced Players?
What probably are the least expensive mistakes made by players who follow the strategy precepts outlined in Hold'em for Advanced Players?
BTW before anyone gets the wrong impression, I believe that the 2+2 hold'em forums are really, really good and provide a lot of excellent advice and that Hold'em for Advanced Players is an excellent book. I have participated in some good discussion's on RGP in the past on playing hands and I hope that this post will spur some more good discussions.
DS is master of the obvious. Those 8 poker mistakes can be extended to any walk of life - taking one action when another is a better alternative.
I am not disagreeing with them, just pointing out how obvious they are.
To bad he missed the biggest mistake most losing players make on a regular basis.
Playing to many hands. Maybe he covered that in his calling/raising when you should have folded.
Playing too many hands falls into this category :
Calling when you should have folded.
True, but calling when you should have folded is undervalued in 8 mistakes, it should rank as mistake #1 IMO
Well, it looks like the RGP posters are saying the big mistakes by a lot of 2+2 posters is :
Folding when you should have called.
since they have pointed out that the posters are often weak-tight.
But, in my opinion, although you do see that incorrect advice sometimes, the more common mistake is still the same for others :
Calling when you should have folded.
I thought this essay was brilliant when I read it and since you brought it up I just read it again and it's still brilliant as far as it goes. However, the best and the brightest here I believe would agree that the biggest decision that is made is not even covered and that concerns game selection. Therefore, the most costly mistake you can make is either sitting at a bad table when there is a good table around, or staying at a table when it is no longer good and there's a better table around.
toally agree. game selection is by far most important.
i think tactically the worst play i make is to bet the turn with a medium holding when i have position and it is checked to me, rather than check along.
it seems to me in these situations im just too aggressive sometimes.
brad
Back around '88 or '89 I went to hear David S. and Mike Caro speak at a seminar before a tournament at the L.V. Hilton (which at the time had a busy poker room). David began by reading that essay, or portions of it.
After they both spoke, they took questions. The last question, was something like, "What would you say is the single most important thing a player can do to improve his poker results?" They both gave answers worth paying attention to: MC said, "Play your best all the time." DS said, "Be game selective."
That said, I'm too often guilty of sitting in bad games even though I know they're bad. Usually it's because the alternative would mean a 50% reduction in limit, and I'm often able to talk myself into thinking I can do a little better in the bigger, but tougher, game. Anyway, I seem to be surving. :-/
.
You bring out a key point John. I hear people saying how important being game selective is. In theory this is true but in practice you seldom have a choice at the middle and upper limits. Suppose you are a $20-$40 player. Unless you play at Commerce or some other huge card barn you normally have only one table you can play at. Now you can step down in limit and play $10-$20 for instance but then you may not be able to get into the $20-$40 game for several hours. It gets even worse at the higher limits depending upon where you play. If you are a $40-$80 player at Oceanside, you have only table to play at usually during the week. The other thing is that a player line-up may start off tough but then soften up later and if you are not at the table when this happens you cannot take advantage of it.
Finally, I think you should judge a game based on how many bad players are in it not how many good ones. As long as there are two or three worse players in the game than you, then the game is probably profitable. In full tabled limit hold-em, the advantage a great player has over a good one is usually miniscule whereas the advantage a good player has over a bad one is larger.
Yes, good points Jim. Often, on rgp for instance, you hear players talking about game selection as if you always have a choice of several games. But above the small limits this isn't true. It does, however, highlight the benefit of learning other games such as stud. But even with that, in a room like Oceanside there *is no stud. At Commerce there is, but if you get as high as 80-160, there's some question of whether it's worth it to play, given the huge ante.
Then, if you get up to the really high limits, there will of course be very little game selection opportunity.
It does help at least to know when the game is essentially not profitable at all, so you can just quit and not waste time in it.
I think your point about having two or three bad enough players in the game (occasionally just one!) points to what game selection is often all about when you get above the small limits.
Here are my answers to your two questions.
1. "What are the most expensive mistakes made by players who follow the precepts in Hold-Em Poker For Advanced Players?"
Making flop bets into crowds of players with gutshots, bottom pair, middle pair, and other horrid stuff on the theory that since the pot is large and you would call a bet anyway you might as well bet yourself. The famous Ten-Nine problem is an excellent example of this.
2. "What are the least expensive mistakes made by players who follow the precepts in Hold-Em Poker For Advanced Players?"
Overvalueing deception in a full tabled limit hold-em game by failing to 3 bet or cap with your premium hands pre-flop when there are a lot of players in the hand. A competitive second here would be failing to bet your good hands strongly on the theory that you will make the pot large and players might be getting the right odds to chase you on a later street.
Another bit of advice that is problematic is the use of the check-raise. I believe it is overemphasized and overused by many of the posters on this forum.
Now all that being said, many of what I feel are "mistakes" in HPFAP are at best slightly controversial and not clear cut errors. HPFAP is vastly superior to any other hold-em book. All other hold-em books that I have come across contain serious errors and will not allow a player to perform well in mid-level games because of all the erroneous advice.
Jim,
You claimed: "All other hold-em books that I have come across contain serious errors and will not allow a player to perform well in mid-level games because of all the erroneous advice."
But what if the reader was smart enough to discard the erroneous advice and assimilate the good advice? A player doesn't have to pick a single book and blindly follow all of its advice.
I will only address mistakes that HPFAP players may be especially susceptible to, not general poker mistakes like playing too many hands, etc. since I think most of us are aware of what these are anyway.
HPFAP players' likely tendencies and their most common mistakes:
I would guess that most HPFAP players tend to overplay their hands without a clear understanding of the reasons for playing certain hands aggressively, and without the experience required to do so effectively in certain spots. While this often may not be a big mistake, if it is repeated fairly frequently it will add up to a big mistake, and I think many HPFAP readers probably fall into just this trap (although S&M do advise that most readers will probably want to play more conservatively than the text indicates until they gain experience. I think the level of experience required for this is greater than most readers/players are aware of).
As far as other typical traps HPFAP players may fall into, many situations or hands that are described in HPFAP have become almost standard plays by now. Using them indiscriminately or without even considering that the opposition may well be aware of what one is doing can be costly, and this ties into one player reading another's mind, so to speak. We should never forget that if the opponent has a good idea of where we are at, or of what we are trying to accomplish, even with a pretty good hand we can be in trouble. All the more so if we hold a subpar hand. Two examples here are 1) raising for a free card, as discussed by Dan Hanson in a recent Poker Digest article, and 2) representing on the Turn. Against certain players nowadays if you try to represent on the Turn too often you may soon find yourself getting raised on the Turn more often than you had bargained for.
Although Semi-Bluffing is by now well-known and frequently used, using it a lot isn't as dangerous as overusing either of the above two concepts. This is because a correct semi-bluff generally results in the opponent losing EV no matter what he does. I can't recall the exact explanation but it is worth rereading.
There is sometimes a subtle difference between semi-bluffing and raising to get a free card, too, if I am not mistaken. Semibluffing can encompass raising to get a free card, among other things, but raising to get a free card is not always semibluffing. This brings us to another type of error typically made by many HPFAP players, that of having a general or vague idea of certain concepts but applying them incorrectly due to lack of deeper understanding. So this is yet another cause of HPFAP players overplaying hands without realizing the whys and wherefores of the specific situation at hand. Indeed, when one reads Sklansky's analysis in an article, it often goes considerably deeper than what one thinks at first. At times there is much more going on conceptually,even without involved math, than the typical reader/player is aware of. Many times I have had to slow down and really think about what he is saying. Even now I should review the math behind game theory, etc. to try to build it in in a way that I can apply it without undue effort. Here again we find an area where HPFAP players may fall down. To execute properly in a poker game, you must frequently be thinking ahead and be very familiar with whatever is going on and with what you are trying to accomplish. In many cases, if the opponent senses what you are trying to do because it requires too much on-the-spot effort on your part, you may be in for a rude jolt. Even poor or unread players can often "sense things." Unfamiliarity with concepts in depth can lead to lag time, if not outright errors, at a critical juncture.
This is a very good post. I think another way of saying what Mr. M is saying is that too many players give HPFAP a quick read, move up in limit, and fire away. That's not the way this book is suppose to work. If it was that simple, everyone would be doing it and there would be no winners. You need to read and reread the book, get playing experience, think about the concepts we talk about and apply them to your games, and then repeat this process over and over.
Very insightful post.
I think that if a smart reader also reads The Theory of Poker, many of the problems you mentioned will be at least lessened if not eliminated.
What is the web address of RGP? I would like to go there and see what is going on.
Ray,
rec.gambling.poker is a newsgroup, not a web site. Most people access it through their email programs where plenty of help for accessing newsgroups is available. I like the specialized newsgroup reader Forte Free Agent. You can find the web site using the search engine www.google.com.
Regards,
Rick
You can also get a direct link form the cardplayer site.
There is also the chance that someone will raise after you and their raise may indeed thin the field even in a very loose game.
"In fact, if you are in a good, loose game, you are under the gun, and you choose to only raise with hands like big suited connectors that play well in multiway pots, there would be nothing wrong with that"
Not raising with AA,KK or QQ? I don´t think so. When you can´t knock out players, you only raise for value and these hands definitely qualify.
You make an excellent point and this is something that was included as new material in the revised edition of HPFAP-00. I definitely raise with AA, KK, and QQ like you recommend but here is a point to ponder:
Would you rather just limp in with KK and get 6 callers or would you rather open with a raise and get only 3 callers? I believe the right answer is that if the raise will thin the field from 6 to 3, then you have a much higher expected value (ev) by raising. However, if you are in a loose game where raising does not limit the field, then I don't believe your ev goes up as much when you raise. However, I still believe it goes up and in general you are better off raising.
How many of you wear dark sunglasses when playing? I'm talking of the completely dark kind, where your eyes can't be seen.
Likewise do you think differently of another player if he/she wears these sunglasses while playing?
Thanks
I usually do... I like them because they allow me to stare at other players without them knowing. Also I have found that they do have an intimidating factor and I get a lot more people folding on the end when I bet.
Sean
I enjoy playing with people in very dark glasses. It can be a sign of insecurity. When I'm against such an opponent, I try to help them with their game. Often after I suck out on them, my patient, sincere, and, above all, lengthly explanation of implied odds will put them on tilt.
Please be advised, however, that many people wear dark glasses because their eyes are bothered by the table lights.
I wear them for 2 reasons - primarily the glair of the card room gives me a head ache if I don't. The other is I don't like the other players knowing where I am looking cuz I am looking at them when the flop comes - I am not looking as much as staring at them looking for any thing that might give their hand away.
Rounder,
I have become a convert to sunglasses for the reasons you state. Before I thought it made my look too unfriendly. I do tend to take them off when I am not in a hand though.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I have never had a "friendly" problem I guess it is the charm and grace I get from my Sicillian Roots.
:-)
Good question, and one that I have thought about before.
One thing I notice is that it seems the majority of players who are regarded as top pros do not wear dark sunglasses.
When I take a stroll around the cardroom, I notice that there are far more sunglasses at the low limit tables than at the higher limits.
I like them and don't play anymore w/o them. I really like to be abel to look at people w/o the ppposition knowing where i am looking.
I think telling some wearing glasses why your suck out is correct is very bad, one of the worst things you can do is educate the table, and setting people on tilt isn't nearly as good of idea as you think. Doesn't one want a table of cheerful happy gamblers?
Many players will exhibit more tells when they know you are studying them.
5-10 game last night. One other solid player with 3 fairly loose players in a full table. I was BB with a fairly loose, aggressive SB. Picked up AKs, 5 or 6 called, SB raised, I called as I wanted to hide behind his action. His raises were frequent and not scary. Only player in seat 6 called the raise. Flop was Axx not suited or straight. SB bet out, I put him on A,decent kicker, but not two pairs. I called, player 6 called. Turn K giving me two top pairs; SB bets out again and I decided to not raise even though thought I was best as did not want to lose caller and river action. (Mistake?) River was a 10, SB bets out again and I just called along again. Possible straight but unlikely. Player 6 had pair of tens all along and saw whole hand with two outs, SB had AQ; I lost the pot that would have made me even for the session. Have been working on not being passive ha,ha but was thinking about the whole situation as it unravelled and made these decisions. Have been trying to figure out what I would do if this happens again. Advice or comments welcome. DAve
It's hard enough to flop top pair. When you do, there's no guarantee it will be the best hand on the flop (I took an incredible number of beats last week flopping top pair/top kicker and running into bottom set). Thus, when you flop top pair, and let someone straggle along to beat you, there's no reason to even play. Sure, he might've sucked out on you anyway, but the whole idea behind gambling is to be betting with a nice overlay (you were a big favorite on the flop and turn). You should've raised the flop and turn.
Looks to me like you're still looking for excuses to be passive.
Maybe you can just call on the flop, but on the turn you must raise after the other player called. Even if you win the pot you will usually win more money raising on the turn in these situations, and are less likely to cost yourself the pot.
You want to get your money in with the best of it. There was no garentee that you would win by raising but you know what happened when you did not. Raise and take the pot.
Thanks
I would have raised the flop for sure. Clear out all the trash left to act after you.
I find it hard to believe that TT would have called 2 bets on the flop, and CERTAINLY not 2 bets on the turn. Why were you afraid to raise on the turn?
Another good reason for raising on the flop. Sure there is the possibility that the SB had AA and that you were beaten. But you can beat or tie pretty much any other hand he might have. So raise now, and clear out the trash left to act behind you.
Remember this from the Theory of Poker:
Sometimes it is correct to raise even if you don't have the best hand because it will increase your chances of winning the pot.
For example:
You are UTG with KQ of spades. Flop comes Js 9h 2d. BB bets - you can raise now with:
2 overcards gutshot straight draw to the nuts runner runner flush draw
There is not too much chance that you have the best hand right now. But your raise may serve a few purposes:
It can get hands like 88 and T9 to fold
It can get other overcards like AQ or another KQ to fold
If you get the hand heads up with the BB, he might very well check to you again on the turn if he doesn't improve, giving you a free card. Or, if you sense that he is weak (say a jack with a weak kicker) he might fold on the turn for a bet.
Or, maybe he was just betting a hand like QT or T8 (open ender) and you might actually win in a showdown if blanks come.
So remember to get your raises in there when you can improve your chances of picking up the pot. And you should DEFINITELY be raising and reraising when you have the best hand in a low limit game!
-SmoothB-
I was wondering if there is any good, definitive material on short-handed play, like 2 to 5 handed, for that seems to be the majority of the games I get into online. I have all of 2 plus 2's stuff, and, tho I have yet to get through all of it, seem to find it lacking in this area. Plus, any advice on tightening up my game after playing these short-handed and wild games i always seem to get into where my game definitely seems to suffer. I usually just play my wilson software, but any better ideas for when I may not have that available?
For some days I was pondering the virtues of the tight and aggressive image that S+M advocate, when I read the Multiple Changing Images essay by John Feeney (Poker Digest).
Caro, Feeney writes, is for a "loose, wild and playful image" because you gain extra bets when you flop sth big, S+M respectively are for "tight, timid" and "tight but aggressive" because this image allows you to steal pots.
I say, both are right, but it depends. If the game is loose, you can´t steal pots, so the Caro image obviously is first choice. On the other hand if the game is tight, I´d most likely prefer the S+M image because I can steal.
The additional bonus: you will be just another loose guy/maniac on the loose tables, and just another tight guy on the tight tables AND PEOPLE THEREFORE WON´T PAY YOU AS MUCH ATTENTION as opposed to being tight on a loose table and being loose on a tight table.
Just my two cents, but think I hit the mark *g*
I think you missed the mark. Even in loose games a tight image is very beneficial. For example, you can get free cards and you won't be raised as much. This frequently allows you to stay around for that miracle card that sometimes comes. Thus you can occasionally win a big pot that you shouldn't.
I think Mason has hit the nail on the head. I think it is far better to have a tight image than a loose one at the low limit tables.
When I started playing I had a really tight image. This had a couple of extremely beneficial consequences -
Since I was a consistent winner, and played so tight, some of the loose aggressive types would be out there gunning for me. This frustrates some, but I love it. At the same time, the better, more aware players would respect my raises and stay out of my way when I was dominating a hand.
So what was the consequence? The good players would fold, and the LA's would try to suck out. I would almost always start the hand in 1st place, and charge everyone full price to try to catch their miracle cards.
This also allowed me to steal some pots, too. If I just happened to be in a hand without the LA types, I could steal most pots when the flop came with an ace and I was checked to. If I thought no one had an ace or a good draw I could just bet out with anything and pick up the pot more than my fair share of the time. This is because my image was so tight and solid that they assumed I had an ace.
On the other hand, having a loose image is disastrous. For one thing, it costs a lot of money to earn this reputation - you have to give up a lot by playing marginal hands. Then, when you do get a big but vulnerable hand, people do not respect your raises and you have a lot of people drawing against you.
I'll take a tight image anyday.
-SmoothB-
I strongly agree with Mason. Besides his thoughts, there is yet another benefit. It's an understatement, but nonetheless meaningful.
The only way I know of to get a tight-aggressive image is to, well, play a tight-aggressive game! So it's a double bonus, in tight games AND lose games, since besides the stealing and free cards and all that, you have the added edge of simply playing well.
Tommy
hmm... well, I guess now it´s stealing + free cards + playing well vs. gaining extra bets, that tips the scales towards S+M, but still... where does that leave us? Can we now say that Caro has no idea? I tend to disagree, mainly because I believe in pluralism, unfortunately, I lack the experience for further discussion. hmm...
greg, I think the whole subject of "image" is grossly overvalued in a full tabled limit hold-em game. Over the course of a year very little of your earn is generated by your "image". Your real profit comes from showing down the best hand either because you started with the best hand and it held up or you were able to suckout on the best hand while chasing at favorable odds. In a big bet game like pot limit or no limit or in a shorthanded game things like "image" and "tells" might play a much larger role but in a full tabled limit hold-em game proper technique and your ability to read your opponents is what gets the money. I would not spend a lot of time or money worrying about "image" and "tells".
Jim, I don´t worry about image, I just like to analyze and gain knowledge, that´s it. To me, thinking poker is just as interesting as playing, perhaps even more at the moment.
I believe even Caro concedes that a tight image is better for holdem; although its been awhile since I read his stuff. However I agree with his philosophy that you should make it easy on the weaker players who might stay longer at your table, by being nice to them. As far as tells go, I think they can be very profitable if you are also playing solid, and really have a good read; its generally the weakest players who have real bad tells. Often their actions scream bluff or HUGE HAND and this can make money. But this is not a license to start playing like a crazy man looking for tells to save you from your bad cards.
P.S. The S&M material is in a completely different league from the Caro works, in general.
2+2 has essays suggesting that multi-round games such as stud and holdem favor the tight image since getting people out and outright stealing are very profitable, and where 2-round games such as draw-poker favor the wild image where getting that hopeless call is very profitable.
I prefer this explanation over Malmuth's above which applies against those rare players that play very loose but still get paranoid when the tight player is in.
- Louie
Good points. My only disagreement is that such players are "rare." Perhaps they are in some places, but around here there are plenty of them. So the tight image works well, even is lose games.
If, say, I decide for whatever reason to three-bet with QJ, and gain (or already have) last position on two opponents, and the flop comes A-K-x, and one or both of the other two players has an ace or a king. You can bet I'm going to see a free turn card. When that ten hits, I'm gonna make a bundle, especially if one of them makes two pair.
If I had only called before the flop, I'd likely have to pay two bets to see the turn, and would fold. So in retrospect, it cost me one bet to try to hit a ten and take down a monster.
I think this is one type of advantage Mason was talking about.
Tommy
Greg,
All the above replies are great. I would add that trying to project a loose, playful image (while playing tight) was my single biggest weakness in my first few years of full time play. It kept me from stealing more than my fair share of pots as I moved up in limits. Back then I had more faith in Mike's holdem advice.
That being said, at the very low limits pretending you are a little looser than you really are is probably OK. But when you move up to limits of 6/12 and above, play tight and aggressive and you shouldn't care if you are perceived that way.
BTW, you can have this image and still remain friendly and fun to play with at the table.
Regards,
Rick
I perfer to be "just little old me" the tight ass in the corner check raising the turn with the nuts or maybe the near nuts.
re: playing tight but still having fun
So true! My only objection to Caro's teaching on all this, if I understand it right, is that he promotes the usage of willful, planned smokescreens. I don't see how hours and hours of being someone other that who we are can be profitable. It'd take too much energy.
Tommy
I'm curious of other's thoughts on game structure, population and game selection. I tend to play very tight poker, especially up-front. I also tend to be more aggressive (usually since if I'm in a hand I have a great draw or a good made hand). For example, where I play, players rarely check-raise. I, on the other hand, tend to check-raise quite frequently.
Here is a listing of the main games where I play. They all have different structures and different populations. I tend to prefer games where I can pay the least amount per cycle around the table. I also prefer (for obvious reasons) playing against loose, passive players. At the end of each game description, I give a rating of the game.
I am curious of people's thoughts on the blind structure and how that affects the player population of a game. Moreover, I am curious about what people think of my rankings and if they would select a different ranking of these games based on the given information
1. SB-$1, BB-$2, $2-6 limit. First preflop raise is a max of $6 making it $8 to call. Rake capped at $4 (8%). Table composition: Mostly loose, somewhat aggressive players. The table is frequently not full. Usually around 6 players. Table thoughts: You need to play especially tight up-front in this game because the opening raise is so large. You do have good implied odds if you can get in cheaply and flop big; therefore you can loosen up when you are in back. **
2. SB$1, BB-$2, $2-5 limit. First preflop raise is a max of $3 making it $5 to call. Thereafter, all bets and raises are capped at $5. Rake capped at $4 (8%). Table composition: Mostly tight passive players. Most have a great deal of poker experience. Table is usually full. Table thoughts: This game has the toughest opponents in town. They are too passive however. Get out of the way when someone re-raises before the flop. Play aggressively and steal or semi-steal on the turn. ***
3. SB-$.25, BB-$.50, $.50-$1.25 limit. First preflop raise is a max of $.75 making it $1.25 to call. Thereafter, all bets and raises are capped at $1.25. Rake capped at $4 (6.25%). Table composition: Mostly loose, somewhat aggressive players. Little poker experience. Table is usually full. Table thoughts: Terrible players, just be patient. Can't earn a lot in this game, but my girlfriend deals it occasionally so it can be an interesting break to play in. **
4. SB -$.25, BB-$.50, $2-4 structured limit. First raise must be $2. Preflop and flop bets are $2; turn and river bets must be $4. Rake capped at $4 (6.25%). Table composition: Mostly loose, somewhat passive players, moderate poker experience. Table is usually half-full. Table thoughts: Play pretty tight and you'll get the money because the folks here raise and call raises pre-flop with garbage. ***1/2
5. SB-$1, BB-$2, $2-10 limit. Unstructured game, players may raise any amount between $2-10 on any street. Rake capped at $4 (8%). Table composition: Mostly loose players, moderate poker experience. Table is usually half-full. Table thoughts: These players frequently are pretty loose, but are smart enough not to give too much action on hopeless hands. Generally a pretty good game. ***1/2
6. No blinds, Quarter ante. $1-3 limit. This game frequently plays with $10 and no-limit overs. Table composition: Mostly very loose players with a number of huge dumpers. Table is usually full. Table thoughts: If you can play this game with overs then you are in heaven. Many of these players will call all the way to the river then muck with their dummy end gut-shot doesn't get there. This leads to occasional suck-outs, but is generally very profitable. ****
7. One $1 blind, $1-5 unstructured limit. Table composition: Mostly very loose, somewhat aggressive players. Very little actual poker knowledge. Table thoughts: The worst players in town; unfortunately, the game only happens twice a week. Very profitable if you play straightforward poker. ***1/2
Is there a consensus on how to play better than average but trap type hands from the BB when facing a raise (unlikely steal) from a decent player. Examples are K-10, Q-10, Q-9, J-8, Q-J, K-J, K-9, J-9. I tend to usually fold if unsuited, but probably call 50%+ (situational dependent) when suited. I wonder if I am possibly giving up too much by usually folding the unsuited hands and/or calling too much w/suited hands.
I realize that the specifics definitely matter, so here's an example:
I'm in BB w/Q-9 offsuit. Average player UTG limps, solid player in middle position raises, loose player cold calls, SB folds, I fold. I like my fold, but I'm curious if others feel otherwise.
Thanks,
Caddy
Of course you have to fold. No brainer.
Unless the raise looks like a steal I will dump my blind a lot of the time. As long as there are others in the hand to keep things in line, I'll stay out of it.
I'll play a little looser in the SB for 1/2 bet because the implied odds are good. I'll play Q4 suited, T9 offsuit, and hands like that - but only for 1/2 bet. And I will proceed very carefully from the flop on.
-SmoothB-
Being half-way in is a strong incentive to take a flop because your pot odds are much better than otherwise. I think you should call with King-Jack offsuit, Queen-Jack offsuit, King-Ten offsuit, and Queen-Ten offsuit but you need to realize that you could be easily dominated so you have to be able to get away from these hands once the flop comes and you get heat with something like top pair. I would not call with the others unless I was suited. The more players that are in the pot then the more being suited adds to the value of your holding.
I would fold Queen-Nine offsuit in the situation you describe but call with Queen-Nine suited.
/
I am not sure why it is ok to call 1 bet from the BB with KJ or QT offsuit.
You will flop 2 pair or better somewhere about, oh, say 3.5 % of the time. This includes 2 pair, trips, or a straight. So it seems! But there's more to it than this.
You have to knock your odds down a bit because, in general, the raise will come from cards in the broadway straight 1/3 of the deck. If the raiser had AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, AK, AQ, KQ whatever it will lower your odds of making 2 pair or better.
Furthermore, the cards that give you 2 pair might give someone ELSE a straight - or a set - if they also hold called in that pot with big cards.
If you are counting on implied odds to make up for what you are giving up preflop if you make, say, a straight, I don't think the price is high enough. You are only going to bring a straight home less than 2% of the time (and it can still lose to a full house or flush.) You would need to be able to make more than 25BB on the hand to make up for this - I don't see it.
I know that some people say - KJ suited has an X:1 chance of winning against Y opponents, and you are getting Z:1 odds on your call. Since Z>X your call has +EV and you should make it. I don't agree with this. First of all, you are not against RANDOM hands. The value of the hands you are against have been somewhat inflated in value - the real trash has been thrown out, etc. If you are against AA, KK, and JJ, KJ offsuit has a tiny tiny % chance of winning. You'd be MUCH MUCH better off calling with 72 offsuit. (Duh.)
Furthermore, some of the % time that these hands win is when they catch 2 running jacks, kings, runner runner straights, and fluke flushes. Are you going to chase those?
And what do you do if you call 1 bet with KJo and a king flops? If you get raised you might have to dump it. So factor things like this in as well and adjust your odds accordingly and it seems to me like this is dangerous territory.
You also lack position. I HATE playing mediocre hands out of position - especially when I know there are people out there who really like their hands. If you bet your KJ offsuit when a K flops, and the preflop raiser smooth calls, do you bet again on the turn? Maybe he wants to take Mason's advice and wait for the turn to make it 2 bets with AK.
Please show me the error of my ways!
Now when those cards are suited, that's another matter. I really believe in the advantage of suited cards - it gives you an extra 2 or so % edge and I consider that extremely valuable.
-SmoothB-
My Lordy! I play the blinds tighter that Jim!
My typical cutoff point front the big blind is KQ-KJ.
There are sometimes when suitedness affects my decision, but not many, since I don't get frisky with flush draws out of position if several people are in. I just check and call and try to hit cheap. Because I play them this way, suitedness has only the stict mathematical advantage over unsuited, whereas in last seat, suitedness in 'my game' has a much larger advantage, since good things happen because of the fire-power that the flush draw gives me.
My typical cutoff from the small blind, even for only two chips, appears to be far higher than anyone else's. Partly because I'd just as soon get that hand over with and get on to the button. And partly because I dread hitting the flop with J-9 type of hands and having to bet first all the way. Yeah, I know I might be giving something up. But it keeps my swings down, my frustration down, and serves as a break before the real work starts: the button and the next hand or two after that.
Tommy
I don't believe position is as big a factor in a full tabled limit hold-em game as most people think. Being suited goes up in value as you add opponents to the fray because of all the additional money that goes into the pot not because of your position.
Being suited in a loose game or at least in a hand with a lot of players means far more than just the strict mathematical increase in expectation because of the likelihood of making a flush. It has to do with how much money you can win when you do get lucky and hit your flush with a lot of opponents in the hand.
Jim,
Often when you hold the suited hands, you won't mind being first to act with the right kind of flop.
John
Yes. Occasionally you can be the first to lead at a flop with just your draw and win the pot outright if it misses everyone. If not, well you still have your draw to fall back on. If you check the flop and it gets checked around, having the first opportunity to bet the turn can be an advantage since you can win the pot outright and have outs if you are called.
You reminded me of one of my 'lines.'
A big multi-way pot brews and I call from the small blind, "I've got position! I get to bluff first!"
Tommy
John,
Here is an example (I think). Today I have Kh 2h in the big blind in a 15/30 game. I weak player limps, a semi-maniac who I have been torching raises, and an average player calls. The small blind folds and I call.
The flop comes Ks 6h 3h. Being suited I lead out despite my horrible kicker. The weak player folds and the semi-maniac raises. He has been raising with underpairs on the flop but he could hold the better king. The average player folds and I just call (reraising was an option but I would fold his underpair).
The turn is the 8d. Against a solid player I might check and call hoping to make my flush but against this guy I check with the intention of raising. He bets, I raise, and he folds his probable underpair so I take down the pot there. If he called I still have outs.
If I wasn’t suited there is no way I could stand a raise or want to make a trapping move on the turn.
Regards,
Rick
Position adds to what you can make when you do make your flush.
Yes and all things being equal having position is better of course. But being suited with a large number of opponents and bad position is better than being suited against one or two opponents and good position. I would rather play Five-Four suited from the blinds with 6 opponents than play Five-Four suited from the button with only two opponents.
Agreed. However having overcards may change that assessment somewhat--shorthanded with 2 overcards with a flush draw and position is a spot I generally like.
Tommy I think that in the 20-40 games we play in you should play a few more hands from the blinds. I keep special attention to if the action players are in the pot, you know the guys who cold call the raise with 45s. Also if I don't respect the raiser much I'll be much more lenient on calling a raise. For example if an loose/aggro player raises and 3 people call the raise I'll definitely play Kxs from the blind.
I'm curious to know how much more inclined you should be to play a 67s in the blinds for a raise if many people are in because you think that "all the big cards are out".
Shawn
Shawn,
I think that the "all the big cards are out" reasoning is a joke. (I poked fun at it in the intro of "The Poker Zoo.")
If it could be known that the big cards are out, and that this makes my hand more live, the next questions are, "By what degree?" Is the degree significant enough to tip the scales in favor of playing 6-7 when it would otherwise would be folded?" I can't imagine that it is.
This reasoning, if reasonable, renders the 'extra-liveness' parameter irrelevent, since it does not effect decisions.
Tommy
Shawn,
As to playing more hands from the blinds 'in the games we play in,' I can't disagree with you on the basis of cards and players and odds and all that stuff.
My reasons for folding so often from the blinds are based more on
1) reducing swings 2) reinforcing image
The first thing helps me stay in tune. The second thing, I like to think, makes me money in intangible ways.
Tommy
Caddy,
The first thing is this should not be your last question regarding preflop, especially involving blinds. This is an area where even the strongest players have not studied and make mistakes.
My personal research indicates this is much more of a positional question than a pot odds question. Meaning, more to the point, the position, and to a lesser but important degree, the quality of the opponents who have entered the pot. The opening requirements, particularly of the preflop opener and/or raisers is paramount to your decision. This is more important than pot odds in my view.
Now this question still isnt easy to answer, given all that. In your example given, you have an UTG limper and a solid mid position raiser. This isnt a pot that you really want to get in. The UTG limper, especially if he is capable of limping in huge, or limp reraising, is a big consideration. In this particular example, your call does not close the action. You could face further raises.
As a general rule you must consider the openers average likely holding (which relates to his position) and also the likely holdings of anyone who is solid and raises or calls raises. Yes this is getting dicey. Now consider the pot odds you are getting and consider that not only you may be dominated, you may be carded (as SmoothB mentioned). (Carded refers to those times that other players hold some of your outs.) This isnt as complicated as it sounds, but this is the type of reasoning to be considered.
Until then, personally, I would recommended folding potential dominated hands when facing early and middle position action, until such time as you are comfortable in the situation.
Having said all that, I would have done exactly, almost to the letter, what Mr. Brier said, but the caveat about domination is HUGE.
Take a peak at Abdul Jalib's web page (link is here). He's a clever one.
Take care all.
I have read on the site of the sponsor that " paradisepoker.com " has a " No drop - no flop policy "
What is that mean ?
I don't know about internet poker but when a card room has a "no drop-no flop" policy it means that they do not rake a pot if no one takes a flop. This can be important especially in low limit games. Suppose you are playing in a $4-$8 game where the house rakes 10% up to a maximum of say $4. Suppose someone opens with a raise to $8 and everyone folds. Theoretically, the house could rake $1.40 (actually it would rake $1). But if they have a "no flop-no drop" or "no drop-no flop" policy there would be no rake and the player gets the entire $14. The same thing would happen if someone limped in and then got raised and everyone folded including the original limper.
With suited connectors that can flop all straights (say, JTs to 45s)
What are your odds of flopping a draw? Say either an open ended straight OR a four flush? Lately I've been playing suited connectors and over maybe 10 times haven't flopped a draw once!
How many people allready in the hand should I need to limp with suited connector between 4-5suited to 10-Jsuited ?..........maybe there is a minimum of people I need with 4-5 suited , but I think that if I'm te puck with 10-J suited i'm better to limp all the way if there is no raise .
From Page 180 of the "Hold-Em Odds Book" by Mike Petriv the probability of flopping a four flush or an open ended straight draw when you start with a suited connector like JT suited is 10.8%. This excludes flopping a made hand like a straight or a flush. It also excludes the probability of flopping one pair, two pair, trips, a full house, or quads.
So little? If I´m not mistaken, the probability of flopping a four flush alone is already 10.94% (including probability of flopping one pair with the non-flush card), the probability of flopping an open end straight is 9.8%, so how come four flush + open end straight is only 10.8%?
BTW: You can´t flop a four flush and two pair, trips, etc. at the same time that you flop a four flush with a suited hand (just for parpokpl, you´ll probably know *g*)
Sorry, I am misread the chart on Page 180 of the book. The probability of flopping a four flush OR an 8 out straight (open-ended straight draw) is 16%.
Good catch. Thanks greg!
Thanks, that's the info I wanted to see! I assumed it was around 20% (you just add the probability of a 4 flush plus the probability of aa open ended straight).
I guess the lost 4% comes from open ended straights that also contain a 4 flush?
I'm always disappointed when someone just quotes a figure from a book.
Why not give the calculation of how to get the numbers(?). How do you know the author is correct?
I am curious to know peoples thoughts on the following subject.
What sort or returns can you expect from casino hold'em.
Given a relitivly solid player. The level a normal person would attain if they read all the right books and put a reasonable amount of time into playing and leaning about the game.
How much money could this person make at casino hold'em What sort of bankroll would they need and what sort of fluctuations could they expect.
Lets Assume a 5% rake capped at $5 Lets also assume you select reasonable games which contain mabey a couple of soft player and a couple of good ones.
For instance at low stakes games ($8-16) you might need at least $X to ensure you anre not ruined. You might expect to play for at least X hours before you are ahead .
if you moved up to a $20-40 game it changes to $X Xhours with an expectation of about $X per hour
and so on .... I'm only after a rough round about sort of answer. I realise there are many complex factors etc ..
Any Advice would be apreciated.
rough numbers: bamkroll in the neighborhood of 300 Big Bets. Profit in the neighborhood of one big bet per hour after tips and collections. Of course there are tons of factors that can significantly alter these numbers. This stuff is explained in Gambling Theory and other Topics by MM, and Gambling for a living by DS and MM.
First of all, I'm not really sure if this is supposed to go in the "general" forum or the "medium stakes" forum, but this question applies to all limits so I'll put it here. Anyway, I've been thinking a lot recently about play from the blinds and play when stealing the blinds. It's a topic generally neglected in hold'em literature; Abdul has written some very worthwhile and thought-provoking pieces on the subject, but I don't see the topic come up too much. Here's a fairly routine hand I thought I'd present for comment:
20-40, 2 off the button open-raises, all fold to me in the big blind with 92s. I call. Flop is KJ9 unsuited, I check-call. Turn is a 5, putting a 2 flush on the board. What's the best play? (2 off the button is a poor player, excessively loose and overaggressive. He's likely to call with very little, and might bluff raise or re-raise. He's also almost guaranteed to bet if I check.)
Play of the hand up to that point: some nits might dispute the preflop call with 92s, but that's a no-brainer as I'm getting 3.5:1 to flop something. Additionally, this guy's raising standards were way too loose; he'd previously taken a shot at my blinds from the button with T6o. On the flop, I think you can make a case for betting out, check-raising, or check-calling. I would often check-raise against an aggressive opponent, but given that this guy wouldn't fold any hand I wanted out of the pot (any ace or straight draw), I thought a check-call was viable in this situation. (I feel that I don't check-call enough from the BB in defense.)
So, I'm curious as to opinions on the best turn play, given that I check-called the flop. I think it's close between two options; I'll offer my opinion after hearing from others.
-Sean
"20-40, 2 off the button open-raises, all fold to me in the big blind with 92s. I call. Flop is KJ9 unsuited, I check-call. Turn is a 5, putting a 2 flush on the board. What's the best play? (2 off the button is a poor player, excessively loose and overaggressive. He's likely to call with very little, and might bluff raise or re-raise. He's also almost guaranteed to bet if I check.)"
When the first player in is two off the button you are essentially in a short handed situation. You have made several mistakes in just this paragraph alone. I strongly suggest that you read the short handed section in the 21st century edition of HPFAP, especially page 187. I also suggest that you go to a lower liit until you get a better understanding of how you should play in this situation.
Okay Sean I will be the nit and tell you that there is no way I would ever call a raise even out of my big blind with Nine-Deuce suited in a heads-up situation. Yes, you are getting 3.5:1 odds but you really have no hand and lousy position. The loose goose will raise with this good hands as well as his bad ones so he is not always playing random cards. His bad hands are probably better than your hand. Being suited is almost meaningless here.
When the flop comes, I still don't like the hand. I have bottom pair and no kicker in a heads-up situation with 3 cards in a straight zone. I would check-fold.
On the turn, is the two flush on board in your suit? If not I would fold otherwise I would call.
That's a horrbile preflop call. The raisers bad raising hands are far superior to your hand. Unless you catch a monster flop you are in bad shape. Even if you flop a pair of deuces and have the best hand on the flop your opponent still has six outs to outdraw you which are unknown to you and you don't even know if your ahead. When playing the live one gamble with him when you are in a position of strength. Having suited cards headsup is relatively meaningless.
Bruce
When calling a raise from the BB with middle cards, why do so many think in terms of 5-1 and 7-1 and 9-1 or whatever?
In a way, it's like having a 3-sided dies, a 4-sided die, a 5-sided die, etc. With each die the odd are adjusted to match the number of sides. So the longer odds offered with a 10-sided die have no effect on my expection.
Another angle: The odds get BETTER with fewer players. Let's say there is one raise and everyone else is out. Now I'm getting 3.5-1. But there is only one person to beat. With those odds, shouldn't I play everytime?
My primary question:
I don't see how it is possible to mathematically factor in things like 1) positional disadvantage 2) opponent tendencies 3) our own tendencies 4) the cards. If I'm right that those and other things cannot be expressed in numbers, then what sense is there in latching on to the one thing that CAN be expressed with a number, the current pot size, and making that such a heavily weighted parameter?
Small pocket pairs are an exception, since their hit-or-miss nature makes their value easier to gauge.
Also, big pair and AK and AQ often rate to be the best hand, so their value is more easily projected.
But with hands like 6-7 and 9-10, hands that are certainly NOT the best hand going in, hands that might be the best hand at some point and either get bluffed or frequently out drawn, hands whose drawing profits are dimished by poor position, well, I just don't see how the number-of-bets-in-the-pot-before-the-flop became such a significant universally accepted guideline.
Remarks?
Tommy
Great post Tommy,
From what I have observed, many players do not consider position or other player's tendencies at all when deciding to call a raise from the big blind.
Considering only odds while disregarding other factors leads to severe chip bleeding.
This was a lesson I learned the hard way.
Tommy you make some excellent points as usual but I still think pot odds are the dominant consideration in these situations from your blinds. Let us take a more extreme example from a $15-$30 or $30-$60 game where the small blind is 2/3 of a bet instead of 1/2 or 1/3 of a bet. If a bunch of players limp in and you are in the small blind, it is normally costing you only one chip to take a flop and see three cards. You are frequently getting current pot odds of 15:1, 20:1, and even higher in more extreme cases. If all 10 players limp in you are getting current pot odds of 29:1. With pot odds like this you can almost play two random cards because the probability of taking two random unsuited, unconnected cards and flopping at least two pair or better is only 28:1. Going back to less extreme examples, wherein four or five players limp so that your pot odds are 15:1 or better, I would argue you could play any Group 8 hand (HPFAP starting hand classifications) like Trey-Deuce suited, Five-Four offsuit, etc.
It is true that with fewer opponents the likelihood of just a pair holding up is better than against a large number but I don't think this offsets in a linear fashion at all. Furthermore, in those cases where you have only one opponent and a single pair out of position you will not be able to extract maximum money when you do have the best hand. But suppose a situation comes up where you have a lot of opponents just limping in and it becomes correct to play a Group 8 hand. When you flop two pair or better you will be playing it fast and extracting full value from it when your hand is best.
Your example was: $15-30 in the small blind, calling one chip when the entire field limps. Current pot odds, 28-1. Chances of flopping two pair or better, 29-1. Hence a call with two randon cards would be okay.
Jim, we look at the same stats and arrive at exactly opposite conlusions! If I am only getting 29-1 to flop two pair or better, then I want much longer odds than 28-1 on my one chips. Because I am in against a FULL field, my two pair or better has a long way to go before it drags the pot, and it's going to cost plenty to get to a showdown.
Say everyone limps and I toss is one chip from the small blind with 9-6. And I flop two pair. I don't like it. I would not "feel" like I am currently making money. And I know for sure that many times I'll be in tough spots on the turn or river, when people are raising. I'll be guessing, paying off, yanking on my remaining hairs, and potentially uncomposed when I finally get the button, kicking myself in the ass for tossing in one chip on a wing and a prayer.
Tommy
My example was $15-$30 with current pot odds of 29:1 and chances of flopping two pair or better are 28:1. So there is a tiny overlay here. Nevertheless in our extreme example there is $145 in the pot and it costs you $5 to take a flop. But Tommy if you flop two pair or better you could easily win a $500 or $600 pot with this many players. For a lousy $5 chip you position yourself to win a huge pot.
Flopping two pair even against nine players has a very positive EV in almost all cases. You will almost always have the best hand and you have 4 outs twice to a full house. Whenever you flop two pair you should love it since you will get action from over pairs, top pairs, middle pairs, bottom pairs plus flush and straight draws. The huge pots you win when you occasionally catch a good flop more than cover your puny $5 investment and the times you lose. You are missing a lick here if you dump hands in these situations. Don't be paranoid about losing with a good hand-that's poker.
I didn't understand your dice analogy. Perhaps this helps: it is the COMPARISON of pot odds with "hand odds" (chance to actually win) which is relevant, not either one separately.
Yes, your chances of winning a hot-and-cold show-down increase with fewer players. Yes, few holdem hands are greater than 3.5:1 dog heads up. In fact, I think only small cards vrs over pairs are bigger dogs.
Primary: Yes, it is impractical to accurately factor in all criteria. This does NOT mean that it is wise to ignore these criteria. This is a common objective vrs subjective dilema:
After a meal you are ready for desert and you can have as many pieces of pie as you want. Just because you do not know exactly how many pieces of pie is the threshold between "enough" and "too many" (is it 2.35 pieces? 1.78 pieces?) does NOT mean that you don't know that 10 pieces is too many nor that 0 pieces is too few. When budgeting this meal its wise to presume you'll have one or two pieces of pie. Those with better judgement or superior data collection and analysis will do better when budgeting this meal.
Likewise better players can better subjectively determine who good or bad 76s will do after the flop.
After determining your chances of winning, pot size IS the most important factor AND is the easiest to calculate. Clearing adding 10 bets to the pot should overwealm all previous implied odds calculations.
Just because small pocket pairs are easier to calculate does NOT make them an exception.
If you have the better hand (AK) then pot-size considerations don't apply that much: bet while the betting is good.
If pot size is NOT the primary benchmark, what the heck is?
After all that, I will say that far too many people will pop raises cold with inferior hands just because there are so many people in and therefore the pot is large. To call-cold you still need a better than average hand: you cannot call with 72 no matter how many players are in UNLESS your implied odds are huge which they never are; you are getting n:1 odds vrs n opponents. Calling as raise in the BB is a much different matter since you are generally getting 2n:1 odds which makes quite a bit of difference (i.e., your cheese only has to win half as often as "fair share" in order to justify a call).
- Louie
Much enjoyed you desert analogy, Louie.
You asked, "If pot size is NOT the primary benchmark, what the heck is?"
Cards and position, in my opinion.
I worked this concept into a rigid mathematical equation, for the mathy types:
Bad cards + bad position = fold.
:-)
We know that poor players cite two excuses after they drag a pot with rags. "I was getting good odds."
(Or my favorite: "I had to DEFEND the blind." I love that word, and the mentality it has created.
I think good players do it too, they just have a higher standard of what "rags" are. They think, "I'm getting such and such odds. Hmmm. Sounds good. I call."
Whereas if they were to stand back and look at their sucko cards, and remember the frequent intenstinal knots caused by betting first, they'd muck, whatever the odds.
Tommy
Provocative questions. I think Louie's point below that if odds are not the primary factor, what the heck is has merit. I would add that the odds of you showing down the winner change significantly based on the type of your hand and number of opponents. Offsuit semi-rags should be devalued multiway for instance.
All the factors you mention should have some bearing but they are much harder to quantify. I think here is where great players use their "feel" for the game to some extent--they are taking a lot of extra factors in and weighing everything up in the sense of someone trying to roughly handicap everything (and then envisioning various possible outcomes). A way of adjusting the odds based on less clear but very real factors--we should all strive to get better at things like this. I think it comes into play much more in Stud in general--the great player's "intuition" is often a combination of even subconcious factors mixed in with clearer factors and analysis. So I am really saying it is correct to just shade things a bit based on your awareness of other elements.
I was thinking about this while playing low limit where the players are just mindless zombies tossing their money in until the river. A game like this can be a test of the nerves, but there are advantages too.
When I'm calling a marginal hand like 67o on the button with say 8 players limping in, it's not the preflop 9-1 odds that I like. In fact, the way I play against such a large field, I'm a WAY bigger dog than that to win the hand.
It's the 8 players entering the pot that I'm most interested in.
For example, lets say you get a nice flop like K54. If it is heads up and you believe he has a King then you basically make crying calls to the river to suck out on him. Perhaps you can raise the flop for a free draw, perhaps not.
Now take that same flop with 8 other bad players. Whole new ball game. Now you can do stuff like bet, raise, check-raise, and cap the flop. Pound the hell out of it. With each bet on the flop you are not losing money but making money!
Basically the more players in the hand the better your implied odds are, which are great for those trashy connectors and one gappers.
Just remember to play it differently after the flop or you will lose money on the hand anyways. Flopping top pair with 67o is just no good in a 9 player pot where they will chase until the river. Even two pair is likely to be mowed down although it's not bad.
And this applies to games where the players are fairly poor. A lot of money can be made off of the mistakes of 8 players throughout the last 3 streets, for just one little bet before the flop.
Hope I helped answer your question a bit.
Jim Roy
"When I'm calling a hand like 6-7 on the button with eight players . . . "
Yes, for button play all considerations are drastically different than playing that hand from the blind.
Tommy
Totally agree - pairs are the only quantifiable hand pre flop.
Is there something in the archives or can someone do a quick rundown on some of the regular posters to these forums so I have an idea of who you guys are? It might help me sort out whom to accept advice from and what your 'qualifications' are.
I would suggest that, rather than blindly accepting advice based on qualifications, that it is more valuable to follow and think about the threads. When you know for certain, by having read and thought about something, that it really makes sense, then you can hopefully be reasonably confident of it and begin to integrate it into your game.
Even if you were to have 100% confidence in the recommendations of, say, Sklansky, blindly following his memorized advice will not be enough to win consistently. You must understand why in most cases as well, and begin building it into your game. This is a process or journey and there is no easy magic formula or set of instructions that will create a winning player. I think people who get the most value out of this forum are the ones who work on their understanding and slowly build it into their game.
It is a valuable exercise to think about even erroneous advice and to see why it is wrong or incomplete. Reading only the posts of those who are the most qualified or generally accurate with their advice would rob you of this part of the learning experience.
In time you will come to your own conclusions about whose advice is generally on the money and whose isn't. You will develop your own list of favorite posters and may contribute some things of value yourself. In the meantime, the best advice I can give you is to explore and to think.
Even if I tried I couldn't respond better. Everyone whether they are right or wrong have their own style and trying to incorporate what they have to say into your play if they offer good advice or recognizing flaws is invaluable to your development as a winning player. On the forum there are various viewpoints from Rounder to the opposite spectrum, but they all are very thought provoking and stimulating if you take the time and effort to learn from what everyone has to say. I really enjoy the newest contributor, Tommy. Tommy even though I don't necessarily agree with his radical aproach to play out of the blind has certainly made me reapproach my play out of the blind. The whole idea of this forum at least from my eyes is to freely exchange ideas and viewpoints about poker and to make me think about topics which perhaps I have taken for granted and hopefully take me to the next level. Where else can you intelligently discuss poker from a diverse group of people? Certainly not at the poker table with your competition.
Bruce
Thanks bruce. I have found your posts quite interesting, and for a relatively new (or experienced) player you seem to have a lot on the ball--you should do quite well in my opinion.
Re. discussion here vs. at the table--exactly, and I hate table strategy discussions with a passion. It almost always makes me feel the talk will tighten up the table and make them more serious. Plus you just get tired of hearing it all the time. If I were an entertaining speaker I would cleverly change the subject and make them laugh, but alas, only rarely do I feel so inspired. So we do with what we have and work on things a bit. "til later, Mark
Secondly strategic talk at the table is a bunch of B.S. The wise guys are soley trying to find out what you had and you can never get a straight answer out of them either. The only person who is halfway honest is the live one and who really cares about what motivates his warped poker mind. I have a few poker bodies who I talk strategy with away from the table. We don't play in the same games so there is no real potential problem about gaining an edge on the other.
Bruce
bruce and M,
I agree. Never talk strategy at the table. In fact, the only people I even let know I post on the forum are very low limit players that come to me for advice and I don't figure to cross them at the table. Few players who play with me know my last name or that I post here and I want to keep it that way.
Anyway, for years I had a limited circle of acquaintances that I talked poker with. Most had serious deficiencies in their thinking. However, my best friend is a top player but liked to forget about the game in his time off. But even he likes the provocative exchanges on the forum and now we talk poker quite a bit more and we have both improved as a result.
Regards,
Rick
re: talking stategy at the table.
Bigtime with you, M. Yet another thing I love about the 20-40 and 40-80 games at Lucky Chances. Incredibly, we just play. Plenty of talk, but almost NONE of it about recently played hands.
I think its just plain dumb to participate, ever. In the war of information, one that is so easily won by mere silence, explaining yourself is like handing your amo over to the foe.
Tommy
Fair enough.
The "qualifications" rationale for learning more about the regular posters is probably not a strong one.
However, that doesn't mean knowing more about you guys wouldn't be incredibly interesting in itself. I am a regular reader of the postings here, but I rarely post myself. I consider myself a decent poker player, but I really don't have the time or resources to log the hours required to live the life of an excellent poker player.
Part of why I enjoy this forum so much is that it gives me a chance to be connected to this fascinating community in a vicarious fashion. Poker is an alluring game, and those who play it well are alluring people. Knowing more about you guys would be fascinating.
This means that you guys, perhaps without knowing it, have a lot more to offer to the unwashed than just internet poker lessons. Whether or not you are willing to oblige us poker fans is, of course, your choice.
None of this is to take away from the fact that the substance of these posts is very stimulating and informative and helpful, but don't discount the entertainment value of this fascinating game.
--The Cincinnati Kid and Rounders didn't sell tickets because they were informative on substantive poker play--
thanks
Disregard everyones advice on this forum - the posters here are a bunch of guys with no life starting with me.
Don't listen to a word I say it will only screw up your game and cause you to lose money.
:-)
Be not afraid, only believe...
Rookie,
You wrote: "Is there something in the archives or can someone do a quick rundown on some of the regular posters to these forums so I have an idea of who you guys are? It might help me sort out whom to accept advice from and what your 'qualifications' are."
In poker there are no "qualifications" per se. There is no license or degree required. And some who appear to be local hot shots are "trust fund pros" that barely break even or worse. Some win tournaments and appear in poker magazines but lose a fortune in ring games. In fact they may even be losing in tournaments if you count all the tournaments they enter and the rebuys they make.
Anyway, M's response above is excellent.
Regards,
Rick
There are some excellent responses to this post here and I agree with most of them.
It is difficult to measure success in poker. For one thing, no one really knows how much anyone else makes. As someone pointed out, there are 'trust fund' pros who play big all the time but do not really win significantly.
Another point - on any given topic, many of the 'experts' will disagree. Sometimes the 'correct' play, as pointed out by one of the top theorists, may be totally counter intuitive. Like so many things in life, people who don't know any better may scoff at an answer that violates their common sense. The fact is that the reasoning behind some plays might be too far beyond the plane of some people's understanding that they may never hope to grasp it.
A couple of examples are the threads regarding John Feeney's preflop play of AQ, and of this hand:
when you have JT and the flop is A87.
The 'correct' play of these hands is so counter intuitive to some players, even 'experts', that these topics have engendered lengthy threads. Some of the responses were quite heated and emotional on the matter. No doubt some people arguing on either side of the fence are winning players.
I will also add that some of the advice from big limit pros (whether it be in their books or on this forum) are patently ridiculous, while some postings from low limit players are very insightful and thought provoking.
It is the discussion of these hands and situations that teaches us to be better players. Don't say 'I will take player X's advice but not player Y's.' Rather, listen to the reasoning, think it through, and decide for yourself what works best in your game. If you reach a conclusion that DOESN'T work, try the opposite.
-SmoothB-
"It is difficult to measure success at poker."
But it's easy for a simple-minded, present-tense pro to define success at poker. Success at poker is waking up without a job.
Measuring success IS a lot trickier because we can think in terms of seconds, or hours, or days, or weeks, or years, and the term 'success' takes on various meanings. For some, success might mean losing less than they used to. It might mean the first time they quit stuck just because they didn't feel like playing anymore. There are infinite possible successes, and each one matters when they happen.
Tommy
'Success at poker is waking up without a job. '
I am not really sure I agree with this.
There are a good number of players out there who play a very mediocre game and manage to scrape out 20K per year or so by hunting around for easy games. I don't think I would call this 'success'.
I am sure that most of the people who post here could do that without batting an eyelash. I'm not going to call it success though. I might listen to their advice on how to find an easy table, but I won't bother listening to them explain how to play bottom 2 pair from the blind in a family pot.
Success certainly involves playing winning poker, but it also involves
1) Discipline!
2) Reading hands and players
3) Really understanding the value of your hand in a given situation
4) Knowing when to dump that marginal hand and when to raise with it
5) Knowing how to avoid traps and how to trap others
6) Knowing the best play, mathematically, in any given situation (accounting for position, opponents, etc)
I know some 'pros' who have marginal or non existent skills in several of these categories. But they still manage to eek out their little wins and make enough to pay the rent at the boarding house.
-SmoothB-
Hey Smooth! No fair! You quoted me out of context.
When I said that "waking up without a job" is one definition of success at pro poker, I did not suggest that this deinition is universal. I qualified the TYPE of person for whom that definition could be self-applied, namely, "present tense" people.
Let's look at it another way. Say a guy goes pro and lives a comfortable lifestyle for 20 years, all from poker. Then, for whatever reason, he goes busted. Would you call this person a failure? If so, then no professional player could be called a success until he was dead.
If you met this fella at his height, when he was all pumped up and on the top of the world, you would presumably brand him a success. But if you happened to see the same person as an old man dealing at your casino, and you heard stories about how he blew his bankroll, you might then brand him a failure, right?
If this is so, then by your way of defining success at professional poker, the only thing that matters is how well that person is doing at the time they are observed and judged.
In that sense, we agree. If someone is making a good living at poker, today, they are a success in my book.
Tommy
Here is a great rule-of-thumb: Since you have limited time you may be selective as to who's posts you read. But once you decide to read a post ignore who posted it and consider the advice on its own merit.
- Louie
.
For straight forward nuts and bolts analysis read everything Jim Brier writes. He will rarely be wrong and when he is it is a fraction of a bet mistake.
If you don't like huge swings in your bankroll stick with Rounder. He is not interested in investing an extra bet on a slim draw even if he's getting odds. He wants to mix it up big time when he's got the goods and he regards poker as a people game not a math game.
You will learn a great deal from any thread when Jim Brier and skp or Rick Nebiolo are involved. They know each other's styles well and will offer more ways to play and think through a hand than one would think possible.
For anything concerning bankroll, standard deviation, or variance I believe you want mason malmuth answering your questions. You might say he wrote the book on the subject.
Never miss any thread in which Vince Lepore participates. This guy is a poker player who absolutely loves/hates the game. His insights and advice are always accompanied with a splash of creativity.
Look for Abdul and Izmet. Read their stuff. Go to their websites and read them thoroughly. They give a great balance to the rhetoric of the resident twoplustwoskies (An Abdullian slight) and you will learn to realize there's more than one way to make money at poker.
Unfortunately you're too late to reap the benefits of advice from Dan hanson. A true superstar on this Forum. He's on hiatus but we hope he'll be back soon.
You're also too late for badger and Gary Carson. Well, maybe you timed it right, after all.
Also, read the always acerbic Louie Landale.
If you're having a hard time getting to sleep read one of Ray Zee's posts on the great outdoors.
John Feeney is doing a book about the misfits who post to the Forum titled, "1001 Different ways to say, It Depends."
There are many other fine posters, surprisng guest stars such as Roy Cook, Bob Ciaffone and even david Sklansky posts here sometimes when he can get away from his valedictory speeches on rgp.
All in all you've found the right place.
Good luck.
Thanks SammyB!
This is actually more what I was looking for. The qualifications comment was just a way to try to get some of you guys to talk a little about yourselves. I was more looking for who plays professionally, who plays semi-pro, who is in AC, NY, Vegas, or Cali. Which guys play low, medium, high stakes, PL, NL, tourneys, etc. That kind of crap. Why? I was just curious about you guys and I find all of you entertaining and informative. Stumbling onto this forum has been a big enjoyment to me.
Best of it to all! Rookie
Z will give you the "Bioharzard" report on this gang when he returns from wolf poaching.
I was recently involved in an online 20-40 hold'em game where i was baited into playing high stakes by an abusive player. Within the course of about 80 hands,(I haven't counted them yet). Another player at the table proceeded to win close to $5000 at this table($1500 of which was mine), always seeming to make the right call no matter anyone's holding, raising, or calling position. Now, I will be the first to admit, I'm no master of the game, but from the hands she was holding herself, there is no reason she should have been able to steamroll everyone like this. I have just recieved the hand histories, and have yet to review them myself, but if there seems any merit to my initial opinion that i was cheated, i would like to email anyone interested in analyzing the hands. I don't want to post here all the hands first, for brevity's sake, and B., because I am supposed to keep this in confidence. Also, interestingly enough, i was sent hand histories containing ALL players pre-flop(and obviously post-flop) card holdings, which is more than i could ever ask for. Unfortuneately, it would be much too cumbersome a job to delete all names and hand #'s from tis as to hide any identities, but if I feel I am right after reviewing the hands, I really don't care about etiquete improprieties. If you would be interested in having me forward a file contining these hand histories to you, please email me at clocwork@aol.com. I will review first to make sure I'm not just a REALLY crappy player, but prior history says I'm only partially crappy. Please specify whether you would like Wordpad file or Wordperfect.
nm
Are these cards still warped? I sat down with a deck and 2 dealer friends a couple weeks ago. We spread a whole deck face down on the felt and spent about 5 minutes intently studying the backs of the cards, looking for the warped ones.
Which ones are supposed to be warped - just the spade facecards, all the facecards, etc? I think our picks were, at best, marginally above the statistical norm. IE we wouldn't have done very much worse choosing at random.
These cards had been used for several hours of play, however.
How can anyone actually study the backs of these cards to tell if they are face cards or not??? Esp. with a chip on them?
-SmoothB-
The Bellagio still has a problem with warped Kem cards. The face cards and the Ace of Spades tends to be warped sometimes. This becomes evident when they are layed down on the table face up.
Ok I'm showing my lack of experience here again.
What exactly is a "Warped Kem" card? Does it refer to the printing or the texture of the card.
Thanks for your help
Rich
Rich, some of the Kem cards at the Bellagio do not lie flat on the table. When they are put face up on the table you can see that they are warped, twisted, or bent. It is very noticeable sometimes and is almost always the Ace of Spades or a face card. This may have something to do with the way they are packed in the box, the humidity, the additional paint on the face cards, how they are shipped, etc.
The Orleans uses the A+ brand which are thicker than Kem cards and they do not twist, bend, or warp. Kem cards are too thin but they are easier to shuffle and handle for most dealers.
Jim,
Thank you very much. You are always so helpful.
Rich
A few years back, one (or more) of the casinos here in Edmonton used Kem cards for a while. I didn't know their reputation at the time, but I didn't like them. One thing I remember especially: the Ace of Hearts was recognizable to anyone who looked hard enough (not too hard). It wasn't because of warping; you could actually see the pip through the back of the card.
Eric
Commerce is using the A-Plus brand. No warping problem with them. They are stiff, but to me just feel like a new deck all the time. Whenever I play in Oceanside after playing at Commerce it takes me a few minutes to get used to how flimsy the Kem cards feel in comparison.
HI...I'M HEADING TO CHICAGO FOR THE WEEKEND. I WANT TO PLAY BUT I DONT WANT TO DRIVE FAR. I KNOW HARRAHS ON THE EAST SIDE...I KNOW HOLLYWOOD IN AURORA, BUT THESE ARE A DRIVE. ANY GAMES IN THE CITY TO SPEAK OF??? THANX...NAZ
DANAZ5
Nope!! :-(
This is not the poker meca it should be so Harrahs is your best bet. Phone 90 min before to get on the (long)list. 1800Harrahs
Best of it !!
MJ
nt
not even worth the 20 minute drive over to harrahs?
The games at harrahs are often quite good.
I think you have to call the poker room and callind 1800 harrhas won't let you connect to the poker room.
I don['t think there are any other card rooms left besides harrahs and the hollywood.
Greetings:
Do yourself a favor and NOT go the Hollywood Casino in Aurora!! Why?? It's not because of the poker of which there always seems to be games going on but because the casino has the most IRRITATING practice of having to call over a supervisor anytime somebody shows a Driver's License which is not from Illinois, no matter where. You'd think a Wisconsin driver's license for a 30 year old would pretty much be trivial to the sophisticated Chicago intellects, but every damn time it becomes an ordeal just to get on the boat. Furthermore, there's one particular supervisor--a tall roughly 25-30 year asshole dipshit with brown hair who thinks he's a sheriff's deputy who analyzes your license like your a Chinese going through LAX customs. He's even asked me to smile as to match my picture. Soley because of this asshole, I have not played poker at the Hollywood Casino since February and will not again.
So do me a favor and don't play there!!
"Do yourself a favor and NOT go the Hollywood Casino in Aurora!!" I second that motion, for the same reason. Someone needs to write the casino, about the lack of properly trained security.
Just a beginning - card room management needs a new daytime floor BAD - if you look up irritating in the dictionaty the day floors picture is there.
Many but not all of the dealers are way to slow. Favoring the bad players as they have less opportunity to make bad decisions - this is what happens when there is NO competition for players.
Harrahs is the best place to play(it's down two 2 rooms)the Room is fairly well run and the action is on average good. Just enough fish to make the trip worth while and who knows you may hit the jackpot.
Friday night was a perfect example. Just wanted to stay all night the table was so good.
Best of it !!
MJ
Agree Harras is better than Aurora.
It is an hour drive for me but It has been worth it.
Mason has written a new essay that is contained on the essays page. This is a very good essay and I would like to discuss a couple of things about it. First of all the poster Mason refers to is Abdul. The essay examines the play of raising with A8 suited UTG or in early position. Here a couple of interesting paragrahps from the essay:
>>Now here's what's interesting. Assuming that this is my strategy, it would make sense for an under the gun player to raise with the ace-eight suited because I won't be there often enough to challenge him. That is if I and others are following a strategy like what I just described above, it would be proper for him to open up a little. (There are also other strategies that other players could be following that would also make it right for our under the gun player to play loose and aggressive.)
But suppose I begin to notice that this new player is an awfully loose raiser up front. That is I see him firing away with hands that I wouldn't be raising with, and many times not even playing given that position. This can include hands like ace-eight suited, medium suited connectors, medium to small pairs, and two unsuited medium high cards such as ace-jack and king-ten. Well, when this happens, it is time to adjust. I'll add in a few hands. They include ace-queen offsuit, nines, and eights, and I will always reraise with them. <<
I haven't studied Abdul's pre-flop strategy in depth so if I misrepresent it apologies to Abdul beforehand. I believe that he maintains the following about the play of raising with A8 suited:
1) He uses this strategy for "tough" high limit games.
2) He balances the raises he makes with the appropriate number of CALLs and Raises so that he is not easy to read in early position.
3) The "balancing" he employs will not have him raising at too high of a frequency. For instance he limp re-raises with AA (I think). His strategy is worked out such that the frequency of raising in early position is not too great. It's about the same frequency one would get a group 1-2 hands.
So the counter strategy Mason proposes in the second paragraph may not be effective against Abdul's pre-flop strategy. For anyone familiar with Abdul's pre-flop strategy recommendations, did I essentially get it right?
I am not familiar with Abdul's pre-flop strategy but I think most players would run into serious difficulties if they started raising under the gun with Ace-Eight suited.
The problem with cold simulations is that they don't reflect the betting and how a hand frequently plays out. They don't reflect the money lost over the course of a year by raising out of position with speculative drawing hands. They sometimes assume that the player gets to see all five boardcards at little or no cost. Lawrence Hill, a computer simulation expert who writes for CardPlayer, has the same problem with his analyses. These simulations do not accurately reflect how hands get played and I believe certain hands get over valued as a result. A pair of Deuces may beat Ace-King offsuit in a heads-up simulation but I can assure you that if you believe a pair of Deuces is as good a playing hand as Ace-King offsuit you will lose money.
Ace-Eight suited is a speculative drawing hand. It wants to play with lots of opponents in unraised pots. This means that you want to limp in preferably behind others from middle or late position and not have to call any raises. When you come in early with this hand you have no idea how many opponents you will have or how much it will cost you to see a flop. When you raise under the gun with this hand you are charging yourself extra money to take a flop with the possibility of the pot getting re-raised. Furthermore, your raise will tend to drive out players when you want players in with this kind of hand. If you are in a low limit game where no one is so rude as to raise before the flop then limping in early might be okay but raising is still a bad idea. You are not trying to steal the blinds, you are trying to get big, multi-way action at a cheap price with this kind of hand.
I believe Abdul's preflop strategy is based largely on TTH "intelligent" simulations, not showdown simulations. Of course, the generalizability of such simulation results depends upon the degree to which the TTH autoplayers ("profiles") mimic the behavior of real live players. One known problem with the play of the TTH profiles is their often questionable use of the check-raise; this would tend to yield simulation results which UNDERESTIMATE the value of hands in early position.
Regarding A8s, I believe its high card value makes it more than just a "speculative drawing hand"...especially in very tight games and short-handed situations.
"Lawrence Hill, a computer simulation expert who writes for CardPlayer, has the same problem with his analyses."
I've been saying this for years. My best guess is that Hill doesn't really play any poker and has probably never set foot in a public cardroom. If he did, he would begin to understand that his approach is not really poker at all.
I have not read the essay. The quote doesn't contain any deep insight and fails to take the next logical step (which the essay might.) If you start liberally early 3-betting the loose early raiser, others will start aggressively 4-betting you, and both you and the original raiser will be hosed.
A8s 6 off the button is shaky. If you're in a fairly tight game and are raising or folding with all your hands as I recommend, then A8s, KTs, and similar hands become potential blind stealing hands 6 off the button. If someone wishes to commit mutual suicide by 3-betting you too liberally, then you would be wise to back off and wait for premium hands.
I only recommend mixing open-limping and open-raising in either a loose or overly tight game. A8s is a clear limping hand in a very loose game and even Mason might open-raise early with A8s if 8 Masons were behind him.
There are only 4 ways to make A8s! If you were to raise with TT-AA, AK/AKs, and AQ/AQs, 62 ways, do you think it would make a difference to add in the 4 A8s's?! Of course not. Similarly, you could add in the A9s's without suddenly being vulnerable to 3-bets. I've studied this mathematically, and I think it's safe to play the hands I recommend. Remember too, there is a cost of not raising with these marginal hands: everyone folds to your rocky raises, you steal the blinds, and that's a disaster for JJ-AA, which are worth much more than the blinds.
Something that S&M don't emphasize is the value of stealing the blinds even from early position. When you raise and everyone folds, you've just won 1.5 small bets, which is a lot more than what you get from folding or limping with marginal hands. When you don't steal the blinds but do get heads up with a blind, you've got position and the lion's share of that 1.5 small bets of expected value. When you get 3-bet and the flop misses you, well, shucks, next hand.
If instead of raising with A8s and 88 you're going to open-call early, then consider the likely scenario in a tight game: a player raises behind with an AJ that he would have mucked had you raised, the big blind calls, and you wind up 3-way to the flop with a player behind you. A disaster!
Limping in a spot like this is clearly a very bad play, but if you want to argue for a fold, then we don't have much of a dispute. I have argued that A8s is the very lowest playable hand early in properly tight games, worth not much more than pennies, and not playable when players are willing to 3-bet too loosely behind you.
-Abdul
Abdul,
I hope you do read Mason's Essay and stay involved in this thread. If they are not broken due to the problems with www.deja.com, perhaps you can provide us with some links to your strategy posts in this area. I believe I have read most of them so I get the general idea but a lot of us have not.
Anyway, this thread could get very interesting.
Regards,
Rick
One point to note is that if someone "notices" an early player raising w/A8s and the like and decides often to reraise it will not alwyas be the case that the early raiser will have A8s he may have something much stronger while the "observant" player may now be 3 betting w/ a hand badly dominated (say AJvs AK or something). Notice had the early player been only make "legit" raiser the observant player would have never gotten involved.
And the observant player may be paying off to a much larger extent once he has noticed the early positioin player's loose standards.
It seems to me these "loose" requirements are to entice other players to make mistakes such as these. Comments?
suspicious it is true that loose players will frequently get payed off quite handsomely when they have the better hand. To cite an extreme example, about two years ago when I was playing in the $20-$40 game at the Horseshoe in Bossier City, Louisiana I saw a very loose player nicknamed "The Postman" win almost $12,000 over a 20 hour period. "The Postman" liked to play a lot of hands and would raise with weak cards even in early position. Other players would stay with him and he got payed off big time because he caught cards all weekend. However, this same player started running bad and ended up playing $4-$8 within about 6 months.
Players who are willing to play a lot of hands and who frequently raise on less than premium cards in early position can win a lot of money in a short period of time. The biggest wins I have ever seen in limit poker have been from maniacs who catch cards. But these players also post the biggest losses and every one of them "crash and burn" when the miracle cards stop coming. I have played several thousand hours of $15-$30, $20-$40, and $30-$60 with a few hours of $40-$80. I know of no player who is a long term winner at these limits who raises under the gun with a hand like Ace-Eight suited.
"I know of no player who is a long term winner at these limits who raises under the gun with a hand like Ace-Eight suited."
I am much more experienced than you, Jim, but I appreciate your and Mason's observations on A8s being death incarnate under the gun and about Kem cards being flat.
You ever heard of Roy Cooke, Jim? Can we agree that KTs is a "hand like A8s"? Go ask Roy if he ever raises with a hand like KTs under the gun.
-Abdul
Occasionally raising with a hand like A8s UTG is fine as long as it is only done occasionally. (We do mention a kind of game in HPFAP-21 where A9s and A8s should be played early. See page 25.) It is just that in general when you see players doing this they are also playing many other questionable hands.
As for Cooke raising with KTs UTG let me state that he would absolutely never do that with one exception. The exception is when he sees that several players on his left have already passed. If you have played with Cooke you will notice that he is perhaps the slowest player you have ever played with. This allows him to observe the action on his left and it sometimes allows him to "move" his position to the middle of the table.
Me Like.
CV
Two points:
1. First players who raise with A8s UTG generally raise with many other hands that they shouldn't. This should certainly be the case with the post that created the seed for the essy. If A8s is profitable UTG, many other hands would also become profitable.
2. You are correct in that a loose raiser can still have a good hand. Thus you don't loosen up with your three betting too much, and is why I say "I'll add in a few hands."
Abdul,your analysis was done with "typical players"and yet the type that would pick off a 3 bet move and go to the next level and routinly 4 bet to reisolate, thus reducing his own preflop standards and relying on his play post flop ,(an adjustment to another player's adjustment to a 3rd live one),while it should be done, is not in your "typical" holdem player's repetoire.
Another thing is that you would only be making the three bet play with a small number of additional hands against a small number of opponents who tended to be very loose raisers. In addition, some of the additional hands that you three bet with would not be shown down. I doubt if anyone would even notice that you had just made this play. Thus the tendency for an observant player to take it to four bets, which would be a problem iif it happened, would probably not be there.
I certainly don't mean that you should raise UTG with A8s in a typical 15-30 game, where your early raises would usually get 1 or more cold calls, and where I would limp with A8s.
The 30-60 game tonight at Bellagio with several pros and two rocks from hell was the kind of game I'm talking about. I raised with AJ UTG and stole the blinds, which Mason apparently thinks is suicidal and he would limp there if I understand him correctly. Next hand, a rock from hell - someone as tight as Jim Brier if you can believe it - open-raised a couple off the button, stole the blinds, and got kind of a disappointed look on his face. I almost suggested to him that he might need to raise with some of his marginal hands to either get action on his good hands or get value from stealing with his marginal hands.
The 80-160 game tonight was another good game for raising with hands like A8s UTG. In fact, one of the professionals in the game did just that, and tortured me when he made trip aces.
-Abdul
I agree that when the game is tight this play can be correct, especially if the players in the blinds are also very tight. A also agree that if you take a hand like A8s and occasionally raise with it when first in early that there is no problem. The purpose of my essay was mainly to discuss how you should adjust your play against players who routinely raise with way too many hands that would include hands like A8s.
In the essay, it seems that Mason is assuming that if UTG is raising with A8s, that UTG will raise with similar hands.
However, this seems to me, to be Abdul's lowest range of raising hands.
Thus, let's say Mason would only reraise with AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, AKs, AKo against a good UTG player, but now that he sees UTG raising with a wider range of hands, Mason starts reraising with AQs, AQo, AJs (hands that he would have just called with previously).
So, what's the difference here? Does Mason get an edge over the UTG raiser? I say no, the UTG raiser has an edge over Mason if Mason did not realize that he would raise with hands like A8s (thus making Mason fold AQo), but now that Mason realizes this, he will 3 bet with AQo....but if he does, isn't Mason just regaining the edge that UTG had "stolen" from him? In essence, both players are now up to speed....and on par again...the UTG raiser is no longer taking equity from Mason.
Now, if UTG usually plays tight and correct from other positions, and is only adding a few extra hands to raise with, it would take a while for a good player to notice, it would take several hours if not days of playing with the guy to know for sure he'd raise with A8s UTG. So that means UTG has stolen an edge for a few hours/days until Mason catches up with UTG's UTG raising strategy.
But all this analysis is only useful in one type of game - tight high limit games. It would not be a good strategy to raise UTG with A8s in typical 20/40 games around the country, since a lot of the players are not paying that much attention, and the UTG raise doesn't mean that much to them anyways. Mason pointed out in the essay (I think, or maybe it was in a post of his in this thread, I forget), Mason would normally call with A8s in the games he plays, which are normally much looser and you would get a few limpers to go along with the UTG limp also.
So, I think they are both correct.
In tough, tight, high limit games, where there are a good amount of players who are very good and pays lots of attention to position and how others play, a raise with A8s will throw them off a bit, but will get caught on to sooner or later. Once UTG realizes that there are several players who have "caught on", UTG can then stop raising with those hands.
In average 20/40, 30/60 games around the country, usually the games are populated by people who don't put as much emphasis on a UTG raise than in the 80/160 and higher games....so a raise will be called by AJo by more players in 20/40 than in 80/160...and that would be a bad thing.
Let me also say that I look up to Mason and Abdul as I would to people like Malcom X and Martin Luther King Jr. (assuming I was alive back then). I'm just not sure which one is more similar to which one.
This is a very interesting post. I hope that everyone reads it.
If you do raise with A8s and get reraised what then. How many players do you want in to just call or how many to reraise. It just seems to me that you are just asking for trouble by raising in the first place. As Jim, said call if you want and if you get a lot of callers, with the right flop you stand to make a good profit.
You will not get a lot of callers if you open-limp in the games I'm talking about. You will be heads up or 3 way versus a late raiser holding a dominating hand that he would have mucked had you raised, or else 3 way versus the blinds.
If you open-raise with A8s and get 3-bet, do not 4-bet. Call, see the flop, and then sometimes see the turn if either you're heads up or you have at least a backdoor flush draw, but basically you're just looking to bail if you don't connect quickly with the board.
Let us approach this from the other end, looking at the ridiculous nature of Mason's strategy rather than the ridiculous nature of my strategy, shall we? Mason open-raises early with very few hands. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but it's pretty well known that he loves limping with 88 and 99 and often TT, and doesn't raise with AJ, so that leaves something like JJ-AA, AJs, AQ/AQs, AK/AKs, and even then he'll be limping sometimes with his suited aces.
Now, analyze what hands opponents can profitably cold call against him. It's something like QQ-AA, AKs. Next, determine how often one of his opponents will have such a hand: about 11%. So almost 90% of the time, Mason will just steal the blinds against a table of tough players who adjust to his strategy.
Does this maximize his expected value in a tough game? Of course not. Mason's essay is a strong argument against Mason's strategy. He could sneak it some more hands, and get lots of steal value from them while also increasing the expected value of JJ-AA, which are worth considerably more than the blinds. Mason's strategy works only against fish.
I've done a lot of work trying to optimize the set of hands to open with in the face of adapting opponents. It's difficult to know exactly where to draw the line, but I feel strongly that Mason's set of hands is far from optimal.
-Abdul
Abdul,
When the mid-limit games I play in are in tight mode, which is rare, I open-raise up front with A8s. I much enjoyed reading your thoughts on this type of play. Here's another.
When I raise preflop, from whatever seat, in whatever situation, in whatever kind of game, most of the other players have no idea what I hold. I know this is true because they tell me over and over. I think that's because they don't know that I just folded A8s UTG ten times in the last month, but today it felt right to pop it with that same hand. If my A-8 gets turned over at a showdown, great. The doubts are reinforced.
I'm new to you and your work, but from what I've seen so far, you place much emphasis on the long-range ramifications of short-range decisions. Is that right?
Tommy
"...you place much emphasis on the long-range ramifications of short-range decisions. Is that right?"
That's one way to put it. I emphasize balance.
-Abdul
Abdul wrote :
"Does this maximize his expected value in a tough game? Of course not. Mason's essay is a strong argument against Mason's strategy. He could sneak it some more hands, and get lots of steal value from them while also increasing the expected value of JJ-AA, which are worth considerably more than the blinds. Mason's strategy works only against fish. "
I agree....Mason's strategy does not hold up well in a "tough game". However, I believe Mason is claiming that in a lot of the games that he plays in, they are not tough games. Thus he would expect it likely for some of the players to call AJo & ATo even against an UTG raiser. So, if it is a tough game and you don't expect players to call a UTG raise with ATo, then a raise with A8s to get those guys out is correct. However, if it is not a tough game and you expect some players to call with ATo against your UTG raise, then why bother raising?
It seems clear to me that it depends on how tough the game is, and if there are calling station(s) around.
In HPFAP-21 on page 20 we state:
"Sometimes you will need to add a few hands to those you play up front to throw your opponents off. For example, you occasionally should play a hand like
7s 6s
in an early position, even if the game is tough, to stop your more observant opponents from stealing gainst you when "rags" flop. Also, this is a good hand to occasionally raise with if you feel that your early position raises are getting too much respect. (That is you are not getting any action.) However, no matter what the reason for playing a hand like this, make sure that your hand is suited, and only do this occasionally."
So despite what Abdul tells you, we have already covered this situation.
So what's your beef with A8s then?
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
You need to read what I have written above. I have no problem if you take a hand like A8s and occasionally raise with it. My point is that generally when you find a player who is raising with a hand like A8s up front that he is also raising with many other hands that he should probably not even be playing.
This brings us to TTH. If it shows that it is profitable to raise with A8s UTG, that means all the time. Furthermore, if it shows this, my bet is that it will show that many other hands that you should not be playing (or at least raising) are now profitable. So you as a player now start raising up front with all these hands, the better players adjust which I believe that TTH is not capable of doing, and your results are far different from what it shows.
I think that should be ppretty clear.
I think it should be ppretty clear that you do not understand how Abdul arrived at his conclusions using TTH. TTH does not show it is profitable to raise with A8s utg, or should I say, it only shows it against the right type of opponents. Abdul recommends raising utg with A8s only when it is likely to take down the blinds which is the same situation your quote describes.
Of course, while you advocate "*occasionally* raise", Abdul says "mix your hands", which I believe is one of his major steps forward towards mastering this game.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
I don't see any disagreement between Mason and Abdul on this ace-eight-suited thing. The reasons for "occasional" raises, as quoted from Mason's book, seem to match Abdul's reasons for "mixing of hands." There are semantical differences in their deliveries, but the message reads the same to me; that rigid, predictable upfront raising is not a good idea against a tough, overly tight field.
If I'm right, then why does it sound like a debate is going on?
Tommy
If you don't significantly water down the strength of your premium early raising hands, then in a tough game everyone will just simply fold to your early open-raises. Raising with 53s UTG once in a blue moon as Mason has suggested won't cut it, unless it succeeds in fooling the opponents (and it might.) I don't do that kind of garbage raising, choosing instead to raise with the best of my marginal hands, particularly those hands that do well heads up against the big blind. I make sure I play enough marginal hands to balance my strategy, forcing my opponents into a difficult decision rather than an easy one when I open-raise.
The starting hands I recommend come from several studies. In one study using Turbo Texas Hold'em, I iteratively had the preflop raiser optimize his hands, and then the opponents optimized the hands they play, and then the preflop raiser again, and so on, many, many simulations. This exercise was probably redundant, as I believe the Turbo Texas Hold'em author already did just that in optimizing the default strategies of the best players. In other studies, I've used mathematics and a simplified playing strategy and some general numbers from no fold'em simulations. I'm not saying I found a definitive answer, as I always wind up relying on some sort of simulator (and there could be multiple Nash equilibria and other issues clouding the analysis.)
-Abdul
Tommy, I believe you may be new here. I don't think Mason and Abdul could agree on anything.
Let me list the hands I'm talking about raising with early:
66 STRONG: TT-AA, AJs-AKs, AQ-AK
32 MEDIUM: 88, 99, KQs, AJ, ATs
30 MARGINAL: 77, KTs, KJs, QJs, A8s, A9s, and maybe QTs
Note the absense of KQ and AT.
Going through the combinations of suits, there are 4 ways to make suited hands, 6 ways to make pairs, and 12 ways to make offsuit hands, thus adding up to the number of hands, listed on the left.
For the strong hands, I believe Mason and I are in agreement that these are raising hands in tight games, though under some circumstances Mason would not raise with TT or JJ, and I guess he might limp more often than raise with AJs. For the medium hands, I believe Mason argued vehemently against raising with 88 and AJ and so I doubt he would normally raise with any of them, whereas I feel confident these are all raising hands in tight games. For the marginal hands, Mason seems to be sure these are either mucking or limping hands, whereas since I 100% raise-or-fold when opening in tough games, I'm still going to raise with them if I play them in such a game, regardless of how I think they would play best in isolation. I'll sometimes muck the marginal hands when under the gun 10-handed or when there is a rake or when somebody is (over)aggressively 3-betting me.
If Mason did agree that the medium hands should be raised, then he couldn't (or at least shouldn't) have a big argument with adding a mere 30 marginal hands to the 92 strong/medium hands. However, since Mason doesn't agree with raising with even the medium hands, then he's looking at adding the 62 medium/marginal hands to the 66 strong hands, and saying that's too many questionable hands to add.
At some point if you add too many hands, the whole thing will collapse like a house of cards - you'll lose money not only on the last hand you added but also on all your marginal hands that were profitable before. At the other extreme, if you play only the strong hands, your opponents just fold and you steal the blinds the vast majority of the time, and this isn't the optimum either.
-Abdul
I just gave your list a quick scan, but I agree that in tight/passive games it may be correct to raise with all of them. However, I virtually never play in games like that.
In tight aggressive games, which are a little more common, I suspect that you are raising and playing too many hands up front, but the difference is not as great as you may think.
In the games I play in, which usually contain at least a couple of fairly live players, this strategy becomes inappropriate. This would be particularly true if the live ones are on your right meaning that when you are in an early position, they might be in the blinds.
The way I remember this argument from a couple of years ago -- my essay was written over two years ago -- it was advocated to always raise with hands like A8s up front and there were no game stipulations attaached.
"it was advocated to always raise with hands like A8s up front and there were no game stipulations attaached"
Bull.
I remember that Abdul did stipulate rather explicitly the game conditions where A8s could be played for a raise UTG. He also stipulated the frequency of raising in these games.
Non sequitur.
It has always been my contention that in a tough game raising from UTG is a great spot to pick off the blinds. I am not sure exactly what the cutoff is on hand values, but if you have a reasonable chance of picking off the blinds you can profitably raise with just about any two reasonable cards, ie. even hands like 67s and small pocket pairs. A raise by a strong player early on carries far more weight than a raise in the back esp. if your play is respected. I will frequently raise early with so called garbage hands in tough games and will pick up blind after blind until my opponents adjust their play. I don't get carried away with this but it becomes an important arsenal in this type of game.
Bruce
Bruce
I think the key to this play is as you say "not to get carried away." In the right game, it should be done some, but not too much.
Agreed. Another bonus is that when I make an early-position blind stealing attempt with a suspect hand and get called, it's often by one of the blinds. So now I have position against a player who has already overrated my hand. That's gotta be a profitable situation.
Tommy
Let's say you are challenged to a headsup match with another player. The stakes are 1000 dollars and you are only going to play ONE HAND.
You both agree to push the entire 1000 all in before the cards are even dealt. The trick is that YOU get to choose your starting hand, but your opponent must play a random hand.
Here are the hands you can choose from:
AKo
22
J6s
Rank these hands in order from best to worst. Answers will follow.
-SmoothB-
AKo would be the hand to pick because you have an even money chance of your opponent picking J6s and you would be a strong favorite. If he gets 22, you are only a slight dog.
22 AKo J6s.
Though I believe it is well known that 22 is a fav against AKo, which is a fav against JTs, while JTs is a fav against 22.
Let me clarify one thing:
You get to choose your hand from among the three I listed. But your opponents has to play a random hand - any 2 random cards.
IE if you pick J6 suited he might end up with AA , 72 offsuit, or any other 2 cards in the deck (that don't include the 2 you picked.)
-SmoothB-
The correct ranking of these hands is, from best to worst,
AKo
J6s
22.
AKo stands to win 65.4% of the time against any random hand headsup. It is by far and away the best of these 3 choices.
J6s stands to win about 50.8% of the time making it a slim favorite over 22, which will beat a random hand 50.3% of the time.
My intention here was to reinforce my belief that tiny pocket pairs are grossly overvalued by many in headsup situation - even where all of the money goes into the pot before the hand.
Of course, 22 is a favorite when played against either AKo or J6s. But not by much. When people hear this they put far too much value on these tiny pairs. But you must consider something here:
With 22, you are a huge underdog to any other pocket pair. Your opponent will have a pocket pair about 1 time in 17.
Against any other holding (with the exception of any non pair hand containing a deuce) you are a tiny tiny favorite over most of them, and approximately equal or a tiny underdog to a few others. IE 22 is a small underdog to most of the suited connectors.
So, in the final analysis, 22 is a tiny favorite over a random hand.
AK, on the other hand, is a tiny underdog (about 11-10) to any pocket pair QQ-22. This will occur roughly 5% of the time (give or take). But it is a big winner against any other unpaired hand. It is a huge underdog to AA and a modest underdog to KK, but these hands will be in your opponent's hands a tiny fraction of the time when you have AK.
Consequently, it is a big 65.4 % favorite over any random 2 cards.
In fact, the only hands that are better than AKo against a random hand are:
AA, AKs, AQs, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 88, 77. It is about exactly the same as AJs.
As for AKs, the only hands that fare better are:
AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 88.
So the next time you consider shoving your stack in with 55, remember that most of the time you are either a tiny favorite or a big underdog.
-SmoothB-
How did you fing all this information out, Smooth?
I trust your math and appreciate your conclusions. Just one thing you left out.
Shoving in with 55 has the same benefit as shoving in with 7-2. Sometimes they fold.
Tommy
Yes but the times you get called you are in deep doo doo.
-SmoothB-
think again, if u believe AQs is better than AKo heads up
With all due respect, you are missing the point.
AQ suited is WORSE than AK offsuit headsup, obviously. But it fares better against a RANDOM hand than AKo does.
Likewise, 22 is better than AK offsuit headsup, but AKo fares better against a RANDOM hand than 22 does.
See what I mean?
-SmoothB-
SB you really have way to much time on your hands.
Good post. You have done your homework. However, I am clueless on one angle. I have seen your type analysis many times, concerning many different two-card start hands and headsup scenarios. I fail to understand how it relates to playing against nine other opponents (receiving random hands) WHEN THE FLOP HITS THE BOARD. Please respond.
I've been in this situation many times and have won more with a small pair against AK han the other way around - I opt for 22 - have no feelings about the j6s as they are over cards too and are about the same dog to the 22.
"I've been in this situation many times and have won more with a small pair against AK han the other way around - I opt for 22"
Now, THAT'S "FUZZY THINKING"! I guess you are just keeping the water muddy.
Call it what you want - you are probaly like this guy I was final table heads up with (in a tournament). He pushed in with AK and I called with 22 - who was the fav huh! I WAS and when he missed (he HAD to improve to beat me) he ranted that it was a bad beat.
This guy probably is as well informed as you are.
This sort of issue arises quite frequently. An action such as you describe is correct. However, it is a matter of goals. You wrote, you were in a tournament. It is not advisable to play like that, if you play daily, in ring games. A lot of advice I see in here, depends on the scenario. Since, I have started reading posts to this site, I have stopped playing in Holdem ring-games. (Just speaking for myself), I have found that S&M, is not enough to be a consistent winner at ring games. However, S&M combined with some plays of which you described are very appropriate for tournaments. (Strick S&M is no good for tournament play,IMHO.)
I believe the same is true of ring games.
CALLING an all-in bet from your opponent when you have 22 is the worst poker play yu can make in no limit poker. Unless, of course, you think he is a much better player than you and you are hoping to get lucky.
The only hand you are a favorite against is when the other guy has a deuce.
I would rather play poker. But maybe that makes me a math weenie.
Aye carumba! I didn't say that AKo was better than 22 headsup! I said that AK stands a better chance of winning against a random hand than 22 does. See the difference?
-SmoothB-
PS yeah i guess I do have too much time on my hands :)
My order would be 2-2 , AKo and J-6s . I do not hesitate long time to put J-6s last ....but 2-2 amd AKo , I Am not sure . I put 2-2 in first because there will be no action during the flop, the turn and the river . Because when you have 2-2 and you do not hit a set on the flop you cannot call any bet except maybe for one bet and the flop is 3-4-5 rainbow .
new to the San Francisco Bay area. I've noticed there are a fair number of card rooms in the area. does anyone have any strong preferences/dislikes for a particular room? I always play LL HE. thanks.
It depends on where you live.
Before I moved out here, I stayed several times at my brother's house in San Francisco, for several weeks each time. I checked out all the major rooms and some of the minor ones.
My brother said the most important thing is: Do not arrange your life so that you have to cross a bridge everyday.
If you live in Marin or thereabouts, I think you'll have to cross a bridge to play. Anywhere else, and I think avoiding traffic should take precedence in your selection process, especially if you're playing low limit.
So where you at? I can give you some names of clubs.
Tommy
Thanks for the info. I always play at AJ's since I'm the peninsula. I was just wondering if it was worthwhile to travel farther.
You might try Lucky Chances in Colma. I play there a few times a week.
They usually have 3 to 5 $3/6 games and 1 or 2 $6/12 Hold'Em games spread in the evenings.
The Gambling Forum Archive
Hold'em
September 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo