![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
I've been playing poker now for about 6 years. Many of you know me -- I'm a card counter and have done quite well playing blackjack in my spare time, wrote a book on the subject and publish a quarterly newsletter on the game.
At the present time my wife and I have been playing poker quite a bit and just last month (December) I won over $2000 playing 1-5-10-10 type games in my spare time. Typically, 7-stud Hi-Lo and Omaha Hi-Lo. Personally, I like 7-Stud Hi-Lo and Hold-Em the best. My wife's best game at the present time is 7-Stud hi.
In the casinos that I am currently playing (Florida casino boats) the games that are played are often left up to the players. Sometimes they can't get a game going, in which I go and play blackjack. But they can usually get a Hi only or Hi-Lo Stud game going.
My question is -- which of the typically offered casino games is most profitable for the expert player? I know I have my favorite game, but putting that aside, which game is most profitable to play against average players? And should I try to encourage players to play this game?
Also, what structure is best to play for the expert player? Is a 2-10 game better than a 1-5-10-10 game? Etc.
At the present time I try to encourage players to play 7-Stud Hi-Lo or HoldEm, although I don't mind playing Omaha Hi-Lo.
On the casino boats in Florida the players are typically loose and happy. Quite often there will be one or two crazy players always raising the pots and calling to the end. It's a great place to play poker.
I believe that the bigger the bet spread, the bigger advantage the better player has. The reason for this is that the weaker players will not adjust their play to the pot odds, and more importantly, to the implied odds.
I'd suggest no limit 7-stud high-low, perhaps without a qualifier for low. Experts benefit from large spreads, high low games especially without qualifiers, and games with upcards (at least in fairly loose games.)
I play a lot more Hold-em and Omaha than 7 stud. But in the Northwest and Nevada casinos that I have visited where you have a choice of games, the easiest game to beat is 7 card stud. My theory is that casual, recreational players are more likely to play 7 stud because they know how to play it. My mediocre 7 stud skills and patience learned from playing regular poker sessions puts me way ahead of the average person at the table. Anyone I find at the hold-em table usually has some kind of an idea how to play and probably plays more than 50 times per year. I visited the Emerald Queen in Tacoma for the first time, played 6 hours of hold-em during which over 20 players came and went and every player knew every other player except me!
For approximately the same reasons, I believe Omaha/8 is generally easier to beat than Hold-em but not as easy as 7 stud. There are more and better books on Hold-em than Omaha/8 (I don't think the definitive Omaha/8 book has been written by a long shot). Plus, most regular players have much more experience in Hold-em than in Omaha/8.
In summary, It makes me wonder how well a really good 7 stud professional can do. I imagine you find more "live" ones in 7 stud at all limits.
The answer to this question is simply what is the biggest game? In most cardrooms, particularly those on boats as you describe in Florida, that will be your most profitable game providing that you become a pretty good player. Notice that I didn't say expert player.
There is an exception to this rule. If you are at a room where extremely large games are offered, that may not be the most profitable game even if you play well. The reason for this is that some experts may be sitting at the table. But on a gambling boat that leaves a Florida port, whatever the biggest game that generally is played will surely be the one that you can make the most money at providing you are a good player.
I sort of knew the answers to these questions before I posted them but I wanted to generate some discussion. I agree that, in my situation, it really doesn't matter what the game is as long as it is the game that generates the most action. Of course, I have to be good at this game to beat the other players and that is generally not a problem here in Florida. Put me in Las Vegas, however, and I may have a problem.
I have played 10-20 and 5-25 games on the Florida boats and they have been wonderful. Here, it seems, the bigger the game the bigger the idiots. Of course, I am always on the lookout for sharp players in any game I play.
If you have the same relative skill advantage in all games visa-a-vis the opponents, then you should favor games with these qualities:
1 There are many situations where the correct decisions are not obvious.
2 Many decisions APPEAR obvious.
3 Penalty for wrong decisions is high.
4 Determining what the opponent has offers big rewards.
5 There are very many different situations.
6 You can manipulate your opponents.
The following games have the above qualities:
Holdem: 1,2,3,4,6 Stud: 4,5,6 Omahaha: 3,4 High-Low (cards-speak): 1,2,3,5 High-Low (declare): 3, 4!!!!,6
Holdem has the big disadvantages in that it tend to attract more experienced players, at least compared to the equivelent low or medium stakes stud games; and its relatively easy to go on tilt and not notice it; at least for non-great players.
High Low cards-speak has the big disadvantage in that there are many less hands per hour, and if played against experienced players there's not a lot you can do until you become great.
Well, that's my first crack at it. Comments?
- Louie
;-)
In a recent hand of Hold'em I was heads up against an off duty Lady Dealer on the River. I read her for a pair of Aces and I held a busted Straight Draw. At the time I had the feeling I wasn't getting as much action with my good hands due to the fact people had noticed that at the time I was winning a majority of the hands I Showed Down (one guy kept anouncing it for some reason). Anyway, I had been checking and calling all the way, but when I found I was busted I decided to Bluff. It worked and I showed everyone my 45o (I was the LB).
Now here is the problem. All that happened was that the off duty Lady Dealer got pissed off. I still felt I wasn't getting that much action and I felt like a jerk. Should I only show my bluffs if I get called, unless I want to make that person mad? Should I shut up and not worry about it?
Zardoz,
Personally I would never show my bluffs. Why ruin a good thing as those extra pots won really add up. It sounds like you just made a good play. Don't be concerned about always showing the best hand at the showdown and people noticing it. Take advantage of how they perceive you. I am not a great believer in "advertising" in limit hold'em.
Tom Haley
I agree. You just won a whole bunch of bets. A couple of hands like this a week can make a big difference in your overall results. If anything, show a good hand every now and then if you think that it might help you steal one later. However, be aware that some players realize that when you start showing good hands you are looking to steal.
I see now. I had the right Image already, I just didn't know it. I just recieved "Poker Essays" today, very helpful.
Like they say on TV, Image is everything. I play a very conservative game and tend to bluff rarely. As a result, I will almost always show my bluffs. If a bluff works and I don't show it, nobody sees it and nobody get the disinformation I want them to see. Since my game is so vanilla, I take every opportunity to show my opponents the cases where I have been less straightforward. I must say that I play low-limit poker where that style is good enough, but some players there need to be shown that I don't always have the nuts so they will give me more action.
This is precisely the type of logic that I have argued is wrong for most forms of limit poker. If the pot is large relative to the bet, which usually is the case in limit hold 'em or stud, why would you ever want to show your bluffs. Let them think that you are a tight unimaginative player and steal a nice pot every now and then.
On the other hand, if you are playing a game like razz, draw poker, on no-limit hold 'em, where the bets can be relatively large when compared to the pot, then showing an occasional bluff makes sense since the addition calls that you may attract in the future is where a lot of profit is.
Using similar logic, I have argued that a tight image is what you want in games like limit hold 'em and limit stud. The opposite is true in games like draw.
Any comments are welcome.
These comments apply to Limit Hold'em
I'm sticking by my previous post. You have written about this subject in your book Poker Essays. I know David Sklansky has written about it as well. I struggled with the concept of image for a long time. It seems that conventional wisdom is such that you need to advertise to insure that your good hands get paid off. It just seems that in hold'em you don't get enough of them. Also the pot is frequently fairly big before the flop so getting your fair share and more of the pots without a contest is important in my opinion. This is especially true in short handed situations. Say there are three players in the hand before the flop. There are a lot of times that the flop misses everybody. You need to win more than your fair share of these pots. This was covered in one of Ciaffone's quiz questions. Of course if people think you don't bluff it's a lot easier to pull this off. Now in no fold'em hold'em games you won't be able to do this but then you probably won't have to advertise either.
I am viewed as a tight player although I would like to think of myself as a tight aggressive player. I don't get called by certain players a lot so it does provide me with quite a few oppurtunities to steal or win the pot without a contest with my marginal holding. I don't think any of my opponents read this forum a whole lot so I can say that how sweet it is to be in the big blind with garbage, have two other callers in the pot who you know are weak, raise the pot with your garbage(not always), have a flop that looks like it didn't help either opponent, bet your garbage and win the pot without a contest. Without my tight image I could never get away with this kind of play. By the way I think I'll be playing anonomously when I'm in Vegas next week(just kidding).
Someday it would be interesting to discuss bluffing strategy in hold'em. I think a lot of players who read shy away from "pure" bluffs or bluffing with very few outs because they have read it is better to semi-bluff. Well if there are three players in the pot and the flop misses everybody I guess you've got six outs a lot of times. The Theory of Poker by David Sklansky discusses semi-bluffing in detail and if I remember correctly semi-bluffs can range from almost pure bluffs to hands that may be that have some chance to actually be the best hand. The pot size combined with the chance of winning immediately or improving to the best hand are what has to be evaluated. The book also states that there is nothing wrong with trying a "pure" bluff if you can be successful often enough to be profitable. Enough rambling. Just my two cents as I am quite sure there are more opinions on this subject.
Mason wrote:
>If the pot is large relative to the bet, which usually is the case in limit hold 'em or stud, why would you ever want to show your bluffs. Let them think that you are a tight unimaginative player and steal a nice pot every now and then. <
I'm uncomfortable reading this, because an appearance as a tight unimaginative player will cause your better opponents to begin taking shots at you that will cost you money. Consider for example a short-handed game. If you are perceived as tight and unimaginative, you are going to get raised a lot in situations where you don't have much and it is going to cost you money. It's not clear to me that this will be overcome by your stealing a nice pot every now and then. In fact, the player who I perceive as loose-aggressive and imaginative is one who I will try to steer clear of in such situations. The player who I feel almost never bluffs is dead meat in such a game, because I'm happy to let him steal an occasional big pot when I'm taking every single small one (and many of the big ones) away from him. The player who I feel is likely to raise me on the turn with very little, that player is going to get free cards more often when he needs them, and get multiple bets when he's ahead.
Sure, the example here is short games, but these scenarios come up all the time in full games where the play is generally tight and aggressive. In such games learning to handle these situations is essential, and simply projecting a tight-unimaginative image is not only insufficient, it's going to cost you. Sure, there's rarely any good reason to show your bluffs. It's simply that in games like limit Hold'em, the pot isn't always large relative to the size of the bet, and in those situations, you'd better learn to be imaginative.
I think you are getting confused over playing short handed and playing at a full table. In HPFAP we wrote in the short handed section "If you fold ever time you don't have a pair, a draw, or overcards, then you are not calling (or raising) enough in a heads-up pot."
For now I'll stay out of the what-image-should-I-cultivate topic.
The situation in question is that you HAVE a tight image and aren't getting paid off "enough"; what to do....
Well, then BLUFF, of course. This is very profitable. If you do sucessfully bluff then DO IT AGAIN soon, but not right away. Continue until you DO get called. Then, of course, you "advertise". Preserving this never-bets-on-the-end-without-the-goods image for one more steal attempt far outweighs the one extra bet it costs to "advertise".
Reconsider your position after they see your bust hand.
You can make more loose calls along the way, such as with a gut-shot, since you also have the equity of having strong bluffing situations, when say the 3rd suit gets there. Your call on the next-to-last round will often cause them despair.
Creating favorable situations has considerable merit. But taking advantage of favorable situations does also.
== When lemons are falling, make lemonade. ==
- Louie
In your book you rank 43s in group 7 and 53s in group 8. Actually 53 is a better hand than 43.
In your book you rank 42s and 32s in group 8 but 52s and 63s is not ranked at all. Actually 63 is a better hand than 52 which is a better hand than 42 which is a better hand than 32.
If you don't agree look again. I would not have detected this errors if I hadn't studied the properties of this hands for use in pot-limit play.
I will absolutely agree that this errors are not of high importance, but they are still errors.
Sindre
We spotted these errors awhile back and you are of course right. However you may not be right about 6-3 since the straights it makes does not include an ace which if paired may give you action.
Point taken for the 63s, but I still I would prefer it over the 32s. With 32 half the straights you make will be the "ignorant one" and you might very easy be the one giving action not getting action.
You say you discovered these errors awhile back. I was sure you would have, until I browsed through the new edition of Hold'Em Poker (I still got the old one that cost $2.95). As I remember it the list of starting hands although updated, did not take these errors into consideration. Am I remembering wrong, or did you just copy the list from HPFAP not to confuse matters?
Sindre
Hello I am a player from Atlanitc City, I recently won my second Hold em 50 buy in tourney for $1125. See cardplayer Nov 28 issue AC notes for my first victory. Sorry, I just wanted brag a bit. On to my question. What is the major difference in strategies for stud and hold em tourneys. Are there any? The limits increase every 20 minutes at the Trop where I play. Thank you for the forum. Danny
If there is anyone in the Dallas Fort Worth, Tx. area interestd in playing poker, I am playing in a $2 limit game. Please contact me if you would like to play or if you need a player. Mike in Arlington, Tx.
In HLSPFAP page 15 you say you can play 3 high cards to a consecutive straight flush. KQJ although consecutive requires a ten for a straight, so straightwise KJ10 and KQ10 are as good. This leaves only QJ10 and J109 for your definition. Or is 1098 or 987 also a hand you can play? Can you elaborate on this, or maybe just give a list of the hands in this category #5 you are referring to?
Sindre
Where are the best places to play low limit Texas Hold'em in Las Vegas for a new player? Also, are the computer Hold'em games worth trying to learn on?
Read Posts "What type of game should I play" and "Poker Software's Bad Rap". Both are in the month of December. While you are at it. I suggest reading most of the posts in the Archive section. These will answer many questions you may have.
About a month ago I played low-limit Hold'em at the Excalibur, MGM Grand, and Monte Carlo. I liked Monte Carlo the best. (I also tried to play at the Mirage on a Friday night, but the waiting list for 3-6 was too long).
I practiced with Turbo Texas Hold'em for many hours before setting foot in a casino, and I'm sure it saved me a lot of money. In case you are considering buying it, someone recently wrote, and I agree, that the Windows version of this program is flawed. Get the DOS version (which runs fine under Windows). Also, the experts here say to ignore the "advice" feature of the program, since it is frequently wrong.
Playing these computer games is GREAT until you can beat them confidently. Then playing becomes detrimental since you are in considerable danger of "learning" bad strategy for unrealistic situations. Beginning students would be well advised to play them exclusively until victorious, then start their casino career and never play on the computer again. After, of course, they've read and digested the 2+2 books.
Owning one such game is much better than none. Any second such game would be no better than marginal and probably a waste of time and money.
Wilson's "Turbo XXX" is satisfactory for the purposes above.
Some of the games are adequate for crude research, but that's different than practice.
- Louie
I never bin in Vegas but about computer here my incometent advise. Computer game are great to lern discipline.You will never get bored,even if you play holdem jacks or beter to start. Put option zip when no human left and hand whith you are not in will take 3 second to finish. P.S When you folding hands like robot do not fold AA.
Scene: Ten Twenty at the Taj
Cast: Nine average players and Student
Game’s about a half hour old and a bit tighter than usual.
Student picks up Ace Jack offsuit and tosses in a Raise under the gun.
One Middle and Button call.
Flop: A Q x Rainbow
Student Bets.
Both Call.
Turn: King still Rainbow
Student hasn’t changed his opinion and bets again.
Both Call.
River: a Queen
Student Checks.
Middle Bets. Button Calls.
Which of the Eight mistakes should student now avoid?
Should he fold because he’s Toast?
Or call because of Pot Odds?
Would your answer be different if Middle Bet and Button Folded?
Would your answer be different if Middle Checked and Button Bet?
Would your answer be different if Board was two suited at any point?
As usual with these types of descriptions, it impossible to fully understand your exact situation through any a written description alone. Given that, here is my opinion.
I think the sensible thing to do here is fold against average opponents. The only thing you have going for you is that you were in first position and your implied weakness when checking may have induced the middle player to bet his Ace or bluff (both of which would be bad plays). If it were just the two of you, you could consider calling if the player was the type that would bet in that manner (in that case, the bet would not be as bad). But you must keep in mind that the second queen will make everyone nervous. The fact that he bet in the middle with two players to act after him should be the determining factor here. Overcalling would not win enough in the long run, even considering the size of the pot. Even if the button folded, there is still too much strength shown by the middle positions bet. If you were indeed the winner the most likely occurrence on the end would have been check, check, check, AJ wins.
If middle checked and button bet, your chances of catching a steal are better, but you are still calling with a person left to act behind you. You would still be attempting to drain a very marginal win here or a big loss.
As I said before it is hard to judge just from the description alone, and I am sure there are some game situations where calling can be slightly profitable without a large downside, but in general, I think this is a case in which calling can not win in the long run.
A lot depends on the players as I am going to assume that you had little information about them. In my opinion, your check on the end implies that your hand is pretty weak to your opponenets. This is because your opponents would most likely expect you to bet on the end with a big hand. Therefore you play it accordingly. There is $205 dollars in the pot (if I counted right) for a $20 call. I actually think you have enough for a crying call here. It is certainly open to debate so it will be interesting to see what the other forum participants think.
I would have bet my hand on the end. I don't think the possibility of a bluff raise is very likely given the possible strength of your hand as viewed by your opponents.
I'll let the other posters to this forum address the "which Sklansky mistake issue." But I do want to point out two areas where you strayed form the advice that we give in HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS.
First you say: You say:
Are you saying you fear a raise more than a free card?
If the Turn was a Brick instead of a King, would you bet?
If the Flop was two suited, or to a lesser extent, the Turn was two suited would you bet?
It could be right, because, sometimes, they can’t resist raising with a four flush.
First off, what would the button call all the way to the river with and then call the middle's bet? If they are playing tight then you are looking at Ax and he has caught up with you. Your best hope with a call is that you split the $200 pot. Again, if they are playing tight, would the middle have called that far with just second pair, considering your pre-flop raise and aggressive UTG betting? Looks like a good chance that it's going to be a three-way split. So why not check raise?
Mark
You are very likely to split this pot. In fact, you should take $100 for your hand if offered by someone who hasn't seen the opponent's hands.
Against sensibly tight players I would be conserned about not having the best hand on the turn. The hands you hope they have that you can beat are KJ and AT; neither of which should have called your raise B4 flop. If Malmuth called me on the turn I would consider my hand just a gut-shot, since I'm supposed to have two-pair or trips with the board AKQ.
Against solid B4 flop players then you should check and fold. Against not-so solid B4 flop players who chose not to raise after flop or on the turn then fold if its bet-call to you, or call hoping for split if its check-bet or bet-fold to you. In this situation you probably do not have the best hand, but you are getting almost 5-1 for your split.
This hand is an excellent example of why trouble hands do so much better in late position than early. In the early position example given at no point are you confident you have the better hand.
- Louie
Your B4 flop raise is marginal at best. Its much less marginal in a loose but not wild game since you can realistically expect to get called by worse Aces and worse Jacks. Not so in a tight game where if you get called, you should be beat. Raising UTG with T9s is less bad than AJo in solid tight games for this reason.
Be advised, however, that many-many "weak tight" players do NOT adjust they standards visa-a-vis the opponents. They WILL play KJ in middle position regardless if a knowledgeable skilled (and good looking!) opponent raises UTG. How silly. But that's one reason they're "weak".
Posted by: Erin
Posted on: Wednesday, 7 January 1998, at 3:47 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Hays (aamarkhays@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 5 January 1998, at 4:22 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (louie.landale@internetMCI.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 8 January 1998, at 10:17 p.m.
In some of the home poker games I play they play a game called Rope! This is not a "poker" game but it is dealt in a Omaha Hi-Lo structure format with a bunch of twists. It is a crazy game and I have refused to play it -- at least until I understand it fully and feel I have a chance in it.
This is a number game where Hi and Lo wins. It is also a cancellation game where if your cards come up on the board you discard your cards. If you lose all your cards you win the whole pot, otherwise Hi and Lo wins. Aces count as 1 or 11. Example TJQ4 = 34 points, AA34 = 29 points.
OK, everyone antes $1. No blind. Everyone gets 5 cards. Each person passes 1 card to their left. You bet $1-$5. They flop 3 cards. If you have one of the cards you lay it down and place $2 per card, which goes in the pot. You bet $1-$5. They flop 2 more cards. After checking if you have a card you bet $1-$10. They flop one last card. Check cards and bet $1-$10.
Variations include flopping 5 cards straight out, then 3 cards, then 2 cards. This obviously increases the chances of someone cancelling all their cards and winning the whole pot.
I know, it is best to play this game if you the either the dealer or on his right.
A good hand, I would think, is AAAA2. This gives you 46 for high and 6 for low. However, even this hand can be beat if someone discards all his cards. It is crazy game, however, huge pots are generated by the action.
These guys actually got one of the SunCruz Florida casino boat poker manager's to deal this game once. The game was dealt $5-10-10 and the pot was just short of $400. They tipped the dealer $20 for dealing the game. As far as I know this is the first time "Rope" has been dealt in a casino.
Any help or suggestions about strategy would be appreciated.
start playing 7 stud with these guys. it seams the all want to out draw each other. give them a chance.take out as much luck as you can.
play solid .they will beat themselfs most times dont get upset untill you drop below 60%.
That is exactly what I am doing. They also play regular hi-lo games such as Stud and Omaha which I have beat them at. I do play their games to show that I can give action in 'their' games, however, I have a limit. Rope is one of those games that appears to be mostly luck. If anything, an aggressive player will do a little better than a passive player in this game -- but it is usually safer to just throw in a few chips then fold.
To correctly calculate pot (and implied) odds, one obviously has to know exactly how much is in the pot at all times. As a beginning hold'em player, I find that in the heat of battle I am concentrating on other things (my hand, my position, what could the player that just raised hold, etc. etc.). All I see is a mass of (in my case anyway) red chips out there, plus I know how many players are still in. I have a gut feeling of the pot's size, rather than an exact figure. I'm sure that if I wanted to, I could keep exact track of what's in the pot. At my early stage of poker development though, this would most probably be at the expense of something else - reading hands, say. (My mental arithmetic is sufficiently fast, but I've yet to come across any literature which specifically states "keep exact track of the pot at all times").
Is it recommended to keep an exact running count ? Or put another way, in a typical $10-$20 game, if I randomly asked the remaining 3 players on the river how much was in the pot, would it be a sure bet that their answers would agree and be correct?
Since I am math impaired I have to keep my calculations as simple as possible. I don't count the amount of money in the pot, just the number of bets that have gone in. That way I can look at the players while seeing what's being bet. At the turn I cut the number of bets in half to account for the twice bigger bets. I've found that over time this is becoming a subconscious function so that I can concentrate on other things and still recall the pot odds easily.
Mark
Sounds good to me ! Thanks.
I might add, being similarly math impaired....that I always count down the bets in the pots I'm not involved in. This is good practice to help the process become second nature. I also like the method of counting units and then dividing by two on the turn. My friend tells me, he thinks it is easier to count big bets, and never make a conversion. For example, you have a close call on the turn. Reviewing the hand to this point, you recall that there was a pre-flop raise, two callers, and the blinds folded. In effect this amounts to four big bets.
I count the number of big bets. Often I wait until the preflop action is done before counting the number of players and multiplying by the number of small bets and dividing by two. Drawing on something I've learned from blackjack card counting, I don't wait the mental syllables on "and a half" or "point five". For 3.5 I think "three point". For another blackjack counting trick, it's either to count "four five six seven" than to count "four plus three equals seven", i.e., increment, don't add.
For the flop, you have to multiply the bets by two to arrive at the odds you are getting, but anyway, I don't often do pot odds calculations on the flop, because it's so difficult to account for the redraw on the turn and expected action etc.
For the turn, let's say there are 5 big bets in the pot by the time it's your turn to act, and you are pretty sure the bettor a big pair. Let's say you have a straight draw, which is 8 outs here. To know whether to (at least) call, multiply the number of big bets by the number of outs and compare to the number of cards you have not seen, which is 46 on the turn. Since 5*8=40<46, you should not call. But wait, since you will not call a bet on the river if you miss, while presumably your opponent will at least check and call, that effectively means there is an extra big bet in the pot, and 6*8=46, so it's a toss up between calling and folding. The chance that you might be able to raise your opponent on the river if you get there and have him call tips the balance into at least calling, if you are drawing to the nuts or at least to a hand that will for sure win. (There is also the diabolical case that your opponent is semibluffing with the same hand as you hold, and will win the pot if you miss, and split the pot with you if you hit.)
This trick of turning a division into a multiplication also comes from blackjack card counting, though Andy Morton got me started doing it for poker.
Like Jessica, I count the number of bets in the pot even when I'm not involved in the pot. It helps me keep a self assessment of my level of fatigue. If I suddenly realize that I haven't counted down a pot in the last half hour, it's probably bedtime.
Getting back to the original question, for a beginner, this pot counting likely would be distracting, at least at first. I'll try to offer some guidelines for doing without the pot count. For loose games, the pot will normally be big enough to call with open-ended straight draws and flush draws on the flop and turn (at least if they're likely to be good if they get there). If you can see the next card for one bet, you'll probably also want to call on the flop with a gutshot straight draw or bad pair especially with nonace overcard kicker, hoping to make two pair or trips. For monster pots (11+ big bets) you can continue these "bad calls" on the turn. Overcards with no other outs are dangerous to call with, especially in loose games where they usually must catch runner runner to win. When there are few players in the pot and not much action, definitely stop calling with bad pairs, and think twice about calling with flush and straight draws if there is a pair on the flop.
-Abdul
Um, I mean 6*8=48. I was really tired when I wrote the previous article. :-/
-Abdul
The described methods in earlier responses would seem to me to be adequate, but easiest of all, just multiply the amount of money you put into the pot yourself by the number of active players in the hand. If necessary, add all the 'dead money' from folding blinds and/or inactive players. Pretty easy and accurate.
I normally play limit and pot-limit holdem and omaha. However, at a home game recently, for some reason everyone was just bored with these old standbys, and we decided to try and invent some new games to stimulate some more action. We came up with two variations that people really liked.
The first we called Rainbow. Four cards are dealt to each player and it as a draw game. There are three draws. The winner is the one with the best low hand, where a rainbow of four suits is desired. So 4-3-2-A of 4 suits is the nuts, 5-3-2-A is second nuts, etc. All Rainbow hands beat all suited hands, meaning K-K-K-K would beat 4-3-2-A if two of the latter were suited. This new game created great action, and I highly recommend it as a fun variation. It seemed like the winning strategy was to be the first one to get any kind of decent rainbow, for example even a rough Q, and then force the other players to draw. Notice that a rough Q is still a big favorite in Rainbow against a perfect 3-2-1 draw, which needs to hit 4 through Q of the correct suit to win, only 9 outs. A made rainbow is even a favorite against two perfect drawing hands, a different situation than old lowball players were used to.
Not contect with this one new variation, we also created a game called Rainbow Omaha. This is dealt like regular four-card hi-low Omaha, only instead of eight-or-better for low, we played that the best Rainbow low wins, using the rules from the above version. A-2 and A-3 are not necessarily the same powerhouses as in regular Omaha hi-low because it is quite common for one of your suits (sometimes a low card)to hit the board. We didn't play enough of this game to get a great feel for what the best hands are or the typical winners.
Two general questions I have for the moderators and other participants is:
(1) Why aren't new games like this (or other variations) introduced more frequently into casino games? Is it due to lack of player interest, dealer training headaches, or some other reasons? I remember reading a Bob Ciaffone book or column once where he recommended to the cardrooms that they try some "new shades of blue" to add a little spice.
(2) As a theoretical question, if these kinds of new games were introduced, who would they favor more--the expert poker generalist, or the typical player? That is, would the expert likely win even more than he normally would as a favorite against the same field playing the same stakes but in a new variation? Some might say that there would be a lot of luck and experimentation which would level the playing field, but one of the qualities of the top-notch generalist is to factor in new information MORE QUICKLY than other participants. I believe this quality of adaptability would lead to a greater short-term win rate. If this is so, back to my first question--why can't the regular winners use their lobbying power to get the cardroom managers to more frequently introduce fun new twists that smarter players and better students would turn to their advantage? Wasn't this what the holdem phenomenon was all about ~25 years ago or whatever? Then Omaha ~15 years ago? Why aren't there more frequent innovations which stick?
To answer the second part of your question, in my book POKER ESSAYS, VLOUME II there are two essays that address the question "What makes a Poker Game Worth Playing." I give the following criteria and rate games compared to it.
1: A balance of luck and skill. 2: An illusion of action. 3: The appearance of simplicity. 4: The appearance that a lot of hands can be played. 5: The need for sophisticated strategy.
Typically, new games, particularly the type that get played in home games have too much luck and too little skill. That is why games like rope never make it to the casino. It is also why limit Omaha played for high only has essentially failed as a casino poker game.
Whether these comments are true about the particular game that you describe, I don't know. But I suspect that may be the case. Anyway, you may want to look at the two essays in the above mentioned book. They appear on pages 190-194.
I played the game you call Rainbow when Iwas in Korea in 1978. Only then it was called Perduge (not sure of spelling) which is Korean for dog. The betting was $5-5-5-10 for the four betting rounds with a $5 dealer ante. I played with Koreans and GIs who liked to gamble and it was not unusual for the 6-7 players in for the 3 draws thereby generating pots in the hundreds of dollars. Because of the quick built-up of the pot, some players wou;d be in for the last draw taking up to 2 cards. In many hands the discards had to be reshuffled for the last draw. It is definitely a dealer position game as late positions can raise and reraise forcing mediocre made hands in front of them e.g., Q, 10, or 9 made to break their hands and draw, then finding out that the raiser also had to draw. It is hard to stay pat after the second draw with a Q-7-3-2 made when 5 players are coming at you. I found the best strategy was to wait for a one card draw to a 6 or 7-4-X-X prior to the first drawing round and to break a mediocre pat hand like Q-7-4-3 and take a one card draw to a good hand. From my experience, it was hard for pat mediocre hand to hold up against 4-7 players coming at you for three draws. Although the game involved a lot of luck, you could make your own if you were patient for a good draw from the beginning. P.S. The game contained no joker.
A common feature of strange new games is that it is difficult to determine what is a good hand; and how starting hands relate to show down hands.
People who CAN figure that much out will easily beat those who can't by just playing very selectively. An evening of home work will usually suffice to figure out what a good hand really is and this knowledge in the hands of a disciplined imbacile will beat ignorant card smiths.
When other's eventually figure it out its time for a new silly game.
- Louie
In the 1/9/98 issue of the Card Player, Bob Ciaffone claims that 87s should be thrown away even on the button. He says "most poker players overvalue position in limit play." In a fivehanded pot, the best hand almost always wins, and so the players with below average starting hands are making an error.
I agree with most of what he is saying, except is 87s below average in a typical multihanded game? I believe a typical game is usually loose with many bad players, and so 87s is a great hand. Also in an earlier post, I questioned whether 87s was better than AQo, but got no response.
If you're in a game with all extremely good players, I believe they will play tight and 87s will be below average, and Bob Ciaffone is absolutely right. In an extreme case, let's say you know someone has pocket aces, wouldn't it be correct to throw away even pocket kings. So it really depends on what your opponents have.
In HPFAP,you recommend playing Groups 1-8 and even worse hands on the button if there are a lot of callers. These hands include 32s and Q5s. I agree this may be correct(not sure actually) if you are up against 7 players who play every hand, but against a typical table? Am I missing the value of these hands? Is Bob Ciaffone not understanding the value of 87s? Now I'm really confused about which starting hands to play.
For those of you who still think that proper starting hands is the easiest part of the game, please give me some guidance. Even if you don't think it's so easy, please tell me what hands you think are playable. Do A9o and 32s belong in the same group?
Thanks for All inputs.
For what it is worth I will play 87 suited almost every time that I am on the button, the pot is multiway, and there is no raise. The only time that I might dump it is if I am in a game where many players are routinely playing hands like Q5 suited and J4 suited. But even here I will probably play the 87 suited.
What determines whether a hand is playable or not is what may happen on the later streets. That is if a hand doesn't win its fair share of pots, but, when it does win, it tends to collect some extra bets, then it may be a very good hand to play. This is why a hand like 87 suited in an unraised multiway pot becomes pretty good. The advice to dump it is simply wrong.
Mason,
I understand 87s is a good hand in this situation and that you might not win your fair share of pots, but will win your fair share of chip. But what if you are up against all extremely good players who most likely will only have Group 1-4 hands, except for the blinds. Again, the big question is, how can you recommend playing Group 8 hands on the button when there are a lot of callers?
An interesting point you mentioned about not playing 87s when others play J4s. But this happens most in loose low-limit games where I believe 87s have the most value. Doesn't your straight potential make 87s better than J4s? Or is this the case where they are making a big mistake, but playing a better hand (87s) would also be wrong?
This brings up another topic. How do you play 87s when you flop a four flush? How do you know whether you are drawing dead or not? What happens when you make your hand? What are the odds? How much bigger does the pot have to be? I think this is the most difficult question. Most places I read, it just says the pot has to be bigger, but most of us have no clue how much bigger.
Thanks again for All inputs.
Tom Haley recomended "Hold'em Poker" to me, now its my turn. If you don't have that book to go along with HPFAP you are missing a nice chunk of Hold'em theory. Sklansky go's into depth on the theory behind the Hand Rankings as well as what you are hoping to do with them when the Flop comes. With that info you can start deciding for yourself on how to play your hole cards.
Boy, I'm glad the people I play Poker with don't read!!
I do plan to buy "Hold'em Poker." There're now so many books out there, I'm not sure what order to read them. Also I've noticed the Conjelco site has internet discounts, but this site doesn't? Anyway, does anyone know a casino or bookstore in the LA area that carries it, so I don't have to wait and pay the extra postage.
Both the Hollywood Park Casino and Commerce usually have that book in stock (Holdem Poker by D. Sklansky). I know that Borders bookstore have most of the TwoPlusTwo books but I'm not sure if they have the Holdem Poker, I know for sure that they have THFAP.
I have my own web page..juanda@vegasnet.net..
And i doubt I will deal you out of any money this year you are still not playing very many hands.
You know him well. Doyle Brunson
Where can I find good low to medium limit hold'em games in Europe ? The places would have to be well run and reputable.
Our "Favorite Links" page includes a link to the European Poker Players Association. Go there and click on "Clubs". You will find listings of clubs and the games they spread. If you need additional information, Jon Shoreman, the organizer, includes his e-mail address. I'm sure he can help you further.
One place with reasonable games is in Vienna. What was it called, the Concorde? It is very much like a big California cardroom in terms of size and games spread (mostly limit hold'em up to about US$40-80, but some stud, tournaments, etc.) The cost is 30-50% higher time charges. The games have about double the number of loose opponents than in California. The smoke levels are 10 times higher than most California cardrooms before the 1st. Gas mask or gun required.
-Abdul
We have added an essay from David Sklansky's book "Getting the Best of It," called "The Eight Mistakes in Poker." Mason Malmuth has also posted one from his book, "Gambling Theory and Other Topics," called "Computing your Standard Deviation."
David, Mason and Ray:
After playing mostly Hold'em for the past few years, I've started to play a lot more stud recently with a good deal of success. I agree with Mason that stud is more fun, although it's certainly more tiring to memorize the cards and concentrate. After each session I refer back to your book while thinking through key hands, and that has been a great help.
Although your book is comprehensive in its treatment of Third Street, you don't mention when, if ever, it may be correct to make a complete bet when you are the bring in. I have done this a few times recently in 2 specific situations: first, if I have a wired pair higher than any up card I may make a complete bet. I'll do this especially if the high card on board is to my immediate left, giving me probable position on Fourth Street. Second, if I have a 3 flush with two overcards to the highest up card, I'll also make it a complete bet to try and limit the field if I make a big pair (see page 34 of your book).
I normally won't do this, however, in the first hour or so of play at a table, since it seems to be a trait of people who are steaming or who want to gamble it up. I'd like the other players to see how few hands I play before I try this.
I should add that I'm playing small to medium ante games. I suspect that the high ante high limit games would require more of this to try and knock players out, again as you mention in the book. Also, when playing short handed.
Any thoughts or comments from anyone?
I disagree. I virtually never make this play. Against you, I would know that you do not have a pair when you are the bring-in and only call. Against someone who never makes this play, you can never be sure.
In addition, by making this play in a small ante game I believe that the mistake is even worse. When someone tries to steal a large ante pot and they run into a hand in the bring-in they are not always in awful shape because of the size of the pot. In a small ante game that won't necessarily be the case.
The question of when, if ever, to bring it in for the full bet when you are the low card is, as many things in poker, not that simple. If you always bring it in for the standard fraction of a bet, it is true that you will never give up extra information about your hand. It is also true that the information that you give up may confuse your opponents, which is to your advantage. Another reason to put out the full bet is that your opponents may not care. An example would be that you are low with two aces in the hole, and two other players show an unduplicated king and queen. You might consider bringing it in for the full bet if there is a reasonable chance one or both players are steaming, or they would not think that you would put out a full bet with two buried aces. A final reason to consider shoving out the full bet is that the person that many consider to be the best stud player in the world occasionly does it. He did it the first pot that I played against him many years ago, and it certainly confused me.
Just curious to know if anyone on this board will be traveling to Alaska in August 1998 on the "Poker Cruise" on Holland Cruise Lines? Like to know who my competition is.
I've recently found myself coming home from an unsuccesful long trip of having no wife, no bankroll and having to look for a job to start again what had not been a problem for over 15 years. However new to poker and not sure that I am a wiining player but I do know I'm still way behind in the game, I'm obviously concerned with variance. I have been told that I should probably switch from holdem to Omaha hi-lo 8 or better because of it's low variance compared to stud or holdem. However, I have been told that the best book on the subject is the book by Mr. Zee. But players have told me that it is not a winning strategy. Please give me feedback in regard to the aforementioned statements.
Shelby
With minimal hi-lo experience, I made it to 6 tables in the Rio's 8-or-better stud event using exclusively the starting strategies in Ray Zee's hi-lo book, and likely would have cruised into the money (I was in overall 2nd chip position) if I had not made a major tactical mistake by playing a rough hand against the chip leader (who, it must be said, got lucky on the river by hitting a set to cripple me).
But I was a winning medium-limit stud player before I picked up the book, so I add the caveat that you must be able to adapt any book's advice to your own style of play. Also, Ray Zee's book is more complex than it appears on the surface: read, play, read, study, think, then read again. If there's a better hi-lo book out there, I don't know what it is -- if you find it, buy it.
One of the collateral benefits of reading poker books is in learning how to think like a skillful player; only when you understand why a player makes a play can you take your game to that level beyond.
On a more philosophical level, I'd hate to be entering the poker fray with as many life-point stressors hanging over my head as you have at the present. Even a long-term successful player could start running bad in that situation.
This sounds like a post a couple months ago where a BJ player was bluffing and stealing a lot "by the book" in brain dead live low limit games, and couldn't figure out why he was stuck so bad.
Anyway, Omahaha Hi/Lo should be a low varience game if you play conservatively. You will win smaller (half sized) pots more often, and you will only very rarely put money in without the current nuts or a nut draw toit; both of which lowers varience.
It also clearly offers fewer opportunities to "bluff and steal" which should be to the benefit of the inexperienced undisciplined players who LIKE to do so.
Most such plays in this game are in short handed small pots where you have a marginal hand in both directions, or in a pot where you have a disquised lock one way and try to move opponents off the other way so your marginal hand can win that direction.
Mr. Zee's book is the best one I've read; other than the one I haven't written yet. :)
- Louie
Actually the current feedback I'm getting from a couple of pros is that I'm not stealing and bluffing enough. I do now feel I'm playing a winning game when I'm careful with game selection and seat position. I'm off a couple of hunderd dollars a long session, the past couple of months, now and then but I'm more frequently up that amount with splatterings of a $500 win here and there in a 5-10 game.
But because of current bankroll problems I'm studying Ray Zee's book to try to get as far away from the edge as I can with my play. I only wished I could regan the optimism I had when I was 21 years old in the situation.
The benefit that BJ has over poker is that it is so cut and dry without the fear of going on tilt.
The player that I referred to was David Heyden, and the game was 20-40 stud at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas.
Caesar's closed their poker room in early 1990. So this play took place about 10 years ago. Back then the stud players were not as good and were more easy to manipulate. Thus 10 years ago this play might have been correct occasionally. Yet today it may only rarely, if that often, be correct to do.
While it probably true that in the games Mason frequents the stud players are not as good and not as easy to manipulate as those in the Ceasar's games of ten years ago, there are a lot of games all over the country where there ARE players who are weaker and easier to manipulate.
I also played at Ceasar's in the 80's and now I play my stud mainly on the East Coast...where, in spite of the high time charges, the games are still excellent.
By the way, it's nice to see a seven card stud discussion on this forum for a change....As I often say to my Holdem playing friends ..."A mind is a terrible thing to waste" :-)
Way put the complete bring in only whith big pair? Way do not do it whith live 3-flash and AK in hole or small pair whit an Ace (as a semi-bluf)?
The main reason is that neither of these two hands plays very well head up against a single opponent who is likely to have a better starting hand if he can call the full bet.
But if you do it only whiht a big pair you going to be to predictable.(AK)2 suted can play head-up against (Q7)Q. And if I raise whith (2A)2 and somebody fold (97)9!!! I am not saing do it every time,but sometimes for deseption. Beter be the Betor then the Caler.
"Big pair" is a relative term. If I have (88)2 and am low and the borad is 7,J,5,6,9,4,7 , I still have a hand I can bring in for a full bet, and hopefully still have the best hand. I repeat, my opponents may know I have a big pair, but they don't know what pair I have!
I don't agree that (AK)2 suited plays well head up against (Q7)Q ... but even if it did I much prefer to have two or more opponents, and by bringing in for a full bet I am hurting my chances of this happening.
As far as bringing in with a full bet on (A2)2 I think this is a big losing play. Most if not all callers will have a better hand...and in my experience the player with (97)9 will rarely fold.
Robert Skyler wrote:
<"Big pair" is a relative term. If I have (88)2 and am low Robert Skyler srote:
I disagree. By being head-up your chances of winning if you catch an ace or a king are reasonably good.
Robert Skyler wrote:
I am new to poker.Is complete bring losing play? If not and is it corect to do only whit big pair or sometimes whit 3 flash?If I find SEVEN-CARD STUD FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS in book store I will bay it.
Thank you I need more experience at a table.
The idea of bringing it in for the full bet with the low card should not be taken out of context. In my opinon, this play should only be made with a few hands and then only in some instances. All in all, this will done infrequently; the idea is to throw off your opponents a bit. It is roughly equivalent to raising in first position with 76 suited in Texas Hold'Em.
Is complete bring in something simular to raising out of the blind.Is it corect to make complete bring in whit (22)2.
Bringing it in for the full bet in seven card stud is not the same situation as raising out of the large blind in Texas Hold'Em. Three rolled up deuces is a hand that you might consider bringing it for the full bet. You would like to be in a fairly loose game where you could expect two or possibly three opponents. This decision like many others in stud is not that simple; you must consider several factors.
I was plaing 1-5 no ante i get (22)2.I bet 5 nobody call.
If you are playing in a no ante game, then you should just about never bring it in for the full amount. My previous comments pertain to a standard structure, with antes and a forced bring in from the low card. In the game that you describe there is not enough money in the pot to justify attempting this play.
Sure but it was my first time plaing stud
Posted by: Boris (BoPesenson@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 12 January 1998, at 3:04 a.m.
Posted by: Boris (BoPesenson@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 12 January 1998, at 2:38 a.m.
Posted by: Mike Souchak (Msouchak@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 12 January 1998, at 9:42 a.m.
Posted by: Boris (BoPesenson@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 12 January 1998, at 12:09 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Souchak (Msouchak@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 12 January 1998, at 6:48 p.m.
Posted by: Boris (BoPesenson@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 January 1998, at 1:14 a.m.
Posted by: Mike Souchak (Msouchak@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 January 1998, at 6:05 a.m.
Posted by: Boris (BoPesenson@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 January 1998, at 2:21 p.m.
Well, I've been gnawing on this one all week, so I'll share with those who weren't there and invite comments, criticisms.
In the Rio pot-limit tournament, we were down to 12 players (2 tables) and I'm sitting in third with about $14k, Lucy Rokach has about $30-40k and Eskimo has about $18-20k; all others have less than $10k. Blinds are at $300-600 and I'm in the big blind with Ac-3c. All fold around to the button, who is the weakest at the table with $4100. As I expected, due to his chip position, he tries to rob the blinds with a $1500 raise. I reraised him the rest of his money.
Now this is where it gets interesting. He calls with his case money and when I show Ac-3c, he turns out 2-5 offsuit!
I discussed this hand with several players, some who were at the table and some who weren't, trying to get an idea what this guy was thinking. I mean, how much worse of a hand could I have possibly held than 2-5 off?
One very well-known participant at the table stated that the guy just lost it, blew a fuse, cracked from the pressure and surrendered his money. Someone else told me that the guy with 2-5 later stated that he called because he *thought* I held 2-4, which merely sounds like a weak attempt to save face.
Of course, I had the good fortune to run into Ray Zee, who appeared to be studiously destroying a side-game, and if I recall it correctly, he offered the comment that Ac-3c wasn't much of a hand either.
So ... any thoughts from any direction on whether I should have attacked the small stack with Ac-3c and ANY ideas on the logic of calling with your case money with 2-5 offsuit?
If he called 600 and raised 1500 more, than your reraise would cost him another 2000. He would be getting 6500 to 2000 odds. Since two overcards against him would make his chances about 30% and an overpair would make him about 15%, his overall chances are close to 25% which makes his final call most likely right. The same however cannot be said for his original raise.
David I recall somewhere I read where you said, "I don't know, I've never played a hand like that." Doyle Brunson
Wasn't that when he was watching this tournament where the leader held 2-10 offsuit? Maybe I'm thinking of another book ....
Incidentally, I loved the story about letting the dog die in "According to Doyle."
Iv'e got to admit the 2-5 offsuit is more likely to be found in my hand than in Davids.It's not very comforting to think the way people are going to remember you is the 10-2,even though one of them was suited. Just heard a sick joke- Do you know what the score was in the football game Kennedy got killed in?--tree to nothing. Doyle Brunson
I've found a 10/5 machine with non progressive Jackpot. The payback for correct basic strategy is 98.3 percent. After a win the machine offers up to 5 double or nothing bets. The bet is to tell whether the next unseen card in the deck is black or red. Since during a hand the number of red cards seen is often not equal to the number of the black cards seen this should result in a nice edge. I have set up a computer simulation of the game and if things are honest doubling should be successfull in about 53% of all trials with an overall payback of some 108 percent.(This implies a doubling strategy which is not too aggressive.)
Now comes the hook: I kept track of my doubling efforts. After 2153 trials doubling was succesfull 1092 times. This represents a rate of success of only 50.7 percent. My former assumption of a 53 percent rate of success is now very unprobable. (Any statistical test function rejects this assumption at the 95% confidence level). I must therefore assume that the true rate of success is 50 percent and the overall payback therefore remains unchanged at 98.3 %.
There is still a very small chance that this was bad luck. Perhaps someone can share his experience and opinion. The machine is called 'Cirsa'. The manufacturer is 'unidesa' in spain. Thanks for your help.
All the evidence I have (the strongest being the continued productivity of professional VP players) is that the machines manufactured in Nevada deal honestly. Without some strong oversight body, I would be hesitant to play machines manufactured elsewhere (or even Nevada machines in a locale where I might suspect tampering).
The original question had to do with a machine that allows doubling a win based on the color of the next card. Haberscheidt reported results of a couple of thousand hands that indicated the color of the next card was 50/50 red-black rather than as he expected (based on the cards dealt earlier in the hand).
Based on your observations, I would expect the machine is playing fair, but is shuffling before dealing the doubling card. Does the machine indicate otherwise? In your experiments you should have been able to notice a card appearing that had already been dealt, which would confirm the reshuffle.
--jazbo
I hope you don't mind me posting this here.
I'm 22 and a December graduate from a state university. I recently landed an entry level position with a company away from hearth and home, but close to casinos for the first time. They have peeked my interest, so I decided to investigate sites such as this. Very impressive.
My question is this. If you were just starting, would you choose to STUDY blackjack or poker? Also, what books would you recommend? Thanks to anyone who cares to respond.
Well, 20 years ago when I first set foot in a casino, my interest was also piqued. However, it didn't take long to realize that I'd rather play against the other players than the house. Someday I may even finish that degree ....
I'm leaning toward poker for that very reason. I know, I typed peeked instead of piqued. I only claim to be a graduate, not an English major. :-)
If you study those blackjack books well and learn how to become a very good player...Surprise!...they don't let you play any more!!
On the other hand, casinos welcome winning poker players with open arms.
Be warned however, it's a tough way to make an easy living,
Besides reading you will have to put in a lot of hours of play to reach a level of competence.
Good Luck
I think it will take longer to become a competent poker player than it will to become a competent blackjack player. I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to learn both simultaneously as they develop different skills that I don't think are conflicting. Learning correct blackjack strategy and to count accurately takes hours of repetition. Becoming a winning poker player requires learning, understanding and implementing many diverse poker concepts. Both endeavors require some understanding of probability. And studying both may increase your overall gambling knowledge. I would purchase some entry level books, read them, and try to get a feel for the difference between blackjack and poker. I would also go into the casinos, particularly the Mirage, and check out the games. Hang around the poker room to get an idea of the pace of the various games, and the different levels of play. Hang around the blackjack pits. I would recommend looking at Stanford Wong's basic blackjack. Perhaps others could make additional recommendations for the blackjack beginner. As far as poker, start with Sklansky's Holdem Poker,(See these pages for an excerpt). The next important poker book is Holdem Poker for Advanced Players by Sklansky/Malmuth, and if you are still interested, Theory of Poker by Sklansky. Oh, I am suggesting Holdem books, because Holdem is by far the most popular poker game in LV, and in my opinion is a bit easier for the beginner to learn. Be forewarned that seriously studying Poker and Blackjack will feel like you are taking a couple of extra three credit courses. It's time consuming. Good Luck, and please let us know about your progress. Particularly if you become a tough enough poker player that we will want to stay out of your way!!
The first book that you should read is called GAMBLING FOR A LIVING written by David Sklansky and myself. It will give you a good introduction to each beatable game, will show you what it takes to become a professional player, and will give you a good idea as to what you can expect if you choose to spend much time in the casino. It will also tell you what books you need to get and study if you decide to continue with a gambling career.
When people ask me which blackjack books I recommend for a beginner who is just getting serious about the game, my top two recommendations are:
Blackbelt in Blackjack (new edition) by Arnold Snyder Professional Blackjack by Stanford Wong
with a slight preference for the former. Other books I like for beginners include Knock Out Blackjack by Vancura and Fuchs, and Blackjack for Blood by Bryce Carlson (though not for the Omega II count, which I don't think is for beginners!)
I'm sure I left a book or two out.
Chuck
Low limit poker games are relatively easy to learn to beat quickly; for any bright disciplined baffoon who has read a couple solid 2+2 books and practiced enough to become familiar with the mechanics. For the beginner, bad players give you their money; you don't take it.
Getting to the point of beating BlackJack takes noticeably longer. There is a whole bunch of little things you have to know, and you have to practice endlessly so they become brain dead second nature. Once there, you must play the get-the-casinos-not-to-notice-me game. But once that is under control the serious recreational player should do quite well since he's not in any one casino very much.
Poker is strategical likened to designing a building. BlackJack is tactical likened to laying each and every brick precisely perfectly.
BlackJack has much higher variance. And its boring. :)
For similar effort BlackJack may very well be better for the non-professional but serious player; considering that your real job GREATLY diminishes the effects of the game's varience, and game availability favors the 1/2 hour player.
- Louie
The spelling mistakes herein would ruin a BJ player if he made similar mistakes at the table.
Get both a Poker Program and Black Jack program and practice at home. This should give you a rough Idea.
My advice to you is going to be different than anyone else's. Do not ever gamble. This is a lifetime pursuit. Very, very few people have the temperment for it and the best in the world are "born" not made.
Concentrate instead on your profession and learn how to "invest" your money wisely. Work hard, invest wisely and you can retire a millionaire. Most gambler's have nothing and experience trememdous fluctuations. It can be a very painful life. It is NOT easy. (When you watch and talk to the best it "looks" easy but trust me it is very, very difficult.) You will be happier and healthier if you stick with what you know, and never get involved with gambling. If you do get involved you will be hooked for life.
I'm glad junior wrote that post, because I've had that very topic on my mind for many years.
I'd like to add, don't smoke, don't drink, don't drive a car, and don't ride in planes, trains, or automobiles. Be *very* careful crossing the street. If you know or remember what happened in 1929, you should not invest in the stock market. If you ever get arrested, even if you are not guilty, make sure you cop a plea so you don't take a chance on going to jail for too long a time. If you see war on the horizon, make sure you get into college quickly so you can get a deferment. If unluckily drafted anyway, volunteer to be in the sports or musicians organizations so you don't possibly end up getting shot at (and, heaven forbid, don't try to be a hero). Maybe you'll end up being President of the United States and will have the opportunity to push for laws that ensure a non-risk-taking way of life for all Americans.
Firstly, thank you very much for your Forum, it is very instructive. I have just started playing in small pot-limit stud tournaments here in the UK. My question concerns re-buying. I am aware that re-buying at any stage is sound, provided you have a large bankroll. However, I have quite limited funds. I suspect that, towards the end of the buy-in period when antes have doubled once and will soon do so again, rather than buying in for 15 antes or so against some large-stacked opponents, I would be better off quitting and coming back to the next tournament (they run twice weekly) and using the same money to buy in for 30 antes with everyone starting equal again. Is my reasoning sound ?
While I'm here, so far I have been playing tight. On the last two tries I have received no good hands and my stack has dribbled away as I have watched most (not all) opponents playing with rubbish and clearly making mistakes according to your literature. Again I suspect that I am still doing the right thing by playing tight, but is this correct ? Or should I start betting hands like a pair of Jacks on 4th street ?
Any advice would be extremely gratefully received.
Two things: First, some of the advice you read here is not applicable to pot-limit play; your strategy decisions are are determined by considerations other than that used by (mostly) limit players here in the States.
Second, the words being a "novice" and "re-buy" do not belong in the same sentence; play tight and pick off the loose players until you have more experience.
Playing in a limit HE tournament at Oceans 11 casino. Middle stages of tournament, 300-600 limit with 150/300 blinds, table is 8-handed. I'm down to 250 (don't ask, the previous hand was a bad beat, and I would have busted out, except I had 250 more in chips that he did). Anyway, I can't even raise out the big blind anymore, so clearly I am merely awaiting the best hand to go all-in with. I am on the button, and everyone folds to me. I have A2 offsuit. Not the best hand I am likely to get this round, but it is only the blinds to deal with, 2 random hands, and A high is likely to be better than what they've got. I decide to go all-in, and lose after not improving. Should I have waited to see more hands or not?
BTW, I would also enjoy hearing about borderline hands in general for going all-in in tournament play. For example, if you think the A2 described in my post is insufficient for going all-in in those circumstances, what hand(s) is just good enough? If you believe the opposite, what worse hands would be just good enough?
What about if I were under the gun, and this is my last free hand before I'm forced to go all-in by the big blind? A2 is a clear call in my book, and I think that any K9 or above, QT or above, and any pair is worth playing. Remember, this is a stage in the tournament when most hands are played heads-up on the flop, and even though you're not forcing anyone out, you still have a good chance of having to beat only 1 hand to win.
Anyway, please feel free to be specific, or generic, in your postings.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
In your specific situation I recommend that you DO go all-in with any A-x hand, small pair, K-Q, K-J, K-10.
In all similar situations, I recommend AGAINST going all-in with K-x, where x is less than 10 -- even if suited. Nor do I recommend Q-10 and definitely no small suited connectors. Q-J is marginal, although having two paint cards gives you more outs than having the overcard naked Ace.
There is one situation where I would adjust these values. If I am sitting in a late position and I get several people who enter the pot, I'd rather take the pot odds and try to pump my stack back up to a competitive level with a marginal hand such as K-x suited or Q-J. Of course, you run a greater risk of being eliminated with more callers, but if you only win 1 1/2 bets, you haven't accomplished all that much anyway.
Earl wrote:
>There is one situation where I would adjust these values. If I am sitting in a late position and I get several people who enter the pot, I'd rather take the pot odds and try to pump my stack back up to a competitive level with a marginal hand<
I think that this is a good point that many tournament players overlook. I think that one of the best tournament plays I ever made was calling a raise all-in from the small blind with 63o. I could have folded and seen 7 hands for free before going all-in, so obviously I could have given myself better odds of survival. However, there were still 3 tables left with only 1 table to be paid. Just surviving 1 more round wasn't going to achieve much, I needed some chips. After putting T100 in the small blind, I had T250 left, barely enough to raise the big blind (T200), and not enough to get rid of anyone. However, when someone raised under the gun to T400, and 4 other players called, I decided that the pot odds more than justified the high risk play. I would be happy with this play even if it failed. Fortunately I made 2-pair on the river to beat KK and assorted other decent hands, to increase my stack to T2300 and become chip leader at my table!
Too much detail, but I've always liked a good beat story.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Can anyone tell me how often two aces (or kings)will win in seven card stud against two other opponents that start with one pair and go to the river.
How often will two aces (or kings) win against two "random" opponents that go to the river.
Finally, how often will two aces (or kings)win in hold-em against two opponents that start with a pair and go to the river. How often will two aces (or kings)win against two random opponents in hold-em that go to the river.
OK. First let's take the Hold'Em case which is simpler. Three wired pairs against each other is a pretty unlikely deal, but anyway the overpair has a big advantage. Almost irrespective of what values the pairs are, the highest is a 66% (ie 2-1) favourite and the other two are both 17% (5-1) underdogs. Heads-up, the higher pair is a massive 80% (4-1) favourite.
Against random hands, a pair of Aces has a 73% chance of winning against 2 opponents (it's 56% against 4 random opponents and 44% against 6). A pair of Kings is not far behind with 69% against 2 opponents (50% against 4 opponents and 38% against 6).
As ever, 7-stud is more complicated. All other things being equal (random non-helping kickers and random upcards already seen), a pair of Aces wins 47% of hands against a pair of Queens (28%) and a pair of Tens (25%). Exactly what rank the lower pairs are makes little difference, and a pair of Kings is virtually as good with 45% against two smaller pairs. A two-flush or two-straight can help any hand by 2-3 per cent but the real variable, which MUST be considered, is what up-cards you have seen. In the As v Qs v Ts case, if an Ace has gone and your opponents are both live, your chance drops to 42%. If both Aces have gone you are only a slight favourite at 36%, and if your kicker is not live as well it gets even worse. I'm more of a mathematician than a poker player at the moment but it is clear that the "liveness" of your hand is of paramount importance.
By the way, I am writing my own Hand Analyzer which I used to obtain the above figures. As I can hard-code anything I like, I have a lot more flexibility than a commercial program. If anyone has any other situations they would like evaluated, I would be glad to help.
Somebody raise with ace showing and we know he will raise whith any pair. Is profitable to play hands like (Ks4d)Kc,(Qh7h)Qc, (9d9s)8d? If yes whitsh? If not how mutch underdog This hands are?
A stud player will raise with ANY pair and has an Ace showing, then she is a 2-1 favorite to have Aces. With your Ks you are a big dog twice as often as you are a big favorite, except that KK vrs a smaller pair is not as good as AA against your KK.
Pass KK vrs an A who raises and HAS a pair.
However, players who will raise with ANY pair when they have the highest card out will often raise with other hands as well, usually 3-flushes. Then playing your better pairs against them has some merit. How much merit? I don't know, but believe the frequencies suggested in 2+2 stud books are probably correct; or correct enough.
- Louie
When someone raises with an ace up they would have to be an incredibly tight player for it to be correct to throw two kings away as long as you are playing in a game with a reasonably large ante. That is $15-$30 and higher. A good player will raise with many hands including aces, a pair in the hold, a three flush, three big cards, and will sometimes be on an outright steal. The probability of this will depend on his position, the other upcards, the ante structure, exactly what his tow hole cards are, etc.
it's been my experience that the best course is often to re-raise while the bet is cheap. The reaction to your re-raise will likely let you know(but certainly not surely) where you stand and make the best of your hand. Often I raise, only to check again next card and see if the original raiser takes the offense again. If he does not, then I bet on 5th street and with the relatively small pot, it is correct for him to fold, which is essentially what I want particularly if I have not improved. p.s. David it's Joe from McLellan Hall!
Sounds like you finally learned to play.
What srategy change shold be made in a game: 0.5 ante, 2 bring in, 5 3 street, 5 4 street(open pair 5 or 10), 10 5 street, 15 6 street, 15 river? Is this structure benefit good player or bad player?
[Stud Game: 50c ante, $2 bring in, $5-5-10-15-15] [Standard: 50c ante, $1 bring in, $5-5-10-10-10]
That stud structure is higher visa-vis 3rd street bets, but it costs more to call. If the field has yet to act then raise more often on 3rd. In fact, rarely just call the bring in unless you are in a really loose game and you have a drawing hand. [If your hand is worth $2 to win the pot later then it should be worth another $3 to win the pot now.] If most have already called $2 then consider not raising just $3 on 3rd street and "disquising" your hand. If someone else completes rarely if ever slow play.
Limp less often.
3rd street early position raises are as important as in the standard structure. But last position drops noticeably. The larger 6th street bet increases its value, so do NOT miss a bet - try to win the pot on 6th street.
This stucture favors the assertive players. 5th and 6th street favor the superior card readers. You can certainly make some spectacular bets or raises on 6th which will earn you the pot.
- Louie
I am playing in CT. Here game is (50 cent ante,2 bring in and 5-5-10-10-10).I saw 3 tears in some atlantic city casinos in some stuctere the same as in CT.But i never saw 1 dolar bring in for 5-10 game.I am fairly new to poker.I do not play a lot of hands.whitch structere is beter for me.
these are some of the various structures of 5/10 7-card stud:
(a) .50 ante; low card brings it in for 2; first raise completes the bet to 5. fourth street bet is 5, but an open pair allows an optional bet of 10. fifth, sixth and seventh street bets are 10. this game is spread at alantic city's tropicana and taj mahal, and at foxwood's in connecticut. resorts in atlantic city uses this structure, but with a 15 bet on the river.
(b) same as above, except the bring-in is 1. this game is spread at the mirage in las vegas.
(c) .50 ante; low card brings it in for 1; first raise is to 6. fourth street bet is 5 (with the option for an open pair). fifth and sixth street bets are 10. river bet is 15. this game is spread at caesar's in atlantic city.
(d) no ante. low card brings it in for 2; first raise is to 7. fourth street bet is 5 (with the option). fifth and sixth street bet is 10; river is 15. this game is spread at hilton in atlantic city.
(e) .50 ante; low card brings it in for 2; first raise is to 7. fourth street bet is 5 (with the option for an open pair). fifth street bet is 10; sixth street bet is 15; river is 20. this game is spread at bally's park place in atlantic city. [note: bally's park place has a similar structure for 10/10/20/30/40 (ante 1; low card is 3, first raise to 13) and 15/15/30/45/60 (ante 2; low card is 5, first raise to 20)].
tiger
TIGER123@aol.com
I first saw 3 tears in Sands it is like in Foxwood, but bet is 15 on 6-7 strets.I read that larger bet on river favor live ones.How obout bet increse on 6 street.
Could use your inputs into the below scenario.....
Private hold'em game; $5-10-10-20 with $5 antes; no blinds. All bet and raises preflop are $5 increments. 8 players; run the gamut...some loose, some very aggressive; some tight.
We also play Omaha Hi-lo 8 qualifier with the same structure.
Lots of action at least to and just after flop.
Any strategy recommendations would be welcomed.
Thanks
Robert Taylor wrote:
>Private hold'em game; $5-10-10-20 with $5 antes; no blinds. >All bet and raises preflop are $5 increments. 8 players.
Wow, never heard of an ante that's as big as the bets. My first thought was you've got to see the flop with almost every hand. My second thought was that can't be right, but you should probably see the flop with any pair, any connectors, any A suited, AK, AQ, AJ, KQ, and maybe any K suited, certainly any K9 suited and up. Throw in a few other reasonable hands when you're in late position (suited one-gappers, J9o, QTo, KTo).
I'm sure that much of this is wrong. Like I said, these are initial thoughts, not well-thought out answers. Anyway, the big concepts in your game is that the pot starts out VERY big compared to calling a bet pre-flop, i.e., in a casino style HE game, to call preflop gets you 3:2 odds if you're first in, with those odds quickly going up with each caller. In your structure, you're getting 8:1 being the first one in. These high odds mean you're going to be right to call with many hands that are big losers in casino HE. Additionally, since the bets double on the river, your implied odds are somewhat higher. For all of these reasons, hands that can make big draws probably go up in value (e.g., suited connectors).
>We also play Omaha Hi-lo 8 with the same structure.
Hmmm.? I guess that you'd still have to see more flops, because the pot is so big to begin with. However, what I'd do in the absence of evidence to the contrary (and strong such evidence might exist) would be to play most hands that can flop the nuts or draws to the nuts. Unlike casino style games, you probably can't wait for hands with multiple outs. By this, I mean you probably play any hand with A2 in it, as well as hands with AA and KK. You're probably going to also play any hand with a suited Ace, as long as there is at least 1 wheel card (A-5) to go with it.
>Lots of action at least to and just after flop.
This is probably as it should be. Why not raise preflop if you can get a few people to fold and therefore increase the amount of "dead" money in the pot? If you know that some tight folks will fold who would have otherwise played to see the flop, then this becomes a +EV play, even if your cards don't justify the raise per se. Of course, this play by you adds much more EV to the guys behind you who call with cards that do justify it, so don't raise indiscriminately.
Good Luck, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
This seems like a total action game to me -- it is very different from the game discussed by S&M in HFAP. I often get confused by games with different betting structures when the structure has changed on both the early and the late streets, so I'd be interested if anyone can tell me whether I'm on the right track with the following differences between the strategy for this game and for a 'normal' game such as 10-20.
You can't afford to play tight preflop, because of the large ante, and when you play you should "often" raise, if it will help encourage other players to fold preflop. (If it won't, i'm not sure it's worth raising; it becomes a more difficult question.)
Play on the flop might be similar to play on the flop in a normal game. For example, if you played 'normal' 10-20 and five players came in for 2 bets, there would be ~$100 in the pot on the flop and the first bettor would be getting 10:1 on his bet. In this game, if 5 players see the flop for 2 bets, there is $90 in the pot on the flop, with the same sized bet. If the game got tighter, this coincidence would no longer hold, but it seems unlikely that this game is going to get tight.
Play on the turn should generally be looser, due to the relatively high pot odds people will be getting to call.
If you do have the best hand on the river, whether by staying in the lead or by drawing out, be sure to do what it takes to get paid off with those big $20 bets. Don't get fancy and miss one of those bets.
As for stealing the ante's, I doubt that you will succeed very often, but you should try to narrow the number of players who stay in, as Greg already mentioned. If several people fold and you only have to call $5 to play heads up, I would certainly call with any two cards, that's how much it's worth to you to play for all those ante's against only one or two opponents.
Expect high variance in this game as well. I wouldn't think it would be unusual for someone to win or lose more than $400 in a night in this game, particularly playing as i'm advocating. But just playing tighter to reduce your variance isn't a good solution, as it will cost too much in antes.
Does this sound right?
sounds like a craps shoot to me
it seems to me that good players would have to play like bad players in this game. i don't think i would play.
david sklansky discusses large antes in his book THE THEORY OF POKER, starting on page 28.
be seeing you.
I recently bought 'Championship Pot-Limit and No-Limit Hold'em', co-authored by Cloutier and McEvoy, hoping to have bought a comprehensive and 'ultimate' guide to Tournament and No-Limit Hold'em, but was disappointed. The book is of some interest, but the unstructured nature of the information, the in many cases unspecific, generic advice and the absence of serious discussion of for example heads-up play in tournament situations, leads me to the conclusion that I will have to buy another book.
I am aware of a number of books that might qualify, but would like to hear opinions from Forum readers. I am thinking firstly of Brunson's 'Super System' and of McEvoy's 'Tournament Poker'. Can anyone tell me wether SS discusses tournament Poker in a detailed fashion, and if buying both books makes any sense? Tournament Poker is highly recommended by the Gamblers Book Club, but I have read quiet a few negative comments about the book. A new book by Rueben and Ciaffone gets a lot of praise all around, and I might buy this one in addition to SS and/or TP. Any comments?
Robert.
If you are only going to get one book on tournament poker, the McEvoy book is the one to get. Although a number of poker books have tournament "sections", the McEvoy book and the Ken Bjunter are the only books dedicated solely to tournaments. Shane Smith has a tournament tips of the pros which I imagine is a collection of advice from different sources.
Two Plus Two is working on a new book called POKER TOURNAMENT STRATEGIES by Sylvester Suzuki (which is a pseudonym). This is what David Sklansky say about the book.
"The best book by far on poker tournaments yet published. Many new good ideas, especially for the smaller rebuy tournaments."
The book should be available by the middle of March.
Glad to hear that a book devoted to this subject is at last appearing from twoplustwo.
I have found the tournament info. in Mason's books, to be very helpful.
How many tournaments has Mason Malmuth won? I don't recall ever seeing his name in the list of winners. Why should I follow his advice?
I would prefer to read a book by someone that has actually WON some tournaments, and KEPT the money.
Tom McVoy's books are worthless in my opinion. A big bunch of nothing.
I know David Sklansky has won some tournaments (but it has been a long time) and he always has some common sense advice.
I am waiting for the book that teaches you how to suck out in the big pots at the right time when you need it most. Now you are talking value.
The most successful tournament author appears to be McEvoy, so following your logic then you should mindlessly follow his advise. Too bad your insight in his books indicates that he doesn't really give much advise to mindlessly follow. I believe "A big bunch of very little" is more accurate.
In WW2 our anti-sub destroyers were not finding the German U-Boats. A university theoretically determined the optimum search patterns given range and speed yady-ya of the combatants. And it worked. But the talented destroyer captains would take these patterns and adjust them for the current real conditions and did even better in finding the subs than they "should" have. Stuborn proud commanders continued to lag behind; or the really talented ones did OK. Notice that the professors had NEVER searched for subs.
Karl Marx never ran a nation, Einstein never made a bomb, Cluaswitz (sp?) never won a war, Miyamota Musashi never ran a corporation, and Pascal never wrote a computer language.
McEvoy wins because he is extremely talented. He would do better if he would respond instead of react. You can't write a book which teaches talent. Those of us with considerably less talent MUST follow sound advise or we are dead.
- Louie
PS. There is only ONE situation in tournaments that matters: always win the pot when you are all in.
I suspect that I have the least experience and knowledge of folks responding to this post, but I do not agree with the relative harsh criticism of McEvoy's book. He states repeatedly, that his way is not the only way, covers most common tournament types and formats, and does offer useful survival and advancement techniques. For someone who is just beginning, or has tried with very limited success at tournaments, there is a lot to learn from his book. Gary
Probably the biggest criticism I've seen is that the advice is too general. Yet I agree with you that McEvoy's books have advanced the average skill level of tournament participants. In the 1980s, a good tournament player felt like he was shooting fish in a barrel, it was that easy. Not so today.
If it is any consolation for Tom, even the great Doyle Brunson has come under fire from newly-minted math wonks who aren't qualified to sit at the same table with him. Perhaps this is a left-brain, right-brain issue: many people just can't function without specific cookie-cutter advice.
There is no magic formula which can make anyone a winner in big time tournaments.You have to be very good and you have to get lucky at the right time. McEvoy"s book gives terrific tournament information and for the wannabes will definitely help speed up the learning curve.
It does not replace talent. Talent can't be learned from a book. It comes with experience and great intuition.
Super System by Doyle Brunson was to my knowledge the first tellall poker book.It may be a bit dated now but it's still must reading by most students of the game.I think Doyle is in the processs of updating it.For those of you that think Brunson is past it just get a big bankroll up and play in the games he plays in today. He plays in the biggest games and I hear is as formidable as ever.
I have read and reread many of 2&2 books.For limit games there are none better and I'd expect their tourney book to be no exception.
It's great to hear that 2+2 are producing a book on Tournaments as there is definitely a gap in the market for a decent book on this topic. Can I ask if it will have a section on, or at least some reference to, small pot-limit tournaments ? This would prove extremely useful to players outside the US. Those of us who read it anyway :-) ...
This is the table of contents for POKER TOURNAMENT STRATEGIES. The book is currently being edited.
Table of Contents
Foreword by Mason Malmuth
About Sylvester Suzuki
Introduction
Background
Part One: Progressive Stack Rebuy Tournaments
Introduction
Overview
The First Twenty Minutes
The Second Twenty Minutes
The Third Twenty Minutes
Special Note
The Intermediate Stage
The End Game
Rebuys Revisited
The Ultimate Recommendation
Common Mistakes
Part Two: No Rebuy Tournaments
Introduction
Overview
The First Thirty Minutes
The Second Thirty Minutes
The End Game
Common Mistakes
Part Three: Constant Stack Rebuy Tournaments
Introduction
Overview
The First Thirty Minutes
The Second Thirty Minutes
The Intermediate Stage
The End Game
Common Mistakes
Part Four: Sudden Sayonara Tournaments
Introduction
Overview
Strategy
Part Five: Shootout Tournaments
Introduction
Overview
The First Table
The Second Session
Part Six: Last Table Negotiations
Introduction
Overview
The Amount That is at Stake
The Position of the Dealer Button
The IRS
The Skill of the Negotiators
Part Seven: Other Topics
Introduction
Chip Exchanges
Tournament Tie Breakers
Playing Short Handed Poker
The Collusion Stage
The Most Beatable Tournaments
Part Eight: Stepping Up
Introduction
No Rebuy Tournaments
Limit Games
The First Three Levels
The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Levels
The End Game
No-Limit and Pot-limit Games
Constant Stack Rebuy Tournaments
Limit Games
The Rebuy Period
The Intermediate Stage
The End Game
No-Limit and Pot-Limit Games
Part Nine: Tips for Tournament Managers
Introduction
Tips
Part Ten: Questions and Answers
Introduction
Progressive Stack Rebuy Tournaments
The First Twenty Minutes
The Second Twenty Minutes
The Third Twenty Minutes
The Intermediate Stage
The End Game
No Rebuy Tournaments
The First Twenty Minutes
The Second Twenty Minutes
The End Game
Constant Stack Rebuy Tournaments
The First Thirty Minutes
The Second Thirty Minutes
The Intermediate Stage
The End Game
Sudden Sayonara Tournaments
Overview
Strategy
Shootout Tournaments
The First Table
The Second Session
Last Table Negotiations
The Position of the Dealer Button
The Skill of the Negotiators
Other Topics
Playing Short Handed Poker
The Collusion Stage
Stepping Up
No Rebuy Tournaments
Limit Games
The First Three Levels
The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Levels
The End Game
No-Limit and Pot-Limit Games
Constant Stack Rebuy Tournaments
Limit Games
The Rebuy Period
The Intermediate Stage
Conclusion
Appendix A: Glossary
Appendix B: Recommended Reading
Index
Oh my! I think I may have wet myself in anticipation! ;-)
I hope this book is as good as it sounds. Let me know if you'd like some free help editing it?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Can I put in an advanced order?! Have you set a price?!
We have not yet set a price, but it will probably be $24.95. You cannot make an advanced order, but we expect to have the book available sometime in March.
This is great news, if the book meets Two Plus Two's usual high standards. One thing I'd like to see is a realistic estimate of the expectation a good tournament player can expect to get. My rough guess is that he can double the total buy-in (incl. rebuys) at the lower levels, and perhaps expect 1/3 to 1/2 the buy-in at the biggest tourneys.
I my opinion, the book by McEvoy and Cloutier on Pot Limit and No Limit poker *is* the best book available on tournaments. Frankly, I think there is a lot of room for a truly decent book on poker tournament strategy. Hopefully, the 2+2 book Mason mentions will be it, but until then, I'd save my money.
The gamblers book club lists a new book titled "The Science of Poker" by Mahmoud. Has anyone read this book? If so, is it worthwhile?
I am interested in anyones comments about collusion at the Vegas poker tables. I have heard stories of locals playing together at tables and taking unsuspecting visitors for a ride. Does anyone have comments, thoughts or first hand experience with this.
If these stories are true about locals working together how can you detect it and avoid those tables. Are some places know for this to happen? If so which ones? Are there places that are better to play than others?
Poker players, especially those new to poker are always afraid of collusion, and believe they see a fair amount of it. I don't. I have been playing for too long and just don't see these type of problems.
A few months ago I and some friends had lunch with Steve Forte. For those of you who don't know who this is he is recognized as the world's foremost authoruty on cheating. When we talked about this subject his words were that "The players police the games."
The idea that a team of players will put another player in the middle and extract a bunch of extra bets out of him is just not realistic. Any experienced player would quickly see this. For collusion to take place it would be done in very subtle ways and it could only be pulled off by very sophisticated players.
But here's a few things to realize. For collusion to be done, you would need (1) a bunch of cheats being very honest with themselves to give honest accounting, (2) they would have to get in the same game everyday with each other and everyone would notice, and (3) they would have to keep their mouths shut for a very long time and never admit or brag to anyone about thier activities.
I believe that if you would have been playing high limit poker 25 years ago you would have been cheated whether you were playing in Las Vegas or California. But those games are long gone. The managers of todays modern cardrooms are well aware that the image of cheating will destroy their business, and today's modern players are too sophisticated for it to go on. (Years ago you did not have all cameras and as many people working the floor.)
I do agree that there are a lot of angle shots -- especially in hold 'em -- but thankfully the "good old days" are over.
When you talk to any cardroom manager, they will tell you that almost all the complaints about cheating/collusion that they get are from the small limit games. That is these complaints almost always come from inexperienced players who do not understand how certain hands get played, and the value of trying to knock someone out with a second best hand.
Again, I believe that the games in major poker rooms are honest. I also believe that you should always be vigilant because you never know when someone may show up and try to do something. But as recent events at The Mirage show, these people are usually quickly caught. And finally, my advice is that if a game does feauture certain players who bother you, change games.
Everyone seems reluctant to speak up when they think something is wrong,like it is a violation of a rule. If there is such a rule, who do you think made it,a honest man or a cheater? Doyle Brunson
While I have the greatest respect for Mason's experience and wisdom, in this area I must disagree.
As I've written here in the past, I've seen collusion at the middle limit tables this year. It happened once during a satellite in last years' World Series and once at the Mirage. I've played poker for 20 years and I know the difference between great play and collusion.
While the players involved were not "name" players, they were locals. I've noticed that the Mirage in particular attracts a small group of shifty locals who take selective shots at the tourists.
Since I haven't lived in Vegas since 1986, I'm sure I appear to be the normal tourist and thus am "treated" to the events that someone such as Mason would never experience.
While collusion *does* occur, I would agree that it is NOT rampant.
The difference between pot limit & limit poker is a chasm that British players tumble into every May. Likewise, I've sat in the Vic and watched good American players get wiped out time after time because they didin't understand the dynamics of pot limit.
Has anyone written about this subject? And where are the regular pot limit games in the USA?
Check to you.
This was posted under my last post, so I'll reply, but I'm confident the authors on here would have more insight than I.
You are correct that most American players are lousy at pot-limit (and no-limit for that matter). An experienced pot-limit/no-limit tourist has a better chance in a big-bet game or tournament than most of the local limit players in Vegas. One reason is because it *is* hard to find pot-limit games and another reason is because of the intensive analysis that limit hold-em has been subjected to. As the late Jack Straus once said, "anyone who wants to work out the math can make money at limit poker."
Here's an example of why a limit player makes a lousy pot-limit player: In a pot-limit satellite I played in recently, I had raised pre-flop and 2 other players had called, making approximately $200 in the pot. The flop came Ad-10d-Ah. With 10-9 in the pocket, I bet $100 into the pot, on a semi-bluff, assuming that only a hand containing an Ace would continue -- if someone played back at me, I would dump the hand. I was called by one player who also called a $200 bet on the turn. On the river, a third diamond hit and when this player bet I threw away my hand. He showed the table that he indeed had diamonds. Eventually he won the satellite. I talked to him after the event, and he said that he had called the flop and turn bets "because he was getting the odds to draw to his hand." This is a limit player's way of thinking. On the flop, he was staring at possibly the absolute nuts (what did he think I'd raised on pre-flop?), was being bet at slowly (a pot-limit trap), yet he continued to pay to draw to a flush, where he could've potentially lost his entire stack even if he made his draw.
Yet I suspect there is a third reason most upcoming American players are not very good at pot-limit, and that is because most have not been subjected to extreme high-stress, high-risk situations in their personal life and are thus emotionally unequipped for pot-limit/no-limit battles. When you look at the lives of the old-line players who excelled in the big-bet arenas, you see that they overcame much adversity in their personal lives, and thus a big bet in a poker game has much less emotional significance than it might to someone who has spent his/her adult life in the relative security of a cushy job programming for some Northern California sofware company. Perhaps someday someone will do some research in that area to validate that idea. In the meantime, I'll continue with the Jack Straus theme, "If money's your god, you can forget about big-bet poker."
Several poker authors discuss the different approaches required for limit vs. big-bet poker. Those I've read include Brunson's Super/System, Bob Ciaffone's book "Pot-Limit & No-Limit Poker", and McEvoy's latest tournament book.
Pot-limit games that I'm aware of in Vegas: only at the Mirage on a regular(?) basis and side-games at every tournament.
As far as pot limit games outside of Vegas, there are a couple of good ones in Tunica: usually, one the weekend they have a small blind pot limit high omaha (5-10), a higher blind pot limit high omaha (25-50), and occasionally a low-ball draw pot limit game. I have only played in the omaha game once, but it is supposed to be one of the best in the nation. I have seen at least two former world champions come into town to play in this game.
Good luck
Outside of Vegas, I would think the pot-limit action would most likely be found in Tunica. At the Horseshoe, they have a pot limit high omaha game every weekend, and usually have two games going. They also have dealt some pot limit lowball draw.
I personally watched two former world champions in these games, so word must have spread about the action. Lots of money and monster pots to be won...good luck.
Mason,
Your comments bring up a few more questions. First the three points you mention. Your points make me think that collusion is possible. You said there have to be a group that works together and trust each other. I know this to happen at the BlackJack tables(blackjack teams) so why not at the poker tables as well?
Then you mention about the same people playing together all the time. My father-in-law is retired and lives in Las Vegas and he plays at the Circus Circus poker room the same time 4 days a week. He says "we all know each other" that's why he likes to play there. I don't know if he cheats or not but it seems like having the same people play together all the time is common in Las Vegas.
Then your third point is they would have to not brag about it. Again like the blackjack teams, if you are successfull with getting away with it, you are going to keep it up for as long as you can.
Can you discuss these points a little more? Am I just being too paranoid? Do the lower limit games seem to be able to get away with collusion more than the higher limits? The low limit games are the ones I will be playing in.
Then you mention about the floor managers keeping an eye on things. Is this really the case? I would think the managers just let the players play and then if there is a complaint they look into it. Do the managers do any proactive steps to insure that the games are honest? You mentioned something about the Mirage. What went on there?
Can you also address the issues that Earl brought up in his post?
I don't mean this response as a put down, but this is what typically happens. Someone who is playing low limit poker and I assume is new to poker is very afraid of cheating. I believe that the games you will be in are clean.
The game would have to be of a high enough limit to make collusion profitable. In an arena where the players are evaluating their return by such small amounts as 1-2 big bets per hour, simply pushing a player off of just one hand at 20-40 would greatly inflate that hourly return.
On the other hand, the players in the low-limit games aren't normally skilled enough to collude, and even if they were, the rake would eat up whatever return they might gain by colluding.
The point Mason makes about not being paranoid at low-limit games is well-founded: many excellent plays might appear to be collusion to an inexperienced player but are a valid part of an experienced players' arsenal to raise his chances of winning a hand.
For example, in stud, it is common to try to push a 3rd player out of a pot with a second best hand such as 2 kings vs. 2 aces where the third player held a draw or a smaller pair. By leaving the third player in the pot, your winning chances might be 20-25%, but by pushing him out, your chances of winning would rise to, say, 40%. (Mr. Sklansky discusses this play in "The Theory of Poker.")
Unfortunately, 3-handed is where you are most likely to see collusion in the play of a poker hand. Even more unfortunately, you are not likely to see it because the players will usually muck the hands before the showdown. In a live game where I had this occur this past year, the player turned over the hand and I could work the hand back through the play and see that he never held a pair or a draw, never at any point was he even close, and at no point was he in position to make a play to win the hand. Late in the hand, sitting right behind me, he reraised his (perhaps unwitting) partner, with me showing an open pair and his partner showing a higher open pair -- it wasn't as if he thought we had garbage and could push both of us off the hand. While I don't remember all of the details, it was clear to me that he wasn't protecting his hand -- he was protecting the other player.
Bob Ciaffone discusses how to deal with cheaters in his book "Pot-Limit& No-Limit Poker." Bottom line advice: quit the game unless it is so good that you feel compelled to continue playing. Still, in the low-limit games, you're unlikely to run into a cheater -- if good enough to do it at 1-5, he'd be playing for higher stakes.
What "recent events at the Mirage" are you referring to?
I couldn't prove it, and you are probably too well known to have it happen to you, but I believe I've seen collusion at the 10-20 Omaha table at the Mirage on two occasions (I've stopped plaing in that game since). Discussions with other Omaha players seem to have confirmed my apparent observations.
See the thread entitled "Hold Out Incident" in our archives.
Mr. Malmuth,
First, please accept my thanks for the wonderful books you and Mr. Sklansky have written about poker. I have several of them that I have read and reread, trying to absorb all the superb strategies. I plan to buy several more soon.
Secondly, thank you for this outstanding forum. The analysis and insights of the commentators is excellent. I have never had the opportunity to know any professional players before and love reading the different opinions expressed. I am new to the internet. You mentioned in this post reviewing the archives. How do I learn how to access the archives?
Thanks,
Mike Baum
At the type of the initial forum page you will see the title "The Gambling Forum." Under that you will see the word archives. Just click on that.
Thanks for all the input. I will take the rumors I hear with a grain of salt and play to have some fun and hopefully learn as I do it.
I just found this site recently and think there is a great deal of information here. My thanks to the folks at Two Plus Two for all the work and support.
Did you hear about the guy who won a ticket for an ocean cruise in a poker game....................on the Titanic.
I have noticed, what appears to me, an increasing number of 10/20 holdem players, who literally "just sit". These "sitters" are not just some elderly players, some are in their early twenties. What is winning approach to a game populated by about four such players.
I think it is very hard to win in a tight game. There is no action and usually one player raises the blinds, leaving at most 3 players seeing the flop. After around 20 hands, you finally get something like AK, but the blinds always beats you when they flop one low pair.
Gays like me lerning the game.
10-20 isn't the game it used to be. Mainly, it sucks. You have to play 20-40 or 40-80 to make a living these days. There is nothing worse than a bad 10-20 game.
It depends upon the abilities/styles of the other 4 players. If the other 4 are clear contributors, then you're actually in a pretty good game. The trick is to sit behind the 4 tight players so that you've got position on them as often as possible. This way, you'll know to throw away marginal and even good hands (that are less than great) when they enter the pot. If they all fold, or if you've got a premium hand, you can then play accordingly so as to take advantage of the 4 loose players.
Now, I'm pretty much regarded as a rock. However, that doesn't mean I won't steal with garbage when first-in in late position. It also doesn't mean that I'm tight after the flop. I try to play very aggressively, as if I've got AA every time I'm in. In fact, I hope that you'll never know until the showdown if I've got AA or AQ, or some other good hand. The lesson here, the game is much less playable if the 4 rocks are tricky and/or aggressive. If they play tight pre-flop, and then really well postflop, the game may be worth a pass unless the 4 contributors are especially bad players. You don't want to be in the position of competing with 3-4 unknowns and 1 tricky aggressive opponent on most hands that you play (as often 1 of those 4 rocks will have a hand).
On the other hand, if the 4 rocks are tight and predictable postflop, then they may actually become an advantage to you. Once they enter a hand, you can use a bet by a loose player in front of you to raise and kick out the tight rock behind you, thus adding dead money to the pot and promoting your chances. However, don't forget, just because they're loose doesn't mean they can't make a good hand. Be careful you're not raising to isolate yourself against the winner.
Anyway, 4 predictable rocks plus 4 contributors is a very good game. 4 tricky rocks plus 4 mediocre players (i.e., small contributors) is a really, really bad game.
Good Luck, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
How to play against rocks.
We'll assume these players play few hands, try to win only by having the best hand in the show down, do not bet marginal hands, and routinely fold when faced with a double bet. They do NOT play "tricky". They are very predictable.
Another post suggested seating BEHIND these players. While its true you can fold your marginal hands when one of them is in, it is MUCH more profitable to sit BEFORE them. Since they play few hands you automatically get the button two or three hands per round. You also get position vis-a-vis the other fish in the game. They also tend to broadcast when they intend to play, since this rare occasion has meaning fo them.
In fact, placing rocks behind you in Holdem is the single most important seating consideration.
Playing strategies include:
When one raises B4 the flop get out. When one of them bets get out. When one of them calls when clearly someone has a good hand then get out. Getting out must be done on the very first opportunity. Do NOT give them money since they DO have a good hand.
Assume they have top pair when they are in.
If you are in against them (say with a flush draw) then tend to bet if an over card comes. They like to fold, remember? Give them a reason.
Rarely check-raise since they like to check. Do NOT check raise on the end unless you KNOW they will bet.
Do NOT assume they "couldn't" have a certain hand since they would have played it differently, such as raising B4 and on the flop. They OFTEN play strong hands this way.
Most of your money will come from the other fish, but also from the several pots you steal from the rocks.
- Louie
I've noticed that most of these 20 somethings do the most complaining about the game being tight. They want six fish and themselves. Don't we all!!
When I hear complaints about the game being too tight, I go ahead and ask them what they contribute to the game? All you get is silence.
Maybe you've got a point, Bob. The game has sure changed since I was 20-something; talk about livening up the game, my poker friends would fold en masse when I checked, they were so unused to seeing it. Actually, a hyper-aggressive style used to get all the money in the limit games too, but alas, all good things must end.
In the $1,000 buy-in No-Limit Tournament at the Rio. I have about $2,200, with Phil Helmuth, Kevin Song, and I think John Cernutti (or maybe another John). Small blind is an english gentleman (I think), seems like a nice, clean cut guy...plays fairly tight, had not seen him in many hands. About five minutes after the first break (2 hours of play), I am in the big blind....and get dealt AK - off. Under-the-gun, who is a new player to the table, calls, everybody folds, small blind calls. UTG has somewhere between $2,000 and $3,000, small blind has $1,100. The blinds at this point is $25-$50.
Problem 1: What would you do, call, raise or fold? I ranked it in that order.
So, I called. The flop comes KQ6 rainbow. The small blind bets $200.
Problem 2: Call, raise or fold? On second thought, I would have raised, because I don't want any limpers with a straight pull, especially in no-limit, and its likely that the small blind is trying to steal the pot.
However, I only called. UTG calls also, to my surprise.
The turn is a 3, with a suit that equals one of the other cards on the flop. The small blind bets $500, with only about $200 or so more in his stack.
Problem 3: Call, raise or fold? After raising only $200 (which I was told was illegal), I made it $1,000....UTG folds, small blind calls. On second thought, I would've just called, but with UTG folding, it would've turned out either I would've bet the river, or the small blind would've bet his $200, and I would've called.
The river is a 3, and it turns out the small blind has K-3 for a full, and I am devestated.
Still 'steaming' after the beat (I don't think I could've gotten away from it, so on second thought, I'm fairly happy with the play, just turned out I didn't have the winner).
Next hand...I am the small blind. I get dealt AQ. Everybody folds, Button (who was the small blind before) calls....I raise $300 (into a pot of $125, hoping to pick up the pot)...big blind folds, button calls.
Problem 4: how was that play? was it too big of a raise? would you just have called? was it clear that the button was laying a trap?
The flop comes KTx. I check, button bets $300. I raise $900, all-in.
Problem 5: what would you have done there?
My thinking at the time was that if he had AA, KK, TT, AK, KT, or two pair, he would be in, otherwise fold, and even if he was in, I could still have a miracle turn/river of the J. Turns out he had AA, and I was sent packing.
Thank you for your comments.
Hand 1:
With the A-K hand, nothing wrong with calling pre-flop (setting a trap), although a raise would not have been a bad play either.
But you misplayed the flop. With a flop of K-Q-3, you have to define the hand and the opponents immediately so you can make a decision later on how to play. I'd have raised at least 2x the pot here and probably would've moved all-in.
Hand 2:
Maybe this is the hand Mr. Brunson should comment on since A-Q tops the list of trouble hands in Super/System. But since he's not shown up yet, I'll throw in my 2 cents worth.
Okay, you raise with a trouble hand in bad position and get called by the button. No problem trying to steal with A-Q, but that flop did not favor you. Anyone who called your raise likely has a piece of the flop. I would check and call a small bet only if I had high implied odds for the gutshot, but check and muck against a big bet -- unless I had a good read that said my opponent was on a pure bluff. Sounds like your pinball game was on full tilt when you raised all-in, so I doubt you knew where the button stood.
But overall, there's one big problem with how you played both of those hands: it was early in the tournament and you had already taken the gloves off with less than the nuts.
>>Problem 1: What would you do, call, raise or fold? I ranked it in that order. <<
I would have made it about $400 to go. I wouldn't mind winning this hand before the flop. Hopefully I would get a call from a player whoose hand I had dominated. I wouldn't want to give a player holding a medium to small pocket pair good enough implied odds to get my whole stack. The raise might also help me define where everyone was at a little better.
>>So, I called. The flop comes KQ6 rainbow. The small blind bets $200.
Problem 2: Call, raise or fold? On second thought, I would have raised, because I don't want any limpers with a straight pull, especially in no-limit, and its likely that the small blind is trying to steal the pot.<<
I would have raised and put the betting player all in. I don't know what under the gun has but I sure don't want to give him good enough implied odds to get my whole stack. I guess I'm a little paranoid about someone getting all of my chips.
>>However, I only called. UTG calls also, to my surprise.
The turn is a 3, with a suit that equals one of the other cards on the flop. The small blind bets $500, with only about $200 or so more in his stack.
Problem 3: Call, raise or fold? After raising only $200 (which I was told was illegal), I made it $1,000....UTG folds, small blind calls. On second thought, I would've just called, but with UTG folding, it would've turned out either I would've bet the river, or the small blind would've bet his $200, and I would've called. <<
I don't know why the player doing the betting didn't go all in but I would have raised here. But I also know that I wouldn't have gone this far by just calling.
>>The river is a 3, and it turns out the small blind has K-3 for a full, and I am devestated.
Still 'steaming' after the beat (I don't think I could've gotten away from it, so on second thought, I'm fairly happy with the play, just turned out I didn't have the winner).<<
You lost half your stack at least it wasn't your whole stack. I believe that you had enough chips with blinds being relatively small to recover and accumulate some chips. No reason to steam. Just didn't play the hand well (in my opinion). Just resolve to play better from that point on.
>>Next hand...I am the small blind. I get dealt AQ. Everybody folds, Button (who was the small blind before) calls....I raise $300 (into a pot of $125, hoping to pick up the pot)...big blind folds, button calls.
Problem 4: how was that play? was it too big of a raise? would you just have called? was it clear that the button was laying a trap? <<
I think your play was good. It isn't clear to me that the button was laying a trap. I don't know how much you know about the button. It would just depend on the line you had on the button's play.
>>The flop comes KTx. I check, button bets $300. I raise $900, all-in.
Problem 5: what would you have done there?
My thinking at the time was that if he had AA, KK, TT, AK, KT, or two pair, he would be in, otherwise fold, and even if he was in, I could still have a miracle turn/river of the J. Turns out he had AA, and I was sent packing. <<
After you showed strength before the flop there would be a lot of hands that he would be at least concernced about that fit into that flop. If his hand was weak I think there would be a pretty good chance that the button would just check here instead of trying to run you over. This would be especially true if the button thought you were steaming. Just my opinions.
I am in the last table in a stud tournament. There're seven players left, and the fifth position and up get paid. I have about $700 left, in a $300-$600 limit, with a $75 ante. While four players have similar chip positions, three players (me included) lack behind with similar stacks as well. I am dealt QJ8c suited. No clubs are out, and no J's and 8's are out. There's one Q in front of me, and an A behind. The Q raises in early position, one player with a 3 calls (he is low in chips and will bust if he loses). I decide to call.
Here's my reasoning:
1. I only have enough money to play 10 more hands. I would like to have at least 300-400 when I go all in, so that my all-in would force my caller to also risk a decent amount of chips. If I wait another 5 rounds, I might not get anything more decent than my current hand.
2. Since my clubs are all live, I have a good draw. There's over 500 in the pot in ante's alone. Given that two other players have already put in 300 each, plus the force, the pot is currently close to 1200. I am putting in 300 to a 1200 pot, a 1-4 current pot odds. This is similar to a regular ring game, with three additional players. I think the odds are good enough for my draw.
3. Assume we all go to the river, if I win, I would triple my chip position, to a level where I could very possibly be the new chip leader at the table! This will give me a chance to win the $1700 prize money (1st position), instead of $160 (5th position).
4. If I wait to go all in later, it is possible that even if I win, I might still only have 700 or so in chips, and not have enhanced my chip position. Therefore, I would continue to be on the defensive and have to repeat the same all-in scenario very soon.
The only drawback for playing this hand is that I might be reducing my chance to finish in the money by default. If I don't get involved in the pot, one player who is already in has a good chance of busting out, thus leaving only six players at the table. In this case, I will have a better chance of contending for at least the fifth position and finishing in the money.
Anyway, as it turns out, the A behind me is rolled up and reraises. Everyone calls. I continue to call on the subsequent rounds, and go all in. I don't catch my flush, but back into a straight on the river. The AAA makes a full house. The other players both make two pairs. The pot is worth over 5000 by the end, two players bust out, and the winner emerges as the obvious chip leader at the table.
Do you think I should have called on third street?
First, I must say that you didn't have to explain the conclusion of that hand -- I had it happen too many times when I first started finishing in the money in stud tournaments.
The problem with going all-in on a draw is that you don't yet have a hand -- and may never have a hand. A player with even a middle pair has a better chance of winning the hand.
Your particular draw was even uglier -- you had no overcards so that even if you made a pair (vs. another pair), you would likely have still lost.
The only part of the analysis I like is that you would potentially become the chip leader. Still, with that many players drawing, you would have been a big dog.
Finally, even if I could've overlooked all of the above, I would not have called a raise in middle position on 3rd Street because then you would've been "pot-stuck" and would've had to follow through even if you didn't catch a flush card on 4th Street.
Conversely, a high-risk play that I will make is if I can get the first raise in early with a high (A-K-x) flush draw, thus giving me a much better opportunity to win the hand. Of course, the chip leaders will be inclined to call your short stack in order to try and eliminate you. (Necessarily, this ignores that we now know that someone was rolled-up).
In sum, your hand, position, and chip position say "no" to even playing your hand -- much less calling a raise.
I agree with the previous analysis,but let's take it a step further.It's the final table and you are close to a money finish. Also you have enough chips where it's likely if you play it conservative you will come in the money.It was the worst time to gamble.
Now if it was later in the going , you were close to being ante'd out, already in the money, and you want to gamble go ahead take a shot.
Given your current status and chip position I don't think you could afford to be very choosy. With a payout of $160 dollars for 5th place and $1700 for first it seems that your call had a lot going for it. The fact that a player was rolled up behind you was a long shot although someone with a pair of Aces would probably re-raise also. It seems to me that being "pot stuck" was acceptable as you were playing to get all of your chips in the center anyways with as good of odds as possible. In short my opinion is that you made a good play.
Is 10s and 9s out?
I don't remember for sure, as I was mainly concentrating on my flush draw at the time. As it turned out, my straight was 9 high - a very long shot, indeed.
I really don't like this play at all. The Q raised! This is supposed to communicate a pair of queens. If true, then your only hope to beat this player is to make your flush or straight. I don't like your odds of doing this, and as we know You said that the ante was T75, and you had T700. Thus, you are only losing about 10% of your stack with each hand. I would wait for a better opportunity, or for 2 players to bust out so I'm in the money. Who knows, you might have been rolled-up the next hand, and been able to increase your stack of T625 to T1625. I understand your point about how big that pot was getting, but you didn't know, WHEN YOU CALLED, that anyone else was coming in. It very easily could have been just the Q, the 3, and you. If so, and if you had won, this would have gotten you up to about T2400. In any event, your chances of winning go down with more players. Wait for a chance to get it heads-up when you're a favorite if at all possible.
Now, if the ante was taking away 20% of your stack, rather than 10%, then you must loosen up faster. However, with a Q (of all cards) raising in front of you, I think you've got to fold.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Do not call.
The Q surely has a strong hand since this is no time to be bluffing.
You can back into the money since the other short stacks will be tempted to play as you are.
You have a dog hand right now, and can't get any extra money if you DO get there. Yes, you are getting 2-1 but you are a bigger dog than that, vrs the obvious big pair. Lets try to get money in while you are the favorite.
- Louie
I intended to get back to this post sooner but I am over employed right now so I couldn't do it until now. There are a lot of assumptions in the following analysis. I am going to attempt to calculate the expectation if you go all in and win the hand and the expectation if you pass on this hand and try and survive.
Assumptions:
1) If you go all in and win you will do no worse than 3rd.
2) If you go all in and win your you have an equal chance to end up third, second or first.
3) the payouts are 1st 50%, 2nd 25%, 3rd 15%, 4th 5%, 5th 5%
4) If you survive and take at least 5th your chances of ending up in 5th are 50%, 4th are 25%, 3rd 15%, 2nd 5% and 1st 5%.
Call the percentage of times you win the pot with your 3 flush on 3rd street when you go all in PWH. Your expectation is:
PWH * ( ( .5 + .25 + .15 ) / 3 ) = .3 * PWH.
Call the percentage of time you survive when you don't play your 3 flush on 3rd street PSV. Your expectation is:
PSV * ( .5*.05 + .05*.25 + .15*.15 + .05*.25 + .05*.5)
This is based on the amount you get when you finsish 5th and the percentage of times you finish 5th when you survice, the amount you get when you finish 4h and the percentage of times you finish 4th when you survive, etc.
Therefore your expectation when you try and survive is:
PSV * .0975.
When
.3 * PWH > .0975 * PSV
you should go all in when.
or
when
PWH > .325 * PSV.
Lets say your percentage of survival to finish in the money is 50 percent when you don't play the hand. Plugging back into the inequality:
PWH > .325 * .5
PWH > .1625 or the odds of winning the pot when you go all in must be greater than 5.15 to 1.
I am not sure if anybody agrees with this analysis but it seems to me that in the situation you were in it was a pretty close decision.
That was an excellent post. Add a few more words in ENGLISH and it would be perfect. :)
Doing some quick re-calculations with slightly different assumptions leads to much different results. For example, I would be tempted to assume that if you survived into the money your chances of winning are greater than 5%, and if you DO win this pot then EITHER you can guarantee at least 3rd place OR have an equal shot at 1st, 2nd, or 3rd (or less).
But anyway, that just subjective judgement. Being able to quantify such judgments and calculate them exactly in the manner you demonstrate is an extremely useful tool; at least for post-mortem analysis. Doing this a lot should improve ones estimate in real-time situations.
And it dramatizes the difference between live-game analysis and tournament analysis, which is always more complicated since it includes almost all the live game considerations, but weighted much less.
- Louie
Thank you all for your thoughtful analyses. It was very interesting to read different perspectives. While I still think it was a pretty close call, I have become more aware now of the deficiencies of my hand. One thing that is not left to debates: I surely learned a lot from posting this message.
Kathy
Posted by: Louie Landale (louie.landale@internetMCI.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 January 1998, at 9:32 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 January 1998, at 7:24 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (louie.landale@internetMCI.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 January 1998, at 9:25 p.m.
Posted by: Kathy (kathy@asyoulikeit.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 January 1998, at 7:12 p.m.
I sometimes get caught in a Loose Agressive Hold'em game where the Betting gets capped Pre-Flop and the raisers are holding Trash hands. I think the best strategy is to move to a softer game, but sometimes its the only game in town.
If the betting is capped and 5 players are in the Pot. Are hands like 22, Axs, and 76s worth seeing the Flop for 3 bets? What about marginal hands like Kxs, and 98o?
Thanks, Chris
None of those hands are worth calling three bets "cold" with even five opponents. Getting six to one odds or more you can play 76s for sure. 22 and and Axs are more debatable. Forget the others. Please realise that implied odds go down if you have to put a lot of money in there before the flop.
I felt like I should have known the answer allready. So, I did some math. I think I get the idea, but my logic maybe flawed.
Normaly: 5 Players call Pre-Flop for 1 Half Bet each. I call with 22. I expect to get paid off with 7.5 Big Bets 'total' when I Trip up. That means two players call to Showdown. I'm also assuming my Trip 2's will be good when I hit them. So I get paid off 7.5 to .5, or 15 to 1.
Loose Aggressive Game: 5 players call Pre-Flop for 3 Half Bets each (capped). I call with 22. I expect to get paid off with 12.5 Big bets if I make Trip 2's. So my pay off is 12.5 to 1.5, or 8.3 to 1.
Now by investing 2 extra Half Bets Pre-Flop my odds get cut in Half? From 15 to 1 down to 8.3 to 1, and actually Flopping Trips is around 8 to 1. I think I see how calling with 22 is a bad play in that situation.
Chris
I also have trouble with this type of game. Could David or Mason advise me of the proper strategy?
I was reading in one of the first posts in the Archives. David suggests playing weak-tight is close to the proper strategy for this type of game. He also suggests loosening up on Drawing Hands. What I'm finding out is that there is many qualifyers that I hadn't thought about.
Haven't you noticed that the rocks make money with game conditions like originally described? If you don't want to play like a rock, then you must find another game. The reason is because the rest of the (non-maniacs) players will key on the action player making card-reading skills less valuable to you.
O.K. 22 was easy to calculate. Since I haven't had anyone correct my math, I'm pretty sure I've got that concept down. Now comes the hard question about Small Suited Connectors. What are the odds that I'm going to have a "good" Flop(Flush draw + Strait Draw + Possibly a split two pair or better). In HFAP it says I can start playing these hands in Middle and Somtimes Early Position.
My big question is what type of 'forcasting' I want to be doing. I would think I would want more than 3 people to see the Flop with me so that when the Flush or the Strait comes so I'll get paid off for all the times I have to throw these hands away.
Thanks in advance. This is possibly my biggest question about Pre-Flop Play. I think I play too tight when the pot hasn't been raised and I hold these cards. I usually throw them away if I don't see at least 4 people in the pot ahead of me.
Chris
Just because you CAN play hands like 76s from middle position doesn't mean you SHOULD. Do you semi-bluff bet on the flop with middle or bottom pair and a backdoor flush draw? If you can't get value from the most likely way the flop can hit your hand, then you would be better off playing 76s only from late position with a lot of callers up front, as a volume hand. In a loose-agressive type game you'll get your head handed to you if you regularly play hands which you'll need major help for on the flop since semi-bluffing is not possible under these conditions.
I wonder if anyone ELSE will come this far down and read this oldish thread.
*** Do you semi-bluff bet on the flop with middle or bottom pair and a backdoor flush draw? If you can't get value from the most likely way the flop can hit your hand, then you would be better off playing 76s only from late position with a lot of callers up front, as a volume hand. ***
That's an extremely important point. That's why the not-tight-enough Rocks who play junk like JT lose a lot of money. This hand will NOT make top pair by the river very often, and these players will not put in any money unless it does. Yes, it APPEARs to be better than the cheese the "live" guys are playing, but its a clear loser in their hands, since they can't stand the heat.
That's why Ax is so bad in the aggressive games: an Ace is the only realistic flop you can get, but who wants to call down with no kicker? And you AREN'T going to call them down, so this hand has "lost" its main "value".
That's why suited hands do poorly in some types of low blind spread-limit games ($1-5, $2 blind): several players will take the flop but its often heads up thereafter, and you have to call 1:1 as a 2:1 dog even if you DO flop the draw. Yuuuuuuck.
They are considering the "hand value" and ignoring the realities of the game.
*** In a loose-agressive type game you'll get your head handed to you if you regularly play hands which you'll need major help for on the flop since semi-bluffing is not possible under these conditions. ***
I disagree with your last statement to a degree. These hands go down a lot if they routinely raise B4 the flop, but with several players going to the river then the draw is well worth it even if its capped (getting 4:1 for your 2:1 hand), even if you have no chance to steal.
Do you read this forum a lot?
- Louie
Just found this forum yesterday. Assuming everyone already invested in the pot is going to cold call the capper, yes the 76s can expect implied odds reasonable enough to stay for the flush draw. However, you probably need to be expecting about 6:1 since the maniacs will be raising pre-flop with AXs, and playing with KXs and even QXs regardless of position often enough to seriously increase the chances of 76s coming in second best. I would rather have a rainbow flop with a draw open-ended if I had enough reason to cold call three bets just to see the flop here. Mostly, the original questioner wanted to know what to think about when considering 76s under difficult conditions. I'm just saying I'd think about the loss of value when game conditions prevent the first criteria of a proper semi-bluff from being met - you have no chance of winning right there on the flop.
The Semi-Bluff isn't possible in most of the games I'm playing right now. I basicly have to throw this hand, (and any other hand that doesn't improve on the Flop) away. I end up playing Weak-Tight and it bends my Nose out of shape. What amazes me is that people will call me down constantly with hands that can't even beat top-pair. These people should know I'm playing Weak-Tight, but they do it again and again. I just bet all my good hands for value and raise to pick-up a free card every now and then. Bluffing and Semi-Bluffing are mostly out of the question.
Chris Villalobos a.k.a Zardoz
If the game conditions prevent semi-bluffing (no chance everyone will fold off your play) but your raise on the flop will slow down the hyper-agressives on the next round, then this is all the more reason not to get involved with hands like 76s from middle position when it's going to cost you three or four bets to see the flop. You'll have the extra strategic possibilities from last position which can make these hands profitable in the long run, but you are limited by the tempo of the game in terms of what you can do profitably from middle position after the flop. If you're going to come in with 76s against two or more maniacs and you're sure you can get 6:1 implied odds at the flop, then it may be correct to re-raise if you think that you have a good chance of buying the button (solid or tight players behind you).
I am pleased to hear that you are publishing a book on tournament poker, due to be released in March 1998. Is there any chance of seeing a sample of its content? Maybe a sample chapter or an essay or two from its author?
The book is currently at the editor. No material will be released from the text until the editing is completed. You will probably see something just prior to release in March.
I am working on an article about college students who gamble. How many are? Good and bad parts? Etc.
I am looking for people to talk to you. The article will be in the on-line magazine, Student.Net.
My questions will only take about five to ten minutes plus you get your name in a nifty magazine.
I you would be able to help, please email me.
Thanks for your help, Ellena
Love the book, etc, etc... Here are a few thoughts on select subjects in the book, that I thought might be worth of sharing with the Forum.
1) Best game to play with champs who are steaming:
I sometimes play in a dealer's choice game with a few fish and the toughest players in the city. These guys are all experts at Omaha-8 and usually call it on their pick, because they believe (and I agree) that Omaha-8 is the best came for separating the weakies from their money. (A pick goes for one half hour in these games, and the button has memory). As in your hypothetical example, there are times when a tough player gets stuck a few thousand and may steam. I think that calling Omaha-8 in this situation is a mistake. This seems like the game that they can best "bring it back around," because despite some steam, they just know what a bad hand looks like and won't play it -- similar to the Jacks or Better case. I've found that the best game to call in this situation is instead Crazy Pineapple Hi-Lo Split. This truly is a game where any steamer can find something to play. Perhaps the reason you didn't mention it was that you just don't see 40-80 Pineapple games spread too often, but if you play a lot of choice games, then this is a good one to have in your repertoire.
2) If there are 100 religions, at least 99 are wrong:
Maybe. But this assumes a discrete finite set of truth similar to a 52-card deck or the laws of thermodynamics. However, questions of spirituality/religion are by definition unanswerable. The whole thing may well be a crock (I for one am just a little skeptical of L Ron Hubbard), but perhaps for reasons that don't conform to our notion of logic, God manifested himself as Jesus AND Krishna. I don't know. I just don't think the proper foundation for the application of FFT principles has been laid here.
3) 4:1 the glove was planted:
Perhaps. Better yet, how bout this: There are (as I recall) only 40 people on planet Earth who have the same DNA as the type found underneath the victims' fingernails, one of them being OJ. Using the inside-out Bayes theorem, what are the odds that one of them previously terrorized Nicole so bad that the police were called and is NOT the killer? Well, I think you know the answer.
Regards,
Jim Geary
jaygee at primenet dot com
http://www.primenet.com/~jaygee/
Since most religions do acept the possibility that other religions could somehow simultaneously be correct, I stand by my statement. For example Christians believe that Jesus was the messiah and Jews believe not only that the messiah is still coming but also that Jesus is not him. They can't both be right.
As long as we're asking questions about FFT book, I might as well throw in one I've been wondering about. The article on the 95% Criterion Fallacy states that of the approximately 10,000 experiments run each year, 500 will yield results that satisfy the traditional criterion despite the fact that they are "completely wrong."
I'm assuming the idea was that there are 10,000 statistical comparisons, which we can think of as testing statistical differences (e.g., t-tests and F-tests). The 500 estimate seems to assume that of these 10,000 comparisons, none measure true differences. In this case, we would expect a false positive rate of about 5%, or 500 Type I errors.
My intuition (as a non-medical researcher) is that many experiments test hypotheses that are true at some level (i.e., would hold up in the long run, even if we don't know why). In part this may be due to confirmatory experiments that don't adequately distinguish between competing hypotheses (i.e., for which the obtained results would be expected under most or all plausible theories). This may also be due to incremental science, in which there is a clear basis for prediction, but the precise experiment hasn't been done before. In any case, if 50% of the comparisons test differences for which there is a "true" difference of appropriate size, then it seems like we should only expect 250 false positives.
So I wonder if David could clarify the 500/10,000 estimate, since it seems extremely high to me, due to a bizarre assumption about the base rate.
As an aside, I think the suggestions as to how to improve the situation are pretty odd. If two theories make opposite predictions (as they often will for a well-designed experiment), proponents of the two theories will have opposite ideas about which is more plausible. So using Bayes' Theorem won't help much. At the same time, when good scientists see surprising results (i.e., results inconsistent with previous findings), especially marginal results, they generally don't simply rush out to publish them. They often seek replication and explore the conditions under which the obtained results hold. In a sense, this is Bayes' Theorem at work, but since there is no real basis for estimating numerically the prior probability of a particular theory's being correct (or, more to the point, of there being a difference of a certain size between two measures), it's left to the scientist to argue that the result should be believed even though it conflicts with previous results. While not all scientists think about these things formally, most appreciate them at some level - side bets on whether or not a surprising result will replicate are commonplace.
Anyway, one of David's most general points is well taken. When we see surprising results, we should be skeptical, because their prior probability is by definition lower than that of unsurprising results. However, I think the conventional alpha criterion is usually appropriate in the hands of competent scientists, in the sense that acceptable levels of Type I and Type II errors can be had from reasonably scaled experiments, and statistical flukes don't usually stick around in the literature for too long. A higher criterion would certainly reduce errors if we assume that good scientists would adjust the statistical power of their experiments appropriately. But I don't think a difference in alpha criterion is really the difference between flawed and appropriate scientific reasoning. And I don't think formal Bayesian estimation, to the extent that it's even possible, would help much, at least not with well-edited journals.
Alas, competent scientists don't usually get to edit the evening news, and their results don't make headlines so often, so the general public may justifiably have a very different impression of what's sufficient evidence to pass scientific muster.
dan
What book are you referring to by FFT?
FIGHTING FUZZY THINKING IN POKER, GAMING, & LIFE by David Sklansky.
To be completely accurate I should have said " Of those hypothesis that are completely wrong, 5% of them will be mistakenly deemed correct by the 95% confidence limit criterion. Thus if 10,000 such wrong theories are tested, 500 will be accepted and maybe written up."
I was discussing this last night with Tod and would like the opinion of others. Assuming you are a $20 - $25 an hour $10-$20 HE player over a long period of time, or a $35 - $40 an hour $20-$40 HE player over a long period of time, what percentage of your hourly rate comes from AA and KK. Also, what percentage of your hourly rate comes from players not reading hands well enough and putting money in the pot with a very tiny return? In otherwords, someone calls you down, or calls your raise, on 4th or 5th street, when their only possible win is if you mis-read your hand? Tod thought that AA and KK accounted for perhaps as high as 40% of the win rate. We couldn't come up for a figure for the second situation. Please add percentages for other types of hands.
Anyone that can attribute 40% of his win rate to AA or KK is, in either reality or perception, playing on a very different planet than the one I do.
[AA KK worth how much?]
Well, you get AA 1 in 221 hands likewise for KK, then you get one of these 1 hand in 110. Assume about 35 hands/hour then you get one of these hands one time in 3 hours. Or there abouts.
Any hand is very unlikely to be worth more than the amount of the blinds; $15 for the 10/20. If it IS worth that amount then in the 10/20 AA or KK is worth $5/hour.
If you are in a game where these hands are worth more, than you should be beating the game silly on your other hands.
- Louie
Simple logic can prove that two aces (and probably two kings) is worth quite a bit more than simply the value of the blinds (when you are not one of the blinds yourself.) When you raise and steal the blinds you earn $15. Since your opponents are clearly costing themselves money when they call your raise, the fact that you will usually get a few calls, adds that much more to your expectation. The truth of the matter is that AA and KK accounts for 100% of most players hourly rate! Put another way, most winning players would not win if they were never dealt these two hands.
Whoa!
If this is true, then I can only think of 1 reason to ever play any other hand. Camouflage.
If all of your profit is coming from AA and KK, then by definition, you should be able to fold every other hand and come out the same. Thus, even if AKs is profitable, you're losing that profit by selecting other non-profitable starting hands to play.
Thus, the only reason to play other hands is that to do otherwise would make you too easy to read. Any observant player, especially a regular, would figure out that everytime you came into the pot, you must have AA or KK.
Of course, this makes me think that if I would just stop playing those unprofitable hands that are sucking away the money I make with AKs, AKo, QQ, and other profitable hands, I would make even more. Is this why your books advise playing these hands other than AA and KK?
All of this is a bit tongue-in-cheek. I am sure that AA and KK contribute a lot to the bottom line, probably more than half, but if your statement holds true for successful pros, or amateurs who play equally well, then I just don't see why the answer isn't simply to tighten up dramatically on starting hand requirements. Get it down to the best 3% or so (and I thought I was tight playing only about 10% of my non-blind hands)
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
I believe you're forgetting the blinds. AA and KK may be worth $10 an hour in a 10-20 game. AK, QQ, AQ, JJ.... are also all profitable hands, but if you take the blinds 4 times every hour, that could mean up to $60 lost per hour.
I guess a good question would be, what's the losing rate for the typical blind?
Let me explain my reasoning behind the %40 figure. Louis Landale correctly notes that you will be dealt AA or KK once every three hours. Let's assume you are a typically solid pro making one big bet an hour. So say we're playing 10-20, and earning $20 per hour. Landale also points out that if you raise with AA or KK and win the blinds you win $15, or $5 per hour. That's already %25 of your earn. However, I think that with AA and KK you should be disappointed to win only the blinds (although with any other hand, you are probably happy to win right away). Another way to view the situation is to imagine that a dishonest dealer is willing to deal you pocket Aces or Kings on the next hand for a fee. If I could do it with a clean conscience, I would certainly slip the dealer $24. If AA or KK are worth $24, and you are dealt them once every 3 hours, then they are worth 8 $/hr, or %40 of your earn (3 hours * 20 $/hr * %40 = $24).
I agree. I told Jessica on the phone that I thought there was a logic mistake in her thinking -- she was not accounting for the drain from the blinds. I also agree that if a good player was never dealt aces or kings or always threw them away he might only break even in the long run. But that doesn't mean that other hands aren't profitable.
But this brings up another interesting point that pertains to hold 'em. The vast majority of a good player's profit clearly comes from the best hands that he plays. My guess is that as much as 80 percent of his profit may come from the best half of played hands while only 20 percent of his profit will come from the worse half. These percentages would be much closer for stud and the following comments do not apply to stud.
The reason this point is interesting is it brings up the question as to why should you bother to play marginal hands? The answer is that playing additional hands may bring you more action on your best hands. On the other hand, playing too many hands will establish you as a loose player, and thus defeat some of your edges in other respects.
In addition, I have written that in hold 'em there are many hands which may be slightly profitable (for the situation) or very unprofitable, but it is not always clear which. An example would be a hand like ace-seven suited in a late postion in a raised pot that is three or four handed. Against the right players I believe that if you play well this hand can show a small long term profit, but I suspect that some people are big overall losers with this type of hand in this spot.
Any comments are welcome.
Ribbitt,raiseit: I think the word you are looking for here is synergy. A winning player has too play a variety of hands that work together so to speak to make him or her a profitable player.
In the blinds you have too call with some hands that are clearly unprofitable in the long run, yet you would lose even more money if you didn't play some of these hands and just threw them away. So, in my opinion Poker is a synergistic game where a variety of hands and good decisions work together to make a profit. Ribbitt
Ted wrote:
"In the blinds you have too call with some hands that are clearly unprofitable in the long run, yet you would lose even more money if you didn't play some of these hands and just threw them away. So, in my opinion Poker is a synrgistic game where a variety of hands and good decisions work together to make a profit."
I strongly disagree. You should virtually never call out of the blind with hands that you know are unprofitable.
Ted wrote:
"In the blinds you have too call with some hands that are clearly unprofitable in the long run, yet you would lose even more money if you didn't play some of these hands and just threw them away."
Mason wrote:
"I strongly disagree. You should virtually never call out of the blind with hands that you know are unprofitable."
I'm going to answer for Ted (I think). I think that what Ted means is that if you count folding your big blind to a raise as a loss of -$10 (in a 10-20 game), then there are some hands that if played out, over time, will net you a loss, but a loss of less than $10 (counting the big blind you posted). For example, let's say that you're in a game where someone usually raises preflop, but that 5 players also usually see the flop. In this game, I'd fold A2 suited in early position, because I don't want to pay 2 bets to see the flop. However, if the same hand came up in the above numbers, I'd call with this hand from the big blind. By doing so, I'm getting immediate odds of 9:1. Thus, if I were to fold this hand in the face of the raise, I'd lose $10. If I play it out in this game, maybe my loss would only average $6, that is, if we look at my money flow after posting the big blind, it would be +$4. Thus, you can play this hand given that you're already half-way in, but you shouldn't play it under the gun when you've got nothing invested.
I agree with this.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Mason, In your own book you talk about calling a raise in the big blind with group 8 hands if the players seem to be weak, or calling a raise with 86s if there are over three players etc. These hands don't show a profit in these posistions over time, yet they win enough to lower the cost compared to throwing them away. the post by Greg Raymer is saying the same thing. All of the simulations I have done show that in general, you should be playing hands that will show a small per hand loss over time compared to simply throwing them away.Only in the blinds. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this one. In fact proper play in the blinds in my opinion is critical, as important as starting hands etc., since these posistions are where you generally lose the most money. Ribbit
You must remember that your blind is money already in the pot. Suppose you are playing $10-$20 hold 'em and the pot is raised meaning that you will have to call out of the blind for an additional $10 if you wish to keep playing. If you don't expect to get that $10 call back on average, you shouldn't make the call. It is that simple.
The fact that you have actually put $20 in the pot -- your blind plus your $10 call -- is not the way to think about it. If this call returns $14 on average it shows a profit of $4, not a loss of $6. This idea is important because if you are not thinking about it this way I suspect that you are making other costly errors.
When I call a raise in the blinds, I do so correctly. I know that my initial blind is already part of the pot. When I am running a simulation on the computer, it looks at the total money invested and returned in those posistions, and it will show that hand that is a $4.00 per hand winner as a $6.00 loss. So,I understand what you are saying and you are right. The computer doesn't make the distinction between the inital blind and a call of a raise during the same hand.It looks at total dollars only. Really the point of my initial comment was that finding out what percentage of your hourly rate AA or KK is moot in my opinion. That's why I used the word synergy. Don't laugh, but you can compare this to the vitamins you take. Vitamin C and E are very good for you. But if you take them by themselves most of their benifit is lost. You need all the other vitamins along with E and C to make them work correctly . The same is true for AA and KKs. I'm sure you'll have a field day with that one.
As far as I know only One poker computer program out there that plays well; written by Mr. "But Wait!!!".
The other comercial programs to not play well. Any simulations you make on them will give poor results. Typically they rarely fold good but obviously beaten hands and they will routinely give lots and lots of money away with very strong but beat hands, such as Q-flush.
And CERTAINLY the programs have no sense of Synergy. They don't know you are only playing AA and KK, or never raising with 2nd-pair.
Trust only general trends of these programs, such as which hands are likely to be BETTER than others. How much better or worse you cannot determine.
- Louie
What the hell are you talking about ? Do you have a desperate need to teach, even when you don't know what your talking about? The comments about synergy have nothing to do with my computer. Did it ever occur to you that I'm not using a commercial system, and what do you know about simulation. You obviously................ forget it ! Your not worth it. Try posting something that you can learn from, instead of trying to teach everyone.
Mr. Ted the Toad:
I understand your original comments about Synergy were not in reference to your simulation; nor did I say they were. Since Synergy is obviously important to you I thought I'd point out that it is NOT to the computer; at least the programs I've seen. They seem to react the same whether the player is raising with only premium hands, or raising with any old piece of cheese. One seems to have a slight general change in reactions to "loose" or "tight" players, but that's not synergy.
I found your references to Synergy appealing. By all means expound on it.
Yes, I DO have a need to teach, but NOT when I don't know what I'm talking about. Go ahead, show me a full table holdem simulation that I can't beat; that doesn't cheat. PLEASE! It'd be well worth having. But I think there is none, because they play poorly. Poker strategy is far to complicated to be easily simulated. Notice how long it took for them to write a program to beat chess; considering chess strategy is an endless series of relatively simple strategies (ideal for computers), and lots of people had been at it for many years. (Yes, I am a terrible chess player but beat all the programs I found (15 years ago), usually by just surviving to the end game.)
If you DO have a strategically solid program then by all means commercialize it. You'd make a fortune. Much more than you'd make by using it to get better.
I HAVE posted several advise/information requesting posts, and have gotten very few responses. The responses I get from my routine posts are constructive criticisms, a few "I agree, and here's my 2c" posts, and those like yours: those who complain without actually saying anything.
Next time Email me directly. Take note that I use my Email address. BTW, I have received numerous "thanks for the great post" sorts of Emails. There are SOME people who neither automatically react emotionally nor infer in the worst possible light. These objective people, if they can do it at the table, are much more likely to be winners than the others.
- Louie
Louie,
I think you help make this forum real interesting.
Tom Haley
>Go ahead, show me a full table holdem simulation that I can't beat; that doesn't cheat.
>PLEASE!
>It'd be well worth having.
If you were one human player Vs nine computer opponents, how many hands would you have to play and how many big bets would you have to be behind to consider that the program would "be well worth having"?
[If you were one human player Vs nine computer opponents, how many hands would you have to play and how many big bets would you have to be behind to consider that the program would "be well worth having"? ]
It would be well worth having until I was comfortably AHEAD, and confident I would continue to beat it at its most difficult setting, or against all its "profiles". I don't know how many hands or how far ahead that is, but I'd "know it" or "feel it" when I got there. All this, of course, so long as it wasn't cheating.
- Louie
Sklansky:
Simple logic can prove that two aces (and probably two kings) is worth quite a bit more than simply the value of the blinds (when you are not one of the blinds yourself.) When you raise and steal the blinds you earn $15. Since your opponents are clearly costing themselves money when they call your raise, the fact that you will usually get a few calls, adds that much more to your expectation. The truth of the matter is that AA and KK accounts for 100% of most players hourly rate! Put another way, most winning players would not win if they were never dealt these two hands.
Raymer:
Whoa! If this is true, then I can only think of 1 reason to ever play any other hand. Camouflage. If all of your profit is coming from AA and KK, then by definition, you should be able to fold every other hand and come out the same. Thus, even if AKs is profitable, you're losing that profit by selecting other non-profitable starting hands to play.
Now me:
David is saying that AA and KK account for 100% of the profit, and I assume he means "on the margin", that is, above the break-even point. The "other hands" played serve to even out the negative ev of the blinds. We could just as easily say that the winnings from AA and KK go to make up part of the blind losses, and the other hands make up the rest of those losses as well as add to the profits.
If you are a winning 10-20 player making $20/hr, then David claims that AA and KK make $20/hr on average. Let's see if that makes sense:
You get either AA or KK every 110 hands or so. At 37 hands/hour, this is once every 3 hours. You need to make an average of $60/hand (or 6 small bets) each time you receive AA or KK in order to average $20/hr. Since you will probably have a few players trapped for two bets preflop, and will often get one or more callers through at least the turn, it seems likely that even if you win as little as 50% of the time with these hands, they are going to show the desired profit.
I don't think David expressed the comparison of the positive ev of AA and KK with the negative ev of the blinds in the way that Louie intended, however. It seems to me that Louie meant this: 110 hands is 11 orbits for 10-handed holdem, which is 11 * $15 = $165. In this sense, AA and KK are NOT worth more than the blinds, as they don't stand to make an average of $165 each time they are played. I think this is in fact what Greg was getting at.
I hope this clears up what is (to me, as an outside observer) clearly a miscommunication between all of those concerned.
Tom Weideman
All the thoughtful answers to my question have served to reinforce one thing for me when thinking about my game. The marginal hands - if played in the right spots - are only adding dimes and nickels to overall hourly rate. As Mason points out, when they aren't earning you nickels and dimes they can become big losers. So, I have to be very careful in chosing the correct situations, or I'm better off not playing a lot of these hands. The idea of playing hands for camouflage (in a typical $10 -$20) is a trap. In the average $10 -$20 game that I play in, my opponents seem overly involved in their own hands, and I don't feel that advertising" is necessary. If you feel like you are missing out on lost action, picking up a few pots here and there will more than make up for it. The bulk of one's profit comes from monster hands and marginal hands are only marginally profitable and only in the right spots.
Jessica,
All that I meant by camouflage is that if you literally played only AA and KK, soon everyone at that casino would know it. In this event, you'd get no action when you raised first-in, and you'd only get action after the flop when the other guy knows he's gotten ahead of you, or has an odds-on draw. Of course, the tourists and other non-regulars would always be there to give you some action, but probably not enough to make up for all those blinds you've paid while waiting for your monster.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
My original post implied nothing about the blinds at all. Sklansky's criticism was correct: If the blinds don't call the raise I win $15; if they DO I expect to win even more; so AA and KK must be worth more than $15 per occurance.
The original question, which I shall "correctly" rephrase is: "How does the profit I can expect from AA or KK about relate to my expected hourly rate?" This is NOT the same question as "Where does my hourly rate come from?" We could also ask "How does the profit I can expect from AKs, QQ, JJ, and AK relate to my expected hourly rate?"
Accepting Skalansky's (about) $45/hand profit with AA or KK and you get such a hand once in 3 hours shows a $15/hour profit. That's 3/4 of a "typical" pro's rate of $20/hour. Failing to play these hands would result in a $5/hour rate.
If I may manipulate some assumptions and assume with the other premium hands you can expect an average of $20 per hand. If you get one such hand once in 1.25 hours then your expectation per hand is $16/hour. That's close.
But $15/hour for AA,KK plus $16/hour for other premium hands is $31/hour, which is more than you make? That means failing to play any of these hands would result in a -$11/hour rate.
Your hourly rate comes from: 1 - Big Profit originating from Big hands (and big situations), 2 - Good profit from good hands, 3 - marginal profit from marginal hands, 4 - losses from losing hands, and 5 - losses from blinds and antes and rake and tokes and time charges and coffee and toast and prime rib and .... Any of these 5 factors individually can be larger than your hourly rate; 1, 2, and 5 usually are.
The "expert", by the way, is superior to the good player in that she optimizes 3 and 4, which are the most common of the situations.
- Louie
David, I respectfully disagree. 100% of ones hourly win rate in the long run comes from players who do not play as well. Everyone should get AA or KK equally often. If you deduct from your winnings with AA and KK, your losses when an opponent had or most likely held AA and KK, then if the result is positive you're playing better. Against equally skilled players the rake beats everyone in the long run though. - ps. Doyle should have insisted on verse instead of prose as well as monosylables.
Hello, I'm wondering if I played a particular hand correctly. The game is 10-20 Hldm. I've got AA in early posistion and raise. One late posistion caller. The flop comes Kh Qd 10h. One of my aces is a heart. i bet and get raised. I'm not liking this particular flop, but I reraise to try to define my hand etc. I am raised back. Now I'm sure I'm looking at at least two pair, but I call A heart comes on the turn giving me 14 cards to make at least trips a straight or flush, so now I'm aprox 2-1 dog. The pot is 135.00. I'm not going to finish the hand here as I don't want to bias any suggestions. My questions are, should I have called the second raise on the flop, and if so should i call on the turn being a 2-1 dog getting what appears to be 6-1. I'm not sure if i'm figuring the odds correctly since it's heads up and half the pot is or was my money. I know that once it is in the pot it is not my money anymore, but at the same time I view it as a "real time investment", so to speak, so I feel like it's mine until there is a decision. Anyway, I'm thinking I should not have called the re-raise on the flop. Any help here would be appreciated. Thanks!
Thank you for providing me this opportunity to think about and discuss your situation. I am interested in hearing feedback from experts on my analysis. I have played mostly $6-$12 but also played some $10-$20 and $15-30 all with very good results and believe the following assessment to be correct based on my experience in these games.
I believe that by far all of the most important decisions in the play of this hand occurred on the flop. It is certainly not a safe flop, but it is one with which you can get action from an average player with a second best hand. Immediately after the flop, the most likely second best hands are AK, KJ, JJ, JTh, JT, 99 or lower pocket pair and maybe AQ . If you are against the kind of player who would call with such hands after you raise in early position, then you are in good shape to get action from a second best hand. If your opponent is not likely to call with such hands, AND would not re-raise pre-flop with QQ, KK or TT, then you are in the worst possible spot. Personally I don’t think there are many players like this.
The most likely hands which might have you beat are KQ, KTs, and QTs (remember, you should not be playing against a table full of experts). Given this situation, I think the best play on the flop would have been to go for a check raise. The reason being, many of the second best hands would look really good to your opponent with such a flop and he might bet them, even into a preflop raiser. If the flop missed him, he would have hardly any outs at all, so the free card is not that damaging. If your opponent does bet after you check, his reaction to your check raise should tell you more than his raise would if you had bet out, and it is cheaper. Either way, if your opponent checks after you or bets and calls your check raise, I would bet into him on either or both the turn and river expecting to win in a showdown.
The only tough decision occurs if your opponent re-raises your check raise. At this point, you have to assess the likelihood of a player still thinking he might have you beat with a second best hand which may also have a significant number of outs, verses a player with two pair (I still think trips is a distant third possibility here). This is now a similar situation as you described, but it would have cost you a little less to get there. You would now have pot odds of a little more than 10:1 and you might need to improve to beat two pair. You also have a good idea of which two pair you have to beat, KQ. In that case you have 6 solid outs, 2 Aces and 4 Jacks, as well as 3 outs (Tens) with which you could call him down. In addition to this you have runner-runner possibilities for a flush and a safer two pair which add as much as 10% to your chances of ending up with the best hand. I would estimate that the pot odds justifying a call hear are as little as 5:1. In your case the pot odds are slightly higher, but your opponent has shown more strength. I still think it is correct to call.
With your situation on the turn, there is no question that a call is correct if you check your opponent bets. If you are pretty sure that the other player would definitely bet if you check, but would now slow down and not raise if you bet, than you should bet, since betting is better than checking and calling if you know both conditions to be true. I would be more inclined to do it in my check raise scenario than in your actual situation, in which case I think I would be happy to just check and call.
By the way, where the money in the pot came from has absolutely no bearing on whether to continue playing or not.
Bill,
You should not have reraised on the flop with such a scary board. Your hand was good enough to play out to the end. I believe you need to study some on pot odds and general gambling knowledge or you are going to be in big trouble in the future at the limits and higher you are playing. Good Luck.
Gee Wiz, I got excited seeing Ray Zee's name respondinding to my post, then a put down. Ray, i appreciate you even responding, but I wish you would take the time to explain yourself. When you say I shouldn't have reraised, please tell me why. My reasoning was more about pot odds heads up. I had two aces, so AJ is pretty unprobable. so, if I do not re-raise, wouldn't i check raise on the turn with a possible 14-17 cards to win? As far as pot odds are concerned, I do understand, except it seems to change alittle bit heads up. heads up, as soon as you are a dog you cannot make a long term profit, can you? This is why I posted this situation. TO LEARN!!! That is what I'm trying to do.
let me try to be more clear:
In the situation I presented, I knew after I reraised, that I was beaten so far. So,even though it appears as though the pot was offering me odds to stay, would it be better to cut my long term loss in this situation, and fold right there, or continue knowing that I might win this hand, but long term I would also be showing a net loss. Which way do I lose less money? I'm sorry that I seem so naive or stupid to you Ray, but I certainly would appreciate your help. Thankyou
You wrote: In the situation I presented, I knew after I reraised, that I was beaten so far. So,even though it appears as though the pot was offering me odds to stay, would it be better to cut my long term loss in this situation, and fold right there, or continue knowing that I might win this hand, but long term I would also be showing a net loss. Which way do I lose less money?
---
I think that you're confused about pot odds. Looking at a 2-1 draw that will pay you 6-1 as a net long-term loser is just wrong. This is a +EV situation for you.
As to your play of the hand, I'm not sure that 2-1 is the correct odds. My guess would be you were against something like Js 9s, rather than 2 pair. The re-reraise would say to me that he's not afraid of a set of Kings or Queens, 2 possible hands that you could have with your pre-flop raise, so a straight with a flush re-draw becomes a more possible hand than 2 pair. So your estimate of the cards that will win for you might be a little high, lowering your odds of a winning hand. Figuring that you need a straight or better leaves 12 cards (any heart + 4 jacks) out of 46, or 2.8 to 1. Still very playable.
If you figure you need to beat a flush, it gets a little worse. There are 7 hearts left out of 46 for 5.5 to 1 odds. Just barely playable.
Thankyou for your response. Actually the player who called had KQ in this particular instance, but your right, he could easily have had J9 as aggressive as it was played. We both probably over played the hand a little, but what I'm trying to get to is about pot odds heads up.
I used this situation because it is my feeling that heads-up, you can't effectively use the pot as a long term decision maker. The way I understand pot odds is that you take the size of the total pot and compare it to the size of the bet. So, using that, on the turn, using your figures I'm a 2.8-1 dog getting 6-1. That would mean in the long run i would show a profit. But HEADS -UP in the long run it shows a loss. That is part of my question. With only two players, is any situation where you are a smaller under dog than what the pot is offering considered profitable? My assumption is that it means you should continue to play the hand, so that you will lose less in the long run than you would by folding. Ray Zee says I shouldn't reraise into the scary board on the flop, which I understand, sort -of, but I had the highest overpair with the nut gutshot, and nut backdoor flush. Shouldn't it be played aggressively? Anyway, thanks for your comments.
I'll try to answer your pot odds question.
When calculating pot odds, you ignore everything that happened previously, and only worry about what might happen in the future of the hand you're playing.
Let's take a case that is simpler than yours. You're playing HE, and have KK. A player raised in early position preflop, you reraised, and no one else called. You and he put in multiple bets on the flop, and are currently raising one another on the turn. He has just raised you again on the turn, making a total of, oh, let's say, 24 bets in the pot. Accidentally, he drops his cards, and you see that he has AA! Now, what do you do?
This is a case of pure pot odds, and nothing else to confuse the issue. Now that you've seen his cards, 8 of the 52 are accounted for, and there are 44 unknown cards that could arrive on the river. Of these, only 2 will win for you, the other 2 kings. Thus, the odds against beating AA are 42:2, or 21:1 against. If you call the last bet, you are getting paid 24:1, so you should call. The sum of your future actions is $0 if you fold, but +3/22 of a bet if you call.
Here's where your confusion may lie. In this hypothetical, you unknowingly misplayed your hand, and put lots of money in the pot when you weren't a favorite to win (i.e., before you knew he had AA). That has nothing to do with whether you should call now. If you call now instead of folding, you'll make a small profit (from this point on). Unfortunately, this won't make up for the money you've already put into the pot and lost (in the statistical sense). In other words, of the 24 bets in the pot, you've contributed about half, or 12 bets. You've paid the price of 12 bets to put yourself in a situation where you can expect to win 3/22 of a bet. Obviously not a formula for long term success. However, this is like splitting 88 in blackjack. You don't do it because you make money, you do it because you lose less. That is, make the right play now to cut your losses from past mistakes. The only other thing you can do is to try to figure out whether your early mistakes were mistakes in the sense that a better player wouldn't have made them, or mistakes that couldn't be intelligently avoided.
My theory is that wise men only promise smart decisions, they don't promise right decisions. Do your best to make smart decisions, and you'll make more right decisions. But especially in gambling, only a true psychic (if there is such) can promise to be right. Thus, make sure that you always make the smartest decision possible, given what you know. Since poker is a game of incomplete information, you can never be sure your decisions are right.
Good Luck, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Simply, .... Thankyou for taking the time to put this in the proper perspective for me. I am appreciative of the level of knowledge at this site compared to rgp. Thanks again.
Bill,
Sorry but I didnt mean to put you down, but when you have some major misconceptions they and any others need to get fixed. I said not to reraise on the flop because most all of the hands that you are likely to get raised with are close to equal to your hand or much better than what you have. There is no need to define a hand that you cant really define, and putting in extra money out of position really does you no good in this spot. I would have just called his raise and then make my next decision on 4th st. as to what to now do to give myself the best chance of winning. In this case I might bet out and stand the raise if it comes and check and call on the river. The other replies explain pot odds, but you must understand how they work and how to apply them in all your gambling to attain a winning position. I cannot overstate the fact that the current players that are making the money in poker are doing the research into the game. Good Luck.
A check raise may have been appropriate, if he didn't rais e back you most likely could have dominated the hand. A check bet fold with that flop would have saved you some money. If you ask the wrong questions, you always get the right answers.Of course, after a number of raises and reraises you came into an appropriate draw regarding pot odds. Pot odds isn't really the problem here. You fell into what I refer to as the Frankenstein syndrome, pay attention Boris, where you created your own monster and he ate your money. Its difficult to be a bully when you're early with the flop you described. Sometimes you have to suck up Aces-what a shame!!
Can yiu give more exampelse of Frankenstein syndrome.
Frankenstein:
I found an unstable irrational woman and adopted her abused uncontrollable family, 'cause "I can straighten them out". Then things got worse... what a surprise.
I re-raise with AA to "define my hand" ... errr ... "to find out where I'm at" and the opponent re-re-raises, and I don't know what to do.
I over-call the raise in Stud with 966 2-spades, 'cause of all the "additional value". I catch the 5s, the third player catches suited Ah, who bets. I call, and call the raise from the original raiser. I now catch an Ace and call again. I now catch an 8 while the other opponent catches a 3rd heart, and I call. I pay if off on the end with two pair, 'cause the pot's so big...
The tight player raises UTG (under the gun) and I call late with KJ. Flop is Jxx, I raise and am faced with a re-raise.
I call the raise in Stud with a weak-wounded 3-flush. I proceed to pick up a gut shot, then the flush draw as a couple of my cards fall around me. I make the T straight on the end and get raised by a player who hasn't put in a bet yet, and "probably" started with a 4-flush...
I call with a small flush draw and gut shot with a paired board, and call the raise. Again I call the bet and the raise. I make the flush, a fourth player bets, I call, call the raise, and am faced with a re-raise from the player behind me who just called the first bet on the end.
After all the above I JUST call the raise with AKh against several otherwise sensible opponents who would respect a re-raise. Flop AdTs9s (2-flush) and I JUST call again. Turn is 4d and I JUST call, since I've been beat up so bad recently. River is 8d and I'm faced with bet-raise-call.
Get the idea?
- Louie
I'd like to describe a typical Frankenstein syndrome situation that every hold'em player has encountered. I would like input on this from Mason or David or Ray. I hold AKh in late position preflop, two calls in front and I raise, big blind calls, two others call. Flop comes Qh , 10s, 6d. Big blind bets, dump, raise,; pause, my heart is racing, my brain is overheating; I call time. Let's see, pot odds are marginal for the inside presumed lock; A or K might take down the raiser'sAQ,KQ. Did the big blind protect with Q 10 or 6??. OK I'm last, I'm last, I'm aggressive, I'm the best player in the game, RERAISE!!. Oh my g-d, I don't believe I did that, but if things go right on the turn and river I might win the largest pot in the history of hold'em!! Turn card 3h. Oh no! get out the lighting rods and elecrodes. The monster has returned!! I swear I even called the turn card in the back of my mind. Big blind bets ; I think he has two pair, might have made a set. RAISE! You a---hole, you wouldn't let me get off cheap on my "monster" draw OK! I give in screw pot odds, I'm only going to call. RIVER CARD----2c. My heart sinks into my stomach. Can I buy my way out of this one. No. Bet, call, dump. Time to take a long walk. Please analyze and tell me if I did something wrong beside taking a card off and not connecting. If taking a card off was wrong, when is it right??
Merle,
Your pot odds are close for a call on the flop. Back door flush + gut shot for straight and future payoff. Your over cards are not worth much as your king might make a straight for another, and your ace is a good 2 pair card for someone else. They do have value as they may win you the pot and make a better 2 pair if all goes perfect. I think you could just go out on the flop for the best play and just call for a close second. This assummes your opponents play with good hands and are not raising maniacs with nothing. In that case you would of course play on to the end. Putting a third bet on the flop serves no purpose except to blow off some money as it seemed not likely that you would get a free card and not get reraised. Try not to get so emotionally involved in your hands as it will keep you from being able to use your best judgement. Good Luck
[Raise UTG with red AA; one late caller. Flop Kh Qd 10h]
This is a GREAT opportunity to apply your detailed knowledge of the opponent. Is this the kind of player that will respect your raise? What hands will she call such a raise from such a tight player? etc. etc. ... Lets skip all that for now.
All but the most brain-dead of opponents will be conserned about that board vis-a-vis your early position raise and your bet on the flop. What does this player think YOU have? 99 is too much to ask. She knows you CERTAINLY have a very good hand or an acceptable draw using a Jack. Her raise on the flop suggests, certainly, that this player can beat AA. If this player cannot than she has a solid draw; pair+straight or pair+flush draw. All in all this is not a good situation for you: you are either a huge dog, acceptable dog, or about even money. Against some very bad weak-tight players you can lay it down for just one raise. However, generally call to the river; then usually decide to pay it off.
If this IS a brain dead player (one which you would cerainly pay off) than by just calling you are encouraging this player to bet or bluff all the way. You make about the same amount for less risk.
Your re-raise on the flop was obscene. Calling the re-re-raise is no better than acceptable. Acceptable if this is the kind of player that will re-re-raise with a stiff Queen in order to get a "free" card on the turn; and then check.
"Raise to define your hand" is a phrase you got from a book; Brunson, if memory serves. This is silly unless its going to do you some good, like preventing this person from re-re-raising without the nut straight. You are much better off NOT defining your hand in this situation. You could define your hand more cheaply by turning it face up. Adding "etc." to that phrase rubs me very poorly... I think you re-raised because you like to raise and hate to call, because you know winning players are not callers. Now re-raising to get this player to lay down Jacks and Tens right now is another story...
I'll add "To define my hand" to my list of 1000 or so reasons to check, bet, raise, call, or fold at the poker table. And I'll catagorize it as "usually detrimental".
[6h on turn]
Certainly call on the turn since your nut-flush draw alone is well worth it; plus you might also win with a J or an A or even pairing the board. You are, however, worse than a 2-1 dog since a Jack may very well split it, an Ace still might be beat, and pairing the board (6) might fill this opponent up, or still win with her obvious AJ straight. Lets not confuse your chances of making your hand with your chances of winning the pot.
It is detrimental to view half of the money in the pot as/was yours; whether it is true or not.
Once the opponent bets on the turn there is $155 in the pot; vrs the $20 bet, that's 7.75-to-1 for your call. "6-1" is not close enough.
Think: What do you have? What does the opponent have? What does the opponent think YOU have? ... There are more levels but you need to get comfortable with these three first.
You must be willing and able to apply independant analysis at the table. Don't take offense, but it appears you want to take the book advise as "Gospel" and apply it mindlessly. This cannot work. Take book advise as ADVISE on how to apply principles to real life situations. If you don't understand a principle or poker phrase then do NOT try to apply it. Play straight forward most of the time. All the time, unless you KNOW better.
The above tounge lashing not-withstanding, I'd say you have promising prospects. You obviously want to take responsibility for your play AFTER the fact and analyze it. Change that attitude to DURING the fact and BINGO!!, you really start to gain quality experience.
- Louie
Wow,....... first i want to know, why you think it was a she, and second who said it was the 6h on the turn .I said a heart. Who are you ? Anyway, I appreciate your tounge lashing. I do play a solid game and I am profiting. I knew that I probably overplayed on the flop with that board, although I knew that the player I was up against was a very aggressive player.My main question was about the pot odds heads-up, but also I want to improve my game, so I'm willing to take the heat if I can learn something new. At the same time these posts are like little sound bites, so when I describe the situation the way I did, there are alot of blanks that don't get filled as far as all those things you mentioned, like thinking about what that player thinks I have etc. I Do all those things, but I try to stick to describing the basics of the situation. Again, thanks for your comments.
I had to laugh when I read Louie's post (sorry). I'd rather raise to "define" my opponent's hand -- how he responds to my raise is likely to give me the clues to what he holds. But there is some merit in raising to "define" your own hand -- you don't want some idiot calling off his case chips with 2-5 offsuit just because he thinks you're holding any old piece of cheese. Not sure that Brunson coined the word "define" as it relates to poker or not, but it will always be a very viable concept. Find out early or pay late.
Earl:
Yes, defining your hand has merit so long as you are very confident the opponent will then play His/Her ("Hesr"?) hand predictably straight forward. But by the time gets this big and you have given away your strong vulnerable hand you are pretty much locked into paying this off since the opponent may very well take a shot at you, knowing you are capable of laying it down. But be SURE Hesr response will be genuine BEFORE you try it.
And if this is the case then wouldn't it be much better to raise to DISGUISE your hand AND get the opponent to define Hesr hand? So Re-Raise with the Flush Draw in situations you would be tempted to Raise and turn over your hand. For me, this situatation is rare. :)
Your suggested play of "Raise-Fold" is usually outclassed with the play "call-call", since the hands you WANT the opponent to have (the reason you are re-raising) are ones that you also don't mind calling down; and Raise-Folding gives up some hand value (outdrawing Hesr); and the opponent will often just call, and now what?. I do agree with whichever lowball author embraced this concept. Usually being the key word.
And Yes, you DO want the idiot calling off Hesr last chips with 2-5o. Where this idea that you don't want action with your strong hands come from I'll appearantly never know. Players seek "good loose" games and then try desperately to make them play tighter "like they should", even if it means risking pots with questionably routine check-raises and slow plays. If you want to routinely "thin the field" then play in tight games.
Maybe I'm the brain dead one here, but I don't think so.
- Louie
Just a note, but one time that you definitely do not want to define any hands is when you think that your opponent might be bluffing or will bluff on future rounds. For example, in hold 'em suppose your opponet bets when a two flush flops and you think that a possible hand for him might be the flush draw. By meekly calling you may get him to bet through the river. In stud, suppose you are high but your opponent has caught a suited card on fourth street that looks scary. By checking he will bet automatically. If you bet or check raise he may throw away a hand of virtually no value, but by playing meekly he may keep betting.
I think being aggressive when you have a good hand, but the board is tough, and you have very few outs is correct, but it doesn't always work. If you have outs, being overly aggressive too find out how strong the other player is doesn't seem correct.
Yes, if you are CONFIDENT you can lay down such a hand vrs a re-raise then go ahead and "find out where you are at". But as Earl pointed out this is getting the OPPONENT to define HER hand, not defining YOUR hand.
Yes, if you have many outs "finding out where you are at" only costs money since you are going to call anyway. Beware, however, that "many outs" had better mean "many outs that most likely beat the opponent".
- Louie
Often using "She" is politically correct. Too bad English doesn't have a nuder "it" when refering to people. Maybe I'll invent the word "Se" or "Hes" or use "It" for these people. Deciding it was the 6h and not just any heart clarifies the discussion. If were the 9h or 8h or Jh (or Kh?) the situation is MUCH different. YOU should have said which heart.
I am I, the person responding to your questions and conserns, and inserting my 2c often. Who do I need to be? Most of my posts are in like manner: direct brutal honest constructive criticism. I'm sorry if that offends anyone but I intend to continue.
Those little details make a big difference, especially in these premium hand match ups. The opponent's play and respect for premium hands is an extremely important thing to learn of the opponents: it puts most all the other hands in perspective and is essential for quality short handed and heads up play.
If you are going to ask for specific advise then you had better include those details, such as "she" is a very aggressive player. This fact along will drastically reduce the chances you are up against a Set which improves your hand considerably. Yes, if this player will call the raise with Q6d then raise with it, then by all means Re-Raise, or check-raise next round.
Anyway I forgot to mention that 3 face cards in a raised pot is DEFINATELY a time for causion to be the default action.
- Louie
I don't think the pot odds change just because you are heads up. Implied odds are lower since there is only one other player contributing to the pot but winning odds are higher since there is only one hand that might either have you beat or make a better hand with one of your outs. You also have the added edge that you are not going to get raised behind you on the turn. That the one BB you are putting in is the only loss you have if you miss.
As for still thinking of the money you put in previously as yours, if you fold you don't get the money back so believing that it is still your money is counterproductive. It could lead you into abdicating a pot that you should defend (which appears to be your dilemma here). In this case, getting 6 to 1 on a 2 to 1 draw is clearly worth defending. If the numbers had been closer to 2 to 1 with a 2 to 1 draw your reasoning may have lead you to release when it was still worth drawing.
Mark
Bill T,
Lets try to answer this by the possible hands that your opponent could have. A few assumptions:
1. Your opponent will re-raise pre-flop with A,A; K,K; QQ; and A,K.
2. Will call a raise cold with 9,9; T,T; J,J; A,J; K,Q; K,J; A,Q; A,Ts; QJs; and JTs.
With this flop you know he doesn’t have a set of Queens or Kings nor does he have Aces which is obviously a remote possibility anyway nor does he have A,K.
What hands are you clearly in trouble against:
1) Qh,Jh - 1 possibility 2) A,J - 8 possibilities 3) T,T - 3 possibilities (Because of the Th on the flop) 4) K,Q - 9 possibilites 5) A,Ts - 2 possibilites
What hands are you at least slightly ahead with: 1) A,Q - 6 possibilities 2) K,J - 12 possibilities 3) J,Ts - 3 possibilities 4) 9,9 - 6 possibilites 5) J,J - 6 possibilities
Lets look at the hands that you are at least slightly ahead with. With A,Q would your opponent raise on the flop and if so why is your opponent making such a play? I don’t think that your opponent would be trying to run you out of the pot. I don’t think any opponent is going to try and run you off with this flop so in my opinion we can eliminate this from consideration. A player might raise to get you to check the next round. I think this possibility is the only reason a player would raise with K,J; J,Ts; and J,J. I don’t think that a player would raise with 9,9 in this situation so I’ll just eliminate this hand. I think a raise by your opponent to get you to check to the next round is a slight possibility because your opponent would have to be concerned about you having a set or a straight.
Your opponent would raise you with A,J; T,T; K,Q; and A,Ts. A lot of opponents wouldn’t slowplay a real good hand here because of the two flush and 3-straight on the board. With Q,Js a lot of opponents would "gamble" and raise with their royal flush draw (your opponent doesn’t know you have the Ah). Obviously the 9h makes a straight flush.
Lets assign some probability estimates. The probability that your opponent is making a free card play is about 15% in my opinion. Therefore you are a big dog when he raises about 85% of the time. You aren’t a real big dog when your opponent has Q,Jh but still an underdog. To me, your hand is pretty well defined already without a re-raise. So 15% of the time your opponent will have an underdog hand but will draw out on you anyway. With the legitimate hands that your opponent has you won’t draw out very often and will split occaisionally. I know I should calculate the odds exactly but I would guess you are about a 4-1 to 5-1 dog when your opponent raises here given my assumptions. If your opponent would not re-raise pre-flop with A,K then that may lead you to a different conclusion about your underdog status.
I know you can’t do all of this in the heat of battle. I like to analyze the plays I make during a session away from the table because it will lead me to correct play when similar situations occur again as they most assuredly will.
P.S. Please check my math on the hand possibilities to make sure that I didn't blow it.
hello, thankyou for taking the time to try to analyze this. I should have never said define my hand. That let out alarm bells all over this web site. Anyway, I knew pretty much that I had overplayed this hand, and that's why I posted it. To get reactions. I knew better but reraised anyway. I let the thought of the possibility of a flush draw out against me , take over my reasoning, because of the aggressive player I was up against. Sometimes we players, tend to put someone on a hand early, and it costs us, and that's what I did. I figured the player for the flush draw first, two pair, and three tens. I wasn't worried about AJ since I had the AA. I've read some interesting responses to this obvious misplay on my part. As I think back now to that particular hand, I realize that I let myself be drawn into the other persons betting style. he was putting in chips fast, so I put mine in as fast if not faster. This won't happen next time I'm in a tough situation. I will take a second or two to think about what the heck I'm doing. I appreciate all the responses, especially Ray Zee's on this play. Thanks
Bill T, I screwed up my own analysis. I don't know why I put A,Ts in there as a hand you were an underdog against. Anyway I wasn't criticizing you for over playing your hand. As you stated a lot of it was based on your opponent. By the way if I didn't screw this up I believe that A,J and K,Q were about equally likely since with the flop of K,Q,T there would be nine ways your opponent could have K,Q and eight ways your opponent could have A,J since you have two of the Aces. I guess I just used a long winded analysis to basically say the same thing Ray Zee said.
Tom Haley
Here are a few pretty simple poker brain teasers. I think I know the answers but you never know if you're missing something...
1. High-only Omaha: Flop is 2-2-2. What's the best possible hand to be holding?
2. High-only Omaha: Flop is A-A-A. Same question
3. High-only Omaha: Flop is 5-5-5. Same question
I hope I am not missing something here:
For both 1) and 2) ... A-2-3-4
For 3) ... A-2-3-5
In all 3 cases with the above hands you flopped quads and have runner-runner nut low possibilities. You know you are having a good day when after flopping quads all you have to worry about is whether your runner-runner nut low will come through :-)
You gave the response for 8-or-Better Omaha. The problem specified hi-only.
The quick answer is the 2, A, and 5, respectively, and your kickers don't matter, because you've got quads, irregardless.
If you want to get nit-picky, in case 1 you're holding the last 2, plus one 3, 4, and/or 5 from each suit that is present in the twos on the board, as this prevents anyone from making a straight flush.
In cases 2 and 3, you can't make it impossible for someone else to make a straight flush, but you can hold three blocking cards to reduce their chances. Also helpful in case 3 would be any three overcards, as this would prevent someone from making higher quads using that rank. Of course, in case 2, no one can make higher quads.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
1. High-only Omaha: Flop is 2-2-2. What's the best possible hand to be holding?
2. High-only Omaha: Flop is A-A-A. Same question
3. High-only Omaha: Flop is 5-5-5. Same question
Adding to Raymer's straight-flush blocking technique, I'd add you want the opponent to make a hand; prefereable lower quads or higher trips.
1 - 2333 matching suits of 222.
2 - A222 matching suits of AAA.
3 - 5666 matching suits of 555.
Or 239J because all successful bluffers are virile; which is MUCH more important than winning one hand!
- Louie
What's the best possible hand to be holding? (with regards to both Louie and Greg)
1. High-only Omaha: Flop is 2-2-2. Best holding is 2-3-4-5 rainbow, to block straight flushes and as many better 4-of-a-kinds as possible.
2. High-only Omaha: Flop is A-A-A. Best holding is A-10-10-10 rainbow, to block the most straight flushes and the fewest 4-of-a-kinds possible. (This edges A-2-2-2 rainbow because higher cards are more likely in the opponent hands that see this flop.)
3. High-only Omaha: Flop is 5-5-5. Best holding is 5-6-7-8 rainbow, to block the most straight flushes and better 4-of-a-kinds as possible.
Here are a few pretty simple poker brain teasers. I think I know the answers but you never know if you're
missing something...
1. High-only Omaha: Flop is 2-2-2. What's the best possible hand to be holding? Answer is 2-akq because in real life poker you will most likely only get action from aa kk qq in the hole, however to be able to get action they must have one of those hands and by you having those cards it makes it more likely someone eles does not. I would want a 2 with something like 667 so that other players would have the best chance to have a draw at me so I could get action. Ill use the same thinking for the other two questions.
2. High-only Omaha: Flop is A-A-A. Same question
3. High-only Omaha: Flop is 5-5-5. Same question
Your TTT answer doesn't block any more straight-flushes than 222 or KKK with board AAA. But it does have a slight advantage over 222 in that you are more likely to get a play from big 3-flushes than small-three flushes, as you pointed out.
Your other answers do increase your chances of winning, ever so slightly. But they reduce the chances of the opponents having or making a hand you can win a bunch of money with. I'd give up a 1 in 45 chance or so that they make quads on the river to significantly increase the chances they make the over set and give me a lot of money, with their one card draw out.
This highlights one of the "secret" features of Holdem and Omahaha: you want to get matched up with a powerful yet inferior hand; which due to the common cards is unlikely to outdraw you.
You also want to AVOID these situations. Hence the holdem "trouble hand" ....
- Louie
I try again, the first time my question was sent to the archives with no reply.
In HLSPFAP page 15 you say you can play 3 high cards to a consecutive straight flush. KQJ although consecutive requires a ten for a straight, so straightwise KJ10 and KQ10 are as good. This leaves only QJ10 and J109 for your definition. Or is 1098 or 987 also a hand you can play? What about AKQ, AKJ and AQJ? Can you elaborate on this, or maybe just give a list of the hands in this category #5 you are referring to?
Sindre
Sindre,
I have it as cat.#7,three high cards to a consecutive straight flush. I dont mention kqj specifically,but it is what I was thinking. As you drop down on the scale towards 8,9,10 and such, you lose the very important high card value. Many hands will be won by making large 2 pair and trips. Having an ace is always good because you can make a low or the best 2 pair, and it is much less likely that someone else can make aces-up to beat maybe your kings-up. Most all of the high straight flush hands are good hands in the right situations. When your needed improvement cards are out it will not pay to play on. When you are up against all high hands and your cards are live, you now have a real powerhouse to play with especially if you happen to have an ace up to scare them. I dont want to make a list of hands as every game and situation determines what are the playable combinations. I know that it would be nice to have an exact set of hands to play or not to play when one is learning or improving his play. If poker lent itself to this it could be mastered and played like blackjack with all good players close to equal. Good Luck.
In my edition 1992 it is catecory #5. Are there many changes in the new edition? I have so far only you used the Omaha Section for play in the 10-20 to 50-100 range with good results. Although I'm also a winning player in Stud and Hold'Em in the 10-20 to 20-40 range, Stud/8 is a new game to me and the two sessions I played in LA in the 20-40 game didn't give me any feeling for the game. I would rather have the small technical things learned away from the table, so I can concentrate on strategy and reading players when I'm at the table. Besides I'm lying in bed with Sciatica, so reading is the only option I got right now. You use the wording consecutive and you do mention KQJ in your post, but I can't see a very big difference between KQ10 and KQJ. The first one absolutely needs a jack for a straight but the second absolutely needs a ten. Am I overlooking something?
Sindre
The changes in the second edition were essentially editing. If you have the older edition there is no need to purchase the new one.
Sindre,
The difference is small. kqj will make higher flushes than kqt,but most of all it is the pairs that will be bigger that may make a difference. The hands are very close in value, but when giving advice as to what hands to play, I needed to make a dividing line so that was it. ALL STARTING HANDS IN POKER NEED TO BE ADJUSTED FOR THE CONDITIONS OF THE GAME. No hand is set in stone, so play hands that seem to have positive value for the current situation you are facing.
It looks like life always imitates art. In your previous article Fighting Fuzzy Thinking which details a football coaches decision to go for it or punt on fourth down. Well guess what happened in the Super Bowl.
In todays Washington Post it was reported that the Green Bay Coach Mike Holmgren let Denver score a touchdown to go ahead 31 - 24 with 1 minute 45 seconds to go. Holmgren felt that Denver would either score or kick a field goal and leave Green Bay with only seconds left to march down the field.
Holmgren would have to be sucessful in his teams goal line stance and then block the field goal.
As the expert on the odds what were his odds of succeeding.
If this is indeed true, it was quite a smart move by GB. I have seen several similar situations where the head coach did not do the smart thing. Of course, Denver did not have to help. Just tell TD to fall down. Better still, have Elway take a knee. I would guess that Holmgren must have discussed this before the game. Otherwise, telling NFL defensive players to let the other guys score might not work so well. This idea would explain the GAPING hole in the defensive line that was available (much like a Trojan Horse) Shanahan took the bait. but Denver held on anyway. Denver overcame GB and an inferior coaching job. This may sound harsh, but hey, those guys make a lot of money. They can be expected to see things we non-experts see as obvious. In fact, they should anticipate such scenarios IN ADVANCE so they already know what to do. Its like the mental midgets on Jeopardy who bet All 4000$ when the other 2 players have 6000$ and 5000$. A simple pre-game analysis shows that betting 0$ is better. The other players have known correct strategies, which you can take advantage of. (Actually, the 2nd place player could fight back with a bet below 1000$, but then he risks losing to you if you do bet 4000$. Therefore, you can be sure he will bet at least 3000$ and so you should back off. There are more examples in Jeopardy left as an exercise for the reader. Anyhow, now you see why I refer to most Jeopardy players as mental midgets. If I had potentially thousands of dollars on the line, I would do the simple analysis in advance.
James,
I think the biggest factor supporting your Jeopardy example is, in my non-statistically valid experience, that it appears that the most common result of Final Jeopardy is that all three contestants get the answer, or all three miss. Thus, if you're in 3rd place and have enough money that by betting 0 you'll be ahead of 1 and 2 (if they bet enough to "beat" each other), then you should bet zero and hope for a harder than average question. Now, I don't watch Jeopardy very often, and I've never kept track outside my head of the results, so it may be that my estimate that the contestants either all miss or all hit is not accurate. However, I cannot recall ever seeing someone in 3d place win by getting the final Jeopardy right while the other two were wrong. I'm sure that it has happened, but I bet it only occurs about once or twice per 100 episodes.
I played in the $540. PL HE tournament at Oceans 11 this weekend. I have questions on the play of 2 hands, both of which involved T.J. Cloutier.
Hand 1
I'm in middle position, full table, blinds are 50 & 100, average stack is 2000, and I'm down to 1200. I've got a possible tell on a player that makes me suspect I know when his first-in raise (and all first-ins are raises at this point) is a good hand or not. I detect the tell that says his early position raise to 350 is a weak hand, and I reraise to 1000 holding TdJd. Everyone else folds, and he calls. Flop is 9-high garbage, he bets all-in, and I call all-in (I have a little less than he does). Turn is a J, river nothing, and my pair beats his AcKc! TJ Cloutier starts yammering that my reraise made him fold JJ (BTW, Tom McEvoy confirmed that TJ made the correct play, and I don't doubt it), and that he thought I was a better player than to reraise an early position raise with such a weak hand. Now, it turns out that my possible tell was dead wrong, and that I made a bad play and got lucky. However, I would like to hear from others how bad they think the play was. I felt that my reraise would make the raiser lay down his hand, and that if he didn't, at least TcJc isn't a hopeless hand. Too much risk for the situation, or not? BTW, my table reputation at the time was VERY tight. I had not played many hands, and had the goods every time I showed cards.
Hand 2
We're down to 12 players, 9 places paid, but survival alone isn't going to do it. There are very few flops, mostly just blind stealing (in fact, it ended up taking about an hour to get to the final table from this point, and at least 10 orbits occurred). We're playing 6-handed, the blinds are 75 & 150, and I'm back down to 1500. The standard bring-in was 500, so whatever hand I play, I feel that I must be committed enough to go all-in preflop. I've been slowly draining, because I've seen no good cards, and every time someone didn't steal before me, I've got total garbage. Plus, until pretty recently, I had enough in chips that I was going to have to lay it down to a reraise, or to a call and bet on the flop (unless I hit). Thus, my image should be tight (it's been close to 2 hours since hand 1 was played). I raise to 500 with KQo after 2 players fold, and get reraised enough to put me all-in by TJ in the small blind. BB folds, and I decide to call. My thoughts were that I'm getting over 2:1 on the call, and though I'm likely to be a dog, I'm probably not that big of a dog. Plus, TJ is currently enjoying a big chip lead, so he might be taking a flyer either hoping to get me to fold (my tight image), or taking a shot at busting me and getting closer to the money. Anyone disagree with this call, or with the original raise? [Because someone will ask, TJ had AQ and busted me.]
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
hello, Why does it matter that the player is TJ Clouter? In hand 1 you thought you had a read and you made a play at the pot with a medium strength hand. So what? Mr Clouter is mad because you didn't play according to the Read he had on your playing style. Now, when he's behind you in the future, he's never going to be sure how strong you are when your raising. To me, it's a good thing because his response to your raises won't be so cut and dry. Your raise did exactly what it was supposed to do, get it heads up. If you were that predictable up to that point, then this mistake read on the other player did wonders for your image. Now your unpredictable, or not as much. Anyway, I won't take up too much more space, but when a player moans because you got them out of a pot with a lesser hand, you know you've done well. I won't comment on hand 2. Good Luck!
It matters that the player was Cloutier because of how you would read *his* play. A lesser or lesser-known player would actually have made the decisions more difficult because you could not have reliably analyzed the thought process. Of course, this goes to the issue of the all-in decision required in hand 2. But as it relates to hand 1, I think it's a good thing that it was not Phil .... ;-)
HHmmmm..... you guys sound a little star struck. TJ Clouter is a great player, no doubt about it. But I think that if you are going to compete against him or other players with " Reputations", like him , you need to treat him like anyone else. The reason I say that is that the few times I've been in a tournament with a well known player at my table, I've noticed that the other players kissed ass, and gave these players more respect in the game than they deserved. I believe that the top players are very adept at reading the other players fear and respect, and use this to their advantage. Nothing against Greg, as I have read some of his posts and have the upmost respect, as well as your posts,... but that situation could have been described without mentioning TJ. I think maybe Greg was alittle in awe of competing against the man. Then again, I wasn't there. By the way, I wish it was Phil. Seeya
You are correct that some players become star-struck and that it affects their play. I don't personally know Cloutier, but it would affect how I play against him only to the extent that it would give me more precise reads -- as shown by Greg's hand, it's the champs that you can get to lay a hand down, not some clown with 2-5 off.
Some "name" stories: McEvoy is a very personable guy and I enjoy his books, but alas that doesn't mean he's ever made any money off of me (it's always a confidence booster to see the "name" players on the rail when you're still going). Actually, now that I think about it, while it has never been me breaking him, McEvoy has never done well in any tournament or satellite that I've been in with him -- hmmmm, I wonder if he'd pay me to stay *out* of some events ....
I hope she'll forgive me for this one, but I had the (mis?)fortune to play in a stud satellite with Barbara Enright at the Rio and she was, quite frankly, beating up on everyone. We got down to 3 players and a few of her hangers-ons were there and I overheard her say something to the effect (referring to me), that "once this one's gone ..." To make a long story short, I turned up the heat and busted her from chip leader to out of the satellite. A short while later I saw her downstairs playing slot machines (good mindless therapy for getting busted?).
On the other hand, I was heads-up with John Cernuto in a stud 8-or-better satellite in last years' WSOP and I had slightly more chips than he did. Nonetheless, I thought it wise to offer him an even split. Not only were the antes moving into the crapshoot stage, but the guy had won a previous years' 8-or-better WSOP event. In my 20s, I wouldn't have backed down from King Kong, but poker has to be treated as more of a business. Discretion was the better part of valor.
On a personal note, I lived in Vegas about 13 years ago and always felt like I left my calling behind. The newer "names" have merely taken up where I left off -- but we're still in the same graduating class. The difference is merely that they got the "cap and gown" and I didn't. But now that poker has become more nationwide -- indeed universal -- we can get our "continuing eduction" at different locales.
If you do well against skilled opponents in the satellites and the tournaments, you'll not need to be starstruck -- but if you underestimate your well-known opponent, you will likely be handed your head. Conversely, it's the unknown players that you should truly "fear," particularly if they've made it into the late stages of the tournament. Our relative anonymity could be dangerous ....
For those who can't put it all into perspective, I'll sign off with a line from a true poker hero, Doyle Brunson, who once noted that even a world champion is an underdog against a pair of Aces.
Interesting posts. My two cents.
Last year, World Series. First limit hold-em tournament. Ist seat raises--TJ calls with jack-queen off! Flop--j-q-x Turn 3. Last card 3. Aces win. TJ goes off on dealer. "You have never dealt me a winner in your entire life, blah, blah, blah." On and on. He voluntarily calls an early position raise with j-q off and then blames the dealer??? Screw him. When the bubble bursts, head out to the crap table he'll be there. In fact, may be there right now.
I'm not a pot limit player nor do I play one on TV but I'll take a running shot at these since 'all in' tournament play isn't much different regardless of limit.
Hand 1: Nothing wrong with your reasoning before the flop. The mistake on the tell is a seperate issue. Since you believe his bet to be on a weak hand your intent is to represent strength and isolate him which you did. After the flop however you were in a definate hurt locker. I think your only course after a rag flop below your hand is to check it down and fold if he bets. If his hand is as bad as you believe then he stands a good chance of having made a pair already. If you missed the tell (which you did) you will likewise be an underdog. Your JT high just isn't enough to go to war on at this point.
Hand 2: You wrote: "My thoughts were that I'm getting over 2:1 on the call, and though I'm likely to be a dog, I'm probably not that big of a dog." Very, very wrong assumption. If you are a dog heads up you are a huge dog. Think it through. If he has one overcard and one undercard then you have only 6 outs. Chances of making a flush or straight do not add significantly to your pre-flop odds. 2 to 1 aren't nearly good enough to risk your entire tournament on. With blinds at 75-150 and $1000 T left you have four rounds to make a hand or wait for the final table. Not nearly the time to "put it to the touch" in my view.
Mark
Hand 1: I prefer trusting tells. So you should calculate your chances of the opponent NOT calling the raise. The higher chance this is the less "value" JTs has if called.
You need desperately to figure out how you got the wrong tell.
Hand 2: Your KQ raise early was on the weak side. TJ can be counted on to know what kinds of hands you are raising with. Your hand SHOULD be good enough to call all in, and I suggest he "knows" this. I'd say you are beat much worse than 2-1. Fold.
But WAIT!!!! Aren't these two hands the SAME stuation? The early position raiser is "weak" and one player is going to go all in with the re-raise? Isn't KQ the hand you WANT the first opponent to have, so he can lay it down vrs your "tight" re-raise? If the first steal-raise was "good" then surely calling in the 2nd case is wrong. How's that for twisted logic?
- Louie
Hand 1: You should play solid in a middle position, you didn't, and admittedly, you got lucky. That's poker.
I'm reminded of when I first started learning to play stud, where I would correctly read that my heads-up opponent held garbage and I would try to run him/her out of the pot solely on the strength of a small pair and usually ended up getting cracked when his/her bare overcards paired.
If you made it that far in the tournament, perhaps it is superflous to remind you that in big-bet poker, it's "position, position, position." We can make great reads, know all the odds, make great moves, and still if we play a marginal hand out of position, we are in danger of getting picked off.
Hand 2: A much more difficult decision and hand to play. I would also have been inclined to raise with K-Q. Whether I would've called would've required a lot more thought.
I liked the analysis of what TJ thought you might be holding and whether he was just trying to run you off with the big stack. But I think you overlook one aspect of his thinking: he "knows" you are pot-stuck after having raised 500 and thus "must" call his re-raise.
It follows then that he must have a "real hand". So does your analysis of 2-1 still hold? I'm not sure. Normally a re-raise from the small blind shows considerable strength, as he doesn't know if someone is laying in the weeds behind him. A good player like TJ would be very cautious of being driven into the nuts from behind. Thus, I think that A-Q would be the smallest holding he could have. Of course A-Q or A-K versus K-Q, you only have 3 outs. But if he had held A-A or K-K, you would be pretty much dead.
A final thought: In big-bet tournaments, it takes a heck of a lot more courage to lay down a hand than it does to go all-in.
Can someone advise which forms of cash poker are commonly available in UK casinos ? I ask this because I have played pot limit Hold'Em tournaments for some time, wish to progress to the cash game and am surprised that the casinos in my locality appear to offer Omaha instead.
In London most cash games have a set type, with Omaha, 7 Stud and London Lowball, all pot-limit, predominating. If you're lucky enough to live in the provinces, you will have to get to grips with such esoteric games as Irish, Pineapple, many card Omaha, lowball draw, killer and podooki, as games are played dealers choice, but always pot-limit.
Good Luck
Dave D
Dave,
Many thanks for your response. I find it extraordinary that tournament Pot Limit Hold'Em games are commonplace yet the cash game is not made available...any thoughts why this should be so ? I live near Birmingham and one casino offers a 6 card Omaha PL cash game. Are you aware of any literature or software on this variant?
Bill
The best books for pl Omaha are by Bob Ciaffone and are well worth the investment. Imho, 6 card O is a bit too many, as it removes any chances of bluffing and invariably you end up against the nuts. If you must play it, look for good striaghtening sequences, high pairs and nut flush draws, all in the same hand, ie 8910JJA with the ace suited would be a premium hand. Any raise is in effect a bluff...there is no way you are a favourite by any signifcant percentage over any other hand (unless of course it is the same as yours without flush draws or the like). If you can, stick to 4O.
Dave D
I've heard they usually play "Half Pot Limit" where you can bet up to half the size of the pot.
Any truth about that?
Is the actual amount of money in front of people enough to play a serious pot? Or do they tend to buy short?
- Louie
Half pot limit is the exception, and not the rule. Unfortunately most people buy short, i.e. £50 with two £2 blinds, but as the game drags on the stack sizes start to become more serious. In the big games in London, and also in privately run cash games (some casinos allow the players to organise games on their premises, without dealers but also without a rake) the minimum buy in becomes more sensible...about 40 times the blind.
Dave D
I have a few questions regarding the rake at the clubs I play in. I normally play 10-20 Hldm in So Calif. The rake is $10 an hour. After 1 1/4 years worth of records I'm showing about a $14 an hour rate. The same hours spent in a 20-40 game would put me at a $40.00 per hour rate. Normally,you couldn't contrast the 10-20 against the 20-40 , but I'm playing with many of the same players that play the 15-30 and 20-40. In fact those games look so juicy sometimes, I want to step up, but I know it will cost me quite a bit more to play. On the other hand, the 6-12 games rake is $3.00 on the button, which seems very high to me. But there are many games to choose from at this level. The reason I'm wondering is, that there is usually only one 10-20 game ,and sometimes it isn't worth playing, so I'm looking to play in another game.Although the higher games can look good, I know I don't have the total bankroll required. So, I'm really wondering about those 6-12 games. With that high a structure, do I have to be superman to beat them? I pitty the 3-6 players. They have a $3.00 rake on the button as well. That has to be impossible. Anyway, any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.
Play 9-18 at the Bike. There are usually more games to choose from, and they are better. Take calculated shots in the 15-30 and 20-40, (picking your spots) being sure to "limit" your risk. As soon as you can afford it step up. 10-20 sucks.
why is 10-20 so bad compared to 9-18? is it because 10-20 is a 2-4 chip game while 9-18 is a 3-6 chip game and looks livelier to other players?
Im my opinion, yes.
Tournament player asks:
"why is 10-20 so bad compared to 9-18? is it because 10-20 is a 2-4 chip game while 9-18 is a 3-6 chip game and looks livelier to other players?"
I don't think this is the reason at all. 10-20 at the Commerce has diminished in my opinion because of the increased rake. People have chosen to play elsewhere. They don't spread 10-20 at the Bike, just 9-18. Therefore it is better because everyone is playing there. If they spread 10-20 instead it would be just as good once everyone got used to it. Wherever the games are that is where the action is, people like to be around the action.
Personally, I just don't happen to care for 10-20. There is nothing worse than a bad 10-20 game.
[Playing 10/20, $10/hour rake, earning $14/hour. Considering moving up]
Let me nit-pick: Before collection you are earning $24/hour. In the exact same 20/40 you'd make $48/hour. After $12/hour collection you'd net $36/hour. But the 20/40 players are not the same so its tough to make "equivelant" comparisons like this. And in my limited experience the same players do not usually play then same way.
Using the phrase "time charge" is less confusing than "rake." You can manipulate your hourly "rake" by playing conservatively/tightly or assertively/looser; and so win or loose less hands. Not so with time charge. Also the "button" charge (per hour) in the 6/12 changes with the speed of the game. In a poor tight game there are many more hands/hour and so you pay even more. Yuuuuuuck.
I respect and appreciate your position since I'm in a similar situation. But I'm making plenty in this predictable game I'm that I am sure I would make less in the "better" higher game. I also spent a considerable portion of my bankroll over Xmas and cannot afford the big loss. Silly me.
Anyway, my advise is:
On any given night if you do not like the 10/20 then play some other game. This may be a good time to brush up on your Stud skills.
Avoid the 6/12. I'm sure you will net less.
Take selective shots at the 15/30 or 20/40. There is nothing wrong with being an "xx" player who also plays other games occasionally. As you do better with these shots you will shoot more often, and then EVOLVE into a 15/30 20/40 player. Possibly set a "bankroll" below which you play only 10/20 or less. If you are well employed perhaps this is as little as $2000, since losing your bankroll is not a disaster. If you are not otherwise employed find bankroll requirement advise from previous Malmuth posts. When you build it over that amount then consider taking a shot.
Be very careful about "juicy". Lots of raising is not necessarily a sign of a good game. Its only good if they are doing it so much that you WELCOME their raises when you flop the big pair; like that maniac in the 6/12. In higher games the sharks WILL be raising often when they smell weakness, and you won't know what to do. Be prepared to call them down much more often.
- Louie
The Gambling Forum January 1998 Archive Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo