![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Sorry to push this topic but I think it is relevant to the Gambling Forum because:
1) I believe that the financial markets offer a form of "gambling" that is beatable.
2) You can make a lot of money.
As far as 1) goes, getting the odds in your favor is the key. Assessing your risk reward ratio is incredibly important and I'm not sure that there is any way to do this reliably. Most people that "gamble" in the financial markets that I know of have a system and back test that system against historical data provided from performance of previous markets. This approach is certainly viable but I believe that this approach has problems. I am not sure that history repeats itself all that often in the financial markets. Others rely on their experience, knowledge and beliefs to profit. I guess I would fall in this category. I actually have most of my money in what would be considered long term investments, as these are concentrated mostly in the stock markets and with small percentage in bonds. So I believe that mostly I am better off not trying to "outguess" the markets and concentrate on buying the right stocks and holding them for the long term until the fundamentals change (this is not necessarily easy to do). However, I see what I consider to be market "inefficiencies" present themselves constantly. I never really have much of a chance to take advantage of these because I don't trade my investments very often anymore. Secondly IMO one must act quickly and decisively in order to take advantage of these inefficiencies. I realized that the underlying reason I opened up my tiny on-line account was to take advantage of what I perceived as market inefficiencies and of course to see if I could make money at it.
I'm happy to report that my equity has approximately doubled from my original $2000 during the first month. This could change quickly but so far so good. I am currently long two stocks and I own 5 in the money calls that used to be out of the money. I am leveraged with margin but I can withstand a little bit of a hit. Let me say that when the market is rallying like this it really isn't that hard to make money. The goal is to make the most money possible during this rally period by choosing the best vehicles to do it with. I've traded in and out of a few things, as these trades were somewhat profitable. One of the stocks that I bought soon after I opened the account has increased a lot and I have never sold it as I expect it to move a lot higher. The other one that I own is one that I am already long in and a minor panic set in last week and I bought some very close to it's panic low and it has gone straight up from there. I used the entry point based on my beliefs about price movements. The options were purchased out of the money but the stock has appreciated to the point where they are now in the money and of course if it goes up a lot from here I would make a killing. However the stock could easily turn south and my options would be worthless. I am thinking that the odds of this stock continuing it's move north are better than 50-50. One note is that a few executions have been a little sloppy, as I wanted to pass that along. One thing I really like about having this on-line account is that I can move quickly and respond to conditions that are changing fast. So far no problems with being connected. I also get a hard copy in the mail from the brokerage firm for all my transactions. It's a big stack and I can only imagine what the mail man must think.
I'm home for New Years and I'll be playing cards this weekend. A happy and prosperous New Year to all of the forum participants and the 2+2 folks.
Have you contacted your broker about the sloppy executions? From what I've heard, you may be able to get some compensation.
I am glad you showed nice results - having said this I think you are very much underfunded for trading. $4000, even considering that witch 50% margin will ecentially will give you 8K. You are better off (I am not sure what field you are in) to work and save $$. You can play 6-12 and build a better bankroll. Poker is 'trading 101'. Funny thing I just came back from Vegas and visited Bright Trading group just off the strip. These guys have a lot of money and every 2-3 months one guy just vanishes (busts out - they start with $25000 plus ) there is a waiting list for a 'seat' and it's very feasible to do it. Yet when I sign up even knowing that the office is full I am pretty sure I will be in within a couple of months. Why ? Because trading like poker can be very DANGEROUS to your bankroll !!!
Do you think there's higher turnover at Bright Trading's Las Vegas location than at their other locations?
No, except as a town Vegas is more transient always fresh money but getting busted in Chicago or New York is just as real and possible. What struck me as odd is while San Francisco, New York or Chicago offices may have a few 'seats' at any given time, Vegas was full !
I've played a few hours of hold em at PP and havent had much luck. I usually have success at casinos but at PP ammazing draw outs seem to consistently happen. Maybe their just bad beats but I have to wonder if there is a way for a computer hacker to see everyones' cards and manipulate which cards are dealt. I have a natural distrust for sending important info or financial info across the internet, so maybe I'm just paranoid.
What are the dangers in playing poker on PP? Is it safe?
While I certainly do not have the poker expertise to comment on your experience playing on-line. I can comment on the potential for your bad beats being influenced by a "computer hacker".
Point 1) Could a hacker see all the other players cards. Assuming that the "hackers" were working independantly of the on-line casinos, and did not have direct access to the site's computers and networks then they could not see the data that is representing the cards dealt. There is a well known technique known as "sniffing" that allows data to be seen, or captured. In order to do this the individual would have to have direct physical access to the medium (network cable) that the casino's site is attached to.
Point 2) Could a hacker somehow manupilate the cards dealt. Once again assuming that the "hackers" were working independantly of the casino, this is extremely unlikely. In order to accomplish this the "hacker" would have to break into the site download the source code for the software, modify the source, then replace their modified program with their own. Very unlikely.
Does this reply intend to give on-line casinos my resounding support for the complete protection of the players. NO.
There are some things that an individual or groups of individuals can do to improve their chances against other players.
Group Play: two, three or more individuals can all be playing together as a team. Their computers could be physically located in close proximety to each other and therefore have access to each others screens. Groups can also be communicating with each other using some network communication program (ICQ) or other means and informing each other of their hands.
Another possible method that a hacker could increase his edge. There are a couple programs out there (Back Orifice, Netbus) that allow hackers to view/remote control other peoples computers over a network. While this is possible, it is unlikely as the server software has to be installed on the victim's machine.
Of course all of the above noted techniques have made the assumption that the "hacker" has been working independantly of the on-line casino. I do not mean to imply that pp (or for that matter) any other OFFSHORE site, located outside of American, Canadian (insert your countries name here :) ) legal boundries are not secure or unscrupulous, but one should always question the integrity of ANY on-line site that you send your hard-earned dollars to.
S. Doyle
I have been making some of those really amazing draw outs... I played some Planet Poker some time ago and only thought to re-visit it three days ago. Since Dec 31 I am up $1100 in about 11 hours. I have been getting *very* lucky.
I have often vouched for the integrity of the ownership on RGP and I will add that here... I met one of the partners at Card Player's World Poker Industry Conference and played with him at The Orleans. There is no doubt in my mind that the house is square. When I cashed out prior to BARGE I got my cheque in three days.
OK... I am starting to get accused of being a shill for PP... enough already I won't vouch for them anymore.
Regards, Dave Scharf
Dave,
I only know you from your posts to rgp and here, but the fact that you've met one of the owners and believe him to be honorable and honest is important to me. It isn't like you are putting up your personal guarantee, you are simply sharing your perceptions and opinion. I often rely on the opinions of other players when making decisions about where to play. Thank you for having the strength to give us your take on Planet Poker's owner.
Regarding (1): In the absence of a dedicated line, couldn't the data packets be sniffed at any point along the connection? Does PP use powerful encryption for the transmission of information? I don't know the mechanics of the operation, but I'd postulate that someone could just sniff for packets with some sort of PP formatting going by.
Regarding (2): This is not possible to prevent given the current setup for anything modulo headsup play.
Just the same, I know more and more people who are playing. It kind of tempts like the idea of playing in games where the rake is highest because only idiots would put up with such a hight rake. Just the same, the stakes that merit my interest are high enough that I wouldn't feel comfortable playing "in the dark."
Regards,
JG
If you are a good player at 15-30 but also 20-40 and are capable of winning consistently would it be better to play 15-30 then 20-40 because it would reduce your bankroll requirements and reduce your flucuations? The difference in potential hourly rates is not great enough for me or so I think.
Assuming the exact same typical player limeup to play against at both limits, I would play $20-$40 stud and $15-$30 hold 'em. If the players are exceptionally loose and call no matter what, I would then switch over to $20-$40 hold 'em.
I'm not Mason nor Ray but I would like to respond. I have been playing hold-em for twenty + years and I find the 3 chip game with the 2/3 small blind a better game than the 2 chip 1/2 small blind game. Mason comments that if the players are loose than he prefers the latter. I'm not sure, but this may be that loose players tend to play the SB at a more optimal rate than a tighter player. Just a thought.
I don't play tournaments and rarely play in satellites.
My question is this; from a cost benefit perspective how profitable are satellites. (Assuming you just sell the proceeds.)
Personally, I don't believe they are. I feel you can get lucky, go on a rush, and win a bunch of satellites in a short period of time (say a major tournament), but you can go cold just as quickly.
Considering the money they rake off are satellites profitable from a probability-time standpoint?
Has anybody done any mathematical analysis?
Ciaffone claims that an expert satellite player can win one in five ten-handed satellites. While this may be true of small satellites, I question whether it is still possible against players of WSOP caliber. In high buy-in events, where the rake is proportionately smaller, a 1/5 win rate would give a huge hourly profit, although with a high variance. A 1/7 rate would still give a nice profit, but the rake, tips and loss from selling the lammers below face value might make the side games a higher EV option for most players.
It has nothing to do with being cold or hot. There is more luck in a satellite, since the blinds increase so rapidly. As different strategies are called for depending on the size of the blinds relative to your and opposing stacks, many players will misplay certain phases of the satellite. Due to this, a satellite expert will win somewhat more than their share. The issue is how much more.
Ciaffone's figure is pretty close; a great satellite player will win 20-30% of the satellites he/she enters, and this includes WSOP satellites. An objective expert in this area would be Becky Kerber, one of the coordinators for the single table satellites at many of the major tournaments (including WSOP), who has acknowledged that a small percentage of players come to play ONLY the satellites.
Incidentally, in response to F. Pierce, who appears to lump them together, there's a huge difference between satellite and tournament play, particularly at the WSOP, where the tournament rounds are longer than in any other tournament, while satellite rounds are universally "fast-action". Failure to adjust your game in either direction is fatal.
For those who think that satellites are luck, it's significant to point out that O'Neil Longson won at least 4 super-satellites in 1998. While a super-satellite calls for unique strategy adjustments, it is also a fast-action event with rounds similar to a single table satellite.
While it's true that bad luck and bad runs of cards play more of a role in a satellite, a player who believes that luck is the dominant factor needs to work on his/her game.
I basically agree with Ciaffone's numbers. Part of the reason for this is that some of the players who sit down in one table satellites are poor short handed players. They tend to be too tight once several players have been eliminated.
Well, Ciaffone doesn't agree with Ciaffone's numbers.
He stated, in personal email, that his claim of winning 1 in 5 satellites was meant to only apply to Pot Limit Omaha and perhaps No Limit satellites, not Limit anything satellites. (He agreed that the actual text of his essay, wherein he states the 1 in 5 win rate, is very misleading in this regard)
I published a mathematical analysis of satellite win rates and standard deviations and their implications, using Ciaffone's 1 in 5 win rate as a intro (hence his subsequent correspondence with me). You can find this article in
'The Intelligent Gambler', published by Conjelco (www.conjelco.com). It's the issue that was published in May or June of 1998.
Well I disagree that Ciaffone disagrees with himself. The reason for this is that limit satellites play fairly close to pot limit satellites since it doesn't take very long for someone to virtually always be all-in on a hand.
Furthermore, this aspect of tournament play is part of the explanation why some people do well in tournaments yet can't beat any side game no matter what the limit or who the opponents are. When someone is constantly going all in you don't need later round skills. Thus I don't see that big a difference in limit satellites and pot limit satellites, yet in a ring game there is a huge difference in these games.
While I realize to disagree with an author, on his own site, is asking for it.....the win rate for limit -anything satellites will be less than pot-limit/no-limit, due to mistake/bad beat factors. Even I can survive a first or second round mistake in limit HE, in no-limit it would be time to sign up for next satellite, skip event, or just pay the buy-in. Second observation: between the significant casino hold on low buy-in satellites, some toking, and tremendous luck factor, I doubt that any player could eek-out an existance on such satellites. Best of luck in 1999, Gary
While it's true that some NL mistakes are terminal, some NL mistakes can also be recovered from, and the irony is that in NL you can make a quicker comeback than you can in Limit. Down to 3-handed, the luck factor is about the same in both types of games, what with high blinds and antes.
As to the second part of your observation, yes, the *low* buy-in satellites are only marginally profitable, even at a high win percentage, due to the factors you mentioned. On the other hand, satellites for events such as the Queens, the Rio, and the WSOP can be quite a lucrative proposition for some players.
I thought I would share part of a hand I played today in a jammed packed Mirage Poker Room. The game was $20-$40 stud with a $3 ante and a $5 bring-in. A deuce brought it in. The first player with an ace up just called. This person was playing virtually every hand (and not doing very well). The next two players passed. I was next with a pair of tens and a deuce, three different suits, and was the highest remaining upcard, and my hand was completely live. I raised. The next two players both with a nine up called. The remaining players (including the bring-in) folded, the live one with the ace up then reraised. It was now my turn. My question is, what should I do?
throw your hand away.
$229 in the pot for a $20 bet -- looks attractive.
I put the two 9 hands on a draw or low buried pairs (from this distance, it seems clear that both the 9s are on draws), and the Aces may or may not be there (would he have raised with a 3-flush?).
At 11-1, a call seems automatic, although I am never happy with a middle split pair and a weak kicker. Here, the situation is even more dire, because either one or both of the two other players may have your 10s .. you might be dead already. I would consider folding the hand. But if I believed that one or more players would pay me off if I hit the set, then I'd call the raise with the intention of calling or raising a 4th street bet also. Apparently you have a customer and a call.
(Running the numbers on a simulator shows you have about a 16% chance of winning if he in fact has Aces and you are up against a flush and a straight draw (one of them holding a 10), and about a 20% chance against two Aces and two smaller pairs. If he is on a 3-flush, all 4 hands are nearly co-favorites.)
In years past, I've played in that 20-40 stud game at the Mirage: it strikes me as one of the toughest stud games in the country. For what it's worth, I believe that your winning percentage would be much higher in the 40-80 or 60-120 stud games at the Commerce. Watch out for the colluders in the end seats tho ....;-)
It depends on the A holder. You said that he was playing every hand. My question is HOW was he playing every hand? Was he raiseing every hand or calling or even with both? The two 9's I would think are split on a pair and a draw of some kind. If I would add this up I would either raise or fold and the way I play it would be a fold. TT with a deuce kicker rainbow is not good enough for me to play against a A reraiser and two 9's who called the A. I would fold.
Reraise.
Tom D
Mason
You say that a deuce brought it in and you had split tens with a deuce kicker...later you say your hand was "completely live". If your kicker was a deuce your had was not completely live.
You say that the guy wit the A was playing every hand..but you didn't say what you thought he had when he raised after just limping in.
If I thought he had a pair of Aces I would easily fold...If I wasn't sure what he would raise on...I would still fold since his most likely raising hand is a pair of Aces.
If I had seen him make this move with a three flush before I might reraise to try and get him heads up...but I'd need to be pretty sure that he WOULD make this move with a three flush.
I meant to say a trey brought it in.
Just the same, Jim M brings up the idea of limp reraising the 3 flush. This doesn't seem too out of the question for an "action" player. In fact, if I know you're an expert player, but you don't know I am yet, I think it's a very strong play. The next time we get in a game together I'll try this first chance I get and we'll see if you remember me.. :)
JG
Very interesting question. What are your options? (1) Call (hoping to catch a ten). It is unlikely that one of the others will reraise and very likely that they will call creating a very large pot. (2). Reraise, trying to isolate the A (because you can out play him and he is likely to make a mistake or may have little). Also, if the others do call your pot gets very large. You must, however, consider that the A will more cap the pot. (3) Fold (because you believe that you have too much to overcome and the pot odds, even though high, are not high enough to warrant this gamble). If I am reading this right, and it's not really a trick question, I would and have applied all three of the above tactics at one time or another. Quite frankly the only reason I can give for selecting one over the other was how I was playing for that session. I certainly conmsidered my opponents but for the most part I normally consider my own play first in situations like this. If I'm playing well and limiting my mistakes and mentally focused I will usually make the more aggressive tactic of (2) reraising. Typically and reluctantly I would use the weaker tactic (1) and call because of pot size. If my game was not going well and I was trying to get in the proper state of mind I would (3) fold. Opinion By Vince
I would call hoping to improve on 4th street. If I didn't and the Ace came out betting I would muck it then. I think the implied odds are too good not to take a card off. I think raising is a mistake if you intend to do what I think is right on 4th street, since you don't want to put more bets in when you may throw your hand away soon. If the Ace catches an off-suit blank, and checks, of course I would then play this hand strongly.
Danny S
But aren't your implied odds virtually as good on fourth street. The pot will now be bigger and you will call for the same amount of money.
Furthermore, if the ace catches a blank and checks what do you accomplish by betting? Won't everyone just call.
There is only one correct answer and that is to re-raise without blinking an eye and I am willing to bet that is exactly what you did.
If that was the first time I saw him call-raise, then I would be tempted to just throw it away, or maybe call and look at one more card. If not, I would re-raise. If either 9 could call two bets I would be very concerned, but at least I would know now where I probably stand (they know that everyone on the table can see the other 9, and that there are two overcards to their 9's, both of which are betting).
If all worked well (the 9's folded and the A just called), then I would either have position or a much clearer situation on the next round. If I dont get an A or T (both of which would be good), then I will have position on him. He will generally have to check to me if he doesn't improve, so I have opened up my options.
A Poker Guy!
Post deleted at author's request.
I disagree that calling is an option. The two nine callers could have you beat with JJ-KK in the hole, how would they have played these is just as important as what your first call raiser has, a call would let them in cheaply, or they might re-raise. What suit tens did you have, and what suit 9's did they have, because 9-10-Js is a godd possibility of what you are up against, and you would be drawing dead to those tens or almost dead. Re-raising you might be just throwing more money to rolled up Aces. I would throw the hand away, because of the strong possibility of a ten being out, and even if he is three flushing, he might even have two more overcards to your ten.
This post misses the whole point. You are re-raising to try and get it heads up (with position) behind the LOOSE player. You have to TRY and get the other two players to fold in light of the double raise. If the Ace is just gambling then you have a very favorable situation. But NOT if the other two call. If he has AA and the other two fold then you are a dog but with all the dead money out there you certainly have to go with him. Besides, your hand is live and the pot is too big to fold. Now, isn't it better to be heads up against aces than to play four handed against two aces and whatever else and then have one of the OTHER players make two pair or better to win? Or, for you to make two pair or trips and then have one of the THREE remaining players draw out on that! You definitely want as your main goal to try and drop the other two players. If he has AAA then you are a genius to figure that out and you should be wealthy soon from your expert poker play. (Besides wouldn't most players just call on third st. with a rolled up set and then play the hand strong later?) Even if he did play a rolled up set strong on third street (which I admit would be very tricky, especially against good players) there isn't anything you can do about it because if he has it he has it and that's just the way it goes.
If the other two players have a hand good enough to call then you just have to deal with that as it comes up but by all means I believe your best chance to win comes with re-raising to try and get it heads up against the Ace.
Did you read my whole message? I said calling is definately not an option, you have to either fold or reraise. Mason made it a point to mention that "ace" is a loose player, but did not mention what he felt about the other two players. I would assume that they are average to good players considering the level and lack of acknowledgement (i.e "the two behind me suck" or "the two nines behind me are very tight". Is this the correct inference Mason?
If so, what they would play becomes important in your desicion, because a good player would have put Mason on at least a pair of tens, and would not call the raise if he wasn't getting the correct odds to draw, and would figure so if either one had a three straight flush (esp. including a ten) If they were loose players, a reraise would not likely drive them out anyway. If you ahd this many loose players in this level game, you could wait for a much better oppurtinity to clean up. Even loose players get pairs of aces. I really don't think by passing up this hand you are giving away that much. Two tens with duece kicker isn't that great considering two nines behind you called your raise and ace reraises.
You said that reraising is your best chance to win, and I agree without a doubt, but your gaol is to win a lot of money, not a lot of pots, and this one doesn't seem to be your pot. About the amount of money in the pot, it's a lot for this stage of the game, but your implied are not that great, if your miracle 10 falls even the house idiot will put you on trip 10s, and what kind of action do you get, you'll have to pay out them to draw to your hand, because you really don't know what they have, and if no-one improves, my bet is youre beaten. Its not easy to dump that pot but I think you have too. I am hardly an expert (even a good player at that) and if I was at the table I probably would have called, but being able to look back at my books, read posts on it so far, and having half a day to think about the hand, I would say fold it. Rock On!
Gator mentioned it before I could. I believe Gator is Right about Re-Raiseing or Folding, with Folding being the Best Option. The Problem is the two Players with 9's showing. What could they possibly have that would be worth Cold Calling Mason's Raise. I think we can assume that one of Mason's Tens is caught up in a Straight Draw.
CV
In a lot of the 15-30 and 20-40 stud games I've played in, many of the players with drawing hands (the "9" hands) look for opportunities such as this, to build a massive multiway pot on 3rd street to ensure pot odds the rest of the way. Unfortunately, these players have all read the books too, and a reraise here will NOT cause them to fold, rather it will gleefully keep them in there chasing, feeding off of each others calls -- even for a double raise (in S. California, where the 2+2 books gather dust on the gift shop shelf, the two "9" hands would beat you into the pot with their money).
Folding is a better option than raising with a medium pair weak kicker. If you had "table control" and KNEW that you could induce a laydown from the two drawing hands, a reraise would be a better play. But you are not a favorite over any of the hands you are facing.
Being a gambler, however, I tend toward taking a couple of cards off for two more 1/2-price calls and making a decision at 5th Street (in many stages of a tournament, this would be a clear fold). But calling here creates more opportunities ahead with more information to outplay the drawing hands, putting them in a position to make an expensive mistake.
Frankly, this is the kind of hand that can make a person look like an idiot or a genius, depending upon whether you can accurately perceive what your opponent's reaction will be to the move you make.
"Mason made it a point to mention that "ace" is a loose player, but did not mention what he felt about the other two players."
Not that important. They just called the original raise--no re-raise, so you SHOULD be able to drop them.
"I would assume that they are average to good players considering the level and lack of acknowledgement (i.e "the two behind me suck" or "the two nines behind me are very tight". Is this the correct inference Mason? If so, what they would play becomes important in your desicion, because a good player would have put Mason on at least a pair of tens,"
"Another reason for re-raising. Now with your re-raise you are representing BETTER than a pair or tens. After all, you re-raised an ace didn't you?" Most reasonable players are going to ask themselves, "How could he re-raise an Ace? Does he have Aces himself? He must have something good to re-raise an Ace after two other people called."
If they were loose players, a reraise would not likely drive them out anyway.
"At the 20-40 level I disagree. 3-6 yes. But so what if they call. You have to give them the OPTION to fold. You have to give them something to THINK about.
"If you had this many loose players in this level game, you could wait for a much better oppurtinity to clean up. Even loose players get pairs of aces."
If you are SURE they will not fold, then I would just call the raise. I would definitely NOT fold.
"I really don't think by passing up this hand you are giving away that much. Two tens with duece kicker isn't that great considering two nines behind you called your raise and ace reraises."
I like the fact that the nines are duplicated. All the more reason that I think they will fold.
"You said that reraising is your best chance to win, and I agree without a doubt, but your gaol is to win a lot of money, not a lot of pots, and this one doesn't seem to be your pot."
I admit this isn't the greatest situation in the world but you have to play the situations you find yourself in. IF you would fold in this spot then you probably aren't giving up that much but if the Ace has a three flush or a pair smaller than tens in the hole then you are giving up a LOT! (Especially when you can get it heads up!
"About the amount of money in the pot, it's a lot for this stage of the game, but your implied are not that great, if your miracle 10 falls even the house idiot will put you on trip 10s, and what kind of action do you get,"
If you make trip tens on third street it is my experience that most players (with two aces) will pay you off. Especially when you re-raise an ace and are representing a hand BETTER than two tens. (Say Kings up) Even good players will pay off in this spot because aces up will win most of the time.
"you'll have to pay out them to draw to your hand, because you really don't know what they have,"
I'll be honest with you. There are many times when I don't give a damn WHAT someone has. I know what I have and I am confident of my analysis of the situation and in many of these cases it is full steam ahead. I take an aggressive stance and represent as much strength as I possibly can and hopefully my opponent doesn't have anything or will give it up. I'm wrong on occasion but that is how I play. I can still draw out once in a while. I try to take charge of the hand and put people on the defensive. The reason for that is because you are more than likely to get them to make a mistake. This works even better if I am playing tight and aggressively and getting some respect at the table.
and if no-one improves, my bet is youre beaten.
Not mine. As I said, this situation is not clear cut at all. (If I do get it heads up and make an open pair, four straight or four flush on board and my opponent folds, now I am very happy!)
Its not easy to dump that pot but I think you have too.
They would have to hit me with a board to dump this hand.
I am hardly an expert (even a good player at that) and if I was at the table I probably would have called,
You said earlier, "Did you read my whole message? I said calling is definately not an option."
but being able to look back at my books, read posts on it so far, and having half a day to think about the hand, I would say fold it. Rock On!
Different strokes for different folks.
PS The only alternative I can think of to re-raising on 3rd street would be to call and then raise the Ace on Fourth st., if I caught a live card and the two players behind me caught non threatening cards. Now, If I so desire, and I am able to drop the two hitchhikers, I can take a free card later on.
It has certainly been alluded to by others... and perhaps stated outright, but it appears to me the the *critical* issue is what you anticipate that the 9's will do. If you believe that they will not fold to a double raise at this point then fold or call. If you think that they will fold then go ahead and re-raise.
My guess is that I would re-raise. My thinking is that the two 9's are sophisticated enough to realize that the loose-goose ace original limp-in is meaningless (he is calling with anything) AND the two nines are sophisticated enough to know that I ("I" being Mason Malmuth in this case) am certainly capable of making an isolation raise on the loose money with something other than TT or better. So, they two 9's call the original bet because things don't look too scarey (yet). Now the ace re-raises and "I" re-raise. They must now be doubting that I am isolation raising with gumbo... I have TT or better. So they are facing TT and maybe an AA as well... they better have the goods of they fold. If they bother fold then I am heads up with the loose-goose and if one or more of them call then it's not the end of the world since my hand is live (although I'm not too excited about tens up).
Again, the decision for me depends upon what I think the 9's will do more than what I think the Ace has.
Regards, Dave Scharf
Your outlook on this hand was in every way opposite than mine. I think you make some excellent points although in this particular situation I can't give them too much credit. Your critiqe made me look at my case again, but I still feel that folding is best. It really goes to show that in poker there is one corect decision (no matter the outcome) and you have really got to know the situation, I'm talking more about your opponets than your odds. In this case I think most people find it to be what the nines are gonna do, cause you can rarely put a loose palyer on a hand with any degree of certainty (why it would be nice to have him (ace) heads up). Thanks, Rock On!
.
Normally when you have a pair of tens with a bad kicker and you raise and an ace reraises you should fold. The only time to call is when you believe that the reraiser could have virtually anything. This was not the case in this situation. My experience is that when someone limps in with an ace up and then reraises several players he has a real hand.
However, in this spot I felt that there was too much money in the pot to throw away my hand, but a pair of tens does very poorly multiway. Many of my wins against a pair of aces are when I will make two small pair. But with two other opponents my two pair might beat a lone pair of aces but easily lose to one of the other hands.
So unless I believe that the two other players will come for the two additional bets, I should reraise, and this is what I did.
For those interested, the other two players both came for the two bets which showed my judgement was wrong and that I should have folded. I did win the pot. I caught a ten on fourth street and a ten on fifth street.
Mason, I think this was a good hand to discuss, but I have one question still. I assume YOU bet your tens on fourth street and were called, did anyone stick around for sixth (I assume you bet again on fifth) and what hands were keeping the nines around and the loose ace, (obviously they didn't have 10's for straight or flush draw). I guess this hand was bugging you because you made such an awesome hand and wasn't sure you made the best decision to stick around on third. Thanks for the lesson.
The play of the hand was unbelievable. When I paired my door card on fourth the ace called but the other two hands folded. On fifth when I made the third ten up, the aces made a pair of treys and called again. On sixth, I caught an ace and my opponent finally folded.
You are right, this hand has occupied my thinking away from the table. I'm not 100 percent sure that I made the right play.
>>For those interested, the other two players both came for the two bets which showed my judgement was wrong and that I should have folded. I did win the pot. I caught a ten on fourth street and a ten on fifth street. << These two statements are 180 degrees out of phase. Furthemore, I think your judgement was sound. I question the judgement of the players with the 9's. I would sure like to know thier starting hands and strategy. As for the 4 tens it's nice to know but clouds the issue. Obviously from the play of the hand the A had Aces. In most instances your are a big dog against him even with the live T's and three (Well maybe not a big but still a dog). With the other two callers you become a bigger dog in the hand. I think this is important. Another thing that is important is that the way the A played his/her hand indicates he/she is an opponent against whom this play will almost always be correct. That information alone was worth the raise. I'm sure he thought that you had two pair or did he? Maybe he though that the pot was too big to let go. BTW Did he cap the pot upfront, confirming that he had AA. All said I believe it was the right play. Opinion by Vince
If my count is correct, the pot contains $129 when you are put to a decision. It will contain $189 in your stated best case, where the nines fold and the ace merely calls. Your raise of $40 will have given you a chance to win $149. So if we assume the best case, your decision whether to raise or fold is like a decision to call $40 to win $149 versus a pair of aces. You're not getting the right odds to call for one card in this spot, nor for two ($60 to win $169 getting two cards). And you're definitely not playing past fourth if you don't improve and he keeps betting.
So it looks like the raise is wrong even in the best case where the nines fold (if we assume the guy has aces---but note we've also assumed he doesn't reraise). What about calling, $20 to win $189 (after the nines call and the ace only calls, another assumption)? This also doesn't look good.
Fold looks right by a lot.
Your odds computing is wrong. If you do get it heads up, and you automatically go to the river, you should win about one-third of the time. But you can do better than this. If the aces makes an open pair you can fold, and he may not bet on sixth street if he doesn't improve.
But in going to the river you are putting in at least another $60, probably $100. If he bets fourth, fifth, and sixth and you call, you're now paying $140 to win $249. Even saving a bet here and there, it's not even close.
Furthermore, you note that you can fold if he makes an open pair; but against that also note that some of the time he will make concealed aces up on fourth or fifth and you'll be drawing nearly dead.
And occasionally he'll have rolled up Aces.
I think one of the central tenets of your and Sklansky's writing is that excessive reliance on expert play when the fundamental odds aren't there is a common mistake. This seems to me to be the problem here. Of course you'll outplay the guy and you have various advantages, but fundamentally, you are likely behind much more than expert play can compensate for.
Where can i get these books: Pot limit and no limit poker(Reuben B, Bob Ciaffone), Championship no limit and pot limit hold'em (t. Cloutier), Omaha Hold'em poker (Bob ciaffone)? Is it GBC? if it is how the hell can i get to poker menu? It seems to take forever to get through.
You can buy Ciaffone's books directly from him: coach999@naples.net.
Cloutier's book is co-authored by McEvoy, and he can be reached through the Cardplayer website.
Mason reviews it in Kimberg's archive, but Gambler's Book Club is unaware of it.
You may want to go to Caro's web page at www.caro.com and ask him there if these are still available.
Having been primarily a stud player during the first half of the last 20 years, I followed Mason's recent stud post ("What to do?") with much interest, and it made me think of a topic that's been on my mind for quite awhile, but haven't seen discussed yet: Is the power game dead?
In the mid-80s, there were few knowledgeable stud players, and money could easily be made by running over the games. Then the books began to be published. Today, it is a rarity to find a mid-sized game that you can run over using the same techniques.
The point I make, particularly for those relatively new to the game in the past couple years, is that all of the good players have read the books -- trying to power up over a table full of skilled stud players with a reraise is akin to the old adage about urinating in the wind. To paraphrase Bob Ciaffone, "your opponents are at the same library as you."
As this relates to stud, your reraise with a middle or high split pair usually only defines your hand precisely to your opponents rather than doing what you think and/or hope it will do, that is, the concepts stated by some folks of trying to "take control of the hand" or "put my opponents on the defensive". If multiple players give you credit for what you have, yet call you, for example, as happened with Mason's hand (given as an example since he noted that he wasn't sure if a reraise was the correct play), you often will have unnecessarily trapped yourself.
Yes, raising and reraising with middle-to-high split pairs does "define the hand," but not necessarily in ways that you want. David Sklansky's time-honored theory that deception pays best has lost none of its luster: when you are "defining" your hand in this way, you are usually losing money. As I believe Sklansky pointed out many years ago, it should be obvious that if a skilled opponent knows your approximate starting hand, they can take slightly the worst of it on the earlier rounds and punish you severely in later rounds.
For example, in a 4-way pot, if an opponent knows you have Aces, but he has a 4-flush with one of your Aces in the hole, that's very likely to be one of those hands where you end up riding those Aces into the river and lamenting about "getting Aces cracked again." (A pot-limit hold-em corollary: with a large stack, you take the first pot-limit raise with A-A and get called by 7-8 offsuit; notice what happens when an apparent garbage flop of 5-6-9 offsuit hits.) In both those situations, you have "defined" your hand well, and have "taken control" in the early rounds -- and your opponent thanks you for it too.
Maybe "taking control" works in smaller games, but I suspect that most players prefer strategies that work against skilled opponents. Which leads me to my conclusion that if the majority of players are at the same "library," yet are still trying to power up over a knowledgeable field, it seems to make more sense in many situations to go in the opposite direction. That's not to say in any way that raising and reraising aren't proper strategies in certain situations, rather that learning how to make skillful calls may be an art whose time has come to be rediscovered.
The willingness of a player to take a hand that is not the best hand and put a lot of pressure on the pot makes that player a feared opponent. Of course if its done in bad spots the player will go broke but if done in places where having the worst of it is not clear the other players will become passive against the active player. I find that almost all players do not like to put alot of money in the pot gambling, except for the maniacs at large. When you are willing to do this it turns out that many players play improperly against you in big pots and poorly against you in smaller shorthanded pots. It looks like in Masons hand that the ace maybe didnt even have two aces and even if he did so what? Masons hand maybe had a little the worst of it but not so much that playing it after all that money went in could be wrong. If he knew how it would unfold on third street he would have folded right away but after the pot got built then a different route needed to be found. He chose to reraise to drive out the other players which didnt work. But that is looking back as it may have worked. Since it didnt he needed to go ahead and play the big pot. Maybe after the pot was over the two other players were kicking themselves for throwing all their money away and the guy with the ace is telling himself how hard luck he is against Mason. Dont you think Mason has increased his earn in the game for awhile? I think so. Good Luck and a better New Year to all.
The point of my post is only tangentially related to Mason's particular hand, and is not intended as a critique of the play. Rather his example provided a perfect segue into my question of whether the concept of putting pressure on a field is as valid as it was in the past -- particularly against good players.
The key element is as you state, "if its done in bad spots the player will go broke but if done in places where having the worst of it is not clear the other players will become passive against the active player." But in many mid-high- limit games, it's no longer clear that there are as many passive players out there to make pressure uniformly profitable -- or power-plays that will turn otherwise strong players into passive players.
Put another way, taken to its extreme, if 10 aggressive players sit down in a game, I don't see that the best approach is going to be to try to overpower the field; more likely it will it be to try to finesse a win. What I question is a whole flock of up-and-coming poker players believing that the only way to success is to try to overpower players who have seen all those moves and then some.
Power poker is not dead. It is just another tool to use in your arsenal. Power poker has always been a 2 way street though, win big/lose big if one is not qualified to use it right. Doc-
"Hold'em's all about saving a bet here and getting an getting extra bet there," I said to one of my nit-friends as we waited to be seated at the Horseshoe buffet.
"Hold'em," he countered, "is all about trapping people."
Of course hold'em is not all about any one thing, but of the two kind of dumb statements, mine clearly is the least dumb.
Yet I think Earl is on to somethiing. I have run into more and more trappers lately, perhaps inspired by the movie "Rounders," where the admired plays are about checking the nuts. Some decent players seem to be checking and calling more,lately, aware that much of the betting and raising a player like me is doing is in the catagory of the semi-bluff, or the pure bluff on the end, or trying to narrow the field, or something other than betting the probable best hand.
I have had to add "loves to trap" to player-profile criteria. Once you identify this characteristic in a player, especially if they over emphasize this tool, then strategy adjustments shouldn't be difficult.
We dislike smooth calling so much that where it is routine, before the flop, we call it something else -- limping. But I think Earle is right, the smooth call further into the hand, where most of us would traditionally prefer to raise or fold, may be the correct play more than we might think. It is something to think about.
However, as Brunson wrote in the intro to Super-System, (something like this) if you can't beat a man who checks and calls, you can't beat anyone. I can't believe that this is still not true.
power poker is not dead. Even if the experienced players put you on a play, they have to be sure and usually side on the side of caution.But as well I think that what I call perceception plays works well when we are all in the same library. For example raising out of posisition in the small blind pre-flop against a small number of players is usually saved for big pairs, or big cards in hldm. So instead of using good posisition to be aggressive against passive callers,(which might invite skepticism), using poor posistion might be viewed as more legitimate, since , why would you raise in poor posisition unless you had something is a common mind set with many players, because theory tells us not to raise in these spots unless strong. I see many players react by quickly mucking their hands because it's an almost automatic perception they have of what the player is raising with.There are many opportunities for these plays that go against the common mindset in hldm, and I'm sure their are in stud as well. so when in the same library, use their perception of correct play against them. See ya
Earl You mentioned that you have BEEN a stud player in the past, is the implication correct that you don't play as much stud as you used to?
If so you are part of a large group...it seems every time I return to Las Vegas I meet up with guys who were pretty fair stud players ..now playing holdem....at this juncture I usually throw my classic line at them "A mind is a terrible thing to waste"
But seriously, I didn't come on to put down holdem but to glorify the game I love...7 card stud.
Your post had a lot of food for thought and I agree with some parts of it. It certainly is more difficult to dominate a high stakes game than it used to be, ...but I still believe that stud has so much more scope for creativity that the skillful player still has a bigger edge than in other games.
There are many circumstances that you may be aware that an opponent is being overly agressive but there is little you can do about it. Here's an illustration.
Suppose on fifth street your hand is (Q T)/Q 7 T and your lone opponent is showing (??)/6 8 K . Let's assume it is a heads up situation where you raised on third street and got one caller who checks and calls your fourth street bet and then check raises you on fifth street.
In some games against certain opponents its a pretty easy laydown. I'd give it up pretty quick against typical 10/20 and 15/30 players.
A good or even just fair 40/80 players who makes this check raise however has given you much to think about. Would he raise you with K x in the hole maybe having started three suited and taken off one card when he missed his suit on 4th street or does he really have that random K 8 in the hole suited to his door card 6, or did he start with K 6 in the hole?
Suppose he started with (A 5)/6 all clubs catches the 8 of diamonds on fourth and the K of clubs on fifth...Many players will check raise here...I don't like the play myself because I still have to act first on 6th street and therefore can't get a "free card" to try for my flush...but I've seen players do it.
This "power move" will make me fold often enough because of the fact that if he has K's up I am drawing very slim.
There are other scenarios that can be explored from this example that just don't ever occur in holdem...and as Ray Z rightfully pointed out in his response there are many ways a good player can turn these situations to his advantage.
Just my 8 cents worth
Good Luck
Jim Mogal
I try not to insult the hold-em players, because we'll never win the WSOP being only a stud player, and I enjoy the variety. But yes, stud paid for my O-8 "lessons" this past year, and I wholeheartedly agree that stud still provides so many more moves and "so much more scope for creativity" (well-put) than limit hold-em does. (Another scenario in your above mentioned hand is a play where you give an over-aggressive player enough room to hang himself by call-call, then pull the trapdoor open with a check-raise on 5th Street -- with no hand at all.)
And heads-up situations DO give more room for power plays. It is getting into those situations that no longer seems so clear-cut. In most of the 20-40 games I've been in this year (not to mention the very wild 60-120 games at the Commerce), players are playing a very high variance game and even the bad players come out firing on 3rd street just as a good player would. A lot of these games, you are unlikely to ever find yourself heads-up on 3rd or 4th street -- no matter what you do, no matter how many check-raises, reraises, etc. These players want to play! I strongly believe that much of this is due to the book knowledge out there and everyone trying to see through the power plays, where they revert almost to playing like a sucker, playing on the slimmest of chances in order to win a big pot. Different tactics are called for.
When I read Mason's initial post, I thought to myself immediately, "in most of the games I've been in this year, a reraise isn't going to make the drawing hands lay down". But this is the way it's been taught for the last 20 years: put in a double-raise and blowout the drawing hands. Today, a lot of these players are looking for that double-raise and the opportunity to win a big hand. Whether this is due to the books, some need to gamble, cultural influences (California), or is an attempt to beat higher and higher rakes (riverboats), I believe the game has changed.
My point was not to call for a return to "the waiting game" or to see players turn into calling stations. But the idea that early power plays are the best and only way to win -- particularly against knowledgable players -- is no longer valid.
your situation sounds like playing in a no fldm hldm game. I still believe in using as many perception plays as possible, and by the way, I dissagree that there are more plays possible in stud, but that's another subject. anyway, it seems that as in no fldm your variance is going to be much higher, but you should do quite well. Third street is like before the flop in those games. I know you are an accomplished player, so offering advice might be redundant as I know you think about the game quite a bit. i would just say that when I try to think about getting additional edges, I think about my own game(as I know I am tight/aggressive)and my image is as such.That being so, I try to find those situations where I react almost automatically, and I give other solid players credit for reacting the same. Then I will try to use these situations to my advantage when they come up, by altering from the norm. an example would be when I have the RIGHT game conditions in hldm,... I will STEAL the blinds from first and 2nd posistion, not late or on the button.Solid players are solid, but still react according to the prevailing mindset. Anyway, i'm sure you will find many profitable opportunities by tweaking the current mind set in those games. Good luck earl
Jim,
Your example of having queens up and folding applies to smaller games as you stated. When playing in the bigger games your opponents can have too many other hands for you to fold here. How do they know you have two pair. At this point I might think you may have just a busted flush or four high cards. So I might raise with any four flush or a three flush with a pair, or certainly with two kings or sixes and eights. If you have shown me that you may lay down a big pair or better here you will get raised so many times your head will spin. I would love to have a straight draw with a chance to catch a king or open pair to knock you out of the hand or make the straight and get action. This is why in higher stakes games hand selection becomes more important for a good player than in smaller games. The reason is that in the bigger games you tend to go all the way with many hands because it is all too likely that your opponent is just fooling with you. The good laydown is a possible huge mistake. In the example of queens up I would likely raise back myself since I have position and he would not usually raise again for fear of trips. In the smaller games I might fold as you said. The idea of power poker really doesnt mean blasting your way thru every hand played as a good or even passive person soons learn to call more and then beats the power bettor. Good Luck.
Ray,
Thanks for your response...I always value your input.
You said "I might raise with any four flush, or three flush with a pair, or certainly with two kings, or sixes and eights."
My question is, would you do this on fifth street, in this particular situation knowing that you would be out of position and would have to act first on sixth street?
Its easy to make this play if your board is 6 8 J opposite a Q 5 T who is acting first... and part of the value of your raise is getting a free card if you don't improve on sixth.
My feeling is that when I am holding the Queens' up hand and a GOOD PLAYER raises me in this situation with 6 8 K (especially unsuited)...and I KNOW that HE KNOWS that he is out of position...I am tempted to laydown here.
You seem to be saying that this is a mistake at the 40/80 level.
I'd also appreciate it as well if you would comment on this play if the original hand had only a pair of Queens on fifth street instead of Queens up.
regards
Jim Mogal
Jim,
I would make the raise on 5th street because that is the street you might lay it down on. On 6th you wont fold so my raise there was just to save a bet if you paired on 6th. But my play is to raise on 5th so I have the chance to win the pot without the winner or if I have a good hand to maybe keep you in on 6th if I catch a scare card. In the bigger games I would very rarely throw the hand away because of a raise unless I knew the player well. Even with just Queens I would play on after I put the 5th street bet in most of the time as You cant let them run over you and this is a normal situation to be in with queens so how could you just throw them away unless you know more. Also if I raise on 5th street and you call I still can check on 6th because if I feel that no bet will be to my advantage on 6th street most people will be scared to bet into me anyway after my check. Good Luck Jim.
My biggest gambling problem, lately, is emotinal, not technical. It frequently occurs, lately, and seemingly out of the blue, that if I give myself a mental instruction, either formulated in words or written down, I immediately do the opposite. The negative behavior seems linked to the positive statement. I call the problem "The Imp of the Perverse" after the Poe story of the same name.
In that story, Poe's typical hyper-rational narrator speculates about this human characteristic ignored by phrenology (not catagorized by experts), as strong as that of self preservatoin, called *perverseness*. The narrator had commited a perfect murder, had gained the properties of his victim, and had prospered for years, unaffected by guilt. Untill one day, while gleefully chanting his customary mantra, "I am safe," he unaccountably adds "unless I be fool enough to make open confession." He feels a chill. Once this sentence is in his brain, the Imp arrives, and the murderer compulsively tells a crowd on the street about his crime. He is giving us this lecture in prison, as he waits for the hangman.
This seems to be different from simple steam -- a concpt I am also, lately, aware of. I have wondered if it is somehow related to Deridian theories of language -- that an argument inherently contains its opposite; that we build statements on binary oppositions, rather than on transparent views of the world. I have also wondered if it is related to social theories of language (Halliday) where, at the most fundamental grammaical levels, clauses have an interpersonal (meta)function. That is, language can't exist without a speaker and one who is spoken to. When we speak to ourselves we must somehow become both, and this again may contribute to the identity, or equality, of opposites.
Aye aye aye. Am I really going to post this crap? I guess I am interested if, among the awsome pool of talent who frequent this site, anyone has any insight or experience with the Imp of the Perverse, or with behavioral problems in general. I play professionally (poker, bj, vp, and hustling machines) and have been able to stay alive, but have not been able to break away into bankroll comfort. I am beginning to fear I am the dreaded "compulsive degenerate gambler" -- a hopeless case. Anyway.
PF
Wow! What a post! To begin with, I believe that what you really are asking but can't quite seem to spit out is this question... "can a fella' really have the self control to win at gambling?" To help with this problem, I will start with this advice...Quit HUSTLING MACHINES! Quit play BLACK JACK! Quit playing everything but your best poker! Play ONLY POKER! Okay now on to the lesson towards self improvement/preservation. If you really want to have self control you will find it deep within. No one but you can give you what you are needing to control your inner demons. If you have a problem with gambling then seek professional help. Gambler's Anonomous. a shrink etc. Remember this "There is nothing to fear except fear itself" W. Churchill. AND, "reality is what WE make it to be..Doc River.
I have the exact same thing happen to me. The thing that is funny about it is I usually have had several large winning sessions in a row, and in an effort to keep myself in control i verbally enumerate all the rules that have gotten me on the winning streak I was on. What seems to never fail, is once i have quantified all the winning rules I promply seem compelled to break them. AAARRRGGHHH!!! If anyone knows of a way to controll this phenomenon I would love to hear it. The worst thing is I know i am breaking the rules but i feel somehow I can overcome a small amount of bad play with a large aggresive amount of good play. It does not seem to work though. I guess to really break through and play excellent poker at all times is somehow out of my reach. Any suggestions?....thanks KidHoldem
We would all love to fly but the sun is too hot for our wings. I think to really break through and play excellent poker at all times you need to understand, really understand, why you play in the first place. I didn't really begin to play consistently well until I recognized and accepted that I hate working for others - a deep-seated,dark and roiling hate of "gainful employment". Playing poker is one of many income streams I depend on to remain self-employed. I *need* to play excellent poker at all times.
"if I give myself a mental instruction, either formulated in words or written down, I immediately do the opposite" First, my friend, you must ask yourself: Why do I need a mental instruction to guide my behavior? Is it because my normal behavior or reaction is opposite of the instruction given? Is the behavior contrary to good poker play? Is it a mistake? Like calling to often or playing to many hands. Well, if so, we got "Perverseness" my friend, right here in Poker City, "Perverseness" with a capital P and that rhymes with T and that stands for Tilt! Ah! But fear not my friend there is an answer to this "perverseness". But the answer does not come without cost, my friend! No sir, in fact it may cost you all you hold dearly, all your treasures, all your beliefs, everything you now possess, yes even your very soul!!! You see my friend,the answer to your dilema, though seemingly simple, is truly the toughest of all goals one can attain. But attain it you must or you will be forever in the clutches of that most evil of evil that you refer to as "Perverseness". Now, my friend, since you are a fellow resident of Poker City, I, who has also suffered form similiar trappings as what you term "Perverseness", will share this little secret with you for no additional cost to those listed above. The secret, My Friend, is "FREEDOM"! Yes "FREEDOM"!!! Find it, My Friend, and you will never be accosted by "Mental Negativeisms" again. Hope this helps. Vince.
Very interesting post. Statements imply their own need. When we tell ourselves upon sitting at a higher limit for the first time, for example, that "I can beat these guys", then we are also telling ourselves that we need to be told we can beat them (if it was truly self-evident, you would't have made the statement), which is telling ourselves, therefore, that we doubt we can beat them. And if we are telling ourselves that we doubt our ability, that gets us second-guessing our actions, which leads to wrong choices, leading to losses which confirm our original doubt, so that we second-guess more, so that we get caught in a downward spiral of reinforcing bad decisions. As to your fear of being a degenerate gambler, ask yourself why you play. The lights and noises? The absence of anything else to do? Or the desire for cultural freedom? I suspect, from your willingness to think about your own thoughts, which is the most distinquishing characteristic between professional poker players and the multitudes, that you have what it takes to make it in this game, and I almost never say that. But if, as it sounds like, you're facing a practical problem in not being able to play at a high enough level to grow your BR after covering expenses, then you need to make a practical change in your approach. Good games, Rick Bennet
The Craven
Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Playing too tight was such a bore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly the bets were capping,
As of someone gently capping, capping my seven and offsuit four,
"Tis some bluffer," I muttered, "capping at my offsuit four;
I'll call it once, and nothing more."
---------------
Ah, distinctly I remember, it was in the bleak December,
And the flop brought a pair, for that offsuit four,
Eager I wished the morrow; my poker bankroll I had had to borrow,
From my books surcease of sorrow, sorrow for the bottom pair,
For the rare and radiant lady luck, an angel, oh so fair,
failed me here, forevermore.
--------------
There is still the turn card,
Thrilled me -- filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before;
So that now, to still the beating of my heart, I stood repeating,
"Tis some bluffer, capping my offsuit four,
Some late bluffer capping my offsuit four;
The turn was a blank, and nothing more."
---------------
Presently my soul grew stronger; The river card would match my four,
"Sir," said I, "I raise " and he capped again, once more;
But the fact is, he was tapping, a tell for his bluff while he was capping,
And so faintly was his tapping, while capping at my offsuit four,
He had to be bluffiing, I had seen the tell and I raised just once more,
The river was a two, and nothing more.
-------------------
Deep onto the board peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing,
Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortals ever dared to dream before;
But the silence was broken, with the sound of his token,
And the only word there spoken was the whispered word, "Raise"
This he whispered, and I murmured back the word, "Raise!"
Merely this, and nothing more.
-------------------------
Back into the chamber turning, all my soul within me burning,
Soon again I heard a capping, something louder than before,
"Surely," said I, "surely, This pot from me will not be stolen";
And so I called his bet once more;
Let my heart be still a moment, and this mystery explore;
He wasn't bluffing, I lost some more.
-----------------------
Once again I went on tilt,
Played some cards that oh did suck,
They should have been tossed straight in the muck,
The next hand would be the one, I would play just once more,
This time it was a eight and offsuit four,
I raised again, but nevermore.
--------------------------
Hope this helps,
S. Doyle
Very good, I did enjoy that. I would also say that "The Purloined Letter" should be statutory reading for all poker players.
That was beautiful, Man! "Quote the Craven Never More" Vince
I have recently started playing a little bit on Planet Pokers interactive holdem site. I am actually quite impressed with it so far. I was wondering if anyone knows of any other interactive, real money poker on the net. All I seem to be able to find is video poker sites. I want sites where you play against humans on a flop game for real cash. Any help would be appreciated.. KidHoldem
CasinoCoco.com. But BEWARE!
I have seen it written, but for the life of me I don't know where, that a Holdem's players biggest mistake is playing too many hands! I agree with this! Some of you may not but most of you will agree that if not the biggest mistake then it is certainly a big mistake. The problem I have is not that playing too many hands is a problem but that it is a problem for those of us that are informed that it is a big mistake! I think we can all understand why novice Hold'em players play too many hands and hope they continue to do so! But why do we the Creme de la Creme, present company excluded of course, play too many hands? Come on now, you all know we do it! So why? Perplexed! Vince
I can't speak for everybody, but I can speak for me. Do I stick exclusively to Sklansky and Malmuth starting hands? No. But neither do Sklansky and Malmuth. I generally never vary too far from that either. Do I play trash hands based on a "feeling"? Never! However, sometimes when I am running over the table and they are giving me too much respect I will stop playing the cards and just play the players.
Poker is a game of discipline. I used to be a good, undisciplined player. I would always play well the first hour or two, and then the urge to push it and play more hands would take over. Sometimes it worked, usually it just resulted in me walking out with half (or less) of the winnings I had accumulated when I was playing smart.
Just like everybody else, I get the urge to play trash hands sometimes but I have found a way to deal with it. Rather than play the hand, I just count the number of bets I would have won or lost if I had played it. I keep a separate stack of chips (each chip represents one or more bb) as a running tally of where I would stand if I played those hands that I had a "feeling" about. Usually when the stack represents about 20 bb lost, I lose the urge to keep track of it anymore.
A Poker Guy!
I don't. But if I did it would only be to mix up my play. Doc-
Since nobody is ever forcing someone to play a hand, the "cause" of the problem is obvious. Lou Krieger talks about ZTF (zero tilt factor) in his column in an online zine (www.playersedge.com). If the estimates about the expectation for poker players are accurate, the best you can hope for is to be a small winner unless you practice ZTF.
I disagree. Some of the top players steam a little, especially in stud. The key is not to steam late in a hand.
How much does it cost to "steam a little"?
While playing too many hands may be the "Most Common" mistake, the "Biggest" mistake a Hold 'Em (or any poker) player can make is: Failing to protect his hand.
Sgt Rock (aka Wood Rack)
if you want to be convinced that playing too many hands will beat you in the long run, pay attention to the extremely loose player at the table. sure, sometimes it will seem like he is winning a fortune but at the end of the night he will be the one going broke, i've seen it happen tonight and i've seen it happen countless of other times!! I don't want to be one of these people and neither do you!!
i think not only is it a great mistake to play too many hands, but to also start with great starting hands and not knowing how to play them on the streets correctly and not disiplined enough to fold them if necessary!!
I've just come off of a month long losing streak. I attribute that streak to playing too many hands. I was getting sick of the game. A buddy of mine gave me this advice "only play pre-flops for two bets". I tried it and it works. By forcing myself to either raise or call a raise, I'm thinking harder about the hand. I also found that my pre-flop initiative extended to the rest of the hand. I become more in tune with the game and I enjoy mayself alot more. I think a lot of us play too many hands because we become bored and passive. "Limping in" takes little effort. I found that loose passive play is an easy trap that can drain me if I'm not careful.
Vince, maybe the leak begins (for experienced players) when a few pots are won without relevance to ones hole cards. Perhaps a couple of semibluffs which didn't need to improve, or a checkraise (flop) and bet (turn) move with just overcards was successful. Now that player might start to believe that similar short term results are possible and deliberately play marginal and sub-marginal hands *knowing* that outplaying the field is another way to win. Obviously playing too many hands especially up front costs money, but the psychological question of why this syndrome exists is interesting.
The simple answer to this question is that an experienced player plays too many hands because of his/her "ego". He is better than his opponents. He can make up for starting mistakes by good play on the turn and river. Therefore, he can play more starting hands. The real answer though is more complex. There is "gamble", risk taking, in all of us! We want to win (ego again) because winning is good! A godsend! When we win we're in the good graces of the Poker God(s)! A good poker player knows when he is playing too many hands! Hell, if he didn't he wouldn't be a "good poker player". He would be what most others (not me, because I don't label people) call a "fish". The difference is that the good poker player is able change gears when necessary. When he plays a lot of hands and finds himself in a deep hole he is very likely to turn around and play his best poker (expert poker). Because he knows how to do this! How many times have you been in a hole and tightend up and pulled yourself out. Think about it! We play poker to win and if we are successful then we must be playing the right amount of hands (or there about). The child in us wants to play. Sitting and watching is boring! You might as well play BJ! (Ugh). We want to be in battle, we love a good "honest fight" because the truth be known, a Poker Players heart is that of the "Ultimate Warrior". Don't worry, when the child gets out of hand the adult takes over. the adult puts in effect the rules that make a good player successful. Thank goodness for the adult or else all of us would be sitting on the rail watching some other players child having all the fun! Just remember to not let the Parent in you come down to hard on the child. When he gets out of line, a simple "you know better" is usually all that is needed! Vince
Playing many hands in different situations can achieve diametrically opposite results. To illustrate, at time 1 Players A and B play begin playing "too many hands." Player A, however, has stumbled into a loose, aggressive image from hitting a slew of big hands and a number of successful bluffs. At time 1, his weaker opponents overadjust and start calling him with every mediocre holding. In essence, the table is now filled with passive callers, and Player A can now play several (not many) hands that he'd otherwise fold. Of course, he's not going very far without a pretty big hand. The great thing about this situation is that Player A can still bluff a fair amount against select opponents.
Player B is sitting at the same table and at time 1 succumbs to the deadliest form of tilt: playing hand after hand but folding everything but monsters on the end. He's seen good hands cracked and a lot of second best hands so his sense of hand values is out the window. Psychologically, he thinks he's "due" or running out of time, so he limps with and draws to nearly everything but scoffs at everything short of the nuts. Other players start taking shots and it becomes particularly brutal. Frequently, Player B finds himself folding to Player A on the river.
This is obviously more true in low limit, but I submit that these results can follow even if Player A and Player B are dealt virtually the same cards after time 1.
>>In essence, the table is now filled with passive callers, and Player A can now play several (not many) hands that he'd otherwise fold.<< If this is true you could make a case that Player A could be guilty of not playing enough hands. opinion, vince
Playing loose post-flop is a mistake, barring steal potential. However, loose pre-flop play can be profitable and is based on:
1. Your image 2. The game type 3. Situational field conditions
The better the player, the more hands that can be successfully played.
Please,any advice on low to medium limit hold em games in Reno would be appreciated.
The best low limit game I have found in Reno is the 4-8 full-kill holdem game at Circus-Circus. Anything less than that is pure nofoldem in Reno. The reason that game is so good is that many players don't have the bankroll or guts for the $16 bets, so aggressive play works well to limit the field and reduce suckouts, but they will play the $8 bets loose enough to build decent pots.
A Poker Guy!
Just a reminder that we would like posts of this kind to go on The Exchange Forum. See the column on the left to access The Exchange.
Sometimes one or more strategy considerations conflict with themselves.
You’re first to act in middle position with AcKc.
You raise, and only BB ( a totally average player ) calls.
Flop: Q T 4 rainbow with no clubs
He bets. You raise. He calls.
Turn: another Q
He checks.
Now, should you bet because you have two overcards plus a straight draw vs one opp?
Or, should you check because you have a draw to the probable nuts?
If you check, and a Brick hits on the River, and he checks the River.
Do you bet to see if he folds?
Or do you check and see if an Ace high is good enough?
You would have to know your players, but you're probably beat and only have a gutshot straight draw as an out (unless he's got QJ).
Why do you think you are beat if your opponent checked?
What hands could the blind hold (he did call a raise remember) that could lose to AK?? Not many.
I agree that you very well might have a worse hand, but you have position and you are "in charge" of the betting. If this guy has a monster and comes over the top of my bet, then a fold is obvious - his check-raise earned him one extra large bet. But, he is not showing any real strength, so the question I would ask is not "what hands could the blind have that could lose" but "what hands could the blind have that he would call with?" Remember that a bet on this turn has a strong inference that I will bet again on the river. The opponent has to look at this as not just calling one bet but probably two. At this point in the hand, I would keep the pressure on to try to get him to release what very well could be a better hand - plus I have some outs.
I'm sure you would rather have one of the twoplustwo guys answer first but I'll give it a quick stab before getting ready for work.
"You’re first to act in middle position with AcKc. You raise, and only BB ( a totally average player ) calls. Flop: Q T 4 rainbow with no clubs. He bets. You raise. He calls."
This is the right play so far head up IMHO.
"Turn: another Q. He checks. Now, should you bet because you have two overcards plus a straight draw vs one opp?"
I think he has about four possible hands: First, a weak queen (even QJ - ouch!) and is planing to check raise. Or perhaps a J9 and is on a draw. He could have a ten (or even an A4 and is planing to call you down). Lastly, he could have a hand like AJ and is looking for an ace or king.
For only the first option I would wish I had checked and would call down a river bet. For the other three I would prefer to bet since I am either in the lead or in a situation where a check raise is unlikely. I would tend to check the river if I didn't improve.
If I am check raised on the turn I would throw the hand away unless he was an extremely tricky, aggressive opponent.
"Or, should you check because you have a draw to the probable nuts?"
The way the hand is played consider checking only if he will often bet the river on a bust if you show weakness on the turn (of course you would call).
"If you check, and a Brick hits on the River, and he checks the River. Do you bet to see if he folds? Or do you check and see if an Ace high is good enough? "
He will call with more hands that beat yours (a ten or a four - he would bet the queen) and may only call with the AJ). I would check here.
Regards,
Rick
I doubt he would have J9. With no callers and one raiser, calling preflop would have been a bad play.
DMAN,
I still think J9 (especially suited) is a reasonable possibility. The original post indicated the following: "You raise, and only BB ( a totally average player ) calls."
When I am told my opponent is "a totally average player", I believe this indicates a player who indeed makes relatively bad plays. I'm not thinking of the type of player who studies the game and has great discipline at the table.
Maybe I'm lucky to be playing in Southern California, but at the yellow chip level (10/20 to 20/40), I would say about 70% of my opponents would call with this hand offsuit and about 85% would call with this hand suited. These figures would be less if they new me very well but this is rarely the case as I tend to be a bit of a "rounder" and avoid playing in the same card club day in and day out. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to reply.
Regards,
Rick
Rick, I suspected you were a CA player. I've never played there, but I know the games are looser. Often when I read posts I think "This has to be a West coaster, battling in the no foldem arena." I play 1-4-8-8 where tight play is rewarded and this sometimes colors my opinions.
The most important thing in this situation is your understanding of the player. Is he the kind of player who would protect his big blind with any two cards? Is he the kind of player who would bet any hand into a pre-flop raiser, hoping to get something like AK to fold?
Regarding a bet on the turn, the important question here is not how many outs you have, but what chance you think you have of getting this player to lay down a better hand than yours if you bet. Some players will play agressively against a pre-flop raiser to try and find out if they are up against a big pair or two overcards. If you're representing a big pair with the raise on the flop, you should follow through on the turn if you think the player was doing that.
If you check the turn, you should be prepared to call on the river even if your AK doesn't improve if you're against a player who's capable of making a bluff here with a hand like J9 or JK. Your check on the turn is screaming, "I have two overcards, and I'll probably fold if you bet".
When I have a hand like AK and hit a reasonably good flop (and QT4 is not a horrible flop for this hand - a gutshot with two overcards has a lot of outs if you are up against only one pair), I tend to play it like a big pair. In fact, I'll tell myself "I have a pair of Aces", and try to make myself believe it. That way, I'm sure not to give anything away with mannerisms, delays, etc.
But once again, the truly important thing here is the nature of the player you are up against. It's up to you to use your judgement based on your experience with this person.
Dan
I would probably represent the queen and bet, unless I had a reason to think this particular player could be capable of a check-raise bluff.
Or if the opponent was an absolute calling station who would never fold. In this case I would also refrain from betting.
Principle? If you mean "raising to get a free card" then you accomplished your goal. There are a number of hands an "average player" may have called with in this situation. A lot of them contain a Q or T and some more contain a 4. Others may be KJ, J9. You obviouslt considerd this in your "rasing the flop". Since you obtained your goal on the turn of getting him to check and since the Q in no way improved your hand, the question becomes Why bet. Your raising preflop must have told this guy that you had something. Let's say he had a 4 (His most likely other card is an A, then a 5 or 3). He bet, you raised, he called. What does he think you have. He must be putting you on AK, AQ, (AJ), AT or a pocket pair. Given that he has an A he must feel you have a pocket pair bigger than Q or precisely KK or AK, AJ or he can't call you raise. Even an average player understands outs. We could go on with this but in the interest of time. The play here is to check the flop and if the river brings a rag to check behind him on the river. The "principle" on the river is that you don't bet a mediocre hand. AK in this situation is a mediocre hand! Opinion by Vince BTW I know recommending checking will not sit well with a lot of the Aggressive players that play Hold'em. Oh well!
Did you mean to say check the turn and then the river?
Yes. Thank you, Dan. Vince
Why would you call in this position with J9? Unless I knew my opponent was the type to raise with weak hands, I would probably fold, suited or not. Implied odds here are weakfor a drawing hand, aren't they?
There are some "average" players (and solid players also I might add) that will protect their blind with anything that ressembles a connector. Suited or not. Somewhere it was writtem that the BB is getting 3.5 to 1 by calling a raiser and some think that in itself is enough! Vince
I meant check the Turn and the river.Sorry vince
Some crucial information is missing from your question. In this situation I need to have some idea what my opponant thinks of me. Specifically, what do they think I've raised with first in, middle position. Am I playing against my ussual crowd who know I raise anything juicy in this spot? Or am I against a stranger? If stranger, have I been acting loose-aggresive, tight-aggresive, weak-tight, call station-fish, etc.? Deciding what my opponant thinks of me leads me to my play.
in any situation you can always say that it depends on the player and how they perceive you etc.You played aggressive and this player is still with you. If the player checks the turn it can be for a number of reasons, and you have to be Carnac to know what the reason is. No one reads people this well on a consistent basis. it is easy to say that you must know the player here,.. but there is no reasonable explanation for which reason he checks over another. Why did you raise on the flop????just to be aggressive? He is representing at least a pair odf queens and you are saying by your raise that you have a better kicker or higher pair or better.With that in mind, the player could possibly just call it down with three queens bad kicker among other things.Your raise is fine but you should know why you are raising, and this will give you a better idea as to what to do later. in this case I would be raising , in order to get him to check the turn if he calls, so I can get a free card if I don't improve on the turn....So the answer is to check. There are too many ways you are beat. You would have to have an unusually strong read on this player in order to bet on the turn, hoping to get him to fld when the top card pairs. And yes I would check the river if he checks and I didn't improve.gd luck!
Your second question is the easier one to answer: Check behind your opponent if a brick hits the river. When you check the turn, I'd put you on two high cards and would call you with even a pair of 4's. In fact, I might even check a Queen to induce a bluff from you.
As to your first question: I would generally bet on the turn. The key here is that since you raised before the flop (from middle position) and on the flop, you could well have a hand like AQ or KQ. Acordingly, your opponent would be hard pressed to check raise you on the turn even if he held a Queen. In that sense, your bet on the turn is a protected one. Of course, if your opponent check raises you on the turn, you should probably muck your hand.
Checking on the turn IMO is just too weak a play. If a low card hits on the River you are apt to be robbed blind. In fact, you almost have to call the bet on the River to ensure that you are not being bluffed out (a very likely possibility). Thus, you have a check on the turn and a call on the river. IMO, it's better to bet on the turn and check on the River. Either way it costs you the same but the big plus to the second alternative is that your opponent may well fold on the turn. For example, it is not all inconceivable that your opponent would checkraise you on the flop with a 10 or AK or a host of other hands that don't include a Queen. If you continue to put pressure on the pot by betting the turn, he will likely fold any of these types of hands.
In sum, I'd bet the turn and check behind my opponent on the river.
I hate to disagree with you skp, but the question was "what principle" applies? The way the hand was explained "the principle", if you will, is that of buying a "free card" (cheaper card) on the turn. He accomplished that goal when the opponent checked. His hand did not improve on the turn. He now must take the free card. The question then was what does he do if the opponent "checks again on the river". I believe the answer is obvious: Checking behind him is the correct play! The principle here is "Do not bet a mediocre hand on the River", which is what he has! I still believe two (ugh) checks are in order! Opinion by Vince.
Why *must he take a free card? Perhaps his hand doesn't need to improve, in which case he is *giving a free card. In any event, this opponent could be betting all kinds of hands that he would now be willing to lay down if the hero bets again on the turn.
In the games I play in, my opponent could easily have a small pocket pair to play this way, and if I bet again on the turn after raising the flop, I've got perhaps a 50% chance of getting him to lay that pair down. That's a lot of EV to give up by taking a free card.
Dan
Vince, I gotta agree with Dan Hanson's response.
If I intended on checking the turn, I'd probably just call on the flop and quietly muck my hand on the turn if I do not improve. However, once I take an aggressive stance on the flop (particularly in a heads-up confrontation), I like to continue to put pressure on the pot. In heads-up situations, I don't usually raise just to buy a free card. More often than not, I raise on the flop in order to get my opponent to fold on the turn.
I have to disagree and suggest that this is a good situation for the brakes. My analysis at the table would go like this: the pot's offering me slightly more than 4-1 on the turn so I need him to fold more than 20% of the time (I figure that the chance of him being huge largely cancels my draw). So far, he's been acting as if he sort of likes his hand and I've been acting like I'm trying to bully him out of the pot. He even he has reason to suspect my exact hand. So I can't expect a "totally average" player to drop out on the turn more than one time out of 5. If he's on a draw, I can't see much EV if he throws it away, and since he won't do that on the turn anyway I'll have to invest 2 big bets and, of course, any K, J, 9 or 8 might hit him. I know, you can always rely on firing a second barrell on the river, but without more information I'd just be gambling: any rag might induce him to call and any non-rag might kill me.
Actually,you only have to invest one big bet because you would check on the river if a brick hit. Also, you will find that you have to call on the river (if you check the turn) on several occasions to ensure that you are not being bluffed out. So, this too requires an investment of one bet.
I prefer to do my "investing" on the turn.
You also have to consider how your play in this type of hand will affect future plays when you in fact do have the goods (say, AQ in this example). Obviously, if you have shown that you are capable of "driving" a hand like AK in this spot, you are likely to be paid off when you hold AQ in this spot.
Bottom Line from my viewpoint: If you play aggressively on the flop, continue to be aggressive on the turn. Frankly, buying a free card is not a sexy enough reason for me to raise on the flop.
sexy???? there is no reason to think that this player doesn't have some sort of hand.He has called a preflop raise and bet into the raiser on the flop. if he is average, it lends even more credence to him having something.Putting pressure on the pot with nothing when the board gets alot scarier isn't good poker(imo).You have to adjust to the board as well as the players. This board says "put on the brakes". The player doesn't need qq to call you down! remember, you have outs only and some of them are possibly dead.Putting pressure on the pot is good and so is firing the second barrell, but you have to know when to back off, and this is one of those spots.
I don't doubt that the player probably has some kind of hand. But there are several hands which he might bet with on the flop but be willing to lay down on the turn.
You say that the board has become "a lot scarier". Once again , you are correct. But, it has also become a lot scarier to the other guy and he has shown he is scared by checking.
IMO, this board doesn't call for a check on the turn. Other boards in seemingly similar situations might. See my post above concerning the "Variation on the Which Principle Applies Thread".
Many of the tight, predictable, "by the book" types, take the free card on the turn where a bet on the come is clearly indicated. However, this situation may call for some prudence.
Being raised on the flop in a heads-up situation does not indicate anything other than that the bettor thinks he has two overcards beat, or that he thinks he can get two overcards to lay down with a raise, even though he has nothing himself.
Weak players may have a hand like TJ that they'll raise with on the flop, and then fold to a bet on the turn when a scary card lands. Here in the quiet spaces of a forum where you have lots of time to think you can see that this should be an easy call for a pair of tens, but in an actual game, where people may not be thinking clearly, may have just suffered a bad beat, may be short-stacked, etc., having a card like this land can be terrifying and can cause them to lay down a perfectly good hand.
You also have to ask, "Why did this player check the turn?" This indicates to me either weakness, or that I'm being lined up for a checkraise. Either way, I don't mind betting. If I'm raised, I can drop the hand. If the opponent calls and then bets into me on the river, I can drop the hand. If he calls and then checks, I can turn my hand over on the river. Either way, it's one bet.
If, on the other hand, I check behind him, I'm often going to have to call a bet on the river anyway, since my hand can beat a bluff. So it's still one bet.
Now look at that bet a little closer... Checking or betting costs me one bet either way if I have to call a bet on the river and I don't improve. But betting does several nice things here - first of all, I may get my opponent to fold. In my experience, against an average player in this situation I have better than a 20% chance of getting him to fold, making the bet worth it for that alone. Second, I may have the best hand, in which case it's a value bet (I make money when my opponent is also on a draw but I have him beat). In this case, you are not *getting a free card on the turn, you are *giving one.
Now, if I hit my hand (either by making the gutshot or hitting one of my pairs), I make an extra bet by having bet on the turn.
Finally, future action on my real hands (AA, KK, AQ, QQ), requires that I play my overcards agressively when the situation is right for it. And this is one of those times.
Couldn't agree more.
couldn't disagree more! if you would back up to before the turn, and tell me what your experience is when you raise pre flop, and a ace,king ,or queen flops and you get bet into, what percentage of the time the player betting into you has nothing as opposed to top pair or better.Again you really don't have a concrete answer as to why you are raising on the flop.This is what the crux of this problem is.You are voting against this player having a legitimate hand in this scenario most of the time, when I believe that in this situation you have to give this player credit for having something. And if this player has something, then it is likely heads up that if he doesn't have a queen you are still going to get called down. You balance your play by not betting all the times when you make a big hand or have an over pair when the top card pairs.You are saying that you are giving a free card instead of taking a card when you don't even have a pair.That is stretching that concept just a bit , don't you think.The raise IS to get a free card since you are not made. you can twist this anyway you want but that is the reality of the situation. Know why your raising.bu bye.
First of all, the parameter of the question was that the raise had already been made, the discussion was about play on the turn.
In my experience, a flop with a Queen as top pair is much less likely to intimidate another player than a flop with an Ace or a King. So the player is more likely to bet into you with a marginal holding.
IMO, checking and folding two overcards and a gutshot in this situation is just weak play, given a typical opponent. There are certainly many opponents that I would check and fold to here, but many more that I would not.
Ask yourself why the player checked the turn. Is he going to risk a checkraise here with three queens? After all, if I have Aces or Kings in this situation I'll often check right behind him, and this is a fairly scary flop for even a set (I could easily be the one on the KJ straight draw). If he checks, he's showing some weakness.
Again, I would have to maintain that against a typical opponent you are committed to paying off one bet anyway, since if you check behind him he's likely to bluff on the river. So if you're going to pay the bet, you're better off doing it on the turn.
I don't like the idea of raising to buy a free card in a heads-up situation. I'm raising to win the pot, hoping that he'll fold on the flop after I play back at him. However, there are a lot of players who would bet as little as a gutshot on the flop as a bluff against two possible overcards. When you raise, they'll call the raise and then fold to a bet on the turn, especially when a scary card lands (and pairing top pair is about as scary as it gets if he doesn't have a queen himself).
Dan
There seems to be a fair amount of agreement on how to play the hand (BTW, in my original response, I neglected to mention KJ as a possible holding - thanks Dan Hanson). Most respondents indicated a desire for more information about the way the opponent plays and what he thinks of your play. This has to be the most important principle - knowing your opponent.
The other important principle is expect even the "totally average" player to be tricky when he is playing heads up (and you should be too!). Thus, lead betting on the flop into several opponents is much more likely an indication that a queen is out against you (by the better or a caller) than a lead bet heads up. Laying down when the board pairs queens is the first situation (multi-way pot) is indicated by technical and logical analysis. Heads up expect the unexpected and know your opponent (and what he thinks of you). This will dictate your play.
Regards,
Rick
I'd like to point out that heads-up you should consider varying your play in different ways with hands like two overcards, so you don't become too predictable.
For instance, once in a while I would smooth-call the flop here, and raise the turn. This option costs you a half-bet more than raising the flop and betting the turn, but it puts a LOT more pressure on a marginal hand. A play like this indicates that you have at least an overpair, and perhaps a set.
Against a habitual bluffer, I might just call all the way to the river on occassion.
In tough games, you wind up in situations like this quite often. If you play them too mechanically, you're in for a world of hurt.
On the other side of the equation, if I'm the one calling a pre-flop raiser, I also mix up my play a lot. If he bets into me on the flop, I might just smooth call, then raise on the turn when he bets again with nothing more than a draw, because the odds are that he's got two overcards instead of a big pair. If he plays his overcards agressively all the time, I might just check and call all the way to the river with nothing but a small pocket pair. It really depends on the player. Against some players, I can check and fold top pair in this situation, because they *always have a big pair if they bet.
Dan
If you raise him on the flop and he checks to you on the turn: BET! Your raise on the flop wasn't a free card play like one of the other posters suggests, but an attempt to take the lead in the betting sequence.
You're trying to win the pot, not trying to make your hand. Especially heads-up you got to keep shooting to find out if the other guy has something. He may have bet the flop with the second or third button hoping to either win betting the flop or improving his hand. Bob Ciaffone has great advice on situations like these in "Improve your Poker". Take his advice and fire that second barrel. If he calls you on the turn don't bet the river unless you make your straight. You won't make him lay down his hand at this juncture.
A check-raise on the turn by the BB? Cross that bridge when you get there. I would probably start waving the white flag at this point unless the guy has shown a lot of moves before.
Spielmacher
I'd check it all the way to the river (unless I hit) because (1) the second queen makes it harder to represent having one and (2)there is less equity in bluffing than would otherwise be the case because the hand he is most likely to fold if you bet, a draw with no pair, is one that you can beat anyway. Also, since your overcards are vulnerable against this board I wouldn't have raised on the flop.
What card will give you nuts?
Oh, all right. The board is paired. He may have a full house already. I'm not going to worry about that until I see evidence of it. If he's got a full house he's probably going to checkraise me on the turn, in which case I can lay the hand down for one bet. No big deal.
Dan
To All the Posters On This Thread:
Last night I wrote a post in this thread and mistakenly thought I was sort of summing up the ideas in the post so I remamed my posted reply as follows:
"The Primary Principle(s)!
Rick Nebiolo -- Tuesday, 5 January 1999, at 12:49 a.m.
When I came home tonight and saw all the excellent writing and ideas posted after this I honestly felt sort of foolish. Having the opportunity to read the continuing posts of all the excellent players who take time to write out their thoughts and analysis is a privilage and really makes my day. I would like to thank all out there who so obviously love the game of poker and have a lot to contribute. In the future I will try to be a little more humble.
Regards,
Rick
>>There seems to be a fair amount of agreement on how to play the hand (BTW, in my original response, I neglected to mention KJ as a possible holding - thanks Dan Hanson)>> If your talking about the post that began like this then you leave that post alone! It totally woke me up to errors in my thinking about the hand in question. If it is another post and was written similiar to the above as I believe it probably was the all I can say is Keep on contributing to this forum! Please!!! Vince
Thanks to all who posted earlier, responses were discussed to no avail...so..I agreed to post more specific details: The game in question was 5 card draw, 2,3,one eye jack,suicide king wild.(yep thats eleven) An absurd game I admit, but the $ is as real as any. We play wild cards to be whatever,(or so I thought), BUT when playing stud with wilds, highest natural card always bets. (twos wild, a seven up has the bet over a two, Kings wild, a king has the bet over a ten...) My thoughts are that the high natural card gets the bet by default, but in the end, the best hand wins...natural be damned. Am I wrong here? Case in point the hands were as follows: WILD2 WILD2 WILD3 KING KING; WILD2 WILDj WILD3 WILD3 WILDk. Both had 5 Kings, one player 5 wilds...(5 aces?), the other a more natural 5 Kings. I hope the situation is fairly clear to you. This is not really a matter of money, the two players in question are brothers, and both pretty much ox-like in their stubborness, but friends none the less. I'm trying to set a precedent for future games as I'm sure the issue will re-appear someday. All help is greatly appreciated. Prosperous new year, Matt B
In the games I play in, the highest hand would be 5 aces. We also don't distinguish between hands that have differing numbers of wild cards.
This response, of course, is really of no help to you because the house rules can be set up any way at all. The most important thing is that you and your brothers come to an agreement that will resolve future situations, and that you all understand the rules you are playing by.
My thoughts:
The "highest natural card" leads the betting has nothing to do with the winning hand and should not have impact on the winner.
Case in point. One player has 4 5 6 8 10 (4 and 5) buried the other has 4 5 2 7 8 (4 and 5 buried) the first hand would lead the betting all the way but would loose the hand to the hand with the wild card.
About the wild wild wild King King, winning against wild wild wild wild wildking.
In my opinion the wild wild wild King King should be the LOOSER. His logic is based on the fact that the wilds must match a natural. Therefore the best hand his opponent could have is 5 kings (using the wild king as a natural) therefore his 5 kings is better because it is more natural.
I can not accept this argument. First off if a wildcard must match a natural how ever could it be used to fill a straight or a straight flush. It could not as there is no natural for it to match against.
I have seen wild cards played where they can only be used to fill staights, or used as an ace.
I have also seen wild cards played where they can match any cards no need for them to match a natural.
In both of the above the hand with the five wilds would win.
The technicality that a wild card must match a natural seems in my opinion something that is not a default but should only be applied if it is specifically stated by the dealer calling the game. Not the default.
I would suggest that you and the other players try to think of examples, that night, where a wild card might have been used without matching a natural for a previous winning pot.
How can you resolve the situation: You can not resolve the situation by logic with the two players involved Niether will budge.
Some possible solutions: 1) Split the pot. 2) Binding vote. Have all players not involved in the pot vote with the two brothers agrreing to accept the decision of the floor. 3) Save the pot until the next time the two brothers are head-up against each other with the winner of that hand taking this previously created side pot. 4) Use the money to pay for the beer, booze and snacks for the next poker event. 5) Spend it all on lottery tickets for all the players to share in the winnings.
In any event when it comes to these "house rules" the importnat thing is not necessarily what the rules are but rather that all the rules are clearly understood by all.
S. Doyle
I think that the rule that wild cards must match a natural in the hand is simply a result of someone getting dealt 5 kings and not wanting to lose. Never have I played in a game where this rule was in effect. As a couple people have noted, this type of wild card could never be used to fill a straight. Obviously, it is probably best for regular home games to have these specific rules agreed upon (written down if big money or short tempers are involved) in advance and made clear to everyone.
------------------------------------
Another wild card question that caught my interest when someone mentioned it to me a while ago. Deuces are wild. Who wins?
Player 1: Ac Kc Qc 7c 3c
Player 2: Ah 2s Jh 7h 3h
Possibility A: Player 2 uses the 2s as the Kh and his A-K-J flush loses to the A-K-Q flush.
Possibility B: Player 2 uses the 2s as another Ah and his A-A-J flush beats the A-K-Q flush.
Personally, I like possibility A, but either way seems legitimate to me. (Obviously, when someone makes a 5-of-a-kind, they are duplicating exact cards, so that logic might favor possibility B.)
Thanks for situations I had not thought of...further clarification though...A wild card need not "match" a natural, it just needs a natural to go with. Definitely, it could be used in a straight, flush, or to match for two, three, four or five of akind. The point about the two aces flush is interesting what with an obvious duplicate in five of a kind. I fully realize this is a trivial query for such a list, but I welcome all other responses, and thank you for your time. Matt B
AA flush doesn't exist in most games. A wild card filling out a flush is used to make the highest card possible that doesn't copy another card already used in the flush.
Some players play that you can have an AA flush. There are also poker and poker-derived games played with multiple decks that have new hands defined for "flush-plus" situations. Flush+pair, Flush+trips, etc. In one table game, Fast Action Hold'em, the flush-plus hands are all better than quads, and the best ones are even better than straight flushes.
In a home game, you can use whatever rules you like, but make sure everyone knows the rules and agrees to them.
There will always be dispute in what is the "right" way to handle all these situations.
Unambiguous bad rules are MUCH easier to live with then ambiguous good ones. Simple bad rules are better than complicated good ones. For example: "a wild card can be any card, duplicated or not" gives great coverage.
All in, Wild cards, and "declare" split pots can create great havok in home games. Dream up these situations, WRITE THEM DOWN, and post them. Change the rules only BETWEEN hands.
- Louie
I don't write this as a 'bad beat story' but I am somewhat preplexed. I limp in with A 7 suited in late position. Flop comes 7 7 4, bet, call - I call !! Turn harmless Q ( I mean no flush possible) I don't think anyone limps with QQ so I am still happy... bet, fold, I call. I forgot or let's say 'try to erase the river from memory as a phych experience. Anyway river was unimportant because the guy under the gun had 4 7 offsuit. The bettor later told me that he put me on A7 and if Ace had came on the river he was ready to muck !! I raised him on the river and he did not raise back - clear sign the he was not that good player. I mean I could have had Q7 - just to show that he thought I was a complete idiot (playing Q7) or felt bad and did not re-reaise on purpose.
Andras,
Let me try to cheer you up although this sounds suspiciously like a bad beat story. You should be thankful you play in a country where opponents in a 30/60 game play a 4 7 offsuit under the gun! Although you would prefer others get the bad beats, being in a game and not seeing this type of play is the worse beat of all (if you are playing to win).
You said "Anyway river was unimportant because the guy under the gun had 4 7 offsuit. The bettor later told me that he put me on A7 and if Ace had came on the river he was ready to muck !!"
I would bet my life that anyone who plays such a hand would never muck his full house on the river and it is baloney he could put you on an ace seven. The point here is that I hoped you were able to nod your head in polite agreement (or keep your mouth shut to put it less delicately) when he described his grand strategy. This way he will still be around to donate to the starving poker masses (I assume food comps are hard to get at the Belagio) at least until his money runs out. Anyway, better luck next time.
Regards,
Rick
Great advice! I wish more of the so called "know it alls" would subscribe to this line of reasoning and shut their mouths and quit bitchen when things don't go their way. For the life of me, I will never understand why anyone would be upset when they see their opponent playing incorrectly. Sure it hurts when you get the occasional beat but if everyone played perfectly, the casino would be the only one making any money.
I don't blame you for being perplexed! I play poker to win money! True! But if money was my only goal I would go to work. It's easier! The simple answer to this dilema is "you gotta love it" but it's just not enough! This is one of those totally unexpected events that could ruin your session. Poker to be played well must also be fun! When something like this occurs the fun is taken out of the game. I have seen statements in this forum to the effect the more defenseless the opponent the better. Bullshit! Poker players are warriors. We want to win money sure, but we also want a good fight. It's true this guys money is as good as the next and if he wants to gamble, sit on down. But I for one would not sit very long at a table filled with incompetent players and enjoy myself. That's partly my reason for not playing low limit no foldem poker. I like to think the time I've spent learning poker skills was worthwhile. I relly don't know the best answer to this post. But in general it is usually better to turn a bad situation into a good one by looking at it in a positive light. There must be a lesson in there somewhere! Good Luck, Andras! Vince
Well, if I understand this correctly, there was one limper ahead of you, you limped, button and sb folded, and the bb checked. Why would you limp in that situation? A7s a good limp with a lot of players as it will generally either give you a nut flush draw or easy to get away from on the flop. It is a decent heads up hand because of the ace. It is kind of a crappy 3 way hand because you wont get odds for a draw and you can't win without another ace (generally). I think that raising preflop would be a stronger move. Whether he would have dropped, I don't know ... but maybe.
You were beaten from the flop on, drawing to only 2 outs for the turn and 5 (including a split) for the river. I seriously doubt the bettor put you on A7, it was just table bullshit to psyche you out. If I know what someone has, I would never let on. If I didn't, I might pull a line like that just to mess with them. I think after the other player folded on the turn, I would have raised. It would have cost you in this case, but generally I don't like giving a free card for a river suckout with a paired board if I think I am ahead.
A Poker Guy!
Well, maybe. The reason I coined this a 'lesson' cause I think what I did wrong was not to checkraise after the flop and when called I should have folded. You think I am full of it but I could have even if I didn't I would have known where I was at. The lesson in Vegas 30-60 when bet and called (or raise and called) you have better than 50% to be beaten unless hold the nuts. Thanks for all of your comments ! Andras
I have a very good hourly rate in 10-20 and up (about 2 to 2 1/2 times the bb). But sometimes waiting for a seat at a higher limit game or when it has broken up all that remains is 6-12 and 4-8. It seems that no hand is good enough until all the cards are out and you hold the nuts. I believe a large part of my profits come from getting players to fold hands that would beat mine by my aggression. Sometimes by switching gears and making good players look me up when I have the nuts and making them gun shy in the future. I feal like I am in complete control at higher limit games.
Now let us talk about lower limit games for a minute. I feal there are few if any astute players in the game and any action on my behalf goes unnoticed. I have tried to play many different styles and or stick with one for the duration of a session with little results. Large wins and losses my deviation at 6-12 is not comparable perctage wise to the higher limit games. It seems to me lower limit is more like gambling than playing poker. That may sound like a shrewed comment but I like to make money not gamble. I am not interested in traditional casino games of luck with large pay offs and astronomical odds. If that were my desire I would not go to the casino I would play the lottery. I am not saying there is not money to be made in lower limit games. It just seems to me there is a much greater luck factor.
In a lose low limit game people will play almost anything and not show any consistancy on how they play their hands. Not all just some if they truely believe they have the best hand they will bet it accordingly with no regard for their kicker or any other possible hand.
Maybe I am strange or have just not figured out a good way to play against yahoos. I am not sure but I now my success at higher limit is well documented. I also fair very well in private games and no limit tournaments. Is it possible my concern is for odds and how people will react to plays and not to the money amounts attached. I truely do not know. I feal people playing poker often concern themselves with the money envolved and that is a major down fall for most. My play is not dictated by the amount of money I have left for that session. Is that good or bad?
My main reason for posting is for some constructive critism. I hope I recieve some. Thanks for your time I know this was lengthy.
Brad
Anticipating that you would one day ask these very questions on this forum, back in the 80's David Sklansky answered them for you in two essays in his book, _Getting the Best of It_. See "How to Play in a Loose Game" and "Why You Lose in a Good Game." (Note that while Mike Caro can't finish a project, David is some 16 years ahead of schedule. ;-))
John Feeney
Repeat after me "They're only chips". When a poker player thinks "wow, I just bet the car payment", he is done. Money for poker should be viewed as a businessman views capital. So there is nothing wrong with your attitude towards your stake. The problem is your play. You can't trick or decieve players who aren't paying attention, who are ignorant of the odds and so don't know they shouldn't call, who cling to their gutshot draws and underpairs and lo and behold if there are enough of them in a game-ONE OF THEM JUST MAY MAKE THEIR HAND. And you lose, because you were playing correctly, but you were in the wrong game. Winning 2 BB/hour is a nice problem to have. Forget the low limit games. If you have the discipline to win at 10/20 and above, you ought to have the patience to wait for your game.
I have noticed that one of the best ways to beat a no-fold em game is two have one or two other "solid" players at the game. Preferably evenly spaced. With one or two other players of this kind, I find it much easier to deal with the loonies that may be in between. Its sounds counter-intuitive, but it has been my experience.
I am sure that I could find a mathematical basis of this rule (perhaps an application of Morton in a modified form). But for now, here is a example:
Supposed 4 people go in to see the flop, call them A-D. A&C are maniacs and B&D are solid.
Flop 2h 5d Kc
A: 9d Td B: Ks Qs C: 3h 8c D: As Ad
So the maniacs need runner-runner to make a flush and runner-runner to make a straight. B and D with solid hands, top pair good kicker, and pocket overpair will bet and raise. Perhaps several raises.
In the long run, both B&D win because A&C are just donating so much money into the pot. Even though you are in a game with another solid player (one who might even be better than you) you can put the maximum heat on those loonies with perfect-perfect draws.
Just yesterday a hand like this happened. I flopped trips, loonie needed perfect-perfect, the other solid player had top pair with ace kicker. Guess who won? Yeah, the loonie, he made his gutshot straight on the river. I was a bit unnerved so I took a short walk around the casino before returning to the table.
Paul Martino
If you look around and notice that you have become the "least" favorite at the table, How much of a consolation is it that YOU KNOW this. Meaning, you may want to stay and play to "tune your game" or to "study" some of the these "better" players?
Most of the money you make at poker is not because of how well you play, but because of how poorly your opponents play!
I get a great deal of consolation knowing I'm an underdog. You minimize/fix your limitations by first acknowledging them.
Dare I suggest that each successive "lesson" in a night has diminishing returns: you are much more likely to learn from the first lesson than the 20th (who reviews more than 10 hands on the way home?). If so, deliberately exposing yourself to numerous -EV lessons accomplishes little. There is always someone in a nomal +EV game who can outplay you in some situation or another, and you should get plenty of "tuning" against them as a matter of course in a normal profitable game.
- Louie
Last night I was at the final table of rather large area tournament. There are three players left. I am on the button with 25,000. The other two have about 30,000 and 40,000.
The blinds are huge 2500-5000 and the limits are 5000-10000. So even the chip leader at 40,000 only has a couple of bets.
Three handed I am dealt AQo on the button. I raise it to 20000. The small blind calls me. Flop K 9 2. Its checked to me, so move the rest of my chips (5000) in. I go on to lose the hand to KTs.
In my estimation, I made the right move going all-in here. Those huge blinds were coming my way. But my real question is this: those huge blinds were coming everyones way. There was no big chip leader. What is the best way to deal with this sitatuion? The leader has 4 small bets, 2nd place 3, and me at almost 3. It really seems like it comes down to a crap shoot at this point. The guys in the blinds almost have to call a raise because 20-30% of their chips are already in! Any comments on a situation like this?
Also, one other question: About 10 mintues before I went out, when the limits were 1500-3000 playing 3000-6000, I was the chip leader (by a small amount). I offered a three way chop. To my surprise the guy with the least chips, and in my estimation the least skill, said no. The payouts were in the proportion of 1-2-4 for 3rd, 2nd, 1st. One other note: we were in the 6th hour of play approaching midnight.
Thanks for any comments.
Paul Martino
It is a crapshoot. A-Q is a monster hand in that situation, so you can't be faulted for playing the hand (even Q-10 would be playable, although in a different fashion). Your opponent had a playable hand also. The only part I don't like about the equation is that you couldn't get all-in before the flop; the only strategy adjustment that you arguably could have made would be to call the blinds with A-Q and move in on the flop if you liked it. But really you can't be faulted for playing the hand or playing it the way you did.
How can you raise it to 20000 before the flop if the blinds are 2500/5000 and the limts are 5000/10000? In a limt tournament, I might be willing to check down the hand given this flop. If the guy has any King, he is going to call your bet, and if he has an underpair, he is also likely to call you down. In both cases, you are more likely to benefit from the free card than he is. That last bet is very valuable at this stage since it can be the difference between one pay place.
Of course, given your invesment in the pot, I think you have to CALL any bet on the flop. Even if it puts you all-in. Make that ESPECIALLY if it puts you all-in since you get two cards for the price of (less than) one.
Sorry for the generalities, but I don't really understand the size of the pot/chip position, etc. given your description of the pre flop betting. Maybe you only had 15000 in chips, and raised it to 10000. If thats the case, I would still probably take the free card on the flop, although your opponent is certain to put you all-in on the turn with ANY pair at that point.
As far as the deal you offered, the small stack probably figured you weren't offering him much more than his guaranteed third place money (were you?), so he should take a shot and might get lucky since skill is dominate by fate at this stage.
You are correct, I had 15000 in chips at the time. Sorry for the confusion.
Thanks,
paul
You may have tried to negotiate a deal in this spot. Good luck Andras
While at that point, you are hoping that the other two lock horns and one gets knocked out, I absolutely agree with your AQo raise. I understand your motive with the follow through bet (I have done the same thing many times in the heat of battle). The odds of your opponent folding vs this 5000 bet are small. Without making this bet, you have "a chip, a chair, and a prayer". I think you undervalued your final chips when deciding to toss them into the pot. *Anything* could happen on the next two hands, and you might have slid into second.
Dan wrote: "The odds of your opponent folding vs this 5000 bet are small."
Why do you think so? Playing 3-handed, you usually play a lot of hands. Therefore, the blind might have called preflop with a lot of hands that have made nothing now, and therefore fold to your bet. I mean, how would you feel now if you were the blind holding JT? Other than a Q on the turn or river, would you think that you have any outs? While a J or T one-pair hand might be a winner, you probably wouldn't give it much weight. Therefore, I think that there is still a pretty good chance of getting this person to fold here. Of course, some opponents would never fold, and against this type you would always check now, and hope to check it down.
"Without making this bet, you have "a chip, a chair, and a prayer". I think you undervalued your final chips when deciding to toss them into the pot."
I'd be worried about giving a free card to a hand like JT, A5, Q8, etc., hands that might have called preflop but also might fold now. I'd rather risk the bet and avoid any chance of giving these hands a free shot at winning.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
In these type of spots you need to think about how likely your opponents are to fold to your preflop raise. If they are likely to fold, you should raise with a lot of hands, if they are not likely to fold, some raising hands should become calling hands. However, with this being said, AQ almost always has to be a raising hand because it is so strong.
You should use the same kind of reasoning on the flop. There is a good chance your AQ is good, but since you can only bet a small amount your opponent is probably correct to call with many hands, and even though some of these hands are weaker than yours, you would still like him to fold. For example, suppose your opponent has 87. Do you want him to get two cards for his call of only $5,000 in tournament chips?
The blinds are 2500-5000, limits are 5000-10000, you have 25000 on the button. You said you raised it to 20000, leaving you with 5000 in chips. But you would have only been able to raise it to 10000, leaving you 15000 in chips. That kind of changes the decision about going all-in. This leaves you being able to make a full bet on the flop, which is an even stronger bet, but checking the flop still leaves you with a viable stack. Did I miss something? Hard to say which move is better. At that point it really depends on your read of your opponent.
A Poker Guy!
It seems to me there is a flaw in the tournaments betting structure that the blinds are so large relative to the remaining amount of money, making skill far less important than it ought to be
Yes, that was exactly my point. The tournament drug on so long that this was the case.
It's funny how 2 poker situations which look so similar on the surface can in fact be quite different.
In the "Which Principle Applies?" thread below, Erin raised with AcKc from middle position. BB called and led out with a Q,10,4 flop. Erin raised on the flop. BB called and checked on the turn when another Queen hit. I then suggested that Erin should bet the turn and check behind her opponent on the river.
Now, let's change the situation a little: Suppose Erin raises with KcQc from middle position. BB calls and leads out on a 10,9,4 flop. Erin raises. BB calls and checks on the turn when another 10 hits. In this situation, Erin should be more inclined to check on the turn (subject as always to her knowledge of her opponent and how she thinks he perceives her play).
The key difference is that a bet on the turn in the second example is less "protected". Erin is more likely to be (a)raised by the BB if he has a 10 and (b) bluff-raised even if he doesn't have a 10. In the second example, Erin's opponent's raise is "protected" as it is less likely that Erin (being the pre-flop raiser) holds a 10.
BTW, in one of the more recent Card Player issues, Bob Ciaffone wrote an article on the "Protected Raise". I thought it was a splendid essay and would urge all players to read it.
It is easier to define where you are, or to attempt a bluff when a Q falls as opposed to when a T falls. It much less likely that an opponent has two overcards.
good principle, but wrong situation to use it in.
skp wrote: "BTW, in one of the more recent Card Player issues, Bob Ciaffone wrote an article on the "Protected Raise". I thought it was a splendid essay and would urge all players to read it."
This is a great essay. As a mostly California player, one part of Bob's essay lept out at me. He mentioned specific situations were you wouldn't raise in Las Vegas (four raise limit) and would raise in California (three raise limit) because you would only have to fear one more raise in California. In a chapter titled "Two Califonia Rules that Need To Be Corrected" in the book "Poker Essays - Volume Two" by Mason Malmuth, Mason essentially mentions the same thing. He points out that the three raise limit in California actually leads to bigger pots which is exactly opposite of the intentions of card room management. This is another example of the irony that makes poker so fasinating.
Regards,
Rick
Post deleted at author's request.
I found when in Washington years ago that the 2-raise limit also encouraged larger pots, since assertive players are encouraged to raise since they will not show weakness by "just" calling the 2nd raise, and aggressive players liked to put in the 2nd raise without fear of a reraise, what-the-heck.
Back to the original post: AK is more likely to be the best hand in the 1st example than KQ is in the 2nd; which adds A LITTLE weight to betting KQ out on the river, hoping AJ folds.
- Louie
Well, this header ought to say it all. Usually I play in a couple home games, but occasionally during the week (usually after I'm done teaching for the day) I'll pop up to Central City and play a little 2-5. Obviously, this game isn't a big money maker- in fact, I'm not even sure it has a +EV, considering that the rake is formidable (10% or three bucks) and there's an additional buck taken out of every pot over forty bucks for- you guessed it- a jackpot. But since I'm no mathematician, I can't be sure.
What's the verdict? Is this even a marginally +EV game? I logged about 200 hours at this game in '98, and won about three dollars an hour, but I'm not sure if this is just short term success.
Any insight would be most appreciated.
Tight, game selective players can make $7-12 an hour, maybe more. It is not true that the Colorado rake makes $2-5 unbeatable.
Agree here.
Except that "tight" refers to the first bet, not the $2 bring in. In these loose games you can speculate liberally for $2; so long as you routinely fold for a raise or a bet on the flop.
There are bad and bad-loose games up there, but you must be willing to seek and find them. Having just a couple hours after work will put you at a disadvantage in game selection.
- Louie
Here in Vancouver, B.C., there are no Omaha games other than a 20-40 hi-lo game which I have not yet played in given my inexperience with the game. I was in Edmonton, Alberta over the holidays and got to play some Omaha. The games in the casinos there alternate every half hour between Hold 'em and Omaha high. I gotta say that I now love Omaha high.
I encourage all Omaha players to share their ideas on strategy with us on the Forum. I, for one, would love to learn more.
Dan Hanson, since you play in those Edmonton games on a regular basis, I invite you to provide your valuable insight more often on Omaha strategy. Obviously, I extend the same invitaion to Ray Zee and the other experts.
Jeez, the way you ran over the table that night, I'm not sure I can add much... (-:
I have to say that Omaha High is my favorite game, because you still find players at the middle limits that make terrible errors. In Holdem, it's rare to find even weak players that will make huge mistakes like calling with 92o, and in the no-foldem games their other errors (chasing too much) don't cost them a whole lot.
Omaha, on the other hand, gives players a chance to make brutal mistakes like calling when they are drawing completely dead, and this happens all the time. Many of the players I play against will routinely call any bet with bottom two pair or top and bottom pair, even against evidence that they are up against top set. Or, they'll call to make their flushes against a large field with the board paired and previous raises indicating a boat is already out there.
Any time players are making mistakes this large, there has to be a lot of profit in the game for a good player.
Dan
I am not experienced in LIMIT Omaha high, but as compared to pot-limit, I assume that hands with high pairs and ace-high flush draws would go up in value, and hands with straight runs would go down. The straight runs are worth less in limit, since you can't protect your hand from players drawing to flushes or to fill (who would not have odds to call a pot-sized bet). A big pair that makes top set would still have call odds in limit even with an obvious made straight or flush on the turn.
In pot-limit, I avoid middle pairs, since they don't make the nuts. I like hands like Ac9c8d7d, that have the potential to make the nuts with redraws against an opponent who has the dry nuts. (This hand might be worth less in limit for the reasons above.)
Semibluffing is very effective in pot-limit, where few hands will have call odds. As compared to holdem, drawing hands tend to be stronger in Omaha, especially when many players take the flop. Another nice thing about Omaha high is that there are more playable hands than in holdem or Omaha-8, as much of the value in the latter games is contained in a small number of the very strongest hands.
The game changes entirely when tight or shorthanded, since you can't just play for the nuts. Very weak hands like an overpair can win in a shorthanded pot, and you have to really read your opponents and the situation to tell where you stand.
If my opponents in a full game were playing any trash, I would be inclined to raise many hands preflop, provided that it would not narrow the field or make them tighten up. You don't want to knock out hands that you dominate and that will pay you off. Some players, however, will virtually never raise preflop, or only raise with aces (watch for this). An Omaha expert I talked to says he almost never raises AA in limit Omaha, since deception is worth more than a little extra preflop value.
Inexperience Omahaha players, such as myself, should play the nuts. The problem is the non-brain-dead opponents will notice and give little action.
The half-Holdem half-Omahaha game offers a valid strategy in that you could play Holdem assertively, routinely betting and raising in the marginal situations. Many opponents will NOT notice the "nut" nature of your Omahaha game and you can get a bunch of unwarrented action.
In a tight game you could reverse it, failing to bluff in the obvious Holdem situations and then stealing them silly in Omahaha.
- Louie
You're right in that playing the nuts is a good way for an inexperienced Omaha player to start the game... Against a typical field you could probably post a small profit this way, and you'll certainly avoid the big errors that some players make.
However, if you want to be a really good Omaha player, you have to learn how to play the marginal situations, and there are a surprising number of them even against a large field. Two pair is often the best hand, and running straights and flushes are often missed.
There are also a number of good bluffing opportunities in Omaha, and especially semi-bluffing raises and such, since you can often hit a big draw that you can raise for value, using the deception to move on the pot when the board doesn't change. There are also a lot of very scary cards that can land in Omaha that can set up profitable bluffs. I'm trying to compose a post about this right now, but I want to go through it and make sure I don't make any errors or give any misleading information.
Dan
So what if the higher limit players are a little bit tougher. If you are the best player, and the smartest person in the game you should be able to overcome their talents with your super capabilities. Right?
A preliminary question: What are the bankroll requirements, for someone who plays $300-600 every day, to ensure not being wiped out by a standard negative deviation?
Dr. Stern, who is a dedicated professional, admits in his book that he rarely plays above $20-40. Bankroll comfort?
The very best 300-600 players really only average about $200 an hour in the typical game. And there is a small chance of a half a million dollar downturn even for them. Thus it is hard to justify a tenfold risk for a very small increase in earnings. Furthermore, the stategy needed to beat those games would often backfire if you tried them in the games we write about.
Good answer David. This seems to hold true most limits down the line.
David:
What is the optimal limit to balance risk and maximize earn?
It depends how well you play. The subject is covered in detail in our book Gambling for a Living.
I've read Gambling For A Living, and I don't recommend it to anyone. It's basically a rehash of five books: Gambling Theory, Poker Essays I & II, Blackbelt in Blackjack and Getting the Best of It. There's virtually no new material and the material presented is not well explored.
However, the little chart on expectation, limit and player skill does indicate the best expectation balanced for bankroll requirements.
Scot wrote:
"I've read Gambling For A Living, and I don't recommend it to anyone. It's basically a rehash of five books: Gambling Theory, Poker Essays I & II, Blackbelt in Blackjack and Getting the Best of It."
Wait a second. I agree that the four books of ours that you mention would be tough to read a second time. But didn't Arnold Snyder write Blackbelt in Blackjack? And, furthermore, he had the nerve to publish it himself, instead of giving it us.
The book does contain much that we said elsewhere. But only very serious players have read all of our previous works. Thus a synopsis is valuable for eveyone else. Furthermore there is some good new material as you yourself admitted. And for the professional or expert player who has read all of our other stuff, even one new paragragh that they did not allready know, ought to pay for the book many times over. So to who would your recommendation not to buy the book apply ?
David, honestly, I cannot imagine someone finding insight in Gambling For A Living to be a winning player at any game, nor would I expect this book alone to tilt the odds in their favor.
Start imagining.
What he said.
What part of the book enabled you to recover your $24.95? The part where it said reading more books would be helpful? Seriously though, what part helped you out?
Scott,
I guess the real question is can't you think for yourself? One of the biggest points especially to Sklansky's work is to make you think. If you don't think and read much more into his books there is no point to read them. If you honestly believe someone could or would write down every aspect of his or her winning ways YOU ARE CRAZY!! Next time you read a book especially about poker think about what you are reading. Basically all S&M's books deal with the mathmatics of poker and some basic stratagies which are both crucial to winning. Only you can take your game to another level no book will do that.
Good luck I think you may need it.
Thanks for the advice Sherlock.
David, honestly, I cannot imagine someone finding insight in Gambling For A Living to be a winning player at any game, nor would I expect this book alone to tilt the odds in their favor.
I think a better response is why play with people at or close to your same level when you can play with so many people that are inferior to you. When a world class player sits in on a normal game they are given an instant image with out any effort and anyone intelligent can pray off of that. I believe this is a large part to David and Mason's success. At a higher stakes game (generally) people are more intelligent than that. JUST MY OPINION!!!
S&M's books are filled with solid theory and sound advice that go slightly past the basics in some cases and further it seems in others.Since most readers are newer players , they have to gear them to that audience for the most part. So many newer players are hoping to find the grail, in these books and it just isn't anywhere to be found. to get an edge in any form of "beatable", gambling forums, you have to eat it, drink it, breath it, all the time. most of us are not willing to do that. We want a nice simple formula for success. S&M and ZEE's books come closer to that then any other I've read. But once you get to the next level like you might be Scott, you realize the rest is up to yourself.What's for breakfast? poker again!!??
Why don't we just skip the advertising bull :
1. Gambling for a living is not easy or sure no matter what you've read.
2. Cheaters are out there.
3. Winning Poker is basically predatory. Find weaker players and exploit them.
4. Dave et. al. have become authors. Succesful authors can get mortgages. Pro Poker players...maybe not. As one dealer I met puts it, "All the local pros are losers. Even the winners are living in trailers and everything they have is in a bankroll for playing cards.". Or another dealers joke, "Half the poker pros are at the Mirage tonight, the other half are sleeping at the mission.".
5. Dave et. al. have not published the grail. but I'd bet (and it might be a sucker bet) that it exists and once you've boiled it down it's not as tough as all the theory makes it. Example : The theories of flight can be very complex and are neccesary for designing and building aircraft. From experience I know that flying one is not nearly as difficult as say...calculing the drag coefficient of a lifting body.
6. If they did publish it, what would they sell next?
Thanks to everyone for your answers.
Shows how complicated Hold’em is.
The original raiser will surely bet heads-up if checked to on the flop, and the BB knows this. The fact that the BB bet indicates, at least to me, that this player is very likely to have a weak hand and unlikely to have a strong hand such as top pair KT. (I have noticed that low-medium players are MUCH more likely to semi-bluff BET than CHECK-RAISE.) Such weak hands (such as 2nd pair 98 or draw QJ) get worse when the board pairs tops. However, the no pair KQ WANTs these weak hands to fold on the turn.
Using this premise I conclude that "stealing" with no pair KQ over-gut-shot has considerable EV weight; and so I would be MORE likely to bet since the BB is MORE likely to fold when the board pairs tops, then if some randon small card came on the turn.
I believe this outweighs the fact that the KQ's hand value got worse when the board pairs tops. ... risk a bet to win the pot and all ...
- Louie
Err ... let me add that if you would NOT bet any hand worse than trips in this spot (such as QQ) and you are against an observant opponent then you have considerable difficulty representing any hand; and the opponent will correctly be suspicious, often to the point of BRAVADO. If so, check.
=== Routinely betting marginal hands for value in OTHER situations has the condiserable benefit of letting you semi-bluff with impunity like this in THESE situations.===
the idea that when someone bets into a raiser on the flop and has nothing most of the time is ridiculous. all this talk about firing the second barrel etc is out of context with the situation. Granted you have two overcards and the gutshot that gives you ten possible outs, and is a good raising hand on the flop. but no matter what the turn brings, if it doesn't help you, and possibly hurts you , you must stop. This isn't the time for second barrels. You fire second barrels when your opponent is passive, not when they have previously done the betting into you after you have raised pre-flop. That is why in previous posts I have stressed, "knowing why you are raising", because this isn't time to put pressure on the pot...it's free card time.Putting pressure on the pot and firing the second barrel is done when for example,if this player checked and called on the flop. Then I would bet the turn here,.. but since he is being aggressive by betting into you on the flop it's not time to try to out aggressive him on the turn,...unless you have an exceptionally strong read on him. The idea that if you don't bet the turn that when you do have a hand you will be read is also incorrect. You must balance your strategy(you can use randomization), so that you don't always bet your strong hands behind a check. This concept is very important, as it also applies to when you raise pre-flop and miss. Do you always bet when checked to for fear that if you don't you won't get paid of when you hit the flop??? It's the same concept, and you must devise a balanced strategy where by you are checking when you miss both the times you miss and hit the flop, based on the number of players and the board.Most of you don't have a concrete strategy for these very common situations because you haven't been fed one from the books you are reading.I don't mean to scold, but you better go beyond the books and start thinking about situations that commonly come up , and devise strategy that is fairly automatic but flexible enough to change based upon player knowledge. sorry for the long post. seeya
We're just going to have to disagree on this one. This player has NOT shown a lot of strength. All he did was bet once. He just called when raised, then checked on the turn. He could easily have a straight draw, a pocket pair, or some other marginal holding.
I should point out that a lot of players will call the raise on the flop with a marginal holding simply because they are hoping that you are raising for a free card. When you follow through on the turn, they give up and fold.
I took an informal survey of some players that I respect the other night. I asked the question exactly as presented, and EVERY one instantly responded, "You should bet the turn". A couple of them commented that this was an obvious situation for a bet, and were surprised that I had to ask them. Perhaps this is a reflection of the typical opponents we face in this area, and you have a different opinion because of your experience with players in your area.
Dan
Yes, a year or two ago, I also would have said,
“Bet the turn, what’s the problem?"
Now days, I’m not so sure.
What is the best Omaha book? Thank you.
I have just started to read up on Omaha. I suggest that you get Ciaffone's book and Ray Zee's book.
Ditto,Ciaffone's book for Omaha hi only and Zee's book for Omaha hilo. They might be the only good books on Omaha.
The best Omaha book I have read to date is "Omaha Hold'em" by Bob Ciaffone. I don't know of any other good books on Omaha straight High.
Dice
Thank you.
I disliked Capeletti's (sp?) book.
The only really good Omaha book I've seen is by Ciaffone. There are some other books out there, but most of them have errors, or suggest play that is too tight (Capeletti is too tight for my taste).
None of the Omaha books (including Ciaffone's) have a lot of really in-depth information in them. Perhaps this is why there are so few good Omaha players around...
Dan
I was talking to two old time good hold'em players -- they play good in spite of some bad ideas, like streaks, players who "hold over you" etc. I was happy to hear them lecture me about playing omaha split. "Too easy to get drawn out on, too much luck, you flop the stone cold nuts and still lose, etc." Glad to have these ideas out there in the poker room, because, fact is, the loose hi/lo omaha games are the best games in town, as far as ease to play, standard D, and profit.
Ray Zee's HiLo book, along with some experience, gave me all the info I needed to get my share of this great action. Hopefully not to many more players in town get, understand, and use this info.
There are many posts on this Forum seeking advice on how to play in no fold'em games. The advice usually given is that hand values change in such games i.e. small pairs, suited connectors, Axs all go up in value etc. I would agree with all of that.
But there's one error that players make in these games which hasn't been talked about much: It is slowplaying monster hands. Last night, I saw a perfect example. It was truly a no fold 'em 10-20 game. Almost every hand had 7 or 8 way action. A player (who I'd say is a break-even player or a small winner) held AJ when the board on the turn showed Jd,2h,9h,Jc. A lady bet, our hero raised (as he should). However, a 10 hit on the river giving someone who cold-called the raise on the turn the nut straight.
About an hour later, our hero held QJ when the board showed Qd,Qh,9h,Jd. A man to our hero's right bets. There are 5 active players behind our hero. Our hero just calls figuring that he does not want to "chase anyone away by raising". This is an error I see all the time. The board shows several possible draws. In these loose games, players aren't going to lay down a draw for 2 big bets. If they have something (anything?), they will coldcall a raise. If they have nothing, they will not even call a single bet.
Perhaps this was too long a post to make a simple point: Don't slowplay in no fold'em games.
I agree skp, I slow played six hands in 98, the six hands I flopped quads. BTW I would also slowplay a straightflush on the flop but on the turn both hands get both barrels.
There are many posts on this Forum seeking advice on how to play in no fold'em games. The advice usually given is that hand values change in such games i.e. small pairs, suited connectors, Axs all go up in value etc. I would agree with all of that.
But there's one error that players make in these games which hasn't been talked about much: It is slowplaying monster hands. Last night, I saw a perfect example. It was truly a no fold 'em 10-20 game. Almost every hand had 7 or 8 way action. A player (who I'd say is a break-even player or a small winner) held AJ when the board on the turn showed Jd,2h,9h,Jc. A lady bet, our hero raised (as he should). However, a 10 hit on the river giving someone who cold-called the raise on the turn the nut straight.
About an hour later, our hero held QJ when the board showed Qd,Qh,9h,Jd. A man to our hero's right bets. There are 5 active players behind our hero. Our hero just calls figuring that he does not want to "chase anyone away by raising". This is an error I see all the time. The board shows several possible draws. In these loose games, players aren't going to lay down a draw for 2 big bets. If they have something (anything?), they will coldcall a raise. If they have nothing, they will not even call a single bet.
Perhaps this was too long a post to make a simple point: Don't slowplay in no fold'em games.
So in a no fold'em game its just playing fairly tight with generally no deception whatsoever. No bluffing and no slowplaying either. I think you're right, but it does make playing in these games very dull.
I agree that these games are more boring and that slowplaying is virtually always wrong. Deception, however, still plays a big role. You make fewer deliberately deceptive moves, but also need to be thinking about how your straightforward play has deceived your opponents.
One reason for this is that your opponents will occasionally commit their entire stack based on an erroneous read. For example, when you raise after the flop in early position with the a flush and a suited board, a lot of players -- particularly the ones in these games -- will put you on and keep you on two pair or some other hand that needs protecting. Flush draws and straights will occasionally raise you, and more than once. Limping with big pairs in early position with the intention of raising is another favorite move, as is repopping from the blind when a player always raises with crappy cards in late position. Check-raising is also important. When I'm in early position after the flop with a likely best hand (pocket overpairs, sets), I often check with the intention of raising, hoping mostly to raise a late position bettor but raising anyway if an early bettor bets and the whole field calls. Note that none of these moves amount to slowplaying.
I don't get either example..
In the first one our hero correctly raised and got drawn out on, if I understand the post.
In the second example it doesn't seem so clear that calling is wrong with the top full house. AQ or KQ will probably do the raising for you and some weaker draws might fold to two bets with such a scary board I think. If they are all going to call anyway, as you assumed,then raising seems ok although you lose the call-reraise option. I think it depends a lot on the previous action for a final decision.
A more clear no-foldem error like this is to slowplay sets and trips I have observed.
D.
IMO, the player played the first hand correctly and just got drawn out on.
In the second hand, he should have once again raised (given that he was in a no fold'em game). There are so many possible draws that he is bound to get callers. Notice that 2 callers for 2 big bets (a very likely possibility with that type of board) is better than 3 callers for one big bet. Further, a hand such as AQ, KQ, or a made straight may even make it three bets allowing our hero a chance to cap it.
The problems with just calling on the turn include (a) our hero may not get a chance to call-reraise (b) if a brick hits on the river, he gets no action whatsoever and (c) he loses out on some great action if the original bettor on the turn also happened to have a big hand (say, a smaller full house).
If our hero raises on the turn and a draw card gets there on the river, he can probably pull off a checkraise on the river.
I have just completed one week in Vegas! Thank you very much! And I am ahead! I played a short session (2 1/2hrs) of 15 Holdem this morning at the Bellagio. Won $280. Now take my word for it I played poorly but was "card fortunate". The reason for the post is because of a hand I couldn't seem to get away from. It went like this: Short handed game (6)! I'm one from the button! Pass to me. I spy pocket 9's. Raise. Button folds. Small blind, the worssstesss player in the world, next to me that is, calls. Now he had earlier called 3 bets cold in mid position and won the hand with a 6c and 3c in his hand. (6,3 flop) I could go on, but... Needless to say I expected him to call. BB, a solid or at the time I believed a solid player calls. Flop A,A,6 rainbow. SB - Check, BB - Bet. What is my play? (I raised hoping beyond hope to drop the sb). SB - Call. BB - Call. Turn - 8 (suit ?). SB - Check. BB - Bet. What is my play? I (weakly elected to call, folding or raising may have been better, BTW I expected the SB to fold. If I raised I expected to get reraised by the BB). AS fortune wouud have it the SB raises (another thing, he has been raising with noting the whole session). The BB now to my amazement folds! I was ready to send my 9,9 to muck ville expecting the BB to reraise! Now what do I do? I thought for a while and you guessed it I again meekly called (Good size pot by now). River - 9!!! SB - No hesitiation Bet! Me, I raised. SB call! When he turned over the A,6 and said I flopped a full house I thanked whoever for saving me a bet when he didn't reraise. Two questions: Could I have gotten away form this hand? More to the Point: Should I have gotten away from this hand? See you at the table! Vince
No doubt that the BB also noticed that the SB was a live one. Thus, if the BB really had an Ace, he most likely would check the flop, have you bet and have the SB call so that he can raise and catch both of you for two bets. That to me indicates that the BB did not have an Ace when he bet the flop. Besides, given the shorthandedness of the game, a solid player like BB may well have made it 3 bets before the flop with an Ace in his hand. A solid player certainly would with a strong Ace (in a shorthanded game) and he may do it with any Ace.
So, when BB bet the flop, IMO, the correct play was to raise.
Using the same logic, I would have once again raised the BB on the turn with the intentions of checking it down on the river if anything other than a 9 hit.
Up to the turn, I wouldn't have bothered to factor in the SB's actions in my choice of play. Presumably, it would have been a futile exercise to try and put the SB on a hand. However, his raise on the turn obviously should have caused you some concern. Even live ones are not apt to go too far out of line on the turn against two opponents when both of them have shown strength at various stages of the hand. At this point, you have to give him credit for a big hand. The decision on whether to call the raise on the turn is a tough one to make from out here in Cyberland. One would have to be at the table...but you know what, I would have also probably meekly called.
Congratulations on your win in Vegas! Where do you normally play?
Actually, I'm the worst player in the world and I don't appreciate your trying to steal my claim to fame. I would have raised the flop, but would likely have checked and folded after. Even bad players get good hands now and then.
What are the best ways to discover collusion at the table?
Find a good player who is willing to collude with you. Ha! Jusk kidding!
A telltale sign is where the two colluders constantly trap one or more other players in raising wars and then one of them conveniently folds his hand on the River when his partner bets.
But you probably know that already - so, why am I posting this? Probably cause I'm stuck at work waiting for my 6:00 meeting and have nothing else to do.
It strikes me that there must be other subtle forms of cheating that are probably hard to detect. For example, If a player folds a hand containing an Ace or King before the flop and is able to convey that info to his partner, you can imagine how that could greatly assist his partner in playing the hand if the Ace or King turned out to be a critical card in relation to the texture of the flop.
Anyways, I'll try and find something to do for the next 30 minutes and let someone more knowledgable answer your query. BTW, I think there was a similar thread a month or two ago started by Vince Lepore. You may want to check the Archives.
Gentlemen,
This is an intersting topic as I'm sure it goes on. Consider of 5 guys were to sit at a table and simply play, but they pooled thier money. Would'nt they get at least 5/8's of the winning hands on average. Now suppose the were easy on each other and tough on the visiting tourists.
Anyway, just a thought. Someone on the 301 (bus on the Strip) once mentioned to me that the problem with the Mirage was that they wouldn't tolerate groups of friends at a table. By the convesation he was implying the way to win was to collude, so do it somewhere besides the Mirage!
Anyway, even though the author of the books I'm about to give you a link to seems to have recently gone off the deep end and wants to be cult leader of some sort, with this stuff about "Neo-Tech". However some of his earlier works show to just what Machiavellian lengths people will go to to make money at poker. The following link will get you to page with links to "Poker, A gauranteed Income for Life" and "Neo Cheating, the Rising Menace". Both of these books discuss cheating in detail and might interest you. I also looked a bit at the stuff about Neo-Tech. This guy seems to have gone from Poker to some Neitzian concept of God-Man but that's just a preliminary impression on my part. The earlier stuff seems interesting at least and has even given me some ideas that might be useful in defending against corporate gamesmanship. Something I find a little more than detestable.
Well here it is :
http://www.neo-tech.com/precursors/
Large Luck, Frank
I would say if you aren't able to immediately detect collusion you aren't playing a high enough limit to worry about it (or you are in so far over your head that it still doesn't matter).
Randy
I don't agree with this at all. There are many forms of collusion, and some of them are nearly impossible to detect.
Dan
I believe that there is collusion going on in medium to large poker tournaments. For this reason I have stopped playing in them. There are so many players that have pieces of other players that it has to influence their play.
Here's a sure-fire way to avoid the costly loss associated with playing against colluders. Just find out what game Mason is playing and join in. He's never been cheated so it's sure to be safe.
I've seen folks cheat at quarter poker. They probably quit it once they graduate to dollars.
In a recent column I wrote for Poker Digest I explained why games in public cardrooms are honest. Here's the gist of the column.
During the recent BARGE gathering here in Las Vegas, David Sklansky and I gave a one hour question and answer session. One of the questions that we were asked had to do with cheating, and collusion in particular. David gave a detailed answer which is summarized here.
First you need to understand that two people are not that strong. This is because one needs to help the other, and there just aren't enough times when both players will be in the pot together. So for collusion to work you need a team of three or four people.
Second, you can't do anything real obvious. Experienced players will quickly pick up on any hands that are not played normally, or in which something unusual happens. The idea of putting a player in the middle and trapping him for many raises will be quickly identified by other players at the table and cannot last for any reasonable length of time.
Therefore, unless the cheaters are very good players, they will still lose because colluding can only add a small amount to their profits. They would have to trust each other for the rest of their lives to remain silent, and with the exception of the very biggest games it would look "fishy" because they would always be in the same game together. (At the highest limit there is usually only one game spread so it is more natural for the same players to be in it all the time.)Thus they would be forced to constantly play in bad games since they can't all change to the better game, and they would make less money scamming a bad game than they would make on their own with the freedom to move around. And finally, you as a player would normally be avoiding games with them anyway because with so many good players at the same table you would usually be choosing a different game anyway.
Now none of this is proof that collusion is not going on somewhere, but it does imply that if you are an unscrupulous person you are probably making a mistake by joining a partnership. Furthermore, since it would be a mistake to join a partnership (even if you are unscrupulous) you have to assume that other good players wouldn't make that mistake either.
Again, I want to point out that this doesn't apply as much when there is only one game in town because now it doesn't look as funny when the same players are always at the table. Furthermore, a mild scam can never be caught because it virtually never involves putting someone in the middle. If you are an excellent player any extra edge will only add to your profits, but putting someone in the middle is too obvious and an excellent player would understand this and virtually never try it. (End David summary.)
Part of the reason that poker games are honest is that cardroom management has learned that once their room gets a cheating reputation, whether it is deserved or not, it is only a matter of time before their business is doomed. This is one of the reasons that I have recommended to cardrooms not to spread pot limit or no limit games on a regular basis. In a game where someone can and will occasionally lose all their money on the turn of a card it is inevitable that cheating accusations will materialize..
Another reason why cheating is not widespread like some of the claims represent is that the players "police the game." I'm an experienced player, and I'm usually in a game with several other experienced players. If something "funny" was to happen, one of us would quickly pick it up.
I do advise that you remain forever vigilant. When playing poker you should always be paying attention. This is not only good for your game in that it will help you make strategy decisions better, but it is good for everyone's game since it helps to assure that the poker games are well run in every aspect.
The book Gambling for a Living, says the expected win per hour for a very good, selective 10/20 player is 30 per hour. Does this estimate allow for the rake?
Yes.
Gentleman,
I think that this book is a little dangerous. (Gambling for a Living.)
It basically implies that one (and by its tone, anyone) can make an executive salary by gambling. "Just buy this book and do what it says and you'll be on easy street." is how I figure most interpret it.
(I can't say that the literature out there on things like day trading are fundamentally any different. Oh, they're full of disclaimers, but they're written in such a way that you tend to ignore them. See Jake Berstien! The Dave Sklansky of Commodities. He too has written many literate books on his subject that are better than most. In one he actually talks about "The Fuel of Trading" being money. Seems I remember Roy West saying, "The Fuel of Poker is Money". No doubt the trading pits are just big poker games using stock certificates for cards and money. After all its a room full of hand picked MBA's from Ivy League schools trying to "get the best of it (eac other).)
Sad truth is most, including myself (and I've read at least 10-12 top notch Poker Books) are net losers. Trust me, "it ain't that easy". And I think the authors know this. In listing of thier books in various sources this title is often omitted. Also they sell it at the Mirage. Would a casino really sell a book that could possibly contain a real way to take thier money. (Though I guess if they haven't read it they might.)
At least in Poker the swings of the game are such that the idea of hourly average has to be considered over a long period of time. And therein is a problem for someone without an independent means of survival. That is you never really know when you are ahead.
One "old timer" I know claims to have made $47,000 at poker one year and lost it all back.
Even though my experience is limited, I believe gambling for a living is significantly tougher than any book on the subject really states or implies and is probably tougher than most jobs. I started out with a simple goal. To average $100 a week extra playing poker on the side of my "real" job. (In essence, giving myself a small raise in my "recreation" time. Except for the losses, I'd probably play poker for the social aspects alone. However, it's a mighty expensive way to socialize.) After reading materials in the local library and then buying about a dozen books, and reading them all fairly thoroughly, and attempting to apply them I can honestly make a point or two :
1. I'm down on the order of thousands. 2. I never reached my modest goal. 3. There seems to be much misinformation out there. Though I've not wasted a lot of time on it, any books claiming long term mothods that work for Craps, Roulette, etc. are at least mathematically false. 4. Many poker books talk about "marginal hands" etc. and never clearly define which ones they are! I play 7 card stud so that may be part of this observation. I believe "Percentage Poker" makes a stab at clearly defining this for the Hold 'Em player. Seems 7 Card gets the short end of the research stick these days. 5. To be a winner at poker, it seems to me, you'll need to obsess on it. It's going to take as much effort as any executive puts out...and probably more. After all, you have no subordinates to delegate to. But of course the tradeoff is there is no ladder to have to climb.
I guess one could also make that point about some other risk related professions, for example, being a commodities trader. Statistics from Lind Waldock, biggest brokerage firm in the business (commodities) claims 2/3's of the small investors lose thier money to hedgers and large institutional investors. It is also commonly bandied about by various authors that most new floor traders loose all there capital in two years of less.
For most of us that have been stuck working for others all our lives gambling, floor trading, etc. all seem like exciting ways to be your own boss without the agravations of a traditional business.
However, I truly don't believe it's any "easier". Even Doyle Brunson states he went broke on more than one occassion. I say to you, unless you've ever really had to face the possibility of being put on the streets when the money runs out, you don't know what that means. You may read it, but a know for a fact you don't know.
So some advice as one human to another. (As someone who's experimented with these things) Be well padded financially before you start. Of course that's the catch, we all are really looking for a way to turn a small amount of capital into a big amount.
Megabucks and the lotteries are probably the best indicators of the above and how stuck in thier lives the majority feel. (Though they are definitely better off than those who are broke). They say the economy is doing great, but for who? Seems to be a Wall Street phenomenon to me. Those of us who've been squeezed to make it happen (working America) don't seem any better off. Trust me here I know, I've worked for a number of Fortune 500 conglomerates.
Anyway, enough critique of big business, the topic was Poker. Give it your best shot, you won't be happy if you don't. But then you might not be happy if you do. Most authors claim 95% end up net losers. That's some mighty steep odds. Hope you beat them!
Best Wishes, Large Luck, Frank
A lot is discussed on this forum about knowing your oppents, i.e. what they would bet or raise on, how they act in situations. Undoubtedly this is the cornerstone of a winning player. But rarely do I read anything interesting on "tells" (I know they are easily faked and sometimes very unreliable). Caro's book is good but it seems to me to be lacking something more simple. What I ask is what are some of the old reliable tells you all use out there. What about the twiches in the eye, the swallow, the breath holding. What do these mean, and what is the reasoning behind it? I am really interested in what everyone would look for in a face or posture if they were to sit down at table with all first time players who are unaware that their body's are being read like a book. I think this would be great to get a lot of responses to, because we can alwayslearn something new to look for, or maybe correct a spot we might be leaking from. I am a young player and would invaluably appreciate some of the wisdom from the older more experienced generations. Some maxims a grandfather or father would pass down to their sons. Thanks!
I find those kind of tells are not all that reliable. Here are some that are more reliable:
- If a player calls a bet or a raise instantly without having to think about it, consider that he may be on a major draw (flush draw, open ended straight draw).
- In Holdem, if three cards of the same suit are flopped, glance around and look for the players who glance back at their hole cards. These players are probably unsuited, and they are checking to see if one of those card is of that suit.
- In stud, if a player is not called on the river, but he looks at his hole cards again before throwing them away, he may have had a big hand. He looked at his cards again because he had such a pretty looking hand. Most players wouldn't look at their cards again if they were bluffing.
- If a person shows his girlfriend or wife his cards after he bets, he almost certainly has a real hand. Most players don't like to show wives and girlfriends their bluffs, because it makes them look like they are being foolish with their money when they lose.
- In Omaha, if a player looks at his hand again after a card lands that brings a lower straight onto the board than already exists, he never had the big straight to begin with. If the player has been leading the action, he probably has a set or a nut flush draw.
I'll post some more as I think of them, and I invite comments and criticism of these.
Dan
All good points.
On Point #1, the converse of your proposition is not always true. That is, if a person hesitates or takes his time to call a bet or raise, you can't rule out the possibility that he is on a flush or openended straight draw. In fact, my practice is to "hesitate" before I call with a major draw to avoid giving away the very same tell that you talk about in point #1.
Other tells and/or implications of betting patterns:
1. A stud player gets his last card and alternates glances between his hole cards and his exposed cards: Here, the player is probably trying to figure out if he made a straight. You likely don't have to worry about this man having made a flush.
2. In Hold'em, you raise pre-flop from a late position. An early position player bets on the flop and a solid player smooth calls: Here, you have to give consideration to the solid player having flopped a big hand (eg. a set).
3. On the flop, a solid player to your right checkraises you after you have bet and several others have called. If the preflop betting was such that you gave no indication that you would be the likely bettor on the flop, then it is highly likely that the solid player does not yet have a hand but is on a major draw. On the other hand, if the preflop betting was such to indicate that you would be the likely bettor on the flop, then you can't rule out the possibility that he has a big hand.
4. A solid player to your immediate left and with several active players behind him raises you with a flush draw showing: Here, you can rule out the possibility that the solid player is on a flush draw. Serious consideration should be given to a checkraise bluff if the flush card hits on the turn (see my essay "Profitable Bluffs in Hold'em" on the essays portion of this Forum).
5. A late position bettor bets on an Ace or King high flop. If the field is shorthanded, a checkraise from the blinds often works: This is because the late position bettor would likely have raised preflop if he held an Ace against a small field.
I too will add more as I think of them.
No doubt, there are countless other "tells' based on betting patterns.
I rely more on betting patterns rather than physical tells to read my opponent's cards. To be frank, I found Caro's book on tells to be of no help to me whatsoever. I know that most players think it to be some kind of masterpiece. Perhaps I haven't "studied" the book enough.
I agree about the Caro book to some extent, however there are a few tells in there that are reliable and those alone more than paid for the price of the book. The tell regarding a player showing a wife/girlfriend his cards is 100% reliable in my estimation, for instance.
Here's another one off the top of my head - if a 'book' player looks at the pot after someone bets, he may be trying to figure out his pot odds, and has some kind of thin draw. I actually see players stop the action sometimes and start counting... You can see their lips moving.
Dan
skp,
I only have a moment so I thought I would add to one item in your excellent post.
skp said: "2. In Hold'em, you raise pre-flop from a late position. An early position player bets on the flop and a solid player smooth calls: Here, you have to give consideration to the solid player having flopped a big hand (eg. a set)."
I believe the board makes a big difference. With a board such as a Q 7 3 rainbow. The solid player who calls is just screaming he has the middle set (77s) or maybe the bottom set (33s). With a board like Qh Td 9h, a call would more likely mean a drawing hand since a set would raise to make the drawing hands pay.
Just a thought. Regards, Rick
Yes. Good point.
>>To be frank, I found Caro's book on tells to be of no help to me whatsoever<< Hi there skp. Let me say I always read and value your responses. This one no less. Also, I have not read Caro's book. Your review of it just increases my reluctance to do so. I think the most valuable lesson one can take from your response is that "Hand Reading" is much more important than reading tells. If you are aware and alert in a game you will pick up tells in the natural course of events. But if you want to be very good at poker, learn to think along the lines of the 5 points in your post! Opinion by Vince. BTW Bellagio. 15-30 Hold'em (Occaisionally Mirage 20-40 Stud). Answer to a previous Question you asked me. Where do you play? Good luck.
Vince, thanks for the nice words. I should add that I wouldn't want Mr. Caro to lose out on a sale based on my opinion of his book. I believe that Mason and other experts think highly of the book. Obviously, you ought to prefer their opinion.
Actually, I think I'll curl up with Caro's book tonight and "study" it. Hopefully, I'll pick up a few pointers that I hadn't really thought about or used much up to now. As Dan Hanson points out, even if you learn just one tell, it'll likely pay for the cost of the book.
I play in the Government run Casinos in Vancouver, B.C. Approximately 15 hours a week and mostly 10-20 Hold 'em. Occasionally, a 15-30 game is spread. There was a 20-40 game in town but it died after about a year due mostly to the ludicrous rake ($8).
>Also, I have not read Caro's book. Your review of it just >increases my reluctance to do so.
Caro's book is simply the best on the subject.
I don't doubt that! That is not the reason I don't want to read it! A long time ago I read an essay by Mason Malmuth that (and this is not a quote) implied that tells did not add a whole heck of a lot in terms of win rate. I believe that. I have played casino poker for about 5 years now and Hold'em for just a little over a year. Not a long time by any standard. In that time though, I have found that if you are alert and aware during a session you will pick up enough information (aand I don't mean tells) about your opponents to make intelligent decisions when the chips are down. No more is needed or warranted. I am not a fan of the movie "Rounders". I think it poorly portrayed the ethics of Poker Players by only emphasizing the character of a guy like "worm". Back to the subject. In that movie a scene arises where Damon is playing against a "mad russian" and picks up a tell. Throws away a big han in a big pot but avoids losing his family jewels. The "mad russian" gets mad and shows his hand. I suppose throwing a big hand away in No Limit holdem in a big pot because he picked up a tell against a supposedly expert player (I can't believe it would happen) was wonderful for the movies and maybe correct for No limit Hold'em. I don't know I don't play NO Limit. But I can tell you that making plays in Limit Holdem because a guy picks his nose before he bets is a big mistake! Opinion by Vince
You're not goint to make a plus just because of a tell. But tells can make the difference in a close decision. And occasionally you will find a player who's tells are easy to spot and you make a lot of money. Most players in this category are 'actors' who are trying to mislead you with reverse tells. They are usually quite bad at it.
Anyway, I don't think a poker library is complete without the book. It may not raise your win rate by much, but just how much do you have to raise your win rate by to pay for a $20 book over a year's worth of play. If something you got from the book wins you one extra pot that year, you're way ahead.
I apply that same logic to all poker books. The cost of a book is trivial compared to the cost of decisions made in a poker game. Get 'em all, as long as you are analytical enough to separate the nonsense from the quality information.
Dan
I have Caro's Book of Tells. I think it has helped me most by forcing me look at other players and their actions when I'm not involved in pots. I have found that many players give away indications of interest and display repetitive movements that are revealing. In lowball, this has been most rewarding, allowing me to get out of people's way when they have big hands and are waiting to raise. It helps me most when I can smooth call in almost certain knowledge that someone else will raise and I can then reraise when I have a big hand. I know many players who put bets into the pot in ways that signal the strength of their hands almost as clearly as a verbal announcement.
Remember that the whole concept of "tells" was unknown to the vast majority of players prior to Caro's book. Players today, having heard all about tells, forget that someone had to codify and distribute that information before it became so commonplace to look for. The idea of groups of rankings for Hold'Em starting hands seems basic today for the same reasons. Buying poker strategy books has certainly not been a leak in my EV......................
I think you bring up an interesting point. You state "tells in lowball." Years ago I use to play a lot of lowball and high draw. Tells were everywhere. My book WINNING CONCEPTS IN DRAW AND LOWBALL has a large section devoted to this. But I've also written that when I began to play hold 'em it was like someone turned the sound off.
There are many reasons for this, and it would take too long to go into them here. (Some of you may want to speculate on it.) But I believe it has to do with the increased complexity of hold 'em and stud, the fact that you start with very incomplete hands, the multiple betting rounds, the overall structure of the game, as well as other factors.
I read a post by Mike Caro on another forum. The only thing I remember is that he associated the word "Pride" with winning at poker. Someone explain to me where the "pride" comes in by studying the behavior flaws of fellow human beings in order to take advantage of those flaws. Just to win a few "bucks". You might as well rob them! If I see a player with an obvious "tell" or an extreme flaw like picking up their cards to look at them ( a lot of "old folks" do this) I'm the one thart does the "telling". I "tell" them that they may want to consider correcting that flaw! Opinion By Vince. Proud to Play Poker and win, occaisionally!
You (SKP) make some excellent points. But the reality is that you are describing reading hands, not pure tells. And, as both David and I have pointed out, this is the real seperator between the great players and those who only play okay.
4. A solid player to your immediate left and with several active players behind him raises you with a flush draw showing: Here, you can rule out the possibility that the solid player is on a flush draw. Serious consideration should be given to a checkraise bluff if the flush card hits on the turn (see my essay "Profitable Bluffs in hold'em" on the essays portion of this Forum). You can not complletly rule out flash draw. Say flop is Qc7d5d. You have JsJh. You raise before the flop and get 5 callers. You bet flop and player to your immediate left raises. You can not rule out QdXd, AdKd.
Yes, good point...but I wouldn't let that possibility affect my decision very often.
More Tells and implications of betting patterns:
6. A "statuesque" posture is often indicative of a bluff. The player doesn't want to draw any attention to him at all. If he could, he would crawl into a hole after making the bluff!
7. When a player who has been eating his lunch or dinner at the table suddenly puts his grub back on his plate and starts bombarding you with chips, you can be fairly certain that he's got the goods. Most players don't interrupt their meal to pull off a bluff.
8. In Omaha, if a player raises on the turn on a raggedy looking board but one with a possible flush draw and if that player bets when a straight card hits, there is a good chance that he missed his flush. Many players would even check a set in this situation. Of course, the texture of the board has to be taken into consideration before you arrive at this conclusion.
9. In Hold'em, a player who having suffered a bad beat the previous hand makes it 2 bets and says "steam raise" probably has a Group 1 or Group 2 hand.
10. In the game that I play in, there are at least 2 players that I can think of who never ever make it 3 bets with big slick (suited or not) but who always do so with pocket Queens, Kings, or Aces. If there are any such players in your game, you can often outplay them if the flop has an Ace by check-raising them on the flop. This is because with an Ace on the board, they are 4 times more likely to be holding pocket Kings or Queens as opposed to pocket Aces (assuming you don't have an Ace, King or Queen in your hand). Notice that in this situation a Queen or King high flop is a much more dangerous one from your perspective if you happen to hold a hand like pocket Jacks.
The 2+2 authors put less value on tells than some other authors. I agree that you should put energy into reading tells only AFTER you are confident in your solid game and confident that you understand the tendencies of the opponents; these being MUCH more important than tells.
- Tells are icing, not cake.
- Rely on tells in the split second after an event, such as new cards dealt, you have bet/raised, or after they have bet and withdrawn their hand. "Tells" following a pause are unreliable, since the opponent has had time to "plan" his mannerisms.
- Unobtrusively watch the opponents as new cards are dealt or AS you raise since their instant reaction is revelaing but fleeting, and the cards/chips will still be there in a seconds.
- IMO, HANDs give away much more tells than literature suggests. IMO the action of an opponent immediately AFTER she has acted gives away much more tells than literature suggests (where does the opponent put her hands after betting?).
- "Reverse" tells (those trying to fool you) are relatively easy to spot since the fooler will routinely exaggerate them. There are lots of "shark want-to-be's" that routinely offer reverse tells; to their demise.
- You MUST always know whether they know you are watching or not.
- Ignore tells from superior opponents, since they will inconsistently broadcast tells, if any.
- For an unsuspecting opponent: noting a tell with a hand and noting the absence of that tell with a different hand is PLENTY of evidence to correlate that tell with that hand; so long as you continue to monitor and are willing to adjust.
- Use tells to decide MARGINAL situations; rarely change OBVIOUS decisions based on tells.
- Rather than broadcasting "reverse" tells in self defense, practive betting/checking etc. in the same neutral manner.
- Louie
> "Tells" following a pause are unreliable, since the opponent has had time to "plan" his mannerisms.
If you detect your opponent to be "acting", then try and figure out what the purpose of the act would be and do the opposite. I've found this to be one of the best of all tells among players "who think they're smart".
One common act by players "who think they're smart" involves tossing chips into the pot with a splash when they have a hand and hope you'll call suspecting a bluff, and the opposite - placing their chips in carefully and quietly - when they know their hand is vulnerable. Obverve the actors doing both betting styles within a reletively short time and you likely have a reliable tell. Related to this is the smart guy who tries to induce a call by behaving in ways reccognized as "bluff-tell", e.g. staring at you in a challenging way, or the "bluff-tell" opposite - sitting motionless, looking at the widow, and holding his breath. That one of your opponents is acting is a great tell.
Reading tells against typical opponents, regardless of limit, are very important. Caro was exactly right when he said, and I paraphrase, "you must decide if your opponent's body language is genuine or acting and in the latter case do the opposite and disappoint him."
Presenting reverse tells are important, but must be done in a very subtle way in order to be effective. There are very few players who are fully immune to reverse tells.
And, of course, using logic or what some have referred to as "betting patterns" to deduce your opponent's hand is mandatory.
This thread has easily saved me tons of money. I can spot many of the tells described in the thread, but the real value for me is realizing the tells I'm giving away. When I first started playing poker, the very first tell I picked up is breath holding, the person is bluffing, it is also the first tell that I corrected in my own game. Also in seven card stud after my opponent receives his last card the look of disgust on his face is very easy read. You can tell in an instance if there acting or not. I normally play in the small stud games, and part of the fun for me is picking up these tells Danny H
What would you say the best procedure and requirements would be to make the move from 5-10 hold'em and stud to the 10-20 limits?
Do I really need to be consistently crushing the 5-10 games to move up?
You may want to look at my book POKER ESSAYS, VOLUME II where an essay titled "Moving Up" appears. It addresses this very subject.
Didn't Louizee Jefferson move on up to that great poker palace in the sky this year?
I'd say to just take a Shot at the Higher Limit game. You don't have to stay there if you find that its too tough.
CV
The secret to successfully playing at higher stakes is to have an adequate bankroll. Far and away the biggest reason most people fail at higher limits is because they were not properly financed in the first place. A bad week or two along with whatever expenses you incur is the the quickest way to ruin when you are undercapitalized. If you have enough money you can give it enough time to be able to take adversity in stride.
Don't "move up"; "Ease Up" instead. Play 10/20 once in a while when the game is good but 5/10 otherwise. As you win your frequency will increase, and then you will "be" a 10/20 player who occasionally plays 5/10.
If you have to ask, you probably shouldn't move up!
I have been playing planet poker recently and am virtually positive that collusion occurs. It would be very easy for two people to talk on the phone while they are in the same game together and disclose each others whole cards. How much does this cost a player who is not colluding? Does this take away whatever edge you might have had to the point where it is no longer a profitable game?
It seems to me that two players working together to trap a player in the middle isnt really worth the effort, given the fact that you have to figure out how to split those profits/losses considering each persons abilities, etc. It doesnt seem like it is really worth it to the colluder if he logically considers the affect on the game:
1. if a game is known to be full of colluders, won't it eventually disappear?
2. if you continually try to trap people in the middle by raising, won't you eventually get beat yourself and loose double what you would have playing it straight?
3. good players will probably give a colluder credit for at least being a good player , even if he cant tell he is colluding, therefore, when a good player does tangle with the colluder it should be with a pretty strong hand.
Is it safe to say that the better players are somewhat protected from colluders by their ability to play well?
I would be especially interested in knowing if mason or david have mathmatically considered the affects of collusion on a game. Hope my rambling makes some sense, thanks for your responses
Trace, If they are talking on the phone you cannot win if they can play at all. In a real game you still cant win if three or more are together and you dont know it. If you know who is working together you may beable to win and if they know you know you can get an edge because they must give you many pots or you may expose them. Good players colluding will not raise back and forth to squeeze anyone ever. They will play the best hand and only play together when one has a hand and another a draw or when one bets to bring the field to the other. If they have good but similar hands one in front will go out so partner in back can play. Such more careful play will get the money without detection. If you must gamble on the telephone without any way of being in control of your destiny I would like to flip coins with you over the phone and lay you 2 to 1 odds on every flip for any amount. Good Luck.
I have no proof that people are colluding in the planet poker game. I just have to believe that it occurs. So you are saying that even if all the colluders are doing is telling each other their hole cards then the game is unbeatable?
What if all ten people at the table are colluding including yourself with some one else. (IE... there are 5 pairs of colluders) How does this affect ones overall edge?
I guess you havent played in planet poker and dont intend to?
I believe he said that you can't beat the COLLUDERS if both know their partners hand, neither is brain dead, and they are willing to use this information. You may be able to beat the other fish enough to overcome the colluders advantage over you.
5 pairs of colluders, of course, will give advantage to the pair that colludes the best and adjusts for other colluding the best.
- Louie
Do feel the only way to detect this type of collusion is by observation over a long period of time? What I am asking is that let's say I join in on a game in which I don't know any of the players, what can I do to protect myself from this type of team play?
Nothing. If the colluders are blatant and are constantly centering you and then folding when you fold, I suppose you could try bringing it to the attention of the management. If they are smart, it's going to be really hard to see or defend against.
I seem to recall one of the owners of planet poker posting a message in rec.gambling.poker saying that they were being extremely vigilant for this sort of thing, but even if you can see everyone's cards and watch the game from a sys console it's going to be tough to see the more subtle forms of collusion. After all, how do you know that the guy who folded his ten-high flush draw did it because he knows that someone else has a queen high flush draw, or because he's just a tight player?
Over a long period of time, you could start to notice patterns like this, but it's certainly hard to prove, and the random nature of the game is going to exhibit all sorts of 'patterns' that are meaningless. If they start harassing their customers every time a spurious pattern emerges, they are going to not only lose customers, but increase the perception that a lot of cheating is going on.
Online poker is simply a bad idea, in my opinion.
Dan
I had this discussion with Randy at Planet Poker just before they began *real money* games. He insisted that he could monitor or review the action and would be able to spot collusion. I believe that even if you could spot such cheating it would be next to impossible to prove or penalize. There are just too many easy ways to cheat in the virtual environment. Since I also have extensive computer programming experience with games and simulations, I know for example, it would also be fairly simple to include ways to have a *dealing algorithm* give me a big pocket pair when I enter certain keystroke combinations at any remote computer.
All one partner has to do is signal if he/she has an ace or king in their hand, and they'll have an overwhelming advantage. I'm by nature a very paranoid person, and I play in a casino where there are several couples some of whom I have developed a poker room friendship with but whenever I play in a game where both are playing I leave. Its not that I don't trust them (although I'm convinced that two couples that sporadically play at the casino do collude), but it seems to affect my play. Sklansky once said there are only two reasons to leave a poker game; personal or it gets too tough. I'll throw in a third; uncomfortable.
I have to believe that if there is enough money available, there are pros in the game colluding. Being able to show each other your hand is such a huge advantage that you have no shot in the game if it's happening.
Much of your profit in poker comes from fundamental theorem errors that the other players make. For example, two players may be on the same flush draw. One of them is putting completely dead money into the pot. Or, you may have top pair, and two players are drawing to second pair and bottom pair, but both have the same overcard as a kicker. The guy drawing to bottom pair has two outs instead of of the five he thought he had, and is making an error if the pot isn't laying him odds to draw to two outs.
In almost every multiway pot these types of errors are occurring. If the other players in the pot are colluding, they'll never make those errors. However, you'll still be making them. This means that every pot you win will be smaller than it otherwise would be, but the pots *they win will be normal size.
It is so trivially easy to cheat in that game, and carries such a huge advantage, that I would assume that it's happening now or soon will be. I'd never go near an online poker game with real money.
Dan
Forgive me; I didn't realize this was on-line poker.
You are "playing" in an un-regulated un-liscenced "game" with no enforceable rules, they control the decks and your money, and you probably have no legal recourse to get "your" money back. You give them your money and they tell you how much you get back.
If I were unscrupulous and wanted to create a risk free swindle, what would I do? I would go off-shore and set up a "casino" and go out of my way to keep the credit card companies happy. If I were unethical and wanted a risk free cheat, what would I do? I would play in an on-line poker game from 2-3 computers on my desk. If I had set up an on-line "casino" I suspect the temptation or the mafia would convince me to swindle.
Yes, MAYBE they are not swindling you and MAYBE there are no players that have figured out how to cheat it via collusion or otherwise. MAYBE is not good enough; not by a long shot.
On-Line gambling is -EV. Gotta be.
- Louie
I don't play on line poker. If I did I would have two phone lines (maybe more) installed in my home and open two accounts (maybe more) on "planet poker" and play two hands (maybe more) in the same game. I don't think this falls within the definition of collusion but ... enough said. BTW Ray Zee had the best response to this question, I humbly, echo his comments. Vince
Dear Trace,
Collusion is one of my favourite subjects. I have been thrown out of my local casino three times now for my noise on this subject, so I consider myself to be firmly in the proverbial hot kitchen and qualified to talk on the subject.
>I have been playing planet poker recently and am virtually >positive that collusion occurs.
Of course collusion occurs here. Frankly it is very trustworthy for anyone to play with real money over the internet in a game like poker where the game and the medium are perfect examples of cheatable situations. It is insane to play here - unless you are colluding yourself, you're just throwing money away.
>How much does this cost a player who is not colluding?
It depends how it happens. I reckon that if three out of 10 players at a holdem game were colluding, they would get such huge overlays on their bets that the game would be completely unwinnable, and rapidly destructive of your bankroll. Some people do it incorrectly, though, and then you win. Mel Judah told me of the time he was 3-handed in a big tournament against two people who most people knew to be colluding. He cracked them by getting 2 to 1 on every bet.
>It seems to me that two players working together to trap a player in the middle isnt really worth the effort, given the fact that you have to figure out how to split those profits/losses considering each persons abilities, etc.
Colluders don't usually work in such a professional manner. It is worth the effort to collude, though.
>It doesnt seem like it is really worth it to the colluder
Of course it is. They win in the long run.
1. if a game is known to be full of colluders, won't it eventually disappear?
No. It depends if there are is competition for them to move to instead. Planetpoker is the only real Internet poker available, so they have no motivation to get rid of collusion.
Here, before the casino opened, there were card clubs where collusion was blatant and par for the course. The gamblers knew they were getting duped, but they knew no other way to play. These clubs thrived on a 5% uncapped rake and open collusion between management and players, and between players. The nearest legal cardroom was 500 miles away - that's not an exaggeration.
And at that cardroom, in Adelaide, Australia, the poker room manager was colluding with several pro. players to destroy newcomers. (Before the s*** hit the fan, a well documented government investigation that almost destroyed Australian poker as we know it.).
Until the government woke up and stopped the bastard, the players had no choice. If they did suspect something, they didn't know what to do about it. In Las Vegas or SoCal, where you have world-class facilities competing with each other, the games should be clean. Stick with them. That's where the value is.
2. if you continually try to trap people in the middle by raising, won't you eventually get beat yourself and loose double what you would have playing it straight?
If two people do the reraise sandwich correctly, they will be getting tremendous overlays on their bets. Though, you need to play very differently to how you would play if your bankrolls weren't combined - you need to think of you and your friend as the one player sitting in two positions. If you jam the pot with a nut flush draw with just you, yourself and your friend, you'll take the worst of it - it's no longer 2 to 1 on a 1.86 to 1 shot, it's 1 to 2 on a 1.86 to 1 shot, which is way the worst of it. You're putting twice as much money in as before. If you're colluding, all strategy changes. You really need to think of the one player (the one bankroll) playing two hands simultaneously. Often you cannot play garbage for the second hand - both hands need to have outs, then their EV increases geometrically.
Have you ever had something like this? You're playing omaha. In first position, you flop top set with 3 spades on board. The guy in middle position and you now cap the betting on the flop. Every player between you two is now taking the worst of it. Both of you are taking much the best of it - but you're happy to have him take the best of it in return for him building up the pot. Only a good player will jam the pot like that for you, and on those occasions you're thankful that he's in there. That's the kind of situation where collusion becomes overwhelmingly powerful.
Colluding is about much more than just sandwiching - there are all kinds of techniques which don't exist when each man plays his own game. Colluders are best seated next to each other, so that they are both first and last to speak every betting round.
- Is it safe to say that the better players are somewhat protected from colluders by their ability to play well?
Certainly. But if they're taking the best of it, then you're...
- I would be especially interested in knowing if mason or david have mathmatically considered the affects of collusion on a game.
I have. Also, there are numerous books from way before I was born explaining how to cheat. The poker literature before about 1960 was exclusively concerned with cheating as your primary method of winning. Collusion was not properly developed until we started to understand Morton's Theorem, and it still remains a largely unpublished area (thankfully). If colluders do it right, it changes everything. It changes your strategy and your ev with every bet. Stay right out of it, and for God's sake, don't play planet poker.
Richard.
The game is a small 6-handed no-limit hold'em game with generally solid players. The blinds are $5/$2 and I have about $400 in front of me and am one position to the right of the button with 45 of hearts. Both players to my right limp, and I decide to play the hand and put in a raise, making it $25 to go. (I have to mix it up in this game to make any money short-handed since I have a pretty tight image, and there was a decent chance to pick up the $17 pot since both limpers would play bighands aggressively and the blind are relatively tight.)
Putting aside the merits of this play, I get cold-called by the button, who is a VERY tight player with only about $175 in chips left after his call. The BB (loose player with larger stack than me) also calls, and the others fold. The flop is a beauty for my hand- Ah-3h-6s, giving me an open-ended straight draw and small flush draw. How do you proceed?
I decide to make a pot-size bet of $80, figuring that the tight player on the button will move all-in if he has a big ace (which I don't mind given my 15 outs and his short stack), or fold if he doesn't. I figure the loosey missed this flop completely since it doesn't offer any typical draws except my flush.
The tight button COLD CALLS AGAIN and the BB folds. The trun is the 4 of diamonds. Now how do you proceed and what hand do you put tight player on? (I would thinking he's got a set and puts me on a big ace, but thi is not the type of guy to playy 55 or 44 in a raised pot).
I decide to check since I know that he is committed to the pot, and on the off-chance he is on a bigger flush draw, I may get to show down a winner with my pair of fours or hit a nut straight for free. Alas, he bets his last $95 into the $250 pot. At this point, a call seems automatic to me since I have near pot odds against any made hand and can currently beat a likely drawing hand. Agree? I'll post the results of this match-up later if there is any interest.
With the caveat that I have never played no limit, I offer the following:
A call on the turn if your opponent bets seems automatic. Thus, I would have probably bet the turn instead of checking. Given your opponent's short stack, you can't be raised. A bet obviously has the added advantage of your opponent possibly folding.
Your hand is not strong enough for you to want to keep your opponent in or to induce a bluff from your opponent on the turn.
If your opponent is on a heart draw, he has only 13 outs (i.e. 7 hearts and the 6 cards that will give him a higher pair). I'd want to get the money in on the turn because if the heart hits, you will be calling him on the river anyways (assuming he checks behind you on the turn).
Unfortunately, you got out of position with a big draw. You would've been much better off checking the flop, with the intention of check-raising all-in if someone made a move (a drawing hand with that many outs is better off getting all the money in on the flop). While most of the time, a bet on the turn is a mistake, here, you have an opponent who is nearly all-in, so it's clear you will have to follow through, and the sooner the better. Seeing that your opponent also has to call with any reasonable hand or draw because he is pot-stuck, there's no merit in assuming that he would fold to a bet. Although you may already be drawing dead (he may be full), I see no equity in either checking or betting all-in on the turn -- this is one of the problems being out of position with a draw in no-limit.
"The game is a small 6-handed no-limit hold'em game with generally solid players. The blinds are $5/$2 and I have about $400 in front of me and am one position to the right of the button with 45 of hearts. Both players to my right limp, and I decide to play the hand and put in a raise, making it $25 to go. (I have to mix it up in this game to make any money short-handed since I have a pretty tight image, and there was a decent chance to pick up the $17 pot since both limpers would play bighands aggressively and the blind are relatively tight.)"
Still, I think I would avoid raising with that hand even if the limpers were fairly tight. You might not get everyone out, you don't want to be heads-up or three-way with that hand; you want a crowd so that there will be a good chance that someone will give you action those few times when you make your hand. There will be other chances to steal, and you have a playable hand in good position.
"Putting aside the merits of this play, I get cold-called by the button, who is a VERY tight player with only about $175 in chips left after his call. The BB (loose player with larger stack than me) also calls, and the others fold. The flop is a beauty for my hand- Ah-3h-6s, giving me an open-ended straight draw and small flush draw. How do you proceed?"
"I decide to make a pot-size bet of $80, figuring that the tight player on the button will move all-in if he has a big ace (which I don't mind given my 15 outs and his short stack), or fold if he doesn't. I figure the loosey missed this flop completely since it doesn't offer any typical draws except my flush."
With your preflop raise, he probably has you on AK or AQ from your bet on the flop, unless he has one of those himself. The only other hands that would play at this point would be a higher heart connector (unlikely from a good player), or a set (unlikely and nothing you can do and you still have outs).
"The tight button COLD CALLS AGAIN and the BB folds. The trun is the 4 of diamonds. Now how do you proceed and what hand do you put tight player on? (I would thinking he's got a set and puts me on a big ace, but thi is not the type of guy to playy 55 or 44 in a raised pot)."
55 and 44 are good hands to play in raised pots, provided that the implied odds are there. If you hit your set, the raiser would be likely to play his hand strongly. Expert players would be more likely to have pocket pairs, and very unlikely to have AJo here. With his stack only $200, calling $25 with 55 or 44 is iffy, and depends on how tight the play on the flop is in your game.
"I decide to check since I know that he is committed to the pot, and on the off-chance he is on a bigger flush draw, I may get to show down a winner with my pair of fours or hit a nut straight for free."
Let's look at the possibilities. AK might check and call if he thinks you would bet a weaker ace all the way, but this is not probable given your table image. There really aren't many possibilities on that flop, and even if he puts you on a bluff, it would be too dangerous to play KK or QQ this far. If he has 33 or 66, he wants all the money in, and can count on top pair to keep firing. With only $95 left to bet, you have enough outs over AK or AQ to call on the turn. With AK or AQ he probably would have reraised all-in on the flop though. If he has the set, a check might be better, since he will either bet anyway, or check behind you trying to trap you on the river. In the latter case, you might escape the hand if you miss your draw. There is nothing he is going to release here for his last $95 that he wouldn't have released on the flop. Even if he has the set, all of your straight and flush outs are good, but he is still the favorite. So why put the money in yourself?
"Alas, he bets his last $95 into the $250 pot. At this point, a call seems automatic to me since I have near pot odds against any made hand and can currently beat a likely drawing hand. Agree? I'll post the results of this match-up later if there is any interest."
The call was correct, as was the check on the turn. Two things I might have played differently were the preflop raise and the amount of the bet on the flop. If the BB tends to bet out strong hands, and the button probably would call with top pair, why not bet the whole $175 right then? With a strong draw, you might as well get him all-in on the flop and see two cards. The problem with leaving money left for the turn is that he can escape if the flush hits, and get all-in as a favorite if it doesn't. If you bet all-in, he also might release something like AdJd, which is to your advantage since you are only a slight favorite then.
M7,
Since you bet on the flop and got called you can narrow down his hands to aa,ak,kq of hearts,66 as all these hands a very tight player will still call on the button most times. You can eliminate some of these by knowing your player, as some if not all of the hands most people would raise with. The one least likely for him to raise with is the kq hearts. You must bet on 4th street as the only hand he wont bet after you check is the kq which you can beat and as you say you must call for the pot odds. The bet on the flop is correct if you feel there is a chance you can win it right there. If you check and they all check then a bet on 4th street is in order no matter what comes. Good Luck.
I think hitting the 4 on the turn makes the difference between checking and betting. You can now beat something like KQh, so you should bet.
My thinking is this: If he has a hand that has you beat, the money is going in anyway, and you have to call. The only way he might check behind you is if he is also on a draw, in which case you're ahead and missed a chance to get his last $95 if a blank lands on the river.
Dan
Yes, the call is automatic as you have as many as 20 outs and an extremely thin possibility of holding the best hand. Except for the preflop raise, which isn't too bad under the circumstances, I don't see any flaw in the way you played the hand.
Boy am I glad you guys don't play in my game! If your on-the-money analysis can be done in the heat of battle, I would have no chance. My opponent had pocket Aces and had flopped top set. I was about 90% sure that this was hand when he smooth-called my flop bet. As Dan pointed out, this solid-tpye player would not call my $25 raise with a small pocket pair since he only stood to win an additional $175 if the stars lined up on the flop.
RZ's logic about betting the turn since the only hand he will check behind me is a KQ flush draw (which I can beat) is dead-on. However, my read on this player led me to rule that out his holding that dog with 99.97% Ivory Soap certainty. I knew the money was going in anyway and chose to check-call instead of firing again for future "advertising" value. I play with the same core players regularly and this was a good opportunity to put guys on notice that my checking the turn after showing strength early is NOT a license to steal.
Epilogue- In this game it is common to make "deals" if two players get all their chips in before the river. I asked him if he wanted to consider doing business and he said "I'll do anything you want; I have a monster hand." When we turned our hands over his elation waned when he saw how vulnerable his "monster" (and stack) were. He must have figured I was drawing dead with AK or an under-set. We decided to turn three separate river cards and I won one-third of the pot with a heart on the first turn and no help on the last two. I guess justice was served since I got my equity back.
My rationale for doing business here was that I figured his getting beat out of this pot would cause him to quit and the game might break. And I still had my sights set on the weaker player's considerable stack.
I have been playing 1-5 and 2-10 Stud at the Showboat in East Chicago. If a pair is showing on 4th street, the betting doubles. I play with a session bankroll of $100 in the 1-5 game, and $200 in the 2-10 game. Is this enough to protect myself from normal swings?
You can routinely get one bet in a round, there are 5 rounds per hand, $5(10) per round, or $25(50) per hand. So with $100(200) you can play 4 losing hands. That's a little low for a full 8 hours, IMO. But its OK for a couple hours after work.
Assuming you are a long term winner (even if small) and respect your bankroll: the real point is how much can you lose before it is a psycological "disaster"? No matter how high that figure is, set your "session bankroll" less than that.
If you are not a long term winner or disrespect your bankroll, add "or fiscal disaster" to the above paragraph; and buy and read some more 2+2 books.
- Louie
The 10% $5 rake there is tough to beat, eh?
IMO, a 10% rake to $5.00 in a 1-5 stud game is almost impossible to beat. Almost every pot is raked to a maximum 10%.
I had an interesting experience a couple of months ago - a local casino was shutting down their last stud game, but they still had a bad beat jackpot (about $3500), and the government wouldn't let them close the stud game without playing off the jackpot. So, they had a special day for the regulars in which the requirements for the bad beat dropped every hour until it was won.
On that day, I played in a 1-5 stud game with the same rake (10% to $5.00). We played for seven hours, without a single player leaving the table. At the end of seven hours, one player was up about $100, one was up $50 (me), and the other six players were all stuck, in amounts ranging from $50 to $300.
Guess why the casino was shutting down their last stud game? After the government raised the rake from $3.00 to $5.00, almost every stud game in the city vanished within a matter of months. Greedy management that doesn't understand poker killed their own games.
You may want to look at "Comparing the Rake" which appears on our essay page.
>>Is this enough to protect myself from normal swings? << Most authors recommend a minimum session bankroll. In structured games between 100 to 500 times the minimum bet are the numbers I have seen. Good numbers to "start" with. In spread limit games such as you play I would "start" with 100 to 500 times the maximum bet. You must keep track of your chip level during play. Your goal is to establish your session "Standard Deviation". This will allow you to set your session requirements. Always "try" to start with a bankroll that will allow you to be comfortable throughout the session. Experience is the best teacher. Hope this helps. Vince
I was hoping one of you would jump into this thread we've been having with your opinion. There seems to be some fundamental disagreement about this play.
Here's the setup:
You’re first to act in middle position with AcKc.
You raise, and only BB ( a totally average player ) calls.
Flop: Q T 4 rainbow with no clubs
He bets. You raise. He calls.
Turn: another Q
He checks.
What would you do? Your input would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Dan
Dan,
Its probably close as to whether you have the best hand or not with the ak. It may not matter if you bet or not. With most of the hands he may have he will call unless he knows you to be a non bluffer. If he is a bluffer I would check and call him on the river. If he is a non bluffer I would be inclined to bet hoping he may fold a pair and then check on the river. Against some players the fact that he bet on the flop means you should be done with the hand. Good Luck.
Thanks Ray. I think the one consensus we came to was that your read on the player is the overriding factor in this situation. I guess the difficulty comes from our conceptiojn of the 'typical' player.
Dan
dan, I'll respond since I am the one putting the most pressure on the opposite side. All of my disagreement has been qualified with the statement,"unless you have a strong read on this player". This situation makes it difficult. My other disagreement is with the second barrel concept, as I have posted below. if the other player has shown aggression, then firing a second barrell doesn't make sense to me. You want to use it when the other players are passive.In all these threads you can bring it down to what type of player you are up against. The problem is, in the games I play in so calif., players faces change often, and it takes a little time before you can accurately label them and then there is an argument agaisnt doing that.So I try to look at these questions as if i know really nothing about this player. so if someone stands a raise pre-flop and comes out firing, in general I am going to give them credit for having something(until they show me otherwise).In my opinion your thinking about this situation is excellent, so lets agree to disagree somemore down the road. It's good to look at both sides of a situation. seeya
Sure. Obviously, talking about the 'correct' way to play a heads-up situation in the forum is somewhat suspicious because these things depend mostly on factors that are hard to quantify. If were to start to list the things that could change my decision here, it would be a pretty long list (my image, the other player's image, whether he's stuck, etc. etc.).
For the record, I like to play overcards in *many different ways, to keep people from putting me on a hand. For instance, I'll often just call a bet on the flop here, and wait for the turn card. If it's a scary card for the other player (an overcard that's not one of mine) I can often win the pot with a bet. If it's a scary card for me, or my opponent shows strength, I can dump the hand without having to pay even an extra small bet on the flop as I would with a free-card raise.
Once in a while, I might even raise the turn with two overcards against a particularly tricky player, if I think he has very little.
Dan
Al, I don't want to sound like a broken record but...I maintain that if you intend on calling on the river after a brick hits, it is better to bet the turn for the reasons that Dan and I have already offered.
It was an interesting thread and we probably have to agree to disagree.
ps If i didn't improve and was bet into on the river, I'm gone. Like I said in earlier posts. I have to give someone credit for some type of hand if they call a raise, and then bet into the raiser. A typical player checks to the raiser. seeya
I think average players in middle to high stakes games are fairly good players. I put him on a pair of tens with a good kicker; if he had more he would probably have reraised on the flop. I would not spend any more money here but take the river card for free. Besides your going to have better opportunities down the line.
I was thinking we were done, but I can keep going.if you need the last word, just let me know and I'll let you have it........maybe. Just kidding. I think that one of your guys's worries here is that if you check the turn you are going to get taken out with a bet on the river. This probably won't happen as it's reasonable for the other player to put you on an overpair etc. and still check, since it's reasonable for you to not want to walk into a trap even though you have a hand. I'll bet that if you did have an over pair, that you would check the turn knowing you could call the river. but my bigger concern with this thread is that you guys have kind of decided on an automatic strategy, so to speak when this is not clear cut. You have valid arguments, but it is not automatic by any means. When I see threads develop that seem to be lop sided towards one way of thinking when it is clearly not a cut and dry situation, then I will post sharply in the other direction in hopes of making you realize that there is something more important to think about. It's not that I don't believe what I'm posting on this thread, I do, but it's more important that you realize there are very few automatic strategies in this game. Also, when i said to agree to disagree, I meant on future threads. it is excellent to hear two sides. It forces you to think . keep your minds open guys.Let's move on to the next one.
To continue the "What to do" thread by Malmuth below: == Stud: Ace limped, Hero raised with TT2, two 9's called, Ace re-raised... Solution: ReRaise ==
If you had KK2 would you be less afraid of losing with your prospective two-pair to one of the 9's (who may make Qs-Up); and if so would you flat CALL the presumed AA re-raise?
Re-Raise? Assuming the Ace will 4-bet it now and bet it all the way to 6th, it costs you 3-bets now, 1 on 4th, 2 on 5th/6th or 8 bets to try to run AA down. I count slightely more than 6 bets in now (counting antes and rake), the AA will put in 7 more; so it appears you are getting 13+:8 or call it 1.7:1 pay-off for what you say is a 2:1 dog hand; assuming you succeed in dropping the other 2 players.
Adjustments in you favore include superior play later especially on the river, the A may not have AA, your hand is live, and the AA may get scared and check. Adjustments against you are the 9's may not fold, its a disaster when the AA makes consealed As-Up, you have no additional value, the A may have additional value like a suited Jack or a third Ace, and the Aces hand is probably live as well.
Even if the A is 50:50 to have a face-card flush draw, a re-raise still only looks marginally profitable.
Please convince me a ReRaise is better than a Fold.
- Louie
"Please convince me a ReRaise is better than a Fold."
Why? You're mind is already made up. If you want to fold fine. That's your style. Go with it.
Because people who assume they can figure everything out don't learn anything. Because people who assume that a conclusion they come to is correct don't learn much. Because people who assume their reality is the only "true" reality become aware of very little. Because first impressions or "instincts" are not routinely correct; at least for most people. Because my "style" would be to reraise, but it APPEARS now not to be the better play. Because getting "better" means REASONING better, not just mindlessly accepting conclusions. Because reconciling differences in evaluation is an excellent learning tool.
- Louie
Is this software worth of buying? If it is, what are the minimum system requirements? I know that Wilson software is better (more realistic, i guess), but i can't afford it. I'm a beginner and looking for a training software. I know that any software can't beat the real action, but at least i can practice calculating odds with it. Thank you for your responses.
If you must buy software, save your money and buy Wilson's. WSOP Adventure is extremely slow (there's no way to adjust the speed), doesn't keep good records, can't program players and can't run simulations. (The NL part can be fun at first, but it's too easy -- and slow). As for system requirements, I think that any computer made in the last 5 years (e.g., an old 486) can handle it.
If you could play two hands in a game of holdem, how much would this increase your edge or take away from other peoples edge at the table?
I use HPFAP as the bible for advanced Hold'em play. I bought and read Lou Krieger's book. I didn't find anything useful in it that supplements Sklansky et. al in HPFAP. Nor have I heard of any book that updates the information in HPFAP. But HPFAP was written years ago, years before I started playing casino poker. It was written years before a lot of the posters on this forum began playing poker. Some of us have studied it and developed our games using the information found in that book. I am fairly confident that there are those working on Their next great Holdem book (in their own opinion) so I am sure more books will be written. My question is not when but what should be in that book? What does an above average poker player need to know, now, since so many have had access to and studied Hold'em books especially HPFAP. I don't think a revision of HPFAP will be enough. I for one think that the names and photographs (hopefully not mug shots) of all you rascals that use this forum should be included. Also, a section on poker ethics should be included. I have a number of ideas as I'm sure most of you have. If we post them here maybe our illustious hosts will take them into consideration when THEY write The next great book on Hold'em. Vince
First, you don't mention THEORY OF POKER by Sklansky. You should be reading and studying that text. Second, approximately the middle of this year, we will be releasing additional material on hold 'em. That is all that I will say for now.
I studied the THEORY OF POKER when I first began playing poker and agree that I need to reread it. It is, I believe, the foremost primer on Poker theory. When I first began I played Stud exclusively. I must have had a foolish mental block when I was thinking of Hold'em books and didn't associate TOP and HPFAP. Your response was a thankful reminder. BTW I lost my copy of TOP (could also account for my lapse of memory) and have been meaning to go to the Vegas Gamblers store to pick another one up. Anyway, I don't know which came first TOP or HPFAP. But they both have been in print for a long time. I again agree, TOP is a required reread but it does not provide anything new. It does not identify changes (if any) to material in HPFAP. I am not claiming a new book is necessary. Correct use of HPFAP will make a winner of all but the most awkward of users. Also, for the record, Poker Essays Volumes I and II (Malmuth), IMO , are required read and reread material for stud and holdem players. I thank you for your reminding me of the need to review basics. I respect your decision not too discuss your future works. Vince
"I again agree, TOP is required reread but it does not provide anything new. It does not identify changes (if any) to material in HPFAP"
Are you sure you've read TOP before? Its not game specific.
Personally, I don't know that we require another textbook on Hold'em.
What I do hope for is (say) Poker Essays Volume 3. Now, as useful as the other volumes were, in Volume 3 I personally would like to see a lot more practical advice dealing directly with playing strategy rather than discussion on aspects peripheral to the game (i.e. rakes, bankroll requirements, expected earnings etc.).
I think that reading hands and understanding betting patterns are two of the most important skills in hold'em. I would hope for a book that devotes a lot of pages to those particular aspects of the game.
Heck, I would even like the book if it contained nothing more than 2 or 3 dozen problems along the lines of "How would you play this hand" with a clear, detailed analysis for each problem. Since I began participating in this Forum, I have probably learned more from those types of threads than any other.
In any event, I eagerly await 2+2's next offering.
>>Heck, I would even like the book if it contained nothing more than 2 or 3 dozen problems along the lines of "How would you play this hand" with a clear, detailed analysis for each problem. << Hey that is what this forum is for and I think it does it very well. I prefer debateable analysis. I don't think there are many if any poker hands that can be analyzed in such detail that a single conclusion of correct play can be obtained. But I agree about Essays, I certainly would buy an ESSAY Volume III. vince
I hope that the next "great" hold-em book will be on big-bet poker, giving it as much detailed attention that limit has been given. While Bob Ciaffone and TJ Cloutier have given new material to augment Doyle Brunson's section in Super/System, the poker world awaits a definitive up-to-date text, encompassing not only theory, but specific hand examples (e.g., "where did so-and-so go wrong?") from not only ring games, but from the last 10 years of the World Series.
Well, we sure know where Bonetti, Vincent, Stanley, Carter, McBride and Ciaffone went wrong, don't we? :)
You guys are all ignoring my sone to be published classic "Braindead Holdem". Actually a Q&A book based on situational play would be welcomed.
One of the Indian casinos where I live just recently opened their poker room (again). They are having pot limit and no limit tournaments. I have not played pot limit in my entire life. I have read a lot about it and observed a few ring games. I am planning to play in a pot limit tournament in a week to get some exposure and feel for the game. Are there any books or articles I should read to help better prepare myself. All helpful advice welcomed.
Thanks,
Dice
Over the Past 2 and a half years, I have taken 6 trips to Vegas and played 20-40 hold 'em at the Mirage. While I'm proud to say that I have posted wins on each of those trips, I am enough of a realist to understand that it wasn't solely due to good play, lady luck was clearly on my side on each of my visits. It seemed to me (at least on my last two trips where I was there Monday through Friday) that almost every player was super aggressive. I mean, I rarely ever saw any calling, the only actions players knew were folding and raising. For example, players would routinely three bet before the flop with a medium pocket pair in order to try and get heads-up with the two-bettor. Once there was a preflop raise ( which without exaggeration was about 98% of the time), the preflop raiser would always bet the flop at which point he either won the pot unchallenged or was immediately raised. Everybody played this way. I mean, it seemed like I was playing against 9 robots all programmed to act the same way. Of course, soon enough, I joined the team of robots.
Nevertheless, I hear Card Player columnists such as Roy Cooke constantly saying "I was in a very loose 20-40 game last night", "I raised and I got called by a clueless tourist" etc.
So, what's the real story? Can these Vegas games be good (often enough) for out-of-towners like myself to continue to come to Vegas rather than go to California (I have also played in the Commerce 15-30 game and that game was decidedly easier to beat than the Mirage game).
I have also heard people say that the 10-20 game at the Mirage is tougher than the 20-40. I find that hard to believe.
Finally, where and when are the best 20-40 games in Vegas.
I am going to be taking a trip to either California or Vegas later this month so I'd appreciate any responses.
(Mason, please accept my apologies for not putting this on the exchange forum).
I forgot to add a comment in my original post: I felt that I might as well throw HPFAP out the window in the Vegas games. Looking back on my Vegas trips, I probably relied more on playing experience, instincts, and my 6th sense to tackle situations rather than any "book knowledge" (I am quick to say that I couldn't possibly overstate the value of HPFAP, the Theory of Poker etc. to me in the regular games that I play in locally).
You are describing games that I have only rarely seen. On the other hand, there is no question that the typical Las Vegas game is more aggressive than the games are in other locations.
If you want to play $20-$40 hold 'em you will have to go to The Mirage. They are the only place in town that currently offers that limit.
Mason, skp, David Sklansky et al.,
I have to agree with skp on the value of the poker literature out there. I've read 10 to 12 of the top titles and applied as much discipline as anyone could muster and an still a net loss player.
At one point I gave all the books away in complete and total frustration. (They were : The Theory of Poker, 7 Card Stud for Advanced Players, The 42 Lessons, Super System, Caro's Book of Tells, Caro's Winning Poker, Play Poker - Quit Work Sleep - Till Noon, Caro's 11 Steps to 7 Card Success, Caro's Professional 7 Card Stud Report Version 2, Caro's Guide to the Super System, 7 Card Stud - The Waiting Game, The Psycology of Poker Simplified, Playing Winning Poker, and others ....)
Obviously I chose 7 card stud.
What is the real story?
How does one really survive at this stuff?
Is it like one author claims? The majority of pros are cheating?
One of the popular authors mentions that game theory could provide a method that would always work, however you could make more by "adjusting".
I speculate that if a computer can be programmed to consistently win against human opponents (As it is claimed ORAC currently can) and assumming the computer os not using abilities people don't have (such as accessing a 300 GB database of stats or caclulating every possible outcome before making a move like Deep Blue) then there must be a algorithm people can use consisitently to win
Wilson's software in a way embodies this. The program is the algorithm and the tables it has represent decisions that have been made in advance as to how to handle situations.
So how about it poker authors, what is the winning strategy in clear concise, actionable english?
You guys claim to have done it. Having made the investments in your materials, I'd like the real answers.
MM often mentions in his writings that you need experience to win, but, still, he underplays it a bit.
When I think back on some of the plays I made four years ago vs today, it's really comical.
You've got to know what to expect when you bet or raise vs three or four different types of opponents.
When they don't act like you expect, WAKE UP, and do something differently than you're doing now.
Really, there's not much more to it than that.
"You guys claim to have done it. Having made the investments in your materials, I'd like the real answers."
"20 years of schoolin and they put you on the day shift."
Frank,
You are obviously someone who follows instructions very well and that is how you have survived. Try a different approach use your brain. Think about the stratagies and how others would apply them. Then take advantage of the others misconceptions. Anyone with some commmon sense, logic and some intelligence can make money playing poker. Maybe not as much as others like M&S. If you look at poker like an intelligence contest in a way you need to be more intelligent in reguards to cards than the majority of your competion. That is one of the most important reasons. Take Mason and Sklansky for example it is not hard to figure out that these two are more intelligent than most if not all of there competion. Are you see a corralation.
Just something to consider.
Brad,
That's an interesting thought. It's clear Mason and Dave have given a lot of thought to the game. As matter of fact so have I. I sat down one day and said "OK, lets write down what I think my stategy is, starting hand by starting hand, based on what I've read and seen". I ended up with at least 20 pages of material. So I don't think it's a matter of lack of thought.
My critique of many of the books, especially Dave's work is it's lack of concise reasons. A lot of "things to consider" as Dave says on the cover of "The Theory of Poker". I cannot fault the work of these authors in terms of its depth or literacy. It just needs to be boiled down to what works.
Otherwise one wastes years and dollars trying to figure out the answer to something like, "Many times in stud it is correct to chase" (Sklansky - advanced 7 card stud) how about an enumeration of exactly when that is?
Not to say Roy West is a better player or theorist, but a rule like his "Rule of 2" for when to start with a 3 straight is an example of an actionble "rule".
Also, when it comes to card reading, Roy gave some good point like, "A person cannot have a full house on 6th street without showing a pair". That is a useful piece of knowledge in the practical sense.
Actually a dual format would be good. Direct actionable advise or rules, then the theoretical and mathematical points which make that advise correct and applicable.
Even the definition of "dead cards" seems somewhat unclear obviously "totally dead" is unambiguous. However some others seem to be indicating dead is 1 of your pair cards out on the board, others it seems to mean both.
I just don't believe that the winning players are mentally going over hundreds of pages of text before making each decision. I speculate there are things they watch for and act accordingly. That basically amounts to an algorithm and set of decisions tables. It ought to be able to be boiled down to something like basic strategy for blackjack, with of course the caveats about human opponents vrs. playing against a fixed house stategy.
Another aside is that I believe something is being held back is because many players I met who claim to be anywhere from 15,000 to 26,000+ a year ahead (on small limit no less) claim to have taken "lessons" from a particular local pro.
Bottom line is that it seems none of these books is what it claims to be, a silver bullet to winning. At best they seem to be jumping off points. Problem is I've found one can be jumping off a cliff!
P.S. Just as a point of conversation, many dealers have who've seen Caro, Slansky, and Malmuth play claim they are not big winners. Anyone know how true that is? Even one local pro who claims to know Mike and is a ghost writer of some stuff on poker psycology claims Mike is about a $3 an hour player. Since I heard these things in a poker room they obviously might be false. I have no way of knowing but maybe someone out there in poker land knows. :-)
P.P.S. Can anyone deny the predatory nature of Poker? Or at least it's most vaunted authors? Almost every author points out that the "best" games involve finding "weak" players. I've heard it said that it is well known that some of the info in SuperSystem's Hold'em sections is intentionally false!
Yours, In search of the truth, Frank :-)
Check out FoolProof by Richard Allen (800-203-7042). From what I've heard it attempts to "chartize" HE play.
Personally I think you are pushing big rocks up hill. Poker is a non-stationary game. At all but the lowest limits I gotta believe your opponents are going to take advantage of your "chart" play to your detriment.
Mike,
Believe it or not I do tend to agree with you.
I once became very good a beating a Checkers playing computer. It could, in fact, beat everyone else who tried it.
Yet, some of those people could beat me!
Why?
I'm a systems analyst, I was good at discerning the computer's program from its actions. Therefore I would make plays that the typical human player would't think of against the computer.
For example, I found that moving a piece back and forth on the same two squares enough times made the computer change its actions. Often in an exploitable way. However that probably wouldn't be of any value against a human player, they'd probably just get upset at you! (Which could be a tactic I suppose!)
But then checkers and chess are complete information games (exept that you can't read the other players mind! They say as one progresses in chess one goes from thinking 1 move ahead to several, and one begins to play in "chunks" of stategy. I suppose poker can be like that too.)
I am aware of attempt to chartize Hold Em. (E.G. Percentage Poker) Since I've not played it I cannot comment directly. However poker writers seem to be indicating that Hold Em as compared to stud does have a set of strategies which win and that everyone who wins eventually is using them. I read that in Card Player or Poker Digest I believe.
My basis for claiming there is a methodology to winning is a mathematical one. Which is that if you make plays with postive expectations only, in the long run you must profit. (Just as the casino must profit from negative expectations games).
Every poker author seems to put this forth. The problem is coming up with an effective method of determining exactly which plays are positive expected value on a consistent basis. (Of course that changes with every card dealt.)
I suppose one method would be to be well versed in card odds and continually be trying to calculate the pot odds. However, one quickly gets into implied odds etc. there.
The variablity of human players is another stumbling block. However given a reasomble simulations, monte carlo analysis should be able to come up with a workable solution.
As an aside, I believe it was either Caro or Sklansky (can't remember which, I've read so much of thier stuff lately) that stated that there IS, by game theory, an optimal stategy that will yeild a positive expectation but you would earn more by adjusting.
Unfortunately, that author did not present that stategy. I felt that was cheap. Mention it then don't present it!
So really I guess I'd like the authors to present of checklist of points to watch for and attendant decisions to make that is at least sensible and then the related caveats.
To some extent you could say that exist because it seems the high level stategy presented by most writers is something like :
1.Large trips - Slowplay 2. Small Trips - Play faster 3. Premium Pairs - Play hard and fast, raise out others to protect 4. Speculative Hands (Drawing hands) - Play cheap, try to keep callers in to get pot odds. 5. If your made hand looks good but is vulnerable raise for protection. 6. If you have the nuts, slowplay 7. Fold when you think you're beat or the pot odds don't justify contining.
However point 7 is a killer. You often need to be a good card reader to accomplish this. However, solid card reading tips are hard to come by. In reading 10 to 12 books on the subject the list of them I can remember is very short :
1. Hands requiring dead cards can't be made. 2. A person cannot have a full house on 6th street without showing a pair. 3. A person cannot have 4 of a kind on 6th street without showing a pair. 4. A person cannot have a flush on 6th without showing 3. 5. A person cannot have a straight on 6th without showing 3.
and a few others, some which are extrapolations of these.
Obviously a quick mind with a good card memory is a asset. At least in stud.
I have a feeling that's one reason Hold Em is popular. The card memory thing isn't there. However, reading of tells and being able to calculate multiple possible hands against you probably are magnified neccessities.
What would be nice is if one of these authors would state directly the method and rules of both the decisions made and all known card reading "tips" in one place.
Then go on to explain and justify them one at a time.
After all isn't that what we want out of book on "Winning Poker". The way to win...as opposed to "things to consider".
>>I am aware of attempt to chartize Hold Em. (E.G. Percentage Poker) Since I've not played it I cannot comment directly. However poker writers seem to be indicating that Hold Em as compared to stud does have a set of strategies which win and that everyone who wins eventually is using them. I read that in Card Player or Poker Digest I believe.<<
Play of the first two cards in hold'em is relatively simple. It gets quite complex after the flop. But you really need to understand the underlying logic behind what you're doing with various kinds of starting hands. And while that part of the game is comparatively straight forward, it actually contains much more subtlety and room for expert play than most players realize.
>>...solid card reading tips are hard to come by.<<
The sections on this in the 2+2 books give a good intro. To a large extent it's a logical process of correlating a player's actions and what you know about the player with possible hands while you think back (deconstructing) and forth throught the hand.
>>I have a feeling that's one reason Hold Em is popular. The card memory thing isn't there. However, reading of tells and being able to calculate multiple possible hands against you probably are magnified neccessities.<<
I agree that not needing to track cards is a major plus contributing to hold'em's popularity. In fact, it's the main thing (besides the popularity of hold'em) that makes me prefer hold'em to stud. I see keeping track of cards as menial labor. I'd rather be freed up to read players and think about more interesting aspects of strategy.
John Feeney
"I agree that not needing to track cards is a major plus contributing to hold'em's popularity. In fact, it's the main thing (besides the popularity of hold'em) that makes me prefer hold'em to stud. I see keeping track of cards as menial labor. I'd rather be freed up to read players and think about more interesting aspects of strategy."
You are probably right, but you may also be wrong. I have yet to play any hold 'em this year and it is because of tracking cards. Actually, it's not tracking cards per se, but actually evaluating hands based on the cards that are out for not only yourself but for your opponents. In many ways this makes stud more interesting and fun to play.
>>...evaluating hands based on the cards that are out for not only yourself but for your opponents. In many ways this makes stud more interesting and fun to play.<<
Well, yes, I suppose I was overstating it or coming at it from the wrong angle entirely to call it "menial labor". Since stud is almost nonexistent in my immediate area, I definitely haven't played enough to appreciate all that goes into evaluating the implications of the cards that are out. Actually, if I had the chance to play a lot of stud, I have no doubt it would be my other "main game". If I ever do get that chance, I hope that part of the game will become enjoyable for me.
John Feeney
Frank, the most important thing is to make sure you are playing in games where you see other players either playing too many starting hands and chasing the pot etc. As long as there are 2 -4 players whom you know you play better than, everytime you play, you should at least break even. I know a player who plays 10-20 5 days a week, and he is very average but he makes very few major mistakes and never tilts. He has been playing for just under 4 years and he is making 30 an hour. Now , he probably is running alittle better than others, but I think it is his simple yet solid game, and intestinal fortitude that makes him a winner. You are not going to find all the answers in the books.You have validated that.After the basicis, it becomes a game of people more and more. Only experience and staying power will get you there. You might also want to try your hand at tourneys.gd lk
Al,
Thanks for agreeing it's not in the books. Your comments here are very worthwile.
It seems difficult to determine what at good or solid strategy really is.
I really thought that's what I was doing.
Guess not. Figuring where the difference is, is the hard part.
Any suggestions there would be appreciated.
Thanks, Frank
Frank,
You raise so many questions in your various posts in this thread that I can't possibly address them all. But as they are questions that I think a lot of ambitious, learning players struggle with I'll try to respond to a few of them here and in response to your other posts.
You write:
>>Another aside is that I believe something is being held back is because many players I met who claim to be anywhere from 15,000 to 26,000+ a year ahead (on small limit no less) claim to have taken "lessons" from a particular local pro.<<
I think there are few complex skills that can be adequately learned just from books. Some personal instruction is usually necessary as well. Serious study of the poker books (and additional analysis and thinking on your own) can, however, take you surprisingly far. That may be because so many players don't read them at all.
>>... many dealers have who've seen Caro, Slansky, and Malmuth play claim they are not big winners. Anyone know how true that is? Even one local pro who claims to know Mike and is a ghost writer of some stuff on poker psycology claims Mike is about a $3 an hour player. Since I heard these things in a poker room they obviously might be false. I have no way of knowing but maybe someone out there in poker land knows. :-)<<
You hear all sorts of things around the poker world. You hear that this or that author doesn't win much. You hear that someone thinks highly of the play of a player you're *sure* can't win. You hear that one of your opponents thinks you're the best player in town while another thinks you're just a rock. But, in time, you realize that few players really know how anyone else is doing. (You also hear outright lies.) Moreover, you realize that bad (and average, and even most better than average) players can't really recognize expert play when they see it. Otherwise, they'd be able to do it themselves. So unless you're *sure* of the knowledge/ability of the source from whom you hear something, you usually can't make much of it.
John Feeney
John,
Suprisingly enough the story about Caro being a $3 an hour player comes from a teaching pro many of the $20,000 + a year positive players swear by! :-)
But you're right. It is hard to evaluate these things. After all Las Vegas is what it is!
I find this pretty hard to believe. Although I disagree with a lot of what Caro says in his Card Player articles, there is no question that he is a pretty intelligent guy. Now, you tell me how an intelligent guy with lots of poker experience and know-how can only be making $3 an hour. I'm sorry...but I don't buy it.
skp,
I honestly don't know. I'm repeating what one of his alleged ghostwriters for Book of Tells has to say about it.
Like you, I'm trying to discern the truth from the bull.
I threw it out as a "heresay for discussion" kind of comment.
Sort of like, "Well what do you think?"
A lot of Caro's stuff makes sense to me. But I've been told by supposed acqaitances of some of the poker writers that some of the theoreticians don't do so well in practise.
However, I really do not know.
I find it almost as hard to believe we all put so much effort into something so basically silly as a card game! Think about the man hours and brain power we and the various poker authors have put into this!
>>I'm repeating what one of his alleged ghostwriters for Book of Tells has to say about it.<<
Well, I have no first hand knowledge of this, but my bluff detector just started beeping. If someone is claiming to be a ghost writer for Mike Caro, I think you should be very skeptical. After all, Caro's been writing steadily for years. Why would he need a ghost writer, even back when that book was published? Also, from what he's said, he plays mostly at pretty high limits - say, 60-120 and higher, often in short-handed games. Where would an hourly rate estimate of $3 per hour ever come from when talking about games like that? I mean "big loser", "$150/hour winner", okay - but $3/hour winner????
John Feeney
I see Mike sitting in the 40-80 hldm off and on at Hollywood park. I don't know how he does and don't care. His business is teaching and writing, not playing poker for a living.I believe at this point he plays purely for enjoyment, as all of you should. The same can be said for S&M. it doesn't make them frauds. They are not guaranteeing you will win. But you can learn alot about playing these games so you don't give your money away, but get used to the idea of having many losing nights. Put it in perspective. I know S&M and many others would disagree, but , much of the problem lies in how many hands we play. If you play for 30 years 40 hours a week you might see a total of 2,246,000 hands. if you play a third of that time you might see 748,800. I believe that this is barely enough to get into the long run of a winning strategy at these games. S&M contend that roughly 1 year of full time play can get you there,if you are an expert, or a measly 17,280 hands. I just don't see it, but I'm not a mathemetician. There are many things that imo are a waste of time like standard deviation and the like, but it's interesting and fun to learn. This doesn't mean I don't have fun playing these games,.. just the opposite. But I try to put it in to perspective. You can learn to be a great player and if you choose your games well EVERY TIME, hopefully you will come out ahead. To put it into further perspective go look into the commodoties market and look at all the hype and systems that are touted in that arena. There are some winners there also, but again, most of the players lose. Love the game, but don't expect much.
Al,
I don't really care what Mike earns playing either, beyond its value as an indicator of his playing philosophy's effectiveness.
As for playing for fun, I don't recall any of the major poker authors pushing thier works as that. They all seem to be designed for the "aspiring pro".
I agree with your thoughts on the number of hands played. Statistics divides the world into two parts. Small Samples and Large Samples. With greater than 30 trials being large samples. Arguably, large samples produce better inferences about the population. So 30 * 2.5 million would be a minimum Large Sample group for this game if the strategy you employed was exactly the same on all runs.
I'd guess computers could make this kind of test possible if you could program the other players realistically enough. Or if some argument could be made that a "break even no matter what" strategy exists.
Yes, I also agree that the commodities writers are in the same boat, as is commodities trading. In one post I drew some parallels to Jake Bernstein's work...at least prior to his Infomercial debut. :-)
Thanks for your considerate input. You have some of the most intelligent points I've read.
Thanks, Frank
John,
I guess +$3.00 an hour beats any lesser figure. Given the swing of the game, I'd have to agree, that's a lot of risk for that return!
I see some possible explanations :
This person is making his story up.
He really is who he says but was being cynical and I missed the joke.
Don't really know. Someday I'll ask Caro if I ever get over to California.
Thanks, Frank
First, forget all the garbage - Mike Caro, "the waiting game", "Psychology of Poker simplified". Anyone listening to Caro will quickly go broke.
The worthwhile poker books are those from Sklansky, Malmuth and Zee, and those should be followed closely until you understand how your particular situation differs.
"Obviously I chose 7 card stud."
You may want to start with holdem; it's easier and you don't have to remember the cards.
"What is the real story? How does one really survive at this stuff?"
Keep in mind that a winning player at most levels only earns one big-bet per hour. All it takes is a few extra calls to turn a winning session into a major loss. Your game can be solid overall, but with fatal flaws that keep you from the money.
"Is it like one author claims? The majority of pros are cheating?"
That isn't true at all. What sets the professionals apart is their skill at reading hands and escaping situations. They are also more likely to be aggressive in the right spots, while many mediocre players are not.
"One of the popular authors mentions that game theory could provide a method that would always work, however you could make more by "adjusting"."
Game theory is not too useful in poker, except as a general concept. Against experts you want to design your play so that you are unpredictable. I frequently see players who you can count on to do a given thing (steal when you check the flop, etc.), and you just wait to trap them. Holdem or stud is far too complicated to "solve" like Tic-Tac-Toe, and even if the solution involved limping with AA 30% of the time against nine computer opponents with a preset optimal strategy, in any real life game there are too many other factors, and you would play the hand according to your opponents and the situation.
"I speculate that if a computer can be programmed to consistently win against human opponents (As it is claimed ORAC currently can) and assumming the computer os not using abilities people don't have (such as accessing a 300 GB database of stats or caclulating every possible outcome before making a move like Deep Blue) then there must be a algorithm people can use consisitently to win Wilson's software in a way embodies this. The program is the algorithm and the tables it has represent decisions that have been made in advance as to how to handle situations."
Even the best programs aren't very good and are far too predictable. The potential exists for there to be better ones, but poker is not a game like chess where there are a fixed set of outcomes from a given move and you just have to scan the entire sequence to figure out what to do. A bet on the flop can mean so many different things that you can't just simulate 1000000 hands from that point on to figure out what to do.
"So how about it poker authors, what is the winning strategy in clear concise, actionable english?"
For starters, buy new copies of "Theory of Poker" and 7CSFAP. Read them cover to cover, and then figure out where you are losing the money - on fourth street, chasing when you shouldn't, losing to hands you should have knocked out earlier, etc. Focus on that aspect of your game. It might help to step down in limit for a while, and see if you can beat a lower level.
Also keep in mind that not all of the plays in 7CSFAP are ideal for all games. In a low-ante game, or in a game with several players who call too much, aggressive play will backfire. Below 15-30, stud is a very different game.
"You guys claim to have done it. Having made the investments in your materials, I'd like the real answers."
Even top players have losing periods. I recommend you keep careful records of your play - so you can see which games are the best for you and whether your apparent losses are just a temporary downswing.
Centurion,
Sounds like good advice. But what of mathematical concepts like expected value?
Isn't the essence of long term winning really the isolation of plays with a positive expectation and executing them repeatedly?
If we accept that, then the problem really boils down to which plays are positive and how to recognize them.
Clearly, card odds, pot odds etc figure into that. It would seem to be problem of boiling it down to a recallable amount of information that can really be used at the table.
From your comments I believe you're a Hold'em fan. I have'nt tried it yet. My cursory thoughts on it were that since there's less infomation on board about a given opponent that it would actually be a tougher came for a new player. With Stud I can at least assign some cards to a particular player.
I do have to agree that it is not like chess. The biggest difference in my mind is not that it can't be effective treated in a mathematical sense but simply the fact that you can't see all the cards so you have incomplete information.
In my mind that can account for a lot situations where you get a hand "cracked". For example we've probably all had the experience of being beaten by an an unanticipated set of rolled up 3's or whatever your favorite bad beat story is. :-)
Anyway, as to Theory of Poker and Advanced 7 Card Stud. They seem to raise as many questions as they answer. Dave's writting style seems remenicent (to me) of his college days. It's somewhat professorial with a peppering of borderline scatology like "suckers". Mason's style where he has a boldfaced point and then supporting ideas is a little easier to read and apply. This is not to fault Dave. After all the book is called "The THEORY of Poker" not "The PRACTICE of Poker". Perhaps in my reading of it I missed something but it always seems to lack a way of resolving a a question. It simply says, "These are things to consider".
Having been to Law School at one point (though I did not finish a JD, life got on the way) I can definitely say that many academics (for example law school staffs) are happy to cede practical matters to others and only discuss theory. Sometimes proudly so.
I do have to agree that Caro's stuff is difficult to apply. But then his claim to fame, Tells, is somewhat inexact anyway. He does seem to have a lot of followers though. But then again many claim as you do that his methods are the route to the poor house. But then he has made a career of it. He's obviously in there with the original SuperSystem folks and has been at it a long time.
In any event thanks for your thoughts. I will consider your advise. I'm sure there are things I've missed in all that material.
Thanks again, Frank
Hey this is a great post. One comment though. I am beginning to wonder if 7CSFAP is applicable to 15-30 anymore. My experience is that at the 15 level there are now more third street callers (multi-way pots) than ever before. It appears to me that this begs an adjusted or unique strategy which may include more check raising! Any opinion? Vince
Sorry, I reread your post! I still like it but have another comment! Hold'em is far from easier than stud! IMO Hold'em is more dificult than stud. I believe many more mistakes are made by hold'em players during the course of a hand than Stud players! That's why I switched to Hold'em after playing Stud successfully for 4 years. Opinion by Vince
Centurion,
I was rereading your post and in it you said basically to closely follow Malmuth, Sklansky and Zee's information.
That's the problem it vacilates from theoretical to very specific examples causing one to walk away from it saying, "Just what should I do anyway?"
It is not material that can be followed closely.
As the cover of "Theory" points out "[These are things] to consider".
I met one semi pro who carried Advanced 7 Card in bag marked 7-11 to the tables with him. After a game he showed me the book, saying it was his secret to making $25 an hour at $5-10 stud (even though he was down for that evening. Apparently he didn't want anywone to suspect he was carrying it aroung with him. When he opened it up he had highlighted numerous passages and had literally tons of notes in the margins.
Obviously he had to study it very, very hard to get anything worthwhile out of it.
He went on to say you have to approach it like a religion!
Well, I have to say, yes the bible is also very tough to get clear messages from. Though many will claim they are in there. (Please note I'm not trying to start a big argument about the bible. But it can be obscure at times.)
As far as I know Dave and Mason are highly educated people and should be able to boil thier points down to a practical level WITH attendent detailed explanations.
But then even the detail is missing at some points.
I've sat down to calculate drawing odds and the like for various hands and the first thing that confronts one is that the number of remaining players affect the calculations.
Yet many authors list odds with no comment about how many players are left standing at each street.
The last piece of that sort of analysis I did for some acqauintances and myself I included a table indicating how many players there were at each street.
Occasionally Caro will justify by saying "With 6 players" etc. If your read between the lines some times you can find it.
Thanks again. Frank
>>I've sat down to calculate drawing odds and the like for various hands and the first thing that confronts one is that the number of remaining players affect the calculations.<<
I think what you're referring to here is addressed by "implied odds".
Frank,
If you are talking about or explaining something that you are very familiar with one simplifies things. There are many issues and items that are taken for granted. This is where your claims could be valid. If you do not have the intelligence or the experience to fill in the gaps the books would be useless to you. These books are not going to give you all the answers. This is not by accident. As for your comments on the bible we are not referring to here say that was not documented for 1000's of years. Try an experiment tell a friend a story and have him repeat it to others. Then one week later get the refurbished story from the last person to here the story and let me know the result.
Just some things to consider.
Frank:
I believe that you are suffering from a major misconception. It is that you think poker can be made easy. If that was the case, everyone would be doing it correctly and no one would have an edge.
We point out in our books that poker isn't this way. For instance, in the introduction to HPFAP we state: "In any case, becoming an expert hold'em player, even with the help of this book, will not be easy. It will require not only a great deal of study, but also a great deal of thinking, plus many hours of playing time at the hold'em tables."
It seems to me that you are complaining about exactly what we state to be true. That is if you want to become a good poker player it takes time and effort. But we believe that this is an effort worth making. Poker can be a highly rewarding game in many ways. So study hard, get your experience, and good luck.
Mason,
I have to admit, I've not read HPFAP. I settled in 7 Card Stud in the belief that I'd have a hard time calculating an opponents holdings with out the additional information of him/her having board cards.
As far as complaining, well maybe. But it seems that almost all literature involving money. Not just yours but the entire financial press, as well as most all lifestyle literature seems to paint pictures of success and then throw a few disclaimers in.
Having read probably thousands of titles in lifetime and made attempts at applying many of them I've come to the conclusion that most books out there are as much marketing phenomenons that really accomplish little more than lining the promoter's pockets.
Attempts at applying your stuff has cost me literally thousounds. In that respect your literature as been some of the most costly I've ever owned.
No doubt you can blame me. You can say, "We warned you", or "Maybe you didn't study it hard enough" etc. but it would seem from my experience that it's all just another crock.
I mean come on Mason, what does a title like "Gambling For A living, Earn 100,000 a year". imply. I still can't believe you guys let that title go to press after reading your other works. Everytime I see that one I say to myself, "They must have been trying the Info-mercial approach when they picked that title."
This is not to say I don't respect your abilities. Oddly enough I do. Writing anything of value is a bear of a task, be it a program like Wilson's or books like Poker Essays or Theory of Poker.
I feel that this world has become little more than one ploy to make money after another. And since your company IS a BUSINESS, parading as learned Poker Scholars (or poker royalty as one writer calls it), this is a well placed critique.
In essence I feel like I've been the sucker at the economic table and the purchases of your books are one more bet I've foolisly called. That is to put it in poker vernacular.
Why not put an honest disclaimer in there and repeat it often like, "Statistically, you are likely to lose a lot of money playing this game and may never become postive." Or "It is POSSIBLE to make 100,000 a year gambling, but highly improbable."
Well, you and I both know that message won't sell.
Frank,
After one year of Playing I can say that I'm better than Break Even. Of course I don't get to play every day. I live in Idaho right now.
Now I have studied the 2+2 books and others almost every day since I've been interested in the Game, I have also taken a Couple lessons from Sklansky. I really enjoy playing Poker, but I now see that Poker is much harder to become good at than it first appears. Half a year ago I thought I knew it all, and played the 6-12 Hold'em game in Vegas. I came back with my tail between my legs. I didn't know half of what I needed to know. In fact it took a Lesson from David to set me in the right direction.
Your right, making 100,000.00 a year form Poker isn't very probable. When you think about it anyone making over 100,000.00 a year doing anything isn't very probable either, but I bet that if you spent 4 years studying the Game, and if this Forum starts giving you A's and B's on your thinking you can achive a good living form Poker. How about Day Trading?
CV
Actually, I don't doubt for a minute that one can make 100k a year playing poker. Heck, I know a 10-20 player in town who has averaged 70k per year (Approx. 2000 hours of play per year). This fellow is an excellent player and would play higher limits if they were available locally. Obviously, if he had the opportunity to play 20-40 or 40-80 and remain comparatively excellent in those ganmes, he would easily surpass the 100k mark.
skp,
Yes but he's got to be an exception. Otherwise, as CV points out, we'd all quit our jobs and play poker. I met a player who made 47,000 one year, lost it all back the next... So go figure.
I don't doubt it's done, but to tell someone to get into poker to specifically make that kind of money is a little irresponsible, don't you think?
Oh, there's no doubt that 100k is not possible for everyone. The game of Poker has to have losers (obviously).
I don't think the authors claim that anyone who reads their books can go on to expect an income of 100k per year. I think the authors merely say that making 100k per year is a reachable goal for an intelligent individual if he/she studies the game, gets lots of playing experience etc. That statement, I don't take issue with for a moment.
I personally began playing Hold 'em on a semi-regular basis (i.e. 15 hours a week) in February 1996. I don't want to seem like I'm Kowtowing to the 2+2 authors, but I can tell you that reading their books has added a lot of extra income to my bank account. In fact, in the games that I play in, the winning players are invariably students of the game; they feed off those who try to play without any help from books, this forum etc.
The book in question doesn't suggest just poker, but other forms of gambling as well. The professional gambler they describe would not only play poker, but would also bet sports, watch for profitable casino promotions, etc.
To make 100K a year this way would require a sizeable bankroll. For instance, they suggest blackjack as one of the ways to make an income. To make 100K a year playing blackjack with a small risk of ruin would require a bankroll on the order of several hundred thousand dollars. A blackjack player making $100/hr would typically have a standard deviation of perhaps $3000/hr.
They also suggest playing progessive video poker machines and such, although from what I've heard even the pros that focus on these machines don't make much more than $10/hr or so at it.
To make 100K a year playing poker would require regular play at 20-40 limits, and it can simply be tough to find a game like that on a regular basis, especially if you are looking only for soft games.
So... 100K a year is probably a bit of an exaggeration for the average person. However, it certainly is within the realm of possibility.
Dan
skp,
Well, feed is probably the correct choice of word. :-) I don't deny Dave and Mason's stuff to be good food for thought.
However, It hasn't helped me as much as a much less touted author, that being Roy West.
I think highly of Dave and Mason's stuff despite my critiques. I just find that it's not the excaliber it is marketed as.
Theory of Poker, if nothing else, clearly defines many of the elements of the game. However, myself, and someone I gave a copy to, agree that 7 Card for Advance Players is not as useful as we had expected.
In Dave and Mason's defence I will say I found one semi-pro who caries a copy with him right into the casino, wrapped in a 7-11 bag so no one knows what he's carrying! He swears it's how he earns $25 hr. average at 5-10.
Thanks, Frank
CV,
You're right nothing's easy. My gripe is that so many marketers send the opposite message. It's only after they have your dollars that it becomes clear.
Yes, making 100,000 a year at most anything is improbable, yet you could make a million at paper clips or gum balls...people have! The big pain in the butt is that these days, if you don't make 100,000 a year your life will probably suck. Price a house in a nice nieborhood and a car that you favorite lady would like to drive...price the lifestyle that you or your significant other would really be happy with...and would also provide for any kids you have to actually be able to have a shot at "the good life" 100,000 a year would really just start to touch it.
And yet, as I drive around Vegas, or my old home town, Palm Beach County...the mega houses and Lexus's are everywhere...as if to say...hey dummy where's yours?
Either most of us really are dumb...or we're being totally ripped off by the "haves". You figure it.
And even with the money that's here Vegas sucks... In the last 5 months I've has a motor bike stolen and my car trashed (On New Years no less) in a theft attempt. Both incidents in a gated community! So don't believe Vegas is any great mecca. It attracts everything...including a high crime rate.
I'm fond of saying that most lifestyle myths be it bodybuilding, rock and roll, rollerblading, Poker Pro, you name it, or better yet go to a newstand and pick titles of periodicals for a better survey, all promise things like perpetual adolesence, great sex (though I've never seen that said about poker, though winning in general is an aphrodsiac), wealth, acceptance etc. for one and only one reason.... To make the promoters rich.
One can only speculate by thier circulation that these ploys are wildly successful and that the masses truly are as manipulable as Dave says the average "sucker" is. Though why he has to refer to beginners and other donators to his pot that way, I don't know. What they really are is competitors with inferior skills. Does anyone call a baseball player that didn't make the majors a "sucker". (Though he might be considered that if the media got him to throw his life away on it when he might have made a better life elsewhere. At least one basketball player came clean on this and advised ghetto kids to think more about becoming professional doctors and lawyers due to the fact that there are only about 900 pro basketball players in the world. To wit how many pro poker players are there really? Probably a thinner slice than Hollywood stars.)
I know I spent YEARS chasing the Rock Star thing, mostly when I was younger, only to find that most of the people who pursued it became middle aged drug users who continue to grow long hair, even though balding. Basically loosers. Why? because they continued to believe the myth. They were fodder for what was basically a marketing trick. A lifestyle myth. Myself, I pursued a professional career all along because I saw the odds of "making it big" were slim.
But after seeing the obsession wreck the lives of many a high school friend I'm very quick to criticize similar myths. Poker seems to fit the bill. I see many a toothless gambling addict at the Mirage and other casinos...still chasing the dream. Many sleeping on the bus stops.
It has all the halmarks of drug addiction. Bigger limits for bigger thrills. Hell the first time I put a quarter into a slot machine it had the hiar on my spine standing. Now it would take a 40-80 game to do that.... Have to admit, on recognizing that I've slacked off a bit. Though I might go down town for a buffet and a little 1-5. (Which of course can't be beat due to the rake....Unless you know Ron who claims he's making a living at 1-5!)
Now back to poker. Perhaps a lesson or two from Dave would be helpful. I didn't know he was teaching at the moment. I'd bet his rates are quite high given his celebrity status in the poker community. Currently I'm pursuing career opportunities that may cause me to leave Vegas...so I don't know whether it wouldn't just be wasted effort.
You mentioned your first try at poker and coming home with your tail between your legs. Actually my first time out was not so bad. I had made some money at blackjack and found myself at the MGM Grand. I didn't even know how to play. They gave me a pamphlet. I read it. I said give me some chips (About $138...my blackjack money) 15 hours later I was only down 50 bucks... I thought not too bad. In all honesty though, I had browsed Tony Korfman's "Playing Poker To Win". It's a little $3.50 into book. So I had some idea of starting hands. I believe I had the book in my pocket but had not read it thoroughly yet. I actually had to sit at the table with the pamphlet and the list of hands sitting where I could read it! Nobody seemed to mind. Guess they though they could make some money off of me!
Well, I played at the MGM for another few weekends... I met a guy who made about 200 in the time I lost 30. He said to me he had taken some lessons from a local Pro (RicK Grieder I believe) and that I should read Percy's "Waiting Game". Well I did.
after that I lost about 50 for two weeks running. Then made 50, then had a 200 rush (all at 1-5) then went on tilt one week for the first time. Went from 60 ahead to 200 behind. Learned a lesson there.
From there I've had all kinds of up and down swings at various limits. Sometimes I've lost a few hundred at a low limit, moved up a notch a made it back. Other times I've made 200 in an hour or two and left.
But after summing it all up the losses have far outwieghed the wins.
And I believe I'm being "selectively agressive". Though at this point I don't know what to think.
As for day trading...seems like a similar set of concepts from the math angle. However the probabilities are going to be a little harder to pin down. A card deck has 52 cards and the probabilities are all within that universe.
But let's say your trading T-bond futures...What's the probability the Fed's changing interest rates next month? How much, which way?
Or a real world case. One day England decided to change the amount of T-Bonds they were going to hold. Totaly racked the market that day...most traders didn't know England even had the policy.....
I have a theory for day trading that goes like this, though it's as yet un researched....
Every day every comodity had 4 prices listed, open, high, low, and close... Every day an issue spends some time, on average, above, and below the open.
If you could buy the open, and the intraday volitility of your selected issue is enough...you should be able to buy or go short and wait for a profit to appear, then execute the exit trade.
However, you must have an issue that is volitile enough to cover commisssions, and slippage, and can get a reasonable shot at the opening price. Further, the historical data needs to show a fair consistency of spending time on one side or the other.
Anyway, the full concept is to intracate for here and I've not done the required statistical analysis. So I may be wasting space.
After this next career move, when things settle down I will finish the investigation.
Large Luck, Frank
CV,
You're right nothing's easy. My gripe is that so many marketers send the opposite message. It's only after they have your dollars that it becomes clear. Further, things don't have to be such a bitch except that people who can decide to make them so...do! Witness, NAFTA,GATT, corps. chasing share price via downsizings...and so on. If you were to divide the net worth of the world by the number of people and it was enough for all to have a good life...the only explanation for people not having good life is that those in a position to screw others, do so.
Yes, making 100,000 a year at most anything is improbable, yet you could make a million at paper clips or gum balls...people have! The big pain in the butt is that these days, if you don't make 100,000 a year your life will probably suck. Price a house in a nice nieborhood and a car that you favorite lady would like to drive...price the lifestyle that you or your significant other would really be happy with...and would also provide for any kids you have to actually be able to have a shot at "the good life" 100,000 a year would really just start to touch it.
And yet, as I drive around Vegas, or my old home town, Palm Beach County...the mega houses and Lexus's are everywhere...as if to say...hey dummy where's yours?
Either most of us really are dumb...or we're being totally ripped off by the "haves". You figure it.
And even with the money that's here Vegas sucks... In the last 5 months I've has a motor bike stolen and my car trashed (On New Years no less) in a theft attempt. Both incidents in a gated community! So don't believe Vegas is any great mecca. It attracts everything...including a high crime rate.
I don't know that any game warrants 4 years of study. What good comes from being able decide the best strategy for what to do when a pair of tens turns up? I mean really, since the house rake is always draining money out of the game and the game produces nothing of value...it must always bring in new money from somewhere. So it's basically just another way of tranferring money from productive people to the house and of course the successful players. Seems a little bit useless if not downright parasitic, doesn't it? Bet then so is pro sports. Though that statement will no doubt raise cries of heresy among the mindless minions of sports fans.
So really, why should I play cards and let money go to people who are making a living playing a game? That money represents the time taken out of my life to acquire it. Not just it's material value. AND I GAURANTEE YOU CAN'T GET THE TIME BACK! It's gone for good.
I'm fond of saying that most lifestyle myths be it bodybuilding, rock and roll, rollerblading, Poker Pro, you name it, or better yet go to a newstand and pick titles of periodicals for a better survey, all promise things like perpetual adolesence, great sex (though I've never seen that said about poker, though winning in general is an aphrodsiac), wealth, acceptance etc. for one and only one reason.... To make the promoters rich.
One can only speculate by thier circulation that these ploys are wildly successful and that the masses truly are as manipulable as Dave says the average "sucker" is. Though why he has to refer to beginners and other donators to his pot that way, I don't know. What they really are is competitors with inferior skills. Does anyone call a baseball player that didn't make the majors a "sucker". (Though he might be considered that if the media got him to throw his life away on it when he might have made a better life elsewhere. At least one basketball player came clean on this and advised ghetto kids to think more about becoming professional doctors and lawyers due to the fact that there are only about 900 pro basketball players in the world. To wit how many pro poker players are there really? Probably a thinner slice than Hollywood stars.)
I know I spent YEARS chasing the Rock Star thing, mostly when I was younger, only to find that most of the people who pursued it became middle aged drug users who continue to grow long hair, even though balding. Basically loosers. Why? because they continued to believe the myth. They were fodder for what was basically a marketing trick. A lifestyle myth. Myself, I pursued a professional career all along because I saw the odds of "making it big" were slim.
But after seeing the obsession wreck the lives of many a high school friend I'm very quick to criticize similar myths. Poker seems to fit the bill. I see many a toothless gambling addict at the Mirage and other casinos...still chasing the dream. Many sleeping on the bus stops.
It has all the halmarks of drug addiction. Bigger limits for bigger thrills. Hell the first time I put a quarter into a slot machine it had the hiar on my spine standing. Now it would take a 40-80 game to do that.... Have to admit, on recognizing that I've slacked off a bit. Though I might go down town for a buffet and a little 1-5. (Which of course can't be beat due to the rake....Unless you know Ron who claims he's making a living at 1-5!)
Now back to poker. Perhaps a lesson or two from Dave would be helpful. I didn't know he was teaching at the moment. I'd bet his rates are quite high given his celebrity status in the poker community. Currently I'm pursuing career opportunities that may cause me to leave Vegas...so I don't know whether it wouldn't just be wasted effort.
You mentioned your first try at poker and coming home with your tail between your legs. Actually my first time out was not so bad. I had made some money at blackjack and found myself at the MGM Grand. I didn't even know how to play. They gave me a pamphlet. I read it. I said give me some chips (About $138...my blackjack money) 15 hours later I was only down 50 bucks... I thought not too bad. In all honesty though, I had browsed Tony Korfman's "Playing Poker To Win". It's a little $3.50 into book. So I had some idea of starting hands. I believe I had the book in my pocket but had not read it thoroughly yet. I actually had to sit at the table with the pamphlet and the list of hands sitting where I could read it! Nobody seemed to mind. Guess they though they could make some money off of me!
Well, I played at the MGM for another few weekends... I met a guy who made about 200 in the time I lost 30. He said to me he had taken some lessons from a local Pro (RicK Grieder I believe) and that I should read Percy's "Waiting Game". Well I did.
after that I lost about 50 for two weeks running. Then made 50, then had a 200 rush (all at 1-5) then went on tilt one week for the first time. Went from 60 ahead to 200 behind. Learned a lesson there.
From there I've had all kinds of up and down swings at various limits. Sometimes I've lost a few hundred at a low limit, moved up a notch a made it back. Other times I've made 200 in an hour or two and left.
But after summing it all up the losses have far outwieghed the wins.
And I believe I'm being "selectively agressive". Though at this point I don't know what to think.
As for day trading...seems like a similar set of concepts from the math angle. However the probabilities are going to be a little harder to pin down. A card deck has 52 cards and the probabilities are all within that universe.
But let's say your trading T-bond futures...What's the probability the Fed's changing interest rates next month? How much, which way?
Or a real world case. One day England decided to change the amount of T-Bonds they were going to hold. Totaly racked the market that day...most traders didn't know England even had the policy.....
I have a theory for day trading that goes like this, though it's as yet un researched....
Every day every comodity had 4 prices listed, open, high, low, and close... Every day an issue spends some time, on average, above, and below the open.
If you could buy the open, and the intraday volitility of your selected issue is enough...you should be able to buy or go short and wait for a profit to appear, then execute the exit trade.
However, you must have an issue that is volitile enough to cover commisssions, and slippage, and can get a reasonable shot at the opening price. Further, the historical data needs to show a fair consistency of spending time on one side or the other.
Anyway, the full concept is to intracate for here and I've not done the required statistical analysis. So I may be wasting space.
After this next career move, when things settle down I will finish the investigation.
Large Luck, Frank
Frank,
I'm only going to say a couple more things, and then I'm done with this Thread.
First, I believe most people are either Dumb, Ignorant, or Lazy. Especially when it comes to Gambling (Poker). Thats why some Intellegent, Asertive, Open Minded people can actually make money playing in a Raked Casino Game.
Second, what makes a person a "Sucker" is when they play in a game where they think they have the best of it when in reality they have the worst of it. They wouldn't be a "Sucker" if they realized this, and played in a Better game where they acctually had an advantage.
Third, If you are playing Poker to get a Thrill or Rush you may have a problem with Gambling. I know a player who shouldn't be playing above 3-6, but gos to Las Vegas and plays 20-40 because he gets off on the Rush of playing against the Odds more than the pleasure of Winning.
By now you should know if Poker is for you or not.
CV
CV,
The spelling of ASSertive should tell you something.
I'm none of the things you imply, and I get no rush from Poker whatsoever. I certainly get a feeling of tension when the limits are significant to me. I think anyone not brain dead would get that.
And you may be right, working hard for my money and then wasting it on ASSertive people is definitely not for me.
I think I'll look for something more win/win than to surround myself with a bunch of parasites that produce nothing. :-)
Thanks, Frank
P.S. I also agree, many are dumb, ignorant and lazy. Quite a few are poker pros.
You are right.
Get a job, any job. Enjoy it, enjoy the money, enjoy being productive.
Fast, do not pass GO, do pass all poker rooms.
Playing poker for profit requires a passion; without proper passion any activity is a chore. You are dispassionate, negative and critical at best. Give it up and move on to better things for yourself. You'll be happier, the poker tables will be happier and the earth will continue turning.
Good luck indeed!
Chris,
I not quite sure the light you intend your comments in. If it's as nasty as it sounds, I'm going to tell you the same thing I told CV.
Though first I'd say someone who's read 10-12 books on Poker and gone out and done it has the right to his opinions. I'm sure I'm correct. Also, that level of effort to not reflect dispassion.
Dispassion comes when things don't work as advertized.
Try a number of these things over your life and maybe you'll wake up from that positive thinking crap. The powers that be have made life a class battle. If you, as a supposed poker pro (or whatever) can't see that clearly, and how this game illustrates it. I don't know what to say. Maybe you haven't passed GO in a very real sense.
Also I've been working since I was 14. I've had jobs from Dishwashing to running major parts of some goverment entities to a number of positions in the Fortune 500. I also have degrees earned while SIMULTANEOUSLY holding down those jobs. So you, a card player, are in no position to critique me, no matter who you are. I don't care if you are Hoyle incarnate.
So I guess your right. I should move on to something win/win, if it exists at all, and leave you parasites to find more hosts.
The SUCKERS are the pro's. As in REMORA's or ticks or whatever. You are non producers. I'm sorry I even ever considered it. Not due to the losses, which I could write off if the people were worthwhile (and many were and are) but I've met so many truly poor examples of humanity out there I'm at a loss for words.
Thanks, Frank
Chris,
Just a few more thoughts for you,
1. Jobs are just as parasitic. Everyone over you makes more money than you on your efforts.
2. You must be one of those types with a "Shit Happens" sticker.
3. I've been though enough is Corp. America, Gov't, Education and a few other places, such as having a Secret Clearance, to have EARNED THE RIGHT to be critical. But then most of you raised on advertising and "The Power of Postive Thinking" find even just a statement of fact without a Madison Avenue coating to be "Negative".
4. Yes the earth will keep spinning, even if YOU were gone tommorow, or a nuclear war broke out (which from my days with a Secret Clearance I can tell you is more possible now than before, though less likely. Though eventually it will act up again as global capitalism makes resources scarce.)
5. Poker, in all it's "glory" is nothing compared to the stakes involved in other things I've been involved with. You'll just have to trust me on that.
6. "Productivity" really is the wrong word for what I mean. "Productivity" is really an exploitation index. I'd be the first to point that out. I've seen enough to realize it's just a word used to get over on workers. I guess I mean that the contribution of all the "correct" poker decisions in the universe contribute nothing to anything.
So go ahead, Pass GO ... and send me an e-mail in five years. Let's see if you went broke...assuming your not a silver spoon brat who has a trust fund or something.
Thanks, Frank
Sounds like Marx's Labour theory of value. Which is a lot of twaddle.
Dan,
Can't say I've read any of Marx's stuff. The communist manifesto sounded dumb enough for me to stop right there.
However, I don't think there can be any doubt about the upper echelon's being in a position to screw the lower ones. That just pure observation. Of course you might defend that sort of status quo if somehow it was benefitting you. Many a elite has used allusions to communism as a way of defending thier status and trickledown economics.
Just for the record...I'm a conservative and sometimes Republican. I have little or no alignment with the Democrats. For what it's worth both parties want the same thing. The power. One chooses to court the elite. The other the masses. Guess that's similar to quality vrs. volume marketing approaches. As always, it boils down to money.
I've been working since I was 14 so I think I'm qualified to comment.
So whatever it "sounds like" it true just the same.
Every contract in the world reads the same in essence :
"Big guy responsible for nothing, gets profits, little guy responsible for everything, and pays."
Don't believe me? Check out you're mortgage. More proof? When you learn how, go to Corpus Juris Secondum ("Body of Laws Second Edition" in essence) and check out "At will employment".
I'll leave other examples to you to see. I've been inside Gov't and industry. I speak from experience here. Not from some Marx inspired crap.
So bottom line. I've said what I've seen and participated in and I can't comment about Marx because I flat out don't know.
Thanks, Frank
A word about Wilson software: I am one of the proponents of Wilson software. However, I would not for a moment believe the computer players to be tougher than the average fair to good player. I beat Wilson like a rented mule, on it's toughest level. I can't do that vs. real competition. Also, remember there are different levels in the learning process, six in all I believe. It sounds to me like you are at the stage of possessing information, but not being able to apply it, either with effort or automatically. Proper application of poker knowledge can only come with lots of experience. Plus, stop playing so many hands, dog gone it.
Dman,
What makes you believe I play too many hands? No doubt when I've gone on tilt I have. But my starting standards are at least a lesser set of hands than say Percy (or any of the beginners books) mention.
Large Luck, Frank
Actually, it was an attempt at humor albeit a bit arrid. An earlier thread discussed the most common mistake in Holdem, which was playing too many hands. But by your post, you have acknowledged a major leak, going on tilt. Most players who tilt don't have enough skill to overcome what they lose when they tilt,IMHO. You may consider that you have answered your own question as to why you can't win. I will simply say while I have admitted that I am the world's worst serious poker player, I do not tilt. And I do not play too many hands,probably too few.
DMAN,
Yes, I did go on tilt in the past. However, most of my critiques have come since I put that leak to rest.
When I was greener than now (though still mostly green) an had just come to Vegas I felt guilty just losing $10 (that's right TEN dollars) in a slot machine. I had just come through some rough times and it still felt wrong or at least a waste.
Then I learned the difference between positive and negative expectation games.
So naturally I tried blackjack. However I lost one weekend and counted every card. So I decided that was a crock and tried poker.
Anyway, It's a more engaging game but and I like it a lot. But it's still a crock.
All the books out there toss in some lame, weak disclaimer and then go on to paint a rosier than reality picture. Though I guess to go through what it takes to write a book does take someone enamored with a subject.
They say that in poker the money goes to the better decision makers. That may be true, in some long term sense or even shorter. But, the decisions don't mean anything. Oh, they affect your immediate bankroll, but what does it really accomplish. So what if I can tell that the 3 of diamonds is next better than someone else?
The majority of the literature still tacitly admits 95% are losers. How many of them have read the books and spent hours at the table? I know I have.
Thanks again for your well thought out replies. Frank
P.S. What do the acronyms IMO, IHMO etc. that you use mean? I'd hate to misinterpret something. :-)
"IMO" is "In my Opinion" and "IMHO" is "In my humble opinion".
A couple of other possibilities is that you are playing in games that are too tough, or that you are playing in games in which the rake is too high.
Stud can be pretty bad from a rake standpoint. Because there are fewer hands per hour dealt, the house often rakes 10% instead of 5%. In the lowest limit games, this can be impossible to overcome.
If you're searching for the 'magic formula' for poker success, there isn't one. How you should play a given hand depends on far to many variables with too many unknowns. At some point, you have to be able to integrate everything you've learned about the game and make a judgement call, and that decision may or may not agree with the books for that given hand.
Not everyone can be a great poker player. In addition to learning the material, you have to have a high intelligence, you have to be emotionally stable, have good people reading skills, have a big enough bankroll, etc. There are many attributes that go into making a winning poker player.
If you'd rather approach things from a 'cookbook' point of view, I might suggest that you try your hand at blackjack.
Dan
Dan,
You make some very good points. I did try blackjack. I switched to poker because I thought I saw more potential to it. It's more interesting and there's no house bias against winners. Also, I've lost money to blackjack and still accurately counted every card. I's swear the dealer wins when the count is high as often as not! A high count often ends up with the dealers downcard being a 10 if not the upcard also. Additionally, a 1% edge pretty much gaurantees you'll need a bankroll the size of the houses. After all, that's about all the edge they have on many bets.
I still think a set of guiding principles must exist otherwise no winner could be consistent. He must be operating to some set of guidlines.
I must agree though, that not everyone can be great at it. Differences in the ability to remember folded cards etc. simply vary from individual to individual.
It reminds me of when I took the LSAT (Law School Admissions Test). I was ranked higher than 85% of all test takers for the three years running I took the test in (1990-1993). The test had 3 basic parts. Analytical Games, Logic, and Reading Comprehension. I literally Aced Logic and Comprehension. However the Games part was really tough for me. Other I met said just the opposite. So I'm convinced that you're on the mark. Perhaps I have no apptitude for games in general. Though I generally find poker concepts easier to follow than what was on that test.
So yes, I admit it. I may not have the pure talent base. However that doesn't explain the other 94.99999% that lose.\ It also doesn't alter the fact that most media sold these days is an answer to someones search for wealth, or that most published media about money doesn't work as written. (For example how many books on getting rich via foreclosures have you seen? How many foreclosure "millionares" have you met?)
So I believe gambling literature is on the same plane.
Also, It's not that I would rather approach things from a cookbook approach, it's that I believe the core winning strategy(s) cannot be all that difficult to master if you really new what they were and had them clearly explained.
Experts in all fields have shortcuts and methods generally unknown to those outside the guild.
Thanks for your well thought out comments. Frank
Of course I could argue that the cookbook would simply have to contain all possible combinations of cards. That however is not humanly possible to recall. The need is for concise appliable information.
In blackjack the dealer DOES win almost as often when the count is high as when it is low. The advantage you get from a high count comes more from an increase in blackjacks (both for you and the dealer, but you get paid 3:2), and from strategy changes you can make that the dealer can't make (i.e. increasing your double-downs when the dealer has a stiff card, surrendering more bad hands, etc).
It is always possible that you have simply been unlucky. I was a blackjack pro for some time, and always made money at it, although not very much (I averaged something like $9.00/hr), and I saw some truly ugly swings in my bankroll. For me, it wasn't worth it.
Poker, however, has been much different. My win rate is much higher than that, and the swings aren't too bad. I've gone through some long losing streaks, just like everyone else who has played for a long time has, but overall I see a steady increase in my bankroll. I taught a friend to play (mostly using 2+2 books), and he started winning almost immediately. Several other good friends of mine make a steady income from poker as well.
However, I had an interesting discussion with another player the other day. I had always considered him to be a good player, although not great. He's been playing for years, and plays quite conservatively. He said that he's never been a winner at poker. He has a separate poker bankroll, which he started at $5,000 several years ago, and today it's almost exactly the same. This suggests to me that the difference between the winners and the breakeven or slightly losing players is very subtle - the difference between one extra good decision a night, or a situation where a good player gets one extra bet a couple of times a night, or whatever. It doesn't take much of a leak to sink your game.
Dan
The difference is indeed small. As you say, a couple of more correct decisions an hour (even if the decision is as simple as folding on the river instead of paying off when it is obvious that you are beat) can amount to 2 big bets an hour. Taking a simplistic approach, in a 10-20 game, that could amount for the difference between a $30 or $40 an hour player and a break-even player.
skp,
See my reply to dan on this thread about this... I agree totally. And further, this adds fuel to the idea that a set of explicit rules for winning play can be written up.
A theorize that a winning player makes the correct decisions. These are based on some set of inputs and thier evaluation.
These can be elaborated on and concretely described. Thus yeilding the winning set of decision tables, or rules or what have you.
All the theory in the world may *explain* those decisions... but pragmatically, the winning subset of decisions can be explicitily described. Otherwise no one could consistently win ever. The winners must have some set of manageble rules they go by.
It may have to take the form of a decision tree with may "if ..Then... Else" type of constructs. But based on dan and your comments I'm now more sure it exists than ever.
I don't agree at all. Poker is a game of incomplete information. There is no A-B-C approach that can possibly win against good players.
This is why computer programs have yet to come anywhere near humans in poker playing ability. A good friend of mine is working with a computer poker research group at the University of Alberta, and they have a LONG way to go, even though this group has produced some of the best game-playing algorithms around for other games (I believe they wrote the best checkers playing program, and a couple of others). Poker is just much harder to solve algorithmically than games with perfect information.
Take a simple decision like a pot-odds decision. Should you call to make a flush after flopping a four-flush against one opponent? Even this simple decision depends on many factors - whether or not your hand would win if you hit one of your pairs instead of the flush, whether your opponent will pay off on the river if you make your hand, whether a semi-bluff raise can win the pot, whether your opponent may give you a free card on the turn, whether your opponent is drawing to the same flush, etc. ad nauseum. And all of these decisions are 'human factors' decisions that are impossible to plug into a formula. You just have to develop good enough card sense to feel your way through these situations. There is no substitute for experience and good judgement.
Dan
Dan,
Good judgment is a decision process. All the things you mention are decided by some set of inputs and prior experience.
I'm a systems analyst. As a professional, I see that everything you say is both valid, AND programmable.
It would just take a hell of a lot of effort and/or hardware.
A-B-C maybe not A-Z perhaps.
Somethings a computer might do better also, like calculating probabilities quickly and accurately.
I'd rule those out in my search for an algorithm though, as I couldn't do them at the table.
Anyway, I'm going to let it all go for a while. Some of the other posts have convinced me for certain that the general win/lose thing inherent in poker is not for me. Nor perhaps are the many who think it's the only way the world could be, as opposed tho how it is. Consider too that I make this statement as a conservative not a liberal!
I'd prefer a win/win scenario.
Thanks for your comments, they've been more thoughtful than some.
Feel free to e-mail me if you hear of any advancements in all this. It's still interesting. However, being a pro, even if it would free me from corporate america, just doesn't sit with my conscience.
Thanks, Frank
skp,
Dan Hanson wrote :
< This suggests to me that the difference between the winners and the breakeven or slightly losing players is very subtle - the difference between one extra good decision a night... >
The "correct" decision will not necessarily win the pot. The difference between standing and hitting with 16 versus the dealer's 10 in blackjack is not the $100 bet I just lost by hitting (or standing). Similarly, "a couple of more correct decisions an hour" in $10-$20 does not translate into "$30 or $40 an hour".
Etienne
That depends what those decisions are. If they are pot-sized decisions then this could well be the case.
Dan
Dan,
You wrote :
< That depends what those decisions are. If they are pot-sized decisions then this could well be the case. >
Give me an example of the "pot-sized decisions" that Frank (or the conservative, breakeven player whom you consider to be good and mentioned in an earlier post) is likely to make that will cost him $20 each hour in $10-$20. I just feel that it is more likely that they are making a series of small mistakes rather than one big one. Put another way, players of their calibre by definition possess sufficient judgement to recognize a $20 EV blooper.
Etienne
Folding the best hand on the river? This is a mistake that I see 'tight, cautious' players making all the time.
Tonight in the 10-20 game, a conservative player played heads-up after the flop in Omaha against a maniac, with a large raised pot (I think there were 5 callers initially). I watched this contest with interest - The flop is J96, with two diamonds. Conservative player has nut diamond draw. Maniac bets, conservative player raises for a free card (bad idea against a maniac), maniac re-raises.
The turn brings an eight of diamonds. Maniac checks, conservative player bets the nuts, maniac raises him. Conservative player just calls.
The river is another 8, putting a running pair on the board. Maniac bets, and conservative player throws away the Ace High Flush.
Now, there's a good chance that this guy is beaten, but the maniac would also have jammed smaller diamonds, top two pair, straight draws, etc. (Ironically, when the conservative player just calls on the turn with the nuts, it induces a bet from the maniac if he's betting something like King high diamonds, because he'll think he's the best).
So, if there's a 50-50 chance that this guy threw away the best hand, then this was a $130 error.
How many of those do you need to make to make you a losing player?
Dan
Dan,
You wrote :
< Folding the best hand on the river? This is a mistake that I see 'tight, cautious' players making all the time. >
<..snip..>
< So, if there's a 50-50 chance that this guy threw away the best hand, then this was a $130 error. How many of those do you need to make to make you a losing player? >
If there's a 50-50 chance that this guy threw away the best hand, then he has been unable to differentiate between an even money and a 14 to 1 proposition. This type of player is mentioned in TOP and HPFAP when S&M talk about imbeciles.
Etienne
I agree. Nonetheless, I see otherwise good players making this mistake all the time.
I do a lot of thin calling on the river, and I often get comments from other 'good' players about this. Many otherwise good players seem to have this built-in feeling that they have to be pretty sure that they have the best hand to call on the river, or at least that they are even money to have the best hand. I think part of the reason is that good players have pride in their play, and they don't want other players to think they are stupid when they call on the river when an apparent flush bets, and they indeed get shown the flush. But clearly, in games with lots of loose action it's correct to call on the river if you have any doubt at all about the status of your hand.
I think this is one of the biggest reasons why you hear so many conservative players complain about how they can't beat those loose, passive games. If they are making folding errors, then THEY are the fish in those games.
Dan
Dan,
Sounds realistic to me. It would make a great case study to figure out why you're profitable and he's not.
Since it's a game of decisions, some of his are different than yours. Knowing which ones would answer the question.
This of course leads down the road I've been talking about a lot lately. That is that the winners have a set of decisions they make that work.
Those decisions can be written down and described.
The poker winners, or at least the authors should present that set of decisions.
Of course if they did, and they were widely used, the game would then be a crapshoot. The money going to whoever got the cards that day.
No matter how you slice it the winning players must make decisions based on some set of inputs. Defining the inputs, the order in which they are evaluated, and the final decisions would represent the written elaboration of the winning strategy (or set of tactics or operations, etc.).
As an aside a leak is really just a bad decision that is made repeatedly. A decision is something that can be concretely described. Therefore, I speculate, a concrete winning set of decisions can be defined.
That you believe this indicates to me that you *aren't a winning player at poker. Those 'inputs' you describe change with every hand, and there are thousands of them. The decision making is a process that is dynamic and changes with innumerable variables.
One type of poker game you might be able to beat with a cookbook approach would be a very loose, passive holdem game. You can probably beat this game for a few dollars by simply adhering to a solid set of starting hands and then betting your real hands for value when you hit them. But as soon as the games get a little tougher, judgement becomes the main factor.
Dan
Dan,
Yes, in one post or another I admit to being down a few thousand. I am in the 95%. I've no problem admitting that. :-) I'd just call it an honest assesment.
However, those inumerable variables can be descibed and thus programmed.
Judgements are founded on something, difficult though it may be to describe.
If I stopped you at any point and asked, "Why did you do that?" Unless you said, "I don't know", it can be described.
Cookbook approach, probably not. Well founded strategy, I think so.
Well, I've decided to move on to other things. Recent experiences both on this post and in the cardroom lead me to believe that the "win by taking" philosphy is counter to my general belief system in peace time (warfare is a different matter) even though it is quite representative of modern business life in general. Consider that that statement is being made by a conserative, not a liberal.
One poster on this board suggested I "get a job" and leave the card room! Well, I've had a job since I was 14. I was hoping this stuff could free me to some extent. Truth is, it's just more of the same. Having worked in gov't and Many a Fortune 500 company...including several of the largest...I'm quite qualified to judge.
Thanks for your considerate efforts, Frank
If you think innumerable inputs can be programmed to give a computer judgement, I offer you your first assignment:
"Write a program to give a computer a sense of humor"
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary,
Good point. I never thought about the cocktail waitress thing! I agree there are "inumerable" things. But if you can describe them, and why you made the decision, as systems professional, I gaurantee they can be modeled.
It just might take tons of effort.
And some may not have enough impact to model.
:-)
Thanks, Frank
Post deleted at author's request.
How high do you have to play to justify paying $89 a night for a room?! ($119 on the weekends!)
I prefer to play 4 hour sessions, so that means to cover room cost only, I'd have to "earn" $22.50/hr. Making a minimum of $40/hr working from home, I'd need to make $62.50/hr. playing poker (not counting travel and other expenses). Sounds like at least a $15/30 game at approx. 2BB/hr.
"I prefer to play 4 hour sessions, so that means to cover room cost only, I'd have to "earn" $22.50/hr. Making a minimum of $40/hr working from home, I'd need to make $62.50/hr. playing poker (not counting travel and other expenses). Sounds like at least a $15/30 game at approx. 2BB/hr."
So, you would feel comfortable making $60 an hour x 4 hours = $240 and paying $90 of this for your room? Net, $150. (Not to mentin air fare, car and food.)
Is it just me or should the ratio be higher?
The point is that even at $15-30, you wouldn't be comfortable doing this for a living -- and would have to be a consistently winning player at higher limits. But you asked what size game to cover your room, and since I want paid for my time, I'm going to factor that into the equation. Obviously I actually "lose" 4 hrs pay a day were I to adopt such a scenario on a regular basis, whereas an 8-hr day theoretically nets $62.50 x 8=$500 -- adequate to meet what I believe should be the goal of a professional, that is to make greater than $100k/year. Incidentally, unless you insisted on staying at the Bellagio, most hotels in Vegas would not set you back this much.
Greetings:
I am really interested in Mr. Sklansky and Mr. Malmuth's opinion of "The New Guide to Starting Hands", a paper done by a man named Todd Mummert (I believe) which can be found very easily on the net and is specifically listed at www.cs.cmu.edu/People/mummert/poker. I am interested in your viewpoints of Mr. Mummert's revaluation of your startings hands, in particular his downgrading of the suited medium connectors: 98s, 87s, 76s, and 65s. Do you agree, disagree, etc?
Thanks,
GuangJoe
We discussed this before. You may want to look at some of the early archives. In a nutshell we felt that the model they used didn't do a very good job of representing poker. Specifically, it should be quite expensive if you follow their advice.
Corrections:
1. Poor Todd Mummert. I am the author of the new Guide to starting holdem hands referred to here. Todd merely volunteered to host HTML and PS versions of the study, so he shouldn't be blamed for the content.
2. Mason misrepresents 2+2's response to that study. To date, it has NOT been discussed although it has been dismissed. Since Mason elsewhere has written that the S&M starting hands published in Holdem for Advanced Players have been estensively revised you no doubt will have a leak in your game if you follow those.
Dick Taylor
Post deleted at author's request.
"2. Mason misrepresents 2+2's response to that study. To date, it has NOT been discussed although it has been dismissed. Since Mason elsewhere has written that the S&M starting hands published in Holdem for Advanced Players have been estensively revised you no doubt will have a leak in your game if you follow those."
I never wrote this. This statement is totally inaccurate.
Mason,
Facts never get in Taylor's way.
Tom Haley
Note from JG:
The following is reprinted with permission from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/People/mummert/poker/
I have tried to format it as well as possible for the forum. Some 3-dimensional figures could not be converted to ascii text.
Begin Essay:
The key decision any hold'em player makes is whether or not to play the starting 2 card hand they are dealt. And, if so, how to play it. We present here some valuable new facts.
Our Model
We have developed these new facts from a new, very comprehensive, computer simulation of our own design.
This document is a Player's guide. It's meant to bring the practical implications of our results to bear. To be helpful to the hold'em player who may or may not care about simulation.
If you're a poker player who is also a technical person, or if you're just curious what a sophisticated simulation program looks like inside, then we invite you to ask about getting the complete source code of this program as well as the detailed print outs from a reasonable run.
For information about how to secure the source code and detailed print outs, see our web page at: http://www.evgr.com/poker, or write to us by e-mail or snail-mail at the address(es) on the cover.
This source code constitute the proofs as to the facts we do summarize here. Usually the best you can get from a poker book is the author's naked recommendations. No proof, no detailed calculation worksheets and certainly no source code.
Shuffle and Deal
First, imagine a simple computer program that shuffles a regular deck of 52 cards and deals out hands to 10 players, plus 5 community cards face up on the board. The "shuffle" involves picking these 25 cards at random (without replacement) from the deck of 52. "Dealing" is done simply by assigning beforehand particular sequence numbers to particular parts of a complete round of play. The 7th card picked, for example, is always the 1st card dealt to player 7, and so on. Randomized shuffling and dealing should be part of any poker simulation. The only thing unusual in what we have done is to have read about, and worried a great deal over, the quality (and efficiency) of the random number generator algorithm we would use. For more details on that, check out random.zip in the FREEWARE section of our website (http://www.evgr.com/poker).
Hero's Play
Player 1 is always our hero. Whatever starting hand our hero is dealt becomes the focus hand in that round of play. Focus hands are always played aggressively all the way to the river.
To illustrate this, suppose Player 1 gets dealt a pair of 5's. During that round all of the other players make four decisions: (a) to play or fold before the flop, (b) play or fold after the flop, (c) play or fold after the turn and (d) play or fold after the river card is turned up.
At the showdown it may be that everyone but our hero has folded. Fine, then 55's frequency counter for 0 river foes gets bumped by 1. And 55's win counter for 0 foes at the river also gets bumped by a fraction, depending at what stage of play the last foe in the round folded.
Depending on the HE Table environment, there will usually be one or more foes contesting the river. If it turns out that our hero has a winning-ranked hand along with one or more foes, then this tie is divided up proportionately. Let's say hero ties with 2 foes, then hero's frequency counter for 2 foes gets bumped by 1 and his win counter for 2 foes gets bumped by 0.3333. So, we continue in this way for several million (or billion) rounds of play, keeping track of the frequencies and wins for each condition being examined in the simulation. When the run is done, our program then goes through and calculates, for each condition, the likelihood of winning, or p(win) and saves that information as well.
Foes
Foes are always players 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and up to 10, depending on the particular condition. The foes our hero faces sit at 5 different HE Tables in the same round. Don't try this in a poker room. It only works on a computer.
HE Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 always have 10 players.
At HE Table 1 they play as tight as you'll likely ever find. Every foe assumes that there will only, on average, be 2.5 other players seeing the flop. He/she plays rationally, based on an expert knowledge of "old" facts. In this case he/she would play the hand he/she was dealt only with knowledge that it had favorable odds of winning at a HE Table with 3.5 players (since he/she will always see our hero's bet). If the foe was player 8 or 9, however, he/she would have additional information. there would be the cumulative prior action of all preceding players (our hero and other foes) to use as well as an expectation about overall HE Table conditions. HE Tables 2, 3 and 4 are similar to HE Table 1 except they are progressively "looser" in pre-flop play.
The idea of "looseness" is not vague in this simulation model. It, and how the foes play, consist exactly of the following rules strictly enforced (as only a computer can do).
At HE Table 1 if a player does not have any current information, that is no other player has acted yet, a foe will always assume at least 2.5 small bets have been (or will be) put into the pot, as we just described above. At HE Table 2 the assumption is 3.5. HE Table 3 believes in 4.5 and HE Table 4 foes assume 5.5. This starting assumption gets modified by actual play. For example, Player 5 always gets to adjust his/her overall assumption about the Table if Players 2, 3 and 4 all are in the pot ahead of him/her. The foe uses this "assumption" to calculate the odds the theoretical pot is offering for the particular starting hand he/she has just been dealt. This is expert play based on "old" facts. Armed with (a) the odds of winning at the river against the presumed number of foes for this HE Table, adjusted by the actual number, in case that is greater by the time this foe must make a play/fold decision, and with (b) the odds the presumed pot is offering to continue playing, the foe makes a rational decision whether in fact to play or fold before the flop. After the flop, the foes at these HE Tables will then play only when they have either a made hand or a 1 card draw to a straight or a flush. At the river, they will play only when they've made at least a pair or better. Missed straight and flush draws fold at that point. At HE Table 5 the players are as loose as possible. they play the classic showdown game where every player goes to the river. Except we provide here for 2 player showdowns (consisting of hero plus Player 2), 3 player showdowns (add Player 3) and so on up to a 10-player showdown (add Players 4 thru 10).
So, HE Table 5 is really 9 different HE Tables, each with a different number of starting players. But instead of numbering them as such we preferred to simply indicate the number of players at the river as being 3, for a 3-player showdown game, 5 for a 5-player game, and so on. That way, we can easily compare them with number of players at the showdown under the more realistic playing conditions of HE Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4.
If you wish, you can imagine in our study that Hero is sitting simultaneously at 5+8=13 different HE Tables, four of them where the foes play their hands quasi-realistically and nine of them where all of the foes play loose and crazy, but at eight of these they are playing short-handed.
Playing Position
Although playing position is generally thought to be the most important factor in selection of starting hands in hold'em, it is not particularly important to the conclusions we've drawn here.
We keep track of the fate of starting hands under the control of our hero. All other hands are distributed randomly across position. Our hero is always, in effect, acting "under the gun" but could care less.
If you wish to vary your starting hand selection based on your playing position, which is fundamental to the playing strategies advocated by noted poker authors, then you'll be using the overall ranking of each hand as a basis for doing so anyway. That's it! Or, at least, that's the beginning of our more detailed story.
Look at it this way. We've covered in our model a broad spectrum of HE Table conditions varying from very tight to maximally loose. We've also covered the issue of number of players in both possible ways: the number of players at the HE Table in the first place, and the number of good players out of 10 who play rationally and by doing so end up as foes at the river. This simulation is, we believe, unique
Aggression
Since our hero always plays aggressively, we need to be able to separate out the wins that occur because of the absolute winning power of the hand from those that occur because the winning hand folded before the showdown, at least for HE Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4. The proportion of p(win) that is left represents the pure power of the hand.
The first step is to find out how much of the total p(win) is due to the winning hand having folded before the showdown. This is shown in Figure ___ as fluctuations above and below the zero plane..
This is easy in the case of HE Table 5, because every foe is playing aggressively as well. Figure __ shows the difference between chance p(win), for each condition in our model, and actual p(win) accumulated across all 169 starting hands. the zero plane is chance, and you will be able to see that regardless of the number of players in the game, in this case, there is no difference between chance and actual p(win)s for HE Table 5.
Any fluctuation above or below the zero plane in the Figure reflects cases where a random hand played aggressively either picks up wins from hands that could have won if they had not folded (above zero), or loses wins because the hand was played too aggressively. That is, our hero should have folded sometimes (below zero). Somewhere between the HE Table 2 and HE Table 3 overall playing conditions aggression acquires value, at least against a small number of foes. At some tighter playing conditions aggression with a random starting hand is a losing strategy. At some looser playing conditions aggression with a random hand has positive value. Since the only difference in the foe's decision rules between HE Tables is on whether or not to play before the flop, we can see that when everyone at the Table believes there will be an average of about 5 players seeing the flop, or so, selective aggression can become an important factor in play. This increase in overall expectation can be dramatic, especially when only 1 or 2 foes survive to the river. Figure 1 also shows as the number of foes who play to a showdown increases, when each has an opportunity to fold, the less value there is in aggression with a random starting hand. In other words, the more likely you are to be beat.
Power
So, by subtracting from the measured p(win)s in our simulation run the effect of aggression, we are left with an estimate of the pure playing power of each of the 169 starting hands in Texas hold'em.
We turn now to see how well some of the conventional authorities and writers have done in the past when attempting to derive this estimate of power .. using private methods never fully revealed, even if you buy their book(s).
We will examine in detail the recommendations about starting hold'em hands in each of the following poker classics,
Hold'em Poker by David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth
Winning Low Limit Hold'em by Lee Jones
"Super/System's Power Poker Course in Limit Hold'em" by Bobby "The Owl" Baldwin, in Super/System by Doyle "Texas Dolly" Brunson.
Sklansky Groups
Sklansky was the first poker author to have both ranked all of the starting 2-card hands, and then grouped them with recommendations about how to play each group.
David "Einstein" Sklansky (a nickname attributed to him in Doyle Brunson's book, Super/System) has been a professional poker player and poker theoretician for decades, and his advice is widely respected. As for the starting hold'em hands, did he get it right?
The Sweet 16.
Let's start off with the good ones. The top 16 ranked starting 2-card Hold'em hands are fundamental to solid play. They constitute only about 7% of all hands you will be dealt, however, so it's improbably that you will get rich by limiting your play to just these.
But it is imperative for good play that you KNOW what they are, and how well they stack up against each other.
Table 1 - Sklansky's Group 1 hands
AA..KK..QQ..JJ..AKs
Sklansky (actually Sklansky and Malmuth, which we will shorten to S&M to save space here) defined 5 members of Group 1, as shown in Table ___above. They also indicate in their book that the overall rank order of these hands is as shown reading from left to right. AA, that is, is the highest ranking hand of all. We confirmed, as shown in Figure __, that these are, indeed, the 5 best starting 2-card hands as well as that their actual ranks within the group are exactly as S&M represent.
AA and KK are substantially more powerful than lower ranking hands, however, even than QQ. These two hands are also the only ones with positive power ratings at HE Table 1. You will recall this was the "tightest" HE Table in our study. Under very tight HE Table conditions these are the only starting hands that should be raised for value. But, as we shall see, if you find yourself at a very tight HE Table you should probably get up and go find better playing conditions anyway.
Table 2 - Sklansky's Group 2 hands
TT..AQs..AJs..KQs..AK
The S&M Group 2 hands are shown above.
Since S&M indicate that their determination of relative rank order within the group is "approximately" as shown, from left to right., we need to point out a minor correction before otherwise endorsing the membership of Group 2.
The overall power of AK is slightly greater than that of KQs, so we would reverse the order of these two hands within the Group.
We confirm that the membership of Group 2 is the same as that asserted by S&M. Or, rather, we confirm that these hands rank 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in overall playing power. However, there is actually a small advantage held by AK over KQs, so our list (Figure ___) shows a correction in the relative rank order within the group, which is just a matter of fine detail.
Why Raise?
There are 10 hands in these groups, but they are not treated equivalently for purposes of decisions to raise (or not).
Although the S&M rationale for doing so certainly appears to be plausible enough, they do not present any computational rationale or other proof. One must take some of it on faith. As it turns out, however, there have probably been some errors made in these recommendations.
S&M give different reasons for raising (or not), including each of the following.
raise 4 (AA, KK, QQ, AK) in part because "..they lose much of their value in large multi-way pots."
raise 4 (Aks, Aqs, AJs and KQs) only sometimes in part because "..they do play well in multi-way pots."
raise 1 (JJ) in a tight game "..to get out hands like A9." the idea being that this hand also loses value in multi-way pots, or perhaps that it has less value at a loose HE Table .. which is a similar, but not identical idea.
Never raise1 (TT) for reasons that are not stated.
These are key ideas in current hold'em playing strategy. Since S&M assume certain difficult to prove facts that our model encompasses, however, we can put these assumptions to test.
We measure directly the effect of multi-way action. Also, we vary the degree of looseness of the Table in seeing the flop. So, we can separate out the effects of HE Table conditions and number of foes contesting the pot for each starting hold'em hand.
When we look at these facts for the 10 best starting hands, we get the results shown in Table ___ (below).
Table 3 - MAD Sensitivity to Playing Conditions
Rank..Hand..Table..nFoes..T x F
..1...AA....0.0....0.0....0.0
..2...KK....0.1....0.0....0.1
..3...QQ....2.3....1.9....2.5
..4...JJ....5.7....4.6....6.6
..5...AKs...6.1....5.3....7.2
..6...TT....7.1....3.7....7.2
..7...AQs...5.3....5.4....8.9
..8...AJs...9.7....9.0...13.1
..9...AK...13.3...20.6...27.9
.10...KQs...5.7....4.2....8.4
The mean absolute deviation (MAD) in the rank of a hand among all starting hands is a measure of sensitivity by the hand to playing conditions. Table ___shows MADs for variations in HE Table conditions, variations in number of quasi-realistic foes contesting the pot at the river and in combinations (or interactions) of these two conditions.
Of the 4 hands S&M assume would be most sensitive to multi-way action (AA, KK, QQ, AK) only one (AK) actually is. In fact, it's mean absolute deviation in rank (among all 169 possible hands) due to varying numbers of foes at the river, at 20.6, makes it one of the most sensitive of hands.
By contrast, the very least sensitive hands to multi-way action are AA, KK and QQ.
Of the 4 hands S&M assume "play well" in multi-way pots (AKs, AQs, AJs and KQs), this conclusion can only be correct if by playing well what is meant is that in each case the hand ranks at about the median of all 169 possible hands in sensitivity to multi-way action.
These hands that are presumed to "play well" in multi-way pots do NOT increase in relative value with increasing multi-way action at all, as many current poker players are inclined to believe.
S&M ignore TT and reserve a special status for JJ in terms of multi-way action. Yet, neither of these hands seem particularly sensitive to multi-way action and it is difficult therefore to take those recommendations too seriously.
Table 4 - Mean Rank Order of Hands
Number of Players at River
Rank.......2.....3.....4.....5.....6
1...AA....1.0...1.0...1.0...1.0...1.0
2...KK....2.0...2.0...2.0...2.0...2.0
3...QQ....3.0...3.0...3.0...3.0...3.0
4...JJ...14.4...4.8...4.4...4.3...4.0
5...AKs...5.0...5.4...5.4...7.2..26.6
6...TT...26.4..11.0...8.0...6.0...5.8
7...AQs...9.2...8.6...8.6..11.8..33.0
8...AJs...9.2...8.6...8.6..11.8..33.0
9...AK....7.5...7.8..10.0..26.2..40.0
10..KQs..11.2..12.2..18.2..18.0..20.0
Another way to look at these assumptions is to show the mean rank order of each hand for 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 foes at the river, as shown in Table ___ (above). S&M ignore TT, but it actually benefits from multi-way action, as does JJ. We would therefore urge you to consider raising these hands for value if the raise is not likely to drive out foes in a loose game
Five of these hands are particularly vulnerable to heavy multi-way action, the kind that increases the likelihood of 6 or more foes playing to a showdown (Aks, AQs, AJs, KQs and AK). With moderately loose showdown action they are neither especially sensitive, one way or the other.
One hand, AK, suffers tremendously with nearly every additional foe who plays to a showdown. This is the only hand in the group that should be raised pre-emptively in an effort to weed out the competition.
With these changes, then, we would recommend a re-write of the pre-flop raising recommendations for Sklansky Group 1 and Group 2 starting hold'em hands.
Table 5 - Sklansky Group 3 Hands
99 *JTs QJs KJs ATs AQ
There are 6 members of S&M Group 3, as shown in Table __ (above).
One hand, JTs, doesn't belong in the group. But KTs does. Also, the rank order of each hand in the Group is slightly different than Sklansky suggested. These changes have been reflected in Figure __ which is the rank ordered power hands that fall in the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th overall. positions
This discrepancy has the following potential impact on player strategy. S&M recommend playing only Group 1-3 hands in a tough game from early position. If you follow this recommendation, you should fold JTs from an early position in a tough game, and start playing KTs instead.
So, that's it for the Sweet 16. Did Sklansky get them right? In terms of group membership, only 1 hand out of the 16 needed to be replaced, although error of ranking within groups tended to increase. In fact, as we shall see, this error becomes even greater as we move down into the area of Expert playing hands. In terms of stated rationale for various raising/calling strategies, however, there was considerable error among these very best of hands.
The Expert 24 and the Medium Suited Connector Myth
When we add the next highest ranking 8 cards to the Sweet 16, we reach what we consider to be the smallest playable subset of starting hands. In doing so, however, we encounter what we have chosen to call the "Medium Suited Connector myth." Like most myths, it contains some elements of truth. But the truth has been blown way out of proportion.
Figure 6 - Sklansky Group 4 Hands
*T9s KQ 88 QTs *98s *J9s AJ *KTs
There are four hands in S&M's Group 4 that do not belong. In the case of one of these, KTs, it got moved up to Group 3 and was replaced by JTs, which was demoted from Group 3. This was a relatively minor adjustment in hand rankings.
But we are left with 3 suited connectors (T9s, 98s and J9s), the valiues of which keep being rediscovered every year or so, but whose true values have not been put in perspective in practical terms for the regular hold'em poker player. We need to consider here the overall context, to look at all of the medium suited connectors together, to gain some perspective.
Figure ___ shows the rank for each medium (and small) suited connector, starting with T9s and working down through 54s. The mean rank of these hands is shown for each of Tables 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
You will note that the classic 10-player showdown results (T5) show a very simple linear deterioration in the relative rank order of these starting suited connectors as the value of the top card gets smaller. This was discovered sometime around 1972. A few years later several people discovered that some of the smaller suited connectors (such as 87s and 76s) sometimes played better than their larger cousins (such as T9s). This reversal of the 10-player showdown results was both surprising, and held as a professional holdem players' trade secret by many. This U-Shaped effect is clearly visible in the HE Table 1 results shown in Figure____.
The problem is that playing in the extremely tight games, such as those we characterize here by HE Table 1, it is difficult to make any money: the pots are small (which is the natural consequence of tight players), and these medium suited connectors, even though they improve dramatically, never rise to the level of being powerhouse starting hands. In fact, as the games become looser there is a clear trend visible in Table ___ for the showdown linearities to dominate. Even if you think you're playing under the ideal conditions for medium suited connectors, if one player leaves or a new player joins the game your assumption may suddenly no longer be correct and inertia could easily lead you to end up playing what are just relatively weak hands.
Another thing that is potentially dangerous is to rely on various "probe" software packages common available today that allow you to pit one hand against another to a showdown, seeing which of them is better. These would be fine, and the results reliable, so long as there do not exist any underlying non-linearities of the type visible in Figure __ for medium suited connectors. But we DO know that assumption is incorrect, and it has been known to be incorrect in the poker literatures for decades. We recommend that, unless you already know the answers to the questions you're seeking and simply want to be precise, you do NOT use isolated one-on-one type simulations at all (the U-Shaped function we've already discussed is not the only one in the underlying fabric of Texas hold'em).
Turning back now to the Sklansky Group 4 hands, we need to replace the 4 deviant hands by better ones.(A8s, A9s, JTs and AT). Because the T4 and T5 HE Table conditions still have positive power ratings two of these (J9s and T9s) have a high enough overall power index to just be demoted to Group 5 while the third (98s) slips down to Group 6.
The Starving Play List
We come now to our first overall recommendations regarding limit hold'em play strategies. We call it the "Starving Play List" because it should be appropriate to the most risk-averse, or conservative player.
Pick your 10-player HE Table carefully. Look for players who seem to be having fun, and where at least half of the stay in to see the flop. Table selection is a major determinant of how well your hands will hold up in the long run. Play only the top 24 hands, as shown in Figure__ thru__. Be sure to note that the figures indicate groups rather than particular hands. That is AdTd means ATs, and KcQh means any KQ except KQs, etc.
In poker, when every other player knows what your hand is, you suffer tremendous disadvantage. Just playing good cards is not sufficient, nor is raising AA and KK only. You need a carefully planned but hard to read raising strategy. We suggest using what we call a "parallel game" plan.
Suppose you play lower limit games like 3/6, 5/10/, 6/12 and 10/20, but would play other games such as 6/6 or 10/10 if they were spread. You can decide to play two different limit games at the same time, at the same table, simply by having the following betting strategy: play hands 1-12 at a $10/$10 HE Table, while hands 13-24 you play at the $5/$10 HE Table. This is quite simple. You just decide to always raise hands 1-12, and never raise hands 13-24. Otherwise, make appropriate other adjustments in your response to raises by other players before the flop. You can also adjust the fraction of hands you play that you'll raise, and so on. The Starving Play List will allow you to play about 3 hands per hour under typical playing conditions. Very conservative, but it will require a great deal of patience.
The Tight Expert's Play List
If you'd like to play more hands, and are an experienced player, then consider the "Tight Expert's Play List", which adds the hands that belong to a corrected Sklansky's Group 5. The original members of Sklansky's Group 5, arranged in the order suggested by S&M, are shown below in Table __.
Figure 9 - Sklansky's Group 5 Hands 77 *87s Q9s *T8s KJ QJ JT *76s *97s *A9s *A8s A7s A6s A5s A4s A3s A2s *65s
There are 18 hands in Sklansky's Group 5. But 7 of these belong elsewhere. Two (A9s, A8s) deserved promotion to Group 4, as we have already seen. The five remaining hands are weak suited connectors, and "semi-connectors" (T8s, 97s, 87s, 76s and 65s). We have already discussed the error associated with over-rating the nonlinearities in these hands, especially 87s and 76s. But these are also among the most sensitive hands to both number of foes and overall tight/loose HE Table playing conditions. 65s, for example, ranks 25th (out of 169) in sensitivity to HE Table conditions, 24th in sensitivity to number of foes at the river and 29th in sensitivity to interactions between these factors. Indirectly, as a result of their (a) extreme power nonlinearities and (b) extreme sensitivity to HE Table playing conditions, these hands drop out of the top 84 starting hands entirely. In typical limit hold'em casino games at mid and lower limits, these hands should be folded by the advanced player. The three others (87s, 97s and T8s) are simply demoted. T8s goes to Group 6 while 87s and 97s get moved down to Group 7.
The 7 additions to Group 5 include two (KT and QT) that are obviously closely related to three original members (KJ, QJ and JT) and five higher ranking suited hands (K9s, K8s, Q8s, T9s and J9s) than the small suited connectors they replace. This is because with suited starting hands the rank of the kicker is usually more important than the connected-ness of their values, although with T9s both factors may combine.
If you otherwise follow the S&M guides to poker strategy, some of these changes would impact how you play the game. For example, "some hands, such as 87s..play well against many opponents. If there are usually a lot of callers ... these types of hands become playable in early position. However, over playing these hands up front (and most players do just that) can get you into trouble." (S&M, p.15).
87s is now a Group 7 hand, which S&M do not recommend for play in early position at all. The problem, of course, is that recommending the play of 87s against "many" opponents, without specifying exactly how many or the consequences of not counting accurately, is not clear guidance. S&M do, however, provide themselves an out by the observation that "most players" over play these hands. We would agree both with (a) not playing Group 7 hands in early position and (b) that anybody who does is over playing them.
You will be dealt one of these starting hands, ranked 1 to 42 globally, about once in every 5 hands. This means you should be involved in about 6 pots per hour. We consider this to be the Tight Expert's Play List.
Our rankings take into account the pressure that you can put on someone or that someone can put on you on fourth and fifth st, So for example K10 has the problem that making top pair only, puts it in a difficult situation on later rounds. On the other hand 98s when it does win, usually wins with a hand that gives it betting power. It is NOT simply that it does better in a multiway pot. One way to see this is to compare K10 s with 98s if you are thinking of calling a raise in a nolimit holdem game. Good players would prefer 98 even head up. Do these other rankings take these factors into account?
Post deleted at author's request.
The Tight Expert's Play List
If you'd like to play more hands, and are an experienced player, then consider the "Tight Expert's Play List", which adds the hands that belong to a corrected Sklansky's Group 5. The original members of Sklansky's Group 5, arranged in the order suggested by S&M, are shown below in Table __.
Figure 9 - Sklansky's Group 5 Hands 77 *87s Q9s *T8s KJ QJ JT *76s *97s *A9s *A8s A7s A6s A5s A4s A3s A2s *65s
There are 18 hands in Sklansky's Group 5. But 7 of these belong elsewhere. Two (A9s, A8s) deserved promotion to Group 4, as we have already seen. The five remaining hands are weak suited connectors, and "semi-connectors" (T8s, 97s, 87s, 76s and 65s). We have already discussed the error associated with over-rating the nonlinearities in these hands, especially 87s and 76s. But these are also among the most sensitive hands to both number of foes and overall tight/loose HE Table playing conditions. 65s, for example, ranks 25th (out of 169) in sensitivity to HE Table conditions, 24th in sensitivity to number of foes at the river and 29th in sensitivity to interactions between these factors. Indirectly, as a result of their (a) extreme power nonlinearities and (b) extreme sensitivity to HE Table playing conditions, these hands drop out of the top 84 starting hands entirely. In typical limit hold'em casino games at mid and lower limits, these hands should be folded by the advanced player. The three others (87s, 97s and T8s) are simply demoted. T8s goes to Group 6 while 87s and 97s get moved down to Group 7.
The 7 additions to Group 5 include two (KT and QT) that are obviously closely related to three original members (KJ, QJ and JT) and five higher ranking suited hands (K9s, K8s, Q8s, T9s and J9s) than the small suited connectors they replace. This is because with suited starting hands the rank of the kicker is usually more important than the connected-ness of their values, although with T9s both factors may combine.
If you otherwise follow the S&M guides to poker strategy, some of these changes would impact how you play the game. For example, "some hands, such as 87s..play well against many opponents. If there are usually a lot of callers ... these types of hands become playable in early position. However, over playing these hands up front (and most players do just that) can get you into trouble." (S&M, p.15).
87s is now a Group 7 hand, which S&M do not recommend for play in early position at all. The problem, of course, is that recommending the play of 87s against "many" opponents, without specifying exactly how many or the consequences of not counting accurately, is not clear guidance. S&M do, however, provide themselves an out by the observation that "most players" over play these hands. We would agree both with (a) not playing Group 7 hands in early position and (b) that anybody who does is over playing them.
You will be dealt one of these starting hands, ranked 1 to 42 globally, about once in every 5 hands. This means you should be involved in about 6 pots per hour. We consider this to be the Tight Expert's Play List.
The Professional's Play List
We turn now to Sklansky's Group 6 hands, as shown in Table __ below.
Table 6 - Sklansky's Group 6 Hands
66 *AT *55 *86s *KT *QT *54s *K9s J8s
There are 9 members of S&M's original Group 6. Four of these have already been promoted: AT to Group 4, and three (K9s, KT and QT) up to Group 5. One (55) deserves demotion to Group 7. A medium 1 gap suited connector (86s) is dropped from the list of playable hands entirely. It has a power profile across HE Table conditions similar to those discussed earlier as Group 5 deviant suited connectors. Also, it's the 86th ranking hand overall.
We've replaced these 7 changes with the highest available power ratings (T8s, K7s, 98s, A9, K6s, K5s and A8). Some of these are demotions from higher Sklansky Groups as described previously. These starting hands, ranking from 1 up to 51, constitute 24% of all starting hands. If you follow this Professional's Play List, you'll bet in about 1/4th of the pots at your HE Table. But, choose your HE Table with care. Leave tight games or change your strategy.
The Savvy Gambler's Play List
We turn now to Sklansky's original Group 7 hands, as shown below in Table ___.
Table 7 - Sklansky's Group 7 Hands
*44 J9 *43s *75s T9 *33 *98 *64s *22 *K8s *K7s *K6s *K5s K4s K3s K2s Q8s
There are 17 hands in this Group. Unfortunately, 11 of these do not belong here. The two low pairs, 22 and 33 are not worth playing. Group 8. They have been dropped from all our play lists entirely. Neither are the small suited connectors, 64s, 43s, 75s or the connector 98.. The pair, 44, is demoted down to Group 8. Suited medium Kx's have been under valued by S&M, and each of these deserves promotion out of Group 7: K8s up to Group 5, while K7s, K6s and K5s were promoted up to Group 6. S&M had originally placed all Kxs from K2s through K8s into this single Group.
We also recommend a slightly different playing strategy with the corrected Group 7 hands. S&M recommend Group 7 only when you're on the Button, with one or more callers in front. In particular, they recommend raising with the small pairs or small suited connectors. But all of these hands have either moved down to Group 8 or taken entirely off the play lists. Each depended on hitting the flop with trips or a flush/straight draw. It turns out, however, there is more value in hoping to hit the flop for a King-high flush draw.
If there is merit in the S&M strategy for Button raises with Group 7 hands in general, then, you should consider each of these hands for the following decision paths: either call unraised pots in late position, raise an unraised pot from the Button or otherwise fold these Group 7 hands. If you've played one then wait for the flop and, if you haven't made a hand such as a flush draw, trips or two pair, fold.
The Savvy Gambler will have these hands in his/her Play List knowing both that they are good hands with a good flop, that foes generally discount the likelihood you'll be holding them thus encouraging action when the flop doesn't look too scary, and he/she will have the iron discipline to discard them on those many rounds when the flop goes elsewhere. The gambling part of this Play List is in the need to pray, or otherwise invoke the Poker Gods, for a suitable flop more than with hands in the other groups. By adopting the Savvy Gambler's Play List, without regard to your position, you would on average, participate in about 1/3rd of all pots at your HE Table. The actual number will fall in the range of 1/4rd up to 1/3rd because of raising by other players and your opportunities for late play of these hands. As is true in general, of course, stay away from very tight HE Tables.
The Gambler's Play List
We turn now to the Group 8 hands which, when added to all of the previous Play Lists, constitute up to 44% of all hands dealt in Texas Hold'em.
Table 8 - Sklansky Group 8 Hands
*87 *53s *A9 *Q9 *76 *42s *32s *96s *85s J8 *J7s *65 *54 *74s *K9 T8
There are 16 hands in S&M's original Group 8. Of these, only 2 belong in the group. Four hands deserved promotion: A9 was moved to Group 6, while K9, Q9, and J7s were moved to Group 7. Otherwise, all of the remaining changes are demotions out of the Play Lists entirely. Examples are the medium connectors 87, 76, 65 and 54, and the small suited connectors 53s, 42s and 32s. While these hands can sometimes hit ideal flops, and might be played occasionally for surprise value, they are not robust enough overall for us to recommend their play even on the Gambler's List.
The Jones' Combinations
Lee Jones, in his book "Winning Low Limit Hold'em," does not rank all playable hands, so we will have to take a slightly different approach to evaluating his recommendations.
Early Position
Raise with AK, QQ and JJ if "..it will limit the field." We would strongly urge raising with AK for this purpose, as we have seen. The value of AK deteriorates dramatically as the number of realistic foes increases beyond one at the river. But QQ and JJ actually hold up well, so if you raise these hands it should be for value rather than to limit the field.
"Always re-raise with AA and KK". Yes, we agree entirely.
Table 9 - Jones Early Position Hands
AA KK QQ JJ TT AKs KQs QJs *JTs AQs KJs *QTs AJs KTs AK *KQ AQ *AJ
The table above shows 18 hands that Jones recommends for early position play. If we assume that these would be the top 18 ranked hands in the game, then 4 of these do not belong: QTs, JTs, KQ or AJ. In their place should be ATs, AQ, 99 and 88. But Jones goes on to say that "..if the game is loose-passive add.." 99, 88, 77, 66, 98s, 87s, QJ, JT, T9, and 98 to the list above. These should be the 19th thru 28th ranked hands. Unfortunately, we show little correspondence with these recommendations. So far, of 28 starting hands recommended by Jones we would agree with only about half. This is substantially less than for Sklansky and Malmuth. We leave it as a reader's exercise to work out the details to compare our rankings with what we have to assume must be Jones' rankings.
Wrap-Up
We have, during the course of examining in detail the hand rankings of Sklansky and Malmuth, as put forth in their book, "Hold'em Poker For Advanced Players," updated and revised their rankings and reasons for playing or raising some starting hands. We've also presented five overall playing strategies for you to consider, in the form of Play Lists.
Table 10 - The 5 Play List Strategies
Personality.......Play........Threshold Starving..........11.3% .....Top 24 hands
Tight Expert......20.0%......Top 42 hands
Professional......24.0%......Top 51 hands
Savvy Gambler.....32.9%......Top 68 hands
Good Gambler......43.9%......Top 84 hands
Why not just wait for AA and only play it, folding every other hand that you are dealt? Because of the need to post blinds in hold'em, you pay for playing at the rate of about 4 ½ small bets (4.5sb) per hour, If you waited only for AA, you'd be waiting an average of 5-7 hours to play one hand at a cost of 27sb. This is a fairly good net pot to win, just to break even assuming AA always won, which of course it doesn't. Hold'em is structured so that you must play to win. Each of the recommended Play Lists should suit some hold'em player. But playing any one of them will require patience and discipline.
i'm so suprised that this thread didn't receive more attention. Thankyou Jim for making the information available. Instead oF reacting defensively to this informationDavid, you could respond by saying something positive about the PEOPLE involved, and then talk about how your groups are different. You can't simply dissmiss these people as having nothing to offer. If it is true that your starting hands have changed again, then let's hear why. To say that following these new starting hands will make you lose alot of money seems, alittle out there.It is really disappointing for you two to react this way.
Every now and then my friends and I play a little 7 card stud but with 1 joker added to the deck. Does anyone know the odds of getting a natural royal flush, wild royal flush, natural straight flush, and wild straight flush? I believe I have calculated the odds for the natural royal and natural straight flush correctly but am not sure. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Recently I thought that there might be some universal truths that could be derived from Wilson's Turbo Texas Holdem if one started from the premise that while the individual tactics might not hold true in real life poker, a carefully constructed test should expose the underlying mechanisms, the universal mathematical truths, maybe, and knowing these should be important. Anyway, I started with the simplest possible test and then let the results guide me to the next test. I thought I would post each test as a separate thread in the hope that some of this data will be useful for others to discuss. To start the discussion I have also included my own conclusions--although as an Anthro major I am certainly suspect when it comes to interpreting statistics. This post includes the first test results. All tests were run for 5,000,000 hands in a structured $10-$20 game with 5-10 blinds, no rake.
Test 1: 10 players, all the same person (Conan, quite a solid player). The other tests will be a bit more interesting I suspect, but this is a nice starting point.
Run 1: Button moving Result: 7 winners (+$17k to +$115k), 3 losers (-$110k, $137k, $155k)
Run 2: Button Frozen Result: SB -$15,600k bb -$33,192k #3 +$4,733k #4 +$4,799k #5 +$5,194k #6 +$5,432k #7 +$6,070k #8 +$6,494k #9 +$7,574k #10+$8,492k
My Conclusions: 1. The SB costs a player an average of about 38% as compared to the BB which costs 34. I would guess that the percentage advantage should be attributed to position--BB acts last.
2. The positional advantage, while clearly expected, is much bigger than I had supposed. An almost 80% advantage of the 10th position over the third position. The 10th position enjoys about a $1.70 (17%) advantage per hand just on the basis of position.
Puzzling result: Why are there only 3 losers (who are therefore quantatively higher)and 7 winners? I expected 5-5 or maybe 6-4, shouldn't 5,000,000 hands be enough to smooth this out? Isn't 7-3 a pretty strong skew to three players?
Darrell,
If the button is frozen, the same 2 players (SB + BB) contribute payments of the blind for each hand.
Regards,
Dave J
Right, Dave. The message that came from the frozen button though is that there is about a +8% incremental advantage as one moves away from the button. The position immediately after the button had a win amount of $4,733k and the furthest player (on the button) had a win amount of $8,492k. I was also surprised at how smooth the increment was from seat to seat. Doesn't the fact that there were ten players playing identically with rigid discipline indicate that this 8% increment is fundamentally accurate?
Re-do your simulations and this time include a $2, or $2.50 per hand average rake. With a maximum of $3. (All pots are not raked the max.)
<< Why are there only 3 losers (who are therefore quantatively higher)and 7 winners? I expected 5-5 or maybe 6-4, shouldn't 5,000,000 hands be enough to smooth this out? Isn't 7-3 a pretty strong skew to three players? >>
No. Due to the symmetry of your Test 1, there will not any skew IN EXPECTATION. However, no matter how long you run the simulation, there's about one chance in 12 that your simulation results will wind up with a 7-3 or greater "skew" when comparing winners to losers or vice versa (it will be 5-5 about 43% of the time and 6-4 about 49% of the time).
What you really should be looking at is whether the deviations are larger than you'd expect due to chance. They aren't. Your results suggest a variance per hand of about 6 (Big Bets)^2. After 5 million hands, this will generate a standard deviation across the players of about $100,000. That's exactly what you're seeing.
<< The SB costs a player an average of about 38% as compared to the BB which costs 34. I would guess that the percentage advantage should be attributed to position--BB acts last. >>
This is not the correct way to express these results. What is actually happening is that the small blind RECOVERS 38% of the $5 he posts while the the big blind RECOVERS 34% of the $10 he posts.
But it's not clear why we should make a percentage comparison rather than an absolute comparison. In absolute terms, the small blind profits $1.88 per hand AFTER posting, while the big blind profits $3.36 per hand AFTER posting. These numbers are both larger than the button's $1.70 profit per hand (after posting $0). These are the numbers that really need explaining.
The button does not post 0. To make some profit, the button also has to post the bet or raise. I don't see a mystery in these results, they seems about right. It is correct to think of the blinds as bets that are lost in this case. Perhaps you are thinking of the game situation where you would be correct to consider the blinds as just part of the pot and not a bet you made but in this context it is the correct way to account for the value of a position.
D
<< The button does not post 0. To make some profit, the button also has to post the bet or raise. >>
A "post" is a forced bet. The button is not forced to make a bet, and thus posts nothing (0).
<< 2. The positional advantage, while clearly expected, is much bigger than I had supposed. An almost 80% advantage of the 10th position over the third position. The 10th position enjoys about a $1.70 (17%) advantage per hand just on the basis of position. >>
This isn't the most illuminating way to measure the button's positional advantage. Some of that $1.70 comes from the $15 posted by the blinds, and everyone, regardless of position gains from that contribution to the pot.
A better way to measure positional advantage is by comparing the expectation of the button to that of the player under the gun. The difference is $.75 per hand.
Note that it is not correct to express this advantage as 7.5% ($.75 / $10). If we want to measure the advantage in percentage terms it must be done relative to the average amount risked by the button.
>2. The positional advantage, while clearly expected, is
I think with this similation of 10 Conans at the table and the button fixed, you have determined how well Conan's strategy utilizes positional advantage. This probably will not yield a very good generalization.
>My Conclusions: 1. The SB costs a player an average of ....
> much bigger than I had supposed. An almost 80% advantage
> of the 10th position over the third position. The 10th
> position enjoys about a $1.70 (17%) advantage per hand
> just on the basis of position.
Opinions polease: What are the most important Poker Skills one needs to be a great No Limit Hold'em player? Why are they important? Vince
Vince,
Mostly the same skills apply, but more value is put on people reading skills. Learning how much you can win out of a hand is important as well as the amount to bet in a bluff. There are quite a few more of which some others will add and more on this is back in the archives if you can find it. Good Luck.
I would say knowing how to suck your opponents in.
Along with people reading skills you need a lot of heart.
Along with people reading skills you need a lot of heart.
Vince.
You've asked a question that has no single, correct answer. Different NL Hold'Em games require different skills. In games I play in, I always look for the players who are willing to commit too much money with too little chance of winning. ( Like paying too much to try to make a draw) Gamblers will get killed in NL ring games due to taking too many risks with the odds decidedly against them. A second group that loses in NL is the players that need to continue on when they have money already committed to the pot. They can't seem to lay a second best hand down.
I play my best by committing my money after another player has committed his, by reacting to his mistake. I might play big hands fast from in front at times, but I'd prefer to limp or smooth call when there is a good chance that someone will raise from behind and create a pot worth going all in over. I don't like limping with starters that need a flop, hoping to see a cheap flop unless I have good position or a reduced entry cost from the blinds and don't fear a preflop raise.
I don't always play the same way in NL, preferring to play tight/aggressive at times and loose/aggressive at other times. A good NL player needs to be able to accept the fact that he will lose it all from time to time. When I lose the money I have in front of me, I simply buy in again and try to play as if I am starting anew. In a full NL game, if you look around and don't see at least three other players in the game that you know you can outplay, you probably shouldn't rebuy if you lose your first buy in. In a shorthanded game, a single player with lots of chips in front of him that you know you can outplay,is enough reason for the rebuy. Hope this perspective helps.
Big John, I was hoping (and expecting) for your welcomed response. From some of your comments ("Gamblers will get killed in NL ring games due to taking too many risks with the odds decidedly against them") and from some limited reading I have done on the subject I have come to a simple conclusion. One of the most, if not the most (although I'm sure, knowing your opponent ranks right up there), important skills a NL player needs is "Odds Application" (my term). I am stating this more as a question and conjecture not as something I have determined through rigorous analysis. AS stated I have no NL EXPERIENCE! By "odds application" I mean the ability to make the correct bet, raise, call or fold (correct decision) given the odds that the pot is offering for the given hand (situation). I know that "odds application" is kind of a weak term but it's the best I could do on short notice. I didn't want to say "knowing the Odds or soemthing similiar because I consider that knowledge and not a skill. Correct application of that knowledge is my point! Anyway your comments as well as those of other forum poster are solicited and welcomed. Thanks Have No Fear! Vince
Vince,
NL is a game of mistakes. There are some players who almost always bet only with the "nuts". They are trying to trap someone into making a bad bet, call or raise. It is fun even when you aren't participating in the pot as you watch players setting and avoiding traps. Players with predictable playing tendencies fare poorly in this game. Your stack doesn't erode slowly from a series of missed draws, it is ripped away from you suddenly when your opponent flashes a smile and pushes all his chips to the center of the felt, announcing his call or raise.
Odds Application: Making a decision based on probability and hope. More than half of the pivotal pots that develop in a good NL Hold'em game result in heads up action with one player all in before the flop. In a weak game you'll see more multiway action before the flop, but these games favor the tighter players and seldom result in much of a game. As in boxing, having only counter-punchers seldom results in a good fight. When you have lots of rammer-jammers though, it always makes for a great game as the money goes flying around the table.
When tight/aggressive, limit oriented players leave a good NL game they usually lament their inability to find a good playable hand when the big pots occurred. When a ramming-jamming NL player leaves the game, he is usually muttering about how much he regrets being busted before he could get anything to stand up for him. Solid NL players don't usually leave the game until it breaks up; they are usually lamenting about there being too few "scared" players and GambOOlers to keep the game fed.
I thought I'd post some actual situations I was in in the last couple of weeks in the local 10-20 Omaha high game. I'll give you the setup, and then ask for debate on the proper next play. Later, I'll tell you what I did and what the result was.
Hand #1: -------- I have JhTh9d9c. I call from early position with one other caller in front of me. Several other people call behind.
The flop: 9h6c4d First player checks, I bet, two people call, and the button raises. First person folds, I call, one other person calls.
The Turn: Qs I bet, person in the middle folds, the button calls.
The River: Ks What would you do?
Hand #2 ------- I have AdJd8h7h in late position. 5 people call the blinds, I call, and both blinds call.
The flop: Kc5h6h Big blind bets, two people call, I call, small blind folds.
The Turn: Qc Big blind bets again, both other people fold, I call.
The river: Ac Big blind bets again.
What would you do?
Hand 3 -------- I have AdKc7d7s on the button. 4 people call the blinds, I call, and both blinds call.
The flop: Jc7h4s Both blinds check, early position caller bets, two people call, and the next person raises.
What would you do?
Hand 1 - Bet - the button most likely has AA or 66. If she has KK your beat. If you only bet on the end with the nuts, everyone will know what you have when you bet.
Hand 2 - Fold; what's the problem?
Hand 3 - Raise - knock out the other players when you probably have the best hand. Raiser either has JJ or J7 or 44.
Wenatchee Max
Some comments:
Hand 1 - What would make you think the raiser has AA?
Hand 2 - It's not a clearcut decision. After all, you can beat a bluff...
Hand 1-Bet, and re-raise if raised. Hand 2-Fold. Hand 3-Call, then catch case 7! Frank Brabec
Hand 1: ReRaise on the flop and bet it all the way even after you make the nuts straight on the end. If I just called the flop (hehehe) I would check-raise the turn.
Hand 2: Either you mis-typed or this is a trick question. Do NOT call with a pair of Aces. Raise on a bluff? Why not! This looks like the best time to do so. On second thought, Axh looks like a reasonable hand for this player to have, so MAYBE your J is a good kicker. Bt a raise will get him to lay down Aces-Up. With your dead flush draw and no-additional value straight DRAW, FOLD was an option on the flop, wasn't it?
Hand 3: Fold quietly and NEVER let anybody know you layed down 2nd set. This fold is especially good since none of your other situations featured any body raising, indicating a particularly passive game; thus the raiser should have JJJ.
- Louie
Hand 2: A lot of players would certainly over-value this hand on the flop. There are lot of Omaha hands that look great to new players but are really lousy. I often hear comments at the table along the lines of, "How could I miss? I had a gutshot straight, top pair, a jack high four flush AND a ten high four flush on the turn! I was hitting everything!" And of course it's more likely that instead of hitting everything the guy was drawing to maybe 3 cards or was drawing completely dead.
Still, The nut straight draw is valuable here. The fact that I have two hearts in my hand improves it, not because I want to make a flush but because it makes it less likely that the flush will come in. And of course, I have two outs to a straight flush which is nice because you can often get 3 or 4 big bets on the river if you hit it.
As for calling on the river, see my other message. That's exactly what I did. But the argument for raising has merit as well.
Dan
Hand # 1- Reraise the flop. You have the best hand at this point plus you want to drive out the possible straight draws. Bet the turn, you still have a powerful hand. Bet the river and hope for a raise, you have the nuts.
Hand # 2- Depending on the other players I might semi-bluff raise the flop with 15 outs, 8 of them giving you the nuts, maybe a free river card if turn doesn't help you. (which it didn't) Definitly call the turn with $140 in the pot and now with 18 outs, 10 of them giving you the nuts. Fold the river.
Hand # 3- Reraise, Raiser may or may not have JJ, maybe 44 but you need to try to drive out straight draws and weaker suck out hands.
Comments or flames to my analysis are appreciated as I am still learning and have a long way to go. Tom S.
Hand 2 - I would never consider that I had 15 outs here. It's almost a certainty that hearts are no good unless I hit my straight flush. Given that, I really see this hand as pretty weak on the flop. Definitely worth a call, but I don't like free-card raises in Omaha - they almost never work, and I don't like giving away my hand on the turn. Also, there are lot of times where a card comes on the turn that would make you ready to fold whatever draw you had, and you'll wish you hadn't invested another bet.
On the turn my hand improved dramatically - with the other people folding I now had to consider that perhaps any heart would be a winner for me, plus I picked up the gutshot on the top. You could consider a semi-bluff raise here. However, a likely hand for my opponent to have at this point is KK, and if he has that then the semi-bluff is going to cost you 3 big bets.
I would much prefer a semi-bluff raise here if the board paired, especially if it paired on the lowest card. If he has a full house, you can drop the hand if he re-raises or calls and then bets into you on the river (even if you hit your draw), and if he doesn't have a full house he'll probably fold his nut heart draw and you win the pot outright. If he had top two pair, he might call on the turn, in which case you win if you hit your draw, or if you think he might lay down you can bet again on the river.
Dan
Caveat: Analysis herein provided by an Omaha neophyte
Hand #1
Checkraise.
When your opponent raised on the flop and only called on the turn, I would assume that he raised on the flop with a draw and was raising to buy a free card ( For example, he might have had 8,7).
He may have had a hand like AA,66,44,or KK.
He probably wouldn't call on the end with AA so you don't lose out on a bet by checking. With 66 or KK, he would likely bet after you checked but would likely only call if you bet. Thus, once again, it's better to checkraise.
A further advantage of checkraising is in relation to future hands: Your opponents will be less likely to value bet a medium strength hand after you have checked on the river.
Hand #2
Call.
There's $180 in the pot. Is there a one in nine chance that you've got him beat?...I'd think so.
This man probably does not hold J,10. If he did, he wouldn't be betting the flop unless he also had pocket Kings to go with the Jack Ten. Now, if he had King, King, Jack, Ten for a hand, he would likely have raised preflop despite his poor position. In sum, he probably does not have Jack Ten.
Thus, given that he doesn't have J,10, why is he so brashly betting on the end? Most players at this stage would check even a hand like trip Kings. His bet indicates that he may be bluffing. He certainly ain't betting a hand like Aces up.
All of these factors would suggest to me that this guy's hand is weak. He may have been on the nut flush draw and was just driving on the turn and the River. If I did not hold an Ace (and was in a particularly intrepid mood, I might even raise. But with an Ace and a Jack kicker (which is top kicker here, I would just call).
Hand #3
Fold.
I'm assuming that both the early position bettor and the raiser are fairly decent players and not just live ones.
The flop offers very few draws. About the only drawing hand that the bettor and the raiser might be in there with would be something like 8,9,10,Queen. Either player would probably have raised preflop with that type of hand. In any event, you are probably looking at having at least one of your opponents having a set. Is the early position player someone who would play 44 from an early position? Is the raiser capable of playing 44?...Chances are that you are facing JJ. Fold.
Your analysis matches mine almost exactly, except that I screwed up question 1 (see my other post).
One disagreement - There aren't many Omaha players around here that would raise a hand like 89TQ, except maybe in very late position, and probably not even then.
Dan
Dan, if you did have J,10,9,9 in Hand #1, do you agree that a checkraise is the best play on the river?
No, I probably wouldn't go for a checkraise here. Having the big straight come in on the river will often scare an opponent with something like a set into checking, and I lose a bet if I'm against a smaller set. In addition, if I did get someone to bet, they might not pay off the raise anyway.
On the other hand, if you bet you might get a call from a hand that would *never bet the river, like two small pair, if he thinks you are on a bluff.
I would go for a checkraise here if I had 3 or four opponents in the hand, and the opponent to my immediate left was leading the action. If I can trap 2 or 3 people for two bets it might be worth the risk.
Dan
Dan, Re: what would you do if you held J,10,9,9...While I certainly don't quarrel much with betting on the river, I do believe that a checkraise can often be the better play for the reasons stated in my original answer to your interesting quiz.
The situation reminds me of a play mentioned in one of Sklansky's books (I think it was Hold 'em Poker). That play went something like this: You limp in with a King in your hand. A player raises and everyone including the blinds fold. The flop is Kxx. You check and call. The turn is a blank. You check and so does your opponent. The river card is a Queen. Sklansky says that the proper play here is a checkraise. However, he does not explain why; he leaves it to the reader to figure out the reason.
Now, I think the reason why he identifies a checkraise as the proper play is because once you check, your opponent will likely bet for value any hand with which he would have called had you bet. If he cannot bet after you check, his hand was probably such that he wouldn't have called your bet on the river. Thus, a checkraise is better than a bet because not only could you possibly make an extra bet, you also allow your opponent a chance to bluff with a hand that he would have thrown away if you had bet. (BTW, if David is reading this post, I would ask him to respond if my understanding of the rationale of his play is misguided).
In any event, I see some parallels between Sklansky's play and the play of your Hand #1. Although, as I stated before, I certainly do not quarrel much with your suggestion to just come out betting.
One ancillary point: Our analyses of your three hands were quite similar. The difference was that I had time to think about my responses while you did not. I congratulate you for making these tough decisions quickly in the heat of battle. Given my lack of experience with Omaha, I doubt that I would have been able to do the same at the table. But this is what seperates great players from merely good ones. You have to have an appreciation of these types of tough situations before you even walk into the cardroom so that when the situations arise, you make the correct play more often than not and can do so WITHOUT HAVING TO THINK ABOUT IT.
Keep those quizzes coming. They are both interesting and educational.
Dan, would you raise preflop with a hand like 8,9,10,Queen in the games that you typically play in?
That's a little weak to be a regular raising hand. Once in a while I might throw a raise in with something like that if I think it might buy me the button, but not very often.
I don't do a lot of raising in Omaha from early position. The types of hands that are strong enough to raise with there are also hands that like many callers. I might consider a raise with a hand like AA99, if the aces aren't suited.
In late position I raise with quite a few hands like 789T, AKJ8 with a suited Ace, etc. Three big cards with a suited Ace is usually worth a raise in late position. Big pairs with any other equity are often worth a raise (say, something like KKT8, with one suited King).
I think I get quite a bit of EV from raising with hands like this. Another reason why Omaha is such a good game right now is that there are many players who think that you should never raise before the flop, or will only raise with something like double-suited Aces. So, when they have position on me and good hands they don't make me pay for it, but when I have position on them and a good hand, they have to pay double.
These players who only raise double-suited aces are also good to have in the game because when they do raise they are turning their cards face up. If an Ace lands on the flop, you know you're facing top set, and I can fold otherwise playable hands before the flop if they make second-nut flushes.
One caveat about raises - once in a while you'll find really juicy Omaha games where you routinely get 9 or 10 callers before the flop, and there is rarely a raise. In games like this, I don't want to upset the apple cart - if you start raising a lot, soon you find that those 10 callers before the flop have become 5 or 6.
Dan
My first post covered a simple test of a sound player playing against himself and showed the advantages of position. This test introduces a single poor player to a mix of 9 solid players. Reminder: The tests are run on Turbo Texas Holdem, 5,000,000 hands, $10-20 structured, 5-10 blinds, no rake.
Test 2: 10 Players, 9 are all the same person (Conan a solid player), and one loose player (Welcome Waldo)
Result: #1 +556k #2 +610k #3 +429k WW -6,277k #5 +938k #6 +794k #7 +726k #8 +821k #9 +738k 10 +660k
Conclusions: 1. Look for a game with a live one! Just introducing one poor player makes a huuuuuge difference. 2. Wow, does the position relative to the poor player matter! At least in this case. The number sure do confirm what has been said many time: "Sit behind the poor player". The player in front had less than half of the total winnings of the player in back. (+$429k v. +$938k). 3. Even just one poor player can make the game a good one.
Question: Would the positional advantage hold true if the poor player played a dramatically different style. What factors should be changed in the way a "live one" plays that might affect position differently?
This test used a moving button, right?
Yes, right.
If you check out www.playersedge.com, in the back issues you'll find an interesting two part article that where simialr simulations were performed with some interesting analysis as well.
I was catching up on some posts and wanted to respond to two things. One was on the "tells" thread. I was suprised no one posted on reading a players eyes. I have learned that pupil dilation is a 100% effective giveaway. I'm sure most of you are aware of this but for those who aren't, i'll describe. When a person becomes very excited, their pupils will dilate (get larger). This is a completely involuntary response. It is definately not something an "actor" can put on. I you see an opponent pick up a card, or looks at the board and his pupils get big you can be positive he is on to something big. The limitations of this sort of thing is that you have to be aware of what it is that could have made your opponet so happy, (weaker players may become excited with a hopeless hand) and picking up on this sort of thing will not win you any pots, just save you a bet or two (wich could mean the world in No Limit). I have found it damn near impossible to catch this (some players wear dark tinted glasses because of this). I would like to read some posts of people whom have succesfully used this. The other thing was on the posts about the next Hold'em book. Some one had said how they would like a book of just how would you play this hand analysis, as this was the type of post he learns the most from. I couldn't agree more. Being succesfull poker authors themselves, I would like Mason, Dave or Rays opinions on the following.
I was thinking a really good idea would be to base a book on a fictional session. The book would start off as if you just sat down to a game. Hands are disscussed, and later hands build upon the earlier hands: i.e. image you are presenting, picking up of sublte clues in opponets past hands. With the proper planning, analysis and creativity, thids could be one of the most effective learning tools on poker. Reasoning as follows. Last semester, I had the oppurtunity to learn about the "three domains of learning" i.e. the cognitive, affective and psychomotor. The most important in poker, the cognitive domain can be broken down into 6 parts. The first two are where most poker manuals stop. KNOWLEDGE (this is the core material found in most poker books) COMPREHENSION (the readers ability to understand the concepts). The next three are intelectually the most important, and are exavtly what this type of book would emphasize. APPLICATION (apply the material learned say in HPFAP to actual situations) this could be done in the casino but there would be no "teaching". SYNTHESIS taking apart and puting together the various componets of each hand and piece of information. This is the stage winning poker players want to master. The last part would be EVVALUATION: judging and evaluating new information and research. This would be the equivelnet of doctoral research in graduate school. Few players will ever attain this level of mastery. Sklansky has with TOP. Anyway, I would like to hear somew ideas on this. I think it would make an incredidible book.
On your first point, pupil dilation, I think you are correct. Early on when I first began to play, I could feel my eyes widen whenever a big one hit. I've worn a hat with a large brow for years now to hide this tell. When I sit in a game with strangers it is one of the first indications of self-awareness I look for...who's taken steps to hide their eyes.
On your second point we can only hope. I think your ideas would make for a very educational book.
Spitball,
I'm of the opinion that the hat or glasses routine is probably counter productive. Whenever I see someone with either, it arouses my suspicions and I watch them extra close!
Back in the last years of the Gardena Draw Poker Hay-day I used this tell surprisingly often. I have not used it in years. I suspect this is because experience players do NOT get excited when they make the nuts like the draw bozo's would; but also because I can see all opponents physical reaction with periferal vision, which I would not be able to do if I were focused on one blue-eyed opponent's eyes.
I wear light tinted glasses so the opponents cannot see WHERE I am looking; my brown eyes protect me from this pupil dialation tell.
Your "three domains of learning" looks quite interesting. Consider investing some time in writing about this with clear poker examples; I am sure it would be a very beneficial post.
- Louie
> I have learned that pupil dilation is a 100% effective giveaway.
Good luck seeing it. Not only do you need to be close enough, but unless the dude has blue eyes....
In this series of test I progressively added loose players to the set of solid players (Welcome Waldos to a set of Conans). I ran the results three more times: for a mix of three Waldos/ seven Conans; five Waldos/five Conans; and 8 Waldos/two Conans. Together with the previously reported test of a single Waldo with nine Conans I compared the results of the four tests. Not to be confusing, I did previously run one test with a moving button, but that was the only test of that type.
The first and most obvious result is that position relative to the poor players is extremely important. In every case a Conan sittng behind a Waldo had substantially greater winnings than did a Conan behind a Conan (a significant amount, about 15% higher). And a Conan sitting behind more Waldos in a row did proportionately better the more Waldos he sat behind. In the final test I had seven Waldos in a row behind a Conan/Waldo/Conan and the results were the same for the Waldos: Each lost progressively less depending upon the number of Waldos they sat behind (the range was -$1,667k to -$852k--pretty substantial).
In this series the Waldos saw the flop 38% of the time in the first test, 39% in the second, 40% in the third and 41% in the fourth. They saw the river 13% to 19% of the time. I attribute the higher drop frequency in the early runs to the fact the when there were more Conans in the pot they tended to bet more agressively. OTOH the Conans varied in percentage from 18% to 20% seeing the flop to 7% to 9% seeing the river.
The longest losing streak for Conans was one of the more interesting statistics. They averaged 132 hands in the game with a single Waldo and averaged 221 hands in the game with eight Waldos. This supports the belief that playing with looser players can cause a higher variance. The average size of a pot won went from $65 to $120 depending upon the number of Waldos in the game. This, I think, is another indicator of a higher variance in a looser game. Finally, Waldos averaged about 60% more pots won than Conans.
Conclusions: 1. Position seems to be much more important than I had thought before running this series. I usually sat to the left of a loose player if I could, but I will certainly make it an even bigger priority. And the fact is that sitting behind a loose player is much more important than sitting ahead of a tight player.
2. The average amount lost per Waldo was proportionately less as more Waldos entered the game. The Waldos benefited even more, percentagewise, in improvement to their ev with more Waldos in the game. While the Conans total $ won went up with the increase in Waldos, the improvement was not proportional percentagewise. The ideal game if you are interested in controlling your variance would seem to be five Waldos or less. If you don't care about variance then the more the merrier.
It seems to me that those who suggested that no fold 'em games were tough have some support from the data here.
It is interesting to me that this series of test so closely followed the best advice from this forum. Validation is good, of course, but being able to quantify positional advantage should also have value. To the extent that these tests were done in a rigid environment the exact results in terms of $won etc may not be too reliable, but the fact that the seat bhind the loosest player in the game always has an expectation of 25% more profit than the seat three seats away should be of significant value, and it was certainly news to me that the positional expectation was so high.
The other significant note is the importance of having a single "live one" in the game. Playing with ten equal or nearly equal pros isn't going to beat the rake, but adding just one loose player everything changes.
How many times have we said game selection is important, but we haven't defined it beyond that point. I have heard many other players say "Don't play in that game, Mr. X (or Mr. X and Mr. Y) is in it and he's too good". The fact is that this data suggests that the presence of the pros isn't the most important issue in game selection, it is the presence of one or more loose players that matters. (Mason, anyone, your thoughts here?) Play your solid game and get your share of the loose money, even against some others present you may not have the best of--just make sure that the "live one" isn't you!
I'm not sure you can draw that strong a conclusion from this test. Your results could be wrong because the coding of the players in TTH2 doesn't have them compensating enough for being out of position.
The results with the loose player in the game could also be an aberration because the loose player may have a certain leak that the other computer players have learned to adjust to. Generalizing this specific situation to every game where there is a loose player is just not warranted, IMO.
To get better results, try doing the positional advantage test with 10 groups of the same player (i.e. 10 loose players, 10 tight players, etc.). Then see if the correlation still exists. This will still be suspect though because you don't know if all the profiles have the same problem.
Dan
I did some similar positional tests and got the same kind of results that I posted a few months ago. Somone else posted that they thought a serious problem with the positional results in TTH2 is from the lack of much check-raising by the computer program. IMO this would not skew the results so much. In the example of all experts and one live-one, the computer experts will do equally little check-raising and a real life live-one would probably not do much check-raising at all.
Are there more opinions on these very strong positional effects that can be seen in these simulations? I know there are some strong players on here that make extensive use of TTH for other strategy ideas.
D.
Post deleted at author's request.
Yes, a HUMAN and a clever custom profile can take advantage of late position more in TTH than live. But the pre-generated computer profiles do NOT take nearly as much advantage, so I suggest that position is worth MORE live than in TTH million-hand simulations.
- Louie
Post deleted at author's request.
The lack of checkraising increases positional advantage. Since the profiles in TTH2 do not checkraise properly, I would think that positional advantage will be skewed on the high side.
Dan
Where can we down load the TTH software?
It is not shareware.
You have to purchase it from Wilson Software or perhaps conjelco for $79 ( I think that is the price ).
David
Hand #1 ------- First of all, I screwed up my first question. I had Qt99. The point was that the King and Queen on the turn and river put a possible straight on the board. I still bet, and was paid off.
The point I was trying to make here is that a lot of weak Omaha players will automatically check their hand on the river if the board changes and they no longer have the nuts. After all, no matter what a person was calling with on the flop, the other two cards in his hand may have hit some runner-runner draw. However, it's unlikely. When you bet the river, you should be trying to evaluate whether it is more likely that you are betting into a better hand, or whether you can get a worse hand to call you. Ironically, having the board change on the river in Omaha will often make it MORE likely that a worse hand will call you, since players are so used to seeing checks on the river from legitimate hands when the board changes that they simply won't believe you. I might have bet as little as top two pair on the river here against the right opponent.
Hand #2 -------
I called, and won the pot. Raising is a pretty good option here as well, but I think a call is okay.
Whenever the board changes TWICE on the turn and river, if the same person keeps betting all the way through his hand is suspect.
If I thought I was against two pair, a raise would be a good play, because I can get a better hand to fold. However, most players would CHECK two pair on the river against this board, because they are more likely to be able to win a showdown. If the person keeps betting, it's more likely that he either backed into a flush, in which case I'm paying him off and can save a bet by calling instead of raising, or he bet because it's the only way he can win, in which case my pair of aces is good. A lot depends on the player you are up against. There are some players that simply will not bet unless they have the nuts, and that never bluff in Omaha (this is quite common, and one reason why Omaha can be so profitable if YOU know when to bluff). There were probably 3 or 4 people in the game that night that I would have folded a straight to if they had bet the river.
One more side benefit of calling here - it scares the other players. A raise on the river, even if you show your cards, looks more like a bluff. A call makes it look like you can see through your opponent's cards. You are much less likely to have people take shots at pots you are in if they know you will call on the river with anything (of course, YOU know that this hand was an aberration and normally you wouldn't call with just anything, but they don't know that).
Hand 3 ------
I folded, and caught the case 7 on the river (-:
My reasoning for folding this hand was that the most likely hand I was up against was JJ. The other possibility was 44, but there are a lot more playable Omaha hands that contain a JJ than a 44. I don't like playing any hands where I'm drawing almost completely dead. Given the number of callers and lack of a flush draw on board, I thought I was looking at a set of some kind. And even if the raiser had 44 and the first bettor had top two pair I'm not in a very good situation if the other two callers have the straight draws covered. The odds are that I'm going to have to improve to win, and I didn't like my chances.
It turned out that I was up against JJ. The straight came in on the turn, the JJ hand had to call a bet and a raise, and I was patting myself on the back for a good laydown (I was certain he had JJ now). Then the case 7 came on the river. JJ bet, and both straights paid him off.
Dan
Any campaign be it in warfare or the poker room needs to include three main elements, if it is to succeed. They are Theory, Strategy, and *Tactics*. There was an earlier post re: next great poker book. There have also been posts lamenting the shortcomings of poker books, including 2&2's. 2&2's books are excellant. They thoroughly cover Theory and Strategy. Where they lack, where all poker books I've read lack, is in the area of Tactics. Theory and Stategy are great and have there place (tactics would have no foundation without them). But in the poker room, as in war, tactics is where the killing takes place. The reader with a Machieavillian bent might say " the writers are holding back on the good stuff". Perhaps. I do feel 2&2's authors have given more than others and I believe they have been rewarded with loyal readers,myself included. As to the next great poker book I can tell you what it is or at least what can be it. THE NEXT GREAT POKER BOOK IS THIS FORUM. And it is constantly being written and edited. So here is a tactic I used the other night in Holdem (it had worked for me before in Omaha). You might call it a bluff. It is a bluff, but a specific bluff is a tactic. I will preface this by saying I am known to be a tight player. I had Ah-Jc in late position and called a raise. Flop came Kh,8s,2h. The button had folded and I was in last position. I decided to play it as if I had the four flush. This is the key to the tactic working. Checked to preflop raiser,he bet,and I raised. "Raising" to get a free card?! One loose player called as did the bettor. Turn Js, I made second pair, but said to myself "I'm drawing to the nut flush". Which of coarse I wasn't. Checked to me, I checked. River comes 9h. I say to myself "I have the absolute nuts". This sees me through because loose player bets! Now I could say this player is loose enough to bet on the end having just made a pair, which he is. But it doesn't matter because I'm saying to myself "I have the nuts!" Middle player folds, I raise. My jacks beat the loose player's nines. Middle had folded AKs, in diamonds. Not because of loose players bet, but because he suspects me to be a tight "book" player who he believes made his flush. He later said it was just as well he didn't call the loose player, because he would have never called my raise. So that is my contribution to tactics- Ace only flush bluff. I sure some will be critical of it. I believe it can and does work-if you're against a player who feels they know how you play (your play being tight and by the "book") and you play it out exactly like you are drawing to the nut flush.
DMAN,
I'm not sure that Theory is essential. Some would argue that campaign (war or otherwise) has the following :
1. Goals and Objectives 2. Stategies (To achieve 1.) 3. Tactics (To achieve 2.) 4. Operations (To execute 3.)
So in poker it might read "
Goals and Objectives : To be a postive expectation player
Strategies : Be well rested when you play, know the odds, know positive expectation plays and make them, Play slightly tighter than the game, Call a loose player more often, respect the bets of a tight player, etc. etc., Bluff 30% of the time, employ deciet. etc.
Tactics : (This is the area we've been debating, to your credit you summed it up nicely by saying this is what many authors are leaving out.) Raise with a premium pair on third street, slowplay trips, execute a bluff, lie about down cards when asked, etc.
Operations : Drive to the casino, sit down, get chips, have a poker face, place chips in pot, look at card, ante, etc.
Theory would come into play when trying to build a coherent model of what works and trying to understand it. For example, there where many scientific theories that evolved long after the actual practices were well entrenched. They were only later understood and explained.
As an aside, a Theory is not neccesarily proven. When a theory reaches the point of assured fact it becomes a Law. (A page from scientific method and mathematics). So, If I'm correct, Dave knows this and that's why he chose the title "Theory of Poker" not "Laws of Poker".
Some would also claim that Dave's book exists at the level of Strategy.
Anyway to lift another page from military thinking, SUCCESSFUL Campaigns generally follow the form :
1. Study of the Problem (See Sun Tzu, Art of War - Chapter 1 Initial Estimations, for an intersting early version of this) 2. Planning 3. Training 4. Execution 5. Backup Plan (To cover your butt if plan A fails!)
This basic outline is layed clear in many books on strategy as broadly different as "The Art of War and Corporate Management" to "The Rogue Warrior Series" (for what it's worth though, the auther of that one seems to spend a lot of time telling us what a great special forces officer he was, which I'm not doubting, it just seems to dilute the message.)
Some interesting literature along these lines, in no particular order is :
Art of War - Sun Tzu The Prince - Niccolo Machiavelli The Book of Five Rings - Myomoto Musashi Warfighting (Now official Maring Corps. Doctrine, the entire book is on the web on the Marines Site.)- Admiral Grey The Westpoint Way of Leadership - Major Dinithorne Hope is Not a Strategy On Power - Robert Dilenshnieder The Rogue Warrior Series On War - Von Clauswitz Etc. Etc.
However most of these deal with much larger organizations that simply 1 poker player and the parallels probably really only apply down to the strategy level. Further, poker is kind of low stakes compared to some of the things these books are about. Also, most academic of strategy consider the first 3 to be the essential foundations to all writings on strategy.
However it is interesting that many poker phrases have made it into the vernacular, such as, "I'm going to call his bluff".
They say many presidents and civil war generals were poker players and that Richard Nixon actually funded his first campaign out of $6,000 of poker winnings!
Thanks again for your well thought out comments.
Large Luck, Frank
I agree. I hesistantly used the term "Theory", actually only out of deference to Sklansky's book. I have also considered that incorporating the concepts of The Art of War into a poker book "Poker as War" would make an interesting read, not just for poker players.
DMAN,
Yes, "Poker as War" would be interesting. There are some distinct parallels. I actually see even more parallel to "Poker as Politics" or "Poker as Business".
Poker is really a parallel for any zero sum (or somewhat negative sum, if it's a casino game) activity.
If you write it, I'll read it. :-)
Frank
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you that tactics are not included in Hold'em books. Bluffing, Semi-bluffing, raising, slow playing, etc are all tactics. Mr. S et. al. do a great job explaining what they are in HPFAP and 7SFAP. Strategies such as loose and passive, loose and aggressive, weak tight, tight and aggressive (effective in most games) etc. are also mentioned. >> "I say to myself "I have the absolute nuts"<< This statement of yours is also a tactic. But this tactic is a personal psychological tactic designed to help the user overcome the fear of the consequences so that he may proceed with his action. What ever works! Have No Fear! Vince
The concepts of free card play,bluffing,etc. are strategies. Specific applications of these strategies, what "play" or "move" worked and how it was done,is a tactic. In the example I gave, I used free card play not as it was intended, but as deception (to indicate to a decent player that I was drawing). I admit I got lucky beating the loose player, who wasn't paying attention. My point is most players are not willing to reveal tactics, for obvious reasons.
Strategy: A Careful Plan Tactic: Method of employing forces (chips)! Strategy: Tight agressive play is a plan for obtianing your goal. Goal: Win money!
Tactic: A bluff is a method of employing forces. A raise the same etc. Respectfully Vince
The only thing I liked about your example was the raise for value on the river against the idiot. I dislike bold-faced bluffing loose players who will call double bets with nothing AND drawing dead against tight players.
However, assuming that was a valid example of a "tactic"...
Notice that it was a little difficult for you to tell us what happened. Imagine the nightmare if you tried to explain all the physical and mental details of this tactic. Now imagine the volumns it would take to explain "lots" of tactics. And even if you did, the amount of "learning" that would go on is minimal.
I suggest, therefore, that if your definition of "tactic" is correct then the reason you see so few written in books is because it can't realistically be done.
The 2+2 authors have correctly adopted a superior and practical approach. The explain "strategies" and "priorities" and "relationships" and encourage independant thinking on the part of their readers. Then on the felt battlefield we are often able to create and implement our own successful tactics, and more importantly be able to understand WHY they are successful.
While previous books explain how one "should" play, I suspect that future books will include large sections on how real people "Do" play, and how to adjust profitably to them. I suspect they will also have more discussion on what I call "grand strategies" (maximizing the war) and less discussion of what I call "incremental strategies" (maximizing each battle).
- Louie
DMAN -
Congratulations on your well-thought-out tactic. Its a very good example of using how others view you against them. Could I ask you how often you've made this play? Is it often? Good Luck!
I've used it once in Omaha hi only. The example was the first time I attempted it in Holdem. I'm sure I will use it again sometime, under the right circumstances.
I am writting a book now - called the 'inner game of poker' from the myrads of books like 'inner game of skiing' inner game of chess etc. This area is much to be explored so the reader will make some money and won't end up a junkie. In poker as in many other fields the worst opponent is YOU. Most money is lost not DUE to the 'other' pro or expert player is rather than your own 'ill' actions !!! Also there is much abuse and distractions in life expecially in the life of a poker player (pro, semi-pro,casual alike) Even if one is a winner like Stuey - can be a loser in life as a poker game. So I write about this since I am a lifelong student of the Human condition, behaviour sience and neuro linguistiuc programming. Please e-mail me your first impression about this idea to andrasnm@yahoo.com
BTW- I will ghost write as my english is the second language and I rather have some English writer do the writting.
the ideas are 100% mine.
Does anyone know anything about Ken Warren's book "Winner's Guide to Texas Hold'Em Poker" published by Cardoza? Is this book's strategies valid for low limit (10-20 and below) games, etc? Thanks in advance.
While there is some useful info for the beginner (like take lots of smokes if needed as they are expensive in a casino) the strategy he proposes looks costly to me. Playing AK weakly regardless is not a good strategy (IMHO).
I think everyone I've heard of has panned this book. Check out Ken Churilla's poker page for a particularly scathing review.
I would not read ANYTHING from Cardoza if you paid me for it !! He is a self appointed expert on BULL SHIT !!!
The way the Home Game I play in plays High Chicago: Seven Card Stud High with the High Spade in the Hole (any of the three Down cards) splitting the Pot with the High Hand, or Scooping if the Highest Spade is with the Highest Hand. Aces are High.
Since every Pot is Split I would think that you would only Play the Best High Hand on Board if you didn't have a High Spade in the Hole.
Straight and Flush Draws go down in value since they won't be getting good enough Odds due to the Split Pots.
Now if you have a High Spade but not the Ace you can play Less than Best Hand, or a Good Draw since you may have the Highest Spade. I don't think a Jack of Spades would be considered High in a 8 handed game.
Thanks, Chris
Chris,
The game has no future as it pays to just wait for the ace of spades. Unless the ante is high when you get it every few rounds you get half a pot you will be up quite a bit. Its easy to figure out about how much an hour they will give you for sitting there. Since its a home game some other hands can be played for good public relations. The games I played like that sooner or later the player with the high spade conveyed it to the high hand so they jammed it, its just a bad game to have. Good Luck.
S