Welcome to the Two Plus Two Publishing Gambling Forum. To initiate the forum we have five questions, previously submitted to us, with answers from David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth. Visit often with questions and answers.
The transmission of articles among thousands of independent usenet servers is asynchronous. Therefore it is possible to see a usenet (e.g., rec.gambling.*) followup before seeing the original. Also, there is no strict threading protocol for usenet articles, although some client software may use heuristic rules to simulate threading. The asynchronism is the reason for the convention of quoting (excerpts from) the original in a followup to a usenet article. (Although many users are indiscriminate and wasteful in the use of quotation, quoting entire originals rather than only those excerpts sufficient to provide context.)
This forum, however, is different: it is strictly synchronous and threaded. A reader of a forum followup can easily refer to the original with a mouse click. Hence it's unnecessary to honor the usenet quotation convention here. This is not meant to disparage occasional brief quotations as might be used to provide context in any written followup such as in a magazine or book.
Thanks to Jessica and the Two Plus Two authors (2+2 = 3?) for an interesting net nook.
In Gambling Theory and Other Topics, Mason Malmuth states, "Keep in mind that the strategies with the highest expectation are often accompanied by the highest standard deviation. This is simply because they are usually more non-self weighting than a less profitable approach, and this higher standard deviation may not be a price that all of us want to pay." My question is this. Is there anything in poker that can increase your expectation and lower your standard deviation?
The statement quoted is generally true in all forms of gambling. Those stategies that the expert player uses to
increase his earn are usually accompanied by higher fluctuations. If you are on a short bankroll or don't like
living on a roller coaster, it may be worth giving up part of your expectation - especially in the short run.
However, there are some instances where you can increase expectation and reduce fluctuations
simultaneously. In blackjack, the surrender option has this effect, especially in a shoe game where you are
using a large bet variation. In poker, the ability to read hands well will also produce this desired effect.
This is easy to see. Suppose when playing poker you had the ability to read hands perfectly, that is, you
always know the exact cards that your opponent holds. Notice that your play would become devastating. You
would be able to bluff perfectly, make perfect value bets and raises, and never incorrectly pay off a bet on the
end (including folding some big hands). Your win rate would go way up and your fluctuations would go down.
During the past couple of years I have been working with a friend who is an expert player, and we have been
keeping careful track of our results so that we can estimate standard deviations. A while back I posted some
of these estimates on the newsgroup rec.gambling.poker. They created quite a stir because they seemed to be
too low. We feel that the reason for this is superiour hand reading skills. Here is a current update of some of
those numbers. (Note: To preserve privacy, I do not give win rates or hours involved in each game. But be
assured that these numbers are from a very strong player who puts in his time at the tables. Also, the standard
deviation [sd] is per hour.)
Game: $15 - $30 stud, sd: $202.61
Game: $20 - $40 stud, sd: $347.80
Game: $30 - $60 stud, sd: $428.25
Game: $75 - $150 stud, sd: $1,189.46
Game: $20 - $40 hold 'em, sd: $286.39
I suspect that many of you who will read this are playing with standard deviations as much as twice as large
(which means your bankroll requirements must be four times as big). Yet, you may still be winning players. I
also suspect that if this is the case, your poker skills can get much better if you begin to emphasize card reading
skills.
Related to this, in the book Poker, Gaming, and Life, David Sklansky has a short discussion of what it is that
separates the great players from the merely good players. His conclusion is the ability to read hands extremely
well. Your conclusion should be that once you learn how to play poker reasonably well, you need to start
emphasizing this area.
While I'm a winning low-limit HE player with about two years of "casino" poker experience I've found my own standard deviation to be as follows:
5-10 Hold 'Em (about 500 hours of play)
S.D. of about $140/hr.
I play in a high rake game (about 2x Vegas) and am certainly not an expert player but would be interested if anyone else is keeping these stats.
All the best!
Ian Haar
I have talked to a few people who are having success at the lower limits as Ian is but yet have standard deviations relatively much higher than what I indicate. My guess, and this is just an educated guess, is that the game has something to do with it, but also that your card reading skills need to get better. This is why it is better to start small and work your way up. Assuming that I am correct as time goes by I suspect that your (relative) standard deviation will gradually drop. It would be interesting to see what your sd is every three months or so. Perhaps you will keep us informed.
When playing $10 -$20 hold'em recently, a very aggressive player who was first in raised and I reraised with JhJc. He called and we were the only players in the pot. The flop came Ad Qc 4s. He bet and I threw my hand away. Was I correct to do this? When he was awarded the pot I was able to see that he held the Js10s.
When I'm in this type of situation I try to categorize my opponent. If it is a timid player --category 1-- who
would never bet into your shown strength, then I believe that you should quickly throw the hand away. If it is
an aggressive player who likes to lead with his hands --category 2-- then I consider how large the pot is, and
call accordingly. In this case there will be over seven bets in the pot, in addition to your opponent's bet. Notice
that you don't have to fold very often to make it correct for your opponent to bet every time. That is, you must
call enough to make it incorrect for your aggressive opponent to bet every time no matter what he has. The
way you do this is to consider all the hands that you would three bet with in this situation and continue to play
at least 85 percent of them. (You might choose to raise instead of call.) In other words if two jacks is the
weakest hand that I would three bet with, then I would throw it away. But, if there are other weaker hands
such as two tens or perhaps a big suited connector (as well as an occasional stange hand such as seven-six
suited) then I would continue to play. If it is a player, and this type of player is quite common at the lower
limits, who is well aware that you will bet automatically and who would normally let you bet --categaory 3--
then you should probably always continue playing. There are many players who in head-up stiuations will
always lead into the player as a semi-bluff and always check raise when they have the goods. Against this type
of player, I almost always raise. Somethime I will discover that they have flopped a huge hand and are looking
for three bets and other times they proceed to make their hand anyway and my raise has cost me extra money.
But against a player who you think fits in this category you should never fold.
If you are not sure which category a person fits into, then my advice is to treat them as if they fall into the
second category, but be more conservative. That is, don't call as much as I have indicatd but do call with some
hands that can't beat top pair. By the way, the bigger you play, the more likely you are to run into a category
two player.
: When I'm in this type of situation I try to categorize my opponent. [snip] If it is
: an aggressive player who likes to lead with his hands --category 2-- then I consider how large the pot is, and
: call accordingly. In this case there will be over seven bets in the pot, in addition to your opponent's bet. Notice
: that you don't have to fold very often to make it correct for your opponent to bet every time. That is, you must
: call enough to make it incorrect for your aggressive opponent to bet every time no matter what he has. The
: way you do this is to consider all the hands that you would three bet with in this situation and continue to play
: at least 85 percent of them.
This answer has been very thought-provoking for me. Could you please elaborate on your descriptions of the 3 types of players, particularly Type 2? As I read them, they are:
Type 1. A timid player who would only bet for value into the three-bettor's shown strength.
Type 2. An aggressive player who will bet out every time in this situation (is that really what you meant?).
Type 3. A player who would normally let you bet. This player knows you will always bet here and so would always checkraise when they have the goods and always lead into the reraiser with any sort of semi bluffing hand. (Presumably they will check both when they have a semi-bluffing hand and when the flop misses them completely?)
Also, is your Type 2 player more commonly found in bigger games because his strategy is generally more correct, or for some other reason?
I sort of anticipate having a bunch of comments on this answer depending on the clarification of what a Type 2 player is. Thanks for providing the forum.
Andy:
I don't mean to disappoint you, but if I get too specific it can cut into the the "flexibility" that you need as a poker player. This player that we are now calling category two is frequently a better player, but he can also be a wild player, or perhaps someone who just plays approximately correct in this situation.
I'm afraid that my description will have to do. But experience and thinking over these type of situations should help you make the right decision much more often.
Mason:
Your answer is disappointing, as you suspected. This is primarily because your original response to the three-bettor's question was so thought-provoking. It's probably true that after you clarified what you were trying to say about a player who 'likes to lead with his hands in such situations' that i was probably going to have some sort of critical response. But that's only because i've spent a while thinking about your first response. I've read that you advocate thinking hard about the game away from the table. I think this particular situation (and especially the way you described your reaction to it) is a great opportunity for serious poker thinking, for a number of reasons. But it would be a lot more productive if i could follow a little better what you were trying to say.
For instance, one reason i liked your response to the initial question was the way you suggested that different categories of opponents require different strategies. Categorizing opponents is an important skill in poker, i believe, and one that is difficult to address in books or on newsgroups. But this example seems 'compartmentalized' enough that fairly simple categorizations might be analytically tractable. As such, it offers a nice sort of case study in how one can learn to categorize opponents, and then how to exploit the behavior of the different categories. This topic isn't addressed as much as some others in the 2+2 literature, and i was delighted to see it happen on the new forum. But part of the utility of this sort of approach is that you get to think about what the formally correct strategy is against stereotypical opponents, perhaps even to the point of writing the equations involved. After you've determined correct strategy against stereotypical opponents, then you can go back and think about the flexibility needed against real opponents.
I don't mean to sound overly pedantic -- i come from an academic background and this is simply the way i speak. Also, please don't tell me "Poker is not blackjack." I've never played blackjack in any serious fashion. Finally, I still think the forum is a great idea; i'm sure you have been spending a lot of time with it recently, and i'm sure people are benefitting from it. Still looking forward to meeting you Thursday,
Andy Morton
: When playing $10 -$20 hold'em recently, a very aggressive player who was first in raised and I reraised with JhJc. He called and we were the only players in the pot. The flop came Ad Qc 4s. He bet and I threw my hand away. Was I correct to do this? When he was awarded the pot I was able to see that he held the Js10s.
I think Mason Malmuth’s analysis is very insightful and puts some parameters on the problem that I hadn’t thought of. There are a lot of good things about that play. I have an alternative play that may or may not be appropriate depending on whether the very aggressive player is capable of a re-raise semi-bluff on the
turn or a bluff on the river when you have showed strength on the turn. You could smooth call on the flop and raise on the turn. Here is the rationale for this play. Think about what your opponent thinks you have. I don’t know what your re-raising standards are but you have to believe that your opponent put you on a
very good hand. Certainly one of the possibilities was a big pair. When the aggressive player bets into you here, he has either got at least a very good hand which you are virtually dead against or a marginal holding. He knows that you are going to play a big set or top two pair aggressively at some point. He also
knows that a pair of Queens or Jacks is a trouble hand at this point. If you are going to call on the flop, call on the turn and call on the river. You would be putting $50 more into the pot. If you smooth call on the flop and raise on the turn, thus mimicking a slow play of big trips or top two pair, the following
possibilities occur:
1. He could give up which would be fine if he has a marginal hand that beats your marginal hand. He may fold something like K,Qs, K,Js or a pair of Queens.
2. He might call you with a long shot.
3. He could re-raise you. If you know he is not capable of a semi-bluff re-raise on the turn you could throw your hand away safely and it costs you $50.
You would also have to believe he would not bluff on the river after you have raised him on the turn.
4. On the river, if you don’t improve check it back, if you catch another Jack bet it out.
Some players would raise on the flop, but I think your opponent would question why you raised on the flop instead of the turn. Also, a fast playing opponent
is a lot more likely to mix it up on the flop than on the turn when they hold something that is marginal that could improve to something that is a big hand.
Most low limit and many mid limit hold 'em games are populated by unsophisticated players who play too many hands. In many cases you will see several overly aggressive players in the game. Playing against unsophisticated players calls for playing straightforwardly, and the presence of aggressive players probably forces you to tighten up before the flop. However, since many weak opponents will come into raised pots with poor hands, hands will often be multi-way on the flop. Because of this, you are probably forced to tighten up with your marginal hands and keep your aggression in check with medium strenght hands that are difficult to improve unless you are pretty comfortable that a bet or raise on your part will have the desired effect (usually, driving opponents out of the pot). Moreover, the aggressive players will themselves bet and raise with quesionable hands on the flop and may well force you to throw away these medium strenght hands, which, in fact, may be the best hand. As an example, suppose you call a raise before the flop in the small blind with pocket 10s and four or five opponents see the flop, which is 8s 7s 4c. You check, the original raiser bets, a player raises and the player on the button cold calls. Your hand may very well be the best hand at this point but it is very questionable whether you should call, and a raise is not to likely to be of any benefit either. In short, this sort of game character can push you in the direction of a style of play that looks a lot like tight-weak. While the loose and aggressive players are busy giving away their money to each other, you may find yourself mostly on the sidelines, and your percieved tight-weak style can both cause players to try to run over you (which is disadvantageous if you are weak) or give you no action (which is disadvantageous if you are strong). In many of these games I feel as if I am playing a five card game (i.e. needing to hit the flop pretty well with a hand or a good draw or being forced out) while my opponents are playing a seven card game. What suggestions can you offer to combat this problem?
"Tight-weak" is actually close to the right strategy in games like this. Yes you are likely to get run over with your weak hands, but you will make this up with both your strong AND moderate hands, as longs as you usually play those hand weakly as well. (That is check and call.)
Another important change is that you actually loosen up when it comes to drawing hands as your implied odds have gone way up.
I play in a private 10/20 half hold 'em, half Omaha 8 or better game. My question involves the rake. They take a five dollar chip when the pot reaches fifty dollars, and another five dollar chip at two hundred. They also take the odd dollar on split pots. Counting the dealer's tokes, the rake is around $200 an hour when the game is full.
The game has several very bad, loose players, and maybe 2 tough, tight, aggressive players. On the surface the game seems unbeatable. However, there seems to be a large win every week for one player (anywhere from $1500 - $3300) and a few smaller wins in a typical 14-20 hour session. The rake is exposed to the players in the form of the "game runner" who will typically lose $1500 or more during the session.
Would either of you play in a game of this nature (if it was the only game in town), and if so, what strategy adjustments would you recommend in accordance with the high rake? How much would this cut into one's hourly expectation?
If $200 an hour is raked off the table this ought to cost you about $20 an hour in a ten handed game (actually a bit less since you will be playing fewer hands than most of the other players). Excellent players can make $30 an hour in good $10-$20 games where they are being charged $10 an hour. Therefore your game can probably be beaten for $20 an hour. In any case your hourly expectation is about $10 an hour worse than in most casino games. (It gets a lot worse however as the number of players fall below 8 or 9.)
As far as strategy changes are concerned the key thing to realize is that the pot is a bit smaller than it should be. Thus your pot odds are smaller and you should play accordinly (this means a little tighter).
I'm playing $20-$40 seven-card stud. I'm dealt Kd Kh in the hole and 7h up. The 4d brings it in. There are two folds (Jc and 6s) and a call from 10s in front of me. To my left I see Qd, Qc, and 7d. I raise. The Q's both fold and the 7 reraises. The 10s cold calls. What should I do? The player who reraised is a strong player. He plays tight aggressive but has been known to bluff in situations not unlike this one. The 10s is an all right player but tends to play a few too many hands. I put him on a three straight or a three flush. If he had a high (or even a medium) pair he would almost certainly have raised the bring-in.
BTW, I thought a lot and ultimately called. the 10 dropped out on 5th street and the reraiser and I went to the river. No one improved. KK lost to AA.
Analysis?
First, even though you say that the reraiser will occasionally bluff in situations like this one, his most likely hand is a big pair in the hole. So, unless he has aces you probably have the best hand. (Many players will wait to a later street if they had a rolled up hand and they would be reluctant to reraise in an attempt to knock anyone out.) Thus you not only have a good idea of what his hand is, but you also know his kicker which puts you in a strong position as long as you are not against hidden aces. So it seems that you should reraise.
However, besides getting a little more money in the pot, what does your reraise accomplish? The player with the 10s up and who is most likely on a three flush --especially since his suit is live-- is going to stay with you since he has come this far. Thus you should only call and look for an opportunity to knock him out or make him pay to draw. For example, if everyone catches a blank you might want to bet (after the 10s checks) hoping that your other opponent will raise and thus knocking out the unimnproved three flush. If the 10s has caught suited you might just want to check and call since no one will go anywhere. Now you may try to get a raise in on a later street unless someone's board (including your own) develops scary.
There is more dicussion in SEVEN-CARD STUD FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS on how to play against probable big pairs in the hole. But I think that the thing to keep in mind with this hand is that your pair of kings plays best head up and you look for an opportunity to get it head up.
: First, even though you say that the reraiser will occasionally bluff in situations like this one, his most likely hand is a big pair in the hole. So, unless he has aces you probably have the best hand. (Many players will wait to a later street if they had a rolled up hand and they would be reluctant to reraise in an attempt to knock anyone out.) Thus you not only have a good idea of what his hand is, but you also know his kicker which puts you in a strong position as long as you are not against hidden aces. So it seems that you should reraise.
: However, besides getting a little more money in the pot, what does your reraise accomplish? The player with the 10s up and who is most likely on a three flush --especially since his suit is live-- is going to stay with you since he has come this far. Thus you should only call and look for an opportunity to knock him out or make him pay to draw. For example, if everyone catches a blank you might want to bet (after the 10s checks) hoping that your other opponent will raise and thus knocking out the unimnproved three flush. If the 10s has caught suited you might just want to check and call since no one will go anywhere. Now you may try to get a raise in on a later street unless someone's board (including your own) develops scary.
: There is more dicussion in SEVEN-CARD STUD FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS on how to play against probable big pairs in the hole. But I think that the thing to keep in mind with this hand is that your pair of kings plays best head up and you look for an opportunity to get it head up.
Here is a perfect situation for you to be in. It would appear that you probably have the best hand right now. If it is not, you know he has two aces. Even so, you would be in a good position to outwit him because you know what he may hold,and your hand is relatively hidden. If you catch an open pair at any time he my fold, this being to your advantage. In the worst case senario which is what happened to you, all that can be done is to play the hand out till the end. With your knowledge of yor opponents hands, you are most likely to be a money favorite over them.
: I'm playing $20-$40 seven-card stud. I'm dealt Kd Kh in the hole and 7h up. The 4d brings it in. There are two folds (Jc and 6s) and a call from 10s in front of me. To my left I see Qd, Qc, and 7d. I raise. The Q's both fold and the 7 reraises. The 10s cold calls. What should I do? The player who reraised is a strong player. He plays tight aggressive but has been known to bluff in situations not unlike this one. The 10s is an all right player but tends to play a few too many hands. I put him on a three straight or a three flush. If he had a high (or even a medium) pair he would almost certainly have raised the bring-in.
: BTW, I thought a lot and ultimately called. the 10 dropped out on 5th street and the reraiser and I went to the river. No one improved. KK lost to AA.
: Analysis?
Does the fact that a J and 2 Q’s were exposed influence how you play the hand ? I think it depends on how your opponent perceives you. You already mentioned how you perceived your opponent. If you felt that your opponent who re-raised might think you were originally trying to steal then you may suspect some sort of semi-bluff re-steal. I am not a real sophisticated player, but the fact that an opponent called in front of you and then called another double bet would make this tactic less likely so I agree that his most likely hand was some big pair.
It is unlikely that he was rolled up because of the exposed 7’s although it is a possibility. It is doubtful that he had a a two high card 3 flush because of the exposed diamonds and your Kd. The question was which big pair. If "big pairs" include Jacks, Queens, Kings, and Aces, then the following possibilities existed:
1. Jacks - 2 possible ways since a Jack was exposed.
2. Queens - 1 possible way since two Queens were exposed.
3. Kings - 1 possible way since you have 2 Kings.
4. Rolled up 7s - 1 way since you had a 7 and he had a 7.
5. Aces - 6 ways since you didn’t see any Aces exposed.
Therefore there were 3 possibilities that made you a big favorite, 1 that made you virtually dead-even and 7 that made you a big underdog. Now, given all of that how do you play the hand ? I would be checking and calling until one of the following occurred:
- If he original callers board developed into something threatening then I would cut loose of the hand pretty fast.
- If my board didn’t develop by 5th street and the original re-raiser had caught an Ace, Jack, King, or made an open pair and continued to lead, then I would probably cut loose of my hand also.
- If my board didn’t develop by 5th street, the original re-raiser’s board had not developed, but the original caller caught one of my Kings or a seven then I would more than likely get rid of the hand if the original caller was still in their.
- Otherwise I would probably check and call all the way, although I wouldn’t feel too good about it.
If you thought he would never make the re-raise with a pair of Jacks then I would get rid of the hand real fast.
Obviously if I improved and the other players didn't I would get very aggressive.
I like the analysis of what he may be holding, with the obvious caveat that with no Aces showing (assuming a full table), it is the most likely hand that he has (if he has a 'real' hand). On the other hand, this is 3rd Street, and you have another player in the pot. I don't think you can afford to just call, for two reasons: pair vs pair is a heck of a lot closer in win percentage in stud than in button games; you need to try to push the drawing hand out to increase your winning chances even if he holds Aces. The second point is the raise for information: if he raises you back, you almost have to give him credit for the two Aces -- now, you have the option of dumping the hand or taking him to the river heads-up. Of course, I must add that many good (and some super-aggressive) players have the penchant for reraising in this position -- almost as an ego thing -- whether they held the Aces or not.
I tried a no-limit Holdem tournment at the Orleans casino and had the following had occur that may be interesting
for the 2+2 poker experts to consider:
We're about 2 hours into the tournament (1 hour after rebuys/add-on). I
have 1300 in tournament chips. The blinds are 50-100. I'm in the big
blind holding Js6s, the small blind smooth calls and the flop comes
Qs6c4s. The small blind checks to me, and I bet 200. He now raises me
back all his chips, 650 total. I'm now considering calling 450 to win a
pot of 1050. I figure him for a queen and something and in fact he has
KsKc, which is roughly similar (he has a few extra outs).
Simulations put me at about a 56:44 underdog, which is slightly better
than I thought (I was guessing .35-.45). I'm getting pot odds, but I'm
nearly crippled if I miss. If I win, I will be among the chip leaders
and also get a $5 bounty. If I fold, I'm still healthy, but I'm in the
bottom-middle of the pack at the table.
I call, miss and end up out of the tournament shortly thereafter.
I've dicussed this hand and feel that I called incorrectly. Their reasoning is that it's too early in the tournament
to take this kind of chance and I should have been concentrating more on
survival. I'm less convinced because it was my impression that the
tournament was relatively tough and I wasn't sure I was very likely to
find a situation where I can get a lot of chips in as a big favorite.
What do the experts think?
: I tried a no-limit Holdem tournment at the Orleans casino and had the following had occur that may be interesting
: for the 2+2 poker experts to consider:
: We're about 2 hours into the tournament (1 hour after rebuys/add-on). I
: have 1300 in tournament chips. The blinds are 50-100. I'm in the big
: blind holding Js6s, the small blind smooth calls and the flop comes
: Qs6c4s. The small blind checks to me, and I bet 200. He now raises me
: back all his chips, 650 total. I'm now considering calling 450 to win a
: pot of 1050. I figure him for a queen and something and in fact he has
: KsKc, which is roughly similar (he has a few extra outs).
: Simulations put me at about a 56:44 underdog, which is slightly better
: than I thought (I was guessing .35-.45). I'm getting pot odds, but I'm
: nearly crippled if I miss. If I win, I will be among the chip leaders
: and also get a $5 bounty. If I fold, I'm still healthy, but I'm in the
: bottom-middle of the pack at the table.
: I call, miss and end up out of the tournament shortly thereafter.
: I've dicussed this hand and feel that I called incorrectly. Their reasoning is that it's too early in the tournament
: to take this kind of chance and I should have been concentrating more on
: survival. I'm less convinced because it was my impression that the
: tournament was relatively tough and I wasn't sure I was very likely to
: find a situation where I can get a lot of chips in as a big favorite.
: What do the experts think?
It is not even a close choice. Think about it for a nanosecond or two and you will see that there is no decision to make. Why can't you have the best hand. You may be facing another flush draw or a straight draw. People play these just like you described. Just because that is not what he had dosen't change the way the hand needs to be played. Most times that I have found myself in this spot I was either a small underdog or a fairly good favorite. This is just the kind of hand I want in a tournament to put the money in with when I get in a tough spot.
We have 2-4 hold'em home game of 8-10 players. BB $2 and LB $1. Is fairly loose-passive with usually at least 5 seeing the flop. What is the best way to play such a game. The least I have played before has been 3-6 in a casino, but that was usually loose-aggressive.
Thanks,
Tom
: We have 2-4 hold'em home game of 8-10 players. BB $2 and LB $1. Is fairly loose-passive with usually at least 5 seeing the flop. What is the best way to play such a game. The least I have played before has been 3-6 in a casino, but that was usually loose-aggressive.
:
: Thanks,
:
: Tom
Consider reading Holdem For Advanced Players as it covers your question. Whether you play 1&2 or 100&200 limit these type of games are there. I frequently play in 200&400 games that are this loose,but not so passive. Basically, play tighter than your opponents and play mostly with large suited connectors. Big pairs do not do as well because they are harder to turn into large hands. The more people in the pot the larger hand needed to win. Try to play in situations where getting in cheap is possible and avoid those spots when the pots are raised. Since so many pots are large you can afford to wait for good position on the field and the hand that plays well in that particular spot. Stay away from the small cards as that is what you are playing against,and when you hit your pairs and kickers it will be making their straights. In the more passive games, tend to bet less often since they will be checking hands that are better than ones that you may wish to normally bet.
Thanks, that's helpful. I have read the book as well as Lee's book on low-limit hold'em but was not sure if would play the same way in such a low-limit game as 2-4. Makes sence though. I'll try it out next week. We are supposed to have 10 players this time.
Tom Overton
Denton, Texas
Mr. Sklansky,
In your fine book, "Gambling For A Living", you
re-iterated a principle of sports handicapping
you first elucidated many years ago.
It concerned the waste of precious assets of a
team when facing an opponent that doesn't have
a suitable profile, e.g. an NBA team with a strong
defensive center vs an opponent with a weak
scoring center. I have called this principle the
Wasted Asset Theory.
Did/Do you have a specific, numerical means of
working out such mismatches, or is it subjectively
based?
Thanks,
Dave Fobare
The general principle was subjectively based.
Does a regular player at low limits 5 10 TH indicate a weak player? Am I wrong in asuming that regulars at 5 10 TH games would be at the higher limits if they were very good players?
Generally better players do move up. Suppose you were winning $15 an hour at $$5-$10 hold 'em, wouldn't you want to move up and win $30 an hour at $10-$20 hold 'em. This is the way that many players think and thus the games do tend to get tougher as you move up in limit. Now this doesn't mean that if you play $5-$10 or some other low limit game you are a bad player. In fact, I know several players who have decided to stay in the low limit games and grind out some money. But I don't know of any great players at these limits. Part of the reason for this is that to get really good you have to go up against the best every now and then and this just won't happen at the smaller limits. By the way, if you are new to poker, I believe that you should start at the lower limits and work your way up.
Mr. Malmuth, as a beginning player I have been
doing my homework by reading your books and also
"Winning Low Limit Hold'em" by Lee Jones. (It was
his clear style and obvious candor as well as his
recommendations that led me to your books.)
In your response to "low limit regulars" you
close with the following:
> By the way, if you are new to poker,
I believe that you should start at the
lower limits and work your way up. <
What is a good indicator that you are ready to
move up ?
Also, is $200 and lots of reading and paying
attention enough of a bankroll
for a 1-3 or 3-6 hold'em game ?
Regards Joe
In my book POKER ESSAYS, VOLUME II there is an essay entitled "Moving Up" in which I give five criterion for moving to a higher limit. They are
1. At a higher limit your bankroll should be relatively larger.
2. You should be a proven winner for a reasonable length of time.
3. You should have a distinct reason for making virtually every play that you make.
4. You should be able to observe numerous errors in the play of some of your opponents.
5. You should be willing to move back down if your initial run is unsuccessful or if the bigger game is currently tough.
If you are interested in more discussion you might want to see the book.
In a $1-$3 game I would suggest at least $700. For a $3-$6 game I would suggest $1,500. If you play extremely well you could make do with a smaller amount. If you are not a winning player expect to eventually lose it all no matter what your bankroll is.
I appreciate the opportunity to join this discussion.
The question posed here is a good one and essentially cuts to the core of what Mason (and other noted authors) have stressed about various playing levels vis-a-vis poker talent.
Naturally, Mason is correct stating that players at the higher limits are much tougher than in low limit games (with a few exceptions, of course).
However, it should also be pointed out that lower limit games can often be MORE PROFITABLE to a player who's skills may be rated "above average," yet who does not fall into the :great" category.
Take for example a player who is reasonably talented, one who can beat lower limit games, manages to hold his own in middle limit games, yet who has lost consistantly in the high-limit games he has ventured into. The choice between playing in a tough $20-40 game (let's say one that is composed of many talented players who rarely make fundamental errors) and a lesser $10-20 game (let's say one that is comprised of 50 percent "tourists, plus an odd assortment of mediocre players, with a few semi-pros) should be obvious. Since there are so many of the $10-20 type games (noted above) in almost every geographical region of the country, it is fair to assume that in many cases the solid players who are indeed playing in these games (with much less downside risk) are the wiser and wealthier for it. The successful players I speak with -- who are winners year in and year out -- do not make many headlines and may not even play in tournaments. However, there is some comfort and contentment in making that $30 (1.5 BB/hour on a consistant basis).
One final point: A poker player who strives to improve must move into higher ranks -- continually pushing the limits of his/her own playing capability. However, unless you are independently wealthy, raising stake money at the lower levels is the most prudent means to accomplish this "growth.' Therefore you will -- on occasion -- see some very talented players in middle and even lower limit games and should not be deceived by the relatively low stakes.
Nolan Dalla
I was confronted with an interesting dilema in my local 20-40 game recently...
the dealer exposed my first card by accident, I observed this and asked for another. I was then dealt QQ. once the dealer was finished dealing she turned over the exposed card for all to see it was another Q!!.
The dilema began here. I was in mid position in a VERY loose aggressive game. Lots raising and alot of multiway showdowns. First person to act preflop raised the pot and got two cold callers before me. I went to call, when a player behind me made it three bets out of turn.. The player who was attempting to make it three bets rarely did so unless he had AA KK or AKs.
The dilema I was faced with is if my hand (QQ) is worth playing after seeing the exposed Q. I know it will be at least five way action, and I will have to call a minumum of three bets preflop.
I mucked my hand.. It ended up being capped preflop with 6 way action.
Was I inncorrect in mucking under this situation?
Derek.
Further to the above scenario:
If the player behind me had not attempted to make it three bets out of turn, should this have changed whether I played the hand or not? If I did play this hand, is a re-raise a acceptable option?
You should still probably fold, but it is close. It depends on the tightness and the skill of your opponents. If you do play, a reraise is probably better than a call, but only if that figures to fold the players behind you.
No, you were not incorrect mucking your two queens. Your chances of flopping a set are cut about in half, to one in sixteen. You are only getting 5 to 1 odds. You will not win very often when you don't flop a set and thus you were right to fold.
What are the pit bosses looking at when you come up to
the craps table and give them your card. Do they look
at your original buy-in a lot? Do they look at your
first bet a lot and not pay as much attention at later
bets? If you take a break and play a lower stakes game,
does that lower the betting amount per hour and give
you a lower rating? Thanks
Yes, the bit bosses look at everything you do. However,most of them have no idea as to what they are seeing. In years past comps were given out very freely to people that appeared to give gamble or be able to lose a lot of money. The smart casinos learned it is better for them to "rate your play". So now what is done is to figure your average bet and the number of hours a day that you play. Based on those two factors and how well you play they figure how much you will lose per day. A percentage of your expected loses is the dollar amount of comps you can get. Each casino is different but many give room and food if you give four hours a day at about twenty-five dollars a bet. Bet more and you can ask for suites or return of your airfare. Bet less and you probably will get just coffeeshop comps. Since it is one of the best ways to get comps you should always ask for something within reason whenever you are playing. Also, many of the more progressive poker rooms are giving comps based on how long you play.
Good Luck,
Ray Zee
Would you give a general opinion of the book FOOL-PROOF A 30 day training program to HOLD'EM Success by Richard Allen ?
I've only read part of it and I don't believe that David Sklansky or Ray Zee have read any of it. The part that I read which is the first 30 pages I had some problems. First the author seems to be very critical of our work yet probably quotes from us over 100 times between the manual and the workbook.
Second his way of "averaging experts" has to lead to some significant errors. In many situations there are big differences between hands like AQ and A8 but virtually no differences between hands like A8 and A4. An example would be what do you do if someone has raised and you are next. It might be correct depending on the player, their position, etc. to reraise with AQ and throw both A8 and A4 away. In fact in this situation A8 and A4 are essentially the same in my mind. (This is true whether they are suited or not.) Yet his averaging method might have you playing the A8 because some "expert" thinks that A4 is right in this spot.
Third I thought that his discussion of AK offsuit was way off base. In the games that I play in it is almost always a raising hand. The time when it would become right to only call is when you know that there are going to be a lot of players in and you now must hit the flop to win.
Fourth, he spends a great deal of time on what can be called "randomnization." This is the idea of playing some hands "incorrectly" to throw your opponents off. This is a mistake that other authors also make. While both David and I agree that you need to do this some to throw off the better players, I don't do it at all when I am in games that contain several players who are basically "unaware." That is they play too many hands and go too far with their hands. Many of you complain about the low limit games and refer to them as "no fold'em hold 'em." In this type of game I never make these plays. They will only cost money and FOOLPROFF does not seem to recognize this.
Now despite my criticisms I can see some good aspects of FOOLPROFF. It is a disciplined approach and you will be playing far less hands than the tourists or live ones. That alone should help. I haven't read the sections on how to play on the later streets so I won't comment on them.
So my preliminary opinion of FOOLPROOF is that it is a mixed bag. I am sure that it has helped some players. But instead of paying $49.95, I think that you would be much better off to spend an extra $10 and buy both HOLD 'em POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS and THE THEORY OF POKER. Then read and study these two books over and over again, get plenty of playing experience, and spend time thinking about the game. Then you will be able to successfully move up.
I'm involved with some other projects (this forum being one of them) and have had to put FOOLPROFF aside. Eventually I will get back to it and if my opinion changes I will comment on it again.
I am going to sound like a mean person here, but this is just my opinion and u should take it with a grain of salt.
I believe I met the fella who invented this FoolProof thingy. If my memory serves me correct, it used to be cheaper and compromised of a little box that u can take to the tables with you and refer to to determine the strength of your handz(something only a very green player would do). I guess the author now supplies a comprehensive book with it as well.
I met this guy at Oceanside card club in a rammin' and jammin' 3-6 kill game. In my opinion he was nothing more than an average player who could barely beat the 3-6 game. He seemed nice and sincere enough but I dont think he could really even beat the 3-6 game (which i was beating at the time for almost 10 bucks an hour). The idea seemed pretty simple to me, but I wouldnt take advice from a player who is not able to beat at least a 20-40 game( i guess that means i should never take my own advice)
Anyhow, IMHO it's waste of money and I dont think Mr. Malmuth is doing any self-promotion when he says that u should spend your money on HE for Advanced Players instead. Even with the influx of "low-limit" poker books on the market, this book is still the bible and blows away all the other systems and books.
later
steve
Dear Steve,Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I don't think it is fair to judge a book you have never seen by your experience with the author in one session of $3-6 poker. As I pointed out in my reply to Mason's book review, FoolProof is targeted primarily to the beginning player. The FoolProof matrix format (the little box) is simply a "fail-safe" approach to help "green" inexperienced players remember correct starting hand strategy in "most situations, most of the time." The reply to the rest of your criticism is covered in my reply to Mason's book review which is posted separately above. Anyway, thanks for calling me a nice guy. Richard Allen
You reccommend choosing the best poker game / limit for our abilities. In order to gain expierence, there are going to be times when you know there are a few better players at the table or other negative factors. what is your advice for new or intermediate players to get the time at the table? we are not going to have the very best of it for quite a while.
Gary, play some limits that you can afford to lose at. Since you will not have money pressure on your game you can then try to play your best. I guarantee you that if you really read and studied the best poker books you will have the best of it. Your oppenents in the small games will all be inferior players to you, just because of your knowledge. Play a little extra tight if you feel uncomfortable in the game. If you are able to control yourself and make only plays that you believe are correct you will win while learning.
Go Get Em,
Ray Zee
I know that table selection is a key element
in playing your most profitable poker. Can you give me
a *top 5 list* of things to look for when I am selecting
a table to play at. (top 10 would be better yet) :)
Thanks
Larry
If you don't know what to look for, you don't know enough about the game to exploit what you find.
That may seem a snide response, but I don't mean it so; I intend only to provide a deflection of focus that might be useful to some. If you know when to fold, bet, or raise and why -- and knowing when without knowing why will prove too brittle to be profitable -- then recognition of profitable games falls out for free.
So as soon as I know when to fold, bet, or raise and why I'll be sure to come back with a list of what to look for. In the interim -- which I'm confident will be no longer than a decade or so -- I look for attractive cocktail waitresses serving the table.
I would still like to know "Your" ideas on what to
look for in selecting a game. Because my play
in determining why I would fold, bet, or raise,
may not agree with your reasons. Mr. Sklansky
wrote in in the July 25th, 1997 issue of Card Player,
"The bottom line is that you should pay attention
when a smart person tells you something."
Even if your guide lines on what to look for in a
game do not compute with me at the present, they
may begin to make sense later, since I will be
more observant to see if your game conditions do
exist in the game I am playing or observing.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalary
See the essay I have written in the essay section of our web page.
I have some pretty good software that helps me
track records in a variety of situations.
I decided to check out some of the suggestions
for general angles. Here's a rundown on the
5-5 SU college football team(mentioned on Page
70 of Gambling For A Living):
60-56 ATS L7Y
home 29-16, also coming off road 20-8
road 31-40, also coming off home 16-27
home dog 9-7
road dog 15-24
opp team's rec > 0.5 22-31
opp team's rec <= 0.5 38-25
opprec > 0.5 and < 1.000 22-25
off win 25-27
off BB ATS wins 17-10
if team gets > 5% fewer of its yards than
the competition 24-15
The point that we were trying to make is that when a team is emotionally up for a game they may be a good bet. On page 70 of GAMBLING FOR A LIVING we mention the idea that 5-5 teams are frequently up for the final game since it makes a difference between a winning and losing season. We also say to try to couple the bet with some of the other psychological factors that we mention. However, just because a team is 5-5 does not mean that they are automatically a good bet. If they are playing a team that totally outclasses them the fact that they are "up" won't mean much. Also, this may have been a team with very high preseason expectations. Thus if they win the game and have a winning season their season may still be a disappointment. We give a "classic example" on the bottom of the page. When Virginia Tech beat Virginia at the end of the 1990 season many psychological factors came together including the 5-5 record. We agree with David Fobare that just betting on a team because they are 5-5, as his data shows,
may not be a good idea. But if some of the psychological factors come together, including the 5-5 record and the fact that a winning season will really mean something to the team in question, you may have a very good bet. Be sure to evaluate each situation on its own merits.
I agree with Mason. However, I notice from Mr. Fobare's statistics that a 5-5 team at home has in the past done quite well. This is even more true when its previous game was on the road. So there may in fact be an automatic bet on college football teams in these situations. More investigation is needed.
fyi-I live in Western NY and don't have any card rooms within 500 + miles. I am forced to rely on alot of reading + computer poker simulation. I only started playing just over 1 year ago in MT and I feel that at an early time (because I'm not smart- but I study and play the simulations--much to my wife's annoyance), I understand poker and can assess how each hand goes (fyi2--within a few weeks at the Crystal Club in Billings, MT, I was winning regularly and being complimented as a "scary player" Thru poker simulation, I've learned how to throw away good hands w/o remorse with the knowledge that in the long run the hands will come. Likewise, if I fold Q-7 in mid position w/raises: I will never second guess my decision if the flop came up QQ7.
With all that said, my latest reading adventure is your book "The theory of poker". The queer thing is --some of the theories about poker that you are describing, I am now applying to the remainder of my 'real life'. One of the most profound conclusions is that I should probably leave my present job that I'm not happy with and branch out on my own (= possibility of working 1/2 time for 2X pay)--because my clients would stay with me nomatter where I went.
With all this said, are there really expectations from poker/gambling to real life?
After reading part of your book this is a mind problem I confronted regarding the mentoring of junior staff. I am a well - respected scientist-- If I convey my knowledge and experience to junior staff as part of the popular "mentoring" programs is this good for me in the long-run if my company does not do what it needs to do to keep at least 50-60% of these people for the long term--otherwise I feel that I am training my competition.
I arrive in LV on 7/23 to catch the remainder of the Orleans Tourn & to play in some satellites/ring action/& events, Hope to see you there. Kindly respond to my e-mail address as well as your I-net column.
In regards to Mr. Sklansky's latest book "Fighting Fuzzy Thinking in Poker,Gaming & Life", there is an excellent article entitled "Is Your Wallet Fat Enough?" This article provides a simplified explanation regarding bankroll requirements and also gives us an awareness that our "true win rate" cannot be accurately determined without **LOTS** of hours.
In that article, it states that a winning $6-12 Holdem Player that is achieving a long-term win rate of $80/day could be off in either direction by as much as $10,000 after about 3 months (100 days) of playing. That is, he is suppose to be winning about $8,000 but he could be anywhere from -$2,000 to +$18,000 for this 3 months of play.
If a $6-12 player played for 100 days and won $6,000 during that period, according to Mr. Sklansky's article, that player's "true win rate" lies somewhere -$4,000 and +$16,000. My main question is: How confident should this $6-12 player be that he is a "winning player" and to what extent?? Since he did win $6,000 in 100 days (800 hrs) can he feel that his win rate is really close to about $7.50/hour?? The boundary areas of -$4,000 and +$16,000---are they just "extreme" conditions that could occur but are quite unlikely?? Is that $6,000 he actually won (or some figure close to that) more reasonable indicator of his true rate?
Mr. Sklansky's had stated in his video tape "Sklansky the Seminar" (taped during the WSOP seminar) that it is unlikely that a winning player could be a loser after about two months of play. He stated in that seminar (video tape) that while a winning player might lose over the course of a month, it is unlikely that a winning player would be losing after two months of play.
Therefore, I am lead to believe that the extreme boundary conditions indicated in the "Fat Wallet" article are possible but not that likely according to Mr. Sklansky's statement in the video tape that a winning player should be winning after two months of play.
Specifically, I am almost at a point where I have about 800 hours of play at $20-40 Holdem (Southern California L.A. Area). If I am winning one big bet per hour for this 800 hour period---what does this practically mean?? According to the "Fat Wallet" article, in 800 hours of play, the max swing is about one big bet per hour, therefore if I am winning one big bet per hour for 800 hours, my true win rate is anywhere from $0 to $80 per hour. Is 800 hours just not enough hours to determine one's true win rate??
Thanks in advance...
We'll forward this question on to David Sklansky to see if he would like to respond but I thought that I would add one thought. When you are playing, if you can see errors that other players are clearly making and you are not making those errors then this is additional evidence that you are winning. On the other hand if some of the better players that you play against seem to make many plays that you don't understand then this is some evidence that your results may have been better than they should have been. Just a thought.
The article in question basically gave a range of three standard deviations. Since you will be within two standard deviations 95% of the time it is pretty safe to say that your true $20- $40 win rate is between $15 an hour and $65 an hour.
Four questions:
1. How did the River Card get its name?
2. Will David Sklansky be writing part of Super/System II??
3. When will Super/System II be available?
4. What has Joey "Howard Hughes" Hawthorne done since writing his part of Super/System?
Later,
Matt
1. I believe the river card was named after the Mississippi river during the Civil War. This was when the Union army was venturing "down the river" and was also introduced to the Southern game of Poker. I also believe that the word "stud" comes from the horses which were used to pull the canyons.
2 & 3. No one in our group has been contacted about or has any knowledge of SUPER/SYSTEM II. Assuming this project does get done, I would be surprised if any of us participates. (I would also be surprised if SUPER?SYSTEM II is ever completed.)
4. I believe that Joey Hawthorne died a couple of years ago.
Mason,
Thanks for the info. Too bad about Joey.
I am surprised by your comments re: Super?System II. I thought Brunson was working on it and Caro was taking part. At least thats what Caro said in Card Player and in an email reply I received from him. From the tone of your message, it seems as though there is a riff between you guys and Brunson/Caro/etc. I hope that is not the case. The possible S/S II without you guys would be incomplete.
Later,
Matt
My experience is that even though many projects get started, getting them done is another matter. I didn't mean to imply anything negative, but I have heard for years that the book would be redone and as far as I know nothing has ever happened. We have invited Mike Caro to take part in this forum. Perhaps he will update us since it is not appropriate for me to speak for him.
Mason,
Thanks for the reply. I am sorry if I read too much into your first reply.
On a different note, are there any card rooms in Southern California or Nevada that offer Duece-to-Seven??
Thanks,
Matt
There are no cardrooms that I know of that offer deuce-to-seven no-limit on a regular basis. I suspect that the next time the game to be offered will be during THE Hall of Fame Tournament at Binion's Horseshoe in August. If you play make sure that you are well bankrolled because this is frequently the big money game at the major tournaments, especially in Las Vegas.
Mason,
Thanks again.
Other than Super/System, are there any good books or Computer Software on Duece-to-Seven?
Are any of you guys planning a book on the subject in the near future?
Later,
Matt
I'm interested in improving my play at Texas hold'em and seven card stud, but mainly for tournament play.
I'm getting around to ordering Hold'em for advanced players by Sklansky & Malmuth and Seven card stud for advanced players by Sklansky, Malmuth & Zee.
What I'd like to know is how useful these books will be for tournament strategy in these games - particularly pot-limit tournaments.
Should I add to my reading list something geared to poker tournaments &/or pot-limit games, and if so what?
Regards,
Ken
I recommend "Pot-Limit & No-Limit Poker" by Stewart Reuben & Bob Ciaffone.
It's mainly about live game play, but does have a chapter on tournaments.
I am currently reading this book and have so far covered the first 130 pages. It is the best new poker book I have seen in years. Some of the mnaterial, particularly that by Stewart Rubin is very complex and will take most people several readings to follow, but it is easily the best information to have ever appeared on no-limit and pot limit games. It is one of the few books on poker (besides ours) that I would highly recommend.
First off, I cant believe this forum is not swamped with more posts. Have the editors been picking only the interesting questions to post. I am very excitied to have my questoins answered by the modern professors of poker and really hope to see a reply form any one of the writers here.
Here's my question; I play in either 4-8 or 6-12 game here in NY where the hourly charge is 6 bucks an hour for each game. They (whoever "they" are) say that a good player will win anywhere from 1-2 large bets/hour as a winning player. Part one of my questoin is, when they say 1-2 big bets /hour, are they including the games rake (or hourly charge in this case???) Lets say for arguments sake that I win 1.5 big bets/hour in the 4-8 game. Does that mean that I will win 12 bucks an hour less the 6 bucks, or is the hourly charge included in the estimated wins that a good player should make. I know this questoin may seem kind of confusing, but basically what I am asking is can these games be beaten given the high hourly charge??
Thanks alot
Steve T
When "they" say that a good player earns from 1-2 big bets/hour, "they" are referring to the net profit (i.e. after rake and dealer tips) that a top player is capable of earning in a good game. However, your effective net profit per hour in any given game is determined by how good you really are vs. how weak your opposition really is. Finally, the rake and dealer tips are deducted from your gross profits to arrive at your net profit.
I have no idea of what the games are like in NY, but the $3-6 and $6-12 Holdem games in L.A. Southern California where I play are usually full of weak passive players. In these low limits games, you can expect to gross from five to six small bets per hour if you are a top player in a good game. Therefore, you could show a net profit of $14 per hour if you could gross five small bets per hour in the $6-12 game. The collection is about $13 per hour (you thought $6 per hour was high!! ha! ha!) and figure ab
out $3 per hour for dealer tips. Here in L.A. casinos, they charge $3 collection on the dealers button **everytime** (flop or not), it is "dead money". This works out to a little over $13 per hour per player. Trust me on this...I did an extensive live test research of this.
It is important to note that the $3 button collection is identical for both the $3-6 and $6-12 Holdem games in the Los Angeles area (actually the Commerce casino charges $4 on the button for the $6-12!!! Ugh!! Ugh!!). Therefore, the $3-6 games (and smaller games also) are practically unbeatable due to the house rake. A winning player that grosses five small bets would net a loss of $1 per hour after deducting his cost of business (rake and dealer tips). While the $6-12 player would be able to net a win
of $14 per hour. It is true that the $6-12 games are a little tougher than the $3-6, but the difference (at these lower-limit games) is very small and often there is **no** difference. So, after 1,000 hours of play, the $3-6 player that is capable of grossing five small bets would show a net loss of $1,000 and the $6-12 player that is capable of grossing five small bets would show a net win of $14,000!! That's a $15,000 difference due to the unbeatable rake found at the L.A. Casinos $3-6 games. However
, Steve, in your NY games the $4-8 could be beatable because you would net $11 per hour if you could gross five small bets and then deduct the $6 rake plus $3 dealer tokes.
Note that in "real" games ($10-20, $15-30 and $20-40 Holdem) you would probably **never** find a game so good that you could gross five small bet per hour. A top player at these level (and just because you are a top player at lower limits does not mean you are anywhere near a top player for "real" limits) will be thrilled to able to gross three small bets per hour and you probably have to be almost a world-class player to gross four small bets in "real" games. Note: I use the term "real" games NOT to degr
ade someone who plays $6-12 or $4-8 but the fact is those lower limit games are "unreal" in the way the opposition plays---i.e. too much chasing, any two cards can win attitude, always paying you off on the end, etc, etc.. In games starting at the $10-20 level, the games are "real".
Steve,
No, we are trying to answer most questions as the forum is quite new. When we get swamped than we can only work so much, but I am glad to address you. One most important point with time collection is not the hourly rate. It is the rake per hand that counts. Take note Fred Aces please. When playing in L.A. as Fred points out he gets at least 40 hands an hour. Very few if any other cardroom areas including L.V. hold their dealers to such high standards. My experince is that the L.A. dealers are the fastest anywhere I have played. Although there may be some I am not aware of, if there is please write to the forum. Steve, figure out how many hands per hour your game plays. Faster dealers as well as faster players make the difference. But please be happy as your rake is fairly low for most places that have weak players. If you play well for your level you should net .5 to 1.5 top bets per hour. Remember it takes many weeks of play to be sure of being able to beat the game. In games where the rake or time comes out of the pot, slightly tighter play is needed as there is less money to play for when starting the hand. As a general rule when time is taken out of the pot it favors the tight player at the expense of the loose player, and when time is taken out of players stacks it is fair for all. In a short handed game time out of the pot is devastating to all involed including the casino as the games now just break-up. Back to Fred thanks for an in depth look at rake from your eyes as these kind of posts are mind awakenings for all persons to spend thought time on.
Good Luck,
Ray Zee
I enjoyed reading your posting Mr. Zee and I concur with your analysis on the importance of the effective rake per hand.
You said:
>>When playing in L.A. as Fred points out he gets at least 40 hands an hour. Very few >>if any other cardroom areas including L.V. hold their dealers to such high standards.
>>
I want to clarify that in my posting I never said I got 40 hands per hour. I wanted to show SteveT that in the L.A. casinos, the equivalent hourly charge "works out" to about $13 per hour for low limit games like $3-6 and $6-12. This was done so SteveT could relate to his $6 per hour time charge for his NY low limit games. I got the $13 per hour by tracking over a 50+ hour period how much collection ($3 on button) I paid. In L.A., the tables are only 9 handed but most of the time you are only playing with about 7 people since about 2 people are lobbying.
Actually, in these lower limits games ($3-6 and $6-12) the players are slower and since most hands result in a river showdown, you only get about 30 hands per hour. In yellow chip games ($10-20 to $20-40), the L.A. casinos get out about 37 hands per hour due to faster playing and more "walks" (no flops) and less river showdowns. The L.A. casinos used to collect 50 cents ante from each player and then dropping $3 from the pot. This slowed the lower limit games to about 26 hands per hour instead of the current 30 hands per hour for lower limit games. You lost 4 hands per hour due to the dealer collecting 50 cents from each player, making change for the 50 cent, "waking up" players that don't put up the 50 cents, etc, etc..
Wow!!! Ray Zee answered my question. I cant tell u how exciting it is to me to get answers to my questions from the guys who I have been reading about for years. Thanks alot!!!
Hopefully I will be able to beat the games for the full 1.5 bets.hour!! Thanks again, more questions as I can think fo them!!!
Later
steve
Unfortunately David's computer is being repaired at the moment. There are a couple of questions posted that David would like to answer personally. This means getting hard copy to him, and hard copy back from him. I'm trying to do this as swiftly as possible, but you all know how crazy gambling schedules are, and we have had some problems getting together as we are on different schedules at the moment. Please bear with us. I'll get his answers up as soon as possible.
Meanwhile, I'd like to thank all the participants for their interesting and informative questions and comments. All of us at Two Plus Two are thrilled with your response so far.
Look for new essays by David, Mason, and Ray in the next week to ten days.
Thanks,
Jessica Vecchione
Marketing Director
Two Plus Two Publishing
I look forward to Mr. Sklansky's posting in regards to recent posting "Sklansky's Is your Wallet Fat Enough?"
I have always been a devoted reader of all of the TwoPlusTwo publications including your two most recent ones, "Gambling for a living" and "Fighting Fuzzy Thinking".
I actually own two copies of Texas Holdem for Advanced Players and The Theory of Poker. I originally had the earlier editions of those two books and they were quite worn out, so I decided to buy the recent editions to replace them. The newer editions have a better typeset and a little more examples in the Advanced.
Here's a situation I've bumped into a few times and I sm atill unsure what to do: Lets say I am in hand that was raised before the flop and the action is 3 handed. Lets say I flop a set and get in a single raise on the flop with 2 callers. Assuming a suited flop, if a 4th suited card hits on the turn what should I do if it is bet and they raised before the action gets to me? - Seeing as there are 12 small bets and 3 big bets in the pot, should I call the double raise to see if the board pairs. What if I decide to call the first double raise and then it is raised double raised again before the action gets back to me? Roy Cooke addressed this in a recent card player, but I am unsure as to what his final thoughts on whether or not calling is correct.
thanks
steve
Steve this is an easy one to figure.
You have 10 cards to win the pot with and 34 cards to lose. I am assuming each person holds a flush card otherwise it would be 36. Anyway, it is about 3.5 to 1 against you winning the hand so you need just 31/2 bets in the pot to play. The same goes for each time you have to keep calling. If you thought it would be 4 bets total just adjust your decision. Also, to think farther on you should realize that you will always get paid off in these spots when you draw out and sometimes win 2 bets. This more than makes up for the times that you guessed wrong and were against a bigger set, and what about the times that your opponents were being cute and you had the best hand all the time and they check to you on the river. At all points of a hand it is important to know how many outs you have and how many bets are in the pot. Then it becomes a quick calculation as to whether you can call. In David's books he does a wonderful job of explaining in easy to follow terms how to figure the odds in the majority of situations you will face.
Dear Mason,
Thank you for reviewing FoolProof on your web page. I appreciate the good
comments, however in the interest of fairness I would like to be given the
opportunity to clarify some of the critical points in the review.
First, you state: "The author seems critical of our work yet quotes us over
100 times."
I do mention on page four that I found some of your concepts difficult to
memorize and implement in play. But, in fairness, I also state that your
concepts are correct and recommend that my readers study you, Sklansky and
others to improve their game. My intent was not to single you out for
criticism, but rather to point out that most struggling beginning and
intermediate players find it confusing when many of the recognized experts
differ in their opinions. I believe (and most of my students agree) that the
FoolProof matrix format is more user friendly for the beginning Hold'em
player in the early stages of learning which hands to play by position.
Second, you state: "his way of 'averaging experts' has led to some
significant errors."
You have confused my recommendations for "calling" and "calling a raise
cold." Your example of calling a raise with A-8 is simply in error; I do not
recommend calling a raise cold with A-8 in any situation. Please go back and
see page 22 titled "Calling a Raise and Calling a Raise Cold."
Now, let's discuss starting hands. If you will admit that you are not the
only "expert," then at least you can understand the confusion among many new
players who discover that there is a wide variance among the better known
poker authors. By using easy to follow codes and abbreviations I simply
provide a guide that (as I point out in the book) covers "most situations,
most of the time." I also state "While some experts might play some hands
differently in special situations, the FoolProof starting hands are a
"fail-safe" approach for beginning and intermediate players."
Third, you state: "His discussion of AK offsuit was way off base."
I can only tell you that the feedback I have received from many players is
that the advice I offer (usually limping instead of raising) has saved them a
lot and improved their game. They make more when they connect, and lose less
when they miss. This may be due to the fact that they are, for the most
part, not expert players after the flop and avoid trouble when they miss.
You also say, "just calling is only right when there are going to be a lot
of players..." Since most players who purchase my book are lower limit
players, this is often the case, so in the final analysis, we do agree.
Fourth, you state: "He spends a great deal of time on 'randomization.'"
(playing some hands incorrectly to throw your opponents off.) In 'no
fold'em' hold'em this will only cost money and FoolProof does not seem to
recognize this."
Unfortunately you only read the first 30 pages before you printed this
review. On page 43 I clarify the occasional randomization by stating
"...this is not as effective a strategy in the lower limit games...consider
your opposition carefully...if you are up against calling stations you can
forget this strategy."
Finally you advise "instead of paying $49.95 for FoolProof I think you would
be much better off to spend an extra $10 and buy both Hold'em Poker for
Advance Players and The Theory of Poker.
I do not see it as an either/or situation. Serious poker students would be
foolish not to have all of the legitimate poker books in their libraries. I
wrote FoolProof as a teaching tool to simplify many of the complicated
subjects covered by you and other theorists and experts. I honestly think
FoolProof is one of many valuable Hold'em resources, including TwoPlusTwo
books, Caro's books, Lee Jones, Ken Warren, Tom McEvoy, Lou Kreiger, Doyle
Brunson, etc.
Sincerely,
Richard Allen
At Lower limit TH when everyone folds, I notice taking your blind back is almost automatic. Someone usually looks mad if you say no. What do you say?
Also, can you give us some tipping opinions (guidlines) for dealers?
Gary,
Many players make a deal to take their blinds back when they are the only two left. This a great deal for the small blind but horrible for the big blind. If you do it it's only ok if you also split with the person on your left. Usually in small games if fequently just the blinds are in you should be looking for a better game. In the big games where eveyone knows each other deals are always made. The players are experienced gamblers and understand that no collusion is taking place. In the small games this is not the case, so it is in the best inerest of all players not to encourage it. But if the big bling will split with you it is a wonderful edge.
If the rake is high enough, it's probably worth chopping even as the big blind. A rough guess is that without a rake, the big blind has an advantage of about half of the small blind. So, for example, in a 20-40 game with a 10%, $5 max rake, chopping the blinds (which costs no rake) has about the same expectation for the big blind as does playing out the hand. It's even more favorable since you don't tip.
I was recently playing in a 1-4-8-8 spread limit game in Biloxi (blinds were $1 and $2), where the Jackpot had risen to $26k and the locals considered it to be large. This 'large' jackpot was causing people to limp in for $2 with their pocket AA's, because they were actually hoping to be beaten, hopefully by a jackpot hand. This resulted in a most interesting game. Can you tell me whether the size of the jackpot ever makes it correct to play in this manner? Thanks, Aussie
Aussie,
If the jackpot was large enough it would be right to play every hand. However, that extreme is not ever likely for you. If you deviate from sound poker playing especially with your premium hands you most likely will not be playing a winning game anymore. Alot of money can be lost trying for the pie in the sky. I can't even remember last time I got aces-full or a jackpot type hand beat. Although I wouln't mess with good hands much, in big jackpots try to play hands like ace-x and pairs more often. The advantage of playing in jackpot games is that the players play so poorly while trying to hit it. The jackpot rake is so high that you must play very well just to win and many games are unbeatable.
I recently had a situation where the absence of a jackpot affected the way I played my hand. About a month ago I was playing 3-6 Hold'em at the Mirage (no jackpot). I had pocket aces and was last to act.
Preflop: The player to my immediate right put in the third raise. I call. 6 players see the flop.
Flop: AKK. Did I get hit in the face with a 2"x4"? Again, the player to my immediate right puts in a raise. It's 2 bets to me. I call. I didn't raise b/c I wanted to get to the turn for larger bets.
Turn: Q. I don't remember the suits but only 2 suited. Player in early position bets, 3 drop, player to my right raises. I called (and have since debated whether or not I should have raised). Early position raiser calls.
River: blank. Early position player checks. Raiser to my right checks. I bet. Early position player drops. Player to my right check-raises. Not what I was expecting. Now, do I get into a raising war? I decided against it because of how he had raised upto this point and because I regarded him as a tight but aggresive player. I thought it was 50/50 he had quad's.
Result: I beat K's full of A's with A's full of K's and take down a huge pot. We each had about $100 on the table so we could have reraised each other for quite a while. I would have done this if there was a jackpot to win for losing- that would have more than covered my loss on the hand.
I guess the point I'm getting at is this was a pretty clearcut situation. Pocket Aces are a long way from a hand that will win a bad beat jackpot. If you make A's full then you can start thinking about that.
Sorry for the length of the post. Love the forum.
Regards,
Leigh
I was discussing "Going on Tilt" with a writer from CARDPLAYER Magazine on
the internet the other day and he told me that Mr. Malmuth has stated in the
past that he never goes on tilt. Would he be willing to share his secret on
how that is accomplished? I am very envious and would be eternally grateful
for any hints, it seems to be an ever present threat for me and something
that I am determined to conquer.
Thanking you in advance,
Paul Arnold
I believe that the best way to overcome problems related to tilting is to have a very complete understanding of the game. When I play I virtually never go on tilt and I believe that the reason for this is that I have a good understanding of what happens. When I get drawn out on I understand the frequency even if it is a long shot. When someone plays their hand foolishly and still wins I understand that I am winning in the long run. What I have noticed over the years is that when players get confused in the play of a hand and end up losing a big pot they are the candidates for tilt. If you do not understand what is happening in all situations at the table then you are probably a candidate for some steaming.
So how do you develop that "great understanding" of the game? First, you should read and study the best books (and continue to participate in the Two Plus Two Forum). Second, you should spend much of your free time thinking about the game and go over hands that gave you trouble to see if there is an alternate way of playing them. And third, get plenty of playing of experience.
To see if I am right, try to determine who is getting confused in the play of a hand. If they start to lose see if they tilt. Compare them to those very good players who may also be losing (at some particular time) and see if they tilt. I suspect that you will notice that the best players understand what has happened and they just go on to the next hand and play as well as they ever did.
Would appreciate a review of where I should be seated
in relation to a loose player, weak-tight player and a
tight aggressive player.
Also, how important is seat selection in relation to the
the blinds, I.E, how these players defend their blinds?
In most games you cannot have the best of worlds in seat
selection so which of the following should be my first
consideration in changing seats:
1) getting postion on a loose player?
2) getting position on a weak-tight player?
3) getting position on a tight aggressive player?
4) getting position on weak defenders of their blinds?
Lary,
Good to see you here from the other forum for a look, hope you like it. In general try for loose players and any aggressive ones on your right. Tight easy to handle players and people that play their blinds poorly against you should be on your immediate left. This is your biggest money earner in most games especially if the game is tight. In this case most of your profits will come from this condition. In a loose wild game most of your profits come from players just playing badly during the hand. Thus position on a particular person becomes less important as the size of the pot grows and the number of players involved increases. One last point is that if there is a good aggresive player one or two to your right he will punish your blinds. In this spot you must move seats or play aggresive back at him. Good luck.
I'll talk holdem.
The most important seat selection criteria is to get the tight wimps
BEHIND you. Two or three of them makes for a great game.
This is important no matter what kind of game it is.
In any game these tend to be empty seats so you get the button two or
three times a round, and all the other players are two or three seats
in poor seats relative to you.
In a tight game you can steal their blinds.
Upredictable and loose players go in front of you.
In a tight game make sure the person two seats to your left is not
inclined to steal your big blind.
As for CHAIR selection, I like the ends of the table to the dealer's
left. It appears that tight wimps like to sit next to the dealer
(I suspect they're "hiding") which tends to give you good seat
selection.
Was recently playing 6-12 at the Mirage, the game was predominately weak-tight, three people limped in, I was one off the button with KQ unsuited and the button looked like he was calling, so I just called. The flop came Kx6x6x. Everyone checked around to me so I bet, the button folded, the BB called, the next two players folded and the guy to my immediate right called. The next card was an 8. Once again both players checked to me. Could you please discuss whether it is best to check or bet here and the reasons why. I will tell you the outcome of the hand later.
Thanks, Aussie
I'll defer to the experts on this hand but I do have several comments. Actually I think this is a very good question because, in my opinion, this the type of situation that presents itself frequently in hold'em. Therefore playing these situations correctly will enhance your expectation significantly. David Sklansky's book,"The Theory of Poker", actually provides a lot of guidelines on how to analyze situations like this one. Although the situation described in his chapter,"Analysis At The Table", (I hope I got the chapter name right) is not identical to this I feel that the concepts apply. What hand will the BB check an call with on the flop as opposed to betting right out ? Same question for the player to your right. How do your opponents perceive you ? What do they think you have ? Will either one or both check raise bluff ? I think if you can read David's book and determine reasonable answers to these questions, it should steer you to the right strategy. I definitely feel that you have not provided enough information about the individual players involved. Also I think you have not provided enough information on how your image at the time you played this hand.
Hi Tom,
Here's some more info on the players: The BB had been taking a pounding for about an hour, he was constantly coming up with 2nd best hand, was definitely playing too many hands and was constantly checking and calling. The player to my right had only been in the game for about 10 mins and he hadn't been involved in any showdowns. If they were paying attention, they would've noticed that I was playing tight.
Yes, you are right there is alot of things to consider, I guess that's what makes the game more difficult than what it appears. It sure is fun though :-}
Tks, Aussie
Aussie,
All of what Tom Haley says is important for you to think about or learn. I would just go ahead and bet the hand out. There are just too many hands that they might have taken a card off with on the flop. Such as, an ace, medium pair, three straight or king-x. I would rather not give free cards by checking here. You lose if you run into a six. I discount the other unlikely hands that beat you, as I don't play a scared game and they are not very likely. I might win three to six additional big bets if they have anything now. The most I can lose is three if I get raised and decide to call a player that could bluff. Mostly I pay the three bets gladly because I found over the years I win my share of these pots anyway. Plus weak-tight people are always afraid of being played with, so this helps in future pots. Your outcome is of no value except for entertainment as it really doesn't tell if you did the correct thing. Good luck.
Once again, this is an amatuer opinion,but given the further information I couldn't add anything more to what Ray Zee said. This situation calls for aggressive play.
How your particular hand turned out is irrelevant.
In fact, knowing the outcome is detrimental to
most of us.
You don't have enough information to make a
good decision; unless "Weak tight" game means
everyone is weak tight.
Unless you have a specific reason to check this
hand now, then by all means bet it out. Betting
and not getting called is great for you image:
you are "aggressive" and they are "suspicious."
Betting and getting called is also good, since
in their eyes this is a marginal bet and you
can steal later in situations where they know
the best you can have is a marginal hand.
There are few hands that can beat you. The player
to your right surely isn't playing a 6. There
are plenty of hands they could have that you
can beat.
Every card is scary to the paraniod.
To the checkers out there I will aknowledge that
if you have the better hand then a free card isn't
going to hurt much, since the only hand with more
than three outs against you is A-8.
Bet, unless you have a specific reason not to.
BTW, you should RAISE in late position with your
KQ in the weak-tight game, ESPECIALLY if you think
the button is going to call, since you can steal
the button and get 4 cards to their 3. KQ is
going to win this pot more often then the number
of people who will call your raise.
Let me show everyone how I analyze a hand like this away from the table. First I notice that the pot is moderately large, thus I don't want to play my hand in such a way that it might cost me the pot.
Second, let's consider the possible hands that the KQ could be up against. They are as follows:
1.If someone has a 6 you certainly don't want to bet. Not only will not betting save you some money, but if raised and you "correctly" fold you lose out on the small chance of catching a king.
2. If someone has an ace you risk an ace coming that will beat you. But many weak players at this limit will call you down with an ace even if you bet. Thus if the ace comes there is a good chance that it would have beat you anyway.
3. The same is true if someone holds a small pair. By checking you give them two outs on the river, but again there is a good chance they would be there anyways even if you bet.
4. If someone has a king with a weaker kicker they certainly won't fold. Thus if they are to hit their kicker on the end you would lose whether you bet or not.
5. If someone has something silly such as jack-ten by checking you might allow them to make a pair and pay off on the end when they would have folded or if they have nothing you may induce a bluff. (They might also bet their J-10 for value [assuming they pair] but you will of course pay that off.
6. If someone has a hand like 7-5 and foolishly called on the flop they won't fold either with the straight draw.
So what do we have. We see that we lose some equity by not betting when we have the best hand and our opponent would keep playing, but we frequently gain it back when we have the best hand and our opponent would have folded to our bet on fourth street. But we gain (by saving money) when our opponent has a 6 and occasionally gain a lot when we would have folded to a raise. It is clear to me that this hand should be checked.
By the way if instead of KQ, Aussie would have had a hand like J-10 and the flop is J-6-6 then a bet is clearly in order. Now there are too many over cards that could come to beat him.
Finally, I noticed that one of the posters pointed out that betting would be good for your "aggressive image." My experience is that when your opponents learn that some of your checks can be just as dangerous as some of your bets, they will fear you even more.
Finally I noticed
Mason, this is the kind of analysis I was talking about when I referred to David Sklansky's book,"The Theory of Poker". I may put different probability estimates on the likelihood of each hand but I think your point is well taken. Thanks for the analysis.
On July 21, Aussie asked how to play K-Q with a board of K-6-6-8 against two opponents who just called on the flop.
Here is my analysis. Suggestions or criticisms are welcome.
Assumptions:
1. Since there was no raise before the flop, all of opponents potential hands on the flop are equally likely. Since players tend to prefer big cards, this will overstate the chance that one of your opponents has a 6.
2. After the first betting round there are 6.5 small bets in the pot. After the flop, there are 9.5 small bets in the pot.
3. I will assume that each of your opponents has one of the following 5 hands:
6X, AX, Pocket Pair, KX, 2 str-flush cards such as 75 suited with one of the flop cards.
Table 1: Distribution of Opponents Probable Hands
Opponents'
Most Likely Hands: Approx # of Ways Percent
6X 2 * 45 90 21%
AX 4 * 43 172 40%
KX 2 * 45 90 21%
Pocket Pair(6 * 10)
+ 1+1+3 65 15%
75s,87s,54s3 * 3 9 2%
Total 426 100%
Observations from Table 1: Distribution of Opponents Probable Hands
At least 1 opponent will have a 6 about 1-(.79*.79) = 38% of the time.
Table 2: Outcomes in a Variety of Contests on the Turn
(Based on reults from Caro’s Poker Probe)
Board Ks6h6d 8c
Your You Opp 1 #1 Opp 2 #2
hand Win Wins Wins
KhQd 4% 6c 94% As 2%
KhQd 5% 6c 91% 9h9d 4%
KhQd 1% 6c 93% Kc 6%
KhQd 4% 6c 81% 7h5h 15%
KhQd 75% As 20% 9h9d 5%
KhQd 58% As 17% Kc 25%
KhQd 63% As 19% 7h5h 18%
KhQd 64% 9h9d 4% Kc 32%
KhQd 86% 9h9d 5% 7h5h 9%
KhQd 86% 9h9d 5% 7h5h 9%
KhQd 54% Kc 29% 7h5h 17%
Observations from Table 2: Outcomes in a Variety of Contests on the Turn
When neither of your two opponents have a 6, you will win between 54% and 86% of the time. On average, I’ll estimate you win about 70% of the time.
On average, when there is a 6 out, you win about 4% of the time.
Assumptions about Betting on 4th and 5th streets:.
1. If you bet and there is a 6 out, you will be check raised and the check-raiser will bet again on the river.
2. You will always call a check-raiser on 4th street as well as his bet on the river. If this is not always true, then the calculated equity for betting will be understated.
3. There will always be 1 big bet on 5th street.
4. If it is check-raised, the third player will drop out.
5. If you bet, you will get 2 callers on 4th and 1 caller on 5th. (If you are called on 4th rather than check-raised then I would assume that you are not up against a 6, and would bet again on the river unless an Ace comes.)
6. If you check, I will assume 1 caller on the river.
There are really only two primary cases that we are concrened with: either there is a 6 in one of your opponents hands or there isn’t. As observed from Table 1, at least 1 opponent will have a 6 about 38% of the time.
Based on the assumptions and estimates above, we can now compute the expected value when you bet versus the expected value when you check.
A. You bet on 4th street.
Case 1: Opponent has a 6. (38%)
When you win, you will win the pot (9.5) + 6 small bets from your opponent.
When you lose, you lose 6 small bets.
EV of Case 1 = .04 (9.5 + 6) + .96 (-6) = - 5.14
Case 2: Opponent doesn’t have a 6. (62%)
When you win, you will win the pot (9.5) + 2 bets each from 2 callers on 4th and 2 bets on 5th from 1 caller.
When you lose, you will lose 2 bets on 4th as well as 2 bets on 5th.
EV of Case 2 = .7(9.5+4+2) + .3(-4) = 9.65
EV of betting = .38 (-5.14) + .62 ( 9.65) = 4.03
B. You check on 4th street
Case 1: Opponent has a 6. (38%)
When you win, you will win the pot (9.5) + 2 small bets on the river..
When you lose, you lose 2 small bets on the river.
EV of Case 1 = .04 (9.5 + 2) + .96 (-2) = - 1.47
Case 2: Opponent doesn’t have a 6. (62%)
When you win, you will win the pot (9.5) + 2 small bets from 1 opponent on the river.
When you lose, you will lose 2 small bets bets on the river.
EV of Case 2 = .7(9.5+2) + .3(-2) = 7.45
EV of Checking = .38 (-1.47) + .62 (7.45) = 4.06
Conclusions:
I was hoping to find a large difference between the plays, but the closeness of the results indicates that this may be a good benchmark problem. Even a small adjustment to my assumptions or estimates could result in a different answer.
I’ve drawn a few conclusions and raised another question. I’d be interested in hearing comments.
I made two assumptions which would make checking have a higher expected value. Since an opp is more likely to play AX, or KX than 6X, I have probably overstated the real life probability that there one of your opponents has a 6. Also I assumed that you would never be able to get away from a check-raise. Thus betting is more likely to be correct in this case, especially since Aussie added that the BB had been constantly checking and calling.
With anything less than top pair and a good kicker you would probably check. With a lower high card on the flop such as J-6-6 and you had J-T as Mason suggested, you would bet because your opponent could now be playing more hands (overcards) which are weaker than yours. Betting would gain against hands like AT, KQ, KT but would lose versus hands like AJ,KJ,QJ. Betting may gain you the pot if you make an overcard fold but will only cost you at most 3 big bets when you are beat. All of this argues in favor of betting.
But if you had a weak kicker, you would still probably check because now there are more Jacks which beat you.
As your top pair gets lower, there are at two conflicting arguments for the proper betting action. Your hand strength is worse because your pair is lower, so you should tend to check. On the other hand, there are more likely to be overcards against you and you don’t want to give a free card.
Suppose the board had been 8-5-5-3 and you had 8-7 with the same betting action described by Aussie. Should you bet or check? About the only hands your opponents could have that you can beat would be overcards. So it seems to me that you should usually just check and call a single bet on the river. On the other hand, it should be easier to get away from a check raise if you bet out on 4th street. So maybe its correct to usually bet and usually fold to a check raise.
- Greg
A couple of quick comments.
1. In a low limit game like $6-$12 it is more likely that the 6 will be out than in a higher limit game.
2. By checking you allow an opponent to pick up a pair that he might call with and you encourage a bluff. The more aggressive the player the more likely he will fire at it if you don't bet.
I believe that when you add the above into the equation you should check most of the time.
Of course we know that "Third Base took the dealer's
bust card" is a bogus concept embraced only by morons.
But wait a minute. In Vancouver BC there's a 6 deck
game with very favorable rules. The dealer doesn't
take a hole card until all player hands are serviced.
It's not the "European" rule; your split or doubledown
loses only the original bet if the dealer makes a natural.
So... suppose you're at third base with 16 and the
dealer shows a ten. The very cards that would help your
hand are the same cards that would make the dealer
stiff. NOW does this affect your optimal strategy?
Sgt. Rock,
It works out that the cards that help you, help you more than they hurt him. Your decision will still be governed by the point count and the playing strategy you use. Good luck and play within your bankroll as most blackjack players get broke by fluctuations.
Having studied many of your works, a general premise is
that one should always put their opponent in a position
of making mistakes while trying to minimize the mistakes
you make yourself. I want to clarify that I understand
this concept accurately with a simple, general example.
If seven players put fourteen bets go into a HE pot
pre-flop and I'm certain that I have the best hand, say
top set, am I incorrect to bet if for instance the
board presents a two-straight or worse yet a two-flush?
It would seem to me that if one opponent holds an open-
ended straight draw or nut four flush, then he would be
correct in calling. Am I therefore, incorrect in
betting? After all, it's all the more correct to call
if we get additional callers.
Even if a blank hits on the turn, a nut flush draw would
be looking at calling two small bets on the turn with
a pot of sixteen small bets - again a correct call on
his part. So am I also incorrect to bet the turn?
It seems to me that giving all these free cards is not
correct and yet by betting and having my opponent call,
I have done nothing to put him in a position of making
a mistake. So what is correct? If his mistake was in
calling pre-flop for two bets, do I just leave it at
that and hope to win the fourteen pre-flop bets?
My preference would be to check-raise the flop but I'm
not asking for a full blown analysis of the hand - just
a simple answer as to whether I should or should not bet.
Many thanks for all you do for poker!
Ian Haar
You both are correct. You make money on the
bet since you are the favorite to win. He is
correct to call since the pot is large enough.
Your bet is correct because of your chances
of winning, and in this case has nothing to
do with the size of the pot. His call is
correct because of pot odds. You lose a bet if
you check, but he loses the POT if he folds.
The APPEARANT contradiction could be explained
away when we notice that it is much better for
you if he folds (he makes a BIG mistake), and
he is somewhat better off if you don't bet (you
make a small mistake). Yes, he should call, but
he would prefer to check; but he can't.
A different view would be that he put you in
a position to make a mistake by checking, but
you "failed" to make a mistake and you went
ahead and correctly bet.
It is routine, especially in Stud, for both
a bet and the call to be correct.
Beating this tired horse a little more, I'll add that your situation is similar to the imaginary (and illustrative!) situation that Sklansky discusses in Winning Poker: having a large pot before anyone bets. While the analysis is correct that you should bet (you can't give the free card altho he has pot odds to call), if you know the opponent will not throw his hand away, the question really becomes, "how much do you want to gamble for?"
This must day to recommend David Sklansky's book ( it is a great book !),"The Theory of Poker". This question is answered very well in his book. You should bet.
In the 10-20:
I play circles around these "tricky" players since
they usually play their hands in such a way as to
win a show down (so called "defensively") and
occationally step it up with an unorthodox bet or
raise. But once caught in a hand they go back to
their defensive style and try to show down. So any
unexpected bet or raise on my part and they play
very predictably. So I raise with most 20/21 hands
in late position, raise with flush draws, occationally
raise with small pairs when I think they're weak, and
bet right into the raiser without blinking an eye.
They know I usually have the goods and they're right,
but they don't know what to do about it, and they're
right.
Good for me.
In the 20-40:
They play similarly, except that they do NOT back
down when I bet, and I am in constant fear of getting
semi-bluffed AGAIN in the same pot. This (realistic,
I hope) fear puts me on the defensive and they play
circles around me!, in exactly the same way I play
circles around the 10-20 players.
Bad for me.
So, how should I adjust my game to beat the 20-40?
This is a very advanced question that is probably way out of my league. At the risk of being repetative, David Sklansky's book, "The Theory of Poker", should be enlightening in this area. The chapter on the Psychology of poker applies here I do believe. I am not an expert but I think it has a lot to do with the level of thinking of your opponents.
Louie,
As the stakes double the players get more troublesome. In many cases a good player at both limits can make more per hour at the smaller limit. These players are doing to you what you do to the 10 20 people. To have any chance you must play more aggressively and be prepared to call many difficult bets that are impossible to make an informed decision as to what they may hold. In larger games, the correct strategy dictates to randomize your bets and calls. Perhaps learn about "game theory". Higher fluctuations in results are normal and that is just the nature of the beast. Good luck.
At a certain point, in poker as in life, the best deception is no deception at all. You have to be able to shift levels of thinking on your opponents and this includes going to "ground zero" where you play very straightforwardly.
First let me say what a wonderful forum this is, I can't wait to check it every morning for new info. I was recently playing in a 10-20 HE game that was extremely loose aggressive. I was the small blind with 10s-Js. To make a long story short, it gets capped before the flop with 7 players. It really does not matter who raised because they all raise, all of the time with any hand. The game is usually capped before and on the flop, but they play very passive on 4th & 5th. The flop came Qc-9d-4s. I bet, two folded, three called and the button raised. I called as did the other three. {1st question: should I have reraised?} The turn came 7s. {2nd question: should I bet?} I bet three called and the button raised. {3rd question: should I reraise?} I called as did the three behind me. The outcome is not important. Did I play this hand correctly?
I think that you played this just fine. The game
you describe makes it sound as if you could have
reraised on the flop, but in many of my games I'd
be risking driving out the customers. The same is
true on the turn. I would have bet (hoping for
the button to raise), but not reraised. If you
think that the players would call a double raise
after putting in one bet on both the flop and the
turn then I think raising is the way to go.
Basically this hand should be played passively. Semi-bluffs are only called when there is some chance that you can win the pot right there. Reraises would be esspecially silly because you do not want to knock out players with your hand. The bet on fourth street is reasonable since you are getting 3-to-1 odds and you are probably less than a 3-to-1 dog since you picked up a backdoor flush draw. However, even here a bet is debatable. The best way to play this hand is to simply check and call all the way through.
It appears you have no chance to win the pot
by betting everybody out. So forget that.
The hand's best value is to get the most players
to invest the minimum, since you need to make
a real hand, and if you do you are likely to
win against everybody.
The issue is whether the field will raise, and
whether the others can stand to call double bets.
If the answers are YES-NO then do not bet and
do not raise. If YES-YES then bet but do not
raise. If the answers are NO-any then by all
means bet and raise.
Your bet on the flop is probably good, since this
kind of game encourages very loose calls on the
flop. Do not re-raise. Your bet on the turn
is very marginal, since you stand a good chance
of losing a player. Don't even consider
re-raising.
In real life, however, you should tend to just
check and call, unless your sure to get 3+
players on the flop and 4+ on the turn.
Exception: Re-Raise if you have STRONG reason
to believe the raiser is drawing or has 9s or
less. This increases your chances to steal
and increases the chances that you accidentally
win if you pair.
Congratulations on leaving out the outcome of
this particular hand. It doesn't matter.
Game Texas Hold-Em. I hold 9&T before flop.What is
probability after flop I have straight or 4 cards to
straight & pulling to outside straight.(2 cards give
me straight)
Also, same as 1st but after flop have straight or
pulling to outside straight or pulling to inside
straight.(1 card)
THANKS JIM
From Super/System, Table XXI, it is 101 to 1 against that you will hit the straight on the flop and 15.6 to 1 that you will hit a 4-straight on the flop.
Background:
31 yr old CPA, playing poker in home games since about 8 years old. Nearly always a winner against the local boys. Very much an instinct player-no real background in the statistical side, although the ability to develop those skills is definitely there. Have play in Vegas and various cardrooms maybe ten times with this background-again with NO formal study-in low limit stud and hold'em and have basically broke even-showed a small profit. From everything I've read it seems like a perfect foundation to build a poker education on, but I guess it's just in the back of my mind that playing professionally still sounds like such a dream come true that surely it's not attainable. Just self-doubt I'd like to think. Any thoughts anyone?
You sound like a perfect candidate to become a successful professional poker player. Most studious players have trouble with the instictive side of the game. Conversely, most semi-successful players who use only instinct are not academically or mathematically inclined. Since you are already a break even player using purely instinctive abilities and obviously given your CPA status you would have little trouble learning the technical side of poker, it seems clear that reading our books ought to immediately elevate you to expert status.
Dan,
A background in accounting is an excellent starting point for a pro career, but there are a few things u should know about the world of pro poker. I can tell you from first hand knowledge that being a professional poker player is a job that is just as hard as any other "socially acceptable" job, such as being an accountant, lawyer, doctor, etc. You have to ask yourself why you want to be a professional poker player. Do you want to become a pro so you can work less hours? If so, dont quit your day job. Most pro players I know play anywhere fron 10-20 to 30-60 and play at least 40 hours a week and most of them play even more. People may try to convice you that they play higher limits for a living, but 99% of these people are broke and rely on backers to remain in action. There are very few high limit poker players out there who are self-supportive. Even the authors who write here are mainly 20-40 players.
Are you thinking of becoming a pro because you think it is exciting? If so, again, dont quit your day job. Playing poker day in and day out for years and years exposes you to many physical and psychological pressures. Sitting at a table all day does wonders for ruining your back. There is a tremendous amount of second hand smoke in most public cardrooms, so if oyu are not a smoker oyu might as well start smoking because after playing regularly in these rooms you are probably inhaling more smoke than a smoker.
Are you ready for a roller-coaster ride?? Every single pro poker player out there experienced large fluctuations in their bankroll in the early stages of their career. To read info by Mr Malmouth , Sklansky and Zee, you would think that you could look at these fluctuations and just shrug them off and wait for better times. The truth is that you must be ready for the many ups and downs a pro poker player experiences.
I also worked as a CPA for a few years before I started playing 10-20 limit stud for a living. I played for about 2 years, playing 4-5 nites a week at the Mirage. I eventually stepped up to the 20-40 game and was in for a rude awakening. THe players at the 20-40 level are much better than the 10-20 limit. I found it extremelly discouraging to have to go through large fluctuations again after finally proving myself at the 10-20 limit. I was able to beat the 10-20 game for about 15 bucks an hour but was lucky to make 10 bucks an hour at the 20-40 game. Many people will tell you that a good 10-20 player should make 20-30 bucks an hour but you shuold know that I was friendly with 2 of the best stud players in LV (In my opinion and many others). These 2 players beat the game for 17 and 20 bucks an hour. If you wanna get rich, stay in accounting. If you want a wild ride with the chance to never have to work in an office again, poker may be for you. I hope this informaiton dosent sound rude or anything, but I have seen 100's of players come and go from the poker scene and the last thing I would want to do is glamourize a profession that dosent deserve it.
Good luck on your decisons, E-mail me if you wanna chat.
steve
Steve,
In an earlier post to you ,I said the the players that play very well at their limits would make .5 to 1.5 top bets per hour and you were asking if you could beat a 4&8 game in N.Y. Yes poker is not a bowl of cherries but for a select few it can be a good living. 10&20 is an entry level game. A good player may make 20 to 30 grand a year at it. Big money comes from the large games made by experts. The three authors are not 20&40 players, they play much higher all with their own money and win. Mason may play 20&40 at the Mirage as it is usally the biggest hold-em game in Vegas. When I met him he was playing in a 100 dollar game in California 15 years ago. David regularly plays his own money in 100&200 and higher limit games and wins. I play no-limit with $5,000 and higher buy-ins and limits up to whatever is the largest game in town if it is worth playing in. You are right that the smoke is bad and that is the reason I play less frequently nowadays. As to the ups and downs, all parts of life have large swings, and those that handle them well make it. The 99 percent you say are broke they are gamblers not professionals. The best poker players that win treat the game as a business and play under only good conditions. In the biggest games you see, the players are usually all playing their own money. When you hear that a great player is broke it is usally because he makes lousy bets on the golf course. Good luck.
Since it has come up I thought I would clarify exactly what limits I do play in. For the past couple of years I have played mainly in the $20-$40 games in the Mirage and sometimes the Horseshoe in Las Vegas. My reason for not playing higher is that I got heavily involved in the publishing side of our book business, and just decided that while I was also concentrating on something else I did not want the swings. (As an aside, we were never able to get major publishers interested in sophisticated gambling books. We had to invest the time, effort, and our own money ourselves. No one helped us.) When I first met Ray Zee in 1985 I was playing in a $50-$100 game in California and I plan to get back to the bigger games relatively soon. Sklansky regularly plays in very large games, and Ray Zee routinely plays in the biggest games in the world. We all also play on our own money but the poster is correct in that some of the so called high limit players are frequently staked. (This is especially true of some of the tournament players.) But it is not true with any of us.
As for win rates I have written on many occasions that the best $20-$40 players in Las Vegas do a little better than $40 an hour, or a little better than one big bet an hour. At $10-$20 there are a couple of players I know of who do make 1 and a half big bets an hour, but generally players this good go to the higher limit. In California, even with the higher rake I believe (based on my results) that a top player will make about one quarter of a big bet more.
All of us have written that you don't reach this level of competence over night. It takes a lot of work, but we all have found that it was worth it.
in reference to Ray Zee's previous post:
I hope I didnt step on anyone's feet here. I realize that all three of the authors on this forum have at one time or another played higher limits, but I have seen both Mr.Mason and Sklansky playing 30-60 and lower limits a few times. I didnt mean to lessen their values as poker authors because without their writings I would no way have made it in the world of pro poker. My negative thoughts are related to the many hanger-ons that fill the poker world. You gotta admit that their is alot of riff-raff in the poker world. Guys that have a 50,000 dollar bankroll one week and are broke the next. To me this is a sign of ego's gone wild, not good poker strategy. How many times have u seen guys putting their entire bankroll on the line in the 75-150 stud game when they really should be playing 20-40!?!?!
Then intention of my post was to simply let Dan know how hard it is to really make it as a pro and that beating a home game regularly does in no way indicate that he will be a successful pro. Potential pro's come and go quickly and I wouldnt want to see this fella quit a professional relatively high paying job for the wrong reason!!!
Keep the advice coming fellas -It looks like this forum is getting ready to explode!!! Keep up the good work and thanks again (ok, my nose is brown enough now!)
later
steve
If all of my experience throughout my life has been mainly in stud, would it be wiser to begin serious study in that area, or in hold'em, which I've read can be easier to beat long-term?
Apologies if this is a little long-winded and indulgent, it's tough
to think straight with this little window :) . Perhaps the webmaster
could expand it to simulate real-life word processing.
Being smart, having card sense, and poker instinct make up a great foundation for
playing poker at a strong competitive level. However, it doesn't happen overnight.
Beating the locals and breaking even at low-limit casino games is a good portent
for your poker future, but it takes A LOT of hours to develop your skills and these
hours need to be against increasingly more difficult competition.
One comment I'd like to take issue with is Mr. Sklansky's:
"Since you are already a break even player using purely instinctive abilities and
obviously given your CPA status you would have little trouble learning the technical
side of poker, it seems clear that reading our books ought to immediately elevate
you to expert status."
Internalizing the 2+2 catalogue is a must, but one shouldn't think that a couple of
months of study makes you ready for the 40-80 game at the Mirage.
You should seek out decent size games in your area (10-20 should be a minimum) and
play as much as you can to practice your book learning and develop your skills.
The best way to improve at any competitive endeavor is to compete against tough
opposition. Game selection is very important once you're playing for the rent
but til then try and play with the better players.
After, say, 1000 hrs or so, assess your progress. Keep detailed financial records.
See the formulae in Gambling Theory & Other Topics to assess your certainty in the
validity of your results.
A second thing I'd like to comment on is the line:
"playing professionally still sounds like such a dream come true that.."
Playing professionally is a good thing. But dream come true may
overstate it a bit. If you're able to beat the big games (say, earning
$100k/year), it is probably very rewarding. But there are many pro players
making $50k/year. Is this your maximum earning potential? As a CPA, I'd
think your goal would be significantly higher. There are also many other
drawbacks: smoke, questions of self-worth, no health insurance, no
retirement, to name a few. Of course, if you make it to the very top
you can probably take care of three of these, but not very many people
make it to the very top. That's why it's the very top.
WARNING: Semi-indulgent pontificating starts here.
Stop reading now if you don't care.
I played my way through college and when the job market went into recession
in 91 and I had no exciting prospects upon graduation, I continued to play.
I played for a living throughout my 20's and my "dream come true" was
to develop myself professionally and "go legit." Now I'm 30, working in an
entry-level position making significantly less than I did playing poker,
but I've found my "dream come true." I still play as much as I can, but it
is much more enjoyable when there is zero financial pressure. Without having
a rent leak, I'm able to build the bankroll to the point where hopefully I can
"take shots" at successively bigger games. If after many hours of play in big
games, it becomes apparent I can make more money playing cards than i EVER can
in legitimate employe, than that might interest me enough to go back.
Anyway, I'm not much of a psychologist or anything, but I'd just say you gotta
really decide what your "dream come true" is.
Regards
Jim Geary
I would like to make a couple of comments here. At one time I had aspirations of being a pro player. Two years ago I spent a year as a "semi-pro" where I played poker almost every day and supplemented my income from a regular job with my winnings from poker. Reading the books offered by TwoPlusTwo will certainly provide a good foundation for your game. But as all three authors have stated simply reading the books does not guarentee that you will make money playing poker. You need a lot of playing experience and a lot of time away from the table analyzing your play so that you correct your playing mistakes and improve your strategies. I found out that being a full time professional player was not for me. In fact I feel there are many advantages to being a highly skilled amatuer. The appeal of being a full time pro for me was that I would be directly rewarded for my playing ability and I wouldn't have a boss. I found that indeed you are directly rewarded for your playing ability but you still have a boss. In my opinion, your boss when you are a pro, is the "good" poker game. You must be playing when the games are good which means some pretty unusual hours against some pretty undesirable people. As an accountant I would guess that your life is pretty comfortable right now. As a full time professional poker it may not be. I've talked to a lot of pros and it seems like most of them were constantly struggling to make ends meet. In fact it always amazes me as to how few really successful poker players I see in the card room. And I do mean very, very few. This does not mean to say that playing poker is not worth it I just think that you'll find being a professional player is far from a "dream come true." I am not going to say a whole lot about it but taxes are another consideration. I would guess that a lot of highly skilled amatuers, that do well in side games, conviently forget about some of their big wins when it comes time to fess up to the tax man at the end of the year. As a professional I don't see how you could avoid paying taxes if this was your only source of income. Therefore when playing in a profitable game, the professional actually has a lower expectation than the highly skilled amatuer who can, for lack of a better term, cheat on his taxes. At any rate, I feel that Jim Geary's approach to playing is very sound.
Are there any "successful Las Vegas poker teachers eg )Roy West" on the East Coast?
Where do you guys think the games are better, AC or LV??? It seems to me that the games in AC are infinitely better than LV. AC has only had poker for 5-6 years or so and Vegas has had poker since it's inception, so I think the games in AC are easier to beat.
Of course, as far as game selection goes, nothing beats Las Vegas, but the rooms in the Taj Mahal and the Tropicana are really starting to spread some pretty diverse limts!!
In my humble opinion, many LV players stay in Vegas because they like the weather, the glitz, and the glamor that is implied in LV. AC may be cold and yucky, but I still think the games are better. For you high limit players, the 75-150 stud game has always looked awesome to me, much easier than the regular game at the Mirage.
later
steve
> Of course, as far as game selection goes, nothing beats Las Vegas
In my opinion, of the major poker locations in the
US (Bay Area, LA, Las Vegas, Foxwoods/Mohegan,
AC) Las Vegas presents the WORST game selection
overall.
Forget this talk of Vegas, Atlantic City,Foxwood,Mohegan Sun,(don't forget Tunica)... the best $10/$20 Holdem game in the country is to be found every nite at the DIAMOND CLUB in the Big Apple!!!
Mr. Hoffman wrote:
"Forget this talk of Vegas, Atlantic City,Foxwood,Mohegan Sun,(don't forget Tunica)... the best
$10/$20 Holdem game in the country is to be found every nite at the DIAMOND CLUB in the
Big Apple!!!"
Yes, I have watched this game and agree that it is a great loose game. The problem is that there is at most one game a night there and if you dont mind to drive to AC you can find 10 games that are just as good. Those 4-8 and 6-12 games in the Diamond Club are pretty awesome as well!!!
Some of you referred to game selection when trying to figure out which side of the country has better games. Granted there is better game selection out west, but the actual games are still much looser in AC. I still say that most pro's should make the move to AC (although I am glad they dont, the last think I need is more competition)
later
steve
Unless you are playing big, it probably doesn't matter that much where you play assuming you play very well. It seems that everywhere I go the games are good as long as you do not play higher than $20-$40. At higher limits things change dramatically, so picking good games becomes very important.
California has by far the best selection of
games, the largest number of games (as much as
all of the rest of the USA combined), and
probably the best games that you'll find
anywhere. The main downsides to California
poker - the cost of living is high, and the
drop is high in California games.
In Super System, an opening strategy is given
in tabular format, specifically designed for
the ante/single-blind game.
How would this opening strategy change with
the 3-blind, no-ante structure ($5 on button,
$10 in middle blind, $15 in small blind for
a $15 limit game)? In Malmuth's Draw and Lowball
book he addresses a couple specific issues such as
being aggressive in the middle blind, but a
revised general approach (if such a thing is
appropriate) is not discussed.
Is there any published literature which gives
an opening strategy specifically for this structure,
and if so, do you recommend it?
JP,
Both Mike Caro and Norman Zadeh have published lowball tables. As conditions change you must always be adjusting your opening strategy. Poker is not blackjack and you cannot just play someone elses strategy. Good Luck.
In Super System, Brunson provides tables which
give the probability distribution of having pat
hands before the draw.
Are there any published tables which provide
similar information for the distribution of 1-card
draws, with and without the joker?
(Or if not, is there a simple way of coming up
with this information?)
What is the best starting hand selection system published for Omaha Hi-Low Split?
Max,
My book on high-low split poker covers starting hands. It is very complete and accurate for the game. If you like you can order it from this web-site. Good luck.
1) Is this game still as good as the sections on bankroll
and win rates in Mason Malmuth's Poker Essays
made it seem?
2) Any comments on Omaha8 tournaments?
This is a group that travels around Chicago area organizing "Casino Night" type events and includes low limit hold'em and stud games that I've played in. They seem to have a similar feel to the same low limit games in Vegas. Just wondering if anyone else has played in these or knows of other such games in the midwest?
Straddles mystify me. What is their purpose. I dont mean what is a straddle. I mean why do them? Are they ever "smart"?
Denny,
The person making a straddle has the worst of it. The two blinds now really have the worst of it and should not allow it to be done to them. Either object or get up and walk and come in behind the button. A person making a straddle on the button in a three-handed
game can have the best of it if he plays fairly well.
Ray Zee wrote that a straddle could be advantageous on the button in a 3 handed game. What about heads up? I once played Barbara Enright heads up for an hour or so and she often straddled her button (which was her small blind, of course). While it seemed like a sucker play to me, i'll have to say that it was disconcerting _always_ having to be first to act before the flop. I didn't enjoy folding my big blind sometimes to 2 random cards.
Andy,
When playing head-up the big blind gets 3 to 1 when the button raises for his call to see the flop. When the button straddles he only gets 2 to 1 when the button raises. Don't let him or her do it, quit or insist it stops, or do it also and play well. Something more daring to do with a player that you may be afraid will quit you is to re-straddle it and raise. Sounds crazy but it isn't. By putting four small bets each in the pot, the pot will be played out by all hands that have a chance of winning. Thus you will take away much of the positional advantage of the button and retain your edge when it is your button. Playing like this is not for the faint of heart. Just something to think about. Good luck.
Ray,
You're right of course that when the button (who is also the small blind) straddles in a heads up situation, they are making the most of their positional advantage, by forcing their opponent to act first on every round, including preflop. But doesn't it cost them so much to straddle that your opponent is making a mistake by doing this? And if it's heads up and your opponent is making a mistake....?
I notice that in pot- and no-limit games that several professional players whom I respect often straddle and encourage others to do so. Their goal is to get every player to straddle, in effect adding a bigger blind. (They will back off if not supported by most of the table.)
Adding a bigger blind makes for bigger pots and induces more risk-taking ("gambling," "action") due to higher immediate and implied odds. Why do these pros see this as being advantageous?
Game specifics: 1-4-8-8 Hold em, Players are generally pretty poor, two tight players, two aggressive poor players, two chasers, two fair players who play aggressively before the flop.
Hand 6-2 offsuit on the small blind, no raise prior to your action, three callers in the pot. Is it worth the 1/2 bet to you to see the flop, in this case $1. I threw the hand away debating that it was worth the one buck when the flop came 2-2-6. Twol callers in the pot with top pairs, one with 2-3 suited, obviously thinking he held the nuts (which he did for the players still in).
Thanks for any responses.
For $1 in this structure it is probably worth calling with any two cards against poor players who will pay you off when you catch perfect. What you must realize is that if you make a hand of some value you will have to throw it away since the pot will be small compared to the bets to come. But if you make two par or three of a kind (or a straight) on the flop my guess is that you could easily show a $30-$40 profit which isn't bad for a $1 investment.
.. snip .. folded 6-2 in small blind; flop 2-2-6 ..
With 3 callers and the BB you're getting 9 to one on your money. Is 6-2
going to win one time in 10? I don't think so. Even if it is then you
are still in bad position with a terrible hand and are likely to lose
money along the way: you have "reverse-implied odds" with trash hands and
with bad position. Your HAND and POSITION value dictates a routine fold.
Generally, I call in the cheap small blind about the same as I do call
on the button, as a general rule of thumb (with the exception I'm more likely
to play a small pair short handed in the SB, since your getting better odds
and have good implied odds, and position matters LESS when you flop a really
good hand, such as a set).
Discussing the actual result of the decision is not good, and potentially
destructive to quality decision analysis. You should always expect that
your good decisions will occationally turn out poorly and your bad decisions
will turn out good. This feature of poker, which allows bad player to win
occationally, is essential to the game. As others have phrased it better:
If the suckers NEVER win they'll stop playing, and YOU will stop winning.
Play a little game with yourself (I do): when you make a good lay down that
would have won, then imagine how that would reinforce bad play in the minds
of the suckers. When you see a sorry call that wins (especially against you)
then imagine how much that must reinforce the play in the suckers mind, and
imagine how much that is about to be worth to you soon.
Or you could get upset at your good plays that fail and their bad plays that
succeed, go on tilt, play like shit, and complain later that you lost all that
money because Aces didn't hold up once....
Louie:
I believe that your advice is much too tight. You are probably right in that 6-2 won't win more than 1 time in 10, but it sometimes can win a lot. That is you don't need to win as much as the immediate pot odds dictate.
I suspect that if you only continue playing if you flop at least two pair this hand will show a pretty good profit. That is you throw all (bad) draws and one pair hands away. Notice that this may not be the best way to play the hand, but it should be profitable. Remember in this structure it only costs $1 to play.
I play the small blind much looser than I play on the button if there is no raise. See our books for some guidelines.
In "Sklansky on Poker" on page 66 dealing with cards that are out
, given that you have 3 cards to a flush with 0 of your cards
showing your chances of making a flush are 23.6% . How do you arrive
at this value ???
Problem:
You start with a three-flush in stud, and none of your seven opponents shows an upcard in your suit; what's your chance of making a flush? In other words, what is the chance that four cards dealt from a 42-card deck including 10 of your suit will contain at least two of that suit?
Solution:
In general--
(1) a probability is the ratio of the number of ways that the event or condition of interest can happen to the total number of possible outcomes;
(2) the number of combinations of h things (e.g., a hand of h cards) that can be drawn from a group of n things (e.g., a deck of n cards) is n!/((n-h)! * h!) where "!" denotes the factorial operator (x! is x * x-1 * x-2 * ... * 2 * 1) and "*" denotes multiplication. Let this number of combinations be denoted C(n,h).
(3) If there are x possible combinations of one thing, and y possible combinations of another, and the two things are independent, then the total number of possible combinations of the two things is x*y.
The desired probability is the sum of the number of possible four-, three-, and two-flushes (occuring in the fourth through seventh street cards) divided by the total number of possible four-card combinations, which is
C(10,4) + C(10,3)*C(32,1) + C(10,2)*C(32,2)
-------------------------------------------
C(42,4)
or
10!/(6!*4!) + (10!/(7!*3!))*32 + (10!/(8!*2!))*(32!/(30!*2!))
-------------------------------------------------------------
42!/(38!*4!)
or
0.23559367
Note: the formula in Excel is: =(COMBIN(10,4)+COMBIN(10,3)*32+COMBIN(10,2)*COMBIN(32,2))/COMBIN(42,4)
I was just about to post this response, when I noticed that Steve Brecher had already posted a solution. His method is slightly more elegant mathematically since it deals strictly with combinations. My method may be a bit easier for some to follow.
-----------------
Russell Lawrence wrote:
In "Sklansky on Poker" on page 66 dealing with cards that are out, given that you have 3 cards to a flush with 0 of your cards showing your chances of making a flush are 23.6%. How do you arrive at this value ???
The best way to attack a somewhat complex probability question such as this one is to figure out a general approach to the whole problem and then break down the specific calculations involved. We need to calculate the number of ways we can make a flush, and then divide this by the total number of ways our seven card stud hand can unfold. So our answer will be in the form of:
flush permutations
--------------------
total permutations
Now, there are several different ways to make a flush. We can wind up with a five-flush, a six-flush, or the extremely rare seven-flush. So now we have:
5-flush perms + 6-flush perms + 7-flush perms
-----------------------------------------------
total permutations
Let's review the hand. Ten cards are accounted for: our three spades, and the seven non-spade door cards of our opponents. This leaves ten spades out of forty-two total cards in the deck.
Let's calculate the number of ways to make a five-flush. Say we catch one of ten spades on fourth street, then one of the remaining nine spades on fifth street. Since we need precisely five spades, sixth street leaves us thirty-two non-spades to catch; and on seventh street, there must hit one of thirty-one remaining non-spades. So the number of ways to make such a five-flush is 10 * 9 * 32 * 31.
What if we caught our fourth spade on fourth street, as above, but didn't make our flush until sixth street? Of course, other combinations are possible as well. You could list them in a chart ('X' denotes a spade):
Street
4...5...6...7
X...X........
X.......X....
X...........X
....X...X....
....X.......X
........X...X
It turns out there are six ways to hit exactly two spades with four streets remaining. Anyone versed in probability will recognize that we are calculating "4 chose 2" (written below as 4c2). It is simply the number of ways that 4 things can be taken 2 at a time. (The formula for "n choose r" is: NcR = N!/R!(N-R)! . If you find this too technical, just remember that in this problem, this value simply represents the number of ways to hit the required number of spades in four remaining streets. These can easily be listed manually as in the chart above.)
We have already calculated the number of ways we make a five-flush when we catch spades on fourth and fifth street. We must multiply this value by 4c2 to account for catching the spades on different streets. The logic for calculating six-flushes and seven-flushes is similar. This is summarized as follows:
5-flush perms = 10 * 9 * 32 * 31 * 4c2
6-flush perms = 10 * 9 * 8 * 32 * 4c3
7-flush perms = 10 * 8 * 7 * 6 * 4c4
So that the total number of flush permutations is
10*9*32*31*6 + 10*9*8*32*4 + 10*9*8*7*1
= 632,880
Fortunately, the bottom half of our calculation is a cake walk. The total number of permutations is simply the number of ways four cards can be dealt out from a forty-two card deck:
42 * 41 * 40 * 39
= 2,686,320
Dividing the flush permutations by the total permutations, we get 0.2356,
or, voila, % 23.6.
Another approach to this problem would have been to calculate the chances of not making a flush and subtracting this probability from 1. This is slightly less intuitive but involves fewer calculations:
32*31*30*29*1 + 10*32*31*30*4
-------------------------------
42*41*40*39
= 0.7644
Subtracting from 1, we get % 23.6.
Of course, if you had a good hand-generator, you could run a million hands and obtain roughly the same result. However, grasping the fundamentals of probability has its advantages. In poker and elsewhere in the gambling world, its applications are varied, plentiful, and--occasionally--lucrative.
I have been a low limit omaha and holdem player for about 6 years. I never play above 10-20 and have moderate success at both games. (Although nothing close to being able to be a pro). My question is It is worthwhile to learn to play 7-Card Stud? I was in Atlantic City and played 5-10 for the 4 days I was out there and really enjoyed it. Here are my concerns and observations. Please comment on them.
1) Stud seems to be a dying game especially when I visit Vegas. There seems to be a lot less games than holdem.
Will Stud die in our lifetime like Draw?
2) Stud seemed to have less "experts" or at least players who have read your books. It seems that every Hold'em game I get in has many people who have read your books. The Stud games in AC seemed to have a lot less pro's or sempro's.
3) I see a lot of stud games at the high limits, but not that many at the middle limits. Will middle limit stud slowly decline leaving just poor game opportunities stocked with lineups of just poker pro's, or will middle limit stud grow.
4) Should I be concentrating on Pot-limit play instead of stud. At last years world series it seemed like there were a lot of pot-limit games going on. Is this form of poker growing ? Is this the future growth of poker in Vegas.
Thank you for your writing and books. They have made my poker playing much more enjoyable.
Tom Boldrick pokerchip5@aol.com
IN the current issue if the INTELLIGENT GAMBLER newletter I address much of this question and suggest that you contact ConJelCo to receive a copy.
Tom:
To summarize here are quick answers to your questions.
1. Hold 'em is attracting more new players than stud. I believe that this is so because at the lower limits it offers more action and appears easier to play. However, new players are still coming into stud and even though hold 'em will eventually become the predominate game in all cardrooms at the lower and middle limits stud will not die like draw poker did.
2. My experience is that stud seems to have many weak playing regulars. The regular players in hold'em do play better than their counterparts in stud. This has a lot to do with the fact that stud is more difficult to master.
3. It's hard to predict the exact future of middle limit stud. My opinion is that in most locations where both games are offered middle limit hold 'em is better due to the large influx of new players. On the other hand, the progressive ante that is present in higher limit stud has the effect of preserving a proper balance of luck and skill. That is as the best players get better the ante handicaps them. I believe that this is why high limit hold 'em does not exist but high limit stud does.
4. Despite some claims that you occasionally hear, pot limit hold 'em is essentially a dead game. There were a few games during this year's WSOP but I haven't seen one since. Spend your time concentrating on limit poker.
I dont think it is necessary to learn stud, but it is definitely worthwhile. Both stud and holdem attract amateur players for different reasons I think. Holdem attracts loose players because the pots are bigger and the action is faster. Stud attracts lots of tourists and bad players because it is the game that many people are used to playing in their small home games. I have found that players who have only played in recreational home games go right to the stud table if they have never played HE before. I do worry about the life of 10-20 and 15-30 stud (especially the 10-20) The games I played at the Mirage where great on the weekends but pretty mediocre during the week. There are a small handful of pros in the LV area who play at the Mirage in teh 10-20 stud game that make the game virually unbeatable for a bad players. Many times I played into the wee hours of the morning with 5 or 6 guys at a table whom I know are great players but can not manage their money properly and never seem to step up to the higher games. The 10-20 holdem games on the other hand seems to be filled up with lots of bad players all the time.
I wouldnt go out of my way to learn stud, but I do think that it's a great game with a much different "feel' than holdem. I think stud is harder to play because every round you have to look at 8 different upcards and somewhat commit them to memory. Holdem is nice because at the lower limits u can almost fall asleep while you are waiting for your next 2 cards. (although sleeping is not recommended!!)
good luck
steve
Continuing with this theme I believe that if you can't play at least $15-$30 stud you are better off playing hold 'em. The reason is that low limit stud, because of the small ante structure is essentially a trapping game, while at limits higher than this it plays very differently, and you need to use different concepts to win.
Low limmit hold 'em also plays differently than medium and high limit, but that is more a function of the players, not the structure. You need to use the same concepts, it's just that they bring you to different conclusions.
But if you plan to take poker seriously, you should learn to play all games well.
A serious poker player should make an effort to learn all games. You should also try to learn to play each game under a variety of conditions, low ante, high ante, just blinds, limit, pot limit, no limit, short table, full table etc. There are a number of reasons for this. First, there may be a really great stud game going on, but if you only play hold'em, you can't take advantage of this nice earning situation. Second, if you learn more games, you will deepen your overall understanding of poker, and this will benefit you when you play your normal or favorite game. Third, from a long range point of view, it is hard to predict which games will increase in popularity and which will decrease (this may also depend on geography - in England and France, they play mostly pot limit hold'em and omaha-games which are spread in Vegas only around tournament time.) The last reason that comes to mind is to play in tournaments. Normally a tournament will feature a different game each day for a couple of weeks. If you're at a tournament, the side action often stops for the first several hours of the tournament. Also, you might find them fun to play in. There are relatively few competitive endeavors where you have the chance to play against the best players, and sometimes win.
If I had to guess the wave of the future, I would say that mixed games will start to increase in popularity. Right now the most common high limit game at the Mirage is HORSE (hold'em, omaha 8 or better, razz, stud hi, and 8 or better stud.) Normally 8 hands of each game are played, then the next game starts. While that exact mix of games isn't always played, generally at least 3 from that list are played. The variety makes it more interesting, and convinces more players that they have an advantage. (Stud players see the mistakes the hold'em players make in stud and vice versa.)
While we're on the topic of which games are popular, I wonder if anyone could answer a question that's been bugging me.
Many people consider big-bet poker to be more fun, interesting, and skill-dependent than limit poker. However, it's hard to find a pot-limit or no-limit game in public cardrooms in the US, outside of tournaments. This is reportedly because the good players wipe out the bad players more quickly at big-bet poker.
However, pot-limit is apparently thriving in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. I can't imagine that European big-bet poker players have any less an advantage over weaker competition. So I wonder why they don't have the same problem there.
I have a few hypotheses about additional reasons, but I'd really like to hear from anyone with more insight into this.
First, it's possible that pot-limit games would thrive if there were enough players to form many strata of ability, because then non-top players could still make money, or at least stand a reasonable chance of being at a positive expectation table (for them) on a given day. But right now, since new big-bet players seem to be in short supply, a new player would have no choice but to sit down at a table with mostly pros. To get an adequate range of ability games in the US would require a sudden influx of many thousands of big-bet players simultaneously. In other words, limit poker has taken over through sheer momentum.
Second, maybe pot-limit in Europe is available for small enough stakes that players don't go broke as often as they would here. Whether or not this is true, it strikes me as bizarre that big-bet poker has become synonymous with high-stakes here in the US. I've never seen a public pot-limit game in the US you could play comfortably with a table stake of under $500, while I've seen plenty of limit games where a buy-in of $60 or less is perfectly adequate.
Third, maybe the bad players in the UK are better than the bad players here. The worst US players aren't even really poker players, they're gamblers who've chosen poker as their slot machine, and they tend to be calling stations. Big-bet poker wouldn't be much fun for a calling station. Even at a table full of them, they'd either have to fold more (unpleasant) or break the game after three or four hands, when one player had all the chips. But there are certainly many players who take the game seriously and just aren't all that good at it (myself, for example), so you'd think they'd be adequate to form big-bet poker's underclass.
Well, I could keep guessing, but I haven't been an observer of the poker scene for long enough to really have a good sense. I'm really curious because I think I'd enjoy big-bet poker more than limit, but as a low-limit player I'm not likely to set aside $2000 to buy in to the only pot-limit game I'm liable to see this year, only to lose my money (in three or four short buy-ins) to the local pros.
dan
Dan,
In Europe I believe the pot limit games would dry-up if they spread both limit and pot in the same casino. It does not take long for the live players to see more multiway action in the limit games. Plus after they play limit one finds many times that they were winning during the game and have days that they left a winner. Not so in pot limit where bad players almost never win if they play a long stint. Small pot-limit with say a $50 buyin plays so small that players lose interest in it. A weak player can win much more in a $5 limit and lose a great deal less. Good Luck.
I would have to disagree with most of what is said in Ray's reply. For example, several European casinos have tried limit poker and it has flopped miserably. I think the real answer falls into three parts. Firstly, the majority of poker in the Uk is fuelled by tournements, that is cash players tend to 'evolve' out of tournment players, simply because tournement poker is far more common. All tournement poker in the UK is pot-limit, thereby most players learn pot-limit first, and often never learn limit play. As a collary to this, many players in my experience positively dislike limit play, and the greater emphasis the game naturally lends to draw-outs. Secondly, the scale of games ranges from L50 buy-ins to L1000 buy-ins, all of which are fairly common, especially in London. This means there is a natural grade of play from small to large stakes to suit all pockets. Lastly, I believe it is a misconception that poorer players loose money quicker in pot-limit play. There are many factors to consider. A major one is that there are very few full-time professionals in the UK, so there is no need for the majority of players to grind a living out of the game at the expense of the fish, with both sides winning/lossing moderate amounts over the long-term. Variance is much higher at big bet poker, but this is not a major concern to recreational players - a big win is fantastic, a loss written off and forgotten as entertainment. Finally, the reason it is often said that poor players loose more quickly is that it is assumed they play like limit players, as mentioned earlier players in the UK only ever learn pot-limit and so as a whole are probably at a higher standard than most limit players would be in the same situation. Hope this answers your question.
Dave,
Feel like sharing some wisdom on UK poker
tournaments?
I'm moving to Brighton and need something to take
my mind off the shitty blackjack conditions. I have
some winning experience of low-stakes pot and am
numerate, so I figured I'd invest in some books
and start playing tournaments.
I gather that they're mostly small buy-ins, some
larger in London, but with guaranteed minimum
prizes, so they're effectively offered as loss
leaders much of the time. Also that a lot of the
opposition is poor, so if you are any good you
should have a big edge.
Does that square with your experience, and are
there any particular books you'd recommend, or
any special advice you'd offer?
Thanks,
Ken
Ken,
You're right to look at buying some books as a good investment - I would recommend either Tournement Poker or Championship Pot-limit and No Limit Poker (both by Tom McEvoy and covering similar ground) and No Limit and Pot-limit poker by Bob Ciaffone & Stewart Reuben (a Brit!). The latter doesn't really cover tournements but the advice on big-bet poker, especially if you are going to dabble in cash games, is essential.
Tournements are an interesting place to get some experience. The players in them are not all weak however - in a typical field of 40 players, half a dozen will be pro's, another 6 or so all but pros, but with outside earnings, the rest have generally mixed skills. However there are basically 20 'dead' players in the field so there is room to make money in them (at my best I was a 4:1 to get in the top 3 money). Play tight aggressive, make sure you're getting to the final table and then play a canny game. Also check out rec.gambling.poker.
Good luck
Dave
I'd like the readers on this forum to tell me what their predetermined loss limit is in any one session. Alot of people say that setting loss limits is silly because yo can lose alot in a good game and lose the opportunity to win it back by leaving the game. I have found that once I lose a certain amount in a game it is best to wait until the next day to invest any more of my bankroll.
Here's the most I will lose at different limits (which is also the amout I usually buy in for -i believe in having lots of chips in front of me -it makes me feel good and also dosent let anyone think they can just bully me out of a pot by playing agressively)
3-6 Holdem - $200 - anymore than this is silly to lose in this game
4-8 Holdem - $250
6-12 Holdem - $400
10-20 Holdem - $500 - alot of people buy into this limit with 2-300 bucks in chips but I think that is way too little. I have lost more than this in this size game, but I always look back and realize I should of just called it a day!
I have a super-secret formula for when I quit a game a winner, but I dont think it is necessary to go into it here. Basically, if I am up alot I will make sure to go home a winner that night. There is nothing worse than getting ahead say 30 big bets in a game only to lose it back!!
thanks
steve
Steve,
I strongly disagree with setting loss limits. If the game is good and you feel that you have a positive "earn" you should keep playing.
On the other hand, I feel that I have a personal limit. When I lose this amount I just don't feel like playing anymore and three or four times a year I do mangae to lose this much and I quit. My annoyance number is approximately two and a half times the amount that you give. If you stick to your guidelines I suspect that you will be leaving many good games that you should be staying in. For example, good players get behind $500 all the time in a $10-$20 game.
There is however one thing that you should keep in mind. Playing to get even is wrong. You should always try to play well. For example, let's suppose that you are good enough to beat a $10-$20 game for $25 an hour. But now you find yourself down $500. You now expect, assuming that you continue to play well to take approximately 20 hours to break even. If you play crazy, your chances of winning it back quicker have gone up, but your chances of losing much more have probably gone up even more.
In my book GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS I have an essay called "The Extremely Silly Subject of Money Management." I suggest that you give it a good lood when you get the chance.
>>>In my book GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS I have an essay called "The
Extremely Silly Subject of Money Management." I suggest that you give it a good lood when you
get the chance.<<<
Of course I have read that book and that chapter more than a few times!!! I guess if I had a bigger bankroll I would not be afraid to drop a couple of racks in the 10-20 game, but I feel as if once I lost 500 bucks or so I might as well call it a day (also keep in mind that the only 10-20 stud games I have played is the stud game which I think has much less fluctuations than holdem and if u lose a rack in 10-20 stud you should DEFINITELY call it a nite!)
A big reason for why I set a loss limit is because my frail ego cant stand it if I take a really big (relative to my BR) loss. Unfortunately I am one of those persons who takes playing the game so seriously that I tend to doubt my play if I lose more than 30 big bets in one session. I guess in the long run it dosent make that much of a difference though because as u have said before Mr Malmuth, "The games are always good". One expression that has helped me alot in poker (and in life) is "There's always tomorrow!"
thanks
steve
I don't object to this approach and I don't object to occasionally taking a shot. But if you are only going to commit $500 to a $10-$20 hold 'em game you will find yourself frequently out of that rack of chips and quitting a game that is good. Furthermore, it may affect your play when you start to approach your artificial loss limit.
$10-$20 stud is generally a much smaller game than $10-$20 hold 'em. If you don't think so just compare the number of chips on the table. Now losing $500 here won't matter that much because you shouldn't hit this number -- assuming that you are a winning player -- except on rare occasion.
Theoretically who much you have lost is irrelevant to whether or not you should
leave. You SHOULD be able to make an informed decision based on comparing the
skills of your opponents with yourself. This analysis SHOULD be the same as when
you are considering playing in the game to start with.
For real people, IMO, setting a loss limit is a GOOD idea. A big loss is devestating
and will affect your play. Losing encourages your opponents. You might be being
cheated. You may have grossly underestimated the quality of your opponents. You may
be completely on tilt and don't know it.
For me, I leave when the loss bothers me. This is typically around $500 for a $10/$20
game.
For you, I recomend that you leave when YOU think you've lost enough. If you think
so, you're right, even if its for "bad" reasons.
I am in basic agreement with the other comments about losses. When I am stuck over a period of time I try to be careful and not overestimate the profitability of a game. Translated, I try to avoid marathon sessions when I am losing. When I am winning and the game is good, I try to play as long as I possibly can. Yes I have won a lot of money and lost it all back but I have also won a lot of money and won more money still. Therefore I don't think that you should quit a really good game just because you were up by a certain amount and lost some of it back. If the game is good keep playing.
Dear Sirs:
I have bought quite a few of your books, and I am very
sad at the quality of the binding. All of my books have
come apart. Please consider binding the books in a different
manner.
Sincerely
Thomas Nye
About two years ago we had problems with the binding of HOLD "EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS. We made an offer to exchange all books with bad binding. This has been the only book that we had problems with. Our printer had to take back over 6,000 books and we are now using a different bindery.
Some people "overuse" our books and they begin to have some binding problems. However, if you have a bad book we will always make it good. We suggest that you take it back to where you bought it and exchange it.
I also have all the Sklansy books (including the revised editions), and most all of Mason's books. To improve their readibility and durability, I take them to a bindery and have a metal spiral binding put on each book. The process cuts away the original binding and puts the spiral binding in its place. The value of this is now the book will lie perfectly flat when open, and the binding never wears out.
It is a very inexpensive process and should be considered with any paperback book you desire to keep for any significant length of time.
I've been reading a number of poker books, recently, including Hold'em and Hold'em for Advanced Players, but I can never find the answer to my question, so, I thought I'd give it a shot here. Why is it that when you calculate pot odds, you look at the chances of the card you need hitting over the next two rounds? Let me clarify my question with an example. Suppose you're playing Hold'em heads up on a spade draw, where the flop has two spades, and if you hit it you figure to win the pot. I know that there's a 35% chance that it will hit in the next two cards (1.86:1, my calculator says). but, here's my problem. I want to know why you use this number to figure pot odds. That is, why do you compare the sum of the bets on the flop and the turn against what's in the pot and the bet from the other person on the turn, and possibly the river (if you think he'll bet), instead of treating the hand like two independent trials, where you compare your bet on the flop against (the pot) + (the other person's bet) + (future bets you'll receive if the spade hits on the turn) to see if it gives you the necessary 9:38 odds and do so again on the turn to again see if it gives the necessary 9:37 odds if the spade doesn't hit. Also, even if you were to use the 1.86:1 figure on the flop to calculate the next two rounds, why would you not use the 9:37 calculation if your spade didn't hit on the turn, since you have been given new information about the composure of the board? Anyway, I figure I'm missing something somewhere, but I'm not sure what it is, so I was hoping to get some help on the matter.
I assume you are asking this question because a situation may arise where it is correct to call on the flop and fold on fourth street with a flush draw even though the odds of making the flush on the flop compared to the size of the pot indicate that it is profitable to put in a bet and a double bet. I believe that technically you are correct in that the hand should be treated like two independent trials. Lets say you are in a $10-20 Hold'em game. My advice is this, try to imagine situations where it would be correct to call a $10 bet on the flop and fold a $20 bet on the turn with a flush draw and plan your play accordingly. There probably aren't very many situations like this.
With one card to come, whether you call depends on your chances of hitting on the last card only. (You adjust of course for the possibility of hitting and still losing. On the other hand you can usually count on extra bets if you hit your hand. Usually these two factors usually approximately balance out.)
With two cards to come you should at least call if EITHER of the following two criteria are met:
1. You are getting good enough odds to take one card off. These would be the odds of hitting your hand immediately. When the fourth street bet is much larger than the flop bet it might be right to call on the flop and fold on the turn if you miss.
2. You are getting good enough EFFECTIVE ODDS. In this case you use the odds of hitting with two cards to come in conjunction with the betting limits. As an example suppose someone bet $10 into a $20 pot. Suppose further that the bet on fourth street was also $10. Your EFFECTIVE ODDS are $40 to $20 (getting two cards) which is enough to call with a flush draw even though you are only getting 3-to-1 odds on the flop. (It's $40 to $20 because your risk is a total of $20 and your gain is at least $40.)
I have some questions about playing draws in Holdem. I have read all of the 2 + 2 books and am aware of the authors opinions on playing draws but I still am a little confused as to what Mr. Sklansky, Malmuth and Zee have to say (of course all others are welcome to respond as well)
Ok, first off, what determines whether or not to play a straight draw with a 2 flush on the board?? Here is how I currently look at the situation. To play a straight draw with a 2 flush on board I will need at least 4 other people in the pot with me in order to play the hand. If I have 1 overcard to the highest pair on board I will play the hand with only 3 callers and look at the overcard as another possible out. If I have 2 over cards I will play the draw agains just 2 other players, in my mind having the 2 overcards gives me 6 more outs to win. ( i qualify my statements by saying that I do think about whether or not these overcards will give someone else a better hand, such as 2 pair, and if i believe this will happen i adjsut my play accordingly)
My second question has to do with playing any draw with a paired board. THe way I look at is like this: If it is a raised pot with 3 or more callers and the board is paired with a face card, then I will dump the draw all draws unless the action is very light and I can play cheaply. If the board pairs with a 9 or under in an raised pot I will make an assumption (sometimes not a good idea) that I am not up against a set. Also, I will not call double raises on the turn with a draw when the board is paired because I know that if the raiser has the 3 of a kind I am a huge underdog and may even lose to a full house if I make my draw. Do you guys agree with this strategy???
thanks
steve
Steve:
I won't spend much time on this except to say that if you play this way I don't believe that you can win. The fact of the matter is that you rarely ever throw these hands away. That is you shouldn't be throwing open end straight draws away when there is a two flush on board and you should only rarely throw away a flush or open end straight draw when there is a pair on board. Furthermore, you don't need three or four players in the pot. You might win by betting, and there is almost always enough money in the pot from before the flop.
This advice first came about because many years ago the structure of $10-$20 hold 'em was different than it is today. That is it produced much smaller pots. Even so, I doubt that this advice was ever right! and it is certainlt wrong today.
Mr. Malmuth wrote,"I won't spend much time on this except to say that if you play this way I don't believe that you
can win. The fact of the matter is that you rarely ever throw these hands away. That is you
shouldn't be throwing open end straight draws away when there is a two flush on board and you
should only rarely throw away a flush or open end straight draw when there is a pair on board.
Furthermore, you don't need three or four players in the pot. You might win by betting, and there
is almost always enough money in the pot from before the flop."
Wow!!! I am sure glad to have this forum to have the oppoirtunity to see what you currently think rather than what you used to think. Maybe this is one of the reasons why I can never quite squeeze that little extra to make the 1.5 bets/hour in my game. I'm gonna gradually make some slight adjustments to the way I play draws and see what happens.
Another question I have is whether or not to bet a draw from various positions. If up front in a field of 4-5 is it best to bet the draw on the flop and the turn (asuming no raise) or just to check and call? If the pot was short handed, with 3 or less players, wouuld you bet a draw or just check and call. In late position I almost always bet draws because I figure I can wint the pot by making the draw or by my opponents folding. What is your guys strategy on whether to bet draws or just check and call?
thanks
steve
Steve:
You are right. I rarely ever throw these hands away. In the games I play in the pot almost always offers a large overlay to continue, and as long as you are playing in a game that uses the standard $10-$20 structure this strategy is correct.
This is not new thinking. It is what we said in HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS which we originally published in 1988. My thinking on this matter has not changed.
When up front in a multiway pot on the flop I frequently will try to check raise my draws. If I can get three or more people for two bets when it is only a 2-to-1 shot I make extra money. In addition this play has some strategic advantages. I'll let you think about them.
As for when it is correct to bet a draw you should always bet as long as there is some chance that everyone will fold or that you will get several callers. With three or less callers there is usually some chance, but not always, that everyone will fold.
Mason Malmuth writes:
>When up front in a multiway pot on the flop I frequently will try to check raise my draws. If I can
>get three or more people for two bets when it is only a 2-to-1 shot I make extra money.
I can understand this pot odds calculation if
there were only one more card to come and the
odds to make your winning hand were 2-1 or less.
What I find difficult to calculate is the overall
pot odds for a draw with two cards to come and
two unknowns, specifically the number of players
that will contribute on the turn, and the cost to
see the river card.
As an example lets say the pot contains 4 small
bets pre-flop and 4 players remain. You flop a
nut flush draw and the board is unpaired. If you
can check raise and still get all 4 callers then
you will be putting up 2 small bets to win a pot
that will contain at least 12 SB. A good deal for
sure if that is all you will have to put up. But
much uncertainty remains in this hand. Let's say
the turn card is a blank for you but one player
folds and the remaining 2 players trap you for
4 big bets to see the river card. Obviously this
won't happen often but assume it might for the
moment. The pot now holds 18 big bets and you
put in 4 to draw to a 4-1 flush. If the pot were
smaller before all the action on the turn then
this play would appear to be an even bigger error.
Please explain how one can combine the odds for
a sucessful draw with two cards to come with the
pot odds calculated from the price of only the
turn card, ignoring the possible events to see
the river card. Thanks in advance.
Best Luck,
Ed
Mostly loose passive 5 10 at Taj.
You're on the button with QQ.
Two callers to you. You raise. BB calls. Callers call.
Flop: 7 5 3 rainbow
All check to your bet.
Only BB calls, the only other player with any trickiness.
Turn: 4, still rainbow
Check to you.
First question: Bet or Check?
You bet.
BB Check raises.
Second question: Call or Fold?
Third question: Suppose the turn made flop 2 suited. Does your answer to first 2 questions
change?
Fourth question: How about some discussion on check raise semi-bluffs on the turn.
Its easy Erin,
Keep betting when it looks like you have the best hand. When you get check raised here it is a simple choice. You are getting about 7 to 1 for a call. If you think that your hand could be best or that he may have 2 pair call. If you believe your are drawing dead or need a queen fold. Also, check-raise semi-bluff has little value in a loose passive game and they are covered in our books. They are David's baby and he does a wonderful job of showing their uses.
Good Luck.
The scene: Mirage 40-80 Hold'em game, must-move. Mason
Malmuth eyes the game but passes up the opportunity to
jump in. The game becomes crazy as good players are
moved to the main game and replaced by fish.
A drunk has been raising like crazy preflop, so I am
ready to three bet him the first opportunity I get.
After a frustrating series of trash, I get AK off,
which is more than sufficient. I reraise the drunk's
middle position raise - I'm to his immediate left.
A wacky player calls two cold on the big blind.
The flop comes Q44, two hearts. I don't have a
heart. I note that either of my opponents could
very well have a 4. Wacky player bets, drunk raises.
What can I do but fold? Wacky player reraises, drunk
makes it four bets. Wacky player calls. I pat myself
on the back, thinking to myself that I was certainly
correct to fold.
The turn is something like an offsuit 8. Wacky
player bets, drunk calls.
The river is an offsuit K. Wacky player checks,
drunk checks. Wacky player says "9 high". Drunk
says, "10 high" and turns over 10-6 offsuit. Wacky
player shows 9-5 suited but not hearts. 10 high
takes the pot.
Sigh. This is why I prefer to play in tighter games,
where there is just one megafish. I could have
handled the drunk maniac heads up, possibly by
calling all the way with my nut nothing. But add a
second maniac and suddenly things become much more
dicey. Their "implicit collusion" here is obvious
and fairly effective at minimizing their expected
loss to me. Add 6 more maniacs and I have no
ability to control the game at all.
So what should I do? Should I call - or reraise -
two bets cold with just AK on a paired two suited
flop?! It seems obvious that tight preflop play would
take down the money here; however, it also seems that
a higher expected play would be to loosen up a bit
preflop if my opponents are playing garbage. But if
I loosen up a bit preflop I get into trouble post flop
when multiple maniacs force me out of the hand.
-Abdul
Abdul,
Many winnging players get into trouble when against maniacs. If you build the pot early then be prepared to go to the end with any resonable chance of winning. Its high flucuations but big profit from intelligent choices. If you want to escape pots that are risky don't raise early as it ties you on to playing along. Good Luck.
heh, Abdul plays 3-6 holdem, but for lots of money. ;-)
I totally agree with the comments so far. Given the choice between playing AKoff for 1 bet against 5 people or for 2 bets against 4 people, i prefer to see the flop cheaply. On the other hand, I don't think there's any question that you made the right decision at every point in this hand. Your three-bet limited the field and gave you position over two maniacs. When the flop misses you completely and its bet and raised to you can there be any doubt that your laydown was the best play, in the long run?
In the long run, perhaps the best option in a
situation like this is to sometimes
reraise.
All but the most incredibly maniacal and
unobservant opponents at this point will get
some kind of thought process going in their heads
like , "Uh, maybe this tight bastard really has
a BIG hand..."
The advantages of doing this are that if you
then get reraised and rereraised you
can fold, but you will quite possibly stop the
action, giving you a free card on the turn.
If there is some reasonable probability that
at this point you have the best hand you probably
aren't losing much in EV by doing this.
I suppose I should refine my comment to say "big draws" ... again, from a stud perspective, AKX suited against multiple maniacs will be profitable long run ... anyone with the math on that?
I remember the game and I passed it because I had to leave shortly.
One error that many players make is that against the type of players that you are describing it is frequently correct to play your hand "like a wimp." Now I'm not saying that against players like this you should only call with AK, but frequently I do just that when I know that I can't isolate anyone. This way I can keep the pot smaller and sometimes get this type of player to make terrible errors if I hit the flop.
One of the main reasons for raising with a hand like AK or AQ (and keep in mind that AK is much better than AQ) is to allow yourself a decent chance to win the pot without improving. This is difficult to do if many players are going to come in or if you are against several players who will fire away no matter what. As Ray says, these games can be highly fluctuating but if played correctly, and this can mean that you need to throw a lot of hands away, they can be quite profitable.
It looks to me that these fellas just wanted to gamble and you didn't. Perhaps they weren't as bad as you thought. They may have had a pretty good idea about the quality of your hand and the likelihood that you missed the flop. At any rate, the situation you described is not uncommon. I have seen some very good players make some incredible calls in situations like this with worse than A,K. In fact, I believe Stu Ungar made a call with K,Q on the river with no pair to a substantial bet that put a player all in on the third day of the World Series tournament and won the pot. I am not saying that I would call but I would be expecting to gamble a lot more if I was playing in the type of game you described.
Play mostly draws, don't jam the pots, and expect a wider fluctuation. In stud games, playing only flush draws can be incredibly profitable against several maniacs.
By definition draws are hands that have little current value but which can improve to big hands. Thus you would like to put in as little money as possible early, but then be able to collect later assuming you make your hand. A maniac should make you put in a lot of money early. These are not the type of hands that do well in these games.
Play weak, tight. Rarely show strength (thus inducing bluffs), call to the river with anything reasonable.
Here's a topic a little off the usual hand analysis topics that we largely discuss here.
Do you think that bad poker players are compulsive gamblers and good poker players are simply students of the game? I believe that bad players (the majority of players out there are bad) are nothing other than compulsive gamblers. If you are a student of the game and lose regularly you will take the time to study the game and the way you play in order to become a winning player. Bad players never seem to take the time to study the game and simply play for the thrill which I believe makes them compulsive gamblers and not poker players.
In the same vein(sp?), a good poker player can still be a compulsive gambler. This is obvious when I see so many good players make a nice win and then piss it away at the craps tables or some other fast-paced house ran game. These players tend to be stuck at the low to middle limits and never seem to overcome their leaks.
What do u guys think???
steve
.. snip ..
I read a useful definition of "compusive xxx": An activity was compuslive if, among
other things, it was DESTRUCTIVE. Usually this means financially. So a compulsive
gambler is one who gambles a lot and loses TOO MUCH MONEY. (Or loses family etc.).
It would be difficult for Bill Gates to be a compulsive gambler since he can easily
afford any such losses. However, the same attitude and behavior in someone else could
easily be compulsive.
So no, most losers are not compulsive gamblers. Most can afford the losses without
serious destruction of their finances.
>>>Bad gamblers play for "the gamble", with the hope that they may win short term or unrealistically,
long term. The bad poker player is not any different from the losing sports bettor or the losing
horseplayer. <<<
Wouldnt you consider a person who plays for the short term with no realistic expectations of winning a compulsice gambler?
I would.
steve
I don't think that losing poker players are compulsive gamblers. Losing poker players are bad gamblers. The bad gambler is willing to "take the worst of it" to paraphrase Sklansky.
Bad gamblers play for "the gamble", with the hope that they may win short term or unrealistically, long term. The bad poker player is not any different from the losing sports bettor or the losing horseplayer. They are willing to gamble when they are "taking the worst of it" or seemingly more often and more importantly, do not realize that they are "taking the worst of it".
In my opinion this question can be summed up in one phrase, who cares! Ive been around gambling most of my life and have seen what I would consider many compulsive gamblers, not as another writer said "guys that take the worst of it" but guys that are just born loosers period, and I got news for you, if you dont want their money because you think they have a problem, than there are twenty railbirds that will try anything to get it, and get it they will. It isnt like anyone rakes a % of every pot to contribute to GA or anything so theres not much you can do about it. If your concience is bothering you for snapping of a stiff that cant control himself, I believe that GA excepts direct contrubitions, just dont have them cutting my pot.
I played at the casinos in blackhawk and central city where the blinds are either one blind of two dollars or two blinds of 3 & 5 dollars....the max bet on all rounds is only $5.00.....so you can't get anyone out of a hand. The odds only get better with each bet and each round! By the time you finally win a hand, tip the dealer a buck, pay the 3.00 rake, the 1.00 jackpot rake and tip the waitress, i'm doubtful if you can truly win in this game. I took my worse beating ever at these limits!! Has anyone played in this game and can this structure be beat on a consistent basis? If it can be beat, what is the best strategy?
Jeff,
You didn't take a beating by tipping the waitress. You can beat the game only by playing well. Read, study, and think about correct plays. Your money will be earned mostly with big suited connectors and by discarding pairs after the flop when you see an overcard. Good Luck.
Obviously, tipping won't cost much, I was just wondering with that type of rake(for jackpot and the regular rake and all the other costs) if in the long run you can truly expect to win at these levels. I believe scalansky mentioned that they don't spread certain limits because the games can't be beat and they ultimately dry up.
Regarding playing strategy.....i'm just saying that with so many people in every pot with almost every conceivable type of hand, you really get short-changed by not winning pots you would expect to win normally in a game where you can get people out of the pot. I dont know how many times i would have something like top pair or two pair and some body would be drawing to a flush with cards like 7, 2. It seems to me the only way to win these games is to have the best hand on every occasion, bluffing and raising doesnt work. Combine the fact that the crazy people at the table are always gambling by raising each other for the fun of it, i end up paying 6 bets before the flop and really not having any idea whatsoever of what kind of hands these people could hold. My conclusion is that if ths game can be beat it propbably won't be done with cards you expect to win with in a tighter game (such ace, king, etc) you will most likely win more with straights, flushes and other longshot hands. I didnt win that many pots but when i did they were pretty big. so i guess i should expect high fluctuations in my bankroll, grit my teeth and hold on for the ride. Any additional specific strategies would be greatly appreciated
We have addressed this topic many times before. The key to games like this is to play hands that have the potential to make monsters and stay away from hands that have the potential to make medium strength hands. As Ray Zee says big suited connectors are good. I would also add in any pair from any position. Flopping sets is hugely profitable in this type of game.
Unfortunately, you won't be able to play that many hands if there is a lot of raising. You are talking about a type of game where you can go for hours without winning a hand. But they you win let's say two pots within a few minutes and you are nicely ahead.
I regularly play in the casinos in this area (Colorado) where the limit is set by state law. (I wish it WAS higher, but...)
Anyway, with 250+ hours YTD, I am on the plus side, though less than one BB per hour. I do know of some regulars that do considerably better,
and most of my losses are due to lack of patience and playing just what the others said not to play- the hands that easily wind up second best.
So, anyway, Yes the games can be beat but it IS tough. Good Luck!
It would be hard to beat the game in the long run if you didn't hit the jackpot. Is the jackpot rake given back to the players? In any case you need to be playing more drawing hands and less one pair hands than in a typical game.
In many of the 2 plus 2 books the following concept is expressed -'You can not make a living playing any limit lower than 10-20'
I was wondering why a person couldnt make a living playing games such as 3-6, 4-8, or 6-12. The general formula says that a very good player will make 1.5 bets per hour in a game. Dosent this mean that a 3-6 player can make 9 bucks an hour, a 4-8 player 12 bucks an hour, and a 6-12 player 18 bucks an hour? I was wondering if the need to play 10-20 or higher is taught because of the types of games the lower limit games are, or just that the 2 plus 2 authors do not consider making between 9 and 18 bucks an hour a good living.
I call myself a semi-professinal recreational player, meaning I work a full time job but still play 15-20 hours a week, beating most games for 1.25 bets per hour. Granted, my hourly rate at my real job is much higher, but is there anything stopping me from becoming a full time low limit professional player??
thanks
steve
Our attitiude is that if you are good enough to beat a $6-$12 game for let's say $15 an hour you should be playing higher and making more.
We do recognize that some people are successful at let's say $10-$20, but don't make as much at $20-$40. This has to do with the improved quality of opponents that they face at the higher limit. But we don't see this happening when graduating from a lower limit.
So the reason we say $10-$20 as the entry pro level is that the money there is better. However, we do say in GAMBLING FOR A LIVING that an expert player can beat a $6-$12 game for $20 an hour, but why do that when you can make more by playing a little higher.
The local 3-6 holdem games in Chicago rake 10% to a $5
maximum. If you add the occasional toke, the question
is can a profit be made at this level consistently?
In 6 hours play last night, the house raked between
$600-$900. The average player buys in for $100, with
the bigger losers buying additional chips. At 9 players,
that leaves pretty slim pickings for the winners.
.
That sounds like a pretty big rake but I still think the game can be beat. Even though the typical 3-6 game is very loose and sometimes wild, I still think there is tremendous potential for a positive earn in these kind of games. Such a high rake will decrease your overal earn but I still think the game can be beat.
steve
The game here is not very wild or particularly
loose. 4-6 players see most flops, 2-3 at the
river. Very little raising pre-flop, and a post-
flop raise will typically result in everyone
checking to the raiser thereafter.
Rich,
The game you describe is about the ideal one to make the most money in. Those conditions are about the best that happen in real life. Good Luck.
The game that Rich descriped (i.e. 4-6 players see most flops, 2-3 at the river. Very little raising pre-flop, and
a post-flop raise will typically result in everyone checking to the raiser thereafter.) does indeed sound like a
good game *BUT* the rake of 10% up to a $5 maximum for a $3-6 game makes this game unbeatable in the
long run.
Since Mr. Zee has probably not played any low limit casino poker recently he may have under evaluated the
*severe* impact such a high rake has on such a small game like $3-6. I currently have graduated to yellow
chip games (i.e. $15-30 and $20-40 Holdem) and higher in my poker career in the Los Angeles, Southern
California area. But before, I played alot of $3-6 and $6-12 low-limit Holdem.
I think the $6-12 games are definitely beatable but the $3-6 games (and below) are almost unbeatable (you
can win a small amount if you don't tip and/or game selective) with the rake and tokes associated with them.
Both the $3-6 and the $6-12 games (see my thread "Does a $6/hr charge make a $4/8 and $6/12
unbeattable? in this forum) charge $3 on the dealer button. The rake and tokes for these two low-limit
games ($3-6 and $6-12 Holdem) works out to about $16 per hour of play per person. That is, $13 for hourly
charges and $3 for dealer tips. I know that for a fact by tracking over an extensive period of time how much
collection and tips I contributed. In the $3-6 and $6-12 games in my area, the dealer also deals out about 36
hands per hour using this dealer collection procedure.
In good low-limit games (below $10-20), a top player can "gross" about five to six small bets per hour. So
in my $3-6, you would net about -$1 to +$2 per hour making the game unbeatable. Most people might tip
more than me, so you won't net the $2 per hour even if you can gross six small bets per hour.
For Rich's game, his cost of business (rake+tips) is higher than my $16 per hour. It's probably about more
than $19 per hour. You can figure it out for yourself, Rich...Just track for about 50 hours exactly how much
you pay for collection and tips and divide by 50 (or whatever hours you tracked) to get your hourly cost of
business. Figuring you can gross five to six small bets per hour (if you are a top player), you can figure out
your net profit per hour. I have to warn you that only a top player will win five to six small bets per hour.
Most low limit players that think they are great or good probably cannot even gross three small bet per hour
in the long run.
When Mr. Zee plays a game like $40-80 Holdem (I know he probably doesn't even play this "low") he
"only" pays $20 per hour in collection. That's only one-half of a small bet (i.e. half of the $40 big blind or
small bet in the $40-80 structure limit) per hour for time collections. Top section players don't even
necessarily tip even the $1 per pot that low limit $3-6 game players do with every pot they win. But when a
$40-80 player does tip $1 for a pot pushed to them, that's only 1/40th of the small bet in this structure.
When a $3-6 player tips $1 for a pot pushed to them, that represents 1/3th of the small bet in this structure
!!! Imagine the $40-$80 player tipping the dealer $13.33 for each pot he wins!! That's the equivalent!!
Bottom line you cannot beat this $3-6 game in Chicago with a $5 maximum, 10% rake even with a good
weak lineup. If the lineup was fantasyland-level you could beat it with this rake. But a game that good is
almost non-existent even in sunny Southern California.
This game could be unbeatable ,I did not address that. However, if 2 to 3 people call on the river 1 or 2 of them must have put in dead money. If that is so it more than takes care of the rake. Do you think of those 4 to 6 people playing, they combined make at least $5 worth of mistakes during the hand? I believe so. Good Luck.
As I told someone in an e-mail the other day, the toughest players I ever ran across in a poker game were in the $3-6 games. Reason: players fighting for every dollar and trying very hard to win the game; success is more important to them than to a 20-40 player. Good place to sharpen up though ;-)
The Gambling Forum July 1997 Archive Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo