![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Comments:
Wednesday, Bellagio, 15-30 Holdem. Mid position. Hand Kh,Jh. 3 other limpers and the blinds. Flop Td,6d,3h. Check to me. I bet. Raise by big blind. I call. Heads up now with BB. Turn Qd. BB: bet. Me: Raise. BB: Reraise. Me: Fold.
Quiz:
Limit Holdem.
You: UTG.
Other 8 players will only bet,call or fold all the way through the river.
What are your starting hand requirements?
Vince.
I'm not sure about the second question, but as for the KJ hand the fold on the turn just has to be correct. You're getting 9.5:1 pot odds for a call, you've only got six cards that realistically improve your hand, and there's a fair chance that you're drawing dead.
Vince, I think you know that the last thing I would have done with your hand before the flop is call. You should have raised.
When you were raised on the flop, you should have folded. The BB probably already had two pair or an overpair, but even with a flush draw, I like his hand better than yours.
I'm not real good at pop quizes, but the fact that your opponents never raise would allow you to play a few more suited hands and connectors like J10 that you probably wouldn't play UTG otherwise.
Boat Drinks,
Brett
Recently I started screwing around with some 2-5 stud (please, don't all laugh at once). While my experience thus far has been illuminating (that's English major speak for not profitable) I've basically committed myself to learning the damn game, if only because there are some big private games in my area that feature only stud. Anyway, while I've been plugging along, getting rolled up K's on third street snapped (long story), I've started to wonder about the starting hand requirements for low limit. While I can't be at all sure, it seems to me that a fella should tighten up CONSIDERABLY in a no ante game, and therefore abandon much of what 7SFAP has to say about starting hands.
My reasoning here, while likely wrong, should be easy to follow. With no ante, you've got virtually no implied odds when you call, particularly if you're near the left of the bring in. While the implied odds are decent (this is, after all, a low limit game), I'm wondering if many of those mid pair/ overcard kicker type hands shouldn't be dumped. In fact, I'm wondering if virtually everything shouldn't be dumped, particularly if you're to the left of the bring in or to the left of an ace.
As I mentioned in an earlier thread (in a response to one of Vince's posts), I have absolutely no instinct for starting hand requirements- in any game. If it wasn't for the absolutely abhorrent post-flop play of my Omaha opponents I'm sure I'd get roasted, and the same goes for 7stud. So, while this may not sound like a big deal, I can assure you that it is for me. Without a doubt, the best thing Herr Sklansky's 'HE Poker' ever did for me was give me a general idea of what hands to play. Clearly there's nothing like this out there for stud, but I'd be curious to find out if the change in starting hand requirements between mid limit and LL stud is as dramatic as I suspect it to be.
Please bear in mind that my stud skills are on par with those of a palsied lemur, so if this is a tired subject I do apoligize.
the less money in the pot starting the hand out the less you are fighting for. so it follows that you can indeed play much tighter if you want. you may not win as fast if the opponents play badly but you should lose more slowly also. if the players all routinely call on the first 3 cards its like having an ante anyway that you dont put in. in low limit you may want to play less aggressively and trap players more often by getting in cheaply and making a hand. as always in 7 stud selecting your starting hands is very important as you get to see what you are likely to be up against. until you get more comfortable play tight and wait until you hear cha-ching before stepping out.
.
GD,
You may find my response a bit curious but hardly "illuminating". (high school grad speak for illuminating).
7SFAP was written for middle limit stud games (15-30 was the model according to the illustrious and "illuminating" Authors. The application of the concepts described in 7SFAP will, in fact, work best at those levels. However, for low limit no ante stud, for the most part, following these concepts are far too aggressive. They will most certainly get you in trouble. However, the trouble you find yourself in by applying the concepts in 7SFAP is well wworth it! Yes, I am advocating, for new stud players, the concepts and play described in 7SFAP. One caveat (or is that caviar, maybe cavalier), use the concepts at the lower limits if your goal is too quickly move up to the mid limits. You will escalate your progress xponentially (a non math mans speak for quickly). If you are a patient person and looking to beat ll stud well then good luck. You will need to modify the play in 7SFAP considerably. The one thing you can still bring with you to the LL games however is starting hand requirements. 7STAP 3rd street hand requirements will work at the lower limits.
Because there is no ante one would naturally conclude that tight play is the rule to follow. Well, tight play is a rule to follow at almost any level through the mid limits. However what kind of poker would you be playing if you tightened up so much that you only play the very, very best poker hands. What would you learn and how long would it take to learn it? If you are a holdem player the boredom would become unbearable. You would soon give up and quit the game just because it would not be fun!
The prime factor in determining when to loosen up in LL no ante stud is the play of your opponents. Well let's see if we can put the factors in order of importance when selecting a starting hand in LL:
1) Opponents playing style. 2) Hand strength/live cards 3) Pot size 4) Your level of competence.
WThis is by no means the gospel but something like this will give you a reasonable basic strategy for third street that will allow you to play more hands than called for by a no ante game.
I hope that helps!
Vince. BTW - I didn't know that Dorothy Lamour had palsy? Thanks for the info!
I play in Colorado and so mostly play 2-5 stud. Mid pairs, with or without a kicker tend to be a pretty bad call. If there are few faces on board, you can raise and pick up $2 or $4. If you call, it's 8 to 1 against matching one of your cards. You're much more likely to get trapped with two small pair and loose $22.
If the game is loose, I typically play Q-Q or higher, and three of a suit with a face (4-5 hands an hour). If the game is tighter or short handed I can usually steal a 3 - 4 small pots an hour.
I see quite a few players try the agressive 7SFAP style. They tend to loose the big pots and win the small ones. Either everyone folds on third, or the whole table calls with drawing hands.
By the way, at Harveys in Central City, there is sometimes a $1 ante, $5 limit game. This is a wonderful game.
I hear talk of a newfangled variation of HE being offered at one or more of the So. Calif. card rooms called Crazy Pineapple. Each player is dealt three cards as in regular Pineapple but retains the third card until AFTER the flop. The game is played hi-low, but if no 87--- or better is achieveable, then high only; at least one card from one's hand must be used; and one can go both ways without having to use the same five cards (I haven't played yet, but I think I've got the ground rules straight). Is this a geographical anomaly (California oddity) or are there other places where this game is being offered? Is there anyone willing to share an account of his/her adventures at the tables?
I've played it at least 15 yrs. ago, though not high-low split with qualifiers, in home games on the east coast. It probably arose from *ordinary* pineapple when players got too annoyed with throwing the wrong card away pre-flop. The split pot aspect doesn't sound real thrilling with enough Omaha-8 action available instead.
The game is very common in mix or dealer's choice games. I played it earlier this year in the 40-80 mix game in Phoenix. One aspect of the game that you didn't mention is the game is played like hi-lo holdem after the flop, ie., you only have to play one card to make hi or lo.
There is a lot of action, as a lot of players will see the flop. Most pots are split. Lots of moaning on the river.
Another game they play in Phoenix is "Any-Any" which is hi-lo stud with no qualifier. Any hi, any lo. In Abuquerque, we used to play pot-limit "Action." You are dealt 4 cards, and throw away 2 before the flop. Then it is played just like holdem, or hi-lo like UP.
Yeah, I've played a bit of this, since it used to me one of the options at the now defunct choice game at my local casino. For the record, Crazy Pi can also be played just High, although the Crazy Pi/ 8 variety seems to be the preferred choice of most of the clowns I played with.
It plays a bit like Omaha/ 8, which means you should stay away from medium pairs and medium suited connectors, since these hands will only get you in trouble. Also, you don't need quite as good of a low to limp as you do in Omaha (I can't be sure, but I'd say the average winning low hand is probably around an A4), so loosen up this part of your game. And, of course, the key to this game is to play hands that can scoop.
Good luck,
Guy
This game can be great. I played quite a bit of it at the OCC near San Diego a few years ago. For almost a year it took over HE as the main game in the room. In SD and in LA, it is played just like HE hi/lo, i.e., as per HE, you don't need to use any cards from your hand. You pick your 5 best of the 7 for hi, and a potentially different set of 5 for the lo.
This game is definitely between HE and Omaha. You can't just wait for the nuts like you do in a loose Omaha game, because you'll be throwing away too many winners. You can't push top pair, top kicker like you do in HE, because you're gonna lose way too often. It really sets a different standard for which hands to bet/raise/fold. This game stayed good for almost a year because so many of the players couldn't make this adjustment properly. They were either too tight (Omaha players) or too loose (HE players). By adjusting more quickly than the crowd, I made a nice bit of cash.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I get pocket queens in the bb,loose 12 handed 10-20 game,average players seeing the flop are 7. I don't take the option.We see the flop 7 handed.Flop comes rainbow Q,rag,rag.I check the harmless looking flop not wanting to lose customers ,knowing there are a lot of bluffers(overcard bettors) and late position stealers in the game and I'm almost certain I will get a bet out of someone(rarely do you see a freecard in this game).
Second to the button bets.I call .We see the turn 5 handed.It's an ace,giving 2 pieces to the broadway(Q,x,x,A).I bet hoping to get out the gutshot draws and for someone with an ace or two pair in his hand to raise me so the gutshot draws can make an easy fold (potsize is not big considering I did'nt take the option to raise preflop for just this reason,giving overcards or straight draws no potodds to call my bets), I get 3 callers. River is a ten giving no possible flush (Q,x,xA,10).I bet and the flop bettor raises me.I call and see K,J and lose a nice hand. Comments and advice welcome.
With the game conditions you describe, I'd want to play for three bets on the flop. Unless you really think it's going to get bet and raised behind you, so you can complete the check/reraise, I'd have to bet the flop expecting to get raised instead. This doesn't look like a good time (multiway action) to slowplay just top set on the flop. Those players betting/raising two overcards are making normal plays, just as the late position stealers are. This is inspite of the unliklihood of earning free cards. Notice that if you had followed through with the checkraise on the flop and were reraised by one of those late position agressive players, you probably could have been successful checkraising again on the turn. Now facing a double big bet, many times those weak draws release.
This sounds right on. The mistake many players make, IMO, is not realizing that you make your money on the flop, when the gaggle is still brimming with optimitsm. By the turn, even though the bets double, most players have the discipline to muck unless they've improved. Where you could maybe put 10-15 sb's in the pot here with a simple bet on the flop, it's very unlikely that you could make a similar amount on the turn. Further, by building a big pot on the flop, the yoyo's with mid- pair, etc. will be more tempted to peel another one off on the turn, and virtually all of them are drawing dead.
With an average of seven callers in no fold em hold em, large pairs are ALMOST worthless. In this type of game, wait for decent position and drawing hands like TJs, AXs etc., get lots of callers and, like all the others, wait for a good flop.
I found the game conditions in low limit hold em so bad that I gave it up and changed to 4/8 Omaha-8 with a half kill (limit to 6/12 whenever a pot is swept, which is about 2/3 of the time). In this game, using the advice in Ray Zee's book, I know where I stand MOST of the time and have been doing very well. No surprises in 4/8 Omaha-8 !! You expect the worst and plan for it. Many a flush and Broadway (and even an occasional full house) have ended in the muck without my batting an eye. Its dull as hell, but profitable.
However, DONT play this game the least bit loose or you will be in big trouble. That referrs to the choice of starting hands and the flop, which should hit you very hard in order to proceed.
"With an average of seven callers in no fold em hold em, large pairs are ALMOST worthless."... For sufficiently large values of 'worthless'. Big pairs are immensely profitable under these conditions.
Against a lot of loose opponents, I do not think you want to slow play a flopped set. A set will win most of the time, but against a large number of bad players, you will be surprised how many times you get beat by straights and flushes. On page page 59 of HPFAP (2nd ed) in a section on slow playing, SM give an example similar to yours. It is a JJ hand with a J,6,2 flop. SM caution that slow playing may not be correct "if several bad players, who may call your bet with as little as one overcard, are in the pot". Lee Jones in his WLLH book recommends playing flopped sets as fast as possible, puting in bets or raises whenever possible. (I don't have the 21st C ed of HPFAP, but it should be in the mail.)
In your case, your best shot at getting the player who beat you to lay down his hand was on the flop. On the flop he had only big cards and a three card staight. If you had check raised him on the flop, he might have figured you for a set or two pair, and given up his hand. Once the ace came on the turn, he now had a four out draw to beat you, and even if he wasn't getting the right pot odds, he would probably not fold.
With a flopped set in early position I usually bet out hopping for a raise, so I can reraise. In the games I have been playing in, that usually works. If you can not count on a raise on the flop, then going for a check raise is good too.
I agree with your reasoning for not raising before the flop, but there is no question you should have check-raised when you flopped that set. you already had 7 pre-flop bets, and not all of your "customers" would have folded. better to win a small pot than lose a large one. Bet, Raise, Check-raise, Re-raise, whatever you have to do to knock out those back-door draws. Of course, if the game is really loose and no one folds, you may get callers anyway, but that is the best part for you (in the long run). If they call when not getting proper odds, you cash in on all the times they don't get their draws. Of course, just because someone is not getting proper odds does not mean they will fold, so sometimes you just have to pay them off. Do not assume all your opponents are considering pot odds, especially if they are weak or very loose. I am a lower limit player (3-6,5-10) and most of my opponents don't even know what pot odds are! (I'm sure 15/30 has better competition). it does stink when a set gets beat though! those are the breaks in no-foldem-holdem!
Against seven callers, even top set is vulnerable, and this pot is already fairly big. There is no excuse to slowplay here against a field this large.
What I would have done is bet out on the flop. A bet coming from the blind could be anything. With luck, you'll get three or four callers, and a late position raise. You can then re-raise, and perhaps one or two of the original callers will fold, putting some dead money into the pot.
It sounds like you have a bit of fancy play syndrome. A good strategy for these games is to wait for a big hand, then start betting and keep betting and raising until you are either certain you are beat or they push the pot to you.
Thank-you 2+2 for the theory behind shorthanded play. I had more or less arrived at good strategy through experience, but now I have the foundation to shake out the wrinkles. Fascinating new material to examine in this 21st. century edition! Looking at the starting hand recommendations for calling a raise or reraising heads-up from the big blind, I see that these are almost the same standards I use for semistealing on the button or cutoff with a full ring. The big difference is the lesser suited connectors and one-gappers below eight-six. I know that you advise semistealing with USUALLY any group 1-7 and sometimes 8 or worse from late position. Should I be trying to win the blinds in an ordinary 10-20 or 15-30 game against typical but not overly agressive players with more or fewer hands than I should be playing against an agressive player heads-up with position? Specifically, should I consider semistealing with J8-T7 86s-53s 76s-43s, or only against customers who don't loosen-up with their reraising?
I am confused about something I read in Both 3bet Brett and Vince's ideas on Stud v Hold'em. Brett says something to the effect that in Hold'em it is harder to put your opponents on hands than in stud. A day or two ago Vince indicated in stud there are times you can lay down your hand because you know you are beat as oppossed to hold'em, which again suggestes that stud hands are easier to read.
This premise is very false, it is actually the other way around and without Stud hands being harder to read then Hold'em would be a great deal harder game. Now I am not saying stud is harder than Hold'em, both have similar and contrasting skills neccissary to play well. Here is my thoughts on reading hands in each game.
In hold'em you have a common board of 5 cards that everybody sees of the seven you get as a player. Stud you see 4 of seven cards and the board is not shared. So using player x with z ability to read boards than he will do a better job with the greater amount of information you get in hold'em.
Additionally, When you are contesting a hand in hold'em you hold cards that make it less likely that certain possible hands given the board are being held by your opponent. Generic example. If you are not in a hand in hold'em, you may look at the players involved and say about one of them, well he has 2 pair or trips, and a outside chance at a stright draw. If you were in the hand, you might have one of these holdings and it would make it dramaticly easier to infer what your opponent had. In seven stud your opponents hand is not very often that dependent on your holding. Consequently, you can infer less about his hand. Yopu may have to leave the possibility of at least one additional hand that the other player could have in stud.
As far as Vince's comment, in the older version of HFAP, they indicate that in hold'em you can sometimes throw away your hand on the end because the betting is such that your opponent has to have yoou beat, I don't recall their example. In seven stud you dont get to because you are not able to the same degree of certainty to put your opponent on hands.
Through more experience at one game or the other you may develop better skill reading boards in one game or the other. But, given the same skill level you just have more information 5 cards v 4 and their are less possibilities in a common board. Robert Bisogno
I'm probably not the best person to respond to this, since I'm no good at putting people on hands in either game. But, I know I'm better at it in stud than hold'em. I believe it is because there is more information available in stud than hold'em. I only see 4 of his cards, rather than 5 in hold'em, however I also see 10-15 other cards which I know he does not have. I realize knowing a specific card he has is far more info than knowing one he does not. But I have to think that knowing 10 or so cards that he doesn't have is worth more than knowing 1 more card he does have. But thats just my opinion, I could be wrong!!
Robert,
My comment about there being times you can lay your hand down in stud because you know you are beat does not refer to an unseen hand. For example if your opponent makes open Aces and you have kings you are beat and can lay down your hand. You never have that luxury in holdem. Certainly, reading hand skills apply in both games and when a hand is unseen both games have there difficulties. Is it easier to read an unseen Holdem Hand than an Unseen Stud hand? I believe it's a close call. You certainly have more information available in an 8 handed stud game than a nine handed holdem game. Is that enough, maybe.
My claim that Holdem is a harder game than stud is not based on reading hands. My claim is based on the "multiple path" to proceed aspect to holdem. In general Malmuth has stated that once you understand the situation in stud there is normally one correct way to proceed. An example: You have K,6/K, an xx/A raises it is reraised by a xx/7, (no other Aces or sevens out) before it gets to you. Your play is to fold. In holdem, You have K,K in the small blind. Early raiser, Late reraiser. What's your play? 1/3 of the forum will say Reraise. 1/3 Call. 1/6 fold. 1/6 I don't know. I may have the numbers off some but you won't find them too far off. In the stud example only a few poor players would reraise or call.
Decisions with multiple seemingly correct paths are quite prevalent in Holdem. This is what, in my opinion, makes the game harder.
Believe it or not the general belief is that Holdem is a simple game to play. Any two cards can win, right. That is exactly the reason why more and more people are playing holdem versus stud. It is the number one game out west and greatly gaining steam on stud back east!
Besides it's a lot more fun!
Vince.
Vince,
I understand what you are trying to get across by your example, but I think that the decision to fold is not automatic. The Ace may have raised to steal and the 7 may have reraised the possible steal with a medium pair (Kings and Aces unlikely). I would say for this particular case, knowing your players helps tremendously. I wouldn't raise with trip 7's. If you did call, which I agree is marginal, again depending on the players, you hope to see the Ace fold.
I have never played Holdem for any real money. I would like to, especially since memorizing cards can sometimes take the fun out of 7 card.
Mike
I agree my example could have been better. Suppose we make the 7 raise and the A reraise and a five 3 bet before it gets to the K. (BTW I've seen this happen a number of times).
Vince
I'd muck the Kings and watch the hand develop paying close attention to the hole cards at the showdown.
Again, good point.
Mike
Any poker games in Austin? Would love to find out. Thanks
Treho,
welcome to the theory and strategy forum. it is reserved for posts about what its title says. posts such as yours go to the exchange forum at the left side of your screen. you will get the hang of it as you read on. good luck and contribute please.
ray, i don't have anything to the left side of the screen, as you say. where are these other sights? thanks, jeff
http://www.twoplustwo.com/forum.html
Jeff,
i dont know but try accessing the forum from this above. if using micro or netscape you should have it. the other forums are under Forums easy if its there.
All right, all right, I was only kidding! I made a statement under a post below titled "I Am An Idiot Or Genius?". It was only said to be provocative, and judging by the responses, it was. I still hold to the fact that a genius would never ask this question. Also, I firmly believe that a true genius rarely tries to be acknowledged as such, or be accepted as a genius (think Einstein). Also, had Bobby Fischer really been seeking recognition, then he would still be in the States, on the talk-show circuit...
Big A
Fisher was a response to your "a genius doesn't have an ego" statement. No bigger ego exists (regardless of what some posters might say about our dear friends at 2+2).
"There are two kinds of geniuses. The characteristics of one is roaring but the lightning is meagre and rarely strikes; the other kind is characterized by reflection by which it constrians itself or restrains the roaring. But the lightning is all the more intense; with the speed and sureness of lightning it hits the selected particular points - and is fatal."
Kierkegaard
"There are many kinds of idiots."
Vince Lepore
"Easy to read Sayings are for those who want their sayings remembered."
== Kierkegaard
"There are many types of humor."
== Louie
"An idiot is an idiot who doesn't know it. A Genius is an idiot who knows it".
== Ben Franklin
"Spur of the moment sayings gain appeal when you say the Ben Franklin said it."
- "Just Do It"; Author I can't remember.
Vince-
Great quote. What book is it from? You'd think I would have run across it, but...
BTW, the 'many times of idiots' addendum could ONLY have been conceived by a poker player. Christ Allmighty, we do see all kinds...
Not to open myself up to major flaming but are there any other Mensan's on the 2+2 board? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be the only "certified" genius here.
Big A, I agree and I'm not asking the above question to brag. I'm just curious. Believe me, being smart is overrated. And it sure doesn't do me any good at the 5-10HE table.
Michael
An idiot with Aces beats a genius with Kings.
(low limit translation: One of the 4 idiots with XXoff beats a genius with Kings, all the time.)
I was playing this afternoon at the Mayfair 15/30 game. The game is played 10 handed and is usually a very loose game. I am dealt JhKh/9h and the hearts were live (one or two showing out of the ten hands dealt on third street) and there were no other kings showing either. I limp in for the $5 and have two opponents. One shows Qs and the other is the low card 4d.
On fourth street the Qs catches the 10s and leads out betting $15 , the 4d catches 7s and calls. I am last to act and catch a total blank and my board is 9h6c.
Any advice on how to proceed?
Just call here and then lay it down on 5th street if you don't catch help.
Jim, as usual just do as Earl says
Right now. I don't like your hand. Two hearts out does not make your hearts live. There is not a lot of money in the pot right now. The worse card you could catch may be a King! The best thing here may be a fold. But being a lover of SF hands I might call as Earl recommends. I don't consider a call a big mistake here. My calling would most certainly depend on my opinion of my opponents.
BTW where is the Mayfair? 10 handed stud wow! Many community card hands?
Vince
Vince
As you see below I agree with your assesment. When ten players are dealt in I will play a flush draw for a raise with 2 of the suit (besides mine) out if the other conditions for playing a flush draw are met...I won't do this eight handed.
Mayfair is a private club in New York City, no dealers...we play at a round table and players deal themselves. At 15/30, although it is a loose game, it is very rare to run out or cards...(no cards are "burned" before each round either) Playing stud 10 handed is very taxing on the mind but it's good training...when you get to the casino game with eight players or less it seems easier now to follow the action and remember the cards that have been folded.
Good Luck
Jim
Jim,
I would like to discuss this hand a little more. Hans like this are some of the most troublesome in 7 stud. By that I mean they get the good player in a lot of trouble. If you recall I said that the worse thing that could happen to you may be to catch a K. Although I was referring to 5th street, the check and catch on sixth street produced the same result. Why is that? The good player may rightfully believe that he has the best hand at this point (with the Kings) His nature says bet. What happens normally is that he picks up the pot (a good thing but a small pot) or he gets called. (If both call he now cannot like his hand). Either they are both on a draw or one may have 2 pair already. Either way it's an uncomfortable position to be in. I don't know how to quantify the cost or profit when you are in situations like this but my guess is that you are a dog against two callers on fifth or sixth street with hands like this one. Because of that I probably just check sixth street. I really don't like the pot size on 4th street and feel it's your chance to get away from the hand before trouble arises. I like your adjustment up front with 10 players considering the 2 hearts out to be ok. Especially with 3 to a SF. I didn't mean to imply your call was wrong. In fact I believe a raise on 3rd street may have been the better play. I normally play hands like this slow up front unless some of my cards are out. Then I want to cut down on the opposition. I know that sounds counter to conventional wisdom that says drawing hands want a lot of callers but with the high cards in hands like yours there is a much better arguement for limiting the opposition.
We have been discussing the relative difficulty of playing stud and holdem. This hand, though seemingly simple, would be a good example in favor of the difficulty one faces in playing 7stud.
Thanks for the info on Mayfair. Is there any fear of card mechanics there? Sounds like a "Rounders" scenario to me. I'll stick to the Casinos.
Vince.
Vince.
Vince,
In my response to Earl below I gave my reasons for betting the kings on 6th street. It's more than just numbers and probability at times. Image is important too...I just don't want to be seen dogging this hand after both opponents check.
As far as your question about the Mayfair and cheating at private games in general...I will not be a pollyanna and say it can't happen (I have been cheated in a private game in another place) but the management at the Mayfair is pretty zealous about protecting its member from this sort of thing, and they don't hesitate to ask poker "hustlers" NOT to come back.
Good Luck
Jim Mogal
Jim,
I also live in NYC and occasionally play in small stakes private games ($1-$5). Does the Mayfair have games in that range? How does one join the Mayfair?
I would appreciate any info.
Thanks Mike michael.bacarella-RST@db.com
Assuming Queen does'nt raise go ahead and call for one more card.If the Queen checked,I would check also.
I did call, but I really don't like the call and it's not because of what happened in the hand...It's because the pot is not really that big at this point. If there had been a RAISE on third street it would be an easy call here...but remember we just limped in so that with a total ante of $20 and another $15 in on third street, when the QT bets and the 47 calls there is only $65 in the pot at this stage. When I put in this $15 on fourth street with no pair and a busted draw I think I am looking for trouble.
WHAT HAPPENED. On fifth I catch a Qd for a gutshot, the other two catch blanks and I get a free card as both opponents check (I would not have called a bet here) ON sixth I catch a K and both opponents catch blanks I think I have the best hand now with JhKh/9h6cQdKs vs QsTs7h5Ad and 4d7sTd3c. I bet out after both opponents check and am called by both. On river the high board checks and the 47T3 bets into me having made a straight while on a flush draw.
As my opponent raked in the pot I regreted not folding on fourth street when I had only $5 invested in this three way pot.
I can agree that you don't lose much by letting go of the hand with only $5 invested, but at the same time, you have a cheap shot to make a big hand. Obviously the gut-shot straight draw was not what you were looking to catch.
At the same time, with the pot remaining fairly small, I don't see much equity in making a bet on the single pair after checking along to 6th street. A pair of Kings is a big hand on 3rd street, but not much at 6th facing two players. You only have 2 outs to hit your straight, and it's not clear that even two big pair will win the hand if you get help (even less unclear when you found out that your opponent was on a flush draw).
I'm guessing that you thought the bet would get the hand over with right there, and I think we'd all be inclined to do the same thing. However, when the pot starts out small and gets checked to the later streets in stud, it's fairly common in that situation not to make a move at it late unless you have something approaching the nuts.
Note that your opponent on the draw didn't make a price mistake on 6th street. If he has both draws open, he has a maximum of 13 outs. With 12 cards showing, he's about 2-1 against (40/13) if none of his cards were out. If the antes are $2, the bring-in $5, the pot contains $16+(3x5)+(3x15)+(3x30)=$166.
He loses $30 in 27 hands ($810), and wins $136 in 13 hands ($1768); when you get there with him on 2 of those hands (when you catch a 10), he probably loses a double bet on the river ($90 x 2 = $180). Point is, if he has a completely live hand on 6th street, while his hand isn't favored over yours, due to the 3rd player in the pot, his return on a bet is greater than yours.
In most stud hands where the action is multiplayer, you usually MUST catch help in order to win. Stud hands are run at a certain rhythm; in a multiplayer field, you must usually be hitting certain "gates" of improvement along the way in order to get to the finish line first. A pair of Aces or Kings on 3rd is like having a head start on the field; a single pair on 6th and 7th is like a runner about out of breath.
Errata: In calculating maximum of 13 outs, I made some assumptions that may not be so; depending upon what he needed for the straight, he obviously could have as many as 16 outs (only 1 diamond showing which appears to be his flush draw). Nonetheless, this only heightens the point I was making: with 3 players in the pot, he has a better price with his draw than does a single pair.
Earl,
You make very good points here. Points I agree with. However, your point begs the question: What is the best play for the draw if the K checks. From your analysis one could conclude that if the draw was sure that the K had no better than K,K then his best move would be to bet his draw. Especially given the chance that his opponents may fold. The problem with this line of reasoning is that now the K,K may be getting the right price to call if two other bets go in before he calls (if he feels he may have the best hand at the time or two pair may win). If indeed the K,K is now getting the correct odds because of the two additional bets the correct play for the K,K now may be to raise. This leads to the conclusion that in situations like this hands like K,K or A,A will do better if they check raise!
So what does all this mean. In 7SFAP S&M state that if the betting has been light on the early rounds of the hand it is a mistake to bet on the later rounds. I believe that advice is correct even for the draw.
Vince.
Your points are valid:
1. The draw should bet on 6th since he makes money on the price; 2. But, the K-K could've countered that somewhat and would've been better off to check-raise than flatbet; 3. Light betting on early rounds USUALLY makes it a mistake for both players to bet big on later rounds. (Once I had 3 open Aces against a guy who made 4-sevens; in a limit game headsup, we got it all in on the river.)
As for the draw, with this many live outs (16) and several bets in the pot, I will usually make a move at the pot with a similar draw. Not only are you getting the correct price, but your opponents may lay down for a bet and/or you may gain positional advantage on the river. If they call on 6th, most stud players will pay off the river bet with nothing more than the big pair.
But from the Kings perspective, by check-raising and making it a double bet on 6th, the K-K cuts down the price on the draw (and if he blows out the 3rd player, makes it even tougher). However, as with any play where the number of bets is high as contrasted to a small pot, the net effect is to greatly increase your deviation, while minimally increasing the expected value.
While I play both games, I'm always amused by the questions of which is tougher, hold-em or stud. Both games have tactics, but it seems to me that knowing the price is more important in hold-em, whereas the tactics can become more intriquing in stud. In hold-em, you start out with a defined position, but in stud, position may change on every card and you have to analyze and play your position much harder. Also, as seen in this case, for every play, there's often a counterplay (or even counter-counterplay), somthing that appears more straightforward in a limit hold-em hand.
Earl
Actually both players were on draws. The player in the lead started with QsTs and was on a spade draw. I didn't think I would win the pot right there by beting on 6th, but when both opponents checked to me I KNEW FOR SURE that a pair of Kings was the best hand on 6th. If either opponent had a pair of Aces or two pair I would have heard from them.
In this spot, even though I am not a favorite against the field, I have the best chance to win and I will NEVER dog the hand in this situation. One of them has to improve to beat me and they will have to pay for the chance to draw out.
I'll go out out on a limb here and bet that Ray Z would agree with my 6th street bet.
Good Luck
Jim Mogal
Jim, the limbs you pick are very thick. i may have bet on 5th just to take charge as they are very weak here(it turns out it would have been a bad play since they both had draws). and i may have bet the hand out as a bluff. on 6th with what happened i would for sure bet with glee. on the river i might even bet the 2 kings for value as a high or medium pair may call(two tens?). you can fold if raised by the flush draw if he is not a bluffer and call the small card hand because he cant logically raise that end bet. or check and fold if you know they wont pay off with less than kings and wont bluff.
You should have raised on 3rd in this tight game.
"I regreted not folding on fourth street when I had only $5 invested in this three way pot".
Resist the temptation for this sort of result-oriented post analysis. If your Ks had stood up would be be glad that you called on 4th? How does that help you make this decision next time?
If you had known that the QT was a semi-bluff-only-once kind of player then a call on 4th is good since you are likely to get a free 5th street card. Fold if the player is aggressive and is likely to bet his 4-flush on 5th.
- Louie
You are on the button. Everyone at the table calls the big blind. You know that neither the small blind or big blind will raise before the flop. You look down and see 23o. Do you call? If not, what is the minimum hand you will see a flop with when everyone is calling the BB and you know you will not face a raise from the blinds?
Fold 23o
Aprox Minimum for each class:
22, 45s, 68s, J8s, 109o, Q10o
I am less sure about the offsuit mimimum and might be inclined to throw a few more of those away if I was feeling patient or I thought there was any chance of a blind raise.
D.
Any two cards can win!
Vince
23s might be playable if you are great after the flop. The game conditions have to be right (you can expect to get paid off when you hit), though. If everyone's calling preflop, then those conditions exist.
Bill
I'd be considerably more liberal with the offsuit connectors and one-gappers. 76 and 97 seem *right* under these conditions.
Big A,
I would fold 23o.
For the list below remember I will be raising with many of the big pairs and the suited high connectors such as KQs just about all the time (even QQ and JJ can hit a set!). I would also raise with Axs.
I would call all pairs and raise with any pair of sixes or better. The pairs of 66 thru TT would more be for manipulation of pot size if I hit a set. I don't like this play for the smallest pairs because I fear (perhaps irrationally) set over set with a big field.
Call down to Qx suited.
Call J7 suited.
Call all suited connectors except for 32s and maybe 43s. I would raise with some of the better ones such as JTs for manipulation of pot size but I don't like this play as much as I do with medium pairs.
Call all suited single gappers except for 42s and maybe 53s.
Call all suited double gappers down to about 96s.
I don't play middle suited triple gappers below J7s (actually, I can't ever remember ever playing this hand outside the blinds).
Call offuit connectors down to 54.
Call offsuit single gappers down to 64.
Call offuit double gappers down to Q9o.
Generally I rate small unsuited connectors closer in value to suited connectors when played in back than most players do. Perhaps this is due to my obvservation that flush over flush is much more common than straight over straight in a big field. I would love to see the math types do some analysis here based on a loose table of players always playing suited cards.
I also tend to rate small one gap hands close in value to connectors but two gaps represents a large drop in value. This is because the one straight you lose (with a single gap) tends to be a staight that is often vulnerable to a bigger straight. This doesn't happen as often with single gappers. (Note: An example would be 87 which gets creamed by KQ on the dummy straight. On the other hand, 86 is much less vulnerable to a board like T 9 7 x x since J8 is much less likely to be out there.
Regards,
Rick
On the river, I bet and my opponents called.
The first message I posted was incorrect. Here's the correct hand:
I am big blind with 5c 6s. A loose aggressive player raises, 5 players call, I call. flop comes 3h 4c Kd. I check, agressive loose bets, 5 players call, I call. Turn comes 8d. I check, aggressive loose bets, 4 players call, I call. River comes 7h. I bet, aggressive loose calls, 1 other player calls, my straight wins. Aggressive loose has AA. Thanks for your comments.
Spadebrain,
OK, you have 56 offsuit in the big blind.
You wrote: "A loose aggressive player raises, 5 players call, I call."
Easy call. You are getting 13 to 1 on your call with no fear of a raise behind.
You continue: "flop comes 3h 4c Kd. I check, agressive loose bets, 5 players call, I call.
Not a bad flop. With the agresive player behind and five cold callers, this is not the place to semi-bluff bet your draw. However, at this point, be thinking ahead to check-raising if your hand hits on the turn as the loose agressive is likely to bet again.
BTW, some would check raise for value here but the aggresssive player on your left tends to set up the more profitable check raise on the turn. In addition, a check raise up front will not buy a free card.
Next you write, "Turn comes 8d. I check, aggressive loose bets, 4 players call, I call."
I see no other play here. However, once again you should be thinking ahead to the river. Unless you have a tell on the loose aggressive (indicating he may not bet), you should already have the check raise planned.
Lastly you conclude, "River comes 7h. I bet, aggressive loose calls, 1 other player calls, my straight wins. Aggressive loose has AA."
I think the check raise would have earned you at least one extra river bet. These bets add up over time. The point of my reply is that you shold be thinking ahead at every stage of the hand. This makes it easier to find the right play.
Regards,
Rick
Rick -- I think he did right in betting, unless he has a very strong read on the leader. Most people would check A-A there, since the board is compact and unpaired. I would. Over time, I have found myself wishing I bet more often than wishing I had check-raised in that situation.
thanks for your valuable comments.
Spadebrain
I would go for the check raise on the flop a good percentage of the time. You are getting great odds on your straight draw and even if the guy reraises trying to knock players out you will not loose everybody. I would then come out betting if i hit and check if i don't
Definitely check raise on the river.. I don't like raising draws unless you have position over your opponent.
You are about a 2-1 dog to make the straight and may get 6-1 for a raise! Unless the aggressive guy is likely to 3-bet the flop with JJ, I would check-raise for value. This play is particularly good since the aggressive player is likely to have anything. A tight player is likely to have Ks and should 3-bet it.
Even so, it sure looks like 3-bets will NOT drop anybody else.
Check-raise the aggressive player on the end; he'll bet one big pair for value. Bet into a conservative player who will check one big pair.
- Louie
Louie,
I see where this play has a positive EV on the flop but I wonder if this subtracts even more from EV on later rounds. In other words, check raising here probably takes away this play on the turn or the river (when you make it). This seems especially apparent considering the position of the aggressor and the fact your hand is pretty well disguised. BTW, you may want to read my post earlier in the thread before replying.
Regards,
Rick
If the valuable check-raise on the flop reduces the value of a check-raise on the turn when you make it, then your flop check-raise will encourage a "free" card when you check the turn after you miss.
But you have an excellent point in the fact that the flop check-raise is very valuable is NOT a good enough reason to do it: one must compare the value of a play to other available plays.
- Louie
I think you did fine overall. Even "loose aggressive" might have balked when that 7 appeared because 6-5 to the 4-3 was the only legitimate draw with that flop. If you tagged him as a reckless player, then that's another story.
When I have been playing Jacks or Better, Trips to win, this question always arises. YOu got two pair in your hand, do you throw out a pair and try for the three of a kind or discard one and try for the full house. I know it depends on what the other people draw, but what are the better odds. Thanks
Hi !
If you keep your twopair...(e.g QQ77) there are 4 of the remaining 47 cards helping you.(the 2 remaing Q:s and 7:s). making odds 10.75 to 1
If you discard lower pair and kicker (lol) there are 2066 of the 16215 possibilitys (bying 3 cards of 47 card deck) givin you trips or better. Odds... 6,85 to 1
But as u said....better make sure that twopair isnt enough. (I hope my math is correct, in a hurry....) Good Luck in the future
Aswede (Daniel)
Draw 3 to a big pair likely higher than everybody elses one pair; meaning Aces, Kings and maybe Queens. However, if there are several 1-card draws then draw 1. Draw 1 to 2 small pair.
Need Some advise from the group,
I played in a $100 buy in one rebuy no limit tournament at Crystal Park in Southern Ca. last night. I think it was 19 tables and I went out the middle of the third table, they paid two. I may have over played a pair of tens from UTG and got cracked by a pair of Kings. That didn't bother me to much though you run into a hand once in a while. What I am concerned about is that I started playing Medium sized No Limit Tournaments about a year and a half ago. I have played 10- so I don't play them that often. I have not got in the money yet, but have made the 3-4th table 7- of the ten times. Twice I have been the last person to go out before money is paid.
I do not think that it's just bad luck. I feel I must be missing a few tools. I play a bit tighter than the typical tight but solid player. So, normally, I am in survival mode the whole second half of a 15-20 table tournament. I am aware that most of the players that accumulate the big stacks at tournaments are the agressive players but there is a small group that do not play many more hands than me but tend to have solid stacks all the way through to the final stages of tournaments. the only thing I have noticed is that some players are willing to play Ax pretty strong in those middle to late stages. It seems to work a lot more than I would think it should. WHAT TYPE OF MOVES AND PLAYS MIGHT I BE MISSING OUT ON THAT WOULD GET ME OVER THE HUMP AND PUT ME IN POSSITION TO WIN A TOURNAMENT? Looking for things that might keep my stack more pumped up so I can make moves and not always be in survival mode.
Thanks in advance, Robert Bisogno
When you are at the third table and are trying to get into the money survival has to be utmost on your mind. The only real hand UTG is A,A. The rest are marginal at best. TT is out of the question. T.J. cloutier puts it best: "If I lose this hand will it keep me from getting to the final table" (paraphase). I have made the final table at a number of NLH tables following this little piece of advice. When ever I don't I get knocked out! I have lost at table 2 with J,J UTG. 8,8 (didn't know any better then), just plain mediocre to semi strong (limit) hands.
Thats the best I can do and I'm not even sure it's solid info. But iuf Cloutier uses this strategy it can't be all bad.
Vince.
With a small stack close to the money, your objective is to survive and back into a payout. With a large stack and close to the money your objective is to attack the short stacks trying to make the money.
You must be cognazant of how many rounds you can blind away vis-a-vis the other short stacks.
As far as winning then tournament... Sorry, can't help. But one strategy that appears to appeal to me is to attack early in a tournament, and either get busted (and play live games) or have a large stack. The large stacks have a big advantage since they can attack the paranoid short stacks.
- Louie
You haven't played enough of this kind of tournament to be able to determine how good you really are. You're still at a point where short term luck is still the primary determinant of results. My suggestion is play at least 30 more of this kind of tournament. Once you've done this, then you can assess the true level of your skills. The fact that you've finished just one out of the money twice in ten attempts is in my opinion a good sign that you may have what it takes to be a winner. My advice is keep going at it and make sure that you improve as a player at least 1% with each of this kind of tournament that you join. This may sound small but if you take account the compounding effect, you can easily be twice as good a player 20 tournaments from now than you are today. Never give up!
Jaws,
You sound like your an experienced tournament player. Would you share your record with us? Your strategies?
Vince.
I haven't been playing in tournaments too long.. but here's my opinion. Any pocket pair is better than a draw hand. I have overplayed pocket pairs many times, but in a heads up situation, I would much rather have a pair in the hole than have to draw to a hand. I have had pocket 3's hold up against AQ, but have also had AA beat by 77 when someone flopped a set. I have also lost going all in with AK to pocket 10's. ?!?! If you were beat by pocket kings, there isn't much you could have done. No limit tournaments get very aggressive, and you have to play your hands strong.
In all the tournaments I have played in, I always see pocket pairs played very aggressively, no matter the size. Any pocket pair is a favorite over a drawing hand, you just want to play them heads up.
I disagree with the tone of this advice. The poster seems to be saying that pocket pairs should usually be played very aggressively, while big cards are not worth as much. Personally, if I'm in a spot where the chips are going in preflop (if at all), then I'd rather have AK then 33. With AK, there are 3 possibilities. The opponent has AA or KK, and I'm a big dog. The opponent has any other pair, and I'm a slight dog. The opponent has any non-pair hand, and I'm a significant to huge favorite. Since you won't be running into AA and KK all the time, most of your matchups will leave you from a slight dog to a big favorite, a setup I like.
With small pairs, there are only 2 likely possibilities. You'll be up against 2 overcards, in which case you're a small favorite, or you're against an overpair, in which case you're a big dog. Looked at this way, this matchup is inferior to that with AK.
Now, if you even drop down to AQ, things start changing pretty quickly. This is simply because in addition to everything else, AQ can be dominated by AK. Since AK is never dominated by a non-pair, it is MUCH stronger than AQ. The same is true, only more so, for every other weaker non-pair hand.
Since you can't know what your opponent has, I'll take AK over a small pair any day.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You make some good points, but I don't think I implied that big cards aren't worth as much. I just feel more comfortable with hand that I don't have to draw to. Any pair is a favorite, although small in some cases, to any draw hand. It also depends a lot on your position. If two people make large bets prior to you, and you have a small to medium pair in the hole, it may be right to muck that hand. But with AK, the correct move may be to come over the top. In any case, it really depends on your position, your situation, and most of all, your table. With the example given, pocket 10s, I would rather make a move with that than AK.
Obviously you can play NL okay in a general sense, or you wouldn't be lasting so long in these events. However, you've either been unlucky in the later stages, or you're not playing them well.
One possibility is that you're not in tune with the game (at your table) well enough. It's not just what cards you've got, but what you think your opponents will do if you raise/call/etc. In other words, the situation you're in matters more than the cards you're holding.
If the only player at the table who has fewer chips than you is in the big blind, this is a better situation for you to try a steal than any other. Your cards will make up your mind what you do, but you won't need as much here as if the chip leader were in the blind.
More generally, stealing blinds is often a big deal in NL tournaments. You need to constantly be aware of the propensity of every player to defend their blinds, as well as to attack yours. Using this info, you can decide when to attack and defend. I mean, if it's 80% likely that the blinds, plus anyone else yet to act behind you, is going to fold to your raise, then your cards really don't matter, do they? Contrarily, even if you have an above average hand, let's say QTo, in the small blind, you shouldn't go all-in against the BB if you know he's going to call. Find an alternative strategy here, as going all-in as a likely small favorite is not worth the risk late in a tournament.
Also, be alert for resteal opportunities as well. If someone has been stealing a lot, then there is a good chance they haven't had good cards everytime. If so, consider the risky but profitable resteal. When they make it T600 to go, and you think they probably have little, then you don't necessarily need much of a hand to go all-in for T2000 (as long as you think that they're good enough to fold if they really were stealing with nothing).
Anyway, to summarize, my advice is to be thinking about your chances of stealing before you even look at your cards, in fact, before they're even being dealt. Use this info to guide your actions.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
i'm new to the manhattan area and am looking for hold'em in the city (tired of driving to mehegan sun, foxwoods, a.c., etc.). please post any helpful info (addresses, limits, contacts, etc.)Thanks
The Mayfair Club is pretty cool -- it's private but I think you could just go down there and try to join. It's on 23rd Street (or thereabouts) -- call information. There are some real sharks in the water, but I have been in some beatable 10-20 and 15-30 games there.
There is a bus that leaves from port authority (42 and 8th i believe) about every half hour to atlantic city for osmething like 4 dollars round trip... (it returns about once every half hour also...)
I know this isn't nyc but i think its a pretty good deal and the departing and arrival times are very flexible.
good luck!
The dealers in Colorado do quite well for themselves. Most can peg thirty hands per hour and most get a buck per hand for the effort. House supplied base pay is in the neighborhood of $5 per hour. Off-peak hours are not as lucrative. The old folks are ubiquitous in the early week daytime games, and the old folks play like they drive – slow. But what the dealers are unable to exploit off-peak, they make up with interest when the action heats up. However stunning, it is not uncommon to see $2 and $3 tokes.
So, how much does a dealer earn? I estimate earnings between $50k and $70k annual, depending on shift and hours worked. What is a fair wage for a dealer? Sir, would you like that regular size or super-sized? As a dealer, one need be able to deliver the cards on target in a timely fashion, read hands and possess enough math skills to create side pots. At McDonalds, one need be able to deliver a happy meal in a timely fashion, read the cash register keyboard and possess enough math skills to count change. Dealing poker comes with environmental concerns: difficult and sometimes rude customers, plumes of smog emitted from chain-smoking patrons redolent of an early industrial skyline and confinement to set position. Working at McDonalds comes with environmental concerns: difficult and sometimes rude customers, the scalding hot splatter of fry grease and confinement to a standing position.
Now I don’t advocate a fast-food wage for dealers (even if the skills required of a dealer are roughly equivalent to the skills required of a fast-food worker). $15 per hour is generous or a $1 toke for every third pot won.
There's only one conclusion that I can come up with from this post: McDonlald's workers in Colorado should consider a horizontal career move into card dealing!
don
I know a dealer who moved from dealing to working at McDonalds and then back to dealing. But with the tight dealer job market, most cannot make the lateral move from fast food to dealing. However, the point of my original post is establishment of a reasonable toke policy.
I made the difficult decision during my apprenticeship period of play in Vegas several years ago not to tip figuring that my limited bankroll could not stand that extra expenditure. Since I was playing low-limit, the rake was a significant drain to begin with. Most dealers (kudos to those at the Monte Carlo especially), while not particularly thrilled with this omission, realized that having a regular attendee there was still beneficial to their cause. Games tended not to break up as soon for one thing. One dealer at another casino became so hostile, she'd mutter obscenities under her breath if I was close by. Another started giving tips to my opponents (!), until I complained to management....
It’s amazing the tactics some dealers will use to create a table atmosphere hostile to the non-tipper. When I get back from my holiday excursion, I’ll post what psychosocial forces I believe cause an otherwise good player to toke too much.
KOP,
Have to disagree with you. My guess is about 10-15 percent of all dealers make 50k. You mentioned some of the reasons, swing ship dealers in clubs that do not over schedule make 50k to 70k. The others suffer through slow playing short handed off peak time games. Also, many are forced semi reluctently to play on the clock and take early outs on a regular basis when business is a little slow. Consequentelly, even many who look like they are making the 50k-100k are not. The skills required are a great deal more than a Mcdonalds employee. it is a customer relations job, you must deal with conflicts and be a deccent mitigator when issues arise. You have to have the objectivity of a proffesional sports referee. As for math skills, it is not easy keeping track of who is in the pot, did the person in third seat put in 5 chips or 6, and while under pressure perform common but somewhat tedeis addition, subtraction, and division while people watch not so patiently. I think they earn every dollar they get even if they all made 50k to 70k. The best dealers are good players, most of the time. If you watch and react to the hand like a good player you can handle the game well.
Good players should support good pay for dealers. the higher the pay the bettter tallent you attract. We shoould as players go out of our way to embarrass jerks who get out of line with dealers and who do not tip almost every time they push a pot.
My view is a little biased, because I worked as a dealer for a year and a half in Los Angeles area and dealt at the 98 WSOP. The players in Southern Ca are horrible to dealers as a group and get dealers get little protection. Also, dealers make the most money in the middle limit games 2-4 3-6, 6-12. The top limit players give ten times the trouble and tip less.
A personal antadote, I was dealing in the top section games at the WOSP. I probably pushed over 30k to Escimo Clark one night in, I think, a 100 200 pot limit Omaha high table. This guy never gets out of line but never trough me a single dollar. In big games like this the tips are irrelivent to being a net winner or looser for the year. I can see a pro trying to make a living in 15-30 20-40 games being a little tight with tips but not these guys at all.
Its a tough job that takes a lot of skill. My hats off to them.
Robert Bisogno
I don’t have time to respond to your post, but I disagree with your premise. I’ll reply in full after the weekend.
i keep meticulous records and over the last year dealer errors have cost me $600. Once because the dealer peeled off the turn card while i was grabbing my chips. The card gave me an over full and had to be burnt, needless to say it didn't come up the second time around. Once because the dealer mucked my winner and pushed the pot to the loser. I realize I should have protected my hand better but the dealer is supposed to be a professional and not some idiot who mucks cards and pushes pots around willy nilly. I will tip a dealer who goes out of his/her way to be professional and do more than just toss cards around but these indidividuals are few and far between.
Note: I have never berated a dealer. even when they fuck up.
You are the kind of player that I believe should be barred from playing in a Casino. If you have a complaint about a particular dealer take it to management. Because a dealer (human being) made a mistake you feel it appropriate to take out your frustration on all dealers. Your a whining cry baby! You realize you should protect your cards! But it's easier and less painful to blame a dealer. These men and women earn their living by serving you! God help them!
Vince!
Very well said Vince!!
I do not toke dealers because the job they do does not warrant it. I have been tipping since I was ten years old. I am accustomed to tipping for excellence, competence, and good service. I think poker dealers have an exagerated view of themselves and the service they provide. This is propagated by people like you no doubt. I play in California where management is responsible for promoting dealer abuse because they do not enforce their existing policy. It is clear they run scared of abusive players.
Chico wrote: "I do not toke dealers because their job does not warrant it!" "I am accustomed to tipping for excellence, competence and good service."
What is it? The job doesn't warrant a tip or ALL dealers are poor, incompetent people that provide poor service. I think your just a deadbeat that doesn't want to part with a buck now and then. You know perfectly well that dealers earn their living from tips. If they don't earn a decent living why should they deal. Maybe we should let the players deal.
So you think that players that tip are inflating dealers egos. Dealers have an inflated view of themselves? Tell me something, Chico. Has one of those cute little California dealers rejected your advances or something!
Tipping since you were ten years old! Yeah, sure and I've got the London Bridge in my back yard. Want to buy it?
Vince.
In general one should not berate other posters for difference of opinions, it is simply bad form!
Maybe you should reread the posts from the beginning and direct your comments to the initiater. It wasn't me!
Vince.
Tippy,
I totally agree with you. Please, in the future refrain from bothering yourself with any of my responses. They are certainly not mandatory and I believe it would be much better if you and those that feel the way you do just never bother your pretty little selfs with any of my "brain dead" responses. If you will just agree to that, we will never, ever, have a need to communicate again. I certainly won't read any more of your bright and helpful responses!
Have a nice day!
Vince.
Ignore Vince Lepore. He has brain damage.
my post says "i almost never tip" not "I NEVER tip". I tip appx. 40% of the dealers and they are the true professionals . I f you tip anyone who pitches cards you should not be allowed in a casino.
vince
IF you keep records eighb, then you should know you are no more likely to be hurt than helped by a dealer mistake. Every time a different card would be put up then the normal flow it is a shame. At the same time, someone benifited from the mistake. Often, when mistakes of burning and turning to soon happen it's because players inatvertantly cover the majority of their cards and or wait to act and do not call time. There are occations though when dealers in a multiway pot will loose track of a player and burn and turn to soon. I like the tap before you burn and turn to help protect, eventhough among good dealers that is seen as a crutch for weak dealers.
I understand we naturally remember a dealer mistake or any irregularity in a game that costs us money. We don't have as strong of memory for when those same irregularities help us. Mathmaticly there is a direct corralation, for every example without fail like yours there is someone who won the pot when you lost because of the change of cards. I stick to the premise that the better they are treated the more relaxed they stay and the better paid they are the better tallent you wil get.
On a different tune part of the problem in Southern California is that the clubs don't try to hire the best dealers. Many folks directly invlved with the hiring take kickbacks from dealers and dealing schools. Also, a lot of nepatism.
If you don't want to tip and respect dealers, then you should stay in home games and self dealing establishments. By the way, given that you flew off the handle and had to use cuss words, you probably couldn't handle the job. It is hard unapresiated work.
Robert B.
While I agree that excessive tipping is detrimental to one's overall expectation, the bottom line is maybe not the most important thing. As someone who has worked for tips, I will always tip the dealer - for a decent size pot and a job well done. A buck is enough. I'm willing to try and play just a little bit better to offset this extra cost. I can't see that one buck being the only thing between being a winner or a loser.
KOP is correct in his estimate of CO dealer's incomes. A few years ago, they made even more.
Vegas dealers make about half as much.
BTW, CO law prohibits floorpeople or managers from participating in tips, so the dealers keep it all.
It is the player's choice of whether or how much to tip. Dealers are aware of this when they take the job, so it should not suprise them that some players don't.
I think I tip too much, but I'm trying to change. I haven't resorted to tossing halves yet, but I don't tip for every pot. I have also started stiffing dealers that do a poor job, or who are rude to me or another player. I figure that if a dealer is too stupid to be polite to the people that provide their income, they don't deserve a tip. There are many dealers in Vegas that are extremely touchy from having been abused by players, but I think that they should move on to another line of work rather than try to get tough with the customers.
A few years ago, Sklansky wrote an article in Card Player that advocated tipping based on how much you think a dealer should make per year, and gave a formula to calculate the amount. I think it came out to $.75 per hand if the dealer was to make $24K.
Let's face it, dealing isn't rocket science, and I don't think the dealers should make more than the players.
Ummm my impression is most dealers are not good players as if they were they wouldn't be dealing...
... they;d be playing!
and considering the rake in many cases not tipping all th time or some of th time is not so dishonorable (especially if the dealer is making considerable more per year than most players!!)
While the Mcdonalds thng was more or less a joke in the grand scheme of things being a dealer can't be that much harder except for dealing w/disputes. and since diputes rarely happen more than 2 or 3 times a night and the dealer can just clal the floor.
Thus i cannot see this job or tipping in the same light as the poster.
From what I understand all tips collected at card tables are distributed equally amongst everyone. I don't like this at all ... anywhere. It doesn't encourage one to be a better dealer or waiter for that matter. If dealers kept their own tips then you wouldn't see bad dealers, because they wouldn't make enough money on base salary to survive. To good dealers would become better, and eventually they will develop a good reputation and become valuable to the casino by attracting players.
Micheal,
Pit games in casinos have shared tokes by shift or pit. So, if your dealing big crap games at the mirage on Saturday Swing shift you will share your tips with all those who dealt that shift in the big stakes pit. Some clubs may just do it by game, all BJ dealers, all Craps dealers, all Rullette dealers ect.. for a given shift get an envelope that is an equal share of the toke that night for that game.
On the other hand, I know of no poker section in the country where a toke sharing proceedure is used. You keep what you individually make minus your envelop that you are required to give to the floormen this can be 12- to as much as 4 dollars a table.
All dealers share tokes at Foxwoods. All dealers keep their individual tokes at Mohegan Sun. Given that these two venues are seperated by an $18 taxi ride, which card room gets the best dealers? If someone doesn't want to tip dealers because they make enough already, then tip the restroom attendant instead. Does anyone not appreciate a clean toilet seat?
few people know this because of my low profile, but i am an award winning inventor that has developed several consumer friendly products, and the technology used in my systems could easily be used in the world of poker.
The Kandy King (TM) candy dispenser is for folks who would like to go out on Halloween night yet leave candy out for the kids without some punk stealing the whole bowl. This wall mounted unit permantely installs next to your front door. The candy patron presses their thumb print onto the sensor, where it is then uploaded to a database in D.C., where it searches for previous candy distribution at that location. Finding none it will dispense one Mars Bar or Nutter Butter, or box of raisins should the homeowner happen to be an asshole. This patented product keeps Trick or Treating fair and fun for all, and is available at WalGreens, Home Depot, and The Sharper Image. ($1,995.99) (NCF uplink not included)
This technolgy could easily be developed into an automated dealer, a fun, quick witted robot which sits in the dealer chair, dispenses cards, recognizes the best hand, awards pots, and best of all, doesn't complain about tips. It could also dispense a Payday candy bar should a hand qualify as "the nuts"
E-mail me if you wish to help with funding.
james...
The reason you tip is for service. If the house paid a living wage to dealers, so that tips were unnecessary, there would be no motivation to provide good service. The house would have to pass the cost of higher wages back to the players and the players would be cut out of the service equation. You get bad service, you get to live with that service. But with tipping, a bad dealer making five dollars an hour can be made to live on five dollars an hour.
If you get bad service and give a full tip you are making a mistake. If you get good service and do not tip you are making another mistake. Average service and a big tip, another mistake.
But, in poker there are other reasons to keep the tip. You come into a game as an unknown, everyone trying to figure you out, you pull a big pot and throw the dealer a big tip everyone thinks you are a fish. Another reason is emotional intelligence. It is almost never a good idea to make enemies. It is almost always a good idea to make friends. Later on in some dispute at the table that dealer who likes you, will be your friend.
Think about it this way. You are not in the poker room when two FBI agents come in looking for you. Joe, the dealer, greets them; asking if they'd like a game. They don't want a game, they want you and show him your picture.
Joe, who likes you and knows you'll be walking in any moment, tells them he has not seen you for several days. You pass them in the parking lot and enter the poker room. Joe comes up and explains that the FBI is looking for you. Now is a really good time for a tip. Joe is not going to want to take it, but you let him know it's not about money, it's about not being pushed around.
But, as we all know,
you will be sitting there with two aces in you hand and a whole table full of people who are just dying to play poker, when in come the FBI.
Now here is where emotional intelligence really helps. Being nice to the two agents is essential. As for giving them tips, it could be a bad idea.
A contradiction about tips.
I would suggest it dispenses an Almond Joy bar for Omaha-8 scoops (candy and hand both have two nuts).
Several respected posters on this forum advocate throwing away some of the lower ranked drawing hands pre-flop with what some may consider to be a sufficient number of opponents. However, I am not exactly sure what is sufficient for various hands as a rule of thumb. I realize that the playing style of your opponents, how well you play, etc, is another factor to consider but let’s forget that for now.
I am not sure these odds are posted in any major poker book that I trust but I could be wrong. A link to a previous post on the subject that I could find in the archives would be great.
Anyway, I‘m interested in understanding the chances of various unsuited middle connectors and single/double gappers flopping a straight or straight draw before the flop. I’m also interested in these odds combined with flopping even better hands since this is a factor in your actual decision to play. I’ll try to set up my question as precisely as possible. I realize that generating the answers may involve a lot of effort so even a partial response would be appreciated.
The purpose of knowing these odds is to generate a greater understanding of just how many opponents are needed for various borderline late position and blind calls. This assumes you don’t believe your high card strength will produce a positive EV when you flop a single pair (I realize this may not be true at the higher end of the range, especially against weak opponents).
Hand Type One: You have a JT through 54 offsuit (i.e., middle connectors with no blocks at the ends).
Question 1-1: What are the chances you will flop an open-ended straight draw on the flop? Double gut shot draws must be included.
Question 1-2: What are the chances you will flop the hand described in question 1-1 or better (such as the made straight, full house, and four of a kind)?
Question 1-3: What are the chances you will flop the hand described in question 1-2 along with other hands that are likely to have a positive EV such as two pair and trips?
Question 1-4: What of the chances of the above happening without a two flush or three flush in cases where the question is applicable?
Hand Type Two: You have a J9 through 64 offsuit (i.e., middle single gappers with no blocks at the ends).
Question 2-1: What are the chances you will flop an open-ended straight draw on the flop? Double gut shot draws must be included.
Question 2-2: What are the chances you will flop the hand described in question 2-1 or better (such as the made straight, full house, and four of a kind)?
Question 2-3: What are the chances you will flop the hand described in question 2-2 along with other hands that are likely to have a positive EV such as two pair and trips?
Question 2-4: What of the chances of the above happening without a two flush or three flush in cases where the question is applicable?
Hand Type Three: You have a J8 through 74 offsuit (i.e., middle double gappers with no blocks at the ends).
Question 3-1: What are the chances you will flop an open-ended straight draw on the flop? Double gut shot draws must be included.
Question 3-2: What are the chances you will flop the hand described in question 3-1 or better (such as the made straight, full house, and four of a kind)?
Question 3-3: What are the chances you will flop the hand described in question 3-2 along with other hands that are likely to have a positive EV such as two pair and trips?
Question 3-4: What are the chances of the above happening without a two flush or three flush in cases where the question is applicable?
Hand Type Four (extra credit): Same question set, but for triple gappers (e.g., T6 offsuit). Don’t bother answering unless you are into numbers as I just about never play them but wonder in a multi-way raised pot out of the blinds that I may be too tight.
Question 5.0: What are the chances of me being strangled for asking such a long, multi-part question?
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I’m posting this on rgp also so don’t bother if you see it answered correctly over there.
Some of these situations are illustrated in the tables in the back of Super/System. In any event, there are enough math fanatics on RGP to give you the mind-numbing decimal points on those questions. But for live analysis, it's less taxing and more appropriate to simply use the rule of thumb that each additional gap in a straight considerably decreases your chances of hitting the flop. In any event, playing decimal point small edges is a great way to extend a losing streak.
Earl,
I have Super System and these odds are not really addressed in a useful form unless I'm missing something. Perhaps you could point me to the page.
I did cross post this on RGP and am hoping Barbara Yoon, Mike Caro, Abdul Jalib or others may take an interest. This was mentioned in my post above.
Regarding evaluating the relative value of connectors, one gap hands, two gap hands, etc. I don't think it is that simple. I know connectors have four staights, one gap three, two gaps have two, and three gaps have one. Flopping draws that include double gut shots is a lot more complicated to figure.
Next, is this question important? I believe it is in the games I play in (primarily loose 6/12 to 20/40 holdem) games. One reason is that you are often faced with the decision whether to play these hands, especially in the blinds after a rasise (all games) and button in the 6/12 or 9/18. So even if I'm only a little too tight or a little too loose, I will be making this mistake many times per session. So close decisions that come up often are in fact relatively important.
Your probably right that the math specialists seem to post more on RGP. Let's see what they come up with.
Regards,
Rick
Before you look at my answers, let me say that although I was a math major, I have not attempted any combinatorical arguments like these in years. Also, I got my figures without aid from math texts or poker manuals, so there is a decent chance I completely blew it. I gave my best shot to 1-1 thru 2-4, and would now like to refer to a math text or two, just to double check those and continue with the rest. I also did not understand what you meant by 'without a two flush' in 1-4,2-4,3-4, etc., after the flop there must be at least a two flush, so I'm not sure what you mean. I don't believe there is a possibility of a double gut shot straight draw in 1-1 either. Anyway here's what my pea brain came up with:
1-1) 2016 poss. thus 10.3% 1-2) 2292 poss. thus 11.7% 1-3) 3398 poss. thus 17.3% 1-4) 3097 poss. thus 15.8% 2-1a) 1326 poss. thus 6.8% 2-1b) 1390 poss. thus 7.1% 2-2a) 1556 poss. thus 7.9% 2-2b) 1620 poss. thus 8.3% 2-3a) 2662 poss. thus 13.6% 2-3b) 2726 poss. thus 13.9% 2-4a) 2365 poss. thus 12.1% 2-4b) 2425 poss. thus 12.4%
I seperated the answers in question 2 because with the range you gave, J9 thru 64, they do not each have the same opportunity at double gut shot straights, specifically the J9 and 64 have only one chance, while the rest each have two possible double gut shot flops. The answers with the (a) are for J9 and 64 only, while the answers with (b) are for the others.
I am sure these answers are not perfect, for instance, I know I double counted some 4 flush possibilities, but this should only make a few hundreths of a percent difference.
I will say again it's been a long time since I've done anything like this, so if someone gives different answers THEY are probably correct!! But, I am interested in knowing how bad I've gotten at this, so if anyone posts answers at rgp please post here to let me know. I checked over there just before posting this and Barbara had given the only response, at least I know I was right about the 19,600 possible flops.
One thing to consider I guess is the blinds (2 or 3 of'em) other is the players stacksize ? is there any good guideline I mean I can't or maybe just too 'shy' to buing as big as the biggest stack. is that really the optimal ?? ideas ??? in a small game you may start out 'close' to the biggest stack and have cash in your pocket (a safe feeling indeed).
No limit is a psychological game. Having the biggest stack would certainly be helpful in projecting an intimidating image. If you're not the biggest stack and have cash in your pocket (which you are willing to lose), put it on the table. Don't be shy. There's nothing more intimidating in a no limit game than a person who seems to have a total disregard for money. Having the biggest stack and haphazardly diplaying it should maximize this effect.
Andras,
I don't play NL so take this with a grain of salt. I do not sit in any game with an insuffiicient bankroll. If you can't afford to play the game then don't play. In my opinion the guy with the biggest stack has the advantage in NL. Si in my opinion one should buy in for the maximum amount one can afford to lose! I suppose buying in for the maximum amount one is prepared to lose on one hand is also an option. Or maybe buying in for minimum and making a lot of buy ins if you lose is an option (one I don't like).
Hope I didn't hurt the situation since I have no experience to confirm what is correct! Let me know what you decide and how you do in Reno.
Vince.
I play some NL in San Mateo and played in Reno once. I never have a huge amount with me and sometimes I just have $500 (minimum is $300 in San Mateo - and play tight as a virgin ;-) I suspect that there may be some flaw with my tight fistendess(?). FYI - the Reno game without Steve Brechter is usually good. Of course in NL I should be able to risk all my funds on one hand (or be willing to lay down monsters like flush, trips etc). Something I may not want or can. So far my method has proven me right - I never lose too much and often win !! (albeit not as much as I could ??) Talk to you later and have agreat (and profitable) week-end !
We have a local no-limit game which runs weekly. I have found from experience that it never pays to have the smallest stack, as you just can't intimidate anyone with a tiny stack. someone who has a much bigger stack than you may be more willing to call, so your all-in bets don't have the same effect. Also, someone with a much larger stack can easily bet enough to force you all in. It does not pay to give your opponents these types of advantages. So I always buy in for more than the minimum amount. in fact, I always buy in for 20-50% more than anyone else at the table! however, I do use reason, and don't buy in all my cash at once. Sometimes you go all in and get a caller and lose, so I want to re-buy if I get busted. Since I play aggressively, I want to have the biggest stack at all times if possible. Of course, that's just my opinion....
Sages of the forum:
I was in a low limit loose passive Omaha8 game last night. I was doing well for the first three hours, then suddenly everything went down the tubes. After 5 hours of play I found myself getting confused about proper play at the turn. Maybe I was getting tired and chasing. Most of the flops had 6 to 7 players, the turn had 5 to 6, the river, 2 to 3 with very little raising.
Omaha8 questions: 1.) Is 3 pairs worth drawing to on the turn? With 6 outs to fill up and a large pot, would it be correct to call on the turn? In some situations I also had a four flush or possible low working, which would add to the odds.
2.) Is a four flush worth drawing to when someone raised on the turn with an apparent straight? (9 outs)
3.)When your hitting a low, then get counterfieted at the turn, is it worth betting and seeing another low card on the river? Example: I had A346, flop: A78, turn: 4. The flush did not pan out. Do I try to fill up to a full house?
4.) Is being down 25 big bets normal flucuation for one session? It hurt especially since I was up 15 big bets earlier.
I do not want to be the typical Omaha calling station. My starting play and card selection was tight. Slowly and gradually I got looser and looser without even recognizing it. I think I was influenced by seeing worse hands than mine win pot after pot. I was throwing away 3-legged horse cards (3 high and 1 low) and watched as I would have had the winning hand in a kill pot. However, I need to stop this leak in my game.
Please help make it clear in my mind what is correct and what is the random luck factor.
Thank you so much in advance. Keith O
p.s. For those bi-posters, this is also on RGP.
1) If you need to fill up to win half the pot then its usually not worth it; its worth less than a gut shot on the turn in holdem.
2) Nut flush draws are good. 2nd nut flush draws are very marginal and only increase the value of other outs. 3rd nut flush draws are for suckers.
3) You missed the flop. You have only the 3rd nut low draw and a non-nut gut shot. Give it up right away.
Judging by your questions I conclude you have not embraced the notion of "nuts only" in Omahaha hi/lo. I suggest you do so. Fluctuations should be high for players rouinely playing non-nut hands. These fluxuations are generally down.
- Louie
My personal benchmark for Omahaha h/l is whether I have TWO ways to make the nuts.
Hi Keith. To answer your questions:
1.) Is 3 pairs worth drawing to on the turn? With 6 outs to fill up and a large pot, would it be correct to call on the
turn? In some situations I also had a four flush or possible low working, which would add to the odds.
My answer: I think it depends on whether or not low looks possible. It also depends on how much raising there is or will be, when low is possible. In other words, what is the ratio of the amount you will need to bet as compared to the amount that will be in the pot at the showdown (Sklanski¹s implied odds). You¹re on the turn, so that there is only one card to come. If you hit the boat, will it be the nuts boat? Especially with a lot of players, when there is a pair on the board there is usually more than one boat, so you want to have the nuts boat. If no boat is possible, and no flush is possible, there likely will be a straight possible. If none of those are possible, then you¹re still not looking very good with calling more bets on the river holding two pair. What it all boils down to, I think, is that if you have favorable position and can limp into the pot for one bet, then maybe it¹s worth while, especially if low hasn¹t come in yet.
If you have a four flush working, you might want the nuts flush draw to count it for much. Same with low at this point.
2.) Is a four flush worth drawing to when someone raised on the turn
with an apparent straight? (9 outs)
My answer: Assuming all you have is a flush draw, whether or not someone has a straight may not matter. I mean, if you don¹t hit the flush, then you¹re probably beat (possibly by trips) even if no one has a straight. So the question becomes how good is your flush draw. If it¹s not the nut flush draw, or at least the second nut flush draw, maybe you don¹t want to be in the action. With 9 outs you¹re only looking at two in the flush suit in your hand. The probability of another player also having a flush if there are three cards of the suit on the board and another two in your hand depend somewhat on the number of original players. Using an approximation method, I calculate the probability of one of your opponents also having the flush to be 0.68 with 7 original opponents, and 0.63 with 6 original opponents. The point is that about two times out of every three, when there are three flush cards on the board and two in your hand, one of your opponents also has the flush. Whether the flush is worth drawing to or not depends on how good it is. If you have the nut flush draw, and assuming there is no pair on the board, then the question is: How many big bets will it cost you to draw compared to how many big bets will be in the pot at the showdown. Oh, and you mustn¹t forget to divide the big bets in the pot by two if low is possible.
3.)When your hitting a low, then get counterfieted at the turn, is it
worth betting and seeing another low card on the river? Example: I had
A346, flop: A78, turn: 4. The flush did not pan out. Do I try to fill up
to a full house?
My answer: You had a nice starting hand, but you didn¹t have a staying hand after the flop because the nuts low after the flop was 23. You didn¹t even have the second nuts low after the flop (24). After the flop all you had was an inside straight draw, looking for a five to get the second best straight, probably a loser to a 9 high straight, if a 5 comes on the river. You should have folded after the flop. Once you stay for the turn when you should have folded after the flop you¹re kind of stuck, and tend to find yourself asking questions like you¹re asking. Now the answer to your question - call if you can stay in cheaply enough. Fold in the face of any raises (or possible raises if you don¹t have favorable position).
4.) Is being down 25 big bets normal flucuation for one session? It hurt especially since I was up 15 big bets earlier.
My answer: I think it depends on how loose the game is. Sounds like you were in a pretty loose game. In that case I think it¹s normal (but kind of depressing).
p.s. For those bi-posters, this is also on RGP.
My response: What¹s RGP?
with opening hand, you have 2 pair. do you keep 1 pair & discard 3 cards for the possible 2 to get the possible trips to win. Or do you keep the 2 pair and discard the one card for the possible 4 left, for a full house?
Keep the higher pair. In addition, hold on to the highest kicker. Then draw two. This play will not only give you two chances to get trips, it will make a steal bluff more effective after the draw as well.
In a JoB home game I use to play even if your last best wasn't called you had to show trips to take the pot otherwise the game continued with lower opening requirements.
If this is true then you want to throw away three. Keeping two pair is about 8.5%. Throwing away three is about 12.7%. Quick back of the envelope makes me think you make trips or better a little more then 9% of the time if you keep a pair plus kicker but I've got a dentist appt right now and am not entirely certain about my calculations.
My teeth are fine....(lol)...so I can confirm that Michaels calculations are correct.
Good Luck in the future
Aswede (Daniel)
Dear friends this is a hand that really puzzled me.
I am at the button with 6h7h.
4 players call and I call.
The small blind calls and the big blind raises. All call and I call. The small blind makes it 3 bets and the big blind caps at 4 bets. All call and I call and we see the flop 7 handed with a pot containing 28 small bets!
The flop is: 9h 7c 3c. I have a pair and an backdoor flush draw which may be just irrelevant. The small blind bets and the big blind raises. Three players call. I am at the button and I see and here the small blind reraising and the big blind capping it BEFORE I act.
Should I call? I am getting good pot odds IF IF IF my hand is going to be good if I hit it.
Thank you,
Maria
<< I would have dumped it. I prefer to keep my variance low this way. there are people drawing to clubs, someone could have 7 with higher kicker, and if your 6 comes for two pair it could make a straight someone else. don't forget having to pay the turn bets.
with just four players i think it'd be ok to pay two bets without a reraise fear. any more players in the pot its a definete fold for me.
<< my reasoning is i DON'T think you have a good hand if you hit. don't forget heart overcards too.
too tight?
james......
It seems pretty clear the two blinds have big pairs -- or one may have hit a set on the flop. It also seems obvious that at least one or more of the callers has a draw to clubs -- or may have also hit a set. You're in the least enviable position in any game: the worst hand AND the worst draw. The math actually looks very close -- but the deviation is very high.
My view of the math: 14 big bets preflop, 10 big bets postflop (before you act), what do you do when getting 24-4 or 6-1 odds and will likely be getting that price throughout the rest of the hand?
Barring a miracle 7 at 23-1, you can't get there on the turn, so you will likely have to invest 4 more big bets just to get on the draw (you also have a backdoor straight draw). Working out the price on hitting a helper heart, 4, 5, or 8 shows 22 cards put you on the draw, slightly less than even money, except ... a 4,5, or 8 of clubs probably beats you. Thus it's 19 out of 47 -- just to get on the draw.
But now you have invested 6 big bets to get on the draw, where you are about 4-1 against to make your hand on the river. (If you hit a heart, you have 9 left out of 46 remaining cards; if you hit open on your straight, you have 8 left, so it's either 37-to-9 or 37-to-8).
While there's a more accurate method of calculating the price on winning this hand, a rough method of multiplying the possibliity of both events happening (28/19 x 37/9 (1036/171)) shows you to be about 6-1 against to get there. [If you calculate this with decimals, you can also add in your chances of catching a 7 along the way, which makes the price slightly better.]
Incredibly, there are so many players in the pot that despite being the worst hand and the worst draw, you aren't really taking much the worst of it on the numbers -- it's mainly a matter of whether you want to make a high deviation play.
Despite all that, I would fold. The reason is that you can make one of your longshot draws and still get beat. The only hand that may possibly give you the nuts is to fill up with is a miracle 7, and really, there's nothing to say that you aren't already up against a set of 9s.
Assuming the other 3 players will call the cap, you're getting 12:1 to call with your second pair +back-door flush/straight draws. It is likely there will only be one bet on the turn which you can easily call with no help. You have no reason to suspect anybody can beat a pair of Kings, since the other players are (correctly) calling since the pot is so big.
Easy Call if there was no 2-flush. Call anyway.
- Louie
Too bad you didn't see the cap coming B4 the flop.
Hehehe.
Maria, if the small blind won the pot with AhKh unimproved, then it sure looks just like a hand I played not too long ago. I don't really remember if this was the exact flop or not. I check/called the turn, but thought about raising as a semibluff since it was just me and the large blind at that point. If it WAS me in the small blind then you'll just have to ask me about the hand next time you see me around, it's way too complicated to post here.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 2 July 1999, at 3:45 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 2 July 1999, at 4:34 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 8 July 1999, at 3:10 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 8 July 1999, at 3:06 p.m.
I played wrong KK at the small blind and I would like to post this and ask for feedback.
I have KhKd in the small blind. Four players call and I raise. The big blind drops and we see the flop four handed.
The flop is JsTsTc. I check (?) and all check to the button who bets. Then I call (?).
It seems to me that I should have either bet the flop or check-raise. Calling was idiotic.
Also raising pre-flop maybe should not be automatic; especially so if one is going to play as weakly as I did after the flop.
Thank you.
Maria
You did the right thing on the flop. But your flop play stinks. Your flop check was probably correct (since there was a big chance that a small bet from you at that point wouldn't be big enough to drive people out). However,you should have check-raised! By betting on the flop,the button player was handing you a "thin out the field" opportunity on a silver platter and you didn't take it. You definitely made a mistake (everyone does). However, you are honest and strong enough to admit it. And that's a very good quality. Keep it up.
With only four other players seeing the flop, there is a reasonable chance no one has a ten, in which case you are probably ahead here. I would like to find that out on the flop where bets are cheaper, if possible. I think you are more likely to find it out with a bet on the flop than with a check, so I would bet the flop. If I got raised, I would figure either trips, a good staight draw (KQ), or a flush draw. If I got raised on flop, I would check the turn, and it would depend on what I thought of anyone who bet. With this flop, if I had a ten in my hand, I would be real worried about the staight and flush draws on the board, and would not be slow playing it, but I guess some might.
I wouldn't have checked the flop, but since you did, check raise should have been the play. Betting on the flop is asking someone who has a set to raise you. The check raise would definitely clear the field, and I like my chance heads up rather than multiple opponents.
Go for the check-raise on the flop. Don't worry about getting reraised until it happens.
In the post regarding Austin, Texas below, a poster mentioned that he didn't see the green frame on the left. Ray Zee mentioned the correct URL.
However, some of you may prefer to scan the forum without the frame on the left as it leaves more room for the index and messages. If you want to do this, try the following links:
For the forum use:
http://www.twoplustwo.com/cgi-bin/xforum.pl
For the exchange use:
http://www.twoplustwo.com/cgi-bin/exchange.pl
Both these links are bookmarked in my browser along with a shortcut directly from my desktop. Hope this helps.
Regards,
Rick
Hey Rick!
Dankershern! Grazie! My mother thanks you! My sisters thank you and I thank you!
This may be the best bit of info posted here in a long time!
Vince.
Vince,
Personally, I'd rather learn a tip that gains me the pot in a juicy 15/30 game but thanks anyway.
Rick
I had a rather bizarre thing happen today. I sat down at a 1-5 stud game, while waiting for a seat at either 5-10 or 10-20 hold'em. Anyway, to make a long story short, in one hand I had made 4-aces on 4th street, plus had 6 players call 4 bets on 4th, and 5 players call 4 bets all the way to the showdown!!! Anyway, HUGE POT for 1-5. On the showdown everyone turned up their cards, except one little adorable, polite as could be, old lady, who upon seeing my 4-aces justed pushed her cards to the middle. I had beaten everyone, or so I thought. The person sitting next to the little old lady, while simultaneously asking 'what did you have?', reached out and turned her cards face-up. She had mis-read her straight flush, for only a straight. I know that 'cards speak' and really have no problem with the way it was resolved, the room manager awarded her the pot, and later pulled me aside and gave me enough comps to more than make up for the lost pot. But, I have a problem with this. The person who turned the cards face up was obviously a friend of the little old lady. If this same thing would have happened to me at a higher limit, especially with a proportionately sized pot, I would have cried foul. This would be an easy move for a good sleight of hand artist. Although I am certain that I was not cheated here, I would not be so sure at higher limits. I know rules may vary from room to room, but what is the rule in a situation like this in the bigger rooms of Vegas and Cal.? I know if for some dumb reason I had demanded to see her cards, then if she mis-read, I lose. But what about when someone else gets in the mix?
I would say that she wins the pot. I would also admonish the other player for helping her to play her hand. I would never again toke this dealer; he should have mucked the cards when they were folded (pushed facedown towards the center of the table). I think situation is a major dealer error; he didn'tnot have control of the game; another player should not have been able to reach out and turn over the cards.
The dealer should never have allowed a player to mess around with cards in the middle. But the cards do speak.
On the other hand.....suppose there had been a 30K jackpot.
chub
Give me a break! Let's blame the dealer again! This was a real bad beat! The person with the best hand won the pot! Oh my god! How can that be!
Vince.
Vince, I understand your point. I should have, in fairness to the dealer, been more clrear. The entire episode took place in about 15 seconds, in a 6 handed showdown, the dealer was gathering the cards, he just started at the opposite side of the table from her. I just want to know how something like this would be handled at middle or higher limits in a major cardroom. I am aware it is far less likely to happen with better players being more aware of proper conduct at the table. But, it could, and probably has, happened at one time or another. It creates such a great opportunity for cheating that I can't figure out what the 'right' thing to do should be. I know the better hand wins, but......
So it wouldn't bother you if you were in a game and people could hold other peoples cards before turning them over?
A Poker Guy!
I would think her hand should have been ruled dead. She didn't protect it and, as you point out, when people can hold other peoples cards in their hand and the hand is still live, it is a recipe for disaster. Too bad there wasn't a jackpot at that cardroom, I bet the house would have thought about it in a different light. I think it is a bastardization of the cards speak rule to try and apply it here.
A Poker Guy!
Hmmm. If I was to be hard core I would say the guy who turned over the lady's hand should repay you the pot! Seems he's the one most at fault... some how i feel something fairer should have been arrived at , as awarding thw whole pot to someone who was about to muck doesn't seem fair and is NOT an example of "cards speak."
I just got back from Vegas and have a hand I want to share. I'm on the button in a 'typical' 6/12 Omaha8 game. I have A349. 3 Players limp, as do I and the blinds. The flop is a pretty AA4, rainbow. Everyone checks to the man immediately on my right, who bets. I raise and the BB and one other player calls. The turn is an off-suit 5. BB bets, next player calls and the man on my right raises. What is your plan? BTW it is important to note that at this point the BB and I both have about 5 big bets left in front of us so that a raising war will only last for 5 more bets instead of the 10 that it could.
Danny S
I think that I would just call, then check and call on the river. The possibility that you wil be quartered on either the high or low are great. Clearly his reraise indicates a wheel, or Aces full of fives. It's possible that with 2 other callers that you could be beat both for high and low. A raising war here will not chase the raiser, and you want all 4 players in if you should get quartered in order to limit the chop.
Let's see... You have no low, and you probably have the best high, but that's not certain, but if you do you're probably getting quartered for high. You can't really like your situation here. A two will give you a wheel, which will probably get you 1/4 or 1/6 of the low, and a 9 gives you most probably the best high, if you don't have it already.
You're in a tough spot. Check and call, and I'm guessing that some people here might even suggest folding.
Why would you even think of a raising war here, unless you have some maniacs going nuts with their nut lows? You certainly don't want to put in any raises with this hand.
if i understand its 2 bets to you and you have a total of 5 bets in front of you . with a call on the end we are talking about saving 2 bets. i say go ahead and jam as you are not a 2 to 1 favorite to get scooped i guess and it is great for future image to show you will jam without the nuts. you may hit a low for a share or a nine for a sure high or just split the pot or get quartered which may not cost but a fraction of a bet. the real point that has been overlooked is that if there is a nut low out and a better high it is going to get jammed anyway so you might as well jam when you may have the best of it.
Ditto! Ditto! Ditto!
Vince
Hmmn... Aren't you worried that he's jamming with nothing at all? It seems to me that there's a pretty good chance that the player in front of him has an A5, and he almost certainly has an A4 (unless he has an ace and a nut low).
Could you make an argument at all for folding here? If it's going to be jammed, this seems like a fairly low percentage position to be in.
Dan S.,
You are not in a great spot here and shouldn't have even liked the flop that much with possible redraws against you and no low draw. You will be going all in with this hand and Ray's way can't be bad. Anyway, I won't argue strategy with the others above but I have one point.
Often enough (if you play well), you will be in a great spot in low limit Omaha H/L. When you do, you don't want to go all in as you should be playing "brave hands" (e.g., the big draws) in this game that love it when the river gets jammed. You don't make the big money (e.g., three quarters of a monster) with all the action being contested in a side pot you have no part in.
In other words, keep a lot of chips in front of you before the hand even begins.
Regards,
Rick
Thanks for all of the answers. I chose Ray's route: As long as I wasn't going to fold I may as well jam it up myself. Not only for the reasons he mentioned but because i thought there was some chance that the guy in the middle who called the turn may have an Ace with overcards. Of course the hand was just as many of you predicted: The guy to my right had A5, and there was no 2 or 9 on the end. As to Rick's comment about playing short, I resolved at that moment to make sure I have enough for a jamming war in my future Omaha hands, even though it 'helped' me to be short this time.
Danny S
This is an interesting hand, because it outlines just how weak a made hand can be in Omaha/8 if you are playing for 1/2 or 1/4 of the pot.
In this case, there are 14 small bets in the pot before the turn. On the turn, it would appear that two players are splitting low (or think they are), and two players are possibly splitting high. Now, the player with a made high with no redraws is in a lot of trouble. From this point on, he gains no equity with raises or bets, because there are 4 players each getting 1/4 of the pot. So, his total equity in the hand is 1/4 of the 14 small bets, or 3.5 small bets.
If the game is agressive, this player is risking 10 small bets to win 3.5, because he may not have a high at all. If the other player has an A5, then he has 3 outs (the nines) to win half the pot. If the other player does have an A4 and therefore has him tied, the other player may have two overcards to the board, giving him 6 outs to win half and shut out our hero.
So... IF the two players are tied with an A4 and the other player has two overcards, the math breaks out like this:
In 100 hands, the hero wins 3.5 small bets 80 times, loses 10 small bets 13 times, and wins 27 small bets 7 times. Total EV in this situation: 3.39 small bets.
So, the equation boils down to: IF my opponent has an A4, I win 3.39 small bets. If he has the A5, I lose 10 small bets 93 times and win 27 7 times, for an EV of -7.4 small bets. So, if you think there is greater than a 46% chance that your opponent has an A5, you should fold.
(Note: this analysis doesn't include the possibility of getting 1/8 of a low if you make the wheel. Best case would be that your A4 is good for high, and you hit the wheel to get 1/2 of high and 1/8 of low, but this is a low probability event).
As always, these decisions really boil down to your understanding of the players. For example, the other guy playing for high could actually have two 4's and be drawing dead to a 4 for high, or he could be jamming with an Ace and a made low.
Comments?
Hanson's math is correct, but remember, the play of every poker hand is not just a probability exercise. The more subtle, telling opportunity in this hand is expressed by Zee, "... it is great for future image to show you will jam without the nuts." This is exactly the type of hand to put that principle into practice.
Played in the Friday night Orleans NLH tourney.
From 7p.m. to 11:30 pm.
Hands: No pocket Aces, Kings, Jacks, 8s,7s,5s,2s, AKs, AQ suited or unsuited.
Pocket Qs: 3. Lost one. Won two. Pocket Ts: 1. Won uncontested raise. Pocket 9s: 1. lost Pocket 6s: 1. Won uncontested raise. Pocket 4s: 3. Won 1 uncontested raise. Mucked 2 before flop. Pocket 3s: 1. Mucked before flop. AKo: 1. Lost to K9s. Ad,Jd: 1. Lost. Raised before floped. Mucked after flop. AJo: 1. Won uncontested raise. ATs: 3. Won 2uncontested raise.Mucked one before flop A,c9c: 1. Won uncontested raise. A7: 1. Mucked before flop. A6: 2. Mucked before flop. A5: 1. Mucked before flop. A3: 1. Mucked before flop. Ah2h: 1. Mucked before flop.
KJ: 4. Won 1. Mucked 3 before flop. QJ: 2. Mucked 2 before flop. JcTc: 1. Mucked after flop. Mucked all 9,8,:8,7:7,6:6,5:5,4:3,2.
A8: 3. Mucked 2. Tied big blind on final table. Ad4d: 1. Won, on final table right after A8 tie. Last hand I won or entered voluntarily. Blinded off. Last hand in SB lost K,Qo to A,K.
I was certainly dealt a lot more hands than what is shown but this is the way I remember it!
Finished 9th. $221. Buy in: $60 Rebuy: $40 Bounty: 1. $10
Thought you all might be interested.
Curious why you mucked all of your low connectors in a NL game. Was this due to a raise or bad position or you just don't feel those hands have value? As you can see, it's tough to win a NL tourney playing only pairs and the "20-21" hands. For the right price, I have a weakness for the low offsuit connectors, because you can snap off someone who is playing a big Ace when the flop comes low with "their" Ace in it.
If I recall, it seems that I was never in the right (what I consider right) position to make a play (call/raise) with these hands. I do, in fact, feel these hands are very valuable in NL, especially if conditions are right. Great hands to double through with. I may have played too tight in this tourney but given the small number of chips to atart with and only one rebuy I treated my stack mostly as small and looked for the best situations I could find.
When I thought back about the results of this tourney I was a little surprised that I finished in the money. Admittedly, that was the focus of my thinking while playing, getting to the final table. Maybe that helped. I'm not sure. I did get lucky along the way. But never when I was all in. I'm sure I missed a few hands (maybe more than a few) but for the most part, the hands I listed are those I played.
Vince.
It is said that if the rake is too high you can't win. However that is only true in a vacuom.Here is an example. 10 players buy in for $200. None will buy-in for more if they lose. No other players will buy in. Say the rake is 10%$4 max. Notice that the rake will be taken every hand. Assume that one player is an expert over the other 9 players. What will happen is that the weak 9 players will lose their 200, some to the expert most to the rake. However the expert will be able to play good enough to at least make a small profit to overcome the rake. But wait. This is a vacuom. In the real world players come and go and some players will buy in for more money when they lose. This is constant. This allows the expert to beat that rake continously. You can think of it this way. A percentage of the total buy-in can't be lost once 9 players go broke. There has to be money left once it gets down to the expert. That money must be over $200 which allows for a profit. This is the reason why $3-6 hold'em, in AC,which has the rake structure I mentioned, is beatable over the long run. You simply must be an expert at that level which is not very hard to do.
The main point is that anybody who can beat that rake will win much more playing higher.
Hey Joe,
If they used that "VACUOM" a little more in AC the place wouldn't be such a dump! BTW- 9 weak players and expert does not necessarily equate to the expert beating the rake! You ASS-U-ME that would be the case. I'm not sure that even an expert can beat a very high rake in a game you describe. Unless, of course, he really knows how to use his VACUUM.
Vince.
You are correct in saying that an expert can beat some fairly large rakes when sitting across the table from nine weak opponents (although you are not the first--or even the hundredth--person to note this).
You are wrong in some of the details, however.
> However the expert will be able to play good enough to at
> least make a small profit to overcome the rake.
Over the long run, this might well be true. (It depends on how high the rake is and how weak the opponents are.) For any particular session, however, there is no guarantee that your statement will be true.
> There has to be money left once it gets down to the
> expert.
Who said it must get down to the expert? For any particular session, it doesn't. In fact, the expert could be the first player to bust out.
> That money must be over $200 which allows for a profit.
Even if the expert is the last player left standing (or sitting), there is no guarantee that her stack must be over $200. The expert might have had a poor day at the table, with the house making $1900 and the expert losing $100.
Even if we look at the long term, the expert's skill might not be (relatively) great enough to overcome the large rake, so the expert's long-term EV could be negative.
I have always felt, and have written about it before, that the high rake in Southern California is a contributor to why the games at the $10-$20 to $40-$80 stay consistently good. It is a contributor to the knocking out of players before they reach a level of competence, and with the huge population base in the area someone new takes their place.
As an example, suppose you were playing something like $20-$40 hold 'em, and let's assume that you are an expert player. How much would you be willing to pay to get two mediocre players out of the game and have them replaced by novices?
Whether the bad players leave or are replaced by new bad players (or rebuy) only affects the good player's income in that the game stays full and he pays less rake than in a short handed game.
Any player noticable better than the others will EASILY beat the rake. If there are nine clones playing identically except one respects pre-flop raises and the others are oblivious, then this one will beat them and the rake.
The difference between a $3 and a $4 rake is less than $2/hour for a reasonably selective player in a full game, since such players win less than 2 hands/hour. That's not much for "experts" making $20/hour.
- Louie
Being an "expert" won't help you beat this rake: a 3/6 level game: 10% to max. $5.00, plus $1.00 tips. (1) The so-called expert in a game, is not the *sole* beneficiary of the contributions of fish. That money is traded among the fish and the expert, until it goes down the drop box. (2) The rake is a percentage taken from every pot. Any player with even a dollar in that pot, loses--on a percentage basis--when the pot is raked. (3) Even your "expert" will have losing sessions. He will eventually go broke. I suspect that what I mention above, is applicable to your 10% to max. $4.00 scenario.
Hi Everyone,
This is an interesting question. Especially for us low limit players. As my work often takes me out of Vegas for months at a time it is interesting to see people who looked like low limit, successful pros grinding out a living, disappear some time later after I've come back from an assignment.
This leads me to believe it's real tough to do.
Anyhow, on it's surface it really seems to boil down to one of the following :
(Average Winnings per hour) - (Average experienced rake to the expert per hour).
Or perhaps :
(Average winnings per hand played) - (Average Rake per hand Played in dollars)
The first part has lots of published information by Dave and Mason indicating an expert can expect long term to win 1 to 2 bets per hour. However I will admit that in some locales where public poker is new and no one has ever read a poker book (some river boats I've been on) your win rate can at times well exceed the published figures leading me to believe that a sufficiently soft table of players could easily discount the effect of typical rakes.
The second part I'm not qualified to comment on as I've not sat down with paper and pencil to look at it yet. Also the factors such as hands particpated in etc., I'm guessing, will affect this. Hence the second version of the equation. Assuming random cards, 30 hands an hour, you would expect to be dealt the winning hand 1/8 of the time or about 3 hands an hour. (8 player stud game). Ante or no ante would be a factor too. As in $1-5 vrs. 5-10 or larger.
In the end though, it is clear that if experienced rake exceeds the game's average earning potential you are asking to go broke. Unfortunately both figures may not be set in stone...leaving us with yet another unclear dilemma.
Also as one of the other posters pointed out, tips are a factor also.
I always tip at least $1 even in $1-5 games where the pot might only be $2 after a heads up fold with the forced bring in player, under the theory that the dealer has to make a living too, and that service rendered is a separate issue from pot size won. (though I can't recall ever getting a rebate on a lost pot!)
Perhaps if we ask we can get Dave and Mason to comment on this issue as it is essential to deciding what the lowest practical limits to play are. And thus by extension what a reasonable bankroll will be etc.
Like every other reasonably serious player I'd like to know the answer to this one.
So if you're out there 2+2 Authors...give a definitive answer as to which limits and attendent rake structures are unlivable.
Our local cardroom is bringing in a new game called "Showhand Poker." I've never heard of it.
I don't have all the rules for it yet, but apparently it's a variant of 5-card stud, played with a joker. There are some differences from regular stud (For example, a set beats a straight). This game is going to be played table stakes, with a $25 ante (!!).
Has anyone heard of this game before? It might be Oriental in origin. This game should be absolutely huge, and I'm sure that 99% of the players won't have the foggiest notion of how to play it. Of course, I'm looking at getting the jump on them...
Dan
Honestly, the only NHL final tables I have been at have not had an ante. So I have no way of comparing the two.
Vince.
Chico wrote (in original response to me):
"This is propagated by people like you no doubt".
If you don't like personal attacks you shouldn't begin the foray! Can't stand the heat... I never attack only counter attack. Which I do fairly well and really don't mind trading insults. Boy I'm surprised Mason hasn't deleted these responses yet!
"Dealing is not an open door" "Overt racism" "feudal nepotism". What is this crap? None of that appears to exist in card rooms here in Vegas or in AC where I played before. Or maybe you just don't tip in California. Or maybe the "racism" belongs in your court! "my only reasonable action". Come on, reasoning will lead you to many conclusions and many effective courses of action. Try soul searching instead of reasoning! You may find the real "reason" for your petty actions!
Vince. And what in the hell does elementary logic have to do with anything
"Strong low combinations are more likely to hit than strong high combinations are. Low is only worth half by itself, but a hand that wins low still has a shot at winning high. In a loose game, lows are in general very profitable to play for, as long as you are playing for *nut* lows."
A3 lows will be good a significant fraction of the time. In a loose enough game, A3xy hands will be profitable.
I agree that many players overrate the high hands, especially in loose games. Flopped sets are very vulnerable in Omaha-8, and you often have to take a losing high hand to the river (trying to fill or on the chance your hand is still good). I don't play hands like KK93 or QQ62 in any position.
"If the game is tight, or there are times when few people see the flop, then some of the high hands (especially those that include AA or AKK) have a good chance of holding up for high even when getting little to no help from the board. These are exactly the types of hands where you'd like to limit your opposition if you could."
Another consideration in loose games is that many strong hands do better against large fields. You don't want to narrow the field with A236, and it can be better to limp-reraise with hands like that if a raise would mean that only 2-3 opponents would call. If you can't get down to 1-2 opponents with a raise (so that your high hand would have a good chance of winning with an overpair/two pair), it might even be right to limp with a strong high hand (so that you would have odds to draw to sets/Broadway/flushes). In most loose games, I tend to limp-reraise in early position with a good A2 hand, and to raise in late position if several players have already limped. (Unless everyone will call anyway; then I raise premium hands in all positions.)
Bellagio. 15-30 Holdem.
Position: 2 from BB. Hand. Ad,Td
UTG, strong, solid player, calls.
I call.
One before Button, Button and BB call.
Flop. Ah,Qh,9s.
UTG bets.
I folded.
Question: Was I correct in folding? Why?
Vince.
It's hard to say if this was a bad lay-down, because you played poorly before the flop. If you had played your hand more aggressively(raised) before the flop, you would have had a better read on your opponent.
Did you play A10s just to make a flush or a straight, assuming that pairs would not be good? If so, then you should have folded before the flop, since you weren't getting the right price.
Since UTG just called before the flop, he was probably on Axs or some other drawing hand. He probably bet because he flopped a draw or top pair. The more I think about it, I think you probably had the best hand on the flop.
Does your Husband play too?
Boat Drinks,
Brett
We discuss almost the identical play in our book. In an unraised pot you probably did the right thing given the chances you are or will be beat and the fact that there are players behind you yet to act
Hey 3 Bet,
Read (if you can) Sklansky's response. Tell me what YOU THINK (tee! hee!). BTW I'm not married! But if you're proposing, I'll give it some thought! You've got such cute, clueless, eyes!
Vince.
The problem I have with this hand is your description of UTG as "Strong solid player." What hands would this player call with UTG?
He would raise with AK or AQ, or a large pair. He would fold AJo. He might just call with AJs, or AXs, or some other drawing hand.
Without any pre-flop raising, I don't see how anyone can say that you were probably beat with top pair on the flop.
If you had seen UTG slow-play lots of big hands before, that would change my opinion, but that would also change his description to Weak-Tight.
Why did you put him on a big hand?
Brett
P.S. Sorry Vincy, I don't go for bald guys.
Brett -- That "boat drinks" movie was horrible (I can't remember the name).
It seems to me that you and Vince may be used to different speeds or levels of game. In most of the games I play, it would be a mistake to fold or call on that flop in an unraised pot. In a strong game, laying that hand down is probably a good choice, if the leader is super solid. I agree that there aren't many hands that a very solid player would call with UTG then bet into an ace-high flop, but A-J is a good candidate. And with all those players left to act behind him, that is the kind of laydown I wish I made more often (against that type of player).
I probably would have raised before the flop with ATs, and folded ATo. Given that you just called, you're really in a tough spot. I think a fold is a reasonable option. If this is a player who wouldn't bet a draw, then a fold is certainly correct, since there's a high probability you're beat already, and with the players left to act behind you you might be facing raises and other headaches.
If the UTG player is agressive and could be betting something like JJ or a flush draw, then I would raise.
Vince - Believe it or not, I agree with your whole program here.
Pre-flop: Why should you raise? This is a Cat. 3 hand, and your hope no. 1 is a flush or flush draw, your hope no. 2 is a straight, and your hope no. 3 is a ten-high flop. As a high-card hand, this is a classic "trouble hand." With a solid strong player as a caller, who could have AJo or maybe even AQo (you didn't give all details of his tendencies), why would you raise and "hope" to get heads-up with him? Absolutely, call and hope for a good flop with more opponents.
Post-flop: See above comment about "trouble hand." Just what do you think he has here? QJ? This is a fine fold.
(There, Vince - Is that worth the dollar you gave me?)
Dick
Easy laydown. Even if you're certain UTG has KQ, there's those late position limpers you probably can't move off the pot with this kind of a flop (too many legitimate and exotic draws available). You have no extra value in backdoor draws; runner-runner K J inevitably costs too many bets to find yourself splitting the pot. Where's the controversy on this hand?
I was playing 40-80 holdem at Hollywood Park the other day. The game was very loose but agressive. I raised under the gun with pocket tens and an agressive bad player three bet me on the button. Both blinds called preflop. The flop came K53 rainbow. The action was checked to the button who bet. Both blinds and myself called. An 8 came on the turn and everybody checked. A queen came on the river and the big blind bet. I raised without hesitation and the button and big blind slowly agonized before mucking their hands. Did I have the best hand or did my raise buy me the pot? Would check raising on the flop and leading on the turn and river be a better plan? Questions or comments are appreciated.
Bruce
Bruce,
my guess is you bluffed out a queen with a medium sized kicker or a bad player with a weak king. too many people to check raise on the flop but maybe a bet on 4th as its real possible you may have the best hand at this point and you may get a call from an eight.
Your way off Ray,
The Button had a small pair or AJ and the BB had A,5 or A3. Two Ts were the best hand Guaranteed.
Vince.
Bruce,
How about using a different title for your post than one that has just begun. I just started a thread titled Holdem Hand. You could have given it time for responses or named yours something like Another Holdem Hand!
Good thing my sons name is Bruce or...
BTW - You had the best hand! What possible hand with a Q in it could the BB call the flop with and not the river? My guess is that the BB had, A,5, or A,3. Check raising, even betting the flop, are much better plays. You, in fact, made a big mistake by raising the river. If you are called you are beat and what do you do if that loose aggressive guy on the button reraises? A call is a much better play.
Vince.
Obviously If I am called on the river I am beat, but I think buy raising it maximizes my chances to win. In L.A. in some games trying to put players on hands preflop is next to impossible. The more raises before the flop the bigger the pot will be and hence, the more reason to play any two, especially suited cards.
Your question was, Did you have the best hand? Let's see if we can logically convince me that it was/wasn't? Certainly raising must maximize your chances of winning this hand, especially if the button has a pair of J,J. But he certainly doesn't have a K and he calls (I believe) with a Q. However, you've got to believe that a loose aggressive (bad player, your description) would bet a pair of Js on the turn. Maybe not. However, the blind may have J,J but his play would then be to check-raise the flop. In fact with A,5 or A,3 or J,J his best play may be a check raise on the flop to eliminate you if he can. Since he didn't check raise I gotta believe he more than likely has a small pocket pair. But you really cannot be sure what the big blind has. His agonizing over the hand does not disount the possibility that he had a budsted draw (maybe 4,6s). A pair of J,Js being out, though is a definite possibility. I'm beginning to convince myself that with the slight possibility that J,J is out and the unlikelyhood that the BB has a Q and would release it that your raise was a good one. But I still believe that you had the best hand. Especially if the big blind is a good player and would 3 bet a loose bad player before the flop with something like J,J just trying to isolate him. I guess because of the J,J possibility (however small), I cannot find fault with your raise!
I surrender!
Vince.
If I felt the button would always raise in this situation, without having to have anything, I'd prefer to bet the flop. If I wasn't sure that he'd bet, I'd check-raise. I think you waited to seize control over the hand until it was less likely that you could win.
Loose players who call double and triple bets before the flop do NOT fold on the flop for one bet. The blinds can easily have QJ or Q9s and called with their under 3-straights/3-flushes.
You could easily be slow-playing. A raise looks realistic.
Since it doesn't look like anybody had much of a King you can at least call this bet on the end. But since it only costs you one more bet to raise it was a good one since the Queen will have a hard time folding.
If you really think TT was the best hand on the river you should DEFINATELY have put more action in, unless you were slow-playing TWICE figuring the button to bluff 3 times. Since the button's hand was questionable and you intend to go to the river with your TT, then I would check-raise the flop and bet the turn. You MAY even get K9s to fold to your "obvious" AK.
I agree with Ray, you successfully bluffed the river. This is something like a "semi-bluff" since you had enough to call and the "bluff" only costs one bet.
- Louie
Last night in the typical 6/12 HE game i play in ,, I had AK 7 times in my 4 hr session,,, first time was in middle position,, next 2 times in my blinds once on the button and the rest in early position,,,,when is the best time to raise or 3 bet big slick,, I knwo it has a lot to do with the position who is in the pot who is infront of u and behind you,, still to call or raise,, so here is what happened to me the first three times Big Slick and me met,,, in the 5th seat,, buton at dealer,,,bick slic unsuited,, i raise to be three bet on the button and well capped in BB so 4 players see the flopp,,, Ac Kc 9d,,, BB bets out I raise player behind me calls the button makes it 3 and capped in BB ,, the turn,,, 3s ,, so far I have to think I have the best hand ,, I put the BB ona club draw and teh player nest to me on a A no kicker and BB,,, HMMM?? a set ? or AJ AQ? ,,, well BB checked I bet player to my left folded and button called BB called the river,, Jd the BB bets out I raised and the button 3 bet it BB called I capped it ,, well my annalysis of the hands in the pot was real close Bb K J ,, AND the button A J and I took down the pot ,,.. second time with BS ,, I limped in from the small blind ,, flopp with 4 callers was k 9 3 rainbow,, i checked its bet yadda yadda yadda,, i raise,, all call,, the turn,, A I bet out its called and then raised and called i reraise,, its called all the way still 4 handed,, the river 2 i bet out its called raised and reraised,,, from the last to act who had been qiut,, so i called and so did all, ,, show down A no licker K9o and a set of 2's and me holding top 2 pair ,, lost a huge pot,,, my ? what reason would any one stay in with that much action,, to draw to a 2 outer,, did i do something wrong should i have 2 bet the flopp?.. or whould i have just lost more $ doing that... the next three times with BS were awfull,, only twice did i win,, thow i guess,, they held up better than my big pocket prs ,, Aces snapped 3 times and Ks snapped 4 times my best hand was the one i did not play ,,, the one where i never even looked twice at ,,, every hand i bet on got yanked ,,, mayby AK is the hand of choice? any comments?
A couple of comments on your post. First of all don't question a player standing a lot of action to draw to a 2-outer. Be extremely happy that this is happening at your table. The second comment is that focusing on individual sessions and how your hands do is not a good thing. It doesn't matter that you got big pocket pairs cracked every time you had them. All that matters is that you played them right. Ditto for AK. And of course I would rather have a big pocket pair such as Aces or Kings than AK. In the kind of loose aggressive game you are describing, expect some big fluctuations. Check out the HFAP 21st Century Edition for some good strategy advice about playing in these types of games.
I was recently playing a 3-6 game and witnessed the following hand between Player A (who was drunk and acting like a total jerk; he's a nice guy when he's sober) and Player B:
The hand became heads-up on the flop, and after the turn card (8d), the board was *** Ad Ts 3d 8d ***. Player A checked, Player B bet, A raised, B reraised. At this point, the first player forcefully threw his cards across his bets, face up into the center of the table, showing *** 4d 7d ***. The dealer promptly scooped them up (as he did not need to reach for them) and shoved them into the muck.
Player A started shouting at the dealer for mucking the cards, saying he wanted to call the reraise (in so many words&%#$!), though he had made no move to do so. Floor was called, a heated argument was started by Player A, and finally the dealer was able to explain the situation.
Floor asked Player A, "do you want to call that bet?" and Player A responded "Yes." Floor told to put out his bet and instructed the dealer to take the cards out of the muck. Player B immediately tossed in his cards and cashed out.
I felt this decision was made to avoid conflict with this drunk. An obviously wrong decision involving the same floor and drunk was made a week earlier.
I talked to the room supervisor the next day, and he said the rule was vague, but essentially any cards turned face up are considered live even when placed into the muck. But does this apply to faceup cards on the Turn? Also, the way Player A tossed in his hand appeared to be a disgusted fold. Is it the dealer's job to read cards in this situation and make a judgement call as to whether the player intended to fold, or was the dealer correct in quickly mucking the hand?
If the cardroom's rule really is "any cards turned face up are considered live even when placed into the muck," then the floor made the correct ruling.
The dealer made an error in not asking the player whether he intended to fold (no judgment call necessary). Player A justifiably (albiet, impolitely) protested the dealer error. The floor appropriately was called. The dealer error was correctable, and the floor corrected it. No problem. Well, perhaps the floor could have explained the rule better and avoided upsetting Player B.
The rule, as stated, doesn't distinguish between whether the cards were mucked on the flop, turn, or river. You need to ask the room supervisor, not us, whether the rule applies to all betting rounds.
Of course, you can argue about whether the cardroom's rule is a good or bad rule.
BTW, I don't believe Player A's level of intoxication or rudeness should have any bearing on how the floor applies the rule in question. Whether Player A's behavior warrants his removal from the cardroom is an entirely different matter. He might well have deserved both the pot and the boot.
Mark,
The reason the ruling was terrible is that player A was facing a raise and threw his cards towards the muck indicating a desire to fold. What Ray Zee indicates about gaining information is correct and that is why such a move cannot be allowed in any card room.
On the other hand, if player A had called a river bet, misread his hand and done the same thing, his hand would still be readable, retrievable and live even if it was thrown towards the muck.
In a Card Player column a couple of issues ago, Bob Ciaffone illustrates the difference between situations where the hand should be dead and when it should be ruled live. If you have the issue check it out.
Regards,
Rick
> The reason the ruling was terrible is that player A was
> facing a raise and threw his cards towards the muck
> indicating a desire to fold.
No, that's a reason the rule is bad. The ruling was correct, given the rule that exists at the cardroom in question. We should change bad rules rather than deliberately misapply them.
> In a Card Player column a couple of issues ago, Bob
> Ciaffone illustrates the difference between situations
> where the hand should be dead and when it should be ruled
> live. If you have the issue check it out.
I did read the article. It makes a very good case for changing the rule to read, "A hand discarded by a player facing a bet is dead." My point is that until the rule is changed, it should be enforced.
it was a terrible ruling but happens in many cardrooms due to favorite handling and inexperienced persons in jobs of decision making. however it didnt matter because the 2nd player could have had the best hand then he would have won a bigger pot and not walked out. it seems that when a ruling makes you lose people are always mad but what about all the times it helps them.
You can argue that the rule is bad, but I don't understand how you can say "it was a terrible ruling."
Based on the rule as it was explained in the post, the floor made a fine ruling. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
the player didnt just turn his hand face up he threw it at the muck which indicates a fold. which is the same as if he said verbally fold. to allow him to call is wrong as he now has information to use and what if the other player now mucked his hand would he lose after making the last bet and watching his opponent throw his hand in the muck. strict interpetation of rules never works unless the rules are clearly written and all situations are covered(impossible).
Ray,
You wrote: "strict interpetation of rules never works unless the rules are clearly written and all situations are covered(impossible)."
I don't know if all situations can be covered but the major rulebooks (or universal one yet to come) sure could do a better job. There are major holes in areas that should be covered and some that clearly need fixing. The biggest area where you will get different rulings is whether or not a hand is dead, yet it is the most important ruling you can make.
Personally, as a floorman working in Los Angeles, I try to use the guidelines written by Bob Ciaffone in his many articles in Card Player to cover all the grey areas regarding whether a hand is live or dead. I keep these articles on file.
Do you read Bob's stuff on rules and would you say that you agree with his approach? I am just looking for a quick opinion from a top player.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
yes Bob does a great job and uses logic. the casinos dont care much as clarifing the rules doesnt help the bottom line really and forces them to have competent employees.
> the player didnt just turn his hand face up he threw it
> at the muck which indicates a fold. which is the same as
> if he said verbally fold.
At most cardrooms this is true, but each cardroom is allowed to have its own set of rules. At the cardroom in question, a hand turned face up apparently is live--even if it ends up in the muck.
> to allow him to call is wrong as he now has information
> to use
Yes, the rule itself is a bad rule. Not only does it allow an angler to gain unfair information, it also makes it more likely that the spirit of the "one player per hand" rule will be violated (e.g., an uninvolved third player might comment, "Hmmm. A baby flush.").
And while we all "know" cheating doesn't occur in public cardrooms these days, the rule also facilitates collusion.
> strict interpetation of rules never works unless the
> rules are clearly written and all situations are
> covered(impossible).
Perhaps cardrooms should start by writing better/clearer rules rather than increasing the flexibility of their interpretation of bad/unclear rules.
While floorpersons need some discretion in applying rules to special situations, many players find it very frustrating to see inconsistent rulings when similar situations arise.
I'm not questioning the ruling, but I'll just relay a hand I played in Fri. nite at FW. 1&5 SCStud I'm in the 6 hole. The cards are dealt third street. 2hole bets a $1 3-8Hole calls. Next card dealt 4th street 4hole bets has Qx $1, 7813 drop rest call. Nothing on the board no suited cards 4 clubs on the board. Next card dealt I pair 7's. I bet $5, 2 calls with XTJc, 4calls with QXX, 5drops. Sixth street dealt 2 gets Qc, 4 gets a blank, I get 7 for trips. I bet $5 and 2calls. Straight flush I see it. I have a pair of 5's in the bunny hole so I have my full house. Last card I bet 5 and he calls, great I said he got the flush. He calls a flush but card reads and he has the straight flush. #1 hole told him that he had a straight flush. I wasn't mad about losing he put in his money, but I lost when I sat down in this LLStud game. He was half in the bag and stayed with a 9c after three cards and caught TJQKc to beat me if anyone wants to figure the odds on that with 4c's out, I'd appreciate that.
Thank you
Paul
ps: I hope you can understand this lingo.
The article by Bob Ciaffone that you can retrieve via the link below is excellent and covers this type of situation among others. It comes from the June 11 issue of Card Player.
Regards,
Rick
1. From what I read, in HE it is important to be selective about what hands to enter with. So if you fold a long string of non-playable cards, why wouldn't your opponents spot you for a rock - when all you're doing is following recommended theory. Do you come in on some lower quality hands, just to vary your play - resulting in you losing money and therefore your opponents spot you for a chump?
2. The games I've been in (6-12) almost always give someone the nuts on the flop. All the book advice in the world won't help everyone else up against him. So doesn't your play revert to intuition?
Thanks if you can help clear up the confusion.....
Bob
Better to be tight than be a chump.One of the best things that you can work on (same for me)is the ability to read your opponents which is every bit as important as reading the cards.
Bob:
As long as you play limit poker at full tables, you must accept the fact of occasionally having to throw away a lot of hands for an extended period of time. The alternative is losing. Players that do this aren't necessarily viewed as "rocks," although players that can't throw away a lot of hands invariably project a weak image.
So what if they think you're a rock? There are all sorts of ways of exploiting a tight image without playing badly; "shifting gears" doesn't mean downshifting from solid play to poor play. More importantly, if you're playing in the sort of games where a lot of people always see the flop, (1) respect is not a bad thing to have when you need the gutshot draws and under pairs to drop, and (2) randomly making bad (suboptimal) plays just to fool your opponents WILL NOT WORK, and generally amounts to giving your money away. Besides, these games are usually going to be passive. Assuming you'll pretty much always get paid when you hit, you should see the flop cheaply with a lot of low quality (but playable) hands. When you make a big hand and bet like hell, they're going to pay you off for a long time to come.
Bob,
I consider myself a rock.....just above the tourist level. Yesterday I was in a geme of stud....loaded with tourists. I folded lots and lots of lousy hands.....the other players just exchanged chips back and forth going broke along the way.
Quietly and patiently I slowly built my stack and walked away winners. When you "play"....."they" will call.
At least for now I'll remain a rock.
Good luck,
chub
you are right that if almost every hand someone makes the nuts on the flop no advise can help you except fold all hands that are not the nuts.
I play about 60 hours of 3-6 a week. The rake is incredibly high compared to pot size in this game, but i don't have enough to venture to our area's next level: 15-30!
In this 3-6 game, half the players play almost every hand, and there are few tight players. My strategy is to extremely tight. In this way, I contribute little to the house rake (I win a max of two pots an hour). My mind occasionally wonders, but I try to read my opponents while not in hands. Yes, even in these loose, low-limit games it's possible to pick up opponents' playing habits.
I'm sure I could play many more hands than I currently do for a small increase in profit (I average about $5-$6 an hour--not a killing but almost worthwhile and I have a good time), but my variance would skyrocket.
Playing 10-20 hold-em tonight I rased to $20 on the button with pocket kings. 5 players total. The flop was a-j-4 offsuit.
Everyone checked. On the turn came an offsuit 8 and the first man bet and got called. I hesitated. I knew I had the caller beat and my original instinct was to pay off the bettor...but...I didn't want to give him $40. So, after thinking I folded.
Last card of course was a king. I'm not resulting here and I know he could have had a jack. It's just that I felt he had an ace. Still, I wonder if I did the right thing.....
You should have bet on the flop. I will let others elaborate.
You should have bet the flop, especially since no one but you raised pre-flop. You might be right that your opponent may have had an Ace, but if he did, it was probably with a weak kicker, otherwise he would have raised pre-flop. You need to give him a chance to fold. The only way to do it is to bet.
I don't think the eight on the turn helped the first man that much, if at all. He probably figured no one had an Ace or a Jack and decided to take a shot at the pot. I believe that if you bet the flop, he would have not bet on the turn.
"You should have bet the flop."
If I bet the flop and get check-raised then what do I do? Fold immediately? Call for one more card? Re-raise and then check -- or keep betting?
I agree in retrospect that I should have bet the flop. I almost certainly would have won the pot. I would have checked the turn and hit the miracle King on the river.
At the TIME however I FELT that checking might be the best play because an Ace or better would surely check-raise.
So, is the answer in this situation to ALWAYS bet the flop? Normally, I usually do bet the flop but this time I just used my judgment. Cost me the pot.
"If I bet the flop and get check-raised then what do I do? Fold immediately? Call for one more card? Re-raise and then check -- or keep betting? "
If the check-raise came from an early player, then you can almost surely fold with a clear conscience. A later player probably would not check-raise unless he hit a set, and even then might have bet hoping you would raise. How you handle a late position raise is much more dependent on other factors.
"At the TIME however I FELT that checking might be the best play because an Ace or better would surely check-raise."
This is one of the reasons to bet the flop. Get that information at the cost of a small bet, before you have to make a decision which could cost the pot or several big bets.
If you bet the flop and then just get called, then I think checking the turn and calling a bet on the river is an ok way to go. It may be better to do it the other way: bet the turn and check the river. A weak "made" hand is more likely to fold on the turn than the river. So, a weak Ace might have taken off a card to see if you kept betting or catch his kicker. If he misses and you keep betting, you may get credit for AK and the pot. On the other hand, checking the turn may induce a bluff from a weaker hand.
Eric
I agree with Eric.
Don't worry about someone check-raising you until it happens. Think about the most likely hand your opponent is holding. I suggest reading Chapter 22 "Reading Hands" in David Sklansky's The Theory of Poker.
This isn't a response to mah's post as much as it is an addendum.
Read (or reread) "The Body Language Of Poker {Mike Caro's Book Of Tells}". Remember to watch the opponent when the flop comes. Especially look for the "glances at chips" tell, or the "quickly looking away" tell. If you see either of these and the opponent checks, then you are more correct to fear a check-raise; you might want to pass more often in these cases. I still think betting a chunk of the time is the way to go, even here. Be more prepared to lay it down later, though.
Eric
I have made similar mistakes, especially when I am stuck and/or tired. Betting the flop is exactly what should be done. If a check raise comes, then you can fold, provided the player is not a thief, or call to see the turn cheaply. Your bet protects your hand and possibly will win it for you.
I present this post as if I had the hand that bet. When he checked his ace he wanted to see what you would do after raising. When you checked he now knows that you don't have a ace. If I had the ace and checked then you bet on the flop either I raise or fold depending on my reading of you. But some don't make that play. But then I'm suspecting that the better was in early position and if it was me I would not be caught with a weak ace out of position.
Sklansky said that you should have bet the flop. Maybe he's right. So what, you didn't. Your question the way I read it is, given that you didn't bet the flop were you right (correct in folding the turn). First, I don't know how you knew you had the caller beat (for sure). An instinct? "My original instinct was to pay off the bettor". You must at some point learn to trust your instincts. Sometimes you will be wrong but if you understand poker and play well your first instincts are usually correct. They come from experience, the best teacher of all. "I didn't want to give him forty dollars". There in lies the trux of the matter. Live poker is not a tournament. You can go in your pocket if you make a mistake. It appears that, at most, calling costs you a fraction of a bet. Maybe a little more (given that you occaisionally win in situations like this.) You let the fear of losing rule your game. Fear is a poker players friend/foe. You must get it on your side. There is nothing wrong with being a little cautious, taking care. But being afraid, leave it to the other players at the table. From the explanation of the hand you gave I believe the original bettor most likely had an Ace but he could very well have had a J or J,8s. People limp with hands like that all the time in 10-20. As Mr. Sklansky intimated, betting the flop would help in a number of ways. I don't feel it necessary to elaborate. After all if Sklansky doesn't feel it important enough to elaborate why should anyone else. The point I am trying to make, I felt was important to elaborate on. That is to learn to trust your first instincts.
Vince.
Do YOU think tournaments are killing poker (ring/cash games)? Should the best player win a tourney or the one with the most luck? Poker world wide (USA,Europe,Australia,etc) currently has a problem. Casino and card clubs make very little money from tournaments, the real profit for them comes from rake/time in cash games. I've read on the net, CP, PD and Poker Europa the problem with LONG tournaments, and rebuys and add-ons. I think the Australian situation is also reflected in other poker room around the world. With only small numbers (40-80 entries) at major tournaments down under big buyins ($500 -$1500)have to be offered to make a large prize pool (to attract travelling players). The alternative is low buyin ($100-$300) with rebuys/add-ons! The second structure was suggested down under buy 'good' players (a small group of constant final table place getters- about 15). They very really rebuy/add-on, but let the weaker players build the prize pool...this way THEY get a triple overlay on their entry fee.I know several regulars who don't like the present situation, which is repeated in all 4 casino poker rooms. My solution is to make a medium single($200-300) buyin (NO RB/AO), have the tourney run for 5-6 hours then spread cash games from 7pm on, so the room can make some profits. Some will call the tourneys a "crap shot", but aren't tourneys won by the lucky now days any way? Look at the WSOP $10K BI! 400 entries, out of the top 100 BEST players ONE made the final table.Any thoughts from posters would be appreciated.
I think that re-buys favor the better players. Hence, doing away with them will make tournaments more of a crap shoot.
Only one of the top "100" players made the final table? Would that be Huck Seed or Erik Seidel? Or did you have someone else in mind, such as Noel?
Tournament wins make news; a player consistently winning in a cash game is invisible (which is how most prefer it). Poker will always survive, but the tourneys certainly have put it more in the mainstream than ever before. It's true that big buyins are required to justify the travel expenses associated with a tournament, so the best solution is about what the market gives us now: several big tourneys a year, interspersed with low-to-medium buy-ins the rest of the time.
While it certainly takes some luck to win any tournament, including the final WSOP, I wouldn't agree that out of the "top 100" players, only one made the final table. Until Huck Seed won the WSOP, he was "unknown". On the other hand, Noel Furlong has been competitive in the final event for many years, and Eric Seidel's record and ability are as legendary as his loss was to Chan in 1987. While a player with the attitude and the luck that Kevin McBride had last year can sometimes make the final table, I think you underestimate the hard-fought battles that always precede Day 4.
In any endeavor, it's not always the "best" that survive, but those who "PLAY best". This is what brings out emerging talent.
Finally, many of the ones that you wouldn't consider in the "top 100" had to win their way into the final event by beating a field of 140-200 players in a super-satellite. That in itself is not exactly a walk in the park to accomplish. From what I've seen in recent years, I believe that a person who just ponies up the $10,000 entry fee without having fought his or her way into the event will have a much tougher time of making the final day than will those who had to struggle to get there.
From what I read Erik was the ONLY one rated in the top 100 from the Las Vegas experts, to make the final table. Noel and Seed were not on the list. I was only repeating what I read.
I question the credibility of an "expert" who doesn't consider a former world champion among the top 100 players in the tournament.
Darryl,
I moved to Las Vegas on Dec 31, 1998. Since then I have played 15-30 Holdem (sometimes stud) 4-6 nights a week at the Bellagio. I have never, not once that is, been to the Bellagio when there was not at least one 15-30 Holdem game going. Poker here, at least at the 15-30 Holdem tables is alive and well. Don't get me wrong some of those games where populated by some of the best middle limit players here in Vegas and me. But they never complained about having me at the table. Poker in my estimation is not dying!
Vince.
On the contrary - I was in Reno and lacking any tourney there it was quite dead poker-wise. The NL in downtown was so full however that I had touble even playing it. (well, it looked kind of tough and I stayed at the Hilton)
All in all, since I like NL or PL - I rather play at the tourneys (always great ring games go on) and always have a pot limit that is far better than the regular ring game. Tourneys (and not only WSOP - are very good for poker !!!)
On June 30 I started a thread about observation of my opponents. Since the thread is a little old, I am re-posting my final message here. I do have a plan!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thank everyone for some good suggestions. Here is my plan.
I didn't mention it, but I already keep a loose-leaf notebook with my collected notes on regulars in my regular game. I have a book on about 30 people. I don't start a page until I have seen a player at least 2-3 times. (Like I said when I started out the thread, I HAVE been trying.)
I am going to combine Louie's notebook with Tuneman's "filling up info vaults" - I plan to keep a small notebook with a page for each seat position, and write down everything I see at showdown. Louie, I am electing not to take your full suggestion of writing down MY every hand and the outcome of every hand. In keeping with Marc's suggestion, I will make extra effort to watch regulars who are in my book.
I like Larry's "play by play" suggestion. By talking to myself, I think I will go a long way toward paying more attention, which is the whole idea here.
GD raised a point which actually helps me understand why I have this problem. There are so many players who simply limp with anything and check-call all the way to the river with almost anything. Then they frequently fold the river so I don't see their cards. Watching this blur go by, it IS easy to relax my observation. So I will concentrate on: What they raise pre-flop with (GD), how they bet draws (GD), how they play sets (Andrew), and an additional one: what they cold-call with (from Mason in a previous thread about categorizing opponents).
One additional thing I will try to do is put opponents into a "category" - e.g. "loose passive calling station" - where I can extrapolate behavior that fits the category. I fully recognize that I have to be willing to change my mind about someone, similar to putting someone on a hand.
Thanks again, guys. Any further comments?
Dick
I started a thread about a month ago (I think) which covered the very subject of putting players in catagories. If you get a chance, you may want to go back into the archives and dig it up.
Yes, GD, I remember that thread. Sorry I didn't remember that it was you so I could credit you.
Thanks.
Dick
Of course it never does. But my meaning is: AK is (obviously) the biggest connector in HE. It can be played from any position, only fearing "domination" from AA or KK. But AJ? From early position it is at the very best marginal and usually weak because the chances of it being "dominated" make it a neg. EV play from early position. But from what position does AJ become relatively almost as strong a connector as AK; ie from what position - 5 or 6 or whatever does AJ have a relatively minimal percentage chance of being "dominated" by AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ, (assuming the "bunching" factor is neglible in HE) and can thus be played as aggressively and confidently as if one was holding AK. Hope I explained my meaning clearly enough. I'd appreciate real specifics if possible - from such and such position onwards, not "mid-position". thanks in advance
OK, this could get dangerous because I am not a math expert, but here goes...(let me know if my premises are close)
First, my assumptions... 1. I am not distinguishing but suited and unsuited. Obivously, suited will be slightly (much?) better than calculations, and the reverse for unsuited.
2. When you play AK, dominating hands include AA, KK, AK. I am including AK because if someone else has this hand, then your hand is significantly devalued.
3. When you play AJ, dominating hands include AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ, AJ (same reasoning as AK in assumption 1).
Calculations: 1. Holding AK. Opponents have 1225 possible hand combos left, including:
AA 3 combos
KK 3 combos
AK 9 combos
Hands that dominate AK: 15 of 1225
Chances of AK not being dominated by a single opponent: 1210 of 1225 = 98.78%
Chances of AK not being dominated by any of nine opponents: (.9878)^9 = 89.5%
2. Holding AJ. Ommitting combo calculations, but similar to above.
Hands that dominate AJ: 51 of 1225
Chances of AJ not being dominated by a single opponent: 1174 of 1225 = 95.84%
Chances of AJ not being dominated by any of nine opponents: (.9584)^9 = 68.2%
Chances of AJ not being dominated by any of three opponents: (.9584)^3 = 88.02%
So, if my premises are correct, AK is dominated roughly the same under the gun (with nine people left to act) as AJ is dominated 1 behind the button, when all previous players have folded and only three remain to act.
Could be way off on this, but there it is...I don't take into account many factors. For instance, in a ten player game, if the first six players fold, there is a much greater chance that the remaining players have the dominating hands.
I'm putting together a "simple" computer program that will attempt to play poker, just as a hobby. Any comments on the above "analysis" would be appreciated!
Unfortunately you did a lot of work barking up the wrong tree. The main problem with AJ is not that that it will run into a hand that "dominates" it but rather that a king or queen will flop and that somebody will have one.
So much for my once-a-century mathematical brainstorm! :)
But isn't a major danger or money-earner in HE when you flop top pair and have either the right or wrong end of best kicker? You make a lot of money by having the Ace against someone whose kicker is one notch lower than yours (and conversely can have a tough decision and can lose a lot when yours is one notch lower). Similiarly when you flop top pair jacks and someone has pocket queens. Knowing when this scenario is (mathematically) unlikely can be extremely useful in your preflop strategy. If you miss the flop completely and a King or Queen hits (or even if you hit the jack and a king or queen also comes), then the decision on how you play or if you play becomes relatively more easy than if you hit, there are no overcards (if a jack comes), and you get raised if you bet. Goes back to avoiding "trouble hands" - my query is when does a trouble hand become equilvalent, position wise, to a good hand in a full ring game?
I think the point is that AJ never becomes as powerful as AK. For instance, if you have AK and an ace falls, you will get lots of action from AJ and AQ, which are likely hands to be up against. On the other hand, if you have AJ, any action you get if you flop an ace is likely to be action you don't want.
If you flop a pair with AK, it's always top pair/best kicker. With AJ, you will hit some flops that contain a jack as well as a queen or king. This makes the hand tougher to play well. Even in late position, you have a problem with a flop like QJx. If you bet, you are hoping to win the pot right there, and it will be a small pot. If your bet is called or someone bets into you, you have a problem.
Even if your jack is top pair, you still have a problem if there is action and a King or Queen lands on the turn.
I might as well pile on the AJ because it is a lot weaker than most aspiring players think. Plus I played it when I shouldn't have the other night and got justly punished so writing this is my pennance.
AJ is a lot weaker than AK in every situation except for stealing the blinds where it is only a little weaker.
David's point about flopping a jack with a king or queen out there is of course valid. This type of problem never occurs with AK. Dan's and the other points are also well taken.
Both hands have trouble in multi-way pots but the AJ has the additional problem of having to worry being outkicked (when an ace falls) plus all the draws and two to five outers that both hands worry about. In many cases this means AJ has to give up because it can't take the heat where AK can hang in there and take down a big pot when the odds and conditions are right.
The weakness of playing AJ relative to AK is also apparent when they are faced with a situation where a solid player has raised up front. Calling with the AJ is a horrible play (I believe David wrote an excellent article a couple of years ago where he indicated that even AQ would be a bad call (against a very solid raiser) where AK would be OK.)
Anyway, AJ and AK are world's apart in real game play. I would go so far as to say that players who are small limetime winners have lost money when playing AJ on the average.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Your response makes a lot more sense than Sklansky's, I don't see the main problem with A,J being related to flopping a K or Q. That certainly is a problem, but in most cases it is easy to get away from.
I also like the math solution that one responder gave. Although, it may be more appropriate for NLH than LH.
I disagree with your blanket statement that calling with A,J against a solid upfront raiser is a horrible play. For the most part I do not play the hand in this situation but I can imagine situations where A,J (especially suited) is a hand that one can call with and turn a profit. An example could be calling with A,Js when in the BB against a raise from an upfront solid player. I'd like to add a caveat here; you must play excellent poker after the flop to play this hand effectively under most circumstances.
Vince.
Vince,
I thought we were referring to AJ offuit. Anyway, I would call with AJ suited against a solid upfront raiser and several players in between.
In this situation, most of whatever positive EV you have with this hand comes from getting a flush draw and making it. If the suits are not involved and the action is heavy or comes from the solid UTG raiser and you have top pair you just can't be very happy. Most players lose money here.
Regards,
Rick
I certainly agree. I think A,J is a tough hand against weak players. I am certainly not eager to play it against someone tough! Most players realize that Holdem is a game of High cards. A,J. definitely fits that bill. Consequently, it gets a lot of play, even in unprofitable situations.
Vince.
So the problem with AK is that when no ace or king falls, someone may have a 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 , J or Q?? If the flop shows no ace or king, then odds are the flop has either a J or Q, the most likely cards for one's opponents (considered as a group) to have. And, against a field ofl opponents, isn't a flop with J or Q in it nearly as threatening to AKo than a flop with K or Q is to AJo? Hypothetical hand: Player A has raised from middle position with AKo and gets 2 callers to his left, and 2 to his right who check the flop. Flop is J-8-2 rainbow. How does he proceed? Hypothetical hand: Player A has not raised from middle position with AJo and sees 2 callers to his left, and 2 to his right who check the flop (Q-8-2 rainbow). How does he proceed? I think AKo is a hand one is more lilkely to get trapped into playing too long than AJo. And while I'd rather have AKo with a flop of A-8-2 than AJo with a flop of J-8-2, I think the latter hand is less likely to encounter a unsuspected two-pair than the former. Do the savings from this make up for the times AJ succumbs to AQ or AK with a flop of Axx???
BTW, keep barking up that wrong tree, qattack. The leprechauns hide pots of gold in the strangest places.
I don't know if Sklnsky will answer this but from me: "I'm afraid that you're barking up the wrong tree". Poker is a game of mistakes. If you try and give credence to A,J being somehow as good a hand as A,K you are making the same mistake a lot of poker players make.
Vince.
Without going into a lot of detail, my point is simply that when the smoke clears, AJ will often make a pair yet lose to a higher pair. That is the single biggest problem with it compared to AK. A second problem is that in a tough game players will bet second pair with a flop like Q62. Thus with large pots AK will correctly call that bet while AJ INCORRECTLY (Fundamental Theorum Wise) folds.
Since most players raise AA, KK, QQ from any position, many players raise with big slick from any position, and AQ and JJ from at least middle to late positions, if I have AJo and there's no raise before the flop, or if I've raised with it on the button, I'm feeling pretty secure that if an ace flops (and no pair) I've got the best hand, and the best kicker. Another thing: without that pre-flop raise, isn't AJ more likely to get action from A9, A8, A7, A5, etc. when the flop is A-6-2 than AK will with that same flop after having raised preflop? If I have AJo and there's no raise before the flop, and J-6-2 is the flop, don't I make money when KQ or K6s chase me? And, even better, aren't pairs like 88 and 99 more likely to challenge when the flop is J-6-2 than when it's A-6-2 or K-6-2?
I don't think this is what Sklansky is talking about. Sure, most players will raise w/ group 1&2 hands pre-flop, and most good players will (correctly) dump AJo when faced with a legitimate raise. But what David is getting at is the very likely possibility that the flop will come something like QsJs4h, whereby you've 'gotten' more of the flop than you have a right to expect, but still don't have a clue where you stand-- even if you're on the button. I don't know what the odds are of a flop coming J high, but you've only got about 15% chance of flopping an A. If you DO get this flop, as you said you're probably good. But what makes AJ so much worse than AK is that you can a) run into kicker problems (as you said, it's unlikely, but it does happen and it usually gets expensive), b) Flop a J and get run down by overcards. Further, if you do turn a J, you often run into a situation where the J helped complete a goofy straight draw OR made someone open ended. And, of course, there's 'c', which is 'flop a J with an overcard on board'. I won't bore you with a discussion on the problems with THIS flop, since the problems that arise with flops like these should announce themselves.
You note that a flop like QsJs4h presents problems to AJo. Yet that flop is more likely to occur when I'm holding AK and it's plenty problematic for AK too. Remember with AK I've probably already invested more in the pot. So if I fold AK about as often as I would AJ after the flop, I'll have lost at least twice as much and will have to make that up on the hands I don't fold. The difficulty with AK is that 2/3 of the time no ace or king show in the flop and you are guaranteed to have two overcards when that happens. Now if that pre-flop raise has narrowed down the field, then maybe a semi-bluff bet works often enough in combination with those times one improves to make the hand profitable. But I've seldom been able to make that approach work in the games I've played. In the sample flop above, even without a flush draw, if an ace or king falls, someone may very well fill a straight or improve to two-pair. And if there is a flush draw (do I assume there isn't?), then As, Ks, and 10s plunge me into quicksand.
I'm just trying to emphasize that there are compensatory considerations when comparing AK to AJ. If I had one opponent and I knew that opponent had A9, then it wouldn't matter much which I had.
"... compensatory considerations" Methinks you may be wise to read Mr. Sklansky's last response to me on this subject. He explains full well the reasons that A,K is a much stronger hand than A,J. I can't imagine that you treat the two hands the same (preflop or post). If you don't, then, there must be a reson (French for reason). The reason that Sklansky gives suffices for me.
Vince
Of course I don't treat the two hands the same. And because I don't, that improves my chances when I have AJ.
I see your point, but I don't think your getting the gist of my post (no offense meant). When you flop a pair w/ AK, you're 'generally' good on the flop. The same cannot be said of AJ. Or, to put it more accurately, you can bet a pair w/ AK with confidence, something you often can't do with AJ.
In short, while you'll only flop a pair 1/3 of the time with AK, you generally like where you stand when you do, in fact, get a piece of the flop. With AJ, it can't be said that you'll genuinely 'like' the flop the same 1/3 of the time.
Somehow I am not of the opinion that AJ is as big a "trouble" hand as many people make it to be. If you play it in an unraised pot in your typical somewhat aggressive HE game and an Ace flops, dont you think you are ahead? Most people raise with AK or AQ, so you have the logical next best hand. Similarly, J-x-x is a great flop for A-J. The main problem with A-J is that people overvalue situations where you flop the jack and some sort of 3 to a straight with an overcard out. I have found out the hard way that A-J with a flop of Q-J-9 and a 3-5 opponents is usually dead meat.
Maybe I miss the point!
The issue is the COMPARISON between A,K and A,J. When you COMPARE the RELATIVE strength of the two hands you MUST come to the CONCLUSIONS that Mr. SKLANSKY put forth. The weaknesses of A,J as opposed to A,K are obvious.
Vince.
I agree, as I'm beginning to wonder what I'm not seeing here. The point, as I understand it, is that situations arise constantly with AJ where you flop a pair but can't at all be sure that your best, and certainly can't bet it with confidence (the QsJs4h flop, for example), whereas those situations don't arise nearly as much with an AK. In the scenerio het set forth, that you flop an A in an unraised pot, the AJ and AK are certainly comparable holdings-- but this is only ONE scenerio.
The way you compensate for AJ not being as strong a hand intrinsically is by not investing as much before the flop, jettisoning it when appropriate (folding it usually against solid players who raise UTG, for example), and by generally playing it against weaker hands.
I was responding to the original post, which asked (as far as I can tell) at what point can you play AJ the say way you play AK. As David Sklansky answered, it cant ever be played EXACTLY the same because of K-Q gap. However,there a situations POST flop where it can be played similarly (Ace-x-x), (J-x-x), but there are limitations on this because you still fear the K and the Q (mostly on the J-x-x flop). A-K has the advantage of not fearing overcards or kickers, but there are still times it should be played cautiously (when draws are out). A-J is similar, in that most times when it makes one pair it will be good. However, it will be good SLIGHTLY less than A-K (in unraised pot situations) because of the K's and Q's and should also be played somewhat cautiously depending on what draws are out.
Bravo! Well stated.
You see, this is why I buy your books. When you adequately express your views I usually (not always) can understand the logic behind them and accept your point. Such is the case here!
I thank you.
Vince.
I am a low to fairly low limit HE player. I apologize if my question is a little too ignorant but why is it incorrect to dump AJ when you have no straight or flush possibilities and no pairs
"I'm putting together a "simple" computer program that will attempt to play poker, just as a hobby. Any comments ... would be appreciated! ".
For what it's worth, my advice is program it to play stud instead. It's much easier.
Andy.
hi all, and happy 4th.
6 12 - raised with AA early position, two callers, blinds fold.
flop 8 8 9. i bet, middle guy raises, other guy folds. this guy is new, and i have no idea what his style is.
i reraise, then bet on the turn when a J hits, he called.
my reasoning is this: there are more hands this guy could have that he is raising with: 9, overpair, and straight draw. plus, even if he is not raising for free cards, he figures me for a high pair or high cards given my pre-flop raise, and is trying to bully me around with the threatening flop. also, given heads up play, if he had the 8 (or 99), why wouldn't he raise me on the turn or river, and just smooth call the flop. (again i don't know how well he plays yet). of course i would handle this more carefully with 5-6 callers on the flop.
my plan is to fold if raised on the turn, but this has happened before and i am always at a loss as to fifth street play. it feels awkward - since i showed the strength should i continue betting? if i check and he bets should i call because of the now large pot i've created, and the potential bluff possibility?
when i am last position in a situation like this, and someone is seemingly trying to "push me around" i'll raise the turn after his expected bet, usually resulting in a check down on the river, losing the same amount if he had the winning hand and i called - but this seems to go a lot smoother than being first of course.
in this case i checked the river as did he and i won. did not see his hand.
what do others do in this situation? is this a wise strategy? would you bet the river? call? would you fold if raised? thanks in advance for comments.
james..........
You need to ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish with your bet on the river. Are you willing to fold if raised? Is your opponent the type of player who would raise you with less than trips here? Is he the type of player who would try to bluff you with a bet if you check?
If the player was on a straight draw, you should check. He won't call your bet, but he might try a bluff bet if you check.
These types of decisions completely depend on your table image, the nature of the other player, etc. If you are known as someone who would bluff at this pot, then betting becomes more correct, because you will be called by weaker hands. If you are known as a rock, then checking may be better, because you will only be called by hands that can beat you.
Heads-up on the river is a situation that does not break down into easy answers. You have to be able to do a logical analysis at the table to come up with the most correct play.
Dan
Agreed on all points.
My guess is that in most cases, it's better to bet on the river. Your chances of getting a crying call given the size of the bet are usually greater than the chances of inducing a busted draw to bluff at the pot.
Unless your opponent was simply trying to push you around, my guess that he had a pair. (I doubt that he had a draw because the Jack would have made a straight.) Your aggressive playback created doubt in his mind, especially when you bet the Jack, representing trips larger than what he may have had (possibly, but doubtful as he did not reraise you on the flop) Since you did not have trips, checking the river is the correct play. Most of the theorists I have read say not to bet when the caller you are likely to get is one who can beat you. In limit play, that is. In pot or no limit, a large bet from you might have cracked him, if he had medium trips. If he had a full house or quads, well then, its a tough game.
You don't say whether the flop was suited so I presume it wasn't. Being suited woud lincrease the likelihood of a draw. And may explain his behavior as betting with the intention of bluffing if he missed. Again your aggressive play disrupted his possilbe attempt to steal at the river.
I like all of your plays, including checking the river. With only 2 others seeing the flop in a raised pot, an 8 is not too likely, and there are lots of hands, 2nd place to yours, that he would bet this way. I like betting the turn and then checking the river because of a "no free card" attitude I have. Make him pay to draw to beat you; then when there are no more cards to pay for, you check-call, and either (a) induce a bluff, or (b) avoid an extra big bet lost if he has either sandbagged the winner all along or make a draw to beat you.
If he raised on the turn, and I did not have any reading on his game, I think I would gulp hard and call the turn and check-call the river. Hold'em has too many swashbucklers who love to make plays like this, and your pre-flop raise and subsequent bets have clearly defined your hand - if he makes his best guess as to what you have (AA, KK, QQ ...) he is right, and that allows him to take a shot.
Dick
Your hand is the type of hand that you're just going to have to go to the river with. The object is to strike a balance between two objectives. Objective one. To minimize your losses just in case he really has those trips or better. Objective two. To prevent him from drawing cheaply just in case he is on a (straight)draw. I think your bet on the flop was correct(it helped achieve objective two). So was your bet on the turn (it helped achieve objective two). And your check on the river was correct also ( it helped achieve objective one). The only action I disagree with was your reraise on the flop. It wasn't nescessary because it didn't achieve either of the two objectives. Considering that you had no idea how this opponent played, your plays throughout this hand was good overall.
I would have play the hand exactly like you did until the river. I understand everyone who responded before me will disagree but I would have bet the river. Here's why: 1- You raised before the flop in early position. Your opponent who called has definitely a good hand such as a pair of tens. 2- On the flop, he raises you because he wants to be heads-up with you and also find out more about your hand; so, his hands is not that strong. He first puts you on AK. 3-You re-raised on the flop This should tell him that you have a better hand than AK. 4-Your bet on the turn confirm how strong your hand is and he does not raise you but only called you. The only reason I can think of is because he had a pair of tens and now with the jack, he has an open end straight draw. Otherwise, his play should have been fold. At that time you know you got him beat and this is why you should have bet the river. P.S.: Heads-up with pocket aces you need to go to the river, unless there 4 suited cards on the board and you have none of them.
If nobody but the best players won every tourny, what incentive would"mere mortals" ever have to play in them? Because tournies give anyone a shot to win is what keeps tournies so good to play in. However if you can become an expert tourny player you then could maximise your expectation as far as earnings without making non-experts look for some other way to spend the dollar. This is almost like why ring games are good to play in as well. When tournies start with small amounts of chips and fast level increases then they start to become crap shoots. This is what I dislike about tournies along with making deals. When tournies start with a large chip stack and the levels are longer then tournies are excellent to play in.
My advice to novice tournament players: Play in ones where you start with relatively few chips relative to the size of the bets and where the limits are raised very quickly. In this situation your noviceness wouldn't be much of a handicap.
My advice to good tournament players: Play in ones where you get to start with a lot of chips relative to the size of the bets and where the limits aren't raised too quickly. In this situation your skill and experience advantage will be maximized, thus you wouldn't be gambling that much.
What about rebuys and add-on posters? My experience since 1993 shows that many of the 'best players' do NOT rebuy/add-on and get a great overlay on their buyin, as the mere mortals (the players who make up the numbers) do MOST of the rebuys/add-ons. Will the weaker players ever give up on tourneys, if they have NO hope of winning. In ring (cash) games they do. You never see them play again when they "cannot win". Maybe some casinos have the right idea, making tourneys crap shots so anyone can WIN!
> Because tournies give anyone a shot to win is what keeps
> tournies so good to play in. . . . When tournies start
> with a large chip stack and the levels are longer then
> tournies are excellent to play in.
Please make up your mind. ;-)
I see quite a few references in various posts to utilizing your intuition to play poker. Over the course of many years I have come to the view that using your intuition or "following your first instinct" is a concept that doesn't have much value at the poker table. In fact there is a well known poker player on RGP who calls poker a "counter intuitive game." Here is an example of a "counter intuitive" situation in poker. When you have scored a nice win in a session in a relatively short period of time, most people's intuition would tell them to take the money and run. However there are many reasons to stay and play and the reasons to stay and play usually outweigh the reasons to leave. Of course intuition is applied more to reading peoples hands and to a lesser extent in deciding how to play your hand. If you are stuck in a session a lot of times, at least for me, your tendency is to play more defensively because you feel that you are going to lose more. Or put another way, "the cards are running against you", so you don't play a hand as aggressively as you should. These kinds of feelings often make a losing situation worse because you don't extract full value from a hand. And of course the attitude that "the cards are running against you" is one that you would like your opponents to have as you ideally would never entertain these kinds of thoughts. As far as reading hands, I will admit that I come to some conclusions very quickly because my decision making process in this particular instance was very fast. I do spend some time after a session reviewing some of these decisions. I do this to try and figure out if I could have played my hand more profitably. So I try to never make a decision about a players hand that is based on my intuition. I have also found a lot of value in doing this as I believe that it helps speed my decision making process and helps me make better decisions over time. Comments?
I think we can take Intuition and put it into a Logical form. From what I've studied on the subject the Subconscious Brain obviously works much faster than Conscious one. Now the Subconscious Brain gives us alot of information in a Blink of an Eye. It can tell us things that the conscious Brain finds quite complex if allowed the time to think about them. Some of these complex tasks might be quantifying the Bluffing frequency of a certain opponent, or how an opponent plays in certain situations. This may include, among other things, calculating in the Board cards and our relitive position to our opponent.
So all this information that comes from the Subconscious Brain gets boiled down into something the Conscious Brain can understand. This would be Feelings, Emotions, and Instantanious Flashbacks to similar situations. The problem with using Intuition is that if the Subconscious was programed wrong in the first place, it would give back bad information.
Thats why it is very important to go over our play and analyze if our Subconscious gave us the right answer to the Complex question. If it didn't, we can hopefully modify its actions in the future by Consciously putting the proper play into memory.
CV
Mathematical calculation is without doubt the most crucial element as far as poker is concerned (and most everything else as well, I think). The thing is, calculations are often made by assigning informal values to impressions - becoming what you might call instinct or card sense. On occasion, you spot something subtle that leads you to believe a certain decision is correct. The feeling may be weak enough to make you unsure where it came from - was it simply an inclination based, for example, on being stuck and desperate, or was something really picked up and processed? This is where one of the most neglected areas of poker skill comes to light - specificallly, knowing yourself and the complex workings of your mind. But the thing is, whatever mystical or mysterious things appear to you, it is still wisest in the long run to keep your head out front of your heart when it comes to the poker wars.
gi
There are four levels of skill:
1)unconscious incompetence - you don't know that you don't know what you're doing.
2)conscious incompetence - you know that you don't know what you're doing; you also know what you don't know. You thus take steps to know.
3)conscious competence - you know what to do and how to do it but can't yet do it intuitively yet.
4)unconscious incompetence - you know what you know so well, it's become second nature to you. Like walking and swimming, you don't even have to think about what you're doing in order to do it.
First. Honestly determine at which of these levels you are at poker playing. Second. If you're at level 4, go right ahead and rely on your intuitions. If you're at level 3, practice, practice, practice (repitition is the mother of skill). If you're at level 2, read, read, read, listen, listen, listen, and observe, observe, observe. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you're probably at level 1. Good luck and I hope that you'll be honest with yourself.
It depends on what you mean by "intution," because the term suggests two slightly different things: (1) instant understanding and (2) understanding derived without the benefit of reason. When good players talk about relying on their "gut," I think they mean an ability to come to a good conclusion quickly without understanding exactly how they got there. Or perhaps they can't explain their play, meaning that they are inarticulate but not necessarily illogical. I think I'm describing a mental process that comes from a habit of focused observation and quick analysis. This kind of ability to reason intuitively is generally a good thing, although I suspect a lot of players mistakenly rely on it when they're just to tired or lazy to concentrate.
For example, you raise with KK UTG, solid player on your left calls preflop, flop is KKQ and your instant observation of her when the cards land tells you she's got queens full. (Remember this?) If you didn't have to consciously break down all the combinations of cards she could have had, or if you didn't identify an awfully specific tell, IMO you were using a certain amount of intuition.
Leaving a game or playing differently for no other reason (that's the important part) than being stuck is an instinctual reaction to pain and more closely falls within the second definition: a gut reaction that obviously has no basis in logic or reason.
Intuition is the ability to know without formal reasoning. By this definition, the ability to intuit your opponent’s hand and his reaction to countermoves is, needless to say, highly profitable. If, however, you define intuition as pure guesswork or with emotional reasoning (where your emotions drive your cognitions and not the other way around), then intuition is detrimental.
As a practical matter, I’d say learn the fundamentals of poker, design strategies and moves prior to actual play and seek out suckers like a welfare policy maker seeks constituents. The nature of intuition can safely be left in the hands of cognitive scientists.
What would it take to get real cardrooms in Florida? Currently florida allows cardrooms only at Parimutuel facilities. This is also very low limit. Florida statutes prohibit pots greater than 10$.What can be done about this, if anything?
Frank:
In the future please put this type of post on our Exchange Forum.
In the 21st Century Edition of HPFAP Sklansky and Malmuth suggest playing a few more starting hands in loose games than you would in a tougher game. However, Mike Caro has stated that this strategy backfires in low-limit hold'em games because of the high rakes. Both Mike Caro and Abdul Jalib have suggested that the rake in these games actually forces you to play tighter. They reason that only the very best starting hands have enough of an edge to overcome the rake, so you must throw away many hands that you could play profitably in a game with a smaller rake. Does the strategy of playing more starting hands in loose games apply to the typical low-limit hold'em game (6-12 and below) in Vegas, or does it backfire because the rakes are so high? Why or why not?
Mike Watson
Mike,
I thought the rakes aren't bad in Las Vegas compared to the rest of the country. I have no quibble with Mike Caro or Abdul’s advice. Follow it. I’d just like to make some other points.
A big factor is how the rake is collected. I'm going to assume you are a studious, disciplined player who understands how to adjust your play in a loose game but will still play tighter than most of the others in the game.
Let's say you have a choice between two 6/12 games. They are both loose games with few if any tough players. The first game collects 5% with a maximum of $4 collected with each dollar being dropped after a $20 threshold is reached (i.e., $1 is dropped on $20, $2 is dropped on $40, etc.). The second game drops $3 dead on the button no matter how little action there is (i.e., the drop is taken even on a blind steal - this is the way it is in Los Angeles). From a standpoint of the rake, which game would you rather play in?
Despite the higher overall rake, the first game is the better choice, since the rake is taken in increments and it is taken from the players who win the most pots (i.e., the loose players). I would say it is the better choice even if most pots exceed $80 and the $4 is taken most of the time. Remember that it won’t be taken from you that often since you won’t win anywhere near your share of pots in this game although you will beat it pretty good.
Regarding whether you should play tighter or looser other things being equal. Actually, play tighter in the first game the rake is being taken from the money you put in (this is what Mike and Abdul are saying). In the second game, the rake is already gone (via the dead button drop); there is more money to compete for so loosen up a tad.
One problem with the ideas above is that I assume that “other things are equal”. This is rarely the case. Because of the solid/tighter player unfriendly collection in Los Angeles, the games are unnaturally loose. Many of the tight players are driven away. In places like Las Vegas and Foxwoods, the games are much tighter on the average since the more knowledgeable players know that they can sit and wait without too much overhead being charged.
Regards,
Rick
I don't know if the rakes in low limit games in Vegas meet Caro or Abdul's standards for a high rake. I have played in many of these games, but I have never paid attention to how much or by what method the rakes were taken. I was hoping someone could enlighten me on this subject in their answer to my original question.
Thanks, Mike Watson
Let's pick some starting point, say 20%. That's how many hands your optimum strategy has you playing in a no-rake home game that is medium (neither loose nor tight). Now, you go to LV, where the rake isn't high (but higher than your home game) and is collected from the pot. You must play tighter against the same make-up of opponents, because hands you used to play that averaged a profit of less than $2 are now unprofitable due to that $2 rake. If you move to LA and they're taking $3 off the button, you play the same as your home game, and just do worse. If the LA game is looser than your home game, you'll get more opportunities to play hands like small pairs, Axs, and the like, and should play more hands. Now let's go to San Diego, where they rake the pots and the low limit games are still loose like LA. You play more hands, because players are loose, but you simultaneously play fewere hands, because they're raking the pot. In total, you play maybe the same as you did in your home game (although probably less, because the rake probably eliminates more hands than the loose play adds back in).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Mike,
I enjoyed FossilMan's analysis above and agree with it.
Anyway, I am no expert regarding the rake at the 3/6 and 6/12 limits in Las Vegas as I mostly play a bit bigger when I go there which is rather infrequently. From what I understand, the rake there is lower than in most areas of the country (the newsgroup rec.gambling.poker contains many entries on rakes around the country). Abdul and Caro's advice is correct but you would make less of an adjustment than you would in areas where the rake is very high.
BTW, note that FossillMan and I are essentially saying the same thing regarding the rake in Los Angeles.
Regards,
Rick
So, should I play as many hands as Sklansky and Malmuth recommend playing in loose games if I am playing 6-12 at the Mirage, or is their advice only applicable to higher limit loose games with smaller rakes?
Thanks, Mike Watson
Mike,
The adjustment shouldn't be that big (compared to a time or no collection home game) in a loose game since the collection is probably 5% with a $3 cap which is half a bet in most pots.
In my experience, you should beat that game for at least $15 an hour if you play well and avoid tight games (which are common during the daytime and weekdays). In loose games with a reasonable rake S&M's advice should apply.
Regards,
Rick
Mike - I play in a relatively high pot-raked game - $1 for the jackpot is taken immediately out of the blinds, then up to $3 from the pot (last $1 at pot 30), plus usual dealer tip of $1.
When the game is loose-passive, I play more of what I call "monster draw" hands - small pairs, ungapped suited connectors, and AX suited. Due to the high rake taken from pot winners, my idea is to win fewer pots and have them be big ones. When the game is passive (more often than not) I play these even under the gun.
On the other hand, as the game loosens up with more players staying in, I delete or downgrade the cat. 5-6 unsuited high-card hands KJ, AT, KT, and QT. They gain advantage when the pot is shorter-handed and result in winning smaller pots.
One last piece of advice. When you mentally categorize your game (like my "loose passive" above), keep re-evaluating it. My game seems to change character every 15 minutes, and people who start out playing tight often change to playing almost every hand. I try to dynamically change my "default" starting requirements about every 15 minutes.
Dick
I had played in a No-Limit Hold'em tourney where one player would always show his Ace when someone would move in before his turn to act. When I observed this action it reminded me of Doyle Brunson's play in his book Super System. Where if he was holding a pair of Aces and someone moved in, he would turn his cards over to see his opponents reaction. What do you think is the best defense against this type of player?
I'm trying to figure out why this guy kept on doing it. Did he figure that all his opponents were weak and he would get a reaction? Do you think he was trying to intimidate his opponents?
My opinion. I think he was giving away too much information about the type of hand he played most frequently. What do you think?
I won played in a limit game and had "pocket Aces" three times in the session. The first time I was on the button with 6 callers, I raised and turned my Aces up. All 6 called and the flop came 9.9.7. One player bet,I raised, and a third reraised. I folded and it was J.J. against 10.10. The 2nd and 3 rd time I won both hands, only small pots. Exposing one of your hole cards is a weak move in my opinion, with 99% of exposers flashing the weaker card!
I thought that this was against the rules in Tournament play (showing any cards while the betting is still live). Can anyone confirm or deny ?
Andy.
Someone did complain and the tournament host came to the table to settle the problem. The player that showed his Ace said that he did not know it was against the rules. No penalty for the player. I liked the idea of the player just showing one of his hole cards. I posted because I want to see if someone could come up with a counter strategy to use against these types of players.
It is in fact illegal to show your hole cards in many tournaments. But if you deliberately "accidentally" flash it (like scratching your nose with your ace in hand) it would be hard to prove wouldn't it? A good counter would be for you to accidentally flash him one of your hole cards also and see how he responds. Another way would be to elicit eye accessing tells (the one the CIA uses to determine whether a suspect is lying). Ask him, "How does your other ace look like?" If his eyes unconsciously looks up and to his right a split second after you finish asking, chances are 9 times out of 10, he may not have it. If ,however, his eyes unconsciously moves up and to his left chances are 9 times out of 10, he may have the other ace. And you take your analysis from there.
I'm going to have practice using my eye muscles. Maybe I should tell the truth and tough my nose, like the president. Thanks for the info. Hey, where can I get a copy of one of these CIA books.
Go to www.nlp-platform.com. They have some good psychology articles and links.
The 'counter strategy' to this is to just intelligently use the information he gave you, in whatever way your best judgement sees fit.
Exactly. There's an old story about Amarillo Slim. AS has some decent hand in a NL HE ring game. AS has just made a big bet on the river, and his weak opponent is thinking and thinking. At this point, AS decides that he wants this guy to call, so AS shows his weak kicker. As soon as the weak player sees this, he knows that his 2-pair is good, and goes all-in. Thus, AS made his play at the very wrong time, simply because he assumed that anyone thinking that long couldn't beat top pair.
Anyway, I would advise you to never show cards before the showdown. If someone is doing it to you, then use it for what it's worth. Likewise, try to learn what they're doing when the show cards. Some folks save it for times they want you to fold, others use it to induce a call. Learn their pattern, and take advantage of it.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Here's what happened. I was holding A-J suited. Everyone folded up to me, so I moved-in. Out of all the players still to act, I had the chip lead, but not by much. I wanted to steal the blinds uncontested and figured if I got called, I still had a decent chance to win. As I was pushing my chips towards the center of the table, the player on my left says "Hold your horses." The comment caught me off guard. He then turned up one of his cards which was an Ace. I did not think he had a pair of Aces, because I believe he would have called without showing them, and I thought it was unlikely since I knew that two of the Aces are out. But, I still did not want to get called. So, I smiled and he mucked his cards. By the way, my opponent was Johnny Hale.
I've seen showing both cards done in one of the World Series of Poker events, I think when Scotty Nguyen won it. I've tried it.. I had AK, and the flop came rags with a 6 high. My opponent moved all in... I turned my AK up to try and get a reaction from him... didn't do any good- I folded and he showed pocket 8s- I didn't want to draw against him, I thought he had a pocket pair.
What adjustment should be made if game have two big blinds an 1 dollar on button? Game is played maximum 9 handed. 50 dollar kill.
Its 3/6 and if someone wins two in a row they post an additional "kill" blind of $4 in whatever position they are in, and the hand is played 4/8? If so...
A curious psycological anomoly I've noticed is that the bad players EAGERLY try to win 2 in a row. DOH! YOU want to AVOID winning 2 hands in a row and want THEM to WIN 2 in a row. You can make a LOT of money since your share of the blinds is much less than the loose players, who will often kill it.
Play less hands after you win one. The BB wins a lot of hands since he often gets in for free, so play even less hands UTG.
Steal raise less in kill pots since there is an additional player alread invested. Expect kill pots to attract additional callers, including you with your small pairs and suited connectors early.
In very marginal situations: avoid bluffing the previous winner; isolate with a raise the previous winner (increasing both your chances of winning); let the previous winner bluff; avoid raising out the previous winner.
When heads-up against a reasonable opponent, you can successfully bluff more if either of you have the button.
If "advertising" by killing it is in your plan then play loose in the SB after winning one on the button, since the "kill" will only cost you $1 more in the BB.
- Louie
No, you have to win one pot over 50.
Go for a checkraise on the river with very strong hands that are not the nuts whenever the pot is less than two big bets away from $50. You don't care if it's checked down because you don't have to put up the money you would have won as a kill blind should you have bet and were called. By checkraising you'll win more than what you have to post on the next hand unless you're up against the nuts.
Here’s a hand where MM’s advice on this forum paid off.
It’s the weakest 15 30 game I’ve ever played in. And, probably, ever will play in.
I’ve got 6s 3s in SB.
Middle calls. Button Calls.
I still have two cards and call.
BB raises.
We all call.
Flop: 9 3 2 Rainbow, one spade.
Not much point in betting middle pair with pre flop raiser to my left.
And BB bets.
We all call. Before MM’s advice on this Forum, I’d have given this hand the heave ho.
Turn: 2
Time to make six overcards disappear.
After all, I am the little Blind. No reason, from their POV, I don’t have a deuce.
Reminds me of MM’s recent pocket 44. Even better with five outs instead of two.
BB and Middle fold.
Button Calls, looking pleased that he figured out the bluff.
River: 9
Now, I check with a hand similar to MM’s recent Bluff Catcher.
And that’s what happened as he bet and fumbled in his chips with KQ suited.
And that’s the part of the hand I’m not certain of.
Pretty sure I have the best hand.
But, should I bet, because he has to call with any Ace, or is it better to try and let him bluff?
Comments welcome.
Check and call is your best play on the riverv. Even if someone claims that you should raise if there is a small possibility that the button will throw away a better hand.
The real questions are: 1) Why didn't you bet the flop? 2) What would you have done if someone else bet the flop? BTW this hand is not even close to Mason's 4,4 hand. However since it jogged your memory it obviously helped you play this hand. A lot of value in that alone. "..looking pleased he figured out the bluff". You must be one hell of a poker face reader. Whats your secret?
Vince.
The BB did bet the Flop and we all called.
Maybe I should’ve bet the Flop.
Especially if the BB will raise with two overcards to get rid of the others. I don’t think this one would have.
Yeah, I missed the bb bet on the flop. I think your best play was to bet the flop and hope the BB or someone close to your left raises. But you know that! Once you checked, I believe you played correctly althogh wiht the BB betting and everyone calling before you I don't relly like your hand.
But what do I know! You won!
Vince.
I'm going to la to play 20-40 to 40-80 hold em. Should I go to the Commerce or Hollywood park. I've played at the Commerce recently and found the games pretty good. But the collection is high and I hear it is lower at Hollywood. Any opinions about whether the games are enough better at the Commerce to justify the higher collections? Also, does Hollywood Park spread 30-60 and 40-80 hold em as regularly as they do at the Commerce?
I only have a minute before I got to run. HWP if anything has better games, especially during the day when there is horse racing. There is no 30/60 but good 40/80 and about the same amount of 15/30 and 20/40 as the Commerce. We are cheaper on collection by two dollars per hour.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. email if you want more detail. Also note this question belongs on the Exchange.
How do you play 4-8 and 5-10? If there is a site where I can pick them up that would be great or on here. Maybe I have played them but Im not sure. Thanks
The strategy discussions on this forum are geared towards live play in a casino or card room, instead of virtual play over the internet. The archives contain much advice to avoid internet gambling with real money.
It is the middle-to-late stage of a pot-limit HE tourney. It is down to two tables of six. I am the chip leader with about T6000 out of T38,000 total chips. Through a combination of good hands and selective aggressiion, I am bullying my table.
Blinds are 100/200.
Tight, but predicatable player with a stack of T1500 opens under the gun for 500.
Tough, tricky player on my right with the other large stack (about T4000) calls. I call on the button with pocket tens.
Both blinds fold and we take a three handed flop. It is my lucky day and the flop comes:
T-4-2 rainbow.
UTG makes a weak stab at the pot with a bet of 400. The tough player calls.
What is YOUR play?
I decided to make a full raise. Here are my top 3 reasons to pop it immediately:
1. I think the UTG player likely has overcards, but may figure she is pot committed with halfd he stack in and two cards to come. If the turn blanks her, she might check and fold, and I have missed an opportunity to knock out an opponent. She may also be (incorrectly) slowplaying Aces since the board looks non-threatening.
2. The tough player could have some miracle draw to a hand such as A3s or A5s. If he hits a gutshot on the turn, I could get bushwhacked for most of my chips.
3. Table image- I want to continue as the aggressor, so why become one of these obvious "raise when weak, but call or check when strong" guys. After all, I get (and bet) a lot more middling hands than super-strong ones.
Oh yeah, and let's not forget the T2600 in the pot, so what is wrong with taking it down uncontested and increasing my stack by nearly 50%
Here are my top two reasons to wait for a move on the turn:
1. The tough player is more likely to get hurt by the next card than I am. He also may make a move at the pot with something like pocket 8s if the turn blanks since no one showed much strength on the flop. I can cripple or even eliminate a dangerous opponent if he makes a mistake or hits the "wrong" card.
2. The UTG player might be able to get off of overcards on the flop, but will be trapped for her last 600 if she pairs on the turn.
After putting myself in your place, I am less concerned about UTG and eliminating them. I am more concerned with how do I win all of tough&tricky player's chips? I say this because UTG is pot stuck. Your point about UTG folding overcards on the turn if he still has no pair is very valid, but with having only T600 out of T38,000, I am not too concerned. BTW, how many get paid? If 9 get paid, and 9th place is a lot of money, then I would still be paying some attention to eliminating UTG. Otherwise, concentrate on TTP.
As for TTP, what is he calling with? He called a raise preflop with players yet to act behind him, and has called again now with no apparent draws on the board. You have to start thinking that something like AKo is pretty likely. Yet, I would raise with AK here (or more likely, preflop), as I don't want to give you a chance to beat me by hitting a Q or J. I also don't want you to beat me with an underpair like 99, 88, etc. Finally, what if you have the A3 or A5 gutshot draw? I don't want to lose to one of those hands because you make a measly pair of 3s or 5s and I let you stick around for free (or cheap).
Overall, I just can't put the TTP on any hand with great confidence. Clearly he can't have you beat now. Furthermore, he is VERY unlikely to catch you on the turn. For these reasons, I would smooth call. I want to give the TTP a chance to make a big move on the turn. He could easily have a pair like 99 and is putting the UTG (and you) on overcards. He is waiting for the turn when he can bet you both out of the pot? I don't know for sure, but whatever he has I'll take the small chance that he somehow catches me in return for a shot at all his chips.
I see your point about maintaining your aggressive image. However, don't you ever just call with draws when facing a small bet? If so, that's what they can put you on here, not just slowplay.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You were correct in trying to win the pot right there. I'd guess that you'll be called by the UTG player (getting about a 6-1 price, she *has* to call) and the bigger stack may fold. I'm not going to give a free card to two players with that much money in the pot. If your opponents play a lot of limit hold-em, they will probably put you on no more than an overpair anyway.
Is there any value in taking a middle position, maybe a raise of $600 (to put UTG all in and give the TTP a little extra something to think about)? Smooth call now and jam on the turn may win more money, but only if you trap TTP.
Put in the pot size raise now! Don't wait for the turn. I think that by delaying until the turn they might figure you for a set and have a chance to get away from their hand. But, if you put in a pot size bet now, you may get called by a worse hand. I think a pot size raise now provides more deception to what you are holding. Since, you are the chip leader, they might think you're bluffing.
This is surely a candidate for a slow-play. Anybody drawing to beat you (QQ) will call anyway, except the unlikely gut-shot. Both opponents have or are drawing to 2nd best hands.
If you are not dominating the table then slow-play. However, protect your steals with a raise with the nuts.
- Louie
LL-
Your succint analysis summarizes my thought process at the table. I WAS dominating the table and wanted to continue to do so when my cards inevitably ran cold. I put in the maximum raise with the nuts.
The first woman called as expected and the tough player folded. I told her I flopped a set, and she said "Then I'm drawing dead." She must have had a middle pair or overcards (although overcards would have a running straight draw).
I guess I gave too much consideration to the other player's perception of my play and its impact on future action. Observe this:
Exaclty three hands later I was in the SB and picked up pocket Queens. An UTG player brought it in for the maximum of T700. He had about T1200 left. I reraised the maximum to put him all in. He called with pocket 7s as either a huge dog or a slight favorite. I guess he figured I was on a move.
Of course, he cracked my Queens and thus began a run of very poor cards just as the blinds got expensive at the final table.
I wonder If I could get Ray Zee, Mason Malmuth or David Sklansky to respond. Obviously, I would welcome anyone else's comment whose been in my position.
I am a regular 20-40 hold'em player. My win rate has never met the ideal of one big bet an hour; but I have been a slight winner for the last few years. ($15 to $25 an hour) I win about 55 to 60 percent of the time I play. But big wins (+$500) are very rare. Some other regular players seem to play looser than I do; yet win more. For example, they play suited aces and suited connectors in early position. (my minimum connectors in early positon are KQ. I won't play QJs or 10Js until I've got at least two persons in front of me; and they aren't rocks) They will defend their BB with any suited cards; even cards as marginal as 8 10 offsuit or 7 4 suited. And will beat me or other raisers! They lose too. But they seem to win more consistently and when they do it is in the $800 to $1500 range, rather than the $100 to $500 range more typical of my wins. Whenever I see them rake in a big pot after taking a raise with a A4s or 108s; or limping in with 78s, then taking a late raise, and still hitting their flush, I get tempted to take a shot myself. Invariablly when I do, I end up losing $100 or $200 on a hand that never made it. These players are not loose players; just looser than me. And they do seem to have a lot of card savvy. I'm just wondering, is there something I'm missing here? They seem to win more consistently than I do; yet seem to play cards worse than I do.
In the world of trading, there are systems traders and there are discretionary traders. The former are those who use rigorous technical signals to determine when to buy or sell. The latter are those who use intuition to determine when to buy or sell. The most successful traders are the discretionary traders ( example: Soros, Tudor Jones, Michael Steindhart, Bruce Kovner). Technical traders can also be successful ( Yass, Hull, Seykota, Ritchie) but lets face it none of these scientists can beat the above mentioned artists. It seems to me that you are a poker version of the systems trader. Your hand selection seems to be very rigid. You "never" play so and so from this or that position. My suggestion is that you take away the words "always" and "never" and replace it with "it depends". For example, suited Aces and suited connectors are playable from early position in a loose passive game. If you "never" play these hands from early position you will be costing yourself some money when they can be worth playing. Defending big blind with any suited, 10-8, and 7-4 can sometimes be worth it. Specifically, it can be worth it if the specific raiser is the type who is a compulsive stealer before the flop but who becomes a weak player flop and beyond. These hands can also make you seem more random and hard to read if you occassionaly play them when the conditions are right. My point is poker is not a game where you can excell simply by following rigid hard fast rules. You have to be an artist in addition to being a scientist. Or in Mason Malmuth's words, be "non-selfweighting" not "selfweighting".
To Jaws: ]
thanks for the analysis. Our game is not loose passive. If anything, its slightly loose aggressive. Therefore, playing suited aces and suited connectors without the proper pot odds, has been a loser for me; allthough my perception is that it is not for these guys I mentioned. I'll keep in mind your advice on 'mixing it up'. I never quite know the proper amount of this to use. I guess that's my lack of instinct. I don't follow your 'self-weighting' versus 'non-self'weighting' reference. I read Malmuth's book a long time ago. Maybe its time to take another look at it. Thanks for taking the time to help me out. Dana
Hi, just a thought, maybe your fellow regular player KNOW you to well and you are not getting the best play from your hands... just a thought. good luck
2 major possibilities spring to mind.
First, maybe they don't really win. You see them winning and losing, but perceive that they win more than you overall. While possible, this may be incorrect. Unfortunately, unless you know one or more of these guys keeps excellent records, and you trust them when they tell you how they're doing long-term, you'll never know.
Second, maybe they play better than you after the flop. Thus, when they play T8s, they know more often than you when it's good and when it isn't. If so, this ability can make a lot of hands playable for them that are unplayable (unprofitable) for you. Hard to say.
I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't a combination of both reasons. They probably play these hands better than you, yet they still don't win with them overall (or at least much less than you perceive).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Don't fix something that ain't broke! Averaging 15-25/hr at 20-40 is certainly not bad. In fact if you have been doing that for "a few years" your way ahead. So: "Don't worry, be happy." If there is a part of your game you are not comfortable with then work on that. Maybe experiemnt here and ther but for gosh sakes don't go doing things that may confuse you and lower your win rate.
Comment from a 15-30 player that may not know what he is talking about!
Vince.
I am with my buddy Vince here. DLS, I would be very pleased to trade records with you. The "one big bet" is nothing but a rough benchmark, and obviously depends upon your game structure and your opposition. These other players whom you respect and envy (?) - on the average you are beating them by the amount of your wins plus the rake/time payments you overcome. If your game is mostly populated with players like you describe, with some poker savvy, and does not have a regular flow of tourists or other wealthy fish, you are probably doing very well.
Remember, the average player in your game loses at the rate of the rake or the time payment.
One last thing. In my much smaller 3-6 game, of course it is much harder to overcome the rake because it is higher percentage-wise, and I see other players, friends of mine, who play so loose / badly that I KNOW they can't be long-term winners. But many of them tell me they are way ahead in their poker. I don't think they are deliberately lying to me; I just think they don't keep records and they remember their wins much better than they remember their losses.
Dick
IF YOU MOVED DOWN TO 10-20 YOU MIGHT KICK IT UP TO 30HR
You say that they "have a lot of card savvy". I'd guess that they are taking the worst of it pre-flop because they know they can outplay their opponents post-flop. In any event, they are also playing a higher deviation game.
I'll leave the starting hand advice to others with the statistics, but here are a couple of general observations: I don't care for the hands you pick to play in mid-position. I'd advise either tightening up on the middle connectors or loosening up overall (your opponents suited little-Ace is playable against some players much better than a hand such as K-Q; when you flop that K or Q, you're usually tied on, whereas if you miss the flop with A-little, it's easy to muck). If you're going to play a higher deviation game, you need to give yourself a wider variety of opportunities to play.
Finally, $500 isn't that big of a win at $20-40. On a given night, a $2000 swing shouldn't be out of the question. Be prepared for that to go both ways.
I guess I'm the type of player you are talking about. I play in fairly tough games (10-20, 15-30, and 20-40), but I'll play QJs UTG if the situation is right, I'll generally play any pocket pair from any position, etc.
However, I pay very close attention to the details of who is in the pot, where they called from, what's been happening in the last few hands, who's on tilt, etc. There are a few players in my game who will cause me to fold KQo on the button if they just limp in UTG. Context is everything.
Rather than saying, "This hand is group X, and I'm in position Y so I can't play it", you should learn to think more along the lines of, "I have X hand. How well does it play in this situation?". The analysis of the "situation" should involve a lot more than just your position. It should involve the skill level of the players who have already called, the tightness of the players in the blinds, the nature of the game, the fact that the player two places to your left appears to have chips in his hand to raise, the guy on the button is ready to throw his hand away, meaning that you'll be the button even if you just call, etc.
For example, if I have QJo and there are two callers in front of me, will I play it? If the two callers are tight players who called in early position, absolutely not, even if I'm on the button. If the two callers are loose players who called in middle position, I'm calling. The analysis of whether to play it or not totally depends on my estimation of the hands I am facing. Tight limpers in early position are most likely to show me hands that dominate QJo, or that won't give me action if I hit a good flop.
When deciding whether or not to defend your blinds with a marginal hand, pay close attention to the nature of the raise and where it came from. If the raiser's most likely hand is AA or KK, I will play very tight defending my blinds. If it's an agressive player in late position, I'll loosen up somewhat.
BTW, I always try to seat myself so that I have the agressive players to my right and the tight players to my left. If I can put an ultra-rock on my left I am essentially getting two buttons every round instead of one, allowing me to play many more hands. With an agressive player on my left, I have to throw away a lot of marginal hands that can't stand a raise, so I lose money.
Playing QJs UTG in most mid limit games is a typical and correct play in my opinion. Playing samll pairs up front in a tough game is a losing proposition, in my opinion. Discarding KQo on the button when a (Super) opponent limps is interesting. I wonder how one measures the correctness of this action. Discarding QJo because of two tight limpers is also questionable in my opinnion. But I'm sure you know your opponents and your own limitations better than me.
The whole premise of your post seems to be preflop play. I believe that preflop play is very critical to winning holdem. (Not as critical as 3rd street play in seven stud, IMO.) But when considering whether a hand is playble one should consider one's own skills after the flop in addition to those of the other players. By giving other players too much respect one can cost himself money/opportunity. Of course I think giving too much respect is a lot lees of a mistake than giving not enough respect.
Another little discussed fact is that the tighter you play the tighter your opponents will (may) also play. Discarding hands that you have mentioned in situations you discussed just may tighten up your game. Something I try to avoid. If I have to mix things up to get things going I play all kinds of hands in early/mid/late position. Regardless of the opposition.
Just My opinion.
Vince.
I would only discard KQo against those players who will only limp in early position with KQo or better. These are the players that limp with AK and throw away AJ. Against a player like this, just what kind of flop are you hoping for?
The comments about QJo apply here also. With two tight, early position limpers, there is just a very high chance that my hand is dominated. If there are 2 or 3 other callers along with them I'd probably make a pot-odds call.
I think small pairs are under-rated by most players. Small players tend to hold their EV against any number of callers if you play them optimally. In tough games I would agree that they won't make you much money by themselves, but the deception value of these hands is tremendous, and they are fairly easy to play. One characteristic of tough games is that players try to push UTG limpers around when the flop is low. I like to occasionally trap people who try this, and I get a bit more breathing room as a result. Then the profit potential of the hands like QJs goes up. It's all about an overall balance to the game.
That should have been, "small pairs hold their EV..."
I should add that if I'm in a game that is very agressive and the action is often 2-way or 3-way, I'll fold small pairs up front. But when I start having to do that, I have to wonder what I'm doing in that game in the first place.
If I find myself in that kind of game, then I'm mostly observing unless I'm holding Group 1 or 2, JTs and maybe 99. Therefore I consider it somewhat of an educational experience clocking other dangerous players, even though my EV is smaller but still on the positive side.
Much appreciaton to all of you who responded to my question post, "Winning and Losing" on Tuesday. You gave me a lot to think about; and some of your commentary was among the best poker analysis I've ever read.
playing PL 2/5 blinds. small raise by very aggressive player to my right i smooth call w/KQ off one other caller (maybe more??) checked to him on a flop of Q 10 x(small card) rainbow be bets 150, i raise 150 to 300. astute but inconsistent player raises all in (about another 200 to me). first bettor folds. i think hard he had not raised pre flop so i assumed no aces or kings. afraiud of small set or set oof tens. i call and win the pot. he did not show. was i correct in calling his raise? my winning the pot is not a factor, i am concerned with how people would play the hand . whhat did he have to make a raise Queen jack kicker JK for an open ender (there was no flush possible. comments please
I saw this hand. That was an unbelievable game as evidenced by your dragging a $1500 pot with top pair/second kicker. Against most players in most games, this would be an easy fold.
I think Alex put you (correctly)on a moderate stength hand and thought he could move you off of it. However, given that he was likely to be called by the wild child, I give him credit for at least a semi-bluff. My vote would be an 89s straight/ backdoor flush draw or a weak King (J or 9).
Good call. In this game, against these players, and with your aggressive image, I might have even made it myself. (But I wouldn't have liked it).
Now get back to work.
Oops. I screwed up the board in my response post, thinking that you hit the K instead of the Q. I would say that Alex probably had a straight draw/overcard to KJ. If he puts you on AQ, he is getting a decent price to draw to KJ with 10 outs (3 Ks, 4 9s, 3 Aces) and two cards to come.
And of course, the other straight draw would be J9s, not 89s.
Geez, I'm gonna have to start driving to NY every Saturday for this game.
I think you've missed some important elements in your story. If this is PL, and there was at least 150 in the pot after the preflop betting, and it was only 3-handed, then there had to be a raise and reraise, or a bunch of people limped in for 5 and then folded to the one raise (while only you and 1 other called). Whichever way it went, all of this is critical in helping us (and you) to guess what hands these guys are holding.
This lack of info may just be a lack of memory on your part (since the game was 3 days ago), or it may indicate that you're not paying enough attention during the game, and that you didn't really see all the action. If the latter, then this is clearly something you want to work on improving.
As for your original question, I would be STRONGLY inclined to pass KQ offsuit preflop to a raise. The only exception would be if it were a volume pot for a single raise, with everyone still having plenty of money in their stack. In this spot, I'm looking to flop a straight, or a straight draw plus overcards (i.e., a flop of JTx, where x is not a K or Q). Even 2-pair is somewhat dangerous, because someone else may have a set, and anytime you make 2-pair, someone has a straight draw (although it will often be a gutshot draw, and they may easily fold it postflop). Overall, unless you're stealing from late position, or defending the blinds (from a late position stealer), I don't like this hand in PL or NL.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
me neither but the guy who bet was on a tilt o whirl betting anything he had just dropped about 2K in winnings my raise was to get him heads up w/ possition. he proba ably made it 30 pre flop after a couple of limpers with a coup[le of pre flop callers. thanks for the pointers i always need to be riminded to take more thinkgs into consideration when playing this elegant game
I'm looking for suggestions on the best read on Omaha 8 0r better with a kill. This game is fairly popular at my casino in St. Louis and I need a book that gives me Starting hands, etc..... Thanx
Ray Zee has an awesome book. Starting hand rankings? John Payne has a good list especially if you want to play super tight. Shane Smith's book is good for beginners. And I heard Ciaffone has a new one but I haven't read that one yet.
For Omaha-8, Ray Zee's book is still the preeminent authority. Bob Ciaffone's Omaha book is easily recommended although it's the only book of his that I don't own. While I've found nuggets of wisdom in some of McEvoy's books, the Omaha book was one that I least liked (possibly because I rarely have an opportunity to play Omaha High). Still, if there's even just one valuable idea that you can get out of any book, how can you go wrong for the purchase price?
Hi Bill - I'm interested in Omaha books too. The best book I've found is called Omaha Hi-Lo Poker, written by Shane Smith. It's published by Poker Plus Publications and I bought it at Hollywood Park for about twenty bucks, including tax.
I want Ciaffone's book on Omaha, and I want Cappeletti's book on Omaha. I just haven't seen them in the book store where I buy my books. Therefore I can't evaluate them.
I read Ray Zee's book, played according to what (I thought) was the tight strategy he proposed, got killed, and was bored in the process. Everyone raves about Ray's book, so there must be differences at the (probably higher) level Ray Zee plays. All of the Omaha games in which I have played or have watched are played mostly somewhat loosely. When the game is loose, the solid starting hands proposed by Ray lose much of their value. What becomes important is the flop.
(Factor 1) In Texas Hold 'Em, with only two cards, there are fewer (by far) possible hands than in Omaha, with four cards. Thus with less than three hundred basic starting hands for Texas Hold 'Em, the hands can be listed and evaluated. I don't know how many different basic starting hands there are for Omaha - probably between 500,000 and 600,000, but let's say there are only 300,000. There's a big difference between evaluating 300 different starting hands and 300,000.
(Factor 2) But there's an even more important difference. A pair of aces is a great hand in Texas Hold 'Em, because two pair, aces over, is a good hand in Texas hold 'Em. Two pair, aces over, in NOT generally a good hand in Omaha. Unless there's an ace on the flop, or unless one of the aces makes the nut flush or the nut flush draw, or unless the other two cards in your hand fit well with the flop, you probably would do better folding your hand with two aces in Omaha. The difference is that in Hold 'Em two aces in your hand would probably be a winner, especially with few opponents, almost regardless of the flop, whereas in Omaha two aces would only be good if there was a match with the flop.
Those two factors make it very difficult, if not impossible, to list and evaluate the high starting hands in Omaha as they are listed in Texas Hold 'Em - and we haven't even considered the difficulty of tying in low hands. And all that must be the reason that we both seem to be unable to find such a listing of good starting hands in Omaha.
You could wait for a pair of aces in Texas Hold 'Em, and you'd see that pair of aces once every 221 hands. If you waited for ace, two (suited) and ace, three (also suited), the ideal Omaha hand, you'd see that (ideal) hand once every 22560 deals.
(270,725/12 = 22560)
Don't hold your breath.
regards, Frank
Ray's book doesn't address Omaha high. The pre-flop standards for Omaha high and Omaha/8 are completely different.
Ciaffone's book is the best text available for Omaha high. Unfortunately, it is a fairly thin book. Capelletti's book, IMO, is seriously flawed.
Pretty tough 10/20 hold'em game.
Aggressive (somewhat loose) player limps in early position and I call from middle position with 10s10h. There is another late position caller and then a tricky/agressive woman on the button raises. The blinds fold and we all call to take a 4-handed flop.
Flop is 10cJhQs.
Early position guy checks and I bet.
Button raises, early guy calls, and I just call.
Turn is a 4h.
First guy checks, I check, button bets.
He folds and I call.
River is a brick. I check and call. She shows 89o for the low end of the straight.
I know I played this passively, but I figued there was a good chance she did have AK, and if she didn't, a passive strategy seems to work pretty well sometimes against tricky players.
In retrospect, maybe I should have raised it up on the flop or bet out on the turn trap the other guy between us since I was not that far behind a made straight. And I may have slowed her down since you doesn't know I don't have AK.
However, with her position over me, I don't think it would ave saved me a bet on the turn or the river.
Your mistake was before the flop. A raise there would be have been near automatic (you had a chance to isolate the "somewhat loose" caller). But I believe, you did everything borderline right flop, turn, and river. The tricky lady became a lucky lady. And she plays good!
IMHO, you should have raised preflop in hopes of getting head-up, then the rest of the post would have been just academic...
Dead
You've learned nothing more about your opponents hands when you smooth call a raise on a dangerous flop holding a set.
I realize in my home game my table image is pretty well defined as well as the dozen or so other players that frequent it. But I think since I am a relative unknown in the casino games I have a distinct advantage in setting a table image early in a session and being able to use that against the regulars who all seem to know each other.Obviously being able to play on a high level helps. The question is what image would you prefer the table to believe, to have its utmost deceptive benefit. Regards J
In limit play, I am firmly in Mason's camp: Project a tight image and use it to steal some pots here and there. That is much more profitable than a wild image which may enable you to get a few more calls when you do hold the goods. And of course, when I say "tight", I mean tight but aggresive and not weak-tight.
I have no PL or NL experience. I suspect that a wild image may be more profitable in those games but I'll let those who play those games comment.
Dear 2+2 posters. I have been asked by the producers of Australia's top rated TV series to write a 55 min. show involving NL hold'em in the story. The 'show' is sold to 35 countries worldwide (incl.USA & Canada) and is currently running its second season on Aussie TV (24 -55 min.shows). In Nov/Dec it will start filming series#3 for distribution in mid 2000.The series is based around a small sea side town with some 25 different chartacters..part drama, comedy (a little), relationships and love story.It won the Aussie award for Best TV Drama in 1997 and 1998! My brief from the producers was they were "impressed with ROUNDERS and thought the game of NL HE would be exciting and make a great story line" At this stage NO payment has been mentioned and all they wanted was a 'outline'. This is where YOU 2+2 posters come in. At the time Rounders came out many people picked it to pieces and said "I could have done it better". So here's YOUR chance to put your fingers to the key board.I have a few ideas of my own, but I want to keep away from.... Card shark comes to town and cons locals, with some cheating, but locals rally together to have a rematch and tick the shark, to recover their lost money. Any help would be appreciated and it would be nice for the story to be "positive" towards NL HE (poker). Thanks folks.
You really should get in touch with Marsha Waggoner. Not only is she probably the best Australian poker player ever, but she is an excellent NL player. Given the peripatetic lifestyle of the tourney trail, perhaps she would have some stories and insight to share. The last I spoke with her, she was one of the casino hosts at Hollywood Park, and if I recall correctly, she also has some ties with a casino in Australia.
Just some details to help with the TV show. Please email idea to me or post on 2+2. Basic plot and story out line is all that is required. The seaside town is set in 1999 and it's closest town is a PORT (ie: maybe USA/Aust. Navy ships could us).The main characters are a female judge (35)- ex city Lawyer with 2 teenage kids(seperated), Chairman of the City Council (rich), several teenage children, hotel owner Lady (60s), three police, court clerk,shop owners, fisherman,etc. Judge (main character)and new different people visit the town and leave, some stay. The council also includes the trailer park owner (simple simon and his son), cafe owner, pub owner,etc. Good luck folks! Let's redo ROUNDERS for TV!
Be sure then you have lots of cheating. After all, that's what poker is all about.
For a story line there is a local poker game (low-limit)played on sat. night. The town learns that the big city politicans arranged for some developers to buy up some land next to the town for some big project(pick something) that will destroy the small seaside town tourist industry. They also offer good paying jobs to some of the town folks which means the town is now semi-split on getting rid of the developers. The developers stop by the poker game and play and it turns into NL Holdem ( the town calls in a professional NL player to help them ) and they end up losing the land and they then leave. Just my idea of a plot, hopes it helps you make a story line.
Interesting. If the politician/developer consortium buys in with deeds to the land and lose them, there's a lot of room for some irony. After losing the deeds to a small council of town representatives, the representatives then have to decide how what to do with all of this valuable seaside property. What do they do? Build a casino of course! High paying jobs for the townspeople, increased tourism, neon lights, mercilessly high rake, etc.
Hey, lets get a little esoteric here, and teach a whole new generation of TV'ers to at least think about the game... F'rinstance, the gods are playing in a NL game that goes on continually from show to show... it could take up 5-10 minutes of each show at the beginning. Yes, straight card playing with developing hands, etc. Then what happens in each vignette, parellels the developement of the hand as it unfolds. The parallels can be ...starting hands, each person or situation... the flop... major developements in the plot... turn, river, showdown, well, let your imagination be your guide. Life is an incredible combination of skill, savvy and luck, so poker could be woven thru the fabric of each series. It would really tweak peoples interest if its not too, obscure, and builds upon other shows and scenes. (Split screen action occasionally?) interpersonal drama, burn and turn as the thief gets caught with his hand in the till, or escapes at the last minute with a miracle... what a rich area to mine and what a bunch of eager, novice players would emerge out of the ashes, er embers! Warmth, cire.
Hey "Dazzler",
I keep getting told that I look like Sean Connery! How about letting me star in the movie! It could have a James Bond theme. Of course I look like Connery now because he's old and bald not when he played 007.
How about this: Sean Connery (me) comes to town (where his ancestors are from, he (me) is an American)to retire from the sea where he (me) was the Captain of a fishing boat. Upon arriving at the local pub he meets this gorgeous girl that he immediately falls in love with. Unfortunately he walks into the pub where there is a NL poker game going on and has words with one of the players for accidently spilling beer on their table and interrupting the game. The player just happens to be the girls brother. They get into a brawl. It just so happens that it is tradition in town that for the girl to go out with someone she must get permission from the family patriarch. Yep the brother. The only thing this fellow respects is a good poker playerand there ain't none of them because he thinks he's the best. So to be able to go out with the girl Sean (me) who played his share of poker on his boat gets into a headsup marathon with the brother. They play back and forth against each other until the FINAL hand. That hand sparks a great cammraderie among the two and Sean (me) gets the girl! They all live happily ever after with weekly poker games!
What a story!
Vince, ah, Sean, Ah oh forget it!
BTW if this story sounds familiar ther's a reason.
Okay, how about this: a Mike Caro-type comes to the town to play poker. Of course, he walks away with all the money, because, for example, the judge swallows whenever she has a terrific hand; the trailer park owner blinks fast whenever he has a terrific hand, etc., etc., etc. What follows from that, of course, is that the townsfolk suddenly cannot accomplish their normal day-to-day business routines, because all the residents are "reading" each other..."He said he didn't take that $20 from my wallet, but he bit his lip right after he said that. I know he's lying" or "You tell me this is your bottom line bid, but you scratched the back of your neck when you said that, so I know you're padding the figures."
The problem with this idea is I haven't figured out a way to return the townsfolk to the "status quo," i.e., "not" reading expressions, etc.
Ack!
This thread just goes to show how boring poker really is.
Brett
Okay, then....a brutal, merciless gang of poker-playing terrorists takes over the town, and...
For starters, say their is a big tournament, like Australian version of WSOP. Local lad or lass needs to win tournament for some worthwhile purpose; save grannies farm or some such cock and bull. Lad has played some 7 card stud and is pretty good, shown some natural ability in the local low limit home game but is like a fish out of water in a no limit home game. Lo and behold, there is some half wacked or half soused old hermit (could be Texan or Brit), who it turns out, once finished second in the big one. After the obligitory first refusal, the hermit agrees to teach grasshopper No Limit Hold-em, for real. The rest of the story writes itself.
Wenatchee Max - send royalties to 3163 Monterey; Malaga, Wa. 98828
Man is a loser in limit games due to lack of discipline.. can quit playing however...he turnes into NL and after going broke a few times - finaly learns those starting hands and the value of laying down low trips in bad position. From a loser he turnes into a WSOP winner in a few years and marries Doyles daugther as final price in life !!!! P.S. send my loyalty checks to those who I owe money :-)
Excuse me Andras,
That's "Royalty" not.. Hmmm, no maybe your right! Loyalty fits much better here!
Vince
Shit - I can't type any-more.... I MEANT 'Royalty' - it's too hot here.
Ok, here's a fairly unremarkable hand but I just wonder how most of you approach it.
I am in the BB with KhQh. Early position player raises and everyone folds. The raiser is a pretty good player but he tends to be someone who can get pushed around now and then (perhaps I missed a reraise?).
Flop: Q65 rainbow.
I check and call.
Turn: 2
I check and call.
River: 9
I bet (?).
Comments?
Properly played.
OK, I'm really curious now.
How is it that a check-and-call is more correct on the Flop and the Turn than either a bet or a check-raise?
Q
Hopefully I got this correct. The reason checking and calling is right on the Flop and Turn is that: A) You may already be beat; B) By playing your hand meakly you encourage your opponent to Bluff with a hand like AK; C) The only card that can come off the Deck, that you would not enjoy seeing, is an Ace.
Betting on the End depends on how your opponent plays and how he thinks you play. I won't try to dive into it here.
CV
Mr. Sklansky,
Could you please explain why a check-raise on the turn would be incorrect.
Thanks, Mike Watson
Mike, it would be incorrect if skp couldn't get his opponent to fold AQ. See my sub-thread below. David Sklansky doesn't type well, so you're not likely to get an in depth reply.
It would be incorrect because if he had a hand like JJ or AK, he would likely fold and you don't want that.
To put it another way, if you check-raise the turn it will cost you more to show down if you're behind, and you'll make less (because he'll probably fold) if you're ahead.
Well said, money-bags...cha-ching! congrats on the bad beat win.
Check raising on the turn with QJ could be right.
David,
You state that check raising could be right on the turn with QJ. Would this be good material for a post on an advanced concept that you have done in the past? It seems like skp's routine hand has turned out to be anything but routine. It does seem that the increased chances that your opponent would have AK has something to do with making a check raise as sometimes the best play on the turn.
Tom Haley
That might depend on whether UTG would raise preflop with KQ.
David Sklansky -
On page 288 and 289 of your book Getting the Best of It, you have as a topic ³Another Gambling Paradox.²
You state,
³The consistent horse remains the one with the best chance to win. (It¹s chances are 36 percent. the answer is found simply by multiplying the probability that it beats erratic horse A by the probability that it beats erratic horse B.)
36% = (60%)(60%)²
I¹m not a mathematician, but I believe you are incorrect. Here¹s why.
Earlier, also on page 288, you state,
³Now add a second erratic horse that also has a 40 percent chance of beating the consistent horse².
It seems that the probability of Erratic Horse (A) winning a two horse race must be 40%.
You don¹t say what Erratic Horse A¹s chances are against Erratic Horse B. Let¹s for now suppose that they are dead even (50%). If so it would seem that Erratic Horse A¹s chances to win a three horse race against B and C, by your line of reasoning, would be
20% = (40%)(50%).
The same would be true of Erratic Horse B¹s chances to win a three horse race against A and C. It would also have a probability of winning of 20%.
You can see that the probabilities don¹t add up to 100%.
(36%) + (20%) + (20%) = 76%.
By the way, I very much enjoy reading your stuff in Poker Digest and other places. I own several of your books.
But where did the other 24% go?
regards,
Frank Jerome
If A beat C it would no longer be 50% to beat B.
Looks lioke an Other Games post. Or maybe a math class post!
Vince
Were you called on the river?
(BTW - How are you doing SKP. Haven't heard from you, here, in a while.)
Sklansky thinks you played it correctly (properly). Well maybe. Would a "pretty good" player bet the turn if he couldn't beat Qs. After all you (I bet he thinks you are a pretty good player) called a raise, then a bet on the flop. I find it surprising that he doesn't have you beat. Maybe that's the key to Sklansky's comment. Since you don't tell us what the other player had we have to decide if you played correctly given the information that you provided. The answer is obvious. You played correctly given the information you provided. The bet on the river ensures the money gets in the pot if you have the best hand. He is unlikely to raise at theis point even with a hand like A,Q. However, I think that you should have raised either the flop or the turn. Raise the turn and you may win the pot right there. Especially if he has A,K or a pair of J,J or lower. And if he calls with A,K or an under pair you do even better. If you check raise the turn he is unlikely to play back even if he has you beat with the 2,5,6 up there. So I would have raised the flop (or at least the turn) and bet the turn. I don't like leaving it up to someone else to bet my hand.
Vince.
"Were you called on the river?"
Yes. I don't know what he had because I won the pot but it was likely JJ or 10,10 or something.
"BTW - How are you doing SKP. Haven't heard from you, here, in a while.)"
Been out of town Vince - thanks for asking.
"However, I think that you should have raised either the flop or the turn. Raise the turn and you may win the pot right there. Especially if he has A,K or a pair of J,J or lower."
I think the key here is that the pot is small and since I only have one opponent (who may already have me beat), I risk very little in giving him a cheap card. Also notice that the typical preflop raiser will often fire two barrels - on the flop and on the turn. As such, if I am leading, I don't actually end up giving a free card because he will bet it for me.
BTW, there are some players who would never bet on the turn if they still have nothing. Against such players, you are better off betting the turn and taking the pot right there i.e. why risk giving a free shot for the fellow to hit his Ace when you have no shot of inducing him to bluff again on the turn. Of course, if you are called on the turn, you likely would check on the river unless you improved.
I have trouble imagining a player "that is easy to push around" betting a less than top pair hand into a solid player. But, whatever works. I find no fault with your line of play. BTW -stay away from my game!
Vince.
I understand the checking and calling the flop and turn, since he raised from early position, you either save bets if your beat or make bets if he is bluffing after the flop. but I'd like to read a furhter explanation of the bet on the end.
Reasons to make the bet on the end:
1. You will call if he bets with KK or AA
2. He will only call you (i.e., not raise) if you bet into him and he has AA or KK (and possibly even QQ given that I could hold a straight).
3. He will check behind you if he has JJ or 10,10 but will likely call you if you bet.
4. Once in a blue moon, he may throw away a hand like AQ if you bet.
Reasons not to bet:
5. He will throw away if he has AK but may bluff with it if you check (Notice that it is almost always incorrect to bluff with AK at the end if you have raised with it preflop. I almost never do it figuring that if my opponent has a pair, he will call me and if he doesn't, I have the best no pair hand. Some guys don't think this way and just bluff away. If that is the case, then you are better off checking here.)
6. You might be bluff-raised and somehow convince yourself to fold.
On balance, IMO, betting is better. Reasons 1 and 2 cancel each other out. Reasons 3 and 4 have greater weight than reasons 5 or 6.
I should say that the comment about never bluffing with AK at the end only applies to heads-up confrontations. If you are in a 3 way pot, a "squeeze play" is often called for. That is, it may be right to bluff if for example, you put the fellow to your left on a pair and the third player on a busted draw. Your bet may squeeze out the best hand.
True, although in my experience if there's three guys at the river, generally you've lost a few on the flop and turn, which means the pot's so big that they're going to call you with anything here in the hopes that you specifically hold an unimproved slick.
I’m glad you posted a routine hand.
We could all benefit, I think , by seeing lots more of common hands in common situations that come up way more often.
Was your bet on the River dependent on the 9?
That's a good question about the 9. I think the 9 is about the safest card to bet with on the river given that even QQ may have a tough time raising me. However, I would probably make the same play against most players even if the River card paired the board.
Against some players, I would check and call. These are the kamikazes who may raise on the River with KK (and since he is a kamikaze, I would have to call). Also, these aggressive players are also the types most likely to bet with JJ or AK on the River thus making a check on the river the better play.
You see Erin, this guy SKP thinks too much. That wouldn't be a problem except that he is usually correct in his thinking. The only times I can remember him being wrong was when he disagreed with me!
Vince.
If I was your opponent, I would have thought you made your straight on the end. Only, if I thought you were a little card upfront player. Otherwise, I'm lost.
I don't see how the bet on the river is correct. If your opponent was betting overcards or your "weakness" then he won't call on the river. If he had a real hand, then there is a good chance that you are beat AND he won't lay it down, even with a possible straight against him. It seems to me that your only profit comes when he is betting an underpair. If that were the case, then he might have bet on the end anyway. So he has to have an underpair AND call your bet AND not bet if you check in order for betting to be correct.
Just my two Canadian cents. Eric
Think about all the possible hands this opponent could have: They include AA, KK, QQ, AK, AQs, and maybe JJ or TT.
If SKP checks the river, his opponent will bet any hand that beats him, and he has to call. If he bets the river, his opponent can really only raise him if he has QQ, and even that is iffy, because he most likely would have been raised on the turn had his opponent had QQ. So, if he's beat he loses a bet whether he bets or checks.
However, if his opponent has AK, JJ, or TT, he'll check if SKP checks, but he might call if SKP bets. So, he isn't risking anything by betting, but he picks up an extra bet if his opponent has one of these hands and calls.
I don't quite understand the logic. if you are playing in a defensive mode to try to save bets, how does this suddenly change on the end. if you check and he bets and you call he might be betting a busted hand .
You aren't in a 'defensive mode', you are simply trying to maximize your EV. When you flop top pair heads-up like this you can't simply fold it, so by checking and calling you get the best of both worlds - you induce a bluff if your opponent has AK, and you save money if he has something like AA or KK. The only thing you are giving up with this strategy is a little protection - if your opponent has AK he might check, take a free card, and hit an Ace or a King. But that's a reasonable tradeoff when the pot is small.
In this case, slick is drawing to a three outer, so there's virtually no reason to protect your hand. As Dan said, the basic logic at work here is that by checking and calling the flop and turn you're either a) saving money if your beat, or b) earning money (by having UTG bet your hand for you) if your ahead. If you lead bet the turn you could (and, in fact, probably will) run into a raise from the other player. If he plays straightforward, this is fine; you simply muck. However, two very ugly things can happen here. First, he could very well muck a hand that's a huge dog (pair of pocket J's or less, AK, KJs, etc.), in which case you lose not only the bet he would have made on the turn, but a bet on the river should he choose to call. Secondly, if he's been known to get a little loosy goosey, you could run into a semi bluff raise, in which case you're suddenly thrust into a huge guessing game.
So, you check and call the turn. By betting the river, however, you're putting your opponent in a tight spot, since it's only 1 in 10 guys who will raise on the river with an overpair if the lead better hasn't yet shown aggression. Further, there's a fair chance that he'll call, hoping to pick off a bluff.
What it boils down to on the river is that your opponent will just call with a wide variety of hands (including plenty that are worse than yours), but will only bet a few hands. Since he'll call more than he'll bet, will 'probably' only bet hands that beat yours, AND will likely call with a whole slew of hands worse than yours, the bet makes sense.
BTW, Dan, one small nit. In your original post you said if the guy's got a set of Q's he's raise the turn, but skp didn't bet the turn. Just for the record :)
That damned skp, always slithering away from a raise...
Uh, yeah. I have no idea what I was thinking about.
I would raise skp on the river with AA or KK since I would not be concerned with the nine on the river making him a straight. I'd have expected him to semibluff bet an openended draw on the flop into a small pot. Since he check/called the turn I don't fear two pairs or a set (except maybe if he was playing pocket nines). Skp should also not fear I have AK since I ought to be taking the free card on the turn as I don't put him on a draw. I'll agree that betting the turn with AK is alright provided I think there's a decent chance skp has 87.
As to possible hands for the opponent, I agree for the most part. However, I am not as sure as you about how they would be played. Somebody who checks and calls the flop and turn, and then bets the river with a non-threatening board is within epsilon of never bluffing. A decent opponent could well throw away an underpair, and certainly throw AK. If you are beat, then you lose a bet either way (but maybe more if he raises). If you are ahead, then I don't see you getting a whole lot of action. I think the best chance to get more money is to get the opponent to bet a weaker hand. It is true that there will be a lot of check-checks on the river, but this is no worse than a likely bet-fold.
skp's hand is basically a bluff-catcher. Let it do its job.
Eric
You said this was a player who might be pushed around a bit. I'd expect he has at least KQ (I agree with Vince that he's saying he can beat queens on the turn) but most likely AQ or better with the possible exception of AK. Now I'd be concerned with betting AK again given that you called a bet on the flop and are not likely to have a good draw such as 87 since you'd do better leading into the pre-flop raiser with this type of hand (I don't think I need to elaborate) and he'd do better taking the free card. So, I'd heavily discount him being on AK.
With this in mind, I would have checkraised the turn holding what I believe is not the best hand. There is a decent possibility he'll read you for having slowplayed the flop since the deuce cannot have helped. He's really facing two BBs here since he must expect you'll also bet the river. So if he has AA or KK you could be reasonably sure he would reraise immediately on the turn, which gets you off the hook. What the checkraise on the turn does is gets him off the AQ since you're representing a hand which AQ is either drawing dead to, or has at most five outs. The only problems are if he has QQ in which case checkraising costs one extra big bet (he waits until the river to re-pop you), or if he has JJ TT 99 (he folds costing you a bet on the river).
At the turn, if he has AA KK AQ (17 ways) your play costs you one BB when he raises on the river. If he has JJ TT 99 (18 ways) your play gains you one BB (assuming he reads you for at least queens and folds when you bet the river). If he has QQ (1 way) your play saves you one BB.
If you checkraise the turn and he has AA KK (9 ways) you save one BB when you fold to the reraise. If he has AQ (8 ways) you save about 1.5 BBs. I'm assuming he'll fold immediately about 40% of the time, or fold on the river unless he improves. If he has QQ JJ TT 99 (19 ways) you lose one BB.
Now (19*1)/(17*1) = 1.12 is almost the same as (9*1)+(8*1.5)/(19*1) = 1.11, so which method of play has the greater EV depends completely on your assessment of how he would react to your checkraise on the turn when he does have AQ. Do you think this player would fold more or less than 40% of the time holding AQ on the turn?
If this was just an average player holding AQ, then you can expect to be called down (turn and river). In that case I agree absolutely with David Sklansky's reply that you played it right. If this was a weak/tight player holding AQ who puts opponents on hands, then I'd say you missed the raise on the turn. Only knowing what you posted "... pushed around now and then ...", would make me inclined to do just that, particularly since I read him more for AQ than an under pocket pair - as he could have correctly just called UTG with those hands.
In retrospect, my description of the fellow being someone who can get pushed around was perhaps a bit misleading. I didn't mean to say that the man would fold AQ for a raise if the Q was the high card on the board. What I meant was if say the flop came with 3 low cards, a checkraise on the flop may cause him to nearly always fold on the turn if he fails to pair up.
There was in my estimation also a good chance that he would bet again with a hand like JJ on the turn given that I had done nothing to indicate that I held a Queen. Also, in my experience, most players would bet again on the turn with AK in a heads-up confrontation (yes, the guy can get pushed around but he has to sense that someone's pushing).
Minor quibble. You said "If you checkraise the turn and he has AA KK (9 ways) you save one BB when you fold to the reraise"...not true...checking and calling twice costs me the same while giving me the opportunity to improve on the river.
Considering you can both sometimes improve with the river card, I discounted that. You didn't check/call twice (turn and river), you bet the river for value. If he had AA or KK you'd have been raised (the nine scares no one). Unless you throw your top pair away for one more bet on the river you'd be losing one BB this way. Checkraise (turn) costs two BB since you'd fold to the reraise. Check/call (turn) Bet/call a raise (river) costs three BB. Would this player just call your bet on the river holding an overpair after you showed weakness by check/calling two rounds (dubious)? If so, then I like the way you actually played it even if he could have been pushed off AQ. Now that you've clarified that he really wouldn't have let go of AQ any more than say 10% of the time, I can only conclude that you played it well.
What? Nobody even discusses whether you should call the raise?
If the player has a group 1 "premium" hand you have to pray he has JJ and you are about even money. Otherwise you are in deep smushy-canned-peas. The fact that you are tempted to play meekly after the flop even when you catch good is further justification for a fold.
The fact that this player is easy to push around encourages a call, but you didn't try to push this player around. If you intended to try to push this player around when you flop a draw, then you should also raise right away when you make your pair.
KQs is cheese against a premium hand. There is no shame in folding cheese against a better hand in held by an equivalent player in better position. It may be close if the player may also have a group 2 hand.
The above is geared for sensibly selective UTG opponents. Granted, there really aren't that many of them.
- Louie
You are absolutely correct in that KQs can be a trouble hand against an early position raiser who plays very well after the flop. However, different story if the player is someone who can be "pushed around". However, I figured that I didn't need to push him around once I hit (of course, once he figures that out, I will have to adjust my play again).
River:check. If he bets,call. Yawn.....
I am just a girl and don't know much about poker, but it seems that this hand was either born dead on the flop or was not. I don't understanding dragging it all the way to the river to find out. Slow Playing top pair, is that something you're supposed to do?
Just a girl! Just a girl with a message that is! Read and head SKP. The next time you SLOW PLAY top pair remember what this JUST A GIRL is trying to tell you! Answer the question: Is that something you are supposed to do?
Sally,
BTW I happen to JUST LIKE GIRLS so if these MALE posters give you any trouble that you need help with give me a buzz. (Not that I think you need any help with this crew)
Vince
I thought the question was answered above. GD provides the most succint answer.
I am so sorry that I said anything that would cause you to put your thoughts in BOLD TYPE.
Vince always puts his thoughts in bold type. It's the way he expresses himself, and I'm sure he didn't mean to offend you in any way. In fact, if you read his post closer, I think you'll see that he was trying to show you some support.
Sally,
Since you didn't list your e-mail I will post a response to your previous response. I meant no harm nor disrespect with my response to your previous post. I picked up on "just a girl" and used it my response more for humor than anything else. I certainly believe that you asked a valid question worthy of a response. If I offended you in anyway please except my appology. It was not my intention. I for one welcome "all" to post on this forum and encourage everyone to speak there mind. I have, I admit, overstated a few things in some of my responses (2+2 has correctly reprimanded me in the past). Please do not let my silliness, in any way, affect your welcomed and needed participation on this forum.
Vince.
Sally,
Bold type is merely whe way an Italian compensates for not being able to wave his hands all around while he types.
Regards,
Rick
DATTSA MY BOY!
TANK YUO RICKY!
Vince.
skp -
When do you make the decision to make a play when low cards flop? Do you look at the math only or do you consider other factors (discounting that once he's "onto you," you tighten-up)? If so, what other factors do you consider?
By the way, I agree you played the hand correctly. By my estimation, you were somewhere in the range of being a strong favorite to only a slight underdog on the flop, and you don't want to lose him when ahead or cost yourself extra bets when behind. The turn bet changes things a bit, but again I agree many good players will semi-bluff or obstensibly bet hands for value that top pair can beat at this point.
skp -
Question 2: KQs gives you pot odds for calling the preflop raise against underpairs and against a player offering steal equity if low cards hit the flop. Considering the latter part of the equation to call the raise preflop, how weak do you go with your starters in calling his raise heads up in the big blind?
Good question.
I am not going to get too far out of line in calling with weak hands given the early position of the raiser. Obviously, one can loosen up from the blinds as the position of the raiser gets closer to the button particularly if the raiser is someone who can be pushed around. Also, the games I play in are usually contested multi-way...so, there is not much of a constant threat of having your blinds stolen. Heads-up confrontations are a raity in my games.
Perhaps, some of the Vegas players can post and teach us something here.
David Sklansky had a good list of heads-up confrontations in the last issue of Poker Digest, showing how far each one was behind. Given that you are getting in for half price, that makes quite a few hands playable heads-up. And if you can outplay your opponent, you can play many more.
One of my greatest weaknesses probably is that I am not much of a math player. Even my responses on this Forum are rarely math-based (i.e. aside from the basics such as a pre-flop raiser is much much more likely to have AK than AA or KK combined etc.) Poker is a game of people. I try to play the man and not just the cards that are dealt to me.
Orleans Casino.
Tuesday night (last night) 7 stud tournament.
Split first place with another player.
Question: Should I have continued to play for sole possesion of first place? I don't get to the final table that often to not try and win the whole thing. Here's how things went: Got to final table in third or fourth chip position. When it got heads up I was out chipped by 25,000 to 11,000. The other player never said a word. At that point I made my mind up to not make a deal! First place paid $1010. 2nd place $530. I wanted to win it all. We played heads up for about 40 minutes. I won enough chips to be even. I felt as though I had the momentum (I'm also very good heads up or short handed, ego thing). When I started making a move he kept asking how many chips were in play. I felt that he wanted to offer a deal but he never did. When I got even in chips I thought for a moment. If we chopped there I get $770 if I win it I get $1010. I was tired and had been playing for 5 1/2 hrs. Ante was $1000. Bring in $3000 $5000-$10,000 level. It was now a crap shoot so I asked if he wanted to chop (put ego aside). He said o.k. and that was that.
Comments please. Especially from those who have been there/done that!
Vince
At that stage of an event, I've offered deals to and been offered deals by some of the very best tourney players. Often it happens 3 or 4 handed. I'm not very eager to make a deal before it's headsup, but once the blinds get real high, if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me. There should be no ego to it really; if you want to shoot craps play on, if you want to moderate the fluctuations, take the deal and go get some sleep. I'm guessing that if one you didn't have it already, the deal included the TOC qualifier.
I haven't been there but according to your post you played until it became a crap shoot, since one raise and a reraise would have put one of you all in. Anyway, there would be no reason to play on unless you wanted the experance of playing heads up to the end.
What "experience of playing heads up on the end"? The game will be over in two hands!
You don't wanna be in a crapshoot. You did the right thing. If you had continued playing, you would not have had any control over the outcome and that's not what prudent poker is about. Good (obvious) move.
You did the right thing if you believe you did the right thing. If the chips were nearly even, then from an EV point of view your deal was fine. If you think that this guy now wanted a deal, then you maybe should have asked for more. For example, tell him you'll settle for $800 and he can have the rest. If he's too dim to add it up right, then you'll get the better end of the deal. If you are confident that you've got the edge, use that as part of the deal process (i.e., don't settle for less than whatever you estimate your EV to be at that point).
Of course, with there being only 7 small bets in play, it is really a crap shoot. I mean, you can definitely be dealt a hand that's favored on the next deal, be essentially forced to put all your chips in by 5th street (because he's betting and you know you're ahead), and still lose. At this stage, even if he's a total chump, you're not much of a favorite. Only someone who's totally rocked up is a big dog at this stage.
Consider asking for a specific amount next time. I can recall offering a deal that was about 10% to my favor that was accepted simply because the other guy didn't really know the chip counts. He was just looking at the relative size of our stacks.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Although you're approaching the 'crap-shoot' level, there is a certain satisfactionin finishing first after all that time, and heads up play with a 'first place' at stake is always valuable. I've done things like ""Lets each take $650 and play for the rest", thus assuring a certain minimum for each, and also an incentive to win the rest. It is an individual thing however and definately suit yourself.
I think I like your idea. However after playing 5 1/2 hours I decided to hang it up and dispense with the glory of winning!
Vince
V - I was at and watched closely the WSOP this year. Being able to be present and muster up concentration no matter what the circumstances struck me as a key piece in doing well. Being at the last table heads up with someone else who wants the money or to win as much (or more) than you is an opportunity. Pretend its 1st & 2nd in a 'real' event and the outcome matters. Hey, no real athelete always likes training, sparring, whatever. Those willing to do it however, have a 'leg up' when the real thing happens. I got heads up with someone (out of 60) in a smallish NL tournament in LA a while back. He could not get me to make a deal! He wanted to stop playing, I said split and play, he said no either cut or play (I was outchipped). I wanted to play to the end and have him care enough to really pay attention. First was~$4800, 2nd~$2200. So we played... I came in second, played great and the two hands I got all in on I knew where I was at, had a better hands than he, and he drew out twice to bust me. I, no regrets, I knew I played better, got drawn on, no problem. If I'm going to lose, I always hope it was getting my money in in the correct place with my instincts telling no lies. (Instincts didn't say nuthun' about being drawn out on, gotta work on that) Anyway, it felt great! Sure I was tired, wanted more money, didn't want to lose...and when comes the time when its 480,000 & 220,000 and TJ don't wanna make a deal... well at least I'll know what it feels like. Unless you've been there so often that it is the money and not the energy, and yes i know it was really a crapshoot at that point, I just wanted to make a point for not automatically making a deal and playing it down to first. Hope we met in that situation sometime, you'll recoginise me by the amount of concentrated fun I'm having! cirE
Didn't you state that you was tired? That should have been enough to make your decision for you. Of course you make that deal, unless you think you are much better than your opponent.
George: Tired, schmired, you're almost THERE. Goeth thee for it! See my above posting. True crapshootness actually is the only real reason for splitting or if you really have the worst of it. And still...get your experience where you can!
Two call. One early, one late. Small blind calls and I call in big blind with A6o. Flop 3,4,A offsuit. Small checks, I bet the other two fold, small calls. On a turn comes an off 9. He checks, i bet, he raises(small blind a tough player when he is winning and he is winning, he is also quite capable of bluffing in this spot with such hands as A4, K4, Q4 or even a total blank(once in a blue moon))
I think he might have taken a shot at me since he knows i would bet any pair in this spot (or better) however if raised would fold. Also I beleived that he knew if i had an ace i would probably call him in this spot or would I? I decided he had me trapped, but i wonder? (P.S I was stuck and tilting, also i think i'm calling players down too much when getting raised on the turn, i beleive it has cost me quite a bit)
All opinions are welcome. Thanks.
Without answering your question, let me just say that against such players who can get fancy and at times put you in a pickle, you might consider checking behind him on the turn (obviously, I wouldn't do it if the pot was big but yours was still a small pot). If you have him badly beat, you are more likely to get a big bet out of him by checking the turn (i.e. he may now bluff on the river or be more willing to call your bet on the river). If he has you beat, you save money by checking...a classic "either-or" situation.
skp is right here. would this player have called you on the flop with nothing?
you have top pair, but no kicker. if he calls you on the flop then checking the turn is probably the right play since you could possibly induce a bluff, or save a bet if he has you beat.
i would probably have folded in your situation and then realized that checking is the right play. one more small point. THEY ARE ALL TRICKY
That's what happened. I folded and then i realized I should have checked the turn. But realizations could be costly in this game.
By the way I think he would probably check the river most of the time after i checked the turn because at that point he'll know mostly likely I have enough of a hand to call since I checked the turn
My intuitive impulse immediately after reading your post was to say to myself, "Just pay him off". And that's what I would painfully do in this situation. It' fifty/fifty between him value betting versus him bluffing. And both the immediate pot odds and the effective odds (assuming you also call a bet on the river) offer you better than 50/50. Turn:call River:call
Assuming he bets the river you would risk 2bb to pay him off and receive 6bb reward if you win. Whichever of you that has the 2nd best hand hasn't much of a draw.
Head's up I'd say this player is going to steal more often than once for every lagitamite 3 slow-plays. Pay it off.
However: On the turn you have a good but easily beatable hand, the opponent is a favorite to bluff the river, "free" cards are not much of an issue, the pot is small, and you are heads-up. This hand is therefore a prime candidate for "encouraging a bluff". Checking the turn should recieve consideration.
- Louie
Thank you all for responding.
I thought about checking the turn as some of you suggested. It seemed a little strange to me that he would just call with that ragged a flop, however I also thought that if in fact I had him beat any 2 thru 5 would possibly loose the pot for me.
What made me bet and then fold was the little smirk that he gave me when he checked the flop and then again on a turn. I wasn't looking for it, but he gave me this ''tell'' anyway. Now I went through and bet figuring he was either very strong or he really wanted that free card. When he check raised me I thought about and folded, but I think he might have fooled me anyway.
by the way I thought it was 1 in 3 to 5 range that he was bluffing or was 1 in 5 to 3(pretty big range, like I said he had me confused)
Suppose in late position, either on the button or one before the button, you call with small suited connectors such as 54s, 65s, or 76s. Either 8 or 9 see the flop, which makes your small flush. How should this hand be played in these various situations? Of course, all these questions depend on the texture of the flop. I'll assume no straight-flush possibility, as well as an unraised pot pre-flop.
1. Checked to you and you find yourself check-raised when you bet.
2. Early position better, two or three callers before you.
3. Middle position better, one or two callers before you.
4. Person to the right of you bets.
5. A bet and a raise before the action comes to you.
A secondary question is, what do you do for the same 5 situations when the flop makes you a flush, yet there are only 4-6 players calling preflop in an unraised pot. Perhaps a more common situation is when you find a four-flush on the flop, no straight possibility and no pair.
Bill
1. Reraise 2. Raise 3. Raise 4. Raise unless you have a good reason to expect someone from early position will checkraise. In that case smooth call with the intention of reraising. 5. Reraise
In general play your made flush as fast as possible. Do whatever you think will get the most money into the pot right now on the flop. A small flush is a very bad hand to consider slowplaying because the hands that can beat you are not going to fold anyway. You will not be able to get someone holding the ace or king of the flush suit out of the pot. You will not be able to get someone with a set to fold either. You cannot let these hands draw for a fourth card of your suit, or a board pair cheaply.
A four-flush (draw) is a good hand, usually bet. There are some situations where you would raise a bet or even checkraise with such a hand. These situations often require that you expect one of two possible results: A) everyone folding to your move - you win without having to make your hand. B) at least two players calling on the flop who will then check to you on the turn, or four players calling on the turn. You would also consider betting your four-flush even if a straight draw is possible or if the board is paired. This is possible when there are just a few players who see the flop and you think there's a good chance they'll fold to apparent strength rather than chase you down the whole way. If you are in a game where lots of hands go to the showdown (someone always keeps the bettor honest) then you have to win by completing that flush, so now it would often be best to check and call if the pot has more than just a few chips to go after.
My experience with small flushes is that I am a slight favorite to win, with six or more players. Therefore, I have found that a raise on the flop usually does not get the four-card draws out. They will take two small bets. I try to get into a situation where I can raise the turn; making it two big bets to the drawers. That will often cause them to get out. I wouldn't necessarily put the check raiser on a flush; just as probable, he has two pair or a set and is trying to play it fast. I will simply call his reraise. If the turn is not another of the suit, I will raise him on the turn. If he raises me back, I will pro0bably give it up. But until I get resistance on the big bets, I'm going to assume I have the winner. But with six or more players, a small flush often is going to cost you money. I know of whereof I speak. Just last night I played one terribly. I misread the turn card as a Q of clubs; when it was actually the Q of spades. I was checked raise and thought there were only three spades on teh board. There were actually four. I lost a big one because I did not take a careful enough of look at the Q. I swore it was a club, but it wasn't. I should have given up the hand; and it cost me a bundle when I didn't.
My advice was to play it fast WHILE there are only three of the suit on board. Sometimes the fourth flush card gets there, and often someone had had the nut or second nut draw. They still have to be made to pay before they release on the river.
I agree with what you say concerning all situations, although the last situation, when you are facing a bet and a raise, may need a little qualifying. I agree that you should reraise in an effort to further define your opponents' hands, and get more money in the pot. The question is, when can you let go of the flush?
If the betting on the flop is capped by either the original bettor or the raiser, does that scream high (nut?) flush? I'm just not sure if you wouldn't call the bettor down in this situation. On the other hand, if you are just called by the bettor and raiser, then you must know your opponent. Are they tricky enough to NOT define their hand, or do they fear that you've made the flush? And of course, if they're a maniac...
Bill
It's more a question of against who can you let the made flush go, rather than when. Many players will cap the action on the suited flop with a set, so it doesn't necessarily mean you're up against the nut flush here. The way I feel about it is that if I'm beat or get drawn out by the singleton ace or king of suit, then that's just unfortunate. Playing fast is NOT going to get the ace or king to fold, but if I have a made flush with say 76s then I can also lose to other hands with one card higher than my seven. It is those hands that need to be convinced that they are drawing dead to the nut flush I'm representing. If I lose the pot to someone with a JT with one card to my suit, then I probably played the hand wrong unless my opponent is a beginner.
In most of these multi-way situations, I would not raise until the turn. You will regret raising the flop when a fourth card of the suit comes on the run. By waiting for the turn and a non suited card, you are much more likely to end up with the best hand.
Just my opinion.
Rob
Rob said what I wanted to say; but he said it better.
You regret it when you can't then release the counterfeited small flush. Multi-way it's not as likely someone will fire into a suited board on the turn with two pairs. I still prefer to play the flush fast on the flop, but the 21C alternate play is perfectly valid too. It's something I would use to mix up my play (maybe 25% of the time when the conditions are appropriate).
What is the 21C alternate play?? I have not yet read this.
Rob
2+2 updated Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players, and called it the 21st. Century Edition. Hence 21C refers to additional material therein.
Sorry, maybe my last message wasnt clear. I was wondering what was the new theory in the book regarding playing small flushes, not what the 21C referred to.
Thanks.
Rob
I could explain it, but this is 2+2's website and they're trying to sell books. I think they would prefer you buy a copy since this is new material. It has to do with strategy changes when you're in very loose games due to the pot sizes generated, and players who will go too far with their weak draws.
The point here is, you made a SMALL flush. When the flop is suited, you can be guaranteed that someone else has a higher flush made, or more likely that one of their cards is suited higher than yours. If you don't make that assumption going in, you are whistling past the graveyard. Just my opinion from seeing it happen too many times in real life.
Actually, if all 10 players see the flop regardless of the hands they hold, there's only about a 36% chance that someone else also flopped a flush. In the real world, players usually won't play hands like 72s, so the likelihood of being up against another flopped flush is much lower, maybe 15% or something.
Now, if you have the only flush but someone has a higher flush card in their hand, you are still a 2.24:1 favorite to have the best flush by the river (i.e. another card of the same suit doesn't drop). In the real world, players will usually fold if their flush card isn't the Ace or King, making your real odds much better.
I think you have a skewed perception of how weak this hand is because it's a memorable event when you get beaten, but you forget about all the times that it stood up. The human memory is really bad at recording statistical events that have significance.
NL HE tournament. Very early stages. blinds are 5,10, and average stack is at least T300. I'm the big blind with 6c7c and T240. A bunch of limpers, and the button raises to T30. SB calls, I call, everyone else calls, and 8 of us see the flop.
Flop is KcTc3c. SB checks.
There are a couple of aggressive players in the hand behind you. Of the 7 opponents, at least 3 of them will give serious respect to any bet or raise you make. The other 4 are tending towards the calling station side of the game, and/or the maniacal side.
What do you do?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Check and call any bets on the flop. Move in on the turn if no club falls...otherwise release.
My guess is that you will be pushing most of your chips in pre-flop anyway.
Check, planning to raise all in.
If no one bets, move in on the turn unless a club comes.
William
I'm not an expert at no-limit or limit for that matter, but I'll give it a shot.
In this particular spot I would bet my entire stack without any hesitation!
If I get a play fine if I'm beat fine the money is in. I'm trying to win the 240 that's out there which will double my stack. If I get called I might triple my stack but who's going to call me some guy with trips or the guy with an A. I certainly don't want their action in this spot. If I don't get called I can't loose.
Bet it and make them decide whether they feel lucky or not
my opinion
Either move it all in or throw it away.
I am not sure I would have played this hand in No-Limit, but if I did I would unquestionably put my whole stack in. You may not get the Ace of Clubs to fold, but you'll get the other one card flush draws out, and if you are already beat that's just too bad.
Danny S
"Do you feel lucky punk? Well do ya". Clint Eastwood "Dirty Harry". Poker is a game of skill. Poker is a game of luck. This hand demonstrates quite effectively the "luck" side of Poker. You have no way of knowing what will occur if you bet or check. Some responders say bet "all in". Surprisingly, no one asked if this was a rebuy tournament and were rebuys still allowed. Live rebuys could dramatically affect your decision. Let's say there are rebuys left. Well then the answer is obvious "Make them pay to draw out on you" raise all in. If your beat already get your wallet out. But what if there are no rebuys. Now if you move all in and are unlucky "you is dead". Dead is not good. Some pro's may say bet all in regardless and if you lose go find a side game. No big deal. Well punk, if you feel lucky put it all in. That's what tournaments are all about now aren't they?
I don't happen to think that winning a tournament is dependent on luck alone. I am more apt to believe (want to believe) that skill will eventually be the deciding factor in who gets the dough. So where is the skill in betting all in? If someone with the Ac,xo has a lot of chips they may call but I doubt it. Betting all in can only win you the pot right there. It cannot at this stage win you the tournament. But it can lose the tournament for you. What does a check do for you. It doesn't win or lose the pot for you right there. Nor does it Kill your chances of winning the tournament. So if you check then what? Well as usual that depends on what happens next. Check aroun. Turn card, the person that best if everyone doesn't check, etc. Making a decision based on as much information available as possible makes the best use of your intelligence and skills. I want more information at this point before I am willing to risk my life (stack). I say check!
Vince.
Check! was my answer. I also don't see a problem with a small bet. An information gathering bet. Believe it or not, a bet of as little as $30 may win this pot right there for you.
Vince.
Whether it's a rebuy or not, I would do as Vince suggests. Make a small bet at the pot. But, if someone moves in with their stack and it is a rebuy, I would call, otherwise fold.
My reasoning for the small bet, is to build the pot a little bigger. Futhermore, someone may think you have the nut flush and drop with a hand that could have beaten you on the river. Plus, keep in mind that you will be able to bluff those players that drop latter on. I think its a good flop to bluff at even if you don't have club.
Thanks for your input. Here's what I did, and my reasoning at the time.
I mentioned that 3 players would respect my action. I decided to bet all-in because I knew they would fold anything less than top set, the Ac, or a made flush better than mine (they might even fold a few made flushes better than mine). I felt that the weaker players would give me action, which I wanted at this point. My stack was too small, and I wanted to win a bunch. These guys might call with something really stupid like top pair plus a single club less than my 6c.
Only one weak player called, and he had the Ac with a K. The turn gave him trip Ks, but the river came through for me, and I triples through. No happy ending, as I went bust with KK to a flopped set a little later (yes, I raised preflop, and no, there was no opportunity to get away from my hand, against that player, unless I was psychic).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I know this is a little late and I am no NL expert, but with all that $ in the pot, there seems to be no choice but to go get it. I agree with your reasoning 100%. it would be hard for anyone to call unless they had a very big flush. You have (essentially) zero chance to improve your hand, and others have a big chance to improve theirs to be better than yours.
Good luck. Sorry about the kings.
I really don't like the play of this hand. If these players were so weak and would play "stupid" there would have to be much better opportunities in the future to win than this one.
Vince
no raises. i have 98s in small blind flop is 9 and 6x(small card )clubs i bet 30 dollars. button raises 200 he did not re raise me pre flop so i am as sure as i can be that he does not have a larger pair i pout him on one of two hands AK c or 78 clubs thus giving him a 15 outer twice for either hand, of course if he had a set i waas dead but i could not see him putting in a huge over bet (there was 0nly 60 or 70 in the poT) on that kind of hand i called and took him down. ( i seem to be posting about winning hands w/ one pair, this might be a leak nes pas?) he said he had ak of clubs and i was wrong to call. am i a big dog to 15 outs twice? should i call (Nicky DD) not a very strong player opinions please BTW i was down over 600 got back to up 125 and gave 400 back when i knew i was leaving in 15 minutes. lame on my part i need to stop that.
MM-
You are a slight dog to a flush draw with two overcards. You will lose about 55% of the time. If he has only one overcard (such as with Ax suited or Kx suited), you are still only going to win 45% of the time. You should keep in mind that against a tightish player, this the BEST you could hope for as you could also be up against a set, a better nine, tens, or even nines and sixes. IMO, Nicky DD might limp with pocket tens, A9s or even 96s in a multiway pot, so I don't know how you can be that sure you are not a bigger dog.
Anyway, lets assume the best case as described above and look at the math. I'll also assume there is $30 in the pot preflop plus your $30 bet, making it a $60 pot prior to his $230 bet ($30 call and $200 raise). This analysis also only works if you someone is all-in on the flop, since it doens't factor in turn or river bets.
The pot is laying you $230 + $60 = $290 for a $200 call.
You will win 45% to 55% of the time, depending on whether he has one or two overcards. So your expected value if you call the $200 is .45*($290+$200)= $221 or .55*($290+$200) = $270. Compare this to your EV to fold, which is to save the 200 bucks with metaphysical certainty and you are "profiting" between $21 and $70. Seems like a reasonable call to me, IF:
1) You are at least 90% certain that he has one of these two drawing hands.
2) One of you are all-in on the flop, since I don't know how you can play the turn out of position since so many scare cards can fall and you can't afford to give a free card once the pot gets so big.
BTW, I like Nicky's raise here, AND I like your call. You put him on a hand and were willing to back your read with your chips. This should discourage others from taking shots at you.
His play would have been even stronger if you both had a lot more chips, since the threat of a big turn bet or the chance that you might pay off if he pairs up gives his $200 raise considerably more leverage.
"...and gave 400 back when i knew i was leaving in 15 minutes. lame on my part i need to stop that."
Well, perhaps you let your guard down when you are about to leave (such as attempting some spectacular ill-conceived bluff), and that IS lame . Perhaps the other players suddenly get good when they know you are leaving (such as attempting some spectacular well-conceived bluff), but I doubt it.
But otherwise, it "should" not matter that you are leaving so the fact that you lost $400 during this period is irrelevant (assuming you still played well). If so, what's lame is the "should have left while I was ahead" post-analysis implied in your last phrase.
Having said that, I must suggest that you DO leave right away if you feel you are in danger of losing, since this feeling is very likely to cause you to play worse and is thus strongly self-fulfilling. It "shouldn't" matter but it often "does". And I suggest you work on your "I am even at the beginning of each hand" attitude, one of many top attitudinal skills expressed by Caro.
- Louie
OK, so this doesn't apply that well to you and I'm using your post as a spring board to sound off.
Ok nl tourney and we are 9 left.. Very loose game and always lots of action the avarage stack is about 500 but thers one player very loose agressive with 4000 and another big stack with about 2000. my stack is abot 500.. with blinds 40-80 i pick up 10,9c in middle late postition and call the blind witch sevral people alredy has done some more call behind me but no raise ...we take the flop 7 handed..with both the big stacks in.. Flop comes 9h,10h, 7d a small stack opens raises all in about 200 and gets re-raise by the big stack up to 500 the second largest stack calls the reraise and its up to me im pondering..and after some time i fold my hand..(would have had to go all in)
My reasoning for doing this is..
1.There were no raise on the flop so there are lots of possible hands out there
2.There are two suited cards on the table
3.Almost any card in the deck would probably give someone a better hand(exept ofcourse 10 9 and 2-4) Cos any 8 6 or jack would probably give someone a straight and a higher cards like AKQ would probably give someone a better two pair
4.I may alredy be beaten
5.There are many people in the pot after the flop too and therfore many chances to get outdrawn (alredy 3 in and 3 small stacks to act behind me)
6.Only 4 cards in the deck would probably help me
Any comments please
-Erik (who`s sorry for the grammar)
This of course is the problem with calling before the flop with a middling draw hand in a middle position. Once the blinds are that high in relation to your stack size, it's questionable to call with a drawing hand. But ok, now we're in for $80 with 6 other players, so there's $560 in the pot +$1200 after the flop coming to you. Being offered $1760 to $420 (about 4-1), the big question is what you are up against. I'd guess that one of the hands is a big pair and the other is a big draw. With the best hand and an opportunity to become one of the leaders, I would call. If one opponent has Ak-Kh and the other has a hand such as Q-Q, you're even money to win the hand. If someone has a set, well, you just go home.
i would call because i play to win first place if thats where the money is. in a ring game id call unless its against people i can read well and know i was a gonner. in a tournament this hand may knock out a few players and make you money without calling so this is an important consideration. still you are probably a favorite to lose the hand but are getting odds for your money.
You said it Zee. You stand to be in good shape for the rest of the tourney if your hand holds up. The question I would ask myself before seeing the flop with this hand is "what cards to I need to see on the flop to make me call and all-in raise or initiate an all-in bet?"
You rarely have enough information to make that decision pre-flop. I'm sure he would love to see that flop every time...it comes down to the action the flop generated--i.e., the hands you are up against.
Whenever you play suited connectors, there are always gonna be ways you can lose, no matter what you flop.
Last night I had almost identical situation T8d, flop comes T87. Love the hand...bet, get raised by pre-flop raiser, pop it back and have it capped. Check call the turn (he says if you flopped the str8, you win) and fold on the river (he tells me he's got trips and I believe him)...he shows 77.
My initial reaction to the post was agreement on the fold, but love Ray's comments and will probably take more chances like this in the future.
Earl, I have just recently started learning how to figure pot odds, would you mind working through how you arrived at your 4 to 1 conclusion? Sorry if this is too simple a question to post here, but thanks.
Phil
He started with $500, put $80 of that in the pot preflop, so the bet/raise to him was the full $420 he had left. Seven people saw the flop for $80, so there was $560 in before the flop, with a bet of $200, a raise to $500 and one $500 caller. So pot contained 560+200+500+500=$1760. Since it cost him $420 to call, the price is $1760/420, or 4.2 to 1. As Ray Zee notes, he's certainly getting the right price to call.
The odds on him winning the hand are approximately even money, given the assumptions that I made (if one of his opponents has flopped a set, then it's a different story). But let's say one of his opponents has Ah-Kh, and the other opponent has a pair of Queens. Here my trusty hand simulator says that the 2-pair is about even money (49% wins) over the Ah-Kh (37% wins) and the Q-Q (14% wins).
Fundamentally, that is all poker is about: getting a better price than the odds against you. From my perspective, where gamblers get into trouble is playing small edges with the idea that they are still making money "because in the long run" they'll win. Well how long is the long run, and do they have the infinite resources to see out a losing streak through the long run? Playing small edges and playing long odds against you (even though you have the right price), the higher your deviation will be.
Quibble: As far as hero is conserned, the bet is only $420 since the %500-$420=$80 (and call) goes to the side pot; leaving only a main pot of $1600, a little less than 4:1 (plus the sb's likely call of the raise).
Vince
You should have called that bet on the turn!!! This would have changed your chip position considerably and showed an expert player was at the table...
Yes
Vince,
You should be proud. Much worse is to waste an entire eveining finishing 1th and just out of the money.
Regards,
Rick
Just a variation on the "routine hand" thread below.
Suppose you had raised preflop with KK and the board had Q6526 off suit in that order. Suppose I (the BB) had check-called the flop and turn and bet out on the River. Assuming you and I know nothing about each other's game, would you routinely raise or routinely call?
Would it make a difference if the board was 86526?
I'd routinely call. If the player has a made straight or trip 6's, I don't want to pay 3 BB on the river. If he's bluffing, he won't call the raise anyway. If he has a queen, why would he bet the river when a scare card lands?
Sometimes an opponent will bet out when the board pairs on a small card if it removes his kicker problem. For example, he could have A4 in the BB. The flop is AQ3. A passive player may check and call because he's worried about his kicker. Now if the board pairs small on the river, his kicker ties anything but AK and he may bet. But if you raise here, would he pay you off anyway?
If I knew it was SKP I would have mucked to his check on the flop, maybe would have mucked K,K because it was his blind!
I normally would call in both instances. However there are times when I would raise. Very unscientific so don't ask for an analysis or detailed justication. Suffice it to say that there are times when one "feels" that the best move is 180 out of phase with the seemingly correct move. That is not to say that the correct move is calling in these situations. In fact I suppose an arguement could be made for call/raise/fold. Not necessarilly in that order. I just answered the way I play. Now you've got me! A meely mouth passive calling station. Are you keeping a book?
Vince.
Hey if it's skp entering the pot from ANY position, I sure don't want to get all shakin' and nervous - so I'd better muck anything not the nuts or a draw to the nuts right away on the flop!
Geez, I wish I was playing you guys instead of the run down artists I have been up against lately (just kidding - I'll take the chasers any day).
Now, on this question, I would think that it does make a difference as to whether the board is Q6526 or 86526. I would be more likely to raise a bet on the river with KK on the former board not because I would fear a straight on the latter board but because my raise on the former board is a protected one in that even if my opponent hit a 6, it is unlikely that he will play back fearing that I raised preflop with QQ. He obviously has less of a concern that I raised preflop from early position with 88. Of course, as Dan points out, the raise would be proper only if there is a reasonable chance that I will be paid off by my opponent.
It's plays like these that can make you a "scary" player (I love that line by Ray Zee). I have had a shockingly small win rate over the past 250 hours of play. Much of it is due to just a bad run of cards. One of the major by-products of that bad run that is really hurting my game is that I no longer scare anyone at the tables - not even the proverbial little old lady.
I would raise with KK on the Q high board but not the 8 high board.
Hey,
What the hell is a "shockingly small win rate". Anyone that reads your post would be shocked that you have a "win rate" at all. No longer "scare anyone". Heck you scare me! BTW - the fact that you no longer scare anyone is not a bad thing. Take advantage of the increased action. You appear to be a player, my good buddy, that likes to be in control of the situation. When you bet you want the proper response! The proper response is the response you want not necessarily the response you get. Get it! I find it interesting that you have been "running bad". Me too! Although this last week was a gooood one! Maybe there is a spiritual connection between us. GD must be on the same wave length. I remember stealing a $3 blind the day he won the $77,000 bad beat. See, the same thing.
BTW-BTW- I like your reasoning for betting these hands the way you described. Eye openning and helpful!
Vince.
If you called my raises on the flop and turn. I would have to suspect that you could be playing several hands. You could have two pair, a set, or even a straight draw. Since, I could not get you to fold on the turn, I would call, because if I bet, you may check-raise me, or you may fold and that's one less big bet in my pocket.
The six on the river is a HUGE difference since it helps second pair on the flop which you could reasonably have, rather than an openended draw. Yes, they are really both drawing hands but there's a big difference in that middle pair could be the best hand on the turn where an openended draw is not. Much tougher decision than the nine in the original hand where I would certainly pop you once. Here I would probably just call.
I thought it might be worth discussing a very common situation in a tough game: You are in the big blind, a player raises, and everyone else folds. What hands do you need to be able to call this raise?
In my opinion, the most important factor here is the chance that the raiser has a big pair. Even when you are getting 2-1 on your call, it would be incorrect to call with just about anything if you knew your opponent had AA. If he had KK, even AK is a 2 1/2 to 1 dog, but you might be able to play it profitably if you are better than your opponent, on the other hand, you would want to fold hands like QQ or KQs.
Now, there are very few players who are so predictable that you can reliably put them on AA or KK when they raise. If the raiser is under the gun the chance of looking at one of those hands goes way up. If the player is first in from late position, the range of raising hands is very large.
If you knew that your opponent was raising with a hand like KQs, what would you call with? How about if you knew there was a good chance he had a hand like 77 or Axs?
Tough game implies tough raiser! Since I'm in the game I consider myself a favorite or at worst even money. A tough game/raiser requires tough measures. If you are not tough yourself then you will be run over and over and over and... Tough players raise with hands that do not fit the "Sklansky Hand Selection Tables". There are times that a tough player is just "winging it". Therefore your hand selection when calling must be appropriate for the situation, not according to any fixed rule. Tight does not equal Tough. If a tough player is feared and is raising a lot and taking down unapposed blind after blind, the situation is different than if a tough player has been silent for a long time and then raises your blind. Any player that is predictable is not tough. In fact the worst player to have at your table may be the maniac. You never know where he is at. However, against the mainiac a simple tight strategy will work in the long run. Not the tough player.
So, what you call a raise with from the BB depends on the situation and how well YOU are playing. I believe that you should call a lot more hands in the BB in a tough game than a typical game. As a matter of fact the norm in a tough game is a before the flop raise. If you don't play from the BB you will find yourself not playing very much at all. Now what kind of fun is that! So when playing in a tough game be prepared to do battle from your blind positions, especially the BB, where the price is usually close to right.
Vince.
BTW- If you KNEW your opponent had A,A, and you knew you would play him headsup, it would not be incorrect to call a raise when in the BB with 7,2o or any other hand for that matter. The reason for this is obvious!
If you knew the raiser had AA you should fold 72 playing limit poker. You could make an argument to call against a known pair of kings since you can represent an ace when it shows on board but against two known aces you would need a pair or suited connecters to make this call right.
David,
You are probably correct. I really don't know how to prove whether 72o is a correct call against a known A,A. Since this situation rarely (almost never) occurs I was only using this example to indicate the power of "knowledge". If you know your opponents hole card you have an overwhelming advantage. Playing 7,2o in the blind may be a losing proposition in EV (although I don't believe a lot in this scenario) when you know the raiser has A,A. Since I don't know for sure I'll take your word for it. However, one should Never underestimate the power of knowledge.
Vince.
analagous to playing small pairs; dump on flop if dont flop a set, and try to get in cheap pre flop.
1) get in cheap (1/2 price)
2) flop two pair on flop ( at least) or dump
3) of course, AA will give you much action if 2), because who plays 72?
This is POKER, the deception capital of the world. You can't KNOW what he has, you can only suspect. If he's smart enough to vary his betting, your speculations about what he 'could' have are based on your historical observations and they may not apply in this hand. Just my opinion from occasional bad beats.
Suppose you are one to the left of the button in a no-limit tourney. Both blinds have a ton of chips and are not at risk of going all in. The blinds are T1000-T2000. You have exactly T2000 in chips, enough to cover the big blind. Now the question is: what are the minimum 2 starting cards you need to see to go all in right there, versus waiting for the big blind and going all in blind?
Thanks,
Big A
I'm assuming that what you mean is one to the left of the big blind not "one to the left of the button". In this situation, I'd go all in with anything with a ten or better regardless of the other hole card.
random thoughts-
at the last table or in the money it may pay to fold and hope to play headup and win another round to get higher payoff. maybe call with any two cards except your worst few because it may entice a multiway pot and the only way to get far along is to accumulate chips. it may pay to take the worst of if it means when you win you are back in the race. wait for the blind if the game is very tight as you may play against the small blind or a random bluff from a late position player and actually have the best hand.
My hats off to Poker Digest for publishing my top 10 post in their most recent issue in the letters column. Even though it takes a minor jab at PD, they showed a lot of class publishing that! (yes, this should be on the exchange forum)
Poker Digest got the posting you made from ME. I thought it was great and showed excellent imagination. I FAXED your item and my comments to them.Many poker players thought the Poker Pets story "made PD lose credablity", but my published thoughts in that issue of PD still stand. Poker should be fun and most people play it for a hobby! Darryl "Dazzler" Lanyon - CARDS Poker Magazine(Australia)
Assume there is 5 bets in the pot, a person bets that doesn`t have enough chips to bet the full amount the entire hand. Every one folds to you and if you call you will be heads up.
Situation 1
how much of the flop do you need to have to call if he can bet the flop and only has a half a bet for the turn,or river.
Situation 2
how much of the flop do you need if he can bet the flop the turn and only have half a bet for the river.
Assume in both situations you do NOT have top pair with a good kicker or better hand and you do not have a 4 flush or strait.What would you need to call the flop with and would you then call him all the way down. This is not a tournement.
anytime he would bet with anything you can call anytime with anything that can beat anything anytime:). really, most hands you have will be less than 2 to 1 dog to his hand if he is not real tight so the above applies kinda. if he will bet only hands above a certain value you need to read the player and call with hands close to those or ones that can draw out given the pot odds.
Ray,
I'm sure you are not speaking from experience. You are probably the cause of many others going all in but I doubt that you have had much experience on the other side of the coin. BTW - I hate going all in. I have a few times in the past but for the most part I will leave a game before that happens. Tournaments are different of course. NL also, I'm sure, but in limit I avoid being out gunned (low chips) like the plague.
Vince.
I'm not as smart as Ray Zee above but at least I use capital letters once in a while :-).
One thing I've noticed over the years at the medium limits is that a lot of the bets (in a ring game) by a player who is almost "all in" are desperation and/or fustration bets and often represent a weaker hand than normal.
So with no one else in the pot I would call with almost anything with that much dead money. This of course is more true in the first case you outlined than the second.
Regards,
Rick
rIck is right iN that manY bets froM an all in playEr may be despeRation bets, however some all in people oNly bet bIg hands. its up to you to fiGure ouT which may bE the caSe.
Often the player going all-in is one of the weaker players at the table. If that is the case, then I'll usually give that player action and call with almost anything remotely playable. Regardless of position, the all-in players are almost always going to show their hand first. They are not going to ask to see your hand if you muck after the river since they are just grateful they survived. The extra partial bet call is justified since you would rather have a weak player stick around, as opposed to the seat being filled by an unknown or good player.
Is it possible that no BB hand is a ReRaise vs an Early or Middle Raiser with no other callers?
Maybe all hands are either too good or too bad to ever Raise.
Skp posted a hand where he didn't ReRaise with KQs in BB vs an Early Raiser and on other Callers.
Awhile back MM posted a hand where he had pocket Aces in the BB and he just called a Middle Raiser and no other Callers.
Against a tight tough early position raiser it is possible. However he must be in early position because if he isn't worried about a reraise, he will semi steal more in later positions. In early position he has to worry about the others and thus can't take advantage of your non reraising strategy.
Assuming that the raiser is at least average in skill, there's no hand worth reraising with in this spot. If you have anything less than AA or KK, you're either beat at this point, at best even money. With AA or KK, you're better off not reraising for deception purposes. You can checkraise him in later streets.
In the Analysis at the Table chapter, there is a Hold'em example with a footnote on page 236 that states "Changes in the structure of hold'em since this was first written has made this play debatable." What's debatable?
Higher blinds means bigger pots and bigger pot odds which means you can often get a call with a worse hand on both 4th and 5th street.
In this situation if it is correct to check 60% of the time and bet 40% my pot odds need to be at least 1.5:1 to bet on 4th?
Hi all:
Hoping you would all lend your knowledge to two hands that stick in my head from my third straight losing session on Tuesday night in Aurora.
Just moved from a feeder to the main 5-10HE game so I know very little about the players.
Hand #1:
Me: TT in middle position. 6-7 see an unraised flop.
Flop: K94 rainbow -- Check to me, I bet(?), solid "rockish" player on my left calls as well as the button (loose with bluffing tendencies).
Turn: Q -- I check, rock bets, button calls. This is where I feel I should have folded. But I didn't.
River K -- I check, rock checks, Button bets. I finally convince myself I'm beat and fold, rock calls.
Result: Button turns over 9x, rock (who I really thought would beat me)mucks without showing! I threw away the winner. Should I throw it away next time too, just earlier?
Hand #2:
Me: AKo in early position. I raise to drive out the weak draws that become strong so often in LL. And 5 of us see the flop.
Flop: TK5 two suited. I bet and get two callers.
Turn: T-off. I bet, 1 call and then a raise from the late position player. Should I have folded here? I call, middle pos folds.
River: rag. I check, she bets, I pay off her Tx (suited of course :) )
Should I have folded on the raise?
Thanks for your thoughts.
-Michael
Hand 1:
With 6 or 7 seeing the flop, whether to bet or check is a close decision IMO. After a bet and 2 callers (one who you consider a rock) and then a Q on the turn it is an easy fold with a bet from the rock and a call. If you call the turn then you are calling because you think you are ahead and you must also call the river, unless you like calling with the gutshot getting about 7-1. Another point here is your perception of this supposed "rock". Sounds like your rock is actually a fish as there are no hands a decent player would play as you described and not beat the 9x on the end.
Hand 2:
In most low limit games it is a pretty easy fold on the turn unless you have a good read on the raiser or feel she is a tricky player.
Just my opinions.
Rob
Rob:
Good point on your rock observation. Turns out that the button was basically a maniac that had been bluffing the table for much of the session -- the rock thought he had caught him on this one.
Thanks for your input.
-Michael
Hand #1
If you intended to Call the Turn, you’d be much better off betting it yourself.
You’d probably end up with one opp and would have a guess on the River.
Hand #2
In this type of game with this type of player, and the way the hand went so far, she will always have at least trips when she raised on the Turn.
You can safely fold the Raise.
Hand one. I agree with your flop bet but you should have folded on the turn. There were two overcards against you. Hand two. You should have folded on the turn. Intuitively,its beyond obvious that she had made trips.
Just last night, playing 6-12 HE with 3 fairly solid prop players, 2 'live' ones, and 2 decent players the following hand occured:
I am in the BB with T7o. One of the decent players limps in middle/early position. Live one in middle position calls. Button calls. Small Blind calls. I call. No raise.
Flop comes Th 3d 2d.
I check. Decent player bets. 'Live' one calls. Button folds. SB folds and I call.
Turn comes Tc. Board Th 3d 2d Tc.
I check. Decent player bets. 'Live' one folds and I raise. Decent player calls.
River 6s. board Th 3d 2d Tc 6s.
I bet. Decent player raises and I fold.
Comments?
Actually, I have trouble understanding your play here.
Flop: You checked top pair. Was that to try and raise a late position bettor?
One thing I have found is that raising a late position bettor from the blinds with a hand like K7 when the flop is King high is a much better play than raising with 10,7 on a 10 high flop in an UNRAISED pot. The reason is obvious: It is much more likely that the late position preflop limper has a 10 than a King in his hand.
I would have bet the flop to see where I am at.
Turn
Having missed the bet on the flop, I would consider betting on the turn. The decent player may well have bet a flush draw on the flop and may just gladly take the free card on the turn particularly if he feels that the live one ain't going nowhere even if he bet.
The checkraise on the turn is also debatable but I won't get into that here.
River
Gotta call. Decent player certanly doesn't have 54 or 10,6. If he has A,10, he likely would have reraised on the turn. In any event, it is unlikely that he would raise on the river with this hand.
The decent player likely has a full house or a busted diamond draw. To have a full house, he would have had to play pocket deuces or treys from early position. Many decent players don't do that (although I think I am a decent player and I do play those puppies up front given the nature of my usual game).
I would look him up.
I agree that in a tough game a late position player is less likely to have a K, but in your average wild n' wooly 6-12 game you can never tell. Could have limped with the mighty K4 (called the 'magic hand' by me and my buddy Paul, due to it's uncanny ability to rip down pocket A's heads up)...
But that's neither here nor there. In fact, I'm not sure why I mentioned it, since it doesn't even begin to touch on the major thrust of your post. I agree with the flop bet, and I can see where you're coming from on the check raise on the turn, but I actually think it's a fairly good laydown. The other guy (the decent player) can't put Carlos on a busted diamond draw, since it's likely that our hero would have either lead bet the flop or check raised the early bettor. And he can't put him on a boat, since he would have (I think) three bet the turn, figuring he has to charge the draws now. Everyone in hell's half acre can probably see what Carlos has (T weak kicker) and the decent player's smooth call/ river raise just reeks of a slow played boat (or big trips). Granted, I doubt that I would have waited for the river to raise, but lot's of guys do, and I'm not sure what else he could have that doesn't beat Carlos.
I thought pocket jacks was the most likely hand for the decent player to have held.
It is an old axiom that it is better to lose a bet than to lose a pot - especially if it's a very big pot. Specifically, the pot was offering you 11 to 1 on the river. Folding at that point was a sick play regardless of how sure you were that you were beat. You should have called that last raise!
Yeah, I was a bit tired since it was late night and the fold was a reaction to what I thought was a bad play on my part. I don't mind the check raise on the turn, but once the decent player calls. I should've checked-called the river.
carlos
nt
I've heard various opinions, but I would like you fellows to give me an idea of what the average winning hand is in HE and 7Stud...thanks
Deadmarsh
full ring game, id say 3rd or fourth nuts, with some exceptions, eg., a flush is a flush, while top pair 2nd kicker might be 4th or fifth nuts. you know what i mean?
It seems to me that the average winning hand is usually the guy sitting next to me that "called" the whole hand!!
For 5-draw or 7-stud that's a meaningful question, and you'll probably get similar answers somewhere around aces up for them. But for Hold'em it's not really meaningful, because the answer provides no information on any real hand. The value of your hand as a poker hand--not taking into consideration either the board or the action--just doesn't tell you anything. There are times when a pair of jacks is probably the winner and should bet, and there are times when a full house is clearly the loser and should fold.
For Hold em top pair good kicker probably wins 80% of the time with no one raising, and no 4 flush or strait on the board.
We have recently been confronted with posts concerning playing hands against "tough opponents".
I believe that each of us find specific types of players "togh" to play against and otheres not so tough. But what I believe would be useful would be a general definition (or at least a discussion) of what entails "tough opponent".
Thus MY opinion: A "tough" opponent is one that 1) Understands poker:cards/people/position/odds etc. 2) Plays to win. 3) Does not appear to steam or tilt. 4) Appropriately applies pokers tactics: bet/raise/check-raise/check-call/fold. 5) Mixes up his play 6) Is unpredictable except that you know he's gonna be TOUGH. 7)Usually has a controlled demeanor at the table.
I think this sums up my position on "tough opponent".
Comments?
Vince.
Also:
4 (b) Poker tactics include overly aggressive raising irrespective of cards held.
7. Every player who thinks he has the best hand suddenly becomes "tough".
Intellectually tough means that a player knows advance concepts and their applications: pot odds, implied odds, effective odds, position, opponent mood dynamics, opponent betting patterns, opponent conscious tells, opponent unconscious tells, multiway hands, heads up hands, hybrid hands, protection strategems, value strategems, feigned strength strategems, feigned weakness strategems, barriers to entry collapsing strategems, cost minimization strategems, hedging strategems, table selection, shifting gears dynamics, distributive rush, psychomentum rush, grand strategic congruence, strategic congruence, tactical congruence, operational congruence, etc. Emotionally tough means that a player has the following emotional characteristics: logical levels inner alignment, mental state control, empowering beliefs, value hierarchy congruence, timeline mastery. A tough player is both emotionally and intellectually tough.
Hey Jaws,
I don't know what others think of your post but I certainly would like to see you elaborate. Hell you could probably right an essay on "psychomomentum rush" alone. BTW-that's my point. I would probably agree with your definiton of "tough" if I fully understood the terms you have used. Quite frankly, I don't. Especially terms such as "grand strategic congruence, strategic congruence, etc. Not only would I like a definition but a short dissertation of the applicability to Poker would be helpful. They sound more like military terms than poker concepts. But I'm open to learning any useful concepts.
Vince.
I prefer the simpler explaination. A tough opponent is one who has been usually getting the best of me whenever we're in the same pot. This would include (for that session) the rookie on a monster rush.
S & M have advocated that when a game is good it would be foolish to get up and leave. 'Use toothpicks to keep your eyes open,' I think is the quote. I have often followed that advice and it has helped me win more money. Yet, there are situations when leaving despite the game being good, have seemed to be the better option:
1- Where the psychological boost of say, winning $100 at a 3-6 game will bolster you for the next time.
2- Where you are so stretched for cash that the risk of winning more money is not worth the chance that you could walk home a loser.
I understand the concept of one long poker game and the foolishness of money management but would like others to comment.
Marc
last night, 4-8 holdem game, very good, loose passive, played a few hours, up a few hundred(!), then --
whole table seemed to go on tilt, capped before the flop, but people still playing basically garbage.
i left, figuring that i would need to plan on staying at least three more hours to overcome the huge variance this creates. also, what if the game burns out before then and i am down?
so, even though i had a positive EV, i was a little tired and didnt want to play a high(er) risk game.
Amen!
Vince
Similar situation last Saturday 10-20 1/2-kill at 145, stuck about half a rack for six hours - excellent game: loose agressive clueless, played like a wild 15-30. Last hour plus three racks, tables consolidating, absolutely certain it was time to go. My point is that one must develop a feel for when the time is right by observing more than just the game at hand. In this case table breaking and consolidating was the clue, since the current conditions are more apt to drastically change when this nightly event happens.
if you are strapped for cash you should not be playing IMHO
Part of what makes a game good is how your opponents play. But just as important is how you are playing. If you have emotionally taken a beating due to bad results, you might not be playing your best game. In this case the game is not longer a good game, and you should leave unless you can pull yourself together and play well. Also, good results can cause you to play poorly because you can get overly protective of your gains.
What might also make a difference is why you are playing. If you are doing it for a living, then you have to be disciplined enough to play your best game all of the time, and stay in good games as long as you can. If you are playing for recreation, then it might make more sense to walk away when you are currently ahead. I have done this when I have been running cold and needed to get my confidence up. Doing so has cost me a few hours of +EV play, but not too many.
leave when or for:
1. you are tired 2. the game is bad and not likely to improve soon 3. a better game is around the corner 4. personal reasons-- low money,hungry,stakes too small,shorthanded,fulltable, playing badly,out of touch with the players (my main reason i quit a game),roof is leaking, too smokey(main reason i dont play),not smokey enough,cant carry anymore out the door,fill in your own blanks for the rest of them. 5. your seat is in a bad position for your style of play and it looks like nobody is going to move(very important if you like money). 6. four or more 2+2 posters get in the game. 7. if David,Mason,or Ray quit the game. 8. all other reasons are suspect.
9. fire. 10. tornado. 11. flooding 12. earthquake. 13 shipwreck if you playing on river boat. But if game is good and nobody else leaving i might stay whit reason 9-13 present.
You guys left out reason number 1: Your wife/girlfriend or husband/boyfriend says it's time to go.
Danny S
If you're playing over your head, it'probably ok to leave a winner. For example, you're a 10-20 player with a 6000 bankroll and you decide to take a shot at the live one filled 40-80 game a few tables away. In this situation, it's certainly ok to use silly money management. That is, it's ok to implement stop wins and stop losses. Afterall, you're just taking a shot and don't want to risk going broke in a too high standard deviation situation. But if you're playing at your limit, the only criteria for quitting or continue playing is whether or not you have the best of it (aka positive mathematical expectation). If you have an edge, a toothpick would certainly come in handy.
At what age do solid players begin to lose their edge against the younger 'ring dogs'? I realize that there is a wide range of abilities here, but would you say that after 50, a guy tends to start losing the quick analysis and thought patterns? Opinions would be welcome...thanks
Dead
I sure hope 50 isn't the magic number. I am 52. I only started playing poker 5 years ago on a part time basis. I began playing full time in January of this year. If 50 is the magic number then I began after I was over the hill. God how depressing!
BTW-I will admit that I do not have the staying power nor desire for that matter that I would like to have. I am sure age and maturity have something to do with it.
Vince.
It's a matter of attitude. Some people are old at 25. Others are young at 70. As long as you're curious as a child and just as eager to learn, barring any brain injury, you'll never lose your edge - especially if you play happy. In fact, you'll only get better with age.
In 30-60, I was first in from late position and raised with pocket red nines. Both blinds, both average players in both ability and aggressiveness, called. Flop came Q-J-3 with 2 diamonds. Small blind bet, big blind called and I folded. Turn was a blank; small blind bet again, big blind called again. River was another blank; small blind bet once more, big blind called once more. Small blind won pot with Q-J to big blind's Q-9.
When I folded, my cards almost accidentally flipped over. I caught them before they did but my neighbor, who is a superior player, got a peak and asked me if he saw pocket 9s. I confirmed that he did. He said he would have called once on the flop. Maybe, he said, both blinds were on the come. Why would the small blind bet out instead of trying for a check raise if he actually held a queen? He said good players don't fear a raise on the flop as much as they fear a call from a good player. I should have called, which would have put presure on him on the turn. After all, there was $240 in the pot for my $30 call and I had backdoor flush and straight potential.
What do we think of this? I certainly don't think much of it in this particular case. Maybe the small blind bet because he wanted to be raised. (He did.) And as bad as the flop was for me, it could easily get worse on the turn. Even another 9 might be a losing card for me. But what about his comments in general? You see a lot of players routinely call the flop and then fold the turn if they don't help. I think the fear factor he mentioned would come into play more one-on-one than in a multi-way pot.
Was he trying to goad me into making a bad play (against him?) in the future? Any thoughts? Thanks.
Not good advice. You said the players were average, so the LB bet the flop and the BB called. This told you they both have a piece of the flop.
A good player will fear a call from a good player. I would take off an extra card if there was more money in the pot.
I don't like your hand on the flop. Certainly there is some merit to your friend feeling that the SB would try for a check raise. Especially with you raising preflop. It just so happens that in this case this average player made an iteresting (smart, I may add) play by betting his big hand looking for a raise! And how about the BB not raising! If the BB were on a draw such as K,T wouldn't he (an average player) raise? I think Q,9 was enough for me to raise with, trying to get rid of you (but I'm not quite up to the 30-60 average player level yet). You are quite correct that if you make your hand on the turn you may lose to a bigger hand. That was correct thinking and appropriate!
BTW- The worst hands I would have put the SB on were K,T. Next Jx. BB hands: K,T, small diamonds or Qx. I would have folded not necessarily because the SB bet, but because of the combined action of Preflop raise and calls and (flop) SB bet and BB call. Seems to me you did just that! Seems I recall something about great minds. Just too many ways you can lose this pot even if you have the best hand on the flop.
Vince.
>>>Just too many ways you can lose this pot<<<
That's key here. The player's comment that both players might be on the come, indicates a lack of appreciation for the combination of factors that work against you here. First, one or the other, or both might not be on the come. Second, even if both are on the come, one or the other, or both might get there. To win this pot on the basis of current hand strength alone you would have to succeed at a parlay such that neither player has anything now, and neither makes his draw. Though you have some potential outs to consider as well, they're not much in the context of 8-1 pot odds plus whatever implied odds.
Maybe others can address the "fear of a call factor", but it seems to me that players fear your call when they don't have much. That flop made for so many things that they could have (between the two of them) that you probably couldn't count much on the fear factor there. (I also agree that it tends to be more significant heads-up -- though I can think of exceptions.)
John Feeney
There are some players who will always go for the check raise on the flop if they have top pair and always bet their draws. Because of this, it may not be correct to fold if you are heads up. But other players are concious of two possible overcards and will always lead with a queen or a jack.
The main problem that you have is that you are not heads up. This makes it more difficult for your hand to be good or to stay good. In addition, it may cost you several bets to find out and the amount of money in the pot, plus future money to go in versus your total cost probably makes a call incorrect. The exception would be if you know both players very well and there is a good chance that both are out of line. (The parlay mentioned in this thread.) I would fold most evertime in this situation.
Add to your parlay the chance that they will both check their draws on the turn, since even if you call the flop it's going to be hard to call the turn if you are bet into again.
This sounds like the typical wishful thinking that weak players use to justify their weak calls all the time.
I believe you were correct to fold. More because the big blind called than because the small blind bet. Also, they both couldn't have been on the come. At least one of them had to had outpaired you.
Reasonable players who call raises often or usually have a Q or J in their hands. With less they fold and more they reraise. For this and other stated reasons one should routinely fold.
If there was just either a Q or J then a check-raise by the SB is in order since the LPB is such a favorite to attempt a steal. But with BOTH a Q or J it is generally unwise to steal, for reasons above AND the likely hood of being against a good enough draw to call.
Good bet by SB. Bad "just" call by BB. Easy fold by hero.
... "He said good players don't fear a raise on the flop as much as they fear a call from a good player" ...
This is the key to the superior player's suggestion for a call, the other reason's are just rationalizations (there is very little chance you have the higher pair and your 1-under-card 3-flush/3-straight "whip-saw" is pretty worthless).
He has a strong but non-compelling point; there are few IF ANY raising hands for the original raiser: I would just call with AA, AQ, AK, JJ, JTd, T9, etc., and this WOULD but pressure on the better.
What it really means he engages in true "strategy" (psycological) where his apparent priorities are to ==1== play the other players ==2== play the cards ==3== avoid letting the cards play him.
His suggestion was rooted in the "fact" that you can often win without a showdown; where "hand value" is NOT the only dominant criteria in evaluating a situation; the player's betting "form" has high power as well.
Encourage this player to talk more. Buy him dinner. Listen to the reasons, not the conclusions.
- Louie
In 30-60, I am big blind with 8-6 offsuit. There's a call from unknown player in middle position. Small blind folds, so there's just the two of us for one bet. Flop comes 3-3-2. I check and my opponent bets. Turn is another 3. I bet. My opponent raises and I re-raise. She soups. She claims she laid down a "big" pocket pair, because she was sure my re-raise meant I had a 3.
Do we believe her? Obviously, I don't, which is why I re-raised. What do we think of my play and what do we think of her laying down and pair, "big" or otherwise in that situation?
All comments welcome. Thanks.
Don't believe her. She might of had a pocket pair or overcards, but the pair was not big and that's why she folded. If you did not reraise her you may have lost. I think you played correctly.
I think I now see why I can't win at 30-60 Holdem. I either toss the hand on the flop or raise right there. I like your play on the turn, though. Unless she was totally brain dead there is no way she put you on quads. Given that, I would not believe the pair story. An obvious holding for you would be a deuce. With a reraise on the turn, a high pocket pair. However, if you had a pocket pair (lower than Kings) you would have raised the flop, maybe even preflop. (I assume). So what did she have? A,2s.
Vince.
When you checked then called her bet on the flop what the hell were you expecting to hit on the turn?
I suspect that Andy would likely have check-raised no matter what card came off. He probably just put the player on a bluff and by calling and check-raising the turn, he is mimicking a slowplay with trips.
skp is right. I was not expecting to hit anything on the turn but I knew she had nothing that could withstand any heat.
She was on a pure steal and tried to cover it up; in the vain hopes of being able to steal against you in the future.
JACKPOT? COULD SOMEONE PLEASE TELL THE ME THE ODDS OF LOSING WITH QUAD 10'S IN HOLD'EM (BOTH CARDS IN BOTH HANDS MUST PLAY)?
REAL ODDS OR A GOOD GUESS PLEASE
THANK YOU
CRAIG M.
Could you please clarify ,"BOTH CARDS IN BOTH HANDS MUST PLAY" eg if you have K T and the board is TTT Q Q do both cards play? what if you have 9 T w/the same board?
I'll try and answer soon if youi clarify!
SUSPICIOUS: MORE CLARIFICATION YES KING TEN WOULD WORK AND POCKET QUEENS,(FOUR TENS LOSING TO FOUR QUEENS), BUT THE NINE TEN AND POCKET QUEENS WOULD NOT THE NINE WOULD NOT PLAY THE QUEEN ON THE BOARD WOULD BE THAT PLAYERS FITH CARD. IE THE TO HANDS WOULD BE FOUR KINGS WITH A QUEEN AND FOUR QUEENS THEREFORE NO JACKPOT
THANK YOU
CRAIG
What is it? Seems alot of people have been talking a bit about it as of late and I hgavne't seen it defined and it doesn't seem obvious what it is!
EV= expected value.
Example:
Pot has $100 and its a $50 all-in bet to you on the flop.
You have a flush draw and a "good" obvercard, giving you 12 outs, or a 45% chance of winning if you call.
Your EV once you call is .45*(100+50+50) = $90.
Compare this to your EV if you fold, which is 100%*($50), or the $50 bet you save.
The common way to look at it for making calling decisions is to to take the money in the pot BEFORE your call and multiply it by your probable win% and compare the result to the cost of the call. In this case:
.45*(100+50) = $67.50, which is higher than the amount you are required to risk if you call. So this call would have positive EV.
People often use the term EV more generically to mean whether a decision to call a bet, make a rasie or bluff, or play a starting hand will win more money on average than it will lose over the long run under similar conditions. An example of this usage is "Mason Malmuth and Abdul Jalib disagree about the EV of playing AJo under the gun in a typical hold'em game."
Another is "I knew I was a negtive EV player in that pot limit hold'em game when I realized that my four opponents were Ray Zee, Bob Ciaffone, Erik Seidel, and Michael 7".
Thank you! all you had to say was expectation!
Suspicious,
Be thankful for your answers you recieved, and to sum it up in one word "expectation", is like saying driving around without brakes is a "Weighted Strategy".
ps: There is a Abbrev. list in the "Other Games" section if you only want OWA's.
Paul
No, to say expectation is not the same as "saying driving around without brakes is a "Weighted Strategy"." To say expectation would be to define it.
I am glad someone answered and I think it is odd someone would use the term EV for the expectation. I dont know of any mathematicians that do...
"I think it is odd someone would use the term EV for the expectation. I dont know of any mathematicians that do..."
You are correct in that mathematically, the expected value or expectation of an action is represented with a notation of E rather than EV. I believe that the majority of posters simply use EV as an abbreviation for "expected value", and are just ignorant of the mathematical notation.
To me it really doesn't matter as long as the concept itself is understood.
Q
The difficulty I have with making EV evaluations, (or game theory estimations for bluffing for that matter) is an accurate account of the percentages for a winning hand. Let's say that on the turn in a HE game that I hold a broadway, whereas my opponent(heads-up here) has a 4-flush. My hand is made, he has 9 outs and thus 46/9 to hit. If I bet would my chances of winning be the card odds of roughly .805 ? Thus the expected value calculation would be based on the card odds times money in the pot prior to the bet?
Actually, in the scenario you gave, his probability of winning depends on whether you hold any cards of the suit he needs.
Assuming that you hold none of the suit he needs (he has 9 outs), there are 44 unseen cards in the deck (your hand, his hand, and the Board) and nine of those will make his hand. Therefore, the probability he wins is 9 / 44 or approximately 0.20455, and the probability you win is 35 / 44 or approximately 0.79545.
The exact EV of your bet depends on your knowledge of his strategy. Let's say that you knew that he would call a bet on the Turn no matter what. Just for simplicity's sake, let's also say that if he makes his flush on the River, he's going to bet and you will fold; if he doesn't make his flush on the River, he will fold when you bet. By betting, you have a 35 / 44 probability of winning the money in the pot, plus the additional bet from his call on the Turn; you also have a 9 / 44 probability of losing that bet on the Turn.
Your for that particular action (the bet on the Turn) is therefore (35/44)*(current pot + one large bet) - (9/44)*(one large bet).
Hope that clarifies things.
Q
In a ten-handed HE game, what are the odds of someone else being dealt a pair (not 9 X 1/17, right?) when I'm not dealt one. And more specifically, if I'm dealt QQ, what are the odds someone has AA or KK. Showing the math involved would be helpful. Thanx.
Mark -
My number crunching indicates a 42% chance at least one of your nine opponents holds a pocket pair when you do not hold a pocket pair. The odds against at least one opponent holding a pocket pair is 1.38:1.
When you do not hold an ace or king, there is a 8.4% chance at least one other opponent holds aces or kings. The odds against at least one opponent holding aces or kings is 10.94:1.
Thanx. How exactly did you arrive at these figures?
For the first problem:
1. Find the number of two card combinations making any pair. (11 * (4 * 3 / 2)) + (2 * (3 * 2 / 2) = 72)
2. Find the total number of two card combinations. 50 * 49 / 2 = 1225
3. Determine probability of making a pair. 72 / 1225 = .059
4. Determine probability of not making a pair. 1 - .058 = .941
5. Determine cumulative probability no-one makes a pair. .941 ^ 9 = .579
6. Determine cumulative probability at least one player makes a pair 1 - .579 = .421
For the second problem, use the same process, but solve for the number of two card combinations making aces or kings.
Makes sense. Thanx.
10-20 HE. I hold 10-10 in late-ish position. UTG calls, fold to me, I raise, BB calls, UTG re-raises, I call, BB calls. Flop is 4-5-10, rainbow. UTG bets, I call, BB calls. Turn is a 7. UTG checks, I bet, BB raises, UTG folds, I re-raise, BB caps, I call. River is an ace. I check, BB bets, I call. BB turns over 6-8 offsuit.
Comments welcome. Note: neither of my opponents was particularly strong (based on what I'd seen), and both are capable of trying unusual moves.
I think that with pocket Tens you should try as much as possible to get the action head's up or have more than, say 5 or 6 opponents seeing the flop (and flop a set). I believe this is discussed in HFAP. Lately I have been experiencing so many runner runner beats that I am opting not slowplaying absolutely anything that can be beaten (something like quads could be slowplayed, but in loose games you'll get paid off anyway, so why not bet and raise with the best hand and get the money in the pot).
Maybe an option for this particular hand would've been to cap preflop with TT. And raise the flop. If the BB still called with 86o then he is making a big mistake and you want him to do just that. But there are 9.5 small bets preflop. On the flop the BB is getting 11.5 to 1 in which he is getting the right price for his draw, especially (as it is in this case) that he got an additional 5 big bets from you.
carlos
I agree with what you did before the flop and on the flop. I also agree with your bet on the turn. But your reraise there was not nescessary. This hand is just your typical bad beat case. Normal.
Thanks for posting. I agree that he got the the right price to call on the flop (but not pre-flop). A guy who would call with that hand pre-flop would probably not fold to a raise on the flop -- I think he wants to see that turn card pretty bad. I don't think he would have folded if I had capped pre-flop, either. You're right -- it's just a normal bad beat, and it happens. Still I think you're giving up too much if you just call his raise on the turn. He could easily have had 5-7, 5-5, 7-7, etc....
This is the risk of slow playing a flopped set. On the flop, the BB had a 4 out gut shot draw to his straight, and he was not getting the correct pot odds to call two bets cold. He might have called anyway, but if he folded, you would have won.
There are not many hands that you could have raised with on the button that would have connected with this flop. I doubt that UTG would immediately put you on trips and fold, if you had raised on the flop. He would figure overcards or a big pocket pair. I would have raised on the flop hoping that BB folded and I could get heads up UTG, but it probably wouldn't have worked, and I would have lost just as much or more than you did.
I also wouldn't have re-raised after I got check raised on the turn. A check raise on the turn usually means the player had a very good hand. It could have been a lower set, or two pair, but the straight was an obvious possiblity.
A checkraise on the turn can also be a cold steal attempt, since there are few players comfortable with this sort of move, and it's coming from the blind.
BB is going to call a double bet again B4 the flop, so I would routinely just call with AA and every other raising hand.
I would raise the flop, representing ONE pair of Ts, figuring to trap UTG's apparent big pair for multiple bets.
On the other hand, T54 is safer to slow play than T64 as there are less gut shot draws possible.
- Louie
I would have raised the flop. As per S & M, unless the situation is nearly perfect, better to raise and try to win right away instad of slowplaying. Flop of T-5-4 is not perfect owing to the straight possibilities of the 5-4.
I too would have re-raised on the turn as there are a lot of hands the opponent could have had that were not as good as the set of Ts that would have called. You still had outs on the river if he did have the straight.
By the way, you said in your post you checked the river when an ace came, but you were behind the BB who bet. Anyway, I know that sickening feeling which you first had when he made it 4 bets, then the even more sickening feeling when you didn't fill up, and then the clincher when the Ace didn't slow him down at all. It happens to us all.
must have been bet--call. My mistake.
While the article was good to read I have several disaggreements with it. Nolan states that for most people tournments are a poor financial risk. I happen to think that tournments offer a better financial risk to players because these types of players have no chance in ring games over the long run but have a better chance to place in a tourny and have some fun while doing it.A player can invest time and study to become a winning poker player at ring games. However the same player can invest time and study to become a winning tournament player as well and reap rewards far beyond a ring game player could ever hope to achieve. This subject is dealt with well in a chapter in T.J's book on no-limit and pot limit hold'em. Nolan lists several other reasons why tournaments are not a good value but I notice that many of these reasons have a direct carry over to rings games which means that if tournaments are not good for the most part then neither are ring games. He mentions the time clock as a reason. When you get dealt a long series of unplayable hands in a ring game you can wait this out. He fails to mention that when this happens to you during a tourny you must change your strategy to deal with this. Games like pot-limit and no-limit are highly dependent on how YOU PLAY no so much on your cards. In these big bet tournys you can overcome a bad streak of cards easier. In limit tournies it's harder to overcome a bad streak but it can be done. One way to do this is to adapt a strategy where you play more hands with more risk early in the tourny. What will happen is either that you will bust or have a huge pile of chips to use later in the event. Who can deny Stu Unger who used this strategy to win 3 world championships as well as other titles? This article written by Nolan is good but I think that it could mis inform any who read it and have not played in tournys but are thinking about it. The article is long so I can't write about everthing or my fingers will fall off. If you receive The Intelligent Gambler from ConJelCo. then you can form your own opinion on it.
Thank you for the alternate viewpoint concerning tournaments. I read the same article and got the impression that tourneys would not be a viable direction for me to take considering my overall goal (win the most money possible). The reason I thought this, and still do, somewhat, is that the tournaments only pay the top X amount of players. So if I buy in to a tournament and bust out outside of the paid spots, I've just wasted a couple of hours and whatever the buy in amount was with nothing to show for it. Where in the ring games, a couple of hours could net me some cash, plus I have the flexibility to change games/tables if a particular game/table is too tough. Maybe I'll have to give a tournament a try before I come to any concrete conclusions. Do you recommend tournaments to fairly new players. I've only got about 35 hours of actual play, though I've read several books and am currently winning by about $200.
James Flames
So your the guy who's got my money!!! Just be aware that you could be me, because I've got about the same hours logged in as you, but I've gone south about $200/session. I know I am playing alot better due to 2+2 but am running into long droughts at the table.
I've only played one tournament in NH and I didn't like the way it was set up so I never went back. I thought it was economical with rebuys $80. The only problem I had was that the ride and the wait to play was longer than my card playing. They did have side games after people went out but I didn't play. I plan on playing a tournament(tnmt) in the future at FW. It's alot cheaper at FW and it seems more legit to me than NH.
Paul
Quick question:
What is FW and NH? If NH is New Hampshire then where do they play there?
Regards,
Rick
Hi Rick,
FW=Foxwoods, NH= New Hampshire I put the abbreviations on "Other games" so it wouldn't interfere with this page, which has more traffic than the Mystic River Bridge.
The card game in Nashua is a private run game at the K of C. Someone else wrote about it on the exchange. I only played once, and I just didn't like it. They played a round of 7CS, Draw Poker, and 5CS every 20". They also increased the ante's exponentially SOS. I think you could re-buy three x's so it was 50 + 30 max in rebuys. Don't quote me on the money, they only run it every three or four months. They do put you on a mailing list and they did notify me but I wasn't interested. For the amount of time I spent waiting and driving I could of been at FW.
Paul
I didn't read the article, but tournaments have more considerations and are therefore more "skillful" in the long run.
On the other hand short term luck will let unskilled players win a lot once in a while.
On the other-other hand, there is generally less house take in a tournament (the casino usually loses money on this promotion) so players usually get more play for their buck.
On the other-other-other hand tournaments are more exciting for the recreational player and routinely puts a limit on how much they can lose.
Overall, I would advise my curious but unskilled relatives to play tournaments.
- Louie
I agree with you. How come I see the same players making deals playing satelites if it's suppose to be a crap shoot? Obviously, there is a lot of skill involved. It does not matter if the blinds raise every ten minutes or an hour.
I'm a decent 10-20 Stud player who is trying to learn Hold Em. Where I play (CT), 3-6 with a kill is pretty much the lowest limit available. (2-4 is sometimes spread on weekends, but I find it too boring, plus I don't usually play on weekends) The kill begins when someone wins a pot of $60 or more. The stakes then double to 6-12 and the winner must post a $6 blind. The original blinds stay at 1 and 3. My question: Should my playing stratergy change for a kill pot? ie: should I play tighter when the stakes double?
You do NOT wish to kill it. You OBVIOUSLY bet less for value when the pot is still less than $60, but within striking distance.
Keep track of the pot size.
When there is a KILL, you want to steal raise less (since it won't work as often) but raise with your trouble hands a little more. Do NOT attempt to trap with big pairs. The difference in play is minor.
However, you CAN expect most other's to (incorrectly) play a little differently in the killed pots. Its worth some neurons to figure out how they play differently. You will have opportunities to make some unusual plays, such as the spectacular raise with 3rd pair against the guy who likes to bluff in killed pots.
- Louie
There's more to it Louie, but your advice to Jim K to think about pot size constantly is definately appropriate. There's much adjustment (based on position relative to the dealer button) when you have the kill button and post the extra blind money. In general, it is often better to raise on the kill when you have a hand which would have called based on position and current betting action anyway were the pot not being played at the kill stakes. The kill games based on pot size threshold rather than winner of two consecutive hands, are some of the most lucrative hold'em propositions around for the expert player. The weak players also benefit from this structure; it is the average to good players who don't think about the differences who tend to get pounded.
Limit HE. I am to the buttons right. Please fire away with comments/critisisms.
All fold to me with As8s, button and SB are chatting, I raise.
Button, SB fold, BB ( first hand in game) calls. Darn.
Flop 5d 6s 8d
Check to me, I bet, BB raise, I call.
Turn is Ks, BB bets, I raise, BB calls
River is Kc. BB checks. Should I bet or check?
Larry
Assuming you know nothing about the fella, it's an automatic bet for value for me.
Sometimes, a bet may also cause him to fold a better hand like 99 or 10,10.
Yeah, some people will toss 99 or TT here, but some people will do anything. I doubt that running kings or anything about this hand could convince a reasonable player that the middle pairs have less than a 10% chance. So while I agree with the value bet, I'd have to be more confident than ususal that my eights are good when called.
Well, when a player raises preflop and then raises on the turn when a King hits, I sure would be worried that my 99 or 10,10 is no good. However, I agree with you that if I go on to call the raise on the turn, I would be more inclined to call on the River if a King fell than say a Jack, Queen, or Ace but some people may call the raise on the turn purely to see if they will hit their set on the turn and then fold to a bet on the river. This only needs to happen once in a while to make a bet a positive EV play (not to mention all those times when you will be called by a worse hand i.e. 98 etc.)
You may be describing a player prototype I don't see even "once in a while": timid against a preflop steal raise but plenty aggressive on the next round with a middling overpair; intrepid enough to buck overwhelming odds to hit a set on the river but then wimpy as hell when his second best card arrives. I stand by my earlier post: if there's an even money chance the BB has a higher pocket pair you check the 88 on the river.
A legitimate player profile to consider: cautious enough to wait for a safe flop with 99, TT et al yet aggressive enough to check raise when it hits; worried to bet with the scary king on the turn, but feeling compelled to do so; calling the raise in hopes of spiking a set because, "what the hell are pot odds?"; and folding on the river when, once again, forsaken by the poker gods.
I hold not only should you value bet As8s against most all, but that you should bluff As8s, AsQs etc against many when it's a coin toss proposition you're beat by a middle pocket pair.
The confidence might be found in the fact that the big blind did not play for a reraise pre-flop, considering you were in a steal position.
Always bet the river
Not an effortless decision, I think. At first (chatting during play), he seems like a casual player but then BB check-raises you on the flop heads up! Not exactly a casual play. These are his likeliest hands in no particular order: busted flush draw, busted straight draw with a small pair (67 or 78), 99 or 10's, two pair on the flop (56 or 68), trips on the flop (666, 555), two overcards on the flop with an inside straight draw (9J, 9Q, 9K, 9A, 910), flopped straight. I would tend to discount 9's or 10's because he'd have raised pre-flop but you never know. With flopped straight or trips, why didn't he wait till the turn to pop you? His non-bet on the river makes me think he flopped two-pair and the king on the river killed him. Still, I would check, because, if he calls, he's more likely to have you beat than not.
But isn't that counterbalanced by the chance of the fellow folding a better hand such as 99 or 10,10?
In my experience, most players make the crying call at the end with darn near anything (hell, I do it too if the pot is big enough). Making such bets for value not only adds directly to your profits, it also assists indirectly in that it makes it easier for you to pull off your bluffs.
BTW, I realize that the above two paragraphs may seem contradictory but..
I can't imagine anyone folding 9's or 10's in this situation, but my play has been confined to LL HE.
Checking saves a bet if you're beat. But, it does so at the cost of losing a pot when your opponent would fold a better hand or losing a bet when your opponent would call with a worse hand.
Bet!
Vince.
Hmmn... I'm not sure I can agree with a bet here. The problem is that your raise on the turn suggests you have a big hand, yet your opponent still called. How many players will check-raise the flop, get raised on the turn, then call with a made hand that they will fold to a bet on the river?
I would be expecting either a straight draw, a flush draw, a made straight, or a set. I can't see someone calling all the way to the end with something like 99, just to fold it to a bet on the river. Even if the opponent had two pair on the flop, he's beat and would probably not call the river after the king landed.
Given all that, I'd probably check, unless I knew more about my opponent.
BTW, if it were me holding the 99 in the BB, having the king pair on the river would make it more likely that I would call, not less likely. After all, a probable hand for you here was also top two pair, and the king counterfeits that. And if an opponent does have an overpair, he's not going to call your raise on the turn if he believes that you have a king. So it seems pretty clear to me that the only call you're going to get on the river is from a hand that beats you, and there's just about zero chance that you are getting a better hand to lay down.
"Hmmn... I'm not sure I can agree with a bet here. The problem is that your raise on the turn suggests you have a big hand, yet your opponent still called."
Dan, does that not suggest that your opponent has a 5 outer instead of a 2 outer?
That to me suggests that I should value bet at the end.
If the guy had a busted straight draw and doesn't call, well that's fine too - at least I don't have to show my hand.
Also, I would appreciate it if you tell me what you think about my response to William's post.
Because the A8 hand was played so agressively on the turn, it's hard to really tell what your opponent is calling with. A lot of people would simply call the raise with a made straight, intending to bet again on the river, but then the board pairing could scare him into checking and calling. The player could also have had a set, but the raise on the turn with a straight on the board could have slowed him down into just calling, and he could be lining up a checkraise on the river. But the most likely hand I think you're going to see here is either a busted draw or an overpair. And I don't think you're going to get the overpair to lay down.
One more factor: If you bet the river, you are opening yourself up to a checkraise bluff. Are you willing to pay two bets to find out?
Maybe it's just the nature of the game around here, but after I raise the turn and bet the river, I have to believe that there's a better than 50% chance that I am beat if I am called on the river.
One positive aspect of making the bet - it sends a message to an agressive player that you are not willing to be pushed around, and I might bet the hand on the river against one of the more agressive players around here.
Dan
Dan, I guess the choice of play is really dependant on the type of game that you are in.
In respect of your comment:
"One more factor: If you bet the river, you are opening yourself up to a checkraise bluff. Are you willing to pay two bets to find out?"
A rule of thumb I have is that I rarely bet for value when last to act unless I am also willing to call a raise. Thus, in this example, I would generally bet against loose players or potential River check raise bluffers. Against these guys, I would call a raise.
Against rocks who would never checkraise bluff at the end, the question of my calling their raise likely would never come up because these players are the types who would never pay me off at the end with a worse hand. Thus, I would not likely make the value bet in the first place.
Against an unknown player, I likely would value bet because I think that most players would have made it 3 bets on the turn with a made straight or even a set. Alternatively, they likely would bet out on the River with a King or a full house. For example, if the player had checkraised the flop with AK (certainly a valid play) and therefore called my raise on the turn when he hit top pair, that player would likely bet out when the King paired on the River. If he is unknown to me, I am also unknown to him. He would likely assume that I am not agggressive enough to bet again on the River even if I had Aces.
IME, most unknown players pay off at the end. If they are unknown in a small poker community like mine, it is because they don't play often or don't play too well. Such players fall into the check and call with a weak hand pattern much more often than the check and bluff raise pattern or check and call with a strong hand (i.e AK or better here) pattern.
In fact, in general, a check at the end by anybody signifies a mediocre hand. Bets usually signify a strong hand or a nothing hand (which is why I suggest making thin bets for value so as to avoid falling into this player profile but that's another topic).
I think you should check. BB has shown considerable strength here and you could easily be beat.
Also, I don't understand the argument that you should bet because "a better hand might fold, or a worse hand might call you." To me this is a clear sign you are in a checking situation. More likely is the possibility that a better hand will call you or a worse hand will fold.
The only argument I can see for betting is that there is a fair chance BB flopped two pair and was counterfeitted on the end.
William
Well, several well respected posters seem to be taking an opposite view from mine in this case. I am almost sorry that I said that you sometimes might get a hand like 99 or 10,10 to fold with a bet. Although I still stand by that statement, I hope you guys realize that that reason was just an afterthought; the main reason I say "bet" is simply because it's a good value bet situation. The blind may well have a hand like 98 or 76 and will pay off. In fact, notice that from his perspective, he is much better off calling the raise on the turn with a hand like 98 instead of a hand like 99 (i.e. 5 outs as opposed to 2 outs asuming that he puts the raiser on a King when he raises).
I believe you guys are giving the average player too much credit for being able to lay down at the end. In my experience, a bet here is plus EV - perhaps my opinion is just a function of the type of game that I typically play in.
One other thing-
I don't know what limit Larry's playing, but IME, at least at the LL's, any time you put in the last bet/ raise on a round and the other guy shows aggression on subsequent betting rounds, the player is almost never lying. In the LL games I languish in, I would have automatically mucked the turn-- no questions, no hassles-- unless I had odds to try and spike an A or an 8.
Of course, this changes at higher limits, so I guess my answer (such as it is) hinges on what the limit is, given that I know nothing about the other player.
For the BB to check-raise here in a tough game, all he has to believe is that the raiser is betting two overcards. Remember, the raiser was in a steal-raise position, meaning he doesn't have to have any part of this flop or a big pair. If it were me in the BB, I would routinely check-raise here with just about any pair or even AK.
Now, all that goes out the window when the King lands on the turn, the Big Blind bets, and our hero raises. The hand the hero is representing here is at least a King. So a call from the big blind would scare the daylights out of me. When the King pairs on the river I would be happy to get a free showdown, expecting to see either a busted draw or an overpair. If I thought the overpair would fold to a bet then betting is a good idea. But if the BB believed I had a hand as strong as I was representing, he should have folded to my raise on the turn. So either he doesn't believe me and will call, or he's got a monster himself.
That's my analysis, anyway.
As usual, an excellent analysis. The only way he's going to fold is if he's semi-bluffing a draw, and there aren't many players who play a legitimate draw this way-- instead, they'll check raise the flop, or lead bet it. When they call the turn raise (at least, when the betting progresses like this) it's my experience that they plan on calling the river, and generally they'll have a better hand than you (me), since you 'usually' have to have a better hand to call a raise than to raise yourself.
IME, the other guy usually shows me a K here. Now that may differ from what everyone else sees (skp, for example, who's opinion I respect), but I at least am usually looking at trip K's on the river. Hence, I'd probably dump it on the turn in a weak game, or check it down in a tough game.
I actually like the raise on the turn quite a lot, and that's what I'd do if I had played the hand. This makes the draw pay the maximim if the other player was betting a draw, and it gives me a good chance at making a better hand fold. However, I would be making the raise with the intention of buying back my bet on the river. In other words, if I just call, the other player will most likely bet again on the river, and I'd have to call again. By raising the turn, I still only cost myself two bets because I'll fold if the other player bets again on the river, and I'll check if he checks.
To Larry, the original poster: how did you proceed? And did you get to see your opponent's hand?
I bet out, he flashed the 9dTd before mucking.
Larry
I played a little $20-$40 hold 'em at The Mirage last night and saw an interesting play that was made by a fairly strong player.
Five people had limped in (no raise before the flop) and the flop was Ac 4d 2d. There was no bet on the flop. The turn was the 7s, it was checked to the strong player in late position who bet and then was raised by an overly aggressive player in early position. The strong player called.
The river was another diamond. The early position player bet, the late position player raised, the early position player reraised, the late position player raised again and was called. The hands were Kd9d for the early position player and Ad8d for the late position player.
All comments are welcome.
Just one question: how many boats were seen on the river last night (the river running down the strip, that is)?
I see that Louie also commented about this. What's up...a big time rainstorm or something?
skp -
According to the news, 3 inches of rain fell Thursday in a very short period of time (Vegas normally gets 4.1 inches total for the year). The footage I saw made it look more like 3 feet of rain. All joking aside, it didn’t look pretty -- unless you’re a jet skier.
I see less of a trap than the late position player milking a hand for all he knew it was worth. The early position, over-aggresive player bets when diamond comes on the turn. Either a) he's betting now because he made his straight on the flop, which is possible even though diamonds are on board because he's an over-agressive player, or b) he's betting at least a second nut flush. Another possiblity is that the over agressive player could have been semi-bluffing his four diamonds on the turn. Either way, the late position strong player knew he had the best of it all along. If the early players were betting, he made the right play just calling the turn.
Although it worked out in this instance, I have doubts about the play of the late position strong player.
You don't say if our hero was last to act. If there was a player left to act behind him, our hero may well have been looking for a checkraise on the flop.
If our hero was the last guy to act on the flop, he sure made an unconventional play but it may be a good one if the following conditions apply:
1. A bet on the flop would cause all players to fold (given that the pot is small and given that the strong player is in all likelihood favoured to win the hand when the smoke clears, he may not necessarily want everyone to fold on the flop. Had there been a raise preflop with 5 people seeing the flop, a check would be clearly incorrect).
2. Given that the early position player was overly aggressive (and I assume that our hero knows that), our hero may have thought that a bet on the flop would cause the aggressive player to raise and shut out the rest of the field leaving very little chance for our hero to win a big pot.
3. The hero's check on the flop will certainly throw everyone off as to the nature of his hand. A check on the flop may cause someone (preferrably an early position player) to take a stab at the pot. This would be even better if say a middle position player sensed that the early position player was bluffing and himself put in a bluff raise or something. Should all this occur with an Ace or a diamond falling on the turn, our Hero with his well disguised hand might get all kinds of unwarranted action. Actually, I am surprised that the early position player (who you described as overly aggressive) did not bet the turn with what would have appeared to him to be the nut Diamond draw.
4. At the very least, our hero's bet on the turn will cause someone to at least look him up on the turn and river with a very weak hand.
5. On future hands, our hero's bets from late position on the turn after all have checked to him on the flop and turn may not necessarily signal a weak hand (obviously, this in itself is not a very strong reason to check on the flop in this instance).
Overall, I think that there are some plusses to the hero's play here but I would only do it if (as here), the pot was a fairly small one on the flop.
Our hero likely makes several bets on the flop with weak hands in late position after everyone has shown weakness. If he wants to disguise those weak bets, he ought to also bet when he flops big.
Firstly, I'd like to say I'm sorry the strong player beat you up so bad
The real question for the strong player is checking the flop. This can be valid if he expects most of his successful steals to be on the TURN rather than on the flop. This is true for a particularly aggressive game; such as featuring an overly aggressive player UTG. Checking should be considered only as part of a sound and solid such strategy. Routinely Bet'em when you Got'em.
By checking strong hands on the flop he sets up steals on the turn. However, as suggested by SKP he reduces the affectiveness of his flop steals.
I would be tempted to 3-bet the turn against an overly aggressive player, since these guys have a real hard time checking two-pair or better TWICE. Solid player's bet looks like a weak pair as does aggressive UTGs turn check-raise. Also he CAN conceivably make a better hand fold now, and even if beat he still has the nut draw. Successfull and correct 3-bets with relatively "weak" hands has GOT to be good for your table presence.
Considering the disguised nature of both hands, 4 bets on the river seems reasonable.
So, you couldn't swim to Belagio?
- Louie
I think the play was quite good and that the fairly strong player has read your and David's 21st century hold em book.
By not betting the flop, he led the others to believe he didn't have an ace. When no one else bet the turn, he knew that he was most likely the only one with an ace. By just calling the raise on the turn he probably had his opponent thinking he had a 7, and/or was on the come, but without the Ace (7d-6d?), thus making the opponent think, until the 4th bet on the river, that his King high flush was good.
There is some validity to the thoughts of some of the other posters that it is dangerous to not bet top pair in this situation, but with a flop of A-4-2 it is unlikely anyone has as much as a pair so the "dreaded" free card is not as likely to hurt here as in other situations.
"There is some validity to the thoughts of some of the other posters that it is dangerous to not bet top pair in this situation, but with a flop of A-4-2 it is unlikely anyone has as much as a pair so the "dreaded" free card is not as likely to hurt here as in other situation."
Furthermore, the "dreaded free card" may help you quite a bit. Suppose the fourth street card is a diamond. Now someone with a king, queen, or jack of diamonds may call drawing dead while they would have folded on the flop.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's a trap play. Do you really think giving your opponents the opportunity to draw out for free versus picking up a nice pot, combined with the risk of losing bets to be had on the flop justifies attempting to trap someone with a diamond or other card making them a pair on the turn?
In fact, I've noticed bad players, passive players making these types of plays (unbeknownst to them) on occasion. Most times it is definitely the wrong play. But with some hand-board combinations, I've thought, "if you're going to give a free card, this is the spot to do it."
It is an interesting play, but I am still not sure if it's the most profitable play.
We all agree in this case the A8 player had little to fear. On the flop he was something like a 40:1 favorite and on the turn he had a lock. So, by the FToP he should play this to get the most money in the pot.
Now with 5 limpers how far are you behind hands on the flop? You're better then a 10:1 favorite over a pair of kings (with one diamond) but you don't suspect that hand given the preflop action. If a gutshot straight draw limped in on the blind then we are something like 3:1. Unfortunately we are a 2:1 or so dog to the sets. We are about even with Aces up but you would think that top and bottom would be trying hard to drive out weak flush draws.
So, where does that leave us. I would think that the only hands we are behind either would have bet out or check raised the flop hopeing to drive out the flush draws or would have checked (missed the c-r) and bet the turn for the same reason. The checkraise on the turn should concern the flush draw a little but out of the likely hands to be playing only a few are ahead of us and the rest we are crushing.
You could play with the probabilities of each hand and come out with an EV for each play but I think that is so sensitive to your guesses that you would have to have been in the game to make any sense. I think the check on the flop and the bet on the turn was a reasonable alternative play.
Mason,
From the title of your post "Trap Play" you imply, at least to me, that it was the intention of the winner of this hand to trap his opponents That was the reason for his play on the flop. If that is true the it worked. However, I am more inclined to believe that he just elected to take a free card and see what happened. If that is trapping well then I stand corrected. I do not, however, believe that his paly was the most correct play on the flop. He misses an opportunity to get more money in the pot. Your comment about what if a diamond hits on the turn doesn't sit well with me either. You imply that he was considering that when he made the play. I doubt it. That seems like something considered in hind sight. I also do not understand why the opponent with Kd,9d doesn't bet his diamonds on the flop.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 9 July 1999, at 7:18 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Friday, 9 July 1999, at 11:30 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 10 July 1999, at 3:09 a.m.
Posted by: KOP (thekingofpoker@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 10 July 1999, at 10:23 a.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Saturday, 10 July 1999, at 1:24 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Saturday, 10 July 1999, at 1:56 p.m.