![[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.
I don't see this as a planned trap hand. I agree it is a an example of how to trap and if you were to elaborate one could understand how to use this example to create trap situations. However, I am not sure that trapping was the intention of the player. It could have just as easily been a misplayed hand from one point of view or a correctly played hand from another. Geez, Now I'm confused!
Vince.
I think the overly agressive player with Kd9d was prepared to checkraise the flop, expecting action since there was an ace on board. I agree with you Vince that Kd9d should have bet out, and I believe most rational players would too.
The key point here is that there was no raise before the flop. Since the pot was small, the overly aggressive player in early position should have bet out on the flop just to see if he can build up the pot to make it worth winning. Instead, he foolishly decided to get tricky and tried to represent something bigger than what he actually had.
The play that the strong player made in late position is now questionable. Since, there is only 100 bucks in the pot, I think it is not a good idea for him to bet at it on the turn, for I would fear a check-raise. Although he has top pair with the nut flush draw, I do not believe the odds are good enough, especially with that many people are still in the pot. I would have checked the turn.
Lastly, the early position player is welcome in my game anytime.
Why would you fear a check raise with top pair and the nut flush draw when all players have already checked both the flop and the turn? A check raise was certainly possible, in fact more than possible since it did indeed happen, but I think in this case our hero welcomed it rather than feared it.
First, there is only 100 bucks in the pot. Your early position player could be holding a set and slowplaying it. If I bet on the turn my pot odds are(100 preflop + 40 from me + 40 from him)3:1 by making a $40 bet and if he just calls. So, I'm reducing my own odds, because the odds of making the flush on the river are now 4.22:1. Since, this player is overly aggressive I'm going to get him on the river anyway. If I don't make my flush I can call a bet without investing alot of dough just in case he's bluffing me.
Points taken, but I don't think the early position player would have twice checked his set. I think the bet on the turn looks enough like a steal to get some weak calls and even if there's a check-raise, our hero still has top pair and the nut-flush draw.
Maybe. But, I'm sure our early position player would have bet out on the river if everyone checked again on the turn. Obviously, he was not thinking clearly. I guess I'll have to practice firing in the chips as fast as I can when I'm holding the nuts, before this guy realizes that he's drawn dead (he he).
A somewhat similar situation is explained in The Theory of Poker, page 235.
Five limpers does not preclude another ace out there. A-10, A-9 in the blind, or any suited ace could conceivably limp on that hand. Consequently, the late position player was right to check the flop; he may not have had the best hand at that time, and he was laying a potential trap should he make his flush.
Why take k9s'd into play from an early position in the first place?
That would assume only good players are at a 20-40 table. There are fish at this level too, just not many.
I don't like this particular trap play at all. The trouble is that anybody with a 3 or a 5 has a gutshot on the flop. What would you all be saying if the turn had been the 5s and the big blind had won the hand with Jh 3c?
William
I don't think a bet on the flop would have gotten out the BB if he had a gut shot draw; he would have called the bet for his gut shot. Plus you've still got your draw at the flush on the river.
If the blind would have called with a gutshot, all the more reason to bet. Eleven times out of twelve, the bet wins an extra small bet for the hero.
William
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.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 12 July 1999, at 8:29 a.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 10 July 1999, at 4:33 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 11 July 1999, at 1:30 a.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 11 July 1999, at 3:20 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Monday, 12 July 1999, at 12:25 a.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 12 July 1999, at 4:21 a.m.
Posted by: Mike Bunis
Posted on: Saturday, 10 July 1999, at 11:05 a.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Saturday, 10 July 1999, at 12:31 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 12 July 1999, at 8:35 a.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 10 July 1999, at 2:47 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 11 July 1999, at 1:35 a.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 11 July 1999, at 1:55 p.m.
My local flop house, I mean card club is hiring prop players. Does anyone have insight into what being a prop player is about? Is there profit to be made?
Thanks
It's a tough job and the turnover is high. Some houses won't allow prop's to check-raise.
At some houses, I've seen props lounge around, drink coffee and smoke cigarettes when not in a game. At other houses, I've seen them running around with feather dusters and vacuum packs on their backs performing clean-up duty.
In Colorado, the props make $10 an hour plus winnings. It's not a very tough job if you can beat a very easy to beat low-limit structure. In play, the props can check raise or use any other standard tactic they choose. But they must be fairly civil. I've noticed many prop players move over time from playing to dealing. And in Colorado, the dealers make $50k to $70k annual.
Thank you for the earnings info!
Your friendlier IRS.
Dealer and prop wage information is available through the casino. I will say if your wage data collection methods are found by scouring unsubstantiated claims on the internet, I can see why you make such an excellent candidate for government work.
Under Admin. law you have to prove your innocents we do not have to prove your guilt in improperly reportingt tips. Gross figures such as you gave do not agree with casino records. :. ?
A prop would have to demonstrate his income by a preponderance of the evidence, which in this case could be done by an 8 year old. The prop would testify and proffer casino records, while U. Sam's "gross figures" are not even admissible. Rule 801, Federal Rules of Evidence, makes an assertion, other than one made under oath at a trial or hearing, if used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, inadmissible hearsay.
Props that make money in Colorado have told me that the only way they do so is to play nothing but AA,KK,QQ, and AKs. Only a few make money, many give a good amount back to the tables where anything goes all the time. The rakes are high. I know of only 2 or 3 props that have made a living for more than 2 years. The dealers, however, do well. They also play in other casinos that they do not work in. Generally, they collude in being nice to other dealers. Thus, unless one is one of the boys, this factors against a player sitting on the action. Personally, I find it appalling and shameful that a government revenue agent would attempt to intimidate players on a forum such as this. Big Brother should do a better job of auditing its own corrupt officials.
Since props are used to start games, chances are that he may find himself in a shorthanded situation a big majority of the time. When the game is full, he is usually forced to vacate his seat. To be successful, a prop must therefore be good at shorthanded play. An inflexible rock would probably not make a profitable prop.
what is the odds of losing with 4 tens in hold'em to any of the other better hands. (BOTH CARDS IN BOTH HANDS MUST PLAY)IE board 10 10 10 Q Q pocket Q's and A's 10 or King 10 (NOT jack 10, nine 10, or worse NO GOOD)
THANKS CRAIG
Pretty remote. ;-)
This sounds like a jackpot requirement somewhere. Should I or someone else tackle this problem in the next few days (now what are the odds of that?!), remember that many would be qualifying hands will never see the light of day, as they will be folded (ex. someone folds J7d preflop and the board is 8d,9d,Td,Tc,x and someone holds pocket tens). I suspect many possible winning conbinations will never be played out.
Also, the number of players will effect the odds, as a potential qualifying board will more likely hit if there are more players in the game.
I assume you want to know the odds of losing with four tens or better.
A simulation could be very useful here. Calculating the odds will be very time consuming.
THANK YOU GEORGE
I know it is a very hard question, but if a simulation or an educated guess is possible from you or a friend please do so thank you.
THANKS CRAIG
This isn't a hard question, just a tedious one. And now I will write the solns for various assumptions:
Now either you have T T or not. Let's assume you do and solve the other case in a later post.
Either you lose to a staight flush or another set of quads.
If you lose to another set of quads the board must look like T T C C D where C may or may not be D, and C is a J Q K or A.
If C is D (eg the board is something like T T J J J), then there are exactly 16 such boards (4 times 4 ). and our adversary can hold one of 12 hands that beat us (eg J Q, J K , J A) (there are 4 such holdings for each hOlding...)
(Note the number of hands our adversary can haold are the same if C is a Q J K A since we insist both players must use both cards).
So the probability we lose this way is
(16 / (48 C 3)) (12 / (45 C 2).
Now if C is not D there are exactly 6 times 45 times 4 such boards. and our adversary must hold exactly C C.
Thus the proability we lose this is
(24 (45)/ (48 C 3))(1/ (45 C 2)).
Recall (n C k) = n! / (n-k)! k!.
I think this should be understandable and now someone (besides me!) can punch it into a calculator. If you'd like to more explaination let me know.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
This was all a very big help. Thank you for your time
CRAIG
Went to the Orleans this evening to sign up for the $120 buyin LH tournament starting 10 July (tomorrow) at noon. While there I noticed they were running satelites (how observant of me, huh). The satelite buy in was $20. 10 players. The prize money was distributed between 1st - $120 and Second - $30. That left $50 juice for the house. Seems to me that is very very high. The $35 sat wasn't any better. 10 players. $230 to the winner $60 to second - $60 to the house.
Am I wrong or is that too much juice for satellites of this size.
Vince.
You're wrong. I've paid $70 for a satellite.
One way to look at this is to compare the juice to what a typical poker table drops in an hour. In Las Vegas this is usually between $50 and $100 per hour depending on the game. From that point of view juice of $50 to $60 per hour is cheap by what a table normally charges since most sattelites last for more than an hour.
Another way to look at this is the ratio of vig to entry fee. Pretty high, now isn't it!
However, with the responses to my complaint so far I can see I am a minority of one in my thinking, (Very unusual, most of the time everyone agrees with me) so I withdraw my complaint. Besides it is almost noon and I must be on my way to play in the first Orleans Open Event. Wish me luck, Mason!
Vince.
This is a common problem in satellites for low buy-in tourneys. Even a satellite for a $300 event is not that attractive. One point you may not have observed is that since the buy-in is tiny, few players are on their best game and will play many hands they might not play in a more expensive buy-in satellite. This has the effect of making the satellite more of a crapshoot. I'm coming to town for the final event and really had figured that would be the only event worth playing satellites. Good luck in the tourney.
Vince; Some clubs in our my area are including a dealer tip in the Satalite buy-in. This should be known to players. Some houses don't hoping dealers get a double dose. Dealers shoud get something for good service so I don't object to small increease for this purpose.
This like anything else is a price vs demand curve. The consumer could control they if they organized.
There are two forces that get players broke. Mr.Volatility and Mr. Vig. You probably have to be one of the world's five best tournament players to breakeven in the long run with a vig this big.
It's not too high if you think you can win 1/6 times for the $20, or 1/7 times for the $35. If so, you should be a slight money favorite (assuming that you will come in 2nd about as often as you will win). With these assumptions I believe you will make about $5 per satellite. Of course if you are a winning player, you can probably do better than $5/hr somewhere else.
I was playing 2-5. Player two players to my right raised EVERY time he had the button or was immediately to the left of the button.
This had the effect of me and the player to my right NEVER being able to play our "free" blind. It also had a secondary effect of very few callers should we get a playable hand because other players soon learned that their calls would be raised.
Needless to say This pissed me and the other player off. I then made a pact with him. Next time the raiser did it he would raise and I would cap. We did this four times in a row before the raiser got the message.
Bt the way a secondary benifit was for three of the hands one of us got heads up with the raiser and won because of the terrible cards he was playing and the fourth time all three of us showed down and once again the raiser lost.
Any way my question for comments:
Is it ethical for me and another player to make an agreement such as this against this player.
Thank you,
S. Doyle
I think it is always unethical to collude with another player to manipulate a game. You are in a very powerful position when you have a maniacal player to your right who automatically raises every one of your blinds. You don't need anyone else's help to manipulate this situation profitably. My advice would be to re-raise (to try to isolate him) whenever you have a hand that is better than the average garbage that he is playing. Depending on how he and the rest of the table play after the flop, you can usually continue to punish him by checkraising the turn and/or river when you think you've got him beat. On the hands where you truly have good cards that play well amongst company(e.g. KQs), you might just smooth-call his pre-flop raise, and play aggressively after the flop when you hit a piece of the flop. This type of play will increase your variance, but in the long run, you are in a good position to take his chips; and it's certainly more fun than folding your blinds away.
It was definitely not ethical and probably not legal.
Poker is an individual sport not a team sport and should be played as such. What you and the other player did was collusion and was very unethical. The player that pissed you off has a right to play any way he chooses. If you want to stop him, you should have done it alone instead of explicitly double teaming him in an immoral fashion.
Not only was it unethical (cheating is a better word) but it was foolish also. First the cheating part. I believe when two players work together to gain an advantage in a poker game that they both are guilty of cheating. Period! (Please don't screw around with tag team events, they are meaningless here).
The foolish part. This fellow, the raiser, has now become the golden goose and you killed him. You made him play better!. Anytime a player is predictable he becomes YOURS! Since you cheated this fellow I will not elaborate, figure it out for yourself, just suffice it to say you made a huge mistake. BTW- Now that you know that your cheating buddy is dihonest how can you ever trust him in the future not to cheat against you and visa versa! "Oh! What tangled webs we weave. When at first we try and decieve" (or something like that.) Now that you are away from the table, put yourself in the place of the player that was cheated. How would it make you feel? Not only should a poker player commit to not cheating but should expose it at every opportunity. That is the only ETHICAL thing to do!
Vince.
Thank you for your post. One of my biggest concerns as an up and coming player is cheating, both from the players and the person dealing. I know there are teams out there, combines and satellite teams in Vegas, and there are dealers who can move cards around with a fair amount of ease. I have witnessed overt collusion between a dealer and player in a major tournament in las Vegas and am suspicious of more of it on occasion. I've been taken in confidence by one or two people who 'know' and told of some of the stuff that goes on. All I can say is, wathch your ass and make a lot of noise when you suspect you're in 'bad company'. Poker is a tuff enough game to beat without collusion and overt manipulation of the deck.
"I have witnessed overt collusion between a dealer and a player in a major tournament in las vega" What!!! Overt means out in the open! You witnessed a dealer and player openly cheating in a major tournament! If you can prove that their names should be broad cast throughout poker land! Also, include how the collusion was accomplished! However if you cannot prove it just ealaborate on how they did it, please.
Vince.
It's "Oh what a tangled web we weave/when first we practice to deceive." I don't remember what it's from. And I agree 100% -- this maneuver was unethical and stupid. The right solution would have been to take it upon himself to re-raise with any reasonable hand, and keep mucking the crap hands.
As a matter of fact Vince, it was at the Orleans last year in a HE tournament. Player was sitting in # 5 seat directly across from the dealer, hadn't been playing many hands. Dealer came into box, Player started receiving an inordinate amount of aces especially when in first position and on button. I saw the dealer signal with one and two fingers on the deck after deal, before flop. Quite obvious when one was looking, no-one but me seemed to. Happened three times. Player tripled up whilst dealer was at the table, went back to normal style of play after dealer left. There are a number of dealers I will not play even good cards while they are dealing, either in ring games or in tournaments. Sucks. I've made some noise, feels a tad dangerous to me peopel's jobs, $$ at stake. I keep to myself and keep my eyes open. Its all so hush-hush and goes back a ways into the 70's & 80's and groups of folks been playing and dealing together for years. i could say more, won't, perhaps we'll meet soon and I'll ytalk to you in person. "Never be too poor to pay attention"
I agree with the previous posts. The only way your behavior could be ethical is if you and you're partner anounced your intentions to all players at the table. I will not elaborate on how dumb such a thing would be.
Actually, I like that idea...
After reading the responces to my query and the other "ethical" question post, as well as having the weekend to ponder my actions. I have to admit that my actions regarding the colussion were truly inappropriate.
At first I was somewhat offended that what I considered "possibly unethical" was labled "collusion" and "cheating". However no matter how I, then and now, attempt to justify it , that that is exactly what I did.
Turns out this forum has more to offer that just strategy.
Thank you,
S. Doyle
P.S. A side note to MR. Lepore. I found your words for my post and the other post particularly inspiring.
Hey S. Doyle,
Let's get one thing straight. My name is Vince! Mr.Lepore was my dad (deceased. God, I miss him dearly).
Another thing! The recent posts on ethics questions that we have discussed here are more valuable in and of themselves than anything I may have added. It took one heck of a lot of courage on the part of those who openned up and allowed us to chop up their very souls! I for one wish to put the thanks where it belongs. To you and Andy!
Vince.
I made this play last night in an 8-16 game.
Three players limped in front of me. I raised one off the button with As Qs. The button and small blind folded, the big blind called, and the flop came 5 handed. There were several loose and highly unpredictable players in the hand.
The flop was Ac 3h 3d. All checked to me and I checked. The turn was the Ks. The big blind, a loose and overly aggressive player, bet, all folded to me, and I called.
The river was a 7. The blind bet and I called.
All comments are welcome.
William
it may have worked for you but with ten or more small bets in the pot why check and let someone pick up a draw and get odds to call on fourth street. it looks like only about seven cards out of the deck can pop off and not give a possible draw a chance to beat you that would not have called a bet on the flop. plus with that many in the pot its likely someone has an ace and will call all the way and you will call if beat as well.
Ray's advice is absolutely correct. The bigger the pots are the less likely these kind of plays are proper strategy because of the chance that someone will pick up a draw and then be correct to play it.
On the other hand, it can sometimes be correct to only call on the flop with the intention of raising. This may look like the trap play but it's not.
You need to reread your holdem primer. You incorrectly checked the flop. And neglected to raise the turn. Other than that you did fine!
Vince.
I don't like the play at all. IMO, you should bet the flop.
If you get just one or two callers (particularly from the blinds), you may then check the turn. You then call or bet the river.
If you check the flop, several bad things can happen, I 'll just point out two of them:
1. You allow backdoor flush and straight draws a chance to overtake you.
2. You may well be forced to throw away the best hand on the turn becase others have decided to flex their muscles with weak hands because they assume that you ain't got nothing.
This trap play is much different from the one Mason posted because the pot here was raised pre-flop. It also would not fall within the 21st Century guidelines for playing in loose games because there is already a pair on the board which means that no one has a 5 outer on you on the flop.
Finally, if you are scared of someone having a 3, notice that he likely would not raise until the turn.
Sum: Bet the flop and consider checking the turn. Be prepared to call or bet the river.
Here is an unethical play that I have experienced twice. You are heads up on the end and it looks like high card is going to take the pot. Your opponent makes a vague check motion. You check and expose your cards. As you are laying your cards on the table, your opponent throws out a bet. The vague checking motion was hidden from the dealer, who now thinks you have acted out of turn. You are in the uncomfortable position of having to call the bet after your opponent has seen your cards.
Both times I called and won. The first time my opponent threw a fit, jumping up and yelling that I had stolen his pot; that's how I knew he had taken a shot at me. All he had to do was turn over his cards if the pot were his. The second time, against a female, I got a similar reaction.
Forwarned is forarmed.
I had this happen to me once, and when I reached for chips to call the player said, "Oh, save your money. I have that beat." Upon hearing that, I thanked him and mucked my cards. He tried to muck his, but they caught on the table and flipped over, revealing that in fact I did have him beat.
The two who pulled this on me both looked the part. Ugly personalities, ugly to look at and they could both scratch their knees without bending over.
Here are the two 'e's I left out in forewarned and forearmed: e,e.
I've recently found a very good game where those types of antics happen almost every hand. Faked bets and checks are so common its almost boring. I just stare at the felt and wait for the dealer to point to me. I am consoled by the fact that many of these players spend their time being tricky rather than improve their play.
it wont happen if you dont turn your hand over till its your turn to do so. if its checked to you, you simply say check and wait for him to show or call his hand. if a player makes a wave you simply say "did you check" and wait for his answer. if players must turn over their hands fast and out of turn they will get what they deserve. i realize that many players are not seasoned so i point this out again for all. good luck.
Agreed. Pay attention and you won't have these problems.
It has happened to me twice, I won both times. There had to be a little bit of attention applied.
Daniel -
It's not so much you paid attention to win as exploiting a classic tell: acting strong means weak. You exposed a weak hand out of turn; your opponent bet into you after his faux-check.
Upon paying attention and picking up a faux-check, a good way of angling an angler would be to intentionally expose a weak hand out of turn with the attempt to induce him to bluff.
Thank you for that advice, Ray Zee. It is the kind of learning that I love. Benefiting from the experience of those who have already learned the lesson. Learning the hard way is such a drag.
When I posted 'angle shot' I was hoping to gather more information on angle shooting. I also wondered what I should have done to protect myself. The next time someone tries that on me they will hit the wall.
Both incidents happened quite awhile ago. The first time I became aware. The second time I hardened up. The third time has yet to come.
Ray Zee spotted me immediately as below his class. It is true I am not world class. I don't know if I want to be, it would be alot of work and I am lazy.
The reason I play poker is to break bottles over other peoples heads without getting arrested. Winning is just an index of how many bottles I have broken over their heads as compared to how many they have broken over mine.
But back to the original intent of my post, to generate information on angle shooting. I already know the one where someone shows you red and declares a flush, but maybe someone else has not heard that one.
Try this. I usually wait for the dealer to tell me to turn over my cards, even if I was the bettor. Because, if I'm beat, I don't show them.
A simple "did you check sir?" gets the dealer involved too.
Many years ago I was playing in a draw game. A good friend who had helped save my business was sitting on my immediate right and all the other players were unknown to me. My friend opened the pot and was called by the player on my immediate left and one other player across the table. I was not involved in the hand.
My friend drew 3, the player on my left drew 1 and the player across the table drew 1. My friend checked and the player on my left who had drawn one bet. The player across the table considered for a while and then called. My friend looked at his cards so that I could see them and I saw he had 3 Aces. So he clearly had the player across the table beat but he had to consider whether the player who had drawn one had completed his hand.
As he was about to reach for his chips to overcall, the player on my left held his cards very sloppily so that I could see them without any effort whatsoever. What I saw were five hearts. I kicked my friend under the table and he folded, saving forty bucks.
I asked a lot of people if they felt I had cheated or acted unethically and I was frankly shocked by their reactions. Almost everyone told me that I had not cheated or acted unethically. Their key points were 1) I did not profit from the action; 2) the player on my left was obligated to protect his hand and if bad things happened to him because he didn't protect his hand, it was his fault; and 3) it would have been unethical for me to let my good friend loose $40 if I could stop him from doing so.
My own thoughts are that I cheated and acted unethically. Secretly giving information to another player is wrong, period. Somewhat paradoxically, I felt at the time I cheated but that it was the right thing to do looking at the bigger picture of what my friend had done for me in my life.
Maybe our fuzzy thinking fighter friend can give us his thoughts here, and all others' thoughts are welcome too.
Is there any possiblity of a knock off in the parking lot?
I think you cheated, but so what. I thin your initial assessment was right; you cheated and it was the right thing to do.
Cheating is never the right thing to do...you cheated -- period. Would you condone this if you were the guy holding the heart flush? If he was sloppy enough for your friend to see them, well that's the breaks for your pal..Your friend was a big boy and a one card pull in draw means caution...your ethics wouldn't be welcome in my game, or any other quality home game, if this was your personality...
As far as Randy goes, his quote, "I think you cheated, but so what." (what rock did you just crawl out from under, Randy?)If you get the reputation as a cheat and scammer, well, let's just say you better stick to the casinos and cardrooms because you won't be welcome anywhere else. And if you're spotted as a 'bag' in private games -- sorry, you lose whatever bankroll you're holding at the time and perhaps something more from the over agressive players who caught you. Cheating is wrong -- period, and you cheated...
Dead
I agree with dedmarsh's post. You're actions also risked more than the pot was worth. Had you been caught you and your friend are then cheats - you'll never get rid of that label.
1) Did you or did you not profit from this action? How was your friendship with this other fellow affected. I first felt that your friendship was somehow strengthened. However, if I were your "friend" your action would have led me to believe you were a person that could not be trusted and we may no longer be friends. Of course since he apparently said nothing his ethics were not much different. "Peas of a pod"
2) Because the player with the hearts "is" obligated to protect his hand in no way justifies your action. There is an unspoken "ethical", if you will, rule of "one player to a hand". You were not playing the hand and should have become an observer. Your role then becomes one of a "poker policeman", per se, with an obligation to ensure that no unethical behavior occurs! As amatter of fact all at the poker table are obliged to ensure ethical behavior rules!
3) Unethical to let your friend lose money if you can help it. Unfriendly may be a better choice of words but still not the truth. What did your friend learn from your actions? He certainly didn't learn to play poker any better. You didn't help him there. I think he learned, if he really thought about it, that you were an "unethical person". One that could not be trusted.
I will tell you that I have been faced with similiar situations on the felt. I had a poker buddy stop talking to me for over a year because "I raised his blind" of all things. I knocked another out of a tournament and now get the cold shoulder treatment whenever I see him. In each case I told them that this is the only way I know how to play poker. I'm not sure they are real friends anyway. What do you think? I also play in a regular NLH tournament at the Orleans. There is one regular player that ALWAYS exposes his cards to the player on his left. I told him about it but he continues. He's an older guy that just doesn't care. When I sit next to him and he shows his cards, as usual, I use the information. Unethical? Maybe. I'm no saint.
However, your post does tell me a little more about you! "My thoughts are that I cheated...." You cheated, You know it now and you knew it then. I would be surprised if it ever happened again. I believe by sharing it here that you have made amens and have helped those of us in the "poker world" by discussing an actual case of poker ethics. Were it me, I would apologize to my friend for making him part of my unethical behavior. I would hope he forgave me. Then I would try to strengthen our realationship through positive rather than negative behavior. If he could not understand my dilemma, well, then, maybe some friendships are just meant to fade away.
All said and done because you courageously and HONESTLY openned up here I would be happy to have have you at my table!
Vince.
The reactions here are about the opposite of what the reactions were then (over 20 years ago). Only one poster said "so what" and all others said I cheated pure and simple. Most of the people I mentioned this to then, who took the opposite position, were not card players.
As to your questions: 1) I would say my friendship was not affected. My friend said thanks to me when I next saw him and we never discussed it again. I still see him, but we're not as close as we once were. 2) What did my friend learn from my actions? Probably nothing other than he saved $40. 3) What do I think about the 2 "friends" who are upset with how you played your cards? I am someone who does play "softer" against "friends" at the table. For example, I will tend to bet out instead of going for a check raise heads-up against a friend, or just turn over a monster on the river instead of betting. But no one should expect this and you are correct to play hard at all times.
Incidentally, this incident bothered me then and obviously continues to so many years later. I have never colluded since and once, when an acquaintance kicked me under the table I later told the person to please never do it again. But I still, as I indicated above, play "soft" against a friend, especially if I am having a good night and my friend is stuck. But I will only do this when we are the only two in the pot. (This of course does affect the other players on future hands in terms of the amout of money we each have in front of us, our respective moods, etc.)
I agree with the majority of posters: it was cheating and wrong, period. Thanks to all for the responses, especially to you, Vince, for the deservedly pointed criticism followed by a spirit of forgiveness.
Nough Said!
Vince! (Andy, Your welcome!)
Looking at the other player's hole cards was ethical. It was his responsibility to protect his hand. But signalling your friend to fold was downright immoral. It was cheating. Your friend having helped you in business should have nothing to do with poker.
The rules of poker are very simple. One player per hand. You violated that rule. Thus you were wrong.
All players should always protect their hands. When this is not the case and you see someone's cards it is legal for you, and only you, to use that information. It is not legal to pass it on.
Mason,
You are confusing "legal" with ethical. If you read the post, as I did, you will see that the man knew his behavior was wrong and wanted to somehow to make amens. By posting his "unethical" (not illegal) behavior he has, in my opinion, earned forgiveness from "the poker world".
Vince
I understand and I too forgive you MATE for knocking your friends knee. In 1992 I had it done to me. The guy in this situation ($30-60 HE)had me beat, I bet the flop he raised and knocked my knee, with another four players after him. Two called the raise and I folded (he had flopped Aces full). I actually ,even today, still feel strange about him letting me know he had me BEAT! That was the first nite I'd played with him and since we have become friendly opponents, when we meet at major tourneys. The thing I don't like and N E V E R do is soft play friends. Poker is about winning money (most of the time), and soft playing selected opponents I find unethical. I've played in a 10 handed game where 8 soft played each other, I changed tables after 2 hours. Heads up the checked the nuts on the flop. Is that right? What about three way action, where YOU are in the middle, A bets, YOU call B raises and A re-raises, you fold and B folds. Later you see A and B having dinner together. I've seen that also, is that ethical?
Tonight I faced a type of player that drives us all nuts. This guy would play all sorts of unreadable trash hands, e.g., 3,5 off suit, 10,5 suited, and hit them, again and again. You'd think the guy would be a big loser, but he seems to have found a style works for him in typical $20/40 games.
1. He generally waits until he has late position and caught several other players in the pot. He then raises with nearly anything that can be remotely considered a hand, connectors, whether suited or not, etc.
2. He buys a lot of buttons by his aggressive raising. What's more, because he nearly always 2 or 3 bets it before the flop, it is nearly impossible to come in with less then a premium hand. But high pairs get snapped off right and left, not only by him, but by the other players who limp in because of the pot odds he creates. His heavy pre-flop betting also has the predictable effect of slowing down the betting, allowing him to hit more of his impossibly lucky draw out hands.
3. He probably blufs a lot, but you never know when to call him, because just as soon as you think he has nothing, he will turn up a decent hand.
I know a player like this is supposed to "juice" the game, but, for the life of me, I just can't figure a way to play around the guy. The standard deviation curve blows through the roof.
Any suggestions?
RM
No offense, but this post confirms my suspicion that O'Neil Longson is still poker's Rainman.
I don't know who O-Neil Longson is. I'm not him. And if your implication is that my querry is less than intelligent, then yes I'm offended. If you had sat at the table with this guy, you'd have been just as confused. Many seasoned road warriors I know also sat in this game and they were likewise dumbfounded. He took an otherwise soft game and made it unplayable. For example, one of the the standard strategies against loose, soft players is to grind out top pairs. But the effect that this guy was having on the table was that pot that were normaly small because people limped in pre-flop were now big, giving them justifiable pot odds to chase long shot runners. The guy's mere presence in the game meant that nearly every pot had multiple players, sometimes 7 and 8 players. And if you tried raising from an early position with a big pair, even Aces, you would NOT thin the field, but instead add to the problem. Caro's advice in a situation like this, where the game has a high standard deviation, is not to play at all. But there was only ONE $20/40 game at this casino, and it was the only big game in town.
No, I thought it was an intelligent post, and there are certainly players who make it confusing. But you should make an effort to find out who O'Neil Longson is (amongst other merits and WSOP results, I'd have to believe that he's the winningest player in WSOP super-satellites ever).
My post was an attempt at understatement: If you had ever played against O'Neil or watched him play, you would understand my post. You might check with Mike Paulle and see if he can give you some insight. Good luck.
Thanks for the compliment by mistaking me for him. I'm relatively new to poker circles but have been a blackjack pro for several years. I'm well known on those boards under the name "Rainman" (I was given the name because I'm famous for keeping multiple side counts).
Footnote about the player I mentioned. He finally busted out after a miraculous three day run. But as long as he was in the game it was compeltely unplayable by serious players. Oddly enough, his style favored those who played just like him. Ramarkable the effect just one maniac can have on a game.
Sit to his immediate left and: "Don't worry, be Happy"!
Vince.
BTW - If this simple little advice doesn't work then he's to good for you to play against! Get out of his game!
This was an interesting post, but I haven't seen an interesting response. Usually Vince has some really intelligent feedback but his message here puzzles me. Earl's response was useless. Seems like if you can't read the guy, then he's not your ideal opponent. Having no game is better that losing. Maybe you would be better off standing on the rail for a while and observing.
Aggressive tough is your worst opponent. Would you classify him as tough or loose? If loose than it would seem that you should be playing tight and aggressive against him. and using your info on the other players to read them, determining whether or not you can beat them. If you can't read most of the players, then you are at a serious disadvantage and need to leave the game.
Hey spadebrain, what was wrong with my response. When you are in a game with a player that will ALWAYS raise in specific situations, your best move is to sit immediately to his left and take advantage of his predictability. If you can't get on his immediate right, the second best move you can make is to sit to his immediate right. Now why is that? It is of no use to try and read this guy! That doesn't matter! You will occasionally (maybe more than occisionally) get burned by him, but treat him like you would a "maniac" (before the flop) and he will eventually be yours or he will adjust. Thus my second point. If moving to his immediate left (or right) does not work then this guy may just be to tough an opponent for you. If you have to play in his game avoid heads up confrontation and when unavoidable play him straight up!
And "Don't worry be happy!"
Vince
Vince,
Forgive my ignorance, but I'm an intermediate player learning. I don't understand the idea of sitting to his immediate right or left. What do you gain from this? Also, does straight up mean playing solid? By the way, I've been reading all of your messages and have been gaining much knowledge. I think you have some valuable insight into the game.
Spadebrain
Spadebrain,
Think for a momet. What does this player do quite frequently and predictably? He raises. Now ask yourself: How can I take advantage of this behavior? What can I do given that I know this player makes many inappropriate raises?
Imagine yourself in a game with this fellow. Now put yourself to his immediate right. Watch the action as it occurs. Everyone folds to the person in question. what does he do? Raise! Now it's your turn. You protectively look at your two cards. AsKc! A hand that plays better how (according to our mentors Sklansky and Malmuth)! Heads up or at least short handed! What is your play? What is the action one takes to thin the field. Reraise! This fellow has helped you in your quest to thin the field with these types of hands. Now imagine yourself to his immediate left. If he is the type that will also 3 bet inappropriately ytou use that against him. How? Take the same A,K or A,T or K,Q (late pos) or a medium pair or any hand that you prefer to play short handed. It's passed to you? What is your play? Raise, hoping this guy will reraise and help thin the field? You know most of the time you have a better hand than a frequent raiser so you use him to help get himself heads up. Now can you think of some other reasons or examples of why seat selection is important especially against an over aggressive opponent?
BTW - "Solid play" is a much better term than "Straight up". So I think you get the idea?
Vince.
I would hate to fight this loose-aggressive guy in a heads up or short handed game. His style is optimal there. But in a ring game, he's a live one. If I get a chance, I would sit to his immediate left and isolate him by reraising his constant raises with hands that are just above average. It would be volatile in the short run but profitable in the long run.
But how can you be sure your reraising will isolate this player? Remember that the players to his right expect his raises too and at least some of these will adjust, tending to play hands they think can withstand a raise.
I can't be sure that I will in fact be able to isolate him. All I know for sure is that my reraises would definitely increase the barriers to entry that my to the left opponents would have to face.
As you said, the standard deviation curve is going to be big, and it's simply something you're going to have to deal with if you want to play in this game. I know, since I have a similar 'problem'; in the club I play in, we have a regular who ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS, raises pre-flop when he's tilting. You can set your watch by it. When we play 10-20 it's going to be a 20-10-20 game, when we play 15-30 it's 30 (or 45)-15-30, and so on and so on. In a game like this you should have no problem blowing off six or seven hundred bills in four hours or so, providing your three or four good hands get snapped and tha none of your draws come in.
As Vince says, sit to this guy's left (for obvious reasons). And, perhaps more importantly, play fairly tight pre-flop. Not only are you going to have to deal with this guys raises, but your opponents are going to be check-raising their big hands pre-flop, which means you could be paying upwards of 80 bucks to see the flop with some pretty marginal hands. Further, you'll have to tighten up on the flop, since again many of your opponents will be check raising, thereby charging you the maximum for some fairly marginal draws (Dan Hanson, a genuine student of the game who posts here regularly, makes a very compelling case for sitting across from this kind of player as opposed to his left. If your interested, you may want to E-mail him and ask him where to find these posts).
Finally, you can't say that 'he seems to always get there' unless you believe in long term luck. The fact is, AA is always a favorite over 74o, no matter HOW LUCKY a player is. T5s is a trash hand, no matter who's playing it, and anyone who insists on playing it consistently is going to be a big donater to the game. Also, be sure your short term results haven't colored your opinion. I could be wrong, but my guess is you cashed out a loser in this game, and that if you'd beaten this guy like a rented mule you'd be telling us how to play this kind of guy.
So A,A is a big favorite over 74o. Well is it a big favorite over 2d,5d (4 to 1, I just ran it on probe). Well I played 10-20 holdem tonite at the Orleans. BTW where in the hell are you! I even had you paged. Anyway I lost with: BB:K,K to early raiser 9,9. and button Q,Q to late caller A,2o (2 on flop and turn) etc. etc.. etc.. The last hand I played for the evening and -$700.00 was A,A against 2d,5d. The most interesting thing about this hand was that the 2c was the river card putting 3 clubs on the board (no diamonds) and the (BB) with 5's and 2's bet! I will now take at least a month off from live games! (maybe)
Vince.
BTW- for you purists. I ran the hand the way it flopped. Flop: Jc,5c,9h. A,A is actually better than 4-1 here. So there.
Vince-
I'll be there on Thursday-- we must have gotten our signals crossed.
BTW, what limits do they spread at the Orleans, and how have the games been recently? (In order to not upset the hall monitor (heh heh) post a response on the Excange forum if you get a chance).
The Med Club?
This happens to me all the time in kill games. I prefer to play straightforwardly, and never give free cards even if I think I'm going to get raised when there's an action player. I also am much more careful about checkraising with most of the stuff (top pair, big cards no flop, two weak pairs, etc.) I would ordinarily, since there isn't much possibility of making everyone fold before the showdown. In otherwords semibluff plays lose most of their value in such a game.
A friend pointed this thread out to me. Haven't been here in some time... must resolve to visit more often.
Argghh is right. This guy might be a kook... or he might be a world class player. Not enough facts. But, examine your post and you will discover one thing: He has you (and probably the whole game) terrified. You can't put him on a hand. You never know when he is holding the goods and when he has dreck. Wow... that's sounds like a profitable spot to be in (his I mean). If he reads his opponents well, he will be extracting maximum value from the loose-gooses AND the rocks... also a good spot to be in.
My reccomendation... watch out. When facing him resort to a minimum variance style. Check and call when you have the goods and when you have a draw. That will nuetralize his reading skills and his positional edge to some extent. Be careful. Let him beat the other players... he might just be THAT good in which case you might as well take on a strategy that will (a) minimuze your losses and (b) tell him to "not bother trying that crap on me, my check and call means nothing."
Regards, Dave Scharf
ok here is the game 20/40HE im on the button,, holding KJd the action is 6 handed,,, no raise preflop,, flop coems down 9 J 9,,, all check to me,, I bet,, all call,, the turn 8 all check to me a gain,,, I bet,, 2 fold and the 6seat raises,, all fold to me should i have called or reraised,,? its now heads up on the river,, 3 no flush possible,, he checked I bet out threw my chips in his direction,, he raised,, i reraised he called,, he shows 78s i have KJd who played that hand the worst ,, did i miss anythign ,, or should i have folded,, any comments welcome
Be glad you have a weak 20-40 game to beat. I would have lost money with KdJd when I fold to the turn raise. Too many check/callers for one of them to not have been slowplaying a nine, as I would have interpreted it. I would have been wrong (but I wouldn't have known it) in this spot since I'd also be concerned with someone completing their straight (QT) when that eight fell on the turn.
LL Hold-Em, I'm in the 8 seat. I look down to see QQ. I raise, button folds, SB calls, BB calls, and two other callers.
Flop: 10, J, 7 rainbow.
Checked to me and I bet. SB and BB call, all else fold.
Turn: 5
Checked to me and I bet again. Both blinds call.
River: 9
BB bets, I call, SB folds.
BB turns over K8o. I lose. Please comment. Could I have done something different? The BB did not appear to be a very good player. But he cracked me twice in this session with K8o.
One thing! You forgot to pray!
Vince
You did everything right. Typical bad beat at low limit.
You could have checked the river against two blinds at low-limit, rather than trying to squeeze an extra bet out of them. Another mistake could have been giving the players in the blinds credit for paying attention to pot odds (especially on the turn). Big blind had a gut shot on the flop, and a queen would give him four more outs. This is a quite reasonable flop call. I suppose the big blind thought there was some chance that kings would be good if one hits the river, since you might have taken a free card if you had AQ.
One of the button, in a different LL Hold-Em game than the previous post. I look down and see KJs. I raise. 5 callers.
Flop: Q, 10, 9 rainbow.
Checked to me and I bet my straight. 5 callers.
Turn: Q
Checked to me and I bet again. 1 caller. I figure him for a Q but not a boat.
River: 4
He checks-raises me. I fold, he shows me Q4s. Please comment. At this point in the session I'm starting to feel like I'm doing something wrong because of the hands I've lost on.
I told you the last time! Pray! In this case 2 prayers were necessary. One for the turn and one for the river!
Vince.
You don't provide the position of the player with Q4s, but if he had KQ or AQ why no pre-flop raise? For this reason (and because you have a K), I'd conclude he was most likely to have played QJ, Q10, or Q9 since many LL players will limp in with these cards suited or not. As this hand demonstrates, he's also the type of player to hold Qxs. So granted he has a queen, and discounting AQ and KQ (and QQ), 24 of his possible hands give him the boat and about 30 don't (it would be 34 but you have a J). So a bet was in order on the river ONLY if you don't call a raise. Which is exactly what happened. I would have checked the river because (1) I can't lay down a straight in that situation and (2) I would have given more weight to the likelihood he held Q10 or Q9 than anything else.
It was an automatic call on the end. Another typical bad beat.
My point was that his bet on the end was questionable. But once the bet was made and his opponent checkraised, I agree with you, I would have called in his shoes. Turns out he saved a bet ON THIS HAND though by not calling that raise.
I agree with you that his river bet was questionable. About his saving a bet by folding, hindsight is 20/20.
You will frequently find people in low-limit games not betting their hands and wait until the river to spring their trap. If you've been betting your hand all along and you fear from the composition of the board that you may be beat on the river it is better to check and call. You must call on the river when the pot is big.
Unless you have some kind of fantastic read on this guy, you have to call him down.
BTW, would you have posted this if he'd check raised, you'd folded, and he'd flashed you AQ before raking the chips?
LL Hold-Em. I have 89s two off the button. I call and we see the flop 7 handed.
Flop: 10c, 8d, 8c. Checked to me, I bet. 4 Callers.
Turn: Club. Checked to me, I bet, button calls and noone else. I figure he already has the flush.
River: Club. I check, he bets, I fold.
Please comment.
All in all I don't think it was that bad of a session. I lost 10 units. Does that qualify has a really bad session? I imagine a really bad session might be in the 30-40 unit loss zone.
If you haven't learned from the first two hands you may never learn!
Poker Players Prayer (short version)
Our "poker" god who art at all green felts, PLEASE LET ME WIN!
Now repeat that at ever juncture of the hand and you may stand a chance!
Vince.
you did'ent say anything about the "pot Ratio" but even if he has his fluse, dont you have to see the river, in-case you make your boat? I think I would haved check, & then call. I want to see his flush, and in 8 of 10 times, I give my boat a chance? Good luck out their, hope to sit across from you some day. I live in Salt Lake, but pay in low limits games in Wendover,Nv, Mesquite,Nv, Central City & BlackHawk, Co. (I know that its a very very loose call, but I seem to hit it about 21 to 34% of the time, I keeps me coming back) later JC
Good fold. How long was this session?
nm
how to play!
The call on the end is automatic. Not only do people in those games play any two cards, but given the pot size you can almost never be wrong on your read.
While you're still learning (I assume you've just taken up the game) you can probably expect some losing sessions to climb way beyond the 30-40 unit mark. Sooner or later you'll find out what they mean by 'tilt' (hopefully it only happens to you once or twice), and you'll get to feel the sting of 60 or 80 unit loser...
Anyway, you probably need to call here, unless your opponent is real predictable. At least, I know I'd have to see it, although since you didn't mention what exactly the turn and river were it's kind of hard to say. BTW, you're just going to have to learn to absorb these beats, since you'll always suffer through two or three of them in a given session. Don't constantly second guess yourself- or, more specifically, don't second guess just because you lost a hand. You'll find it helps a ton to review ALL the hands you played in, whether you dragged the pot or not. For example, the best session of poker I ever played found me 90 bucks in the red at the end of the night. Good decisions and good results are only kissing cousins at best.
A good case can be made for raising with 98s preflop with four or more callers in front and you holding a hand which will play easier if you can act last for all other betting rounds. In a loose-passive low limit game I would raise with your hand/position/action about 90% of the time. In tougher games I would still usually raise, but maybe only 60% of the time. Trying to *buy the button* in this manner is not a trivial thing with the type of hands that can develop into good draws many different ways.
Has everyone seen the "poker tells" in the 1998 WSOP video.1) When McBride makes trip 4s on the turn he bets and LOOKS AWAY. 2)On the final hand when Scotty flops trip 9s he slow plays..pretends he's going to raise (acting strong when strong - a reverse tell)..then just bets and LOOK AWAY! Am I just making these up or are they really on the video?Maybe this is why many top players do not want to be filmed, especially showing their holes cards on camera as a hand develops.
If you're right about these tells, it goes to show that many top players don't read Caro.
The tell that nobody seems to have caught was when Scotty's lip trembled on that last hand.
This is the reason you have to be real careful about interpreting tells. Ask yourself the following:
Does McBride always LOOK AWAY when he's holding the nuts? Some of these guys practice tells and apply game theory to determine the frequency of using them. He may be doing the same thing when he's holding garbage. So, you really need to observe their behaviour carefully throughout a tourney.
In John Fox's book "Quit Work, Play Poker, and Sleep Til Noon (I think that's the title). There's a reference to "Crazy Mike." This guy practices in the mirror looking sad. I wonder if Crazy Mike is actually Mike Caro.
Mike Caro used to be called "Crazy Mike Caro." I'd guess it's the same person.
I guess "Mad Genius" is more marketable (sells more books) than "Crazy".
I was playing in 10-20 hold'em game in LA. 2 players in game was playing partners. They was always taking Russian between hands. And when hand started they tell hands in Russian. Should I reported this to management or keep taking advantage of my knowledge? I did not reported and won $3500. But on plane back I fell like I was cheater. And by not reporting this behavior i will make people think bad about all Russians.
Well Boris you certainly did not cheat! I don't understand how these two got away with speaking russian at the start of the hand. There is an english only rule that is (normally) strictly enforced in the Casinos I've palyed in.
What should you have done? Hmmm. Let's for a moment change the situation a little. Let's say the two were speaking Italian, or a language you don't understand. I'm Italian and chose it so I hopefully won't offend anyone. What would you have done then? What should you have done? In my opinion it was your obligation as well as all other players at the table to see that the english only rule was enforced. If these two wanted to speak a foreign language between hands that was there buisness. What they discussed was their business. If they discussed the previous hand that was o.k. also. It is during the hand that is of concern. Now we have the question of what to do when you know two players are colluding. I for one do not tolerate that type of behavior at the poker table. I believe that it is the obligation of every poker player that considers himself an honorable person to expose cheating whenever it raises it's ugly head. I probably would put it right to them. "Hey, are you two playing partners?" Let them answer. What this does is now alerts the whole table to be cautious of these two. Then I think you would have done , somewhat diplomatically, what one can do to expose collusion. The fact that you are Russian and understand them is purely coincidental and not imporatant. What is important in this case is that the English only rule was not enforced. That is the respomnsibility of the Casino (dealer).
Vince.
Russians are unethical and your taking advantage of their collusion serves to prove it hehehe
Here is a hand my best friend (an agressive, successful 15/30 20/40 Los Angeles area player) and I played on Planet Poker Online while tutoring a talented mutual friend who is trying to learn holdem. Sometimes our strategies differ so I thought I would put this hand on the forum for comment.
We raise UTG with a pair of aces in a nine handed 10/20 holdem game. We get one mid position call, a button call, and a call from the small blind (the BB folds). We are fairly new to the table and don't know much about our opponents but the game has been only moderately loose and somewhat unagressive so far. We have been running over it a bit. Most of the looser players seem to be to our right which is in our favor.
The flop comes a Q Q 5 rainbow. After the SB checks, my friend who is at the controls comes out betting and all fold.
As the computer was dealing the next hand I mentioned that the better stategy may have been to check the flop. My friend thought I had to be kidding. His philosophy is to almost never give free cards. The reasoning for my strategy was:
1. If the queen is out (not a long shot with two cold callers along with the small blind) we are trailing big time and wished we hadn't bet.
2. If the queen is not out there are very few free cards that would probably make someone a better hand but many that may get them involved on the turn and beyond when they shouldn't.
3. After checking the flop, my approach would have been to call any single bet(s) and probably fold against a bet, raise, coldcall or bet, call, checkraise (by the SB).
4. If it got checked through on the flop and a paint turned I would have bet the turn and called any single raise.
5. If it got checked through on the flop and a baby came I would have checked the turn and hope someone bets but I would probably just call and do the same on the river.
My main point is that with this type of board you are either a big favorite or a big dog and by playing it this way you make more money as the favorite and lose less as the dog.
All comments are appreciated.
Regards,
Rick
PS, I would have liked to have posted this "skp style" where only a little is revealed at a time but I don't know my schedule for the next 48 hours so I decided to put it all out now. I'll try to check in with comments and clarifications.
"a hand my friend and I played", "we raise UTG ..."
Where was that ethics thread? One person to a hand. Tutor him after the fact. He will have to learn to make decisions on his own sooner or later.
This is one of the reasons Internet poker is doomed.
Given your position and preflop raise I would have bet to 1) get a strong call or reraise or 2) take the pot.
Michael,
I was introduced to Planet Poker a few months ago at a barbecue where there were a few friends who are very ethical and talented Los Angeles players and a visiting player/friend from Atlantic City who brought his laptop. Five of us took a share of the action and we had a blast playing.
Our Atlantic City friend had used Planet Poker to teach his girlfriend to become a half decent holdem player precisely because he could sit by her side and freely discuss his reasoning for the way he played the hand or comment on her play. Obviously, this can't be done in a casino, as we are all well aware of the one player to a hand policy. Anyway, my friend's girlfriend raved about it as it improved her play significantly.
Anyway, in a non-cyberspace ring game I would never comment on anyone's play at the table. My friends and I are known for ethical play, behavior, and so on. If you search the 2+2 archives and rgp, you will find I have written about ethics, keeping the game good, and cardroom problems before.
In a live ring game it is "one player to a hand", a reasonable policy I gladly enforce as a floorman. Players get annoyed when there is coaching, it slows down the game, the "coach" (if he is sitting behind) may have an angle to see someone else's hand, it makes others think poker is more than "just a gamble" which can make the game worse, etc. etc. In cyberspace poker, you should be able to see that none of the above is true.
In our case, my student would get slaughtered at 10/20 holdem without preparation. Learning at the low limit is not an option as the games are unfairly raked in Los Angeles and unreasonably loose (another issue I have written about extensively). Soon she will be able to venture into casino holdem at the 10/20 level and at least start off by holding her own (BTW, she is also into the writings of S&M&Z and has become a very good low limit Omaha H/L player - thanks Ray Zee).
In a few days when we have our next lesson I will use the chat feature on Planet Poker to poll other cyberspace players to get their opinions. I'll get back to the forum after I do.
Regards,
Rick
Hey Rick,
When I read this post accusing you of being unethical I thought I had missed something. I was on my way to the Orleans and didn't have time to respond. I wish I had responded now! Now I know that it was the responder that missed something. I personally see no need for your explanation. No ethical question here at all!
Vince.
If everybody at the table feels it reasonable that they are playing against multiple brains in a single seat then I don't see an issue either. If you announce to the whole table that fact and nobody complains then I don't see a problem.
OTOH The fact that your student would have gotten slaughtered at a real game but not here points out that your sholder surfing changed the outcome of the game. Would you play somebody in your normal game if they had a way to report and get advice on each hand from David Sklansky (without your knowledge)? Would you allow such a person to operate in a game while you were a floorman?
Michael,
You wrote: "If everybody at the table feels it reasonable that they are playing against multiple brains in a single seat then I don't see an issue either."
How about a consensus? Sometimes I don't think you can get everybody to agree that the sky is blue.
Next, "If you announce to the whole table that fact and nobody complains then I don't see a problem."
I tried last night but my keyboard wasn't working (for any program). I'll easter egg it with the keyboard on this computer and hopefully have a new one by tomorrow night. I'll let you know ASAP.
You then wrote: "OTOH The fact that your student would have gotten slaughtered at a real game but not here points out that your sholder surfing changed the outcome of the game."
Actually I exagerated when I said she would get "slaughtered". Her learning curve is very steep and she wouldn't even play 10/20 holdem unless she was reasonably prepared. I rate her a slight favorite in the average 10/20 at Hollywood Park right now.
Next: "Would you play somebody in your normal game if they had a way to report and get advice on each hand from David Sklansky (without your knowledge)?"
This is so impractical that I would never worry about it. Sklansky charges $200 plus per hour for lessons and no one could overcome this. In addition, he would not have easy and accurate access to all the table information so although I would love to get private lessons from David I don't think he could help anyone much here."
Lastly you wrote, "Would you allow such a person to operate in a game while you were a floorman?."
Of course not. But the live casino enviornment is different and the reasons we don't allow "coaching" have been previously explained in a previous post above.
BTW, as a player I would love to play against a whole table full of opponents with their "coaches" sitting behind them as long as it doesn't slow up the game too much. Most advice I've seen given at the table is horrible and I would have at least twice the "tells".
Regards,
Rick
WRT to the thought experiment about Sklansky sitting behind. Its not impractical to give him a lot of the data at the table via via sensors you could easily carry on your body (possible concealed). I was being extreme by say Sklansky in order to make a point but it could be another lesser known expert. In any case I think if you would be unwilling to let it happen at a live poker table you should protect the electronic game sim'ly because the electronic game is more suspect then the live game at least at this time.
Please post what you hear from people on PP. I'm interested.
BTW, I think PP would be a very good way to gather information for an offline coaching session. Does their software allow you to keep a transaction of the session?
My 2 cents worth:
1. I don't think there is anything inherently unethical about such coaching in an on-line game, especially if disclosed to the other players at the table.
2. With respect to PP specifically, I think it is up to PP management to determine the rules. If you disclose what you want to do to them and they say it is OK (and disclose it as OK to other players in the rules), then I don't think there is any ethical issue involved. If they ask you not to do it, I think you should comply with their wishes. It's their game; I think they should be free to make rules that best serve their business interests, as long as said rules are freely disclosed to all players.
3. Of the three choices available to PP (prohibit coaching, permit coaching without restriction, permit coaching only if disclosed to other players at the time), I think that the first option is clearly the worst. Unlike multiple hands playing partners with each other, they basically have no chance in hell to catch this either at the time or after the fact by analyzing the hands. I don't think it's a good idea to have intrinsically unenforceable rules on the books, as they will only disadvantage the ethical players.
4. I don't see any intrinsic reason why online games shouldn't have slightly different rules than face-to-face play, to account for the intrinsic differences in environments. OKBridge has slightly different rules than face-to-face bridge (e.g., you can consult your own convention card, you alert your own conventional bids to the opponents) because there is no practical way to prohibit the first, and the second exploits the restricted communication channels of the online game to better achieve the objective behind the face-to-face rule. Some online chess servers allow consultation with computer programs *if and only if* such consultation is openly disclosed to potential opponents (and they have ways to detect covert consultation after the fact). Adapt the rules to the environment.
5. I don't think the other players at the table should particularly get a vote, other than advising PP management of their preferences. A self-interested good player at the table might object to a coached opponent, not because there is anything intrinsically wrong with the coaching, but because he/she sees objecting as a way to get another good player out of the game (either the uncoached player will play worse, or be replaced with a worse player). Tough noogies.
6. I think it is in PP's best interest to allow open coaching/consultation (as long as all persons involved only have info about one hand) because it (1) exploits a unique advantage of the online environment to appeal to people who otherwise would not play online for money, (2) legitimizes a practice that is going to happen anyway and would otherwise be undetectable, and (3) gives more experienced players a motive to hang around and help police the games. But I think it's up to them to determine the rules.
I play on Delta and Planet Poker occasionally, though I much prefer to be playing in a real casino. As far as "coaching" someone by watching over their shoulder and giving advice, speaking odds, when to drop, raise, fold etc, that is great. What I feel is really happening, and what Rick and his buddies may be doing is "cheating." With 3 or more friends taking flops together, telling each other their hole cards, and just building HUGE pots with garbage hands, and then folding so their friend can win the pot. I see this type of suspicious play at the 10-20 tables of PP all the time. If you ARE guilty of this Rick, shame on you. And to the rest of you who may also be guilty of this.
Just my small blinds worth...
From what I've heard, when it comes to ethics on Planet Poker, two people in front of one screen discussing how to play one hand is the very least of your worries.
Andy.
Andy,
I was concerned also but had positive feedback from my Atlantic City friend. Before joining, I did a power search of rgp on deja.com and came up with many hits on Planet Poker. Many who's opinion I respected seemed to think it was OK and the PP staff is on the square and does everything possible to keep it square. Others had viewpoints similar to yours. So far I haven't noticed if anything unusual is going on.
Regards,
The "otherwise paranoid" Rick
Internet poker sounds like a "snow job". I'm waiting for a posting saying..." I put up the money and 14 of us played the same hand on the Burning Sun Pokernet..it was no limit HE but we only had a $5000 stack! I put it on my BIG screen TV in the garage!" Pocket rockets UTG with an Q.Q.4 flop. I would bet, my second option would be a check-raise. If I was reraised I'd muck it,if I KNEW the players. Limit poker is tough, you never really know with strangers where your hand is. We played PL hold'em (10 handed) last Sat. The blinds were $5-$5 someone made it $20, another called and the Dealer made it $50, I was in the small blind with AcQc and called the $50 and reraised $160. The BB would have to put out another $205! to call.He folded...so did all the others!The dealer mucked J.J. and the BB dumped K.K. Now would that happen in LIMIT HE? I picked up a $100 pot without looking at the flop (we rabbit run and it came Q.2.6.- I would've gone broke +$900 against the K.K. if I hadn't raised). Keep playing the LIMIT hold'em boys you have my respect, but don't send me your bad beats.
There is nothing wrong with playing your hand this way in the exact situation mentioned. However if the pot was just a little bit bigger you run into the problem that the next card could give someone else a flush draw and the right price to go for it.
David,
I assume you are answering my post rather than Darryl's and your answer is positioned incorrectly in the thread. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Regards,
Rick
Darryl,
Internet poker and Planet Poker have been discussed extensively on rgp. There are differences in opinion as to whether or not there is more or less cheating than in a casino game. So far, we haven't noticed anything unusual and have found the games to be moderately tight, slow, and somewhat passive. Most who post here would have more fun and make more in a casino ring game. I do think it is a great teaching aid as described in my response to Michael above.
I can't imagine no limit cyberspace poker so I don't understand the point of your post. Note that we were not telling a "bad beat" story (we won the hand but I thought it was played incorrectly).
BTW, we always show our hand on the end in the few jammed up pots we enter just to avoid any appearance on impropriety (in addition, it is very easy to misread your hand as clubs and spades can easily be confused due to the poor screen resolution).
Regards,
Rick
Well, the pot has 9 small bets. I would likely bet the flop to find out where I am out. With some players, their mere call on the flop would worry me while a raise would have me licking my chops; with others, I would probably assume that I am done for if I am raised.
If I were to check the flop, I would be put in a real guessing game if someone behind me bets: Does he have a Queen or is he simply capitalizing on everyone else's seemingly weak checks.
A lot of the reasons that you cite are valid reasons for checking the turn (particularly if the sb is the only one to call the flop bet) but I think that I would want to first purify the flop by betting it.
skp,
Thanks for responding. I would have got back to you last night but my keyboard broke (at least I hope it is the keyboard -I'll "Easter Egg" it with this one after I send this post).
One quick comment. I'm at a point where I believe you often don't find out much by betting and getting raised on the flop. If anything, I might fear a call more as you stated above in your first paragraph.
The ideal situation is you check, one player bets and you get heads up. I would call anything but the most unimaginitive rock down (BTW, I haven't seen a real rock in California in years - the collection drove them away!) and figure the combination of him bluffing, you hitting aces full, or him betting a lessor hand put you in the plus column. What I would try to avoid is getting caught between two opponents.
Forgive me if I am won't be posting much for a while as my wife is undergoing surgery on her leg today or tomorrow and I will be tied up. In other words, you may want to save your excellent commentary for another time.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I'm not sure whether the phrase "purify the flop" has as much panache as "ostensible (sp?) outs" :-)
Rick, best of luck to you and your better half tomorrow.
BTW, I can't take credit for the phrase "purify the flop"; I got that one from one of the Coach's articles in Cardplayer.
BTW again, I noticed that the 21st Century Edition has a reference to the "ostensible outs" idea. Mason and David were smart enough not to use the exact phrase in describing the concept so as to avoid getting sued by yours truly for copyright infringement (heh heh heh).
I was on a long flight today and got a chance to read the 21st Century edition from cover to cover. I remember reading the initial edition when it first came out and just getting overwhelmed by all the stuff in there. One sure sign that my game has come a long way in 3 years is that I now not only understand what they are saying but can truly appreciate how good the work really is.
Let me just say a big thanks to S&M here. You guys have sure given me (and likely almost all of us who post here) a profitable hobby and in some cases, a profitable profession.
Thanks guys.
You're the lawyer so you should know better. Anything that is posted on the 2+2 forum becomes their intellectual property. Now I'm NOT saying David and Mason weren't aware of all of the little additions or situational modifications that have become part of the revised edition before the ideas were discussed on the forum, yet I remember when and who debated some of these topics too. After reading the new sections, I went back and did a slow read for the umpteenth time - but a little differently. I stopped and really thought about the reasons behind all of the important qualifiers: occasionally, usually, often, sometimes, etc. What I did was think about how situations should unfold if I were to choose to make a particular play always or never. I thought I knew some of these moves inside out, so I was surprised that I discovered another level of understanding I had missed out on. My only quibble is why certain typographical and illustrative errors that existed in the previous edition remain in the 21st. century edition.
TWIMC,
I was playing 7CS 1&5 Sat. morning at FW. AsTc/Ts,9s,Ac,7s/Td vs 3c,X,3h,X. We went back and forth 5x's and I capped it for fear of four 3's. This hand I can't get out of my mind, I should of never capped it because he showed no signs of having three 3's, he didn't bet it as though he had them, but it was all in my HEAD. I had created a better hand for him than what I had originally had him pegged for three 3's full. (TOP) This was my first head to head where it had gone more than one raise "I was scared." My actions showed it. It's progress not perfection.
IFYW plz comment.
Paul
Paul,
fitwxi 45tiojk ast,69ectl, twefisjuctxu, tiodetjo sretjcvyrd ttt.
at some point after enough raises anybody has to get scared of a better hand.
Paul,
Ray is correct. Do not look at prudence as fear (Fear:A poker players friend/foe). It is not, in my opinion, prudent to bet your whole stack in a limit game of poker unless you have the nuts. Different people play 3 of a kind in some strange and sometimes unorthodox manners. Especially at 1-5. You may, the next time consider, how much you have in front of you and how much he has in front of him and how much you are willing to lose if you are wrong (what you did this time) before capping the raises.
BTW- You very rarely see this type of action on the river unless there are very big hands involved. I wouldn't feel too bad about capping it! Hind sight is always 20-20. BTW - Let me add (I always have to add) that if you were afraid but felt you had good reason to be, your play was correct but if you just let the feat itself control your action then when confronted with a similiar situation in the future you must react positively, against the fear. Even if it costs you another bet or two. Never let fear control you at the poker table. Use it as a guide and make it your friend against your opponent but always control it!
Vince
Hello all. Longtime reader, first time poster.
Private game, 10 a.m., been playing about 15 hours.
Game is down to five handed.
I'm in the small blind. K5d. UTG calls, button raises, I call, BB calls, UTG calls. Flop is a beaut. K-5-8. I bet out, expecting to get raised, BB calls, UTG calls, Button mucks. (?)maybe he had a pair of jacks or 10Qs or something.
Turn is another beauty - 5. No flush is out there. I check (first mistake- ?) BB bets, UTG calls, I raise, BB re-reaises (now I know he has a 5), UTG calls, I cap it. River is a nightmare, 8. I can still beat BB but I don't know what the hell that other guy has. I check, BB bets, UTG calls, I call and I'm not liking it at all. BB turns over A5, UTG turns over J8c, I muck.
I still like the hand. An A or an 8 are the only cards that can hurt me. I hardly ever slow play, but I was trying to get as much money in on the turn. That worked in this instance. Could I have played this hand any differently?
BTW, I'm not complaining by any means. Both of these guys are people you want in your game, esp. the UTG player.
Chris,
glad you are posting here. now its time to slam you a little. mostly you just had a bad beat and played it ok. think about your call before the flop. is it worth calling a raise out of the sb with and early position opener behind you. with the way the hand went before the flop it seems like another king with a good kicker might be out against you. good luck.
Based on your assessment of your opponents, the way they played the hand, and your slight discount from the SB, I don't think it's a bad call pre-flop, and I like the way you played it on the turn. He got lucky; it happens.
Before the flop, you're in the worst position, with a bad hand, and there are still two players to act behind you(potential reraisers). It was an automatic muck if you ask me.
It would be worth playing KXs out of the small blind for up to 2/3rds. of a bet five handed. I don't like this hand facing a raise, even if I knew the raiser was very loose. Flopping one king or one five makes the hand very difficult to play on the later rounds, thus you must get in cheap if at all. Checkraising the turn was appropriate since it would be difficult for anyone to have put you on fives full as you wouldn't be expected to be playing K5 or 85. The second eight on the river is just a bad beat, but you shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Similiar to my other impossible question (i.e. correct buyin for NL) when does one quit in a so-so toughish game where the last 2 players are the tougher ones coming in. I had a good night playing NL but clearly I had some of LAdy Luck smile with me - 2 of my trips turned into boats as my opponent made his flush. I was up a nice sum after starting with 5 hundred .One of the players had AA against KK where he lost his AA (K came on turn) - he lost over 2 K and decided to rebuy for 5K - a bit out of place at this game. I had over 2.5 K and was about third in chips. The victor in the prior showdown (who lost twice to me) now had second (about 4+K) I was clearly at jeopardy of ALL my stack and like I said the game was not that easy - so I got up and left. The player second in chips made a comment - you can't stand the heat ??? Well clearly, I chose not to ! I had second thoughts however. I am currently unemployed and living with a girl who is anti poker. I am converting her - by showing some nice wins - that is !! I seriously think I would have stayed if alone and liable to have lost all my chips or go home up 6-7 K.... Who says a women does not have some good influences ? Or bad ???
When you start to view you checks as money to impress women or buy stuff, rather than as currency to be used for the sole purpose of acquiring more checks, then IT IS TIME TO QUIT.
This is especially true in no limit hold'em, a game where scared money gets pushed around and you won't make enough huge hands (that aren't obvious) to make "nut-playing" profitable.
Point well taken, however to be fair to me as NL poker's ambassador to the 'softer sex' - in this game we never know. The next hand (after I got up) I could have had AA against KK and lose ALL MY CHECKS. Have you ever gone home after you did all the 'right thing' and felt stupid ? I did solicit opinions and you are *right* of course, maybe NL is a bit too much for me...
Of course it is human nature to be results-focused when we are dealing with large sums of money, and I am as guilty of this as the next guy. Would I feel bad if I lost 10 grand because some guy drew out on me when I was a 4.5 to one favorite? Of course I would. But I would feel even worse if I was afaid to get all of my money in preflop with Aces just because I might take a beat. Here is a real life example of the point of my post.
I was playing no limt holdem and was stcuk for about a grand, not playing my best game. I had built my stack up to about a thousand. I had QsQh under the gun and made it $70 to go, getting called only by an aggressive player on the button. The flop was Kc5c7d. I bet out $150. He raised it to $400.
Based on my extensive knowledge of his play and my poker sense, I was 95% certain he was on an Ace-high flush draw, with no King. I was therfor virtually certain that I was a slight 1.2 to one favorite with two cards to come, so it would have been a decent play to move right in on him there. It would been an even better play to simply call him and move in on the turn if a club or Ace didn't fall.
Instead, I focused on the 5% chance (my assessment) that he had a King, and decided that even if I was right about his holding, I was still gambling against his 12-outer. So I folded and declared "I can only beat a flush draw." Sure enough, he flashed me AcJc and took down the pot.
I kicked myself for lacking the courae of my conviction and then lsot the rest of my stack on the next round when the guy flopped a set of tens against my AK on a TK2 rainbow board.
If I didn't have my scared play on the first hand in the back of my mind, I probably could have gotten off the and here instead of charging foolishly ahead.
"He who hits and runs away gets to fight another day".
Transposed from the movie Maverick perhaps, "he who runs aways gets to run away another day"? Hehehe.
Actually, it's a direct quote that comes from 1950's feather weight boxing legend Willie Pep.
I have a simple rule about playing no-limit...If I can't afford to go in my pocket and match the largest stack at the table I walk away.
Lot's of people take shots at no limit with small buy ins. I never do this. If I can't break any player at the table when I get the right hand I believe I am at too much of a disadvantage in the game.
So to answer your question.. If I started a No limit game with $500 and had run it up to $2 500 but at that point was facing two opponents who had bigger stacks like $5000 each...if I was not comfortable putting another $2 500 from my pocket into the game I would quit. (And I haven't got a girlfriend to impress!) ;-)
Jim Mogal
Hello, folks,
Hope everybody had a profitable weekend. Had a couple of other cases to look at from a ethical point of view. First, a card beeing dealt to a player doesn't turn over but wables a little or is partialy exposed when it hits the player's hand. you are about 85% sure it is say the- Js. You know the hand could be a playable hand for the player and if you choose to play gives you an atvantage. Do you say something or keep your mouth shut?
Second, you are the small blind. Everyone has recieved two cards in hold'em or four in omaha, and the dealer continues to throw another card to you. You have peeked at your cards and know that you have an unplayable hand but could help stop a misdeal by quickly telling the dealer before he/she deals another card. But, you choose to keep quiet so as to encourage the second extra card so as to create the misdeal. Is this unethical?
On another note, this portion belongs on the exchange, but I am comming to Las Vegas in The last Week of the Orleans Tournament. As far as I know Belogio and The Mirage have 10-20 Stud, is that correct? Also, any other places in town?
Robert Bisogno
Robert,
Come on! You know the answer to both of these questions or you wouldn't have asked! Let's play poker for cying out loud! These examples pale in comparison to the previous ones we discussed but, come on!
BTW - The Orleans has plenty of 10-20 Holdem action (I know I leant them $700 las night) during the tourney. Bellagio has 8-16 and 15-30. Mirage 10-20.
Vince.
I disagree with your response that he should "know" what to do in these situations. Firstly, he said he was only "85% sure" that the other player got a Js. What if he said he saw the card, it was then replaced, and it was really the Ks? And what if the player to whom it had been dealt had another K to go with it? If you are not 100% sure you saw the card, you cannot say anything in that situation. In the second scenario, however, there is no doubt that failing to immediately report the 3rd card is angle-shooting, and he should know better than to try that. Black Jack
Tell me Jack what does "%85 sure I know what the card is" mean. Suppose he was %99 sure or %99.99999 then what or maybe he just knew it was a spade or that it was black? Then what? It is very easy and ethical to say" That card flashed, I'm not sure but I think it is a....."
Vince.
I had the same situation this weekend in a 3-6 game. I player to my right lifted up his cards to look at them and I saw. I was considering whether or not to say something, then I realized that I was spending time considering it instead of watching the game. My cards were unplayable, but I decided that it was more important to concentrate on the task at hand then to help out a sloppy player (they are plentiful in 3-6). I have mentioned it before to a player though.
On the second point, It's the dealer's responsiblity to run the game correctly, so you would be helping him out to say something, as well as being considerate to the other players. However, it is also their job to watch the card
spadebrain
Spadebrain,
Your first example is not the same as Robert's! This fellow freely exposed his cards to you in your example. If you let him know and he continues to do it there is NOTHING else that you are obligated to do about it. It is also, in my opinion, not unethical to take advantage of information gained in this manner! I do believe that it would also be inappropriate and not your responsibility to tell any other players in the game the cards this fellow exposes to you. Eventually this player must go broke. That may solve your dilemma. If you feel strongly that this behavior is inappropraite then you should bring it to the attention of the card room manager and let him try and correct the players behavior.
Vince.
Vince: I must disagree. As another player at the table, I want acess to the same info that everyone else has! If a player is seeing another's cards and I can't he has info that I don't that can affect my play and bankroll. I feel the same about players that expose cards when they muck their hands in the middle of a hand. Even one exposed or flashed card can affect the outcome of the hand. I know it has for me on a number of occasions! If I see that another player exposes his hand to one player, even inadvertently, I make noise. "Hey, I want to see it too!" BTW I replied to your post about collusion and cheating farther down the page, if you're still on line, check it out.
Playing 10/20 w/ half-kill.
Previous pot was killed by guy with the button...don't know him well, but he has decent reputation.
It is folded to me, I am two in front of button with T9c and raise to 30. Button with kill raises to 45 and i call heads up.
Flop comes 6c8d3c.
I check, he bets, I raise and he re-raises. I call.
Turn comes 2h.
I bet and he calls...hmmmm (on both counts ;).
River comes Qc.
I bet, he raises...I think and re-raise...he makes it four bets and now I KNOW what he has! Akkk.
Any comments?
Pretty aggressive play on the flop by you, but not a mistake heads-up.
Like your bet on the turn, but his cold call after putting in the last raise on the flop should scream "BIG FLUSH DRAW."
I would have probably check-called the river, picking off a bluff if he is on non-flush overcards and saving a bet if he is indeed on a big flush draw.
By the way, why did you raise with T9c in a kill pot since you have zero chance of getting the kill button to fold? You should actualyy play tighter in short-handed Kill pots since the blinds are almost always getting huge odds to call.
I think T9s here is limper at best since you might expect a four-way pot, and most likely a mucker since the button will have position on you and is likely to raise one limper with anything if he is a decent player.
Out of position with respect to the kill blind T9s is marginal. You can expect the kill blind to raise more often than normal. I would consider making it three bets if I have T9s in late middle position (or better) relative to the dealer button, if I am behind the kill button who elects to raise and there are no other players between us. Michael 7, your analysis of the situation looks appropriate to me.
I like your play just fine, except that I would have just called the raise on the river.
William
"It is folded to me, I am two in front of button with T9c and raise to 30."
This is a misconception that many players have. They think that with extra money in the pot they should be more inclined to steal. But frequently this is not the case since the extra money will make the remaining players much more likely to call.
Now I'm not saying that it is wrong to raise in this case. But it could easily be correct to raise if there is no blind behind you, but wrong to raise when there is a blind behind you. This is where your judgement should play an important role. You may also want to read the "Playing Short Handed" section in the new edition of HPFAP where we discuss when it might be right to only call if first in from a late position when the blinds are very loose.
In my opinion a raise with a hand like this in a situation like this is a mistake. What mistake? Raising when one should call!
Given that the rest of the hand was played ocrretly in my opinon except I don't like the reraise on the river either.
Vince
Is this related to a concept you mention in 'Poker Essays 2", where you question the wisdom of raising w/ marginal holdings pre-draw in Jacks or Better once the ante's been doubled?
For a typical player his reraise on the flop suggested either an overpair or a big flush draw (I say big based on his reraise preflop.). Most wouldn't (normally) go to 3 bets on overcards alone. (Of course some would. Gotta know your players.) Given that, your bet on 4 seems a bit misplaced, as does your reraise on 5. In fact, your reraise on 5 would seem to be overplaying your hand even if you'd had no indication that he might be on a flush draw. After all, your flush was only ten-high. I don't mean to sound critical, but it sounds like you may have a tendency sometimes to overplay hands. Does that sound accurate?
John Feeney
Thanks all for the comments on the hand(s).
I posted these hands because they stuck out in my mind as recent hands where I made 'serious' errors and wanted (as a student of the game) to get the benefit of your collective experience.
In the T9c hand, I mistakenly put the button on a big pair after the flop (big draw - blind spot) and made the additional error of creating a pot that was too difficult to get away from to draw to a dead flush. When he popped me back on the river, I gave him 3 Q's...and thought that the way I (mis)played the hand, he could not put me on a flush draw (more likely a smaller set)...the old error of finding a hand you can beat to justify your decision.
I have hereby immediately altered my hand selection criteria for kill pots. Thanks, Mason.
In the QJs hand, after calling his check-raise, I put him on a flush draw on the turn and made the decision to raise into him on the river if no heart fell, as I felt it was my only opportunity to win the pot. He had been making tricky moves all night and did not give him a 4. When I'm heads-up, I cannot check the turn there...when is it appropriate to do so?
NL HE tournament...early stages.
I am recent table leader having won a number of big pots recently. Blinds are 10-20. I have about $800.
Have red Aces on the button. It is folded around to me. I raise it to $50. Both blinds call. Small blind is a maniac. Big blind is a solid player.
Flop comes QdJc8d. Not the best one I can see.
Small blind (maniac) bets $200. Big blind calls (yuk!!). I ponder for a few seconds and move in.
Small blind quickly turns over KQo.
Turn comes 2d.
River comes 9c
Solid player turns over JdT...he apologized for the play afterwards, saying he was playing the maniac and knew he was in trouble when I moved in but was pot committed at that point.
Questioning both of my decisions here...comments?
You played ok and got unlucky. If I'm first in on the button with a big hand, I will usually make my standard bring-in since the blinds will often put you on a steal and play inferior cards anyway. This is even more acute if you have been running over the table.
I smell a rat if an otherwise aggressive player limps on the button in a no-limit tournament.
The BB's cold call on the flop doesn't really convince me that my Aces aren't still best. If he flopped two pair or a set here, he would have to play fast since he is out of position and there are so many straight and flush draws out there. (I have a tough time putting him on the T9 straight since he called a raise in a short-handed pot, but JTo is not much better, so that proves me wrong here.)
I would have figure him for a strong draw (KT with a diamond?) or maybe pair with some kind of combo draw (like QcTd or JTd) that is hoping you will also call and give him some pot equity.
But taking his likely hands and his flop play into account, I probably make the same play you did.
If he really thought the SB was weak, he should have moved in himself and really put the pressure on you. What makes you think he is a solid player?
Playing that 10/20 HE w/ half-kill again.
Pot has been killed (third position).
I am first one in (seventh position) with a raise with QJs.
All fold to BB who calls, kill pot poster folds...heads up.
Never played with BB before, but he is quiet, wearing huge sunglasses, has second biggest stack (behind mine) and seems capable and tricky.
Flop comes 356 rainbow.
He checks, I bet, he calls.
Turn comes a 7h...two hearts.
He checks, I bet, he raises, I ponder briefly and call.
River comes another 7.
He bets, I raise, he folds.
Comments...
Where the hell is this game? I would like to play in it.
Foxwoods spreads this virtually non-stop 24hrs. a day 7 days a week. In the immortal words of Bob Barker, "Come on down! The price is right."
I think you should just check on the turn. I know you want to be aggressive heads up, but you don't want to be so aggressive that you are an easy target for check raises. To me, this means that when there is a board that does not help you at all and could well help your opponent, you check, especially when your opponent has no reason to believe the board helps you.
By contrast, if you had 78s, I would bet at a board of T22/A. Although that board does not help you, your opponent might think that it does, given your preflop play.
Obviously, your raise on the end worked out well. Personally, I like to have a somewhat better hand for a bluff raise, and I fold the real rags when I am bet into, unless I smell a rat.
William
With what lagitamite hand would you raise on the end like that? Just a full house, as far as I can tell.
So a bluff raise is a realistic option only if ==1== the opponent believes you could have a full house meaning it seems reasonable to him that you may raise pre-flop with 55; or ==2== the opponent doesn't bother to think of such things and just reacts: he folds because he doesn't have a straight and was therefore "caught" bluffing, even if he has two-pair. Never mind that two-pair is a pretty good hand against someone who EITHER has a full house or is bluffing.
So if you can tell me which of the above two it is, I'll say "nice play".
- Louie
Looks to me like both of the above are true. Nice Play.
Great stuff, Louie.
Obviously, I felt like I needed to raise to win the pot.
From his perspective though, my raise is more indicative of a bluff than of the overpair he is probably putting me on.
If I DO have QQ there, I call. He did check-raise the 7 and a second 7 fell on the river...I would be worried he has trips. Will a good player value raise here with an overpair...never.
Thanks/Chuck
I would raise for value with an overpair if I was confident the player would not call may pre-flop raise with small cards. His turn raise would indicate a big but not biggest pair since he didn't 3-bet it pre-flop.
... snip arrogant self inflating story of spectacular value raises with one pair ...
... snip even more arrogant self inflating story of even more spectacular value raises with AA, vrs the obvious KK since there were 3 callers who "obviously" flopped Qs ...
Nothing like taking advantage of the opponents "strict" pre-flop standards.
I do find it somewhat amazing how many "good" players fail to consider what the opponent can reasonably have, nor what the opponent considers THEY can reasonably have. *SIGH* Bless 'em.
- Louie
My bankroll has been almost depleted. I have $260 left to play poker with. My question is, should I continue with my current game?
Let me explain a few more details. I play 3-6 and sometimes 6-12 hold'em. My bankroll was originally about $1200, which isn't a helluva lot. This may sound typical of a poker player, but my terrible losing streak is NOT because I don't know what I"m doing. I'm easily one of the most competent players at the table where I play. The cards have been bad, and if you've played poker at all, you know what I"m talking about. Three and four hours at a time without a pot or even a hand that WOULD have had a pot, bad beat after bad beat etc. etc.
Whatever. The question is, what is the theory behind one's bankroll? If you say you have a poker bankroll of $2000, doesn't that mean that you are expecting to need ALL of the $2000 to survive the game? In that case, do you change your play AT ALL when you're down to $200?
If you believe in your own game, which I do. My game is certainly strong enough to handle the jokers I play with, given an even distribution of cards.
I've had about 10 or 15 losing sessions in a row, and obviously this streak will not continue forever. I just had the worst single session in which I dropped $340, I normally walk out down between $60 and $160. If I go in there again and post another average losing session, that could be it, my last session.
If you have a job and can pay for your poker out of your income, then the concept of 'bankroll' is pretty much meaningless, especially at the small levels we're talking about. Whether you should quit has more to do with whether you can afford the losses if the bad luck continues or you are not playing as well as you think you are.
For a professional player with no other income, the bankroll has to be big enough that the player has a very small risk of ruin. If the bankroll shrinks due to bad luck, the risk of ruin starts to increase, and sometimes it's smart to move down in limits to try to grow the bankroll back up with less risk.
If your bankroll gets small enough that you can't play at a limit big enough to allow you to pay your expenses AND grow your bankroll at a reasonable rate, then it's time to start thinking about getting a job and regrouping.
A lot of young players who make a living playing poker don't understand that their bankroll must be growing unless it is already immense. If you have a fixed size bankroll and play for a long time, you will be wiped out of the game at some point due to a run of bad luck. And it's happened to many, many good players.
If you've had 10-15 losing sessions in a row in loose low limit games, it is unlikely that you play as well as you think. With $200 left and no other way to pump up your bankroll, you better tighten up even more preflop (or on 3rd street), and make other variance reducing adjustments.
Of course if you are paying an expensive button charge or time game, rather than in a raked game, playing extremely tight may not help much since you need to exploit more of your advantages to get ahead in these games.
a winning player that is playing a winning game should go his whole life and never have 15 losing sessions in a row. its a least 50,000 to 1 if you are a winning player. its actually 32,767 to 1 if you are a break even player. your game is off and needs fixing and as soon as you can accept it you can go on to getting back on track to success. good luck.
Actually the odds are not that good for someone that leaves a 6-12 game at the first point of being down $60.
David
This is only corect if you play doble or nothing.
Not necessarily. If you are setting stop losses and stop wins you will skew the distribution of losses and wins. If your sessions are very short, you can easily have a lot more losses than wins and still be a winning player.
A lot of winning players, when losing, will start setting stop losses that are rather low, either because their bankrolls are small or because they feel that an early bad beat in the game will threaten to put them on tilt. Since a typical poker session is marked by many small losses punctuated by large wins when you win a pot, a small loss limit can easily lead into a long stretch of losing sessions.
my post was figuring that each play you were a favorite to win at that particular session. of couse if you quit early when you lose you may not be a favorite to win at each sitting and may still be a winning player but you can figure out from there your chances of losing 15 in a row. and to Boris its not a double or nothing thing. for instance if you are even money to win in a play, the chances of losing the next 3 times in a row is 7 to 1 or(1/8). and the next 15 in a row is 32,000 some odd as i said in the above post. in any case its still a once in a lifetime thing if you play all your life and regularly and few winning players should have it happen.
I think the average session results tend to be a bit streakier than a coin flip argument would suggest, for several reasons. The stop loss/stop win argument is one reason, and another is that you tend to play worse when you are losing and better when you are winning. Also, your opponents tend to play worse against you when you are winning, and better against you when you are losing. So, while a player may win 1 BB/hr, it might be too simple to say that he's got a 60% chance of winning in any given session, or whatever the number is. When he's losing, maybe he's only got a 30% chance of winning, and when he's on a winning streak perhaps he's got an 80% chance of winning due to intangible factors.
I just took a random sampling of my results for the past 6 months, and the 'streakiness' of those results is quite startling. I had a bad month last month, losing seven sessions in a row, winning one, then losing another six in a row. Immediately before that first loss, I won eight in a row.
So far this year, I have had runs of 16 wins in a row, 9 wins in a row, 8 wins in a row, 7 wins in a row twice, and 5 wins in a row twice. Total number of sessions: 181. Total number of wins: 112. Total number of losses: 69. Win percentage: 62%.
With a 62% win percentage, the odds of me seeing seven losses in a row are about 873 to 1. Losing even six in a row is a 329-1 shot, yet that has happened to me twice this year already. The odds of me winning 16 in a row are 2097 to 1. Winning 9 in a row is 73 to 1.
I don't have any particular stop losses or stop wins.
Perhaps the streakiness shown here suggests something about my game. I'd be interesting in hearing from other players to see if their results are similar.
Streakiness suggests similarities in player lineups and/or table characteristics you faced durring that run.
A winning player plays well when losing. A break even player plays worse when losing.imo
Good observation, and that's true. I play against the same opponents on most nights.
Dan,
So you usually play the same players and usually win? And they keep coming back? I've found that when I win a big pot, I need to get up and take a walk, becuase I tend to play poorly directly after the win, due to the fact that I'm high on the rush of winning. I also get up and take a break when I'm losing, avoiding the tendency to go on tilt.
Our high-limit poker community consists of perhaps 50 individuals, of which 5 or 6 are regulars in every game, and the other 4 or 5 seats are made up from the rest of the group and change every night.
Of the 5 or 6 regulars, perhaps 3 are winning players. There are two pros that play in just about every game (myself and another player).
OK Dan, just cause its you.
After seeing your numbers, I had to go tote mine up like that too for Year-to-date results for 4-8 and 5-10 hold'em.
Total number of sessions=47. Number of winning sessions=33. Number of losing sessions=14. Percentage of winning sessions=70%. Most consecutive winning sessions= 7 (twice) and 5 (once). Most consecutive losing sessions= 2 (three times.
No "stop win" thoughts in place. Rule of thumb "stop loss" is at 40 big bets. Violated this rule 3 times (and regretted it once).
I would also be interested in seeing what others are experiencing along these lines.
Loose Bay area 6/12 holdem results (net includes aprox. $1.50/hr food and drink). I play in a fairly high variance style most of the time.
50 winning sessions 37 losing sessions ---- 87 sessions (57% wins)
win streak: 7 wins in a row loss streak: 4 losses in a row
net: $10,181 hours: 534 avg: $19.07 / hour avg session: 6.14 hours
A simple game with simple rules may help you look at your streakness.
Take 100 coins: 62 of which you mark the tails with a black felt tip marker; 38 of which you mark the heads (ie 62% you won session). Take graph paper and set up a square 10x10 (representing 10 sessions). Let the x axis represent wins and the y axis losses.
Starting at the lower left hand corner of the square move one unit right (along the x axis) for each unmarked head and rotate left one unit (along the y axis) for each unmarked tail. Example: Your first two blind draws are unmarked heads and your third and fourth draws are unmarked tails; :. (Therefore) you would be at position x=2, y=2 on a graph.
Can you predict where you will breakout on the right side of the square? Will you always break out on the right side of the square?
I hope I get credit for this chaos in someone's next book.
If come to casino whit $20 and my goal is to win $1000 what my odds of having 15 losing session I a row. Odds of doubling $20 is 60%.
Hi Natedogg,
This is my observation from what you wrote. "Three and four hours at a time without a pot or even a hand that WOULD have had a pot, bad beat after bad beat etc. etc." It looks to me like you should either buy a block of cheese to go with your whine or start attacking your problem with an opened mind by reading books that will help you through this. I only can say this because I used to be a Cheesehead myself until I got honest about the problem which was I was playing too many hands not paying enuf attention and God forgive I need a book to tell me how to play.
Good Luck "THE FEENDOG"
Someone commented once a good player really tested whne the cards go bad. everyone looks great when the cards come but not when they don't.
I've had nights wehere i only won 1/2 of a pot , one has to limit one's lossing and maybe quit early if their confidence damaged.
Incidentally many believe this is when you lose even mosre money bc one is temepted to play more hands to get back even and as a result sinks deeper. Caro talks about this in his fundamental secrets (or somthing like that) and to less er extent so does sklansky (in skl on poker and i think theory of poker).
Talk to someone about some hands where you thik you were robbed or keep track of some of your plays in general. It helped me.
I caught that cheesehead remark.
-Go Pack
Michael
First of all, let me state you do not have to be a professional player to have a bankroll. Having a bankroll for the smaller limits is perfectly acceptable.
In my opinion, you have three choices. One, you could use the money in tournaments. This would be the least favorable choice for myself. Two, you could take the money to the craps table. I do not know play this game, but I believe your odds might not be that bad, considering your amount of money left in comparison to your original value. Third, which would be my choice, is stick with 3-6 or move to 2-4, if possible. Tighten your game.
Go to RGP and access the thread "End of Bankroll" for an excellent discussion on the subject. I started it about one month ago.
Talk about arrogance. My short phrase about bad beats etc was only to explain that yes, the cards are running bad. My "whining" was all in your mind. My only question was should I continue playing my bankroll for what it's for (3-6 to 6-12) or should I change? Thanks for the advice about reading books, but I have read many. Let's just assume that I'm right about my game, and the cards really have been had.
I've seen a hundred threads complaining about bad streaks. That's not my intention. I'm in the middle of a typical bad streak of cards which can last for months for some people. My bad run has been about 8 or 9 weeks. Constant losing session. My game is strong compared to the jokers at my table. Either you believe me or you don't. Let's just assume I'm right.
Now what do I do?
It's possible to get bad cards you know. Jesus.
You must be on tilt. Your losing streak is way too long and your draw down is way too deep. You need to go back to square one.
Natedog,
I can empathize very much. What follows is a cut and paste from my spreadsheet on my poker playing results. However a few caveats. Some games are Vegas 1-5 stud. Others are 5-10 Indiana riverboat games. All are seven card stud. It's also a very small sample, I only began keeping track this year and my work has precluded much play.
I believe the Indiana games are easier thus skewing my hourly rate upwards.
I conclude I need to get much better to play in Vegas, even at low limits.
You'll notice my STD DEV of HOURLY RATE (Not bankroll) is 55 dollars with an hourly average of around 3 bucks. That says my hourly earn is going to be 3 dollars +/- 55 (1 STD DEV each way) bucks 68% of the time. Not very good in my estimation. As that means a good part of the time it's going to be between 0 and -52 bucks per hour. I'd like a way to reduce my STD DEV of HOURLY RATE, at least to the negative side.
How much of this is luck? Don't know. I'm doing an empirical study with this to determine what really happens to me...not what is theoretically possible.
Some authors mention there are tactics to reduce Std dev. ... but it it reduces fluctuations in both directions that means you give up potential earn to minimize risk.
What we really want is a way to minimize downside while maximizing upside. Perhaps we should implore Dave and Mason to reveal techniques for doing just that.
Personally I'm more interested in walking away knowing that some part of my winnings can be used as income so knowing when I've established a true profit, as opposed to just a "typical positive fluctuation" if of great interest to me. I'd like to be able to say, "If I sit here and play correctly, at the end of xx hours I'll have established a profit...period."
What good is a $500 win today if I end up giving it back tommorrow...and maybe more? I've had this happen at the 10-20 level on occasion.
I do have to state that finding games where the people don't know basic strategy like thinning the field on premium pairs and maintaing proper pot odds for drawing hands does make a huge difference in earn. As does finding people who don't read cards well.
Card Reading is an issue I think Dave talks about in a way that is difficult to use effectively for most of us. Roy West for example, will state : "You're opponent cannot have a full house at sixth street without showing a pair". To me that is an actionable card reading fact. Daves stuff I find hard to follow in this respect. Perhaps we need to implore Dave and Mason to give us some similarly actionable facts that can be quickly put to use at the table. In the end, no matter what anyone may think, even an expert is executing a set of rules to make decisions that can be boiled down to :
IF (some set of facts) THEN DO (Some Action).
These may be very complex or layered on top of each other but the fact is decisions can all be boiled down to a series of IF..THEN...ELSE statments.
Of course card reading is more of a Stud Subject than a Hold 'em topic according to most authors.
Also note in my chart (which was to big to fit here, I trimmed a lot out.) that even on most losing nights I was ahead at some point (High Water Mark). So perhaps there is something to knowing when to leave. Hence my attempt to establish an average win amount, to know when I'm in a statistically unusual situation and should leave the table with my "excess" profits.
Lastly I was upset over some things and only half in the games for the last three losers. In any event vegas is a tough market...lots of weekend warriors. Anyway to those figures :
Date Session Ending Profit Minutes High
Bank Roll Bankroll Played Water 2/22/99 50.00 $102.00 $52.00 210 $105.00 2/26/99 $100.00 $108.25 $8.25 90 $112.00 6/4/99 $200.00 $0.00 -$200.00 300 $200.00 6/11/99 $300.00 $390.00 $ 90.00 120 $400.00 6/18/99 $300.00 $620.00 $320.00 120 $640.00 6/24/99 $300.00 $320.00 $ 20.00 120 $330.00 7/8/99 $200.00 $260.00 $ 60.00 180 $300.00 7/9/99 $200.00 $100.00 -$100.00 180 $205.00 7/9/99 $100.00 $ 0.00 -$100.00 180 $120.00 7/9/99 $ 60.00 $ 0.00 -$ 60.00 180 $100.00
Total Profit/Loss +$90.25 Total Hours Played : 28 Hourly Rate : $3.22 STD DEV of HOURLY RATE : $55.62
Comments 02/22/99 Got lucky on all in hand and rebounded with several full houses. Need to more carefully evaluate Flush play. Mirage 1-5 2/26/99 Fri. Only actually won two hands, rolled up 5's and an Ace high club Flush, Game seemed to lose steam, left early. 6/4/99 Ceasar's Indiana 5-10 6/11/99 Grand Victoria Indiana 5-10 6/18/99 Grand Victoria Indiana 5-10 6/24/99 Grand Victoria Indiana 5-10 7/8/99 Mirage 1-5 7/9/99 Mirage 1-5 Was playing without sleep, 7/9/99 Flamingo 1-5 was preoccupied with other problems 7/9/99 Bellagio 1-5
For me, winning seemed to begin when I learned to fold better. It was easy to see a winning hand. It was harder to see a losing one. Now I think my ups and downs were caused by the losses I suffered rather than the wins I enjoyed.
Duddly's mom.
Bob Ciaffone wrote:
"The first time, I was in a $25-$25 blind pot-limit Omaha game and picked up JH 9H 7C 7S on the button. Someone opened under the gun for $100 and a whole bunch of us called. The flop came down 7D 4H 3D, giving me top set, but with a possible straight out there. The field checked to me. Of course, I did not know whether someone had slipped a straight to me, but I thought that I had to bet before the next card crippled my hand. So, I put half a grand out there and hoped. Sure enough, I got raised. A veteran player who had been playing a very long session raised me the full size of the pot. I had about $3,800 left, and my choices were to either go all in or fold. Naturally, I expected that I had to pair the board to win, and was an underdog to have that happen. Since there was about $1,750 in the pot after my opponent's call prior to raising, I was not getting quite the right price for a call. However, I also had a backdoor heart draw and a backdoor straight draw, and conceivably could be up against a freaky hand such as a set combined with a flush draw, so I put all of my money into the pot. My opponent called quickly."
First of all, I think that hand is a clear fold preflop. You have virtually no chance to make the nuts. Middle set, non-nut full houses, and straights without redraws are a good way to lose your entire stack.
With many people seeing the flop, top set may already be losing, and may even be an underdog to a strong draw including the nut flush. A player with the straight would be unlikely to sandbag with a 2-flush on board. And someone with just 65 wouldn't want to give a free card that could easily make a higher straight. Virtually any fourth street card will be scary for the player with 77. The check-raiser must have the straight, probably with redraws. I wouldn't reraise all-in here. The ideal would be calls from multiple straights and maybe a flush draw, which would give you odds to fill. But heads-up, all-in, your situation isn't good unless the opponent really has 65 and nothing else, and even then it is barely profitable assuming that all your backdoor outs are good.
Was that reraise correct?
Why has pot-limit Omaha become the game of choice at the highest stakes?
If hero calls with top set, he will surely call the turn; no turn card would encourage a fold. Since Hero is going to go all in (once committed to calling), ReRaising forces the opponent to go all-in in the event he hasn't the nuts.
I suspect perhaps pot limit Omahaha has appeal over no limit holdem as there is more quantitative analysis involved (for the "technical expert") and more lucky draw outs involved for the fish, compared to holdem which is mostly a dominant personality game favoring the intuition of the good-old boys. Or to put it in 2+2 terms, the fish win often enough to keep them hooked. Where there are fish there are sharks. Where there are fish and sharks there are games.
- Louie
I've replayed this hand over and over in my mind, and I'm too sure what I would have done differently if I had the chance..
No limit tournament- on the button. Blinds, 200-400. I look down at 2 red Aces... Person in early position opens with $1300 to go, decent player. Mid-position loose player goes all in with $1500. I come over the top with about $5000. Opener calls for less, we see the flop 3 handed- no more action. Board comes out - 9c7sJc/6s2c, possible club flush- original bettor has pocket 7s, mid-pos player has AKo. I loose 90% of my stack.
I replayed it in my mind, and I could've just called the first all in bettor, but when the original raiser saw his 7 on the flop, he surely would've moved all in? Then I would have be at another decision where I would have to call or fold as well. Any thoughts?
just a bad beat as there is too much in the pot to fold on the flop no matter what comes.
Your play was correct. Put it out of your mind and get on with the next hand(game). Pocket Aces are not really that greater hand, they are never a 100% favourite in any hand preflop or on it (unless it come Aces full,quads etc). I've seen Quad Aces beaten by a royal on the river. I was just a beat.
Pocket rockets. They are the start I dislike the least. If I have to start somewhere, I will start there all day long. If they are letting you down, hey, sell them to me.
You can't question your decision or your play here. You put maximum heat on the raiser and the limper and they came with you as big underdogs anyway (you're better than 10-1 favored over the A-K and better than 3-1 against the pair). If you'd slowplayed it then moved in after the flop, THEN you'd really be questioning yourself. Good play -- bad luck.
Here's a contrasting scenario: you limp in with A-A in early position and no one raises the pot so you can reboot it; the flop comes A-10-8 rainbow. Now do you feel any better about your hand than the scenario you faced here and lost? What about if you get called for your whole stack by a straight draw that gets there on the river? My point is, there are few hands/situations where you are unbeatable -- when you're getting a great return on your money, you usually just have to put it all in.
Why did you raise? You knew the hand had to be played no matter what. There was a player all in. You must have raised to 1) Drive out the blinds 2) Drive out the original raiser 3) Get as much money in the pot as you could with the best hand.
Well you drove out the Blinds. That worked. You didn't drive out the original raiser but got more money in the pot with the best hand. That's a good thing!
Now let's stop for a moment. Before you raise let's turn your opponents hands face up! Bang! 7,7 and A,Ko. Now do you still come over the top before the flop? Remember this is a tournament and you can't go back into your pocket. I say come over the top if the original raiser is a good player because a good player will FOLD 7,7. Even though it is a mistake to call a reraise with 7,7, especially with all your chips it does you no good that he makes that mistake here. So if the raiser is a poor player it is better, in my oppinion to just call and take the flop. This may accomplish two things. The blinds may call and you may end up with a huge pot. Or the flop will be so favorable or unfavorable that your decision on how to proceed will be an easy one.
Of course this type of flop provides an unavoidable conclusion. Like Ray says, in this instance you suffered a bad beat. God I hate it when they make a mistake and get away with it! But that's poker and I would rather have bad beats than have them all leave town!
Vince
Hindsight is beautiful. Isn't it. Well, Vince is right, you can not go dig back in your pocket, unless it's still rebuy time. Everyones always in a hurry to move all their chips in when they get a pair of Aces. Right? You know you have the best hand, but it's a tournament. I'm going to stick my neck out on this one.
Most NL Hold'em tourneys I've been in the following scenario occurs. One person moves in and then another moves in. Then one is eliminated. When your head-to-head in these situation one player has a pair and the other has an Ace-kicker or both have Ace-kickers, or both have pairs.
When three players move in all their chips its still Ace-kicker, pair, and pair; or Ace-kicker, Ace-kicker, and pair; or everyones got pairs or Ace-kickers. The point is two of the three are losers.
In tournaments I consider the following:
What's my chip status compared to the others? How far away am I from the money? How much am I willing to risk for a big payday or will I be satisfied with hitting some paydirt?
I don't have the answers for you, but consider your goals. If all of my chips are at stake, I've laydown the big ones a few times, because I don't like to overcall.
Now, if they were both short stacked for $1500. No thinking required.
You had the best of it before the flop. I agree with your action. Tough beat. Better luck next time.
Here's a hand that came up in fast 30-60 game two nights ago (actually, 15-30 w/ overs, but everyone had an over button). My buddy played it, and we've been discussing the play since.
Four players limp, a complete and utter maniac raises (this is, I think, the seventh straight hand that he's raised pre-flop), one guy calls, my buddy (hereafter refered to as hero) cold calls with AsJh (our first point of contention) and the rest of the table calls. They go into the flop 9 handed.
Flop-- Ks Qc 7s. Checked to the maniac, who bets. The guy inbetween the maniac and hero calls, hero calls, everyone else mucks.
Turn- 4s. Maniac bets, next guy raises, hero makes it 180 to go, maniac folds, guy in between calls.
River- 2h. Hero bets, next guy flashes him Qh7h and mucks.
Comments welcome
I don't see A-J off as being the hand I'd want to take on a whole table with, but apparently your buddy thought he could outplay the table after the flop. He got lucky when the maniac folded, because that's the only way the image he put on the hand was gonna work. High variance play -- but fun.
I think the guy with the 2 pair was crazy for laying it down considering the size of the pot, and he needed to only call one bet! Big play by the "hero", kudos to him- he pulled in a monster.
I agree, especially without a fourth spade polluting the river. Terrible laydown from two pairs, despite a three-bet turn.
Hero's actions on the turn and the river can be accomplished only - and only - if he had an excellent read on the two players left in the pot. You said that you've been discussing this hand with Hero. Can he explain how he put this excellent read on these two opponents? He comes across as a hand reading/people skills/ intuitive genius. Of course he was helped by a bad mathematical fold by the Q7.
Regarding his preflop call, I agree with it 80%.
The way he explained it was this; he 'knew' (read: figured) that the original better (the maniac) probably had nothing, and that if the man in between had had a flush draw, he'd doubtlessly have raised on the flop (given the size of the pot, those that were coming for one bet would have come for two bets, so there's no real danger of 'running off customers'). Further, he figured there was a chance that the maniac would bluff-reraise, so he could be looking at three bets anyway. He DIDN'T put the man in between on two pair, and fully admits he was lucky as hell to have the guy fold. But, he did think there was a chance that one of them had a K or Q, and that by reraising he could possibly make his J good if another one hit on the river.
GD,
I'm posting this without reading the other replies. I think AJ offsuit is a terible hand to play with this many opponents and a maniac for two bets. It is not a hand that normally can take or apply pressure against a field.
How could "next guy" call the hero's three bet on the turn with two pair and not check call the river when a blank hits. I would say your hero got very lucky. It is rare to find a player weak enough to cold call two bets pre flop with Q7s yet pride himself in laying down two pair on the river. He must have some sort of pre-flop post-flop personality disorder
BTW. With all that jackpot money you won, why weren't you playing in the game. Isn't it time you gave something back to the game that you love?
Regards :-)
Rick
Even with the new loot, 30-60's just a little high for me... (although I am spending more time at the 10-20 tables).
I agree, and I think Paul (my buddy) does too, that AJo is NOT the hand you want here. We talked about the wretched pre-flop call later on, and he admitted that he failed to take the rest of the field's hand's into account. He just saw the maniac raise, and thought 'well, I can beat whatever THAT is', without consider the hand domination factor, the inevitable suck-out that would occur if the flop came J high, etc. etc.
And, he admits he got damn lucky on the river, when the other guy laid down Q7. But what interests me about this play is whether or not on average one can really expect to increase their EV by making this kind of high-variance play. Will he get rid of a naked Q? Probably. A King? Again, likely. And since it's 'somewhat' unlikely that a KQ is out there, he has a good chance (I think) of either getting rid of a K or Q, thereby making his J good on the river (or his A, should the maniac actually hold AK or AQ). If not this, then it sets the stage for what has the potential to be a fairly good bluff on the end.
In short, he may have increased his potential outs from 9 to maybe as many as 15. But is this, along with the bluffing opportunity on the end, really worth the extra 60 bucks (and maybe 120 if one of the other guys does, in fact, have a made flush or other huge hand)? In the words of the Bard, 'that is the question...'
BTW, I'd be curious to see what you have to say on all this rambling. If you get the time, please post a follow-up.
Guy
Just remember to temper this sort of post-mortem analysis by allowing for the possibility someone has a hidden set. Yes you can cause one pair to let go and KQ would have to have misplayed earlier to have been there at the river, but the maniac and someone who cold calls a maniac (not letting him off the hook by reraising) are candidates to be holding a set. That the hero bet and was involved in a three way pot on the turn which was not taken to three bets discounts the set possibility considerably. However, I have seen many players wait to pull the trigger until the river with a maniac still in at the turn. I think this was a particularly dangerous river bluff that happened to work out brilliantly. What self possessed maniac was this who didn't take one more shot at the pot on the river with a checkraise?
An excellent point, and another compelling reason to NOT try this play at home (BTW, it did go to three bets on the turn-- my buddy Paul is the one that made it 180 to go. At this point the maniac folded (he probably had nothing) and the guy in between them called the extra 60, only to fold for a bet on the river).
I thought this was an interesting play, if only because the re-raise semi bluff on the turn (particularly in a three way pot) is a dark art, and few players ever get the chance to pull it off successfully. And the possibility of increasing your possible outs from 9 to 15 is interesting, although I'm not sure if this is the usual result of such a play. The question, as I see it, is this: "By investing an extra 2 bb's (the reraise on the turn, and the sure to follow bluff on the river), do you increase your chances of winning the pot by (around) the 10% or so necessary to make this a plus EV move?" Of course, all situations are different, but generally speaking is this the kind of play that one ought to store in his/ her arsenal? Or is it just fluky, once a month play that happened to work?
It might work more in this particular circumstance: a three-handed pot with one maniac. The maniac is the center of attention; he's the "threat" from the beginning of the hand until he's no longer in play. A player that would ordinarily muck something on par with Q7s might be seduced to come in thinking "I just might hit a big hand ... against the maniac." His anxiety is hardly placated when he flops bottom two multiway, but still ... he can beat maniac garbage ... if he can just avoid a bad beat from the maniac ...
And then he gets blindsided on the turn by a sane player. Hopes crushed, he thinks, "obvious flush, my tickets can't win." His judgment wasn't necessarily horrible, depending on what he's seen from Paul, but in the light of day pretty much everyone would consider the fold on the river a fairly tough laydown. Of course, a few people like to show these hands (!). My bet, however, was that this guy was so confident that he was dead he was looking for sympathy. He got caught off guard in an "idiot triangle."
Guy,
I shouldn't have needled you about the money as I should talk. About ten years ago I had a big tournament win at the Diamond Jim Brady yet rarely played much bigger than 15/30 or 20/40 after. Instead I kept the money aside as a down payment for a home, which lost most of it's equity in the subsequent real estate slump (although in the last couple years we have "gotten even").
I don't have much time for analysis right now as I have to take care of some personal business. Andrew Wells above seems pretty close to what I would have said.
I'm also glad to see your friend understands that you can win the hand but have made a huge mistake in getting there in the first place (i.e., the pre flop call which is wrong for all the reasons you mention).
Regards and good luck in Las Vegas,
Rick
Rick-
Don't sweat it-- you can needle me as much as you want. I may be thirty grand to the better, but when I'm looking at tossing two stacks of red into the pot, well... :)
I was wondering where I could find a list of the types of players in poker games. Definitions of each and what each might do. Thanks
Mason Malmuth had a list in a pas issue of Poker Digest. Here's my own list: 1)Tight-aggressive - plays relatively few starting hands but plays them in an aggressive manner. Likes to bet,raise, reraise and checkraise. His style is optimal in ring games. 2)Loose-aggressive - plays relatively many starting hands and plays them very aggressively. His style is optimal in shorthanded games, especially the ones that have high antes. In ring games, he would probably be a live one in the long run. A.k.a "MANIAC". 3)Tight-passive - known as a "ROCK", this one plays very few starting hands and plays them meekly. He is the ideal opponent to play against in a shorthanded or heads up game. The loose-aggressive maniac would annihilate him there. In full games, you can easily steal his blinds if you're seated to his near right. 4)Loose-passive - known as the "idiot" calling station. He is the ideal opponent in a ring game. He plays very many hands, plays them meekly, and plays in a very predictable manner. Shorthanded, he is also easy prey but not as easy as his tight-passive cousin. 5)Expert-random - this is the expert player who shifts gears when it is appropriate to do so. A tactical chameleon, he can snap in and out of any of the above styles at will. He is the most dangerous opponent because he is very deceptive and extremely difficult to read. He would probably be world class. 6)Novice-random - like the above, he can be difficult to read but for a different reason: HE DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO PLAY. He is random but not deliberately so. If you're patient, you'll eventually know he to beat him since he will be fairly easy to manipulate.
These classifications describe playing styles. They don't describe people. There's no such thing as a loose-aggressive or tight passive person. The reason is because people change as their beliefs, experience, knowledge, philosophies, values, goals, circumstances, and emotional states change. Faces may not change but the playing styles sure do.
Good post Jaws. I like it!
There is an excellent book,called Poker Sex and Dying,by Juel Anderson. I've tried to get a copy rom Gamblers book club but it is out of print.It is written by a psycholgist and has tremendous value in the area you are looking for.
30-60 stud, 7 ante up.
2 brings it in, next two fold, I raise with split 9's with a jack(two clubs), player to my immediate left reraises with an 8s showing, next two fold, bring-in calls and I call.
4 street. Bring-in pairs the 2, I make two pair, 8s catches Qs. 2's check, I check, 8sQs bets(double bet) and we both call.
5 street. Deuces catch an offsuit 6 and check, I catch a 7 and bet (9cJs 9sJc7s), player with 8sQsTh raises, deuces call the double bet and I decide to call.
Player to my left with 8sQsTh showing: weakest player in a game. Bets and raises early, but not late, easy to read.
Player with 2's: paranoid and scared
My thinking: On third I call because I'm figuring I'll get a free card late in a hand, also it will probably be heads up at that point and there is a good chance I can steal on the end.
On fourth I checked because I was pretty sure a bet was coming from my left thinking if the 2's now raise I can safely fold (unfortunately he just called)
On fifth I wanted to take control and not risk a free card in case I had the best hand, unfortunately the player to my left raised when she raised I thought it was about 75% that she held 3 queens with the other hand being 3 eights. My hand was very live and the pot was large at this point I thought it was close and called. Cards of importance: there was one Ace out and one Ten out
Comments?
One thing for sure is that you should have checked on fifth street.
I know it is hard to get a second opinion from some people, but I'll try anyway.
At this point I thought there was a good chance I was in the lead. The pair of 2's could easily have started with a small 3 card straight flush combination or a couple of bigger flush cards in a hole. I also thought that it was very, very unlikely that I would get raised by the player behind me. I felt if I checked there was 1 in 5 chance she would not bet thus keeping a possible flush, straight combination in there and not giving him a chance to fold. Now I understand my hand is not a monster against 1 overpair and pair-flush-straight combination, but shouldn't I try to get rid of the player if I think he might not call especially when it might increase my chances by as much as 20% (say from 40 to 60) also if it was correct to check on 5th, was it correct to get involved in a first place(i beleive it was marginally profitable for me to call on 3rd) because if didn't think there was a chance in hell I could loose the player on 5, then maybe I should not have called? Should I have called or is it still a sure thing as far as checking is concerned?
You're in exactly the kind of situation I hate to be in, with 2 medium pairs that almost certainly need to improve to win but are an underdog to do so. You have a backdoor straight and flush draw in addition to your 2 pairs but those draws might end up being no good. With the pot size I'd call on 5th street and unless you know you're drawing dead on 6th I'd call 6th street too. But I am not liking it.
You gotta figure you're in 3rd place at this point. The deuces is paranoid and scared yet continues to stand a lot of heat. What could he call 2 bets with on 3rd street and another 2 big bets on 5th street (after catching what appears to be a brick)? Usually a scared player is relatively easy to get off his hand. This guy has to have something, and I think it easily beats Jacks-up. Heck I almost put him on quad deuces, just calling along to keep you in. Then the re-raiser who is weak, a weak player who continues to ram-and-jam. Weak (not maniac) players don't tend to raise much on 5th street with a single over pair. Your read of trips Queens sounds pretty accurate to me, especially since a Ten is out making trip Tens less likely. I also think rolled 8's is less likely since she would probably have slow-played them. Best case scenario: you're up against trip 2's and trip 8's and a Jack or 9 wins you the pot. Worst case scenario: worse than the best case scenario and I don't even like the best case scenario.
I guess the problems started when the duece called 2 bets cold on 3rd street giving you pretty good odds to take one off and making your 2 pair on 4th street. Then you got stuck.
Assuming the 8 wouldn't 3-bet unless he could beat 9s and the 2 would call 2-bets unless he couldn't beat the guy who can beat 9s, folding to the reraise on 3rd with the probable 3rd best hand was out of the question? Well, I wonder how much of advantage there is into being able to tell when they make 2-pair, such as pairing their door card on 4th... or when the guy with the pocket over pair catches two over cards...
As Vike said, you should be LUCKY if you are up against two small sets.
If they surely have you beat: Fold for the 3rd street reraise, fold for the 4th street bet when the 2s pair, fold for the 5th street bet when the 8 catches the 2nd overcard, fold on 6th regardless. Do not pay this one off. Don't listen to me since I don't play much stud and can only play when I am the aggressor.
Nothing quite like (relatively) small pairs with small kickers against better pairs ... But you did have a 2-flush/straight!
- Louie
The deuces calling the double bet on 5th street was the key to this hand. As everyone else has observed, you appear to be beaten in two places on 5th street. The idea of "taking control" is out of place in that situation. If you believed there was a good chance they both had sets, you were about an 8-1 underdog and should've folded to a bet on 5th instead of betting or raising.
What's the deal with internet poker? Is it a good thing or a bad thing? I think that it would be easy for collusion to occur, does anyone think that internet poker is good thing, or a bad thing?
i have played on planet poker before and for the most part found everything on the level. i played for two months and found my results to be no different than live casino play. i think the fact that i didn't have to tip and the rake was modest balanced out the disadvantage of not seeing the players.
just like the regular games i play in, i started to note who played well, what mistakes they made, etc. my game was incredibly tight, decisions always based on math, pot size displayed to make calculations easy, very black and white. (just like my real game, i found the players to be the same quality mix as a regular game on average.
regarding cheating: it is incredibly easy for two people to collude, or one person to use two computers for that matter. however a good player will realize what is going on fairly soon. planet poker monitors this by not letting one e-mail address have two accounts, but it's easy to get two e-mail addresses. PP also posts the city that the player is from when you select a table, hence if you see three players from Broken Bow, OK, you have reason to be suspicious. i think if you get burned by collusion it's your own fault for not paying attention and being more aware.
i don't play there anymore because i find it to be an incredible waste of time. poker is supposed to be about people. the thing i enjoy about the game is WATCHING the people. i like watching them win, lose, get angry, fester and steam, i enjoy the ups and downs, and find it facinating how $500 gain or lost over an hour can change someone's mood, confidence, and sense of self worth. call me sadistic, but i think it's hilarious, and use this to avoid falling into that trap myself. Online poker just doesn't do it for me.
i am the type of person that does better playing a 7 hour seesion, 3 or 4 times a week. although it's fun watching tv or eating dinner clicking fold, fold, fold, it can start to burn you out just like live play. It can start to become a big blur, with your decisions becoming sloppy. (at least that's me)
i think the companies that operate online gambling are fair, honest, but come on, it's summer and light out until 9 o'clock! What kind of life is it coming home and staring at a pixel poker table? Go for a bike ride, or golfing, or take your wife out for dinner. I'm sure Timmy's homework rates slightly higher than whether or not to call 67s on a raised blind.
(although i suppose it's no different than a beautiful sunset losing out to home improvement, judge judy, and entertainment tonight.)
Everything in moderation!
James....
Tuneman,
Good post and I agree with most of your points. Koolcat may want to do a power search of the newsgroup rec.gambling.poker using www.deja.com for a broad base of opinion. You may also want to read my post below concerning the common aces dilemma which discussed a hand from Planet Poker and turned into a discussion of some ethical issues.
I found the games to be a little tighter than the Los Angeles area games, especially at the lower limits. You almost never have a maniac in the game. It is very slow as the server is in Central America. As I note in my post, it is a great teaching tool. I could see myself playing now and then on my own but agree that you miss a lot of the fun of casino play.
If you do better at Planet Poker than in a equivalent casino game, it may be an indicator that you are giving up more in tells then you are gaining in the casino game.
At the lower limits I find I can play, cook, clean the house, and listen to music all at the same time (you can turn up the volume to hear the new shufle). At the higher limit I pay attention a lot more.
Regards,
Rick
If I can't see them lift their chips to try to dissuade me from betting, it just aint the same ...
Yesterday I get Q2s in small blind 3 times.
First time 4 callers. I have Qs2s. Flop come QdTs3d. Everybody check to the button. He bet. I raise. Lady in a middle and bettor call. Turn Tc. All check. River Ah. All check. Button have Qc9h. Lady have 9d8d. Big blind tell me he fold T5o
Second time 5 callers. I have Qc2c. Flop come Qh7c4h. Blinds check. UTG bet. 5 players call including blinds. Turn 2s. I bet. BB and UTG call. River 2h. I bet. BB raise. UTG fold. I reraise. BB call. He have Ah5h.
Third time 8 callers. I have Qd2d. Flop come QcJc6d. Blinds check. UTG bet. 3 players call. button raise. Blinds fold. Others call. Turn 8s. All check. River 8h. All check. Players have AsJd, JsTs, 7s6s, 6h5h, AcTc. Big blind tell me he fold 88.
1) OK. Solid play. You sucked out half the pot.
2) Very marginal call when UTG bets, a likely pair of Qs. Bad bet on turn, should have check-raised. Nice 3-bet on the end.
3) Don't worry, be happy. Good fold.
My friend and I began seriously playing poker at about the same time. We both tried to adhere to the "tight but aggressive" credo while we were learning. My friend was more patient than I and did a better job of playing tight. I frequently found myself playing too loose and getting into trouble. I had to endure far more bankroll fluctuations and frustration than my friend.
However, now that we are more experienced, we both play better. But, I notice that I seem to be able to outplay my friend at high-limit (relatively sophisticated) poker. I believe that this is because when I was learning to play, I frequently through poor judgement, found myself in complex situations that forced me to develop a high level of skill at things like reading opponents, bluffing, etc. (Over time I was able to learn the more important "basic" skills). So, I believe, at the end of my learning curve I received a more complete education than my friend.
Now I am not advocating that people learn poker my way--it was painful! But, I believe that if you survive that type of learning process you will be a stronger player than those who always play like a rock their whole career.
Has anyone had similar experiences?
The very last thing I want to be is a rock.
That's all possible, but did it ever occur to you that you just MIGHT be a better player than your friend? That if you had gone the more solid route, you might have not experienced the 'swings of the game' as much as you did? Playing a 'solid' game will take the checks down...
Dead
Yes, its easier to judge the strength of a limb when you've been out on a few too many. Yes, I am still taking this route.
How many rocks can confidently bet 2nd pair weak kicker KNOWING the guy with the better kicker can't take the heat and you'll get paid off by the idiot?
The key to making this approach a success is: ==1== learn from your mistakes ==2== gamble with lesser opponents ==3== Always know the difference between the trunk (solid hands in solid position) and the limbs ==4== play the cards, don't let them play you ==5== play the players, don't let them play you.
Dare I suggest that this approach teaches you that the "book" has routine guidlines, not ten-comandment style rules.
- Louie
Johnny Moss, Stu Ungar, Jack Strauss, Doyle Brunson, Huck Seed, John Bonneti, H.L. Hunt, Nick the Greek, John"bet a million"Gates, Diamond Jim Brady, James Keene, J.J.Bryant, Jack Crow, Titanic Thompson. These are just some of the all time greats that have or had REPUTATIONS for being loose. Rocks make the steady money but to achieve greatness you probably have to learn to play loose. Of course, it's going to be extremely volatile. But that's the risk of greatness. Note: the reason that you're better than your friend is because you have had more experience than him even though you started playing seriously at about the same time! Let's say that you two have been playing for 100 hours(this is just an example), if you played 20 hands per hour while he only played 5 hands per hour (again, these are just examples), you really have 4 times as much experience than he does, don't you?
Hi, poker is about people, you are a better player when you play people and what cards they might have and how they play thier cards. the cards are the same for everyone over the long run. have a nice day ron
In the early-to-mid-80s, a loose aggressive player would win a high percentage of the time in the mid-limit stud games (and a drastically disproportionate amount of time in the low buy-in tourneys), so this is the way I began playing. Playing more hands provides valuable exposure to many many more situations than will be seen by the person who started out tight and stayed that way. Furthermore, for me at least, playing on the edge seems to heighten the sensitivy of what is happening at the table. Being able to skillfully play both a loose and a tight game also provides a superb baseline to return to when things aren't going well. Your perception is correct.
Hello Everyone.
I'm relatively new to the game of poker, but I've been a blackjack pro for many years now. This dilemma I'm having is this. Unlike blackjack, where you take your money off a nameless, faceless casino, in poker you take your money off people: face to face, with all their human frailties.
Sometime back, I discovered an extremely effective way to make money. Sizing up a whole table of players at once is very difficult for me at this point in my game, if not impossible. So, I learned that instead of trying to figure out everyone's play at once, I focus my attention almost exclusively on one or two "marks." The other players at the table, I play straight-up, bet-for-value poker. In other words, I don't play them at all. But the marks I play savagely. And I mean savagely. By focusing my exclusive attention of them I literally put them in my pocket.
There was this one guy this weekend, an otherwise a very talented player from what I hear. But this night, and apparently for the last month or so, he'd been running bad. He was on tilt, big time. And I brutally exploited every mistake he made. It got ugly. He was letting his emotions completely run away with him with every perceived "bad beat" (and there were tons of them, because of his mistakes). Finally, he picked up on the fact that I, personally, was beating his brains in and wanted to challenge me to a head-up, freeze-out match for the remainder of his stake. I know I would've easily had the best of it, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it. His skills had long since degenerated into gambling for the sheer compulsion of it, and his appetite self abuse seemed non-ending.
A few weeks earlier, at a different casino, I slaughtered a another guy under almost identical cirmcustances. I had singled him out of a crowded table the same way, and he later challenged me to a head-up match to try and get even. I not only beat him out of all the money he had, I beat him out of all the money he could borrow. I later found out he was a former cocaine addict, who had since replaced one addiction with another.
If there is any sure-fire money making formula at poker, it seems to me to be this: 1) Leave the good, well functioning players alone and give them no game whatsoever, 2) Seek out the worst degenerate gamblers you can find and have no mercy on them.
The only problem is, I just don't have the stomach for this. Maybe this means I'm not cut out to be a poker player.
Granted, in blackjack, I'm making my money off the casinos, who in turn make their money off gamblers. So, I'm in essence profiting upon the overall "misery factor."
I've seen some horrible thing in gambling. I've seen people sleep in their car because they wanted to save every dollar of their stake they could for play. I've seen a little old lady on a oxgen mask have a heart attack while sitting at a slot machine (what a way to spend her last hours on earth). I've sat at a blackjack table with a player who lost so badly he later shot his brains out. Several months back, my cousin's husband shot himself because of gambling debts.
One part of me wants to continue to play poker, because I'd like to put my skills up against the very best. But if exploiting the weak is what the game is really about, I don't think I can do it any longer.
I'd like to hear comments from more experienced players.
RM
Bashing out brains is a little brutal. Try- just breaking bottles over their heads.
Bottles. Containers. Heads.
I'm not sure what limits you play at, but I got past that moral dilemna when I started playing at limits where it was obvious the players weren't down to their last dollar. Playing tournaments is also a great way to dispel any problems with that, mainly because it's the equivalent of a golf or chess event where you pay your entry fee and there is no further investment.
The U.S. economy -- indeed the world economy -- is a zero sum game. Do you feel bad because you go to bed comfortable at night while entire nations are poverty-stricken? While it sometimes looks perverted, what people choose to do with their greenbacks is the great democracy of the American life. I'm confident Bill Gates doesn't give pause when he sells another bloated, bug-infested operating system to factories (in the name of progress of course) then charges exhorbitant licensing and support fees, thus siphoning off the cash flow employers might otherwise use to pay better wages.
Point is, you can keep your head above what the Brits my consider the "grubby" financial part of poker by focusing on the strategic and gamesmanship aspects of the game. The best players in poker always come back, even if they get knocked out every once in awhile. I've got a buddy that I sometimes back in tourneys who is routinely ridiculed for winning a major tourney one day and is then broke the next, but for him, it doesn't matter, he is always in it for the game. If you play the real PLAYERS, you'll have no moral dilemna, because they'll always bounce back.
The economy is most definitely not a zero-sum game. When two people are free to trade with each other, they will only do so when both perceive a benefit.
One solution would be to donate some of the money you win to those who are truly needy through no fault of their own. Those players that you pound on f have only themselves to blame since no one forces them to gamble, and if you won't take their money someone less generous (if you adopt my suggestion) will.
"Perceive" being the key word. And while the two principals *may* benefit, in the global scheme of things, somebody lost out, even if it was an Indian tribe that got chiseled out of its land for a power plant to provide the energy that made the two items traded by the principals in our scenario. Just as likely, it was some poor kid in Asia making 20 cents an hour to build the widgets we bought and sold. And if the U.S. government gets wind of any transaction, they're gonna have their hand out to reduce any perceived benefit too. Finally, I'm sure all those poor South American countries perceived a benefit from being sucked in by the Wall Street bankers too, thus bankrupting their countries for generations to come. Yes, the economy is a zero-sum game and will always be. Money simply changes shape as it passes through others hands. Most of us in America are deluding ourselves into believing that the vast richness of our country's economy doesn't come at the expense of someone.
You're simply wrong. If you are better at making grain than I am, and I am better at making widgets than you are, then if I trade a widget for some of your grain we are both better off than if we tried to make them ourselves. Wealth is created, it isn't just passed around. This is one of the fundamental rules of economics. But, it's not really a poker discussion.
Ahh, but now we're getting to the crux of true wealth. What we *produce* or create from the raw materials of *our* country's lands DOES generate wealth for the country (and even then, it's only generating true wealth to the extent that the environment is not harmed and those materials are naturally replenished -- farming and fishing, without exhausting the land and sea, for example).
On the other hand, the redistribution, or "economy" -- the buying and selling of goods -- that is a zero sum game; just as in poker, somebody wins, somebody loses (in poker, the house and a small minority of winners on one side, the losers on the other).
If the farmer trades his grain for your widgets, you may both gain, but still the guy who produced the widgets was a loser. You might even consider the widget-worker a $1-5 player who produces profits for the house at a marginal return for himself (if he happens to be able to crack that nut). At the same time, the farmer and the widget-trader are akin to a couple of high-limit players who shear the sheep that frequent their game: they may lose hands to one another, but in the end, their return is provided by the sheep.
The widget maker trades his labor for dollars, which he can then use to purchase grain for less labor than it would take for him to make it himself. The better he is at making widgets, the more money he'll make for his labor.
It sounds like you're carrying around the remnants of some Marxist labor theory of value or something. I don't really think this board is the place to argue economics, and I'm pretty sure that we're never going to agree, so let's just drop this topic.
How many times does communism need to fail before liberals finally get the idea?
I appreciate all your responses. Very interesting the turn that this string took. We started with my remorse in taking advantage of the compulsive gambler and finished with a discussion of world economics. Here's something relevant to that topic.
Last night, I answered an e-mail from a friend who passed along to me a website. I wish I knew how to post it here as a link, but I'm not that computer literate. The site is:
http://www.thehungersite.com
In exchange for the adverstising, corporations are donating food to the hungry. And all you have to do is click your mouse one time each day. No money out of your pocket, no hassle. I've since added the site to my favorites list and intend to make it a ritual every time I sign on-line. I hope that you will do the same.
This appears to be a good time to try the optional URL link directly below the message board on this well designed web site. After checking 'preview message' it works.
Consider it done!
BTW - If everyone defined and policed their own morals there most likely would be no need for this discussion. Except maybe with Machiaveli, Hitler, Stalin and some others, of course!
Vince.
This has nothing to do with communism (which, I agree, would be destined to fail if ever a true communist state was ever founded). If your talking about Eastern Europe, that certainly wasn't communism-- most call it 'Stalinism', and the differences between the two are vast.
In russia it called socialism.
If uncle Bill and aunt Hillary had their way, the USA would be socialistic as well.
Your right. My point is, the furter we deviate from pure capitalism, in the name of compassion, the closer we come to government control and increased human suffering. Whether you want to call it socialism, communism, stalinism, marxism or whatever, it doesnt matter.
Nagurski,
Please think a bit..."pure capitalism" leads to monoplies and cute things like child labor at sub subsistence levels. This is going on even in limited capitalism. The examples in third world countries are everywhere you look if not even here in the USA. Don't tell me NAFTA and GATT weren't just methods of obtaining cheaper labor.
We need a method of measurment that is more all inclusive than money, but mutually agreed on...and non oppresive to anyone. Hopefully without redistributions and the like.
Something unlike any prior way of dealing with this stuff. We need a new way. Man is now quite capable of destroying the whole planet...time we step up to the responsibility of taking care of it and put the B.S. of antiqity behind.
Of course I expect that to fall on deaf ears...to many entrenched interests that are thinking, "hell in 100 years I won't be here". Well some generation down the road will end up paying the interest for it. Perhaps we've already begun.
Lastly, the "growth" pure capitalists are so enamoured with leads to a problem. What do you do when we've "grown" to the limits of the planet? The planet is finite. Are we going to trade with Mars maybe?
Will the martians accept "treasury notes and bills". (I.e. unbacked money.)
Sincerely, Frank
For all of your unfounded environmental concerns I recommend you visit the following website: http://www.acsh.org/
Nagurski,
I personally worked in an Electronics factory that dumped carcinogens into Florida Soil where the water table is a few feet below the surface...Does Tricloroflouroethylene ("Trike" in the trade) mean anything to you?
Want some more examples?
Let's talk about jet fuel in the water at one site. Literally the water fountains.
I could go on.
Unfounded? You sir, I hate to say it, though obviously convinced you're correct, are misinformed. Have you been reading Rush Limbaugh lately?
I've already wasted enough effort. We'll just have to wait until it catches up with you personally I guess. I'm surprised, especially since poker players need to predict trends, that you can't extrapolate a bit on something besides a deck of cards.
And just for the record I don't recall mentioning the environment.
End of discussion.
What were talking about here is environmental contamination and how it affects human health. I hold a degree in environmental health, and beleive me, our environment is fine. Trace chemicals in the environment, contrary to common beleif, have very little, if any, affect on human health. It may not be a good idea to build a house on top of the "trike" contamination, but as the "trike" enters the water, it is very unlikely that the water will be a health hazard as a result. The solution to pollution, really is dillution. If a health hazard does result, simply dont drink the water until natural chemical processes make it drinkable. There is really nothing to get your panties into a bunch about.
People like myself, have a lot to gain by creating new health scares. Dont beleive any of them until you have studied the issue at length. DONT BELEIVE THE MEDIA.
I'm not going to throw my hat in the ring, but when you write "the better you are at making widgits, the more money you'll make" (sorry about the paraphrase)-- well, there are some problems here. I doubt that the Costa Rica kid who can stitch 80 baseballs an hour is making any more than the kid who stitches 60, and while Rawlings may make more, if you consider the first kid 'theirs' (and therefore put him under the 'you'll' in your statement), your assertion, it seems to me, doesn't tell the whole story.
What Earl's saying, I think, is that as a general rule every time someone makes a buck that they didn't earn with their labor, odds are that someone near the bottom of the ladder is getting screwed. Adam Smith may be rolling over in his grave at the mention of this, but that doesn't change the fact that if wealth is being created, nobody's really being served if that weath is held exclusively by one guy, or a cabal.
This may suprise you, but I'm actually a registered Libertarian (although more for moral than economic reasons). Still, I think that Hoover's 'trickle down' economics are B.S., and that most laborers here and abroad get the shaft when it comes to wages/ quality of living etc.
This has nothing to do with whether or not the economy is zero sum (on this note I agree with you), but I think this is what Earl was getting at.
Guy
Would it be better if these corporations pulled out altogether leaving these people with no jobs at all?
Nag.,
It would be better if more of the wealth were distributed to the poor sucker at the bottom.
It takes capital (in the form of hard assets like machinery..not money) to achieve a decent standard of living. But it takes people to run it unless we automate all of it. In which case we should all get free stuff.
It's a question of how much we are going to put up with so that the rich get richer while the poor starve.
Eventually, when it gets to far out of tilt people will revolt...they will say..."I'm not going to honor your money mr. big guy. I don't care about your laws." Witness Tienmen square and similar situations. Basically people were saying "life under you A**holes sucks so bad...go ahead shoot me. F**K you I've had enough." Eventually money holds no sway and it comes down to a fight. Every monumental political-socio-economic change of classical history seems to have been accompanied by a war.
The capitalists have just been better at finding the exploitation vrs. revolt threshold than the commies to put it plainly. Both systems have elites. To quote a wiser man than me, "Power corrupts, and absolute Power corrupts absolutely." (Henry Kissinger).
It's human nature. How many rich folks have you read about that spend tons of money on thier pet obssessions? Most recently Elton John and his 400K a week expenses for example. I don't think I'll by another pop record as long as I live. I may not be able to alter the system in a massive way...but dollars are votes in the sense of puchasing decisions. Some things I'm going to withhold my votes from to the extent that I can.
Sincerely, Frank
It would be bad business for any corporation to let its workforce starve or suffer to the point of revolution. Once again free market capitalism will work out its own problems, no need for government intervention. An example of that is when large corporations pay their associates exhorbitant amounts as to avoid the formation of a union (revolution).
GD,
Bravo...Clap Clap. Couldn't agree more.
Wasn't it MacArthur (the businesman not the general - big hero back in my hometown) who said, "give me 100 guys making me a buck rather than 1 guy making me 100. Capitalize on labor."
I knew there was someone out there who could see it too.
Sincerely, Frank
Actually, I voted for Reagan's "Voodoo Economics" and my all-time movie hero is the character Gordon Gecko in Wall Street. Still, the overall point is that in the global scheme of things Rainman should have no moral dilemna from playing poker.
Wonderful turn that this discussion has taken.
Let me offer some comments.
I point out that when offered the heads up freeze out match I turned the guy down. In the condition he was in, it didn't feel "sporting." The analogy to sports someone made earlier is very approiate here. The crowd rightly boos when a tennis player hits an opponet at the net, and the crowd likewise rightly boos when boxers hit below the belt (or bite off ears).
You made the statement that in the global scheme of things I should have no problems making money at poker. Making money at poker, perhaps not. But deliberately preying upon degenerate gamblers down on their luck, defintely so. What goes around comes around, even in the global scheme of things. The Buddhists call it "collective karma." The only way to affect the global scheme of things is by lots of little people like you and me making the right choices.
Since this discussion has taken a turn for global economics, I highly suggest two books. The first is E.F. Shumaker's "Small is Beautiful" and the second is John B. Cobb, Jr.'s "Sustainability : Economics, Ecology, and Justice." Cobb is a process theologian, whom I particularly enjoy. He makes the point that any economic theory based on the idea that the earth has an infinite supply of natural resources is mistaken.
I cannot separate my economic thinking from my Christian faith. To me, the point of the sermon on the mount is simply that we should value people above possesions. Jesus' statement: "If you have two coats and your brother needs one, give him your coat" and Karl Marx': "From each according to his ability to each according to his need" are very analogous. The key difference is, Jesus' economic ideas would never have been forced upon any class of people by violence.
> [Cobb] makes the point that any economic theory based
> on the idea that the earth has an infinite supply of
> natural resources is mistaken.
As long as we're hawking books, you might also try Julian Simon's "The Ultimate Resource" (an early edition of which is available in its entirety for free on the web). He does a good job of pointing out that any economic system based on the idea that resources are finite and limited is also mistaken.
"The key difference [between Marxism and Christianity] is Jesus' economic ideas would never have been forced upon any class of people by violence."
You're kidding. Or maybe you really mean to narrow it to his "economic" ideas. (You're sure right there). If not, we could have a nice debate over which doctrine has created the higher body count....
I actually like everything you've said in this thread, but your statement above reflects a typical contradiction (which I submit stems from nothing more than cultural propaganda): that regardless of who said what, it is reasonable to condemn Marxism as guilty by historical association with tyranny and torture but ignorant and offensive to do the same to Christianity. Blaming Marxism for the K.G.B. and Pol Pot is no more sensible than blaming Christianity for the Holocaust and the Inquisition(s). (OK I'm done).
Yes, actually it is, because the KGB and Pol Pot are the direct result of the philosophy, while the Inquisition was an action in direct opposition to the philosophy.
Any time you have a philosophy which claims that the rights of the group are more important than the individual you open the door to the Gulag.
Dan,
Agreed...but anytime you say the rich (individuals or whole class) have rights over the poor (individually or the entire class) you are basically committing class based tyranny.
No one should have rights over anyone.
Sincerely, Frank
unfortunately, history has shown that no one has any 'rights' -- regrettably.
that people are not aware of this is an entirely different subject(and its not an accident)
Brad,
I agree with your sentiments. It does seem true. Plato wrote about the progression of societies from Anarchy to a Leader to a Senate to a Democracy and back into an Anarchy again. It would take many a page of post to go through all the ideas. In the end though, I think it boils down to "might makes right" (not really moral right, but the right of the mighty) what changes is who or what is mighty at the time. A mob revolting against the communist gov't might be the victor at one time. Maybe Capitalists who've successfully inculcated a materialism bias in the masses another time and place. Sometimes I like to say it as "The man who controls the critical commodity at the critical point in time...wins". Critical commodity may be Public Opinion, Money, the minds and hearts of a military group, or 4 Kings on the River. :-) Had to throw a poker reference in there.
Unfortunately, issues of Law and Morality and the like are really opinion matters. Thus are probably never fully resolvable.
I still think the USA is the best place in the world (save maybe some remote desert island with lots of attractive women on it!) From most perspectives. I just wonder if we are gong a little to fast towards the burnout of everything. Maybe we need to question some of our current premises about economics, growth, etc.
I will say this though...Seems everytime someone mentions morality on this web page it errupts into the "battle of competing political theories". Which just goes to show you that Poker is a lot like life! :-)
Don't draw Dead! Frank
agree 100%
Nietzsche -- morality changes over time, -- that is , going beyond the concept of an absolute good and evil that is unchanging over time.
Chomsky -- a realistic view of todays modern political and social systems.
btw, since he is so much ignored, ill give Chomsky's webpage, www.worldmedia.com (i think its redirected from there)
p.s. imho, its a hard life anyway you look at it, but as a friend put it, we're (americans) the modern day romans and have all the benefits.
Brad,
Collectively we (USA) may have all the benefits...but really it's only a great system if you're on top. For most of us we are the one's on whose backs it is built.
Frank
Chris,
I agree, the death count over religion is the biggest hypocrisy I can think off irrespective of which one.
I will say that the christian idea of giving a coat is a little different from the Marxist Doctrine. The Marxist thing is state enforced. Further it ignores the nature of man. It doesn't take long to decide that, "If I work harder than the next guy and they take the results away from me and give it to the lazy guy. I'm going to be lazy too." So the Marxist doctrine, for intrinsic human reasons fails.
The problem is to establish a system of mutually aggreed upon stewardship of life or perhaps the earth as a whole, which contains no coercion.
Frank
"The problem is to establish a system of mutually aggreed upon stewardship of life or perhaps the earth as a whole, which contains no coercion."
Agreed. But Leninism isn't Marxism, and I don't find anything in Marx or Engels that applauds coercion much less the Gulag. The popular idea of associating socialism with tyranny, or at least coercive state control over the economy, is the greatest intellectual disaster of our time.
Earl understates the case: the luck factor in poker at least occasionally protects weak players to an extent that the worst victims of neoliberalism (say the poorest billion human beings) can only dream about. Central America and the Caribbean basin, for example, haven't seen a winning session since 1898. And while I don't especially enjoying benefitting from someone else's sad compulsion, it's nothing compared to, say, manufacturing armaments or directing Nike's asian operations.
Dan, you're forgetting about the part where the widget maker class purchases trade barriers from political "leaders" to protect themselves against competition until they deem it vital to penetrate other protected markets via economic blackmail, sabotage or, when they think they need to and can get away with it, the threat and application of state terror, for which they have all sorts of happy-sounding Orwellian terms.
Yeah, well I'm totally against corporate welfare and 'protection'. Trade should be free, period.
Interesting you should mention David Ricardo. The Theory of Comparative Advantage is of course what I was talking about. It's maybe one of the most misunderstood of the basic economic theorems.
Are you guys voting for Pat Buchanon?
Dan,
Can I ask a question or two?
1. Where does your money come from?
2. What is your social-economic class.
You sound like you were born into manufacturing old money and never worked a day in your life.
No insult intended but you really don't seem to have seen any sort of hardship ever at all based on your points of view.
People enuduring "hardship" in the USA have VCR's TV's and are often over weight.
That's not my case...I don't own a TV and I'm not overweight, I've worked since I was 14. By the way...it's somewhat relative....It's the elites that have the rest of us on a treadmill. If there's so much "prosperity" and "productivity" how come everthing is still priced so that you have to spend your whole life working to pay for it? We need to buck that some...and at the same time stand up for the kids being abused in 3rd world countries etc. I suggest we don't by into certain "games" ...literally. Like Pro Sports, Tommy Hilfiger, and other Madison Avenue hype. But that's just me...I'm not really representative of the masses. I don't even have a credit card, nor have I ever recieved unemploment, etc.
At least since the A-bomb we've been able to destroy the whole planet. It's time to step up to the responsibility of running it and quit bickering about religion, money etc. It is long past time to build a better world of some sort. Hopefully where individual freedom, not at the cost and oppression/exploitation of others, is the cornerstone.
I theorize it IS possible to build a something better. And that further, if someone is, for example, starving somewhere, it is not because of a real shortage...it is because someone in a position to decide...as decided that some people are going to starve. The reasons vary...religion, politics, etc. etc. etc. The world is run by people and all situations, good or bad were someone's decision. We need to unmask the motivations behind those decisions and bring them to the light of day. Then decide if they are valid and if we're going to put up with them.
The world we create today...tommorrow's children have to live in, how do you want that world to be? Dog eat dog or something a little better?
Utopia??? I love it!!!
Man, did you miss the mark.
I was born into a poor family, with a single mother who worked shifts in a grocery store. We were the only non-welfare family one of the poorest parts of town.
I went to work when I was 13 years old, doing construction in the summer, and working evenings after school in a grocery store.
I paid my way through university by working weekends and evenings, and wound up with $20,000 in student loan debt by the time I finished.
Incidentally, are you familiar with the term 'ad hominem'? You might try attacking my arguments next time, rather than going after my personal life.
Yes Dan,
I know Ad Hominem, "attack the man"....I suffered it in court one time by a rather elite person and organizaition attackin me. Seeing the courts work to protect my rights in that particular case was inspiring. I later went to law school. But for other reasons had to quit. But I will say, sometimes the legal system really does protect the individual and I do applaud those who have the grit to make it so.
Like you I started work at 14, spent 11 years working full time and going to college on my off hours. I too acquired some school loans, though not before law school, I paid out of pocket.
I've done everything from be a dishwasher to contruction to Climbing the Corp. Ladder to being in the upper echelon of a small gov't. I've had Secret clearances and money in the bank, and I've gone broke at times and had the same people who issued me a Secret Clearance attack me when I pointed out thier hypocrisies and internal politics.
Trust me I've told off much more powerful people than I'm guesing you or I are. I've paid the price they've extracted. (And you know what, I wouldn't change a thing other than maybe my timing. :-) )
In short I've seen a lot and I trust my own convictions above all. And I conclude, tentatively, from my experience that the Machiaviellian continum is alive and well and that further, it is the problem. Seems after 500 years ("The Prince" was written in 1512 I believe) we are still pulling this crap on each other.
It's just your statements sound directly in line with what I've heard out of people who are born elite and believe it is thier right to somehow sit on top of the rest of us.
And sometimes one's arguments are born out of one's situation. One's arguments are crafted to support one's ulterior motives and cannot be separated from the "hominem".
In order to understand the motivation behind and argument (as opposed to a statement of objective fact) one must often look at the situation of the man.
And since we are discussing socio-economic-political opinions here (stress on opinions) it seems logical to ask where are the opinions coming from.
By the way I wan't attacking so much as trying to figure out what I potential underlying motives were at work that were not clear from the printed text.
Sincerely, Frank
P.S. given the similarity in our economic backgrounds I'm suprised we're of such differing opinions. It's quite interesting. Maybe you've had better experiences or whatever...but I for one am tired of others dictating the bounds of my existence be it through economic policy, business structure, local ordinances, or any other thing designed to keep me from establishing my personal freedom and pursiut of happiness. I don't think anyone has the right to impose thier rules on me (with of course the exception of widely accepted crimes like murder, which is a separate issue from things like tax structure and economic policy) ..but they do...and use my taxes to do it. Seems most of us spend our lives working and the few at the top live like kings.
Think about it. (I mean after all could you go to work and get away with the antics Dennis Rodman does? In essence the 30,000 a working Joes are held to higher levels of accountability than Millions a Year, do nothing of real value sports starts. Seems to me it should be the other way around. But them maybe we can thank Henry Ford for that one.)
P.P.S. No personal attack was really intended. Anyway, enough arguing. Don't draw dead!
You know, there really is very little correlation between socio-economic status and political persuation, with one exception: People who started with nothing and accomplished something often become very conservative, simply because it's harder for them to understand the argument that some people can't survive without government help.
Many rich people who have never known hardship are died-in-the-wool liberals. For these people, it's often because of a sense of elitism (i.e. THEY can look after themselves, but the poor unwashed masses really need a government to take care of them, because they are incapable of taking care of themselves).
But these generalizations are useless, because they tell us nothing of which philosophy is correct.
In my case, I saw first-hand what welfare and other forms of government hand-holding does to people. You know, my family had a lower standard of living than just about any of our friends, because they made more money on welfare than we made working hard. People in that community thought we were just nuts not to take the handout offered.
But my mother gained experience in her grocery store, worked her way up to manager, bought a little duplex for $19,000 (with a 25 year mortgage), and slowly her income increased a bit, and her expenses dropped as she paid off her home. Several years ago, she sold it and bought a little store with an attached house, and is now her own boss. Her property has increased in value, and when she retires in a couple of years she'll have a nice nest-egg to have a comfortable retirement. And she has the delightful pleasure of knowing that she didn't need others to care for her through her life.
I recently visited the project where I grew up, and you know what? The same people who were there 20 years ago are still there, and they are still on welfare. And so are many of their kids. Welfare is destructive to the spirit, and once you are on it for a long period of time it becomes impossible to get off of it, because your job skills deteriorate and your self-esteem takes a dive. Your kids have no role models besides other welfare kids and their parents, and their vision becomes limited by what they perceive to be possible based on the role models around them.
One of the reasons there is so much despair in the ghettos is because most of those poor kids simply don't believe they can ever achieve anything other than what their parents have, simply because they've never known anyone who did.
Sorry for the long-winded response.
Well Spoken.
Frank
EArl! Earl! Earl! Poker is NOT a politically correct event...Indian treaties, poor Asians working in sweat shops -- the DFL bandwagon (the liberal arm) left the station awhile back. You missed it -- time to rent an SUV...
Dead
DeadMarsh,
Acually I find Poker less full of bull than corp. USA.
When everyone's finished with Economics 101 :-), there is a lot of merit in what Earl says about playing tournaments and what David says about redistributing the wealth. If you follow this advice you need have no qualms about breaking an opponent's head open and feasting on his very brains (er, in a poker sense).
Andy.
"...exploiting the weak"
Hmmm... Interesting.
Rainman,
I am not going to solve your moral dilemma for you. Nobody can. You will have to decide for yourself what is right and wrong.
I will say this, Poker is a game. A game played for money. It is, in my opinion, a competition. A competition in which all players start out EVEN! Unlike a sporting event where physical prowess may prove an overwhelming advantage poker allows no such advantage for any human characteristic, including intelligence. Certainly, the probability of winning at poker can be enhanced through study and the effective application of proven strategic and tactical concepts. But still winning at poker (as in black jack) is probabalistic (chancy). Sklansky and Malmuth have correctly stated before that the reason you win money at poker is because your opponents play bad. They should have added that you must also play good but that is understood, I'm sure.
Back to the GAME of poker. Sorry sometimes I go off in all different directions. If I am correct that poker is a game, a competition, then one can liken it to other forms of competition, at least moralisitcally. What then is the difference in Pete Sampras taking advantage of a weaker player, Agassi for instance, and you taking advantage of a tilter, like Vince Lepore (me)? I find many similarities in sporting events where the dominant team expoits weaknesses of the other teams and poker playing.
Again your moral issues with poker can only be solved by YOU! My purpose here was to, maybe, help a little by discussing another point of view.
Now I'm tired. So good night!
Vince
If I understand Sklansky correctly (read GRE+SAT thread in RGP) the long term outcome is determined way before you play your first hand at poker. Their books just smooth out the startup transient. Given this how can you say that everybody starts out event?
"...how can you say everyone starts out even". The answer to this puzzling paradox is simple. What does Sklansky and Malmuth know!
Vince.
If you've found a way to consistenly isolate bad players in a full ring game, and furthermore are able to do this ONLY when you've got the best of it (or can 'get' the best of it by bluffing your ass off), then you're are undoubtedly one of the finest players in the world.
Consider this; if you're playing a fairly conventional preflop game, you're only playing maybe 1/6th of your hands. If another guy is looser still, say, maybe playing 1/5th of his hands, you two will only 'end up' in the pot together (assuming a full ring game) once every thirty hands. So, out of these 16 or 17 hands a session, how many times will you end up heads up (on average)? 3? maybe 4? At the most?
Granted, these are just averages. But if you're able to skew these number so much that your opponent actually NOTICES you're flogging him, you've stumbled on to something.
I long ago gave up trying to 'get' people in poker. GD is so right. The best you can usually hope for is the one you don't like is lossing and you are winning. I have on occasion been able to nail the one I'm after, it's a bad habit that requires luck. I have settled for nailing anyone I can get my hands on.
a
Flush the wallet down the toilet! I read this somewhere and play by it. If someone at the table realizes that he/she can't win against a group of players and don't walk away, then you have every right to win as much money from them as they are willing to lose.
Rainman,
I like your strategy. I may consider trying that at my local game tonight. I can't stand the arrogance of one of the players.
Mike
In my experiences, a player going after a particular opponent usually ends up making mistakes of his own and losing to the rest of the table.
DJ
I'll bet your right, but I couldn't do it anyway. I found that when those key players folded I still had to put a hand on the other players at the table.
Thanks, Mike
Jeez, some touching stories here and an interesting theory -- we could call this form of the game "Sniper HE" perhaps. BTW, can you really make enough money at casino BJ nowadays, enough (I mean) to make a good earn for living purposes?
Dead
I don't know how much you can make at casino BJ these days, but by the latest book selling figures, you can make a hell of a lot from White House BJ.
Yes, you can still make a good living at casino blackjack these days, provided you are willing to travel. Read a book called "Burning the Tables on Vegas" by Ian Andersen. Andersen is a poker player too, by the way.
Poker will make you more money if you have a bankroll under $100,000. Above that, blackjack starts to look better simply because it's difficult to find profitable poker games at limits big enough to let you play 8 hours a day. It is also much more difficult to be a winning player at limits above 20-40 than it is to be a black chip blackjack counter.
I play blackjack and poker, although poker makes up more than 90% of my playing time simply because I find I just flat out make more money at poker. It's also a lot more fun. If you play blackjack you have to put up with smoke in your face, surly players who berate you for 'changing the order of the cards' when you make count-adjusted plays, and of course you are always aware that you are unwelcome in the casino and you have to skulk around to avoid detection.
==1== as your experience grows you should be bashing in everybody's heads, not just a couple "marks".
==2== Except for work-for-pay, most for-money endevours involve taking advantage of the weak. Commissioned sales is a good example, as is the stock market. Its the American Way.
==3== Poker Tournaments do not present near the moral dilema you describe, as players can lose only so much.
- Louie
I disagree somewhat with statement #1. I don't go out of my way to bash another player who's earning their living at cards. In otherwords I don't cold call a raise preflop from a full time pro. If I don't want to make it three bets I don't get in their way, and this includes hands like AJs and KQs.
"I don't cold call .... from a full time pro" Excuse me but isn't that a form of collusion? Unless of course it is out of RESPECT for his play. But if it's because he earns his living from poker, well, cone on now, give me a break. If he is a pro he certainly doesn't need help from you or anyone else.
Vince.
You bring up a good point: the money travels around the table, and if you don't reach in and grab as much as you can at whatever opportunity presents itself, you are hurting your game. What this means is that it doesn't matter which player you beat, even if it is your grandmother (tip of the hat to the late Jack Straus), because you have no choice on when -- or against who -- those winning opportunities present themselves. So, in the great spirit of the American economic scheme, do unto others before they do unto you. ;-)
This would only be collusion if I expected or even anticipated reciprocal action.
i sort of mentioned this in my post about internet gambling below, but i think it's sick the way people intertwine money with their entire life. i have no problem believing the stories about the guy who kills himself over gambling debt. i think it was in toyko where a bunch of investors commited suicide after losing their fortunes.
remember the movie fargo? one of the last lines was "all those people dead, over a little bit of money"
money is only one piece of your "life pie". if you lose all your money in a stock them tanks, you still have family, friends, health, and the other parts of your life. if you don't have these other things, and money is the only thing then you should make some major adjustments in the balance of your life.
i don't have a problem with taking money from someone who's "giving it away", i realize this is what i have to do to balance out the times i'm losing. i think what makes poker harsh is that you see the effects of your actions happen right in front of you. an investor who makes thousands of dollars when to companies merge sees the profit, but he doesn't see the former employees of one company looking for new jobs, and scraping to make ends meet. the financial effects of poker happen in a rapid state, not spread out over time.
i make sure when i play poker my full mind is in the game, or when i study i give it full concentration. but if i'm on the beach surfing the next day you better believe pocket aces are the last thing on my mind.
at least that's what helps me play better, is the balance. james................
-if i make cigarettes i should not have to pay for your new lung 50 years from now
-if you've worked at my company for 30 years and make 80k, and a kid who knows twice as much will work for 30k, i do not "owe" it to you to keep you there
-if i build a fast car is not my fault when you drive it too fast off a cliff
-when you lose at poker it's your own fault, not the dealers, not mine, and not the yellow, beckoning lights of the ATM over there.
whiners- please take some responsibility for your own actions dammit.
fin-
<< Hmmm. Are you being upfront with your product? Are you doing all the noble things that cigarette companies have done over the years to promote and popularize their "legal, non-harmful" product (lie, misinformation, doctored research results, etc.)?
<< Correct. You do not "owe" it to him to keep him there. But I hope there is some sort of medium between your hypothesis and "Thanks for the ride, pal. Good luck finding a job at your age."
<< True. But how are the brakes on that fast car? Do they work? Personally, I loved the jury verdicts of this week. A company making a purposely shoddy product because it's cheaper to settle lawsuits than to fix the problem is a morally reprehensible way to do business.
<< Okay. I'll give you that one.
<< Your idea of "personal responsibility" seems to be "all the responsibility to the person" with the business end of the equation having no responsibility.
**********
Sorry. Didn't mean to go off on a rant there. I apologize in advance, and look forward to any responses.
Mike
The GM verdict was simply another case of a lay jury not understanding safety engineering.
Yes, GM could have fixed that one tiny defect for $4.00 per car. But there are hundreds, or maybe thousands of such 'defects'. The way you decide whether your car is 'safe enough' is to study all the different ways that you could improve the vehicle and throw out the ones that have very little benefit. And yes, this comes down to saying, "This change will save X lives and cost us X amount". If you changed them ALL, no one could afford cars.
The fact that the vehicle in question was rear-ended at 70 mph should have invalidated the claim right there. Safety engineering doesn't provide for 100% survivability when a vehicle is hit at 70 MPH. And this vehicle was 20 years old, and this particular problem had not shown up before, which vindicates GM's claim that it was a trivial problem and not worth the $4.00 per vehicle that it would have cost to fix it.
If you ask me, this was just another case of a jury making decisions based on a shoddy understanding of mathematics, economics, and engineering. And if GM does have to pay the 4 billion, all it will do is raise the price of cars for the rest of us. And it will set a precedent that scares the daylights out of me. If companies have to meet this new outrageous safety standard, then much of the innovation we've seen in the auto industry in recent years will simply stop. For an example of what happens when regulation and product liability strangle an industry, take a look at General Aviation. I fly an airplane built in 1973, with an engine designed in 1935. I have no choice, because no one has designed a newer engine since then, and the aircraft company went out of business due to spiralling product liability insurance and government regulation. How much safer would I be in a modern airplane with modern technology, had these companies been allowed to innovate without being choked off by lawyers and bureaucrats every time they tried something new?
Dan
Dan,
I have an appreciation for your points regarding the verdict. However, I believe that a few other things should be pointed out. GM over the past 12 months has profits on the order of 2.9 billion dollars of which approximately 1.3 is paid out as dividends to the common stock holders. Now I have to believe that GM certainly has room for improving their margins. Passing along all of the costs to the consumer of making these safety changes does not seem necessary to me. Perhaps Earl's zero sum theory is relevant after all. There are 4 interested parties:
1) GM Stockholders. 2) GM Customers. 3) GM Workers. 4) GM Management.
If GM was inclined or required to make these changes then there several ways that this could be accomplished:
a) Pay for these changes by cutting into earnings and the dividends of the stock holders. The consumer gains, the stock holder loses, management, and workers stay the same.
b) Pay for these changes by cutting management costs. The consumer gains and management loses.
c) Pay for these changes by cutting labor costs. The consumer gains and labor loses.
d) Pay for these changes by increasing the price of each car. The consumer loses.
Tom Haley
Dan, you raise interesting points, but they all seem to be from a "business is good/the consumer has no rights" viewpont.
<< I acknowledge that the jury didn't understand safety engineering. I don't understand safety engineering. The jury verdict was a message to the company: clean up your act.
<< I would not expect GM to fix hundreds or thousands of defects. Just the ones that may cause somebody to die under circumstances in which they normally would not die would be sufficient for me.
<< Share your "trivial problem" hypothesis with the folks who died. See if they buy it. GM made a conscious decision to release a flawed product. Has this ever happened before? Who knows? Confidentiality agreements have pretty much ensured that corporations do not NEED to fix their products -- they only have to spread a few bucks here and there and pray the bad publicity blows over.
<< That's what this country does, and what makes it so great: twelve (or fewer -- I do not know how many people were on the GM jury) average citizens making decisions based on the information available. Juries have been letting cigarette companies off the hook for decades. If GM's battery of lawyers couldn't get their points across, I hardly think that's the jury's fault.
<< I'm not convinced that's a bad scenario. I think we need fewer cars on the planet. I live in Portland, Maine, and there are some mornings I feel like I'm taking my life in my hands when trying to cross the street.
<< And then maybe they'll go out of business, and some smart entrepreneur design a safe, cost-effective automobile.
<< Isn't "spiraling product liability insurance" a direct result of the number of claims filed? Are you advancing the argument that companies should be free to have carte blanche regardless of any damages their products may do to society?
<< LOL -- I respectfully disagree with just about everything you've said, Dan -- but I share your opinion on lawyers.
Mike
How do you know that GM needs to 'clean up their act'?
Let me give you an example: Hundreds of people die each year in rollover accidents from being ejected from vehicles when the doors pop open. GM could 'solve' this problem by having an intricate system of interlocking pins to hold the doors closed even under heavy force. This of course would add weight to each vehicle, and make it much more expensive. But it would save lives. So should they do it?
Here's another: GM could save thousands of lives a year by putting a roll cage and 5-point harness in each vehicle. Cars can be made much safer than they are. After all, an Indy car can protect the driver in crashes at over 150 MPH. So why don't all new cars have these features?
Getting away from these extreme examples, you'll find all kinds of engineering decisions in a car that trade off safety for weight and cost. If we ALWAYS decided on the side of safety, cars would be so expensive only the rich could afford them, and they would be so heavy that they would burn twice as much gas.
So I'll repeat: What evidence do you or the jury have that GM needs to 'clean up its act'? I hope your opinion is on more solid ground than, "Look at the big evil corporation, and look at those poor burned people. Somebody do something!"
> Let me give you an example: Hundreds of people die
Also, adding weight will decrease mileage, increasing pollution, causing deaths from lung disease. And the mechanism holding the doors will surely prevent a few folks from escaping when they need to, leading to a few more deaths--just the way airbags have killed 60 people. Every decision has costs, and there's no such thing as the "right amount" of safety. It should be my choice.
Dan, I have no evidence to support my claims. My opinion is based on "Look at the big evil corporation," and I'm not ashamed to admit it. As for the jury -- well don't you think the jury heard from dozens of witnesses which mor than likely encompassed hundreds of testimony. Would the GM jury be the first jury not to have access to thousands -- if not hundreds of thousands -- of documents? My opinion is exactly that: an opinion. I think you're barking up the wrong courtroom when you suggest the jury had no evidence to support its decision.
Your opinion of GM appears to me to be "Well, we did the wrong thing, so what? Tough luck, buddy."
I don't think I ever said that a company like GM has to include every possible safety feature under the sun before bringing their products to market -- If I did, I was wrong. What I'm saying is that when a company knows a situation is morally wrong, and still opts for profit over the cost in human life and suffering, that's indefensible.
I guess I just don't understand a blanket defense of a corporation which, when aware that a a design flaw has the potential to kill people and destroy lives, continues to "do the wrong thing" for what seems to be no other reason than economic expedience. "We may only make two billion dollars in profits this year. If we don't fix this problem, we might make three billion."
Maybe you see "the big picture" better than I do. But give me a couple days to research the issue, and I'll bet I could find dozens of examples of corporations doing the morally expedient thing.
Let's use a poker story as an allegory. This isn't exactly on tack, but it will have to do. You're playing poker, and you realize the guy sitting next to you has been cheating. You report this to the casino -- and not only do they do nothing about it, but they tell you the cheater is one of their biggest customers, and so they won't do anything about it.
I haven't meant for this to be an anticapitalist diatribe -- I've always believed the U.S. is the greatest country in the history of civilization (and THAT may show even more naivete than my windmill-attack on GM) -- but I would no more want to live in a country where "the little guy" has no recourse against big business than I would a totalitarian-style government.
Whew. That said, how often should you play K-10o?
Re: your second point.
Maybe I'm a little sensitive to this, since I grew up in Detroit, where layoffs etc. were a part of daily life. However, I urge you to consider this: If it wasn't for the old geezer (and tons like him) that gave forty years of his (their) life to the company, the company WOULDN'T BE IN A POSITION to hire some young whippersnapper for 30K, since the company would be, in a word, tits up. You pay someone more than what their worth, and you keep them around, as a way of showing your appreciation to them-- to let them know that you know what they've done for you. As far as I'm concerned, Corporate America can at least do this much. Besides, I don't understand why you or anyone else would like to see 40 and 50 somethings uncerimoniously canned in order to increase stock values. If you've never lived in a labor-oriented town you may not get this, but if you could see what GM did to Flint, or Scott Paper did to Menominee, Mi., I would be surprised if your position wouldn't change.
good post, i love reading and discussing different viewpoints.
i grew up in grand rapids mich, and still have relatives working for GM. i think "roger and me" was a brilliant film: sad, ironic and sarcastic. (i remember my going to autoworld with my family and grandpa when it opened)
but i think the days of staying with a company from college to retirement are long gone. even when you're with a company you must think of yourself as a separate commodity, willing to jump ship for a more profitable situation. it's not being unloyal, it's being aggressive and looking out for yourself.
and, just like poker, you must always be learning new ideas and technology related to your field. if you let yourself slowdown by not showing a value in you (the product they're hiring, or keeping), you lose and are no longer marketable.
i do think that for a company that made a town what it is, ie flint, it is wrong to just pick up and leave, but right and wrong because much less tangible when it's just numbers projected onto an overhead. you can't trust corporate america to do the "right thing" for you, because there is no emotion or conscience to a company, it's strictly numbers.
james...
James-
Great post. Always good to hear from a fellow Michigander.
My point, such as it is, is that America is founded on optimism, and that ruthless downsizing works to destroy the foundation of our country. For instance, if I go work a FoMoCo, I'm going in thinking that if I perform my job well I'll be rewarded with raises, bonuses, etc.-- hence, I plan my life around what I see at the inevitable (or at least highly likely) increase in my personal weath; wealth which will be bestowed on me by employer. If people have no job security, or don't FEEL like they have any, they become anxious, depressed, and don't contribute as fully as they could to their families and their communities. Now I understand that people 'jump around' more than they used to; but who really benefits from this? The permatemp?
Now you, like I, have seen the downside of organized labor. Nothing appalls me like seeing single males (with about seven kids spread around the Detroit area) smoking dope, snorting coke and picking up hookers, dodging the Friend of the Court, etc., while they make 20 something an hour at the Truck plant in Wayne. But these piss-off laborers aren't the ones I'm defending (although, unfortunately, I end up defending them anyway). What I'm against are corporations, or small companies, who think that people and their lives are just a series of numbers on a print out. And I do think it's wrong to fire someone just because you can find someone else-- someone younger, more aggressive, and with about 25% of the bills-- to do the job cheaper. If the American work force is going to do their collective jobs well, then they need to know that they're going to be rewarded by the company they've made money FOR. I understand the reverse argument (believe me, I understand-- I owned my own company for five years, and had to deal with all manners of nimrods), but I don't think this is a lot to ask.
GD,
I understand your point and this topic can take on many viewpoints, but I think you will agree with some of what I have to say.
I graduated with a BS in computer engineering last year. I have been in the industry for 5 years working part time through college and have spent much of my free time in the field. Today, I am working for a large company in NY for a reasonable salary, but realize that I can produce 50% more than some of my coworkers. They are perhaps 20 years older and earn 1.5 to 2 times more than me.
Here are my options: 1.) Stick it out and hope that within time my salary will increase. 2.) Jump to another company who will pay me a higher salary.
From my manager's point of view, he is happy with my work and realizes that I add value to the team. What some companies fail to realize is that someone next door is willing to pay me - and others like me - a much higher salary. For a company to maintain an edge in the market it must grow with new ideas, even if those ideas are coming from what seems like and experienced kid. One option that would encourage this type of behavior would be to fire the employee who hasn't been keeping up with technology and pay those who are young, but skilled, just a bit more to increase their job security, satisfaction, and profitability. Unfortunately, you and I know things don't work this way, and many young knowledgeable programmers have to join start-up companies that are willing to pay the higher salary in hopes to feel appreciated while gaining invaluable experience. In my opinion large layoffs stem from poor management of resources, mainly workers than become depressed and are no longer dedicated to the company, but earning enough to support their families while clinging to the little job security they get. This mentality must be eliminated or large layoffs will continue with many valuable employees getting thrown out in the mix.
I think large companies have developed the reputation that I have just described above and until they fix it they will continue to fall behind. Many college graduates start working at large companies, until they no longer see growth, at which time they leave.
Personally, I believe that one should jump at an opportunity, for tomorrow your employer may say you am no longer needed.
Michael,
There are several studies that have shown that the disparity between the productivity of the best and worst software developers is quite large, larger than most people would suspect IMO. The ratio is something like 10 to 1. Companies have the means to measure the productivity of individual developers and in fact this has been shown to be a great aid to developing timely, cost effective, and reliable software products. However, most companies shy away from doing this. Usually the reason given is that it is too costly, complicated and risky to implement. I believe that there is another reason that companies shy away from using metrics to measure individual performance. If a developer is 5 times as productive as another developer, then by rights IMO that developer ought to be paid 5 times as much and this is something that most companies prefer not to deal with. To tie this way off topic thread to poker. What has always attracted me to poker is that you are more or less directly rewarded for how well you play in the long run. I also believe that this is why many people who could be successful in other endeavors gravitate towards poker as a way to make their income.
Tom Haley
Tom,
Thanks for understanding. Your 100% correct.
Mike
A young energetic man, at the early stages of his career naively wrote : "I graduated with a BS in computer engineering last year. I have been in the industry for 5 years working part time through college and have spent much of my free time in the field. Today, I am working for a large company in NY for a reasonable salary, but realize that I can produce 50% more than some of my coworkers. They are perhaps 20 years older and earn 1.5 to 2 times more than me."
I am constantly amazed when I see statements such as the above. NO, I don't dispute that he is outperforming his elder colleagues, it is natural to assume that his new more current education easily allows that. It is also accepted that he probably has much more energy he is willing to devote to his career.
What amazes me is do these individuals believe that they will have the same drive in twenty years as they do now? Twenty years from now most people come to realise that their one time focus and dedication of energy get split towards other endeavours. Primarily family, sons, daughters grandkids. They soon realise that they have only so much energy and devotion to give and dedicating it all to ones career is mis-spent.
I also wonder if those that issue similar statements believe that in twenty years, their ability to use the newest technology will compete with that of the new kid fresh out of college.
For you to compare yourselve to someone who was educated 20 years ago is absurd, are you not aware of the environment he was in. 20 years ago, punch cards and COBOL was norm, VDT's were slowly being integrated, C and Unix, was running on perhaps 10 computers in the back closets of ATT, GUI's, mice, OOP, event driven, were not even invented yet, nor even conceived. Microsoft was writing BASIC intrepeters for companies that they would soon purchase or drive out of business.
For those of you who wish that the older (more experienced) employees get displaced by the newer, fresher, recently educated people, because it will be better for the company and corporate North-America, then I hope you get your wish. I also hope that in twenty years or so that you get your wish again.
Ah, but you might be the rare exception!
Given the choice of staying 100% current I choose to watch my son play ball instead.
S. Doyle
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 July 1999, at 7:43 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 July 1999, at 11:48 p.m.
Posted by: Gronk (mugwump@maine.rr.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 July 1999, at 10:18 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 July 1999, at 11:49 a.m.
Posted by: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 July 1999, at 2:34 p.m.
> each year in rollover accidents from being ejected
> from vehicles when the doors pop open. GM could 'solve'
> this problem by having an intricate system of interlocking
> to hold the doors closed even under heavy force. This of
> course would add weight to each vehicle, and make it more
> expensive. But it would save lives. Should they do it?
Posted by: Gronk (mugwump@maine.rr.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 July 1999, at 3:00 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 July 1999, at 2:00 a.m.
Posted by: Tuneman
Posted on: Thursday, 15 July 1999, at 2:46 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 July 1999, at 3:01 a.m.
Posted by: Michael Bacarella (michael.bacarella-RST@bankersturst.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 July 1999, at 10:47 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 July 1999, at 1:13 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Bacarella (michael.bacarella-RST@bankersturst.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 July 1999, at 1:39 p.m.
Posted by: S. Doyle
Posted on: Thursday, 15 July 1999, at 3:55 p.m.
1. Poker is a zero sum game 2. The economy is not a zero sum game 3. Workers get screwed when there are too many workers relative to demand for work 4. Workers flourish when there is more demand for work than there is supply 5. No amount of arguing, cajoling, or creative accounting can change these four facts. They are laws of the Universe, not of Man. These laws of the Universe will prevail despite Bill Gates generosity or stinginess. His approach to life has NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on the wealth of workers. His successful company, however, has increased demand for workers in his field, and therefore, their wealth. If his company suffers, the demand for workers in the field will decline, and so will their wealth. (Not to mention Bill's). End of story.
"Workers," which I take it means those obliged to sell their laboring abilities to others in order to survive, have been the dominant portion of the world's population for a few hundred of humankind's 2+ million years. The idea that their condition results from a "universal law" is just silly.
The Universal law is this: Prices will fall if supply exceeds demand, and for most of history in most of the world, the supply of labor has exceeded the demand, therefore the price for labor has been low. This fact exists in both capitalistic and communistic societies. Why does capitalism win in the end? Because it's an efficient system which results in increased demand for goods, therefore increased demand for labor, therefore increased prices for labor.
Don't worry. If these guys are as bad and easy to steam as you say, they will go broke anyway.
Danny S
Do you have to be ruthless to be a great poker player?
A very good question. I forget the guy's name. But in the 1800s there was a Mississippi riverboat gambler who is historically reknonwned as one of the best poker players ever. I recall reading a story where he cleaned out a Baptist preacher (gambling has always been contrary to Baptist doctrine). At the end of the session, he gave the preacher his money back and told him, "Go, and sin no more."
You poor soul rainman. 1% of gamblers have compulsive problems. Most poker players are recreational and not trying to earn their living from the game. If you can't see the game as great challenge, where to be successful you need a great deal of knowledge, skill, discipline etc. then you will be a loser. It is painfully obvious from your second post that the first post was not really an inquiry but a attempt at showing us players the "moral highground". You should not pursue the game.
Not trying to show anyone the "moral highground." Merely trying to work out my own personal ethics in a game that is relatively new to me. The purpose of my post was to get some different perspectives to help me think that over and, boy, do I think I've done that! Amusing to me that this string veered into global politics and economics, and away from one's own personal choices, though. Enough said.
I love humanity, but I hate people. Poker is just the weapon. Where else can you mug, lie, steal, attack and do real hurt without getting arrested. You can beat up on an old lady playing poker, or a know- it- all young punk. Hey, how could that not be fun. You can use your intelligence, including emotional intelligence, and your guts to develop a skill that just keeps getting sharper. A weapon you can use to reach across the table and cut the smile right out of someone's face. I always hope the smile I just cut out belongs to a born again christan republican. Or just a republican will do.
Where's the moral dilemma? I give it up at cheating, because it a blunt instrument.
Improve your ability to select games, (which is one of the most important poker skills of all) and you will be able to make $ without being so brutal! Of course you want to minimize confrontations with the good players. You also want to (of course) raise the suckers, trap them for bets, call more loosely when they bet, etc.... I have found that (occasionally) giving someone a break can be good for your image. If that player is a regular sucker, you don't want them to hate you, they might not want to play in your game. For suckers you don't know, take their money, but don't be quite so ruthless and you won't have such a moral delimma! Maximizing your expection at all costs no matter what is not necessarily the best way to play if you have a conscience. As for the real jerks that are suckers, sock it to 'em and then you can indulge your ruthless urges without having to feel guilty! There will always be suffering of all kinds in the world, and there will always be people with compulsive gambling disorders, so you can't solve that problem.
Would you steal a drunks big poker winnings at the table if you knew he mugged and killed for his cash winnings in the parking lot?
What do you do when you flop two pair in Omaha/8? Say the flop comes 4-6-9, and you hold 6-9-X-X. I tend to fire with bets on the flop and turn, unless I see a straight, trips, higher two pair, etc., but invariably the river kills my two pair, and I feel as though I've wasted my dough by driving the action. I don't know what the alternative would be, outside of not playing the starting hand, or folding two pair on the flop. Any thoughts?
Hmm, in this situation maybe (and only maybe) you are in front now, but there is a low draw and there are alot of ways to lose for high. (even if you are on top on the flop which cards leave you on top on the turn?). And you never know if youre drawing dead.
I think maybe you can call w/top two in a full game if you have some other draws but if thats all you have is top two and its 49 its very beatable....
Also what kind of hands are you play8ing? 6 9 X X is very weak and p[bly should only be played form the big blind for free.
Doc,
Omaha H/L is a game of big draws to hands that have a chance to scoop or pick up 3/4 of a big pot. Weak made hands for half the pot are total trash.
In Shane Smith's book (or was it Ray Zee's book - buy both as Shane is good for low limit and Ray for all size games) they have an example where you post a late blind holding KK88, see the flop for one bet, the flop comes K 5 4 two suited (the nuts) and should throw your hand away if faced with significant aggressive action against many opponents!
Understanding why this is correct is key to winning at Omaha H/L.
Regards,
Rick
players that have trouble with marginal type hands should avoid the situations when possible. in loose om/8 games you win by playing tight and having nut type hands and playing them well to lose little and win big when they play out. 69xx is not a playable hand except in steal spots and then you are likely to be headup and then can play it as you discribed. even a3xx is a marginal hand in om\8 when a fair amount of players figure to be in. good luck.
Thank-you for your advice, and I couldn't agree with you more-- expecially re tight play. As a matter of fact I'm the tightest player in my home cardroom, and I'm probably tighter than 85% of low-limit Omaha/8 players. However, believe it or not, occasionally in the big blind it gets checked around to me. Once in awhile I've got a flop like the one described above: my hand 6-9-X-X (no help), and the flop comes, say 4-6-9. If the small blind checks, I bet. If there is only one raiser, I might figure him for low; however, even having led on the flop and turn, if the board suits up, pairs, or acquires two connectors, I fold. My thinking is that although I only have 4 outs, with no strength feedback I might win it with two pair. Sometimes it works, but often I have to fold on the river. I think in a similar situation --only with high cards instead-- opponents with high cards will stay in longer, since no low is possible. Then it becomes a little trickier, but ultimately more profitable. Again, I would never play that type of hand except in the BB, rarely in the SB, or perhaps heads up.
Lets say you have a made straight and I have a flush draw. You are the favorite with 1 card to go and should bet. I am the favorite with 4 cards to go and I should bet, and unless the pot is very large you should fold. In the first case you have the "best" hand, in the second I have the "best" hand.
O h/l: Hand=96xx flop=964. So you anticipating folding on the turn if you get a bad card. Well, almost every card IS a bad card. Since you are such a favorite to NOT like your hand on the turn or river, then it is not a "good" hand on the flop. The fact that it is likely the current "highest ranking" hand is not relevant (nor interesting, I might add).
Holdem is very much what you flop. Omahaha is very much what you river.
- Louie
Nit: 5,6,7,8,9,T are BAD cards at Omahaha h/l.
The "highest ranked hand right now" has very little meaning at Omahaha; whereas is has significant meaning in Holdem.
9s+6s is NOT "top two pair" in any meaningful sense.
You missed the flop (whatever it is that you are trying to make with 96xx), you have to catch runner-runner to win half the pot. Routinely Check and fold unless you can dominate the opponents.
- Louie
Were you on the big blind and no one raised? How'd you end up playing this 6-9 garbage? Did you kill the pot with the previous hand? Or were you just on tilt?
In O/8, I think of two pair--even a real two pair like AK-- to be an "emergency high" much like an 87 would serve as an emergency low. That is, if you have nut low made, or a good low with a draw to nut low, the fact that you also have a big two pair might save you half the pot in case you catch a really bad river card, or someone else has nut low with you. I never actually think of two pair as a hand to play. Even small sets are more dangerous than they are useful.
It depends on the following:
* How many people are in the pot * What draws are out there * Whether you have any other draws (including backdoor draws) * Whether a low appears likely * How big your two pair are * What the game is like
In your 69xx example, I would fold easily unless the pot was heads up. Note that if 69 is top two pair, a low is likely, and the board contains a lot of straight draws.
By contrast, suppose I had AKJ9, with AJ of spades, and the flop came K92 three-suited, with one spade. Now my hand is a lot better, because:
* Any low draws are backdoor draws * No one has a four flush * No one has a big straight draw (the biggest is QJT, with 9 cards to make the nut straight) * I have a backdoor nut flush draw * I have a backdoor draw to the nut straight * I have an overcard kicker, which, if it comes, will not make anyone a straight.
If the pot were five handed and the player in front of me bet, I would be inclined to raise to try to knock people out, especially if there had been a raise before the flop. Note that my other option in this sort of situation is folding -- calling is out of the question. Also note that even in the example I've picked, my hand is not that strong -- most possible turn cards are pretty scary.
I'm still feeling Omaha/8 out, so I'd be interested to hear what the experts have to say about my example.
William
I'm also feeling Omaha-8 out, so I'm certainly no expert. Also, the majority of my experience has been in low-limit ring games and $25 buy-in Omaha tournaments, so I've been playing against some pretty weak players.
IMO, the only cards that you really want to hit the board are 9's and 6's (and maybe not even a 6). Any low cards and you're splitting the pot (unless it's your low), any middle cards make a straight, and high cards will make someone a higher two-pair or a set. If the board pairs without filling you up, your two pair is likely counterfeit. In the loose games I've been playing, my opponents would call a bet on the Flop with as little as an overpair or top pair against multiple opponents.
From the Big Blind (which is the only position I can imagine playing this hand from), and assuming I had no other conceivable outs, I would generally bet out against a few opponents, and perhaps attempt a check-raise against multiple opponents so as to isolate them and encourage them to drop. If there's any serious action though, I'm probably out of there.
Q
Its a small 8-handed no limit hold'em game. I have been playing pretty strong poker and have the largest stack at the table with about a grand.
I am in middle position with pocket Kings. One aerly guy calls the $5 blind and I make it $30 to go. A tight, average plyer cold calls from the big blind and we take a two handed flop as everbody folds.
The flop is T63 rainbow. He checks and I bet $65. He check-raises me to $300. I initialy think that this is a pretty easy laydown given my read of the guy, including:
1) He plays pretty straightforward on the flop and will bet top-pair/good kicker, but he doesn't like to risk too many chips with a vulnerable hand.
2) I have never seen him check-raise semi-bluff. And there aren't really any draws on this board anyway. I KNOW he wouldn't be making a move here with something like AK.
3) The guy is stuck tonight and seems to be nursing his stack.
4) He hasn't seen me bet and fold to a rasie on many flops tonight, so he has got to put me on at least a decent pair.
However, my brain is overruled by my hand ad my machismo and I push my chips into the pot, raising him for his last $185. I tell myself "I'll be damned if I'm going to laydown a big overpair in a heads-up pot with this ragged board."
I "rationalize" my decision by reminding myself that this guy has gotten burned three times tonight by raising/reraising with pocket Queens, only to lose when an Ace or King flops. And one of those times he made a big bluff at the pot and was called down by a weak player with Kings, no-kicker.
"Yeah, this guy is trying to blow me off the pot to mae sure he wins one with his Queens. He didn't reraise before the flop because he has been thrice burned."
Turn is a Queen (so much for that wishful thinking) and the river is an Ace.
I take solace in the fact that I was trailing the whole way as he enthusiastically turns over pocket rockets and spares me the embarrasment of showing how poorly I had played my Kings.
was this the real skinny guy who smokes camels and looks ashen? he plays only 2 ways w/ the nuts or an under pair to one large card.
Can you be a big winner at hold'em by being a loose player? The common theory is that to be a winner you must be a tight,aggressive player amongst other things. I had a discussion with a player I met on Sea Cruise in Florida. He said that such players can have big winning sessions but must ultimately lose his bankroll. He said that hold'em is designed to be played tight and that it is not a game for loose play :ie small cards, marginal hands. I know that you probably have wriiten about this before but I hope you can answer my question.
I could play 40% of my starting hands and still beat good games. But I would do better if I played only 30%. Hands 30-40 would cost me, even playing them well. Hands 20- 30 should be about break even and could help my image. Tougher games or a lack of top notch expertise requires tighter play. In general the optimum number of flops to see would be somewhere between 15% and 25%. Does that answer your question?
Not that it matters, but does this 15-25% figure include the blinds?
yes
In a perfect game: they always check when you check and always raise/reraise/call-cold when you bet/raise; I would venture to suggest EVERY hand would be profitable. With 72, you could wait until you flop trips or better then play a huge pot.
I have in fact played in games where I could profitably raise every hand; these very weak-tight players in short handed games couldn't stand the pressure. Since there are so few show downs, cards don't matter much.
The opponents must be very bad and you must be able to dominate on later streets before you can go way out on a limb.
Even so, playing every 21/20 hand, every suited connector, every Axs, and every pair would result in you playing only about 22% of the hands. It'd be tough to make arguments for playing more than that in normal situations. Playing this many hands is considered "loose".
- Louie
Actually, the perfect game would be one in which they always cap it until the river, then always fold. Clearly, it would be profitable to play every hand in that game (never look, always bet). I've not been in this kind of game, but have been in one that resembled the first kind above.
no message
unless you made a mistake, shame on you for posting this here Joe and may you find half of a worm in your next apple(:>#)
I count 17 of my messages available at this time. Perhaps I don't understand the question.
- Louie "Carrion" Landale
Yesterday I get Q2s in small blind 3 times.
First time 4 callers. I have Qs2s. Flop come QdTs3d. Everybody check to the button. He bet. I raise. Lady in a middle and bettor call. Turn Tc. All check. River Ah. All check. Button have Qc9h. Lady have 9d8d. Big blind tell me he fold T5o
Second time 5 callers. I have Qc2c. Flop come Qh7c4h. Blinds check. UTG bet. 5 players call including blinds. Turn 2s. I bet. BB and UTG call. River 2h. I bet. BB raise. UTG fold. I reraise. BB call. He have Ah5h.
Third time 8 callers. I have Qd2d. Flop come QcJc6d. Blinds check. UTG bet. 3 players call. button raise. Blinds fold. Others call. Turn 8s. All check. River 8h. All check. Players have AsJd, JsTs, 7s6s, 6h5h, AcTc. Big blind tell me he fold 88.
Didn't I respond to this yesterday? I don't see that message.
About a month and a half ago, on our way home from Albuquerque, my buddy Paul and I decided that something needs to be done about the soul searing, spine chattering suckouts that occur every half hour or so at the HE tables. After considering a number of possible rules changes, we decided that the following four modifications would be greatly beneficial- both the game, and to our collective mental health. So, in the interest of competent, dedicated HE players everywhere, I give you the following list.
(BTW, I'm sorry if this belongs on the Exchange Forum, but it seemed like a toss up so I decided to put it here).
1) We ban the wheel. Never again will your pocket A's stand hopelessly by on the river when the board's A2845 and it's 2 BB's to you. For the HE challenged, let me remind you that THE ACE IS A FRICKIN' HIGH CARD!! It is NOT a low card. The mighty 24s and 35o MUST be slowed down, as these hands have proven to be PROHIBITIVE FAVORITES over legitimate holdings. Banning the wheel is at least a start.
2) A player may use EITHER the Turn card OR the River card to complete his hand, BUT NOT BOTH! The reasons for this should be obvious.
3) In the interests of sportsmanship, the usage of phrases such as 'it was suited', 'I had pot odds', 'you're going to hate me for this' and 'watch this magic trick' will hereby be prohibited at the gaming table.
4) For a flush to be considered a winning hand, the players hole cards must contain either a) an Ace, b) a King, or c) two cards that can BOTH be used in the same straight. Should a player triumphantly flip over a 93s and announce "I've got a flush", his hand shall be considered dead and the pot awarded to the next best hand.
5) And, of course, we will make every effort possible to insure that in the future HE is only played with six cards :).
Yours in jest,
Guy Downs
Great changes! How about banning the phrase, "Ship it!" ?
About a month and a half ago, on our way home from Albuquerque, my buddy Paul and I decided that something needs to be done about the soul searing, spine chattering suckouts that occur every half hour or so at the HE tables. After considering a number of possible rules changes, we decided that the following four modifications would be greatly beneficial- both the game, and to our collective mental health. So, in the interest of competent, dedicated HE players everywhere, I give you the following list.
(BTW, I'm sorry if this belongs on the Exchange Forum, but it seemed like a toss up so I decided to put it here).
1) We ban the wheel. Never again will your pocket A's stand hopelessly by on the river when the board's A2845 and it's 2 BB's to you. For the HE challenged, let me remind you that THE ACE IS A FRICKIN' HIGH CARD!! It is NOT a low card. The mighty 24s and 35o MUST be slowed down, as these hands have proven to be PROHIBITIVE FAVORITES over legitimate holdings. Banning the wheel is at least a start.
2) A player may use EITHER the Turn card OR the River card to complete his hand, BUT NOT BOTH! The reasons for this should be obvious.
3) In the interests of sportsmanship, the usage of phrases such as 'it was suited', 'I had pot odds', 'you're going to hate me for this' and 'watch this magic trick' will hereby be prohibited at the gaming table.
4) For a flush to be considered a winning hand, the players hole cards must contain either a) an Ace, b) a King, or c) two cards that can BOTH be used in the same straight. Should a player triumphantly flip over a 93s and announce "I've got a flush", his hand shall be considered dead and the pot awarded to the next best hand.
5) And, of course, we will make every effort possible to insure that in the future HE is only played with six cards :).
Yours in jest,
Guy Downs
If your objective is to assure that the best hand going in always wins, why not simply eliminate the river, the turn and the flop. AA would always win.
6) There is no such thing as "two-pair".
7) play "flop holdem": bet-flop-bet showdown. I've seen this game!
8) Every player gets a "suck" button. If it is turned up to the "suckOUT" side this player can ONLY win a pot if he did NOT have the better hand on the flop. If it is turned up to the "suckEE" side this player can ONLY win a pot if he started with the best hand on the flop.
9) Players can only win if they bet or raise on their first opportunity on the flop (unless its capped before it gets to them).
10) Line up the players by order of skill. Each player must give each of his superiors the amount of the buy in equal to one divided by the number of players.
11) Fill the card room with some sort of amnesia gas, such that when the showdown occurs everybody forgets who had the better hand on the flop.
12) Bar anybody who COMPLAINs at all about a suck-out. There would thus be no evidence of it in the room.
Try to read the real hidden messages in suggestions 11 and 12. ;)
- Louie
Having a warped perspective on reality can be fun.
I think I found an incosistency in Zee's book and would like some clafication...
On pg 185 he says Ah 5c Kh Js should almost always be discarded while on pg 190 he says As 4s Kd 10h cam be played if the conditions are right. While the second hand is a little better it seems to be both should be tossed, both can only make weak lows unless a miracle of sorts happens so their only real strengh is the ability to make a high stright and nut flushes but I think isn't enough ...
He also says Jc Jd 4d 2s can be played if the conditions are right. This seems even harder for me to believe as this is considerably worse than the other two. (you really need and A and 3 to fall for any hope of the but low) and your highs at best cany only consist of trip J's or a full house if you are lucky enough to have the board pair and your full house is not beaten by a better one...
Maybe my starting hand criterion is too tight but are these things really playalbe? I suspect they will just cost money but ive been wrong befor!e!
I was curious to hear some opinions . Thanks !
If you're not the blind, or in a position to attack the blinds (as the first player in), then tossing these hands everytime can't be costing you much money. Like Ray says, the conditions must be correct, and you must make good judgments after the flop, to play these hands profitably.
I think A4 is better than A5 because you need to hit 2 cards for A4 to be the nut low, while A5 requires hitting 3 cards. That makes A4 33% more likely to hit, which is a huge difference.
With the JJ24 hand, the low is there primarily as a backup. You're hoping to flop a J and fill up. If you do, that means there are only 3 "other" cards available to make someone a low, so you will scoop the pot with your Js full the large majority of the time you make it.
If I'm wrong, I hope Ray lets us know.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"I think I found an incosistency in Zee's book and would like some clafication...
On pg 185 he says Ah 5c Kh Js should almost always be discarded while on pg 190 he says As 4s Kd 10h cam be played if the conditions are right." ================ i clarify it in the very next sentence. i say this hand might become playable only if your opponents are playing poorly and you can see the flop for one bet, or if you are in late position and no one has raised.
in all poker games if your only way to win a pot is to make the best hand you should play quite a bit tighter. and if you are not comfortable with marginal hands dont play them as they will cost you money.
Personally, in a loose game I would raise with either As 4s Kd 10h or even Ah 5c Kh Js, especially in late position. It might fold any other weak low, and if a deuce hits it might conterfeit any A-2. The high could also hit. Cappelletti maintains that if you choose to continue after the flop with margnial two way holdings, you must play very aggressively to narrow the action; but be ready to fold if the going gets rough. I think those two types of hands are relatively easy to muck if I don't hit on the flop.
I have yet to meet an Omaha-8 player who would limp in before the Flop, and then fold to a single raise AFTER him.
If you are in late position and the game is loose (implying multiple callers in front of you), a raise should be more intended for value. Since your low is practically worthless even if you make it, and you really have to luck out to hit your high for either hand, I believe these are easy pre-Flop folds from any position except the blinds.
I can imagine raising as an attempt to steal the blinds, or perhaps when playing short-handed (if the pot hasn't already been raised and if you are on the button and if you are against weak opposition). That's a lot of "if"'s, though.
Q
Besides the better chance of making the low that Greg pointed out, the other reason that As 4s Kd 10h is better than Ah 5c Kh Js is that if you make the nut flush with the former, you may get some action from a guy playing the King-x high flush, whereas it's a lot tougher to get bets out of somebody with a Queen-x flush, they're just beat too many ways. Neither hand is a peach, tho, but as always, you gotta know your opponents. Frank
A4 for low is much better than A5. (Although it still needs many other favorable factors to ever be playable) For A5 to be the nut low, you need 234 on board. A4 is the nut low with 235, 236, 237, or 238 on board, which are many times as likely as 234. A4 will also win in some cases where a deuce (trey) hits and no one has A3 (A2), where A5 is highly unlikely to be goos.
Thanks everyone!
Maybe i should have clarified in all the Omaha/8 games Ive played in there was usually 6-8 seeing the flop.
So i should have posed the Q are these hands playable in this kind of game? I suspect not if (as i have seen) usually 4 or more at the river unless there is no low.
I do'n think these hands are playable but I wasn't thinking to raise to thin the field as in late postion this never works and even earlier positioin it often has no affect on many of the players....
Hope to see more Omaha posts...
I was thinking that it might be possible for posters who are on at the same to communicate to one another as well as post in general. Although I don't know how this could be done I do know that there is a way to do it. This is why I made the Louie post. I saw that he made a post while I was reading prior posts and I tried to communicate to him. I wonder what you all think of this
Depending on your ISP, you could use such applications as Yahoo Pager, AOL Instant Messenger, etc. These are available for download (free) from their respective websites. Once the application is loaded, you can open it and follow the prompts to enter the e-mail address of others who have the same software. After that, when you are on-line you will be notified when someone with an address you have entered signs on and you can then send him (or her) a message. Messages pop up on the individual's PC screen as an overlay to whatever application they are running. They can then send a response to your message in the same fashion.
i know that i tend not to click on the posts and wont answer the ones from those that regularly use this forum for their self serving messages that are ouside the realm of what we all are trying to accomplish. so Joe if you insist on doing what ever you think serves your personal best interest ill pass on your future posts.
The idea of trying to chat by posting is not good but it is a fair suggestion to create a chat room for the site that would allow people on at the same time to connect.
It is pretty easy to to set up chat, I think, if nothing else a Yahoo clubs site could be made for that purpose.
David
I was merely trying to suggest the possibility for 2+2 to add a "chat line so posters could also talk live to each other. Why you put me in a self-serving image I have no clue. We are allowed to share our opinions here are we not.
"We are allowed to share our opinions here are we not."
No Joe we are NOT supposed to share our opinions here, we are supposed to share our opinions on Poker theory and strategy.
Just look at the title of your original post, "This belongs on Exchange but I'm posting here for more responces".
That says to me, "yes I'm aware that I shouldn't be posting it here, I am aware or the rules, but for some reasons they don't apply to me."
As far as your appended message title, ":why Ray Zee is mad I have no clue". Was he mad" Perhaps, I did not read into his responce that he was, but then again my skills at reading people need to improve. What I read into his response was that even after many attempts to persuade individuals to post in the appropriate forum many do not. I did not imply from it that it that there was any mal-intent towards you.
Regarding the your orignal idea, I think it's a good one.
S. Doyle
Perhaps there was "e-mal - intent".
seriously, I don't often look at the exchange as it seems not to get as much interesting traffic, so if I wanted more responce (sic), I'd post here.
Anyone out there prefer to see cirE post *his* uninteresting, non-theory & non-strategy related posts here instead of where they belong? (You know, just in case we forget to check the Exchange Forum.)
try LLandale@Earthlink.com. I check it a couple times a week.
I often play in a small NL Holdem Tournement (60 players). One situation has occurred several times and I wonder if I am playing it correctly. Shortly after the rebuy period has ended one player makes a standard raise and then a second player makes a pot sized or all in reraise. I hold either AKs or AKo. I usually go all in at this point if the second raiser has shown a tendency to gamble. My object is to drive out the original raiser and get heads up with the second raiser.
My reason for forcing the action so early is that it lets me know where I stand in the tournement right away. If one person calls, doubling my stack at this point in the tournement usually gives me a reasonable chance of making the money table without having to gamble due to blind pressure. If both call and I win, I am in a position to be a real force. I realize that I am not the favorite when I do this, but it seems to me that it is a sound play. I might add that my I am a very conservative player and my own table image should be somewhat rocklike which aids in forcing the original raiser to drop..
Thanks, Al
I don't like this play at all. My intention of going all-in before the flop with AK is to get other players to fold. If there is already a guy all-in, this obviously can't work.
Remember, even if the reraiser is a "gambler", you are only a 9 to 5 favorite aainst two random cards with your AK. The best you could hope for is that the reraiser has Ax, in which case you are a 3 to 1 favorite. If he is the type who probably has a pocket pair, you are about even money.
AK is an all-in RAISING hand, not a Calling hand. Unless, of course, you already had a significant portion of your chips committed to the pot or you are in dire need of building your stack.
Use your rock-like image to attack the blinds and short stacks after the rebuy period. Play your players, your position, and your stack to get the cheese. Inevitably, you will be forced to gamble with overcards or a small pocket pair, but don't go out of your way to get involved in these 50/50 situations when you still have time and chips.
The ideal number of opponents is zero. Especially with AK.
If it's specifically a pot sized raise, I would reraise all-in. The reason I would do this is because this all-in reraise gives me the extra out of winning the pot right then and there if they fold. If the raise is specifically an all-in raise, I would just fold. In this case, I can only win if I win a showdown. In a nutshell, I would like to make the raise or fold decision while imposing the call or fold decision on my opponent(s)...not the other way around.
A-K isn't even a favorite over 2-2, and for that matter, is only a 2-1 favorite over 7-2 offsuit. Far from being a conservative play, you're essentially shooting craps to see if you will stay in the tournament -- and facing a double raise, you're a much bigger underdog than if you'd put your entry fee on the Pass line.
The only reason to get all-in with A-K is so that you can see all 5 board cards, but "getting heads up" with anyone holding a pair is going to give you about a 45% chance of winning the hand. The only redeeming value to the play is that when you survive you will gain some maneuvering chips. If you prefer to take that chance and have no problem taking a walk more often than playing on, then it's a good play for the situation.
While the book does have some deficiencies, TJ Cloutier's no-limit book gives the definitive word on how to play A-K in no-limit.
AK is one of the most interesting and chalenging hands. I generaly agree with the folks that have suggested let the AK go. A reraise from even a player who has been playing a little risky before the last rebuy can be A's or K's.
On the other hand, even tough I would drop it in a heartbeat, there may be something to the play. Let us say for arguement sake that you came up with the figure of 35% as how often you would win the hand. Considering how top heavy tournament payouts are, maybe it is more valuable, depending how strong you are with a large stack, to have the big chip count 35% and go home 65% of the time. Curious what people think?
Additionally, as far as TJ's Book. I am very diapointed with the book. The No-Limit can be summed up in a few sentences. Play weak tight unless the table is short handed. Play your small pairs from ony late position. You need to take a shot once in a while to keep chip count comfortable, and maybe consider doing it from early position, but you have to be able to show a good hand if called. I saw a review after I bought the book that said, "It appears that TJ is holding back." What an understatement.
Robert,
When I first read T.J. Cloutier's book I was disappointed in the lack of specifics. But after some contemplatioin on my part I now believe that I was very mistaken. I now believe T.J.'s book to be an exceptional guide for NL holdem tournament players. I have finished in the money in 2 small tournaments since reading it and attribute this to T.J.'s advice. T.J.'s book assumes that you know how to play Holdem. He does not go into detailed discussion about hand selection or position or any of the classic poker strategic or tactical concepts. He assumes that you know these things. What he does is provide, in my opinion, the point of view of one that has been there. He becomes a mentor, if you will. Someone to talk to. Certainly only a one way discussion but valuable in that sense nonetheless. The impliction that I get from T.J.'s book is that experience is the best teacher. Experience coupled with talent and a good coach is a winning combination. In many ways T.J.'s book acts as a coach.
Vince.
Vince-
I was at the final table of a $200 buy-in no limit event with 85 entrants at the Tropicana last December. I had a reaonable stack, but the blinds (and antes) wer starting to eat me up. There were 8 of us left.
I raised about 1/3 of my stack with AhTh when it was folded to me on the button. My bet was about 5x the big blind, a reasonable raise since there were also antes.
TJ was in the big blind with a stack slightly larger than mine. He cold calls the raise and then checks the flop of 5h5s8s.
I check behind him.
The turn is the ten of spades. I move all in after TJ checks. He calls immediately and I know I have just been trapped by a world champion.
The river is another spade, and TJ says "A flush is good." as he tables his Ac5c.
I respond "I don't have a flush and I don't recall seeing that play in your book."
He smiles, offers me a handshake as I wlk away from the table and says "You don't think I would put all of the good stuff in there, do you?"
He is a good man and an asset to the poker community. But the "coach" is still a PLAYER.
Michael 7,
Love it!
Vince.
This was one of the more costly lessons from TJ. But, he does say in his book that some players cannot stand to be checked to twice. He knew he had you. Who would make a big raise with a five as a kicker.
All I can say is; to call 5x the BB with A5 and then catch a set on the flop sounds like a bad call and a lucky catch. how many times out of how many times will that cost him money? Unless he expects to outplay you on the flop. And of course, had he not caught the two 5's, he'd have made a bet you couldn't have called on the turn if any small card came, reading you correctly for two largish cards and no pair. Now that's getting TJ'ed!
It depends on what TJ thought of Michael 7's play. I hate discussing hands out of context of the game, because your opponents will make unsound plays sometimes to catch you when they get a handle on your play. TJ was playing the player and using his cards as an escape hatch. He got lucky.
TJ knows his math :. you are right, he picked up on circumstances that correlated with his long experience.
Deductive reasoning and table logic will beat math any time.
Math - Smath! Prayer was T.J's tactic! I'm sure T.J. was praying all the way with his hand. The differnce between praying in a Casino and praying in church. In a casino you mean it! Evidence, the results here. God works in mysterious ways.
Vince.
TJ does not pray at the poker table. He preys! Prayer is reserved for the craps table!
I "shoot" corrected! 7 come 11! Yo!
Vince.
Crap!
Here is a hand I played in 6-12 last night.
I had red aces under the gun and raised. Three people called, small blind folded, and big blind, a loose, wild player, reraised. I made it four bets (the cap), and the flop came five handed.
Q, 8, 4 rainbow.
Wild one bet, I raised, everybody called, he reraised, I capped it, and everybody called.
I should note that this was a lot more action than one typically sees in this game, even with the wild one. Normally some of the callers would have folded.
Turn was a 7, putting up a two-flush in spades.
Wild one checked, I bet, everybody called, Wild one raised, I called, and one of the callers now folded.
We were now four handed. The river was an offsuit jack. Wild one checked and I bet.
All comments are welcome.
William
Lemme guess..
T9 suited over 56 over trip Qs.
Funny that you mention this hand William as over the past few weeks I've been giving serious thought to the true benefit (or lack thereof) of pre-flop raising AA,KK,AKs in the loose low-limit games.
I'd like to expand upon it in a seperate post, though. To be continued..
-Michael
On the turn, I would have reraised the wild one's checkraise to attempt to drive people out. On the river, I would have checked and called any bet to my left. But if there were a raise in addition to the bet, I would fold.
The best of the best loose and will often,, i guess 2 pr beat u probally Q 8 s..????? that is a common hand on the button or close to,, Aces have there days and yet peaple treat them like gold,, they can loose and will,, just because there the best to start with dont mean they are the best at the end,,
I tend to overplay my hands from time to time and I beleive you overplayed yours on the flop(especially). What are you trying to accomplish on the flop after you got raised. Wild one or not you got 3 people calling your first raise. It seems to me that you are just putting more money with the second best hand (and it's not a drawing hand to get odds). If however you still beleive you have the best hand you should probably wait until the turn to knock them out because it certainly does not appear that they want to go on the flop. William check the river!
I think you overplayed your aces. After a capped flop, with that many callers, you had to be worried. With aces in that type of situation I would play cautiously after the flop. I would also skip the cap on the flop, since it's pretty obvious that raising to drive people out was not going to work. I have found that some lower limit players will cold call raises with hands that would make the poker writers cringe! Before or after the flop!
I have only once ever won a giant pot with aces (where they stood up by themselves), and it was definitely a fluke of luck in a drunken game. With that much action in a normally tighter game, the other players must have had something! let me guess, you lost to trips or two pair? Two trash pair with the maniac? don't tell me a straight!
Better to win a small pot than lose a big one.... don't get married to a pair in the hole, but checking and calling is certainly in order if there's any doubt about your being beaten in those situations. I am normally quite aggressive with overpairs in the hole, and I've been married to losing aces plenty of times....
"I think you overplayed your aces. After a capped flop, with that many callers, you had to be worried."
I disagree wholeheartedly. What could they possibly be drawing to? My own assessment is that they were weak players and were chasing with garbage - in which case, the correct action was to punish them for doing so. That is a beautiful flop for Aces when there are multiple callers - no flush draw, no straight draw, and no conceivable two-pair. If they had better hands, they never raised - in which case, they're passive and weak players. If they didn't have better hands, they were chasing with relative garbage - in which case, they're also weak players.
If the only one doing the re-raising was the Wild One, and the other players never made a move, I would have played as if I had the best hand. If they call, so much the better, because they're probably making a mistake by calling, and that's money in my pocket. If they chase a backdoor straight and make it, oh well; the correct action was still to force them to put in the maximum number of bets.
The only hand for the Wild One that could remotely make sense (assuming he had any) in this instance is that he flopped a set of 8's or 4's, since capping the raises before the Flop with 8-4, Q-4, or Q-8 is rare even for a maniac. Or, he could have had AQ or KQ and simply been too thick to realize that he was up against a higher pair. My own assessment is that the Wild One was trying to bluff his way through the pot, and then checked on the River when he realized that not everyone was going to fold.
In my opinion, he played this hand correctly. If you wait for the stone cold nuts to be aggressive, especially against weak players, you're costing yourself money.
Q
When "wild one" subsided on the river, I'd logically put him on KQ or AQ of spades (although his betting style is of the bombastic variety, so maybe logic doesn't apply). But it's the other two callers who'd give me pause. Remember that they are not the type to usually contest this type of hand. I'd have a hunch one or the other had 44 and were cradling it through the thicket of raises all the way to the river. The jack I wouldn't like either because KQs and QJs are the likeliest hands with queens to call a UTG raise. Remember: both of these players have called a lot of raises and, since the flop didn't allow for legitimate drawing hands, it's more likely one or both had the AA beat. I might therefore have just checked and called on the river.
Unlike many of the previous posters, I personally think this was played correctly.
After check-raising the Turn, I believe even a maniac would bet on the River if he had a real hand. My own assessment is that the maniac was simply a weak and overly aggressive player, hoping to get everyone to fold when he really had nothing. Either that, or he's an idiot for not betting on the River after all that ramming and jamming.
I have no idea what the other callers were drawing to, but if they want to contribute, I'm not going to argue.
Q
Well there was one caller on the end and my aces took down the pot. The reason I posted was I was wondering if I should have reraised the turn. At any rate it seems there is no consensus one way or the other.
William
Background: I'm a new hold 'em player, and was playing in a 3-6 game last night. Game was loose aggressive. I'm on the big blind with Q3(off), 5 limpers and I check.
Flop is 63T (rainbow)
I check, thinking that if an early position player bets I fold, if a player to my right bets I'll reassess. Everyone checks to the guy 2 off the button. He bets, button folds. At this time I raise. The bettor had been playing overly aggressive and he could have been betting anything. I figure I raise to isolate against him and see what the Turn brings. Everyone folds to the original better and he reraises.
Oh oh, I think. Now what to I do. I figure to call his raise and come out betting on the Turn. If he is reraising with over cards or some small pair to try to scare me off, I figure my bet on the Turn will cause him to fold. If he re-raises me on the Turn, I'll fold. If he calls, I'll check and fold the River to the bet.
I think this may have been a pretty good play, or it may have been very foolish, and I am interested in your comments.
Rookie
check fold the turn
I think its really hard to say. We'd have to know the person you are check raising with an overcard and bottom pair to know if that was a good move. Once you c-r the flop I don't agree with the other poster who said taht you should necessarily c-f the turn. c-f the turn after c-r the flop is giving away the momentum you just bought.
I agree that the two main questions are:
1) Should I have check raised the flop at all? This was the first time I played with the this player. Other than knowing he was capable of betting that flop with just overcards or a small pair, I didn't have a very good read on him. I figured it was 50/50 that his reraise was an aggressive move to take control of the pot with little actual strength, or a reraise with a strong hand (trips or two pair or high pair).
2) Once he re-raised the only question was a) do I fold now, or b) call and bet the turn no matter what appeared. After calling the raise, I agree that checking and folding the Turn gave away any advantage my check raise may have brought me. FYI, the turn card was a J, still a rainbow flop.
Again, thanks for all comments. This forum has been a tremendous help to my play.
Rookie
Pat
1. Your best play by far on the flop is to fold.
2. When he reraises - call. Then check and if he still bets you have a decision to make. If you still think there even a small chance that he is bluffing then call because first you might have the best hand and second you almost getting the right odds to hit your two pair which most likely be good.
You made a move on the flop. He caught you. You can probably put him on a decent T when he reraises. Call the reraise and if you don't improve, ch/f on the turn. I don't think you'll be getting the right odds on the turn.
Danny S
Check-raising bottom pair in a 3-6 game is the ultimate in high-variance poker. Especially when you have no other decent outs. Q is a crappy overcard, you have no backdoor straight or flush possibilities. When he re-raised you, he probably has trip tens. This would be a good time to throw the hand away. Plus, in a 3-6 game, I wouldn't be suprised to get a couple of other callers of your check-raise, which would also be very bad for you.
Having made a move on the flop, you need to vary your play on the turn. Most of the time, I would check and fold. Now and then I will bet and fold if raised and now and then I will check raise the turn. Obviously, the exact turn card that shows up is a key to my decision (not to mention my image at the current time, his ability to lay down top pair, his propensity to drive-bluff the turn etc).
If I check the turn and he too checks, I generally will check the River as well - my pair is probably a good bluff-catcher.
I realize that the result of the hand often has very little to do with whether it was a correct play, but it seems to be the custom to post the result for those who are intersted.
In this hand, the turn was a J (board still a rainbow). I bet the turn as planned, and my opponent folded. I realized that my play throughout the hand may not have been correct when I found how hard I was wishing for him to fold after that turn bet.
I appreciate all the posts above. I still like the way I bet the turn after calling his re-raise, but have doubts about the wisdom of the check-raise on the flop and calling his re-raise. I liked SKP's thoughts of checking the turn and the river in the hope that my hand would catch a bluff at the end, but how likely was that with bottom pair? However, if the opponent was bluffing it could have earned me another bet. However, I think this opponent would have bet the turn as he did it fairly often when everyone checked to him.
As always, I am learning a great deal from this forum, and am thankful for all the regular posters.
Rookie
Actually I think the conclusion quite relevant because you were acting on cues (opponent's demeanor and betting tendencies or style) that are not concretely available to forum commentators to factor into the equation. Did you bet the turn because the J hit or in spite of it?
I wonder: generally speaking, is a raise from a weaker position more intimidating than one from a stronger position?
I bet despite the J.
I was trying to think of a card that would cause me not to bet but I couldn't come up with one. That is, I think I would have bet any card on the Turn. If it paired the board, it would have just made my bet look stronger. Maybe a K or A would have given me some pause.
Pat
I think this is an excellent example of a "nonselfweighting strategy."
In this specific instance, you used all the information available to you at the time to make a number of decisions. The results simply confirm that they were the correct ones.
Under the circumstances you described, I would generally check-and-fold on the Flop in your position. I certainly would not check-raise EVERY time (or even the majority of times) with bottom pair, an overcard kicker, and no flush draw - especially playing low-limit Hold'em. I agree with the previous poster that this is a high-variance play, and under MOST circumstances probably one with negative expectation.
Q
How about if a Queen hit? You say he was betting most every time the action was checked to him, it looks like you could really get him by check-raising the turn too!
Good question. Most likely, if the Q had hit I would have been so happy, I would have just bet it. I think that might have been the best play, but I'm not sure. I haven't read much about back to back check raises so I haven't thought about it much. Seems like there is food for thought there.
Rookie
I definitely understand where you are coming from. When I make a play or move on a draw and catch perfect, I often bet when I should have check-raised. What you and I and others need to do is be ready for the situation, so you can smoothly check when the queen does hit. Good Luck
Danny S
Your play was the classic semi-bluff, albeit a RISKY one! you must have caught him bluffing yourself, or you got him to fold a marginal hand. I admire your gutsy move, although I would guess this maneuver will cost you more in the long run than it's worth in a 3-6 game. I am a 3-6/5-10 player and i find most semi-bluffs result in your being called!
The other respondent is right though, you get re-raised on the flop and he's almost always got one of the 10s. betting into him only lets you know for sure when you get raised again, but at least then you can fold confidently knowing you are beat!
also, knowledge of your opponents is a good way to find opportunities to "make plays" so that part of your maneuver was good.
Now where were we .. oh, yes, global economics and such ... no, seriously this post is only about poker.
As some may know, Mike Sexton is throwing a little get-together he calls the "TOC" on July 26-28. It has a very unique structure and while I've thought through how I *tentatively* plan to approach it, I'd be interested to hear others thoughts on strategy. Here is the structure:
Players will start with $5000 in tournament chips and play will begin at the $50-100 level. On Days 1 and 2, the games will rotate between Limit Hold-em, Omaha-8, and 7-stud. Levels will be 90 minutes each (30 minutes each game). Play will continue until 27 players remain and they will play exclusively no-limit hold-em on Day 3 until the conclusion of the event.
Some relevant issues that I've considered: How much maneuvering room appears available early; how tight or loose to play early; when to coast and when to push; style of play in games that are not your "best"; how much money will be needed to seriously compete if you make it to Day 3. Obviously there are a host of interrelated topics, but those look like the broad strokes to be worked out.
What with all that heavy duty discussion going on down below, I figured that perhaps everyone is momentarily tired of talking poker (gasp!). Here is a quiz that was circulated to everyone at my office last week. You might want to have a crack at it. It was apparently written by Einstein last century.
He said 98% of the people in the world cannot solve the quiz. Are you among the other 2%?
FACTS:
1. There are 5 houses in 5 different colors.
2. In each house lives a person with a different nationality.
3. These 5 owners drink a certain beverage, smoke a certain brand of cigar and keep a certain pet.
4. No owners have the same pet, smoke the same brand of cigar or drank the same drink.
HINTS:
1. The Brit lives in a Red House.
2. The Swede keeps Dogs as pets.
3. The Dane drinks Tea.
4. The Green House is on the left of the White House.
5. The Green House owner drinks Coffee.
6. The person who smokes Pall Mall rears Birds.
7. The owner of the Yellow House smokes Dunhill.
8. The man living in the house right in the center drinks Milk.
9. The Norwegian lives in the first house.
10. The man who smokes Blend lives next to the one who keeps Cats.
11. The man who keeps Horses lives next to the man who smokes Dunhill.
12. The owner who smokes Blue Master drinks Beer.
13. The German smokes Prince.
14. The Norwegian lives next to the Blue House.
15. The man who smokes Blend has a neighbor who drinks Water.
The Question is...................WHO KEEPS FISH????
There is no trick to this - it simply requires deductive reasoning.
Assume that one of them does keep fish as a pet.
(I would have put this on the Exchange Forum but it probably doesn't belong there even.)
The German.
Thanks skp. I enjoyed solving that.
-Ball Peen
You are welcome. I too enjoyed the quiz. And, of course, you and the others who said "German" are right.
Hi there, nice quiz !
The German......(I hope.....had some beers)
Norw Dane Brit Swe(thats me) German Yellow blue red green white water tea milk coffee beer dunhill blend pallmall prince bluemaster cat horse bird dog FISH
woohoo...... (though it would be the Swede at first course we all sux at poker....)
I want more from where that came from !
Aswede
The German in number 4.
As we are all aware the above Quiz, while certainly very thought provoking and demonstrates skills that argumently might enhance ones poker skills. However its mere presence here in the stratgey forum is a very grey area.
I have decided that instead of posting the conventional "this belongs in the exchange" forum that I would alter the Quiz so as to justify its presence here. :) FACTS:
1. There are 5 different card games.
2. At each game there is a person with a different poker style.
3. These 5 different players each have a favorite poker author, play a different limit and has a different tell.
4. No players have the same tell, play a different limit, or has the same favorite author.
HINTS:
1. The man who plays 300-600 plays next to the one who yawns when on a draw.
2. The player at the "Razz" Table plays 10-20.
3. The "Complete Fish" plays next to the "Omaha" Table.
4. The "Calling Station", looks away when he bluffs.
5. The "7 Card Stud" Table is on the left of the "5 Card draw" Table.
6. The "7 Card Stud" Table player reads Zee.
7. The "Loose Aggressive" plays at a "Texas Hold'em" Table.
8. The person who plays 5-10 frowns when he has the nuts.
9. The man playing at the Table right in the center reads Sklanski.
10. The "Complete Fish" plays at the first Table.
11. The man who looks away when he wants you to fold plays next to the man who plays 10-20.
12. The "Tight Aggressive" reads Malmuth.
13. The player who plays Pot-Limit reads "The coach".
14. The "Loose Passive" plays No-Limit.
15. The man who plays 300-600 plays besides the player who reads Caro.
The Question is...................WHO EATS OREOS WITH A MADE HAND????
There is no trick to this - it simply requires deductive reasoning.
Assume that one of them eats oreos with a made hand hand.
S. Doyle
P.S. And yes this puzzle can be solved.
Ha! Splendid tailoring - I am kicking myself for not having thought of it.
Record keeping can give "deductive clues" about opponents. The problem is the time required to solve the logic problem at the table without being chastized?
Who has resolved this table problem and how?
Computers can only optimize "deductive clues" and solve the cardinal facts given in the above teasers in nano's.
Who is Mr. Data at the table?
...um... the one who brings oreos to the cardroom?
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Given your 40% factor and the adage that "the chips you have now are worth more than those you can gain by winning a hand", then it would seem that it might be folly to gamble as much in the ante games, but more worthwhile to gamble in the flop games. However, some people's strategies are stronger in the ante games, so that might not be as much of a concern. Also, due to the split pot aspect of Omaha-8, far fewer hands will be played in each 30 minute segment than in the other games, and so the only hands worth playing are the cold nuts. To get scooped or quartered in an Omaha-8 segment would probably be the most stack-debilitating event in the tourney (next to getting blown out in the no-limit phase). Good luck to you also, in what shall be a lot of fun, win or lose (I'm tentatively scheduled for Saturday, but may push up my schedule by a day or two).
Due to the proliferation of gaming, I find myself in an area, with an eight table room, and a handful of persons, trying to earn a living, playing poker. They are much younger than I. I was considering that a poker survival mechanism, which was available to me for many years, at the Mirage, Hollywood Park, and the Taj, is totally unavailable to wannabe's in a small room. That survival mechanism is the opportunity to switch tables (move to a different table, of the same limit and same game). There are various reasons why a player might choose to change tables. In the past, the opportunity to change games, has helped me so many times, I can't recall all of them. I cannot understand how a person playing on a 10/20 level, or above, can even consider playing poker full-time, in a small room. In the area in which I play, most of the players, who play 10/20 or higher, know what they are doing. That has resulted in a lot of "hit and running", "walking on the game", and playing short sessions. Why? There are no other games, and the only one available, is no good.
But then there is another side. Take were I play. Five times a week at two different sports bars, as long as the game looks good. Ten-twenty hold'em. Usually one table with maybe a list. There is the down side as you point out. But then there is the other side, they can't get away.
In a small room you need to learn how to play optimally against the same opponents. This can cause you to deviate from 'book' strategy. Spend the time to learn your opponents, study the mistakes they make, and exploit them.
It's also important to play deceptively when you play the same people every night. You need to learn how to keep your game in balance and keep your opponents off balance. If you can do that, you can find some very profitable situations.
If the area features many bad players who play your level, you are guaranteed a good game almost every time you play.
The switching tables technique of large rooms is replaced by the switching small rooms after a few months, for areas with small rooms.
- Louie
There are two drivers of profitability in professional poker: 1)a good game (which can be accomplished thru the act of table selection) 2)good play. It looks like in this cardroom, the opportunity to use profitability driver one is impoverished. The pro is therefore left with driver 2. If he can't get better faster than the other players, he might as well move or quit. The good players' act of "hit and running","walking on the game", and "playing short sessions" can probably be exploited. Here's why: Since the good players are often "running" and "walking" from the game, this means that there's one less good player remaining in the game and this means that it has become a better game. Relatively shorthanded to be sure (especially if they leave their chips on the table and "make a phone call), but better none the less.
To change the subject a little here's a stud hand that I played last night in a $20-$40 game at The Mirage. (Stud hands are a little harder to follow, so pay attention.)
A 3d brought it in for $5, (the ante is $3 per person), a 7s called, I had As10s9s with the 10 up and raised. I was the second highest exposed card on the table -- there were two players with queens showing behind me. All my pair cards were live but two other spades were out. The first queen reraised, the remaining players folded, The 3d called (both bets), the 7s called (both bets), and I called.
On fourth street I caught a Ks which put me high on board. Everyone else caught blanks. I bet and everyone called.
On fifth street the player who started with a 7s caught a 7c. I caught a small spade giving me a flush and the remaining two players caught blanks. The sevens bet, I called, the third street reraiser with the probable queens folded, but the player with the 3d who was the bring-in called.
On sixth street I caught a 10c giving me a pair of tens for high. Neither of my two opponents caught anything special. I bet and they both called. (Note: This made me think that the player who was the bring-in may have been rolled up to start.)
On the river I bet again. (Their boards were not completely dead but not super live either.) They both called and my flush won the pot. I was against a set of treys and a set of sevens.
Here are a few questions to ask about the hand. 1. Was my initial third street raise correct? 2. Was I correct to bet out on fourth street instead of trying for a check raise? 3. Was my call on fifth street correct instead of raising? 4. Was my bet on sixth street correct? 5. Was my bet on the river correct?
1) Yes
2) Yes, Your objectives here are to get the Q to fold and/or get more money in the pot. If you check the Q may now be very reluctant to bet given your board and two other players behind to play and if the others don't have big hands they are unlikely to bet into your board. If you check and someone other than the Q bets would you really raise? The bring in and the 7 called a raise and reraise on 3rd street and then if they bet into the two raisers after catching blanks well you gotta wonder.
3) Yes, Calling does two things. One the 3 may also call putting more money in the pot. Two, if you are already beat it saves you two bets.
4) Yes. If the 7's aren't full then he probably won't bet and if he is full he will be very reluctant to raise.
5) Yes. Same situation as sixth. Unless these fellows know there up against Mr. Malmuth and would muck their sets then a bet here is correct. The intersting thing here, though, is that if you get raised, you have to CALL! Now why is that?
Vince.
1. I think the raise here is correct. With 2 Queens out it makes it less likely a pair of Queens is out there. There are also no other overcards up behind you to worry about. I wouldn't have liked the raise as much if there was a single Queen and a single King behind you unless you have a good read on your opponents. A lot of times in games $15-$30 and up what happens when you raise in your situation is that the board folds to the limper (7s) and he folds and you pick up the pot right there and then. Even if he calls you don't mind that match-up, a decent live flush draw with 3 live cards including an Ace.
2. I like this bet too. Either the Queen calls as he did and you'll get overcalls which is fine since you're drawing live to a strong draw. Or the Queen raises and you end up heads-up (most of the time that is when you're not up against rolled trips but you can't be playing poker every hand worrying about that). With a strong flush draw and 2 live overcards I like the match-up against a pair of Queens. So either way you end up in a good situation.
3. Since it looked like the other 2 players bricked out they appear to be no immediate threat and you can just call hoping for overcalls by them instead of raising, isolating yourself and risking being re-raised by the 7's. If their boards looked more threatening I would have raised in that spot and take my chances versus the possible trip 7's. To tell you the truth I am not always sure what to do in situations like this. Like I mentioned if the boards look threatening I'd go ahead and raise to put pressure on the other players, if they look harmless I'd go for the overcalls.
4. Only the 7's could potential beat you at this point so it's likely you have the best hand and you can go ahead and bet for value. I would have. You're not likely to get raised since you have been representing Tens and they'll probably put you on at least trip Tens by now. Your board looks threatening enough. I think the bet is correct, and even more so because there is a decent chance no one else will bet fearing your higher trips.
5. This bet is OK too since again you're not likely to get raised (but you could be by an aggresive player) and if you check, a full-house certainly will bet and you'll have to pay them off anyway. So investing a bet is not a bad thing since most likely you'll only risk 1 bet to win 1 or 2.
"With 2 Queens out it makes it less likely a pair of Queens is out there."
This statement is incorrect. When two players are showing Queens, the probability that at least one player was dealt a pair of Queens is actually HIGHER than if only one player is showing a Queen.
I can post the mathematical proof of this if anyone is really interested in it or doesn't believe me.
Q
Mason - I would like to discuss the 5th street call/raise decision, because it illustrates a concept which I have not seen in print. I Agree with your call.
There is a form of "fuzzy thinking" that I have caught myself at in hold'em a couple of times. It goes like this. With your made flush on fifth street, who are you afraid of? Those holding trips, that's who. So maybe you should raise to either get them out or make it more expensive for them to draw against you. I have found myself considering raising or check-raising in hold'em holding a made nut flush or "bottom" full house.
On the other hand, anyone drawing to one pair, a straight, or a flush lower than your AK-high, are extremely welcome to stay in the hand. And here is where you have to avoid the "fuzzy thinking" by asking yourself - Who will drop if I raise? And the answer is, the ones you would like to stay are more likely to drop, and the ones you are afraid of will stay no matter what.
Well played.
Dick
Dick,
When you have a made flush on the turn (holdem) and the board is not paired, you are the favorite against any single caller regardless for his hand so a raise is made here to limit the field and/or to get more money in the pot. Certainly you only want to drive out hands that have the potential of beating you but unless you are psychic you have no real way of knowing what's out there. With multiple caller you could be facing a nut flush draws, sets and two pair. If the opportunity to check raise and limit the field affords itself it is sometimes the best course of action. However, the same does not apply to the hand Mason described in his post!
Vince.
Vince - Mason's hand actually illustrates my point perfectly. If you raise or check-raise on fifth street, the ones you want to drop will certainly stay, and the ones you would love to stay are the ones who might drop.
I realized when I read your response that it would have been more accurate for me to give the example of turning the nut flush with a pair on board. ( And I DID say "nut flush," so getting beaten by the flush in my hold'em example wouldn't happpen.) With the pair on board, if someone already has a full house, there is nothing to do but lose a lot when I find out at the end. And anyone with trips will not fold for any number of raises. So if I try to get them out with raises, check-raises, or re-raises, all I will do is drive out the others who I don't want to drive out.
My "bottom full house" example is actually better for hold'em. Once upon a time, I started with something like 22 and flopped AA2. This is really good news: I have flopped a full house! But I thought, if someone else has an ace, I want to raise to get them out. And that is the fuzzy thinking, because there is no way in hell that they will get out, even holding A3 offsuit. And meanwhile, I would drive out the rest of my good customers.
Dick
Dick,
Sorry. I did misread your post, you said Nut Flush. Maybe the best thing to do right here is to discuss the purpose of a raise or even a check-raise for that matter.
S&M have professed that the reasons for raising are:
1) Get more money in the pot 2) Drive players out
a) Reduce no. of opponents when you have best hand
b) Get the a better hand to fold to increase your chance of winning even if you don't have the best hand.
c) Reduce no. of opponents when you have 2nd best hand. 3) Bluff or semi bluff. 4) Get a free card. 5) Gain information
Each of these is a general statement that a player must translate into action during the play of a hand.
I would like to add; to Give information, is a factor in driving out opponents. I add this only because a raise to drive out opponents does not always work with unaware opponents. So, one raises a good, aware, opponent, giving him information, knowing he will appropriately fold. If that makes sense.
First:"... all I do is drive out the ones I don't want to drive out." Second: ".. once upon a time.. if someone had an A I would raise to drive them out"
First: if you knew your opponents that you wanted in the pot would call behind you then you wouldn't raise to drive them out. But if you knew they would fold even if you just called wouldn't you then be correct to raise to get more money in the pot from those drawing with good hands? Doesn't this become a tactical decision based on the information available at the time?
Second: Isn't the reason for raising the A not to get him out but to get more money in the pot or gain information or maybe in an extreme case get him out? I disagree that a raise in this situation constitutes "fuzzy thinking". Just a tactical decision based on information available.
Vince.
Vince - You make some good points, and I don't think we have philosophical differences, just practical differences.
Your "raising to give information" I think is one of the reasons given in the literature (I think in TOP) which is called "raising to define your hand." Just as you described.
If you think that the people you want to stay in will fold anyway, then yes, by all means, raise to get more money in the pot. In Mason's hand, you (he) are(is) directly after the opening better, so any raise is more likely to drive out people who might otherwise stay. It certainly is a tactical decision based upon your knowledge of your opponents.
In my hold'em example, the only instance of "fuzzy thinking" is in WHO (which types of hands) you think will stay and who will fold. Again, with a hand like nut flush or bottom full house, if you can build the pot and have lots of opponents stay, then for sure, raise to build the pot.
Dick
Will probably regret this but here goes.
1. I would not raise third street with that start. I would jump a raise.
2. Because of the blanks I would not have tried for a check-raise.
3. I would have raised. Yes, 7 had paired the door. But I still like my odds.
4. I can not see it any other way.
5. Again I can not see it any other way.
What's Jump a raise?
Vince
Sorry for the slang. A raise is a hurdle that you must jump over to continue with the hand. Of course, most people would call a raise with Mason's starting hand.
Jumping a raise. Well, it is not being stopped or slowed down.
The important take away from this hand for me is that small sets should be played fast in multiway pots.
This said, I think Mason played the hand well.
His initial raise is an attempt to steal the antes. With 2 dead suited cards, the flush is more of a backdoor consideration. He's trying to knock out the "dead" queens at least and catch a scare card on 4th street.
The scare card play is not likely to work with the amount of money that went in on 3rd street. Thus, betting out with the suited K is a play to get more money in the pot for when he hopefully makes his flush, with the probable thought that a check raise may have dropped 2 players. I still might have made the check raise here, as the pot is already big enough for me and I want to maximize my chance of winning.
When it becomes obvious that he is up against at least 1 set and probably two, not raising on 6th street minimizes the amount of money he is putting in with a made hand that cannot improve and can be beaten by 2 fairly live draws.
The bet on 7th is also a good play, with the thought that if raised you can drop, and if they do not catch, a set is going to find it difficult to lay down a strong hand for 1 BB in a large pot.
-eds
Ed wrote: "The bet on 7th is also a good play, with the thought that if raised you can drop"
But can you really drop here? Given the size of the pot, isn't there enough chance that someone is making a play with his trips that you have to call? Plus, if I were the player with trip 3s, and I thought there was much of any chance that Mason would fold, I would always raise here. By raising, I'm making it almost impossible for the trip 7s to cold call the 2 bets (unless he's full). Now, if Mason folds often enough, my 2 big bet play has positive EV. If the player is capable of this thinking, then Mason has to call his raise, right?
It all depends, of course, upon the nature of these opponents and how well Mason knows them. It just seems like folding to a raise can't be an "automatic" play here.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
1. Was my initial third street raise correct?
If the raise has even a decent chance of winning right there, then yes. Even if you're called, your hand is live, and isn't in bad shape heads-up due to the ace overcard.
2. Was I correct to bet out on fourth street instead of trying for a check raise?
I prefer a check-raise here. While 4-flush with two live overcards does fine heads-up, you would probably prefer to keep single pairs and 3-draws-that-caught-a-blank in. If you bet and the queens raise, that might get rid of the other two. The 7 and bring-in might well be straight draw or lower flush draws, in which case you definitely don't want them to fold. (It's significant that your flush draw is AK-high. On the one hand, your overcards give you probable outs if you can narrow the field. On the other hand, your flush will beat other draws that connect.) If you check and the queen bets, a check-raise will trap callers for extra bets. The queen is probably has two queens, and won't reraise.
3. Was my call on fifth street correct instead of raising?
Yes. The possibility of calls by opponents who are drawing dead to you far outweighs the loss in value by not having possible trips call another bet.
3. Was my call on fifth street correct instead of raising?
"Yes. The possibility of calls by opponents who are drawing dead to you far outweighs the loss in value by not having possible trips call another bet."
There were only three other players on Fifth Street, and no-one seemed to be drawing to a straight or a lower flush. The pair of Sevens had at least two pair. The Queen was a possible pair of Queens, and possibly had two pair. It was unlikely the 3D was drawing to a straight or flush, and we now know that the 3D was rolled-up from the start. So who was drawing dead?
Q
You are the great Mason Malmuth. Your strategy must have been correct. Moreover, you knew your opponents better than anyone who has only read your description of the way the hand played. What was the tenor of the game? How tight were your opponents playing?
I like your raise on third street. However, the re-raise from your opponent with the queen is scary. Could be a set of queens. Must be at least from Q,Q,A. Yet, even scarier, the opponents with the seven and the three call the double bet. Hence the both of them must have something worthwhile. The three looks like 3,3,3 or 3,A,A or 3,K,K. Similarly the seven looks like 7,7,7 or 7,A,A or 7,K,K. Thus you are calling the re-raise looking at what seem to be some pretty nice hands. You did not pose the question, but calling the re-raise on third street seems gutsy and designed mostly to enhance your table image. It seems very likely at least one of your opponents has an ace or two in the hole, cutting down on your chances to win with two pair, aces up. You have three cards to a spade flush, but are not likely to end up with the flush. We do not know how many other players there were to start, making it hard to figure the odds. Assuming seven players to start, you see two spades and four non-spades held by your opponents. 52-5 (spades) - 4 (others) = 43 unaccounted for cards, making 8 spades and 35 others. The probability of your catching a spade flush is 219086/952598 = 0.228. Hence it¹s about 3.4 to 1 against your catching a spade flush. However, even if you do make your flush, with both the seven and the three calling the double raise, you have to be worried about at least one of them having a set and catching a boat. On balance, perhaps you could make a strong case for folding when re-raised on third street.
However, once you call on third street, given your tight image, when you catch the king of spades on fourth street, no one would put you on a flush draw. Your opponents must expect you to have something like T,T,T or T,A,A or T,K,K after the betting on third street. When you catch the king on fourth street, your opponents must fear you have trip kings or trip tens, though you possibly could still have A,A,K,T. Your actual holding is brilliantly disguised. If you check, given the betting scenario up to this point, one of your opponents is likely to bet, providing you the opportunity for a semi-bluff check-raise on fourth street. However, with only four spades you are the under-dog in this field, still far from home, up against some good hands, with the same fears as before. I like your bet on fourth street better than trying for a check-raise.
I wondered, in my first reading, why you did not raise when you caught the flush on fifth street. Maybe you are afraid your opponent with the sevens already has four sevens, or sevens full. Even so, perhaps you should try to limit the field at this point since it looks like you are up against some boat draws. Maybe you are afraid that you will have to fold if the player with the sevens re-raises. However, if that is the case why are you betting into the sevens on sixth and seventh streets?
However, all in all, the way you bet the hand showed great courage and must have totally confused your opponents. You could put that hand in one of your books.
The bet on the river could be suspect since you figured both opponents were drawing to trips (provided you intended to call a raise). Depends I guess on your sense of how many live cards they had. Since neither filled up, maybe you should add ESP to your list of mental attributes.
Here's my two cents:
1. Was my initial third street raise correct?
I don't believe so. With one caller already in, two Queens yet to act, and two other Spades out, I would not have raised on Third Street. If all other players had dropped out after the reraise (a likely possibility), you would be playing heads-up against a possible pair of Queens with one overcard and a partially live three-flush.
2. Was I correct to bet out on fourth street instead of trying for a check raise?
According to the Fundamental Theorem, I believe the answer would depend on the probability of you winning the hand in relation to everyone else's, notably the rolled-up Deuces.
Given the information available to you at the time, I believe a check-raise may have been more correct in retrospect, since a free card wouldn't hurt, and the pot is large enough to try to win it right away. With a four-flush and two live overcards, I would have felt comfortable playing this hand heads-up against any of the other hands. Thus, the deceptive play of the 3D may have caused me to make a Fundamental Theorem mistake.
3. Was my call on fifth street correct instead of raising?
I don't believe so. I believe the pot was large enough at that time to attempt to win it immediately, which would mean putting in the maximum number of bets and raises. Also, your hand cannot improve any further, and you want to reduce the pot odds offered for any opponent who is drawing to a full house.
4. Was my bet on sixth street correct?
Yes.
5. Was my bet on the river correct?
Yes.
Q
2) The biggest problem with trying for a check raise on fourth street is the possibility (high in my opinion if someone is not rolled up) that all the other players would check. The Q, most likely to bet, is next to act, putting you out of position for an effective thinning check-raise. If the Q checks and the 3 or the 7 bets you must now fear a big hand. I don't like the four flush (with two suited cards gone) against a big hand. The strength of the over cards A,K,T is reduced consirably against the 3 or 7 if they bet. Betting serves possibly three purposes here 1) Get more money in the pot 2) Possibly thin the field 3) Gain information. I believe this makes a bet on fourth compelling.
3)"...attempt to win it immediately" Out of the question! Anyone that bets with the 3 spades on the board is not going to fold if they get raised, not in a big pot like this. The Q and 3 may fold but why would you want them out at this point. A raise on fifth is an incorrect play in my opinion.
Vince.
2.) I think you may be letting your knowledge of the actual results skew your thinking, Vince. Remember that the 7S didn't have a "big hand" until Fifth Street, and there was no reason to believe the 3D had anything but a draw.
In Mason's position, I really wouldn't have cared if all the players had checked since I would still have been on the come. A free card wouldn't have hurt me, since at that point I probably had the worst hand. There was no reason to believe the 3D or 7S had a hand at all until they had the option to bet (or call a bet, for that manner). If either of them had bet, that would have told me something about the hand. In the case of the 3D, it could have meant that he either limped in with a high pocket pair or maybe, possibly trips. If the 3D had checked and the 7S had bet, he probably would have had a pair of 7's with an overcard kicker, or maybe a pocket pair. Either way, there was still no reason to think they had a "big" hand on Fourth Street.
A check-raise would have represented a very credible Kings Up (or even trip Kings), especially given Mason's raise on Third Street.
Remember also that I said that a check-raise on Fourth Street may have been the most incorrect play according to the Fundamental Theorem. However, the only reason I would have check-raised on Fourth Street would have been because of the deceptive play from the 3D (limping in on Third Street). If the 3D had raised at any time on Third Street, or brought it in for the full bet, I'd be inclined to think differently.
Let me also emphasize that I don't believe that the bet was a "bad" play. In fact, it may have been the most correct play according to the Fundamental Theorem. It's only the deceptive play of the 3D that may have caused me to believe AT THAT TIME that a check-raise was more correct.
3.) You are assuming that I expect everyone to fold. No, I fully expect the 7S to call. However, no one else is drawing dead to me - they're all drawing to full houses. I'm facing a possible pair of Queens (perhaps two pair now) and an already paired board, and who-knows-what from the 3D (who we now know was rolled-up). If anyone is drawing to beat me, I'm going to make him pay for it. No, no-one with trips will fold at this point - but it is still correct to make them pay as much as possible by reducing the pot odds offered to draw against me.
"The Q and 3 may fold but why would you want them out at this point."
Because it maximizes my chances of winning the pot, and the pot is large enough for me to be satisfied if everyone immediately folds. I want them to call, since they are making a mistake in doing so - but if they fold, I'm satisfied with the pot as is. 8 small bets on Third Street, 4 more on Fourth Street, a big bet on Fifth Street, plus the antes. If that's not large enough for you, that's your perogative - but you're risking losing the pot to someone with two pair who may not have called had you raised. With a made flush, the only opponents I want against me are those who are drawing to a straight or a lower flush. The longer I allow someone with two pair to stay, the greater the risk of losing the pot; and they're not going to be frightened by my smooth call. And if someone is going to call anyway, I'm going to push it for all it's worth.
Q
I was surprised to see most posters endorse the river bet so quickly. Assuming that you pay off when raised by the full house, this bet offers you (at best) even odds---you're laying two BB to win (at most) two BB. The chances of both missing their draws of course depend on how live their draws were. If fully live, it looks like the bet would have been a slight money-loser for you, if you knew that both players held sets. Since you didn't know this for sure, and their draws were not fully live, I guess the river bet is likely to be correct.
Even though I am fairly sure I am against two players with three-of-a-kind, it is still unlikely that I will be raised if either of them fills up since I could easily be betting a higher full house. (Tens full versus sevens full or treys full.) If I check and one of them does fill I must call because of the possibility that they could be betting three-of-a-kind. Thus I lose one bet either way if I get beat. On the other hand, if neither person fills, my bet will collect a bet from both of them. But if I check they might both check fearing that I have a flush. So I am in a situation where my bet should cost me the same if my hand is no good, but may gain me two bets if neither opponent fills up.
Good point. It hadn't occurred to me that you might not get raised even when your opponents fill up...yet another reason to bet.
I've found that opponents with full houses automatically raise unless I'm showing two-pair or trips on board. But in your game if you could count on seldom or never being raised by a made boat, then of course betting is correct.
Question about the guy who had rolled 3's. His cold call of 1 1/2 bets screams rolled up trips. The only other hands he should sensibly be calling are 345s or 3AXs, IMO. That being the case wouldn't it make sense to make it 3 bets right there and build a big pot right away? It seems he wanted to be deceptive, but by 5th street it was fairly obvious he was rolled since he had been catching blanks.Yes he could have caught a suited on card on 4th/5th and kept his hand somewhat deceptive. So, he didn't really gain much in deception and now he was behind another set of trips and a made flush. I know 3 betting on 3rd street gives away his hand but so what? The pot will be fairly large already and he currently has the best of it. Thoughts?
He could also have a big pair in the hole or perhaps made a pair to go with his three flush. In these games, you learn over time not to overestimate how poorly some people will play. His hand does not have to be as narrowly defined as you suggest.
If he is not a good player he might be calling with a lot of hands just because the pot seems big to him. I have seen many players call with split 3's and any other card in the hole
I played in a $100 NL satelitte last night at the Orleans. 1st place payed $920. I finished 7th out of 10. Not important but I thought I would mention it. The reason for this post is to discuss the problem with A,Qs in no limit holdem.
I just posted a response to a tournament hand concerning T.J Cloutier's book "Championship Poker" (I think that's the title) so I won't go into my opinion of the book here. suffice it to say that I recommend it. T.J. very emphatically discusses hands like A,Q in NL. The hand I went out on last night was AdQd.
We (10 players) started the satellite with T500. Blinds begin at T10-20. We were at the 25-50 blind level. Two players were eliminated. My total was ~ T450. I was one from the button. First let me say that the only 2 hands I had played to this point were A,Ko. Won the blinds on both. In fact I was the BB on one of them. The first hand of the tournament I was dealt A,Qo early position and discarded it. The player two positions before me bet T250. I considered this player a good NL player. Ironically just prior to my final hand this player and I were discussing trap hands. I had just discarded K,Qo on the button to an up front raiser and it led to a discussion with this fellow about trap hands. He empasised AQ as a trap hand. Well bang he raises and I have Ad,Qd. What do I do? We're seven handed. Mid position raiser. I really don't need to win a hand here. But they are only paying first place so chip strength is important and hands like this don't come very often (thank God!). I just happen to agree that AQs is a trap hand. Against a raiser it is suicide. I didn't consider that before I made my play. I should have thought: What could this guy raise with? Big pair, medium pair or A,K, AQ (except he just got through saying he feels AQ is a big trap hand). Anyway in the heat of battle. Trying to seize on what may be the best opportunity I would get, I elected to try and blow him off the pot. All in! When he called as I knew he would (especailly since he had a lot more chips than me, another mis cue on my part) my heart sunk. I knew it was time to head home. I was right, he had AsKs.
Against AKs, AQs is a 2 1/2 to 1 dog. Even if he had a small pair AQs was a dog (51-49). The fact that it was short handed was the excuse I used to myself for playing the hand the way I did. Wrong! The pretty looking AdQd belonged in the muck! So, then what is the problem? The problem is that AQs looks so damned PRETTY!
BTW - Barry Shulman of Card Player was in the satellite. His game? Eh! O.K. I guess.
Vince.
VINCE!
I agree that AQ is a trap hand in no limit, both tournaments and ring games. However, in satellites it can be an absolute monster given that most people will play any pair, any two paints, and even A-rag pretty aggressively.
However, since this guy was kind enough to GIVE you important information about hisplaying standards, you should have used it against him and waited for a better opportunity.
A little off the subject but would someone out there compute whether AQsuited does better than 99, against an opponent that has AA, KK, QQ, JJ any AK or AQsuited?
Since suits are important, we'll use Ac-Qc as a baseline and two red cards for the other hands. Percentage numbers show winners for the first hand listed:
Ac-Qc vs. A-A: 12.37% ... 9-9 vs. A-A: 18.15%
Ac-Qc vs. K-K: 32.08% ... 9-9 vs. K-K: 18.56%
Ac-Qc vs. Q-Q: 34.14% ... 9-9 vs. Q-Q: 17.76%
Ac-Qc vs. J-J: 46.19% ... 9-9 vs. J-J: 17.70%
Ac-Qc vs. Ah-Qh: 50% ... 9-9 vs. Ah-Qh: 53.21%
Ac-Qc vs. Ah-Kh: 29.41% ... 9-9 vs. Ah-Kh: 52.42%
These adhere to the general rules of thumb that pair over pair is a little better than 4-1, overcards vs. undercards is about 2-1, a pair vs. two overcards is close to even money, and that the worst situation to be in is when your biggest suited card is the same rank as the opponent's pair (Ac-Qc vs. A-A).
Of course the percentages can be juggled slightly by changing the suits.
One thing,
AcQc - AhQh %85 of these hands are ties.
Vince.
Thank you Earl. However I also included AK offsuit in my question. And then you must take two different weighted averages to get the final answer. I expect the final answers to be close.
Ac-Qc vs. Au-Ku: 31.35% ... 9-9 vs. Au-Ku: 55.23%
so, with 3 times as many unsuited combinations as suited combinations, I get:
Ac-Qc vs. Ax-Kx: (31.35 x 9) + (29.41 x 3)/12 = 30.87%
and,
9-9 vs. Ax-Kx: (55.23 x 9) + (52.42 x 3)/12 = 54.53%
I'm guessing that the relevance of these numbers is that if we can know for sure that our opponents will only play those hands, we could calculate where we stand:
Ac-Qc vs. [-list-]: 34.28% ... 9-9 vs. [-list-]: 29.94%
While it's been too many years since I had the relevant math, I don't think we're too far off base with these numbers. Now all we have to do is figure out which hand is better when some clown moves all-in with 4-5 offsuit ....
Sorry but you forgot to notice that the weights of the opposition hands are different depending on your hand
I'm guessing that the calculation of this part is over my head, which is one reason why I never tuck up too close to that fine line. Please explain.
According to Monte Carlo simulation, 100,000 hands each :
AQs v AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AKs or AQs - 34%. 99 v the same hands - 35%.
So, 99 is better, but it is very close.
Andy.
Given the above results, "Better" is not an appropriate descritpion of AQs vs 9,9 against the stated field! Now, is it David?
Vince.
I would expect AQs to play much better in this situation, however. A lot of the time when AQs wins it will be when it hits top pair against a smaller pocket pair. On the other hand, with 99 you never know where you stand when an overcard drops, which is going to be most of the time.
For sure. You are absolutely right to consider these factors and results of a "hot-and-cold" simulation should always be considered in the correct context.
Andy.
I think that AQs is a good hand in a NL tourney, expecially a satellite. Playing it depends on the circumstances. Ideally, you are looking to make a flush, so you only want to play if you are getting proper odds.
I think it was alright to call pre-flop before the raise. He didn't mention the size of the raise, not the stack sizes, and those factors would determine whether or not to call the raise. Probally, he should have folded. But raising all-in is not such a bad play (if it's a big raise). His opponent could fold a better hand (and in many instances should), or his opponent might have been agressive with a lesser hand.
Let's not forget that there will be limited chances to make a hand in a satellite, and many players will be more aggressive than usual.
Vince-
I posted an interesting little story involving TJ under the Tournement (mispelled) Hand thread below. I thought you would appreciate it and it does relate broadly to Poker Strategy and Theory.
AQ in NL tourney is the same crap as in cash NL. you'll win very little and can lose A LOT. I mean you flop A x x - you bet out a bit (or check to trap) and everyone will fold(check) except the AK AA and two pair with A !!!! (checking I would never do but some brave souls will do with a raibow flop......) Cheers Andras
It gets even worse than that. When one player has K-K and the flop comes Q-rag-rag, the person holding A-Q gets real excited -- and real broke.
I'm sitting here chuckling over the irony of it all....
This was a ten handed game of 15/30 stud and I'm just giving the position at the river with some comments about what happened and the size of the pot.
Player A XX/6d 3s 6c 5d/X
Player B XX/8h Ah 5h 9s/X
Player C XX/Tc 4h Kc 7c/X
Player D XX/Qd Jh 8s 4h/X
MY HAND 7s6s/Js 9s 2c Qc/2s
Pot was raised on third and everyone called. On fourth I bet and got 4 callers with my very live four flush. On fifth Player A checked (I thought he might have been afraid of the open three hearts), B bet, and again everyone called.
On sixth street Player A leads out with a bet and everyone called. Pot now has $470.
On the river A bet out, B calls !, C raises !! , D folds
There is now $690. in the pot...what do I do with my J high spade flush. It is $60 for me to call?
Jim Mogal
I think you've got the third or fourth best hand and there is a significant danger of player A reraising. And I think the odds of being wrong in this assessment are no better than 1 in 10, but that's an estimate rendered without knowing anything about the other players' abilities. BTW, if it was player C who raised on third street, then I'd suspect he filled up on the river (tens over kings or vice versa).
Well if you won this hand, then, I want to play in this game! You did say 15/30? I wonder if Sklansky and Malmuth modeled 7SFAP after stud games with this kind of action! BTW- if you can remember cards exactly as you have shown here the I wouldn't worry about maybe incorrectly calling a raise here. You already have such an edge in memory that giving up a little in incorrectly calling won't hurt much!
Vince.
Vince
This is the same game at the Mayfair Club that I wrote about earlier. It varies from good to great but the variances are great.
By the way, my memory isn't really that good....I didn't remember every card EXACTLY...but the important cards were remembered...I just filled in the insignificant cards in each hand by making them up to make the problem more readable.
Good Luck
Jim Mogal
Jim,
if you think that about one in a dozen times or more that-
A would bet into all those flush draws with 3 sixes or the two pair he probably had going in B would call after making aces up C would raise with a bigger 3 of a kind or a straight
what happened was A made a small full B made a flush or straight C made a bigger full you folded(i hope)
if the hand was played by a bunch of fools forget everything i said.
Amen!
Vince.
I agree with Mark, Vince, and Ray in that folding is the correct play. I also agree with Mark in that the probability of a reraise from player A is pretty high.
Q
if A & C can both play at all A cant reraise and if he calls its a crying one.
I've been sandwiched between players in similar situations except that I'm almost sure that a) I've got player " A" beat and b) player " A" can't be foolish enough to raise if he/she has half a brain based upon what player "C" has indicated with the raise. So figuring it's worth one bet to see if C has in fact edged me out, I push in the chips only to see player A raise with a hand that's fresh from the kennel and player C purring like the cat who ate the canary as he rakes in the chips. So yes, if in the example provided all player A had was a set of threes, or especially if he'd backed into a dinky straight, seeing him shove in a raise would frost me but not astound me. However, I admit this hand was played at a much higher level than I'm familiar with, and if Mr. Zee can't believe a typical player A at this level would raise under these circumstances, I defer to his judgment.
First let me say that I followed the advice given here...and most of the good players I asked about this hand also said it was an easy fold.
Ray included a Caveat that if these were stupid players that I can ignore his advice and call anyway. The best player in this game was Player A in that he plays in this game regularly and knows the players best. After I folded he made a "crying call" and the Raiser declares "Three Kings" ... A turns over a backdoor straight and wins the $700. pot.
I went for a walk to clear my head...I think I'll go to Atlantic City this weekend and play a normal 7 stud game!
Good Luck
Jim Mogal
against good players we read hands and try to make good plays. when against bad players or aggressive players always call with a hand that is considered good for the situation before the crazy action started when the pot has gotten large. if they cant think straight how can you.
If you were the last to act, it would be an automatic call. But you're not so fold. There's also too much strong action ahead of you.
In the book, OSWALD JACOBY ON POKER, chapter 4, in the section 'Piling chips on your hole card', Oswald Jacoby describes a set up play. If I had not read this play I would not have done so well in the following situation.
A ten-twenty hold'm game with ten players. There is a party going on. Several are drinking and the action is hot. I am not doing so well. Because they are capping it here and capping it there, I feel stuck and unable to do anything.
But I have Oswald Jacoby's set up play in my head. These players are ready to go. I know they see me as tight. They have folded around to a raise I made. I decided to get in the mood and go on tilt a little. Yeah, now I start capping it too, god damn it! At least on one hand with two pair.
So then I sat back and waited. I could have waited all night but Luck stepped in. I caught two aces in a late postion. The betting was raising as it got to me and I jumped in there like I was nuts. It got capped preflop with six in the hand. It capped every round. There were four of us left on the river. After I showed my aces I heard a faint voice from the other end of the table, "They held up".
Thank You, Oswald Jacoby.
Are you sure it was Jacoby's and not Caro's advice! Oh, well, maybe it's just a "great minds" thing! BTW- I hate to be a party pooper but from the description of this game the pocket Aces could have been the first hand you played all night and it would not have mattered. But of course we will never know for sure now will we!
Vince.
In the interest of a brief post I left out all the boring detail. The post was not intended as a brag, but as an example of strategy. It was a great coup and so maybe I should brag and throw in all the scenes. Also, I found his book interesting and thought others might as well. But hey I make great coups all the time, like this game the other night, they are all in the hand see, when.......
i played with Oswald a few times at the stardust in l.v. in 1971 or 1972 and was surprised that he played as well as he did. he was and old man then ( to me) and was able to almost break even.
Ozzie was a true genius. Expert at both Bdige and BG and a top code breaker in WWII. He also set the record for passing all of the actuarial exams at the youngest age. I would bet large money on any game Ozzie put his mind to.
2+2 Folks,
While trolling around the web I found an old copy of the Conjelco posted Poker FAQ. It had a copy of 7 Card Stud 3rd street, supposedly authorized by 2+2, that was a alledgedly derived from 7 Card Stud for Advanced Players.
Questions :
1. Assuming it is the one originally posted on the Conjelco site, is it a correct summary?
2. If I were to e-mail it to you would you check and verify it's validity?
I have been meaning to create a similar synopsis myself (not for distribution) however if this one is correct it would save a lot of time and provide a framework to work with as I create my own anyway. I.E. it would be a jump start as it identifies things to look for in the book.
Thanks, Frank
The answers are no and no.
Hey Mason,
Thanks for the reply. Any chance of cajoling you folks at 2+2 to create such synopsis as am appendix, maybe for the 2001 series of books? I'm in favor of paying for correct information. After all a author's time is a valuable as everyone elses.
Thanks, Frank
P.S. Do you know if the FAQ was an intentional piece of dis-information or something? I wrote the poster who claimed the real issue was copyright infringment.
P.P.S. Mason I really appreciate your writing style of using a boldface main idea followed by explanitory text. It really makes main points stand out and memorable.
Last night I was talking to a friend who was interested in poker but has never played in a casino room. I told him that playing in a casino is a huge difference then playing at a home game like he has has before. I showed him the basics of hold'em and he said well that dosent seem to hard. Then he said that he could take my money. I then said that I'm willing to put up my money = to his paycheck every week. He declined. I then gave him a principle to think about. I said suppose that you are the button and that you have only one opponent. There is no raise by your opponent and you have AA so you raise. Your opponent calls. The flop comes 25T offsuit. Your opponent checks, you bet and then he raises. I said what do you do. He said I don't know. I then said that you have to have some info about this opponent. If he is a good player you can be sure that he doed not have two pair. In order for him to have two pair he had to play 25 2T 5T and called a raise. I asked my friend what does he have. He said I don't know yet. I then said that most good players will soft play a set of 2 5 T and wait for the turn to raise when a opponent shows strength before the flop. With that in mind its unlikely that this oppoent has trips. I told my friend that its a strong possibility that this player is check raise bluffing because he puts you on a hand with unpaired high card and expects you to fold. I then asked him suppose everything is the same but you know that this opponent is a bad player. He said that he would reraise. I then asked him to think about this. You know that this opponent is a bad player. Because of that he could be holding 25 2T 5T for a made two pair. Or he could be holding a set. A bad player could call a preflop raise with these hands. I know because I have seen it done even at 15-30 level! But wait because there is another thing to think about. Weak players don't think about what you have only what they have. This player could think that he has the best hand and check-raised! It happens a lot! I said to my friend, see you have two identical situations but you have to play your hand differently because of the opponent. Against the bad player I told him that its better to fold most of the time because AA is beat. However some times you have the best hand and should raise. My friend then shook his head and said damm thats a lot of thinking to do. I then said wait till you read my 2+2 book on hold'em and I don't have the new version yet!
a Bad Player could also have just top pair weak kicker. I once saw a player on the button check raise every round through the river, with 5 callers following the majority of the way, with nothing. I also once suggested to him that an inside straight of roughly 11-1 odds meant make the hand once, miss 11 times. He responded that it is so fun to hit the one time that it justifies the call,( or semi-bluff) every time(semi-bluff was a term he isn't familiar with.)
Then again, I had a hand like this once. I have KK in early position. I raised. Woman to my immediate left cold calls. One other caller. Flop comes 3-6-9 rainbow. I act 1st and bet. Woman raises. 3rd fellow folds. I contemplate what she might have. She's a casino employee. I figure her for a solid player as she seems to have won most times I've seen her play. I figure her for a bluff. I call and then check call to the river.(perhaps this was an error.) she turns over 3-6o to take the pot. She then insisted that the only difference between high stakes players at HE, and lower limits is that higher stakes players have more money. I obviously do not believe this, as the reading skills alone displayed by the posters here are well developed. Nevertheless, she stated that she had had a few drinks, and just wanted to put me on tilt. She didn't succeed.
Joe,
The play of A,A against one opponent is not quite as difficult as you made it out to be. Whether or not the opponent is good, bad, or ugly! Stop driving your friends away from casino poker!
~Vince~
"I then said that most good players will soft play a set of 2 5 T and wait for the turn to raise when a opponent shows strength before the flop. "
Shouldn't good players mix their play up a little more than this and make a move on the flop occasionally with trips?
Danny S
I can't fold AA heads up for one raise on a 25T flop no matter who the player is, unless he's the tightest rock in the casino.
thank goodness most players don't think this much! have a nice day ron
Oh, no! The "interviews" have mutated!
Hey jaws,
Your e-mail address hasn't been included in your posts, and I would like to discuss some concepts via private e-mail with you.
Please e-mail me: heihojin@earthlink.net
For Ray only: Yes, I know this belongs on the exchange. I am only posting here to guarantee that it will be seen. Please accept my apology in advance for breaching protocol.
Q
Q, I'll Email you in a day or two.
In limit holdem, it's very important to consider what effect your plays have on the pot size. Depending on the opponents, their specific mistakes are magnified by making the pot smaller or larger. Some hands need to narrow the field (preflop or on the flop or turn), while others want to keep people in. But I've never seen pot size analysis applied to Omaha-8.
In HLSFAP, Ray Zee mentions that (overly) tight players tend to fold too much on the flop; they don't see the turn card even when they have sufficient backdoor outs and implied odds to do so. This error would be magnified in a raised pot.
With players who call too much, many of them will play hands beyond the flop that should be folded. This error would be more serious when the pot is small.
People aren't folding nut-low draws to any number of bets on the flop. Players used to holdem tend to call with straight or flush draws when the odds are insufficient (those hands lose a significant fraction of the time that they connect, and they frequently split the pot when they do win; inexperienced Omaha players don't discount the pot odds enough for those draws). And certain high hands on the flop prefer to keep the backdoor low draws in (e.g. a strong straight wrap) while others prefer to get them out (a paint set with a non-nut backdoor flush draw).
I often raise strong hands preflop in loose games when I'm in good position and many players are in. Unless the players will all call anyway, I tend to limp in early position with strong hands. In tighter games, I sometimes raise certain hands to narrow the field. I haven't considered the pot size effects of these plays though.
With a very strong hand including a paint pair, should you thus tend to keep the pot small preflop in a loose game? With more marginal high hands, you clearly want to see the flop cheaply if you play them at all. And what about solid low hands like A234, or premium two-way hands like AA2K or A2KQ?
Dan,
you got it all right and can write my next book.
"With a very strong hand including a paint pair, should you thus tend to keep the pot small preflop in a loose game?" ( i say so)
"With more marginal high hands, you clearly want to see the flop cheaply if you play them at all." ( of course) " And what about solid low hands like A234, or premium two-way hands like AA2K or A2KQ?" (build the pot at all times your hand remains strong)
I played in our home town big game. There were a few outsiders a couple of local bigshots playing a big NL game every Friday. One aggressive player made a steal attempt (having not raise before the flop) - I smelled a rat, I called him with Ace Ten offsuit. All my money went in there about a thousand...) He could not beat the A. He had no pair - nothing. He made a big bet before the turn but somehow I felt he had nothing. I know if I told you I had an intuition you think I am full of it, but I just had a feel that he was bluffing - I was greatly surprised when he could not even show a pair (he never showed his hand). My question is this; in NL if you suspect a bluff and you don't have much either - calling WOULD NOT be customary - did I fuck up and got lucky ??
I think intuition is a combination of many things, most would be on the sub con. level. Your call sounded crazy on a con. level but in your mind you had to call. Some say you can't just call, you must raise, but if the guy bluffs all in you can't reraise.You must have been watching ROUNDERS as the "F" word has no place on 2+2. Anyway good call.
You must be the next Erik Seidel who during the WSOP called a $150,000 bluff bet with no pair Ace high. Everyone has the gift of intuition (it's part of our survival mechanism) and the best way to take advantage of it is to follow your first impression. If you felt no anger at this stealing aggressive player when you made the decision to call his stone cold bluff, you can assume that your decision in this case was legitimate intuition. If, however, you were feeling anger you may have just been temporarily on tilt and got lucky.
Hi,
I and a couple of friends have started playing regularly a traditional $1-2 Texas hold'em game and have only been able to play three times yet. I am a quite new to Texas Hold'em and have for a while been concentrating on studying Low Limit Texas Holdem by Lee Jones. Now this book is aimed at a totally different game that the one that I am playing. Unfortunatly it is the only game available for me right now.
I would categorize the players in my game as follow:
Maniac: Always raises and almost always reraises preflop, even with cards like 2 7 unsuited. Always raises if he gets anything on the flop, just to scare away other players. He is almost always involved at the river even often without holding anything. The few times we have played he has ended up the big winner for the night.
Loose Player: Not as loose as the maniac preflop but still like to raise or call if he has any high card. Aggressive on the flop if he gets anything but tends to be able to fold on the flop if he misses completely. Tends to be a looser at the end of the game.
Calling station: The biggest looser in the game, he tends to call anything, he once followed to the river with a pair of 2 against two other players and lost a lot against a two pair. He tends to stick around to the turn and usually folds there if he hasn't gotten any playable cards.
Calling station2: Another big looser in the game. Raises very little and usually only on the flop if he has gotten any strong hands. He is more tighter than the first calling station and always folds if he has not gotten anything playable on the flop.
Me: I try to play the tight-aggressive approach described in most books. I have after the end of the games been a little winner each timer. Unfortunatly the maniac seems to win at least 5 times more than me. What I wonder is how to improve, how to get a bigger share of the maniacs winnings and which hands shall I call and raise with against this types of opponents. Lee Jones advice on hands are to tight for this game so I loose up a little especially with high cards. But I still wonder which cards shall I call with, which shall I raise with?
The maniacs playing styles seems to get quite profitable for this game. The game is VERY loose, I am for example the only player to fold before the flop. No one else folds before the flop, even if there is a lot of raising before it. There is also almost always a lot of raising preflop. People raise and reraise with all kind of hands, even a 2 4 unsuited. On the flop the play is not as loose but still very loose. There is almost always raising escepecially from the maniac even if he sometimes doesn't have anything. This loose play also got me wondering on how loose I should play, shall I for example stick around to the end and call or raise with for example a pair of queens when there is overcards on the board?
What I need is advice on how I do attack this game? Advice is needed on which hands to play and raise with. How aggressive should I be? Which cards are profitable to call with and raise in the flop? I also wonder if the new "Advanced Texas Hold'em" by Two Plus Two covers this questions and if the information there is applicable to the game I play or if it is only aimed at more advanced players. I consider the players in my game to be newbies.
Thanks for any advice
Cincerely
Abbe
You ought to get the 21st Century Edition. The chapter on shorthanded play should do wonders for you (I also recommend that you find some threads on shorthanded play both in the archives of this Forum and in RGP. In RGP, you will find a few gems on shorthanded play posted by Abdul Jalib).
BTW, a "tight" approach will not get the money in this kind of game. It is not surprising at all that the "maniac" is getting the money here. In shorthanded play, you simply can't wait for the nuts. You have to get in there and duke it out. You need to vary your play a lot more than you do in a regular ring game and you also need to get involved a lot more i.e. call, raise etc on the flop with hands that would be an easy fold in a regular game (eg. flop is A94. Maniac bets. You should call with a hand like Q,10 and sometimes raise with it. See S&M's new book for an explanation as to why).
You have to play the man and the situation rather than merely playing the cards dealt to you, otherwise, you have no chance against the "maniac'. If you fold too much, a simple strategy for the maniac would be to always bet or raise.
To manipulate the game a bit more you may want to consider getting the limits raised to a point where people care about the amount of money they are playing with, and begin to think about really playing.
You must play considerably looser in this game. I have been playing poker short handed most of my life, and I had to make major adjustments for full ring games (in the area of getting tighter). But Short handed, you must play your opponents more than your cards. Often any pair is the best hand, sometimes even high card! It's certainly much scarier than playing super-tight in a ring game, since you are getting into confrontations much more often. And you usually have not much! You would never play such trash in a ring game!
SKP is right though, you should raise the limits a little. As it is, you might as well just have everyone put in 4$ before the flop and flip the cards over and start from there, skipping the first betting round! maybe play 2-4 instead....
Good luck dealing with the maniac. All I can say is when you get something good, reraise him like a banshee.... You are now playing in his game....
I more or less agree with skp that you need to get in there and "duke it out." Position is worth a lot more in a short-handed game--be aggressive in late position and on the button. Also, you might try taking advantage of what you know about the maniac by "isolating" him--he is going to be holding garbage as often as not, and you've got to assume that your medium-strength hands have a good chance of being ahead...raising when he leads into you may take your weaker opponents off hands that are live and will give you a good chance against the maniac heads up. Be prepared for much higher fluctuations shorthanded. Some nights you are going to take your lumps.
In my opinion, you should embrace this game. I used to play in a 3-5 handed game against good opponents, and I learned a hell of a lot more about the game there than I ever did in a casino game. A few words of (free) advice/warning:
1. Remember the tactics you learn in this game for late night casino action. Most players have little experience playing shorthanded. When the game starts to break down and you're left playing against 4 tired rocks, it's time to perk up and fire up your bulldozer. Get ready to run 'em over...a lot of people don't even have the foggiest clue how to adjust their play to these situations.
2. Forget the tactics you learn in this game for most low and middle-limit casino action. Playing shorthanded against good opponents will require you to use a lot of imagination, and you'll find yourself making calls (against the maniac, for example) that you'll find are hard to justify. The important thing to remember is CONTEXT. Your typical opponent in a full 10-20 game has the goods when he bets or raises. I had a big problem adjusting between the shorthanded game and the casino game for two reasons. First, shorthanded games go a lot faster and allow you to participate a lot more...remember that against 10 opponents, patience and hand selection is a huge part of success. Second, I forgot how to fold. Calling the maniac down with a marginal strength hand in a shorthanded situation can often be a rewarding play---you may be ahead, and it may dissuade your opponent from pushing you around in the future. At a full table in a typical casino game, such a strategy is usually pointless---attributing too much "guts" or imagination to your casino opponent (without any corroborating evidence) will cost you dearly.
On July 14 D.Sklansky said, with regards to taking weak players money, "if you don't take their money someone else will". With poker you are not breaking the law. It is nearly like saying "if you don't rob that bank, someone else will". This attitude and outlook on the game..robbing the weak, hustling, looking for an angle, seeking out weak players and games, has a lot to do with the very slow acceptance of the game I love, POKER, by the rest of the world. Sure there are a lot of people saying how great poker is and it is growing, but it is poker players pushing their own barrow.Has anyone(a non poker player), ever stated that poker is a great game,in the press or on TV? Has Clinton ever praised the game to the media? The above statement is why poker is struggling for public acceptance.Any thoughts posters?
Poker is a Win/Win game. The tourist walks into the cardroom looking for fun. The pro walks into the cardroom looking for money. At the end of the day, the tourist gets his fun and the pro gets his money. WIN/WIN. In business, law, and politics, when one person wins, another person somewhere loses. Win/Lose. Not so in poker. In poker everybody gets what they want. Everybody wins. The fact is poker is a sport and like all sports its' participants try to win with deception. This is not unethical since all parties have agreed beforehand that they are going to deceive each other. Boxers, basketball players, baseball players, and football players always deceive each other in order to win. That does not make them dishonest. If you're a basketball who is trying to drive to the basket are you gonna tell your opponent in advance that you're going to drive to the basket? No you don't. If you do, you're nuts and don't deserve to win. You pretend to do a jump shot or a pass instead. In short, you engage in deceptive behavior.This isn't an angle shot. You're just trying to score some points. In poker, money is points. That's how the game is scored. And who supplies this money, the weak players. And its their responsibility to either get themselves strong or quit. Weak actors don't get the parts. Weak painters don't get the respect. That's life. New audience are attracted to the deception found in sports. New poker players will be attracted for the same reason.
Just some semi-random thoughts:
1. Poker is still perceived by many as a game in which luck is the primary determinant of results, as opposed to ability.
2. As a student of the game, it is to my advantage for my opponents to hold the above viewpoint. Therefore, I encourage this viewpoint in my opponents, and in general table conversation I espouse such opinions.
3. When I encounter someone who is afraid that I may be a "hustler", I have a choice. If that person is relatively new to the game, I just explain that I've simply been lucky and that I'm good at acting on "feelings" about certain hands. If they're an experienced (but weak) player, and I am in a game with them, I may attempt to exploit their fear of me.
4. Naturally, it is not good for the public to perceive Poker as a game of hustling. This tends to kill the action.
5. By the same token, I do not necessarily want the public to perceive Poker as a game of skill. I believe this is the same dilemma many of the great Poker authors encountered when choosing whether or not to write their books. I, however, am of the mind that there will always be suckers, and that less than 1% of those who play will ever be serious students of the game.
Q
one: tell your opponents "you had a feeling" not "I was getting the correct pot odds to justify a call". Keep them in the dark about the skill aspect of the game....
two: very few people actually study the game, even experienced players. No offense to Sklansky/Malmuth/Zee/Brunson etc, but I certainly hope that a relatively elite few players actually study their excellent work!
As for the perception of the public, I think the vast majority of people engage in some form of gambling (bingo, lottery, stocks, etc...) and poker is not really viewed that badly by most. So who cares if a few have a bad perception, poker is popular as ever....
Q,
You make some interesting points. However :
1. It's not Hustling if you're not cheating. Greater skill isn't hustling is it? Hustling to me seems to be synonymous with con artist type scams.
2. It would probably help the game, not hurt it if the skill aspect became widely know. Similar to card counting and Blackjack. Many new players, who weren't really good counters play the game believing it's beatable. But this hasn't caused the casinos to go broke. On the contrary, it seems the myth of the invincible card counter actually helps business. I think the casinos even LIKE or even PROMOTE that myth. Adding respectability to the game can only help. To the extent that Poker is considered a skill game this is good and as you point out, less than 1% ever study it seriously. So I don't think you're seriosly in danger.
Sincerely, Frank
Frank,
"1. It's not Hustling if you're not cheating. Greater skill isn't hustling is it?"
In my opinion, hustling is taking advantage of the ignorance of others. Whereas competing in a high-level tournament against many expert players doesn't fit my definition of "hustling", seeking out games with weaker players does.
Certainly not that it's "bad" - just that that is my conceptualization of "hustling", and one that I believe fits most others' definition as well.
To the timid, weak players, I certainly do not want an image as a hustler. I work to dismiss their fears, attributing my wins to luck, and congratulating them on their wins as well (reinforcing their bad play). In short, I want them to enjoy playing the game with me.
Furthermore, I avoid discussing strategy at the table - even with my friends. I basically agree with whatever my opponents have to say. And I only wear the sunglasses to cut down on the glare in the room.
"2. It would probably help the game, not hurt it if the skill aspect became widely know."
I believe it depends on how you measure whether or not the game is helped.
I am in a catch-22 position, since I would still be quite ignorant of the game if not for the excellent works from 2+2. Therefore, I cannot say (without branding myself a hypocrite) that the availability of information to my opponents is detrimental to the game. Furthermore, the openness of websites and discussion forums such as this also serves to enlighten others, as it certainly has me. I have learned many, many lessons from the discussions on this site, and am amazed at how frequently I come across something new and intriguing.
So no, I don't believe I'm in "danger." If someone is sincere about studying the game (as a couple of friends with whom I play are), I am perfectly honest with them - away from the table, of course. I do, however, believe that it is profitable to reinforce bad play from my opponents. I also don't believe in giving free advice regarding how *I* would have played such and such a hand, etc. My objective is to win money from my opponents, and advertising my strategy is simply unprofitable.
Q
There is some wierd perception that direct competition for money isn't politically correct (at least in the US; how is it down under?). Many of the people that have some problem with that type of direct competition praise the all mighty free market god. Go Figure. [As far as I could tell the recent federal commission on gambling in the US didn't even look into E-trade and the like 'cuz thats "different" somehow.]
For that reason I don't expect Poker to gain any sort of mass acceptance during my lifetime.
If it did gain mass acceptance (major tourney "box scores") then I wouldn't expect that the competition (from a relative standpoint) would get that much harder at least at the mid limits. As others have said most people don't want to think that hard.
Thankyou posters for your thoughts on robbing the weak. It's crazy how the stockmarket (business gambling) is accepted by everyone...a sport/entertainment for money. And yet poor old poker...our love...is still in the back room with the Doc, smoke, cheats, 6 shooters and slight-of-hand. Maybe we need Gates,Clinton and some others on the final table at the WSOP? See ya.
They play, just a different type of stake. In Gates case, he plays higher stakes. Life is a card game, deal the cards.
Dear Darryl, Oh dear misguided "Dazzler"!
Noone loves "playing" poker as much as I. No one! But to compare playing poker with investing in the stock market is a bit o' stretch o' de imagination! Granted for many the objective may be the same. To Make Money! But many view thier particpation in the SM (does not stand for Sklansky and Malmuth) as an INVESTMENT and not a gamble as many view "playing poker". We must accept the distinction here. For money INVESTED in the SM is done for concrete reasons in most instances and not viewed as a gamble. Poker playing, although profitable for some, is viewed (rightfully so) as just an abstract gambling endeavor! BTW - I do not invest in the SM. (I did invest in S&M 2+2, books, though, because I love to win at poker.)
BTW-BTW I have run into a few of the Australian contingency here at the O'rleans Open. Wonderful bunch of Mates. I must say!
BTW #3 You never responded to our story lines for your T.V show. I was semi serious with my input. The storyline part that is! If you reread my post and are a John Wayne fan you may find the story line familiar. Please let me know!
Vince.
I don't know if this counts. But, on Star Trek "The Next Generation" one episode demonstates how poker skill is used to fight a battle. Of course, they don't play for money, since there isn't any in the future. Futhermore, in this episode, the android, Data, folded when Riker bluffed. Anyone remember this?
Do you remember Star Trek Classic, Corbomite Maneuver? Captain Kirk says to Mr.Spock:"Not chess Mr.Spock, poker!" Best Star Trek line ever.
In Space Seed, Khan says to Kirk:"Social occassions are warfare conceiled." Is this an inspiring poker sounding statement or what?
a guy takes his wife and kids to the monster truck show (this sunday sunday SUNDAY at the Kansas City Coliseum)
he spends $60 on tickets, $25 on food, $30 on beer, buys t-shirts for his kids, umbrellas, key chains, who knows what other shit. his return is an afternoon of fun and entertainment.
have the promoters of this show "robbed" him, taking advantage his weak side that likes to watch metal crunch and cars catch fire?
poker is a form of interactive entertainment. the difference i see between poker and an amusement park is that poker does not have a definete conclusion to the event. you can only buy so many hulk hogan headbands, but with many people gambling can become addictive and take up way too much of their time - because they expect some sort of big win or return, some get it eventually, some don't.
i admit it's takes a lot of discipline for me to walk out stuck, because i feel i "deserve" something for my hard work, and feel i wasted time if i don't get it. i can get over this with the "one long session" ideas, but i know others can't.
just my thoughts james....
Moralizing has no room on this group. It belongs in your respective church and confessional. There are many other ill reputed professions - one comes to mind is a LAWYER ! I apologize to the poker player lawyers out there for labeling. Poker is a difficult task because of the variance (see how I did not use the term 'luck' :-) moralizing will just slow you down and maybe you will be sorry for a guy you take money from him but next time HE will bust you !!! There are always guys out there who can 'buy you' many times over and there are those in the dumps. Don't focus on them focus on the next guy who will possibly 'pulverize' you tomorrow. You will develope some healthy ballance of survival instints and may even make it !!!
Darryl,
I went though a lot of tossing and turning on this issue of "Is poker fair", and, "Are Pro's Predatory" and so forth. Especially when I've had major loosing nights.
My final conclusion is that Poker is Fair. We all eventually get the same number of good and bad cards. And, it is predatory. For unlike sports, part of winning is looking for weak players, at least by some books. In sports you become the champ by beating other top notch players, fighters whatever. No one gets be world champ without beating the current world champ.
This is not the case with ring games (though it may be for WSOP or TOC or other tournaments).
However, I have come to believe that since mastering poker is not easy, the ring players profit represents the payback on the effort expended to be a better player.
Of course I'm assuming no cheating, collusion, cheap shots, peeking at other players cards if the don't cover well etc.
Angles and cheap shots are just that.
But a player who takes the time to learn the odds, the strategies etc. deserves to win over those who don't make the effort. I think we can agree that this aspect is at least similar to sports.
Within that I still have a few reservations about published literature on gambling of all types be it craps, blackjack, or poker. Some of it is great, some of it is flat out wrong.
Craps literature, for example, seems to be full of bogus stuff. All craps bets pay less than true odds. There's no successful long term stategy. Period. Hopefully Dave and Mason will back that statement up, as well as any other reputable gambling author.
As for Poker. It's my opinion that being able to identify postive EV plays, be they mathematical or applied psychology in nature, is the name of the game.
However given that, there seems to be some debate over whether my favorite game, 7 card stud, can be reduced to a decision tree. I believe it can. Others say no. Perhaps it's just waiting for the right genius to come along. I don't have that decision tree. I just believe it exists, however complex. Consider it an article of faith based on by technical background. But I will admit it's not neccesarily easy to figure or compact. My own notes on 7 card stud span dozens of pages and I won't even claim that they are correct.
With the other popular poker game, the decision tree thing, I believe is accepted more widely, though I'm not sure why. I've not done the legwork to determine one way or the other.
As for is it similar to crime. Depends on your view of the law of the jungle I suppose. Personally, though I've been an ardent critic of Poker ethics, I find many aspects of business ethics worse. For example, expecting people who are being screwed in various ways to come to work and "act postive". Or how about Dale Carnegie's classic treatise or schmoozing to get what you want, "How to win friends and influence people", or Zig Ziglar's crap. Or "Teamwork" where you supposed to act like the people on your team aren't competitors for the next raise.
At least at the Poker table everyone is clear...I'm going to take your chips at if all possible...and I know you're going to try and do the same...much like a trading pit if you think about it. But then I'd like to be a trader too. No bogus "team" crap, no nicey nice white lies. It's a scrap (fight, competition), plain and simple.
At the Poker table, all the decisions are yours, you are your own boss. A freedom enjoyed few other places for most. (With all the attendent risks to be sure.)
Sincerely, Frank
P.S. You've got to admit Poker has it all over most any other table game including Chess etc.
If your having trouble go down a limit or two and think a bit on the game. I know it sounds silly, but keep a ledger (or spreadsheet) and a journal. Analyze you game and experiment with changes. Stop when you are to tired to describe to yourself what you think is going on in a game. Try to see the value of the math and the psychology as best you can. I've found it (though not a silver bullet) to help some.
Thankyou Frank, Vince, Tex and others. I know it sounds crazy in poker to "think or care about the weak/meek losing", but funny enough I never think about it during the battle, I'm there to take the pot, walk away a winner,etc. I have kept records (weekly) for 11 years, it's just a hobby for me, poker. I play $5-10 up to $25-50 and PL and NL cash games. I had one losing year (-$1230) all others I've won (+$10,665 in 1998). I'm still learning about the games and find my home games a great escape from real life. Thanks again folk for all your insites..ethics/morals are a personal thing and in poker they are part of many players. Dazzler!
Daryyl,
Your welcome. A final thought. If you think a particular situation is immoral...abstain from it. There's no shame in living to your convictions and no shame in compassion.
You always have the option of pointing a loser in a new direction, etc. You know, teach a man to fish and all.
Sincerely, Frank
Posters here generally offer solid advice.
My question is: How often do you guys out there practice what you preach? Put another way, how often do you make a play which if you analyzed it on the Forum, you would say was a play that was poorly made.
God knows that I don't always play error-free sessions. I may know the way to get there but there are times when I feel that I don't know how to drive the car.
I just wondered if you guys out there go home after a session now and then kicking youself about a play you made here and there. If so, what types of errors occur most frequently and which ones are the most costly (both from a financial viewpoint and a psychological viewpoint i.e. in the sense that what types of errors bother you the most which might result in your game deteriorating even further during that session). Perhaps we can get a general feel for the types of errors that we (who should know better) make on a (hopefully) occasional basis and what we can do to reduce the frequency of such errors.
My most frequent error is calling when the pot odds dictate a fold. I don't know why I do this, but I know even as I am writing this, that I will do it again. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Black Jack
Ouch! I used to make this error, but now I count the pot and I make FAR fewer of these errors! I pay strict attention to pot odds when calling for draws and my game has improved as a result... I'll even hold up the game for a few seconds if I lose track to re-assess the size of the pot before calling!
I agree.This is a fault of mine also.Paying attention to pot odds cant be stressed enough.
Just one error that adds up to others --
Playing Too Many Hands when I know better.
Doesn't happen that often anymore, but when it does I take a break and get back to business on the right side of the ledger. The break seems to bust the 'gamble' in me and returns me to solid plays...
Dead
skp:
I think most of the forum posters do make an effort to practice what they preach, and their advice is usually good. However, we all no doubt make the same types of bad plays you are talking about.
I find the biggest errors I make, both $ wise and psychologically, are folding when I should call, especially on the river. Although these errors are rare for me, they have the biggest psycological impact on my game. I have a new rule for myself, I even put a little mark on my hand to remind me while I play:
TIGHT BEFORE THE FLOP AND ON THE FLOP, LOOSE ON THE RIVER.
Calling when you should fold is much less of an error than folding when you should call! One bet vs. the entire pot!
Last night (5/10) an opponent bluff-raised me when I had a straight (on the flop) but a third diamond hit on the turn (he just called on the flop). I certainly didn't expect such a bluff from this guy, but I called him anyway since the pot was big (pretty loose game). He bet into me again on the river and I called, fully expecting to pay off his flush. He had top pair from the flop with no diamonds and a medium kicker! I saw that even paying off his raise and his bet on the river would have been small potatoes compared to the big pot I won with my straight. Had I folded the best hand, I would be finished for the night, either leaving an otherwise good game or playing much worse after that!
Much of the ideas that led me to the conclusion to call his bets came from 2+2 and related/recommended sources. As I said, I was totally surprised by this opponent. My card reading/people reading skills are my weaker areas, but I know the math / odds / statistics part of the game well. When an opponent is too tricky for me to be certain about his holding, I revert back to straight game theory. And theoretically, the pot was big enough to justify a call, since there was a small but significant chance he was bluffing and I still had the best hand (there was also a lower straight possible but not likely). If I had been wrong and he had the flush, I would not have been very upset about it.
Of course I may interpret 2+2 materials differently than others, and I may even miss the point sometimes. If I post it on this forum, I will no doubt get plenty of feedback, good and bad! (I expect the play in this message could get some interesting feedback, feel free...).
my mind says to fold while my hands are putting the chips in the pot. thats my biggest error. lucky for me the games over the years have gotten more aggressive with much more bluffing near the end so it turns out my error has net me a gain over my life. my next error has been to play too long. the rest are nobodys business today.
unrelated to above post to those that are making small talk posts or personal messages on the forum you are taking the time of thousands of others every day. you may feel you get seen better here on the T&S forum for the post rather than the exchange forum but soon others will bypass and they should all your other contributions if thats what they are. i am doing it.
my biggest mistake is trying to play "too tough".
ive been in hands where my ace high would have won against 2 or 3 opponents(at showdown).
maybe i remember these times too much.
as a result, sometimes i hang in there when i know i (should) be beat.
i even try to rationalize it as 'playing deceptively', etc., but i know my play in this way is way neg EV.
"Put another way, how often do you make a play which if you analyzed it on the Forum, you would say was a play that was poorly made."
I would rather play against opponents who think that they make no or very few errors than against those that KNOW that they do make errors...
If you recognize an error, you tend not to repeat as often.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
albert
SKP,
This is a new question with the same old answer. The answer is: Call when you should fold! This is and will always be the most costly error a poker player can make!
Vince.
Every night. I always leave a game feeling like I gave away some of my profit, and I resolve to play better next time.
I think my biggest error is not following through on my convictions. For example, The other night I had Ace-high, and I felt that the person leading the betting was on a draw (I was on the nut flush draw). That person bet the river when a blank hit, and I just CALLED with another person to act behind. Of course that person called with 2nd pair and took down the pot.
Tonight in Omaha, The flop was 55J. I had 5678. A tight player bet, I raised, and two people called behind me. I made a mental note that I was almost certainly beat, and was probably drawing dead. On the turn, the tight player checked, I checked, there was a bet behind me, tight player called, and I called.
The river was an 8 of course. Tight player checked, I checked, last player bet, Tight player called, I called. Tight player had A5, player behind me had JJ. I knew I was beat on the flop, but I let the check on the turn fool me into thinking that maybe I had the best, then lost my discipline when the player behind me bet and the tight player called. The river was an easy call once I tightened up.
My biggest mistake I make is not playing my best game. I will play when I am not in the right frame of mind and expect to automatically outplay the opposition. Doing that tonight caused me to only win $10 in a really soft game.
Randy,
Your two recent posts imply, to me, that you lack confidence in yourself. Stop that! Give yourself sometime to gain the experience you need at this game. Then evaluate your game. Do not beat yourself up when you make mistakes. Learn from them! Enhance your strengths and eliminate your weaknesses through study and practice. Believe in yourself and move forward!
God, I love that kind of talk!
Vince
Vince,
That other post wasn't mine. For the record I have no lack of confidence and I am certain we have played togehter, I just don't know what you look like.
Randy Refeld
Vince is a fifty two year old. Bald with a goatee. People compare him to Sean Connery. Look for him at Orlean's or Bellaigo.
Dear Randy,
I've been playing for a little more than a year and I have recently stopped a bad losing streak that started at the WSOP(World Series of Poker).You said you were a novice so that's why I spelled it out; Don't think I'm belittling you with the abbreviation. Anyway, I am convinced that I haven't been playing that poorly but that there is room for improvement. The fact is, you can play crappy cards and still be a huge winner for a night and you can play great cards and get beat to death in a session. The key is to play your best all the time!! I played 10-20-40 tonight and was stuck 500 in 2 hours. I was catching cold cards but I also made a couple of bad calls. I bought 200 more which was all I had with me and cashed out a 465 winner;1165 in one more hour of play and went to the movies. I would like to tell you that I played superhuman that last hour but we both know that wouldn't be true I had AJs and the flop came KQ4 with two clubs(I had hearts) It was capped before the flop.I had put in the 1st raise UTG.One person had pocket K's and one had Pocket Q's I obviously checked the flop and it was two bets before it got back to me with 6 callers. I called figuring I was getting good enough odds to catch 3 10's(I didn't want the 10c).Lo and behold the 10s fell. I checked, the K's bet, the Q's raised and I raised(There were 2 callers in front of the sets and I wanted to make them pay to make a flush) Everybody folded to the sets and I got $80 more on the river.One of the limpers told me he folded a little club draw. What I am saying is play the best you know how and don't get down on yourself. I did after a bad play I made at the World Series and I played bad for a few sessions after that so move on and make your next move your best.
It's 4 in the morning and I'm delirous,
sorry for rambling,
Russ
I would say 90% of my sessions I make at least one play I kick myself for. Last night, I has a session where I generally played very solid and was quite happy with my play. But I made one bone-head maneuver. I had KJ in the big blind and was raised by a player who bet, raised, and called too much. I called. The flop was 974. I checked, he bet, and I called. So far, no problem. This is correct play versus this player. The turn was a ten, giving me a gutshot. I checked, he bet, and I raised. Now against a strong player, this is a reasonable shot, but against this guy it was madness. The river was a deuce, I bet, he called, and I lost to pocket sixes. Against a lot of people, I would not have minded my play, but against this guy it was madness.
William
skp,
In board games I like end seats for comfort reasons and tend to gravitate towards them when they open up. Unfortunately, a middle seat or seat next to the dealer is often better for tactical and/or strategic reasons (of which most of the forum readers I'm sure are aware).
Being lazy about this costs me a significant amount of money and I believe I'm not the only one out there with this type or weakness.
Regards,
Rick
Rick, I was going to expand on this thread but I am tied up today and probably can't spare any time to the Forum.
Just one question though (I'll check for your response later tonight):
What do you mean by saying that the middle seats or seats 1 and 10 are strategically best? I don't think I follow.
I ask this because I too gravitate to the corner seats i.e. seats 2,3,8, or 9 for comfort reasons.
Thanks for your anticipated response.
skp,
Perhaps I used a poor choice of words. What I meant was that when the middle seats are better (let's assume the conventional wisdom of keeping tight predictable players on your left and loose aggressive players on your right), I rarely give up my comfy end seat for the middle seat unless it is an awful lot better.
BTW, the conventional wisdom (often discussed on rgp) may have some flaws worth discussing on the forum in the future. For example, is the maniac best on your right (conventional wisdom) or somewhere else? Unfortunately, I have to avoid starting any posts that require any attention for the next month or two due to other responsibilities. In the meantime, I'll be lurking and making an occasional comment as time permits.
Regards,
Rick
interesting...
I gravitate towards end seats because I can get a better view of opponent reaction across the table.
KOP,
I tend to agree. The middle seats are the worse.
One thing I need to work on is using a consistant pattern of behavior when following the action. Obviously it is important to watch your opponent for tells, etc. In order to disguise your level of interest in the hand, I believe you must always use the same method when scaning the players. For example, this means you must pay attention even when you intend to toss your hand when it is your turn to act.
Regards,
Rick
1. Playing too many hands when I know better.
2. Loosing track of the pot late in a hand.
3. I'll get hot inside me if I believe I made a mistake such as throwing two bets in on draw that I know will be no good if I hit and then hitting it.
4. Biggest problem -- not seing the long run, trying to win every session (oh man if I could fix this one, this one is draining)
5. I will never call if I think the odds are not right (oops... I guess this one is not a problem after all)
The worst category of mistakes I think is playing incorrectly when you know that you are on some level. Here is an example.
10-20 hold'em. I'm in the big blind with AJs. Four limpers, and I raise, all call. The flop is J84 rainbow, none in my suit. I bet, a mid-position player raises, I re-raise, he caps it. Now, I am thinking that he has either a set of eights or fours. This is not the type of player who would play 84, and probably not J8, but maybe if it was suited. Now I am thinking that he has a set, and I know that I have only top pair. What do I do? yep, I call all the way and he shows down his set of 8's. Emotionally, I could not bring myself to release such a good hand after playing it so strongly, and I cost myself $50.
I heard a quote once that applies here, "It's not enough to *know* how to play well, you have to actually play well."
For me it's the *good* laydown, especially on the turn when I had the best hand which would have won in the showdown. Arrrrgh!
HI suspicious
sorry but i cann't find anyone that can answer the jackpot question even with your fomula. PLEASE solve and save me. (QUAD TENS LOSING, BOTH CARDS MUST PLAY IN BOTH HANDS)
THANK YOU
CRAIG
Ummm all you need now is to know n! = 1 (2)(3) ... (n) for example 3! = 1 (2)(3) = 6
I can't find mycalculator!
But this and the previous post should do ti.
Some one (?) still needs to post the quad tens being beaten by a straight flush...
I played in the limit tournament at the Orleans today. I finished at the 7th table. I was knocked out with the 2 red Aces by a Js9s. I also lost with Q,Q and K,K in this tourney. So who cares?
Anyway I only mentioned the above because I thought it would be a good lead in to the subject of this post. After being knocked out (4 hours of play). I decided to play a 7 stud $35 Sattelite. I finished second and got back my buy in so I decided to play another one. I finished second in this, my second stud satellite, and got back my buy in so I decided to play another one. I finished second in this, my third stud satellite, and got my money back and decided to play another one. By now I was pretty beat but what the hell. In my fourth $35 stud tourney of the evenning I finished 5th (of 8) but was knocked out, in my opinnion, not through any fault of my own (well you be the judge) but by the bad play of an opponent! Sounds like a whine doesn't it? But in reality I believe that it is a good topic for discussion. Let's see!
25-50 level, Antes T5 bring in 15. ~T300 was my stack size. I was dealt Split Queens (Qd6d/Qh), Highest door card on board and unduplicated.. The bring in (2h) bet I raised and was called by the 2d (T1000), 3s (T350) and the bring in (?). 4th street I got the Jh. 2d-3h. 3s-5c. Bring in - blank. I bet was raised by the 2d,3h. 3s-5c called! Bring in folded. I thought very hard about what in the hell the raiser could have. I concluded a big pocket pair and was going to fold! But I had seen this person (chip leader) play some prety questionable hands so I reluctanly called. (In retrospect, a reraise may have been a better play.) 5th street: Qh,Jh,5d vs 2d,3,2s vs 3s,5c,Ts. Dueces bet. T,5,3 calls (after long deliberation). Now it's up to me. I now feel that this person (deuces) doesn't have anything. I haven't figured out the other player but don't give him much. But now I am at a crucial point. I still have T140 left but if I call here I am just about pot commited and will most likely have to see the river and even call the river. Well any way to make a long story short I ended up all in and did not improve my Qs. The 3s,5c,Ts won the pot with Aces up. The deuces had just that! Deuces! Stright draw maybe - no. That was here hand. She did have an ace though. Well anyway I atttribute my being knocked out to the play of this deuces person. Now how ridiculous is that? She didn't force me to play this hand. Sour grapes or is there some merit to my complaint?
Comments are welcomed.
Vince.
sour grapes
Sorry, Sour Grapes
It is hard to reason why someone would be that aggressive with just a pair of 2's but everyone gets to play their own cards the way he/she wants. AND she had T1000 chips, so her play in the sat. was working for her at that time.
Vince, Vince, Vince... You have no idea how much I enjoy reading your posts.
Of course it was the deuces lady's fault that you got knocked out of the satellite. She's been gunning for you for a long time, and she finally got you.
After the satellite, she said that she didn't care if she won or not, just as long as she knocked you out of the money. She was so pleased with the result.
Have you learned your lesson yet, or shall I send some more of my friends out to get you?
Brett
3 Bet,
thanks for the sympathy. I knew that you would understand! I'm glad she confided in you, it helps prove my paranoia is not paranoia. It's the truth! Oh! BTW- I never did thank you for the whining lessons you gave me the last time we played together. You can tell from this thread that they worked just fine.
Vince.
I'm a novice and it clearly shows. 9-18 Holdem. My first hand at the table so I know nothing about the players. UTG calls, late position player calls, I'm on the button with pocket 9's and call (probably should've raised?). Small blind raises, big blind and rest of us call.
Flop is A66 rainbow. Small blind bets, big blind folds, UTG calls, late player folds, I call (maybe should've folded?).
Turn is a 4. Small blind bets, UTG calls, I fold.
River is a K. Small blind bets, UTG calls, small blind turns over pocket 7's and wins pot. UTG doesn't show his hand.
comments and suggestions for improving very welcome.
Improving what?
Your play of the hand? You said you maybe should have raised before the flop. Next time you are in this type of situation try it! Folding would not bet that bad a play here, calling was a mistake, raising may have been the best play. Try it next time. Mentally record the results. The small blind got away with his play this time. The play of UTG helped, coupled with the board, and raise by SB before the flop, it forced you to, correctly, fold the turn.
Whether you are a novice or not your kind of thinking and the fact that you are willing to learn indicates, at least to me, that you do not "need help badly". Just experience!
Vince.
BTW- do you know what Randy means to a Brit?
Randy,
I probably would have raised preflop and bet the flop & turn.
I agree with Vince here. Although, I doubt you ever "need help badly". I usually need help bad and ignore those that "help me badly"
;)
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
yeah i think i know what randy means to a Brit. heh. you're right, i need a lot more experience. i've only been playing holdem for a couple months now. i've got a long way to go.
Randy:
One of the best pieces of advice I received from this forum while still gaining experience is to "Raise or Fold".
While this rule of thumb is not meant to be taken absolutely litteraly, I think it could have applied to your posted situation.
The premise is, if your hand isn't good enough to raise with it probably isn't good enough to call with. Relating this to your post, the small blind was continously called, no other raisers and he (rightly) assumed weekness.
A bet pre-flop by you would have slowed him down, A bet on the flop or turn would have demonstrated strength and turned the tables on him.
Good things happen when you raise.
S. Doyle
P.S. I for the life of me can't figure out what UTG had.
i couldn't figure out what he had either after he mucked his hand. i was really ticked off too because if he didn't call, i would've played differently, like raising the flop or turn and calling the river. anyway, as i played awhile, he turned out to be a maniac who was also half-drunk. that explains it i guess. unfortunately it was my first hand at the table so i didn't know at the time.
"P.S. I for the life of me can't figure out what UTG had."
Neither can I, but he's welcome in my game anytime.
Q
Randy - You didn't play that badly here, as this is a difficult situation. The SB, when he bets on the flop, is representing an Ace or a six, and you could possibly dump it right here, or else decide to call him all the way to the river. My personal more conservative approach would be to dump it unless you "read" him for a bluff or semi-bluff. Staying in with an underpair is almost the worst drawing hand in hold'em (with the absolute worst being if you are in with an under-set). But your call on the flop and subsequent fold on the turn are inconsistent. The 4 on the turn is a blank, probably.
Yeah, a raise pre-flop would probably be better than a call, but if the SB re-raises and then bets the flop, see my previous paragraph.
Dick
i read him for an ace, which is what i (correctly or not?) tend to do when someone raises preflop. i would've at least called all the way if UTG didn't call. i figured one of them had to have an ace so i couldn't overcall. but you're right, it seems inconsistent to call on the flop and then fold the turn, as i'm not getting correct pot odds to chase a set and i didn't figure both of them had less than an ace or a six.
Randy
In my opinion, play your 99 like you have it or get rid of it! By raising pre-flop you could have been in a more commanding position. And instead of calling the flop, raise again or fold. You may have even wound up with the pot. SB may have given up on his 77, thinking you had a six.
On the other hand, if you think you're beat, get out. It wasn't a very good flop for your hand. So folding was the correct thing to do. These things happen....
Major errors:
==1== Playing high limit when your inexperience matters less against the more predictable lower limit players.
==2== challenging strategy based on the outcome of one instance. Obviously fold on the turn.
==3== Failing to make note of the kinds of plays these guys make, so you are ready next time you see them.
Minor Errors:
==4== Calling the flop.
==5== Calling the flop hoping to either snag a 9 or have the opponents check, when in fact the SB is going to bet regardless. Other players may very well check the turn and if so, the flop call against them wouldn't be so bad.
Major Successes.
==6== Admitting your inexperience to yourself.
- Louie
first hand was a 7 handed flop.. me on button with 10Ko.. unraised preflop ,,, flop comes 10 k 4 rainbow,, sb checked BB bets all call to me ,, should I have raised ,, i called,,.. turn a 8 still 7 handed,, sb checked,, BB bets 2 fold call call ,, then me again i slow play,, i called the river a 3 no flush possible,, Bb bets out all fold to the player on my right who raises,,,???? i reraised BB called its capped,,, BB AK ,, player to my right K8s,, ... second hand is a thinker ,,, pocket Ks in SB 5 way aaction on flop ,, K 9 3 rainbow,, i checked 2 bets all call to button who raises i called its capped in middle and we seethe turn 5 way,,, 4s to flush possible i checked its bet ,, called and called button,, raises,, i reraise,, its capped in middle with 4 players,, the river u guessed it 3s,,, i bet out ,, its called and folded and raised in button,,i make a crying call ,, .. any caomments?
first hand all played it badly. when you are being tricky there is a need to know why you are not playing straight forward. last hand why not reraise with kings full? if he has quads you lose, thats all.
I agree -- "crying call" with kings full? Bet your hand, bro!
"...i make a crying call ,, .. any caomments?"
It's not often i make crying call with Kings full of 3's and having the second nuts. I'm usually jumping for joy and capping it. Actually, make that never crying calls...
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
==1== slow play on flop not a disaster. Slow play on turn is a disaster, lets make all those other players pay. Even considering the cap on the end, I think you would make more money on this hand with a turn raise; and certainly over your life time.
==2== When raised on the end and you fear you are beat by the better but not the caller, recognize this as a textbook go-for-the-over-call situation. "Crying" is CERTAINLY not a word I would use in this situation. I'm sure there are more hands he'll raise with that do NOT feature the case two 3s. Without the caller, I would probably reraise.
- Louie
Louie: I agree that the failure to raise on the turn is disasterous here, but what does one tend to do on the flop when you flop a solid top two (as in the example) with a non-threating board, but it's 7-9 handed and bet early and called all the way to you in last or next-to-last? My tendency is to throw in an automatic raise, particularly when the opener might repop with a hand I can beat. It's occurred to me, however, that I might be better off just calling in the hopes of maintaining my probable lead.
When a multihanded pot has been raised preflop and there's a bet on the flop, won't a late position raise, in the long run, just make it harder for others to muck on the turn? It seems to me that the small increase in the size of my win will be outweighed by any increase in the likelihood that I'll lose the whole enchilada. Is there a rule of thumb here? (If not, would you be so kind to invent one? ;-)). In any event, is it fair enough to say that the slowplay on the flop by AcesJ was only "not disasterous" or should this be upgraded to "acceptable" or "recommended?"
Rule of Thumb 1: With more cards to come and you are THE or ONE of the favorite(s), then bet or raise.
Rule of Thumb 2: Routinely apply Rule of Thumb 1, but be willing to violate it if you have a solid specific reason.
Concept of Thumb 1: "Wait and See" has considerable merit if a future card can turn a bet into a fold (such as when you have bottom two pair, when the turn may make the obvious straight or flush or pair the top card). "Wait and See" has little merit if future cards may turn a bet into a call (such as when you have top two pair and an overcard will make you FEAR a bigger two pair).
Concept of Thumb 2: "Wait and See" has considerable merit when either you or the opponents are drawing slim, but you don't know which (such as if you call the UTG raise with AQs, flop an Ace, and this conservative player bets. He can easily have AK or JJ).
With a pre-flop raise and a flop bet and several players, their are FEW situations where it would be correct for an opponent to call one single flop bet and fold for a full turn bet, but to call two single flop bets and CALL a full turn bet (since the pot is now larger). And even when it IS correct, few opponents will be able to correctly identify the situation AND correct act on it. And when they do it makes little difference to you since their increase in expectation is much less than a single bet.
I routinely bet or raise with what is obviously the best hand, partly because I often bet or raise with what is probably NOT the best hand. Two exceptions come to mind: ==1== I need to confuse the aware opponents from time to time, and ==2== I figure to make a tactical or strategic double bet on the turn, such as when the flop CALLERs (on my right) are aggressive and favorites to bet the turn if checked to.
No, I can think of NO "recomended" slow play situation that did not have the feature that the opponents are likely to fold now but call later; that is, you figure to win a MUCH larger pot by slow-playing. However, "acceptable" is acceptable.
Be advised that my advise is partly based on my believe that "manipulating the size of the pot" rarely matters by more than a single bet, and is therefore never a prime consideration (at least to me).
- Louie
What year is the latest edition of THE THEORY OF POKER? How many pages? Your site lists 276, but other sites list 242...
What year is the latest edition of HOLD 'EM
Thank you
TOP is currently 276 pages. That will change with a new printing to be released shortly. The new printing is word for word the same as the current printing which was the same as the 246 page printing. So it doesn't matter which edition you get.
The latest edition of HOLD 'EM POKER is the 1997 edition. It says "updated for todays double blind structure" on the cover. It is 110 pages and has been sold since December, 1996.
I am starting to tire of the long drive it takes me to where I play Hold'em, and am considering seeking out private games.
I am aware that in my juristiction Private games are not legal and that I would be more succesptible to cheating, collusion and other negative aspects of the game.
Can any one give me some opinions on how private games "play" compared to traditional casino/card room games, or is this a venture that I should stay clear of.
Thank you,
S. Doyle
I have some anarchistic ideas so private games are fine by my standards. It would seriously help me if I knew your state of residence. All states have some special ordinaces (cities too) considering poker.See if the game is raked or free! (I wager to say that you WILL NOT find unraked game - and if so I would stear clear of a 'free' game. I suspect that crooked games i.e. cheating double dealing may be at big stakes home games. If they try to clean you out - maybe will offer food/drinks and NO RAKE ! All I can say is that it's best if you knew some players, the host etc. If they are all strangers I would move closer to casino games.
To S. Doyle,
I am associated with several different card games in H-Town that are great. Nice people, great food, justifiable rake for the 5 hour drive to L.C. in La. and back. I have never seen any collusion or heard of any. Good luck finding one in your hometown. I'm going to read the other responses so maybe I'll be back.
Russ
As for your home game concerns:
Check up on the specifics of legal concerns in your state/town. Other than knowing what the law is, I wouldn't be that concerned about legality. But make sure the game is discreet... especially if the laws are tough.
The atmosphere of home poker games can be very unpredictable, and there is no "floor" to be called to resolve disputes. Make sure you know at least one person in the game pretty well. If you are in a game where cheating is going on, my advice is to leave ASAP and don't play in that game again.
There are honest home games, and If you can find the right ones, they are a gold mine! But you can't "Extract" the maximum out of every player every week, or you won't be invited back. They are more a long term moneymaker.
As for strategy, if you are a real student of the game, you should be able to adapt fairly quickly to any structure game. Practice up on dealing with maniacs though.... Home games are usually much wilder and looser than casino games.
In Florida it is a 2nd degree misdimeaner if you are a player. But it is a 3rd degree Felony if you run the game.So if you just play it is only a small fine if the game gets busted,if that wont hurt you there are a lot of good games. I play a lot and take my chances.
During recent travels I encountered an interesting game structure: $2 to $10 spread limit Omaha. The game has $1 and $2 blinds, so the pot starts small. Seven or eight players would often see the flop for $2, although occasionally max bet raising wars would occur. A $10 preflop raiser would always hold an A,2, so weathering the raises with a decent high hand was quite profitable whenever the flop killed low hands.
On most rounds, a large number of players would limp in for $2. This makes for some interesting implied odds as the betting would normally jump to $10 after the flop. Any suggestions on playing this structure?
Chin Music,
I'm just going to make an educated guess here and would be interested in others comments. I've played plenty of structured limit Ohaha H/L and a little spread limit holdem so I'll try to combine what I know from both. I only have a few moments so this is not comprehensive.
Pre-flop (this includes calling up front expecting not to get raised; and be willing to dump against a full raise):
- open up with hands that have good implied odds and can hit the flop reasonably hard and make the nuts. Examples are KKQx suited, KT23 suited, A49T suited, A39T offsuit. These are all unplayable in a standard structure (except for maybe a button call).
- punish limpers with your strong hands by raising in late position.
Post Flop when the pot is small:
- don't go for back door draws as often. Bet sets and other made hands more agressively. Watch pot size carefully.
I have more thoughts but need to run. Sorry about that.
Regards,
Rick
Ray, if you have more thoughts since your post I'd love to read them. What you've said so far makes sense to me. My card room spreads exclusively spread limit games: 2-5 with a 4-8 kill, and sometimes 2-8 with a 6-12 kill. 75% of the live action is Hi/Lo split with either 2, 3, or 4 hole cards (HE, Tahoe pineapple, or Ohaha-- all Hi/Lo). It is common for players to limp in with some of the ugliest hands you'll ever see played-- even after a pre-flop raise or two!).
I've read that when playing in such loose games it's advisable to loosen up a tad, so in that light, what you've said confirms that opinion.
Thanks,
Doc
Raise more liberally pre-flop if this will induce the brain-dead types to chase with their 3rd and 4th nut draws. If they will chase anyway there is considerable merit in rarely raising and waiting until you get a very good flop.
If an opponent's raise means they have A2, then ALL your low draws reduce in value when someone else raises.
- Louie
Playing 1-5 at FW on Sat. Morn. I'm in a decent game, then everyone goes on an ante stealing rampage about 50% of the time. I have to leave shortly so I want to play more. I'm going to try and change the game if I get a chance. I come in with a 5s and the player to my left a good player raises with Kh making it $6. Everybody drops it comes to me and I have 5c6s/5s. I decided to call. I'm head to head and the next card comes X for him and 5d for me. It stays that way to the end me betting the whole way and him calling. Luck was on my side I realize, but it did change the game because everyone was watching that hand and it slowed down the ante stealing. He did have Kings, but I caught one and another person at the table said he had one in the hole. Fire away seat open!!!!
Paul
Paul what ante stealing? You playing 1-5 let your 5's go and if you think they're still stealing wait until you get kings and then let them try to steal
Only the most determined ante-stealers would steal UTG in this small-ante game. Give it up.
"Changing" the game does not seem like a worthwhile objective in this situation. But if it is, try 3-betting it with your little pair. THAT will slow them down much more than calling them down.
- Louie
Paul,
Forget about possible ante stealing as a reason to play small split pairs. My opinion here is: In any game at any level if you know your opponent will call you all the way to the river if you pair your door card then there is +EV in playing small split pairs against that (those) opponent(s) on third street. Even if it looks like you will be heads up and you have to call a raise cold. You must be sure your hand is live and your side card is suited or have a big over card kicker (preferably an A, in fact with a live A kicker your best play is to reraise) or at a minimum have a connector to a live straight.
Vince.
Paul, BTW- As far as anti stealing, what is the ante at 1-5 in FW? If it is .50 you would be wise to do as much of it as you can yourself. If it is $.25 or less then don't bother trying it and hope your opponents continue to try stealing. Poker is a game of mistakes. It is normally a mistake to make a big bet to win a small pot especially with a less than a good playable hand. When a stealing rampage goes on it is usually by one or two opponents. Be more inclined to play mediocre starting hands against them. Just don't get carried away. The key to starting hand selection in 7 Stud is to play live cards.
The structure at FW is very unusual. The 1-5 spread limit stud game has a .50 ante and a 1. bring-in. Then it's 1-5 spread limit throughout. Thus, someone can raise to 6. It's a very high ante game for such a low limit.
The 5-10 game has the same .50 ante with a 2. bring-in, and the first raise is to 5. Thus, it is much easier for the bring-in to call a single-raise in this game.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
I play a FW occasionally at the 1-5 stud table. Can you (and others of course) give me your opinion on the difference in the caliber of play between the 1-5 spread limit game and the 5-10 game. I am thinking of "moving up" (OK everybody, try not to laugh at once at me considering such as "big move"). I would appreciate any info, input or advice.
Jack
Hey Jack,
The difference of play between 1-5 and 5 and ten is like night and day. You will find much better play at the 5-10 level. Notice I said play not players. The 1-5 spread limit, especially with a $.50 ante invites loose aggressive play (in most cases over aggressive and extremely loose). 5-10, the first real level (IMO) in stuctured betting limits, normally exhibits very good play. The reason for this I believe is that players at the 5-10 level are more experienced than their 1-5 spread limit counterparts. They also respect money more (most of them) and therefore play a much more conservative game. When you move from 5-10 to 10-20 you will find even better play. Maybe the best limit stud play you will ever see is at the 10-20 level. If you consider yourself knowledgeable and skillful at poker then moving to the 5-10 level makes sense. Put in 1000hrs at that level and record your results. If you are successful you can move to either 10-20 or 15-30. 15-30 however plays quite a bit differently than 5-10 or 10-20. More aggressive play reins at this level. But it is where the fun is! BTW - when I say the best play you will see, I am referring to the play according to accepted tactical and strategic concepts. Concepts discussed here on 2+2 and by most poker authors.
Also your little self deprecating "... at me considering... such a big move" implies a lack of confidence in your abilities. If you move up and are not confident that you are makeng the correct move you will greatly reduce your probability of success. Think positive!
BTW #2 - I am "Leaving Las Vegas" in the morning. Heading for Massachusetts. I will play at FW for a couple of months. Look me up at the Holdem tables unless the games suck and then see me at the 15-30 stud table.
Vince.
Vince,
Thanks for input. It makes sense what you say. As far as my comment went "...moving up", I am just new to this forum and acknowledge that many of the regular contributors play higher stakes. I enjoy reading the postings and have learned alot. The fact that I get serious answers to my questions (as you provided) with encourage me to ask more questions and reply to some as well.
Getting back to your reply. Is is possible that if I play 5-10 I could do as well (or even better) than the 1-5 game, based on a better ante structure and play that is not so loose? I know playing 1-5, there are many times I'll start with the best hand (Split Aces for example), raise on third street and still have 4 callers. I'll end up aces up and somebody starting with a pair of 4's stays in when he shouldn't and makes trips or a boat on the river. FYI, as far as my result go at 1-5, I currently win only slightly more than half my sessions.
Thanks,
Jack I
Jack,
An intersting phenomena occurs at the 5-10 and 10-20 levels of poker. That is of all the stuctured levels up to 30-60 and possibly 40-80 these two leves play closer to how limit poker should be played. The ante structure aside it seams that the mentality of poker players at these two levels is singular consrvativism. In my experience at these two levels the big pairs are king. They hold up more often. I believe it is because there are more heads up situations. Whay is that? Respect for money by the players involved maybe. I'm not sure. Don't get me wrong I have seen some pretty wild games at this level but they are usually few and far between.
"..possible I would do as well or possibly better". Of course it is possible. But first you must stop measuring your success by the number of sessions you win. Poker is a never ending game with one infinite session. Measure your success over a period of time. That is why I recommended 1000 hours at the 5-10 level before evaluating your play. The answer to your question will become evident after that period of time.
Vince
I've never played the 1-5 game, because the structure is so conducive to loose play, that it kills my main edge over the other players. The 5-10 game is almost always good, and if you find a bad table, ask for a change, as there is rarely less than 3-4 of these going at any time.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Paul,
itygtalcayaoa3t2dihhk ahmhml i think you got to a least call as you are only a 3 to 2 dog if he has kings and he may have much less. especially since you will have position on him thru the hand and if you dont you likely will have as good or better a hand.
Thank You from the ABWC candidate. Your response was along the lines of what I was thinking minus the calculations.
Paul
Does anyone know anything about this game? I found a group of players that play this game once monthly and I could not believe my eyes when I saw the amount of money moving around the table. Being a Poker player, I scouted the game for a while. There were about 20-30 players with 2 huge craps like tables. playing this game is real simple. For those that don’t know it its like this;
One player is the bank
And in a counterclockwise rotation the players can make bets up to what the banker has on the table.
After bets are made the dealer rolls to establish the “point”
He rolls 3 die, and when he rolls a pair the off dice is his point. E.g. If he rolls 5-5-3 three is his point.
If the dealer rolls 4-5-6 or trips its an automatic win against the field.
If the dealer rolls a 1-2-3 or he rolls an Ace 5-5-1 its an automatic loss against the field.
So after the point is established. Say a 3, then the players will roll. To win your bet you must roll a higher point, if you tie it’s a push.
As the player if you roll 1-2-3 or 3-3-1 (ace away) it’s a looser
If you roll a 4-5-6 you win and have the choice to be the bank on the next roll.
So after watching the game for about 20-30 minutes I realized this is truly a game of chance, to play for fun I played with $5 each roll after 15 min I was up about $25 when I became the bank. And Then I doubled my money on two consecutive rolls. I then relinquished the bank to whoever wanted it. I played for a few hours on that money, but realized there was truly no edge, but the more I thought about it, there must be a betting system that can allow a player to win on a regular basis. If so can some body please point me in a good direction. This table has between $1000-$2500 on it any giving time.
Thanks Walleye
Sorry
What do you guys think about computer programs that simulate poker games? I'm trying to look for one that can simulate a low-limit game. I would guess that low-limit players would be easy to program since they play with less varibles that would affect their play. Anyone know a program that can do this?
Turbo poker games, Wilson Software. Check Archives for reviews/comments by others.
Another reason that I was looking into computer programs is to get free experience. Is this a good way to do it? Are computer programs very different from real games, or are they accurate? My friend says that I could borrow his copy of Sozobon Poker (to try out, and then I would delete it). Does Sozobon Poker give a realistic game of low-limit poker?
I don't know much about Sozobon (I tried a demo for a few minutes at one point) but I have used the Wilson products. I think they are good training when you start. I'd be careful about putting too much credence in the advisor. Instead think carefully about the hands and reference whatever books you are using. At some point you need live experience. Soon after that point I think the Wilson products a lot of their usefullness for training.
I have some doubts about TTH's ability to simulate a low limit game with any veracity so use your own judgement.
You have to set up your playing profiles very carefully... but others have done it and mentioned it here on Forum
With the Wilson software you can set up the game so that different players will drift in and out of the game.
In that regard does anyone out there have any good profiles they would be willing to share?
Woodman - As mentioned up this thread, it is hard to find computer programs or profiles that match very loose passive games. I got TTH for practicing last year, and in order to better simulate the games I play in, I had to build a profile much looser and somewhat more passive than any of the TTH profiles.
I took the profile "Regular Rube," which is described as loose, and loosened him up some more so he would play any A, K, or Q and any two suited cards, I also reduced his raising hands, but I forget exactly what I changed.
I actually recommend that you do this for yourself so you go through the tables and know what you are getting. But I am certainly willing to share this one; just e-mail me.
My feeling about using this for practice is that it was really valuable when I was a beginner at hold'em, because I could learn, without spending bankroll, which hands hold up and what gets drawn out on, what typical winning hands are for different type boards, etc. I put in many hours. Now that my game is more mature, I hardly use it anymore.
Dick
In the confessions thread ealier Rick N. Posted the following:
"Unfortunately, a middle seat or seat next to the dealer is often better for tactical and/or strategic reasons (of which most of the forum readers I'm sure are aware)."
I agree that certain seats have advantages/disadvantages; some being:
Comfort - less cramped on ends and corners. 1 and 10 possibly less bothered by smoke.
Viewing - Middle possitions; better view of the board, better view of most players though you must continously look to left and right.
I personnaly don't like to sit in 1 and 10 because I have seen to many players hands mucked accidently by dealer. (yes they should have been protected).
But for the life of me I can't think of any Tactical or Strategic advantages. I am well aware of seat position RELATIVE to other players or player styles.
I would appreciate if Rick or anyone else would care to expand.
Thank You
Well, in a game I was in recently, I was in # 1 seat and when the dealer would roll over the deck and quietly peek at the top card on the deck, I also got to: a) know he was doing it B} see the card on occasion c) know better than to play there again! Seriously, If there is funny busoiness going on, (and there is a lot more than you might suspicion), #1 & 10 seats are good spots to see it from. Personally, I enjoy the ends of tables so the better to see the other players from.
in the 9 handed games i play i like 2 and 3 or 7 and 8.
both on the end of the oval, easy to see all players (and their faces) without effort, and since i get up and stand / walk around the table at least once every round i don't bump the table behind me.
if i seems to cramped just spread your elbows out and stay, "oops excuse me". they'll move.
james...
Jodder,
I used a poor choice of words. Refer to my reply to skp in the original thread.
Regards,
Rick
Play in 5-10 game. I was an unknown at the table. My only two hands in an hour of play were a first in raise from SB (I refused to chop with AQs - comments?) and a raise from button, KTo, SB folded BB called then I bet the flop and he folded)..
I'm on the button with J9o. I raise the blinds, first in. In retrospect, I feel this was a bad move and would not do it again. Once I raised, SB folded and BB called as he said "on a steal again, eh!". The flop came Q-5-3 raindbow. I get check-raised on the flop, not wanting to be pushed around (which I think he's trying to do), I re-raise, he calls. An offsuit Ten comes on the turn, giving me open ended draw. He checks, I check. An Ace comes on the river, and he checks I check, and lose to a pair of 5s.
When check-raised I think I should have given up there. But once I re-raised, I got too cautious and once I was on the steal I likely should have bet on turn and river, or at least the river, considering the cards that hit.
Comments?
you got the right ideas now you need some practice and fine tuning. with tights in the blind ill always raise with any cards and with decent players that are tight i wouldnt throw away j9. in a game as tight as you are playing in where the action is folded to the button almost all of your profit comes from stealing blinds and playing well from them. good luck. you never chop with someone who has not yet called your bet or raise.
I would also attempt a steal with J9 on the button.
His comment to you was a signal that he didn't want to be pushed around, like those guys that grab their chips before you act and then call anyway, without hesitation (or call aggressively out of turn). He's not going to fold on the flop, but if he's got a really good hand why would he say anything at all while just calling your raise? So while I doubt he has much, I probably would have just taken the 4-card flop and then raised him on the turn.
But there's something disjointed about your taking control of the hand on the flop and following it up with . . . nothing. The most profitable effect of your three-bet on the flop was to get him to fold a better hand later, so that it your bet on the flop hedges the risk of future bets. It's ok to be unwilling to make future bets, but if this is your inclination don't go to war on the flop just to get cheap cards for your 3-straight undercard draw. Although I wouldn't have said this a year ago, I'm now convinced that the better play in this circumstance (having 3-bet the flop into a check-raiser) is to bet the turn. If he calls on the turn I'd check on the river.
I like the re-raise on the flop. Except - oops - then your opponent who made the check-raise calls your re-raise. Either your opponent has a very good hand or, considering the remark he made, is determined to make sure you are not trying a steal. Either way, it does not bode well for you. You do not have the cards to go to war on this hand, yet you are caught up in a battle.
Looking at it one way, you did exactly the correct thing. You did not make any more bets. You, probably wisely, did not go to war. If your opponent had bet rather than checking you would have folded. As it was you got to see the rest of the board for free.
By re-raising on the flop, you might have won the pot right there. In addition, the re-raise on the flop earned you a free card after the turn. Thus the re-raise on the flop was the correct play. As it was you had the bad luck to not end up with anything better than a pair of fives.
I wonder if your check on the turn was partly because the seemingly unfriendly remark made by your opponent put you ill-at-ease. In addition, it was possible that your opponent had a fine hand and was trying to set you up for yet another check-raise on the turn.
On the other hand, the ten on the turn is a pretty good card for you. In a normal situation you might want to bet - a semi-bluff - on the turn.
In addition, if you do not bet on the turn, then you are kind of stuck. If you bet on the river, considering the remark of your opponent, you almost surely will get called.
If you do not bet on the turn you get to see the river card free. You reason that the river card may turn out to be a winner for you. You reason that you may win two bets because, after checking on the turn, your opponent may bet on the river - and, if so, then you will raise if you hit the straight, and your opponent will probably call.
If you do bet on the turn you may get check raised again. At that point, of course, you would fold. However, if you do not get check raised on the turn, and if your opponent does not bet into you on the river, then in a normal situation you may finally be able to steal the pot on the river. However, in this situation it seems doubtful that your opponent would back down. And you are unaware that he only has a pair of fives.
All in all, I think you should have bet on the turn because -1- your opponent may give up at that point, -2- you win one more bet if you hit the straight on the river and your opponent calls, and -3- otherwise you are stuck - about the only way it seems you can win is if you hit the straight on the river.
The remark made by someone you did not know seems like an unfriendly remark, maybe a snide remark, maybe not. The remark is not overt enough for you to call the floor manager and complain, but it must have left you with an uneasy feeling, especially since you really were trying to steal when you were verbally accused of trying to steal. A better opponent, realizing he was giving you information by making the remark, might have played the hand the same way without making the slightly insulting remark. A gentleman would not have made the remark because of the chance that you might consider it to be an insult. The object of poker, of course, is to win money, but for most of us who play the object is also to have fun. It does not seem like playing against an opponent who makes unfriendly remarks would be much fun.
Amazingly, the same remark made by a friend would not mean the same thing. Perhaps your opponent did not recognize the difference and was even trying to be friendly to you. Honestly, I am capable of blundering into a such a remark just fooling with someone, just trying to be friendly.
Even so, given the remark and the play of your opponent, it seems like your opponent was choosing you off. Since he had to show his hand first you could have mucked yours. I hope you did and that you also left the game at that point.
And now a question for you. Every time I type an apostrophe or quotation marks or a parentheses sign - a strange symbol appears in what is posted. I thought it must be the font I am using but I have tried a couple of different fonts with the same result. What is the secret?
Refusing to chop with AQs. What cards you have shouldn't matter in your decision to chop or not, unless you and the person next to you have an agreement (explicit or implicit) that you'll negotiate the chop each time. Typically, you should either chop every time, or not at all. There are very few players who will react other than extremely negatively if you chop once, and then won't chop later. My pattern is to always chop in a rake game (as it's hard to beat a full rake in a heads-up pot over time), and to never chop in a time charge or no charge game.
The hand. Your rereraise on the flop may be the correct play, depending upon your opponent and what you think he has. However, it can only be the correct play if you're going to continue bluffing all the way. By 3-betting the flop, you're implying that you've got at least top pair with a good kicker. If so, why would you check the turn? If not, why did you 3-bet the flop? After you checked the turn, even if you had bet the river, he's probably going to be so unsure what you've got that he'll just call you down. If you had bet the turn and river, that A on the river was the PERFECT card to win you the pot (other than the K or 8, which would give you the nut straight). Since he didn't have an A (admittedly, you can't know that), it's exactly the card he doesn't want to see. It fits in with someone who's been overplaying AK and just got lucky against the other guy's made pair.
Maybe next time.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Thanks Greg, I appreciate your advice (I always do). In retrospect, I agree with your statements about chopping, especially since it was common etiquette in the cardroom and if I don't chop, it could create ill feelings that could hurt me later on.
I also agree, I should have bet on the turn, but my real question was when to let go a steal. I felt he was defending only and likely didn't have much of a hand, so I raised, but the call on my raise scared me a little. Fear is a terrible thing, especially to show once you've been aggressive. And as you say, I also possibly had "extra outs" on the river if I bet the turn, since as you say the A has to be a scare card and a bet on the river made have got him to fold. Oh well, still learning.
if he is like most 5-10 players (playing heads up), as soon as he called the reraise you were done unless you hit. he would have check called all the way to the river.
Call the flop checkraise. Semibluff bet on the turn. Pure bluff bet on the river. Good play before the flop.
If 3-betting was correct on the flop, then you should certainly have bet when you caught almost perfect and picked up a real draw. You should also have bluffed when the Ace hit the river, since that is likely to have hit your hand if you already didn't have anything.
Think about it, if he has a small pair then you have one of the few hands you can have that he can still beat (board AQT53).
- Louiw
I recently played in a game where I have a reputation as an incredibly TIGHT player. I have never bluffed and have always had a good hand when I was called. So recently, I got a guy in heads up play, and I checked to him and he bet. I decided to bluff him, so I raised him. He looked at me and said "you are the tightest player I've ever seen in my life" and he folded.
Now here is where I did something that I am not sure was correct. I decided to advertise my bluff, so I turned over my cards and showed that I only had 3rd pair. He was astounded that a player as tight as me had bluffed him.
The question is:
1) Is it better to keep my reputation as a very tight player and not show my cards?
2) Is it better to advertise my bluff so that people will think that I am unpredictable and make incorrect calls against me in the future?
From what I understand, it depends on the game you're in. If you are losing a lot of potential calls because people are bailing, and you AREN'T being a huge thief in disguise, then you might want to "advertise"...
However, you should turn up the theft attempts, until you get caught. That should be the only "advertising" that you need.
Hell, no, don't advertise it. Keep bluffing until they work out what you are doing.
William
In limit holdem, it is virtually never correct to show a bluff. You want people to think of you as a tight and solid player. There are many more times when you want folds than want calls; it's much more valuable to steal pots here and there than to get slightly more action on a monster. If they think you always have a strong hand, they are more likely to fold to your bluffs and semibluffs, and they are less likely to take shots at you.
When you realize certain other players in your game are folding too easily, you don't want to encourage them to start to call you. Instead, keep taking advantage of them and don't do anything to give yourself away. Above the lowest limit no-foldem games, (1) players realize that holdem is a game of strategy and not luck - so you don't have to pretend that it isn't, and (2) you want them to respect you as a strong player for the reasons above. (Never give strategy advice at the table or criticize bad play.)
its best to learn how and when to bluff and use it and never show your hand unless called and in turn. then you will make more money at poker. good luck.
These answers apply to full (8-10 handed) limit games
1) Yes. The structure of holdem (only 2 starting cards, community cards, the difficulty of hitting the flop, many opponents, 4 betting rounds, large blinds, etc.), means that you generally want your opponents to fold. You'll therefore win more by taking down pots with bluffs than by picking up a few extra bets from suspicious players. If your opponents call too rarely for your satisfaction, you can compensate with more frequent and/or more daring bluffs. If anything, show your monster hands and reinforce the wisdom of folding. (I think it's a better habit to never show anything more than what you have to).
2) No, virtually never, for the reasons above. The only time I can imagine that this would be correct is if you were against vulnerable players that were going to leave the game in the near future (the casino is about the close) or if you thought you could put a particular player on tilt.
2)
Although Ray Zee is correct that the best thing is to play good poker, once you have attained the skills you need, including when to bluff, you may need to occaisionally advertise. This will only be necessary if you are in a game where you recieve no action on all of your big hands. However, if you are not recieving any action usually the correct thing to do is to play more hands and steal and bluff more often. I know this sounds complicated but it really isn't. It is just a matter of being totally involved in the game and deciding what your best course of action is at the time. Instead of advertising it may be better to keep right on bluffing until you are called and forced to show down a busted hand. Make them pay!
Vince.
On a full table, in a live game, I don't think you should ever show your hand unless you have to. If they think you're tight, then so be it. Use that to your advantage. If you don't get called on your big hands, that's not all bad if you're still pulling in the pots, right?!
Contrary to my above post, in a limit satellite the other day, it was me and my opponent heads up for first. I started to play more aggresive, and ended up showing him a hand that I raised on, AQo. For this situation, I think it helped me win the satellite as we never saw more than the flop on any remaining hands except for the last hand. Out of about 10-15 hands heads up, I folded one. ????? Use your best jugdement of your opponents.
If the game you were playing was holdem it definitely is better to keep your tight player reputation.
Jaws,
Certainly a tight image is the desired one. However a rock image is not. Ensure you are viewed as a tight tough player! Sometimes, very infrequently, advertising a bluff by a very tight player is a correct strategic play.
Vince.
You're right. Tight tough(aggressive) rules especially in fullhanded holdem. But the inevitable show downs (once one is finally caught bluffing) will take care of the advertising.
Are the new versions of the Stud and Hold 'em FAP books in stores? I have been calling all around the Chicago area to find them, and have had no luck.
Has anyone seen them, if so, where? Is someone hoarding all of the copies to keep their competition in the dark?
Thanks.
try getting them from this site as Chuck is making all this happen. he ships them out quickly and you have someone who will respond to your problems if a mishap happens. good luck.
Both Borders and Barnes & Noble carry our books. However, Borders has not worked the new version into their system as yet and not all B&N stores have our books. (We do expect Borders to order them in the near future.) As Ray says, why not order from this site. All orders go through ConJelCo and Chuck gets them out to you quickly.
By the way, they are well worth getting. We worked very dilligently on them and they each contain a large amount of new material.
I would recommend getting the books directly from the 2+2 site.
I had a huge horror story when trying to order HPFAP from a large chain. I ordered it from the store in OCT 98 was told 4 to 6 weeks for delivery. Funny thing was It was cheaper to order direct from 2+2 but I have been apprenesive bout ordering on-line.
Needless to say 6 months and numerous phone calls and many complaints the book STILL wasn't in. I had finaly had it when the last excuse came in and told the "clerk" I was nolonger willing to accept "we don't know when it will be here" She said fine and moved on to the next customer.
There is a good side to the story, I went home faxed a letter to the store and copied the Companies head office and within two weeks obtained a free copy. (Yahoo, and its already paid for itself).
The Moral of the story, Order direct from 2+2, its cheaper, faster and there is such thing as Customer Service.
yes i agree buy from conjelco since we are using his site i did and they werer at a great price ifn you did it on the web and they got delivered in a jiffy
TWIMC,
I ordered from B&N and had no trouble. If you want to save the vig and gas why not go through ConJelCo they DELIVER. The last few books I ordered through ConJelCo came right to the door. My kind of service. Either way works, but since you are already on this Forum, why not make your life simpler order here.
Paul
so.. saturday i played in a pot limit game 2/5 blinds in my local establishemnt and had my best session ever.(3.5K) the cards were jumping out of the deck at me. sunday i played in the weekly nl tourney and was getting good cards and playing well..til...i was at the last table (9 players left out of 30 or so) paying 3 places (1500, 700, 300 approx)with basically the chip lead with 15 % or so of the chips. i had tons of time to wait for good hands in good position., by no means could i skate into the money but i could be selective and let other peopel bust out. i get sixes, call the blind (400), get raised by some one who plays high cards everyone folds and go into vapor lock and call. loose and am basically out of the tourney after 2 1/2 hours of focused play on one moronic call. so to all of you thanks for listening. and to the newer players on the block beware of vapor lock in tourneys and big bet poker
Mike-
Since you lack the willpower to make what you beleive to be the "right" play in the heat of action, try this:
Resolve to NEVER call an all-in tournament bet where you are at best in a 50/50 race. This includes usually AK, AQ, and most small and medium pocket pairs. (This would be similar to vowing to avoid other traps such as NEVER playing AJo in early position in a tough game). Of course you need to take note of the exceptions such as:
1) You already have 25-50% of your stack committed to the pot since you were the initial aggressor.
2) You only have enough chips for a couple rounds of blinds nd a 50% chance to double through is welcome.
3) The bettor is short chipped and you have a chance to knock him out while risking less than 15% of your stack.
4) The bettor is Robert H, or some other guy that likes to move all-in with any (and every) pocket pair. In this case, 7s and up actually have a decent chance of being a dominating hand.
Of course, feel free to raise the other guy all-in with impunity when you suspect it is a race. And don't overuse the last exception, though, as it defeats the purpose of the resolution.
An interesting hand last night in 10-20.
UTG (a fairly good player) makes it 2 bets. A (normally) solid player to my right takes it to the third floor. I am in the cut-off seat and pick up the red Queens.
How do you like my hand here? To be honest, I know what Ray is talking about...my brain said "fold" while my hands were fumbling for 6 chips. I called and UTG also just called. We take the flop 3 handed.
Flop: Jd5s4c
As expected, UTG checks. To my surprise, The solid (?) player also checks.
I check.
Turn: Paydirt! the Queen of Spades.
To my dismay, both players still check.
I bet. UTG raises and once again to my utter amazement, the solid (??) player cold-calls. I 3 bet and UTG caps. The solid (???) player calls all raises.
River: The ghastly Ks
UTG groans and checks. I am shocked when the solid (????) player checks. I take the chicken route and check. UTG gleefully turns over JJ. Solid player (?????) mucks. I turn over QQ and scoop the pot all the while wondering what the hell is going on.
Questions:
1. In limits such as 10-20 r 15-30, does the old adage "raise or fold" apply in this situation where both the raiser and the 3-bettor are generally solid players?
2. Do you check the flop here?
3. Do you value bet here on the River?
4. If the solid player (trust me, he is generally solid) had bet the flop, what do you normally do and why?
Doh! I don't know what I was thinking when I revealed my opponents' hands in the question? Sorry guys - that little faux pas might take away from a more objective analysis...oh well.
I don't know what you were thinking when you played this hand. Limit poker is played with a limit for good reason. The reason is that you can't go broke on a single hand. Reraise preflop. Find out what is going on. Call preflop, not a bad play either. See the flop and bet this one! So you get check raised. So what! Call. From there you play as you did. Next time, though, ask to see this so called solid players hand. Then we won't have to guess.
Vince
Ya, that's putting things in perspective. Thanks.
As for the solid player's hand, I'd be interested in your guesses.
I can only think of 2 possibilities:
1. AA
He checked the flop expecting that I would bet so he could raise.
He then checked the turn for the same reason fully expecting that I would not likely give up the opportunity to bet after both my opponents checked twice. He planned to checkraise but his plan got foiled when UTG put in the raise. Thereafter, his calls were of the crying nature.
2. K,10 suited
This is somewhat unikely though. He knows that UTG must have a hand raising from his poor position and therefore likely wouldn't 3 bet it preflop. As well, with this hand, he is more likely to semibluff the turn.
The solid player may have had a middle size pocket pair, raised preflop to get heads up with UTG, and you spoiled his party.
On the flop his (8's 9's T's) look mighty sick what with skp hovering on his left.
Larry
A,A or outside chance of A,K, yes A,K.
Vince.
BTW - Edjumacate me! What pray tell is the cut-off seat?"
A solid player isn't going to call the second and third raises with an AK if he doesn't have back door flush possibilities.
I agree. But solid was SKP's description not mine.
Vince.
Cut-off seat is the seat one to the right of the button.
I can't put solid on AK b/c he:
-likely would have bet the flop
-likely would not have coldcalled 2 bets (and then 2 more)on the turn
- had he called the raises on the turn, he may well have bet the river representing spades.
...but then again, he played the hand like ...well..a rookie...so who knows.
SKP
Sometimes even solid players go off. They get a free card on the flop. Pick up the nut straight draw on the turn. See potential for a big pot and make a big mistake. I don't believe that A,K was his hand but there is a slight possibility. The "disgust" exhibited by solid that you mentioned may be directed towards himself for misplaying the hand.
Vince
If you're sure that you're up against another big pocket pair (as skp was), then this flop is an utter, total disaster. Why bet the flop, and WHY in hell would you call a check raise? Aside from the pre-flop call (which in this case was marginal, although we've all done it) I think he played it perfectly (although one can construct an argument for betting the river).
If he calls preflop, he obviously feels that hes not up against a bigger pair. If thats the case, I feel he should bet the flop.
It's not that simple. All indications are that he changed his mind, and that somewhere in between the pre-flop call and the flop decided that the call was a mistake.
Ya, as Dan points out below, if I can't bet on a Jack high flop if checked to, I can't call preflop. As I conceded above, I believe that was mistake No.1. However, as Vince points out, I am too much of a rookie - I still find it hard to lay down QQ pre-flop (hey man, I am no full time poker pro, I am here to gamble!). I should say that the call may not necessarily have turned into a mistake if the button decided to join the party. If that happens, it was a near cinch that one or both blinds would have also come in. In that case, I wouldn't mind my QQ.
If 6 guys saw the flop, you can be sure that I would play the hand more agressively than I did. In other words, if it were checked to me on the same flop with 6 people - I am betting for sure because I would think that there is very little chance that the solid player to my right would just check a pair bigger than mine.
SKP,
You certainly don't feel that I believe that you are a "Rookie"? Give me a break!
Vince.
Vince, Of course, I knew that you were joking...and that's exactly how I took it ...all in good humour. But, I did make a "rookie" error in calling pre-flop given where I thought I stood.
SKP,
There is such a thing as trying to play to good or great. Your preflop call was not a poker mistake. If so it would be calling when you should fold or callng when you should raise. You may have thought you were beat, defensive mechanism, but your poker instincts took over. "I just might have the best hand." If It is the best hand how to play it. Most would say raise. But if you are up against AKs and a pocket pair you are not a big favorite. So even with the best hand in your position the best play may just be to call and see the flop. If you are wrong you may just be able to get away from the hand for 1 big bet. Not a high price to pay for a good shot a big pot.
Vince.
Hey man, forget this being a Poker Pro crap in your brain. No Poker Pro has ever laid down two Q's Pre-Flop in a limit game against 2 other players unless he saw the other players cards with his own two eyes. Their are a lot of differences between a pro and you and I, but the main one is they get as much money out there when they know they have the goods, and protect their money when they don't.
They still make bad calls and other mistakes on occasion but not very often...
He was confused by the flop double check. He was almost certain he was beat preflop. He expected, at the least, a semi-bluff bet on the flop. It seems he checked the flop out of confusion and fear. His suspicions were right. The preflop call was a mistake, but the slowplay saved him and minimized his initial error.
Excuse me! The preflop call was not a mistake.
Vince.
It's a mistake IF you think you're up against a bigger pocket pair. When deciding to call, raise or fold, you can't just look at your hand and decide if it's 'good or bad', but must take a large and often confusing set of circumstances into account before making your decision. There are some players against whom I'd have no problem capping it if all I had were a pair of 9's, or AQs. Against others I'd automatically fold J's, and in some extreme cases Q's. If you're saying that calling with Q's was unconditionally 'right', then you're not accounting for all relevant factors.
GD,
First of all unless there is a lot of action (preflop) by a couple of solid (non tilting) players you can almost never ("rocks" that only reraise with big pairs are rare and the exception) be sure that someone has a big pair. Secondly even if you "know" that a player wouldn't reraise without a big pair it is not always a mistake to call (preflop) with a weaker hand. The fact that you "know" what the player has is a big advantage that you shouldn't surrender easily.
Besides I don't like your condescending tone towards me. Must I continuously remind you that I am your 2+2 posting buddy! For Pete's sake! Treat me kindly. I am an older person!
Vince.
GD,
This is the 3rd time I've tried this response. Der compuuter done flocked up der last 2 times. Early raiser: A,J, AQ, A,K, T,T, 9,9; Solid raiser AKs. Hero SKP cold cals 2 raises, Hmmm. Flop as described. Both raisers play hand as described. What is the hero's best course of actio, Bet. Find out what is going on. He won't get check raised by the set of Jacks, for sure. And he won't give a free card to hands described. If early check raises then a call is in order for the simple fact that A,J is a likely hand given this scenario. If "solid" check raises then a fold may very well be the correct play but not automatic. Pot size must be considered and whether or not early is still in the pot. If early is still in the pot then a fold is probably correct. You don't want to get middled here by two raisers. The Q coming on the turn is not a factor in the play of this hand on the flop. He got lucky. But he didn't know that he needed to get lucky! There was a good possibility that he was ahead. He bets the flop to find out. If he gets called in both places he proceeds with caution depending on the turn card.
That's it in a nutshell. BTW- Don't curse when you respond ("Why in the HELL"). It's not good for your image not to mention your soul. And stop "sucking up" to SKP. Played it "perfectly". Give me a break. He's a rookie and should be treated thusly. He certainly wasn't sure preflop if he were against a big pair as you suggest or he would have nucked. What would make him sure that he was against one on the flop. Nothing except a bet! BTW if solid had A,A or K,K then trying for a check raise was a mistake (and you can take the label solid off of his pectorals)!
Vince.
Vince.
Three things
1) I curse all the time, and will undoubtedly continue to pepper my posts with tawdry, superfluous language, fearlessly pushing the borders of good taste with jaw-droppers like 'hell', 'damn', etc.
2)I'll suck up to whomever I want.
3) I won't go into a big discussion on this, but it's clear the skp figured he was up against a big pair and 'accidentally' called before the flop. William James, the noted philosopher and founder of psychology, once theorized that all of us work on what he called a 'belief-action principal', whereby one can determine what they TRULY believe by how they act. His theory was originally meant to serve as a refuatation of Descartes' rationalism, but like all great philosophical concepts (see: Kierkegaard) this one also applies quite nicely at the poker table. Hence, when skp checked the flop, he did so because he believed he was up against a big pocket pair, and decided to cut his losses. What made him call pre-flop? Probably force of habit, or a general unwillingness to lay down the third nuts before the flop. He...ck, we're all guilty of this, and there's nothing unusual about it. I know I've been in plenty of situations where the 85 year old lady in front of me's made it two to go, and I've lamely looked down at my pocket K's, knowing that I might as well have deuces. Still, I call anyway...
Furthermore, whenever there's a pre-flop pissing war, the pot's head's up or two ways, and the original agressors check the flop, there almost always setting you (or the other guy) up for a check raise, or gearing up for some kind of tricky turn play. Couple this with the fact that this is maybe the worst flop you could get for Q's when you think your up against a big pocket pair, and you might as well check along and pray you spike it on the turn. Should you choose to bet here, your suggestion of calling the check raise is, IMO, utterly without merit, unless perhaps the UTG player folds and the original reraiser pops it. You seem to think that AJ is a legitimate raising hand in early position, but most people would disagree (unless it's suited), and any solid player worth the name is going to have serious reservations about check raising skp here with a pair of J's or worse, since our hero COLD CALLED two raises in a short handed pot, which suggests an absolute monster starting hand.
In short, skp seems to have decided that the pre-flop call was a mistake after he made it, and played accordingly. Had he decided the pre-flop call was a good move, then I'd have to say he should have bet the flop, and 'maybe' three bet it if it came to that. But just calling pre-flop does NOT mean that you're 'stuck with the hand'.
GD,
Apology Accepted! But a simple I'm sorry would have been enough!
Vince.
Three betting QQ from late position when checkraised in this situation seems to have some positive things going for it, but could you get off the hand if the turn was a blank instead of the queen and UTG leads out?
No! Pot too big now mon!
Vince.
Pot too big only if reasonable chance QQ still best hand. Pot not big enough to fish for only two cards in river. UTG calls reraise and leads out on turn, UTG has QQ beat.
Andrew,
O.K. So throw it away. Make that good lay down. Next time I just may bet A,J the same way.
Vince.
Geez, I'm just going to have to call YOU down all the way to the river anytime we're heads-up whenever there's any doubt at all. Good thing for skp you don't play up there with the Canadians! Seriously, it would have been hard to believe you would have bet out on the turn with top pair best kicker after your flop play was reraised. That's not an easy play to make knowing you could be raised again, so I guess I'm glad I don't have to play against you every day.
1) Raise or fold: I would raise. I'd hate to see an Ace or King flop and be beaten by a blind or the original raiser who you let in with A-xs or something similar.
2) You must bet the flop. With Queens, you don't want to give a free card.
3) You do bet the river. You don't fear a flush or straight (runner/runner) and you don't fear pocket kings after both players have checked.
4) You raise. You have an overpair and you don't want any other players coming in.
Generally, I would agree with everything you have said. However, the fact that my opponents were solid players changes the equation a little bit.
Here, looking at the play in retrospect, I really still believe that I was in tough shape before the flop and a fold may have been the best play (but it's pretty damn hard to lay down them pocket Ladies - really, in a situation such as this, one can envision 22 being better than QQ as you certainly stand to lose less with 22 and likely win as much).
The flop check is the play which I think is most questionable but not because I would be giving a free card. I could already be beat by one or two bushwhackers AND in any event, if I am not beat, these characters between them probably have an Ace and a King in their hand and in all likelihood one of them could have AK in which case they are not going to go anywhere with a single bet on the flop. So, IMO, giving a free card is not a big concern here (particularly given that the pot is contested shorthanded and is still fairly small). Also, by betting, I open myself to a fancy checkraise by AK and I may in fact be talked into throwing my hand away.
The check is questionable because I find out nothing about my opponent's hand. Had I bet and been checkraised, I would likely have a better idea that I am beat and could have an easier time laying down on the turn or something (But note the fancy AK checkraise problem alluded to above).
BTW, the fact that the flop was Jack high also was not a good sign for me. Assuming that my opponents (and in particular the solid player) have either a premium pair or AK, a Jack high flop is probably the worst one for my hand.
I agree with you that a value bet may have been called for despite the Ks hitting. As you say, it's unlikely that the solid player would check his top set or flush here (but I was so confused by his actions, I decided to just check it down).
This looks like some fuzzy thinking skp. You gave anyone with an ace and/or king infinite odds to catch on the turn. Solid player would have bet AA KK or QQ into you on the flop, he's probably not going to like a possible checkraise from UTG (let's assume he has big slick instead of the set of jacks) any more than you would. If you bet the flop and make it three bets when UTG checkraises, ANY action you see ahead of you on the turn will not be deceptive! Suppose an offsuit deuce hits the turn and either player bets, you're not going to be looking at a semibluff from anyone except a stupid or very sophisticated player. If you bet the flop, and are not raised, you can be more suspect of a bet (or checkraise) on the turn from UTG. I really think that none of the options for QQ pre-flop are mistakes (fold, call, cap), but I would be inclined to smooth call simply on good position alone.
It seems like both player's wanted to check raise- Solid player probably had AKs, KK, or AA to 3 bet. I think with your hand, if I didn't 4 bet pre-flop, I would have definitely bet on the flop since you had an over pair. I'm a little confused as to why 'your brain said "fold" while your hands were fumbling for 6 chips!' You had a very strong hand AND position on your opponents! It would be a tough lay down to fold a high pair in the hole preflop and especially after the flop you got!
If the solid player had bet on the flop, I would have raised to try and raise out the UTG player- certainly he would have re-raised and probably bet out on the turn, where you could have raised him again since you had top set! On the river, I like the check since the board is showing 3 flush. Nice hand!
Oops! Or course the solid player didn't have KK, or else you wouldn't have been pulling in the pot!
In my not so humble opinion, checking the flop was not so bad. UTG's play on the flop suggests two possibilities. A) he held AK and didn't want to bet into a the preflop reraiser or, more likely to my mind, B) slowplay, with JJ as the likeliest hand he would have raised preflop with and then tried to slowplay and KK as the next likeliest, and AA also possible (I note he only called the reraise preflop). If B, of course, your poor ladies would've been gasping for air at that point and couldn't stand up to a raise.
Based on his preflop reraise, and his calling of multiple raises on the turn, "solid" player could have held AA, 44, 55, 67s, AK, or even AQs! Why didn't he bet the flop? Even in retrospect, his actions seem contradictory.
Had "solid" player caught the flush on the river, it's hard to imagine him not betting it with just one bettor behind him.. And UTG's grunt of dismay let you know he didn't have KK. So I think a bet on the river was called for.
I've reevaluated my analysis after a night's sleep and still can't come up with a decent read of "solid" players' hand. It's hard to believe he would have slowplayed AA and how, if holding AQ, 44, or 55, could he have not bet the turn after the flopped was checked through? Maybe he held AK and rationalized his call of the double-bet on the turn figuring he had the 2 overcards plus the one-way straight draw, then felt committed to go the distance. I can certainly understand your bewilderment on the river.
BTW, I've found that AK is frequently not raised UTG by good and bad players alike, which is why I tend to read an UTG raise as indicative of a high pair holding. This may be otherwise in the games you frequent.
Your comment about AK is a good one. Many players tend not to raise with it in early position. I limp in occasionally just to vary my play particularly in games where a preflop raise is unlikely to substantially limit the field.
I believe the 'solid' player had AA was expecting a bet from skp on the flop. On the turn he was going to give it another try, but got unexpected result when the UTG checkraised. Of course it is quite possible that he had other hands such as AQ, KQ or even QJ.
What would you put skp on? What would he put skp on? Skp called 3 bets he must have a hand. I would put him on queens thru tens or AK or maybe just maybe KK or 99 though not very likely. In anycase skp's hand should be strong enough to test the waters and see what develops.
In my usual 10-20 game, I think folding would be correct. Occasionally though, we get players will will raise UTG with medium pocket pairs. Against one of these, a call is not so bad. Then there are players who raise UTG with AJ or AT, even KJ. So calling is okay.
As I was reading, before I got to the end, I was thinking that you should have bet the flop, so that opinion is untainted by knowing your opponents hands. Thinking about it more, you have a good point. This is a good flop for UTG to raise-bluff with AK. Still, I would bet that he would probably not make this play because the middle player had cold called before the flop, and he cannot be to certain about knocking you out.
I would definitely check the river here out of fear of pocket kings. The groan could be an act, so I would ignore it. btw, against two solid players I would bet for value if a low spade came on the river. With all that action on the turn, I would not think that someone could have a flush. The first raise by UTG might have been a semi-bluff with a flush draw, but his capping raise could not have been. Also, the middle player was not getting proper odds to call on the turn with a flush draw.
The one comment I'd make is that if you were so sure that you were up against AA or KK that you couldn't bet even when it was checked to you with a jack high flop, then you shouldn't have called before the flop.
I definitely think that you should have folded before the flop. However, since you called, you should have bet the flop. I agree with what you did on both the turn and the river.
4-betting isn't going to drop the original better and gaining the initiative isn't going to do you much good, so I like the 3-bet call as it disguises your hand and gives you some strategic advanatage after the flop.
Well, JJ is the hand you WANT them to have when you call preflop, so a Jack flop is a bad one. Am I the only one that suspected the 3-better had trip Jacks when he checked the flop? OK, so it was the other guy.
They don't know you have top set and it sure looks like the Ks is a bad card for your hand, so I would guess they would BET if they got there (presuming you will check it), and would therefore bet myself if they checked.
You expressed valid fears after the flop and this caused you to play timidly, and you therefore have bad implied odds with your "weak" pair. Anticipating this would support giving up on this one before the flop. I wouldn't hesitate to fold if the good solid player 3-bet a conservative UTG raiser.
- Louie
Can anyone out there comment on these two products and which might be the better of the two?
I have never looked at Poker Wiz, but I did read the book. Based on that I would suggest that you stick with Mike Caro's Poker Probe.
I just installed Pokerwiz in my computer yesterday and it appears to be quite versitile.But Im afraid I cant tell you about Caro s Poker Probe.
Thanks guys for your ideas. Vince say "good'ay mate" to some of my Aussie friends at the TOC/Orleans, they all know me and most subscribe to my CARDS Poker Magazine in Australia. I have submitted a script outline for the producers of the TV show. The main thing I wanted to shine in the poker game (NL hold'em) was the fun, excitment, friendlyness and the highs and lows.(NO cheating, hustling, cons,etc so common with poker on TV/movies). The basic story line follows.....
In the local hotel they are playing draw and a navy guy(visitor)talks about hold'em and they all start talking about ROUNDERS(video),they start playing hold'em (NL) and talk about the $500,000 NL HE tournament in Melbourne ($5000 BI). "No one here could afford the $5000 entry fee!" the bar man said. So they have their own mini tourney (10 players at $500/head) with the winner going to Melbourne as their home town champ.The local guy goes no to the big game,which has the final table live on Fox cable sport (beamed into the local hotel). The local guy wins, naturally and everyone in town turns their $500 investment into $25,000.
On the final table and the satellite(in the hotel), several funny things could be included...wife catching husband out bluffing, left with one chip and goes on to win, betting all-in $500,000 and going to the bathroom (where have I seen that), etc.
The producers haven't called me yet (I wonder why??? poor hopeless Darryl Dazzler from down-under).I just added that bit to save you folks from doing it.
If I can 'pull this one off' it would be great for Aussie poker (The TV show gets 47% of viewers on its nite).More news on 2+2 when I know. Dazzler
While I applaud you for the effort to incorporate competitive poker into a TV script, I think it would be more realistic if the town champ didn't win in the end.
Mark, "It would be more realistic if the home town guy didn't WIN!" Does it need to be REALISTIC? That was the biggest criticism of ROUNDERS. The TV show is for "fun" and Rounders was "just a movie". Most people watch TV shows and movies that are removed from reality.That is the escape.
Darryl,
What you are missing here is that a good story has a Protagonist and Antagonist. Good and evil, right and wrong if you will. If you have seen the movie "The Quiet Man" IMO John Wayne's best. You will see that the story line is excellent for promoting poker as a non violent form of competition. In the movie boxing is the medium used to right a wrong. Rewritten with poker as the medium you get a great promotional and inspirational tool. And the winner gets the girl too!
Vince.
More realistically, the hometown champ could come in a more reasonable 5th or 4th, everyone makes $$ and then there is a sequel at some point in the future. Win the big one the first time out and you "kill the action".
Cire, A sequel? I'll be lucky enough just to get NL HE into the show without expecting a sequel. Poker players are very optimistic,and in real life not that many people care about poker.
Usually I try to get a line on players by their general playing tendencies, but one thing that has helped me tremendously over the years is looking at opponents heart and breathing rates. Usually it is hard to see accelerated breathing, but if you look at a players neck you will see Mr HEART pumping away.
I have found that accelerated heart rates are an indicator of strength. many people think that someone who is bluffing would have an accelerated rate, but I have found the opposite to be true. On some days even the calmest person can have a high rate in a big hand, where he/she stands to win a large pot. I thought i'd post this and see what other players think. your comments are welcome
This observation is comparable to the "shaking hand" tell. Most people used to think that a shaking hand(when someone is either betting or raising) was a sign that that person was bluffing. But now, everyone knows the opposite is generally true.These two tells may have the same source: excitement. Pupil dilation works the same way. How do you keep yourself from projecting these largely unconscious tells? Use deliberate dissociation.
A couple of weeks ago I noticed someone with an obvious breathing tell for the first time. We were heads up in a relatively large pot. He bet first and as I reached for my chips, he noticebly held his breath. I thought for a minute, raised, and he folded - he had been bluffing at a board with a few straight possibilities. This is the first time I have ever outwardly seen an oponent do this.
Anyone else come across this?
Phil
Buck
I have noticed that my own heart rate increases greatly when I have a big hand or even a medium hand that stands to probably win a big pot. I have made efforts to cover up this "tell". There are a few players who look for tells, even in lower limit games. Don't give away any of your own! I also wear glasses to keep my eyes from giving anything away.
Several times I have seen the classic "shaking hand" tell from Mike Caro's book of tells and it has yet to be wrong (so far), they have always had a very good hand. it is a natural response to get excited with a big hand and it's hard to cover it up!
If you are lucky enough to be able to see a pulsing neck vein on your opponent, take full advantage! You will rarely make the wrong decision if you fold a marginal hand.
I just finished 'licking' my wounds of a 'easy' NL game. As it happens so frequently your worst nightmare materalize as you 'know' you can beat *this* game but lose badly. I played a NL game in the after the tourney format and having played with some 'heavies' I did not worry so much. Worst of it - I stayed longer beacuse I saw them playing so horribly that it enticed me to continue and failed to catch any breaks.
Rule of Thumb: when in an "easy" game you can gauge the quality of your play by determining whether most of the money went in while YOU had the best hand or while THEY had the best hand.
If the former and they outdraw you, tough luck. If the later and you fail to outdraw them, tough dodo.
This evaluation is much easier to do and much harder to get wrong than evaluating the quality of numerous plays.
- Louie
Actually I had two big 'hits' one I made nut straight but the board paired and I lost to a boat. Other - I have AQ and by then I was pissed so maybe overplayed a Q flop and the guy (who was NOT A GOOD PLAYER) had of course KK ! I made small pots (I mean NL standards 300-400 max) I suspect I had somewhat underestimated my opponents who by any standard not experienced NL players - had good card sense and of course great cards with me being second best...
Hey Andras,
Frank here. I don't play anywhere near your limits. But I can say this. This happens to all of us at times. I just came off a 6 or so game winning streak against good players in tight to good games and got slammed in a few totally loose games.
Examples (7-card stud)
Full house slammed by totally hidden 4 of a kind Straight slammed by hidden Royal Flush caught on the River And so on and so on.
Guess it was just our turn to catch bad.
Sincerely, Frank
P.S. I still believe careful evaluation of my game has allowed me to start to limit my losses a little on these kind of nights. Especially 3 things. Card Reading, Oppenent reading, and #1....Avoiding Tilt. (Of course I know you know all this...just thought you could use some company after getting nailed.)
A while back I made the following post which is still available in the index:
A Common Dillema With Aces - Settle an Arguement
Rick Nebiolo -- Monday, 12 July 1999, at 4:39 a.m.
Unless I am losing my mind (more than a remote possibility), David Sklansky wrote a brief response essentially stating that my method of playing the hand was acceptable (although I believe it was incorrectly placed in the thread under Michael Hunter's initial response).
I ask because my friend who insisted that betting the aces was the only viable option (and who doesn't have a computer) now believes more than ever my play was wrong and I was pulling his leg that anyone of stature would agree with me. Did someone or David delete the response? Am I losing my mind? Please Help!
Regards,
Rick
Does David Sklansky post here? When? If by some chance he happens to actually RESPOND please send me an e-mail with the date and time. I would like to read it!
Vince.
Re: Fri. 7/16 @ 6:08pm; Just under yr post:"The Prob. w AQs in NLTour's" of 7/16 @ 4:06pm.
The loss of short term memory is the elterly's first sign of?
Wwplr,
Since you chose to be the defender of the throne. Please reread Mr. Sklansky's response to my post. Then point out to me the relavance of his response to my quetion. If you can I will retract my prior post on this subject. If not, please find a suitable example of Mr. Sklansky's helpful posts. Please do not spend more than a few hours searching. It would just be a waste of time.
Vince.
You are correct. He gave you a brief response. He may have deleted it himself. I delete all my postings and responses myself after 48 hours. I wish more players who use this forum would do the same.
Chico,
I remember a while back I responded to one of your lead posts and later my response along with a few others were floating around with nothing to attach itself too. At the time I wondered if it was because I was mildly critical of a play you made and you were offended or something and deleted it.
In general, why would anyone want to delete a well thought through post? What would be the purpose? The forum and the archives are a treasure and I for one would hate to see any of it get lost.
Regards
Rick
Rick - I can answer that. I am new to posting responses. Although I have felt that all my responses have been well thought out, I regretted, in particular, posting the first two. I just kept hoping they would go away, and finally they did.
E-mail and posting is pretty fast. You think about something for a while, decide you have put enough time thinking about the matter, that you really cannot afford to spend more time, and, click, it is gone, sent away, and you are done with it. Then when it gets posted and you look at it, in retrospect it seems pretty dumb, and you wish you had not sent it after all. The alternative to posting a response is to write one and sit on it for a while, maybe a week, or even just a few days, and then decide it is not timely enough to send it after all.
Perhaps tomorrow I'll look at this one and wonder - Why did I do that? But since i am including a password, I will be able, and probably will, delete it soon.
regards, Frank
Hell Frank... you're not trying to win a Pulitzer here
Rick -
Soon enough these posts, these reponses to Chico will be floating around. Heh!
I think he probably does it to keep the information dissemination to a minimum.
Good lord man - why would you do that?
20-40 hold 'em. I have 6d-6h on the button and raise when it is folded around to me. Both blinds call. Flop is 7c-6s-4s. Small blind bets, big blind calls, I raise. Both players call. Turn is 7d, giving me a full house. Small blind bets, big blind folds, I raise. Small blind calls. River is 6c, giving me quads. Small blind bets, I raise, he calls all in and shows As-7s.
Another player criticized the play of the small blind in that he bet every round, was raised every round, and was in second place every round. But I think the small blind played the hand properly, he just got beat.
Comments on either his or my play?
The only hand that could beat "small blind" was quad 6's! You both played well.
What could the SB do? He bet top pair on the flop. Called your raise on the turn, because he figured you could have him beat. Makes a full house on river and bets. How often does someone get quads? Just a bad beat for the SB. He played it correctly and so did you.
Andy,
You wrote: "I have 6d-6h on the button and raise when it is folded around to me. Both blinds call."
Your raise is mandatory against most blinds. The SB with As7s may have a reraise if he thinks the BB will fold and you raise loose in this position but calling was not horrible.
Next: "Flop is 7c-6s-4s. Small blind bets, big blind calls, I raise. Both players call.
SB's bet is better than going for a check raise with this flop of top pair and flush draw. Your raise is fine. No reason to slowplay and your hand is disguised. I think the SB should have considered a reraise!
Next: "Turn is 7d, giving me a full house. Small blind bets, big blind folds, I raise. Small blind calls."
Your play is fine although you may want to wait a round to raise. However, I'm not sure on that. The SB if anything may have a raise with trips, best kicker and a flush draw. Although he was up against a full, there were other weaker hands you were more likely to have and he still has outs anyway against your actual hand.
Next: "River is 6c, giving me quads. Small blind bets, I raise, he calls all in and shows As-7s."
As SB, I certainly would have put in another raise here with top full (since I never go all in). Assuming he had more chips, the only reasonable hand he has to worry about is quads and if he worries about that he worries too much.
Lastly, you wrote "Another player criticized the play of the small blind in that he bet every round, was raised every round, and was in second place every round. But I think the small blind played the hand properly, he just got beat."
I think "Another player" should avoid implying that a witty sounding sentence has anything to do with proper analysis of poker hands, especially with the benefit of hindsight.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Ever notice how many players call your river bet that wins and then proudly announce to the table that they "knew" you had the hand you bet.
Rick,
I couldn't have done a better job myself! (Well maybe). One thing though, I wouldn't have credited this "other" player with using a "witty sounding sentence" for his inappropriate/incorrect lousy comment. Let's call a lousy comment "a lousy comment"! Of course, if this "other" player made his comment for the purpose of insult which then sent the SB on tilt...Hmmm..Well then! Nah, I'm the only one diabolical enough to do something like that. The "other" player was just a know it all loud mouth that doesn't know it all at all. I'll bet he exemplifies your tidbit concerning those that call your winning River bet even when they know what you have!
Andy's hand, here, is interesting not for the comment this "other" player makes but as a very good example of a hand that you just can't get away from. I defy anyone (even SKP or S and/or M) to explain how the SB get's away from this hand. This hand is like "cod liver oil"! You may not like it but when mommy gives it to you, you open your mouth take your medicine, swallow and shut your mouth. All the complaining in the world won't change the taste. Those of us that complain about "bad beats" (even though this is not a bad beat) and the like should study hands like this. They allow a greater appreciation of unavoidable events that can happen during the course of a poker game.
Of course I will get a response that if the SB were a good player he would have folded to the Button raise and avoided this disaster. O.K.!
Vince.
"I defy anyone (even SKP or S and/or M) to explain how the SB get's away from this hand."
Challenge rejected.
BTW, how did I earn the label of a "quick to fold" player???
If I was SB, I would certainly have lost a lot more. I would almost certainly have 3 bet pre-flop and would likely have 3- bet the flop and turn.
I do disagree with Rick about 3 betting the River (although I realize that he probably did not feel strongly about the issue). This is because once Sb bets and button raises, Sb has to think that he is at best tied (i.e. even if the button was bluffing, the button certainly would not call sb's reraise. I know of very few players who would raise the sb here with a hand like AA given the way the betting went. I would say that the likelihood of the button raising with a hand like AA AND calling sb's reraise on the River is less than the likelihood of the button having raised with quads).
Clearly, raises and reraises on the river in heads-up situations usually mean "I've got a monster"; on the other hand, raises and reraise on the flop and turn may well merely be attempts to muscle out an opponent.
"I never go all in"
Rick, don't you know that "all in never loses"?
....If I had a dime for everytime I heard that expression...
...funny, if the expression were true, no one would ever leave a game as a loser.
Great analysis. I raised on the turn because I was relatively certain the small blind had a hand that would (at least) call the raise. And yes, there do seem to be a lot of "smart" players who shake their heads knowingly after calling you down with a hand they "know" you had beat.
Flop: small blind should have reraised you to drive out big blind. Turn: good play by small blind. River: small blind made a good play. You got a good beat he got a bad beat.
Very close to the same thing also happened to me.In a $4 $8 limit game,I am dealt Qs 10s,and am just to the right of the button.First player opens with raise .The rest fold to me and I call.Both blinds fold.The flop comes 10h 7s 10c and raiser opens for $4.I raise and he calls.The turn produces 10d.My opponent opens for $8 and I raise.Two more raises each.The river produces 8h.The previous betting and raising sequence repeates itself.I produce my hole cards and my opponent produces 3c 3h.Both of us played correctly but only one of us could win.I will be hard pressed to see a hand like that again.
How did your opponent play it right? Have I missed something here. When did pocket 3's become a monster against any number of opponents with a board like
10-7-10-10-8?
1. a 10
2. a 7
3. 4's
4. 5's
5. 6's
6. 7's Must I go on and on and on. Please give me this players number so I can invite him to my game. I sincerely hope you mistyped your opponents holdings for the sake of his families financial needs!!!
First of all, whoever criticized his play is not very bright. Why make fun of somebody else at the table at any time, especially after losing a pot. Even if he had a mountain of checks instead of going all in, he couldn't get away from the hand. You raised on the button and you could of had anything from 23 to AA and were just trying to steal the blinds, which you probably were. His 2 overcards suited to your 6's are almost even money. He flops top pair top kicker, turns a set and loses. How in the world could he have known you had 6's. You were very fortunate and you made him pay(Good Move)He was unfortunate and he paid; Hey, that's just the way it goes sometimes.
Okay poker gurus, The game is 3-6 Hold'em and I need to know how to tell if my kicker is any good without having to lose in a showdown. Tonight I constantly ended up with second best hand due to a poorer kicker than my opponent. example: I hold Qs9s on the button, 2 middle position callers, I call, SB folds. Flop Q44 rainbow, everyone checks to me, I also check. turn = 7 (no flush draw) everyone checks, I bet- SB calls, others fold. Turn is an 8, SB checks, I bet & SB calls. He holds KQ offsuit. Similar situations like this happen all night. ARRRGGGHH. What am I not understanding?
Thanks, Jeff
oops, SB folded...the Big Blind was the one who won. All SB after the first should be BB. Thx.
You are in group 5 of Sklanski's new Hold 'Em rankings. See the 2 + 2 book Sklanski on Poker. You don't have a very good starting hand. Maybe you should tighten up on your starting hands.
Yeah, since I was making a lot of second best hands and the table was aware of my predicament, tightening up more in this game is about the only solution, other than quitting.
Whenever your kicker isn't the best possible kicker, you need to be concerned about being outkicked. However, how you act because you don't have the best kicker depends largely upon the circumstances and the opponent(s). There is no generalization that I can provide.
For the hand described, since no one bet the flop, it is almost impossible for you to lay your hand down or even stop betting the river. Now, if you had been check-raised on the turn, things would be different. For the given hand, you played fine and lost, nothing to lose sleep over.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Thanks FossilMan, good to know.
f
I'm not sure I understand why you checked the flop. If you can't bet your hand with this flop then why did you call preflop what are looking for? Betting the flop sometimes is a good way to find out where you stand with the hand. Of course the way your hand was played out I don't see how one could tell that you have kicker trouble unless the guy is so full of tells that you just can't miss it.
I was looking mainly for a flush or straight draw, secondarily a 9.
Preflop call was good. Flop check was poor (you should have bet). Bet turn. Check river.
On the flop I was wary of trip fours being slowplayed.
Jeff,
You played the hand fine. Q9s is not a bad button hand at all. There are a lot better hands but there's also worse.With the small blind and bgi blind both in it was very possible they could have slow played a 4. But after you bet the turn and they didn't raise but kept calling you should have checked the river.No biggy. There's worse plays then that a $6 bet on the river and I'm sure will all bet 2nd best hands in the future...Just keep them to a minimum!
I don't understand the SB at all -- is he terrified of a 4? And while you had no reason to think your hand was a loser, I do not really understand your play, either. A more logical sequence would have been: bet the flop, bet the turn, check the river. Your check on the flop opened the door for crap hands like A-x to beat you with a free card.
Also, I think it's fine to play that hand on the button in most games in an unraised pot.
The hand should have been 'mucked' from the get-go...
Dead
Why?
Q9s is plenty good enough to call on the button.
Assuming the flop check was correct, I would certainly bet this hand on turn and river for value. Nothing much you can do with players who play top pair solid kicker the same way they play a small pocket pair; unless your table presense is so good you can tell the difference when they call.
Now if this conservative SB had bet the flop AND bet the turn, now you can consider your kicker problems and pass up the opportunity to make sure you are beat.
You can directly avoid bad kicker problems when the opponent's raise or when tight players call YOUR loose raises. Rarely call conservative raises with less than AK.
- Louie
Why would the flop check be correct? Why let lesser hands pick up a draw or hit an overcard?
Scott, I was thinking that the limpers might be trying for a check raise since A4,34, and 45 suited are all legit calling hands from middle position. When no one bet the turn, I felt reasonably sure no one had trips on an overpair.
Yeah, I know. But that's always a possibility; someone could even have 4-4. You just have to take those chances to avoid the (larger) chance that your check will foul your hand and cost you the pot. Also, if I had a 4, I might well wait for the turn to whack you, so your strategy would fail anyway. It's not a horrible play -- but it is generally a mistake to always fear a great but unlikely hand, especially if you give away free cards as a result. IMO. Enjoyed your posts.
I would probably have folded if anyone had bet the flop or turn. Also, checking the river after my opponent checks is viable, and I should have strongly considered it, since his call on the turn should clue me in that he has something.
Not necessarily. Your check on the flop told him that you don't have a Quuen. Thus, if you bet on the turn and were called, you certainly should bet the river again (I forget what the river card was - but it certainly seemed like an innocuous one).
I am somewhat puzzeled by the response here so far. I would not play Q9s from the button with only two limpers in ahead of me. I would want to see 4 or 5 limbers in the pot and I would like to be sure (as sure as you can be) no raise would be coming from the blinds, before I would play this. Is this playing too tight? Of course when I'm playing 3/6 and only 4 players are seeing most flops, I figure its time to ask for a table change or go home.
I don't have a problem calling with Q9s on the button against any number of callers, as long as there has been no raise.
He should have bet the flop, and if it's checked on the turn, bet the turn again. If he gets called on the turn, check the river.
I don't know. What with most of your competitions, uh, relaxed calling requirements, I think you can make a case for value betting the river here provided that no obvious draws get there (you know, the second highest card on the flop pairs on the river, a deuce hits, etc. etc. :).
Sure, you can always make that case, and it totally depends on the nature of the callers. There are some players in my game that would be easy to value bet against, and others who's call would scare me so much that I'd want to just throw the hand away and run screaming from the building. (-:
Against certain passive players, you have to think of their 'calls' as raises, and react accordingly. This means a ton less value betting on the river (since they won't call you unless you're beaten) and probably better hand selection. If the game is reasonably tight, you can fold hands like Q9s and not lose anything.
BTW, you should have bet the flop here.
Chico,
Thanks. That's the way I remember it. Maybe I'm not losing my mind! Anyway, with the price of memory and disk storage what it is, I wouldn't want to move any of David's ideas to the "Recycle Bin".
Regards :-)
Rick
If the post above seems like nonesense it is because the post it replies to was deleted (probably by Chico himself). My sugguestion for posts that are deleted which have replies already posted would be to delete the text but keep the original message header. Then we wouldn't look so silly with a response that appears to have no question or post associated with it.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. BTW, I needed that information to collect on my bet with my friend. Grr.....
Midwest cardrooms often spread dealers choice games where the button is labeled Omaha on one side and Hold Em on the other. The player on the button selects what game to play for one round; when the button is passed the new "dealer" selects his choice.
A player normally selects his favorite game, or if some of his opponents are particularily weak at a game, picks that game. But let's say, for sake of discussion, that a player has no preference for Omaha-8 or Hold Em, and the opponents are either unknown or equally skilled at both games. Last position is a strong advantage for both games, but with the choice offered, is it a larger advantage in Hold Em?
Perhaps I read your post wrong but it seems that the dealer gets to chose the game for an entire trip "round" the table so it should not matter since any game will be played at every position by every player.
Regarding the meat of your question; I don't think there is any question that position matters much more in holdem. For example, my hand selection in Omaha H/L changes in early versus late position but to no where near the extent it does in limit holdem. So if I'm in a game where we only play one hand per choice by the dealer, I would chose holdem (although it seems in mix games the Omaha game plays "bigger" which negates this advantage somewhat).
Omshs H/L also has other positional oddities. For example, If I have a player who bets too much (i.e., a maniac), I might keep him a bit to my right in holdem. In Omaha H/L (especially when the game is loose), I like this guy on my left as my check raises will be for value since I will be drawing to hands that make the nuts and I want everybody in there. In holdem, your raises are usually made to drive out other players.
Regards,
Rick
The game dealt at the Dakota Magic in North Dakota is $2 to $10 spread limit, Omaha-8 or HE, one hand only. When the button passes to the left, that player determines what game to play. The day I passed through, about 80% of the hands were Omaha.
As a stranger passing through, I selected HE every time, assuming the positional advantage was greater.
I have very little Omaha experience but what you say concerning where you want the maniac seated and your reasons therefor sounds right on.
Is it also the case therefore that raises preflop in Omaha rarely serve to limit the field (i.e. in games such as 10-20 or 15-30)? In my limited experience, it appeared to me that most raises in Omaha are made to get more money into the point.
From what little I've seen (and read) about O/8, it is considered correct to call several raises before the flop if your hand has decent enough value to call in the first place (i.e. point system).
Therefore, if you have one bet in already (blinds, or early callers), you can pretty much count on 95% of those people to call the raises and see the flop. Also, with split pots, there are more drawout chances, and backdoor chances to draw to, so more people will have more possibilites to hang onto.
I've only played a few times (low limit sub $10) but it seems that more people call raises than in HE.... therefore, position counts for more in HE (you can use it more to your advantage, as I see it)
The notion of 'dominated' hands is not nearly as important in Omaha as it is in Holdem. In Omaha (especially Omaha High) no hand is a huge underdog to another hand, because each hand can hit the flop in many different ways.
In Holdem, you absolutely don't want to play AT against someone playing AA. One of the reasons why the hand is unplayable up front is because you don't have the information yet to know if you are in fact up against AA, or AK, or other hands that are going to be very tough for you to beat. In late position, if the pot is unraised it is unlikely that you are up against AA or even AK, and you can be reasonably confident that if you hit an Ace on the flop you will have the best kicker.
In Omaha, you are simply looking at hands that can make the nuts in several different ways. If you have such a hand, it's generally playable against any other hands, provided you are getting the odds before the flop to play your draws.
Position matters more at holdem, and better players can take more advantage from good position and lose less advantage from bad position than bad players can, so holdem is an obvious choice all other things being equal.
I don't have much experience in this type of dealer's choice games: but all other things are NOT equal. If the table is generally chosing Omahaha and gambling it up, I think you will find that they stop gambling for a slower game like holdem; and therefore will play it better than Omahaha. Likewise a table of loose Holdem Players may not like an isolated Omahaha game and will tighten up for it.
Going with the flow has some merit in these dealers choice games. Anyway, its worth taking notice since there are games which it does matter.
- Louie
In most dealer's choice games, you have a choice of playing Omaha/8, Omaha high, or Holdem. I usually pick Omaha high, even though I believe that positional advantage is greater in Holdem. The reason is that positional advantage only has value if you play the hand, and Omaha high has many more playable hands than Holdem. So the overall button advantage in Omaha high is greater.
Holdem and Omaha are both games which give a big advantage to the late or last mover. My suggestion is, choose the game at which you're more competent at. These two games probably reward last position equally.
Bob Ciaffone indicates on page 9 in his Millenium Edition of Omaha Holdem Poker that position is more important in no-limit Omaha than no-limit Texas hold 'em. He doesn't give a reason for his rationale, nor does he make it clear whether he is talking about Omaha straight high or Omaha Hi-Lo. Then on page 22, Ciaffone indicates that position is more important in limit-Texas hold 'em than in limit-Omaha, seemingly a reversal of what he stated on page 9, except this time he is talking about LIMIT rather than NON-LIMIT. This time he gives a reason that makes a lot of sense. Since there are usually more players and thus more money in the pot in limit-Omaha as compared to limit-Texas hold 'em, it is less likely that a bet will cause an opponent to fold. Again Ciaffone does not make it clear whether he is talking about Omaha straight high or Omaha Hi-Lo, but his reasoning would seem to apply particularly to the Hi-Lo game.
No Limit Omahaha is hopeless since the nuts is out frequently and this player SHOULD bet his whole stack. This fact allows frequent steals from last position. This is why position is more important in no-limit Omahaha AND why these games do not exist.
I wonder if position is more important at pot-limit Omahaha or no-limit holdem.
- Louie
Louie - Good question.
If we accept that:
NLO>NLHE (Ciaffonne, reasoning by Landale)
LHE>LO (Ciaffonne)
NLO>PLO>LO (seems obvious)
NLHE>PLHE>LHE (seems obvious)
Then the only two we can't rank are NLHE and PLO. Position is more important in NLO than both NLHE and PLO, and position is more important in NLHE and PLO than in any other games considered. Did I do that correctly?
Frank
Combining the 1st, 4th, and 2nd equations yields:
..... NLO>NLHE>PLHE>LHE>LO
..... leaving the 3rd: NLO>PLO>LO
Since NLO is best and LO is worst in both, we simplyfy to: ..... NLHE>PLHE>LHE
..... and PLO.
PLO can fit ANYWARE in the Holdem scheme, from more important than NLHE or less important than LHE.
So "No", you didn't do that correctly. Your assertion that PLO is more important than games other than NLO and NLHE cannot be reasonably deduced from the assumptive equations.
- Louie
PS. You had to ask!! :)
Poker Gods,
In Mr. Sklansky's book, "Hold'em Poker", he gives a table with the percentages of making hands with 2 cards to come. My question is, once the turn cards come, do most of the players adjust their pot odds accordingly, to reflect only a one card draw? Feel free to jab if this is a silly question.
Duh...
It's actually fairly easy to calculate with one card to come. In HE, you will usually be calculating with 46 or 47 unknown cards. A flush draw (a 9-card out) on the turn then would come in 9/46=19.57% of the time.
A simple rule of thumb is to multiply the number of cards by 2% to get the percentage chance of making the hand with one card to come. If you want to split hairs, you can obviously increase the accuracy of this by multiplying by 2.1 or 2.2.
actually a very good (theoretical) question that has been covered (much better than i can do) on rpg.
youre in big blind with 2 suited cards. all fold, sb calls.
flop gives you four flush, opponent bets(only bets top pair, lets say).
pot is laying you about 3.5 : 1 , you call. easy call, odds are about 2:1 that you make your flush.
turn is blank. opponent bets.
pot is laying you about 3:1, do you call? you make your flush 9/46, or 37:9 , or about 4:1.
thus, if you dont expect your opponent to pay you off on the river (no implied odds), you can't call according to the pot odds.
so if you don't call the turn, then why did you call the flop? you were only getting 3.5:1 to call a 4:1 shot (that you would get it on the turn)
so, basically, if on the flop you use two to come you can call, if you use on card to come, you cant call (according to strict pot odds, no implied odds, opponent has you beat)
oops, originally i had one limper and small blind fold against big blind, but then i wanted big blind to act last, so i had only sb play so
pot is off a little -- flop pot gives you 3:1
-- turn pot gives you 3:1
sorry
Actually it will cost you 1.5bb to try to make the flush. Counting the SBs turn bet you figure to win 2.5bb. So the real pot odds are 2.5-1.5 or 1.667-1, less than your 2:1 hand odds.
That's why you fold on the flop; not counting river bets, turn free cards, sure money you get if you make it on the turn, other ways to win, and other ways to lose.
But to answer the original question, of course you recalculate your odds at each decision point.
- Louie
thats effective odds, right?
If memory serves I think 2+2 defines "effective" odds as the total amount you can expect to gain compared to the total amount you can expect to risk.
If so, then "Yes" (even though we ignored several contributing factors).
Any comments that will make this list more complete and accurate will be appreciated....this is only a starting point!
A poker player should have a reason for entering a pot every time he does so. Here are the main legitimate reasons for playing a hand:
The first five are from "Improve Your Poker" by Bob Ciaffone
(1) I don't normally play this hand; I am varying my game.
(2) I am partway in already.
(3) Nobody seems to have much, so maybe I can win simply by being aggressive.
(4) I think that I have the best hand.
(5) Conditions are suitable for playing a draw.
***************************************************************************** The following are my own additions to the list: ***************************************************************************** (6) I am in a late steal position with two rocks or timid players in the blinds.
(7) I am dominating the game and have a strong table image.
(8) I am on an incredible "rush."
(9) I think I can outplay the other opponent and I have position.
########################################################## LIST OF REASONS *NOT* TO PLAY THIS HAND - FOLD
(1) I have either a small pair, small suited connectors, or Axs in early position in a tight aggressive game.
(2) I have AQo in middle position, early raiser plus one caller in front of me - fold.
(3) I have a marginal hand (KQo) in a loose aggressive game and two players have limped in front of me.
(4) I'm in the blind with a marginal hand, UTG raises, all fold to me, I'll have the worst position on every round, and the pot is small.
(5) I have a marginal hand and I am out of position.
(6) I have mucked the last 20 hands and now have JTo UTG - I'm bored! - FOLD
(7) I have to catch a plane soon and I need to get even fast.
My favorite reason to play a hand (NOT!).
Last time I folded 86o on the button in a raised, 5-handed pot, the flop came 886 and was capped before it got to me!
i never fold group one hands like that
"(3) I have a marginal hand (KQo) in a loose aggressive game and two players have limped in front of me."
I disagree. I would not fold this hand the majority of the time. In fact I might even raise if I'm close to the button to buy the button and to try to drive the blinds out especially in this kind of game since the first two players only limped in chances are they don't have hands I'm afraid of, otherwise they would come in with a raise.
Bob: you wrote "(8) I am on an incredible 'rush.'"
Your other reasons mentioned dominant image and control over your opponents: these are the hoped-for results of a "rush" and the reasons for playing more often or more aggressively after appearing to win more than your fair share. Remember that your opponents do not always cooperate. By itself, however, a rush isn't a reason to do anything. In fact, the idea of being "on" a rush is just an illusion induced by recent results and not even a fact.
And the NUMBER ONE reason for NOT entering a pot:
KOP has three bet it with a vengeance
Mason M in his old Calif. days wrote articals on "50 reasons to ..." and enter & fold each got treatment for draw poker hi & lo-ball). Perhaps he will contribute?
6-handed pot limit hold-em game that has been a real rammer-jammer. A couple of tough players and a couple of weak players are at the table. There is also a reasonably solid player who is STUCK GUY ("SG") for the night, and playing poorly as a result.
I have been playing pretty aggresive and am up about 1200 for the session.
I have AcTc and make it 30 to go on when it is folded to me on the button. Solid player with $700 stack calls in the SB. Stuck guy (now has $900 after a $500 rebuy and a double-through) also calls in the BB.
Flop is ThTs2c.
Solid guy bets 50 from the small blind. SG raises to 150.
I call and small blind calls.
Turn is 7 of diamonds.
Small blind checks. Stuck guy bets $300 and I call again. Small blind folds.
River is a Jack.
Stuck guy bets another $300 to my surprise and I call.
Any comments on this strange hand and my passive play?
I'll post results later.
I think your passive play has induced SG to play very strongly into you with perhaps a small pair in the pocket. It impossible for me to tell from the play of the hand if he filled up with the seven. Just calling the river may be a mistake. I think a raise to put SG all in is the proper move, unless you want to keep him in the game. He might not rebuy if you put him out here.
Bill G.
it may not be but it looks like sg has a hand. so i would have played it faster as there is over one third of the amount of their stacks in the pot. plus most players will not bet at you after your strong overcall so you might as well raise it. it turns out though that you got bet into anyway. this leads me to believe he was weak or caught a miracle card. so maybe you played it right after all. and his milk bet on the river was to get all he could from you or to save on a cheaper bluff or to lose less if his decent hand was beat. id say to lose less so a raise for the little he has left could be the right play, but maybe not.
sklansky has posted here that in a loose game, with , say, six or seven limpers and sb calling, if you have 2 suited cards with one above a nine, you should raise(for value-- you flop a 4 flush is 8:1).
but in the 21st century edition of HFAP, it says that in wild games with , say , seven people coming in for a capped pre-flop, JTs is not a good hand because of the greatly reduced implied odds.
i can see the logic in each of these statements seperately, but it seems like they *somewhat* contradict each other.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but if I remember the Sklansky post correctly I think he said both cards above a nine. If I'm wrong, hopefully someone will correct me.
even so, JTs would still fit in both instances. not a critique, i love the new book and all your books, advice, etc. -- it just seems holdem is a very hard game with a lot of contradictions.
brad wrote
"sklansky has posted here that in a loose game, with , say, six or seven limpers and sb calling, if you have 2 suited cards with one above a nine, you should raise(for value-- you flop a 4 flush is 8:1).
but in the 21st century edition of HFAP, it says that in wild games with , say , seven people coming in for a capped pre-flop, JTs is not a good hand because of the greatly reduced implied odds."
Whether David said both cards over 9 or just one, there seems to be an important difference in the two situations. In the first, it looks like you are putting in the first (and, hopefully, the only raise). In the second, there is someone else making a raise. As well, the first situation cuts your immediate implied odds in half, but there is the expectation of extra bets (due to pot size)later to balance that. The second situation has quartered your implied odds, but you probably won't get enough extra bets later to balance that.
Raise with your J9s, etc, if you think the game is passive enough that you won't get the ugly second situation. If the game is aggressive don't trigger a raising war if you play, and consider folding.
Eric
NM
1. When a hold'em game is advertised as 1-4-8-8 does that mean you can bet 1-4 dollars before and on the flop and 1-8 dollars on the turn and river?
2. I've been studying the starting hand requirements depending on position. These seem to assume "normal" playing conditions. I was wondering how radically those change in A. a loose-passive game, B. a short handed game or C. both. Is it just a matter of playing those starting hand groups more liberally or does there come a point where hands like A-3o and Q6's or even J3o become playable?
3. What kind of bankroll do you need to play in a $3-$6 to be able to withstand normal fluctuations?
Thanks for your help
Rob:
As a fellow newbie (30 hours) I'll take a shot.
1. Yes
2. At the 3-6 level you'll find mostly loose passive or loose agressive games. Regardless, hands like Q6s and J3o are junk and shouldn't be played. I think the changes come in with HOW you play the good hands if the game is tighter or very agressive or short-handed. As an example, being a Lee Jones disciple I would never play A3o in a normal loose passive 5-10 game. But if the game were to tighten up and it were folded to me one before the button, I may raise with A3 as in an effort to isolate the blinds or steal. Until we both have experience, stick with the strong starting hands.
3. The guideline that I've always heard is a bankroll of 200 small bets. For a 3-6 game you should buy-in for $100 and have another 100-150 in your pocket.
Hope it's good info.
-Michael
1. Actually, the minimum bet on the first round is $2, and you can raise $4 for a maximum of $6. (There is a $1 small blind and a $2 big blind.) The max bet/raise on the flop is $4. I don't remember if the minimum bets on later rounds are $1 or $2 (I don't play this game, and when I did I don't think I ever saw anyone bet $1 or $2 on the last two rounds -- everything gravitates toward $8.)
2. Passive games. You can play more hands, especially against players who will pay you off with weak hands (underpairs, 2d/3d pair, AK, etc.). Identify and watch out for the players that just call with big hands. The pots will usually be multihanded and unraised so lower pairs and suited connectors can be played in earlier position (be careful with the lowest pairs and still muck the one-gap offsuits in early/middle). All draws go up in value; big cards go down in value but are still playable (don't make as many preflop raises with them and generally ditch when you miss the flop).
In late position you can get a lot of free cards and four card flops, which gives you a lot of control over how you play the hand. You can dominate the game, intimidate players and train some of the them to fold. If the game is very passive with 5-7 players seeing the turn and a showdown on every river you need a real hand or draw on the flop to continue.
Note on studying starting hands: think more about why different hands are playable under different circumstances, particularly when it comes to calling raises, and less about lists of starting requirements. This takes more brainwork but is actually productive whereas memorization can be rut. For example, think about why you would often open with 55 in a passive game but fold the same hand in middle position after no one else has opened and the table's tighter players behind you. Think a lot about what you can call with when the pot is raised preflop.
Short-handed games. Play more hands and emphasize big cards and pairs, especially medium pairs and aces (play but be careful with baby pairs and ace-baby). Slowplay (or underplay) big pairs: they're too valuable to risk taking only the blinds. In passive short-handed games they'll fold more so bluff more, even if you have to take it to the river. Suited cards mean little. Forget about J3 as anything but a stone-cold bluff (which you should occasionally try when your opponents are intimidated).
3. Bankroll for $3-6. $1,500 to $2,000. If you can't beat the game, however, remember that you'll eventually lose everything you wager regardless of the size of your bankroll. (I don't believe that in the long run there's any such thing as a "break-even" player).
Read everything and think constantly. Poker is hard.
How can I tell which revision of this book I have? And particular publish date that would tell me? Thanks.
The news ones I've seen have "21st Century" (1.5 years early) on their covers.
its the edition *for* the 21st century.
Hey Everyone,
Every time I try to access RPG I get a window requesting a userid and password. Does anyone know how to get them assigned or a "guest" set that I could use?
Thanks, Frank
This depends on who is serving your news (most likely to be your ISP). RGP itself needs no authentication to read or post. I would suggest talking to tech support at your ISP.
(save for mason) This really belongs on the exchange forum.
What is a good way to adjust my game to a shorthanded low limit game?
play like it was a full game with the amount of players folding to make it the same for the number of players left. in other words if the game is 5 handed play like it was a nine handed game with four people always folded.
One difference between 5-handed and 9-handed with the first four people folding would seem to be that you should upgrade your expectation somewhat of the likely hand strength of your remaining opponents in the 9-handed game. That is, the four hands that were folded were likely to be weak, making the remaining hands richer in big cards.
Is this important at all? Or am I splitting hairs? Can you really treat the situations as being effectively identical?
i say its the same for all practical spots. if you feel you need to play a little tighter do it. it may only apply when against all loose players that would always play any ace,and they have folded around to the button and always call out of the blinds with an ace. then maybe you are less likely to steal the blinds. but then you know someone likely has an ace and can then play well on the flop. this has been beaten to death in the archives so look back there.
new HFAP 21st century goes into great depth on shorthand play and i think it is really great!
If you're already a maniac, keep it up. If you're not yet a maniac, learn to be one. Loose-aggressive is the optimal strategy in shorthanded games. Hit hard, hit quick, hit often. Run over the table.
Hey Everyone,
I just completed a look at the numbers from my last 20 or so stud games. Mostly low limit and spread limit.
At least for me, the graph shows, the winning sessions are more numerous but of lesser magnitude than the losses. Losing sessions seem to cut deeper, if less often. (perhaps an inherent part of the rake structure at this level? some other phenomenon?)
I've made a few changes (control of urge to tilt and play garbage hands, higher starting standards, more active board and opponent reading, trying not to play tired) and the fluctuations seem to be getting smaller but it is still clear that one thing that could help is techniques to limit downsides losses.
So how about it anyone out there have any advice on loss limitation (and/or profit maximization without fluctuation increases)?
Sincerely, Frank
It looks like Mike Caro is right.Players who win the most pots do not win the most money,if they win at all.It sounds to me Frank that you,like myself,have to tighten up your 3rd street starting requirements.If you have not done so already,I suggest a thorough reading of Roy Wests book on 7 Card Stud.
Richard,
I read Roy's book around Dec. of last year. It is a good book.
Starting Standards haven't been a problem for me lately as much as they were in the past.
By the way figure out any board reading ideas beyond what Roy talks about?
Thanks for the tip!
If your losses are much larger than your wins and you don't know why, its probably due to one of three causes:
==1== You like to leave a winner and hate to leave a loser, and therefore play longer when losing and shorter when winning. You need to find, review, and embrace the "its all one long game" attitude.
==2== You tilt badly when losing and don't notice. I'd bet that 98% of all bad players and 90% of all good players have this trait to a noticable degree.
==3== You can't recognize a bad game and therefor are likely to play many hours as an underdog. Inability or lack of desire to objectively analyze situations can lead to this situation.
==4== You feel you have to put in a full "shift" at cards and rarely leave before you originally intended; such as when you are tilting or playing in a bad game.
OK, 4 causes.
Until you get control of the real reason, I recomend you set for yourself an artificial stop loss; the maximum you may lose in an evening. Bring only that much. This will stop you from playing very long as an underdog when you don't know it.
Keep track of your play with a notebook (which hands you played, tricky situations etc.) and invest at least 15 minutes before and after each session reviewing and doing self analysis.
Another "trick" that has worked for me is to maintain a list of low-priority chores that you can do if you do leave the casino earlier than anticipated.
- Louie
Louie,
No doubt all of those 4 factors have been a cause at times.
I think I have the tilt thing "largely" under control. I don't think anyone ever gets say a full house cracked and doesn't feel it.
Recognition of a bad game...interesting topic. I have noticed that games with a lot of callers and big pots also seem to cause large fluctuations, but are more profitable when you win. On the other hand, a game full of tight players can grind forever without much to show even for exccellent play. How do you define a good game?
Yes I have definitely left early to secure a win. But trught is that seems to work. I've found in lower limit games that once my winnings get to a certian point a turnaround happens and I loose it all back and more. I equate it to holding a stock too long. For example, by my notes and graphs a win of greater that $40 in 1-5 stud is one that is likely to get taken back if you don't leave. In 5-10 it's a little larger.
An observation I have that maybe someone can comment on is that 1-5 seems that your wins never fully cover your losses. It seems at 5-10 and 10-20, possibly because there are less people drawing out on you, are more profitable even with the antes and more experienced players. And further, players at the 5-10 and 10-20 games actually have a strategy and respect a raise more. Which might actually make it an easire game to win? (even though the bankroll requirement is larger) You tell me.
As far as putting in a shift? Nah, more of a profit objective working there.
Thanks Louie, for a good reply. Frank
My experience with poker is playing spread limit $.25-$1 5 card, seven card, and a little bit of hold'em in a college dorm room with anywhere from 4-6 people for about 1 year, totaling up to about 300 hours of playing break even poker. This was two years ago, and for the past two years I have been gaining intrest in the game, and have been reading, and re-reading any book on poker I can find, and playing Sozobon poker for Windows. After about 1000 simulated hours, I have now gotten to the point where I can play 7-10 computer simulated players in a $5-10 game and win about $80 an hour. Of course, this much per hour will probably not transfer into the real world. I was wondering how much can solid poker player make in a $5-10 game in the long run, and based the experience I have listed above, can I expect to have positive gain or negative gain?
It's my opinion that a solid player should make about $20 an hour in a 5-10 game. Of course it does depend on factors such as the player's ability, oponents' abitlities, type of game... But I doubt that you'll be a winning player as soon as you sit at your first real 5-10 HE game at your closest casino. But give it a couple months. They say experience is key.
As for how your computer poker will translate to your real-life games... I have no idea. I will say that I think those computer games are getting closer and closer to live poker. It's amazing what technology can do these days.
Happy Hunting. Kammy.
Koolkat
I don't think a solid player will make 20/hr. I consider myself a solid player and i make about 10-15/hr. The reason is that with so many people drawing at you your good hands don't hold up as well. By the way if your trying to make a living playing poker your not going to do it playing 5-10. You need to get in the bigger games. Good Luck. Ice
Dear KoolKat,
I don't exactly know how much you can expect to win per hour @ a 5-10 limit but I can tell you this. Don't expect to do as good as your doing on your simulated game. I play a game called turbo hold'em and without exception I will win at least 500 an hour at least playing 10-20. Sure, I can make this much an hour at a live game but not every or near every time. The difference is your not playing with real money and no matter how you try to play the same you won't. You'll make calls with lesser hands then you would in a live game, you'll make raises when you normally wouldn't and youll rarely fold a hand that you most certainly would in a live game, especially if your playing against new opponents instead of the same lineup on the computer. Playing simulated games is a wonderful way of having fun while using your brain thought process on a card situation but the only way to really figure out what you would make is to go to the tables. I would say with a 5-10 game and a $100 buy-in that $200-300 would be a decent night and what you should shoot for...Good luck at the tables,
Russ
Kool Kat is right: computer game estimates will not even come close to real life expectation.
Use the computer games to evaluate "theoretical" situations. Practice computing odds/pot odds in your head quickly so you can pay more attention to the PLAYERS at the casino. The players are going to be MUCH different than computer players. My advice is to set the game up where new players are always being brought in and then pay no attention to the names of the players. You don't want to learn exactly how to beat each individual computer opponent, and then expect your great play on the computer to translate into great results in the casino! In the casino, you must get into the heads of REAL opponents!
KoolKat,
There does come a point with computer simulations where if you are regularly beating the computer but are not changing your strategy and trying new ideas, it is best to stop. It is too easy to reinforce a strategy which works against the particular progam you are playing against (and Sozobon poker, while not bad, has flaws) and you may be picking up bad habits which will cost you in a live game.
Andy.
"I was wondering how much can solid poker player make in a $5-10 game in the long run, and based the experience I have listed above, can I expect to have positive gain or negative gain?"
The long-term profit in any Poker game you play comes from the Fundamental Theorem mistakes made by your opponents. Opponents of different skill levels make mistakes of varying frequency and magnitude. Therefore, your long-term profit is primarily dependent on the difference in skill level between you and your opponents.
I prefer not to set a dollar amount, or even an "hourly rate" goal when I play. I seek only to play without error, and to direct my opponents toward making such mistakes. By doing so, I am earning the maximum possible rate at that game. Obviously, if it appears that I can profit more at one table than another, I'll switch tables.
I also keep track of all my results, including the hours played, the final result of the session (net profits and net losses), etc. for my financial records.
In my opinion, focusing on attaining a certain hourly rate (often quoted as "one big bet an hour") distracts from the true objective, i.e. perfection of play.
In regards to your computer Poker experience, I would not draw any corollary between that and live experience. A computer is only as good at performing a specific task as the algorithm it executes, and most Poker applications I've played against have been little better than pathetic. Most computer Poker applications are adequate for familiarizing the user with rudimentary strategy when learning a new game, but there is no substitute for live play experience.
I have not yet played against Sozobon Poker for Windows, so I cannot speak for that particular package. I have yet to learn of any reason for me to purchase it, though.
I believe that properly programmed, computers can be useful for analysis and simulation. Once again, they are only as good as the programmer - which is why I am designing and coding my own analysis tools.
Q
Q,
I have to agree, for example, a computer program, unless so programmed is unlikely to "go on tilt" or to wait for a real monster hand when it is likely to have to go all in. Which is something real people do.
If the game(s) are good, you can probably make between 10-15$ an hour. But don't get discouraged if your results don't measure up in the first 100-200 hrs. or so; casino poker, while not generally a 'tough' game at these limits, can be significantly harder to beat than a home game, since there's a rake and the players tend to be a little better.
I doodled with jacks-or-better draw using Bicycle software; and CANNOT lose. These guys will NOT raise with two pair before the draw but will raise after the draw. They like to bet the minimum and call the max. They will put in the 3rd overcall with QQ.
You are obviously playing one of numerous inferior products, and continuing to play is detrimental to your game as you can only learn bad habits. Toss it away. Get Turbo games from Wilson Software. When you are confident you can beat them then stop, and play in real games.
- Louie
I play 10-20-40 during the week and usually play 3-6-12, or 4-8 on the weekends(This is a game I'm associated with on the weekends which is why I'm playing this level) Anyway, I keep winning in the higher limit game and keep losing in the low-limit. My raises, as well as others, mean nothing to a majority at the table. This is good when it's 3 or 4 callers who have no sense, but when 8-9 people are seeing the flop, my premium cards are getting cracked be anyone holding anything. Recently, I counted how many times my Aces had been cracked. I got to 9 times. Every time someone turned over a 3-7o or j8s and made two pair I was fuming.. I said nice hand and didn't let them know I was mad but last week I tried something.I was UTG with pocket rockets and raised. I looked to my left and saw the player fixing to call so I turned'em faceup and said If you want to draw go ahead. I got 1 caller(Oddly enough he had AK and called when i bet the flop of 994 and thought about calling after I bet the 7 that hit the turn..I know what your thinking and I have no idea either. He later said he could've hit 2 kings(God bless Him) I got the 15 dollars I think and that was just fine by me.One of the players that folded said they were gonna call(j9o)before seeing my hand.I know this was unorthodox but I was really tired of losing with the best of it going in. Should I ever play low-limit again or just get over it and let them keep drawing and hope they don't hit.
Hoping the good stuff gets to the finish line 1st,
Russ
Russ,
Sounds like a very bad idea to turn those Aces up. If you're going to play low-limit games you have to get used to the wild variations. It's true that you can't play your normal high-limit game - I recommend the new Hold'Em book which has a section on loose games and Lee Jones' book which, while aimed at inexperienced players, contains a lot of sound advice which could help you make the necessary alterations.
PS Send that guy with AK into my game any day :-).
Andy.
That was a gutsy move and I've felt that way too. Try that play when they start spreading low-limit-no-limit games!
As for low-limit holdem, All you can do is play your aces like you got 'em and grit your teeth when you eat it! With 8-9 callers a single pair doesn't hold up much, even if it's aces! Play more drawing type hands in games where no-one folds.
does anyone have the stat on % of time aces hold up against 10 players with random cards?
I think either Lee Jones or Ken Warren says that against 10 players that never fold, poket As will win %35
I seem to recall their book stating "against 8 random hands" for the 35% figure, but could be wrong.
I wrote a simulator to test stuff like this, but used a 10 seat table. So the aces, against the 9 other hands won about 33% of the time.
Note that this 33% figure is still 3.3 times higher than the change of winning with a random hand (10%). Although I get my Aces cracked in low-limit games with the rest of us, they're still better than any other hand. They may not be as strong as they should be or we want them to be, but I'll take 'em every time....
Played Hold 'em 4-8 at Belagio Mon. I had pocket Aces. Bet .. no raises....three callers....flop: A,9,9. All fold but one player. Turn: 2.....opponent called my bet. River: 2.....I went down to quad deuces. Yeah, low limit hold 'em.
Get over it.
It's this kind of next level thinking that probably makes you a great, if not world class player. I wish I thought of it first, and I'll definately try and incorporate it into my game. I hope I have the same kind of success. As for the player with AK, he probably should have reraised you preflop to try and isolate you, as AK plays better heads up than multiway. Once the flop comes though, he has little chance of beating you, so he should probably fold. Taking a card off probably isn't that bad though, since he has position on you. And since he knows your exact two cards, he can get away from his hand easily on the turn if he doesn't improve.
You seem to have identified the player's thoughts when rationalizing the call. The fact that he has almost no chance to win with AK against AA is ignored: he needs two kings or QJT or a 4-flush. Even if he FLOPS a King or JQx, he still can't call since he has only two or four outs.
I mean, if I had AA I WANT the opponent to have AK (OK, maybe A9 is best).
- Louie
What would you have done if he raised your bet on the flop?
What would you have done if he bet out on the turn?
Jeez, it wouldn't surprise me to see someone stay in against your raise with A-9 suited or with 4-4 .
I would have raised as you did, then bet out as you did, but I would never expect to scare anyone out by showing them the A-A. To many "hopeful" people in that mix.
One of the authors said it best...it's you against 9...even after it comes down to you against 1.
My low limit strategy is to raise big pairs pre-flop, see flops as cheaply as possible with drawing hands and either have the lead or the nut draw after the flop or fold. No hoping after the first three cards.
I play regularly in a game similar to the one you describe, and yes, the big pairs get cracked -- but not always. In my observation, it's easy to tell when your opponents have hit their draws. They're not trickey. They check and call until they hit, then they bet and raise. In my game, this is true 99% of the time. It's still irritating to get those AA's cracked, but it does feel good to save some bets by throwing them away when you're hopelessly behind.
The only thing that surprises me is that you only got one caller. There are enough low limit players that delight in cracking AA with junk that I would expect them to call just to take a shot at you. In my experience AA holds up somewhere around 50% of the time, plus or minus 10%. That is certainly better than any other starting hand, so raise every chance you get before the flop. After the flop you have to learn to read the opponents and figure out when you are beat.
Don't worry Mike, these people aren't a mystery and I've discarded the aces after the flop on several occasions when I knew I was beat...I just had to try it.Thanks for your response.
The bone-head with AK called because he believes a "good" hand is one that's highly ranked, NOT one good relative to the current situation. This is the kind of guy who will call all raises with a flush when there are trips on the board: "Had Flush, had to call". This is the kind of guy who thinks his pocket 66 got better when the Ace paired on the turn: "Had Aces Up, had to call".
This is the kind of guy who will contribute much less if you either humiliate or educuate him.
- Louie
Hello Russ, I see you found the forum finally. Your frustration with the weekend game sounds very familiar. I have played there since the game opened up and have had lots of similar feelings. The flip side of your story is when the suckout artists miss. I remember a night last year when I raised preflop with AA and someone said outloud "Oh Oh Randys got aces". 7 people called the flop. It came 732 rainbow. I bet and they all called. Turn was 9, I bet and they all called. River was Q, I bet and 3 people called. I tabled my AA and they all mucked. What could they have had..who knows who cares. Made up for quite a few losers. BTW it was hilarious when you got that AK caller.
Dont forget to tell the forum about your 700.00 pot with 89 suited last night.
Randy Collack
Hey Randy,
I didn't know if that was you or not on the forum because I didn't know your last name and that column you wrote about playing like s**t. What a crock...You are one of the best players in that game every week! I feel like I have been plaing below par since the WSOP. When you're losing, I guess you always feel like you're playing worse then you really are. How long did you say you've been playing, a year? I've been playing regularly for about 16 months or so and I've got a lot of things to learn!! Okay, since you mentioned it , here it goes...I'm stuck 500 after 2 hours of solid play and I'm catching absolutely nothing! The 2 hands I won I knew the other players didn't have anything and I bluffed them out. I pick up AJh in early position and raise. By the time it's back to me it's capped and the last raiser is an extremely tight player. Flop comes KQ4(2c) and I checked with 6 players to go. There's a bet 2 to the right of the button and the tight player raises(AK,KK, or QQ) I thought.
I call because there's roughly 320-350 in the pot and it's gonna cost me 20 to hit one of three 10's to make me the gadget. Lo and behold the beautiful 10s comes and I check knowing it's coming back around.Two to the right of the button bets, Tight player calls, I raise to get out the flushers and both originals call, making it three handed. 2c falls on the river...I check, two to the right bets, Tight player calls.I scoop it up with the straight.
Tight player flopped 3 Q's and other guy flopped 3 K's. One of the players to my left later told me he had 34c and my raise got him out(Thank God I made a right play).
Next hand 89h in the BB. No raises and 7 players.
Flop comes 672(2d) I bet to see where I was at and the fact that if my straight came, they wouldn't see it as clearly. Well it's 30 more to me in about 2 seconds with 6 players in again. I call(I know someone's got a set But I'm staring at all those checks)Guess what, my beautiful 10s falls again and Icome out betting again. I get raised and reraised and I cap it making it a monster pot. The river brings the 5c and I bet and get 1 caller(a set of 6's). I play 1 more round and pick up Q's and K's and get small pots and go from stuck 500 to a 465 winner in a matter of 15 minutes and walk out and go see a movie(Eyes Wide Shut). Not bad for crappy cards for 2 1/2 out of 3 hrs. Russ
Write back Randy or I'll see you at the game
Just for clarification, there are quite a few "Randys" that post here. It wasnt me that posted about playing badly lately. Thanks for the compliments on my play but I am just a novice. Been playing overall around 3 years but at the weekend place for a year. I still get out played by some guys at the Wednesday game. This is an example of how I was outplayed by Dean this week. I had AA in late position and he was in early position. He raised preflop, I 3 bet it and he capped with 4 players including us seeing the flop of Qxx. Now I know Dean well enough to put him on big pair with the cap before the flop. He is perfectly capable of the first raise with middle pair or AK or AQ. But to cap it he has got QQ,KK,AA. As soon as the flop hit he bet out and all folded to me. I reraised and he just called. Alarm bells went off in my head with his call. If he had AA(unlikely with my hand) or KK I am sure he would have reraised me. I instantly put him on QQ. Well my head said check the turn but by hands still put out $20 when he checked. Of course he check raised me and of course I called the 20 there and the 40 on the river. Cost myself 80 bucks by not trusting my instincts. He knew everystep of the way what I was doing and played me like a fool. Hopefully it will be a lesson learned.
Randy Collack
Yeah, you did get outplayed but next time he'll be very disappointed when you don't bet the turn for him and maybe not even his river bet. A good lesson learned. It's so hard to get away from Aces when there's not an obvious board to beat you but I've been learning. Dean's a good player but he's not nearly the best of that game. Til the next time we trap Dean, later.
See ya at the game tonight,
Russ
I post here a lot and used to always post as Randy. I will try to make it a point to sign my last name. Oh and Russ I didn't mean I played like s**t all the time; it was in a thread about mistakes and that is the biggest mistake I make; I play poorly when I know better. Oh and Randy keep up the good work; the last time you were out here I saw a lot of improvement from when you were out in Dec. Save me a seat in Houston, I might come visit.
Randy Refeld
I count 14bb+ when you called with your 3-card gut shot. On the plus side you can expect additional bets when you get their. On the bad side you are a likely loser if the board pairs OR the flush gets there anyway, and you can expect a raise on the turn. Marginal call.
On the turn I count about 21bb (depending on flop callers) after you raise, so a flush draw behind you is getting a whopping 10:1 to call. Only brain-dead types would fold in that spot. Good raise since you knew he was brain dead. But, I really HATE it when people say they raised to get the flush draws out. Except that, oddly, it seems to work from time to time.
It appears plenty of people fail to take the size of the pot into consideration; when that is just as important as the size of your hand.
What I like most about your story is that it encourages others to stay patient when losing, as it can turn around at any time. Had you tilted, you would have been stuck alot more than 500 when you started winning.
- Louie
Thanks for your message but I know the player who folded his flush draw and as I said it was only a 4 high flush. There's nothing worse than making your hand only to find out you were drawing to a 2nd best hand and still losing.
But he has to be drawing dead half the time in order to justify the fold.
And... if you make a 2-card flush its only half as likely that someone else also made a 2-card flush, compared to if you have say top two pair.
The above two percentages means if hero had garbage and folded, he would have to sure someone has a flush draw 75% of the time given that action. Such high confidence is only possible in realistically tight games when surprisingly there are lots of callers. THEN I would consider folding, but never in these loose games.
- Louie
I was the Big Blind in a $3-$6 kill pot (stakes are now $6-$12, with a forced $6 bet from the killer; the killer acts after the Big Blind and has the option to raise). The Small Blind was the killer.
I was dealt As Ks. UTG called, two or three other players called (I don't remember their positions), I limped in for the remaining $3, and the Small Blind checked his option to raise.
The Flop came 9s 7s 3d. The Small Blind checked, I bet, UTG raised, and everyone else folded. I called.
On the Turn came the Kc.
Would it have been more correct for me to bet or to check with the intent of raising?
Q
Since you did not raise with your monster and are in the BB, you can have virtually anything. Only brain dead UTGs will fear the King. UTG SHOULD bet so you should check-raise. I would bet only against very passive players, the ones that would NOT raise on the flop with JJ.
Now if you HAD raised pre-flop (recomended) and then called the flop raise, UTG should rightfully fear AK and should check when the King hit. In this case bet right into her.
- Louie
PS. a Two over card 4 flush is a favorite over a large pocket pair. If you are ever tempted to gamble or ever tempted to go for out-of-position "free" cards, this is the time. ReRaise on the flop.
PPS. UTG may very well be gambling with JT, raising with her 2 over card gut shot (as the favorite) against your presumed pair of 9s.
I would not check raise here. I would bet out, wondering if UTG hit a set on the flop. If she re-raises you after you have bet out, that would be a distinct possibility. If she did not hit anything on the flop or turn, you may win it right here. Black Jack
Q,
Louie's advice above seems right on. I want to expand on one point he made.
Before the flop you just called and Louie thought you should raise. Note that AKs is a powerful hand against any size field in an unraised pot. The kill money should make you more willing to raise pre-flop since the kill hand just figures to be average.
Despite this, I find most players tighten up in kill pots and this has to be incorrect (unless they are too loose in general on the non kill hands in which case by tightening up they unwittingly play better on the kill hands).
Regards,
Rick
I'm still very new to Omaha-8, and wanted to ask about three hands I was dealt in an Omaha-8 tournament today. How would you play these hands before the Flop, both under the circumstances described here and in general?
All games were ten-handed.
1. Ah Ac 5h Jd - four positions to the left of the Big Blind, first three players had folded
2. Qh Qc Jd 9h - three positions to the left of the Big Blind, UTG had folded, next player had called
3. 2s 4s 5s 6d - Small Blind (for half the bet), unraised pot, three callers plus the Big Blind
Q
Q,
I'll assume the players are a bit tighter and better than normal since this is a tournament. I'm also going to lean towards chip preservation on marginal holdings (e.g., small +EV, big SD = fold).
"1. Ah Ac 5h Jd - four positions to the left of the Big Blind, first three players had folded"
All three options are viable. This is a marginal hand that would prefer a small field or a big field in back for one bet. Raise if the table is tight enough to have some steal equity or you have a good chance of getting it head up. This gives unimproved aces a shot. Folding isn't bad. I think calling might be break even at best so maybe this isn't an option.
"2. Qh Qc Jd 9h - three positions to the left of the Big Blind, UTG had folded, next player had called"
Fold. This is a hand you want to see in late position for one bet only. One notch up (Kh Kc Qd Th) would be marginally playable at best (and I wouldn't argue with throwing it away).
"3. 2s 4s 5s 6d - Small Blind (for half the bet), unraised pot, three callers plus the Big Blind ".
Fold. There is a world of difference between having a 2 4 and a 2 3 even with the supporting cast. With 2 4 you need the ace and the three to flop and that is a LOT harder than needing just the ace to flop (along with another low card of course).
Regards,
Rick
Good response, to which I add...
1) raising also lets them know you do NOT need A2 to raise. If called, hope you flop a 2.
2) Yes, MAYBE the board will be KT943 or QT663 or AhKhJh9d4s. Easy fold. "One Notch Up" KKQT is a MUCH better hand, but still not that good.
3) You're very right about 23 vrs 24; but I would still call except in this tournament.
- Louie
1) Raise, no question.. but look strongly at folding post-flop with any action
2) Sayonarah, sucker! Too much potential raise behind you, really bad position.
3) Depending on table, I might call or fold. If you are running over people, see what happens with a raise?
Loose game:play hand one. Tight or average game:fold all 3.
1. Call 2. Fold 3. Call
You'll probably have to fold after the flop with 1 and 3 anyway, so there's no sense getting too invested in the hand.
you said tournament. tournaments are usually tight so expectation may be shorthanded. raise, raise, call. ist two hands play well headup or may win after the flop or before. last hand is better than it looks with a bunch of callers as it can also make a winner for half with redraws for more of the pot.
I am adding stud as my second game so I'm not sure I played it right...
game is 1-5 stud
Fairly passive game, moderately loose...
I have rolled up 7s. Player brings it in (1$)with a 2, 10 calls, K raises 4$, Ace calls, I call, all others call, 5 players.
4th street:
X X Ks 6c
X X As 9d
(me) 7h 7s 7d 4c
X X 2d 3s
X X 10h 9c
one 4 dead, 1 ace dead all other cards live....
King bets two, ace calls, I raise 5$, all fold except king. I bet 5$ the whole way, he calls all bets, I win with trips.
questions:
1. Did I play correctly on 3rd, or should I have re-raised? My reason not to reraise was that in this game most players were willing to fold their bring-in for raises, but looser once they had a few bucks in the pot. I did not want to win a tiny pot with my trips. Also, I felt re-raising would give away my hand.
2. Was I correct in raising on 4th? My thinking at the time was that there were too many live cards and my trips probably didn't want to have 4 callers all the way to the river. I figured a maximum re-raise would knock some out, as it did. I'm quite sure I could have strung them along for one more round, but if I let them in now, they might not fold later since the pot was getting bigger. I did not want too many chasers....
3. Suggestions on how to better play those rare rolled up hands to maximize profit and minimize risk of losing.?
Now a more general question about spread limit betting, especially 1-5 stud:
I have found that raising the maximum on 3rd street usually drives everyone or almost everyone out. There is no ante and it's usually not worth stealing the bring-ins. Most books I've read seem to agree that when betting spread limit, almost always bet the maximum. But I don't want to drive EVERYONE out when I have something good! Should I bet less in early rounds to win more $ from fairly timid opposition? Example: split queens with a king kicker, highest card out a jack, all Q & K live.
I would defintely reraise on 3rd street. I wouldn't worry too much about winning just a tiny pot here. With the raise from the King and the call from the Ace, it would be an *extremely* rare situation in a 1-5 game where they would fold their hands early after your reraise. I would reraise on third and fully expect to get paid off the whole way by one if not both of them (assuming you win the hand).
Also there is nothing wrong with winning a small to medium pot with the small rolled up hands. These hands are vulnerable playing against 2 or 3 overpairs.
If you decide to slow play, you are better off waiting until fifth or sixth street to raise.
Just my opinion.
Rob
Very well said. I totally agree.
Dave,
How could the King have bet on Fourth Street? From your description, the Ace was high.
Q
Dave;
1) You have two choices here. You can win a small pot with those rare but somewhat vulnerable small to medium rolled up trips, or you can gamble and let people catch up a little in hopes of winning a larger pot at the risk of losing same.
In the game I regularly play in $5 (from the king) means steal, $3 or $4 means a pair of kings, $2 means they're not commited to the hand (I'm not sure about this but when someone with a king up bets $2 I don't know how to read it) and $1 is the thing to watch out for. He's either rolled up, or has nothing and is hoping to pair up to continue. If he's rolled up you'll find out later for sure.
In this situation, I would have done the same thing you did. I'd rather take a chance, because a rolled up hand has a good chance to turn into a monster by the end.
2) Good choice to try to win it there. Typically you can raise the max on 4th without fear of losing everyone unless the game has a tendancy to get tight all of a sudden. Especially if someone has told you he has a big split pair (like the king did). You want to play against him because he'll pay you off, but you want to play fast so he has to pay for the third king if he's going to beat you.
3)IMHO you did the best you could in this situation. The more you want to win with that kind of hand the more you have to risk by letting people catch up to you. This is a situation in which you have to know your opponents tendancies to optimize that risk.
Regarding your general question, I have the same problem with betting the maximum. I typically play tight and have that image at the table most of the time. When I have bet $5 on third street with a legitemate starting hand I have lost all players nearly every time. Occasionally I get played back at and usually get run over by pocket aces which improve to a higher two pair than what I end up with (ouch!). On the converse, when I do this as a steal play with overcards I almost always get called down and have to bail when my hand doesn't improve, which is most of the time.
My conclusion in general. The more you want to win, the higher variance you have to be able to accept. I play this game as a trapping game, play very few hands and try to be in a position to win most of them. The price I pay is that I don't get payed off big most of the time. This same style serves me well in juicy games, but those are few and far between where I play.
Best of your skill,
cytokine
I don't like the raise on 4th. Your raise gives away your hand (If you were the other players, what would you think you're rasing on? Your would be in bad position to raise with two small pair) Since you didn't raise on 3rd Street, continue to slowplay unless you 4th street card is a spade. If everyone calls, the Ace may bet 5 on fifth street. Then you can raise on 5th street or see who calls and wait until sixth depending on what falls. Rolled up trips don't come around often and you want to try and make as much as possible from them.
==2== My rule of thumb benchmark is to bet or raise no more than about 2/3 of the pot; so I start betting $5 when the pot reaches about $8. My 3rd street raises are routinely $1 for every caller so far; minimum of $2.
You are generally correct that you WANT callers when you raise since they aren't getting the right odds to call; at least in these low ante games.
Having said all that, there are often times I'll bet only $4 into a large pot which usually creates a pregnant pause in the opponents. This is usually when I have the exact hand I'm representing and I'm encouraging the opponents to second guess themselves; and they generally respond normally after such a pause. It also makes for a good bluff since it looks like I'm fishing for a call.
I believe with trips you WANT players to call with their pairs; small pairs are virtually drawing dead and larger pairs have only 2 outs. So I would raise on 4th less than a full bet and HOPE to get a silly cold call behind me.
- Louie
Ace and king were switched... sorry....
3rd ace raised, king called
4th ace bet 2, king called, ace folded for raise....
thanks for responses
dave in nj
I encourage others to post an unusualy great SITUATION they found themselves in.
One I recal was in 7-Stud. I had (AK)A5K; opponents had (??)5AA, (??)KQK, (??)QQ9, (??)Q95, and (??)995. The opponents liked THEIR hands. As good as this was, we all caught an 8 or a 3 on 6th street.
Mid-level Omaha-8 game at Taj Mahal, sitting in the big blind. My hand:99TJ, double-suited. Five callers of a pre-flop raise by the button. Flop: 29T rainbow. I open, 3 callers, button raises, I re-raise, all 4 call. 4th street - 9. Thus, board has 2,9,T,9 (no straight flush draw). I check, middle player bets, button raises, I re-raise, and button caps it - four callers. The river is a blank, I bet, get raised once by the button, I re-raise and get 2 calls.
Nobody showed their hands after I turn over the quad 9's, but assuming the button had pocket 10's, what the hell did the other 2 callers to the river (and one caller on the river) have, especially with no low draw after 4th street???????
Unfortunately, I haven't been in this type of situation very often......
I luckily beat these two guys mercilessly in a game, and to get back at me they decided to always cap it whenever I bet, but would play conservatively if I just called. The rest of the table knew they were idiots and would have no problem paying off these huge pots with very little.
Boy, did they show me!
Playing 4-8 hold 'em at Soaring Eagle, in Michigan. I am in BB, and went to throw my hand away when it came to me. Wasn't paying attention. Dealer reminded me that I was already in so I kept my K-5 off suit and saw the flop 5 handed. Flop is Q-5-5. I bet and got 5 callers. Turn is a J, I check, a bet, 2 callers and I raise, and still have 2 callers left. River is a 5! I bet and get 2 callers. One had queens full and the other had jacks full. They both made the comment that I caught the only card on the river that would make me a winner, which wasn't true.
Why isn't that true about the only card. If one had Q's full, you're beat on the flop. If the other had pocket J's and had jacks full you were beat by both on the flop and turn and the 5 was your only out, or do you mean that one had 5's full of Q's and the other 5's full of jacks?
They couldn't have had 5's full of Q's and/or 5's full of J's, as our intrepid adventurer had a 5, there were two on the board, and the 4th 5 was the river card. As such, unless I'm missing something really basic, the 5 was literally the single case card.....
Exactly, Dr. J there were three 5's on the board a Q and a Jack so all they need in there hand is a Q or a Jack. I didn't get it either.
Hey Louie,
I was playing 20-40 at player's casino in Lake Charles,La and picked up pocket 9's about 3 months ago when I was trying to build up some money for my 1st trip to the WSOP. There were 3 callers in front of me with only the button to act plus the blinds.The button called and the SB raised. I had never played with any of these people except for the guy I rode down their with and he had already mucked. The flop comes Q99(2d) It is bet and raised before it gets to me and I smooth call...I'm not much for slowplaying but I couldn't see being beat on the turn other then 4 Q's or a st.flush and I wasn't too worried about that. A King falls on the turn(no diamond)and it's bet and raised twice before it gets to me.I join in with a "What the hell", I'll cap it olay and the button calls. The river is a small diamond and I get $80 out of 4 players on the end. What did they have? I saw the SB's hand and he showed me pocket Q's as I expected. The other cards went in the muck and I'm guessing a couple of J10's and maybe an AQ or a flush by one of the callers...Anyway I didn't care.I hope that situation comes up again real soon and I'm not holding top full as was the unlucky SB...
Louie,
One of my most memorable hands was a FW in a 1-5 stud game. A few hands earlier, I had the "2nd best hand" and lost to a genteman (player A) at the showdown. After he won, he kind of laughed and said "I guess I know where to go for the $$ now (basically laughing at me) softly to the adjacent play, but I heard it. We'll anyway he obviously thought I was a chump (had only been at table for 15 minutes).
Finally "The hand" was dealt.
I was dealt a "2c" and tossed in my $1 bring-in without looking at my cards. Player A called, another player (B) raised and another called (C). I had by then looked at my cards and saw I was "rolled-up". I called.
4th street : I get no help, but end up calling a $5 bet.
5th street: I get 4th Deuce and have quads. Player A , bets $5, Player C raises and B calls, I call the $10 bet.
6th street : Three of us get no help, but player B appears to have made her flush (Ace high). She bet, I called, player A raised, she re-raised. I called (total $15, player C folded.
River: I bet, player A (I'm sure remembering that I am a "chump" and figuring I am in with trip 2's or maybe deuces full), bet raised his potential higher full house. player B raised, and when it got to me I finally on the last bet of the hand made the 3rd raise. Both called.
Player A stood up, leaned over the table and looked very close at the cards and said " what the hell does HE got". Eventually called the bets and turned over Kings Full. Player B threw in her cards (never did see them) and I turned over my Quads one by one as I looked at player A right in the eye.
He played 2 more hands and left.
Moral of the story: If you laugh at someone, you might eat your cards later!!
I will never forget this hand, probably not the best hand I ever played, but 7th street was sweet.
6Th Street: The player to my right makes thrip kings exposed. I make 8's full and the person to my left has a possible straight. The Kings bet 5, I call, possible straight calls.
7Th Street: The trip kings check. I check figuring the straight will bet or the Kings are on a check-raise. The straight bets, but the Kings didn't reraise, only called. I knew I had it and reraised and both called.
220 limit hold-em tournament
I had AA
player 1: AT
player 2: T8
Flop: A T 8
Was in BB with Q9o against 6 players. Flop Q93. I bet and got 3 callers. A 2 came on the turn and I went for the check-raise, hehehe. The first guy bet, the second raised, and the third 3-bet it...
I flopped top two pair when 3 players all flopped sets, and I lost only 1sb. Phhhhhewwwww.
- Louie
I was sitting at a 3-6 table in the Peppermill in Reno,NV. Had Js9s. Five callers. Flop comes 10s-8d-3c. I bet, 2 fold 2 call. Turn comes Qh. I bet with nut straight. I am raised and re-raised, I cap. River comes Qd. I am not thinking clearly at the time and bet. Both call. Both had filled with Q-3 and Q-9. Needless to say not a happy moment, first to worst.
My apologies if this is off-topic, but: Phoenix New Times just published what is probably the most extensive profile ever done on Johnny Chan (The world's best poker player, featured in "Rounders"). The writer even got to sit behind him at a 10K buy-in game in Los Angeles to observe his play, then went to a Little Toyko massage parlor with him. The story is at (and will remain archived at)
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1999/072299/feature1-1.html
Wow, that was a good story.
Great story; thanks.
What an arrogant person.
Arrogant, you say? Well, play with him, and win all of his money, then he won't be so arrogant.
I 'll do it if you bankroll me - I have no funds for 500-1000, sorry !!!
I think there's a distinct difference btwn unshaking confidence and arrogance. I enjoyed the story, thanks for the info
Johnny Chan is a supremely confident poker player and I'm sure that's why he is ranked among the world's best. If he controls his somewhat oversized arrogance, he would probably become number one in the world. I believe that Chip Reese, Erik Seidel, and Huck Seed are greater players (and money managers) than "the world's greatest poker player". A very inspirational article.
Why ?? According to my meager info Chan seldom loses big and his money management is supreme (invest and all)
This article was a little nauseating. Not only did the writer pander to Chan fans, but he was obviously an obsequious admirer of Chan himself.
The article also didn't give me very much information about WHY Chan is supposedly so good. One of the only examples I got was a hand where he made trip 7's on fourth street. Does that make him a good player? No. I saw Rounders, too. I saw the segment of the 1988 WSOP and I can only imagine that if I had flopped the nut straight playing heads up for the title, I probably would have won the tournament too.
Basically, I think he wins a lot through intimidation and picking the right games.
But the bottom line is, if you raise on 3rd street with 7's in the hole and a five kicker, that may or may not exactly be a good move. But making trips on fourth street is just plain LUCKY. That hand was just not impressive to me.
natedogg
A game called 2-22 is hi-lo poker where players declare low if they are close to a total of 2 and high if they are close to a total of 22. Face cards are 1 or 10 and aces are 1 or 11. I was dealt a jack and an ace, so I declared both ways. I won the low (was the only low declared) and tied the high with another 21 (several cards, none of them an ace). Question: do I win the whole pot, lose the whole pot, or win low and split high?
Depends on the house rules- if the "pig" rule is in effect or not.
"Pig" rule- in any declare hi/lo split game, if you do not WIN BOTH halves (hi AND low), you win nothing. I.E. ties are losses.
Other than that, you would split high and scoop low (I've never heard of a rule where the two-way player gets to bump one-way players in a tie.) ******* A variation of your game that I play with our monthly "slot poker" group.. (Slot poker- any crazy poker games with wildcards, weird rules, etc where luck becomes the MAJOR factor in the game, and poker skills are greatly diminshed from the real poker played in casinos and such. Slot poker is usually played in home games with non-serious players; the games BARELY resemble poker, if at all. Your 2-22 is such a game...)
... is called "8 1/2, 28 1/2". Start with two cards, turn one up.
Game rules: Face cards 1/2, Aces are 1 or 11, all others are point value. Players MUST be at brackets (8 1/2, 28 1/2) or inside (9-28) when the game ends, or they forfeit their hand. As only one card is hidden, it's easy to catch anyone trying to cheat.
Betting round, then players get a chance to draw another up card or stand (decision affects that round only). Another betting round follows, deal/bet cycle continues until a) everyone busts (never happens) b) no one draws cards or c) scooper wins whole pot.
If no scoop, players declare high, low or both with chips. Person declaring both must win with pig rule (no ties) to take whole pot, otherwise they are knocked out and pot is split between remaining hi/low hands.
A scooper is person who draws required number of cards (10 or 11) and doesn't go over 28 1/2. The "10-Card rule," as it is known, is important to have when the pig rule is in effect... ....although, when you have been raising with a perfect 8 1/2 from the get-go, and someone pulls low 10 cards and steals your half of the pot, you ain't too happy about it....
Silly game, but generates a lot of money at 25/50 cent bets, max 3 raises with our group. and scooping is a beautiful thing...
Try it, see what you think.
BEFORE you start to play high/low declare you must explicetely make a policy for at least these three situations:
==1== Can a scoop hand tie or must it win outright?
==2== Who gets eliminated first? ==A== Eliminate the Scoop Hands before the one way hands, or ==B== Eliminate the one way hands before the scoop hands.
==3== The mechanics for declaring must be unambiguous and strictly enforced.
A decision on ==1== will result in either the scoop hand getting 3/4 of the pot or getting nothing. For whatever its worth, I think tieing should not not disqualify the scoop hands, as this will discourage scooping.
For ==2== imagine these three hands: X has then best high hand and declared "high". Y has nothing and declares "low". Z has the best low and declares "scoop". Notice that the scoop hand gets nothing. However, if you choose ==A== above then Y gets half the pot; and if you choose ==B== above then X gets the whole pot.
I recomend writing these policies down and keep them in full view.
- Louie
See Item #135108412 if you're interested... latest bid is $45.00
They are not paying the light bill in the casino because you can buy a book that will tell you how to beat them. Living high on the hog they are, and now someone wants you to bid on a worthless book. But, hey, I have a treasure map! I will sell it for Kool Kash.
please dont reply to spam and worthless posts as soon this forum will be ruined. i hope mason will delete all of this and all the garbage even if it makes those persons mad. i dont look anymore at those posts from the people that waste my time and wont put fun posts on the exchange forum.
ray,
i won't delete this post because the casono gambler's guide was one of the first really good books on gambling. i have a copy and value it highly. some of the discussion, especially that pertaining to bias roulette is still terific. if you are a gambling book collector, it is worth the price of $45.00/
I visited eBay for the first time yesterday just to fool around a bit. Amazingly, I typed in "Sklansky" and there were two items for sale (Winning Poker & his Poker Video). Now if I can get my wife to sell the five spare sets of china we inherited, I might even agree to sell some of my lessor poker books.
Regards,
Rick
I have just purchased your 21-C edition of 7-stud and noticed that the section on "When Bring In Raises" was deleted. Why?
This section appears in the 1989 edition of SCSFAP, but we deleted it in 1994. We felt that it was too arbitrary.
A hand from last night's 3-6 session illustrative of the peculiar challenges besetting the intrepid player in an anything goes version of HE.
EXHIBIT A: I raise on the button with KJ hearts. Two limpers call as well as both blinds. Flop is Q-9-5 (2 spades, 1 diamond). All check to me and I take the free card. Turn is an ace of hearts. Again all check and I bet. Limpers flee and blinds call. 2 diamonds comes on the river and both blinds check. I didn't think either of them was on the flush draw and knew that any 55, 99, QQ, or AA would call regardless of kicker, so I didn't bet. SB flipped over 32o and BB 42o. SB remarked that had I bet the river they both would surely have folded but I'm not so sure!
The blinds shouldn't have played for a raise but their call on the turn was probably marginally correct, or at least not significantly wrong. Their actual problem was that their hands counterfeited each other to a great extent and, more generally, that they didn't know what each other could have. Based on what they each had, however, they rationaly doubted that their hands overlapped.
Given the play of the hand I would guess there's about a 50% chance that no one has a pair that he can bet on the river if one of the blinds hits his hand. This means that each blind sees 4 outs that are good all of the time and 6 outs that are good half the time, for total chance of winning of about 15%. The pot is laying them 7-1 for what appears to be better than a 6-1 shot (not counting the rake but assuming no implied odds if a gutshot hits), possibly better depending on your proclivity for bluffing in this spot.
I disagree. When I bet the turn, I represented Ax, a natural hand to raise with on the button preflop and then check when not helped by the flop. And once my turn bet was called by the SB, that should have indicated to LB that either SB had a pair or was on the spade draw. LB should have reasoned that he had 4 outs maximum (11-1) and folded. In this instance, he was rewarded for his faulty play.
Perhaps in the light of day they should have realized that you had a good chance of having an ace. In the actual game, however, when you raise preflop but then check after (1) the board is ragged and (2) everyone checks, it looks like a complete miss, like you were fooling around with connectors or something. Moreover, your bet in late position after the field checks twice to you it looks suspicious.
Even if they would have thought about it, you would almost have certainly bet the flop if you had AK, AQ and possibly AJ. With A9 and below you probably wouldn't have raised. It's also hard to put you on a pocket pair. With a pair higher than 99, you probably would have bet the flop. With a lower pair, a preflop raise would be unexpected and a bet on the turn after an A hit less likely still. So they had reasons to put you on what you had.
I guess I agree that one of them should have folded, but note that if the BB can check-raise your bet on the river he might get 10 or 11-1 for his call. Not enough, but not wildly off.
Finally, if the SB plays this bad and the BB puts him on a pair or a spade draw, he's making a mistake.
Well when you checked the flop, everyone got a free card. By the time the turn came, both the blinds had gut shot draws and stayed in to see the river card. By not betting the river, you lost the pot and they chopped it.
I am a little suprised that both blinds called the raise preflop.. but lower limit games are that way..
If you believe you cannot steal this one on the river then you should not have tried on the turn; since that has an even less chance of succeeding.
I would have bet the river. Betting the Ace on the turn is real convincing due to your raise-then-check and only the most determined callers will call.
- Louie
..err.. I should say its convincing if you are known as a selective raiser; since such people almost always have an Ace or a pair when they raise.
The dealer had blabbermouthed to the table that I was a solid tight player and in every showdown these two players witnessed me in, I'd had a legit hand. Had only one called the turn bet, I would have unhesitatingly bet the river. But with two callers, I figured at least one had an ace or queen with kicker problems...
"If you believe you cannot steal this one on the river then you should not have tried on the turn; since that has an even less chance of succeeding."
Louie, I am not so sure about that statement.
I think the bluff on the turn is fine (i.e., the Ace was an ostensible out which he hit). However, once he is called in two spots, it is probably a better play to check at the end particularly because he is holding the best no pair hand here (i.e. KJ). A bluff may be in order if he held a no pair hand like J,10 or something.
BTW, to the original poster, if these yahoos can call a raise preflop with 32 and 42 and call a bet on the turn (from their immediate right no less) looking for the gut shot, you can rest assured that one of them would have called on the end with the pair of deuces.
I don't know if you are new to no-fold'em hold'em, but this story is not only typical, it doesn't even scratch the surface of what goes on at a 3-6 hold'em table.
Your first mistake was to try to bluff at all. The only time I ever try to bluff a 3-6 table is if the one or two (maximum, never three or more) players in the hand are KNOWN rocks or higher limit players. Other than that, never, ever, ever, ever bluff in low limit hold'em. This is one of the cardinal rules of low limit hold'em. If you had bet the river, you would have been called down by one of those guys, guaranteed.
The silliness of 3-6 hold'em can go way beyond the hand you described. Think of the worst possible play you could ever imagine and it happens countless times per day at a 3-6 hold'em table. I can't tell you how many times my pocket Aces have lost to 68o or 94s.
It's common for 7 or 8 players to cap the betting before the flop. If you're holding KK or AA, you can be sure you will lose over 75% of the time.
No fold'em hold'em IS the toughest game in town. It takes balls and luck to survive a 3-6 game but mostly luck.
Natedogg
I've never been in a game like this before 1-5//50c ante FW. Maniac 4(seat)and Maniac 5. Player 3 would come in for $1 with a 2d. M4 makes it $6 with 9c and M5 makes it $11 with 7h. I'm in 7 and it going to cost me $11 to call. Assume everyone has live up-cards. What hands should I call with??? There also a chance M4 will reraise if I call and M5 could also.
Thank You Paul
Paul,
Any chance they were a "team"? Although probably not at 1-5.
Jack
No definitely not.
you can play tight and wait on live big pairs and big 3 flush and straight cards and be likely to win a modest amount. or get in there and play with them and have a big flucuation like they do but you will be the one who wins the most money in the game. in your example i would play with tens a 3 flush with one card over a ten or any three cards ten or bigger and small pairs with a big card. if they would be raising with anything i would drop my standards and go right ahead and raise with them and be one of the boys. you can win a little or alot it just depends on the amount of risk you can handle. if a third player is in you must adjust your hands to play against his good hand.
two hands that i would liek to share ,,, sitting in the 3seat in BB i catch,,,AJs 4 callers SB included.. flop,,, A J 8 rainbow,, hears where this gets rough the players at the table are all new the table is in the second round of a new game .. I know nothing about any one and same for them about me,,, theres only one other player to my left that i have played with,, the comment fro him before we sat down was "LETS GO FISHING".. OK back to the game SB checked i checked all checked ,, the turn 2 still rainbow ,, Sb checked I bet out get 3 callers SB included,, the river 6 no pr ,,"owell"SB bets out,,, I raised all fold to her,, she calls,, the show down,, Sb pocket Aces!!! second hand wich is hte next hand,,me AA,, 8 callers to my raise,, flop 2 9 A i checked all checked to button who bet i raise,, all call the turn 4s wich puts the flush up A24 spades... i checked all to the Button,, who bets i called and so did all the river ,,, jumping jacks Qauds,, wowowow.. i bet out ,, 2 fold call call raise,,, i reraise,, no one folds button capped it,, my nightmare had just started,, u guessed it,, 3seat king flush button 35s..
AJ: From your description I would say these players routinely call the flop. If so, BET all your good hands on the flop. On the river, go for the overcalls with so many players behind you.
AA: Bet the flop, it looks natural. Bet the turn anyway, since you have plenty to call, may be betting for value even if someone DOES have a flush (if you get 4 callers), and will kick yourself if everyone checks. And since they obviously like to call you should not assume someone has a flush draw when you get so many callers. Check only if you strongly suspect right-hand-opponent HAS the flush.
My nightmares involve huge Tolkein-like spiders, being wrongfully accuses and nobody cares, or seeing the greatest game ever with no empty seats.
- Louie
Last night I played in a 6-12 game with a Maniac sitting at my right. He would straddle every time, 90% of the time he would raise pre-flop with any two cards. So I decided to play extremely tight pre-flop and extremely aggressive post flop. I would throw away Any hand that was a drawing Hand, say Axs, Small suited connectors, suited gappers, and Small pairs.
One hand I was delt A10d I was in Middle position with the maniac raising to my right, I re-raised and the button capped it, 3 players, flop comes 2d Ac 6d, The maniac Checks, I bet (I think the button would have checked, Or I would have check-raised), Button calls Maniac calls. A 6c falls on the turn, again the maniac checks I bet and button folds, and Maniac check-raises.
I put the Maniac on a bluff,
So I re-raise him. He calls.
What do you think he has? And have I played this hand correctly against a Maniac?
How do starting hand requirements change when you have a Maniac like this sitting to your right?
Thanks Walleye
Was his hand selection in this particular case Rational or Irrational?
I would say Irrational
I guess that he has 2,6o and you played correctly...he just sucked out
I have no idea what the Maniac has (that's why he's a Maniac), but the tone of your post sounds like it's leading up to a bad beat story centering around three sixes.
Play tight in early and middle position. But if in late position reraise with any Ax(s), AJo or better, any two big cards with a K, and any pair in the hole if everyone folds to the maniac who then raises. These hands overall should give you the best of it over time if you're successful in isolating the maniac with them.
I think the maniac might have an Ace with a kicker lower than a queen and chances are it is lower than your ten. Of course he could easily have a six here or any other hand for that matter.
I like your play on the flop with ATs you certainly don't mind bringing it in with a raise yourself from middle position and by making it 3 bets in this spot you will probably isolate the maniac with you most likely having the best of it.
I like the bet on the flop and 3 bet on the turn.
I say your hand is definetely worth gambling it up.
i assume you are throwing away those "drawing hands" in a normal game with a raise on your right, right. when you get check raised its time to just call as your hand is close against an ace but you have a draw. if you really have reason to believe he is bluffing a call will keep him in and giving you another bet on the river.
Here's a hand that illustrates a skill that I had forgotten since moving from stud to hold'em.
My usual very loose, passive 3-6 hold'em game. I pick up AsAh in the BB. UTG raises, 2 callers. I had just raised with AA on the button a few hands earlier and won, so I chose to just call. (I'm sure I'll get a gig for that, but that is not the point of the post.)
Flop: T 5 2 all hearts. I bet, UTG (the original raiser) folds, next raises, last re-raises. I call for the 2 small bets.
What do y'all think of my call here? I made it completely automatically, as I have a nut flush draw to win a big pot.
Not until the car ride home did I realize, I think it is marginal. What do the other two players have? Two hearts each, most likely. So for my flush draw, I do not have the traditional 9 outs; I only have 5 outs. Not much better than sticking around with an inside straight. And at this moment I don't know if I'm going to see it capped here by the first raiser.
So there is the skill I had forgotten. Factor in the cards you know about, to reduce your odds realistically on a drawing hand.
I will be interested to see if there comes advice from the forum that I should have folded pocket Aces and a nut flush draw in a large pot !!
Dick
The exciting conclusion:
On the flop, the original raiser just called the reraise.
The turn was the 6s. I checked, second checked, third bet, we both called.
The river was the very pretty Jh. I checked, and it was checked out. Second had 98 of hearts, and last had Kx of hearts. Do you believe she wouldn't bet her King-high flush into me on the river??? So I missed one or two big bets by checking the river.
Dick
"Do you believe she wouldn't bet her King-high flush into me on the river??? So I missed one or two big bets by checking the river."
In a very loose PASSIVE low limit game with 4 hearts on board? Yes I believe some (most) players wouldn't bet a K high flush. Remember, these players are passive (read paranoid). And in this situation some caution is warranted.
I like your play before the flop. In a very loose game like that, there was no chance anyone would have folded even if you reraised and got reraised back by the UTG raiser. In other words, there was no way you would have been able to narrow down the field with a reraise. I would have reraised on the flop for two reasons:1)to know where I'm at and 2)to attempt to drive out the first raiser just in case he himself does not have the flush(maybe he's just protecting a high pair or a two pair) or has a very small flush. On the turn, assuming the first raiser has folded on the flop, I'd play passively if I don't connect. Check and call and pray.
Regardless of what they actually held, I think your assessment of their likely holdings is a bit pessimistic. The first raiser could easily be defending top pair or two pair against possible flush draws (and this seems even more likely after he does not cap it on the flop, although you did not know this when you made your call). And you have implied odds to make the call on the flop with seven outs.
I wouldn't assume both of them had a flush, especially at low limit. The firstraiser could have two pair or trips, and be hoping to get rid of someone with the raise. The re-raiser probably is more likely to be holding the flush.
Rich
Not necessarily as marginal as you think... Unless you were SURE that both had heart flops, or heart draws, I would have thought that it was possible that one person (first one) could have had trips, probably 10's (would anyone at table call raise pre-flop with small pair?) and was trying to protect THEIR hand....
don't forget your other outs- full house (yeah, a long shot, but possibility to add to outs)
So you suspect you have 5 outs out of 10 seen cards (counting UTG who didn't have 2 hearts), or 32 unseen cards or 6.3-1 against making it on the turn. The pot has 12sb and it costs 2sb to call once, or 6:1. Good call since its the nuts. Better call on the turn.
If your Ace high flush is not the nuts that means one of them has two pair or trips increasing the number of hearts available.
That's the worst case. You can easily be up against a set and have 11 outs (9 hearts 2 Aces).
If they are so "passive" that they "surely" have a flush then they are favorites to check their King flush on the river, since its "obvious" that you have the Ace. Bet it out.
But your real question is a good one, and few judge how "live" their hand is considering the other's likely holdings often enough at Holdem.
- Louie
there are too many hands that you can beat or draw out on that they may have other than flushes. plus there is money in the pot to consider. your point is good about thinking and taking into account unseen cards as most people dont. you need to be less fearful of big hands. also dont automatically do anything and dont check big hands without a good reason.
Thanks for some good responses. It turns out that my instinctual response of calling on the flop was correct. I agree with posters that I have additional outs and that there are other hands that at least the first flop raiser can have other than 2 flush cards. (In this game, I do insist on my reading that the re-raiser has to have a flush.)
I want to make sure all of you know that I'm not a passive or "fearful" (Ray's word) player. When I am assuming that my opponents have hearts, it is not out of fear, just analytical. I have plenty of bankroll now to play kill pots with full aggressiveness and to make pot-odds calls even when I don't think I am the favorite.
Perhaps also, my presentation of the hand was biased because I saw both hands at the end, and they both did have 2 flush cards.
I accept my gig from Ray for checking the nuts on the river!
Dick
I had KK in mid position. UTG raises, I reraise, everyone drops but myself and UTG. Flop comes 678. He bets, I raise he RERAISES. Turn was a blank (suit is of no consequence for this hand). He bets, I call. River also a blank. He bets, I call. This was a battle over who had the bigger pocket pair, or if he actually DID flop a straight and would he RAISE UTG with the hand? Sure enough, he turns over 45o to make the straight and beats my KK. I honestly put him on AK, QQ, MAYBE KK to split the pot, or JJ or some other pocket pair. Why the hell would he raise UTG with 45o ?! Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
In this situation, "Set" comes to my mind before "Straight".
I think you should have just called the flop and pop the turn. I think HE should have just called your raise on the flop and check-raise the turn.
This guy is probably just aggressive and likes to raise. However ...
Unless its a loose passive game and he calls for value, raising is better than calling. I think he is better of against one player and can steal it with his disguised hand then against 4 players and he has to make 2 pair or better. And, of course, he disguises his real UTG raises.
And its well worth 2-bets if he can make a couple good players doubt his UTG raises for the next 6 months, or can put them on tilt muttering to themselves.
- Louie
Am I the only "good" player here who has deliberately made a "bad" play just to put someone on tilt? Whats-a-matter, no stomach for psycological combat? Target selection is the key ...
You don't indicate what limit this game was at or what kind of game it was. It sounds like a tight game, since everyone else folded to the raise/re-raise before the flop. If this was a tight game, UTG's thinking probably was: 1) By representing a premium hand preflop, he may be able to steal the pot. 2) If he gets a completely rag flop with all small cards, he has got a good shot at two pair or a straight, and his hand would be completely disguised so he would probably get payed off. 3) If he got caught, then, as Louie indicated, this play will bring more action on future hands when he raises with a real hand.
In a tight game with aware players, probably not to bad to do it occasionaly. I wouldn't do it in the low limit games I play in, because they wouldn't notice. Everybody plays these junk hands.
If I were in your spot, I would put him on a pocket pair or Ace with any face card before the flop. On the flop I would not change my mind about what I thought he had. On the turn, I would rule out Ace with any face card. But I might put him on trips in addition to putting him on an over pair. On the river, the same. You played the hand optimally. As to why he raised before the flop. That's hard to tell. He could be a good player on tilt, a bad player on tilt, a bad player period, a purely recreational player who didn't care about the stakes, an expert player randomizing his play(expensively),etc.
Here's a hand I saw the other day. Perhaps people can comment on the BB's play.
The BB raises with 44 after 7 players limped in (I had limped from the cut-off seat with Qc7c). Everyone calls and we take the flop 9 handed.
Flop: 9h4d2d
BB bets. He gets 3 callers before button raises (I am of course a goner on the flop). Sb folds.
BB just calls.
They take the turn 5 handed.
Turn: Kh
BB bets. 2 people drop. The man who was sitting to my right (i.e. 2 off the button) raises and button calls.
BB 3 bets it. Man caps and button calls.
River: Kd.
BB checks. Man bets, button calls and BB calls.
If you were BB, what would you do differently (if anything)?
Marginal raise before the flop.
Bet of course on the flop, LOTS of hands can make loose call with overcards on that raggedy board and a bet is not threatening. I would routinely 3-bet the flop but have no problem with just calling.
Great bet when the King hit, since it sure looks like hero has only a pair of Kings, and can very realistically 3-bet against anyone who can beat a pair of Kings. And if they cannot beat Kings they very well may check. Cap it!?! Yes, someone just made Ks Up!!. Trap Sprung, Cha Ching!
King on the River, DOH! The only hand you can realistically beat now is trip 2s. Good check-and-call.
- Louie
Louie,
After reading your post, I realized I blundered in thinking the river was anything but a check and call.
At first I took issue with your flop analysis in saying you had "no problem with just calling" the raise (although you would reraise yourself). I thought there was no question you should raise since you are very strong (although not quite the nuts), very well disguised, and there is a possible diamond and maybe a straight draw out against you. You want to make them pay.
The problem with reraising is that you force some of the original limpers to call two bets cold. The flush and open ended straight draws will call anyway; however, some very weak hands that you want in there may through their hands away. Overcards and pair kicker are either drawing dead or close to it (despite the result if a hand like K9 or K2 wins). You want them in and may want to just bet into them on the turn.
The fact is I'm not sure and invite other comments.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Why did your post go on top but mine is listed as being posted a couple of minutes earlier (this would be a question for Chuck and no big deal- I was just curious).
"Why did your post go on top but mine is listed as being posted a couple of minutes earlier "
Because I'm better looking.
Actually, I suspect the time posted is from each sender's computer time, not the server's receive time.
"3-bet ..." It kinda does look natural to 3-bet it since it convinces them you have only one big pair. If your choice is to make the real flush draw call 2-bets or the draw and the weak one pair each call 1-bet, I'd say you want them both in there since the one pair is close to drawing dead as you say, can easily give you action later, and your investment is one bet less. If there were more callers I'd suppose most are drawing (close) dead and would just call; and bet the turn.
Naaaaawwwww, "Finesse" after careful analysis doesn't come natural and I'd 3-bet it.
- Louie
That's just about the way I saw the hand as well. Good analysis.
BTW, the man took down the pot with K9. As expected, button had made Diamonds.
skp,
I’ll take a shot.
“The BB raises with 44 after 7 players limped in (I had limped from the cut-off seat with Qc7c). Everyone calls and we take the flop 9 handed.”
Was this typical action by any chance? The raise with 44 is fine for the reasons stated in HPFAP. Personally, I like to do this with slightly larger pairs. BTW, I think your call with Q7s is marginal unless they play just god-awful.
“Flop: 9h4d2d . BB bets. He gets 3 callers before button raises (I am of course a goner on the flop). Sb folds. BB just calls.”
The lead bet is fine since most would put him on an overpair or big cards and his bet is expected. With the pot this big I would three bet after the button raised every time. You need to put pressure on the diamond draw (which you won’t lose but can make pay) and back door diamond draws.
“Turn: Kh BB bets. 2 people drop. The man who was sitting to my right (i.e. 2 off the button) raises and button calls. BB 3 bets it. Man caps and button calls.”
The guy who capped it may think your hero is a little weaker than he is (based on his flop play), so perhaps he could have a hand as week as two pair (K9), or a hand like a diamond flush with the king.. A set of nines or deuces is also possible.
“River: Kd. BB checks. Man bets, button calls and BB calls. “
I might check raise here or perhaps lead out. In either case I would make a crying call if reraised by “the Man”.
Regards and "Gotta Run",
Rick
Qc7c....marginal indeed...but I tend to play these in late position in loose games. To be honest, I agree that it is probably not a long term profitable call but I figure it can't be much of an error and a benefit of playing such hands in such situations is that it gets me in the action and allows me to have some fun without giving up too much. To me, that is an important aspect of playing poker.
...now back to the bb's play. Clearly, I think that the failure to 3 bet the flop is the most questionable play. I would likely 3 bet it here not only because the pot is big and I want to ensure that the backddor flush draws etc. don't get there but also because I know that I have to bet again on the turn no matter what card comes because the raiser on the flop is to my right and I can't necessarily count on him to bet again if he is on a flush draw. BTW, If I was bb, I would bet again on the turn even if a Diamond fell.
If bb just smooth calls the raise on the flop, he likely will entice the 3 limpers to call (an extra $30) but if he reraises, he likely will still get 2 callers (probably one of the limpers and the button for still an extra $30).
By smooth calling, he may get more action from a player who makes 2 pair on the turn but who would have folded for the 3 bet on the flop but I think that potential "loss" is compensated for by increasing his chances of winning the pot (which should always be the prime consideration when the pot gets big). In short, I agree with Ray.
Curious situation on the River. Suppose bb knows that the button is a bad player who would raise on the River solely on the strength of his flush without giving consideration to the fact that the board has paired. In that case, it may well be right for bb to bet even if he thinks there is a good chance that the Man may have a bigger full house (i.e most likely K9). This may save him 1 big bet. i.e. bb bets, K9 raises and both button and bb call as opposed to K9 bets, button raises, bb cold calls and K9 reraises.
skp,
I'm with you on the Q7s. Sure, it's no powerhouse, but you played it with 9-way action in late position. Under those ideal conditions, I'd have a very hard time folding it pre-flop. Of course it will miss most flops and is an easy lay-down...but when it hits, you're well disguised and can rake in a monster. I was surprised that Rick N. was critical of the play.
Dave L.
At most I was only mildly critical. It is a clearly a button call but skp was one off the button. Here in Los Angeles we get a lot of button raising in multiway pots. On the other hand, many players give away there intent by the way they hold their chips. If it is clear he is not going to raise, it is also a call.
Regards,
Rick
Rick, the mild criticism was well warranted. All you said was the call was marginal and I agree wholeheartedly.
bb should have reraised on the flop and forced the others to pay two bets to see 4th st. i wouldnt let someone with two fives or a crazy draw get in cheap here as the pot is huge already and going to be bigger. if the bettor is a bad player i would gamble and raise more on the full house.
One thing which I do in these kind of pots -- a big pot and I have floped a set -- is I am concious of not giving anyone with a gut shot proper odds to call. Now when I say proper odds you need to think in terms of your possible redraw to a full house in case someone does make an inside straight. A good rule of thumb is that they need 14-to-1 against your hand to be playing properly. If my bet won't produce this kind of odds I will often check and go for a check raise.
There can also be times when I call a bet, have a couple of callers behind me, then a raise, and when it gets back to me I reraise. This way the callers behind me who originally got less than 14-to-1 on their initial call now are still getting less than that price to continue because they have to put in two more bets.
I know that this advice is not necessarily specific to this hand, but it's one of the things that I consider important in these type of pots.
A set wants gutshots to fold on the flop unless the pot is tiny. But sets welcome calls from middle and bottom pair and top pair-weak kicker unless the pot is gigantic. Sets also want to eliminate backdoor flushes contained in those hands. HFAP mentions that it is often correct to wait when you know the flop bettor will bet again. But what about when it's likely that bettor was betting a draw?
In general, when should you raise or check-raise on the flop, and when should you wait for the turn?
A lot depends on your position in relation to the flop-raier and the rank of the highest card on the flop. For example, let's say I hold 33 and I hit a set on the flop. If a bet comes from my right, I am much more likely to raise immediately on a flop like J,10,3 as opposed to A93. With the latter flop, I can be fairly confident that the flop-bettor will come out betting again on the turn no matter what card comes off. Of course, other considerations such as the size of the pot, current image etc. also come into play.
It only matters if you can get rid of ALL the back-door flushes AND when there are no real flush draws out: if the guy with Qd9c is going to the river regardless or the button is raising with a 4-flush, the stiff Ad does not affect your chances of winning the pot. Also, the chances of both turn and river being a diamond (and no pair) is near 23-1 against.
The event is unlikely AND usually there is nothing you can do about it AND if they are getting the right odds is not by very much and so doesn't cost you very much in EV.
I conclude that elliminating the back-door flush draw should not warrent much consideration.
- Louie
Having said that, elliminating ALL the unlikely draws (the 3-hearts and various 3-straights, midling pocket-pairs) DOES warrant consideration.
The conclusion?: Mom was right: Bet 'em when you got 'em.
BB's raise on the flop was o.k. 44 is a multiway hand and it already was a multiway pot when the action got to him. BB should have reraised on the flop to make it more expensive for drawing hands to enter. It was unescessary to three bet the turn. I agree with his play on the river.
Jaws, why do you say he should not have 3 bet the turn?
A 3 bet on the turn would be an unnescessary increase in volatility that does not accomplish anything strategic (can't drive out drawing hands and its not a value bet either because 444 is not the best trips).
You're not going to drive out the draws, but you are going to make them pay more. So if a guy has a flush draw, you are going to get paid an extra bet 4 times and lose an extra bet once. Sounds like a good deal to me.
I don't understand your comment about the value bet. Why do you need to have top set to value bet?
I like the way BB played it. Give no free cards here, with the flush draw.I like his chances of winning the hand. I put the button on a completed flush draw. I put the other on 3 kings, or possibly kings full but only kings over dueces,(evidently the case as for the reason for asking the question) not nines as he would have raised on the flop. What was the result?
K9 for the man. Diamonds for the button and the silver medal for the BB.
Hello from Phoenix. I have been a long time reader of posts on this forum, and have enjoyed reading the opinions of many of the regulars here (especially skp, Louie Landale, and Ray Zee). If anything the various opinions of these players have taught me that poker is closer to an art than a pure science and each situation should be judged on its own merits. This is my first time posting and read this forummainly just to to learn more about the game.
I play in a loose passive 3-6 hold'em here in the valley. I consider myself a good player, winning about 85% of the the time, and as much as $2500 in one week. I play much faster than suggested in most books (before the flop) and would probably be considered a maniac by some players. The few hands I play are usually raised and also are big pots. I have ran over many games in this fashion and find this style to work for me.
But my problem is I am also a gambler and sometimes play sessions that last well over 48hrs. These are the times when I lose. It seems that i have stopped playing poker and started playing slots or blackjack or some other pure gambling game. I consider this a major problem for me and have been afraid to move to higher levels until I can stop this. My questions for the forum are: I was wondering if any other players out there have similiar habits? If they have any mental tricks or ques to stop when they are really into a game but are also very tired? I have also noticed I am easier to read when tired, has anybody else noticed this? All comments welcome:)
glad to have a new poster here. welcome we bite but it doesnt hurt. you must learn to quit when you are tired or plan on panhandling for a living. i know a bunch of great high stakes players who play too long and stay broke instead of being millionairs and thats their only real weakness. play 8 hours maybe 10 if the game is good and wont be there when you return and go home and sleep or do something of interest. if you play longer you just lose or break even for the extra hours and then sleep thru a good game. if you cant stop your slot and blackjack playing(assuming you play at a losing rate) you are doomed to be a railbird. just dont do it no matter what. good luck.
Hey, Bgoomba (did I spell that right?), welcome to the forum. Ray & others, I have been bugging Bgoomba to post for some time now.
I guess I had no idea that some times when I saw you two days in a row, that you had never gone home. I guess my suggestion, simple as it may be, is to set yourself a schedule in advance and stick to it and go home. You and I both know that the games we play in are almost always good, so you won't miss out on a special game opportunity by getting some sleep.
Slots? You? Don't.
I suppose if you count cards you could beat the dumb Blackjack machine; otherwise that too is just giving away your poker winnings. I intend to try to count against the machine some day as an experiment, but not at the same casino where I play poker. Mason has written that it is a bad idea to try to beat the house at Blackjack in the same casino where you have good poker games to play in.
(For readers not in Arizona - Gila River and Harrah's Ak-Chin have video Blackjack games which use a 4-deck shoe and continue to use the 4 decks about half way in, not shuffling every time like you might expect a computer game to do. Bets allowed are from $1 to $8. They also have video craps (without the "don't pass" and "don't come" spaces - figure that one out!) and video roulette.
Welcome, and we'll always tell it like it is for you.
Dick
You should not play bigger until you have plugged up your leaks. "The bigger they are, the harder they fall". More painfull too.
Don't focus on winning or losing on any particular playing session. If you do that, you will find it pretty easy to get up and go home once you are tired.
From a personal point of view, most of my sessions during the weekdays are only 4 or 5 hours long (on the weekends, I tend to play 6 to 8 hours). I get to the game after dinner around 7 p.m. and know I have to leave around 11 or Midnight as I have to get up at 7 am to go to work. There are days when I am down $300 or whatever, the game is great and I know that if I just pick up 1 or 2 pots, I can go home up a rack...but I have learnt to realize that the game the next time I play will likely be just as good...so, does it really matter that I am going home tonight with a loss.
The other thing I found is that while it seems like a very tough decision to leave a good game while I am at the table, once I am in my car driving home, I have already lost any second thoughts I may have had of leaving.
I don't know if any of that really helps but that's about all I can offer on the topic. Good luck.
Thanks for your comments:) I will try doubly hard to cut down my playing time now. By the way, Ray Zee's comment that many high limit players have these habits doesn't suprise me. I've read that very high limit players are also prone to be big time gamblers which may explain why they stay too long.
hello Ladies and Gentelmen,, I have beena avid reader of this site ,, and quit one,, I have been stuck ina game at my cardroom you all call No Foldem Holdem,, for about 6 months i have beat my head against the wall ,, dont get me wrong im a overall winner,, thow ,,heres my concern,, in such a game where stakes seem relitivly low,, peaple play all sorts of hands Ax Kx and what not,, i find my self set in this cycle after getting a couppl good hands cracked,, to a lousy Q 3 o in BB ,, that flops 2 pr,, and me A K.. any ways,, i have a bout $400,, to play with on any given week,, im concidered by most a execllent player,, not yet have i stepped up to 10/20 or higher,, should I ? is my ? ,, i have watched the games many nights ,, thow i feel that the players may think im a chump and or easy,, i know i wont find to many 10/20 players playing garbage for a capped preflop to catch up with pocket aces,,, would any of u recomend this to me as a way of seeing how good i am ,, or mayby a way of gettign out of no foldem holdem,,, ?any comments would be greatfuland welcome!!!
in no foldem you need to play more multi way hands and less one way hands. remember that hands in those games run close before the flop and your good starting hands get beat all the time. if you have 400 that can be reloaded why not step up and try it as 10&20 is the starting limits where rake and expenses get lower in proportion. if you really are good you should beat it soon. you will see quickly if you are being out played. in the smaller games you are not being outplayed but may be playing improperly which negates much of your profits. good luck.
A) you can limit your starting hands to 'big draws' that play ok heads up too (suited big cards) and jam. read Lee's book on 'how to beat no foldem games' where you have big pots - and bigger variance. B) I understand if you wanting to move up and - it will(may) improve your game as you will not play as many hands as before. I would caution you jumping up just because you can't play with 'loose cannons' you need to play less hands but more draws in a lose game. For some the game has to be played with meaningful stakes (this unfortunately a term with different meaning to us) for me; meaningful stake is a grand+ (if I make that I am giddy) if I lose that I feel it.). playing well under the meaningful stake is harder - takes more discipline for some.
Aces Up,
I've found that I definitely play more alertly where the stakes are, as Andras says, significant. I find if the limit is low enough I end up p*ssing away chips on way to many speculative hands. I've actually done better at times at a limit 1 bigger than I feel safe at!
No doubt it's psychological. If the limit is small enough I often also feel like I'm going through a lot for too little return. I guess that might set me up as one of those poor fools that would have to continually increase the stakes, though I've had no problem with that at present as I'm not a big winner or loser and I have to work for my money like most folks.
I say try the higher limit and play your best. Might work out. But no doubt the swings will be larger in your case if you play your best irrespective of the limit.
Hi everyone
Could anyone give me some tips on beating pot-limit 7 stud? My regular game usually plays limit (20-40) but recently we have been varying it with pot limit. When we play pot-limit we have a $2 dollar ante with $5 low-card bring-in. How should I adjust from general limit strategy? The game varies somewhat - sometimes everyone plays cautiously being aware of how big the bets can get, other times (especially when certain gambling guests are there) the game is very aggressive with all-ins before 7 street a regular occurence.
A lot depends on how deep the money is and on how likely your opponents are to pay off. If the stacks are very large in comparison to the action on early streets, then you should be more inclined to draw to hands where the strength will be concealed. When there is no raise on 3rd and a raise from later players is unlikely, play any hidden pair. Straight draws are also good since they have a good chance of getting paid when they hit. Flush draws are usually not likely to get paid, but a very live flush draw with overcards may give you the best of it if you can get all-in against more than one opponent. In general, when the pot on early streets is insignificant compared to the potential win from a strong hand, slowplaying will more frequently be the correct play than in limit with hands like (33)3 or (88)28. Chasing with a clear second-best hand is out of the question in pot-limit. Stewart Reuben says to play high pairs fast on 3rd street in most cases, and I agree with him. Aces are not a strong enough hand to give free cards to draws, and you are unlikely to get action that you want on later streets. When the high card is the forced bet, and his card is live, you often want to see how he responds before committing to the hand. Scare card semibluff raises are much more potent than in limit.
Dan gives a lot of good advice. I would add that observation of your opponents and their betting patterns is even more important then in limit. If you can work out what people do with big pairs, Aces and Kings, on third street - always bet, always slow-play or (more dangerous and best of course) mix it up, I find that helpful in getting a handle on their play.
The game is spread much more in Europe than in the US, and over here it is standard for the high card to bring it in, minimum of the ante and maximum of the pot, and pot-limit betting proceeds from there. You may find this a more logical structure.
Andy.
Dear poker gurus,
I know holding good cards, knowing the pot odds, and getting a line on the way a player likes to play are all important; but, I've continually read that the very best poker players play the player. Does anyone know of any specific techniques to use which will improve this "playing the player" aspect of my (and everyone's) game? Are there primary features one should focus on? Caro's Book of Tells is great, but I feel it just scratches the surface of this subject.
Thanks
Well, if you are against a player that likes to bluff a lot you should tend to check most of your hands to him. By doing this you give him a chance to put his money in the pot where he might have folded to a bet by you, thus gaining extra bets. You should have similiar plans for all types of players. Once you figure out a players tendency, you can then make a plan to exploit there weaknesses. I consider this one of the most important principles of good poker. Good luck.
I would also like to point out by playing the individual it makes it harder for other players to figure out how you play. Since you play differently in each situation, other players might view you as chaotic(which i think is a good thing:)).
So it's like you categorize a player according to his style of play and then adjust accordingly, with the texture of the flop causing you to make further adjustments. There would seem to be a limited number of styles of play 1. tight aggressive, 2. tight passive, 3. loose aggressive, 4. loose passive and maybe one or two more. Right?
Jeff - Here is one specific that I think has improved my bottom line, and I'm sure that I have had a lot of fun following it.
I am not that good yet at "reads" - Johnny Chan style. But I try to observe the style in which every opponent plays his hand. There are lots of times when an opponent is either on tilt or playing a rush or whatever (caution: this varies a lot with time - it's usually not a constant part of anyone's game), when he is raising, re-raising, and generally creating havoc. Of course, this opponent gets more than his share of my attention anyway, and I get a read on his behavior.
WHEN I HAVE A GOOD HAND (it generally does not have to be great, because the opponent is usually doing his thing on substandard values), I really let him bet it for me. My analogy for this is, if you play tennis, when you play against someone who hits the ball very hard, but flat and to you, you can hit it much harder back at him, just by using his speed against him.
In this situation, when you have a hand that you think is the best current hand (e.g., top pair good kicker) OR the best hand period (you have flopped a set), start out playing the hand normally - bet out - and if the crazy raises you, check & call until you can stick him with a raise at the best moment, either the turn or the river. Or, if appropriate, you can use his raise and your reraise to thin the field if that is better for you (e.g., top pair only). One great advantage to this is, if you are playing tight (which is me, generally), other players might not follow you if you raise, but they also know that the crazy opponent is not representing anything, so when he raises, they all stay in; they do not notice you, the solid player, quietly calling.
Have fun.
This is one specific idea. I'm sure other posters have more.
Dick
Perhaps even a better phrase is "playing the player in the given situation". This captures the fact that for a variety of reasons a player may play differently from one time to another. Anyway a quick smattering of things to think about in this regard are:
1. The opponent's general playing style. This is what you're looking at in your response to "bgoomba". a good chunk of it can be captured with, the combinations of (a) loose or tight, and (b) passive or aggressive (e.g., "tight/aggressive"). Consider also the player's general skill level, his level of deceptiveness, his level of thinking (e.g., does he think about what you think he's thinking…?) You might then arrive at a general descriptor or two for his play such as "tight, reads well, deceptive", or "weak-tight", or "aggressive, observant and thinking", or "an easy to read calling station", or what have you.
2. Specific playing patterns. e.g., does he almost always bet if he's last and it's checked to him on the flop? On what street does he usually become aggressive with a flopped set? With what hands will he open for a raise in that position? Does he habitually defend his big blind?
3. Tells. There are those like the ones in Caro's book, and there are the idiosyncratic ones you have to discover by observing individual opponents. (It would be interesting to hear how other posters here go about looking for these latter kinds of tells in their opponents. Anyone care to offer any tips?)
4. His general impression of your play. This includes your general image with him, how well he thinks you play, how he sees the specifics of your play, etc. Note, as I suggest below, that it can change as a result of current situational factors.
5. Current situational factors affecting his play. e.g., is he on tilt? Is he trying to "play his rush" and therefore playing almost every hand? Is he playing extra tightly and cautiously because he's playing higher than his usual limit? Does he think he's picked up on a pattern of yours? (This may cause him to play predictably against you when you exhibit a betting pattern that he's "figured out".) What does he put you on? What does he think you put him on? How does he see your play right now? Has recent play affected your image against this player?
Those are of the top of my head. I've undoubtedly left out some important considerations. But the point is that anything you can identify or define among the kinds of elements I've outlined above will give you something you can take advantage of in playing this player.
For me, assessing the opp's general playing style and his general impression of my play come without much effort. Sometimes I spend some focused time looking specifically for tells. Otherwise I just try to remain openly observant so that I might notice something that does happen. In routine play, most of my energy ( with regard to "playing the player") is focused on assessing specific playing patterns and current situational factors. I suspect ths breakdown would be similar for many players.
HTH (Threw that in for Paul, the abbreviation king with the great last name.:)
John Feeney
There are many players out there who have predetermined responses to each situation. I would much rather play these players than the swashbucklers who make every decision as they go. For example, there are players who will routinely bet top-pair good kicker into a flush but will automatically fold for a raise on the turn. Other players will bet almost automatically when checked to. Some players never bet anything but very very strong hands. Some players like to take shots at you (with weak hands), but others will only raise with very strong hands(especially in later rounds). Some players won't call you with any less than top pair good kicker on the river. There is one player i play with who will NEVER bet a set on the flop, but will coninually bluff at a paired flop. (big weakness) Last night, i won a big kill pot when he bet into me on the flop and turn,( flop 8-3-3, turn jack). I raised him on the turn with the nut flush draw and he folded. Can you see how these things can help you to make a plan of exploitation? The list of player characteristics is almost endless, but I beleive that you must learn to figure out how each of your opponents think. I also beleive that this isn't an exact science, and no one can do this without a lot of playing experience. Well anyway this is just my opinion on the subject:) good luck.
the 3rd player is insane. A wheel is a wheel.1/4 the low.
I have been playing $1-5 stud for a few years; doing well. I have been thinking about trying out the next level. I would be interested in hearing advice on whether to play the $5-10 at the Mirage or the $6-12 at the Bellagio; or both. I am a recreational player (3-4 trips to LV a year) either of the two levels are within my financial comfort-zone. Thanks much.
Tom
Hey Tom,
Geez that 6-12 game over at the Bellagio! I think it's a bad game. The ante is $1.00 where as the 5-10 game over at the Mirage has a .50 ante.
I believe that ante forces you to try and steal more often and may actually wreck the game. Seems to me that the ante is high enough that some strategy changes are needed and it may be difficult to actually overcome that ante.
I personally ante away about $70 bucks on that game one night and the hands I won never actually broke even. Perhaps a bad run. But I've never had the antes eat me up in the 5-10 game.
Many locals are of the same opinion, that the 6-12 game is, to put it lightly, "stupid".
The Bellagio's a nice place but many of us wish they would spread a 5-10 over there as does the Mirage.
Just my opinion though, as apparently the 6-12 games continue.
The players get 1/4 each he does not get any extra.
6/12 hold'em,, table is full of rocks 2 looose maniacs,, and a couple of AoK players,, Button at dealer maniac in BB ,, me in 4 seat,, rock in 5 6 7 and 10,, heres the hand,, 7 handed both blinds in 1 raise from #10 i limp in with A10s flop Ks 9s 8s,, Both blinds check I check all check to #10 bet,, both blinds call i call no one folds!!!! turn,,, 6h blinds check i check,, all check to #10 who bets,, both blinds fold , i call we are 5 handed on river,, Kh i check #7 bets #10 raises ,, I reraised,, I put#10 on AK no clue about #7 so i fugured if some one filled up now is the time to make them pay,, or me pay them,, its capped at# 10,, BTW,, its capped 4 handed,, #5 Q 7S ,,# 7 KJ,, #10 AK ,, comments!!!
Ok, I'm in vegas at the bellagio in a 1-4-8-8 game. blinds are $1 and $2. I'm in the blind with AdKc, a tough middle position play raises UTG and the action is folded to me and I call. It's now heads up. The flop comes 10s9s4s. I check, he bets. but i hesitated, looked at him, and he said 'flush'. Of course, i then decided to raise his bluff but folded instead because i didn't think it would have any effect since i hesitated to long. I showed him my AK, and he smiled and showed me KdQs. After the game, I started to think about all the ways i could play a suited flop against a tough player who raises pre-flop (leaving it heads up) I've been thinking that after checking, a quick raise could show him strength and cause him to fold right there. My reasoning is that if he reraises, he may have the flush, and you've saved yourself two big bets. Does anyone agree, or what would be the better play in this situation?
Still searching for those elusive Denver home games, Lars
I don't know about you but for me, a checkraise is an automatic play in this situation. In fact, virtually everytime this kind of situation happened to me, I checkraised it. It has made an opponent fold approximately 2/3 of the time. And why did you show him your hand?
In general, on a flop like this, it's check and fold for me against a tough player who raised from early or middle position.
I would want one of my AK cards to be of the trump suit before I got aggressive here. BTW, if I decide to get aggressive, it may not necessarily be on the flop...a checkraise on the turn may be required to get his attention.
I disagree with the previous poster. A checkraise in this situation is hard to believe because so many strong hands, including small flushes, must bet to avoid giving up a free card. And a strong flush would probably slowplay or bet out rather than checkraise. I think you'd only succeed in chasing away a pure bluff from your opponent. He'll call with an overpair or any high spade. For example, in the actual hand you played, your checkraise wouldn't have budged him. He had 15 outs to win, even with his king counterfeited.
If your strategy is simply to checkraise and abandon the bluff if called, you're risking 8 to win 12. He'd have to be bluffing 40% of the time (presumably overcards without a spade, given his UTG raise) for this break even. And it's unlikely for this condition to be met: my guess is that, given your holdings and reasonable assumptions about the hands he'd raise UTG with, he's likely to be holding a legitimate hand well over 50% of the time.
I think the right plays are either to check and fold, as you did, or bet out. He will likely muck his overcards if he does not have the flush draw---you're getting 2 to 1 on a bet out, and it's safer than the check raise. Remember, this is not a big pot.
I agree with last fellow. I would have raised him pre-flop to begin with. With that flop, he would call with most any spade. You have none. Face it, the flop missed you. Either bet or check.
A check raise has the purpose of either thinning the field or to get more money in the pot. A check-raise bluff not worth it here, not enough money to go after.
you probably did the right thing by folding as you may be in the bad habit of showing your hand. your opponent can probably read you well from the past. just in this hand he now knows you dont raise back with ak out of position, you fold ak when you miss the flop, you dont bluff into scary flops, you dont lead into hands that raised the pot without a good hand, your hesitations might mean weakness or when you look at an opponent you are weak and looking for clues,etc,etc. unless you can adjust properly all good players will eat you for lunch in the game. the above is the most important thing for you to worry about rather than the play of the hand. good luck.
Actually, I can't think of any other time i've ever shown a player my cards after a hand, but the other player and i had some pretty difficult heads up situations together and there was a reason for showing it. But I do agree that is a very bad idea to show your cards, even if it's aimed at one player, everyone at the table is now aware of what you fold and when. But i do watch intently as a game progresses, and if your a player that shifts his glasses everytime the flop hits you hard, you can bet i won't be in that pot unless i'm very strong or have odds to get there. ;)
Thanks for the comments,
Lars
If your opponent(s) is/are subject to being bluffed or semibluffed -- by you -- you might have a big overlay, particularly if an overcard lands on the turn. So decide what kind of player(s) you're up against and act accordingly. You don't have to represent a flopped flush because a lot of opponents will fold even if they suspect you might have only a pair and nut draw when they only have a pair and no flush possibility, especially if an overcard lands on the turn.
On the other hand, if your opponent, as in your example, probably has at least a little something, tread carefully. (If three small spades flop and your opponent has two big unsuited cards or a big pair, there's about a 50-50 chance he has a spade if you don't). In your example, your opponent had about a 46% chance of winning the pot by the end, and may have had a real money overlay by making you pay more when you lose than he'll pay when you win. You also run the risk of giving free cards for fear of a check-raise. You weren't that far ahead and weren't ever going to be comfortably ahead. These laydowns shouldn't cost you a lot of money, especially if you demonstrate an occasional willingness to play back.
Often times during a session of HE the following type of hand will occur. In the BB I will have a hand like QJo. 3 or 4 people call and the SB folds, I check the option. The flop now comes KJ4. What is the best way to play this type of hand. Here are my thoughts and assumptions. The people in the hand are capable of playing Kx and Ax and also raising flopped middle pairs or straight draws.
1)If I bet out and get raised it will be hard to know if I am being raised by Kx or J with big kicker or even QT. Being first to act puts me in a difficult position on the turn and river if my hand doesnt improve.
2)If I check raise and bet all the way, I will probably not chase out any Kx but my Kicker may be good enough to beat any other Jack. The problem here is I may be giving gut shot draws or Ax free cards when I have the best hand.
3) I can check call all the way and hope for the best.
4) When reraised by another player on the flop or turn...fold.
I had this situation a few times last night in 10-20 game and usually went with option 1 or 2.
All thoughts welcome.
Randy Collack
What's up Randy,
I would probably bet out the flop and if met with resistance, I would re-evaluate depending on who raised and or called. Maybe a check-raise like you said would work. If a solid player gets check-raised and then calls your bet and the turn, I most certainly wouldn't bet the river.
Russ
I want to know the position of the players who called first. Then, I would bet the hand. If raised, I still want to look at a card. Now how many see the turn? I would check now. If heads up, I must know the player.ie A rock, or a loose player? etc. From here on out depends on the player, and the turn card. But if heads up I will likely see the hand through. I do not see the hand as strong enough to check raise unless the bet came from the last position player on a possible steal.
I would bet out more often than checking. If I am raised by a solid player I would guess that they don't have a king, especially in late position; most kings that solid players play they raise with. If a weak tight player raised I would probably get away from the hand; weak tight players have at least top pair when they raise. Most of the time with this sort of hand I would bet the flop and then on the turn bet into a raiser; if they raise again there is a good chance they have it and you can get away there. Hope this helped some. Comments?
Randy Refeld
Greetings:
As I gradually, ever so slowly, hone my 7 Stud game in the low limit spread games, it dawned on me in a 1-4 spread game the 1$ bet can be just as important as the 4$ bet. What I'm thinking in particular is when you make your original raise on 3rd street for an ante steal. For example, let's say you have Ks 6c/ Kh and you make a move for either the ante, the earlier bets, or both given the game's structure. But, you get a couple of callers, say even three.
Now, 4th street rolls around and you pick up something worthless like the 2d meanwhile your now looking across at say a possible 4 flush, a possible 4 straight, and whatever else. In this situation, I've found in low-limit spread games if you again bet 4$, many times everybody (with even lesser hands) just calls again as the pot seems to be slipping away from your kings that just aren't ready to close up shop. At the same time, a check here (in my view) can be wrong for these reasons:
1. Your giving infinite payoff odds to draws. 2. If somebody subsequently bets after your check, you can't be sure if it's done as a primer bet to get the money in before your opponent's 5th flush card fulls, or if it's just a bluff at the pot. 3. It's still your hand and by checking your looking like you want to give up the driver's seat. 4. There's still a very good chance your Kings will improve and carry the hand and by not betting (and everyone subsequently checks), your losing money.
So, my suggestion is to in this type of situation bet 1$ because:
1. Your still initiating a bet, hence being the aggressor and still "showing people the door", a.k.a, giving them the option to fold.
2. This could be the key. By intiating the 1$ bet, there's a very good chance that everybody will fall in line with this bet and hence your able defuse Pot-shot bluff bets to everybody checking, such as say 4$, to which your going to have to call with a bit of unease. Also, if somebody does raise your 1$ bet, something otherwise very easy just to call, it's a very nice red flag.
3. As well, if everyone falls in place with your 1$ lead on the 4th street, there's a very good chance they'll do so on the 5th, 6th, and 7th unless they hit. But of course on the flip side, you to can very easily ratchit up the bet if and when you hit two-pair or trips.
I was in a game a couple nights ago and a good player, who at the time was sipping suds and playing lesser hands, did a heluva job of just this, controlling the betting of the table as the agressor, carrying his un-called hands, some of his show-down hands, and getting out when he needed when someone perked up and played back at him. Remember, I'm talking about low limit stud spread games.
I plan on incorparating this into my play as well. Prior to this my style was moreso a check or $4 bet as if I was in a structured game.
Any thoughts, opinions, and commentary are welcome.
Joe
id bet the dollar to slow down bad scared players when i wanted a check. id not bet a dollar when i had the best hand and give up the juice just to be creative unless you have a play in mind(folding when raised for instance). the spread bets are used most on third street to keep people in or out. good luck.
Ray,
I play in a similar game at FW (1-5). Are u saying that in this example, if you think Kings are the best 4 card hand (versus 2 draws...1 flush..1 straight) that u should bet the maximum? Thats what I have been doing. If I'm against draws, I don't want to make it "cheap" for them to stay in.
Jack
actually if you were 100% sure you were against two open draws you would fold unless the pot had grown pretty big. in reality most times you are against two smaller paired hands or one draw and a paired hand. so i would play it hard. if you were against two draws a case could be made to bet one unit to slow them down for the next card.
Low-limit hold'em. Let's say a 4-8 game with house rake, 10% up to $4. The table is obviously pretty weak.
Now some people say that with weak, loose players you can get away with playing just slightly tighter than they do. Lee Jones mentioned it in his book while adding that although you'd still have an edge, if the table is particularly aggressive it could lead to huge swings in your bankroll. Won't loosening up increase your variance regardless of the table's aggressiveness? Does loosening up add anything to your expected hourly rate?
I subscribe to a different theory; consider this: Since the rake is so proportionately high in low-limit hold'em, you need to tighten up; reduce your exposure. The idea is that you play tight before the flop to prevent the house rake from eating you. Since some extra hands that you might play would only be marginally profitable, these hands could very well fall into the slightly losing category when you account for the rake. So you should play only moderately-greatly profitable hands. This all assumes that you don't lose any play for your lack of deception--as is the case for most no fold'em games.
So what is then? No fold'em hold'em. Do you tighten up or loosen up?
If I have a strong starting hand I become very aggressive from the get go. I really am not thinking about how much the house is raking. I'm out to win a large pot period.
Here's a situation that came up for me the other night:
Very loose 10/20 Omaha high. 10 players see the flop for one bet. I am holding KsQh8s8h.
The flop is a miracle: KK8. UTG player bets, everyone else folds, I call.
The turn is somewhat scary: an Ace. UTG player checks, I bet, he raises. Uh oh. I hesitate, thinking he must have pocket aces. Suddenly, the player flashes me his two aces in the hole and says, "I got lucky".
What should I do?
thank him
or
raise him back and flash your cards showing the king and just the color of the queen and say "no i got lucky" and hope he thinks he saw 4 kings and folds.
When he raises you, you have a choice of calling $20 to win a $200 pot. At first glance, you have 2 outs out of 44 unseen cards (actually 42 unseen cards since he flashed AA). This would be a clear fold. However, since all 10 players saw the flop, which contained KK, you can be sure that the 8 post-flop folders did not have a K. Therefore, the case K is certainly present among the remaining 10 unknown cards. I'm betting that your opponent wouldn't have flashed his AA if he also had a K (He's worried about being beaten by KK). Therefore, there is probably a 1 in 8 chance of the case K falling on the river. Add to that the possibility that the case 8 is still live (1 in 42) and you have proper odds to call.
i read it too quickly and missed the 10 players calling. its a call as you are getting 9 to 1 on about a 5 to 1 shot. plus a likely call on the river. good post
one of the really good players that post here put a post up and then deleted it but he pointed out the person with aces wouldnt lead out without having a king so its a clear fold. thats a great point and if the player betting is known at all to you, that he may not bet out with aces then he is absolutely correct in that it is a clear fold. then we have to say if he had the aces and a king why would he show it as he has you almost dead. but if he is a bad player and a nice guy he may show you the aces just to be nice and then its back to a call. if poker wasnt so complicated we could all win so much more:)
I agree with you that the whole question revolves around the possibility that this player has a King along with his Aces, since it's a virtual certainty that no one else held a King.
Against a good player, I would assume he had a King since it's a waste of money to fire a bet into 9 opponents with that board and just a pair of Aces. But there are a lot of weak players in Omaha who will bet here with just the Aces.
I would muck that hand preflop, even in loose games. You have virtually no nut potential, and middle set is very vulnerable in multiway pots.
In my experience the hand is playable in loose passive games. The players play so badly that if you do hit the flop you will often win huge pots. For instance, if you do make a full house, you will often get called by 3 or 4 people trying to make straights and flushes.
In Omaha games where the other players play very badly and you play well, the range of playable hands goes up quite a bit. These are games where every pot winds up with 15-30 big bets at the end, of which maybe 5 big bets were put in by players drawing completely dead.
When I was shown the hand, I simply mucked my full house. But as soon as I did, I realized that I should have called.
As Ray already pointed out, if someone had a king they would certainly have called on the flop. Since only the lead bettor and I were left, the last King was either in his hand or in the last 8 cards.
The crux of the question comes down to whether or not this person would bet the flop without a king in his hand. If he would, then it's an easy call. This particular player WOULD most definitely bet into this flop with two aces, as he's a bit wild and also inexperienced enough in Omaha to think that he might have the best hand.
Given that he would bet the flop without a King, my odds to make quads are 9 to 1 to hit the King on the river, and 43 to 1 to hit a Four.
What I find interesting about this play is that it illustrates how important reading the player is, as compared to mechanically counting bets on the flop. Depending on my read of the player, my odds can be as low as roughly 7 to 1, or as high as 44 to 1.
The same can be said for many other decisions in poker, and players who focus too much on the size of the pot often miss this. For example, you are heads-up with another player, and you have a gutshot. There are 8 bets in the pot. You're a 10 to 1 underdog. A lot of players who focus on the size of the pot will routinely fold. But a player with a good read on his opponent may know that if he pairs his top card it will win for him, making it a call. Or he may know that his opponent is on a draw, and has nothing, making a raise or call correct. Or, there may be a two-flush on the board, and if the flush comes in on the river a bet will win the pot. All of these judgement calls are far more important than whether the pot has 8 or 9 bets in it.
Dan, a very interesting post...well said.
Since you could see 3 of the Kings and 3 of the Aces, could you say whether the case King if it was in UTG's hand would give him a suited AK? If so, it would seem reasonable to assume that a guy with AAKx with a suited Ace would have raised preflop thus leading you to the conclusion that he doesn't have the case King in his hand.
just to nit pick we have seen 46 cards (52-46=6=5to1) plus the chance of the 4th ace 1/42 =41to1.
we all read fast and miss many cards when counting but for those that want to, should understand the above.
Um... Let's see. We have seen 4 board cards, two cards in our opponent's hand (you can't count all four, since even if he WOULD bet with two aces he could still have a king), and 36 other cards (9 players X 4). That's 44 cards. Am I missing two somewhere?
I figured the overall odds to be 7.1 to 1.
thats 42 cards by my way of your way of counting Dan. add the 4 cards in your hand=46. 5 to 1 haha friend all posts should be made before a 24 hour session
Heh! How did you know I just got back from a 12 hour 15/30 game? (A game in which, I might add, I got my butt kicked.)
Did you stay up all night too? You counted my hand twice (His two cards, plus NINE players X 4 plus the four board cards).
You know, I think I might have this poker thing licked if I can just master counting to 52.
in the original post it said 10 players took the flop. it was your post. if you still dont get it you just dont get it.
Ten players including myself. That's 40 cards in total. I know them all except for two of my opponent's cards. Total of 38 known cards, plus four on the board.
I don't think I impled an 11-handed game anywhere in my message. I just said, "10 players see the flop. I am holding..."
kick me in the butt i stand corrected its 7 to 1
I would appreciate any critiques the group would like to offer on this hand. It was one of the big reasons I turned a $75 winning session into an $8 winning session last night.
4-8 holdem at the Grand casino in Marksville La. $2-$4 blind. I am on the button with A-9 suited hearts. The game has been loose passive before the flop and tight passive after. This may be chaning though as new players are comming in from breaking omaha and holdem games at other tables. There are 5 players including both blinds. Flop comes 8s-8h-3h. Older lady (ol) immediately to my right opens. 4 callers including me. Turn is 7c. O.l. opens for eight. I call as does on other player. The other player is a young male who from previous conversations earlier in the evening, has taken up poker within the last year and mentioned that he has really gotten into the game and read jones, kreiger etc. I have a good read on him and put him on a draw also. i have no read on o.l. This is the 2nd hand since she is seated at the table. The one thing I did note is that the dealers seem to know her. I put her on trip 8's or possibly a made full house. The full house being more likely since a 7 fell.. The river brings a 10h giving me the a-high flush. The first player leads and the o.l. raises. 16 to me. I feel strongly that the lead player has a flush also. I think it quite likely that the o.l. has a full house with the raise. I am sure the leader will call her raise from earlier observation. $16 to call with $85 approx in the pot. Knowing nothing of the ladies style, call or fold?
I'm definitely calling...If your not going to call when you hit your draw why pay on the turn to see the river?
For those who asked, o.l. had a full house eights full of sevens....younger player had a small flush
John:
Call, Call, Call. You made the absolute best hand you could have made with those cards and the pot odds were better than 5:1. Just don't re-raise or you'll find out for sure that she has the boat when she re-raises again!
John,
I would call. BTW, Did she make her Boat?
Jack
This is a no brainer......CALL! Winning would give some super return on your investment.
I don't think the answer is as clear some of the posts above. I'd try to guess whether the OL might be departing from stereotype, and specifically whether she could be a (1) creative aggressive, (2) weak aggressive, or (3) traditionally tight OL. If she was in the first two, I'd be more inclined to call but I wouldn't like it. If (1), she might have been semibluffing with a flush draw, but even with KhQh her raise on the river is questionable. If (2), she might be a bad, stubborn gambler who doesn't read the board.
If you're pretty sure she's traditional, fold. How often will any kind of tight, passive player raise here with just a naked 8 when (i) against two likely drawing hands, (ii) a 3-flush and 3-straight on board at the end with a FH possible, (iii) an opening bet from a check-and-calling player and (iv) you still to act behind her? 20% of the time? More like 2%, especially when T8, 87, 33, TT, 77, or even 88 could be out there. If you don't see anything indicating that she was particularly aggressive or bad, I'd let this pot go.
Chris gets the star here. unless she overlooked her hand you lose. unless she just played the last hand badly and aggressively you lose.
s
s
I have read many 2+2 books and must I say, thanks for giving me the idea for this play:
Background: very loose 3-6 game with mostly weak players
I'm on the button with 9d10d. There are 8 callers when it gets to me, so I look down at my hand and say to myself, raise for value! So I raise, all call. 9 players see flop.
Flop is 6d10cJd. UTG bets, 6 more callers, I call. Perhaps I should have raised for value again, comments?
Turn is 4s, UTG bets, 4 callers, I call.
River is Qd. UTG checks, next player bets, one caller and a raise when it gets to me. The pot is really big by now. I'm worried about a higher flush, but it's a weak player raising and there's no way I'm folding now! I call the raise. Besides, I thought going for the overcall would get me more $ if I did have the best hand since the others would most likely call the raise. That way I wasn't re-raising the lock flush if it was out there, but would still get two more bets if I was the winner. My Flush is good enough to win (raiser had a K9o straight).
This one pot changed my whole momentum for the rest of the night. Just goes to show how valuable drawing hands are in a loose game....
Your reasoning on the river was sound. With that good a flop, and that many callers, I would have raised.
I would have definitely raised on the flop. If all the hands are being played like this so that there's a good chance that a better draw isn't out there, I probably would have raised on the turn as well (assuming I got the same action you did). You're getting 5-1 on your raise with a 4.1-1 chance that you'll hit a flush, better than a 3-1 chance of hitting a T or a flush, and some slight additional chance that a 9 will also be good.
In hindsight, I guess you are right. My hesitation to raise again was because the hand I was drawing to was not the nuts, and no one in this game (or any low-limit game)was likely to throw away any suited ace. I probably should have tried to buy a free card with another raise too. At the time, I didn't think that would work since UTG was betting out (he was somewhat aggressive).
If anyone has additional comments on raising with a draw that's not to the nuts, please post reply or start a new thread.
A raise on the flop may have gained you a freecard on the turn to cheapen your draw a bit.
i would have raised-before the flop- on the flop- on 4th street- and on the river with one less player in unless the raiser had high raising standards.
another benefit of raising on the flop would be that it makes you appear to have less of a drawing hand, especially to the typical low limit opponent, which might help you get action when you connect.
This game has been going for years(home game), normally dealer's choice $5-5-10-10 (with a $10-20 kill). It's deal your own, the organiser gives prizes, incl. cash, drinks,supper,etc and the rake is $5 on any pot over $100.$95 pot no rake.$120 pot $5 rake. $600 pot $5,etc. One guy, lets call him Jimbo, loses week after week(now five years).He wins about 4-5 sessions a year. Last week in a $5-10 game he lost $3200, the week before $2150. We have estimated he drops $25-40K per year. He doesn't want help with his game. He'll play nearly every hand. Swear when he dumps 9.2. and the flop come 2.2.9.When stuck, he raises,re-raises and caps with junk/med hands "to get square". He often draws dead,goes for gutsers for the LOW end of a straight. He actually pays the rake and gives the other players a bonus (their wins) with his loose play.Several weeks ago he won $1150 and he was grumpy,picky about rules, unhappy about other winners leaving early and when the game finish at 2am he wanted to play another 30 minutes! Last week ($3200 loss) he was quiet and left happy and said.."See you all next week!" We think he is an "addicted gambler" (also plays casinos games/horses). We have heard the old saying "if you guys don't WIN his money,he'll give it away to someone else"..."He can afford it don't worry about it"..."Why lose the biggest donator in the game?" No of the above statements MAKE IT RIGHT. I'm concerned about his wife/children to as she thinks the game is a 25c game,win or lose $20.
Darryl,
What does this guy do for a living that he can dump 25-40K a year? I'm not sure we need to be sorry for him. A lot of folks don't earn that for a year of (hard, menial) work. Further, apparently he can hide it from his family as a 25c game. Granted it may be irresponsible as all get out.
On the other hand, if he can't afford it and you believe it is a problem you have two choices :
1. Do something
2. Don't
It's entirely up to you. If you're truly concerned then have the intestinal fortitude to act. It takes action to make concern a reality.
Unfortunately the world doesn't always react well to people having the strenth of thier convictions. How many times have you seen a situation where everyone present KNEW what was going on was wrong and did nothing, even though they could? How many times have you been screwed by something like that imposed by an outside organization? I know I have.
I personally have paid a price for being the one to stand up in such cases (unrelated to poker) and speak my piece. So let me forewarn you, other folks who are benefiting from this situation are likely to blackball you. We talk of great people who stood up, had convictions and strength. But try being one of them and watch what people do. In general we don't seem to want them speaking up about our own little deceptions and hypocrisies. (It's a historical fact that the leaders of revolutions often come from the elite of the past order, oddly enough, so apparently wealth and power make it ok to have convictions, or at least affordable to.)
Be forewarned the guy you're trying to help may percieve it as meddling also. He may feel he derives some benefit from the situation...everyone's reality is personal on matters of this type.
So again the choice is yours...have the strength of your convictions, pay the price for it, and know you did right...or do nothing, "go with the flow" and let it go on.
Sincerely, Frank
My two cents:
I've been in similar situations, and here's what I think.
I, too, feel compelled to try to help out the pigeon in the home game. The ones I've played in are supposed to be friendly, and there's nothing friendly about one of your buddies losing more than he can afford. If your other friends are too selfish to realize that, to hell with them.
I've found that timing and diplomacy go a long way. Nobody wants to be helped with his game when the back of his neck is burning. Don't give him advice in front of table when he's hit the felt a few times. Take him aside, maybe after a winning night, and express your concerns, offer some advice, maybe suggest a book. He'll probably be more receptive to talking after he's won.
Ultimately, it's his responsibility, in my opinion. I think the extent of your obligation is to tell your friend what the score is. What he does with that information is his business. If he doesn't want to listen, he doesn't want to listen.
If you don't take his money, someone else will. Go for it. If you insist on feeling guilty, keep a small portion of what you've won from him and send anonymous donations to his wife via mail. Hey, this may make a good t.v. story!
Generally I am all for separating a fish from his money.
However, you posted that there is some deceipt on his part between he and his wife, regarding the amount he plays for. And there are children involved.
Whenever there are children involved you MUST take action.
We should all live by the decisions we make in life, and your friend has made some decisions. Many of which appear to be pretty poor financial ones. His children HAVE NO CHOICE and they may very well end up paying very dearly for your friends choices.
Many people may be of the belief that since he drops 25-40K per year he can afford such losses. I do not. Many people who are as compulsive as he, and loose that much money can not afford these losses and keep it hidden from the spouse. They start doing things like borrowing money from friends or relatives, sharks, forging signatures on loans or second mortgages.
They, quite often, get deeper trying to recoup and their debts get larger. As their sources for money starts dwindling, they can resort to other forms of getting money such as embezzelment or other illegal activities.
Trust me I have seen it.
Like it or not, he, his wife and especially his children WILL pay a larger price if it is to continue.
So what should you do.
Anonymously contact his wife and inform her of the extent of his gambling and money lost.
If he truly can afford the losses then he will still continue.
If he can not afford the losses she has some serious decisions to make regarding her and the childrens future which she has a right to know, should he continue.
Be aware that if he can't afford those severe losses then bringing it to her attention will put a strain on their marriage that few could survive, but the problem WOULD surface sometime in the future anyway, after it was to late. Personaly I think it better that this money is spent on child support than at the poker table.
There are many who use the argument "If we/I don't take their money someone else will anyway". You can stop taking his money and possibly prevent others from taking his money by informing his wife.
Yes I like taking money from fish, I DON'T take it away from my friend's kids.
Think of the kids.
Thanks posters. It is really nice to know there are CARING people out there on the net,who have a passion for poker as I do. We all play to win and have fun,but taking money from the "wife and kids" is more than just winning at the felt table from the FISH. My friend has a problem, I think he needs help and I need to put some thought into how I approach the problem. His business in COMPUTERs and to drop $25-$40K PA is ok if you're Bill Gates. I suspect he's hacking bank or company accounts to finance his poker losses, or dealing in stolen computers. Passion for your game is just as important as compassion for your fellow player. Now let's go and get from cash off the fish!
I also care about my friends, but you really have to ask if you have the right to interfere in his life that way. He may have other reasons for hiding his losses from his wife, which may or may not be valid. He may be able to afford his losses easily. Maybe his wife spends more on mink coats than he loses in a year.
Your responsibility to your friend is to take him aside, tell him about your concerns, offer to help him any way you can, etc. If he doesn't want to listen and your conscience is still bothering you, find another game to play in. But stepping in between a husband and his family is not something to be taken lightly.
You're Right Dan.
DARRYL, It doesn't matter what you suspect; but what you know. I second Dan Hanson's suggestion. You have to get the facts. Stepping into a man's personal life with as little knowledge as you have---with the potential of wrecking a marriage--is not something you do because some guys on the internet think you should. Your motive is honorable. But there are many people in today's card rooms who drop $50K,even $100K a year, and can afford it! To most of us, these numbers are devastating; but that doesn't mean they are devastating to this guy. He may have inherited a multimillion dollar trust account. You say he is in computers. Is he a part of a company that just went public? If so, he could be an instant multimillionaire. A friend of mine and former colleague left a salaried job a year ago and joined a start up computer company. Today he is worth over $50 million ! That's the kind of money that is sailing around out there in the stock market. I play with several people who lose over $50K a year. A few are doctors; one is a lawyer; several are businessmen who have done well (or there fathers did well), a few are stockbrokers. One is a fortune teller. Until you know the facts of this man's situation, stay out of his personal affairs. Look for an opportunity to discuss your concern with him. If your conversation reveals that he really is a working stiff with a salary, even a healthy one in the $100K range he is still losing far too much money. that's when you are justified---out of concern for his wife and children--to take your information to his family. But only then.
Darryl has been playing poker with "Jimbo" for 5 years and refers to him as a friend, suffice to say he probably knows a lot about Jimbo's situation and it is more than just suspicions.
When I play my thursday night poker once a month the players soon learn a lot about each others affairs, businesses investments etc.
If the guy could afford such losses then Darryl would not have made such a post. He also stated that that his wife thinks its its 25C poker with a win/loss of about 20 dollers.
In a second post Darryl expands that he has beliefs that he is supsidising his losses due to illegal activities.
Yes, caution should be used prior to interfering between a husband and wife. But there are many times where you DON'T turn a blind eye.
In order to subsidize his 25K-40K poker losses plus whatever other losses he sustains how much does the guy have to earn.
I would estimate 200K a year, and if he made that much the post would never have made in the first place.
My solution seems very interfering to many of you so I will share a personal experience.
An aquaintence I knew (not very well) played in a couple games I was in. I didn't get to know him very well because he was arrested for imbezzlement. He had a a gambling problem which his wife was not aware of, lost their house and spent a year in jail. His wife and children were left homeless and penniless, couldn't recieve any form of child support while he was in jail, nor after because he couldn't keep a job as employers seemed to have a knack for finding out his past. He too was in the computer industry.
This could have been avoided if someone had "interfered".
If he is loosing 25-40K a year, his wife has a right to know, Jimbo is the one who is lieing to his wife. Why should should someone who informs her be the bad guy?
I've got to agree with Jodder. It doesn't even matter if he makes 200,000 a year. We all know that a compulsive gambler can go thru a lot more then 25,000 to 40,000 a year. John Daly went thru 45 million when he only had 40 million and he was gambling to stay away from drinking. If he truly is a friend you have got to tell someone...His wife, mother or maybe the best if their close, his father. I couldn't stand by and watch a good friend of mine destroy his life.. Can you?
My very cheap advice is this: Talk to everyone but him and ignore him. Do not grieve his loses, do not show any emotion at all. I could go into my reasons but I won't. Try it for a couple of times and see what happens to him if you want. Anyway you've refreshed me on why I don't play home games anymore. I also didn't like the fights.
Good Luck With Whatever You Decide Paul
I play mostly 3-6 and 5-10 HE. I am very studious and enjoy learning about the game, and really apply everything I know to each and every hand. I have been playing for 2 years now, reading most all posts on this board, have read all of the books, watched videos, and basically been a sponge the entire time. I play very tight, resist the temptation to call when in SB with marginal hands when pot odds do not warrant it, etc... This last week I have been getting nothing but garbage.. and I mean pure garbage. 92o, T4o 32s, etc. Obviously I fold in these situations and have the patience to wait for good starting hands. When I AM dealt good or even great starting hands, the flop completely misses me, or people are catching miracle river cards... I had ATs in a free BB play with 5 other players. Flop came A4T rainbow. I bet right out and am called all around. Turn was a 9, I bet and am called all around. River comes 2, I bet, everyone drops but button, he raises, I call. He turns over pocket ducks to make his set on the river. I can site many more examples of having the best hand pre-flop, making a GREAT hand on the turn, and being rivered to death. Not to mention the blinds eating me up because I am folding my trash. I know that EVERYONE out there has had weeks, even months of nothing but cold cards and bad beats. What are some of your thoughts on this? Do you maybe skip playing for a week? Enter pots ONLY with HUGE pocket pairs, forget about draws, etc? I guess I am seeking psychological advice here many than actual game play advice. If it makes any difference, I am ahead in the long run, but have lost nearly 400$ this last week, and it's really the first time this has happened. Thank you very much for those who respond.
You say that you have been having this bad run for the past week. That's not really bad. If you play long enough, I guarantee you that you'll experience worse. In the meantime, use this current losing streak as an opportunity to practice for the worse one's ahead. There are bigger waves to come. Losing streaks are a test of a player's character. If you can come out of this with your discipline and objectivity intact, you'll be ready for anything. Crisis is opportunity. Good luck.
This is good to know, since I am in the same boat. Although I feel my observation abilities could use improvement- I was almost run over by a car I did not see as I was leaving the casino. I am more determined than ever to beat this game now, so I'm gonna take a week off- regroup- and then hit the tables again. Variance will not get the best of me.
Randy,
No matter how well you play, a $400 loss for the week in 3/6 and 5/10 holdem is really pretty small if your results over the last two years are good.
Think of these swings as your friend. Imagine another universe where you always won in accordance with your expectation, and the weak players would always lose in accordance with their expectation. Unless this universe was populated my masochists, there would eventually be no game as the weak players would stop playing.
I do have a few tips other than taking a short break to refresh your spirit. If you can change card clubs or casinos for a while. If you have to play largely against the same group of players, make sure you never complain that you are running bad. This encourages your opponents to be more aggressive with you which you don't really want. In other words, keep your confidence and don't whine. Also don't forget to keep a lot of chips in front on you. Often the big break comes on a monster pot. Don't run out of bullets.
If your play is sound, don't make major changes. You may tighten up a notch since your opponents may have a confidence edge for the time being. One last thing. Consider check raising more when you flop a good hand and you think a bet will come from your right. This has a better chance or narrowing the field.
Regards,
Rick
I always stack with 200$ when sitting down. I do not enjoy playing short stacked , thought others in the game seem to prefer the short stack approach. The switching casino methods isn't a possibilty unless I travel very very far. Thanks for the post.
You should consider withstanding that severe a drought with a $400 loss for the week a triumph. A lesser player could easily have lost double or triple that had he been forced to contend with the same rotten streak.
As others have said 400 isn't a big down turn esp. if the game is aggressive. I'd be careful about changing your game much. I know I tend to get passive when I'm running bad and that just increases the death spiral. "Running bad" isn't a reason to play any differently once you factor out your opponents perception of you.
It always stuns me when I talk to people who have been playing for years and haven't had a prolonged losing streak. If you're playing 3-6 and 5-10 on a regular basis, and have been for two years, and to date haven't had a losing streak over 400$, then my suspicion (and I could be wrong) is that you're playing way to tight. You SHOULD be having this kinds of streaks, and they should be occuring more often than on a semi-annual basis. I know that this year alone I've had losing streaks of 1200$ and 500$ playing 2-5, and have suffered through two thousand dollar droughts at 10-20 and 20-40. As Confucious once said, s@*t happens.
To put it in perspective, these types of things aren't a big deal; unless you're having a hard time dealing with it, in which case the only way to handle the problems is to stay away from the table. I've heard people say that you should 'even tighten up more', since the other players will know you're 'running bad' and will 'try to beat up on you', but at the low limits nobody's noticing anyway, so you don't earn many points by changing gears.
Also, it sounds like your expectations are a bit skewed. I don't mean this to sound harsh, since it sounds like your a successful player, but when you lead bet a pair of A's w/ a bad kicker and get FIVE callers, well... let's just say that you're still drawing, and it will be a small miracle if you get out of the hand alive. I know that if I've got something like AQ, flop comes Q high, and the gaggle calls me on the flop, I've pretty much chalked the hand up as a loser. I'll still play it, and will do my best to get it through the river, but if I get snapped it's no big deal. The problem most players make is that they think there's something sacred about top pair, and nothing could be farther from the truth in the lower limits. In your case (w the ATs) the A high flop is a fairly marginal flop for your hand, and you certainly can't consider a turn or river suckout a bad beat if 5 players call the flop. Of course, if you'd flopped the stones, and the button had caught the running boat draw (with something like third pair on the flop), then you'd have something to get fired up about :)
Anyway, hope things turn around for you.
Guy
Guy -
He's got top two pair (AATT), not top pair with a bad kicker - making the river draw a 2/46 shot.
Hang in there, Randy - we've all been there. Look at it this way - it's better to have 93o and fold for a week than AKs and get snapped off for a week or so - then your -$400 would be -$1200 or more.......
Dr. J
Your post was timely in that I had a somewhat related, very unusual occurance this weekend in a loose 10-20 HE.
First 5 Hands, in order: KQs, KK, AKo, KQs, KQs.
Lost all 5, the most painful loss was the KK; after flopping trips, an opponent hit a backdoor straight.
What helps keep my head straight is a portable fan, on which is I've written 'Patience, Discipline'. For some reason this simple reminder is all it takes. Give it a shot.
Larry
You say most of your profit is made after the "first round"
What is the first round? (a) preflop betting (b) Betting on the flop (c) Betting on the turn
Thanks
preflop
Here's a hand i had last night which a freind of mine insisted my call was totally wrong, i disgagree..
Ok, its Ohmaha 8 and on the button I have A 4 9 T w.the suited ace. (a marginal call, i think...) (there are 7 players).
The flop comes 4 7 T rainbow. Do you call a bet? My freind insisted no, i thought it was an easy call.
I'm thinking I have four outs (the 4 4 and T T) and will probably get out if anything but an A, 4, or T falls on turn.
So 5 players see teh turn, its a T (!) first player bets all call and I just call also thinking its quite possible somoene has T 7 and if someone has just a T then he still has quite a few cards that can beat me on the river).
Should I raise on the turn? (eg Am i being too paranoid?)
Finally a J falls on the river (not a good card), but the table visibly doesn't like it, so I bet. EVery one folds... Is this a bad bet on the river? Usually it might be bc the only hand that would call would be a stronger full house but often at this table people would call w/trips , and straights on the river despite the paired board....
So one could ask 3 Q's (I should note it is a loose passive game at 4/8)
1) should one call w/two pair in this situation
2) should one raise on teh turn or not
3) should one bet the river after it is checked to them?
let me know what you thihnk!
thanks in advance !
Assuming typical loose low limit:
1) Fold on the flop. There are two to a low and any full house you make can easily be a loser. You may be already be beat by a higher two pair. Small top and bottom pair is not a very good hand , especially with two low cards out.
2) Now that you are there, you have to raise on the turn to make the low draws pay and to reduce odds for hands like A3JJ.
3) Since you flat called the turn, I would bet the river when it is checked to me. You may get a T, good two pair or a straight to call. It is unlikely somebody would check a full house here.
If you had raised the turn, then you might consider checking the river.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
suspicious,
Before I answer, let's look at your "marginal" pre flop call with A4T9 suited with the ace. The nine and ten are very weak cards. A deuce AND a three have to fall without an ace or four to have a nut low draw (and with this many opponents you need to draw to the nuts). The only part of the hand I like is the suited ace. Change the four to a three and the hand is much better and worth a call.
Regarding whether you should call on the flop, look at it this way. You are still not that strong if you hit your hand as the T7 kills you, a 77 kills you if you hit your four, and a ten can kill you as any high card is a danger on the river. Hitting your ace gives somebody a low. In addition, you will be vulnerable to overpairs. Then figure that you can make your mediocre hand on the turn and get jammed on the river if a low comes (if a low doesn't come better worry about the better full!) For me it is an easy fold but I wouldn't be there unless I posted a late blind.
There is no raise on the turn as you definitely have to worry about the T7 and redraws. Remember, your raise in back does not drive anyone out. I wouldn't even argue with a fold depending on the style of the original better.
Since the river was checked to you a bet was not completely out of line. Don't be surpised if the lead better shows you the T7 and he feared the TJ on the river. You hope for a call from the 77. Had it been bet into you you are either up against the T7, TJ, or 77 (if the better is fearless).
Check out the post from July 14, Wednesday regarding the play of two pairs in Omaha 8. Besides ray zee, check out Louie Lawndale's response. He hits it right on the head.
Regards,
Rick
Suspicious - I think you have a reasonable call before the flop. The strongest two card combination in the hand is the suited ace. What you really want to see happen on the hand is three cards in your suit, no pairs, and not more than two low cards.
Now to answer your questions.
1. You missed on the flop. You didn’t get your flush, or even a one card draw at it. You didn’t get a 2,3 which would have given you a shot at low with your A,4. You didn’t get the top two pair. You don’t want to see a low pair, like fours or sevens appear on the board, because of the danger of being beaten by a better full house with the particular combination of cards you have. After this flop, with your hand, about the only card you really want to see on the turn is a ten. And then, in addition, I guess you want to see a nine, four, seven, or ten on the river. I think you fold right here if you are playing the odds.
2. O.K., so you played against the odds, stayed in to see the flop and you caught your dream card. However you’re not out of the woods yet. You don’t want to see a card higher than the ten on the river, because of the danger of a higher full house. Even worse for you would be a card that would force a split with low. I think you want to do whatever possible to limit the field here. I think you definitely want to raise on the turn.
3. When the jack comes on the river you are only approximately sixty per cent sure of winning the hand. In other words there is, about a forty per cent chance that an opponent has a better full house. So who could call you on the river? If you are up against a better full house, you are likely to get raised. On the other hand you’re on the button and if you bet and no one calls, you don’t have to show your hand and give your opponents insight into how you play - but maybe someone in your game will call and you'll collect another bet. Thus perhaps playing your opponents you have a bet on the river. Playing the odds I don’t think you should bet on the river, because of the danger of being raised by a better full house.
regards, Frank
I'd be interested in feedback if anyone has a better handle on the 0.62 or 0.63 probability that I calculated for your having a winning full house in your particular situation, that is against seven opponents, with the particular combination of cards you described. With only six opponents the probability of your having the winning full house would be a little greater, but still not enough to bet on the river.
That's an easy, routine fold on the flop. A split pair is generally a sucker hand even in Omaha straight high, and in high-low with two low cards on the board it's an automatic muck if there is a bet.
Backdoor equity can change the fold to a call. If you had a nut 3-flush, a 2nd nut low draw, a big pair, or some other way to improve the hand to the nuts a call might be correct if the pot is big and you think there's a good chance that there won't be a raise behind you.
If no one bets and you are in late position, you might consider betting with the hand, but I'd probably just take the free card. The low draws are going to call you, and you still won't know where you stand and will be faced with another tough decision on the turn.
Pure Nonsense. I have heard of odd kitchen table rules but never this one. Winning poker hands are chosen from the best 5 cards. End of story.
BTW the third person also had a second way of making a wheel.
He could have used the 3 from his hand OR from the flop.
I have been playing Poker serious for only about 1 year, I have read HFAP And understand a good portion of it. But what really gets me is that Low limit games are not the type of games to practice HFAP stratigies in. About the only thing I can get to work in a LLG (Low Limit Game)is the free card play. Every once in a while I get a bluff to work, but only when Its against a tight player. I played a long session last night about 6 hours (a long time for me). It was a 4-8 game where there was about 1-2 excellent players 3-4 Good players And 3-4 Bad players. I stuck to playing tight pre-flop and agressive after the flop. I had this one hand in particular that really made me think that a LLG can be tricky.
Behind the button I get AQoff 4 limpers to me, I raise.
Flop comes A 4 Q rainbow.
Everybody checks, I bet 3 callers.
Turn is a 10, but the dealer burns and turns before the button gets a chance to compleate the action. Floor is called the 10 is re-shuffled and a 9 comes. The button decides to fold.
Its checked to me again, so I bet. I want to drive these dawing hands out but they just check-call.
The river comes a 8.
Now the player in the 3 seat bets, one caller to me an I just know that they both hit straights so I fold.
Of coarse they both hold J10
This is the type hand that costs me a lot of money when they hit their draw. But the times I win with this type hand the players all fold on the turn and the pot dose not macth the pot I lost.
This is what I mean...LLGs are strange, and take a diffrent approch to beat.
Any comments?
Here's an alternative for playing the A-Q unsuited. Just call the blind preflop. If no one bets on the flop, check your hand. When the turn comes someone may think that everyone is weak and bet, now you check-raise. You want to make them call two big bets to see the river. This check-raise may make the winning draw monger fold before he hits his miracle river card.
You will save money. Since, no one is willing to fold anyway. So, if you don't like your hand on the turn, dump it. By keeping the pot small you will be giving them incorrect odds to draw if they face a double big bet. Let them make the mistake.
One comment: You may be making folding errors on the river. The pot is laying you 12-1, and you have top two pair. If the players have a straight, it's a 2-card runner-runner straight. If you are in the habit of laying down top two pair (or even top pair) just because someone bets the river when a straight appears, you may be losing a lot of money.
Is it not possible that the lead bettor hit his 2nd pair on the river? And does the caller have to have a straight to call? 'Probably' isn't a good enough answer when you are being offered 12-1 odds on your call.
You were just under an 80% favorite on the flop with your opponents doomed to split the rest of the time. Since your opponents rarely give you a better overlay, you should pay them off with a smile. (And you really should pay them off here). Over time you don't lose in these situations.
buy in to 4/8 with $60$.. 13 hrs later im up to $470,, the 10/20/ game has just started and theres one empty seat,, a freind of mine pionts it out,, " take it you have had a great night""" so what the hell ,, i cashed out sat down and wamo,,, first hand pocket j on post ,, i make it 20 to go and 6 of us see the flop ,,,, 2 8 10 rainbow its bet in big blind called to me
For some reason I seem to have played some unusual hands lately. Here's one that came up to night in a $30-$60 hold 'em game at The Bellagio.
A loose player called in an early position. A good but very aggressive young player raised from a late position. A loose aggressive player called out of the small blind. I called from the big blind. I held two kings.
The flop was 9-4-4, three different suits. We checked to the before the flop raiser who bet, the loose aggressive player called, I called, and the original limper folded.
Fourth street was a queen which put the fourth suit on board. The loose aggressive raiser on my right bet, I called, the young aggressive player raised, the loose aggressive player called, I reraised, the young aggressive player folded -- he held two aces, and my remaing opponent called.
On the river a blank hit, my opponent checked to me, I bet, and she called with a queen, and I won a huge pot.
All comments are welcome.
The only things I understand about this hand is your ReRaise on the Turn and your Bet on the River.
I look forward to the rest of your thinking.
I'm looking forward to a REALLY Incredible hand, the K.K. hand you posted was not that incredible.You could have held A.4.suited,which is a good check-raise hand on the turn.My incredible hand was getting K.K. (BB) to muck, preflop, when I called and reraised full pot ($210 total) in the SB with AcQc.(It was PL HE with a $5-$5 blind).My Queen pair beat pocket jacks. NOW that's incredible.
I wouldn't of folded with the aces here.there are no straights, no flushes, and too much money in the pot to fold .
From my observation you must of beat this player earlier or have some major league control over this player for him to drop or he definitely thought you had Q's.
Nice Win
...or else he knew this was Mason, and feared the dreaded 44. :)
No I don't think so because Mason wouldn't of checked after the flop if he had 9's or 4's. BWDIK
I say you made a good play, but of course you were extremely lucky that he made a bad lay down.
The odds were too good IMHO to lay this hand down.
I don't think his fold on the turn was wrong. Even though the pot seems big, it is only offering him 13-to-1 and it appears that I have a four or floped a full house and are holding a pair of nines. If he needs to catch an ace, and it certainly appears that is the case, he needs pot odds of approximately 20-to-1 to call. Even if you factor in the small chance that I could have two kings, this can't bring the required odds down to the 13-to-1 level. A good player should fold. What is so unusual is that very few players are psychologically strong enough to fold a pair of aces in this spot.
The reason we are not strong enough to fold in this spot is because we will always remember the ONE TIME we folded like this and cost ourselves an $800 pot, rather than the 10 times we should have folded and saved ourselves a couple of $40 bets.
However, given the cost of a mistaken fold compared to a mistaken call, I think our natural human inclination often leads us to the correct decision.
This is one reason why I find limit poker so tough to beat compared to no limit. The results of your "expert" plays are measured in ounces, not pounds! This makes it much more difficult (at least for me) to alway make the proper decision. Not to mention that wekaer players are often making the correct decision against you for all the wrong reasons.
For all but very accomplished experts it seems to me that in such a close situation, against expert players, a call is correct, because even though the pot odds do not justify a call, there will be some cumulative additional benefit in that others will be less likely bluff at you in the future.
Comments?
I like the idea, but this isn't the ideal spot to stand up to someone since there's no indication that Mason is bluffing.
It is right to fold AA in this spot only if the chance that the player in Mason's spot would rereaise given that he has KK (and would never reraise with anything weaker) is not very high (I figure the cutoff to be around .4 assuming that the chance that Mason would play all of the possible hands is given by the ex ante probability distribution and not changed by his previous play, e.g. just calling before the flop). (Of course, this also assumes that Mason would call with 45 suited, if this is not likely then the cutoff would be slightly lower.) (I assume without calculation that the probability that AA beats the 3rd player is about .75, if this is too low, then again adjust the cutoff lower.) (I don't provide the algebra here, but the algebra below illustrates the general method.)
If one assumes that Mason is unboundedly rational, not accurate for anyone, but maybe not a bad approximation for Mason, the question then is what probability of folding AA by his opponent will make raising with KK optimal. It looks like if Mason wins he wins the same by calling or raising (13.5 big bets) but he loses one more bet if he raises when he loses. So raising is optimal if and only if:
15.5*(probability of winning when raising)-14.5*(probability of winning when calling)>1
This will clearly never be satisfied if the opponent never folds AA when he has it (getting AQ to fold is good, but the gain from getting it to fold times the likelyhood of being against it is not nearly large enough).
(I'll again assume that probability that KK beats the 3rd player is .75). Given this assumption, by calling Mason wins with probability:
.75*[4+8(.93)]/(4+8+6+3+3+1)=.34
The 4 and 8 are the number of ways the opponent can have KQ and AQ (assuming the 3rd player has a Q, which will be the case almost always when Mason can beat him), the 6 is the number of AA hands, the 3's are the number of QQ and 99 hands. The 1 is added as the discounted sum of the number of A4s and 44 hands (discounted by a third since these are not likely given the pre-flop raise). The 8 in the numerator is discounted by .93 since sometimes the AQ will draw an A (the Q draw is already accounted for in the chance of beating the first player who will likely have a Q when Mason can beat him).
The probability of winning by raising is: .75*[4+8+6*pr(fold given AA)]/(4+8+6+3+3+1)=.36+.18*pr(fold given AA)
Substituting these probabilities into the above equation for determining when raising is optimal yields:
pr(fold given AA)>.12
So Mason is right to raise in this spot with KK if when the other player has AA he will fold 12 percent of the time.
What does all this mean? It was a good laydown if Mason thought it quite unlikely he would fold AA, and thus would be unlikely to raise with KK. Otherwise it was a bad laydown. {Game theory here suggests a mixed strategy equilibirum where AA lays it down about 1 in 8 and Mason raises with KK about 2 in 5. But that doesn't mean that these are optimal strategies, only that varying the other person's strategy won't help them any when you play this way.} Given the increased emphasis on pre-flop deception and in raising whenever you can even increase your chance of winning a big pot a little, both in the 21st century edition of the his book and in his posts here, I'd say that the laydown was bad. I'd also say that Mason's raise was probably good since many good players pride themselves on big laydowns and the chance of it doesn't have to be very large.
I've only quickly scanned this, but I feel that the .75 estimate that I had the other player beat is too low. This is because this is the type of person who would never lead in this spot with a four. .95 would be a better estimate.
I'll buy that, that only makes the laydown by AA even less likely to be a good move. It means that he shouldn't fold AA unless the chance that you would raise given that you have KK is at least .28 and that you should raise with KK so long as the chance that he will fold AA is at least .067. That is, the mixed strategy Nash Equilibria is even closer to the pure strategies of you always raising and he always calling. I made the .75 assumption as a lower bound that makes the AA fold look the best.
"I don't think his fold on the turn was wrong. "
Are you serious! This was the worse lay down in the history of anyone playing poker against Mason Malmuth. What was this "young aggressive" player thinking! This is limit poker. Good lay down. Boo Hiss! What did he think" I lay this down and pat myself on the back when Mason shows a set or full house" Wow. You are lucky! I would have been called by an A,Ko and an A would have found it's way to the board on the River. Good lay down indeed. I hope you include yhis example as a "good lay down" in the next revision of HPFAP.
P.S. You were not that lucky. Your call preflop instead of a raise was the key to getting this fellow to lay down a big hand. But my guess is that you didn't call with that in mind but that it just turned out that way. Well maybe you were LUCKY! Lucky.
Vince.
I think the guy made a good, tough laydown one I would not have made. What could Mason be checkraising with in this spot that the guy could beat? Kings? There is a good chance that the player ruled out a pair of kings. He probably thought Mason would reraise with kings preflop and certainly would raise on the turn. And the very very small chance that Mason still had kings was not worth it.
All in all I do think Mason got an unexpected result.
The question is not what could Mason be raising with. the question is what could he call a preflop raise with that would hit the flop. Not many hands with a 4 in them. Pocket pair. Making a set. A,Q suited. Maybe (not likely). K,K, Q,Q or J,J. Do you think Mason put this "aggressive player" on A,A. This young aggressive player made a mistake! He "thought too much". He obviously was worried more about looking bad than winning the hand. Tell me, How did Malmuth know that he had A,A? Young aggressive must have wanted to look like a "tough" player so he told him his hand or maybe he fibbed about his hand. The only thing incredible about this hand is that Malmuth bothered to put it here and he got the responses he got! That's incredible!
Vince.
Vince: It's good to see you back in good form. I agree that whether the laydown of the aces was correct or not very few players are capable of doing it. I just happened to get lucky that I was against the right person. I collected over $900 that didn't belong to me. Well, that's poker.
Mason,
I hope you didn't misunderstand me. I think you made a Correct (Excellant) raise. Poker , IMO, is situational once you learn to play well. You found yourself in a situation, again IMO, that begged RAISE and you did just that! Maybe that is the best lesson that can be learned from this hand. Obviously the results speak for themselves. However, lesson #2 would be: Don't make "good Lay downs" for the sake of making good lay downs. As far as collecting money that didn't belong to you, well you know that good poker players win because others play bad (make mistakes). So, looks like you just earned what was due you! BTW - I apologize for using the term LUCKY do describe the results of the hand. I hate that word. I was trying to emphasize that, IMO, the laydown of Aces in this situation was incorrect.
Vince.
BTW - I am in Wyoming en route to New England. Boo! No Poker here!
Mason,
Did this "aggressive, young player" who is "psychologically strong enough to fold a pair of As in this spot" have purple hair?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
No.
Was he Russian with a D for his first initial. There is a young aggressive 30-60 player that plays at Bellagio that is a very good poker player and very capable of making this lay down. If it was him then I would say that if he told you he had pocket Aces you could be > 95% sure he had them. Of course if he showed them then the point is moot!
Vince.
Given what happened you obviously played the hand properly, but from an ex ante perspective, I don't agree with some of your moves.
First, your call pre-flop. This is for deception. But, unless your opponent has aces and you want to mislead him into laying down a winner, it seems unlikely that this will gain you, in ex ante expectation, even one big bet later on. On the other hand, with three opponents, if you raise pre-flop, you get 3 additional small bets. Since you are very likely to have the best hand (you said the young player was very aggressive, so he could be raising with many hands, especially since the only caller when he raised was loose and he may have wanted to buy the button and get heads up). Without figuring out the exact posterior probability, the odds against aces are quite substantial in this spot. And if you are not against aces, I don't think the deception gained from calling will outweigh the extra bets from three players. Certainly if you were heads up and maybe even if the small blind had folded, but I don't see it with three opponents.
I am also not sure about the call on the flop, though I certainly don't think it clear cut either way. But I would raise because (1) if the small blind holds the only ace (and maybe some backdoor draws with it) I want to get him out (2)I worry that if the turn is a small card the young player may not bet and then you get no bet on the turn at all and (3) if the young player has a pair smaller than kings, (far more likely than aces) he may fold when you raise on the turn (4) if anyone is on overcards, they will now pay extra on the flop but probably wouldn't on the turn.
Of course, there are reasons to call also, but I'd be interested in why you think they are more persuasive.
I have no questions about how you played the turn and river.
abe
Did you mimic a slowplay to knockout possible better hands or to build a pot. I don't thing that KK is strong enough to slowplay with the intent of building a pot, so I suspect the former.
Just out of curiousity..
This hand is an extreme example of one value of deception: confusion for its own sake. In this case, Mason wanted his opponent to think he was weaker than he was, but in the process confused his opponent into thinking that Mason could not have been as weak as he was. This led to the horrible mistake by the best hand of avoiding the play that, at the time, Mason was almost hoping his opponent would make. (My guess is that Mason welcomed the fold but probably wouldn't have minded a call).
On the turn, the board is 944Q rainbow. After checking and calling on the flop, SB bets out, representing an overpair, a Q, a slowplayed big hand or a bluff/semi-bluff. BB raises, representing an overpair, an ace-queen, a slowplayed big hand or an exceptionally brazen bluff/semi-bluff.
The only threat to the AA is the big hand. If he calls he'll probably have to call a bet on the river, so calling will cost him at least 3 BB. Since it probably won't cost him more than 4 BB max (if he gets caught in a crossfire he'll get out), AA will probably see a return of about 2-1 if he calls.
Given enough time (or brain speed), the AA rationally should ask:
(1) how many big hands could be out there? three 99, three QQ, a few more combinations with a 4 (with A4s being most common but discountable with two aces out). Call it 10 or 12. But someone with a 4 probably would have bet the flop, and with 99 or QQ, the BB shouldn't be raising to dirive out the aggressor. He should discount the likelihood of the big hand.
(2) how many ace-queens? six, four if SB also has a queen.
(3) any possibility of a bluff/semi-bluff? hardly any. call it zero.
(4) how many overpairs? six KK, 1AA. Call it 7.
But this is where the confusion comes in: the mind of the player with AA is completely clouded by the absence of a preflop raise by either blind. He completely discounts the possibility of the overpair. If he would have considered KK to be a possibility, he would have noticed that the BB could well be playing it, especially if he considers the kind of bet/raise combinations the blinds could have.
Last question: is it really impossible for someone have Q9s? If not, AA44 is looking even better.
But he's further confused when the blinds check and call on the flop but then come out firing on the turn. His worst fear realized, and looking at 3 bets and maybe more to come, he makes what he believes is a rational laydown. Of course, Mason was also helped by a lucky board of threatening garbage.
Also, the only time I've seen these sorts of "accidental bluffs" are when some fish completely misreads or misunderstands his hand.
This is a very good post and it strikes at the heart of the matter.
One idea that we have stressed on this forum is that the real money in hold 'em is won on the later streets. Most books seem to emphasize the opposite. But if there ever was a hand to show that you always need to put in a lot of money early this is it.
In the 21st Century edition of HPFAP there is a lot of discussion of these ideas. There is no question that by only calling before the flop I am theorectically losing expectation on that round. But if this allows me to sometimes play the hand much more profitably later, it can easily be worth it. And the way this hand unfolded, my call before the flop not only allowed me to steal a very large pot, but it also allowed me to gain extra bets as well.
Of course I was lucky in the sense that the cards and action came exactly as it did. But that is what poker is all about. Making the optimal decisions at the optimal times.
Thanks, but I screwed up the betting sequence by not realizing that you called and then raised on the turn, more forcefully representing trips or better. Therefore, even if the AA thought long and hard about the possibility of KK, he has to conclude (by my shorthand estimate) that you'll smooth call in the BB with them about 20-25% of the time, which is quite a stretch.
although i understand the concept of just calling pre-flop I have a problem with the play that Mason made on the turn. He characterized the raiser as solid yet very aggressive.
When the Queen shows on the turn and the small blind bets, and the original raiser raises again, well what did Mason think he was up against?
Obviously the small blind had at least queens and the raiser is saying he is even better. I believe that mason is a very good player, but he got lucky here.... very lucky.
Since Mason wrote that the earlier post by Chris was right on, then he possibly thought that his hand was best, which I believe was a misplay. You can't ignore the Queen given the action. Either way, Mason, can you describe what you were thinking on the turn if possible? Thanks in advance
"The only threat to the AA is the big hand. If he calls he'll probably
have to call a bet on the river, so calling will cost him at least 3
BB. Since it probably won't cost him more than 4 BB max (if he gets
caught in a crossfire he'll get out), AA will probably see a return of
about 2-1 if he calls"
If I'm AA, it appears I _already_ have been caught in the crossfire. How do you differentiate this putative crossfire on the river from what's going on now?
What I'm saying is that (I believe) you advocate the AA calling and then dumping when the crossfire indicates to him that he's beat. As I see it, this already appears to have happened.
JG
"How do you differentiate this putative crossfire on the river from what's going on now?"
By misreading (actually forgetting) the original post. I thought the sequence on the turn was SB open, BB raise, aces muck. No war yet.
So I thought the aces could call the two bets reasonably hoping to be up against some combinations of KK, AQ, KQ, QJ or QT, in which case the SB will just call. If the raising continues or erupts anew on the river, it's hard to see how just aces can win.
Ironically, I think it's harder for the aces to call the one bet after the BB makes what appears to be an obvious for-value raise, having waited for his opponents to first put in two bets each, even if the aces don't believe the SB can reraise.
The guy who folded the pocket Aces seems to be the kind of guy who has an image of himself as an expert people reader. I bet you that when he lay down his hand, he was very certain that you had him beat. He probably even congratulated himself with a pat on the back. I know many players like this and I respect their people reading skills. They seem to associate high satisfaction with making "superior" laydowns. But these players have a major downside:they almost never consider the size of the pot. I'm sure they would make good shorthanded players but in games with big multiway pots, they cost themselves a lot of money with their "superior" laydowns. Their reading talents cause them to make "mathematical catastrophes".
That could be, but I can tell you that I'd lay 'em down here too. First, you have Mason's reraise, which in the face of the SB's check-raise indicated one heck of a hand. Secondly, you have the SB's play, which also indicates considerable strength since there's still a player left behind her to act (a player, by the way, who OVERCALLED an uncoordinated flop). IMExperience, when I'm in this situation with A's at least one of these players has me beat. True, they could have hung around on the flop with overcards or a 9, but a nine would have (should have) shown more aggression on the flop, and it's hard to stick around here on the flop (in fact, it's dead wrong) with a KQ or a QJ.
That could be, but I can tell you that I'd lay 'em down here too. First, you have Mason's reraise, which in the face of the SB's check-raise indicated one heck of a hand. Secondly, you have the SB's play, which also indicates considerable strength since there's still a player left behind her to act (a player, by the way, who OVERCALLED an uncoordinated flop). IMExperience, when I'm in this situation with A's at least one of these players has me beat. True, they could have hung around on the flop with overcards or a 9, but a nine would have (should have) shown more aggression on the flop, and it's hard to stick around here on the When you ask yourself the big question here (that question being: Would both of these players make these moves with hands worse than mine?), I think the answer is usually no.
After thinking about this further I think that this was a good laydown even upon considering the size of the pot. Mason can't be running a bluff here, so the only hands he could have are KK, Q9s (?!) or trips or better. If we discount Q9 as highly remote, and if the distribution of available hands were 50% made hands and 50% KK (it's more favorable to made hands), and AA knows that Mason only smooth calls with KK in the BB 10% of the time, the chance that Mason has KK is only 5%. If all three players call Mason's bet on the river, the AA is getting about 17.5-2 to call on the turn and river, which would be a terrible play.
If a player calls everytime the pot is "big" (say 8 or 9 to 1 or better), he is making a mistake and flushing money away every time the available information and common sense tells him that his chances of winning are nil or 1% or 2%. In the long run, this adds up to a lot.
I'm not sure I understand the call re-raise on the turn. As with many posts we've seen in the past two months, it's one of those classic situations where you're either badly beaten or way, way ahead. From what I can glean, the re-raise makes sense IF a) one the two players both holds A's AND is willing to lay them down, or b) if worse hands will routinely pay you off. Since you can't realistically put the button on A's (since his raise came from a steal position) this holding doesn't seem likely, and I wonder if worse hands will routinely pay you off. I could be wrong, but I think the SB made a big mistake by calling you on the turn and river, since you would virtually never (I don't think) re-raise the turn with a hand worse than hers. And the button, if he does in fact have a legitimate holding, is going to have a real hard time calling here with anything short of a boat, since both you and the SB have shown such aggression. In sum, I think the re-raise on the turn has little worth as a bluff, and if either player calls your reraise you've got to be terrified. So, as either a bluff raise or a value raise, the play looks like it's on shaky ground.
But, as always, there's more to it than that. By reraising the turn, the best case scenerio is that you win an extra 4 bb's if both players call the turn and river with worse hands. That could happen, but it seems unlikely. If you are in fact ahead, the more likely scenerio is that you win 2 more BB's-- one from the player who decides to call on the turn, and one from the same player on the river. However, if you just call the raise on the turn, as opposed to re-raising, you've got a chance of getting the button to hang on if he's got AQ, KQ, JQ, maybe QT (he is, after all, on the button, so he could have any number of Q's), and can likely fish out another 2 BB's on the river by simply betting. In other words, if you're ahead you win 3 BB's by calling, and only lose 2 if you're behind. By reraising, you stand to lose 3 BB's and maybe 4 (depending on how you play the river) if you're behind, yet win only 2BB's if you're ahead.
"However, if you just call the raise on the turn, as opposed to re-raising, you've got a chance of getting the button to hang on if he's got AQ, KQ, JQ, maybe QT (he is, after all, on the button, so he could have any number of Q's), and can likely fish out another 2 BB's on the river by simply betting."
If the player on the button (who raised) has AQ you want him to fold even though you have him beat. (He would probably have four outs [the initial bettor probably has a queen]and that is enough for it to be correct for him to call.) Also note that AQ is a likely hand for him.
Well, you're right (as usual). I didn't think about the fact that his AQ is still fairly live against your hand.
Still, I wonder if the chance of getting these two hands to fold (AQ and AA) is worth the extra risk that you incur with a re-raise, particularly since the SB check-raised. Is she the type of player who would have simply called the flop with overcards or a nine? (which seems to me like an atrocious play). The answer, obviously, is 'yes', since she had a Q, but I wonder if this would usually be the case.
GD:
You need to reread the hand description again. The small blind led with a bet on fourth street. She did not check raise.
a
Why didn't you reraise preflop? Was it because you were in the BB and probably everyone would have called anyway, so a reraise would not have gotten anyone out. You thought the deception was more valuable than the extra bets in the pot? Is this generally true with a premimum hand in the BB? Is this something you should only do occasionally to mix it up?
Having slowplayed your KK preflop, you continue the slow play until your call/reraise on the turn. This, probably coupled with your tight image, confused the "good aggressive" player into thinking you had a monster and folding. That was his first mistake, but his big mistake was letting you find out what hand he had folded.
When the sb "only" calls the turn raise, you obviously had him beat. You had no reason to believe KK was not the best hand, and milked it well. Good slow-play, primarily because you can easily predict the very aggressive player to bet the turn.
But the real question is: Did you suspect you were bluffing? If so, VERY nice raise.
- Louie
Mason,
If the guy who had Aces isn't prone to tilting, I'm pretty sure that this hand would put him over the edge. What is "funny" or "peculiar" is the smooth call and the re-raise on your part i.e. if I had a pair of Aces and you made this play against me. I suppose it is plausible that a 4 would play their hand this way but a Q with a kicker and a pair of Aces are fairly live against it. Even a set of 9 nines isn't a lock here.
Tom Haley
"but a Q with a kicker and a pair of Aces are fairly live against it."
I'm not quite sure if I understand this, but if the queen hit its kicker it does not win, and the aces has only two outs. This assumes I have a pair of nines in my hand.
Mason, when the small blind bet on the turn, how did you know that the original raiser would raise at that point?
I didn't.
Mason,
I just mentioned Q,Kicker meaning that any hand with a Q that spiked another Q would have a full. So the combined number of outs is 4 (2 Q's and 2 Aces) against a set of nines. The combined outs against a any hand with a 4 is 6 ( 2 nines, 2 Q's, 2 Aces). Poor choice of words as I didn't mean that the kicker is relevant I just meant any hand with a Q (except Q,Q of course).
So if you had a 4 giving you trips would you play it the same way? If you had a 9,9 giving you a full would you play it the same way? Put another way, is it correct to play trip 4's as you did? Is it correct to play 9,9 as you did? If it is then it seems that your opponents putting you on such a hand is more plausible than if it is incorrect or not the way you normally play them. I'm not saying I would have played Aces any different than your opponent. Occaisionally I get involved in hands where a good player makes a play that doesn't make sense to me and I tend to pay it off. I hope this post makes some sense. If it doesn't I'll try to explain it further.
Tom Haley
Mason,
I just read skp's post and your response which answers my questions.
Tom Haley
I know that I am getting in on this thread late but I take it that you knew that the fellow with the Aces is someone who might never bet the flop if he had QQ.
If your object was to make him fold a hand like AA, would not an immediate raise on the turn of the sb's bet (i.e. rather than smoothcall and then reraise) accomplish the same goal with less invested on your part. Plus, by smoothcalling and then 3 betting, you may make the pot too big for AA to fold. Thus, an immediate raise may stand a better chance of getting AA out and it costs you less if you fail. Also, if the preflop raiser has a hand like AQ, he likely will fold but I would think that you don't mind that too much either given the size of the pot i.e. there are still 3 Aces that could hurt your hand.
Also against some players (me for example), you probably wouldn't have had an opportunity to 3 bet the turn. If I was the guy with AA, I probably would have just called the turn given that there are very few "cheap" cards that would hurt me on the river and given that a raise is not going to get anyone out at this stage (yes, I may be missing a raise with the best hand but that is a small price to pay in return for ensuring that I don't run into some fancy reraises. As well, if I missed a raise on the turn, I can probably "recoup" it by betting again on the River. My bet on the river stands a better chance of getting called if I just called the turn).
Mason, very interesting hand (and nice win): 2 Questions for you.
a) what would you have done if button called both raises, and it was not re-raised by sb (and why?)
b) with the small pair on board with the flop, why not bet out flop and re-raise button if you get raised by him?(realizing that with play of the hand as it occured won much more money in this intance). Thanks, Gary
You can disregard the first paragraph from my earlier post about whether the guy with AA was the type of player who would never bet the flop if he had QQ. I thought the flop was Q44 but I see now that the Queen was the turn card. In fact, my whole analysis of the immediate raise on the turn being more effective may be off the mark. With a 944 flop and a Queen on the turn, Mason's immediate raise on the turn could be taken by AA as simply a sign that he had now hit a Queen. Anyway, I have to rethink my earlier analysis now that I have got the flop right in my mind. My apologies.
I don't necessarily want to knock him out on the turn when the player in front of me bets. First, I have no reason to believe that he has aces, and second the pot is much smaller. Once it gets raised and called and it is up to me things are now different -- the pot has gotten larger.
What is really Incredible is that the folding player showed his AA.
Ray Zee must not be online tonight to point this out :)
David Sklansky and I have been talking about an alternative strategy for the player with the two aces. Above, I have argued that his fold on fourth street was correct. A superior play may have been for him to call the final raise on fourth street and then to fold on the river if an ace does not come and if he is facing another bet.
All comments are welcome.
I could be wrong here (God knows that I mangled my first few attempts at this thread), but here's at least one argument for calling the turn bet.
The button (hereby referred to as 'Aces') is getting immediate odds of (I believe) 11.5 to 1 on his turn call (assuming the SB doesn't re-raise), and implied odds of around 12-13.5 to 1, since often at least one of the blinds will call on the river if an A drops. This figure could be higher if the A falls and someone lead bets (hopefully the SB), but I think around 13-1 is a close estimate.
This doesn't quite cut it, since he's a 22-1 dog to spike the much coveted A. However, part-- if not all- of this discrepancy is absorbed by the fact that often the field will check the river, and 'Aces' will have the best hand. He's not getting proper odds to call here IF HE'S BEHIND, but the fact that a) the implied odds aren't THAT abyssmal, and b) He might have the best hand, and the field will check to him, could make a call the right play.
Further, his chances of having the best hand aren't that bad. If the SB had pocket 9's there's a fair to middlin' chance that she'd have re-raised preflop, in order to get rid of your QJ, AT, etc., and even you might have reraised (although the chances of this are admittedly smaller) with the 9's. Similar considerations apply if either blind has pocket Q's. So, what 'Aces' has to really worry about here is a 4, and THAT doesn't seem entirely likely.
As I've mentioned before, my math skills are comparable to those of a Great Dane, so I won't attempt to calculate just how often the field has to check to 'Aces' on the river to make a call correct (obviously it ties in with the implied odds, but I have no idea how). Maybe someone can shed some light on this aspect of the play.
Wait-- I have an idea on the calculation (please, noone laugh-- I really am trying my best).
Assume we play this hand 105 times. 5 times 'Aces' will spike the overboat, which means he'll win around 65 BB's total. That leaves 40 BB's unaccounted for. So, the field has to check to him when he has a winner about 5 more times in these 105 hands for the play to be a winner. Therefore, the field must check to him, and he must have a winning hand, around 5% of the time.
Ughhh. This seems like an incredibly low number, and I'm sure I've butchered the math. My apologies to those of you who know what a 'fractal' is :)
Ditto!!!!!
As you, yourself, have pointed out in similar situations,
He does not need 22 to 1 to Call.
There's some chance he has the best hand and, right now, he's only costing himself a fraction of a bet (s) instead of the whole pot to Call or Raise.
GD's analysis as usual is sound (leaving aside the Math which I couldn't verify even if I wanted to because all the math I know I learned from GD's Great Dane).
Question: If Aces had called your reraise on the turn, would you have bet on the River if a blank hit?
It would seem to me that very few players with KK would fail to bet on the River if a blank hit and fewer players yet would fold with Aces on the River for one additional bet.
A river bet has to be correct. If you check and your opponent bets you are going to call, but you can probably get him to call with more hands than he will bet. (For example, suppose he had AQ or QJ.) This is right out of David's Theory of Poker. See the chapter on heads-up on the end.
I have to agree with Vince on this. If this suggests that every young aggressive player should fold to Mason Malmuth, then I guess the game should be called Mason wins instead of Texas Holdem. I don't mean any disrepect. 2+2 books have taught me literally everything I know about theory.
I agree. Which is why I have trouble understanding the idea that the button's best strategy may have been to call your reraise on the turn but fold on the River if he misses. This strategy can only have some appeal if the button feels that there is some chance that the betting will get checked through on the River. It is difficult to imagine how he could think that at the point when he is required to call your raise on the turn.
If he (correctly) calls the turn then he (correctly) calls the River. Sometimes being a "calling staion" is the best line of play. Your talkng about losing one big bet on the River if you are wrong in calling or a lot of big bets for not calling. I don't need math to make this play. My God! the Q called for cryin out loud! Where's the comments on that line of play. Talk about unplanned collusion. Her play helped Mason win this pot more than any other factor. But, was her play (from turn on) correct or incorrect?
Vince.
Simple Question: Which is the better game to play in assuming everything else external to one's own adjustments (players' abilities and funds, rake, etc.) is equal?
Maybe I should have had you compare 10-handed to 8-handed play.
Also a clarification: when I said equal rake, I meant per hand. With one extra player, the average pot size would be somewhat bigger, one would deduce, and therefore, if the rake is taken as a percentage of the pot, then the gross rake would be more in the 10-handed game.
You're on the button playing 9-handed HE. There are 5 callers already with the two blinds still to act after you act.
When holding the following hands, would you raise, call or fold?
a) JJ d) 66 g) J8un j) A4un
b) KK e) QJun h) 65un l) A10un
c) AKun f) J9un i) 54un m) K4un
I'd call A,E,C,L,& D, raise with B(kings) if I thought I'd get a reraise from another player and thin it out, and I'd muck the rest.(Obviously, sometimes I'd raise with 6's or AK to mix it up. By the way, it would also depend on the limit.
Russ
A. Raise B. Raise C. Raise D. Call E. Call F. Fold G. Fold H. Fold I. Fold J. Fold L. Call/Raise depending on players that have called M. Fold
I'll do this:
Call: JJ,KK,AK,66,QJ,J9,AT Fold: J8,65,54,A4,K4
OTB in Low Limit the raise won't get single A's out so I save it and see how the flop comes. If the Folder hands were suited I'd think about em.
But what do I know?
-Michael
I think you're pretty much right on, although I CANNOT STAND that pesky J9o. But since both you and Rick give it the green light I may have to re-think my position.
I'd give it a barely yellow (red in half a second) light. :)
GD, John, and all,
I always have been attracted to the hands with a single gap. I guess I just like to get in the middle of things. But it could be a mistake.
Regards :-),
Rick
GD:
Thanks, nice to know I'm on the right track.
-Michael
Mark,
At first I thought we were combining horse race betting with poker so I almost ignored your post.
Anyway, you wrote "You're on the button playing 9-handed HE. There are 5 callers already with the two blinds still to act after you act. When holding the following hands, would you raise, call or fold?"
a) JJ - I usually raise. Some make the arguement for keeping the pot small here but you figure to have six or seven opponents and you love it when you flop a set. When you do raise, the hand does become harder to play when you don't flop a set. This is worth a thread of its own.
b) KK - I raise every time. There are so many button raising hands there is little need to conceal your strength.
c) AK offsuit - I usually raise but it might be best to call against tricky players. Keeping the pot small gives you a chance to limit the field post flop or on the turn with the right flop. BTW, with any worse offsuit hand and a big field, I call.
d) 66 - I usually call. I like one more caller (the whole table) or a slightly better pair for Mason's "manipulate the pot size" raise. But I wouldn't argue with raising.
e) QJ offsuit - Easy call for me. Note that you can get into trouble post flop if you don't play well.
f) J9 offsuit - I call. I think a one gap hand is almost as good as a connector.
g) J8 offsuit - Fold. This hand is much worse that J9 offsuit.
h) 65 offsuit - Call. You are looking for the straight draw here and you have good implied odds.
i) 54 offusit - Call. This is hardly no worse than the above hand. However, 43 offsuit is quite a bit worse and I would fold unless they play really bad.
j) A4 offsuit - Fold. This hand either wins a little or loses a lot.
k) AT offsuit - I call but I play fairly well post flop. I would not argue against folding (I wouldn't doubt I lose money here).
l) K4 offsuit - Fold. Don't even consider calling.
Anyway, I gotta run!
Regards,
Rick
I think I'd muck 'em all except KK, JJ, AK, 66, QJ and occasionally AT. The QJo is a tough call for me, since NO hand has cost me more money than that little gem.
"When holding the following hands, would you raise, call or fold?
"a) JJ d) 66 g) J8un j) A4un"
a)Call. If I knew that both blinds WOULD call, I might have raised. 5 players isn't what I like to take JJ against for a raise.
d)Call. 'Nuff said.
g,j)Fold. I'm not taking a nothing ace against 5-7 players.
"b) KK e) QJun h) 65un l) A10un "
b)Raise. There is no right or wrong number of players for this hand. If thee is an A on the flop, I probably fold.
e)Call. But my cards are in the muck if the flop is not superb.
h)Call. If I get my staright, I'll get play from overcards and pairs. Easy to fold on the flop most of the time.
l)Fold usually. Call only to mix things up. Not really much better than A4o; the straight potential allows me to vary with this hand.
"c) AKun f) J9un i) 54un m) K4un "
c)Call. Raise to mix it up. I'm not sure it will win more than its fair share against this many players in order to make raising a significantly +EV action. I also hate to raise and then have to make a tough fold on the flop.
f)Call. Folding sometimes is also part of the plan.
i)Call. Fit/fold on the flop. Fit gets play like 65.
m)Fold. Are you nuckin' futz? I don't see any profit potential here.
By the way, what's with the lettering scheme? They should be labelled according to order of appearance.
Eric
In hold'em the flop usually determines the likely winner of the hand. I think that any money that you put in preflop is much more of a gamble than money you put in after the flop hit you. Of course there are hands that figure to win a larger percantage of the pots than the hands they're most probably up against but I think that the preflop edge would be small enough to make preflop raising increase your swings significantly.
How much profit do you think would be lost by always seeing the flop as cheaply as possible? How much could it decrease your variance? Is it worth it not to ever raise preflop?
I suspect that if this is the case, it may only be true for the lower limits where you shouldn't bluff and nobody is thinking about how you play, trying to get a line on you.
Anyone else think about this stuff?
I disagree. Preflop raises are when help your hands stand up if you hit them, or even if you dont. It's a real drag when the big blind outdraws you because you gave him a free play.
If preflop raising is simply to knock players out with marginal or garbage hands then it doesn't seem like it would be an effective strategy in a "no fold'em hold'em" game; where people give no consideration to what a raise means, they overprotect their blinds, and they happily cold call two bets with hands they shouldn't even call one bet with. The only advantage I see of preflop raising in such loose games is to get more money in the pot with the best hand - which is good. But I do think that it adds to your swings. It seems to me that it's a trade-off; you can have a slightly higher expectation but it comes with a greater variance (and consequently more stress).
I would suggest, as an experiment, try raising with more hands (before the flop) for a session. Perhaps as many as 80% of the hands you play (assuming you don't play many hands), just to see how the players react (just pretend your the only one playing 6-12 on the table). You might be suprised at what you learn. After the flop just play your game as before. I think you'll see this in a new perspective. You might find yourself winning hands that you were losing before. Players will be more prone to give you free cards when you need them, and you might also find yourself winning more on your big hands. You'll see players checking hands they normally would have bet on the flop (and you would have folded), only to see the perfect turn card. You'll also see other clever players figuring you out and then betting into your pocket Aces, giving you a chance to move players with a raise. Remember, you are the one who plays the best cards (starting hands) at the table, make them pay to play their garbage with you. Anyway, just a thought:) Good luck.
From what I've read of Mike Caro's old advice he might tend to agree with your general viewpoint for many situations. I'd really like to read a clarification of his present thinking of the specific topic of whether to raise under the gun (where presumably the result of limiting the field is at its most significant.)
I wont be back to read this forum for a while so if anyone wants me to read their response I'm at email elfnina@aol.com
for a mathematical analysis of why it is so important to limit the field search for a post called Morton's theorem in the thread implicit collusion on rpg.gambling.poker, point your browser to dejanews.com
In all holdem games there are plenty of +EV pre-flop raising situations.
On the other hand, if you really need to reduce your varience and are willing to reduce your EV (such as if you have a limited bankroll) then there is a convincing case for being very selective ON the flop, where you rarely play without the likely "best" hand or the "best" draw. Since this will cause you to fold marginally profitable flop situations you end up losing alot of that EV you gained before the flop with the raises. This will result in a sure fire small win so long as the brain-dead opponents give you a play even when you bet/call the flop.
So "Yes", never raising PreFlop CAN be a viable strategy.
On the other other hand, if the opponents ignore the size of the pot then you should routinely raise pre-flop with any hand that will actually win more often than the number of expected callers.
- Louie
PS. I believe the objective of reducing your varience to insure continued play is a QUALITY objective for most serious ametuers who cannot replenish their bankroll easily. Its also good for people who have some difficulty emotionally handling being up $1800 in a great 15/30, then losing $2300, then winning $440 for a net loss of (only) $60. Most people, I think, would have some difficulty staying on this roller coaster.
Earning $20/hour instead of $25/hour is worth it if it guarantees you are still in action in 6 months, you sleep well, you have no ulcer, and have kept your mate. <-- OPINION
As Malmuth has said, the amount of risk you are willing to take is a personal thing. A Malmuth MAY have said, players would be well advised to make a conscious decision about their tolerance for risk and keep this in mind throughout their poker ..err.. gambling carreers.
Louie,
Well stated. I think most folks would give up some EV for security. Probably explains those people who by T-bonds instead of stocks. :-)
Frank
It's true that there is a large elememt of luck from before to after the flop, but not raising with good pre-flop hands will only cost you $. I don't think this is the right place to try and decrease your variance. Low limit games will give you large swings either way, so why give up your edge before the flop?
I know a lot of players who are "cautious" pre-flop: they rarely raise, except with exceptional holding. And I know a lot of players who are very aggressive pre-flop: they almost always raise when they play. Virtually none of the habitual limpers are winnners. A much greater percentage of the super-aggressive players are winners. See Mason's essay "Inversely Correlated Poker Games" in Poker Essays.
Andy,
I have a few brief thoughts as my longer post follows yours. In the bigger and tougher games, you are certainly correct for the most part. However, these aggressive, winning players may still be raising too much and might even do better being slightly less agressive when the situation calls for it.
In the lower limits and loose games, a less aggressive style certainly has merit. But to never raise would certainly be foolish and give away a lot of EV.
Regards,
Rick
Kam,
Years ago Mike Caro essentially advocated this strategy (especially in early position) and it created a lot of controversy. In a typical game at the middle limits, most (myself included) believe he was wrong. To a large extent Mike appears to have backed off from this advice, but he still maintains that most players who are trying to play well raise too much in early to middle position. I think he may be correct for many types of games.
If first to act in early position in a game where your raise will only limit the field slightly (let’s say from six or seven way action to four or five way action) consider just calling with AK and AQ. Throw away AJ offsuit. Call with Ax suited. Raise or call with AK and AQ suited (here I think you make more if you play well with the raise but have bigger swings and more tough decisions).
In late position with many callers I believe raising is mandatory with AA, KK, AKs, and AQs. For most other hands that many would raise with the alternative play of calling is not that much worse if at all. These hands include QQ, JJ, TT, KQs, AJs and AK. Note that many players will raise a large field with high offsuit hands worse than AK. This is a mistake according to the advice given by David and Mason in HPFAP.
Steal or pressure raises against a short field or a player you intimidate are an entirely different matter and not included in this post.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
It's funny that you mention Mike Caro - because it's his writings that got me thinking about this idea. In his Professional Hold'em Report he states that the positional advantage in hold'em has been seriously underestimated by most players in games with knowlegable opponents. And I remember hearing that Mike doesn't play anything but aces or kings up front. Appartently he argues that the disadvantage of early position is so enourmous that in the toughest games jacks would be unprofitable under the gun. How much controversy has there been about his extremely tight approach? What were some of the pros and cons pointed out? Do you think it applies to both tough and easy games?
Kam:
I'm just going to be blunt. I wouldn't follow much of the advice given in Mike Caro's Hold 'em Report. If you examine the charts he also has you calling raises with many hands that have the potential to trap you for extra bets.
There is no question that in tough games you need to limit the number of hands that you play upfront. But suppose you are in a loose, easy game where many players just limp in on almost every hand. You should now play every pair and other hands such as AXs that can make big hands. If you have trouble seeing this just think about all those players who will pay you off if you do make your hand and tha fact that it will usually only cost one bet to get in.
Just wanted to point out that Caro's pre-flop advice (at least, according to Mason here) is similar to that of Jones', and while differences exist (Jones isn't quite as strict about early position hand requirements, and he suggests raising with a FEW more hands) you should be very wary of Jones' pre-flop advice for the reasons Mason mentions.
I have no proof, but it's my suspicion that cold calling a raise with QTo, even on the button, in a muliltway pot is going to cause you to hemhorrage chips. His (Jones') pre-flop advice for late position players is nothing if not loose passive, and many of the plays he suggests simply don't make sense. It's just one man's opinion, but I'd stay away from the first twenty pages of that book.
I agree. Much of the advice in the Jones book, especially with how to play in loose games is very opposite from ours. This not only includes starting hands but how to play on the flop and beyond. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this before, but I guess the 21st century edition of our book is just getting out there. Someone may want to look closely at the two books and start some threads comparing the two.
I'm just about to tackle that section of 21C HPFAP.
I'm interested in reading the different approaches as I feel the 5-10 HE games in Aurora are a bit "tougher" than most true No Foldem games.
Thanks for the posts Guy & Mason. I'll offer what I can after reading tonight.
-Michael
I just read a lot of 21st century HFAP and found the new material to be very good. I think the price is a little steep, not for it's worth but to someone that bought the old edition in the last year all of the sudden being asked to put out $30 for a new book. Just as a note to Mason if I could have obtained the book for $20 through an upgrade or whatever I probably would have purchased the book the day it hit the shelves. It is definitely worth the $30 I just hope not to many people buy it. (and I wish you hadn't put the section on shorthanded play in since I enjoy heads up play)
Randy Refeld
I 'd appreciate it if for those of us who have supported sky and malmouth by purchasing the old edition if they offered us a break on the new edition if we did something to prove we own the older one such as cut out the title page and send it in. This is similar to what software publishers do to maintain brand loyalty and reward supporters.
another 21st century option is for them to offer us a downloadable or email version of just the new text for a decent discount.
elf(counting the pennies)nina@aol.com
please dont preach to me that the info contained is more than worth the price of the book. I KNOW that.
I'm sorry, but it is just not possible for us to do that. In addition, we do consider these new books.
Kam,
Keep in mind that my description of Caro's advice just touches on some of the ideas he had and controversy it created. If you have access to old Card Player articles, it would help a lot. You also might want to read the books by Mason and David that contain collections of essays. They are listed on the home page of this web site.
It should be stressed that the brief advice in the post above is based on the specific type of loose passive game described. Note that I agree with Mason's point above about the play of small pairs which I forgot to mention.
I also assumed that you were willing to trade off a little bit of expectation for a decrease in EV. There is another post in this thread by Dan Hanson. His ideas are very strong regarding this.
Regards,
Rick
Just out of curiousity, does anyone know what the average best starting hand on the table is in a 9 player game?, given that we can put hands in an exact order? I've heard that all hands below king-jack are long-run losers, does anyone know if there is any truth to this?
You may be overestimating the effect that raising with good hands has on your variance. You get Aces once every 221 hands. If you never raised with Aces, you would be 'saving' one small bet every 221 hands. But, since you would most likely be facing more opponents your chance of winning that pot after you have invested maybe 3 BIG bets would go down. The net effect may well be to increase your variance.
The average player in loose games probably sees his bankroll fluctuate by 10-15 big bets per hour. That's 20-30 raises PER hour required to double your variance. If you're a good player, you won't even play a fraction of that number of hands. More specifically, even if you played one hand in five, and raised with half of them, that would be perhaps 3 raises per hour. That's 1.5 BB/hr, which amounts to only 10-15% of your variance. I'd say forget about it. Raise if the hand warrants it.
If you really want to lower your variance, look elsewhere. Don't get trapped in middle position with marginal hands. Don't call with weak hands up front, only to get raised behind you. Don't call for gutshots on the flop with lots of players to act behind you in an agressive game, etc.
Your seating position at the table can have a dramatic effect on your variance. If you get sandwiched between two maniacs your variance will go way up.
There are two very tight players in my normal game. I try to sit to their right, because they fold almost every hand. As a result, I essentially get the button 3 times every round. This allows me to play more hands, AND cut my variance.
Don't forget what is really important here - it's not lowering your variance per-se, but increasing the possibility that you will be ahead of the game over a specific period of time. That means increasing EV, lowering variance, or both. Any measure you take that lowers EV may actually increase the probability that you are down after a specific period of time due to variance.
Dan,
My friend (a tough 15/30 20/40 holdem player in Los Angeles) and I just took a break from playing Internet Poker to read a few posts. He is pretty much a computer novice. While browsing the message index, I spotted your post and said to him "When you see this guy's post, it's usually worth reading".
We clicked on and you didn't let us down. Outstanding post! Now he might go for one of those free eMachine computers they are giving away. Too bad you have to sign over three years of ISP service to Microsoft's MSN.
Regards,
Rick
"How much profit do you think would be lost by always seeing the flop as cheaply as possible? How much could it decrease your variance? Is it worth it not to ever raise preflop?"
I don't think that you could win if you never raised. In the 21st Century edition of HPFAP we have a discussion in the loose game section that should answer most of your questions.
If you want to decrease variance, it would be much better to tighten up on your starting hand requirements, rather then eliminate preflop raising. Although I have not tracked results and cannot back this statistically, IMO Group 6 and Group 7 hands could be eliminated (in the short run; longer term the natives will pick up on your tight play) and variance would decrease.
Unless you play well from flop to finish, the reduction in EV should be minimal, again short term only.
L
These are the kind of quotes from Mike Caro that the poster is referring to.
TTM presents Mike Caro's Fundamental Secrets of Poker
page 66
Early position calling,
In a typical hold'em game, it's almost always okay to just call(as an option to raising) from an early position. In a loose game it's usually a mistake to raise!
For three years I've carefully considered arguements to the contrary. Many of these opposing arguements are well thought out and powerful. But, on balance, I'm forced to hold to my opinion. It is based on extensive analysis. However, be warned that my conclusion is also based on what I consider a typical H'M game to be. Other enlightened conclusions may bbe based on the assumption that a typical H'M game is quite different.
In discussing this particular aspect of H'M theory with other experts I hold in high regard, it has become clear to me that the dispute is not over logical interpretation of poker strategy. It is merely a dispute over how opponents play. I think the typical opponent is too apt to call and see the flop, and you shouldn't discourage this by raising. Additionally, I think the typical opponent wastes a lot of money by making mistakes on subsequent betting rounds, so you should welcome him into the pot.
My opinion is simply that most otherwise skilled players are too aggressive in H'M before the flop, particularly from an early position. Most hands, i think, make more money if you just call the blind bets, rather than raise from an early seat. H'm is the only game in which I abandon my aggressive strategy for a more timid approach. That's because I feel your hand is greatly defined by three cards coming at once on the flop.
If you analyze millions of hands unsing a computer algorithm as I have, you'll no doubt conclude that most of the time you are going to be disappointed by the flopl My general philosoply is that you should often see the flop cheaply. Then if you have a staying hand you'll be able to outplay your opponents from that point on and win extra money. If your hand is not worth playing you can abandon it cheaply.
in H'M when you're in an early seat before the flop there are few hands that have enough of an advantage over your opponents to justify a raise.
I further think that pro=level players raise too much behind a call before the flop. Again I think they can often make more money just calling and seeing the flop cheaply. However, I concede that whenever a raise will greatly enhance your chances of either taking a pot outright NOW or ending up splitting the blinds/antes with just one other competitor, you might want to raise. I'm not saying dont raise: I'm just saying that most knowledgeable players raise too often before the flop and would make more profit if they didn't.
Mike :Caro Professsional Hold'em Report
p.32You should avoid raising much of the time until after the flop. There are many players who lose small amounts for their lifetimes but would otherwise be winers if they only understood this concept.
Mike Caro 12 days to Hold'em Success
p 8. suppose you're in an early position with a pair of Kings. You decide to just call(which by the way is what I reccommend you do most of the time.)...
p8. here are the truely powerful starting hands that you can usually play safely in the early positions, no matter what.
AA KK QQ JJ Aks AQs KQs AKo
If you are comfortable and you feel you have a distinct advantage oer most of the opponents still to act, especially if they are loose and non-aggressive, you may add many more hands. In such cases, you can more liberally initiate the betting or raising and you can call more bets and some raises
Pairs to add TT 99 88 77 66
Also under ideal circumstances you can add these to your list of hands you'll always play even from an early position(provided no raise)
Ajs AKs KJs QJs JTs and possibly
KTo QTs T9o . You can add, unsuited:
AQo KQo
That's it.
And with all these hands, from early seats when no one else has entered you should CALL more often than you raise.
p12 Knowing which hands play better against many opponents and which ones play best agaainst few opponents is critically important in H'M. You should always be reluctant to raise with ANY suited cards. Suited cards cry out for a simple call( or a pass if they're not strong enough) and you need solid reasons to raise....(You would raise with high ranking suited cards in a late position if everyone has passed to you)
But just because a hand plays best against many oppts doesnt mean you shouldn't raise. You are often correct to raise with high suited cards: (AKs AQs KQs ) when there are 3 or more callers already and there's not much chance of adding other callers behind you except the blinds.
p13 Even high ranking suited hands, strong enough to make money without flushing, are still often better against many opponents than a few. Unless you're sure a raise is justified you're much better off just calling with any suited cards. Make that your policy.
That said, here are some arguments for raising.
1. (chase out the blinds)
2. (image-check to you on flop)
3. (image- steal)
4. You'll help maintain an aggressive image
5. You might prevent late players from calling behind you and taking away your positional advantage
These things are all true but they are NOT enough. You should still usually call.
Good 10/20 hold'em game with three loose/passive players, a couple decent players and a couple tough players. In a rare hand, it is folded around to the tough player on my right. He raises.
I have pocket Kings on the button. (Typical of my fortunes for the night in that I pick up a nice hand in alikely small pot).
Anyway, I reraise since this guy would smell a monster if I cold called his steal-position raise in this spot. As expected, the loose/passive big blind blind cold calls both bets.
The tough player also calls and we take a three-handed flop of:
997 RAINBOW.
It is checked to me. I bet out. The blind folds (a shocker!) and the tough player calls.
The turn is the Ace of the fourth suit.
He checks and I check behind him.
The river is a 3.
He bets into me and I simply call.
He turns over his pocket 7s and says "That Ace killed my hand."
I muck my Kings and think "Not really since I probably would have played the hand the same way regardless of what card turned."
The river in the han described was a seven, giving my opponent quad sevens. From my perspective, the seven on the river didn't influence my decision to call. Maybe it should have?
I would have bet the turn. If checkraised, I would have folded. If called, I would have checked on the river if checked into and would have called if bet into.(I am aware of your "correction" below).
Jaws,
I like Michael 7's play here all the way. The check on the turn is very reasonable. He should be worried when the tough player on his right check and called the flop. Likely hands include the nine (hoping to check raise the turn), the set of sevens, and a hand including the ace, both of which make you wish you checked the turn. The other likely hands are not those for which you will regret giving a free card.
Think of it this way. If the tough player is indeed tough, he is capable of making a move on the turn (I'm thinking check raise) with less of a hand than yours. These include QQ, JJ, TT and JT. You won't like to call it down because he will mix it up with real hands (e.g., those containing an ace, nine or the less likely set of sevens) just enough to make your decision very tough.
By checking the turn you save money when you are already beat, rarely get beat by the free card, and often induce a bluff or get a call you otherwise wouldn't with a lessor hand on the river.
Regards,
Rick
Well said. I too agree with Michael's play here. However, I do question his comment (somewhat) that he would have checked on the turn no matter what. If a blank falls on the turn, I think a bet would be called for. A check may be in order if Michael held AA.
skp-
Wold you be prepared to call if a blank hit and he check-raised you? This guy would be capable of making that play here with some "legitimate" (but beatable) hands like QQ TT A7s, an underpair, or even AK.
I considered my Kings a through ticket here, but didn't want to invest 3 big bets against this tough player given the smallish pot.
If he did have an Ace, the odds of hitting it on the river were more than 10 to 1, so I ddn't think a free card was a bad trade-off compared to the prospect of inducing a bluff.
I compare this to checking the AA in the same situation to a probable underpair, where th guy may hit te set on the free card. Does the one extra out here make a difference?
Ya, I see your reasoning and don't quibble with it much and in fact, your play may be the better one (you will note that I was only mildly critical of the idea of checking if a blank hit).
Ciao.
Assume 3-6 or 4-8 betting structure, 9-handed HE. Maximum 3 raises per betting round. As below, there are 5 callers plus the two blinds besides you. How would you bet the following on the button hands if you were sure of the betting being capped by two of the callers in middle positions?
a) AA d) JJ g) AKs j) KQs
b) KK e) 2 tens h) AQs k) KJs
c) QQ f) 66 i) AJs l) QJs
Mark,
The question is not realistic. How can you be sure the betting will be capped by two middle callers unless you were playing partners? I've played against players who have a tendency to limp reraise, but never have I been in a situation close to the one described.
A more realistic question might be on what hands would you three bet a raiser who is a maniac and sure to cap it. You can arrange the positions or change the hands as you want.
Another realistic question would be on what hands would you limp knowing that a maniac is going to raise behind you and help you cap the pot when you reraise. This situation comes up enough to be worth discussing.
Regards,
Rick
Somewhat unrealistic perhaps. But I was in a game last week with a bunch of callers seeing almost every flop and for which any raise was like opening the floodgates for more raises. If someone to my right raised and I called, almost invariably one of the initial callers reraised.
I guess the general question is: which hands is one willing to invest 4 small bets in just to see the flop?
A B C Raise. D E F Call. G Raise. H I J K L Call. I'm going to sometimes call with C and G, and other times raise with the *calling* hands. I don't let fear of a backraise influence my decision either. I like to see the flop before I get committed to a big pot when there are obviously going to be six or more players contesting for it. I try to stay away from making the pot big enough so that players with bottom pair and an overcard, or gutshot straight draws will have proper odds to call a raise cold on the flop.
In 5$-10$ Hold'Em with a rake of 5 % of the pot (maximum $3 take),what hourly profit could a sound player schooled in Sklansky/Malmuth methods expect to earn ?
Similarly,in 10$-20$ Hold'Em with a rake of 5 % of the pot (maximum $3 take),what hourly profit could a sound player schooled in Sklansky/Malmuth methods expect to earn ?
Thanks in advance for any responses.
1/2 to 2 big bets per hour depending on how good you are and how good the games are. most likely somewhere in the middle for a good player. remember everyone at the table thinks they are a good player.
Would 1/2 to 2 big bets per hour also be true for $10-$20 7-Stud games as well?
its a very general rule for all limit games
No one has suggested that a "both ways" hand may get something if it loses in either direction. The question was whether a TIE in one direction counts as losing for this purpose, or whether the "both ways" hand is still eligible for 3/4 of the pot.
I believe the reason Casino's don't spread Declare is because ==1== it slows the game down ==2== it creates arguments on who declared what, and ==3== bad players lose too often to keep playing.
There are few similarities between h/l cards speak and h/l declare. I believe it was Sklanski who pointed out at no-limit 7-Stud player A had a flush and a QJ-rough low, and player B had trips and a big low draw. At cards-speak A has the nuts and cannot lose and may get the entire pot if B catches a K, A should bet everything; at Declare player A cannot call a big bet since he doesn't know which way to declare; he'll either guess right and get half the pot or guess wrong and get nothing; he'll scoop only if B catches a K AND he guesses right.
As Brunson has said, the player with the best judgment can't lose at Declare; and as Sklansky has said, the "Declare" is the MOST important decision of all poker situations. And as I say, the betting round immediately before the Declare is the second most important decision of all poker situations; but I doubt I said it first.
- Louie
"Dave in NJ" mentioned in an earlier post that low-limit games will increase your variance (proportionately i assume). In which limits will you most likely experience a "roller coaster ride"? And why?
The assumtion of this board is that you are a knowledgeable player who studies the game. On top of this assumtion is that players in lower limits do not fit this profile. As such they will chase, be hard to read, etc. The problem with a blanket view of poker is that every game at every limit has a distinct personality. This varies from day to day even hand to hand. You may be an expert at 10-20 with a tight, aggresive approach and have a low variance. At 50-100 you could be the fish.Mathematically your question is answered in Poker Essays 1, I think. The key is ascertaining your competitions level of skill and deciding if you have more talent. If you do than play. If you find yourself not understanding why they make a certain play than they have got you or they are a fish. Do you see the problem? You need to know the difference. This is not to say that you will not see good or even great players at the lower limits. You will. When I first started playing in casinos I once check-raise bluffed an older gentleman on the river in a 5-10 game at the Horseshoe. He gave up his hand and when I showed over he just smirked. I had not noticed my Dad was watching. As I pulled in the big pot my Dad asked me to go to dinner. I was happy so I said sure. My father was a much more accomplished poker man than I and had been trained playng in Texas in the 60's & 70's. He told me how stupid I had been to try a check raise bluff at this low limit and that I had gotten bailed out by doing it to a good player. I in all my 21 year old wisdom told him that the old man was a solid loser and I didn't think that he had the balls to call me. My father said "The day Johnny Moss doesn't have balls I'll kiss your ass." Had I not been drug to dinner my variance would have been much higher. In short variance can not be truly or exactly calculated unless you play the same game, at the same limits against the same opponents whom never change. Learn the game and work at it. I invite citicism as it can only make me a better player. Koo-Koo-Ka-Chooo
In HEFAP they give fairly strict guidelines for preflop play: Early position play groups 1-4. Middle position, add group 5. Late position...
It doesn't really go much into considering the number of players in the hand. Should that be a consideration when determining whether or not to play a speculative hand with only 1 or 2 callers? Or should it be discarded because you're not getting the pot odds or the implied odds you need to hit your hand? Does it depend on your position and control over your opponents?
Reread the Pre-flop sections again. IMO there is lots of info on number of callers vis-a-vis your correct response, scattered throughout.
L
Fairly typical 15-30, some loose players, some good players.
Folded to me in the cutoff seat with KK and Raise. SB calls, reraise from the BB who I have information he is one of the stronger players but am playing the first few hands ever against. I make it 4 bets for a cap and both players call.
Flop A, 7, 3 no flush draw.
BB bets, I raise, SB drops BB reraises, I call.
Turn a blank BB bets I call
River a blank. BB bets and I call.
( result maybe later ) ----------------------------------------------------
I was tempted to fold with the action on the flop and the scary player etc but I deciced to go all the way to the river. My reasoning was that he probably thought I was on a steal and would be thinking he could get me to lay down all kinds of hands here. Against a weaker player that makes few such moves I can see giving it up.
One thought was to raise on the turn but it seemed better to try and catch a bluff on the river in case I have him beat.
Comments?
I would have folded on the turn, and against some players would have folded when he bet out on the flop. You can't always put people on a steal, and it's the rare player who will re-raise before the flop, have you cap it, and then bet and re-raise on the flop when an Ace appears, without having at least an Ace.
Unless this is a particularly wild game, I would guess that you are looking at AK, or maybe AQ or even AA or 77.
Furthermore, this strong player is much less likely to read David for a steal since he did go ahead and cap preflop. I read the strong player for a good but vulnerable hand to make it three bets on the flop, most likely AQ. Anything better than top pair, I would have to wonder why he took it to three flop bets instead of calling and playing for a checkraise on the turn.
Most players in the BB with a weak ace or a pocket pair higher than sevens would slow down or give up at some point, especially given the number of steal hands that have aces in them. I would therefore think that he either has a big ace or better or is bluffing.
Sure, it's just possible that he's overplaying or semibluffing with a mediocre hand like TT. But you can't beat a lot of those hands (e.g., A2), so I wouldn't factor this in.
If he's bluffing, he was probably bluffing as soon as the flop hit, and the indications are that he'll have to push it all the way to the river. The question then becomes: how often will this "strong player" risk 3 or 3 1/2 BB to run a stone cold bluff out of the BB into an aggressive raiser, with whom he's hardly ever played, simply on the basis of an ace on board?
By the turn, you'll have to risk 2BB to win 11. If you think he'll be bluffing in this situation more than 15% of the time, you should call. If not, and you don't think that you'll pay a lot more later for showing weakness now, you should fold. The closer the call, the less it makes any difference what you do.
It turned out he was bluffing with only a pair with the 7 from the flop.
It does seem like he overplayed this hand but I can see how he would be inclined to bluff the whole way once he started.
At the time it seemed like there was a good chance he was playing back at my possible steal and I think that would meet the 15% or more requirement. It being early in the game it was a good time not to show weakness too.
I would question your source about this guy being a "strong" player. This was a very costly and ill-advised bluff to make against a player who showed the strength that you did before and on the flop.
He may have correctly "read" you for being Aceless, but he didn't have any basis for thinking you would lay the hand down. If you were a stranger to me, I would have put you on a big Ace that was leary of trips or two pair, or a stubborn big pocket pair.
In either case, the turn and river bets were not likely to be profitable.
Well done. I'm frankly surprised, however, that a player with a deserved reputation for strength would be willing to more or less randomly invest 11 big blinds to prove how hard it is to "steal" from him.
By the nature of description, he has QQ.
I'd fold on the turn, convinced that he has at least an Ace.
I'm sorry to say this but you both played it poorly. You called for the wrong reasons and got lucky.
Don't be sorry but perhaps you should explain your own reasoning. What was the wrong reason I called for?
I think Chris's reasononing that you need about 15% chance of a bluff to call the turn and river is right. My sense at the time was that a bluff was somewhat likely. I think he did overplay his hand but it is true that once you start this kind of bluff it is not so unreasonable to follow through.
okay, here is my reasoning,
When you get re-raised pre flop and your pair is less than aces, an ace comes on the flop and the re-raiser is still betting, ( and out of posistion I might add), then if you are going to play, you shouldn't be raising, to start with. But since you did raise, then ask yourself why you did? Did you think you had the best hand or did you want to see what he would do, or what?
When he re-raised you on the flop after all those factors against you, you should have folded right there.he is throwing an onslaught at you that very few players are willing to do in this scenario without having a hand. It is a very low percentage play for him There is absolutely no way that people bluff like this 15% of the time. This is a bad idea for you to carry around in your head.
The truth is , like many players, you got married to a big pair and couldn't let go, IMO.
The real problem is that you were negatively re-enforced since this guy was bluffing. If you don't have alot of playing experience, then just believe the people who have posted whom are telling you that you should have been out of the hand, This is all I can say. None of this of course would be true, if you knew this player was capable of this play on a fairly regular basis. good luck
YOU WROTE: "There is absolutely no way that people bluff like this 15% of the time.This is a bad idea for you to carry around in your head."
I never said people bluff like this 15% of the time. I felt that in this particular case he was 15% likely to be on a bluff.
YOU WROTE"you got married to a big pair" unfortunately logic dictates that he must continue the bluff and I must call. It is not the same situation say where it is not heads-up, that some players really get married to the pair.
"negatively re-enforced" Don't worry too much about that for me, I am thinking carefully about everyones ideas including your opinion.
Actually I don't think my personal playing skill has much to do at all with how to play this hand. BTW I doubt I would play this hand that same way very often, I just had a sense at the time that the pot size and chance of a bluff by the player warrented the play.
David
Where do some of you play this hand? And how do you play this hand?
1. Do you call a pre-flop raise w/ this hand from mid-late position? 2. After the flop, if you hit a straight draw how should this hand be played? 3. If the flop comes Axx how dose one play this?
I suppose that it depends a lot on the limit of the game, and the players at the table. I Fold this hand Early-Mid position and Play only in the later positions.
I almost always fold AceTen unsuited if there is a raise. I'll call with AceTen suited if there are 4 or 5 others who've already bet or called the raise. If the flop comes Axx and it is 7-handed game (as when 2 players are in the restroom), I treat the AceTen as if it were a bit stronger than AJ in a 9-handed game. With a full table, and with someone else representing an ace, if this person has called whenever he's had an ace, then I play as if I have the best kicker.
A10 offsuit is a heads up kind of hand - and a weak one at that. I only play it in late positions where I raise it on a semi steal if it's folded around to me. If there's a raise before me, I wouldn't call it. I could easily get outkicked.
I can't remember the last time I called a raise with ATo. It's nothing but trouble.
Play it in late position if a couple of loose players have entered the pot. Be wary of tight limpers, who could easily have AJ or AQ. If you're the first one in, raise if you think there is a decent chance that you can steal the blinds.
I never call a preflop raise with ATo, but very occasionally I have reraised a loose raiser to isolate him heads up.
But the situation would have to be perfect.
IMO this is a situation where raising or folding could be correct, calling is not.
L
If you call a raise with ATo, and someone else (namely the raiser) has an ace, and you flop an ace, You will most likely be paying them off! So I don't CALL raises with this hand (except in special circumstances, i.e. live one). I raise with this hand in late position when there are few or no callers and I have some chance to steal or I have good control over my opponents. If you get re-raised you may be in quite a bit of trouble though.... You are better off flopping a ten (top pair) than an ace with this hand most of the time.
There are only 2 situations that I can think of where I might play A,10 in the face of a raise (and if I play, I am usually taking the betting to the third floor):
1. To isolate a maniac who has just put in his usual raise.
2. From the blinds against a late position possible steal.
Your opposition has to be exceptionally weak before you entertain calling raises with A,10 in any other situation (and of course if they are that weak, then you will have plenty of other opportunities to show your superiority so even there A,10 ought to be mucked.)
Calling preflop? I generally don't do it in early position.
Playing with a flop like Axx? Well, if I am there with A,10, it's because the pot is not raised and I therefore would play it aggressively (except against the rock in early position who is known to limp with AK etc).
Great 10-20 holdema game last night with a few tough players, a few weak-tights and a couple several live ones.
Clueless live on limps under the gun and is called by a passive type in middle position. I call one off the button with RED pocket sevens. The red part is important here.
Solid player raises on the buuton. Loose big blind calls as do both limpers and we take a five-handed flop.
Flop is a good (but dangerous) one for me: 8d7c5d
Big blind checks and the live one bets out. Passive guy folds and I call, anticipating a raise from the button. He obliges and raises.
The live one reraises! No putting this guy on a hand so I go ahead and cap it. Both guys call.
The turn is an "everything" card: 9 of diamonds.
The live one checks to me and I go ahead and bet out. I may be looking at AdKd or AdQd from the button, but do have multiple redraws. And ther is no sense in giving a naked diamond a free card.
The button calls. Must have A big pair with a diamond.
The live one also calls. He must have two cards.
BOOM! The river is the 6 of diamonds, giving me the first contested straight flush I can remember in years.
Live one checks and I decide to go ahead and bet out instead of getting cute. Button just calls (must be the King of Diamonds) and the live one cluelessly overcalls.
I turn over my hand immediately. There is precious little equity in embarrassing the live one here.
They both muck without showing and I scoop a nice pot.
Comments on this play, which had intersting decisions on all four streets , would be appreciated.
Nice hand,
Just last week I had the same thing except it was with quad 9's
Pocket 9's right of the button, Family pot
flop was 9c 10c 5s
Big blind Checked SB Bet it was raised twice to me I capped it.
Turn was my 9h, SB bet He was raised by a loose player I re-raised, and SB Capped it.
I Put the SB On Pocket 10's and the loose player flush or straight? Could never tell with him.
River came Kc
Agian SB bet Loose player raised I raised and SB Capped
Showdown was SB with pocket 10's as I assumed, Loose player had AQc.
I laid my pocket 9's down and the SB couldnt belive it.
scooped a nice pot....
Well played.
I wouldn't have played it any other way.
Before the flop: You could have raised with the pocket 7s in an effort to take charge, build the pot to where others might call if you flopped a set, get the button out, etc., but I think a call was better.
Flop: I would have raised initially. There's no guarantee the button would have raised into a dangerous, relatively low card flop like that and since the pot was already pretty big, I would have raised. Your cap after the live one reraised was great. I like the idea of putting the extra bet in against an idiot, especially when I've got lots of outs and two cards to come.
Turn: Excellent bet. First thought for me would have been to check to this scare card, but your play is clearly superior for the reasons you give. Plus you found out, probably, where you stood, and, after all, you had capped on the previous round. Terrific bet in a tough situation, expecially when you could only be sure that the live one had two cards.
River: Betting is clearly correct. The board is too scary and the pot too big to get cute, as you point out.
Overall, excellently played. Congrats on the big pot!
I too like the way you played this hand. I hope I would have had the cojones to cap the flop and bet the turn; years ago, I made a lot of mistakes like that (check the turn, fourth diamond hits and you lose to something like 2 red queens). If there are good reasons to bet, do it! Nh.
Rumor is this new, great poker room is closing down. Any confirmation out there?
I was there tuesday and as of 10am the poker room is closed.
I was in biloxi on the 23-25 and on the 24 the story going around the Grand poker room was that there was not enough week day action to warrent keeping it open...the last day was to be tues the 27 ....rumor was they are puting in slot machines... it was a very nice room.. jrl
Dave,
In your essay, "The Problem with Simple Rankings" you point out a number of situations that are akin to the kids game "ROCK , SCISSORS, PAPER" where the ROCK crushes the SCISSORS, the SCISSORS cut the PAPER ...*but*... the PAPER covers the ROCK.
In particular you point out some stud hands that live in this particular intransitive wonderland.
The question that comes to mind is, "Exactly how do you calculate the "favorites" and do any of your publications discuss the mechanics of this with respect to poker?" I can recall lots of examples but no calculation methods.
Clearly one could try and glean it from the conditional probability sections of various math texts. But those often become very theoretical very quickly and thus are obscuring for someone like me...wanting applied and appliable methods and clearcut guidlines for table decisions. (For example, when, if ever, is a 4 flush a favorite over two pair...etc.)
Can you reccomend Publications or Software tools, your own or others that come in from a practical applied direction to determine these things? (In my case for 7 Card Stud.)
Thanks, Frank
2Q + 2Q = 4Q
I think most people overestimate the difficulty in solving these kinds of problems. (they aren't that hard to do (unless maybe if you are at the table...)).
Do you have some calcultaions you'd like to see? Please post them!
I'd be happy to give them a go!
Looking forward to your response.
Suspicious,
As I go through them I'll post my calculations for critique. Since I play 7-card stud they'll most likely be in that context.
I suspect you're right about the complexity level, I may just have to sit down and draw out the cases and work on them.
First I have to start defining what I think "frequent occurence" situations are and start to work from there.
As Dave points out in one of his books there's a need to prioritize the sitiations encountered...I suspect in terms of thier affect on profitability. You know that stuff he wrote about some decisions costing a lot if your wrong and others not much etc.
Maybe we should thrash a common situations list first and then systematically analyze each one.
Thanks for the serious reply...apparently Al G Bra thinks this is not a worthy topic. :-)
Assume 9-handed 3-6 or 4-8 HE. Maximum of three raises. You are on the button and the betting has thus far gone call, call, raise, call, call, reraise. Both the original raiser and reraiser are very loose, see most flops, and raise and reraise with a wide range of hands. Original callers are likely to call the 2 or 3 additional bets. Small blind will probably fold. Big blind will probably play. This is a typical hand for this session.
Do you raise, call, or fold with
AA KK QQ JJ 2 tens 99
66 22 AKo AKs AQo AQs
AJo AJs A10o A10s Axs KQ
KQs KJ KJs K10 K10s Kxs
QJ QJs Q10 Q10s Qxs J10
J10s J9 Jxs 10xs
109 109s 98 98s 97s 87
87s 86 86s 76 76s 65
65s 64 64s 54s
It's a multiway pot. I'd call with any pocket pair and with any suited cards that are adjacent to each other (56 suited and higher). The best off suit hand I'd call with is the AJo. I'd reraise with AA and KK two thirds of the time. I'd call with gapped suited cards (at least J9 suited or better). The point is this is an "I have to see the flop multiway situation" where having a multiway type hand could be well rewarded if one gets lucky.
I pretty much agree with Jaws here, with a few exceptions. First, I'm going to re-raise or fold most of the time. In general, with this many in, and your description of the original raisers as "very loose", I will re-raise with any pocket pair and all of the suited connectors of at least 67s. I would generally dump all unsuited big cards in this spot (with the exception of AKo with which I will decide to raise or fold on the spot generally....but most of the time I would re-raise with that as well). I would even re-raise with the un-suited small connectors occasionally, particularly if I felt confident that I could outplay these opponents post-flop. Another exception, since you state that the original callers are going to come anyway.....I might just smooth-call with the big suited connectors or pocket pairs if the first raiser was very aggressive and I thought I could 4 bet (or better yet, smooth-call another double bet) to really pump up the pot. Keep in mind that this is high-variance play, as you are going to be gettng the pot-odds to chase some draws and, therefore, will be putting in a lot of money into pots that you don't end up winning. But I believe that the monster pots that you WILL drag will more than make up for that in that ever-elusive "long-run". Just my $0.02, all criticisms of this approach are welcome.
Good Luck,
Steve
So you wouldn't call with Axs, Kxs, Qxs, Jxs...?
I would call with Axs. It is infinitely better thna calling with 76s for example because in these games you may be giving action to something like Qxs when you hit wheras with Axs, you will be getting action. Also, don't forget that you sometimes get 4 cards of your suit on the board making your 76s worthless.
In these wild games, IMO you are better off with 22 than with 76s while in a loose but passive game, a case can be made for 76s being better than 22.
BTW, in their new book, S&M say that such wild games could be beat if you just played AA,KK,QQ or AKs. You could improve your results but have a greater variance if you add hands as "weak" as AJs or 99. (Personally, playing only these hands would bore me to tears but I probably can't argue with what they say in the book vis vis wild games).
I think in games like these Jxs is also better than 76s. With backdoor flushes common occurrences and nearly every Tom, Dick and Harry holding any two suited cards regardless of rank, straight draws go way down in value in my opinion. If you catch a flush with that Jxs, it's likely (80+% of the time?) that one of the three other of your suit is a Q, K, or A, eliminating one possible better flush. So most of the time the ratio of opponent's made flush hands that will pay you to those you pay off is decidedly in your favor. Also a jack is a pretty decent kicker (comparatively speaking) if the lower card matches a pair on the flop.
I'm curious as to why you think 22 might be better than 76s in "wild" games but inferior in loose passive games. I tend to agree but would like to inspect your reasoning.
The "complexion" of the game I played in last week, by the way, changed unpredictably between "wild" and loose passive, which made my preflop decisions more iffy.
With 22, you will not stick around past the flop unless you flop a set. On the other hand, with 76s, you will often have to pay through the proverbial schnozz on the flop and the turn to try and complete your draw.
The rewards of winning with either hand are probably not much different but the cost of getting there with 76s can be pretty expensive and obviously, even if you flop two to your suit, you will miss 2 out of 3 times and you may not necessarily win the 1 time that you make your draw.
Let me know if your reasoning is any different.
What is your opinion of Abdul Jalib's Hold'em Preflop Strategy? What problems do you see arising for a player who uses Abdul's starting hand strategy? What makes the strategy you recommend in the 21st Century HPFAP better?
Thanks, Mike Watson
Neither David nor I have studied his strategies carefully. If you want to ask about specific differences please specify them and we will be willing to talk about a few of those differences on an individual basis.
Specifically, what do you think of the strategy of trying to lure your opponents into playing "dominated" (3 outs or less) hands by often limping and then reraising. Secondly, Abdul Jalib says that "you should usually raise with hands like KT after several loose limpers since your hand is likely to be best and will win more than your fair share of pots (though not much money on average)." He also says that it is "an S&M myth that you should raise with baby pairs like 33 after six or fewer limpers, even if you know the blinds will call." He says that since you will win the pot less than your fair share, you should not raise. Finally, Abdul says that "S&M do not emphasize having the biggest cards in a pot if you play offsuit cards." He obviously feels that this is very important. I look forward to hearing your comments on these subjects.
Thanks, Mike Watson
Limping and reraising can be done more than we recommend if you are a top player who knws how to pay early position well. Raising with KT in games where early limpers could have KJ or A10 is wrong but might be slightly profitable against weak loose players. Raising many players with small pairs is correct against players who loosen up a lot on the flop for raised pots. Against good players you don't get this effect and against horrible players who call anyway it is also contraindicated. A second reason to raise is if you are against opponents who usually check to the raiser, thus giving you a chance to spike a set on fourth st. Against mediocre timid opponents the play is clearly right. As to the last point about high cards, only a rote reading of our guidelines might conceivably lead someone to conclude we don't emphasize high cards enough when they are unsuited. Finally it is important to realize that all of Abdul's points even if correct would be of very litttle importance to your overall win rate. The important money in poker is made from later street strategy and the ability to read hands.
I think your last point is the one people should really take to heart. The people on rec.gambling.poker spend an inordinate amount of time discussing trivialities like whether KTo is a better hand than JTo.
The discussions on this board tend to center around strategic decisions after the flop, which I find much more valuable.
Dan,
Actually they revolve around KTs and JTs. Your point is very valid and I agree with it. I'm not sure the debate has ever centered around JTo and KTo. But I think all of the energy that is wasted in discussing the merits of these two hands is wasted including my own with this post.
Tom Haley
abdul is a smart guy but he can only relate to computer based information. He is unable to investigate things without help from his pc. This is why you always see stat based information coming from him rather than real world type of info as you get from S&M. He is doing all his investigation with turbo texas holdem. I am very doubtful that he is a successful poker player. Bye the way, his real name is Mike Hall. I'm not sure why he feels the need to use the other name.
No doubt. I mean, I could probably tell you what a Group 1 hand is but I couldn't list all the Group 2 hands nor do I really care that I can't do this.
Proper pre-flop play is of course important but post-flop is what separates the winners from the also-rans. I hope that this site continues to focus on post-flop play.
SKY wrote: << Finally it is important to realize that all of Abdul's points even if correct would be of very litttle importance to your overall win rate.The important money in poker is made from later street strategy and the ability to read hands.>>
------------------------------------------------------------
Important for whom? I remember as a beginner with Sky's book as my first text, sitting in the one to five H'm at the Circus with a card i made up perched on the table as a crib sheet.
It contained the hand groups and attendent strategy and the figures for common completion odds.I couldn't keep all the advanced strategies in my head and i was too new to be able to use even the "how to think about poker" type advice. The best i could do for the first month was try and stay out of trouble by playing tight. I would make notes on index cards for all interesting hands and bring them to my mentor. I had so many notes and questions I had to xerox my copy, one page to a legal sheet so as to have room for them all.
It was a long time before I was able to make serious use of any of the advice other than the hand list. I still have an almost religious fervor over how helpful that list was, and to this day, is.
It is the simplest, fastest, surest way for any beginner to improve their game. We all love loose players. You can't play the list and be a loose player. Without the list a person will be in too many situations where he is taking the worst of it. Unless your post-flop play is extra special you can't survive playing the wrong hands in the wrong spots for long.
When a person points out the difference between Sky's list and someone else's list he is usually focusing on the few hands that are different. There won't be that many that are different or the guy's a yutz.
It is important to discuss those differences because alot of money could be involved. Let's not dismiss things out of hand! I think there are certain hands that are on the Sky list that are wrong. I don't have specifics other than when it's a hand i can't make money with, like J8o, and that's just my gut feeling and only reason for disliking it. And i do realize that some hands may cost money for the entire life of a player but the hidden earn on the hand is that they cost more not to play ( ie: the ante/blind cost of throwing it away.
The hand list controls the first action taken with any hand. IE; what position and for what amount it enters the pot. All the hand reading and post flop play skill may be just recovering from situations you are forced into after making the initial mistake-playing that hand where and when you did in the first place.
Alot of thought deserves to be placed on giving players guidance on initial entry.
As long as a hand list is so important, let's have the best one we can.
elfnina
P.S.
Gary Carson is coming out with a new hand list in his upcoming book.
< Date: Fri, 30 July 1999 05:14 PM EDT
Message-id: <933369253.7996@www.remarq.com>
Yes, I'm sure I had a dig at Mason in that post someplace.
But, you should discount that.
About hand groups. I don't remember which hands I put in
which groups. I don't recommend you bother with memorizing
them either. That isn't the point. The logic of the
groups is probably worth discussin though.
I divided hands into four groups -- one with two sub-
groups, so I guess 5 groups.
Power hands -- these are just strong hands that you'll
almost always want to open with. Big pairs, big cards.
The power hand group is the one I divided into two segments
-- I called them dominating power hands and dominated power
hands. The dominated power hands are the ones you need to
be really careful with when a tough player opens from early
position or raises an early position opener.
Elsewhere in the book I talk about diff game conditions --
a matrix ranging from very tight to very loose and very
passive to very aggresive.
The power hands take on hightened importance in the tight
games. In the tight/aggresive games the dominated power
hands become more dangourous. In passive games of all
types, the distinction becomes less important. In passive
games that are loose or very loose i'm not sure the
distinction is even very important.
The other three gouprs of hands I called, drawing hands,
speculative hands, and gambling hands.
These are just hands that need to be getting odds. Drawing
hands are getting the right odds with 2-3 callers,
speculative hands are getting the right odds from 4-5
callers, speculative hands are getting the right odds from
6-7 callers.
These three groups are hands that very well might not be
the best hand (speculative and gambling hands almost surely
are not the best hand) but still tend to be worth value
raises from late postion if you're getting more callers
then you need for a call.
As an example, the cutoffs for pocket pairs are
Power hands -- 88 (99 for dominating)
Drawing -- 66
Speculative -- 44
Gambling -- 22
Whether or not those particular cutoffs are the best
cutoffs are not, I'm not going to argue. The particualr
cutoff to use does depend on particulars of the situation.
The one thing I think a lot of people will disagree with me
is my treatment of offsuit hands. I might be undervaluing
offsuit hands in many situations. In fact, the more I
think about it, the more I think I might change some of
these when I get the edits back from the editor.
For example, my placement of offsuit aces --
Dominating power hands --- none of them
Dominated power hands -- AKo
Drawing hands AKo
Speculative hands A10o
Gambling hands A9o
Notice that A8o isn't even in the list. That doesn't mean
I think it's unplayable. There are many situations where
I'll open raise with A8o. I just don't think that hand
really is well charactized by any of these groups. It's a
hand that if 1) you're in a good game, and 2) you fold it
every time, then you won't be costing yourself much.
Hopefully, that's enough to generate some comments. (The
table is in word format and uses symbols so it's a hassle
to post the whole table, and I don't think the particular
hands are important anyway). I'll post some more of it
later if this gets some comments.>>
P.S.S. It didn't get more comments so I guess the rpg. folks weren't interested in this subject.
P.S.S. The poker authors I read no longer seem to think it's worth their while playing in games under ten twenty and I think this is a great dis-service to their audience. I think they need to keep in touch with the conditions most of the rest of us play under. Once a month for a few hours would be enough to satisfy me that they are still able to consider all facets of their audience's needs.
Is he an author or steady poster here?
TIA
NC
Abdul has been around the internet for years and years. I think he formed rec.gambling.blackjack, or at least moderated it. He maintains the FAQ for some of the gambling newsgroups. He has written a lot of material on all aspects of gambling, and from what I understand he is an excellent poker player. His advice is not to be taken lightly, as he really does know what he's talking about.
In the specific case of pre-flop hand selection, Abdul has relied rather extensively on computer simulations, using Wilson's Turbo Texas Hold'em 3.0. I have some problems with that particular technique, but his overall hand selection doesn't vary that much from S&M's, and those areas where it differs are rather insignificant, IMO.
For instance, Abdul claims that KT is a better hand than JT, yet S&M rate JT higher. To me, this arbitrary distinction is irrelevant, because context is much more important. If your opponent is holding AK, you'd obviously rather have JT. If he's holding AJ, you'd obviously much rather have KT. Being able to discern those situations is far more important than any overall 'power rating' of the two hands, which are close enough anyway that the EV difference from playing them Abdul's way is pennies.
abdul can be reached at abdulj@earthlink.net
abdul's essays can be found at
http://www.posev.com/poker/holdem/
Last night, 6-12 HE in Seattle, fairly typical line up.
I was in town on business and had no knowledge of the players, but for some reason they were giving my early raises way to much respect (all folded both times I had raised early, in the first hour or so).
So when I picked up 7c8c, left of UTG, I raised after UTG had passed, to loosen them up a bit.
Naturally I get 4 cold callers. Both blinds fold.
The flop shocked me: 8d7d7s.
I checked, the field checked around.
Turn is Jh. I am first to act. Should I bet or check again?
I bet, the player to my immediate left called, rest fold.
River is the Kd. Do I bet or check? I figured this card had to hit him in some manner, so I checked anticipating a check raise. He mucked 56s face up.
How could I have got more mileage out of what was an almost too-good flop?
I like your play on the flop and turn but I would have bet on the river. It just so happens that it was a kind of hand where even a skunk couldn't make a scent. No one had anything.
You might have considered betting this flop, since you raised pre-flop. A lot of players might figure you to have AK and play back at you with just a pair. Also, people are more willing to call a flop bet with as little as a gutshot or a couple of overcards, and they'll muck them on the turn.
In these situations you have to mix up your play. Sometimes bet, sometimes check. Some players make the mistake of always checking when they flop trips, and therefore it's hard for them to steal when this type of flop comes up. Since you raised in early position, this would be a good time to venture a bet out on the flop. It looks like a steal, and your raise made the pot big enough that it's not a real disaster if everyone folds anyway.
However, the way the play went down it looks like no one had much of anything, so you may have just been out of luck.
I would have played it pretty close to what you have done, I might have bet out on the flop, but it also depends on if I know the people sitting at the table. I don't think there was anymore to squeeze out.
I would bet the flop here 100% of the time. Once you bet, the pot is laying each of your opponents more than 12-1 to see the turn, which should be pretty hard for most of them to resist, the catch being that none of them have more than two outs (not counting runners) and some are probably already dead. And there are all kinds of draws out there that will definitely call.
There are also a lot of hands that might raise to isolate you and/or to set up a bluff. The extra money also makes it harder for them to get away from longshot draws, and if someone hits on the river you win at least 2 or more BB just on that round.
Conversely, by checking with the intention of calling you let some miss their draws for free, you make it harder for the dead hands to throw in an extra BB on the turn, and reduce the incentive for bluffers. If you check-raise, you'll be representing trips and if you make a big play on the turn it will look suspicious.
You mostly got unlucky here but my guess is that your mistake was forgetting a requirement for slowplaying: your bet must be likely to make your opponents fold. If I'm wrong and, in this game, you could have generally knocked four opponents out of a raised pot with a small bet on the flop, I guess the good news was that you got to play nearly every hand. ;-)
I agree.
I almost surely would have bet this flop. Flopping a full house and betting when the board has 2 diamonds and an 87 combination is MUCH better than say flopping a full house and betting with something like J,3 in the bb where the J,3,3 flop is a rainbow one.
I like your statement that by checking you allow the various draws that could be out there an opportunity to miss for free.
I also agree and would only add that raising pre-flop and then checking (especially to a board that lacks high cards) may be viewed very suspiciously by your callers.
I would bet the flop 9 out of 10. There two diamonds and two straight on board.
I would check the turn in your spot 6 or 7 out 10 hoping the jack made somebody a semihand and I can take him for a couple of bets more and maybe even catch somebody else in there because in my experience if I come out betting I will get the same result you did.
Both seem reasonable. And since they are a valid combination of assumptions, i.e. they are not contradictory, they qualify to be applied to the ensuing logic, which I did.
Your equations 1,3, and 4 clearly put NLO at the top of the heap. Your equations 2,3, and 4 clearly put LO at the bottom of the heap. But you can't make an assumption as to where PLO compares to the Holdems. After all, both the following logical statements are consistent with your 4 assumptions:
==1== NLO>PLO>NLHE>PLHE>LHE>LO, and ==2== NLO>NLHE>PLHE>LHE>PLO>LO.
This last one contradicts your original assertion that "position is more important in NLHE and PLO than in any - Louie
Louie -
That was like an optical illusion. I couldn’t see what you were saying, and now that I do see I wonder why I couldn’t see in the first place.
Thanks for taking the time.
Frank
There is some conflicting information in Lee Jones' "Winning Low Limit Holdem," and S&M's "Playing in Loose Games Section" in 21CEHPAP. (Sorry for all the acronyms and quotes!)
Lee Jones says call with suited cards (except AKs) in early, middle (in middle postion he says raise AQs if there are 4 callers in front),and late postion when lots of players are coming. S&M say (in the " It's Important to be Suited," pg. 173, and the "Playing AQ" chapter, pg.176,) raise with suited cards, especially the ace suited.
Who is right here?
Comments
There is a big difference between low limit and higher limit strategy. In my experience, I would raise less pre-flop in low limit because raising in low limit has a seriously reduced strategic effect. In fact low limit players tend to think you raise to build a pot.
Two Plus Two books appear to me to address higher limit strategy. So, it is possible that both strategies are correct in context.
I am sure you wanted a response from the The Big Boys themselves. So, I will await their input as well.
I mean advice from the 21st Century Edition of HPAP, "Playing in Loose Games" section. On page 152 S&M imply that the strategies can be applied to Low Limit games.
I understand and that is why I posted my response. I wonder how long it has been since S,M & Z played low limit. I suspect that even an expert could get bogged down with a bunch of pull-tab players with jackpot mentalites.
The section on loose games in the 21st Century edition of HPFAP is designed for games where you are against many players who play too many hands and go too far with their hands. The idea that we only play in higher limit games and have no idea what these games are like is rediculous. In fact, both David and I sink out games like this because they are so profitable.
There are many ideas in our text which directly conflict what the Jones book recommends. I'll be watching this thread and add comments where I feel appropriate. There could be a good debate here which could benefit many forum readers.
Mason
The first book I read, Before ever playing in a casino, was Jones' book. I also read HPFAP (and others) before beginning play. While in general I found HPFAP to be the most solid overall advice, Jones' book did make me think about the game and the many types of plays that can be made. Just analyzing the differences between the two books makes you think about the game. And if you can decide who's strategy is best for a given situation, Perhaps you have accomplished your goal: to learn about poker by reading books!
My 2 cents to get your debate started:
Jones book is worth reading. Not all the advice is good advice, but the sharp reader should be able to figure that out for himself. It is certainly easier to start with a book like this than with HPFAP if you are new to the game. Has some advice about playing in cardrooms that novices should read.
HPFAP: Do not attempt to play in a casino without reading and understanding this book. The idea that this stuff doesn't work in low limit games is ridiculous. You just have to apply the fancier techniques from this book where appropriate! Most low limit just requires solid play, which this book covers well.
Hold em poker (Sklansky): A better book for beginners, the easiest to understand. Totally solid playing advice for any level.
Dave in NJ
The last thing in the world I wanted to imply is that you don't know what you are talking about or are ridiculous. I do not have 2+2 books all over the house because I think they waste money. Any competent author writing as an expert would not last long if they did not stay in touch with their field. But, how much 3-6 have you played lately? Low limit reminds me of the movie ' Night Of The Living Dead'. Fancy schmancy, you have to shoot them through the skull to win. Which is why I thought you put a gun on your covers.
In my experience raising less preflop in low limit is a better strategy. Too often you just cause them to 'cap it' with nothing, then everyone comes to a screeching halt on the flop.
This may sound overly simplistic, but IMO S&M's pre-flop advice is sound, and Jones' isn't. I also have some problems with what I see as Jones' advice for play on the flop (folding AK, for example, when you don't improve it is often wrong, and from what I can remember he never recommends raising with it unimproved), but the pre-flop section is dangerously inaccurate.
However, I will qualify this by saying that I've come to my conclusions largely by the way of anecdotal evidence. When I first started playing I used the Jones strategies and promptly got hammered for around two grand (this in a 2-5 game). Granted, I was a bad player, but I don't think that my wretched playing skills are the lone source of blame, since as soon as I bought "HE Poker" (Sklansky's first) my results improved dramatically. I'll never forget the first time I raised preflop with AJs (one of the button I think), got three callers, and proceded to buy the pot when I didn't improve on the flop. My first bluff!
We can argue about flop, turn and river play till the cows come home, but IMO S&M have written 'the book' on pre-flop play for full ring games, and little more needs to be said on the subject.
BTW, if you're playing low limit, let me suggest "HE Poker" as THE BOOK. The pre-flop strategies are dynamite for a typical low limit game, and many of the sophisticated strategies in HFAP don't work in the wild n' wooly world of 3-6 HE.
To answer Fisherman's question:
In games where many players play too many hands and go too far with them it is important to raise with big suited connectors. This has to do with the fact that if you flop your draw you are still making money if someone with bottom pair calls (on the flop)even if they are correct to call. They might be costing the player with top pair money but they are making you money (See the 21st Century Edition of HPFAP for a fuller explanation.) Thus if you are in a game where many players are apt to call your raise these hands should be raised even if you are under the gun, and most low limit games are like this.
What the 21st HPAP says about playing Axs is to raise with five or more "fairly weak players" in the pot, but to just call with terrible players or tough players. The theory of this seems to be that if you make the ace high flush, you want lots of people chasing with long shot draws, putting lots of money in the pot, even if occasionally they make a full house and beat you.
The games I play in usually have maniacs, so there are almost always pre-flop raises. Axs has been one of my most profitable hands in this game and I have played them for two or three SB pre-flop from any position, although the raises did not come from me. My feeling is that raising with these hands in an otherwise passive game probably increases your EV, but also increases your variance.
My other concern is that you usually do not get the good flush draw. What should you do if you flop an Ace, but no flush draw? My experience is that even a pair of aces with a good kicker is a weak hand with a large pot and lots of players chasing it, but it is still a tough hand to lay down. The raise before the flop probably reduces your chance winning when you miss the good flush draw.
Dear Forum,
I am in need of some advice... I have never played in a real tournament with a limited field and don' know what strategy to use. I played in a super-satellite for the WSOP and got busted in the 3rd level when like an idiot otb I re-raised an early limper with AQd.(He had turned over 2 weak hands) Anyway, he had AK and I hit the exit door. My bankroll did not allow me to constantly re-buy but at that level I wouldn't have done it anyway. I am going to play in a $30 buy-in Texas Hold'em tourney on Thursday where you get 500 in chips and 1 re-buy where you get 1500 more.They limit the field to 75 players and pay the top 3 places. How should I play in this type of event. I would be happy if I made it to the remaining 15 or so but I also want to play to win...Any ideas are gratefully appreciated!
Russ
The biggest thing I have found is not to get into major confrontations. This can't be stressed enough! Don't get knocked out because you raised several times with a second best hand. This is especially important in the later rounds. Save a few bets for surviving the next round. Be more than happy to watch your opponents eliminate each other.
id play the normal game you are comfortable with and also try to win pots that wont be contested. there is no magic way to win a tournament. since they only play the top 3 places it makes no sense to play tight and try to last. you have to win the chips and it doesnt matter whether you win them early(against the weak players) or later(against the better players that are left). good luck.
p.s. id also raise a limper that was doing it with weak hands and risk going broke in order to win chips.
Me and a friend of mine (the "Paul" of some of my other posts) have been discussing some of the stickier aspects of blind defense lately, and I'd like to get you guys' imput on the subject.
Your in the blind, and some joker who's clearly on a steal attempt opens for a raise on the button. You look down and find any number of hands-- A5s, say, or pocket 7's, or K9s-- and decide is enough is enough. You call or raise and promptly advance to the flop, which, naturally, misses you. However, you suspect that it missed the other guy as well.
What's your move? Do you bet out? Check-raise? Call a flop bet? If you call the flop, what do you do if you hit the turn? Miss the turn? What if it's checked around?
Naturally, the answers to these questions are situational, but I'd be curious to see what everyone's 'tendencies' are.
Guy
What you describe has become one of my favorite fights. I do not require the sweetheart starts you list. Just a king and I start swinging. Checks and calls are out of the question. A player on a steal will often become confused if played back at, because they seldom have any other strategy in mind.
If I think the button has been frequently stealing, and if the game is kind of tight, I'll reraise to get it heads up with any two suited cards, or any Ace or King. If the game is loose, I'll call with the Axs and Kxs to get real good odds for my draw.
GD,
One thing I suggest is that you should rephrase the question a bit. By this I mean you should divide it into several catagories and perhaps put some of them in different posts.
First, most games have two blinds and defense is different in both blinds. The size of the small blind is usually either 1/2 or 2/3 the big blind and this makes a big difference. Note that although the small limit games (e.g. 3/6) often have a small blind 1/3 the big blind this is really not worth discussing - if you are in a game this tight at low limit find another game!
Next, there is a difference between a full game that is normally medium loose and suddenly there is a steal raise versus a short game (three or four handed) and there is a raise. No, this is not due to "bunching". In the short game the blinds are pumped up to defend where in the full game they would often rather just get on to the next hand (Mason or Bob Ciaffone may have written about this in Card Player a couple of years ago). The stealer usually knows this, yet at the same time will be mixing up his play more to throw the defenders off (in the short game).
Lastly, the type of player who raises makes a big difference. You may want to establish the tendencies of the raiser in your original question.
Writing this as I drink my morning coffee makes me think of a brief period fifteen or so years ago when my brother and I were pro-wrestling fans. On Wrestlemania < III or whatever "Rowdy Roddy Piper" was being interviewed and someone asked a question and he screamed: "YOU WANT AN ANSWER, WELL I CHANGE THE QUESTION!" I guess I just pulled a Piper.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I'll try to add some specifics later but I really need to wake up.
Well, alrighty Rick, let me SPOON FEED it to you... :)
No, seriously, your point is well taken. The original post is not well phrased, and I should have thought it out more before I posted it.
Really, the inspiration for this post came from a conversation I had with a buddy (that same damnable Paul I keep mentioning) in which we argued about what, generally, is the better strategy for flop play when both you and your opponent seem to have missed, and your opponent is probably on a steal attempt. Namely, should one bet out, hoping to steal, or go for a check-raise? This, I think, is the essence of it. Of course, the only 'right answer to this question is "it depends", but it seems as though one could determine which of these two manuevers is most likely to further your cause; the 'cause', of course, being to get the other guy to muck.
G.D. if im in the bb and im sure he would be stealing in this position, no matter how i play the hand if played aggressively ill be the favorite to win it. so any two cards are ok. he is about 2 to 1 dog to really get enough to with stand your onslaught unless he knows what you are doing and is willing to call with a high card. if you are waiting for real hands to defend a steal raise you are giving away too much money in your life that can be used for other things. besides who would be stupid enough to try to steal the blind from someone that hit a jackpot recently. and how is your tennis elbow developing.
There was a particular player in Las Vegas whose name I won't mention who would automatically raise when first in on the button. A strategy that a well known good player would use against this person was to always call out of the blind (assuming the small blind did not play) and then to automatically bet no matter what flopped. Since the stealer is only 2-to-1 to hit the flop -- better if you count draws, this put a lot of pressure on the stealer and is an automatically profitable strategy for the player in the big blind as long as the stealer is looking for a reasonable hand to call with.
Mason. Are you suggesting then, rather than re-raise the button blind stealer, just call and bet out on flop no matter what lands to be a better strategy? And how many times must this play be profitable to make sense. How can we be so sure he does not have a legitimate hand?
Ray-
Tennis elbow is healing nicely-- thank you for asking. My only problem now is an acute pain in my left bicep, which I think I incurred after carrying a gunnysack full of twenties to the bank teller. I'm going in for an MRI tomorrow, and I'll know more than.
And I agree-- who would consider stealing a blind from a man as grotesquely wealthy as myself? Still, these gnats persist in their efforts, and so I have come to you, the great minds of the 2+2 forum, for advice and counsel.
BTW, if your trying to get someone to muck (namely, the clown on the steal attempt), and your fairly sure you've both missed the flop (which is most of the time), do you 'generally' prefer to go for a check raise, or just bet out? In other words, which of these moves do you think is most likely to get your opponent to muck?
it depends on your assessment of the player. some dont like to call checkraises others it just ties on. but for me id rather bet out and bet again on 4th street(3 small bets) than checkraise on flop(2 bets) then bet on fourth(2 more bets) and have to guess how much to invest from here. plus many call the checkraise automatically with any thing and you still have to now try to follow thru. you have to mix it up a little or the good players catch on and clobber you.
GD,
The answer to your question is very simple. I thought that Rick was going to give it to you but he stopped short and asked a question instead. Malmuth's response to Zee's response misses the mark. Soon this guy will figure out what you are doing and counter your move himself. Like always raising your bet. Etc. Etc.
The answer is this: Play short handed poker (for hand selection) when in this situation. Keep in mind that you are in a terrible position and also keep in mind that this player is very aggressive in this situation. Play accordingly, do not overplay any hands or take his play personally, and you will find enough situations that will counter his play and may even make a profit for yourself. Anytime someone ALWAYS makes the same play he is vulnerable to good solid poker playing.
That's it!
Vince.
GD,
Just to add a little more reading material to the good responses you've received, here's a link to an old thread on this topic. I think Ray's advice to mix it up is the bottom line. And as I'm sure you know, you do this with an awareness of what the opponent has seen you do recently (or not so recently), which allows for an educated guess about how he may be interpreting your current actions.
John Feeney
"...you suspect that it missed the other guy as well..." is the basis of my advice for you. That advice is:"Pretend that you hit it. Convince yourself that you hit it. Then play as if you hit it.
"Convince yourself that you hit it. Then play as if you hit it."
Aaah... but the question was "HOW do I play it to convince the OTHER guy that I hit it"?
Fairly loose, passive 6-12 HE, I open in early position with 88o.
Two other callers, Button raises, SB folds, rest call, the flop comes 5 handed.
Flop is J 8 4 I don't recall the suits but no flush possible.
I check, all check to button, he bets, BB calls, I check raise, next player folds, rest call (one calls double bet). Players rarely check raise a set in lower limit games, so I was representing top pair or top two pair. If a J or smaller hit on the turn I planned to bet out, if an overcard came I hoped to get another check raise.
Turn was K, no flush draw. We all check to the Button, he bets, blind folds, I raise, other player calls double bet again, Button calls.
River was a rag, I bet, Middle player folds, button called and showed AKo.
This time it worked out but comments on possible pitfalls are appreciated
Major pitfall is that you won't have a dummy like the button to bet your hand for you twice when he is drawing dead to overcards.
One ancillary benefit of this move is that observant opponents (even in low-limit this play is one they will remember), this may allow you to get free cards on future hands when you play a draw strongly from up front.
Make sure you mix it up and bet some of your big hands on the flop, otherwise your bets will start to signal weakness, rather than strength. I play with some habitual check-raisers and almost always know where I stand against them. If they bet out, they are drawing or have something like middle pair. Regardless of my holdings, they and are a candidate for a steal-raise on the flop and a bet if they check the turn.
If they check-raise me on the flop, I can confidently release anything less than top pair/best kicker, where I might have had to pay off a less predictable opponent.
I take count of the number of players betweeen me and the raiser in both the clockwise and counterclockwise direction and play my strong hands accordingly.
For example, here with the set and two players to act before the button and only 1 player to act after the button, I would likely bet and hope to have the 2 limpers to my left call before the button raises at which point I likely would 3 bet it.
The size of the pot is of course the key. For example, if the pot was capped preflop and you were fairly sure that the button would bet the flop, I would go for the checkraise.
Your checkraise (in the example given) may not be the proper play on the flop if it will cause the 2 players to your left to fold hands with which they are drawing nearly dead. Plus, by going for the checkraise, you may have no betting at all on the flop if the button just checks his AK. If that happens, you suddenly make your set a lot more vulnerable to being drawn out and you also make it very difficult on yourself to value bet the river should a runner runner flush appear.
As for the double check raise, why not? Often, it can be a great play to even 3 bet the flop and then check to the preflop raiser when an overcard (particularly the Ace or King) hits before you smoke him again. Once agin, the clockwise/counterclockwise count and pot size should be taken into consideration.
"Players rarely check raise a set in lower limit games, so I was representing top pair or top two pair."
BTW, what do you mean by this statement? Do you mean that they almost always wait until the turn before pulling the checkraise trigger?
In my opinion it is rare to be check-raised on the flop by a player holding a set in low limit holdem. This observation applies even to spread limit games, where the benefits of slowplaying on the flop are muted. A check raise in these weaker games generally indicates two-pair, or (much less frequently) top pair, best kicker.
BTW, I would like to thank the Forum participants, and in particular you, Rick Nebiolo, Vince Lepore and Dan Hansen. Over the last 18 months I have gone from being a break-even player to a consistant winner, a trend I attribute directly to the concepts discussed here.
Larry
A couple weeks ago I posted a question about what to do with my bankroll.
My $1200 bankroll had depleted to about $200 playing 3-6 and some 6-12 hold'em. My question had been, assuming I'm correct that my game is indeed strong, should I continue using my bankroll for what its for, or shift games/strategies? Theoretically, if one says one needs a bankroll of $1000 to survive a certain game, does that mean one should continue playing that game, unchanged, when the bankroll drops to $100?
Nobody really answered that question. I mostly received analysis of why my game was off (from folks with no information about my game whatsoever), or admonitions to stop whining.
There were a couple thoughtful responses and I thank those who genuinely tried to give me some good advice.
Here's the update:
I decided to go forward with my bankroll, playing my game as usual. I posted a $280 winning session in 6-12 and then went home to think about everything. I went back and analyzed some play history and I realized that I was actually UP over $500 playing 6-12!!!! All my losses came from that crazy bad-beat-prone 3-6 table. Now 6-12 has some 3-6esque moments, but it's not quite as out of control.
So I stayed with 6-12 even though my bankroll was incredibly short. I spent a weekend in Reno playing at Circus Circus and I did very well there. 3-6 games in Reno are different than California. You can actually win money at that game.
So, I learned the most important lesson at all: PICK YOUR GAME WELL. The 3-6 California games are too unpredictable, too out of control, they swing too wildly, and they are full of players you can't read or predict, not because they are so good, but because they are so bad. So now I've learned to just stay away from that game. 6-12 is a little better, enough to make a difference but not a whole lot. If I can boost my bankroll to about $5k, I think I'll just play 15-30 or higher. I'm convinced I can handle those games fairly well compared to the 3-6 bullshit I've dealt with.
Anyway, my bankroll is back up to about $950 and I've learned to believe in my game. I know I play well enough to win and I did so during the past few weeks.
natedogg
"If I can boost my bankroll to about $5k, I think I'll just play 15-30 or higher. "
15-30 or higher. Natedogg be very careful.
Yes, $5,000 bankroll is not enough for 15-30. Roughly speaking, your bankroll should be about 300/400 times the big bet.
I would suggest to continue to grind at the lower limits, and, if the higher limit games look good, take a stab.
Good luck.
"I would suggest to continue to grind at the lower limits, and, if the higher limit games look good, take a stab."
This is very good advice that I wish that I'd gotten a couple of years ago. I played 3-6 and 5-10 for a couple of years and had been making a small profit. However, I used my bankroll to also pay bills, etc. Basically it was an income supplement. Rough periods would add their own dents to my bankroll. I wish that sometimes, when I'd had a big win, that I had taken a shot at the 10-20 games. One loss there would not cripple my bankroll, but a good win would point my bankroll toward a self-sustaining level. At the lower limits, no matter that I was one of the best there, it could not hold out against the constant demands upon it.
Eric
Natedogg
In my opinion 1000$ is too small a bankroll to be playing 6-12. Just think, how much would you spend if you just had one good draw, say an ace high flush draw, that did not work out? 5% of your bankroll? 8%? how often do those great draws work out? Get several good hands cracked and you could be in trouble.
Plenty of money can be made in the smaller games, you just have to make strategy adjustments and expect larger swings. Yes that means larger proportionate bankroll. I too have found that my swings are not quite as great (relative to the stakes) in 5-10 and higher. But there are plenty of morons who play 5-10 and higher, so you'll still get plenty of bad beats there too!
Taking an occasional shot is OK in a really good game, but do not expect 5000 to last long if you get a bad run of cards playing 15-30.
Dave in NJ
Once you've boosted up to 5k play 10-20. 9k, play 15-30.
Hello... anyone know of a book on Liar Poker...thanks in advance
Mart
Gamblers Book Store has .. err .. had one. I think its called "Liars Poker". It wasn't very good.
You only need Caro's "Weak means strong and Strong means Weak" tell advise to beat this game. Or of course some ringer bill with 7 6s on it.
"...thanks in advance" You bet.
- Louie
There's a book about the Wall Street called Lair's Poker that probably has nothing to do with poker. I guess if you want to invest in stocks...
Its a different book. Not worth finding and Amazon doesn't know about it.
There are two books entitled Liar's Poker. One is about Salomon Brothers and their top trader John Merriweather, who lost 3 Billion dollars last year(thru a hedge fund called Long Term Capital). He alledgedly challenged John Gudfreund to one hand of liar's poker for $10 million bucks. And there is an instructional book that you can find at the Gambler's Book Club. It describes how to play a bluffing game using the serial numbers of a one dollar bill. I didn't read this book though.
I was in Reno last weekend and sat down at a 6-12 with a 2pot kill. The table had mostly strong aggressive players, and a couple idiots, one of which was destroying everybody and was up about $800. I'll call him Joe.
Here's what happened.
In the first three hands after I sat down, Joe saw the river every time, raising before the flop each time and he won one of them. I watched him call two bets on the river with a queen high. He was sitting directly to my left. Disaster awaits me.
It is my big blind and he makes it a live 12. I'm dealt KJo and a couple people call. I call the extra bet and of course, maniac makes it three. I'm assuming he makes it three for no reason. To make a long story short, I flopped a K and he makes a royal flush on the river. That hand alone cost me almost $100.
I've never seen a royal flush in a game, much less made by a pre-flop raise in the dark. The guy was getting very lucky.
I decided to take the opportunity to make the table target me. As soon as Joe showed the royal, they began making comments. ("You gotta be tough to hang with this table. You need a lot more money than that if you wanna survive this game, kid"). They actually called me kid. So I fed them by saying stuff like "I can't believe how tough this game is, you guys are too ballsy for me, I'm in over my head". So I know that the next hand I go in on, they're going to go after me big time.
I raise with AQ or AJ ( i can't remember exactly) two from the BB. Two or three people call. Flop comes 8 high garbage rainbow. I bet, aggro greedy guy who smells blood raises me, two others fold to me. We'll call my opponent Aggro. I immediately re-raise him and Aggro just calls. I'm pretty sure at this point that Aggro was raising top pair on me or maybe even nothing.
I bet the turn immediately and he folds.
I'd like to think I masterfully manipulated the table and played good heads up poker with this guy. Comments please.
natedogg
I'm just a novice, but I would like to be the first to comment so I can compare with what people with more experience say.
First, I wouldn't have called two or three bets with KJo. With all those raises, most likely someone has an ace, and if an ace flops, you would have to get at least two pair KJ to beat it.
Second, I agree with Natedogg that on this particular table where the players don't seem very imginative and thier stratgy is to bully everybody, you would want people to think that you where tight. You would have more room to manuver this way. Natedogg's play was exemplary of this with his re-raise with A-high.
If I had been playing against Natedogg, and put him as a tight player on the pre-flop, I would have raised him to the river if he raised on a garbage flop, and pray that a premium card didn't flop. If the flop came down 8 2 3 rainbow, I would raise Nate with anything higher then a pair of twos.
Comments on my comments?
That makes a lot of sense and I"m glad you weren't sitting at the table with me. But I'm not sure what I said in my post to make you think I was presenting a tight image. I was re-inforcing the "inexperienced" image at this particular table. They all thought I was a dumb tourist kid who was in way over his head, and I even said so out loud to confirm it for them. I'm 27 but I guess I could pass for 23 or so in the dim light of a poker room. :)
Now I'm pretty sure I convinced Mr. Aggro that I had a big pocket pair and that's why he laid down. I showed so much strength that even if he had AK or AQ, he had to fear hitting top pair only to fight against trips. I also had him convinced that I was a novice, and that was scared by the table. My strong play was representing a great hand to a player who believed I was rattled and intimidated by the table. In his mind, I MUST HAVE had AA or KK or QQ.
Anyway, I think that's what I did. Maybe I just got lucky, too! :)
natedogg
Been reading Theory of Poker, Sklansky. Concerning pot odds, it is stated to beware of a raise to your left. To me it seems, that should I be on a good drawing hand, that I would welcome a raise from my left. My pot odds would actually improve.Especially, if I had called a previous bet. Any comments?
Or is he stating that the true danger is a re-raise from someone, ie the original bettor?
a raise from your left would kill your pot odds as it would drive out players. if your drawing hand played better headup you would welcome it.
Thanks for response. I see your point. But what about low limits, ie 3-6 and 4-8 Hold EM, as I've been playing, when everyone seems to stay?
I seems that mR. Zee has answered your question already. on a drawing hand, you want a lot of people to be in the game in order to get good pot odds.
Several people below have debated as to whether "Aces" made a good or bad laydown when Mason reraised.
What I am wondering about is why would Aces make the initial raise on the turn?
My recollection is that the board on the turn contained 4 different suits. Thus, about the only classic (i.e 8 outs or better) drawing hand that could be out there is J,10 (which of course is unlikely given a 944 flop).
Aces is either way ahead or way behind. Why raise on the penultimate round of betting?
Also, as a general principle, I don't raise purely for value unless I am also willing to call a reraise. Is that sound or are there several concrete exceptions to that rule?
# 1) Multi Way Pot - Mo Money in pot or limit competition. Either reason is valid.
#2) You may not get the chance on the River.
#3) You may win pot right there eliminating the chance of a miacle card beating you.
#4) Knock Mason Malmuth out of the pot.
In general, if you raise purely for value you should be willing to call a reraise. This was not purely a value raise, IMO, although it may appear that way.
BTW- Penultimate. Excuse me professor!
Vince.
"This was not purely a value raise, IMO, although it may appear that way."
Vince, given his position and his hand, IMO, this can be described as nothing but a pure value raise.
penultimate...uh yeah...goofy word...I don't know what I was thinking...sorry.
Skp,
I believe that he raised to thin the opposition and/or win the hand right there!
So there!
Vince.
"as a general principle, I don't raise purely for value unless I am also willing to call a reraise. Is that sound or are there several concrete exceptions to that rule?"
I don't think that calling the reraise is a "general principle;" it just happens to be the thing that you should usually do given the facts at hand. Think about how many times you've bet for value into what you think is a semi-bluff only for a reraise to convince you otherwise. You may be justified in raising and also in calling, but I don't see the possibility of a general rule connecting both actions.
In any game, an opponent's reraise often is unexpected bad news. For example, let's say you raised for value with a high probability that your hand was, perhaps by far, the best. You are then unexpectedly reraised or check-raised by a third player who would rarely, if ever, do so without a better hand than yours.
The assumption that led to your raise is gone. If you call you need different reasons. These might include some combination of the quality of your draw, doubts about your read, or the need to prevent opponents from bluffing in this situation later. Usually, you rationally call because second best hands almost always have some kind of draw, you can never be absolutely certain of your read, and, in this situation, you are by definition getting at least 6-1 and usually a lot more from the pot (in limit).
But given the predictability of many players, there must be rare highly-situational cases where certainty of the information conveyed by a reraise, in the context of other information at hand, is so certain, reliable and devastating that you cannot justify a call. This is what the AA in Mason's post thought he was facing. Even though he made a mistake, it cannot always be a mistake for him to raise and then fold in this situation. All he has to "know" to justify raising is that the opener will bet and Mason will call with hands that are worse than AA and that the chance of there being a better hand out there is quite low. A reraise, however, could change all that.
The ironic problem of being highly skilled in identifying these situations is that you become subject to manipulation to an extent that can for outweigh the value of bets you think you're saving. This is why I think that the biggest mistake the aces made was revealing his hand.
"It cannot always be a mistake for him to raise and then fold in this situation. All he has to "know" to justify raising is that the opener will bet and Mason will call with hands that are worse than AA and that the chance of there being a better hand out there is quite low. A reraise, however, could change all that."
But the mistake is not in raising and then folding as a combined act, it is in raising in the first place if he has no intention of calling a reraise i.e the possibility of garnering two extra big bets is not enough reward to outweigh the risks of getting pushed off the pot by a reraise from a lesser hand. The raise by "Aces" here is made purely for value. There can be no other reason to make that raise. That type of raise I say can only be made where you intend on calling any reraises (particularly if the pot is already fairly big). If you can't call a reraise, don't raise.
Note that this principle only applies to a small number of situations where the raise is made purely for value and for no other reason. For example, if the board had 9844 and there is a bet and a call, someone with QQ might raise here and fold if reraised. Nothing wrong with that on principle because his raise probably was not a pure value raise.
The player with aces played it well IMO.
remember that there was not an overabundance of action on the flop. They checked to him and he bet. On the turn, the sb bets her queen. There really is no reason for the aa not too raise at this point. If the sb had been the re-raiser I believe he would have called it, but since it appeared that Mason was slow playing a set his fold was a good one.
I really believe that Mason made an error by not raising on the turn since he couldn't be sure that aa was going to raise at that point.
His explanation that at that point he didn't want the raiser out, but after he raised the pot, he re-raises to get out possible aq, so as not be drawn out on, doesn't make sense. he should have raised the pot when bet into ,to try to force the original raiser out at that point. Again, it is a lucky play, that made his play look more superlative than it really was. That is why it got so much response when he posted.
"His explanation that at that point he didn't want the raiser out, but after he raised the pot, he re-raises to get out possible aq, so as not be drawn out on, doesn't make sense. he should have raised the pot when bet into ,to try to force the original raiser out at that point."
One mistake that intermediate type players make is that they do not take into account the pot size. This is precisely what you are doing here. Speaking in hypothetical terms, when the pot is relatively small there are many times when you don't want your opponent to fold even though you know there is some chance that you will be beat. But as the pot gets bigger, it becomes more important to get them out of there so that they will now be getting the right price for their draw. When playing poker, especially on the later streets, you should always keep this in mind.
okay, I buy that. i have always thought that you want to get the players out before the pot is big where they have the right price. Are we saying the same thing? I have always played with the intent(unless my hand is very very strong), of winning the pot as soon as possible. I believe that originally I got this concept from theory of poker, but it's been years since I read it. If you have another example of what you are talking about, I'd like to see it so I can better understand. Thanks
But what if the risk of a reraise from a lesser hand compared to the risk of a raise from a better hand is minimal, perhaps barely extant? Say, for example, that the raiser knows that the ratio of reraises from a superior hand to raises from an inferior hand is something like 19-1. The pot odds could easily justify folding to a reraise. At the same time, the raiser could still lose value by failing to raise in the first place if he beleives that a chance of a reraise from any hand, better or worse, is minimal. Can't this be proven by simple arithmetic?
Okay. Sorry for being so thick and BTW, keep up the great posts.
P.S. I still think "Aces" made an error in raising. What we have to factor in is that a good player like Mason in the face of a raise (i.e. with this particular board) will do only 1 of 2 things - fold or reraise - "Aces" probably does not want him to take either route. Different story if the board was not already paired. In that case, even if the raise by Aces causes only one of his two opponents to fold, he will likely increase his chances of winning greatly.
SKP,
There is "NO WAY" that calling by Aces is correct in this situation with a pot this size!
Vince.
Thanks for the kind words. I think the mistake, if any, had to be in failing to divine the possible meanings of Mason's raise.
Since the board on the turn was 944Q, my guess is that the AA put Mason on JTs, perhaps with a 3-flush on the flop, which could explain Mason's three consecutive calls (esp. if AA thinks he has an aggressive image). It also means that Mason won't fold to a reraise.
Also note that Mason would virtually never three-bet the turn with a hand like this, meaning that a reraise by Mason would indicate a different hand. Also, if Mason was setting a trap, he would not wait any longer to spring it.
So if the AA had correctly assumed that a reraise meant a hand that he couldn't beat, and if there was less than a 2/3 chance that such a hand was out there, the raise and fold were both correct. Note that the aces are getting 2-1 on the turn raise, meaning that he only needs more than a 1/3 chance of beating both opponents by the end to justify a raise for value. Clearly this is the case if Mason has JT and the SB has queens.
So let's say for the sake of argument that the aces knew there was a 50-60% chance that Mason was slowplaying with a hand the aces could not possibly beat. If the aces just call on the turn and call Mason's bet on the river, they lose two bets (one on T & R each) 50-60% of the time and only win between 2 and 4 bets the rest of the time. (Unless the aces "know" that the SB will bet and Mason will raise on the river, allowing the aces to fold and lose only 1B).
If they raise and fold to a reraise, they also lose 2 bets 50-60% of the time. The rest of the time there won't be a reraise and the aces will win at least 2 more bets than they would by just calling.
Of course this analysis goes to hell if Mason can have KK. If for some reason he could not, however, the aces might have played if perfectly. Glad it wasn't me.
Would someone please comment on raising on the come with a draw to less than the nuts?
Examples:
1. Raising on the flop or the turn with a small (or non-ace) four flush.
2. Raising with an open ended straight draw when a higher straight could be possible, but not as likely. (i.e. you have 45, board is 3 6 10 rainbow; 7 could make someone a gut shot).
3. Raising with an open ended straight draw with a two flush on the board.
4. Raising with an ace high flush draw with a pair on the board. Also non-ace flush draw or open ended straight draw.
Obviously these questions assume there are many in and you are in late position. You are getting well more than the minimum pot odds to call.
My inclination in the past has been that these are all dangerous situations and raising would be foolish (ESPECIALLY with a pair on board, I almost always get out if there is any major action with a pair on board and I don't have a piece of it!). I may have to re-think some of these situations depending on what responses this message gets!
#1. On the flop, verses 4 or 5 players, could get you a "free" or cheap card, that is they might check to you, you see the turn card, and can check if you miss, bet if you hit. And if dead last position. You actually get to see the river for free if you miss. See? As for raising on the turn, look at your pot odds, and do you feel lucky? #2. I would rather raise when I have a couple overcards with the straight draw, and preferably the flop. 3. Only if it's checked to me. And if flush card hits bet anyway, verses a small field, and it's checked to me again. 4.You like 2nd best hands?
Automatically folding a flush draw when the board is paired or folding a straight draw when there is a flush draw also possible is incorrect (see HPFAP for an explanation). That's not to say that you don't have to exercise some caution in such situations...you do...but folding is not necessarily the answer. In fact, reraising might even be correct.
BTW, one reason (albeit not the predominant one) to raise with 54 on a 10,6,3 flop is so that you ensure that you have the best hand if a 7 comes i.e. the fella with the 98 may call for one bet but not two.
If you decide to stay in the hand with the idiot end of a straight draw (perhaps you have an overcard and a backdoor flush draw), it may well be better to raise rather than call to increase your chances of winning. eg. you call preflop with A4s and the flop comes 765. Your call may entice someone with a 9 to call while a raise may get him out. As always, you have to know your customers.
I was thinking on EV and believe the correct formula is :
EV = (Probability of success * (Payoff/Cost)) -1
As we all know EV gets a lot of airplay. Some obvious uses are when you are drawing to the nuts (do pot odds justify one more card?) on end or starting with a drawing hand (do I have a sufficient number of callers to justify a call?).
A few questions for the poker-dom : Can anyone elaborate a formula for implied odds? Can anyone think of times when EV should not be the primary decision factor. Does anyone know how to calculate "Probability of Success" when both (or more) players are drawing (for example trips vrs. trips or Flush vrs. trips etc.)?
"EV = (Probability of success * (Payoff/Cost)) -1"
Isn't,
EV = Probability of success * ((payoff-cost) -1))
KoolKat,
Thanks for the reply...but I'm a little confused.
The version I worked up attempts normalizes the EV such that 0.0 = even money and the result is expressed in a per dollar wagered form. Thus 0 = no expected gain or loss.
For example :
The chance of a "any 7" in craps is 1/6 but you get paid 5 for a 1 dollar wager (i.e "5 for 1"...not "5 to 1" then it would work out to even money or $0.0 in my equation). In such a case we know we will averege a payback of 5 dollars for every 6 wagered over time or a 1/6 negative EV per dollar.
EV = (P(s) * ($Payoff / $Cost)) - 1
EV = (1/6 * ($5/$1)) - 1
EV = (0.17 * $5) - 1
EV = (.$83) - 1
EV = -$.17 (per dollar wagered)
True? Or maybe I don't correctly recall a craps table?
I worked it up from scratch...so if a math wiz out there says I'm off, I'd believe it.
My guess is that your version delivers a total dollars wagered figure.
Using your formula :
EV = Probability of success * ((payoff-cost) -1))
EV = 1/6 * (($5-$1)-1)
EV = .17 * (($5-$1)-1)
EV = .17 * ((3))
EV = .51
Which baffles me. As I expected a .83 sort of number (I.E. I expect to get back 83 cents for every dollar wagered.)
My goal was to be able to compare different betting scenarios in poker with an apples to apples kind of indice.
If my thinking here is obviously fuzzy to any math wizards out there, please correct me.
Thanks, Frank
P.S. The next step...after we've agreed on a formula for this calculation would be to determine the probability of success (winning a showdown) in common poker situations such as :
Trips vrs. suspected made flush or straight Under pair with overcard kicker vrs. Overpair Trips vrs. 4 flush or 4 straight
etc. etc.
Then applying the formula to determine which ones are really postitive EV under average (or other conditions..such as dead cards).
There after one might want to expand to situations with more than one caller and ultimately determine the optimal number of callers and range of profitable callers for various common poker confrontations.
Of course these would only then form guidlines for as Dave might say "over a player whom you have good control" or can read easily...the math is probably of lesser importance because you have additional edges.
In any event, it seems the first step to "correct" plays is to establish typical EV values for typical poker situations. Thus the need to agree on a calculation and comparison method. (Of course the other method might be to perform Monte Carlo analysis with something like Caro's Poker Probe or Poker Wiz.) (As an aside I've read that it takes about 100 trials to approach EV with 90+ percent confidence so establishing true EV's for common situations could yield real results within 100 plays of any given +EV identified situation...thus the motivation :-) )
Since were all serious about the game here I was hoping we could establish these numbers as a basis for strategy decisions and discussions.
If there's any interest, I could catalog the conclusions we come to an e-mail them to those who wanted updated listings on occasion.
"Since were all serious about the game here I was hoping we could establish these numbers as a basis for strategy decisions and discussions."
The problem is that these figures are all context-dependent. While it is possible to calculate such figures for one specific context (given enough information, of course), those figures would be useful for that specific situation only.
Thus, it becomes important to develop the skill needed to rapidly discern which move (check, bet, call, raise, fold, along with answering the question of "how much?" for spread-limit, pot-limit, and no-limit games) produces the highest expectation, given all the information available. That is what Poker is all about.
Through study and experience, we can learn situations in which certain moves generally produce the highest expectation (for example, raising with pocket Kings pre-Flop). As we progress, we learn to recognize exceptions to the general rules of thumb. As we learn the reasoning behind these exceptions, we learn to recognize such exceptions as they occur, and then take the correct action.
Q
Q, No arguments there. Obviously which seat your in affects cards left in the deck, cards out (stud) etc. also have an effect. As I sit and try to calculate the cases it's clear that common cases really have a range of probabilities from best case (all your cards are live, all opponents are dead) to worst case (all your cards are dead, all opponents are live).
Even so I'm finding the analysis illuminating in that it gives me some idea just how much of a favorite/underdog a hand really is.
:-)
Frank,
The mathematical expectation (or expected value) of a given action is the sum of the products of each of the possible outcomes of the action and the payoff resulting from each outcome. For example, for the action of flipping a coin, there are two possible outcomes - Heads and Tails. Let's assume that when the coin lands Heads, you win $2. When the coin lands Tails, you lose $1. The payoff for Heads can be represented as +2 and the payoff for Tails as -1. Thus, the expectation for flipping the coin is P(Heads) * payoff(Heads) + P(Tails) * payoff(Tails) = 0.5 * 2 + 0.5 * -1 = 1 - 0.5 = 0.5, or 50 cents.
Using your formula (as I interpret it), the expectation would be (0.5 * (2/1)) - 1 = (0.5 * 2) - 1 = 1 - 1 = 0, which is incorrect.
Therefore, a more accurate formula would be E = P(A0) * p(A0) + P(A1) * p(A1) + ... + P(An) * p(An), where E represents the mathematical expectation of the action, A0...An represent the possible outcomes of the action, P represents the probability of a specific outcome occurring, and p represents the payoff of a specific outcome.
"Can anyone elaborate a formula for implied odds?"
The formula for expectation assumes that you know the payoff of each outcome resulting from your action. Implied odds should thus be accounted for in your calculations of the payoff.
"Can anyone think of times when EV should not be the primary decision factor."
The expectation of a given action should always be the primary decision factor - if you like money, that is. Not that it is necessary to calculate it, but that every action you take at the Poker table - that is, betting, checking, calling, raising, or folding - should be made with the intent of maximizing your expectation.
"Does anyone know how to calculate "Probability of Success" when both (or more) players are drawing (for example trips vrs. trips or Flush vrs. trips etc.)?
I believe that what you are referring to is the probability that you win, and that is strictly dependent on the context. For example, let's say that on the Turn in Hold'Em, you hold As Ks, your only opponent holds Qd Qh, and the board is 2s 8h Qs 4c. In this instance, there are 44 cards remaining in the deck, of which seven will produce an outcome favorable to you. Thus, your "probability of success", or the probability of you winning the pot, is 7 / 44.
Basically, you just find the probability that you will win the hand. This figure, of course, assumes that your opponents (and you) will stay to the River. Calculations for Seven-Card Stud are more complex, since there are many more permutations in the distribution of cards to consider.
Q
Q,
For the coin toss I interpret it as "put a dollar up for each flip. If heads I get my dollar back + 1 more (i.e. 2 FOR 1 payoff ... note this is not 2 TO 1 which would cause me to use 3 in my formula). If tails then I lose my 1 dollar wager."
Thus EV = (P(s) * (total return/cost)) - 1
EV = (P(s) *(2/1)) - 1
EV = (.50 * 2) - 1
EV = 1 - 1
EV = 0
Or even money...which is exactly the way I engineered the equation...it tells me to expect no gain per dollar wagered.
If on the other hand you mean I get 2 dollars for no wager on heads and pay up 1 dollar on tails...my formula falls apart because the cost of 0 make for a divisor of 0, which is not defined(or could be considered an infinite return). Since I developed the formula I'm using of a craps table bet, where, like poker, you have to put money up for a return, I didn't see it as a problem.
I realize that's not the text book version of EV (apparently from what I gather from your discussion). Perhaps I should call it "Expected Profit/Loss per dollar invested". :-)
Obviously I was no Stats wizard in college!
In my version P(s) is self explanitory..."(return/cost)" is designed to normalize the betting to 1 unit ... the -1 was necessary to cause the outcome to be negative when I the expectation was, in fact, negative, as opposed to a smaller than parity positive number.
I was trying to engineer it so the final number was 0 when the expected gain was 0, negative when negative, and postitive when positive and normalized so that I could compare "apples to apples" without worrying about adjusting the final number for bet sizes etc.
I believe the traditional form would give me a value like .85c when my expectation on a 1 dollar bet was a loss of 15 percent.
Just a different way of looking at it I suppose. Maybe it's off the wall?
As to the question, Are there times when EV is not the dominant factor. I guess I was getting at the question of whether pot odds can be dispensed with if you are estimating the opponent is bluffing or not. Though I guess I've seen Dave express that as an estimated percent.
As you point out, I'm finding that different cases require different routes to calculating P(s). It's easy to get wraped up in all the different variations (which street, which hand against which hand, how many cards left in deck due to callers/folders...etc. etc....) Even so I'm finding it instructive if not definitive. Looking over the numbers, at least for me, suggests potential strategies.
So no doubt too much of it could just lead to frustration, but a certain amount is probably good just to develop pot odds boundries if nothing else.
At this point I've just run a few Flush vrs. Trips scenarios through the mill...no great revelations there or I'd have posted them.
Also, I need to study you last post a bit more...seems like a lot of good stuff in there.
Thanks Again
:-)
"I believe the traditional form would give me a value like .85c when my expectation on a 1 dollar bet was a loss of 15 percent."
Actually, the traditional form will show the expectation as -0.15. In other words, you could say that "on average" you will lose $0.15 every time you bet $1. The difference is in how you treat the $1 bet - for example, in the scenario in which you are offered 2-to-1 odds on the flip of a coin, the $1 bet isn't treated as a "cost" in the traditional formula - rather, it is only lost in the event of Tails, since Tails is assigned a payoff of -1.
Granted, we're really just talking mathematical semantics, which is one of the nerdiest topics anyone could possibly discuss. :-)
"Just a different way of looking at it I suppose. Maybe it's off the wall?"
Not really, just a different way of interpreting the same concept. The mathematical definition just provides a standard way for people to talk about it.
"Thanks Again"
Sure, no prob.
Q
Q,
Mathematical Semantics, sounds like a legal term. :-) Nah, it's not that nerdy is it? When poker is a probability game?
Seriously though, I did have a hard time with some of this stuff the first time through, I was working a full time programming job at the time I was doing my degree, so some of the more mathematical stuff got lost in the haze of 6-cup-of-coffee all nighters! It's just now that I have an interest in poker that I've finally found a use for it.
Not once in 15 years of being an systems analyst have I ever had to use this stuff!
In an earlier post I mentioned that I felt the formula for EV was :
EV = (Probability of Success * (Payoff/cost)) - 1
The Payoff/cost part is relatively easy. However, "Probablity of Success", at least to me is a little fuzzy.
As an example of a delimma in applying this lets suppose in 7 card stud we're dealt a 3 flush. To make it easy lets assume we have the required 5 callers all limping in for the bring in.
Now on 4th street we catch the 4th suited card. Our odds of filling out are (I believe) 1.5 to 1. This seems to imply that we want at least 2 callers to the river...if a flush would win it.
So that is the first problem, how do we adjust "Probablility of Success" for our opponents holdings.
The second is relative to the desired number of callers. Clearly, we need enough callers (who will lose if we hit) to justify the draw...but do we want more than "just enough"? After all each new caller could draw out on us! So it would appear that perhaps a curve exists that has a knee forming between optimal payoff odds and reductions in "Probability of Success". Thus it seems we need to decide whether to attempt to thin the crowd or not. Which also is mitigated by thier probable holdings. (Probably placing a premium on hand reading).
I invite comments on how to determine the, as Dave would say, "Correct" play(s).
What does E stand for? What does V stand for?
Huh,
EV is generally accepted to stand for "Expected Value" in this forum. It's a concept from probability. It's used to express the long term expectation of gain or loss on a given probablistic scenario.
For example the EV of any craps play is negative...the house pays less than true odds for every play on the table. Yes including odd...because you still have the pay the pass or don't pass "entry fee".
Or for example slots that advertise 98% payout have an EV of -2%. Your long term expectation is to lose 2% or get back 98%
EV, std dev. etc. can be used to charactarize what one should expect to encounter in the long run.
Thanks.
I haven't seen a calculation for this but I'm sure there is an optimum number of callers for each hand. I know that I have in mind a number that I would like. I play stud and with big pairs generally try to raise an amount that will keep one or two callers. (obviously depends on the other players, too. Sometimes there will be particular ones you always want in) For really live draws, I try for three.
I hope someone has done the math on this and could tell if this is right.
DJ
DJ,
I don't know if the math has been done...but after I posted the original message I saw an essay by Dave (Sklansky of course) on the Essays page of this site that mentions the idea of balancing callers to pot odds.
Should've known any player who thinks about the game has had this idea occur to them.
Eventually I hope to sit down and look at common situations and make some determinations. (As always...to be amended by table conditions at the time of play.) As Dave points out somewhere (Getting the Best of It...maybe?), A successful player needs to make correct decisions on the important decision points. Hence the idea of comparing situations on EV and deciding optimal caller numbers. No know with some degree of certainty that the common situations are being played correctly...or at least that you're trying to get it to play correctly (after all everyone else is trying to get it to go correctly for thier hand).
My guess is that your numbers are probably close if not 100% correct.
:-)
Excuse me, but I'm new to the forum. I read the last response to a question, so I click on "next", and it takes me half a mile down to the response of a question, a question which I have'nt even read. Need help navigating here, or I will not be able to supply my brilliant expertise, which you are all waiting for. Thanks.
i second that request!!! i am always going to the "back to index" after reading questions. this takes forever. any help would be appreciated!!!
Michael,
I noticed the problem after your post (until then I never used the next button). Perhaps you can email Chuck Weinstock who maintains the sight.
What I do is always allow the main index to load entirely (I suggest you make a pot of coffee or empty the dishwasher while it does). Once loaded, I always pop between the message I'm reading back to the message index which is now in disk cache and pops up right away. Of course you must refresh the index once in a while as new messages poor in.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Rick
Mike,
I believe NEXT means next High level post....Next in Thread will take you down the replies to a given Initial post.
Frank
Lets say you are in a full game and everyone folds to you on the button. You Raise, the SB folds and the BB plays.
Does the strategy for short handed play from the book apply from now on?
Theoretically yes except that most big blinds incorrectly call your raise with a lot less hands than they would in a three handed game. ( They should play tighter if you incorrectly played much tighter. The bunching factor does call for slightly tighter play.)
David. I'm on my third re-read of The Theory of Poker. Thank you very much for your outstanding work.
Just curious... Do you EVER play any 3-6 or 4-8 Holdem?
What is the most effective way to handle a misdeal in a private home game in terms of the betting? In particular if a dealer turns up 7th street.
In addition, does anyone have a set of rules they use for home games in regards to misdeals, making 'change' with the pot, maximum number of players (8 or 9 for 7-stud), etc?
Thanks, Mike
I used to play in a home game with basically these rules: 1) If a correctible mistake is made (such as skipping a player on the deal) the mistake is corrected by giving him a card. If it is up cards, the dealt cards are backed up to the correct position. 2) If the misdeal produces an uncorrectible disadvantage, such as turning up the 7th street card, the player continues to play with the disadvantage. 3) If the misdeal produces an uncorrectible advantage for a player (such as discovering too late that he was dealt 3 hole cards) his hand is dead.
It may not be totally fair, but we had no problem and misdeals were rare.
DJ
My suggestion is that you obtain full written rules from your local casino/card room and become totally familiar with them yourself. Then use them as your guideline. But don't try to force the entire thing all at once, most home players don't want to absorb that much information... they just want to play. As situations arise, discuss how it's handled in a casino, (provide proof if necessary) and come to group agreements about how you will handle similar situations in the future. Also discuss another theoretical situation with the players each week, preferable before such a situation arises....
Specifically for your post:
Replacing missed cards and correcting position (backing up) for misdealt upcards is good. Having a player continue with a disadvantage (because of a dealer's mistake) is not as good, I'm surprised that rule is well accepted in your group. An alternate suggestion is for everyone's last card to be up, or for the dead card to be burnt and another re-dealt(or re-shuffled and re-dealt), whatever flies in your group. Just agree on it ahead of time.... Having an extra hole card is automatically a dead hand! If the player knew about it on 3rd and didn't say anything, his money is dead too! If he anounces it on 3rd before betting begins it's a misdeal.
Our home games in my college days played many crazy games with complex rules, so we were always discussing rules and refining them, even when we were not playing. The result was some pretty relaxed and arguement free games. Some of these games wound up being regular games for years. These are the absolute best games to be in, especially when you are the only serious student of the game.
This message was a response to Michael Bacarella's post. Sorry for the mix up.
In the August 6 issue of Card Player, Tom McEvoy makes at least two statements that are quite wrong. They both involve fallacious precepts that most weak thinking, mediocre poker players take for granted. Can you spot them and explain (yet another one of) his errors?
For the benefit of those of us who don't get CardPlayer on a timely basis, perhaps you could tell us what the erroneous statements are and we can try and figure out where the error lies. Of course, those who don't want this extra info can just skip your post.
skp,
Too bad I forgot to pick up Card Player yesterday. Unfortunately, Tom's article is not one of the one's available at the Card Player website. Would anyone know why some author's are archived at Card Player and some are not?
Regards,
Rick
I was wondering the same thing. In fact, I went into the CP website after reading Sklansky's post and found McEvoy's article missing.
yes, they want you too pick up the magazine and read the ads.
Buck,
I have nothing against the ads. In a sense, they are the best way to keep up with promotions in the card clubs and so on. I'm guessing that some writers want their work protected in the case they want to publish their work in a collection of essays.
Note that most of David and Mason's material in their various books of essays was originally published in Poker Player, Card Player, Poker World, etc. Despite the fact that I have almost every back issue of these magazines, I have the books also. In book format, they are far more convenient as a reference.
Regards,
Rick
From having read all your books I know that you're a very logical and rational person.
Could you be disappointed in his lack of rationality?
"If I had gotten a strong feeling or vibration, as you did, I indeed would have checked my hand (on the turn when 6s paired after flopping a Queen as top pair with an Ace kicker) even though my cards were fairly strong. Without these vibes, I normally would go ahead and bet on fourth street."
I don't know about you, but I haven't had too many "vibrational" experiences when playing hold'em at the Bellagio. Perhaps, I just need to get in touch with my feelings ;-)
I also have a problem with his statement further on: "Since you decided to bet when the board paired on fourth street and then got check-raised, if you call the raise with one card to come, it makes no sense not to pay it off on the river."
I think this definitely depends both on my opponent and on what falls on the river.
At the end of the article, the psychological benefit of leaving a game with a win, no matter how small ($20.00?) after a long string of losses is also disputable. This depends on the game (good, bad, etc.), me and other factors. The long string of loses wouldn't rationally affect the current decison.
David,
I finally have the article in front of me. In it Tom is answering a letter from a reader describing a hand from a reader who is "running bad". I will paraphrase the article as follows:
The reader (our hero) had AQo in middle position in a 10/20 game and raised preflop. The button and SB call. Flop is a Q 8 6 rainbow. SB checks, hero bets, button folds, SB calls. Turn is a six. Hero has a "vibe" that he is being set up but bets anyway (which our hero says is the "normal" play). Anyway, he gets checked raised by a 6 4 and pays off both the turn and the river.
Tom essentially said that he would normally bet the turn unless he also had a "vibe". He then said his decision to pay off would be based on his appraisal of the player (i.e., would the player check raise with something like a QJ or only with a six or even better hand). (BTW, wouldn't a QJ or KQ usually bet into the raiser in this situation on the flop?)
My analysis is that betting the turn is far from the "normal" play. I would usually check when a scary card like this comes against a single opponent who can be tricky enough to check raise his better hands and also induced into calling or bluffing a weaker hand on the river. Notice that the six can not be scary to anyone but the original raiser. Also note that the pot is not that big and there are not that many free cards against the most likely holdings of the small blind. Even if the small blind is on a draw with a hand like 75, the free card you give is not that damaging if you are often compensated on the river with a bluff (with a bust) or a call (when the player pairs his seven or five).
An exception would be when playing against a calling station who is not the least bit tricky. Such a player would pay you off with a hand as weak as ace high or any pair, and usually cannot be induced to bluff when you show weakness on the turn (IMHO, such a player is not that typical). I would bet the turn against this player.
Later Tom makes what I think is another mistake. In the middle of the article Tom says that if he checked the turn (due to a strong "feel" that something bad was going to happen), he would probably call any river bet. But if he "thought his opponent had three sixes", the correct play would be to fold on the river.
I believe in most situations your feel is rarely that accurate. By checking the turn you show weakness and are inducing a bluff. You must call on the river no matter what card comes with a fairly strong hand.
I don't know if I get extra credit or points off for pointing out one more quibble but here goes. Later he talks about turning around a losing streak. He believes "sometimes it takes only a small win to start the turnaround in fortune". This of course is silly since the cards have no memory. He also agrees that it sometimes wise to leave a small winner ($20!) early in the session to get a psychological lift. Anyone who does this and wastes a full playing day is not tough enough to play poker for maximum profit. (Note: I wouldn't quibble with someone who is a bit ahead getting up a little early after putting in just short of a full day in an average game after a prolonged losing streak. This is just being human.)
By the way, this post is not intended to attack Tom as I know him a little bit and he is a very nice person and one of the class acts in poker (despite a tendency to give lessons at the table, which drives me crazy).
Regards,
Rick
I recently found out that one of my g-pas golfing partners is a fairly well known professional gambler. Many of you would recognize his name if I said it. Yesterday I got the opportunity to go golfing with them and got to ask some questions about poker, the mans answers were interesting. He told me that he has almost quit playing poker altogether. He said he started phasing it out about ten years ago and now he bets horses almost exclusively. He bets horses only because he has so many owner, trainer, jockey contacts and doesn't reccommend it as a way to make money if you aren't an insider. But back to poker, he said poker is going the way of blackjack, the competition is getting too good. He said that blackjack was profitable without team play up until the late 70's early 80's then the penetration rules and heat on big bettors became sooo tight that the players edge dropped under 2% making bankroll swings tremendous. he said the same thing started happening to poker about ten years ago. He said that "pro" plays like checkraising, semi-bluffing, betting draws for value and high starting hand standards are commonplace now in any 10-20 game or above much more so than 10 years ago. He said that because of this you need a huge bankroll to start or you wont be able to overcome the swings operating at such a small advantage. Is he correct or is he out of touch? He said the preponderance of good players like me at the tables have made the games not worth the effort.
That is an interesting post. Even the drunks in my ten-twenty games play good starting hands and make few gross errors. The errors made by most players appear to be 'the eight mistakes of poker' as defined by David Sklansky. Doyle Brunson said that he regrets publishing Super System. So I aggree that poker is hard to beat. Blackjack is nearly dead, IMO. I was thrown from the casino the second time I played for real money.
Luckily, poker is expanding very rapidly resulting in a steady flow of newcomers into the game. These are the "live ones". However, these live ones won't be live ones for long. That's because guys like Malmuth and Sklansky keep pumping the public up with very accurate information about how to play in an expert manner. But, as long as replacement live ones keep coming in to substitute for those now expert live ones, there will always be opportunities. In short, the primary skill in today's poker arena is table selection...and there are more tables than ever.
I think this is wrong.
Perhaps this guy quit before the event of Holdem in California really taking off, and the spread to many new places as well.
It really doesn't matter much that these better plays are common place as long as there are 3 or 4 players who don't know how to play very well and this seems to be the case in a high percentage of the games.
The inclusion of some better players in the games ( along with some bad players ) will not increase the swings. In fact the swings are reduced as you mainly play hands against the looser players instead of the whole table. See Poker Essays etc for more details.
Finally, I believe from personal experience, it is very hard to assimilate all the published poker material to the point where you can play quite well. I doubt most of the book buyers gain much unless they are willing to put in the iterative study of all material and discussions ( like this forum ) away from the table. I believe the 2+2 authors have mentioned a theory of how the books may hurt a lot of players who learn just enough to play a more then they would if they got instantly crushed and instead lose more in the long run.
I think this is an excellent point. There are tons of blackjack books that have been sold (most of which contain enough info to produce a winning player), and how many people can really play a count right, understand their edge and fluctuations, etc.. Probably a very small percentage of those who buy the books. I would guess about .1% of those who have bought them, and this is probably too high.
Poker is hundreds of times more complex, and it is even easier to delude yourself into thinking you're a strong player - you can't play "guess the last card" to test yourself in poker, or write out a basic strategy chart from memory. Plenty of folks seem to play casino poker as part of a regimen of blackjack, roulette, craps. Carribean Stud, etc. They are obviously not "advantage players", so there's no reason to think they are accomplished poker players (or they would stay at the poker table all day).
Mason's "magic bullet" theory is alive and well...I know lots of "magic bullet" poker players (most are home game players who are dying to try casino poker), as well as some otherwise intelligent people who "have" systems to beat craps.
And who knows, once all the good gamblers are at the poker tables, the casinos will relax and blackjack will be a gold mine again...
David,
You took the words out of my mouth, especially your last paragraph.
I also think their is a significant percentage of players who are what I like to call "Trust Fund Pros". They may own some books and may have read them once, but in fact their game is mediocre at best. They seem to do nothing but play, but their real income comes from some other sorce (lawsuit settlement, inheritance, etc.). They love to talk the talk of a winning player but in fact barely break even if that.
Regards,
Rick
At the medium levels such as 10-20, 15-30, 20-40 the games are very good for the most part. This pro might be at a higher level where the games are probably extremely tough. I am a solid semi pro, and have been making good money at these levels here in LA, ca, for years. I don't expect it to change. Most people can not stay disciplined over the long term when gambling, and when they start to lose they make it worse.
i would be willing to bet that this player didn't bring his game up to speed when the information boom started.
Why don't you just tell us who it is, ???
It is estimated that only 10% of players are winning players. This, of course, is a loose defined number. This number comes from very well respected authors in the field. This number will definitely swing in accordance with the limits.
Go to RGP and refer to the thread "percentage of winners and losers" (I think that is the title).
I've been playing poker in public cardrooms for 20 years and I have seen a lot. When I began to play and then to write, most old timers were very critical of what I was doing. Their point was that "Poker is a people game." I remember being told on many occasions that "Players like you and Sklansky may know the percentages, but you don't understand the people." Of course most of these players were left behind and are now out of the scene.
Poker has evolved. It is not the "hustler's" game it use to be. Part of the reason for this is the higher ante/blind structure available in most of todays games. This forces you to play your hand well all the way through, and betting does not automatically protect your hand.
My opinion is that the typical poker game is probably tougher than it was many years ago. But with so many more games to choose from, there is no reason why a good player can't do well. In fact, I believe that this is the case. It seems that the top players who I know are now winning as much or more than they did years ago. But many of these old timers are broke and on the rail.
Very often I think back to the section; 'What happened to the superstars', from Poker Essays II. What happened to them? The guy plays too many hands. I see players who should know better but don't. Poker is tough, it is not impossible. But, because poker is tough, people get worn out and give up. Along come those that are not worn out and catch the scent and say, 'Hey, I am a bad ass, I can beat this!'. Those left standing did.
Mason,
About ten years ago at the Bicycle Club I remember a pretty sleazy Gardena old-timer whining to another about how much better it was in the old days. Apparantly, he was a "winner" then but at best an average holdem player. His final comment was "and the worse thing is, with the house dealers and all, it is really hard to cheat!"
And they say poker was better in the "old days".
Regards,
Rick
In the old POKER PLAYER newspaper I remember a series of letters complaining about the introduction of house dealers. I always felt that these were the old time thieves who had been put out of business by the modernization of the California Poker Rooms in the early 1980s.
While discussing poker with my old mom, she blurted out a fear that obviously had bothered her for sometime, 'Aren't you afraid they have cards up their sleeves!?'. Mom, I said, how do you think you win. House dealers changed poker, that is why I don't understand people who do not like to tip (but not over tip).
Daniel,
If I ever have the good fortune to become accomplished enough in poker to rate one of those player profiles in "Card Player", and they ask who I think has done the most for Poker, I would say George Hardie. Besides pushing the use of dealers in a big way, he was the first to run a large card room with a professional and competent staff. The Bike in its prime was a great place.
Regards,
Rick
Noone is playing well all the time. At times the expert will "steam", play off and you can pounce on the chance.
The other day I was sitting at a 4-8 table in middle position when I got the red K's. There were 3 callers to me so I Raised, and the flop came 6 handed.
The flop was K 2 2
From the middle position whats the best way to play this hand?
Of coarse it was checked to me And I checked, the button bet And I check-raised. The turn went 3 handed
Turn was an Ac
This time I Bet out, only the button called.
The river was a rag
I bet out and the BB folded.
Should I have played this differently? Should I have waited to check raise untill after the turn where it cost more to call? What's the best way to Maximize a hand like this?
Walleye
I would have called on the flop and waited for the turn to attempt a checkraise. I agree with your bet on the river.
There are only 3 cards left in the deck that can hit that flop. Even if the board were two-suited, I would check and call on the flop with the hope that a lucky card could tie someone on. If the board is not 2-suited, a check is even more justified in that nobody has a draw and only a very weak or very suspicious player is likely to call.
I take it the caller was to the button's left, so that you noticed a good opportunity to get two more SB's if you check-raised. The problem here is that you represented at least a good (because of your preflop raise) K or better, probably AK. So how many hands can give you action in later rounds?
Also, if your opponents are configured so that you can pick up extra bets on the flop, you can often do the same on the turn. Even if the button checks after you, there's a good chance he'll pay you off on the river after you showed weakness twice, and the confusion you'll create (perhaps slight) plus the possibility of picking up more big bets makes the risk worth taking.
I agree. A bet may be called for if the flop was K,10,10 as there is a pretty good cahnce that a 10 is out as well as gutshot and openended straight draws.
How about this hand: 3 callers, you raise with AJs and you take the flop 6 handed. Flop is K22. Of course they check to you. What do you do? If it is "bet" then only brain dead types would fall for your Ks-full trap.
=== With monsters, routinely do what looks natural ===
- Louie
BTW: "Routinely" means "Unless you can think of a good exception".
Slow play on the flop by just calling. Check-raise the turn and bet the river. I Had 99 last week and the flop came 955. There was another player who had 95 and flopped a full house with me and bet. I called on the flop and check raised on the turn, and to my surprise was re-raised! I just called and then waited for him to bet the river. He bet, I raised, He re-raised, and I re-raised again! True I got a lucky break but I still would have played it the same.
A couple of items I've read recently got me thinking about this topic. The first was the postings about the old poker pro and his musings about current mid-level and high-level poker games becoming too tough to make the same level of profit due to much better published materials. Then there were some interesting counterposts repudiating that notion. The other article was Nolan's Dalla's recent fun article about the WSOP in 2029 with all kinds of interesting thought-provoking ideas and descriptions about the future. Sometimes a purely creative piece gets you thinking.
Anyway, it made me consider a few broad questions that I thought others on this forum might wish to comment on.
1. What will be the most important trends in advanced poker thinking in the next 10 years?
2. Will we see some major new games emerge? It is interesting that poker really took off with the introduction of hold-em and the broad acceptance of stud and them omaha and hi-lo. These were clearly helped by the general availability of some great books.
3. Related to that idea, exactly what stage of the "product life cycle" are these various games in?
4. How dramatically will the internet affect advanced poker play and thinking? In what ways?
5. What are some of the major new areas that we'd like to see 2+2 or other proven authors write about in the next 5-10 years?
When I think of phases of thinking in the best poker literature, here are some of the trends I observe (broadly):
Pre: 1970's: Virtually nothing that we would consider very useful or advanced today. Basic statistical tables, plus very rudimentary instructions like advice to play tight.
1970's: First wave of great books, most notably the initial Sklansky holdem guide and Brunson's Supersystem. I consider these the beginning of the current era in high level, structured, expert poker thinking.
1980's and 1990's: Explosion of great books on all the common poker games. First use of the computer for simulations; Plus advanced idea development combining mathematical reasoning and expert poker logic and skill. First great works on everything from tells to pot-limit to omaha to tournaments. Late 90's sees broad acceptance of the internet for rapid, realtime, and broad idea exchange.
2000's: ???
What are your thoughts?
Opinions by Louie
1. What will be the most important trends in advanced poker thinking in the next 10 years?
Someone will FINALLY popularize a well-defined and coordinated "Strategic" approach, instead of all this splendid "Technique" popularized by the authors.
2. Will we see some major new games emerge?
Yes, but they won't stay, much like Pineapple. Mainstream poker will REMAIN Holdem, stud, and ?draw?
3. Related to that idea, exactly what stage of the "product life cycle" are these various games in?
These games have stablized and I doubt there will be much change in structure or appeal. These games are as stable as the Toaster.
4. How dramatically will the internet affect advanced poker play and thinking? In what ways?
New, safe, and clever ways to cheat and swindle. Only seeing the opponent's legal actions should promote theoretical "perfect" play. Internet poker isn't going far: its not exciting. Nor does it appear to be safe.
5. What are some of the major new areas that we'd like to see 2+2 or other proven authors write about in the next 5-10 years?
How to make a life out of gambling successfully. Techniques on how to APPLY principles.
A hand they played poorly with implied self-depreciating humor and a "DOH!" or two; just to prove they are human beings and not alien logic-bots. == You know, call the raise with 73s since the opponent is easily outplayed and there is a desire to impress the Lady, flop two pair, and cleverly apply expert techniques to manipulate the opponent into giving excessive action while he has top set. DOH! ==
:)
-Louie
I foresee great developments in the area which I call "the human side of poker". So far, there has been no major book that deals with specific techniques for controlling one's emotional state during moments of crisis. No book so far teaches specific methods for manufacturing will power, courage, and discipline consistently within one's mind. All books, so far, deal only with the outergame of strategies, mathematics, and theory. I believe that the innergame will be the next poker frontier.
Jaws,
You might look to military/martial texts for this.
1. The Art of War, Sun Tzu (Try the Barnes & Noble version...has good explanations) 2. The Book of Five Rings, Miymoto Musashi 3. The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli (Get the Bantam books version...it's the easiest to read English version I know of and is cheap 2.95 in paperback) 4. Living the Martial Way, ??? 5. Warfighting, Admiral Gray 6. The West Point Way of Leadership, Dinithorne 7. Zen and the Martial Arts, ???
Though not specifically Poker books the ideas you are thinking about found thier expression in warfare long before poker.
The first 3 are considered by academics to be the 3 essential classical works on strategy that all students of strategy should read.
Apply the "Caro's Law of Least Tilt". :-)
I would like to add Strategy by Liddel Hart, Great Captains Unveiled also by Liddel Hart, The Tao of Jeet Kune Do by Bruce Lee,American Ceazar by William Manchester, Maxims by Napoleon Bonaparte, and On War by Clausevitz to your recommended reading list. I agree with you that many of the principles of expert poker have been implemented and written about over and over again throughout the history of war.
I think Hi-lo split Omaha will fade in popularity somewhat. The problem with the game is that the fish lose their money very quickly. And once the fish are gone, the games are no good. In hi-lo split, once the table is full of people of even intermediate skill level, it's hard for anyone to make money.
It looks like Omaha High is dying, which I think is a shame. I think it's a great game. You don't get punished too severely for playing too many hands, so the fish don't get beaten up too badly. And yet, there is room for an expert player to make a lot of money, even against good players. The strategic advantage in Omaha high shifts away from pre-flop hand selection and more towards play after the flop, which makes the game more exciting.
I think the game is dying because the rocks hate it. They don't like being drawn out, and they don't like the variance that goes with the game. A lot of tough players learned to start with the best hand, make the best hand on the flop, play it agressively, and let everyone else chase. Omaha doesn't reward that kind of play as much, so they hate it. And the rocks are the ones that keep the games going.
that means my split book will go out of print and be a valuble collectors item. when that does ill try to buy back all the outstanding copies at prices up to and including $10,000 for well kept copies;=) limit 3 books per person
i think as the play gets better limit holdem will go to an ante game with a structure similar to 7-stud. i favor this as you can take a walk for 1 or 2 hands without waiting a whole round, and the game will reward play more than tightness( my opinion is in the minority). when this happens a whole new round of books will have to be bought by all the players:) and us authors will prosper.
Just out of curiousity, do you agree with me about Omaha-8?
Interesting idea about limit Holdem moving to an ante structure. I certainly would like to see anything that encouraged more multi-way pots. Perhaps a triple blind structure like many P/L games? A 5-5-10 limit holdem?
Wasn't a triple blind structure common when hold'em was first legalized in California? Anyone know what caused the shift to the double blind structure?
I'd like to see whatever encourages higher limit hold'em games as they are tough to establish in my area. Apparently the use of bigger antes encourages the bigger stud games in Vegas. If that's what works, then bring on the antes!
BTW, Ray, you say that your opinion is in the minority. Do you mean your opinion that hold'em will move to an ante structure, or your opinion that antes will reward play rather than tightness?
holdem to ante
it will be around for some time as its easy to find a hand to play. its also a game that seems to give everyone a chance to win the pot at some point.
I think you could even make some more money, if you write a book on No-Limit Hold'em. As you can see in the posts here, people are pretty enthusiastic about playing this form of poker in tournaments.
I agree, I would also like to see an ante structure for limit hold'em.
my usual tuesday local baby no limit 2/5 blinds 300 buy in. early. early raiser who likes to put money in pre flop makes it 40, all fold. i have the button and call w/ A7spades. i flop the joint, 3 unconnected low spades. i check, he bets 50. i bvring out my actors equity card, hem and haw and call. turn is a blank, i quickly shoot out 75 trying to make it look like a bluff ( ihave been known to do this w/ top pair) he goes all in as do i and the riuver is a blank and i scoop a biggie. He had Kx of spades and my acting was for naught since we would be geting all our money in anyway. in describing this i was criticized by one of our 2plus 2 ers privately for not playing morer aggressively since he might have had a set or two pair and i could get my stack taken as is the danger in any nl game. How would yall play this hand? My opponent is savvy, but tends to play w/ his ego pasrticularly against me. he is capable of folding but generally cvannot lay down a big hand. thanks, mm
A much greater risk than losing your stack is that another spade (or even an Ace) could spoil your action from a dead-drawing hand such as overpair with a spade kicker, or small sraight/flush combo draw.
This is particularly important against an aggressive opponent who is unlikely to give you credit for the nuts if you play fast on the flop. (Successfully confused by your "act strong when strong" counterstrategy).
The risk that the board pairs and you get taken down by a set is a secondary consideration, and one that I would be generally willing to take in hold'em.
Question: If you were on the button, how did you get your money in first on the turn? It seems highly unlikely that he would check the turn to you since you played the hand as if you had something like a AsK-off.
Are you sure you weren't playing this piece of cheese out of position and edited the story slightly here to protect the innocent? It's bad enough that you played it against an early (albeit loose) raiser in a head's up pot-- now you start misleading your forum friends;-)
the preflop call for 40 with a7 is not good with only around 300 to win even if he plays too fast. the game you play in where the button bets first im not familiar with enough to help .
I agree that $40 of a $300 stack is too much on a speculative piece of cheese like A-7s. You're going to make a flush much less than 10% of the time, and on the occasions when you flop an Ace and are against a bigger Ace, you're probably going to lose your whole stack. A better scenario would be a small raise coming to you (i.e. $20 or less), with multiple callers between you and the raiser. You got lucky on the flop and the opponent's hand; cut yourself a piece of cake.
This is only really worth playing if you're sitting on at least 600+ and your opponent has at least the same to give you good implied odds. I don't like the acting routine - a decent player would see through it in a second. Most good big-bet players I've played tend to have a fast image. This means they can make big moves on the pot with a strong hand and still get paid. If I had 600ish in front of me I would have raised to about 200-250, trying to make him get in the last re-raise (assuming he bets into me).
In the current issue of Card Player, Roy Cooke describes a hand in which he raises an UTG limper with AKs and gets 5 or 6 callers, including the player under the gun. The flop comes A Jd 8d, UTG checks, Roy bets, gets raised, UTG check raises, and Roy immediately mucks his hand. I would like to hear some comments on Roy's laydown in this situation. Was his fold pretty automatic in this spot?
Thanks, Mike Watson
I don't think Roy's muck was "automatic", but I would guess (I haven't seen the article) that the check-raiser here had at least two pair, and the other raiser had A-x. Unless Roy had AK in diamonds, he was in deep trouble. Black Jack
Black Jack,
You were close to right. Anyway, here is a link to the article for anyone who is interested.
IMO, this is a bad fold on the flop- You have top pair with top kicker. What could the UTG limper have, 88, AJo? UTG would probably raise JJ, so we can say UTG doesn't have that. Would UTG player check-raise out of position with a flush draw? Doubt it. It really depends on the player he is up against, but I would not lay that down on the flop. He must of thought UTG had 88, which in that case he needs a runner runner to win. Just my opinion...
After reading the article, it seems I may have misunderstood your post.... Roy was raised by the person to his left who had previously cold called his preflop raise, and then was reraised by the original limper. Therefore, he had to call 2 bets. In this case, a fold may have been the right move.. though tough to make.
As many of you know I have reviews of numerous poker/gambling books in my text Gambling Theory and Other Topics. I have worked on these reviews for many years and am proud of their accuracy. Anyone who is trying to improve their game should be able to look at these reviews and be able to pick out those books which will help them and avoid those books which should be detrimental (and there are many of these).
One of the books that I reviewed is The Secret to Winning Big in Tournament Poker by Ken Buntjer. Even though this is someone who has done very well in tournaments over the years, I gave his book the worse possible rating. Success at the poker table does not necessarily mean that your book will be any good. Some players who are successful really don't understand what it is that they do that allows them to achieve their goals. I felt that Buntjer's book didn't say anything and that its lofty price of $49.95 was ridiculous, and I read it twice to make sure that what I said was accurate.
During the past year, several acquaintances whose poker ability I respect have commented to me that they thought the book had value and that it had helped them in their tournament play. Because of this, I decided to read it a third time and to view it as if it was a new book that I had never seen before. Using this approach I now agree that the book has value and can help those of you who already have an excellent understanding of standard ring play at the hold 'em tables.
But this doesn't change the problems with the book. It gives virtually no specific information or examples. For instance, Buntjer might say that at a certain stage in a tournament if you are in a certain chip position the time is right to make a high risk play. But he doesn't give any examples of what a correct high risk play might be. Thus it is easy to conclude that the text doesn't say anything worthwhile, and this is a definite weakness in the book.
On the other hand, if you understand how to play hold 'em well, you should know what the appropriate high risk plays are. An inexperienced player who doesn't make an effort to supplement his reading with other good poker books may now make costly mistakes in a vain effort to follow this advice. But this doesn't mean that there isn't good advice in The Secret to Winning Big in Tournament Poker. Put another way, a diligent reader, who is new to poker tournaments, should be able to improve his chance of success when he enters one of these events.
I want to emphasize that despite my more favorable comments, there are still many omissions in the book. Another example would be your starting hands at the final table. Buntjer fails to mention that since many hands will be played all-in, it is important to play hands that are more likely to win in a showdown than hands that either have the potential to win big pots or extract extra bets from your opponent in case they hit.
In fact, when reading this section you are given essentially no advice on what hands to play or how to play them. Yet the author correctly points out that some people will play any two cards and gives the correct reasons for why they do this.
Another example is the discussion on deal making. You are given essentially no advice on how to make a deal or how to figure what you are worth. You are even told that "the smaller your stack size the more likely you will want to deal" which doesn't make any sense.
Again, this is the problem with the book. Buntjer seems to correctly recognize the many unique situations that come up in tournament play, but his advice on how to proceed is usually not specific enough for an intermediate hold 'em player to know how to proceed correctly.
Consequently, I still do not recommend it for most readers.
All comments are welcome.
Mason I like you collect poker books. I have bought this book and grumbled over the price. I did'nt really feel that this book was exceptional in info about limit tournaments. Some info was good however I agree that this book was lacking in a lot of areas. It remains that it is a fact that a definitive book on tournament poker has not been wriiten and I think probably can't be written!. There is one book that I will buy soon and its the book written by D.R. Schere about tournaments. This book might be good or might not. It is not well known and is not advertised or talked about much. I also have a question for you about a book wriiten by Bill"Bulldog" Sykes. Although I collect poker books good or not I wonder if this book has any useful info about playing winning poker. I will leave this up to you. Joe"predator"Nardo
This book has been great for me. I play a lot of freezeouts. I've been able to tread water to the final table and move into high gear once it's down to three players. His aggressive approach when it gets down to the final three has won many a tournament for me. I never consider dealing,since I feel I'm in the driver's seat at this time regardless of my chip count. Now I realize the caliber of competition is poor at this level and his strategy wouldn't be as effective against better players. This book has paid for itself many times over. Joe
"His aggressive approach when it gets down to the final three has won many a tournament for me."
Please quantify "many". Relative to number entered, etc. Also "Freezeout"? Your definition and difference in play from a rebuy tournament?
Joe,
There is no doubt there is "some" valuable information in the book. You allude to final three play. O.K. is that worth $49.95. Anything else you can vouch for?
Vince.
If it's the same D.R. Sherer that wrote 'No Fold'em Hold'em', I wouldn't hold out much hope.
Mason:
I've also heard some good thing about 'Improve Your Poker', Bob Ciaffone...since I have most of the 2+2 books, I was wondering if you think this book might be a good add to my library?
Dead
Improve Your Poker is well worth adding to your library.
"Improve Your Poker" is an excellent book. When I think my game is off, I'll often grab it and read a chapter or two. After Sklansky and Malmuth's stuff, this is one of the best poker books I've purchased.
I read the over 48 posts on rgp yesterday regarding Gay Carson's new book. I think the point that Gary and the other fellow that commented on Buntjer's book were trying too make, was that most of us like too read different points of view regarding poker and tournaments.
Your books are very good, although if i was going to critique hfap, I would say that parts of it are poorly writen. But , who cares! There is quite a bit of solid info despite that.
Unless, your demographics state otherwise, I believe that most of us that are into the game, will buy several bnooks from several authors. Although I have no clue about Gary, I might still buy his book to get his perspective.
You have to remember that when you are reviewing these books, you have too look at it from the point of view of beggining and intermediate plyers. You can't review from your own perspective, since you are considered an expert.
Although some of these books have mistakes in them, I have read nothing that I would consider detrimental to a new player. If a new player really wants to improve, they will find your books as well as other qualified authors and then the rest is up tyo them. You yourself say that reading is not enough. That it takes alot of playing and thinking about the game too succeed. I believe those statements are true,.....so the rest is up too us.
"You have to remember that when you are reviewing these books, you have too look at it from the point of view of beggining and intermediate plyers. You can't review from your own perspective, since you are considered an expert."
The vast majority of books that we sell are bought by relively new players. This is because someone who has played for a while either has already bought our books or they are just not a book buyer. When I review books the beginning to intermediate player is precisely the person that I have in mind. This is why it is so important that the book in question be accurate and clear. If this is not the case it has the potential to cost its buyer a lot of money because it will encourage errors to be introduced into your game.
"Consequently, I still do not recommend it for most readers."
I have not read this book. Is it reasonable to amend your advice above to "This book may be of some benefit to readers who question and evaluate what they read, but is likely detrimental to readers who want to be told how to play-by-rote." ???
- Louie
"This book may be of some benefit to readers who question and evaluate what they read, but is likely detrimental to readers who want to be told how to play-by-rote." ???
No, this won't work. But the following might:
This book may be of some benefit to very knowledgeable readers who question and evaluate what they read, but is likely detrimental to readers who want to be told how to play-by-rote or to readers who are still relatively new to the basic game of hold 'em.
Mason,
I know you are always happy to here from me! So here goes. I bought this book after I had entered a few small tournaments and finished in the money a couple of times. I had visions then of focusing on being a full time tournament player. I bought the book largely in part because I had heard of Buntjer and the book was recommended by a couple of poker buddies.
I believe that had I read your original review I would have saved $49.95. This book has the same value, IMO, as an essay. The total sum of valuble information could have been done in a simple column for Card Player or some other publication. I will admit I was biased from the beginning when I found that Buntjer categorized players in relationship to dumb animals. Poker players are far from dumb in my estimation. And I don't trust someone that feels they are superior to other human beings. The impression his categories give to me.
Also Buntjer does list his wins and they are impressive but he does not add enough information to effectively evalutate his record. How often does he enter tournaments? What is his win to loss ratio? Information like this would certainly add a degree of confidence to his work. Of course I have yet to see an author give that level of detail. All including 2 plus 2 authors ask that we take their word that the information they provide is accurate. I will say that in the case of 2 plus 2 works I have personally verified the concepts put forth to my own satisfation. I don't trust Buntjer enough to do that. HPFAP and 7SFAP concepts are logical and readily verifiable through application in live games. Trying to verify Buntjer's calims through tournament play might take a life time and more money than I have.
I personnly do not recommend this book. Even as an alterantive point of view. I believe that it is a waste of $49.95 and more importantly, the TIME it takes to read it!
Vince.
"I will admit I was biased from the beginning when I found that Buntjer categorized players in relationship to dumb animals. Poker players are far from dumb in my estimation. And I don't trust someone that feels they are superior to other human beings. The impression his categories give to me."
I agree. I felt that this whole section was to simplistic. Poker players, even those who play poorly, frequently think and act in much more complex ways than this type of rating system indicates.
"Also Buntjer does list his wins and they are impressive but he does not add enough information to effectively evalutate his record. How often does he enter tournaments? What is his win to loss ratio? Information like this would certainly add a degree of confidence to his work."
I agree with this as well. I would add were there deals made before he won some of his tournaments, is he being staked like some of the other tournament stars, and how does he do in side games. Now I don't mean to degrade Ken Buntjer, especially since I don't know him at all. But I do agree that these are legitimate concerns.
Vince I generally read your first comments on a subject as they provide a good contra view. Man is an animal; Therefore, your second and third inputs in a string should consider this.
Wwplr,
If you feel it helps to categorize your "poker playing opponents" as (non human) animals, who am I to question that! I personally feel that it is a mistake and wrong. But then, that is just my opinion. Tell me, which of Buntjer's animal categories do you associate with. Do you think your opponents classify you in the same manner? How does this categorizing by animal type help you?
Vince.
Your ans. is my point made.
< Another example is the discussion on deal making. You are given essentially no advice on how to make a deal or how to figure what you are worth. You are even told that "the smaller your stack size the more likely you will want to deal" which doesn't make any sense >
I'd like to comment on Slyvester Suzuki's "Poker Tournament Strategies"(PTS). I read his book recently, and he did have some algorithms for deal making. However, most of the book was repetitive, stating the same concepts over and over.
I bought and am currently reading Ken's book. Even though it was expensive, I find it had more content than PTS. It is light on details or examples, but I can see he has done a lot of thinking about techniques and strategy. I do run across sections that cause me to think about the game and try something new in my next tournament.
I enjoyed both books. If I can pick up another nugget of knowledge from a book, then it was worth the price. I think both of these books were worth their price.
The 2+2 books are an excellent value. I bought and am reading Ray Zee's High-Low Split Poker book. I think it is great. I am saving/making money from it already. S&M's HPFAP is great also. Of course, The Theory of Poker is the poker bible. These books are worth a multiple of their price.
Keith O
I realize that knowing how to choose between two recommended strategies that seem to contradict each other is part of being an expert, but since I have not yet reached that status, I am forced to ask this question. In section on 4th Street strategy in HPFAP, you recommend betting hands which, if beaten, have no outs, and then folding if you are raised. You recommend checking and calling with hands that have outs, such as two pair or trips versus a probable straight or flush. However, on p. 82 of the Free Card chapter in Theory of Poker, you say that when deciding whether to bet a marginal hand, the more ways you have of improving, the more inclined you should be to bet, and the fewer ways you have of improving, the more convinced you have to be that you already have the best hand in order to bet. How do decide which strategy to use? Finally, when you call a possible come bet or raise on the flop in hold'em with a hand that has few outs, and then the turn card makes the possible flush or straight, should you usually check and fold, as you recommend on p.108 in The Theory of Poker, or should you bet and then fold if you are raised, as you recommend in HPFAP?
Thanks, Mike Watson
As to your second question, Theory of Poker recommends checking and folding when the scary card practically guarantees that you are now beaten one way or the other. Though you don't reference the page in HPFAP I think the recommendation was to bet and then fold if there was a decent chance that you have the best hand. As to the first question, it is usually better to bet if you have more outs.However under certain precise conditions you can save a little money against a player who will always tell you if you are drawing dead, by reversing this procedure. The concept is actually more germaine to no limit or spread limit games and you won't lose much in a limit game if you never use it.
It is in the early stages of the the final table of the Tournament of Champions. The game is no limit hold'em. The blinds are 10k/20k with antes (I beleive) of 1k. David Chiu is the chip leader by a lot with over a million in chips and has been running over the short stacks with aggressive pre and post flop play. Then comes a play for the ages.
It is folded around to David on the button and he makes it 75k to go. Louis Asmo (2nd in chips) thinks for a second and moves all-in for 600k from the small blind. Doyle Brunson is in the big blind with a decent stack and folds. The action is back on David Chiu.
He gives a knowing look to Asmo, indicates that he is folding, and then tables his hand face-up:
TWO KINGS!
In a gesture of goodwill and as a salute to his opponent's great lay-down, Louis Asmo (who is is a total class act) shows his hand:
POCKET ACES!
And the crowd goes wild.
Any comments on the thought process of the players here?
I LOVE Asmo's move of overbetting the pot, which seems to scream: Big Ace or medium pocket pair! and might induce a call from a decent pair or two big cards.
How DC made this laydown is beyond me. I mean, he was the big stack raising first in from the button! The small blind could be reraising with ANY decent hand. I guess DC was in the zone and had an unbelievable line on Asmo's play. I played the final table of a supersatellite with Asmo once and while conservative, he is NOT at total rock.
Chiu went on to win the tourney and Asmo finished second. I think Doyle went out third, and Men Ngyuen was 4th or 5th. I guess this new structure really favored the skilled players as there were virtually no pikers contending for the big money.
David Chiu must be the next "oriental express". A few minutes later he called a 100,000 bet on the river with King high and won! Mike Sexton, who was doing the commentary, was in awe of these two world class (I perfectly realize that this is an understatement) plays. He said: "That's why he's seated there and we're watching here".
I am having some difficulty with this lay down, but I'd like to point out that the 2nd highest stack does NOT want to get involved with an aggressive player with the highest stack. Bad EV.
- Louie
I too saw this play. It was the most fabulous play I've ever seen in tournament poker. The crowd truly went wild. David was in the zone all day. I salute him and Mike Sexton.
On another note; I predict that within 10 years the TOC will be the premier event on the poker circuit. I never saw an event run with such class and excitement as the TOC. Mike deserves a tremendous round of thanks from all the poker players in the world. It takes people of vision to move the world forward, and Mike is a man with vision. He will eventually bring poker to the big time.
Great show Mike,
Tom B.
By the way order the video, just seeing this play will be worth the $55 you'll have to pay.
From what I saw, the TOC already is the premier event -- it just doesn't give away as much money (yet). Becky Behnen is either going to have to step up to the plate and put on a first class production or relinquish the rights to the WSOP to someone who will. It's ridiculous that the event to crown the world champion, an event that gives away more prize money than any U.S. event, is not before the public this year. What a waste of an opportunity.
Sorry, but this whole thread is silly for two different reasons. For one the play is definitely reasonable against many opponnents in this spot. With the second highest in chips many players would not risk their whole stack in this spot with less than a great hand. If it was almost certainly Aces, Kings, or AKsuited, laying down Kings is clearly right. If the guy could also have Queens or AKoffsuit, folding is clearly wrong in a ring game but a close call in this tournament situation. Thus many good players would make this fold in this specific situation against certain other players. But it irritates me when the play is called "electrifying" for a second reason as well. That is because There is an implication that David "knew" the other guy had aces. Far more likely he simply "knew" that the other guy was quite likely to have aces , kings ak suited or possibly a bit less thus making the fold ON AVERAGE the right play. I applaud him for that. However theplay only belatedly looks super to a neophyte simply because he did in fact happen to be up against the hand he was afraid of.
David Sklansky wrote: "...it irritates me when the play is called "electrifying" for a second reason as well. That is because There is an implication that David "knew" the other guy had aces."
Yet David Chu shows his kings at the risk of appearing foolish if his opponent were to expose a smaller pocket pair or simply ace high. Chu's "knowing" his opponent held aces can be inferred by his willingness to expose his hand. There's no benefit to showing the kings (i.e. you let it be known you will fold your kings if an opponent bets enough, inviting these types of plays). My guess is a major part of the decision for Chu to call or fold here and most notably to expose his hand, regardless of *who* his opponent is, is the small visual clues indicating what he's up against. Chu may not have bet his life on it that he was up against aces, but I bet he *knew* his opponent had aces. Math as it were can take you far, but there's definitely "that something else" if you ever hope to be champion.
In any event, as a practical matter and for the sake of the game, I wouldn't degrade *neophytes* for their enthusiasm for great plays (good plays -- however you wish to characterize it) made.
He may have shown his kings to try to induce someone else to take a run at him, or to intimidate the field into thinking that he could see through their cards. Or, he may have just been stroking his ego.
Dan –
You postulate Chu may have shown his kings to induce future action. Therefore, the next time an opponent makes a huge bet at him, he can comfortably call with what is an apparently weak hand relative to the action? Now he’s really gambling -- a doubtful play. Or he’s intimidating the field by showing how good he is by laying down kings. But if he tries this and his opponent doesn’t show aces he’s accomplished just the opposite. Then you query maybe he’s stroking his ego by laying down the kings? But what happens to his ego if his opponent turns over queens or jacks or tens or nines or 32o? Maybe a neuron misfired and he was compelled to show his kings? Maybe, but probably not. I have to believe Chu knew he was looking at aces.
Look out! David may have a hidden strategy here. Put everyone on tilt by talking down to them like morons, thus causing them to head for Bellagio to take him on. Pretty crafty.
Daniel –
Yeah maybe Sklansky is making a psychological play *wink* I’m sure there’s already a long line of those who’d like to beat him. Sklansky does put the hand in more objective terms though. Good food for thought.
I have shown similar folds in no limit. You gain a lot more psychologically when you are right, then you cost yourself when you are wrong. However if you call his play electrifying because he showed his cards rather than merely because he folded them I won't quarrel with that.
"However theplay only belatedly looks super to a neophyte simply because he did in fact happen to be up against the hand he was afraid of."
Oh! David! You are eloquence personified! Simply stated of course.
Vince.
David: I posted before your post essentially saying the same thing you did (although not as cogently), namely that the play was a good play but logical for a good player, hardly electrifying. I also questioned why he chose to show his cards.
Not being a no limit player, I was a little hesitant to post, thinking that perhaps I was missing a key point being strictly a limit poker player. But I have seen nothing by any other posters to contradict your (and my) point that "many good players would make this fold in this specific situation." I feel better about posting now that I see your analysis.
Is there anyone who can explain the greatness of this play?
As I posted above, it can be inferred Chu knew his opponent held aces by the fact he showed his hand. Again... to repeat... slowly... there was nothing to gain but much to lose by exposing his cards -- unless his opponent held aces. The greatness of this play was the ability of Chu to hone in on exactly what he was up against and then pull off a great psychological play by showing his hand! Calculation of odds and decent judgement might get you to fold, but it won't tell you to expose your hand and it won't get you to call in this spot when up against a weaker hand. Let's just call it the uncanny ability to read hands.
"The greatness of this play was the ability of Chu to hone in on exactly what he was up against and then pull off a great psychological play by showing his hand!"
"Great" Not hardly! Typical, simple, logical, o.k., non-novice; take your pick. Great is not correct in describing the play here.
Vince.
Vince wrote: ""Great" Not hardly! Typical, simple, logical, o.k., non-novice; take your pick. Great is not correct in describing the play here. "
Vince: "It's a typical play, barely above novice level" KOP: "Why?" Vince: "Because I said so." KOP: "But of course. Now I see your point. You're absolutely correct. Thanks Vincey"
By the way, it's a very bold position you've taken. Siding with Sklansky that is. *wink*
Nonetheless, I hold Chu showing his kings is either a very bad play or a great play for the reasons listed in previous posts but hardly a play somewhere inbetween.
A suggestion: supplement your authoritarian expressed opinion with some reasoning to make your position understandable and actually carry weight.
My GUESS is that CHU didn't even consider the consequences (pros and cons) of his action. It was just a simple knee jerk reaction. What is your thinking, that someone will now change their opinion of Chu's play. Give me a break. At this point they are not looking for "FISH". Chu knows that and knows that showing his K,K will absolutely have no bearing on others view of him nor their play at the FINAL table.
Vince.
..... made the same laydown against Mike Alsaadi late on the 3rd day of the 1992 WSOP Final.
Electrifying the play might have been, from the standpoint of wowing the audience, but how smart was it to show the hand? Also, I'm not as electrified as the others seem to be with the laydown. Why give up your big chip lead when a very conservative player indicates he's got the nuts? It's a good, smart move by a great, smart player. As for Asmo, I don't think his move screams big Ace or medium pocket pair; rather, it screams Nuts.
It seems to me that this was not a tough laydown. If you read T.J Cloutioer's book on N.L. Tournament poker you will find that in a situation like this with chip counts the way explained here the best move Chiu can make is to Fold! Not great! Not tough! Not electrifying! Typical. What would the small blind risk his whole (sizeable) stack on before the flop? A,A surely comes to mind first and foremost. Sorry K,K muck time!
Vince.
Vince,
I agree with you. What do you think about Asmo's play of going all in with Aces pre-flop from the BB? There are all kinds of scary boards that could develop, however, there are also a lot of boards where KK might reasonably believe that it was the best hand heads up and AA is way ahead of KK. I think the Chiu's play is not that remarkable even if he had been speeding around a lot. I am not convinced that Asmo made a good play by going all in, however. Could he possibly have played his Aces another way to try and win himself a huge pot or at least a bigger one? In Doyle Brunson's Super System he talks about either winning a small pot with a big pocket pair or losing a big one. What do you all think?
Tom Haley
I agree. Contrary to Michael's original post, an all-in raise does NOT signal a "big ace or medium pocket pair". If Louis Asmo knew that DB would fold for a more modest raise (say $250,000), then he would've been much better served by enticing Chiu to call with K-K. Chiu may have even reraised and in any event, would've been heads-up as a big dog after the flop. Chiu probably would've went for the rest of it if undercards had flopped.
Earl,
One thing that I believe Asmo missed on this hand. He probably knows that Chiu has a good hand since Chiu would not attack a big stack in the blinds from the button without a good hand. What I believe Asmo missed is that Chiu probably figures that Asmo put him on a good hand. I think a call pre-flop is correct (Am I wrong? Comments welcome) and if the board is something non-scary go ahead and bet the flop. It would seem that a bet of $150,000 would put Chiu to a decision where he could be making a big mistake.
Tom Haley
Asmo can't flat call because Brunson is still in the hand. A normal size reraise puts Chiu to the test though.
Earl,
You are correct. Missed that.
Tom
I think a call is a big mistake. You want him to make the mistake when you have a good size stack and he can bust you or double you up. If you held the A,A on the button you now have a different situation. But that's another question. In this case you want to give Chu the opportunity of making a mistake. You also want the BB out!
Vince.
I like the all in raise against the chip leader. He may have been tempted to call because of his chip position alone. I believe that Chu was just to good of a player to fall for the play but still it was worth the try. I believe T.J. Cloutier touches on this play in his book. His comment goes something like this: one would be a fool to limp with Aces with a big stack against another big stack. I think a small raise falls into this category. Why give a big stack a relatively cheap chance at busting you especially when you have good chip position. Also the big all in bet goes a long way to ensure you are heads up and that the BB doesn't call. You definitely don't want multiple opponents at this juncture. Again I like the all in bet.
Vince.
My local casino where I play regularly is starting a tournament series that will qualify and pay for 3 people to play in the WOSP! It will run 30 weeks starting Aug. 3rd , It's a $20 buy in no re-buys gets T-1500. The top 2 finishers of each weekly tourney will get a birth into the championship round. The championship round will be in early Feb. There will be 60 seats open, but if you place 1st or 2nd more than once, you own the empty seats. You can sell them or not use them. The winner of the championship tourney gets a free ride at the WOSP, 2 weeks accommodations, Airfare, and $4000.00 cash. Second Place gets ½ the entry fee paid, 2 weeks accommodations, Airfare, and $2000.00 Cash 3rd place gets 1/3 of the entry fee paid, 2 weeks accommodations, Airfare, and $1000 cash.
Now that you know that…I have not played much no-limit HE. I need to take a crash course and get my hands on the best Books and Videos out there (any suggestions). I have done well in local HE limit tourneys, albeit I have only placed as high as 2nd but I'm better than 50% in the money. Can somebody help shed some light on NL HE for me? I don't expect to have the forum tell me what to do or how to play a no-limit game, but Id sure appreciate some advice.
Thanks In advance Walleye
Some important traits to have are guts and instincts. Instinct is very important playing no-limit. You also have to be fearless. Some books to read are Championship No-limit and Pot limit Hold'em by T.J. Cloutier, Pot limit and No-limit Poker by Bob Ciafonne(?) hard to spell. Many say Tournament poker by Tom Mcavoy however I have not read it. There are major changes to be made when you play no-limit as compared to limit and the above mentioned books should help. Some posters here such as Mike Seven and Earl can greatly help you play so I suggest posting questions to them. They have played in tournments and can help you.
I would recommend the book by Reuben and Ciaffone as much better than the others.
Unlike limit play, NL is a game of trapping and being trapped. If you will get paid off when you hit, then limping in with hands like 68o is great in NL. Of course, you must know when you're getting paid off (as opposed to paying off yourself), and you must get in cheaply relative to the money won later in the hand. Marginal hands, like KQ after a flop of top pair, are much more dangerous in NL because you can lose your entire stack, instead of just a few big bets, to AK or other better hands.
Basically, your judgment of what the other guy is holding is much more important in NL because of the relatively larger number of blinds you win or lose with each decision.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Memorize Doyle Brunson's NO LIMIT HOLD'EM section in Super/System. Read the 2+2 archives. Ray Zee has posted some great advice.
There is no question that Super/System is the best book to read first on no-limit. It is also just about the best general poker book ever, and should be read by every serious poker student. Even the games you don't play and the outdated limit holdem section stimulate your brain to think poker. There are unlimited numbers of poker situations you could find yourself in and they are not all holdem and stud! As an avid home game player since I was a young kid, I have been exposed to many different ways to play poker. Reading Doyle's book (some parts of it several times) tied up many loose ends and helped my overall poker reasoning skills.
There is the question of what changes are required when playing in no-limit tournaments. I would appreciate comments on which books are the most useful for NL tournament play. I have played small NL games but have not entered any NL tournaments yet. I shall be looking at the archives too.
Doyle has a snippet of tournament advice in his book. Did you spot it? A hint: Jack Keller.
In No-Limit Hold'em tournaments, $100 plus buy-ins plus, there is a lot of trickery going on as opposed to card sense. I was in Vegas at the beginning of May, a week prior to the big event, every night I went down to watch the satelite games. What I noticed is that the better players would pick off the weak players and nurse their stacks until the tables started to get shorthanded (this occurred quite often)and then pick off the small stacks. Futhermore, I noticed the same approach in a tourney that I played in at the Mirage that week. The favorite pick off hand was a suited Ace. There was two people doing this that you would probably know: Johnny Hale and Susie Issacs. This was the first No-Limit tournament that I had played in and I finished in the money (7th place). Johnny and Susie did not make it to the final table. I believe the only reason why I made it that far, was due to Doyle's book.
Doyle observed Johnny's strategy for the WSOP to help him win it.
Lately I have been playing more stud because the hold'em games have been poor. My question is this. How much profit do you lose by throwing away 3 flushes that are not connected such as K57 and T27, ect? Understand that I'm primarily talking about early to middle position spots and not late position where a ante steal can become effective. Is it a safe play to consistently throw these hands away or will it cost a lot of profit?
At a table that has been "fairly" loose, but can tighten up at times and become fairly aggressive pre-flop with some pots pre-capped, are drawing hands dangerous to play in either blind position, or left of the BB? A9s, 89s, 78s, JT, T9 come to mind. Last night I was throwing away MOST of these hands, only to realize they would have won giant pots had I played them. I just fear a raise, or even a re-raise if I am to call or raise with these types of hands. I play them on them button literally every time if there are 5-6 callers before it gets to me, even with a raise in EP. Appreciate the replies.
If the aggressive preflop raisers are seated close to my left I wouldn't play these hands in early position as these players' raises would drive out several players out and thus turn the pot into a shorthanded pot (not good for these multiway type hands). But if the aggressive preflop raisers were seated six or more places to my left and the players between me and them are loose passive I would definitely play these multiway hands from the position just to the left of the big blind.
It seems to me the risk at playing these hands up front is not knowing how many people will be in and how much it will cost ya (i.e. limping in with 45s getting cracked and end up playing just the raiser and BB with raiser having position). But if you know your going to have 5 or 6 callers even with a raise it seems your odds (real and implied) on hitting hard are good enough (i.e. set, 2 pair, open ender, or a 4 flush) this is specifically talking about suited connectors though. Unsuited would cause your draws to pairs to have bad odds plus you lose your flush possibles which means you probably need to know at least 6-7 people will be in. Plus most of these hands value is in the set, flush, and straights not pairing. my 2cents
Drop the unsuited connectors both in early position and in late position after a raise. With the other hands, it really depends on the number of callers, chances of raises and re-raises, etc. But in general, if I'm in a game that's reasonably passive and almost always sees 5-way action or better, I'd call with all of them from any position (again, excluding JTo and J9o, which I won't play anywhere unless I think I'll be last to act).
borrow a copy of hfap and go over it again or for the first time. whether it is raised or not is important. blind or left of blind is an important difference. 78s is a pretty hand but may not be worth opening the pot with up front.
Here is an interesting hand George played at 10-20 holdem' recently. Playing 5/6 suited in middle position, George hits absolutely nothing on the flop, but it is checked around. The turn does not help but brings a back door diamond draw. George checks and a guy to his left bets. George suspects he has nothing and check raises the guy. The other guy calls. River is a blank but George loses courage and it is checked down and the other guy rakes the pot with King high diamonds.
If a bluff check raise doesn't work right away is it best to keep it going? In this case it would have worked cause the guy had nothing.
I would continue the charade on the river by betting once more. The turn's actions alone gives me 4 to 1 pot odds on the river bet.
Bold faced bluffing should be done rarely. But as the authors point out semi-bluffing should be done often. This is customary and correct.
So when the player bets the turn there are a lot of hands he can call once more but fold on the river; so hero should EXPECT a call on the turn and calculate his chances accordingly.
- Louie
no msg
But at least get the hand right. I had jack-six in the big blind in a three-way pot with the small blind and the button, and it was 15-30 not 10-20. I led at the pot when the small blind checked on a Q-9-9 flop. Button called and small blind folded. Turn brought a flush draw. I checked and the button bet. My read on the button was that he didn't like his hand, so I tried a raise. He called without hesitating, so I figured him for a calling hand and incorrectly assumed that a bet on the river wouldn't do much good. As it turned out, he had the diamond draw and checked behind me on the river and was reluctant to even turn his cards over. You win some, you lose some. I won't be forgetting that one for a while. I do think the pure bluff is underrated in pots with few opponents.
When I told Marc this story, he said: "You know, I think you might have been able to win that pot with a bet on the river. I bet that guy would have folded." Move over Sklansky and Malmuth. Coming next year, Hold'em Poker for SUPER-Advanced Players, by Marc Sussman.
I suggest we put a moratorium on posts about stupid things I've done at a poker table. If we don't, the archives will soon be overflowing...
When someone calls without hesitating, especially on a threatening board like this, it usually means they are on a big draw rather than a made hand. Even if he had trips here, a raise should have made him stop and think for a moment about his kicker, whether to re-raise, etc.
Good point. But what's a "big draw" with a pair on the board? Had the flush draw been there on the flop, I would have been inclined to bet on the river. His play seemed very likely to represent a queen to me. Note that a queen need not think about reraising. The issue is whether to call down your opponent or not. Perhaps you're right, but I think most players will call the check-raise reflexively with a queen in that situation.
A player in the cut-off seat is the first to limp in. He does so with 88.
Button (an unknown player to both me and the fellow with 88)raises. Blinds fold. 88 calls.
Flop: 983 offsuit.
Check. Bet. Call.
Turn: 4 (puts 2 hearts on board)
Check. Check.
River: 4
Bet. Fold.
It would seem to me that there were several errors made by 88 in this hand. Perhaps we can analyze them.
Well, since the blinds did in fact fold for a raise then the 88 should have known they are likely to and should have raised pre-flop.
A 98x flop is relatively dangerous when there is a late position raiser, since they can easily have a 2-overcard gut shot draw. However, there is considerable merit to the argument that if the button had enough to call a raise he had enough to bet it, so slow playing the set is no disaster. The button is very likely to bet any hand that can eventually beat a set (such as QJ) so "free cards" aren't an issue here.
But when the button checked on the turn he is anouncing he has practically nothing. Such players are more likely to bluff than to call. 88 should have checked-raise on the river.
- Louie
1. Calling instead of raising pre-Flop.
Raising before the Flop was certainly the correct move in an attempt to win the blinds.
2. Checking instead of betting on the Flop.
Although, given that the player with the Eights did NOT raise pre-Flop, I'm not so sure that checking and calling on the Flop was an error, since:
a) the pot was small in comparison to future bets (5 1/2 small bets pre-Flop), b) that round of betting was small in comparison to future bets, and c) he had only one opponent.
This would satisfy three of the five criteria for using deception. Therefore, the check-and-call may have been correct in extracting a bet from the button and not giving away the strength of the hand. If the button had checked along, a free card wouldn't have hurt much.
3. Checking instead of betting on the Turn.
Given that there is now a Heart flush draw on the board, and that bets on the Turn were as large as they were going to get, I believe a bet would be in order so as not to give the button a free card, and also in hopes of making it three bets after a possible raise from the button.
Q
I don't know what the "cutoff" seat is. If that's early position, the limp seems reasonable. If that means one off the button, I think a raise would be preferable to a limp. A raise might buy the button and get live drawing hands to fold.
Other than that, I don't know if I'm comfortable calling the rest of his plays mistakes. I would lead at the pot on the flop against an unknown opponent and check the turn, but that's probably best classified as personal preference. He was obviously going for a check-raise on the turn. His opponent had shown nothing but strength to this point while he'd shown nothing but weakness, so I don't think he was unreasonable to try that strategy. A lot of players will give it another crack with high cards. When his opponent checks the turn, our hero is up a creek. His opponent has more or less advertised his holdings as high cards and has severely limited his ability to bluff. I disagree with the previous poster on the river play. I think it was correct to bet the river, because his opponent is unlikely to bet his high cards. Why would he? Button's advertised weakness on the turn means that the button should expect our hero to call with a 3,8, or 9, and maybe an ace. Presumably, the button can expect to win a war of kickers. On the other hand, the running fours may tempt the button to call with his AK, perhaps on the possibility that our hero missed with overcards or missed a straight draw.
You don't know what the cut-off seat is?! That's funny because neither do I, but was afraid to ask for fear of looking dumb.
I would have had the same problem, but, due to the previous thread, everyone already knows that I'm dumb. No use in shutting the barn door after the horse has already escaped...
I believe it is the seat immediately to the right of the button, but I've never heard the term used outside of a few posts on this forum.
Q
The term "Cut-off Seat" is used extensively in Bob Ciaffone's book ' Improve Your Poker '[.
BB rock... raises with 5 callers,, me on button A10s,, no players looked excited to see that it cost them $10 more to see the flop,, A k 10 rainbow,, Bb checked player in midle bet out call call ,,me raise,,? good raise? BB reraise,, all call,, If i beleived him he had AK KK or mayby even JQ,, i poped it again,, we see the turn 5 handed 4c 2clubs showing.. BB bets out,, all call,,,, what should my play have been? call,, no one is folding even if i pop it again,, if i raise can i handle a reraise from BB... or ? the river 10d BB bets out,, fold fold call,, raise,,,, BB reraise,, middle player folded,,,??????????? BB k10,,, comments ?
The Big Blind displayed a great deal of strength by first raising pre-Flop, checking and then raising it to three bets, and then finally betting out on the Turn after you had capped it.
If this player had truly been a rock, and the pot had been smaller, I may have mucked after the re-raise from the Big Blind. I think this is a good example of a situation in which reverse implied odds apply, in that a) you don't where you are relative to the Big Blind, b) you have little chance of improving to beat a hand the Big Blind is representing (Aces, Kings, A-K, possibly Tens, or maybe QJ), c) a call at any point commits you to calling bets on the Turn and River to determine where you are, and d) the Big Blind is controlling the betting.
However, since the other five players were simply calling every bet, and the pot had become so large at that point (42 bets by the Turn, if I counted correctly), I think it may have been correct to call to the River.
Q
I'd have to question your characterization of this player as a 'rock'. Most rocks won't raise out of the blinds with K10, nor will they bet out on the turn when there is a straight on the board with only two pair.
Against some players, I could fold that AT on the flop with this kind of action, especially if I didn't have a 3-flush to go with it. But those players are pretty rare. If you're not going to fold on the flop, then basically you're a calling station, hoping that your hand stands up. Even after I made boat on the river I couldn't raise if the BB bet into me again, if he truly was a rock.
You have to be more than 95% certain to make a laydown on the river like this and it sounds like you had your doubts. For example, if you thought you had the best hand on the turn you should have raised. But if your hand wasn't good enough for raising on the turn, it wasn't good enough for raising on the river because you can't beat AA or KK. If you can justify a raise on the river (because he might have QJ or worse), you can't justify a laydown when he reraises because if he'll raise with QJ in the BB he's not a rock and you can't know what he's got.
Also, if he had AA or KK, why did he try to knock out the field by reraising you on the flop? Why wouldn't he bet a set of kings on the flop? Why did he slow down on the flop (with the nuts or near-nuts) and then bet out (instead of check-raising) on the turn? Because he's a deceptive rock? Maybe. But maybe he was going to call anyway and didn't want you to raise him any more.
If you were really sure he was a rock, your raise on the flop was good, your call of his check-raise was ok but even with that size pot a fold probably would have been in order because you have maybe two outs but don't know which two and may be dead.
If, OTOH, you had some doubts about him, you probably should have called him to the river, where a raise and a call of his raise would have been right. (IMO).
SanDiego now has a regular pot limit game at the Lucky Lady Cardroom. They also have limit holdem, and the bets thing is that the city only allows them to charge a three(3)dollar per half hour collection!I swear it's true!
In the future please put this type of post on our Exchange Forum.
"Regular" pot limit game is a bit of a stretch...
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
See if you can spot the errors in the button's play...
The Game: $4-$8 Hold'Em, in a kill pot
Small Blind is the killer.
UTG is dealt As Ks and raises. Everyone folds except for the button and the small blind (the killer), who both call.
The Flop is A-K-10, rainbow.
Small Blind bets. UTG raises. Button calls. Small Blind folds.
On the Turn comes a 6, still no flush draw.
UTG bets. Button calls.
On the River comes another 6.
UTG bets. Button calls.
Button turns over 6 3 offsuit.
Okay, so that's not so tough, but I was so flabbergasted that I just had to share it... :-)
Q
if he played tight except for that hand id worry. most likely he didnt understand the game and was just having fun calling all hands down. its always fun to play with the likes of those.
I see these plays all the time. Here's a clue on how you can spot one of these players. If they have been taking down the last few pots with real hands they think to themselves, "wow I'm hot", and they start playing any two cards until they start to loose again.
Last night I was playing in a 3-6-12 Hold'em game. UTG raised the blinds with AK. The small blind, who was hot, called and so did the big blind. The flop came K-7-2. Well do I need to tell you what the small blind was holding?
2,7o! That was tough!
Any comments on this book? I'm completely new to pot-limit play.
Thanks.
If you're completely new to pot-limit, you might find it helpful. The book is a solid introduction to pot-limit and no-limit holdem. Beyond that, there isn't much. The book contains a lot of filler and anecdotes, and many of the chapters on specific games leave one wondering where to even start. The pot-limit Omaha chapter is especially weak. Ciaffone targets his writing to beginners, and doesn't go into the depth that would help a player understand the more complex situations that arise in pot-limit play. But overall, you will learn the fundamentals of pot-limit and no-limit holdem, and there are some good sections, especially the one on satellites. It's worth the $20 if you plan to play pot-limit holdem or no-limit holdem ring games, or no-limit holdem tournaments. If your main interest is pot-limit Omaha you should look elsewhere.
What about McEnvoy and Cloutier's book? Mason, a comment from you would be great.
The Ciaffone book is the best ever written on these games. I haven't read the McEvoy Cloutier Omaha book.
Despite its apparently compact size, this book alone will make you better than 90% of the players you meet in PL games.
10/20 HE the table is loose been alot of raising preflop and a couple stradles,, every button.. 3 players have bullied the table containing more than 60% of the chips,,, ive played a couple of hands to be shot down or out kicked or rivered,, frustration was setting in,, AA KK JJ and Ak have been nightmares,, so any ways,, me on button,, A9s 3 callers and the guy to my right makes it 20 to go,, he has been very picky with what hands to play with certain peaple in the pot?,, so i called,, we have 5 players ! flop,, A 9 9 all checked to him he bets out,, i thought about raising,, thow for some reason the movie rounders hit me,,,lol.. so i called,, the turn,, 8 no flush possible,, all check to me,,?? I bet,, BB called 2 folded,, player to my right makes it 40,, should i raise,,? or keep Bb in hand,,? the river,, 3c,, check bet raise, call reraise call,,????? Aces full took down the pot...
does anyone have any general guiding principles as to betting or calling or raising with second pair in low limit hold'em? Lately, I seem to be making some decent money by making this bet, even against up to 5 opponents-regardless of wether or not the pot was raised pre-flop. Sometimes I lose (about 25% of the time), but overall I'm a winner (so far).
Thanks.
My first reaction is to think that you've been getting very lucky. My second thought is that you've been reading your opponents like a pro. Considering the nature of low-limit, you've probably just been getting lucky. In low-limit, it's almost impossible to make someone lay down top pair, even if they have a weak kicker. Most of the money I win in low limit comes from driving pots hard against A-no kicker when I flop an A to my AQ or AK and even AJ. A6 and A4 are holding on no matter what hoping against hope that I'm betting like a madman for no particular reason.
So when you start betting and raising with second pair against 5 opponents and winning, I can only assume you've been getting very lucky and it will come back to bite you. Hard.
Higher limits is a much different story and I"ll leave it to the more experienced higher limit guys to discuss it. But in low limit, should almost never drive a pot with second pair.
Natedogg
I don't think i'm driving out top pair, most of the time my bets will get all but one maybe two players out, and these guys show me (usually) a lower pair or an ace. I also won't push second pair if an ace shows. Usually, my checking and calling wins with second pair have been because the other guy is bluffing.
Jeff
Natedog is right. I've put in a lot of hours in low limit and very rarely see anyone lay down top pair. I would rarely take second pair and raise to get it head up in low limit. Even though this is a good play in the higher limits in low limit you have a hard time getting it head up. And even if you get it head up if you don't have a hand your going to lose because your opponent won't lay down his hand in low limit. It's good to mix up your game but be careful in low limit because people are not trying to read you their only concerned with their own hand. Making plays such as SM recommend are great as you move up but in the lower limits you have to show down the best hand period. I wonder if other low limit players feel the same way. Good luck Ice.
if you are playing properly many of your 2nd pairs will be 3 straights or 3 flushes and can have very positive value. very low 2nd pairs need to improve to win as every card out will be overcards to you. higher ones may win on their own some times and that tips the scales. with many in the pot 2nd pair can do okay but i wouldnt be pushing them for value as much as i would be betting or raising to drive out customers so i might win with modest improvement. you must understand what you are doing or this will break you quickly.
Yeah, thanks to HPFAP I also am looking at quite a few 3 straights/flushes as well as the occasional open end straight draw and 4 flush. As far as knowing what I am doing, It's just a feel thing most of the time with a "fortune favors the bold" kind of bet.
thanks.
I ran into the following situation in a 10-20 game, and I'd be interested in hearing how other people would have handled it.
I have K-J suited in early position and take the flop with the button and the big blind. The flop comes 10-9-x, with my flush draw, giving me a monster draw. Blind checks, I bet, button raises, blind folds.
My question: How would you play this hand, depending on your table image and your opponent? In particular, suppose you've been caught bluffing a few times recently and are up against a guy who is likely to have a legitimate hand.
i might have raised coming in as you may have won the blinds from out of position. since you got only one caller it must be a tighter game and you gave the blind a free flop.
on the flop why not reraise and if you dont improve check and call the next card or just bet if you miss as you are close to even money to make the winner each card and you could win with a bet on 4th street. if you find weakness you may want to try to win without helping but you have about 18 outs to catch to make the probable winner so you will not get the chance to bluff most hands.
table image has little to do with this hand.
...and please tell me if you think I'm erring in my logic.
Because of my table image, I know two things. First, I am not going to win the pot without a showdown. Second, it is highly unlikely that I can get a free card on the turn from early position by reraising (unless a scare card falls).
I am probably the favorite. 18 outs is a bit generous...the king and jack might not be winners, but let's say I'm favored to win 60% of the time as an upper end estimate. The real problem, as I see it, with reraising is that it will slow him down on the turn when the flush or straight comes. As the hand turned out, I made my hand on the turn and got in an easy checkraise. What if I had reraised on the flop? There's a good chance he doesn't bet when the flush card hits if he puts me on a strong hand that's scared of the flush. Therefore, I'd have to bet out on the turn when my flush comes and maybe even when my queen falls. I'll hit the flush or straight on the turn about 25% of the time, so I think the math goes:
If I reraise, I make 10+20+20=50 in future bets (including the reraise) and drop 30 when I lose for an expected gain of .6*50-.4*30=18. When I call, the calculation is .25*60+.35*40-.4*20=21. And that's a conservative of the improvement...keep in mind that I could be up against two pair or a set, in which case I have to call another reraise and I'm not even a favorite.
Anyway, that's how I saw it (after much reflection).
Aha just as I thought, and I didn't read this first. I'm with you on the hand.
Aha just as I thought, and I didn't read this first. I'm with you on the hand.
George wrote: "The real problem, as I see it, with reraising is that it will slow him down on the turn when the flush or straight comes."
Will it?
A lot of players may bet out, and a lot of players may raise (especially if in late position, as a free card play), but very few players will 3-bet with a draw. If you slow him down, it's because he's afraid you've got him beat on the flop, not because he's afraid of the flush or straight card on the turn. While there are many exceptions, I am always more concerned by the flush or straight card when the guy who has just been calling comes out with a bet or raise.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"If you slow him down, it's because he's afraid you've got him beat on the flop, not because he's afraid of the flush or straight card on the turn."
This is my point exactly. Now take it a step further. Suppose I did 3-bet on the flop. What happens when the flush/straight card hits on the turn? If I check the turn, it looks to my opponent like I did indeed have a strong hand on the flop...top pair strong kicker at a minimum, and am worried about the flush/straight. He may try a bluff or may decide that his pair is ahead, but it's just as likely that he's going to take the safer route of checking behind me unless the turn card helped his hand. On the other hand, when I called, I compelled him to defend his hand by betting even when a scare card fell on the turn.
Of course, it depends on your opponent. I tried to set this up when I posed the problem, but basically I felt that this guy 1) would not fold--(and on this point I was almost certainly correct)--and 2) was unimaginative. I think I got this one right. Normally, I would pour money into the pot on a flop like this when I'm a favorite. But in this situation, I think it behooved me to pass up the bets on the flop, which were marginally profitable, to set up the checkraise on the turn.
I noticed that button did not raise on pre-flop. So, IF he has A or K he must have a weak kicker, also I discount a pocket pair.
Sure you have a nice draw, but so what, you haven't hit anything yet. Personally, I would call the raise, check to see what turn is, check no matter what, check raise if hit, etc. If half to show the hand down with no improvement.
Particularly given the number of outs, this is way too passive. Since you have more wins with this hand than your opponent (13 outs is break-even), you can play this hand as if it is the nuts. I would reraise and then bet out on the turn. Unless playing against calling-station type players, I would not check-raise and give my opponent the opportunity to get away from losing big bets on the end. The surest way to get a good player to lay down a hand is to check-raise him (this works for bluffs too). If you play the way you recommend in a bigger game, you will be manipulated out of many pots and will not get the return on your big hands that you should.
You're probably correct. I've played in only 4-8 Hold Em. But someday......
I like to play big draws like this very agressively. First, if you re-raise on the flop and hit your flush, it'll be hard for your opponent to put you on the hand, and you may get an extra big bet or two out of him.
Second, it's always nice to find an opportunity to project a wild image, especially when it costs you nothing. It will pay off in action on future hands.
Finally, the button may not have much and may be raising for a free card, or raising to find out how good his hand out. If you re-raise and bet into him, he may drop his hand. If he doesn't, plan to bet out on the river if you miss. This flop has draws all over the place, and he may be on one of them.
Lastly, if he caps it on the flop it gives you some valuable information. Namely, that your overcards are probably no good if you hit them. This allows you to play more intelligently on future rounds.
Dan
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 6:39 a.m.
Posted by: Erin
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 8:43 a.m.
Posted by: Darryl "Dazzler" Lanyon (lanyon@powerup.com.au)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 9:25 a.m.
Posted by: rayfish (ray_springfield@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 2:53 a.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney (pfeeney@draper.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 9:26 a.m.
Posted by: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 2:14 p.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney (pfeeney@draper.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 2:23 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 10:23 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 4:21 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 4:32 p.m.
Posted by: Larry (Larry@dynatecusa.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 5:13 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 7:21 p.m.
Posted by: abe (awickelg@erols.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 4:05 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 4:38 p.m.
Posted by: abe (awickelg@erols.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 6:38 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 7:16 p.m.
Posted by: berya (aispi4@arrow.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 10:08 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 3:37 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 9:07 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 1:06 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 5:15 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 6:08 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 7:28 p.m.
Posted by: abe (awickelg@erols.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 10:56 a.m.
Posted by: Kam (a2chris@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 12:16 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@jessopco.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 3:18 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 4:46 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@jessopco.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 5:58 p.m.
Posted by: BUCK
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 7:35 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Geary (jaygee@primenet.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 12:02 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@jessopco.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 4:09 p.m.
Posted by: jaws
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 3:44 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 5:21 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 5:23 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@jessopco.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 6:24 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 5:14 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 6:46 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 7:10 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 7:54 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 5:02 a.m.
Posted by: MikeCA (mikeca42@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 7:17 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 8:10 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (tom.haley@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 9:29 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 4:27 a.m.
Posted by: BUCK
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 1:23 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 4:40 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 7:31 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 7:48 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 10:50 p.m.
Posted by: gary (creepshow@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 11:01 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 11:11 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 4:23 a.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 4:32 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 2:20 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 3:28 a.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney (Feen9876@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 5:27 a.m.
Posted by: Erin
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 6:45 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 7:59 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 9:10 p.m.
Posted by: rayfish (ray_springfield@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 11:06 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 3:10 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 1:26 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 10:41 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 2:21 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 10:57 a.m.
Posted by: Russ (kgould333@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 11:01 a.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 12:22 p.m.
Posted by: Packerfan1 (Packerfn1@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 12:52 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 7:19 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 8:07 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 12:53 a.m.
Posted by: Packerfan1 (Packerfn1@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 9:37 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 1:04 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 4:55 p.m.
Posted by: Eric
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 11:38 p.m.
Posted by: Kam (a2chris@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 2:38 p.m.
Posted by: Blaine Newell
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 2:52 p.m.
Posted by: Kam (a2chris@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 3:50 p.m.
Posted by: bgoomba (Bgoomba@uswest.net)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 8:12 p.m.
Posted by: elfnina (elfnina@nospamAOL.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 6:48 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 7:54 p.m.
Posted by: Frank
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 4:56 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in NJ (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 8:10 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 11:58 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 12:40 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 12:28 a.m.
Posted by: Kam (a2chris@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 2:18 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 6:30 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 1:33 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 4:34 p.m.
Posted by: Packerfan1 (Packerfn1@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 5:51 p.m.
Posted by: Randy (refeld@netzero.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 10:22 p.m.
Posted by: elfnina@aol.com (elfnina@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 3:35 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 3:47 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 6:00 p.m.
Posted by: bgoomba (Bgoomba@uswest.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 1:24 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 2:52 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 3:11 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 6:19 a.m.
Posted by: Larry (Larry@dynatecusa.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 5:47 p.m.
Posted by: elfnina@aol.com (elfnina@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 2 August 1999, at 10:15 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 2:38 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 2:44 p.m.
Posted by: jaws
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 3:23 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 11:52 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 2:21 a.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 11:43 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 6:51 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 2:46 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 11:20 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 2:52 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 11:33 a.m.
Posted by: Dave Connelly (Joan.Priest@tesco.net)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 5:22 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 1:59 a.m.
Posted by: Richard G. Poirier (shogeybaby@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 7:31 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 8:47 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 7:15 p.m.
Posted by: Kam (a2chris@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 July 1999, at 9:08 p.m.
Posted by: EggmanZ (EggmanZ@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 1:55 a.m.
Posted by: Kam (a2chris@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 2:29 a.m.
Posted by: Larry (Larry@dynatecusa.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 5:33 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 4:59 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 6:57 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 11:18 a.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@jessopco.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 11:26 a.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 2:00 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 2:46 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@jessopco.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 2:53 p.m.
Posted by: Mark
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 12:25 p.m.
Posted by: jaws
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 3:24 p.m.
Posted by: BUCK
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 4:23 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 7:59 p.m.
Posted by: buck
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 7:37 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 3:10 a.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 11:36 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 3:02 p.m.
Posted by: jaws
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 3:56 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 4:37 p.m.
Posted by: Larry (Larry@dynatecusa.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 5:31 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in NJ (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 9:54 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 6:44 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 1:30 p.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 2:47 p.m.
Posted by: jaws
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 3:30 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 6:35 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 12:07 a.m.
Posted by: ScottW (scottw@avmltd.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 3:38 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 1:44 p.m.
Posted by: POKER PL (DavePoker@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 3:14 a.m.
Posted by: jrl (jrl@emi.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 9:02 p.m.
Posted by: Frank
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 3:18 p.m.
Posted by: Alg E Bra
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 3:51 p.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 4:21 p.m.
Posted by: Frank
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 9:04 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 3:27 p.m.
Posted by: jaws
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 3:43 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Proctor (stevep@iquest.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 5:00 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 10:05 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 7:33 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 2:10 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 12:04 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Watson (watson@mail.utexas.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 3:34 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 7:53 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Watson (watson@mail.utexas.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 8:57 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 6:59 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 11:40 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 1:52 p.m.
Posted by: buck
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 2:18 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 6:33 p.m.
Posted by: elfnina@aol.com (elfnina@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 1:59 p.m.
Posted by: NoCable (nocable44@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 10:52 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 12:14 p.m.
Posted by: elfnina@aol.com (elfnina@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 3:04 a.m.
Posted by: Larry (Larry@dynatecusa.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 3:41 p.m.
Posted by: jaws
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 3:51 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 4:33 p.m.
Posted by: Jayman
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 4:46 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@jessopco.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 5:47 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 6:21 p.m.
Posted by: Captain (VAKandCo@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 12:05 p.m.
Posted by: berya (aispi4@arrow.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 9:14 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 7:28 p.m.
Posted by: Frank Jerome (BuzJerome@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 11:51 p.m.
Posted by: Fisherman
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 2:15 a.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 2:52 a.m.
Posted by: Fisherman
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 3:12 a.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 3:53 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 5:37 a.m.
Posted by: Dave in NJ (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 8:57 a.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 12:53 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 3:06 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 11:34 a.m.
Posted by: MikeCA (mikeca42@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 2:25 a.m.
Posted by: Russ (kgould333@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 2:21 a.m.
Posted by: Dave in NJ (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 8:29 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 12:00 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 3:38 a.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 4:20 a.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 5:22 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 10:01 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 2:36 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 11:46 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 12:00 p.m.
Posted by: Blaine Newell
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 1:44 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 2:41 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 5:44 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 3:52 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 2:38 a.m.
Posted by: jaws
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 3:40 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 4:17 p.m.
Posted by: Larry (Larry@dynatecusa.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 1:26 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 3:16 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 7:07 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 7:12 p.m.
Posted by: Larry (Larry@dynatecusa.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 10:59 a.m.
Posted by: natedogg (sonuvabitch_98@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 4:07 p.m.
Posted by: berya (aispi4@arrow.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 5:24 p.m.
Posted by: Bret (MurphyBret@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 6:22 p.m.
Posted by: Eric
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 1:46 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in NJ (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 7:53 p.m.
Posted by: jaws
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 3:35 p.m.
Posted by: Martin Dupras (M_Dupras@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 4:11 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 7:37 p.m.
Posted by: KoolKat (ckim06@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 3:08 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 11:28 p.m.
Posted by: jaws
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 3:32 p.m.
Posted by: natedogg (sonuvabitch_98@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 4:26 p.m.
Posted by: KoolKat (ckim06@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 3:41 a.m.
Posted by: natedogg (sonuvabitch_98@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 6:37 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Mitchell (MRMIam@webtv.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 5:24 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 6:15 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Mitchell (MRMIam@webtv.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 9:05 p.m.
Posted by: KoolKat (ckim06@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 3:44 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 8:19 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 1:15 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 6:19 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 7:19 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@jessopco.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 2:09 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 4:13 p.m.
Posted by: buck
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 6:42 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 1:49 p.m.
Posted by: buck
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 3:58 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@jessopco.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 10:56 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 5:34 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 7:23 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@jessopco.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 3:13 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in NJ (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 8:33 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Mitchell (MRMIam@webtv.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 9:19 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 9:47 p.m.
Posted by: Frank
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 11:26 p.m.
Posted by: KoolKat (ckim06@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 4:01 a.m.
Posted by: Frank
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 2:27 p.m.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 5:22 a.m.
Posted by: Frank
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 3:57 a.m.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 4:26 a.m.
Posted by: Frank
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 4:28 a.m.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 11:53 a.m.
Posted by: Frank
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 12:48 p.m.
Posted by: Frank
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 July 1999, at 11:53 p.m.
Posted by: huh?
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 3:22 p.m.
Posted by: Frank
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 3:40 p.m.
Posted by: huh?
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: DJ (DPJungk@ix.netcom.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 1:04 a.m.
Posted by: Frank
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 8:45 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Mitchell (MRMIam@webtv.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 1:45 a.m.
Posted by: mary i (mary973@webtv.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 8:53 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 9:05 a.m.
Posted by: Frank
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 2:32 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 3:25 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 3:29 a.m.
Posted by: Blaine Newell
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 3:42 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Bacarella (michael.bacarella-RST@bankerstrust.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 11:04 a.m.
Posted by: DJ (DPJungk@ix.netcom.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 12:57 a.m.
Posted by: Dave in NJ (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 8:47 a.m.
Posted by: Dave in NJ (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 8:54 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 2:06 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 3:52 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 4:11 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 4:15 p.m.
Posted by: buck
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 4:17 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 7:03 p.m.
Posted by: Christopher Kronen (ckronen@lv.rmci.net)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 4:05 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 6:51 p.m.
Posted by: eighb
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 2:31 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 2:54 p.m.
Posted by: jaws
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 3:14 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 3:54 p.m.
Posted by: Sean D.
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 5:36 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 7:17 p.m.
Posted by: buck
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 4:11 p.m.
Posted by: Bret (MurphyBret@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 4:46 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 8:27 a.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 10:20 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 10:57 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 1:41 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 4:05 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 12:16 a.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 5:38 p.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 2:59 p.m.
Posted by: jaws
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 3:17 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@jessopco.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 3:51 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 3:55 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 7:24 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in NJ (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 9:07 a.m.
Posted by: Poker SJD
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 5:44 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 12:08 a.m.
Posted by: jaws
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 5:44 p.m.
Posted by: Frank
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 8:58 p.m.
Posted by: jaws
Posted on: Wednesday, 4 August 1999, at 1:12 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 2:21 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 10:28 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 12:51 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 4:52 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 11:01 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 11:06 a.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 4:58 a.m.
Posted by: Mike from Manhattan (mantel@pipeline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 6:16 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 6:46 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 6:48 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 5:14 p.m.
Posted by: dave d
Posted on: Friday, 6 August 1999, at 9:25 a.m.
Posted by: Mike Watson (watson@mail.utexas.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 6:56 p.m.
Posted by: Black Jack
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 7:18 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 7:48 p.m.
Posted by: Doh Sun
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 7:45 p.m.
Posted by: Doh Sun
Posted on: Thursday, 29 July 1999, at 10:01 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 12:20 a.m.
Posted by: Joe"Predator"Nardo
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 10:32 a.m.
Posted by: josephcarta (december13@webtv.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 12:27 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 9:27 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 8:38 a.m.
Posted by: Jack Deadmarsh
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 12:34 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 1:29 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 8:39 a.m.
Posted by: buck
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 12:44 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 1:35 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 7:12 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 7:58 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 7:17 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 8:05 p.m.
Posted by: Wwplr
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 6:07 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 9:34 p.m.
Posted by: Wwplr
Posted on: Tuesday, 3 August 1999, at 10:39 a.m.
Posted by: Keith O (kohara@ixl.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 11:09 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Watson (watson@mail.utexas.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 2:23 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 4:33 a.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 10:45 a.m.
Posted by: jaws
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 5:30 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 7:17 p.m.
Posted by: Tom B. (pokerchip5@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 7:51 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 1:03 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 3:53 a.m.
Posted by: KOP (thekingofpoker@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 11:00 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 2:13 p.m.
Posted by: KOP (thekingofpoker@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 2:54 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 2:14 p.m.
Posted by: KOP (thekingofpoker@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 2:56 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 3:19 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 9:55 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 12:36 a.m.
Posted by: KOP
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 8:34 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 3:00 p.m.
Posted by: KOP (thekingofpoker@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 2 August 1999, at 9:10 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Wednesday, 4 August 1999, at 1:04 p.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 7:46 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 2:36 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 9:49 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 11:40 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 2:20 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 3 August 1999, at 12:28 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 3 August 1999, at 1:05 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 3 August 1999, at 1:32 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Wednesday, 4 August 1999, at 1:08 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 3:09 p.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@Aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 1:05 p.m.
Posted by: Joe"Predator"Nardo
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 2:40 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 2:53 p.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 4:05 a.m.
Posted by: Dave in NJ (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 2 August 1999, at 8:50 a.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 3 August 1999, at 2:13 a.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 4 August 1999, at 3:20 a.m.
Posted by: Joe"Predator"Nardo
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 2:30 p.m.
Posted by: Blaine Newell
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 4:00 p.m.
Posted by: jaws
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 5:20 p.m.
Posted by: woodman (flipwood@email.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 5:22 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 2:12 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 8:01 p.m.
Posted by: marc sussman
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 4:46 p.m.
Posted by: jaws
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 5:12 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 7:00 p.m.
Posted by: Hunter
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 7:43 p.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 12:47 a.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 12:58 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 2:04 p.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 3:39 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 6:04 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 30 July 1999, at 6:57 p.m.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 1:12 a.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 1:20 a.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 1:54 p.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 3:32 p.m.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 11:01 a.m.
Posted by: Larry (Larry@dynatecusa.com)
Posted on: Monday, 2 August 1999, at 1:03 p.m.
Posted by: AcesUp
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 4:26 a.m.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 4:49 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 2:09 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@jessopco.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 4:52 p.m.
Posted by: murry (strwbryk1s@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 6:35 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 10:14 a.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 2 August 1999, at 11:28 a.m.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 6:52 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 6:45 p.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 3:32 a.m.
Posted by: rayfish (ray_springfield@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 6:19 a.m.
Posted by: Hoosier
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 1:56 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 2:40 p.m.
Posted by: Hoosier
Posted on: Monday, 2 August 1999, at 2:17 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 2 August 1999, at 2:27 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 12:59 a.m.
Posted by: AcesUp
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 5:11 p.m.
Posted by: jeff (laostu@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 7:23 p.m.
Posted by: natedogg (sonuvabitch_98@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 9:48 p.m.
Posted by: jeff (laostu@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 12:39 a.m.
Posted by: Iceman (lgrubart@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 3:02 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 9:58 p.m.
Posted by: jeff (laostu@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 12:44 a.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 8:35 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Saturday, 31 July 1999, at 9:48 p.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Sunday, 1 August 1999, at 2:33 a.m.
Posted by: Michael Mitchell (MRMIam@webtv.net)
Posted on: Monday, 2 August 1999, at 12:48 a.m.
Posted by: Michael Mitchell (MRMIam@webtv.net)
Posted on: Monday, 2 August 1999, at 2:02 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 2 August 1999, at 12:28 p.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Monday, 2 August 1999, at 4:25 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Mitchell (MRMIam@webtv.net)
Posted on: Monday, 2 August 1999, at 12:45 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Monday, 2 August 1999, at 4:30 a.m.
Posted by: Michael Mitchell (MRMIam@webtv.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 3 August 1999, at 12:31 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 2 August 1999, at 1:35 p.m.
The Gambling Forum July 1999 Archive Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo