![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
1. If any two cards are an 11-10 dog and you hold a pair is wise to try and get head up against a raiser preflop? In other words reraise the raiser and continue betting if no A,K or Q comes.
2. I see people call from early position with AA or KK and then reraise if there is a raise, is this a smart move, I tend to come out raising to thin the field. If I am in late position with 5 or more callers, I just call and hope to thin the field on the flop because if I raise preflop, I seem to attract callers because the pot gets too large.
Opinions and advice appreciated!
1. It depends on how well your opponent plays, and what the chances are of really isolating him with your raise. I generally don't like this move, because it can cost you an awful lot if it goes wrong, and you can't win much if it goes right. What if your opponent has Aces or Kings? What if THIS time he raised with 99 and hit a set? What if you raise to isolate him but another player calls behind you or 3-bets you?
2. With Aces, you simply want to build the biggest pot you can. If you are CERTAIN that a raise will come behind you, go ahead for a call-reraise. You don't really want to limit the field with Aces, but you want to make sure that each player pays the most possible before the flop (i.e. if there are going to be 10 small bets in the pot, you'd rather that it's from 5 people calling two bets than 10 people calling one bet). It's a huge mistake to not raise with Aces if there are already 5 callers. You have the best hand by a big margin, and you have position on them. You MUST raise. If someone re-raises, cap it.
There are very few times when I won't raise with Aces. One is if I think I'll only win the blinds - that's a pretty big loss of EV. The other is if a player raises in early position and I'm in the big blind and no one else calls. In this case, the deception value of just calling may earn you more money than the re-raise before the flop.
Dan
I have to disagree with Dan here.
I don't believe that "you don't really want to limit the field" with AA. Pairs play far better against 4 or fewer opponents. I say almost always raise AA in early position! If someone reraises, all the better. Then you should cap it (almost always), or just call if you want to disguise your aces.
I do agree with a raise on AA in late position regardless of the amount of previous callers or raises.
This argument has gone round and round before, but I believe that the general conclusion (including by Mason and David) was that Aces make more money as the number of callers in the hand increases, PROVIDED that they all pay the maximum amount that you can make them pay. In other words, if limping gets you 8 callers but raising gets you four, you are way better off raising. You get 8 sb in the pot either way, but you've got a better chance of winning it in the latter case. However, if you raise and all 8 people call you, you will make more money than if just four call.
I remember someone doing a study that suggested the maximum EV was at 9 players, but I don't have a reference for that.
Mason or David, if I've misrepresented your position, please feel free to correct me.
Dan
I can see that working if you were running a computer simulation. In that case, by all means come one and all.
But AA doesn't play like that in the real world. With tons of callers, unless you improve you are in a very awkward situation in early position with SO many different scary upcard combinations possible.
I'm not greedy. I'd rather be betting with a lot more confidence against a couple of fewer players.
Besides, unless you're playing in a unusually wild game, you never really "know" that there will be a raise if you just call. If it is that wild, then you'll probably get re-raised anyway.
If you want to be sure they're paying the max, you have to raise in the first instance.
You're forgetting that AA can make some big hands. You can flop a set, you can make broadway, and you can make a nut flush two different ways. These are all longshots, but added together they make up quite a bit of EV. Then there are the times that you knock off two pair when the third card pairs. All of these circumstances can win huge pots.
AA makes more sets than small pairs, because you tend to stay with AA longer. It makes more flushes than AKo for the same reason. Many times you'll have something like AhAs, and the flop will be KsTs4c. The turn is 3s. Now you've got a pretty good hand, even against something like KT. You can hit a 3, a 4, an Ace, or a spade to win the whole thing.
The myth about AA winning more against fewer players stems from the fact that it LOSES more often when the number of players increases. And when you lose with Aces, you remember it. So emotionally, it feels like they lose more money when the number of players goes up, when that it not the case. The profitability of Aces increases, but the variance increases even more.
As for the case of call-raising, I would only do that if I felt pretty sure that a raise was coming from someone else. The game doesn't have to be wild for this to happen - many tough games have the characteristic that someone coming in in late position will often raise. So the pots will usually be raised once, but they won't be wild. In these games, raising with Aces early often will win you only the blinds or one caller. If I'm faced with the choice of raising and risking winning only the blinds, or not raising and risking letting many players in for one bet, I'd choose the latter if I felt that the chance of my getting in the re-raise was greater than perhaps 75%. I have to admit that I only go for a call-raise perhaps 1 time in 10 that I have aces, because the conditions are rarely right for it. For example, if there is already a caller in the pot, I'm raising.
Dan
1. Generally no, because (1) you won't absolutely know that your opponent has no pair and (2) as you indidcate, a scary board is probably more helpful to your opponent. The possibility of an overpair is very dangerous. Even if your opponent is likely to have just overcards that are a small underdog to your pair, say 53-55%, when your opponent holds an overpair you're in terrible shape, usually worse than a 4-1 underdog. For example, if you have 99 and can put your opponent on AK, AQ, AJ or KQs (in which case you'll win about 53% of the time) or any pair from AA down to TT (in which case you'll win about 19% of the time), you'll be up against a hand you'll ususally beat (in a cold simulation to the river) about 63% of the time, but will end up losing overall about 60% of the time. Add to this your greater susceptibility to being manipulated by your opponent and you have a bad situation.
You therefore need special circumstances -- position, control and so forth -- to justify raising to get it heads-up with a medium pair. For example, if you have a tight image on the button with 77, weak players in the blinds and a persistent stealer to your immediate right pops it, trying to get it heads up is probably your best play. Or if you're behind a late position limper who came in with what is probably a very weak hand. Baby pairs, however, are generally only good for trying to flop sets against the right number of opponents.
2. Limp raising with big pairs is a good move when it's likely that you'll be raised if you just call, but your raise will probably cause you to win a very small pot. When I'm in early position against a very passive field that almost never folds or raises preflop, I almost always raise because someone will usually call and I don't want to play AA or KK against 7 or more opponents that I let in for one bet each.
1. You should be thinking muck or reraise with a pocket pair. If you do decide to play, there should be no cold caller between you and the original raiser if you have pocket eights through jacks. You also have to consider what non-paired big card hands the original raiser would play with. Against someone who never raises without a big pair or AK, you may as well muck anything below JJ. Then there are players who raise with AJ KQ or worse along with everything else non-marginal, these are the players that you can three bet you pocket pairs against. Another consideration is how close to the button you are. This is important since you don't want anyone to cold call or cap the action behind you. So, you really don't want a loose agressive type on your left when you make this type of move.
2. I would consider playing this way only if the current table conditions are loose agressive. The risk of multiway action is probably too great when conditions are normal. This is a reasonable way to punish a maniac who has been isolating successfully.
The only tells I seem to pick up on a consistent basis in limit poker are the following:
1. watch the players to see if they are loading their chips to bet or call, putting their cards under their chips indicating a call, or obvious disinterest and apparant praparation to fold.....this enable me to sometimes call with hands that I fell wont get raised or raise with hands I would normally call because the field behind me looks prepared to fold.
2. When 3 flush cards come and a player looks at his cards, it almost always seems he/she is looking to see if one of his cards matches the appropriete suit, if the fourth suited card doesnt come and noone appears to have made a flush I can attempt to steal the pot.
Any other useful tells in limit that I am missing?
Even when I have a tell in limit, you cant seem to get a player off a hand since people tend to call with any hnad that might win because the cost is not high enough to get them out.
No limit seems to be the main place where knowing your player and their tells is highly useful and beneficial because you can use that info to fold or bluff..
Am I missing something?
No, you have it about right. In limit poker tells are just one of the many tools that should be in your arsenal. They do have a little value.
Other common tells exist. Book of Tells by Caro not all bad. Gaining experience helps you find more tells. I think tells most useful on the river for limit hold'em.
Tells also have more value when playing short handed.
Excellent point!!!
There is one more set of tells that you will recognize when you see it. I have seen plenty of poor, gambling, loose players who literally tell the table what they have. (This is in a 3-6 hold'em game, in the poker sticks here in Phoenix).
Watch for the following comments:
"Dealer, give me a spade!!"
"Come on, flop a lady for me."
(while showing hand to neighbor who is out of the hand) ... "YES ! "
I am not making these up; they all have happened at my table. And I have never seen one of these people lie while doing this; although you certainly should watch the player over time and make sure. Fortunately, these are usually the players who play every hand, so your observation shouldn't take too long.
At the lower limits, these players are not even as clever as the players in Caro's book, who are trying to act. With these opponents, strong means strong and weak means weak.
Keep up your observation work.
Dick
At the next slightly higher level, 6-12 for instance, I usually find these statements to work the other way. Either opposite from what they need or meaningless. There are also some that ask for what they need but they are usually doing it as a kind of reverse psychology and mix it in with other misleading verbalness.
David
Also, when you're pondering a call or a fold against a player like this and can't discern any tells, just ask him what he's got. You'll be amazed...
I can't believe that nobody has mentioned this. When a player says "let's gamble" or something to that effect they have the nuts (or think they do in the case of very weak players).
At low limit tables I've found that I sometimes overestimate what others think is good. That is a player might give off a tell that says "I'm good" and have a pair of aces with a bad kicker and the board is scary (3 or 4 straight, 3 flush, paired). Make sure you understand what a player will get excited about.
I actually had this happen in a pot limit game this weekend. I have pocket queens and raise the maximum before the flop. I get two callers. The flop comes with an ace and two blanks. The other players check to me and I check. The turn comes a nine which makes no straights or flushes. The first player bets, the second folds, and I now have a very tough decision. I think seriously about folding as I look at the player. He is totally giving off tells that he doesn't want to be called. His hand is covering his mouth and he just stares blankly at the pot. He is also a little nervous due to the large amount that he has committed to the pot. I decide to call and he turns over Ace-King. I didn't catch a queen on the river and he won a large pot. The fact of the matter is that he didn't want to be called because he was worried that I had an even stronger hand. He was indeed giving off a revealing tell, but that didn't mean that I could beat him.
Justin
*Steam raise* is another one. It usually means that player is holding something Group 1 or 2.
The best tells, I've found, are those from players who are acting. These can be extremely consistent. The typical thing is a player who will bet quickly with a weak hand and slowly with a strong hand. This sort of tell has made me a lot of money -- allowing me to bet a weak hand for value on the end, or even pick up a pot with a check raise bluff.
William
First of all, I just want to say this is a great message board; it's quite useful to beginners such as myself. Keep up the great posts everyone!
Anyways, here's a 3-6 hold'em hand I was in tonight. I have Pocket Aces (heart and spade) one to the right of the button. Betting comes to me, 3 already called, I raise. Small blind calls, UTG calls, other 2 fold. Flop comes 2d 3s 5s. Checked to me, I raise, both call. Turn comes 4c. Small blind(decent player)raises, UTG(fairly loose player,but not a maniac) reraises, I reraise to make it $18. Small blind caps, UTG folds, I call. River comes 9h. Small blind bets, I call. He turns over Jh6h. My question is how would you have played this hand? Did I make a mistake by not reraising the river? Also, I put him on an ace with a decent kicker. Obviously I misplaced him, but was what I placed him on that farfetched? Any and all comments and criticism are welcome, it should help me to become a better player. Thanks.
With a board like 2345, just having an Ace is no big deal. The player who bet into you has at least an Ace, and you are hoping to win half a pot. With a bet and a raise to you, you should consider folding. A re-raise on the turn is wildly overplaying your hand. Once you call, if it's re-raised and capped, you should fold. Now someone is almost certain to have a six, and I would suspect 67.
If it were me, I would have folded on the turn when it was bet and raised in front of me. If you want to call, then certainly you shouldn't raise on the river.
How did you 'put' the small blind on an ace with a decent kicker? It seems like the most likely thing for him to have here is a four or a spade draw, but he could have many hands. Don't be too quick to put people on hands without strong evidence, and be prepared to re-evaluate your judgement of what they might hold as the play develops.
Dan
How can I tell if another player has the nuts
Once there was four to a straight your big pair was no longer work anything. You should have played this like you were drawing at the ignorant end of a straight. Esp. at a low limit table. I would have dropped it on the turn with a better and a raiser in front of me. Too often you will find yourself holding the smaller straight. If you put somebody else on an A then you were only playing for half the pot. This should discourage you even more.
You were holding what is called the idiot (or ignorant) end of a straight when there was 4 to a straight on the board. You really want to get to the showdown cheaply in that situation as you have a very weak, and not so deceptive, hand. You had half the aces in the deck, and yet there was a bet and a raise when the 4 fell. That should have suggested the strong possibility that there was a 6 out there. Generally it would not be worth a call at that point as you are going to have to call at least 2 bb on the turn (maybe more) and at least 1 bb on the river. The best you can hope for is a split pot after investing all that money. It is certainly not worth trying to make a fancy play on the turn, such as raising, as there is the strong likelyhood that you are already beat and have no outs (except maybe a 6 to catch up).
One other point, you labeled the small blind as a decent player and yet he called a raise in the small blind with a trash hand (any two suited cards). I count 9 small bets in the pot preflop, so he barely had odds (if you take into account implied odds) to chase that draw on the flop, and never could have gotten odds to chase on the turn with only 2 other players in the hand. He doesn't sound like a decent player to me.
A Poker Guy!
That's why i didn't think he had the six, because he seemed farly soild so why would he play that trash. However, i now realize that even if he had an ace, i still wouldn't have made much money, and i should have got the hell out.
Don't be so quick to assume that someone can't have a certain card.
He could have had 56s, 66, 67s, A6s, and still be making at least a plausible call. J6s would have surprised me, but nothing should surprise you in 3-6.
In a typical low limit game based on the action, you have to strongly consider someone having a six. As I read your post, that is what I said to myself. Besides which the only others who would have continued to give action would have been another Ace holder. So it was basically split the pot or lose it all.
Sorry Speeds but you were out to lunch on this one.
Once there's 4 cards to a straight on board with a bet and a raise, your aces are toast! If you want to be a good player, you have to learn to release what were previously the best cards.
To reraise on the turn there was basically flushing your money down the toilet.
The game Chicago (high spade in the hole wins half the pot) is one of the best games to call against loose players. I'm amazed at how many times I get away with slowplaying the ace. I find that "cards speak" gives an even greater advantage, since you often backdoor into a scoop hand (such as two high pair) that you wouldn't have been sure enough to declare. Has anyone used the following possible variations:
A high ante - This would make the game playable among better players (but not so high that the game would become a crapshoot). You couldn't just wait for the ace or king; you would have to enter the action without a spade in many cases. If this led to several players calling on the early streets, flush draws would go up in value.
A qualifier: to win half with the spade, you would need to make two pair or better - this would allow other players to enter the pot against a sure ace of spades. If the pot was heads-up, the ace would not longer have a freeroll, and the opponent might even have the advantage at certain points. The ace of spades and two total blanks would be a weak holding, and something like a pair of jacks including the spade would be a strong hand.
High/Low Chicago - the best high, the best low, and the high spade (with king being high and ace being low) would each win 1/3 of the pot. A two-way low hand would have the advantage over a dry high spade. In multiway pots, you might have a spade against a few low draws, but the spade would have to be careful not to narrow the field unless he had a decent high hand.
I've played it where the highest spade is considered the next highest card then the last open spade ("mod").
I've also played declare pot match. If you declare both ways then you have to win both ways else you match twice.
I would think the second of these would be positive if you are good at declare. I would call it because the guys I played with like to play lots of crap shoots and with pot match this game can go for quite a while.
I invented a version of this game I called "soldier's field" (which is east of Chicago I believe) which is played razz and lowest spade. I found low games more profitable then low games in my private poker game.
I would think the h/l + high spade would make the pots pretty small which might not stimulate action. On the other hand you might get more bad calls with people drawing one way.
Does anybody have some advice on bluffing in terms of how often to do so, how to, or anything else?
Preferably against one opponent almost never against 4 or more.
Loose games - Virtually never bluff - occasionally the table may take on characteristics of a more tighter game and some bluffing might be possible.
Typical and tight games - look to semi-bluff regularly and occasionally total bluff when a good situation comes up. For instance a busted straight draw and a flush card comes on the river ( against an opponent who can fold). Short-handed and heads-up needs quite a bit more betting.
I like the bluffing info from Bob Ciffone's Improve Your Poker.
David
I tend to look for bluffable players, rather than plays. In low limit, many players just aren't bluffable no matter what the situation, and some are. One guy I play with is as predictable as clockwork: if he catches two pair or a set on the flop, he fires like hell and then mucks when somebody bets the flush card on the river, cursing the dealer. Another one I like is players who feel guilty when their less-than-great hand hits. Last night I had pocket kings once, flop comes 8 high, UTG bets, I raise, he calls. He knows I have a big pair, I know he has the 8. Turn comes 8, he bets again, looking guilty. I grumble and call. River comes Q, he bets, I raise. He says "so that's what your pair was", and mucks, thinking he's just hit his instant karma. I didn't argue :)
How can I tell if another player is holding the nuts?
> How can I tell if another player is holding the nuts?
If you really need to know, then he probably is. :)
call on the river.
Friday night I always go to the card room to play HE, this week things were slo and i had to play 4-8, apposed to 10-20. I found my self playing hands all the way to the river and catching my one outer cards!! pissing many of the regular 4-8 players off,here is one hand out of many full table very loose ,with only 4 decent players and 1 rock ,i play a 9d Qd in middle position, its 3 bets to call i make it 4 to see the flop 8 players see the flop!! wich is 10d Jd 8s its bet in the SB raised to my right i make it 3 bets < I have flopped the nuts with a possible straight flush with 2 outs 8d kd ,, well its capped in the SB 6 of us see the turn,,10c well its checked to me I bet out 2 fold SB raised BB folds player to my right calls and i raise. well again its capped in the SB 4 of us see the turn 8d my miricle 1 outer has hit the table SB bets out player UTG fold so does the player to my right I raise leaveing it heads up well to make a long story short o took down a huge pot beating Qaud 10's,,,,, within 1 hr i was leading the table in chips i had went on a massive heater to gain 70% of the chips on the table,, this has never happened to me before,, as the night went into the morning around 3 am i found my self being beaten my pocket KK were beaten by those one outers i was getting earleir,, any ways my stack of $1200 went down slowly,, till i was with in $200, of my buy in of $160. I left with just what i came with 14 hrs later $160. i feel that at one time i was the best player there , I played the best game I think I have ever played ,,what did I do wrong ? any comments please,,?
Your luck ran out.
ummm thanks !! can any one tell me something i dont know or is that all there is to that poker night!!>? is it something simple i did wrong? or something i did not do? as u can tell Im rather frustrated.. thanks ,,
..Friday night I always go to the card room to play HE, this week things were slo and i had to play 4-8, apposed to 10-20. I found my self playing hands all the way to the river and catching my one outer cards!!..
Catching 1 outers not lucky? Expect to happen all the time?
..i play a 9d Qd in middle position, its 3 bets to call i make it 4 to see the flop 8 players see the flop!! wich is 10d Jd 8s its bet in the SB raised to my right i make it 3 bets < I have flopped the nuts with a possible straight flush with 2 outs 8d kd ,, well its capped in the SB 6 of us see the turn,,10c well its checked to me I bet out 2 fold SB raised BB folds player to my right calls and i raise. well again its capped in the SB 4 of us see the turn 8d my miricle 1 outer has hit the table SB bets out player UTG fold so does the player to my right I raise leaveing it heads up well tomake a lo ng story short o took down a huge pot beating Qaud 10's..
You do expect it to happen! It won't! If what you say true you play terrible.
..this has never happened to me before,, as the night went into the morning around 3 am i found my self being beaten my pocket KK were beaten by those one outers i was getting earleir,, any ways my stack of $1200 went down slowly,, till i was with in $200, of my buy in of $160. I left with just what i came with 14 hrs later $160. i feel that at one time i was the best player there , I played the best game I think I have ever played ,,what did I do wrong ? any comments please,,?..
If what you say true you not play good you just lucky. You play really bad and it caught up with you. Your luck ran out.
On second thought maybe you right hard to find a problem with how you played. You got unlucky when you missed your one outers. Hard to figure.
what did I do wrong ? You stayed too long! It's hard to get up and leave when the cards turn, however, that's exactly what you "should have" done. After losing several good hands, you pressed on. Next time, rack up your chips and GO when you begin losing good hands and chip count goes down.
Sounds like you played too long,played too many hands. What is so great about Q9s making it 4 bets from middle pos. Would you play the same way in 10/20?
yes i would have played that hand in $100/200 if we had that high of limits ,, thats one of my favorite draw hands, such as my 6 8 suited or O i like them both!!
Sorry to say, but if you'll cap the betting with these hands, you'll be more than welcome in every 100/200 game in town, as well as almost every other game in town also.
While you may be a good player, based upon your original post, you are playing a VERY loose, albeit aggressive, game. This style of play will not turn a profit in the majority of HE games, as more skillful players will adjust well to your aggressiveness and turn it against you. At certain tables, when you're running well, you'll get the results you've described. In the long run, your current style is not likely to be profitable.
Read the 2+2 book HE for Advanced Players, and follow their advice. You'll likely get better results.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I think you should go back and hit the books then. You are not going to be a winning player with this type of playing.
It sounds like you played too many hands and also went too far with top pair against a big field. The result was you experienced the expected wild variations. Or as puts it, your luck ran out. Even if you were playing correctly it sounds like the kind of game where you would expect big swings.
David
When I post a huge win (and $1000 in 4-8 holdem is a HUGE win) I put a stop loss on my game. If I lose, say, $100 I'm gone.
I'm not a fan of leaving a table where I'm the best player, but you do get tired after a while. Winning can put you on a form of tilt as well.
Good point WGB, that winning can put you on a form of tilt!This may happen more in a no foldem game but it happens. Bill
One of the things that you need to understand is that certain hands only have positive value when they are getting what we refer to as high implied odds. (See THE THEORY OF POKER by David Sklansky for more discussion.) This includes hands like Qd9d. When you are putting in many bets before the flop with these hands, they will cost you money in the long run even though you will get lucky with them every now and then.
When you are hitting one outters and winning, and doing things like raising with Q9s when it is already 3 bets to you, you are gamb00ling, and should recognize it. Lucky streaks tend to reinforce bad play which, in the long run, will cost you lots of money.
On the particular hand you discussed, your preflop play was not optimal, and the hand pretty much played itself the rest of the way. It is not an indication of skill to play a hand that flops the nuts and rivers the stone cold nuts. Too bad there wasn't a bad beat jackpot there :(.
Play the hell out of your rush if you believe in such things, but once it's over, you have to slow down and regain your composure before you give it all back (which kinda happened), while waiting for the rush to return. Some people get upset with someone that sits down and goes on a rush like you did. Me? I am happy for them and just pray they don't leave and hope they keep playing the same way.
But, a win is a win, and you should feel good about that.
A Poker Guy!
OK well the stone cold nuts is just that i beat my self,many times threw that night did i catch small heaters, i would be up and get stuck and get back up,,though can i ask this i counted 9 times that my Ak Aq Aj A10 hit runner runner flushes, was that luck ? or my K siuted winning the fush on several hands, or slow playing my pocket Aces, hitting trips and just calling down with 7 callers to beat pocket kings who also hit trips on the flop and we both had full houses on the river,?? was that luck or did play those hands right, yea the poker god was on my side many times last night,, though for somereason, i did not reconize my LUCK was gone!! well if any thing i will try again next friday night thow i have to say winning that many hands that i did the players started to bealieve me when i would raise or even bet out first on the river card I had many pots folded to me!! thanks again,, BTW any help for the lack of self controll and or dicipline in these big wins>?
I would recommend two things.
First never play a session as long as you did. It is hard to play well when you are tired, and you wont be able to easily see it in yourself. I think that if you are there for more than 2-3 hours, you need to get away from the table for 20 or 30 mins and really think about what is working, what isn't, and make sure you are up to continuing.
Second, I would recommend when you are up money, you set a stop loss limit. If you are up $1200, never give back more than, say, $200, without getting up and leaving. I think we have all experienced that terrible feeling that comes from building a tremendous stack and giving it all back. Its a lot worse than just going in and losing your initial bankroll.
Hope it helps, and good luck.
A Poker Guy!
"though can i ask this i counted 9 times that my Ak Aq Aj A10 hit runner runner flushes, was that luck ?"
no, obviously you have a mystical power over the cards. Why don't you pull up a seat next to me?
> can i ask this i counted 9 times that my Ak Aq Aj A10
> hit runner runner flushes, was that luck? ...
Yes, and it's luck when it happens to the pro too. The odds of making the runner-runner flush are 23:1 against. If we each record the last 240 times we flopped 3 to the the nut flush, you'd hit about 10 of them and I'd hit about 10 of them. You will have called all 10, made 8 big pots and lost to 2 full houses. I will have called maybe 5 (the ones where I had pairs and/or other outs), and won 4. I will have saved more money on the ones that got beat, and the biggest difference of all: the 230 times it didn't get there, you will have spent about 500 bets chasing while I will have spent about 100. 400 bets at a 4-8 game is a few thousand dollars. Thank you for your contribution.
Well all that comes to mind is Thanks!!! for some reason I was looking at my 4-8 poker night a little differant than most would! I do read i have kept up to date on my poker books and am a very avid reader of this site,, I will think and study what has been posted towards my input, I hope with Luck AND Skill to report back next week with a positive story!!! again THANKS BTW ,,,Lee what a theory, I will take that to heart and ingrave that in my mind ,,, thanks
retired and thinking of moving to phoenix area and looking for friends and foes for poker info in the phnx area understand that ft mcdowell has decent games there dick in phoenix please e mail me lets chat bout poker there thnaks al txhotmod@aol.com
Last night I was down to heads up. It seemed like I was being bullied around. I didn't play too many hands. I was playing heads up as if I was still playing with a lot of people. How should I adjust my style in a heads up match without chasing all of the time. I realize that in the long run, I'll win 50% of the time, but when do I stay in without just throwing away chips? Is there more bluffing involved in a heads up battle?
If you play heads up them same way you play against many opponents and your opponent makes anything close to the correct adjustment you will be slaughtered. You will not win 50% of the time in the long run or anywhere close to that. (This assumes a conventional or at least relevant ante structure).
Read the (all-too-short) section on shorthanded play in HPFAP, check the archives for threads on short-handed play -- there are some excellent ones -- and check dejanews for old r.g.p. threads on the subject. In a nutshell, you have to play many more hands, play them more aggressively, watch your opponent like a hawk and constantly adjust and fine-tune your game to outplay your opponent and keep him off balance. In holdem, any ace, two big cards or pair are generally worth a raise, you must bluff and semi-bluff a lot, slowplaying becomes more important (but harder) and your image is paramount. But there is much, much more.
(Also, if you're playing heads-up in a casino that continues to rake the pot, you may be wasting your time as the house is likely to bust your inferior opponent before you do).
Even a rake reduction down to say $1 at 20 is still quite steep with two more or less equal players. What you're really trying to do is attract another customer, and are willing to keep the table open for a little while incase this does happen. BTW I agree with everything chris posted, and would add that familiarity with executing moves is also crutial.
Heads-up play is an art. If you have no experience at it, don't play for money until you learn more about it. One way to cut your losses is to offer to play freeze-out games. Each player throws some money into the pot, gets $500 in chips, and winner-take all. These can be great home games when you can't find a lot of players to fill a full home game.
In fact, home games are the perfect time to hone your short-handed playing skills. You can play smaller limits, and typically it's hard to field a full 10 players in a home game anyway. But four or five handed can make for an excellent learning experience. If you don't want to beat your friends for a lot of money (or have them beat you), play freeze-out.
Dan
I've played quite a bit of HE in the past couple years, but never in Vegas. I generally play 4/8 and 6/12. I've got some info on good places to play; where are the places to avoid and why? i.e high rake, bad atmosphere. Any opinions on god or bad, favorites or dislikes are appreciated. Thanks
does anybody have any absolute rules or odds about when to stay in or fold on cerain down cards or hands with the flop.
I don't live in Vegas but as the rule you should not avoid anything on a hearsay. I take objection to ALL vegas rooms based on smoking and I guess since I don't know you I can't say - ambiance also very subjective. the smaller games in smaller places are by proxy very limited and may have some problem beating. Look for places YOU like and try to catch tourists. The horseshoe may be very crowded and busy now but the strip games may be good (Mirage, Bellagio, Mandalay Bay)
Just so you know, in the future these types of posts should go on our exchange forum, not The Theory and Strategy Forum.
I was going thru the first NL hand in rounders where as self proclaimed later, our hero got outplayed in Boat vs. boat for 30 large ones. He on the 4th st. checked his boat to trap Teddy KGB. I was thinking if he did not put KGB on a flush draw as he did, he may have smelled the rat early and even so how do you play a weaker boat ?? I suppose the correct play would have been a bet the pot or say 4-6k and if KGB raise fold ? How do you play hand like that ? Check is of couse only wrong if you are doing it for the raise !! So make a sizeable bet ? or check ? NL experts what do you think ???
I don't consider myself a no-limit expert, but I thought he played the hand well. If he bets like you suggest and gets raised he still has to call because he could possibly be up against something like AK. By playing it this way he can trap his opponent or induce a bluff. He was just unlucky in that he was against a pair of aces.
i think the hand was played well, but with certain flaws in out heros thinking. over bet the pot on the flop. call. i would have put kgb on a ace. but ace what? ak suited? mabey. more likly just some kind of a ace. fill up on four. check. of cource. i also would have been thinking about las vegas. (actually missippi). i also would have lost it all. without regrets. unlucky thats all.
Our hero made "the" cardinal mistake here. He wagered too much of his bankroll (100% in this case) on the outcome of a single hand while not holding the nuts.
If you do this enough times you are guaranteed to go broke.
The thing that impressed me in the movie was that the hero pretty much admitted this. The hand was played well, but he made the mistake of letting his 'money card' cloud his judgement and forget that he wasn't holding the nuts.
nuts, smuts. if you are going to play big bet you have to be willing to go all in without the nuts if you think you are winner or can win with a bluff. and i havnt mentioned having the nuts. our hero lost it all in one hand and there is nothing stupid or less then noble about that. perhaps he should have found a smaller game and only put a portion of his bank up at a time. however mabey hes a gambler and wants to hit the big time and is taking his shot right now. whatever. losing your whole bank in one hand is just part of the learning process, and is a lot eaiser to swallow if you have a good job to back you up. youll be back.
It's thinking like this that keeps me in business!
good
You have hit the nail on the head. May I humbly expand this concept a little further: he should not have had his entire bankroll on the table at one time in a no-limit game. I also think that our hero admitted this, and his risking not only his entire bankroll but more (tuition and expense money to finish school) was a big life-affecting mistake on his part.
Do any of our posters who play a lot of no-limit have any guidelines as to how many buy-ins you should have in your bankroll? Obviously, "number of big bets" is not as meaningful a statistic here.
(Those of you who read my other posts will realize that this is for curiosity only from me.)
Dick
In 'other than structured limit' i.e. pot limit or NL the criteria is how much the blinds are and how much money at the table. The later is a bit tricky cause you can't lose what you don't have in front of you but you can't win it either (by double or tripple up) I have some very smart poker player friends who play small NL with only a small buyin and just hang there for a while. Even when I play my favourite 10(20)-200 with a 20 kill I seldom buyin for more than $500. Also having money on you can be a big benefit even if you don't buy in for all, like applying a 'break' in the situation.
Actually, both David and I draw a distinction between what some people call money management and what we call bankroll management. In SKLANSKY, THE VIDEO David discusses this, and in the new addition of GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS I also address it. Here is what I added to GTAOT on Bankroll management.
Bankroll Management
We have just seen how the idea of money management is a fairly worthless subject. But there is another area that is quite important which some gamblers confuse with money management, yet it is in reality a totally different subject. We refer to it as "bankroll management."
Fortunately, most forms of successful gambling are highly fluctuating. The reason I say "fortunately" and not "unfortunately" is that these fluctuations will serve as the hook that will keep the bad players in action, and allow for winning opportunities to exist. But these swings will also cause large chunks of your bankroll to occasionally disappear, and if you are not careful, it could all "fade away into the abyss."
So how do you manage your bankroll, and what is the proper amount to be betting? It turns out that this is not an easy subject to address. Many of the correct ideas will seem counter intuitive to some of you, and it will not always be easy to stick to the proper guidelines.
However, there are some good statistical tools that will allow us to attack this problem and to establish a proper bankroll strategy. If you understand and follow the advice in the essays that follow, your gambling career will be well on its way to success. If you ignore it, even if you acquire the prerequisite skills to win, you still may have disastrous results.
10-20 game this weekend. Game had gotten pretty tight. One off the button, it's folded to me and I raise with J-8s. Only the button calls. Flop is K-rag-rag. I put button on A-J or something like that. He was having a rough night and I had seen him chase a few, but he was a fairly solid player. I bet, he deliberated and called. Turn was another king and the second club. I bet again. He deliberated for a long time, almost mucked, then called.
Now I figure he has A-Q or A-J of clubs. River was a rag. I bet again, he takes like 3 minutes and calls, showing A-Q offsuit. Two questions: (1) how stupid to try to run this play off (might have been better if the turn was a rag) and (2) I considered saying "I don't have a king" or "a king will beat me" while he was deliberating at the end, to try and represent a hand like 10-10. But I didn't say anything. Should I have? I think that might have made the difference.
S
Several Comments:
1) J-8s is a pretty weak hand to raise with, even as a blind steal.
2) If the button is a good player, I would suspect a pretty good hand.
Fair enough -- but there had been several uncontested steals in the last few rounds, plus the guy was a bit rattled so I thought he'd be a good candidate to raise in front of.
I am more concerned with the rest of the hand. Pretend I raised with J-Q off. What about using leading comments like "I have no king."?
I don't like using table talk to manipulate the play. In my mind, it's a form of angle shooting and shouldn't be allowed.
This hand illustrated the danger of attacking the blind with a marginal hand. You're out of position if the button calls you, and if he's a good player you've got a problem. If you check when the flop misses you, he's likely to bet just about anything, and you have to fold. If you bet and he has a good hand, he may put on a broken wing act and let you lead into him all the way to the river.
If you bet the flop and he calls, then you are faced with an equally tough decision on the turn. Any time you have to make tough decisions, you are asking for trouble.
If it were me in this situation, if he called the flop I would probably give it up on the turn and just check. The King on the board splits his overcards, meaning that he's not calling you with two overcards. So he's either got a draw, or a pair of some kind. If he has a small pair, you *might be able to get him to drop them with a bet on the turn, but his call on the flop would indicate otherwise.
So... Against a typical opponent, I'd probably check the turn and hope for a free card, and fold to a bet. Against a very weak player, I might bet again (these players will often call the flop bet with just about anything and then release their hand on the turn). Against a tricky player, you might even try the occasional check-raise bluff on the turn, but I wouldn't do that without at least a major draw for outs if I'm called.
Dan
Dan - Very helpful. I agree in retro that checking the turn then betting the river makes a lot of sense. I've read a lot of your posts and respect your experience -- but don't you think you are taking your conception of ethics too far if you never use table talk? I think it can be easily overdone and even obnoxious, but a little bit makes a game more fun and can give you some legitimate edge....
No, I don't think I'm taking it too far. I take a hard line on 'table talk' designed to influence someone's decision. And I have yet to see a really strong player resort to it.
What about Mike Caro? Is he a really strong player? (I honestly don't know -- never seen him play -- but he sure seems to advocate the occasional influence move....)
My instinct is to agree with you, so don't get me wrong. I can't remember ever actually trying this kind of thing. But I don't really see it as "wrong" or unethical to do. I think it's more about personal style and dignity to you, and maybe (to a lesser extent) to me, too.
Table talk that influences play exists in an ethical gray area. It would be clearly wrong to say something like, "I have a full house", hoping to induce your opponent to fold, and then show down nothing. The other end of the spectrum is silence. Where do you cross the line?
I wasn't aware that Mike Caro endorsed this type of action. I know he talks alot about having a wild image and that sort of thing, but that's a far cry from what we're talking about. Just to be clear, I'm talking about saying things like, "I need a spade!" when you already have a full house, or saying, "I don't think you made your straight" before betting (implying you have a hand weaker than a straight) and showing down a flush or something.
Less clearcut and often effective against good players is something I'm inclined to say from time to time after making a bet on the turn if my opponent pauses to think: "What're you going to do with that ace-king now?" It's still surprising how often the reaction is fold, and it doesn't really matter if I correctly put my lone opponent on big slick. I'm curious as to why this works as well as it does.
Although I may be wrong, I believe that Mike Caro advocates doing quite a bit of talking, especially about his hand, during the game. If he has QQ, and the board is KdQdTsTd, he might say something like "Either I have a T, or I need 1 more diamond, it's been so long since I looked at my hand, I just can't remember!"
He is, I believe, a big advocate of providing your opponent with 2 options, so that he will take the mindset of determining which is correct. Of course, of the two options given, neither is correct. In the above example, he is trying to induce someone with a hand like TJ or AK into calling. The TJ will think that his T is better, and the AK may call hoping that Mike really is only on a spade draw.
BTW, I think that comments of this sort are completely within the rules and ethics of poker. The only grey area for me is with respect to tournaments. If someone tells what they have, especially to induce a fold, they have made a decision that they wish to forego further profit on that hand in exchange for the certainty of not going bust. However, it is to the advantage of every other player if this guy has to risk going bust. In this case, influencing your opponent can be a disadvantage to those not in the hand. In such a situation, I think that talking about your hand, whether truthful or not, might be unethical (but I'm not too sure of that).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Dan,
FYI - In Gambling Theory and Other Topics, Mason relates an anecdote in which The Adventurer plays a hand against Mike Caro. Caro blatantly lies about the hand he is holding.
Q
I feel a little bit vindicated. Thanks for the comments. Like I said, I think a little bit of table talk can make the game more colorful. I think something like "I don't have a king" (which was true but which implies I have something like 10-10) is much more stylish than saying "Muck it -- I have a king." People who chat at you all the time are annoying (my guess is that helps caro keep an edge in some games), but I don't really think they are unethical.
Well, just because Mike Caro does it doesn't vindicate you... It might just make Mike Caro wrong as well. Verbal misdirection is generally frowned upon in the poker world, and in some cardrooms will be considered outright cheating and may get you kicked out. It certainly may cause the house to award the pot to someone else.
An incident happened to me in a club about 3 years ago - A player bet on the river, and I was about to call with my two pair when he said, "Save your money. I have a full house." I thanked him and mucked my cards. He then threw his cards face up on the table and laughed - he had nothing but a pair.
The end result was that this player was barred from the club for one month.
And yes, I consider actions like that unethical, whether Mike Caro or John Doe engages in them. Furthermore, actions like that are bad for poker, and if everyone did it the game would be chaotic.
Dan
I see where you re-raise this subject above, but I wanted to respond directly to this post. You would have to agree that what you just described is a lot different than what I proposed. I agree that just because Caro does it doesn't make it right; I just wanted to point out that your viewpoint on this subject is not unananimous. Undignified and even "bad for the game" is different than unethical.
I definitely agree with you that you don't want to chase off the casual players, and I am sure that playing with a guy like who chats all the time would drive off many people -- including possibly me.
Trying to steal on the end was mandatory, since you had almost no chance of winning a showdown.
I think you should have checked the flop and the turn. And to answer a previous poster, no you don't have to fold the flop if he bets. It's entirely reasonable to check-call heads up, hoping to steal later in the hand. Steals like this tend to work pretty well -- people assume that since you called the flop, you have something.
The hand could easily go:
flop -- check, bet, call turn -- check, check [if he bets again, you should fold] river -- bet, fold.
Pretty hopeless call with AQ on button when RHO raises on probable steal. Must ReRaise.
The King on the turn was a BAD card since it reduced the chances you have a King. Perhaps this guy noticed. The best turn card would be the biggest card the opponent doesn't have.
If the player was genuinely thinking then its an OK bluff.
If you don't mind angle shooting, next time pause for a couple moments (17.6 shakes of a lambs tail) before stealing on the end, it looks like a marginal value bet. Yes, "Can't Beat a King" is a well formed angle since it IMPLIES you have some other reasonable hand without saying so; thus denying the opponent the opportunity to doubt you. Looks like it would have worked since the opponent had plenty of time to come to the desirable conclusion on his own.
- Louie
You have raised before the flop. So, in the eyes of your opponents you should have some thing very good. I agree with your raise considering your opponent had a rough night and wanted to steal the blinds as long as your image was very solid because you do have a weak hand. Because he called the flop, I personnally would have check the turn because another King come. The chances that you have a King is very thin. Most important, he knows that!!! So in checking the turn, it will demonstrate that he is right that you do not have a king. Now if he bets, which I would do, throw your hand away. But if he checks, then you bet the river. This will tell him that you may not have a King but probably a pocket 88s or better. He will then throw away his AQ. I would have called you with AQ myself on the turn because I would not have believed that you have a King and would have found very strange that the turn King did not even scare you. I would have interpret this a sign for a bluff.
While playing 10-20 this weekend at the Horseshoe in Bossier City, La a discussion came up about low limit games with high rakes. Frequent RGP contributer TBill and some others said a low limit (4-8, and 3-6-12) with a rake of $5 cannot be beat over the long run. Well if you live in south Texas like I do and play in home games here or drive the 3 hours to Lake Charles or Kinder this is your only option. The casinos take max $5 and have a jackpot drop while the home games also take $5. My feeling on this topic is that the only statistic that really matters is how much you leave with compared to how much you came with. I think these games can be beat and want other opinions. Here is my thinking along with my assumptions. Assumptions: 1) You arent playing for a living. You have a good job with disposable income and can handle the invariable swings low limit will provide. 2) The players in your game are also able to handle the loses. They will not stop playing just because they always lose and even if they do stop there is an almost unending supply of players behind them. 3) You are a fundamentally sound player and 70% of your opponents arent.
Over the last 18 months I have logged over 400 hours in these types of games and averaged $9-$10 per hour. I play for fun and not for income. My best friend and poker buddy has experienced almost the same results. Another player who is probably better then both of us has done even better. My feeling is that is doesnt make any difference to us what the rake is since it appears that the bad players are paying the brunt of it. Now I know that if the rake was less that my hourly rate would be higher but that isnt the point. The point is that in the long run it does appear that this type of game is beatable under the right conditions.
Let me know what you think.
Randy (Mitch on IRC) Katy, Tx
These low limit games have high rakes, but there are a lot of opponents in every pot, and they make MANY errors. IMO, this overshadows the rake by a large margin.
My results in 3/6 with a $5 rake are slighly higher than yours, in over 1000 hours of play. A friend of mine played more than 1500 hours of 3/6 with the same rake before moving up, and he won almost exactly the same amount over that period of time.
Randy,
I am a part time player at the 6/12 to 20/40 level (although I will play 3/6 kill Omaha), but you should note that I work in the industry in Los Angeles as a floorman. I have written before on the rake on rgp and this forum so I will limit my comments to a few points.
At Hollywood Park, our rake is $3 for both the 6/12 and 3/6 holdem games (at the Commerce and Bike the rake is $4 on the 6/12 (I am not sure of the 3/6 rake) but they have a small jackpot or other promotion).
Anyway, a major factor is how the rake is taken. Because of the L.A. county sheriff’s interpretation of 1989 law, we must take our rake before the hand even starts and drop it no matter what. In holdem we do this by posting the rake on the button and it must be "dead" (i.e., the rake does not count as part of a call or raise).
In Las Vegas or Foxwoods and most other places, there usually is a system where the rake is taken after certain thresholds are reached (e.g. $2 rake on $20, $3 rake on $40 and $4 rake on $80 - I think this is the Foxwood’s rake).
Other things being equal, it is much more favorable for the better player (who is bound to be more selective) to have the rake taken Las Vegas or Foxwoods style. In these games the people who win the most pots (i.e., the loosest players) pay the most rakes. In L.A. everyone pays the rake.
That being said, I do know that many top players who understand how to play in loose games do very well at 6/12 holdem. Their win rate approaches $20 per hour and I have heard of even better rates (I don't know of any reliable figures for 3/6 holdem in the county). Of course, this isn't much of a living.
The paradox is this. Having a large collection and/or collecting it "up front" drives away the tight players. Places I have played low limit with a low rake taken after thresholds always seem to be full of tight (but not necessarily talented) players. Put that group in our games and they would get up once they saw they had to pay $3 to play pot s with only four or five bets in it.
By driving away the tight players, casinos and card clubs get far fewer hands per hour. Hands with multi-way action and unaware players take a long time to play.
I am convinced that if we could change the law such that we only take the rake on a threshold as we did prior to 1989 ($20 would be OK for 3/6), we would make more money per table per hour and we would have more games. Sure, the house would make nothing on a steal of the blinds, but at least we could have a game where the blinds occasionally get stolen.
There is so much more to say on this but I have got to go.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I almost forgot. These are my views and not necessarily those of casino management.
Foxwoods rake is stiffer. $1 at 10, $1 at 20, $1 at 30 for 5-10 or 80 for 10-20, $1 at 80 for 5-10 or 160 for 10-20. However, no rake unless there is a flop. Reductions start at six handed through two handed for hold'em. All pot raked flop games are played with a threshold kill.
It seems to me the math is rather simple. If you have 2 players calling pre-flop who have less than 50% expectation or 1 calling pre-flop when there is a raise and they have less than 50% expectation, then the rake is paid for right there. Virtually every 5-10 game I have seen has met these conditions. This doesn't even count for bad play post flop. Therefore these games can definitely be beaten. If you find that nobody is calling pre-flop with garbage and the rake is high, then look for another game.
Danny S
I am new to Ca. but here are my observations about the games:
Where I'm from I used to play HE 1-4-8-8 pot rake. I was a ragular winner averaging over 1bb per hour against fairly good opponenets.
When I moved to Ca. I saw that the players were soooo incredibly bad at 3-6 I figured I would go down a level and possibly make more money with less bankroll swings. I found this not to be the case. I was instead making no money bacause of the button fee. I determined that it is impossible for anyone to make money with a fee the equivilent of one small bet.
I now play 6-12 and am winning at a rate of slightly less than 1bb per hour. Here are my opinions of the CA. poker scene at 6-12 and below.
The dealers are below average. -hollywood park is the best of the worst.
The casinos are like a zoo. -espescially the crystal casino
THe players are awful and very rude. -again crystal casino takes the cake
The button fee discourages good play and good players. -Oh, how I long to be back at Bellagio.
Any other observations on the casinos I've been to? Are there any other casinos in the area that are more "professional"? Am I way offbase?
Radio,
It seems to me that you aren't yet making the adjustments from the 1-4-8-8 to the 3-6. Both games have strategies that will earn you more than 1BB per hour. The 6-12 at the Commerce is usually good for 1.5 BB per hour, if not more. I think California players tend to be more openly verbal and expressive than their Nevada counterparts. It may seem more rude to you than it does to them. When I first moved to California from the East coast, I thought Californians were meek and brain damaged, they thought and spoke so slowly; it was only after living in California for five years or so that I realized that New Yorkers tended to be the loudest, rudest people on the face of this earth. Of course, after a stint in the Air Force stationed in Korea, I revised that opinion once again. It takes awhile to acclimate yourself when moving to a new environment. In a couple years all this will seem quite normal to you.
A selective good player will win about 2 pots an hour in a reasonably loose game. All things equal the difference between a $3 and a $5 rake is $4.
Since very good players can beat these low games for up to 2-3bb/Hour I'd say:
OF COURSE THEY CAN BE BEAT!!!
Try not to be sarcastic when you empathize with these players that can't beat these games. Empathy should make them less crotchedy and so won't alienate the suckers.
- Louie
PS. You don't think "profit" is "fun"? Are you a communist? :)
Nyet!! I am not and have never been a member of the Communist Party. I said I play for fun and not for income. I always try to make a profit.
This is a hand I played in a 15-30 Stud game.
I was high with (A 8) A. One player had called the bring-in when it came to me. I raised to 15. The player to my left reraised with a jack up. Now the aggressive player to his left made it three bets with a ten up. All folded to me and I capped it. The player holding a Jack folded and the player with the ten called my raise.
Since the player holding the ten raised a bet and a raise from an ace and a jack, I didn't think a pair of tens was a very likely holding. He was more likely to hold a good 3-flush (like 3 to a straight flush, but then why knock out the jack), a pair of aces in the hole (least probable), or trip tens, I thought.
On fourth street I caught an offsuit queen and my opponent paired his door card and led out for 30. Now Quads was exactly as unlikely as aces.
I called him down, made Ace's up on the river, and lost a big pot to unimproved trip tens.
Was folding the best play on fourth street? Any other comments?
Just a comment that I got about three lines down your post when I thought - bet the opponent pairs tens on 4th street. This is very common and while it's difficult advice to follow sometimes you really have to be SURE he has not got trips to call in this situation. When an opponent acts strongly/stands up to some heat on third and then pairs his doorcard - FOLD.
Andy.
The guy was obviously trying to make a steal attempt at the pot.He was hoping that by him reraising the aces and jacks a good player would put him on trips and make a laydown,but actually a seasoned stud player would smell a fish because to raise with rolled up trips in an early round to chase away his action is suicide.The correct play would be to raise in the later (more expensive)rounds if he indeed had trip 10's. So by his reraising I would put him on a high pocket pair or split tens.When he paired his doorcard you should have folded right away.No question about it. C.M.
mabey he made the raise with rolled up tens because he knew you were a experienced stud player and would smell a fish. when he hit his susposed quads, now your really thinking because quads are so unlikly that he probable has duces in the hole so you better pay him off with all that money in there.
You have to be VERY aggressive to raise with Ts against a player likely to have Jacks and an Ace who likes it. I would put this player on either KK or QQ or a big 3-flush. Did you have the Ace of his suit? Players who will rereraise with the underpair will also raise with a large variety of hands.
This is different than if the T had raised and our buddy with a J reraised, than caught a J.
It'll cost you 4bb to call him down and there is already 7bb out their, 10bb by the river so you are getting 5:2 pot odds. If you SEE his KK I THINK you can try to outdraw him.
I'd of called, and not liked it at all when he bets again on 6th street.
- Louie
My post didn't make this clear, but I know this player and I think he is rather competent (though he clearly got out of line that time). A good player would have folded a pair of tens in that spot without hesitation. Therefore, I agree with Louie Landale.
well to bet out witha a pr 10 no matter 2-10 ,20-40 against a ace ,, or J showing ,, u have to think trips or flush though 3 to a srt8 is a possible.. yur best move in that case with a un unproved hand is to fold when he pr'd his door, while waiting for my 10/20 seat in HE I played a playover in 2/10 second hand in i catch 3 3/ 3 i called the bring in raised on forth when a K hit called down by 4 players pr my K on 7 with all 4 players calling me down,.If i would have bet out raised,,, or checked raised i would have lost 12bb after 5 street,, thow he represented his hand from the get,, the next hand could be yur pocket 10's with a 10 knocking down yur door ,, save yur chip for that hand!!
Agreed. Pair of Tens is unlikely.
".. yur best move in that case with a un unproved hand is to fold when he pr'd his door .."
Disagree. The opponent pairing the door card is bad when the opponent can reasonably have a PAIR of that rank, AND is reasonably selective (don't fold Aces against the guy playing EVERY hand when he pairs his door card). If the opponent can have either a 3-flush, some 3-straight, or trips, it seems more than 10-1 AGAINST him having you beat when he pairs his door card. (he can have the case two Tens in the hole, or AKs, or AQs, or AJs, 97s, ... or QJ, or J9 ...)
Anyway, the more I think about this hand the more I suspect the Ten had a read and believed the Jack did NOT have Jacks.
- Louie
good call louie ,
Posted by: allan scott
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 8:27 p.m.
guess it depends on the player. see poker esays number two i believe. almost the same situation from two different angles discussed. (not quite the same, more bets going into your pot). what it amounts to is how predictable is the three better? and how predictable does he think you are? if you dont know each others play at all, and thus dont know who is zooming who i would lay it down on third. if you play with each other a lot almost anything is possible (depending on your past actions if you are both players) and i would just have to check call it down.
Ok so I could not wait till friday to try my Luck again,2nd hand into the table in the SB, I look to find Ks Qh,, its 2 bets to call 1 1/2 for me. I called!! with 5 players in the hand to see the flopp it was raised in middle position by a rock, a player I have played many hrs with.. I had to put him on A A ,,K K or no lower than J's well heres the flop Kc Q c 3h, well with top 2 pr and a flush draw flop I cant bet, thow the BB checked middle position bets outs
In an old thread a player with A6 gets into a raising war against A4 with an A64 flop (or something close to that). It inspired David Sklansky to comment that a good player wouldn't bet out with this huge hand heads up. But compare that situation to what you faced.
There was a big preflop pot. You were UTG against half the table with what was almost certainly the best hand on the flop but up against opponents with likely second best hands. And not only second best hands but hands with which they probably would have popped you -- almost certainly with AA or AK. You then could have reraised and built a pot for your powerful hand while putting maximum heat on the other likely hands: underdog draws that you want to make pay through the nose. And you could have made anyone with AA or AK (1) nervous and a little sick when they called you unimproved on the river or (2) somewhat vulnerable if they had mucked and learned on the showdown that this was a good move with a big hand against YOUR raise.
You need to consider not how well your hand looks in the abstract, but what kind of hands your opponents probably have and what kind of action you're going to get -- how the hand will probably be played. IMO, you had a big betting hand and missed an opportunity. I would have bet the flop and reraised. I would have considered a check-raise on the flop only if I was in a no-foldem game with opponents that play most any suited cards or connectors and won't let go no matter what.
I don't see the sense in calling w/ KQo when a rock raises, since you have no idea what kind of flop you want and your hand is likely dominated.
GD,
I was just about to write a quick response limiting my comment to why the heck did Allen call a rock out of position in a five way pot with a hand like KQo. Then I see that once again you beat me to the punch.
Allen - when GD refers to being dominated I believe he is saying that the typical good flop (i.e., a pair) to your hand is going to often be an expensive second best hand to the raiser. The concept of "domination" is frequently discussed by Abdul Jalib who tends to post on rec.gambling.poker (apparently there is some bad blood between him and Mason - too bad). You can search for his archives on www.dejanews.com. He also has a new website where he is posting his essays. It is worth checking out. I'm going to try inserting my first link in this post if you want to access it.
Rick-
1) I never beat you out (but thanks for the kind words).
2) As far as I'm concerned there's no worse hand than KQo against a raise from a rock. In fact, I virtually never play this hand for a raise even if it's a loose player who popped it (although I guess you could make some kind of a case for calling in the BB). Anyway, I'd really like to hear how other posters play this hand. IMO it's one of the most intriguing HE hands there is, since if the pot hasn't been raised KQ is a monster, but in a raised pot it's a total rag.
GD, same for me. Under a raise, I throw the hand away. In the BB, if there are 3 players or more, I will call if I close the raise . I will raise with it, if there is only one bet to me and I am in late position.
Played heads up to the river, KQo is about a 2.5-1 to 2.9-l underdog against most combinations of raising hands and is weaker after a raise than many other seemingly "inferior" hands, like 97s or QJ. And it's in much worse shape if the raiser has some combination of on AA, KK, QQ, AK or AQ.
However, when the SB is getting, in all likelihood, 5.5-1 to call in a multiway pot, and is not confident of his read on the raiser, I don't think that folding KQ is an automatic play. I'd have to consider the likelihood of getting paid off if I hit a big flop, how aggressively I could bet it, whether I have any chance of bluffing and so forth. I think that calling in the SB with KQs for two bets is highly correct against four average players.
Am I wrong? Should KQ never call 1 1/2 bets cold?
Chris,
Geting the odds in the original post, I would call a late raiser who is raises too much from late position. I would reraise a player who puts in a late postion steal raise if the player is someone who fears me. I might call a late position steal rasier who won't lay down an ace high if we both miss (but remember, he could have much less). I would also call a maniac who raises from any position but I would worry if tight players cold called the maniac. But I still maintain that calling with KQo against an early raise by a tight player is suicide.
Getting the original odds, KQ suited is much better because of the cases when you get the flush or the flush draw.
Regards,
Rick
I do not understand why you played the hand to start with if you knew you were beat. You have KQo so the chances are greater that he has pocket Aces instead of KK or QQ from the description you gave as a rock player. With pocket jacks he probably would have called only. So, I beleive this was a mistake to call. But then, once you called, what is the best strategy when you flop the 2 top pairs. In this particular scenario, I would have come out betting and raised at every opportunity I could get to make sure the flush draw and straight draw would pay for the maximum.
again there Iam just at the bottom of my play, i was a little scared to stick my nose into that big of flop ,,,, I bet out im sure to be raised, if not reraised, then im stuck thinking about calling tree bets instead of one with what at the time is the best hand,,thow if i put the rock on A A or k k QQ then yea im beat, but to check as i did he bets out no raise all call I have to think that not going for a check raise on the flop or turn puts me in the best spot to do just what i did ,, am I wrong about my theory ?or about my thinking? or why do i get the feeling i should have lost all that pot?.. rember I said rock not smart!! his play is hard and tite but loose agresive, he slo played his set of king's to a 3 8 K flopp to loose to a straight on the river, thus leading me to think, I could get into his way of thinking on such a huge flop.. am I wrong there? again a lot of input to help me out , theres a differant spot for differant flops!! thanks to all! AS
AS wrote: "his play is hard and tite but loose agresive"
I don't understand this. How can he be both tite (sp) and loose? I think you need to work on characterizing your players a little more concretely if you can. It seems that you're putting them on the hands you WANT them to have to justify your actions at that time, rather than putting them on a hand based upon their history alone. If you had really put this guy on AA-JJ preflop, you would have folded your KQ. If you hadn't gotten scared after the flop, you wouldn't have put him on such strong hands, and you would have played your hand more aggressively.
AS also wrote: "he slo played his set of king's to a 3 8 K flopp to loose to a straight on the river, thus leading me to think, I could get into his way of thinking on such a huge flop"
Slowplaying trip Ks on that flop isn't a mistake, given that someone has to make runner-runner to beat you. In such a case, you usually want to give one free card, so that they can pay you off on the turn. Of course, if they'll pay you off on the flop as well, then don't slowplay.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Guys, I think "Allan Scott" is trolling...
But I've been wrong before.
What is trolling?
wgb,
I'll wait for Dan's answer also but in the meantime I would guess it is one of the following:
1. Something a prostitute does on Hollywood Blvd.
2. A way to catch fish is you have a small boat.
3. Playing a pot you should never have entered in the first place.
Regards :-)
Rick
well if 3 is the answer than i trolled!! GOT LUCKY
A "Troll" is a message left with the specific intention of stirring up the online community. It's a prank. For example, a troller might go to "Alt.Fan.Rush.Limbaugh" on usenet, and post a message saying, "I heard that Rush Limbaugh was arrested for molesting someone's sheep". Hundreds of messages of outrage will ensue, and the troller has accomplished his purpose. Some people actually get their kicks out of this, and some trolls are far more sophisticated. On a poker forum, someone might post a long message giving a pseudo-scienfitic rationale for 'hot streaks' or something, knowing full well that it's a bunch of junk.
Dan
Dan I wanna thank u for yur concern toward keeping this a no storie telling forum, thow I have to say I have been reading 2+2 for a while now! I have not made a post as of yet for the reason of wanting to learn and understand others
My apologies, Allan. I see that you're posting regularly to some other threads, so I guess I was wrong about the trolling thing. I'll see if I have anything to add to your original message...
Dan
Its my regular loose-aggressive home game. We open up the cards and I get 88 in early position. UTG calls, I raise, all fold to the button who calls, BB calls, and UTG calls.
Flop is perfect A 8 4 rainbow. Two checks to me, I bet and get raised by the button (a very aggressive player--who has been studying up and improving). Two folds and I call.
Turn is the last 8. I check, button bets, I raise, he calls.
River is a J. I bet and he calls with AQ.
So, its lucky quads on the first hand and I'm up 8 big bets in 3 minutes.
HERES MY QUESTION: What do you do different (if anything) when you win big the first hand? Do you try to get a little more aggressive? Or, do you sit behind your chips and wait (with their $) for something? Anybody have a method? -- Or experiences with this situation?
Pick up your chips and leave!
carlos
If only so easy!!! what book can be read to teach that dicipline?
It would have to be a bad book. There are no good reasons for leaving, and many good reasons for staying. Unless, of course, you're a losing player, in which case you should quit while you are ahead.
Agreed. In fact, I think the only books that 'teach' this kind of discipline are those found in the venerable John Patrick series.
Besides the normal reasons you would stay (assuming you were a winning player), you would have even more reason to stay, especially if this were a low limit game.
You can fold 3.5 million hands in a row, but if you even *think* of trying to run a naked AK bluff, you will get called with 3rd high pair. You cannot convince the typical low limit fish of your prowess through showing your (obvious) skill. However, convince them that you're lucky, and your bluffs have bite. Someone who snags quads every hand (well, all 1 of them :) surely has a chance to show that he's lucky.
Mike Caro has written much on the baffling power of appearing lucky.
Mooselini.
I was really kidding! When that happens to me on the first hand I play, I will usually just play my normal game.
carlos
You have to consider that this is a home game, not a casino game. In most of the home games I've played in, doing this is perceived as unethical! After all it's their money... I guess the choice is being alienated (eventually) from the game, or trying to play conservative but solid poker and maintain your edge.
Bill
Winning one big hand early doesn't call for a a change in stategy. But going on a "rush" (winning 2 or 3 big hands quickly) usually causes me to play more aggressively, especially against passive opponents. The only difficuly here is to avoid getting carried away with yourself and losing back the money (and the image) you have gained. Black Jack
In limit play I would just try to continue playing correctly. Don't alter your style, it seems to be working. And, there is not as much to be gained by dominating the table as in no-limit. In no-limit if I have gained a dominant position, then I would push it hard and try to wipe out the small stacks. Alpha-Dog.
An expert player does not give his chips back. He multiplies them. Keep up playing solid and aggressive. This is the only way you can make big bucks. I have seen some nights where I collected between 4 to 7 thousands of dollars playing 20-40. So, you must keep playing your best.
There's absolutely no reason to play differently at all. You won the first hand with quads. So what? (Coincidently, I won the second hand I played today with quads)
As soon as I hear people justifying their oddball plays because they were "playing the rush" or because "I'm just not hitting today" then I know they just don't understand the laws of probability and that they are weak players.
Sunday in a 1-2-5 Pot Limit game I made quad 4's on my first hand of the night. I played for another four hours and picked up a nice $800 win.
I haven't made quads since before the flood, so I'm really not in a position to comment. That said, I don't think this kind of monster really effects your table image, since even the bad players understand that hitting a hand like that is nothing more than a fluke.
Don't underestimate the 'Tilt' factor of hitting a big hand when you first sit down at the table. If some guy is in the game stuck to his eyeballs, and he hasn't seen a decent hand in several hours, it can drive him insane to see someone sit down, be dealt quads, and drag a nice pot. This guy may give you some unreasonable action soon. In a pot limit game, this is fairly important.
It "looks" like a tough laydown, but why would you call a guy who you were convinced had AA, KK, or QQ when you have KQ????? And he has position on you to boot!
Out of all the hands he might plausibly have, only 1 (JJ) warrants a call from you. Many scenarios here get you in deep trouble. For example, even your top 2 pair flop is quite tenuous given your description of this guy. Good chance he has trips, could catch an ace for trips, or pair the board on the "off" cards. Many ways for you to lose big.
Be patient and wait for better opportunities.
Oops! This one goes with the next post
The prevailing wisdom seems to be not to make any changes to your overall game plan in a situation like this----and thats what I'll do NEXT time.
The sad story from this game was that I gave it all back the SAME ROUND! Out of the next 9 hands, I started with QQ, AK, and KQ--(a hole card rush)----bet em all up real good too, but had to eventually fold each of them. The other players thought I had flipped my beanie. But then I sat "like a stump" and folded for the next 2 hours.
Thanks for the tips, guys. GD, I hope you get quads this weekend.
No time to read other responses so I appologize for duplicates.
I would be more inclinded to bluff on the river than normally.
Important NIT: Its no longer THEIR money when it in YOUR stack. Thinking otherwise is detrimental.
"This hand is the first hand of the rest of your career."
- Louie
No time to read other responses so I appologize for duplicates.
I would be more inclinded to bluff on the river than normally.
Important NIT: Its no longer THEIR money when it in YOUR stack. Thinking otherwise is detrimental.
- Louie
with trial and error ive developed my own standard play with this if i dont know number one player from a hole in the ground. ill let you know what ive decided and why, if i get any response from any of you pot limit omaha players out there.
Some thoughts:
thank you for your thoughtfull response. thats what i do with the situation as outlined. if he raises again (unlikly) i might just have to go all in right now, actually if i dont know anything about him i might just have to lose all my money right now. that would be a tough situation.
actually since the pot if unraised originally, and the money is deep, there is no chance that im getting broke on this hand, however in all likelyhood im probably going to have to pay off a substancial bet on the turn, and mabey the river.
really this kind of stuff is what pot limit omaha is all about. i know im not the only pot limit player out there so lets have some feedback and ill give my imput for what its woth. how bout it ray? or anyone.
Six handed the differences are: the chance of hands matching the flop is much greater, and the chance of a lead bet being for real has also increased. I would be reluctant to get involved with 99 here if the preflop raiser almost certainly has to have a high pair. QQ is more dangerous in this situation as well. The preflop raiser is more likely to have AA. You don't want to get stuck in a 3-way all-in situation with AA and a drawing hand. A good player in that spot would not be raising preflop with 99 in his hand, and would not commit much of his stack on that flop with AQ or 99, especially not leading out. He might bet, and then fold if real strength is shown later. You won't get much action from him that you want. If you call, and a drawing hand calls, any 8,T,J or K gives the draw a potential straight. There may be flush potential on the board as well. And if a blank hits and he leads out, then what? Just calling is giving odds to drawing hands behind you. This is why redraws are so important in Omaha - just QQ has too many ways to lose when it gets a set on the flop. My choice here would be fold 99, and raise or fold QQ depending on the exact details - the opponents, the suits of the board cards (is there a 2-flush?) and how deep the money is.
If I have middle set then unfortunately a lot of this comes down to knowing your players. Here I make a decision before I put another dime in the pot what I think the chances of the preflop raiser having Aces is, the vast majority of pre flop raises are not made with Aces and the over whelming majority of players will reraise with them unless it is one of those games where players seem to feel commited for their entire stack as soon as they have called the blind, so most of the time I am going to play this hand for having the best hand out there.
With this many players if the money is deep I know that by betting the flop I am not going to get rid of that many draws. In this situation a lot of people are going to call with any three of K-J-10-8 even if they think I have a set, it is not a great play but a lot of pot limit omaha players are not great players. And if there are two of a suit out there this just compounds the problem. There are a lot of people who massively overestimate their drawing hands in Omaha, and there are a lot of people with hands like the nut flush draw and a gut shot or with a 13 outer straight draw are going to make a move at the pot so just because there has been a bet or a raise I am not automatically going to assume that I am looking at top set.
So having decided I have the best hand I am probably only going to bet or check raise if I think I can get the bulk of my money in ( ie 70% of my stack ) or if I can genuinely narrow the field down to heads up or win the pot there and then. I dont want to get 25-30% of my money in this pot still be 4 or 5 handed and have half the cards in the deck still scare me, and have put myself in a position where if someone now bets the pot if a scare card hits the turn I have priced myself out of the pot. Normally I am going to wait until the turn and make my move there. Also I have found because I havent made a move on the flop a lot of people will give you less credit for having a hand and will give you action on the turn with lesser made hands which are exactly the hands you want to get action against.
Like I said before at Pot limit Omaha I think most of the mistakes players make is by overestimating the potential of draws so even though I am aware I could be up against top set i still think middle set is a good money making hand unless your knowledge of the players giving you action says differently.
hummm. you sure got a point there. so much depends on how deep are we. and they sure seem to call a lot so the turn gets vey scary at times. i tend to make a move on the flop, but having thought about your post, mabey the turn is better with that many players. oh well if i could be right every time i make a move, then just send me a check.
this is a difficult question with that many players. if i move on the flop at least i can possibly narrow down the possible hands out there. with that many players i start getting worried bout the nuts. i normally dont lose all my money without them in a multihanded pot that was raised in the first place. if i move on the flop and get action from more then one player im pretty easy to get bluffed out of the pot on the turn. of course i assume the better knows that and saves his fancy plays for someone who is capable of laying down a hand. but mabely that is assuming a lot.
The following post is part of a response to an opinion poll concerning "What are three key cardroom rules that need to be unified for use in all cardrooms" conducted by Poker Digest. It was written last August and finally published in this week's issue (Vol. 2/No. 10). I would appreciate all comments. After the Poker Player Pet issue, I realize some on the forum have lost confidence in this magazine and might even be amazed that they publish my drivel. However, this is something I feel strongly about and I think my approach to enforcing this policy has merit. Note that this issue contains excellent articles by David and Mason so hopefully the magazine will continue to grow. Please note that this is my opinion and does not necessarily represent the view of casino management.
"Key Card Room Rule Number 3: I currently work as a floorman in a major Los Angeles area casino and am a respected player at the middle limits. These casinos now share similar rules and all have a policy prefacing the main body of the rule book prohibiting speaking any language other than English while at a gaming table. Most who play in Los Angeles would agree that this policy is at best enforced sporadically and generally only upon request. However, vigorous and consistent enforcement serves the long run interest of poker players and the card room industry. As an experienced player and floorman, it appears that the vast majority of conversations at the table in languages other than English are in fact innocent and social in nature. Despite this, these all too frequent conversations create the appearance of impropriety, which can be more damaging than the rare instances of actual cheating or collusion.
To effectively implement this policy, which minimizes potential offense taken by players whose native tongue is not English, I recommend the following approach to enforcement:
1. Be sensitive to the feelings of the players. When enforcing the policy, emphasize that the reason the only allowable language is English is that it is the language understood by most players. Do not say that "foreign languages" are prohibited (neither the constitution nor law specifies English as the national language to the best of my knowledge). For example, a player who is more comfortable speaking in Korean would far more likely to be offended by the second approach than the first.
2. When posting or stating this policy, group it with other rules of etiquette that are in fact functionally equivalent. This will further reduce the emphasis on cultural differences. I believe polite, social conversation with a neighboring player is good for the game, but it no conversation should be conducted "sotto voce" (i.e., in a whispered voice obviously meant to be private). For example, when sitting at one end of the table, would you be more bothered if two opponents at the other end were speaking openly and casually in Spanish, or if two players who to your knowledge speak only English were constantly whispering in each other's ear.
3. Top management must insure that every level of management and all employees understand the need for the policy, know how to enforce it intelligently, and when playing off duty set an example by adhering to the policy scrupulously.
4. Management should count on very visibly losing the occasional customer who, despite your best efforts at diplomatic enforcement, is offended that such a rule is vigorously enforced. They often will make a lot of noise as they leave the casino and you may assume that they will probably play at a competitor. But their loss will be more than made up for by the many players who enjoy playing in a casino that intelligently enforces proper ethics and behavior. (Refer to note No. 3)
Note No. 3: I find the management in most casinos is extremely reluctant to bar or discipline problem players. The nature of problem players personality is such that they will often make a lot of noise in reaction to attempts to correct their behavior (e.g., "I pay over $10,000 a year in collections and your telling me I can't throw cards! I'll take my business to the other casino up the street!") If the player does leave, the typical manager will subtract the $10,000 from gross income; however, that same manager rarely takes into account the larger group of well behaved players who prefer to play in a more civilized atmosphere. Well behaved players tend to be very quite about the reasons they play in a particular casino (or prefer to play in home games). This topic deserves an essay in itself, but I'll stop here."
Regards,
Rick
I agree with the general concept. The appearance of a problem can be as damaging to a poker room as having an actually problem. I also agree that most conversations in a foreign language are probably innocent, but how can you be sure.
I and some of my friends feel that part of the reason that the rule is not well enforced has to do with a fear of losing business. Whether this is true or not, this perception also needs to be cleaned up.
I do however disagree with your nice guy approach. This is probably the way it should have been handled several years ago. But today is different. Thanks to the internet, and some posters who have little understanding of how the card room industry operates, there is now "cheating hysteria."
In other words, I believe it is time for the cardrooms to take tough and highly visible action. Specifically, signs should be posted emphasizing only this problem and players should be given one warning before they are given a short vacation, and repeat offenders should be given a long vacation.
Of course this will only work if all the clubs do it. If one club doesn't participate this action will fail. This is perhaps where the California Card Club Association (which I believe is now called the California Gaming Association) can help. I know that they are normally a political organization, but this could be a time to temporaily expand their function.
Unfortunately, the preception of cheating is becoming widespread in the cardroom industry. Many years ago, when I first began to play, I believe that there was a problem. But with the rise of limit hold 'em and stud, improved management awareness (and better equipment), and player vigilance I believe that the problem is today minimized. (The possible exception could be in the biggest games where it is natural for the same players to sit everyday.) However, even if I am correct but most players don't see it that way the cardroom industry will go into decline.
For example, at the club that I believe Rick Nebiolo works at I have read posts about the "Vietnamese teams" that regularly work the games. I do believe that these posts were rediculous. However, if others don't then it will be bad for most everyone involved with poker in the long run. So again I state that the time to handle this problem in a polite and proper way as Rick suggests is probably past, and tough fast action needs to be taken.
In other words, I believe it is time for the cardrooms to take tough
and highly visible action. Specifically, signs should be posted
emphasizing only this problem and players should be given one warning
before they are given a short vacation, and repeat offenders should be
given a long vacation.
Rather than banning a player, why not just kill the hand? That should be enough to make the point. The player may bet angry and leave anyway, but at least you still have a chance of keeping him around.
> Rather than banning a player, why not just kill the hand?
That's a reasonable response when the offender has a hand.
However, there are situations where the offender does not have a hand. For example, someone who has just folded his hand and says something (could be "let's go have a smoke after this hand" or it could be "I folded the ace of spades") to his friend(s) who are still in the hand.
Why not just ban the hand? That could be a real good way to for an offender to get their money back from a losing hand. I know I'm beat, so I just speak a language other than English.
Mason,
Thanks for responding so quickly.
You wrote: "I do however disagree with your nice guy approach."
I advocate a politically sensitive approach. Don't confuse this with a lack of toughness (many of my friends and the regular customers in the section I work would crack up laughing if they read this).
"In other words, I believe it is time for the cardrooms to take tough and highly visible action. Specifically, signs should be posted emphasizing only this problem and players should be given one warning before they are given a short vacation, and repeat offenders should be given a long vacation."
I have no disagreement with the above paragraph except that I believe repeat offenders should be given a permanent vacation. I would also like to subject off-duty employees playing in a game to immediate termination for violation of the above and other violations of behavior and ethics. To do this, we in the front lines (i.e., the floormen) need the backing of management.
"Of course this will only work if all the clubs do it. If one club doesn't participate this action will fail."
I agree that this would be ideal but I believe it is in the best interest of any individual club to strictly enforce this and other rules regarding player behavior with extreme vigilance. The problem is that most in management would note that they would lose highly visible customers in the short run (i.e., the barred players). In contrast, the gains in customers (e.g., those who are currently uncomfortable because of "the appearance of impropriety" or an atmosphere where foul behavior is tolerated) would occur over time and these customers would not be highly vocal as to why they are playing in your card club. This was the whole point of my "note 3" which may deserve an expanded essay in itself.
As I have often noted in previous posts, I work at Hollywood Park and am honestly not sure this was the club you were thinking of in regards to team cheating by Vietnamese. I searched rgp.gambling.poker on dejanews and came up with quite a bit on cheating (some threads had over a hundred posts) but haven't found the exact posts you were referring to (yet). Perhaps you could point me in the right direction, as my time is limited.
“So again I state that the time to handle this problem in a polite and proper way as Rick suggests is probably past, and tough fast action needs to be taken.”
Mason, I assure you that we are in complete agreement as to the need for tough and fast action. Let me just reiterate that good technique should be used and it should be done in as sensitive a way as possible.
Once again, I must stress that these views are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of management.
Regards,
Rick (a.k.a. "the nice guy")
"As I have often noted in previous posts, I work at Hollywood Park and am honestly not sure this was the club you were thinking of in regards to team cheating by Vietnamese. I searched rgp.gambling.poker on dejanews and came up with quite a bit on cheating (some threads had over a hundred posts) but haven't found the exact posts you were referring to (yet). Perhaps you could point me in the right direction, as my time is limited."
Rick: The more I think about it I believe the comment was made to me in private email. I'm not positive, but I do believe that it was directed at your club. However, for all readers of this forum let me state that I believe that this statement is not accurate. I will search my email to see if I can find it. But I do not save all my email.
Rick,
90% of my poker playing is at HP, 3-6 and 6-12. the language issue can easily be taken care of with the dealers. every time a player has been warned it's because ANOTHER PLAYER asked the dealer to do so. it is the dealer's responsibility to control the table. RARELY have i seen a dealer warn a player. it's only enforced on a "player objection" basis.
if i were running HP and players wouldn't comply
first time - verbal warning second - deal them out the hand thrid - leave table
it's a black and white issue, there shouldn't even have to be a discussion on it. you choose to play, you cooperate with the rules.
james............................
Dealers are not suppose to make decisions, but they are suppose to run the games and call the floorperson over if there is a problem and accurately describe what has happened. My experience is that because dealers do work for tips they are reluctant to single anyone out. The best card rooms have an adequate number of people on the floor who can be quickly available when these type of problems develop.
... was to threaten to expose every hand that any two players speaking in a non-english tongue at the table had.
In a certain situation, two players basically thought I was not going to follow through with this. After the deal, one of the players began a conversation and they began speaking in their mother tongue. The other player, on the button, reraised, and the middle player capped. On the flop, original player bets and button folds. I take his hand, smack it on the muck and reveal the mighty reraising hand of Q4o.
Needless to say, there was some commotion, and *I* was reprimanded for being "antagonistic". But I'll be damned if they stopped speaking in their mother tongue when I was at the table.
The most respect I ever had for a poker room was at the MGM Grand, where the dealer asked me to limit my speech to english after I cursed in french. That showed all the players that even native english speakers are subject to this rule, and it unlikely went a long way in demonstrating that the rule has nothing to do with race, but with game security.
Mooselini.
I like the concept of exposing the offending player's hands. I have also been in situations when raising and re-raising has led to an offer to chop. This would also be a situation where exposing hands could be helpful.
Mooselini and Bill,
First, I thought Mooselini wss Italian. Anyway, we could also shoot the offending player which would definitely work.
In all seriousness, killing hands (or players) is a bit much unless directed to do so by the floorman (I could concievably go for this tactic (killing a hand) after I had already given the player a warning).
Actually the steps discussed by Mason and I are sufficient. Post the policy prominately, train all dealers to call the floorman on the first offense, give one warning, next offense send the player home for the day, and the next offence bar the player permanently (of course the later would require an effective tracking system for problems caused by players). There are other techniques but you should get the general idea. Of course in all cases we need the backing of management.
Regards,
Rick
Mussolini was an Italian. Mooselini is a driving instructor in the sleeper-hit-video-game Parappa the Rappa and since it closely resembles my last name it stuck :P
Anyways, to clarify, I don't kill the hands while they are live. It became a habit, before turning over any hand, to touch the muck with it so that there is no doubt it is a dead hand. Basically, if player X folds on the showdown but the cards don't hit the muck, and player Y asks to see player X's hand, and I turn over a winner, then player X has a live hand since cards speak in Calgary.
Mooselini
mooselini is this antlered beast that sneaks into my yard and eats the cracked corn i put out for my ducks.
since the first language of many is not english and every rule doesnt have to be enforced to the letter, my take on it is let them speak some in their native tongue. if you are a good player you can tell if they are conspiring against you and if they are not let them have some fun as long as its not at your expense. if they are doing too much then complain so that the situation doesnt chase others away. remember there are others that also speak their language and if they were saying things that were considered cheating another would overhear and stop it hopefully.
Ray,
This is basically my take as well. Here is a problem that I see. Most players expect rules to be enforced, well because they are rules. I believe that the card room managment basically views these rules differently. They are more "guidelines" than "rules." The most important rule in the card room that supercedes all others IMO is "all decisions made by the floor are final." Basically the card rooms administer their "rules" as they see fit. Obvioulsy many players expect rules to be administered differently in that they expect them to be enforced to the letter i.e. more strictly. I understand why this expectation exists and I believe that card room policies and players expectations are often at odds. I believe I understand what the position of card room management is as well. I believe that ultimately their has to be a meeting of the minds so to speak with players and card room management. I will address this in a serparate post perhaps when time permits.
Finally forget about dealers being policeman of the games. They work for tips and they aren't about to go out of their way to "bite the hand that feeds them." I am pretty sure I don't want dealers to be aggressive in policing the games but I could be convinced otherwise. If dealers do take on this role I would think that the tipping system would have to be abolished and the card rooms would simply have to pay dealers a lot more money and thus probably charge the players more. I read the post on RGP about the guy stiffing a dealer because the dealer spoke a foreign language when she took her seat in the box. I can understand why he did this and I don't fault it but I think a lot of players would view this action by the dealer as perfectly innocent and aren't willing to stiff on that basis. Perhaps the time has come to change the system of tipping as Mason has suggested.
Tom Haley
Tom,
You wrote: "I read the post on RGP about the guy stiffing a dealer because the dealer spoke a foreign language when she took her seat in the box. I can understand why he did this and I don't fault it but I think a lot of players would view this action by the dealer as perfectly innocent and aren't willing to stiff on that basis."
I am "the guy" mentioned above and I posted the lead article (i.e., the serious article concerning the English only rule) on both rgp and 2+2 because I realize that there are many who don't cross over and I believe the issue is important. I am also aware of the bad blood between certain participants and I must tread very carefully since I work in the business. I do believe my arguements above in favor of stricter enforcement should at least be debated more seriously and openly.
Regarding my actions regarding stiffing the dealer posted on rgp (note that it is the only time in my life I have done so). I too believed the actions of the dealer to be perfectly innocent and this small protest I made on the micro level was in fact poor judgement on my part.
Hopefully, the discussion on both forums will return to the merits of the arguements.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I thought it was Ken who stiffed the dealer but it doesn't matter. As I said in my post I don't find any fault with this. My main point is that it is hard to administer rules so that every thing is black or white. It is difficult for a lot of players to act in a harsh manner towards the dealers me included but there is no doubt that it is called for sometimes.
I'll relate a very recent experience that I had. I was playing in a game last Friday night where 6 of the 9 players had a similar ethnic background. A few didn't speak English all that well. I was a little suspicious but as things turned out it was a great game as I didn't detect any collusion and everything seemed to be on the up and up. I honestly believe I was on my guard initially because of all of the horror stories I have read on the internet about from players in similar situations in other card clubs.
I think the issue you bring up is very important and I am sure that you are in a very delicate situation. I would like to see the problems rectified. However, I believe that there are players that will always blame their losses on some imagined extraneous factor other than their bad play and I think some of the complaints about cheating fall into this category. I do think there are real problems that need to be addressed and the one you have brought up is one of them. The whole issue regarding the integrity of the games really means a lot to me and it does concern me that the integrity of the games seems to have suffered. So the question of how to administer this rule fairly is very valid. It would be nice to get card room management in a discussion like this regarding topics like this.
To reiterate, I still maintain that the dealers will not police the games dilligently under the current tipping system and I'm not sure I really want them to. Like I said earlier I could be convinced otherwise. I believe players have a responsibility to police the games and I will post something on this soon.
Tom Haley
Tom,
We are not that far apart from the point of view as fellow players who take the game seriously and hope to see it prosper and expand. You may want to read the post in this thread I wrote a few minutes ago (I hope you are still online) concerning the discussion I had with my friend this evening.
In essence, since we are both winning, experienced players we don't worry about being cheated much but we wonder about the marginal players who may blame their loses on what they perceive as the improprieties they see going on around them. Speaking in languages other than English is one of them.
Regards,
Rick
Tom and Ray,
i forgot I posted the essence of my exhange on rgb with Ken Churilla in this thread under the title "One Small Step". I say this here since I know a few people who can surf 2+2 on the web put still haven't figured out how to read the newsproup.
Regards Again,
Rick
Ray:
Here's the problem as I see. There is currently near hysteria when it comes to the topic of cheating. All you have to do is go over and look at some of the posts on rgp, and these posts claiming rampant cheating and collusion every where have been coming at a steady rate for about a year-and-a-half. Furthermore, I believe that most of the readers of rgp as well as this forum are relatively new to the game, and get easily influenced by these claims.
In other words, the preception of cheating is there whether there is any cheating going on or not. And, the preception of cheating is enough to ruin poker. This is why I strongly advocate that action be taken concerning the English only rule. I agree with everything you say, but I suspect that in today's climate it is not enough.
Mason,
You make an important point here. The "perception of cheating" or what I like to call the "appearance of impropriety" can do a lot of damage to the future growth of poker.
As usual, there is a lot of irony concerning this and related subjects. As a player I do all the things you are supposed to do regarding decorum. Yet players who play with decorum also tend to play well. These are players I try to avoid.
Sometimes I find the best games are often the ones filled with a little hostility and violations of ethical behavior (often these players don't even realize they are behaving unethically - e.g., pushing chips). This is an indication of weak players. David wrote about this in Card Player in back to back columns a couple of years ago (in the first one, he called players who abuse the dealers imbeciles, nitwits and one other. I guess he got a hard time from Linda Johnson because a couple of weeks later he corrected himself by calling the same players idiots and morons. (I probably have stated the order of insults incorrectly but you get the idea). After those columns he stopped writing for Card Player for a while.
Regards,
Rick
I put the above post on rgp and got a reply from Ken Churila that hit home. I responded in part as follows:
>>>It is ironic you (Ken C.) said the following above: ".....I don't toke dealers who won't enforce this rule and I tell them why." I (Rick)have pretty much been in the habit of tipping the dealers no matter what and am never one to abuse the dealers in any way or complain about bad beats and so on.
Tonight I was playing in another casino when a dealer prepares to enter the box. As she enters, she engages in a rather extensive conversation with a departing player in a language other than English.
Having been involved in this issue I decide to take a stand right there. I said, "Dealer, you are aware there is a policy regarding speaking languages other than English when at the table. How can this be enforced when you clearly have no respect for the policy?" She gave me a puzzled look. Then I said "I am telling you in advance that you will receive no complaints if you give me ten bad beats in a row but you are not going to be tipped this half hour if I win a pot."
Amazingly, I go on a rush and win about five pots during her shift. Each time I put a chip where the tip would go and then I retract it and place it in a special pile near my stack. At the end of her shift I point to the stack and tell her these would have been yours and will be yours if I see respect for the policy in the future.<<<<
Maybe the way to win this battle is for all of us to take many small steps.
Regards,
Rick
No way, just yell, "Think is America, speak American or get the hell out." :)
To be honest, I can't see what the problem is with two people wanting to speak in a foreign tongue, so long as a hand isn't being played. If two guys want to talk in Korean when the dealer's counting down the deck, fine- as patrons of the card room I think they have that right. The "English Only Rule", as far as I understand it, has been instituted to prevent cheating, and clearly cheating isn't a problem if the cards haven't been dealt.
Two other things on this issue before I shut up;
1) IMOpinion strict enforcement of this rule almost always has some racist underpinnings. Often times I'll mumble something in my pidgeon French in between hands, and nobody gives a damn. But if two Asian guys start talking to each other in Korean or Japanese the table works itself into an uproar. While I can't vouch for the conditions in L.A., I can say that here in Colorado an unfortunate number of the players are flaming racists; who for whatever reason have a special grudge against Asians. Most of these men, I think, are probably veterans (since most are between 50 and 80) who may have served overseas, and developed a dislike for people of Asian descent while in the service. Either way, I notice that most of these players don't care if two Mexicans banter back in forth in Spanish a little, but absolutely go ballistic when two Asians speak in their native tongue.
2) It's time, I think, that we give the floor a break. As long as nobodys cheating, then the floor shouldn't feel obligated to supervise or intervene in the game. If you want to address a real problem in public cardrooms, then do something about the multitudes of nimrods, wife beaters and angle shooters who do everything in their power to keep the rest of the players from having fun.
GD,
I don't think it is so racist here in L.A. due to the large numbers of Asian players who are very skillful but I don't doubt that what you describe in Colorado is true. The demographics are culture are different for one thing.
My friends and I mostly play at the yellow chip level (10/20 to 20/40) in Los Angeles. A couple are super tough players with about the best hourly average in town. They don't think they are often being cheated and they put up with the constant chatter in non-English because they know it is useless or counterproductive to complain and they are winning anyway.
But the point my best friend and I discussed tonight is that many players who speak English only who are not quite so good yet are trying to win may tend to blame their mediorce results on the belief they are being cheated. It is these players who would most appreciate strict enforcement of the English only rule.
Anyway, I hope to here more from you and others on the forum on the subject.
Regards,
Rick
I like being reasonable. Usually, when someone is speaking in a foreign language you can get a rough idea of what they are saying. Often it's just the equivalent of "wow. Bad Beat" or something. But constant chatter has to be discouraged, even between hands. The two players could be saying things like, "He couldn't have had the trip 4's he represented, because I folded them before the flop.", or "Notice that he picks up his chips early when he intends to call", or "That guy's on short money, so if he's in the next pot let's center him and push him off the pot." etc. I get nervous when two players get up from the table and go off with each other repeatedly between hands, for the same reason.
However, the primary reason to discourage it is because it may give the appearance of collusion, which from the cardroom's standpoint is just as bad as real collusion. The newer players may get nervous and just decide not to play in that cardroom, especially if they've been losing a lot lately.
Rick,
I am not going to be able to add much to what has already been said by the others. However, I will say something as to how this topic affects me on a personal basis given the poker scene here in Vancouver and given that I am not a professional poker player.
Let me say that your goal in this regard is a laudable one and your mission statement if I can call it that is well conceived. I am just not so sure as to how workable it is in many poker rooms. For example, here in Vancouver, the majority of the poker players are Oriental. Despite several requests by management and other players alike, many of these players continue to speak in their native tongue. This is something that the rest of us have just come to accept and no one even complains anymore.
I should say that some of these Oriental players don't even know English thus making it impossible for them to not break the rule. I should also say that most of these players generally do not say anything incomprehensible to the rest of us when the cards are out. I have no problem at all with players speaking in their own language between hands. After all, poker can be a social activity for a lot of these players and they should be free to speak their own language and "enjoy" themselves between hands. However, the problem is that sometimes a conversation that begins between hands spills over to the start of the next hand bringing on the usual ineffective admonishments from the dealer.
Now, let me also come clean with an admission that I am not very proud off. After years of trying to dissuade these players from speaking in their native tongue, I have essentially thrown in the towel. Worse, I have joined them in breaking the rule. I come from India. There are a couple of other Indian players who like to speak to me in Hindi. Well, for a long time, I responded to their Hindi chatter only in English and for a while also told them that we really ought to communicate in English. Well, that didn't work too well either. These players (one in particular) continued to speak to me in Hindi and soon enough I started to do the same. Of course, the conversations that I got involved in had nothing to do with the game but as you say that is no defence. As you and others have pointed out, for poker to flourish, not only must there be no impropriety, there should not even be the appearance of impropriety.
However, from a purely personal point of view, I am not likely to get very vigilant about management having to enforce the rule. I am not a professional poker player. I am a lawyer. By playing poker, I have picked up several clients on legal matters. Several of these clients include the very players who transgress the "English only" rule. The fact is that it wouldn't be too wise of me to alienate these individuals by admonishing them for their transgressions because clearly that will affect my professional relationship with them (BTW, these considerations also cut into my poker profit a bit as I often go easy on some players keeping in mind my lawyer-client relationship with them).
Now, I know that the above resaon might strike one as being selfish on my part. Having said that, I think that you can understand my situation.
Bottom line: Yours is a laudable goal and one that all players and, in particular, those of you who play for a living should do everything possible to achieve. Just don't look to me to join your crusade here in Vancouver.
This is an interesting thread in that virtually everything that everyone says (on 2+2) makes sense. Card room managers will tell you that this is a tough problem to fix. I agree. Most experienced players will tell you that it doesn't make much difference what language most of their opponents talk in. I agree. Some people who post will tell you that cheating is rampant and that organized collusion is widespread. I don't agree.
But the perception of cheating is now there. It doesn't matter if it is because there is cheating, there are people talking in a language other than English and this makes others feel uncomfortable, or because a few highly paranoid people, who probably don't do very well at the poker tables, are spreading the word that you are going to get cheated.
But what does matter is that in many cardrooms action needs to be taken. Now I'm not familiar with the poker scene in Canada, but I suspect that these are small cardrooms and you very quickly get to know everyone. This won't be the case in a large California cardroom which can easily have 100 games or more going at any given time. When you don't know your opponents I believe that many people can begin to feel uncomfortable when another language is spoken. I also believe that the industry can be damaged unless action is taken soon.
Mason, skp, and all,
skp - I can see the scene in Western Canada is different and I understand your situation. Your contribution is very useful in that it points out the significant difference between large and small cardrooms regarding this issue as Mason pointed out above. It makes me believe that a card room by card room approach is best in working for these changes.
Because I consider this an important problem, I also put the lead essay of this post on rgp where I sometimes lurk and contribute. Although there were a few good posts early on it has largely degenerated into a bit of a flame war (not involving me) or whatever you call it in web speak. I would like to thank those of you on this forum that have participated so thoughtfully and politely. As I expected, you have given me considerable food for thought.
Despite living in what many consider the poker capital of the world, I believe we have barely scratched the surface of the potential market for poker players. Remember, large cardrooms like the Commerce, Hollywood Park and others can only be built after winning a difficult local ballot initiative, fighting off the challenges of the Attorney General, and a host of other problems that a normal business does not have to face. If one could open a cardroom as easily as a movie theater, who knows how many potential players are really out there?
I believe most who play under current conditions are highly motivated players. By this I mean that they love to play, and tend to look the other way regarding playing conditions (e.g., crowded tables, excess noise, ridiculous collection procedures, rude or abusive customers, etc.).
As we near the millennium, the demographics and economics are outstanding for poker. Many people are doing well in their jobs and the stock market and may want to retire early. The population is aging and these people tend to have plenty of money. They want a place to spend their spare time and few will want to go surfing or rock climbing. Yet where it is already established, poker is not growing much and some formally popular clubs are having a tough time (e.g.. the Bike). Las Vegas poker is relatively stagnant while the rest of the town booms. Card Player Magazine gets thicker, but the expansion of public poker into new areas has masked this lack of growth in the established areas.
In my friends and my experience, many in cardroom management have a tendency to focus on pleasing the current customer base or the customers who make the most noise (i.e., complain the most). They ignore what I like to call the “potential customers not present”. By this I mean there may be a vast supply of marginally motivated potential customers who sort of like cards or poker, have checked out the clubs, and find conditions not to their liking or intolerable. The widespread violation of the “English Only” rule is one of the most significant conditions that they may find to be intolerable. They rarely complain to management because it appears (to them) that management does not care. So they leave silently. After all, they are marginally motivated and can always stay home and watch TV or go to a movie instead.
In a reply to GD above, I mentioned a conversation between my best friend and I last night. He is a part time player and full time parent who has been destroying the middle limits for years and is one of the nicest and most unassuming poker players around. He tends to play at one large club because it is close to his home and he plays short sessions. He does not like the many conversations in languages he cannot understand. He has been around enough to know it is almost useless to complain. He does not think he gets cheated on a regular basis but he is sometimes a little uncomfortable. But he makes a nice wage so he will remain a customer.
What we wondered about is the large pool of less skilled players who are trying to win but just do not do that well. Being human, they will want to blame external factors. One of these factors is the perception that they are being cheated. I believe routine violations of the “English only” rule fuels this perception. And so they slip away, and as they do so they may tell their friends who may also become “potential customers not present”.
I apologize for not being brief but there is nothing like being tired in order to fight writer’s block.
Regards and thanks again for your responses,
Rick
Rick, A couple of points here. Are the responses on RGP distorting our thinking here? I'm not referring to the flame wars rather I'm refering to a lot of attitudes that seem to exist regarding card rooms and their policies. There was a suggestion made by Abdul for silence during the play of the hand which I am totally and vehemently against. I responded in a mild manner to this post which seemed to trigger some 'flames.' I could easily get involved again but I decided that the flames provide a source of entertainment so why do it. I think that there are a very small group of RGP posters who simply post more than others and thus we read them more often. I did notice a little support for the silence during the play of a hand rule. If a rule like this were ever implemented I am quite sure it would be to the detriment of casino poker. I also noticed that some novice players seem to be turned off by the prospects of playing casino poker as they feel their home games are much better. I will assume that the lack of response to Abdul's proposal means that most players on that forum would disagree with it. I do know that if it were ever implemented where I play it would be the end of the card room guarenteed. The bottom line is that I don't believe that RGP is very representitive of the player community. I have a real problem with implementing more rules when the rules we have are difficult to enforce as it is.
Abdul also mentioned the practice of tipping floor people. His suggestion was to abolish it. My response was that this may be an idea who's time has come. I also included aboloshing tipping for dealers. I will point out that if this practice is abolished the floor people and dealers will rightfully demand higher wages from the card rooms and I am quite sure that this will be passed along to the players. Also if dealers are held responsible for policing the games I believe that they will have to receive much more training than they do now (they probably don't get enough as it is) this will result in higher costs to the card room as well. Rick can speak to this better than I can, but it seems that implementing policy changes in the card room will result in more training of some sort for floor personnel as well in the major clubs at least. I think you all catch my drift in that implementing changes does not come for free.
I haven't mentioned the players a lot and what they can do which I will do sometime in a separate post. As I am sure a lot of forum readers know already, I believe that the players, especially the regular players, have a great responsibility to police the games themselves. When this happens this works the best.
Tom Haley
Tom,
The flame wars continue over there on rgp (you are now an official 2+2 "brown noser" according to a post this morning). However, I went back and read Abdul's and your posts and may end up pasting some parts of my response to follow back on rgp if I can dodge the flames.
Anyway, you wrote above "There was a suggestion made by Abdul for silence during the play of the hand which I am totally and vehemently against. I responded in a mild manner to this post which seemed to trigger some 'flames.' I could easily get involved again but I decided that the flames provide a source of entertainment so why bother."
I agree that to require total silence during the play of the hand is excessive. Poker is a social game and the best games seem to have a lot of chatter (obviously it is impolite to talk across someone or to comment on their hand as Abdul pointed out). Note that one of the worse “give a ways” of information does not involve verbal action. For example, the flop comes 4 4 J and a player who folded before the flop slams the table in frustration. You hold a 4 2 in the big blind. Are you going to worry about your kicker now? I also agree that the flames are entertaining but not worth responding to.
“I think that there are a very small group of RGP posters who simply post more than others and thus we read them more often.”
Maverick and Doug Grant post often but I do not waste much time reading their stuff. I’m sure you do not either. I do try to read threads with material by the better minds (on both rgp and 2+2) of which you of course are one. I guess this makes me a “brown noser” also.
Regarding tipping, my comments may surprise you and Abdul. I think abolishing tipping for floorman would be a reasonable idea (of course we would need a pay increase to compensate). The cost to the casino would not be too great as one floorman usually covers many tables so the passed on cost to the customers may be nominal (I cover as many as seventeen tables by myself).
I cannot agree with not tipping dealers. It is just too natural an act and if the casino passes on the costs to the customer the increase in collections would be enormous. Also note that the loose players do most of the tipping so this policy would hurt the solid players the most.
You wrote: “Also if dealers are held responsible for policing the games I believe that they will have to receive much more training than they do now (they probably don't get enough as it is) this will result in higher costs to the card room as well.”
The cost of training is not that high IMO. The problem is the amount and quality of the training and the lack of a consistent amount of support and reinforcement from all levels of management.
I essentially agree with most of the rest of your comments. I need to go now and am looking forward to your posts on the subject - damn it, I need to wash my face again :-)
Regards,
Rick
Rick, I did exchange some e-mail with Jeffrey Siegal and he proposed a no talking rule that has merit. Perhaps Jeffrey could post here describing it. At any rate I do pick up tells from people at the table and part of the charm in playing poker is the social interactions that occur at the table. As far as tipping is concerned, I am not surprised at all that you would be in favor of a no tipping policy for floormen. As you pointed out the floormen would rightfully demand more money. My point is that there is a cost when card room policies and procedures change and surely that cost will be passed along to the players. I agree that quality training takes time and I am also quite sure that the card rooms would view this training as an added expense when they have to pay the people during their training. The name calling on RGP is amusing as John Feeney posted something about the psyche of people who do such things. The only benifit I have derived from 2+2 is the opportunity to purchase and read their excellent books which I have done. I am extremely happy with the money I have made playing poker and it would not have been possible without the books from 2+2. Their the best bargain I've ever gotten.
I would also like to say that it is really great getting your perspective as a floorman. I realize that you need the support of management in changing things as well. Tom Haley
Rick-
An excellent post. Given the large number of player's in California who's native language is not English, I can see how this issue has more relevance to you (or to any other Cali player) than it does to me. However, if I had to guess, I'd say the one major thing that drives most new players away is the incredibly nasty attitude of most seasoned players. You don't have to listen to people snickering behind your back too many times before you just say "screw it-- I'm heading to the blackjack pits". If our nation's cardrooms are GENUINELY INTERESTED in expanding their customer base, they should take firm action against those players that taunt, swear and laugh at their opponents. I imagine that most new players would have no problem (or not much of a problem) with other languages being spoken at the table IF they were being treated in a civil manner by the other players.
GD,
Of course I agree that this is a serious problem. In the original Reader's Poll/article in Poker Digest (Vol 2, No 10 - page 38 & 39), I addressed this issue also along with one more mundane issue. I just decided to post one issue at a time. I may start off on an expanded version of that part of the article in a while.
Regards,
Rick
I haven't seen the article, so I'd love to see what you wrote on it. I agree that the English Only problem is one that needs to be addressed, but I don't think it's the primary or even secondary reason why more new players aren't being attracted to the game. Like most things, I think we, the poker community, have blown this thing WAAAAYYYYY out of proportion, forcing good men like you (i.e., the floor) to appease are irrational fears. If we're serious about making our cardrooms more inviting and less imtimidating, we should stop teasing the new players-- in ANY language.
BTW, another excellent thread.
Guy
I just returned from a trip to the WSOP and still cant understand why people always talk about how much action there is in the side games. Maybe if you are a pot-limit Omaha player and think you can beat Johnny Chan heads up you might say that, but I played in various middle limit games and can say on a very bad day CA games are still much better. Occasionally we had a poor player in the game giving away some chips, but invariably there were 6-7 aggressive players in every game trying to isolate him and take his money as fast as possible so he could run back to BJ or the slots. I went off to Mirage on Friday night trying to find a better game and what I found was one 20-40 game which looked like it had no action and 5 10-20 games, 3 of which I played in. Each one was about the same. Maybe one action player who didnt play all that badly, 3 or 4 strong players, and 4 or 5 tight passive players. Rarely was there a showdown and rarely were there more than 2 players seeing a river if there was one. I got two big pocket pairs in the session both in middle position, raised and got no callers. This is what 10-20 on a Friday night during the WSOP is supposed to be like??? I think I should just accept going to Vegas to have fun and play BJ and sports and stay out of the poker rooms from now on.
I agree with your assessment of the Mirage. There are too many tight, nasty locals there. Next time try the Bellagio, the games are more pleasant (and profitable) there. Black Jack
I was in Vegas a couple of weeks ago and played at the Mirage every day. Lots of locals, but the game to me seemed very loose and passive. On many occasions, the entire tabled called to see the flop.
My last night there saw a couple of visitors from Long Island that called every single hand pre-flop, even without looking, didn't matter to them.
Even though I caught lousy cards for a lot of my trip, I was still able to earn 13/hr, even with the mix of locals.
And yes, this was at the lower limits (3-6).
i dont know about the wsop but my tipical night in vegas had much better games then you are discribing. of course if you have shopped around like you say you did and it dosnt look any beter then that just go back to your hotel room. i have not been to vegas in awhile but if its gotten that bleek out there thats a shame.
I compared notes last night with some fellow players at Bay 101 and pretty much heard the same story I had. They were jumping from game to game looking for live ones and basically considered it a good game if just one live one was in it. A majority of games did have many passive players, but most also had a few ultra-aggressive players that pretty much took most profit opportunity away. I just decided to play 6-12 because the list for 15-30 was long when I got there, but I knew I found the right spot when I sat down. One guy was so loose a bad player commented to me, "thats why you all want to stay here". It was 3:30am and nobody had left for over two hours except a prop. This guy kept buying in for $100 and about every 3 hands had to rebuy. Another player raised about every hand and folded after the flop most of the time. Another player never raised unless he had the nuts. Another pretty much could have been in the dictionary under calling station. I had a big night and thought to myself, now this is the type of game we in CA see all the time and why I can't believe so many people go to Vegas to play poker.
Las Vegas is the poker capital of the world during the WSOP. The rest of the year it may be living off past glory and reputation. Right now California is on top,especially with the addition of the Indian casinos. This also could change, poker is very strong in the Northwest,Arisona,New Jersey and the deep south. Poker is a world wide game. Poker is burning out in Las Vegas,living and playing in that fantasy world must wear on one. Of course this is my opinion. Comments anyone?
I agree. I play mostly in AZ, although I go to Vegas 3 or 4 times a year. I can't really take more than 3 or 4 days in Vegas--the town, and many of the people who live there are just plain bizarre. And quite honestly, the every day poker is much better here in AZ. Also, I would much rather see the rake go to the Indian tribes (who we have screwed for so long) than to Trump or Wynn, who have screwed us for so long. Black Jack
You better just go get a nice call girl and play craps than play ring games. I love the touneys in VEgas though !!!
A couple of months back you announced you would be publishing a low limit He book this spring. Any info on when we can expect this? I have developed my low limit game using Lee Jones text, and am consistently winning. What strategy changes can be expected?
I find this forum extremely informative and enjoyable, however, I don't understand how people consistently make money at high limits. If all the players in these "high" games are able to analyze all the factors which go into a hand, it seems to me that it all boils down to who gets the cards.
I would think there is more money to be made(on a regular basis)in medium games such as 15-30 & 20-40. If only advanced/expert players play high-limit, who are the targets?
Finally, what is the highest limit STUD game where you can expect to find several tourists/wannabees?
Fish can be found in all ponds. Just as a wealthy businessman might play blackjack for $100 a hand with no concept of basic strategy, a wealthy recreational poker player might find a $300-600 game a good "gamble" From what I hear, most of these players are smart enough to know they're outmatched, but they still have just a good chance at winning as they do at the craps table, if the cards are hitting. and what a good feeling and story to bring back to the office, how they took a few grand off of Johnny Chan or Doyle Brunson or Mason Malmuth (jk). You don't need to pass any tests to play at the high levels, and one fish with half a million to blow over the weekend is enough to split between a table of "rounders".
not only experts play high. there are a lot of very rich people in this world. at the modest stakes im familar with (medium up to 20-40 or pot limit) i dont see a whole lot of difference in the play. there is a general principle that you see more good players at 20-40 then 3-6, but there are so many exceptions that i recomend moving up as quickly as possible. i assume (of course that makes a ass of you and me) that the same situation exists no matter how high you go if you can afford it.
There are a few rich targets so famous that even poker players who have never seen them know who they are.
Without mentioning names, there is a guy in the movie business who's famous for playing a loose, aggressive game at ALL limits. One story says he got a call on his cell phone while playing in a 300-600 HE game. He told the dealer "while I'm gone, deal me in and make sure that I make every bet and raise possible". He was stuck 20K before the phone call, but won 30K while he was away.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Neat story, know any more? and who is this player?
Even though I've heard stories about this person bandied about numerous different poker rooms, I'd rather not publish his name online. Suffice it to say he can afford to lose a few million a year at poker.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
There are some high limit games that I wouldn't play with your money.
No limit hold'em ring game with $2/$5 blinds. Loose/aggressive player with about $400 limps from early position. Folded to me one off the button and I call with pocket sixes (i have about $1000). Button and small blind fold and we take a three-handed flop.
Flop comes 10-6-3 rainbow. BB (a tight/solid player with about a $350 stack) checks. Early position player checks. I also check, not content to take down the $17 pot with my big hand. The turn is a beauty. Off suit Ace. BB bets $20. Early position player raises to $60. I raise to $120. My thinking is that the BB was on a steal with nothing and that I want a call from the early position player who probaby has an AJ or AQ.
The BB squeezes his cards for the longest time, declares "I think I'm ahead and raises to $250. The other guy folds. I think for a second that I may have run into TT (or more remotely AA), but shove in the rest of my chips anyway since A-3 or A-6 seems a lot more likely. He calls and turns over 6-3 for a dead-drawing-bottom-two-pair.
A couple of regulars at the table commented to me later about the BB's "terrible" play. They reasoned that I had to have at least top two pair or A-6/A-3 to make the raise on the turn. I disagreed since I think tha HE could reasonably beleive I would have made the same play with AK or even AQ for the following reasons. 1) the money was not too deep so I couldn't get hurt if someone was laying a trap; 2) the early position player is somewhat loose and is likely to have AQ or AJ since he would have raised with AK/AQ and would have bet the flop with AT or even A6. 3) I DON'T play A-3 or A-6 and would have bet AT on the flop.
I think he made a reasonable call once the Ace came on the turn. If he had tested the waters on the flop, he might have been able to get off the hand with a much smaller loss.
it worked out ok for you but i wouldnt give a free card on the flop. if it pairs the board you are not likely to get action and if it doesnt every card is a card that could give a miracle to them to get you broke. the ace was one card though that was good for your hand as it may bring action but what if someone had an overpair and you could have busted him on the flop. that is more likely than someone hitting a hand that will bust them but not be big enough to bust you.
RZ-
Is it fair to say that you NEVER give a free card in no-limit without the nuts. I usually don't, but this seemed like an ideal situation given the small three-handed pot, my position, and my knowledge of the players. I obviously wold have gotten action from the BB on the flop her, but I couldn't count on it from my "target", which was the early caller. I was 99.9% positive that he would have bet out with any overpair (except maybe AA) and I wcan't think of any "miracle" card that could break me here. The best he could hope for would be to pick up a straight or a flush draw with one card to come. If I was wrong about my read and he DID have an overpair, I was going to lose money whether we got the money in on the flop or the turn.
Maybe someone had 4-5 and a 2 or 7 would be that miracle, but I thought the risk/reward ratio was in my favor.
Here are the scariest cards, a 9, 8, 7, 5, 4, or 2. If an opponent is holding 99 or 88, the T on the flop could have slowed them down. Every other cards listed makes a straight possible. Admittedly, except for a 7 or 2 making a straight for someone holding 45, you wouldn't expect someone to show you a straight here. However, the big blind got in for free, and could have anything. Put me in that big blind, and give me 74, and I'll check the flop and hope for a 5 on the turn. ;-)
Anyway, you didn't necessarily make a mistake. You took a risk. If your evaluation of the players, and the potential profit and loss from that risk, outweighs the potential profit and loss if you bet the flop, then go for it.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Put me in the BB with 74 and I'd even CALL a $15-$25 pot sized bet from a big stack since I am getting great implied odds and he is likely to pay me off. Your point is well taken, as extra caution is always warranted in an unraised pot. However, no risk no reward (and I always have redraws against the straight). Hope to see you at the DC game again. The Tuesday noght no-limit continues to be a great game.
Thanks Mike.
I would love to play NL every Tuesday, but trying to get into NYC would be too much effort. Maybe when my company makes me come there for business, I can stay the night after playing a bunch, but that will probably be the only way. Be sure to say hi when you come over to Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun. Just won the Tuesday night NL HE tournament at Foxwoods again, so I guess I can play some NL on Tuesdays.
Email me privately, as I don't have your email.
raymers@worldnet.att.net
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
if you are playing correctly you will be betting most times in this spot without a hand to rob the pot. since you showed that you now dont bet when you have a hand that can stand a big raise you will not get away with your bluffs enough. what happens when you give free cards is that many of the free cards destroy your action by ruining a hand that you may have gotten played with when you had the best. what if the big blind had 2 jacks and was waiting to check raise you and now the ace comes and ruins your pot. i think this happens much more often then you let one catch up to a second best hand that can play on. when you have the nuts that is the time not to give free cards as now if you can get big action you can play for all your money but if you wait usually the nuts have changed and you must now milk the pot for a smaller amount. i would be more inclined to give a free card if the pot was much larger. see if someone can tell me why. when this goes against all reason.
Though I can't be at all sure, I imagine the reasoning for giving a free card when the pot is large has to do with getting substantial future action from a second best hand. If the pot was 600$ pre flop, say, and the free card gave someone a pair of A's, they may be more willing to call a 200$ bet (or perhaps more) because they stand to win a monster if they're good. However, in the case of the 20$ pot they may not want to play that much, since there's far more risk than reward.
Also, when a non-threatening card falls, it's easier to mimic or induce a bluff for big money. Your future hands will benefit as well.
with a larger pot it is much more likely that someone will now bluff at it. with a small pot you only get action when they actually hit something with the free card. also they may bet a much weaker hand that hasnt improved for value or to win the pot right there and you are now sitting waiting for them. either way if the free card gives them a better hand than you , you are going to lose a bunch and this way you have more ways to win a decent additional amount with the same risk.
Slow playing in big-bet poker gains merit if you can either confidently put all your money in later (the opponent will gamble with a 2nd best hand he makes) OR you can confidently fold later (the opponent will only bet a bunch with a better hand he makes), but you can still get paid off.
If the opponent will NOT pay you off if he improves to a 2nd best hand do NOT slowplay. If you will NOT know how to respond to a huge bet, do NOT slowplay.
So, are these opponent's predictable?
- Louie
Excellent advice which IMO is also applicable to limit play (albeit to a lesser extent).
I am new to the Denver area, I just move from Louisiana and play on a regular basis on the river boats(Horseshoe in Shreveport). Where our the best poker rooms in the vicinity of Denver and what is the most popular game in the area. Thanks Mark
Central City/Black Hawk, about 45 miles WNW of Denver. $5 max bet. GREAT games. Several card rooms.
Valet. Get comped.
I like the Midnight Rose in Cripple Creek 40 miles W of Colorado Springs. Met the wife there. Only poker in town. Self Park. Get a free T-Bone with Shrimp, and drip grease all over the cards.
These are the only places (I believe) to play in Colorado.
- Louie
In the future please put this type of post on our exchange forum.
Visiting in June and would like to find a good low limit Texas Hold`em game!!-)
Limit poker is not spread in England. All the games in London are pot limit, either 7 card or a round of holdem followed by a round of omaha, minimum buy in is £50. The two casinos in London that spread poker are The Stakis casino on Russell Square ( near Euston Station ), and The Victoria casino on Edgeware Road, both casinos have something of a dress code - no jeans, no trainers etc, and also you have to go along 24 hours in advance to become a member before you can play!
In the future, please put this type of post on our exchange forum.
Suppose you raise in late position with a hand like QJ after one player has limped in. Assume the SB folds and the BB and the limper call. You take the flop 3 handed.
Flop has three rags.
Most players in this situation invariably bet after the other two players have checked. The other two players if they catch anything will invariably raise to see where the pre-flop raiser is at (they may even raise with nothing to see if they are just up against overcards typically AK).
The automatic bet on the flop often ends up costing the pre-flop raiser 1 big bet i.e. he calls the raise on the flop and then folds to a bet if he misses again on the turn.
I realize that there are lots of countermeasures one can take to combat these plays. However, it would seem to me that one neglected countermeasure is to simply check in this situation a good number of times. My thinking is that most players will likely put me on AK if I check the flop. This then effectively gives me 14 cards to hit on the turn i.e. 6 real outs with Queens and Jacks and 8 ostensible outs with Aces and Kings. Of course, should one of the other players bet if an Ace or King falls, I can safely fold knowing that he must have hit because he surely wouldn't bluff knowing that I very well could have AK.
On the other hand, if I in fact did raise with AK preflop, I am more likely to bet out on an all-rags flop because then I don't have any ostensible outs on the turn with which to bluff on the turn.
I am hoping for comments on this play and also for other examples (I am sure there are many) of how to effectively use ostensible outs to your advantage.
skp,
if the players are as aggressive as you say here then a check is in order but most times you should bet as you are getting 3.5 to 1 and its less than that you will not get called.
most likely one has an ace or king so you dont have those as outs to which to bluff for the pot and if one comes it may be likely that you are bluffed at anyway and now you fold a hand that would have won on the flop with your bet.
now what if there is Ax or Kx your outs are lower,instead of the 7 outs u may have 5 or less ?? or a slow played pocket pr has u drawing dead,? now to say how to go about finding out where or who has the power if all rags do hit the flop its checked to u, thow A3 A6 Kx cound have hit there small pr with kicker , they have no power to bet, so ur ganna bet there hand for them? now of coarse you have redraws toward your 2 pr or who really has the best hand.. check the flop is the clear choice, bet and or raise the turn.one free card can beat you though when you have not got the best hand after the flopp ,, I gues its your call,,any comments..
Ray--your points are very well taken as usual. But this does bring up an interesting question. There's a play almost like the one skp is proposing in David's _Theory of Poker_. It's in chapter 18, "Bluffing", at the end of the section titled "Bluffing and Betting for Value":
You raise preflop with either AK, AQ, or KQ. You are head up with a flop like T-3-2. He checks and you check along. Now he suspects you have one of those 3 hands. You know that you will of course bet if you make a pair on 4 but also know that you can bet as an effective bluff if the turn card is the high card that you *don't* have.
The logic is the same as what skp is talking about, but I wonder if David's play was in part a result of the smaller blind structure and the game conditions at the time he wrote TOP. Back then I don't think you were getting that 3.5-1 were you? Also, David mentions the player being "ready to call with any pair if a high card doesn't come". As you suggest, I think these days most players would not just be ready to call, but would usually bluff into you when no high card comes. Some who are more aggresive would use the high card as a scare card and bluff into you then as well. I'd be interested in what you and/or David would have to say about this.
I do think there is merit in skp's idea though. Even if it's not a play to make very often (perhaps just against habitual check-raisers?), I like the way it does take advantage of what your opponent is thinking. Of course if you have a good idea what they read you for you can use that knowledge to find bluffing opportunities at any point in a hand.
John Feeney
John (or anyone else for that matter),
Leaving aside the wisdom (or lack thereof) of checking with the QJ on the flop in the example given, are there any other common situations you can think of where the idea of ostensible outs could come into play?
One further example might be where you raise with an open-ended straight draw on a flop that also contains a two flush. If your opponent gives you the free card on the turn, you could have as many as 17 outs on the river (8 real ones and 9 ostensible ones).
Any other common situations that come to mind?
If I have a KQ to a flop of Ks 7s 8h and am raised on the flop by an opponent who then takes the free card on the turn ... I am much more likely to call on the river when a spade hits than if the flop were, say, Ks 7s 2h, because I recognize that he COULD HAVE been playing a straight draw.
Good Luck
Jim Mogal
Yes, but you are probably a very good player. Many lesser players would fold...ironically, a live one would also call (for the wrong reasons).
In other words, this play (like anything else) can only be made against certain players.
Jim,
This gets away from "ostensible outs" (I still love that term) for a monent but I like the play of leading into the raiser on the turn in this situation. If you are raised again you can usually safely through your hand away. If the raiser was on a draw, you prevent the free card. This is what I call the good old "Stop and Go" play. I would also like to copyright that term as I believe I'm the first to use it on the net (although I stole it from someone who doesn't have a computer).
Regards :-)
Rick
Rick,
The play you describe is Standard Operating Procedure in 7 card stud when you get raised by someone who has a two suited board on 4th street and breaks off on 5th street ..you bet right into him denying the free card and if you are raised again you can evaluate the situation.
In holdem it's more difficult to determine what the raiser has for sure so I'm more inclined to check to him on the turn rather than risk getting raised again.
Good Luck,
Jim
Just a simple example: Say you hold QJs in a late position and raise a lone limper. The big blind and the limper call. Flop = 8-8-3. They check, you bet and they both call. Turn = 2. They check again. Now say that for whatever reason you decide to check along hoping to hit a pair on the river (maybe you think there's a good chance you'll be check-raised by a player who may not actually have anything...). Here (if you have a tight image) you may have six additional ostensible outs -- the aces and kings (understanding Andrew Well's caution that certain outs may be no good).
John Feeney
John,
since you play higher stakes against more sophisticated players you realize that in most cases if there is any decent money in the pot players will just call to see you as they are not afraid of losing a bet or a pot as the less aggressive people that are trying to make a living playing poker. the players will even lead at you when the high card comes just to check you out or check raise you not even caring if you hit the card. people that dont play this way become too easy to read, it seems that by playing what looks badly can be proper play within reason of course. skp has a great idea as it is what goes on in good players minds but they may not always realize it as these cards being extra outs. his idea works well against tight players that read hands and stick to their read. when in that spot you should represent the two big cards and bluff when any big card comes and punish him when smaller cards hit. one big difference in the bigger players is that they will gladly play a hand to the end and not worry about the pot when they believe they may have the winner. they are less likely to worry about protecting their winnings or not getting involved with a weak hand. they know that to win big you must get involved.
Ray, is it not 6.5 to 1?
(of course, that just makes your argument for betting out that much stronger).
yes i overlooked the raise then it is a clear bet unless you intend to check with the intention of trying to win on 4th with nothing but then the texture of the flop has more to do with your decision as now the free cards can make more possibilities to get played with.
skp,
I don't have much to add after Ray Zee's comments except to say you may want to copyright the term "ostensible outs" since it may be a great claim to fame along with Adbul's "dominated hands", Sklansky's "implied odds", Mason's "negatively correlated games", Caro's "law of least tilt" and so on.
Regards :-)
Rick
P.S. If you have time I would like to here your input to the thread I started below on "English Only" but I realize conditions may be different up in Canada.
... and Louie's " .. err .. " and "brain dead" ...
Seriously, I think "apparent outs" is better.
There's been a distinction between *apparent* *effective* and now *ostensible* outs on this forum. *Apparent* in the context of the original post would be the six cards that pair up with QJ. While I'm sure most of us recognize that an ace or king might be an out, it's really just an ordinary bluffing card. As an *ostensible* out, the bluffability is accounted for. In the original example, there's about five *effective* outs assuming normal play.
Andrew, the six cards that pair up with my QJ would be "real" outs and not "apparent" or "ostensible" outs.
BTW, what do you mean by saying that I have five "effective" outs (geez, my copyright is getting weaker by the minute).
They would not be real outs if one of your opponents held AQ or AJ and you both paired on the turn. This is why I call them apparent outs. When determining effective outs I counted all apparent (6) and ostensible (8) outs and assumed there was about a 65% chance that with two typical opponents any of these outs would make QJ a second best hand, or would lead to a bluff bet on the turn against what would now be top pair.
We all use the concept of ostensible outs when we make an early position preflop raise with the good ace hands (AK AQ AJ) routine strategy. If the raise causes the play to become shorthanded and one high card flops, it doesn't matter as much if the high card pairs our hand since we'll often follow through with a lead bet on the flop anyway.
Ya, but who wants a copyright on a simple word like "apparent" (hehe).
Seriously, you are right. Damn lawyers can never write using plain language.
I might check 1 out of 8 times just to mix up my play.
But you're better off to bet. When I have control of a hand, I don't like to relenquish it freely.
Many time a bet will drive out the smallest pair if the player that made it was going for something else (ie. a flush or straight) Even if those smallest pairs do call to "see the turn", most of the time they will miss and fold to another bet.
Play your hand strong and put pressure on your opponents.
Generally solid advice.
In retrospect, I guess the reason (perhaps a silly one at that) I posted my play as an alternative perhaps has something to do with the regularity with which I seem to be getting blown off pots lately after having raised preflop.
I tend to check on the flop with overcards from last position when there are no backdoor flush or runner-runner straight possibilities for which I would want a cheap turn card. Sometimes it seems my opponent(s) have put me on a hand like a medium pocket pair if there is no big card on the turn; it's bet (bluff / semibluff) and I raise. I would also be concerned if it's checked around again on the turn, and would be much less likely to try to buy the pot with a bet here. I would not be concerned with someone playing for a checkraise on the flop, unless that player has previously demonstrated the capacity for making this play with no pair. The checkraise lets me *off the hook* when I know it is being made with a legitimate hand. Thinking back on my general play in this type of situation, I'd say I check along maybe 1/3rd. of the time, but I'll also check along occasionally with top set too.
Andrew, you wrote:
"I tend to check on the flop with overcards from last position when there are no backdoor flush or runner-runner straight possibilities for which I would want a cheap turn card"
I tend to take the opposite view. If I do not have any extra draws, I don't mind betting and then having to fold after being checkraised. On the other hand, if I have a back door flush draw, I am more likely to check the flop because a checkraise on the flop might make me fold thereby depriving me the opportunity of making that back door flush.
In this instance, the posibility of winning the pot after seeing the turn card for free seems to me to be worth more than getting a free card on the river (of course, it's just a cheap card and not really a free one).
My logic here is similar to the logic which dictates that you semi-bluff less when in late position i.e. if I flop something like a gut shot, back door flush draw with an overcard, I am more likely to bet from early position than from late position.
(of course, the decision to check/bet is not really driven by these considerations. There are far more important considerations. However, what I am saying is that all other things being equal, I check when I have back door draws and bet when I don't).
I'd rather save one small bet on the flop and muck to whatever action that produces on the turn if I miss, rather than having to fold to a checkraise with a weak bet. In my game there are players who will checkraise with hands of lesser value than two overcards. By accepting the possibility of being checkraised on the flop (and holding a hand with which I could pick up enough extra apparent outs on the turn) I can now aggressively semibluff-raise on certain turn cards. I think this makes up for having to sometimes make a loose call to that raise on the flop. Of course our contrasting styles of play can each be appropriate depending on table conditions and line-up, yet I'll favor my approach for tight-agressive conditions or games with many deceptive players.
I think it strategically unwise to attempt to "represent" AK by CHECKing QJ, when in fact you would (correctly) BET AK.
There are a lot more raising hands with an Ace than a King, and I for one am much more paranoid with a small pair when an Ace flops than a King against a late-position raiser.
I would be reluctant to raise with QJ for value unless the first caller is quite aggressive, indicating a probable worse hand than mine when he just calls. Even so, I would be reluctant to raise unless I felt I could steal it on the flop when nobody flops a pair or draw. So if I DID raise B4 the flop, I would ROUTINELY bet the flop.
But against sensibly aggressive types you MUST check often enough to make them squirm about betting their flopped pair or check-raising with it risking a "free" card.
- Louie
I haven't had a chance to read all the posts here yet, but it seems to me that your theory makes sense, but is actually unplayable. The reason I say this is that it is usually beter to be aggressive when you are head up, especially after pre-flop raising, and more passive if you have missed against three aor more players. If you miss and check against three players and then a paint hits that doesn't fit... and you bet, you are going to get played with. As the players increase, the chance that these lower paints make someone, increases so it negates any ostensible outs imo.
heads up or against two players you are going to be better off by beting and geting them to fold, than by checking and then betting. Maybe once in a while it might be worth it but once you check after raising it is going to be tougher to gauge what your opponent thinks you have. seeya
As a new HE player, I seem to hear the same argument of which is the better hand AA or AK suited. The typical whine is "I've had pocket aces crushed so many times, I would rather play AK."
Any comments on which is the better hand?
I've read two books on HE and have maybe 10 hours playing time. Just curious.
AA by a mile. AA will get beat but as long as you don't try to push it beyond where it is playable then its going to win far more money then it loses. AKs will win a lot also but it doesn't have the ability to stand up on the end if it didn't get any help as easily.
The best thing to do with the whiners is to smile sympathetically and keep on playing.
George,
Reread the books as you didnt comprehend what you read or get better ones. Even with 10 hours playing you should not ask this question. Keep reading and watching and soon it will come together for you. Good Luck.
they both have there value thow i would take AA over Ak in any position, thow AK suited is a powerful hand , you have to represent AK as if u were playing AA, If u succeed then u have played well, AA has its plave againt week flops where AK has little value towards a pot exept a flat out bluff..
Gearge,
In the bigger games it is not even close. AA is a much better hand.
If you play well it is better in the smaller, looser games also. But many players at this limit can't release their black aces against agressive betting and multiple opponents when the flop is something like 8d 9c Jd. If you make this mistake, AKs is an easier hand to play overall.
Regards,
Rick
One thing which I was told to tune into early in my poker playing days was "Pay attention to the whining". When people are on an even keel, they could be saying anything, but when they are genuinely whining, their emotions are getting the better of them.
What "I've had pocket aces crushed so many times, I would rather play AK." really means is "I like AK better because I hate having to call with pocket aces all the time, since I lack the judgement to properly evaluate this hand." (Once again,) Dan is right on the money.
George:
Players that complain about AA are poker idiots, pure and simple. Play with them.
I've sat at tables with people that tell me they hate flopping straights (even nut straights). They explained to me that it never holds up and costs them lots of money (I really wanted to ask why they played 89s but not 29s, if they really didn't want to hit the straight :). Hmmmmm, now that I think about it, they are the same people that complain about AA, and wish they had AKs instead.
A Poker Guy!
AA is far, far better than AKsuited heads up. If you have many players the margin may get smaller but WILL NEVER be equal or dissapear. If you flop a flush or a straight thats one thing but more often or not you will NOT !
I'd be interested in anybody's comments about "showing your hand" after everyone has folded.
I have a theory that if you bluff the appropriate amount of times, your opponents gain no real advantage when you reveal your hand.
I believe revealing a bluff here and a solid hand there only serves to confuse your opponents and results in a lot of second guessing on their part.
Anyone agree or disagree? I know this isn't the prevailing wisdom.
I sometimes show my hand at the end, if I think it will gain me something. If a game is ripe for a lot of bluffing, I'll often show my 'real' hands on the river, just to let people know I wasn't bluffing (so I can bluff sucessfully on future hands). If I want more action on my hands, I'll show a bluff or two. Sometimes I'll just show my hand to a weak player who is losing and might leave the game, just to let him know I wasn't putting a 'move' on him. If I raise the blinds with a strong hand, I'll often show it so that they don't think I'm picking on them unfairly. I feel that this gives me a better chance to steal those blinds in the future.
I play in games with the same players every night, so these 'meta game' strategies are important for maintenance, IMO.
Sometimes you can intimidate an opponent by showing them a tough laydown soon after you've called them on the end with a very weak hand. This gives the player the feeling that you can read him like a book, and he's less likely to try to put moves on you in the future. But you have to be REALLY careful about this, because showing a tough laydown will often result in other players taking runs at you.
Dan
anytime i play a pot i get feelings from a player. i guess things about his hand from unconcious feelings i may get even if i dont percieve them at all. after he shows his hand ill remember those feelings and can use that info next time im in the pot with him. maybe ill remember with the bluff he showed that he smiled or frowned and unless he is real good its gonna cost him later on. even the bad players learn these feelings after a while and use them subconciously against you.
What a great question. Everything I have read says to show your bluffs and gut shots and don't show your good hands. I have noticed that a few good players will show thier hand if they have the top pair or a solid hand. This somehow makes the other players feel better and adds to the credibility of that player. I think it is a good set up for future bluffs.
i like to show a good hand after 3 or 4 times not being called. I personally never show bluffs because it makes that player out to get you,unless that is what you are trying to do. I have seen players do this just to throw people on tilt.
what about insisting to see your opponents hand after you have revealed yours and he is going to muck his?
A good point, and one I am careful about. That's why I tend to show hands that are NOT indicative of my regular play. For example, I'll show my AK to the blinds after I raise and win them, but I won't show the weaker hands. So hopefully, the observant players develop a skewed impression of how I play. Perhaps I'd be better off showing nothing at all.
Another factor: If you show your hands too much, you are giving up information for free that the player might pay for. In other words, if your opponent knows you'll show him what you had anyway, he's less likely to pay off your real hand on the river.
Show nothing TELL nothing, what u show as winning hands to a folded pot could come to haunt u , If U want to give yur plays and ability to bluff away to the whole table,
I agree with Dan.
If you are in firm control of when and where to "show", there is a definite opportunity to skew the others' opinion of your play. This ties in directly to disguising your hands, one of the fundamentals of poker.
Ray's point is well taken too, but not everyone has Ray's gift of reading people. The average low to medium limit player is actually pretty easily manipulated.
I agree show nothing , sometimes we get too cute, it is a no ev THE PAPA
Well, I don't know for sure who's right, but it seems that there is sometimes more than a little showing of both bluffs, and legitimate raises, at the final table of the WSOP. As these players are often some of the best, there must be some advantages to showing. However, it may be that you have to be especially good to know when to show, and when not to show.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
In lower limit games, where you are far more likely to be called "just to see 'em", if you never let them see for free, won't you be more likely to be called with poor hands strictly by curiousity?
Mooselini.
Absolutely. But sometimes you don't want to be called. I found that there were certain bluffing opportunities that came up quite regularly in the low-limit games, and I made a lot of profit from them. In that game, I cultivated an image of being a 'rock' that never bluffed.
my piont exactly so why show ,,, if no need to ,, the rock sits still never moves never flinches never speaks NEVER SHOWS HIS HAND, on a folded pot to him,,!!
Dan-
Isn't the kind of game that's ripe for bluffing also the kind of game where you'd like to get more action on your legitimate hands? If not, what's the difference?
Not always. You can be in a game where people play very tight before the flop, but are tenacious afterwards. Or, you can be up against very good players who play very tight, but make it hard for you to bluff later on because they will do things like semi-bluff checkraise, or call you down all the way with a small pair or ace-high because they correctly read the texture of the flop against your hand and figure there is a good chance that you are on a draw.
Dan
(I believe it was appropriate to start a new thread on this topic, as it is suitably different from the English only post)
When I dealt, I was as strict as I could possibly be. I was trained that dealing poker is a cross between a referee and a babysitter. A couple of things to qualify this:
1> I was trained to deal at a casino with near exclusively high limit games.
2> Tips are pooled between poker and the rest of the casino (eech!)
However, I personally feel that the dealer's job is akin to a referee, and as my posts may have dictated, I feel that is appropriate.
Certainly though, whether the dealer should be percieved as a referee or not is open for debate, they simply *must* be percieved as being neutral, and speaking to a player in a foreign tongue when that player comes to the table certainly betrays the appearance of neutrality!
(Note: description of race only used to accurately detail the events given, and should not be percieved as a slight or any sort of racial slander)
I've been the lone Caucasian at a table with nine Chinese players and a Chinese dealer. This in itself isn't a problem, but when the dealer says "You should go play blackjack so that we can have a full-blown china-town game", it certainly blew 'neutrality' out the window.
Ultimately, they should increase the dealers salary and make it illegal to tip, as in other countries. This would allow the players:
1> To police the game, and 2> To defend themselves from the incessant verbal attacks and slander they endure on a daily basis!
Mooselini.
Mooselini,
I need to be brief as I'm in a hurry. All your comments regarding being perceived as nuetral are fantastic. However, I don't think raising dealer pay and making dealing a "no tip" profession is realistic. Many players (especially the weaker players) are superstitious and tend to do the most tipping. The dealer is just a natural person to tip and this won't change.
I still maintain that management and dealers have to be convinced that it is in their long term interest to be agressive in policing the games. The player they police may stiff them for a while but the players in general will appreciate it and they will end up with more tips overall.
Of course they must use judgement. For example, a player who is playing with decorum is briefly visited by their spouse during the shuffle. They exchange a few words in their native tounge. It would be correct to assume this converstion is more likely to be about the need to stop at the market on the way home as opposed to anything affecting the integrity of the game. Unfortunately, good judgement is not easily taught.
Regards,
Rick
The following play occured in a loose 6-12 game. I am in late position with JJ. 4 people limp and I raise, figuring that the blinds would call and all the limpers as well. Button calls so does everyone else. SB folds, BB calls. We take the flop 6 handed.
The flop is: 2h 7s 8s (none match the suit of my JJ)
Action gets checked to me and figuring that I have the best hand and that I can't give a free card. I bet.
Button calls. BB calls. 2 callers and agressive player to my right raises. At this point I put him on a draw of some sort or maybe 2 pairs. I figure at this point that raising is the best play since it could knock some players off the hand.
I reraise. BB calls. All one player folds. One calls. And agressive player calls. His call tells me that he has a draw of some sort.
Turn comes a 6 of diamonds. Board is now 2h 7s 8s 6d
Action gets checked to me. Figuring that there are several draws at this point and that my hand is best. I bet.
Button calls. One caller and Agressive player raises. I think about it for a second and figure that he either flopped a set or has a straight. I call. 2 other players call. River comes 2s. One player checks. Agressive player bets, I call (hopeless call?). Button folds. Other player folds. Agressive player shows A5s for the nut flush.
How would others play this hand? Fold on the turn on the second check raise?
Any comments appreciated,
carlos
I don't think you played badly. The only question I have for you is: Was this "aggressive" player "tight aggressive" or "loose aggressive"? The answer to this question determines whether your play was sound or not. Black Jack
He was loose agressive. Maybe the only thing that stayed in my mind after the play was the thought about raising again on the turn to either make the drawing hands pay dearly or knock out a better hand. The guy on the button later told me that he had a bigger pair than mine.
And I called the river bet since it was possible that the agressive player might've had his 2 pair counterfeited.
carlos
I stopped raising JJ preflop. It always seems that I have rasied for a pr of Q's or AK , depending on the position and how many players are in will i raise prelop, JJ has been the worst hand for me in any position lately i have my pocket J's like a small pr ,, if i hit the flop thats a differant story, thow it always seems with a J on the flop u always have a ,A OR K OR Q wich is hard to justify paying off someones made hand to chase my 2 outer,, I hope u have better luck with them than me,,..
I think JJ wins its fair share of pots. Especially when there are a few players and the "big cards" are not too live. When the flop is rags you want to make them chase overcards. And if people don't believe you have a pair they might pay you off with a smaller pair since the opponents might be inclined to think you raised with AK or AQ.
carlos
AS long as you realize you are raising for deception, and you don't make this play too often. I recall an earlier post where someone said they raise when one of the Jacks the spades.
I would not likely have raised into 4 limpers, however, especially with your assumption the blinds would call.
I agree with Kevin Palmer. I have a nickname for JJ, "hot potatoes". That's how I play them against more than 2 or 3 players. I can't wait to get them into the muck. About the only play I make with them is to raise UTG or in early postion to try to cut down the field. They're ok in a tight game but if there are many callers, watch out. I would be cautious about raising with them too much in late postion multiway action.
Talk about those pocket Jacks once again! They can be a tricky hand to play. Last night playing in a somewhat passive 6-12 game with a couple of tight-agressive playes. UTG raises. One limper. I smooth call with JJ. Total of 6 players preflop.
Flop: 9 T J (rainbow)
Deadly for my top set, but I still have outs. The action is 3 bet to me on the flop! I call.
Turn is an A. BB bets. 2 callers and I raise. BB calls. 1 player calls. Other one mucks. River is a blank. BB checks. Other player checks and I check. BB takes the pot with 87o.
I didn't even second guess me on the play of that hand. It seemed rather straight-forward. Though with hindsight if I three bet the flop the 87o might had folded. But oh well. I wanted to disguise my hand in case I hit the flop and not have 4 players calling 3-bets when most likely any overcard will beat me.
Carlos
Carlos,
I like your play and your thinking on this one. Your reraise on the flop was very astute. Since you described the aggressive player as "loose agressive" you had to make the assumptions you did and pay him off on the turn and the river. Sometimes you play well and just get beat. At least you married a decent looking hand although I would prefer a woman myself :-)
Regards,
Rick
I did think that the re-raise on the flop was in order. What I wasn't too sure about was the call on the turn. If I felt that I was still ahead, a reraise should've been in order, even if I would've lost to the flush on the river. Or if it had been a solid-agressive opponent I would've definitely folded on the turn to the second check raise putting the opponent on a set or a made straight.
carlos
I would have folded to the check raise on the turn, particularly if I had to make an overcall. IMExperience it isn't one player in fifty who will show strength on the turn (or river) if he hasn't got the goods, and that's exactly the kind of board that will make a loose passive player (the overcaller, if there is one) 'just call' with trips or two pair.
GD,
I admit I didn't put a lot of thought into my post but a loose agressive type is going to put a lot of moves on you and sometimes you just have to call him down.
One note. Carlos describes the whole hand all at once. Compare his initial post to the 6/12 holdem post by William J. today which leaves out the ending. I think we get better answers when we are only given the information the poster had at the time he had to make the decision. The original poster can always fill in the final result later.
Regards,
Rick
I agree-- as a rule, one can expect more illuminating responses to a thread of this type if the result of the hand isn't mentioned in the original post.
I completely see your point- against a loose aggressive player, sometimes you're stuck making some fairly exotic crying calls. I imagine that the differerence in our responses is largely a function of the game we play in; for me, a raise on the turn, AFTER I've three bet the flop, tips all kinds of red flags, but in those gonzo Cali games I suppose you see this kind of thing all the time.
Still, I think that if most decent players have a whole in their game it's in their tendency to call with what 'appears' to be the best hand, even if all the signs indicate that you have the much dreaded second best holding (the 'silver medal', as we call it here). Since I think the games you play in more closely resemble Carlos' game than my own, I would hope that he listens to your advice more than my own. But I would nevertheless urge him to consider not only the chances that he's still ahead, but also the chances that he may be ahead but may also be outdrawn, before he makes this kind of call in the future. It's admittedly a tough calcutation to make, but failing to do so will, as you know, cost our hero many, many BB's in the future.
Guy
I am fairly new at hold'em. Playing 4-8/kill in loose/passive game. Kill pot (8-16) Me BB Ac Jc...4 players and no raise...flop As Jh Qh ...to test the water I bet.. 1 player drops, #7 raises and button calls and I call ...turn is 6h I check...#7 bets and button raises.... I know I have 4 outs for full house and probable winner..I called and dropped after river was a blank...button won w/flush Kh Th and #7 had a straight. My questions 1) Should I bet after the flop 2) should I drop when raised...and 3)Was I wrong for taking this hand to the river? any insights would be appreciated
They both had KT? Anyway, if you were convinced on the turn that you needed to hit your full house to win, you should have dropped because the actual and implied pot odds weren't there. Your bet on the flop was good but I probably would have reraised (1) for value and (2) to find out if the made straight was already there.
Since there are some very agressive players who will make it four bets on the flop with the nut flush draw, you can't be certain that Broadway is already out there if you're reraised. Yet, I agree with making it three bets for value with top two pair - got to punish the probable four and five out hands.
This week I decided to take a shot at the 15-30 HE game at the card room I frequent. I usually play 6-12 HE and have been doing good during the last 2 months. I decided to sit at the game when the line up didn't seem that tough and there were a couple of weak players in the line up.
So during my first session I play really tight. Folding hand after had for about an hour until I begin to get a better run of cards. I felt I was playing good. Not making many mistakes and having a good read on the players. So far so good.
The next day I sit in the game again and there is a very very loose player sitting in the game. He is calling 80% of the hands and defending his blinds with pretty much any garbage. Though it seems that he is up 2 racks or so. This is where my problem begins. I am playing what i think is 'tight-agressive'. Waiting for a good hand and pressing it hard if I sense weakness. My misfortune begins. Raise 77 on the button after 1 limper. Loose player calls (SB). BB calls. Limper calls. Flop T64 rainbow. Checked to me. I bet. SB calls. BB calls. Limper folds. Turn comes 2 offsuit. Checked to me. I bet. SB calls. BB folds. River 9. SB checks. I check. SB shows 92d for 2 runner runner pairs. I muck my hand.
So I think to myself. I think I played the hand well, and I just got unlucky. I am starting to like the game. Especially with this loose player that routinely is playing T4s, Q2s, K7o and so on, but just getting really lucky. 3 hands later I pick up AA. One limper. I raise. Blinds fold and it's heads-up. Flop 973 with 2 clubs. Limper checks. I bet. He raises. I reraise. He caps it. Turn was a club. Limper bets. I call. River blank. Limper checks, I call. Limper has AJc for the nut flush. So once again. I have the best hand, and AJ is a hand that AA loves to get action from. He is completely dominated and still manages to win the pot. OK. This guy had been a bit tricky from my observations and rather agressive. So I call him down. I might've made the mistake of not laying AA down. But head's-up and a ragged board I figure it was worth a call.
OK. I try to remain calm and play the same tight style that I have been playing all session. I win a couple of small pots to hold me up. Few hands later I have AK in SB. Button raises. Flop K94. I check raise the turn. River 9. I bet. Button raises. He shows A9. Another dominated hand that manages to sneak in and take the pot. The stories continue, but the moral to this session is that these players are ultra-agressive with their hands. Even with 2nd pair and seem to have no consideration to the hand you might be holding. Like the guy that gets check raised on the turn and still calls with 2nd pair. Or the hopeless 92d that calls a raise pre-flop and calls a bet on a board of T64 rainbow. Or the guy that caps it with his flush draw. I notice this type of agressiveness. Players betting with nothing and pushing their draws ultra-hard and getting there against my quality hands.
Next session. I am starting to have doubts about my capability of adjusting to the agressive style of the players. I am playing pretty tight and my hands just don't seem to hold up. After the previous losing session I decide to try once more. Same thing happens. Qh8h on BB. 5 players in and SB raises. I call. Flop Qd6h9h. I have top pair with flush draw. I bet. 3 or 4 callers. SB thinks for a moment and calls. Turn 8d. 2 pairs and flush draw!! I like my hand. River Td. SB bets!. I call. Get shown AdJd. Oh well I say. He just got lucky when I had the best of it. Some more hands take place and I am beginning to really doubt my play to the point that I am starting to call these guys with any pair since they seem to be betting on a draw most of the time. Just to get outkicked with 3rd pair. Or having them spike that pair to beat mine on the river. I feel that my play is seriously impaired at this point to the extent that I have become a CALLING STATION against these players. I let them do the betting when I have 2 pairs just to see them hit trips on the river. In any case I figure that the beats I took in the game made me lose confidence in my play and maybe I should've taken a break from the game or just left to return another day. And then this play towards the end of the session left me uneasy. I open with a raise with AJ. Player to my right reraises. Flop is 9c4c3s. I check. Player bets. Turn Jc. I check. Player bets. I think about it for a second and decide not to check raise being prepared to call the river unless a K or Q comes. River 2c. I check. Player bets and I call. Player had AQ with no clubs. He then scolded me about the terrible play I had made and said that I should had folded on the river. And that I had put in 3 big bets with a 'hopeless' hand. Maybe he was right. I had become a CALLING STATION.
I might be taking a break for a while until I think more about the game and maybe recover my confidence in my play.
Any comments welcome,
Carlos
"My misfortune begins. Raise 77 on the button after 1 limper. Loose player calls (SB). BB calls. Limper calls."
The main purpose of raising with this hand is to get heads-up with the limper. However, if the blinds are loose, you are better off calling since they will probably come anyway.
"Flop T64 rainbow. Checked to me. I bet. SB calls. BB calls. Limper folds. Turn comes 2 offsuit. Checked to me. I bet. SB calls. BB folds. River 9. SB checks. I check. SB shows 92d for 2 runner runner pairs. I muck my hand."
Your raise had the effect of making the pot bigger and enticing players to call.
"So I think to myself. I think I played the hand well, and I just got unlucky. I am starting to like the game. Especially with this loose player that routinely is playing T4s, Q2s, K7o and so on, but just getting really lucky. 3 hands later I pick up AA. One limper. I raise. Blinds fold and it's heads-up. Flop 973 with 2 clubs. Limper checks. I bet. He raises. I reraise. He caps it. Turn was a club. Limper bets. I call. River blank. Limper checks, I call. Limper has AJc for the nut flush. So once again. I have the best hand, and AJ is a hand that AA loves to get action from. He is completely dominated and still manages to win the pot. OK. This guy had been a bit tricky from my observations and rather agressive. So I call him down. I might've made the mistake of not laying AA down. But head's-up and a ragged board I figure it was worth a call."
I would call as well. As you move up in limit you will see more of these plays. When heads-up it is sometimes best to wait on your raises to make sure that these scare cards don't come. Now you may have your opponent bluffing at the river.
"OK. I try to remain calm and play the same tight style that I have been playing all session. I win a couple of small pots to hold me up. Few hands later I have AK in SB. Button raises. Flop K94. I check raise the turn. River 9. I bet. Button raises. He shows A9. Another dominated hand that manages to sneak in and take the pot. The stories continue, but the moral to this session is that these players are ultra-agressive with their hands. Even with 2nd pair and seem to have no consideration to the hand you might be holding. Like the guy that gets check raised on the turn and still calls with 2nd pair. Or the hopeless 92d that calls a raise pre-flop and calls a bet on a board of T64 rainbow. Or the guy that caps it with his flush draw. I notice this type of agressiveness. Players betting with nothing and pushing their draws ultra-hard and getting there against my quality hands."
It sounds like you are in a pretty good game. I'll let some others comment on the rest of your post.
carlos,
well I have to say its beena long time sense ive had to think so much about a header that has fit me to the T ,, The players u have described the bad or unlucky beats, has put a smile on my face , why? beacause I thought i was the only player that happened to,,Theres nothing more sickining then to be showed down by a 7,2o and loose to those 2 pr, been there done that,I have made a few adjustments because of that, I have added a few hands to my play book
Carlos - My experience starting out in my 3-6 no fold'em hold'em game is similar to yours. Take it from me, you can have extended losing streaks while playing perfectly well. In Mason's essays on bankroll size, depending on the game, it usually takes about 200 big bets to be well bankrolled. And I know why! Mason, if you are reading, I would suggest that you make sure people use your data as MINIMUMS.
I started out with a 40-hour, 148-big-bet losing streak. Take the stories in your post, and I have 20 like them. It really had me talking to myself, monitoring my play, posting some of my hands here, etc., and I think in retrospect that I handled it well. I did have to augment my admittedly short bankroll, but I did it deliberately, not just pulling non-poker money out of my wallet. And I tightened up instead of loosening up, waiting for better cards. But for sure, doing everything right and losing, I was starting to feel like the proverbial Christian Scientist with appendicitis.
The modestly happy ending to this post is that since that bottom, I have gone on a 60-hour 100+ big bet winning streak. So I am not out of the minus column yet, but things look a lot cheerier.
So, consider how much bankroll you had for this move, in numbers of bets, and maybe take heart that you are in a normal fluctuation.
(PS I have mentioned in private e-mails with a few of you ... I don't offer playing opinions much yet. If & when I decide that I am a winner, you guys are not going to be able to shut me up!)
Dick
Dick, I am sure that I am speaking on behalf of all the participants when I say that it's time you started offering playing opinions.
This is the time that John Feeney's essay comes to mind. When he says that the question after a session should be not whether you won or lost, but rather how did you play today (i'm paraphrasing at this point). I try to keep the game in perspective and I think about the long run and how these players routinely calling with bad hands and catching up with your good hands makes the games good!
I have also learned that a good counter measure to these players is to become even more agressive than them. I have tried this play with some success at the 15-30 level. I'm in the Button with A8s, raise and get reraised by the BB. Flop comes Kxx. BB bets and I raise with my A8. BB calls. Turn is a blank and I bet again. BB thinks for a moment and mucks the hand. So I put him on a resteal and now I am restealing. But this play adds variance to the game. Especially when players are good and they will call you down with AK. There are just so many more variables with tricky players. This is very different from the 6-12 game that is most of the time pretty straight forward and one has to show down the best hand.
What concerns me is to try to determine if I am making the correct decisions while playing. I have caught myself a few times not raising when I should've or calling when I should've folded. I am trying to keep track of these plays in order to avoid them in the future and play a better game.
Here is one mistake I recall. I limp with JTs. 1 caller and SB raises. BB calls. I call. Remaining player calls. Flop is AKJ rainbow. SB bets. BB raises. I call (?? I figure I had a pair and a straight draw) Late position player calls. SB calls. Turn comes a blank. SB checks. BB bets. This is where I could've made up for the mistake of calling on the flop by raising and knocking out the two other players. I call. Late position player calls. SB thinks for a moment (which makes me think he has QQ or KK and is thinking about the odds to make a set or a straight. SB calls. River comes a T. SB bets!. BB folds. I fold my 2 pair. Late position calls with QJ for a straight. SB shows QQ. So I figured that a raise on the turn might've knocked the other 2 players and the BB could've folded on the river to my bet with an AKJTx board.
I am trying not to get discouraged about playing and I am trying to think about the game and the plays that I make in order to improve and go crush those loose cannons!
carlos
Carlos, seeing a familiar name in your post (mine :)) lured me out of my solitude and into responding with a few thoughts:
Naturally I agree that the more you can concern yourself solely with your play, rather than your short term result, the better off you'll be. I'm not sure I've *ever* seen a player who is not affected emotionally by sizeable downswings. But to the extent that you can accept the swings as completely natural and unavoidable you'll separate yourself from the crowd by a mile. And to the extent that you can really do that on a gut level, you'll be freed up to focus just on your play. That can only help your results.
Another benefit of this is that when you're less affected by inevitable downswings (and upswings), you avoid some of the emotional toll that the game can take. I'm sure I deal with the swings better than most, but it's still quite tough to have a really bad run and see my hourly rate start to nosedive. I can't imagine what players who see the swings themselves as *the thing* to focus on must go through. At times it must be pure torture.
Of course it's also true that nothing will affect your monetary results more adversely than getting caught up in how you've "been doing" and trying to force wins or acting in some other way on emotion rather than reason.
The swings are much harder to deal with when you're first moving up to a higher limit. One thing that helps is the confidence that comes from having a bankroll that you know is more than enough for the limit. Also, playing a little extra tightly till you get used to the limit can help reduce your fluctuations.
You mentioned a couple of tactics that I think do play a role against very aggressive players. One was the idea of becoming very aggressive yourself (you gave an example of a resteal). One the one hand I do agree that this can be effective. I think it's value is in sometimes "taming" very aggressive players. On occasion, I've been able to cause someone who probably felt for a time that he was running over me to become a couple of notches more passive and less deceptive against me. On the other hand, I think you should pick your spots for this very carefully. If you have a jack high straight draw, but it looks like your opponent is raising aggressively with a high flush draw, that's probably not the time to "out-agress" him. He's not going anywhere before the river, may redraw on you if you hit your straight on the turn, and may call with ace-high on the end anyway when you don't. But say you flop a set with a flop like 4-5-9. If you're up against the kind of player who likes to go "yang-yang-yang" (that's my friend's term for raise-raise raise) on the flop with something like top pair or a straight draw, then go ahead and put in seven or eight raises with him (raise till he stops if you have the 99). Not only do you make a lot on the hand (usually… don't hold me responsible when he draws out) but you tell him that he can't always bully you.
Adding some additional deception to your game in certain spots can, I think, add to this "taming " effect. These players often feel they can read a tight player very accurately. In some cases they're right. These are the cases where they are successful in running over the tight player. So you want to get them a little confused, thinking that they can't read you so well after all, remembering that time when they had you pegged for a flush draw as they pushed their middle pair, when all of a sudden you raised on the river and turned out to have ….? (Insert something that beats their pair here - and again don't hold me responsible…:))
You mentioned the problem of becoming like a calling station. If you're aware of what you're doing, and why, it may not be a problem. Checking and calling can be *very* useful against really aggressive players. You just let them hang themselves. I think it's an especially useful tactic for a player who's moving up to the middle limits, trying to figure out how to play against these more aggressive, deceptive players. For the most part, it reduces the number of difficult decisions you have to make (You never get raised.) , and is actually often arguably the most profitable way to play a hand against these players. It's the classic approach to the habitual bluffer - who is very close kin to the overly aggressive player.
Regarding the hand with JTs. Now, like skp, I'm going to coin my own poker term: negation of outs. (The concept is an old one, but I like the term.) In that hand, you couldn't really figure your two pair outs were any good, nor could you be very confident that no one held a jack making your trip outs questionable too. So these outs were seriously *negated* by the likely holdings of your opponents. Only your gut shot outs would clearly be good, and even then there was a high chance of splitting the pot. Rather than calling those two bets on the flop, I think a fold was in order given the pot odds you were getting.
Well, enough from me. Good luck. Hope to see you down here again sometime!
John Feeney
John, re: "Negation of Outs"
There was an author (I think it may have been Petriv but I stand corrected) who coined the term "dout" (although I could be wrong on that as well) which essentially amounts to a Disastrous out. For example, if the board is Kd8s7s and you hold 10h9h while I hold As2s, the Js and 6s would be Douts to your hand.
"Doubts", eh? Hmm, I like my term better. Yeah, I doubt that his term will negate mine. ;)
Those two over cards scare me ,particularly in view of the raise.At some point I would muck. Maybe I am a lightweight in this position. THE PAPA
Carlos,
Sounds like you're a good player who had a couple of losing sessions. No big deal.
You have to give yourself a lot more time before you panick. You have to know and believe that as you play these clowns over time there will be times when they will get lucky hitting their kickers, and there will be times that they pay you off endlessly. If you routinely go up against opponents with smaller kickers, you will pummell them in the long run. Be patient.
You're probably (understandably) a little anxious in the higher limit than you're used to. Combat this with a BIG bankroll. Play a little tighter. If it's a close call, think twice about continuing. Err on the side of caution (a little) to reduce swings. With these tactics you can start to think of chips as betting units rather than money. That helps a lot.
Don't give up!
Good Luck!
"... chips as betting units rather than money." This is an excellent way to think, it also helps if you are moving down in limit so you don't initially overbet.
A classic case of cognitive dissonance. At the same time that you believe that you are playing well, you begin to believe that you are becoming a calling station. In reality, you are suffering a string of bad beats that are exacerbated by the fact that they are occuring (for the most part) at the hands of bad players making bad plays. It is not insignificant that this is happening in a $15-$30 game as opposed to the more comfortable confines (for you) of a $6-$12 game. The difference in stakes has had an amplifying effect on the conclusions that you are drawing. Some self doubt is inevitable, as inevitable as bad beats. However, you are THINKING about the circumstances surrounding what happened to you. You are asking questions. You are willing to accept the fact that your play may not have been mistake free. In short, you have created at atmosphere where you can LEARN and IMPROVE your game. And that is what separates the majority from the few.
I would like to thank everyone that responded to my message. I found your comments very helpful in dealing with my situation. One think I am really focusing is keeping very focused and calmed while I am playing. This includes tossing that 87o down the muck after getting beaten in the previous hand. Though I accept that my initial reaction is to play those type of hands. I can usually identify when I am starting to "tilt". It usually occurs when I know that I should not play a specific hand but there is a really strong force that is making me put the chips into the pot. Once I identify this drive I will muck my hand get up and walk around for a few seconds.
Once I feel relaxed again I know I am more likely to make sound decisions at the table. And even in the case I do make a mistake I know I was in a relaxed state and I can analize my play after the session is over.
Carlos
This happens to everybody and reminds us all that hold em is still a form of gambling. We've all run into these buzzsaws and our cognitive dissonant behavior would have us challenge them. I usually get out of their way. When their streak is over, I take their money. As quickly as they seem to take it, they are most anxious to return it. These players should be rolling craps because if they get into one of these streaks they can really make a score. When this guy check raises your pocket aces, dump. Show the aces. Let him push you around a little bit, play a little weak against him. When the cards stop coming, you'll be able to chow down. Remember, all this guy wants to do is control you, even for a little while, let him. Be sure that you smile and say good night after you've taken down his stacks.
The important thing to remember here is that you're letting other players dictate the tempo and quality of YOUR play. I don't know, but if I had to guess I'd say you've got about 300-800 hrs. of playing experience, and are trying to find a way to 'beat the game', by which I mean trying to figure out how to play 'perfect poker', by which I mean you're trying to win every pot in which your ahead.
This is not the way to approach the game. If, for example, the flop comes 9s6s3d, and you hold pocket 8's, there simply is no reason to lead bet AND stay with the hand just because you think the other guy's on a draw. For one, you don't know that he's on a draw; his aggresive play COULD be due to the fact that he just flopped a set. Further, if he's got a nut flush draw, he has AT LEAST 12 outs against your eights, and maybe 15. In other words, you are either a slight favorite or a huge, huge underdog. Just 'suspecting' that your ahead on the flop is not a good enough reason to play marginal holdings.
Your constant betting/ calling with marginal hands (i.e., second or third button on the flop) is going to have one net result; it will greatly increase your variation without noticably increasing your profits. This is reason enough to abandon this style of play. Stick to playing your good hands aggresively and FOLDING your other hands (or at least giving up on them after the flop). If the other players want to make whopping strategy errors, i.e. capping the betting with a flush draw against a made hand, then LET THEM. You'll have plenty of opportunities to punish them with good hands- you don't need to get cute and try it with mediocre ones.
One thing I've noticed about most fairly good HE players is that they get way to excited about top pair or an overpair to the flop. If someone's willing to cap the betting on the flop after I've shown aggression pre-flop, I have to believe that he's got A's beat. True, sometimes he won't, but IMExperience most of the time he does. Similar considerations apply to top pair/ top or second kicker. If you're not getting 'shook out' of a winning hand now and then, there's something wrong with your game.
Of course you have to adjust to the players. But the kind of adjustments that are required tend to be far less drastic than most relatively new players would believe; in fact, all you generally have to do is 'tweak' your game a little. For example, don't slowplay top pair top kicker (as you did in the aforementioned hand, by waiting to check raise on the turn) if players are being aggressive with their draws; simply bet the hell out of it and make 'em pay.
=My question involves a tournament hand i played recently. I am in the BB with AQs, player raises 4000(final table no limit), i make it 12 to go. flop Qc6d3d, i bet my remaining 7000. Player calls, and shows AhTh. The player has no flush draw and is dead to:
Runner runner -- TT, meaning two out of the remaining 3 tens on turn and river.
or
Runner Runner -- KJ, meaning 1/4 K's, 1/4 J's on remaining two crads.
needless to say it came K, J giving the player the nut straight.
What are the odds of these two runner runner situations? I have always been able to figure the odds one needing one card, but do not know how to figure out runner runner odds.
please explain answer. thanks.
I'll take a shot. The odds of making a runner-runner double gutshot straight are as follows:
There are 4 kings and 4 jacks that can help complete the straight. So on the turn you need one of these 8 cards. The odds of getting one of these are 8/47 (since there are 47 unseen cards on the deck). Now if you get one of these 8 cards you need one of the remaining 4 cards to complete your straight. That leaves 4 cards from the 46 remaining, which is 4/46. Since both events need to occur and they are dependent, you can multiply 8/47 * 4/46 to determine the probability that the 2 running cards will come. This equals 32/2,162 or 0.0148, which is in the order of 67 to 1 against.
Tough beat.
Carlos
You multiply the probabilities when you need to hit both times. So the odds for the TT are 2/45 times 1/44, or 2/1980 or 1/990, about .1% or 989-1. The chances of the K and J coming are 8/45 (one of 4 K's or 4 J's out of 45 remaining cards) times 4/44, or 32/1980 1.6% or 61-1. To get the probability of either of these happening, you add (1.7%). (Boy, were you unlucky).
Note that Carlos and I differ slightly because he is approaching the problem from the perspective of your opponent, who cannot know your hand, and I'm including your actual cards as those that were "seen." But the arithmetic is the same.
Yes, I was just thinking that. If your opponent knows that you have AQ, then you use Chris' calculations. If he doesn't know what you have then you math I presented before.
carlos
TEST
The game was 11 handed,NL HE with a $5 -$5 blind. $16,000 on the table...4 NEW learners of HE (not much concept of NL). I'm in the game for $1000 and have $715. UTG with AcQc and make it $50 to go...SEVEN Callers, but both blinds fold. I look round at the players in the hand and the flop comes down (to see if anyone likes it)...10c 7c 3h. I feel good about my hand, two over cards, nut flush and back door straight draw. I push my rack in..."All-in" seat #5 askes for a chip count and break it down I say "$665". He starts thinking and learning over the table. One of my regular players said after the hand " I looked like I hate s...t my self when he said .."I'll call!". The other five players folded. He rolled over As Kh. The turn a Jc and the river a blank. I stacked up the $1680 pot. Good play...just got lucky? What do posters think? I have often wondered about the idea of the "Under dog can always improve,but the BEST hand going in is always hoping the opponent doesn't improve!" So often the DOG gets up and beats the better hand. Any thoughts?
Darryl,
IMHO the play after the flop was absolutely well. There were already $410 in the pot, and with $665 left and this kind of flop, you just want to pick up the money right there. If somebody calls, you know, you probably have to improve, but you have many outs.
Anyway, I think that $50 for a preflpo-raise with two $5 blinds, when you´re first to act with AQs is pretty much. (I wonder, what the7 other players called with). The value of this hand in NL is to flop something like Qxx (with 2 of your suite). A $50 raise won´t make an AK to fold preflop. So why don´t you just call and hope for a very big flop. Don´t forget, AQ is still a worse hand to AK, no matter if suited or offsuit. And this fits to both Limit and even way more to NL.
What would you do with your hand when you flop an Ace without a flushdraw? Don´t forget, you´re completly out of position.
Sounds like a great game. NL with four players making their first experineces in HE. You must be a lucky guy.
Regards
M.A.
DDL-
I don't like the play on the flop from early position. The chances that 7 people (including some obvious neophytes) will all fold is very slim. I think I would check-raise and try to get more than one person all-in with me on the flop and try to take down a monster pot. Great things might happen with inexperienced players and the allure of a large pot. For example, you check, middle position guy with KT bets 200, 8-9 straight draw calls, K-high flush draw calls, and you move all-in. Now a club, or even an Ace with no K, J, or 7 and you may triple or quadruple through.
Far fetched? Not as far-fetched as getting 7 players to fold when they are getting 1.5-to-1 pot odds to call your flop bet. ($350+$665)/$665. Where is this game?
DO YOU REALLY WANT 5 CALLERS WITH THIS HAND BEFORE THE FLOP. IT IS POSSIBLE TO TRAP YOURSELF .TAKE THE SMALL POT AND RUN. YOUR GOING TO GET THE MONEY IN THIS GAME ANYWAY. THE PAPA
PJ-
Who said anything about wanting 5 callers BEFORE the flop? I was talking about getting big odds for a big DRAWING hand after the flop. As for "taking down this small pot" with a bet on the flop, I don't see how a $650 (all-in) bet into a $350 pot is going to get any made hand (set, overpair, or even top pair/good kicker) to fold since they are essentially getting better than even money on the call.
As the hand played out, he couldn't even get overcards to fold, which is not wholly unexpected given the caliber of players. A large bet only increases the chances that you will be playing from behind in a two-handed pot with borderline pot odds. This is exactly what happened as he ended up needing to hit a club or a queen (12-outer) to win $1000 for a $650 bet. And if the other guy had a set it would have been even worse.
Thanks posters for your comments. The game is 14 hours from L.A. (Brisbane,Australia). Your ideas were interesting and have helped me think a little more about NL HE. Prior to that hand, five hours of play and nothing happened with the cards I was dealt. We actually play dealers choice..PL HE -NL HE, PL Razz, PL 7 stud and PL Omaha ,all played with $5-$5 blinds..often very cheap to see the flop. It's a great game to be out of a hand and watch the players and cards. Say tuned for my next "big hand and let's gamble boys". I agree that I should have tried to 'trap' other players in the hand to BUILD UP the pot. Thanks anyway folks for positive (constructive) postings, which is a great thing about 2+2!
Is this a ring game in a casino or at home ? I am asking cause my friend is moving to NZ and I have some reasons now to go down under for a quicky trip (3-6 months)
The game is on the first Wednesday every month (now into its 4th year),on average I win in THAT game about $500 per session. It's a home game, now 12 years and I've been a winner for 11 of those years. Other Wednesdays we play $5-$10 with a $10-20 kill, we have monthly tourneys also,with prize pools around $4000-6000. Dazzler "down-under" All 2+2 posters are welcome, if in Australia on vacation.
I don't like your semi-bluff on the flop at all. With 7 others seeing the flop, you weren't even close to being in position to make that kind of play. You will hit your outs sometimes (as you did in that one) but ultimately you will go broke playing NL like that. You were trapped when AK called as you were behind and not getting proper odds on the draw for the money you had put in, but fortunately your draw hit.
I probably would have checked to see how the action developed (figuring out of 7 others, 4 of them being fish, somebody would bet it) before scripting the rest of the hand.
A Poker Guy!
I've been invited to play in a 5-5-10 pot limit HE game. The only two players I know are tight accountant types. The buy in is $300. What kind of long term bankroll do you need? What about per session? Thanks, The Eggman.
You need $2500 to play well.
I have no idea for long term bankroll.
I would guess that in such a game one can easily loose 1,000 in one session and I would not be surprised if a good player ends up 7,000 to 10,000 in the red after two really bad days followed by a day that he/she plays terribly and one more bad day.
However, for short term bankroll:
It is very important to adjust to the money that exists available on the table. I believe that it is best to have at least as much as anyone else on the table and never less than half the average money on the table at any given time.
As a matter of fact I would consider also the money that it is available in the pockets of your opponents but this is a deeper issue. (I tend to believe that gambling with 3,000 dollars trying to win 600 dollars even if you have the best of it is not a good idea).
If the money is very deep and you want to participate then a rule of thumb may be that you need enough so that you can bet the pot twice on the flop or more at any given time. Again, how much money your opponents have and how they play and how much do they have in their pockets need be considered.
Maria
EggmanZ, A lot is dependent on the players in the game. Mason has some interesting thoughts in one of his poker essays books about what you use for the buy in pot limit. This answer may be different than others you encounter. You may not need as much as you might think. What I'm thinking is that if your skill level is vastly superior you should book a win without investing too much money. If you are way over matched why lose a lot of dough. If there is only one donator, well I think you see what I'm getting at. As Maria said it isn't too hard to lose $1500 in a game with the blinds you mention. Tom Haley
Long term bankroll is only important if you are a pro, if have any income or a job - its irrevelant. I would say you still better have $10000 and never show up without $500-1000 just to keep it safe.
I just played 5 5 10 PLO at the world series. Most of the table had $500 - $1500 on the table at one time. I bought in for $800. Several people bought in for the minimum of $500. I'm surprised that they allow a $300 buy in. It seems at little low. Several players put 5k on the table. It all depends on how you play.
Tom B.
A question for everyone:
At what point does it become wrong to use verbal misdirection in poker? Is it okay to outright lie to someone to induce a fold? How about saying something like, "Give me a spade!" when in fact you are drawing to a straight? Where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable when it comes to this?
My opinion is that none of it should be allowed, but in a thread buried far below on these pages there has been some disagreement. So, how about it? Is it okay or not?
Dan
Everywhere I've ever played, 100% bald-faced bullshit is completely acceptable, and everyone knows that. Just an hour before I posted this, I'm in an O/8 game and catch a J on the turn to give Js full; an ace on the river is a third diamond, UTG bets into me saying "diamond got there". I flat call, saying "I'm not raising your aces for you." He had the aces, I knew it and he knew it. Just part of the game.
In public games in casino cardrooms...anything goes. Verbal Misdirection is an "art" and just another tool in a good poker players arsenal. It's totally acceptable and those who think it's "wrong" or "unsporting" have to adjust to the norms of the PUBLIC game...in a casino.
On the other hand I played in some places where the rules are different. Private games and even games in private clubs like the Mayfair in NY where it is not acceptable to lie about what you have in an attempt to get someone to call or to lay down their hand...and players in these games quickly learn the rules or may be asked not to return.
Jim Mogal
Personally, I don't ever give any verbal indications, truthful or otherwise, but I do enjoy having people at the table that do that. For most people, it is some sort of tell. They think they are being tricky, but they are really very predictable. So what problem would be solved by not allowing verbal cues, other that protecting the people that don't think they need protection?
A Poker Guy!
I agree that attempts at misdirection often backfire against a good player, but that's really beside the point. A bigger issue is whether we want to play in a game where players are actively lying to each other and trying to angle each other. I don't believe that's good for the game. The hardcore players might be able to deal with it, but if you want poker to have a future you have to consider the nice accountant and his wife that just sat down to play for the first time. These antics will chase away future customers.
IMO, i like Dans piont ,, matter fact friday night we had such a thing happen ,, new player sits down welcome to 10/20.. me on the button he post to my right, cards are dealt he is asking me ?s about why he had to post and what not,, i look to find pocket Q's I raise adn go back to talking it gets to him and he ask me if he could reraise, I looked at the players
Dan wrote " The hardcore players might be able to deal with it, but if you want poker to have a future you have to consider the nice accountant and his wife that just sat down to play for the first time. These antics will chase away future customers."
I think it is asking too much to expect players to change the way this game has been played for many years for the sake of perhaps scaring away the "accountant and his wife"
Again I quailfy this by saying that I am refering to games played in Public Casinos or Cardrooms.
Newcomers usually learn what is acceptable as coffeehousing and adjust...those that can not adjust and don't come back are not really missed...at least not in the places I play like AC where there seems to be an endless supply of newcomers, and I suspect the same is true for LA and Vegas.
I realize that Dan's perspective may be different since he may be playing in a "small market" where new players are treasured more...but I don't think his ideals of having games where players don't lie or angle each other is realistic.
Mind you, I am against unethical angle shooting, like using verbal tricks to get a novice to throw away his hand when he might have a winner...and such behaviour is unacceptable anywhere....
But good and clever table talk, that is done with class I'm all for it.
Good players benefit from this in two ways ways: First, by using table talk to their advantage on less aware opponents, and more importantly by getting good "reads" on players who are "trying" to talk someone out of a hand but are not doing it well, and just exposing their own weakness.
I'd never want to see this type of behaviour barred....I get a lot of good reads from the "bad actors"
Good Luck
Jim Mogal
Can you give me an example of something you might find acceptable, and something you might find unacceptable? Perhaps we are not talking about the same thing.
Dan,
Going back to your initial post...calling for a spade when you're really on a straight draw is acceptable
Hesitation followed by the statement, "I should really raise you but I'll just call" when you really want your opponent to check the next round ...is acceptable
Miscalling your hand on the river with the deliberate intention of of making your opponent fold a better hand after the bet is called at the river...UNacceptable
Does this help?
Jim Mogal
This happened to me years ago at the Bicyle Club.
7 CARD STUD 15/30 my opponents board was 4s8sAd8c on the river. I can't remember exactly what I had at the time...but it was obviously a hand which could beat a pair of 8's and if he was on a busted flush draw I would have had him beat.
Young kid...he bets into me on the river and I hesitatated trying to decide whether to call him or not. He says to me, "If you fold I'll show you an Ace" implying that he had Aces up. Before he spoke I had already decided to lay down the hand and I did. He then points to the Ace of diamonds which was his fifth street card and declares "There's the Ace I'm showing it to you"
Everybody had a good laugh, including me. I wasn't mad and I thought it was a pretty cool ploy. I didn't necessarily believe him when he implied that he had Aces up but I just figured that by jabbering he was trying to induce a call by me.
Now...if someone at the Mayfair Club makes a move like that I wouldn't be surprised if the management asked him not to come back....so again I distinguish what is acceptable at a Public Game may not be accepted at a Private Game.
Jim Mogal
I was about to post a response to this thread, but Jim said exactly what I wanted to say. While "table talk" can be misleading, I don't think there's anything unethical about it. I simply consider it a form of bluffing, and it's no more unethical than other forms of bluffing like "acting strong when weak." In other words, saying something to try to make your opponent fold on the turn is no more unethical than grabbing your chips quickly to make a bluff raise on the turn.
However, misrepresenting your hand to get your opponent to muck without showing his hand is different than bluffing, and I consider that clearly unethical.
If the state of poker is so fragile (which it may very well be) that everyone has to play nice-nice or the game will die, then will we eventually get to the point of no checkraises and stuff like that so that the nice accountant and his wife will feel really comfortable? Poker is a game of truth and lies whether ya like it or not. Someone that visually tries to give the perception of being strong or weak is just as much of a liar as someone that verbally expresses it. The flush comes in on the river and someone slaps the table in disgust, only to raise when a fish bets into him because he acted so weak.
Like I said in my post, I don't try to pull that verbal crap and I win anyway (well, cept the other night when my 88 was drawing dead to A8 on a flop of AA8 :). But I do kinda cringe at the idea that we need to make poker a nice-nice game and put artificial rules in place to enforce it. There are places that people can go for that kind of game, such as Circus "no check raise" Circus in LV or the 1-4 game at Silver City, where everyone is expected to join hands and sing "We are the world", group hugs are mandatory when someone loses more than $20 in a hand, and the winner is required to apologize. Let the nice accountant and his wife go there if they want to live in a fantasy world.
You can't stop the angling and misdirection, it is almost the definition of poker. Poker is a game of survival of the fittest. Sure, there is a line somewhere between legitmate (but maybe shady) misdirection and out and out cheating, but I don't think I could even give ya a good definition of where that line should be. It feels like it oughta be somewhere past blatant lying, and somewhere this side of card switching.
A Poker Guy!
I have learned the hard way that anything goes although I personally find such coffeehousing to be in poor taste.
On a related note, here's an incident that happened to me several months ago ago. An older player for some reason always wanted to check it down with me at the end when heads-up. I didn't particularly like it but went along.
On one hand, the turn showed AAxx when I had AJ in late position. The action got checked to me. I bet, the older fellow raised and a lady cold-called. I called. River was a blank. The guy bet and the lady folded. I was reaching for my chips to call when this "friend of mine" says "skp, save your money, I got you beat". I show him my AJ and fold. He then left his cards face down. Dealer is about to take it when I ask him "well, let's see what you got?'. He says "No, I don't want to show my hand to the whole table but believe me I got you beat".
Well, a player next to him says "ya right" and just grabs his cards and turns them over. He had Ace-no kicker.
To this day, I tell myself that I should add about $250 to my lifetime poker winnings on my stats sheet.
Anyway, I now trust very few people at the tables.
I could slap people like this. Here's hoping you stuck it to him later on in the session.
If I had trip aces with a jack kicker I would have looked him straight in the eye and said "show me". If he refuses to show then it's an easy call.
His lie is one thing, but why did you fold? I'm sure you knew better even back then. Don't take this as a chastisement, because we all make mistakes. I just wanted to post to really accent this error, so all of our less experienced readers will hopefully take to heart the lesson that they should never fold their cards until they see a hand that can beat them.
Add to this, they should always protect their cards, and make it impossible for the dealer or another player to fold or foul their hand. I use a large fossil-containing rock for this purpose, and you can be sure that no one will ever "accidentally" muck or foul my hand.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Why did I fold?
I trusted the bastard.
(Big time mistake as you point out).
I agree that misdirection is in poor taste but let's face it - it is part of the game. I do know that there is a saying - "It all comes out in the wash."
I feel if you have to do that...you'll get your just desserts...I played in a game where I was still to bet and the original bettor jumps in another player's mug (who was all-in), holds up his cards and shouts, "Straight!!!". He is about to turn over the cards when the dealer reminds him that I am still to bet. I have two pair and debate to call him...I finally muck my hand and see that the original bettor missed and the all-in wins with a pair of 9s.
I am steamed but I know it's part of the game....I did feel much better when I pounded the original bettor later on, taking a lot of his $ in three hands....the last one a big pot after I got a full house on the turn. He bitched that I did a string bet which everyone thought otherwise.
I looked at him after I beat him and mockingly made an effort to push him the money he lost on what he thought was a string bet....I then got up with my winnings and left with a smile!
i'M CONFUSED ABOUT ALL THIS CONSTERNATION OVER"VERBAL MISDIRECTION. "MISDIRECTION" IS WHAT POKER IS ALL ABOUT--IT IS LIKE MAGIC: DID YOU REALLY THINK THE MAGICIAN SAWED THE LADY IN HALF, OR MADE THE ELEPHANT DISAPPEAR INTO THIN AIR? WERE YOU ANGRY WHEN YOU FOUND OUT HE DIDN'T? I LOVE IT WHEN PLAYERS TALK DURING A HAND, IT GIVES ME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR HAND THAN ALMOST ANYTHING ELSE THEY DO. BLACK JACK
Dan - I think my opinion parallels Jim Mogal's post above ... but I kind of think of it as tacky to tell someone you have something you don't have. And I love it when it backfires on someone. A hand:
I have AA (I forget the position; this has been a while and as you will see, there was no strategic problem with playing the hand). I raise pre-flop and get 2-3 callers. The flop comes Axx rainbow. I lead bet and get one caller, a friend of mine who is one of the better players. The turn is another Ace, giving me all four. I lead bet again, and at that point my friend said to me, "You better have a good kicker" as he called. On the river I bet & he called, and as I put down my Aces, I said, "I have two good kickers - see?"
Dick
That story reminds me of a time I was playing in a no-limit satilite at the WSOP a few years ago...it could have been in the Super..can't remember.
John Bonetti had raised another player all in and the guy say to Bonetti "I've got a pair of K's. what do you have?" Bonetti replied, "I've got two overcards" (HE had two Aces)
Ok I am sure you will disagree but let quit denial.
Holdem started a while back and in the cardroom setting it's twice or trice as hard as it was in the early days. Oh yes there are some fishies coming into the pool but the sharks are too numerous. I think this fairly describes California and Nevada. Many players are getting into the tourney 'mode'. True or false ?? Changing the gears and playing more tourneys as it's different and some ways harder. Agree, poker is about game selection but often players will lie to themselves like the guy who went broke at 9-18 the other day. He said to me "this game is soooo lose" I did not get it. I lost $400 and I just saw that this is a typical Bay Area poker AND I was wasting my time. The game can 'appear' lose a bit like AK against AJ no pair two handed to the river - but that's not lose poker! Many players were ok to average and no fishies.(well maybe me :) Some players there were quite good. I just had no hands or any 'force' I had AA and QQ cracked and made no draws at all. I just gave up after $400 (4hours) which I considered easy out. 4 more hours I could have broke even or make $100 ?? Is it worth the fucking effort ?
This other player was there longer and he was in maybe even more. My point is and I am sorry to appear rambling. Some games may SEEM lose and it's harder to find a real lose game at higher limits and more and more players are NOT playing ring - rather take a crack at the tourneys. This seems to the the Darwinian trend in poker evolution today. Anyone attemting to go pro will be sorry as my cat was when she had 7 kittens.
THE WORLD'S #1 POKER MANUAL With nearly $2,000,000 worth of previous editions sold, Frank R. Wallace's POKER, A GUARANTEED INCOME FOR LIFE by using the ADVANCED CONCEPTS OF POKER is the best, the biggest, the most money-generating book about poker ever written. This 100,000-word manual gives you the 120 Advanced Concepts of Poker and shows you step-by-step how to apply these concepts to any level of action.
I especially enjoy concept 11: 'How to manipulate opponents through distraction and hypnosis'
How to be an honest player who cannot lose at poker. How to increase your advantage so greatly that you can break most games at will. How to prevent games from breaking up. How to extract maximum money from all opponents. How to keep losers in the game. How to make winners quit. How to see unexposed cards without cheating. How to beat dishonest players and cheaters. How to lie and practice deceit. (Only in poker can you do that and remain a gentleman.) How to control the rules. How to jack up stakes. How to produce sloppy and careless attitudes in opponents. How to make good players disintegrate into poor players. How to manipulate opponents through distraction and hypnosis. How to locate or create new games for bigger and quicker profits.
Ok friday night playing 10/20 HE it was about the tightest game id seen do to the fact there wasa 20/40 table going and peaple were waiting for there seat, average 4 peaple seen the flop and mayby 2 peaple showed down on the river!!a I too was waiting my turn for the 20/40.. so things were very tight,, any ways this hand came up as one of the better hands I'd seen that day,, sitting in late position I look to find 9c9s with 7 callers ,, I think that was a first that that many peaple seen the flop at one time, to make a long story short its raised in middle and raised to my right so I called adn so does every one else,, so we see a flop with a pot of $140 before flop.. A 9 8 rainbow,wellits checked to me , <1 to the right of the button> so I bet, its called by 2 players raised by the player sitting to my right, I reraised. all called back to the raiser to my right who capped it we see the turn,7d well that puts two diamonds on the boaurd, its checked to the raiser next to me who bets I raise, all fold it left heads up,he raises me making me go all in for my last of my buy in of $40, I flipp my cards face up on the table .. so does he,, to reveal Jd Qd he has a runner runner flush or runner runner straight, well as the dealer puts up the river card wich is the 10 of diamonds I scream STOP, all look to me I watched the dealer drop the river card with out burning a card,, thus makeing the 10d the burn card,, he had allready mucked the rest of the deck in with all teh other mucked cards, the floor was called the player next to me is hot he know he has one that pot cause of a error and im not ganna qiut with out a fight to see a new river card,, The shocker is that the floor made the dealer shuffle ALL mucked cards to gether, and redrew a new card .. I felt that was not fair!! I lost the hand thow I feel that there should have been a nother call besides that one ,, what would u have done,, what should have happened? I lost to the gut shot straight!! to find out that the big blind had tossed that card in when I reraised the flopp he tossed his pocket 1O'S..
The floor made the correct decision. Since the deck was mucked, the whole stack had to be shuffled and one card turned. It was either that or allow the Td to stay, which you didn't want. He could have had the dealer shuffle the burn cards, but in hold'em it doesn't really matter.
Even though one of the previously mucked cards wound up being the river, the odds of it appearing weren't changed. Although it may be hard to swallow, the mistake was actually in your favor. You had the option of keeping it to yourself if a blank hit on the river instead of the Td! This assumes no one else noticed there was no burn. If you like the card you say nothing, if you dislike it, you object. Unethical, but a real advantage to someone with questionable ethics (you should point it out regardless of the card--does a few bucks matter that much?).
I once won a hand in stud because the dealer mucked the deck after dealing out seventh street, except that he forgot to give me a seventh card in the last seat. In stud the mucked cards matter because many of them have been exposed and the action has been based on that information. The floor had the dealer shuffle the burn cards. One of them turned out to be the case ten, filling me up. That really peeved the woman with the previous better hand when she discovered I filled on the end with one of the burn cards. And I was a little embarassed to win the pot in that manner. But it was fair because my odds of filling up were the same.
We all lose our share of pots because of dealer error. The most common one seeming to be when the dealer burns and turns too soon, before the action is complete. I hate when that happens.
But it all evens out in the end (hopefully).
George,
Your answer to Allen is of course correct.
I used to work the floor in bottom section (which included 1/2 and 2/4 stud) and the error you mentioned on seventh street in stud used to occur about once a week (since it wasn't unusual to see six people in on seventh street). There was no specific rule covering the situation so I handled it in a manner similar to your situation with one small twist.
If the missing card should have belonged to the last player sometimes the deck would be squared up and droped on top of the muck. If everyone at the table agreed that the deck was OK and in order (before my decision) then I would take the card from the top of the squared up pile. Under any other circumstances I would shuffle the burns as was done in your case. Before doing this I would briefly explain to the table that the muck is contaminated by discards rendering it unuseable and the player was going to get a random card from the burns.
Anyway, I had been doing it this way for a year with no real problems (I discussed the method with a couple co-workers who agreed it was OK). One day during our pre-shift meeting I hear of a top section floorman solving the problem in stud by shuffling the entire muck except for the burn cards! I ask the floorman why and he said, in essence, the burns are "out of play" and so on. I argued the point about resurrection but he didn't think it was important. I did a survey and found about half the floormen (including some in other casinos) and my shift manager agreed with the top section floorman.
I was convinced I was right and so I put it on an rgp post and I believe all but one of about ten agreed with my method. I felt even better when one of the top stud players in the world commented that "we should leave resurrection for Easter". Anyway, I still do it my way and keep the rgp responses on file.
If a new or better rule book is written I believe a solution to this problem should be included and I would argue that the "shuffle the burns" method should be the one that is used.
Regards,
Rick
I was reading Sklansky's essay "For The Studious Player". In the essay he ranks 7 Card Stud above Limit Hold'em as a game that takes "Talent" to play. This got me thinking again about how little 7-Card is discussed, even here. It would seem that due to this lack of communication and interest in Stud, the Expert Stud player has a larger overlay than the Hold'em Expert. Though the Hold'em Expert most likely has a larger selection of games to choose from, which may make up for the fact that his game takes less talent to play well. What do you think?
CV
I would tend to agree. I'm not sure the lack of Stud posts on this forum shows a lack of interest, it's just that Hold'Em hands are much easier to explain and analyse because fewer cards are involved. In Stud, opponents' upcards and the order in which they arrived can be vital and every hand seems to be just a little bit different.
This is even more relevant where I play because on a given night it's either Stud or Hold'Em and that's it. The choice on a Friday night, for example, is play Stud or don't play at all.
Digressing slightly, Omaha is now being featured 1 day a week. I haven't played any Omaha but, crucially, neither have many of the other players. Has anybody any experience to share of a time when Omaha was introduced to an unfamiliar cardroom ?
Andy.
The west coast seems as the epicentre of poker, actually California IS !!! Holdem rules here even to the *fault* cause I like to play some 10-20 stud at times and its unavailable. For some reason the experts back east are just to engrossed of playing stud and raking in the money to come on this forum to "lollygag" :-). True it's hard to describe 7stud and I am not implying that this forum is not excellent place for info and ideas.
While Hold'em is "the game" in California, 7 stud is not completely unavailable. You can find mid limit 7 stud in the SF bay area at the Oaks club.
In Atlantic City and Connecticut, 7-stud is by far the more prevalent game. Some casinos with poker rooms don't even spread hold'em. And even in other places, most very high limit games are stud.
Trying to find a choice of hold'em games in the east is hard. So the expert would probably do better at stud.
I did not know that, though I've never played back East. Thats interesting that different regions of the U.S. would have different popular games.
I myself would like to learn how to play Stud better. One thing that keeps me from doing this is that the structures for playing Big Stud and Little Stud are different. I just don't have the Skill Level or Bankrole to jump right into Big Stud, and Little Stud uses a slightly different strategy. I guess I should just quit whinning, pull out the calculator, and figure out how the strategies change between the two games.
CV
Actually the one nice thing about LV is the choice stud and HE at the same town. (other than call girls and craps)
Good post. I play either stud or HE, and at times if the game is spread stud8. Now this might get me in trouble, but I believe stud is by far a better game for the expert player, one who can understand and remember the board. HE, IMHO, is really a position game and a good player can do quite well just using position to make his plays for the pots versus stud which requires all positional skills to get the job done. I can dump about every hand in early and middle positions in HE and still come home a winner. This could never be done in stud.
Deadmarsh
that plays all games. This is like you saying true champions that play the Holdem WSOP at Binions(the ones that consistantly win and place in the money) don't play in any of the stud satallites and win? I don't think so. Check the records. When you get to that level of play, it's all psychological. Poker is Poker--no matter what game. How simple can it be. Betting structure goes from left to right, and when it comes to you, there are only 4 simple decisions to make. Myself, by reading and studying as much as I can, and realizing I will aways be a "student" of the game, helps me make the right decisions. Knowing your players and how they play and having a little luck to come my way is the secret to me being a consistant winner. I never would want to limit my abilities to playing only one game. Think how much dough your losing when you see a "live" game and are not sure you want to play because of some kind of silly excuse you say to yourself. Learn to play all games. Just my 1 cents worth. Happy floppin' Rex
It seems to me that the talent required for stud is a little different than the talent required for HE. With five betting rounds and all the exposed cards, stud rewards the player who can remember cards and when they hit the table and can calculate odds that change with every new up-card.
Hold 'em rewards the player who can read his opponents more accurately. It is a bit more of a psycological game.
I play stud because my talents lie in that direction.
DJ
DJ wrote "Hold 'em rewards the player who can read his opponents more accurately. It is a bit more of a psycological game"
For begining low limit players you're probably correct...but as you move beyond the low limits...say 15/30 and higher the psychological aspects of Stud and the ability to read the other players accurately become the MOST important skills in a top players arsenal.
Good Luck
Jim Mogal
This is a very interesting hand that took 20 minutes from start to finish (yes, twenty minutes). I have several questions that I would like your answers to as I go through the story.
We're playing pot-limit hold'em with $1 and $2 blinds. Seat 4 is the little-blind, seat 5 the big blind. Seat 6 and 7 limp in, and seat 8 makes it $11 to go. Seat 2 re-raises and makes it $30 to go. I look down and see QcQh. I have seen 2 raises, and putting someone on Kings or Aces, I simply call the thirty (first question: should I have folded or raised or did I play it correctly?). Seat 4 calls, all fold to the original raiser who just calls. So we have seats 4, 8, 2, and your hero (me) in seat 3. Flop is 6c 8s 9s. Seat 4 bets $20, 8 calls, and 2 bets $150. I call, seat 4 goes all-in with his last $40 and seat 8 re-raises and goes all-in with $210. Now here is where things get ugly. Seat 2 and myself now owe an additional $60 to the pot. He sais 'I call' and starts putting out his chips. I call as well, and count out my $60. Well, sure enough, the dealer makes the side pot and there is $60 missing! Either myself or seat 2 did not put in the additional $60. I know I put the $60 in and say so to the confused dealer. The dealer looks at seat 2 and seat 2 also sais (although without much conviction) that he put in the $60 as well. I make my story immediately more believable when I ask them to check with surveillance to see who did not put their chips in. Now there is a lull in the game, and while they are checking with surveillance, seat 2 asks if I'm willing to check this very sizable pot out the rest of the way (question 2: should I have said yes, or was this a sign of weakness). Well, I did say yes, so now we have 2 all-in players, and 2 other players that agree to check the hand the rest of the way. We then all show our hands (the turn and the river are yet to come, but we were bored waiting for surveillance). Seat 2 has Jc Jh. Seat 4 has 8x 9x for 2 pair, and seat 8 has As 10s for the nut-flush draw and a big over-card. So I am in second place, but that's okay with me as there is a $450 side-pot that seat 4 can't touch. We all discuss our hands and seat 2 realizes he is in deep doo-doo. Seat 2 and I realize that if we make trips, there is a 50/50 shot that it gives seat 8 the nuts. The floor agrees to put the missing $60 in the pot while they wait on surveillance (question 3: does that come out of the dealers pocket?). Well, anyway, to finish this story, turn and river are kings (WOW!) giving me the nuts and I scoop the whole thing. Your feedback and comments are welcome. (P.S. The surveillance video was inconclusive...there's a shock ;)
and both turn and river to come king's, don't anybody ever deny the fact that you would rather be lucky than good on any one given day! Amen to the Poker Gods! 9 out of 10 times when I'm in that spot with them bitches, they never stand up. I'm either practically drawing dead to rockets or kings or I'm still beat when some clown goes all-in and rivers you. A very interesting story. Good hand pal and don't forget to say your prayers tonight! Happy floppin' Rex
im off work on tues, wed, thurs. ill get back with you. its going to take me awhile to figure out what happened. ive never heard of the house making up any money for one, for two im a little confused about where your seats are. however i love pot limit hold em and might be able to help with the strategy. i say might, i think pot limit hold em is the hardest game ever invented. i do promise to give you my input later in the week so check back and see if i have said anything worthwhile.
You say that you didn't reraise before the flop because after two raises you thought there were Aces or kings out there.Fine you can certainly call you are getting more than enough implied odds to pick off a queen, but I don't understand why having missed hitting your set you stick $210 in on the flop? If you thought you were behind before the flop you are still behind now. If you thought you were ahead before the flop you should have moved in then, to either win the pot there and then or at the worst to get the play heads up.
You are absolutely correct Dominic. My call on the flop was weak and I should have made a move if I was going to call to put some more of his chips in there. I love pot-limit, but this is only my tenth game or so, and although my win rate is high, I've still got many things to learn. Thanks for the feedback.
Big A, I agree with Dominic's comments.
However, I have a question for you; When you and the fellow with pocket Jacks made a pact not to bet the turn, did not the other two players complain? Your pact could very well end up costing one of them a big pot.
Now, I am not casting any aspersions on you when I say this because I actually do not know if what I am saying is valid but it seems to me that these types of pacts when a player is all-in can be considered unethical.
I should also say I have no pot limit hold 'em experience so if these things are common in pot limit play let me know.
skp
I wouldn't say that it's unethical simply because it is a pretty common occurance in big bet poker and the players all seem to go along with it.
You're absolutely right when you state that such actions are detrimental to the all in players and can cost one of them the pot.
By the way, you probably know that in a tournament this type of dealing is strictly forbidden and the penalty is that you hand is declared dead...but in live games it seems to happen regularly and I guess most players don't complain because they want the right to make such deals when the shoe is on the other foot.
Good luck
Jim Mogal
Excellent response Jim. That answers the question perfectly.
Maybe I haven't played big bet poker at enough different places, but I have never seen players agree to check it down when there's an all-in player with a live hand. I have seen such things when it's down to 2 players total. You can be sure that if 2 players agreed to check it down after I was all-in, hell would be raised. It may be that the floor can't do anything about it, but unless it is made clear that such things will not be allowed, I'll be out of that room forever. In fact, I would push for the floor to declare both hands dead (although I would not expect such a ruling to actually be made).
Such an agreement is clearly unethical, and either is, or should be, against the rules in any cardroom.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I usually muck QQ to a reraise, unless the antes are really high or the money is very deep. Granted you might be up against AK and JJ, but more likely someone has you beat with kings or aces (unless you are up against maniacs). If any ace or king flops you can't play, and if no ace or king flops you can still be in trouble. If you flop top set then you are in good shape - so I might consider a call if the money is very deep. But on the whole I would rather wait for a better opportunity.
Matt D
In every home game I've ever played in, we made a side pot when someone went all in, just like casinos and cardrooms do.
I apologize for my ignorance, but what happens to that side pot if the guy who went all in wins and someone who contributed to the side pot folded before the end? Does the side pot get split up among the players who contributed to the side pot and stayed in until the end and lost?
"Does the side pot get split up among the players who contributed to the side pot and stayed in until the end and lost?"
Yes. To divide the side pot, just "redo" the showdown, neglecting the player(s) who were all in.
dont get me wrong i love limit hold em, limit stud, and limit the rest. but the only reason for that is i like to play (for me) big. for me anything over 10,20 is big. (not the only reason i like limit but we will skip that for now). i find pot limit to be the most enjoyable form of poker because of the brain pressure involved. it seems to me most people like omaha over hold em in big bet because they have more information to go on. ie. they dont have to put all the money in front of them in the pot on top pair. but that is the point. if i know that about you you will have to have a lot to be in the pot with me. you give me too much by your actions. i dont even need a hand to play you out of the pot. i have a solution. lets play with small blinds. i mean really small, so that it equals your normal game in the amount of risk. why hasnt anyone ever thought of this befor?
I too, really enjoy pot-limit HE. It is the best game because you have to really think when someone has made a bet that would put your entire stack in if you called, and vise versa. The game I play in has exactly what you're talking about, $1 and $2 blinds. It is every Thursday night at Harveys casino in Council Bluffs, Iowa.
I am considering taking up tournament poker, and I've noticed lately that a lot of deals are made. I am aware that Mason has written some things about this, but I would be interested to hear comments from a variety of people (including Mason) about the deal-making process. Perhaps a good starting point would be to look at this deal made in the WSOP 3k limit holdem event. I do not know the size of the blinds at the time of the deal (nor do I know if it matters), but here is the deal that was struck:
1. Tommy Franklin had $152k in chips and was given $100,000. Josh Arieh had $129k in chips and got $81,000. Jack Fox had $128k and also got $81,000. Huberto Brenes had $99k and received $65,000.
Comments?
How about the following in the 3.5k no-limit holdem:
2. When it got down to 4 handed, the three players other than Mike Matusow agreed to save $40k each amongst themselves. Mike had over 1/2 the chips on the table. Later, it is heads up between Mike and Alex Brenes, Mike has a 4-3 chip lead and gives Alex $50,000, thereby locking up $190,000 for himself and $132,000 for Brenes. They play for $20,000 and the bracelet.
Comments?
3. Does anyone know of a particularly bad deal that they saw recently (maybe being sure not to duplicate one mentioned in a recent post)?
Thanks in advance!
PS - Also, how is it made sure that the right people get the right amount of money? Is a verbal agreement enough?
Dennis asked "Also, how is it made sure that the right people get the right amount of money? Is a verbal agreement enough? "
At the WSOP and at most other tournaments...the deals are cut and the tournament director is a witness to the deal.
The actual income tax reports. W2 G are changed to reflect the atcual amount each player gets.
Jim Mogal
Here is the best way I know to calculate how much you want when discussing a deal. Of the remaining finishes that you might achieve, estimate your chances of each, multiply each percentage by the corresponding prize amount, and add the results.
Example Prizes are 100K, 50K, and 25K. You have T60, other players have T25 and T15. You estimate a 60% chance of winning, 30% chance of 2nd, and 10% chance of 3rd. The sum is (60% x 100K) + (30% x 50K) + (10% x 25K) = 60K + 15K + 2.5K = 77.5K You should ask for this amount if any deal is made for all the money. If a deal is made for less than all the money, you should ask for 77.5/175 or ~44% of whatever money is bargained out of the prize pool. At this point, it would be a very bad deal for you to do something where everyone "saves" the same amount and plays for the rest.
Some casinos pay you according to the deal, as the deal is witnessed and approved by a casino agent (usually the tournament director). Some casinos (e.g., Foxwoods) do not recognize deals, and you must trust the players to give you the money afterwards.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I was first in from early/mid possition, raised with TT. I was called by a live player on the button and a player I didn't know very well, but seemed to be pretty good, in the big blind.
Flop was KT5 rainbow. Blind checked, I bet, both called. Turn was J, putting a 2-flush on board. Blind checked, I bet, live one called, blind raised, I reraised, live one folded, blind called. River was offsuit Q. Blind checked, I checked.
What do you think of my play on this hand?
William
Everything fine to the river...probably should have bet it...if he had you beat at the end, he probably would have bet.
If I am going to lose with a set, you can be sure that it will be a bundle so I agree with the raise on the turn.
A river bet can also be profitable ( I agree with the previous response to your post).
Most players with an Ace would bet on the River because they figure that you will check behind them and they will then look pretty foolish showing down a nut straight (As for the BB checking with a 9, well this is unlikely). What's more, you probably will still get a crying call with a lesser hand (like KQ or KJ or J,10) because of the size of the pot.
If the stars are right, a hand like KK may even fold on the river (notice that you can't rule out KK as many players in the BB might not make it three bets before the flop against a short field for deceptive purposes).
I would agree with TK Chuck. On the river he knows that you know it's obvious that it only takes an ace to make a straight. Therefore, unless he's very sophisticated *and* puts you on thinking that very thing, he's going to bet if he has the straight because he assumes you'll check behind him if you don't have a straight yourself. It's a good spot (against most players) to make a bet that a lot of players would miss.
John Feeney
Oops, didn't mean it to sound as though I agreed with the first poster but not w/ skp. skp, you just beat me to it with your post. :)
i was playing 1-5 stud at my local casino and was playing fairly consistently tight hands. one hand seemed really live with me in seat 6 betting seat 7 raising and everyone else calling. i dont remember what i was holding but the wagering was live and the pot was up enough to make me want it bad. at the river everyone seemed lost so i bet and sure enough everyone folded except the guy next to me who throughout the whole game had decided that his hole cards were open for all to see, well i looked over just like i had all night and knew i had him so i bet, he called and i showed him my queens up. he then decided to continually question why i bet into him. i know in many games i have played in when there are only two players left and the play is relaxed you show your hands and see who's got it, but i dont think i was too wrong to make him pay for being a fool? any comments would be appreciated.
Scott:
IMHO you did exactly what you are supposed to do!!! If a player is foolish enough to expose his hole cards before the betting is complete and you have him beat, then what you did was simply make him pay for his foolishness! You've heard the expression, "A fool and his money are soon departed", well, se la vi!! Even in home games that I frequent that same situation occurs and the results are usually the same. Bottom line don't feel guilty about your decision to bet and take his money. Maybe he learned something from his mistake and he won't do it again.
Marc
It's a close call but I would have just checked on the river. It's hard to put him on Q9 because he called the early position raise and a bet on the flop, and even harder to put him on an A because he checked on the river, but since I don't expect him to pay me off with much less, I don't see a positive expectation. Also, some greedy players will often check-raise the river after (1) spiking the nuts against (2) an opponent who has been betting hard on the turn. I'd be worried about AK.
Most reponses seem to advocate betting after the opponent checks the river. I'm not so sure. If we assume that he didn't have a straight on the turn, then his most likely hands are KJ, KQ, 55, KK, 98 (though not too likely), K9, maybe AJ, AT, AK, A5. If he would pay you off with KX, or 55, then he will certainly call or raise with the ones that beat you. If we discount 98 because of the flop and Ax because of the river play, then he has 21 ways to lose and 15 ways to win. The bet looks good. Of course, if he thinks you reraise on the turn shows a good chance of AQ, he might just check and call the river expecting a split. Or he might be a little more clever and think that if he bets you might fold too often with something like two pair or whatever, then he might check if he thinks that might induce a bluff or a bet from less than a straight. If we add half weight for Ax hands then it is 21:35, and the bet looks really bad. Even quarter weight it is 21:25.
Since you don't know the opponent, and might be facing a raise on the end, I have no problem with checking it down.
Eric
Your in the small blind with AdKh, two people limp and call your raise including the big blind. Flop comes Qs,6d,4s. Your first to act, what do you do? The game is loose passive.
I checked, initially intending to fold, although I think now that a semi-bluff bet might have been better. But when It checked around to the guy immediately on my right who bet, I decided that this might be a good time to raise, to eliminate the other two players and possibly steale the pot right there. To my dismay, two people called. The turn brought another spade, I bet and the player in middle position raised, player on my right called, and I folded.
Please comment.
I usually bet once, and if I get more than one caller on the flop I'm effectively done with the hand (unless I get help). The check raise on the flop isn't a bad move, but the bet on the turn puzzles me; if two players are calling two bets cold on the flop, there's a fair to middlin' chance that one of em's on a flush draw. And there's no way YOU can represent the flush draw since you made the kind of raise that suggests your protecting your hand.
The general strategy with big cards in loose passive games is to hit your hand on the flop, weed the field and get paid off (usually) or drawn out (often). When you miss, get on the next hand because bluffing and semi-bluffing are usually expensive endeavors. So I think your first instinct (to check and fold) will usually be correct.
Still, you did have something of a good situation -- only 2 other players, a bettor in steal position, your show of preflop strength, a draw. But when your opponents tend to be oblivious, the atmosphere needs to be just right. In this case, Qxx isn't the sort of scary board that leads opponents to drop out of raised pot for one small bet, especially when they're trying to convince themselves that you're stealing.
I doubt that you were ever going to steal the pot "right there" with your check-raise on the flop. If your opponent had anything at all he'd almost surely call given the nine bets in the pot (assuming the BB folded). You were setting up a semi-steal on the turn, which was ruined before the turn by the BB's apparent big draw or slow play (calling two cold after checking). Even if a spade hadn't arrived by the turn or river, and you eventually got the BB to drop, the size of the pot by then would have been a big inducement for your remaining opponent to call with anything.
As for your bet on the turn, bluffs andd semi-bluffs need a certain continuous logic. When my attempt to represent a particular hand (AA, KK, QQ, AQ, KQ) has failed, I don't try to represent an entirely different hand (a flush) when I need something different to fit the board. I doubt that your opponents believed you had the nut flush because your betting on the flop didn't look like a draw.
You make a very important point that I see people unaware of all the time. One should never try to represent a hand that your opponent(s) can not put you on due to the preceeding betting action. All this does is create doubt which is tantamount to inducing call(s) when you least want it.
Nagurski,
It is important to know the position and playing style of the limpers in this situation. For example, is the first limper a player who would raise with a high card (ace, king or queen) when first in?
I would not lead bet holding overcards against three opponents with a flop that contains a draw and a medium size card (nine thru queen) since these are the cards that people tend to limp with. I've also noted that KQ is becoming a limping hand (in early position) for many in my area. This means hitting my king may only get me in trouble.
On the other hand, a check raise may be in order against a late position player who bets too often when the flop is checked to him. When you do this you must get down to no worse than head up before leading again on the turn (unless you hit your overcards).
All in all, I need more imformation in order to give my best answer.
Regards,
Rick
I have read over and over again that yes, you can beat "No Fold-em Hold-em", if you are patient and do play a solid game. I've read all the books, follow all the best advice, read all the different strategies on this forum, consider myself an excellent student of the game, BUT, I firmly believe that if you are playing at a table with 9 other players, 7 of whom combined are either weak, maniacal, passive or just plain "clueless", your chances of winning go down drastically.
As an example of "clueless", last night I was playing $4-4-8-8 and this woman has pocket QQ and the flop comes T-7-2 rainbow. She is first to act and "CHECKS" (4 way action at this point), someone bets and she justs calls (down to 3 way action). Turn card is an 8 and she checks again.....checked around. River is an Ace (no flush possibilites) and checked around again. Player on her right turns over A4s and takes the pot. The woman says she was afraid of the straight when the 8 hit the board. Guy with the A4s (solid player)said he was gone if there was even a bet on the flop!! Earlier in the evening same woman does not see that she has a full house on one hand, misreads her hand two other times thinking she has a flush one time and a straight the other!!! Granted you love having these types of players in the game, but when you potentially have seven of these types in the game at once, you can go through some big swings. I was lucky and posted a $20 win over 4 hours, but consistently got hammered on the river by those players who are cluelss and cannot be driven out of the pot with a sledge hammer!!
In these types of games if you do win, chances are that you will more often post small wins rather than large ones. I have been playing $3-6-12 & $4-4-8-8 on a regular basis in home games, know most of the players, and do have a fairly good winning percentage (68%), but it gets very frustrating when you are constantly being "sucked out" on the river by those clueless players who think that any two cards can win in this game, regardless of position, pot odds, etc. I played $10-20 at the Horseshoe in Shreveport last weekend and did fairly well and played at a table with knowledgable, solid players and realized how nice it was to play this game the way you think it should be played. I am currently looking to move up to $10-20 or 15-30 home games where I live.
Comments are very welcome, Thanks, Marc
I am relatively new to poker(about 8 mths experience in cardrooms) and have started playing tournaments. The problem I have is this: I play in a weekly event that alternates between no limit hold'em and no limit 7-stud. There are rebuys and an add-on. After the break, my stack just seems to dwindle away until I'm forced to go in with sub par hands. My strategy has been to tighten up after the break and wait for premium hands, but this doesn't seem to be working. Any advice on this strategy??????
If anything nathan your strategy is back to front. In the early stages of a tournament when the blinds are low in relation to your stack you can wait to hit your big hands either getting in very cheap before the flop and flopping big or waiting for aces/kings. Once the rebuys have finished you have to start winning pots. Once in a while you are going to be lucky and get enough good hands to get you through to the final table but this is the exception. Once the antes/blinds start getting bigger in relation to your stack you have to find a way to start winning hands, whether its finding productive spots to pick up blinds, snapping off other peoples bluffs or overplaying normally marginal hands. The further you advance in a tournament the less in general you should be focused on how big your hand is and the more you should focus on things like your position your chipstack how passive/aggressive the other players on your table are.
Chuck Thompson wrote a famous article about foxes and farmers, about how from the middle of the tournament there are some players trying just to protect there stack while others are taking far more risks to pick up as many chips as possible, the vast majority of good tournament players come from the latter catergory.
I have read over and over again that yes, you can beat "No Fold-em Hold-em", if you are patient and do play a solid game. I've read all the books, follow all the best advice, read all the different strategies on this forum, consider myself an excellent student of the game, BUT, I firmly believe that if you are playing at a table with 9 other players, 7 of whom combined are either weak, maniacal, passive or just plain "clueless", your chances of winning go down drastically.
As an example of "clueless", last night I was playing $4-4-8-8 and this woman has pocket QQ and the flop comes T-7-2 rainbow. She is first to act and "CHECKS" (4 way action at this point), someone bets and she justs calls (down to 3 way action). Turn card is an 8 and she checks again.....checked around. River is an Ace (no flush possibilites) and checked around again. Player on her right turns over A4s and takes the pot. The woman says she was afraid of the straight when the 8 hit the board. Guy with the A4s (solid player)said he was gone if there was even a bet on the flop!! Earlier in the evening same woman does not see that she has a full house on one hand, misreads her hand two other times thinking she has a flush one time and a straight the other!!! Granted you love having these types of players in the game, but when you potentially have seven of these types in the game at once, you can go through some big swings. I was lucky and posted a $20 win over 4 hours, but consistently got hammered on the river by those players who are cluelss and cannot be driven out of the pot with a sledge hammer!!
In these types of games if you do win, chances are that you will more often post small wins rather than large ones. I have been playing $3-6-12 & $4-4-8-8 on a regular basis in home games, know most of the players, and do have a fairly good winning percentage (68%), but it gets very frustrating when you are constantly being "sucked out" on the river by those clueless players who think that any two cards can win in this game, regardless of position, pot odds, etc. I played $10-20 at the Horseshoe in Shreveport last weekend and did fairly well and played at a table with knowledgable, solid players and realized how nice it was to play this game the way you think it should be played. I am currently looking to move up to $10-20 or 15-30 home games where I live.
Comments are very welcome, Thanks, Marc
Marc There is no doubt that low limit players are clueless in a lot of cases. However, i've put in about 500 hrs. at 5-10 holdem and am winning a little less than 1.5 a big bet. I don't consider myself a great player but i do play tight aggressive. Low limits are a grind and can be extremely frustrating when people draw out on the river with almost hopeless hands. But if you watch players that continually play like this they always go broke. I've seen so many players at the low limits who constantly try to go uphill who eventually quit playing. If you are willing to play solid and be patient your the one that will get their money. Also a good idea in these games is to play any pair, suited connectorsand Axsor Kxs since they require big implied odds and with so many people seeing the flop you have the odds to see the flop with these hands. Good Luck Ice
Iceman:
Thanks for the words of wisdom!! I agree with your analysis and do play any pair, suited connectors and Axs and Kxs because the implied odds are there for those hands. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I plan to give up on low limit, it just gets frustrating when you are actually playing and constantly have to be concerned about the "clueless" who always seem to be in there ready to crack you. I just think I am ready to mix my low limit play with medium limit.
As far as those "bad" players who eventually go broke, there always seems to be an endless supply of them.....like a school of fish waiting for the net!!
Marc Iagree there is an unlimited supply of fish. Thank goodness or we wouldn't be winning any money. Good Luck. Ice
I'm truly frustrated at no fold'em hold'em. I'v spent the last 3 weeks winning $650.00 in once a week 2 to 5 omaha games, while losing back $600.00 in hold'em 2-5. It seems that in Omaha the lousy cards get hammered(mid range cards) while I repeatedly get AA, AsKs, Kings and Queens pummelled by the opposition staying in raised flops at hold'em. Jacks have been a nightmare as well. I stopped playing these in early position, and am considering treating them like any other underpair. I like holdem and would like to move up in stakes, but if I cannot beat $5.00 no foldem, how do I expect to beat seasoned 10-20 players? As an aside, In a tighter $5.00 game, in pots in which I hold 2 overcards AsKs, and the flop comes with rags, yet if the pot only has 2 callers before a raise, I call the raise(the pot now has $18.00) the callers fold. Raiser checks. Am I right to bet out here? The pot odds are are only 4.6 to 1 ($23.00 to $5.00), while the card odds of improving are 6/45 or 7.5 to 1? I think misplaying overpairs..passively, has cost me substantially in a tight game.
Ray ,let me tell you this.If you have a pretty good game, the best thing to do is play higher stakes/legit games.It is easier to read players and track playing styles and put players on hands. No fold'em hold'em is like playing against a team of players targeting you and staying until the end of the hand hoping that one of their holdings catches something to beat your holding.Very hard and frustrating games.
Hi Marc,
I think that I, and just about everybody else on this forum, can relate to your frustration at being drawn out on hand after hand by clueless low-limit players (and sometimes, not-so-low-limit players). The subject of whether or not these games are consistently beatable has been vigorously debated. But let me offer you some encouragement. These games CAN be consistently beaten with just straightforward, solid play. And, while I would certainly prefer (just to minimize my variance) not to have an entire table of these players as opponents, you should still be able to do exceedingly well against them in the long run. The advice that Iceman offers is essentially correct for these kinds of games. In addition, I would add to go ahead and build monster pots with the clueless players when you are getting good implied odds (eg - raise or re-raise with your pocket 77 if you know you are going to take the flop eight handed). On the other side of this coin, be more reluctant to put money in the pot with big unsuited cards like AQ and AJ offsuit. You might even consider folding these kind of cards in early position if you have some aggressive opponents behind you , but at the very least, see the flop cheaply and wait until you hit a flop hard before you commit much money. If you play this way in these games, you will find that your variance is very high (ie - you will book more losing sessions than you normally would), but you will also score some monster wins and will find that it pays off pretty well to play against these kind of opponents in the long run.
I wanted to respond to you, because I found myself in just such a 6-12 game last weekend (I usually play 10-20 or 20-40). I can't recall taking one flop less than 6 handed, and there were usually at least 4 still in at the river. To make a long story short, I was hitting really good, and I booked a $1200 win in less than eight hours, which is MUCH better than I would expect to do in the same time period in the 10-20 or 20-40 game on an average night. There just isn't much that is more satisfying than to have 5 people paying you off to the river when they are drawing dead. Maybe thinking of that, will help you a little when they can't seem to miss catching their miracle card against you (and believe me, I've been THERE enough times as well).
One more thought (although I'm sure you already know this), just to state the obvious......don't EVER bluff at a pot in this kind of game, it's just a complete waste of ammo. Buckle-up, hold on tight, and show'em the nuts at the river. Good luck to you.
Keep Shootin',
Steve
Steve, I totally agree with your advice to Mark. I'd just like to add that perhaps Mark should watch how his clueless opponents actually do. Mark, next time you play, try to ignore the one or two winners on the table, and I think you'll find everyone else is doing really badly.
I saw an extreme example of this last week-end. I was sat next to a calling station who was not only playing really badly but was actually unlucky as well! She managed to drop $400 or $500 in less than 3 hours - that's pretty amazing for a $3-$6 game, even if it was fairly loose!
These games can be beaten, but its a rather boring process, and you will undergo some wild bankroll swings.
Choose your starting cards carefully, wait for a flop that you like, then bet and raise like hell! When they do outdraw you (and some of them will, but NOT always) try and encourage them to play that Queen Five off-suit again by saying things like 'nice hand - well played!' and so on.
- roGER
Short term success in no fold 'em is almost entirely dependant on the number of straight and flush draws you complete, as well as the number of sets (and other big hands) that you flop. Where most no fold 'em players make their mistake is in figuring there's something sacred about top pair/ top kicker, bottom two, etc. etc. If you have AK, flop an A or a K, and six players call you on the flop, you should EXPECT to get beaten. If the hands makes it through the river it's a miracle; in fact, it's rarer than completing a flush or open ended draw.
In a word, getting hands like this snapped is not a 'beat'; is simply a manifestation of the game's mathematics. Top pair is NO BIG DEAL in a game with a gaggle of callers, and I suspect (though I can't confirm it) that most decent players would see their profits skyrocket if they knew when to release these kinds of hands.
I agree with the above. I didn't start to beat these games consistently until I started throwing away top pair against multi-way pots with lots of action. Recently I even learned the discipline to toss AA into the muck, and according to my calculations, have made 100's of dollars through this alone. In my experience, in this type of game, if someone who has been calling starts to bet or raise, they've hit their draw, and you'll make money by assuming they've got you beat.
Spike-
Thank you. This is precisely my observation as well; particularly in low limit games, where most of your opponents can't spell semi bluff raise, much less complete one.
The problem with throwing away top pair here is that the pot is often laying you the odds to draw to your kicker, or to draw to hit trips, or both.
When the pots are very large, a 3-flush or 3-straight adds considerable equity to your hand, and may make the difference between calling and folding.
A typical scenario: Loose, passive game. 7 callers before the flop. You have AKs on the button. You raise. 8 people see the flop for two bets. You hit an Ace on the flop, with a 3-flush.
It's going to be almost impossible to release this hand on the flop unless you are facing multiple raises. The 3-flush equity alone is enough to make you call to see the turn.
Even without the 3-flush, I have 5 outs to beat bottom two pair, and 3 outs to beat someone with an ace who hit their kicker. When there are 16 small bets in the pot, you are getting odds to draw to either of these.
In short, I'm not much of a fan of letting go of top pair in these games until it is clear that I am beat. Yes, it's true that you will be drawn out on a lot. However, it's also true that this hand only has to stand up maybe one time in ten for it to be profitable.
I think the primary reason that tight players don't beat these games is precisely because they fold the best hand too often, or they fold longshot draws that have correct odds to play, thus giving up equity. They also don't bluff enough. Finally, they don't play their made hands agressively enough. When people make weak calls, you should be making weak bets.
Dan
I don't think we're talking about the same thing. Note that I said 'profits will skyrocket if a player knows when to release it', and in the scenerio you laid forth it is clearly incorrect to let go. What I'm talking about is a hand, say, where five people see the flop (for our purposes here we'll say it's As Qh Ts), hero bets, the gaggle calls, the turn brings something awful like the Qs, and our hero is check-raised. Further, before the action gets back to our man, he's looking at making an overcall (let's say two other players called the two bets cold before it gets back to him).
The rationale for calling here, such as it is, is that you've got a chance to hit what is probably a worthless gutshot. Yet MANY, MANY players will sigh and call the raise, figuring the 'pot's too big to let go'. I am not talking about folding when hitting trips or hitting your kicker will be good, or when you've got backdoor flush possibilities to the first or second nut; clearly you can't fold here, since you're only a 3:1 dog IF you're beaten, and you may still be in the lead.
Look-- it's obvious you can't drop a hand this big when the pot's huge, you've got outs, and your opponent might be getting cute. But for everytime I see a player make a correct call in a situation like this, I see ten players make dumb crying calls in medium sized pots when it's clear to everyone but Ray Charles that the top pair/ top kicker is not good. As you know, a good number of otherwise solid players have a nasty habit of falling in love with AK when an A or a K flops-- all I'm saying is that this love affair, however noble, needs to be tempered by an understanding of the situation unfolding in the current hand.
Sure. We can agree on that. But where I see a lot of tight players losing a lot of equity is when they automatically fold hands like 3-straight/3-flushes (i.e. they have 89d, and the flop comes 7dKh4s), or a gutshot with two overcards, or even just bottom pair with a lousy kicker, but with a 3-flush to go with it.
When the pot is very big, you can often call with all of these hands if, in your judgement, your hand would be the best if it won.
The ironic thing is that the fish do this effortlessly. It comes naturally to them. So their plays that would be wrong in a tougher game become correct (see Morton's Law for a better explanation). If they are all calling correctly, where do you make money, and how do you differ from them? By pre-flop hand selection, by being agressive, and by having the intelligence to know when you're drawing dead.
Dan
Dan I'm not sure i agree with you . If your in middle position with a gutshot draw and the flop comes with two hearts your in big trouble. Number one you only have 3 not 4 outs, you have to worry about raises behind you which decrease your odds. Also in your example, i find if i have 89d and i hit my flush frequently someone has a higher flush. When you decide to go uphill you better be darn sure if you hit your longshot its going to come in,otherwise, those odds are reverse implied odds. As a result, the situation has to be right to continue with these type of hands. Good Luck.Ice
We agree, I believe. The important factor, as I said in the last message, is your 'read' that your hand would be the best if it hit. If it is, then you are often getting odds to call. When evaluating your 'outs', don't forget the other longshot equity you may have. For example, a gutshot with an overcard may turn into two pair instead, and with the overcard it's likely that it's the best two pair if it hits (unless it makes a straight for someone else). Have you ever won a pot where you called with an ace-high flush draw then hit running aces to knock off someone else's two pair? It happens. When the pots are very large, all of these tiny outs become significant.
As for gutshots... You're about a 5-1 dog to hit the hand by the river. When there are 20 or 30 small bets in the pot, you can stand a raise or two on the flop and still make the hand profitable. A 3-flush or two overcards to go with the gutshot makes it a pretty good hand, assuming that these draws would be good if you hit them.
I was playing with my wife today in a loose 4-8 game. A tight player was sitting beside me, and he has KJd. Six callers, and a raise. On the flop, 3 diamonds land. Early position player bets, a loose agressive player raises, and he throws his flopped King High flush away without even thinking about it. Then he complained to me that he can't make a hand stand up. I was figuring at WORST he was even money to have the best hand, and there were already 15 small bets in the pot. Even with the negative implied odds he's getting at least 4-1 on his call. Is there a one in four chance that his hand is the best? Of course.
Later on, in Omaha high, the same player has AQQJ. The flop is AA4. A bet, he raises. Now he is heads-up with the bettor. On the turn, it's checked to him, and he checks. The river is a blank (no straight, no flush on the board), and the player who checked to him on the turn bets. He folds his hand instantly again, whining about his bad luck. Now, a lot of players would bet any ace here heads up after it's checked around on the turn. Sure, he could have been beat, but the pot was offering him something like 5-1 on his call. A call here was easily profitable, but he didn't even think about it.
This type of play would be characterized as 'weak tight', and it's probably the worst style of play for a loose game.
...it might even be characterized as "weak-stupid" or just "stupid-stupid"...but I know what you mean, I have seen a couple of these fellas in my games as well.
The thinking on the first hand is particularly mind-boggling. What was this fellow looking for when he called pre-flop...solely, a KKJ flop?
It's the same thinking of the poster a few threads below, who said that you should never draw to a non-nut straight or flush in a loose game. So, if you played a hand like TJs, just what exactly are you hoping to hit?
"Top pair is NO BIG DEAL in a game with a gaggle of callers, and I suspect (though I can't confirm it) that most decent players would see their profits skyrocket if they knew when to release these kinds of hands."
This is very true, and there are times when it's easy to release something like top pair top kicker. For example, when 3 suited cards are on board or when there's a straight draw, particularly one that could have given a straight to an open straight draw, or even two consecutive cards that could give someone two pair.
But there are other times when there's no obvious draw that it can be very hard to let go of top pair top kicker, especially when you can't get a read on your opponent. For example, if you're holding AQ in early position when the flop comes Q52 two-suited, you'll probably get a lot of raising from people with flush draws and straight draws. Then a 7 falls on the turn, you bet, and there's one raise and a few callers when it gets back to you. I don't know if I could let go of my AQ here, because I've seen people raise in such situations with top pair without a great kicker (like QTo), because they figure that most of the other people are probably calling/raising with draws. There are plenty of low-limit players in such situations who would keep chasing only a single overcard in those situations.
I agree completely; often, you have to just grit your teeth and hope you can check down the river. But, as you say, there are plenty of times where you have to let go of this hand, and most players IMEexperience don't know how to do this.
The problem I often see with how people play low limit is the starting hand selection (especially in the blinds) and what hands to continue with after seeing the flop. When they keep getting "sucked out on" on the river, they might look at it as one person after another is getting lucky. This guy hits the inside straight, that guy hits the runner-runner, etc.
They start noticing a pattern ... they were the favorite over the hand that beat them, and it must be an unlucky night cause they keep suckin out. What they don't realize is that while they were the favorite over any hand that saw the river, they were a huge dog against them collectively. Rather than looking at it as the person that beat them had 4 outs, they should realize that 40 out of the 46 cards left would cause someone to beat them. Thus the top hand on the turn (top pair, A kicker or something like that) was really drawing to 6 outs to stay ahead of the pack.
A really good holdem player in a tight game will aggressively play AJo when the flop comes J high because they realize they can often win without improving. They dont naturally think of this as a drawing situation, because in a tight game it isnt. But in a loose game, any overcard (except an A will kill them, any flush will often kill them, any single card straight probably will, and often times some really trashy two pair will beat them). They basically have a drawing hand and dont realize it.
Notice what the "average winning hand" is for the game you are playing and adjust your starting cards and play accordingly. Don't draw for hands that have no chance of winning even if they improve. A classic example is AK when the flop misses you. You might think, well the pot is big enough, I will call since it is only a small bet and see the turn. The turn brings a K, now you are trapped into going to the river. The river is a complete airball (like an uncoordinated 2) but it just hit someones pair and gave them a set. They bet, you think, how can that 2 have possibly helped them, and call the river because you have top pair, A kicker. Then you become frustrated because they hit a 4 outer to suck out, when in reality just about any card would have caused someone to suck out.
So, based on that you can probably figure out what cards I would play and how I would adjust. Try it and see. When I play low limit, I usually win consistently. It doesn't take many pots to have a good night.
A Poker Guy!
I play a lot of crazy no-fold'em in Sacramento, and I've had to make similar adjustments. Things I've learned: (1) The hands you play agressively are those with something made and a good draw, like top pair with a flush draw, or a big set. Pump until the river, then check-call if, if you don't complete, and if the fish miss too you can take it with your backup. The pair is plan B, not A. (2) If your only strength is high cards, slow down. If you're made but vulnerable, slow down (like a straight with a suited board). You'll never bully a draw out, so just hang on for the ride and collect when he misses. (3) Don't draw to less than the nuts. I.e., don't draw to a low-end straight or less than K-high flush. Even the K-high should be cautious against a raiser. Try to get in cheap with any suited ace.
That advice is too tight. In Holdem, even in a very loose game, any flush usually wins. Even if it loses against a bigger flush half the time, it's clearly profitable if the pot is laying you 10-1 or more, which it often is.
And if you don't raise with a nut straight just because there is a two-flush on the board, you are losing a LOT of money. The key characteristic that makes loose games tough to beat is that the fish are often getting the odds they need for their goofball draws. It's your job to make it as expensive as possible when you have a big hand.
Here here. Hell, you can go DAYS without flopping a nut draw; if you just wait around for these kinds of opportunities, you're going to go broke.
Lee, you wrote:
"Pump until the river, then check-call if, if you don't complete"
One of the ways to combat the dreaded bad beat on the river in such games is to ensure that you suck every ounce of blood from the fish when they don't get there. Check-calling on the River is something I do only to induce bluffs. Otherwise, in such games, I will make several thin bets for value because I know that I will get several thin calls and overcalls.
You also wrote:
"If you're made but vulnerable, slow down (like a straight with a suited board). You'll never bully a draw out, so just hang on for the ride and collect when he misses."
Again, I disagree. Let's not lose sight of the fact that the fellow who is trying for the flush will miss most of the time...make him pay for trying. If I have the nut straight and even if there are two possible flush draws showing on the turn, I am going to get in as many bets as possible and make the drawers beat me.
Finally, you wrote:
"Don't draw to less than the nuts. I.e., don't draw to a low-end straight or less than K-high flush. Even the K-high should be cautious against a raiser.'
Personally, I believe that this is Omaha hi-lo strategy and not hold 'em strategy. In my experience, set over set and flush over flush are rare occurrences even in loose games.
> Check-calling on the River is something I do only
I was talking about the pair+draw situation. If you have been pumping your good pair+draw and miss, against 5 or 6 callers, your pair is a bluff-catcher. A check almost always will draw a bluff from someone who puts you on the draw only and caught a small pair, but that same small pair will not likely call a bet; two pair certainly will call, so I still think the check-call works here. A set that doesn't fill up can certainly be value bet, as can a pair+draw that catches a second pair, but I don't like betting one pair only in this situation.
> Let's not lose sight of the fact that the fellow who is
If it's one fellow, absolutely. But we're talking about the case where it's 5 or 6. If you flop 2nd-nut straight with two suiteds on the board, at least /one/ of those 5 or 6 has the suit, and one or more of them is drawing to the higher straight, and one of them will make it.
Yes, I probably am a bit too tight about J-high flush draws. I still wouldn't make that my only outs though; I'd play it if it also had a gutshot, overcard value, or a made pair.
If only one of them's drawing to the flush, he's got 9 outs. If one (or more) is drawing to the straight, he has six outs. This means that, combined, one of them will make their hand about half the time, but you're getting paid 2-1 when they miss. If you're not charging them every possible dollar to get there, you are certainly not taking the best of it.
Then what do you think of middle suited connectors in your game both before the flop and if they make a non-nut hand? These holdings are consistent money makers in no-fold'em games on the east coast.
Andrew
I find it hard to believe that suited connectors are consistent winners! I play them also but the situation has to be right. In addition, noted poker authors such as Caro and Ciaffone diagree with you completely. Ciaffone states you should play them rarely and then to vary your game. Caro goes so far as to say never play them in a rake game and that the hand is scarcely profitable. I would be interested to hear what other players experience with these hands in limit poker. Ice
Were Caro and Ciaffone writing about no-fold'em games? Even out-of-position, when I can expect six or more limpers I'll get involved with 76s. I don't even mind a late position raise, since I'll have pot odds to catch one of five apparent outs on the turn if I pair the flop. The various drawing flops aren't going to be complicated either. I would agree with you however that these hands should frequently be avoided except with strong position under typical table conditions (not a table full of loose/passive customers). I wouldn't expect to lose with an under-flush much more than 20% of the time against calling stations. Bottom straight may be more of a 50-50 proposition though.
Ice - I think it really matters a lot what kind of game you are in. I will echo Andrew here and say that, in my loose-passive game, I feel that I am having pretty good success playing suited connectors all the way down to 54s. My game's character changes every 15 minutes, and I only play the SCs when I am expecting 6 callers no raisers. I think everyone will agree that you need good pot odds and good implied odds (that "character of the game" estimate) to play these.
Dick
Dick
Thanks for the comments. However, my experience has bee when i have 7 or more people in the pot with me i have big problems. Part of the reason is that there are a lot of people playing Qxs Jxs Kxs and a whole lot of other garbage from that ilk. Consequently, i frequently find if i hit the flush someone is on top of me. However, i have had good luck when hitting the straight i seem to win a big percentage of the time. One of the problems with suiteed connectors IMO is that they need a lot of people in the pot with them, however, when they have a lot of people many of these people are not in there with big cards. Its a catch 22. If everybody was playing big cards that would be a perfect situation to play them. But i still think they should be played in certain spots. I would read ciaffones article its hard to argue with his logic. Good Luck Ice
You've got me reevaluating the middle suited connectors Iceman. Your point about the increased play of QXs JXs and from the diehard calling stations XXs lowering the flush making value of these hands can not be ignored. For a table full of loose passive players this effect does not seem inconsiderable. Perhaps the best approach would be to modify typical strategy for those times when the flush is completed and there is no fourth suited card on the board. From early position it could now be appropriate to check and call on the river, and - as unnatural as it sounds - to just showdown from late position. With seven no-fold'em type opponents seeing the turn card I think it's more important to continue to bet the flush draw for *value* than to take the free card when they all *check to the raiser* even if this means I'll end up with less than four callers.
I'm not ready to throw that 76s in the muck preflop, yet I'd have to think about it up front again, since as you point out no one's going to fold any sort of one card flush draw for whatever number of bets. I missed the Ciaffone essay. If this was a Card Player article, what issue?
Has anyone else noticed that when an otherwise unremarkable table deteriorates into a no-fold'em contest, the calling stations are often now populating the 4-5-6-7 seats? I have an idea that the no-fold'em effect is triggered by the third player to just call the blinds pre-flop, a situation exacerbated by four-in-a-row. Would a seat change into the undesireable (can't look at as many players without straining my neck) 5 or 6 spots, with the intention of playing tight hyperagressive against calling stations on both sides of me, adequately disrupt such conditions? How do you experienced lower limit California players manage to shake things up? Are the no-fold'em forces just too much for an individual player to even try to circumvent?
Hi Marc, fancy seeing you here. When we meet again to play please point this lady out to me! I have a hunch it's the same person who had Qc6c who stayed when I raised pre flop with AdAc. I flopped a set of aces only to have her beat me with a queen high flush. (She, was in mid position and called two raises cold!) As you know , I've only played 10 sessions but even I don't do that! Also, I hope I'm not one of the "maniacs" , "clueless" or "passives". We were at the same table that night for a while :) I've read in my S&M books that yep, there are players who play any ace and of course any 2 suited cards. This is my first time on the forum and I hope to learn at lot here. For what it's worth , here is a quote from Ken Warren. "If a bad player wins a pot, consider the winnings a "loan". " If you play well, you'll eventually get the money back". I try to remember this so as not to go on tilt when the above sort of thing occurs.
Take care
The "check raise meister"
Hi Cliff:
The lady I am referring to is named "Hall" and has red hair. She's so bad that on Sunday she's in early position with QQ and does not raise pre-flop. Flop comes T-7-2 (rainbow). She checks, player to her left bets, she and player to her right call. Turn brings an 8. Check around. River is an A. Check around again and player to her right lays down A-4s and takes the pot!! Can you believe that!! Not one bet, not one raise and then when I say to her, "Maybe if you bet on the turn you might have won the pot." Her response, "Well, there was a straight possiblity out there." I turned my head, rolled my eyes, and said, "Nice hand" to the winner. He could'nt believe it either. This lady is absolutely "clueless".
BTW you are doing a good job on keeping your constant check-raising to those times when they truely warrant them. Enjoy playing with you.
Later, Marc
what can someone expect in 30-60 stud that he doesn't see in 15-30? Are the players THAT much better? If you are comfortable with the stakes, is it worth taking a shot if it's in a game where you don't know anyone and nobody knows you?...if so, what bankroll would be sufficient for 30-60 stud?
more specifically...I live and play on the east coast. I am going to Vegas for 4 or 5 days over Memorial Day weekend, and was wondering about 15-30 and 30-60 stud at the Bellagio.
any comments are appreciated.
JKR
JKR
First off, you don't need to go to Vegas to sample 30/60 stud..the Taj in Atlantic spreads this game daily along with plenty of 15/30 and 20/40
Yes the players are better AND more agressive. The 30/60 game plays a lot faster because of the bigger ante.
Personally I don't think I've really done much better at 30/60 than I have at 15/30. I was in Las Vegas last in January and I played 15/30 at the Bellagio and both 15/30 and 20/40 at the Mirage (great games at the Mirage since 20/40 was the biggest game being spread at the time and a lot of very weak players...who were staying at the Mirage gravitated to that game) During my 10 day trip I never saw a lineup at the Bellagio 30/60 game that tempted me to move up and take a shot...and I was booking a big win for the ten day trip...I played 106 hours between 15/30 and 20/40 and won just over $6000.
On the other hand, on a recent short trip to Atlantic City I played 30/60 every day for 6 days...usually waiting to get into the game on the graveyard shift.
I usually sit down in the 30/60 with $1200 and that's as much as I can lose in a session (no limit to how much I can win!) In the 15/30 I am comfortable sitting down with $500 and again that's all I can lose in a session.
Good Luck (and don't let those Bellagio regulars intimidate you in the 30/60 if you choose to play it...they're all not as good as they think they are)
Jim Mogal
There was a thread below as to what's better: AA or AKs. IMO, the better hand by far is AA in any hold 'em game.
However, let's change the scenario a bit:
Suppose a little genie whispers in your ear that the flop will be Ks,8h,5d
Do you now prefer AhKh over AhAd?
Suppose the promised flop is Ks,8h,7d
Do you prefer AhKh over AhAd?
Does the size of the field make a difference to your preference in either of the above scenarios?
(BTW, I haven't really thought about the answers to these questions myself...but perhaps there's something to be gained by analyzing the questions)
OK, I'll take the first shot. I think that once the flop is down, and you ask me whether I would rather have the overpair pocket aces or top pair/top kicker (kings/ace) plus a backdoor nut flush draw, I see lots more advantages to having the AK hand. The ONLY negative to AK with Kxx on board that I can see is if an opponent has AA over me, and that is not too likely. If you had given me an Axx flop instead, I would say that the AA hand has no advantages.
The top pair/ top kicker hand and the pocket AA hand are going to play exactly the same, treated as top pair - i.e. you will bet, raise, or check-raise to do your best to limit the field and/or make people pay for cards for their draws. And you will be vulnerable the same way to peoples' draws to sets and small 2-pairs.
The advantages for the AK hand come because you have extra outs. You have more than twice as much of a chance of developing trips or a split 2 pair (5 outs versus 2), and add the backdoor nut flush draw for (very approximately) one extra out.
Hands down, I like the AK hand better with the flop you promised me. Because of the possibility of needing extra outs, better with a larger crowd; also slightly better with the flop that had 2 small sequenced cards, because of the slightly higher chance that an opponent stayed for the flop with connectors and has made his own split 2 pair or a straight draw.
Dick
Dick, I tend to agree with your analysis. Of course, with AhK, I prefer the flop to be K85 rather than K87 as the chances of running into two pair are greater with the latter flop.
If your opponent will only play Group IV or better, then the Aces are better in both examples.
If your opponent will play Group VIII or better, or any other reasonable calling strategy, or any two cards, then the Ah Kh is better in both examples.
This only considers the odds that you’ll win vs one opponent.
With this type of hand and this type of board, it should also be true vs more than one opponent.
Someone else can figure out which hands will give you more action.
im not going to take the long time to figure it out exactly but things to consider are=
aa can improve to a winning 2 pair if your opponent floped 2 pair more easily. if you have aa and no king it means its easier for him to have a king and give you action. this may be the most important consideration. the larger the field the more likely someone has a king to give you action. since neither hand is likely to be beaten on the flop maybe getting action from a hand with 5 outs is most important.
Ray - I have trouble sometimes playing an overpair such as AA in just the situation you describe. Suppose you have AA with a flop+turn of 4 different ranks, and either on the flop or the turn, an opponent snaps back at you, indicating (you think) that he has a split 2 pair. As you said, you have a good chance holding AA to pair the board and make a higher 2 pair. From your viewpoint, you have the 2 Aces plus 12 more outs. The problem I have in playing this one is, if your opponent really does have 2 pair, 6 of your outs make him his full house. And you don't know which ones they are.
Granted, there are really only 4 of the 6 pair cards available for the ones he holds, making it less likely for those cards to hit than for your good ones to hit.
Also granted, in the loose passive game I play in, any 2 ranks on board are as likely as any other 2 ranks to hit the 2 cards in an opponent's hand. I'm sure in the bigger games you can discount the possibility of someone making a split 2 pair holding 72.
How do you deal with the decision of whether your 2 pair has made your opponent's full house?
Dick
Dick,
by the time you get raised you are tied to the pot and not always do you have the worst hand. if you are against 2 pair you call and hope the board pairs and it doesnt fill your opponent up. against 2 pair you have 8 outs and are usually getting pot odds to play on and if the board pairs you are the favorite to have the best hand unless it was the top pair and it may look like he was on top two by the looks of the board. on the end you may or may not bet out if first depending on your opponent. if he will tend to call and not bet you should lead at him and consider folding if raised. if last i would always call his bet if you make aces up unless you can be very sure you are beat. in other words you must be right more often then the number of bets in the pot to fold.
"aa can improve to a winning 2 pair if your opponent flopped 2 pair more easily"
Ray, just to clarify, if my opponent flopped bottom two pair in my examples, both AA and AK offer equal chances for me to go on to make a better 2 pair.
If my opponent flopped top two pair, AA offers better redraw possibilities than AK.
Please remember these are comments of a rookie so I may be full of hot air but I wanted to put in my two cents worth. If I am wrong, please someone point that out to me.
I like AK because it gives me many more opportunities based upon the cards on the turn and the river. It gives me an opportunity at a bigger pot too.
With pocket aces, I think I only improve myself if another ace falls and the board pairs. But if a K falls on the turn, am I looking at trips for my opponent? Probably. As well as any other card that is on the board...Depends if this is a low limit game as many will stay in with anything. I feel more worried about holding aces as copmpared to AK...
With AKs, a heart helps, a King helps, an Ace helps (not worried about an overcard to King). As Dick in Phoenix said, I am only pissed if my opponent has AA. If a seven or eight falls, i have two pair with top kicker....with a 7-8 on board...i am probably worried about a 9,10 or J for a straight for someone...with a K-8-5 board i am not as scared of straights being made because players would probably be holding crappier cards which they would drop at a sight of a raise.
Obviously if there are fewer players with AA that is desired as opposed to a big field who are in for draws. opposite goes for AKs.
Craig, I read the post you wrote last so that's why I am commenting under your post. Another thing to consider with A,A is that it has a better chance to draw out if your opponent has a set. If you have A,Kh and you are up against a set you will very often be drawing dead on the turn. Even though the chances of catching another Ace is small it is still higher than catching runner-runner flush cards and even then your flush won't always win. Thanks to skp for a good, thought provoking post. Tom Haley
Here's another question along the same vein;
Let's say you're down to your last BB, and happen to be two seats away from the button. UTG calls, next guy raises, a herd of middle position players call, and you decide to go all in without looking at your hand.
Flop:
Ks Th 9h. UTG bets, original raiser reraises, and the herd calls again.
Turn:8h. Finally, you look down and check your hand. Which of these hands would you prefer to have? 1) 8s 9s 2) Ah Ts 3) Qh Kc
Of course, this is as far from a strategy post as you (I) can get, but it's kind of an interesting question.
8s9s. You want the hand that is most likely to be the most alive. (But if the field calls I'm out).
One thing is for sure: the 98 is an awful holding to have. You have to figure that if the River Card is any A,K,Q,J,10,7 or possibly the 6, you will be beat if you are not already beat. So, really, you are looking for an off-suit 5,4,3, or 2 to fall. In other words, at best, you only have 12 cards at the end which won't hurt you. At worst, you could be drawing dead.
I'll take the Ah,Ts, That gives me 5 cards to hit the nut flush and a furher 4 cards to hit the second nut flush which may be enough to take the pot. Also, it's possible that a 10 will win it for me and perhaps (although even less likely), an Ace will also do the trick. In any event, of your 3 choices, this hand offers the most nut outs (the QhKc hand offers only one nut out).
After trying to figure out what skp likes about second, third and possibly fourth pair with maybe only 2 or 3 outs, I agree 100%. (I didn't see that there was an 8h on the turn.)
I said:
"So, really, you are looking for an off-suit 5,4,3, or 2 to fall. In other words, at best, you only have 12 cards at the end which won't hurt you."
Of course, I forgot about the four unseen 8's and 9's. So, I would change "12" above to "16" but that still doesn't change my opinion as to the poor prospects of the hand.
Being that there is no genie thats going to tell me what the flops going to be, I'll take the wired Aces any time.
FF,
You gotta check out your local lamp store...you really are missing out on something.
Seriously, I don't blame you for your somewhat "tongue-in-cheek" post...perhaps, my initial enthusiasm of deriving some benefit from analyzing these hypothetical scenarios was a little misguided.
skp,
When I saw who responded I knew this had to be a good thread (I've been busy lately and can't read them all). Unfortunately, all the best ideas for replys seem to be taken.
One question did pop up. You wrote "(BTW, I haven't really thought about the answers to these questions myself...but perhaps there's something to be gained by analyzing the questions)"
I thought you were a lawyer. Aren't lawyers supposed to know the answer to any question they ask or is that a courtroom myth?
Regards :-)
Rick
Talking about lawyers and questions, here are a couple of beauties in actual court cases:
Lawyer: How do you know he was trying to kill you?
Witness: He fired his gun
Lawyer: Did his attempt succeed?
Another:
Lawyer: Do you have any siblings?
Witness: An older Sister Sarah
Lawyer: Was she older than you when the accident happened?
And the last one:
Lawyer crossexamining a doctor as to why he had declared a man dead
Lawyer: Did you check the man's pulse?
Doctor: No
Lawyer: Did you check to see if he was breathing
Doctor: No
(a couple of more questions along those lines are asked)
Lawyer: Doctor, how did you know the man was dead?
Doctor: His brain was on my desk.
Lawyer: Can a man live without a brain
Doctor: Frankly, I am no longer sure. I may be speaking to someone who fits the bill at this very moment.
Could someone please explain how to figure odds based on the cards you have in the hole and the flop? I see various odds displayed of getting a number of "wins" which can be equated to an X to X odds ratio. At any rate, i'm having a little problem digesting this based on the various examples. What are the number of "wins"?
Also, a formula to convert percentages to X to X ratios is given in Sklansky's book.. Hold 'em poker. Which is 100 - percentage / percentage. Is this correct? If so, this means that 20% is actually 4 to 1 odds.
Any help is appreciated! Thanks in advance.
Jason
The books contain all the info you need. The best thing to do is to work problems until these concepts become easy.
examples: 1Q) You hold AhKh, flop is Jh7h2s. What are the odds you'll make a flush on the turn? There are 52 - 5 = 47 cards you have not seen. 13 - 4 = 9 help you. That means that you have 9:38 odds (9 cards help, 38 don't) altough you probably actually consider that you have 15:32 since an ace or a king hitting the turn would also give you a very good chance of winning and you might shade your odds a bit since any Q or T hitting the turn would also give you a gutshot.
2Q) Yes the forumla is correct. The nomenclature X:Y means that you have X in X+Y chances. I read 4:1 as a 4:1 "favorite" which would be 80%. 1:4 would be 20%. Sometimes the "favorite" or "underdog" is implied and the faction is written with the big number first.
Here's the thing. He said that the chart provided lists the number of wins and the percentages (probability) of making your hands for 47 and 45 unseen cards. In the example, he has the 38 to 9 underdog example. He says to not bother about the mathematics of arriving at these figures, and to use the chart for the percentages. On the chart, he has 9 wins listed with a 35% and 36.4% respectively as mentioned above. 35% translated to odds would be 1.86 to 1, or 16.74 to 9. How then does this translate to 38 to 9. I understand your example given, the odds are pretty easy to figure out, I just can't figure out how they're supposed to match with his chart. Does his chart refer to the number of cards that will give you the flush? Also, he mentions that players incorrectly double their wins for both rounds to 29 to 18. (Which is stated 3.3% too high) What would be correct for this example? I may be looking to into the problem, or just probably a little rusty on my math! hehe I used to be very proficient in math, but I seem to be having a problem here. Maybe I should have taken Prob & Stat a second time! : - ) Anyhow, I appreciate the feedback last time, and will appreciate any help with this one. Thanks!
Jason
What book are you looking in? I've seen the chart you mention but I can't find it :(
As I think you realized from your later question 9 wins twice is 35%. 39:9 is assuming one card to come. Doubling overcounts gives you an overestimate of what your chances are.
As far as figuring the n outs 2 times you have to figure those via figuring out when you won't hit and then subtracting that from 1 in order to correct for overcounting. There is a very clear tutorial in Sklansky on Poker that describes the technique.
You might take a smaller number of objects (cards) and figure out various results for them until you are comfortable with the concepts. You can check your results via brute enumeration.
Pay attention to what Carlos said about shadeing your odds down if you are not drawing to the nuts.
Thanks again.. the book I'm looking in is Hold 'Em Poker. OK, here's an example of something I'm trying to figure out. In an example in the book.. Sklansky has these cards:
Qs Js in the hole 9d 8c 3h on the board
He states that there are 10 wins over a pair of nines in this example. This would then equate to a 38.4% of getting your hand.. or 1.60 to 1 (underdog, I guess) to get this hand. At what point would you become a favorite? Is it if you deduce that your opponent has, say, 8 wins over you or a 31.5% chance of this occuring which would become 2.17 to 1 odds or a .57 to 1 favorite over him? I'm just concerned at this point as to how you become a favorite and not an underdog? I'm probably driving you nuts, but I've basically finished the book once over and now going through to really get the material down. Thanks again!! Much appreciated! : - ))
Jason
I'm not sure what you're driving at, but I think you might be confusing the likelihood of winning (expressed as a percentage, fraction or number between zero and 1) with the ratio of losing events to winning events, normally expressed as "odds to one." You are the "favorite" when you have more than a 50% (one-to-one) chance of winning the pot. You therefore don't need, in your example, to have a 68.5% to be the favorite. You are also the favorite your "odds to one" are less than 1. So you're the favorite when you're odds to one are .99 or less. When the odds against your winning are .5 to one, your likelihood of winning (probability) is .667, meaning that you will win twice as often as you lose. Lots of books explain this well, but the best I can remember is an introductory chapter in "Getting the Best of It."
Michael Hunter already explained how to calculate "outs" correctly, but it's important not to think of these "outs" as "wins" unless you're drawing to the nuts on the river. For example, you can make the nut flush on the turn, but could lose to a full house or straight flush on the river.
The only way to calculate the percentage of "wins" is if you know exactly what the other person is holding. Then you can analyze all of the various combinations of cards to come and see which are favorable to you and which are favorable to your opponent. (Mike Caro's Poker Probe does this.)
Also, a formula to convert percentages to X to X ratios is given in Sklansky's book.. Hold 'em poker. Which is 100 - percentage / percentage. Is this correct? If so, this means that 20% is actually 4 to 1 odds.
If you have a 20% outter (it will hit 1 out of every 5 times), you need 4 to 1 odds (or better) to correctly make the call. For example, the pot contains $4 and it takes $1 to call and draw for your out. If you did this 5 times, on average you would lose $1 four of the times, and the 5th time you would get the original pot ($4) plus your bet (the pot would be a total of $5 after your call) thus breaking even. If the pot contained $3 you would lose $1 (on average) every 5 times you were in this situation. And if the pot contained $100 on your 20% draw, well, cha-ching.
A Poker Guy!
I play twice a week in a 25-50 cents holdem and omaha game. I have had one lsing session in the past two months. This is the type of game where everyone sees the flop and a lot of times the river... what the hell its only 50 cents. If you follow the stategy in HPFAP you'll probably lose in this game, you will never get 77 heads up. Axs is a good hand, you can get the nuts and pump it for more bets that you can imagine. I have been using Lee Jones stategy, and I swear by it for no fold em games. If anyone out has had different results using Jones' book, please post them, I want to know. I keep reading posts that this type of game can't be beat, I doubt the players have adjusted their strategy. I am awaiting 2+2 book on low limit play, I'm sure it will be excellent, untill I can afford to get some return on my copy of HPFAP. Bottom Line: No Foldem games are the easiest to beat, but you can't beat them with the same skills used in a 20-40 game, it requires a whole new gameplan, and you don't have to play perfect and maximize oppurtunities to never lose. Your opponents will make tons of mistakes.
Low limit home games can be easly beat, but low limit poker with a rake of 10% to a max of $4 per hand are unbeatable in the long run at least until you get to the $5-$10 level or better.
"low limit poker with a rake of 10% to a max of $4 per hand are unbeatable in the long run at least until you get to the $5-$10 level or better."
I strongly disagree with this statement. I play a $1 to $5 Holdem/Tahoe game with a 10% to a max of $3 rake twice a week 4 to 5 hour sessions and win $200 to $500 a month consistantly.
This is in response to Fat Freddy's post. A $3 rake is 25% less than the rakes I'm faced with which is significantly lower. I only play stud, at this rate lets say 20 hands an hour is about $50 coming of the table an hour with 8 players is $6hr to sit at the table without tips.So even if you never tip you would have to make 2BB avg. an hour at $1-$5 just too turn $4 hr. profit.At this rate it seems highly unlikely 40hrs a month will produce $200 to $500 a month consistantly. It is my belief braking even is the best possible outcome over years of play. Please show me otherwise because I would love to believe these games are beatable and would frequent them more often! I think your response will probably be the bad players are paying most of the rake this is a statement I also disagree with.
Drone said -<< Low limit home games can be easly beat, but low limit poker with a rake of 10% to a max of $4 per hand are unbeatable in the long run at least until you get to the $5-$10 level or better.>>
I know that you can beat low limit. I live in Colorado and so mostly play $2 - $5 stud. I've had five losing months in six years, playing one day a week.
You don't have the same level of control that you have in a larger game. Make the best read you can on the opponent and then play or don't play according to pot odds. Assume they will all be there till the river.
Game selection is still a major factor. You'll find more beginners in the low limit games.
DJ
I from south florida and occassionally play poker tournaments at the indian casino's there.At what casino do you play 25-50 cent omaha? Plus if you play at an indian casino the pots can't exceed $10 and they rake 25 cents from each player in the form of an ante and $1 gets taken out the pot for the jackpot.So they take out $2,50 out of every pot. The lowest the percentage gets that the house takes out of the pot is 25% and the highest the rake can get is 75% out of the pot when the pot is like $2!!!Who ever heard of a 75% rake???????REDICULOUS. I honestly can not believe that you win money consistantly in these games.Tell me where you play so I can see a miracle happen before my eyes.:)
C.M.
I play in a home game in gainesville. I have tried the games at the greyhound tracks (same as the reservations) and you are right, these are a disgrace. I heard that the laws might change this summer.
If all goes well gator me and you will be playing higher stakes poker LANDBASED legally!!Oh well there go the house games.
HPFAP has a chapter specifically devoted to playing in very loose games. It recommends rarely semibluffing, rarely bluffing, and playing more drawing hands. In other words it recommends that you play solid poker. How is this anything other than a strong winning strategy in a low limit game?
Now I agree that lots of inexperienced players read HPFAP, then go to a 3-6 or 6-12 and try to "semibluff" their opponents out of almost every single pot. Needless to say, they quickly go broke. But this isn't what the book recommends in this type of game.
As for the Lee Jones book, you will be making too many laydowns on the flop if you play as recommended. You will also not get value for hands like AK and QQ if you just call preflop as he recommends.
Matt D
Med. size pot 6-10 sb, there is a pair on the flop,and you hold the trip card it is a med. card like a 10. You bet and get 1 crying caller, the turn puts a possible flush or strait on board. I show the trip card only , one time I did this in Omaha high and win. Another time I am playing Holdem do not show card and get called with one over card and a inside str. draw and he hits the str. he says that he would have folded if he knew that I had trips. Is it better to try and win a Med. size pot right there or let 1 person draw to a hand that he will only call the river if he probably beats you. Would you try this MOVE if the pot was small, med , or large or never. You are also fairly sure the other person is not holding the other trip card, and you have no other redraw but a full house. Is 1 or 2 extra bb worth the risk of losing the pot if you think there is a reasonable chance that the person will fold right there.
Poker Pl,
First of all what you are talking about is a "move" that is not against the rules in most ring games but is often against the rules in tounament play. So the play is debatable on an ethics basis in the first place.
Next, giving away information to the astute opponent can only hurt you. They will pick up a pattern and will be able to play the correct strategy in relation to your hand. Sometimes this means throwing their hand away (let's say they have the other trips with a poor kicker) when you wish they wouldn't, and sometimes you will be raised and will not be sure you are up against a better hand or a semi-bluff.
The key point is to learn to play very well before even considering using this type of "move". This will probably take a while. Then ckeck out if they are ethical or not. Hopefullly, in a few years, the proper ethics of poker will be generally agreed upon and enforced at the table.
Regards,
Rick
This is a horrible 'move'. When you revealed your hand and he folded, he did that because you had him beat...so why would you want someone that you had beat out of the pot? If he had YOU beat when you show your third 10, then surely he would raise and the idea that you had would back-fire. Medium trips is a pretty big hand, especially head up, and if someone sucks out on the river against you, who cares? It will happen again to you someday and you will do it to someone else.
I think if someone does this, I might be tempted to raise a good portion of the time. Obviously, you are playing scared (trips is a pretty big hand to worry so much). My guess is that doing this will let people know that they might be able to run all over you. I wouldn't do it.
I agree with all the other responses. I would also add that often the person drawing to his gut shot or what have you is doing it expecting that you hold trips...thus, showing him the trump card will not likely discourage him from trying for his gut shot. Of course, if he misses, you cannot get a dime from him on the River but if you had not showed him the trump card, he may call on the river if say he made a pair now instead of his gut shot straight. Lots of guys just force themselves into thinking that you may be bluffing and make the crying call after pairing on the river(Of course, a call may be the proper play depending on the size of the pot, texture of the board etc.)
Bottom line: Showing the trump card is unlikely to help and could hurt...so, why do it?
On a related note, here's a case where such a ploy did help one player in a game that I was in a few months ago. A player raised on the button after all others had folded. The SB folded. The BB hesitated but looked like he was about to fold when the button showed one of his cards - an Ace.
The BB now called with his K,10 presumably on the basis that if he hit a pair on the flop, he would likely be ahead. The flop came King high. He checkraised the flop. The button then raised on the turn after a blank hit. Button got paid off again on the River and showed AA.
(BTW, I am not saying that the Button made a smart move by showing one of his cards, but it worked in that instance).
Great analysis. Another thing to consider, if you're playing against the same bunch every night, is that they'll start running all over you when you bet into a board like this if you DON'T show them trips, since they'll assume you'd show it if you had it.
IMO, it's better to keep 'em guessing.
Since the mid 1940's Australia (NZ in 1970's)has had a poker game called Manila. It's played with a short deck (32 cards), each player gets two hole cards, with FIVE community cards dealt in the table centre. On the deal ,ONE card is turned. There are five betting rounds with a single small blind...say $5, then betting is $10-10-10-10-20, some private games are played with a $50 or $100 blind (last card $200 or $400). The main trick is BOTH hole cards must be used with three from the community cards. If the board shows four aces, no one can use them. I describe the game to non-Australians as short deck, 2 card OMAHA, with 5 betting rounds.It is also played with one hole card,3 and 4 card,but 2 card is the most popular. Can any posters help me with some questions. Thankyou now for any replies. 1) Why have short deck games never been popular in the USA? 2) Has ANYONE in the USA/Canada/Europe heard of THIS game played in their counrty. 3) Does anyone have any thoughts on its history & beginnings. Regards, Darryl DAZZLER (CARDS Poker Magazine - Australia)
"1) Why have short deck games never been popular in the USA?" It might be the preference for holdem and 7-stud over games like draw poker and 5-stud. Where 5-stud and draw remain popular, the short deck is a natural variation.
"2) Has ANYONE in the USA/Canada/Europe heard of THIS game played in their counrty." It is on the list of the games Foxwoods (Connecticut, US) will spread, but I've never actually seen it played.
I believe "Mexican Poker" (a draw poker variant) uses a short deck. I thought that one of Lou Krieger's past articles covered it.
The game you describe appears both too simple and with too much short term luck involved compared to HE and 7-stud, the two main games here.
So, a good player cannot have a big edge over other players because it would be too easy to "learn" correct strategy and there would be a limited number of expert moves the good player could use to manipulate his opponents. And, in addition, he would have to endure even more drawouts from the live ones that occour in HE and 7-stud. Being accustomed to HE and stud that game would be just too boring. From your description I guess correct strategy would be to play like an absolute rock only in a game with bad or new players.
Don't know if I answered your question or if I'm missing something, if so enlighten me.
I have seen this game played, in tournament form, in London, but I haven't played it myself.
Andy.
Are the hand rankings the same with a short deck?
Thanks posters for your imput. The game is played with a flush beating a full house. I would like to know more about the Manila tournament in LONDON,UK? The game has a major luck factor, very close to Omaha high, or 5 card Omaha. As for the best strategy, well it can be a very good money making game with a few FISH (weak players in the game), plus it is good to have ROCKs in Manila, as 90% of the time they are so easy to read. An Aussie, who use to play pro in the USA, and introduced Manila to Foxwoods, said US players don't like "short deck games, as they are easy to CHEAT in". In a deal-your-own cheating is easy in Manila. From my research to date, Manila was played as hold'em in the mid 1940's, but full deck and BOTH holes had to be used. The "need by players to have great hands", to make the game more exciting, resulted in the 7s up deck. HE is a much better game and Manila players (Crown Casino,Melbourne)find it difficult to change over to hold'em. Could Manila ever work in the USA??? Well I discussed it with several bosses at the Bike (LA) in 1995, while there, but nothing game of it. I also wrote a story in The Card Player about it and called it, "Asian Hold'em" (that was in 1994). The biggest decision in Manila is your starting hand, melding with the FIRST exposed card. I think it could work in a USA card room as it does in Melbourne. They have five games going NON stop when open, some games go for four days.
Shakey Steve,
Since you were about to get on a plane and leave town, little you could do that day would hurt in the long run. Any advertising play can only have value if you will stick around to sell the product you are advertising.
That being said, in holdem, you generally make more money by stealing small to medium sized pots in appropriate situations with the aid of a tight image than by getting extra calls due to a loose image. Belief that a loose image would help me in holdem was my biggest leak early in my carreer. The loose image advice favored by some experts applies more to games like draw where there are only two betting rounds.
Anyway, most of your "good" flops (top pair, good kicker) don't want calls from hands like bottom pair, any kicker unless the pot is small. Relative to your hand, these five outers are often getting correct odds.
Regards,
Rick
I think this is a great ploy, and it looks as though you used it at the perfect time. It should be cautioned that many players at this level will know when you've reverted back to your normal tight style and you'll still be denied action. The question you would have to ask yourself is 'what if you would have played for 2 more days'? Obviously exposing a weak hand like that one is only going to get you some short term action if you immediately go back to your tight style, so be prepared for that, and have a game plan set up for the long term to generate action for yourself.
An optimal strategy is one such that even if it is completely known to your opponents they will be unable to take any advantage of your play. A maximizing profit strategy would take into account your particular opponents.
I would like to post two questions:
Can one provide an optimal strategy for a two handed, one raise maximum limit Hold'em with antes half a small bet and a small bet (the button is the big blind) and always plays second? I am interested in an optimal strategy that it is easy to memorize.
Can one provide an argument that shows that in a three handed game there is no optimal strategy against two colluding players who however are limited in that they will never show their cards? How about the existence of an optimal strategy given that first your opponents decide on the choice of their (colluding strategy) then they publish their strategy and then you decide your own strategy?
Thank you,
Maria
why not keep doing it till you get called. think about all the money you lost by giving away the free info. if you are not getting action thats great make them fold all their winners. what you did is ok if you dont ever rob blinds and pots and believe poker is all about sitting and waiting for the best hand. since you were able to make this play i suspect you need to consider expanding your plays and reaping the rewards of playing the players rather than playing the cards in your hand. good luck.
monday night i sat in a 2,6,6 7 card game waiting for my HE seat 7 hrs later i got my seat,, any ways, I post in middle position,10/20. I look down to find the two black Ks I raise my option and its called back to the BB who also raises, It gets back to me I capp it at 40,preflop with 6 callers seeing the flop wich comes down 4 8 2 BB bets out ,it gets to me I raise, 2 fold and the BB raises all call so do I ,, I know nothing about the BB other thatn he is in a huge chip lead,so any ways 4 players see the turn wich is a 10 he bets I call three of us see the river BLANK any ways i thought if he was on AK a bet or a raise would knock him out so ,, he bets out I raise he reraises me and the player in beween us folds,, i call he sais"one pr Aces" I threw my cards in his direction ,, "NICE HAND" what are the odds of that happening? thanks
Allan,
First, what is a "2,6,6 7 card game"?
In regards to answer question regarding KK and AA. The chances of that happening are 100% assuming you are telling the truth and the deck was good.
I'll leave the math for the question of what are the chances someone else holds a pair of aces in (I'll asume) a ten handed game when you hold a pair of kings to someone who is a little better at math and not so lazy and tired.
For the real industrious math whiz, what are the chances of that happening to you the next hand dealt? (Now that I think of it, that is easy. Since the chances of getting a pair of kings next hand is 221 to 1 against, the chances of this happening are 1/222 times the probalility of the answer to the question in the above paragraph.
Regards :-)
Rick
2, 6, 6, 7 card stud $2 bring in min, 2 on forth and a min bet of $6 the rest of the way trough,
I think the odds are pretty good, this sort of thing happens to me constantly.
I would also like to know what is a "2,6,6,7" game? As far as the odds of that happening, I'm sure that they are pretty high, but it has happened to me, just like I'm sure that it has happened to most of us who play hold-em on a regular basis.
My question to you is why you bet on the river assuming that maybe he had AK. He is more likely to have AA in that position. With you holding KK the odds are much greater of him having AA rather than AK. When BB reraises on the flop with those rags, you have to assume that he has at least QQ, KK (unlikely) or AA. His bet on the turn shows no sign of weakness at this point, and when he bets the river all you really have is a crying call. I think your bet at that point only costs you additional money.
That situation happens to the best of us!!
Someone correct me if I'm out to lunch here, but I don't believe the odds are better of your opponent holding AA than AK because you hold KK.
There are 6 combinations of AA and still 8 available combinations of AK.
I'm at the last table of o no-limit tournament. It's down to SIX-handed. The small stacked button raises all-in. I have KK in the SB ans reraise all-in (I have many more chips). The BB (chip leader) calls. We turn over our hands.
UTG- AdKd
Me- KcKh
BB- AcAs
So I am drawing to the case King and the UTG is ded excpet to the flushes and straights. The flop comes rags (10-high) with two diamonds, and the UTG picks up a gutshot on the turn. But justice is served and a blank comes on the river.
A similar happened to me when I was holding AA, someone KK and someone else AK, but the board came
A K x, and turn and river where 3's. It was a huge pot, capped every round.
carlos
Sexton in one of his Cardplayer articles recounts a hand where he and two others went all in before the flop in a tournament. Sexton had pocket Queens while both his opponents had Pocket Tens. Sexton was eliminated when both his opponents hit runner/runner to make a straight.
Apparently, Doyle commented that he had never seen something like that in all his years of playing poker.
I has this exact same thing happen to me about two months ago, except the AK was in clubs (and yes, I had the K's).
I was playing omaha when my friend called me over to his 10-20 holdem table where to my amazement I saw pocket 10's,kings and aces lose to pocket fours with a board like 4-10-k-A-4. nice pot. I have seen it all.
Well, someone may eventually post the odds of someone else holding AA when you've been dealt KK. However, it isn't very relevant.
There was lots of evidence provided to you during the play of the hand, all of which pointed to him having AA. While it is very true that he might have held AK, QQ, or any other hand, you clearly should have been thinking that AA was a possibility when he 3-bet preflop. When he continues jamming with you after the flop is low, you really should start thinking AA, KK, QQ, or he had a pair that flopped a set. As the action continues, anything lower than the above list becomes less and less likely. By the time the river was dealt, you should have just called, as the only hand he has that will call your raise and lose to you is QQ. Every other reasonable possibility will beat or tie you.
Now, if this player is a known maniac who might have played this far without even looking at his cards, or some other nonsense, then there would be valid arguments for raising the river. However, against at least 98% of opponents I've played against at 10-20 or higher, I would only call here.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
If you've got AA at a 10-handed holdem table, someone will have KK about 4.4% of the time, about 22-1 against. My crude approximation is that you'll be dealt AA (or KK) when someone else gets KK (or AA) about one hand in 5,000.
Your crude approximation is pretty close. The probability that at least one AA and one KK are present at a 10-handed holdem table is about 1/505, so the probability that you specifically hold the KK when someone else holds AA is about 1/10th of that, or 1/5050. (It will be slightly higher than that because of hands when there are two KKs out, etc.)
I answered the question about at least one AA and KK at the table over in rec.gambling.poker back in March. Here's a copy of that article:
In article <36e61e8f.31643939@news.accessnv.com>, < Squeaky@K9Offsuit.Early> wrote: Ok, I think I have the exact answer now (within the limits of floating point precision...). Let's call AA or KK a "qualifying hand" provided that there is at least one of each among the 10 hands out. Then let's compute the probability of exactly 4, 3, and 2 qualifying hands being out there, and finally add them up to get the final answer. Like most combinatorial problems, it's a matter of being careful to account for each possible combination once and only once.
First of all, let's compute p4, the probability of exactly 4 qualifying hands being out (AA, AA, KK, and KK). The probability of four specific players being dealt these four hands (in order) is:
4c2*2c2*4c2*2c2/(52c2*50c2*48c2*46c2) = 1.89834E-11,
where XcY is my shorthand for X choose Y. There are 10c2*8c2 = 1260 ways these 4 players can be distributed among the 10 seats. So p4 is the product of these two numbers: p4 = 2.39191E-08.
Now consider p3, the probability of exactly 3 qualifying hands. First of all, the probability of three specified players being dealt AA, AA, and KK, respectively is: (4c2*2c2*4c2)/(52c2*50c2*48c2) = 1.96478E-08. There are 10c2*8c1 = 360 ways to seat these three players. Multiply these two numbers, and double it to include the case of AA, KK, and KK, which has the same basic probability, giving a raw probability of 1.41464E-05. But this figure quadruple counts all the cases where 4 qualifying hands were out, so we have to subtract 4*p4 to get the final value of p3 = 1.40507E-05.
Finally, consider p2, the probability of exactly 2 qualifying hands. The probability of 2 specified players being dealt AA and KK, respectively, is: (4c2*4c2)/(52c2*50c2) = 2.21627E-05. There are 90 ways to pick the two players, giving us a raw probability of 0.001994644. This figure double counts the cases with 3 qualifying hands, and quadruple counts the cases with 4 qualifying hands, so we subtract 2*p3+4*p4 to get the value of p2 = 0.001966447.
Now the requested probability was the probability of at least one AA and one KK being out, which is p2+p3+p4 = 0.001980522, or 503.9175:1. So basically, it's a 504:1 shot against on any given hand, or a bit worse than half the probability that a specified player (like you) gets pocket rockets in the first place.
Everybody folds to me in mid position. I have AsQs and raise. The next two players - both loose, but one passive the other aggressive - call, button and sb fold and the BB reraises. I know this player, he is a tight, non-bluffer, his reraise in the BB most probably means either AA, KK, QQ or AK. Knowing this, and knowing that I am probably dominated by all four possibilies and dead crippled by three of the them, what should I do?
a. Reraise if I am certain that the other two players will call the cap, in order to maximise my pot odds after the flop for flush draws, inside straight or back door draws, and chop up those two players contributions with the BB as even dominated and/or crippled I will still win my fair share of hands?
b. Reraise if I think this will knock at least one and hopefully both other players out, in order to play heads-up with the BB? The pot is already fairly large and even with the other players out there will be enough money in to support my draws and backdoors and there will be dead money in there.
c. Call to ensure that the other two players play? I don't want to put any more money in with a dominated hand, I want to see the flop for as cheap as possible and have other players in to support my draws etc. and chop up their contributions with the BB. (I realize this is similiar to a. but which is correct call or reraise?)
The only other way to play it is to fold, and I don't think that is correct, (is it?)
Please comment.
(what I did: I reraised, both other players called, the flop came down, K T 2 rainbow, there was no improvement by the river and the player beside me took the pot with KcTs against the BB QQ.)
forgot to add - does it matter? as it is only one more small bet, reraising or calling preflop is irrelevant as to how you play the hand after the flop.
I would recommend that you seriously rethink your game.
You say "does it matter? as it is only one more small bet". This shows a lack of understanding of what long-term winning poker is about. 1 small bet is a lot if it's wasted. The best limit players only win 1-4 (2 is probably typical) small bets per hour. If you throw away a small bet here and there, you can quickly go from a long-term winner to a long-term loser.
Also, it does matter, even for this one hand. If you just call, the people behind you will also call, and there will be 12.5 small bets in the pot, 3 of which originated with you, 1 of which you put in knowing you were behind.
If you raise, there will be between 12.5 and 16.5 small bets in the pot, 4 of which originated with you, and 2 of which you put in knowing you were behind.
Since you are drawing, you want the best odds possible. In the calling scenario, you are getting much better odds, and much better implied odds (implied odds is a comparison a what you will win when you win against what you've invested now to get there). If you're getting better odds, you're making more or losing less. These things happen every hand you play, so all of these "little" changes in the odds add up to a lot of money at the end of a session, and the end of your poker career. The people who maximize their payoffs are the long-term winners.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Since you say that you are sure you are dominated by the BB, your hand has now become a drawing hand. Clearly you would rather flop a flush or flush draw rather than just top pair. Even if you flop 2 pair, you're only ahead of half his hands. Since you're drawing, you should do so as cheaply as possible, and call. You're doing this to increase your implied odds for later in the hand, and to keep in the other players, as you want as many people as possible to pay off your flush if you make it.
Call, and hope for 2 or 3 spades to flop.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I agree with Greg.
Regarding (a), reraising to maximize your pot odds after the flop isn't the goal. When you're in a pot-building mode (not trying to drive others out), you're usually doing so because you either have a winner or a reasonable chance of getting a winner and are willing to risk the draw-outs. But since you've lost you're big card strength, you clearly behind and need help before you can justify more bets. So you want in as cheaply as possible and don't want to pay through the nose to play a speculative hand.
Regarding (b), since you're drawing, you don't want to drive others out.
So raising is out.
The pot odds justified a call in the hope if hitting a good draw. But since you're going to fold on the flop the vast majority of the time, you don't want to put a lot of money on this hand.
I posted earlier about AA vs. AK suited, and see that someone has picked up the ball and further the discussion. My new question is this: Do all players have hands they consider the Kiss of Death?
For me, it is having two pair on the first four cards in seven stud. It seems that I always lose with that hand.
I believe most players are superstitious at one level or another. Do we play these hands too strong or weak because of past experience? Or are there some hands that are bad luck.
If this message should have been posted on the Exchange, I am sorry.
George,
You wrote: ": Do all players have hands they consider the Kiss of Death? For me, it is having two pair on the first four cards in seven stud. It seems that I always lose with that hand."
If the two pair is a small two pair, it should be the Kiss of Death. I don't know about always, but two small pair is in big trouble against even a single opponent if he has a bigger pair and his hand is live. Against multiple overpairs and/ or draws it is a money loser.
The basic reason (without going into the math) is that any one of your opponents can beat you by impoving even if you are an individual favorite against each opponent (i.e., no one is ahead on fourth street). This is especially true if your hand is dead or half dead.
Regards,
Rick
Good point Nebiolo on two small pair.
My kiss of death hands are: AJ for 3-bets cold. A4 vrs a tight raiser and two tight callers. 94s in the SB for a raise. QJ board J99 when the tight player calls the double bet. Ace on the river making a 3-flush when I have played the heaven out of KK against 4 people. 3-Aces on the river in stud when the blue-haired lady raises after counting to 5 on her fingers. QQxx in stud when 4 opponents pair or suited-connect their door card. Two small pair when the opponent has an open big pair. When the punk says "how much to me?" When anybody says "... and I raise!".
Sorry, those are kiss-of-death situations. No, I really have no such hands.
- Louie
I've got a personal one that is supposed to be a good hand: pocket JJ in hold'em. Remember that I play in a very loose game, so a pre-flop raise doesn't get people out. Whenever I get them, I cringe, and just wait to see how long it takes for one (or 2 or 3) overcards to appear on the board, and how many opponents get overpairs.
BTW, I love getting QQ. The one extra rank, and the reduced probability of having overcards hit the board, have given me some really big wins with QQ. But the Jacks are definitely my "kiss of death" hand.
Previously in my loose passive 1-3 stud game, I stopped playing starting pairs of tens and jacks for much the same reasons.
Dick
Ditto for me: I have a lot of trouble playing JJ properly, especially in a tournament situation. I'm probably playing them too aggresively after the flop when there are overcards. Anyone wanna give some pointers on how to play this hand correctly for various typical problem situations?
Mark Courtney
aka CybrTigr on IRC Poker
In a normal game of stud, the "average" winning hand is trips. So two pair is an ok hand on 4th street, especially if there are no overcards, but you really need to improve and only have 4 outs (at best). Two pair is a rather weak hand by seventh street. Two pair with overcards still hanging around is usually the kiss of death.
A Poker Guy!
A weeks worth of playing poker and evey poker session, hand after hand is a badbeat or flops missing by a billion lightyears.In the back of your mind you're thinking i'll wake the f*ck up and this will all be over.WRONG!!!!It's 10-20 holdem.flop is 8-10-K unluckiest guy of the week has pocket 8's turn is a 10 ,Im still slowplaying my set that has now turned into a boat.I have 2 players in there with me both have a king.Now there is one card in the deck that kills me.Dealer please put a king out there please.Request granted!! fullhouse on the flop with 2-8o in the bb ,utg limps in with pocket aces preflop.Turn is ofcourse an ace.Aces up on the flop lose to backdoor flush draws or trips on the river. flop a set straight or flush and get four flushcards on board.One day I played seven card stud 10-20 and did'nt win a hand in a 4 hour session(I think this is unheard of untill now).Let's just say everything was going bad every hand that I chose to enter ,by the way I get complimented on my discipline all the time.When i get badbeats I play the tightest game I can possibly play.Now this was happening for seven days straight. I wish I was making this up so I could sleep at night.
I wanted to know if there are players out there that have unbelievably bad streaks that last for weeks and destroys their self confidence in their game in which they used to be a consistant winner. Also do any of you due to the unlucky streaks seek out pshycic help or an astrologer of anykind to tell you when to play and when not to play. I really need help here.I almost started drinking hard liquor to drink away the pain and I also started smoking again. By the way I lost $6000 in seven days playing 10-20 stakes. In my 2 years of playing I only had 2 losing sessions of $600 and the rest of my once in a blue moon losing sessions were under $600.Now in one week i'm losing like a grand a session. I also consider myself an advanced player.Can anyone outthere relate?
Losing C.M.
Believe me, yours is not a unique story. All good players go through bad streaks (hell, I am in one right now. I lost money in April and am behind in May). The key is to minimize your losses by continuing to play your best each session and each hand. Remember the old adage: money saved on losing nights is as good as money won on winning nights.
You may also want to step back and get very self-critical of your play. Bad streaks can affect your confidence and that loss of confidence may take away some of your aggressive edge which generally is a prerequisite to winning poker. While I am in a downswing, the losses have been minimal and I do feel that I am continuing to play well. It's also helpful if you have a trusted friend in the game who can comment on your play. Due to your lack of confidence, you may now be making poor decisions which seem obvious to everyone at the table except you.
Now, for the good news: These bad streaks don't usually last very long (unless you compound your troubles by bad play).
I should say though that instead of lamenting your bad luck of late, you ought to be grateful for what appears to have been a long streak of good luck. You say that in 2 years, you only had 2 losing sessions of $600 or more in a 10-20 game. IMO, the best player in the world needs his share of horseshoes to lay claim to that feat.
Here's hoping that things turn around for you (and me).
I like skp's comment about your previous great winning streak. I hope that wasn't artificially generated by "leaving when $100 ahead..."
If you think you may be cursed than you ARE for all practical purposes. If you think your confidence has eroded then so has your play. If you think you are the first person to not win a hand in 4-hours you're nuts; heck, you should be going 4-hours without even playing a hand every now and then. If you think you may need an astrologer to tell you when to play than the answer is "don't". If you actually go to one then Poker is not for you, give it up.
You know the answer: TAKE A BREAK. Go to the Grand Canyon (look, don't jump); both Vegatate and Pensate. See "Fidler on the Roof" or visit Mom. Then play 5/10 until the "curse" is over and your confidence and bankroll return. (This is one time I would recomend leaving when you get ahead a couple times). How about this: Assume you have cursed yourself as punishment, figure out why, and fix it.
- Louie
nt
CM, I also suggest that you have a look at John Feeney's excellent essay. I have read it a couple of times during my recent bad run and I know that it has helped my mental outlook (thanks, John).
After eight straight winning sessions of 4-8, yesterday I spent three hours waiting for a decent playable hand. Finally, out of frustration, I raised UTG with 22, caught trips, and won a huge pot, so I was rewarded for going temporarily on tilt. I sat there for another two hours, caught nothing, and left down $300. Maybe tomorrow.
I can understand why a losing streak like that is frustrating. However, you MUST NOT let it dent your confidence. Avoid any form of self-pity at all costs. It's difficult to do, but try to get something positive out of a losing session. If you made some mistakes (e.g. played too loose because you were losing), analyse them, then mark them down to experience and don't make them again. Remember, each time you make a mistake, it is so painful (at least when you lose because of it) that you are less likely to make it in the future. Every time you learn from a mistake you are becoming a better player, and if that isn't something to be satisfied with, what is? On the other hand, if you played well but were just unlucky, then take comfort from the fact that your good discipline saved you from a far greater loss.
In many ways I get more satisfaction from a session where my luck is terrible, but i make good laydowns when I get rivered, keep playing tight preflop, and keep my loss as small as possible, than I do from those lucky sessions where I get fabulous cards and go on a huge winning streak. After all, it's not hard to play big hands. But it IS hard to keep playing your very best when the poker gods are not smiling on you. That is one of the signs of a good player.
I would just re-emphasise the importance of keeping your confidence up. If you KNOW that you played correctly during your losing session, and you KNOW that in the long run you can beat this game, then that will help keep your confidence up. Another thing I like to do when I lose money, is to treat myself to something - a meal at a nice restaurant, a weekend break, whatever. Most people do this after they win, but I do it when I lose big. I find it helps refresh me, then I come back the next time ready to really play my socks off. The cards will come eventually, just make sure you haven't thrown away half your bankroll in the meantime.
Matt D
I guess I realize now that I was getting badbeats hand after hand but what i realized too late is that most of the games I played in were no fold'em hold'em.In which at least five players stayed in the hands to catch some longshot card. I feel that no fold'em hold'em is a very hard game to beat because when you fold all the cards pre-flop and only play/raise with the strong holdings preflop and get beat consistantly you have a problem.Especially when the other players are reraising you preflop with any suited cards and even capping with them preflop after I make it 3 bets with pocket kings or something(after the flop the same thing,players raising with gutshot draws and whatever you can think of). Even though these players were playing like they were in a team they were'nt because every time I played I would see different faces to go along with some of the maniacs. In the end their playing style and maximizing the pots did have the same effects on me like a team targeting me would.
"One day I played seven card stud 10-20 and did'nt win a hand in a 4 hour session(I think this is unheard of untill now)."
Maybe I've had an unusual bad streak, but I normally go 2 to four hours at a time without winning more than one or two hands. I'd say every two sessions I have at least one two hour streak of no pots, sometimes even as long as four hours with no pots or one minor pot.
This is a COMMON occurence. I had begun to assume that this was the flow of the game in low limit hold'em. In my experience, a great streak is to win three pots in a single hour. That's when I know I've had a great day.
I've never posted a win of over $150, and I just assume that a good player in low limit will never walk away with hundreds and hundreds of dollars. Every time I sit down I see some fool make $400 in an hour or two, but he's playing like an idiot and happened to hit a few good pots with 6-8o.
Let's just assume that I play properly for low limit hold'em, do most players find this to be a normal pace for the game? I lose more than I win normally, and I'm down about $500 for 1999. How big is a BIG losing streak in 3-6 hold'em? How many pots per hour is average for you players?
Sometimes, you just have streaks of bad cards. For instance, last week I sat down for a 4 hour session and I must have been dealt 30 pocket pairs. NOT ONE of them hit for trips. The odds are about 7.5 to 1, so I was just having a bad day. All those pocket pairs made me feel lucky, but I only won one pot and that was with the Aces.
That's hold'em for you.
Natedogg
That's strange, The same thing happened to me last Saturday. I was a pocket pair magnet. NEVER FLOPPED TRIPS, like you won with the aces, but was stuck $280.00 Must be the full moon or something. I KNOW the feeling.
Take care
Cliff
I'm interested in getting other people's opinions on when to add-on in a tournament.
There are 2 types of add-ons, straight and progressive.
In a straight add-on, you get the same number of chips for the same price as your original buy-in. This is like the WSOP and many other majors. If you got T1000 for your original $200 + 20 buyin, you get T1000 for $200 when you add-on (or rebuy).
For straight add-on situations, I usually take the add-on at the end of the rebuy period if it will increase my stack by about 50% or more. I would like to hear your decision point, and why you picked it. Please ignore any bankroll concerns, and assume that you are only trying to maximize your EV in this one tournament.
For progressive add-ons, you get more chips for your dollar than the original buy-in. If you got T1000 for your original $200 + 20 buyin, you get T1000 for $100 (or maybe T2000 for $200) when you add-on. In these cases it would probably be best to have a nice formula that compared the discount rate of the add-on chips to the percent increase in your stack, to yield a decision. Usually, in these progressive situations, the add-on chips are about half price compared to the original chips. Because of this deep discount, I usually add-on if my stack will increase by about 15% or more (which is practically always). Again, I would like to hear what numbers you use or advocate for making this decision.
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
In a straight add-on, I am much more liberal than you. I would certainly add on if it increased my stack by 50%, say from T600 to T900 in a T300 buy-in tourney, by 33% (T900 to T1200), and possibly by 25% (T1200 to T1500). Why not? If the bank-roll is not a problem, the return on your investment is a wash, as all monies are returned (I assume). Your chances of winning are more or less proportional to you stack size. It's true that each chip in the large stack is worth than each chip in the small stack, but with rising blinds, you want to give yourself some time to catch some decent cards. I don't know if that's mathematically sound (the luck will even out over time), but it's the way I play.
I think the most important thing to consider is the relative stack sizes or the other players, especially at your table, after the add-ons. This is especially true in no-limit, where winning one hand can win you a lot of chips. If one or two players has a very big stack, I would be more inclined to add-on, so I'm not afraid of being pushed around (and can possibly survive a big loss). I like to have one of the big stacks if possible.
Another important consideration is your skill level as compared to the other players. Be more inclined to add-on if you think you are better than average. You want to give yourself more time to use the higher skill level. At the WSOP, I might not add-on, even at a 33% increase, as I figure to be out gunned (yeah, the bank roll is a consideration too :-( ).
I think the proper point for adding on is a factor of these vairables, and others (how do you feel, are there seats in a good side game available, etc.), and not a fixed point based on a percentage. I think experience will help guide you there.
As for double add-ons, I've rarely played them, but I would think you sould be more inclined to add-on based on absolute stack size, but the percentage of stack gain might be around the same as a straight add-on tourney, other factors considered. For example, add on T600 in a T300 buy-in toruney if you have a T1800 stack for a 33% increase. And possibly at T2400 for a 25% increase.
Good luck.
I don't rebuy or add-on in the super-satellites. Of course, since my best finish this year (out of 3 played) was 2 places out of the money, one might say that is folly (although last year, out of 4 played, I won a seat in one and finished 14th in another). Point is, I know how to get close, and thus can say that by the time you get to the nitty-gritty, with the blinds extremely high, you will realize that your add-on had an insignificant impact.
Add-ons and rebuys are not good investments -- particularly in a fixed value event such as the supers. If you win a seat, you have in effect received 10,000; unlike small tourneys, the prize doesn't increase significantly based on the total add-ons. If you can't win on the first $220, give it up and come back tomorrow and get better value for a fresh buy-in.
By adding-on, you are, in effect, doubling your investment while receiving lower valued chips in return (since the blinds have quadrupled since the start of the event). Second, in a no-limit event, where all of your money often goes to the middle in one hand, an add-on that pushes you from, say, 650 to 850 is neither a significant increase, nor worth the doubled risk.
For what it's worth, I asked McEvoy again this year if he'd won a super-satellite yet (he's infamous for his lack of results in the supers). His answer: "No, but I've sure spent a lot of money trying."
I had a similiar strategy when I would play super satilites for the WSOP 10 000 event (Notice the use of the past tense...I have officially retired from major poker tournaments after 14 years of trying and coming close ...)
The only time I would rebuy in a super is if I went broke in the first 15 minutes, and if there had been less than 4 rebuys at my table at the time. Otherwise, like Earl says I'd come back the next day with another $200.
The year I won a super and played in the WSOP was the last year the supers were $100 instead of $200. and I won my entry that year for just $120. After I won that entry I tried for the next few days to win another since I would have been able to sell it if I had won...and as I recall I did a little rebuying at these attempts...to no avail.
If you're interested, we publish a book called POKER TOURNAMENT STRATEGIES which has a pretty good discussion of when it is correct to rebuy in these tournaments.
The perception and concern for cheating in limit poker seems exagerated. The proper move in most limit situations is to at least call so, the most common form of perceived cheating - knowing what other card(s) have been dealt - is usually a diminished advantage. In pot-limit or no-limit or tournament poker any cheating advantage can make all the difference.
By-the-way, there is oh so much more cheating between neighbors indicating, usually in English, that they had the case nine or had folded pocket threes, et al. There is much more of a "foreign" difference across the hugh hold'em table when you can't hear the whisperings of players eight feet away.
Yes, there are isolated examples of cheating scams and I even know of players switching cards, but these are relatively easy to pick off and are relatively harmless. Now, if we can only keep relatives off the same table.
you are vary naive. dealers are players and go broke all the time they know other players and this kind of collusion is going on. what makes you think if the dealer can deal a 'jackpot' to a friend he can not deal his buddies hands and give seconds to others ? my understanding jackpots were very often crooked !!
I am a poker room shift manager and I have made money playing poker for the past eight years. Yes, I'm naive but when I wake up in the morning I'm still not paranoid.
There ARE dealers who can manipulate a deck ("mechanics") but they're few and far between and they can't get away with it on a continious basis. Perhaps on a jackpot or in a "Rounders" no-limit game. Perhaps.
By-the-way, the "Rounders" sequel will have Worm dealing the final table of the WSOP and the ESPN commentator will catch him cheating.
Chris I hope you are right. I don't mean to sound paranoid but as an insider you of course want to sound 'optimistic'. Here in California and I am not sure where you work, we all know as fact that we have some language collusion (cheating, in my book) - while jackpots were around very frequently we had problems. We often find 'extra' Aces in tournament in Vegas and Reno (I saw'em twice) once during the WSOP satellite !!!!
There was a brief discussion in a thread below on playing suited connectors. One of the posters referred to Ciaffone's advice that you ought to rarely play these hands in limit hold 'em. In fact, if my memory serves me right, Bob once wrote in Cardplayer that calling with a hand like 86s on the button when the whole field ahead of you calls should be done only on every second Tuesday of each month or something like that.
At first, I thought he was nuts (BTW, I say that with the greatest of respect for Ciaffone who I believe is a superb poker theorist and writer). However, I have changed my mind a bit and now think that Bob may be right (yet again).
While I continue to play hands like 86s when everyone calls, I have found that if you play well, these hands play best against about 4 or 5 opponents and when you are in late (preferrably last) position. This is because with 4 or 5 opponents, you are still getting pretty good pot odds and implied odds but the real advantage is that you also have a chance to win the pot just by using your position and outplaying your opponents. On the other hand, if the whole gaggle of players call, although you now have better pot odds, your chances of outplaying everybody and winning the pot without a straight, a flush or trips are essentially nil. Furthermore, with a gaggle, the pot now is so big that you can't lose the player holding a single Queen or Jack of the trump suit if you happen to make your flush on the turn. Thus, at times, you will make your flush on the turn only to lose to a higher flush on the river. This nasty occurrence is much more likely when 8 players see the flop as opposed to 5.
Accordingly, here's my hypothesis: It may be that if you play well, suited connectors are most effective against 4 or 5 opponents instead of say 8 or more. If your play and in particular your hand-reading skills still need some work, 8 or more opponents is best.
Comments?
I just lost a monster with 87 suited when I flopped a straight draw and made it on the river - pair on board none of my suits of course. boat beat me and 87, 86 are seldom get the straight anyway but what if you make it and lose to a flush or a boat anyway. Life sucks !!!
I think there's something to this. One practice I've been trying to implement in my game is to not play these kinds of hands if the rest of the callers are utterly tenacious; i.e., they simply won't lay down after the flop, no matter what they're holding. I don't know what the odds are of getting a decent flop w/ something like 86s, but I'd guess it's around 16-17%. Now that may not sound bad, but when you figure in the number of times that you're flush is either a) no good, or b) get counterfeited, it becomes clear (I think) that for hands of this type to be profitable you have to be able to do a little semi-stealing(?) if the flop comes Td 6h 3d and it's checked around to you.
The problem is further exacerbated when the chumps in early position have no qualms about calling pre flop with Jxs, Qxs, Txs etc. or with other similarly marginal holding, since now you have no idea if the flop hit 'em or not. I don't know many times I've seen flops like 8s 3s 2h come up where the WHOLE TABLE calls, and the winner shows down a 'wired' eight deuce.
So, in short, I think you're right on the money. Let's face it; 86s is not a big money winner, and you certainly aren't missing much by passing on it. However, I think the decision to play it or not is should be largely dependant on the kinds of players who are in your game.
In games where everyone comes and you are against players who automatically play hands like Qxs, Jxs, etc., I believe that these hands lose value. On the other hand, if you are in a game where most of your opponents are not playing this bad, and now a pot develops where everyone comes, these hands probably gain a little value.
To be honest, I'm not absolutely sure about this, but I do think that I am right.
Mason (and all above),
This is facinating and right now I don't have much to add but I have a couple of questions you or someone above probably could answer best.
A while ago I heard reference to an archived thread that discussed how hands like small suited connectors lose value in games where your opponents play Kxs, Qxs, Jxs, Txs, in any position as you stated above. Do you remember about what month the thread was in and what it was called (more or less)? My ISP is slow loading archives and I could use being pointed in the right direction.
One other thing. I think GD above speculated on the chances of 86s floping a straight or a flush draw as about 17%. I have an old copy of your book "Gambling Theory and Other Topics". In it you review a book by Chip Johnson and Ray Tayek called "Properties of Holdem Hands" which you called "another worthless book that is really just a large set of tables showing the probability of every starting hand maturing to a finishing hand after all the cards are dealt out." However, you wrote that "it appears to be accurately done".
In it on page 20 they state that the chanches of 86s catching a flush draw on the flop is 10.944 % (sounds right for any suited hand) and the chances of a four straight are 22.179% (this does not include made flushes). I assume this includes double insdide straitght draws. They also said the chances of flopping both draws as 2.862%. The figures for a straight draw seem very high but the math escapes me. If they are correct the chances of flopping either or both draws are about 36%.
Are these numbers anyway near right (especially regarding straight draws)? If not, where is there accurate information on the probability of flopping straight and straight draws (including double inside straights) with hands like this (middle single gappers), middle connectors, and middle double gappers (I would never play any worse).
I also have the Holdem Odds Book by Petriv but just reading it gives me a headache and it does not present information in a format that is easy to digest.
Regards,
Rick
I have no idea whether the 22.179% figure is correct for flopping a straight draw, and I'm not inclined to figure it out right now. It does seem high, and I suspect that it includes not only double inside straight draws, but single inside straight draws as well. If the figures you cite are correct, then the chance of flopping either or both draws is:
10.944% + 22.179% - 2.862% = 30.26%
You need to subtract the chance of hitting both draws, because the 10.944% includes some hands that are also straight draws, and the 22.179% includes some hands that are also flush draws.
Andy,
You are right regarding subtracting the chance of hitting both draws. What was I thinking? But they implied in their introduction that the number of straight draws was for a four straight. It is not directly stated that this does or does not include double gut shots which are just as good as an open ender (or maybe better do to concealment).
Regards,
Rick
Rick-
For what it's worth, I was including two pair/ trip flops with that 17% figure, but wasn't including gut shots. If memory serves, you've got a 15% chance of flopping a four flush, an open ender or both with 'max stretch' (Petriv's term) suited connectors. I figured that number had to be lowered a bit for a one-gapper (maybe 11-12%, although it's anyone's guess) and tacked on the 3% chance for the two pair/ trips.
It seems to me that there is a higher percentage of "quality" .. err .. "good enough" hands that can beat your future straight or flush than the percentage of "random" hands.
I suspect there are more Axs and KJs amoung the quality hands than there are A/K/Q/J/Txs hands amoung all random hands. When you make a straight you will lose to a bigger straight when against several quality hands more often than against several random hands. When the board pairs you are in more danger of losing to a full house since there sets are more common with quality hands. Add to this the tendancy to get multiple-hopeless overcalls from players who play every hand. Subtract from this the tendancy for good-enough hands to make hands appararently worth a call.
If so, 87s is better in no-foldem games than it is in reasonably selective games when suddenly everybody calls. This seems like this could be checked out looking at the 2+2 hand rankings. Perhaps its 4.5:1 against getting an Txs or higher hand, but its MORE likely when considering only group 1-4 hands?
- Louie
skp:
Here's my opinion. The only reason I play these cards is to mix up my play a little and avoid a rock image.
I HATE 86s. Just that one gap in the middle makes the straight far harder to hit. When it does hit, someone will show you a bigger one (flush or straight). I will usually only play x,x+1s when there are multiple callers and I am in late (and I mean LATE) position with passive blinds.
I don't really buy the 5 player theory. This is a long odds hand that requires many players paying it off when or if it ever hits. In my opinion the chances of buying the pot (especially in low limit) are fairly small no matter how much you raise with that dog. If you've missed your 87 then there's likely a high card or two up that someone will pair and call with. Because you're in late position people are naturally suspicious of your bets and raises anyway.
When I do play suited connectors, I will often take the contrary strategy of raising before the flop with them. This serves a few purposes:
1) It is a great disguise for your hand. If you hit, you can often get multiple raises against trips and smaller straights.
2) It hooks people and creates the very large pot you need to play the hand.
3) It sometimes (though not often) gives you just enough leverage to buy the pot later.
4) It makes it more likely that you'll get a "free" card if you want it.
5) It makes it more likely that you'll be there at showdown to show this masterpiece so people can shake their head and think you're a "loose" player.
By and large though, I'd say muck those rags and wait for real cards.
87 makes a straight four ways. 86 makes a straight three ways. This is not an insignificant difference, but I wouldn't say that the straight is "far harder to hit."
Cheers,
Andy B
I knew someone would call me on my phraseology.
In fact, that extra combo makes a HUGE diference. You'll make 87 into a straight at least 35% more often, which is an enormous difference in a game of minute margins.
Also, (and I stand to be corrected here) I believe you are more likely to be open ended with 87, which means you will be able to "get there" more often.
I don't think Mr. Ciaffone was considering the nuances of the number of opponents as you outlined. I believe he does not quite understand that more than one hand CAN be A favorite in a multi-player pot; and so you do not need to be reasonably confident that you have the BEST hand before you play.
So if you flop a set and the opponent an A-flush draw you should obviously raise, and so should he so long as he can keep 2 or more opponents in. You BOTH are favorites.
- Louie
Louie, I agree.
BTW, my recollection is that Bob said he would not play 86s even if he was on the button and the whole field called. I assume therefore that he similarly would not advocate calling if only 4 or 5 opponents limped in.
My hypothesis (and I emphasize that it is just a hypothesis)is that ironically, the latter scenario may be more advantageous even though that goes against conventional wisdom. Of course, you can throw my hypothesis out the window if the 5 opponents that you are up against are no fold 'em players. In other words, if you are in a table full of no fold 'em players, you would rather have as many opponents as possible. But in a more typical table, you may wish to have only 4 or 5 opponents when playing a hand like 86s from late position.
I think GD's post is right on. A lot depends on the nature of the game and the nature of those particular opponents that choose to take the flop on that specific hand.
There is no game that I would come in with that hand. The only place is the blind when no one raised the hand. All this speculation about the chance of flopping draws with this hand seems sort odf a waste.(see how I've toned down, I would have come down much hrder 3 months ago)
One comment that needs addressing that I think many players feel is neccesary, but it isn't, is that you play a hand like this to mix up your play a litle bit, in order to ease the rock image you have.
well, sorry but you want a tight image. It will get you much further in limit holdem than trying to constantly mix up your play with the starting hands you choose.
When you want to change gears, you might consider doing it by being more aggressive with middle strength hands like kj, or qj... by raising pre flop etc. Coming in, in late posistion with 86 doesn't really do anything for your image and your chances of winning the pot are very very very low.
I love having the image of a very tight predictable player. My steals are much more successful, and when I change gears players usually think I'm on a rush.(momentum is everything) seeya
I generally agree with this. The problem with spending money on advertising with really weak hands is that really weak hands usually miss the flop, so you have to throw them away and no one got to see your advertisement.
If you ARE going to advertise with these hands, you are better off calling UTG, IMO. Most people expect to see just about anything from you in late position anyway. But in a game where you play against the same people night after night, it's important to let them know that just because you called UTG you night not have missed a flop like 789. But you don't have to do this very much. Poker players have a LONG memory when it comes to crazy hands - a player who I respect very much (and who is a longtime poster to RGP and elsewhere) picked 4c2c as his 'advertising' hand. Whenever he gets it, he will play it, and even call raises with it. If he hits a flop with it once a month, it's enough to always put doubt in the minds of his regular opponents as to what he might hold.
Small suited connectors don't make much money, but they typically don't lose much money either, especially if you play them well. If you pick a particular hand like this, you aren't going to get it very often, so even if its EV was negative half a small bet, the effect of playing it over the long run is trivial, and the effect it can have on getting your bigger hands paid off is well worth it.
Those of you playing in giant cardrooms where you change opponents all the time should forget this advice. The advertising budget you'd need to make a difference is way too high. But if you play in a home game or in a small room against the same opponents, you really do have to mix it up a bit - just not nearly as much as some people think.
Dan
Dan
I think your post is excellent. Playing suited connectors is a great way to vary your game. Just make sure thats all your doing with them. I think many players go overboard with these hands including me. Good luck Ice
I play in a fairly small room with about 60 or 70 regular opponents.
I have cultivated an image of an unpredictable loose player just by showing the odd dog that I have raised on. It's amazing how those few advertisments brings on futile calls time and time again because the opponent are so sceptical of my holdings. The vast majority of the time I show them a real hand and take the pot. The opponents can always be heard muttering to their neighbour "you never know what he's got".
Dan is right. Poker players have great memories. It only takes a few of these plays to turn your opponents into calling stations. Just be very very selective.
"Poker players have great memories. "
No. But they may have LONG memories.
If they had GREAT memories they would easily recall that your premium-to-cheese ratio that they have seen is very high; perhaps 20-1; and so would have no trouble recognizing that you "advertise" once in a while which should generally be ignored.
- Louie
There is a good analytical article in Card Player this month that calculates the odds all of the possible outcomes on the flop, turn, and river when you start with suited cards. The general conclusion is that QXs and JXs are better than middle suited connectors.
One of the problems with the small suited connectors is that they can often be big losers when the flush is flopped or turned and then a fourth card of the suit hits on the river. This is particularly acute in middle-limit games where people are callig with overcards and the naked A,K, or Q when there is a three-flush by the turn. The analysis shows that the chances of making a flush with EXACTLY three of your suit are pretty remote, which implies that the flush value of 87s and the like is low.
I still love these hands in no-limit though. The combination of position, stack, and drawing odds gives them a lot more equity than in limit play.
I haven't got this issue, but does it address the possibility of being dominated? The primary problem with Qxs and Jxs is that if you hit top pair you will often be dominated by KJ, KQ, etc. These are expensive situations, because you will often have top pair and not be able to get off the hand. This is why medium suited connectors may be more playable than a simple analysis of how often they hit the flop would suggest.
No. The article simply lays out, in "decision tree" format, the probability of flopping 0,1,2, or 3 of your suit when you beging with a flush. It then shows the probability branches from each of these and the cumulative probability of mking a flush on the turn, or river,
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Monday, 3 May 1999, at 9:55 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 3 May 1999, at 11:16 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 1:59 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 3:15 a.m.
Posted by: Navy
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 1:40 p.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 2:01 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 2:34 p.m.
Posted by: Navy
Posted on: Monday, 3 May 1999, at 11:59 p.m.
Posted by: Allan Scott
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 12:56 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 2:34 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 6:08 a.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 6:22 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 10:55 a.m.
Posted by: Allan Scott
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 5:33 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 4:42 a.m.
Posted by: Allan Scott
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 5:36 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 5:20 a.m.
Posted by: Abe
Posted on: Monday, 3 May 1999, at 8:19 p.m.
Posted by: carlos (quintero@mit.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 3 May 1999, at 8:51 p.m.
Posted by: Allan Scott
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 12:58 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 6:01 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 10:12 a.m.
Posted by: Mooselini (mooselini@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 10:22 a.m.
Posted by: carlos (quintero@mit.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 12:00 p.m.
Posted by: Bill G. (McHigel@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 3:40 p.m.
Posted by: Black Jack
Posted on: Monday, 3 May 1999, at 9:41 p.m.
Posted by: Darren (dragon124@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 3 May 1999, at 10:43 p.m.
Posted by: Navy
Posted on: Monday, 3 May 1999, at 11:44 p.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 5:35 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 6:04 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 10:15 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 4:36 a.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 5:53 a.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 6:21 a.m.
Posted by: Abe
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 10:33 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 1:04 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 1:05 p.m.
Posted by: darrell danfield
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 2:07 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 4:27 p.m.
AQ9 is a very connected board, and there are a lot of hands that you want to force out, especially if the flop is two-suited.
Middle set is a lot better than bottom set (but you still have to be very careful with it, especially in multiway pots). When you hold middle set, the chance of someone holding top set is small. With bottom set, you will often lose to top two when the board pairs, and to a draw when it doesn't. In general, I rarely enter a pot with medium pairs, unless the hand has a lot of other strength or the game is shorthanded.
In a 3-handed game, you can't just play the nuts, even if the money is deep. You often have to play much weaker made hands strongly. Middle set is quite good when only three random hands take the flop, and a lead bet can be a lot of weaker things even from a tight player. If player #1 had A9 and checked, that would be a serious mistake. If you have 99, player #1 is more likely to hold AQ than AA or QQ.
Bluff opportunities are an important element of pot-limit Omaha. Even if your opponent had the nuts on the flop, much of the deck will present the possibility of a better hand on the turn or river. You really have to know your opponent, and know when he tends to fold and call in these spots.
If you knew nothing about the opponent, the game is 3-handed, the money was very deep, and the board had a 2-flush, I would raise the full pot.
Posted by: darrell danfield
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 6:55 a.m.
Posted by: darrell danfield
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 7:03 a.m.
Posted by: darrell danfield
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 2:25 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 4:44 p.m.
Posted by: Dominic Bourke (dominic@bourke9.freeserve.co.uk)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 6:18 p.m.
Posted by: darrell danfield
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 7:17 a.m.
Posted by: darrell danfield
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 7:31 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 2:57 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 3:51 p.m.
Posted by: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 4:10 p.m.
Posted by: Jeffrey B. Siegal (jbs@quiotix.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 6:18 a.m.
Posted by: Buffalo (vrqprbuf@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 8:39 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 11:21 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 1:57 a.m.
Posted by: Tuneman
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 4:05 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 7:30 p.m.
Posted by: Mooselini (mooselini@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 6:06 p.m.
Posted by: Buffalo (vrqprbuf@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 8:49 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 11:56 a.m.
Posted by: Mooselini (mooselini@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 6:11 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 10:57 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 12:42 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 3:19 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 4:09 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 4:25 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 3:27 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 3:44 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 3:02 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 4:57 a.m.
Posted by: Karpov (cdurham@cc.memphis.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 3:37 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 2:53 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 3:49 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 5:30 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 7:07 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 2:40 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 6:49 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 9:01 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 3:26 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 8 May 1999, at 1:23 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 5:21 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 12:37 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 11:08 p.m.
Posted by: WildBill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 6:17 p.m.
Posted by: Black Jack
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 9:50 p.m.
Posted by: Mike
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 2:04 p.m.
Posted by: darrell danfield
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 7:38 a.m.
Posted by: WildBill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 4:21 p.m.
Posted by: Bill (blipcon@nccn.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 10:34 p.m.
Posted by: Black Jack
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 11:19 p.m.
Posted by: Andras "quitter" Nagy
Posted on: Saturday, 8 May 1999, at 12:54 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 11:48 p.m.
Posted by: JKR (jk007r@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 12:47 a.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 1:20 a.m.
Posted by: darrell danfield
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 6:27 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 3:40 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 3:05 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 1:44 p.m.
Posted by: bruce (bru7ce@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 11:08 a.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 10:57 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 11:20 a.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 12:14 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 3:37 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 3:51 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 2:43 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 10:38 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 2:58 a.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 6:07 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 11:16 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 6:26 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 7:40 p.m.
Posted by: mark balcerzak (markba27@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 11:47 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 1:12 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 6:59 p.m.
Posted by: Moses (Grangj@parl.gc.ca)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 12:31 p.m.
Posted by: Dominic Bourke (dominic@bourke9.freeserve.co.uk)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 12:47 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 6:57 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 6:36 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 11:18 p.m.
Posted by: Allan Scott
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 11:29 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 4:09 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 8:27 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 7:38 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 11:54 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 4:55 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 6:03 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 3:07 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 12:40 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 4:59 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 11:06 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 4:05 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 1:01 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 2:55 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 5:04 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 8:41 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 5:01 p.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 5:44 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 5:08 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 8:59 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 5:20 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 9:06 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 1:21 p.m.
Posted by: raisemeister
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 5:18 p.m.
Posted by: George (russell@accessFM.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 9:20 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 9:25 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 11:02 p.m.
Posted by: Allan Scott
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 11:19 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 6:56 a.m.
Posted by: Mooselini (mooselini@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 12:53 p.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 5:43 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 10:33 p.m.
Posted by: Andras "quitter" Nagy
Posted on: Saturday, 8 May 1999, at 7:57 p.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 6:09 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 6:50 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 11:48 a.m.
Posted by: druid
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 2:50 p.m.
Posted by: POKER PL (DavePoker@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 4:19 p.m.
Posted by: jeff (laostu@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 1:10 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 6:25 p.m.
Posted by: Allan Scott
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 7:32 p.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 5:42 a.m.
Posted by: PAPA JOE (PapaJoeR@prodigy.net)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 11:21 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 1:41 p.m.
Posted by: Mooselini (mooselini@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 12:39 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 6:26 p.m.
Posted by: Allan Scott
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 7:35 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 5:01 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 7:11 a.m.
Posted by: Mooselini (mooselini@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 1:11 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 3:27 p.m.
Posted by: carlos (quintero@mit.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 3:08 p.m.
Posted by: Black Jack
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: carlos (quintero@mit.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 4:23 p.m.
Posted by: Allan Scott
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 6:11 p.m.
Posted by: carlos (quintero@mit.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 6:27 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin Palmer (kevinpalmer@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 11:00 a.m.
Posted by: MERLE
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 4:59 p.m.
Posted by: carlos (quintero@mit.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 5:07 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 4:19 p.m.
Posted by: carlos (quintero@mit.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 5:02 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 3:03 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 5:57 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 1:42 p.m.
Posted by: druid
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 3:19 p.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 5:34 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 9:24 a.m.
Posted by: carlos (quintero@mit.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 4:56 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 7:15 p.m.
Posted by: Allan Scott
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 7:22 p.m.
Posted by: Dick in Phoenix (RLA48@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 7:41 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 7:54 p.m.
Posted by: carlos (quintero@mit.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 8:03 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 4:20 a.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 1:23 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 2:43 a.m.
Posted by: PAPA JOE (PapaJoeR@prodigy.net)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 12:06 p.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 6:34 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 9:46 a.m.
Posted by: V. A. Kirk (VAKandCo@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 3:30 p.m.
Posted by: carlos (quintero@mit.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 4:27 p.m.
Posted by: MERLE
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 4:46 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 2:57 a.m.
Posted by: GC
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 6:21 p.m.
Posted by: carlos (quintero@mit.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 6:34 p.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 6:34 p.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 6:39 p.m.
Posted by: carlos (quintero@mit.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 6:41 p.m.
Posted by: Allan Scott
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 8:35 p.m.
Posted by: Darryl "Dazzler"Lanyon (lanyon@powerup.com.au)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 8:18 a.m.
Posted by: M.A. (aigner.martin@vienna.at)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 8:56 a.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 9:40 a.m.
Posted by: PAPA JOE (PapaJoeR@prodigy.net)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 11:29 a.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 2:57 p.m.
Posted by: Darryl "Dazzler"Lanyon (lanyon@powerup.com.au)
Posted on: Saturday, 8 May 1999, at 5:05 a.m.
Posted by: Andras "quitter" Nagy
Posted on: Saturday, 8 May 1999, at 12:09 p.m.
Posted by: Darryl "Dazzler"Lanyon (lanyon@powerup.com.au)
Posted on: Saturday, 8 May 1999, at 9:08 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 8 May 1999, at 1:30 p.m.
Posted by: EggmanZ (EggmanZ@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 11:34 a.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 4:01 p.m.
Posted by: Maria Smith (maria1955@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 4:24 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 8:19 p.m.
Posted by: Andras "quitter" Nagy
Posted on: Friday, 7 May 1999, at 11:34 p.m.
Posted by: Tom B. (pokerchip5@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 2:29 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 8 May 1999, at 4:38 a.m.
Posted by: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 8 May 1999, at 6:46 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 8 May 1999, at 7:05 a.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 8 May 1999, at 12:19 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 8 May 1999, at 8:36 p.m.
Posted by: Allan Scott
Posted on: Saturday, 8 May 1999, at 9:01 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 10:15 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 2:59 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 3:54 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 4:13 p.m.
Posted by: Carson de Castro (flyinfilipino@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 6:01 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 10:33 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 8 May 1999, at 4:40 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 5:10 a.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 5:39 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 5:07 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 7:40 p.m.
Posted by: Craig W. (CADub49er@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 8 May 1999, at 5:54 p.m.
Posted by: BLACK JACK
Posted on: Saturday, 8 May 1999, at 10:22 p.m.
Posted by: Dick in Phoenix (RLA48@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 11:12 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 6:24 a.m.
Posted by: Andras "quitter" Nagy
Posted on: Saturday, 8 May 1999, at 11:53 a.m.
Posted by: STG
Posted on: Saturday, 8 May 1999, at 12:27 p.m.
Posted by: Allan Scott
Posted on: Saturday, 8 May 1999, at 5:41 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 8 May 1999, at 7:09 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 12:56 a.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 1:27 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Ward
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 5:59 a.m.
Posted by: Andras "quitter" Nagy
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 8:24 a.m.
Posted by: Stephen H. Landrum (slandrum@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 12:36 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 10:06 a.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 11:05 a.m.
Posted by: Andras "quitter" Nagy
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 2:14 p.m.
Posted by: Deadmarsh (dogtags@sprintmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 12:30 p.m.
Posted by: Rex (rex52655@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 2:38 p.m.
Posted by: DJ (DPJungk@ix.netcom.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 11:35 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 6:57 a.m.
Posted by: Big A (adam.scott@mci.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 1:26 p.m.
Posted by: Rex (rex52655@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 2:09 p.m.
Posted by: darrell danfield
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 10:44 p.m.
Posted by: Dominic bourke (dominic@bourke9.freeserve.co.uk)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 11:46 p.m.
Posted by: Big A (adam.scott@mci.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 11:51 a.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 1:44 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 6:50 a.m.
Posted by: Big A (adam.scott@mci.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 11:48 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 4:53 p.m.
Posted by: Matt D
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 8:34 p.m.
Posted by: Carson de Castro (flyinfilipino@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 5:51 p.m.
Posted by: John
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 8:33 p.m.
Posted by: Carson de Castro (flyinfilipino@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 10:37 p.m.
Posted by: darrell danfield
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 11:14 p.m.
Posted by: Big A (adam.scott@mci.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 12:00 p.m.
Posted by: Dennis (eichhorn@math.uiuc.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 May 1999, at 11:49 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 6:37 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 4:45 p.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 12:41 a.m.
Posted by: TKChuck
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 1:51 a.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 2:19 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 2:30 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 2:35 a.m.
Posted by: scott (Simon_S@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 12:53 p.m.
Posted by: Marc Scher (marc.scher@uslgn.mail.abb.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 2:09 p.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 1:55 p.m.
Posted by: Eric
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 2:10 p.m.
Posted by: Nagurski
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 8:37 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 1:51 p.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 8:32 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 10:55 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 12:15 p.m.
Posted by: Marc Scher (marc.scher@uslgn.mail.abb.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 10:18 a.m.
Posted by: nathan (deanbrown44@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 10:25 a.m.
Posted by: Dominic bourke (dominic@bourke9.freeserve.co.uk)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 11:16 p.m.
Posted by: Marc Scher (marc.scher@uslgn.mail.abb.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 10:27 a.m.
Posted by: Iceman (lgrubart@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 11:53 a.m.
Posted by: Marc Scher (marc.scher@uslgn.mail.abb.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 12:03 p.m.
Posted by: Iceman (lgrubart@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 10:41 a.m.
Posted by: ray springfield (ray_springfield@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 5:40 a.m.
Posted by: C.M.
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 3:54 a.m.
Posted by: Steve Proctor (stevep@iquest.net)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 1:35 p.m.
Posted by: roGER (Roger_Kirkham@Datawatch.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 12:24 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 1:48 p.m.
Posted by: Spike (ckokich@seanet.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 2:27 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 2:34 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 6:24 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 2:32 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 5:32 a.m.
Posted by: Iceman (lgrubart@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 11:10 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 7:46 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 8:04 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 1:30 p.m.
Posted by: Carson de Castro (flyinfilipino@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 9:30 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 2:37 a.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 11:03 a.m.
Posted by: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 4:14 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 7:51 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 4:25 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 8:15 p.m.
Posted by: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 12:44 a.m.
> to induce bluffs...
> trying for the flush will miss most of the time...make
> him pay for trying.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 4:30 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 8:11 a.m.
Posted by: Iceman (lgrubart@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 10:00 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 10:55 a.m.
Posted by: Dick in Phoenix (RLA48@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 5:20 p.m.
Posted by: Iceman (lgrubart@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 6:21 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 10:36 a.m.
Posted by: cliff (cliff_rice@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 3:17 p.m.
Posted by: Marc Scher (marc.scher@uslgn.mail.abb.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 11:54 a.m.
Posted by: JKR (jk007r@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 12:33 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 6:03 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 4:25 p.m.
Posted by: Dick in Phoenix (RLA48@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 7:25 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 11:35 p.m.
Posted by: Erin
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 9:37 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 9:46 p.m.
Posted by: Dick in Phoenix (RLA48@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 12:32 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 11:42 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 11:53 p.m.
Posted by: Craig W. (CADub49er@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 2:31 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 1:44 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 2:47 a.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 1:19 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 7:58 p.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 9:20 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 12:00 a.m.
Posted by: Fat Freddy (rundontwalk@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 12:24 a.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 1:07 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 3:43 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 2:28 p.m.
Posted by: Jason (jcoaron@interserv.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 8:43 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 8:59 p.m.
Posted by: Jason (jcoaron@interserv.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 10:49 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 11:23 p.m.
Posted by: Jason (jcoaron@interserv.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 1:00 a.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 1:45 p.m.
Posted by: Carson de Castro (flyinfilipino@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 9:41 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 10:21 a.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Monday, 10 May 1999, at 11:24 p.m.
Posted by: Drone (kpansius@snet.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 3:32 p.m.
Posted by: Fat Freddy (rundontwalk@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 12:18 a.m.
Posted by: Drone (kpansius@snet.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 5:50 p.m.
Posted by: DJ (DPJungk@ix.netcom.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 1:44 a.m.
Posted by: Cash Money
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 9:57 a.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 4:53 p.m.
Posted by: Cash Money
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 6:13 a.m.
Posted by: Matt D
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 8:16 p.m.
Posted by: POKER PL (DavePoker@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 3:48 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 11:20 a.m.
Posted by: Big A (adam.scott@mci.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 5:36 p.m.
Posted by: Karpov (cdurham@cc.memphis.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 7:06 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 8:40 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 2:32 a.m.
Posted by: Darryl "Dazzler"Lanyon (lanyon@powerup.com.au)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 8:12 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 5:11 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 7:55 p.m.
Posted by: highA
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 5:24 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Ward
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 7:12 a.m.
Posted by: chance (chance@globeset.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 2:32 p.m.
Posted by: Darryl "Dazzler"Lanyon (lanyon@powerup.com.au)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 6:35 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 12:38 p.m.
Posted by: Big A (adam.scott@mci.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 5:15 p.m.
Posted by: Maria Smith (maria1955@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 8:28 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 11 May 1999, at 11:51 p.m.
Posted by: Allan Scott
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 1:50 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 3:22 a.m.
Posted by: Allan Scott
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 2:39 p.m.
Posted by: Nagurski
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 9:02 a.m.
Posted by: Marc Scher (marc.scher@uslgn.mail.abb.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 9:27 a.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 6:27 a.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 9:31 a.m.
Posted by: carlos (quintero@mit.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 11:51 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 2:11 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 2:14 a.m.
Posted by: Cash Money
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 6:06 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 10:30 a.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 3:10 p.m.
Posted by: DaveW (wallace@netcom.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 5:52 p.m.
>Down and dirty, what are the odds of at least one player holding KK
>AND at least one other player holding AA in the same hand with 10
>players in a Hold'em game?
Posted by: jacksup
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 5:50 a.m.
Posted by: jacksup
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 5:55 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 10:23 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 10:16 a.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 6:13 a.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 3:52 p.m.
Posted by: George (russell@accessFM.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 8:48 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 12:28 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 1:48 p.m.
Posted by: Dick in Phoenix (RLA48@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 8:21 p.m.
Posted by: CybrTigr (MGCourtney@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 7:56 a.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 9:29 p.m.
Posted by: Cash Money
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 9:34 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 12:10 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 1:30 p.m.
Posted by: Rex (rex52655@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 7:47 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 3:55 p.m.
Posted by: Spike (ckokich@seanet.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 4:52 p.m.
Posted by: Matt D
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 6:50 p.m.
Posted by: C.M.
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 3:42 a.m.
Posted by: natedogg (natedogg@webbnet.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 8:03 p.m.
Posted by: cliff (cliff_rice@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 8:19 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 10:48 a.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 12:37 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 3:13 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 5:30 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 2:16 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Constantine (ccpoker@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 3:43 p.m.
Posted by: Andras "quitter" Nagy
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 1:37 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Constantine
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 3:13 p.m.
Posted by: Andras "quitter" Nagy
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 11:26 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 May 1999, at 8:06 p.m.
Posted by: Andras "quitter" Nagy
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 1:41 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 2:06 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 2:06 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 3:35 a.m.
Posted by: Andy B (beerskeds@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 10:24 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 10:47 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 1:49 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 2:17 p.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 5:56 a.m.
Posted by: Andy B (beerskeds@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 10:31 a.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 6:03 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 1:57 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 3:43 p.m.
Posted by: raisemeister
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 5:12 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 7:52 p.m.
Posted by: Iceman (lgrubart@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 11:46 a.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 6:41 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 5:52 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 9:26 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 5:01 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 5:15 p.m.