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, with separate odds given for having exactly 0,1,2,3,4, or 5 of the suit on board.
The strategic implications of these data are left for the reader to ponder, but the author's (unsubstantiated) conclusion is that qxs and jxs are stronger than smalle suiters because of the difficulty of making a flush on the turn and then avoiding the fourth suited card on the end.
So the sole point to the article was that, if you flop a flush draw, you'd rather have a big one than a little one? That seems self-evident.
Does he not consider that small suited connectors also flop straight draws? Or that you will more commonly flop a pair and have to deal with that situation?
I saw a terribly flawed 'analysis' in another poker magazine a year ago or so along these same lines. The author dismissed all of the other equity of these hands by saying, "Sometimes you flop a pair or two pair, but that's not considered here." By not considering these factors, you would quickly come to the conclusion that Axs is a better hand than AKo, or that Jxs is a better hand than 89s. And that would be clearly wrong.
I was in the seven seat at one of the two final tables in a limit hold'em tournament today, and was dealt pocket 8's in the small blind. We were seven-handed, and it was folded around to the five seat (one before the button), who raised. The button folded, I re-raised, the big blind called, and the original raiser called.
The flop came 7, 6, something rainbow (I had an overpair). I bet, the big blind folded, and the five seat raised. I called, making it heads-up.
On the turn came either a 3 or a 4 of clubs (two clubs were then on board). I checked, he bet, and I called.
On the river came an 8 of clubs. I checked, he bet, I raised. He deliberated for a moment. I pointed out that I only had $175 of chips left (the limits were $200-$400). He re-raised to put me all in.
It turns out that he had flopped a set of 7's.
I believe that overall, I played the hand incorrectly and just got lucky, but I wanted to present my analysis to the forum for comments.
Before the flop, I considered the five seat to be on a steal, so I re-raised to get the big blind out. Of course, the big blind ended up calling (an error on his part).
On the flop, I had an overpair, and I bet. The big blind folded, and when the five seat raised I called. I believe this was correct, since I still had outs and wanted to see what he was going to do on the turn. I put him on a higher overpair, although I would have raised (in his position) with top pair, overcards, or a straight draw.
I still had an overpair on the turn and I checked. He bet. At that time, I put him on a higher overpair. I deliberated before calling, and reluctantly called. I believe this was my mistake.
According to the Fundamental Theorem, it certainly was a mistake. If I knew that my opponent had flopped a set, I would have only two outs (six if there was a chance at a gut shot; I don't precisely recall what the board was on the turn, but I remember thinking that I only had two outs if I was beaten). With 46 cards left to go, my odds were 22:1 against with only two outs, or 20:3 against with six outs. If I had not improved, I may have folded on the river, but I more likely would have checked and called. If I improved, I would check-raise. So, now that I calculate it, my pot odds (both implied and effective) were 6400:800, or 8:1. So if this guy had an overpair or a set, this was certainly an incorrect call on my part with only two outs.
The check-raise on the river, of course, was correct after making my hand.
Now, I belive this was an incorrect play on my part that I just happened to get lucky on. It's difficult to lay down an overpair. Out of curiousity, though, I'd like to know if you would generally check and call on the turn and on the river in this situation, or if it depended strictly on your read of the opponent's hand, or any other comments you may have.
Q
I agree that the bet on the turn was a mistake, but I also think you could have laid this down on the flop, depending on how agressive you think he is and he thinks you are, adjusted for the tournament situation. With two 7-handed tables left, this usually isn't desparado time. For him to raise you on the flop, you've got to put him on (1) A7, maybe K7; (2) a hand against which you are about a 9-1 dog with 2 cards to come; or (3) a re-re-steal with overcards or something else you can beat (but what else can you beat?). There are a helluva lot more hands in category 2 than category 1, which is a stretch in any event, given that he should be concerned about your possible overpair, and unless he's really aggressive (and pretty bad) I can't see the category 3 scenario. So he's raising you on the flop when you're short-stacked, giving you 9-1 odds after you show strength twice and are almost certain to call. You'll pick up about 7.5-8.5 BB if you hit by the river, but you can't call an inevitable bet on the turn if you miss. So you're getting about 15-1 or 17-1 (actual and implied) to take about a 23-1 shot at hitting on the turn.
I agree completely with this. Because you re-raised before the flop (depending on your play up to this point), your opponent will probably put you on a medium to large pair, or at worst AK. In this case, if he's reraising you, he probably has you beat.
However, let's say you had a slightly stronger hand like JJ and did not reraise before the flop. In this case, your re-raise on the flop, would probably be construed as a re-steal (a typical tournament play). Therefore, depending on his chip position, he might raise again even if he merely has overcards or something like A7s. I think in this case, you should put in another raise for several reasons. He could still be trying to steal, he may have a worse overpair which he may play exactly this way, and if he calls, you can probably take a free card on the turn. Then, even if he bets the river and you call, you save a small bet. If he raises you once again on the flop, it is an easy fold.
Justin
"I agree completely with this. Because you re-raised before the flop (depending on your play up to this point), your opponent will probably put you on a medium to large pair, or at worst AK. In this case, if he's reraising you, he probably has you beat."
Agreed. His own read of my hand was something I had neglected to consider, and folding in response to the raise on the flop was correct.
Thanks for the feedback.
Q
Agreed that the correct play, assuming that I didn't have a gutshot straight draw, was to lay the hand down on the flop after being raised. I had neglected to consider my opponent's read of my hand, which was likely an overpair or overcards. Given that the probability of him holding K7 or A7 was remote, and it was far likelier that he held either a higher overpair, two pair, or a set, it would have been correct to fold on the flop. With only two outs, I certainly was not getting the correct odds.
Thanks for the feedback.
Q
He could have laid this down on the flop, but not because he necessarily should. Who the opponent is makes all the difference here.
There are many top tournament pros who apply unrelenting pressure on any player with fewer chips than them. Here, they might look at your stack, and know that you should realize that if the betting continues at this pace, you'll be all-in by the river, and therefore you should consider folding unless you're confident you'll win. They know that you might fold a hand like 88 (when they're holding A7), so they'll raise for just this reason. Plus, it's like a semibluff. Even though they don't have a lot of outs when behind, they have some. Add this to the fact that they have a big enough stack to absorb the loss, and they'll come at you.
Of course, if your opponent isn't Barbara Enright or the like, then this probably doesn't apply. I just wanted to stress the importance of playing the player in this spot.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I see one glaring error, with the rest of your actions being arguable both ways.
I hate your check-raise on the river. I think that it is better to bet out and call if raised, or to simply call his bet. By the time the river card hits, this is a big pot. You have no NEED to maximize your return by getting every last dollar in the pot. The increase in your EV when you win those extra few chips is nothing compared to the EV you lose by saving those chips when you're beat. Here, the river card made both straights and flushes possible. It therefore is highly possible that you're beat. Even if the risk of this isn't too high, it is high enough to justify playing the river in a manner that guarantees you don't go broke. It appears that you started the river with T975 and bets at T400. That being the case, I would bet out, and call if raised. That way, when you win, you do get an extra T400 (if he just calls) or T800 (if he raises with a worse hand), and when you lose, you are still in action (albeit very short-stacked).
The only exceptions I see to this would be if you are still actually far from the money. In most tournaments, being down to 14 players puts you close to the money. However, if this were a small weekly event at some casinos, you may have started with so few players that only 1-4 will get paid. If this is true, then I could see taking an extra risk to maximize your return, because you would still need to win a lot of pots to make the money.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I disagree. Remember he is in the late stages of the tournament, but still severl bust-outs away from the money. Therefore, these bets are a pretty large portion of his stack. After the check-raise, he only had a bet and a half left anyway. If he is beat, he will probably be blinded away before making it into the money. I think it's best to try to get as many chips in the pot as possible when there is only a small chance he is beat. A check and call would probably be the worst possible move, but I think betting into him might be better than the check-raise just because the opponent might not bet because of the straight and flush possibilities.
Justin
I disagree. While he wants to extract a lot of value from a hand where he is confident he's best, that doesn't include putting in his last half-bet unnecessarily.
We still have a way to go before the money, and yes that means you should still be trying to win chips, not merely surviving. However, once the pot is already big, winning an extra half-bet will not add a lot to his EV in the tournament. Let's pretend that getting that extra half-bet is worth $20 in tournament EV. In that case, I would say that surviving a loss in this spot, while retaining only half-a-bet, would probably be worth something like $200 in tournament EV. In other words, the value of saving half-a-bet here is worth many times the amount of gain you get form winning that extra half-a-bet. As such, he would have to think he's going to win this pot more than 91% of the time for it to be worth risking that last half-a-bet. I don't know about most people, but when the river makes both flushes and straights possible, and I have neither, I'm almost NEVER more than 91% sure that I'm holding a winner.
Maybe we can get Sylvester Suzuki to add his thoughts here?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Your point about tournament EV is a good one. While I think you are pretty much correct about the EV, the difference between finishing in the money and coming in first or second is a pretty large one and a small chip lead can sometimes make a big difference. Winning with "A Chip and A Chair" is certainly a possibility, but an extremely rare one.
Justin
"I hate your check-raise on the river. I think that it is better to bet out and call if raised, or to simply call his bet."
If I had been unsure that my hand was the best hand on the river, I would agree that a check-raise would have been risky.
As it was, I knew that my hand was the best on the river. I don't believe that my opponent would have raised on the flop and then bet on the turn if he had been chasing a back-door flush or a straight draw, especially when I showed strength before the flop with a re-raise and opening on the flop.
Since I knew that my hand was the best on the river, the only question in my mind was how to extract the maximum quantity of chips from him. I believe that if I had bet on the river, he would have become suspicious and merely called. I also believed that he was going to bet if I checked, which he did. Therefore, I believe a check-raise was correct on the river.
In retrospect, though, I never should have made it to the river in the first place.
Thanks for the response.
Q
OK, same tournament as the previous thread. We were four-handed at the final table of the tournament, playing no-limit hold'em with $400 and $800 blinds. I was in the two seat with about $3500 in chips. The chip leader easily had $12K or more, and was in the one seat. The second chip leader (six seat) was the small blind with about $5000 in front of him. The eight seat was all-in for $200 of the big blind. I was the button, and was dealt 98 of diamonds.
The chip leader (under the gun) raised $1200 to make the bet $2000. I called. The small blind folded, and the big blind was all-in for $200 of the big blind.
The flop came JC 9S 7D.
Under the gun bet $4000. I went all in, and lost to JT offsuit.
Now, I'm just beginning to learn how to play no-limit hold'em. I've just started reading the no-limit hold'em section of Super/System, and since Brunson called a similar raise before the flop with 76 clubs in one of the examples in the book, I figured a 98 diamonds was also worth calling a raise like that. Besides, the chip leader was raising on almost every hand now, bullying us around. I figured 98 diamonds was a decent hand to take a stand on.
Of course, the flop wasn't great either - middle pair, with gut-shot straight draw and backdoor flush draw. I basically moved in to take a stand. The worst that happened would that I would lose, and place third in the tournament (which is what happened).
Comments?
Q
Short-handed with big blinds dictates playing big cards instead of suited connectors -- particularly for a raise. Suited connectors are like cubic zirconia in those situations: they look attractive, but have minimal value (K-small suited is another "fool's gold" type of hand that you really don't want to take a stand with).
Your hand might've been worth *making* a raise, but not *calling* a raise. However, once you were involved for the 2000, given the texture of the flop, you made the correct play going all in for the remaining 1500.
Bob Ciaffone refines the idea of how to play suited connectors in his book, "Pot Limit and No-Limit Hold-Em".
In retrospect, I agree absolutely with you. If the pot had not been raised, 98s may have been correct to raise with. It was not, however, correct to call the raise with it.
Thanks for the feedback, and for the reference. I'll check it out.
Q
Mr. Brunson can play a weak SC hand since his judgement is superior, he can control his opponents, the money is deep, and he is not in a tournament.
He is able to steal a reasonable pot having position and judgement over his opponent. He is able to get paid off when he makes his straight for huge +implied odds. A dollar is a dollar in a ring game.
You are not Brunson. You called for over half your money. You are in a tournament.
Will you be able to steal this pot? No, the pot's too big compared to the money you have left. Do you have good implied odds? No, most of the money is already in there. Is a dollar a dollar in a tournament? No. You stand to lose much more than you can gain, especially since you get 4th place if all-in wins and split 3/4th place if you both lose, but guarantee 3rd place if the all-in player loses after you fold.
TERRIBLE call before the flop.
If the chip leader is bullying than make a stand with an Ace; a hand that can win with no help at all.
- Louie
"You are not Brunson. You called for over half your money. You are in a tournament."
Points taken, especially the second and third ones. As far as not being Brunson goes, no, I'm not Brunson. Like him, however, I can also acquire superior judgement and excellent control of my opponents - in time, with thorough analysis of my play, and by taking the appropriate corrective action. That is why I am presenting examples of my questionable plays to the forum for analysis.
In any event, however, I agree absolutely with your analysis.
"You stand to lose much more than you can gain, especially since you get 4th place if all-in wins and split 3/4th place if you both lose..."
Actually, according to the rules of the tournament, the big blind took 4th place when he lost since he went all-in before I did. You are still correct in that I stood to lose much more than I could have gained.
"TERRIBLE call before the flop."
Agreed.
"If the chip leader is bullying than make a stand with an Ace; a hand that can win with no help at all."
Thanks for the advice, and for the feedback.
Q
Unless the bettor is betting all-in, there is almost no circumstance where you should call preflop for over half of your stack. This is true in both limit and no-limit tournaments. If you are this short on chips, you need to make a stand, which usually dictates raising or reraising, in order to drive out other players and increase your chances of winning.
In your example, the chip leader had JT. In many cases, neither of you will improve, and he will win with J high. Therefore, to win you must make a pair or better. Now, what if the small blind had called here? By just calling yourself, you are inviting him into the hand. In that case, you must improve enough to beat 2 players in order to win. Therefore, you should never have called here. While I think a fold is the best play, if you're not going to fold, you should raise, in order to insure that the small blind doesn't call, and you only have to beat 1 player.
In this hand, let the big stack take out the all-in player. You'll lock up 3rd place. Then, see if you get dealt something better than 9-high on the next hand or 2.
As for the Doyle Brunson concept, Doyle is discussing a game where he is investing a small percentage of his stack preflop, and has a chance to make a lot of money when he hits his suited connectors. An example would be calling a $100 raise with 67s, where each player has $10,000 on the table. Here, Doyle will lose 1% of his stack when the flop misses and he chooses not to bluff, but may be able to win 100% of his stack when he hits better than his opponent. You were putting up T2,000 with a chance of winning, at best, T4,100. This is the difference, a 2:1 return versus a 100:1 return.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Your analysis and strategy makes sense, and I agree absolutely.
Thanks.
Q
Me and my friend have played poker for four months. We play regulary in home games. The game is usually very loose and very wild, people always draw to 7:th street, what ever what (even with really bad hands).Consequently I often get out drawn on my big hands. The game is 1-5 stud with a 50 cent ante. How should a game like this be played?
Boringly, I'd say, if this were holdem. But maybe with all those cards on the board you can get into some pretty complicated exercises. Anyway, IMO you'll still need to forget about a bag of tricks and instead just rely a lot on starters that can turn into monsters that hold up at the end (3 big suited cards, big pairs with a close proximity kicker and two-flush, trips on 4 and so forth). I presume no one's folding on third or fourth, so you'll be playing a lot of hands anyway but bailing before most of your opponents. You should also fold a lot of mediocre hands that your opponents would never consider folding (e.g., unimproved big pairs, two low pair on 5). If you pick up a monster draw go ahead a play like a maniac. There are also a lot of cheap psychological ploys (bitching about your "bad cards" as you make tough laydowns, bragging about four-betting with no pair when your concealed straight flush draw missed, and so forth). Expect to go way up and way down a lot, but also anticipate completely running over the table now and again, at which point you may actually be able to run a bluff or two.
Qualification: Big Ace-Face 4-flushes are worth an order of magnitude more than small 4-straights.
Always know how live your hand is, and try to determine how live the opponent's probable hand is.
When describing a hand, especially at holdem, be sure to tell us what every card is even if you don't remember. If you can't remember what a specific card is then make it some neutral card; it makes the hand much easier to follow. An offsuit 2 is usually a good choice.
So instead of saying "I stole with 74s and the flop came 5,6, I-can't-remember but think it was a face card, maybe it made a 2-flush but that doesn't matter", say "... the flop came 5,6,J rainbow".
After all, the analysis is what matters not precisely what happened on that hand.
- Louie
I have been playing low buy in tournements for a year or so, and I win a lot. In fact, recently I came in 2nd place 4 weeks in a row. I am thinking of going to a bigger tournement (like $1500 buy-in, instead of the $30 buy-in tourney with only 3 or 4 tables I am used to). Any advice on larger tournements for intermediate players with lots of luck?????Thanks . . .
Big fish, little pond going to big pond. As a taxicab driver told me late one night when I asked how bad downtown LA was, "walk tough".
Seriously, reading the books on tournament poker would be the quickest route to getting up to speed (check here at the Books link, at www.cardplayer.com, www.conjelco.com, and www.gamblersbook.com).
Perhaps the biggest adjustment besides playing a better quality of opponents is that the slower rounds dictate a slower pace that you are likely accustomed to in the smaller fast-action tournaments. Also, a lot of folks play satellites for the bigger buy-in tourneys, and those require a different strategy than a multi-table tourney.
The biggest hazard you face going from the smaller tourneys to the bigger ones is that there isn't a play or move you know that your opponents have not all seen hundreds of times before. Once you've studied the books, think about how to devise some unique plays that take advantage of your more sophisticated opponents' knowledge. Maybe this is what McBride did last year when he decided to become a calling station in the face of all the aggressive players.
I would recommend an incremental increase. It is hard to find $1500 outside the WSOP and now the Rio Carnivale of Poker. Why not play in some $100-300 events first, to see how you do against the higher caliber of entrants?
There is a huge difference in ability between these different events. When I play in the small weekly events (which I do quite often), it is not uncommon to see someone make a fundamental error at least every other hand. I don't mean something as simple as calling a raise with T8s, I mean calling a raise with T8s almost all-in when just a couple of spots shy of the money. I mean bluffing on the flop when one opponent is all-in and there is no side pot. I mean getting into a raising war for all of your chips with JJ against a guy who hasn't played a hand an hour. Etc.
You will see mistakes like this in all tournaments, but they will occur very infrequently in the large buyin events. Therefore, spend $200 or so first, and see if you still want to spend $1500.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Saturday evening, Atlantic City, The Taj and a very lively $10-$20 Hold'em game. The table includes not only several weak, loose players, but also a couple of tourists in from off the main floor with lots of black chips and no clue. The betting was fast and furious and everyone was having a good time, especially the tourists and weaker players (and myself and my bankroll, I must confess). I mean, this was a GREAT game. And then, seat open and, uh-oh, here comes one of the many local "experts." I knew what would happen, I had seen it too many times. The "expert" wasted no time in telling the weaker players just how bad they were. He ridiculed the tourists and acted in a most superior manner, especially when he lost a hand (of course, every lose was a bad beat). Instead of grabbing this money making opportunity by the throat, all this "expert" wanted to do was make sure that everyone at the table knew he was the best poker player in the game. You know the result. The game stopped being fun for the players that were supporting it. By God, they could go somewhere else and lose their money, and have a much better time doing it! I know this post is long, but this has become a serious problem. What can we do? What is the appropriate way to deal with these situations? And, it is not just the short term problem, new players that constantly get insulted won't be back and those that do come back will look for a different game. Comments?
There was a thread on this very subject a few months ago that had several posts with very good advice.
My practice is to educate the "expert" on why what he is doing is bad for the game and for his bankroll. The only thing I would suggest is that you do it privately (i.e., away from the table) and do it using a non-professorial tone of voice (I find that cracking a joke about it works best).
With some fellas, I am a little more blunt and just say "listen, why are you whining about the bad play of the live one. Would you rather have him at the table or would you rather have (the local cardroom rock) there". With some guys, the blunt approach works best. Of course, the best time to do this is again away from the table and a half hour or so after the bad beat that sent the "expert" off on his verbal tirade against the live one.
I also recall a great article by Roy Cooke in Cardplayer a few months ago entitled "Shut Up". Roy's mesage was the same as yours: You can either massage your "ego" or massage your wallet - you can't do both at the poker tables.
V.A. Kirk's post makes me wonder whether the regular posters on this Forum (of which I am one) are hurting themselves by revealing how they think to their opponents. For example, I know that some of my opponents regularly read the posts here even though they do not actively participate. One of them even told me "skp, you better not try any of those moves you have got there in your essays against me...I now know how you think and that sh*t ain't gonna work against me". Although he said it in jest, I think there is some bite to his remark.
I have considered not posting as often because of these concerns. However, the fact is that I learn a lot by participating. Further, I believe that one can learn a lot more by actively participating rather than passively participating (Vince Lepore, I hope you are digesting this)Thus, I have considered posting under a new name. I would ensure that the content of my future posts omits any reference to where I play, who I am etc. This may then address both concerns: I can continue to improve my game but at the same time remain relatively anonymous vis a vis my usual opponents.
Any of the other regulars have any concerns or comments about this.
skp,
Playing in the many larger cardrooms in my area (Los Angeles County) makes a big difference. First, 99.9 % of my opponents either don't know my name or only know my first name (I've always kept a low profile at the table). Of the one's that do, very few are involved in the forums or rgp. On the other hand, I could see where your situation might be a bit different.
Regards,
Rick
My viewpoint on this issue is different from that of much of the poker community. I am happy to discuss play issues with people I play against, even if they are regular opponents, and even at the table. [Note that this is not the same as bawling out the live one -- rather, I will muse about other ways I might have played a hand after the hand is over, and other players often chime in the discussion.] I figure the flow of information is a two-way street, and even though people learn from me, I learn from them as well. Since I will eventually play other opponents, I should benefit from this, even though my current opponents become stronger. It also makes the game more interesting for everyone.
It works very well for me.
William
I cannot agree with you regarding discussing strategy while at the table. Maybe it will help improve the game of you and the people in your circle, but in my experience it will also toughen up the game. I believe it does this in subtle ways.
For instance, I believe these discussions encourages opponents who otherwise lack the intellectual curiosity and respect for the game to improve their skills to play better in order to avoid embarrassing themselves. Also note that many come just to gamble, and analytical table talk tends to put them out of the gambling mood.
I don't mind helping someone with an honest interest in improving his or her game. I just try to defer giving any advice until I am away from the table and they come to me.
There are exceptions. For example, if I see a newcomer making fundamental mistakes like not protecting their cards, I may quietly (to avoid embarrassment) point out between hands that they may be exposing their hand and show them how to protect it. People deserve at least that bit of protection and help. I am also in favor of casinos and card clubs making readily available information on the basics of poker (our club sells the Mason Malmuth/Lynne Loomis "Fundamentals of Poker" for half price - $2!).
Many players come to the table thinking that poker knowledge is some sort of birthright. While playing, I am not going to correct their delusions, but I'm always available to lend a helping hand to the curious away from the table.
Regards,
Rick
Rick --
All I can say is, it's worked very well for me. I've learned an awful lot this way. And it doesn't seem to embarrass anyone, since the play I am critiquing is generally my own.
William
William,
That's not so bad if it is limited to your own play. However, I still think it wakes up the clueless who otherwise think poker is a crapshoot. This is why I also take care never to reveal my "good laydowns" or even routine laydowns (such as Ax before the flop).
Many will reply that it doesn't matter, that these players will play bad anyway. However, my observation that given enough time, some will eventually improve through a process of learning by osmosis. After a few years, they will be reduced to making small mistakes rather than the large ones they made before. Anyway, I thinks this toughens the games faster than they otherwise would.
Regards,
Rick
posting here can change your image,i posted here a while back and it was seen by a highly regarded local hero who commented on my post, my stock went up and the chicks dig it!LOL ;)
I wouldn't worry about it that much. I'd guess that most players take what they read here with a grain of salt. Most will either continue with their own methods or will follow the advice they've read in a book over what they read here -- even if it was wrong. The hardest part of poker -- or any type of gambling -- is making changes to long-ingrained methods that were either wrong to begin with or that no longer work against a more literate set of opponents. Additionally, some opponents are not capable of making dynamic adjustments and are more constrained to dogmatic concepts that put them in a rigid playing style. Ironically, most of the top tournament players do not participate here, so there's another subset that you have minimal reason to worry about.
skp - You raise a provocative point. Soon after I had posted one of my recent messages about my strategy for the game I play in, the same thought occurred to me - "Wow! I do NOT want my regular opponents to read this!"
But my opinion is that the benefits of this dialogue far, far outweigh the possibility that one or two opponents might know how I plan to play. I am deceptive enough and mix up my play enough that it's not the same as showing them my cards. And if they really think they have me pegged, I will just take the deception to the next level and cross them up.
Great players in all games publish their strategy and philosophy. I think, in general, it does not hurt their results. If I were to sit down in Mason's game, I would have a good understanding of how he thinks. Does that make me the favorite? (insert jokes here...) Just because an opponent in your game has read your philosophy, that does not make him a player of your caliber. And there are so many subtle things that make different plays correct that your disadvantage, if any, is not going to be too great.
PS - If you know that my name is Dick, and that I play in Phoenix mostly at Gila River, in the 3-6 hold'em game, you can find me pretty easily. If I'm not at Table 2 then I'm at Table 3. Stop by and say hi sometime.
Dick
all good points, by people who use their names. I prefer to be unknown....but not for the reasons you are discussing. Remember that at any level of play, you are looking for 2-3 live ones in your game. If you spend too much time trying to figure out how to beat good players then you are not going to profit long term..period. the live ones are not reading this forum. and they are your meal ticket. Although it is interesting to think about, and discuss the fine points of the game, I believe the real benifit here is that it keeps you tuned up so too speak, to play your best game. we all know that the real enemy is ourselves ,and our lack of discipline and concentration are the key factors to our long term success. I think we all are looking for an edge, but it truly is right in front of us. seeya
Raisemeister - I agree with everything you say about making the money from the live ones. But I also think that if there are a few tough regulars in your game, you really do have to put in some effort - keeping a good book on them, basically - so you can hang in there with them. And if they happen to read some of your posts and know that it's you, that is not the end of the world, as I said in my post above.
In the lower limit game I am in, as far as I can tell, no one yet is the least bit interested in RGP or 2+2, and I have stopped asking. A few months ago, I asked on the Exchange Forum if any other 2+2 posters or readers were in Arizona, and I got ONE response. ONE ! I am not worried about giving away my precious strategy secrets anytime soon.
I threw in all that information about where I play as a toungue-in-cheek kind of fun thing. That information is what someone would already know if they had read my recent collection of posts. I keep my posting name and AOL screen name just anonynmous enough so that an unscrupulous web browser can't take advantage of me. If & when I correspond privately with you, I'll introduce myself.
Dick
I wouldn't sweat it SKP. I think the thing you need to ask is "Am I learning more from this site than I am contributing?" In other words, what is your EV from this site? If it is negative, than you should quit posting here, however, if it is positive, than post away. I personally have gained a lot from your posts and your essay, and would hate to see you stop posting here.
This should be the least of your worries. Look Ray Zee and other have no qualms about posting here. I guess if your only leak in your game is what you may or may not reveal here - by all means stop posting.
Well Ray Zee is a world class player who can get away with revealing his play because he can continue to take countermeasures against his opponents to stay one or two steps ahead of them. Obviously, I don't have that ability.
Having read the other posts, I am surprised that very few of you share my concern - which leads me to believe that my concern is probably ill-conceived. I particularly like raisemeister's comment (wow!) that the real money is to be made from the live ones who don't read any of this anyhow so what's the big deal.
And as someone else pointed out, I guess the key is that I learn more by participating here and that has to lead to better results at the tables.
Anyway, of late, I have also been checking out RGP...jeez, the amount of crap that gets posted there is out of control. A guy can spend half his day trying to weed out the garbage posts from those that have any value from a strategic standpoint.
To all Forum participants, keep up the good work and thanks for your views on this topic.
Skp,
Before I start, one question: What does "ostensible" actually mean (outside of poker)? My hard copy dictionary disapeared and the online dictionaries did not have it.
Anyway, I reiterate that in your situation (i.e., playing against a limited field, some of who do read your posts) your concern is justified. If you do post under a new name, we (the freguent lurkers and posters) should be able to figure it is you anyway unless you change your posting and writing style (which is organized, thoughtful, and to the point).
Concerning rgp, filtering out the garbage is a chore but there is an occasional nugget. Think of it as paning for gold without the outdoor/nature experience. (When I look at the long threads on smoking, I am convinced that worrying about secong hand smoke is much worse for your health than the actual smoke.) I would note that it is very good for poker news if you like that sort of thing.
To illustrate the difference between the forum and rgp, check out the threads regarding English only that I started on both the forum and rgp ten days ago. Whe would probably need deja.com to access the rgp posts, as they are over a week old and expire on my ISP. The quality and civility on the forum are much greater.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
In law, "ostensible" essentially means "apparent" (i.e. in direct contrast to "actual" or "real").
Its usual application is found under the law of agency.
For example, if Tom, either intentionally or by want of care, causes Dick to believe that Harry has the authority to act on behalf of Tom, and if Dick contracts with Harry in reliance on this representation, Tom will be estopped from denying Harry's "ostensible" authority to act on his behalf even though Harry has no "actual" authority to do so.
It really amounts to a "holding out" that something is as it appears to an outsider looking in.
(BTW, I agree with your comments re: RGP).
OK, skp, your prose above convinces me that you really are a lawyer; no need to show me your diploma.
I think I speak for the entire forum when I say that I am glad that you use regular English when you write about poker. :-)
Dick
I had the same concerns, but I decided it's not worth worrying about. If anything, it's possible that your opponents might read your stuff and be intimidated by you a bit, giving you a bit of manoevering space at the table. And I think raisemaster's point is dead on - the guys you make money from aren't going to be reading this anyway.
skp-
Just another voice here, but I don't think you have anything to worry about. So this guy read your essay- so what? If you're in the blind, it's checked around, the turn pairs the top card on the flop and you bet, what's he going to do about it? Raise with mid-pair?
In fact, I think having these guys read your posts can only help you, since they're all going to THINK they've got 'a read' on you, and will assume you're bluffing a ton more than you really are. If there's one thing that average players and total fish have in common, it's a neurotic fear of being 'shook out' of a hand when they had the winner. I don't know for sure, but I bet this guy's going to start giving you more action then he did before; if he's in the pot with you, don't bluff.
As the saying goes, a little bit of knowledge is very dangerous, and this guy has what we'd call 'a little knowledge'.
Keep us posted. I'll be curious to see how things play out with this fella.
It might not have occurred to you,and in your case it is too late,but many post under assumed names.
I share your concerns, which is why I choose to remain anonymous. Not that I believe my opponents will learn anything from me, but I wouldn't want any of them to be offended by me posting their blunders for the world to see.
skp, it would be a shame if you changed your name, even though regulars would, I'm sure, recognize your contributions. You're out of the closet now; you may as well remain that way.
I find your posts to be insightful and provacative.
Keep it up!
skp:
You missed your response: "I only wrote that stuff because I thought people like you would believe it."
Anyway, I doubt that if you were revealing information your opponents could use to hurt you that you'd be hearing about it. It would be more telling if opponents started outplaying you, but even this would probably be more attributable to actual experience against you rather than what you've written.
For someone to "target" you based on your posts, they've got a lot of work to do. Anyone willing to do that work is probably already something of an expert that you don't have an edge over anyway. If not, they're probably wasting time that could more efficiently -- and to their greater ultimate advantage over you -- working on more general improvements. Also understand that it is difficult write usefully about poker with clarity and precision, and most players don't have much useful information to convey. You do it better than most, so there's a jealousy factor here that justifies a discount to the "biting" comments you may receive.
As for me, I think it's fine if you want to post under an assumed name; I like reading them for their content. We'll know who it is anyway when you write about drawing to a "tight." ;-)
Thanks for your comments, eh. It makes sense to me, eh.
I don't know the answer to this question, but I'll make a few comments anyway. I do think Raisemeister's observation that most of your profit comes from players who aren't reading this anyway has a lot of merit. I agree with Chris as well that it would take a lot of misplaced effort for a player to "target" someone based on their posts. Nevertheless, I think many posters have some concern that those who do lurk may be able to take away at least a chunk of their profits by using against them what they have revealed of their strategies. It may not be well founded, but this concern is tough to completely shrug off. I know of a couple of lurkers in my game and have *no* doubt there are others. (e.g., skilled poker players who I know use the internet, but haven't posted here or on RGP. One must assume they look in here from time to time.) So I am very aware of what I put out there. I have never knowingly supplied misinformation here or on RGP. But I have kept in mind how what I say will be received by any opps who read it, how it will affect my image, how they may try to take advantage of it, etc.
Coincidentally, I recently played a hand in which I thought there was a small chance that my opp had successfully exploited a bit of information I had posted here. There are other more likely explanations for why the hand played out as it did -- but it did cross my mind. It doesn't much concern me as I'm confident in my ability to adjust, as well as to detect whether or not a player is adjusting to *me* on the basis of what I say here. But it does force me to keep my guard up.
I have also noticed some folks who have posted valuable ideas here and on RGP in the past, who appear have cut way back or stopped writing posts of any substance. In at least a couple of cases I believe it is because of this concern.
BTW, as long we're talking about whether posting is detrimental to your game, the other big concern that many players have is that publicly revealing strategic information will make the games tougher. (Maria Smith started a thread on this a while back.) Obviously book authors have to think about this. There are no easy answers. It does seem clear though that with more and more books coming out, and with the flood of information on the internet, it won't be long before just about all that can be revealed will have been revealed (Maybe it's a blessing that some of it will be incorrect!?) Then it will come down to who makes the effort to learn, who can apply what they learn most effectively, and of course who has the best "feel" for the game.
Anyway, I know for a fact that there are lots of highly skilled professional and semi-professional players who refrain from posting because they don't want to "educate the players". Some lurk, wanting to absorb whatever they can, but are unwilling to contribute. Isn't that a strange circumstance? I don't know what to think about it. To some extent I see it as merely reflecting the old "out purely for my own self interest" poker pro attitude, the same attitude that motivates buttering up the live ones and the great hesitation on the part of some skilled players to talk strategy, even privately. Yet, though I post, I cannot claim to be of a totally different mind. Do concerns about educating my opps or making the games tougher sometimes put a governor on what I write? Yes. I would be lying if I said otherwise. But I enjoy the writing and benefit from the interchange, so I do participate as time allows. And I hope that in the end my concern is unwarranted.
One consolation is that there is *so* much information pouring out on the internet that I think most of it sort of flashes by, then quickly disappears into archive oblivion. It then helps only those who make the effort to search for it. Those are the players who would probably educate themselves quite effectively anyway.
John Feeney
John, that about sums up this thread as well as one can.
One extra comment here: Our cardroom gets complimentary copies of CardPlayer. These magazines make the rounds of the tables all the time, and the fish read them just as religiously as the good players. Some of the fish have been reading the advice of people like Mason, Lou Krieger, Sklansky, and Ciaffone for years, and yet they are still fish.
I don't quite understand the psychology involved, but these players just don't seem to learn, or they don't apply what they've learned, or both.
Well, skp, you certainly tapped into an interesting vein of this topic. As near as I can tell, the basic, albet unspoken, thrust is: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. OK, I'll say what others have pussyfooted around saying .... For the vast majority of players, reading a book(s), looking through these (and other) posts and just generally gaining the feeling that you have made yourself more knowledgeable than the next guy has done more to contribute to bankrolls than all other things combined. Other peoples bankrolls! That's not a bad thing, just the way it. Thankfully (for our bankrolls), only a few progress beyond the initial self delusional phase and go on to actually improve their games.
Let's face the facts ladies and gentlemen. In addition to thought provoking and accurate strategic information posts there are also a lot of internet posts that are of low quality. If opponents follow the advice in those posts they will be handing there money over to you. Ego gratification or learning are why people post detailing their thoughts on strategy. It's cool if you want to gratify your ego because this may be what you need. Ego gratification that gives opps a better line on your play shouldn't bother you. When learning is the goal, who is to say that you won't change your thinking based on feedback from others. Your opps might really be confused then. Hell they all know a tight player, a loose player, a fish, an aggressive player, whatever when they see one.
V.A.,
everyone plays for different reasons and some have to justify their existence by antisocial behavior. its a public cardroom and its hard to stop it and you only can make comments to him or ask the floor to step in. i usually say "those that show how smart they are really are showing how smart they are not". but it really doesnt work and one must live with it. most times the games go on and you may lose some earn but its like playing in a worse game. good luck.
Here's another side of the same question.
Last night at a casino near Chicago we had two brand new players sit down at a pretty routine 6-12 game. Both were unfamiliar with the game's structure, posting, etc.
Everyone treated them courteously. Naturally, they played far too many hands and called down to the river with many weak cards. They also won a few pots with wild holdings.
At our table, everyone stayed friendly, everyone minded their own business.
However, when each player inevitably went broke and got up to leave, I was sorely tempted to walk up to them away from the table and suggest a couple of the better and more accessible books.
Is this egotistical to do? If they just walk away, will they ever come back to try again? Would it be better if you had been sitting next to one of them and you struck up a conversation--rather than to walk up out of the blue?
I know that when I first played (clueless) I won about 500 and thought I had this game knocked. So I came back. I then got crushed and decided that I needed to study up on the game before I invested any more money. That was many many hours ago. The literature (especially 2+2) is so helpful, you get where you want to suggest it. But, it's really nobody's business-so maybe the best thing to do is shut up? Any of you ever take a position on this?
You've nailed one of the biggest issues in low limit poker today.
I depend on people playing who are prone to mistakes. The bigger and more consistent the mistakes, the better.
Not that I want to take advantage. I am always willing to offer advice to the novice. But most people know that they are making mistakes but don't care; they are there to have fun and gamble. LEAVE THEM ALONE!!!!
I'm a big, gruff, burly guy. When I hear a so-called expert giving a novice a hard time, they hear from me right away and loud and clear.
Case in point: A novice had been on a rush and had about 60 big bets in front of him. He goes to the river with 44 against and opponent with AA who had been pounding it all the way. Of course, the novice catches trips on the river.
The "good" player so berated the novice that he picked up his chips and left. That just about killed the action in that game. When I got through with the "good" player he picked up his chips and left too. Good riddance!!
I was at a similar table a while back. When I saw the "expert" walk into the room, I got up and caught him before he sat down. I told him "We have a couple of rich tourists at the game. Please be nice to them, We don't want them to leave." He bristled a little, but he was on good behavior all evening. Might not work with everybody, but worth a try, DJ
I agree this is a bad problem. One possibility is to encourage the live ones when they suck out, and stick up for them when the "pro" criticises them. Normally I don't agree with trying to send players on tilt, but this is a case where it is both justifiable and profitable. Congratulate the live ones when they put beats on the rock. Make jokes at the rock's expense, say things like "well, I'd rather be lucky than good!", and "well, you have to be there!" when a live one rivers him and he starts moaning again. If you are lucky enough to get into a confrontation with the rock, and you happen to beat him, tell him how badly he played the hand - "Call yourself a pro? Even my grandmother would have known to fold that trash!"; "What did you think I had? Top pair weak kicker??" (this one works well when you hit AK vs his AQ or AJ etc). If you happen to bluff him out of a pot, always show your hand - if he folds and you have something good, say you were bluffing.
Basically you are trying to make the game as unpleasant as possible for the rock, and as much fun as possible for the live players. Because of your act, they will think you're a gambler too, and will want to stick around to "enjoy the show". Also, the chances are fairly good that the rock will either leave, or go on tilt (or at least start playing a few too many hands, which gives you even more chances to beat him). If he does leave, turn to the other players and say something like "Well, looks like we finally got rid of THAT fossil!". They will then give you action all night long.
Matt D
Last week I saw a player call a raise in Omaha with nothing but an overpair (there was a straight on the board already). He hit his overpair on the turn, and the board paired on the river giving him top full house.
An 'expert' who lost the hand laid into him: "An OVERPAIR??? You called me on the flop with an OVERPAIR? You needed runner runner! That's okay, just keep playing that way. I hope you're here for a while, because I'm getting all your money." Etc. ad nauseum.
I decided to hit the 'expert' where it hurts, so I calmly said, "Maybe he called because he's a better player than you. Maybe he figured he had the best hand, because you've been known to bluff big draws before. Maybe he thought you had top two pair with a draw and he had 5 outs to beat you. Perhaps one day you'll feel foolish for berating someone for how they play, when you'll never have the imagination to play at half that level."
This had the double effect of making the 'expert' look silly, and giving the other player the chance to feel like he was vindicated for his play.
Dan,
I wish I was there to see that played out in person. Good work!
Regards,
Rick
Dan,
On a recent trip to Edmonton, I found myself in a 5-10 game at the Palace. If they weren't dealers, they were tourists, except for an "expert".
I sat down into the big blind and before I could even look at my hand, expert raised. By the time it got back to me, there were eight(!) other callers in the pot and I had 6h3h in by BB. Figuring the 17-1 was worth it, I came in.
Board comes down 2-3-9 rainbow, including a heart. Expert bets. 4 people call. For 22-1, I had a pair, 3 flush and a kicker which did not make a straight.
Turn is Th. Expert bets, all but I fold
River is Ah. I check-raise expert and turn over the winner. He shows AA and people ooh and ahh.
He turns to me and says "You had a f'$#* pair of 3's on the flop!" and as soon as the first word gets out of my mouth, he says "Keep it to yourself, okay? I don't need any victory speech!"
*boggle*
I didn't know what to do. I simply couldn't leave, since the game was *so* good.
What would you have done or said?
I would usually either keep quiet or respond with some biting sarcasm. If he said, 'You had A !$# pair of threes on the flop!" I'd say something like, "I DID? Damn. I missed a raise." Or, "Wow. Nothing gets past you, Einstein."
If it's a player I want to keep in the game (i.e. a live one), I'll just smile and say, "Well, I was feeling lucky. Apparently I was wrong."
Dan
If he's a jerk (and he sounds like one) then tell him to play more than just big pocket pairs and learn how to play them when he does.
I definitely agree with your approach. In addition, I try to pick spots to isolate the self-proclaimed expert (the same as one would a live, loose player) and let his "cleverness" work against him. Nothing puts this type of player on tilt faster than being run at and beaten by an inferior (by definition any player other than himself) player. They often will do most of the work for you and trap themselves. Those situations are the best for working against their mental health. They know what just happened, but damned if they'll ever admit it!
sitting in the #1 seat id played for about a hr catching a couple good size pots, i look down after a coffee break to see the Jd at my door I look under it to find the other 2 J well when the betting got back to me there was 5 callers one raise in the 6 seat and then me who reraised ,, all call 4th sreet is a A for me a pr on 3 seeat, and blanks all oround I bet $10 all call to see 5th ,, wow Aces showing , trips for 3 seat and a pr of Ks on 6th seat I check 3 seat bets all fold to 6 seat who raises ,,me reraise 3 seat reraised for the capp. 3 players left, 6th street shows my case J a blank on 3rd and a Q on 6 th seat I check three seat bets $40 6 seat calls I raise , 3 seat reraises,, 6seat folded,,, down and dirty i catch nothin,, i looked for a long time at his cards finally saying "I think my full house is bigger" I bet out .. with out a flinch he throws out a raise,, i stoped dead in my thought ,, his hand showed this xx/777s6s/x i reraised he called .. taken in a huge pot with a straight flush to the 10,, i wish we had a bad beat jackpot cause thats twice in 3 nights I have had qauds beaten by a srtaight flush,,
Very loose home game (9 players). I have a pair of fives with a king kicker. No action until I catch a king on sixth street and bet $2. Possible medium straight / flush raises to $4. No kings on board, one 5 out so I call. Approximately $40 in the pot. I catch my King on the river filling up. There are no check raises and I have to bet into the straight or flush. He raises so I reraise and he reraises and I reraise (bad reraise on my part, i think) and he calls. He caught an inside straight-flush (5c), 6c, 7c (8c) (9c) - 5 8 9 in the hole. Then everyone has to pay him $5 for Royalties.
the more winners I seem to throw away. Unsuited connectors and small pairs in early position. Middle pairs and backdoor opportunities after the flop. In the last 3 weeks I've thrown away twice as many winners as I have kept. I feel like I am playing better than ever but I am losing more than ever. As of right now I feel my play is nearly optimal for the game I am in. My pre-flop play is "by the book" and my post flop play is very tight because bluffing and semi-bluffing simply doesnt work in the loose 9-18 game I play in. There are always at least 3 people at the table who call everything and implicitly collude against all bluffs. Is it normal to notice you throw away more winners as you get more selective. Could my losses have to do with the fact that I bet and raise so much more now than I used to?
limon,
post flop very tight? this may be your problem. you may be folding in too many spots with high chances of winning. many pair hands with backdoor chances are worth playing on. even in loose games semi bluffs have value. if you are folding hands that were the best hand that would have won with no improvement then you are reading hands badly. i suspect you play too loose before the flop and too tight after. just a guess without being there. good luck.
assuming a bluff wont work, i draw to a backdoor straight or flush with a middle pair if the pot is offering me odds of 10-1 or better I use the same odds if I have two overcards and bacdoor draws. If I have no overcards or pairs and only a backdoor draw I need at least 25-1 to proceed. The "winners" I am throwing away are pre-flop hands that would have gotten hit hard by the flop and longshot draws that would have come through. Is it normal to notice that you throw away more winners as you get better?
I just wanted to comment on your inside straight draw standards, which, IMO, appear to be too tight and, more importantly, too rigid.
When I'm in late position in a passive game or otherwise convinced I won't be raised, I will occasionally call a bet to draw to a gutshot based on nothing more than the odds. I assume I'll pay, on average, about 1 1/2 BB to draw, and will usually need to win more than six times that amount to justify the risk (the chance of winning is about 16.5%, or 5.1-1, and these hands don't always hold up), depending on what's probably out there and the tendency of my opponents to pay me off, my relative position to the bettor, and so forth. (BTW, this odds analysis may be wrong for fixed limit -- I usually play $2-5 where the bets on the flop and turn are the same). So it's not so much what's already in the pot, it's just part of and an indication of what I'll be able to take down if I hit. It's often hard, however, to estimate the chances that you'll win if you hit, and this is just as important as adding up all the bets.
If you need 11 SB to draw to an inside straight on the flop, you'd have only a small negative expectation (mostly because your card can make a bigger straight) even if there were no bets at all on the turn or the river! So you're probably folding when you have a big positive expectation based on implied odds. This may be understandable if your bankroll is short and you can't afford to take risks, but as you improve it will occur to you that you're losing EV.
More often, the gutshot is a component of another draw (such as to one overcard) coupled with my particular opposition, most importantly if I think they can be bluffed or are on a draw. If either of these factors are present, my tendency is to play aggressively with the gutshot (or 3-flush, or overcard, etc.) as a backup or "padding" in case they just keep calling. Obviously, when used in moderation, these plays can also confuse your opponents, make them fear you, etc.
Chris
11 sb might be alright if your on the button or don't expect a raise behind you , to draw to a gutshot that will be the nuts if you hit. However, if your in early to middle position and two raises come in behind your outa there. Your odds have been crushed in half . I think when playing these hands you have be fairly confident your not going to get sucked into calling raises behind you. Thus, you should play these hands in back or when you don't expect a lot of raising. I would also add make sure of your outs. Example; your drawing to a gutshot with a two flush on the flop. Well you have only 3 outs and probably need 15 sb in the pot to call. A good formula to use for these draws is the following; C ( 1+D) >47 on the flop. Where C is your number of outs and D is the number of small bets in the pot.This assumes your in last position. If your in middle position you have divide by the number of bets you have to call. If you have to call 2 sb divide D by two and multiply. By the way i take no credit for this formula i read in a probability post and have used it with success. Good Luck Ice
I suspect that Ray is right. Many players who are striving to play well are simply too tight on the flop and beyond. For example, you say you draw to a backdoor straight or flush with middle pair if the pot is offering at least 10-to-1 odds. This alone may be a little too tight. 10-to-1 is almost good enough without the backdoor draw. Of course it depends on other factors such as your position, the texture of the flop, who is betting, etc. But I suspect that if you have bottom pair and the same 10-to-1 odds you throw your hand away. If that is the case, you are definitely playing too tight.
But your complaint is that hands you correctly don't play are turning into winners. Well, this is a characteristic of hold 'em. It is a game where you can throw your hand away and start to steam because you get to see all your cards. In stud, assuming that you are a steamer, you have to play the hand and get it beat to go on tilt. But that's not the case for some players in hold 'em. Now I'm not saying that you have this problem. And there will be times when it seems like you throw away lots of winners. But if it starts to get to you, it may cause you to play some hands that you shouldn't, or go to far with some hands that you do play.
Emotional discipline to avoid "I should have played that" is a key feature of good players.
Fortunately, I'm blessed with an equivalent ability: I can't remember my whole cards to save my life unless I look 3-4 times before the flop. So I rarely notice when my routine folds turn into winners.
- Louie
Most books do a better job of how to play tight preflop, but don't usually give enough detail on how to adjust to prevailing game conditions. If you have a loose-passive game (certainly sounds loose with 3 people that are guaranteed to call everything, and I am guessing on the passive part cause loose-aggressive, except for short intervals, is rare) then you can just skip to the chapter on how to play pre-flop in late position. If you know there are going to be 5+ callers every hand, and you know there is not going to be a raise (or very rarely), then forget what the book says about early position play, pay attention to preflop play from late position. You can play those small pairs early in that situation, for example, which you said you are inclined to throw away now.
There are some other differences: it is sort of like flying an airplane upside down in that type of game, all the controls work in reverse. Raise if you want to keep people in, call if you want to drive them out. Once you raise and build a pot, they will chase you to the river every time. Small pots aren't interesting, big pots are.
The other adjustment is that some hands that are playable on the button, play very poorly out of position. When you are out of position, don't try any fancy moves that require position to be effective. Just accept that you are out of position and can't really get fancy without a made hand.
A Poker Guy!
One move that does work out-of-position is the checkraise from the big blind with flops that would seem to only have helped a player in the blind, despite what you might be holding. This is especially so when you also have six apparent outs with two good overcards. The only serious requirement is not having a reputation for checkraising at every opportunity, and opponents that are at least thinking about what your checkraise represents.
That's true, but I'm not a particularly big fan of that type of play. It works sometimes but when it doesn't most people don't seem to be able to get away from it and lose more than they should.
A Poker Guy!
If you are in a 'very loose' game, you shouldn't be throwing away small pairs in early position. These hands play very well in loose games. The offsuit connectors can go straight to the muck without a second thought, however.
First of all, it was my fault for playing tired and not paying attention. First hand-board 5 K 8 5 A, I call and show KJ,opponent announces he has "the winner" with KQ. Dealer shoves him the pot. As dealer is doing this, another player says,"The Ace plays,they tied the hand". Opponent says doesn't matter dealer pushed him the pot (all while he continues to stack it). Floorman comes over and says it's a split pot. Opponent says he has no idea how much was in the pot. Floorman says "Give him fifteen dollars." This is no where near half the pot. Opponent complains but throws me three reds as if he is doing me a favor. Second hand,same opponent,it's now about 0730. Board is 393AA, all I can see is I've gone runner-runner Ace,holding AJs. On the river, opponent is first to act and stalling. After about a minute, he checks,I bet,he calls announcing"I've got the full house". I'm showing my hand to the dealer,while holding it. Dealer announces"full house" and starts to push the pot to him. I throw my hand face down on the table in disgust(no where near the muck). Another player says,"you have a full house". Dealer says "you threw the hand away before I had a chance to call it" (she was starting to push him the pot), floorman comes over,opponent says "this is the second time he's done this to me tonight",floorman awards opponent the pot, opponent looks at me and says "sorry". I pick up my chips and leave. Don't know when I'll go back. As I said at the start, it was my own fault. However, would you classify this opponent as an "angle shooter" and do you consider unethical behavior acceptable?
Even if you are tired, put your cards face up in front of you and make sure you look at your opponents hand, and then decide if you are beaten or not. If beaten, muck your hand if you have a winner HOLD ON TO YOUR CARDS until the dealer pushes YOU the pot.
carlos
If your hand was shown to the dealer, and it's the best hand, you should have been awarded the pot, IMO. And anyway, if you threw your cards face down on the table but they weren't in the muck, you can still turn them over. At no point was your hand dead. Laying your cards face down on the table does not kill your hand. You should have just turned your cards back over again.
In the first situation, your cards were faceup on the table, and the dealer misread the situation. You should have been awarded half the pot. The dealer should know how much money was in the pot, as he has to keep track of it for the rake.
This nonsense about throwing you 15 dollars was ridiculous. Either you tied, in which case you get half the pot, or you didn't, in which case you get nothing. If you deserve half the pot, all effort should have been made to reconstruct the amount owed to you.
It sounds like the cardroom you were playing in is managed very poorly.
I am curious about thoughts anyone may have about this hand. I felt I had the best hand all the way, but, as you'll see, I'll never really know.
I had pocket aces in the small blind in a 6-12 game. There were three callers, the first of whom was a live player, and I raised. The big blind called, and the live player, a gentleman who always seems to reraise whenever I raise, did just that. He could have had almost anything. One of the players behind folded, and a lady whose play is usually decent called. One of the leaks in her game is that she won't fold in this situation, however, so her possible hands were not narrowed by this call. I capped the betting at four bets.
The flop was J44 rainbow. I bet, the big blind called, the same gentleman raised, the lady reraised, and I capped it again. The blind folded, so we went to the turn three handed. I felt my hand was best, but despite the preflop action, either one of them could have had a four.
The turn was an offsuit seven. I bet, and they both called.
The river was an ace. I bet, the gentleman folded, and the lady called.
My question is, how much would you push aces in this type of situation? Notice that the pot is very big, but there are almost no draws. The big blind was probably drawing almost dead (with no pair) and calling just for pot size on the flop, so losing him was not necessarily a good thing. I think my opponents are all drawing to 1-in-23 shots at best. But if someone has a four, I am the one who is drawing 1-in-23.
William
I don't even know anymore in those loose 6-12 games. People can have anything and might be in the pot just for the excitment of its size and the fact that they can draw you out and win a huge pot.
Something similar happened to me the other day, but I had pocket Jacks in the button. The action is 3-bet to me and I call. We take the flop 6 handed for 3 bets each. Flop is 232 of mixed suits. It's bet to me and I raise on the button. SB calls. BB reraises (a tight player). And I call. Turn brings an 8. And someone bets. I raise with the intention of checking down the turn if I don't improve. 4 players call. River brings an offsuit 9 and I check after everyone checked.
carlos
when the woman reraised on the flop she is screaming that she has a four (or better). At that point you need proper pot odds to call (which you had) and you probably shouldn't have reraised.
Well, not necessarily a 4, but at least AJ (which AA can beat or QQ or KK). A lot of players will play QQ or KK very agressively at this point. Maybe not reraising will reduce your variance in the case she has a 4, but if she is known to be selective about her hands, I wouldn't really put her on a 4 since she has called 2 bets cold. But at the 6-12 limit you never really know. I would've called the raise. And bet out on the turn.
carlos
Quite the opposite!
The lady says: I have J with a good kicker and I cannot beat a four. She may have pocket Jacks but it is very unlikely that she has A4, 34, or 45. She may also have QQ (KK seems unlikely).
All of the above IMHO.
Maria
Still, I think our hero ought to slow down. If she's got a four, he's going to want to finish the hand as cheaply as possible, and if she doesn't there's virtually nothing out there that can beat him.
I would have slowed down when the lady re-raised on the flop. She very easily (by your descriptioon) could have had a four(a4). At that point I would have put on the brakes and let them do the rest of the betting until the ace came. Then I would be check raising. I'm curious what the lady had, or did she not show it?
Hey big al she not reraise crazy man when she has J good kicker? You not reraise crazy man with J good kicker? Not many hands crazy man can have with that flop. Crazy man and lady both have a good idea about heros hand. Hero play good on this hand.
The flop comes J 4 4 rainbow and hero thinks he has the best hand!!ok lets go with that!? or can we make that decision so qiuck to think that pocket J are not a option , is are hero a tight player to cap the betting does that put the other players thinking he has Aces!! NO i dont know of one player who at ALL times that I can beleive to have the best hand ,, for instant playing two nights ago ,, I pick up A5s in sb its 3 bets to call, with the BB in and the button.. I called the flop came down A 5 5 ,, Now when i bet its rasied and reraised ,, can i beleive im beat at that piont ,, NO,, pocket aces is a huge hand against rags thow to keep pounding my hand againts a flop that is that big.. I cant say that was correct .. A falls on river ,, He got lucky ,, he was beat all the way threw!! and he knew it! but he took down a huge pot , for that i have to say congrats.. nice catch!!
hey lobo, you have to remember pre flop action too, no? This lady maybe call to much and try to work crazy man after flop, but she not going to get capper from bad posisition out of hand. you have to give her credit for hand. You make same mount of money lobo, because check raise on end make up for put on the brakes when three bets on flop.when pair on board and action hot, is best to stay, but play quietly. bye bye
She not bet when A fall on river! She not play a 4 that way. She not play set of jacks that way. hey big al you still the man!
I suppose that if she is timid enough not to raise with a 4 when the turn comes she is timid enough to check on the end so the odds don't favor getting in a check raise. I still think she had a 4 and was worried about a possible set of jacks making a full house for the hero.
Hey big al, it looks like she call raise from BB. She do this with a 4? A,4s maybe? K,4s? Q,4s? 5,4s? If she play decent she not get involved with any 4. Even A,4s might not be possible since hero has Aces and 44 on board? Depends what Aces hero has. Can't rule out 4 but unlikely she has it. She gain a lot on flop if Aces fold.
You know you've got me there. Yes it does seem unlikely that she would play a hand with a 4 in it before the flop like this. And as you said given that the hero has Aces and there are two 4's on the board, it might not even be possible for her to have A,4s. I guess the crazy man kind of makes the analysis of this hand difficult. Thanks lobo for making these interesting points.
With four other callers in the pot, I'd call from the big blind with 45s, 34s, A4s, 44 and maybe even a hand like 64s or 24s if I thought I had a good handle on my opponents. I play a little looser than some, however.
You don't make money on these hands, but you don't lose money either, IMO. I don't want my opponents to ever say, "He called a raise, so it's IMPOSSIBLE for him to have a four."
Yes Dan excellent point as well. It is hard to judge from the scenario presented by William, our hero in this example, what hands this woman would play. I agree with you in that you want to vary your play enough before the flop to keep from being read too easily. Those games North of the border seem like they are plenty tough! Thank you.
No one but me showed their hand at the end.
I imagine the lady would have steamed visibly if I had rivered her, which she didn't. But she didn't show, so I don't really know.
William
What is Chinese Poker, and why did I see Doyal Brunson, Chip Reese, and others playing it in a 1000-2000 Pot Limit game at the Bellagio this last week?
CV
Chinese poker is a game where you are delt 13 cards. You must make three hands, two five card hands and one three card hand. The "bottom" hand must be the highest ranking of the three, and the "middle" must out rank the "top". The top is the three card. The best possible hand for the top is trips, and obviously straight flushes for the other two. Frequently the top hand may be as low as ten-high, or even lower. The other hands may be as low as only one pair, even lower. Yes the game is similar to pai gow, except that it is played with 13 cards.
Each player compares his/her hands against each other, and pays or collects from that player depending on who wins the most hands that deal. Typically, the player who wins the more hands recieves a 1 point bonus.
For example, If Player A has the following hands: Kings full, Queens and fives with a 3 kicker, and AJ9; and Player B has: Ace high flush, Ten high straight and AJT, the hand would be settled as follows: Player A wins the bottom (kings full beat flush), loses the middle (Queens and fives lose to straight), and loses the top (AJ9 loses to AJT). Player A therefore wins 1 and loses 2 for a -1 score. Player B also gets the bonus, so Player A pays Player B 2 points. At $100 per point that's $200. Now each player compares against the other players also. It's possible for a player to win or lose as much as 12 points per deal (4 to each player).
Sometimes royalties are paid for certain hands, such as straight flushes or quads in the bottom and/or middle, a full house in the middle, or trips in the top. I think most games are played without the royalties.
As for $1000/$2000 pot limit, I never say the game played that way. The game isn't played with betting rounds, and the amounts are usually fixed. Either you got the facts wrong, or they are playing some variant of the game I'm not familiar with.
Chinese poker is not as nearly difficult as poker. The correct play can be pretty much mechanical. The astute player will also deduce which hands he might have blocked, preventing other players from making certain hands, and may also be able to pick up some tells. But there is a time limit on how long you can take to set your hand. Most of that time must be spent deciding on the various options you have.
The only book on the subject I know of was written by Don Smollen, who also wrote a computer program which plays the game. And unlike poker, playing this computer game will help improve your game. (Oh no, I hope I didn't open up that can of worms again!).
Thanks for the reply George. You write:"As for $1000/$2000 pot limit, I never say the game played that way. The game isn't played with betting rounds, and the amounts are usually fixed. Either you got the facts wrong, or they are playing some variant of the game I'm not familiar with."
The table was playing all sorts of poker games. I just assumed that Chinese had the same betting structure.
CV
Thanks for the endorsement. By the way, what can of worms are you referring to?
I believe George is referring to the on going debate about using Computer games as training tools for Poker.
CV
I agree that most (95% or more) of the hands are *no brainers* but there are some subtle decisions which will affect your long term results. One of these decisions is whether to play two pairs in your second hand with trash in your third hand, or to split the pairs into both hands. Sometimes the decision is so close that it matters how your opponents have been treating similar situations themselves. Another tough decision is whether to split up a pair of aces into two ace high hands when if the aces are kept intact in the second hand, there would be no paint in the third hand. BTW I love this game taught to me by a Laotian immigrant pool hustler many years ago.
I would be willing to bet that far less than 95% of the hands are "no brainers". I worked with Don Smolen on his computer program and can tell you that there are systematic mistakes many players make, and the differneces can be substantial. The program is both very good and enjoyable to play, so if you are interested in learning more about this game I would get a copy.
Danny S
If a no-brainer is a hand without decisions for anyone who would play it, then I guess you're right about far less than 95%.
I am a duplicate brige player and fairly new at holdem. In bridge I have no problem keeping track of 2 suits and focusing the rest of my brain on the other aspects of the game. I have read that in holdem it is cruical to keep track of the money in the pot in order to calulate pot odds to compare with hand odds. But math and probability is not my strong suit and I find the math exercises distracting from my reading of hands and tells which I am better than average. As far as pot odds I have a general idea that 4 outs is a long shot and you better have a big pot. So far I have been sucessful at 4-8 and in $100 buy in tounaments (in the money 30%). I have 3 questions......1) Have there been any big time players that have went with gut instincts on pot odds but because of other great poker skills became great players? 2) Have my limited math skills brought me to the "Peter Principle" ie as I move up to 10-20 etc will the majority of player have math skills down pat and eventually leading to my demise 3) is there any tricks of the trade for calucating pot odds? Any comments would be appreciated.
As long as you understand that pot odds are important, and have a general idea of which draws require big pots, then knowing the exact pot odds for every situation is not as important as reading your opponents and knowing things like whether there will be a raise behind you, whether you'll be paid off if you hit your hand, whether a secondary draw might be good, etc. The variance in all these decisions swamps an error of a small bet or so in calculating pot odds.
There are many great players who couldn't tell you if a flush draw was a 1.86:1 shot or a 2.5:1 shot. They know that roughly it'll come in one time in three with two cards to come, and that's good enough for them. They know that gutshots are longshots, and the pot has to be big. But they are very good at knowing the rest of the details, and these are far more important.
Dan
Hi, Druid - I am an old duplicate bridge player and I think I can give you some input. WhatEVER you decide to keep track of in hold'em is much less effort than counting multiple suits in bridge, and if you use half the concentration you needed during a bridge hand, you will be in good shape.
That said: I took up the chore for myself to keep a count of the pot. This was in response to a Roy Cooke article in Card Player Mag. and some posts here. Boy, is it easy! Much easier than counting just the trump suit in bridge. Just try it for a few hands while you are out of the hand. I find that it helps clarify my thinking, e.g. "I have this 5-outer on the turn, I need to call a bet, and there are only 3 big bets in the pot. Out!"
If you do get to using more precision, make sure that you apply "implied odds" and not just current pot odds. There is a discussion of this in almost every 2+2 book; I forget the best reference (someone else suggest?).
I found that my personal aproach to pot odds calculations was one of the things helped the best by practicing against software programs (I have Turbo Texas Hold'em). If an interesting pot odds problem comes up, you can spend half an hour figuring it out if you feel like it.
Good luck. Dick
If you want to be a really good poker player you have to know your odds. That means knowing the chance of getting what you're going for. It means estimating the size of the pot you might eventually win and comparing the chance of winning with the wagers you have to make. It means discounting the pot to account for unforseen raises and hands that might beat you even if you make your hand. These are all pot odds calculations.
Once you've done all that, then you know if you're even in the ballpark. If you are, then you go on to process all the other important information you've gleaned from reading the other players. This second phase usually determines whether you will fold, raise, etc.
Like Dick says, it's really not that hard to keep a count of the pot. And the same drawing situations come up over and over again. It's not hard to learn the odds of common draws. When working out pot odds there are so many variables that the best you can hope for is a rough estimate. But that estimate is a valuable guide to ensure your not out in left field somewhere when drawing to a hand.
In my opinion the thing that differentiates the experts is their ability to make split second estimations of pot odds along with split second reads on other players. It's a combination of art and science.
One of the reasons why pot odds calculations should only be rough estimates is that other information is often much more important, and focusing your energy on counting bets and working out the odds can cause you to miss this.
For example, your opponent bets into you heads-up with a board of KJ7. You have AQo. So, you have a gutshot and an overcard. A player focusing on pot odds will quickly figure that he's got 7 outs - three Aces, and Four Tens. He'll decide that the pot is big enough, and peel off a card.
An expert might be thinking more along these lines:
1) My opponent called in Early position, and he's a rock. Therefore, the likely hands he has that he would bet are AK, KJs, JJ. I have no outs to a pair, and only four to a gutshot. I fold.
2) My opponent is a loose wild player. I have THE BEST HAND. Raise.
3) My opponent is easily pushed around. I'm now drawing to an Ace, a Jack, A queen, or a Ten, because all of them will scare him into folding if I bet or raise.
4) My opponent often calls with small pairs from that position, and he'll bet anything on the flop heads-up. I raise.
Etc, etc. All of these latter decisions are far more important than whether there are 6 or 7 small bets in the pot.
Have you noticed that some very good players have a reputation for being 'lucky'? Part of that is because they win a lot, so the fish think they must be lucky. But part of it is because they often seem to make plays that aren't justified by the pot odds, because they have recognized some other value in the hand that intermediate players miss. An expert might call on the flop with nothing but a 3-flush, because he knows that his opponent has an underpair to the board, so if he hits either pair in his hand it will also be good. Now he makes the 4-flush on the turn, and bets into his opponent, hoping to get him to fold. No dice, the opponent calls. Well, this time he makes a flush on the river, bets, gets called, shows the hand, and the table erupts into murmers about how bad the expert played, and how lucky he is. They think he was drawing to two effective outs on the flop, when he knows he was drawing to eight.
Anyone can draw these conclusions, it is just that the expert's inferences are more often correct than that of a good player. I was once asked (away from the table) how come I was able to *hit* the flop so often, it never occured to this quite decent player that I don't.
Exactly. I get the same comments all the time.
I guess my point is that the intermediate players who have read all the books and are following pot odds and such may go overboard and do so at the exclusion of making decisions like this. I know several players like this, and they do fine at low limits, then move up, get smacked around, and move down again.
I've seen players literally stop and start counting chips in the pot to help their decision making, when it was clear that the person betting them was on a complete steal. Of course, by giving up the 'tell' that they were on a draw, they encouraged the player to bet into them again.
Dan Hanson,
Brillant answer to a commonly posed question!
Alright get this, Mike Caro teaches that a lot of your winnings will come from borderline decisions. The closer you can estimate the pot, implied odds, the better your game will be. If you can improve your "data" on this decision with good hand and player reading, your definetly a big winner. David Sklansky has an excellent essay on this page that teaches you how to use shortcuts on figuring odds (i.e. each card that helps you is about 2%). I find myself relying on this frequently. Read the essay.
Gator... Thanks for you advise...Which Sklansky essay are you referring to as there are several?
It seems as if the essay I was reffering to is no longer posted. Basically what you want to know is this: Each card that you think improves your hand has about a 2% chance of falling. For example say you have AKh and you flop 2 hearts, there are nine hearts left in the deck (18%) and you have two cards to come for a total of 36% chance of making the flush. So you have a 36% chance of making the flush and a 64% chance you wont. Do a little math and you see that the odds against you making the flush are 2:1 (i.e. 64:36) It's a rough estimate but works. The math becomes faulted with a large number of cards to come or improve your hand.
Well,...? Anyone workin' on a poker book due out soon? It seems 2+2 has enough pretty good material from this sight to write several. IMHO!
I'll second this question. I asked this in a thread on the Exchange Forum, but I'm afraid the thread might have been a little old.
Is there a new 2+2 book coming out on low-limit hold'em? I have seen several posts refer to it.
True? What is the status and when will it be released?
Dick
It is our policy at 2+2 not to announce projects until they are finished and ready to go. There are several reasons for this which have to do with our business, and which I won't get into here. So for now let me just say that we are working on a few things. You will all just have to be patient. We will inform everyone when the time is right.
The article is entitled "Always Calling on the End".
In the article Mason discusses a hand where he played Q8o in the small blind. The board was KQ825, flop rainbow, other suits not mentioned. Mason gets one caller on the turn and then discusses calling on the river. He says:
"Notice there is very little reason for me to bet. Even though I might have the best hand, there is almost nothing that my opponent can call me with. If he has a kind, I am beat. if he has a queen, his kicker will probably beat me, and if he has a busted draw, he will just throw his hand away."
Mason has 2 pair (2nd and 3rd). I don't quite understand the K comment. Depending on the player I would expect to be raised on the turn a good portion of the time by any of KQ, K8, KK, QQ, 88 with the pairs being unlikely because of the lack of preflop action. Is there some bad copy editing and Mason's hand was really suppose to be a weak mid pair or am I missing something? I understand the idea that betting here if you would only be called by a better hand is a bad idea, but I don't understand the prose that go with it.
While on the topic of that article I don't get the last paragraph. Mason's article, if I understand it right, is arguing that tight image is a good thing in limit HE or stud because it increases the leverage of wimpy limit bets. The last paragraph is:
"So the next time you are contemplating about the "awful" tight image that you have developed because you are trying to play well, just be aware this image will make you a little bit of extra money against players who are somewhat aware but don't understand how the size of the pot should impact their play. In fact, you should be less pleased that some of your opponents consider you to be tight and unimaginative. Just make sure to occasionally work that bluff in when the situation calls for it."
I'm fine up until the sentence beginning with "In fact". Less please then what? Is "unimaginative" suppose to be important in this sentence?
Unfortunately, there is a type-o in the article. The flop should have been KQ7 and the final board should have been KQ725. Now instead of haveing two pair, you have middle pair with a weak kicker.
In addition, the sentence that begins with "In fact" also contains a type-o. It should read "In fact, you should be pleased that some of your opponents consider you to be tight and unimaginative."
This should straighten out the meaning of the article. Simply put, I give an example of a weak hand where you should almost always call on the end. Thus if your image is such that your opponent won't always call you on the end when the situation is reversed, you gain as long as you are aware that he views you as being tight and you can occasionally work in that bluff.
Great. That makes a lot more sense.
In this article, Mason Malmuth wrote:
"I held Q-8 offsuit in the small blind,... [t]he flop came K-Q-8, three different suits ... [a] deuce came on fourth street ... [a] five came on the river...."
Regarding his lone opponent on the end, he also wrote: "If he has a king, I am beat."
I respectfully disagree. Mason has previously written about the importance of reading hands in hold'em -- particularly to reduce one's variance -- and a careful read here would have shown that Mason held both queens and eights. Ironically, regardless of his opponent's kicker, a lone pair of kings would leave him with about .5 as many pair as Mason, or more than a 12.9-1 dog.
"If he has a queen, his kicker will probably beat me...."
This is closer to the mark but warrants a deeper analysis. IMO, holding an extra pair on the end -- especially eights or better -- will almost invariably stand an expert player in better stead against an opponent with only queens. Hold'em is a complex game, however, and I can understand how this point can be lost even on experienced players.
Sorry, couldn't resist. So where's the typo?
The type-o is that the wrong flop was listed. See my previous post. (By the way, I believe the error was mine in that I submitted the article with the eight on board instead of the seven.)
Isn't this easy to figure out? Does anyone call the 8 a "kicker" in a situation where it makes a pair?
Does anyone at Poker Digest edit the articles? That typo jumped out when I picked up the magazine, it would seem if anyone reads the article before going to press they would have noticed it.
FWIW thats why I asked the question. You would think the young upstart poker mag would edit their articles very carefully. Especially in their strategy specialists centerpiece.
"... I believe the error was mine in that I submitted the article with the eight on board instead of the seven..."
Then it wasn't a type-o, was it? It was a brain-o! :)
- Louie
Do the editors brain or do they just type?
I just came back from Las Vegas and played in several tournaments and am posting some hands to find out what others may have done in these situations.
1) I have Ah Kh in the BB. Approximately 30 players still left (tournament will pay 9 places). The blinds are 200 and 100. A player seated 3rd to my left moves in for 1100. Note that, I have observed this player likes to move in on Axs and occasionally will flash the Ace when no one calls. Furthermore, I thought this player was stealing with a pretty high frequency. By the way, this player is a well known poker columnist. To my surprise the SB moves in with 800 (so he has 800 plus his 100 in the pot). The SB was recently high carded to my table, so I don't have a line on his play. I have 900 left (I've already have 200 in the pot). What would you do? Note that, if I move-in a side pot will be created between me and the player that first moved in.
2) I have Kc Ks in the SB. Blinds are 500 and 200. There are 10 players left(two tables with 5 players at each one). The tournament pays 9 places. I have 8000 in chips. The button bets 4000, he has approximately 24000 in chips. Note that, I have not seen this player show a hand. I glanced at the table next to us and noticed that there are two players with stacks of less than 2000 chips. What would you do?
3) I have As Qd and the button is two seats to my left. Seven players left. I have 4000 in chips. Blinds are 2000 and 1000. Seventh and sixth place pay the same percentage. I have the smallest chip status at the table. The players to my left have approximately 20000 and 12000 in chips. What would you do?
All of those situations look like all-in plays.
1. You only have 3 more orbits before you will be blinded out. Except for a big pair, this is the kind of hand you want to play in this situation. If you had a lot of money, I'd be inclined to pitch the hand.
2. Short-handed table with the 2nd best possible hand -- if I'm beat by Aces, I'm just gonna have to lose. I like your chances of moving up in the standings by a move-in here.
3. Again, you don't even have enough for 2 sets of blinds; it's unlikely you'll find a better hand to play before you are gone -- I'd move in with even less than this if no one has made a move at the pot yet.
The first one seems easy, move in. The money is still a far way off (30 players left). The only hand you really fear are the rockets. Even if one player has kings, you are not way behind, any pair Queens or lower is only a 6:5 favorite over you, and you are getting much better odds than this.
The second one is tricky, normally you would want to go in and double up, but since the money is one place off and two players at your table are real short stacked, 2000, with the blinds at 500. I don't know if this is a poor play, but I would just call, and if no Ace flops move in, if an ace falls, I'd fold (unless I'm lucky enough to make a set). Note I would still have twice as much as the two smaller stacks. I have to believe that I am up against some kind of ace here and give myself a chance at the money, thus the conservative play with KK. Comments?
The third one seems quite easy too. Go in. You are seven hands away from being eliminated. You have to make a stand soon, and it probably won't get any better than this.
Well each situation is in a short-chip position so a lot comes down to what your goal is. If you want the "gold" and want to have a shot at a good payoff then go in. If you would be happy just claiming a payday and probably not a huge profit, then toss the first and last hands. The Kings I would still go in with because quite frankly, sooner or later you will have to play a hand and this is what you are waiting for, a truly big hand. I believe most players are the types wanting a payday and they would ease up with these hands, but the best tournament players are usually aiming for the big prize and fire with these hands.
I know this is going to put me in a minority of one but I would definitely fold the first hand. Against the vast majority of combinations of two hands that I am up againstI will be odds on not to win the main pot. For the side pot If the opponent has a pair then I am evens to go out of the tournament, I am only 60% to stay in the tournament if he turns over 2-3 offsuit, the only hands I am happy to see him show are A-x or K-x. I dont know how many chips were in play or what the rest off the table was like, if I thought that winning this one pot gives me enough chips and enough control over the table to rack up enough chips to get to the final I might take a shot at it otherwise I am going to wait , not for a better hand but a better situation.
1. This one I think is the trickiest. It's hard to say depending on how your stack size compares to the others. I'm pretty sure you are beat at this point and if the first player to move in has an ace, that's one less out you have. On the other hand, it doesn't sound like you are in good chip position. I'd probably move in here. If you catch your cards, you'll probably triple up.
2. I'd definitely move in here. You probably aren't going to get many better opportunities than this one. If you're beat, you're beat, but this is a good opportunity to double up and the original bettor may even fold.
3. Easy move in if no one else has made a move in front of you. If you want any chance of winning, you have to move in with hands like this or you'll get blinded away. Hopefully, everyone will fold and you'll pick up the blinds. And, if they do call, there's a good chance you still have the best hand. In this situation, I would move in with hands much worse than this one.
Justin
Did you notice in the second hand example that there were 10 players left and the tourney paid nine. You have 8000 in chips while two other players have 2000 with blinds of 500. Neither of them can last more than 3 rounds without picking up some chips. By sitting tight you can pretty much take 8th. KK is too good to pass up, but A anything could mean you get nothing. The player who bet 4000 still has 2400 in chips so if you go all in he has an easy call. Considering the situation, there is no need for him to be overly aggressive, so he probably has a hand.
I agree that he probably has some kind of hand, and Ax is very likely. However, he sure doesn't need AA to make this play, so you're the favorite probably 95-99% of the time.
While it's true that you can coast into 8th place, and maybe even into 7th or 6th, what's the point of that? Almost all of the money is in the top 3 spots, and that's what you should be playing for if you're trying to maximize your return. This is a great chance to double through and position yourself for a win, and I think that you should take it.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Exactly. And, if I had a serious chip lead like that, I would constantly make those bets with medium strong and even marginal hands to put pressure on the small stacks. This is easy money for him. He knows that other players will be playing tightly with only one bust out needed to make it into the money and the small stacks will have to go all in just to call his bet. Most players probably wouldn't call with anything but the strongest hand. He might even make this play with small suited connectors or something like K-10 offsuit. Pocket Kings are a strong favorite here.
The player that bet 4000 on the button had 24000 left and was one of the chip leaders. The BB, which had not acted yet, had 12000.
Thanks for all your responses. This was the first No-Limit Tournament that I played in and it was not what I expected. Real poker last for the first hour. Then after the break it became a move-in contest with the big stacks calling the small stacks. Well, here's what I did.
1)I moved-in with the Ah Kh. I was pretty sure that I could beat the first player that moved-in, but I thought the SB may beat me. The first player had Ad 3d and the SB had a pair of 8s. I don't remember the exact flop, but an Ace came on the turn and I won the pot. I probably would have folded the hand if I had a large stack, but I figured it was my only chance.
2)I mucked the pair of Ks. I know its a whimpy move, but my goal was to finish in the money. If I knew the player better I might have moved-in, but if he had an Ax and an Ace flopped, I'd be gone. Two more deals latter and it was down to nine players. I like the idea of calling the raise. It would have looked suspicious and given me a chance to increase my stack.
3)I went all-in and got called by the button. Blinds folded. Here's where my luck ran out. My opponent had a pair of jacks and flopped a set.
In case 2) you didn't mention the pay-out structure. If, like many tournaments, 5th-9th pays a token amount and most of the money is in 1st-4th then this is a must play. If you make your goal the first four you can really kick some ass when there are 10-12 players left if many of them (it helps to notice which ones) are just hanging on for a small payout. Then you can put pressure on them using your stack and your position irrespective of what cards you hold in many situations.
Andy.
The payouts were 50% for 1st, 20% for 2nd, 10% for 3rd, 6% for 4th, 4% for 5th, 3% for 6th and 7th, 2% for 8th and 9th. I came in 7th. Going all-in on hand #3.
The winner of the Final No Limit WSOP recieved 25,4% of the prize money a smaller % than any other event winner.
Therefore, when this events reaches 527 entries second place will be worth more than $1,000,000 assuming no adjustments are made.
I have found that Bob Thompson is always receptive to ideas!!
What are yours?
I've recently played texas hold'em hi-low eight or better in a private 10-20 game and have found it to be an action filled pot generating game. I wanted to know if there is less skill and more luck involved in a game like this compared to regular texas hold'em or omaha hi-low. If anyone has any experience in this game what would the preflop raising/playable hands be? I found that high pairs/high cards and an ace with a good low card are the only playable hands. $900 pots were not rare in this game and I saw a couple of these monsters scooped .
C.M.
I think you can open it up to any wheel suited cards in late position for one bet.
Low pairs aren't worth playing. 8 9 or 7 8 are also unplayable under any condition. AK and AQ lose some of their value.
This is the ultimate tilt game. You can have Aces - flop a set and get raised and subsequently lose to 2 4. And the 2 4 has played correctly.
The only true monster hands preflop are AA and A2s. Axs where x is 2-6, preferably 2 or 3 are good hands. Any combination of suited cards 2-5 are good, but don't raise with them.
The big trick to this game is knowing when to bet or raise with a good hand, when to only call even with a great hand, and when to raise to knock out a specific competitor and give yourself a winner in that direction.
Imagine a scenario where you're holding 2s3s, there are 5 players in for the flop, and you're second to act after the flop. Flop is 7d8dJc. There is a lot of action, but you have reason to believe that you have the best or only low draw, and have called the bets and raises. In particular, the player who's first to act has been taking every available bet and raise. Turn is Ad, giving you the nut low. First player bets again, what do you do?
You do not raise, even with the nuts here. You do not want to knock out other players. If you play too strong, you can easily knock out everyone else, and end up splitting the pot with the high hand, where you could have split a bigger pot. I see lots of weak players who raise in these spots, and let the guy who was gonna call with his 46 low know he should fold.
Overall, play for low hands that can also make a high, but be sure to not chase out players when you make a low and it's clear that you cannot scoop the pot. In these spots, you want everyone in so your half of the pot is bigger. Same thing applies when you make the nut flush and there's clearly a low out there that you can't win any of.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I am wondering if any of you players out there play some hands that you usually would fold but play anyway because you have a gut feeling that you will hit the flop and scoop the hand.Or just know whats going on in a hand because you have that 6th sense. I find that I don't get that "feeling" when I am joking around and chit chatting during my play but get it when I am talking to noone and am conscentrating on the game,getting me in what I call the zone. Any fellow jodas out there? C.M.
A player I know always play 69 (he calls the hand, "big lick"). He once asked me if I have any such "lucky" hands and I replied "ya, KK".
I am sure that all of us get into that "zone" from time to time when we are able to play garbage and get away with it but it has nothing to do with lucky hands etc. It really is just a function of your table presence and image...your opponents get intimidated when you are hitting cards and often allow you to control the betting and "get there" where that would not have been possible had you not been running exceptionally well.
In my poker career there has been a lot of books written on just about every kind of poker u can think of! now for soem of US players who started playing cards when we were younger, family games, neiborhood poker night, ect! before old enough to play in poker rooms. I feel are ata little advantage, to prove my piont!! my best freind and I have played together for 12yrs we know when each is bluffing we know when each is drawing for straight a back door flush! to get to the piont of this , two nights ago a player that i have known for a while, was in the 10/20 game that I sat down in, we got to talking about some of the hands that we play for the JUST BECAUSE theory, later that nigth we went to dinner he added that if u play by the books your becomeing predictable
If you raise pre-flop with hands like 4-7 offsuit you will almost certainly win good money off your opponents (in a tight higher limit game) when you flop two pair, although youll probably be real stuck or flat broke when it happens. If you make a small pair, you are probably leading at that time, and anyone that called your preflop raise will probably still be in there when you bet with a flop that could improve a 4-7. If a big card hits on the turn, you are beat. This is untill the others catch on to your loose play and re-raise you preflop and on the flop, costing your bad hands dearly. If you are talking about doing this very rarely in one of these games, then that would just be a bluff. Trying this in any low limit game is bankroll suicide. Basically my point is the flop will NOT hit you enough times to justify a raise (or for that matter even a call) with these poor hands regularly, no matter how they might throw off your opponents reading you.
"he added that if u play by the books your becomeing predictable"
If you are playing predictible in a game that is anything but Easy (meaning all or most of your opponents are playing bad), I don't think you are playing by what the 2+2 books recommend.
CV
Playing $5-$10 stud the player to my right is the $2 force I a have K up KQ in hole I call everyone else calls except the last player to act with an ace who completes the bet to $5 . The bring in folds. Now the raiser is a player I respect but there are no kings or queens out and with six players left to act I'm sure there will be callers making for a bigger pot and with more cards to come out a better idea were I actualy stand so I call.( there is also no other aces out ) To my amazement everyone folded. Next the ace gets a J I get a Q. The AJ bets $5 this is were my dilemma begins I strongly believe the AJ has the aces. Question one: Am I correct in making the call or should I fold. Question two: Am I a favorate or am I a underdog at this point and by how much. I will save how the hand played out for the end of the thread.
I seldom play stud, but to put your opponent on 3 aces at this point seems rash. He would clearly play the same with just 2 aces. The chances he has 3 given that he would play 2 aces the same way is pretty small. I would at least call, if not raise now; after all if you are worried he has 3 aces now is the time to find out before the bets double.
At this piont I feel he has a pair of aces I never put someone on trips in the first three cards because the odds are greatly against it !
the ace is usually a scare tatic but ya never know, the best thing to do is think about how he has been playing and how you would play his hand. it would be stupid to try and scare you out of a pot if he was holding rolled up trips. you can hope that the jack didnt make him two pair but even that doesnt matter if your case queen is still live and you fill up before he does.
You should complete the bet yourself or raise on third street and MUST raise on fourth street here...otherwise, you never know where you stand.
An ace raising on third street (particularly if he is a player worth respecting) is not automatically a pair of aces. He can have any pocket pair, a three flush or three big cards and would make the same bet. You are right to fear the aces and the odds of him making two-pair or better are better than even money if he has them, but you must play more aggresively early in these hands to better figure out if he has them. You are making it too easy for him to represent a hand.
You are a small favorite (about 6-5) with your two pair against his Aces. Particularly since you don't know for sure he has Aces, you are obliged to call -- in fact, I would raise. A good player might've raised on 3rd street with much less than a pair of Aces.
A rule I have in playing 7card stud is that I never chase,unless I have a player on my hands that bluffs alot and I smell something fishy.The pot was'nt offering you the correct odds to chase anyway.If the stakes were higher I would fold on 4th street.
Drone,
id call all the way down. id also pop him on 5th street if my board got a little scary because he may not bet on 6th street. if my board was weak and he didnt pair id pop him on 6th street. by waiting until 6th i can see what happens one card later. with 2 pair you are going to see the river unless he makes an open pair early and you are sure he has aces,not just put him on them. a raise on 4th is also good if you want to control the betting early. reading some good books will help you alot. good luck.
Well as it turned out thing did get scary in more ways then one. Here is how it played out. On forth street I called. Fifth street brings my opponent a J giving him AJJ on board I recieve a K giving me kings full of queens in five with KQK on baord its to me to bet I bet $10 my opponent raises to $20 I say to my self great he's got AAsup and thinks I'm betting KKs up so I reraise to $30 he comes right back with a reraise to $40 I say to myself yes! he's got jacks full with aces so I reraise to $50 he reraises back to $60 my heart sinks the only thing that could justify this bet is if he were rolled up with trip aces to start the hand and know has aces full with jacks so I call . question 1: was my thought process flawed and if so how. question2: with my final analysis of aces full should I have folded right there instead of making the call. I will let you know how the hand developes from here later on in this thread.
Unlikely that he put you on a King in the pocket. I give him a call on 5th street and check-raise him on 6th. If he charges again, just call it down.
I think you have to raise on third street. I'm quite sure you also have to raise on fourth street. As another poster said, you've got to figure out where you stand. If you get raised back on fourth street, you might start to get the idea that maybe he has you beaten. This early raising costs you two or three extra small bets. When he pairs his board on fifth street, you now suspect he's filled up. I'd probably check-raise at this point, and if he reraises, I assume that he's filled up too. Then it's just a question of how he's filled up. There are six ways he can have AJ in the hole, three ways he can have AA in the hole, and one way he can have JJ in the hole. That's 3:2 in your favor, not counting the (now slim) chance that he's got something else entirely. So you definitely have to at least call. You spend two or three small bets early and save three or four big bets later, as the hand played out. If, on fourth street, he has something less than two pair, then your early raising is simply getting more money in the pot with the best hand. So a raise is called for no matter what your opponent has.
The way the hand was actually played out, at the point at which you figured out that you were probably beaten, the pot was probably large enough that you have to call the rest of the way, although you may not have liked it. I don't think you can say conclusively that he has Aces full even at that point myself. I don't think I could ever see folding Kings full, especially in a limit game.
Cheers,
Andy B
You should have raised on 3rd and forced the field to call $5, instead of giving them a cheap chance to outdraw you. Once you call and the sure-to-have-Aces raises, I think you should call since its only $3. Call on 4th if your hand remains live and few people catch suited.
Your KsUp is the favorite against the Aces on 4th, and as Mr. Zee pointed out you will only get to raise once and should be done as late in the hand as possible, after you get to see what developes. The key to this hand is that the Ace will remain first to act unless you make an open pair.
Do NOT fold Ks-full heads-up unless the opponent either has 3 Aces showing or is Mother Theresa AND never miss-reads her hand. The pot's too big by the time you figure you're beat. Routinely pay it off.
Against a reasonable thinker, you are correct to presume that each raise you and the opponent makes indicates the next higher valued hand. This is because when a hand improves it is routinely to the WORST hand it could reasonably improve to. But in practice a big hand is worth one more raise then this analysis would suggest, unless you're against the more timid of reasonable thinkers.
One little problem with your example is that the opponent already knows that you suspect him of Aces-Up so your initial bet may make him suspect 3 kings right away.
- Louie
I think it's time to give closure to this thread. I called all the way to the river only to find my opponent had rolled aces from the get go. This in itself is of little importance what is paramount is the play that brought me to this outcome and its profitability over the long run! Another thing of worth is what have I learned from this discussion. I view my greatest mistake as my failure to complete the bet to $5 on third street, then if all the players behind me folded and the ace raises I can make the fold in doing so saving alot of money. Especially because the opponent whom had the ace would seldom raise with out the goods.(I've played with him before) I believe my original play works well against a weak or loose player. In the final analyses: IT'S IMPORTANT TO SELECT THE THE RIGHT CARDS TO START WITH AND PLAY THROUGH WITH, BUT EQUALLY IF NOT MORE PERTINENT IS WHO WE CHOOSE TO PLAY AGAINST!! Thank for all your informative posts.
I agree with the other replies that it's usually best if people fold to you excessively in a game like limit holdem (where it's hard to make a hand, and the pots are frequently big compared to the size of a bet). A loose image is only good in a few games: I would say high draw and possibly pot limit/no limit play, where the rewards of getting paid off on your big and marginal hands can be greater than the reward gained from stealing pots.
However, I would like to mention one "deceptive" image play made by a friend of mine in a 10-20 game. He had T9s under the gun, and raised. Several people called, and the button (a wild player who had lost most of his money and was almost all in) reraised; my friend then raised again and everyone called (the button called all in). The flop came A rag rag with a flush draw, and my friend bet, getting 3 callers. The turn came another rag, my friend bet, getting just one caller this time. The river came another rag, my friend bet, and the last caller folded (presumably missing his flush draw). The all in player then looked at his cards, looked at the flop, and said "you win". My friend didn't show his cards, hoping the all in player would muck the hand. The all in player noticed this and said "turn them over then, what have you got?". My friend reluctantly showed his cards, and announced "Ten high". Amid gasps from the table, the all in player looked back at his cards, paused, then threw them away in disgust and stormed from the table, leaving my friend to rake in a showdown $300 pot with nothing.
Anyone else have a similar story?
Matt D
Has anyone read from the "championships series" by T. J. Cloutier and company? If so, what's your opinion? How are they as a companion to the "advanced player series" by S&M? How do they compare? Would you recommend them? Any reactions are welcome and appreciated.
I read the pot-limit and no-limit holdem book, and have glanced through the stud book. I think the holdem book has some good advice, especially for tournaments. It has a reasonable (although hardly comprehensive) section on observation and the psychology of your opponents. If you have not played big bet holdem before, the advice on starting hands is ok too. However, the advice is very incomplete in my opinion. Firstly, it just teaches a very tight style of play which I think is too passive for this type of poker. For example, with AK and a rag flop, TJ Cloutier recommends you just check every time to see what your opponent does. Personally I would bet the pot about half the time - if I checked every time I missed the flop I would be robbed blind in a pot limit game. He also says that a hand like 76o is almost as playable as 76s. Well I don't agree - having those extra outs means you will hit a lot more flops, and the outs also come in handy if you are thinking of raising all in. If a flush comes and you think someone else has the higher flush, you can always fold.
Another problem is that not that many situations are covered. One good thing about the 2+2 books is that they cover just about all the common situations that crop up e.g. what to do when a 3 flush or 3 straight flops, how to play a paired board, how to play a maniac etc. This situations are even more critical in no limit, yet TJ's book doesn't really discuss them.
Having said that, there are plenty of ideas in the book, and I think you should buy it, especially since there are very few books on big bet poker (the best two books on pot/no limit are Reuben and Ciaffone's, and Brunson's super system)
As for the stud book, well it has a reasonable discussion of the basics of stud, razz and stud high/low. However I found the Razz section of "Sklansky on Poker" to be far superior, and the same can be said of Ray Zee's book on stud-8, and the 2+2 7 stud book. If you are a total beginner to this game, the Championship series will let you get into the basics a little quicker maybe, but if you are at all serious, go for the 2+2 books. I found them to be much more systematic, thorough, and free from bad advice. The Championship stud book has some bad advice (e.g. always fold a 3 flush that doesn't become a 4 flush on 4th street), and is full of "money management" fallacies e.g. Tom McEvoy says that if he is up $1200 in a game and loses back $400 of it (or words to that effect), he will leave the game. Well what if his opponents are truly terrible players, and he loses the $400 by getting rivered a couple of times? Why would a so-called pro want to go home and pass up a great money-making opportunity just because of 2 bad beats? Personally I think the stud book is ok if you are a competent player, since there are a couple of ideas mentioned that may help you win more money. However, there are mistakes too, so I can't recommend the book to a beginner who won't be able to tell the difference between the good advice and the bad.
So I would say - if you want to learn the stud games, read the 2+2 books. The pot limit/no limit holdem book obviously has little competition in the literature, so if you like that kind of poker you should definitely buy it. I have just bought the new omaha book and have only glanced through it. Again, 2+2 has no book on omaha high or omaha high/low pot limit, so you might want to consider TJ's book. A good alternative is Bob Ciaffone's omaha book.
Matt D
A word about the 76o vs. 76s--
I haven't read the book, but I imagine that TJ's taking his cue from Brunson, who says that the real value of connectors lies in the possibility of a straight draw, not a flush draw. If the board comes K85 rainbow, for example, and your opponent bets, Doyle recommends going all in, and making him decide if he really likes his K. If he does, you've still got eight outs; but the real value here lies in the connector's ability to make top pair or better fold on the flop.
If the board's two suited and you go all in, the original better will call you more often then he would if the board was a rainbow, since he'll consider the possibility that you're semi-bluffing with a flush draw. With the rainbow he has to give serious thought to the possibility that you've flopped two pair or better, so he has to think about folding.
I agree with Matt, there is good information in there but you have to be aware enough to sift out what's not so good. Regarding the Hold'Em book, I think TJ can play as tight as that because he's got such a good read on when he can steal a pot with nothing, whereas the rest of us are going to have to mix it with a few less powerful hands. The Stud book has been rightly criticised on this Forum before for its advice in certain areas BUT there is a section in there by TJ on how to play a Final Table which was instrumental in me winning a tournament and paying for the book 20 times over (and that's just so far). I'd recommend it with the proviso that you question everything in it and make your own decisions (particularly as the advice applies to the games you play in). But this is how you should approach any book anyway, yes even one by 2+2.
Andy.
I'm from England and in the last month have been in the US, during which time I've had my first taste of limit poker, both in Las Vegas and California. I'd like to describe a few situations that occurred at my table that I think were interesting, and I'd welcome any comments.
I was in a 5 handed 4-8 holdem game at the Sahara. One player was really bad - loose, passive and easy to read; the second was a highly aggressive Swedish gentleman - I was not sure at first whether he was a maniac or a good player (he later lost most of his money when the table filled up, but his style was ideal for the short game). The third opponent was a solid, "bookish" type younger player, who would sometimes try to steal the flop, but would release her hand too often and generally did not adjust enough for the short game. The fourth opponent was a very aggressive female player sitting to my right (yes I was careful where to sit!), who it turned out was entering one of the WSOP events.
A key hand I was involved in went as follows:
the Swede (S) raised under the gun, the tight player (T) called, i reraised with AKs on the button, the blinds folded, S rerasied (he would do this with many high card combinations e.g. AJ, KQ), T called and I capped it. The flop came Q rag rag with no draws. S bet, tight player called, i raised, S reraised, then the tight player said "I'll try to hit my out on the turn" and called. I reraised and they both called. The turn came a rag. S bet the tight player folded (she had TT for middle pair). I raised, S called. The river was another rag and the Swede checked.
At this point i made what i consider to be a big mistake. I played the AK so strongly on the flop to i) knock out any player with less than top pair ii) knock out any player with AK, so if i hit my outs i win the pot rather than split iii) to possibly knock out a Q with a bad kicker. Once the tight player folded, i was trying to knock out AK (the pot is very big at this point, so i want to maximise my chances of winning it). Basically I am representing AQ or better (I had a fairly solid image at the table). Anyway, I think I almost certainly should have bet the river. I reasoned that there was no way the Swede would take all that heat with AK, so I checked behind him to save a bet since I had missed. Lo and behold, he shows me AK! Needless to say I made a terrible play - for the sake of $8 i passed up a pretty good chance to win a $130 pot. I have a feeling he would have folded it after missing his outs.
Any comments on how I played the hand? By the way, the tight player couldn't believe it when we both showed down AK. She showed her TT and complained that she had folded the winner.
Matt D
At least you get better hand to fold. I think you should bet river. I agree with you. Mistake by you.
I read your posts in reverse order. This is the second example of tryin to play two big overcards as if they were the nuts. You can't bully people that easy, they catch on real quick. Maybe that's why A3 called you til the river on your subsequent post. In both cases you felt that you had represented a substantial hand, but yet, in both cases, people with virtually no hand were willing to call you because they didn't believe you. Unfortunately poker is not that easy that you can just bet and people tremble in fear. You have to have the goods most of the time.
A Poker Guy!
Notice in Matt's post that he says this is his first taste of limit poker. I'm assuming he is used to pot limit over in England. That kind of aggressive bullying style with AK is probably better suited to pot limit ... you have a lot more leverage when you can bet the size of the pot.
Its true, in limit poker you've gotta be able to show down something most of the time.
Mark Courtney
aka "CybrTigr" on IRC Poker
I can understand why you might think I play that way all the time, since those are the only 2 examples of me playing a holdem hand that I posted. But in the shorthanded game, I had been playing fairly tight (the structure had only a single $2 blind preflop) and had a tight image. Remember the first game was 5 handed also, so I can't just sit and wait for top pair, let alone "the nuts". My betting knocked out the best hand (TT), and I thought it would have a good chance of knocking out AK . I think if I had followed through on the river I would probably have taken the pot against AK. The main reason I didn't bet was because I wasn't sure why AK would call the turn (if he puts me on KQ or AQ, then he has only 3 outs, and I am unlikely to jam it preflop with QJ). After watching the player for longer, I realised he had called because he thought he would win it if an A or K came on the river - he was the type of player who played his own cards without really thinking about his opponents'.
In the second example (at the Mirage), I was also playing fairly tight preflop, and this was the first hand I entered. So no one had any reason to suspect that I was a "bully". Rest assured that I don't usually bet AQ all the way when i miss the board - the majority of times I bet that flop to the river I would show up with AJ or AK. Also, if I had had a chance to see how my opponent played (i.e. calling station), I would almost certainly have checked the turn and river. However, I assumed (in the absence of other information) that he was a typical player, and I if I bet a J high flop in that situation, I would bet again against typical players if any overcard comes (that way they have no way of knowing if I have AK AQ or AJ; if i check behind them though, I am telling them I have nothing, so I am vulnerable to a bluff on the river and have almost no chance of winning the hand). As for the river, well I am risking $20 to win $100, and I thought the chances of a typical player folding middle pair were high enough to justify the bluff.
Matt D
10-20 holdem at the Mirage, I had sat down at the game about 15 minutes earlier, and was dealt AQh in middle position. I raised, and was called by the big blind. My observation on the game was that the players were mostly tight, except for about 3 weak players. The flop comes J73 with 2 hearts. BB checks, i bet he calls. At this point I don't put him on a Jack or better (I think he would bet out or check raise), so I think he has overcards, or a middle pair, or a flush draw. The turn comes a king, and he checks again. Now i don't put him on a king or a jack (I think he would bet out to take the pot, with the flush draw there he doesn't want to give a free card). So I think he either has AQ like me, or a middle pair or a flush draw. I bet and he calls. The river comes a rag, and he checks again. At this point I assume he has a middle pair, and there are 10 small bets in the pot. I figure a bluff is the right move, since i am representing a jack or better, and the only conceivable hand i could have that he can beat is AQ, so I bet. He calls and shows me A3! Now this really surprised me - not only can't he beat what I was representing (top pair), he can't even beat something like 88 or 76. Also if he thinks I missed the flop, why not bet his hand out to win it immediately?
So, does anyone have any comments on how i played my hand? Should I have bluffed the river?
P.S. Although I had him pegged as a tight player (he didn't see too many flops, and looked very calm and controlled as he moved his chips to bet and call, as if he knew what he was doing), the guy turned out to be a complete calling station, and lost several biggish pots calling people down with hands like bottom pair. I guess it just goes to show you never can tell!
Matt D
I think I would have generally checked the flop if he was willing to give a free card. There was only 4sb in the pot and you were drawing to the nuts, and also had 2 overcards. On that flop, there there weren't really any free cards that would be scary, and there were many that would give you a strong hand. If you miss on the turn and he bets into you, just throw it away and be done with it. You wont make your fortune chasing small pots without a hand.
A Poker Guy!
Matt, you said:
"not only can't he beat what I was representing (top pair), he can't even beat something like 88 or 76."
But the fact is that your opponent doesn't have to worry about you having such a hand because you would never bet it on the River.
Most river bets either represent a strong hand or a busted hand. The way that hand played out, your opponent likely figured you for a King or better or a busted hand.
In most cases, I would check here on the River. With AQ, I have the best no pair hand and I would probably assume that my opponent will call if he has a pair and will fold if he doesn't.
IMO, your bet on the flop is an automatic one. The bet on the turn is more debatable but I would likely do it figuring that even if I get raised, I have 12 outs to the nuts (as well, the 3 Aces may also be enough). These chances coupled with the possibility of your opponent folding on the turn are enough IMO to make a bet on the turn correct more often than not.
skp-
As usual, you're right on. However, this post does bring up an interesting point; i.e., when you ought to fire the ole double barrel (or triple barrel) in a heads up contest when a) you're the pre-flop aggressor, and b) your opponent is a calling station. As a rule, I think a bet on the flop's a gimme; in fact, I can't remember the last time I DIDN'T bet out heads up if I raised pre-flop. The only exception to this is if I flop top set, in which case I'll get a little sneaky, but if the flop is of the standard variety; that is, you're holding AK and miss badly (I swear this happens more than 2/3's of the time), you've got to give it a shot, since if the flop's pretty ragged there's a good chance that it missed the other guy as well.
But not always; we can all tell sad stories about the Einstien who calls you heads up w/ T3s, spikes a three on the flop, and calls the whole way. Or the guy who falls in love with a pocket pair and is determined to show it down. So the question is-- just how much should you push overcard heads up? I confess, it's a question to which I have no answer. If someone's going to call you heads up (and they don't have a huge starting hand), they're probably so fishy that you can't put them on ANYTHING, which eliminates (I think) gauging your decision on the texture of the flop. But if not this, then I don't know how you should come to your decision.
Either way, I think this is a top that's certainly worthy of more discussion.
Why do you think you were just representing top pair good kicker? Most thinking players would probably include a hand like AQ (two overcards) at least on the flop as a candidate. As you found out, that caller was a weak player with whom you just don't try to do any representing since they are playing their hand and the board exclusively. There are quite a few poor players who mimic a good card reader's actions once in awhile. They see winning players take the pot away from someone with this sort of hand with a tiny pocket pair and they think this is appropriate play without giving any consideration to what their opponent might have.
While in the US I have tried my hand at lowball a few times (a game I have never played before). Here are a couple of situations where I was unsure of the correct play. I would welcome any comments from lowball players (I have little knowledge of the theory so don't be surprised if some of the errors look bad!)
I was playing a shorthanded (5 players) 8-16 lowball game in Vegas, and i raised from the button with Joker-2-3-4-8. The small blind reraised, i rereraised, he raised me back again. This player was pretty tight, and i don't think he would give me that kind of action with a drawing hand when we were heads up. I thought if he had an eight he would just call my reraise, so I put him on a seven. I threw my 8 and drew one card, he stood pat. Now he checked. We were playing so that you didn't have to bet a 7, and you were allowed to check raise, so his check doesn't necessarily mean he had an eight. Also if he bets out, he doesn't stand to get called unless i have him beat. Anyway, i got lucky and caught a wheel - he just called, then when he saw my hand he mucked his cards without showing it to me then stormed off from the table. My question is i) is his play consistent with having a smooth pat eight? i.e. would most tight players jam a smooth eight in this situation? ii) did I make a mistake by discarding my perfect 8?
I put him on a 7 and so had to catch a 7, 6, 5 or Ace to beat him - assuming he had 3 of those cards in his hand, that gives me 13 outs from 44 cards, and there was about $90 in the pot before the draw. I can assume i will win another $16 after the draw if I hit. So i have about $30 equity in the pot if i draw. Therefore if I have better than approx 30% chance of having the best hand, i should think about standing pat (probably I need a better chance because I may win 2 big bets after the flop).
The next situation occured in a loose 15-30 lowball game at the Normandie. The blinds were 5-10-15, and it was a kill pot (because someone had won 2 hands in a row), so there was $60 in the pot to start with. I raised one spot to the right of the button with a pat T87. The button called, and the big blind (a very loose player) reraised. I called (was this a mistake? should I reraise to knock out the button?) and the button called. The big blind then drew two cards! I stood pat, and the button drew one. The big blind checked. I now reasoned that if i bet, I would only get called if I was beat, so I checked, and the button checked. It turned out the button had "missed" his draw and caught a T7, which took down the pot (about $330). I immediately realised I had made a terrible error. If I bet, the button would almost certainly muck a T, and might muck a nine. What i failed to consider was that, because the button was probably drawing to a smooth eight or a seven, if he caught a ten, it would be a better ten than mine. Anyway, a failure to risk $60 cost me a $330 pot - 10 big bets.
N.B. The next day I looked through some writings on lowball, and found exactly that situation described in "Sklansky on Poker", where he recommends betting in that situation if the pot is more than two times your after the draw bet - in my case it was 5 times as big!
Matt D
Rereraised? :^)
As far as your first hand goes, if your opponent was "pretty tight", I don't think there's any way he'd be giving you all that action without at least a 7. He might well raise once with an 8, but not twice. You have to draw in this case. The fact that he checked and called after the draw leads me to believe that it was a rough 7. He probably figured that you were drawing to something pretty good to give him all that action before the draw. He probably didn't have anything to gain by betting. If you hit, he loses, and if you miss, you probably won't call. I think you played the hand right (he probably did too), and you got a bit lucky.
I think your assessment of the second hand is right on. It's the sort of mistake that I find myself making too. :^)
Cheers,
Andy B
These are two situations (one I saw in a lowball game, another in a holdem game) where I was not involved in the pot, but wished that I was! In both cases, I think a good player could have won a substantial pot with no hand at all.
The first example was in a 15-30 lowball game at Commerce casino. A live player who had just entered the game raised in first position, another player (who was loose before the draw but solid after) called, and another fairly tight player called on the button. The live one drew one card, as did both tight players. The live one then flashed a joker and bet out. I immediately recognised this as a tell that he was bluffing (he wasn't the type to do a reverse tell - at least I didn't think so!). So did both the callers! The trouble is, they didn't know how to use this information. The first player grumbled that he wanted to call, then flashed a Q and folded (after the hand he said he was worried about the solid player still to act behind him). The second player thought for a moment or two, then called and showed a K. The live one then showed down a K432 joker!! Of course the second tight player made a bad play just calling - if he put the live one on a bluff he should have raised with just a K low (the live one was the sort of player who would think a K, or even a Q, had no chance of winning and would therefore bluff with it). But the first player also made a mistake. If he had raised, the 2nd tight player would probably muck any 8 low, and maybe even a rough 7 (in this game, there had been 3 hours of play with no raises after the draw). The live one of course would fold. So here was a case when one could have won $150 with complete garbage.
Another example occurred in the Commerce 9-18 holdem (a game with lots of wild loose players). A friend of mine had 99, and 3 players saw the flop, which came Txx with a flush draw. A maniac in first position bet, my friend called, and an weak/tight type played called behind. The turn was a blank, and the maniac bet. The river came a rag, and the maniac bet again. My friend said that he was sure the maniac was bluffing with a busted flush draw, but said he was worried about an overcall from the player behind (who he put on top pair). So he mucked the hand. After talking about it later, we both agreed that he probably should have raised to knock out the player behind, and then the bluffer would have to fold. The pot was about $200 on the river, so he would have been risking $38 to win - about 4.5-1 odds.
Finally, I'd like to describe an amusing lowball hand I played in. There was a raise from a loose player, I called with a one card draw to an 86, and the button called. The raiser and the button drew 2 cards, and I drew one. After the draw I was in second position and it was checked to me. I had paired my eights, and the player to my left had been calling a lot after the draw with hands like K low trying to catch bluffs, so I decided not to bluff. Anyway, the third player checked behind me too so we showed down. The original raiser laughed and showed a pair of nines, then i saw a look of disgust spread over the button's face - he showed down a pair of tens and I took the pot with my 8864A low! The only way I could have won that hand was for them to be dealt TT and 99, or for them to draw to a T and a 9 low and then pair their highest cards. The whole table laughed, and one player commented that he had never seen anything like it in 30 years of lowball.
Matt D
As for the hold 'em hand, I'd probably have raised on the flop; if the maniac re-raised, I would have slowed down.
Above all else, you want to narrow it down in a hand like this, and if the players behind you are at all astute (no sure bet, but you never can tell) they'll realize that they're probably going to have to pay 3 sb's to see the turn (assuming the maniac would have re-raised on the flop), and maybe 4 sb's if your friend decides to cap it. This has the effect of getting rid of some of the more exotic draws, and putting a ton of pressure on weak T's, which you'd like to do.
I'll address the first one.
"The first example was in a 15-30 lowball game at Commerce casino. A live player who had just entered the game raised in first position, another player (who was loose before the draw but solid after) called, and another fairly tight player called on the button. The live one drew one card, as did both tight players. The live one then flashed a joker and bet out."
Well I use to play a lot of lowball draw many years ago. This frequently meant that the player was drawing to an eight, not that he was bluffing. He just wanted to make sure that if someone made a seven he wasn't raised.
"I immediately recognised this as a tell that he was bluffing (he wasn't the type to do a reverse tell - at least I didn't think so!). So did both the callers! The trouble is, they didn't know how to use this information. The first player grumbled that he wanted to call, then flashed a Q and folded (after the hand he said he was worried about the solid player still to act behind him)."
I think he is right. In a person pot the calling burden is mostly on the last player.
"The second player thought for a moment or two, then called and showed a K. The live one then showed down a K432 joker!! Of course the second tight player made a bad play just calling - if he put the live one on a bluff he should have raised with just a K low (the live one was the sort of player who would think a K, or even a Q, had no chance of winning and would therefore bluff with it)."
Generally, you should call with a queen but not worse. This is true whether you are heads-up or three way as long as you are last to act. You shouldn't call with worse than a queen three way because some of the calling burden does fall on the player in the middle even though the majority of it falls on the player who is last.
"But the first player also made a mistake. If he had raised, the 2nd tight player would probably muck any 8 low, and maybe even a rough 7 (in this game, there had been 3 hours of play with no raises after the draw)."
Given that the second player is tight and that he does not have the joker, his minimum calling hand should be a draw to a 7-5. This makes it difficult for him to have an 8 or a rough 7 unless he catches exactly an 8 or a 6.
"The live one of course would fold. So here was a case when one could have won $150 with complete garbage."
That's only because you saw the hands. First, you don't know that the live one wouldn't have called the raise with his king. Second, as I stated above, the joker flash tell doesn't necessarily mean that he is betting a busted hand. It could also mean that he is betting a marginal 8 or 9 for value.
"Well I used to play a lot of lowball draw many years ago. This [flashing a joker] frequently meant that the player was drawing to an eight, not that he was bluffing. He just wanted to make sure that if someone made a seven he wasn't raised."
I'm not sure if I mentioned that the live one looked at his hand, then bet, then flashed the joker (I'm also not sure if this makes any difference). My post gave the impression that him flashing the joker was the only reason I thought that he was bluffing: the fact is that he seemed (to me) to be acting like a typical weak player who has nothing - he threw his chips out emphatically and tried to stare down the next player to act. The combined effect of his mannerisms, and the fact that he flashed the joker, made me (and the other two players) sure that he had missed.
Your point about flashing the joker to stop a raise, or to get a call from an 8, is a good one though, and something I hadn't considered.
I agree that the first player can't really call, and a raise is very risky if the second player is drawing to a 7 (which, as you point out, is his probable draw). I also agree with you that a King isn't worth a call for the last player.
"You don't know that the live one wouldn't have called the raise with his king."
As i say, I haven't played much lowball, but do bad players really call raises with just a king low? If so please tell me where they play!
Matt D
I cannot argue if showing the Joker is often an indication of a vulnerable hand as Mr. Malmuth suggested.
But it is consistant with one of Mr. Caro's mantra's about giving the opponent's an "either-or" choice. In this case it worked. You seemed to suggest that showing the joker means either a bust or a lock; both of which encourage the opponent to (just) call, which is exactly what you want with an 8ight: call with worst hand, do NOT raise with a better.
- Louie
Mason,
I have been playing lots of $20-40 Stud/8 recently as I have been down in LA. I noticed that in your Poker Essays book you listed hourly expectations and bankroll requirements for just about every game except this one. The games there are rather loose at night with a few pretty poor players along with a few very successful players, or so it seemed from my short sample of sessions. While discussing the game I heard various opinions on how the game required a smaller or larger bankroll and how it was more or less profitable than a similar sized HE or Stud game. What are your thoughts on this? Or maybe this would be better suited for Ray Zee.
Ray can probably better answer this question than I can. However, stud 8 or better plays more like pot limit than any other form of limit poker. In addition, there is probably more luck associated with the last card than with any other game. My guess is that unless you are highly skilled, you can probably swing more than you think is possible.
WildBill,
stud 8 changes alot depending on the texture of the game. as the game gets looser you play more low hands and have more fluctuations in results. when the game tightens you play more high hands and try to win pots early and steal antes. in passive games its easy to control your flucuations as opposed to aggressive games where you get jammed in with no way of folding many times. overall the flucuations tend to be higher in most games because its tough to read hands early as there are more starting hands for the majority of players and you may need to go further on in a hand as there are more possibilities for them to have so it becomes harder to fold once you begin unless you bust out quickly. remember if you discuss flucuations with opponents they will believe you have a high regard for money and may play tougher against you. good luck.
Well the discussion was in a pretty tight second game in a must move situation. Furthermore it seemed like in the loosest game a couple of players were very inclined to play for the high with just medium pairs, even in a raised pot. I was taught that generally almost all playable hands are low hands and that usually its incorrect to play anything high except Aces, Kings, and rolled up hands, unless you are on a steal or going against a single low hand. Would you consider this correct play? One hand I threw away was split Jacks in a pot with only two players already committed and in later position and it was accidentally exposed by the dealer and I got hoots from the other players for being so tight! It didn't really matter though, the action was so good it wasnt uncommon for me to win splits worth $100-150 profit for the low, and sometimes with just an 8 low. The games there don't really seem to get jammed up much like you describe in your book...often times the low will do the raising and the high hands just call, so the fluctuation didn't seem that bad.
Which LA club are you playing at? I was looking for a good LA stud hilo game but thought (since they start at 20-40) the games wouldn't have many bad players.
Matt D
P.S. Don't worry about me cutting in on your action, I am leaving LA in 2 weeks :)
The best place seemed to be Hollywood Park...they told me they have the game going 24 hours. I saw it during the day and it wasnt that good, but at night it was rather loose. They have one at the Commerce, but alot of times its props and a live one or two. People in the game were talking about this one guy, Mr. Lee, who I never saw, but they swore to me he was the livest player to play the game. When they would start up a game they would call him at his hotel room or at his friends house to tell him a new game was starting; now I thought that must be quite a live one. I hear he is leaving the country in the near future so maybe you will play with him. Believe me, if you go around 9pm or later you will have some soft touches in the main game and maybe in the feeder game too.
I couldn't help but think of Ray Zee's aversion to giving NO free cards in no limit when I read about this hand. It was the $2500 no-limit holdem event at the WSOP.
I don't know what the pre-flop action was, but there was about 15k in the pot. The flop is Qs6s9h. Dan Heimiller, who has been playing loose and aggressive bets 8k and Phil Hellmuth is the only caller, with position on Heimiller. Phil has As9d.
The turn is the Ace of diamonds. Heimiller checks and Hellmuth decides to check his two pair to set up a bluff on the river by the aggressive Heimiller. Hellmuth has about 30k left, Hemiller has more chips than that, and there is 32k in the pot. Phil said he figured that Hemiller was "drawing dead", and not on a flush draw. (I guess since Phil has the nut spade in his hand.)
The river is the innocuous 3 of diamonds. Heimiller bets 16k. Hellmuth calls without hesitation. Heimiller's hand?
You guessed it- pocket threes. Phil Helmuth on tilt.
P.S. Hellmuth has a new web site at www.philhellmuth.com that is pretty good and includes a report on his high limit play and a "Hand of the Week".
There are 8 accounted and 44 unnaccounted cards. There are two good cards and 42 bad ones for Heimiller.
Lets assume Heimiller will either check the river or bet $16 whether bluff or not. Hellmouth is risking the $15 on the pot and the $16 bet for $31. He stands to gain another $16.
Heimiller will bet for value 2 times out of 44 draws. If he will bluff 4 times out of the 44 then Hellmouth loses $31 twice and games $16 four times for a profit of $2. If Heimiller will bluff more than that than Hellmouth gains considerably.
It seems to me an aggressive player will bluff many more times than 1 in 10 so Hellmouth made a good play from an EV point of view.
However, this play is not as good since its a tournament and Heimiller may NOT have a silly pocket pair. He may have 4 or 8 outs and may call trying to draw, and he may not bluff since it was such an obvious one after checking the turn.
- Louie
It is almost always patently incorrect to consider a play or a call in a NL tournament using an "expected value" analysis. It is significantly more important to make plays that do not lose than to make plays that theoretically increase your "EV".
I don't understand your position. It's always about ev, even in tournaments. It just is figured differently in tourneys.
In a winner take all tourney, the ev calculations will be the same as a money game. In a multi-payout tourney (which most are) the value of a stack is not directly proportional to stack size. This is because the individual chips in a small stack are worth more than the individual chips in a large stack. Finishing third with one chip pays just as much as finishing third with a thousand chips.
This creates situations where you might have +ev in a live game, but a -ev in the same situation in a tourney. The chips you lose are worth more than the chips you win. So if you're getting 2.1:1 on a 2:1 situation in a money game, it's a call. That may only be worth 1.9:1 in the tournament, therefore a fold. The smaller the stack size, the more drastic the difference. You may need 2.2:1 to call a 2:1 situation in a tournament, or maybe even need 3:1 to call that 2:1 situation.
Making plays that do not lose may help guide you in the right direction, but there is a point where calling or folding, for example, will yield no difference in ev. And that point will be different in multi-payout tournaments than in live games. Knowing where that point is comes from calculating, or more likely estimating, your ev. And knowing where that point is will make a difference in the long run.
Your idea sounds good in theory, and used in a rough manner approximates what many players do. Nonetheless, I'm confident that no one who ever won (or will ever win) the NL WSOP used a fine-line EV analysis to make their decisions.
There is no "long run" in a NL tournament -- you either become an empty seat or you move up. And you're not going to get to play enough NL tournaments in your lifetime to make that "long-run" count when using fine-line "EV" analysis to make your decisions. Knowing that you are a 6-5 favorite (and thus have "positive EV") is little consolation when your middle pair gets outdrawn by two overcards or when your set of Aces gets outrun by an open-ended straight drawa for all the money.
There are of course exceptions, but they are always gross examples: i.e., a player moves into the money by waiting until one or two opponents disappear, and so a call with an otherwise "positive" hand is in fact a negative proposition. To use a gross example, I recall last year, Jim Waltenberg in the super satellites. He would repeatedly come into the final tables (6 different occasions as I recall) with big chips leads, yet would continue to play in what would be considered highly positive "EV" situations. Repeatedly he was knocked out of the final table before winning a seat -- because he played too many hands, not because he played in negative situations.
Yet all he had to do to get a seat was never look at his cards -- trash the calculations and the calculators and the EV ideas and simply do nothing at all. I suppose that that one could say that looking at your hand in that situation is -EV and I could certainly agree. Thus my point: the rough analysis is usually correct to use, but the fine-line analysis very rarely is.
During the most spectacular play of the final WSOP table this year, I'm sure that Eric Seidel wasn't thinking about a positive or negative "EV" when he called off Goerhing's big bluff on the end -- with nothing more than Ace high. He was certainly thinking about "does he have me beat or not." The time he spent analyzing the hand he was figuring out what Goerhing held based on the way the hand was played out.
Those who think they should make fine-line "EV" in NL tournament hand calculations would be better advised to stick to limit money games.
For those who think they can use EV to calculate whether or not to play a NL tournament hand, here are a few situations from this year that I alluded to above:
1. NL 4-table satellite at the Plaza. First hand, dealt A-A in the pocket, only one player sees the flop, which comes A-7-8 rainbow. With $4,000 in front of each, the other player bets $400. It's clear that the other player has a straight draw -- what do you do? You're a 3-1 favorite, and obviously you move all-in. When the straight draw sucks out, the probability is small comfort, and EV is utterly irrelevant.
2. NL super-satellite at Binion's. Down to 10 remaining players, 5 at each table. You have 5 chips remaining, having posted one in the small blind. The big blind has 10 chips remaining, having posted two. You are dealt 6-6, and the action is folded around to you. You move all-in and are called by the big blind with two overcards. If you had not played 6-6, in ten more hands you will be blinded out -- at what point does EV become more than a gross calculation that you likely have the best hand before the flop, will likely not be dealt anything better, and thus must play?
I agree with Earl, fine line EV probably won't reach the "long run". Example: Say in NL tourney games you find yourself a 6:5 favorite 11 times. You expect to win 6, lose 5, the problem is the amount of the bets will vary dramatically; not remain the same as in a limit game so the 5 bets you lose as a small favorite can be much greater in amount than the 6 you win and see ya. I think the key like someone else posted is pushing large edges and making moves that tend NOT to lose as oppossed to plays that should show small profit over time.
I was thinking more about it and this is where devastation lies. Assume you hit the "long run" and get your +EV on all you T1000 6:5 bets, T100 23:1 bets T50 on 6:5 bets etc... You can show a total TChip profit BUT THIS CAN AMOUNT TO $0.00 IN CASH MONEY if you never make it into the money!!!! Getting positive value over the course of multiple tournaments in no way guarantees you ever place. I didn't crunch any numbers to derive this, I based it on just thinking so I am in error here with my logic please correct me.
Your're right. Getting positive value over the course of multiple tournaments in no way gurantees you ever place.
Getting positive value (taking into consideration all relevant factors) only increases your chances. ;-)
I believe Damon Runyan once said something like: the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet 'em. EV works the same way.
Earl, you make some fine observations regarding tournament situational plays. But that doesn't mean it isn't about ev. When figuring ev, you take those things into account.
I believe, right or wrong, that the best NL hold'em players excel because thay are good at reading players, both playing style and tells. But even then, ev is the determining factor. If you think there's an 80% chance a player is bluffing because of a tell you picked up, then you still must consider whether it's worth calling that "bluff." If the pot is small and losing will knock you out, then letting him have that probable bluff might be the right play. In other words, if you tell yourself that there's not enough money in the pot to risk my stack on it, then you are saying that the call has a negative ev. It doesn't matter if the call would have positive ev in a live game, or if you had a big stack, or if there are only six hands left before you get blinded out. If it's negative ev in the current situation, then it's a fold.
I think that you're assuming that pot odds, implied pot odds, etc. are what we mean by ev. In live games it may be that simple much of the time. But in tournaments, ev takes the factors you mentioned into account. Stack sizes, time left in a round, size of the blinds, number of hands left before being blinded out, your opponent's skill level, etc., are all factors effecting ev in a tournament.
In the posting you initially responded to, Louie may have been looking at the situation in a simplifed live-game view. But then again, it's possible that the "simple" ev was so overwhelming, that his analysis would have still held up in most tournament situations.
I think the term ev, positive or negative expectation, or what ever term you prefer, should be fine. But perhaps we might better make our points if we used terms like "simple ev" and "situational ev" depending on whether or not we take additional factors into account other than probability and pot sizes.
Instead of "simple ev" and "situational ev", how about "chip EV" and "money EV"?
In a ring game, a chip IS money, so they're the same. In a tournament, they're not equivalent at all, so the conversion from chip EV to money EV is much more difficult to make (see my other post).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Well, even in a money game you consider factors other than odds, bet size or pot size. Tells or playing style aren't 100% accurate, bluffs are not zero or 100% likely, and what you think an opponent holds isn't always correct. Also "simple" ev or "money" ev is relevant in a tournament. It's just that calculating it is just the first part in calculating your expectation--same as in a money game. Tournaments add additional considerations that money games don't, but both expectations need to adjusted much of the time.
Perhaps "simple ev" and "adjusted ev" better address the different concepts.
And I agree that most factors are estimated by players. Who really knows for sure what another player will or won't do, or what he has or don't have? The better players are better at estimating.
Sometimes the factors considered aren't even relevant to the hand in ways not previously mentioned. Doyle Brunson mentioned two of them in his writings. One is when you are low on chips in a tourney and there is a seat in a juicy ring game. It might be better to just walk away and take that seat in the ring game. More expectation in the ring game than with that small stack in the tournament.
The other was in a live NL Hold'em game where there was a bad player in the game who could be counted on to make terrible plays. If I remember correctly, he only had one buy-in and took on this player with the best of it, but not by a lot. He lost and realized his folly. It would have been better to wait for the inevitable opportunity when he would have much the best of it. Risking going broke and losing many opportunities to take advantage of the weaker player was a big mistake. Of course, if he had deep pockets that day, it would have been okay, or only a small mistake. I say small mistake because it still might be better to wait for the inevitabe big over-lays to cut down on the variance.
Boy, this game is sure complex. ;-)
I agree with George in that its all about EV. In tournaments, its about Tournament EV NOT chip EV.
I agree with Earl in that its impractical to calculate fine distinctions in Tournament EV.
We agree that chips change their value and that chips you have are worth more than chips you can get; but by how much? How much more are your few chips worth when someone else is about to go all in potentially improving your pay-out position? How much worse is it if YOU have to take the blind with your short stack before the other short stack has to?
Never-the-less, if you don't talk EV how can you talk? "I don't think he's bluffing" doesn't cut it if he bet all in with T3 into a T5 pot. If he's bluffing 40% AND your position improves if you knock him out, then that's +TourneyEV and you should call. If he's bluffing %30 and you get knocked out if you lose, then that's -TourneyEV and you should fold.
You may need lots more judgement and estimation to calculate EV in tournaments, but that doesn't mean you should abandon EV altogether.
- Louie
PS. I would venture to propose that EVERY winner NL-WSOP did serious EV calculations/estimations on a hand critical for their win.
George is right on.
At any point in a tournament, you can estimate your EV. It is not easy to do accurately, and as far as I know no one has come up with a mathematically perfect way to do it (not even a complex way, let alone a way that could be applied by brain alone in the middle of an tournament). When far from the money, your tournament EV is very close to your chip EV, i.e., if you are holding 1% of the chips with about 100 players to go, 18 being paid, your EV is probably about 1% of the prize pool.
Once you get closer to the money, your EV is less proportionally related to your stack size, and depends a lot upon the stack sizes of everyone else. The simplest thing to do, although still subject to a lot of error, is to estimate your chances of finishing in each position, multiply each chance by the corresponding prize amount, and add the results.
Now, imagine some one has just bet an amount that will put you all-in if you call. If you lose, your result is $0. If you win, you can estimate your EV dependent upon your winning stack size. If you fold, you can estimate your EV based upon your current stack size. Now, what are your chances of winning? Take this estimate, and do some more math. Let's say that if you fold, you estimate your EV to be $100. If you call and win, you estimate your EV to be $400. Of course, calling and losing gives an EV of $0. Thus, if you'll win here more than 25% of the time, then you should call, as >25% of $400 is larger than $100 (your EV for folding).
The only problem with this type of analysis is that it is full of one subjective guess on top of another. It is very easy to make a wrong decision because one of your estimates is off. However, upon what other basis should you make such a decision? I don't know of any better one, just easier ones.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Can someone fill me in on the Bring-in and Ante structure of this game.
Thanks, Chris
$1 Ante, $2 bring in. BTW, on weekends this can be a really good game, but during the week can tighten up quite a bit.
Wow, isn't that the same Ante and Bring in as the Mirage's 10-20. If thats true then the Bellagio 6-12 is structured like Big Stud.
CV
CV,
The ante is the same ($1), but the bring-in is $3 in most 10-20 stud games. For this reason, if you are comfortable with the money, 10-20 is a better "value."
Good luck, JKR
For a few hours I found my self in a Weak Tight 8-16 Texas Hold'em game at the Bellagio last week. Now some players may say this is a bad game since it was filled with "Rocks", but I was doing well stealing with Semi-Bluffs, Bluffs, Semi-Bluff Raises. I guess you could say I was playing Selective Loose Agressive since there were some good players in the game that I didn't have control over.
My question concerns playing in the Big Blind when everyone had folded and a Late Position player raised and it was Folded to me. Even though I was pretty sure that I was getting stole from I felt that my position kept me from calling with what I felt were bad cards, basicly anything under a J,To.
Now I did take a K,xo once, played back, got lucky, and showed it down winning the pot. I did this to make the Raiser think twice before stealing my Blind with nothing (though they were mostly Weak-Tight on the Flop they still were raising Blinds quite a bit Pre-Flop). Other than that I basicly caved-in in that situation unless I had decent cards.
Comments?
Thanks, CV
You can go broke defending blinds. However i would reraise with any 2 big cards then bet the flop and hope for a resteal against 1 late position raiser. This should help to keep them from taking to many shots at your blinds.
Occasionally, playing back at a late position steal raise is pretty standard in such games IMO. Against, a late position raise, the concern of being dominated is much less thus allowing you to make it three bets with a hand like Kx or Ax off. Obviously, that's a dangerous thing to do against an early position raiser. I would also three bet it at times with other defendable hands such as suited connectors etc. if I have gone a few rounds of having my blinds stolen. As you say, there comes a time when you have to take a stand to ensure that the late position bettors do not start assuming that they have a license to steal.
One of the features of a "weak-tight" player is their failure to take advantage of good situations with weak cards; such as stealing against the tight blind.
So if a weak-tight raises you should play only the good hands since he has a good hand. << But if an aggressive player raises you will have to give him a play, especially in a tight game since he will have the opportunity to attack your blinds often.
Be advised that some players APPEAR to be weak-tight in early position (justifiable paranioa of early position) but are aggressive when in late position (justifiable euphoria of late position). You are dead meat if you peg this player as always weak-tight or always aggressive. In this case, you may lay down 5 blinds in a row before you figure it out. DOH!
You can nurture this mistake by playing defensively in early position, and by defending the blinds only carefully; which works so long as they won't attack more liberally.
- Louie
You write: "Be advised that some players APPEAR to be weak-tight in early position (justifiable paranioa of early position) but are aggressive when in late position (justifiable euphoria of late position). You are dead meat if you peg this player as always weak-tight or always aggressive. In this case, you may lay down 5 blinds in a row before you figure it out. DOH!"
Good point, though I felt I had a good line all everyones play, I'll have to keep that in mind next time I'm in that situation.
CV
While I agree with the three earlier responses I am more in line with your approach of resisting the need to irrationaly defend under such table conditions, as long as YOU are doing as much or more blind stealing as everyone else.
It was pretty easy to steal Blinds, and I had to lower my standards. I did have one problem with a decent player who had a habbit of calling my Late position Raise (when he was in the BB), and then Check-Raising me with what I suspected was anything on the Flop. He did that to me twice before I got wise and tightened up a Bit on my Raising requirements when he was the BB. So when I was in that situation with a hand that missed the Flop, I'd let him give me a free card.
CV
Blinds are SUPPOSED to check-raise when they flop anything AT ALL in that spot. Bottom pair is a GOOD hand against a button stealer.
If that forces you to routinely "take a free card" when they check (even if you have an Ace), then you are not only giving THEM a free card, you are also giving them a steal-on-the-turn for free shot.
Don't forget: a single opponent is a FAVORITE to miss the flop.
It sounds to me that your reaction (less steals B4, no steals on the flop) is EXACTLY the reaction he wanted. OK, so even after compensating for my exaggeration I think you should reconsider the fine points of your counter strategy.
- Louie
So he got what he wanted, big deal. I'm not going to play "Ego Poker" against this guy. What I found was that by tightening up and playing less Aggressive against him, I was able to take more of his money because he was always trying to outplay me in this situation. What would you have done?
CV
If he is habitually check raising you with nothing (or a weak hand e.g. bottom pair), you might want to sometimes reraise with "nothing" (e.g. overcards, middle pair). Of course when you actually have a hand, you welcome his check raise.
Matt D
I didn't intend this to be an Ego issue. It just seemed to me that you said you will steal less often and play predictably after the flop, and I suggest that it was to HIS benefit.
At least its to his benefit if he quickly gives it up if you do give him a play. If he really continues to try to "outplay" you even when you are sure to have a solid pair, then he's an idiot and your adjustment worked just fine.
- Louie
And so you elected to just semi-steal when this player was the big blind. Did your stealing less often reduce this players checkraising frequency on the flop? I doubt it. When you're heads-up in a steal/resteal situation it's best to try to take back control of the hand if you don't get your opponent to fold on the flop. If you have anything reasonable like an eight out or better draw, middle pair whatever kicker, even two overcards, making it three bets now accomplishes this objective. Of course taking the *not so cheap* card and checking the turn is out-of-the-question when you play to resteal (unless you're sure you can induce a bluff and think something like AK will pick it off). You don't need a hand to play against big blind defense, but you really do need to reseize the initiative.
it has been pointed out to me that many more tourists will play poker during holiday periods.....but doesn't this also bring many more "experts?"
also, what would be an adequate bankroll for 30-60 STUD?
thanks for any and all comments. JKR
IMO, the holidays bring more tourists, but most of them are low limit players. As far as 30-60 bankroll, I'd say $12,000 to $15,000 should suffice.
Even if that is true (and I have no idea if it is), it's probably still a good time to play. Most of your profits will come from weak players. The fact that the table has some experts shouldn't affect this too much. In other words, I would rather play in a game with 4 world class players and 5 terrible players than in a game with 9 players who don't make any great plays but don't make any real bad ones either (i.e. an average player).
You need at least 25K
You are in the big blind. You hold AJs, AT, AJ, KsJs, KsJ, KJs, KJ, KsT, KT
The button opens with a raise. The small blind folds and you call.
The flop is As Ts 8s.
How do you play on the flop. And why?
Maria
I say bet them all, you have a semi-bluff for all the hands that don't have middle pair or better. Re-raise on most of them too.
David
Maria, How many players are in besides the button and you? Assuming it is only the two of you: 1. AJs, AT, AJ---bet. Make the flush draw pay to stay. Try ;to see just how strong the button is. Does he reraise? 2. KsJs----check. Call when the button bets. On the turn, check and raise. 3. KsJ, K,Js---check, call. 4. KJ---check, fold 5. KsT---bet 6. KT---check, fold Black Jack
Are you kidding me? You must go into some detail about how the button plays unless you just sat down and never saw him/her before. When a player is on a potential steal like this the way he plays and his current psychological state couldnt be more important. How about your thoughts on how good a player he is? What would he do if you check-raised him? What would you do if he made it 3 bets? Is he a talented player that would realize you would be putting a move on him so he would play back at you with nothing? Also how is your personal state. Would you want to gamble with this guy. Maybe you are stuck and dont want to deal with a bigger loss when you have one of the hands which would require a semi-bluff. Lots of variables here that prove poker isnt played in a vacuum.
Gosh!
you are correct!
however, if this is the case what is the point of the 2+2 approach to poker?
is there a teachable strategy in the game?
Maria
After playing a bit of poker, I've come to the conclusion that there isn't, at the expert level, a specific strategy that can be written down. Instead, the expert has learned what questions to ask himself about a situation, and how to let those answers influence his strategic decision.
For your original question, anytime it's heads-up preflop, it is a situation that calls for playing the player more than playing your hand. Especially here, where the button could easily be on a steal. If it were heads-up with a raiser who was UTG, then you can put him on a more limited set of hands (depending upon the player, of course). In either case, it depends as much upon how the opponent will play his various hands (e.g., top pair, two pair, draws, no hand or real draw, etc.) as it is what you're holding.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I would usually play for a checkraise with any of these hands after having already missed my opportunity to make it three bets back to the possible steal-raiser before the flop. The important thing is to retake the initiative going into the turn, if your opponent isn't persuaded to release on the flop. If it's reraised back to me on the flop, then I have to give most of the consideration to who I'm playing against. If I bet out on the flop and am called, then there are too many situations where I'll be making a bad fold to a raise on the turn. Notice that with most of these hands you either would like a free card, or if you give one it won't be an overcard that beats you.
I check raise with every hand except KT, which I check and call. The reason each time is the same -- they're all a lot better than what I would typically be expected to have in this situation, and the button may try to pick up the pot with nothing.
William
Check-raise with KJ and KT, as you want to push your opponent off a singleton spade or a weak pair, and to find out where you are at. If you are played back at release them both. Second pair is no powerhouse with an A on the board, and given no one else opened, the chance the button has an A is a little more likely then normal.
Check-raise the KsT and the KsJ, you don't mind to win it right here, but with 14 or 9 outs you can handle a call.
Check and call the flop with KsJs, and hope you catch the opponent with a big hand. I would check the turn here too, if the opponent checked the flop behind you; give him every chance to catch something big.
Bet the AJs and the AJ.
AT I would tend to check and call on the flop, if no spade comes on the turn I would check raise, putting maximum pressure onto the button. If a spade comes, check, if the opponent checks behind you I would bet into him on the River no matter what comes.
How many basic tenets of poker have I violated?
If the player is known to be timid or aggressive (etc) these would obviously change.
L
I am contemplating a trip to New Zealand. I would appreciate any info about poker there. Post here or e-mail me at vrqprbuf@hotmail.com. Any responses will be appreciated.
New Zealand has a new Casino in Christchurch.
been playing poker for about 1yr now have been around the table for at least 20 hrs a wk over the last 6months, here is my problem , I wanted to bring this up to see if any other players have had this same problem and waht can be donne to correct it,, Im A POKER JUNKY.. every dollar i can save has went towards playing poker, i have had only a few recordable wins ,, only to loose it back a couple days later,, i have read and reread 4 poker books, i have been a avid reader of this forum,,my problem is that I can play poker I am a good
I wouldn't worry too much about that hand. You got a couple of loose calls that flopped an open ender and you can't expect them to drop. You played it right, except perhaps for the raise on the river.
Maybe in other similar situations you are playing top pair too strongly and not adjusting to the loose game you are in.
As Ray Zee said to another post, playing to loose before the flop and too tight after may be the problem.
Another problem may be the game structure. If the drop is high and it is low limit, it may not be so easy to beat and you can expect high variance as well. If you can afford it and you really believe you know some poker, I would skip to something arround 6-12.
One thing you could do is try the Wilson TTH software. It can give you confidence by allowing you to play many hands and get into the long run quickly.
Which 4 books did you read?
David
If you have only a "few" recordable wins after over 500 hours of play, then you DO have a big problem of either ability or discipline. It sounds like you have read enough, studied enough, and played enough to gain the knowledge necessary to be a decent player. And a decent player would be winning much more frequently.
To play dime-store pychiatrist for a second, I think your problem is more psychological. From reading your post, I suspect that when you say you "love" poker, I think you really love to "gamble". This emotional approach can lead to a lack of discipline and inability to apply even basic strategy. If this is the case, Poker is the worst "gamble" you can undertake. You would be better off playing craps, or roulette, where your expected value is less dependant on making correct decisions.
My suggestion would be to do some deep soul-searching about what part of poker turns you on. Is it the challenge of employing the courage, patience, logic, and discipline necessary to outplay opponents? Or is it the adrenaline rush that comes from winning a monster pot with a miracle draw? If it is the former, then hard work and discipline will get you there. If it is the latter, then I would sincerely suggest that you treat your poker game as any other recreation that has a cost, and stick to a strict "entertainment" budget. Or don't play at all.
Best of Luck M7
If you've studied poker, played it for more than 500 hours, have devoted all of your spare money to it, and "have had only a few recordable wins" your problem really is a "Big Problem" and is deeper and more serious than bad technique. It certainly has nothing to do with getting kings cracked and reading probably won't help. If you crave action for its own sake, can't tighten up for any length of time, and/or have an uncontrollable tilt problem, you need to (1) discipline yourself, (2) quit altogether or (3) become an emotional and financial wreck. I see no alternative. If you need to keep playing than do it on a computer until you've gained more self-control (TTH is good), and then slowly ease yourself back into the cardrooms by playing short sessions. Keep good records. But this is only a layman's suggestion. If you really can't pull yourself away from the table and continue to lose, consider professional help.
As to the hand in question: on the turn, what did the middle position player put YOU on. Its touph to raise again when you have the obvious trips KKKs and they bet or raise again anyway.
As to your long-term problem: Yes, maybe its bad luck. But judging from your choice of words "junkie" "every dollar" "love it" "stuborn" and your so-sad bad beat, I'd say you are more interested in playing than winning; you'd PREFER to play and lose than not play at all.
You should stop. But failing that I'd recomend playing ONLY at the bottom limit until you are a consistent winner, even if its only $3/hour. Then move up ONLY as your bankroll permits. Allow yourself only a FIXED amount to "invest" into your bankroll each week when you lose; perhaps $40/week TOPS.
Get better books. Evaluate several hands at home after each session. Keep track of EVERY hand you volentarily invest money.
- Louie
If "every dollar you can save" is going to poker, I think it is not unrealistic to wonder if you have a much more serious problem than just trying to figure out how to play better.
As has been mentioned in some of the other replies to your post, as hard as this may be to swallow, you should be seriously considering scaling back your poker $$ and time commitment until you can stabilize your play. Your post sounded scary.
As soon as you said "turn is a 10", I knew *exactly* where this story would end - somebody (as it turns out, two somebodys) holding 79 for the straight that beats your top set.
Also - I dunno - maybe its just me, but so far nobody's reply has mentioned another thing that struck me like a bolt of lightning about your post. That is this:
After being CHECKRAISED on the turn by not one, but TWO players(!!), you didn't even *consider* the possibility that someone had you beat - all you could think of was other potential hands (lower sets) that you still win against. If I was checkraised by TWO players with that kind of board, all kinds of warning bells would be going off in my head!!
If you had been able to think "Hmm, there's a good chance there's a straight out there, I oughta slow down" you could have saved yourself four big bets on this hand.
So it seems to me that another "big problem" from your post is stubbornly plowing full steam ahead with what you *hope* is the best hand, despite plenty of evidence available that is telling you there is a very good chance you are beat.
This is mainly an emotional/ego type problem, which is much more than can be dealt with in a short post here. But here's one quick tip that may help: when thinking about what possible hands your opponents might have, START WITH THE ONES THAT HAVE YOU BEAT!
Good Luck -
Mark Courtney
aka "CybrTigr" on IRC Poker
where do you play?
I play in a card room in the middle of a mitten shaped state!!
I might be completly off the mark here, but I'm from Baltimore and have not been able to find a game anywhere. Could you please guide me in the right direction.
Steve
Okay, I'll tell you what's wrong!
You are a novice to begin with. A baby really. Wait until you have 10+ years in the game before worrying too much.
How to fix your game:
Imagine this- You are playing for your life. If you lose this session you are to be sent to hell for eternity. Would you play differently than you do now? SURE YOU WOULD! Now-play that way. If you love to play poker, quit playing it as a self destruction machine. I have seen so many people get eaten up by gambling. They lose their homes, families etc. I have seen other people make a GREAT living doing nothing but playing cards and have a wonderful life, family, home etc. It is up to you. Play better cards, take care of yourself, eat right, sleep right, and don't be a JUNKIE! On an end note, if you have an addicting behavior perhaps playing poker is not for you. There are people out there who live off of poker junkies. I myself believe they are even tastier than DUMB TOURISTS. Deal me into YOUR GAME any day! Now don't get mad, get smarter and WIN!!!!!! (REALLY!) Doc-
This is a common situation in Pot-limit Omaha: The board is 8c 6c 5d. You hold xx97 and are first to act. You bet and get one caller, a loose, moderately aggressive player. This player calls you again but your hand is still the nuts at the river. The board is 8c 6c 5d 4s Kd. Should you again make a pot-sized bet, or should you make a smaller bet (perhaps less than ½ the pot), or should you check, hoping to induce a bluff? You will make litle money by making a full bet at the end, but if you always check or bet small when you have the nuts at the end I think you will be too easy to read. /Thor
I like a 1/2 size bet on the end, whether for value or as a bluff. This gives you mucj more equity on your bluffs and makes it more difficult for observant opponents to get a read on your play. On occasion, I'll check the nuts to an aggressive player to induce a bluff and gain "advertising" value that suggests my check on the end is not a license to steal.
Whatever your strategy is you need to have exactly the same percentage of betting good hands or bluffs regardless of the size of the bet.
Some players tend to bluf more often by betting the whole pot and some tend to bluf more often by betting 1/2 the pot. Avoid this trap. Decide on the size of the bet and on the bluffing frequency using any process you wish and then mix totally randomly.
NOTE: I did not say not to make adjustments taking into account your opponent's mental status. I am saying: AFTER you decide you best policies then randomize and have size of bet and bluffing being independent variables.
An expert may violate this rule but it is my experience that any beginner or intermediate player who violates it gives a very good read.
Maria
Adjustment: The amount you bet should mostly be a function of the flavor of the board and the likely hands of you and the opponent; it should be much less a function of whether you are bluffing or not.
So with nut-not-in-jeapardy flops like 884 or AT4s, generally bet less than a full bet. With nut-in-jeapardy boards like T9s5 then bet the full pot.
- Louie
Only a complete fish would be calling you down with 74 and no redraws. If many players took the flop, it's highly unlikely that you would bet all the way without 97. This flop has made straight potential, as well as flush and higher straight redraws, and so is a poor choice for a bluff. So he knows you have 97. If he doesn't have 97 also, he almost definitely has some draw that never got there, possibly including a set. How much you bet or how frequently you bluff on the end is primarily a function of the board and the opponent. In this case, there's no real second-best hand that would call here. Also, the river card is unlikely to induce a bluff. No half-decent player with a set is going to call any bet on the end with the board including 8654. If you bet large or small, he'll call with 97 and fold anything else. If you check, he won't bet. If he's an idiot, check and see if he bluffs. Otherwise, since it won't matter, whether you bet or check should depend on which you need for your image.
It is best to always make pot-size bets whenever you bet or raise. This avoids being read when you vary the sizes of your bets based on the situation. Bet the hand yourself on the end.
Could anybody please comment about Caro's video on tells. Is it worth the money? Is the information accurate? Is there anything that is better, and cheaper?
All responses are appreciated. Steve
Steve,
I've only seen it once but it seemed to do a pretty good job of putting the book on tape. This is one area of poker where a video works well.
I got my copy for free since I played a small role in it. Mike had me call for chips using two different styles. In one I'm impatient and in a hurry to "gamble". In the other, I try to buy chips without being noticed which is an indicator of a more conservative style.
The irony is that in a real game I never go all in so I rarely need chips from the runner. In a new game I usually get my chips at the window since I want the chips the runner brings to go to my opponents - i.e., I don't want to buy 25% of his chips all by myself.
Regards,
Rick
imo mike's tapes and seminars and reports etc etc are for begginers for the most part. I would not spend too much time looking for these types of tells rather , look for betting patterns of your opponents. You will find that it is more profitable too know the kinds of hands your opponents play for the most part, from different posisitions ,than to look for some specific mannerism or gesture that may or may not be a real tell. If you just have to know, then i would suggest buying his original book on tells and see if this is information that you need. if you are a beggining player, or fairly new to the game of holdem or stud, I would further suggest that you get a years worth of playing time in, and then go look at this stuff, you might have a different perspective. goodluck
Another reason to buy chips at the cage (where allowed) is so that the dealer's tray needs fills less often. Pardon me if I'm stating the obvious here.
Andrew,
This reminds me of something that happened a few months after Foxwoods opened up. They had a covered pit in the middle of the table containing the chips used for the game. The refill process took several minutes and all requests for chips went through the pit.
One time they were refilling the pit and the dealer knocked over a rack which made him nervous, the players grouchy and so on. A vicious cycle ensued in which more racks were knocked over, the players were in an uproar, and the game was delayed for 20 minutes. I think they had the sense not to charge time for that half hour.
Anyway, it was an experience I'll never forget.
Regards,
Rick
They still haven't even begun to master poker room management at Foxwoods, despite what you may have been led to believe in a certain Card Player editorial awhile back.
I think you get MUCH better value from the book. It covers quite a bit more. The action in the video is highly exagerated.
But I think the best "book of tells" is in Fox's Quit Work, Play Poker, Sleep till noon.
Ditto.
I am hoping to hear from you guys as to some recent hands where you have successfully pulled off a bluff checkraise on the river This is a seldom used (or talked about) play and we might all benefit from each other's experiences. I bring this up because I pulled one off last night (seems like it was the first one I had pulled off in over a month).
Anyway, the hand went like this:
I am in the big blind with 10h7h. No raise and we take the flop 5 handed (SB folded).
Flop: Qh9d2h
Everyone checks and the button (an unknown player) bets. I and two others call.
Turn: 2s
Button bets. I call and the other 2 fold.
River: 9s
I check and button bets. The pot now has $155.
I check-raise and the button folds. My reasoning was essentially that since I am an unknown entity to the button, he likely would not bet a Queen (or any other legitimate hand) fearing that I might be looking for the checkraise with the 9 (of course, if he was using his position to bet with a 9 on the flop and the turn, I was done for but I thought it was a chance worth taking). Accordingly, I took his bet to mean a busted draw and went for the gusto with the checkraise. Fortunately, it worked.
So, two things: Firstly, perhaps you may wish to comment on my play and secondly, and more importantly, I hope that you will provide some examples of your own of a bluff checkraise on the river.
Hm ...
I hate to say it but it seems to me that just betting the river could have had just the same effect at less cost at this particular instance.
The question is: which hands can he hold that he will bet on the river and drop for a checkraise versus which hands can he hold that he will drop for a bet on the river.
A rough analysis (disregarding hands that you beat with your ten high) shows that you are better off betting the river.
HOWEVER, you cannot habitually bet the river in that situation (for obvious reasons) hence let's analyze your checkraise bluff once you did check and he did bet. The minimal high hand that he may have is three nines (if he has a queen with good kicker most likely he would have raised preflop and if he has just a queen he will most likely check. The best bad hand that he may bet is: AJ or AT but even if we agree that he may have at most King high still there are many hands that he will bluff with versus hands that he will bet. Hence, I would say the checkraise is a positive expectation play.
Of course we need to be against an opponent that does not think at the third level. That is, an opponent that thinks what you may think would bet more hands for value and he will bluff less.
Take care.
Maria
Maria, I agree with you to a certain extent: you are right in that a bet is a good move IF you figure that he too is on a draw and missed but in this instance, I did not come to that conclusion until AFTER he bet the river. In other words, I had given up on the pot when I checked on the River but his bet suddenly made me smell a rat.
I think that you have a very valid point here.
Let's try to substantiate it mathematically.
case a: you bet the river with no tell from your opponent
case b: you do not bet the river
case c: you checkraise the river AFTER your opponent bets
Quite likely in my preceding response I compared (c) with (d)
case d: your opponent bets and you wish you had bet the river yourself.
So I will agree with you :).
Maria
one more situation might occur that has cost me money in low limit games, you can not bluff an opponent who isn't smart enough to know what is occuring. a few too many of my hands in small stakes tournaments seem to get called by small pairs and Ace highs. so you made the right play when you realized how weak he was but dont make it a plan of attack on the river always. good luck
Will this work often enough to give a positive expection?
Maria,
I think there is one more reason for making a checkraise-bluff on the river the better play. If you play against a tricky opponent, who is betting all the way with a draw or without anything, and you bet on the river having missed your draw, the other player might make a bluff-raise. But a bluff-reraise after being checkraised an the river with a scarecard is very rare.
Good luck
M.A.
I would politely disaggree.
The big issue here is that he may not bet the river and you may lose to anything that beats ten high.
I call in my defense the fundamental theorem of poker.
If your hand is the best then you need check.
If your hand is the worse but your opponent has less than a queen then you better bet.
Maria
Maria,
I think that there are only a few hands, that the button would not bet with AND not call with.
There are 6 different categories of hands the button might have:
1) a hand which he checks after you but wouldn´t have called a bet on the river
2) a hand which he checks after you but would have called a bet on the river.
3) a hand which he checks after you but would have raised a bet on the river.
4) a hand which he bets after your check with the intension of (probably cry-) calling a checkraise
5) a hand which he bets after your check with the intension of folding being checkraised
6) a hand which he bets after you and reraises after being checkraised.
Obviously my T high probably won´t win a showdown. But there are a lot of hands, an aggressiv and tricky player might have, which belong to the categories 2, 3, 5 (e.g. any Q, a missed flush draw). And against these type of hands a checkraise-bluff on the river might work pretty well. (Against some opponents maybe even better than just betting out after missing the draw).
I don´t wanna say, that this kind of play works all the time, of course not. But mixing up the strategie is IMO always worth taking some risks.
Good luck
M.A.
Check-raising a likely busted draw heads up with a worse busted draw should be a common play, but it isn't; well played.
I pulled myself out of a major slump with such a play, but AFTER the maniac got two calls on the end. I just KNEW they would not call: an apparent weak-tight player raising 3 players on the river when the board pairs is REAL convincing.
In addition to bluffing a bluffer as you did, check-raise bluffs on the river should be done when you know the last card could reasonably have given you a lagitimate hand that you could reasonably have AND would have reasonably played the way you did; AND you appear conservative on the river; AND the opponent has a psycological disorder grossly favoring risking one bet to win one bet (bet for value) and disfavoring risking one bet to win the whole pot (pay it off). There are many such people, especially those that used to play Draw where the river bets were significant compared to the size of the pot.
The key is "What hand would I be representing". The other key is to predict the card, since thinking it out after the card comes looks suspicious.
- Louie
PS. This stealing on the river gives considerable weight to Malmuth's "Appear tight is right" image. One stolen pot on the river can make up for LOTs of potential increases in pay offs with a "wild like" image.
Louie you write a great post! One thing on representing hand on river, when you raise you usually represent nuts or close to nuts. You decide how likely your opponent thinks you got the nuts.
Louie, agreed on all counts. I like your idea of pulling off the bluff raise when maniac bets and 3 people call. I am going to keep an eye out for a suitable opportunity.
It was an Omahaha high only; the three callers and myself knew he was betting a flush draw, but I'm the only one that knew everybody knew; nobody had enough to raise on flop or turn; and the board paired 4th card on the river and nobody had enough to raise; the last caller (to my right) was VERY reluctant to call; and I had only played two hands so far and both, of course, were the nuts.
This just HAD to be a golden time to pull off a *spectacular* multi-player bluff.
I must say, I've been pathetically proud of myself for years over that one (the timing in my "career" was perfect).
- Louie
Omaha high presents lots of opportunities for check-raise bluffs, because you often wind up in situations where you are splitting the pot with the person anyway, so you have nothing to lose.
For example, if I'm up against someone who makes a the same straight as I do, if a running flush comes in and I have the dry Ace I'll check on the river. Now, my opponent will often take my check as a sign that I didn't have the flush, and bet his straight for value. At this point, a check-raise bluff may push him off the hand and you get the whole pot. If you calls, you are no worse off.
In a similar vein, if you are in Omaha and you make the nut straight on the turn, if it's bet and raised to you the correct play may be to just call. You know you are splitting the pot anyway, perhaps 3 ways. But now if the board pairs on the river, or a flush comes in on the river, you have set up a situation where it looks for all the world like you were calling on a draw that just hit. The straights check to you, and you bet. They may both fold, or one may fold, but in either case your EV goes way up. Unless, of course, one of them was free-rolling with the same draw.
Dan
skp,
Good play, (maybe a little impulsive), bold move and a great result. Did you show your cards? It seems to me that your lifetime # of check-raise bluffs is going to be a real small #, and you want to keep getting calls when you check-raise with good hands on the turn and river.
Anyway (as usual) you are 2 steps or 2 years ahead of me. I am getting ready for my first check-raise bluff. Thats right, I've NEVER done it.
Got my guy all picked out. He is the most sensitive or alert to check-raises in our game, and he often folds in response. I use check-raise a lot in this HE game (usually on the turn) and am thought of as a tight, non-bluffing, player who usually has "got 'em". Almost all the others are still calling my check-raises, but its sometimes very grudging and they are wary.
The guy raises a lot pre-flop with some "iffy" hands, so I may try to isolate on him from a blind. Then I'll check-raise (probably on the turn) bluff. I intend to show my cards to the table even if he folds. I wanna get called on my next 100 check-raises.
Any tips, advice, or other things to think about?
Abe
Abe, you said:
"Did you show your cards? It seems to me that your lifetime # of check-raise bluffs is going to be a real small #, and you want to keep getting calls when you check-raise with good hands on the turn and river."
But the fact is that my lifetime # of genuine checkraises on the river will also be a relatively small number. Hence, I still believe that it is better not to show the bluff and in fact in my case I did not show my cards. I shrugged and just said "got lucky".
The funny thing is that a good friend of mine (also a good player) brought up the hand on our way home. He said it was obvious that I had pulled a fast one there. He said "you wouldn't have checked with a 9 because you would figure that the other guy would just check behind you with his pair of Queens but would call with them if you bet". That got me thinking that perhaps I really should increase the number of times that I make genuine checkraises on the River in order to camoflauge my bluff checkraises!
I think it is rude to show your cards in this situation. In general, I believe you gain more EV by being liked at the table rather than hated.
Justin
NOOOOOooooooo. Do NOT show your bluff.
As Justin pointed out its rude, and its bad business.
Its MUCH more profitable to do it again. If called, then PROUDLY and deliberately turn over your hand and reinforce it with something like "Read 'em and Weap!". They'll remember that.
- Louie
Hey, I thought I was the only one to do stuff like that... I'm new to hold'em (86 hours) so far in 3-6-6-9 and 4-8. I can't really do a play evalution due to neophytedom, but yep it works (if done in proper context). I'm a habitual check raiser (a possible hold over from 7 stud). I had sucess when I've check raised a lot during particular session with "real" hands. I then make sure I'm heads up (like you were) and not up against a river rat or some doofus who calls all of the time with trash. I like the play for two reasons. Hey, I thought I was the only one to do that sort of thing :) I'm new to hold'em (86 hours booked) so I won't go into play evaluation. All I can say is I'm a habitual check raiser (most likely a holdover from 7-stud play). I can say that yep it works!! , but I've only done it when I'm in a session where I've gotten the cards to do check raising on "real" hands. I've had other sessions where all I get is trash and become a folding station. No can do here. But hey, I like your style. So with that here are the reasons I've come up with to do or not to do:
1. I can win the pot. 2. If I'm caught speeding, I show the hand down anyway.
(Makes for good advertising). I believe one will get
more action on future check raises since the opponents
will never know if your check raise is on a "real" hand.
3. Caveat. My friend Marc has admonished me not to go
off the deep end on check raising in home games and
not to do it heads up in home games as well. It seems
that check-raising is irksome to some folks and I
do want to be invited back. At the Casinso, all I can
say is GO FOR IT!!
4. Of course I'd like feed back as well since I'm new.
Cliff "The Check Raise Meister".
Cliff, re: your comments on the advertising value of a bluff, I personally prefer Mason's approach as told by Louie in his post above.
Thanks, I went back and studied that post. It's time to go and study bluffing and check raise strategy in my S & M books again. :)
skp,
Nothing wrong with the play as long as you mix it up.
You may consider a semibluff check raise on the turn. this accomplishes a lot of things. You can win the pot right there. You will get action if another heart falls. But probably most importantly you drop the other callers who may have middle pair (like a nine) and play heads up against a likely bluffer.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
One play that you virtually never see is to bet the flop, bet the turn, and then check raise the river with a legitimate hand. So do you ever make this play? It tends to work against a weak player who is likely calling you down with a hand like top pair, weak kicker; and now bets the river when you check thinking that his questionable hand is really the best hand. If you do occasionally make this play and are up against someone who may have noticed you doing it, you can work in a check-raise bluff more successfully. However, keep in mind that if he has noticed you doing it, he is less likely to bet the type of hand that we are talking about.
Thank-you for reminding me why I spend countless hours on this forum. What an interesting idea to think about!
Good point.
This particular pattern of betting is not one that I have used much in the past probably because I am "scared" that my opponent will not bet behind me when I check.
I have to admit that this play just isn't in my normal bag of tricks. If I think a player was possibly on a draw, I will bet the river. For a check-raise bluff to work, you have to be sure that the opponent will bet, because he might check a hand that beats yours but that he couldn't call a bet with. That's a serious danger in this situation.
Second, you may be check-raising a legitimate hand. Against many players, even if they have as little as one pair they may call your check-raise. If they have a big hand, you may get re-raised.
Finally, I don't check-raise on the river much at all, because players in my game don't value bet nearly enough on the river. When I have the best hand, I usually have to bet it to extract calls. So a check-raise from me is going to look pretty fishy.
In your case this time, I understand the play. You were ready to give up, when an opportunity presented itself to you. You didn't check with the intention of raising, but suddenly recognized the situation you were in after the bet.
A lot depends on the nature of the players in your game. In the agressive CA no-fold'em games I play, a bet on the turn and a check on the river is always assumed to be a busted flush draw, and will encourage a bet by anyone with a pair almost every time. If I flop a set on a board that looks like a straight or flush draw, and my flop and turn bets ae just called, I will frequently check-raise a brick on the river successfully. In these games, I'll probably even get reraised by two pair. I don't think I've tried to check-raise bluff here though for the same reason--only a very few players will lay one down to that.
I doubt two board pairs is worth checkraise bluffing on the river primarily because there are too many hands with a weak ace that would *call to keep you honest* here. On the other hand if you know your opponent would bluff with JT, go for it!
I've tried the move three times in the past five years, all unsuccessfully. One I'm not at all pleased with occured against a decent player who has some poor tendencies like overplaying small pocket pairs. Board: 5s6s8c 7s 9d I had AhKs opponent had 6c6d, I checkraised the river - got reraised!? and mucked?! This player then flipped his cards face up, probably trying to tilt me for not check/calling and splitting the pot.
SKP -- I think you are bluff checkraising with the wrong types of hands! The hands you should do it with are check-and-call type hands. One of my recent checkraise bluffs was with a nondescript king-high board, where I had K9, a loose agressive player bet and a strong player called. They both showed kings as they folded; I'm sure the strong player had me beat. Another was with top-pair-top-kicker when there was an open-ended four card straight on the board. Another was heads up, where I had pocket sixes, and there were three overcards on the board, including the river card, and we had been checking all the way. Another was a hand where a wild player had been betting all the way, I had been calling with a flush draw, and another player had been overcalling. I made a pair of deuces on the end. I checked, and the other player checked. The wild player, who would often bet small pairs on the end, bet, and I raised and picked up the pot.
Notice that in all these cases, if my opponent or opponents check behind me, there is at least some chance I will win the showdown. I think this is an essential feature of a check-raise bluff -- it gives you several ways to win the pot! Also, they were generally hands where I could have made a weak call -- so in a sense, I was only risking one extra bet by checkraising.
William
William, you wrote:
"I think you are bluff checkraising with the wrong types of hands! The hands you should do it with are check-and-call type hands."
Different considerations apply in heads-up situations. For example, in the hand where you raised with the pair of deuces, you would never make that play if it was just heads-up with you and the wild thing. You would just call (in fact, sometimes a call may be enough even in a three way pot if you think that your call will stop the player behind you from overcalling...I'll provide an interesting example at the end of this post).
What I am saying is that you would never bluff checkraise heads-up with a check and call hand...in fact, isn't that a contradiction in terms?
You also wrote:
"Another was with top-pair-top-kicker when there was an open-ended four card straight on the board"
Again, given that you had top pair - top kicker, I would think that it is unnecessary for you to raise. The bettor is either bluffing or he has got the straight and ain't going nowhere after you raise. Most bettors in this situation are not going to bet with two pairs and those that do will make the crying call anyway after being raised.
Ok, as for the example I talked about...I can't remember where I read it but it goes something like this.
7 stud game.
Maniac bets at the end with a 3 flush and 3 straight showing. Player A is now next to act with QQxx showing. Player B is last to act with KKxx showing.
Player A calls! Player B then automatically puts player A on 2 pair or better and folds. Maniac shows his busted draw and Player A takes the pot. Now, that's an expert play!
skp:
OK, let me refine my statement a bit. What I should have said was:
"The hands you should [bluff checkraise] with are hands that you thought of as check-and-call type hands before you learned about bluff checkraising."
You have an interesting point on the straight. I probably would have won that pot just by calling, risking less money in the process.
In fact I would have raised the pair of deuces heads up with the wild one. He would frequently bet small pairs on the end, so he could have easily had a small pair which beat mine which he would release for the raise. I might have also made this play heads up against a good player -- it's very weak for a hand that might win by calling, which makes it just about ideal for the raise.
I believe an analysis of heads up straight limit poker would show that as the player acting first, you should rank your hands as follows:
bluff < check and fold < check raise bluff < check and call < bet for value, but fold if you are raised < bet for value, then bluff reraise if you are raised < bet for value, then call a raise < check raise for value < bet for value, then reraise for value if raised < even better hands worth still more raises . .
I think this ranking would apply to acting on the end in any limit game.
William
Most of my bluff check raises come when I know my player and know he is betting a draw or a busted A/K all the way.
Some of my bluff raises pop up in my head after I check and I see a bet then consider the size of the pot and the player who bets and look for tells.If I feel that the pot is big enough for a risk of 2bbs and I have a good feeling that I can pull it off I'm all for it. YEEHHHHAAAAA!!
Early stages of a limit hold'em tournament; 15-30 blinds 30-60 limit. I have about $400 in chips and average stack size is about $700 - $800. Table is nine handed and there are four other stacks about my size or smaller. The limits are only a few minutes away from going up.
It is folded around to me in late-middle position, I have Kh-Jh and raise. Only the small blind calls. He has maybe $550 in chips and is an experienced tournament player. The flop is Ks 10s 2c. He bets immediately. I raise and he reraises. I figure he must have a pretty strong hand to make it three bets and he probably wouldn't overplay middle pair or top pair week kicker given that he is relatively short stacked himself and would probably just call if he is on a straight or flush draw. I flash my King to him and fold. Afterwards, he tells me that he had a bigger kicker (I didn't show him my kicker), but I'm not sure that I believe him.
Do you think I made the correct play?
Since, his stack is smaller than yours, and he called your raise, I would figure him for a pretty strong hand. Unless he's the type that likes to bluff a lot. Without knowing anything really about his play, I would have folded after he bet, assumming he's experienced and appears to play well.
The flop didn't hit your suit. Your only real win is to catch a J on the turn or river. I believe it's a clear fold.
It sounds like you're still very far from the money, so you are still playing to win chips, and tournament considerations don't mean much yet.
At the time you folded, there was T300 in the pot. You had T280 left in your stack. Calling him down, if he bets all the way, will cost you T150 more. Thus, there are about 3 otions.
Fold, and play on with T280.
Call and lose, and have only T130.
Call and win, and have T730.
Which play is correct depends entirely upon the player. If he is not prone to bluffing, then folding is the best play, as you are getting less than 2:1 on your remaining calls for calling him down. If he is prone to bluffing, or could make this play with K9, AT, QQ, a draw, or less, then calling him down is probably best. If you're guess that he has AK, KQ, KT, or K2 is right, then you've only got about 10-12% chance of catching up. Other hands he might have, such as 22 or TT give you no chance of catching up (well, OK, runner-runner straight is still an out). Overall, your chances of improvement don't change the answer much. The answer lies in your estimation of whether or not he's ahead right now.
Since you thought he wasn't bluffing, you made the correct play. The only question you should ask is whether your judgment that he had you beat is correct.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Hi everyone! I am blackjack card counter with much experiance and a limited bankroll. My mother is an avid FW 7 card stud 20-40 player.
I am going on a quick fun trip with some friends to FW and/or MS this week. I was interested at sitting down at a 1-3 or 1-5 Hold Em table.
My question is, is there any quick advise anyone can offer me for playing? I have read many times on the BJ pages that low limit Hold Em is a very easy game to play and beat. Are there any quick suggestions anyone can offer me. I am vagly familiar with 7 card stud. I have played low limits occasionally, and have not faired well. Is this game harder to play and/or beat at low limits? Can quick adivse be offered for this game, or is Hold Em much eaiser? I have also herd that low limit stud can't be beat becuase of the rakes. Comments?
I might think about getting more involved and knowledgable in either Hold em or stud, or even both. At that time I will make another post with suggestions on where to go, but if anyone has anything to say now, that would be nice as well.
Thank you to all!
You're best bet is going to be to pick up a copy of Sklansky's "Hold 'em Poker" at your local bookstore and give it at least the once over before you sit down. If you've got any kind of a grip on the advice Sklansky gives, you should be able to hold your own in any low limit game.
If you don't have that much time to learn the game, I suggest "The Fundamentals of Poker." It's only $3.95. The luck factor is high in this game. It's not unheard of for someone who does not know how to play to win big (or loose big).
When you look at your hole cards...if they are not "LOOKING BACK" at you (or Aces) ,,,,,FOLD!
Good Luck,
Jim Mogal
Neither FW nor MS offer 1-3 or 1-5 HE. Both casinos offer 7stud at these limits. Both offer 3-6 HE (at FW it is usually a kill game, where winning a pot above a certain size means you must post $5 and the next hand is played at limits of 5-10). Occasionally, they will offer 2-4 HE.
I would recommend playing 1-3 stud. However, if you want to win, you must wait for situations where you believe that you have the highest pair. The only other playable hands are 3-card straights and/or flushes, and then only if you can get in for the $1 bring-in. Every other hand should be tossed unless you are experienced enough to play them well. Typically, by the time you're at that level of experience, you'll be playing in a bigger game anyway.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
It's not easy to beat$5.00 HE. A recent example, a woman utg re-raises with Kings preflop. A king flops with a rainbow flop. She bets out. Qh-2h guns her down on the river. This is not an aberration. Several "seasoned" {i.e. casino employees, consistantly bet 5-6 offsuit, 2-9 offsuit, etc...and they rarely lose. Perhaps its because the dealers do not properly shuffle.I've seen AA,KK gunnned down so many times by 9-2, 25o, that it makes Sklanky's books sound just like bad advice. Certainly bad play should eventually be punished, but not if your being "Home Towned". My advice is to play 10-20.
I recently posted three hands and would like to be able to figure out the probabilities for the following:
1)AK suited against any pair below Kings with both players going all-in.
2)Axs against any pair below Aces. The person with the Axs is on the button and the pair is either in the SB or BB.
3)Is there a method to calculate position. For example. If I have AQ unsuited and go all-in two from the button. There are now 4 more players to act.
Can someone show me the mathematical formulas for calculating these probabilities.
In the second example arent you forgetting to mention if the "X" is higher or lower than your pair? Obviously this makes a huge difference since if it pairs and its higher than the pair it provides three more outs. Second how much is the all-in bet you make in number 3? Position wont matter much if you are putting in $50 in a game with blinds of say $10 and $20, you are gonna get called a great deal of the time. I havent played all that much NL, but one thing I have noticed is that it seems like players in the blinds actually dont have that bad a position in one respect and that is if they have a big hand or are making a gutsy move, they can make a large reraise preflop and pretty much have seen some information from every other player. Since often times this move will require an all-in bet the player's positional disadvantage would be nullified in this situation. Any thoughts on this?
For example, I have pocket Kings in the SB and the button and I move-in for the same amount of chips. Let's say we know for sure he has an Ace because he flashed it and his kicker is lower than a King. I know the pocket Kings are the favorite , but how many times will it lose if an Ace shows up on the board?
After we figure this out, lets say that the button has 3 times as many chips as the SB. Is the SB still the favorite?
I'm confused. How does it matter if he has 3 times as many chips? If the SB is all-in preflop, what the button has left in his stack is irrelevant.
I don't know exactly, but KK is a significant favorite over Ax, where x is Q or lower. Let's just say that in a ring game, you should always be willing to go all-in preflop with KK, unless there is reason to suspect someone else has AA.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
These are based on "cold" simulations (without overlapping suits) and are therefore only applicable when both opponents go to the river:
(1) AKs runs the gamut from being just over a 46% dog against QQ to just over a 50% favorite against 22.
(2) It depends on how big the "x" in Axs is compared to the size of the pair. A9s is virtually even money against 22, but A2s is a 33% underdog to 99. To get an accurate answer I guess you'd need to look at all 144 combinations.
(3) I'm not sure what you mean by "calculate position," but obviously your chance of winning with an above average hand goes up with fewer players. For what it's worth, AQo is about a 65% favorite over one random hand, but only a 37% favorite over 3 other random hands. But I don't see how this information is useful.
Knowing that AK are two overcards against QQs or 22s or any other pairs, why is it that AK is 46% underdog to QQ and favorite over 22!!!
Because sometimes there will be two pairs on the board at the river which counterfeit the pocket deuces and make the ace kicker boss.
Also, QQ but not 22 tends to block the broadway.
By a bluff I mean a bluff,not a semibluff bet/raise I mean for example making late position bets when everyone has checked or check on the flop and when somebody bets the turn and you know they're on a steal attempt you raise and try to win the pot right then and there ect..
In tight games my bluffing is around 10 hands every 100 hands and in loose games with no fold'em hold'em players its around 5.I would appreciate feedback from the forum posters especially the regulars (mason,ray,slansky,gd,skp,fossilman,mogal,hanson,wells,landale,nebiola,dazzler,maria ect...abdul,lepore?;()The methods you most use when you try that bluff mentioned in your posts would be nice.
Thanks for contributing guys!
I rarely bluff without some sort of value in the hand (i.e. I'd much rather semi-bluff). However, quite often I bet a hand that most people would think is a bluff, but I bet because I think it's the best hand.
Example from the 15-30 game I played in the other day. I have KQd. I call in early position, one late position player calls, and the big blind checks. The flop is A93 rainbow. The big blind checks, and I bet.
My bet here wasn't a bluff. I honestly thought there was a better than 50% chance that I had the best hand. As it turned out, both players folded and I won the pot. That's not a bluff.
I love being caught bluffing with the best hand :) Just last night I played Ad4d, flopped 2 diamonds and bet. Two callers. Turn is 4h, I bet again, 1 caller. River is blank, I bet, last caller said "Your just missed your diamonds" and called. He was right, and my 4s won the pot. I would not have made the turn and river bets without the pair of 4s or some other extra outs, but it was a bluff in the sense that I didn't reallt expect--though I suspected there was a chance--that it was the best hand.
Another type of bluff I like is when I've been calling the flop and turn with something like small pair + a straight draw, and the river is a scare card like a flush card or obvious straight-filler (especially if it paired me instead of filling). A raise here will scare some out.
I don't really keep track of pure bluffs, but I'd guess it's somewhere around 5% of all hands where I'm still involved on the flop. I certainly agree with skp in that I would always prefer some sort of semibluff, even if that means just two outs if called. For a pure bluff (which is therefore a river proposition) much depends on my perception of how much it seems my opponent likes the board relative to what hand(s) I have to this point put that player on. For example I am much more inclined to bluff when the scariest possible card hits the river if I believe someone has been pushing a hand like top pair, as opposed to some other valid drawing hand which this scare card might not have helped. I also try to avoid putting myself in a predicament where the only way left to win the pot would be a successful bluff by finding out early in the play what I'm up against. It is of course crutial to know what the minimum hand is someone will call with just to pick off a possible bluff. For some players it might be AX, for others a mediocre unimproved pair will suffice. Obvoiusly I would rather be bluffing the player with the tighter calling tendencies, and be rewarded for having paid attention all those hands where I'm out of the pot early.
Sorry Dan, I meant that I agreed with your post. Skp hadn't yet responded. Canadians sure write alike!
That's because we're all Pod People.
As a statisical freak I can tell you I bluff on average 7 times per 100.
This information is derived over 1400 hours of play averaging 21 hands per hour (unfortunatelyCanadian dealers/poker managers are not well versed in efficient dealing).
unless good reason to do otherwise:
bluff every time the pot offers more bets than the chances of getting called and losing.
thru experience and trial and error(at your expense) you will learn to be pretty accurate.
In a loose game, I almost never bluff, as there is almost never a chance to do so with positive EV. I'd say 1 hand in a hundred.
In a tight game, I bluff maybe 5 times in a 100. In a short-handed game, I bluff 10-30 timesin a 100.
2 caveats. By bluff, I mean bet or raise after the flop with a hand that I expect will lose if shown down. Also, when I count 100 hands, I mean 100 hands where I'm involved, not 100 hands dealt to me (as preflop I've folded 50-90 of the hands dealt to me, depending upon whether the game is full or short, loose or tight).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I guess it's tough to come up with averages but I would guess that I attempt stone cold bluffs (usually at small to medium sized pots) on average once every two hours (you should know that I play in a game where typically 5 to 8 players see the flop whether it be for 1 small bet or 4 small bets).
Note: I am not including plays where I raise preflop with AJs, the flop comes three rags and I bet against say two opponents. That to me is not a bluff...it's just business as usual and as Dan points out, often it's a bet with the best hand.
Most of my stone cold bluffs come either from early position on the turn after everyone has shown weakness on the flop or from late position on the flop after the action has been checked to me.
Some of my favourite bluffs are set out in my 2 essays found on this site.
A carpenter is only as good as his tools.
I take no joy in this post because I don’t get any kicks out of a knocking a legitimate effort to model Texas Hold’em.
Anyone who’s tried knows how difficult it is to do.
Abdul, by his own admission, relied heavily on TTH 2 and TTH 3.
Here are two hands.
One from TTH 2 and one from TTH 3.
They were discovered after about five hours play with each.
TTH 2:
Button has two black fours.
All fold to him and he raises.
SB calls and BB folds.
Flop: 7c As 7s
SB bets and button calls.
Turn: Ad
SB bets and button calls--note that the only hand he can beat is 32.
River: 9d
SB bets and button calls.
The Turn and River calls just can’t be correct.
========
TTH 3:
All fold to button who raises with Th 8d.
SB reraises and BB folds.
Button Folds!
To be fair, I think folding 10 8 is only slightly incorrect aginst many players.
I got the impression that Erin was critical of a laydown to a reraise from the small blind when stealing in general. I'll admit that I don't often decline to see the flop in this spot, but then again I don't think T8 is worth trying to steal all but the tightest of blinds anyway.
Just because your method is flawed, that doesn't mean you necessarily got the wrong answer ("An apple is a kind of fish; all fish grow on trees; therefore, apples grow on trees.") So the fact that TTH is clearly flawed doesn't necessarily imply that Abdul's results are wrong. If he simulated millions of hands, and some small percentage of those were played clearly wrong, the majority that were not would dominate the results anyway. Also, since his results are so similar to S&M's, with a few changes that generally make sense to experienced players, it is likely that his results are at least as accurate as theirs.
I have TTH 2 and 3. I agree that the play is not like real games, but it can be instructive. One question is which TTH players made these plays? TTH has a lot of different player profiles, and some of them are suppose to play poorly.
I do not think TTH does a what hand could my opponent have and can I beat it analysis. In low limit games I have seen players make calls as stupid as the first example. In the second example, I have noticed that TTH tries to steal from the button almost anytime it is checked around.
What I have found TTH most useful for is to use the stack deck option to deal yourselve some marginal hand in a fixed position and play it over and over again. In an hour you can play that hand 100 or more times. It gives you an appreciation of how good the advice from the experts really is. You occasionally bring in a big pot with things like small pairs, but you lose more than you win.
I have also done this with hands that experts say are marginally playable. You quickly realize how important the play after the flop is to your EV. If you don't lay these hands down when they are probably beat, they will be -EV.
I have decided to let you in on a secret about poker that has made me thousands. I won't charge you for this information, because even though I will tell you exactly what to do, you will most likely not be able to succeed. First, forget about the small differences in starting hand selection made by Abdul. S&M's are just fine. Okay here is the secret : There are 2 things you can do to be a long term winner in this game.(tee hee)
# 1 play with people who don't play as good as you. ( you only need to have 2 in your game )
# 2 Don't let losses affect your play.
If you can do those two things I will guarantee you that you will be a long term winner. After you have learned the basics those 2 rules are the most important to success.
Of course the better you play, the easier it is to follow Rule #1
Yes rule number 1 requires solid playing. But if you learn the basics and follow the advice in yours and others books you will very quickly be able to spot players that play too many hands, call too much etc., so you don't need to be world class to make money at lets say 10-20 15-30.right?? But playuing in games where most of the table plays reasonable ain't going to get there.
There is a world of difference between "making money" and "making the most money possible." Post-flop play is clearly as important as pre-flop play, if not more important, but there is still profit to be maximized by correct pre-flop play. While some of the differences in the Abdul rankings and the S&M rankings are minute, there are some important differences that I'd like to see discussed. For example, Abdul's rankings rank smaller pairs a bit higher than the S&M rankings. I'd be interested in hearing discussion on that topic.
if i recall, Abdul plays at higher limits than HFAP. Thus i would suspect fewer players in the pot, maybe heads up, and thus even small pairs would go up in value.
Abdul is no longer contributing to this forum. Why take pot shots at him and his research when it's clear you also read RGP? Preaching to the choir is a real ego boost, huh?
Jeff, Abduls posts are very articulate, but his only frame of reference is computer analysis. This is the area that he is schooled in. I know from another experience that he doesn't seem to be able to do any type of straight logical analysis . he needs it too be in bits and bites.
In other words he is nothing more than an interpreter of data, not really a innovative thinker. This is why most all of his posts are regarding these kinds of anlysis. Although I feel they are important, I think there has been way too much praise as he has really not come up with anything new or extrodinary tyo the poker or gambling world. if you want to see more of his posts, he probably is over at the blackjack site that he moderates.
I ddddddddddidn't see any pot shots that you spoke of, so now you have one, I guess.
Of course you are right mr. raisemeister about direct criticism of Abdul. After reading the original post by Erin I must say that I was mistaken. It now looks to me like Erin was simply pointing out some flaws in TTH2 and TTH3. The implicit message is, don't trust the results of TTH2 since the programs screw up. Abdul has responded to this issue before and I hate to speak for Abdul but his stance is that he uses the scientific method in analyzing the results. As far as being an innovative thinker well a lot of people on RGP and probably at least some on this forum would disagree with you and call him a highly innovative and deep thinker. Your entitled to your opinion and believe it or not I respect it. Repeat I agree with you there were no direct pot shots at Abdul. If the programs screw up it isn't his fault.
Perhaps it's not a direct pot shot, but I don't think it's fair to discuss the work of an author in a forum in which he is not allowed to respond.
Jeff,
I justed double checked rgp and noted that David has participated at least twice in Abdul's thread which was started by Abdul on Monday at 5:27 a.m. (according to my Netscape Messenger Program). So I don't see where he is being gutless at all.
Regards,
Rick
As another poster asked, which player profiles made these plays? Some "flawed" player profiles are included to make it possible to mimic easier games. However, the better players, in both V2 and V3 would not play as Erin described.
In situation 1, the better players (both tight and average) would not call, on either the turn or the river, with a pocket under-pair looking at a 2-pair board.
In situation 2, the better players (both tight and average), having raised on the button, would not laydown after a reraise by the SB.
To prove this with either version, it's easy to stack the deck and freeze the button to recreate and test the situations described by Erin.
Bob,
I concur fully. It would be helpful if Erin could tell us which profile was on the button in both instances. With regards to his first example, play on the turn and river is determined by the bet variable for a pocket underpair in last-to-act position with a two-pair board, which happens to be either X1 or P0 for all profiles in TTH2 ( X1 = if no one has bet, make the first bet but fold if raised. If anyone did bet before it gets to you, fold. P0 = check; fold if a bet is made). So it is highly unlikely Abdul would have run into this inconsistency.
As for Erin's second example, all serious TTH3 profiles that I inspected will call SB's reraise, after having raised with T8o on the button. Once again, I'm not doubting his observations, but believe that it should have no effect on a well controlled simulation. This is not to say that you will not find any questionable preflop or postflop decisions in TTH3 - their overall effect , however, has been covered by other posters in this thread.
Etienne
I reproduce, without comment, two email replies from Bob Wilson regarding the hands I mentioned.
Let’s not lose the point here.
Bob Wilson is a terrific programmer and, I’m sure, will make any reasonable changes to improve his players.
Abdul has worked hard and writes well and I have learned quite a bit from his previous posts on this and rgb.
My only point is that these simulations,done at a time before the program /is/was/will be/ tuned up, cannot possibly ( sorry, make that unlikely ) be correct.
===================
Thanks for the e-mail. I assume you have the "moves" option, under "toughness" turned on. This makes players look for attempts to steal pots and to defend against them if they have a chance to win or split the pot.
You're right, the only way Trickie could win is vs. 32. Howeverr, he can split vs pairs of 6 or worse or vs. 8x, like 86 of spades.
Having said that, I think his hand is still too weak to defend in this situation. I'll make a change in this area.
Bob Wilson
=====================
You're right. Actually Adv_t does call but the automatic advisor folds this one-gap off suit hand. He should call. I'll make this change.
Bob Wilson
Let me start this comment off by saying that I have not inspected or looked at in any way the new version of TTH.
I believe that part of the problem the program is having is its past reputation. The fact is that earlier versions did play terrible. Mr. Wilson, you should remember that about four years ago I asked for my money back because it played so terribly. (To Mr. Wilson's credit he did refund it.) During this time no one associated with the TTH programs (that I know of) would acknowledge anything negative towards their product.
I suspect that this is part of the problem. Your potential customers are reluctant to be positive towards your products based on past history. However, I suspect that they really have improved and probably improved a lot. I still wouldn't use them as a serious research tool for the reasons that I give on our essay page. But I do believe, based on comments from others that they do now have a lot of value.
It would probably help your credibility if you would discuss exactly what changes you have made in your programs over the years and why they have become a worthwhile product. (I suggest that you do this in detail on your page, not here. But a quick summary here would be o-kay.)
The profiles in TTH are transparent.
Their strategy seems to be flawed and at times complicated but the main point is that it is transparent.
I would like to ask Mason how much does he think can he beat a player with completely transparent strategy and the best poker face. As an exaple, how much per hour (per hand it would be a more appropriate measure) can he beat advisor 2 (tuned for heads up play).
I am not affiliated with Bob Wilson. I have used TTH and it seems to me that it is beatable. BUT I believe that it is not that much beatable. Which tells us, and this is my contention point, that the whole idea of learning poker at this point in time is beyond devising a strategy but in devising AND hiding a strategy AND reading your opponents AND outsmarting your opponents.
BTW: if Mason believes that he can create a strategy that it is much better than advisor 2 then I would like to hear about it. But let's face it, even if he does it then the question would be: how much can he beat his own strategy. At some point, we are going to device a strategy which even though it is transparent it can lose very little by any other strategy. Mathematically speaking, I am looking for the strategy with minimum loss by any other strategy and I conjecture that this strategy would lose less than 5/1000 = 0.005 big bets per hand = less than .15 big bets per hour (for an hour consisting of 30 hands).
I would strongly suggest that we strive to find this strategy (I believe that Mason and Sklanski can come very close (or are already very close to it)) and then start reevaluating our poker analysis methodology.
Maria
We are talking about TTH type of strategy; that is definition of a TTH profile.
If we did not have this limitation then the optimal strategy would have expectation zero. However, that kind of strategy may (just may) be very complicated whereas a TTH profile can be memorized and immitated rather easily.
Maria
Mason, Mr. Wilson will correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that his software has evolved like a lot of software evolves. He had a concept for a program, probably a lot of original thought into how to implement the program, and then worked very hard to implement it. From what I understand he consulted and still consults with a professional player in developing this software. He did a lot of testing on his own and started selling it. Then he found out about all the things he didn't test and all of the features that he didn't think of. This is certainly not a knock on Mr. Wilson. Just look at the original release of Windows 95 as an example. There is nothing like having your software used by a diverse number of users to uncover all of it's problems. His first version was a DOS version and he had to convert it to run on Windows which I am sure was no trivial task. He probably discovered a lot of ways that this software could be improved from an implementation stand point to incorporate strategy changes and provide new features. So now he has had to probably re-design a lot of his code to utilize Windows, make it adaptable to adding new and improved features, and somehow make it flexible enough to incorporate strategy enhancements on a continuing basis. I am quite sure that this was a daunting task for Mr. Wilson. This cycle is no doubt repeated continuously. I suspect that the scruting of his Texas Hold'em software is much more intense and thus I would venture to say that his Texas Hold'em programs are the most advanced but I am speculating here with that statement. As far as how Mr. Wilson has modeled poker with his programs, I would think that making some assumptions on his paradigm of user profiles and the interfaces that he has provided for adjusting play give pretty good clues to how he has modeled poker play. I think that all the scrutiny and discussion of the validity of TTH3 is appropriate because this program is proprietary and sold for a profit although I am sure that Mr. Wilson has put in copious hours and the payback is deserved. As a research tool, I have my doubts but indeed I need to alleviate these doubts by doing my own work with this program. As a fun game and entertaining game I think it is great. I am not sure if there is any source code in the public domain who's mission is to play a sophisticated brand of poker ala Mr. Wilson's software. I would guess probably not but this would speed the evolution of poker playing software tremendously. Tom Haley
Exactly right.
This has just gotta be one of those times that a hundred eyes are better than two eyes.
Or ten eyes.
What good books are out there on pot-limit hold'em? Is Championship No-Limit and Pot-Limit Hold'em good? Is Brunson's Super System known for pot-limit hold'em too or just no-limit hold'em?
I studied Championship pot limit and hold em before a recent trip to England. I was able to hold my own in pot limit game the first time I played ,thanks to this book.Pot limit was lots of fun. THE PAPA
I recently played in a well known underground casino where the "owner" of the casino frequently plays as well as manages. He sells chips from his own stack but will never go tap (as a table rule). He will get up and replenish his stack from time to time.
As a skilled player in limit hold`em I track myself religiously (collect a multitude of stats).
In a recent session (5/10 structured hold`em), I held 6s 6d (on the puck). With 6 players in (including the owner, who sat in Seat 11 and was the second after the big blind). The flop brought Ac 6h 8s. The flop was checked by both the small and the big blind, the owner who plays SEMI erratic hesitated and then checked. The next player bet, the following raised and I re-raised on the button. The blinds folded and the owner called $15 cold. The rest of the players called.
Tim the original raiser is well respected as an excellent player and draws enormous respect whenever he makes a move. The turn brought a 3d and Tim once again bet and I raised. The owner paused, paused and eventually called $20 FOR (a gut shot straight chance). Not only do I need not to finish this story but I cannot understand HOW someone could call in this situation unless he/she knew the next card.
The magic 9h was revealed as the river card and his 7s 10c (yes.. offsuit) collected the winnings.
Q1: How can a player identify whether or no the dealer is fixing the deck/game? (Seat 11 was an indication but what other indications should a player be looking for. Note: this is not a team play question)
Q2: Given that this is the only game within a 4 hour drive, how does one deal (pardon the pun) with this situation?
I've seen many worse plays, so I wouldn't chalk this up as cheating. Now, if this guy normally plays a good game, but everytime he makes some out of line calls he wins, then you'd have good reason to be suspicious.
Keep your eyes open, but continue to play if you've been making a profit.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Well as long as the dealer uses a cutcard on the bottom of the deck when dealing you're pretty safe.I play in south florida where it is only legal to gamble on cruise ships for live games.Needless to say I play in a lot of housegames and private clubs. Let me tell you I have seen a lot of sh t go down.Most common cheats are when the dealer palms redbirds for the house and then dropping them in a cardboard box next to him on the floor(whenever you see a housegame with a rake box on the floor instead of a slot for it on the table it's a 99.99% tell that the dealer is palming chips).Dealers also drop rakes 2 or even three times in a single hand and when mentioned they say that they made a mistake and were dealing all day and needed sleep. When some of the dealers that also play in the housegames go light in a pot ,their buddy that is dealing won't ask him to put the money in the pot if he has lost the hand,if you mention it the dealer will always say that he was getting to that , I was just about to ask him for it or if you ask about it a few hands after he'll say that he already did .Goodluck
I agree with the cut card. In addition, if he burned the top card it is also safe. For the dealer to know that the owner needs a 9 and just happened to find one on top of the deck and dealt the second card as a burn card is very unlikely. If it is the case I beleive the dealer would work somewhere else where he can make a lot of money. So, there are a multitude of players who play bad and this is why we make a living. Yes, it is very upsetting to loose with pocket KK's when a player draw a runner runner to an inside straight draw. We all experience it from time to time. The best thing to do is smile because the money will come back with interest.
Please comment on the value of an ace. The higher the games, the more aggressive I see *some* players with hands like A8o, A5s, etc.
They play theses hands fast, opening the the pots with a raise from middle position on.
They win a lot of pots with a pair of aces and sometimes ace high. Sometimes they get burried!
Is this good aggressive poker or stupid?
Thanks
The players are generally more aggressive and play "faster" in the bigger games with or without an ace. If the blinds are weak-tight or if they see that the players behind them are getting ready to fold, or if they discern any other edge they might have, they will try to take advantage of this by raising and taking charge with a holding that might otherwise be folded.
One very good player I know told me that he will raise from the last 3 positions, in a pot that has been folded to him, when he looks at just his first card and sees an Ace. Sometimes he will have a legitimate raising hand, but other times he will have a weaker hand and, if he get to show the hand down, it appears that he is loose, having raised with, for example, A-6 offsuit. It's kind of a way to give the appearance of playing loose without really doing it.
Ax offsuit is a good holding heads-up against a random hand, except that your opponents don't have random hands. If someone does have a higher ace, you're dead, and the odds of being contested with several players remaining are fairly high. Ax where x is from 2 to 9 is a hand for which it's often difficult to know the correct play, and you will find yourself either laying down winning hands to semibluffs or calling a lot when outkicked. Also, if you are known to often try and steal with these hands you will have a hard time stealing blinds or pots. If you virtually always have an ace in hand, you become very easy to read. Even in a very tight game, I don't think I would play these hands except to open-raise from the button against tight-passive opponents. (See HFAP section on preflop play-"Late position") Ax suited is a better hand, but prefers a crowd. You want several players in to give you odds for your flush draw. (And ideally, have the Kx or a connector in your suit enter the pot, as well as a lower Ax - none of which would play in a raised pot) Unless there's a good chance of winning the blinds, I would tend to not raise this hand.
If 2ed Place in the above event pays 19% (2ed's 1999 payout). What will happen when this event has 527 entries if the present fixed payout sched. remains the same?
Winner will get $1,500,000 and 2nd will get approx $700,000.
They need to start paying the winner more than $1KK immediately. It's a joke how the payout gap btwn 2nd and 3rd was wider than btwn 1st and 2nd. The winner should get at least 35% of the total.
..paying 36 places is too many. This is the World's Championship, not some freeroll. That 'extra' $135,000 should've gone to first, which would've made the winner's share 28.88% of the pool, roughly equivalent to golf and tennis tournaments, and remember, there is NO sponsor money at the WSOP.
If they wanted to make it more like a tennis/golf tournament they would have paid far more places than ~10%. In golf tournaments about 1/2 the players make money. Do you seriously believe someone who came in the top 10% doesn't deserve to be rewarded?
Danny S
I don't know the payout schedule, but there are two ways of addressing larger fields.
The first is to gurantee the $1 Million, and have two payout schedules, one which pays one million to first, and percentages to the lower places (for smaller fields), or to award first place a percentage for larger fields, which would be over $1 Million.
The second is to just increase the number of tables paid.
I think that most players would prefer the latter, as it would cut down on the large deviations, but still award a nice chunck to 1st place.
Geo: As usual I worded my Q? wrong. During the past few years 1st, while recieving 1mm, has been getting a smaller portion of the prize money. At 527 entries 2d will get more than 1st. T4; What course of action wld u recommend to Bob Thompson, who has always been open to suggestions?
T4; I assume u recommend paying more places! Do you think this would a] Increase participation? and/or b] improve the chance for corp. participation?
I do recommend playing more places. And I do think it will increase participation.
One thing that keeps players out, especially the $10,000 event, is that you must finish very high, or be out 10 grand. I think that taking a shot at a million, knowing that if you make the last 5 or 6 tables you'll still make a profit, will make more people put up the $10,000.
The WSOP used to be winner take all way back when . It's the players who wanted more places paid. Also, as Jack Binion pointed out, $1 Million is the magic number. As long as first pays that, everyone has that big nut to shoot for.
$10,000 is a lot for almost all poker players. And there are many excellent NL Hold'em tournament players who don't enter the WSOP because of the buy-in. Just look at how many enter the cheaper (WSOP) events. Paying more players will get many more of them to enter satellites, or put up the cash, knowing they have a good chance of getting their money back and more.
I think that if they continue on the track they're on, they'll have over 500 entries in a few years.
Also, if more places are paid, the structure will be less lop-sided, and they'll be fewer deals made. This will tend to make poker more attractive to corperate sponsors. The current deal-making looks suspicious to non poker players, and to many players alike. How would it look if deals were known to be made by the top golf or tennis finishers? The public would suspect less than top effort by the athletes; They would watch less, and the corporate dollars would dry up.
Very good insights. I for one would like to see this at least tried. Bob Thompson, when he was involved with the "Stairway to the Stars(?)", used an expanded payout sched. based on the number of tables.
I'm off to Vegas and staying at the Mirage this whole weekend (Friday - Monday)!!! I'm booked in at the poker rate and will therefore be playing a minimum of 30 hours... though I'm sure I'll play more.
My question is: What Hold'em stakes lend themselves to the most fish on a table (2-4,4-8,10-20 etc.).
Thanks a lot.
$3-6, $6-12, $10-20, $20-40, $40-80, in that order, although live games can erupt at any level. If you're seriously considering playing as low as $2-4, think hard about venturing into a $10-20 game.
.
Thanks Chris,
I wasn't really serious about 2-4, but I just wanted to get an opinion on the full spectrum. Based on your answer, I'll be playing a lot of 6-12 & 10-20.
In the future, please put this kind of post on our Exchange Forum.
Thanks: Mason
For the past 12 years my "deal-your-own" card club has had the rule if a card is turned before the betting is completed that card is returned to the stub (with the burn), the bets matched, then a new burn and turn are dealt. This also applies to the flop and turn/river and also any card in 7 stud! It works ok and is based on USA rules.
We play mostly limit, but we also play half/full pot and No limit hold'em (all cash) plus tourneys. Some regulars want to change the rule to the CARD STAYS and the betting is then matched, then betting continues on the early exposed board card. (if the flop comes early it is returned and shuffled).
I don't like the idea of the change. Imagine a NL hold'em game you hold J.Q. the flop comes 9.8.A (os). The BB goes all in for $1100 into a $200 pot (he holds A.Q), the pot is heads up and before you can call the dealers burns and turns a 10. You can now fold or match the bet! Crazy rule? Agree? Any thoughts folks. Thanks in advance for any comments! Dazzler
What is the rationale from those that want the turned card to stay? What is the problem that they are trying to solve with a rule change?
A Poker Guy!
They want the CARDS to stay so "the shuffle and cut and cards flow as intended...the order remains the same".
Dazzler,
I'm confused about your current rule since as described it doesn't quite make sense nor is it similar to what we do in Los Angeles where I play and work as a floorman.
For example, you wrote: "...if a card is turned before the betting is completed that card is returned to the stub (with the burn), the bets matched, then a new burn and turn are dealt." Where does the new card come from if the prematurely burned and turned card is returned to the deck?
Maybe it will help if I describe what we do in Los Angeles. In a button game (holdem and Omaha), if a card is burned and turned before the action is complete on fourth street, the burn is left with the burns and the prematurly turned card is taken out of play and held to the side. The action is completed then we reburn and turn the fourth street card from the stub (this means you get the card you would have got on the river on fourth street). After fourth street action is completed, we take the card that was prematurely turned, shuffle it into the deck and put down the river card without a burn (BTW, I agree with Ciaffone that we should change the rule so we reburn here). It is concievable that the prematurely turned card could come back on the river.
If this happens on the river, once again the prematurely turned card is taken out of play, action completed, then the prematurely turned card is shuffled back into the deck and a new river card put down without a burn (once again I think we should change so we burn again here).
I'll leave out the stud varient for now so the post doesn't get too long.
As far as your clubs proposed rule (if I understand it correctly), I don't see how a prematurely turned card can stay and the person who didn't complete his action gets to do so knowing what is coming next.
I'll try to follow this thread for the next couple of days if you have any more questions or clarifications.
Regards,
Rick
Your method is exactly the way it is done in Canada, and this method is enforced by the Gaming Commission.
Just out of curiousity, wouldn't it be better to shuffle all the cards back in with the muck and turn one from there? Putting the exposed card back in with the stub can change the odds for a caller quite significantly in a game like Omaha.
For example, if I've got a gutshot straight draw, I could try to hide my cards and hope for an early turn by the dealer. Now, if my straight card pops up, it will go back in the stub, but in a 10-handed Omaha game there are only 8 cards in the stub. Knowing that one of them is definitely my straight card gives me a pretty big advantage. If the cards were shuffled together with the muck, the odds wouldn't change.
Is there any reason why this isn't done?
Dan
You certainly can't mix in the muck; some player may have made a decision earlier based on his read of another player having folded an Ace or something, and one shouldn't have a chance of resurrecting it (that's not as bad as doing it in 7 stud but still pretty bad). The exposed card is known to everyone; its presence or absence from those available for the river are known by rule. Since it is more likely that earlier decisions were made based on the card being available for the board, it is fairest to mix it into the stub before dealing the river. Whether you burn again or not is irrelevant to the odds here.
It's a question of lesser evils. By mixing with the muck, someone may believe he knows what one or two extra cards are, but that's based on an educated guess and that's only one or two cards out of maybe 20 or 30. When you mix the card back in with the stub, you now know the what one card of the last eight is. That can be a powerful data point.
Unfortunately, as Rick said the gamblers would never stand for it, because of the mistaken belief that it's somehow different to use cards that other players held.
Incidentally, when the stub is fouled (i.e the dealer turns early on the river but throws the stub on the muck before the error is pointed out), then the whole muck is reshuffled and used. I've never heard a complaint about this, I guess because even the gamblers know there is really no choice.
Dan
In this latter case (fouled stub), I think it's better to take the final card from the burns (in fact, in stud I would consider any other method disastrous). You're right though that in Hold'em it's really not so terrible for a folded card to be resurrected as it would be in stud.
Dan,
I can see your point regarding Omaha but I'm pretty sure this angle is a rarity. The probable outcry when a player discovers (via table talk) that he was "rivered" by a card discarded by a player who folded would probably outweigh any benefits of the alternative regarding using the muck in board games.
Note that many of the rules are geared torwards the "gambling mentality" in that they try to insure that the players get the cards they "would have gotten" wherever possible even when there is a possible alternative rule that would more efficiently generate a fair "random card". IMO, using the stub and muck combined would cause outcry in the converse in that it could generate a card that from the gamblers viewpoint he "wouldn't have gotten" otherwise.
There is another angle that concerns me much more regarding premature burning and turning. Some players are quite intimidating and hostile to the dealers. A player like this will often do nothing when they are last to act and it is checked to them. If the dealer prompts them for their action, they can reply with hostility that they have checked (maybe they moved a muscle on their little finger). After a while they "train" the dealer that doing nothing constitutes a check.
Let's say the player is on a draw. It is checked to him and he does nothing. The dealer burns and turns. If it makes the draw, the player says nothing. However, let's say in the same situation after the burn and turn the player misses the draw. Now he claims he hasn't acted yet. The floorman is called and it is verified that he didn't really check. He can get a free look at another card.
An experienced dealer and floorman can prevent this with a tough "fact finding" process but I definitely have seen this angle as a player in the yellow chip games.
I could write more about this and possible solutions but I have to run right now.
Regards,
Rick
Yeah, I figured that the idea of mixing only the stub was mostly due to gambling superstition. It's too bad really, because in Omaha this can have a tremendous effect. Even if it's not an intentional angle, a player yet to act gets a pretty big advantage from getting to know the composition of 1/8 of the remaining deck.
Your other angle I have seen quite often. It's used by players in all positions. Last night in the 10-20 game that situation arose. It was checked around to the button, who also checked. Now a player in early position said, "I haven't checked yet" and proceeded to bet. The floorman was called, and the ruling was that the player was allowed to bet.
I had been watching this player, and he did not miss his chance to check. He was following the play quite carefully. He probably did intend to check, but once he saw it was checked out, he figured a bet was a better idea.
Dan
It might be safer if you could have the option of *matching the bet* or to continue as though you were all-in. Stud players with exposed river cards should be familiar with this.
Sounds like a cheap scam. My partner and I could make a lot of money if once a night I let him see the river card for free in a big pot. A marginal play becomes as important as the size of the pot.
Making the card stay in no-limit is acceptable so long as you are also allowed to cut off one of the dealers fingers.
- Louie
This is a question I have wondered about for years and never had answered so I figured someone here must know since I was an accounting, not statistics student. I know that the results of your play should be within 2 SD of your EV over a set period of time 95% of the time. Now my question is this, that means 5% of the time it will not be within that 2 SD range, but does that apply equally to the good and bad? Say you wanted to create a bankroll for some gambling activity that you had an edge on and could reasonable estimate your SD and EV. Now you are not concerned at all about being 2 SD above expectation because that is good and you dont need reserves for that, but you are concerned with the possibility of 2 SD below expectation since that would tap your venture out. So in this case could you say that instead of having a 5% chance of busting out, you would only have a 2.5% chance of busting out?
If the data is random, then yes. The "bell curve" is symmetrical and the "tails" on either side each account for half of that ~5%. If all your assumptions are correct, your chances of busting out are about 2.3%. (If memory serves, two SDs account for 95.4% of the data in a random sample.)
Cheers,
Andy B
Your chances of being behind by 2SD at any given time is 2.3%, but this is not the same as saying that this is your "chance of busting out" or risk of ruin as it is formally called. Your risk of ruin is higher than that. The reason is that you can go broke before you ever get to the point where your average is 2SD above 0. At some points before this your chances of being bust will be greater than 2.3%. The correct risk of ruin formula is:
ROR = [(1-u/sigma)/(1+u/sigma)]^(BR/sigma)
where ROR is risk of ruin u = average win per unit time sigma = average standard dev per unit time BR = bankroll
One other point is that the original poster felt his bankroll could stand a 2SD swing below expectations. In order to know this, you have to keep in mind that 2SD is a different amount of money at different times. To find out when 2SD hurts the most, you have to do a little differential calculus problem as follows:
If you are two sigma down after n units of time, then your net winnings (which could be negative) are:
u*n - 2*sigma*sqrt(n)
We want to know when this is maximum, so we differentiate with respect to n and set this equal to 0:
u - sigma/sqrt(n) = 0
n = (sigma/u)^2
(Coincidentally this is the point called N0 at which you have a 1 SD chance of being ahead).
Plugging this into the first equation, your net winnings at this point will be a loss of:
sigma^2/u
So this is how big your BR needs to be to guarantee you can handle a 2SD swing at all times.
These issues are all explained in the book Blackjack Attack by Don Schlesinger on pp. 140, 151, and 53. I highly reccommend this book as the mathematics applies to all forms of gambling in which you know u and sigma.
Your question may have confused "deviation of expected results" with "confidence bankroll is adequate". These are different things: "deviation" applies at the end of the sample period and "bankroll" can apply at any time during the sample period.
Yes. 2.5% of the time you make a big win; another 2.5 a big loss.
Be advised that this analysis holds only if you plan NOT to change your strategy. If you are willing to become more conservative (less EV, smaller SD) as your bankroll diminishes due to bad luck, then you need a substancially SMALLER bankroll to accomplish the same goal; it'll likely take longer to bust him and your hourly rate will be smaller.
- Louie
Well I just posted that because I was curious about this years ago before this type of internet forum existed. I asked around in the circles of professional gamblers and found no one knew the answer to it. I have always maintained a much higher bankroll than this and never have come close to going broke, but just for the sake of discussion I came up with this when considering going into playing more BJ and consulting with Arnold Snyder's Beat the 1 deck game. I have to say that the math is far above the capabilities of most people I would think and I guess the bottom line is just to oversize your bankroll to be safe...
How would you have played this hand at the WSOP_NLH main event. The blinds are 300-600 with antes of 50. We are now down to 15 tables and I am the big blind with $16,500. The chip average is at $29,333. The mid-position raised $2500.
The player who raised was the one whom the previous day I played with for at least 8 hours. He raised the blinds at least 50% of the time and frequently ate up my blinds . The second day he joined my table at around 3 o'clock and continue to steal blinds. This aggressive player has about $50,000 in chips. His usual raised was 3 times the big blind. This time he raised a bit over than 4 times which I considered as a tell for a strong hand.
I called his raised of $2500. with my AJ offsuit and hope to double my chips to get in the average. The flop is AJQ. I checked, he bets $5000. I raised all in. He called. The turn is a rag and the river is a Jack.
After showing my full house Jacks full of Aces, he showed me Queens full of Jacks!
Was calling the raise pre-flop a mistake? On the flop check raise all in, was it the right move? I wanted to double my chips from him so blindly that I beleive this kind of emotional move was a mistake. What do you think?
Navy,
calling a raise with AJ before the flop is a mistakeboth in limit and even more in no limit HE. Since you said, you picked up a tell from the aggressive player (raising a bigger amount than usual), that he had a strong hand, the call preflop was even worse.
The play after the flop was risky, too, since you could be up against al lot of hands, which beat you (AA, QQ, JJ, AQ, KT). It would have been better, to bet the flop for 3000 or 4000 and release it, if he comes over the top with you.
Good luck
M.A.
I have never seen a player call a hand with AJoff when such a move has been made. When playing in a tournament where the tables have been reduced significantly, one cannot afford to take such a risk as the one you did.
Unfortunately, the position of the players (chip wise) relative to the initial raiser is of importance as well as a host of other factors which you neglected to mention.
In general, if you are willing to risk/make such a decision in the future, it is vital that you minimize the field as greatly as possible (preflop).
In any event, I`d have thrown away that hand without thinking twice and focused on attacking the weakest first and the strongest last.
AJ is CERTAINLY a premium hand heads-up against somebody raising half the time. Move in. However, as MA pointed out if you believe he has a strong hand this time then strongly consider letting him have it: AJ is a TERRIBLE hand when against a premium hand.
When the opponent has a strong hand, AQJ is a VERY DANGEROUS FLOP. You can only beat AK and KK with your AsUp. This flop also appears dangerous to him, considering the tight player in the blind called the big-raise (what could the blind have?). He may CHECK both those hands. This is a MUCH different situation than if the flop was AJ9 or if he can have a wide variety of hands.
Check-raising all-in seems obscene to me; but then I'm real opinionated and don't really have the feel nor heart for no-limit.
My first instinct would be to bet enough that he wasn't getting the right odds to hit a gut shot; and fold for a raise. HOPE he folds.
- Louie
I have to agree that calling preflop was a mistake. If you felt he had a big hand, you should fold. If you thought he was stealing again, a great big bet would have been in order.
The flop is just deceptively pretty. If you raise, he can't play a hand that you can beat, unless he's got AK, and he might throw AK away. If you just call, he's likely going to hit you with a huge bet on the turn (1) if he's got you beat (11 likely hands, excluding KT), (2) if he's got one of the 8 combinations of AK (he doesn't want you to draw cheaply) or (3) perhaps if he's bluffing. So it seems that the most likely scenario is that you'll have to commit all or almost all of your stack to see his hand, and given the better than even chance that you're beat and drawing thin, I doubt this is the place where you want to risk everything.
Suppose on third street you have pocket kings with a six up. Four players have called the bring-in when the action gets to you; you just limp in. Then the player on your left, with an ace showing, completes the bet. Two other players call, then you call.
On fourth street you catch a king suited with your doorcard. The raiser with the ace catches a blank. Another player (to your right) catches an ace and is high, and checks. You now have trip kings; you think that if you bet, the raiser from third street will raise and knock out the two remaining players, which you don't want. So you go for a check-raise. But after you check, the raiser checks, and the last player checks too.
On fifth street the player on your left catches an ace, giving him a pair of aces on board. You catch a jack, giving you three diamonds on board. The pair of aces looks at your cards and checks. The other two players check. You bet, the pair of aces raises, and the other two players fold. You call the raise.
On sixth street, your opponent catches a third ace. You catch a total blank. He bets. Do you call, raise, or fold?
In general, when would you stay in the hand on sixth street when an opponent has trips on board and you are holding smaller trips?
As I´m pretty sure, he doesn´t have a house allready (he probably would have bet on 4th street with a pair and an ace showing for a doorcard), I´d try to catch a card, which can meak his trips beat, if my cards are still life.
Raising makes no sense, since you can´t beat his hand right now, and if you don´t improve, there is just a very little chance of making him fold his trips (assuming, he doesn´t fill up). The pot´s too big for him to fold.
Good luck
M.A.
stud player,
on 5th street trips against trips is about 3 to 1 dog
6th ====================================4 to 1 dog
6th with the possibility that he could have been full is about 6 to 1 dog.
take into account live and dead cards and other draws that may develop
it becomes a simple math question for those that think knowing the math is not important.
Here is an 8-16 hand I played recently. I thought it was unclear what my best play was on the flop, the turn, and the river. I would be interested in your comments on the decisions I made. One fact about my image will be relevant: my opponents know that I am capable of semibluff raising and bluff raising on every street.
I had pocket threes in the big blind. There were 5 callers, including the small blind. I told the dealer to bring out the flop, which was:
3, 4, 6 with the 3 and 6 of spades.
The small blind bet, I called, and we went to the turn five handed.
The turn was the queen of spades. Again the small blind bet and I called. Two players folded, and the button called.
The river was another queen. Again the small blind bet, and I raised. For the time being, I won't tell you what happened after that, as it simply gives away whether this risky raise worked out well or poorly.
Of course, it all depends upon the players.
You've flopped what is likely the current best hand, with lots of possible draws out against you. After the small blind bets, I'm sure that a fold is wrong, so that leaves calling or raising. If you call, you're inviting the other players to stay in. That's not necessarily bad, because if someone is calling with overcards, or even an overpair, they are essentially drawing dead to you. If they have a flush draw or a 5, they will probably not fold even if you raise (but you'll be making them pay more for their draw, which is good). Therefore, a raise will likely only eliminate a few hands that you'll want to get out, but will eliminate hands that you'd like a call from. Specifically, with no raise someone holding just a 2 or 7 can call, but should fold to a raise, and you'll be glad they're gone. Also, someone with just 1 big spade may call a single bet but fold to a raise, which isn't bad for you, because you know if the turn is a spade you'll be unable to get rid of them.
Which play is best depends upon a lot of things that you cannot possibly predict accurately, but only guess at based upon your opponents. For example, if these opponents would all fold overcards even without a raise, then go ahead and raise to charge the callers (those who will call the raise because they have a good draw) more money. Overall, the looser your opponents are in the face of a raise, the more you want to raise (to get more money into the pot). The tighter your opponents are to a raise, the more you should call to invite in the weak (dead) draws.
Another key issue is the chance that the SB or someone behind you has the straight made. If this is very possible, then I'd be inclined to call, as you may be the one drawing. Against most decent players, only the SB could possibly be holding 25 or 57, so this will typically not be a big concern.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
This is a good case where a hand is played not by the book and we have trouble continuing!
It would have been much easier if you had raised on the flop especially with a two flush showing.
Anyway: when you raise the river you represent three queens or better or a bluf. Almost certainly you will not be called by anyone else unless someone reads you for a bluf besides the small blind that if he has somekind of calling hand will call you since the pot is too big now.
Hence, most likely it is better not to raise. By raising you win at most one more bet.
Note that someone who may have slowplayed a straight till this point may call but now we have started wanting magic cards to the hands of our opponents.
Maria
I would have raised the turn; why give a singleton spade a cheap river card?
On the river, I think the raise was marginal, as you shut out weak overcalls and face a reraise from a big hand, which you would pay off.
It's hard to see what beats you here...SB would not likely have bet a winning hand the way he did, (It seems with his betting pattern a flush is likely) and although someone behind you may have flopped a larger set, that is a real long shot.
Larry
With multiple players , a flush draw and straight possibilities, slow playing this hand imo is a mistake. Even with no raising some of the players dropped on the flop so why not try to win this right now? The other problem you have here is that because you have an image of being capable of bluff raising on any street, if you get re-raised you can't be sure whether the player thinks you are bluffing, or he/she made a flush . This puts you in the posisition of not being able too make a case for a re-raise, or knowing if you should fold!! If you didn't have this image of being capapble of eratic raises or frequent bluff raises, then you could be confident if re-raised on the end that you were probably beat, and could safely FOLD. I'm going to guess that you were re-raised and you possibly re-raised and won as there was no flush. If that is the case, it imo is negative re-inforcement for you, and will encourage you to continue to play this way.
The point is, your having this image is really not a positive, it puts you in a guessing game along with your opponents. Think about it. good luck
IMO, there are just too many scare cards (either for you or the sb to inhibit him from betting again) that can come on the turn. I would raise on the flop (particularly with the image that you say you have).
If I had just smooth-called the flop, I would probably raise on the turn...why make it easy for a singleton spade to hang in there. Of course, if you are sure that the sb is now betting a flush, a raise would not be correct but generally there's enough doubt to make raising the proper play.
If I had just smooth-called the turn, I would raise on the river given that there's only one player behind me who I would assume was fishing in with a singleton high spade and mised and would not likely overcall anyway. If I were to be reraised, I would probably call.
On the end, both opponents called, and my full house beat the button's three queens with a 7 kicker and the small blind's flush. Incidentally, one reason for my raise was that I had very little fear of a reraise -- it was possible I was beat, but extremely unlikely that anyone had queens full. And I didn't think my opponents would realize I couldn't have queens full, as I would have folded such a hand on the flop.
I called on the flop planning to raise on the turn, or reraise if someone raised behind me, but I think skp is right that too many scare cards can come (as happened), so I should just raise on the flop. I hate to lose opponents with one pair who are drawing almost dead to me, but, given my image, they might call anyway.
I like my image just fine, because a lot of those semibluff raises, as well as the bluff raises on the end, can be extremely profitable. It is true that both my opponents and I are guessing, but I think I guess better than they do :)
William
A major benefit of being known for weak raises is that you can raise with very strong hands and get a play from very weak hands. Just calling is VERY detrimental to this image.
That's not a good flop to slow play AND it appears you are raising with just one pair.
Small sets are the PERFECT hands to milk this image: you can get weak DRAWs to fold (who are drawing to beat you) AND get calls from suspicious opponents drawing dead with their one pair.
- Louie
One time I folded a weak hand from the big blind after a raise and an experienced player whom i respected whispered to me afterward that with the odds offered for a call, i should call with just about any two cards.
Up until then, i hadn't thought of it that way...i folded junk hands that i thought weren't worth an additional bet...Should i be taking pot odds into account with weak hands to see the flop? typical hand that i would fold would be Q-5 unsuited.
TIA
Continue to fold those junk hands. It's probably o.k. to assume all the callers ahead of the pre-flop raiser will also just call the raise. If there are four callers and then the button raises the small blind out, hands that need 11:1 or fewer pot odds are worth playing from the big blind for a raise. However, you will be out-of-position for every other betting round, so hands like KT offsuit may not be worth it. Yet I would play any pocket pair, most suited connectors (including one and two gappers), unsuited connectors down to about 65, and ace-rag suited.
I was recently playing in a tight, low limit 1-3 7 card stud game. I was dealt three to a heart flush on my first hand....no hearts were showing on the other players' board. I was the low card, brought it in for $1, an had 3 players call.
My fourth card was a blank however I called a $2 bet from the other 3 players. Was this wrong since I was about a 4-1 dog betting a 3-1 pot??
My fifth card was another heart giving me 4 to a flush....the remaining players (3) also caught hearts. I bet $2 and drove out two players.
Now the big question!! On the sixth card, I caught a blank, my opponent caught an ace and bet $3. I called. Was this a proper play odds wise?? Should I have folded???
My story ends when I caught an king of hearts on my final card giving me a king's flush against my opponent's "aces up".
Even though I won, I thought later I probably should have folded when there were only 3 players in the hand...making the flush draw an underlay. What do you think??!!
I think you are greater than a 4:1 dog with your 3-flush on 4th. Where does 4:1 come from? Anyway, if you know everyone is going to call $2 than there is $4 on 3rd street and they will invest $6 on 4th, so you are getting 10:2 or 5:1 for your 4th street call.
Your 5th street 4-flush is not terribly wounded; easy call. Betting depends on the situation.
On 6th street you have seen 7 hearts so there are 6 left in the deck. You have seen 21 cards (if I can count) leaving 31 in the deck; 25 are bad for you. So its 25:6 or 4.167:1 against making it.
I count a $19 pot (17 counting rake and tip) for a $3 call, or 5.67:1 pot odds; which is greater than 4.167 to make the flush. Considering the chance you may not win when you make it, it looks like to me a marginally profitable call on 6th.
"Even though I won, I thought later I probably should have folded when there were only 3 players in the hand...making the flush draw an underlay"
NOOOOoooo. The major consern is how much is in the pot. If for some reason you called multiple raises early, you can CERTAINLY draw to the flush heads-up. "The number of players" indirectly affects how much is already in the pot AND affects your implied odds (will you get paid off?) but is NOT the major consern on when to CALL.
But it IS a major consern on whether to BET. If you expect one player to call you down then a bet is silly. If you expect 3 callers on 4th, then bet away since you are getting 4:1 payoff for your even money 1:1 hand.
Your quoted sentence has merit in games where the bet is large compared to the pot such as Draw; but of little value in games where the bet is small compared to the pot such as 7stud, Holdem, and Omahaha.
As an excercise, consider routinely counting the number of $3 bets in the pot.
- Louie
PS. If folding is routine when you make a 4-flush then it would be silly to play the 3-flush to begin with.
I love to play low limit Texas Hold'em and having read so many posts about WSOP and other tournaments would like to begin to play in some myself.
My questions are:
1. Is there a book which discusses the differences in strategy between live games and tournaments?
2. How do tournaments work as far as who wins money, how the buy-ins operate, etc?
Any help would be appreciated as I am off to Vegas July 14 and would like to enter a tournament with a little bit of education and information on my side.
Thanks in advance.
Mason, please don't blast me. I thought I had posted the above question/message on the exchange forum.
Oops..........Sorry!
Actually, this post is appropriate for the poker forum since you are asking questions that relate to strategy.
Mason
Mason, I appreciate you indicating that this is indeed the correct forum for my question. However, I would have appreciated it more if you had lent your considerable expertise and experience to providing me with at least a part of the answer I am looking for.
As a casual observer of twoplustwo and a recent purchaser of a couple of your and sklansky books (sadly purchased on line here in Canada), I am somewhat in awe of the fact that both of you are regular contributors and accessable to those who post.
As a tennis professional, I can tell you that Las Vegas is the Wimbledon of poker for me and this forum is the equivalent to the best training academy.
Thanks again.
As a reasonable starting point, I would recommend "Tournament Tips from the Pros". It has some weaknesses, but is good for a tournament beginner.
The 2+2 book by Suzuki hasn't really helped me any. It seems more directed to the appropriate rebuy strategy than to the overall strategies for doing well in tournaments.
The main thing to keep in mind is to try to play almost your normal ring game early. This is because early you have to gain chips to reach the money, so your normal strategy for winning chips is preferred. Later, when the typical player has only a handful of bets in his stack, you need to concentrate more on survival than on winning chips. Thus, you typically play fewer drawing hands, and play for situations where you can win a high percentage of the time (rather than win big pots a small percentage).
Finally, when you get really close to the money, pay attention. You might find yourself in a spot where you should fold a very good hand. Sometimes you're better off giving up in a spot where you think you're a favorite to win chips, because the risk of busting out now isn't justified by the increase in reward those chips will provide when you do win.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"2. How do tournaments work as far as who wins money, how the buy-ins operate, etc? "
You have to beat 90% of the entrants to win *any* money. First place gets 30 - 38% of total prize pool, Second place get half of that, etc. The last paying position in the money gets 1.5 to 2.0 times their buy-in. Quite often deals are cut to split the money when at the final table. Every tournament is different but these conditions are generally true for most.
The Rebuy and Add-On structures make the tournaments interesting because the real game does not begin until the last rebuys and Add-Ons are over. Rebuys build up the prize pool and give players a second chance. No rebuys make the tournament deadly serious from the very start. You can NOT make even one mistake! One hand can turn you from a chip leader to a chip pauper. On the other hand, you can play one chip into a sizable stack and make it to the final table. It happens frequently. Never give up!
The number of payouts and the precentage to 1st varies a lot. Typically in most tournaments I see about 40% going to first. Only when the tournaments get very large do they start to cut back the amount going to 1st place. Some tournaments have bounties - you win some money immediately every time you bust a player with a bounty on him, sometimes there's a bounty on every player.
Then there are satellites, tournaments where the prize is an entry (or multiple entries, often called supersatellites) into bigger tournament(s).
10% of the entry field is a good number of places to pay, but a lot of small tournaments pay more than that. I see a lot of 3-7 table tournaments that pay the whole final table. I also see some larger tournaments that pay a lot less than 10% of the entrants. The first events of the WSOP (600+ entrants, 27 places paid) and of the Orleans open (1000+ entrants, 27 places paid) immediately come to mind.
There is a huge variation in tournament structures and formats. Some tournaments start as limit, and end as no-limit. Some tournaments rotate the game you play each round. Some tournaments halt when you get to a specific number of players or at a particular point in time and winners are determined by the number of chips held. Shootout tournaments are where each table plays down to a single player before advancing (there are variations on this). Some tournaments have rebuys. Rebuys are sometimes fixed in number, sometimes unlimited during the rebuy period. Tournaments with unlimited rebuys often have add-ons as well.
If you get serious about tournaments, it pays to know all of the structural details about the tournament that you are entering. Many places have some odd quirks in their rules, and it's often important to know just what those quirks are.
Here's a tricky logic problem, that has applications to poker.
A player is dealt two cards from a deck containing an equal number of aces and kings. This player has a 'tell', where he raises his eyebrows when he gets an ace.
In the first case, the player looks at his first card, and his eyebrows go up. What are the odds that he was dealt AK?
In the second case, the player looks at both cards at the same time. His eyebrows go up. What are the odds he was dealt AK?
For purposes of simplifying the problem, assume an infinite deck.
Are there any other cards in this deck excect Aces and Kings, or is it a regular deck extrapolated into infinity?
L
Just aces and kings, in equal measure.
x/2x-1%?
"Infinite deck" doesn't really simplify the problem. As it turns out, both questions have the same answer: 4/51.
Oh, you mean to imply that the the deck has /only/ Aces and Kings? In that case, you do need to assume an infinite deck, and the answer to the two questions is different (50% and 66%, respectively).
Good answer. You guys are hard to stump.
Ok, you've probably heard this one before: Marilyn Vos Savant used it in her column:
You are on "Let's Make a Deal". You are allowed to choose door, one, two, or three. Behind one door is a new car, and behind the other two doors are booby prizes. You pick door #1. Monty Hall says, "Ok, let's show you what's behind door #2!" and shows you a booby prize. Now, he offers to let you trade door #1 for what's behind door #3. Should you do it?
Dan,
I was in the process of trying to solve the puzzle when I saw that it was already answered. It made me think of the Vos Savant problem which created quite a stir a few years ago and believe it or not I was going to post it. Then you posted it above.
The problem with her question is that she did not make it absoulutely clear in her original column (I found it in the Parade insert in the Sunday paper) that the game is played the same way each and every time. I'm going to answer it in a seperate post labled "The Answer, Don't Peak" based on the assumption that the game is played the same way each and every time (i.e., Monty Hall will always expose a booby prize). This is essential to getting the correct answer.
Regards,
Rick
When Monty's beautiful assistant exposes a door with a booby prize, you are a 2 to 1 favorite to get the car if you switch to the other door. Therefore, you should always switch.
The easiest way to show why this is so is as follows:
1. It should be obvious that you will pick the correct door on the first attempt only one time in three. Conversely, you will pick the wrong door on the first attempt two out of three times.
2. Note that the game is played the same way every time. Before showing you what is behind the door you picked, Monty always exposes a door with a booby prize.
3. Under this game playing scenario, if you picked the right door the first time, it would be a mistake to switch. If you picked the wrong door the first time, it would be correct to switch. Since you will pick the wrong door two out of three times, you are a 2 to 1 favorite to get the car by switching.
Anyway, her column produced a mountain of mail from irate readers spouting their degrees from MIT, CalTech, and so on. Cecil Adams, who writes the column "The Straight Dope", savaged Vos Savant. But the real problem was that although she was right, she didn't quite emphasise that Monty wouuld play the game the same way each and every time.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Over a few months I ended up making about $300 from proposition bets on this problem.
Just a quick plug here for Cecil - if you guys haven't read the collection books under "The Straight Dope" mantle, I suggest you run out and get them. Not only are they informative, but you'll split a gut reading them.
"The Straight Dope" "Return of the Straight Dope" "More of The Straight Dope" "Triumph of the Straight Dope"
I have heard the Monty Hall one so I'll let someone else answer it but here's another similar one which I believe comes from an old Mike Caro article in Cardplayer if my memory serves me right:
Mike shows you 2 envelopes and says that each has a check made payable to you. He further says that one contains a check for exactly twice as much as the other. He offers you an opportunity to pick an envelope. You open it and see that the check is for $50. Mike then asks you whether you want to switch and take the check in the other envelope. Should you switch?
Of course you switch. Since one check is exactly twice as large as the other, the other envelope contains either a $25 or $100 dollar check. You have a 50/50 chance of losing $25 (by exchanging a $50 check for a $25) or gaining $50 (by exchanging a $50 check for a $100). Assuming Mike isn't tipping his hand with some sort of tell the switch is the smart play. You are betting $25 to win $50 on an even money proposition.
The other envelope contains either $25 or $100. If you take the envelope with the $50 check, your expected value is, of course, $50. If you take the other envelope, your expected value is (($100+$25)/2) = $62.50. Take the other envelope.
That said, if the envelope I opened contained $5000, I'd take the $5000, because I don't feel that the relatively small increase in EV is worth risking $2500 for.
Needless to say, I don't play big bet poker. :^)
Cheers,
Andy B
Guys, the final answer to this one was, it didn't matter whether you switched or not.
Think of it this way. The envelopes are marked 1 and 2 (just to simplify my reference to each envelope; there is no correlation between these numbers and the amount of each check). You're about to pick envelope 1, but, according to your analysis, whatever amount is revealed you'll switch. So, why not just pick envelope 2 to begin with and NOT switch? Since there is no way to distinguish these 2 scenarios, it must be that your expectation is identical whether you switch or not.
Mike gave a much longer and more thorough explanation with numbers, which I won't provide. Try going to dejanews.com and searching the archives.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You got it, fossilman (I should say that I got the wrong answer when I first read the question. I like the others above initially reasoned that you should always switch because you can gain more than what you might lose...turns out that I was wrong...this problem is different from the Monty Hall poser).
Eww... and to complicate things further, Utility theory rears its ugly head...
Greg beat me to it by about 1 second. Good one though.
Andy.
Switching is irrelevant. Your EV before your pick is 1.5X. The apparently conundrum here is based on the fact that your expected value cannot be precisely met due to sampling error.
The answer to the Caro problem needs to be viewed from several angles, and here is just one:
The bad beat jackpot at my local casino is up to $28,000 in the 3-6 game. Although I've never really played low limits that much, let's just assume I've been busted in a pot-limit game. Given my addiction to poker, we will assume that I have tried to borrow money from my friends and that they all said no. Given that, I would accept the $50 from Mr. Caro, lie to him and tell him that I will pay him back soon, and have a seat in the 3-6 game. I would the proceed to play super tight and win $28,000. It seems pretty simple really!
Wow, some things just come back around. About 30 years ago (maybe I'm older than some of you think!), Martin Gardner, who wrote the column "Mathematical Puzzles and Diversions" in SA, published 2 books of the same name. Here is one of the puzzles. (I won't write this absolutely logic-tight, because you will see that the logic is exactly the same. Don't bother to post solutions.)
Three prisoners are on death row, about to be executed - A, B, and C. The word is that the governor has pardoned one and only one of them. A talks to the jailer, saying that it is a sure thing that either B or C will be executed, and will the jailer tell him the name of one of them that will be executed. The jailer agrees with this logic and tells him that B will be executed. Now, what is the probability that A will be executed, and what is the probability for C?
Needless to say, I saw the answer to the Monty Hall problem immediately. Sorry I wasn't first to post.
Dick
In the first case he just needs a K on the second card, so the odds of this are 1/13 in an infinite deck with all ranks represented (not 4/51 like the single deck Larry since removal of one has no effect now).
In the second case before he looked there were 13x13 equally probable 2-card combinations (ignoring suit), but after he looked we know that either the first or second card was an ace but not which one, so we are left with 25 possible combinations AA,A2...AK and 2A,3A,...KA. If you think the AA should be counted twice for some reason then you need to think some more. The probability of AK or KA is now 2/25.
If the deck wasn't assumed infinite, the first case would be 4/51, and the second case would take a little calculation since the pairs become a little less likely than the non-pairs due to the effect of removal.
To make what's going on a little more dramatic and easier to see, let's assume that all we have is an infinite deck of aces and kings. In the first case the probability is 1/2 of having a king on the second card. In the second case before he looks, AA,AK,AA,KK are all equally likely, but after he looks KK is eliminated so the odds become 2/3.
Same thing: I flip two coins and tell you that one of them is a head. What's the probability that they were both heads? 2/3. Believe it or don't. But if I flipped a dime and a nickle and told you specifically that the dime had heads, now the answer is 1/2 as a normal person might expect.
Good answer, and you got it exactly right. I was hoping to stump a few guys, but this crew is just too sharp.
Now, would you like to talk about Monty Hall and Door 1,2, or 3? (-:
Switch doors when he shows you the goat :)
First you need to presume that his eyebrows do NOT go up when he does NOT see an Ace. If he always does so you gain no information when he does.
Assuming an infinate deck of only Aces and Kings and ignoring eye brows: 1/4 he'll get AA, 1/4 he'll get KK, and 2/4 he'll get AK (includes KA); and its 1/2 any single card is a King.
If you know its not KK (no raised eye brows) then he has either AK or AA and so its 2:1 he has AK or 67%.
If the first card is an Ace (raised eye brows when he sees it) the chances of ending up with AK is 1:1 or 50%.
As for Monte:
Assume you want the prize and "excitement" for you and for the croud is not important to you. Be advised that this is NOT a zero sum game, since giving away the prize is often good for Monte in that the audience likes it and will watch next time. Note that if you always stay your chances remain 2:1 against and you have ignored Monte's shananogans. In order to switch you need to presume Monte is on your side.
If Monte ALWAYS shows the bust and offers the other door its 2:1 in the other door and you should switch. If Monte is random or you have no idea or he is Evil then you should stay. If Monte and the sponsors prefer a particular frequency of wins to losses, you should pay attention to the last few weeks before attending the show and you will know whether he will encourage a win (you should switch) or discourage a win (you should stay). If Monte is broke offer a bribe before the show. Better yet, mumble something incoherently or nod ambiguously and try to win the prize in court.
These last options have historically worked well at a large Gardena club.
- Louie
Can you tell me who won the WSOP? Is there somewhere I can read about the final table and final betting?
I logged on to CONJELCO, where I folowed it last year and for awhile this year; but they ahve not posted final results.
I found them there with no problem; just got to http://www.conjelco.com/wsop/ and click the "1999" link. More writeups on http://www.pokersearch.com as well.
Thankyou for all the comments. I do NOT agree that the mucked hands should be shuffled with the stub and premature deal card. The reason the exposed card (and burn) are shuffled back into the undealt stub, is the chance the exposed card CAN be returned, if a player needed THAT card. I can think of nothing worse than the 9c turn and you needed it for a straight flush, then as the bet isn't matched that 9c becomes dead paper and goes in the muck! Even in a full Omaha game with only 8-10 cards in the stub the edge isn't that massive for that card to come out again. Normally with Omaha,HE and 7 stud the RULE works well in my game,(apart from the old school gamblers who hate the ORDER of the cards changed, RE: reshuffling in the exposed card). The BIG problem of the "premature dealt card - before the bets are matched" comes in the Australian game Manila. Played mostly by migrants from non English speaking backgrounds, the ORDER of the cards is very IMPORTANT to them? The game is normally played limit and they feel the exposed card should stay if the bet isn't matched. My game is DYO (Deal your own)and in one 7 hour session a card is exposed before the betting is completed, 2 -5 times a night. Also in Manila (7s up -12 players)their are no burn cards, and the game is dealt from a small hand held shoe. In the next TWO week I'll be discussing this rule with about 40 regulars, but it can result in many different opinions.I will let 2+2 readers know the out come. In fact at the Las Vegas Poker Conference RULES were the top talking point..one area few in the industry can agree on. I think poker rules actually evolved from the "home games" and even today 1999, I know of several home games that move house every week and who ever has the game "makes the rules"(or changes them)....sounds like the Wild West in 1865! Thanks for any thoughts.
Though I'd spring another one on you...
I'm in the blind w/ a lovely Q5o. Flop comes QQ6 rainbow. I check, seat four bets, seat seven calls. Note that at this point I really don't know much about either two players, but I assume that either would raise w/ AA or KK pre-flop.
Turn is another 6. Again I check, the four seat bets, seven calls and I call again.
River: a third 6. I check, four bets, seven calls (are you noticing a pattern here) and I call.
Comments/ scathing criticisms welcome.
GD,
I do not know if I'll be scathing but here are a few thoughts.
I generally like to bet the flop when I have trips (i.e., board is paired) in the blind since your opponents seem to rarely believe you have it when you come out betting. However, in this case the pair was queens, which along with a hand containing a jack or ten is the card most opponents limp in with. Anyway, with this flop, checking is not so bad since if someone holds a queen you are outkicked and if they don't free cards are not much of a problem.
When the early player bet and the later player called you have to seriously think that the queen with a better kicker is out against you. On the other hand, many automatically slowplay in this situation. But you have to know the players and since you didn't a call is probably OK. Right now my guess is the later player is more likely to hold the queen and is waiting for the turn to pop it. But it is possible neither hold it (perhaps someone is testing the waters with a middle pair).
When the board paired the bottom card I think a check was correct. You either have half or the entire pot and once again free cards are not a big problem. The bet by seat 4 could indicate a middle pair, the other queen, or a six. The call by seat seven could also indicate all three possibilities (if he has a queen he has to figure his raise will drive out his customer). If you check raise here you lose the six and the middle pair and get called or reraised be a player with a hand that ties you now and who would be freerolling to his kicker.
The river is interesting. Since you checked, the good part is that you are not getting squeezed and you are getting at least 8 to 1 on your call. The bad part is that your overcall would probably get you only half the pot at best. I do think that there is a reasonable chance that you are up against one queen and a middle pair rather than the six (against unknown opponents, a bluff by one of them who decided to follow through on all rounds is even possible).
I do think there was an alternative for the river and that was to bet! If seat four holds the other queen he may fold and if you get raised you can be almost certain you are beat and you can make a laydown. Best case scenario is the queen folds and the middle pair calls.
Now that I reread what I wrote maybe I should win the award for the most ambiguous possible answer but I'll stick with it and maybe I will get the scathing replies.
Regards :-),
Rick
Im a little surprised by how timid you guys are with this hand. In my game (very loose) I think a checkraise on the turn is appropriate, because they could be holding just about anything.
Nagurski,
I just have to assume that the checkraise will get anyone holding a middle pair, a six or a bluffing hand to lay down. Note that even if the six is out there, you don't want him to lay down based on the current odds he is getting (i.e., don't let your knowledge of what comes on the river skew your thinking).
When I first started playing seriously about 1987, I remember reading Sklansky's first holdem book (I still have a $2.95 copy preserved in plastic) and the holdem section in Super System. I remember a passage from Super System which Bobby Baldwin wrote something to the effect "I raise (or reraise) because I don't want to let them make a caller out of me". For years I would always err on the side of being aggressive.
Well aggresion has its place but sometimes there is little or no reason to be agressive. I think this is one of those situations. But notice on the river things change and here I would consider an agressive play some would not even think of. At the table I might have more of a read on the players and more information and hopefully make the best judgement.
A classic example of when not to be aggressive is when you are first to act on the river against a single opponent who bluffs too much. You have a marginal value betting hand (by this I mean you think you have him beat if he has a hand but not by much and he could even have you beat). Here checking with the intention of calling is best since you will snap off all his bluffs.
Regards,
Rick
I don't get it on the turn. He has the nuts and the other two players are already one bet into the pot. Why not check raise even if it turns out to be only half the pot.
David
David,
You may want to refer to my comments to Nagurski above. My plan on this hand would be to checkraise the river (assuming a card other than a six) unless the bet came from seat seven rather than seat four.
I might even check call if the river came a jack or ten and I knew that seat four would be the type to raise preflop with a better queen and limp with a QJ or QT but not play a worse hand.
Regards,
Rick
i would have bet it all the way as you are out of position and checking only helps if someone may bluff or you hope on 4th they catch something to play along and then you lose out on the people that are just calling you down with a weak pair. on 4th you have certainly the best hand why not checkraise, and win it or get action from a six or even a pair. on the river you have a winner unless 4 6's are out and how can you be scared of that. checkraise or bet out and call or reraise if you are raised. just too many times people are in there with all kinds of hands and call or take shots at the pot in desperation that i believe you need to push big hands. if you know for sure your opponents are going to throw bottom full houses away when you bet you should disregard everything i said and concentrate on stealing your way to riches. good luck.
GD:
This is another fine mess you've gotten yourself into. You've got the second nut, figure that the third and fourth nut hands (pockets A's and K's) can't be there, the fifth nut is the board, it's bet and called after you check but your slowplaying has left with almost no information.
In any reasonable game I'd fold, but in LL I'd call (you did, didn't you?). Only one of your opponents (seat 4) is a candidate for a six. You can't put seat 7 on a hand since there's no hand that makes his call coupled with prior calls any sense, though now I'd be worried that he's one of these extremely passive idiots that doesn't raise preflop with KK in late position -- these guys are terrified of board pairs but never fold. But I'd figure seat 7 to be just as likely to be unconsciously playing the board as anything else. And Seat 4 is far more likley to be playing a medium pair (that he's now semi-bluffing with with the board as his backstop) or a Q, than a six. Also, bear in mind that a lot of low limit HE players don't immediately recognize it when they've been counterfeited on the river.
I think you were too concerned for too long that you wouldn't get any action from a hand you could beat. I would have raised somewhere along the line.
I would have bet the flop, but your play is understandable, and against certain aggressive opponents, is completely correct.
On the turn you definitely should have raised. The only hand that could have beat you at that point was 66. What are you afraid of?
If you are too scared to check raise on the end, then at least bet out.
William
I figured everyone would have something to say about the turn play, so on this score I certainly wasn't disappointed :). However, I thought I'd explain why I did what I did, in hopes (however faint) that it may make some sense.
a) The flop. Checking and calling, IMO, isn't a bad idea here. Either I've got the best hand by far, or I've got a three outer. Either way, w/ no obvious draws on the board, I generally like to play passive here and see if anyone else likes their hand more than I do.
b) The turn. I know, I know, I probably should have raised. But I didn't, for the following reasons.
First, I figured(?)that the four seat wouldn't bet the turn w/o a Q. An iffy speculation, to be sure, but I know I'd be damned skittish about betting here w/ an underpair w/ two callers on the flop, since this is precisely the kind of flop where you often see players slowplaying trips or better. When the seven seat called, I put him on a goofy wired underpair (or a six), and figured he planned on calling down the river IF no one showed too much aggression beforehand. IMExperience, if someone calls twice w/ a board like this, they've got a hand they 'like' (not that I'd like the same holding, but you get the idea). So, by checkraising the turn, I'm risking the possibility of having the four seat re-raise, thereby dropping the seven seat and losing the chance to split another big bet w/ the four.
In short, I figured I was tied with the four seat, which means the seven doesn' have a Q. But if I bet out, or raise, I lose future action from the seven. Further, there's a small chance that the seven might pick up a set w/ his underpair on the river, which would likely give me even more action.
The river: This play still bothers me. However, since it seemed reasonable that one of these yahoos had a six, I don't think checking and calling was all that bad of an idea (although I'm far from sold on my play).
My suspicion is that it all comes down to the turn. Looking back, I probably ought to have raised, but I think there is an argument for just tagging along here, since you (I) have virtually no fear of being outdrawn, and getting too crazy w/ the hand could very likely turn possible callers into folders.
As it turned out, the seven has pocket 9's, and the four had God knows what, since he mucked after seeing my hand.
GD,
You and I tend to agree on this hand. I was suprised by Ray Zee's answer as I definitely still think that checking and calling has its place here.
If you get a chance, read Mason's hand posted Sunday afternoon (May 23rd). If you can, try to do the analysis without looking at what I or the others wrote. I'm also hoping Dan Hanson, skp, Louie Lawndale, and some others join in on this one.
Regards,
Rick
I played the following hand last night in a 10-20 HE game at the Trop in AC. I was dealt 8-8 in the big blind. Three people limped in and the small blind called. I checked the option. The flop came 3-4-6 rainbow. I bet and was called by the button and the small blind. On the turn came a 3. I led again; and was again called by the button and the small blind. On the river came still another 3. I bet and was raised by the button. The small blind folded and I called. The button showed me 6-6 for a full house (the SB checked on each betting round). The button is a loose, fairly timid player with a tendency to chase. The SB is a tight, conservative player, not too tricky.
I analyzed the hand as follows:
1) Pre-flop: No real reason to raise--can't push out anyone except possibly SB, 8-8 not that strong, not enough players to make it a "volume" pot and hope to flop a set.
2) On the flop: Pretty much a no-brainer to bet. Don't want to risk a free card to a 5 or overcards. Wasn't confident enough that someone else would bet to go for a check-raise.
3) On the turn: Given that the pot was unraised and that the button is very loose, the 3 worried me, but I felt a bet was definitely called for. If raised here, would seriously consider folding (opponent could have a 3 or even 5-7)
4) On the river: I felt the third 3 strengthened my hand b/c I was now much less concerned about one of my opponents having a 3, and I figured if someone had 5-7 they would have raised it on the turn. For this reason I bet, wanting that last bet from an opponent holding a 6.
5) Paying off the raise: I knew I was in trouble. I didn't think my opponent would raise with a 6 or 7-7, the only non-bluff hands he could have. And I have never seen my opponent raise bluff on the end. In retrospect, paying off that bet brings to mind the quote from Brunson's book-when I pay off a bet on the end because of the size of the pot, I am almost always throwing that last bet away...
Any comments would be appreciated.
Well played and well analyzed...just tough luck.
If the flop was two-suited, I may check the river (now and then) to induce a bluff from the button who may have had a 5 or a flush draw. I would then hope that the sb would call to pick off the button's bluff at which point I might well raise.
I would have risked the chance that I give a free card and check-raised the flop.
Your pair of eights are too vulnerable to not try and reduce the field, and with no pre-flop raise a ragged flop is more likely to have hit someone then if it had been raised pre-flop.
Tough luck on the end.
L
There's a well known concept that if it's in the middle of a hand and you're going to call a bet anyway, then you should bet yourself (if you don't fear a raise). This makes you the agressor and even if you don't win the pot now, you might win it later as the better. This little tidbit brought $200 into my stack that probably shouldn't have gotten there.
The Game: 15-30 7 card stud I'm in seat two with split Queens. Seat four brings it in and seat seven raises with a King up. Seat seven is an aggressive player who doesn't necessarily have Kings. Seat 8 is a live one who plays too many drawing hands, he calls. I call as well. As the hand progresses it becomes apparent that he does have Kings. On every round the hand progresses as follows: Seat 8 is high, I'm next, then the "Kings". Check - Check (me) - Bet (the Kings).
On sixth street I still only have a pair of Queens and I'm 90% sure that seat 7 only has the Kings. But on 6th street I pick up an open ended straight draw (with a dangerous looking board). This time when it's checked to me I bet out. Seat 7 looks at my board and reluctantly calls. Okay - now I'm convinced he only has Kings.
I don't improve my hand and on the river I only have the queens, but I bet out. Seat seven looks at his river card and becomes disgusted, he mucks one pair of Kings face up. He didn't even consider calling.
Now suppose I had checked and called on 6th street as well. If I come out betting on 7th street, he might smell a bluff. But because I bet on 6th street (and I was going to call anyway - with little chance of him raising) he figured I already had some kind of a hand. (at least two pair)
Well, I don't normally do this, but I couldn't resist a little adverstising as I turned my hand face up. Needless to say he was a little pissed.
So there's about $200 that probably shouldn't have been in my stack, but ended up there. Comments welcome.
A good play, but why show it? If you quietly muck the hand in your normal manner, he will be sure that he folded correctly, and be inclined to do the same next time (which hopefully won't be too soon, or he'll think you're trying to run him over).
Unless you're a super rock who very seldom makes these plays and therefore you aren't getting paid off enough when you make your big hands, don't do something that makes it harder to bluff next time.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Plese see and comment on Geo. Rice's proposal dated this date under WSOP $10,000 NL Q?
If any of you see Bob Thompson please bring his attention to Mr. Rice's thoughts.
WSOP Fan
Another typical low-limit game. Straddle comes up, but not the type of straddler who will auto-raise his straddle (but he will option-raise "good" straddle hands, like Axs or KQo, etc)
2 people call the straddlers, both people who will play anything early. On the button, I see Ah Tc.
Question 1: Should I have called, instead of raising or folding? This hand is marginal under the circumstances, to be sure.
I call. Flop comes A-T-2 rainbow. Straddler bets. 2 early limpers call.
Question 2: Should I call and raise the turn, or just turn on the engines and let 'er rip? If I understand the general rule, it says to only slowplay if there is no draw evident (such as QQ on a Q-7-2 rainbow). I think that there will be at least 1 straight draw out there, and god knows what the straddler has (3-5, 4-5, etc)
I raise. Turn comes K, making a 2-flush of a random suit. Check all the way to me, I bet, all but early limper #1 fold. River brings another K. Early limper #1 checks.
Question 3: Should I bet the river? I suspect that limper one does not have the AJ or AQ necessary to have caught up, since he would likely raise the flop when straddler bets into him.
I peg him on TJ or TQ and bet. He calls, I call "Aces and Kings, Ten kicker" and he says this beats his Tens and Kings.
Anything I missed this hand?
Mooselini.
Assuming that you were playing a structured limit game, it is important to maximize your winnings and limit the field. Make them pay as much as possible to fluke you. In the long run you will prevail... you are clearly an informed player.
I am from Canada where the education system is largely funded by various levels of government. But that still doesn`t mean that eduaction is free. Therefore, when a player like this beats you SMILE and say NICE HAND! (AND MEAN IT!-)
Remember, in order to beat him/her in the future that player needs to be at the table!
Umm Moses I won the hand :)
When someone runs me down from the blind side of nowhere with a one-outer, someone will always say something to me, and I'll just smile and say "I'd be lying if I said I didn't love the action!" which you may freely translate as "Nice escape, Houdini."
Is a raise preflop automatic? After all, I am against 5 opponents playing god-knows-what with a hand that doesn't take too well to multiway action (ATo is a dog and a half). I may have the best hand, but the multi-way pot is not suited for ATo.
However, since I had the best hand, should I have still raised?
Charles
It's not automatic but I think you usually want to raise before the flop here provided you're confident you won't get raised. You've got an OK but not really good hand, but you're also in last position against three virtually random hands and want to knock out the SB and put pressure on the straddle. I take it that the two callers were passive, so you may well get to decide whether to bet the flop or see four more cards first.
Raising on the button is generally done for value, since the only opponents you hope to knock out are the blinds. Few straddlers are going to fold on a raise.
Since ATo is such a weak hand and since it is easily dominated, I would just call. I would only raise with ATo in an attempt to steal the blinds or perhaps in a shorthanded game.
Q
AT in this position is a solid money maker, and you should play it. IMO, raising is optional.
I would have raised on the flop. One of the advantages of being the button is that you can often get paid off big on real hands because people know you don't have to have much to raise from that position. So you might have been 3-bet by as little as top pair/no kicker, or someone might have bet into you again on the turn thinking you were raising for a free card, and you can get yet another raise in.
The running kings definitely hurt your hand, but if your opponents are very loose a value bet here is still worthwhile. They'll call you with lots of hands worse than yours (Ax, pocket pairs, etc).
Dan
.. By the way, let's reverse the situation. Let's say I have A9s and I call the straddler from middle position. (Is this a call?)
Button calls and straddler bets into me. I raise the flop (let's say I have a 3-flush and the top pair) and button reraises me.
Now, the King on the turn gives me the 4-flush. Should I check-raise the button, even if I suspect my kicker is poor, or just call.
Now, the King hits the river. Should I auto-bet on the river, hoping to steal the whole split pot, or should I be worried that my opponent has a boat (TT) and just check (but most certainly call)?
Charles.
> I peg him on TJ or TQ and bet. He calls, I call "Aces and
> Anything I missed this hand?
I guess you pegged him correctly, but I'm not sure how.
Many of the weaker players against whom I play would be more likely to show down Ax (to split the pot with you) rather than TJ or TQ. They also could have something like Kxs or K9o and not be proud of their kicker (but still take the pot from you).
Some of the okay players against whom I play might have KQ or KJ and be setting you up for a check-raise on the river (or just check-calling for fear of the possible full house or straight). Similar considerations for QJ.
Most of the better players against whom I play usually would have either open-raised the straddler or folded.
"Question 1: Should I have called, instead of raising or folding?"
I believe calling was the correct play. You were on the button and facing a maximum of 5 opponents, so I don't believe folding was correct. There's no way in Hell I'd raise with ATo in this situation.
"Question 2: Should I call and raise the turn, or just turn on the engines and let 'er rip?"
I would call the bet on the Flop with the intent of raising on the Turn.
"Question 3: Should I bet the river?"
It's iffy, but against a weak player with a tendency to call too much, I'd risk a bet for value.
Q
I have played a couple hundred hours of 4-8 holdem and usually sit down with a hundred dollars in chips with another $100 available for a particular session. Although I am quite comfortable with this, is this considered enough/correct?
Also, if I wish to move up to a 6-12 game and then to 10-20, what amount of chips should I buy-in with (I know what the minimums are, but what should I actually have) and what amount of money should be available in my pocket per session to play at these limits?
Appreciate any advise I receive.
Many thanks.
AT
Generally you should bring between 50 and 100 times the big blind. Most poker ressources tend to lean towards the latter. There are arguments and situations where I personally would recommend tap situations, although almost everyone here would argue otherwise.
Personally, I bring the latter when the game is loose and there may be large swings in chip position, and I tend to buy in for closer to 50X when the table is "on tilt". Alot of players like to be in the action when this situation occurs but from my experiences and own personal statistical analysis, the combined outs of the other players outweigh my advantage and all of a sudden I become the underdog.
Again, it relies heavily on the position of the various players on the table. Physcologically (sp!)it can assist you in buying pots (when you buy in big, some players are scared to attack a stack (weak players) while strong players tend to nibble away at it slowly.
Lastly, I cannot stress enough the importance of playing the players chips instead of worrying about your own. This is an excellent question and one that I am not an expect in but I hope that my own feelings help.
I have been playing 4/8 for about 2 mos.I started with 1C and found out this was not enough. My table image is that of a solid player that plays pretty much by the book. Buying 160 gives me a chance to absorb the rythem of the game and scope out the players. Moses says 4 times the BB and that sounds just right to me.
Play Good, Bill
The most important issue is that you must be comfortable with the amount of money you intend to put into play. If you bring $300 to a 4/8 game and get nervous if you have to put a second $100 in play, you should consider playing at lower limits. I bring 30X the big bet ($240 in 4/8) and buy in for 20X the big bet. I don't like going to my pocket for more money, it is an admission that you have been losing. Also, a big stack in front of you may be intimidating to new players who didn't see you buy in. Good Luck Black Jack
I have a typically wordy post on this subject last month; summarized: do whatever will not distract YOU at the table.
Seek assays on "Money Management", universally bashed by most everybody. Then invest your curiosity on technique.
- Louie
__________
In HFAP, you say not to raise with high offsuit cards in late position when there are several players in. The reason for this is so that bets on the flop will be able to get rid of 4-5 out draws and increase the chance of your top pair holding up. However, raising preflop reduces the implied odds of the drawing hands that are out against you. In addition, your raise gains value, since many opponent limping hands are either (1) dominated by your hand or (2) are drawing hands with low value across the sum of all flops (but which are played for their strength in specific situations). With AKo or AQo or KQo or AJo, aren't you giving up a lot by not raising here?
You frequently want to raise with hands like these if your raise can limit the number of players against you so that you can win a fair amount of time without improving. Once there are many players already in, you need to hit the flop to win. When this is the case you are frequently better off not raising before the flop. Also, the quality of your hand matters. You should be more inclined to raise with AK than AJ.
When you raise a bunch of players in late position with two big cards, how does "raising preflop reduce[] the implied odds of the drawing hands that are out against you?" You've worsened, slightly, the risk/reward ratio for the blinds and the few others (if any) behind you, but the original callers are looking at better odds than they started with to call a second bet. After the flop, your raise makes the longshot draws much more profitable than they would have been facing a smaller preflop pot and, perhaps, a double bet on the flop. Also, at tables that tend toward multiway action with few raises -- passive games where you are most often in this situation -- players tend to check to you and then call. So in a six-handed pot on the turn (assuming no check-raise), everyone's looking at 9 big bets + river bets to see one more card. Under what circumstances will your competition as a whole be making a mistake to call your "big" bet on the turn? Even after you flop top pair, top kicker, your preflop raise plus postion has made you more vulnerable to a check-raise, more profitable for others to bluff, more important for slightly better hands to make you pay the max, and generally more difficult for you to play well. True, your raise might help you get more free cards, but with your big unpaired hand, they're more likely to help your opponents.
I'm not suggesting that you should never raise, only that you've probably lost one of the best reasons for doing so: isolation and limiting the field. (Note that there's a big difference between cases where you can reduce the competition from five to three players as opposed from seven to five).
"When you raise a bunch of players in late position with two big cards, how does "raising preflop reduce[] the implied odds of the drawing hands that are out against you?""
A suited connector or low pair has only a small chance of winning the pot. However, those hands can call one bet preflop in most situations due to the potential large profit when they do hit, and since they can escape cheaply when they don't. Those hands would generally not be correct in cold-calling two bets, since the reward/risk ratio is considerably smaller when you have to put two bets in. When there is a later raise, while they have odds to call that raise, they would prefer to not have entered the pot at all. When you hold AKo or AQo, and there is no raise in front of you, the preflop chance of your winning the pot is usually well above average for the field.
It's true that these hands will be unhappy that you raised--it's now causing them two bets to see the flop. But they have already put the first bet in. Calling the second bet is easy, as the implied odds on that call are much higher.
If you were the sixth player in the pot, the fifth player was getting 4:1 current odds (5:1 including your call), plus the implied odds due to future betting rounds. On the second go-around, he's now getting 11:1 on calling the raise, plus implied odds. Also, the implied odds for future betting rounds will now be higher.
His implied odds overall are reduced because of the two bets, but he can't fold. The problem this causes is that after the flop, as Mason pointed out, it will now be worth calling with lesser hands because of the size of the pot.
You will also have the problem with the bigger pot size keeping others in the pot for the same reason, making it harder for your possible top pair hand to hold up.
When you win, you will win more money. But you will lose more often. This includes losing more money when you miss the flop, and losing more money when you hit the flop but lose.
Of course, whether or not raising is better depends on how much more money you win, as compared to how much more often you lose. I can't tell you how that works out, but Mason and David have many years of experience, and I would defer to their judgement there.
But let's look at it and see where it leads. If you just call you are getting 5:1 odds on your call. If indeed you do have the best hand (not guranteed!), you might win 33% of the time--which is twice the random hand average. So in effect, you are getting 2:1 on your invesment, or 100% return. You will also have return on your future bets. If you wind up heads-up you might win 3/4 of the time, but most of your loses will occur at show-down, where many of your wins won't make the show-down. You'd probably be lucky to get 125% return on future bets. That would be the same as averaging 3 bets per win, and 4 bets per loss.
If you raise, you are getting 5:1 on that bet also, assuming nobody folds. But now your winning percentage will decrease, as players stay because of the implied odds being higher. If now you win only 25% of the time, your return is reduced to 3:2 or a 50% return on your bet. Note that 50% return on two bets is exactly the same as 100% return (profit) on one bet. This is a wash on the first round of betting.
On the future betting rounds your opponents will "hit the flop" more often because of the increased implied odds--that is they will be calling future bets more often. You will be winning more when you win, and losing more when you lose. And of course you will be losing more often. Now you will be facing more than one opponent more often too--which also means winning more when you win. Your winning percentabe might be 66%, or even lower. Most of your loses will still be at show-down. Many more of your wins will be at show-down also. In order to get a 125% return on your bets (the no-raise estimate for post flop) you would have to win 12.5% more money the times you win, as compare to when you lose. That would be winning 5 small bets as an average, and losing only 4.44.
I can see your average win (after the flop) approaching 6 small bets with two callers-2 flop, 4 turn, and none on the river unless you're (usually) beat. I see your opponents winning 1 flop, two turn and two river. That's 5 small bets. That will yield about 133% return. But that's assuming your opponent's will flop a draw. Somtimes they will flop two pair or a set. Then you stand to lose more than 5 small bets after the flop. If you fold when raised, then you stand to win less ofter when your opponents bluff. In all, your return post-flop will probably be around 100%. That's assuming you actually win 2/3 after the flop. Lower, and raising will lose worse and worse. 50% might be a better estimate for winning versus two other players.
Of course, all of the above are estimates. Small changes either way may yield different results. Also, the circumstances are simplified. But this does illustrate the impact of more players, larger pots and lower win % (raising) versus fewer players, smaller pots and higher win % (calling).
I'd be interested what a simulation shows, assuming a good one is to be had. Otherwise, I'd recommend the opinions of those with the experience to better determine the proper play.
I have been playing low buy-in tournaments to practice and improve my game. I love them. The challenge of the game is enhanced by the added layer of tournament strategy. I keep records and find that I am in the money 20% - 23% of the time. Is this an average win rate? If I keep improving my play and strategies, what realistic win rate should I aspire to? Do the pros win (in the money) more than 33% of the time? Perhaps this could be subclassed to include sattelite play as well. I would like to target a realistic goal and acheive it before I move up to the higher buy-in tournaments. Entering and winning any of the WSOP events is a long term goal.
Thank you in advance. Keith O
25% in the money is near peak even for the smaller tourneys. Don't expect anywhere near that percentage in the bigger ones. An average win percentage of 33% in single-table satellites is realistic, but is also about the peak.
My 1999 tournament statistics is based on 50 tournaments: In the money = 20% Once in the money, I get 1st place 17% of the time.
How did you with 1.7 out of 50 tournaments? or did you really mean to say that you finished in the money 10 times, and won 8.5 of those?
I'm confused by the numbers you are presenting.
I finish in the money 10 times and got 1st place twice.
How often you finish in the money is not as important as how much profit you make. Depending on the payout structure, it's quite common for one first place to be worth 20 9th place finishes. In addition, for rebuy tournaments how much you are paying in must be taken into account.
For example, the tournaments I play in generally have 40 runners buying in on average 3-4 times each. With 9 places paid, the average player reaches the final 22% of the time and it costs him around 15 buy-ins per final appearance. I'm round about this average rate BUT I only buy in twice on average so it only costs me 8 buy-ins per final which I'm happy with. That's only part of it though - it's usually worth playing aggressively when only a few players are to be eliminated. You may not reach as many finals but you'll have a bigger stack when you get there and a better chance of winning big.
As far as stepping up goes, it is more sensible to say I'm going to play an X buy-in tournament when my bankroll is 20X or 50X or whatever you're comfortable with. Plus you have to be completely comfortable with the buy-in and any rebuys that you may have to make.
Good luck,
Andy.
Well I have learned from some top big league pros is that you generally want to be twice the average. In other words if there are 100 players entering and it pays 10 places, then you would want to be at the final table at least 20% of the time, hence twice the average. This is more geared towards the bigger tournaments you aspire to and as pointed out also, its important not only to get to the final table, but to get to a high place too since the payouts are almost always top heavy. To consider yourself ready for the next level, I would have to think you should be closer to 3 times average since you are playing lesser foes and will not be as successful at the higher levels. Thats just my take on it...the truth is that when you get there it is even much harder because you run into lots of specialists who not only are good at tournaments, they are great at the particular tournaments you will play against them in. The top tournament players play all games pretty well, but when you face them plus a few specialists who excel at that game then you can see that its a tough challenge to beat a big tournament.
How often you should get in the money depends upon the tournament. If you're playing in the small weekly events held in rooms around the country, these can vary in size from only about 15 up to about 100 players. They also may pay anywhere from 3 up to 10 or more players.
As someone else said, you want to finish in each paying position about twice as often as average to consider yourself a top tournament player. So, in a field of 100 paying 9, you would want to win twice, place twice, etc. if you had played 100 times.
My guess (guess being an important word) is that this win rate would not necessarily go up much if the top player went down to the small weekly events. Bigger events usually take a lot longer to finish (I've played a total of 12-15 hours in some individual events), while weekly events are often geared to finish in only 2 hours or so. Because of this, the small events put a much higher premium on luck, and prevent the pro from using one of his greatest talents (i.e., patience).
However, the converse is not also true. Just because you're finishing in the money twice as often as average in the small events doesn't mean you'll do as well in the big events. However, it does mean you have at least a good portion of the necessary skills, and should give it a shot when your bankroll allows. Start with the smaller of the big events (e.g., those with 100 or 200 buyins) before trying things like the WSOP.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Last night I was playing 3-6-6-12 hold'em at a home game. I was in the BB with Ac9c. 5 players call and late position player raises. I call along the other 5 players. Flop comes Qc-xc-7d. I check and the 4 other players check. Player who raised bets. I call. The other 4 players call. Turn comes 3c, giving me the nut flush. On the turn I decide to do a check raise (with the intention of knocking some players out, since they would have to cold call 2 bets instead of 1) <-- (rationale, since pot is large and don't want any 2-pairs , etc. drawing out). River card is a blank, I bet and get 1 call. I believe other player did have two pair, but it was late so my memory fails me. (Need to pay more attention!!). After play, a more experienced player advised me of another approach. I went home and mulled this over and have come up with 3 different ways to do this , Yikes, got my mind going and couldn't sleep for two hours thinking about this. I'm new to hold'em , only have 95.75 hours booked. Welcome any thoughts on chosen play. (Another thought popped up and this is to make a bet on the flop , with 7 players in , so any ideas on this alternate play are also welcome.)
1. Check raise (chosen play) 2. Come out betting. 3. Check and call 2. I could just bet it out.
Cliff (Check Raise Meister)
I would generally bet the flop with my nut flush draw from early position gainst a large field where the preflop raiser is several players removed from my bet. Even if the button raises again, it's not too bad as you will likely have several players trapped in for 2 bets with you having 9 cards for the nuts (in most instances).
Having missed the bet on the flop, I would have bet the turn in any event as there's too great a chance that everyone including the button would check fearing that someone (i.e. not necessarily you) was sandbagging with the made flush.
The key to these plays is that the man showing strength is to your right. If the pre-flop raiser was UTG and you were the BB, it may be worthwhile to try for the checkraise on the flop or the turn.
1. I'm not sure why you would want to check-raise to eliminate the field when you are holding the nuts. It doesn't take much of a hand for most hold-em players to call, so worrying about someone filling up on an unpaired board is too conservative.
2. If you come out betting when the third club hit on the turn, you will certainly be read for having the flush -- or read for a bluff. However, lesser flushes will call and those willing to ride top pair into the river will call. This would have been the best play if you had bet the flop.
3. Check and call on the turn would've probably worked the best after you had check-called the flop. It introduces an element of deception to your hand, leaves more of the field in for the double-bet, all at minimal risk. The bonus is that you can play the river however best maximizes profit, because some of your opponents will be less likely to read your nut flush.
Earl, skp,
Thanks guys for your feedback. As it turns out I had a similar situation occur last night! I had AdAc, raised preflop. Got several callers. Flop comes all clubs ! I bet on the flop, get one call. Turn card is (guess what) another club. I then bet again, other person calls. River card is blank, I bet, other person calls. The other person had the Kc6d. (No he was not in the blinds). I hate to admit it, but it feels good smacking players who play trash! (Man, the poker gods must have some sense of humor).
Cliff (The check raise meister)
Personally, I would check and call after making the nut flush on the turn. Hopefully, a smaller flush will or the original bettor will bet or raise your hand for you. Then, bet out on the river regardless of what card hits. I believe this to be the most deceptive play and will get the most action, especially if your opponents are skilled. ML
I took a nice win in a 10-20 game last night and cashed out. A friend of mine who was to give me a ride home was stuck a couple of hundred and wanted to play a couple of more laps in what was a wild game to try and get even. I took a chair behind him to watch.
He picked up (ugh!) Jd3h in the big blind. Everyone limps in until the button who raises. My friend called (?). It was a family pot.
Flop: 7h3s2s
BB checks. UTG bets. 6 players (including the button) call. My friend obviously calls. They go to the turn 8 handed.
Turn: 7d
My friend bets. UTG and button call. They go to the River 3-handed with $340 in the pot.
River: 2h
My friend checks. UTG bets and the button raises. My friend calls.
Anyone have any comments on the play of this hand?
Uh, it sounds like he played it poorly every step of the way. First, it's obvious that J3o should be mucked against a raise, even in the big blind.
Second, the call on the flop is not that obvious to me. Yeah, he's got 2nd pair with an overcard, but there's a two flush and a straight draw on the board, and with that many callers I'd be worried about a set or a big pair. Still, the pot is very big so I guess he's stuck, but I wouldn't like it too much.
Your friend bets into an 8-way field on the turn when top pair pairs? I'm afraid I'd be in check-and-fold mode right about now, and with those draws on the board he isn't going to win his bluff on the turn. So, he's going to commit to spending $40 more on what seems to me to be a pretty lame bluff.
On the river, for your friend to call he has to believe that BOTH players were on draws, and both are taking a shot at the pot. That's a pretty iffy speculation, but if I figured the button was bluffing I'd have to make it 3 bets here just to make sure the original bettor drops (hoping he has something like an overpair).
I'm guessing that both of them folded and he won a huge pot, right?
skp,
YOU made two mistakes. First off, find other transport. I would never ride with this guy. Secondly, why would you EVER leave this game?
Abe
ps: And another thing! Why are you concerned about these people reading your posts?
Anytime I see someone call with a group LXXVIII hand in the blind (for a raise, no less) I assume he's tilting. The call on the flop is marginal, although at that point I guess you can make a case for it. However, the turn bet was brutal. Nobody's folding in this kind of game w/ a weak overpair here, and a seven may decide (for reasons that only make sense to him) to 'slowplay his monster'. Too, no draws are going to muck at this stage. The only reason for a bet here would be to get rid of overcards, but IMExperience, when the pot gets this big, nobody's getting out... period.
When it came down to the river, I think Dan's advice is excellent.
To: Dan, Abe and GD
I tell you what, I didn't think the play was that bad and in fact I give his bet on the turn a much higher score than what you guys have given him.
I think we can call agree that the call pre-flop is a dubious one at best.
IMO, the call on the flop is an automatic one given the size of the pot (although the call would be a safer one to make if he were holding the Js instead of the Jd).
The bet on the turn I like for a lot of reasons. The fact that there was no raise on the flop certainly indicates that no one other than perhaps the UTG player has a 7. No one is likely to have an overpair. True, someone could have been slowplaying a set but even this is unlikely. Even poor players know that when there's a big pot and they have a big hand, they ought to start bombarding the pot with chips. I asked my friend (who by the way is a consistent winner) what his thinking was on the turn and he said "well, I figured UTG would raise if she had a 7 in which case I would muck and if she just called, I can put her on a spade draw and I figured that if she just called, my bet coupled with her call would cause everyone else to fold unless they had a flush draw or straight draw".
Now, the river play is also a questionable one. It certainly occurred to me that it might have been a dubious play but it later struck me that it in fact may be a very good play. My friend essentially told me that he disregarded the button's raise. He could have no more than Ace high the way that hand was played. He was a little concerned about UTG actually having a 7 but figured that she wouldn't slowplay it on the turn. He also felt that she wouldn't bet a hand like pocket 8's or something on the river. Further, he felt that if she bet pocket 8's, the pot was big enough for her to call two more bets cold and he therefore felt that making it three bets wouldn't work (I do question this but I can see his reasoning).
Anyway, end result: UTG folded and button showed AK. My friend took the pot.
The one thing that struck me about the hand is the significance of the absence of a raise on the flop in a multiway pot. A thread may be in the works on that topic alone.
I dunno... I think your friend got extraordinarily lucky. There are two draws on the table, and EIGHT contestants for the pot. You can't put them all on draws. And even if your friend manages to get everyone but the draws to fold, if there are a couple of straight draws and a flush draw out there, and the flush draw has a couple of overcards, then your friend is less than even money for one of them to hit anyway. And, if someone takes a shot at the pot on the end it should be tough for him to call (although he did, and won). He was laying 3-1 that he could pull off this bluff.
All in all, I think that perhaps this time he managed to hit a miracle combination of cards that 8 players held that could not beat a pair of 3's.
Think about what had to happen for him to win this draw: There could be NO overpairs held by eight people on a 7-high flop, or they had to fold them to his bet. None of them could have a seven. None of them could have a set. No flush or straight card could land on the river. His opponents couldn't hit one of their side overcards. The bettor AND the raiser both had to be on the steal on the river.
I'd save my chips for a better spot to attack this pot, and check and fold on the turn.
Dan
Either I made a good laydown or this will be very embarrassing.
I'm in middle position in a 4/8 HE game. UTG is a mediocre player and calls. It's folded to me and I raise with QdQh. It's folded to a player in late position (LPP) who reraises. He's been there for 2 hours and hasn't reraised anything before. He seems to be a good, cautious player. It's folded to UTG who calls as I do. I figure LPP for AA or KK. I need a Q.
The flop comes AJx, all diamonds. I assume I'm on a draw. UTG checks, I check, and to my surprise LPP checks without hesitation. I now assume LPP has no ace and thus probably has the Kd. If he had KK with no diamonds, I think he would bet.
The turn is another small diamond. UTG bets (!), I call (this was bad) and LPP raises. UTG mucks, and I fold.
At this point, there were 9BB in the pot. To see the showdown, I would have to put in 2BB to have a chance to win 10 BB. I don't think there was much chance that LPP was without the Kd. Comments?
If you were so sure he had AA or KK before the flop, you should never have called the pre-flop re-raise. After that, by your description of the player, it does seem that you are against KK with the diamonds, folding was correct. After UTG bet the turn, folding or raising would have been better plays than calling, with folding being the better choice considering the small pot size.
His preflop call of the raise was correct even if he's sure one of his opponents has AA or KK. There's already 9.5 bets in the pot, more than enough money pot to play for flopping a set and getting a good payoff when he does.
You are right, he is 7.5:1 against making a set and there are 9.5 bets in now, I miscounted and forgot he was the original raiser so thought it was 2 bets to call. But if you don't make your set you have no choice other than folding, you could never get proper odds to continue. When you do make your set and an A or K comes with it proper play is tricky and especially against a tough opponent and mistakes can become costly on the turn and river. If you throw this hand away preflop you certaintly are not maximizing your play, but I don't think you are giving up that much either.
Implied odds would definately support calling the preflop bet. As it would be highly unlikely that an overpair would fold any flop and most boards.
He could have 10d10x, or he could have KK (non diamond). I think I would have check called this one to the end, with the Qh.
If you assume your opponent has either AA or KK then there are 3 ways for AA and 6 ways for KK with only 3/9 hands holding Kd. If so then you hold the winning hand on the turn 67% of the time.
When UTG bets the turn I would be inclined to raise and if reraised by the late position then muck the hand. You lose the same 2 BB but feel much more comfortable about the outcome?
As the hand was played I suspect the late position might have AA and was making a semi-bluff reraise.
Of course all this might be completely wrong since you had over 2 hours to assess his style.
An important thing here to consider has the bettor (solid player) seen either you or the UTG player check-raise esp. on the turn and how he might think of how capable you and UTG are of making a good laydown. Since the flop was checked all the way and the fourth diamond falling it would be bad for this player to bet without the nuts into such a small pot if you don't think they would fold and strong hand. This is a situation where a check could easily be trying to induce a bluff.
First, I would have bet the flop, in hopes of getting rid of black K's or something like As Kc. If you're re-raised, you can make a command decision, but I'd probably call here with the second nut draw (unless the UTG player calls, in which case you can make a serious argument for mucking).
On the turn I definitely would have re-raised the UTG bet. This puts a ton of pressure on the button if he's got AK, and if he's got the K of diamonds he'll probably re-raise, hoping to get rid of two pair/ sets etc.
The thing to remember is that this is actually a pretty fair flop for your hand (although you can't like the J very much). If the LPP has K's he may drop them, and if he's particularly weak he may even drop top pair/ top kicker. Note that by checking and cyou're putting yourself in a real guessing game, whereas 'taking charge' (to an extent) can help you figure out just what's what.
That said, my guess is that the button did, in fact, have the K of diamonds. One thing you'll want to do in the future in these situations is to watch the players behind you very closely on the flop and see if they check their hole cards. If they do, and at some point start raising (or cold calling two bets), you can usually put them on a big diamond. Last night, for example, I had a similar flop ( Q high, three spades) while I held Qc Jh two away from the button. It's checked to me, I bet, and the button checks his hole cards and raises. I made it three bets, at which point he groused around for a while and called. When the turn brought the fourth spade (I swear this always happens) I checked, he bet, and I mucked, at which time he triumphantly flashed me the bull.
The re-raise preflop comes from a player that has re-raised a raise preflop in 2 hours.O.k. obsorbed. Let's take a look at the "position" from where he raised.He reraised from late position telling me he can have 8,8 9,9 10,10 J,J Q,Q K,K A,A . Only hands to be scared of are the Kd,Kx Ad,Ax .If he had aces he has 6 different A,A combinations of which 3 contain the ace of diamonds.So every pair has six different combinations to be made and contain the diamond half of the combinations.So out of the 37 possible hands I put him on 19 of those hands contain a diamond which would give him the reason to raise on the turn.Only 6 possible hands out of the 37 possible holdings that he could have can beat you.That's telling you there's a 1 in 6.16 chance that he is holding the winner. The pot contained 8.5 bbs on the turn giving you more than better odds to call the bet on the turn. BTW another possible hand he could have had is an A/K but I'm to lazy to put that into the post. -May the flop be with you-
I forgot that the ace of diamonds showed its ugly head on the flop giving him only 3 possible ways to hold pocket aces.So out of the possible holdings I put him on(8,8 9,9 10,10 J,J Q,Q K,K A,A)due to the late position raise only 3 out of the 34 combinations of hands he can hold hurt you.Chances are 1 in 11,3 that he has a winner .So for you to call the bet on the turn ,the pot would have to contain absolutely no bets for your call to be correct because you were the overwhelming favorite in this hand!
Given the fact that he raised on the turn and you feel that he would not have raised without a diamond ,that will give him 20 possible holdings in which only 3 beat you.That makes him a 1-6.6 underdog to beat you. What you don't know can hurt you.
Also the raise on the turn was also very suspicious.Why would a player raise with an ace high flush on the turn risking to lose possible callers on the river.
This raise would only be made in an advanced high stakes hold'em game in which the raiser would have the nutflush but want the players in the hand to think he was raising with a weak flush to try and make the other non-nutflushes fold .
I think there are many more hands that he could have without Kd than with. From the action you mention, he probably has either AA or JJ.
When someone hits big on flop and slowplays and the next card is a killer (fourth diamond is a killer for the set), they often try to bully people out of the pot anyway...sort of an intrahand tilt.
If he has KKd, he will be betting it on the flop, especially when it is checked to him. Because you both checked, he probably has the best hand (either of you should bet with a good A as it is hard to have a hand that has two diamonds without the A or Q for three bets pre-flop) and he has the nut flush draw.
I think you definitely should have called him down.
Your analysis is correct for a significant portion of the player base. However, there is certainly another portion, a very tight portion, that essentially NEVER bet or raise unless they think that they have the current best hand. If Steve thinks he's up against this type of player, then he has to play his hand the way he did preflop and on the flop.
I can see the merit in betting the flop, however. An A on the flop makes KK much more likely than AA. If the opponent just calls, then he likely has KK with the Kd. If he has KK without the Kd, he is very likely to fold.
When the 4th diamond falls, it's hard to lay down the second nuts here. However, if the tight opponent really is that tight, there is no other hand you can put him on but KxKd.
However, unless he's a prop, he is very rare to be that tight and regularly play 4-8. However, I know where Steve plays, and there are a couple of players like that.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I would have paid off the two bets. You never know. As to the comment about re-raising the turn to see where you stand, many players holding the King of diamonds would not three bet the turn. Why should they? They might scare out the first bettor and can always raise on the end. There call won't look too suspicious, since they would call with a set here as well as the nut flush.
Danny S
Ive read and studied hold'em for advanced, 7stud for advanced, theory of poker, skalansky on poker, fundmentals of poker, The complete guide of winning poker, caro's fundemantal secrets, and other lesser books. i'm thinking of getting brunsons super system.
Question, whats next? what books come after those or before them? maybe somthing that helped you in the begining. a list of you favorites or just a list. Thank you.
In my book GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS I review many books on poker and other gmabling. You may want to look at that.
How do you play QQ before the flop in NL cash game ? Unraised pot in late position.
Fish,
you bring it in with your standard opening bet you use so as not to give away your hand and so as not to give the blinds a free flop. with callers in already you can call or raise based on the situation at hand. with limpers that may reraise with bigger pairs and ak you may want to call. most often a raise is the right play as you want to win it now unless you have a player in that loses lots on hands that are second best and wont call a raise. good luck.
Please bear with a new player but i need some help on the math...limit HE tournament...final table...LPP (loose) raises everyone folds to me BB K6s i call raise...flop comes T 9 6 rainbow and LPP bets...turn is a 3.. LPP bets and me being short stacked fold....later LPP tells me he has QJ and he was favored since he had 14 outs with 2 cards to come. I disagreed based on the fact my pair is high there are 14 cards that help him win and 31 cards that help me win ..i figure i am a 2-1 favorite to win ....am i wrong or am i missing something
With one card to come you are correct: you are about a 2:1 favorite. The odds change with two cards too come making him a favorite to make his hand by the end.
Gator bear with me but it doewn't seem logical to me.. with one or two cards to come i still have 31 cards that favor me and 14 cards that favor LPP..It seems to me i would be the favorite in any case..can you explain the math to this rookie ...much thanks
I'm just second guessing my probability math, is this correct? if player A has 14 outs tith two cards to come, then player B has 31 outs. The probability that player B will get BOTH cards (if one of A's cards fall, B loses) is (31/45)*(30/44)=.47 meaning player A will get at least one card 53% of the time making him a slight favorite by the end. My formula is correct...right?
Gator ..Thanks for you help i know you are correct..it just my pea brain can't grasp the concept that if player A has 14 out and player B has 31 outs with 2 cards left player A is the favorite... I'll go with B any day....the trick must be that B MUST hit twice on the remaining two card and A only need hit on one of the two...that must be the math concept...back to the books...I'll get it eventually
You've got it. B doesn't have to hit twice (he'll win if he hits once even if A pairs the Q or J), but his greater number of "outs" is nearly matched by the strength of player A's draw.
The more interesting observation, IMO, is how the arithmetic should influence but not determine your opponent's play here. If, on the flop, your opponent believed that (1) you would have raised preflop with a very strong hand but would call with a weak one, and (2) that you'd drop if you failed to hit the flop or if you hit the flop weakly, he rightly could have suspected that he was about a 3-1 or 4-1 favorite if he bet after you checked the flop.
You were ahead on the flop but just slightly: 1.2-1 favorite if you had a three-flush, 1.1-1 favorite if you didn't. You're not a 2-1 favorite despite all of your "outs" because all the cards that improve your hand on the turn become worthless if your opponent hits his straight, and if he hits his straight on the turn without giving you a flush draw you will be drawing dead.
I am a former futures/options floor trader. In many ways trading, especially the type of short-term, high-pressure trading on the floor, seems much like card games such as blackjack and poker. The advantage in card games is that one can calculate the odds of a given occurance. because of this, I have become interested in blackjack and poker. Blackjack, however, seems to be a less desirable proposition because the payoff is 1:1 (except blackjacks at 1.5:1), whereas the pot in poker may have much greater than 1:1 payoffs. Okay, here are my questions: 1) can you comment on trading vs pker and if my trading experience may help in poker playing? 2) do you think that assumming one plays "well" that poker offers a better return than Blackjack? 3) is it still possible to make a living of, say, $40,000/yr on poker? 4) finally, which resources would you recommend for getting started in poker?
My thanks to everyone for your patience with this long post - I am anxious to hear your suggetions! Thanks!!
I'm sure you want Malmuth or Sklanskys reply, but I'm going to guess on their responses anyway. 1) This topic has been discussed here a few times, and I think if you search the archives you can find the answers you want. 2) Good poker play offers a much much much better return than blackjack. It's more fun, and the house will even comp you instead of boot you. Once you become a winning poker player you will rarely spend your money playing blackjack. 3) Yes. There are many players that do. You can make much more than that even if you write succesful books on the subject ;). 4) The books offered by 2+2 are what you need. If you know absolutely nothing about the games, start with Fundamentals of Poker by Mason, If Hold 'em is your game start with Hold 'em Poker by sklansky. Caro's Fundamental Secrets of Winning Poker by Mike Caro is also good for a new player (it's also a little cheaper, but the 2+2 books are better. After you've read and understand these you will want to read Theory of Poker by Sklansky. If you are into computer games, Turbo Texas Hold'em should be your choice, although the merits of this game have been questioned it certainly will help you learn to apply these newly learned concepts without losing tons of money at the tables. Actually you can start off learning at the low limit $3-$6 games and be a winner, I suggest you read Lee Jones book Winning Low Limit Hold em first though, as the strategy for these type of games are a little different. Good Luck!
I play 10-20 15-30 hold'em,omaha 8 ,7cardstud(hi-low) and occassionally 30-60 and make around 10grand a month now with peaks of 30 a month and streaks of badcards/beats are also in the game.Acouple of weaks ago I lost five grand in one week but If you are a good player with good discipline these streaks are not numerous.
Thank you Gator and C.M. for your prompt responses! Which game do you think is a good one to start with? I have been learning the hand rankings, and basics, but is there a good game for a new player? Perhaps you can tell me which games are those most frquently played also. Again my thanks!
The most common games are holdem, Omaha-8 (high/low) and seven-card stud. Less common are Omaha (high only) and seven-card stud high/low. In many cardrooms, holdem and seven-card stud are the only games spread at middle and higher limits. I recommend you start with holdem, and then learn Omaha-8 as soon as possible. You should start with holdem because (1) it's easier for a new player to focus on strategy when you don't have to concentrate on remembering upcards, (2) holdem involves many general poker concepts that transfer easily to other games, (3) it's easy to find a holdem game at any limit you want up to 40-80, and (4) low-limit stud is almost an entirely different game than high-limit stud; while low-limit holdem plays somewhat differently than high-limit holdem, you are using basically the same strategic concepts. The outcome of your decisions will often be different in the low-limit game than it would in the same situation in a higher limit game, but you are using the same factors in making those decisions. Low-limit stud with no-ante or a very small ante relative to the bets is a game of trapping players in, while high-limit stud is a game of knocking players out; strategies for one are sometimes irrelevant in the other. Also, the lack of any real ante in low-limit stud often leads to tight play and tiny pots. By contrast, low-limit holdem and Omaha-8 usually have a lot of action and attract many players who are "there to gamble." If the game is very loose, Omaha-8 will be more profitable than a holdem or stud game at that level. In the low-limits, Omaha-8 is often the best game you can be in. Once you are familiar with holdem, you can learn Omaha-8 quickly.
.
There is a strong link between trading and poker playing. Many have been sucessful at both. One of the largest trading firms in the world had poker players who started it and they still encourage there employees to play. Good Luck
I think poker is an enjoyable hobby, but probably a difficult career. In my opinion, trading offers better returns with much less risk for the skilled practitioner, with the added advantage that you can increase the stakes you play at much more easily without it significantly affecting your perfomance. In poker on the other hand, when you do well at 6-12 or 10-20, you may step up to 20-40 or higher only to find that the players are too good and you can't win any more (or you don't win as much). It is true that you can win lots at pot limit and no limit poker, but these games are not very common, and the competition is tougher. I don't know what your trading situation is, but I think you will get more (monetarily at least) by concentrating on that field rather than trying to make a living from poker.
I think it's possible to make $40,000 per year playing poker. If you play 50 hours per week, that's 2,500 a year, so you need to make about $16 per hour. That translates into being a consistent winner at 6-12 or 10-20, which I think is definitely possible with study and experience.
To get started, read the 2+2 books. Theory of Poker, and Holdem Poker for Advanced Players are what you need. You might also want to learn to play 7 stud and omaha hilo, since these games are often very easy to beat at the lower limits. 2+2 have good books on these forms of poker too. Just remember to adjust to the games that you are in (i.e. don't try to make many clever plays in a loose low limit game - you will just get called).
Good luck.
Matt D
Here's a hand that I played in a $15-$30 hold 'em game last night.
Four players had limped in and I had 4d4c one off the button. I called, the player on the button raised, both blinds called, and all remaining players including me called. (Eight of us saw the flop for two bets each.)
The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet, two players to his left called, I called, and the player on the button called.
The turn was the 3s. It was checked to me and I bet. Only the player in the blind called. A queen of clubs came on the river, we both checked and I won the pot with my two fours. (The player in the blind had Ad 6d.)
All comments are welcome.
I think the position you were in and the caller(in the blind) when you bet on the turn were the perfect ingredients for you to win the pot.
The flop came up rags,the blind bets testing the waters representing atleast a pair .The turn pairs one of the rags and the blind now checks risking a free card,hmmm very fishy,now I have to put him on top pair,trips or atleast a fullhouse.There's a bet and the blind now just calls,hmmm no checkraise,telling me he doesnt want to minimize the field telling me even more now that he has a monster hand (or draw:). This is why all the over cards and possibly an overpair folded fearing a trap from the blind hand,because let's face it you had the perfect circumstances fall into place to make the true winner of the hand fold on the turn with a pot that was very much so worth calling(I assume with all those callers pre-flop there had to be a queen in that hand).A "no free card guys"bet on your part helped you win it too!:) I could be way off knowing I have'nt read a poker book yet.Looking forward to checking out your book though. C.M.
Why call after that flop? S&M material has always discussed low pair as a drawing hand, hardly worth playing unless position and cost of seeing the flop merit it. With so many callers (not to mention ones in early position), didn't you fear that the many overcards that were probably out there could draw out on you (plus the possiblitly of a loose player pairing the 8 or 9 or someone having higher wired cards)? You had basically no drawing potenital, little possibility of improvement. The turn bet seems understandable, but why'd you get yourself in the that precarious position to begin with?
I agree here, Mason why did you call bet pre-flop with only 5 1/2 bets in the pot, with so many callers from early position you are probably only going to win the pot if you make a set nad the pot doesn't lay you enough to call here. You still ahve three players left to call and possibly raise. I'll assume you had these players pegged and didn't fear a raise, and if it happened you figured mo one would fold. As it turns out you got proper odds to play for your set (8:1 when it's 7.5:1 agianst). The call on the flop was most questionable. You must have had an incredible read on all your opponets and their play to justify the fact that you outplayed them all after the flop. Or maybe you just got lucky?
Before the flop, once four players are in given that the blinds will also likely play I am getting enough odds to try to flop a set. This includes future bets that I might collect if a four does come.
I didn't at all question the pre-flop call--the implied odds clearly argue for your decision. What I don't understand is why you called after you saw that flop.
When you can call one bet to see the turn in a multi-way pot that raised pre-flop it is almost always worthwhile to do so if you one a pair that stands to win if you make the set (fold if one of your cards make a flush that you expect someone to be playing etc).
I would have played the hand very much the same way.
Unfortunately, Mason got trapped for two bets pre-flop. When this happens to me I often stay to see the turn card. Why? The odds of making trips on the turn are about 22-1. By the time Mason is asked for one more bet to see the turn there are over 20 bets in the pot. You can almost be sure that the button will call for the turn too. If a four comes on the turn then Mason's got a mini-monster. He has the 4d so it won't make anyone a flush. Any 4 is unlikely to significantly help any other player's hand. Mason will be holding a very well disguised winner which will impliedly more than justify one more small bet in the end.
The only dubious aspect of the call for the turn is the risk that the button will raise again. You have to factor in what you know about these players. Is the blind a tight player whose early bet will command tons of respect? Is the button an aggressive player who is apt to raise again no matter what? In my opinion, if you smell another raise from the button you can't call to see the turn. Two more bets is one too many.
I bet Mason had reason to believe that the button would not raise the flop bet.
The only thing I may have done differently is bet on the river. Again you have to read the player. Some weaker players would stay to the river with 55, 66, 77, or 8x but then fold if they didn't improve. If this is the case, you might be giving up the pot by not betting.
Does this make any sense?
This is an excellent post. It does a very good job of explaing why I called the flop bet. Note that if I did not hold the 4d my flop bet call is surely wrong.
Yes, I looked up that chapter again in TOP and it suggest doing this. What doesn't mention and i think is an important issue here is that the small pair will play best against 5 players, certainly no less and not likely much more. With eight players seeing the flop with two bets each most hands are going to be correct to continue to draw , you wont shake anyone if you bet, and you just increase the pot to make future calls correct but you can't risk giving a free card against a dangerous flop. I don't think Mason's call before the flop was wrong at all, but I don't think it is that much better than tossing the hand and saving the headache. If you are in a game where you are the best player, and 8 people are seeing the flop, there will be better opportunities than fours.
There will surely be better opportunities than this!
But even if the play is break even over the long run, there is no reason to have a "headache" playing it. I suppose if you're playing on a short bankroll (which I never do) avoiding these situations is preferable. But there is an advantage to playing break even hands. It mixes up your play and thereby adds disguise to your game, which is very important. You have nothing to lose by playing a hand that will net even a miniscule profit over the long haul. That's my theory anyway.
I agree with wgh that the only thing I would have done differently is to be agressive on the river and bet. I have to read your opponents check as a weakness and in your position you would take the chance at winning the pot out right with a bet instead of a show down.
Looking for commets....
I said I "might" bet on the river. It really depends on your read of the other player. Note that there are very few hands that would beat you, yet still fold to your bet. Even a pair of nines is likely to call.
So a bet here is made sparingly under careful consideration.
My "read" was that my opposition had a hand that was weak enough to bet into. I strongly feel that agressivness is warranted here, even more so with being able to act last. So with proper consirderation given, a bet here is better than a check.
I'm used to playing in loose low limit games where playing small pairs in a short pot with three players behind is a good way to loose a lot quickly. I would want a minimum of 5-6 callers here. I guess in the game you were in this was an easy call and you had pretty good position. Would you still make a call in this spot with the first four callers in and 5 behind you yet to act (including the blinds). I feel that if you play into a short pot based on implied odds your decision should be based more on getting the correct odds before the flop, then winning bets when you hit your card on the flop because, even though a small set is a big hand, you can't be SURE they are going to win untill you've evaluated the entire flop especially against 7 other players. I thought that the most important thing when taking a short price from the pot was that your hand will hold up when you make it. I think to make this call you have to be impliing only odds preflop and must be certain there will be no raises.
I agree. HFAP and TOP both give 5:1 as good enough for a small pair, demonstrating implied odds. I have used this number for some time and it seems about right.
Flop: The SB is probably betting a draw. Another player with A9/J9/T9 would probably raise, and a nine is unlikely from an early/middle limper or the blinds. (Especially with 9d8s on board- there are few possible hands with nines unless your opponents are very loose, which is unlikely at 15-30.) The button is much more likely to have overcards than a pair. There is a good chance the fours are the best hand at this point, and a call is correct. Turn: With the board this connected, it's highly unlikely that anyone is checking a strong hand. If someone had 98, they would have bet here, and x9 would have raised the flop. It's fairly certain that the SB has a draw. Now you want to knock overcards out. Two important things here: The call on the flop was a profitable call that players who "just play tight" wouldn't make. And a check on the turn likely would have cost you the pot.
"Flop: The SB is probably betting a draw. Another player with A9/J9/T9 would probably raise, and a nine is unlikely from an early/middle limper or the blinds. (Especially with 9d8s on board- there are few possible hands with nines unless your opponents are very loose, which is unlikely at 15-30.)"
Eight people saw the flop, at this point a nine is very likely.
I don't understand your call after the flop. The button (behind you) raised pre-flop after 5 players had already called the big blind and then, eight handed, the small blind (in front of you) comes out betting after the flop. In my experience, holding a small pair here generally leads to misery. Ignoring what happened afterward, is the pot at this moment the right size for you to gamble?
I don't like the call on the flop. There is not enough in the pot to draw to a 4 and pre-flop raiser on the button behind you could easily raise again. I would routinely throw this away. Pre-flop and after the flop I agree with the play.
I suppose you made some kind of error or there is a new theory of how to play brewing but I know you can't talk about that future book coming out.
David
Preflop you had implied odds to hit your set. You are one off the button so are unlikely to be raised (unfortunately it turned out that the button did in fact raise you).
On the flop there are 19 small bets in the pot when it comes to you. You have about 23-1 shot to hit your set, but also have the 4d so you have a back door flush draw. However someone else is likely to have a higher diamond so the 4d doesn't really help in that respect. What it does mean is that you won't hit your set at the same time as the board makes a 3 flush. To make a call correct, you must be confident that you will win at least 2 big bets if you hit a set on the turn (with 8 players in the pot this is likely), or that you have enough chance to steal the pot on a later street or win a showdown to tilt the odds in your favour (I would say this is unlikely, unless your opponents are weak tight and/or have a lot of respect for your bets.)
Now on the turn you are checked to by the flop bettor, and 2 other players. Checking usually means weakness - sometimes it means a strong hand on a slowplay/check raise, but usually it means your opponents don't have anything. Now, given the size of the pot at this point (21 small bets), anyone with any kind of hand should bet to knock out players, and avoid giving a free card to drawing hands. The fact that your opponents have checked in front of you means that you have a reasonable chance to knock some of them out, and may even have the best hand (although i think this is unlikely). If a bet at this point can improve your chances of winning the pot by 10%, then the EV is positive (it costs 2 small bets, and gives you 10% of 21 small bets). Given that only one opponent is left to act behind you, you are unlikely to be raised, so I think a bet is a good idea here. You gain credibility on your steal by the fact that the board has paired and you are therefore representing a specific plausible hand - your opponents might well put you on a hand like A3 or K3 (which is a clear call on the flop).
Play on the river is automatic - you don't have a hand good enough to bet, and can only beat a drawing hand that missed, so you check behind.
What was the reaction of your opponents when you won the pot with just a pair of fours? Did any of them indicate that they folded better hands to your bet on the turn?
Matt D
"If a bet at this point can improve your chances of winning the pot by 10%, then the EV is positive (it costs 2 small bets, and gives you 10% of 21 small bets)."
This is the key to the fourth street bet. If I do have the best hand, and with no bet to me there is a reasonable chance that this is the case. I must get out every hand that might be drawing to beat me. Since anyone who stays will have at least 6 outs to my hand, need to eliminate them.
The concept here is simple. When the pot is very large, I must do everything possible to increase my chances of winning it.
For example, if one of the callers has a hand like K7 he has six outs to beat me. Since three people folded when I bet, I might have eliminated as many as 18 outs against me. (Note that if someone has better than six outs, such as a flush draw, they won't fold.)
As for the reaction. No one acted like they threw away a better hand. But one player did comment that it was an excellent bet.
Mason,
OK, you said all comments are welcome. Of course your pre-flop call cannot be argued with since small pairs play well when they flop a set against a large field.
You wrote: “The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet, two players to his left called, I called, and the player on the button called."
You are only getting 18 to 1 on your call at this point and that assumes the player behind does not raise. A raise from the button could be expected from many of the hands he raised with pre-flop including big diamonds, overpairs, and JT suited. Even if you could see that he wasn't going to raise (e.g., he gives away his action by the way he holds chips), it is almost inconceivable that your hand is best or can stay best at this point without improving.
It is 22.5 to 1 against turning your set. I think when going uphill in this situation, you need to be pretty sure that hitting your set will win you the pot plus some extra bets. This did not seem to be a favorable flop in this regard for two primary reasons:
First, you could easily already be up against a set of nines or eights (especially from the lead bettor). The callers in front should also worry you. Although many would (and I think should) raise with a set of nines or eights in this position, some would wait till the turn. So you could very well be drawing dead.
Second, even if you make your set on the turn, the board would now be either 9d 8s 3d 4h or 9d 8s 3d 4s. In both cases your hand is very vulnerable to the diamond draw and a straight draw, and in the second case would be also vulnerable to a backdoor spade flush draw. Note that if the draws miss on the river, they will not pay you off (unless they hit an overcard).
Now if you were getting 26 to 1 on your flop call (e.g., you were trapped for three bets pre flop with the same post flop action), maybe a call could be justified. But even then you are facing a situation where you can make your hand but still be in great danger.
A call might also be justified (with the original betting scenario) if you had a better pair such as 7c7d and the flop was something like Ac 6d 2h. Now hitting a seven on the turn would make it much more likely you will win the pot and still get some future bets from other hands such as an ace kicker (although you would of course be doomed if the button had AA).
You then wrote: "The turn was the 3s. It was checked to me and I bet. Only the player in the blind called. A queen of clubs came on the river, we both checked and I won the pot with my two fours. (The player in the blind had Ad 6d.)
Although I believe you made a bad call on the flop, I can't argue with the bet on the turn and the check on the river. Those would be my plays if I got in that position.
Two things come to mind regarding your post. First, I wonder if you knew you made a bad flop call and wanted to see if you would get the proper analysis from the forum (after all, most of us make mistakes and get sloppy now and then). Second, the concepts concerning taking a card off on long shots (backdoor flushes, backdoor straights, and turning a set) when the pot is big would be a subject worth examining in future threads.
Regards,
Rick
I agree that the flop call is very marginal. However, I felt that there was potential to collect several double size bets in case the four came against the particular lineup that I was against, so I made it.
The odds/ implied odds your getting on your call are important, but I don't think that alone tells the whole story. The fact is, nobody's playing the hand in a way that suggests you're not ahead (true, you only have a pair of fours, but miracles do happen), and more importantly you stand to get to the river very cheaply if you stay in the lead unimproved.
This second point deserves further attention, for I am not saying that nobody's going to semi bluff or try to get tricky. What I am saying, however, is that if anyone ends up 'drawing out' on you on the turn or river, you're going to find out fairly fast.
Example: the A or K of spades drops on the turn. Now it's entirely possible that someone's going to bet here with something like ATs (if the K falls) or KTspades (if the A falls), as a semi bluff with a four flush (wasn't the three a spade?). However, it's also highly likely that this same card actually made someone else (someone, for example, that's holding two overcards), in which case that party will certainly raise if their behind the lead bettor on the turn. If the situation is reversed (i.e., the player w/ ATs is behind the player with a pair of K's), the guy w/ a four flush will probably semi bluff raise, given the size of the pot. Similar considerations apply if a Q falls (giving someone a pair of Q's and someone else a four straight w/ a lone J), or a J, a T, etc. etc. Now you may not know which bettor/ raiser is 'telling the truth', but then, you don't really need to; all you need to know is that one of 'ems actually got the goods. The same thing's true if, say, another diamond falls. Someone may bet w/ just the Ad, but the 'real' flush will certainly raise (or, again, vice versa if the Ad is behind the made flush).
However, if one of the possible 6 or so blanks hits, everyone will likely check, since they're out of position and have to be worried about all kinds of exotic action behind them. So, while what you're really looking for is a 4 on the turn, you can be relatively sure that if someone beats you on the turn you're going to find out about it, since it's highly likely that any card that 'helps' one player will 'help' another even more.
One thing I'm curious about; if a diamond hit on the river, would you have overcalled if there'd been a player between you and the SB?
Mason,
After reading some of the other replies, I'm starting to wonder if I am playing too tight in this situation. (BTW, I realize you are getting 19 to 1 on your call, not 18 to 1 as I stated.)
I do think these long shot calls are worth discussing inmore detail. It seems some key factors that need to be considered are the current odds, how likely is it that you may be drawing dead (or near dead), the future bets one figures to make (if you catch your card), and the chances your hand will stand up on the river.
Good sample hands would be marginal and contain key factors that if changed a little, would sway the decision one way or the other.
I still think your 4c 4d is a pretty vulnerable hand even when you catch your four on the turn. The player yet to act on the flop bothers me, especially since he raised pre-flop. The fact that you must call the raise from the button (if it had been made) doesn't change the fact that it is an easy fold if you knew it would cost you two bets to see the turn.
I'm looking forward to seeing more posts in this thread and more new threads on taking a card off on long shots or back door drawing hands on the flop. What we need to develop are some good rules of thumb(s).
Regards,
Rick
Here is one other thing to think about regarding pealing off a card on these long shots. If there is a good chance the hand may get checked through on the turn, you may get two chances to catch your long shot. This would really change things.
Regards,
Rick
This is an important factor which I failed to mention in my post. Of course, you're always faced with that dilemma of taking your "free" card when everyone checks to you or betting to win outright or set up the win with another bet on the river. I find this to be a difficult decision a lot of the time.
The other thing that hasn't been mentioned enough is that there is a fairly small but very real chance that 44 is the best on the flop (after all, no one raised the original bettor). My gut instinct is that the chance of 44 being the best almost cancels out the chance that someone is holding the higher trips.
When a decision is this close, I prefer to err on the side of calling, because A) it makes you look more like 'one of the boys' and not some tight grinder. If this gets you one extra bet on a future hand, it was worth it for that alone. And B) It makes you far less predictable. How many times have you heard someone say, "I knew I was the best because there was no way that three could have helped you." You want your opponents to think in the back of their mind that ANY card might have helped you.
Dan
Dan,
I totally agree if the decision was close. I'm still not sure it was close.
One thought. If an unknown (to the forum) had written this and only posted the question concerning was the call on the flop correct, would we be getting different opinions. My guess is yes.
Regards,
Rick
I don't know about that Rick. For me this is a standard call. Like Dan said, close calls (even slightly neg EV calls) are often worth it just for advertising sake.
This is not a tough call for me if I don't fear a button raise.
I have to admit that I am quite loose with small pairs. They typically hold their value against any number of players in terms of EV. So, unless there is a lot of wild raising going on I'll play a pair from almost any position. If the game has an average of at least 4 people seeing the flop, I'll almost always play any pair from any position. In this case, I would have definitely called before the flop.
Dan
Dan,
I'm also pretty loose with small pairs in all but the toughest games. I never disagreed with Mason's flop calls anyway and was suprised that some did.
Regards,
Rick
Great play. I like the bet on the turn representing the set of 3s (if someone would have had the 3 or a set they would have check raised you at this point). The only person that could call you, would be a flush draw or a weak player that was chasing. You didn't bet on the end, because you did not know if he paired with the 8 or Q, but I probably would have risked betting on the end to make the player fold. Then again, I would have to know my opponent.
I like the call on the flop, given the pot odds and the fact that you held the 4d. While a nine is mathematically likely I doubt there's one out there, since the lead better probably would have gone for a check raise if he/she had one, and if any of the two other callers had one they probably would have raised as well (ditto for overpairs). Furthermore, at this stage you 'might' be ahead (unless someone has an eight, but even then they might have played it like a nine), since everyone so far is playing like they've got a draw. If the button raises it's too bad, but not necessarily catastrophic, since many players would raise w/ overcards here, and by the time it gets back to you you're still getting good odds to spike a four.
Rounding out the picture is the fact that it probably won't cost you too much more to get to the river if, in fact, you're in the lead. I may be stepping out on a limb here, given that I'm not up on the playing conditions at the Bellagio, but IMExperience most early position players will probably check on the turn if they miss their draw, since they'll be worried about semi bluff (or legitimate, in case some neurosurgeon behind them got cute with a set) raises/ reraises behind them.
In sum:
a) You're getting almost perfect odds to try and catch a four on the turn.
b) The play so far suggests, at least to me, that you may be ahead at this stage, and if the button makes it too bets it isn't catastrophic.
c) I probably won't cost you too much more to get to the river if, in fact, you stay in the lead on the turn.
d) A fold here, if in fact you're ahead, is a disaster, since the pot's so huge.
And there's another element at work here, which I've been playing around with lately; namely, that sometimes it pays to stick around with a fairly weak holding on the flop, just to see how things 'pan out' on the turn. I can't count the times I've been in a medium sized pot with something like middle pair after someone raises before the flop, then cringe after I fold to a bet on the flop and it's checked around on the turn. While in a case like this you (I) may not be getting exact odds to draw on the flop, sometimes it's worth it to hang around for another card, just to see what happens. While one can make the case that this isn't a winning strategy in a pot that wasn't raised pre-flop (since players are more likely to get cute with big hands), when it's been raised I think it's often a good idea to see how everyone likes their hands once the bets double.
Two thoughts. One, I agree with those who state they would have folded pre-flop. The danger of a raise from behind is far too great in my opinion. The other thought is about the calculation on hitting the set on the turn. Everyone blindly looks at the 5 cards we can see and figures there are 47 RANDOM cards left to draw from. This is surely not the case if you are playing against rational opponents. 8 players saw the flop, and they all had to pay to do it. Most playable hands do not contain a four. Of course the two hands that were released might have fours, but I'll bet the true odds of hitting a 4 on the turn are better than the 22-1 that the math heads calculate. Any thoughts?
Anyone good enough to have the second thought should ignore his first thought.
You might try applying this to other close situations.
Dan
Two quick points before I have to run.
Mason wrote: "Four players had limped in and I had 4d4c one off the button. I called, the player on the button raised, both blinds called, and all remaining players including me called. (Eight of us saw the flop for two bets each)."
You wrote: "One, I agree with those who state they would have folded pre-flop. The danger of a raise from behind is far too great in my opinion".
Even if I knew the button was going to raise and thought one blind would probably fold I would love to see this flop with a small pair and six opponents. The extra money you figure to get when you hit a set is just too great.
You wrote: "The other thought is about the calculation on hitting the set on the turn. Everyone blindly looks at the 5 cards we can see and figures there are 47 RANDOM cards left to draw from. This is surely not the case if you are playing against rational opponents. 8 players saw the flop, and they all had to pay to do it. Most playable hands do not contain a four."
Good point. This may be a factor if the pots are usually played two or three handed and suddenly you get all those limpers. If the game was loose, it probably is not much of a factor. I hope you get more comments on this point.
BTW, I can show you old college grades that will definitely prove I am not a "math head", although I was pretty "geeky" when I was young and before it was fashionable.
Regards :-),
Rick "the math head?"
I meant to say folded on the flop. I would 'always' call with this hand since it does have tremendous drawing odds when the flop figures to be at least 6 handed.
Danny S
"One, I agree with those who state they would have folded pre-flop. The danger of a raise from behind is far too great in my opinion."
So what if there is a raise. It should have essentially no effect on the overall odds of the hand. In fact, it may actually improve them if it ties on other players who may now be drawing close to dead assuming you hit your set.
OK, Mason, I'll bite.
What if button raises and small blind reraises? Now how are your odds?
William
Monsters under the bed. Any time you play a hand, you risk this. I'll tell you I'd much rather have 44 if the blinds double raised than KQo, yet I'll play this hand too. There are many playable hands that turn into big dogs if it turns out that you are up against AA and KK. Don't worry about it.
Dear Mason:
I would like to venture a very wild idea.
Since you may want to take some control of the hand and since you may want to be in the position to make a non marginal flop call if the board is not that threatening how about making it three bets when it comes to you raised preflop. The idea is: all are trapped now. When you make it tree bets most likely all will call even if the button makes it four bets.
A voice inside me tells me that this may be a bad idea but I do not know why. Can you help me.
Thank you,
Maria
Also I thought of a crazy thought!
The pot is humangous at this point: say that YOU were the player with the flush draw. It seems to me that a check-raise semibluf is an excellent choice at this point. Hence, if this is the case is the bet on the turn of value in a tough game? Would you call a check-raise followed by a bet on the river?
Maria
The button raised before the flop. It is reasonably likely that the button will raise again with no big cards on the flop. The real problem I see is if one of the early position players now decides to make it three bets (the small blind did lead out after all) since surely someone needs to try to thin the field; meaning you would have to fold for two more small bets. If this situation would occur just 10% (probably not much higher even with an agressive player in the small blind) of the time, then I would think there's enough justification not to make that marginal call ahead of the button. You also have to survive three opponents potentially making a move ahead of you on the turn given that there was no raise on the flop. I think you were lucky it got checked around to you on the turn this hand.
I have pasted and saved this hand for this reason: The turn bet. It is possible, since my main objective of playing the hand has fizzled (the set of 4s), that I may, somewhat unthinkingly, have simply checked along. I belileve I would have made the bet, but there is a chance I might whimp out -- a horrible play which, if the button bets the turn, or someone else the river and I fold, I may not even suspect *how* horrible. The turn bet, which everyone agrees with and which all good players would make, is not *that* obvious, yet it is probably the difference between winning and break-even-or-worse players.
I think the most important aspect of this hand is the fact that eight people saw the flop. Somebody has got to have at least an eight or a nine. If so, than the only card that can help you is a four. Even if you do hit your four, you still might get beat by a straight. Any card above a seven is going to help an opponent. IMO if this call is correct than I am playing too tight and my opponents are playing at the expert level, because they make terrible calls like this all of the time.
You hit upon a point which many players who are trying to play well fail to handle well. It is that in very large pots the expert player will frequently play the same as the "tourist" type. While the intermediate player will play differently. This is because the intermediate player does not do a good enough job of taking into the size of the pot and anticipating the future action.
All right, but along with the increased pot odds comes a decreased chance of winning the hand because of the large number of opponents. Right? How do these two ideas relate to each other? In other words, How do you know when the increased pot odds make up for the fact that you are up against many opponents. I bet Bob Ciaffone would agree with me on this one.
The chance of winning a pot always decreases when the number of opponents increases. The important question is whether your EV increases or decreases. In the case of a pocket pair, it definitely increases. Sets are big hands.
Two things-
First, I doubt you're up against an eight or a nine, since an early position player would probably try to check raise the button with one of these hands, or raise the bettor on the flop. Second, you're getting almost exact pot odds to try and spike a set, and it's unlikely that another four will help anyone else.
We can work out how good or bad that flop call is by doing the math.
First off, the "turn a set" possibilities alone almost cannot justify the call. If we figure there is a 25% chance you will still lose if you catch a four (feels about right, with the straight, flush, and bigger set possibilities), and you'll lose an average of three more big bets when this happens, then you need to expect to win an average of seven more big bets the times when you turn your set and its good. That's a very tall order . . .
Now, if we factor in the possibility of something like the actual outcome occurring, the call just might be OK. But this depends on some things as well -- like, you need to be reasonably sure there aren't tricky players out there who will check raise the turn. If the small blind had check raised with a hand like A9 on the turn, and you had called the raise, it would have been a disaster for you. And if you're going to fold for that raise, you open your self up to him check raising with some sort of draw, knocking you out, which is an even bigger disaster.
Incidentally, if you turn a set and the small blind check raises with either of the above hands, that's not too good, either, as you will lose custormers.
Putting it all together, it seems like this is the sort of call where everything has to be just right.
Were you sure the button was not going to raise? Did you think you'd win a lot if you caught a four? Was the small blind a tricky player who would check raise on the turn with A9, and sometimes also with a draw? (Apparently not, at least not this time . . .)
If the answers to all these questions were favorable, it's OK to call.
Betting on the turn after it was checked too you was a good play since the original player gave his probable hand away by checking, and no one else was after the pot. there was enough money in the pot to bet since if they all didn't fold, you would still improve your chances to win. I haven't read a single post above as there are a bunch.so If I've repeated something, sorry.
Also you had odds to call on the flop with so much money in there. if there had been a bet on the turn I'm assuming you would have let it go. Right?
A fairly tight player raises in early position pre-flop ,I call with a pair of nines from middle position and the button calls. Flop comes up Q,low card, low card ,no straight or flush possibilities on board.The guy bets ,I put him on A/k or a pair lower than queens right away.It was very unlikely that he had aces/kings or a set,for his bet could eliminate the already small field(2 players).I'm the only one that calls. Turn is a queen,he bets it again from his early position(his bet tells me he does'nt have a queen for if he had a queen he would check it and he was'nt a tricky player that would bet trips). I raise it with my 9,9's (nines being higher than the other 2 cards on the board).He calls,(hmmmm,he does have a pocket pair higher than mine?), sh t I'm a cooked goose. River is an ace.We both check the river and the duck shows me A/K!!! My raise on the turn should have definately told him I had atleast queens up and possibly trips(trips giving him a hand that was drawing dead).
If you would have played it differently feel free to let me know. C.M.
You seem to have had a pretty strong conviction about the hand. If what you say you felt at the time is correct, I would have raised on the flop. He may have even raised you back, and if he does, you fold (some players with AK will actually re-raise with this flop, so my last comment is not all inclusive). If he doesn't reraise, you then would have had control, and after he checks the turn, your bet may have gotten your opponent to fold.
From your description this seems like a fairly solid group of players. So from from middle position with your nines I probably would have three bet it to buy the button and get it heads up vs. original raiser. This will probably give you control of the hand.
"A fairly tight player raises in early position pre-flop ,I call with a pair of nines from middle position and the button calls."
I would fold here unless this is a player who is also very weak. That is he doesn't bet unless he has a hand.
"Flop comes up Q,low card, low card ,no straight or flush possibilities on board.The guy bets ,I put him on A/k or a pair lower than queens right away.It was very unlikely that he had aces/kings or a set,for his bet could eliminate the already small field(2 players)."
I agree that he might slowplay a set of queens, but almost all players will bet aces or kings.
"I'm the only one that calls." You probably should have raised. If reraised you can fold against most players and if your hand is best you would like to get the player behind you out.
"Turn is a queen,he bets it again from his early position(his bet tells me he does'nt have a queen for if he had a queen he would check it and he was'nt a tricky player that would bet trips)."
I think you have this backwards. Wouldn't a tricky player check three queens. But you are right. When the top card on board pairs on fourth street it is sometimes a good bluffing opportunity.
"I raise it with my 9,9's (nines being higher than the other 2 cards on the board)."
Since you didn't raise on the flop, I agree with your raise here. However, it seems a little strange since most players would raise with top pair on the flop.
"He calls,(hmmmm,he does have a pocket pair higher than mine?), sh t I'm a cooked goose. River is an ace.We both check the river and the duck shows me A/K!!! My raise on the turn should have definately told him I had atleast queens up and possibly trips(trips giving him a hand that was drawing dead)."
Welcome to the world of live ones and bad beats.
You say he is a tight player. Therefore his likely holding is AJs, AQ or better. So you are either a small favourite or a huge underdog. Given the fact that several players are still to act behind, I would fold the nines. What kind of situation are you trying to get into? You are either going for a set against many opponents, or are trying to get heads up vs overcards. If you play them at all I think you should reraise rather than just call, but this is a very risky play unless you have really good control over your opponent. I don't see the need to force the situation here -why not just fold and wait for a better opportunity?
I think the call on the flop is bad. Either you are beat already, in which case you have almost no outs and should fold, or you are ahead, in which case you should raise to knock out the button and possibly get the guy with overcards to fold. There are 8 small bets in the pot, and your opponent is likely to bet AK, AJ, as well as hands which have you beat (AA, KK, AQ, KQ, JJ and TT all have you beat). I think a raise is marginal with a Q on the flop because your opponent is quite likely to hit this flop (you would prefer a J high flop or lower), so I would probably fold here with one player to act behind me.
The raise on the turn is representing trips or better. The problem is that anyone with top pair on the flop would surely raise the flop, so your opponent may suspect that you are bluffing.
I think you should fold preflop, and either fold or raise on the flop.
Matt D
The reason I did'nt raise on the flop is because there was still a player behind me that could be holding a queen giving him top pair.I felt that when the board paired with the queen on the turn and it was heads up with the pre-flop raiser I could take a shot with a raise because the only queen he could have in his hand were pocket queens.This was a player that would not raise utg in an 11 handed game with AQ or KQ .The game also had a couple of weak players in the game not raising top pair on the flop so my not raising on the flop did'nt mean anything. I also did'nt want to raise on the flop because of the player behind me and the fact that I've seen this guy play his AK's very aggressive . With some players you also get a feeling they are'nt there yet ,I had that feeling with him.
Against the kinds of players you should call with 99 before the flop, you should either raise or fold on the flop. If you are queezy about your hand and your sandwhiched position, you shouldn't have call before the flop.
The Queen on the turn improves your hand since that's one less card he can have to have you beat. But a raise looks suspicious since you didn't raise post-flop.
If you put him on a bigger pair than yours when he calls the raise, then you should bet it out on the end when an Ace came since his hand (apparently) got worse. That is, so long as he's some kind of player who may lay down JJ. Players who will call with JJ on the end are likely to call AK on the turn.
He had 6 outs. Not a bad beat.
As an excercise, please consider the kind of player and their hand and betting patterns that would make it correct for you to play this hand this way. I think you will find it difficult to do so.
- Louie
40 cards on the river would have helped me win the pot ,6 helped him.If you don't call that a beat what is it???? I did'nt know any of the players by the way.
Hitting one of 6 outs is not a "bad beat", more like a typical suckout. These beats happen all the time. "Bad beat" should be reserved for those rare horrendous drawouts, like when the opponent can only win by catching perfect-perfect.
I count 8 cards gone, 6 good cards, leaving 52-8-6=38 bad cards; or he is a 38:6 or 6.333:1 underdog.
When you raise on the turn he's getting 7:1 pot odds to call which is more than 6.333. Good call, so long as you have the hand you have.
The "Bad" in "Bad Beat" references the short odds the player accepted; it has nothing to do with the emotional impact of the reversal of fortune. A bad beat is when you flop top set when the board is Kd9c3h and the player with 75h runs you down.
- Louie
A bad beat, IMO, is a hand where the other guy has two or less outs, and spikes one on the river in a pot that has at least 10 BB's in it. This hand isn't even in the ballpark; remember, he was about 3:1 to get there even after he missed the flop.
If this hand got your proverbial goat, you're going to be ready for the funny farm after about 500 hrs. of play.
All,
A week ago, I moved to the Phoenix area, and with the large amount of poker games spread at Casino Arizona, I have decided to start taking up 4-8 or 6-12 hold 'em. Now, those of you that have seen me post here before, know that I generally play pot-limit, so this is quite a change. Well, needless to say, I have played 4-8 twice and lost about $200 total. I know this game can be beat. In 1 hour, I went from all in, to up $100, so there are some dramatic swings. So please dispense any advice you feel would help. Do not tell me these games cannot be beat (if that's the way you feel, you might as well not post it cuz you won't change my stubborn mind). I play again on Tuseday night, so anything you can tell me would be greatly appreciated.
Big A
This type of game can be beat. If you are losing like this I would wager you are playing with a pot limit mentality, which is very wrong. You need an incredible amount of patience and no "gamble" to win. You will not force players out of a pot with bets, raises or reraises, and you will almost never bluff. You HAVE TO play based on your position more than in any other game. Big pairs lose much of their value and drawing hands become better and this is all relevant to your position. If big bet pot limit poker is your game, you will need a lot of adjusting to play low limit $4-8 poker, you'll probably find the discipline needed to consistently win to be very boring compared to what you're used too.
Big A
I play 4/8 in a loose aggressive game. The players for the most part are smart,solid. Some suggestions, go back to basics. Focus on hand rankings and position. Dont try to get tricky, pot limit and NL moves will not work here. Play in a straight forward manner and play as tight as you personally can. Use the bluff and semi bluff rarely. This is small limit,but you still must use good poker technique. Is it possible you are "gambling"? Play your best game and you should take down the money! Do not let your ego get in the way of solid play. Hope this helps, Bill
al think bill and gator have the solutions to your plroblem sure is diff at 4-8 than other games bty ck the exchange forum i have sent you a message al (txhotmod)
I guarantee you the game can be beat (assuming a normal rake) because in twenty years of playing I have yet to find a low limit game that can't be beat.
Your problem is most likely the fact that you haven't given it enough time. $200 down after two sessions means absolutely zilch. With stats like this I couldn't tell you if you were a world champ or a world chump (though I assume much closer to the former). You simply haven't played enough hours to come to any meaningful statistical conclusions.
I will say that if you are used to pot limit you may have to adjust your strategy a little. You have to play solid cards, but IMO you can loosen up your starters a little because there are so many players going in pre-flop with absolute garbage.
You can go a little further with hands than you would in PL because there are so many players drawing to miracles and overly proud of their pairs.
A couple things to remember about games like this:
As Mr. Hanson has pointed out, sometimes you're getting proper odds to chase when you flop something like mid pair, three to a flush, since the pot's are so huge. If you miss out on these kinds of drawing opportunities, then you're missing out on a ton of profit. Secondly (and this is just my opinion, based on the kinds of games I often find myself in), if a player bets into you or bets out AFTER YOU'VE PUT IN THE LAST BET ON THE EARLIER ROUND, they are RARELY bluffing, and can almost always beat top pair. You've got to be careful with this, but I've found that this is generally true at the lower limits, simply because 'most' players don't understand the semi-bluff.
An extention of this concept was voiced by Ed Conley (author of "Claiming Colorado", a book on the 2-5 game, and an acquaintence of mine), who mentioned that IF YOU PLAY TIGHT most players won't start raising you IF you raised pre-flop, as the majority of your opponents are 'playing to beat A's'. That is, they'll keep drawing and drawing, but won't start getting aggresive against a tight pre-flop player until they've got wired A's beat.
Example: you've got pocket K's and raise pre-flop, and the old man in seat 5 calls. Flop comes Q62 rainbow. You bet, he calls. Turn: a J, and the old man bets out. In this case (again, IMExperience) the old man's got you; either he held a queen and spiked his kicker, or he flopped some kind of monster and decided to slow play it on the flop. Either way, HE'S NOT SEMI BLUFFING. You'll have to watch your opponents closely, but if you keep this concept in the back of your mind I promise it will save you Big $.
Low limit is truly a grind. At higher limits (or pot or no limit) good plays go along way in determining if you win or lose. In low limit only your cards determine your winnings. The tighter you play the more you will win. But do remember that drawing hands become more valuable at lower limits due to more people in most pots.
What is the best way to bet in this game. Play it like a limit game and always bet $5 if you play a hand, stay in on weaker draws with lots of callers on $1 bets. If you vary your bets a lot wouldn't you give your hands away? I would want to bet the max with pocket Queens to limit the field, but would want to suck in people on a low bet with rolled up queens.
I play quite a bit of 1-5 as many of the casinos I play at offer this limit only consistantly. I enter a new game with the idea of betting $5 whenever I want to limit the field early. HOWEVER, I have found that the texture of the game might cause me to change this strategy. I have played in tight games in which a $5 bet on the first round consistently narrows the field to just me. When this happens I will slow down and either slowplay big pairs once or twice or make the big bets as a steal when several other players have called the bring in and I have a bit of money to shoot at. Also, be careful when you have bigger cards out after you. I had almost the same situation you describe in my most recent game. It was a tight passive game at the Grand Casino in Marksville la. I bet $5 with queens with an ace out behind me. The ace called the $5 for the first time in about 4 hours of play. UH-OH. He did have the aces. Most low limit stud players aren't cognizant enough of your play that varying your bets will make a lot of difference.
I play a lot of $2 - $5 stud, but this should apply to $1 - $5 as well. I vary the bets, not based on what my cards are, but on position and what players and what cards are behind me. With two queens, my goal is to get the blinds and one caller with an under pair or a draw. This is easiest with about two limpers in ahead of me. I raise to $5 or $6, hoping to drop those with no money in the pot yet, and get a call from someone already in for the $2. The amount that will get one or two callers varies a lot from one game to the next.
DJ
It is difficult to have a set betting strategy for 1-5 stud. The amount to bet to limit the field varies from table to table and hour to hour. As a new stud player, you will need to develop the skills of reading your opponents to determine what amount of a bet will suffice at that particular table. As a very general rule, at least in LV, a raise of 3 or 4 will usually limit the field adequately(for whatever reason, many players at these limits have a much greater fear of a 5 dollar raise than of a 4 dollar raise, even though there is only a one dollar difference. As such, a five dollar raise will oftentimes eliminate everyone).
Do not be concerned that your betting amount will clue the players at the table into your hands. Remember that at this limit, most players don't pay attention, and if they do, they probably don't understand anyway. The smart players, if any, may figure out that you have a pair, which is fine, because they will then likely drop out, leaving you head up with the fish. If all of the players are dropping out at any raise on third street, you should find a different table.
As for drawing hands, you should usually limp in to get proper drawing odds. And of course, slow playing trips early on is also usually the correct play. Once again, your opponents will likely not be sophisticated enough to care about your betting pattern, even if they could figure it out. Most players at these limits are more concerned with their own cards than they are your hand, especially early on.(As an aside, paradoxically these players are oftentimes overly concerned with your board as the hand progresses, especially when you have previously raised. They will assume that two ro three of a suit means flush, pair means boat, etx., even if your betting pattern does not match up and the spent cards make such hands unlikely. Once again, knowing what players can be "bluffed by the board" is somethign that you learn with time and effort.
"If all of the players are dropping out at any raise on third street, you should find a different table. " Why ? You can rob them blind all day.
Andy.
In the 1-5 games that I have seen in Las Vegas, there is no ante, so the only stealing would be of the bets in front of you on third street, which is usually a marginal sum.
If there was an ante, I would wholeheartedly agree with you.
I was also overstating things when I said "always." The general point I was trying to get across is that a very tight 1-5 game with no ante is difficult for a new stud player to beat, and that he would be better off finding a looser group of players. It is, of course, not difficult to beat such a game if you know what to do, but my response was geared to a relatively inexperienced player who does not know how to beat the rocks that I was trying to describe.
I apologise, I didn't realise there was no ante. In that case I absoultely agree.
Andy.
I have read 7stud for advanced players and would like advice on what adjustments to make from the strategies advocated when playing in a pot limit stud game. The game I play in usually has $1 ante, $5 low card bring in, and then its pot limit rounded down to the nearest $5.
Some thoughts I have had: with such a small ante and bring in and huge implied odds it is correct to wait and play more of a trapping game rather than the aggressive raise, reraise limit the field tactics in 7SfAP? Or does the risk of being outdrawn still necesitate limiting the field with big pairs etc. despite the possibility of only winning a small pot?
7SfAP says that if you play really well on 3rd st and only mediocre on all the other streets you will probably still be a marginal winner. But in pot limit with the bets so huge on the later streets is this still the case, if you play poorly on 6th and 7th streets would this negate your 3rd st play no matter how excellent? Or would good 3rd st hand selection still put you in the winners circle no matter what you did on the later streets?
Are small drawing hands - small 3 flushes and 3 straights playable in this game against normal betting?
Also, what bankroll would be recommended for this game?
Answers to these questions and all other advice much appreciated.
to become an expert 10-20 HE player. As a frame of reference for my learning capabilities, it took me six months to play "perfect" blackjack using the Zen count with 36 indices. I have been winning at an acceptable hourly rate for about a year and a half playing blackjack. I have been playing break even 6-12/9-18 HE for about six months. I keep a daily log and notes about any mistakes I might have made. I feel I make about 1 borderline mistake per hour. My borderline mistakes include semi-bluffing into 3 or more people when the flop is ragged or calling raises cold with draws that aren't immediately getting correct odds. I also spend a lot of money on raises if I think I can isolate myself against a very bad player but even bad players can get good cards. With this being said how many months am I away from "cracking" this game?
IMHO, being a great blackjack counter has little or nothing to do with being an expert poker player. Poker has more complexities and intricacies than blackjack. Its like comparing apples and oranges because they're both fruits. Poker is a far different game (sport).
Expecting to become an expert poker player over a period of months is utterly unrealistic. And it's not just a function of how long you play anyway. Like anything else, you can play for umpteen years and never dream of obtaining "expert" status. How many golfers do you know that have been playing for decades and still shoot in the ninetys?
If you study, and play, and re-study, and play a lot more, and study some more, I would say you might get to call yourself an expert after 5 or so years. That's assuming you have the right stuff to begin with. I've been really studying the game of poker for over 2 decades (along with playing very long hours), and I still learn something almost every time I play (or at least re-learn something I forgot). I'm a very consistent winner, but I'd be very hesitant to refer to myself as an "expert". The minute I do I'm sure someone will come along to give me an ass-kicking that I never forget.
As for beating 6-12 or 4-8, that's a different story. With a little talent and a lot of effort, I'd guess you should be able to beat this game after about 500 hours of play. This is just a wild guess. There are innumerable factors to consider.
In about 11 months, 3 days, and 4 hours.
With a S.D. of 33 days.
You don't have to be an 'expert' to win, you just have to be better than the field you play against. So how long it takes you to be a winning player will completely depend on your opponents.
In some areas, 10-20 games are among the toughest around, because there are often a lot of young pros at this level trying to make a living. In other areas, the 10-20 games can be full of rank beginners. So you have to handicap your field.
Against the softest, loosest players, you can probably come out of the gates as a winning player by just studying the right books and playing tight before the flop. But if your opponents have a clue, you're going to need some experience.
Dan
Tough to answer. Some people have six months of experience, others have one month of experience six times...
The mistakes you describe as "borderline" (particularly semi-bluffing "3 or more" opponents, are major mistakes, not borderline. But the very fact that you understand that these are mistakes at all shows good insight. I'd guess it will take you about 12 to 18 months to get it together. Good Luck! Black Jack
On 5th street you find yourself Heads Up against what you believe to be a Pair of Aces. How many Flush Cards would have to be Dead before you gave up on your Draw. The Pot is offering 4 to 1 (your effective odds would be around 3 to 1)
You: (3s,Qs)Ks,2s,7c
Opponent: (?,A?)Ac,5h,Jd
Since your hand has no other outs (other than running Trips or 2 Pair that may not be good even when you hit them) I think that if you saw any more than 4 Dead Flush Cards you would have to fold your hand.
Comments?
Thanks, CV
You don't say how many total cards you have seen, which is necessary to know for the calculation. Assuming, for example, that 4 folded on 3rd and two more on 4th, you would have seen 16 cards. Of the 36 unseen, only 5 are spades (13, minus your 4 and the 4 dead ones), your chance of catching the flush with two cards to come is about 26% (330/1260) so it's a marginal call. If you've seen more cards it becomes better; fewer, worse. Also, assuming that he does indeed have the pair of aces lowers the odds a bit, but that's a very tricky calculation I don't have time for and it's probably less than 1% anyway.
Dear C, I suggest that you read Roy West's book 7 Card Stud : 42 Lessons.THe answer to your question cannot be add- ressed any better. Richard
Its been a while since I read that chapter in Roy's book, but I'm glad he agrees with me. The problem is that there will be times when the pot is large enough to force us to go to the River even with 5 dead Flush cards and no other outs.
Also the total of cards known does make a difference. I was figuring 14 known cards when I did my first calculations. Though to make this situation more likely maybe 16 would have been more correct.
Also Roy is talking about Low Limit games where the Ante isn't that large. Some of his advice is too tight for 15/30 and above. The Bellagio 6/12, I've heard, has a large Ante also.
Later, CV
An other factor I forgot to consider is how the opponent plays. If you won't get any action on 7th when you make your hand, you may have to throw your draw away. If your opponent may not have what he is representing, or if he will bet into you on 7th and pay you off when raised then the hand definately can be played.
CV
But wait. If he won't give you any action when you make your hand on 7th street, then you can always play, because you can always bluff him out on the river, right?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Good Point!
CV
I had totaly forgot about Bluffing on the End against an opponent who can fold, Duh! Say a tight opponent doesn't improve his Aces, he might think I would only Bet on the End if I had at least Two Pair or made my Flush. Now I would mostly Check along, but sometimes bet as a Bluff. I could even do some Game Theory on this, but I'll save it. Thanks again for pointing that out.
CV
Has anyone done any research on the standard deviation in a "average" 4 8 Omaha game? Is there a text of choice for Omaha? Any words of wisdom? Your comments are appreciasted.
Joe J. Phoenix
Low limit holdem, I am in the BB with KJo. The game has just started, most faces are new to me. UTG folds, 2 seat opens with a call, 3 other callers including the button, SB folds, I rap and 5 of us see the flop in an unraised pot.
Flop is J82 rainbow. I bet, 2 seat calls, button calls.
Turn is 8, I bet, 2 seat calls, button raises. I have played with the button before; he is regularly plays his hands very strongly, he could have as little as overcards here, but I'm sure he doesn't have an 8. I reraise, hoping that the 2 seat will lay down, but he calls.
River is a 6, no flush possible. Bet or check?
Larry
Check. After you re-raise the turn, you're not getting called by a hand unless they can beat you, IMO. For that matter, re-raising the turn with one pair seems a little agressive.
Also, I think you ought to go for a check raise in this situation. First, you want to make it more incorrect for people to continue with their draws, and second (and sometimes more importantly) you can often figure out if your hand's any good by judging the action on the flop. If someone bets and then there's a raise, making it two bets to you, you can certainly make a case for laying it down. However, if you bet, and the person who WOULD have bet their king calls (a strange phenomena, peculiar to low limit games), and someone else raises, you really have no idea if you're good or not.
If he's the kind of hyper-agressive player you describe, seems like an automatic check-call. If he has you beat, there's no way he'll lay down to a bet, and if he doesn't he probably wouldn't call, but he's very likely to bluff back at you. Many of these types consider it their duty never to let a betting round complete for free.
Depends whether the 2-seat WOULD have raised with any Jack on the flop. If he WOULD have, and certainly the button would have, then neither has a hand to call except maybe TT. Check even though you are probably going to win.
But if the 2-Seat WOULD have (just) called with any Jack I would bet.
- Louie
Why not chect on the flop for info. and reise accordingly?
I would check and then call the river. But in addition I would not have re-raise the turn. I would have called the raise only. The button could have pocket deuces.
You say, "he could have as little as overcards here, but I'm sure he doesn't have an eight".
I hear players making comments like this all the time, but it's a very dangerous way to think. The fact of the matter is that you have no way of knowing if he has an eight or not. He's certainly representing an eight. Eights show up in button hands all the time (especially with no pre-flop raise). If he's an aggressive player as you describe he sure played it like a middle pair on the flop (ie. he didn't raise on the flop, which almost rules out top pair). Sure, he could be bluffing with overcards, but what do you really gain by not giving him any credit? You don't even have the top kicker with your pair.
I would just call the raise, and check to him on the river. Remember, if he's on a cold bluff (overcards) he probably just folds when you reraise (because there's a good chance he's now drawing dead). If you check to him on the river he doesn't really know whether you've bought the bluff bet on the turn and if you will now fold to another bet. So he has to bet to complete the bluff, and you call and end up with more of his money than if you re-raise on the turn. In other words, you've induced another bluff bet.
It's a pet peeve of mine when I hear players say "I knew he had x" or "I knew he didn't have y". Usually it's after the cards are shown. Almost always there were lots of other possibilities and the "guesser" was just deluding himself. Aggressive maniacs get lucky on the turn sometimes just like everyone else. Be careful.
In this particular players case, who has a bad case of 'weak is strong-itis', I was virtually certain that if he had an eight he would have just called my raise; I have enough hours in across from him be very confident of this
As has been pointed out, my re-raise was incorrect. When the 2 seat called a double bet I was sure I was beat. Even though I also thought that it was very likely that the 2 seat would call on the river at this point, when the rag hit, I thought my only shot of winning was to bet it, representing a set of 8's, have the 2 seat fold (as he would have action behind him) and beat the button in a showdown.
It didn't work. The 2 seat called and button overcalled. Button showed down KJ (same hand I had) and 2 seat had AK, having never raised at any point in the entire hand.
L
Bad reason to bet on the end. The only hand that can beat you and NOT trip 8's is AK. Players who call double bets on the turn with it are not going to lay it down on the end, and rightfully so.
- Louie
"It's a pet peeve of mine when I hear players say "I knew he had x" or "I knew he didn't have y". Usually it's after the cards are shown. "
I knew you were going to say that!
Excellent point of after-the-fact knowledge. I find myself doing it quite a bit, but I also THEN notice and disregard this detrimental method of analysis/justification. Its kind of like analysis discipline.
- Louie
Check, not even close.
Hi! Can anyone give me an opinion regarding the Super System book by Doyle Brunson? I am a very new poker sudent. Also, what are opinions regarding strategy practice - again for a new player - using the Texas Torbo software by Wlson Software? I realize this cannot replace actual play, but would it be a good practice vehicle for learning the basics, etc.? My thanks to all of you kind enough to respond to my messages of the last few days, and best of luck!! Dave
Hello, Dave, I am a new player also, and I really like Super System. I have the TTH software, too, but have not gotten around to using it much. I would definitely recommend playing on-line via GPKR (see a link on Ken's Poker Page, which is in "Favorite Link" in the left column here). There are different levels of play available depending on how much (fake) money you have, and while the lowest level ($5-10) can get ridiculously wild, the $10-20 level (which you can only play once you've grown your initial $1000 bankroll to $2000) is pretty tough. Good luck.
Kate;
Looking thru Ken's PPg. I cldn't find the game you desinated as GPKR? Pls be more specific.
The Gambler's General Store told my friend the books out of Print. I wonder if Chuck, at ConJelco has any?
CV
Super System is a great book. However, I don't think its the kind of book you would STUDY very much, since some of the details, IMO, are a little off. It will do much to imprvove your heart and attitude. Consider it a supplement.
I cannot use the word "strategy" when discussing TTH. Its great to learn the mechanics (when to bet) and rudementary situations (you have stiff Jh with 4 hears on board). I strongly recomend that once you are confident you can beat it, STOP.
- Louie
According to Doyle's own admission if you play NL Holdem like the book says you likely to have nagative EV. Most concepts and plays are very valid in the book but not for the novice. Most structured betting in the book is out of date and no casino plays like that anymore. Like I said it is a very good book as a complement for a player who has read everything else and aspire to play some no limit games. Don' even bother learning much from a software. Admit it that it's for fun and games. The only positive thing a software will give you is reading the board as a practice.(which is no small thing in holdem). This is my opinion and I have played countless hours on software read everything including the "Super system". 2 + 2 has better books to 'study' from.
Where does he say this?
Matt D
He made this statement in the net sort of word of the mouth, not in the book and of course not in person.
I would like to ask your advice on preflop action.
California loose games:
UTG folds, #4 calls, # 5 calls, #6 folds, #7 raises, #8 folds, #9 calls, button calls, and you are in the small blind with KJs, J9s or J8s. You expect at least: 5 callers and in fact most likely the big blind will call also.
Call?
Maria
If you can expect this pot to be capped now then only play the KJs. The others are OK if you expect no more raises. Call with all, hope for a straight or flush draw.
"Loose" isn't an adequate description. It matters if you can expect 5 players or 2 to take the showdown. It matters if you can expect capped multiple bets on later rounds. It matters if they will give you action even after you make the obvious flush.
- Louie
I would likely call with the KJs and the J9s. BTW, the position of the raiser in your scenario is about as bad as it can get (for you) given that there will be 2 players between you and the raiser and a further 2 players between the raiser and you. When calling from the blinds with these types of hands (i.e., those where you could be dominated and are therefore really trying to flop something better than one pair), I prefer to have the preflop raiser either UTG or on the button. Against UTG, you are in the perfect checkraising position while against the button, you are in great position to make a lead bet and hopfully have several players call before (hopefully) the button raises.
skp,
I'm never seen anything like the above written about the position of the raiser and hope others make some comments on it (that is why I changed my title). Maybe you can start a thread on the subject when you get a chance. I'll think about it when my head is fresh.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I was hoping you would post on Mason's thread below about the pair of 44's but then again there are so many threads and so little time.
Rick, I was away from my computer from early Sunday to late Monday. By the time I saw Mason's thread on the pocket 4's, it seemed like everyone remotely connected to this Forum had already got their input in...probably not much that I can add although I might once I have gone through all the posts.
BTW, when I get some time (hopefully later tonight), I will try and start a thread on the issue of the position of the raiser.
Skp,
It was a facinating thread. I too have days where I'm just too busy and I miss a lot. When I get time (which may be never the way things are going), I'll try to start one on long shot calls on the flop. I play enough where there are three bets seven ways before the flop (e.g., 9/18 holdem at the Commerce) that having a better feel for this is important.
Regards,
Rick
Maybe I play too tight in the small blind, but I don't really like any of these hands.
I know you say it's a loose table, but you've got 2 early position calls, a middle position raise, and two late position cold calls. You have to give these guys at least a little credit.
I might call with KJs. But I think that's a marginal call at best, and I wouldn't count on making much (if anything) with this call over the long run. It sounds like I'm going to run into some disagreement here, but I just wouldn't play J8s or J9s from here. Your position sucks! And while you might make a flush (3% chance?), the likliest scenario if you make a pair is that you'll be beaten with a higher kicker.
Am I playing my small blinds too tight?
Wgb,
A lot depends on the structure. If you are playing 15/30 holdem with a $10 small blind, then you are playing too tight. If you play 9/18 holdem with a $3 small blind, then probably not. If you are playing 20/40 holdem with a $10 small blind, I might drop J8s off the play list. But it is pretty close.
Regards,
Rick
Here's an interesting Hold'em hand that I was apart of in a home game.
Fairly typical game. Won't mention the stakes because i don't think it matters. I'm going to report though the eyes of the late position player because his hand is the most interesting.
UTG limps, late position (LP)with QTo limps, Small Blind calls, Big Blind checks.
Flop come K, T, 3 rainbow. SB a very good player checks, BB also very good checks, UTG a pretty random player also checks. LP with middle pair bets. SB folds, BB hesitates and calls, UTG calls.
Turn is an off suite Q. BB comes out betting, UTG calls. LP who now has two pairs calls.
River is a 2. BB bets, UTG calls. Now my question is what should the LP do? and is the call on the turn correct?
Thanks in advance for any help.
TB
I would have been tempted to raise on the turn. But when he bets again I don't like it. Perhaps the excellent player "knows" you are likely to raise B4-flop with a good hand featuring a King (or Ace), and "suspects" you have no King when you bet.
KT3 is too strong a flop to slow play and "very good" players should know that. He's likely to check-raise if he made the gut-shot. He should therefore have hit the queen for some pair kind of hand; but not KQ since he checked-called the flop.
I therefore suspect the BB of AQ, the UTG with whatever, and QT should call getting 7:1.
- Louie
PS. You are the "very good" BB? :)
I think LP should have raised on the turn to see where he was at. It is tough to put the BB on a hand because he just checked his way into the hand. A-J for the gutshot? Unlikely, but a small possibility. KQ? Doubtful, as he probably would have played this stronger on the flop. A possibility in my mind is that he might have been going for a checkraise on the turn with something like 10-3 or K-3 but thought the better of it with 3 Broadway cards on the board (maybe he was trying to figure where HE was at as well.) Nevertheless, since LP didnt raise on the turn, a call on the river is in order. If the BB does have the goods he will call. The pattern on checking calling the flop and then betting the turn and river from a decent player would be enough to scare me from raising with anything less than top two pair, or perhaps K-10
I'm not disagreeing with your analysis, but could you please explain the advanatge of "Finding out where you are at" in the context of this hand? What good does this information do you?
- Louie
I was thinking in terms of whether the BB had a beatable hand (10-3, Q-3, QJ). Remember, you know nothing about the strength of the BB's hand. If you raise him and are reraised, I think you could safely bail out on the river unless you get help. If he only calls your raise, suspect you are in the lead. In the meantime, you are trapping the "random" (I take this to mean weak) UTG player for extra bets. We know now that UTG is calling even on the river. But up until now his play had indicated a weak draw, most likely a jackor an ace. Why not punish his drawing hand with a raise on the turn? So really I guess, the purpose is two-fold: gain information about the BB, and punish the weak draw UTG seems to be on.
I have to say though, that high card boards like these are the most tricky to play because it is conceivable that everyone involved can have a pair, a draw, a draw and a pair, two pair or trips. Not to mention a straight.
I agree with the raise and your support of it to make UTG pay to draw.
But determining where the BB is at doesn't seem to help, since you invest the same amount and stand to gain the same amount of money vis-a-vis a call and call the river. But it appears you have reduced your chances of drawing out if you fold the turn, AND he can bluff once in a while. And if you call the rereraise and fold the river, you pay extra when you lose and can still be bluffed once in a blue-moon.
So, "Find out where you are at" is desirable if you can profitably put the information to good use.
Good point about big card boards. This situation is a great time to put to use any knowledge you may have on the opponent's specific starting requirements. If you know the opponent will not call a raise cold with AJ, then he has no straight when the flop is KQT. This is a much different situation than when the board is KJT or better yet QJT.
- Louie
LP should have raised on the turn and get an extra bet from the other 2 players. The BB, being a good player, beleives his opponents will throw their hand away if they read him with a AJ or J9. I beleive if BB has a AQ, Q3, 10-3, or Q10 his bet is a great play. At this time I will put him on 10-3 until I read him different. By raising the turn, LP can win it right there. If the BB made a straight he will re-raise LP for LP to call only. UTG will throw his hand away. If LP do not make a full house on the river he will call the BB bet.
I'd just call on the turn after hitting two big pair. I think if he had an AQ he'd do something other than bet the turn, like check and call for a semi-bluff check-raise. If he had AK or KQ I would expect him to bet the flop. So my concerns are a big hand slowplayed on the flop (KT, TT? -- hard with these cards but possible) or an AJ, and that he's looking to get raised on the turn.
My thinking is that I'll make more money but not raising if he's got AQ, and will save money when I'm beat.
Here is a simple poker-like game, whose answer is actually relevant to some on-the-end situations. I'm curious if you have analyzed it.
Each of two players antes $A and is "dealt" a random number, uniformly distributed, between 0 and 1. There is a single round of betting, with fixed $1 bets, and a showdown, if necessary, with the higher number winning.
What is the correct strategy for this game?
William
Q? Are raises & rerasis allowed?
This simple question is actually extremely complicated and is almost worthy of a Phd thesis. Norman Zadeh analyzed the special case where the game is pot limit and no raises are allowed (in his book Winning Poker Systems)
The biggest factor which will effect strategy is the size of $A--the ante. The higher the ante compared with the bet size, the more "hands" that much be played. Also, the higher the ante the more ante stealing that should take place.
For this model to similulate some on-the-end situations, the ante would have to be quite high in a fixed bet model. The size of the bets is usually small compared with the pot size on the end in limit poker.
I think that working out this type of problem could be quite useful in teaching certain principles that are necessary in poker. Dealing from a deck of 101 cards (0-100) provides exact percentages. If you're dealt a 59, you have a 59% chance of having the best hand--pre-betting. You could also use an 11 card deck (0-10) to get round numbers.
Having only one opponent simplfies things also. After understanding the concepts, adding multiplayer models would help understand how the odds, and strategy, are effected by multiple players.
But if working this out is as complicated as David says, I think I'll pass for now. ;-)
I find it hard to believe this q is worthy of a phd thesis... i think alot of people here could post a decent response ... maybe i will in a day or so....
The thesis would concern calculating the correct optimum game theory strategy, not just a decent approximation.
It's probably more difficult than you think. Especially if your solution takes into account different ante structures. Also, the strategy would be different depending on the value you were dealt (Being dealt a 67 might be similar to a 68, but there might be a big difference between a 67 and a 77.). And the person who's first to act alternates hand to hand. That's three variables to complicate matters.
So you have those three variables. The possible actions are checking or betting--when you act first. Folding, calling, raising or betting--if you act second. Might as well limited raises to three (even though it's only two handed).
I don't know if it's possible to find a variable dependent solution, so it might be a good idea to use the 11 card deck. Let's not forget the ante structure. Make the bets $20. Make the possible antes: $2, 5, 10, 15, 20, 40 and 100 for each player. That should cover a good range.
So that's 2x11x7= 154 different solutions if you can't work a solution dependent on the three variables.
Maybe we can make a contest of it! David, for a book? Heck, for that much work, how about putting up $154. That's $1 for each solution. I'll even match David for another $154. Of course, the solution must be optimal. But that should be no problem. ;-)
If anybody wants to work on this, the following rule change might make the problem a little easier, and I think a solution of it would lead to a solution of the original question:
The first player is forced to bet.
William
Hasn't this topic been toroughly discussed in 2+2's new book, "Random numbers uniformly distributed between 0 and 1 for advanced players".
This is a
This is a TGGWAR question. ie no box exists. If you let a= your known hand/No. No statement exists that 1-a= the second players hand.
I play with several players who are very consistent when raising in early position. You can count on them having one of five hands: AA, KK, QQ, AK, or AQ. Assume I call or re-raise with a strong hand. When the flop comes, I've been estimating the chance of being against each hand as 20% each, but suspect the math is more complicated than this. Any help out there?
6ways for pairs. 16ways otherwise
To expand on David's numbers, there are 6 ways to have the pairs for a total of 18. There are 16 ways to have two particular cards of different rank for a total ot 32. Therefore, there are 6/50 ways to have AA, KK or QQ. There are 16/50 ways to have AK or AQ. In percentages its 12% for AA, KK and QQ respectfully, and 32 % chance for AK or AQ. There is a 36% chance the hand is a pair, and a 64% chance it's not--1.77 to 1 against. However, this is only if you do not hold an A, K or Q.
If you held AK, for example, the odds would be as follows: 3 ways to have AA, 3 ways to have KK, 6 ways to have QQ, 9 ways to have AK, and 12 ways to have AQ. 9% for AA and KK, 18% for QQ, 27% chance for AK, and a 36% chance for AQ. You are 50/50 to have the best hand.
Now, if an King flops, say K94, you have a pair of kings. The chance that your opponent has AA is 11%, KK (a set) 3.5%, QQ 21%, AK 21%, and AQ 43%. You're about a 9:2 favorite, ignoring straights and flushes. The odds on having the best hand assume only one opponent.
George:
If I understand you right, when you say "you are 50/50 to have the best hand" with AK preflop, you mean the odds of being ahead but not necessarily winning, but when you say "you're about a 9:2 favorite" with the pair of kings on the flop you're referring to the odds of winning after two more cards come (assuming both players played to the river). What I don't understand is your last reference to "ignoring straights and flushes." Won't the kings hold up just over 80% of the time including straights and flushes? I'm curious as to how you came up with the 9:2 figure.
The 9:2 figure is referring to the chances of having the best hand on the flop. I added an afterthought and changed the meaning of the sentence. My mistake.
If the flop was suited, then the odds of having the best hand would be lower, unless you held the Ace.
Let me phrase Chris's comments differently:
Don't confuse the chances of you having the best hand with the chances of you winning. Use the word "favorite" to imply "favorite to win the showdown". The "odds of having the better hand" is not particularly useful.
- Louie
I thought I was clear that I was referring to the best hand, not the favorite hand to win. The original poster was concerned about how to apply the math, and that was what I was addressing. It's possible that he could be favorite to have the best hand currently, but not be favorite to win! Mike Caro once gave an example in Hold'em where that could happen. David also uses an example in stud where you have top pair but your cards are dead.
I don't think using the term favorite was wrong. However, perhaps I could have said that the chances of having the best hand were 9:2. It might have been more understandable.
Stop picking on me!
;-)
Ah! I see what might have been mis-leading.
I saw the need to point out that the math didn't take into consideration the possibility that his opponent had a straight or flush, and it didn't. With that flop a straight was impossible. I didn't make reference to the suits on the flop.
I then added the comment to a sentence which then changed the intended meaning so that it looks like I'm referring to the chances of winning. I was referring to the chances of having the best hand. Sorry.
x
At Bay 101 and Garden City the $3 button drop now plays for all games 6-12 and under as it has at Lucky Chances for some time.
1. Can people describe their button opening strategy for this structure?
2. Do you think this structure favors the better players?
Here are my own answers:
1. I believe it is correct to call unraised pre-flop( half price now) with just about anything. It still takes a quality hand to call a raise.
2. The structure may favor better players because they get to be involved in more hands and use their post-flop advantage more. I believe this is negated by the shift towards a looser game, aiding the players who whould play loose anyway and not really helping the better players.
I can't say I like the change for 6-12. You get drawn out on more and the game is dumbed down some even though you have to be careful against the better 6-12 players that you wouldn't see in a 3-6.
My favorite structure is the one used at Ocean 11 where the drop comes out of the big blind. Seems to punish the loose players and saves money for those that don't play too many hands, without otherwise impacting play.
David
David,
I'm too tired to give a decent answer to your questions but I'd ike to ask a couple of my own if you don't mind.
I haven't been in your area in a while (seven years) and just want to know how did they collect in the last few years before this change? Was the drop "dead" on the button as it is in Los Angeles County?
Also, how do they drop the low limit stud games? Nothing could be worse than Los Angeles in a seven handed (figure one player is smoking) 3/6 game with a 50 cent "ante". Here we drop $3.00 before the hand even starts leaving one lonely 50 cent chip in the pot.
Regards,
Rick
For holdem before, the drop was $3 dead on the button. Can't say for stud, only a few small games at GC that I have never looked into.
David
David,
So your holdem drop was as bad as ours is. I'm not surprised you do not have much stud given the limit on number of tables at Bay 101 and Garden City.
When I look at the stud games (I am the floorman for the 3/6 stud section at Hollywood Park during the day), I am amazed we have any games at all. Imagine how big the market could be if we had a fair collection and were able to open new clubs. Poker would be everywhere.
By the way, your strategy seems pretty close although I would still throw away the total garbage (e.g. 9x and worse) in most unraised pots. I might also reraise with more hands if there is a late raise to me because the original raiser should be looser with his raises.
I also would think making the button live would reduce the problem of players passing the button so often. Of course nothing beats raking the pot on a reasonable threshold.
Regards,
Rick
Do I understand this correctly?: SB=$3; BB=$6, Button=$3 dropped but "live", meaning a button call is only $3 like the SB?
If so, play 90%+ of your non-raised hands. Be a little less selective then normal when there is a raise.
- Louie
That is correct and I also agree with your starting requirements.
David
In general, should you play tighter or looser as you move up to bigger hold 'em games? On the one hand, it seems you should play tighter: the competition is tougher and more players seem to know when to fold when you have them beat, yet also when to punish you when you have a marginal hand and have gotten out on a limb. Thus it's best to avoid getting onto that limb to begin with by limiting you play to the very best hands.
On the other hand, the players are more aware, and thus more apt to think about what you have, about what you think they have, etc., up many levels. Thus it would seem that, in order to disguise your hands and to vary your play, you should not just limit your play to the very best hands. This would seem to call for loosening up so that your opponents will put you on the wrong hand more frequently.
The consistent winners seem to play fewer hands than the loosers, but much more aggressively in the hands they do play. And I like Mason's idea that, contrary to other games, a tight image is beneficial in hold 'em.
All comments appreciated.
Andy -- As bigger games will vary in their looseness/passivity just like smaller games, the short answer is that you just have to adapt your play to specific game conditions.
Expanding a bit, you're considering some important points about the tougher opps who are thinking more, etc. On average (but with plenty of exceptions) you'll find that in bigger games there will be a raise before the flop much more often. In many games around 20-40 and higher it sometimes seems like nearly every hand is raised preflop for hours on end. So you just rely on your understanding of basic hand selection to tell yo that you can't play hands like 87s or A5s nearly as often. You also have to cut back on early position play of hands like T9s and QTs when preflop raises are quite likely.
As you mention, the competition will punish you more and read your hands better. Thus, my suggestion would not be to loosen up to make your hands less predictable, but to play only what you think will be profitable given the aggressiveness and tightness of the game while adding a bit more mix and deception to your play to throw off their reads (if it's not there already). That said, when you first move up to a limit that's higher than you're used to it can help to tighten up a little both peflop and in small edge, marginal situations postflop. That should reduce your swings and give you a chance to adjust to your new opps without it being as likely that you'll have to deal with big losses. Hope that helps. I'm sure others will expand on what I've said.
John Feeney
I have just started to move up in limits myself.I usually play 3-6-12 or 4-8 but have recently started mixing in 10-20 and 10-20-40. This last week I played in 2 different 10-20-40 home games that ran the gamut of styles. In the Thursday game there was very little raising before the flop and very little raising on draws after the flop. In this game I felt I was able to play a few more hands then I would normally play since there were many non raised multiway pots. Often my aggressive post flop play would win the pot right there. I cashed out +515 in just 3 hours. On Saturday I played in the wildest HE game I have ever been in regardless of the limit. A maniac drunk was raising every pot so the game played like 20-40-80. Money meant nothing to him so variance was going to be high. In this game I determined that I needed to enter the pot with better then average hands since it was going to be expensive to get to the river. Unfortunately in this game I never put any hands together but still cashed out +16 after 4 hours. The point of this response is that like almost all answers to poker questions the response is IT DEPENDS.
Hope this helps.
Randy
Compared to your hand selection is a loose passive game, there is no doubt you should play far less hands in a tough game.
In a loose game: The bad situations you get into with marginal hands are easy to identify and so don't cost as much. Marginal hands make more money when they get there. There is routinely more people in the pot increasing the opportunities to call with drawing hands. The players tend to give away their hands and so playing yours is easier.
Play more hands when they are loose and passive. These advantages do not exist in a tough game.
If you are getting away with a lot of steals and so playing more hands, then the game isn't so tough.
- Louie
in very loose games you play less hands but not tighter because you dont get to steal antes very often. in tight games you play many more hands because you steal antes but you play tighter. as the stakes go up less people are in the pots and less pots go to the end. as the stakes go up it is harder to make a good fold as the players will put pressure on you if they suspect you like to save bets. in larger stakes games fair sized pots will be won with weak hands as more betting and raising is done to get position and knock out people and get free cards.
The extra hands like 87s you can play early and middle and weaker hands like 86o in late position in a loose game don't make up for the extra J8o hands you can steal and defend with in a tough game?
- Louie
I am posting again after getting nil responses to my first post on this subject. Is there anyone on this forum who can give me advice on the strategy changes necessary from playing limit 7 stud (as outlined in 7stud for Advanced players) to pot limit? Or is everyone a HE expert?
My queries related to whether to play a waiting, trapping game vrs agressive raise and reraise knock opponents out because the ante ($1) and the forced bet ($5) make the bets on the first few streets small compared to the later streets so you risk not getting value from your big pairs BUT if you wait and trap you risk getting them drawn out on.
Also, if you play poorly on the later streets does that negate you as a winning player even if you play superbly on 3rd st because the later street bets are so large? (I think 7studAP says that even if you play badly on the later streets if your 3rd st selection and play is good you should still win) Or is 3rd st play still the most crucial?
What bankroll requirements - $1 ante, $5 forced bet, pot limit rounded down to the nearest $5?
Small straights and flush draws on 3rd and 4th generally playable?
Answers to these questions and any other comments, tips.
I'll have a bash but it depends so much on your ability vs that of your opponents. Although if all your opponents are better the pot-limit advice is very straightforward - don't play. If the money is deep then the later streets are important but hand selection is still very important. A $5 forced bet is a slightly odd structure - it's more normal to be able to limp in for 1 more ante. Given this, I would be inclined to play straightforward tight aggressive poker than to try to trap people. It is too easy to have your big pairs drawn out if you let people in cheaply. I would need a good draw (high and live preferably) to bet/call $5 on third. In general I would be extremely wary of this game unless you know that some weak players are in it.
As for bankroll, it depends what you mean. A working bankroll to play this game regularly without going broke - I'm not even going to quote a number, it would have to be absolutely enormous. To play a session - at least $500. I wouldn't be surprised if others would recommend a lot more.
Finally this doesn't sound like a casino game. If it is a home game I would be even more loath to play. Is there someone in the game you can trust to ask these questions to ?
In fact I have convinced myself that if you need to ask these questions you shouldn't play. Think hard about it. Consider big-bet/low-buyin tournaments instead.
Andy.
Rereading your original post it appears you already play this game. Good luck.
Andy.
"You have now entered the limit HE zone, please dispose of all other thoughts ..." Seriously, pot-limit stud isn't a normally spread casino game in the U.S. -- you're much more likely to find a pot-limit HE or Omaha game. Nonetheless, from someone who plays both stud and pot-limit HE, here a few general ideas.
In any game where the bet escalates dramatically throughout the hand, it seems correct to view the game as, "the hunt for implied odds". Thus, *live* straight draws, and much better yet, nut flush draws, are valuable to draw at -- but only if you can get in cheaply. When an opponent cannot make a relatively large bet to protect his big pairs, he is most vulnerable to big drawing hands. As in pot-limit HE, if you can limp in late with a big 3-flush or 3-straight, your opponent is in much jeopardy with his big pairs (note that a 4-flush is nearly even-money to fill, so against unimproved pairs, you no longer are taking the worst of it against a pot-size bet). But unlike in limit stud, semi-bluffing a big 3-straight or 3-flush on 3rd street will just work against you because you make the pot too big too soon and will make it more difficult to continue beyond 4th street if you catch a blank.
On the other hand, in order to TRY to protect those big pairs and in order to win a big pot with a big pair that develops into a bigger hand, you will have to bet the hand. The best approach to protecting a big pair would be the same as in a pot-limit hold-em game: in an early postion limp in hopes of being able to make a significant reraise to limit the field; in later positions make the raise yourself. Your reading skills had better be top-notch though: knowing when to lay down those big pairs is a much more valuable asset than it is in limit game. Big pair hands which do not improve are in a lot more jeopardy than they would be in a fixed limit stud game (where a big pair might often be a through ticket to the river).
Is it correct to trap? No, not with a big pair. While you often cannot adequately protect your big pairs in pot-limit, it is wise to pressure the drawing hands early. But at the same time, revealing your strength with a middle-high split pair such as Jacks would seem to be only building a trap for yourself. The only trapping situation that makes sense is to slowplay really big hands such as a set, since much of your profit will come on the later streets -- particularly when your opponents have come in with their drawing hands and you both hit.
In some ways, it's unfortunate that pot-limit stud isn't the only game spread in the U.S. casinos. This is the sort of game that would cure even the most dedicated no-fold-em hold-em addicts.
Generally slowplaying big pairs is bad, they simply aren't strong enough. Rolled up trips are probably best slowplayed unless your opponent's board gets scary. 3 flushes on third street are only playable if you can get in cheap - you definitely shouldn't raise with them. If you have a 4 flush on 4th street you have only a 49% chance of hitting your flush by 7th street, so don't go crazy just because you catch the perfect 4th card. In my opinion low 3 flushes are totally unplayable - you should have the ace and preferably the king or queen of that suit (this gives you extra outs to make an overpair or high two pair). Concealed pairs are much stronger than in limit 7 stud. A hand like (88) J is good, since if a J comes you can usually take the pot right there, and if an 8 comes you have an excellent concealed hand which may well get you doubled up (e.g. against Aces up). Finally, the texture of your upcards relative to your opponents' is extremely important - you can often steal a big pot if you board is scary enough, and you will get more action if your board gives no clue as to the strength of your hand.
"Pot limit and no limit poker" by Reuben and Ciaffone has a good chapter on 7 stud pot limit, as well as odds tables.
Matt D
A couple of ? regaurding playing hands in ALL positions for one raise!! Axo, Kxo or nothin lowerer than a Jxo ,, the reason for my concern , I just sat in my first 40/80 game,, I notice alot of players showing down 1pr with no kicker, or calling or betting
I've never heard of a 40-80 game that plays as loose as you describe. While you will often find players making plays with nothing hands, they are doing so because they think they can win uncontested. It's hard to imagine all of these guys calling on the river with hands that are no better than K9. Betting, yes. Raising, yes. Calling, bad play. The K9 can call for the size of the pot, but guys with lesser hands who can't give it up here are very beatable.
Looks like you've found a gold-mine. Hope it lasts for you.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Allen,
Really enjoyed the post! I'm new to hold'em (100 hours at the table). Hmmm... the player with Q3o called 2 raises. Being new to hold'em and having read some books before playing, I thought Q3o was trash, not worth a call let alone calling 2 raises cold. At least you had KQo (a real hand). He deserved getting his booty kicked for playing that. The second hand you describe is even more bizarre. Let's see here, You have A2s in the blind, flop comes all one suit, (I'm assumming the "s" in this case means spades , not "suited".) Being a novice, I assume that if 3 of a suit flop someone may have a flush or a good draw? Am I correct with this assumption or am I still clueless? Here's my theory. A number of 4-8 hold'em players had a "few too many", They stumble into some empty chairs at the 40-80 table, pull out some bills which they think are 10's but are really 100's, and ask for a rack. Being messed up, they don't remember that white chips are $1, red $5., etc. They then start playing a 4-8 game at a 40-80 table. Your post belongs in the "read'em and laugh" section.
Cliff "the checkraise meister"
the detroit casinos are due to open soon.does anyone out there know if they plan to have poker.and also if there is any plans for poker at the windsor casino.
Could someone explain how to determine whether one hand is a favorite over another. For example, on Phil Hellmuth's web site, he explains how his pocket nines were approximatly a 2.5 to 1 favorite over Johnny Chan's A7s. What is the formula used to arrive at these numbers. Thanks.
Andy
There is no "formula" for this; you just have to count up every possible outcome and how many win for each. With one or two cards to come, this can often be done by hand; with more than that, you really need a computer.
Identifying every mutually-exclusive possible outcome is combersome.
TTH is very useful for this situation, you just program a never-bet and never-fold player, put this profile in two seats, give them the hands, and play it a million or so times.
- Louie
I believe that TTH should be improved so that certain experiments would be exhaustive.
Maria
I learned this shortcut from a Sklansky essay, I can longer find on this page. I find it's all I use at the table. A quick consideration, these numbers are close estimates, not exact, and they don't work as well with a large number of outs or cards to come. Ok here goes: Each card that gives you a win has a %2 chance of falling, on each card to come. In your example Chan has One overcard to Phils nines (the Ace). There are three A's left for him to catch, 6% on each card for five cards, total 30%. Breathe. 30% of time Chan wins 70% Phils nines hold up. phil is a 70:30 favorite, reduce and you have 2.3:1, Close enough. Or you could just remeber that one overcard to a pair is a 2.5:1 dog. FYI two overcards to a pair is only a 6:5 dog, these are preflop numbers. Good Luck.
A situation I get into a lot that I don't like is calling in the blind with a solid, but not great, hand and getting top pair/weak kicker out of position. A typical hand is like this: I call in SB with KdJd, flop is Kh9c5c. I bet, couple of folds, button raises. Now I'm stuck; do I just call it down hoping he's raising K+draw, or Kx (this is a low-limit game where that's possible if he put me on the draw), or should I just call the flop and get out if I don't improve? On this particular hand last night I called and was able to check-raise bluff when the third club hit the river and he showed (and mucked) KcQd, but an opportunity like that doesn't always come up. I don't see how I can take the lead without without taking serious lumps when I'm wrong, because at these limits two pair and AK will certainly call you down to the river.
I believe that HPFAP has a section on this type of problem. I'm not looking in the book, so I hope I have it right, anyway this is what I do.
Flop: Kh9c5c
You: Kd,Jd Opponent: ?,?
Does your opponent may have A,K or K,Q, or does he have the Club Draw? Would he Raise you with a worse Hand? Would he try to get a Free Card with a Club Draw?
If you think he would most likely not raise you with a worse hand then yours and would try for a Free Card with a Club Draw, then you should bet if no Club comes on the Turn. If raised again, Fold. If a Club comes on the Turn then Check and Fold.
CV
This is a tricky situation. HEFAP does address playing hands with top pair, weak kicker.
In general, I think you have to bet this hand out, or even check-raise, on the flop. A raise on the button may indicate a drawing hand that is trying to buy a free card. Betting on the flop is often deceptive, the turn is when your opponents usually show their true strength or weakness.
I would bet again on the turn, not only to make the draws pay, but also to find out where I stand. If raised again on the turn, I would drop my hand.
On the river I would check and call.
This strategy tends to minimize your losses when you have a second-best hand, while collecting "full price" from opponents who have only drawing hands, and miss.
-Key
First, I'm not sure I'd call a jack a 'weak kicker' in this context. The only Kings that beat you are KQ and AK. Since the button raised, you would expect that he would have raised pre-flop with either of those two hands (you probably shouldn't raise KQ against a lot of opponents, but most players do). A better example would be having something like K5o in the big blind.
When I have top pair with a weak kicker and I'm out of position, I'll either bet out if I think there's a good chance that it will be checked out, or if there are agressive players in late position I'll check and if one of them bets I'll raise.
In your case, I might have re-raised the flop, and then if the opponent just calls bet out on the turn. If your opponent caps it, check the turn. If he checks behind you, bet the river. If he bets, fold.
If he just calls your re-raise, bet into him on the turn. This has a good chance of getting someone to lay down even a bigger king than yours. And if they call you on the turn, you can check the river. Most opponents will check behind you unless they have a big hand.
lots of players raise on 4th street just to see where they are at or attempting to stop a bet on the river. players also bet on the river when checked to just because they have seen some weakness. i would be very careful about folding when someones bets at you without a good read on their hand. big top pair third best kicker will usually win the pot(shorthanded) unless preflop action leads you to believe otherwise.
Ray's statement does remind me of a play that I've seen alot of in Vegas. Lets say we have the same situation
Flop: K, 9c, 5c
Early Position: Kd, Jd
On the Flop, Early Position Bets, all players Fold to Late Position who Raises. Now if Late Position is Aggressive or a "Regular" I will often bet again on the Turn whatever comes only to see the Late Position throw their hand away or just Call! If the third club does come I usually am Forced to Fold here if Raised again. Obviously this is a player who will Raise with a worse hand to see if I'm Semi-Bluffing, but also will Raise to get a Free-Card.
If the Flush Draw wasn't on the Board it would be a different story.
Ray points out the problem of giving up on 4th Street if raised again when a Club comes. Will your opponent raise once again with a hand you can beat? Will your opponent drop a hand like A,K if you Re-raise on 4th? I got to think about this one.
CV
I actually wasn't suggesting checking and folding on the river, but playing it the way I suggested will often induce a check from a better hand, saving you that last bet on the river. IMO, you need a very good read on an opponent before you fold top pair heads-up in holdem when the pot is laying you 5-1 or whatever.
I guess the bottom line is that it all depends on the opponent you are up against. But I'm not one to engage in a lot of handwringing over top pair/weak kicker - top pair is a decent hand in Holdem in an average game, and I think tight players fold top pair too often.
Dan
When the button raised on the flop, calling and throwing it away on the turn if you don't improve is not much of an option. As near as I can tell, the pot is laying you about 6-1 on your calling his raise, and you have 5 outs to improve. You aren't really getting odds to call for one miracle shot on the turn (yeah, yeah, yeah, implied odds could be argued here but that would be a weak arguement to rationalize a bad play). Besides that, you will quickly develop a reputation as a weak player if you start calling the flop and throwing it away on the turn if you don't improve.
You really either have to play the hand well or throw it away. You are really just avoiding making a decision when you just call the raise on the flop. You are afraid to really play the hand, and at the same time are afraid to throw it away. Thats not a winning strategy. If the button didn't raise preflop you could generally expect that he doesn't have AK. So now you have top pair and second best kicker ... not nearly as weak as you are perceiving it. If you want to play the hand well, you re-raise and try to take control. There are so many lesser hands he could have (correctly) raised with, and unless he has a monster you are going to slow him down with your re-raise. If he re-raises you again, then you probably have to fold it here (unless he is a maniac). If he doesn't reraise then you should bet the turn and keep the pressure on him, trying to get him to fold.
A Poker Guy!
You stated my position much better than I did. You can't fold top pair with a jack kicker to button raise unless the raiser is the biggest rock in the west, so you might as well play the hand strongly.
Dan
As someone in this thread said (was it you, Dan?), this question is a lot more interesting if you have a genuinely cheesy kicker, like a 5 or something.
Well, I sort of agree and sort of don't that it is an interesting question. There is no point in playin K5 if you can't bet when the flop hits you. That's why most people dont play K5. I see a lot of people play trash hands such as that, or any 2 suited cards and then are afraid to bet when they hit their flush because they fear a better flush. Why bother playing them to begin with if you play scared when the flop hits you? Don't play trash hands if you can help it, but if you are going to play it, then don't slow down until someone gives you a reason to.
A Poker Guy!
I think the original post refered to a hand in the blind, which is why I brought up K5 as an interesting holding in this situation.
If it was a raise from a conservative pre-flop caller then your Jack is in trouble, and you can often abandon you probable 3-out hand right now.
The late position raiser greatly improves the value of that Jack. This is especially true since you are in the blind and can concievably be betting K2 and he's raising with his K8s to "find out where he is at". This hand should be abandoned only if the raiser is conservative. Consider reraising.
- Louie
Please, respond with any opinions on this software.
Thank You
.
Having recently purchased the 7-stud software,I haven't yet used the simulation aspects yet but am quite impressed with versitility on setting up number of players,betting limits ,antes,and rakes.The analysis section,which by Wilson's own admission,is not an exact science,I find to be also helpful.One feature I don't use is the ability to peek at opponents down cards(you can't do this in a real game).By all means use the advisor but as you progress ,rely on it less and less.
Is this the programm (previously?) called "Sozobon Poker" for Windows?
No.
Don't attempt to learn any "strategy"; only rudementary technique. Play until you routinely beat it, then stop. Dust if off if you are inclinded to do a little crude hot-and-cold comparisons.
- Louie
If a player starts with a pair and then pairs their door card, what are the chances that they have trips? I know it is not the assumed 2/3, but am not quite sure how to get the correct number. Is this a Bayes Theorem problem?
Assuming all the cards are live, if the door card is not one of the pair (pair in the hole), there are three cards that will match it. If it is (split pair), there are only two. Therefore, when a stud player starts with a pair and then pairs his door card, it is 3 to 2, or 3/5, or 60% that the player has two pair, and only 40% that the player has trips. Correct?
Starting with a pair, the door card will be part of that pair 2 times out of 3 times 2 cards to match it on 4th street = 4 ways. One time out of three the pair will be in the hole times 3 cards on 4th = 3 ways. So trips with the paired door ought to be about 4 out of 7 or 57%.
4/7 is correct.
This does not mean that when someone pairs their door card that %57 of the time they have trips. Correct?
x
Let's say you are playing a mid limit hold 'em game. $15-$30 or $20-$40 will do fine. Four people limp in and you call on the button with 8c6c, and both blinds play (but there is no raise). The flop is Kc Jd 2c. It is checked to you, you bet, and a player in early position calls; and everyone else folds. The turn card is the Js. The player up front checks. What do you do?
As with many situation I would say "it depends." I think abet is in order. Middle pair is certainly a hand that would bet in late position so a bet here looks like you do indeed have the J. If you get check raised I would say you need to improve on the river. If you get called I would say there is a good chance the flush will beat you on the river. I would say if you get raised on the turn to fold the river if you do not improve, but if the early position player calls on the turn I would say it is quite likely he has a hand that stand a bet on the river if you miss the flush (He might have a king or a an ace high flush draw). I think the trickiest situation is when the flush hits and your opponent bets into you; he might be representing the flush or he might really have it (you can't beat any flush he might make). Just my 2 cets worth, critism etc is welcome.
Randy
I bet.
Mason,
When a pot is multiway pre flop and now gets head up by the turn, I tend to lean towards continuing with the aggression I showed on the flop.
So unless the player is a cumpulsive check-raiser, I would tend to bet. He has to fear a jack from a late position caller, and anyone with a jack would have bet the button on the flop. If I get raised I call for the flush. If I get called on the turn, I may bluff on the end hoping he is on a draw himself.
Another factor is that with such a weak hand, you don't want to induce a bluff on the river. With an ace high flush draw, I might check and call any bet on the river (when I don't make my flush).
Now if I can just find that LISP formula, I may be able to give you a better answer.
Regards,
Rick
I would check it on the turn to get a free river card. Your opponent could be holding a number of hands to call your flop bet, and you could be easily check-raised. I'd put him on a draw for a straight or a flush, he might even have a set waiting for you to bet. If he bets on the river I'd call, otherwise, check it.
How can you call a bet on the river if you don't improve?? How many hands can an 8 high beat???
My mistake. If I improved, I would call his bet on the end with any pair. If I made my flush and he checked, I would bet.
First of all, I would be afraid to bet my 8c,6c with that type of board. It's not likely everyone will fold and I would think that a Check-Raise is possible. I would need somethink like the Club Draw plus a Pair or Gut Shot before I would bet from late position when I could get a Free Card.
From the play so far, I'd put the Early Position on a Draw that wasn't good enough to Semi-Bluff with on the Flop. I think we can rule out Kx, AT, QTc, Pocket Pairs, Trips, and Two Pair. And once the Jack comes on the Turn we can feel safe that that didn't help our opponent. Actually, other than a Club thats a perfect card. Now if we bet our opponent should put us on a Pair of Kings or better.
What could our opponent have: QTs not clubs, or a Club Draw?
If we still get called and a Non-Club 9 or Ace comes on the River I'd expect to lose and possibly be Check Raised because I'd still bet, trying to pickup the pot hoping my opponent was on the Club Draw also. If a Club comes I wouldn't be too happy, but if an other Blank comes I'd bet and expect to pick-up the Pot.
CV
An other way of looking at it would be that: A bet on the Flop may give you a Free card on the Turn.
The reason I think betting again is a better play in this situation is: I would believe that an Early Position player who has a Made hand with possible callers behind him would be more likely to Check-Raise to try to get it Heads Up with the late position better who may be on the Draw.
If the caller had been in a Late Position and only called after all the other players had folded, I would now have to be concerned that he is waiting to make a move on 4th street, with a made hand, because he wants to see if a Scare Card comes.
CV
Obviously, not an easy answer and my course of action will depend on a lot of things. However, in most instances, I am probably going to check. If the fellow is a half decent player, the Jack is probably the card that hit his hand. He certainly would have bet or raised on the flop with a King (he would also be more likely to raise preflop with a King). It is unlikely that he has a deuce and it is unlikely that he has a pocket underpair given that the pot was too small for him to chase on the flop (particularly with players left to act after him).
About the only hand that makes some sense is one with a Jack in it. Yes, he could have a flush draw and you may be giving up control if you check behind him but tell me this...if you both miss on the River, how often are you going to be able to bluff on the river given the fact that this player has already called you twice on a scary looking board?
A further problem with betting on the turn is that you may well run into some fancy checkraises by a player holding a flush draw of his own or a hand like Q,10 or something. Many players tend to do this when the second highest card on the flop pairs after they have check-called the flop. If that happens, you have lost control in any event.
Thus, in most cases, I would check on the turn.
I would likely call on the river if I paired up or made my flush.
I would bet on the river if checked to (even if I miss). Notice that a check on the turn and a bet on the River will likely lead your opponent to put you on a King. It looks natural: You bet the King on the flop and checked it on the turn fearing that he hit trips and now you are making a value bet on the river.
Another reason why I would check is that it is unlikely that your opponent is on a flush draw or Q,10 straight draw. Since there was no raise preflop, someone in early position with a flush or open-ended straight draw is likely to bet on the flop knowing that there is very little chance that he will be raised because it is unlikely that any of the limpers behind him have a King. In any case, if I were in your opponent's shoes, I would bet the flop with a flush draw.
In sum, most factors point to your opponent holding a Jack and waiting to sic you with a checkraise.
I don't know... true, most signs point to the other guy holding a J, but if the 'bluff' works one time in seven it's a break even proposition.
GD, I count only 9 small bets in the pot after the flop. A bluff on the turn would have to work twice for every 9 failed attempts.
Don't get me wrong...there are several similar situations where I am going to bluff without blinking...I just have my reservations in this instance.
You're right, for some reason I though the pot was raised pre-flop.
I like your argument, but for some reason I find myself wavering on this one; probably because in the game I play in (if you want to call it a game, it's more like russian roulette with playing cards-- someone fires away once every six hands), most players are inclined to simply call here with a K weak kicker, and might fold that same hand if the J pairs on the turn. Too, a number of players don't lead out with draws, since most of their opponents would limp with all kinds of exotic K's (up to KQs). Not that any of this really matters, since Herr Malmuth has specified a 15-30 game, but it does cloud my judgment...
I think the one problem with betting again is if the guy you're up against wouldn't semi-bluff raise w/ a flush draw, since now you're really guessing if he just calls (is it a K or ain't it). But I AM suprised that you, the Grand Master of Aggressive Turn Play, wouldn't go for it one more time... :).
skp, old buddy, there is but one answer to this question! To bet or not to bet (or is that Tibet) that is the question we need to answer. Some say it depends. Depends on what? Your opponent (just guessing), your image (you sexy thing you), how well you play (very important) and the type of game (yes the type of game bucko). Why bet? Why, when you bet wonderful things happen! Your opponent may fold and you win! Your opponent may call and you have more money in the pot if you make your hand. More money is good! You set up a possible steal on the river. That's good but not likely. Why not bet? Well when you don't bet you give yourself a free card. Free cards are good. You don't get check raised and face the dilema of calling with a possible dead drawing hand. (Did Mason say this was a simple question? Simple question yes but as always a complex answer). Your opponent could have a K,J - no! In which case he may just call a bet and hope you make your hand. I wouldn't raise the flop with K,J so maybe he didn't (I'm sure that if this occured in Mason's game the players were better than me).
So what does one do here! Simply bet, no check, I mean check, bet, bet, check! Sound confused! It's not! If you know how to PLAY POKER you will make the correct play (most of the time) when you find yourself in this simple and common situation. You will play the situation not the hand. After all isn't that what poker is all about!
Opinnion by an Old Buddy!
Funny thing is a play almost identical to Mason's question came up in my game last night. The flop was K,10,4 with 2 clubs. I bet from late position with Q,J and a backdoor spade flush draw. I got one caller in early position. Turn was the 10 of spades. I bet and took the pot. Later, I mused about the play in my own mind while thinking about Mason's simple question and my answer.
Makes you wonder what your opponent called the flop with? Early caller. Must have had a pair below T. What do you think?
Old Buddy
The fellow was a notoriously weak player who could easily have had a hand like Ax in hearts for example and calling to hit an Ace on the turn (BTW, he probably would have also called if he hit his "x" card on the turn).
Certainly there are many factors involved here.
However, it seems to me that a check most of the time is in order.
However, and this is a major issue for many questions like this, I would rather give an answer as David (Sklansky) suggests to do all the time. That is, give the probability of each option.
So I would say: bet 20% of the time and check 80% of the time.
David?
Maria
True, a Jack is a likely holding for this early check-caller. Never-the-less, he started with a weak hand and it got worse when the Jack hit (unless he has a Jack or pocket pair).
There are lots of hands better than yours he will fold, like AQ or 88, so bet. If he calls, bet again on the river to steal against his missed draw. If he calls, say "One Pair".
- Louie
After typing out half of my analysis, I accidently erased it. Drat! Is there a way to post a file?
Anyway the way it seemed to be going, it's best to bet the turn. The two general reasons are 1) It sets up the bluff on the end those times your opponent was on a drawing hand and misses (I estamate a drawing hand 48/72 times). The losses to a bet-raise the times your opponent has a jack (24/72 times) do not overcome this; and, 2) failing to bet demonstrates weakness, almost forcing him to bluff if a club doesn't come on the river. And if a club does come, you won't always win anyway.
So betting will yield more in the long run. This may seem surprising, as your bet on the flop set up a check on the turn. But against only one opponent in this situation, betting is correct.
You could type into a file and then cut and paste into the web browser.
David
Thanks David.
I had thought about cut and paste, but hadn't tried it. I will in the future.
Check and hope to hit your flush, he may be setting you up for a check raise so you have a free card take it. If you bet (and hope he folds AND he raise what do you do ?) I rather save a bet and hope for the RIVER.
Bet.
Your bet on the flop after it was checked to you could just as easily be top pair as middle pair. This will also disguise your hand if you hit a club on the end.
If he has a jack, you still have outs.
After reading responses from some of the more well-respected members of the team here (skp, cv, et al) I have had a rethink.
I respect the conclusion that a J is a likely holding (as well as underpairs and draws) and obviously the fear here is a check-raise. However, solid players will check-raise here with a wide variety of hands (especially if you regularly bet on the button after its checked around). I think the necessary response to the check-raise may be a re-raise. If he bumps you back here, he's got at least a J and maybe JK or 22. Depending on your read, you can fold.
If he calls your re-raise... On the river, if you hit your flush you should call a bet or check (unless the club is a str8 card, then I might bet out). If no club, 8 or 6 comes and it is checked to you, you will have to bet to have a chance at the pot...and you probably should hoping for a busted draw even if the pot is now big enough for him to call with almost anything.
Checking the turn invites a river bet that you cannot call without improving. Bluff-raising here seems a less palatable alternative. I think remaining aggressive will win you the pot unless early position player has a J, while checking makes it likely that your opponent will win the (albeit smaller) pot.
Comments are welcome (needed :)). I am trying to fight fuzzy thinking here...
Well I *want* to bet. But I bet draws so much that some of my opponents have taken to calling me down with next to nothing, check-calling with hands they would normally bet, and check-raising a lot on the turn. Against one of them, I'd check.
Note that my opponent might have a jack but could also easily have a gutshot.
William
Since the Jack on board is the Jd, your opponent could have both a jack and club draw. If the Jc was on board he could not have both. In this case I would bet, If he raised back I'd call and hope for the club, pretty sure he had a Jack and my clubs are good if it hits. In this case though you could be drawing dead, your bet on the flop bought the river for free, I'd take it, and just call if a club hit, and fold all else since your 8 high can't win. Of course, your opponents playing style is important, If he won't fold the turn or river, with a hand, you take the free card no matter what.
Unless I had reason to suspect my opponent would check-raise me (i.e., he's known to me as a tough player), I would bet. As per HPFAP, "If your hand is worth a call or even almost worth a call if you check, then it is better to bet if there is some chance that you canwin the pot right there." You and David were talking about play on the flop, but I think the principle holds.
There are a lot of possible hands your opponent might have that he would definitely or might fold if you bet the turn (A-2; Q-9; A-T; a small pocket pair). Paradoxically, I find that a weak-tight player fears, and is therefore sometimes more inclined to fold, to two jacks on the board than to one jack.
You're getting 4-1/2 to 1 on your bet; if there's a 1 in 5-1/2 chance that he'll fold, you should bet. If he calls, you've got outs (apparently). If he raises, you've still apparently got outs if you call.
As in most poker, especially hold 'em, "simple" questions, and consequently, "simple" answers, are few and far between.
You should bet every time.
This is a simple reading hands problem combined with the size of the pot. If your opponent had a flush draw he would probably bet. If he had an open end straight draw he would probably bet. If he had a king he would most likely either bet or check raise when you bet.
This leaves a possible jack (middle pair), a gut shot draw, or something else which with many players could be as little as ace high or a small pocket pair. If you bet you risk being check raised if he holds a jack. But he should fold almost all other hands (unless he plays really bad). And all other hands are better than an eight high. The bet is well worth the risk given the size of the pot. (Remember, if you are check raised you can still sometimes draw out.)
And now for the important part. I put this post up along with the hand that featured the two fours to illustrate how important correct play after the flop is. As David Sklansky has already noted, too many of you are concentrating too much on the first two cards. Now there is no question that if you play the first two cards poorly, such as routinely calling raises with AJ, you will lose all your money. But once you learn how to play the first two cards reasonably well, and it is relatively easy to do that, the real gains will come from also playing well after the flop.
Mason,
Suppose opponent checkraises on the turn and we put him on three Jacks as his most likely hand.
If you catch a flush on the river, and opponent bets, would you raise 100% of the time?
If not...when (and why) would you only just call on the river.
Well, he could have AcJc so you have to know your opponent to assess whether he will bet 3 jacks against a possible flush. After all if your opponent calls the check raise on the turn what can he have but the case jack or a flush draw.
A few simple questions for you to answer. Let's assume this is a 20-40 game. Preflop there is $80.00 (four players-no raise) in the pot. On the flop you bet $20 and are called by one player. Now, we have $120.00 in the pot. Giving you sufficient pot odds to draw. On the turn, you raise $40. If the player check-raises you for $80. You call? If you call there will be $280.00 in the pot, $120.00 of it is yours. Your pot odds will be 2.33 to 1. The odds of your hand improving to a flush are 5.11 to 1 on the river (9/46).
Next question, since I did not know anything about your oppenents play, how could I assume that he was not drawing to a flush or straight? He could be thinking, "hey, I know that guy, his picture is on back of that poker book, I'll try and trick him and not semi-bluff with my flush draw." Furthermore, I know quite a few players that will mix it up so sometimes they bet sometimes they check depending on who they are playing against.
On page 98 in your "Hold'em Poker For Advanced Players" book. Last sentance in the first paragraph, "you should give up on a lot of your semi-bluffs, if not the majority of them, once the turn comes."
In "The Theory of Poker" page 97 point #9, "It is usually better to make a semi-bluff bet when you are first to act; when you are last, you have the opportunity of giving yourself a free card, and you may not want to risk the chance of an opponent check raising you." Why not take the free card on the turn?
Tell me what I should be reading in your books to understand this play?
Thanks.
In the first paragraph, last sentenance. I stated the odds incorrectly. The flush on the river should be 4.11 to 1 (46-9=37, 9/37).
At this point, the math goes out the window (BTW, poker math in general goes out the window in heads-up play). Mason is playing the man not his chances of drawing out...hence his bet for the reasons that he stated.
I get it. Thanks.
Often this question comes up and the pros and cons are hard to sort out. Everyone has a way of looking at it and mine is a one liner. NL will teach you poker discipline and principles. I am by no means good at NL as well as the next guy but I can hold my own - when I make a mistake I will NOT forget it. In limit games - no matter how high you are always forgiven and can grinde it back out. Mistakes made can be excused and you may have some subtle leaks. Some personality type can intuitively learn and have innate ability and discipline. Some takes time and personal effort.
Here's a situation that arose on Monday in a limit Texas hold'em tournament. I originally thought I played the hand poorly, but after reading a section in Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players, I'm not so sure and so decided to submit it to the forum for analysis.
I was given a free play in the big blind with 10C 7C. Next to the button called, the button called, and the small blind called; everyone else folded.
The flop came 10S 7S and a little card - a 4D, I believe. Small blind checked. I checked. Next to the button bet. Button called, small blind called, I raised, everyone called.
On the turn came a 5S. Small blind bet, I raised, next to the button folded, button folded, small blind called.
On the river came a high spade. Small blind checked, I checked. The small blind turned over 5S 4S for the flush.
I originally believed that I had played it incorrectly, thinking that I should have laid the hand down on the turn. However, on pages 119-120 of Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players, Sklansky and Malmuth describe a situation seemingly just like it in the last paragraph of p. 119.
So with that in mind, did I play it correctly after all, or should I have folded on the turn?
Furthermore, is the situation described in the book analogous to my play in the tournament?
Q,
On the turn, you say the 5S comes, but at the same time, the SB couldn't have had 5S 4S. If a spade came on the turn, and SB simply called your raise, then you probably could figure SB for the small flush, and that you are beaten if the 10 or 7 doesn't pair on the river. At the same time, SB can't raise you on the river since you represent a variety of hands, including the flush, out of the BB. The checkraise was fine on the flop, but this must have been at a small limit during the tournament, since all the players stayed.
I guess the question is whether your raise on the turn is correct. It certainly defines the SB's hand. It seems borderline to me to either raise or fold. But, since you've been leading the betting, an agressive approach is appropriate. I personally don't see how you could put the SB on a hand without the raise on the turn.
Bill
You are correct - my recall was not.
The little blind did turn over the 5S 4S, so it was not the 5S that fell on the turn. It was, however, some little spade.
Thanks for the feedback, Bill. After re-reading the section in HEPFAP, I would agree that this situation resembles the one described and that raising on the turn was probably correct.
Thanks again,
Q
As Bill G. was kind enough to point out, it was not the 5S that fell on the turn (since the small blind had it), but some other little spade.
Q
In the first place, I wouldn't check-raise in a tournament without the absolute nuts. When the small blind calls your check-raise and then bets out at the turn, I would fold. Some poker books are good, some are not--but none of them is the bible--none can replace your on-the-spot judgement. Poker is not a "Science", no matter what the mathematicians may allege.
Black Jack
I think the turn play was sound, but you should have considered betting on the river, since it's likely that the other guy has spades and you may get him to lay down something like an eight or nine high.
GD,
I think that you might be able to save a bet at the end by checking on the river. It seems like the player in the SB will call any bet on the river after the call of the raise on the turn, even after the 3 flush came on the board. However, this being a tournament and not a money game, it might be worth taking a shot at the pot at the end, because of the small chance that SB might fold vs. the large pot size.
Bill
That's what I was thinking. You can't be sure, but I think enough players lay down would lay down mediocre spades in this situation to make a bet worthwhile.
Did you consider raising rather than check-raising on the flop so that anyone drawing has to call 2 bets cold?
The small blind had checked to me on the flop, so my choices were either to bet out or to check-raise.
If the small blind had bet on the flop, I would have raised.
Q
I have read and been told that an "expert" should be able to win on average 1.5 big bets per hour. If this is the case, an "expert" in a 10-20 hold em game should be able to win on average $30 per hour. Is this before or after the time collection charge or rake ? For example, if $5 is collected every half hour, do you subtract $10 from $30 to get an average hourly win rate of $20 or is $30 the correct answer including the vig ?
First of all speaking of winning rate per hour makes various calculations easier. The correct way is to give an estimate of winning rate per hand or per hundred or per thousand hands. When we refer to an hour the underlying assumption is that we play 30 hands per hour.
Now in one of 2+2's books they explain that the winning rate per hour depends on the game and on the opposition and your comment is that is depends also on the rake.
The way I see it is: the rake is one big bet an hour for small limits, one small bet an hour for medium limits and half a small bet an hour for high limits or possibly even negligible (if you play 100-200 and you pay 30 dollars an hour rake you do not worry that much about it).
More specifically: if you play 6-12 usually you pay about one big bet an hour as rake. If you play 15-30, 20-40 usually you pay about one small bet an hour as rake.
Now the big issue is: all these assumptions are interesting but once you start playing anything above 30-60 or 40-80 you need take into account collusion. It seems to me that mathematics are less applicable than sociology in a 1000-2000 game :).
Maria
I think 1.5 BB/Hour was a benchmark for medium limits 1/20 - 20/40. Experts playing 100/200 are NOT making $300/hour.
Yes, it takes into account rake, tokes, and coffee tips.
- Louie
I've been playing 4-8 hold-em recreationally for six months, studying HPFAP, Theory of Poker, and Lee Jones. Here are my stats:
For the first 46 hours I lost in 9 sessions out of 13, losing a total of $868. For the last 70 hours, I've won in 10 sessions out of 13, winning a total of $978. Recently I've felt that 90% of the time I know why I'm doing what I'm doing, but of course, every session is a learning experience.
Question: When will I know that I can try moving up to $10-$20? How many hours of winning? What percentage of winning sessions? What hourly win rate? (Prevailing wisdom at the cardroom where I play is that the $10-$20 game is average to above average in quality of players, with a pretty regular supply of live players. It's also much tighter than the $4-$8 game.
Any help would be appreciated. The bigger limits are calling to me, but I'm not sure I'm ready.
A thread below may be of interest to you. Read "ACE, NO KICKER??" post on 5/25.
You best sample the game rather than marry a limit. You have a nice win hopp over for a few hours (see who is fishy) and try to play if such individual is there ONLY. If the game is tough go back and just watch. There is no clear break you see. Some games are so weak at 50-100 that you maybe better play that. There is no rule. Need bankroll, experience and lady luck.
To beat a game where many players stay for the flop requires only proper starting hand selection. As you play for more money, the average number of opponents contending the pot will go down. This brings other poker skills into play such as bluffing, reading hands, aggression, and so forth. You must be able to beat the smaller games before you tackle the bigger ones, but success in the higher game does not necessarily follow. If you are doing well at low stakes try the higher game and see what it is like, but there is no reason to burn your bridges by roosting there until you run out of ammo.
Bob - Thanks for posting on this forum! I participate here, aside from the great posters, because I don't like sifting through all the junk on RGP.
When I moved up (I was moving up from 1-3 stud to 3-6 hold'em and I had "only" $500 bankroll - and it wasn't enough!) I used your "Vintage Card Player" reprint article as part of my strategy. The very conservative starting hand requirements and equally conservative req'ts after the flop helped me keep an even keel.
To summarize briefly for anyone who did not see this article: (1) Don't defend your blinds and don't try to steal the blinds. (2) Don't raise without at least AQ or 99. (3) Don't bet the flop without top pair or better. (4) Don't call a raise cold unless you were going to raise.
There is a lot more, but I won't reprint the whole article here. Numbers (2) and (4) sound like they came right out of HPFAP, and my personal experience (remember, 3-6 loose passive) bears out the wisdom of (1) and (3) until you have a "read" on a game to indicate a change.
Dick in Phoenix
Dick, Too many "Don'ts". Maybe better to selectively defend or steal blinds. Why not raise with A,J when on the button and no callers? Again be very selective with raises. How does one learn to play middle pair correctly if he doesn't bet out with it occaisionally, even in low limit poker. Not calling a raise cold without a raising hand is a good idea but not an absolute. I may not raise a hand with Q,Js but may cold call a raise from a late position if 5 or more players have called ahead of me, especailly if I'm not afraid of a reraise. I believe we are talking about recommending a strategy to someone that has played for a while and is just moving up. Certainly conservative play is best but absolutes (do's don'ts) are not my cup of tea at any level of play! Just some thoughts!
Old Buddy!
What do you think is accountable for the turn around in your results? Where these first 13 sessions your first time playing in a cardroom? Do you think you you have a handle on the game now, and the later results seem pretty consistent with winning, although more time is needed to be certain. About $1000 win in two weeks at 4-8 is pretty damn good for "recreational" play. Your not going to do that much better at 5-10. I'd take my time before moving up to 10-20. If you keep studying the books, subscribe to cardplayer, participate on this forum you WILL absolutely know when you feel ready to move up. This is one question you won't have to ask. When you sit down and really realize you are much better than almost all others at your game you'll know where to go from there.
I definitely was playing poorly at first. I was brand new to hold-em and made every mistake possible. I've followed much of the advice posted here on playing in low limit games, and it made an immediate difference.
As for win rate over the last 70 hours, the game is full of some very bad players, so it isn't hard to post some big wins. It isn't unusual to win a $200 pot, and afterwards think, "what the hell was that guy doing in there?"
Some of the regular 10-20 players occasionally play in the 4-8 game, and there's no question they're much better, but I also see the fish swimming over at the 10-20 table occasionally as well.
As for bankroll, there's good news and bad news: The good news is I've got a job so I can replentish my bankroll if necessary. The bad news is I've got a job so I've got to go to work everyday.
Thanks for the input.
Watch the game for a while, and see if you can spot errors that the other players are making. If you see lots of errors (calling out of position with weak hands, hopeless bluff attempts, bad calls on the turn or river, etc), then you might want to try the game out. If you can't see mistakes being made, you need to hone your skills some more until you understand the nuances well enough to start spotting them.
"If you can't spot the fish in the game, it's probably you."
Like some earlier posters I have just recently moved up to 10-20-40 HE from 3-6-12 and 4-8. I have done pretty well so far but I wonder if I am losing some profit on my river play. Playing low limit may have gotten me a little gun shy about betting the river. Here is an example from tonight. Your comments are welcome. I opened the pot from middle position with raise holding AdQc. The button(very weak player) called as did the SB(not a lot of info on this player) and the BB(rock).The flop was Qs5s4s and was checked to me. I bet and was called by the button and Sb with the BB folding. The turn was 6c and the SB came out betting. I just called here(was this to timid?) and the button folded. The river was 5d and the SB checked. I checked and won the pot. Should I have bet here with two pair ace kicker? Please give me your opinion on this play.
Randy
Should have raised the turn to put more pressure on your friend on the button (lot of dangerous cards can come on the river) and to see if the SB has a hand. He would bet here with hands like a spade and a 7, 33, 77 or is checking to see if you have AK.
That double bet on the end makes draws much more playable.
Betting on the end is probably worthwhile as well, as he may call with two pair on the end.
Did you find out what he had?
Turns out he had 64 for 2 pair on the turn. I agree with your recommendation to raise the turn.
Randy
Yes, you should have bet your two pair with ace kicker on the river for value. When the board pairs on the river and an opponent who had previously shown strength checks, it is usually because he's only moderately strong. A straight, a flush, a set or a full house would more likely have bet the river than checked.
No, I wouldn't bet here, and in fact I'd be temped to lay down on the turn. The pot isn't that big, and it's very likely that you're up against someone who slow played a made flush (either the SB or the button) or has just made a straight or two pair. This hand may have been the exception, but there aren't a lot of hands the SB would have bet here that are worse than yours.
GD, You go away for a while! Decide to visit again! Things somehow never seem to change. I still find myself agreeing with your responses! Even though I'd be tempted to lay this hand down on the turn I would have to know the opponent fairly well to do so!
Old Buddy!
My opinion:
Bet the river. If he has a straight is he going to stop betting? I doubt it. If you get check raised, then give this guy a little more respect next time. Make him earn it first though.
On the turn, I think calling is good. Especially since you describe button as a weak player. Might as well let him subsidize your pot for you --- go for over call. Your return on investment (if you win) is twice as much (if he calls), but I don't think your probability of winning is halved. If this strikes abybody as terribly wrong I'd love to get talked out of it.
On the turn you needed to fold or raise. I prefer to raise. If you get re-raised fold if you just get called you're back in the drivers seat.
Thank you for all the responses. I agree with the "raise the turn" opinions that were given. However on the river let me rephrase the question. From a pure statistical standpoint, which option will maximize my profit or minimize my loses in a heads up betting situation.
Option 1-He checks, I bet. He can either call with a better hand or worse hand then me, fold with a better or worse hand then me or raise with an obviously better hand then me.
Option 2-He checks, I check.
In one instance I can either make an additional 40 if I have him beat and he calls or I lose an additional 40 if he calls and has me beat. I can also lose 80 here if he raises. Over the long run is it better to bet the 40 or check it down.
Hope this clarifies my question.
Randy
When nobody raised you on the flop you can almost eliminate anyone holding a small flush.The two players that are in the pot put in 2 bets cold preflop(meaning they did'nt limp in and then call your raise)telling me they should have a decent holding(am I giving them too much credit?). When the small blind bet it right out on the turn I would probably have to put him on an open ender with a 4 to a flush,giving him the confidence to bet the turn now realizing that he has more outs in a shorthanded game(two pair is also a possibillity). When the sb checked the river he had a busted hand ,no straight or flush or his two pair,queens and 4's for example got killed with the 5 pairing on the river giving him kicker problems. Hope I made any sense.I usually don't. Chow
It's very rare for people to bet the turn, then check raise the river. So, yes, you should have bet.
William
I find that, especially in bigger games, when an opponent puts in so many bets, especially on the flop or on the river, that you'd logically think you're beat, it's less often the case than logic would dictate.
On the flop, I think this is the case because many players at the higher levels want to disguise their monsters. I frequently see hands where two players get into a raising war on the flop so that you'd logically conclude that they were both very strong (top two pair or sets). But it turns out they were both much weaker than expected trying to outplay their opponent. Had they really had the monsters their betting indicated they had, they would more likely have played slow on the flop.
On the river, sometimes a player has simply fallen in love with his hand and just hasn't adequately considered the possibility that they're beat. The other night I had pocket queens and was re-raised preflop. The flop was K-Q-T and after the river the board was K-Q-T-2-2, giving me Queens full. There was so much action on the flop, turn and river that my opponent got the last raise in, with me concluding that I was up against pocket kings. When I made the last call, both players on my right and left, uninvolved in the pot, said out loud "pocket kings against pocket queens." Yet my opponent had pocket tens and I won the pot.
It was obvious to me (and the two uninvolved players) that pocket tens were not going to win the pot, but I think this was a case of what I am talking about: too many raises in this case did not represent the nuts, but a lack of judgment caused by falling in love with the hand.
All comments appreciated.
In limit hold'em, I'll usually bet a four flush or open-ended straight on the flop, and then check-and-call the turn if I haven't improved. I'm curious under what circumstances it might be more advantageous to check-raise a come hand instead, either on the flop or on the turn.
Any thoughts?
Q
Betting it a second time is often the right play. Check raising with it can only sometimes be right in high stakes tough games where players will lay down good hands (either immediately or for one more bet on the river.)
David:
I play mostly low to middle limit HE, and will check raise on the come in the following scenario:
I'm in early to middle position holding the nut flush draw. I check and if there is a bet and several people call, I will then check raise. My rationale is that I'm drawing for what will likely be a nut hand. A bet from an early player might drive away valuable customers. The chance of making my flush is a little less than half, so I'm getting good odds on my bet with all those callers (most of whom will invariably call the raise). The raise gives me a bit of disguise value as most players will put a checkraiser on a made hand. I can come out betting on the turn if I miss with some confidence I won't get raised. I've built a monster pot that players will chase and call to the bitter end resulting in a big win if I hit. The same principles apply to drawing to the open ended nut straight.
Is this a prime example of fuzzy thinking??
If you are always giving up control with these big draws by checking the turn after you bet the flop, you are probably losing money. If the game is very loose, you can bet again for value. If it's reasonably tight, you usually have a good semi-bluffing opportunity.
I might check the turn if I were up against two or three very loose players who I know will call me on the end with anything. Otherwise, I prefer to lead the action.
When I flop a flush draw with an overcard or two, or a straight draw with an overcard or two, I often just tell myself that I have top two pair and play it accordingly. If your opponents cannot tell from your betting pattern whether you have a draw, a set, or a pair, they are in a perfect position to make lots of fundamental theorem errors.
Dan
whenever i check with a draw and when the action gets back to me there is a chance I can go heads up with the bettor I raise. I do this because: (a)I might win the pot right there. (b)On the turn if a blank hits I can bet out and possibly steal. (c) If my card hits on the turn I can check and induce a bluff.
I also check raise if there has been a bettor and two or more callers before the action gets back to me. This is a raise for value.
I like to check raise a flush draw or an open ender on the flop if there has been a preflop raise and the raiser is close to my left. This way the pot gets bigger and the players that have already called the raiser on the flop will probably call my raise seeing it's a flop raise(which are mostly draw raises , top pair or elimination raises).If I do hit I will get even more callers because the pot is now worth calling for the rest of the field. chow
i am new to this site and must say am enjoying it very much. i find it to be very informative and helpful. i was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on cooke's recent column re his play of a hand with cissy bottoms. it seemed to me that the title of his article "sucking out on the cis" said it all. however, he couldn't stand not criticizing her play of the hand. it seems to me she played it perfectly, however, was the victim of a really "bad beat". is it me, or does it seem that cooke always has to make himself look good, no matter how many boners he pulls.
looking forward to any thoughts on this subject.
Half of Cooke's columns contain a poor to horrible play that somehow ends up getting the money. Let's just say he might be a bit results oriented. I'm also sure I wouldn't want him in my game.
I really enjoy his scenarios, and have no problem with him describing the ones that worked out for him.
What is truly valuable is the constant thought process and reevaluation of his opponents holdings throughout the hand. In the Cissy case (and he readily acknowledges) he got very lucky and made a bad read on the flop...but we all do.
I do not see the results oriented focus (but his imaginary? friend from Florida drives me nuts :). I would also try to avoid playing heads-up with him!
You know I never looked at his columns that way. After reading your post I must say that I looked at Roy's column in a totally different light. Thanks for bringing these interesting aspects of Roy's column to my attention.
His Florida friend is real. I played 15-30 HE with him the other night. He is not as bad a player as Cooke makes him out to be. I think!
BP
Responding to TKChuck: Roy's friend from Florida is not imaginary, but very very real. I asked Roy on a recent visit to Vegas, Roy's response: "He's real alright, I'll introduce you. He's right behind you." Then he introduced us.
for a number of hrs of play in many differant $10/20 games I have laid down such hands as 78s 89s even 910s here is my ? If I was to play say the 89s in middle to late position, and have lets say 4players seeing the flop,, I almost have to catch a perfect flop or pay someone off to BUY my card thow if the flop comes down 6 7 k rainbow, and I can put some one one the K with big kicker am I an any danger as to raise at that piont, ? now lets assume the worst a pr hits the turn a 6 or 7 ,, and is checked to me ,, if i raised a 4 straght , and all called should I again bet as if i have a huge hand on the turn,, at this piont im drawing to a 8 outer straight no flush of my siut what would be the proper play? lets say i have 2 callers looking at the river after i bet the turn and miss my straight and have no pr besides whats on the board after the river ,, should I bet with that same power i have lead with or check and fold,, as i sit and watch inbetween hands i notice a lot of bluffing and check raiseing on a scary board like the one i described,,is it more profitable to LAY these hands down and not even play them,, or play then and bluff as if u hold the nuts,, if u have missed such as I did !! any thoughts on playing these hands !! any succsess playing these hands in the long run,, thanks for your advise!!
I'm off to Lake Charles next week to the Isle of Capri Casino (got comped for 2 nights, free food, free shot at the $1000 slot tournament) all for playing 1-5 7-stud there 2 months ago. Being new to hold'em and having played 15 sessions, I seem to have noticed that there seem to be 4 different types of games, each of which require some minor changes in starting cards and also how to play them. I've read some in my books about different types of players/games so have some general ideas, but any addditional help is always appreciated.
First, some information about my "profile". A very good player who plays with me in my home games made a player profile list and I was in it. I was pegged as what is called "tight-aggressive", indirectly called a "habitual check-raiser" (I was called "the check-raise meister" !!!), and an "up and comer" to hold'em. Now for the different game types:
1. loose-passive "Calling Station Game", seems to be the most common type of game, here, many players call to see the flop with god knows what. Average is 5-7 players in 10 handed game. There is not much preflop raising, and if there is, almost everyone calls. In my books (Lee Jones, Sklansky, Malmuth (authors) ). The advice is given is straight forward and works ok. Not much of a problem playing these. Just the occasional bad beat ,etc. Check-raising and playing (high) suited connectors and suited aces in mid-late position seem to be the only 2 "plays" I know of. If anyone has any others , please let me know.
2. tight-agressive "Fish Fry Game". Last Sunday I played in one of these, the only one. I Mostly defered to S&M here , Lee Jone's advice seemed too loose for this one. Lots of raises preflop and usually 3 to see flop. Did well and was up $161 playing 4 hours. Had 3 "fish" who kept getting "fried". The strategies here are just playing tight with an occasional "blind semi-steal" thrown in along with some preflop raising with A-T suited or J-T suited thrown in from time to time. Played only once so input welcome here as well.
3. Tight-passive "Rock Garden" : I've yet to see this in hold'em but is common in 7-stud. I assume that tight play as always is good, but will a "semi steal" work here or an occasional bluff?, Other things I haven't come up with?
4. Best for last loose-aggressive "Table Tilt Game". Played in one of these and felt like I was in the twilight zone. this type of games seems to present the most problems. In one game almost every time betting was capped preflop. Once a pair of 3's won the pot!!! I played tight as usual. I got stuck for $50. I sort of hunkered down and played very good cards , didn't catch many . like loose-passive in that AT etc. seem to become trash. I need advice for this type of game since the players seem to be "irrational" , betting on anything as if the flop were a 3 wheel slot machine!!!
Thanks in advance
Cliff "The Checkraise Meister"
Hello Cliff. Since I am one of the players in the games you have mentioned, I dont want to give you any advice that might be used against me in the future. I have found that when I go to the Lake Charles casinos after playing in our home games I have a tough time readjusting my game. As you know the people in our games range from the very good(Dave) to the very bad(Barb). At the casino I think you will find more players who know what they are doing and you need to be careful when you are in against these local rocks. They play every day and dont usually take big chances. If one of the Lake Charles locals cold calls 2 bets on the flop or the turn be very aware. He either has a monster or is drawing to the stone cold nuts. If the jackpot is high they will play any pair from any position as well as any Ax as well as any 2 suited cards that can make a str8 flush. The best advice I could give you is know when to get up from the table and call it a night. Some local players come in late just to feed on the Texans who are too tired to realize they are playing badly. When you get tired get up and go to sleep and start again in the morning.
You have earned your reputation as a check raiser but Marc is just kidding around when he tells you to stop. He is only trying to save himself money when you catch him speeding. However I think you have learned that good players will use your frequent check raises to really punish you when they have you beat. Use it less frequently and the payoffs will be greater. You will even be able to get some good players to lay down better hands then you when you raise them on the turn. By doing it all the time other players will get in the habit of calling you down when you are bluffing or not betting when you check, costing you profit when you have the best hand.
As usual this is all just my opinion. Have a great time and see you at the tables.
Randy Collack
It's a full ring no-limit hold'em game with ten players. Its playing fairly loose with lots of money on the table. A very solid player opes for $25 under the gun. He has about $1500. There are two callers and I call with pocket fours one seat from the button. I have about $1100. The button, with only about $250 also calls and both blinds fold.
Flop comes 9h4c3c. The initial solid raiser bets $150. Its folded to me. I am almost certain that the bettor has a big pair, since he is not likely to raise with medium pairs under the gun, and wouldn't normally bet out with AK into a large field. I consider making a big raise and hoping plays back, but decide to call and try ro trap the button as well. I figure the button might chase with overcards and don't really care if he has a flush draw since he would play it in any case with his short stack. The button folds.
The turn is a 7 of diamonds. The solid raiser bets $250 and I figure that he is now pot committed with an overpair. I push in my stack and hope for a call. He thinks for a long time and then folds and flashes pocket Aces (no club). Tough player.
I scoop a nice pot, but wonder whether I might have made a lot more money if I made a big raise on the flop or a smaller raise on the turn. This guy has seen me raise the flop before on a big draw, and might have put me on the flush draw and played back if I was more aggressive on the flop. And if a flush card came on the turn, he was probably done with the hand unless e had a redraw.
He told me later that he really thought the 7 hit me hard and figured that I had something like 6c5c or peeled one off with 77 since we both had big stacks.
Mike,
You've already listed the possibilities. Any of those options, plus the option of calling the turn and betting the river, are all viable. It all depends upon your read of the opponent. You played it just fine, but this time you were wrong in your read of the player (obviously he wasn't pot-committed yet). On the plus side, you now know you can bluff a little more often when a scare card hits heads-up against this guy.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I'm not very knowledgeable at Big Bet Poker, but this is something I was thinking about. How would you play in Late position on the Flop if you had a Big Draw with this type of board, and were pretty sure your Opponent had a Big Pocket Pair? Since your opponent thinks he knows how you play, there may be some good deception in getting him to think you haven't made your hand yet, but are trying to scare him out with a Big Bet. Just a thought.
CV
I have NO real-life big bet poker experience (so feel free to disregard everything from here), but I think you are more likely to get him all-in on the flop than on the turn for a couple of reasons
1> there are more hands that he can put you on that can beat him...in this case the ones you mention and possibly 97s, but I acknowledge this one is a stretch. 2> there is less likelihood that you will make a big bet on the turn without a hand that can beat him...you will bet your draws with two cards to come rather than one.
A moderate re-raise on the flop may indicate a weaker overpair and make him bite.
For all you sharks out there, I will NOT be playing any NL games in the near future :)
Excellent instincts for someone with no experience at the game. In retrospect, I should have made a $200-$300 raise on the flop. This would look like I have am trying to muscle him out of the pot with a big draw. This is a very common "move" in this game, which I occasionally make myself. I ways actually trying to mimic a big flush draw and hoped that he would make a bigger bet to shut me out on the turn if the club didn't fall.
Alternatively, I could have only raised half my stack on the turn and induced a call and possibly forced him to go for the rest of it on the end. However, if a paint or a club came off on the river and he made a big bet, then I would be in a guessing situation and I always like to keep the other guy guessing in no-limit.
I'd be inclined to really overbet the pot on the flop and make him do a lot of guessing. He'd have called. Not sure why you would want to wait for anyone to catch up anyway with the two clubs and the straight draw out there.
Besides, you're never out of danger, even on the flop, a point brought to mind because of a hand recently where I flopped 3 Aces and a lady called off her entire stack with a non-nut straight draw and got there.
Finally, as happened here, it's real easy for scare cards to hit the board and cause you to lose your customer too. You got a big hand, he screwed up by getting too involved with his big pair; if he lays those Aces down on the flop, you'll own him from there on out.
You don't mention the size of the blinds, but there's probably about $275 in the pot on the flop after the raiser bets. So that's $425 in there after you call - you'll have about $900 left. I think a pot size raise is appropriate in this situation. If you raise all in he's unlikely to call; but you do want to raise something in case he has AKc. Another problem with calling is that if a flush or straight card comes on the turn, you are unlikely to get any action from someone with an overpair. I think raising about $400 is the best move. The guy with the (possible) overpair is facing a tricky decision - you could have a hand like QQ, a set, or a draw. He is unlikey to just call, and may well consider himself likely to be best and raise you all in.
Matt D
You are in the big blind and are called by three opponents. The flop is K84 rainbow. Everyone checks. The turn is a J. Everyone checks. The river is another K.
Now we all know this is a steal situation. But that's not what I want to ask about here. My question is: what sort of weak hands would you have played this way so far that you would now bet for value?
Note that it is necessary to be aggressive with value bets in this situation to balance your play. You don't want your opponents to know you are stealing.
William
It completely depends on your table image and the opponents you are up against. There are some opponents I play against that will call with as little as Ace high in this situation. Against them, I'd bet just about any pair for value, except that these types of opponents are also the ones who will take a shot at the pot, so if I have a pair and am first to act I might also check and try to induce a bluff.
There are some other opponents that I play against that would not call you unless they had at least a jack. Against them, value betting anything but a jack with a big kicker would be pointless.
Dan
Against a typical passive field, I'd say you need a pair higher than eights, or an A kicker w/ an 8.
The answer is: None!
If you have a K, or 8 (maybe even a 4) or a pair higher than a 4 (maybe any pair except Aces) you should bet the flop.
If you have a J or Aces you should bet the turn.
There is no value in a river bet with any hand played as described. Only a steal makes sense here!
NNP
I would value bet T8 or higher. Everyone checking the flop and turn indicates that nobody has a K or J. The highest reasonable hand that an opponent could have is a pair of tens - notice that they were scared of the jack on the turn - however pocket 99 or TT is unlikely, and we can not build maximum EV by being afraid of unlikely possibilities. However I would want a kicker with my 8 that was likely to be stronger than any opponent's likely kicker. We are looking for a value bet, not to steal the pot, but to win an extra bet from someone who has enough of a hand to call, but on average a weaker hand than our own. 99 or TT would be definite value bets, however I would be a little bit aggressive and bet any T8. The only reasonable stronger hands that a good player would hold are TT, 99, or Q8 (also unlikely because it's a 3-gap). Note that a J8 would have bet the turn.
I disagree with NotNewPoster that anybody with an 8 would have bet the flop. From last (steal) position, this is true, but I would certainly not bet if, say, I had played 8x from the BB and had several players acting after me on the flop.
-Key
I'd probably bet a T8 too, but it wouldn't be a value bet; i.e., I wouldn't feel to hot about it if I was called.
The concern I have with both the responses posted so far is that if most bets made here are steals, astute opponents will realize this and will catch those bluffs by calling with hands like ace high.
So how about betting something like Q4 for value at this point? Or is it better to give up on most of your steals against good opponents?
William
Greetings:
I have Seven Card Stud for advanced players and I want to ask you about a couple of match-ups not listed in the Appendix.
Who's the Dog? How far should the dog go? What would it take to bail?
1. 4 suited vs. two pair (assume one overcard pair, flush relatively live)
2. 4 op-end straight vs. two pair (assume one overcard pair, straight relaively live)
Thanks,
Joe N.
It is close depending on pot odds. I will let others do the dirty work.
Spoken like a true Guru!
Whoever, the dog is doesn't matter much here, it is very difficult to get away from these hands without going to the river. Pot size and board strength must be considered by the drawing hands before they continue but even with a small pot it may still be correct to go to the river (assuming there are bets on each street).
NNP
by the time either of you figure out what the other has, its a play to the end senario. you both would play to the end even if both hands were face up. alot depends on the particular hands but the two pair may be about 3 to 2 favorite or a little higher but alot depends on cards out and the exact hands.
I agree with Ray, assuming that the two pair are hidden. If there is a paired door card on fourth street both draws should fold. Also, how live the draw hands are plays an important role in this decision even if the door card is not paired. How far one should take these hands is dependent on many factors. The one factor that shouldn't be considered is how badly you want to win the hand!
One note about paired door cards against a straight draw. I played in a stud tourney at the O'rleans Casino (Las Vegas) last week. 50-100 level. I raised on third stret with Tx/T. The bring in called with xx/2. 4th street: I paired my T giving me 3 Ts. Opponent caught a 5. 5th street: Me - blank. Opponent 9. I bet and was called. 6th street: me blank- bet. Opponent 6 - call. 7th street: me - blank check. Opponent - bet. Me - call. Opponent had 6 high straight. So much for my advice about throwing away a draw against a paired door card.
NNP
Riding the World Series fever, I'm organizing a small No-Limit Hold'Em tournament for my friends (8 players). We're doing knockout style with winner take all.
The game is pretty new to everyone but myself, and several players are not that good. What's the best strategy to finish on top? Loose/tight? Other comments?
Thanks!
Todd
Politically if you win too quick and often the game will die. Winning conservatively is better than winning aggressively in this regard.
- Louie
Situation is this I'm in the blind with pocket queens(how I got the queens with my "luck" in the blind is while looking for a ciggarette I grabbed another players cards by mistake and it was a misdeal,on the new deal I get pocket b*tches).
It's folded to a middle position player that raises who i've been observing for the last 2 hours and has been very agressive.It's folded to me,I just call waiting to show my true strength on the flop. Flop is a rainbow with an 8 being the highest card.I check-raise the flop he calls.If he had a pocket pair higher than 8's he would reraise even if I could have been holding two pair. Due to his playing style and the way he played the flop I put him on A or K with a high paint.Next card is an ace ,If it was any other player at the table I might have bet my queens hoping that they would realize that the bigblind caught a nice flop and is not worried about an AK.
I checked it with this guy because if he had an ace he would raise the roof.He made his automatic bet(free card?what's that?).If indeed he did have an ace I only had 2 outs(no frikken potodds).He could have had 2 other holdings that I could beat small pair(the googen could even be sitting with a set and slow played it when I check raised the flop)or a KQ(a hand I've seen him raise from middle position preflop earlier). It would cost me 60 to call the turn and river(mini pot). What should I do?Hurry up with the advice though I'm still in the hand. Any advice on if you would have played the hand differently would be appreciated. Chow
I would have bet the turn and folded to his raise. Now your sort of forced to either let him potentially bluff you out of the pot, or call his 2 bets to keep him honest.
Danny S
This is the sort of overly agressive player that would bluff raise when the ace came on the turn(I think he usually plays higher stakes than 15-30 and raising in this game is like raising for fun in a 1-5 game )in the hopes that I would lay it down due to the knowledge that he raised preflop and could be holding AK or aces.
"$60 to call" has little value. I think it costs you 2bb to call and there is 6 in their counting his river bet.
Will you win 1/4th of the time? Well, one crude measure is to notice that more than 1/4 of these player's raises do NOT have an Ace. So I'd say you have the better hand more than 1/4 of the time. True, he is more likely to outdraw you than you outdraw he.
If he is likely to lay down a small pair if you bet then you should bet; or will lay it down if you check-raise then check-raise. Otherwise, if he is aggressive and tenacious and will automatically bet the Ace, then check and call twice.
Against these overly aggressive players I see no particular reason to slow play before the flop. You'll get plenty of opportunities for raiseing when he makes a pair of tens anyway. Against more conservative raisers, you may only get to raise once during this hand.
The major disadvantage of being "overly aggressive" is you lose several bets when the opponent has a good hand. So give them that opportunity and play strong against them.
- Louie
.
I would have re-raised pre-flop. Because he is coming in 1st he can raise with more hands that are big loosers to yours.
your check raise was perfect but you have to follow it up with a bet out on the turn or another check raise. your hand is strong you can beat the majority of hands he might have. I dont think the ace put you in a check and call situation.
.
.
This is the only PC subject that I am for. If you smoke you may be a winner at the table but you will die sooner and or have an expensive debilitating illness - ergo U R a LOSER !!! For some poker context - in NL when is it OK to draw to a four flush against a big pair !unless! you have zillions and you opponents is a habitual CALLER also with zillions+ more zillions in front of him - two cards to come ?
Smoking is hazardous to my health.
I would just like to say a quick thank you to Mr Ciaffone for posting here, and I hope others will follow and let him know how pleased we are to have his opinions on various aspects of the game. Straight forward common sense backed with alot of experience is what the doctor ordered . I hope mr ciaffone, that you will become an active participant here. Seeya
I agree. Welcome!
I don't know anyone who wouldn't agree. When I get Cardplayer, the first articles I turn to are always the ones penned by Roy "recurring sum" Cooke and the Coach.
Bob, the red carpet has been laid for you.
ya, Bob is welcome here if he will stop robbing my blinds and bluffing me out when i cant call in the pot limit games:)
For those interested we also have a link to Bob's Web page.
Mason,
Your link doesn't work and needs to be updated. The correct address to his web page is:
http://www.concentric.net/~Coach999/
When holding two suited cards what are the odds of making a flush on or before the river. I'm trying to get an idea of how strong a hand like A9s is when compared to A9o. I realize that there are several "atypical" scenarios that will result in a flush e.g. a flush with 4 suited cards or two pair on the board, etc. and if anyone has those that would be great as well.
Given that you are dealt two suited cards before the flop, the odds of making a flush are approximately 14.851 to 1 against. This calculation assumes that you would stay in to the river in an attempt to back-door the flush and takes all possible scenarios into account, including the "atypical" ones you mentioned.
Q
"approximately 14.851 to 1 against." That's 6.3% of the time, which does not appear very much.
With 3 opponents you need to get 3:1 total odds to play, which given no implied odds means winning 25% of the time. If you also have this flush draw, counting the times you make it and lose, and the times you make it but would have won anyway, adds I GUESS another 5% to your win rate; for a total of 30%. That increases your odds to 7:3 or 2.333:1 which is a substantial increase over 3:1.
As the authors have put it, flush draws account for a large proportion OF YOUR WINs in multi-way pots.
The above makes for a great rationalization to play every suited hand you get. No. Use the above to rationalize playing every suited hand in MARGINAL situations.
- Louie
Could someone more mathematically inclined than I am, please tell me the odds of making a 2nd best flush with 3 suited cards on the board? For example, if I hold Th9h, and the board is KhJh3c turn 8s river 6h, what are the chances that I will lose to a higher flush?
I would expect this to be a function of (1) how high my flush is, (2) how many higher flushes are possible (for example the Kh and Jh on the board means I will lose only to Axh or Qxh), and (3) how many opponents go to the river with me.
Thanks for any insight.
-Key
"Could someone more mathematically inclined than I am, please tell me the odds of making a 2nd best flush with 3 suited cards on the board? For example, if I hold Th9h, and the board is KhJh3c turn 8s river 6h, what are the chances that I will lose to a higher flush?"
Zero, if you're the only player left on the River. ;-)
Just kidding.
There's not enough information to answer this question. Assuming that your opponents will play any two random cards and stay until the river (which, of course, is highly unlikely), the answer would be dependent on all the factors you mentioned. However, since most players won't stay until the River on any random two cards, I'm not sure that the calculation is all that useful.
Q
If you see KQh in your hand and the board is Jh8h7s3h2c then the chances that someone STARTED with Axh is:
There are 45 unseen cards for a total of (45*44/2) = 990 possible holdings for any particular opponent. There are 7 ways to make Axh (AT/9/7/6/5/4/2). There are 990-7=983 ways for a particular opponent to NOT have Axh; or 99.29% of the time.
The chances that 9 opponents did NOT start with Axh is (99.29%)**9 = .9370%. Actually, its a little less likely than that since these are not mutually exclusive events.
A reasonably approximation: So there is ABOUT a 1% chance plus a 6% chance per higher card that someone has started with a higher flush than you. If you have the Q flush there is ABOUT a 1%+2*6%=13% chance someone started with either the As or Ks.
Take that and subjectively adjust for the actual game situation, such as when Gibraltar raises on the river.
- Louie
15-30 hold 'em. I have Ac-9c in the BB. Tough player two seats to my left raises. Two idiots cold call behind her; SB, also a good player, calls and I call.
Flop comes 10h-8c-7h. SB bets; I call. Original raiser raises and the two idiots again cold call. Turn is 2c. I now have straight draw and nut flush draw in clubs. Small blind checks and I check. Original raiser bets, two idiots call, SB calls and I call.
River is 10d, making board 10h-8c-7h-2c-10d. Everyone checks! Everyone is hesitant to turn over their cards. Original raiser finally turns over Kh-Qh. Two idiots muck(!) and SB disgustedly mucks Q-9. I turn over my Ace and win a $450 pot.
Two questions: 1) How badly did I play? 2) What did the idiots have?
I'd have raised on the turn, but other than that, you played it pretty good. I'd guess that your two "idiots" had smaller flush/straight draws.
Seems like you played it fine...pre-flop call was fine, flop calls seem justified...may want to bet the turn there to make someone with a better ace than you fold, but I think you can go either way given your position.
Idiots probably have gutshots (with J's) or possibly small flush draws. I'm fairly sure they did not muck any winners.
Original raiser made big mistake not betting on the river. There is almost no way he can win on the end unless he bets.
Question you should ask yourself is whether you would have called a bet on the end...my guess is that most people (including you given your incredulous take on receiving this gift pot) would not.
However, when a flop gives offers lots of draws, there is not a lot of strength being shown around the table, none of draws get there, the pot becomes sufficiently large, and you know you will not get reraised...you should call just about every time.
The word "deserves" implies superstitious forces may be at work. Such thoughts can interfere with sound anaylsis. == Its bad luck to be superstitious ==
You seem to have 15 outs on the turn out of 46 unseen cards of which 31 are bad for you, so you are a 2:1 underdog to make a straight or flush. Since you are likely to get 3:1 or 4:1 for a turn raise and nobody is faced with a double bet by raising, it should definately been a consideration. Negative factors are the tight player with apparantly KK may reraise driving out the idiots and reducing your odds; but more importantly you are likely to split if you make the straight (or lose to Q9 when the J hits).
Betting the river when top-pair paired would be VERY believable to the tight player; but it sure looked like you would get called by an idiot or two.
The idiots each had a hand that COULD beat a pair of Tens on the river. There is much more EV in considering what the tight players have than the idiots; since you are more likely to figure it out AND you can often do something about it.
SURPRISE you won with A9. This extremely rare occurance shouldn't affect your decision making much. Be sure not to assume that since you won the hand and never got a bet in, that you MUST have played it wrong.
- Louie
How bad did you play?You played fine.The "tough" player played awful.First by trying to run 4 players out with no pair,no draw.Second by not betting the river.Alot of decent players refuse to learn there is no shame in preflop raising then getting away from the hand.
I have little experience in tournament poker, and am going to venture into a series of small HE tourneys at a local casino.
It's a limit structure with increasing blinds. It goes to No Limit on the final table. No rebuys.
Can any of you tournament pros offer some fundamental pointers so that I might have a hope in hell.
I've heard all sorts of dubious advice about starting tight and loosening as you go. And starting loose and tightening as you go. etc. etc. I'm sure 90% of what I've been told is hogwash. My gut tells me to forget all this and just play my game.
I know there's books on the subject and I'll buy a couple if I start playing in more tourneys. In the meantime, any sage advice out there?
Do not play your game!
There is such a thing as tournament strategy.
Conservative play early is the best strategy. Maybe even super conservative is better. Why? You cannot win a tournament in the early stages.
Conservative play: Play Sklansky - tough game!
After rebuy period: Tie your play to your stack size. Large stack - Conservative play. Medium stack - A bit looser. Small stack - First playable hand!
Large stack - 10 or more times total of combined blinds. Medium stack- 6-9 times combined blinds. You guessed it!
Good luck!
NNP
No New Posters answer is incomplete.
No "Fixed Strategy" is to be recommended ever. Watch the other players.When you have a big stack I disagree to play tight. Attack tight playing medium and short stacks liberally. This is standard in No-Limit, but very valuable also in limit tournament play.
Ten combined blinds not a big stack either! Don't believe everything Ken Buntjer writes. Whether you have a big stack, is better judged by how well you do in comparison to the 'curve', i.e. the medium number of chips per player. Three or four times the curve = Big stack.
Small stack in the end: Watch the blinds, and again, the play of others. If you can move up one or two spots in the pay off slots by waiting when players are in aggressive mode, by all means do so. Do not play the first playable hand!
Tournament Strategy does not really come into play untill the end of the tournament. As in most poker situations, you cannot use a 'fixed scenario strategy'. Watch the other guys. The two most important actions you should watch: who defends his blinds liberally (this player will often have a weak hand on the flop) and who abandons ship frequently when bet at on fourth street (when heads up against this player, you should often try a steal).
Spielmacher.
I agree with this post with some reservation. I made my response to a novice that is about to embark on his first tournament adventure. I believe the advice given by spielmacher is best for a journeyman tourney player or at least for one who has some experience. I believe for the initial tourney one should take a very conservative approach. Given that, Buntjer's book/advice goes a long way in providing a solid basic strategy for tourney play.
NNP
"Small stack - First playable hand! ". It is very important , and I expect the poster realises this and/or considered it to be implicit, that you have to add "provided no one has already raised the pot" to this statement. Being the first one in is much more important than you might initially think. If someone has already raised the pot and you are short-stacked you must have a better hand than what he is representing, in stud anyway, in Hold'Em well you'd better have a damn good hand if you want to call all-in.
Andy.
There is irc poker, that is played against live people (many twoplustwo and rgp people) over the internet and is free. They have a tournament channel and a new tournament starts every hour or so. If I had to come up with a recommendation for someone who had limited time to prepare, I would say go there and play as much as you can. The experience you gain there becoming comfortable with the increasing blinds, short handed and heads up play, playing with a short stack and knowing when you can wait and when you have to take chances, etc. will probably far surpass anything you can read in the short term. Longer term, you will need to read books and such to really fill in your game, but this will give you immediate, risk free, experience at a tournament structure. These are all no-limit tourneys, btw. If you need info on how to get access, email me. I think I have a url somewhere that gets you to the software download, but I would have to look for it.
A Poker Guy!
In the early and middle stages, play to win chips. You will still be far from the money, so you cannot go into your shell and hope to survive that long. You need to win chips, so do your best to do so. You will need to monitor stack sizes, but for the reasons some people advocate. If someone is playing tight because of their short stack, you can attack them more. If they're playing loose because they've got a big stack (or because they've got a short stack and have given up), then factor this into your decisions.
In the last stages, when you're within a few orbits of the money, play will likely tighten up a lot. Here, you need to make a choice. Also play tight and try to survive at all costs, or start being aggressive and take those pots away from the tight players. Both strategies have their advocates and can be used successfully. Which one you choose depends upon your goals (survive more if you want to maximize EV, attack more if you want to win) and your personality. If super-aggressive play is uncomfortable for you, then elect to survive. If s-a play is your norm, then go for it here.
Obviously, only another few hundred pages of text for this advice to be more complete. Just do your best, and learn from your mistakes (and the mistakes of others).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Mirage thursday (27 May) $125 buy in tourney. 3 tables left. Lots of small stacks. Pays nine places.
Situation:
Blinds: 100-200
SB: ~$4500 BB: $700
Pass to SB.
SB: Calls. BB Hand: AQo.
Question: What is BB play? Why?
Actual Hand: BB: raise all in. SB: Call.
SB Hand: K,K. Wins hand when both don't improve. BB gone goose.
NNP
My opinion:
SB has big stack.
BB has small stack.
SB likely to call 100 with anything.
BB has premium hand against potentially random hand.
BB should raise.
To make decent raise, BB need to go all in.
SB trap BB and probably think he pretty smart.
Easy to be pretty smart when you have KK in SB.
It's understandable that many will go all-in, considering that the small blind would call with almost anything. However, the small blind will frequently raise with most hands, except the weak and very strong. And if you raise, the small blind will probably fold a very weak hand. You do not have a made hand, yet you just were given the opportunity to see the flop for free. Should you raise?
I think that if you raise and are called, you will still be favorite, but not by as much as you might think. I think you'd actually be a bigger favorite if you had been raised.
Given the fact that losing will eliminate you if you raise and lose, then I feel that just checking is probably the best play.
Unfortunately, in this situation, if you hit a queen you probably will probably lose, And if you hit an ace, your opponent might not pay you off (although he probably will).
Of course, AQo is an above average hand and worthy of calling a raise from any position. You almost have to go all in if forced to. However, in this situation, why risk your whole stack if you don't have to? You're not likely to win the blinds. Just checking is probably best here.
Obviously this depends a lot upon your opponent. The main thing I don't like about taking the free flop here is that very often the flop will NOT give you a pair, and then the SB will bet into you. On these occasions, you will often still have the best hand. By going all-in preflop, you'll either win what's in the pot, or be called in a spot where you're likely the favorite. If the SB is just limping with garbage, and folds to my raise, that's fine. If he calls with garbage, it's a risk worth taking (for me). If we were real close to the money, I'd check, but given that the money is quite a few orbits away, I'll take the risk and go all-in here.
Plus, I like Michael 7's post. I'll modify it to "It's easy to play smart with KK against a short-stack."
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I agree that in most situations you have to play such a good hand. It's just that in this situation, you have a chance to see a flop for free. You have more to lose than gain if you fo all in, given tournament dynamics. Also, many of the hands you'd like to be against would have raised you.
I think it's a close call, with checking being preferred over raising, imho.
with 700 in front of me id take the raise and hope he folds and win the 400 as you're less than a 2 to 1 favorite over a random hand and if he calls there is a good chance he is doing it with an ace and then you have him in a better spot. also in a tourn. low chips need to be improved or you get blinded off. unless i just lost a hand i probably woundnt be sitting with 700 in the big blind when the blinds were 1 & 2.
As compared to limit Omaha-8, premium high hands and two-way hands like A2KQ or AA2x go up in value, and dry A2 or A3 go way down in value. Non-nut redraws gain value, since hands like the dry nut flush draw won't be in there drawing against you so it becomes more important that a hand like KQJT or KKQT be double suited. To a much greater extent than in most limit Omaha-8 games, it becomes possible to win pots without the best hand, and that depends on the board, the stack sizes, and on the specific opponents in the hand. A very difficult situation in this game is when you flop an A2 made low with a mediocre high hand and weak or nonexistent redraws against a tight player who almost certainly has A2 as well. I often fold here when the money is deep (especially against more than one opponent), but I might be giving up too much, judging by the difficulty of flopping a real two-way hand in 4-card O-8 (the opponent probably has nothing for high also, and even a high pair might three-quarter the pot). Even if you only enter the pot with connected hands, your high draws will miss more often than not. Bad players will call with just a low in many situations. What are some guidelines here?
Dan,
as usual your thinking is good. with nut low and some high i would not give up so easily unless you have the read. your opponent must push his one way hand just as you must push yours to win the pot early or make money. as the hand develops you must play well. if its a bad player you may win both as he may play ace three in a big pot. the guideline might be the two to one ratio if you get quartered. are you a 2 to 1 favorite to get quartered minus the dead money in the pot. the reward if you dont get quartered as opposed to win it all may be the deciding factor. if the dead money was high i would go for it if the dead money was low i might balk a little. i dont mind getting quarterd as my opponents then dont know whether to push or not when they get some play from me. if i always show good two way hands then they back off without the nuts. plus the money you win early adds up to help overcome any loses. by playing one way type hands hard you may find yourself winning many pots that you would have split because they may not have the stomach to risk getting quartered.
I have two situations I keep replaying in my mind after last night's tournament. Both these situations are at the last two tables. Blinds and limits are raised. People are busting out fast. All chips are T$500. The final table pays nine players.
1.) We just got new players to our table. The smallest stack is to my right on the button. I am the big blind(T$1500). It is folded around to the button, who goes all in with a raise(T$3000). The small blind folds (T$1000). I have 9d8c. I have a medium stack of around 25 chips (~T$12500K). Call to drive him out? Or fold and let him live doubled up?
2.) Now we are down to 11 players. Tourney pays nine. I am down to 5 Tchips (T$2500). I am trying to cruise under the wire and let the other short stacks bust first, but I can hear my fingernails screeching as I try to hang on. First player folds; second raises (T$3000)(He is short stack); third folds. Four more to act behind me (medium+ stacks) including the blinds (Big blind is very aggressive and biggest stack). I have AhTd. Only four hands left before I am blinded off. Would you call all in? Or fold and wait?
1) Call for sure. You are risking T1500 for a chance at a T7000 pot. Since your opponent is all in, you are risking only your T1500 -- there will be no further bets. This is not even a close decision.
2) Fold and wait. This is a -EV situation for you. I would also fold this one in a live game.
William
Agreed that the first case is a call. The chance to move up a place with good pot odds and no risk or further raises is just to good to pass up, even with a lousy hand. The second one is closer though: it's not worth a call in a live game, but if you are absolutely going to be blinded out in 4 hands, and there's no chance that other short stacks will bust out first, you're unlikely to see anything better, so taking a stand here with a weak Ace isn't bad.
See my other post below. It's not quite as simple as whether he's likely to get a better hand or not before hitting the blinds. It's a question of whether he's likely to get a better opportunity.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
1. He calls your bet, and raises 3000? You are getting a price of 7000 to 3000. If you are the last to act, then it is probably a strategy decision instead of a price decision. Some players believe they can calculate how likely it is that an opponent has A-K, K-K, etc., but the reality is that unless you have a good read, you are gambling on what you are up against. Even with a big hand, the button would be inclined to go all-in. But if there's no solid evidence that he has a big pair, clearly the price is there, since against two overcards you are about 2-1 dog and against a smaller pair, you are about a 6-5 dog. Still, you are risking 1/4 of your stack to try and pick off a short stack. In a super-satellite, this would be a clear fold; in a regular tournament, I would consider calling, although I don't find much difference in value from either a call or a fold.
2. This is a much better than average hand for being 4 off of the button and about to be blinded out. All-in is a no-brainer. Good practice for these fast-action tournaments is to calculate beforehand what your hand values must be at each position away from the button when the next set of blinds will force you all-in (a loose rule of thumb many players use is any "20" hand, but it helps to nail it down exactly what you'll need at each position.
1)"Call to drive him out? Or fold and let him live doubled up?"
Everyone seems to agree that it was worth risking the 3 chips to call. The results of the board: I had a pair of 8s. He had a pair of nines. Oh well, I tried.
However, the reason I keep rethinking this situation is that this action created a "profile" of me to the aggressive fellow in the number 5 seat (Let's call him Big G). This is the second time he saw me defend and steal a blind with a weak hand. I had driven out another player right after the blinds were raised and everybody tightened up. Everyone folded around to me on the button. I raised with A2o expecting to steal. I was called and raised all in by the big blind. I called his raise and beat his middle pair with a pair of Aces. Consequently, I got heads up with Big G later. I bet into him with a ragged flop showing strength. I believe his "profile" of me caused him to raise back at me. I believe that this hand is what killed me. I made the mistake of calling, looking for an my overcard. I should have never been in this hand. I was on "aggression" tilt because it was working previously.
Have you experienced "aggression" tilt?
I have seen other players abuse it and blow their whole stack in a macho pissing match. I swore that I would not do that. Yet, I was slapping myself for thinking I was invincible. How do you switch gears?
Thanks for all your insights, Keith
Just make correct plays. Only in very marginal cases should you worry about the image your play will create for your opponents. And maybe not even then.
As for switching gears, realizing what happened to you gets you most of the way there for doing it next time.
William
re problem 2
Are you sure the tournament is down to 11? By your post, I count 8 at your table. That leaves 3 at the other table, which would be strange.
Anyway, this is a very marginal spot. If the raiser had not been a short stack, I would fold. AT is not likely to be better than the hand that someone raises with in very early position. However, you pointed out that the raiser was a short-stack, in which case he could be raising with any A, any K, or even worse, as he figures that he's going to hit the big blind in just 2 more hands. As such, you may be able to play against just him and his weaker hand. Of course, even if you know he'll get desperate here, that doesn't mean he hasn't been lucky enough to find a great hand.
Arguing against the call is the fact that this guy is short-stacked, and is in a position to bust out this hand. How many chips does the big blind have? If the BB is a big stack, then he'll likely call this all-in short stack with any 2 cards, and you can hope he gets lucky. If the BB is also a shorter stack, he may fold here and hope you or others bust out first.
Another big question is if this short stack busts, what are the chances that someone else would bust in the next couple of hands before you're the BB? If this is very unlikely, then you can again consider calling all-in with your AT.
Overall, I'd be inclined to fold here. You have enough chips to raise (albeit a small raise). As such, if you wait through the next couple of hands, you may get a chance to raise and go up against the random 2 cards of the BB. As such, even if you're raising with something like K8 2 deals from now, that may make you a bigger favorite over the BB's 2 random cards than you're likely to be now with AT. Let me state that another way. Considering all factors, you may judge yourself to have an edge now by calling with AT. However, even if the hand you raise with later is less than AT, the circumstances (the fact that you can raise, not just call) may provide you with a bigger edge.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
The Fossil Man is correct!
Look for a situation that favors you.
1) Calling here is a toss up. I like the pot odds but this is a tournament and it might be better to wait for a situation where you feel you are the favorite.
2) Muck the A,T. It is always to your advantage to be the initiator of the bet when moving all in. You give yourself the possibility that everyone will fold. Something very likely when there are 11 left trying to make the money! Plus in this situation you still have players behind you that may call with better hands. Someone may eliminate both of you and because you have the smallest stack you don't get any money!
When Holdem first came to California I played the following hand. Our hero was a reasonably aggressive but sensible prop who knew less about holdem than even I did back then.
One player called, hero called on the button, SB call, and I checked 62o in the BB.
The flop came KJ6, everybody checked.
The turn came a 3. I bet, one fold, our hero raised, SB folds. Hero is going to bet the river no matter what.
What to do?
when you bet you got yourself into trouble. The texture of the flop wasn't a good one to bluff at. Button prob. has a jack or low pocket pair and was froze up on the flop (unless this game had little or no check-raising). When he raises you the gig is up time to fold.
My wild guess: Hero either has (1) a better hand, so that he's either slow-playing something or hit when the trey landed, or (2) is runing a counterbluff or semibluff. If you're going to call the raise on the turn, you should check and call on the river unless a six falls, then you've got another decision. (BTW, how'd you know he was going to bet the river no matter what?). So your odds are 3-1 minus rake. He might outdraw you, and you might pick up an extra bet if a six falls, so I'd say that if you think the chance of his hand falls within scenario no. 2 about a third of the time or more then your hand is certainly worth a call.
Louie,
Chris has it right in that it is a math answer with your guess as to the chances of the different possibilities happening. count the pot and bet on the end, figure the chance he is bluffing, deduct the chance that he outdraws you if he is bluffing and add in the chance you improve to the winning hand and you got your chances of winning more or less. of course its so hard to get a figure you have to use your feel. but if you can get a feel for the chance he is bluffing you can come very close.
Well, what does Hero Have?
The only reasonable hands he could slow play on the flop are KK, JJ, KJ, K6s, and 66; the first 3 he would have raised pre-flop.
He probably would have bet a good straight draw on the flop. He would have bet any K or any J on the flop. If he didn't like his J9 good enough to bet the flop he's not supposed to like it enough to raise the turn.
He MAY have slow-played trip sixes and MAY have played K6s, but the only hand he could reasonably have right now that can beat me is trip 3s. He's likely to correctly deduce that my hand is weak.
With only one very unlikely hand he can represent, I figured the changes he was bluffing was enourmous. I SHOULD have re-raised for value to get him to lay down his 5 or 6 out hand, especially since he may be bluffing with 88.
I called and checked-called CONFIDENTLY and set the table mumbling to their collective selves.
As he folded he accidentally flashed a 4 so I figured him for a straight draw.
The point is ... You can't bluff unless you can reasonably represent a hand.
- Louie
Some of you may be aware I started a thread on rec.gambling.poker that was derived from a post on this forum. It turned into a monster with well over a hundred replies (actually 124 per deja.com as I proofread this).
Anyway, last Sunday (May 23rd) Mason started a thread entitled “A Hand to Talk About” where he called a multi-way pot with a 4d 4c in late position, got raised by the button, and then took a card off when the flop came 9d 8s 3d. As it turned out, the board paired the 3d on the turn and he correctly bet when it was checked to him despite the threatening board. This of course is the expert play. He got it head up with the original lead bettor and won on a showdown when the other player missed his diamond draw on the river.
I had no problem with Mason’s expert play on the turn but wondered if he was springing a bit of a trick question. I wrote the following in my first response to his post:
“Although I believe you made a bad call on the flop, I can't argue with the bet on the turn and the check on the river. Those would be my plays (sic) if I got in that position.
Two things come to mind regarding your post. First, I wonder if you knew you made a bad flop call and wanted to see if you would get the proper analysis from the forum (after all, most of us make mistakes and get sloppy now and then). Second, the concepts concerning taking a card off on long shots (backdoor flushes, backdoor straights, and turning a set) when the pot is big would be a subject worth examining in future threads.”
The twoplustwo forum responses were of their usual high quality, but I wondered if some were influenced in their thinking by Mason’s reputation for not making many mistakes and the good result on the hand. I wanted to examine the flop call without personalities and egos being a factor, and without any hint as to the result of the hand. So on Monday I posted on rgp the following titled “What To Do On the Flop – A Tough Decision?” as follows:
“The following hand has been discussed by several poker acquaintances in some detail. I would like to limit the discussion to the proper action on the flop and would like to get some fresh opinions from this newsgroup.
This hand was played in a 15/30 holdem game. Four players had limped in and a player holding 4d 4c one off the button called, the player on the button raised, both blinds called, and all remaining players including the player holding 4d 4c called (eight players saw the flop for two bets each).
The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet and two players to his left called (two folded). What should the player holding 4d 4c do and why?"
The responses started off slow but soon things took off. Gary Carson and Abdul Jalib among others defended the flop call or at least considered it close (this is ironic considering their public disputes with Mason). Coming out against the call were big limit players such as Daniel Negreanu and recent WSOP Omaha H/L winner Steve Badger (also among others). I was very busy and only could through in a few minor comments of my own but checked in with growing amazement at the intensity of the views that were expressed.
Then David Sklansky came in with a great post, which I copied from deja.com because there have been some problems with newsreaders on various ISPs (mine among them – what timing!). Below is the main part of David’s post, which was in response to one of many by Abdul Jalib (BTW, thank you Abdul for your efforts, and I will look into LISP when I get some time as it appears to be a great tool for analysis):
“Though Abdul and Gary have done an excellent job of defending Mason (no that is not a misprint) I would like to add my two cents here. First of all I am not sure the call was correct and if it was it would be because of the possibility of getting a free card on fourth st. But if it was wrong it was very close and whether or not you make this call HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR SUCCESS AS A POKER PLAYER. It is almost a strictly mathematical decision with either a very slightly positive or negative EV under these circumstances. And once again I am amazed at the number of people who are argueing over yet another tivial point while the main point of Mason's original post goes ignored. That is his bet on fouth st. By knocking out overcards he has substantially increased his mathematical expectation and again THAT was the whole point of the post. (Mason did make the mistake of illustrating his excellent point with a hand that included a debatable play earlier in the hand. ) The thing you guys have to learn is that it is plays like this (on fourth st.) that make up a high proportion of your profits, especially in the moderate stakes games. As for …….“
Here is the irony. I own just about all of David and Mason’s books, but my favorite ones in a way are the books containing essays. When a friend with potential talent wants to learn and study holdem, I will usually start them with David’s original holdem book, but I usually recommend the essay books to see if they respond to the manner in which a top player should think. One of these books is “Getting the Best Of It” by David Sklansky. I have a system of checkmarks in the table of contents (for when I lend it out). Only one essay gets three checks as an absolutely must read and that is “Knowing What’s Important”. It is David’s finest and most important essay in my opinion.
I guess it is ironic that I started this thread in light of David’s response above. In my defense, I am in this spot (evaluating whether or not to take a card off on a long shot) quite often. This is an area of my game I am very unsure of, and I believe it is difficult to analyze correctly. That is the reason I started the thread. I just do not want David to think I never read his excellent essay.
The beauty of poker is that it is simple on the surface but in fact extremely complicated, and players at the highest levels can strongly disagree on what may appear to be a simple decision. It is my hope that the discourse can become more polite, without losing its edge. One thing is for sure. This forum will never run out of material on this great game to analyze and talk about.
Regards and Thanks for Your Patience,
Rick
P.S. Stephen H. Landrum on rgp questioned the propriety of my posting some of Mason’s material on rgp without giving credit right away to the source. Later I may start a separate post concerning the propriety of this since I’m not sure what I did was right.
This is one of the things I was trying to get at in my response to Mason's post; you're 'pretty' much getting odds to try and spike a 4, but you also get a chance to 'hang around' for another card and see what develops, which is of paramount concern here since IMO (and I know I'm in the minority here) there's no real reason to believe that the pocket 4's aren't in the lead on the flop. You can't be sure of this, of course, but it's going to become clear one way or another on the turn (for reasons I pointed out earlier, namely that any card that helps one hand is likely to help another), so the proper playing decision on the turn (should another 4 not hit the board) should be fairly cut and dried.
Where is it! Where is the expert play! Big pot. checked to him so he bets! Wow! Anyone that has played Holdem for more than six months knows that a bet in this situation increases your chances of winning the pot! Better yet anyone that has read Mssr's Malmuth and sklansky know that a bet in this situation is correct. And that includes a lot of non-experts.
I love the way Mr Sklansky puts things: "The thing you guys have to learn..." Well thank you very much Professor Sklansky for stooping down to inform us guyses.
Malmuth's point may have been to point out the correctness of the bet on fourth street but it wasn't the most important thing to learn from this hand. The most important thing about this hand was the poor play of the blind! The blind bets out on the flop and gets called. Not raised called! The turn pairs the bottom card and instead of seizing the initiative by betting he checks! Why? What does he think is out there? A set is very unlikely for two reasons. If someone had 9,9 they most likely would have raised before the flop. Even 8,8. No you say! I play in those 15-30 games at Bellagio. Trust me they raise with these hands. Well, who raised before the flop? The button! Well if the button has a set he will most likely raise the flop. Why? He has a huge pot and all these wonderful callers already in the pot! An expert would raise with a set here! So what do they have? Top pair or an over pair. No way, either of those would raise the flop bet. A pair of eights. Yes, very possible. A pair of threes. I think this is possible but unlikely. Bottom pair unless he was on the button (or in the blind!) would likey fold the flop. I could go on but that would take a lot longer. The blind must have been thinking no diamond, no bet! Or maybe no diamond no ace no bet! He should have been thinking, Diamond, A,6, 9 or 3 (mabe even an 8) bet! Had he thought along those expert lines what do you think the expert with the 4,4 would have done. I'll tell you what he would have done, he would have muckety mucked dem darr 4's. Now that would have been an expert play!
BP
Yeah I keep coming on turn if I lead with four flush and Ace on flop and not get raised. The guy in SB who check turn with 4 flush not read 2+2 books. Lots of players take free card in MM situation on turn so give MM credit for making right play there. Call on flop by MM not terrible like many say. Check by MM river right play since Q fall. If little card I bet river. Sklansky medicine not always taste good but good for you.
Rick-
One thing that suprised me was the level of hostility and malice in some of the RGP posts (Daniel Negreau's posts spring to mind). It shouldn't come as a shock, but I still find myself shaking my head when I see people hurling insults at each other over a disagreement on how to play a stupid poker hand. My god, folks, this is CARDS! Buy some perspective!
I recall an earlier thread (and an excellent thread it was, BTW) that you started re: problems facing today's cardrooms. The emphasis was on the English only rule, and how most floormen in Cali refuse (or can't) enforce it. While I agree that this is a problem, I still think a larger problem facing most cardrooms is the viciousness and cruelty that most regulars bring to the table. I've been involved in all kinds of endeavors, but poker is the only won where it's considered O.K. (and, in fact, encouraged in some circles) to tease, taunt, and ridicule one's fellow players. Hell, an average NBA game is more cililized than the typical American cardroom at 10:30 on a Friday.
Where does this come from? To be honest, I have no idea. Maybe it's something innate in most regular card players; perhaps in the following years a PhD candidate in psych. will find a correllation betweeen a penchant for cards and a biological inclination towards mean-spirited behavior. After all, the behavior is ubiquitous, and runs the gamut from the weekend 3-6 players to the world-class players. Either way, if the game is going to grow, I think it needs to stop. A fellow can make all the poker/war analogies he wants, but it doesn' change the fact that thousands of good hearted, chemically balanced Americans have probably stepped foot in their last cardroom, having chosen to stay home and chew tin foil before they spend another minute with the gnomes at their neighborhood poker table.
Which brings me (somehow) to another point; namely,that top flight players like Daniel Negreau need to grow up. His opinion on Mason's hand may be interesting, but I can probably count on one hand the number of people who give a damn whether or not he "crushes" Gary Carson in a heads up, private game. Rick, you mentioned the irony of poker in your post, and I think you're right on. But the real irony is that goons like Negreau are a discredit to the game they love.
I think that this is an excellent post.
As far as I know I have never spoken to Daniel Negreau or played with him. But he claims that he has played against me on three occasions and that I am a tremendous steamer.
Well it is possible that he has played against me. What he doesn't understand is that when I come into a cardroom I get a lot of attention. Many players who have read our books like to have a word with me, and I spend a fair amount of time talking to cardroom management about how a cardroom should be run. (For example, I spent 45 minutes talking to the graveyard manager at the Bellagio Poker Room last night about game structure and the long term effects that it has poker. Another example is that I co-wrote a book on how to deal poker with the Mirage Poker Room manager and another author, and this work took months to complete and it will be of no monetary benefit to myself -- I will do well if I eventually recover the production costs.) What this means is that I don't always pay as much attention as I would like to to the game I'm in at the moment, and I don't always remember who may or may have been at my table at some time in the past. (By the way, David is more in demand than I am and we are constantly joking with him about his faulty memory.)
The reason I bring this up is that it seems to me that this is a young man who has had recent poker success, tremendous success at the tournaments I might add, who is looking for recognition. The only reason I know about his success is that I have seen his picture in the poker magazines and read part of an article about him. What he doesn't understand is that during the past year-and-a-half I have worked on 11 different books and have only played poker socially and not nearly as much as I would like.
So the question is should I be making an extra effort to recognize people like him? or should I just hope that when I come to a poker room I can relax and enjoy a little poker and not have to chase after everyone who wants to talk to me and get some respect. This is actually a tough question because I didn't have to travel down this path of "self proclaimed authority."
There is no question in my mind that Daniel made a major mistake by attacking me instead of trying to come up with rational reasons for why he disagreed with the way I played the hand. The reason why it may be correct to fold the underpair cannot be because I play bad and steam.
From many years of playing poker there are a few things that I know which I suspect that Daniel is begining to struggle with. First, it is not always that easy. There are times, assuming that you play well where it seems as if you just can't lose, and there are times where no matter what you do you just can't win. Also, many players are highly competitive and they will do all that is possible to shake your confidence, and I suspect that what we see from Daniel is just a release of pressure. For some reason I looked like a good target to him because I'm not playing very big and everyone is aware of me.
There's a player whose name I won't mention because he likes to stay low key. But in case Daniel reads this, this person is the one who just happens to own a small casino in North Las Vegas which he built up from virtually nothing. He also is in my opinion the best limit hold 'em player in the world. He isn't as lucky as some people say, he just plays great. I have played against him many times, and he has been a huge winner in the $100-$200 game. He has no ego. He just plays and plays the best he can. I suggest to Daniel that instead of attacking people he hardly knows, he should emulate this person. Not only is he a tremendously successful poker player, but more importantly he is tremendously successful at life.
Mason, I think you are refering to the famous ad hominim (sp?) fallacy (that is, attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself). It's the first fallacy taught in introductory philosophy classes because it is so ubiquitous. It's nothing more than a prime example of fuzzy thinking.
Another philosophy major?
If I was a philosophy major I would have known how to spell it!
I submit that the same hand played under the same circumstances in another session might be differently played by the same player. And, it may be similarly played by that player's most vociferous critic, given the proper circumstances. Its the beautiful part of poker!! Wouldn't it be great to have a "duplicate poker tournament"? Then, we could actually "test" some of these "shoulda-played" theories.
I've thought about "Duplicate Poker" also. You could do it in Stud, but not Hold 'Em, because you would have to make the community cards the same at all tables. Doing that would destroy the "randomness" that makes HE special.
Black Jack
Post deleted at author's request.
Sorry about that; I guess I just assumed it was heads up, although I think you're right-- Negreau didn't specify such. Either way, here's hoping you DON'T do it. Whatever your personal feelings on it, I can't see the percentage in stooping to this level.
I played in the Orleans LH tourney this evenning. Sat next to Daniel. We discussed "A hand to talk about" He said that he did not realize there was an arguement about the hand. He felt that Malmuth's calling the flop was a mistake. That was the only point about the hand that he commented on.
In fairness, he seemed like a nice young man and was very polite and courteous at the table. I found it a pleasure to play in the same game with him.
He did, however, say that he offered to Play Gary Carson heads up at anytime.
Gary me friend, you do have a wau about ye!
IIM.
GD, Since we are naming names uh oops I won't go there. One thing that I have found for MYSELF is that getting involved in these threads by posting can be very distracting. Seriously I need all the help I can get to play my best game of poker and the insight that I get from experts like Mason, David, and Ray is very helpful. One thing I was very encouraged by was reading David's analysis of the hand Mason played on RGP as it was pretty much in line with my thinking of how the hand was played. This is how I benefit from reading the forums. Of course the other way is to post my thoughts and questions and have people respond to them. The purpose for me is to learn. Yes ego can get involved but it really shouldn't because the number of chips you cash in the long run tells you everything you need to know as to how good you are. Which makes me wonder why successful players need to have their ego stroked so much. It is such a shame that these so called "professionals" are so mean spirited and so demeaning. To respond requires too much energy on my part so I try to do so less and less. Even responding here is a drain but I believe you have brought up some important points regarding regulars and their behavior. People who derive a significant portion of their income and tarnish the image of poker are just plain stupid because what they really are doing is biting the hand that feeds them. As far as I can tell there are many inexperienced, relatively new players who read RGP and 2+2. I have no doubt that these players get an incredibly more positive feeling about poker from reading this forum. It's just a shame that so many threads on RGP degenerate into flame wars. Attitude in my opinion is extremely important to winning play and thank you again John Feeney for your excellent guest essay on this subject. I can't help but think that the posters who play poker "professionally" that exhibit these bad attitudes must be very disappointed with their results if not why the bad attitude? Tom Haley
Tom-
A great post, and I'm sorry if my post got under your skin. It was late, I'd just 'thumbed through' the RGP thread, and since I can't post on RGP (my computer slightly pre-dates the abacus) I thought I'd make a remark on it here.
I hope you don't interpret my post as an attempt to 'put my hat in the ring' (although I may have done just that); instead, I was just trying to show how, IMO, this particular RGP thread is symptomatic of a larger malaise that the poker community simply has to overcome. You wouldn't see Gretzky offering a 'challenge' to someone who called him a cherry picking sissy who's afraid to get in the corners, or hear of Jordan getting on a Knicks fan who hates his guts, but for some reason we're neither suprised nor dismayed when we see this kind of behavior from one of poker's elite. In fact, the only two arenas where we DO see this kind of retalliation is in poker and pro wrestling. Personal opinions on Negreau notwithstanding, this alone should raise our hackles.
GD,
Even if you don't have a working newgroup reader or program (why not download Netscape?), you can post through www.deja.com.
Regards,
Rick
BTW, Up until about eight months ago all I had was a 286 using DOS 3.3. I didn't even have a 3.5" floppy drive! I still use my twelve year old dot matrix printer. Hope this makes you feal better :-)
Actually, I have Netscape, but it's 2.0, and for some reason I can't figure out how to post stuff over there. I get all these icons (?) at the top of the screen, but they're all in faded color, which means they don't 'work' on my computer. About all I can do (or, more specifically, all I know how to do), is just scroll down the message index (?) and point and click at messages. Tom, God bless him, has tried to help me, but I'm so damn computer illiterate that I still can't figure it out.
BTW, your message may make me feel better, but I don't know what DOS or 386 mean (shameful, I know, but so it is):).
GD,
I only have a few minutes but I also want to say this is a great essay. I'll try to add related thoughts late tonight when I should have time.
Regards,
Rick
GD,
I’ll write a few thoughts while it is timely rather than the extended response I would really like to make to your important post.
You wrote: "I still think a larger problem facing most cardrooms is the viciousness and cruelty that most regulars bring to the table."
I absolutely agree except to say that this boorish behavior is fortunately exhibited by somewhat less than most players. But it is still exhibited by far too many and at most poker tables there will two or three who fit your description. This is certainly enough to make any game unpleasant. I also agree that it is a much larger problem for card rooms than my views on "Enforcing the English Only Rule" that were published in Poker Digest a couple of issues back and reprinted on the forum and rgp.
I won't speculate in this particular post on the reasons so many poker players often behave in such a deplorable manner, but one thing appears almost certain IMO; it exists because management in most card rooms in large part tolerates it. They are so afraid to lose any customer, including those that are routinely abusive (unless they cross a serious line such as throwing a punch at another player), that they miss the bigger picture. And that is that the abusive and ill-mannered players drive a far greater number of other players and/or potential customers away, and the players they drive away tend to leave in silence, without complaint, and without ever speaking to a shift manager. In essence, they just decide the atmosphere is not civil enough for them. They are what I call “marginally motivated” customers, and they just need things to be better in order to play in a public forum.
On the other hand, you can be sure that the abusive (especially high limit) player will make a big scene (such as threatening to take their business elsewhere) when they are barred or disciplined. Management will generally deduct the X amount of dollars in collections this player would have paid from his bottom line. They just can’t seem to quantify how many customers the abusive players drive away.
You also wrote: "Either way, if the game is going to grow, I think it [the abusive behavior] needs to stop."
When you look at the increase in advertising in magazines like Card Player and all the new casinos or clubs that are opening, you would think that poker is growing. But most of the growth is in areas where poker (or casino gambling in general) has just been introduced. In areas where poker has been established (such as Los Angeles), it is hardly growing at all, especially when you consider the strong economy, population growth, and favorable demographics. Once again, this topic is worth another essay in itself, but I don't have the time to write the quality essay I would like to right now.
My friend Lou Krieger wrote a trip report about the opening of a California style card room in Vienna called "Poker World" a month or so ago on rgp. Poker World is a 27 table California style room except he did not witness any of this boorish behavior so common here. Management apparently weeded the worst of these players out on the first few days it was opened. Subsequently, the players who would otherwise behave in this manner got the message and fell into line.
Some day I would like to write a long, carefully worded essay on this subject but my time is very limited right now (I could barely participate in that monster thread on rgp even though I wrote the first post).
One final thought since this is written on 2+2. In large part I agree with David Sklansky’s essay on dealer abuse recently reprinted in Poker Digest (in a nutshell, David says the abusers are idiots, but it is an indicator of weak minds and a good game). But this doesn’t mean that the abuse should be tolerated. (BTW, I mean serious abuse; minor abuse, such as a live player complaining that a dealer hasn’t dealt him a hand since whenever goes with the territory.)
Anyway, there is so much to write about but so little time (at least for now).
Regards,
Rick
Rick-
As always, your post is right on target. While time may be short, I sincerely hope that one day you do, in fact, get around to writing an extended essay on this very important subject.
While we may talk about the prohibitive rake in Cali (and the God awful way it's collected at the lower limits), and some of the other problems facing our cardrooms, I think this issue pales in comparison to the way most new players are treated by the other patrons. Take, for example, the following story (all true, BTW).
A guy (I don't know his name) walks into the cardroom and sits down at my table; I've never seen him before,but judging by the way he fishes them out of his rack, it's fairly obvious he's new to the game. Anyway, he's there for about half an hour, and suddenly a pre-flop raising war breaks out (with him in the blind). It's capped six way at 27 bucks (two dollar blind, plus one bet and four raises) and I'm stuck in this thing with 78h.
Flop is a beauty; 4c 5d 6h. It's fifteen to me, I make it twenty, and there's a couple callers by the time it gets around to the blind. He's like the proverbial deer in the headlights; staring at his cards, his eyes wide, hands shaking as he goes for his chips. He calls, everyone else calls, etc. etc..
To make it short, the turn and river are running sixes, and this guy shows down 25o to drag the pot. Now this, in itself, isn't unusual, and unfortunately neither is the conclusion; the neurosurgeon in the four seat has a suited 37, and he just goes off. Throws his cards, huffs for a bit, then gets on the blind with all the usual crap ("keep playing this way", "you're invited to my (almost certainly fictional) home game anytime," ad nauseum). I tell him to cool his heels, that he was dead from the start, but nothing seems to help. The new guy, who's still shaking, racks up his chips, looks around the table and splits.
Another player who will never play in our games again. And I know this for a fact, because two weeks later I saw the same guy over by the Let it Ride tables (where I was lurking, but not, I repeat NOT, playing), and overheard him tell the dealer that he'd like to play live poker, but tried it and found it 'too intimidating'.
These stories are a dime a dozen, and something, anything, needs to be done about it. I can go on and on.. about the guy who went to fifty five on the river w/ me, when I held the nut straight and he had bottom two, and how he got up and left after the chump next to me started teasing him at the showdown... the stories just keep piling up. As a floorman I'm sure you've got your own arsenal, and I'm sure all of them are equally disturbing.
Here's the problem, as I see it. First, I don't think that most of these players will EVER play again. I could be wrong, but I've seen at least a dozen guys scared off like this, and I haven't seen any of them in the poker room since. Second, the problem is particularly acute at the lower limits, since this is where most newbies get their start, and the patrons at the lower limits are generally awful players who have a complex about their poor play. Hence, they get on the new guys, in attempt to make their own play look marginally decent.
Having witnessed a number of these 'excommunications', I'm particularly sensitive to the comments of players like Negreau, who, I think, owe it to the game to at least act civilized in public forums. There's no LAW about it, of course, but I am genuinely disheartened by these top flight players who confirm every aspiring players worst nightmares; namely, that the best players in the game are spoiled punks and ego-driven hustlers who need to get off their high horses and quit acting like barbarians. Just because you know how to play second pair doesn't give you title to humiliate other players; either at the table or on the Internet.
Looking back on this, I'm reminded of the words of Kissinger, who once said of academe that "academic feuds are so savage because so very little is at stake". Say what you want, but as far as I'm concerned very little is in fact at stake at a poker table.
It's just money.
GD,
A couple of years ago I'm playing a 15/30 stud game with a woman who went to seventh street about 80% of the time. The next day I see her in a 15/30 holdem and so I jump in. She played even worse in holdem. She called every hand before the flop and her folding requirements on the flop would be no possible running straight or flush, undercards to the board, and sometimes not even that.
The rest of the story is predictable with a twist. She gives a guy a bad beat and he proceeds to reem her out verbally. She throughs away her next five hands pre-flop and then gets up on her blind. I never saw her again.
The twist? The guy she beat was a "prop player" working for the casino. He wasn't even a weak prop who needs his prop job to keep his gambling loses within reason. He is a tough player. To me this is a capital offense for a prop but naturally he is buddies with the top section host so his job is relatively secure.
If I ran the show, he would be gone so fast he would be leaving vapor trails (contrails?) on his way out.
Regards,
Rick
I tried to link to Bob Ciaffone's home page via "favorite links" and it did not work.
Also, what is LISP?
Maria
Maria,
This is Bob's new web site:
http://www.concentric.net/~Coach999/
I just found out about LISP myself. It is some sort of programing language which can be used for solving poker problems. Abdul Jalib used it to analyze the hand described in the post I wrote below. If you have a newsgroup reader check out rec.gambling.poker and my Monday post. If not go to deja.com, go to power search and look for my thread on "What To Do On the Flop - A Tough Decision?". Look for Abdul's first post in the thread. Later, I believe Tom Haley provides links on where you can download the compiler and editor.
When you figure out how to use it you can give me some hints.
Regards :-),
Rick
LISP is an old programming language designed for AI. It is not particularly suited to poker problems any more than any other programming language. It is in common use among Unix-heads simply because it's easy to use from within the Emacs editor, and many of them learned it in CS classes. For the mathematically-inclined non-programmer I'd recommend something more like Mathematica.
I have never played poker in Las Vegas, but am going there soon. Can someone suggest some better places to play Hold Em (that is reasonably good games as opposed to atmosphere) in the low to moderate limit range (up to 10-20)? Thanks.
Steve,
welcome to the forum but please post those questions on the exchange side. look in the archives as this has been discussed on both forums. the mirage and bellagio are two good places to start and you will get to see some famous poker players there. go for good atmosphere as you will learn more and have more fun and life is short. good luck.
I am looking for websites where 7-stud ($10-$20 and below)is played.Can anyone help me?
George: I have played $10/$20 7 stud just about everywhere it is spread in the US but never played on-line.
Irish Mike
I discussed this hand with a buddy of mine and he thought that it was the right play. I adamantly disagreed and felt it was a horrible play. Please help me decide who is right.
Scene: Orleans Casino (Vegas). Fiday night 7pm NL Holdem tournament. Early in tournament. Blinds 15-25.
6 callers to the SB. The SB (~$450 stack) raises all in. All fold to the button. Button calls. The SB: J,J! The button Ac,Kc! Now it doesn't matter who won, that wasn't the point. But just in case your curious. The flop came K,Q,Q, then x,x and the button won. O.K. now that's out of the way. I said to my buddy that the small blind made one of the most horrific NL plays possible. I said he should have called and took the flop. He claimed that the SB was correct to raise and not let anyone see the flop for free. Opinnion's please. Oh by the way we didn't even discuss the button's call! Another horrible play in my opinnion!
There is an interesting tidbit that goes along with this story. The SB is a once a month columnist for "Card Player" magazine. Sitting two seats to his left was Linda Johnson, Card Player publisher! Maybe my buddy is right.
BP
I agree with you, I don't like the sb play. NL is a game of traps, you don't win NL tournaments risking your life to steal blinds early. Even if it works, you are not the crushing big stack at the table. The reward is not sufficient to justify the risk. You win NL tournaments by setting traps and forcing people to make big mistakes. With 6 limpers I would just call and see the flop, and hope that a trap develops (but JJ, even as an overpair to the flop, has to be played very carefully).
A Poker Guy!
Either play can be a good play. By the time it comes to the SB, there is T190 in the pot. Since he has a T450 stack, this is a significant pot. He'd like to win it right now. By raising all-in, he wants it now, he's not looking to win the pot plus double through 1 other player for the rest of his stack.
Now, if the SB thinks that no one has a higher pair (because he knows who limped early, and knows they wouldn't limp with a premium pair), then this isn't a losing play. If he isn't called, he wins T190. If he is called, it is probably by a hand like AKs, and he wins T615 more than half the time. Now, if there's a serious chance that someone who limped early has a bigger pair, then this play becomes much more dangerous.
However, it may certainly be that just limping himself is a better play. Clearly, this time, JJ could have gotten away from the flop that came. On other occasions, JJ might double through with a much higher success rate than going all-in preflop against 2 overcards. However, this depends upon your chances of getting someone else to go all-in with a lesser hand, which may be tough to do if they won't do it with just top pair and the like. It could be that half the time he gets someone all-in on the flop, they have a set or two-pair ahead of him.
The make-up of the table and his current image have a lot to do with determining the best play here. However, jamming preflop certainly is one of the possible best strategies.
BTW, since this was early, were rebuys still available? If so, he might have been playing for either the T190 and no callers, or hoped to get called by an underpair or a player with only 1 overcard, in which case he's much more than a 50% favorite.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I think the play was bad, even if the rebuy is still available. The SB should have either limped or put in a raise, but not all-in. Then if the flop looked good he could have moved in.
An overcall by the button with AK may be good. If he has a clue about the player in the SB.
I agree with Greg in part. I play cash and NL hold'em and win overall (long term). JJ in the SB. Check and see the flop with 6 callers? NO. Small raise and reduce the field? NO. I like the All-in,that's the play I would've done. There is only three hands to beat you preflop AA.KK.QQ. I have made the same play in a cash (ring) game NL HE. I was in the BB with JJ and had 7 callers for $5. I went all-in for $325 and won the $35. We "rabbit run" for fun (private NL Game). The other 7 callers had AQ(os),K9s,77, A6 s,KQos,10.10. and 10.J.os........the rabbit run flop came A.Q.K. I liked my $35 win. The way I look at it I think JJ is a strong hand (not great), you DO NOT want any weak A.K. or Q calling and getting to see the flop cheap.
I guess it really depends on how you read your opponents and your chip status.
Assuming no rebuy . Both could be right with rebuys. STILL THE PAPA
I have moved all in from one of the blinds at least 10 times against a field of 6 or more limpers in NL tournaments. I have only been called once. I got called by the first limper with pocket 9's. I showed down K5offsuit.
At this stage they are both wrong IMHO. THE PAPA
In his book Big Deal, Anthony Holden recounts a story about Doyle Brunson. Brunson said that after so many people had read His Super System text that he "...kept comin' up against people playin' like me. I had to think up a few new moves of my own, and I sure ain't puttin' those in no goddamn book." Mr. Sklansky and Malmuth seem to be the current authority on poker, and deservedly so. However, as a beginning player, I wonder if since everyone reads and recommends the same books, if we all aren't going to be playing rather alike, and therefore be more predictable players? Again, since I am so new to poker, I might be way off base here, but I'd really appreciate some comments as to why this may or may not be true! Thanks to all for your advice and input!
the 2+2 advise and good play makes you less predictable. better players are harder to read than weak players even though weak players may start with a larger selection of hands.
Let me follow up on this. In a certain situation, if your strategy is to bet all your good hands and to bluff occasionally, it won't matter if your opponent knows that you are doing this. This is what good poker plays do against other good players.
On the other hand, if you are against players who are unaware you may choose a strategy that is theorectically not that good, but in this spot it gets all the money. Against someone who will call every time no matter what, does it mattter if you only bet good hands. (It would now be a mistake to bluff occasionally.)
This is what good poker is about.
In other words . . . ;-)
If two or three players all use the same "optimal" strategy, they will all lose a little over time (because of time charges) against each other.
Their profit will come from the other players at the table who don't know how to play this well, or lack the ability to do so.
This is why it's desirable to look for a table with weaker players.
I agree in part with other posters. But all the books and tips from great players cannot teach players who don't (can't) learn how to win. As time goes on the games get harder, they ARE RIGHT NOW, as anyone. Weak players in games are few and far between.Who are the winners now? A few top players and the HOUSE (time,rake). I played at the Mirage,Bike,Binions, Commerce (1995)...way back then the players were tough. In Vegas maybe 1-2 players per game were weak, LA 2 or 3 maybe (subject to game). It must be worse now days. Learning from books is very difficult for "poker players how cannot learn from books!"
I disagree, I believe that there are many good games to be had in Vegas. And the books are great because many players give them a Skim, learn some expert plays, then believe that they can beat the game (just like losing Card Counters). I have fallen into this trap before, and I have watched some of my friends fall into this trap. Unfortunatly, they believe that their losses are from their cards running bad. They are allways invited to my games.
Remember, many people don't have the time or dedication to play expertly. Heck, just getting my Pre-Flop play down took me a long time, and I'm still learning. Also, just think of all the players who still don't have PC's (that thought alone makes me smile).
CV
Not to worry bucko. Buying a poker book is one thing, reading and understanding it another, and having the discipline to follow the strategy is something else entirely. Most poker players want action and look for reasons to play. Add alcohol, playing when you are tired, over estimating your skill, poor table selection and bad money management to the mix, and you have a guaranteed formula for losing.
Irish Mike
Darryl, Interesting because my observation has been that the games are getting easier and I'm not being arrogant here. Maybe it is just a function of where I play as I am seeing fresh faces with lots of money on a regular basis. Even the regulars seem to be not doing that great. It was funny how a poster on RGP stated that the 2+2 poker books were overpriced. After reading some of his poker analysis I think they would be money well spent for him. I wouldn't be a winner if it weren't for these books. Of course the books alone won't do it but they sure help. This forum has helped a lot too. Like Chris said the thought of having so few players connected is comforting. One last thing, most players eschew the books because they are complicated and recommend tighter (not rocky) play basically. Most players don't want to play tight, heck I don't want to play tight. Tom Haley
I will agree some games in Vegas can be tightish and some good players will be in there too, but how high a limit are you playing to make a comment like that? I can't remember the last time I found many bad games at once. They spread occasionally, but then I jump to another or move down a level. Tough fields might be the rule at $40-80 or higher, but even these have a weak spot or two since the tough players only have so much patience waiting for a weak player to step in. I have to say that this year has been almost unbelievable in the vast supply of loose games with bad players. The economy is doing well and the stock market is humming along so it seems like the live ones have more money than ever to drop. Nothing seems to be a better indicator of a live game these days like the one I happen upon often where people are talking stocks. When you find the game where everyone is chiming in with their portfolio and hot picks, then you found a great game almost all the time. Should be an indicator that its not book reading that matters in terms of making a game, its the state of the live ones that does.
I think what Mason wrote is correct, but I think it is useful to follow up a bit on the original proposition.
Sklansky/Malmuth is essential reading, not only because the basic advice is good, but also because it's a basic playbook. Reading it gets you a quick line on the play of about half the players at a typical middle limit game, and allows you to exploit people who play by the book but lack the experience to really make things work. Let me give you a few examples.
1. The Free Card. I'm sure I'm not alone in having sat down at a table with an opponent who raises a flush draw on the flop and smirks when I check on the turn, also checking behind me. He might as well put a sign on his forehead. But he probably wouldn't be smiling if he realized that he's not going to get paid off if the flush hits and he's going to get bluffed out of the pot if it doesn't. Now I'm not saying that the play is useless---it should be obvious that it could be useful in the right situations or if part of a balanced strategy that featured an appropriate degree of inducing bluffs or trapping on the turn (if in early position). However, the point I'm trying to make is that inexperienced players often fail to recognize what those situations are or how the play fits into their overall strategy; as a result, they abuse and misuse this play. Of course, if Sklansky or Malmuth were looking over their shoulder, they could point out the flaw in their play: however, it's easy to miss the subtleties of the advice in the book if you haven't played a lot.
2. Starting Hands. This is another area that I think many players get wrong, despite the detailed analysis in HPFAP. Besides playing starting hands too predictably, they often fail to make adjustments based on other aspects of their game. For example, many like to raise aggressively in late position in unraised pots. But this is wise only if your post-flop play is sufficiently skilled. It's not uncommon to see people who have failed to make adjustments for their own weak play after the flop; they continue to raise too liberally in late position, despite the fact that more skilled opponents are pushing them out in later rounds.
In short, I think that, while you cannot fault Sklansky and Malmuth, there are quite a few players playing in middle limits who have constructed strategies based on their reading of HPFAP and come up with game plans with some gaping holes. You need some insight and imagination to take the advice in the book and make it work; and I've seen quite a few who don't have either.
Only a very small percentage of players study the game. Even among those who read books, only a small percentage of those have the discipline to understand and apply the advice.
One thing you never have to worry about is all poker players playing good poker.
Is this the correct median poker hand? AKQJ7 This is how I calculated it: The number of ways to pick any five cards out of a 52-card deck: 52! / (5! * 47!) = A The number of ways to pick a specific non pairing five card combination without picking a flush: 4^5 - 4 = c The number of hands ranked below the median hand: A / 2 The number of hands ranked below 22345: (4^5 - 4) * (13! / (5! * 8!) - 10) = b The number of hands between 22345 and the hand below the median hand: b - A / 2 The number of hands of different rank and between 22345 and the hand below the median hand: (b - A / 2) / c = 3 Those hands are AKQJ9, AKQJ8 and AKQJ7. Therefore the median hand is AKQJ7. / U H
I don't know! But it has to be less than a pair so it probably is close. WTO
Books say the average winning hand in a 7 card stud game is three (3) nines. My expereience is that two pair will win more times than it loses.
Irish Mike
Hey mike I think the question was for five cards taken from a 52 card deck.
I like your answer though. Relating it to a real poker game makes the question worth reading. The only problem I have with average winning hands at any game is that I believe you must consider all factors. Such as number of players if you want to be accurate.
ARF
This idea is important in the game 5-card Guts. You figure out what hand on average will be best out of N remaining hands. (And then you consider your opponent(s) - what hands he plays and his tendencies in the situation) So with one player to go, you can play any pair.
This is an example of using correct math to arrive at a totally irrelavant fact (assuming your calculations are correct--I didn't check).
First, players generally play better hands and fold worser hands. So if you are dealt the median hand it's usually worthless (but you do have a straight draw ;-) ).
In a game with more than five cards (7-stud, hold'em, omaha, draw) these numbers do not hold up.
The figures are irrlevant in community card games, or exposed card games (such as 5-card stud). In community card games the median hand would be dependant on the community cards. In exposed card games the available cards change the numbers.
If it was relevant, it would only be so two-handed, but under what circumstances I can't imagine.
Carribean Stud.
Is that poker? ;-)
You must remember that the dealer exposes one card. So you would have to go with 13 different median hands, one for each exposed dealer card. Then again, you see your 5 cards, and perhaps some of your neighbor's cards, making 6+ exposed cards. So the median hand would be quite useless in this game.
Also, you don't win at 1:1. I believe you make a bet, and if you win, you win that bet (paid off at odds depending on your hand) plus the ante. I'm not sure of the exact method, I haven't played in a long time. But that changes the relative hand strength you'd want to bet.
The median poker hand. The average hand that wins at a particular game. etc. Whether you believe it or not thes things matter and are valuable information for the poker player. The reason they seem irrelevant is because they are usually learned very early and rarely if ever conciously called upon during play. If you were to teach a person with no knowledge of the game how to play poker the first thing you would teach them is hand rankings. Inevitably the question would arise: What constitutes a good poker hand for various games? When discussing hand strength things such as the average or even the median hand must be discussed. You claim it is irrelevant because you already know the answer and fail to recognize the fact that without a good understanding of hand rankings you could not play winning poker. A new player would see the value in hand rankings.
ARF
I was wondering if casinos in Canada, such as Casino Niagra, offer poker rooms. Also, are there any reservation casinos in the New York or even Northeastern US areas that allow admittance to people 19 years or older (similiar to those in Canada).
Any help or feedback is appreciated.
Thanks
I'm sure many will remind you that this type of message should be posted in the exchange forum.
Anyway the only poker room I am aware of in Ontario is the Great Blue heron near Whitby. I have heard rumblings that Niagra will be offering Poker in the fall and that Brantforns new mini-casino will offer poker as well.
S. Doyle
There are other poker rooms in Canada - I played in two poker rooms in Edmonton, Alberta and in Casino Regina, in Regina, Sask.
Irish Mike
Casino Edmonton in Alberta currently has the biggest card room in Canada, I believe. 10 tables, luxuriously outfitted. Most of the action is 3-6, but there is usually a 5-10 and a 10-20 or 15-30 every evening.
Dan
Bellagio. 15-30 Holdem
3 players limp before me. I'm one from button. My hand 3c,3h. I limp. Button limps. SB calls. BB calls.
Flop: 6d,7c,2d.
SB and BB: Check. Next player: Bet. (I put him on a flush draw) Next two players Fold. I look down at the player next to the bettor. It is none other than Mr. Malmuth himself! I think for a moment, I think about his post " A hand to talk about" The one with pocket 4,4. I ask the dealer if Malmuth is in the pot. I was confused because there was 3 chips in front of him but I couldn't see his cards. The dealer says no he's not in. (Not that it mattered) I raise! Button, SB, BB fold. Now it is the original bettor and me.
Turn Ks. Check to me. I bet! I think I know this guy, if he had a hand he would have bet. He calls. River 7s. Check to me! I check and turn over 3,3 and win. His hand 8c,9c.
I secretly (to myself) thank Mr. Malmuth for his post! Though not the same situation, It was similiar enough to stimulate my poker senses and help me make what I think was the correct play. (Even without the 3d)! Funny how TwoPlusTwo authors can help your game!
Comments?
WTO
I remember the hand. I had just sat down in the game. Given the position of the player, his chance of having a 7 or a 6 have gone down, and I agree that a flush draw is a likely hand. I'm not saying that your play was correct because I don't remember all the action, but it is the type of thinking that you should be doing at the poker table. The ability to read hands accurately and then formulate a logical course of action is what seperates the best players from the merely good ones.
I would have raised pre-flop with the 3's. You're in late position and you have lots of callers, why not get some money in the pot? Flopping a set can win you a monster. You also might (low shot but a shot nevertheless) score a free card for a shot at the turn. Nice win, though!
Marc
My wife said to me "poker isn't like other sports, the luck factor combined with gambling reduces its chance of becoming a real sport". She is a good hold'em player and knows card games well. OK we play for money... cash games or tournaments, but so do the sports people in golf,baseball, football,etc. How can we get poker reported on the TV news like other sports? Is it really a sport or do we let our egos just think it is? Comments welcome and may be used in a future article for CARDS Poker Magazine (Australia). Regards Dazzler.
Poker is a game, not a sport. To be a "sport," poker would require some sort of physical skill.
The problem with poker being reported like sports, is that it is usually boring to watch. Even if the audience was sophisticated enough to understand the strategies involved, poker is generally a secretive game. That is, usually only the player knows what cards he was dealt, unless there was a show-down. And much of the strategy occurs before show-downs. While most sprots include strategies, even those observers who lack understanding of these strategies can still enjoy the physical feats (most sports fans are not experts at the sports they enjoy watching).
The public mostly views poker as a game of chance--a form of gambling. While watching gamblers make huge bets can sometimes be exciting, this doesn't usually happen in poker. Even in big limit games or tournaments, big show-downs happen a small percentage of the time.
Poker also suffers from a less than perfect reputation. Unlike chess, poker is not view as a game of intellect, but rather as a game of hustling--similar to billards. And indeed poker is a game of hustling, in a way. Those who make a living at it are forever looking to seperate less knowing players from their money, and usually try to decieve their opponents. The recent motion picture "Rounders" only reinforced that notion.
The only way I can see poker getting widespread public interest, media coverage, and the sponsor money that would go hand in hand, would be if some sort of antiseptic version of the game was played. Deal makeing would have to be eliminated; All hands would have to be exposed, either as it progressed, or after the fact; And a true expert would have to explain the strategy as a hand unfolded, live or in retrospect.
There certainly is potential here. Poker is one of the most wide-spread games played in this country. It's even played elsewhere. And as more women play the game, it will become a game where there is no advantage based on sex--unlike most sports.
But many of the "problems" with the game are there because the players make it that way. Most money is made from "live ones," poker players frequently mis-lead their opponents, and observers as a necessary part of the game--of both their ability and decisions; and poker players generally like to keep a low profile (for tax reasons, avoiding being known as a good player, and generally existing in an "underground" world--whatever their reasons).
I'd say that poker getting coverage like sporting events is a long shot. But it depends on those who are in position to make the decisions which would effect this. One question to be answered is whether the players would actually want this? I suspect the most sucessful ones would not.
Good post George. My sentiments exactly, but arranged better.
CV
I would suggest that it can exist similiar to billiards. I used to work in that industry and can tell you that the real money isn't made on TV by top ranked pros. I think poker would be the same way if it became a televised sport. There would be some players who like the exposure and would want to play on TV and there would be other players who are only interested inthe money that wouldn't have any desire to go on TV etc.
I think it's interesting to compare billards to poker. In many ways they are the same.
Before Rounders, I felt that the best "poker" movie was The Color of Money. Obviously that movie is not about poker, but pool. But the hustling aspect of it, including the side games at the tournaments, was the closest comparison to how the poker world is than any of the poker movies. It's just that the game is different.
In fact, the more I think about, The Color of Money is a better poker movie than Rounders. ;-)
Luck is a much lesser factor in billards than poker. And in the public's eye, poker is mostly luck. Billards is also more interesting to watch. I don't think poker would be as successful a viewing event as billards.
I don't think billards and poker are THAT close, after all- certainly not as a spectator sport!
The biggest difference? Expert plays in pool (positioning, great shots, etc) can be OBSERVED by viewers, even unknowledgeable ones (with a little explaination from announcers, perhaps, on the subtleties).
Can you imagine a non-poker player (someone who is not really knowledgeable about our game) making sense of an announcer's explaination that a reraise to drive out a third competitor was a GOOD play when the raiser loses a huge pot as a result? That kind of info just won't come across to most of the home poker players.
In addition, how often will viewers get to SEE the results of those plays? As stated in other posts, unless a showdown results, the raiser will just look stupid when she folds her hand before the showdown...
Poker just isn't really "viewable" the way other sports, such as billards, are. Even with the great coverage I've seen in those one-hour specials on the WSOP, too many nuances are lost on most people (indeed, those not poker fanatics won't want to even watch that)....
Although, here's a thought- it might work for a short ESPN highlight, say from a tournament???
There are many expert plays in pool that most viewers don't understand such as playing for three fouls. Televised events have switched to an alternating break fromat to make the game more interesting for TV. Also one-pocket is generally considered more difficult game than 9 ball. It can't be televised because it is very slow and nobody watching understand the strategy.
Randy
P.S. if anyone has a question about the three fould rule or one pocket e-mail me; I think this is enough off topic without explaining pool.
Here in Europe a tournament was recently set up specifically for the purpose of being shown on TV. The top 40 (I think) players according to EPPA rankings were invited. They had to put up their own money (about $2500) but apparently one or two obtained this from companies in exchange for wearing a logo.
What happened is they had 5 single table satellites with 2 from each qualifying for a final, which they boil down to 6 half-hour programmes. The clever bit is the table is perspex with a camera underneath to view the players' cards (Hold'Em), commentary is then added on as the editing is done I think.
I spoke to one of the players involved who was quite complimentary about the set-up and said he didn't mind his cards being known when he folded etc. The programmes are due to be shown August/September and I'll let you know how they come out.
By the way if anyone is curious about the ranking system, check the EPPA site (I think there is a link off this site), I must admit to being surprised that nothing similar exists in the US as it doesn't appear to be that difficult to set up.
Andy.
Good idea Andy, but here in the States, some unknown goober put a patent on the general idea of viewing player's hole cards and that has stifled the development of more sophisticated ways of covering the WSOP and other big events. While the patent wouldn't stand up in court because of it's general nature (how he got a patent I cannot understand), it has scared off the folks at Binion's at least. Such is the nature of our society today, where everyone's greatest fear is not failure of an innovation, but rather having to answer to a lawsuit.
In my opinion poker is a game and a sport.
There is really no luck factor in poker, as the best player will inevitably take the money. Like other sports, this "flaw" is overcome by making events short enough that the short term outcome isn't totally predictable.
I disagree that poker lacks the physical aspect required to meet the definition of "sport". Stamina is a vital factor in expert play, as it often takes many many hours for the expert to relieve the novice of their chips. Being able to play long hours without tiring mentally and physically fulfils this requirement. In fact stamina is often the deciding factor among closely matched players. I consider chess a "sport" for the same reason.
As for the promotion issue, I believe poker is ripe for increased promotion and fan support. It will never be a major sport, but I for one immensely enjoy the sparse television coverage of big league poker. Television coverage will always require some editing to get the public over the boring periods of the tournament. Live coverage might work for only the very latest stages of big tourneys. I would be very interested in hearing Mason's and Ray's views and ideas on this issue.
There is no answer to this question, because the answer depends ENTIRELY upon the definition of "sport". By my personal definition, poker isn't even in the running to be called a sport. By other's definition, it is at least partially a sport, or even clearly a sport.
Thus, a more trying question might be to ask for the group to come to a consensus re the definition of "sport". After that, determining whether poker is a sport or not will probably be a piece of cake.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Poker's chance of becoming a tv sport rests entirely on one fact, IMO. The technology probably already exists to play with cards that have sensors so that a computer can display all hands to a tv monitor. Whether top players will want to play when others can watch there every move knowing their hole cards is another matter.
Danny S
PokerLover
sorry
In holdem, when you flop a strong hand (specifically two pair or trips; different considerations apply to flopped flushes-HFAP) against a large field, you need to decide whether to raise on the flop or on the turn. An important consideration is exactly what hands a flop raise would eliminate and whether you want them in for the turn. Hands such as gutshots, middle or bottom pair, overcards, pocket pairs that are below the top board card, or top pair-weak kicker are hands that might fold to a raise but not a bet (when several players took the flop so the pot is fairly large; some of those hands would fold to a bet in certain situations). You also want to eliminate backdoor flushes contained in those hands. 8-out straight draws or flush draws won't fold in any case. When you hold a set, most of the above hands really have two or zero outs over you (with the gutshot being an exception), while they probably think they have more. So unless the pot is gigantic, you usually want them to call since they are wrong to do so. Two pair is a more vulnerable hand with less chance of improvement. You would more often raise on the flop to knock out the above hands (most of which do have 4-5 outs over you), unless the pot was small enough that you want them to call. When is it correct to raise on the flop with a set when the pot is only 7-10 small bets? When is it correct to just call with two pair when the pot is 10-12 small bets?
I'm not a big fan of waiting until the turn to raise except in some fairly unique circumstances. Aside from the increased possibility of losing the hand, other bad things can happen to you on the turn: For one, the original bettor may now check, and you lose your opportunity to raise at all. Second, a scare card may land that either inhibits a bet in front of you or causes you to forego the raise. Third, a failure to raise on the flop makes it harder to read your opponent's hands on the river, opening you up to raise if something like a running flush or a gutshot straight comes in. Finally, a raise on the flop will often trigger a re-raise from as little as a flush draw as people try to define their hands.
I'll often raise on the flop with this type of hand, get re-raised by the original bettor, and just call. Then when he bets into me on the turn, I get to raise again. By just calling the flop, you lose a lot of money if you miss an opportunity like this.
If you're in late position, you should almost always raise. Late position raises on the flop don't necessarily suggest a very strong hand, so you're not giving much away.
I wouldn't raise on the flop if the flop was unconnected rainbow, AND the bettor was immediately to my right (a raise would choke off all the action), AND the pot was small.
Dan,
Nice reply. I have one brief comment.
You wrote: "I wouldn't raise on the flop if the flop was unconnected rainbow, AND the bettor was immediately to my right (a raise would choke off all the action), AND the pot was small.
This validates one of the points in skp's recent essay about reading hands. Beware when a good player just a calls a bet from his right with players yet to act with a unconnected rainbow flop. It often means the player flopped a set.
Regards,
Rick
When heads up on third street with rolled 4s against a king up or heads up with rolled jacks against a ace up or finally rolled 5s against a queen up in every case all my opponents cards were live and so was my quad card. I have bet, raised, or reraised at every given opportunity until my opponent pairs his door card, get higher trips on board or his board or becomes significantly scary enough as in four flush or open end straight on board. In everyone of the above examples I've played my roll ups very aggressively my opponents have not paired there door card and there boards have not become scary in any way yet I have lost every hand to higher trips either rolled up from the beginning or made on the river. Questoin one: Is my play incorrect in these situations or are they just bad beats? question two: If my play is incorrect what is the proper strategy? Question three: I always bet, raise, or reraise when I feel I have the lead unless I'm trying to keep weaker hands in against my very strong hand. Is this incorrect strategy? If so why? Your help in this mater is greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Drone
Nothing wrong with your play...you were just unlucky...
You stated that you bet,raised or reraised at every opportunity...my only problem with this is that you should not be too agressive on 4th street since you want to get a raise in on 5th or 6th street, and if you raise on 4th you will stop your opponent from leading into you on a later street.
Good Luck,
Jim Mogal
Advice varies on how to play small rolled up trips. Roy West says play them fast, McEvoy and Caro say play them slow. I have played them both ways and don't think there is a pat answer. I decide based on:
1. Assessment of my opponent(s).
2. How live my cards are.
3. How the boards develop.
4. The limit I am playing.
Irish Mike
Listen to this guy! I've seen him play!
BTW I've played at Bellagio for the past 5 months. Seen Roy Clarke there most of the nights I've been playing. He plays 30-60 Holdem. No stud. Take his advice on stud with a grain of whatever. I'd be surprised if McEvoy plays much stud also. Seen him a number of times playing in Ca. Always Holdem. Caro, may be a stud fellow. Me, I listen to Zee and Malmuth and guys like Irish Mike and humbly ME.
The only thing I would add to the Irish man's comments is consider 5. The action to me. These 5 comments boli down to one thing: Think before acting! There is no poker hand that can be played by rote!
ARF
Thanks for the advise Irish Mike ( a bit vague though). I would greatly appreciate a more detailed answer to my post. For example under category 1. Assessment of my opponent(s). If my opponent(s) is tight I do such and such. If he is loose I do such and such and so forth for all 4 factors you list in your above post. I await your analyses with great anticipation!
My god! Do you want him to play the hand for you too!
ARF
Greetings:
My opinion on how to play rolled up trips, as I have experienced in low limit stud games, is as follows. First of all, it is my policy to bet unseen power, and bet it, and bet it. Remember, we're talking low-limit here. The reason I think this is the proper approach, getting heavy early on (and remember your probably only leading with just subsequent calls so your strength is still going to be undersestimated)is that it is allot better to win a hand on 5th or 6th street without showing your trips, rather than losing it on 7th to a straight or flush when you don't boat up. Slowplaying your trips is an easy way to lose a pot.
Now, obviously if someone else's board card pairs that will require some slowing down to do, especially when it's higher, and then it becomes a check-call hand with your information becoming more clear as which cards fall.
Good luck,
Joe
Here's a hand that I am reviewing from my first limit HE tournament, thought others would have some input:
Small buy-in tourney, 82 players to start. I've ducked and weaved my way to the final two tables (never had pair higher than JJ). 11 players left, tourney pays top 8 places.
Blinds are 150-300, bets 300-600. I have almost 4 chips ($1175). Player I believe is 11th just made it through blinds with about $250. Chip leader, who has been catching me at the wrong times (for me) earlier is 3 seats to my left. I can't see the other table to tell how low some players are (6 at my table, 5 at other) or determine my position in standings.
I'm UTG and get AJ offsuit. I decided to raise to $600. Get reraised by late person, dropping the blinds. I reraise all in, find out later that raiser had KK.
Questions: 1) Should I have folded the AJ rather than raising (obvious if I'd known KK was there) in an attempt to survive, knowing that I was probably giving up $450 in blinds very soon? Few hands are not being raised pre-flop by someone at this point.
2) Should I have only called the blinds instead of raising, therebye leaving me enough chips to barely survive the blinds?
3) Should I have folded to the reraise, instead hoping for miracle cards for what would be my all-in BB?
4) Did I overestimate my chip weakness when I first received the AJ? Did I have more survivability than I thought that I had?
5) Would any of the above answers change if I KNEW what position I was in? 10th? 9th? especially 8th? (I was pretty sure that I couldn't be better than that, based on chips at my table)
In general, I wasn't that unhappy with any of my decisions at that point, given that AJ was looking like a pretty good hand for my precarious chip position. However, as this was my first HE tournament, I wasn't sure if I'd made a "tourney decision" mistake.... especially with some payback potentially close. I was thinking more about getting a chance to win, rather than get my buy-in back for 8th place....
Results of the hand, you ask? I never saw the flop! Somewhere between my first raise and my reraise, my cards disappeared (someone else pointed this out to me, to my stunned surprise!). As far as I can guess, my coat sleeve must have accidently pushed my cards out, and the dealer, without paying attention, had scooped them up. I was ruled out of the tournament... a strange way to get busted out after getting so close to the final table, especially since my AJ wasn't a SUPER huge dog against the KK (just a huge one...)
Thoughts?
You've got 4 bets, and therefore you can choose to fold this hand and survive into the money. Whether you should do so or not depends not just on the chances of sneaking into 8th place, but on how big the stacks of the leaders are.
For example, if a few chip leaders have 30-60 bets each, then your 4 bets is far, far away from winning. In fact, even if you play aggressive and double up here, you still have only a long shot at winning or finishing in the top 3 positions. As such, I would place a higher premium on surviving into some sort of payday before going for it.
If the chip leaders only had 10-20 bets each, then your 4 bets is enough to make you a chip leader by merely winning a couple of hands. In this case, I would be more inclined to take a good risk, given that the chance of gaining from that risk is meaningful.
You're 6-handed, and AJ is a pretty good hand for a short game like this. Much of the time, you'll either win the blinds or be playing against a worse hand. Therefore, if your 4 bets represents a noticeable portion of the total chips in play, I'd raise like you did. If your 4 bets is a minor portion, less than 1-2% of the chips, then fold and try to sneak into 8th place (assuming that there are at least a few other stacks as short as you who might bust first).
Also, why go all-in preflop? Just call his raise and then try one of 2 alternate strategies. First, check all the way (unless you make the nuts), hoping that he'll also check and let you survive if you lose the showdown. Second, bet the flop no matter what, hoping that he'll fold if it missed him. Both strategies give you some chance of surviving short of having the best hand after all the cards are dealt. Which strategy is best depends upon whether there's any realistic chance that your opponent will check it down if you do.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg, thanks for the details.
There were only a total of 82 chips in the tourney all together at this point (it was a cheap one), so I'm pretty sure my chips were more than 5%, with the leaders not out the 40+ bets you referred to (the chip leader at table might have been, but he was only one that close)
Why go all in pre-flop? That was one of my questions. I figured that, I'm all in the next hand if I don't raise, and almost blinded out (about 1/3 bet) if I fold and walk through the blinds (which was another question I asked).
The odds of getting a hand better than AJ in the blinds was pretty low (even low pairs were probably no good, facing probable raises from chip leaders at my table), so I figured that it was better to take my shot then rather than blind out immediately after.... Also, winning the hand would give me a better shot (leaving me 7-8 bets after the blinds) at surviving AND building up a later pot for further play...
The thing I thought about later: His reraise put me in a bad spot anyway. I wouldn't know if his reraise meant AK, high pair, AA, or smaller pair that nailed trips on the flop. Since I was blinding out soon anyway (I'd drop to 11th, below the low chip man), it was probably better to take the thinking out of it at that point, with an overcard shot at a win...
Of course, I'll never know, since I was an idiot with my cards.... I was just a little upset at the dealer for not paying attention, but it was my fault for not protecting the cards.
Thanks again for the thought process.
There is apparently some confusion here. Your first post indicated that you went all-in PREflop. This post makes it sound like you only called his reraise preflop, and then called all-in on the flop.
If you rereraised preflop, then I'll still say that's a mistake. If you just called preflop, and called again on the flop, then I'd say you did it right. As your second post suggests, you're pot stuck after the flop, and need to call unless he shows you that you're drawing dead (or damn close to dead).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Sounds like a close call to me.
But your story contains a valuable fundamental lesson. Protect your hand while you're doing your figuring and betting. That's your first job. Place something over your cards.
Can you imagine being busted out of the World Series like this? You'd be sick for a year!
Yeah, I know. Thing is, it might not have mattered anyway. Knowing my luck that night, the coin on my cards would probably have gone up my sleeve while the cards were going out....
I did feel a little better, knowing he had KK... although my Ace gave me a shot to recover.
Live and learn.
10-20 Hold'em, Tropicana, Atlantic City. Tight, aggressive game. I had just taken a break with a brisk walk on the boardwalk and when I returned the button had just passed my position (#7) for the second time. I posted (big and little) and received 9,7 suited. 3 callers and then #6 raises. I should have mucked, but I was envigorated by the night air during my walk (the only excuse I can think of at the moment) and I called. Big blind reraises (now I'm really thrilled that I hurried back, posted, and called the first raise), little blind folds, the 3 limpers all call and, not to be outdone, #6 caps it at $40. OK, I think, what are the pot odds? But, wait a minute, pot odds to make what on the flop? Open end straight, trips, 4 to a flush, two pair? I'm a little flustered, everybody is giving me that "we are paying time while you think" look. Call or fold?
Your first mistake put you in a situation, didn't it?
For only one more raise it's a call. For the two more raises, I think it's a fold (a flush might not be big enough anyway, and most of your straight draws will be gut-shot). Don't forget that you might be calling two ro more bets on the flop to see a turn card.
I think this is actually good enough to call, since you now have position. You will probably be able to judge how many bets it will take you to see the turn and there are many hands where you will be getting great pot odds to do so.
Danny S
Fold- sounds as if this hand had too much potential to be dominated (straight or trips was your best bet, but I wouldn't feel too good about it if they only came close)
You're paying a big price to "pray", even given the position. Did you have a strong feeling that you could outplay #6 and the BB after the flop?
First call - You're getting 8:1 immediately, plus whoever calls behind, minus the chances of getting raised. This is a clear call for me. 97s isn't great, but it can flop some monster draws, draws that can make you the favorite heads-up against an overpair.
Second call - You're getting 19:2 immediately, but really getting 23:2 (since you know no one else will fold now). This is much too good to pass on now. It's true that your flush draw might not be good if you make it, but your straight almost certainly will. Plus, if you flop 2-pair, what are the chances that someone else flops a better 2-pair? Someone else flopping a set will always be a risk in this type of pot, but some risks must be chanced.
Overall, I think that you've got to call in these spots, or you're giving up too much. I'll be surprised if David, Mason, and Ray don't agree with me (of course, it'll be far from the first time I've been wrong).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
This is a no brainer.
The first call is absolutely correct. In fact if #6 doesn't raise your best play may be to raise yourself! What is this "I should have mucked...." BB raises, 3 callers and a reraise, wow! You are now in this huge pot you may want to cap it yourself but you most certainly are going to see the flop! Of course with your attitude, feeling sorry for yourself ("now I'm thrilled that I... called the first raise"), you may have been wise to muck the hand since you will most likely make a mistake on the flop! You must play poker with a posivie mental attitude! You sound as if you have given up before you started. If you don't flop a monster ytou will probably fold to a bet or position raise and not give yourself a good chance to win!
Hope that helps.
PL (Poker Lover not Poor Loser)
you have to call and this is exactly the kind of hand you want to have in this lousy situation you got into. if you knew it would get played this hard you would not have put your original blinds in. but since you cant predict the future you are stuck in and must play on.
Mr. Zee correctly describes my feelings as "this lousey situation you got into." I'm not sure that's the same as feeling sorry for myself (as observed by Poker Lover}, but I won't quibble over phrases. Right or wrong, if it were not for the $15 in blinds that I had committed, I would not have called the first raise. While the result of this hand is not germaine to this discussion, for curiosity sake, I did play on and the flop came 9,7,2 rainbow. The turn and river were Q,4 (no flush available) and I won a very large pot. Big blind (K,K) and #6 (A,A) were less than complimentary in evaluating my starting cards. That became an advantage for me as they each chased me (unsuccessfully) a couple times later in the session.
I would have called the first raise as well, and I would call again. 97s is not that bad a hand when you are getting 8:1 or better on your call and are in good position.
The implied odds with the hand are great - if it hits just right you may win a monster pot, since everyone else is pot-stuck. If it doesn't hit just right, it's easy to get off the hand.
Dan
I was looking thru the books and cant decide which Book to buy first. I've played poker in friendly games at work and home for years, played a few sessions in a couple of casinos and held my own for several hours. So where should I start ? I think the money in 7 stud might be better than the jam and cram Holdem games I've seen, but might learn both games
Accomplished Blackjack player looking for some more action when Casinos get crowded.
Thanks for Any Help Sincerely, G
Suggest you start with: Fundamentals Of Poker by Mason Malmuth and Lynne Loomis 7-Card Stud:42 Lessons by Roy West
Last Monday I started a thread on rgp that was based on a hand Mason Malmuth played and posted on this forum on May 23rd. Much to my surprise it turned into a monster thread with at least 187 replies (per deja.com) as of this writing.
I posted it on rgp because I wanted to get fresh thinking on Mason’s flop call without anyone knowing the outcome of the hand. It seemed to me that the fact that Mason won would color some opinions. I also didn’t mention that it was Mason who played the hand, given the rivalries that abound. So I changed the post ever so slightly (see below).
About a third of the way into the thread, it was noticed that this was a 2+2 forum hand played by Mason. Later, Stephen H. Landrum stated that it was somewhat improper that I didn’t mention the source of the material. I am not sure which is why I’m writing this post.
In my defense note that Mason’s original post contained no analysis. Had it, I would have certainly mentioned the source. Anyway, what are the guidelines for this type of thing? Did I commit an impropriety?
For the reader’ convenience, both posts are reprinted below.
Regards,
Rick
Mason’s 2+2 post:
Hand to Talk About Posted by Mason Malmuth on Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 3:22 p.m.
Here's a hand that I played in a $15-$30 hold 'em game last night.
Four players had limped in and I had 4d4c one off the button. I called, the player on the button raised, both blinds called, and all remaining players including me called. (Eight of us saw the flop for two bets each.)
The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet, two players to his left called, I called, and the player on the button called.
The turn was the 3s. It was checked to me and I bet. Only the player in the blind called. A queen of clubs came on the river, we both checked and I won the pot with my two fours. (The player in the blind had Ad 6d.)
All comments are welcome.
Rick’s rgp post:
Subject: What To Do On The Flop - A Tough Decision? Date: 1999/05/24 Author: Rick Nebiolo The following hand has been discussed by several poker acquaintances in some detail. I would like to limit the discussion to the proper action on the flop and would like to get some fresh opinions from this newsgroup.
"This hand was played in a 15/30 holdem game. Four players had limped in and a player holding 4d 4c one off the button called, the player on the button raised, both blinds called, and all remaining players including the player holding 4d 4c called (eight players saw the flop for two bets each).
The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet and two players to his left called (two folded). What should the player holding 4d 4c do and why?"
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Please don't forget to explain your reasoning if you have time.
I don't have any problem with your posting the hand on RGP. The reason I posted the hand with no analysis was to promote discussion and not conclusions until people could think it through.
it my have been ok to post it on rgp but you blew it because your post here should have been on the exchange forum so you lose anyway for not posting properly. ha ha ha :)
Ray,
I thought it was Mason's job to tell people to post messages on the Exchange Forum. Can't you get a little more organized over there/here at 2 + 2? Besides, who reads the Exchange anyway. All I can find are stories about you and the bear you wrestle in the Montana woods. Who cares about that.
Regards :-),
Rick
The actual written text describing an event is subject to copyright law, but the event itself is not. You can't reproduce Conjelco's WSOP reports on your website, but you can certainly write your own reports of what happened. Similarly, the hand Mason described was just a poker hand. You didn't copy his description, you just reported the events as they happened in your own words. Nothing at all wrong with that.
Orleans Casino (Vegas) Sunday night LH tournament. 4 tables left.
Blinds 100-200. 200-400 level.
Stack. $950 after blind.
Me. BB: 3,4o.
Early position raiser. 5 callers to me!
What's my play? Why?
I called! Stack now $750.
Flop T,7,4 rainbow.
Checked around to button. Button bets $200. I planned to raise if button bet. SB beats me to it and raises! What's my play? Why?
I think for a moment and fold!
Of course. 4 on the river. Would have won a huge pot.
I raise under the gun with A,To (300-600 level now) on the next round. The BB (the SB in the previous hand) calls with Jh,8h. Flop Ts,9s,4c. Bet all in (150 more). Q on turn A on river and I'm a gone goose.
When things go bad....
Comments please! TL
I believe you made a couple of mistakes here, although I'm not a tourney player. For what it's worth:
I don't like the call on the raise. Your hand is extremely weak against 1 raiser and 5 cold callers. You still have some time left and that extra $200 will almost certainly used better in a later hand.
Secondly, I don't understand the rationale for raising the button bet (although you never had a chance to do it). With this many cold callers I'd be suspicious of high pocket pairs, A,10, or even trip tens. If someone other than the button is holding one of these, you are going to be in the unfortunate position of being check raised all in with a low pair with no kicker. Even calling the button bet put you in jeopardy of this. This all stems from playing such a weak hand to begin with.
I think you did the right thing by folding, but I also think you wasted 20% of your stack by calling before the flop. Of course, the fact that a four fell on the river in this particular instance is totally irrelevant.
Sounds like you were destined to be out on the next hand no matter what you did. However given your precarious chip position, I'm thinking you may as well have raised all in, to maximize the chance that you'd steal the blinds.
I curious to see what the tourney players say about this.
Better luck next time!
I know the pot must have been enticing with 13 or so bets in it when it got to you, but 34o is just a lousy hand. You can call and hope for miracle, but I would probably generally wait. You had enough of a stack to wait for better hand.
If you see the flop with a non-pair, the flop will at least pair one of your cards about 1/3 of the time, so flopping a pair is not unusual. Raising into 6 people with bottom pair is a really aggressive move. The pot is already so big that anyone with any kind of hand will still be getting better than 7 to 1 to call, so you probably will still have to show down a winner on the end.
In short, I would fold preflop and wait for a better opportunity. If the sb had not raised, you would have trapped yourself into betting/calling all the way to the river, and probably would have had to hit a 22.5 to 1 shot to drag down that pot.
A Poker Guy!
I think that you played both hands correctly.
It's true that 34o is a weak hand. However, you are far from the money, and are getting great pot odds here. However, I disagree with your plan to raise the button. Once you've only made bottom pair, your chances of winning here are very slim, and I wouldn't raise when there is such a big chance that someone has called with a T or an overpair.
When you played the AT, you were UTG, and folding here would have given you a random hand in the BB, and the BB would have been 40% of your chips. That being the case, you essentially have to pick whether to play this hand or play the next one. Since AT is way above average, you should play this hand. The best way to play it is to raise. Once you flopped top pair, there is no way to let go, especially since you're down to just half a bet. Too bad he made his straight.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
The reason I was going to raise the button if given the chance was that I believe a call was incorrect given my chip count. I felt that if I continued to play the hand I was committed. Being committed to the hand and facing the very likely case of going all in at some point I believe a raise would have either maximized my chances of winning or maximized the amount of chips I would win (maybe both) if I (excuse the expression) I got lucky and made a hand. The size of this pot alone may have made continuing with the hand the only correct move at this stage with my chip count.
TL
You ought to be committed for calling a raise with 34o, no matter how many called.
"You ought to be committed..."
Been there done that! Have a nice day!
TL
I agree that the raise you were considering was better than just calling (if the SB had folded). However, in this spot, in a tournament, I still think that folding was the better play.
The call preflop was for the chance of winning a pot big enough to make you chip leader. Putting in 1 more bet and hoping to flop big was a worthwhile risk. At this point, the flop has not hit you hard enough to continue. There is almost no chance that you've got the best hand right now. There is not any great chance that you'll get all the better hands to fold if you raise the button's bet (plus, the button might have you beat himself). If you continue from here, it will cost you all your chips, not just 1 bet, and your chances of winning probably are in the range of about 1 in 5 to about 1 in 10.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Often when we're discussing hands here, we qualify our advice/ comments by saying that the decision should be largely based on how we perceive our opponents. To this end, I'd like to offer a humble (and perhaps dangerously wrong, I realize that) suggestion on how to get a 'quick read' on a player if we've only played with him/ her for an hour or so.
Naturally, you'd like to know if someone has a tendancy to three bet AK unimproved on the flop, or if they raise with connectors in mid position, steal blinds, check/ call to the river with pocket A's, etc. In fact, there's really no end to the number of things we'd like to 'know' about an opponent. However, what we REALLY want to know is just what kinds of hands or opponent plays INCORRECTLY, since this also indicates just what kinds of hands our opponent will play well (of which more later).
Most players have at least a couple 'types' of hands that they routinely butcher, and knowing what these types are can, I think, go a long way towards increasing a player's profits. Still, since you've got to play with someone at least 50 hours (I think) to get a genuine read on how they react to every common situation, I think it's helpful to put players in 'groups', and assume that a player who plays a given hand one way (call it 'A') is likely to play another, different hand in a manner consistent with his/ her play of 'A'.
For example; I (whom I'll modestly refer to as hero) end up in a hand with KQo, with a flop like Ks 9s 3h. I bet out in middle position, get raised from the button, then re-raise, at which point the button 'caps it' (unless you're in Colorado where the cap is five raises). We're heads up, so ordinarily I'd think about mucking, but I saw this same guy re-raise preflop with J9o, so I say to myself "he's representing a monster, but since he seems like the kind of guy who get real giddy about drawing hands, he may be one of those geniuses who like to cap it heads up with a flush draw". So, our hero (that's me, in case you lost track) calls, then check/ calls to the river, at which point he scoops a nice pot.
Note that the J9o and suited A hand don't have much in common. But (and here's the thesis, about 2000 words in), IMExperience an observant player can make a fairly accurate guess as to an opponents holding based on how they've played previous hands, even if those hands are radically different.
More examples;
I've got red Q's in the hole, the flop comes three hearts, and I get check/called to the river by a real 'gambler' who flopped a J high flush. At this point I ALSO assume that;
a) this guy will never re-raise preflop with anything less than pocket K's.
b) he will not play his draws aggresively.
c) if it's two bets to him on the flop, and he's got a set, he'll just call, 'knowing' that he's up against a bigger set.
d) He won't re-raise with anything less than top two on the flop.
e) He will probably bet a nut straight or nut flush to the hilt (won't we all), but will really slow down if he's got second nut or worse.
f) Will NEVER semi bluff raise, particularly on the turn
etc.etc. Of course, some of these assumptions will prove to be wrong. But, without conflicting evidence, I think it's safe to assume that this opponent plays within these parameters.
As for the guy who caps it heads up on the flop with a nut flush draw, I assume that
a) he will genuinely raise pre flop, from any position, with a group 4 hand or worse,
b) will overplay his big pocket pairs and have a hard time laying them down
c) Will routinely bluff all the way to the river with just overcards, particularly if he raised pre-flop.
d) Will often check raise the flop with some fairly curious holdings,
e) Will generally play draws correctly on the flop in multi way pots,
and so on and so on.
These 'profiles' go on and on. I don't know if the above is correct, but I think this style of thinking does help one get a grip on an opponents play IF we don't have any other information from which to draw.
I'm curious if any of you out there in cyber land employ a similar sytle of opponent assessment, since it's helped my game quite a bit. Of course, just what attributes you ascribe to a certain player after watching him play a couple hands is up to you (the above are just ideas), but I think it's a valid way of approaching a game.
Comments/ criticisms encouraged.
Guy
GD, I recommend simply classifying each opponent as good, bad or ugly. Or maybe solid, weak tight, passive, calling station, aggressive and, of course, steaming (temporary state). Categories such as these are sufficient and can be easily changed if needed. This can be done usually after an hours play with most opponents. I belive that your idea of evaluating how one plays a certain type of hand is the method I use to stuff them into an initial category. I do that early in a game. Then I use that category to try and get a read on what hand they may have at the time. Works for me.
PL
GD, I like your approach.
When I see a new player, I like to try and figure out what level he is thinking at...once that has been done, my task has become a whole lot easier. Of course, this does take some time. Assuming that I don't have that much time to get inside the man's head, here are some rudimentary things that I look for to try and get a quick read on a new player.
1. The first thing I do is assume that the player plays poorly until he proves me wrong.
2. How often does he call pre-flop from early position?
If a new player is consistently passing from early position but seems to play a lot of hands from late position then I am going to assume that the fella knows a little more about the game than what I originally gave him credit for. I will then study his play a little closer. On the other hand, if the new player is indiscriminately entering the fray from early position, I am probably not going to be too worried about him.
3. Does his betting fall into the classic "weak when strong/strong when weak" pattern?
About the easiest way to spot this is to see what the player does when he flops trips or top two in early position. Personally, I love playing guys who always look for a checkraise with a hand like 87 from early position when the flop is something like 88Q. If I see the fellow go for a couple of checkraises from early position after strong flops, I am going to be rubbing my hands with glee anytime he BETS from early position on the flop.
4. How often does he call a raise from the blinds?
Obviously, this can often tell you whether the fellow is a gambler or a poker player.
5. Does he bet for value on the end?
Many players check down strong hands like AK on the river when the board is something like A,10,9,7,3 rainbow (in that order). What this means to me is that I can now make some calls with some marginal hands on the turn against this opponent because I know that I don't have to call him twice to "keep him honest".
6. Does he call 2 bets cold pre-flop with off-suit hands such as KJ, A,10 etc.?
This is nearly always a give-away that the man is not much of a player.
Well, there's probably a lot of other simple clues that others use...I will add to the list later on if time permits.
skp-
Here's hoping you do add to the list. I'm leaving tomorrow for Albuquerque (to play a little 'real' poker; i.e., something other than 2-5), but I'll be sure to check back later in the week if you post more on this subject.
The reason I thought I'd start this thread is because IMExperience 'most' players have something that they do fairly well (even if it's only one thing, as it fortunately the case), and even the better players have some kind of Achilles heel in their game. While this varies from player to player, it's my contention that playing habits relating to certain kinds of hands can be discerned from watching an opponent just play a couple rounds.
You mention value betting on the river, which I think it an EXCELLENT indication of the 'kind' of player a particular opponent is. However, by simply gauging whether or not an opponent value bets here with proper frequency, I think we can also deduce how he/ she will play other, non related kinds of hands. For instance, IMExperience, if a player who's hesitant to value bet the river suddenly makes it three bets to go pre-flop, I almost invariably put him on A's; not K's or worse, since this kind of player is mortified of betting into a better hand. So, by simply seeing a player 'check down' top two on the river when a runner runner flush hits the board, I can safely lay down my AQs when he makes it three bets to me (unless I was the raiser) since I know he owns me, even if I haven't drawn any kind of a specific bead on his pre-flop play. Similarly, if I see a guy calling raises with any two paints, I also 'assume' (again, unless I have evidence to the contrary) that he's the type who falls in love with suited cards in the hole (regardless of rank). Hence, if he calls two bets cold on the flop with a two suited board, I'd be more likely to put him on a flush draw than a straight draw, since it's more likely that he has two cards of the appropriate suit. And so on and so on...
I don't know how valid all this is, but I think it's an interesting way to approach one's opponents.
You should safely or unsafely (is that a word) lay dow AQs when it's 3 bets to before the flop no matter who makes it three bets. Sounds kind of absolute but then it still may always be correct to toss such a hand in a three bet to you situation.
Calling 3 bets (to you) with such a hand as AQs because you have a good read on one of the raisers or maybe even both of the raises is one of the downsides of getting a quick read on opponents. Multi raise situations are very difficult to play. Playing gambling hands against multiple strong or even semi-strong hands will sometimes get you a big pot but most often a lot of trouble.
ARF
As far as getting first approximations of a stranger's tendencies, I see nothing at all wrong with this approach.
skp and GD,
You guys are talking about situations where you have a whole hour to get to know your opponents. That is an eternity in places like the Commerce Club on a Friday Night in California in a game like 9/18 holdem where you have six or more games to chose from. Here the most important thing is to be able to identify "the look" of a table or an opponent and figure that it is a live table or live opponent. At any given time, you are lucky if 1/3 the table has been in their seat for more than an hour. Bob Ciaffone wrote a great article in Card Player about a year ago on how to make these quick assesments.
On the other hand, in a more relaxed atmosphere, most of what you wrote makes sense to me. I'd argue a few nits but I'm way behind on my reading. GD, good luck in New Mexico and maybe file a trip report on the Exchange. skp, I played with a Vancouver couple last week who believe they know who you are. Is it true you are real quiet at the table and somewhat unassuming in nature?
Regards :-),
Rick
Rick, I suspect that these people probably gave you a quizzical look when you said my full name to them...this is because I go by a different (i.e., shorter and easier to pronounce) name in the poker room.
E-mail me with the names of this couple if you get a chance.
Two other Vancouver players named "Adam" and "Jimmy" are now in California (I believe predominantly at Hollywood Park) playing 15-30 or higher. Perhaps, you have met them already.
(BTW, I am real quiet at the tables. Unassuming? Well, I better just leave that one alone).
Yesterday in a NL Holdem tourney I made the following two plays.
Each player started with T300 in chips. Twenty minute rounds starting with 5/10 blinds. Unlimited re-buys (+1 add-on) for first three rounds. Personal note: I can only afford one or two re-buys. Heck, I really couldn't "afford" the buy-in. :-(
1) Late in first round. Still have +/- T300. Under the gun I'm dealt AJo. I mucked it!
2) Third round (I think). I have about double the average size stack. I'm dealt KQo second from blinds. I mucked that too.
My reasoning was that I could easily go broke with those two hands. I'm in an early seat and I don't wan't to have to call a raise with them. I much prefer to wait for a hand where I might have a big over-lay, or where I have a shot at large implied odds (such as a pair with no raise). If I can afford the re-buys I would have probably called and re-bought if I went bust. I think I'm a better tourney player that most in the tourney--especially at NL.
Comments welcome.
AJo and KQo are VERY marginal hands in NL HE. I would rather have A2s and K2s at a full table. Unlike limit HE, if you flop top pair only with your two hands, you can't stand much action. Like you say, if you get any play from someone else, they are either bluffing, stupid, or have you beat. Unless the chances of bluffing and stupid are high in your game, go ahead and muck these hands preflop.
Now, both are very good hands if you're the first one in from late position. In both cases you can raise the blinds, and if called (and not reraised), you've probably got the best hand.
Again, if you're giving up anything by mucking these hands early in the tournament at a full table, it is VERY little. In fact, unless you play these hands extremely well after the flop, they're probably not profitable.
Now, if there had been very little preflop raising at your table, I would consider limping with them and seeing a cheap flop. Of course, you're hoping for more than 1-pair on the flop, or you need to play well.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
AJo and KQo (even suited) are muckers from up front in a NLH game or tournament. They are trap hands and nothing more. That said. Most small buy in NLH tourneys are full with LH players and bad ones at that. If you can afford the rebuys you may want to limp with the KQ and try to win a big pot. If you get raised (even a small amount) and it looks as if you are going to be heads up then muck. Remember here that you are gambling and trying to get lucky. Don't get involved with the A,J unless you have a very large stack at a very tight table and then Just Limp! Also muck to a raise. Be very careful not to get trapped. This requires very good skill at reading the flop and your opponents.
I do not think you were too tight although your results are the real deciding factor. What is your record and are you satiafied with it? If not then look for ways to improve your game. If you need improvement maybe being more aggressive early in the tourney with hands like this is the answer.
PkerLover!
Unsuited high cards are trap hands, except for stealing blinds.
The tight image is good. This allows you to steal the blinds when it really counts, especially when the limits go up.
No time to read previous posts. AJ and KQ early are NO hands to write home to Mom playing limit. "Trouble" is magnified in NL. While there some situations in which you should play them, routinely folding CANNOT be a bad thing.
- Louie
As a very new player, I am wondering how strategies in one game, say, Hold 'Em, might apply to another like, say, Omaha? Is it possible to learn one game well, and then apply those strategic concepts to other games without having to learn new and unique strategies for each game? I realize that there may be some variation from game to game, but there should be underlying principles and strategies which apply to ALL poker, right? Finally, what PROGRESSION would you folks recommend in learning the various games? Is there one that is best to start with, and then move on, and if so, where would you go next, 3rd, 4th, and so on? Thank you all for your advice and help!!
Dave,
You wrote: "Is it possible to learn one game well, and then apply those strategic concepts to other games without having to learn new and unique strategies for each game?"
There are some concepts that apply to most games, but I woulld say each game has unique properties which require in depth analysis.
Inparticular, Omaha H/L is very different from holdem, and holdem players who come to Omaha H/L without an understanding of the differences are in big trouble.
Stud and holdem are closer but there are still quite a few differences. Mason does a good job of describing these in his Poker Essays
However, understanding theory is still very important as you will often be in situations where overall poker knowledge will lead to the best decision.
My point is that becoming a great poker player requires a great deal of work and study along with talent. There are no short cuts (except for knowing what to study and what is most important if your time is limited).
Regards,
Rick
Dave
Have you read Sklansky's "Theory of Poker"...if not you should...it answers some of your questions and gives you an excellent foundation.
Jim,
I agree Dave should read and reread Sklansky's "Theory of Poker"; however, the book itself uses examples from five games: 5 card draw, 7 card stud, holdem, razz, and lowball. I believe David has mentioned that much of the material does not apply to split pot games like Omaha H/L.
For Omaha H/L and Stud H/L, Ray Zee's book is a must although Shane Smith's book is OK for low limit Omaha (in large part because it was revised with the aid of Mason).
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
My point is that if Dave is a novice...he should learn to walk before he tries to run.
The Theory of Poker is the grounding, and he needs to digest this information before trying to understand the concepts that Ray Z presents in his excellent hi-low books.
I believe that the author himself (Ray Z) makes this recommendation in his preface.
Jim
Dave,
Poker is a game that has many variations, but it is also a game that has fundamental principles that apply to each and every variation.
Sklansky's Theory of Poker is the number one book on poker principles that apply to all variations. You can order it through this web site (no I don't have shares), and a careful couple of reads of it will rocket you up in the standings.
For years I was a stud guy, but Holdem is so prevalent now that that's the game I would focus on to begin with. It's in my opinion a little more predictable than Omaha, which allows you to play a conservative game while you get your learning hours in. I think your win/loss standard deviation will be higher in Omaha, because pots tend to be larger and need to be chased more often.
One thing a beginner needs to do is protect their bankroll while they're learning the game. Holdem lets you do this best (IMO).
Once you've read Theory of Poker, read Sklansky's Advanced Holdem (no, Sklansky's not my uncle). Hell, order them both at once. If you apply what you learn from these two references and your IQ is in the double digits, you should be able to beat the average low limit game from day 1. These two books represent a $70 investment, which you may well recover in your first session.
Good luck!
I've seen a fair number of different forums over the last couple years - fitness, grad schools, business, trading - but this has been the most civil and helpful, with people really taking time to answer questions and concerns. I've only been associated with this forum for a few weeks now, but I really appreciate everyone's help!! Thank you very much, and good luck to you all! Dave
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.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 7:19 p.m.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 4:51 a.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 12:44 p.m.
Posted by: Justin (Jester@alumni.duke.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 5:41 p.m.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 12:58 a.m.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 12:55 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 12:54 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 4:52 p.m.
Posted by: Justin (Jester@alumni.duke.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 5:58 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 12:49 p.m.
Posted by: Justin (Jester@alumni.duke.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 4:24 p.m.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 1:34 a.m.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 5:25 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 11:54 a.m.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 1:40 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 1:41 p.m.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 1:58 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 5:02 p.m.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 2:03 a.m.
Posted by: Peter (kmm97sos@ima.mdh.se)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 8:15 a.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 11:59 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 1:31 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 1:50 p.m.
Posted by: Beantown Mint (dfrisoli@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 2:04 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 2:55 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 4:41 p.m.
Posted by: V. A. Kirk (VAKandCo@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 2:40 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 3:56 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 4:17 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 4:54 p.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 4:58 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 12:07 a.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 2:38 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 5:41 p.m.
Posted by: robert chandler (zx11stud@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 15 May 1999, at 1:06 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 6:11 p.m.
Posted by: Dick in Phoenix (RLA48@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 6:14 p.m.
Posted by: raisemeister
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 7:37 p.m.
Posted by: Dick in Phoenix (RLA48@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 12:42 a.m.
Posted by: Big A (adam.scott@mci.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 7:58 p.m.
Posted by: Andras "quitter" Nagy
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 9:46 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 11:37 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 2:38 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 5:26 p.m.
Posted by: Dick in Phoenix (RLA48@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 7:29 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 4:50 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 1:59 a.m.
Posted by: Guess who?
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 3:48 a.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 6:10 a.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 7:00 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 7:17 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 15 May 1999, at 3:06 a.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 15 May 1999, at 3:24 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 15 May 1999, at 11:41 p.m.
Posted by: V. A. Kirk (VAKandCo@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 12:10 a.m.
Posted by: Damion Scott (dscott@palmnet.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 12:38 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 3:58 p.m.
Posted by: Paul Auster
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 5:44 p.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 6:22 a.m.
Posted by: DJ (DPJungk@ix.netcom.com)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 11:50 p.m.
Posted by: Matt D
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 6:07 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 7:11 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 12:14 a.m.
Posted by: Mooselini (mooselini@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 5:42 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 4:17 a.m.
Posted by: Mike N (mnelson@mdsi.bc.ca)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: V. A. Kirk (VAKandCo@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 8:17 p.m.
Posted by: Allan Scott
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 2:54 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Bacarella (michael.bacarella-RST@bankersturst.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 13 May 1999, at 5:03 p.m.
Posted by: limon
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 3:51 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 10:34 a.m.
Posted by: limon
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 3:32 p.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 8:00 p.m.
Posted by: Iceman (lgrubart@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 11:43 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 15 May 1999, at 4:10 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 7:14 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 2:40 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 2:15 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 10:43 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 4:46 p.m.
Posted by: Dumbass
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 4:54 a.m.
Posted by: carlos (quintero@mit.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 12:33 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 4:43 p.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 3:04 p.m.
Posted by: carlos (quintero@mit.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: limon
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 3:39 p.m.
Posted by: carlos (quintero@mit.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 4:26 p.m.
Posted by: Maria Smith (maria1955@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 4:30 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 15 May 1999, at 2:36 a.m.
Posted by: raisemeister
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 7:28 p.m.
Posted by: lobo
Posted on: Friday, 14 May 1999, at 11:54 p.m.
Posted by: Allan Scott
Posted on: Saturday, 15 May 1999, at 1:29 p.m.
Posted by: raisemeister
Posted on: Saturday, 15 May 1999, at 3:17 p.m.
Posted by: lobo
Posted on: Saturday, 15 May 1999, at 10:10 p.m.
Posted by: raisemeister
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 7:03 a.m.
Posted by: lobo
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 2:45 p.m.
Posted by: raisemeister
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 5:36 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 7:06 p.m.
Posted by: raisemeister
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 8:55 p.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 7:26 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 15 May 1999, at 1:23 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 15 May 1999, at 5:56 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 15 May 1999, at 6:09 p.m.
Posted by: Don Smolen (dsmolen@bellatlantic.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 4:31 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 5:06 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 1:54 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Sprung (josprung@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 5:19 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 8:19 a.m.
Posted by: druid
Posted on: Saturday, 15 May 1999, at 9:49 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 15 May 1999, at 11:32 p.m.
Posted by: Dick in Phoenix (RLA48@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 12:01 a.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 6:03 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 9:39 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 1:43 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 4:37 p.m.
Posted by: Jimmy B
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 12:23 a.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 1:18 p.m.
Posted by: druid
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 2:14 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 10:55 a.m.
Posted by: jeff (laostu@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 15 May 1999, at 10:49 p.m.
Posted by: Dick in Phoenix (RLA48@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 12:33 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 5:46 a.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 12:07 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 5:42 a.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 11:42 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 5:56 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 6:16 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Sprung (josprung@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 5:25 p.m.
Posted by: Randy (refeld@netzero.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 6:13 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 9:50 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 7:08 p.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@comdisco.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 2:36 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 6:19 a.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 1:48 p.m.
Posted by: WildBill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 3:07 a.m.
Posted by: Dominic bourke (dominic@bourke9.freeserve.co.uk)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 9:54 a.m.
Posted by: Justin (Jester@alumni.duke.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 5:23 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 11:42 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 4:36 p.m.
Posted by: Justin (Jester@alumni.duke.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 8:00 p.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@comdisco.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 4:25 a.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@comdisco.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 3:06 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Ward
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 7:16 a.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@comdisco.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 4:02 a.m.
Posted by: WSOP Fan
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 2:35 p.m.
Posted by: Cash Money
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 7:10 a.m.
Posted by: WenatcheeMax (Wenmax@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 12:24 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 12:42 p.m.
Posted by: Cash Money
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 7:41 a.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 1:01 a.m.
Posted by: Allan Scott
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 9:49 a.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 1:01 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 1:07 p.m.
Posted by: Drone (kpansius@snet.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 4:55 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Sprung (josprung@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 5:20 p.m.
Posted by: Drone (kpansius@snet.net)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 11:38 a.m.
Posted by: scott (aeroviper@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 7:53 p.m.
Posted by: TKChuck
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 9:17 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 11:06 p.m.
Posted by: C.M.
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 12:15 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 12:29 p.m.
Posted by: Drone (kpansius@snet.net)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 2:41 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 4:18 p.m.
Posted by: Andy B (beerskeds@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 4:36 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 7:37 p.m.
Posted by: Drone (kpansius@snet.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 5:11 p.m.
Posted by: Matt D
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 7:47 p.m.
Posted by: Steve
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 9:21 p.m.
Posted by: Matt D
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 10:08 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 4:36 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Ward
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 7:37 a.m.
Posted by: matt D
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 9:27 p.m.
Posted by: lobo
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 11:18 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 12:04 a.m.
Posted by: CybrTigr (MGCourtney@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 2:31 p.m.
Posted by: Matt D
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 8:11 p.m.
Posted by: Matt D
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 10:24 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 11:48 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 1:17 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 4:18 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 2:43 p.m.
Posted by: Matt D
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 11:04 p.m.
Posted by: Andy B (beerskeds@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 11:55 a.m.
Posted by: Matt D
Posted on: Sunday, 16 May 1999, at 11:39 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 4:09 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 4:11 a.m.
Posted by: Matt D
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 8:40 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 7:02 p.m.
Posted by: WildBill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 3:53 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 3:59 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 12:17 p.m.
Posted by: WildBill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 2:39 p.m.
Posted by: Matt D
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 9:02 p.m.
Posted by: WildBill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 3:27 a.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 10:55 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 1:08 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 4:36 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 7:55 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 10:54 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 11:30 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 12:22 a.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 5:21 p.m.
Posted by: DaveW (wallace@netcom.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 8:08 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 5:07 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 2:08 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 6:21 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 1:52 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 4:30 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 3:24 p.m.
Posted by: R
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 2:38 a.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 11:07 a.m.
Posted by: JKR (jk007r@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 12:52 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 3:50 p.m.
Posted by: POKER PL (DavePoker@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 5:13 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 5:52 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 6:31 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 11:15 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 8:39 a.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 11:35 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 1:32 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 2:00 p.m.
Posted by: Matt D
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 3:54 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 6:37 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 2:50 p.m.
Posted by: JKR (jk007r@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 3:50 p.m.
Posted by: Marc (scamp1@idt.net)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 4:40 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 5:56 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 10:58 p.m.
Posted by: Maria Smith (maria1955@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 7:57 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 9:54 p.m.
Posted by: BLACK JACK
Posted on: Monday, 17 May 1999, at 10:56 p.m.
Posted by: WildBill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 4:20 a.m.
Posted by: Maria Smith (maria1955@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 1:06 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 4:08 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 8:54 a.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 2:24 p.m.
Posted by: Larry (Larry@dynatecusa.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 4:41 p.m.
Posted by: Vern (vrqprbuf@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 2:33 a.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 12:29 p.m.
Posted by: poker junky
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 11:03 a.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 11:50 a.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 12:05 p.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 12:37 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 2:09 p.m.
Posted by: CybrTigr (MGCourtney@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 4:36 p.m.
Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 5:13 p.m.
Posted by: poker junkie
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 5:58 p.m.
Posted by: Steve (Chernyak5539@owings-mills.aim-smart.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 9:15 p.m.
Posted by: Doc River
Posted on: Saturday, 22 May 1999, at 2:40 p.m.
Posted by: Thor (hegesias@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 11:43 a.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 12:11 p.m.
Posted by: Maria Smith (maria1955@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 1:19 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 2:16 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 8:59 p.m.
Posted by: Steve (Chernyak5539@owings-mills.aim-smart.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 12:35 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 1:50 p.m.
Posted by: raisemeister
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 2:23 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 2:28 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 2:52 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 3:05 p.m.
Posted by: chris downs
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 3:04 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 1:39 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 4:54 p.m.
Posted by: Maria Smith (maria1955@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 5:19 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 6:34 p.m.
Posted by: Maria Smith (maria1955@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 8:25 p.m.
Posted by: scott (aeroviper@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 9:35 p.m.
Posted by: PAPA JOE (PapaJoeR@prodigy.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 1:07 p.m.
Posted by: M.A. (aigner.martin@vienna.at)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 11:58 a.m.
Posted by: Maria Smith (maria1955@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 1:29 p.m.
Posted by: M.A. (aigner.martin@vienna.at)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 11:54 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 6:55 p.m.
Posted by: lobo
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 7:04 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 8:15 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 1:05 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 6:05 p.m.
Posted by: Abe
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 7:13 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 8:12 p.m.
Posted by: Justin (Jester@alumni.duke.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 9:24 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 1:11 p.m.
Posted by: cliff (cliff_rice@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 7:53 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 8:19 p.m.
Posted by: cliff (cliff_rice@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 9:40 p.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 2:52 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 5:14 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 2:27 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 2:45 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 12:30 p.m.
Posted by: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 5:59 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 2:12 p.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 2:13 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 5:57 p.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 1:40 p.m.
Posted by: C.M.
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 4:39 p.m.
Posted by: Justin (Jester@alumni.duke.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 8:49 p.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@comdisco.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 3:17 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 1:57 p.m.
Posted by: Ace&Face (ace_face21@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 May 1999, at 10:48 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 1:08 a.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@comdisco.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 3:02 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 7:15 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 1:48 p.m.
Posted by: ray springfield (ray_springfield@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 1:03 a.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@comdisco.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 5:04 a.m.
Posted by: WildBill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 5:28 a.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@comdisco.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 6:24 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 1:44 p.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 2:18 p.m.
Posted by: Navy
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 12:10 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 11:23 a.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 6:00 p.m.
Posted by: C.M.
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 7:03 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 12:10 p.m.
Posted by: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 2:12 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 12:54 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 12:57 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 5:56 p.m.
Posted by: Moses (Grangj@parl.gc.ca)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 1:05 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 1:37 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 1:40 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 4:52 p.m.
Posted by: Erin
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 9:46 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 12:33 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 1:38 p.m.
Posted by: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 1:57 p.m.
Posted by: mikeca (mikeca42@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 2:11 p.m.
Posted by: raisemeister
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 5:19 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 6:03 p.m.
Posted by: raisemeister
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 9:27 p.m.
Posted by: Carson de Castro (flyinfilipino@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 11:54 a.m.
Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 4:42 p.m.
Posted by: Jeff Nelson (nowhere@all.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 7:17 p.m.
Posted by: raisemeister
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 9:21 p.m.
Posted by: Jeff Nelson (nowhere@all.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 3:08 a.m.
Posted by: Carson de Castro (flyinfilipino@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 11:48 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 9:57 a.m.
Posted by: Bob Wilson (wilsonsw@whitemtns.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 9:51 a.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 10:58 a.m.
Posted by: Erin
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 1:39 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 1:15 p.m.
Posted by: Maria Smith (maria1955@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 6:22 p.m.
Posted by: Maria Smith (maria1955@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 9:08 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 3:26 a.m.
Posted by: Erin
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 7:07 a.m.
Posted by: James Dean
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 10:00 a.m.
Posted by: PAPA JOE (PapaJoeR@prodigy.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 1:16 p.m.
Posted by: Moses (Grangj@parl.gc.ca)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 12:59 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 1:34 p.m.
Posted by: C.M.
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 3:40 p.m.
Posted by: Navy
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 12:21 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 4:37 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 1:44 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 10:39 a.m.
Posted by: WSOP Fan
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 6:55 p.m.
Posted by: The Hammer
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 7:19 p.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 7:32 p.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 7:48 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Sprung (josprung@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 9:53 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 12:04 p.m.
Posted by: WSOP Fan
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 6:22 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 12:47 a.m.
Posted by: WSOP Fan
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 10:13 a.m.
Posted by: Mark
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 7:33 p.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 7:50 p.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 7:53 p.m.
Posted by: Mark
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 8:06 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 9:10 p.m.
Posted by: Darryl "Dazzler"Lanyon (lanyon@powerup.com.au)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 10:04 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 11:07 p.m.
Posted by: Darryl "Dazzler"Lanyon (lanyon@powerup.com.au)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 2:53 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 9:40 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 1:42 p.m.
Posted by: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 4:23 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 5:19 p.m.
Posted by: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 7:16 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 4:39 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 5:15 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 11:37 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 1:41 p.m.
Posted by: WildBill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 10:27 p.m.
Posted by: Andy B (beerskeds@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 10:27 a.m.
Posted by: Bruce
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 4:34 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 1:33 p.m.
Posted by: WildBill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 2:28 a.m.
Posted by: Navy
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 May 1999, at 11:41 p.m.
Posted by: M.A. (aigner.martin@vienna.at)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 2:28 a.m.
Posted by: Moses (Grangj@parl.gc.ca)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 8:12 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 1:16 p.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 7:45 p.m.
Posted by: Stud Player
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 12:09 a.m.
Posted by: M.A. (aigner.martin@vienna.at)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 2:10 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 11:46 a.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 1:48 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 2:21 p.m.
Posted by: Maria Smith (maria1955@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 2:23 p.m.
Posted by: Larry (Larry@dynatecusa.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 3:34 p.m.
Posted by: raisemeister
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 11:59 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 5:35 a.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 1:31 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 8:17 p.m.
Posted by: NoCable (nocable44@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 1:49 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 2:41 p.m.
Posted by: anthony (elkj@webtv.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 4:30 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 6:03 p.m.
Posted by: pokrluvr (tennis7@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 5:14 p.m.
Posted by: pokrluvr (tennis7@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 5:15 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 6:53 p.m.
Posted by: pokrluvr (tennis7@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 8:24 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 12:12 p.m.
Posted by: KeithO (kohara@ixl.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 7:24 p.m.
Posted by: Stephen H. Landrum (slandrum@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 May 1999, at 11:31 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 5:56 p.m.
Posted by: Larry (Larry@dynatecusa.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 6:27 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 7:42 p.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 7:59 p.m.
Posted by: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 6:28 p.m.
Posted by: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 7:12 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 2:25 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 5:54 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 6:17 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 1:05 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 6:23 a.m.
Posted by: ES (E_Schuldt@stblaw.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 10:47 a.m.
Posted by: Andy B (beerskeds@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 10:16 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 12:06 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 3:43 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 1:03 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Ward
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 12:09 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 1:02 p.m.
Posted by: Big A (adam.scott@mci.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 May 1999, at 8:21 p.m.
Posted by: Dick in Phoenix (RLA48@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 12:16 p.m.
Posted by: Bruce
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 7:52 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 2:23 a.m.
Posted by: Bruce
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 3:25 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 1:18 p.m.
Posted by: Dana Spitzer (dspitzer@labortribune.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 6:10 p.m.
Posted by: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 6:19 p.m.
Posted by: Darryl "Dazzler"Lanyon (lanyon@powerup.com.au)
Posted on: Thursday, 20 May 1999, at 7:44 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 3:29 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 5:29 a.m.
Posted by: Nagurski
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 11:02 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 11:54 a.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 11:06 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 12:03 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 11:36 a.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 11:44 a.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 2:08 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 1:48 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 1:08 a.m.
Posted by: MaxRatio
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 4:24 a.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 5:52 a.m.
Posted by: Larry (Larry@dynatecusa.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 12:04 p.m.
Posted by: DrToast (DrToast@concentric.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 6:10 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 11:51 a.m.
Posted by: WSOP Fan
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 10:23 a.m.
Posted by: Mooselini (mooselini@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 11:50 a.m.
Posted by: Moses (Grangj@parl.gc.ca)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 12:34 p.m.
Posted by: Mooselini (mooselini@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 12:44 p.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 9:23 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 12:51 p.m.
Posted by: Mooselini (mooselini@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 1:41 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Saturday, 22 May 1999, at 2:32 p.m.
> Kings, Ten kicker" and he says this beats his Tens and
> Kings.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 9:09 a.m.
Posted by: Alan T (tennis7@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 11:55 a.m.
Posted by: Moses (Grangj@parl.gc.ca)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 12:28 p.m.
Posted by: Bill (blipcon@nccn.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 1:55 p.m.
Posted by: BLACK JACK
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 9:32 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 8:05 p.m.
Posted by: C.M.
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 12:05 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Johnson
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 4:13 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 5:30 p.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 8:30 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Johnson
Posted on: Saturday, 22 May 1999, at 11:08 a.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 May 1999, at 9:36 p.m.
Posted by: KeithO (kohara@ixl.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 6:59 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 8:29 p.m.
Posted by: Navy
Posted on: Friday, 21 May 1999, at 10:44 p.m.
Posted by: Stephen H. Landrum (slandrum@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 May 1999, at 11:08 a.m.
Posted by: Navy
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 1:18 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Ward
Posted on: Saturday, 22 May 1999, at 4:38 a.m.
Posted by: WildBill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 May 1999, at 5:57 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 3:40 p.m.
Posted by: cliff (cliff_rice@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 May 1999, at 11:22 a.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 May 1999, at 3:15 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 May 1999, at 5:34 p.m.
Posted by: cliff (cliff_rice@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 11:10 a.m.
Posted by: Marc (skatalites_63@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 4:15 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 May 1999, at 3:24 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 May 1999, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: Abe
Posted on: Saturday, 22 May 1999, at 4:26 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 1:53 a.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 4:05 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 1:03 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Pierce (pierce@rohan.sdsu.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 May 1999, at 5:04 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Saturday, 22 May 1999, at 5:35 p.m.
Posted by: Stephen H. Landrum (slandrum@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 2:22 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 5:40 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 5:54 p.m.
Posted by: Robert (r_sch@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 May 1999, at 8:05 p.m.
Posted by: Steve (stwood@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 12:18 a.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 1:24 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 2:07 a.m.
Posted by: C.M.
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 11:31 a.m.
Posted by: C.M.
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 11:54 a.m.
Posted by: C.M.
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 3:32 p.m.
Posted by: TKChuck
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 4:38 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 3:25 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Sprung (josprung@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 8:52 p.m.
Posted by: Bri-C (Stoli7@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 May 1999, at 5:43 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 6:45 a.m.
Posted by: Fish
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 1:08 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 9:46 a.m.
Posted by: mike
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 3:35 a.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 12:24 p.m.
Posted by: mike
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 12:39 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 1:26 p.m.
Posted by: mike
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 1:58 a.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 11:10 a.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 8:37 a.m.
Posted by: Dave (staplin@pro-ns.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 1:09 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 1:55 p.m.
Posted by: C.M.
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 4:10 p.m.
Posted by: Dave
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 4:19 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 5:30 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 6:53 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Sprung (josprung@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 8:16 a.m.
Posted by: Matt D
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 11:16 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 3:22 p.m.
Posted by: C.M.
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: Jerrod (dzarchan@exeter.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 4:38 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 6:40 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 6:59 p.m.
Posted by: Jerrod (dzarchan@exeter.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 7:07 p.m.
Posted by: Randy (refeld@netzero.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 7:56 p.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 2:58 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 3:34 a.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 4:01 p.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 5:47 p.m.
Posted by: HMF (fordh@erols.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 3:26 p.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 3:53 p.m.
Posted by: HMF (fordh@erols.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 2:57 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 1:23 p.m.
Posted by: PeterF
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 1:31 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 4:49 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 7:02 p.m.
Posted by: V. A. Kirk (VAKandCo@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 6:42 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 9:55 p.m.
Posted by: Matt D
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 10:32 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 3:43 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 11:55 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 3:46 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 4:09 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 4:20 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 4:28 a.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 4:44 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 11:10 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 12:26 p.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 1:24 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 3:33 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 5:54 a.m.
Posted by: mah
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 2:17 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 3:04 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Sprung (josprung@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 8:08 a.m.
Posted by: Erin
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 9:03 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 11:56 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Sprung (josprung@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 2:57 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 3:04 p.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 5:18 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 3:36 a.m.
Posted by: Maria Smith (maria1955@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 1:26 p.m.
Posted by: Maria Smith (maria1955@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 3:00 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 1:53 p.m.
Posted by: PeterF
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 2:16 p.m.
Posted by: Nagurski
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 2:17 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 3:27 p.m.
Posted by: Nagurski
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 4:19 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 3:40 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 4:17 p.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 2:26 p.m.
Posted by: raisemeister
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 5:08 p.m.
Posted by: C.M.
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 5:22 p.m.
Posted by: Big A (adam.scott@mci.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 5:42 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 7:07 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 7:12 p.m.
Posted by: Matt D
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 10:50 p.m.
Posted by: C.M.
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 2:40 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 6:23 p.m.
Posted by: C.M.
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 4:24 p.m.
Posted by: Stephen H. Landrum (slandrum@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 5:09 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 6:10 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 8:31 p.m.
Posted by: Big A (adam.scott@mci.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 5:28 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 6:10 p.m.
Posted by: Bill (blipcon@nccn.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 6:47 p.m.
Posted by: txhotmod (txhotmod@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 10:54 p.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 3:12 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 3:19 a.m.
Posted by: ES (E_Schuldt@stblaw.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 2:10 p.m.
Posted by: New Studplayer
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 7:19 p.m.
Posted by: john brewer (nopairkid@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 9:25 p.m.
Posted by: DJ (DPJungk@ix.netcom.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 2:48 a.m.
Posted by: R
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 5:21 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Ward
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 7:02 a.m.
Posted by: R
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 7:25 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Ward
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 6:57 a.m.
Posted by: John A
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 10:20 p.m.
Posted by: eighb
Posted on: Sunday, 23 May 1999, at 10:53 p.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 3:33 a.m.
Posted by: Erin
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 4:26 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 11:19 a.m.
Posted by: Darrell (darrell@insweb.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 5:13 p.m.
Posted by: BLACK JACK
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 9:09 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 2:54 a.m.
Posted by: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 4:20 p.m.
Posted by: Richard G. Poirier (Shogeybaby@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 8:20 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 1:05 a.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 10:42 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 11:42 a.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 3:01 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 3:29 p.m.
Posted by: JJ (kaj4@ix.netcom.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 8:01 a.m.
Posted by: Larry (Larry@dynatecusa.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 10:52 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 11:23 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 9:01 p.m.
Posted by: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 3:58 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 6:42 p.m.
Posted by: WwPlyr
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 7:47 p.m.
Posted by: Navy
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 1:33 a.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 6:38 a.m.
Posted by: Larry (Larry@dynatecusa.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 11:04 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 12:53 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 12:52 p.m.
Posted by: V. A. Kirk (VAKandCo@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 3:51 p.m.
Posted by: Dave (staplin@pro-ns.net)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 11:34 a.m.
Posted by: Kate Gasser (kgasser@ti.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 11:54 a.m.
Posted by: WSOP Fan
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 7:32 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 12:18 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 1:27 p.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 10:50 a.m.
Posted by: Matt D
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 7:15 p.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 3:41 a.m.
Posted by: Maria Smith (maria1955@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 1:33 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 6:26 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 12:48 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 5:50 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 11:03 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 11:39 a.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 6:52 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 11:44 a.m.
Posted by: TB (trucb@support.ucla.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 5:47 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 6:38 p.m.
Posted by: Hetron
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 9:03 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 12:41 p.m.
Posted by: hetron
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 2:14 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 1:03 p.m.
Posted by: Navy
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 1:04 a.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 5:07 p.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 6:15 p.m.
Posted by: WSOP Fan
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 7:35 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 8:20 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 10:34 p.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 2:52 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 6:38 a.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 7:49 p.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 4:21 p.m.
Posted by: S. Doyle
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 2:32 a.m.
Posted by: WwPlyr
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 11:14 a.m.
Posted by: Spike (ckokich@seanet.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 7:50 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 8:26 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 11:09 p.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 12:09 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 6:41 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 1:07 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 6:29 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 6:34 p.m.
Posted by: Spike (ckokich@seanet.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 12:06 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 May 1999, at 8:37 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 3:36 a.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 10:22 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 11:32 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 1:13 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 8:43 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 1:52 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 4:13 a.m.
Posted by: Randy Collack (rmitchcoll@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 8:29 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 1:33 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 9:28 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 1:15 p.m.
Posted by: john A
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 6:05 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Ward
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 6:54 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Ward
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 6:56 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 7:17 a.m.
Posted by: Matt D
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 6:48 p.m.
Posted by: Allan Scott
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 10:03 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 11:21 a.m.
Posted by: cliff (cliff_rice@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 2:20 p.m.
Posted by: skip (skipper@normac.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 12:17 p.m.
Posted by: Andy D.
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 1:41 p.m.
Posted by: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 1:58 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 1:12 p.m.
Posted by: Maria Smith (maria1955@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 4:50 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 12:29 a.m.
Posted by: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 2:26 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 3:45 p.m.
Posted by: Key (kevineanes@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 5:20 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 5:36 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 9:17 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 10:07 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 11:40 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 12:32 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 3:05 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 4:12 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 11:08 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 10:40 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 1:21 p.m.
Posted by: ckane (john.collins@ameriserve.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 7:15 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 7:20 p.m.
Posted by: Richard G. Poirier (Shogeybaby@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 7:35 p.m.
Posted by: spielmacher (keulon@dds.nl)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 11:40 a.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 12:04 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 1:23 p.m.
Posted by: Frank
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 May 1999, at 8:11 p.m.
Posted by: PeterF
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 1:56 a.m.
Posted by: DJ (DPJungk@ix.netcom.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 2:30 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 3:03 a.m.
Posted by: Backfromthe dead
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 2:05 p.m.
Posted by: PeterF
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 1:37 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 3:17 a.m.
Posted by: Randy (refeld@netzero.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 3:39 a.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 4:39 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 5:00 a.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@comdisco.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 8:39 a.m.
Posted by: chris downs
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 10:56 a.m.
Posted by: mah
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 2:09 a.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 12:02 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 5:10 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 12:03 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 4:03 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 4:10 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 5:57 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 8:27 p.m.
Posted by: Old Buddy
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 12:31 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 4:48 p.m.
Posted by: Old Buddy
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 5:22 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 7:18 p.m.
Posted by: Maria Smith (maria1955@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 12:40 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 1:31 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 6:35 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 7:32 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 12:17 a.m.
Posted by: Boob
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 9:13 p.m.
Posted by: TKChuck
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 10:34 p.m.
Posted by: TKChuck
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 1:06 a.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 10:40 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 11:56 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 1:34 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 4:28 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 7:47 a.m.
Posted by: Steve (stwood@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 11:19 p.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@comdisco.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 3:40 a.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@comdisco.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 6:14 a.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 12:55 a.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@comdisco.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 1:38 a.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 3:26 a.m.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 10:00 a.m.
Posted by: Bill G. (greenwb@ufl.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 11:12 a.m.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 4:04 p.m.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 4:06 p.m.
Posted by: BLACK JACK
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 9:41 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 10:35 a.m.
Posted by: Bill G. (greenwb@ufl.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 11:04 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 2:33 a.m.
Posted by: Kate Gasser (kgasser@ti.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 12:25 p.m.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 3:51 a.m.
Posted by: Jimmy B
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 11:58 a.m.
Posted by: Maria Smith (maria1955@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 12:33 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 6:14 p.m.
Posted by: Spike (ckokich@seanet.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 6:32 p.m.
Posted by: Ricardo Vega
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 9:03 p.m.
Posted by: Boob
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 9:17 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Ciaffone (coach999@concentric.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 9:28 p.m.
Posted by: Dick in Phoenix (RLA48@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 May 1999, at 10:56 p.m.
Posted by: Old Buddy
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 11:58 a.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 12:16 a.m.
Posted by: Spike
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 12:51 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 2:17 p.m.
Posted by: Randy Collack (rmitchcoll@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 12:55 a.m.
Posted by: TKChuck
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 1:23 a.m.
Posted by: Randy (rmitchcoll@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 1:27 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 1:58 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 10:38 a.m.
Posted by: Old Buddy
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 11:31 a.m.
Posted by: chance (chance@globeset.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 3:49 p.m.
Posted by: eighb
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 4:08 p.m.
Posted by: Randy Collack (rmitchcoll@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 4:39 p.m.
Posted by: C.M.
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 6:16 p.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 2:03 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 1:51 a.m.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 4:26 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 8:04 a.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 6:36 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 2:11 p.m.
Posted by: eighb
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 4:02 p.m.
Posted by: C.M.
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 5:57 p.m.
Posted by: mary ingraffia (mary973@webtv.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 10:51 a.m.
Posted by: Jeff Nelson (nowhere@all.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 10:23 p.m.
Posted by: TKChuck
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 3:05 a.m.
Posted by: Jeff Nelson (nowhere@all.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 9:27 p.m.
Posted by: Backposting
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 6:16 a.m.
Posted by: Ron Moen (rsmoe@sttl.uswest.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 June 1999, at 7:38 p.m.
Posted by: Allan Scott
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 12:16 p.m.
Posted by: cliff (cliff_rice@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 12:56 p.m.
Posted by: Randy Collack (rmitchcoll@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 4:01 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 1:23 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 3:54 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 9:26 p.m.
Posted by: TKChuck
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 2:59 a.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 9:52 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 5:15 a.m.
Posted by: Matt D
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 3:16 a.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 1:34 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 2:07 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 2:40 a.m.
Posted by: NotNewposter
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 9:38 a.m.
Posted by: Key (kevineanes@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 5:49 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 4:27 a.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 1:45 p.m.
Posted by: Joe N. (shuview@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 2:01 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 4:47 p.m.
Posted by: WwPlyr
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 9:45 a.m.
Posted by: NotNewposter
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 9:45 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 11:43 a.m.
Posted by: NotNewposter
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 7:42 p.m.
Posted by: Todd (Todd@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 5:23 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 1:44 p.m.
Posted by: C.M.
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 5:46 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Sprung (josprung@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 6:00 p.m.
Posted by: C.M.
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 6:22 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 7:18 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 2:43 p.m.
Posted by: eighb
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 4:45 p.m.
Posted by: Joey
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 4:54 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 12:23 p.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 8:12 p.m.
Posted by: C.M.
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 6:53 p.m.
Posted by: RAISEMEISTER
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 7:30 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 7:42 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 8:02 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 10:38 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 3:15 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Lilley (glilley@dcjs.state.va.us)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 3:55 p.m.
Posted by: Evan
Posted on: Thursday, 27 May 1999, at 11:34 p.m.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 4:33 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 1:21 p.m.
Posted by: Key (kevineanes@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 6:11 p.m.
Posted by: Q (heihojin@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 1:46 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 1:35 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 1:11 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 1:22 a.m.
Posted by: TKChuck
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 2:26 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 1:07 p.m.
Posted by: Joey
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 4:47 p.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 6:08 a.m.
Posted by: NotNewposter
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 9:24 a.m.
Posted by: Spielmacher (keulon@dds.nl)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 11:00 a.m.
Posted by: NotNewposter
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 7:16 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Ward
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 6:19 a.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 11:37 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 1:16 p.m.
Posted by: NotNewposter
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 9:14 a.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 10:02 a.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 10:59 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 1:08 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 5:31 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 11:03 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 9:56 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 11:29 a.m.
Posted by: KeithO (kohara@ixl.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 1:19 p.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 1:50 p.m.
Posted by: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 2:17 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 1:01 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 6:14 p.m.
Posted by: KeithO (kohara@ixl.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 7:16 p.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 1:58 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 1:00 p.m.
Posted by: Backfromthe dead
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 1:54 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 1:39 p.m.
Posted by: eighb
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 5:00 p.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 8:55 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 9:19 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 1:19 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 4:38 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 4:36 a.m.
Posted by: Backposting
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 5:51 a.m.
Posted by: lobo
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 7:00 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 5:21 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 6:51 a.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 6:36 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 1:46 a.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 8:20 a.m.
Posted by: Ron Moen (rsmoe@sttl.uswest.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 June 1999, at 6:30 p.m.
Posted by: BLACK JACK
Posted on: Saturday, 5 June 1999, at 7:42 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garypoker@email.msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 7:44 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 2:10 a.m.
Posted by: IfIMay1
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 4:20 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 10:54 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 2:17 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 4:14 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 4:39 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 12:47 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 3:15 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 5:02 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 5:41 a.m.
Posted by: Maria Smith (maria1955@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 5:20 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 7:08 p.m.
Posted by: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 7:22 p.m.
Posted by: Steve B (slberg@redshift.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 5:46 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 9:11 p.m.
Posted by: Richard G. Poirier (Shogeybaby@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 28 May 1999, at 6:09 p.m.
Posted by: Irish Mike (MJOstar@cs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 12:49 a.m.
Posted by: Backposting
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 6:10 a.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 10:58 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 12:40 p.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@comdisco.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 12:42 a.m.
Posted by: Darryl "Dazzler"Lanyon (lanyon@powerup.com.au)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 8:21 a.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@comdisco.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 8:38 a.m.
Posted by: PAPA JOE (PapaJoeR@prodigy.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 11:25 a.m.
Posted by: Chico
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 8:59 a.m.
Posted by: PAPA JOE (PapaJoeR@prodigy.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 11:15 a.m.
Posted by: Dave (staplin@pro-ns.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 11:56 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 2:01 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 5:32 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 5:41 p.m.
Posted by: Darryl "Dazzler"Lanyon (lanyon@powerup.com.au)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 8:05 a.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 1:51 p.m.
Posted by: Irish Mike (MJOstar@cs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 10:25 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 2:36 p.m.
Posted by: WildBill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 5:49 a.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 6:02 p.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 2:53 p.m.
Posted by: U H (hegesias@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 May 1999, at 9:18 p.m.
Posted by: WonThisOne!
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 4:52 a.m.
Posted by: Irish Mike (MJOstar@cs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 10:11 p.m.
Posted by: AlwaysReadytoFight
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 1:55 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 9:11 a.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 1:03 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Sprung (josprung@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 8:25 a.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 10:28 a.m.
Posted by: AlwaysReadytoFight
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 2:09 p.m.
Posted by: Tom
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 12:34 a.m.
Posted by: S. Doyle
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 1:40 a.m.
Posted by: Irish Mike (MJOstar@cs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 12:46 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 4:50 a.m.
Posted by: WonThisOne!
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 4:49 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 6:14 a.m.
Posted by: Marc (scamp1@idt.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 4:27 p.m.
Posted by: Darryl "Dazzler"Lanyon (lanyon@powerup.com.au)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 8:45 a.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 12:27 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 1:29 p.m.
Posted by: Randy (refeld@netzero.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 6:16 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 12:37 a.m.
Posted by: Easy E
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 1:08 p.m.
Posted by: Randy (refeld@netzero.net)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 3:09 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Ward
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 10:30 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 4 June 1999, at 3:51 a.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 6:15 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 1:07 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Sprung (josprung@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 8:09 a.m.
Posted by: PokerLover!
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 3:34 p.m.
Posted by: PokerLover!
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 3:37 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Johnson
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 10:16 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 2:30 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 12:35 a.m.
Posted by: Drone (kpansius@snet.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 12:29 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 2:12 p.m.
Posted by: Irish Mike (MJOstar@cs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 10:06 p.m.
Posted by: AlwaysReadytoFight
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 1:49 p.m.
Posted by: Drone (kpansius@snet.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 2:33 p.m.
Posted by: AlwaysReadytoFight
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 June 1999, at 11:31 a.m.
Posted by: Joe N. (shuview@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 12:18 p.m.
Posted by: Easy E (ezeriver@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 4:05 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 10:16 p.m.
Posted by: Easy E (ezeriver@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 12:49 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 1:03 p.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 5:19 a.m.
Posted by: Easy E (ezeriver@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 12:52 p.m.
Posted by: V. A. Kirk (VAKandCo@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 May 1999, at 10:18 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 12:44 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Sprung (josprung@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 9:24 a.m.
Posted by: Easy E
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 12:58 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 12:59 p.m.
Posted by: PokerLover!
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 4:28 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 9:39 p.m.
Posted by: V. A. Kirk (VAKandCo@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 11:20 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 4:47 a.m.
Posted by: G
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 1:36 a.m.
Posted by: Richard G. Poirier (Shogeybaby@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 6:27 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 4:19 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 4:52 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 4:40 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 10:50 p.m.
Posted by: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 5:22 p.m.
Posted by: TourneyLoser
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 4:42 a.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 5:44 a.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@concentric.net)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 11:33 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 12:50 p.m.
Posted by: TourneyLoser
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 3:25 p.m.
Posted by: WenatcheeMax (Wenmax@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 1:25 a.m.
Posted by: TourneyLoser
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 1:32 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 7:44 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 5:33 a.m.
Posted by: PokerLover!
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 4:15 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 1:26 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 1:44 a.m.
Posted by: AlwaysReadytoFight
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 1:28 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 8:28 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 4:38 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 12:02 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 12:18 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 12:41 p.m.
Posted by: PokerLover!
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 3:54 p.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@comdisco.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 1:27 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 1:59 p.m.
Posted by: Dave (staplin@pro-ns.net)
Posted on: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 6:04 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 4:08 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 7:49 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 1:51 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 June 1999, at 8:41 a.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 8:53 a.m.
Posted by: Dave (staplin@pro-ns.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 2:31 p.m.
The Gambling Forum May 1999 Archive Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo