![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Welcome to the Other Poker Games forum. This forum is for the discussion of poker games other than Texas Hold'em and tournaments.
Just decided to be the first to post! :-)
Good job Frank...now back to your cage.
J/K
Ben
Chuck,
Notfa Nuttin! But did you clear this new format with John Feeney. Remember it's not me, but, John, SuperStar, that he is, feels he desreves (rightfully so) his own side forum. Not full filling his wishes is the same as deleting his threads (at least that's what he told me, I think). We all know that you work for Mason, cause he said everybody does (as it should be), so now the guys on the other forum, rgp, will be able to point to Mason as having deleted a super star from his forum. I'm sure that they will say that he did it because he is jealous of Vince err..I mean John and We here on 2+2 will know better but it won't do any good because they got it in for Mason already. Maybe you can say that Mason was on vacation and he left Sklansky in charge and he is the one that put the fritz on Feeney (say that ten times fast, fritz on feeney, f...). No, even though they know Sklansky would do something like that they know Mason would never leave Sklansky in charge, all by himself. Hell he won't even let Sklansky go to Bellagio's by himself. No I'm afraid Mason will have to take all the heat for this one himself. Of course if Mason is nice to John SS Feeney, like maybe give him a free copy of the new edition Advanced series books. John (easy one that he is) may just fagetaboutit! I doubt it though!
Vince.
Yeah sure, Vince. Put it all on me now, while you and Scott go, uh, scott free. Make it look like *I'm* the one who's going to put up the big stink. Get the heat off yourself while you put the pressure on the big guys, eh?
(p.s. Don't tell anyone, but I've got our attorneys, skp, Chris A., The Fossil himself, and Big John on the case. They say we'll get just what we have coming to us. Hmmm.)
"Don't tell anyone"
so this is the secret forum. good to know.
"skp, Chris A., The Fossil himself, and Big John"
if they be for us, who be against us?
"They say we'll get just what we have coming to us."
oh. huh.
scott
John,
I want to make this *perfectly clear*!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry, I live in the birthplace of Richard M. Nixon and sometimes get a little carried away.
I once lived in Groton, Connecticut, which is the home of Pfizer Chemicals, which employs the fossilman, who is an attorney. I did allege, incorrectly, that I was a divorce attorney, but, such is not the case. I am no more ethical than most attorneys, lie convincingly about almost anything, and would be more than willing to take your money while only pretending to help you. After reading all of the above, I want to retract my statement denying my being an attorney and state proudly and uncategorically that I am not currently practicing law.
I will be most happy, nonwithstanding any of the above, to represent you and the other damaged parties in your search for justice and fair recompense from whichever parties responsible for this unforgivable slight. A retainer of $500.00 should be sent made out to me C/O The Richard Nixon Library, Birthplace and Burial Site, Yorba Linda, Ca. 92886.
Big John,
Let me say this about that: I guess you're trying to tell me, "I am not a crook!" But tell that to those guys you play against in those weird games at the Bike -- the ones where you're the only player who's ever figured out how to play them! .
John,
I think you are referring to my passion for the NL Mexican Stud?
Believe it or not, the game is starting to attract other non Latins. I actually played in a game with two orientals, myself and another non-Hispanic. There were only three Hispanics in the game! Spanish was still the dominant language at the table although English was the strong second.
I think a lot of people are scared away by some of the language barriers and by their dislike for players dropping out of hands occasionally showing their hidden hole card to selected friends remaining in the hand. That can be a huge problem. I tend to judge a game by my personal results in it. In the past two years I've managed to extract about $25,000 from this game. It is usually the only NL ring game format available to be played in my area. I would be willing to play most games for money if I determined that I was a favorite to win.
I really think that all truly talented poker players should stick to games that I decline to play. I find poker more enjoyable when I am the one doing the winning.
Richard Nixon was a favorite of mine and I freely admit that I cried on the day he passed away. I believe that he and Ronald Reagan were the two individuals most responsible for the defeat of Communism in Europe. (Not to take any credit away from the Communists themselves) Nixon was also reputed to be one tough poker player, having the true "killer" instinct.
As a 7CS player who hates holdem (Because I stink at it) I welcome this forum. I hope 7CS tournamet play will also be discussed here.
At the card room I play at we play dealer's choice. We play Hold 'Em, 7 High, 7 low, 5 stud and a game called 3 Low.
I feel relatively confident with all of these games, but am curious about the last game. The general rules of three low are as follows:
The best hand is A/2/3. There is a joker in the deck. It is completely wild.
You are dealt 3 cards. Round of betting. You may draw up to three cards (there's no rule against being ridiculous). Another round of betting. Another draw. Another round of betting. Showdown.
Currently I use the following for starting requirements:
Any one card draw to a 4 (A/2, A/3, A/4, 2/3, 2,4, joker and any A/2/3/4). The game tends to be (like omaho) one that you play for the nuts. It usually takes a 5 or lower to win at the very least. Frequently you have two players showing down A/2/3.
Interestingly, some of the 5 card draw strategy makes sense in this game (position truly matters, plus you can stand pat and really confuse people).
I'm looking for any thoughts on strategy for this game.
Do not draw to 4-3 on the first draw. Don't play out of position with anything worse than a one card draw to a 3 high. The profit is in making people pay to draw when your hand is already complete. I will draw two cards in the first draw round, with good position, if I have the joker. There are a lot of bad players who play this game and it can be very profitable to play.
i dealt some hands out and it didn't seem like you needed the nuts at all. a lot of times it was a made six against an A-3 draw or something. standing pat with a 6 does not seem that bad, certainly on the second draw. i could have just seen a very unrepresentative sample. but while you should only draw to smooth 4's or better, i think you should often hold pat 5's and 6's.
scott
Scott, The Bicycle Club used to spread the game a couple years ago and believe me when I tell you that people who thought like you were the main contributors to the game. What do yuo do when you stay pat on the second draw with a 6-4-2 and you get a bet and a raise in front of you? People who know how to play the game are going to make your middle draw pat hands take more than a little heat either because they have better or because they know you can be pressured to throw away or draw.
how many people usually draw on the first round? on the second? in the hands i dealt, it was never more than 4 and often heads up from the get go. if you have 6-2-A, i can't see throwing away the 6 when your opp draws one card. am i wrong?
scott
If it is the 3rd and last draw and a single opponent has drawn one in front of you, then you would stand pat. If two were in front drawing one, I'd throw the 6 away. 6-2-A just can't stand up to much betting pressure. Depending on the amount in the pot, the ability of the other players, etc., there are times when I'd keep the 6-2-A and times I'd be drawing. On the second drawing opportunity, with two players drawing one in front of me, that 6 would leave my hand without a second of hesitation. Once you've played a few rounds in this game you have a pretty fair idea of the drawing parameters of the players.
i thought there were only 2 draws. i agree a 3rd draw makes holding the 6 on the 2cd draw wrong.
i just checked the original post. there are only 2 draws. how does that affect the strategy?
scott
Now that I think about it, there were only two draws. I would still do everything on the second draw the way I said for the third and do everything on the first draw the way I said for the second. I would never enter any hand where I didn't have a one card draw to a 4 or better unless I just had the Joker. I would play pat 5's before the second draw and play pat sixes against a single opponent who drew one in front of me. I played this game about five times when it was being spread and won money each time. It was only spread for about one month because it didn't attract enough play.
I tend to agree -- from my experience with this game -- that standing pat with a 6 is a mighty brave play. In fact, if you think about it, if you are against 3 drawing opponents then you are a heavy dog if they all are drawing to even a 5 (1/3 of the deck will make each hand...3 hands drawing...big trouble).
I usually try to play the game for the nuts because the worse hands will usually pay you off. For example, three nights ago we were in overs ($20) and after the last round, a player and I re-raised each other the max times with another player in the hand. We both showed down A-2-3 and cut up the $120 from the other player who held A-2-4. Perhaps I play too tight, but I would have mucked if I had been the odd guy out (non-raiser).
Not that your game may need it (group sounds loose enough), but if you have enough people, a Hi/Lo split version of this game could be really interesting..
With joker, HUGE potential for scooping (esp. if cards-speak). Without Joker, could be big pots too.
Only problem would be hand strength order. In 3-card high-only poker, when you get only 3 cards, the order of strength is:
1) Str flush 2) Trips 3) straight 4) flush (seems weird, but numbers work out- the casinos spread it this way also and they USUALLY have their numbers down cold) 5) pair 6) hi card
I'm not sure how to figure if hand order would change with 2 extra draws (although I guess it wouldn't)- The Joker might throw this off (even though it doesn't change order in 5-card poker).
I have 3 questions about 5-card stud:
Is it a good game for beginning players to learn with?
Why hasn't there been much theory written about the game? It seems that its simplicity would make it an easier Stud game to talk theoretically about.
What is a decent Ante Structure for the game? I'm just thinking two tiers.
Thanks, CV
i don't know too much about 5-card stud. i know that it is rather boring and that it is not played much anymore. i play 7cs and he. i am learning o8 and 7cs8. after i learn those i'll probabally try to learn no limit and pot limit. then tournament play. then maybe i'll try to pick up 5cs, razz, lowball, and draw. i think its simplicity does not give fish enough of a chance to win.
scott
It is probably notthe game for newbies. I feel it is a good no-limit or pot limit game. It is a pure mathmetical game for me. I'd probably try holdem although I like 7-stud
(This post focuses more on game strategy than tournament strategy, so I put it here instead of the tournament forum.)
I'm thinking about playing the Omaha-8 events in the Foxwoods tourney. Most of my Omaha-8 experience is in moderate to very loose games, since I leave these games when they are tight. HLSFAP mentions that various two-way hands have a lot of value when the hand will be played heads-up. Of course, in these situations you often want to win without the best hand (which is something you virtually never do in a loose game). And if you do get extra players calling, "these hands are total trash."
When the blinds are high and the game is very tight, which hands are good to steal with, and which hands that appear to be good steal hands should be avoided? Dry A2 (or A3) goes way down in value in this spot.
What do you think about 3-betting the stealer (from the button or SB) with hands like AKJ5 or AK54 (that are totally unplayable in a full loose game)?
What about big blind defense? Since hands run close in value heads-up, (although you do have a positional disadvantage, although it may be advantageous to act first in some spots especially if you narrow down that opponent's range of likely hands...) should you often "take the flop with a weaker hand to see what is out there" when you would be heads up with the stealer?
Recent discussion here confirmed that Omaha-8 is a tournament type with a high skill vs. luck factor. One individual consistently wins these tournaments, showing that it is possible to have a high advantage. So I'm thinking this might be a good event to play.
"What do you think about 3-betting the stealer (from the button or SB) with hands like AKJ5 or AK54 (that are totally unplayable in a full loose game)?"
One of the reasons for three betting a late position raiser out of the small blind is that it increases your chances of stealing on the flop. There is no question that this is true in hold 'em, but it is probably not the case in Omaha eight-or-better. If you just call and then bet the flop my guess is that you are almost as likely to win it as if you had three bet and then bet the flop. Consequently, I would be much less inclined to make it three bets in Omaha eight-or-better than in a comparable situation in hold 'em.
Dan wrote: "What do you think about 3-betting the stealer (from the button or SB) with hands like AKJ5 or AK54 (that are totally unplayable in a full loose game)?"
I don't see this hand (AK54)as being "totally unplayable". In a loose/passive game, I'd like to see the flop.
So, Steve, now that we have your attention, what is the answer? Just approximately, if you would be kind enough.
We know you advocate playing even less hands than in hold 'em, because, as you put it, there are more cards in Omaha. (For your reference, David Sklansky seems to list about twenty nine per cent of the possible two card combinations (390/1326?) in his eight groups of starting hands.)
regards,
Omaha8Buff
When play becomes short handed, what happens then? Does the universe of starting hands expand? Or is it all tactical, i.e. certain hands in certain positions against certain players in certain situations? Are there any general guidelines for the novice?
I've experimented with playing any three wheel cards in shorthanded play, and have had good luck with it when I got the right flops. I can't reccommend it, however, because I don't have enough experience using it.
Don't you just hate it when someone gets a pair of aces on 3rd street and then starts bitchin' about it? Wouldn't you just like to have a dime for every time people bitch about aces getting beat?
But when you really think about it, wouldn't you like to have them everytime? After all, they DO hold up once in a while....
5-10 stud AC. Very loose game with many multiway pots.
3rd: I get (As3s)Ah. I raise after three limpers. 5 players see 4th.
4th: I get 5s. Pretty decent so far, a three flush (2 dead) plus a pair of aces. I bet everyone calls. The problem with aces getting beat is when they are against many callers, such as mine are now... I am slightly worried but OK for now....
5th: I catch 7d (useless card!) Again I bet and two people call. No one else has a real threatening board.
6th: I catch 3d for two pair. I am still high so I bet again and get called twice more.
7th: I catch a total blank. (outcome of hand posted way, way down on the bottom)
This brings us to the perpetual delimma, when and whether to bet your aces up (or any other two big pair) for value on the end:
In a multiway pot, it is reasonable to assume that the better hands will probably go further into the hand than the completely bust hands will. Therefore at the end of the hand, you are probably not THAT much ahead with your two pair, even if they are aces up. After all the best of the 2nd best hands have all been chasing you since 3rd. And the more people you have chasing, the more likely you will be chased down (by someone). Even though you are a favorite over each one of them individually, you are an underdog against them collectively. So it seems to me that the fewer callers in the hand, the less often you will be drawn out on, and the more often you should bet for value on the end. at least in general...
But then the PLAYERS must be considered.... This is where the real delimmas originate.
The games I seek out usually have loose passive calling station types, as were found in this particular game. These opponents make hands like aces up even harder to decide what to do with!
These players will often call to the end with any two pair, no matter how small (or how obvious they are beaten). So this makes betting aces up on the end tempting... BUT.. they will also tend to raise only when they have a 5 card hand or better. So if you bet your aces up on the end and get raised, you are almost certainly beaten and should probably fold. Sometimes in loose games this scenario (getting raised, but only on the end) is far more common than we would like!
Checking: If you check, they may try to bluff, so now checking and calling may be the best strategy! However, If you check and they don't try and bluff, you have missed a bet that they probably would have otherwise called with a worse hand than aces up.
Another problem with passive players is that they are sometimes COMPLETELY unreadable. This unfortunate reality lends some desirability to the dreaded "check-blind" strategy! Just check every time and call every bet! Sometimes I think this would be easier (even though I hate checking-blind).
Arrrg!! What to do!!!!!
Two pair is the most common winning hand in stud, so this situation comes up often. Comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
ps.the outcome of this hand....I bet and got called by kings up while the other folded. In this case I decided to bet for value since I had a pretty good read that neither player filled up.
See.. Those terrible aces DO hold up once in a while!
aces up will usually hold up. if no one screams straight or flush or has paired their door card i would almost always bet on end. any 2 pair would hate to lay down to just your A's, so they'll call your bet. what are you afraid of? if someone spiked a wired pair you can usually tell by 6th. the only real worry here is they hit their trips or full on the river. if they did, you're beat. relax, this doesn't happen that often. bet. you played the hand exactly how i would have. betting on every round.
scott
Dave,
Yesterday I was thinking about this type of hand myself. It seems in 1-5 7CS as you stated it is best to bet when head to head, but questionable about when two or more players are in. Two I sometimes bet and three or more I check blind and if someone catches and bets, I raise if I catch. Sometimes call depending upon who or how many have called. I wonder if anyone on the board has kept stats on such a situation??
Thanks Paul
Dave,
At the 5-10 level a bet or call on the end is best driven by opponent board strength. Certainly in the unlikey event that you are against a number of very skilled opponents you may adjust your strategy for that consideration. But generally if the opponents board strength gives you little concern, Bet! I don't know how much thinking you do at the table but if you think hard in theses situations. Stop. Do your thinking, intense thinking, that is away from the table. Discussion here is a good way to do that. Being a frequent participant here you already know that.
Vince.
Vince.
In these limits 5-10 and 10-20 I rely on the oponents board strength. If I put a person on aces or kings (or some other pair) I figure I will bet as long as I figure I am high hand. I figure until the river, they cannot improve without my knowing it. Many stay with 2 small pair or a draw and do not make it. Their delimma is "should they call head to head against Aces and probable 2nd pair". I think you have to makle YOUR delimma turn into their delimma and mix up what you do. Aces up heads up is a pretty nice hand.
Dave, I wouldn't think about this much at all- Bet bet bet. Here's why:
As you described players, they will either check call, call your bet, or raise if they have nuts (compared to you). Even the unreadable ones are passive, so you won't get too many tricky plays (if you're getting AAxx often enough to ENCOURAGE people to play tricky at you... congrats, you're having a nice card run, even though decision becomes more difficult)
Your actions, therefore:
1) Bet, get called by better hands- Lose 1 bet 2) Check, call better hands- Lose 1 bet 3) Bet, get raised by better hands- lose 1 bet (you seem pretty sure about folding, so I'll give you 100% accuracy
4) Bet, get raised by tricky person- might take some thought, but call probably in order (reraise? how brave is table?)- lose 2 bets
5) Bet, raised by PROBABLE better hand- may take some thought (different than #4)- let's say 50/50 fold/call
lose 1 1/2 bets on average.
So, worse case scenario, you lose an extra bet (#4, #5) to a raise you feel you have to call. However, probably many more callers lose to you (and don't raise) when you WIN #1-3, making up those losses and more...
If it wasn't going to cost you the pot, then losing a bet won't kill you.... and situation sounds to me as if it's profitable. PLUS, you'll get calls when you bet the nuts other times (or get to reraise) because people have seen you bet the strong but not killer hands for value....
In summary... bet bet bet, accept the drawouts.... until players change their ways.
g
what does 'nt' stand for?
scott
it means "no text"
as in dont open this message there is no text except the subject line
Dave's message below prompted me to think about people who check blind on the river in 7 stud. I cannot think of ANY advantage that might give them except if they know that they telegraph their hand when they look at it.
Could someone please let me know what possible advantage that might offer to the person who checks blind.
ratso222,
this is a LL opinion and take it for what it's worth. If I have an A on the board on third street and don't get another pair on the board on 6th street. If I have A's over and there are 3 or more players still in who have a 3 flush or 3 straight on the board, and someone else has a pair on the board I SOMETIMES check blind. Now if 3 straight catches and 3 flush catches and pair catches they are all more inclined to raise in my opinion then if I looked and BET. There are +/-'s to every situation. If you catch you can raise and probably get two callers or maybe three. The reason being the money is in there to justify a call. Now if you don't catch it cost you nothing and you can drop.
If someone bets and you don't catch say the three flush you just call and save a bet because that person would of raised you.
If you don't bet and it check's around if you have the best hand you collect the pot anyway and if some passive player doesn't bet you save a bet.
You lose if someone would of called your bet and not have you beat.
There are many scenarios A's on 3rd,4th street, 5 st, in the hole.
In the above examples HTH definitely BET.
Two people BET most of the times.
Three or more MIX IT UP (Check raise,Bet,Blind,Check).
(Remember this if for LL games)
Thanks Paul,
The situation arose this weekend. I had Aces up with J's on 6th with 3 opponents. I caught a 4 for the boat. I looked and checked the river. Trip 10's bet, call, fold. I raised and both people called me. I was criticized for "not betting my hand" I said I was sorry while the dealer pushed me the money. The man with the trips realized he could have beaten me, but I figured there were 2 straight draws out there and one of them must have had the case 10.
This past weekend in AC, I played stud with some of the most eclectic characters I have ever had the pleasure. It was a perfect mix. #1, a New Yorker, solid aggressive, #2, a deep thinker (and winner >$1500), #3, a perpetual looser at cards (so I was told) who reluctantly called every pot, #4. an elderly Irish dude with a great sense of humor, #5 a young Fillipino who understood the game and was a very tough competitor, #6 a decent gentleman player who consistantly over estimated his hand and lost, #7 a newbie (never saw him before) who was quite skilled and knew exactally when to fold. A young dude wearing a college football hat who was practically falling asleep. Others were: a pleasant woman waiting for another higher stakes game (she lost), a very skilled man with an unlit cigar--very good player (winner), and a young inexperienced chap wearing sunglasses (why?) who folded 2 (that's right) winning hands at the showdown because he did not turn his cards over for the table (and dealer) to see. He showed them to me. Was I obligated to say something?--I did not.
My point is that these are the kind of games where the knowledge of the players and their behavior becomes a very important variable of assesment; I feel even more so than the mathematics of the game. The game was full of tells. Two of the players were tuned into the same tells that I saw. I find these games very profitable and entertaining.
What limit were you playing at, and at which casino?
Sounds like the Trop, I have seen an older guy (i am 32) always with an unlit cigar, who won one of the stud tourneys i played in.
Todd
Trop, 10-20 and 15-30. The unlit cigar dude is very good. The place has more stars and than bums.
I play mostly 1-5 due to bank roll considerations, (i only get up there every 6-8 weeks) and i have found that it is easier than not to do well at this level since there are so many donators (weak passive calling stations) I also think that game selection is of primary importance, since there are many tight rocks in the game. I have met many (several) friendly people who have helped me to accelerate my learning. Mostly by discussing the play of a hand after the hand, and making suggestions about the others at the table.
How often do you play, do you ever play the tuesday stud tourney? I was up last tuesday, finished 13th (no cash) but it took 3+ hrs, and for 20 bucks that is good entertainment and learning for my money.
i am starting to think the ring games are better due to the old weak players. But the tourney is a good excuse for my wife to get me up there. I have a lot of questions and topics regarding 7stud, which i will start posting. I hope you can give some insights.
Later
Todd
I began playing 1-5 at Taj and Showboat in AC. Did well and saved my money for 2 yrs to move up a bit. Showboat stopped poker. Too bad since their games were fast and dealers were good. Taj was OK but too noisy and smokey (but actually quite lucrative). Moved to Trop where the action is civilized althought at times a bit crowded. I am amazed by the number of friends of players who watch games and crowd the isles.
Trop offers me the most. The high limit room is very nice. The non-smoking room is very nice too. The 1-5 game is a bit too slow. It seems that everyone "squeezes" out every hand (zzzzzzz).
I generally only get down on weekends, but have played in some tourneys. Never won but have been in the small money 3 times.
Talking to players after the hand could be OK, but you better pick the right players. The advice I have seen written on this board seems to come from players who are at a level more skilled than I am, so I feel I can learn from this board.
I have found 3 books indespensible. First, Roy West's book on Low limit stud is my first choice. Next Sklansky's green book of &-stud for advance players is excellent. Mine is completely dog eared. Finally, you must get Slkansky's yellow book, The Theory of Poker. An excellent book that once read should be used frequently as a reference. I keep a copy in the bathroom. I read something from it at least once a day.
agreed the trop has more good players than normal in the 10-20 and 15-30 limits. I only played at 10-20 limit when I DIDN'T recognize all the players, so needless to say it wasn't very often. Lots of regulars at the mid limits who basically know what they are doing.
this is usually but not always the case, sometimes really good mid limit games can be found there. I wouldn't really know about anything over 15-30 though. just my observations from playing there for about 8 months straight.
I have had this dilemma several times the last time i was in AC at the trop. I start with a High pair (AA, KK, QQ) split or in the hole. I raise 4 or 5, and narrow down the players to 1 or 2.
In this situation I will bet out $5 (1-5) if i think I am against a pair or a draw. If a potential pair gets a pair on the board, and I still have the one pair, i almost always check if they check, since I cant seem to get some of these calling stations to fold. -(I know this is a good thing, since they pay off a lot of money when their small 2 pair lose to my high 2 pair)- Then I hope to catch the second pair. I figure I am playing this type of hand OK. Am I?
The problem arises for me when they dont pair. I still have one pair. I usually bet strong through 5th street. but then i have the strong urge to chek on 6th street, since one unimproved pair rarely holds up at showdown, and these players cant be relied on to raise you unless they get a full house or A-high flush. So you dont usually know if they have a weak two pair or nothing. How do you play a hand like this??
A parallel problem I have is if I know someone is on a draw, and I only have the one high pair. I know that it is an axiom that you must bet to make it expensive for their draw. But how far do you push one unimproved pair against a draw? Do you ever (would you ever) bet less than the full $5 in this situation? as a hedge against getting drawn out on. I usually dont do this since it could give opponents info about the strength of my hand. plus after the first
I look forward to your responses. As a rule assume you just sat down at the table and didnt know too much about your opponent, only that they will go the the river on a draw or with any two pair. I didnt play against any tricky players who would raise on a 4 flush or with the one pair to slow me down.
Thanks, and lets try to get the "Other Poker Games" board full of good threads.
Todd
Todd,
you need to continue betting your big pair unless it looks like it is beaten or your hand is really dead and have a bunch of players calling you. you can slow down when straights and flushes show on board but you need to bet the best hand. unless your checking gets worse hands to bet anyway so that you get the bet in but dont get raised when beat. even against a smaller 2 pair you are not much of a dog but may be a money favorite against two players and even a favorite against one if you play well.
I guess I am just agreeable tonight. I agree with Ray Zee's post to bet your hand as long as you are pretty sure you have top hand. If you get drawn on the river and loose, you will remember it. You tend to forget the times you win when everyone busts and the Aces hold up or you get the 2nd pair or trips. Then you win a nice pot. The calling stations will out draw you once in a while, but over time even in 1-5, you will show profit being agressive.
Todd, I think you're pretty much on target for the most part. I've done pretty well laying 2-5 about like that.
<< but then i have the strong urge to chek on 6th street, since one unimproved pair rarely holds up at showdown >>
Two suggestions for 6th street. If I think I'm up against a possible two small pair, I usually check 6th. This leaves me the opportunity to look at the river card and bet whether or not I hit. Some opponents (pick carefully) will assume you hit the second pair and fold 2 small pair.
If I think I'm up against a draw, I will bet 6th always. You're usually at least a 3:1 favorite at this point. Don't bet the river because the only calls youget are from the hands that made their draws.
DJ
A question that I have that hasn't been answered yet in MM's Winning Concepts.
Draw poker, Jacks or better to open. Loose game; Loose player in early position opens, and he will open in early position with Jacks. Several callers in middle and late position.
Situation 1: I'm in late position with a pair (Js or Qs) and an Ace. Assuming I play the hand (should I?), don't I always want to keep the Ace and just draw two cards?
Situation 2: Same scenario, but I have a small pair (8s or 9s) and an Ace. Should I draw two as well? It seems more questionable because of the smaller chances of a set holding up.
Comments please.
Here's what I think is correct. First, you should not play either hand. Second, in both cases you should draw three cards. Part of the reason for this is that with several players in it becomes more likely that the other aces are gone, and the joker is almost certainly gone.
I concur completely with Mr. Malmuth for a number of reasons. A 2 card draw to a pair and ace kicker might have tactical worth in a guts draw game but not in Jacks.
Mason,
Thank you for your response. However, if I recall in Winning Concepts you asserted that single pairs capable of opening shouldn't open in early position. You said, or maybe I inferred, that such pairs might be playable in later position. This appeared to be sound advice when I read it.
However, now you are appear to be saying that the opening-capable pairs are not likely to be live on the draw in late position because of the likely holdings of other players already committed to the draw.
What am I missing?
I think that since someone opened in early position, and others have called, a hand like a lower pair (than aces) with an ace is likely:
already inferior to on or more opponents' hands like to be partially (or worse) dead.
Furthermore, holding the ace puts you in a situation where you could be drawing dead, or everyone else has a draw to a stronger hand than 2 pair and at least someone has you beat already. This is not good.
Even with the very loose opener in early position and no one else, calling with less than probably aces (and certainly kings) can't be a good idea, based strictly on the distribution of poker hands which qualify to open. Also, there may be action from players behind you.
If you are the opener, things change completely, as you have a chance to win uncontested.
I believe that you misunderstood what I said which is that a pair of aces should not always open in early position and that you throw away all pairs smaller than aces in early position (unless the ante is quite large). This is not original with me but was standard jacks-or-better opening strategy.
Furthermore, if someone opens, since they must have at least apair of jacks you need better than that to play.
That's very helpful. About one hand a round, not including the big blind. Thank you.
Does that mean when in the big blind you tend to have a hand good enough to call a raise (one which you suspect is not a steal attempt) about one out of eight times? Maybe that's asking too much, being too bold. (But if you don't ask a question, you surely won't get an answer.)
:-)
Omaha8Buff
In a recent issue of The Intelligent Gambler, respected pro T.J. Cloutier writes:
"Pot-limit Omaha is the only game ever devised in which you can flop the nuts and have to throw it away on the flop! Suppose you flop the nut straight and you get action on it. If there are two suited cards out there and you get more than one-way action on the hand, it means that someone probably has a set and someone else most likely has a nut-flush draw---you're a dog in this hand...so quite often the best thing to do is to dump it."
This logic is obviously wrong, or, at best, incomplete, for a ring game. However, he was writing about tournaments. Is there something about the payoff structure in a tournament that makes it not worthwhile to pursue a hand with positive expected value?
I like the website's new setup.
1-5 seven stud in AC. One good player, a couple solid/tight players and several calling stations. One good player not in this hand.
I am the bring in with a (47) 4, $1. Called by an A, K, J in three places. 4th street- I get the second best card I could hope for, a 7. (47)-47, xxAQ bets $5, Kx calls, J9 calls. Action to me. What would you do?
Todd
Well after a moment of consideration, I folded. I felt like raising would lead to a call from at least one if not all 3 opponents, and I figure at least one of them already had an over pair. my sevens and fours were live, but according to Roy West's book on low limit stud, you can lose a lot of mone with weak two pair.
Anyway, AQ showed down Q's to win the pot from the other two mucked hands.
Did i play this hand too absurdly tight?
Further comments welcome
Todd
1) You didn't say whether the 3 opponents were tight/solid or calling stations
2) Was your up 4/7 suited?
I'd raise regardless of #1) mix, then maybe slow down later if hands are threatening. Your best hope, as Ray said, would be for AQ to drive out others.
2) If two-suited on board, raise would indicate the wrong hand... which, in this situation, probably doesn't help you. This is probably an example of 7SFAP's not wanting people to call you, even though a mathematical mistake. Your raise/call decision might hinge on what you've been doing and mix in #1).
By the way, 2 months ago I sat in a 1-3 for a while while waiting, had similar situation. Played two small pair VERY hard (raising or betting until river) against 3 opponents. Luckily they held up. The bonus was, I later opened with a 3, got trip 3's on 4th street, raised/bet it all the way through 7th, got callers thinking I was powering two pair again. Nice payoff (for 1-3, that is...)
Probably played it too tight.
#1 AQ ok player, tended to call too much
Kx pretty good, could fold a hand when he thought he was beat
J9 calling station, all the way with anything.
#2 47 on the board was not suited, and i had 3/4 suits in the hand. so this didnt come into play.
6 weeks ago I played a hand like this with (69)69 in my first 5-10 game, and raised as suggested in Zee's message. I was called by the two really bad calling stations in the game (which i hoped for)and both sucked out. played it fast till the river, and then check called the river, assuming i was beat. Neither paired on their boards, and no one raised.
I didnt like the outcome, and I was trying to determine if there was a better way to play, especially against calling stations who will call with an over pair, or just over cards.
I think in the original situation, after I raise, if the AQ reraises you and drives out the other two players, you can not possibly like where you are. (unless you are certain he only has the one pair) You may already be behind, you will not be checked into on the subsequent rounds, and will likely have to call $5 on 5th 6th and 7th, if you go all the way.
This table was odd (or not) in that I and another player were the only ones raising on 3rd. Others were showing down high pairs that they had from the beginning which they hadnt raised with. this also would have left some unease if the AQ bumped it back cuz he could have been slow playing pocket Q's or split A's.
So what do you do if he reraises?
Call the reraise, and hope, or let go of the hand. I think RZ says call, since you are probably ahead. If you are bet into on 5th and he hasnt paired, do you raise again, or fold. Is calling an option
Best case if you raise, is that AQ calls, two others fold, and you are checked to on 5th st. Then bet or check.
(which would you do?)
So i like RZ's suggestion, but if your opponent plays it aggressive and reraises knocking out your opponents, raising doubts as to his hand. I would curl up like a cold turtle wishing i had folded for the $1 bring in.
:)
the more discussion the better
Todd
"I think in the original situation, after I raise, if the AQ reraises you and drives out the other two players, you can not possibly like where you are. (unless you are certain he only has the one pair) You may already be behind, you will not be checked into on the subsequent rounds, and will likely have to call $5 on 5th 6th and 7th, if you go all the way.
This table was odd (or not) in that I and another player were the only ones raising on 3rd. "
This implies that the AQ wasn't the other regular raiser.
I'd raise even more often, given your description. Better a $10 cost here to eliminate/reveal players' hands than dragging along for double bets. AQ may or may not be ahead, but it's better to try and eliminate players (increasing your winning chances, decreasing suck-out odds) than hang along...
You may be giving up too much by folding all of these little 2-pairs to overcards all the time, if that becomes your philosophy. And, again, your "gambling" image goes up for use with your better hands.
If AQ becomes (and CONTINUES) to be agressive, then bailing later is probably your play. Caving in too early makes you a target, may also be a mistake.
"So what do you do if he reraises?" Maybe reraise again, definately call and see 5th. If you continue past 5th, might as well go to 7th.
"Call the reraise, and hope, or let go of the hand. I think RZ says call, since you are probably ahead. If you are bet into on 5th and he hasnt paired, do you raise again, or fold. Is calling an option "
Depends on your read of him, how aggressive you wanna be/seem. Raising might be an option, but I'd lean towards calling. If his other card is straight/flush addition, i'd either raise (fold to reraise) or fold.
"Best case if you raise, is that AQ calls, two others fold, and you are checked to on 5th st. Then bet or check.(which would you do?) "
Bet, unless new cards indicate sandbag possibilities. I'd probably bet until 7th, then check call, check-raise as semi-bluff. You don't want to get run over by overcards all of the time, or they'll hunt you down and skin you (maybe... maybe not, with those players)
Help clarify a little for you?
NT
raise if you think the ace queen would reraise and knock out the others when he had just a pair(the right play) and play the hand from there. if that is not an option call and see one more. if your hand is live you are a money favorite and may win without improvement. only follow blindly what our books tell you.
I would raise on 5th st. If AQ re-raises then I would expect K and J9 to fold. I have to assume you remembered the folded cards and none were 4 or 7's. If AQ pairs on next card, it's probably time to go, but on 5th st I think you have the best hand and the best draw.
Other possibility in a 1-5 game is to call and trap hoping to keep everyone in. Risky but can be profitable.
Well,
That is a very close call, all things considered. The first thing that would come to my mind is whether the guy who's doing the betting is most likely to pop me for 5$ each of the subsequent rounds. When your up against someone like that, not catching a 4 or a 7 can be very torturous. Like you mentioned (and Roy West), no improvement on this hand will just not cut it.
Given the mathematical fact (and I'm not really a math type when it comes to 7-stud) that your 3.5 to 1 after 4 cards to get your full house, it sounds like you at least have a value bet. Moreover, you may be allowed a free card on 6th street if everybody subsequently checks after the 5th card which does happen in low-limit stud, especially if the better with the "defined" pair of queens is starting to get strung out and begins worrying about the draws he's facing. This happens.
Also, you must consider the fact you'll be coming out of the gutter, a.k.a, being the low bring in card, so your hand will be discounted to some degree. Hence, if and when you do catch another 7 or 4, it's the type of full house that will be paid off very nicely. Moreover, if you can catch a 3 or an 8 on the 5th card, it's perfect place to raise representing a straight. You've already walked through the fourth street heat ($5 bet), so you've defined a working hand. But they won't know what that working hand is. You'll show'em the straight, but don't forget to bet it through in subsequent rounds.
Finally, if you do catch a 7 or a 4 in the later rounds, and thus will have a pair on the board (and you are the only one) bet the pair because, frankly, you'll probably get called. But it won't be me........
Todd,
You only have a small investment at this point but the odds are you probably have the best hand whether you raise or call as Z said you should still play on. If you catch a 4 or 7 on fifth street your full. Two pair on 4 cards come too infrequent for me to throw away, especially for one bet.
paul
Since the ace didn't raise the bring-in but bet $5 on 4th, I'd put him on queens. Your two pair, early on, might've been worth a call. And depending on your level of aggession, a raise. I'm new to $1-5 stud in A.C. and see a lot of raising with big pairs on 3rd. But every book I've read says that you gotta know your opponents. And if you didn't then, you do now. Sounds like the ace went in with overcards. Maybe he read West's book too.
Badger-
Back up your claim. Here's my thinking.
As I said in my post, the analysis is at best incomplete. Relevant considerations include the size of your stack, the size of the pot, and what you're up against. For example, if you are in fact up against a flush draw and a set, you have better than a 1 in 3 chance of winning even though you are a dog. This implies that you should be willing to go all in in a ring game on the flop. Your implied odds are even better if you have the discipline to stay with the hand and toss it if the flush card falls or the board pairs.
In a 10-20 game, the ante is $1 and the low card bring-in is $3. Assuming you are the low card and by that, the bring-in. Is it proper to look at your cards then bet more than the minimum? Let's say you look and you have a 3 up and aces in the pocket. Would you bring in for $10? Would you be more apt to bring in for $3 and hope someone raised then re-raise? How about if you saw a mid sized pocket pair (8's), would you bring in for more to protect them? All assume any of your needed cards are not matched on board.
Couldn't have said it better meself and I am not new to stud. By not looking and bringing it in for the minimum you give yourself the opportunity to trap a stealer. You also minimize the possibility of someone picking up a tell on you.
Vince.
I suppose it was a bit of a retorical question especially in low limit. The comments from Fossil and you have reinforced my belief that just chiping in the minimum is the right thing to do. In fact, in low limit games I always just chuck in the min bring. In a higher limit game (20-40) last week, I opened for 20 twice in 6 hrs. I got some looks like I was from the planet Saturn yet it narrowed the field to just me and the person to my immediate right. I won both hands on 4th street when I got a threatening card. Both times I had pocket pairs (jacks and 8's). Had I been raised by anyone other than the last player, I would have probably folded assuming the raiser had A's.
How bad was my play? I won $470 over 6 hrs playing about 20% of the hands. I only lost 4 pots at the showdown, twice to the same person who had 2 small pair and I had unimproved aces.
Other than Ray Zee and Ciaffone's books, are there any other recommended materials for learning to play Omaha Hi-Lo?
Same recent visit to AC, late at nite/near dawn, and I have migrated to the 1-3 table to play with the two friends I came with. 6 handed. 1 very bad player. Friend 1 weak loose. New busboy (NB) from the Sands used to playing 15-30 sees psycho bad player decides to stay. Friend 2 solid, a little too passive, I read him like his hand is face up (Hi wayne :))
the bring in 4(xx) bets $1. I am next (AQs)9 and call Also in after me T(xx)-crazy and 7(xx)-friend 2
Next card (AQs)99s 64 xx Tx 7x (i dont remember their cards now)
I bet $3, Tx calls, 7x calls, NB- 64 raises $3 to $6, I reraise to 9$. Tx folds, 7x folds and 64 calls.
At the time i was thinking that this guy NB was a decent player from higher limits who would reraise me to see if I was bluffing, and if i just called i am saying i dont have trips.
after i reraised i was thinking, oh crap, what if he has trip 6's. i am so behind.
Next cards Q99(AQs) T64(xx). At least I made two pair I bet $3 he calls. No raise, maybe he doesnt have trips, or maybe he believes I do have them. I think if he believed me he would have folded. So at this point, I am excluding trip 6's
xQ99(AQ) xT64(xx) neither card seemed to help. I bet $3 he calls
the river
XQ99(AQA) now three pair AA QQ 99. I check cuz who knows what he rivered (I used up all of my testosterone on the earlier streets) He checks and shows down pocket K's which he had from the bring in.
And I dodged a bullet and got lucky.
But seriously, I figured I had suited overcards to the board and that his raise was a play at my bet, and I was trying to be aggressive and control the table.
Any and all comments suggestions ridicule are welcome.
Todd
I was advised a couple of weeks ago on this forum not to play just plain overcards because I would be such an underdog against decent hands. Maybe overcards and a two flush are different, I don't know. Maybe cuz you were only six-handed it was correct to play?
Your hand turned out well, but I don't know how often things will work out like that in the long run. I now that I am trying to get away from playing just overcards. I don't think 7CSFAP talks to highly of them either.
You make a good point. My thinking was as follows.
1. there is no raising so you can see the next card for cheap, only the $1 bring in.
2. If you catch a spade, a 9, A, or Q you stay. anything else you fold to a bet. otherwise check.
3. One of the real advances I think i have made in 1-5 stud is not playing over cards. the only time i play them is late, if I have 2 or 3 higher than a J, and have an A,K,Q on the board, and then I raise. In the games I have played up there, you can steal 1-3 peoples bring ins since they are afraid you have the pair.
4. I play most of my split pairs the same way, and limit myself to these steal raises to no more than a couple a session.
As stated above, I felt that the table was weak, and if I paired my A or Q I would be in good position for the rest of the hand. on a normal table I fold that. very rarely (ie no spades or K's on the board, AQ's live, i would call for $1 in a family pot and see the next card) but only rarely.
I think i have saved a lot of money excluding these hands from my "play list"
any comments on this "strategy"
Todd
I think you have thought out the instances where and when you play this hand well. The key is in being disciplined enough to stick with the framework you've established. My problem is that I say I will only play on if such-and-such cards fall, but then all of a sudden I see "new opportunities" when a different card drops. I had the tendency to get "sucked in". If you can play these hands with the discipline required, go for it.
The key for me is that I had a truly hellish session of 1-5 where I lost like 180 bucks. way off my normal variance. The setup was, I knew I was the best player at the table by a long shot (whether i was or not it was my ego talking). And for some reason I decided to play more hands on 3rd, since if I caught the cards I needed I knew I could out play the competition.
Well I caught enough to screw me royally. In analyzing the session after the fact. Several weeks later since i was so pissed off the next day. I realized I had started playing too many speculative hands and not pushing my high pairs aggressively enough.
The discipline comes from seeing first hand what happens when I deviate from solid hands against a tight table. There just wasnt enough money in the pots to make up for what I was leaking.
Todd
One comment and one only. If you find yourself in a game where opponents play against paired door cards as in this example. Tighten up a little but tend to play split pairs more frequently.
vince.
7CSfAP states that if you play 3rd street well you should still be a long term winner even if you only play the other streets mediocre. I can understand how playing starting hands well will assure you a win in draw poker and how in HE you have to play the flop well to win, but why does playing 3rd st well assure you of winning in 7S? With four cards to come and your opponents receiving their own individual "flops" a lot can change between your (initially) strong and well selected 3rd st hand and 7 st that can dramatically alter hand values. If you cannot read and play the game well past 3rd st surely your bad play and the size of the betting on the other streets will negate any good play on 3rd st? Someone pls explain the mathematical and/or strategic basis of this claim.
Basically we mean that you will win if you start with the proper hands and your opponents do not. They can't overcome that initial disadvantage no matter how well they play from that point forward as long as you use any sort of common sense on the later streets.
Most games I have played on East Coast are low overhead (ante), so to play third street with mediocore cards is putting you at a distinct disadvantage.
If I may add my two cents to this conversation. The idea that playing third street well, coupled with mediocre play from there on stems from the importance of starting hands and how well they are initially played in 7 stud. The contradiciton in that idea is the implication that somehow you can be a third street expert and be a 4-7th street dud. That can't happen! If you have the ability and determination to learn correct third street you will have to understand how third street play affects 4-7th street play. Consequently, you will have to understand good 4-7th street play. If the 2+2 authors believe they can teach someone to be a good third street player and just a mediocre third street player and that player will win at 7 stud, I say show me what you be smoking.
Vince
Of course one must understand that the 2+2 guys are just emphasizing the importance of 3rd street play in 7 stud.
Imagine a game that is super loose, so loose that most plays that you make on 4th-7th streets won't have any real effect on the decision making of your opponents -- with their tunnel vision they are virtually strapped on til the end. Here, the intuitiveness and complexity of your nuanced play from 4th street on is really lost on them (barbarians!). The only real decision you have on these streets is when to fold v. when to punish them.
This is one example of the kind of game where a 3rd street expert who is able to appropriately adjust his starting requirements can make a killing on even if he dinks around on later streets.
The original post quoted the following:
"7CSfAP states that if you play 3rd street well you should still be a long term winner even if you only play the other streets mediocre."
I responded:
"The contradiciton in that idea is the implication that somehow you can be a third street expert and be a 4-7th street dud. That can't happen!"
I stand by that statement. Show me one 3rd street expert that is mediocre on 4th-7th street. The animal doesn't exist and will never exist. Regardless of how good an imagination you have. To understand correct 3rd street play requires a good understanding of the whole game including 4-7th streets.
Vince.
Vince,
With all due respect (and you are a SuperStar after all), DS's statement is a statement about play, not players themselves. You are right that there can be experts who specialize on 3rd street without truly understanding later stages play (poker is not like golf where you have long-drive specialists who can't chip to save their lives). He is not implying that the principle he is discussing is actually embodied in actual players.
The statement is designed to highlight the relative importance of 3rd Street play. It is the fundamental starting point. Leaks in your game on 4th - 7th streets are less destructive when 3rd street play is solid. This is where I am now. I am solidifying my 3rd street play while knowing I have serious problems with my play on the later streets. I still expect (and do) win in the games I play in. I will win more once I strengthen my play on later streets.
Conversely, sharp 4th - 7th street play is blunted (ie made less effective) by poor 3rd street play.
Youd think that if DS posts the first response that no one else would have to answer. But some of us just cant help ourselves.
In my experience (as little as it is) The better the hands you start with in 7stud, the easier the decisions are which you will be faced with.
On the other hand if you start adding weak hands like (AQs)9, like i described in an earlier post, manytimes you get just enough help to keep you in the hand. But not enough help to make you a favorite to win. If you get a spade and are faced with action, you may feel compelled to call, especially if your spades are live. I think this is one of the pitfalls of starting with 3 cards, if you stare at them long enough, you start to see something worth playing.
With even weaker hands, making a pair on 4th street may hook you to the pot since you start imagining getting trips etc.
I know this doesnt answer your question, since DS already did, i dont feel bad about this. But I think that a lot of hands most people feel good about playing in stud are just too weak to make money.
Todd
This is a good example where the math comes in most handy. You have to know what the respective odds are for you drawing the best hand and you have to make a reasonable estimate of the odd for your competitors. You must know the amount of money in the pot and some idea of what to expect later on in the hand. Live cards are important. Holding 4's and 8's is risky if 2 or or 3 competitors are on possible straight draws where either of your cards might be under in their hands.
You can stay with 2 small pair, but you better pay attention to what you see and what might be hidden.
Sometimes you can even ask them.
Actually it is possible to be expert at 3rd st. but not elsewhere. That is because there are few enough situations so you could pretty much memorize them as in blackjack basic strategy (as long as you also randomize your play a bit and adjust for various types of players. Thus it is a lot harder than doing it at twenty one.) You could not be so methodical on the later streets. Of course when we say that you play "mediocre" from that point on we mean by OUR standards. Actually we are assuming that you are far better than the average Joe.
"Actually it is possible to be expert at 3rd st. but not elsewhere"
This is a far cry from being an expert on third street and mediocre elsewhere. It is an easy statement to make because it seems so "logical". Sure you can be a third street expert and be a dud elsewhere. That makes sense. Well because something appears to be logical and because it is uttered by an expert does not make it true. I say show me. Show me expert third street play that doesn't consider 4th - 7th street. Better yet point to the one, two or more third street experts you know that aren't at least very good 4 - 7th street players. Mason doesn't count.
Vince.
BTW - This reminds me of the Sklansky profer that Baccarat is a beatable Game. You never pointed to any verifiable proof of your conjecture. It was shall we say "theoretical". I am sure that it is "theoretically" possible to be a third street expert and not be very good elsewhere. Not!
Vince again.
I never said baccarat was beatable in practice. I only said that there are situations that come up extremely rarely where you have a big edge. There are quite a few 30-60 players at the Bellagio who are excellent on third st. and merely pretty good from that point on. They beat that game but would lose at 80-160. I grant that nobody expert on the first three cards would be truly mediocre from that point on. However if there was such a person, he would not lose in almost all games, which was the point we were trying to make in our book.
"There are quite a few 30-60 players at the Bellagio who are excellent on third st. and merely pretty good from that point on. They beat that game but would lose at 80-160"
I would be very interested to know what skills do you think they are missing or don't have developed as much as the higher limit players.
Basically knowing when to raise with less than obvious hands.
Whoooaaaaa!!!!!!
" However if there was such a person, he would not lose in almost all games, which was the point we were trying to make in our book. "
I know that! A point that was made very well I may add! I just thought I would emphasize your point in my own way. So shoot me!
Vince.
Umm...Ok, how about we use the Blackhawk on the 7CS book?
Mason, you still have that old Ruger around?
:-)
Ok Everyone is looking for the proof.
I suggest you run a simulation of some hands...say a pair of queens vrs. a pair of kings. Or perhaps a 3 flush against a pair.
You will find that the better starting hands hold up to the river with a better percentage than the worse ones.
Therefore one can conclude that proper hand selection on 3rd street is a big, if not THE biggest, contributor to your overall EV in 7 card stud.
To go a little further, try the same experiment on 4th, say a 4 flush against a pair and 2 blanks, see what happens.
You might be surprised.
Anyway, it never hurts to start with the edge. This can take discipline.
In examining my wins and losses, 2 things seem to stand out...who else was in the game (I.E. game selection), and my own level of control in not playing speculative hands.
Of course this places a premium on accurately assesing your opponents down cards...clearly both stats and player reading enter into the picture here.
Add in the "Fundamental Theorem of Poker" and the prior point becomes clearer.
Add it all up and it appears to point to a basic strategy for the game as a whole. (A very high level one.)
1. Start with the best hand, per your estimate of your opponents holdings. (some will also say "best draw") 2. If you believe you are in a drawing situation (I.E. have the second best hand), continue only when the pot justifies the risk. 3. If the pot does not justify the risk, consider if a tactic such as bluffing or check raising will take the pot...if not check...then fold if bet into. 4. If you believe you have the "nuts" and cannot be drawn out on...consider how to extract maximum profit. 5. If you believe you can be drawn out on...assess the risk of profit extraction by slow playing (etc.) vrs. attempting to knock opponents out.
Anyway, that's my lame assessment of the basics.
For what it's worth, just about every poker author out there agrees 3rd street is the most important decision. So there is a concensus. My own experience imprically indicates it's true. At least in Las Vegas.
actually one of the people that is considered by many to be one of the best is a poor player from 4th street on. he plays almost perfectly on third street.(i wish i had his disipline). by poor i mean for the stakes he plays. in smaller games he would be marginally better than his competition on later streets. the proof is that he has played umpteen thousands of hours in the softest big games for many years and still is not or will ever be a millionaire. i dont mention names and would not want anyone else to.
Well?
David,
So could you publish that 3rd street strategy as a table or list similar to blackjack?
Is it true that mid/high level stud is extremely slow in Las Vegas? I haven't been there for over a year and would like to know.
This may sound like a stupid question, but is it always correct to call if the odds are correct? For example, Playing 7CS, you hold two pair on 5th street. (I believe the odds are 5-1 against you filling up) If you know your opponet has a made flush, and it will cost you $10 to call a $60 pot, do you call? Of course, all your pair cards are live. My thinking is that I am now chasing and unless I'm getting much more than the minimum correct odds, I'll fold. I would call if the pot was much larger.
use effective odds. if you have correct odds then a call has positive ev.
scott
about the only justification for not taking a profitable situation is if it is your last money and a better spot is sure to come up. or you will go hungry if you lose. or if the chances are so long like the lottery that it may be a waste of time to proceed.
You're on 5th street, so there are 2 more cards to come. Don't think about the odds of filling up by the end, those are only relevant if your call on 5th street will put you all in. Think about the current situation.
Let's say that there are 40 cards you haven't seen, and 4 of them fill you up. That's 9:1 against. If there's $60 in the pot, and it's $10 to call, it doesn't look good. If you fill up on the next card, you'll win $60, plus maybe 2 more bets if the other guy calls you down (possibly 3 or more if you can get in a raise and/or reraise somewhere). However, unless you know this opponent, you can't be sure you'll get $90 out of this $10 call, so fold.
What if it's a $60 pot, and only $5 to call? Now, you're getting an immediate 12:1 on the call, plus the bets you'll win later. Easy call. Same thing on 6th street. If you don't fill, there will be $70 in the pot, and another $5 call is easy to make at 14:1 (plus bet(s) won on the river).
As you can see, you can break it down, and make each decision one at a time based on the odds. The total odds of making a hand with multiple cards to comes really only applies if you ignore (or there will be no) future betting.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You're on 5th street, so there are 2 more cards to come. Don't think about the odds of filling up by the end, those are only relevant if your call on 5th street will put you all in. Think about the current situation.
Let's say that there are 40 cards you haven't seen, and 4 of them fill you up. That's 9:1 against. If there's $60 in the pot, and it's $10 to call, it doesn't look good. If you fill up on the next card, you'll win $60, plus maybe 2 more bets if the other guy calls you down (possibly 3 or more if you can get in a raise and/or reraise somewhere). However, unless you know this opponent, you can't be sure you'll get $90 out of this $10 call, so fold.
What if it's a $60 pot, and only $5 to call? Now, you're getting an immediate 12:1 on the call, plus the bets you'll win later. Easy call (except for Rounder, which I just couldn't resist saying). Same thing on 6th street. If you don't fill, there will be $70 in the pot, and another $5 call is easy to make at 14:1 (plus bet(s) won on the river).
As you can see, you can break it down, and make each decision one at a time based on the odds. The total odds of making a hand with multiple cards to comes really only applies if you ignore (or there will be no) future betting.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
A situation has come up several times -- I'd like some advice on it.
7CS $1-5; 7-handed; loose-aggressive.
[1] (xx)6; [2] (xx)2; [3] (xx)T (tight); [4] (xx)J (solid player); [5] ME (22)2; [6] (xx)A (maniac); [7] (xx)T.
Just to summarize, I'm holding a teeny-weeny set, but my fourth card is out. I am to the right of the Ace that is likely to bet first next round -- so I will be last to act for the foreseeable future.
The first 2 brings it in; #3, the tight player folds his T; #4, Mr. Solid calls the bring-in.
How should I play these small trips? I don't think that this hand is good enough to slowplay, so I have consistently raised with a small set (even if my fourth card is out). Comments?
I play stud mostly at 30-60 and 50-100, so I can't comment about the 1-5 format, but I like playing little sets fast in my games. They almost always put you on a big pocket pair, specially when your case card is out like in this situation. You can win some big pots, though of course occasionally someone will hit their overset and run you down.
I play almost exclusively 1-5, but I am no expert. I believe that you should always raise with small trips on third, but since you have flexability in the amount, you should try to raise in such a way that you get callers.
The nature of 1-5, since there are no antes, is that it is a trapping game, so says Mason, and I agree (of course). So you would like to get as much money from as many callers as possible. Since they are all way behind and drawing thin. If the table is tight, and everyone is folding to 4 or $5 raises, then raise 2 or 3. However if you never make any raises other than $5, then the observant ones will figure something is up.
There was an interesting post a couple months ago about raising in 1-5 stud. This post suggested that you make the raise dependant on how many people are in the pot before you. If 1-2 maybe raise $1-3, cuz you should still get callers behind, and the earlier callers should stay. If you are late and there are 3-5 people in, you should be safe to raise $4-5. The actual post was, (i think) raise $1 for each person in the pot ahead of you. This sort of balances the size of the pot with the raise.
I tend to raise 4-5 most of the time and raise less if i would be the first one in after the bring in. Since I dont do too much stealing, 90% of these raises are with trips/high pairs/or A,K hi flushes. So when I play the hand I almost always have something.
Based on the table you are at, it may be possible that a small raise will entice the A to your left to raise, thinking that you dont have a good hand. Plus, since he is the one you will probably get most of you money from in this hand, you might consider playing the hand in such a way that he definately stays. If he will call a $5 bet on third with anything then attack. If not, then raise smaller, to keep him in, then hope 4th st helps him so he will be.
Finally, If the A or J reraises you, I would probably just call. Otherwise they may figure you for trips, and they will check to you on 4th instead of betting in to you. I think you get more hidden value this way. Since, when you raise on 4th st you may have a flush or straight draw, or 2pr. They may not figure you for trips.
Todd
You have a very strong hand right now at 3rd st. I would raise and maybe expect a re-raise from the Ace. I would play them fast. Anyway, I think you should get more money in the pot to keep others in for 1 more bet. If you do not raise on 3rd St (i.e. played them slowly) then I'd wait till 5th or 6th street to raise.
One of the best low limit players I know always (95%) plays small trips (7's and lower) fast. He makes a living playing 1-5 7CS. He lives cheaply but makes about $10 an hr (That's good in 7CS). He plays 10 -14 hrs 6 days a week and travels via the poker trail twice a year.
I am a complete novice, having logged less than 100 hours in the casino. I would like to relate experiences from a recent trip to AC.
I join a table. Even though I have been to the casino only three times before I recognize the old woman next to me, she played tight passive. Also at the table is a friend I road up with who plays a rather weak game. After 30 min, I evaluate the table as having 4 tight passive(older), 1 loose passive, 1 moderately agressive(saw him do decent in a tournament), my friend and myself. I was playing what I considered good poker, raising high pairs, playing good card and occasionally bluffing against the tight players. We knocked out the agressive player and he was replaced by an ultra tight-passive player. I recieved playable hands maybe one in 6 hands. After the loose passive player bustd out, I got up and left $25 up after 3 hours. I figured the only real donor was my friend and I could find a better table. I felt I had done a number of things right during the game. I had played good cards agressively, was able to fold a queen high flush on sixth when the ultra-tight player raised with his 3 spades Ace high(he had two under), and I walked away when I thought the table went sour. On the way home, my good mood was spoiled when my friend told me I had ruined the table. That before I had sat down the tight players were calling stations and became rocks after I arrived. If I did that to the table did I play wrong? Any other comments would be appreciated.
Wayne
Hey wayne,
If you are a novice then I too am a novice.
1. When there is a fish at the table, whether it is you friend or not, you should stay. He is going to give his money to someone, why not you. Plus next to me, you are the most likely person in the casino to take his money, since you have played 300 hrs with him. Remember the old poker adage about busting you grandma if she were at your table.
2. Once the major donator left the table, I agree that you are in a more difficult position. But against a rock garden, maybe you start raising more late with less stringent hands since they will let go of more hands with out a fight. I might include almost any pair, 3flushes with high cards, 3 over cards etc. If you can steal more you should be able to do ok. Plus the one loose player at the thable, who is likely to call too much is a player you know that you can out play.
3. Most importantly, ignore what your friend had to say. If you really think he is a weak player, do you think he recognizes the different between a tight passive player who calls with a hand, and shows down something medium strong, from a calling station who plays too many hands and goes to the river with speculative hands and hands which are drawing thin? They both call almost exclusively when they are in a hand!
4. Focus on what's important: You won $25 in 3hr at a 1-3 table. $8/hr=2.66 BB/hr. Include the heinous effect of the rake and tipping all of the lovely waitresses and you cant expect to do too much better.
Well done.
Your other poker friend (not the bad one)
Todd
Silly comment by your friend. I hope he meant it in a non-serious way. You certainly did not "ruin" the table. He has to adjust his style. He could have moved to a different table. Try one of the bigger rooms like Taj or Trop where you can change tables.
You did everything right. Your 'friend' probably blames the dealers when he gets drawn out on...Sounds like you'll be playing a lot higher limit than him in short order, so you won't have to hear that again.
A friend asked me once why I had changed to a different game. I said "That wasn't a very good table" He said, "When a table is not a good table, you're usually part of the reason." I took it as a compliment.
Sounds like you'll do great at this game.
DJ
I participated in the following 15-30 Stud hand at the Taj Mahal yesterday. In late position I was the second person to call the bring-in with a four showing. I had 3-4-5 of three different suits. The most important cards were live (6,2,7,A). The player to my left raised to $15 with a King showing. The bring-in, holding a 3, called and the other limper folded, leaving me, the 3 bring-in and the King that raised.
On fourth street the King caught a rag and both me and the 3 paired our door cards. I checked with 4,4 the King checked and the 3,3 bet $30. I raised it to $60; the King folded and the 3,3 called. On fifth street I caught a 6, bet and was called. On sixth street I caught a blank, bet and again was called. On the river I caught another blank and checked. My opponent bet and I threw away my unimproved fours. I do not remember exactly what cards my opponent caught on fifth and sixth streets--but I do remember that they did not appear threatening.
The King is a fairly solid, conservative player who would attempt to steal on 3rd street but would shut down quickly if called. The 3 is a complete unknown to me- I had never played with him before.
Thanks in advance for any comments.
Since I only play low limit stud, I have a question.
I dont think I would ever call 3,4,5 rainbow on third street. Two reasons come to mind, you only have the straight going for you, which is pretty speculative, and vulnerable to higher straights etc. and god forbid you are raised from behind. I would never call this hand for the raise once the king bumped it __and__ the bring in called.
So my question is: Is 15-30 really different from low limit stud in this regard where weak hands become playable?
Once you are in, you are in a difficult spot. Would your opponent expect you to call a raise with split 4's? I would put you on a highish pocket pair, three flush, or maybe AK in the pocket. I would tend to put him on those types of hands also, but the odds of a pair of 3's would be higher, since some people become more aggressive defending their blinds/bring in.
When you pair you 4's he probably figures you for, at best two pairs with the 4's. I would guess that he has two pair on 4th or possibly the trips he is representing. I dont like being in this position with all of my strength on the board. When he calls you check raise I would be nervous. The straight draw certainly helps, but I cant imagine you folded a winner on the river.
What kind of player did he turn out to be? Was he a maniac who would run the whole way with the naked pr of 3's, figuring he would out aggressive you? or did he turn out to be solid?
I too would be interested to hear what higher limit players have to say, since I think they are two totally different worlds.
Todd
I would question your calling on 3rd, that is a pretty weak hand at any limit. I am usually happy when other players call my raises with that type of hand. Also I think you played over-aggressively on 5th and 6th. Perhaps trying to steal by check-raising with a double size bet on 4th was OK, but when you got called it was probably time to give it up. More likely I would have bet out the 30$ on 4th then folded if raised. Continuing to bet all the way when you have already had your check-raise called was a waste as you probably had little chance of making your opponent fold, thus eliminating one of your reasons for betting.
I think we all (except for maxratio who maybe would want to defend himself) agree that 3-4-5 offsuit is a terrible hand and should not rarely be played for the bring-in and a raise no matter how live the straight cards are. But honestly, I can't say I've never played such a hand.
The play on 4th street i think also was poor. The bring in could reasonably (and fairly probably) have called with a pair of threes, and would have been correct in doing so with an Ace Kicker, and thus when he paired his doorcard, I think that you have a clear fold, knowing nothing else about this player. However, now and again, it doesn't hurt to try a play. They enhance your image and sometimes even work!
I disagree with Dave in Cali about the next bet. I think you have a clear bet here: the pot is laying you six to one, and the chances of making a straight on the next card are better than that--not even counting the fact that perhaps the threes would fold here--maybe he didn't have a hand, and had caught bad, or maybe he would be capable of making a bad fold...we know nothing about this player. But I think you must bet on fifth.
The sixth street bet was poor, as clearly you were going to be called here, and checking might have gotten you a free card, but since you did bet on sixth and got called, I think you must bet the river. You are getting ten to one odds for this bet, and the chances that this player was on some sort of busted draw and would fold might have been better than that. By checking to him, you allowed him to take those odds.
But you would have been better off not limping in with this hand in the first place.
He checkraised on 4th to get the King out. He limped on 3rd because his hand was totally live, and he called the raise for this reason, and because he was getting almost 6-1, with two callers.
Would I limp in? Yes
"The King is a fairly solid, conservative player who would attempt to steal on 3rd street but would shut down quickly if called"
Two people already called so it is unlikely that he is stealing. Even if he is he still has a much better hand than you do. There must be a better apportunity. Becides you don't even have a two flush which I think is important here.
Would I call a bet from the king here? No.
Fourth street. I think I would have to be there. I would tend towards betting and folding or even checking and folding. If I was sure the player with 3's started with a 3 flush or some other junk(no pair) and there was a good chance I could make the king fold then I would go for the checkraise.
Fifth street I think not to bet is a crime.
Sixth street I don't think matters much what you do
Checking and folding looks good to me here.
I would probably not have played 345 rainbow in such early pos since the 15-30 game at Taj too many early raises. You should have smelled the raise from the King. Once you have 1 bet in, it might be OK to call, but you really need a good match.
On 4th st. when you and 3 paired door cards, it was time to think about hitting the road. I would not have check raised. I might have bet or check called. What did the raise accomplish? Did you expect to get rid of the other paired door card. That even looked dangerous to the king. Paired door cards smell like trips too often.
What would have done if the King bet? If the King check raised? If the 3 check raised?
There's a lot of money in the pot by now. Now you get the 6 so you are stuck. My guess is 2 pr higher than your could be even if you paired that is why he paid 2 bets to stay. Tossing it at the river saved you money.
You were getting 10-1 on a river bet (that he folds), 6-1 if he raises (with a bluff). I think he could have started with a high three flush around 16% of the time . A borderline river bet, and a real sobbing call if he raises, but against an unknown I'd grit my teeth and do it. If this exact same situation was in a 30-60 game, I'd bet-call w/o hesitation.
I wouldn't call a raise on the river, but I'm afraid not betting the river is a loser because it offers the other player a chance to steal. Having bet and played strongly all the way, strongly representing three fours (with the check-raise and successive bets on fifth and sixth), the worst possibility is a call, as a raise would clearly indicate a full-house or a maniac, but a bet might get two low pair to fold.
By representing such a strong hand I think you've stopped a bluff and thus, per Sklansky's theory of poker, you can safely fold against a raise on the river.
You have a pair of fours.
Max:
Difficult for me to provide much analysis bucko because I would have mucked those rags.
Irish Mike
Since in a good loose Omaha8 game you will (almost?) always be drawing to the nuts, is there ever a time when you want to "limit the field" preflop?
As a very contrived example, assume that almost everyone will call for no raise preflop, but a significant proportion will fold for a raise, say the weaker 50%. My intuition says that you are mostly trying to drive out hands that might make weird full houses that would beat your flushes or straights. Is this right?
Also, I recently sat in a very loose passive 5-10 omaha game, with 7-8 players seeing the flop every time, no preflop raising and in fact no raising at all except in very rare circumstances. Sounds great, but I played for about 2 hours and couldn't take down even half a pot. Is this within statistical likelyhood, or could I be playing too tight? I am ordering Ray Zee's hilo-split book, but any info would be appreciated.
DeadBart
In very loose games you never raise to limit the field but rather only to get more money in the pot. In tighter games the play may be right especially with hands like AA49 or A4KQ.
its hard to play too tight when everyone sees the flop. its also not unusual not to win a pot in 2 hours in such a game. that may easily be only 30 hands dealt.
This topic comes up frequently in Om/8 threads, and it always serves to validate my own tight (but selectively agressive) play. I've occasionally sat 2 or 3 hours without entering a non-blind hand when the cards are running poorly. At the lower limits it takes an almost superhuman patience, not at all made easier with berating by the semi-maniacs who seemingly consider any 4 cards to be adequate starting hands. As suggested above, pre-flop raising in loose games makes sense only in attempt to increase pot size. Even then it sometimes blows up, when your raise with A23K suited gets beat on the river with a medium sized gut-shot straight or whatever.
On a related topic, I've never understood why in a tight game, one would want to raise pre-flop in early position with an excellent hand such as AA24 double suited. If the object is to keep more players in the pot, why should one raise and risk having them fold? And what hands would one hope to be folded if one raises with hands like A3JK? Certainly the A2's and strong high hands are not going to be intimidated. I assume it would be other A3's, A4's, and weaker highs who might muck? Frankly I've played in very few tight Om/8 games, so I've never had the opportunity to ply that strategy. I will try it when I move up in limits. My guess is that it gets tighter at 10-20 with kill, and up.
Doc, If it's a tight O/8 game, then raising might knock out all but the strongest high hands (letting your A's win high w/o improving) and the weak A2's (those with nothing else that will try to sneak in for cheap bet to see flop). Why let their weak hand split half the pot with your stronger low hand (stronger because of high outs)?
If the raising doesn't do this, then game isn't as tight as you may think it is...
I don't think it's unusual at all to go for several hours without playing a hand in either O8 or Stud8. Ray's right, it's not that many hands. The 15-30 O8 at Bellagio can be very loose; also the 30-60 half O8/Stud8. In LV, I think the higher you go, the looser the split games.
I find that Omaha hi/low split can be one of the most boring games to play, because you can sit for longer than two hours and not get a single hand that is playable after the flop.
I also found that playing it when I played correctly and without trying anything funny, a hand would come along and that one hand would turn me into a winner for a five to six hour session, even if I only got three quarters of the pot.
In an early position, I found that some raises to limit the field would work, but I would only try them with big pairs (pretty much aces), or hands made up of exclusively high cards like KKQJ.
A better example is getting a flop of 10c,9c,6s and you hold KdKh7d8h. This hand is a clear muck even in a 5-10 game if there's multiway action on the flop.
I keep posting these NL Mexican Stud game reports trying to drum up some interest in the game. It is usually only a $100 buy-in and the games are always action packed. The drop is $3.00 per hand and the food is comped when you are playing. This is an exciting way to get your feet wet trying big bet poker, or a way to get in a game if you have played NL and would like to play some more. After you are familiar with the game and have confidence in your ability, there is usually a $500 buy-in, $5.00 ante game that attracts some of the bigger players. Even in the small game, a win or loss of $1,000 isn't unusual. The game can be very exciting with that Joker present and there is enough strategy present to satisfy the most demanding tastes.
It's Friday nite and Big John is sitting in the #2 seat waiting for the first hand of NL Mexican Stud to be dealt. Button is in seat #1 to start the game and first card off the deck to me is the Ad. I bring it in for the mandatory $5.00 and get 4 callers. I look at my hole card and it is the 5d which I now turn face up. I bet $15.00 without looking at my new down card as I am high on the board, seat #3 calls with K-3 showing and seat #4 raises an additional $30 with 5-Qo up. Seat #6 folds and I look at my hole card and see ***Joker***. Oh happy days!!! I call the $30.00 and get the hoped for overcall from seat #3. I take the next card up, a J, seat #3 takes his up, an A, and seat #4 turns up another 5, giving him 5-5-Q and takes a down card. Seat #4 checks without looking and I bet all in with my remaining money. ( We all had bought in for the $100 minimum which is fairly standard practice in a new game of NL Mexican Stud) I get called by #3 and #4. I turn up my Joker and take the last card down. Seat #3 turns up his K, giving him K-K-A-3, and seat#4 turns up a J, giving him 5-Q-5-J. I catch a 4, #3 catches a 3 to give him two pair and the winner and seat #4 throws away without showing.
Second hand, freshly reloaded with another $100. I am the button and get K up and A in hole. Seat #4 has a 6, seat #5 a 7 and seat #7 is the bring in with a Joker up which is good for aces straights and flushes when dealt up. Seat #7 bets the $5, I make it $15 and seat #4 calls, Seat # 5 calls, and seat #7 calls the $10 raise. I turn up my A, seat #4 turns up a 6 for 6-6, seat #5 shows a 4 for 7-4o, and seat #7 turns up a J for *Bug*-J. Seat #4 bets $15 without looking, seat $5 folds, and seat #7 raises it $35.00, to $50.00 straight after looking at his hole card. I look at my hole card and see an A, giving me A-A-K, And I move all in for $35.00 more. Seat #4 folds and seat #7 calls, turning up a J for J-J-*Bug*. I turn up my A-A-K and get another A for my 4th street card. Seat #7 turns over a 2 and conceded the pot without either of us taking our final card.
Lose one, win one, up about $60.00. This was a fast paced game and I played in it for about three hours. When all the smoke had cleared, I was down $400.00, but had a lot of situations where I was drawn out on when the money was all in. Twice I lost on the river when the pot was over $800, and the final hand cost me $175.00 when my two pair on 4th street was beaten by a 5th street second pair. His only live cards were two J's and he caught one of them. I wish the games would start earlier than about 6:00 P.M. on Fridays. By the time the game gets going I only have about three or four hours of play in me before I start getting tired. I am not really able to take an afternoon nap or else I'd certainly be doing that. I also play tennis every Saturday morning at 6:30, and that means I need to get my rest. My tennis opponent drives 65 miles to come and play me and he expects me to be fresh enough to put up a token battle. (Today: He whipped me 6-2, 7-5, 6-3. I had him down 5-2 in the second when he turned it up a couple notches. I've gotta shed about 60 more lbs. and get down to a svelte 230)
Come on down to the Bicycle Club and spend some time playing or watching the NL Mexican Stud. I don't have any affiliation with the Bicycle Club other than being a customer.
ill get down this winter some time and fleece all you suckers in california. poor John never gets to experience what its like to suck out on anyone cause he always has the best hand. it feels real good ol buddy. when i get there im gonna make you give me a crash course on the fine points of mex.stud.
Good idea Ray, from the sound of John's post he's a real winner!
Vince
Ray,
Come on down! Maybe, after you bust me you will give me a job as your cabin boy at your log-mansion in Montana. I see myself as a Hip-Sing type, a man who toiled selflessly for years on the Ponderosa for the Cartrights and really only came into his own when all of them died suddenly of a mysterious food poisoning and he inherited both the ranch and their vast herd. BTW, you do like mushroom omelet don't you?
As to never having sucked out on anyone, you should have seen me trying last night. To be charitable of my play I will say that everyone has a poor performance once in awhile. I had one last night. I really would love to have you sit in the game so I would get a chance to see your eyes glaze over at some of the plays that are made. I made such a major financial donation to the game this weekend that the players have now all accepted me as one of them, and refer to me affectionately as "EL GRINGO MUY ESTUPIDO". I'm pretty sure that means "The American Poker Professional", but I don't really speak spanish. Get into the game Ray, and you too might earn a distinguished nickname.
once i learned you didnt speak spanish i staked them all against you. it is real easy money the only problem is i dont speak it either and cant get a fair count on the money. please supply me with your results so i can get my books in order.
Ray,
I couldn't help but notice there was no mention of my request to become your house servant at the log-mansion in Montana. Rest assured that, as my employer, I'd feel honor bound to share the intimate secrets of my wins and losses, including accurate accountings of their numerical values. Were you also responsible for my large losses at the Aviation Club in Paris?
Now that I think about it, several of them "Frogs" kept talking about you. "Zee taxi", "Zee restaurant", "Zee damn unlucky cards" I guess I should have known or, at least suspected, that it was you financing that group against me. Is there no place I can go to escape your wrath at my having taken over your place as the "sexist man in poker"?
Hey Big John,
I have a request that you write a short Essay on the Rules of Mexican Stud. I'm sure 2+2 will post it on the Essay page where it won't get Archived. I take it that it is played like 5-stud but you get to Roll your down card on 3rd street? There is also a bug that counts as an Ace or to complete a Straight or flush draw?
Thanks, CV
John,
you are very misinformed. in montana a log mansion is an 8 by 10 storage shed. the very wealthy(those that earn over 1200 dollars a year) live in broken down trailers. right now im cutting an old school bus in half so i can say i have a two bedroom home. if you have trouble with the spanish how on earth can you survive the french. when i played there i had an interperter with me and they didnt know she spoke french and it was fun finding out some things they said that they thought i didnt understand.
Ray,
Why don't you cut it into three sections? That way you'd have a rental unit in addition to having one of the swankier Montana abodes. I spent a little time in Kalispell one Christmas and was quite impressed with some of the log buildings outside of town. The steak was a new experiece for a city dweller like me. Imagine actually being able to actually taste and feel the texture of meat on your tongue. Now that I'm getting on up there in years it is nice to know that there is still a place a man can go to live out his remaining days on a retirement of $252.00 per month.
Another advantage would be that my moving from California to Montana would raise the mean IQ of both states.
The more I look at this the more I come to the conclusion that the books are full of it. That's why the numbers, meaning the exact, clearly stated, comprehensive, statistical chances of winning each hand, are never given. If they were given, and I intend to publish them, one would find that on third street a live draw has at least as much a chance of winning as does the high pair. Here is my logic.
It doesn't matter whether you get players out of the game or not; the live draw will call you to the river. Inevitably, she will hit that flush or inside straight on the river. Your aces-up will then lose, even if you and she are the only players left in the pot. The fact that the other players left the pot doesn't make any difference. You might as well be playing against seven players. Here's why.
In any hand, one out of eight players has a good chance of making a draw. The only reason the other players fold is because their hands weren't that one potential drawing hand. Just because six players fold doesn't change the numbers. The one player who stayed in is that one player out of the eight who has the chance to make a draw. Taking this as a given, your strategy should be either not to play at all, because its a game of chance, or to call or fold until you get nuts.
Essentually, the game boils down to this: everyone is dealt their cards. The people who think they have the best hand on the table bet. Those who have a live draw, or think their hand may be the best but aren't sure, call. People fold as it becomes clear they do not have the best hand or their draw is either dead or didn't go anywhere. They fold because the person who has the best hand or thinks she has the best hand keeps betting. In the end, the last card is dealt. The players bet based on the percieved strength of their hands; or, in the case of a bluff, on the percieved weakness of the other player's hands. Players call if they think they have a chance of winning and fold if they don't. The best hand wins. That's it.
A players strategy should be to fold unless he thinks he has the best hand, call until it's clear he doesn't have the best hand or his draw dies, and bluff if he appears strong and the other players appear weak. That's 7CS strategy in a nutshell.
I think it goes against the strategy outlined in the books. According to this strategy, the correct strategy is to call and check more often than bet. You only bet if you think you have the best hand. Even then you may not bet, because the draw is just going to call. If you bet, you will be betting into that draw that has at least as much a chance of winning as aces-up.
The books are a come on. It's a toss up as to whether you will win or not no matter how you bet. If you can read minds, this is a good game for you. If not, get out now!
Please, no smart remarks. They are unhelpful and only show that you choose to attack the messager, because you can't successfully attack the message.
you're not seeing the whole complexity of the game. the line between hand and draw is not always so clear. and as you gain information during the hand it may be that there is no draw out there. all the random variables are dependent. it is not just each draw against the best made hand. the best hand can usually improve. i would guess that this kind of thinking would work for lowball. but 7cs is much more complicated.
i hope that i did not say anything intelligent, or i would have broken you explicit guidelines.
scott
you are right and we have been selling books that have no value to all. people cannot improve their games with the help in the books. now thats all over now i have to go to alaska and sell some ice.