![[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.
No need to get offended. Either this is an admission or it's crap. If it's an admission, I commend you for your honesty. If it's not, it's doesn't help me. I guess you guys won't say anything unless it nets you a buck.
how could you tell him the truth? now everyone knows. and i never got a chance to sell any books. i had it all worked out, too. way to go, ray. just go ahead and spoil my future. and since the tables can't be beat, i am going to have to get a real job. even though you destroyed my dreams, i wish you good luck in alaska.
scott
"Please, no smart remarks."
Ramblin Rose!
Sorry!
Vince.
BTW - It's hard not to make smart remarks to someone that makes the following type of statements:
"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!"
Seem, a person with a mindset like this is interested in a one way discussion only. His way!
That's incorrect Vince. I'm simply making a strong statement. I'm being clear and not fuzzy. I'm simply saying what I mean. It's to bad that some people can't handle that. Maybe they are not used to it. In sum, I am simply being direct.
This is not the first time Ray has acted like this. It's not hard to repond respectfully. My statements were not disrespectfull. They were simply "to the point."
The truth is he doesn't like what I'm saying, especially on this board. Of course he wants to sell books; the only way he can refute what I'm saying is to be sarcastic and attack me rather than the message.
He can't touch the message.
Now I'm being direct again. Let him respond with a thoughtful answer if he can. I havn't seen him do it once, and, frankly, it makes me angry when he responds like that. He wants merely to silence me, and that's the only way he knows how. But I don't silence easily. That's the message he is sending. I wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt as this is the second time he's made such remark. This time I specifically asked him not to respond like that, but he did. Perhaps my comment "no smart remarks" made him think that if he made one I would back away hurt or something. It's sad when it's the very authors who need a lesson in message board etiquette.
I'm disappointed in his response. I had hoped he would say something helpful.
i don't think he was concerned with you. i think he wanted to make us laugh. and he did. well done, ray.
scott
Laugh about what? And why laugh rather than respond?
you want a serious response? there are scores of problems with your strategy, some more subtle than others. here is one of the most blatant. how do you know you have the best hand?
think. how would you play against a table of people playing with your strategy? you should be able to discover the problems yourself.
why laugh? it heals the soul and frees the mind.
scott
Rich P:
I've read your post and my conclusion is that you are either bored, and wrote this nonsense to initiate an argument or, you know nothing about 7 card stud and actually believe its true. In either case, a factual response is a waste of time.
Irish Mike
The books are quite helpful. Math and Psyc do play a part. There a lot of variables that change with every card shown. The more you read, the more you play, the better you should get. Your tirade hints of some serious losses. I suspect you HAVE read some books and ether did not understand what they said or did not play correctly. It sounds like a vintage year for sour grapes
Thanks for your reply Ratso. It is one of the very few that have been at all helpful. Apparently what I wrote came off as very strong. I am a powerful writer. That's what being a lawyer does to you.
I do understand the books. I just don't think that anyone's first three cards tells them anything about what they will get in the next five. No hand is safe. I am, however, expressing experience. That experience tells me that 7CS ends up being merely a seven card game. While there's strategy to it, in the end its the best hand that wins. People have lucky streaks and unlucky streaks. When they are lucky they think it's their skill.
Has anyone ever won the world series of poker twice?
Again, thanks for your response. I'm sorry if I came off sour. It's just that when I set out to make a point, I make it; and many people aren't use to that kind of direct and powerful writing.
Your response was a bit sour, but your alibi of being an lawyer is accepted. I found that you can always tell a lawyer, but you can't tell him much.
Some of my best friends are lawyers (PHILA AND N JERSEY). I was a RA in a college dorm full of lawyers. I love to argue poker with them and play poker with them. I usually take their money and lived off them in college, but they don't care. They just bill clients more. I like that attitude. As far as skill level, they fall into a somewhat normal distrubition...some good some bad (at poker).
7CS does have strategy as a component especially at mid and higher limits. Actually, even in low limits, I think the approach is to trap, so you have to have a feel for what the other's have. I believe that Holdem has more strategy fro 2 reasons, position being the most important and community cards next.
Give it a chance Try using Sklansky's green book as a guide and run some simple 7CS game (like Bicycle, iPoker or Turbo) practicing his advice. I bet you'll show a + almost all the time. Play as if you ar at a live game. I do not know the guys who write the books and never converse with them, but the books are good and 7CD is a nice game.
Rich,
I think I may have found one of the leaks in your 7CS game. On third street there are only 4 cards left to come, not five as you stated above. I don't play much 7 or 8 card stud, but not getting that extra eighth card might make people less likely to draw out on you. Hope this helps. ;-)
Nice try Irish Mike.
Rich P.,
Well I don't know about "strong writing" and trust me, I know what IRAC, Shepards and Pennoyer v. Neff are.
That having been said let's move on.
Your statement (paraphrased) that your first three cards tells you nothing about the next 4 at first blush seems true. But it is false...you, at the very least, cannot get those exact three cards! Nor any others on the board.
Knowing that, you now know that the probabilities of what you could recieve in the future have changed. This changes your estimate of the situation and as a result, your strategy. (or perhaps tactics)
To make an attempted legal parallel, how would you change your legal arguments to an all jewish jury vrs. a muslim one? The probability of certain arguments holding would change wouldn't they?
Now to continue. Yes it is important to know whether your opponent is on a draw this very hand (vrs. say a pair). But this may not be dicernable. Part of the game.
However, do some math or get a simulator. You will find many made hands (say a pair of aces) have a mthematical edge of winning of many trials against drawing hands (say a 3 or 4 flush). I've done it and I know it is true.
This is where money management enters the picture and the term +EV.
If I recall correctly a pair is about a .55 favorite over a 4 flush. Also a 4 flush on fourth fills slightly less than half the time.
So the strategy for the pair guy is to try and get heads up with the drawer. This accomplishes 2 things. Gives the pair guy more chance to win...ruins the pot odds of the drawer. If you successfully go heads up against a 3 flush with a pair I suspect you will win much more often and walk with more of the money. Consult a good simulation or do some basic math.
Now for the drawing guy the strategy is to try and have at least the required pot odds to has a +EV. Since you expect NOT to make your draw the majority of the time, the times you do must cover for the times you don't...enter pot odds math...and +EV calculations.
All that having been said...the house rake is probably your worst problem if you play low limits.
And yes the inherent fluctuations in the game mean you will get zapped, often. McEnvoy, a leading tournament player wrote in Poker Digest that 6 month losing streaks are not uncommon and that he personally had spells of 2 years of not making money on the tournament circuit...which he claims is "streakier".
Now as to the books. Unfortunate truth is that they DO give a lot good food for thought. However, and I do speak from the experience of having read most all the popular titles...and then gone down to the Mirage, Bellagio, MGM et. al. and tried it, THEY ARE NOT A PERSONAL EXCALIBUR FOR PROFITS on a consistent basis.
Or as a counselor once said to me prior to going to Law School..."A JD is not a license to print money at this point in time" (after the post LA-Law explosion in interest in the legal field).
Of course if your JD came from the right school...it probably still is a license to print money. Can you say "good ole boys club"?
But then that would be a start of whole critique of the hierachies in the legal field and such questions as..."If the bar exam is the determination of what a lawyer must know...why am I forced to pay for a 3 year education before I can take it?"
Can you say "trade protection" and "guild"
Or was it, "The aristocracy of America sits on the judicial bench and bar"? (Alexis De Toqueville...Democracy in America...1835).
And all of that is before I even begin to discuss whether or not any particular law is legitimate at all.
Sincerely, Frank
A team of scientists were embarking on a series of live subject trials for a new Aids vaccine. The problem was that half the scientists wanted to do their testing on monkeys and the other half wanted to do it on humans. The side that preferred experimenting on monkees argued that giving Aids to humans wasn't necessary at this stage in the testing and that, regrettable as it was, the pain and suffering entailed in the testing was better suited to a lesser species than man. The scientists in favor of human testing countered by stating they were planning on only using lawyers anyway, and they could show that the world had a surplus of them anyway. A vote was taken and the group voted to use humans as subjects by a margin of 42-21. When asked about the reasons that lawyers were selected over monkees, the chairman of the scientific group cited three main concerns.
1. The group knew that monkees could be endearing and some felt that they might form emotional attachments with them that could affect their detached scientific objectivity. 2. Monkees would have to be shipped in from all over the world to get a good cross sampling of the entire monkee population, while lawyers were a totally heterogeneous group already. 3. And this was the important and decisive reason; Sodomy is an unnatural act to a monkee, it was feared that the training costs alone would exceed their total research grant.
Hey Big John,
Good one...by the way I'm not a lawyer. I'm a systems analyst who just happened to go to law school while looking for a new career.
My favorite is :
How do yo tell the difference between a road killed lawyer and a skunk?
The skid marks are in front of the skunk.
:-)
By the way, I'm not sure that the world doesn't have more to fear out of those who mess around with economic systems in one way or another.
Rich P.,
Well I don't know about "strong writing" and trust me, I know what IRAC, Shepards and Pennoyer v. Neff are.
That having been said let's move on.
Your statement (paraphrased) that your first three cards tells you nothing about the next 4 at first blush seems true. But it is false...you, at the very least, cannot get those exact three cards! Nor any others on the board.
Knowing that, you now know that the probabilities of what you could recieve in the future have changed. This changes your estimate of the situation and as a result, your strategy. (or perhaps tactics)
To make an attempted legal parallel, how would you change your legal arguments to an all jewish jury vrs. a muslim one? The probability of certain arguments holding would change wouldn't they?
Now to continue. Yes it is important to know whether your opponent is on a draw this very hand (vrs. say a pair). But this may not be dicernable. Part of the game.
However, do some math or get a simulator. You will find many made hands (say a pair of aces) have a mthematical edge of winning of many trials against drawing hands (say a 3 or 4 flush). I've done it and I know it is true.
This is where money management enters the picture and the term +EV.
If I recall correctly a pair is about a .55 favorite over a 4 flush. Also a 4 flush on fourth fills slightly less than half the time.
So the strategy for the pair guy is to try and get heads up with the drawer. This accomplishes 2 things. Gives the pair guy more chance to win...ruins the pot odds of the drawer. If you successfully go heads up against a 3 flush with a pair I suspect you will win much more often and walk with more of the money. Consult a good simulation or do some basic math.
Now for the drawing guy the strategy is to try and have at least the required pot odds to has a +EV. Since you expect NOT to make your draw the majority of the time, the times you do must cover for the times you don't...enter pot odds math...and +EV calculations.
All that having been said...the house rake is probably your worst problem if you play low limits.
And yes the inherent fluctuations in the game mean you will get zapped, often. McEnvoy, a leading tournament player wrote in Poker Digest that 6 month losing streaks are not uncommon and that he personally had spells of 2 years of not making money on the tournament circuit...which he claims is "streakier".
Now as to the books. Unfortunate truth is that they DO give a lot good food for thought. However, and I do speak from the experience of having read most all the popular titles...and then gone down to the Mirage, Bellagio, MGM et. al. and tried it, THEY ARE NOT A PERSONAL EXCALIBUR FOR PROFITS on a consistent basis.
Or as a counselor once said to me prior to going to Law School..."A JD is not a license to print money at this point in time" (after the post LA-Law explosion in interest in the legal field).
Of course if your JD came from the right school...it probably still is a license to print money. Can you say "good ole boys club"?
But then that would be a start of whole critique of the hierachies in the legal field and such questions as..."If the bar exam is the determination of what a lawyer must know...why am I forced to pay for a 3 year education before I can take it?"
Can you say "trade protection" and "guild". Oh yeah I know, consumer protection etc. etc...Should the law be that complex? And don't tell me civil isn't all about money. I'd venture to say the statistics of a card deck or more even handed than some aspects of law...as all law is basically opinions backed by force.
Or was it, "The aristocracy of America sits on the judicial bench and bar"? (Alexis De Toqueville...Democracy in America...1835).
And all of that is before I even begin to discuss whether or not any particular law is legitimate at all.
Sincerely, Frank
Rich,
I thought that I wasdone with this thread but you interest me. I am not a lawyer nor am I college educated. So if it is an educated person that you seek to answer your query you must click off of this response.
I'm gonna "tell it like it is". 7 Card Stud is a game of skill. It is a game of decisions. Each street requires a decision by the player. In 7cs as in other poker variants there are multiple strategies and tactics that can be applied in various situations. Selection and application of the appropriate strategy and/or tactic for the current situation requires skillfull evaluation of the situation. It goes beyond this simple explanation and right now I don't have time to explain further. But suffice it to say that third street is perhaps the most important decision point in 7 CS. My experience has proven this to me. Being a lawyer you must understand the importance of having a good strategy when deciding how to approach winning a case. If you understand that there are different tactics that one must chose from when making a decision you must also understand that each tactic has a different result. Ie. betting has a different result than checking. When you bet you ensure more money goes in the pot. When you check you are not sure if more money will go into the pot. Obviously each action has other results but you can see from this simple example that your actions affect the results of the game. Well though out applied actions will give you an advantage over the uninformed. If that were not the case we wouldnt need law schools.
Vince
Rich - You write as if you have discovered the keys to the universe. There is a probability concept that explains what you are talking about. It is called the "principle of restricted choice." In the context of a poker hand, it simply says, "the BEST hand [not a random hand] will stay in against you."
Suppose you are playing in a game so loose that anyone holding any ace will stay in. (This is perhaps better in low-limit hold'em, but this is stud ... so be it. ) Suppose you start with (J2) J in Stud, call, and wind up against one opponent with a Q up. Then he catches an Ace and bets. Of course you cannot assume he has an Ace under, but his probability of having it is much greater.
PS - If you wind up playing a hand against one single player who is drawing to a straight or flush, you have a tremendous advantage ... don't complain about it.
Dick
Ummmm... Wow... Come play at my house. Free dinner.
Max
Greetings:
During some recent poker action, I came across two situations where I held 4 to a flush after four cards, only to be looking across at, in one case an ace-king suited with no 3rd round raise, and in the other case a 7-8 suited after my third round raise. I often like to raise 3rd round with a low card down, two face in the hole-3 flush. If I recall MY flush was headed queen-ten in the first scenario and Ace-King in the second.
Now, yes I've already spent my post game hours reviewing both hands. And to note, my game was 1-4 stud.
Against the Ace-King, because the individual did not raise on third, something he would normally do, I discounted a pair and gave him the benefit of the doubt, flush draw, at that point. He was betting to me as he should putting the pressure on, as I would also do. But here comes the trick, on the fifth card, he catches another King, and I catch a card giving me a draw to an inside straight.
Now, like I said, he had some scary show cards, and he knows I'm pretty good, but I know that many times at these limits, players will play with "lesser" starting cards. At this point, I'm real tempted to let my hand go, because I know this hand is going to cost me 12$ more to see all seven. If that paired door been lower, I would have put him on for trips and let it go, but I had a feeling my hand could still have a chance.
Well, sixth street comes and two blanks fall, and then the seventh comes of which I don't get my flush filled, but instead I finish my queen high straight. He bets, I call, and then he proceeds to turn over his first 6 cards giving him two pair and an insight straight draw; his seventh card fills his Ace high straight.
In retrospect, and normally I play "defense" very well, I would not give those kind of cards any chance to get my money. But at the same time in low limit stud, I often will give my opponents credit for better cards than they actually have and hence was a little leery of letting go a 4 flush. But was it, as well, stupid to be even going after a lower straight, of which I eventually lost with? Was it double ignorance; a lower flush draw and a lower straight draw, not to mention the paired door card?
In the second case, the suited connectors after fourth street can often be very tricky, especially when your holding a big pair and you don't know which way your opponent is going, via straight or flush. But since I already had a 4-flush going with the Ace-King in the hole, I felt pretty confident I could carry either a flush contest or a two-pair contest. And remember, I raised after the third round. In this hand, I'm the aggressor, with pressure in the first two rounds, and the opponent still there, I put him on for the flush draw.
Well, on fifth and sixth street retrospectively, he catches another 7 and 8 giving, the 8 pairing the door card. But again, with my early heat, I still figured the two pair to be impotent for at that point I had some pair on the board, had my overcards, and still had my flush draw.
My opponent bets after the seventh card, I get nothing and fold already low, and he proceeds to turn over his full house, completed on the 6th street when the second 8 fell. This guy is actually one of the best players where I play, though his age is starting to show. I was a little surprised he ran through my 3rd and 4th round heat with just a pair of eights, but he did, though I think most times he wouldn't. Now that I think about it, he really doesn't beat me that much at all. Anyway, the final question is with the two-pair on the board after 6th street, do you think I should've saved my 6th and 7th street bets, or was I right to go for the flush?
Thanks for the input,
Joe
the pot would have to be rather large to play against 2 pair on board. but if your draw is mostly live i would not often fold before that.
scott
Is Omaha High Only beatable in a 10/20 limit game? I've heard this game is unbeatable unless playing in a no-limit tournament, so i just wanted to see what the posters of this forum have to say.
Lars
i don't know omaha and what i do know is o8, so i can't help you. but, i was wondering, do you know zack de la rocha? rage is great.
scott
Never met him nor Lars Ulrich either! :)
sure its beatable and imho i think its one of the easiest games to beat with proper play. also it gets the worst players and not many of the best.
Your first three cards tell you nothing about what your next five cards will be, and even less about what the other players cards will be. You may be able to watch the other players gain or lose strenght, but you know nothing about what they have in the hole and, therefore, nothing about what they may really have beyond what's showing. You have very little basis upon which to play, and it all comes down to what you pull, and what the other players pull, five cards down the line. Does anyone have a succinct respond?
yeah, i got a succint response. go talk to the guys at rec.gambling.poker. they love talking about this kind of thing.
here's another one. you want to play? i'm in ny. anytime. email me.
scott
Are you playing 8-card stud, Rich?
Well Rich,
Scott and Dave L's irreverent responses put aside, you are somewhat right and wrong.
By astutely watching the board you can rule out possibilities. For example, if 3 two's are deal across the board, none of the holders of those two's can have trips can they? And no one can have 3 two's, can they?
So really, there is much one can discern from the board.
However it is not perfect because, as you state, there are two to three cards in every hand that are not seen.
That gap can be closed some by watching the playing habits of your opponents. However that changes over time and is thus, only partially reliable.
But then, it is also your strength. Think about it...your most profitable hands are those that are the least readable. Example...rolled up trips that become qauds on the river.
Now I can't recommend with a clean conscience that anyone pick this game up, but there is more information available than you may be using.
"Your first three cards tell you nothing about what your next five cards will be, and even less about what the other players cards will be. "
That's your game screw 7CS it's for amateurs!!! Turn over one card at a time and if you beat what's on the booard BET IT UP!!!!
Good Luck With Your New Found Game!!!!
Peek A Boo Feen
your first 3 cards tell what cards others cannot have, and you can estimate what others might or might not be drawing to. I'll skip the examples since they are so easy. Seriously, get a deck of cards and deal hands out. See if the 1st 3 cards give you any "hint".
Perhaps "See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Fear No Evil" would be a better game see Big John for instructions on how to play. (He specializes in mushrooms, monkees and foreign languages) And multicultural card games.
honorable paul
OK, I'll try for a succinct response, but I may be wrong.
You're a smart guy who thinks he's even smarter than he is. You also know very little about poker, but figure that it's such a simple game, you can still easily beat your less intelligent friends. Finally, in a home game with these lesser friends, you were the big loser, and have now decided that it's because poker is all just luck, not skill and/or intelligence.
How'd I do?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Succinct? Hmm. How about "You're wrong." How'd I do?
Playing in a very tight 10-20 7CS game. I have trip deuces and bring it in for $3. Player UTG has King and raises.Everbody folds and I call(One of his Kings is dead). 4th street, King still high and bets. I call. 5th street I get and Ace. Although this was a very aggressive player I'm afraid to check so I bet. King calls. 6th street, I get a deuce, pairing my doorcard and giving me quads. I bet, he folds. He then says "thanks for betting the Ace, I had Kings up and would have lost a lot more money". He didn't know I had quads (never showed them) but read me for Aces up. Is he right? Should I have continued to slowplay until 6th Street?
Similar thing happened to me. I did not bet the ace, and the guy folded saying "you must be trying to trap me. You called my king all the way. I figure you for aces then and now trips" Is he nuts? I never showed the quads.
I wouls have done just what you did. If you check; he checks
thats one of the reasons i dont slowplay much. you end up catching a scare card and they put you on this strong hand and kill your action. if you reraised going in he might have figured you for a draw or high pair and kept playing. if you mix up your game it wont be obvious that you could beat kings in three so you would get get action and most likely reraised again. 222 is not a good slowplay hand anyway. here is how the hand could go if you played it. raise reraise reaise call
4th street bet call
5th street you get the ace and bet, he raises thinking you may have queens in the hole and you call or reraise.
6th street you pair and bet he raises with kings up thinking you have queens up you then reraise. and he pays off on the end cause the pot is big.
of couse it would vary alot with your opponent but you can see how a much bigger pot can grow by playing your hand.
I certainly agree. I play the small trips as fast as fast can be. It pays in the long run and occasionally lets me steal a pot with a duce or 3 bring in and a pocket med pair, depending on who is still in the pot
You have a good imagination Ray. The action might very well go as you described in your game, but in order for it to go this way in a 10-20 game the guy would have to be a maniac.
Suppose you had two jacks in the holeand played it the same way. Now you would be thrilled he threw away the kings-up.
But I doubt that he really had kings up since it appears that you have deuces full and most players will call here with any two pair larger than your deuces. I suspect that he was not being completely truthful about his hand.
Ray Zee on (limit) Omaha High:
"sure its beatable and imho i think its one of the easiest games to beat with proper play. also it gets the worst players and not many of the best."
In pot-limit Omaha High, a tight-aggressive-solid approach gets the money. I play much tighter preflop than most players, but play aggressively once I've entered the hand. Position is huge in this game, and it's important to have all four cards connected.
Other than high pairs, when the money is deep I also play high or medium straight runs, or hands like As9s8d7d. (I avoid medium pairs; they lack nut potential, and often make expensive second-best hands.) The key is to have hands that can make the nuts with redraws.
Limit Omaha High is increasingly popular on the East Coast. I've seen very loose 10-20 Omaha High games in two cardrooms. But I'm not exactly sure how to modify pot-limit play for the limit form.
For one thing, while it's difficult to play too tight preflop in pot-limit Omaha, playing too tight in limit could be a serious mistake (due to the higher blind cost). Another thing is that you are much less able to protect a vulnerable hand, and so straight runs would go way down in value. In limit, you can't make hands like the ace-high flush draw fold, so it doesn't help as much to have non-nut redraws. Conversely, a suited ace (that becomes a 4-flush) or high pair (that becomes a set) can keep drawing in limit even when it's clear that someone has the straight (or flush in the set's case); those would go up in value.
In a loose Omaha High game, virtually all pots will be won by the best hand (which will usually be the absolute nuts). Due to this, even in a loose game there might be a limit to which hands become profitable. Which hands can ever be played other than high pairs?
As compared with holdem, how important are (1) position, (2) implied odds (i.e. getting in for one bet with a drawing hand even in a crowd) and (3) the number of players in the hand when deciding whether to play your hand?
In a post below Paul Feeney mentions 7CS No Peek. Unfortunately, in some of the home games I play in Night Baseball (7CS No Peek w/ 3's and 9's wild; 4's buy an additional card) is a crowd favorite. Yuck!
I can't think of one redeeming quality to either of these games. Is there any way to get an upper hand in these games, or is it all luck?
I have adopted the strategy that if I can see a good number of my cards quickly and cheaply I might stick around. However, that is inevitably rare when some doofus really takes a liking to his pair of Kings on the first three cards and starts maxing the bets. I will also play if I see no wilds in any of the hands and I have yet to see a majority of my cards.
Or should I just not play this stupid game, period?
Or should I just not play this stupid game, period?
yes
4-8 Dealer's Choice game, with choices of HE, Omaha/8, or Omaha. Game of choice is usually Omaha/8, but this hand was straight Omaha.
I am in cut-off seat with Ac-Qs-Jc-Ts. Two limpers to me, I raise. Button folds, but SB & BB both call, and limpers do so as well. Flop comes down Kc-Tc-3s. Full wrap straight to the nuts, nut (royal)flush draw, and 2nd pair. The sheep all check to me, I bet, they all call. Turn is 6h, a total blank. When checked to me again, I still bet out. They all call again. River card is another useless piece of crap, the 2D. When they all check for a third time, I bet one more time,figuring I cannot win a showdown, although I realized at the time there was only a miniscule chance they would all fold.
I almost pulled it off. The SB mucked, one of the limpers mucked out of turn, and I could see the 2nd limper was getting ready to pitch it, but the BB hesitated, and finally put in the final $8. His winning hand was K-9-8-5 rainbow, and his lonely pair of K's won the hand. I guess it was too much to expect that a player who would call a raise with that mess would fold at the end. My questions for the group are these:
1. Would you raise pre-flop with this hand? I felt the raise was warranted for value alone; never mind trying to push out the button and/or the blinds.
2. I can't see where anyone would argue with betting the flop. After the hand, I calculated that I had 21 outs as no one had flopped a set, or had so much as a Ten in their hands. Even ignoring the 3 T's, 18 outs is a lot.
3. What about the bet on the turn? I felt certain I was not running into any sort of check-raise, and although I had not yet made my hand, I wanted to get paid off if I hit. In retrospect, probably at least on e of the other hands was also drawing for Broadway, so I may have been splitting if I had made the straight.
3. Is the river bet totally futile, or worth the small chance that 4 limpers will fold?
Does this apply to other poker games, especially 7 stud?
I read about a play in a very old poker book that was called the Automatic Bluff. It was applied to Lowball. The situation being this, you are head to head with a player, you draw one card to 542A, and pull a 5. You always bet.
The logic was that you will almost never win if you do not bet, and since the chances of a lowball hand getting worse are great, you place the decision on whether to call on your opponent(who might have drawn paint or a pair as well). There were 3 rules that went along with this.
1) You have a bad enough hand that it almost assurably will not win. Mediocre hands(such as getting a Ten in lowball) he suggested should be check, called. 2) You must be heads up, as the chance of two players drawing bad is much less than 1. 3) The pot must provide the odds to make such a play. Betting $20 to win $40 would not be a good time to make this play.
Of course, opponent play also whould be taken into account.
Are there times when you can apply this rule to other games? Specifically 7 stud.
Wayne
I would think that this strategy would be less effective in 7CS because of your opponents exposed board.
Part of the example in lowball is that you are drawing to the nuts, yet wind up with a hand that may win head to head if you opponent draws worse.
A comparable example in stud would be that you are drawing to a high card flush, miss it, but pair one of your big cards. What you do with that big pair on 7th street is going to depend on your opponent, what he is showing, and how he bet it. I would then assess the odds that a bet would make him fold plus the odds that I could win outright in light of the pot odds I'm getting.
It would be the same situation in stud if you were on a draw, and you were fairly confident your opponent was on a draw. You hit a blank on the river--Betting is the best play IMO.
Tom D
To adapt this to 7stud, would it be correct to bet anytime you find yourself on the river, unable to beat your opponents board? This assumes you have judged that your opponent is capable of throwing away his hand and that the pot is large enough to justify a bet.
It seems to me that it would be a winning play because a fraction of the time your opponent will fold, and when he calls you end up advertising a loose playing style. Presumably, you played good poker to get to this point in the first place.
Wayne
I find this only works when you have been betting all along. If you have checked or shown weakness previously, they will call you. Remember, they always are looking for a reason to call. I can almost always squeeze a call from someone.
I would resist doing this too much, if you were going to do it. If you had a good read on a player and you knew that all of his strength was on the board then I might makea play for it.
If he seems to be on a draw, and checks to you on the river, after betting into you during the hand, and you are confident he is not check raising you it may be correct to bet. But as you said, he has to be good enough to fold a pair or two. Not too many people in 1-3 stud do that. The limit is just too low.
Todd
If I do this maneuver, I do not want him to call at all. I think that even if he checks the river, I will have to bet unless I think he has me beat. If he checks and I feel I might make him fold by the way I place my final bet, I will. It is an exercise in human behavior. As I noted before,I can usually get a person to call me whenI am strong. I find it is tougher to get someone to fold who understands pot odds. Evaluation of the otherperson is important and is best gotten when you are watching how he/she plays against others.
Yesterday in a 10-20 7CS, I won 2 decent pots from the same person with Aces to his 2 small pair which he folded on the river. Spent only 50 minutes (lunch time--what a degenerate I am becoming) and won $128.
Ratso (now you know where I get my name)
You've broadened the topic. I was thinking of a specific 7CS situation similar to the automatic bluff situation in lo-ball you described. I envisioned a hand where I semi-bluff the whole way with a good draw, and end up with nothing (can't beat the board). If my opponent was also on a draw, however, I'd be making a big mistake by not giving him the opportunity to fold.
As far as always bluffing on the end, that's a whole new kettle of fish.
Tom D
It seems to me that part of the value of a bet like this is image building. This would be one big bet, with no additional bets to come. This one big bet, might get you an additional call from 3rd street through 7th on your legitimate hands, doubling your payoff.
Note that this will rarely occur when playing good poker. But it has occured occasionally when I have raised to try to isolate against a player I know likes to play draws, and weak pairs.
Wayne
I think 7th street play is second in importance to 3rd street play, and I've been trying to improve for some time (forever). At my normal limits ( 5/10, 10/20), it's surprising how neglected 7th street is, and how badly, in general, people play it.
What you say about the value of image building is so very true. I play at the Trop AC and fear that Dave in Cali, Todd, and ratso will take advantage if I reveal secrets, but I have a lot of fun betting one pair on the end (heads up). For instance, I raise with pocket Jacks, and an 8, and get called by a 9. Unless something happens, I'll probably bet through 6 street, get my river card, pretend to look at it, and bet. If I get called, I turn over my hand, announce it proudly, even if it's still just Jacks. If I win, I add a big bet to my stack, but win or lose, there's a silence at the table while everyone wonders if I think one pair is a good hand.
Tom D
I thought that was you Tom. Your secrets are safe. My knack about betting the river heads-up with just a pair (usually a high pair) is determined by 1) who the heads up player is against me and 2) how he/she has been playing the cards, 3) the cards out, and 4) the way the opponent bets. I only have to win half the time to be successful.
There are 2 players at Trop AC whom I can never read. When they are in, I play cautiously and probably would not go heads up with a pair. Don't you just love it when the small 2 pair fold on the river when you have a big pair?
The 10-20 games at Trop can be lucrative especially when there is a good show (lots of visitors). The regulars are usually pretty good. They had a 10-20 Draw and a Pot limit Draw last year that attracted some great players on a Sat night. I haven't seen the game since Memorial Day.
I actually find the 10-20 game at Taj easier to beat and read, but I do not like the crowd.
Game is 4/8 with a 1 Ante, bring in is 2. 3 players have limped and Kc(??) makes it 4 to go. I am to move after the Kc.
1) No other Dimonds are out.
2) The Kc is the high card and i have seen this person raise with just high card in this situation before.
3) No other 5's or K's are showing.
4) I don't expect a re-raise if I come in and everyone will call.
If my assumptions are correct the pot will be offering 7 to 1 on third street, and if I can make a big hand I'll get alot of action.
Do I call and if I catch a blank (anything but a dimond, King, or Five)on 4th do I fold?
Thanks, CV
CV,
1)I would reraise and hopefully get heads up with the Kc and see what happens since you stated this player has already tried this ploy. Was he successful with it?? If he was there is a good chance he is trying it again. If limpers call then your in same situation as below.
2)Or you could just call, but then you have limpers to deal with and you have to hit on 4th st. IMO.
3) Just drop because one K is out at least and low pairs don't play well multiway.
paul
Had there been no limpers you should reraise. Also reraise if you think that you can get the limpers out AND you don't feel that the fact that there were limpers now means the king is more likely to have a hand. Otherwise it is close but you should probably fold.
I agree with Paul. Get it heads up. If you can't, and you don't hit on 4th -- muck.
I play in a lot of loose games where guys think a single, live K is a good starting hand. If he was able to draw out a win when he raised with high card before, he is going to do it again.
I would have reraised if i could have limited the field, but like i said this game was Loose!
I guess i made the wrong choice by calling. I didn't call 4th after i caught a blank.
Man when the players start getting bad, i tend not too make as much money. There was one guy in the game that was calling with almost anything and winning with two small pair. Just crazy.
I couldn't drive them out on 3rd or 4th. It was an almost textbook loose game described in 7CSFAP 21st.
Later, CV
With out reading the other responses, I would:
Raise If I was confident that the Kc would make this play on a move. You have one of his kings, a pair, and a 2 flush. I think raising to $8 is better that calling, since you will probably drive out the limpers, and at worst be heads up against the king. If he calls the raise, he will probably check to you on 4th giving you an opportunity to get a free card.
Finally, if he is on a move he may let go of the hand and you will get the pot.
If the Kc is a rock then you probably should fold, since it is unlikely that a raise will force him out.
Todd
Now I will chek my answer with D Sklansky's response.
Chris: Dump it to the raise on third st. You know one King is out and he is representing a pair. If you do catch the (case?) King, the pair of 5's is too small a kicker if you are against Kings up. Aces are totally live. If a limper catches an ace and bets then you are in another quandry. Otherwise you are hoping for one of the two 5's or 3 diamonds of the next 5 cards. Too many ways to get beat.
Second part of the question. You could call as long as you see no other 5's or K's, but the longer you see no K's the more likely it is for the raiser to have a pair.
Hey, I love this forum. Don't have to scroll through hundreds of Holdem messages to find the occasional stud.
Fred M.
Now I'm to the Right of the bring in with (Jd,7d)Jc. 4 players call the bring-in to me, I have the highest Door Card. My raise will not limit the field.
1) Jacks and 7's are live. 2 diamonds are dead.
2) I call the bring in.
4th street comes with Jh, 6c, Kd, As, 3c, 6s
I'm looking at scary boards like: (??)2s,As, (??)5d,6c, (??)Th,Kd
Me: (Jd,7d)Jc,6s
The Ace bets and gets callers. I muck!
CV
CV,
That's LLL wait for the next hand.
paul
Absolutely
Tom D
I think the others are correct to fold on 4th when you catch an airball.
I think you have the best hand on 3rd and it is a pretty good hand so you should raise.
I have started trying to raise almost all of the time with my high pairs JJ-AA. In your situation where the raise is only to $4 you are probably correct that it will not limit the field, but that is not the only reason to raise.
You may catch a scary card on 4th which will entice people to fold when you bet, like a high club. Any other card may slow down the others at the table, and you may be checked to, allowing you to decide whether or not to accept a free card or bet into them. If you pair your jack on the board, you do lose the surprise value of trips, but this table sounds like it will give you action even if you pair your door card.
I have been trying to balance the two keys to poker aggression and tightness. Most of the time I play a little too tightly, since I have no problem waiting for the next hand, and folding split jacks on 3rd to a raise. But if it isnt raised, and you know the table is loose and will call with 1 or 2 over cards, I try to kick in the aggression and try to run the table with a hand like this one.
If you get reraised, or worse, let go on 3rd. If not they are going to look to you for the rest of this hand, and hopefully play more passively.
Todd
P.S. I am assuming that your loose table is like the loose tables I have played at in AC where there is a real lack of 3rd st raising, and most of the players are the weak loose calling station types. If the table is filled with loose maniacs, I would ignore my advice, since I have no experience playing stud with the crazy raising holdem types.
"crazy raising holdem types"
I am So insulted! How dare you imply that holdem players are crazy!
Just kidding, good post. Actually, the crazy raisers are my favorite opponents in both games, though they can be a little frustrating at times.
In your post, a couple points you made stand out:
I like your point about raising on 3rd, then catching a scare card. When this happens you may bet out and get folders, occasionally winning the pot right there.
Also, raising on 3rd because you have the best hand (and it's a pretty good hand) is a good idea here. In a more rational game (such as a tight 10-20 with decent players), perhaps it's not worth a raise. But in typical AC 5-10 games, the players limp in with MUCH worse hands, so you should probably raise in order to punish them!
Also raising may induce them to play passively against you, another good point.
Dave in Cali
Now I'm to the Right of the bring in with (Ad,Kd)Tc. 4 players call the bring-in to me.
1) All live. No diamonds are out.
2) Should I call the bring in?
3) If Kd is Kh should I call?
4) If Ad,Kh/Qs should I call?
5) If raised should I call with above hands?
6) Should I ever raise or reraise with any of these hands in a LLL game?
paul
Depending on your knolwedge of the players and the limit a) Knowledge of players--can your raise limit the field? In late position, maybe not. In early position (slightly to the left of the bring-in, probably yes)
b) Limit--a raise from a $1 bring in to $5 will limit the field (80%). In a 5-10 with a $2 bring in and a raise to 5 will not (only 20-25%). In a 10-20 with $3 bring in, a $10 raise is about 50/50. At 3rd st, position of the raise is very important as is tha nature of the players and your table image. So, withthat in mind, here is my humble opinion.
1) All live. No diamonds are out. *Call--no raise
2) Should I call the bring in? *Call--no raise
3) If Kd is Kh should I call? *Call--no raise
4) If Ad,Kh/Qs should I call? *Call--no raise
5) If raised should I call with above hands? * Depends what raised you and what is on the board
6) Should I ever raise or reraise with any of these hands in a LLL game? * Depends what raised you and what is on the board and the person who raised + your evaluation if your hands plays best head-to-head and you think you can narrow the field. The re-raise works well in a higher limit game since the raise says "Aces" and a re-raise says "me too" or "rolled up". The seas will part with a re-raise and you might get head up. Remember, this is a semi bluff and the opponent might be real strong. the 4th card is very important now.
2. Call the bring-in. It would be good to play this cheaply in order to take advantage of the possible flush, straight, and big pair draws. However, if a raise would thin the field I would do it -- you are most likely to get a big pair and this plays best heads-up.
3. Without the flush card, I would raise, and bet out on 4th if I caught a scare card all if I thought that this show of strength would make people fold. Otherwise, I would just call the bring-in and hope I catch a big pair or gut-shot draw.
4. Here, the big pair potential has improved (assuming all are live). Even though there is no flush opportunity I would treat this situation similarly to #2.
5. Mathematically, I am unsure, but I wouldn't feel comfortable calling a raise here with high card gappers (suited or not). Especially considering that it looks like (I'm assuming) that I will be acting first next hand.
6. IMO a reraise depends on the raising requirements of the raiser. Reraising an ante stealer or maniac may help to thin the pot where my big pair potential is at its best, or to win the pot outright. If he would only raise with a strong starting hand, I would fold up the tent.
Assuming the raise won't limit the field, as CV said, you should call to keep the pot small so they aren't getting the odds to draw out on you when you catch good on 4th, esp. if you can checkraise or bet out double.
The game is 10/20 Omaha8, with 4 solid players, me and LB, UTG, and Dealer. Capped before the flop (I fold real junk). The flop is 10 9 4 offsuit. Capped by LB, UTG, and Dealer. Turn is a 7. 3-bet by LB, UTG, Dealer. River is a 7, so the board is not 10 9 4 7 7. LB bets, UTG raises, Dealer folds, LB calls. K Q J 10 (LB) with 2 pair, 10's and 7's, beats A 3 5 9 (UTG), with 9's and 7's. Dealer moans about folding a straight.
Should I, at this point, gleefully continue, or run screaming from the table before the rest of my chips evaporate?
If you continue to fold real junk, unreal junk, and anything else remotely resembling junk, this game will make you rich. I just a matter of how deep their pockets are...
Here's a hand I played in a $20-$40 stud game tonight (Wednesday) at The Mirage that I thought some of you might find interesting. (The game has a $3 ante and a $5 bring-in.)
On third street the I was the bring-in with a 4d and I had the Jd9d in the hole. I brought it in for $5. The first three players passed and then the pot was raised by an unknown player (to me) holding the Qs which was the highest card on board. There was no other queen out and only small cards left to act. I called the raise (for $15). (My flush and pair cards were all live.)
On fourth street I caught an Ac and my opponent caught a 9h. I bet and he called.
On fifth street I caught a 10d (giving me a four flush) and my opponent caught a 3h. I bet and he called.
On sixth street I caught a 10h (giving me a pair of tens and a four flush) and my opponent caught a deuce of spades. I bet and he called.
On the river I caught a 3s. I bet and my opponent folded.
All comments are welcome.
Might he have had something like Js,Ts in the hole?
If so, he raises your $5 bring in in an attempt to steal the antes (plus your $5 bring-in, pot total = $26 at the point where he raises the $15). Looking at three cards to a straight flush, he doesn't care much if you call or not. At the end of the round there is $61 in the pot.
On fourth street you catch the Ac, and he is looking at an open end straight (Q,J,T,9) and a three flush in spades. You bet, making the pot total $81. He has a four straight (Q,J,T,9) with three cards to go. He has eight outs to make his straight, plus some other possibilities. He has seen the five cards which were folded. He has 5204/10660 ways to hit his straight with three cards yet to go. It will cost him $20 at this point (plus $100 more to see an additional two cards). Thus if stays to see three more cards and misses his hand it will cost him a total of $120. But if he hits his hand, and you call with a loser, he will earn at least $161 (the $81 in the pot plus at least two big bets from you). He has favorable odds and decides to gamble. After this round the pot is $101.
If he has the speculated hand, fifth street is a blank for him, but he still has a reasonable eight-out straight draw with two cards to go. You bet $40 making the pot total $141. His odds of hitting his hand in the remaining cards have decreased to 276/741, but it will only cost him $60 more to see two more cards, and if he hits he will still earn the same $161. At this point it's about a toss-up for him to call, very slightly favorable odds for him to call. He decides to gamble. Now there is $181 in the pot.
On sixth street he catches a spade, giving him fifteen outs to catch a straight or a flush. You bet, making the pot total $221. His odds of hitting a straight or flush have improved to 15/37. He has very favorable odds for an easy call of $40.
On the river he draws a blank. He can't beat your tens. He folds.
If he had a hand such as speculated (Js,Ts in hole), then you bet the hand just right and got the maximum possible. He just needed a little luck on the last three cards to beat you.
You played the hand correctly. He played the hand correctly.
On the other hand, who knows what his hole cards were?
Omaha8Buff
when you would call, it's usually better to bet. that way good things happen. this guy could have had any number of hands. up to a pair of Q's. and even if he was on a draw and could not beat your board your bet on end prevented him from seeing how you play. i think he put you on 10's up. and may have incorrectly folded the river. of course, he may also have a busted draw and can't beat your board. either way good bets.
your play is correct and seemingly straight forward.
here is my question: would you have ever let him buy a free card? i think that i wouldn't. you showed improvement or improved on each st and i would bet out every one even if i was raised on the last one. it would take raises on 2 consecutive rounds to induce me to check, and that's an expensive free card.
happy thanksgiving everybody.
scott
Mason,
You played the hand well. You caught nothing but "Rembrandt's" high cards. The Q probably figures A and another 4. He chased his pair of Q's to the end, he may even have Q's over but he never thinks he has you beat unless he catches the third Q especially after you pair 10's. As I see it your board won the hand with Jd9d/4dAcTdTh/3s. Had you caught the flush and he caught his 3 Q's, I think he would have been very suprised, because that's a LL special two on the board and three in the hand.
Happy Buzzard Day
Mason,
I hope you continue to play more stud, and post hands on this board. I think it helps to see the "theories in action".
I think, the way that the hand progressed, that your opponent was on a flush or straight draw. In the lower limit games, very few people would fold Q's when their opponents board shows T's. So I dont think he had Q's Is this not true in 20-40? This would seem to be one of the mistakes that DS wrote about, "folding when you should call".
ON 4th, would you have bet into him with an A or K? I presume this is because you would have called, and it is better to bet than to check call.
I think the rest of the hand, as mentioned in other post was played aggressively, which forces your opponent to make all of the decisions.
In a hand like this, do you hope that you are playing against someone who will raise when they make a hand, thus announcing their strength, or would you rather they just call to the river even if they can beat you?
Thanks for stretching your legs and walking away from the holdem table. (for at least one hand)
Todd
"I think, the way that the hand progressed, that your opponent was on a flush or straight draw. In the lower limit games, very few people would fold Q's when their opponents board shows T's. So I dont think he had Q's Is this not true in 20-40? This would seem to be one of the mistakes that DS wrote about, "folding when you should call"."
It doesn't have to be true very often for the bet to be correct. On the other hand, if I was sure that he was on a draw, the bet might be wrong.
"ON 4th, would you have bet into him with an A or K? I presume this is because you would have called, and it is better to bet than to check call."
The main reason for betting on fourth street is because of his position and the other upcards he could be on a steal (on third street). If that's the case he will frequently fold to my no-pair hand.
"I think the rest of the hand, as mentioned in other post was played aggressively, which forces your opponent to make all of the decisions.
In a hand like this, do you hope that you are playing against someone who will raise when they make a hand, thus announcing their strength, or would you rather they just call to the river even if they can beat you?"
It depends. But the more readable they are the better it is for me. The problem with a raise is that they often raise on other hands as well. But if their raise clearly indicates a hand of certain strength with virtually no exceptions, then you probably want them to raise.
"Thanks for stretching your legs and walking away from the holdem table. (for at least one hand)"
I have always played all games. Many years ago when I lived in California I played both high draw and lowball. Both David and I have written about the advantages of being able to play many games.
Your reputation preceeded you. Unless of course your opponent started with Q,J,T, or something similar . Well then.
Vince.
What do you do on fourth st. if the Q raises?
Call and take a card off. Depending on what it is and what my opponent catches will dictate my fifth street decision.
A:Is this because you now believe that he has a 4 straight 9-Q, and you have an over card and a 3flush?
B:Or do you now believe he has a pair of Q's, but you have the live A.
If you call because of A, would you fold if you believed B.
Todd
As I have said before, I am inexperienced. It seems I sould not question one of the masters, however....
You said:
"On third street the I was the bring-in with a 4d and I had the Jd9d in the hole. I brought it in for $5. The first three players passed and then the pot was raised by an unknown player (to me) holding the Qs which was the highest card on board. There was no other queen out and only small cards left to act. I called the raise (for $15). (My flush and pair cards were all live.)"
Shouldn't you fold right here. The odds of getting your flush are not good enough to justify playing it heads up. Since, your opponent could have a pair of queens, you have no overcards to draw to. From the books I have read, isn't this a clear fold? Concede your bring in and get a new set of cards.
Wayne
there are several reasons to call. here are a few off the top of my head. you are getting better than 3-1 odds. lots of people raise with the highest cards on booard without it paired. mason can catch scare cards that allow him to win the hand even without the flish (see his post for an example). i'm not sure on the numbers but no hand is that big a dog in stud. mason probably plays better than this unknown character so he can make up a little of the worst of it by playing well on later streets. your cards are live. if you can't win this hand without the flush, then you should fold. but that isn't the case, is it?
and, of course, you should question.
scott
"there are several reasons to call. here are a few off the top of my head. you are getting better than 3-1 odds."
First, you're only about one in 6 of making the flush and second, you're not really getting 3 to 1 because you have to call at least two more bets at one to one to get the flush.
While the flush is not the only way to win the hand, playing with no overcards to the Queen(s) sure cuts your chances. I'd have to agree with Wayne. Let's wait for a better opportunity. When the pots are in the hundreds, I could pass on trying to defend $8.
DJ
you can improve, so future action does not really hurt you. if you want to look at effective odds, be sure to count the good kind, too. a lot of things can happen between 3rd and the river. a lot of players would raise without the Q. i would amost always see 4th st here. there are ways to win besides having the best hand at showdown.
scott
3-1 odds ON THE NEXT CARD, but if the raiser has a pair of queens, there is no one card that puts Mason ahead without another draw. A diamond and he has a better than 50% chance of making the flush in seven, but that is still contingent on drawing and he will likely have to pay for those cards. So, what is his 3-1 odds on? 3-1 on getting an Ace, King, or 4? Are these any better than his opponents odds of getting an Ace, King or Queen.? I say it is 3-1 odds that Mason feels he can out play his opponent head to head(regardless of his down cards).
If you figure your opponent is bluffing, why call, especially with such a weak hand? Shouldn't you raise if this is the case. Calling suggests you feel your hand has sufficient drawing value.
Wayne
the stuff i said to dj apply here to. also, some players i know, perhaps most in the games mason plays, would be suspicious of a resteal if i reraised. thus, i wait for 4th. it is partly relying on outplaying, but it is not particularly spectacular outplaying. if you do not feel comfortable out on a limb, then fold it. but you can make money with this hand against most opp. it's ok to be drawing. in fact, you're the one with impied odds if your hand goes towards the flush or 3 flush/pair combo. and if you hit an overcard you get to put your opp in a hard spot. otherwise, you're likely gone on fourth.
scott
Hey wayno,
I think you call for another reason as well. In almost every case your opponent will be the first to act (unless you get A, K, or 4). This gives you be advantage of position, a distinct advantage, since you will be able to react to his play on 4th. If you catch an airball, and he bets, then fold. If you catch a diamond or pair then raise. See how much he likes his hand.
I think I would tend to call with this hand if I had any doubt that the raiser had a pair. And the positional advantage has a lot to do with it.
You are not an idiot, you just have a small bankroll, and thus do not like high variance plays. Soon, though I will be able to bank roll you, we will have to determine an equitable split, and make sure wendy doesnt find out :)>
Todd
Oh one more thing.
The ante structure here is much different than that which we are used to playing. There is $3 ante, and a $5 bring in, so there is 29 bucks in the pot before the raise. $64 after. You cant just fold your bring in to a raise unless you truly have nothing. Otherwise you will get pushed around, and end up with no money in front of you.
T
Unless I am completely out of it on how the game works. $3 ante by 8 people = $24. $5 bring in to $29. Complete bet to $20, total in pot $49. You have to decide if you call $15 more. 3.27:1 odds to call. You cannot tell me that if the Q has a pair that you are correct to call. You are two cards away from any hand that beats the Queens.
Everybody has heard that an expert could win against an average opponent without looking at their cards(if the opponent didn't know that they didn't look at their cards.) It seems to me that this cannot be true in multi-way pots, as the chance of someone holding a hand they cannot be pushed off of is higher. However, head to head, I believe that the expert should be able to show his skill. This, combined with the flush draw and the possibility(or even probability) that your opponent could be on a bluff, is the only reason that I can see to call the initial bet. The cards themselves are not enough.
Wayne
Wayne - The number of players in the game wasn't exactly clear in Mason's original post. I took his wording to mean there were seven players in the game. (See my original post above if you’re interested).
Not a big difference, I suppose. Seven players would make the original antes total $21. Mason’s $5 bring in would make the total $26 (not $29) when Mason's opponent raised.
I originally thought Mason’s opponent had queens, but perhaps that is what he would have wanted Mason to think with his raise. His raise would seem to represent a pair of queens. But if he was attempting to steal the antes (plus Mason’s $5), then he could hold almost anything. Staying, but not raising, as he did, would seem to represent something. But what would it represent? Would a good player have folded to the final bet if he held a pair of queens? Because he stayed up to the last bet, I think it’s more likely Mason’s opponent hole cards were some kind of straight draw.
Because he stayed on fifth street with that seemingly awful 3h, he must have had something decent in the hole, maybe J,T. (Js,Ts does not seem out of the question, the way the betting went).
But seven players for seven stud seems to fit better than 8 players. What if everyone happens to stay for all seven cards?
Omaha8Buff
I don't think you can fold this hand against a possible steal. Assuming 8 players, you have seen 10 cards, so there are 19 cards out of 42 on 4th street that allow you to drive the hand: 10 diamonds, 3 4's, 3 A's, and 3 K's.
So if I continue not to play this hand, am I the fish? Do I make myself the target for steels if I require at least an overcard to continue. I have felt that I have lost money by trying to defend blinds and bring-ins too often, with poor hands. Do you play the same way if the Queen was a King or Ace, cutting down the number of cards that let you act first? Does it really matter what your down cards are? Mason would have won this hand regardless, simply on his play.
Wayne
According to the 7sfap- "if you have a three flush and none of your suit is out, your hand is almost always playable, unless you have three small cards, and it is three bets to you, or unless high cards raise and reraise.
also-
"In fact, even if your cards are completely live, if you are __heads up__ against a raiser and your three flush contains all small cards, you might want to fold, especially if you are against a good player. But if the raiser may not have anything, it is clearly a call.
So Mason plays according to the book he wrote. And by extension, he believed that there was a good chance that the raiser did not have the Q's he was representing.
Wayne. If you knew I would raise with a Q and crap, and you had a three flush, are you saying you would fold? I dont believe you. You might reraise, or you might call and see what happens. You probably call, and see what the next card brings. If it was Jose's old roommate chris who raised you, you would always fold since you know that you are up against an over pair. But it would be a mistake to let go against an opponent on a flush or straight draw. You would be nearly even money, assuming both draws were equally live.
When there are significant antes and bring ins, not $1 in 1-3, but 26-29 buck you have to change the way you play, so that you are not driven off your pot equity. This is the exact opposite that we see in 1-3 or 1-5 where there is no money in the pot, thus nothing to fight over on third st. I wouldnt contend for pots in 1-3 or 1-5 like Mason and others have to in 15-30
Todd
"So if I continue not to play this hand, am I the fish?"
Wayne,
You are not Mason. No, you are not the fish. If YOU decided that this play costs you money then it probably does. My advice to you is to continue to do what you do.
Oh Wayne, one more thing. Your picture is not on a cover of most books. Mason's is.
P.S I would fold most of the time and I'm no fish.
Wayne:
I think that you are missing something. If there is a good chance that the raiser does have the hand that he is representing -- a pair of queens -- you should probably fold with a three flush made up of smaller cards and no one else in. But in this situation there is a good chance that the raiser has nothing. Now there are many other ways that I can win the pot. (Also, my two straight adds a little value to the hand.)
Thank you for the discussion. I will have to think about all of this some more. My instinct is that if you are heads up against queens, you are going to lose alot of money. And if you are up against a bluff you are only a small favorite to have the best hand at the end of seven cards. Thus, you rely on outplaying your opponent. Further, this is an opponent which you have never played against. How can you immediately jump to the conclusion that the player is likely on a bluff? Yes, I will need to let my brain simmer on this one.
Thank you again, Wayne
First of all DJ's assertion that you are one in six of making a flush is not correct once you have seen all those cards. It is about one in four and a half. Secondly you guys are focusing on the wrong thing. The only debatable play that Mason made is betting the open pair on the end as a bluff. Checking and either folding or calling are viable alternatives. That is what this discussion should be about.
I like seeing David and Mason on this board. Even if it is to chide us for focusing on the wrong part of the puzzle.
I assume that Mason bet because he felt the other player was on a draw. Further, since Masons draw did not come through, he figured that if:
1. Opponents draw hit, he raises and Mason folds. Mason loses 1BB and pot. 2. Opponents draw fails, but he has a higher pair, he will probably fold(?), since Mason has represented Aces up or better. Mason wins pot 3. Opponents draw fails, cant beat Masons board, and he folds. Mason wins pot.
I can not estimate the relative odds of each of these, but by betting, he might be able to induce a fold in #2, winning the pot, while checking will lose the pot in #1 and #2, but might induce a bluff in case #3. Then you are stuck calling anyway. So if you are planning on check calling, it is better to just bet. Since it is one BB on the river, if the odds of 1, 2, 3 were 33% each, then betting on the end could net you twice as many pots, while costing you 1BB when the other guy makes his hand. My Statistics are shockingly bad for a scientist, though.
Of course I may be swayed by the positive outcome. If he checked and lost to a straight, I might be supporting that play to save the BB, when it is not likely that the TT will hold up.
Since I am a beginner, I will let it go there.
My conclusion, continued aggression works best in this situation.
Todd
Since I screwed up earlier, I'll try to hide my post here under Todd.
As I see it there is roughly $260 in the pot after 6th street. I think the problem needs to be broken down into two parts.
The first is if your opponent had you beat going into seventh street. Due to the low nature of his board, this would only be possible if they had the Qs, a high pocket pair or two pair. In this case, you lose 100% if you do not bet. Your opponent would have to fold a winning hand 1:7.5 times to make this a good play. If a player held Qx both hearts in the hole, I don't see him playing much differently. In this case you estimate he makes his flush 8 of 35 (23%). As many as 11 other cards could give him at least Qs up(31% which I will say he wont throw away). But 46% of the time he will be left holding a single pair of Qs. It takes him throwing just one in 3.45 of these single pair hand away to make this a good play and he everyone he gets.
However, we made the assumtion early on that there was a pretty good chance of him bluffing. Many people suggested the opponent had JT in the hole. In this case your opponent is behind going into seventh. 8 cards of 35 make his straight. 5 cards(3Qs and 2Js), give him a winning hand other than the straight. All other cards don't matter as you will win and he will not call since he cannot beat your board. So in 62% of the times he has a winning hand he has a straight. If he folds 1 of 2.85 hands when he is holding just the pair Js or Qs you are making a winning play. In this case you are making a play for the $220 in the pot.
Yet, what if you check call in the above example. 8 in 35 times(23%) he makes the straight and you pay him off(same # of hands as above). 5 in 35 times(14%) he makes a Qs or Js(which for sake of arguement I will say he doesn't bet). These are the same 14% of the hands you try and push him off above. But 63% of the hands he draws blanks. If he bets into you, you win his $40. But he would have to make this bluff more than a third of the time for it to be profitable. In this case you are making a play at his $40 bluff.
Thus, I say the bet is the correct play. The only exception is if you know he won't be driven off a higher pair. However, your drawing hand is relatively well hidden and he most likely believes it will take more than one pair to win. The other concern is that if you actually had Aces up, I think the correct play is check call. Thus, your bet might make him suspicious. If you felt neither play would be profitable due to the opponent, then you must check fold.
As always, comments are greatly appreciated.
Goodnight, Wayne
The concept that you had to call anyway, so you might as well bet, does not apply to these situations at all. Think about it.
David,
My Classic Error results when you are raised on the river. Now you must pay 2 bets to see his hand instead of the one. Is this correct?
I dont think my analysis of Masons play was incorrect, but your point about the motivation of the bet is correct. You are not betting because you would call anyway if you checked.
I think you are betting since you believe that your opponent has a hand that is better than your hand but worse than the hand you are representing. In this case, the player may fold, and you win the pot. I dont think it has to work too often to make money. Though I think you would want to try this play on an opponent who at least will fold a high pair, or weak two pair.
Based on the play of the hand, what do you think Masons opponent had? Do you think Masons opponent folded the winning hand?
I think it is unlikely that he had Q's, and more likely he was on a draw. If he had the Q's it would be wise to raise Mason on 4th, and put pressure on him. I would assume that the bringin who calls a raise has some value in his hand, not just over cards. A pocket pair, three flush, three straight. So I would assume that the unsuited ace did not make A's, but might have made a straight draw. Thus raise to make the draw expensive. Since no raise, no Q's, so he too is on a draw. Is this logical? Is it wrong to assume he would play aggressively if he had the Q's, and exclude Q's when he just calls? If we knew more about this guy maybe it would be easier to draw conclusions about his hand from his play.
Todd
ps. Just order 7SFAP-21c, so you can come in from the pasture to cash your check.
David,
My Classic Error results when you are raised on the river. Now you must pay 2 bets to see his hand instead of the one. Is this correct?
I dont think my analysis of Masons play was incorrect, but your point about the motivation of the bet is correct. You are not betting because you would call anyway if you checked.
I think you are betting since you believe that your opponent has a hand that is better than your hand but worse than the hand you are representing. In this case, the player may fold, and you win the pot. I dont think it has to work too often to make money. Though I think you would want to try this play on an opponent who at least will fold a high pair, or weak two pair.
Based on the play of the hand, what do you think Masons opponent had? Do you think Masons opponent folded the winning hand?
I think it is unlikely that he had Q's, and more likely he was on a draw. If he had the Q's it would be wise to raise Mason on 4th, and put pressure on him. I would assume that the bringin who calls a raise has some value in his hand, not just over cards. A pocket pair, three flush, three straight. So I would assume that the unsuited ace did not make A's, but might have made a straight draw. Thus raise to make the draw expensive. Since no raise, no Q's, so he too is on a draw. Is this logical? Is it wrong to assume he would play aggressively if he had the Q's, and exclude Q's when he just calls? If we knew more about this guy maybe it would be easier to draw conclusions about his hand from his play.
Todd
ps. Just ordered 7SFAP-21c, so you can come in from the pasture to cash your check.
Since Masom pushed his hand all the way, he had no alternative but to bet/bluff on the end. If the Q did indeed have an unimproved pair or two pair, he would have also checked, fearing Mason's Ace. If the Q was on a draw he could have very easily caught a pair card on the end, again checking along. Either way Mason would lose by checking.
During some recent discussions, a question occured to me. Who's the fish? As you move up the limits, does the way the fish plays change? As Todd likes to point out in every post I put up, I have only played at the Trop AC 1-3 stud games. In fact only non-smoking 1-3.
This game is almost always half rocks. There is frequently 1 decent tight agressive player. That leaves two players, that are the major donators to the game. These players play any pair or draw, regardless of the activity against them. They also consider a single high card worth a call. I watched one of these guys lose $300 in 2 hours. At a 1-3 table that's a challenge. When the donators are gone, so am I. Getting money out of rocks is possible but can barely be done at a rate that compesates for the rake and tipping Xena.
As I move up the limits, does the nature of the fish change? It would be great, if players at other limits could post a short discription of the fish in your game.
Wayne
The 1-3 Trop no smoking is rockville. Some players are the husbands/wives of higher players or people waiting for Aunt Tiffy to finish playing video poker. They loose. I was once sitting in that game after getting ousted from a holdem tournament (22nd-no pay). I was easily the youngest player. They were over 75 and mainly women. Every once-in-awhile a busted out higher limit (can you say Bob or Carlos) player come over to the 1-3 game and plays it like it's a 15-30. He gets crushed, and hollers at all the old ladies/men to "play their cards right". "Stop slowplaying, he says,"Bet your hand". I love it.
Every check raise one of those women?
Nearly got caned to death the other day.
I wonder if what she would have done if I had turned over my hand with nothing there.
Wayne
I don't check raise them because they get pissed and leave. If I slow play trips, especially lower than their board card, and beat them on the end I tell them i got it on the river. The games are even funnier at the Taj. I have a good time. I am not malicious.
This hand was told to me by the holder of the AQc. Pl holdem game at Hollywood Park with blinds of $10 and $25. My friend raises in third position. There is one late position caller plus the BB calls. There is appx $400 in the pot when the flop comes Ah8c7c. The BB checks my friend bets $300 one player folds the BBcalls. The turn is 3s. The BB bets $1000. My friend calls. The river is 4h. The BB bets $3000. My friend folds. Both players are semi well known. All comments welcome.
Because of the uneven checking & betting sequence here, I would call. The better the other player is, the more likely that I would call. This is a pot sized bet @ $3,000, if you flat call you are getting 2:1 for your money. It is very unlikely that the BB made his hand on the turn. He might have a set of 8's or 7's, could have two pair on the flop, or may have made a straight on the river. I think that a call here is in order because the BB could have been on the flush draw too, he may have a much weaker kicker with an ace, could have flopped an open ended straight with the 10-9 and missed on the turn and river. I would have been more inclined to give it up if the BB had bet the flop or check raised. I think a call here will get the money better than the 33% of the time it needs. A good player will make this move in pot limit when he thinks he is even money to not get called. By not calling here with an excellent bluff catching hand, your friend is sending the other player a message to keep putting the pressure on. In some ways it is an ideal situation to make a stand; he can't be raised, is sure to see what the BB was betting, and shows that he is willing to stand a little heat with a hand that might be a dog.
I generally agree with Big John, but I think the AQ has less than 1/3 chance of being any good, especially if the BB is a good player. I just don't see any reason why a good player would bet out a flush or straight draw on the turn, given the action up to that point. The preflop raiser is SUPPOSED to have at least a big Ace here. Good players don't make a living by getting guys to laydown top-pair/decent kicker unless an obvious scare card hits.
The betting sequence is a bit odd, but the guy could have flopped a set, and checked it to the preflop raiser in hopes of trapping the third player in between. I usually don't fold on the river if its close for the reasons John outlined above. But I don't think its close, unless you know the BB to make some un orthodox (and out of line) plays. But if that were the case, your buddy probably would have popped him for a big bet on the turn.
Muck, but don't like it. Maybe mutter something like "clubs" and let the Q flash a bit.
IMO, the decision rests more on the fact that the bettor is good enough to bet the $1,000 on the turn to set up the pot-sized steal on the river if he isn't raised by the flop bettor. If I were on a draw which was a big dog to get there with one card to come, I might make this exact move knowing in advance that I'm going to pop it on the river no matter what comes off the deck.
If the river bettor was known to be aggressive and I thought there was a decent chance he was putting a move on me, I would make the call because it has a definite fixed downside. If we were talking about this particular call here being for all my money, maybe not. In big bet, I'm more willing to take some non-lethal risks if they figure to possibly pay a good dividend at some future time.
Any player that is "good" enough to invest $4000 out of position to steal a $2000 pot (of which over $500 is his own money) is too good for me!
Let's see. He checks and calls a bet of $300 on the flop. Now he bets $1,000 on the turn when that card makes a possible flush or straight less threatening, and only gets called. The river card is only scary to him if he believes that the guy who called his pot sized bet on the turn was drawing to the idiot end of the straight.
My guess is that he tried to steal the $1,000 on the turn by risking a $1,000, was called, and, having seen a non-threatening card on the river, decided to risk another $3,000 trying to win $3,000. In the right situation, I too might be so inclined.
Notwithstanding my potential inclination, I can assure you that I am decidedly not too good for you.
I'm a total novice. Have only played pot-limit with 50 cent blinds and ~20-100 dollar stacks.
Keeping that in mind, I think your friend should have either folded or raised the pot on the turn. If he had best hand he probably finds out now for same amount of money as making a crying call on river (assuming he can fold with a clear mind with any further action and no improvement). But he still has a draw to the nuts, and just might get opponent to fold AK(? better than not trying at all). This assumes hero generally plays pretty tight too, so that his bet represents a credible threat of already having a set.
How often he should fold and how often he should raise, probably depends on a whole lot of stuff that I don't have the expertise to analyze anyways, but I think folding or raising would both be better than calling on the turn, and it transfers the "pain" of the hand from hero on river to opponent on turn. I'd love for somebody to disagree with me here. I'd probably learn somethin.
The way my friend tells the story is that he misplayed this hand by not raising on the turn. He feels apot size raise would be the correct play in retrospect. I thought it made for interesting analysis.
We often various 7CS variants and some of the rules seem odd to me.
For example in 7Cs 8 or better H/l (hence forth abbreviated 7/8) some claim the rules are teh low card brings it in and then the highest starts the betting. This seems somewhat odd to me as a) a low upcard seems more likely to be a decent hand than a high card b) the latter seems particually annoying when a low card pairs up and then loses position to the high cards (who usually have an advantage on earlier streets before a low can be made).
In another variant we play 7CS w/no qualifier. Should the betting rules be the same as 7/8?
Finally we also play 7cs w/no qualifier and a declare. should there be a betting round before and after the declare? I believe there should be one only after the declare but often we were playing w/ both (hence 6(!)) round of betting.
ANy clarification appreciated, (and or stategy changes for the games/rules would be also be!)
Thanks!
in 7/8 as opposed to st.7 stud if the board shows a pair its still a small bet on 4th street. low card brings it in.
with a declare i like to have a betting round before the declare so that those that dont have a playable hand wont get a free chance at backing in to a split.
Played a little tonight at the Bike after dumping more than a grand in the game last night. After an hour or so of playing, three players got up and were walking around, smoking, using the restroom, whatever. With $1.00 antes and a $3.00 per hand drop, I refused to play until the other players returned to the game. The dealer correctly summoned the floorman over to explain that the game was shorthanded and one player refused to play with such a high rake. Floor nodded and walked away. I waited five minutes for him to call the players back to the game, but this didn't happen. I racked up and quit the game. After cashing out with my $229 win, I walked by the table which was once again full except for my empty seat. One of the players asked my why I wasn't still playing. (He was one of the players who had been gone for the past 25 minutes) I told him that I came to play cards, not sit around and wait for people who come to the cardroom to walk around and talk with their friends. The game was full and there was a waiting list when I left 15 minutes later.
This game was populated with regulars only. If it had been a better game, with more money on the table, I might have swallowed my pique and played on. I was hoping that the remaining three players would follow my lead and quit the game also, but they continued to play on three handed after I left. When management isn't responsive to the problems players bring to their attention, they deserve to lose their games. A few broken games that restart after a half hour or so would make management more responsive.
One more thing that really irks me is that the Bicycle Club hasn't rehired the chip runners that they let go when their business was foundering. With the new owners and the hiring of Hashem Minaly, the Bike has regained a lot of the business they had lost. Having the floorpeople and board people run back and forth to the cashier's cage everytime someone at one of 12 or so tables goes broke is very inefficient and annoying. In the NL game, the dealers never have any yellow chips to make change themselves.
I see this same ugly attitude at the Commerce in the 9-18 games. The $4 button drop is really high even when compaired to the time at 40-80. If you've got a couple of smokers the game gets to 7 handed and it's still $4. This is when I stop playing. I don't always get up but I won't post a blind. At five handed the drop is still $2 and they won't cut it at all. I've seen games stalled for 15 minutes because the floor would rather get zero per hand than cut the rake to a buck.
To all Commerce players: If you play 9-18 you are a high roller. You pay the highest rake in the poker room. If you live in LA you get nothing for this. I'm at least picked up at the airport when I fly in.
5-10 7CS very loose medium passive game. 5-7 players typically call the bring in and usually 3 left on the river. In this hand, the biggest decisions I had to make were on 4th and 7th streets.
3rd: I am the bring in with (2s7s)4s and bet 2$. Two spades are dead. player to my left has Ac up and just calls, 5 others call, 7 way pot.
4th: I catch 3s. Ac catches the Kc and bets. three callers when it gets to me. In the pot there was 18$ from 3rd street plus 20$ on 4th when it gets to me which makes for 38:5 odds or about 7.5:1.
I contemplate raising, but another spade has fallen dead. My hand has little possibility other than making a flush, and I only have 6 spades left. I feel I am in a somewhat iffy situation (but can't quite lay it down), so I elect to just call and not raise. If I had bigger cards with live pair possibilities, I think I would raise (but two tens and one nine are dead here). At the time, I estimated my odds of getting a flush (on the next card) to be about 5 to 1. I figure I am getting an overlay here if I just call, plus I am saving $$ by not raising with a semi-weak drawing hand (that may lose even if I get there). Also, I think I don't want to find out if there will be a reraise by AcKc, so I elect not to try and buy a free card. I feel calling two (let alone 3) bets here would be a mistake, but 1 bet with no possibility of reraise is an easy call. opinions?
5th: I catch the 8s for a small flush. Now, typical of loose passive games, everyone checks to me (since I have a three flush showing). I bet and they all call. (Typical type of play that can sometimes drive us "good" players CRAZY!).
6th: again they check to me, I bet (NO free cards), two callers remain, including AcKc (who has caught two blanks). I feel he is on a flush draw (and not a big pair). I could be in trouble on the river if he fills in his flush.
7th: Checked to me, my flush is still eight high. On the one hand, I should probably bet for value since this is a loose game and I will probably be called by worse hands. But on the other hand, I have a VERY small flush. If I get raised, I can be pretty sure that I am beat, even if I feel obliged to call the raise due to pot size! I also believe AcKc is tricky enough to try for a check-raise if he catches a club. In the end I decided to bet (and not waste the opportunity to bet for value). I figured that on the average, with two opponents, I would be called more times than I would be outdrawn. The clincher was the fact that both players were easy to read and gave off signs of having missed their draws, so I had "tells" to go by. I bet and both call. My flush stands up.
AcKc actually had aces and kings on 4th street, go figure for how he played the hand! the other caller had trip dueces which was made on 4th street! (scary, isn't it). Go figure again!
I KNOW if two of you "forum types" had held the same cards as my opponents did here, that I would have never made it to the river (probably not even past 3rd). It would have been too expensive to draw at such a weak hand! Am I right?
Dave in Cali
Dave,
"I KNOW if two of you "forum types" had held the same cards as my opponents did here, that I would have never made it to the river (probably not even past 3rd). It would have been too expensive to draw at such a weak hand! Am I right?"
All correct!!!!
Paul
Dave,
First, let me say that I am a novice, so I may be way off here: I calculate your odds of making your flush (with 4 spades on 4th street, 7 spades out, 4 players out of 8 left) as 1.4:1 (and agree with your rough estimate of 5:1 of getting a spade on the next card). I have very little playing experience, but I feel that if I could get a small four flush on 4th street every time, against 2 or 3 loose opponents (getting 2 or 3 to 1, plus what is in the pot), I would be in heaven.
Also, you imply that small trips should be played fast, as opposed to high trips being played slow. This is a strategy that I often hear on the forum. I wonder if you (or someone else) could take the time to clarify the reasoning on that, as it seems to me that the likelihood of being beaten specifically by a higher set (or higher full house if you make it) is quite remote. (I.e., if it is correct to play high trips fast, why not small trips?)
Thanks and regards, C.J.
In the past, I'd be fearful and simply call. Now, I would bet the flush or raise if I could. If I have it, I must make it uncomfortable for those who are drawing. If the ace has a flush I figure he will raise me back. If he does not have it yet and there are 3 spades showing on the board, he certainly should not raise back. My chances of winning are over 75%. I kinda have to be concerned by 2 pair so why not try to get them out with a raise. The extra dollars I get in the pot will make up for the 1 out of 4 times I am beat. I think you have to bet out here.
Dave,
How live was his club flush? Did you consider that?
I think that this was a well-played hand by you. But you are right, I don't think you would've been able to play it against stronger opponents with the same holdings.
I think you have to raise the sevens with the pair 4spades and over cards .I believe if your going to play the hand you have to make something happen.
TWIMC,
Playing FW 1-5 7CS .50 ante 8 players. I called on Third Street 6 players cards don't matter for this example. Next round I pair t's TT/TT for quads now I had been betting $5 60% of the time when I paired my board not only on 4th but 5th and 6th street so it was accepted by the table as just another bet. RYP (Randomizing Your Play) one of the greatest rules helped me to extract extra money out of the table by not appearing to have trips by slow betting third and then making the maximum bet on 4th five people called. I didn't have to go to the river because nobody paired there board, but three people went to 6th street calling my $5 bets all the way. IMO had I raised on 3rd street and then paired on 4th street and bet $5 all would have dropped. It was hard not to raise on third but it made me more money by not raising. I try to keep my image as allusive as possible (bio-suit)in this LL game that I play to extract maximum for the minimum. Sometimes the maximum bet is calling or checking.
All comments appreciated.
Paul
A very nice illustration, and clearly presented. I often get caught trying to maximize my 3rd street trips too early. A nice example of setting the hook through randomized play.
My experience is that it is very dependent on what the other's have and your position relative to the high card on board. If first to act on 3rd street, I would bet $3 if there were AKQ showing (feining weakness). I might bet $5 very strongly (as a challenge) hoping for others to chase me. I would probably slow play the trips until 5th street depending on what was on the board. Catching the quads is a bonus. I would raise on 5th st. Probably think about it then raise on 6th if I was not the first bettor. I would come out betting on the river. I ain't checking the quads.
I put him, #5, on (Qh Jd) 10h to start, hits a heart, and bets after it's checked to him. Good, so far. He hits an open ended st8 draw with the King, and calls after you call. Still okay. He hits his st8 with the Ah on 6th giving him the nut flush draw, and raises you. Excellent. (1) You hadn't made any noise in the hand, and did not have to have the flush. If you hadn't had it, his raise would have shut out you out of drawing for it. (2) If you have the flush, his raise doesn't cost him anything, because you're going to check the river. (3) If you have the flush, you might throw your hand away.
What could you have done to defend against this play? I don't know, because, unless I had some good read on this guy, I'd have mucked my little flush too.
Perhaps, and this is hindsight assisted, your inclination to raise on fifth street was correct. I doubt the st8 draw would have continued for a double bet, looking at your board.
Tom D
Jim,
"My hole cards are the Four of Hearts and the Four of Spades. My doorcard is the Queen of Spades." Since you made the decision to play the hand, play it until you don't get a card you want or the board is too scary. Your next three cards were spades you got the flush. Why were you playing the hand? To get a flush or a 4 on 4th street. You got what you wanted so bet it and if you lose so be it. The other alternative is not to play these hands at all. The reason being is most times by 5th street there are going to be overcards against you plus higher pairs or in this case the As was on the board.
Jim I play alot of these hands probably too many in LL but I find if I set a goal to get a flush or trip 4's I bet it and if I lose I lose.
Jim you probably know all this and more but this is my type of hand that I play all the time in LL.
Thanks for posting this Jim.
Paul
Paul the reason I played the hand is because I only had to call the $5 bring-in bet. Had the pot been raised, as is usually the case on third street in $15-$30 stud, I would have folded.
Jim,
I was saying to play it for that reason. I play them alot to offset the ante's if I hit I hang around if I don't it's a $1. I was just saying I find myself in your situation quite a bit, and I've folded also. But in LL it's usually two pair I folded too. In your limits the guy new what he was doing at LL I ended up not knowing what I was doing.
paul
Without the benefit of looking at the other posts, here's my thought(s). I asked my wife to lay the cards out as you said without knowing the end result. The Ace of hearts was the card that made me fold. Of course that is in real time as it happened to you. If I had the benefit of thinking it over, I probably would have stayed to the river taking my chances. Here’s why.
The ace of hearts was the perfect card against you. Did he bet for value? I doubt it, but the Ace making the raise (as a bluff against both of you) was a ballzy move. He had neither the best hand (you did) nor the best draw since #2 has the best draw to a full house at 10:1 which would be a clear winner. I suppose he (the Ace) figured the raise to 60 making the #2 cold call $60 to win $326 was only 6:1. Not raising would make it a good call for #2 (at 30:296), so the ace had to raise. Fortunately (for the winner) the 2 pair did not realize the odds were not favorable and called. Realizing this, one could suspect the raise was an attempt to drive out you and the 2 pair. I am sure he knew you had the flush already. Obviously had the Jack hearts been open instead of the Ace, it’s a different story. So, the raise now almost for sure was to drive out the 2 pair, and possibly you. However if you stay he at least has a 4.25:1 shot at the flush which will win.
In real time, I fold too
Ray makes an excellent point. I have seen this happen when an op has seen you fold on a tough situation and he decided to press you when his position is good. I am fairly sure the 3rd player made the big difference (almost as much as the ace h, and the op knew it. Knowledge of the op is very important here. I think I still would have had to fold and swallow hard.
I am a new LL 7 card stud player. I want am trying to improve my game from being tight passive to being tight selectively aggressive. My question is how far do you take the aggressivenetss? An example:
I am dealt a high pair on third street (sometimes split). In LL since there is no ante, I usually just call on 3rd street instead of raise, and, if I were to bet since I have a 'rock' image, everyone wouild folds. At fourth street, I usually bet out if I am high or raise if someone else is high. This will usually get one or two people to fold on 4th street. Three or four other people will usually call.
My question is do I still stay aggressive on 5th street if no one's board looks scary and my high pair has not improved? What about sixth street and the river? Do I continue to be aggressive as long as someone else does not raise even if my high pair does not improve?
In other words, do I continue to try and dominate or at some point do I check (show weakness) to see if someone else has improved. I have won a few hands being agressive to the end, but I have also lost a few since the better hand was content in letting me do the betting.
Thanks in advance for any responses.
Walter
Low limit without an ante is an island. The skills needed in this game really won't help you much as you move up even a little to 3-6 where there's an ante. In my neck of the woods even 1-4 stud is played with an ante and it's enough to allow a big pair to charge the poor hands right away.
I believe the best way to play high pairs in no ante low limit stud is to make the size of your raise dependent on the number of people in the pot already.if you are first or second to act after the bring in raise $1. If 2 or three have called before you raise 2-3. If you are late to act and there are more than 3 in raise 4-5. You will almost always get a couple callers this way which is what you want wiht a high pair A-T.
If you feel the urge to just smooth call, I would do that more with split pairs. With pocket pairs and a low door card, your raise is very hard to interpret. Especially if you mix it up with some high flush raises on third street. This causes people to misplay their hands since they dont know what you have. Also, when you get trips on 4th-6th, your hand is completely hidden and your raises will probably be misinterpreted as two pair or something else, but not trips.
Keep practicing, and writing in to this board. Present actual hands that caused you problems. They are the most fun to discuss, as you will get a decent amount of feedback.
Todd
knee-jerk reactions:
Hide your strength almost always. Show your strength only often enough so that other players can't be sure you always hide your strength. (that means your pair if you have one). Maybe best way to do this is pick one (rotating) card out the deck at random and show it when you get it regardless of other two cards.
I'd expect flushes and straights to be slightly weaker in roll your own. They aren't going to win or lose any less often, but will run into hidden boats slightly more often. Guess this makes boats stronger, so make sure you get a lot of those:)
Maybe for straights go against "show your strengh advice" 50% of the time if its three suited and show your middle card so it'll be harder to put you on a straight if you get one. If a 3 straight is also a 2 flush hide the 2 suited cards regardless of rank.
Other Poker Games
November 1999 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo