![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
Deleted at the demand of the poster.
I wouldn't play this hand.
You have a dead Ace and no back-door flush draw. Your low will be poor at best and a few of your low cards are out. This hand is probably only going to win ½ the pot even if it catches real well in one direction. Aside from the play of Beer (probably bad), your hand doesn't develop at all until you're smacked in the face with two perfect cards on 6th and 7th street. You were also fortunate that your opponents all caught horrible cards. I recommend reading Ray Zee's book (more than once).
. WHERE DO YOU PIGEONS PLAY AT ... THE FOX WOULD . LIKE TO VISIT YOUR COOP ... HE..HE.. HEE
thanks Buzz,
also looking down the page i say in so many words that 2 aces without a low card or two other big ones cannot stand much action before the flop. easy fold.
I hate a bare AA. Give me AAQ7 and I am not even going to see the flop unless it is very cheap, I have good position, and there are many callers in most pots. If one ace is suited, I will play it, but I sometimes I think even that is too loose. Maybe someday I will learn to fold AAQ7 with one flush draw. I already fold it to a raise. Splitting with low and being forced to call bets that are either low or a better high than AAA sucks.
I'd much rather have AQQ7. I will play that hand if I have a suited Ace and not feel like I am taking the worst of it.
i agree but dont with the qq hand. why would you rather have qq than aa. the times you run into oversets will destroy you.
There aren’t many times when you’ll flop a full house with 2-3-4-5, and when you do, (1) it frequently turns out to be an expensive loser for high, and (2) there usually is someone with a better low sharing the pot with you.
Most of the value of 2-3-4-5 comes from it’s nut low and wheel potential, and in that case you really need an ace on the flop. I figure 2-3-4-5 hits a favorable flop (a full house, quads, three wheel cards including an ace or an ace plus another wheel card) about one hand out of six.
I tried to line up chips here (on my computer table) to figure out how 2-3-4-5 would do with a raise. It’s not exactly clear, but I think 2-3-4-5 does all right, even though there is a raise, (mainly because of the nut low or wheel aspect) - if you aren’t able to put your opponents on aces.
In this particular case, Feen had a remarkable read on his opponents and correctly put at least two of them on their actual hands. Without this read, it seems worthwhile to see the flop with 2-3-4-5. However with this read, aces available for the flop are not much in abundance, greatly diminishing his chances on the flop.
As it turned out, Feen would have (1) flopped a full house which (2) would have held up to (3) scoop the pot. Naturally he has misgivings about his tight play on this hand. However, once Feen puts two or three aces in the hands of his opponents, his chances, at least on paper, don’t look very good. Therefore, I think he made the correct odds-on play by folding.
I think the best you can do for yourself in Omaha/8 is (1) use your ability to read your opponents and put them on hands, (2) then play the odds and (3) bet (or fold) accordingly. Of course it doesn’t always work out. (If the odds are nineteen to one that something won’t happen, then one time out of twenty, it will).
If Feen didn't know anything about his opponents, and wasn't able to put them on their hands (correctly as it turns out), then seeing the flop as cheaply as possible makes total sense. However, it requires a higher skill level to play based on what you think your opponents have. Once you move up to that higher skill level, it seems foolish to regress to a lower level and play as though you have no idea of what your opponents are holding.
Just my opinion. :-)
Buzz
I really like 2345. I like it a lot. Even so, I don't call here. It looks like a short handed pot and 2 or 3 aces are pretty much known to be out of action. I could easily get quartered if I do get my Ace. If the initial raiser were a known maniac who will raise without an Ace, I might have to call. However, "good players who play too many hands" tend to actually have good cards for their raises. They tend to call too often, but raise on quality.
I sit down at a 5/10 game (Taj/AC), I don't know any of the players at the table. Most of my experience is at the 1-3 and 1-5 limits. I have played this limit (5/10) a few times. I am at the table a couple of minutes when the following happens. (suits did not really come into play in this hand}
xx/2 brings it in, I have q,9/q and raise. xx/k calls, xx/7 calls, bring in calls.
4th street: xx/k,6; xx/7,j; xx/2,4 I catch a blank. All check to me; I bet.
5th street: xx/k,6,6; xx/7,j,2; xx/2,4,4. I catch another blank. q,9,/q,5,7.
xx/k,6,6 checks and the other two follow with checks.
My cards are live with the exception of the 7. Even though I had been at the table for only some hands, I did get some info on the players in the hand. The xx/7,j,2 was somewhat drunk and something of a maniac it seemed. xx/2,4,4 called every time on 3rd for the few hands I was able to watch. Neither seemed to enthused about their cards when they checked. It was the xx/k,6,6 i was concerned about. But since he checked, I don't want to give the others a free card, but don't want to be check-raised either. I thought he might have started with a pocket pair and the King.
What do I do here?
Richard
Dear Richard There is an old rule in 7 card stud that when you get to fifth street with an unimproved big pair and you're against two players you've got a problem. But you aren't against two players, you are against three players and your opponents' board shows two open pairs, an over-card, a possible straight draw, and a probable flush draw. We do not know what Jack has got probably a buried pair. Not only should you not bet, you should check, take the free card and start thinking about mucking your hand. Depending on the card distribution on sixth street. The key to winning is not making money with your strong hands (what you don't have, you have an unimproved medium strength hand/remember the delta change or the amount of loss in winability between aces and queens is the same as between queens and fives) the long term winners are the ones who avoid situations where they are not significant favorites, which you are not and you have three big bets ahead of you. "Luck favors the prepared mind..PASCAL" Sincerely, DocAZ
BB A2cA3h. Nice start!? Raise before the flop w. seven callers. Flop comes 6c7cQh.Bet-raise-re-raise. Turn comes Jh.Two nut flush draws and uncounterfitable low draw. Five players still in. Bet and called by all. Last card 7s, making four sevens for one lucky player. What are the odds of neither sweeping nor halveing this pot?
Moot point:
You "Big Tuna" have a great hand for the river and in situations similar to this you don't "should not" be concerned with the odds. I would always call or bet the turn -- maybe even raise if I had enough players trapped in. Your hand in this situation is a long term money maker. If there are lots of tight or sound players in the pot, then there may be a shortage of low cards left, but the odds are still way in your favor. Even if I missed this hand five times in a row, I would go for broke the next time.
All fold to me. I'm in the small blind holding AKJ9 (J9 is suited). I would routinely raise with this hand in this spot. The problem is the guy in the big blind has been 3 betting me all night. I'm about 90% sure he will make it 3 bets. I call, he raises, I make 3 bets making it look like I have a big hand, he 4 bets me. The flop comes T 2 2 offsuit. I checked and folded.
Comments?
Berya - I don't think AKJ9 (suited jack or not) is a great hand, especially heads-up. You have no low draw and you still have to hit the flop to play for high.
"All fold to me. I'm in the small blind holding AKJ9 (J9 is suited). I would routinely raise with this hand in this spot."
I don't get it, unless you are trying to steal the big blind. Everyone else has folded. There really isn't a large percentage of flops that will hit this hand. I think you prefer a full table to play this hand. I don't think you should be betting this hand for value in this situation, because the value simply isn't there!
In this case it doesn't seem like you will be able to steal the big blind.
Against a different person sitting on your left in the big blind, you might say something like, "Just you and me?," and call the half bet. Against a maniac who is likely to raise, you might consider quietly folding before the flop. The reason is that with AKJ9, you won't like 75% to 80% of the possible flops and, looking ahead, what will you do then?
"...I make 3 bets making it look like I have a big hand, he 4 bets me.
(1) In my opinion you're sitting on the wrong side of this guy. (2) In my opinion the guy isn't bluffable. (3) Distasteful as it may seem, he may have your number. If so, you might somehow adjust your game strategy and tactics (or leave the table).
"The flop comes T 2 2 offsuit. I checked and folded."
Normally I think you would have a good bet in this situation because it's unlikely that your opponent will like this flop either, (although he could have trip deuces), and whoever bets first in these situations frequently wins. Against this macho lunatic, however, I think you made a good move.
I remember one time I was playing against a guy who seemed to be drinking heavily and also seemed to be playing poor hands very loosely and betting wildly. When I finally got into the action against him (with a mediocre hand - I just couldn't wait any longer), he didn't seem to show any adverse effects of the alcohol as he displayed the nuts both ways and scooped a huge pot.
Buzz
Oooops, I did not see the fact that all folded in my last post.
This changes everything. Now the raise is reasonable, though mainly to make it less clear that you usually have Axyz with at least one wheel card in xyz for such heads up raises.
Against a known mainiac, I guess it probably doesn't matter if you raise or not. You have good stuff, but no low. I'd like to see a cheap flop, but that's just me.
You don't want to raise with that junk. Even a suited Ace is not enough, (though I have no serious argument). You do not want to build a large pot here. In particular, you do not want to make the pot so big that back door lows have the correct odds to call. Save that raise for Omaha high.
As for the BB re-raise all night. That is fine by me. If my hand is good enough to raise, I want some moron helping me charge double admission, and if people fold after donationg a blind sized bet, thats cool too.
In a aggressive Omaha game (lots of jamming of pots) does it ever make sense to abandon a one way nut low draw hand on the turn?That is there are virtually no outs for high but the low draw is to the nuts (with a decent chance of getting quartered or worse).
It depends... If the game is agressive almost all the time, just figure your low draw is worth about 3/8ths of the pot and go from there to decide if you should call. Assuming no protection, you have 16 outs for 3/8ths of the pot. This is identical to having 6 outs for the whole thing. So, if the pot is offerring 6:1, you can call and expect to make a little money on the river. (since 6:1 == 36:6 and there are 42 cards remaining)
If there are additional factors that make you believe you are the only nut low draw, then figure you are drawing at 5 outs (rarely is it correct to totally belive your reads here and assume 4 outs). Now you need pot odds of about 7.5:1 If you are truly sure you are not alone in the low draw, you need 9.5:1.
Obviously, this all assumes you account for possible raises that have not yet been made, but might.
Hi everyone--
After airing my 1/5 stud blues several times, I've heard quite often "move up to 5/10, you'll do better." My general string of results at 1/5 is to break close to even most times, perhaps winning a stack or so, or to lose a couple of stacks some of the time, after doing something stupid like pushing a 2-pair hand too hard...I win in drops and lose in buckets.
That said, I usually seem to be the most sensible player at my 1/5 table. I don't play weak starting cards, hardly ever go chasing (but it does cost when I do), and it is frustrating to lose in these games to e.g. one guy who played literally every street of every hand for 4 straight hours and left up $400.
1. how much more skilled/harder are the medium limit games than the low limit games? 2. since I can't beat 1-5 consistently, why would I expect to beat 5/10?
Thanks...
5-10 at the major East Coast casinos is not very different than 1-5. In a typical 5-10 game, a lot of people limp in for the bring-in, and then fold easily to bets on fourth or fifth street. Hand selection alone is enough to beat this game. The rake is brutal in no-ante 1-5, less significant in 5-10, and almost not a factor in 10-20. 10-20 is a substantially different game, and I would caution you that aggressive play, steals, and steal defenses are important aspects of that game. But in 5-10 you should be fine. Just make sure you're adjusting when the game is loose or when you can't narrow the field.
Gorp,
You should use 1-5 as your training ground. Understand why you lose each session or win. Analyze your game and learn to read players, not so much that there is much to read, but being correct in a 4 way hand as to what each player has is great practice whether your in the hand or not. It is much more difficult to read 4 or 5 players on 5th street than it is 1 or 2 in higher limits. If you can get close to doing this at lower limits, move up because it will be invaluable at higher limits. But your probably already doing this so I probably am just shooting the breeze for you.
Paul
While we are on the subject of 5-10,I am going to vegas this week. Any word on any non-tight 5-10 games? From what I hear the games are VERY tight, especially compared to the East Coast. Any input is appreciated.
Pat
Pat,
Just play as you have learned and adjust when you get out there. The only games I played in were no ante's and they were tighter than here, but beatable with quality hands.
Good Luck Paul
Gorp,
I've had the same experience, but when I play in touraments, I regularly make it to final table or close thereto. This must mean that I am a fairly good player. I think, for me, the biggest problem with 1-5 is that you just can't make enough money. You can spend hours just to make five dollars an hour. You might even play better at 5-10 as you should be able to make ten dollars an hour and, thereby, not get frustrated or impatient. Still, ten dollars is not alot. Make sure you have the bankroll. You can still lose in buckets.
Ah 3h 5x 8x middle position. All fold to me, I call.
Button calls, sb raises, I call, button calls, so 3 players see the flop: 5h 7h 8x. I don't know the players.
sb bets, I call, button folds. I have 2nd nut low, 2 pair, nut flush draw, and I already fell hopeless.
Turn is a face card offsuit, sb bets, I call.
River is a nine offsuit. sb bets, I call.
sb turns over A246. He flopped the nut low and bottom straight, and I'm toast.
I don't know where to get away from the hand. I'm think I'm getting good enough odds to play all the way through, but it turns out I needed the full house or the flush, plus a 2 to scoop. There was always the chance, too, that he was betting a one way hand.
Fred - After the flop you want to see a two, a heart, a seven, or an eight to feel more secure. I make it 14 cards that will help you and 31 cards that will not. 31*14 + 14*13/2 = 525. There are thus 525 two card combinations (out of 990) that will improve your hand. Thus you are a favorite to improve. However, even without improvement you have a decent chance of scooping or at least splitting the pot.
There are eleven small bets in the pot when you are faced with calling the equivalent of two more small bets after the turn. Your chances of improving have dropped to 13 in 44, 0.295 to 1, but you're only paying 0.182 to 1 for your call (2/11 = 0.182). And you still might scoop or at least split the pot - even with no improvement.
On the river you have failed to improve your hand. Now, in the face of the continuous betting by the small blind it looks really bad for scooping, but you still might at least split the pot, plus if you don't call here you'll have people pushing you around for the rest of the session - so you call.
It was like that old song "Just one of those things." Even though you played the hand perfectly, you still needed some luck. You didn't have any on this hand.
Just my opinion.
Buzz
Oops. "After the flop you want to see a two, a heart, a seven, or an eight"
I obviously meant "After the flop you want to see a two, a heart, a five, or an eight"
I did all my figuring for a five but then typed "seven" instead of "five." Sorry for the error, but it doesn't change anything in the reasoning.
Buzz
Nice analysis, Buzz, thanks.
I found a few more runner runners that help.
33 or AA fills me up.
A 6 followed by a 9 gives me high, and 6 with a 4 gives me a quarter.
sb bets, I call, button folds. I have 2nd nut low, 2 pair, nut flush draw, and I already fell hopeless.
I think I might just raise here. I think I have the best high and maybe the best low. If the button calls 2 bets cold, I slow WAY down.
... sb turns over A246. He flopped the nut low and bottom straight, and I'm toast. You know how unlucky that was? Now maybe this player always has A2 for his raise. If so, you were still unlucky. I'm glad I wasn't playing, I'd have lost another big bet. (or more if my opponent smooth called and check raised the turn.)
You had a good hand and a terrific flop, but sometimes that is just not enough.
This happened to me yesterdy at Grand Casino in Kinder, Louisiana. Any advice on how I could've played this better would be appreciated.
7 CS 1-5 low card brings it in for a dollar.
xx/2d is 2 seats from me and brings it in for a buck. Next 2 players call and I raise 3 with Ac 10d/Ad. Everyone folds, except the xx/2d who calls. I figure him for a high pair in the hole, 3 to the flush, or trip 2's. 4th street I get an As, he receives 2c. I bet 5, he calls. Now I figure him for 2 pair, 3 2's, or possibly 4 2's. On 5th street I get his deuce, he gets garbage. I bet 5, he calls. 6th street is garbage for both, I again bet 5, and he calls. We go to the river, and I get garbage. I still bet 5 and he calls. His river card turns out to be an 8h, which pairs up is 8 in the hole. Along with his deuce in the hole, he's 2's full of 8's vs. my 3 aces. What could I have possibly done to knock this guy out of the hand!?!? Or was I just the victim of another bad beat.
Thanks! p.s. Hellooooo ratso!
Apparently, there was nothing you could do to get him to fold. Well, if you had raised $5 on third street, that probably would have done the trick, but you also didn't want him to fold on third street. I'm a bit surprised that you got it to heads-up on third street in a game that small.
Put yourself in his shoes: if you had trips on fourth street, would you fold to a bet by a higher open pair? Most of the time, I'd raise. I don't fold trips without a very good reason, and most low-limit players won't fold trips even if they're beat on the board.
I don't think I'd even call it a bad beat. He played reasonably. Well, he should have raised on the end. He filled up, you didn't. Happens all the time. Get used to it. :^)
down here most of your passive types, either loose or tight tend to play 1-5 stud. since there is no ante you would be amazed how often I get my bring in back since nobody will play for even a dollar. mostly these are your "retires" who just want to get out of the house and eat a cheep meal. they are not there to win, rather not loose. So heads up for one raise is very easy to achieve.
Consider checking the river. Other than that, I think you played fine.
Why check the river? Even assuming the guy has 3 dueces, he only has 9 outs on the river. He will probably call with any 2 pair. Heck, in some games I've seen he might call with a pair of dueces.
Scott,
Without reading the other post the only way you could have gotten this guy out was with a gun. Pac
Oh, I feel your pain. I do not think you could have done anything differently to make him fold. If he knew you had trip Aces, and he should have by the way you bet, he should have folded. He did not which tells me he is a novice or a dope. In retrospect, you could have checked the river.
New players or the less experienced will not toss trips, ever. In a 15/30 game on labor Day weekend in AC, I raised from the beginning showing Qs,Qh:As. I had 4 callers. I got 10s and bet. Three callers. Next I get a Ks (3 high spaded). I check. All check except a newbie with lots of holiday money. He bets 30. I raise to 60. All fold but him. He pairs his 4th street card, a 5. I bet 30. He ponders a call. He either has 2 pair (high pr with 2 5's--most likely) or trip 5's. I have queens and have represented an ace high flush. He calls. The river brings me 2 pair, and he apparently gets nothing. He checks, and I bet. HE CALLS?? I loose. He says, "I was sure you had a flush". Yea, why did he call? He gave the dealer $5 tip. That is usually a good move, but the newbie just didn't get it. I have done that in games before and that is the 1st time I was called on th eriver with a hand less than a flush.
One of the most frustrating things about playing 1-5 is that one can only expect to win one big bet an hour on average. That means five dollars an hours. You might has well flip burgers. At least you may get some benefits as well.
What you should think about after losing with this hand is whether you are so upset that you should just quit before you go on tilt. Otherwise, bet agressively with trips until you are sure you are beat. Over the long hall you will win, especially heads up. But you can also expect to lose sometimes, too.
I believe Rockhard is correct, but if the table is right and you can control the players, the 1-5 can be very profitable. For example, a few nice tight passive players (calling stations) who are easy to read can yield well over $25/hr, but they must be willing to cash those Franklins. Additionally, you will have to make them feel comfortable at the table. I find I NEVER chide them when they make a bad call. I always congratulate them when they call me down and beat me when it was obvious to me that they should have folded and caught something on the river. I love when they change seats for no reason but "luck". Be patient if you have a passive tight crowd. help them to loosen up and let them have fun. I actually had a lady call me when it was obvious that I had the nuts just because she thought I was a nice guy. Thank you, dear. that helped me regain some of my losses from the 15/30. Oh yes, I almost always find myself trapping instead of raising to move people. When I raise in a 1-5 it is almost always to get money in the pot to tie people in. The full house draw is an easy one when you are getting 5 and 6 way action and the pot is giving 15:1 and above. I'll let them get their straights and flushes then raise almost apologitically on the end if I am in the right position. There is always a prick in the game whom everyone hates. When you trap that person and crush him, you become a hero, and now you are like Robin Hood.
Your opponent played correctly, as I see it. On fourth street, if my math is correct. there was 19 in the pot, and after your bet on fifth there was 24 in the pot. So he is getting almost 5-1 on his call on fifth and almost 7-1 on sixth. I am not sure of the odds but I believe that he is less than a 5-1 underdog.
The only things you could have done differently is to raise to 5 on third. I suspect that if you were in the same position you would have played it just as he did. It is a very TOUGH loss. I feel your pain!!
Pat
4-8 with 1/2 kill, very very loose game. 6-10 handed every pot. I see the flop maybe 20-25%.
ok I have A9s, 65c one before button and only 1 player has mucked. I usually wouldnt call but I'm getting way too good odds not too. Small blind raises. Damn, We see flop nine handed.
Flop; 8s,7s,Kh
I've got complete wrap around, nut flush draw. It's one bet to me, BB was bettor, no-one folded, I raise to see what happens and maybe buy the button. Button folds, SB 3 bets, I cap it.
Turn; Qc
50 small bets, I still have nothing but I have 19 outs albeit not all str8t cards are the nuts. I 'm thinking I need a few players out. It's checked to me, I bet, SB check raises, 2 players drop. I call praying for 9, 10, or Jack of spades.
River is 4s
Well I got nut high 3rd nut low. mid position guy bets 2 callers, 1 Raiser, I make it 3 bets, SB folds, bettor thinks I'm on low and caps it, all call.
The raiser on the river had a J high flush, bettor had K high flush, with A7low, 2 players had straights. I scoop as my low holds up too.
Is this a hand to play as agressive as I did? Most often I'll play it a little softer till I make something but with all the players in I thought it was the right time to gamble a little.
opinions welcomed.
Congratulations on taking down a monster. I am certainly no world class expert in O/8, but here is my take on the hand.
Nine players or not, I'm not sure I would call pre-flop. Yes, you have a nut spade draw, but your middle cards are crap, and your low draws are just as bad. Having said that, once you take the flop, it hits your hand just about as hard as you could hope for, barring some miracle like KsQs8s.
I would also raise for value when the SB comes out betting. I have to assume given the betting sequence that the SB flopped a set of Kings. If so, what the hell was he doing checking the turn? He must have had a very good read on you to go for the check-raise to protect his set, but I would have disappointed him and checked the turn. All you have at this point is still a big draw. As it turns out, giving the SB the chance to check-raise may have won you the scoop, as it is possible that one of the two folders laid down a hand that might have beaten your rough low. At the river, of course you raise as much as possible with the 2nd nut high. If someone took all the heat with 6s5s, give them the money. What are these guys with Jack-high and King-high flush draws doing? I thought the Edmonton players were bad chasing down weak flush draws. I guess there are others out there just as foolish. Thank your lucky stars. Cha-ching.
I think Badger once recommended playing any suited ace in a loose game like this, but I don't remember the post. In any case, this can't be that bad a hand to play late, you even have 2 pieces to a wheel.
It seems to me your reasoning in betting is ok ... it certainly worked out well. Agressive play is usually good!
You're asking if it's ok to raise with the nuts on the river? Are you kidding?
Although technically the straight flush could be out there....
I would try to see the river card more cheaply.
Incidentally, you had the FOURTH nut low.
This game sounds pretty soft to me! All that action on the end and no one had nut low?
The omaha game I play in is completely different. I wish I could play in yours!
I only count 12 outs to the nuts (not counting straight flushes). A flush card that pairs the board is likely no good. And someone will probably have the higher straight if you don't river the nut straight.
In my book this is worth a call but no where close to being worth a bet or a raise.
I really don't see any merit to gassing it on the turn. For all you know your low is no good and you are drawing for 1/2 the pot with one card to come. I would see the river card as cheaply as possible.
-SmoothB-
In this very loose game, your last raise smells like gambling to me. In such games, you non-nut straight draws are nearly worthless. Just what are you going to do if a T,9 or 6 falls? Your flushes are also more likely to die if the board pairs.
A similar draw, but with only 1 low card is so much better, but when you are drawing to straights and/or flushes, it is VERY hard to make the nuts AND not have to split with the low hand.
I would not even make the first raise, since I am not going to move anyone away from something like J9xx. If I could make sure lots of people would be facing 2 bets, I would raise, but in a loose game, that might be an error too.
The turn bet is not terrible. Nobody is going out. Be grateful for the free one. I'd estimate that you have 7 flush outs and 6 straight outs. Only 3 give you a scooper. This is, in my way of thinking, like having 8 outs. If you get 4 callers, you essentially break even BUT! what if someone else ties your straight... That now reduces that out to a "quarter-out" (down from a "half-out". To balance, you will win with a 6 or 9 once in awhile. All in all, it is a gamble that probably has little impact on your overall EV, but it is definitely not the kind of thing I would normally do.
RIVER:
I would cap it off here. If they have a SF, then so be it. I will say this, you are right about the weak game. The entire sequence at the river is terrible. To be honest, I did not think you had low outs, but then a card like a suuited 2 or 3 could make it happen. Certainly when you add in the chance at a low, your turn bet looks mighty good.
If you normally wait for the nuts before betting, your bets and raises were sound. Its an image thing. You appear wild and loose, yet you are really just cranking up the variance.
When the BB bets out and everyone calls, I think you should raise in the hopes that the BB reraises, putting pressure on the field. Hopefully the A-3 ,A-4 or 2-3 holders will fold, and you will only be up against an A-2 so that when you do hit your flush or your nut straights your low has a better chance (maybe a 4 comes on the turn giving you the nut straight, and duece on the river gives you a decent low, that wins since the a-3 folded on the flop).
This type of play is something I'm just now learning, so I may be off... but I think that anytime you have a marginal hand that is going to be close to even money on future bets (like a flush draw in holdem with 3-4 callers on the turn), you should bet/raise if the pressure you create could get someone to fold who is "stealing" your outs. Like getting an A-K out in hold'em so that your king high flush draw also has the king for an out.
Matt
when its heads up and i bet on the end, when my opponent picks his cards up and starts looking at them, what should i do? when i first started playing i bet on the end, my opponent picked up his cards, looked at them, threw them face down in the middle, then realized i wasnt doiing anything, reached out, picked up his cards, called, and won the hand.
so now when my opponent picks his cards up, i scoop my cards and hold them all face down in the 'waiting to muck' position and wait for the pot to be pushed to me.
just curious if anyone has anything to say about this ,tells, etc.
brad
If I am involved at showdown....I verbally declare by hand, flip it over and keep my fingers on it until the money is pushed my way or I clearly see it is beaten.
Tom
uh, i mean if i bet and my opponent is thinking about calling and starts screwing around trying to elicit tells.
brad
Look at the Mike Caro video. I am not saying but it (although it is good), but find someone with it and borrow it. If you like it (and I did) then buy it (as I did) or split the costs ($60) with a friend. It has some helpful hints that surprisingly work.
.
Brad, 1) As soon as he threw them face down, the dealer should have mucked them.
2) In some rooms, scooping them all up will be taken by the dealer as a fold.
But, as to your question of what to do, I have found that sitting quietly influences people to some extent to fold, while talking (to anyone, about anything) encourages people to call. They are curious about what you are doing and want to find out.
When he threw them face down, I might have said to the dealer "Has he folded?"
DJ
for what its worth, ive found against good players if you dont scoop yours up when they scoop theirs up they take it as a sign of weakness.
brad
If that's the case Brad, then I would scoop when you're weak and leave them out there when you're strong and try to induce a call.
yes, ive done that.
brad
If a player picks up his face-up cards in stud, it is supposed to be a fold. Is this a game in a casino?
ja, gila river in arizona. its the worst run cardroom ever probably. im playing at the new casino arizona only when it opens in a few days.
brad
4-8 game at the Bellagio. Very good game,with multiple callers but few raisers. One opponent was a good player, and I was up against him with a pair of Queens on fifth street against a flush draw that was still live. My hand was Q-8/Q-7-10 and he had x-x/10s-2s-Ks. He was the type of player to bet a draw, and if he had a pair of K's he might check raise.
Thinking back to the green book, it seemed to me to be the same situation as in the Throwing Fast Balls chapter. So when he checked on fifth, I checked behind him. I got two pair on sixth, so I bet and he called. On the river he caught a flush, he bet and I called because he frequently bluffed when he missed his draws, and even once bet a lone ace on the river.
Did I make a mistake? After the hand, I thought that I should have bet, as if he only had a draw he might fold for two units as long as he didnt have the pair of K's. I checked because If he made a pair of K's I would be a dog, but would have to call. Should I have tried for a check raise on sixth after I paired up on board? He was a good player and might have bet a pair of k's with a draw if I checked, allowing me to raise. I cant help thinking that I misplayed this hand somehow, even though I got the pot heads up against a draw with a pair of Q's.
As an aside, I just bought Mason's Gambling Theory book,and I recommend it to everyone. There are some GREAT bad beat stories there, especially the guy who lost after getting five aces in draw!!
Pat
Pat,
You got it heads up on 5th I assume you bet all the way up until then. Once you knew he didn't have the flush on 5th checking is fine (assumming he's the type that would bet a flush). Sixth street bet is good because now you definitely know that he doesn't have the flush because he would of come back at you. By him betting on the river you know he caught but you have to call him IMO. The problem is once he has the 4-flush your not going to get him out, unless you have trips on the board and even then I've seen players stay. If you can attack that type of opponent early on by raising or check raising on third or 4th street he won't be there to draw out on you. It's also good that he's around because the next time your Q's may be enuf to take down the pot.
paul
It is hard to analyze this hand without a little more concise description.
Did you raise on 3rd street? Did you lose position on 6th street (by pairing an up card)?
If you put him on a pair of 10's you should bet 5th street, because he can't have the flush. If you had position on 6th street his 7th street bet is less likely to be a bluff, but against this opponent it is probably correct to pay the bet off.
I have never played Omaha Hi Pot Limit and would appreciate some advice on beginning hands and on stratey in general.
Thanks for any help.
Tom Overton Denton, Texas
hi tom havnt heard too much from you lately on the forum. glad to see your back. in om pot. position is king. stay away from opening any pots early. have all 4 cards working well if you are not in perfect position or arent stealing. stay out of pot with lots of tight players without a big pair and 2 good ones with it or real good middle cards that make the nuts. and getting in for one bet. much of your win should come from stealing pots from people afraid of seeing the nuts and having giant wrap around draws that arent likely shared. you will have only so many nut hands that you will win little from them as many do get beat on the drawout.
much of your win should come from stealing pots from people afraid of seeing the nuts
When do you steal in PLO? If you are targeting people afraid of being shown the nuts, does that mean you wait 'til the river? or for a blank on 4th street and move it in then?
position is king. Is there anything wrong with playing a steal from in front?
Hi, how easy is it to learn Omaha and Omaha 8? I keep hearing people tell me those games are a lot easier to make money from than playing holdem!!!! If this is true I want to give those games a try. What are good books to read to learn these games? Thanks!
Ray Zee's High-Low-Split Poker is the classic. You definitely should read it before you start risking your money playing either seven stud high/low or Omaha high/low. The first half of the book is about seven stud high/low. The second half of the book is about Omaha high/low, with a chapter about basic strategy. Very insightful for both seven stud high/low and Omaha high/low.
Bob Ciaffone's Omaha Holden Poker is also good. Mostly it's about high, with only a small section on the high low game.
T.J. Cloutier's Championship Omaha is also worthwhile reading. Like Bob Ciaffone's book there is more on Omaha-straight-high than Omaha high/low.
Without a lot of Omaha high/low experience you might best start with Shane Smith's book, Omaha Hi-Lo Poker, which seems written for low limit Omaha high/low games.
Hope this helps. I have a few other Omaha books but these, especially Ray Zee's top my list. (I have no connection with 2+2, except I own a bunch of their books.)
Buzz
what about somebody like myself who needs basic beginner low limit type advice, such as starting hand selection and basic ideas of when to bet out and when to check call and such? basically an omaha/8 equillivent to holdem poker, the thin yellow classic.
Mississippi Gambler - I havent seen an Omaha book that lists starting hands in groups like David Sklansky did for Texas hold 'em.
There are systems for playing starting hands. Cappelletti and Hutchinson both have point count systems for starting hands that might be worthwhile, especially for beginners, and there are probably other point count systems. You can download Hutchison's system for free from the web. I can probably provide you with a link if you're interested. But, honestly, you're being "penny wise and pound foolish" if you don't get a copy of Ray Zee's book. It's that good!
Zee provides a fine discussion of playable hands in his basic strategy section. Ciaffone also has a section on starting hands. Cloutier also has a section on starting hands. I loaned my Shane Smith book to a friend who then dropped out of sight, but I think she has a section on starting hands also. They all recommend playing tight.
Very simply, not much without an ace is playable, and most hands with an ace are not playable.
Just my opinion. Good luck to you.
Buzz
The link to Doc Hutchison's Omaha Point Count System is at http://www.homestead.com/ehutchison/OmahaSystem~ns4.html
If you play Mississippi casinos in Philadelphia, Vicksburg and sometimes Tunica you may have noticed him. He will be taking notes on a little pad and usually has lots of chips in front of him.
mredge:
I just have visited the stated website and coul not find a hint how to access Mr. Hutchinson's Omaha'8 strategy points.
Please advise.
Thanks!
It took me 3 trys to get there. I had to put in every thing precisly as writen, incloding the html at the end.
Actually, I got there the first time but could not find a hint how to download the desired ranking points.
Were you abble to access it? If yes, please share your blue print.
Thanks!
I am a computer illiterate, all i did is hit the print function on my computer and it printed it. I did not save it and have no idea on how to send it.
sorry or i would send it to you.
Ps. it is my roomates computer and i do not play with it much other than read things off the net.
Ray Zee's book has an excellent section on beginning tactics. I haven't yet read a point count system that is worth learning more than the concepts that Ray discusses.
5/10 O/8, weak game.
I am just before the cutoff, 2 limpers to me. I call with As2s5K (not having read the current Poker Digest) . Cutoff and Button limp behind me, and SB raises. All call.
14 small bets in pot.
Flop is 225, SB bets, BB raises, 2 limpers give up the ghost, I don't believe suspect in BB and 3 bet. Cutoff caps, all call.
34 small bets in pot.
Turn is an 8, check to me. I bet, cutoff raises, button 3 bets, and we lose the blinds. I call, cutoff calls.
26 big bets in pot.
River is a 4, check to the button, bet, call, call.
Button turns over the expected 5589, and cutoff has A3. I just lose.
Questions.
1. Is A25K suited really not playable except maybe on the button?
2. Should I 3 bet prior to the flop? Would anything have chased the 5589? Heck, I don't remember, he might have even been suited.
3. I put LB on AA, and BB on a mystery, perhaps a straight draw. What should I do on the flop with bottom full?
4. When the button raised the turn (had to be 5's), should I have folded to 2 bets despite the pot size? I have maybe 1 out for high, and 3 outs for (possibly) half the low even with their actual hands. When the cutoff doesn't cap the turn, he has to be A3 with a fear of quartering.
5. How the heck do you play bottom full anyway? I'm obviously clueless.
Clueless -
Questions.
1. Is A25K suited really not playable except maybe on the button?
2. Should I 3 bet prior to the flop? Would anything have chased the 5589? Heck, I don't remember, he might have even been suited.
3. I put LB on AA, and BB on a mystery, perhaps a straight draw. What should I do on the flop with bottom full?
4. When the button raised the turn (had to be 5's), should I have folded to 2 bets despite the pot size? I have maybe 1 out for high, and 3 outs for (possibly) half the low even with their actual hands. When the cutoff doesn't cap the turn, he has to be A3 with a fear of quartering.
5. How the heck do you play bottom full anyway? I'm obviously clueless.
Answers?
1. A25K suited is playable in any position by a good player
2. I wouldn't generally three bet before the flop. Two reasons: (1) you give your hand away, (2) it's surprising how often you get screwed with A-2. But I like to randomly mix up my play, so sometimes I might raise. Who knows what someone who plays 5589 will do.
3. If you're going to play a bottom full, you raise with it after the flop. Your object is to limit the field.
4. I don't know if you call or not. It depends.
5. Very carefully! Try this:
Take a deck of cards and deal out 22458. Then deal out nine four card hands. Try it again, and again. I think you'll find that more often than two times out of three when you try this more than hand will have a full house.
Bottom full house in a loose game is not a very good hand!
Buzz
As2s5K not playable...? Where did you get that kind of info. Sounds like someone is confused.
Anyone who would call a more than 1/2 of a small bet with 5589 in O/8 is a moron. You might have lost him with an initial raise, but I see no reason to believe he would fold to a 3-bet raise. Furthermore, I see no reason to believe that this hand is enough information to base a decision to raise on. (either initially or as a re-raise) If eliminating the weak callers was such an important concern, we would never call with good but not great hands3.
"I put LB on AA, and BB on a mystery, perhaps a straight draw. What should I do on the flop with bottom full?"
I would not read AA unless the SB is not very bright. I would believe AA3. A34 is also a serious possibility.
You should raise. This is very different than playing bottom 2 pair and filiing on the river. You have the 2nd nut, and anyone who actually has outs is drawing thin. You are supposed to lose lots of money when you run up against this hand. The good news is that it is fairly rare.
The real problem is on the turn. If a low comes, and the bets start flying, you could easily be in a tough spot. Are you beat, or are the A3 hands (possibly one with a deuce) betting. Such hands are just simply hard to play. When that low comes on the turn it is almost impossible to tell if the agression is from A3 or 55 or even a deuce that just filled.
Current Poker Digest, "Teacher" column. A2K with 5 thru 9, marginal hand, playable only in late position, only if 5 is suited with the A or K (muck if A2 is suited instead of the A5?)
Sounds strange to me.
btw, excellent characterization of sb.
Bottom full house is a pretty weak hand. Reminds me of this hand...
I was in the blind with 3 3 x x. (I don't remember the other 2 and it doesn't matter.)
Flop comes 3 x x giving me bottom set. Looks like a straight might be out there so I check to see what the action is like. UTG bets, a few callers, I call knowing it cant be raised.
Turn card pairs the board. I bet, couple of callers, player whom I respect raises, I muck. There was no low out there.
Routine laydown of the tiniest possible full house.
-SmoothB-
My comments:
I have been playing OM8 since its intorduction in the Los Angeles CA area(maybe about 14 years ago).
Regarding OM8, when the board pairs -- there is a good chance of more than one full house. Therefore the bottom full is often not a winner. Most cognizant OM8 players realize this possibility and play accordingly.
Good poker sense or gut feelings are very important: From experience it seems to me that most good OM8 players can sense when they probably have the best Hi hand and usually avoid missing a winning bet. Important variables or parameters that these good OM8 players employ are: position; betting action"history" for this particular hand; knowing the other players style....
This situation sounds like one I've been in a few times myself. This is what I think about when it happens, let me know what I'm off on, and what I'm leaving out...
On the flop I first believe that I have the best hand, since only the other 2 5's can beat me. I also notice that I have 3 to a wheel, so I fear a 6,7,8 more than I fear a 3 or 4 (an ace give me the best 2's full so I don't "fear" it as much as the 3 or 4). On the turn if a low does come, I will just call all future bets if someone else was aggresive on the flop (fearing they have drawn out on me, have the same hand, or had me beat with the 5's). If a 9 through Q comes on the turn, I will bet out in an early postion since I still have outs even if another 2 drew out on me. If I do get raised on the turn when I bet out in this situation (and I don't catch the K or A on the river) I will fold to a bet on the river from about 90% of the player I play with, since most would play scared unless they had me beat.
Another big factor (as someone said before) is knowing who will bet/raise with an A-3 in this situation. If a player capable of doing this is the only other player showing aggresion on the flop, I will be much more likely to bet when the 3 or 4 comes on the turn, or the 9-Q.
There are a few players I play with, that I would be able to lay down to on the flop, if they bet out, I raise behind them, and they re-raise. There is no possibility for them other than 5's full.
That is about all I think about, thanks in advance for your advice.
Matt
I was on business in LA recently. While there, I played my first sessions of Mexican poker. It certainly seems like the 2-4 and 4-8 games are well stocked with fish. I was amazed to see people play hands as bad as 47 offsuit.
Anyhow, despite being brand new, I picked up a nice chunk of chump change from these games and I don't even know anything about the game except things that were obvious after a minute of thought.
Does anyone around here know where to find some information on the strategy for this game.
I play in mostly 5-10 games in AC, where there are a lot of callers on third and fourth. My question has to do with my basic strategy in these games.
If I have a good hand on third street, i.e high pair or high three flush with an A or K showing, I raise, and usually knock out a few but not all players. If there are a few draws, and perhaps a smaller pair, I usually will wait until fifth street to raise again, and will go for a checkraise on fourth in early position,(and will raise or bet in late position). I do this to knock people out. I will usually risk a check in order to checkraise on fourth if the pot is small on fourth, and if it is checked around then I have given a free card. This seems like it could be a mistake. If someone bets I will almost always checkraise,and this ususally is successful. Depending on the game, I will sometimes bet on fourth instead of checkraise, and then checkraise on fifth, if I am sure that someone willbet after me.
However, after I check on fourth and have given a free card, occasionally everyone will fold on fifth after a bet, or everyone will check to me on fifth and then when I bet, they all fold. This implies to me that they may have folded for $5 on fourth, in which case it appears that I have given them a chance to catch a card. I have occasionally lost pots to draws that caught a card on fourth to warrant calling to the end.
So, basically I have two competing interests here. I want to keep the pot small,so that a raise destroys the odds I am giving on fourth or fifth. However, this forces me to give a free card occasionally on fourth, as I will usually go for the checkraise in early position. Is this a good general strategy, or is the occasional free card bad enough to make this strategy incorrect? If so, how should I play these hands? I find that with a high pair I will usually get a lot of callers on fourth even if I bet, as long as I have not improved, and then I get checked to on fifth. This is why I decided to use the checkraise strategy.
Any comments are appreciated.
It's a puzzlement!
Mason Malmuth and David Sklansky have correctly deemed Seven Card Stud a very complicated game. You are finding out first hand. High pairs play better against a small field. The best field is one opponent for a big pair. Big flushes play well against both a small field and a big field. Since betting does not have the effect of limiting the field when you have a big flush draw encourage a lot of players to call by just calling third street. Hope they all call.
If you have a live high pair with a two straight or 2 flush then raise on third street. If you limit the field then fine. If not you get more money in the pot with a hand that has good potential. If you have a big pair with a no hel kicker and not other possibilities or if your hand is not very hand play the hand like a drawing hand and tend to call rather than raise. Raise these type of hands when someone has raised before you and you feel there is a good chance you can get it heads up. Third street is very critical in all limits of seven stud (I play up through 20-40) but it is most important at the low limits like 5-10 because of al the callers you see at those limits. Even though a lot of your opponents are making 3rd street calling errors thier combined weight makes winning against them a frustrating endeavor. The third street strategy I reccommend for games that are very loose is a bit tighter than most and not as aggressive as most will tell you.
On fourth street if the pot is small you should be betting your big pairs trying to knock people out. Check raising with a big pair in a small pot against a lot of opponents is not a good idea. When the pot is big and you have a likely bettor on your right is the time to try for a check raise. Free cards are almost always a mistake. Tend to bet hands that you feel are best on fourth. Leave the check raise to fifth to knock people out. If your big pair hasn't improved by 5th and you have 2 or more callers it may be time to start checking and even folding if your hand doesn't have much of a chance pof improving.
Vince.
I agree with Vince here for the most part in theory. I find that check raising does not move the weekend crowd in AC either at Taj or Trop, so I really raise early with high pairs to dump the straight/flush draws if I can (got to look at the board carefully) and later to get money in the pot. Everyone with a freaking picture card calls 2 bets on 3rd street. It is almost a waste of time except UTG or last when it is just you and the bring-in. And pot odds??? The weekend crowd can only figure odds out at 3rd street, and implied odds are a foreign language to them.
ratso--
is this really true (about little/no respect for 3rd and 4th st raises in ac 5/10)? If so, the 1-3 and 1-5 games I'm playing at the trop are much tighter than that and i'm playing in the wrong game.
btw, i get around this dilemma by betting/raising on 3rd and betting out on 4th and reraising if possible. It's a drag to get more of your chips in when you feel the horserace paradox creeping up on you (like sometimes you just _know_ someone's going to hit a draw and you bum out while putting your chips in), and it's particularly frustrating at 1/3 and 1/5 when you win a tiny pot with a hand you know is best, but roy's advice "it's better to win a small pot then lose a big one" seems apropos, and i might be playing at the wrong limit anyway since there's something to steal at least at 5/10.
Hi Pat, I play mostly spread limit, but some structured stud up to 15-30. Protecting big pairs is difficult, but I think you've got the best strategy.
The free card on 4th isn't great, but if you bet and the first guy calls, each successive player has more in the pot to call for. Depending on the rake and whether it is a $1 or $2 bring in, there may be about $30 in the pot at the end of 3rd street bets. A $10 bet on 5th (or a $10 check-raise on 4th) may knock players out. If you bet on 4th there will be around $65 after you bet 5th and you'll get more callers.
The total win rate may not change much, but the frustration level is better if you play it your way instead of betting out on 4th.
DJ
Dear Pat You make some interesting points but Im afraid you missed a key point which should revolutionizeyour game it is best described in Sklanskies and Malmuths book "Advanced stud 2000" (Dave and Masson have a classic book which is only 4 months old) In their section "playing in loose games" They point out that the key to playing big pairs is improving your odds of winning by adjuting the number of oponents yo the ratio that will give you the mathmatical provability of making the most money. For example you raie with your split pair of aces thats perfect you now have the ideal number of oponents to make money , if you get two caller thats still very good . three is ok now your fourth stree bet has a ggod chance of reducing your oponents to one or two but when you have four callers now you have a problem now you want to go for your "right sided check raise". (see Sklanskies book ( theory of poker on right vs left sided check raising.) or you might want yo make the same move on 5th street . Now if you happen to be up against paired door cards and suited conectors you might want to get ready to muck the hand. With your drawing hand it is a whole different story. For example if you are on fourth with a four flush and no flush cards out you have a 55% chance of making your flush and you are hoping for lots of callers But with a four flush and 5 flush cards out and 12 cards out you only have an aproximatly 35% chance of making your hand and you will want to cross your fingers and hope you can make your flush as cheaply as possible.You need to rember with 12 cards out your provability coeficent has droped from 2.8 to 2.5 or 2.4 ( I cant rember exactly ) And also the key to playing drawing hands is the pot odd to winning hand ratio .If you follow the ratio and make calls with positive mathmatical expectations you will allways win "in the long run". The best description of this principle and its resultine stratagy ( in the lay literature ) Is described in Constantine Ottmers excelent book "Seven seven card poker" I hope these thoughts will ne a help . " Luck favors the prepared mind " Pascal Your friend and coleague Doc B from AZ. f
Dear Pat I made a mistak of posting my response with out rereading it. Paragraph 1 line 8 should read "if you get one caller thats perfect. which is almost verbatum to what Vince said. Incidently all of Vinces advice was excellent But his coment in paragph 2 line 2 on the value of live cards and conected or suited kickers with your big pair in loose games "is pure gold" your colleague Doc B from AZ.
Doc (and Pat for that matter) S and M wrote sound advice. I love their books as guides, but YOU will have to adjust to the game YOU are in. What works for S & M in LV should work everywhere most of the time, but what if it works all week against the rocks and solid players and you find yourself playing on weekends at AC or Foxwoods against peopele who "come to gamble". It is these instances when you must adjust or your game according to who you are playing. Coming in 2nd best in cards sucks. Follow S & M's guidelines bud adopt them to your game.
What new book!! I havent heard/seen it. Are you just talking about the new edition of the green book?
Pat, I understand your frustration. However, I believe the answer to your problem has a simple side to it, too: you have to reduce the field, so do whatever works to do that. If that means check-raising, just be as sure as possible that someone close to your right will bet. If you are not sure, bet. You don't want to give a free card this early. Give the free card up late when you are sure they won't fold. Don't worry too much about the money in the pot. If they don't have playable hands, you want those loose players to call you to the river. If you play it right, you should win in the long run.
If you get too many callers, consider who you are up against. Would they call with anything. Is it obivous that you have a high pair, or is your pair hidden. Remember, you have already telegraphed your hand by betting. You may want to consider backing off after fifth street if you think you are beat or that your opponents are committed to the river. If they bet into you, you have to recognize that they have probably put you on a high pair. They may already have you beat. But don't give them free cards early. Make them pay to draw on you and then determine whether they have been successful. These loose players should pay you off more often then not.
Remember, Playing against loose players can be profitable, but it still requires that you think and read hands. Play aggressively. Make them pay. If your reads are good, you should come out ahead.
Suppose I play this game , the drop : Everybody have 3 cards in his hand . Only card high , pair or triple is good . no flush , nostraight . The dealer says 1-2-3 GO and If you keep your cards in your hand and your the only one , you take the pot , if not ,every players show is hand , the best hand takes the pot and the other(s) who keep their hand have to pay the pot . When should I be in , and when not ? The answer is , I think : If we are 2 in this game My hand must beat 50% of any 3 cards possible , if we are 5 my hands must beat 80% of any 3 cards ...etc ... My question is : which minimum hand beat 50% , which beat 66% , which one beat 90% ?
Just some advice on the mechanism you use. By going on an oral signal, you're opening the game up to cheaters. Someone with the right skills can make their decision a fraction of a second after seeing what everyone else has done. If they're good enough, you won't catch them. More often, someone will kindof change their mind, and accidentally hold on a bit too long, or the like. This will look like cheating. Do it this way instead.
Have everyone grab a chip, and put both hands, including the chip, under the table. They then bring up their right hand. Once everyone has a hand up, they show what's in their hand. No chip means they fold, but if they've brought the chip up, they are staying. This way no one can use or try to use, their physical ability to move quick, see quick, etc., to cheat. Also, fewer accidents will happen, and people won't be falsely accused of cheating (when they're really just clumsy or weren't paying attention).
Alternatively, you can probably think of many other mechanisms for players to designate what they're doing without it being so prone to problems.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Test
Hi there in 2+2 land,
I was leafing through one of Feeney's new additions to the 2+2 library and came across and interesting statement. . It was the part where Dave Sklansky was contacted for lessons and the author was suprised that it would take only a few hours for Dave to take him from loser to winner. . So the question becomes... What goes on in those 3-6 hours that's not in the books? What is being withheld that is so concise and so short that it only takes a few hours to go from losses to wins. I gaurantee the books took me longer than that to go through and success was marginal at best. . So what is it that these private lessons cover? Is that material in the books or not? Have we been misled? Have the books ommitted something? . Sincerely, FLMason
I answered this same duplicated post on the General Theory Forum.
me too!
Hi, I am wondering about the effects of a kill in a 20-40 eight or better game. The rule is that if you scoop a pot that is over $200 you have to put a $20 kill on the next hand.
How does this affect overall profit potential?
What are the appropriate adjustments to the strategy recommended in your book?
(Both for playing a hand initially and when there is a kill on it).
Thanks very much for any help!
unless players are bad kill pots ruin poker games. it helps a tight player as he wins few pots and gets to see cards in a bigger pot for the smaller ante. thus kill pots tighten up a poker game plus many people tighten up as the higher stakes when killed is too big for them, and their new tight play continues on in the regular pots. there are many variations of kills, but consider what it does to the stakes in relation to whats in the pot at the start.
Thanks for the quick, informative response, Ray.
The other question I had was should it change my play in terms of starting hands considering the fact that I will have to kill it if I scoop?
And I guess it pays to play a little looser when the pot is killed because there is more reward in terms of the extra money in the kill pot.
Thanks again!
Saturday at Foxwoods 10-20 7CS. The table is typical of a weekend, 2 players who are lousy, a couple of weak tight, a couple of tight, and 2 solid.
LP1 x x \2h SP x x \Kc #3 x x \5h #4 x x \8d #5 x x \4d ME JcJh\Qc LP2 x x \As WK x x \Ah
Lousy Player #1 (LP1)is the bring in with the 2h. He brings it in for $10. This is a standard manuever for LP1. He can still be playing anything. Seat #2, a solid player (SP), raises to $20 with the Kc. #3,#4, and #5 fold. I am in seat 6, I have JcJh\Qc. I see the raise by #2 as a clear attempt to get heads up with the LP1. He may have a pair of Kings but I think a flush draw is possible. It is unlikely that he has only big cards due to my Q and 2 aces yet to act. I cold call the $20. The 2 aces are Lousy Player #2 (LP2), and weak/unimaginative (WK). With more aggressive players behind me, or if my cards were partially dead, I may throw my hand away. I thought with this lineup, I wasn't going to be reraised. The LP2, WK, and LP1 all call the raise. 5 way action, $107 in the pot.
Fourth street brings the following: LP1 x x \2hKs SP x x \Kc8s ME JcJh\Qc8c LP2 x x \AsKd WK x x \Ah3d
The LP2 checks, WK checks, LP1 bets, SP raises, I cold call as do LP2 and LP1, WK folded. Still can't put LP1 on a hand. It is likely that he does have a pair, probably deuces (yes he would bet into the 3rd st raiser with only deuces). I now figure SP for Kings. This raise seems desparate to limit the field. The kings are now dead, If he had aces, they are dead, It is still possible he has queens or another smaller pair, or a 3 flush, but I think his most likely hand is kings. LP2 could have anything and he doesn't scare me yet. Four players, $187 pot
Fifth Street LP1 x x \2hKs4h SP x x \Kc8s5c ME JcJh\Qc8c9d LP2 x x \AsKd6s
LP2 and LP1 check, SP bets, I call, LP2 folds?, LP1 calls. I thought my decision to call is questionable. I think the better play may have been to raise. LP2 folded anyway but LP1 has remained and SP has complete control of the hand. Even if I'm beat now, I think I have a minimum 6 outs and the possibility to pick up additional outs on later streets. The possibility of a reraise from SP shouldn't be that great of a consideration because the pot is now so large. The SP also can't represent a hand that I can't beat with my draws. One argument against the raise now is I know that SP is going to keep firing chips and if I do make my draw I'm going to get in an extra bet with the best of it. Three players, $247 pot
Sixth Street LP1 x x \2hKs4h6c SP x x \Kc8s5c7s ME JcJh\Qc8c9d3c
SP bets, I call, LP1 folds. I don't know what LP1 was playing but I can't imagine folding at this point with anything other than no pair no straight draw. I thought this was straight forward. I'm not folding now. The pot is too large and I have picked up some additional outs with a flush draw. two players $287 pot.
On the river SP x x \Kc8s5c7s\x ME JcJh\Qc8c9d3c\Jd
He bets, I raise, he gives me a whining call (higher pitched crying call). My 3 jacks beats his K's and 5's. I raise here because I'm sure he will call with kings up. He can't have 3 kings, straight is highly unlikely, plus he should fear flush, and flush, same as straight, unless he has the Ace.
He berates my play from the beginning because I cold called $20 on third street, and didn't fold to his raise on 4th street. I bite my tongue and decide to post the story.
All comments welcome and appreciated.
John Gaspar
I am happy you won, but to cold call 2 raises with 3 higher cards on board and 2 Aces still to speak is ballsy and borders on careless. If I am in the last Ace position and I have even a small pair, I'll put you in a sandwich and might make it 3 bets. Then what do you do? If you call, you are crazy. I wouls have raised if the Aces were in front of me and folded. I respect Aces; maybe you should too.
I think the call on the flop is ok, I would be more worried about the K than the 2 A's behind me. I don't think an AA is that much of a favorite over the 2J's with another A showing.
You might be trapping the J's with a raise, but you are raising into K's minus one of your A's.
Ratso, I agree in principle with you respect toward Aces. Although this hand doesn't reflect it, I do have a healthy respect for the Aces and the possibility of a reraise. In this case I didn't think that it was likely. The weak/unimaginative player would play like a calling station, and the lousy player wouldn't reraise even if he had Aces.
With tougher players or more sophisticated players, I probably don't play for the original $20. I felt that this was a positive opportunity.
John
I have done what you did, only I had my ass handed to me as I did not hit my hand and was beaten by a weak player who improved to 2 pair while I did not. Your move is a good example of what you CAN do when you are sure of the competition; and in this case you certainly were.
Ratso,
Remember, an ass in hand is better than a penis in the bush. Hmm.. well.. maybe not.
Vince.
An ass in 1 hand and a penis in her bush.
Also, it is "lack of money is the root of all evil"
No. It's: "Peter piper packed his pickled pecker..." and "A bird in the bush is better than a pickled pecker in the pants"
vince.
I think your call on third was correct. You had a good hand that plays well with many players due to the straight and flush possibilities. I believe that LP1 had ace-duece in the hole. Why else would he bring it in for $10? Go figure.
On fourth street your hand still looks good, so the call is correct. You usually cannot get rid of weak players until the bets double anyway. They all cold called on third, why wouldn't they on fourth?
I think you should have raised on fifth. First, you want to get rid of LP2 so he does not draw out on you. Note that, you may get reraised since SP had two pair, but I believe that's the risk you have to take. Furthermore, in this case you would have won more money.
The player that berated you, was just pissed off that he lost. The SP played poorly. He should have realized from the calls on third street that he was not going to get rid of everyone on fourth.
My experience with players like LP1 bringing in for $10 with a duce is usually a pair of deuces that he is trying to protect and is somewhat on tilt especially if he has had to bring in the time before. I doubt he had an ace at least in East coast 7CS
I haven't read the rest of the responses. I believe that given the description of the game that you gave you played the hand as well as it could be played. You could fold on third street against the SP double raise but I liked your reasoning and it sure looked like it was going to be a big pot. If you are going to gamble it may as well be for a lot of money. A raise on 6th buys you little but I guess an arguement for can be made for one. BTW I can't imagine not calling the river even if you caught a blank. Also and maybe most important. Your hand was pretty live (not entirely) on third street. There's a lot to be said for playing live cards.
Vince.
I think on 3rd street if Gaspar has Jacks and there are Kings and possibly aces out there, our guy is an underdog. Folding in early position before any calls and before the aces is not a bad thing. Costs almost nothing. I think a fold would be in order. Too conservative????
maybe, but my variance is pretty low and I like it that way.
I don't think folding is a mistake. I also think calling is a reasonable play given the description of the situation. Don't forget there were duplicate Aces behind him and he put the K on trying to get the LP heads up. If I'm the K I raise with a lot less hands than Kings to get a weak player heads up. Our poster evaluated the situation and made a not to loose call. A call with potential I must say. Ratso if I had your money I probably reraise. Now that may be a mistake.
Vince.
I am trying to think like a holdem player in a stud game. In that case, I think you are right in evaluating and calling, but a stud player would probably fold in that situation. Different mind set here.
Oh, yes my money---guess I'll have to get another Benz. How did you like my Armani suit I was wearing? I had those short pants made special, and with the material left over, I had them make me a hat.
Atl City is nice in the fall!
Based on your description of the hand, reraising on third street is far superior to calling. The key is your kicker is a suited connector. You said that the "K" was possible trying to isolate the chump. If this is true your raise will drive out the hands behind you assuming they don't have aces, and if he has kings you aren't much of an underdog. Plus you can handle some of the multiway action with you suited connector. I am suprised more people haven't suggested this. When you call with the queen showing, it screens that you have a high pair that can't beat kings. He knows right where you are.
Once five players get to the river, jacks up are not going to be that often.
"Based on your description of the hand, reraising on third street is far superior to calling. "
Maybe one of us read the description of the situation incorrectly. I don't doubt that it may be me. But if I read it correctly there is slim to no chance of getting this hand heads up. I've done quite a bit of playing with loose lousy players. Trying to get a hand heads up when there are two raises before you is, I can't think of the word, but impossible comes close. Now if you can't get a hand heads up which would be the best scenario you go for second best and that is to try for a lot of callers. What helps your live hand for multi-way action is the suited connector. Just an opinion.
Vince
DearJohn, I have a feeling you had some doubts about calling the double raise on third with the two aces behind you. You can make a case either way. You did have the increased odds of having your live pair in the hole and therefor The increased implied odds ,but still wih paint all over board the best case senerio would be to probably drop the hand.You had a straight kicker but your primary and secondary cards are in trouble. And if the ace does raise you "you become the cheese".(aces will beat jacks from 62 to 59% of the time ,,when one ace is out, depending on the livelyness of the kickers) I agree with your fourth, sixth, and sevent street play. But would question calling a bet on fifth street. There you have a three card flush and a three card straight but its a gut shot straight. And your chances of hitting that jack are now only 5%. It would be a marginal call at best. But God knows I have made plenty of marginal calls and I have a rule never to criticize a man when "he is stacking MY CHIPS". Its fun replaying our hands, thanks for sharing this one with us Sincerley Doc B
Hi,
I'm hoping that someone can help me find some information on the rules of Chinese Poker. Hopefully an internet page that has the rules on it. Also, if anyone knows where I can find a page with some strategy on it for this game, I would appreciate that as well.
Rules aren't that hard.
Deal 13 cards apiece (and facedown) to 2, 3, or 4 players.
Each player divides his cards into 3 hands, a top hand of 5 cards, a middle hand of 5 cards, and a bottom hand of 3 cards. The hands are ranked according to the normal poker hand-rankings. Straight flush, 4 of a kind, etc., down to no pair. Your top hand must be a higher ranking poker hand than the middle hand, and the middle must be higher than the bottom. The 3 card bottom hand ignores flushes and straights (those require 5 cards), and only can be trips, pairs, or no pair rankings.
Each pair of players compares their hands, top vs. top, middle vs. middle, bottom vs. bottom. If my top hand beats your top hand, I get 1 point. Thus, each player can get 0, 1, 2, or 3 points.
Now it gets complicated.
In some games, the winner (the person who gets 2 or 3 points) gets a bonus point. In other games, you get no bonus points if you win 2:1, but 3 bonus points if you win 3:0. Many games offer bonusses for specific hands. For example, trips in you bottom hand gets a 3 point bonus, 6 points for a straight flush in any hand, 3 points for a full house in the middle, etc. Other games offer special bonusses if you make 3 flushes (even though the bottom hand, with 3 cards, can't normally make a flush) or 3 straights. Basically, however, you get the specified dollar amount for each point. So, if it's a $25 game, and you beat me 2:1 with no bonusses, you win $25. If you beat me 3:0 plus a 3 point bonus, you win $150.
You compare your hands against each of your 1-3 opponents, and pay each other off one at a time. So, you could beat me by 1 point to win $25, lose a point to the second player and pay him $25, and scoop the final opponent for 6 points, and win $150 from him, for a total win of $150 on that hand.
Get a full set of written rules for the game at any casino you wish to play. Otherwise, someone is going to turn over some hand on you that costs you 20 points, and you won't even know it was allowed.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Hi everyone,
The local cardroom is holding a No limit crazy pineapple tournament this evening. I've played the game a couple of times at the 3-6 limit and I am wondering if anyone has ever played this game no-limit and has some thoughts to share.
Most of the players in this cardroom are 4-8 Hold'em players and they are weak for the most part, so I am thinking that the fact that there is an extra card might make this particular game very loose (the room also spreads an omaha hi game where it is not uncommon for 9 players stay in to see the flop for double bets). Also, the tournament will have rebuys during the first three levels and an add-on right before the break. ($50 buy in, $15 rebuys and a $25 add-on for a $5000 guaranteed prize pool)
Thanks,
Carlos
A friend of mine who is a holdem player and I were discussing the hand played by John Gaspar below. ACtually we were discussing a variation of the hand. Lets say that you are the Kc in seat two in John's example. You do not have a pair of kings, but only have 9sQd/Kd.(not clubs as in John's example--all of the other cards are the same.The 2h brings in for $10 and you are next to act.
He contends that you have implied odds to draw to the flush because all of your cards are live and the A is duplicated. I contend that you are only getting 18-10 on your call and are risking a raise after you, by the overcards, so you should fold.
What is the proper play?
Based on John's prior hand, I would definitely fold. I might stay for 1 bet if (1) I acted last or next to last (2) there was only 1 diamond showing and (3) there were at least 4 people in the hand. Raising here is foolish because you want the people in the hand if you are considering it a drawing hand. Overall, I think a 2 flush in early position is a toss.
I must play way too loose because I think this is a raising hand in the game and description of the players I described earlier. I think the 2 flush gives the hand some added equity if more than one player should call the raise.
I think that this holding was reasonable for the #2 player to have had in my example. If you can be successful in limiting the field, you play heads up with the lousy player who will play any three cards til 5th street. Once again I say this in the context of the game I described.
In a normal situation where you were not trying to isolate a specific player or solid players held the overcards, I would throw my hand away in early position. If I could play for the bring-in in late position I would call the $3. Or if in late position and the first in the pot, I would raise.
John Gaspar
You make a good point. I will copy the thread and use it for a discussion with a couple playes who are better than I am. I'll let you know the consensus. I am definitely in for a raise if the King limped and take my chance with the Aces. I do not think calling is the wisest thing to do because I figure if wveryone else folds except the last Ace, he will raise.
I don't know if your holdem pal got lucky, but this was an inetresting post. Here is why I would play, and I am a pro stud player. You have position on the raiser, and are not susceptible to his bag of tricks. It's a weak cast. You do have 2 to a flush & straight lush, and 3 to a gut straigt. 3 nines is an out also, as it is unlikely the strong player will raise with 3 kings. Therfore you have 21 cards that hel
Sorry-my computer crashed. But with that many cards that help, its a strong decision. Do you lose much by folding?? No. But you gain a lot when you win. but, THIS IS NOT FOR THE WEAK. if even 1 other strong player is there, I would fold. If the one raiser had position, I would fold. In this case, if you make any of your draws, it is unlikely you are drawing dead, Thus it is worth the risk. This is exactly the hand that separates the journeyman pro from the profitable pro. I am sure some of you will disagree, but that's ok. That's the beauty of our beloved game. But this is a hand I think it is a mistake to automatically throw away with a large pot, position, and no risk of drawing dead.
I think your assessment is perfect. It is the hand that separated journeymen from regular good players. That is why I wonder is it worth the risk for 95% of the players. At the early stage 2 raises with out knowledeg of how the aces play or if they play; and without a count of how many or your suit cards are dead, it is a tough call
By the way, "the arm" is the holdem player described as my friend!! A fraud!!! I do agree with his assessment, however this was not the point of the post. I think most good players would agree that it is worth a call in late position with only the raise by the deuce and no raise by the Aces. However, the point of the post was how to play in early position not how to play in late position.
"The arm" misunderstood the post. There is also a risk of drawing dead which is ignored, since any pair has a 7.5% chance of a full house.
Pat
GOD!!!!.....Last nite and Saturday nite drove me crazy. O/8...looks like a juicy game as too many in every pot. Most hands go 6-way some 8-9. I sit down in 9 hole and muck 1st 2 hands but notice seat five win 1 scoop 1 and his cards are trash. hmmmm ok. He is 1 off BB and has to kill it (1/2). Kill always acts in turn here. So instead of just killing it he makes it two bets in the dark!.
1 player has entered the pot to me, I have AA23 double suited. Havent played a hand yet so this is the time to try to limit I say to myself, so I make it 3 bets. Everybody between me around to him calls! Maniac in % caps it.
7 way action, 28 kill small bets.
flop: A 2 J Two cards are of my suit.
By the time it gets to me we are 2 bets, 4 handed, 2 checkers behind, I raise, 3 players muck, Maniac caps it. so we stay 4 handed to the turn.
4 way action, 44 small bets in pot.
Turn: 10, Not suited to board(some of the suit details are not exact but are to the point.)
Maniac bets. 1 caller to my right. I raise. Thinking I have best scooping hand and make draws pay. Am I thinking right? Ok all 4 call....
4 way action, 30 big bets in pot.
River: Q not my suit.
DANG!!! ARGH!!!!! JESUS!!!!
No bets to me I check maniac turns over 7899 rainbow and scoops the pot with suckers end str8t!
okok I luv this game....oh no he's gone to main game.
I get there, continue playing similar hands, strted this table with a rack, very nice game, fewer raises but just as loose. Takes me a while but I scoop a couple big pots and get up to 4 1/2 racks in front of me only to watch it dwindle down to the live ones that raise in early position with A3J10 unsuited ace, calling with KK66, etc. I continue playing hands like AA36 double suited for 2-4 bets before flop to muck them on the flop (correctly). I played hands like 10JQK king suited calling 2 bets only to muck on flop, QQJ4 Suited q, only to muck on flop(Mid Pos), basically I may only see 20% of the flops. Well long story we know, I went bust by these idiots. Is it dumb luck or am I missing something?
QQJ4? I think you missed something on that one.
It is tough losing with AA23, but a big set is always vulnerable to straights.
Sounds like a great game ... where was it, anyway. I'd like to play myself.
QQJ4 suited queen? I thought that was a trash hand. Ok, maybe not as bad as K 8 2 2 rainbow, but still not good.
Maybe you were a little too loose?
I got AA23 double suited once in my life. Lost.
I've gotten AAxx double suited a handful of times, two times I had the nut flush draw IN BOTH SUITS (!!!) on the turn with no board pair, and lost both times. Never won with AAxx double suited.
Good luck.
-SmoothB-
-SmoothB-
Larry,
You lost a couple of hands think back to hands you won by just playing well. Don't focus on an individual player (although it's hard not to) this will bring you out of your normal game. I learned this the hard way as with everything, but ride it out and play your game.
Paul
Sometimes it's raining soup and you are sitting there with chopsticks. That is the way it goes for poker and maybe more so for OM/8....
As you know, remembering the style of familiar players is very important. Also, you must be able to rapidly gauge "read" the style for unfamiliar players. In my opinion, I think it is extremely important to sit to the right of the the bigest mainiac or at least three seats to the right. Position is very important. After playing in many wild OM/8 games with one or two loose-agressive players, you should observe that some good players are cleaning up. You must learn how to adjust your style for games like this. Also sometimes it might be better to change tables if the wild action is tilting you.
Maybe I'm a big wimp, but in a wild capping o-8 game I never raise until the river, or maybe the turn. Raises will never make one of these guys fold or gain any value except to put more $ in the pot.
This *might* be a big leak in your game.
When you say "wild capping", do you mean that every round is getting capped? If so, then you're right, why let even one of them know you've got the nuts since the same number of bets is going in either way. However, if some rounds are seeing only 1 or 2 bets go into the pot, and you could have made it 3 or 4 with a hand that figures to be a decent to great favorite, then you're leaking some money.
There are many spots in Omaha8 where on the turn you have nothing, yet half of the deck either gives you a lock for some or all of the pot, or gives you a reasonable hope for all or some of the pot. You should be betting and raising in these situations.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You mean like the time I had AA2x double suited, and had nut low draw, and BOTH nut flush draws on the turn? With no board pair? You bet I gassed it!
I don't remeber the river card, except I can tell you that it was higher than 8 and not one of my 2 suits. LOL this kinda thing happens.
What I wouldn't have given for a 3 of spades on the river!
-SmoothB-
A few days ago in a 3-6 OM/8 game: I (seat 9) and a loose-agressive "maniac" (seat 7) were involved in two consecutive pots. Pot #1(six way action) I "seat 9 have button": flop is Qc, Jc , 10h. Maniac has K,9, 8,5(no flush draw) flops 2nd nut straight and bets. I have Ac, Qd, 4c, 2s(nut flush draw). Turn is 7s. All players call on turn. River is Ks and I bet the only nut straight - maniac calls. Next pot"#2 with button at seat 1", I am the killer with Ks 10h 4s 3h in seat #9. Pre flop: all call to maniac who raises. Decision time for me. It's obvious that it's going to be a monster pot and could be expensive to go to the river. With uneasy feelings I call. Player # 2 reraises. All call( 8 players and 24 small bets.) Flop is 9d 5s 2c. All check to maniac who bets. I call with a wheel and six high straight draw. Seat 1 calls, seat 3 raises, all call to maniac"seat 7" who reraises. I chicken out and fold having wasted three six dollar bets above the kill. All call, and seat#2 comments, "I might get quartered." The turn is a 6 offsuit "which would have given me a six high." Seat 3 bets, seat 4 & 5 call and seat 7 raises." The river is a queen. Seat #4 bets his three queens which hold up. Seat# 5 calls. Maniac"seat #7" had second nut"A 4" low and a pair of nines. Seat #1 calls. Seat#3 calls with nut low "holding A 2 3 7." The pot was well over three hundred dollars which I woould have shared had I not chickened out. The point is....
I have trouble making a decision when I am the killer. Many times I call the pre-flop raise when I am the killer and get sucked in and give too much back to the table. In the example above"pot#2", I should have not called the initial pre-flop raise if I don't have the stomach to go to the river. In the above example I would have been lucky and got half the pot, but in the long run I probably would be lucky to break even in similar situtations.
If you "Knew" calling once would get you to the flop, those 2 flush draws seem like enough to sway a call. However, the prospect of paying more than 1 small bet here could lead you to fold
However, once that flop comes, I think you really must ride it out. You have too much to fold. You have 4 outs for the wheel, which would be the nuts. You have 4 outs for the nut straight that will remain the nuts if the river is an A J Q or K. You have a good backdoor flush and a nut backdoor straight. In this game a 6 might even give you the whole thing.
This story is an excellent example of why I hate kills. You wind up playing marginal hands at 1.5 or double the normal stakes and your variance simply skyrockets. I'd much rather play 6-12 than 4-8 half kill, especially if the blind is a full blind. At least at the Orleans your blind is smaller and folding garbage is much easier.
Background: I play low limit 3-6 "or 4-8" Omaha 8 hilo for a very slight profit but mostly for the challenge, fun, and social contact.
ODDS & ENDS: I find that OM/8 requires an efficient"strong" dealer to maintain and control a good game. More things can go wrong in OM/8 than in any other poker game. You name it -- it can go wrong. With respect to the various poker games -- OM/8 easily brings out"exposes" the worst & best qualities of the players. Some of the problems are "for low limit OM/8"....
(1) Some players "usually weak" resent strong agressive players who only play good starting hands. These weak players often openly criticize the better players.
(2) Often certain players "in various ways" consistantly act out of turn, and the dealers seldom warn "ask" these culprits to play-in-turn. Of course good players can use the information "generated by those acting out-of-turn" to there advantage, but in general it would make for a better game if all players were courteous and acted in turn on a timely basis.
(3) During the OM/8 action, many active players like to show their hand to an inactive player next to them; or conversly, some inactive players think it is the duty of an adjacent active player to expose "show" their hand to them during play -- they feel slighted if you hide your hand from them. Generally this doesn't cause problems, but sometimes it can be a problem when the inactive player helps the active player who overlooks the hand.
There are lots of other problems in OM/8 games which I'm sure OM/8 players are aware of.... I feel the bottom line is....
A good OM/8 dealer is the best cure for a good OM/8 game. Also, I have been reminded "given good advice" by a friend and poker pro to: (1)stay quiet and be alert at the table, (2) utilize the tells and actions of the other players to my advantage, (3) don't play too long or when tired, (4) and do your homework -- certain unexpected situations arise where good spontaneous thinking "utilizing prior experience" can help you make a good decision and save or make you some money.
Carl -
In tournaments (especially re-buy tournaments) sometimes you encounter players who raise and re-raise at every opportunity and who, in that way, are very predictable. I call these players maniacs. I don't know as it matters where they sit. In a tournament you have no option to change your seat anyway.
I'm not sure what you mean by "maniacs." Outside of tournaments I don't encounter what I consider to be "maniacs."
I do encounter players who frequently raise or re-raise, often with hands that seem to me to be poor raising hands, sometimes with hands I consider trash. However, because they don't always raise or re-raise, you can't count on them.
I call these players very aggressive players, rather than maniacs. I much prefer these very aggressive players sitting on my right, rather than my left. Three reasons: (1) When they raise, I have an opportunity to make it a triple bet which, even in a loose game, tends to limit the field. (2) If I am on a draw, I don't like to call a bet and then have it raised behind me. (3) I prefer not to have my blind raised.
Why would you want them seated to your left?
Buzz
RE: BUZZ -- hi Thanks for responding. Maybe I should have replaced the noun "maniac" with "loose-aggressive dumb bettor." Historically "going back to draw poker in Gardena, CA", I preferred to sit to the left of players who just about bet anything such as frequent bluffs or very weak hands. When sitting to to the right of this type of player, It is easy to get caught in a crossfire "put in the middle" where another player "to my left" with a better hand raises or overcalls "to win the pot." This is how I feel....
Of course sometimes when in situations like you "Buzz" describe, you take control by raising the dumb bettor. Poker is not an easy game and being smart aggressive usually shows a profit over the long haul -- thanks for the tip. Carl
If your opponents are raising every hand and you have lots of callers you can only play premium hands. AA23, AA2x, A23x, A2xx, A3xx. The x can be any card but your Ace must be suited to one of the other cards. You cannot play hands with pairs, unless you have a nut draw to go with it. Example, A2KK and the Ace must be suited to one of the cards to call a raise. You will find that the hands that win in these loose wild games are straights, flushes, and full-houses, and the lows get split. If you play anything other than premium hands you will loose money if the pots getting capped preflop and everyones calling.
Larry - First you have to forget the fact that you lost in this case. Most of the time, when you have AA23 double suited, the flop is A 2 J with two cards of your suit and the turn is a ten, not suited to the board, you should expect to lose. (About twelve times out of forty four you'll scoop here. Another five times out of forty four you'll get half the pot. Finally, twenty seven times out of forty four you'll lose.)
You wrote, "Turn: 10, Not suited to board.......Maniac bets. 1 caller to my right. I raise. Thinking I have best scooping hand and make draws pay. Am I thinking right?"
Sort of. The raise may be correct (or maybe not), but I don't think the reason for the raise is quite correct.
You don't have a made hand after the turn, and since someone else likely does, you are the draw who is paying.
However, even though you are favored to lose, as long as you have at least three opponents, you should show a profit over the long haul playing this hand with this board at the turn. Therefore, the more money in the pot, the better for you.
The question you have to ask yourself is, "When I hit my draw, will there be more money in the pot if I just call here, so as to "suck in" more opponents, or will there be more money in the pot if I raise so as to make it more expensive for those who stay? That's always the question. And the answer always depends on the group of opponents you are facing.
Your raise in the situation you have described might limit the field, but it probably won't knock out everyone with two cards that might qualify for low. If you hit either the 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 of your suit, thus making the nut flush for you, but also enabling low, you're probably going to have to split the pot anyway. Therefore, raising to knock out all the possible lows will be probably be ineffective. If you do hit your hand, but have to split, don't you want as many lows seeing your bet on the river as possible? Even if you have to split with low when you make the nut high hand, don't you want someone else hitting a non-nut hand, like a king high flush, or a second or third nuts low?
You're drawing to the nuts. Therefore you want everyone possible in the hand. Whatever they have, if you hit you are a winner. By all means, let them play. The more, the merrier!
However, you also want them paying. If getting the nuts in Omaha high/low is the science of Omaha high/low, then maybe getting your opponents to stay and pay when you do hit the nuts (or when you have favorable odds to bet, as in the situation you have described) is the art of Omaha.
Perfection here would be raising but still keeping all your opponents in the hand.
You lost in this particular case, as you will most of the time with the hand and board described. What about next time? How will you get the most out of your opponents when you run into a similar situation? By raising? By calling? Those are the questions you should be asking yourself (as I am asking myself, thinking ahead to when I will again encounter a situation such as you have described).
Just my opinion. Excellent post.
Buzz
Buzz, if your #'s are correct, excellent post. What's the math? I know how to figure "my outs" but odds of hand being good is another story.
BTW I believed at the time as was proven during showdown that my top set was good thru the turn. That was from knowing the players that were in the hand and going too far. They didn't belive I had anything and thought they were drawing live to 2 pairs, and 3rd nut low draw. But often when the 10 hits I would ahved slowed down too because of the str8t possibilities. Thanks for your post
Larry - Thanks.
From your description, I made your hand AhAd2d3h, the flop As2hJh, and the turn Tc.
After the turn, and considering the betting, I would be concerned about an opponent already having a straight. In that case, you would need quads, a full house or a flush to win the high side. Right?
If you want to follow along with my reasoning, take a deck of cards and pull out Ah,Ad,2d,3h, then As,2h,Jh, then Tc. Next also take out the cards you’d like to see on the river: Ac, 2s, 2c, Js, Jd, Jc, Ts, Th, Td, Kh, Qh, and 9h. Finally, also pull the five cards that get you at least half of the pot: 4h, 5h, 6h, 7h, and 8h.
Ac, 2s, 2c, Kh, Qh, or 9h give you the nuts for high. Nobody can beat you.
While Js, Jd, Jc, Ts, Th, or Td don’t give you the nuts, because an opponent could have quads, they do give you the best possible full house. (The best possible full house is usually a winner, but is never the nuts because, if you use a pair in your hand to make the best possible full house, an opponent could always theoretically have quads.) But let’s be sensible here; you’re certainly going to value bet the best possible full house on the river.
Therefore, there are 12 cards you’d like to see and 5 more cards that would at least get you half the pot.
The other 27 cards left in the pack don’t make a playable hand for you. That is, you can’t beat the probable straight for high, and you have no low.
If we didn’t have to consider split pots, then we could divide the number of cards that are good for you by the total number of cards from which to choose in order to compute your chances of winning. But how do we handle the math in Omaha high/low split, where a particular card will only win you half the pot?
Well, Larry, I hadn’t planned on posting this, but since you asked......
I counted all 12 of your probable scoop draws (Ac, 2s, 2c, Js, Jd, Jc, Ts, Th, Td, Kh, Qh, and 9h) as one “good” unit each, and your five probable split draws (4h, 5h, 6h, 7h, and 8h) as one half a “good” unit each and also as one half a “bad” unit each. I counted the 27 cards that make you a loser on this hand as one “bad” unit each.
I ended up with a sub-total of 14.5 “good” units and 29.5 “bad” units.
The total of the “good” units and the “bad” units is 14.5 + 29.5 = 44 units. You’ll note that 44 is the total number of cards you can’t see and which are therefore available as the river card.
Computing the odds, 44/14.5 = 3.03, then 3.03 - 1 = 2.03. The odds are thus 2.03 to one. (Or, if you like, 29.5/14.5 = 2.03). Either way, to my way of thinking, the odds against you are 2.03 to 1. At this point, we’re talking about fresh money. As long as you put in one chip to win three chips, you will come out nicely ahead, over the long haul. Bet it up!
With less than three opponents, even if one opponent accidently flashes his cards and shows you that he already has a straight, you’re still going to pay to draw on the river, because of all the money in the pot up to that point, but I wouldn't be jacking up the pot.
I hadn’t planned on posting my method of using half “good” and half “bad” for "splitters," cards that only give you half the pot. But since you asked, maybe someone else out there has a better, more precise way of handling the math when some cards are “scoopers” while others are “splitters.”
Anyhow, that’s how I came up with the number three for the number of opponents you need to jack up the pot for your particular draw on the turn.
Buzz
very interesting Buzz. without scrutinizing the cards I believe you are correct. In an actual hand I would quickly be able to figure my outs/odds. But to add the .5 points for 1/2 pot is interesting. I hadn't thought of it that way before exactly but always "look" at is 1/2 pot worth this call etc. To be honest while I'm decent at my math in my head I don't "pick-up" the numbers in my head quick enough to my liking when dealing with the low only. I guess I need to pound into my head 32-low, less exposed, less copies, left avail, in drills or during hands I'm not in so as to get used to it and make it automatic.
WOW! see there, figured it out all by myself. Unless you have a better idea.
Thanks again Buzz Larry
You are not the first to use what I call "half-outs" In fact, I recently wrote about them in this forum. I also doubt I am the first to come up with or post such ideas, although it was an original idea from my perspective. I believe it is an excellent tool for Omaha analysis. It is most useful on the turn, but can be applied to the flop. The problem with doing it on the flop is that you must account for making your hand AND getting it beaten. This greatly muddies the calculations for straights and flushes and even affects things for low.
Jim -
When I posted my original Thursday response to Larry, I considered posting my reasoning, but thought there was probably no basis for the math I was using. At the time I thought I was coming up with the reasoning on my own, but you very well could have planted the seed for the idea in the first place with your "half-outs" article.
I don't specifically remember reading your "half-outs" article, but if it was posted on this forum I very well might have read it. Actually, I have a "Morgan" file on my hard drive which contains several of your postings, but that particular article isn't in it.
Anyway, I didn't mean to take credit for your idea. I'm happy for you to have the credit. I'll cite you if I ever use "half-outs" again in a post.
Thanks.
Buzz
KQJT is a very marginal hand. In a very loose game I might call a raise with it, but it is not a powerful hand.
QQJ6 is almost garbage. Play from SB for no raise and from BB if you only must call 1 bet (and do not rate to ger re-raised.
AA23 is so good to raise with because if you get few callers, the AA becomes a potent force and if you get lots of callers, the low draw and flush draws (if any) are getting a tremendous value from the raise.
Omaha is not at all an "all luck" game. It seems that way because your starting hand strength is so easily ruined by a poor flop. In Texas Holdem, you look at QQ and know you are strong. The flop may kill you, but it often won't In Omaha, your A23x looks good, but only after the flop comes do you really know what the hand is worth.
Another thing holdem players have trouble with is knowing just what a good hand in Omaha is. A flop of middle set, which is a monster in holdem is marginally playable in a loose O8 game. The real monster hands are the 2-way hands. A flop of 258 for a hand of A34x is an example of an omaha "monster" Since nut flushes and straights are so easily broken, the nut low with a high draw or a nut low draw with a nut high draw is where you want to be in Omaha HL.
In Bob Ciaffone and Stewart Reuben's book on big bet poker there is a section written by Reuben on pot limit 7 stud. In it he ascertains that 7 card stud is the perfect game, that against the right player he could give them a one card start (ie he starts with 3 while they start with 4 cards) and still beat them.
I've always considered 7 stud a difficult game, involving a lot of judgement and evaluation of particular situations to get right. and there is always the threat of drawouts. But Reuben seems to imply that the advantage a good player has is so great that he or she would be almost unbeatable, not only long term, but in any given session. Any comments? if this applies only to pot limit 7 stud, in what way does it? if the advantage diminishes in limit 7 stud, how so?
This is probably because he can bet the pot and force someone to fold on fourth street more easily
"I've always considered 7 stud a difficult game, involving a lot of judgement and evaluation of particular situations to get right. and there is always the threat of drawouts. But Reuben seems to imply that the advantage a good player has is so great that he or she would be almost unbeatable, not only long term, but in any given session. Any comments? if this applies only to pot limit 7 stud, in what way does it?"
Pot-limit 7 stud is a simplistic game. When the money is deep relative to the antes, it's generally correct to play extremely tight at all points in the hand. Overplaying drawing hands or weaker pairs, or making bad calls on later streets are major errors that will break a player quickly. With tight play, you have a huge advantage over loose players with very little risk.
"if the advantage diminishes in limit 7 stud, how so?"
The ante in limit stud acts as a randomizing factor. Since the pots are more equal in size, and people win roughly the same number of pots; it's the extra bets here and there that separate the winners from losers. Also, there's much more to the game than just playing tight - you have to play (and often raise with) hands that aren't the best. "Just playing tight" will get you ground down by the ante and make your bets and raises too predictable, allowing alert opponents to do the right thing. A bad call costs someone a fraction of a bet instead of a large fraction of their stack.
Dan,
I like your response but I think one of us missed what Reuben said. From the way I read it he said against the "right" player. Well I let the "right" player have 4 cards to start against my 3 in limit stud. It's a non argueable statement. As long as I can define the "right" player I will take any bets. One other thing about limit stud. In the right game a very good poker player only requires good situational analysis to win.
Vince.
thanks for the responses.
what is "situational analysis" and why does a good player only require it to win in the right 7stud game (as opposed to holdem, i presume?, where a good player would also require some other skills - which are?)
I define "situational analysis" in simple terms as knowing where you are in the hand. If you have a good feel for when you are ahead or behind and play accordingly, betting or callin correctly, you can win in most typical stud games. Games that have their share of gamblers. Holdem beleive it or not does not play the same way as a stud game. In that I mean you must play Holdem poker extremely well and be totally aware and focused to win. You will hear a lot of players claim that Stud is much more complex than Holdem. What they are actually referring to is that you have more information available in regards to exposed cards and must factor this into your play. That does not in itself make the game more complicated just more tiring. In stud intuitve players can find a way to win by knowing where they are in the hand. In Holdem the tactician has the best chances of winning. That's not to say that expertise in both games does not require understanding and application of advanced winning concepts plus a good "feel" for the game. I know this sounds a bit vague but it is the best I can do right now.
Vince
Vince:
You make some good points. However, I must take exception to what I perceive you are saying about the relative complexity of Hold'em and Stud.
In my opinion, Stud is inherently a more complicated game, not just a game with more information (cards) to be considered. There are far more unique situations that occur in stud, and therefore more unusual or unique situations to be analyzed and adapted to in the heat of the battle. I am not taking anything away from hold'em which is complicated too, in its own way. But Stud really can be at times several levels more complex than hold'em. Granted in either game you have automatic calls, etc., but Stud always has the potential for a hand to occur which can be far more complex than any hold'em hand. Here I am referring to the limit version of either game, but I wouldn't be surprised if PL stud were more complex than PL hold'em, either.
Mark,
It's a fallacy! The proof is in the pudding. I will venture to say that there are more stud games spread in this country than Holdem. Given that I will also estimate that there are more Stud Players than Holdem players. Yet on this forum and all others I've seen the most discussed game is Holdem. Holdem is, and I may be the first to make this claim, the more complicated of the two games plaeyd with a limit. The opposite may be true for No Limit. Holdem does not seem to me to be very complicated when playing No Limit. That is why they play it for the World Championship. Anyone can play using very basic strategy. My guess is that if the World Series were No Limit Stud you would see even more of the same players winning the Big Tournaments. But in the poker world things seem to get reversed somehow. I could make a better case than this I'm sure but I'm tired and need to figure out how I can get some backers for the WPF.
Vince
Vince:
Why should the fact that hold'em is more discussed or more analyzed imply that it is more complicated?
I think hold'em just lends itself to popular analysis more easily and this may be why we see it more discussed and analyzed. Stud, in its greater complexity, is less easily analyzed and it is also less convenient for talking about hands (more detail required).
In Hold'em once someone is a decent player the expert's edge against him is much diminished. In Stud this is true but to a lesser degree. A great Stud player has more ways to outplay a good Stud player (and will outplay him) than a great Hold'em player has ways to outplay a good Hold'em player.
As Mason states, a good or great Stud player can win more per hour at the same limits than a comparable Hold'em player. What possible reason could there be for this unless there is a greater skill differential? Granted this skill differential may be present because there may be more tourist types in Stud. But this brings us back to my original point. It is easier to become a passable hold'em player than a decent stud player. This is why Hold'em players who apply themselves for a while become much tougher to beat out of much money. However, in Stud, a merely good player often has many weaknesses that a true expert can attack and profit from.
And last, S&M seem to be saying in their foreword to their Stud book that Stud can take a lifetime to master. Once you are pretty good at Hold'em, you can, as Mason once wrote, almost play it in your sleep. I know I have almost done just this, but I wouldn't recommend it unless you are in a very profitable game. However, even if you could somehow track all the cards effortlessly in Stud, I think it might be more dangerous to play it only half-alert. You would miss many nuances and there are far less automatic plays in Stud than in Hold'em.
Even though experts may debate the best play of a hand more often in Hold'em, that does not mean it is more complex. It may just mean that it doesn't make a whole lot of difference which way you play it in those spots. But in Stud, tiny (apparent) differences can mean a great deal or lead to a great deal.
M,
I played poker for the whole summer at Bellagio's in Vegas. During that entire time I never once saw Mason or David play stud. If Stud is the game for a master poker player then...
I don't know if you play Holdem. I do. I know you play Stud and I believe that you play very well from your posts here. But I can tell you from my experience with both games that Holdem is much more difficult to master. I'm not sure what Mason and David's position on which game is more complicated. If they believe stud is more complicated I suppose you should accept their position. They do a lot of thinking about these things and I'm sure they can put out a better arguement than I. One thing I will comment on from your post. I don't beleive you can back up your statement that a great stud player has more ways to out play a good stud player. I don't beleive you can back that up mainly because i don't believe it is true. Let me tell you something. Believe it or not the difference between a great poker player and a good poker player lies in the realm of patience and observation not in the play of the hand.
Vince
Vince:
Maybe the Hold'em games were better than the Stud games this summer. Mason has written in the fairly recent past that he mostly plays Stud.
Some people have a more natural talent for one game than the other. I have played both --actually I have played considerably more Hold'em than Stud. I wish I had played more Stud than Hold'em however, because if I had I would probably have earned more over the years.
I think patience and observation lie in the realm of both good and great players. However, I believe there are many good players with nearly perfect patience and good observation who will never be great players. To be a great player requires more higher levels of thinking, an excellent ability to think fast on one's feet, and a deeper understanding of strategic/tactical concepts as well as a great sense of timing, heart, reading cards and people, etc. The qualities you mention only help make a good player--a great player is a rare bird indeed.
I am going to ask a question here which I feel has profound implications in poker (and other areas as well).
The question is: What do you know about what you do not know?
In other words, what in poker are you aware of only dimly, or as a far-off vista, or maybe not at all. Most players have very limited scope and awareness of how vast the potential body of knowledge really is. I bet if Sklansky were able to lay out everything he knows at once for someone to absorb instantly, magically somehow, the levels and depth would be truly amazing--many not even conceived of or glimpsed by most regular players. And I would bet that Sklansky is keenly aware of certain areas he knows little about (perhaps they have little application to today's poker, but he still probably perceives vast reaches beyond). Yet many players do not see much further than their present knowledge and their next step or so. They think they know a lot when they really know only a small slice. This is why you can beat them.
If you think I may be cautioning you on this when you speak of "mastering" the game, you are right. Even Izmet Fekali, whose posts and analyses are very high level, is keenly aware of how much more there is to know about poker (and he said so).
But more than a caution or anything like that, I am asking a question, that you will think even further about what you do not know in poker and what that might be. This goes for me too.
If you want to try a little test, the next few times you play, watch not for obvious errors but rather for ways someone (maybe you) could have had the opprtunity to outplay someone but didn't exercise it. In my experience, I have seen this come up a lot more in Stud. Maybe you will see it more in Hold'em. I just think it does come up more often in Stud. And then be aware that, besides the spots you see this, you are probably still missing opprtunities you may not have even known existed.
But the real point of this post should be the question, not which is the more complex game.
What do you know about what you do not know?
"What do you know about what you do not know? "
M,
I hope this has nothing to do with "I know what you did last summer". First let me say that when you are a know it all like me you know everything about everything even the things you don't know about. Know what I mean. From reading this last response I don't beleive we have progressed in this discussion at all. We have not even got past what constitutes a great vs good player. That's o.k. the discussion is still worthwhile although I'm not sure to what extent. As far as "cautioning" me on mastering the game. I am under no illusions or delusions for that matter, that I am a master poker player. However, one characteristic of a "master" is an understanding that one must never become complacent and believe they know all that is needed to be known. One must never cease to learn. Your little test is a regular part of my seesion strategy unless I'm pissed off and steaming then I'm usually unfocused and crying to myself. I do not listen to tapes or read magazines or books while I'm playing poker. I try and focus. If you are not trying to find mistakes others are making you will miss many opportunities to out play them.
As far as more opportunities in stud than Holdem that is do to the nature of the play of the game. There are more streets for one thing in stud. This discussion began with which game is more complicated to play. Maybe we should have began by defining what we mean by that. Then again it probably won't amount to much beacause they both are fairly complicated. I'll be playing some stud on Sunday at the woods. Hope to see you.
Oh yeah,
"What do you know about what you do not know?"
Now this I need to think about.
Vince.
A much larger universe of possible starting hands
A very much larger universe of possible hands as the game progresses taking into account the board cards that are out in both games
More betting streets
More opportunities for the expert to extract money from unsuspecting opponents
Far more rare or unique situations that develop
Very subtle differences in hand values that can lead to big $ differences--much more so in Stud
Hands change value far more in Stud
More opportunities for thec reasonably good player to make mistakes or get trapped by the expert
More opportunities for the expert to extract additional bets
More opportunities for the expert to save bets
More opportunities for the expert to win by default or by bluff
A much larger universe of possible starting hands
O.K.
A very much larger universe of possible hands as the game progresses taking into account the board cards that are out in both games
Not true. As the hand progresses in the stud, possible hands decrease. The same is true in Holdem on the river not the turn. By sixth street in stud possible hands are easily predictable. The turn in Holdem is the most difficult street to play correctly in all variations of seven stud that I play. Holdem, Seven Stud and Omaha.
More betting streets
This in itself does not make the game more complex. Comparing 3rd street to preflop is a better measure. In stud you have quite a bit of card information available to you on third street. You know precisely where %20 of the deck is. In Holdem the only information you have is the two cards you are dealt. You must make a difficult decision with almost know information in Holdem.
More opportunities for the expert to extract money from unsuspecting opponents
Wrong. Holdem is played at a very rapid pace compared to stud. There are many more mistakes made at holdem because of incorrect calls given pot size and hand valuation. These two factors give the expert many more opportunities to extract money from the unsuspecting
Far more rare or unique situations that develop
O.K.
Very subtle differences in hand values that can lead to big $ differences--much more so in Stud
Wrong. It should be obvious from this forum that hand values are not easily determined in Holdem.
Hands change value far more in Stud
O.K.
More opportunities for thec reasonably good player to make mistakes or get trapped by the expert
Opportunity of itself does not make the game more complex. I'm not sure about this one.
More opportunities for the expert to extract additional bets
Now look at what you said here. More opportunities for the expert. How can that possibly make the game more complex? The more dificult it is to extract extra bets by definition makes the experts job tougher and more complex.
Vince
Vince:
As the hand progresses in Stud, of course there are less cards available and hands become more predictable, but that doesn't mean there are less possible hands at later streets in total. There are far, far more because the community card nature of hold'em greatly condenses the possible hands that can be out. For example you could conceivably have 8 four-of-a-kinds in Stud or 4 different royals and this is impossible in Hold'em. Statistically the universe of possible hands is not just greater in Stud, it is, for lack of a better word at the moment, geometrically greater.
Re. 3rd street: The fact that cards are out does not always simplify things. What is really happening is that the value of your hand is already being impacted. Sometimes this simplifies your decision and other times it greatly complicates it. Your starting hand value in Hold'em is influenced by your starting cards plus position and number of opponents. These factors influence your hand in Stud too, but you have the added complexity of the cards that are out impacting your hand value as well. Knowing how to properly adjust for this can be very complex in Stud. It is not always clear to what degree the cards that are out impact the value of your hand (and how you might wish to play the hand at times).
"More opportunities for the expert to extract money from unsuspecting opponents'--Even a fish in Hold'em soon learns not to reraise much against a nut board. But in Stud hands can be more hidden and the expert will know when to reraise for value. Also common is Stud are opportunities for plays that will gain you a bet here and there. These plays are frequently not at all obvious, and these types of plays rarely come up in Hold'em.
Subtle differences in hand values can and do lead to greater $ swings in Stud because of the compounding nature of the game. In other words making a subtle mistake in the hand early can cost you more in Stud than in Hold'em because there are more streets and because it is frequently harder to get off a hand in Stud.
You say that it should be obvious from this forum that hand values are not easily determined in Hold'em. Of course, and so what? It is not a question of ease or not, but of relative difficulty. Hand values in Stud are far less easily defined because of the fact that the cards that are out impact the hand, and because this is constantly changing throughout the hand.
That there are more ways for the expert to extract money is because of the greater complexity in Stud. It is harder for the expert to extract money in hold'em (though easier for him to save bets) simply because there are less ways to outplay someone in hold'em--there is in Stud, as a friend of mine liked to say, more play to the game.
Finally I would be willing to lay you (or anyone)2-1 that both (S,M,&Z) and (Caro) would agree with the statement that Stud is the more complex of the two limit games. Here we are talking mid-limit ring game. They might qualify the statement but if pressed to give a definitive answer I have little doubt what it would be. The fact that more people talk about Hold'em on the forums has nothing whatsoever to do with your claim that Hold'em is more complicated. All it shows is that more people prefer to analyze and talk about hold'em. The reason this is so is probably because it is easier to analyze and talk about hold'em.
I suspect you just might be victim of a common tendency: people generally tend to focus most on what they are most familiar with. A top chessplayer will tell you his profession is the most grueling sport. So might a top poker player, etc. I would also bet that most who play primarily hold'em would view it as more complex than stud, and vice versa. This is assuming you have played a lot more hold'em than Stud (which I do not know). It is also assuming that you might be susceptible to this type of error (which you may not be). So far the only truly apparently illogical (as opposed to inaccurate) statement you have made deals with correlating the amount of analysis on these forums with which game is more complex. I submit that the converse may actually be true: that Stud is less analyzed because it is harder to analyze. This is why great Stud players, who are well-grounded in theory, tactics, etc. seem to also play intuitively. What they are really doing is weighing up a great deal of information and essentially handicapping all these factors, as well as coming up with the best line of play. Since there are more factors to be weighed up in Stud than in Hold'em, this can appear to be intuitive, but it is really a high-level handicapping of sorts of so much information.
First M, let me tell you that I learned to play Casino poker via Seven Card Stud. I played stud exclusively from1993 to 1998 in A,C N.J. I learned hHolde in January of 1999 and have played it the majority of the time since. Sklansky telss me that the reason I am so screwed up when he asks me poker quetsions is beacause I am a stud player. But I play both equally as well in my mind.
"Re. 3rd street: The fact that cards are out does not always simplify things."
Of course it does. Poker is a game of decisions. The more information available the better the deciaion.
"That there are more ways for the expert to extract money is because of the greater complexity in Stud "
This sentence says nothing. It's like saying Stud is complex because I say so and therefore there are more ways to extract money.
"(S,M,&Z) and (Caro)" Zee doesn't play much poker anymore. Sklansky and Malmuth play Holdem almost exclusively. Caro. Maybe? It doesn't matter, I'm right they are wrong if they don't agree with me.
"In other words making a subtle mistake in the hand early can cost you more in Stud than in Hold'em"
Of course but that's why holdem is a more complex game. the mistakes made at Holdem are on later streets where it costs more. Any stud player or expert will tell you that the most important decision you make in stud is on third street. And on third street you normally have ~%20 of the deck availble to you to make your most important decision. Precisely why you win at stud. People make horrendous 3rd street errors. In Holdem the costs of mistakes are relatively cheap the earlier they are made. It is the later streets where your decisions become clouded because of the community cards which makes it extremely dificult to evaluate the value of your hand.
Hey I'm tired. Gee I guess no one else is interested in this discussion. That amazes me.
Good night,
vince
(Note: if you don't want to read about my personal foray, skip the first paragraph.)
I've been struggling with this for a while. Forgive me for being slow. After reading "the books," I began to play 1-5 stud as if it were 15-30. More often than not, I became frustrated. I would win a dollar with a pair of aces, sit tight like a rock, and lose to stronger hands. When my bluffs would get called, I would lose a great deal; but when they worked, I would win only small amounts, often only a dollar. Before I read "the books," I would often win or break even. I struggled to get back to where I was before I read the books, but couldn't. This goes to show that a little knowledge can be quite dangerous.
Here's my new approach low-limit stud that conflicts slightly with the recommendations in "the books." Even the Roy West's low-limit book doesn't suggest this outright:
Call or fold on third street. Only raise if you think it will thin the field and you need to thin the field with a medium or low pair; when you want to commit the other players to the pot when you have high trips and you are sure they will call; or when you are sure a bluff will get you the dollar bring-in which is often not worth the risk. Also, play marginal hands such as small pairs, inside straights, and two high cards. Since there is no ante, it is less likely you will be raised. If you are at a loose table faceing raises on third, only play those marginal hands in late position. If you only play trips, high pairs, three to flushes, and three to high straights, you will be the rock at the table. This is one thing the books don't tell you: whether you are a rock or a maniac is relative to the table. Third street in 1-5 stud is loose-passive. If you don't play on third street, it's like you are refusing to play at all. (of course, the alternative view is that no one will notice that your aren't playing many hands. This, however, is untrue. They will notice and fold unless they have a strong hand.)
The lack of an ante takes the ante steal out of the game. The looseness of play makes it unlikely that players will fold. A few of those who do call probably have strong hands. Your raise on third street is useless if you can't thin the field and will probably just cause more players to become committed to the pot with their drawing hands. Against more than one drawing hand, you become the underdog.
Wait until fourth street to bet. By that time there is money in the pot to steal. The disadvantage is that you give the players a free card; but that's just the way it is. You often have to play it as if each player started with four cards and the bring in is the ante. This is because there is NO ANTE to steal or win on third street. People are more likely to fold on fourth street after they've seen their marginal hand or draw not improve. You also have a chance to win something if everyone folds. But don't slowplay a pair of Aces past fourth street. You already had to give everyone a free card on third street. The game really begins on fourth street.
I would appreciate comments. I could be wrong on a number of things, but I wonder if people think there is really any consistant way to thin the field in low-limit stud?
I contend that the make up of the game is paramount. What kind of players are in the game? Are they loose passive? I like that in a 1-5 game. I find that 1-5 is definitely a trapping game. I still play low trips fast, but I will sit on Aces or a flush till I can get people committed.
BTY how did you do today in the Trop Invitational tournament?
I know I didn't do well in the invitation, but I did make it to sixth place in that evening's and the next evening's stud tournaments.
Very nice!
pretty loose game. 2 loose aggressive(LG), 2 calling stations(CS), 2 weak tight, 1 solid, and myself. i've not been playing very many hands as I wasn't getting much and new I needed to start better.
3rd st I'm rolled up with trip threes. Bring in is in seat 2 (LG), CS calls, CS calls, LG raises, WT calls, I call, WT raises!, all call.
Highest card on board was a J and that was from player to my rt(WT) and cs#2. Lone ace was solid player in seat 1 and she folded.
4th st I figure to call here and raise on 5th st where it cost'em more. I catch an 8, Nobody pairs board, bring-in guy catches a K and is high. Checked to LG whom bets, all call round to original raiser to my left. He raises, all call.
5th st I catch another 8 for a full house and I'm high on board. 1 str8t draw in seat 4 needs double gutter, raiser to my left catches a 6 to pair his board. Now I have seen him bet all the waythru w/o even so much as a draw when the boards appeard non-threatening.
I check, he bets, seat 3 folds, I call as I'm sure most are drawing dead if not all, and I'll check raises 6th st.
6th st no more board pairs, I check, raiser bets, seat 6 folds, I check raise all call. 7th street I bet get one caller, the original raiser with two pair, drawing to a flush, he 2 paired the river.
opinions?
Should I have check-raised earlier? Did I gain maximum # of bets the way I played it?
Later with buried Aces I fired in two full bets with medium card up on 3rd st to push out the remainders. But my thoughts were that in this game I'd gain many bets slowing down with the trips with the boards playing out like they were. So yes I do also know the value of starting with good hand but sometimes with htese boneheads if you push too early you may get way too much action and loose to a garbage hand too. 7cs is not my best game also so you won't offend me!!!
In fact please try! Thanks
pretty loose game. 2 loose aggressive(LG), 2 calling stations(CS), 2 weak tight, 1 solid, and myself. i've not been playing very many hands as I wasn't getting much and new I needed to start better.
3rd st I'm rolled up with trip threes. Bring in is in seat 2 (LG), CS calls, CS calls, LG raises, WT calls, I call, WT raises!, all call.
"RAISE" if they didn't fold to two raises why would they fold to 3. Hopefully the person that might beat you folds. You want to take charge of this hand right now there are something like 20 sb in the pot. There is no sense in hiding there's too much money in the game to play possum. Everyone will check to you on 4th and you should bet, because unless you improve, your in trouble, and you don't want to lose this pot. If someone raises in a multiway game such as this RAISE if you have trips, most are probably on a draw and at best a high pair.
Paul
Why didn't you start checkraising on 5th street? Seems like most players will call one more bet here.
You haven't indicated what limit this is, but you say the game is pretty loose. I have to conclude that the game wasn't too tough.
I haven't played much stud, but when I do play and I get a big hand, I push it pretty hard. Seems like most people, if they fall in love with their hands, won't fold anyway in a pretty easy game.
One time I started out with (KK)T. I caught a K on 4th street and pushed it really hard. I kept getting reraised by someone who had (XX)88 showing. Aces and eights? Trip eights? I didn't care - I could beat anything he had (one 8 was out).
5th street gave me another king! Quad kings in 5 cards! I pushed it hard and STILL kept getting raised - and I showed a board of (XX)TKK. AND I'd been putting a lot of heat on it before the second king came!
The action slowed down a bit on 6th and on the end - maybe they actually started looking around at other people's cards and tried to work the action backwards.
Bottom line - if the game isn't tough I just push my good hands hard. Another time I started out with 22A. Limped in. Both aces and deuces were very live.
Caught another A on 4th street. When a tight player like me pairs his door card on 4th street people usually run for the hills. But an ACE??? I'm surprised they didn't dump immediately!
A's and 2's still live.
On 6th street caught another 2. I had 2's full of A's.
Finally on the end some guy rolled over 3's full of 6's. He stuck around with my 2 A's showing with a pair of 3's, then caught 2 pair on 5th, and filled on the end. What a dummy!
The point is bad players will pay you off so bet it hard. You won't believe this but here is one example of one numbskull vs. another:
One guy had QQQx showing on the end. He BET it, and another guy CALLED.
The guy who bet? All he had was those 3 queens. The caller? 2 pair. I could not believe my eyes - but it's a true story.
-SmoothB-
I think you definitely should have raised on third street. In a weak or low limit game they would have called, and you will tie people on. You usually want to play small trips fast, especially at low limit.
pat
In your recent book, you talk alot about hand selection. My experience with books that focus on hand selection is that they often cause the reader to play like a "rock." Hand selection alone will not insure a positive return as your opponents will often fold and only call with strong hands. In fact, tight games call for more bluffing, which makes for a looser game; and loose games involve playing some marginal hands which again calls for more looser play. There is a happy medium out there: where is it?
(Note: I'm a stud player. Though I found much of the adivce in your book applicable to stud as well as hold'em, I'm finding that playing the later streets correctly in stud is just as important as hand selection on third street. I disagree with the books that say you can make money with hand selection alone. I have found this to be untrue at least at the lower limits. Of course, I need to work on my tells as well.)
i would imagine it goes something like this:
beware. doves fly at the seven. rtygo. so never wear a hat too tight or pants too loose. asdo.
scott
john did write a book. but he doesn't know too much about stud. he just started playing. in any case his book has been reviewed by a couple of students in the columbia paper. one of them, the one not named alex, is a genius. the other, alex, is not quite retarded. together, the two of them make a powerful team.
alex is also the uglier of the two.
scott
Rockhard,
Your confusing me with bro John.
scott and I are working on a book but it's all numbers and acronyms.
Paul
And squirrely things about Ray Zee!
Vince
you know you'd buy our book, vince. and you know i'd buy yours.
scott
I will speak here primarily of hold'em, and let you extrapolate as you wish to stud, which, as scott points out, I'm just learning (slowly).
"In your recent book, you talk alot about hand selection."
Well, I don't know about "a lot". The "Playing Too many hands", "Self Weighting...", "...AQ test", and the first of the three "..Maniac..." essays focus on it, but I don't think it's really the emphasis of the rest of the book. Anyway...
"My experience with books that focus on hand selection is that they often cause the reader to play like a "rock.""
The goal with regard to hand selection is just to learn *correct hand selection. In *general, that's fairly tight. But you are right that you need to adjust and bluff more in tighter games, play some hands in loose games that you wouldn't otherwise, etc.
Play on the later rounds *is extremely important. I would agree with you that you probably can't win with good hand selection alone. Your play on later streets has to be decent. This becomes more important as you move up the limits.
I think we agree for the most part, except perhaps on the degree to which my book emphasizes hand selection.
I do hear in your comments that you're concerned about not playing too much "like a rock". I don't feel qualified to talk about this with regard to stud, but in hold'em it's generally tough to play too tightly in most of the ring games you'll encounter. I mean, yes, extremely tight play will sacrifice some profit, but not as much as you'd think. It's much easier to cost yourself with too loose play than with too tight play. And this should certainly be true in the small limits. The problem you mention of not getting any action on your good hands is rare in small games, where you can go an hour without playing a hand, finally open for a raise, and get four oblivious cold callers coming in behind you. But if they're not giving you action, just take advantage by stealing more.
Hi everyone--
I'm going to take a shot at 5/10 next time i'm in AC. I was wondering what most of you use for a buy-in at this limit. I usually buy in for $100 at 1/3 or 1/5, so I was thinking somewhere in the $300 range...
300-400 looks about right. Have enough chips on the table that you don't feel short-stacked and so that your opponents don't try to run you out of pots because you look weak. If you get short-stacked after starting with 400 on the table, then you might think about whether you are playing well enough to continue. There's no reason to lose it all just because it's out there.
I usually buy in for $300, and have never gone through it all. But I don't play as many hands as other players.
Pat
I once lost $250 in a 4/8 holdem game, but in hindsight , I was on semi-tilt....still good preflop but going to the river too much. I've lost up to $150 in sessions of 1/5 stud and 2/4 holdem, same deal.
I think for me the issue of a session bankroll is that I want to get away from the table until I can tell if my play has changed. I want to pick a number that enables me to be aggressive on my good hands, but not so much that I exceed caro's 'maximum pain threshold' and am playing badly and not aware of it...
Boinger,
I would buy in for $200 pay attention to the game and get comfortable with the players. Should you lose the $200 go home and analyze your play and others at the table, right when you get home. Come back whenever you can and do another $200 this way you will feel more comfortable and determined to win.
paul
Yesterday , I was playing Omaha-hi in a a private club . We usully play Hold'em , but for a while we decide to play Omaha . I don't have lots of experience at Omaha but I know enough that game to play it correcly . I know that most of people play too many hand . So ; I have As-Ah-9s-7h . Which is a very good hand . I raise , the puck call my 2 bets . The board was As-10h-2h_8c_Qc . The puck beats me with K-J-5-3 rainbow . I realize later that he plays every hand . I ask him " how come you call my raise with that hand ?" He gives me a good answer : " I have 4 cards , How could I lose ???" ...
jp,
Those type of people you can make a living off in TIME!!!
paul
The 'puck'? He really rocketed a top shelfer blocker side by making that catch!
That's what happens when you get used to shooting in the 5 hole!! You forget how to score on the blocker side!!
Find out who put the the extra ace-of-spades in the deck. Then pull out your gun and shoot him.
Correction . Iknow that I have aces double-suited ...there was only one ace of spade in the deck i'm sure of this ....
Interesting hand, but that's Omaha.
How many others were in the hand. You had the top set, nut heart flush draw, and open ended straight draw but every card that doesn't make your hand makes either a straight or a club flush on the board or both. The six gives you a nut straight, but the J would not give you the nut.
If you had multiple people drawing to the river, your chances weren't as good as you thought.
The river card made both a club flush and the top straight. The puck had to be drawing to something. Your chances didn't look good at that point.
The puck was drawing open ended (two gut shot straight draws), he needed either the 4 or the Q (no heart) to get a nut straight and beat you on the river.
I have a problem with an example from 7cSfAP-21. It is in the section on playing in loose games, chapter "When the Pots get Big", p.147. Here you give an example of betting into an opponent who has a probable big pair (queens) hoping that he will raise and knock out a player to your right so you can get to play heads up with the queens.
The rationale is one you discuss throughout the book - the importance of getting heads up with a drawing hand (especially if the pot is big) that has big cards if you can, so that if you hit a big pair or two small pairs you will not be run down by a third player who started with a small pair or an overcard who improves to two pair or a bigger pair than yours. On p.17 you give the mathematical basis of this play, saying that if your hand has a 20% chance of winning multiway, but if you get it heads up than it improves to 40%, you should do everything you can to get that result (and you may also buy yourself a free card on 5th street in the process).
So far as this tactic goes, I have no problems. But I just cannot see how the example you give on p.147 applies. You have Ks9s5sJc, your main opponent has a pair of queens, the player you want out has something like a small pair, or a gutshot with a pair, or has hit an ace with a pair or a weak draw or somesuch.
I suppose you intend to keep playing with your 3 flush that just hit an offsuit jack because of the reasons stated in the chapter "Continuing with a Draw" on p.110 - your draw is still live and you still have an overcard to the queens and the pot is big. I ran a number of simulations through Poker Probe with this hand against QdQh8c5d and a range of other hands - A277, A456, 4456, 3466 - that suit your profile of the type you want to knock out.
If K95J plays head up against the QQ85 than it wins at around 31% of the time. If it plays against both opponents than its wins only decline to the 26-28% range. Now, I can see how improving your wins from 20 to 40% is a big plus, but improving them to, at the most, 5% more? And in this situation, if you freeze the action and do the sums for a standard 30-60 game, you actually lose EV by knocking the other player out (including if there was a raise on 3rd street making the pot quite large). It seems to be the reverse of the principle on p.141 - the horse race concept - that is, the hand's winning percentage does not increase enough to make up for the reduction in pot odds you will be getting if you knock the other opponent out, with what at this stage is only a mediocre drawing hand.
So could you please provide a clarification? I suppose that this example was not put in randomly but deliberately to illustrate the theme of the chapter. But how does it achieve this? Is it a misprint or am I missing something?
(and it would be good if you could provide a real example of a hand that improves from 20 to 40% by getting it heads up. I think this is important because, although I find your books excellent in general, I think that some of the concepts need more exact defining as the temptation once one has read them is to walk into a game and start firing chips in inappropriate situations - taking the powerful concepts discussed and misapplying them because no real handle on the precise mathematical basis for them and specific situations they can be applied was given)
I'll add 2 cents before the illustrious authors get a chance. Poker Probe does not PLAY poker. It runs a simulation using no foldem evaluation. I am not trying to defend the example the authors chose. I'm just making a point about the use of poker probe. Although, from the situation you describe, it is hard to imagine this hand not going to the river unless the opponent makes open Kings. So I am curious to hear the authors answer also.
Vince
There are more reasons to raise this hand besides trying to get it heads up. Potential free cards and possible bluffs are others.
Vince.
Deriving poker tactics/strategy from Poker Probe simulations is problematical, particularly when comparing the strengths of starting hands in Holdem (which is what a lot of debate seems to be about concerning the merits of these simulations).
But this is 7 card stud where every player gets their own board dealt to them, where players will chase to the end and a showdown. Poker Probe can be a great aid in understanding the mathematical nuances of 7 card stud, particularly in the stated example where it is 4th street and the players are already well into the hand.
Moreover, the main rationale 7cSfAP -21 states for making the play, both generally and in the particular example given, is based on a raw simulation of improving a hands winning perc
Deriving poker tactics/strategy from Poker Probe simulations is problematical, particularly when comparing the strengths of starting hands in Holdem (which is what a lot of debate seems to be about concerning the merits of these simulations).
But this is 7 card stud where every player gets their own board dealt to them, where players will chase to the end and a showdown. Poker Probe can be a great aid in understanding the mathematical nuances of 7 card stud, particularly in the stated example where it is 4th street and the players are already well into the hand.
Moreover, the main rationale 7cSfAP -21 states for making the play, both generally and in the particular example given, is based on a raw simulation of improving a hands winning perc
Deriving poker tactics/strategy from Poker Probe simulations is problematical, particularly when comparing the strengths of starting hands in Holdem (which is what a lot of debate seems to be about concerning the merits of these simulations).
But this is 7 card stud where every player gets their own board dealt to them, where players will chase to the end and a showdown. Poker Probe can be a great aid in understanding the mathematical nuances of 7 card stud, particularly in the stated example where it is 4th street and the players are already well into the hand.
Moreover, the main rationale 7cSfAP -21 states for making the play, both generally and in the particular example given, is based on a raw simulation of improving a hands winning percentage (both absolutely and in relation to the specific instances where it makes its "secondary" draw of a large pair or two small pair) if the cards are all dealt out to the end and if it is able to play heads up against the lead hand. Getting a free card etc are good by products of this play, but they are not the primary reason to make it.
George,
I am not going to try and argue the rationale behind the authors example. That's their responsibility. I believe that probe is a useful tool. What it does it does better than any other similar tool available. But it does not PLAY poker. "Mathematical Nuances" as you put it are of very little importance when playing seven card stud. The math necessary to be a good poker player is basic. One need only understand the concept off outs vs pot odds (both actual and implied) to play the game. Poker is not strictly a game of mathematics. In fact, I would be willing to wager that intuitive play will take you further than strictly playing "the odds". Of course you must also use math but it is not of primary importance. I might add that Poker probe gives a good simulation of no foldem poker only.
Vince
Vince
thanks for the response. (more than can be said for the "illustrious authors", where are they? what does their silence indicate?)
I agree with you so far as being able to adapt and make the correct decision as a hand enfolds is more important in poker than a strict mathematical knowledge of the game (talent vrs knowledge isn't it?)
But I disagree with you that the mathematical nuances are of little importance when playing 7 stud. Mathematics when playing 7 stud is not basic because your outs vrs the chances your hand will stand up vrs the pot odds are constanting shifting and changing based on the numbers of dead/live cards relative to both your own hand and your opponent(s) hand(s) and also based on the real (mathematical) worth of a hand (as opposed to its apparent worth) relative to the numbers of opponents ranged against it.
7cSfAP - 21 labours this point constantly. A hand might be the strongest on 3rd or 4th or any street, but because of the particular cards that are out and/or the numbers of opponents it faces it should be thrown away. This is strictly a mathematical decision.
In the example I take from 7cSfAP-21, if a K and a couple of spades were out than the hand would probably not even be worth a call, no less a raise. And that would be an easy straightforward decision to make, 7 stud constantly throws up much more difficult scenarios.
George,
You gave me something to think about. Thanks for the discussion. Looking forward to more of the same. Need to bring a few others in also besides the authors.
Vince.
I have recently had the pleasure of logging quite a few hours of PL omaha (high only 10/20 blinds), and am really starting to question whether or not ANY hand should be raised pre-flop at all.
The game is typically loose-aggressive with MANY multi-way flops. An opening pre-flop raise of $80 to $120 seems to have little effect on limiting the field.
When I first started playing this game I was usually only raising with AAxx when I had AT LEAST one suit working (e.g. AsAcJcQh). I found however that I was giving up too much about my hand by raising and it did little to limit the field anyway. I then switched to always smooth calling with AAXXs with the intention of coming over the top of another pre-flop raise. This was effective in usually limiting the field to the original bettor, and me but if I was called, I had again given most of my hand away to the original bettor and was severely crippled for the rest of the hand if we both had significant stacks.
I have since switched to ONLY re-raising with AAXXs if I can get my opponent or myself virtually all-in before the flop thus negating the information I am giving up about my hand.
I now do occasionally raise with other holdings that do not contain AA in order to mix up my play, with some success. But I am really starting to question if I should be raising with any starting hand pre-flop.
Any comments or thoughts on pre-flop raises, and specifically playing AAXXs (facing a raise or making the original raise) would be appreciated.
Derek
Derek,
"The game is typically loose-aggressive with MANY multi-way flops. An opening pre-flop raise of $80 to $120 seems to have little effect on limiting the field."
In these types of games when it becomes difficult to limit the field pre-flop with a raise, why not wait to after the flop to raise if you hit your hand. This way if you don't hit you saved a bet and if you hit the players will either call or fold, maybe even reraise you because you didn't raise pre-flop. Nobody wins this game before the flop, but you have to raise occasionally preferably after a win with AAxx so now they will think you have AAss, and you may only have KKxx. Just mix it up but no strategy will win all the time.
paul
I often don't raise preflop in this game also.
If I'm the first one in, in middle or late position, I will often raise any hand I want to play, IF I think that it will likely get everyone behind me to fold. Position is more important in this game than in any other I've ever played, so I will raise if it will (or might) get the players behind me to all fold.
You could also consider raising with every hand you wish to play. If you're a selective player, and only coming in about 10-15% of the time for your non-blind hands, then you're ahead of your opponents most often, so raising every time (if the stacks are all big), just means that you'll be playing bigger when you're in.
Or, you could mix it up, and raise sometimes, but not just on the top X% of your starting hands. Like you say, this will give too much information away, maybe. Instead, raise sometimes with AAxx, sometimes with 6789 double-suited. This way they cannot put any flop out of your reach.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
An opening pre-flop raise of $80 to $120 seems to have little effect on limiting the field.
Are you trying to limit the field or are you trying to build the pot? Depending on the character of the players, Omaha games can vary widely as to when you can get the money into the pot. In some games you can get a call or two on fifth street. In other games there is seldom a show down. In these games you have to start building early and make your move based on your hand, your draws and your re-draws.
I now do occasionally raise with other holdings that do not contain AA in order to mix up my play, with some success. But I am really starting to question if I should be raising with any starting hand pre-flop.
It's good that you are mixing up your plays. Are you getting paid off for your big hands? Are you getting your share of steals? If it's a "yes" on both you're OK. But in a lot of Omaha games you can practically watch the players climbing up the learning curve before your eyes. When this happens, one option for you is to change the streets you attack on, and this can be facilitated by building the pot before the flop.
fold
my answer: raise (wasn't sure if raise or call, but I don't think releasing is right here)
I don't have too much O/8 knowledge, so what do the experts think?
You have 4-5-6-7 with one suit in middle position with two limpers. Your play is?
call fold raise
answer to follow
TM: call
2d: fold
nm
at pokerpages.com. I'll hold my comments about the content of that site since they're pretty consistant with everyone else's here. good tournament roundup, though.
Was there any explanation for calling with such a grubby hand?
no
Please post the betting structure, the stakes, what kind of players and if it's high only.
Thanks,
PM
I prefer folding. I'm sure the guys who run simulations might be able to show me wrong hot and cold, but I don't like my position and the possibility of getting raised from behind. There is a big difference between middle and late position. On later streets you may also easily be facing a bet in front of you when you have a very marginal hand and you won't know if a raise is coming from behind.
To me this hand, at a full table, is pretty much a blind or button hand (with a little room for adjustment).
Are you sure his quiz isn't about Omaha high?
4567 is a much better hand in high only than in hi-lo. and AAKQ (while a great hand in both games) is a better hand in hi than in hi-lo also.
However, if it's hi-lo, then he's just plain wrong. This hand (4567) is a clear fold, no matter if suited, double-suited, or nothing.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
the title of the quiz is Omaha hi/lo split
I didn't see anything about O/8 in your first message....
Fold if O/8. Limp if Om High
I thought of course it was for Omaha hi. What the..I'm going to see if I still have the magazine.
Did you check out the explanation on the limit stud question? it noted that if the flop... what the hell???
This hand makes the nuts when it makes anything, so I will be glad to play against the entire field preflop.
Just call to get in as many as possible. If a raise won't thing the field at all, then go ahead and raise and play against everyone for a bigger pot.
Even though you can't make a low, this is still a premium hand. What really makes some money is that others will be playing or drawing to the non-nut flushes, if you make a straight with the KQ, you're freerolling to a higher straight, and your full houses are always the top full.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I think McEvoy's is notorious for making mistakes. And this is another one of them.
I would pbly call here as in a sense you are drawing, and wouldn't mind alot of players seeing the flop and hope to cathc a hight flop w/a flush draw or such.
Interestingly he recomends playing something like 4567 in some situations not in the blind. this I think is dumb.
I heard through this forum that the "BIKE" spreads draw poker at the middle limits... can anybody clarify this?
Just a point about your checker - chess analogy. What makes Chess more complex is the fact that a number of pieces (hate those mieces to pieces) in Chess have a different tactic that can apply. In checkers all pieces are equal. The tactic associated with each piece being different makes the play (strategy) of the game more complex. In poker the tactics are the same for each game. Not a good analogy.
Vince.
The point of the analogy, if you reread it, was not to draw a correlation between poker and chess. Rather it was merely to support the concept that in a more complex game the expert has more ways to outplay the non-expert.
Actually it is not only the tactics of each piece in Chess that makes the game more complex. The pieces in Chess can play on 64 squares. In checkers the entire game is played on 32 squares. There is only one standard board game more complex than Chess and that game is Go. In Go, I believe the game is played on a 20x20 or 21x21 board. The tactics available to each piece in Go are simple and the same for every piece. Yet Go is more complex. The number of possible permutations in Go dwarfs those in Chess much like Chess does Checkers.
While the options available in Stud and Hold'em are the same, the universe of possible hands dealt in a ring game in Stud is far larger--possibly by orders of magnitude. I don't know how to do the calculations. This is the number one reason the game is more complex, and in this sense it is not too bad an analogy when applied to poker because of the fact that there are so many more possible hands and boards in Stud than in Hold'em.
In Hold'em you will far more often recognize a recurring specific situation than in Stud. Therefore the best play in Hold'em is also more often recurring (unique plays exist in both games but more often in Stud). Since more unique or rare situations develop in Stud, one has to account for a wider range of factors when making decisions, including the cards that are out. This additional information and unique situational aspect gives the talented expert more chance of coming up with the ideal play than a merely decent player has. You seem to be saying this makes the game simpler. No, the additional information makes the game more complex, as does the greater universe of hands, but this is to the advantage of the expert who can use this additional information and ability to interpret unique situations to his advantage.
Little change of pace from the usual HE action last night. The room fired up a 4/8 Dealer's Choice game with about 90% of the hands being O/8, with the very occasional Omaha - high or HE hand thrown in.
Game was actually fairly conservative. The DC game is often populated with the loose, aggressive types throwing in multiple raises on just about anything to build a pot, but for the most part, the action had been pretty quiet. 4-6 people seeing flops, little pre-flop raising. At this particular juncture, I had gone almost 3 complete rounds of the table without playing a hand other than my BB, and I was starting to get a just a little bored. But, that's the nature of O/8- lots of time on the sidelines, at least for me.
I'm in BB. Six limpers call, SB calls, and I look down to see my best hand in 2 hours. Ac-2h-3d-5c. Very decent hand with a big field, and I raise. I want to start building a big pot. Flop comes down Tc-9h-2h. Just about the ugliest board imaginable for my hand. Runner-runner low and flush draws, that's it. Yuck.
SB checks, I check of course, and UTG - a very solid O/8 player bets out. Only 1 person folds when the action gets back to me. There is now about $90 in the pot, and I throw in the $4 just to see how much trouble I can get into on the turn. Well, about the best card possible for me hits the turn, the 4c. SB checks, I check, and UTG bets again. At this point, I put him on a set of T's or 9's. He would not likely bet a wrap straight type of hand into two flushes and a low draw. He's got value. Four limpers call when it gets back to me, and while I did not stop to calculate the actual number of outs I had for at least half the pot, I quickly estimated that I had about half the deck that would give me at least a big piece of this pot. I check-raised, even though I strongly suspected that the UTG player might pop it again.
Sure enough, he does, and this actually drove out two of the limpers. River card is the 6h, giving me nut low and a str8. I bet, UTG calls, and 1 other player calls. I end up scooping the whole enchilada, as UTG did have a set of T's, and the other player a weaker low. And also, UTG's re-raise drove out someone limping in with rough hearts, so the re-raise actually won me the High half of the pot.
Questions:
1) Who would raise out of the BB with my hand into a large field?
2) Who would call the flop bet, and who would muck?
3) Was my check-raise on the turn with nothing more than a huge draw a 'value' play, or stupid over-aggressiveness?
By the way, I counted my outs this morning over breakfast. 3 Ace's, 3- 3's, 3-5's, 4-6's, 4-7's, 4-8's, and the Jc, Qc, and Kc all give me some sort of nut or nut/nut hand. That's over half the remaining deck at the river, so I was pretty close to my seat of the pants estimate at the table.
Another hand from the same O/8 game last night. I'm not involved in this one.
Six limpers take the flop of Q-5-5 rainbow. It gets checked out. Turn card is a 6. Early position player(EPP)now bets. Player to his immediate left calls, two others also call.
River is a 7. Runner-runner low. EPP bets, guy to his left calls, 1 other limper also calls. EPP turns over quad five's (!!!), player to his left shows pocket Q's for the nut full (!!!!!), and limper gets the low with something like A-4, I think. I didn't see his actual low holding, I was sitting there in stunned shock at the way this betting went down.
Questions:
1) I know there was a fairly small pot to start with as there was no pre-flop raise, but can anyone, ANYONE, give me a possible rationale for checking quad's on this flop? Notwithstanding the fact that another player had the nut full, why would you give the low hands any reason to get a free card that would justify them calling the turn? I rarely flop quad's in O/8 (who does?), and would never consider slow-playing them unless there was no possible chance for a low draw, but I have seen this happen at least a half-dozen times over the past year, and EVERY time, quad-boy lets the lows suck along for free, and ends up splitting the pot.
2) What about the guy with the Queen's full? What was he thinking about? Checks the flop, then gets a bet in front of him on the turn, and still can't find a raise? Sheesh. If I've got his hand, I'm sure I would have lost at least another 3 or 4 BB's. Look up Calling Station in the dictionary, there's this guy's picture, IMO.
Gotta love'em.
This has to be right up there. I have seen checkers with low quads on the flop, also. Amazing.
This guy might have missed a chance for a monster. The queens might have found the courage to raise a bet on the flop.
Other Poker Games
September 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo