(1) If casinos don't get too greedy with the rake, like they did in some card rooms that no longer exist. Casino management seems to forget - or either aren't aware of how much money they make from many poker players that also play craps, blackjack, and baccarat. (Their spouse's often play the slots) Some players take their poker profits and freeroll at the table games, some lose at poker and try to win it back quickly at table games and lose even more, and some play table games while waiting for a seat in a poker game. The Mirage and the Horseshoe have their act together on the rake. Other card rooms should use them as a good example to follow.
(2) If The Two Plus Two Gambling Forum continues their great job of educating the weaker players - I purchased Mason Malmoth books years ago but the math and some ideas were over my head and too hard for me to understand. Now the latest books are written *much better* and easier to understand. The great thing about the forum is - you can ask a specific question and the pros will give you an honest answer, as well as other intelligent players. By educating the weak players, they aren't as intimidated when they do play the professionals. They will probably still lose their money, but not nearly as fast!
(3) If professional players will ever wise up and learn how to smile and be pleasent to the tourist and weak locals. A couple of the last games I played, I felt like I was at a funeral home. You sense they are there to get your money and certainly aren't enjoying themselves. When I got up and quit, the game broke up. This type of game takes the fun out of playing.
I am a tourist and certainly like to win, but I'm also there for recreation. I lost $1500 in a $15-30 game at the Commerce casino last year and really enjoyed all the players. It was fun and I wasn't upset about losing the money, we were all laughing and telling jokes and I got my money's worth. To a lot of people, this will sound stupid, but think about it. If you had to make a living playing people that were as good as Malmuth or Ray Zee, you wouln't like it. Treat the tourist as if you are running your own business and they are your good customers. Remember: "It pays to be nice" - Don't bite the hand that feeds you!
Your concepts are valid but I don't know anyone that would ever enjoy losing $1500 unless they were rich!
Bob,
I agree with you that treating people correctly is the right way to be. All players should be treated equally. There is no reason to treat anyone special. When the house panders to the action players or the other players act likewise, these people some become spoiled brats. Or worse, they just dont feel equal. Most people play for the company and the temporary relationships at the table. If everyone is treated the same nobody feels out of place. Good Luck.
After three months of reading material of David and Mason I decided to play holdem in AC for the first time. I put in about 50 hours at a 2-4 game making sure my starting pairs strategy was consistent with David's according to position before the flop. I feel I understand these concepts quite well but I have to put in much more time and I am just beginning to understand post flop plays. The question I have is that I feel like I'm wasting my time at a 2-4 game and would like advice as to what game should I be starting with knowing I'm aspiring to be professional.
Thanks
If you have a decent bankroll I think its better to learn the ropes in $5-10. Then try $10-20 but you had better change your strategy for the higher limit.
Thanks! Although all I encountered at the Taj advised me to stay at 2-4 and move up slowly after knowing I can beat the particular level, I was not sure that this was the most efficient use of my time.
At what point do I leave the 5-10 game to move to the 10-20?
Thanks again.
>At what point do I leave the 5-10 game to move to the 10-20?
This has already been discussed on this forum. You may want to check the archives.
You move up when you can beat $5-10 consistently and have the proper bankroll and skills. I should talk, I'm trying to improve my post flop play which would allow me to win more.
Gordon,
If you got a couple extra grand and an income you can move right up to 5&10. We are assuming of course you beat the 2&4 and have read a few books and thought about what you have learned. Anyone able to use a computer and navigate around is bright enough to beat a bunch of tourists and recreational players. Sure some of the players will play ok but the bad ones will be so off that it will be taking the candy from the baby.
Thanks! I appreciate the attention. I'm hoping to break up my BJ play with poker and hopefully be able to switch over to just poker. The bankroll requirements don't seem nearly as much as BJ for the same projected hourly return. I've been reading a few hours a day and am now totally hooked. I wished I had started years ago. I'm reading and rereading Holdem and Advanced as well as The Theory of Poker. Every time I read and play new insights come alive- I have never been as stimulated in my life.
> .. when should I move up from 2-4 holdem ? ..
For professionals you need a very large bankroll to move up.
For recreational players you should also have a suitable bankroll, but not nearly as large, since you also have a job.
Each level has a significantly different calibre of players.
Consider this: Move up when you consistently beat the current level for about 2 big bets/hour ($8 in $2/4) AND you are rarely surprised by the other player's holdings. If you don't know what they have now, you will get toasted at the larger limit.
Then take shots at the larger games (when you see one you like) and you should play more and more at that level, until you rarely play lower.
I love the game of poker. There's nothing quite like it around. However poker ie: Texas Hold'em has so many aspects that make it very hard to play as you well know. I consider my play before the flop to be top notch. However my play on the flop barring floping no thinkers like top pair,trips,and so forth, has alittle to be desired. I'm talking about semi-bluff plays and two overcard flop plays. I have read your books and reread them every day to try to improve this aspect of my game. Correct preflop play will help alittle but there are still many situations where I don't know what is profitable or not. I reason that this is because of the way I used to play which was tighter then a Nuns #$@#. I assume you have heard that expression before! When you play in a casino like in AC, often people are in and out constantly. This dosen't alow you to have enough time to study their playing ability. You can't assume that they will be back to play again. What do you do in this situation? My play after the flop improves considerably but I know that I don't what I should win because of the special circumstances of on the flop play.
You are probably right. One of the things that we have been stressing on this forum is that you need to play your hand well all the way through. Playing the first two cards well and then poorly after that will not get it.
Unfortunately, I can't give you a quick explanation of how to play well after the flop. If I could everyone would be doing it, and there would be no win in the game. It takes a lot of effort. You should read and study the good books, especially THEORY OF POKER by Sklansky and put a lot of emphasis on reading hands.
You also need to understand the strategic value of hands. For example, you state that playing top pair is easy. If you think that I suspect that you are not maximizing your expectation (on these hands) since I believe that this implies that you just bet it. It is sometimes right to check top pair twice, and it can even be right to check it when you are last to act in a multiway pot.
As for players you have never seen before, it is best to assume that they play poorly until they prove otherwise. That is assume that they play too many hands and go to far with their hands. You then make the proper adjustments with this in mind.
Hey, we are getting an awful lot of hits on the forum. How about a few questions from some of the poker players that read it every day but so far have not written in. Thanks and Good Luck.
You're right, lots of people like to take advantage of gaining knowlege but not sharing it. Many of them are from the old school - never wise up a sucker. The truth is, the more new players learn about how to play better, the more players and extra money there will be. (especially from tourist and recreational players) They still won't beat the pros that play everyday because most don't get to play but a few times a year. I just purchased and read your book High-Low Split Poker for Advanced Players. You did a great job!!!
I am one of the "normal" poker players that read this forum. By normal, I mean that I am a recreational player that plays in home games, and occasionally visits the casino games. In no way do I intend to become a professional player, but I do want to learn about the game as much as possible, given my time constraints of a job and family. In my opinion, this forum caters more to the professional player than me. Don't get me wrong...I think it is an excellent resource, and will continue to use it. I'm still just not convinced, after playing at both home and casino games, that the old saying applies, "it is better to be lucky than good!" However, my current attitude could be connected to a recent butt kicking by some of the worst players I have ever seen at a 20-40 game in Tunica.
Whatever...keep up the good work.
Arkansas,
Whether pro or am. the same advice applies. When you play ,winning the most money possible for the cards you held that session is the goal. You were playing 20&40 which is a game that a great pro may make upwards of a 100 grand a year at. You dont have to be a pro to play at that ability, so a recreational player can also be great. Good Luck and thanks for your post.
My usual game is a loose, and at times passive 10-20 limit. I am well aquainted with most of the regular players and their styles of play. A typical mix will include one or two solid players four or five players that are too loose and chase too much. At times there will be one or two players that can be counted on to lose all their money. They almost give it away as they play almost every hand.
I am very interested in getting my fair share of this windfall but with several other too loose players in the game it can be difficult to get a direct shot at it. I understand the idea of isolation and find that I do well in any game where it is possible and less well if is not possible. The difficulty seems to be that these games make isolation almost impossible. I'm wondering if playing a few more hands may be the way to go and if so which hands might be correct. My sense tells me to go with a few more middle connectors such as 76o and T8o. The low end suited hands may also be correct such as QXs and maybe JXs. Lastly, it seems that position is not nearly so vital in these passive games allowing me to limp in a little earlier that I would in a more standard game.
Thanks in advance for any advice.
Best Luck, Ed
Ed,
Forget the jx and qx hands. When it is loose the pairs and bigger suited cards will show you the money. The reason you do poorly when you cant isolate is that the hands you isolate with dont do well multiway. Such as aj kj a10 aq lose their zip when contested by a couple of players. Also the more players in the pot the more your money fluctuates during the game. It makes sense that hands that turn into one pair will not do as well as hands that make straights and flushes in multiway pots. Good Luck.
> .. trouble beating loose games ..
If it a loose and agressive game then good luck. When you figure it out let ME know!
But I suspect it is a loose and passive game. Lots of one bet muliti-way pots. Few raises.
In that case you need a paradign shift. "Isolation" is now a rare tactic to consider. You make money because they play too many hands, not because they will respect your isolation play. You will win by making strong hands against many players. This means trips or better.
All trouble hands go way down in value because they are difficult to play well. There will be many times you should routinely fold top pair when you start with QJ.
Little pairs and suited connectors do very well. Routinely play them all.
Play selectively assuming you will need to show down the best hand to win. With that in mind, your assertive actions should earn extra money along the way.
I am just starting out in the world of poker. I have bought "Seven Card Stud" by Percy, and "Hold'em Poker" by Sklanksy.
I have been playing Seven Stud for about 15 hours now. I am slowly learning. My questions are:
1. Should I stick with stud, or switch to hold'em? The limit is 1-4 at stud, 3-6 at hold'em.
2. Are these good books for starters?
3. What other books are good for starters?
4. The stud game I play in is very loose. 90% call the first round for $1. Players will pay the maximum to try to draw to an inside straight, or even if they are beat in sight. Most players will call a maximum bet at the river with a 4 straight showing, 'just to see it'. What changes should I make in my playing?
Thanks.
Mike,
You are off to a good start. All the 2 plus 2 books will catapult you better playing skills. Play both holdem and stud till you find your place. Learning both is important anyway, so it is good practice. In very loose games play more for hands that turn into sts and flushes or better. Bluff little and bet more on the come as you get great odds. Good Luck.
To Ray Zee's advice, I might add the caveat that playing for flushes in stud is much more profitable than trying to build a straight, especially in games where everyone calls to the river. In particular, I don't recommend playing small straights; even when you get there, you are likely to get beat.
I live in a state that has no legal poker. This has made it hard to develop both table selection and people reading skills. I play in a couple of 'home' games, usually with the same core group of players.
One of the things I found at BARGE (as well as when I travel elsewhere to play poker) is that I'm slow at picking up on how other players play. In my usual games I have played with the others long enough that I'm aware of their style, etc.
As for table selection, the only selection I can practice is either play or go home.
Any advice on either topic would be appreciated.
Kevin,
You must travel if you are going to improve alot. Reading books will give you the skills to improve. Reading your opponents takes work. You must pay attention to what they do in each situation. In the beginning strive to at least know when they have a good, average,or bad hand. After a while it becomes easy to know if they like their hand or not. As you get better you can frequently call you opponents hole cards. Good Luck.
Mason, I agree with your logic that the K high hand is an easier bluffing opportunity than the xxx hand. however, I also find (10-20 through 20-40) that it is hard to bluff the Ace high flop also. A lot of players recognize that play and will playback at you. The ones that understand what they are doing may not make it profitable; however, the clueless can be made to pay when you do have the Ace. A better player will recognize when it's hopeless.
I agree. You should bluf the ace high flop much less than the king high flop. Another reason why this is correct is that many bad players will play ace-anything or almost anything but are more restrictive if they hold a king.
In the later stages of HE tournaments, it is very common for hands to be contested by only the blinds, i.e., everyone folds around to the SB, who now must either fold, call, or attack (raise) the BB. Unfortunately, I did poorly in two such battles, both from the SB. However, while I won't disagree with the way the BB played, it got me to thinking. In both cases I raised from the SB with either 3.5 or 4 bets in my stack. As such, I was short-stacked on both occasions, and only had 1.5 or 2 bets left after the raise.
If you were the BB in this situation, with what hands might you call or raise? In my tournament, the BB was a chip leader with 2 tables left (1 table paid). He called, and probably should have, as he had something like 50 bets in his stack. On the other hand, if BB only had 1 or 2 bets left in his stack after posting the blind, he must call with almost anything, as he is pot-stuck. However, what about a more typical situation where the BB has an average stack of 10 bets?
My feeling is that the BB should be less inclined to call me (4 bets) than if I had either more or less in chips. By this I mean, 4 bets is 40% of his stack, and therefore enough to hurt, although not cripple. 4 bets also means that I can force him to a decision on the flop, turn, or river, as a bet of 2 into a pot of 4 forces a real decision. If I had more in chips (near or above 10), then BB would be getting better implied odds by calling with his marginal hands, as he could double through when he hits. If I had fewer chips (lets say 2.5 bets), then BB knows it is really going to cost him 1.5 more bets (as he knows I can't fold post-flop), but that he is getting 3.5:1.5 on his call. Most importantly, putting in 1.5 more bets now will barely hurt. Thus, it appears to me that my intermediate stack is more threatening of a raise than any other stack size.
Please let me know why you agree or disagree.
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
Your talking 10 small bets here by your example. Five top bets is barely one hand to play out. When it is just two left it becomes merely a headup game. Both players would play with most anything here, unless you knew something about the others play that may influence the decision. For instance if the big blind folds alot you would raise all hands as his chips would not matter. Both players with so few chips must accumulate more to be in real contention.
Actually, I think that in the finishing stages of most tournaments, 10 small bets is about a typical stack. The tournament that started me thinking occurred yesterday at Oceans 11 Casino in Oceanside, CA. I later went back to watch the final three play it out. I had earlier estimated that there was about 150,000 in chips in play, and at the 3-man stage the bets were 6,000/12,000. Since the average player only had 50,000, he only had about 8 small bets. When I busted out the average player had about 10,000, and bets were 800/1600, or about 12 small bets per player. Also, this compares to the medium limit tournaments (i.e., buyins of $50-100, with or without rebuys) I've played elsewhere in SoCal. Moreover, according to a recent post elsewhere about the Hall of Fame Classic at Binions, at the start of the final table (of the initial limit HE event) the chip LEADER only had about 12 small bets. Therefore, I think that a scenario wherein the BB has 10 small bets, and the SB has 3-4 small bets, is very realistic, and cannot merely be simplified by saying "both players are so shortstacked that they both must play almost anything".
Anyway, back to the question. Although other considerations are VERY important, all else being equal, and given a reasonable opponent in the SB attacking you, are you more likely to defend your BB stack of 10 small bets, or concede the 1 small bet already out there, if the SB has a total stack of 2-3 small bets (is all-in or almost so with his raise), 4-5 small bets (still has some ammo left, but not enough to give you good implied odds if you hit), or an equal or greater stack than your own (can bust you out, but also can double you through)?
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
You ask, "are you more likely to defend your BB stack of 10 small bets, or concede the 1 small bet already out there, if:
a. the SB has a total stack of 2-3 small bets (is all-in or almost so with his raise),
b. 4-5 small bets (still has some ammo left, but not enough to give you good implied odds if you hit), or
c. an equal or greater stack than your own (can bust you out, but also can double you through)?"
Situation A is a no-brainer as far as callling the SB raise, but I'm not always inclined to make the opponent stick their last few bets in pre-flop; on occasion, I'll give them another opportunity to fold after the flop when they flop garbage. My thoughts are to put their decision-making to a second test, even if I've flopped garbage also.
Situation B is actually the most difficult situation; if you lose 4-5 bets, YOU will be the one in jeopardy. But even here, I'd be more inclined to call and take the flop.
Situation C has to be evaluated strictly according to your hand and your opponent. This is life or death, so its purely a judgment call, considering also the probability of what your opponent could be holding.
Scenerio one: I'm in my first no limit tournament and I am at the final table with 8 players remaining(9 places pay with the majority going to 1st/2nd) and I am tied for 1st or 2nd with about 10000 chips. Under the gun bets 8500, I have a pair of jacks. This person has made raises like this all night with cards like queen jack offsuit, so I felt pretty sure she had two high cards. The blinds where 2000/4000 so I didnt figure I had a lot of time to be too chosey and if I win this puts me in a commanding chip lead so I call. She turns over ace/queen and hits a queen on the flop. I lost the hand and finished sixth. Did I make the correct play here? In retrospect, I think not.
Scenerio two: I am playing 10/20 at the mirage and am dealt 9d,9c in the little blind. I call a raise with 5 other players, the big blind raises and it eventually gets capped by the time it gets back to me, I call. I could'nt ask for a better flop....3d,5c,9s. I check and its checked to the button who raises, I reraise, the big blind reraises, next guy reraises and its capped by the time it gets back to me, I obviously call. The turn is a 7s, I bet & the same crazy guy reraises me I reraise and he calls. I realize a straight was possible here, but the cards that would make someone a straight were not the type that i felt someone would call $50 with preflop. The next card is 2s...the crazy guy bets, I call, the next guy calls. Crazy man has 3/5 of spades, second caller has pocket fives. I loose an $860 pot, quite painful as this is the second time that crazy guy draws out on my trips. Was he correct to stay in this hand, should I have called in the first place, what could/should I have done better?
ps.... I believe Jessica was playing at this table(Monday night about 11:30pm(9/1/97)), you left when I sat down, the crazy guy(I think he was actually a decent player but liked to push his drawing hands extremely hard and cleaned up when he got there) was in your game and was sitting in the 7 or 8 seat...youngish asian guy with glasses)
Jeff,
You should jump for joy to put your money in with 2js in this spot. Think about it. She would blind herself off in the next two hands if she doesnt play. If you wait it will be your turn soon to make a desperation move-in.
2nd scenerio
you did right and maybe he did since he got so far in before the flop. There is no way he is supposed to fold after the flop. You could easily have 2as so you just had bad luck. When games are wild and pots capped much of a good players edge is gone. Good Luck.
Re: Senario #2
It doesn't surprise me that he would have that holding. As Mason has pointed out before on this forum, the average player will rarely fold a hand before the flop when they already have money in. It also sounds like he originally called $20, and then called another $30, or maybe he capped the action himself. It's frustrating, but you did get the money in when you had the best hand. As Mason has said over my shoulder to me as I mournfully watch the unlikely hand stack-up the chips that were mine before the river...."It's a theoretical win!!" Where is the local branch of the Theoretical Bank???
Scenario 1 Yes you made the right play. Maybe I am using "cold probability" but the odds were in your favor.
Scenario 2 It is never pleasant to lose a big pot when you are a big favorite but you should be pleased that you played the hand that well. Lucky drawouts happen to good players a lot. It seems that on every round and every turn of the card you made the right play. In my opinion you should be proud of that. If you are playing against players that get locked in pre-flop with a 3-5s, it shouldn't be very long before you have their money. Just make sure that your bankroll is sufficient for the game you are playing.
I just received my copy of 12 days to Hold'em Success by Mike Caro. I broused the forum and a couple of other web pages for a review without noticing one. I'm curious to know what the experts think of it.
I like 12 Days to Hold'em Success. It is thought provoking and provides a solid background in hold'em skills. It is particularly good in providing some psychological tricks and exercises to improve your judgement and card reading.
It also is one of very few poker publications that provides well thought out and researched advice not based on that from 2+2. In a few places it even disagrees with HPfAP (ah, sacrilege, I know!) but I think it is healthy to get a second source occasionally, if for no other reason than to stimulate thought.
Malmuth gave it an 8 (out of 10) in GT.
A while back my wife made a business trip to Las Vegas and I tagged along for obvious reasons. We stayed the weekend and I got to play some $10-20 Hold'em at the Mirage and the Horseshoe. I was expecting some really tough games. After my first few sessions I was in total shock. I told my wife, "These games are easy." I know I was probably playing too low as I am sure the high limit games at the Mirage are pretty tough. I am probably being naive, however, from comments on this forum about the $20-40 and $10-20 games and my own experiences it seems like Vegas is a very good place to play. Any comments ?
Speaking for the $10-$20, $6-$12 crowd at the Mirage...the games are great! After 8pm they usually get even better. Of course the weekends are busier, but the games during the week are just fine. I've started to play a little Stud ($10-$20), and these games look very promising as well. Omaha players in the room rave about the $4-$8, $10-$20, (and $20-$40, which is rare) half-kill games.
Try the 20/40 hold'em game in the middle of the day at the Mirage. You'll get a real education about how to play poker. You'll have a few experts in these games. They are not easy. The higher you play, the more you pay, if you aren't an above average player.
There's a big jump in opponent's skills from 10-20 to 20-40, even at stud. When in town, I try to start out playing in the 15-30 stud games at the Mirage, which are usually pretty good games. However, the 20-40 games are a lot less remunerative, with most players playing a tight-aggressive game. As Jessica noted, the 10-20 half-kill Omaha games are also very good. Also, during the WSOP, the Horseshoe runs some great side action games where the 30-60 or 40-80 games can be even better than playing 20-40 because the grind players you might see at the Mirage aren't as likely to be in there.
Back from my trip to Las Vegas. Got in the ditch in Seven-Stud, but dug my way out and more in Hold'em. Poker is good there but a little tighter than I remembered from previous visits. Local guy won the pot limit tournament at the 4-Queens and former local won the 7-Stud tournament. I will tell you that I know first hand that they don't fair that well in the side action. Really liked the smaller rakes, good dealers (some are just terrific), and well run card rooms. Some of the pros need some lessons in manners. In general I really enjoyed myself.
I have never given this advice of not raising with a pair of aces on the button before the flop in a multiway pot.
Everyone knows that camouflage is essential for survival for the blackjack professional (i.e. card counter). The BJ pro must hide his skills as much as possible otherwise the casino management will bar him or offer an inferior game situation to him. Therefore the BJ pro is usually advised to dress/appear like a tourist, do not appear to concentrate, limit his playing sessions to short periods, move from casino to casino, avoid making sophisticated plays if being monitored by the pit (such as splitting TT's vs. 5 with a high count), buy-in for small amounts at a time,etc.etc.
What are the merits of camouflage for the professional poker player? Obviously, the poker pro does not have to worry about being barred by the casino for skillful play. But, does the poker pro "hurt" himself by overexposure if he openly lets it be known to his opposition that he **is** a poker professional? Is it possible that some/all of the weaker players will give him less action or even worse ultimately AVOID playing at the Pro's table? I play in the L.A., Calif. area casino where there is an opportunity to "move around" the different mega card rooms. Should I limit my playing sessions to like 3 or 4 hours at a club instead of like playing 8 to 10 hours at one club? And also rotate my appearance throughout the different clubs during the week.
This concept of camouflage for casino poker only came to me recently when a weak regular player at a $15- 30 HE game tried to "warn" me that the other player in seat 3 was a professional who played at that particular club everyday...he exclaimed that he (seat 3 pro) didn't even have a regular job but played poker for a living!! Little did he know, I was also a full-time poker pro, but I don't make an so obvious to my opposition. The weak player later requested a table change to avoid the seat 3 pro and he wished me good luck.
Deception is very important in poker. The highest level of deception maybe to hide the fact that you are a professional poker player. Is this necessary or of limited merit because maybe most poker players have a big ego and don't care anyway that you make your living playing casino poker?
Obvious Poker Professional Giveaways: 1) You mark down in your little notepad your buy-in amount and starting time as soon as you "clock in". You also "clock out" in your notepad. 2) You never or rarely tip the dealer. 3) You don't get emotional when you get a bad beat or show any frustration when you are on a heavy losing streak. 4) You dress like a poker player---WSOP hat, sun glasses, walk-man 5) You buy-in for large amounts---50 to 100 small bets at a time. 6) You play too much too often at one particular club.
Would it beneficial for the poker pro to avoid doing all of the above? That is, dress like a business man, play short sessions at one club and rotate your appearance throughout the different clubs, pretend it bothers you when you get a bad beat or when you have a losing streak, buy in for 10 to 20 small bets at a time, don't write in a notebook in front of your opponents, tip like everyone else, etc,etc.
Fred,
Strictly from a money standpoint, look like a tight pro in high ante games and shothanded. Look like a tourist in small ante games. Assuming you play well enough to take advantage of the image. But life is too short not to be yourself and play in the way that you are happy at playing. Good Luck.
Fred write:
>Is this necessary or of limited merit
>because maybe most poker players have a big ego and don't care anyway that you
>make your living playing casino poker?
Ego is the key. I see fish regularly sit down at a table just because a WSOP champ is holding court. Can they win? Sure. Do they get a great story to tell? You bet. Is this expensive entertainment? Yes, very.
At the middle limits the players that make the game good are most often clueless. Being good company and having a little fun are all that is required to keep them in the game and regularly donating. If the player is on the ball enough to activly avoid pros then that seat is better filled by some other fish anyway.
Best Luck, Ed
Fred, While there may be some advantage, at times to being an "unknown quantity" at the table...I have found over the years that I gain a lot more from having my opponents fear me at the table. Players with strong reputations get checked to on the river a lot more often than "average players".
I am not a professional player but I've been playing for over 10 years and I prefer my opponents to know who I am.
Like you, however, I would be interested in the viewpoint of the professional players on this point.
Regards
Jim Mogal
One of the toughest aspects of winning in middle & high limits is controlling your opponents. Most of these players have improved to the point where they have learned to play aggressively and not fear "monsters under the bed". In these games, it becomes more difficult to do some important things that add to your winnings, such as putting opponents on hands, trimming the field, and buying free cards -- not to mention just plain bluffing.
But when the table gets wind that you are a professional (or even that you play very tight), these tactics become possible again. What is more, you WILL be ignored when you want to be (i.e. they fear your raises more than those of most of the other players at the table, but pay no attention to your calls). This gives you many more weapons than when you are "just one of the guys".
Sure, it gets annoying when the guy next to you with the nuts gets three raises on the river from an opponent while you just get a call, but overall the respect given to you for your tough image is better for your overall winning prospects, since these "extra action" situations are much less common than the other situations I mentioned above.
Tom Weideman
I can't help but notice that this discussion is turning into the standard arguments for projecting a tight image. I have argued for years that in games where the pot becomes large relative to the bet you prefer that people believe that you play tight and play very well.
When I play hold 'em or stud, especially in a cardroom at a location that I'm not normally at, I prefer for other players to become intimidated by my presence. You must remember that when a pot gets big the important thing generally is to maximize your chances of winning the pot, not extracting an additional bet. If other players fear you and they just let a free card drop off every now and then you are "winning" in these games.
I have found this to be the formula for success and I strongly believe that it is correct. As someone has already mentioned, just the fact that someone knew enough to get out of your game was to your benefit. If he knows this he probably also knows something about playing tight and aggressive. If he gets replaced by a "live one" you are winning again.
[tight image is better than wild image in typical 20-40 holdem games]
Are you saying the extra calls you would get with a more liberal image are overshadowed with the one or two extra pots you get to steal per session; such as making the spectacular raise with 2nd pair on the river when you believe the better is stealing?
Are you saying that the extra calls YOU would get with a more liberal image tend to help the other callers DRAWING hand and tends to hurt YOUR typical BETTING hand?
Is it reasonably possible to cultivate a dual image that will encourage opponents to play weak hands against you from the start, but that they are intimidated by the river allowing you to steal a pot or two?
- Louie
All of the poker books I've read discuss pot odds and implied odds and their importance in playing a drawing hand. I understand the concept, but keeping track is harder - I generally guesstimate my evaluating the number of players in the hand and the "size" of the pot. Do most expert players track pot size more exactly or do they also go by "feel"?
You're playing in an average 20/40 hold'em game.
If you could only pick two of the most likey hands that players raise with (first one in) from an early position in average games, what would they most likely be?
If you could only play 12 hands from early position, would this be the best 12 hands to play?
AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, 99 AKs, AK, AQs, AQ, AJs, KQs
Most typical players raise under the gun with AA,KK. They call with the other 10 hands. Thats what I've seen at AC's Taj Mahal during hundreds of hours of play.
Bob,
The 2 most likely hands are ak and aq as there are more combos of them than aa or kk, providing the crew will raise with them. Thats the key. What you need to figure is what are all the possible hands that particular person would raise with and than decide which are the most probable ones. Then play your hand against his or hers.
That 12 works, but why only 12. Im assuming first under the gun because any previos folders make you loosen up alot as it goes on. First in, most all pairs are playable as we have said here under the right conditions. It takes a tough game for me to want to fold 88 77 66 55 kjs qts tjs especially if a few have folded, and if you play that tight you may become readable. That is a fate to be avoided. Good Luck.
Your advice and "Hold'em for Advanced Players" seem to be contradicting each other.
"In a loose game as long as the players are not too aggressive, you can add group five hands, especially the suited connectors"
Group 6: 66, 55, 54s If you are the first one in from the first 3 positions, you would play all of these hands?
Would you just limp in 95% of the time with 55 - 99 and small suited connectors?
I have lost a ton with QTs early. I trust your judgement, but it seems pretty loose to me and we both know loose players seldom win in the long run.
Bob:
I don't think we are contradicting the information in HOLD'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS. On page 19 of the second edition we say:
"Keep in mind that some hands like 8s7s or a small pair play well against many opponents. If there are usually a lot of callers but not much raising these type of hands become playable in early position."
You may want to review the text again.
I have an entry in the Mohegan Sun Poker tournament in Conn.) on Sept 25th for sale. The normall entry fee is $220 and is transferable. Make me an offer at mdavidson@logistix.com
Mark;
Good luck in your attempt to sell your entry. Your best bet is to be present on the day of the tournament and offer the entry at,say, $200. to someone who is in line to buy into the tournament anyway!
If you can't be there yourself perhaps a trusted friend could sell it for you.
Just out of curiosity I would love for you to report back to this forum how many offers you received from self declared "hotshot" tournament players to play the tournament for you and give you a percentage of their winnings!!
Good luck,
Jim Mogal
What is the proper terminology for counting seats 1 thru 10? Would the first player to act after the blind be callled # 3 ?
You have AKo on the button in a 10 handed hold'em game. Player in early position limps in, seat # 9 (a great aggressive player) raises. What should you do and why?
Bob,
Please ask easier questions. As far as counting, Norman Zadeh originally used the dealer for 0 then counted back from his right. In a 10 handed game first player to dealers left would be #9. They used this for lowball but I find it to confusing for my mind. I believe first to dealers left is #1 then bb is #2 and first in is #3. My reason is then it is easy to relate your place as to the button, once it has been stated how many players are in the hand. However, there is no standard and each writer of a hand will use his own system.
ako
It depends on how first player plays. If he most likely is limping without a big pair, I would just call. This way if the flop is low it probably missed all. Then when first checks 2nd bets I can raise and knock out first guy and play head-up with 2nd guy who may not have a pair. Also if first player leads out you can dump ak here. In the event you hit the flop you have position and a disguised hand. If by reraising you believe you can get first to fold then that is the superior play. If the flop is small or it hits you, you will play the hand to the river unless the betting indicates other wise. In these spots you play your opponents more than your cards. Good Luck.
>If by reraising you believe you can get first to fold then that is the superior play.
Are you talking about reraising # 9 raiser before the flop?
Thanks, this is very helpful.
Do you have any specific first time warnings for a good $5/10 Holdem player who wants to try Omaha High Low 8 or better, for a change? I just finished your book on high low split poker.
Gary,
Most holdem players will go too far with big pairs and small sets. Position is most important while learning. Make sure you play in loose games to start with, then you will win while learning. Raise less early, as the pots grow it is hard for a beginner to know when they may be getting quartered or worse. After the flop in multiway pots be drawing at the nuts or be out. Being a good holdem player, you will probably be the best poker player at the table. Your other skills should get you thru the first few sessions. Good Luck.
In the old days, the great gunfighters had a theory about teaching. They said to never teach a new gunfighter everything you know, always keep an edge - because you may have to face him someday! Would this be true with Two Plus Two Publishing? If it is, I can certainly understand.
Would I be correct in thinking some of the best information is never put in print?
Are there certain questions asked on the forum that you wouldn't want to answer?
I think what you guys are doing for poker is somewhat like Tiger Woods is doing for golf!!! Thanks and keep up the good work!
Bob,
The forum is not just for us to answer questions but for all to have discussions. 2+2 doesnt hide any great secrets as there really are none. The things that may not get into print are very advanced stuff that produce small edges. As books get written more will come out. Any question that is appropiate to the forum is subject to an answer. The forum is new so we have been answering most questions. Needless to say all questions cant be addressed by us. But hopefully some smart student of poker can satisfy a post.
Please comment on how I played this hand and offer alternatives with supporting comments. The game is fairly typical for a good $20-40 game maybe leaning on the loose side, somewhat passive also. A weak player limps in from the early position, everybody folds to a solid player who raises (he's in late position, one off the button), the button and small blind both fold, I'm in the big blind with AQo.
The solid late position raiser also only has about $80 left on the table after making the raise. I just call the raise...Maybe I should Re-raise to define my hand, get more info? I don't like the reraise because I'm out of position against two opponents. I'm slightly inclinced to reraise because the original raiser only has about $80 left and my reraise will put more pressure on the early limper (and offer me semi-bluffing options) once the flop comes.
Flop comes A-K-7 with two spades (I have no spades with my AQo, that is I *don't* have the back door flush draw). I decided to attempt a check-raise against the pre-flop raiser, so I checked, the early weak player also checked, the pre-flop raise bets and I raise. The weak early position player calls two bets cold (!) and the late position player only calls the raise. Should I have bet it out or is my check raise OK? I think just checking and calling would be OK (even with the early position guy still in) EXCEPT for the fact that there are two spades on the flop.
The turn card is the K of spades, completing the Flush possibility. All three of us *check* the turn !
The river is a 3, complete blank. I check, the early guy bets, the late guy folds and I call him with my AQo. I would think I should fold here given the previous actions *but* I find it hard to lay this hand down against this particular weak player. How bad is this call??
Also, please comment on the signficance of the short stack ($80 left after his pre-flop raise) of the pre-flop late position raiser. How should I play my hand if he was *not* short stacked?
From the play of the hand, it looks like the weak player made the flush on the turn but was worried about AK or some other full house. However, do you know enough about how the weak player plays to evaluate whether he might have a K or an A? It is hard to believe that weak has a K, since the only reasonable way you could be ahead on the flop and weak make it to the turn with a K is with Kxs. But the Ks comes on the turn. Maybe solid could have something like KcQs?
If you bet on the turn and get raised by the weak player, you have a problem. You will be getting at least 9:1 pot odds to call (more if the solid player puts in his last $40). If you have 4 outs, this is close to a call, especially if you think you can get paid on the river. But you might not have 4 outs. If weak has a flush and solid has an A, you could have only 3 outs for half the pot. If either one has a K, then you have only 2 outs.
On the other hand, if you check the turn and the weak player bets, I think folding is best (and it is a clear fold if the solid player calls his last $40, note that he can't raise). But if it checks to the solid player, who bets his last $40, then you have a dilemma, but I think this would probably make me fold.
If you check the turn, you might get a free card (which is what happened). You feel inclined to call a bet by the weak player, so I think a bet on the river is worth considering. If you bet you are unlikely to be raised by the weak player when he has you beat since he is afraid of the flush or the full house (depending on whether he has trips or a flush). You cannot be raised by the solid player. A bet is good if you have to call, but you think the weak player will call with more losing hands than he will bet (generally true for a "weak" player).
So, on the river the question comes down to your read on the weak player. You ask how bad a call it was. I don't think anyone can answer that without knowing more about the weak player. Me, knowing as little about the weak player as you have told us, I would call on the chance that he has a weak A and is clueless. If, on the other hand, you know the weak player is weak-tight-aware, then it is an easy fold. agressive-*-* or *-*-unaware probably warrants a call.
Fred,
The short stack had enough for all bets but the river, so it would be wrong to play much differently on his account. The call on the end is strictly a question of feel and math. There are 71/2 bets to you and if you believe that he may bluff more often than 1 in 81/2 times it is worth calling. Also, semi-bluffs are usually wasted on weak players. Good Luck.
What does the rest of the crew think?
Preflop, a reraise is a definite possibility. The strong player may well have been trying to make it heads up with the weakie. If the strong player will cut loose on a flop he doesn't hit, taking the initiative is indicated here. If he only raises already-opened pots with premium hands, a limp is indicated.
I like the checkraise on the flop. Maximum pressure on the limper. The only question is will the preflop raiser raise your bet out? If you think there's a good chance, go for the 3 bet. If you're scared you're already beat, you shouldn't have played AQo. The fact that the strong player is short stacked means you should put in as much money now as possible (while you're in the lead).
On the turn, I'd bet in a heartbeat. If the weak player raises you, you can cut out (if this player would make it 80 cold on a bluff, I wouldn't classify him as weak). If the other player has you beat, it doesn't matter because by my math he has but $40 anyway. It would be a tragedy to give a free card to the weak player if he had one spade. In this scenario, if a blank hits the river, I'd bet again hoping to get paid off by the weak player with Ax and not fearing the strong player who by this time should be all in.
On the river, laying down the hand against the weak player should be *easy*, not hard. If this is in fact a weak player, you're beat. If the strong player bet, I'd call in a heartbeat.
[ weak limper early, late raise, I have A-Qo in BB]
Before the flop: - FOLD if the raiser will only raise with premium hands (JJ or better): you are a big dog in bad position. - Call if he'll raise with good hands (AT, KQ or better): you have a midling hand but you are getting good odds to call and try to flop a pair; which will be the favorite. - ReRaise if he'll raise with bad trouble hands (A-9, any 20 or 21 hand) AND will tend to give up the ghost now that you have taken the lead: your hand plays very well HEADS UP against weak trouble hands played by a paranoid player. You can easily win with no pair (heads up), and will often flop a bigger kicker than the opponent when you flop the same pair. That's gold.
On the flop: What hand can the Limper have that you have beat that you want him to fold? You WANT a call from Ax, Kx, and QJ. He'll call with the real flush draw anyway so it doesn't matter so much. So check raising to put PRESSURE on this player is not such a good idea (but it is a good idea against the original raiser). If you bet you may get three bets against the raiser who suspects YOU have just Ax. A raise gives away the strength of your hand, a bet does not. You are more likely to get called down by A-T if you bet. I much prefer betting than check-raising. Check-Raise for long term strategic reasons (such as to slow the better down next hand); bet for this pot.
It seems to me that even after check raising you should assume that you have the better hand on the flop. Weak players and late raisers WILL call with worse hands than yours. Just hope that the worst cards you can catch the Ks or Js, does not come on the turn.
When it DOES come Ks, bet on the turn anyway, and fold for a raise. This is no time to be giving someone with a low kicker spade a free draw WHEN it is very likely they will fold for this bet. The pot is fairly large and worth a bet to occasionally win it now. Check if they are likely to get called anyway. [If YOU had the Qs (2nd nut flush draw) then check-calling would be OK.]
If you are NOT raised (or it is checked around) then it seems to me you should assume you have the best hand on the turn.
Bet on the end. This is a weak player and they like to call. Check against sensible players who are likely to fold.
Be advised that I come from the "Bet a good hand unless you have a specific reason not to" school; as part of my overall strategy. With different strategies, checking or not raising may very well be the correct play FOR YOU.
- Louie
Back from Vegas, another member of the crew has checked in. I don’t think the short stack was a major factor. If you find it hard to lay it down, then call. I’m not sure why you found it hard to fold but you know the situation the best so in that sense your call was right. Without knowing a lot about the weak player, I think a laydown was the right play even though the pot was fairly big. If the player was classified as weak because he was totally clue-less, then a call is o.k. If the player was classified as weak because he calls too much and doesn’t bluff very much, then a laydown was correct I believe. Working backwards, pre-flop doesn’t raise only calls a raise after putting in money voluntarily in early position. He could have a lot of things so you don’t have a lot of clues yet. I think the check-raise on the flop was a good play. After the action on the flop you do have a lot of clues. When the "weak" player calls two $20 bets cold on the flop you know he has got something he likes. If he had a set, he would play it here with two spades on-board. Likewise with two pair. With a flush draw he would probably call. He may have a gut shot. A call wouldn’t be right but not out of the question. He may or may not with an Ace,Q (you guys are tied) and he might call with A,x (worse kicker). He may have bet an A,Q or worse after you checked also. The King of Spades on the turn making a possible flush, trips, quads, and a full house is a pretty scary card as indicated by all of the checks as I am not so sure that you shouldn’t have bet here. The "weak" player if he has a flush has to be concerned about a full house or better. On the end, I am not so sure you should have checked although it probably was the right play. When you check on the end and the weak player bets ( I am assuming that the late position raiser folded after the weak player bets ) you have to decide if he is bluffing or betting for value and if he is betting for value can you beat the hand that he is betting for value. It is doubtful that he would bet an A,x (tie or poorer kicker) for value in this situation because of the K,K and 3 spades on board as this is basically the only hand you can beat or tie. What has the weaker player read you for ? Probably close to the exact hand you have, a calling hand. I just don’t think the weak player that I am envisioning would bluff here or bet an A,x (tie or poorer kicker) for value or as a "Just in Case Bluff."
I don't have any advice for you, i just want to know whether you won the hand and what the players had.
Well, I'll tell you since you asked...But I think most people on this forum don't really *care* how a hand actually turns out at the end. It's only important that we make the best play that results in the highest expectation given all of the available information (opponent classification, betting patterns, tells, previous actions, etc...)
Anyway, just for you J.F., the weak early player had the Flush draw and hit it on the turn...he had the T and 8 of spades. The solid player in late position who folded later stated that he had pocket queens.
A while ago I started a thread regarding small pocket pairs in hold'em. I wanted to know whether they were profitable, or whether the chance of being against a higher set was enough to make them unprofitable (as Caro suggested). Since then, I have done some calculations and simulation concerning this question.
I started with a simple calculation. Assume you invest 1 small bet pre-flop with a pocket pair and fold on the flop unless you make a set. Given your set's chance of losing and the number of small bets you contribute to the pot when you lose, it is straightforward to calculate the number of small bets profit that are required from the average win in order to have an EV of at least 0. I made a table (see link http://skywalker.ccsm.uiuc.edu/poker/sets.html ). For instance, if your set loses 20% of the time and averages a loss of 10 SBs those times, then the profit on your wins must exceed 11.9 SBs for playing the pair to be profitable.
I used Turbo Texas Hold'em simulations to get an idea of the values of the parameters involved in the above calculation. I set things up so the test player was on the button and against 9 loose opponents. The deck was stacked such that the test player was always dealt the same pocket pair and would always flop a set if he played to the flop (i.e., of the 25 cards used in each deal, 3 of them are fixed and the other 22 are randomly determined). Pre-flop, the test player was set to fold to a raise and to call if it was not raised. Post-flop, the test player played agressively unless the board got really scary (eg. 4-flush or 4-straight).
For 22, the average number of players seeing the flop (including the test player) was 6.9, and the chance of losing with the set of deuces was 19%. For 66, the average number of players seeing the flop went down to 6.5 but the chance of the set losing was still 19%. For AA, 6.2 people saw the flop on average and the chance of the set of aces losing was 12%. Interstingly, the highest set loss probability occurred for 9's (7's, 8's, and T's also have a higher loss probability than 2's). However, the differences were small (~2%) for pairs T and lower, and since I wasn't able to hold the number of players seeing the flop constant, the difference is probably within the error of the method. In fact, if a conclusion can be drawn, then it would appear that the chance of winning with a set actually DECREASES as the set goes from 2's to T's (this is because the decreasing number of players seeing the flop with increasing set rank tends to artificially inflate the win rate of the middle rank sets). Incidentally, this effect does not occur in no fold'em simulations (the chance of winning with the set goes up with set rank in this case).
Unfortunately, I couldn't come up with a way to get the average wins and losses from the data that TTH provides. This forces me to make an assumption: the smaller sets should have a larger average loss when they don't hold up. My motivation for this assumption is that the smaller sets are more likely to lose to a larger set or full house than to a straight or flush, as compared to the medium sets. In general, my experience has been that you lose more when your set loses to a higher set than you do when your set loses to a straight or flush. However, I don't have a good feel for how much more the average loss would be for 22 compared to 88. I'm going to guess 0 to 6 SBs.
So, looking at my table, for a loss chance of 20%, I will assume that the average loss for a middle set is 10 SBs, which corresponds to an average win of 11.9 SBs. Using the above assumption this implies that for 22 the minimum average win must be between 11.9 and 13.4 SBs, a difference of 1.5 SBs. This corresponds well with the figure Malmuth quoted of requiring a fudge factor of 1 or 2 more players. Doh! I guess I should have trusted Malmuth! :-) Seriously, I think I learned something from my efforts, and I hope I haven't bored anyone who has read this far!
Next post, discussion of another Malmuth/Caro disagreement!
Actually, I enjoyed reading your response. I think you went and did a lot of unnecessary work to see something that was fairly obvious, but ir never hurts to be rigorous every now and then. The fact of the matter is that making sets in loose hold 'em games is one of the key tools to beatling them.
From the above, you imply that you would throw away a small pair in a loose game if it costs too bets. I routinely play these hands for two bets if I am sure that five and sometimes four (or even three if it is the right three)will play. Three bets however is another story since your impled odds are now deteriorating even if there are many opponents.
By the way, the reason why 99 loses more than 22 when it flops a set in your scenario is that a 9 on board is a better card for a straight.
Obvious is a matter of genius and experience, I think. It wasn't obvious to me, but it also wasn't that much work or I wouldn't have done it!
It was not my intention to suggest anything about 2 bets pre-flop. I did no work for that case. However, after reading your response I whipped up another handy-dandy table, this time for 2 SBs pre-flop (see http://skywalker.ccsm.uiuc.edu/poker/sets.html , at the bottom of the page) Even if we assume that the raised multi-way pot will make the small set more likely to lose (say, 30% instead of 20%) due to better cards against it and a larger chance of being against an overpair, it still doesn't make that much of a difference. The smaller pairs need to win perhaps 3 SBs more on the average win than the medium pairs, as compared to 1.5 SBs for the unraised case.
I didn't mention the reason for the set of 9's losing more than the set of 2's because I thought it was obvious :-) but what isn't obvious to me is why this effect did not appear in my no fold'em simulations. The TTH simulation had a different distribution of opponents cards than random, which must be the cause.
(BTW, I prefer roachling them to beatling them)
Yes, 99 loses more often against "reasonable" opponents because the 9 on board matches cards they tend to play to make a straight. This effect is overshadowed in a no-foldem situation because the fools tend to play a bunch of extra hands that can't make straights (there are many more such hands than straight potential hands); or more specifically can't use a 9 to make a straight.
I know that this is probably a boring question but I think that it makes for a good discussion. This hand started back in 1995 at the Taj in AC. I was playing $5-10 hold'em and sitting in position #8. I was dealt 10cJc. There was 3 callers in front of me. I called. The big bling was in of course. The game was one where I felt that I was the best player there. What makes this hand very satisfying was that the caller to my right in seat #7 had sat down and proceeded to tell everything about what cards to play before the flop. I wanted to tell him to shut up! Anyway the flop came QcKcAc! I flopped a royal flush! I almost peed in my pants! Everybody checked on the flop. I did too. I was praying for soumething to hit the turn that would give me action. The turn was a rag. Everybody checked. The river was a Ad which paired the board. That idiot to my right bet, I raised and he was the only one to call. I looked at the dealer and said give me a plaque! I turned over my hand. Everybody was grinning and laughing except for the caller! He turned really red, got up and left! At the Taj they give you a plaque if you get a royal flush. Did I play this right? I figured that If I bet any other time what call possibly call me with that type of flop considering that there was no pre-flop raise.
After everyone else checks the flop, you must bet here! No one is going to put you on a Royal Flush... and you will get called by anyone with a draw or a pair. Moreover, depending upon how many callers you get on the flop, the pot is now bigger and it makes it more correct for them to continue to call on the turn and on the river. It is that call of the single unit bet on the flop that tends to bind them to the pot. By not betting the flop you have made it easier for them to give up when a double unit is bet on the turn or on the river.
If you do bet on the flop and (horror of horrors) everyone folds it's just bad luck...not bad play on your part....and you can still turn over your hand and get your plaque!!
Agree here.
But I may add that many players at this level routinely call on the flop and fold on the turn. So you must be the flop to get this money. Then consider checking on the turn.
In these games you should also bet sets and good draws. You get the money in with the best hand, and you will often get information to direct your play later, such as whether to continue to bet the draw.
OK...we agree that checking the flop was wrong. The suggestion to check on the turn depends on what happens when we DO bet the flop. Remember that we are last to act and there are 5 players in (including the BB).
If I had two or more callers to my flop bet and they again checked it to me on the turn I would still continue to bet.
I would only consider "checking the turn" if I was heads up on the turn AND I felt my lone opponent was LIKELY to fold if I bet. I'd be looking hard for a tell in this situation...and I start looking as soon as I know I am heads up...before the dealer burns and turns!!
The bottom line for me is that I would only check the turn if this action was likely to gain me an extra bet on the river.
I don't know if this was the case in this situation but many of you who play the lower limits complain that no one will ever fold, they always chase you down, and when that ace comes you lose. Of course the solution to this is to put more emphasis on playing hands that can turn into monsters.
Obviously on this hand this is exactly what happened. Assuming that the game is a typical low limit game where many of your opponents are playing too many hands and going too far with them you should bet it everytime, and then bet the turn. It's hard to believe that no one will call.
Ray, a few months ago I purchases WSOP by Masque software. Since then I have become extremely fasinated by the no-limit hold-em tournaments. I plan on playing in some very small "practice" no-limit tournaments at Foxwoods casino. Then I plan on attending some of the bigger events at Foxwoods and at AC like $500 and $1000 events. Do you have any advice for me?
I'll chip in a couple of items of advice.
First, while the WSOP game is a lot of fun, it is probably about 100 times easier to beat than real life.
Second, while low limit NL HE tournaments are excellent practice, and you definitely should play in them, they tend to be very different than higher limit events. Low limit tournaments in general are set up to move very fast, with players being eliminated quickly, sometimes almost every hand. However, the $500. buyin and up tournaments are nowhere near as fast, and you often start out with blinds that are very small compared to your stack. The play in these games is very different, as you don't need to play big cards only. You can play some relatively "garbagey" hands as long as you are good at post-flop play. These hands are somewhat disguised, and you are getting excellent implied odds. If you've only played in faster setups, then you may be surprised when a player who raised preflop shows you 57suited to make a straight and beat your overpair.
Third, I think you might get better practice from playing in some pot limit side games. If Foxwoods offers a PL HE game with blinds of about 5,5 then you will probably be playing with people having $500. or more in front of them. This will be closer to the way higher buyin tournaments play. Unfortunately, you can't "practice" unless you also buyin for $500. or more, and this becomes very expensive practice.
Fourth, really, really practice reading hands. This skill is more important in NL than in any other game. Unfortunately, it is also harder to do in NL as there is more bluffing going on, as well as other tricky plays. If you can't, or don't choose, to practice in the PL HE game as discussed above, then become a railbird in the PL game, and practice reading hands.
I hope that this helps.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Joe,
Your goal is to win small pots without a showdown if at all possible in small tournaments. As your chips get lower you must pick hands to go with and play them for all your chips. Be the bettor and not the caller unless your hand is strong. Once you accumulate chips then play more of a normal game and try to win with hands and steal in good spots. Those plays only come with experience. Never play so tight that the blinds break you before you get the chance to do it to yourself. No-limit is a game to put pressure on your opponents by making large bets and at the same time milking them for what you can get with other hands. Good Luck.
Assume your playing in a no-limit hold'em tournament and before the flop you are heads up with a player you believe has Ax. Also assume that you can get this person all in but if you lose you are out. My question is this, do you put him all in knowing that he will go all in with Ax when you have kings? This happened to me when I was playing no-limit using the Masque WSOP software. It made me reflect on whether I made the correct play.
Joe:
I think the answer depends on whether it is early or late in a tournament. If it is early, you should just put him all in. You are a big favorite and the doubling of your stack should put you in good position to attack the small stacks as the tournament progresses.
If it is very late in the tournament it might be the correct play not to put him all him if you are absolutely sure he has Ax. This is the time of the tournament when the chips are dramatically changing value and the punishment for losing the hand (getting knocked out) is far greater than the punishment of not winning all that you should (he gets knocked out).
(Note: For those of you who are knowledgeable in tournament strategy if you had a large stack and he had a short stack it might be correct for you to quickly put him all in even if you had the inferior hand.)
However, in real life I doubt if you can be so sure that he has exactly Ax. I'm sure that all my money would go in.
I played a hold'em tourney this weekend, and a hand came up that I'd like opinions on.
Background:
2 tables left, I'm the chip leader at my table with about 21,000. 2nd chip position has about 15,000. 8 players total at the table. I've been playing aggressively. The limits on this round are strange: 800-1600 blinds, 1600 on the flop, no limit on turn and river.
I'm BB, UTG raises all-in for 800 more. Button (2nd chip leader) calls, and I call with T9s.
Flop is QT8. I've noticed that there hasn't been any checking down hands with an all-in player, so I bet, and the button calls. I've only been at this table about 10 hands, but my impression is that the button is a solid player. The turn is a Q, I check and the button puts in 6k. I can't put the button on a Q, my feeling is either a draw or a T or 8. From what little I knew of his play, if he had a Q he would have raised me on the flop. After some thinking, I folded, because I just didn't have enough information.
So my question is, was my check on the turn wrong? Since I had bet on the flop, and my feeling was he would have raised on the flop with top pair or better, the turn card couldn't have made much of a difference.
Spoiler:
The button had KJo, and missed his straight draw. The all-in player had AK, and won the main pot with Ace-high. The all-in player went on to take 1st place. I came in 3rd.
Kevin,
Sometimes you just have to stick your money in the pot. The correct play may have been to raise him all in. There was like 16000 or such in the pot, too much just to give up on. If you read him right play the hand out. You never get all the information you need. Good Luck.
Kevin
Quite a few writers have raised the point that normally your first instinct in these situations is the correct one - after that you are either going to talk your way out of a hand you should be playing or into a hand you shouldn't.
However, imho, your real problem was in the call preflop...even though you called because of the value, it should not mean that you are gung-ho committed to winning the pot unless you hit big (which you hadn't). I would have played more passively in this situation and check-passed if he bet - he's not far from even money on the flop (12 outs not knowing about the other K) and has position.
With so many players left to go and you so far from the big money, there is little advantage in playing to knock players out at this stage - if the pre-flop raise had been a bit more I would have passed then and there.
Dave D
The guy with the K,Jo made a bad play by betting on the turn. I believe it was more valuable to eliminate the all in player than winning a small side pot. What he did by betting on the turn was give the all in player "protection." In that sense your check wasn't wrong although I think I would have bet again after betting on the flop because I would have felt the Q didn't help my opponent.
A few months ago I was playing 10-20 hold-em at the Mirage. I had just sat down in the late position next to the button when I was dealt AJo. Everyone in front of me folded except a player in the middle position who called. I proceeded to raise and was immediately reraised by the button. The blinds folded and the middle position player called. I also called. The flop comes A x x. Middle checked and I bet. The button raised and middle dropped out. I called. On the turn and at the river rags fell and I checked and called both times. Button proceeded to show me AKo and won the pot. The questions I have are as followed: 1. Should I have folded when button raised me on the flop? 2. I have just sat down so I have no clue as to what type of player button is. Because of this, when she reraised me preflop I put her on a high pair such as AA, KK, QQ. When Axx flopped and she raised me I thought that perhaps she has KK and wanted to slow me down to see the river card for free if I should check to her on the turn. When I checked and she betted on the turn, should I have folded? 3. Am I in a situation where I have to pay her off?
QVu,
What you need is practice reading hands and seeing all the possible hands that you may be against. By giving her top three pairs with no knowledge cost you dough. Why couldnt she have ak or aq? When she raised on the flop a call may be in order, but not on fourth st. unless you believe that she is capable and likely to be trying to run you off an ace. You must see how your hand looks to her. You played it strong enough to scare anyone, so when she plays hard back at you it is likely she is also strong. Good Luck.
Hi, I'm new to poker. I have been a professional blackjack player for some years now. I have learnt the advanced techniques of shuffle analysis which can be applied so effectively at blackjack, but I've never seen any writing on the subject with regard to poker. To shuffle-track at poker is easier than blackjack because of the distinctiveness of suits and court cards, requiring a more thorough shuffle to fully randomize the cards. In private games a player who can master card location might as well have the other players give him the money. There are those in this forum that know the potential of shuffle-tracking. Why is there no literature on the subject? Is it considered unethical?
I cringe any time someone mentions card location for blackjack. I would prefer that the technique remained relatively unknown. Similarly, for poker, anyone who is making money via card location would probably prefer that no one else so much as speaks of the technique.
Since poker requires only a "single" deck most major cardrooms have the dealer do a scramble at the beginning of a shuffle. In addition, as cards are thrown into the muck they are forceably mixed into the side of the muck. They are not placed on top.
With this being the case i is virtually impossible to shuffle track in poker. Now if you are playing in a "home game" where good dealer technique is not employed, this may not be the case.
One possibility I have occasionally considered without much effort or any success-- When I am sitting at one of the seats next to the dealer, I am often able to see the bottom card of the deck after the scramble. After a few riffles and cut I have no clue where it has gone to. I doubt the possibility of pinpointing a card in someone's hand or near the flop, but if one could be reasonably certain that a particular card was not dealt out, that knowledge might be very valuable a few times in an hour.
I used to be a serious blackjack player. In my studies of the game, I used a tachistoscope to train my brain to recognize card images in a mere flash.
Often at the poker table I will see a card flash and I am probably the only one at the table who knows what it was. This often occurs at the end of a hand when a player throws his losing cards into the muck or when mucking his hand pre-flop.
Just last Friday, one of the dealers accidently exposed the Ace of Clubs very close to the bottom of the deck at the very end of her shuffle but before the cut. She then cut the cards precisely in half. This moved the Ace to what I thought would be the 25th - 27th location in the deck. After both my neighbour and I folded preflop, I whispered in his ear that the Ace of Clubs would be on the flop, turn or river. It did appear on the river and I was quite surprised at how accurate my observation had been.
There are several reasons why this was possible in this instance. First of all the Aces are easily the most recognizable cards. Secondly its location and the very precise cut by the dealer made it easy to follow.
That has been the only instance during my admittedly short hold-em career that I have had any knowledge of the location of key cards. I think it will be very rare that I would be able to predict a cards location and of course even more rare to be able to use such information.
All top players are tight and aggressive, right? They "pump it or dump it"
When they come in from an early position, they come in raising 95% of the time with any playable hand, right?
(1) Disguise their hand (2) Isolate - thin out the competition (3) build the pot (4) steal the pot
What is the best way to play these hands in a typical 20/40 game? Small pairs in early position 5-5, 6-6, 7-7, 8-8, 99 - Call? - Raise? - Fold?
The books say to call in a loose game or call with 4 or 5 players in front. When you are in an early position, you have no idea how many will call behind you. If you raise early with these small pairs, it seems like you would thin out the competition. You want to play them in muti-way pots, so an early raise would be defeating the purpose of playing them.
Small suited connectors from early position: 67s, 78s, 89s, 9Ts - Do you play them the same as small pairs? Would you play 45s and 56s also in early position? If yes, would you always just call or raise 5% of the time?
Thanks in advance for anyone's help.
Bob Morgan wrote:
>All top players are tight and aggressive, right? They "pump it or dump it"
This isn't true. All top players make the plays that maximize their expectation. In some instances this would include playing very passively. Playing tight and aggressive is frequently correct, but not always.
>When they come in from an early position, they come in raising 95% of the time with any playable hand, right?
There are many playable hands that you should just call with up front. Some of these are determined by the game itself.
>(1) Disguise their hand (2) Isolate - thin out the competition (3) build the pot (4) steal the pot
What is the best way to play these hands in a typical 20/40 game? Small pairs in early position 5-5, 6-6, 7-7, 8-8, 99 - Call? - Raise? - Fold?
The best way is to either fold or call with them depending on the game and the hand. However, it can almost never be right to fold 99 or 88.
>The books say to call in a loose game or call with 4 or 5 players in front. When you are in an early position, you have no idea how many will call behind you. If you raise early with these small pairs, it seems like you would thin out the competition. You want to play them in muti-way pots, so an early raise would be defeating the purpose of playing them.
If you pay attention to the game you should quickly have a reasonable idea as to how many players are coming into the pot.
> Small suited connectors from early position: 67s, 78s, 89s, 9Ts - Do you play them the same as small pairs? Would you play 45s and 56s also in early position? If yes, would you always just call or raise 5% of the time?
I almost always play the T9s and the 98s. To play more the game has to be passive as well as loose. (To play small pairs just loose is all you need unless the game is extremely aggressive.)
> Thanks in advance for anyone's help.
Hope this helps.
What about balancing your raises between your excellent hands and your more speculative hands in early position. How often (if ever) would you raise with T,9s as compared to A,Ks. Likewise what about balancing your calls between your more speculative hands like T,9s as compared to A,Ks. Would you ever call with a big pair like Q’s in early position ? I know that you cover this in your Hold’em For Advanced Players book but I’m still not clear on the percentages that you would recommend. It seems that in certain tougher games you would be prone to do this because you would be harder to read.
>How often (if ever) would you raise with T,9s as compared to A,Ks.
S&M in Advanced Holdem recommend raising 1/3 of the time with T9s, 2/3's of the time with AKs, in early position. When you limp in with AKs and it's raised behind you, you should reraise. You can do that with T9s too, if there are lots of people, the geography is right, and you're not concerned that you might be up against an overpair. An example of where the geography is wrong and you might be up against an overpair as well is when the small or big blind raises after many people have limped in behind you. While the player should be able to raise there with a variety of hands, including suited aces, I find that almost always the raiser in that spot has a pocket pair, jacks or higher. If you raise, the people behind you are faced with calling two cold, so you'll tend to get heads up with an overpair. The overpair is going to bet the flop, and you're going to have to fold there a lot. If you do wind up taking down the pot with a straight or a flush, you're going to wish you hadn't driven out all the other players.
I used to love limping in with AKs, because my opponents invariably put me on AA or KK (which I would never have), allowing me to semibluff and take down the pot. I used to limp 2/3's, raise 1/3. However, after I moved up to 40-80, my better opponents are now wise enough to know that such a limp-reraiser might merely have AKs, or perhaps even KQs or less.
I now hold much more of a raise-or-fold philosophy. I hate limping with T9s in early position, because an AJ behind me is likely to raise, isolate, and rape me with his superior heads up cards and position. So I raise or fold. Raising always with such hands is probably a mistake in at least some games, so perhaps raise 2/3 of the time with T9's, fold the rest of the time, 1/3 with 98s, 1/6 with 87s, and so on down, mostly to prevent my opponents from knowing I don't have any baby cards in my hand. (If they see me raise just once with 65s in early position, they'll remember it for months if not years, and they'll radically overestimate my chance of holding that when I raise UTG in the future.)
Speaking of baby cards, I hate limping in with hands like 55. In the aggressive games I play, there is just too high a risk of being raised behind and isolated by either two overcards with position or an overpair, neither of which is any fun to play against. Raising isn't really an option, because of the risk of being 3 bet and isolated when I'm a huge dog. (It's not quite so bad to get 3 bet when you hold T9s.) I limp in with baby pairs only in the most loose-passive of games, but I note Mason's assertion that it's okay to play them in loose-somewhat-aggressive games, where you'll likely be paying two bets to see the flop but where you'll still have many opponents.
The guiding principle in my play is that I do not want to play dominated hands, especially not heads-up with the dominator. For example, I don't play AJ in early position, because I don't want an AQ or AK to raise or reraise me, isolate me, and rape me. As another example, I will not call a middle position raise on my big blind with A5s, but I will often call with 86s, the difference being that the middle raise radically increases the chance that I'm up against a big ace, whereas it's unlikely the raiser holds an 8 or 6 (doubly unlikely that he has a bigger kicker to the 6 as well), though there is some chance he has a medium to big pair. I run away from a lot of preflop raises and live to fight another day when I'm at less of a risk of being dominated.
A second principle in my play is that position is very important. I don't even want to play slightly superior (in a no fold'em sense) hands heads-up when my opponent has position. For example, I don't want to hold AJ and find myself heads-up with a KQs who has position, or hold 55 and find myself heads-up with an AK who has position. This advice goes double for hands like AJ (or KQs for that matter), which I'm loathe to take to the showdown unimproved against someone who showed strength before or on the flop, since my third nut nothing may very well lose to the second or first nut nothing.
The game certainly does have a huge impact on proper strategy. I think S&M strategy is geared towards Vegas style 10-20 and 20-40 games, with some tight players and some tourists. My strategy, while similar in most respects to S&M, is geared more towards California style 40-80 and 60-120 games, where all my opponents play 24 hours a day 7 days a week, as far as I can tell, and they are very aggressive and play fairly tricky after the flop. When I play 15-30, I tend to raise 1/3 with T9s, limp the other 2/3's, just like S&M recommend.
>Would you ever call with a big pair like Q’s in early position ?
S&M recommend that you "almost always raise" with QQ in early position. So do I, especially QQ as opposed to AA. When they hold AA, many players will limp in and reraise if someone raises. I don't much care for this play (since I'm usually raising with T9s and thus must raise with AA to avoid giving away my hand!), but at least it's much better to do it with AA than QQ. With QQ, you desperately want to limit the field, so that an A or K on the river is not certain death (but if you can't get it down to 2 or 3 way, then the more the merrier, since then you're just shooting for a set or for boards that never get an A or K.)
--Abdul
THank You - Thank you! You saved me thousands of dollars. I now have a much better understanding!
Could someone explain further what is meant by the term "compounding errors" in the 7-stud book? Is it primarily related to players getting psychologically tied on until the end of the hand, or is there something deeper going on?
It seems to me that there are many cases in 7stud where a player might make a mistake by chasing on an early street, but then becomes correct to chase on later streets, due to the increased pot size and the nature of chasing in 7stud. Are these later calls examples of compounding errors (even though given the situation on the later streets they are correct)?
Also, why is the term not used in discussing Hold'em? As I recall, it also isn't used in the Hi-Low split book, either.
Thanks,
Andy Morton
Compounding errors refers to the psychological tendency to play later rounds badly when you play a hand you shouldn't. (But it is also true that weak hands that should be thrown away are more difficult to play properly and are thus more likely to result in compounding errors even when not psychologically motivated)
Whats the theory behind kills and half kills? Is this just another name for blind bets? Is ther any strategy for dealing with them?
When you, or an animal, is in a situation where you are getting a big reward from the environment, such as you winning a plump pot, or a cheetah felling a plump gazelle, a cocktail of chemical compounds is released in your brain. The hormones released include epinephrine (adrenline), resulting in increased energy, attention, speed of thought, and learning.
When you, or an animal, is under stress, such as when you lose your third straight pot or a cheetah misses its third straight gazelle ("long time no eat" for both of you), other chemicals are released in your brain. Dopamine is one such hormone, and it has different effects in different parts of the brain, but one of the things it does is to numb pain and tend to depress your activity and thought (though in the right doses in the right places it is a key for productive thought.) Some hormones block the effect of epinephrine, and thus block learning. You become stupid, a dope.
I'm a computer scientist, not a doctor, and my psychology coursework has been exclusively in cognitive psychology, at a much higher level than adrenal glands and whatnot, so I may not know what I'm talking about. From my cognitive psychology work, I know how dangerous it is to introspect on one's thought processes and assume your perception of your thoughts is faithful to your actual thoughts, but that's exactly what I'm about to do...
When I'm winning, particularly in the last few minutes, I feel what must be a surge of epinephrine. I'm *very* alert, and I'm watching every minute movement at the table, like I'm a hawk eyeing a bunch of twitching rodents. My mind seems to race a mile a minute. I can race ahead from the flop to predict how the hand will play out on the turn and river and how I can best optimize my expected value. It's a great feeling. I feel invincible. And I am, until Lady Luck deals me a few bad beats.
When I'm losing, particularly after suffering several big losses in the last few minutes, I feel what must be a surge of dopamine or some other brain depressant. I'm like a shell shocked soldier, seeing what is going on around me, but scarcely comprehending it. My mind seems to drag like a record set to too slow an RPM. My thoughts are fuzzy, like they are lost in a fog. It's a horrible feeling. And yet the dopamine tells the reptile part of my brain to stay put and suffer through it, so I have to rely on my higher brain functions to get me the hell out of there. After being away from the game for 24 hours, any excess dopamine is long gone, and I can go back into the trenches eager to fight again.
If you're shocked that I could be so out of control, um, I was exaggerating, really I was. At least I don't go on tilt! Bad beats don't usually bother me - I almost like them since I reward myself with expected value - but I'm not immune to the effects of losing even after all these years of gambling semi-professionally and now professionally. I do have a thicker skin than many people when it comes to handling losses, but I'm not immune.
I seem to get much more shell-shocked at blackjack than poker, perhaps because of the faster speed or perhaps because I tend to play through the bad swings in blackjack in order to get even (strictly because the casino will let me win that money back then, but not next month.) The brain fog caused by losing in blackjack seems to cause me to miss dealer mistakes, miss pit critter warning signs, and play too timidly. I tend to believe my expected value is still positive for blackjack in such a state, but poker is a much more dangerous game to play while impaired in any way.
So... so what? Well, it may be that my brain-body response to stress and reward is different than most people's, but assuming I'm fairly typical, and my introspections are valid, one can draw some simple conclusions. Obviously don't play when you're losing enough to shake you, for one thing. There are many reasons not to do this, not just your own psychology. Don't play when you're stressed out in your personal life. Try perceive bad beats as good things - you won a lot of expected value, so reward yourself bigtime mentally! Don't think about the money involved; it's only units. Don't set yourself up for disappointment by expecting to win most pots or even most sessions - you should not. Try to maintain a positive outlook on life and poker. Try to remain alert and involved mentally in the pots you are not playing in.
Any ideas for remaining mentally alert? Caffeine? Exercise?
-Abdul PS: Jessica - your email address does not work.
>When you, or an animal, is...
Gack. That should be "When you, or an animal, *are*..." Hmmm, probably I should have avoided that whole awkward construct, but it's too late now. Fortunately, Sklansky and Malmuth are not Strunk and White, so maybe no one will notice my poor grammar if I don't point it out... dooh!
-Abdul
Abdul, Your "elements of style" may have been lacking, but the info is great. Hitdog
Please define"pokerclack". Any good examples from personal experience?
"Poker clack" is Mike Caro's term for the sound that sounds like how you pronounce the letter "t" in a word, except the tongue is used in a sucking downward motion to give it more of a pop. You know this sound. People use it in other parts of life to indicate disappointment.
Example: Tunica 15-30 (or maybe 10-20) Hold'em at Sam's Town. I raise in middle position with AK. Big blind calls. Flop comes 66A. Big blind says, "t", and checks. I check in sheer terror. Turn is a K. Big blind checks. I check in sheer terror. River is a blank. Big blind hems and haws and bets. I think and think and think and think. Poker clack was bad enough, but now we've got hemming and hawing too. Call or fold, call or fold, call or fold. I should have folded, but I wasn't a good enough player to lay down top two pair and I called to see 66 for quad 6's.
-Abdul
We have two weekly 30-60 multiple variation games. One night is exclusively high low - omaha 8, seven card 8 and hi low draw with a "spinner". The other is straight high, holdem and stud, two rounds each in rotation.
One of my compatriots believes that the straight high format is easier on mediocre players, and that such players will last longer without going broke or losing their stomach for the game. I'm not so sure - the high format game features several good agressive players, while it seems to me the high low plays a little softer and looser.
What do the experts think? Which format is likely to keep the contributors alive the longest?
Bad player are less likely to have winning sessions playing hi low because of the many times they will find themselves up against "freerolls".
David Sklansky pointed out that bad players don't recognize when the opponent has a freeroll in hi-low, causing them to lose extra money. I agree, and think a related point is that they also don't recognize quickly enough when they are in the middle between two better hands, and they play too many hands which leave them in the middle.
Still, I'm not completely convinced they are better off in a game of limit holdem and stud (particularly the one I was talking about in my original post). I guess I'll just watch over the next few months and see what happens with a prime study subject who is now playing in both games.
When I lived in Germany, we played several split games with spinners. It did not take me very long to realize that in these type of games many more decisions are required then in straight forward high or low only games. The more decisions that are presented to weak/bad players the more chances there are for them to make incorrect decisions.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalary
It is possible to have any advantage at all if dealer showed his upcard plus accidentally exposing two of the four faced down cards.We now have informations of three cards in total.
What is the correct strategy to play then.
Please help.
sincerely, Tony
Seeing three cards, you should bet ALL your hands when the dealer shows no ace, king, or pair. When he does show an ace, a king, or a pair, bet all hands that are ace-king or better that can beat what you see. This almost perfect strategy will certainly give you a nice edge. So where is this game? (Don't tell the world. Email me at Dsklansky@aol.com)
G'eve. This Thursday I ventured in to a NYC cardroom for my first time. I say this as I had never played in a small private room before, only the large poker rooms at the Taj and Foxwoods.
I'm not a bad player, but I'm certainly not good. I have pages falling out of my Lee Jones book, and I have the Sklansky and S&M books (maybe I should say M&S) and have read them many times.
However, I found myself in an interesting situation Thursday. A long term short-handed situation. At first there were only half a dozen of us, and steadily we grew to 11-handed, which I had never played (10-handed having been the max) but which was pretty good. I was doing well, up 66% on my 150 buy-in (with another 150 in the pocket). Everything I had learned and done in the past was working fine.
Eventually the game broke into two, with half the people moving on to a (short-handed) 10-20 game while the rest of us, 5-7 people, staying for the 4-8. Over the next two hours I steadily lost. I ended down 130 of which 24 was for time and about 12-18 was for tips. The result was not plesant, but I did learn a number of things, even if many of them were my own limits and where I have to improve.
Along those lines, I'd like to ask for a good reference on short handed games. Most books have only short sections, woefully short, on the dynamics in short handed games. I felt I was being blinded to death because, with my usual standards for playing hands, I didn't play enough. So, I begun to play more hands, more marginal, to the flop at least and giving up on them if I missed it. This I believe ended up costing me even worse than the blinds. There were many marginal hands which ended up being tops; I recall having the best hand with a pair of 3s (A kicker) until the river on one of the few hands I showed down.
Although I fully intend to leave short handed tables (less than, perhaps, 8 players) now, and consider how I would play short handed, I would be interested in learning how to play, and perhaps beat, short handed games, and more specifically, short handed games in low limit (loose) games.
Ideas?
Thanks,
Doug
I dont have any advice for you all I can say is that I truly suck at shorthanded play and wanted to suggest to S&M that they devote an entire book to shorthanded play, I'm sure it would sell quite well!
There isn't much in print on short-handed strategies. See my article in the defunct Poker World magazine (issue #3, I think.) I also posted an article on rec.gambling.poker preceeding the magazine article. I'll post that one here. But I think an excellent prelude to my article is an article by "Ramsey". His covers the psychology and metastrategy of short-handed play, whereas my article focuses more on the strategy and tactics of short-handed play. So first I'll post Ramsey's article and then mine in a follow-up.
The rest of this is a quote of Ramsey...
--- Subject: Re: Short handed strategies From: Ramsey [quote munched]
I put the following thoughts together some time ago. They apply specifically to Head to head but should be germane to short handed:
If you are going to takes your normal ring game strategy and apply it to Head-to-Head (h2h) play then you will probably be most successful if you are naturally aggressive. One of the biggest difficulties in adapting to h2h is in re-evaluating hand strength.
For example you hold J7. In a ring game you would fold without thought. But h2h this represents an average hand. In other words if you are in the sb then there is a 50% chance that your opponent has a worse hand (J6 or T9 or worse). Players who are new to h2h are very likely to fold hands such as Q3 or even K5 not realising that they are actually quite strong.
A second error that ring players make is to underestimate the value of the blinds. In a ring game you will not be too worried about winning say $3 in blinds when the average pot size is $60. However h2h the average pot size is likely to be $20 or less. The blinds are therefore far more important. A player who does not defend his blinds will quickly lose a lot of chips.
An aggressive player will automatically take advantage of both these common mistakes. However the aggressive player will lose rapidly against an experienced h2h player even if the h2h player is the weaker player in a standard ring game.
The reason for this is that when you are h2h it is easy to counter an aggressive player. You simply muck your poor hands early; reduce your calling requirements the appropriate amount and avoid getting into a raising war unless you expect to have the best of it.
Similarly if your opponent is loose & passive then as an experienced h2h player you will reduce the use of semi-bluffs but bet far more for value and give extra respect to raises.
In other words any playing style used in a ring game can be easily countered h2h. Successful h2h players don't have a fixed style but instead adopt whatever is required to counter the style of their opponent. Hence my lead-in - 'Play Your Opponent'
Because it is h2h your opponent will sooner or later (hopefully later) realise that he is losing chips steadily and he will decide he is being too tight, or aggressive, or loose, or passive or whatever - and he will modify some of his betting patterns. At this point you have gained an important psychological edge and you are part way to your real goal - total psychological dominance.
**** Forcing your opponent to play differently from the way he is used to, and is comfortable with, is the first stage to dominating your opponent ****
The next stage is to make sure your opponent doesn't get off the hook. You have to be on the watch for changes in strategy, identify them quickly and modify your play to suit.
As a simple example suppose your opponent has been playing very passively and has only raised from the sb with, as far as you can ascertain, premium hands. Now he raises from the sb twice in succession. It is possible that he has hit AA both times but it is best to assume that he is playing more aggressively. Reduce slightly your calling requirements. If he doesn't raise again for a while then it is probably a false alarm - go back to plan A. But if the raises continue to come more often than you would expect continue to lower your calling requirements. This prevents him from picking up the blinds as he was hoping to do.
In effect this rapid changing of strategy is a bit like the well known game. If he picks stone you pick paper; if he picks paper you pick scissors; if he picks scissors you pick stone and on and on constantly keeping your opponent on the defensive.
**** Preventing your opponent from having more than momentary success when he changes an element of his strategy is the second stage to dominating your opponent ***
Another error that the normal ring player will make when h2h is to not realise the increased importance of the post-flop play. In a ring game it is very unusual for a particular post-flop situation to be repeated even approximately. However h2h there are relatively few betting sequences and the exact same situations will repeat over and over again. This allows the observant h2h player to quickly pick up accurate knowledge about his opponent and to spot weaknesses.
For example what does a loose player do when he hits the flop big? Does he raise/check raise on the flop or does he wait until the turn? Either way you can use the information to your advantage. Similarly, what does the aggressive player do when he misses the flop completely. How does he react if you call on the flop and raise the turn? If he won't lay down a hand you are happy, if you can find betting sequences where he will consistently lay down his hand you are also happy; you have found a weakness you can exploit.
You therefore need to be very observant after the flop to be able to analyse his normal play. You also need to use your betting (when you have options) to probe your opponent. For example your average opponent bets from the bb on the flop, you call. What does he do if you bet at him on the turn? Find a suitable situation (ie not a complete bluff) and try it!
Every weakness you find you should aim to exploit. However judicious exploitation of his weaknesses can be more profitable long term. If your opponent does not know why he is losing then he may well modify part of his game which is working well and play even worse as a result. Again you must watch carefully so that you identify these changes as soon as they occur.
**** Preventing your opponent from being able to identify why he is losing steadily is the third step to total dominance ****
Even if your opponent modifies a weakness in his game, rather than a strength, the constant need to make changes will undermine his confidence. In addition, after sufficient changes his whole game is likely to fall apart. This is a bit like a piece of software. Initially the software is ok but has some bugs in it. When you fix a bug it improves that area of the software but it might well introduce unexpected problems elsewhere. As you make more and more changes so the cohesiveness of the whole goes down until you would be better off rewriting the whole thing. Of course with software you could take a long time testing the bug fixes first but your opponent can't do that h2h.
Which brings up another major difference to ring games. When h2h you are totally involved in the game all the time - there are no breaks when you can fold your hand and watch your opponents play. The game is far more intensive and mentally demanding. You should use this to keep the pressure on your opponent. If you are losing then slow the pace of the game down, think about each action and be prepared to discuss hands when they are over (even ask for deck changes & set-ups - this is one time when it does have a benefit). If you are winning then put the pressure on by playing fast and not lingering between hands. A lot of opponents will just follow your lead. Especially as a loser tends to want to get on with the game quickly so that he can recoup his losses. If he is playing fast then he has less time to work out why he is losing.
**** Keeping the game at a fast tempo when you are winning is the final step to total dominance****
By this stage your opponent should be shell-shocked. He has lost steadily from the start, he has made a lot of adjustments to his game and nothing has seemed to work, his confidence has gone and he is not getting a seconds respite. The steady trickle of chips your way should by now be an avalanche :)
You might expect that a player who starts losing a lot would quit quickly. My experience of h2h games (admittedly without a dealer) is that this is not so. Of course if you put several bad beats on him he may go on tilt and quit. But in the main you are winning by outplaying him and for some reason, probably due to the intensity and speed of the game, it is much harder to get out in this situation when you are losing. Normally the game will continue until either the winner insists on quitting or the loser runs out of money.
Obviously when you are ahead you should do all that you can to keep the game going providing that you are dominating him. If things start to go right for him and he begins to recover confidence then find some pressing reason to quit (falling asleep at the table might work).
If you play h2h for a while and you are not making progress then as said before slow the game down and think things through but be prepared to get out quick and with a small loss. Don't get caught up in the game.
And finally there is no reason to go on tilt h2h. Think of each hand as just one move in a long game. Even if your opponent puts several horrendous bad beats on you in quick succession the chips lost and more importantly the chips not won are relatively few (compared to a ring game) and can quickly be recouped. The time to worry is when you are losing chips steadily without being outdrawn.
-- Ramsey sjrindex@sjrindex.demon.co.uk
--- End quote
In the previous message I reposted a rec.gambling.poker article by Ramsey, which serves as an excellent introduction to this repost of a rec.gambling.poker article by me. Some aspects of this I changed by the time I wrote the Poker World article based on it, and some aspects of my strategy I have changed since the article, so feel free to criticize!
---
...The character of the game dramatically changes at 4 or fewer players, where everyone is either in late position or on a blind.
PLAYING THE PLAYERS
Short-handed tables tend to be heads up by the flop, and heads up play is a tremendously psychological game. Categorize your opponents and exploit their weaknesses, radically adjusting your play for the opponent. Against overaggressive players you should be passive-aggressive; be tenacious and let the overaggressive player bluff into you, shedding your passivity for aggressive counterattacks for value late in the hand. Against weak-tight players likely to fold, you should be overaggressive, but just be sure that they are really weak-tight, not passive-aggressive. Against passive-tenacious-loose players (i.e., calling stations), bet for value and almost never bluff.
Do what you can to encourage them to continue to be predictable in one extreme or the other; for example, against chronic bluffers, don't embarrass them by forcing them to show their hand at the showdown. Against weak-tight players, cow them into submission with your glorious superiority (as long as you and they believe you are the superior player, you will be!)
Those tight-aggressive players, well, they are a problem, especially if they have loosened up appropriately for the short-handed game; you have no choice but to be tight-aggressive against them, and much of the below strategy emphasizes this approach.
PREFLOP
Yes, you should see more flops when short-handed. Don't get carried away with this, however, as you'll need good hands to support the semi-bluffing that you'll be doing later in the hand. Short-handed preflop play is nearly identical to late position play and play on the blinds at full tables when everyone folds to the last four players. (The only difference in theory is that there were not a bunch of people folding before, so in short-handed play the card distributions are uniform, whereas at a full table that has folded down to a few players the last few hands are more likely to contain aces and other high cards.) Review the late and blind position sections in Sklansky&Malmuth's _Advanced Holdem_ book, and see also their comments on heads up play and semi-bluffing and just about everything else. See also the [rec.gambling.poker] FAQ.
Attack the blinds by raising with any playable hand. A naked ace, which is a trouble hand at a full table, becomes a playable raising hand when short-handed. Kings with decent kickers are okay too. I tend to dump hands such as 86s, however, as I really don't want to get heads up with it, though if the blinds are likely to fold I might go for it. When short-handed, big unsuiteds are fine, while small suited connectors are trouble. When your blind is being attacked, call with most playable hands and reraise with the better hands (such as AQ, KQs, ATs, 88) to punish your opponent for raising your blind with his 86s.
ON THE FLOP
Heads up, an ace with a good kicker is often a value-betting/raising hand on a flop that completely misses it (i.e., no pair), even if the kicker is not an overcard, though proceed with caution if you get called (you have to hope your opponent is on a draw and that your ace high will hold up in the showdown or that you'll hit your ace or its big kicker on the turn or river.) When I say proceed with caution I don't really mean to check... although sometimes you can, much of the time you should be betting, betting, betting until your opponent shows you the error of your ways by raising you, and then you should often fold, not call.
Giving free cards is not so dangerous heads up as at a full table, but showing weakness heads up can be a fatal mistake, so in addition to betting real hands that you could later get pushed off if a scare card hits, you should also usually bet your draws.
If your opponent is showing strength by betting or raising you but you have an awesome hand that you are sure beats him or a weak but nonvulnerable hand such as ace bad kicker with an ace on the flop, then it's usually best to "rope-a-dope", that is, back off and just check and call, letting him defeat himself with his own strength. You can even do this with weaker hands such as middle pocket pairs, especially against overaggressive opponents. Although sometimes when out of position you will give the dreaded free turn card in this manner, this is really pretty rare, because your opponent does not wish to show his weakness by checking.
Because betting is so important, you can nearly count on your opponent to bet if you check, and so you can and often should check-raise on the flop with as little as top pair or a good draw or less. Because you are often check-raising, it's okay to check your really crappy hands... you won't be giving your opponent a total license to steal. Generally bet your middle pairs heads up as if they were top pairs at a full table (especially with an overcard kicker, double so an ace kicker), generally check-raise the better hands such as a good top pair, and check-fold the hopeless hands.
ON THE TURN
If on the flop you bet and your opponent called, don't make the mistake of showing weakness by checking the turn, especially if you are going to fold if your opponent bets. It bears repeating: keep hammering until you are raised. Don't let a scare card slow you down. Remember, since you have just one or two opponents, it's much less likely that they are helped by a scare card than at a full table, and they are probably just as scared of the card as you are. Look out for bluff raises when a low card on the board pairs on the turn.
If the flop got checked through, then you should often bet on the turn even if you don't have much. When out of position, it may appear to your opponent as if you attempted to check-raise the flop but failed and so now you are betting the turn with a real hand. When in position, and your opponent checks again on the turn despite your checking after him on the flop, well, it sure looks like he is just begging you to take the pot. However, if you have a really bad hand with no hope of winning in a showdown, you might want to save your cold bluff for the river, since you don't want to run a cold bluff on both the turn and the river, and you don't want to bluff on the turn and then concede on the river when you have no chance of winning the showdown yet aren't sure your opponent has a hand.
When out of position and rope-a-doping a powerful hand by checking on the turn, you should almost always (check)raise if your opponent bets, because you are probably going to want to bet the river anyway, and so you might as well spring the trap now for that extra bet. Also, if you opponent is on a draw, he will pay that extra bet on the turn but not on the river (unless he makes his draw.) When out of position with a drawing hand and the turn gets checked through, then you should often bet into your opponent on the river regardless of whether or not you made your draw. And with position on the river, you should often bet if your opponent checks. Again, see S&M.
If you check-raise on the flop, then bet on the turn and prepare to reevaluate/dump if your opponent raises you on the turn. However, your opponent with position on the turn may make a powerful play by raising you when he intends on calling on the river anyway, especially if he has an okay hand with some draws, even if he strongly suspects it is second best now. One can even do this raise on the turn with just a good draw or even as a pure bluff, though this would be risky if the other player showed strength by [having] check-raised on the flop.
Because when your opponent raises on the turn with position it may just be a semi-bluff, don't always dump your no-where-near-the-nuts hand... sometimes reraise! This reraise can be done for value with a hand as weak as top pair or it can even be done as a pure bluff against the right opponent at the right time. If you reraise on the turn and your opponent calls, then be careful on the river, as evidently he was not bluffing and either had a good hand or a good draw or a mediocre hand *and* mediocre draw.
ON THE RIVER
If you reraised your opponent on the turn, you have a good but beatable hand, and the river card is a flush or straight or pair scare card, then it's perfectly reasonable to check into your opponent with the intention of calling; you may induce a bluff from the poorer players here (your opponent would have to be dumb to bluff on the river when you reraised his ass on the turn, but you might as well give him the chance to make this mistake), and you may save yourself a bet if your opponent hit his draw. On the other hand, heads up often that flush or straight scare card will be just as scary to your opponent as to you, so sometimes you can bluff or value bet without worrying about getting hit with a raise unless you are beat. If you have a no-where-near-the-nuts hand that you want to showdown, then you can check, but if you opponent is likely to fold some hands better than yours (and that's very plausible given given your reraise on the turn) then you should often bet.
More generally, if on the river you have a hand that you would agonize over calling if you check and your opponent bets, then usually you should bet, especially since you can easily fold it if you are raised.
And that points to the fact that you can occasionally succeed in bluff-raising on the river with position. Don't try this too often though, but also remember that it has to work only a fraction of the time to be worthwhile. A bluff check-raise on the river can work too, but it's so tricky to pull off that it's almost not worth mentioning.
SUMMARY
Well that's off the top of my head. Again, I refer you to S&M for much more information than can be squeezed into a short article. Short-handed hold'em is a glorious game, where the skill factor really goes through the roof and your play should become much more probabilisticly mixed up and aggressive, including much more bluffing and semi-bluffing than at a full table. If you are a good full table player, you can help adjust your play to a short table by usually betting instead of checking and usually folding or raising instead of calling. That's good advice for full tables too, but it goes double for short-handed tables.
When I post stuff like this sometimes readers think I'm being condescending or arrogant. Nothing could be further from the truth. If I post more than a terse response, then it's because I'm not sure of everything I'm saying, and I'm interested in learning more about the subject. I'm actually seeking feedback from you rec.gamblers, not lecturing you guys, so take it as a compliment and please go ahead and criticize what I said.
-- Abdul
That was a great article, thanks for sharing that valuable information! When are you publishing your new book?
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 September 1997, at 2:19 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@NationalBooking.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 September 1997, at 12:10 a.m.
I need help with the following two situations: (7 stud hi, loose, passive, 1-4 spread limit)
1. I have a K high straight made by 5th street.[K, J, 9] I raise th e maximum. Everybody folds, except medium player with 5, 8, 9 offsuit. He calls. I have him for two pair. 6th street is a blank for both of us. I again bet the max. He calls. Clearly he is chasing. On the river I check, he bets, and I raise. [Thinking he is thinking I have a busted straight.] He re-raises. [@$% he made his full house] Sure enough he has 5's full of eights. Three cards out of the hole.
My question is did I play this right, especially the river. I believe I played 5th and 6th street right.
2. I have 10 high straight made by 5th street.[8, 9, 7] I raise the max. Everybody folds except strong player with 9d 8d 8s. 6th street brings me a jack, he gets another 9. I bet 4, he calls. [I think he has 3 pair, he would have raised with a full house] On the river, I bet 4, he raises, and I call. [Again, I know he has made the full house, but I about have to call] He wins with 8's full of 9's.
Should I have checked on 6th and the river?
Thanks for the help.
Mike
1. You were fine on 5th and 6th. If you put him on 2-pair you want to make him pay for the full house. At the river, though, I wouldn't have check raised. He's only going to call or raise if he has you beat; your early betting indicated power. I doubt a medium player would put you on a busted straight in the situation you described.
Aside from that, though, if you are heads up with a suspected two pair hand going to the river, you should have been scrutinizing your opponent for a tell. A medium player should be easy to read when making the boat at the river; I'm sure there was enough of a clue to make you pause and either just call or even fold.
2. Something is wrong with your description. At 6th street, you have J,8,9,7. Your opponent has 9,9,8,8. You state that you bet $4. But it's his bet, not yours. Same with 7th street.
Aces, Marc
[7 stud: have obvious big straight against possible small straight but probable two pair]
Once you raise with K-J-9 no one will bet unless they can beat Ks-up; Many will not bet even with As-Up. Yes, so betting on 6th is correct since he will SURELY check.
So what are you trying to do with a check-raise on the river? The only hand he'll bet that you can beat is a small straight, a hand you figured he didn't have. To check-raise he must be willing to bet many hands worse than yours, and is unlikely to have a hand better than yours. Check-raising should be a rare weapon, so don't do it unless you are SURE its the right play.
If you do check you should probably call. Raising is out of the question.
So you should bet on the river and typically fold on the river against this sort of player who raises in this sort of game. Few people bluff, and very few are willing to bluff raise. (They would never lay down a lagitimate betting hand on the river, so they assume you, of course, would not either.)
BTW: your references to betting "the max" indicate you think it a reasonable option to bet less. Once the pot reaches about $7 you should ROUTINELY bet the maximum $4. Smaller bets are for psycological reasons only; to induce a call or sucker a raise; or discourage a raise; or discourage a call! Yes, it can work in all these situations. Betting $3 makes them stop and think; a pregnant pause that is usually in your favor.
[have straight on 5th; tight player checks 99-88 on 6th]
Betting on 6th is OK, so long as you will lay it down if he raises. Once he calls it sure does looks like 3-pair, but you have also convinced him you can surely BEAT 2-pair since you bet on 6th. In this spot there is little doubt in his mind he is beat and he is UNLIKELY to pay you off on the river; unless he really is one of the many brain-dead players playing at that limit. Again, since you can beat two pair it will not occur to him to bluff, since you have a hand that you "have" to call with.
Bet on 6th, check on 7th; fold against any bet or raise.
BTW: routinely folding against this aggression only works in these bottom games. Even in the 3/6 people will notice you folding and take a shot at you. When you DO fold, mumble something like "...but you said I'd get away with that one...", or to the player "how did you know I was bluffing?" to make SURE they don't know you laid down a real hand.
- Louie
I need some advice on what adjustments to make for a loose, passive 3-6 hold'em game. One regular player called it "No fold'em hold'em."
So what do you do different in a loose, passive hold'em game?
Thanks in advance.
Mike
I am also having trouble with loose games. I play in a game at Sunset Station which is 3-6 with 9 on the end. This game is often very loose. I know that pairs and suited cards go up in value and high unsuited cards go down in value but I am not sure how to apply that knowledge. I really need help with my after the flop play. For example if you flop top pair, good kicker which is a good hand in most holdem games, how do you play it with six people yet to act. What about top pair medium kicker QJ with a Q on flop for example. Suppose you try to check raise to limit the field but there is a bet to your left and five people call! What do you do then? Any help would be appreciated.
I play a 3-5 game in colorado. It has to be the loosest game in the world. Betting limits here prohibit any game that is higher. As a result, you have players that will call anything i.e. 2/3 offsuit and hope for miracle flops, turns and rivers..regardless of pot odds! It can be a nightmare if you don't alter your game a bit. I can't remember how many times I have had a hand like KK and flop K,5,9 offsuit. I end up losing to a gutshot straight on the river with only 3 people in the pot!
What works well for me is the following:
1. Play high cards only (Groups 1-3, maybe group 4 if there are alot of players) 2. If your on a drawing hand, check fold if the flop doesn't hit at least a 4 flush or 4 straight. I know this is proper play anyhow, but in smaller games, people tend to stick it out a little longer than usual. These are the plays that are slow death in this game. 3. In general, don't fall into the trap of drawing out to the river unless your sitting on top pair. 4. Tend to fold top pair more often if there is any straight or flush on the board. 5. If it's not already obvious from above, just tighten up overall.
I don't claim to be an expert at this game, but I can tell you that I played last night and won $950 at this game in 6 hours. That's averaging over 31.6 bets per hour. Of course the cards were comming pretty nicely.
Mason Malmuth, do you disagree with any of the above?
Here's my opinion on this strategy for this game:
>1. Play high cards only (Groups 1-3, maybe group 4 if there are alot of players)
You should be playing hands that have the potential to make big hands. This includes any ace-little suited, some king-little suited, and any pair.
> 2. If your on a drawing hand, check fold if the flop doesn't hit at least a 4 flush or 4 straight. I know this is proper play anyhow, but in smaller games, people tend to stick it out a little longer than usual. These are the plays that are slow death in this game.
In large pots it is frequently correct to call with bottom pair or even a three flush (the pot has to be very large). You are giving up too much if you automatically lay down if you don't make a flush draw.
> 3. In general, don't fall into the trap of drawing out to the river unless your sitting on top pair.
This is frequently accurate once you are past the flop since your pot odds and implied odds will go down. However, if the pot is large enough, and in these games it frequently will be, you should not automatically fold.
>4. Tend to fold top pair more often if there is any straight or flush on the board.
I agree more with this than the above. In large multiway pots when the flush card arrives you can frequently be sure that top pair is no good. The action will also help you decide. But you need to be sure.
>5. If it's not already obvious from above, just tighten up overall.
You don't tighten up. You change your selection of hands. A-10 off may become a fold while A-7 suited may be a terrific hand.
Hope this helps. Perhaps with this advice your 31 bet an hour win rate will go even higher. Good luck.
I've played in the game you mention, and it is NOT a loose and passive game. It is VERY aggressive. There are lots of raises.
The "passive" part makes a big difference. The smaller multi-way hands go WAY up in value since you can expect to draw cheaply of free on the flop: there's nothing like making a gut shot or hitting trip 4's on the turn.
The game is a loose 6/12 Holdem with mostly weak players. The first two players in early position limp in, I raise with Pocket Aces in the 5th position (in a California 9-handed game), two players cold call the raise behind me and the dealer button then proceeds to three-bet, the small blind folds, the big blind calls, the first player in early position (that is under-the-gun) calls the three-bets, the next player who limped in early then caps-it at four bets (note: this player is a weak player, she could cap it with anything suited in this multiway pot...she's not neccessaily slowplaying a big pocket pair).
So, we have seven players taking the flop for a cap of four-bets (28 small bets). I have the big blind and two early position players in front of me and three players behind me including the button who three- bet my raise. The flop comes 9-8-3 rainbow. The big blind checks, the Under-the-gun player bets, the next player calls (she capped it pre-flop when the button three-bet my initial raise), I raise with my Rockets, there's a fold behind me, a cold call, and then the button three-bets me again (just like he did pre-flop), the big blind folds, the under-the- gun player who lead into the flop caps it and the lady calls the cap which makes her all in.
I call the two additional bets for the cap. The turn is a Queen. The first player (Under-the-gun) leads the betting again, I call again The river is a 4--a blank card. The first player leads the betting again and I make a crying call. In summary, I feel that I had to call the additional two-bets on the flop after I raised and it came back capped to me because of the pots odds to hit my set. I don't think one pair of Aces is the best hand anymore after I raised and what happened. And I want to know if I am correct in calling on the turn also to hit my set. And finally, should I fold at the river without my set??
For those that are curious, I'm tell you what hands were shown at the showdown. If you don't want to know...STOP READING now......
The pot was won by the under-the-gun player who held pocket threes for a set of threes on the flop. The all-in player turned two pairs with Q8s. The button had pocket jacks. I don't know what the other player behind me and before the button had. Lay down Aces or chase for pot odds?
One thing that I frequently do differently in these situations is to only call on the flop and raise on fourth street. This way I might knock out someone who would have beaten me on the river.
You can't fold your hand since there is some chance that it might be best (or can draw out) and the pot is huge.
But Mason, on the flop it was probable that someone had made trips, two pair at a minimum...the under the gun player made it 3 or 4 bets. Since the odds of hitting a 3rd Ace is only 2 out of 47 (what ever that comes to), isn't a fold the proper move. I know it's tight play, but it would seem right.
After the Aces raised on the flop (good play) it was capped when it got back to him. If you count all of the bets in the pot (28 small bets pre-flop + additional bets on flop) you'll see that the pot was laying him enough money even if he could be absolutely sure he was up against the set.
[You have AA, players B and C and you cap it before the flop. Flop 9-8-3. You, B and C cap it again. (ignoring the idiot who also raised). Lay down AA?]
Your premise of being beat at this point has got to be wrong. Few sensible players would cap it even with 99, let alone 33; and 98 would be obscene. With that flop, I would LIKE it if these players raised again, since they are supposed to have big cards.
My heart feel out when the Q came on the turn, since that could very reasonably have hit their set.
Assuming player A under the gun who re-raised is the kind of player who would foolishly cap it with a small pair, but then only bet when he got there is a bad assumption. More likely he is pushing a big pair too far, as is player B with JJ on the button.
In any case, the pot is huge and you could reasonably have the best hand. Don't you think you have more than one chance in 20 of having the best hand? Don't you think its reasonably likely he has KK? Its ok to make "bad" calls in huge pots. Its a disaster to routinely fold.
IMO Routine call. Then go on to the next hand.
Spend your time using tells and watch the guy jump out of his seat when he flopped his set. That will be a lot more useful to you than beating yourself up for paying this one off.
In a 3-6 holdem game with a $12 option on the river, what adjustments (if any) should I make to my strategy? I expect the extra implied odds on the river will make more people chase drawing hands and make it a lot harder to get them to dump their hands on the turn. It seems to me that this calls for more aggresive play pre-flop and on the flop, but at low levels this can be ineffective at thinning the field. Thoughts?
I am surprised that no one else has jumped in here, so let me say some things. YMMV.
First, as you suggest, drawing hands have slightly more value, as there is the potential to hit a bigger payoff on the river. Therefore, when calculating your implied odds, take this into account, and be somewhat more inclined to play drawing hands yourself.
Second, you're also correct. It will probably be harder to force out the draws on the flop and/or turn. Therefore, all you can do is make them pay the maximum to draw against you. Thus, be looking for situations where a check-raise might force them to pay more for their draws.
Third, pay a LOT of attention to who is capable of bluffing on the river. In a regular limit game, you can usually call with top pair if the better is someone who even rarely bluffs when the last card makes a flush or straight. In this game, you must not call as often, as your pot odds will typically not be as good. Therefore, it is even more important to have a good read on the players so you can save that last big bet, or make a good call. In a way, this is kind of like taking a small step towards playing pot-limit or no-limit, where reading the players accurately takes on greater importance in the toolbox of a winning player.
Hope that helps. Please point out any errors, one and all.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Mason Malmuth wrote an essay concerning "Talking dealers" and the annoyance this causes the players, especially if the dealer's talking is distracting him/her from properly running the game. I think much of this unnecessary talking is caused my the players themselves.
Obviously (and hopefully) the dealer is not talking to themselves, they are having a conversion with a player, or two, at the table. In my observations the players initiate the conversion, in hopes of making sure that they and the dealer are still on a friendly basis and the dealer will be good to them during their "down." I believe it is the dealers responsibility to politely refuse to engage in any conversion that is not directed towards the game and/or play of a particular hand.
There are some dealers that are looking for any excuse to get involved in a conversion at the table. Us players should try and not make it easy for the dealers to get involved in "our" table conversions. If it upsets the dealer that he/she is asked politely to deal and not talk, just remember this, the dealer has nothing at risk in this game except maybe his or her tokes. Whereas, we, the players have substantial monitary investment in the game. Consentrating on the game, if you are playing correctly, is difficult enough without unnecessary distractions, like the dealer having a conversion with the player in seat one, and doesn't have a clue that all the players have completed betting or checking and someone has to get his or her attention to deal the next card.
It is also very frustrating for the dealer to be laughing and joking with the player that just made a long shot draw aginst you and won a big pot.
My resolve for this type of dealer is to not toke them and for me not to give them the opportunity to engage in conversions while they are dealing, which is something that I have been guilty of in the past. Now, if I have something I must say to the dealer I will just mention to them that I need to talk with them when they have a free moment, but not during their "down."
May the flop be with you
Nevadalary
I agree.
I don't think I have read the essay (..read the 1st book, but not the 2nd), but I caution that you don't want the dealer to "shut up and deal." Certainly, it is important that the dealer pay attention to the game, and any deviation there should be concisely noted and (hopefully) thus rectified. But one of the "any" excuses that a dealer should get involved in conversation is to make visitors, ie, tourists, feel welcome. These folks generally play at home among friendly conversation and would prefer the same at your game. Who's going to provide that?.. the regular players, with their "substantial monetary interests"? Don't kid yourself; you're not that friendly a group. You need the dealer to do that for you on a general basis. It should be part of their job.
In the same vein, however, they must be careful to NOT be seen as chummy with the regular players. It is most disconcerting to a tourist for the dealer to engage in personal asides with a regular (like chatting about mutual friends or weekend plans, etc.) If the tourist is aware of losing, he may perceive that the reason might be because he's an outsider. You don't want that to happen.
Bottom line is: the right dealer conversation is important. If it distracts them from the game, fix that; if it distracts you from the game, fix yourself (although, that's good for me, because..); if it distracts others from the game,
The essay in question is on this Web site at http://www.twoplustwo.com/mmedit4.html
Mason's agreement notwithstanding, I think I still generally prefer dealers who talk, although I think it depends on how close to full speed they can deal while talking. My impression is that while some are certainly much slower, many are nearly as fast as if they didn't talk. I'm certainly willing to put up with some slowness if it has other beneficial effects.
Someone's already mentioned that a lively, active table can help attract weak players. I think it's worth considering that not all players are equally affected by noise and other distractions at the table. I elaborated on this in an earlier message, but it's self-evident that if some players correctly prefer a quiet environment, others should prefer a distracting environment. My educated guess is that the player who should be happiest about distractions is one who, through practice or nature, is more focused, and who is so highly skilled that distractions have little effect on his/her game. I think most of us aspire to both of these qualities, and should therefore at least claim that we like playing with dealers who practice the saxophone between hands.
In fact, for those (I won't say if I include myself or not) who are less distracted by dealers (or anyone) talking, nothing could be more enticing (I'm exaggerating) than a table full of players whining about how much they hate talking dealers. And this is without considering the slow-burn tilt value of players who are easily irritated.
I also think talking dealers can help create a more pleasant environment at the table that makes longer sessions more bearable, and that can make it less aversive for other players when they're losing.
Just to recap, I think there are aspects of slow, talking dealers that can both help and hurt players. Slowness in and of itself helps bad players and hurts good players, because it reduces the total number of hands you get to play. The effects of talking and other distracting behavior are less clear, but if you're sure distraction hurts your expectation, it's worth asking why it hurts you and helps the other guy.
It's hard to quantify either the positive or the negative effects of talking dealers, and certainly the dealer only fills one seat at the table. But I think it's worth considering that what irritates or distracts you may also irritate or distract the other guy, and maybe s/he won't handle it as well. In which case you should be glad to be slightly irritated.
dan
When I read response like the one above I think to myself that this is someone who just plays a small amount of poker and is clearly a recreational player. Now don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with that.
The problem is that after spending many years playing poker and a great deal of time in the poker room, there is no question that the majority of the problems that occur at the poker tables begin with a talking dealer that is not paying attention. Now I do concede that many regular players do overreact, that there is some value in small limit games to a "friendly dealer," and there are many instances where a dealer is required to talk. (For example, he should say "It is your turn," if necessary.) But the cardrooms that I have observed that work the best and have the most satisfied customers are those cardrooms where the dealers are required to be totally focused on the game and do not participate in any extraneous conversation.
I totally agree with Mason's observations and will written response.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalary
Its seems clear to me that its mostly a function of the stakes of the game. Higher limits REQUIRE totally focused dealers so there are not mistakes. Lowest limits PREFER a more friendly atmospher and mistakes are not nearly as costly.
The threshold appears to me to be at about 10/20.
As it turns out this is also the limit where the dealer is no longer the dominant personality in the game, another reason for them to be quiet: players get annoyed much faster.
Perhaps we don’t give the ‘A’ dealers enough credit. On my recent trip to Las Vegas, I was playing Hold’em at the Mirage and I encountered the best dealer I have ever seen. He shuffled fast and dealt faster. Even though he was really, really fast I found it an extremely comfortable game to play in. He wasn’t the least bit pushy and the game moved along at a very nice pace. He was courteous, friendly and attentive to the game. He did not talk to the players even though his demeanor was friendly. I even felt a little guilty because I only tipped my standard amount (which is pretty generous compared to a lot of players). He was extremely appreciative of this by the way. There are few dealers like this but I think there are a lot of ‘B’ dealers. They deal reasonably fast, pay attention, make few mistakes, and are generally friendly enough. I try to keep on good terms with the dealers when I play at a club regularly so I am pretty positive about dealers. Below a ‘B’ is not acceptable to me. This would include talking to players too much as I feel it does lead to mistakes. Some dealers are just plain incompetent. They don’t talk much but still make a lot of mistakes. As far as creating a friendly atmosphere, I think a lot depends on the game you are in and what the players are there for. Playing something like $10-20 or $20-40 Hold’em at the Mirage, most players are very serious players so you don’t expect to see a lot of frivolity so I don’t see the need for a talkative dealer. Perhaps something like $1-5 stud it is more important but again, even at this limit, I see plenty of serious action. Players are playing there best, trying to win money with the only difference being that the game is a little smaller. Players, themselves, have a lot to do with creating a friendly atmosphere. If the players want to talk and joke around, I don’t think it is the dealers job to stimulate this activity. A friendly dealer can make the experience of playing less intimidating for tourists (I’m a tourist) but still doesn’t have to say a whole lot. Don’t get me wrong, I have seen dealers handle less serious games well by saying things at the appropriate time but their conversation doesn’t slow the game down. Someday we should have an essay about players and how they need to get their act together ( I know Mason has written about this ). One way is the often written about subject of dealer abuse by players. It is often written about because it happens. I have actually heard professional poker players criticize dealers because they were running unlucky against them. Only a fool would subscribe to this kind of thinking so I guess it wasn’t too bad playing against them. There are a lot of other things that players do, but dealer abuse is one of the most common.
I think Tom Haley hit the target dead center on his response except he went into "dealer abuse, which was not my intention of this thread. My intention was, that as players, we have a responsibility to ourselves, not to distract the dealer with unecessary conversation. If we, the players, let the majority of the dealers do their jobs, they (dealers) will probably be appreciative of it and deal "our" beloved game of poker smoothly and efficiently.
I would like to comment on Tom's point that as the stakes get higher the more serious the players, to include the tourist(s), play. IMHO I don't think that many, if any, players want to be entertained by the dealer when they are playing for serious money. And serious money can be at different levels for different folks, especially in public cardrooms. What may be a recreational poker game for one may be the rent money for another. Or, "your" winning for the pleasure or the thrill of it to supplement "Your" other income, to which you can take the wife or husband out to a nice dinner, may be the only source of income for some players that play in public cardrooms.
This tread, I am sure can be cussed and discussed with many points of view. I am saying that consideration on the players side of the table to not distract the dealer with BS conversation, may help the dealer run the game more smoothly and efficiently.
Thank all for thoughts on this thread.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalary
Join David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth for an informal seminar on poker and gambling:
Wednesday, October 1, 7pm
Borders Books & Music
25222 El Paseo
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
(714) 367-0005
(Remember to check our calendar page for future appearances)
Well, I thought I would describe a hand that I played quite a few years ago, as it still stands out in my mind. I'm thinking of something similar to the analysis that Steve Zolotow was doing in the now defunct Poker World magazine, wherein a panel of experts analyzes each decision during the course of a hand, and discusses the better alternatives. So, here it is:
Very loose and moderately aggressive home HE game, 10-20 limit, currently being played 12-handed. You can typically expect 6-10 players to see the flop, and only about half of the pots are raised preflop. As in some of the wild low limit California games, capped pots tend to keep everyone in, not out, of the hand.
I am in position 5, and am dealt 5s, 5c. Seat 3 (S3) calls, S4 raises. Now S4 is a very loose player, and often raises with mediocre hands like KJoff. I call (expecting a multiway pot that will justify it), S7, S8, S11, S12, and S1 call; BB (S2) makes it 3 bets, which is scarier, as this is a pretty solid, unimaginative player. He has a big pair or AX suited, where X is at least a J. Everyone just calls until it gets around to S12, who says "--ck this sh--, lets build a pot!", and caps it at 4 bets. Now this doesn't mean anything, as S12 is the most aggressive player at the table, and could easily be looking to steal the initiative in this big pot by getting in the last raise. He could have almost anything that isn't total crap. No one folds, and we have 36 small bets in the pot.
Flop is 3s 6s Kc. I didn't hit my set. However, unless S2 had KK, I don't think it's too likely that anyone hit a set. 66 and 33 are possible, but I don't really care about 33, as I will beat it if I catch a set, so 66 is the only concern. While someone other than S2 might have KK, they would have raised 90+% of the time preflop, and didn't. S1 bets out, which is probably a K with a Q or J, or a draw being bet for value (in a field this size, he'll be getting paid more than the odds against hitting). S2 and S3 call, S4 raises, and its my turn. I count 41 bets vs. my 2 bets to call, and decide that this is a fair price to hit my set on the turn. Plus, it is highly likely that there will be many callers behind me, which will ofset the reverse implied odds if someone else reraises. S7 and S8 fold, S11 calls, and S12 makes it 3 bets. Again, this guy is aggressive, and would even try to run a bluff against the field on the hope of stealing a pot this big. Everyone calls. 57 bets, which I mentally cut in half to equal 28.5 big bets.
Turn is 2h. Now I have a gutshot straight draw, but if I hit my set, someone else may make a straight. I now feel that the 4 (not a spade) is my best hope on the river. Odds are 43:3 against, or about 14:1. Plus, someone might be holding 45, and already have a straight, in which case I am drawing at 2 or 3 cards for half the pot. However, the pot is so big that even after weighing in these factors, a call seems like the best play on the turn. Action proceeds as follows: S1-S3 all check, S4 bets, I call, S11 folds, S12 raises, S1 calls, S2 folds, S3 and S4 call, I call. 38.5 big bets.
River is a 4h. Elation! All check to me, I bet, and get a crying call from S12 and S4. I think that the big decision here is whether I should go for a check-raise to eek out a little more money. However, I have no idea whether or not S12 will bet, as he is very tricky, and does a lot of strange plays. I think he's pretty quick, but probably too tricky for this loose game. He spends too much money mixing up his play to keep us off balance, more than he'll make back from our mistakes. Anyway my straight is good, and S12 shows his set of sixes, and S4 his AK. 41.5 big bets, or $830. in a single pot. That's all it takes to make my night.
So, here were my decisions:
preflop called raise in early-mid position called reraise called re-reraise
flop called raise with bad flop for pot odds called reraise
turn called bet for gutshot straight draw called raise
river bet out with second nut straight
Please let me know what you think about these calls, and whether you think that folding or raising were ever better (higher expectation) options.
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
BTW, this hand occurred long before I ever heard of Presto, so that has nothing to do with my decision to play it like this.
==== Loose home game; plenty of calling, enough predictably bad re-raising. In early position with 5s, 5c. Seat 3 (S3) calls, S4 raises. Now S4 is a very loose player, and often raises with mediocre hands like KJoff. I call (expecting a multi way pot that will justify it), Several calls and a scary re-raise, every one calls, and the idiot in the button caps it what-the-heck. No one folds, and 8 of us make 36 small bets in the pot. ====
It doesn't really matter what the raisers have. To you, there is little difference between AK and KJ (actually, you prefer the AK since he makes less straights). You need to make a set to win. You only care if he has a big pair; but even if you SEE his AA you would still call expecting the big pot. On the good side you can expect excessive action when you do flop a set (against their pair) since they will tend to raise; so I'd guess the extra action you can expect from a big pair (and therefore the other players who call raises) about cancels out the increased chance of set-under-set.
Your primary concern once there is one raise is that this tends to increase the chances of re-raises in this sort of game, what-the-heck. So its reasonable for you to assume a three-bet round when considering your apparent odds now. Can you make 10xbets when you hit your set: 30 small bets, 18 in now if 6 opponents play? I'd say yes, so go ahead and call the first raise. Calling the other raises is routine since the pot is clearly big enough once you make the first marginal call.
==== Flop is 3s 6s Kc. I didn't hit my set. However, unless S2 had KK, I don't think it's too likely that anyone hit a set. ... S1 bets out, ... S2 and S3 call, S4 raises, and its my turn. I count 41 bets costs 2 bets to call (20.5-to-1), and decide that this is a fair price to hit my set on the turn. Plus, it is highly likely that there will be many callers behind me ... S7 and S8 fold, S11 calls, and S12 what-the-heck makes it 3 bets. Everyone calls.====
How about my hind sight predicting the three bets in this sort of game?!!!
You need 47-2 or 23.5-1 to call which is not quite what you are getting even considering likely over calls. But you are not drawing to the nuts and there may very well be re-raises. Most everyone will play small pairs like you did, so 666 is possible, and you may run into a straight when you hit your set.
Calling one bet fearing a raise behind you is about all you can do with your little pair. Calling 2 bets fearing a raise is hopeless.
Give it up here on the flop.
==== 57 bets, which I mentally cut in half to equal 28.5 big bets. Turn is 2h. Now I have a gutshot straight draw,... about 14:1. Plus, someone might be holding 45, and already have a straight, S1-S3 all check, S4 bets, I call, S11 folds, S12 raises, S1 calls, S2 folds, S3 and S4 call, I call. 38.5 big bets. ====
OK, now you should call. The fear of an unlikely raise offsets the unlikely splitting the pot if you hit a 4, and a 5 may also win it for you.
==== River is a 4h. Elation! I think that the big decision here is whether I should go for a check-raise. ... Straight wins, and S12 has set of sixes, and S4 his AK. $830. ====
Presto! Check-raising seems to be your only decision here. But even 333 will be unlikely to bet. But its worth a whole lot more if he does since others will be more likely to pay this guy off, what-the-heck, than if suddenly YOU bet. If you made a two-card straight then check-raise.
Bet this hand, since no one else will.
Also, betting and getting paid off will give you much more psychological power than if every one checks: in the first case the feel you are lucky and they stupidly paid you off; in the second they feel you are an idiot for checking and they feel good for also checking and avoiding your trap.
Lets wrap this up. Of the $830, you put in $130 so you WON only $700. You should have noted this yourself and failing to do so is a bad sign. Anyway, you risked $110 (you don't have to call on the river if you miss) to win $700; or about 6.4-to-1; more than enough to go to the river to try to MAKE your hand. But this is NOT enough to try to WIN this pot, since you will often (15%-20%?) make your hand and lose.
Overall, you lost a small amount of theoretical money on this one (especially since you were a double backdoor gut shot underdog on the flop!).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Pot odds/implied odds work exactly when you are drawing to the nuts or nothing. Real life poker is rarely like this, so you MUST consider such things as possible raises behind you, making the hand and losing, and also missing the hand and accidentally winning. The first two vastly overshadow the third; so I generally add about 33-50% MORE to my required odds when considering the calls such as the ones in your example. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On a side issue: don't think that you are the only one that knows this guys is raising what-the-heck. Almost everyone knows it, and what-the-heck knows it as well. He knows you know, but it doesn't matter. But WAIT!! He has successfully fooled you and seat 4 into believing that he routinely raises what-the-heck, and he's getting excessive action with his set! He just got 4 extra big bets in on the turn when he's a huge favorite; and this more than enough covers the two extra what-the-heck raises he made (one this hand, and the one a several hands ago) to earn this image. And who says image isn't worth anything?! Ha Ha!!! Fooled you!!! :) And me too, BTW!
When I was in LV in May I picked up a copy of D.R. Sherer's "No Foldem Holdem". I haven't played much holdem in intervening months, but now have started playing in a game that has holdem along with stud. So, I've spent a little time with the book, in addition to reviewing the better known literature from S&M, Brunson, etc.
Mason Malmouth has reviewed many poker books over the years, I think most recently Ciaffone&Rubin's book on PL holdem (in the Forum). But, I haven't seen anything in the Forum about "No Foldem Holdem". I've been working (not very hard) on a brief review which may end up on Dan Kimberg's page, but I'm personally more interested in what Mason has to say about the book (and in seeing comments from any other Forum regulars who have the book.)
In my book GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS I review many books on poker and other forms of gambling. When the next edition comes out, probably in 1999 I will include some more books that have been published during the past few years.
With that being the case, let me just say that I have read NO FOLDEM-HOLDEM and I do not recommend it. As I have said before you are much better off reading and studying HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS and THE THEORY OF POKER as well as some of the other books that I have spoken favorably about.
If some of you who are participating in this forum have an opinion on this book (or any other) feel free to let us know.
> If some of you who are participating in this forum have an
Don't mind if I do...
I don't know if this is the book I think it is (it has something about sending the rocks home broke on its cover or some such). I can remember picking it up (or some other book, if I'm confused) at the gambler's book store and reading a few lines (where it recommends calling three bets cold preflop with some baby 2-gap suited cards or something ludicrous like that). I laughed aloud. I swear I thought it was a spoof. If you assume its contents are tongue-in-cheek, I imagine it could be amusing reading. I get the feeling this was not the author's intent, however.
Tom Weideman
This is the book - the cover's subtitle is "How to win with the little cards and send the rocks to the bar". I don't think Sherer intends to be funny in terms of his playing advice, although he (or someone) did write some fairly funny lines and did a good job overall of putting together an entertaining book; whether it deserves to be taken seriously is of course an open question.
I don't remember that he advocates calling three bets cold with an 8-6; his main advice with the small connectors seems to be bring it in with a raise (to "isolate"). He definitely advocates being extremely agressive with small connectors (but not baby cards 2-5), and likes the one-gap small connectors better than the no gap - he says that they provide better "surprise value" if a straight comes. His favorite hand as reported is 9-7 suited - his reasoning being that "rocks" will likely be playing two cards 10 and higher, so a nine is the highest card which will avoid being dominated if you hit it on the flop.
One problem I found with the book is that while the writing is better than average in terms of style, there is some inconsistency in the ideas presented. There are several examples, but I'll mention two. One is that he attacks the concept that being suited with connectors is important, but I notice that almost all of the small connector hands he cites in describing strategy are suited. Another is that in the first part of the book the main point seems to be get agressive with the small connectors, but in his chapter on minimum starting hands, placed toward the end, there is no mention of how these hands fit in.
In any case, I find the book interesting, if not exactly a new bible for hold-em. One real caveat is that his stated audience is players in "no-foldem" games, but the style of play he advocates is more applicable(at least to mix up your play) at much higher limits than the usual no-foldem game. In some of the 30-60 and 50-100 games (and higher) around here you'll see some strange looking hands played agressively by strong players. However, since playing agressively with marginal hands relies heavily on getting a good read on opponents and on knowing where you are as the hand unfolds, an average low limit player with limited experience would probably regret trying to implement his advice.
I thought the most interesting omission in the book came at the end, in his chapter on Recommended Reading; there is no mention (positive or negative) of any of Sklansky's books or of S&M, which is widely regarded as the standard text on limit hold-em. He may or may not agree with these books - presumably not - but it is hard to believe he really thinks they are not even worth mentioning. Do I detect hard feelings?
Jim Ranklin wrote:
I don't know the author and I don't believe that David Sklansky or Ray Aee know the author, so I doubt if there are any hard feelings. At least there aren't on our end.
Mason, I assumed the resentment (if it exists) is pretty much one sided. May not be there, but it is hard to believe Sherer is not at least vaguely familiar with Holdem for Advanced Players, Winning Poker, etc. etc. Particularly given the veiled references made to unnamed other authors in the text.
One final thing I forgot to mention in my earlier post - Abdul Jalib, in Sept 10 Forum response under the topic "Help Anybody, I'm Really Confused Now", gave a very nice description of the raise or muck play with medium connectors. Those on a tight budget may want to read Abdul's post and save the twenty bucks that "No Foldem Holdem" costs, though as I said I found the book entertaining reading (albeit with several caveats).
Would it be better for the Texas Hold'em games to be played nine or ten handed??
The reason I am interested is because I think that nine players would provide better seating comfort at the poker tables currently used in most public cardrooms.
A strong reason, IMHO, would provide better separation between smokers and non-smokers.
It would provide better seating comfort to the (us) larger players.
And, it could speed up the games somewhat. Conjecture on my part.
The 40/80 game at the Mirage seats only nine players and it seems to work quit well.
The main concern or downside of seating nine instead of ten players is when a couple players walk from the table it leaves the table "short" handed. But this occures in a ten handed game as well, when two or three players get up and take a walk or leave the table for whatever reason(s).
Appreciate constructive thoughts on the rational of your pros and cons to this idea.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalary
I would definitely prefer a 9 handed game and have more room at the table. Some of the larger folks don't think that the thinner folks are entitled to the same amount of room at the table. 10 people is too many at those small tables. The Horseshoe's tables are larger than the Mirage's and seem to accomodate 10 players just fine.
I was hoping that this thread would get a few more responses. I appreciate Jessica's time and effort to comment on this subject. I was interested in getting this input to maybe use as valid arguments for making seating a little more comfortable at a particular local card room. Mainly to also diminish the close proximity smokers and non-smokers have to be seated.
The great majority of smokers are conscientious and will attempt to hold their cigarette behind them or somewhere not causing second hand smoke to be immediately in another players face. However, this can cause problems for players sitting at the next table, depending on which way the air conditioning is blowing or some of the jumbo fans used at the tables these days. A little more room at the table could possibly allow smokers to keep their cigarette in front of themselves and keep the annoyance of this smoke down as much as possible.
Secondly, I thought it would make for better games, as far as more hands dealt per hour. That it would be better for the players, dealers and the house.
Less time waiting to get enough players to start a game and a better chance to keep the game full.
The above was my thinking on this subject, but obviously this particular subject is not of sufficient concern to other players to warrant making a major case out of it.
It was just a thought.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalary
Yes, rooms should seat 9 players at a table that is too cramped for 10.
But should the room buy 9-sized tables, or 10/11/12?
I prefer more players simply because it increases the edge I have in respecting bad position: there are more bad position opportunities for the weak players to make mistakes, like calling with K-T UTG in a 12 handed game! Also, I will tend to be much more patient and just love taking my consistently premium hands against others who routinely call with any old trouble hand. Also, I will tend to have a well earned tight image, and can easily take advantage of the rare late position short handed situations that come up: They will tend to have "tight" on the mind even in these siuations. There's nothing like getting the blind to lay down second pair on the flop when I tried to steal on the button, and flopped nothing.
Nevadalary, I should have responded earlier. If the table can't accomodate ten players comfortably, I would prefer the nine handed game. I think most players at limit hold'em prefer a ten handed game but I am not sure why. Perhaps they feel the pots are bigger.
Tom
I have what I guess would be considered an ethical question.
I was playing in a 1 to 5 seven card stud game with a table full of basically unsophisticated players. I don’t mean that unkindly, but they were there to have fun and play every hand. Normally I would have loved the action but tonight good cards were hard to come by. Anyway, on this particular hand, as of 6th street I had (Ac, 2c,) 9c,7c, 6s, 8s. Up to this point betting had been mild. I looked strongest on the board and with both four to a straight and a flush I decided to bet five. Two players folded and three remained. On seventh street the action was checked to me. I drew the 7h, helping neither my straight or flush. However, the pot was nearing $50.00 and with this crowd I just wasn’t ready to give up on the pot. I bet five. The lady to my immediate left, who was showing Kh, 4d, 3h, 3d, then raised five, but then immediately looked at her hand again and exclaimed, “oh, I didn’t mean to do that.” Simultaneously, she asked if she could take her raise back, and commented to the player to her left that she had thought she had caught another 3, which I overheard. The dealer informed her that she could not take the raise back. She was noticeably distressed about misreading her hand and was rocking around in her chair. During this quick little display of emotion she exposed the three hole cards that she was holding in her right hand, an 8, 5 and another 3. She had trip threes and I was beat. However, as she continued to fret, the player to her left, who was out of the hand, and who appeared to be suspicious of my play, told her not to worry, that he suspected that she probably had me beat. The other remaining player had folded when she raised so this just left the two of us. I knew I was beat, but after watching her I was convinced that she would fold if I raised back, and I did so. After a few more seconds of fretting, and despite the player on her left prodding her to call, she folded. I raked in about a sixty dollar pot.
Question: Did I do anything unethical, by taking advantage of the lady’s display of emotions, which caused her to expose her hole cards?
Two of the players made it clear though little comments and expressions that they suspected that I had pulled some chicanery. The implications being, that I had unfairly taken advantaged of this poor lady’s predicament. I don’t think I did anything wrong. However, the more I play with the recreational type of player the more I hear and see things which lead me to believe that these type of players believe poker should be played in a fair, as opposed to an honest manner, so that everyone has a chance to win.
2nd Question: Just what are the ethics of Poker, beyond the obvious: not cheating and civil behavior towards other players and dealers?
Any and all comments will be welcomed. Thanks.
I think the only breach of ethics came from the player who had folded but gave the lady his opinion. He was privy to his hole cards which the lady was not and thus, in a position to better judge the likelihood that you had made your hand. I'll grant that only seeing his two hole cards doesn't help much, but the principle is still there. It seems to me that he shouldn't have interjected himself.
Assuming you did nothing dishonorable to see the lady's hole cards, I don't feel that you have any obligation to pretend you didn't see it nor to voluntarily give up the pot.
You have an out, however... take the $60 pot, retund the lady's $5 (which is what she wanted in the first place) and sleep the sound sleep of the just.
I agree completely with Harold, you did nothing wrong. I also wanted to bring up a situation from my session last night which I did not react openly to, but seethed about in my chair for about 20 minutes. I'm not sure it's about ethics, but I'd like to hear what some of you would have done, if anything.
I flopped a set against top pair with three straight cards on board. On the turn, another straight card fell, I was fairly confident my set was good, and that I was up against top pair, or maybe two pair...it wasn't likely I was against a straight, and the player's mannerisms seemed to confirm this to me. The last card completed the straight on the board. The player (who was first to act) checked to me and I bet. He reluctantly called. I quickly turned over my cards to reveal my set. He held his cards for his neighbor to see, nodding his head in disgust, obviously about to muck, when his neighbor (they were not friends) yelled out, "There's a straight on board." The player confusedly turned up his cards on the table, and the dealer proceeded to split up the chips. I was fumming, but didn't say anything, partly because I hate controversy at the table, and partly because I'm a wimp! What would you have done? The player who ripped $70 or so out of my pocket was fairly inexperienced. He wasn't trying to be malicious. The dealer, by the way, was completely indifferent to the whole situation.
When I told a friend about this later in the evening, he said he would have gone ballistic. He also believed it was the dealer's place to say something to the player who announced the board.
I thought that I would comment on both of these hands. In the $1-$5 stud game the only unethical event was the neighboring player who told the lady that she probably still had the best hand. It is suppose to be one player to a hand. When playing poker you are allowed to use all information that is made readily available to you. If someone exposes some of their cards, it is their problem, not yours.
But Jessica's situation is different. In public cardrooms the rule is very clear. It is "cards speak." This means that when there is a straight on board and the bet is called on the end, if no one has a better hand then the pot should be split by the bettor and all callers. It may not seem fair in this situation, but I believe that it is. I won't get into them here, but there are good reasons for having the card speak rule.
Mason,
I agree completely with the cards speak rule. However, I wonder exactly how that rule should be applied here.
Clearly, the player who split with Jessica did not need to use either of his hole cards to split the pot. However, let's pretend that he did need to use one or both, showed his hand to his neighbor (without putting his cards on the table), who then told him what he had. I know that this is a rules violation, as you're only supposed to read a hand on the table. Here, it sounds as if the player did not table his cards, yet you believe that it was OK for his neighbor to inform him of the straight on board? I wonder if this isn't the same thing as the standard rule. If he won't lay his hand down, he has no right to the pot, or to be informed of his holding. As soon as he tables his hand, then he has a full right to help from the dealer or other players in reading his hand.
If I were Jessica, I would be a little pissed as well.
BTW Jessica, I hope you weren't actually steaming at the table for 20 minutes. If you were, you should have gotten up and taken a break until you stopped steaming, so as to avoid blowing off chips through substandard plays induced by your temperament. ;-)
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Here is the way that I understand the rule in most cardrooms. If two or more players see the hand in question, then it is considered exposed to all and it is "cards speak."
You must understand that this rule is there to protect the game. What would have happened in this case if the pot was awarded to Jessica? First, the type of player who typically makes this kind of reading error is generally a very inexperienced player who is good for the game. Furthermore, many of these people are suspicious of all the "local sharks" who populate the poker games. Thus if the pot gets awarded to Jessica I can hear this person accusing the floor of bein "in" with the locals, quitting the game, and perhaps never playing poker again. At least not again in this cardroom.
Even though it doesn't seem fair at times, this pot should be split. First, based on his hand the person really did have rights to half the pot; second it helps preserve the quality -- that is money making potential -- of the game; and third, it helps to assure that inexperienced players feel that the integrity of the game is not in question.
Although I'm not sure where I heard it I believe a hand is read only when it is turned up on the table. Hands not "shown down" are not in the show down, and aren't read. That's why its called a show down. A player who folds a winning hand without showing it is out of luck; just like a player who fails to call when he has the nuts; such as when an Ace high straight is on the board. If such a player is faced with a bet, no one should point out the imminent split.
The player did NOT have a straight; he only appeared to have one; just the same as a 7-stud player who throws away his last down card because he doesn't need it: he no longer has the full house he had on 6th street.
Yes, "cards speak", but only shown cards.
IMO, players and dealers should only call hands that are shown and should keep their mouths shut if a hand is not shown.
As to the stud situation, the only unethical thing you could have done was LEANING to see this players cards. Taking advantage of her talk and mannerisms is encouraged, and taking advantage of the cards SHE exposed is quite fine. You SHOULD have asked the dealer to "remind" the other player not to give advise while a player has a hand.
<< Jessica perhaps takes bad beat and seethes/fumes for 20 minutes. Postmortem advice was to "go ballistic" >>
Let me offer a different opinion:
I had something like that happen to me as well Thursday.
I hope I don't start a pseudo-bad-beat thread, but there IS a moral to my little story:
Shorthanded 15-30, mostly heads up pot the whole way, ~$250. Heads up at the river, I showed down top pair (or so..) with a 4-flush on board. Opp says "thats good" and pitches his hand without showing it. Opp's neighbor has seen his cards and says, "You had a flush." Dealer pauses for a microsecond without mucking the cards, enough time for the player to say "gimme back my hand," and turnover a random holding that happened to make a flush. Floorman! After making a final decision and then changing his mind twice (I guess they're final unless someone doesn't like them), pot goes to the flush. Sometime between decisions two and three, the floorman called for time to consult chiprunners, cocktail waitresses etc. During the intermission I offered a chop to the opponent who declined (at that time the possession arrow was pointing to me). Finally, the pot goes to opp who promptly offers me half!
I decline.
At the time I was stuck over a grand, but in a good game. The most important thing when in that situation is to maintain the right attitude. While the whole contretemps was unfolding, I was resolving to myself that no matter what the ruling, I would still be on my best game by the very next hand. If anything, the interlude was quite therapeutic. Both opp and kibbitzer had lots of chips, but were destined to lose them if they just played long enough. (Don't quote me GTOT, their long run wasn't too long!) When the ruling finally came, I was so zenned on the objective, I declined his offer without even the slightest thought. After the ruling I shed nothing but good vibes to keep a happy gamblin game afloat. The kibbitzer was quite apologetic but I wouldn't hear anything of the sort. I bent over backwards to let opp know that I harbored him no ill will. I did slander the floorman for jerkin my chain, but I didn't mean it, and it helped build us-against-them table unity. While every table in the joint broke as the sun came up, our little short-handed game kept going and going and going..
Fast forward 14 hours later: Opp and kibbitzer lose over a grand each; JG books substantial winner.
No EV in fuming.
Note: If you work for the IRS, the above story may well have been apocryphal.
Wow ! A truly excellent post. Definitely behaivior that we should all strive for.
Excellent advise, Mr. Zen, on keeping a quality attitude in times of duress. Please initiate a seperate thread on this subject including specific advise for us Zen challenged individuals.
However, I see no reason not to accept half the pot. I think it would have IMPROVED the game, since rejecting half would, errr could, seem like an insult.
Also, you should have, in a happy manner, scoled the other player for reading this players hand, which was not shown down. That is definately wrong.
"No EV in fuming" "There's No advantage in Fuming" "Fuming is Losing"! Yeah, I think I like that a little better.
I've been playing 10/20 hold'em for the past couple of weeks at the Mirage and am good at remembering peoples faces. What I have noticed is that there is Quite a large group of people that play on a consistent basis and are extremely knowledgeable of the game. I really wonder if you can expect to ever win when you are playing in a game full of these players. The pots are always small and you dont have the typical bad players paying you off. It seems like the game boils down to a slow grinding card holding contest that you basically can expect to break even or lose via the rake. I guess my question is......Can you expect to profit in a game where the skill level of all the players is above average(i.e....a game full of local full & part time players)? Do you (Jessica, Skal., Malmut, etc) avoid these these types of games and wait until there are at least a few bad players? Personally, since I can't put in the hours that all the locals can, I dont think my chances of winning consistently are very good.(until they legalize poker in Texas and I can catch up, experience wise)
JTF, you don't indicate what time during the day you mostly play? The 10/20 Holdem games at the Mirage can be very tough and visa versa. In the evenings the games can be looser. There are more and more "regulars" playing now then probably ever before. Like yourself, most of us were tourists at one time or another and decided to make Vegas our retirement home, or just decided to make Vegas home for the purpose of playing cards.
Many of the players you see at the 10/20 holdem games never play any higher, for whatever reasons. My recommendation is to "want" to work up to 20/40---40/80---etc. I know it is difficult to gain the experience required to play in these games when you do not have the opportunity to play on a regular basis. As I did, try and play as much as you can, read and study Sklansky/Malmuth, Brunson, Caro, Lou Krieger, etc., books and, when the time comes that you can play on a regular basis then you'll have some good experience under your belt.
I am not much on the imfamous "EV" big bet, little bet per hour win rates. If I sit down with $200 and walk out with $300 then I am happy. My goal is to play the best I can each time I play. I think too many players get hung up on a certain win rate per hour. You can be in a very nice loose/passive game and still lose. You can be in a very tight game and book a nice win. It is all realitive to how well you play, your opponents play, cards, and what your expections are.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalary
I dont even bother coming in before 8pm anymore, so I usually play after 8 or 9 and really dont find the games to be anygood until thursday through saturday, then the games seem to get great! What is the difference in the style of play between 10/20 and 20/40--40/80?
Who is Brunson? I've heard of the rest of the authors.
Thanks!
In my opinion the 10-20 games at the Mirage have been especially good the past few weeks. Just last night there were 4 full tables when I got in at 10pm, and they were all pretty good. Thinking back on last night, I can remember quite a few regulars - maybe 10 out of the 40 seats. Another 5 or so I recognized as at least having played at the Mirage once or twice before. Remember, just because someone is a regular player doesn't mean they are a big winner, or even a winner at all. Lots of the regulars are break-even players, some win a little, some lose a little, and a few are earning from 10 - 25 per hour....but VERY few. Don't be afraid of regulars, just try to discover their weaknesses and exploit them. Most players at the 10-20 level have some weakness or another. (You, of course, aren't allowed to find and exploit mine!!! Just the other regulars!!!) The 10-20 games during the day tend to be a bit tighter and tougher, but not unbeatable in my opinion, but perhaps for less $ then the night games.
Doyle Brunson 1976 & '77 World Champion of poker, main event $10,000 buy-in no limit hold'em event, World Series of Poker, Binion's HorseShoe Hotel/Casino.
Doyle Brunson's SUPER/SYSTEM, A Course In Power Poker. Copyright 1978 by B&G Publishing Co., Inc, under original title: How I made over $1,000,000 playing poker.
One of the best, if not the best, NO LIMIT HOLD'EM players to ever play the game.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalary
Brunson won the main event two years in the 70's and wrote the first real poker book, Super System, covering many casino games at the time. It includes detailed section on the major casino games of the time Draw, Lowball, Raz, 7-stud Hi/Low (no qualifyer) and limit and no-limit Holdem; using expert "collaberators" written with the advise of expert "collaberators".
This book initiated the current whirlwind in Poker Acedamia as it woke up a whole generation of players who could see that quality decisions makes quality results. As far as I can tell all current poker authors owe "Dolly" a big thank you for generating the market to sell their (in fact better) books.
This book will remain the "greatest" poker book ever, even though it is not the "best" (much like the Babe will remain the greatest slugger ever...).
Current books, especially the excellent 2+2 books, have done a much better job at, shall I say politely, "clarifying" playing tactics and first stage strategies through sound scientific analysis and reasoning, but Super System still has a big edge in subjective attitude, temperment and professionalism, and somewhat of an advantage is overall strategy.
You must be willing to question the detailed how-to-play-a-hand tactics; which are much better explained by more recent objectively reasoning authors. You must also be willing to overlook the few lapses in logic.
However, it DEFINATELY a bargain at $60 (still?) at Gamblers Book Store in Las Vegas. Get it.
I thought that I would comment on this just to clarify a few facts.
Louie wrote:
Actually a few months before Brunson's book appeared HOLD 'EM POKER by David Sklansky was published by Gambler's Book Club. (It is now a Two Plus Two book.) This is the first real poker book and it is the first time terms such as semi-bluff, free cards, implied odds, etc. are used in the poker literature.
Louie wrote:
While there is no question that Brunson's book made a great contribution the book that caused the whirlwind in "Poker Acadamia" was probably SKLANSKY on POKER THEORY which first appeared in 1978 and was again originally published by Gambler's Book Club. Today we at Two Plus Two publish the modern and expanded version of this text under the title of THE THEORY OF POKER.
Now I know that these comments may seem a little negative to some but I do agree that when Brunson's book came out it was a great book and did a lot of poker. I also feel that most serious players should still read it. In GAMBLING FOR A LIVING some of our comments on the text are:
"Unfortunately, as the years have gone by some of the information it contains has become outdated. For instance, most of the high-low-split games are played today with a qualifier for low, and the excellent high-low-split section does not discuss this concept. The structure of limit hold 'em has changed, and this dramatically affects some of your strategy decisions. And jacks-or-better draw poker is hardly spread anymore. However, the section on seven-card stud is still excellent and the book contains much general overall poker wisdom.
I would like to relate a hand I played in a "tight" game at the Mirage. I had pocket aces and raised before the flop. Got a few callers, the guy to my immediate left had 8,5 of clubs. AN ACE FALLS ON THE FLOP, along with one club. No 8, no 5. I bet, guy with the 8,5 of clubs calls gets two running clubs and wins a two to three hundred dollar pot. Yeah real tight game. I thought I was in a three, six game. I know you say this guy will go broke playing like this, but it did not help at the time.
I get the feeling you should re-examine your motives for complaining about this hand and for posting it here. While empathy is good, sympathy rarely is.
The existence of one loose player does not negate the statement that it is a tight game. I'd say the fact that you got "a few" callers is more indicative of "looseness" than one clown playing trash with no flop. Maybe he called on the flop in order to convince you he had an Ace in case you didn't; then he could steal with impunity on the turn.
How did the other players play? Did they call raises with QTs? This is a better indication of "tightness".
- Louie
I do not think i had a motive other than communicating. I also do not think I was overtly complaining. I have only played in Vegas twice, and neither time did I find a game with mostly rocks. Your analysis is interesting in regard to testing the waters to see if there was an ace out leading to an attempted steal on the turn. I do not think this player was that sophisticated though.
Ixcuix,
I play quite frequently in the 10-20 HE games at the Mirage. My analysis of the tightness or looseness of the games is this. Over the last two years there has been a tendency towards overall looseness in the majority of the 10 -20's. I mean, people routinely calling raises with weak holdings. Also, lots of multi-way action in un-raised pots. I think the time of day also effects the looseness/tightness of the game. Earlier in the day they tend to be somewhat tight, with the occasional rock game. Around 11pm you can get your seatbelt fastened because the games really tend to loosen up. Around 3am they can get positively wild. The day of the week can also be a factor. From Wed. through the weekend, the games get looser. Sounds like that hand was very frustrating, but not uncommon in these loose games.
Good Luck
I think you need to change the day/times that you play in that game. I've been playing in that game pretty regularly on friday and saturday from about 10pm till 4am and have found the games extremely loose, sometimes even to the point of being wild.
In Hold'em for Advanced Players S&M write:
"...(You want to play as many hands as you can in a game like this to give you maximum bluffing opportunities.)"
I'd like to get some clarification of this concept and some examples, please.
Should you be cold-calling raises with more hands, or only limping in with more hands?
Would you call in early position more with marginal hands, (Grp5?) knowing that this will prevent a steal raise and might get you a 2 or 3-way pot which you can then steal on the flop?
Would you limp on the button with semi-trash if a single player has limped, hoping to set up a steal? (Ax ? Q5s? 97off?)
Would you play any two cards in the SB?
Any other examples of 'as many hands as you can' and the type of circumstances you would play them in an extremely tight game would be appreciated.
While games like this are rare in S.Cal, they do occur. Primarily, I think, when a must-move game is started with props and a bunch of better players who are licking their chops hoping to get into the main, fish-stocked, game.
Playing looser in extremely tight games is a tricky strategy that should not be attempted by beginners. The strategy can involve all of your ideas except cold calling raisers (whose starting hands are so strong tha they are likely to go to the river).
I wonder what the cost is to the average ethical pro who doesn't really have much of a clue as to how to detect any forms of cheating?
I'm not talking so much about angling here, but more about marked cards, switched cards, dealer collusion with a player (perhaps dealing him Aces more often than, shall we say, is probabilistically valid), and witting collusion between two or more of your opponents.
Clearly these things happen. It's just a question of how much. One would assume it was pretty rare, as otherwise one would think ethical pros couldn't win at the game.
Just picking a semi-random scenario: The 40-80 TH game at the Mirage, averaged over 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Do you think it might cost $0.10/hr, less, $.50/hr, $1/hr, $3/hr, more?
David and Ray, you are known to play in some very big games. Are you ever worried about cheating in them? Worried enough to leave the games?
I have been playing the $40-$80 hold 'em recently at the Mirage and over the years I have also played my share of big games. I don't believe that I have ever been cheated (even though I have seen lots of angles -- but that's another story).
There are three reasons for not being cheated. First, cardrooms have learned that it is important to keep their games clean. The quickest way for a cardroom to lose its business and close down is to develop a reputation for having dishonest games.
Second is the rise of limit games as opposed to no-limit and pot limit. The idea of taking all of someone's money in one move can't be done anymore. Now the cheat will have to apply his trade over and over again which of course will increase his risk.
Third, and most important, is that the players themselves police the games. A few weeks ago I and several friends had luch with Steve Forte. For those of you who don't know Steve is the world's foremost authority in this area. This idea of the players themselves policing the games was a point that he made and I strongly agree with it. I don't believe that an experienced player could play in a game where something was up and not notice it very quickly. At least this is the case with me.
Recently I have read several articles by a well known poker writer warning us about the rampant cheating, particularly partnerships, that happen in poker. Well this stuff may have been true 20+ years ago but in my opinion, and I believe this very strongly, it's not true today.
By the way, these comments apply to limit hold 'em, limit stud, and limit Omaha eight-or-better. If you are interested in playing in other games that are offered in cardrooms, and this includes what are reffered to as Asian games, what I am saying may not be true. How many players are experienced enough to be able to do a good job at "self policing" a game like pai-gow poker? I don't know if there are any, and because of this I would recommend that you stick to limit poker.
Comments are welcome.
Dear Friends
The only instance I have experienced of cheating in a card room happened like this. I sometimes wear sunglasses while playing, and this day I was wearing yellow tinted glasses at a seven card stud high low split game. I noticed with the glasses on smudges on some of the cards. These smudges were hard to see without the glasses on. The thing was the smudges were ALL on aces.. I notified the floor person, and the decks were changed. A little while later the smudges were back.
=== saw smudges with yellow glasses, notified floor who changed decks, smudges came back ===
You SURELY notified the floor again (discreetly) and tried to notice if they were made in your game? Who else was wearing these glasses? You brought this fact to the floor, didn't you? This kind of cheating should have been fairly easy for them to track down. Encourage it.
>Just picking a semi-random scenario: The 40-80 TH game at the Mirage, averaged
This seems to be the dirty little secret of professional poker. No one profits from exposing cheating methods. 'Card Player' magazine, in the roughly five year I've read it, has never mentioned cheating or its detection. This is easy to understand since their bills are paid by ads from many casinos, few of which would like to be included or referenced in any context of cheating. There are a few books at Gambler's Book Club that cover some of this topic but none were recent. Maybe cheating at cards is no longer done, eh?
A local (WA) casino barred at least 2 regular 20-40 hold-em for collusion. Somebody's EV was negativly effected. I've seen cheating at limits as low as .25 - $1. When I told the houseman I was surprised that someone would cheat in such a small game he replied "They have to learn somewhere."
It's too bad there is no money to be made exposing the cheats.
Best Luck,
Ed
Perhaps I'm a little paranoid. My biggest worry is collusion between players and I have my doubts about a few players in my locality. Friends soft playing each other happens just enough to be annoying. I am not an expert on cheating but I doubt if marked cards or switched cards is a big problem. I haven't seen evidence of dealer collusion although I've heard accusations. So far I've put all of those in the sour grapes category. Maybe I am simply naive but I don't think there is a big risk to your bank roll because of cheating in any card club that I have seen at this point in time. I am concerned that the situation could change as I hope it doesn't.
It is always good to be watchful and vigilent, and there may be certain combinations of players who you may want to be extra cautious against. (I am always leary against good players who live a very high and expensive life style. That is people who even though they make good money playing poker, still will have trouble making enough to satisfy their needs.)In addition, players who play in the same game but share the same bankroll may begin to play unintentionally in a way that will throw the game off. But the bottom line is that I do not believe cheating is a problem in limit hold'em, limit stud, or limit Omaha eight-or-better in any of the major cardrooms.
Part of the reason that I think this way is that my results in Las Vegas have been very consistent over the past (many) years. That is I have won consistently at the rates that I think I am suppose to win at. This has also been my result when I have played in California, Atlantic City, Mississippi, or Arizona.
One of the posts in this thread talked about a partnership at a very small limit. Ironically, if this sort of thing is going to exist I believe that it is more likely at a small limit. There are two reasons for this. First is that "tourists" are much less experienced at poker and won't be able to "self-police" the game very well. Second, is that the players in partnership are usually very inexperienced themselves, and are not yet aware as to how fruitless their partnership usually is.
Again, and I want to state this emphatically, the days of rampant cheating ended many, many years ago. I believe that you are very safe playing in a major cardroom as long as you stick to the limit games that I mentioned.
You have mentioned throughout this thread that there is very likely no cheating to be worried about in LIMIT games (emphasis mine). Does this imply that we should be more concerned if we play in PL or NL games? I understand your point that cheating is more effective in the latter games, in that you can "steal" someone's entire table stake in a single hand, instead of the slower 3-4 bets/hand available at limit. However, do you think that the prevalence of cheaters/colluders is greater at PL and NL? There is a regular PL game here in Oceanside, and I have seen no evidence of cheating, but should I be more concerned than otherwise?
Yes, I believe that pot-limit and no-limit are more dangerous than limit for the reason that you give. But the real danger is the fact that in general these games do not go on a regular basis. Usually these games appear in the side action at a tournament. Some of these tournament locations don't even have poker rooms or if they have one it is a small room with small games. That is the staff may not be as experienced as it should be when handling these games.
I would be very surprised if the pot limit game in Oceanside has any problems. This is a major poker room and the game goes on a regular basis. However, with this being said my advice is to concentrate on limit play. That is where poker's future is anyway.
I've heard over and over from many different sources that there is cheating in the pot limit game at Oceanside. Two of the regulars in that game were previously booted for cheating at another club, these many people have told me. I have no direct evidence, nor have I played the game, so it's all just hearsay from 60-120 to 300-600 players at Mirage, Bay 101, and Hollywood Park.
In LA there is heresay of cheating, and real cheating too. I've seen *blatant* unmistakable cheating in the Crystal Park 20-40 Hold'em and called it to the attention of the shift manager, who did absolutely nothing, not even check the tapes. I really should have called the police, though I was not the victim, and I quite frankly doubt the police would have come (LA ghetto cops have bigger problems.) Prior to that, I played in the 60-120 Hold'em there, and I felt very uneasy in the game, feeling something was wrong, and there were a lot of people hovering around the table to watch. No strong evidence there, but within a couple of weeks the game was shut down for cheating. A group of players who had been booted from the Commerce for collusion were playing in the game. The hearsay is that one casino host was involved in bringing in these criminals, setting up the 60-120 game for them and giving them lines of credit and whatnot since they were his "friends."
The hearsay is that the 20-40 and up games at Commerce are infested with colluders. I was very uncomfortable at the 40-80, being the only non-Asian, and with the other players talking in Asian languages during the hands despite repeated warnings from the floorman and myself. Some of the hands played like there was colluding going on, but I have no proof. Only once have I had absolute proof, and that was the aforementioned case where the (Crystal Park) casino management chose to look the other way.
I have a friend who plays 6-12 to 20-40 Hold'em in L.A. He can speak enough Vietnamese to know that some of his Vietnamese opponents sometimes communicate collusional information during a hand.
I'm playing more often in Vegas than L.A. now. I enjoy feeling at ease with the local regulars and the steady influx of tourists. I do not feel there is much cheating in the Mirage and Binion's cardrooms. I attribute this to there being more Americans, more non-regulars, and fewer places to play in Vegas. However, Donna, shift manager at the Mirage, claims that very few games are being taped at any one time, including the 40-80's; therefore, if you were blatantly cheated at Mirage such that video tape was all the evidence you needed, you might still be out of luck.
I'm encouraged by Mason's opinions. I believe many games are clean. Not all.
-Abdul
After reading this post by Abdul my first reaction was to have it deleted from this forum. I consider it irresponsible and unreliable. We have decided to keep it up because we want to have a completely open forum where all views and opinions can be heard and discussed in an open professional fashion.
The problem with the post is that it is based on heresay with virtually no specific facts. For instance the first paragraph is as follows:
>I've heard over and over from many different sources that there is cheating in the pot limit game at Oceanside. Two of the regulars in that game were previously booted for cheating at another club, these many people have told me. I have no direct evidence, nor have I played the game, so it's all just hearsay from 60-120 to 300-600 players at Mirage, Bay 101, and Hollywood Park.
Well my reaction to this is who told you, how did the cheating go down, isn't management at Oceanside aware of the problems and so on. (By the way, I know some of the management at Oceanside and do not believe that they would tolerate any cheating. Part of the reason for this is that they are well aware that the reputation of cheating can ruin business in all games.)
Also, on page 232 of my book POKER ESSAYS I wrote the following:
>Pot-limit (and no-limit for that matter) give off the illusion of cheating. The nature of the game is that every now and then a card will come on the river that will cost someone all his money. These cards will also come in a limit game, but the penalty to the loser will only be an extra bet or two. I believe that if given enough time cheating acusations will begin to surface even if the game is squeaky clean, and the regular pot limit players will begin to get cheating reputations even when they are totally undeserved. <
I feel the same about some of the other claims. If Abdul has seen "blantant" cheating at Chrystal Park he would do us all a favor by describing it in detail and giving specific facts. These are serious charges, a lot of people take this forum very seriously, and statements like this can have the affect of eroding the cardroom business unfairly.
Abdul states:
>The hearsay is that the 20-40 and up games at Commerce are infested with colluders. I was very uncomfortable at the 40-80, being the only non-Asian, and with the other players talking in Asian languages during the hands despite repeated warnings from the floorman and myself.
My response is that I have also played in these games and have had very good results. I never thought that I was being cheated. I do agree that English should be the only language spoken at the poker table, and if other players continue to talk in a foreign language they should be banned from play.
I do believe that us honest poker players should be forever vigilant when at the table. I would much rather be safe than sorry, but again I consider the post by Abdul to be irresponsible.
Mason Malmuth writes:
>After reading this post by Abdul my first reaction was to have it deleted from this
The poker establishment has every reason to keep all reference to cheating as quite as possible. Most parties as best served if the incidents are kept quite, after all only the players are the losers, right? This works well if cheating stays at a reasonable and low key level. The overall faith in the game is not damaged and the specific casinos are not shunned by regular players. The net result is that the honest player is afforded very little protection. The information that a player needs to protect himself is not available. Cynical attitude? You bet. There exists no real motivation for the institutions in place to do otherwise.
Will this post survive the purge? I doubt it.
Best Luck,
Ed
Please note that the quote on pot limit games is from my book POKER ESSAYS, VOLUME II, not POKER ESSAYS.
Mason stated that cheating was not a problem in the Hold'em games at the major c asinos. Yet, I asserted cheating exists in the Hold'em games in the major casin os. I did not say cheating is so common that it will turn you into a losing pl ayer. I'm simply asserted that cheating exists. Mason argues that he wins at a bout the rate he should, but this is circular logic; he only knows the rate he " should" win at by the averages of his and other pros wins per hour, which are al l reduced to some extent by cheating. (And if he wants to make regional comparis ons does he have 10's of thousands of hours of Hold'em play recently in Mississi ppi and California?) All he can say is that there is not enough cheating to make him a negative expected value player.
Here is the incident I saw at Crystal Park, which I described in person to Mason about a month ago:
20-40 Hold'em, Colluder#1 bets the flop, Ultratight Mark raises, Colluder#2 reraises, Colluder#1 caps, Mark calls, Colluder#2 calls. (Nothing wrong so far.) On the turn, Colluder#1 bets, Mark ca lls, Colluder#2 goes to raise, Colluder#1 waves his hand like "stay" in blackja ck, Colluder #2 just calls. River brings in the flush draw. Colluder #1 bets, Mark calls, Colluder #2 thinks, Colluder #1 blatantly flashes his cards to Collu der #2, Colluder #2 folds top set, Colluder #1 shows nut flush. Several players gasped sentiments such as "What the hell?!" I leaned over to the guy next to m e and quietly asked if he too saw the hand signal on the turn. He said it was o bvious.
I immediately got up from the table and went to the shift manager, at the cost o f missing some hands. I told him exactly what happened. He said Colluder #1 wa s a dealer at Commerce, and he knew both him and Colluder #2 and didn't think th ere was a problem. I strongly recommended he check the tapes, arguing that chea ting was never more blatant than this. He did not. I could actually name Collu der #2, but I will not, since I'm being responsible; Colluder #1 seemed to be th e instigator, and I would name him if I could, but I don't know his name.
Now, it's obvious that they were not splitting the money in the parking lot, as then there would be no need to save his friend a bet on the river, plus they wou ld have agreed upon subtle hand signals beforehand. Furthermore, it seems likely that the mark was saved money in this case. Perhaps we should distinguish this type of collusion as not being true cheating. Even so, if the shift manager wil l not do anything when two of the players are obviously communicating to modify their play with a third player in the hand, how can we expect him to protect us when the cheating is more serious and yet is intelligently disguised so that eve n we are unsure?
The casino has a conflict of interest. If the casino looks the other way when s ome cheating occurs, most customers will not realize that any cheating occurs, w hereas if the casino boots customers, many customers will hear about it. Furthe rmore, the casino gets income from cheaters, just like it gets income from nonch eating professionals. Granted, there is a counterbalance that Mason noted, in t hat the casino does not want its customers to think that there is cheating going on, and they will think that if there is too much obvious cheating in the casin o.
The floormen have an even worse conflict of interest. Tokes to floormen are a b ig incentive to look the other way. How much do you think the floorman in the t op section of an LA cardroom makes per year from tokes?
Card Player magazine is horrible about succumbing to its conflict of interest. When Sycuan Casino was exposed as using marked cards in blackjack in order to ch eat the player-bankers, the next month Sycuan Casino appeared on the cover of Ca rd Player as scheduled, with not one peep of this rather serious incident, not then, not ever.
Gambling authors have a potential conflict of interest too. Eddie Olsen was outraged at my assertion that some cheating exis ts in hand held blackjack, and canceled my column (including all future columns) as result. Did he do this because he really believed there was absolutely no cheating by dealers in blackjack? Or because it would be financially costly to him to find fault in the casino industry and give his TARGET players something to worry about? I am, by the way, somewhat embarassed that I wrote for Blackjack Confidential, as Eddie spouts much unscientific nonsense, which I knew at the time but was eager to have my own column.
Are there no poker players in the Griffin book for cheating? Has no one witnessed any incidents of serious cheating?
I clearly noted, repeatedly, that the other reports of cheating were hearsay. I think it would be irresponsible to not indicate where there *may* be potential dangers. I also think it would be irresponsible for me to, as Mason requested, post the names of the high stakes players who fingered the pair of colluders who are barred elsewhere and subsequently were regulars at Oceanside. I will however ask for a statement about it that I can post. I think you will be more convinced if you ask your high stakes friends and hear the same thing, though.
I think I've stated my full view on the subject, so I don't plan to post more except for what I can find out about the integrity of the pot limit game at Oceanside.
-Abdul
Abdul writes:
Abdul writes:
Let me give a little history. In 1981 the LA times published a series of articles about cheating and other problems in the Gardena and Bell cardrooms. The center piece of the articles was a quote from the manager of the Bell Club (who died several years ago) which was "We know who the cheaters are, but we need them to keep the games going." Needless to say he lost his job after the article appeared.
Three years later the Bicycle Club opened. One of the things that they did was they made an effort (and were fairly successful) to clean up the games. They stopped the practice of paying for new decks known as "decking," they insisted that the props quit soft playing each other, and they installed top quality cameras, etc. to monitor the game. I believe that this was a major reason in the tremendous success of the Bike during its first few years.
Abdul writes:
Abdul writes:
On the other hand, CARD PLAYER does exactly what it is suppose to do. It is mainly supported by advertisements and its purpose is not to be a hard hitting crusading newspaper. It does a reasonably good job of keeping you informed of the events that take place throughout the country that concern poker. But I have noticed lately that it is taking some editorial stands.
There are other incidents that have occured in cardrooms that never received the publicity they should have. You probably don't know it but in 1986 the City Council of Commerce actually had a vote on whether to close the Commerce Club after the "Johson's Joust" incident. (This was a match play tournament that had a lot of entries but never made it to its conclusion.) Again I want to state that I consider the Commerce Club a great place to play. This problem which I mention, and it was a very serious problem, happened a long time ago and the management was very different.
Finally, when I began to play poker the Normandie Club in Gardena had a reputation for very clean games. (They also didn't have the big games that some of the other clubs had.) As the years went by and the other Gardena Clubs closed I couldn't help but think that the reputation for having clean games was a major aid in allowing the Normandie to survive and grow.
Abdul writes:
I also agree that you should be "much" embarrassed for writing for BLACKJACK CONFIDENTIAL. But that's another story.
Abdul writes:
The problem with your original post is that you were essentially convicting people and businesses based on heresay. Heresay is not acceptable in a court of law and there are good reasons for it. Therefore you should never even state heresay, even if you say it is heresay.
Finally, I hope that this ends this discussion. I am in the position to occasionally do some good in this area as long as accurate and reliable information is communicated to me discretely. In the future I hope that this is the case.
Although cheating may be easier at pot limit or no-limit, given the option for setting up one or two big hands to get the money, there surely are teams operating in limit.
A year or so ago I played some 10-20 and 15-30 holdem at Foxwoods, and saw one definite team and one probable in action. Easy enough to stay out of their way, when you recognize the signs, but it still is evidence that you aren't necessarily safe in big card rooms.
There have in the last year been several allegations about teams in AC - I only saw one probable instance (a husband and wife) but I've heard tales there are others at the middle limits. Maybe this only happens on the east coast, but it seems doubtful to me.
greetings.
fairly new to poker... basicly, i'm a blackjack player learning poker as a 'second language'.
here's my question:
i recently found a 4-8 holdem game that offers 'overs' buttons. i have no idea if this is common, but in case it isn't, i will explain...
the game is a normal 4-8 holdem game except that anyone may ask for something called an 'overs button'. it is a little puck that you keep in front of your chips to let others know that you are willing to play 10-20 holdem. if at any time a street begins with no one in the pot EXCEPT 'overs' players, then the game continues on at that point as a 10-20 game. so it might be 4-8 all the way to the river, and then some people drop out, and you find yourself up against a $20.00 bet.
is it a good idea to accept an 'overs button'? if so, what strategy changes should i keep in mind?
my gut reaction is that it is a bad idea to accept an 'overs button'. seems like it could screw up your pot odds real bad on the end. on the other hand, if the games goes 10-20 before the river, it gives you an opportunity to really protect your hand. also, it adds another variable to the game... it seems to me that 'other variables' can almost always be exploited by people who understand them.
thanks in advance for any help on this.
be seeing you.
In 'Poker Essays II' by Mason there is an essay on page 113 called 'Playing the Overs'.
Basically he suggests taking an overs button if and only if most of the players at the table do so.
More info in the essay.
There is a $15-$30 game at the Village Club in Chula Vista, CA that has overs buttons, or at least did 5 months ago.
=== Take an Overs button and play higher limits when only those with buttons are in ===
This form of "overs" is fairly common in small isolated card rooms who can't regularly spread the higher limit games. Its good for the casino and good for these players since they can at least occationally get their higher limit fix.
Strategically you must be confident you can beat the other over players before you take a button. On the bad side these tend to be the better players; on the good side they seem to be craving action. If you DO decide, then you should try to get position on THEM.
Overs players play BADly at the lower limit; they are far too loose and aggressive.
Playing in an overs game is GOOD even if you do not take an overs button.
If you do take a button then you should play your best lower limit game, and deviate only in rare cases; such as raising with the nuts to drive another out so the next round is the larger limit. Also, drawing hands potentially go up in value since you can tend to draw at the lower limit, yet bet the higher limit once you make the hand.
When I first started playing I was watching a 4-4-8 game in Laughlin with a couple empty seats. Suddenly there was a $30 bet and asked the floor about it. He explained the overs buttons and the fact this was a pot-limit overs game. Even back then I couldn't believe that with 4 such players in a row that the seat right behind them was empty. The 5th over player should have taken position on these players, getting button position HALF the hands when playing pot limit. Anyway, I took position on them without a button, correctly surmising that these players would play recless 4-4-8 in the hopes of dropping the novices out so they could play pot limit. There's nothing like playing only premium hands defensively against a few players who regularly try to aggressively raise you out of the pot!
In response to my posting in the thread "Question of Poker Ethics", Mason pointed out some excellent reasons why Jessica only deserved half of the pot (see that thread for details). I agree with Mason because a) the situation won't arise very often; and b) the players who are primarily protected by the rule are beginners, and you don't want to piss them off and chase them from the game.
My gut reaction remains, give the pot to Jessica, because the other player wouldn't table his cards (at least, not until his neighbor pointed out the straight on board). This brings up a pet peeve of mine, players who won't table their cards, yet also have to hold onto them for a LONG time before throwing them into the muck. Someone else once pointed out that in a particular game in Canada, the house rule required that EVERY player who called the last bet must show his cards. Thus, the only cards ever put in the muck unseen were those that absolutely could not win any part of the pot. I like this rule. No more slowrolling, and no more moaning about your hand before mucking it. As described by this player, as soon as the last bet is called, everyone would immediately turn their hand over, as there was no reason to delay (it would be seen no matter what).
What does everyone else think of this rule?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I think every player should be responsible for their own cards throughout a hand. A poker hand is played from the receipt of two cards, by the player, to the return of the cards to the dealer - either by mucking them, or lying them face up on the table. (Players should be discouraged from slowing up games by slow-rolling etc.), but they should be able to assess the value of their hands. If they have any trouble doing that, they can lie them face up for the dealer to read.
In my situation, what bothered me was the other player getting involved in the play of the hand - one player to a hand is the usual rule. I have no objection to the dealer announcing that I have a straight when I turn my hand over. I do object to other players telling my opponent that he has a straight also. I've made that mistake and thrown away half a pot. I've also gotten angry...at myself...for making such a foolish mistake.
By the way, I once saw a similar situation happen in favor of a local. When a ruling was called for, (and in this case the entire pot was awarded to the local) the tourist accused the floorperson of favoring locals.
I believe all players should be protected from any angling. But experienced or not, they should play their own hand without help from other players.
I think that the rule about showing your cards if you're in the hand at the showdown exists at Atlantic City also. Time and again, players muck their hands instead of showing their cards. I would like to see the rule (or custom) better enforced. Since I am a relatively new player (approximately 1 year) I am very aware of the need to observe the quality of starting hands by the other players at the table. Not seeing all hands at the showdown makes this very difficult. There are occasions when another player will request to see another player's hand before all the cards are mucked. I guess this is an alternative for me, but I would rather not cause a controversy at the table.
It is the rule everywhere I have ever played that one player may request that any hand that is live at the showdown be shown. I agree with this rule (let's call it the request rule).
However, if you start asking that every hand be shown, all you will achieve is to piss off everyone at the table, and ruin any gambling mood that they were in. While this will achieve the same goal as the rule I started this thread about (let's call it the requirement rule), it will achieve it while ruining your game. That is why I don't believe that the request rule is a substitute for the requirement rule. However, the request rule is very useful, and certainly better than having neither rule in effect.
Anyway, who likes (or dislikes) the requirement rule, and why?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I wouldn't like a requirement rule, because it gives bad players more information than I'd like them to have.
For instance, in a session a couple of weeks ago I was at a table full of players that were loose-passive. I was playing very aggressively, and stealing a lot of pots on the flop. A couple of times it went down to the river, and I mucked when shown a hand without having to show mine. If they had seen what I was betting, I would have gotten played back at more.
One of the players commented "Jeez, you're hitting every flop", which I didn't mind them thinking. At a table with a couple of better players I wouldn't have played like this, but the situation was right.
Well Kevin, I'm going to have to check you out a little more often! Seriously, I never ask to see a hand exposed. I believe it causes some players to take offense, which is almost never good for the game. I will sometimes ask another player what he had, but I never push it, and I won't ask again if he/she is bothered by it. I will always show my hand at the showdown if I am asked, and never make a big deal about it. I would rather NOT show it, but it is never a good idea to let some other players know that you have hot buttons that can be pushed.
It wasn't a game you were at, obviously, because I said there were no good players at the table :)
In most cases I don't mind showing when asked, but if I don't need to I'd just as soon keep people guessing.
I believe the request rule is necessary and I support it but I don't like it if that makes any sense. I see some advantages to the requirement rule that you mentioned but given the choice between the request rule and the requirement rule I would rather not show my hand if I don't have to so I would choose the request rule. I could live with the requirement rule, however, so I am not totally opposed to it. A convincing arguement could persuade me that the requirement rule is better.
First off, I am not a poker player, so I apologize if this is not the proper place for this question.
There is a game being played at the Hollywood Park Casino (Inglewood, Calif) called Triple Play.
Table has eight (8) seats, with three (3) betting spots each. Players are dealt three (3) cards, one (1) of which must be returned. Dealer then burns a card, and deals five (5) community cards. The best five card poker hand (between your "pocket" cards and the community cards) is the winner. Bets are $5 or $10 per spot depending on the table. So, a winning hand can win $70 on a $10 bet (ie assuming a full table).
Game is played with a single deck with a Joker added. The joker counts as a Ace or can be used as a wildcard to complete a straight or flush only.
If your initial cards are bad, you can surrender your hand for 20% of your bet (ie $2 on a $10 bet). If your initial hand is great, you can double your bet, hoping that another player will call your bet. These double down bets are resolved among themselves, so while you could win the double bets, you could lose the regular bet to someone else.
My understanding is that there is some resembalance to Texas Hold'Em. Hence, I went and read a couple of Texas Hold'em books.
I was wondering if anyone is familiar with this game and could offer some advice on how to play it?
From what I have read (ie Texas Hold'em), it would seem you would want to keep a hand as if you had a Hold'em Early or Middle position. Any other hand you would throw away. If you have a strong pocket hand (ie AA, AJoker, possibly AK, AKs) double up. With slightly weaker pocket hands (ie KK, QQ, etc), call on the double only.
Does anyone have any advice or thoughts on this? Or could you point me in the right direction to obtain further information?
Thanks, Barry
PS... My curiosity about Texas Hold'Em has been tweaked cause of the books I have read. I do plan to find a $2-$4 table (or less) and give it a whirl. :)
I wanted to respond to a post from Abdul regarding play before the flop, in early position, in higher limit games. Before I get started, I think this was an excellent post. The "Raise-or-Fold" strategy is characterized by the following:
1 - If you are going to play in early position raise.
2 - Raise with some hands that are speculative (group 4,5 or maybe worse) type hands to mix up your play.
There can be several advantages to this strategy if the game is tight in that you may get players to:
1 - Fold better hands than yours pre-flop
2 - You may win the blinds without a contest.
3 - You may hit some flops with speculative hands that would be hard for your opponents to read.
4 - Hopefully you’ll keep your opponents on the defensive.
It would seem to me that a player would was willing to re-raise correctly could counter this strategy very effectively by being able to steal due to his better position on later rounds. Therefore it seems to me that sometimes calling in early position with the correct balance of speculative hands and premium hands would be correct because:
1 - You would be even harder to read.
2 - Opponents would sometimes get involved with hands that were a lot worse than yours.
3 - If you play very well on the later streets, you would be getting involved with more hands, thus giving you more of a chance to outplay your opponents ( e.g. stealing more pots ).
4 - Hopefully you’ll keep your opponents on the defensive.
Also I am still unclear about something. In hold'em for advanced players it mentions raising 1/3 of the time with a hand like T,9s. Is this 1/3 of your raises or 1/3 of the time you have a hand like T,9s ? Any thoughts ?
We mean one third of the time you have that hand.
I advocated raising or folding in early position in tough games, including (occasionally) raising with 87s (usually folding it.)
Tom Haley notes, "It would seem to me that a player would was willing to re-raise correctly could counter this strategy very effectively by being able to steal due to his better position on later rounds."
When I raise under the gun with 87s, I don't panic if I get 3 bet behind. While I concede that the positional advantage of my opponent is great, I fight this by not always playing 87s and by not immediately conceding the pot when my I do come in for a raise and my opponent 3 bets me.
When my opponent 3 bets me, I've got some compensating factors. My opponent has much less idea of where I am than I have of where he is. My opponent generally has a big pocket pair or ace-king (occasionally a small pocket pair like 44 or a weaker ace like ace-jack.) I could in reality have a wide range of hands, but most opponents will think it's quite likely I have a big ace, with a much smaller chance of a medium to big pocket pair; he may or may not realize that there is a small chance I hold a hand such as 87s.
Now, when the flop comes with an ace, I'm going to take a swing at the pot, either by betting out or by check-raising. If my 3 betting preflop opponent convinces me he has AK or is otherwise not going to lay down his hand, then I concede the pot at that point (assuming it's not worth playing for its own value.) Knowing which opponents will muck that KK with an ace on board and which will hang on until the bitter end is important. If I flop a good draw, I may bet out and reraise if raised, if my opponent is the sort that needs that sort of convincing to lay down his pocket pair.
The other good flop for me is two pair or trips or a straight or a full house. In that case, I may extract a lot of bets from my opponent, since he is likely misreading my hand. Flopping a flush or flush draw is not so great as it might seem, since my opponent can easily put me on two suited cards of some sort, and he may still beat me.
I said above that when my opponent 3 bets me, I have a good idea of where he is (usually big pocket pair or AK). However, some opponents will 3 bet with hands like 87s. In fact, that happened to me in a recent 20-40 session. I already didn't much like the game, and when an opponent pulled that stunt, I decided to look for an easier game. Only *I* am allowed to 3 bet with 87s in *my* games! 3 betting with such hands could be the subject of another post.
Tom Haley concluded that limping/raising the correct percentages of the time with speculative/premium hands a la S&M is best. That may be. There is logic in both approaches. Parting thought: in very tight games, if you limp, you will often either be attacked by an aggressive player with an ace and position or else you will wind up heads up with the big blind; in the latter case, you'll wish you had raised, whether you have a speculative or made hand; in the former case, you will often wish you had raised too.
-Abdul
Abdul,
I actually wasn't making any conclusions just looking for more input which I got and I appreciate.
Thanks,
Tom
I know I thanked Abdul for his post but I wanted to reiterate that I found it to be very good stuff. The occasional opponent who will make it three bets sometimes with a hand like 8,7s is what I was referring to when I was talking about countering the "raise or fold" strategy. I am not concluding even that this is the right way to counter it but I think it is food for thought at any rate. I also realize the in "Hold'em for Advanced Players" occasional re-raises like this are recommended.
I need to clarify a few things. Before I start, I want to say that this is in no way criticism of any book or any player. I am just trying to continue a discussion as I have read almost all of the 2+2 books and I have done very well money wise at the poker table with the concepts and strategies presented in them. In the book "Hold’em for Advanced Players" there is a recommendation that in a tough game you should restrict your play to Groups 1-3 hands in early position when only the blinds are involved. I realize that in Hold’em you can’t use a "cook book" approach to selecting hands to play as I am just using this as an example to hopefully explore some concepts. If I remember correctly from the book, it recommends that you should raise in an early position, when only the blinds are involved, with Group 1-2 hands along with A,Q but only raise 2/3 of the time with AKs, AQs, and K,Qs for deceptive purposes (I don't know if I got this exactly right). I am assuming a full game by the way. Therefore I am assuming that you call with Group 3 hands except A,Q in an early position when only the blinds are involved. Therefore if you follow this approach your tough opponents will eventually be able to conclude that when you call in early position with only the blinds active you don’t have a big pair and you don’t have A,K or A,Q very often. Thus the "raise or fold" strategy looks more attractive. You are playing Groups 1-3 and some occasional other speculative hands in early position when only the blinds are active but your opponents won’t have a lot of information about your hand because you always bring them in for a raise. This gave rise to my post as to possible alternatives to the raise or fold strategy. I also realize that a lot of these concepts could be debated endlessly but I was just looking for input as I stated earlier.
In Hold 'em For Advanced Players, you a stated that you could "write a book on short handed play". Do you ever intend to do so?
I find short handed play difficult as I am unsure of what to play in specific positions pre-flop. Could you offer some specific guidlines on starting hands as you have for full ring play? I' m sure many players would find this useful.
[As an aside to Nevadalary- Sorry I didn't have an opinion with regard to 9 vs 10 player tables, ie, your post "Number of players in a Hold'em game".] But your reference there to a more likely real number of 6-7 players sparked this long standing peeve I have toward card room practices:
"If I ran this card room," no seat would accumulate more than 1 absent button any time there was a waiting list.
It would work like this: When a dealer comes in to the box, they call the floor if there's a seat with an absent button (an indication that seat had been vacant throughout the previous dealer's turn.) If there's a wait list, the floor picks up the chips and calls the next player in. When the wanderer returns, they can put their name at the top of the wait list (and can pass seats until one opens at their previous table, if they wish.)
There would seem to be obvious benefits to the remaining players and to those waiting. The only player drawback I can think of is that the returning player may not be able to sit down immediately. But they would go to the top of a list that should be moving a little faster. And if you've been gone an hour or so, what's another 10 minutes?
I must be missing something, but I can't imagine why this isn't already done.
One reason for the house to tolerate long time wanderers is to allow them time to take a meal. A policy like this is acceptable in my opinion (except in CA where you can eat at the table). But generally I agree that 1/2 hour is more than long enough to cash a player out. The house should make this clear, and clearly mark the seat of a player who has gotton "permission" to take his once-a-night hour dinner break.
But I get very annoyed when the fish comes back after 50 minutes complaining of the beat he took at the craps table. Play poker or craps, not both at the same time.
I read many postings to this terrific poker forum that deal with rankings. Many times the use of a simulation to test hands is used. While I agree completely that a thorough knowledge of odds,rankings,EV and pot rewards is essential to playing good poker, I never see any mention of how crucial reading your opponents can be. Do most pros believe it is more important to understand the mathematical side of the game than the people side? I'm very interested in hearing how the use of player reading is employed in winning poker.
Kandy:
I'm not sure where you have been but I have been stressing on this forum that the real seperator between the marginal winners and the great players is the ability to read hands and to project into the future how hands will be played depending on what cards fall. It's great to know odds, hand rankings, etc., and when you are first starting out these ideas are most important. That is they are the "foundation" that you build your game on. But to become an expert poker player you need to have a complete game. Put another way, you need to have the ability to play your hands well "all the way through." This is where reading hands becomes crucial. Best of luck.
I totally agree with Mason and would like to add that "reading people" is a very important key to winning poker. The "nuts and bolts" of the game are very important to know, but knowing "your opponents" and how they play can open up or narrow the spectrum of starting hands that you can play against them.
And from experience I can tell you, learning to "read" your opponents is an on going learning experience and is not something that is easy to learn. Although some players seem to have an easier go at learning to read hands and players, others really have to work at it everyday and everyhand. And experience is the best teacher.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalary
New game, first hand, 20/40 TH - I raise with pocket Aces, all fold except SB and BB. The flop is 9s 9c Jc. The SB bets, BB raises, what is my correct play now and why?
Since this is new game, first hand dealt, most likely you don't have any information on how your two opponents play. Like do they defend their blinds to the death, regardless who raised or from what position? So,
IMHO, I would reraise the raiser.
1) To drive out the LB and get heads up.
2) I would want to try and see the expensive streets,
turn and river cards very cheaply. Could catch the 23
to 1 ace and make the nut full house. Of course could
still be drawing dead to four nines. But I think it
would be worth the risk.
If the BB does have a nine then they will probably just call your raise, wanting to check raise you on the turn. Not in all cases. This is where "knowing your opponent" really helps. If they like to trap alot then this is probably their thinking.
Also, they may have put you on "big cards" AK, AQ and have just a "Jack" and are "looking you up" to see if you have a good kicker.
Another point is, many articles have been written that if the flop comes with a relatively small pair, then betting, especially from the blind position, to represent trips is good strategy. This is a good case and point. You don't know if the raiser has a nine or is just representing a nine. Or, they may have J9 or the worst scenairo a pair of nines.
If he/she bets on the turn then I would call and pay off on the end. If I knew the player and knew that they would not be making these plays without at least trips, then I would dump the hand when they came out betting on the turn. But not knowing the player and holding Aces, I would pay them off or be letting them bluff their money away to me.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalary
You should just call against typical players and let them bluff themselves silly to the river.
Because you have the best hand, not the worst hand.
I hope you realize that lots of players get more of a charge out of slow playing than winning.
So the sb doesn't figure to have a 9.
The bb would just call if he had a 9.
=== post late blind, everyone folds, raise with AA, both blinds call. Flop 99J 2-flush and its bet-raise to you ===
Your late position raise and the fact that you just sat down and may be making an advertising steal means they are fools to suspect you have a big pair. The BB SHOULD raise with a Jack.
Without profile or tell information you should suspect your Aces are good; since the vast majority of BBs will just call with the real trips. The SB is more likely to have trips since she is in good betting position vis-a-vis the original raiser (you) and caller (BB).
ReRaising to drive out the SB should be done if this player will lay down the straight or flush draw. All other hands you want this player to go to the river; she's not getting the right odds. If the flop were 55J with no two flush, you have no tactical reason to drive out the SB; so you would routinely call.
ReRaising may get get the real draw to fold and give you a "free" (actually "cheap") card on the turn; but you are also encouraging them to take a "free" card from you and announces the strength of your hand.
Just calling encourages them to continue to bluff or bet their 2 card out hands, it increases the chances of them paying you off on the end, and decreases your loss if you are beat.
Hopefully the BOTH have a Jack, so they are drawing to one card between the two of them.
This situation seems to be a clear call to me.
I have been playing hold-em for about a year with good success until recently. In the last month I have been subjected to the worst string of cards immanginable. I am beginning to think that I have created a magnet for J2o. I am not usually one to go on tilt but my recent play has become questionable. I am becoming too timid with good hands and I am calling with such trash as K6o and 42s. I would appreciate any advice from players who have experinced a similar situation.
I have just discovered this message board and I find the conversation to be of a very high caliber.
Dan, things run in cycles, I've actually had consecutive years of good luck and then consecutive years years of bad luck. Bad cards will not cost you as much as good cards that make second best hand!
Examples: Last week I had pocket Kings, opponent #2 had pocket aces, opponent #3 beats both of us with 96o by making a straight on the last river.
Next hand I had KQ on the button and raised and called by the BB. (Flop comes QQK) full house! I was actually feeling sorry for the other guy because he had been losing very bad also. The Turn was an Ace. (He had AQ) and now had queens full with aces and busted me.
I went to another game and my second hand was pocket Aces. The flop was As 7d 4h 2h Jh) Everyone had folded but one lady and she called me down all the way with Jd Kh. She hit two running hearts to make a flush. So I just quit for the day because I knew it was just one of those days I would not win regardless of my cards.
Best advice is just don't go on tilt and use good money management and game selection. If your money doesn't run out...the cards will change! Good luck!
Bob Morgan wrote:
>I just quit for the day because I knew it was just one of those days I would not win regardless of my cards.
Best advice is just don't go on tilt and use good money management and game selection. If your money doesn't run out...the cards will change!
The idea that it is one of those days where you can't win regardless of your cards is silly, and the idea of using "money management" to help you make these decisions is probably even worse. (See my book GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS for a discussion of money management.)
As long as you stay in a good game and play well there is no reason to quit. I suspect from your description that you probably are a pretty good player. Just remember that sometimes when playing poker you can lose money very rapidly, and it may now take several session of doing as you expect to do to get it back.
With all due respect to Mason Malmuth (I do have all your books and have read them many times - and they are great) But I still don't agree this time!
I have kept good records of wins and loses for years. For me...If I don't win with my first buy in of $500 in a 15/30 or 20/40 game, I will lose that day 90% of the time. If I start off winning, I will quit ahead about 90% of the time.
I'm not saying this applies to everyone but it has for me. Another thing that I don't think you consider is the fact that most players are not professionals as you are...thus when they start off bad and get beat several times, they go on tilt or lose confidence in their play. They just do not play as well then as they would when they first sit down.
Bob wrote:
Bob, I think you misunderstand. You are suppose to lose the vast majority of the time in this situation. Let's suppose you are good enough to win at an overall average of $20 per hour in this game. (A pretty good rate for most players.) Now you get unlucky and drop $500 real fast. You expect to have to play 25 hours to be even. Thus you expect to lose for the session most of the time. However, by staying and playing well, you still expect to show a profit from that low point.
Bob wrote:
>Another thing that I don't think you consider is the fact that most players are not professionals as you are...thus when they start off bad and get beat several times, they go on tilt or lose confidence in their play. They just do not play as well then as they would when they first sit down.
I agree with this. Notice that I have said assuming that you still play well. If a few beats causes you to now play poorly, and this is certainly the case with many people, you should take some sort of break.
Thanks for the nice comments about our books and best of luck in the future.
I recently sat down at a 10-20-40 hold-em table and was dealt 8c 6c under the gun. As this was my first hand I decided to limp in. There were 4 callers behind me(two in the early positions and 1 middle and 1 late positions). The button raised and everyone proceeded to call the raise. The flop came Ac Qc Jc. I betted, was raised by one person immediately behind me and reraised by the button. I proceeded to cap the betting for the round. On the turn, a 2h came. Once again I betted, was raised, and reraised by the same two people. This time I just called the double raise. The river was a 6d. I checked and so did everyone else. The early position person showed me Kc 10d and the button showed me Qd Qh. I won a fairly large pot but missed the river bets. Should I have continued to bet at the river after being raised and reraised for two consecutive rounds? Even though it was too early in the game to characterize these players, I felt that I was right by not betting at the river (the river bet would have been $40). I would appreciate any comments.
Thanks
Spiderman
First, I'm curious where a $10-$20-$40 hold 'em game is spread. Is this a private game or a public cardroom?
I think you put in too much action early in the hand. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, you don't have to have the best hand. A bigger flush could be out against you. Second, even if you do have the best hand, if a club comes on fourth street or the board pairs you may be very sorry you put so much money in the pot.
As for the river, given all the action, there is a good chance that you don't have the best hand. I would have checked it as well. Again it seems like you lost money by not betting on the river, but some of the time you will be betting into a better hand so at most you are only losing a mathematical fraction of a bet.
Be happy that your opponents gave so much action and that you won a nice pot.
It's a public cardroom at the Riverboat Casino in Lake Charles, Louisiana. The format is 10-10-20-20 or 40 at the river. Thanks for the input.
Spiderman
My simple answer is this:
Never play small suited connectors under the gun.
It is a losing play and only losers play this way.
Just because you just sat down in a game dosent mean you should deviate from basic strategy.
steve
TH 20/40 aggressive game... My hand...UTG AhQh - I raise, # 4 makes it 3 bets, # 9 makes it 4 bets. UTG calls, # 4 calls.
The flop 9s 6d 3h - UTG checks, # 4 checks, # 9 bets....now what? The pot has $290 or 14.50 bets.
My first thought is I am beat now for sure, so I should fold.
My second thought is even if I catch an Ace, he may have AA or AK.
My third thought was for 1 bet I may catch a heart (10) left unseen. And if I catch a heart, I then have a 1 in 4 chance to make a nut flush.
Should I call this bet or fold on the flop?
I would fold. Even if the 4 bettor was holding JJ and you have two over cards, with the imfamous back door flush potential. IMHO, it is chasing at its worst. And I have been there and done that, then spent the rest of the session trying to get even.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalary
What is IMHO?
IMHO is "In my honest opinion"
[This space intentionally left blank]
Honest or Humble, it is an opinion.
I have went back and did some calculations that go like this, it is 4% that you will catch two running diamonds, and it is 24% that you will catch an Ace or Queen w/two cards to come, to make a pair. Therefore there is a combined chance of 28% of this hand possibly winning. Or, about 2.6 to 1 against. Now there is $290 in the pot and ASSUMING there is a $40 bet on the turn and figuring in "implied" odds, I figure the pot is laying about 8:1 on your money, or better with impied odds added in. Therefore, calling should be the correct strategy???
IMHO, I still think that this is the way to get stuck and I call it chasing even if the odds appear to be in our favor. But, I am alway open for new thoughts, ideas, opinions and points of view (any redundancy there?).
May the flop be with you
Nevadalary
IMHO stands for "In My Honest Opinion."
May the flop be with you
Nevadalary
I believe that what you have here is a high variance play that is close to break even in terms of expectancy (EV). Therefore, whether or not you make the play depends more upon your goals than it does upon a strict evaluation of the profit potential. If you call here, you are putting more money into action, and possibly increasing your payoffs later in the game, due to the action image that this will help to foster. You might save some bets later as well, when you decide to call someone down, they might skip that last bet when a runner-runner flush appears, as they might remember that you won this way this time (if you're lucky). There are many othere ways that this might affect your table image, and if calling here will help it in a way you like, then I would go for it. If you're somewhat risk adverse, then avoid this play, and fold.
Here's some rough math to back me up. All numbers are approximate. These numbers assume you call the flop bet, and #4 doesn't check-raise. If you think that there is a more than a minor chance this might happen, then fold.
66% turn is a total blank, you now fold and lose $20, net EV is -$13.20
14.3% turn is a heart, river a total blank, you paid $40 to see the river, lose $60, net EV is -$8.58
4.2% turn and river are hearts, you win an estimated profit of $430, net EV is +$18.06
1.4% turn and river are both an A or Q, you win an estimated profit of $410, net EV is +5.74
Just adding up the above, you are ahead by +%2.02. However, these don't include two important scenarios. 14.2% of the time you will catch a heart on the turn, then an A or Q on the river, or an A or Q on the turn, followed by a blank on the river. In these scenarios you finish with top pair (alright, I didn't calculate the chances of the turn and river being a Q and a K, so shoot me). However, as you pointed out, it is very difficult to determine if this top pair is any good. If someone has AK, only your Q is any good. If someone has KK, only your A is any good. If someone has AK and KK, or a few other combinations, you are drawing to only the runner-runner possibilities listed as wins above. I cannot accurately estimate the chances that your one pair scenarios result in a win vs. a loss, as that depends more upon those two players than anything else. However, I can tell you that if you win 20% of the time that you make one pair, then making one pair is an approximately break-even play. If making one pair is break even, then you are still ahead about $2. by making this play. Not much for a 20-40 game, but $2. per hand is far better than most players will ever average.
Lots of assumptions here, and I'm not vouching for any of them being absolutely correct. So, please don't nit-pick these assumptions unless one or more of them is significantly off-the-mark.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg writes:
Very nice analysis. My comment is regarding tht times one makes top pair on the turn and the river. From the pre-flop action I would strongly expect to to find one opponent with a hand at least as good as AK and quite possibly both will hold hands that dominate AQ. Two things now occur if this assumption is true. First, it's much harder to make top pair since the needed cards are in other hands. Second, You will be drawing very nearly dead and the size of the pot will prevent you from correctly folding if you hit an A or Q. It's not hard to imagine an Ace hitting the turn and getting sucked in for $80 with no hope of winning.
Best Luck,
Ed
Mason,
In the first issue of the recently published poker magazine (I forget the title) you wrote an article about a young woman who raised preflop with AK, was reraised by the button with AA, saw the flop KKx, only to be beaten on the river by an Ace which gave the button Aces full.
Unless I'm mistaken, I believe I'm the button in that story. The game was 6/12 Holdem at the Mirage over the fourth of July weekend. I remember the incident because it was interesting and I recognized the young lady as one of your friends.
However I recall that I bet the flop and the turn on that hand, contrary to the account in the magazine and she slowplayed the trips. Or perhaps it really was a different person after all.
Do you think I should have reraised her on the river? Because she was a solid player, when she raised me I didn't expect to see AK. Do you think expecting KK was too paranoid? If so, how many raises do you think I should have gone?
Mark Ettinger
You have three aces accounted for but only two kings. Thus there are two kings left and only one ace. This means that there are two ways your opponent could have AK but only one way she could have two kings.
I would raise but it is close. The problem with your raise is that if your opponent has AK you will probably only win one extra bet. But if she has KK you will lose two bets. Yet, I think a raise is right for two reasons. First, many players, even a few good ones, sometimes get lost in a hand and misplay it. Thus she might reraise with AK. Second, there is always a small chance that your opponent will make a desperate play and reraise with a weaker hand.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 September 1997, at 2:16 p.m.
Posted by: Mike (mikerbrent@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 September 1997, at 7:04 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (cthaley@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 September 1997, at 6:48 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (louie.landale@internetMCI.com)
Posted on: Friday, 3 October 1997, at 9:10 a.m.
Posted by: Rich Van Ollefen (dutchman@lsil.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 September 1997, at 4:17 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (graymer@gcwf.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 September 1997, at 9:16 p.m.
Posted by: Nevadalary (Nevadalary@AOL.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 September 1997, at 1:49 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 September 1997, at 3:33 p.m.
Posted by: David (dgg@atl.hp.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 September 1997, at 7:37 p.m.
Posted by: Chuck Weinstock (weinstock@conjelco.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 September 1997, at 9:39 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Kimberg (kimberg@universe.digex.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 September 1997, at 12:19 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 September 1997, at 7:07 a.m.
Posted by: Nevadalary (Nevadalary@AOL.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 September 1997, at 10:50 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (louie.landale@internetMCI.com)
Posted on: Friday, 3 October 1997, at 7:32 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@das.honeywell.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 September 1997, at 11:03 a.m.
Posted by: Nevadalary (Nevadalary@AOL.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 September 1997, at 10:45 p.m.
Posted by: Jessica Vecchione (JessicaVecchione@Twoplustwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 September 1997, at 7:21 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (graymer@gcwf.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 September 1997, at 7:06 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (louie.landale@internetMCI.com)
Posted on: Friday, 3 October 1997, at 9:10 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Rankin (rankin@mail.access.digex.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 September 1997, at 10:58 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 September 1997, at 6:50 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Weideman (zugzwang@dcn.davis.ca.us)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 September 1997, at 5:15 p.m.
> opinion on this book (or any other) feel free to let us
> know.
Posted by: Jim Rankin (rankin@mail.access.digex.net)
Posted on: Monday, 22 September 1997, at 12:34 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 September 1997, at 4:13 a.m.
>I thought the most interesting omission in the book came at the end, in his chapter on Recommended Reading; there is no mention (positive or negative) of any of Sklansky's books or of S&M, which is widely regarded as the standard text on limit hold-em. He may or may not agree with these books - presumably not - but it is hard to believe he really thinks they are not even worth mentioning. Do I detect hard feelings?
>
Posted by: Jim Rankin (rankin@mail.access.digex.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 September 1997, at 11:50 p.m.
Posted by: Nevadalary (Nevadalary@AOL.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 September 1997, at 2:07 a.m.
Posted by: Jessica Vecchione (JessicaVecchione@Twoplustwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 September 1997, at 11:22 p.m.
Posted by: Nevadalary (Nevadalary@AOL.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 September 1997, at 11:57 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (louie.landale@internetMCI.com)
Posted on: Friday, 3 October 1997, at 9:30 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@das.honeywell.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 September 1997, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: Paul Arnold (KCPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 September 1997, at 4:26 a.m.
Posted by: Harold Fritsche (hfritsche@unidial.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 September 1997, at 3:08 p.m.
Posted by: Jessica Vecchione (JessicaVecchione@Twoplustwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 September 1997, at 6:04 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 September 1997, at 6:23 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (graymer@gcwf.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 September 1997, at 12:25 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 September 1997, at 1:41 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (louie.landale@internetMCI.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 October 1997, at 11:04 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Geary (jaygee@primenet.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 September 1997, at 8:54 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (cthaley@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 September 1997, at 10:23 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (louie.landale@internetMCI.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 October 1997, at 11:15 a.m.
Posted by: JTF (faireyman@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 September 1997, at 8:56 a.m.
Posted by: Nevadalary (Nevadalary@AOL.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 September 1997, at 11:25 a.m.
Posted by: JTF (faireyman@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 September 1997, at 4:48 p.m.
Posted by: Jessica Vecchione (JessicaVecchione@Twoplustwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 September 1997, at 5:38 p.m.
Posted by: Nevadalary (Nevadalary@AOL.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 20 September 1997, at 8:41 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (louie.landale@internetMCI.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 October 1997, at 11:52 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 October 1997, at 5:06 p.m.
>>Brunson won the main event two years in the 70's and wrote the first real poker book, Super System, covering many casino games at the time. It includes detailed section on the major casino games of the time Draw, Lowball, Raz, 7-stud Hi/Low (no qualifyer) and limit and no-limit Holdem; using expert "collaberators" written with the advise of expert "collaberators".
>>
>>This book initiated the current whirlwind in Poker Acedamia as it woke up a whole generation of players who could see that quality decisions makes quality results. As far as I can tell all current poker authors owe "Dolly" a big thank you for generating the market to sell their (in fact better) books.
>>
Posted by: Ixcuix (Ixcuix@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 October 1997, at 7:44 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (louie.landale@internetMCI.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 October 1997, at 9:28 p.m.
Posted by: ixcuix
Posted on: Thursday, 23 October 1997, at 11:01 p.m.
Posted by: Jessica Vecchione (JessicaVecchione@Twoplustwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 October 1997, at 1:07 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Wohletz (greg@cs.unlv.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 1 November 1997, at 8:11 p.m.
Posted by: JP Massar (massar@tiac.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 September 1997, at 3:44 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 September 1997, at 2:42 p.m.
Posted by: JP Massar (massar@tiac.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 September 1997, at 3:56 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 September 1997, at 6:08 p.m.
Posted by: IXCUIX (IXCUIX@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 3 October 1997, at 1:10 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (louie.landale@internetMCI.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 October 1997, at 12:25 p.m.
Posted by: Ed Wolf (HitTheFlop@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 September 1997, at 1:28 a.m.
>over 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Do you think it might cost $0.10/hr, less,
>$.50/hr, $1/hr, $3/hr, more?
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@das.honeywell.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 September 1997, at 9:24 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 September 1997, at 1:29 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (graymer@gcwf.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 September 1997, at 6:37 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 September 1997, at 8:04 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 26 September 1997, at 4:11 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 September 1997, at 10:13 p.m.
Posted by: Ed Wolf (hittheflop@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 September 1997, at 11:23 p.m.
>forum.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 September 1997, at 5:32 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 September 1997, at 3:20 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 September 1997, at 6:34 a.m.
> Here is the incident I saw at Crystal Park, which I described in person to Mason about a month ago:
> I have no memory of you describing this incident to me. This is the first time I have ever heard (or read) it.
>The casino has a conflict of interest. If the casino looks the other way when some cheating occurs, most customers will not realize that any cheating occurs, whereas if the casino boots customers, many customers will hear about it. Furthermore, the casino gets income from cheaters, just like it gets income from nonch eating professionals. Granted, there is a counterbalance that Mason noted, in that the casino does not want its customers to think that there is cheating going on, and they will think that if there is too much obvious cheating in the casino.
> This argument does raise some valid points but there are two counter points that can and should be made. First is that once a room gets a reputation for cheating it damages its business, and second is that players want to be at a room where it is well known that the management won't tolerate cheating.
>The floormen have an even worse conflict of interest. Tokes to floormen are a big incentive to look the other way. How much do you think the floorman in the top section of an LA cardroom makes per year from tokes?
> I agree with this. The cardrooms should pay their floor people a fair wage for their job and not allow tips.
>Card Player magazine is horrible about succumbing to its conflict of interest. When Sycuan Casino was exposed as using marked cards in blackjack in order to cheat the player-bankers, the next month Sycuan Casino appeared on the cover of Card Player as scheduled, with not one peep of this rather serious incident, not then, not ever.
> Again I agree with this. If you remember I was involved with the start up of another magazine and we stated that our policy would be different from CARD PLAYER'S. Unfortunately, two weeks after we opened our office I was told to stay out of the office. I then sold my interest in the magazine two months later and watched it go under with some sadness. It never did what the original instated intentions were.
>Gambling authors have a potential conflict of interest too. Eddie Olsen was outraged at my assertion that some cheating exists in hand held blackjack, and canceled my column (including all future columns) as result. Did he do this because he really believed there was absolutely no cheating by dealers in blackjack? Or because it would be financially costly to him to find fault in the casino industry and give his TARGET players something to worry about? I am, by the way, somewhat embarassed that I wrote for Blackjack Confidential, as Eddie spouts much unscientific nonsense, which I knew at the time but was eager to have my own column.
> I agree that we have some conflict of interest. We like it when the big clubs sell our books. On the other hand I frequently have access to top level cardroom managers and can sometimes work "quietly" to improve the system from the inside.
>I clearly noted, repeatedly, that the other reports of cheating were hearsay. I think it would be irresponsible to not indicate where there *may* be potential dangers. I also think it would be irresponsible for me to, as Mason reuested, post the names of the high stakes players who fingered the pair of colluders who are barred elsewhere and subsequently were regulars at Oceanside. I will however ask for a statement about it that I can post. I think you will be more convinced if you ask your high stakes friends and hear the same thing, though.
>
Posted by: Jim Rankin (rankin@mail.access.digex.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 September 1997, at 12:04 a.m.
Posted by: StrayFrog (StrayFrog@ibm.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 September 1997, at 7:15 p.m.
Posted by: JP Massar (massar@tiac.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 21 September 1997, at 10:24 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (louie.landale@internetMCI.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 October 1997, at 12:58 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (graymer@gcwf.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 September 1997, at 6:54 p.m.
Posted by: Jessica Vecchione (JessicaVecchione@Twoplustwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 September 1997, at 9:14 p.m.
Posted by: Stan Urbanik
Posted on: Monday, 22 September 1997, at 9:16 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (graymer@gcwf.com)
Posted on: Monday, 22 September 1997, at 10:03 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin Prigge (klp@umn.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 September 1997, at 1:24 p.m.
Posted by: John Boling (jboling@siemens-psc.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 September 1997, at 4:20 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin Prigge (klp@umn.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 September 1997, at 6:41 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@das.honeywell.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 September 1997, at 5:22 p.m.
Posted by: Barry (BarryWLew@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 23 September 1997, at 10:38 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@das.honeywell.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 September 1997, at 4:10 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 September 1997, at 5:20 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 September 1997, at 3:32 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (cthaley@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 September 1997, at 7:38 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@das.honeywell.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 25 September 1997, at 12:06 p.m.
Posted by: Neil M (NeilM@pop.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 September 1997, at 5:34 p.m.
Posted by: David (dgg@atl.hp.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 24 September 1997, at 7:59 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (louie.landale@internetMCI.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 October 1997, at 1:20 p.m.
Posted by: Kandy Brown (KLBBrown@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 September 1997, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 26 September 1997, at 8:53 p.m.
Posted by: Nevadalary (Nevadalary@AOL.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 September 1997, at 8:40 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@NationalBooking.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 September 1997, at 12:12 a.m.
Posted by: Nevadalary (Nevadalary@AOL.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 September 1997, at 8:00 p.m.
Posted by: Erin (rrqr54b@prodigy.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 September 1997, at 6:06 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (louie.landale@internetMCI.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 October 1997, at 1:37 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Redekopp (Dredek4505@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 September 1997, at 5:06 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@NationalBooking.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 27 September 1997, at 11:33 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 September 1997, at 5:23 a.m.
> Well, anyone who has read any of our material here at Two Plus Two will know that we don't agree with this. Sure you have been unlucky, but if the game is still good and you can still play your best there is no reason to quit.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@NationalBooking.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 September 1997, at 7:37 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 29 September 1997, at 4:58 a.m.
> I have kept good records of wins and loses for years. For me...If I don't win with my first buy in of $500 in a 15/30 or 20/40 game, I will lose that day 90% of the time. If I start off winning, I will quit ahead about 90% of the time.
>
>
Posted by: Spiderman (mqv2982a@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 September 1997, at 1:19 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 September 1997, at 5:36 a.m.
Posted by: Spiderman (mqv2982a@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 29 September 1997, at 2:01 a.m.
Posted by: SteveT (amievil112@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 2 October 1997, at 2:11 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@NationalBooking.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 September 1997, at 11:57 a.m.
Posted by: Nevadalary (Nevadalary@AOL.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 September 1997, at 12:32 p.m.
Posted by: JTF
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 September 1997, at 12:41 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@NationalBooking.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 September 1997, at 4:36 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Brecher (steve@brecher.reno.nv.us)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 September 1997, at 9:42 p.m.
Posted by: Nevadalary (Nevadalary@AOL.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 1 October 1997, at 12:32 p.m.
Posted by: Nevadalary (Nevadalary@AOL.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 1 October 1997, at 12:03 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (graymer@gcwf.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 September 1997, at 1:40 p.m.
Posted by: Ed Wolf (HitTheFlop@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 September 1997, at 2:04 p.m.
>>>Lots of assumptions here, and I'm not vouching for any of them being absolutely correct. So, please don't nit-pick these assumptions unless one or more of them is significantly off-the-mark.<<<
Posted by: mark ettinger (ettinger@lanl.gov)
Posted on: Tuesday, 30 September 1997, at 4:14 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 3 October 1997, at 3:07 p.m.
The Gambling Forum September 1997 Archive Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo