![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Any of ya'll coming to Vegas over the Labor day weekend? Be great to meet ya, and put a face with the name.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry (702)655-2914
Post deleted at author's request.
Yes. When I find myself trying to steal to many antes in a Stud game I go play Hold-em where stealing the blinds isn't all that important. (Especially in a loose Hold-em game.)
When I find myself playing too loose in a Hold-em game I go play Stud where it is much harder to get a good starting hand therefore I must tighten up.
When I find myself playing too loose in a Low-ball game I go play Omaha where every hand starts looking good.
When I find myself playing too loose in a Omaha game I home and play the stock market because you don't have to have a good hand to play you just pick a direction.
When the stock market goes down 512 points and I am long, I look outside to see how far down it is to the street, and realize I would probably just break my leg jumping off of the porch.
Sure. If you want to improve your hand-reading and player reading skills, try a Hi-Low Split draw game with qualifiers. You'll either become a great reader of other people's tells or you will quickly lose a lot of money.
Good luck.
Predator:I was astonished by the number of forum members who read this post. You have stirred up a lot on controversy however. Old time gambler: There many things that go into making a winning poker player. Predator: What advice could you give to new players who want to make the dedication that I have made as well as others on this post? Old time gambler: First, I think that serios players should think of poker as constructing a building. What I mean is this. Take hold'em and 7-stud. The easist thing to master in these two games is before-the-flop play in hold'em and 3rd street play in 7-stud. I say to new players, first master these things. That lays your foundation. Of course this is not enough but for the average player these things should be easy to do. Then in hold'em master after-the-flop play. In 7-stud master 4th street play. Notice that after-flop play in hold'em is quite more difficult then 4th street play in 7-stud. It's hard for most people to master everything together if not impossible. You can break down these two games into segments then learn each segment which will build your "building". Predator: So what you are saying is that you should try to master the technical things first then start to master the "other skills?" Old time gambler: Yes but you have to realize that that is the easiest thing thing to learn but is not enough to make you a big winner. Predator: I have read that in my books before. When I first started playing, I played very tight. However I was'nt a weak tight player" because I loved to check raise a lot even if it was'nt nessessarly correct. Oldtime gambler: There is one thing that I want to clear up based on what you told me about this forum. There is some importance of math in poker like pot odds and odds to draw to but the usage of math to the point of hands being broken down to long-run value is not important. They should use this energy to master hand-reading,hand selection, and "people knowledge". Nobody but nobody is going to play a million hands. Some people talk to me about computer simulations. I think that it's fun but thats it. It has no real value to a poker player looking to master the game. One other extremely important idea is this. Take for example that $50-100 game you played last week. Out of that field one player made several mistakes repeativly. The rest did not make many mistakes. Why play? That book you showed me stated someting very true. Most money you win comes from opponents mistakes. If you play in a game where your opponents are so good that they make few mistakes why play? Predator: Sklansky's Theory of Poker. Oldtime gambker: That is a good book but I still think that the math part is overly much emphasied. When you play for a living and have no other money coming in you must play each hand in a way that gives you the BEST CHANCE TO WIN. It should not matter if playing a certain hand in the long run will win you $150. You don't have a long run. Predator: What do you think of Sklansky and Mason? Oldtime gambler: They are great players in their own way. But they must realize that there are several ways to win. I think that they overemphasize math concepts in the articles and books they write. The books they write are good but there is one book that they could write that truly would be the KING OF ALL POKER BOOKS. Predator: What the hell would that be? Oldtime gambler: In the case of hold-em they should write exactly what the reader should do when faced with a Very Tight Player, a Tight Player, A loose Agreesive Player, a Calling Station before-the-flop,After-the flop,Turn and river. They should tie this in when these opponents raise in each position before and after the flop. They should write what it could mean when these opponents just call in each position. A large chapter should be written on how to use all these concepts based on your knowlege of the opponents. Predator: Momma mea! That book would make the supersystem light! Oldtime gambler: Thats what it would take to make a winning poker player as fast as possible. You would have to cover all things in detail. Of course you could do this by playing a few hundred hours and learning by your mistakes but this way could cost you money!. Predator: Why have you consistently won? Oldtime gambler: I have consistently won because of a lot of things like the things I have said so far. I also try to play as much as possible against players who keep on making the same mistakes thus never learn from them. I could play against Sklansky and Mason and other world-class people but why bother. I'm not out to sate my ego. I'm out to win money. I don't think I could win much from them and I don't think they could win much from me. The real point of playing poker in winning as much as possible. Thats the goal. You can play for fun but don't tell me that you are not trying to win! I get a kick out of some of these players who say " I'm playing for fun and I don't care if I lose" then they get so upset when they lose a big pot or suffer a bad beat. Predator: I know that you have more to say but my hand is killing me from writing all this. It's nice to meet you once again here on the boat. I'm sure that I'll see you again. But stay out of my games!
Two things strike me:
1. "Most money you win comes from opponents mistakes."
Where does the rest of it come from?
2. "You must play each hand in a way that gives you the BEST CHANCE TO WIN."
I am curious about whether the old-timer actually plays this way. I doubt if he takes his own advice to its logical extreme because the only time he would fold would be when he believes he has no chance of winning the hand! It's unlikely that he takes his advice even to the less extreme strategy of calling (rather than raising or folding) only when he believes there's absolutely zero chance that any opponents will fold.
Could he mean that he never slowplays? Has he given you any examples of when he plays to win rather than playing to maximize expectation?
What did he mean when he said "You must play each hand in a way that gives you the BEST CHANCE TO WIN." ?
It is dangerous to try to explain what some one else meant in a post, I will explain what it means to me, hopefully this is the same thing. This is actually something that David and Mason write about, choosing the play that maximizes your chances to win the pot. Trying to win an extra pot not just an extra bet.
Semi bluffing heads up is a good example of this. Heads up you are not getting the right odds with most draws to raise, but your increased chances of winning the pot when your opponent folds can make this a profitable play.
A playable hand in the small blind when only one player limps is another example. In some cases the correct play is to raise. Not to get more money in the pot, but to try and drive out the big blind to improve your chances of winning the pot.
Paul,
You write :
< 1. "Most money you win comes from opponents mistakes."
Where does the rest of it come from? >
IMHO, you win money not only from other people's mistakes, so I cannot agree with your supposition. Consider the following scenario :
Everyone folds to you in the small blind, you look down, see AA and raise. Big blind holding 72o folds. You won money, so from what you say above someone (presumably BB) made a mistake. What was it?
Etienne
My question wasn't rhetorical, and you've answered it by example. The general truth is that the rest of what you "win" comes from luck. Unfortunately, the contribution from luck is just as likely to be negative as positive.
Paul,
I think I get your drift. Taking a long term outlook (rather than concentrating on particular hands or even sessions), given that the luck factor "is just as likely to be negative as positive", it would be correct to say that your entire winnings are due to your opponents' mistakes.
Etienne
Exactement, Etienne!
In addition to Paul Pudaite's points, OTG makes a couple other lulus in this interview.
"Nobody but nobody is going to play a million hands." If he's been playing full-time for 35 years, shouldn't he have played well over a million hands? If he played hold'em 40 hours a week, at 40 hands an hour, 40 weeks a year, this would only take 16 years.
His comments about computer simulation being worthless and "You don't have a long run," show a fundamental lack of understanding of the laws of probability. Still, he probably doesn't buy lottery tickets or play keno, which may be more reliable tests of stupidity.
-Tom
Tom Hayes writes:
"His comments about computer simulation being worthless and 'You don't have a long run,' show a fundamental lack of understanding of the laws of probability."
I agree (most people don't understand things like the law of large numbers), but it's more than this. It's a lack of simple good sense. Whenever I hear/read people dismissing simulations or explanations of ev on the grounds that they'll never actually reach the long run, I seldom if ever hear someone else give a good response. This response has nothing whatsoever to do with the laws of probability, or if in fact the "long run" will ever be reached. It comes down to this, pure and simple:
Whenever you are faced with a decision to choose strategy A or strategy B, what will you use as a determination for which one is correct? You CANNOT base your decision on which choice will be successful in that particular instance, because you simply do not know. The ONLY logical choice is the strategy which would win the most in the long run. If you believe that poker is a game of skill, then you must believe that there are "correct" and "incorrect" strategy choices. The only reasonable way to define correctness is by which choice wins the most in the long run.
Tom Weideman
I agree with most of your comments, although I still am inclined to consider this a problem with the concepts of probability, coupled with a little faulty logic, rather than a complete breakdown of common sense.
I think the phrase "in the long run" poses difficulty for some people. After all, this is an abstract concept, and as the long run is never going to be reached, it's not intuitively clear for everyone why this is the right (or as you say, the only reasonable) criterion.
Consider the following fallacious line of thought. Since the long run can't be reached, getting exact "long run" odds can't be that useful. What would be better is a rough estimate of the odds which probably won't be too far off in the "medium run" which we will actually witness, supplemented by "people skills" which will let us take advantage of what extra information is available in a particular instance. Therefore simulations are really useless compared to practical experience.
I present this not as a pinata to be torn apart, but as a hurdle. Show me the easiest way to make this sort of fuzzy thinker see the light, should I ever want to do so.
Post deleted at author's request.
I'll go ahead and chime in here, and disagree with our old gambler buddy, when he says: "When you play for a living and have no other money coming in you must play each hand in a way that gives you the BEST CHANCE TO WIN. It should not matter if playing a certain hand in the long run will win you $150. You don't have a long run."
As Tom Weideman put it, you can't KNOW in advance how to play any given hand to win, as you don't absolutely know what your opponents are holding, what the next card is going to be, etc. You only know what the odds, and your experience, tell you are the most likely (and less likely) possibilities.
Let's use a stupid example to demonstrate why old gambler is wrong. Old gambler has 2 choices, he can bet $55 to win $50 on the toss of a fair coin, or he can bet $1 to win $100,000,000 (or lesser prizes for 5 of 6, etc.) on the outcome of tomorrow's lottery drawing. Now, if we make our decision based upon which bet has the best chance of winning, we take the coin toss. But wait a minute, that's a long term loser, so how can we make a living doing this? If we use long-term expectation, we pick the lottery ticket, because that bet has positive EV (and don't nitpick and tell me it doesn't, because it sure as heck does in MY hypothetical).
Again, math sure isn't everything in poker, but it is the BASIS for everything. Often, you must use those important skills not directly related to math to provide yourself with information, but perfect use of math will allow you to optimize the value of that other information.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Post deleted at author's request.
Actually I like his idea about writing something about how to play against various types of opponents. For instance in the big blind with pocket deuces you should call a raiser head up if he is a meek player or an aggressive player but not a normally solid player. This was done to some extent in The Theory of Poker in the chapter called Analysis at the Table as well as elsewhere in our books. But the idea to delve into this subject in more detail is a good one. Just realize however that once you have catagorized your opponent you can only find the best way to play against him by using logical and mathematical analysis. As to his million hand comment, the only time he might have a point is on extreme longshots where the overlay involves something that might not show up in your lifetime or on moderate longshots where you do not have a sufficient bankroll. But the general comment that it takes too long to get into the long run and that simulations are thus almost meaningless is of course ridiculously stupid.
Post deleted at author's request.
Keynes was talking about long run effects that might not show up in a lifetime.
Post deleted at author's request.
His comment that million hand simulations are irrelevant becuse you will never play a million such hands is ridiculously stupid. I use impolite words to make sure my readers don't start listening to faulty ideas that will cost them money. And I was only echoing the thoughts already expressed by the two PhDs Tom W. and Paul P. I already said that you might not want to maximize your expectation if it takes a long time for your profit to show or if there is a bankroll problem. If that is what OTG actually meant I have no problem with that. But what he actually said was ridiculously stupid. And that is the last I will be saying on this subject.
"Keynes was ridiculously stupid? Gary Carson"
As someone who holds an MA in economics, allow me to say he was wrong about many things.
Is it just me, or do others get the impression that Joe is just talking to himself in these posts? That is, OTG might be a fictional character whom Joe uses to voice some ideas he doesn't necessarily want to defend.
When I was doing a little editing work for a newspaper, all sorts of red flags would have been raised had someone submitted "interviews" like the two I've read here.
Post deleted at author's request.
The game I play is 2-6 spread limit seven card stud high with a 2 dollar bring in. The pots average close to 40 dollars and the play is typically very loose. Is a 2 dollar bring in a relatively large ante or is it relatively small. In other words how should this game be played. Should I call the bring in frequently and fold if I dont catch, or should I just strictly play tight. Or possibly I should play looser than most books would recommend. Any comments would be appreciated.
I'm not a great stud player, so others may disagree with my advice (and likely be right, if they do so).
Generally, if there is very little raising on 3rd street, then you can limp in for the $2 pretty often, with a lot of speculative hands. However, if there has been a raise, or there often is a raise, then don't do this, or you'll be spending way too much on these hands. The big secret, I believe, is to quickly let go of these hands on 4th street if you don't catch perfect. That way, you'll often lose $2, since you often won't catch, but when you do catch, you'll be able to win a whole bunch of $6 bets on each subsequent round of betting.
Now, all of the above is theory, and I think it's pretty accurate. Where I'll likely be wrong is here, when I try to give you some examples. Hands I would fold in a more aggressive game, but which I'd play if it was highly likely that I'd be seeing a multiway hand for just the $2, include:
5c5dKd, 8c9dJd, 5c6d7h, Ac4c9c, 2c2dAc, KcQdTh, and similar.
Don't worry folks, there's plenty of room to argue the merits and disadvantages of each hand above, or those that share similar characteristics. This is much more of a proposal than it is advice, as I haven't invested much time thinking about (or playing) 7-stud hi.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
First, a point about terminology. An ante is money which all players must put in the pot before the hand is dealt. Most low-limit stud games are played with no ante, only a bring-in.
Many books on 7-card stud deal primarily if not exclusively with games having an ante. Generally, the higher the ante, the looser correct play is. Consequently, in a no-ante game such as 1-5 or 2-6 (which I haven't run into), I would expect correct play to be extremely tight. Perhaps someone with experience in these games can back me up on that.
It sounds like the play at your game is pretty bad, if the pots are that big. If the play is very passive, you can get away with seeing a 4th card with less than premium holdings. Still, your game plan should revolve around premium hands. Don't bother fighting over that $2. I would definitely play tighter than most books recommend.
Corrections welcomed--this really isn't my game, yet.
Shultz,
A $2 bring in with no ante per player is exactly the same as a 25 cent ante with 7 players and a 25 cent bring in. The difference is that with bad players they tend to come in more often when they have an ante as they already feel part of the pot. A no ante bring in game really has an ante that changes in relation to the number of players taking a hand. In your game the ante is fairly small so tight play should get the money if the rake is not too high. Straight and flush cards do well in multi-way pots and highest upcard that is a pair will win money when your cards are live and you improve or can narrow the field down to just a few people. You should play tighter than the good poker books recommend at least until you can get a better grasp of the game. Good Luck.
thaley: Are you aware of the controversy regarding Predator’s Old time gamler post?
New Age Gambler: Yes I am. I do agree with Old time gambler that many things go into making a winning player.
thaley: What did you think of Old time gamblers advice about thinking of poker as constructing a building.
New Age Gambler: At first you might think that this advice makes a lot of sense but in reality it is very shallow. Old time gambler doesn’t discuss anything regarding strategy and tactics. Is Old time gambler selling something? Maybe real estate in the desert or snake oil. All of the topics that Old time gambler brought up are covered in various 2+2 books regarding strategy and tactics. Even if you think that Old time gambler is offering sage advice you need something to help you determine what the correct strategy and tactics are.
thaley: What do you think about about the implication that Old time gambler has made regarding being very technically knowledgable is not necessarily very profitable.
New Age Gambler: This notion is hogwash at least for limit games. The more often you make the right play the more money you win. It is really that simple. This idea that the technical skills are easy to learn is very costly and just plain wrong. I suppose it depends on what your definition of technical skills is. Complete knowledge of the technical skills will win you a lot of money in poker.
thaley: What do you think about Old time gamblers perspectives on math and poker?
New Age Gambler: His ideas are very vague. What I have found is that when people have vague notions about something they don’t understand that something very well. Not only are these ideas vague they are bizarre. I just don’t have a lot to say about bizarre and vague ideas. I don’t know why the million hands in a lifetime topic comes up. It’s really very simple, you try to maximize your expectation on every hand you play. Yes there are times when you might play a hand one way to influence the play on subsequent hands but the importance of this is usually over emphasized by players. If you lack technical knowledge of the game you’re playing you will lose pure and simple. This idea that math skills and people skills are not compatible is incredibly ignorant. David Sklansky writes about these ideas very well in several of his books. Perhaps Old time gambler didn’t read these books or the concepts went right over the Old time gambler’s head.
thaley: What did you think about Old time gamblers thoughts about game selection?
New Age Gambler: He didn’t really say anything of consequence or substance.
thaley: What do think of Old time gamblers comments on the Theory of Poker?
New Age Gambler: See my previous comments.
thaley: Would you comment about Old time gamblers thoughts about the ultimate poker book?
New Age Gambler: It would be harder to read that book than to do the math and understand the fundamentals of the game.
thaley: What did you think about Old time gamblers thoughts about winning money?
New Age Gambler: Good idea I’ve got to go play some cards my seat is open.
I find your comment, "Is Old time gambler selling something?" amusing, to say the least.
Obviously it is you who is trying to sell the reader on books published by 2+2. Two sentences later, even. Very subtle. Very.
Now this was well done. Using the fictional interview can be a clever literary device. And if a reasonable reader realizes that it is fiction, I have no ethical concerns.
I tabulate my results by the limits of every game and then normalize them using big bets. My problem is what is the correct amount for non limit games. For example in the 2-5 nolimt game at the Eldorado, or the 5-10-20 NL at the Spring Peppermill tourney, the 2-5 PL at BARGE,etc..
I just guessed based on how much swing I observed and tried matching it up with similar limits.
Anyone want to tell me the "right" answer? I asked at the bottom of a letter on RGP once, but received no reply.
JG
I use dollars as my standard for comparing results from different games. I certainly wouldn't convert everything to big bets and then use them to compute an overall standard deviation or expectation. What would be the relevance?
I do like to think of my results in units of big bets, for limit games, for the sake of comparing different games and seeing how my results measure up to those internet poker players who may play at other stakes.
I don't think there is an answer to your question about comparing different structures. How many apples make an orange? Mu!
I doubt if there's any one right answer. Here are two:
1. Use big blinds. This adds support to Abdul's argument for the small bet as the favored unit.
2. Use buy-ins.
Well, in terms of big bets, I would not expect to have the same SD at different limits. Anyone have empirical evidence?
But it would be interesting to compare the variability of different games (whether you classify them by limit, location, or whatever). I infer from your post that you want to scale your measure of variability to take out the effect of the difference in limits. You can do this by looking at the coefficient of variation, which is the standard deviation divided by the mean. The units you use do not matter, so you can just use dollars for your s.d. and mean calculations, and you will get the same answer as if you use big bets. Thus, you can compare the variability of pot limit games to limit games.
This is often a more useful statistic anyway. Suppose you have one game with a s.d. of 12 BB per square root hour, and another game of 8 BB per sq. rt. hr., and both games are the same limits and blinds. Do you automatically like the lower variance game better? The answer depends on your expected value. If the high variance game has an EV of 2 BB per hour and the low variance game has and EV of 1 BB/hr., then the CV of the games are 6 and 8 respectively.
For a sufficiently large bankroll the higher variance game will have a lower probability of ruin than the lower variance game. In other words the higher variance game is actually safer for you.
Steve
Post deleted at author's request.
I talk about this in my book GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS. The mean divided by the standard deviation is known as the coefficient of variation or cv for short. When I worked at the Census Bureau many years ago, it was one of the statistics that we used in out survey design criteria. In the book I speculate that a cv of 10 percent or more means a game of consistent profits. However, if the cv gets too high above 10 percent the game has the potential to burn out. If it gets to much below 10 percent then the proper balance between luck and skill that a poker game needs to thrive is tilted too much in the favor of luck and the game also has the potential to die out. (Of course I am refering to a highly skilled player.)
I don't think it is possible to normalize the size of big bet games. The size of the game depends too much on the size of the stacks and how loose the game is, which are both things you can't easily quantify and/or tabulate.
I've seen games with 1-2-2 blinds which had $3000 pots multiple times per hour, and I've seen games with 25-50 blinds where there was almost never a flop.
The boat I play poker on has 4 tables. 2 stud and 2 hold'em. I rarely have a choice on a game to play in. The tables are not filled everyday. Sometimes there is 15-30 hold'em, sometimes 50-100 hold'em. Stud is usually 10-20 and 5-10-15. All this means is that I'm contemplating a move to AC. I had planned to play is the US poker tourny but I recently got a DUI. I learned my lesson well and I don't think that I will ever drink again. But anyway some questions I have on 50-100 hold'em. I don't have a bankroll for this level according to Mason's Poker Essays which means that I'm basically taking shots at it. I have a proper bankroll for $15-30. I consider myself a "good player" not a great player. I still can learn. I have abandended my wild image phase. One question I have on 50-100 is this: If I don't have a proper bankroll for regular 50-100 play what would be a good short term bankroll for it? What I mean is this: Because 50-100 is a huge limit game is it nessessary to play regulary? Can it be correct to WAIT FOR SOME LIVE ONES TO buy-in? These live ones can lose an awful amount of money. If the table has 1 or 2 isn't that enough to make the table a positive expectation? By the way I think that a wild image is correct for $3-6 hold'em because it can win you a lot of money considering that measly limit! In $50-100 you can expect to go broke in a week or so!. By the way The old time gambler said that even though you are playing at $50-100 it dosen't mean that all the players are great. Some are rich and would rather play that then 3-6 or 5-10 and have little idea on correct strategy. I think that there is some sense here. He said that you will find many more pros at 10-20, 15-30,and 30-60 then at 75-150 and 50-100. I do not know if this is true so I won't comment on it. I was a pro playing at 3-6 and 5-10! before I moved up. My last question is this:at 50-100 is tight agreesive correct or is a looser agressive style superior at this large limit?
Post deleted at author's request.
Are you playing professionally or recreationally? If you are a pro, then your bankroll is what keeps you alive. If you get into a game that could diminish your bankroll to a point where you are in jeopardy, then you probably will not play as well as you normally do. Your better opponents will notice that you are playing scared, and will take advantage of this. So in this case, I would not move up unless you have a significant "surplus" in your bankroll that you can risk taking a shot.
If you have another income, then it's only money that you are risking, and you won't have to worry about how to survive if things go badly your first session at 50-100. The points are not to allow your play to get worse because of the higher limit, and not to take a reckless risk.
Mason's bankroll requirements assume that you will stick to those stakes until the bitter end. In your case it is OK to take shots as long as you are using money that is in excess of your 15-30 bankroll requirements and as long as you can handle the fact that there is a good chance you will lose a months worth of 15-30 wages.
Mason's bankroll requirements assume that you will stick to those stakes until the bitter end. In your case it is OK to take shots as long as you are using money that is in excess of your 15-30 bankroll requirements and as long as you can handle the fact that there is a good chance you will lose a months worth of 15-30 wages.
What about taking a shot with $500-1000? This would seem like a reasonable amount to risk in a single session. If lost, it won't set you back so far, and you can spend some time meditating on the session before your next try. On the other hand, there would seem to be a decent shot at building up a 50-100 bankroll if you win (assuming you already have a healthy 20-40 bankroll).
What do you think about this "short buy" approach to moving up limits? The idea is that at first, you are likely to have lower expectation than when you are more experienced; if short buys lower your hourly variance, they will help you gain experience with less risk.
I think a short buy approach to taking a shot at a higher limit is lving out a death wish, Tom. The whole point of "taking a shot" is hoping you get lucky. What good does it do to get lucky when you're out of chips. If you're taking a shot at a good 50-100 game I'd suggest either nbuying more chips or cashing in at less then a 1000 stack. --- gary carson
"Taking a shot" at a bigger game is a common practice, but I don't agree with it. The extent to which I do is that I might play a game right at the edge of my bankroll. Or if I have income from a day job, then I can "take a shot" while holding back a little bankroll so that I can still play lower if I fail. When I have a job, my effective bankroll is much larger than my actual bankroll. When I don't have a job other than playing poker, my effective EV is much smaller than my actual EV, because of living expenses, and this greatly increases the bankroll requirements.
Okay, let's throw out some numbers. Let's suppose you can expect to make 3 small bets per hour with a standard deviation of 15 small bets per hour in a really live $50-$100 game, playing really tight. The required Kelly bankroll is then (15^2)/3 = 75 small bets, or $3750. Yowsa, that's small. I was really going to try to talk you out of it, but I'm not doing a good job so far. Anyway, Kelly betting assumes you will step down to lower stakes immediately if you lose even a little. Also, if your EV is say just one a small bet per hour, then your required bankroll would be $11,250. Yowsa, still small. (The commonly accepted necessary bankroll for $50-$100 is an absolute minimum of $25,000.)
The problem is, if you overbet your bankroll, you're actually losing money. Let's say you take a shot at 50-100 with your entire life savings of $2000, and it turns out that your EV is one small bet per hour in reality. You should be ambivalent about taking this gamble or taking an amount of money equal to EV - var/2B, where var is your variance (assumed to be 225*50^2 here) and B is your bankroll (2000 here). So that's 50 - 225*50^2/(2*2000) = -91, meaning you would be losing the equivalent of $91 per hour due to the risk, despite playing with a $50 per hour positive expected value.
Worse, your EV could be negative; you will likely be playing against some superior opponents, who may torture you more than you torture the fish. Then you take the double hit of the negative EV and losses due to risk.
-Abdul
Post deleted at author's request.
If you risk a large part of your bankroll on a single bet (or pot or round) then the approximate formulas I used become inaccurate, but you can still use your frequency distribution of results (if you could know it) to do an exact weighted sum of your utility, i.e., E(log(bankroll+X)), the expected log of quantity bankroll plus each possible result.
-Abdul
Abdul writes: --> The problem is, if you overbet your bankroll, you're actually losing money. <--
Actually this is only true if you're betting more than twice your Kelly limit. If you bet a little more than your Kelly limit, your bankroll just grows a little more slowly, but it doesn't shrink.
I think part of the reason you need a bankroll much larger than Kelly for poker (aside from not really knowing your EV) is that you really can't control the bet size at all, except in the very rough sense of moving to a bigger or smaller game.
Jeff, you said, "If you bet a little more than your Kelly limit, your bankroll just grows a little more slowly, but it doesn't shrink."
Is that actually true? Or is it a statement about expected growth. If you bet more than your Kelly limit then the expected growth rate of your bankroll will be reduced. And, if you overbet by a factor of two your expected growth rate of your bankroll will be negative.
Those statements seem right to me. But, does your actual growth rate shrink? Or is it that the increased probability of gamblers ruin is increased, causeing a reduction in mean result?
It seems to me that this is an example of the kind of fallacy that treating expected value as an actual outcome can lead to.
But, as I said before, I'm not really much of a student of Kelly.
Gary
Kelly addresses the question of continual bet resizing. Let's say you have 1% the best of it, but you bet 50% of your bankroll every time. You'll never go broke, because after betting 50% of your bankroll, you'll have at least 50% of your bankroll left. But losing 50% of your bankroll costs you a lot, because now you can only make a smaller bet with 1% of the best of it.
Kelly betting makes an optimal tradeoff between getting the best of it now and getting the best of it later.
It should be clear that a "wild image" is really not "correct" in $3-6 because at that level very few of the other players will pay the slightest attention to your "image." More precisely, they might laugh at your antics, but it won't make the slightest difference in their play; they'll pay you off anyway. It doesn't really hurt, for the same reason. But the reason you've had to abandon this "wild image" as you moved up is because at those levels ($15-30), players will actually pay attention to your image, and adjust their play to the image you project. At that point, a wild image actually becomes harmful because it prevents you from stealing (potentially large) pots.
It should also be clear that what style of play is correct for $50-100 (or any other limit) is going to depend greatly on the other players--how they play and how they react to your play.
If you don't intuitively understand these things, I would really question whether you are ready for a $50-100 game, though I suppose it is possible there is might be enough live money in the game for you to win anyway. Maybe.
Sorry for being a little harsh, but if you like money you'll take this good advice and stick to $15-30 until you're really ready to move up.
Would anyone be interested in discussing the Mike Caro column in Card Player (can be accessed online) where he describes the hand that busted nim out of the WSOP championship? I know he posted it on rgp, but I can't access that from my pc at work.
I know Crazy Mike plays a thousand times better than I ever will, but I think that he made a brutal mistake at each stage of this hand. Of course, I have the benefit of hindsight. I have summarized the hand below, and apologize it if screwed up any details, but I think I captured the essence of the hand.
Early in the tourney and Crazy Mike ("CM") is at a table with a bunch of solid, but unspectacular players. He has T13,000 and the blinds are T50/T100. CM is two positions to the right of the button with A-Q of diamonds. Player to his right brings it in for something like T300. CM smooth calls, as does the button?, who has the same stack size as CM.
Flop comes KK6, with the King of diamonds and 6 of diamonds giving Mike the nut flush draw. Original bettor leads for T1200, or something like that. CM calls and the button also smooth calls (shouldn't that set an alarm off in CM's head, since HE has the big diamond draw?)
The 7 of diamonds turns, making Mike's flush. Mike moves all-in (I think the original bettor checks or makes another big bet.) The button calls with pocket sixes (the trap has sprung!) and busts Crazy Mike out of the tourney.
Michael,
Based on the pre-flop betting, the bettor could have had a King with a good kicker, or a pair. The caller on the button probably had a king, not a pair of sixes. There are eight (8) likely hands that the button held on the turn which Caro couldn't beat: KK (1); 66 (3); K6s (2); and K7s (2); There are 44 likely hands he could have held which he would have called both the flop and turn with that Caro could beat: AK (8); KQ (8); KJ (8); KT (8) and Kxs (12 excluding K6s and K7s); So it's 11:2 that Caro had the button beat. So betting is the proper play. He can't risk giving the free card. Some players might not call with KJ or KT on the button, but that reduces the odds to about 4:1, still worth a bet.
If Caro did indeed have the button beat, then how many outs did the button have? A King (1); A seven (3); A six (3); A match to his kicker (3); That's a total of 10 out of 44, or 3.4:1. There was already T4650 in the pot. The button had about T11,500 left in front of him. Caro needs to bet enough to take away his pot odds, and his implied odds. The most tha button can win is T16,150. Therefore Caro's bet should be larger than 16,150/3.4. That seems to make the proper bet about T4750+. Based on that analysis, Caro's bet was way too large.
But wait! This was a tournament. This wasn't real money. The actual odds are different than the money odds because you should be comparing equities, not stack sizes. You said this was early in the tournament, so Caro probably had an average sized stack with T13,000. His equity was probably around $15,000 before the hand. When making the turn bet, he was an 11:2 favorite to win the T4750 in the pot, if he made a big enough bet and was winning. So he wins about $5,500 in equity if he wins without a call. But he loses $14,000 if he loses, because a full-house is going to call and probably put him all-in. That makes him about a 60:28 favorite heads-up. It's acutally less than that because of the third player, but he's still the favorite by around 2:1. Betting was the proper play. And it could be higher, if Caro's will to fold to a raise.
So how much should he bet? The button's equity on his stack is about $14,000. He could win about $19,000 in equity with implied odds. Caro therefore must bet enough in equity to force the button to fold his trips. $19,000/3.4 is about $5,600 in equity. So he should bet at least T5,000.
Now the question is whether the button will call a larger bet? I don't think he would. A weak King figures to be in trouble, to either a better King or a flush. Even a strong King is in trouble to a flush or full house.
The only reason for going all-in would be to avoid being bluffed out on the end. I think it's better to bet T6,000 or so and fold to a raise. The button will probably fold his trips and only call or raise with a full house. That would have left Caro with T5,500 and still a fighting chance.
In conclusion, I think that Caro's only mistake was betting too much on the turn. Especially with Caro's talent for reading players. He would've had a good idea whether a raise was a bluff or not.
What was the consensus on r.g.p. and what did he have to say about it?
An excellent analysis George.
The forth sentence in the first paragraph should read:
There are 44 likely hands that he could have held which he would have called both before and after the flop with that Caro could beat: . . .
oops
George-
Maybe we can talk about this hand directly. One point though. With the flush draw on the board, T4500 in the pot, and two good players in the pot, I think their are only 3 hands (as opposed to 44) the button should be CALLING with: 66, KK, or K6. If I had AK, or KQ, and thought my hand was good, I would try to make a big raise and take the poot down right on the flop. Maybe I am too tight, but I think it is rasie or fold here for the button with anythig less than sixes full.
By the way, you can hit the link here to Cardplayer to read Mike's column, which includes a summary of some RGP responses (My PC here at work has RGP filtered out or something). Most thought that Mike sould have raised or folded with AQs Before the flop. I probably would have folded unless the original raiser had a habit of getting out of line. I hate to call a raise with AQ in no-limit.
I also don't like Mike's call on the flop, becasue I think the implied odds suck. Of the 9 diamonds, only the 2,3,4,5,and 8 don't give me a severe heartburn about a full hous with two other callers. And if they don't have a full house, hoiw can he expect any action with the three diamonds on the board. I just have to think that a player of his skill is going to hae better shots to build his stack.
Perhaps you're right about AK and KQ, but the button would certainly call the flop bet with Kxs, KJ and KT. The bet was only T1200 (actually it was T1400 in Caro's article, and a T300 raise before the flop. I read the article after posting), so why not call with a king? You might be best already, or might fill up. While he might raise with these hands to chase a flush draw, he has to be afraid of a better king. Better to wait and see, I think. And the button would have to be concerned with Caro's call more or as much as the lead bettor's bet. All the more reason to just call on the flop if he held a medium to week king. I think that Caro had a correct call on the flop.
Caro certainly had a call pre-flop with AQs and only a T400 bet from the sixth player with a decent sized stack. He could have raised, but then he's putting his AQs up against a possible pair for more money, and chasing out other players with decent holdings. The first raise should chase out all of the garbage, why chase out the decent hands with another raise holding basically a drawing hand? AQ can be a dangerous hand in no-limit, especially when calling a raise, as you pointed out. He really wants the flush, so it's I think it's better to just call and hopefully increase his implied odds.
I don't think Caro is afraid of the bettor, and the button could have called pre-flop with all sorts of hands for only T400. After the overcall, then his outs seem to be limited, and he now wishes he hadn't called, but it's too late. It's the button that could have any king, in the form of Kxs. But, low and behold, one of the good diamonds falls on the river, so he needn't consider his limited outs--he's already there. He now must consider the probale hand of the button and the proper size bet. And as I previously posted, I think he bet too much here. The pot was really T5550, not T4650 which was based on your numbers, and he should have bet around T5500 - T6000.
As for wanting action with three diamonds on board--you don't with the pair on board. That's why you bet enough to make it wrong for trips to call.
As for r.g.p., try accessing it through www.dejanews.com. The filter on your system may allow you to go there via that web page.
George,
I posted a few things about this hand on RGP. One thing I questioned was not re-raising with the A,Qs pre-flop to knock out hands like 6,6 that are getting good implied odds to get the whole stack. Do you think this would be the right play? I basically said the same thing you did about betting the turn. I think Mike Caro deserves a lot of credit for posting this hand on RGP and I was glad he included some of the RGP posters comments in his article as well.
Tom Haley
The game is PL Omaha with 25-50 blinds. The players are all experienced. I'll tell the story from the viewpoint of Player A: ...I hold Q8xx and see the flop along with 2 other players for 100 (typical in this game). It comes Q82 with 2 clubs. Check by Player B (the original raiser), I bet 200, the 3rd guy drops and B calls. I started with 4500 in my stack; B started with a bit more. B is very aggressive and hard to predict. The turn is the 3s making Q832, 2 clubs and 2 spades on board. Check to me - I bet 500 and B calls. The river is the 7s and B bets 800. Now when B has the nuts, he tends to make a somewhat smaller bet to elicit a call, so I don't think he has Ax of spades. I think I can make him release any hand without the AS, so I raise 1700. He immediately goes all in. I have 1200 left and I know he has the AS, but everything about his play tells me he doesn't have a flush and if he doesn't have a flush he probably can't beat 2 pair. I call and win the pot when he turns out to have aces with the AS...
These 2 guys managed to build a 9000 pot holding rather marginal hands. Any comments? Is Player A a genius, a madman, or neither?
Probably a little of both. A madman to be playing a trouble hand like that in the first place and a genius to be able to read Player B that well so that Player B might as well have had his hand face up.
I'll admit that while I've played quite a bit of Omaha I've never played anywhere near that level, so maybe for that level and the blind structure he chose to play an acceptable hand.
Ted
Alright I'll give you the perspective of a good limit player who has played some pot limit.
The pot size is 1700, player B bets 800 into it and represents a A high flush. Player A suspects that he is bluffing and that his top two pair are good. Does player A also know that if he re-raises Players B bluff that player A will make a totally futile attempt to rebluff raise?
This goes way beyond my thinking. Even if I suspected that player B was bluffing, I would just call -- cause I couldn't stand a re-raise or probably even a call.
Chris K.
You left out one possibility...Mad genius!
We don't use that term on this forum.
Don,
Glad to see you here at the forum and I hope you are doing fine. Those are the pot limit omaha games I play in and those kind of pots do come up from time to time. Usually the player gives up before going all in against a really good player because he knows that this player can read that far into his thinking. Most of the pots with alot of flair get started by one of the people from around London. They currently are the best omaha players and the ones that play into the highest levels of thinking. To win at big stakes omaha you cant be afraid to call tough bets. Against some players raising on the end with the bare ace of the possible flush is guaranteed money if you have the guts to stick alot of money in. Good Luck and let us know if you are working on anything new about gambling.
I'll tell you what I think. This is one of the most interesting posts I have read here or elsewhere in ages and beats the hell out of reading about how someone played two queens in the big blind in a 3-6 game!
This is a real poker post man!
By the way if you are player A you now know why I no longer play chinese poker with you!
I was playing 20-40 HE at the Mirage. The game was populated by several decent players, two pros, and a live-one who played loose and relatively passive. He would only raise if he was sure he had the best hand.
UTG I raise with pocket sixes. The live-one calls, one of the decent players calls in late position, and everyone else folds.
The flop comes 9 7 3 rainbow. I bet out, the live-one raises, and the late position player drops. Now I know the live-one will only raise with a made hand, a hand he is sure will beat mine. So I figure he flopped a set or had a big overpair. With pocket tens and even Jacks, I am sure he would only call.
Mason, help me out here. With my backdoor straight potential and chances of turning a set, what is my correct play on the flop? How big a mistake is it to call?
If he has JJ and you call to the end you are a 7.6 to 1 dog.
I am not Mason, and I think Bobby B. did the math correctly as he always does; but given the nature of the game you described, I think YOU are the live one for raising with pocket sixes under the gun. How do you hope to make money with this play?
I didn't think I would be posting again any time soon, especially after yesterday's real display of professionalism at the table. It is like the brain is jammed or missing, and every bad habit I ever had was on display. But...
>>I think YOU are the live one for raising with pocket sixes under the gun. How do you hope to make money with this play?
I sometimes make this play for deception purposes. The key point here, it is only done rarely. You make money, if the cards break right (set or maybe a str8) and you get to show the hand. This may entice future calls when you have a real hand from UTG.
However, the mistake that is made, is not being able to shut down if the flop is not favorable, otherwords you missed and you should fold. Our egos can of get in the way with common since when we don't like the flop. But, HOWWWWWWWW good it feels when that 2 outer hits on the turn to make a set. Provided it doesn't make your opponent a str8 in the process.
In this case there are two over cards on the flop and this infamous back flush and str8 making, IMHO, is only for when you have a good hand that could stand on its own merits, yet the hand has back door potential, like a str8 or flush.
This happend to me last night. I have pocket kings, loose player on my immediate right opens with a raise, middle position (20/40). I make it 3 bets, all fold and she makes it $80 to go. I call, flop is Kc-Qs-7c, she bets I raise, reraise, I raise, she calls, turn is 6c, she checks and I bet, call--river is 5 of CLUBS. She lights up like a Christmas tree in Time Squre and bets. She has.......drum roll please, pocket Aces with the Ace of clubs. OUCH.
But this is where backdoor flushes and str8s, again IMHO should be added into the equation. The aces could have stood alone, but they got help.
And "old gamble" told me once, "if the flop don't fit, get!"
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
Nevadalarry-
You KNEW it and you paid her off anyway (as I would)- I guess it is some form of masochism that increases the live ones' implied odds. "I KNOW you redrew on me, but I HAVE to see it with my own eyes!"
You KNEW it and you paid her off anyway (as I would)- I guess it is some form of masochism that increases the live ones' implied odds. "I KNOW you redrew on me, but I HAVE to see it with my own eyes!"
No, I did the most unprofessional thing, I slammed my hand down face up, stared at the dealer, made a comment about "how could you finger *&%$ the cards to come up with that card?" Then I left the card room for a couple hours. There is more to the story between me and this female player but as prodicted she went broke. And "IT" wasn't a macho thing that I let over come me, it was my tiny little brain just snapped for a second, because I was getting snapped off on the river a lot in this session. But, once the action and words were finished, there was nothing to bring them back.
I hate it when I do this. I hate myself and don't think much of others that do it. I got beat, can't cry about it.
I did not call her last bet! I left the table so fast that I didn't see her show the Ace of clubs with another ace. When I came back later a friend playing in the same game told me. She had gone to another table and lost everything. And there are some of you piranhas out there that would have probably enjoyed hearing she bluff the flush, and had two red aces. Got one of those old "rocks" at the Mirage!
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
Let me try to add a point about something that I think is unclear for many players. Nevadalarry points out that a play such as raising UTG with a small pair can be a good for "deception purposes" if done only rarely. He adds that it can entice future calls when you have a real hand. While this may be one effect, I think there is a more important one. That is, it helps you deal with those opponents who always put you on a hand like AK when you raise early, then try to take the pot away from you by betting/raising when small cards flop. If they know that you could have a big piece of a flop containing smallish cards they'll be at least a bit less likely to take such shots at you. I might note, as well, that another small portion of the negative expectation of such a play is counteracted by the excessive action you sometimes get when you do happen to make a hand with such junk. Still, I agree that it should not be made often - only often enough to get the job done, which in softer games probably means never.
Also, let's say you play 25 hours per week and make such a raise once a week. It seems like you can go months without ever getting to a showdown with such a hand. Usually you flop nothing, after which you can sometimes steal the pot, but often have to give it up. This has made me wonder just how much value these plays really have. Still I do make them from time to time while I continue to wonder.
BTW, I'd be interested to hear from others what you think about the pros and cons of such a play with a small pair versus small suited connectors. Mason has mentioned the latter in his writings, and it seems to be the more standard choice. But choosing a small pair for such a play seems fairly common as well. It might at least have the advantage of being easier to play after the flop. Thoughts?
John Feeney
I almost never raise in early position with a small pair for *image* purposes. I will do it if 1) I am having a really bad run of hands and try to steal the blinds because I look like a rock who must have A-A. 2) The game is tight, and short-handed and I have a good shot at winning the blinds or getting heads-up with a player that I will be able to know where I stand when the inevitable overcards flop.
In a more typical game, I find the occasional raise with 76s or 87s to be a much better *Image* play, mainly because the flop can hit you in so many more ways (flush draws, straights, straight-draws, two-pair, two shots at a single pair in a ragged board.) The only way the flop can hit a small pair is with a set. And generally the only way you will be able to show the hand down is when it is a loser or *you* call down (or get into a raising war) with the the only hands you can beat like AK or AQ.
Michael, I agree with your thinking. I also am far more likely to make this sort of play with hands like 76s rather than small pairs. But I've seen some pretty good players do it with the small pairs. I'd be interested to see if anyone can provide a good rationale for doing so. Also, when I made my comments about taking months ever to see a showdown with such a play, I was thinking of small suited connectors. That's been my experience. But considering how seldom I make such a play, it's a small sample and may have just run that way. (In fact more recently I've connected on these plays several times - which is certainly more fun.)
John Feeney
Personally, I feel raising under the gun with a small pair is superior to suited connectors. I did the math many years ago and I will probably be corrected but I think it is about 7 1/2 to one against flopping a set and about 15 to one against flopping 2 pair or better (including a flush draw), with say, 7-6 suited. I am neglecting one pair because that is not usually the flop you want with this type of hand, although under many circumstances it must be played.
With a small pair not only will you snap off someone trying to take the pot away from you with big cards (you must read hands well to pull this off) but you can also flop a set, or opened end straight draw. A set of course being the most favorable outcome.
Raising under the gun once in a while with 7-6 suited is OK too but if you flop a pair of 6's or 7's you always have to worry about your kicker if you get any action. (I prefer to make this play in loose passive and loose aggressive games.)
You can of course, also snap off a bluff from an aggressive player with the suited connectors when you FLOP a pair, but with the pocket pair you already have a pair made and are more concerned with the texture of the flop and whether or not it hit your opponent, rather than being concerned with hitting something. (Flopping a set is a bonus) When you don't hit anything with 7-6s it becomes a bluffing situation, and now YOU are the one in danger of being picked off by the big cards. This is of course MOST applicable when you are heads up. (Or sometimes three handed.)
If the live one is loose, why do you put him on a pocket pair? There are plenty of other hands that are beating you on the flop, and also plenty that aren't, but which even relatively passive players will raise with. Also, why would the live one be sure QQ was winning? How do you play aces?
Quite aside from that, you have a very easy laydown here.
Tom, this live-one would only raise with a hand he figures to be the best hand. Since I raised before the flop, he can only be confident with a big pocket pair or set. His MO is to call unless he has that confidence. A straight draw doesn't meet his confidence criteria, nor do overcards. Pocket queens, however, do satisfy his minimum raising requirements for the given action and board. I don't say his play makes sense; I only try to understand how he plays.
I was playing 6-12 HE the other day in Mt. Pleasant,MI and thought that I had found a gold mine when I first sat down. The game was incredably loose and I considered everybody at the table to be worse than me, most by a large margine. To make a long story short, I left the table a big loser and extremly confused by what had happened. I think I have narrowed the problem down to the players not only being loose, but also hyper-agressive (e.g. 3 betting pre-flop w/ a 10-8 suited). Am I correct? I know from reading several books that the best games are loose pasive, but will extreme aggresiveness make a solid player an underdog, or am I barking up the wrong tree because I lost.
Dan Barnett
The 2 types of games are very different, and must be played very differently to maximize profit. In a loose passive game, you can see a lot more flops with hands like small suited connectors, small pairs, Axs, and the like. Then you can fold on the flop when you don't hit really hard, and not really be giving up much if you do so incorrectly.
In a loose aggressive game, the pot is so big after the preflop betting is done, that you often must call to take off cards if you have a reasonable draw. This game is VERY high volatility, and the swings can be enormous. Because it costs so much to see the flop, you lose most of your implied odds, and must play much more tightly before the flop. In fact, if you fold everything but AA, KK, QQ, and AKs preflop, you can probably still make most of the profit you'd make by playing perfectly preflop.
Now, if these players are aggressive preflop, and continue to be aggressive postflop, the game is really hard to play well, as you will constantly be making difficult decisions about whether you're ahead, behind, drawing live, drawing dead, etc., while the pot is so big you must make a lot of loose calls yourself.
While an aggressive, loose game can make you a lot of money, it is hard money to make, with big swings, and lots of winning players just don't like to play in them. Go ahead and do so yourself, but only if you keep these things in mind.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You will only be dealt AA, KK, QQ or AKs once per 60.27 deals. I think you will have a hard time breaking even if you play this way. The claim that this is near-optimal is absurd, no matter how stupid your opponents are.
I would recommend using dejanews to search the r.g.p. archives. I know this sort of game has been discussed at length there.
Greg's point is not so absurd actually. When a game is at the extreme of loose/aggressive, with multiple bets going in preflop on every hand and on every round, amazingly tight hand selection makes sense. Greg was making a point, but would probably allow for the inclusion of a few more hands such as JJ, AQs, AJs,KQs, QJs... In fact I read the discussion of this on RGP a while back and as I recall the consensus, which included Mason M's recommendations centered on just such a very short list of hands.
One way of looking at it is that when you're going to hit the lottery when you do win a pot, you can be very tight before entering the fray.
John Feeney
The advice to play very tightly in very aggressive games is essentially correct. (You can play a few more hands if typical pots are many handed. But if only three or four players are taking the flop, this advice to be very selective is accurate.) I suspect that even though the game was good you did not make the right adjustments. When that is the case, you won't expect to do very well.
Greg,
From a theoretical point of view, TTH2 sims I ran show that your minimalistic approach is not that far off from a "normal" tight strategy as Tom suggests. Taking 9 G.A. Joe's (a loose aggressive profile that sees 75% of the flops) and 1 Advisor_T (tight aggressive with modifications where necessary), the following results were obtained for 10,000 hands :
Advisor_T (Normal) : +$83,000 profit; 407 pots won
Advisor_T(Greg) : +$22,000 profit; 108 pots won
Advisor_T(John) : +$40,000 profit; 161 pots won
where "Greg" = only QQ-AA,AKs, and "John" = only JJ-AA,AKs,AQs,AJs,KQs,QJs.
However, a loose player does not necessarily mean a stupid player, and it won't take long before the other players realize what's going on (with the "Greg" and "John" approaches). So, IMHO both are losing strategies in real life. As you imply, these games might best be avoided.
Etienne
Etienne,
Thanks for running the simulation. I must admit that the results surprise me a little. Although I own TTH, it is an old version and I don't use it much anymore. With your lineup of Advisor T vs. 9 GA Joe's, is the pot regularly 3 and 4-bet preflop? If not, then it isn't quite right for the scenario we're discussing.
I would guess (and this is very much a guess), that the standards I'm proposing, while far from optimal, will yield more than half of the profit that optimal strategy yields, in the game described. That doesn't mean that someone shouldn't play some of these other hands, like JJ, TT, AQs, etc. It just means that in the game described, where the players routinely 3- and 4-bet preflop, and continue to play tough and aggressive postflop, that these "lesser" hands are only slightly profitable.
You can imagine how hard it is to play TT correctly after the flop against this lineup. Unless you flop a set, you can never know where you're at. Even if you're an overpair, how aggressively can you bet and raise against these players who are playing back at you with anything from a set, 2-pair, 1-pair, gutshot draws, to nothing? I mean, can you really 3-bet a flop of 974 against 4 or 5 of these players? And if you don't, then you're winning less money after the flop, and still paying 3 or 4 bets to see the flop. It's a tough game.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
I forgot to mention that the results were for $20-$40. In this particular lineup, the average number seeing the flop was 7, the average pot was $740 and the average bet on the deal was $401 or 2.9 bets. So it should meet your criteria.
Etienne
In the limiting case of a very loose aggressive game, one it which everyone plays every hand to the showdown and every betting round is capped, it seems to make intuitive sense that the optimal strategy would be to play any above "average" pre-flop. To the degree that the actual conditions are not at the limiting case the optimal strategy would shift tighter. Thus it doesn't necessarily surprise me that the simulation showed that the normal strategy was better than a very tight strategy (respecting the relatively small number of runs)in a very loose aggressive game.
What is the "average" pre-flop?
Actually, in the limiting case you describe, optimal strategy is to play most if not all hands preflop. The reason is the incredible overlay you are getting from opponents who never fold post-flop, even with hand/board combinations like 23o/AAJ.
Of course, this is getting a bit away from the original question of how to play against a field which is insane *preflop*.
For those interested, one key thread on this topic can be found in BORG (go to www.universe.digex.net/~kimberg/borg/borg.html and find the thread, "Malmuth on loose, wild hold'em games".) A subsequent thread can be found via Dejanews (w/ power search, under subject, enter "wild and games and revisited". Under forum, enter "rec.gambling.poker". There's also a thread on this here in the TwoPlusTwo archives. (Was it around Novemer, '97?)
These threads include both good logical analyses and a mathematical analysis by Paul Pudaite. (He concluded, for instance, given certain reasonable assumptions about pot size and other factors, that outside the blinds the only profitable pairs in such a game were AA and KK! Perhaps someone would like to tinker with his assumptions to see what it takes to change this.)
While these threads were not talking about a game in which all players played to the river with every round capped, they were assuming a very wild game in which multiple bets did frequently go in, not just preflop, but on later rounds as well. That is, they were talking about games that are about as wild as you can realistically expect to find in a casino.
Now, unless you reject the basic conclusion that very tight hand selection is correct in the kinds of wild games which were discussed in these threads, then I think there is a problem with the idea that in a game with everyone in and every round capped it would be correct to look at the flop with every hand (or even just every hand that's better than average). This idea does seem sort of logical. But why would it shift from an ultra-tight strategy being correct in a very wild but somewhat variable game, to an ultra-loose strategy being correct in a maximally wild game?
A partial answer may come from a point made by a poster in one of the above referenced threads: There are mediocre hands that may have a small theoretical positive expectation in a maximally wild game. But they would become losers in reality because it would be impossible to avoid serious mistakes with them after the flop. (e.g., you play a medium pair which becomes an overpair to the flop, but the flop is kind of "straighty" and an overcard to your pair comes on the turn, and you're faced with heavy betting...).
Consider also that from another point of view such a loose strategy does not seem so intuitively correct. How do you normally play in an early position if you know there is a good chance of multiple raises behind you. Because you have to consider the implications of these raises for the basic strength of your hand, implied odds, etc., you tighten up. I know this is a different situation. The raises here are basically meaningless. But would you really want to play something like Q9o, knowing that it's going to be capped behind you?
Finally, I'm sure we all agree that in the real world, if you were playing in the wildest game you'd ever seen, playing almost every hand (even if it were shown to be correct) would cause you to have such huge fluctuations that you would opt for a very different approach.
John Feeney
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary Carson writes: >>...If you are not very good at reading your oppenents hands after the flop then it probably is best to play very tight preflop. But, if you can get into the brain of a maniac and read their hands (it can be done) then a whole lot of hands become playable.<<
That's a huge "if". Reading one maniac is a challenge, but not too big a deal as you can just play him as a habitual bluffer, trap him, and such. But if you think you can read multiple maniacs simultaneously, and well enough to avoid most serious errors with mediocre hands, then I have to say I think you're dreaming. In a super wild (but real life) game you would have to be able to pull off such reading to play a lot of mediocre hands, as well as to continue with hands that become mediocre on the flop.
>>I've never added them up but I'd guess about 65%. In early position you do have to be more selective preflop than you do in late position... [snip]...Hands that won't play well from early position after the flop should not be played much from about the first 3 postions and not from the blinds. Primaily this is offsuit hands (AKo is okay, probably not AQo). But, any pair is okay. But, an overpair won't play well from up front so your really just looking to flop a set. Overpairs will play better from late position. Suited big cards and suited connectors are fine. From later position you can add unsuited cards like KQ, JT, etc...[snip]...<<
This doesn't sound like 65% of the hands dealt to you. It actually sounds semi-tight. I mean you're playing quite tightly early (sounds like about groups 1-3 in HPFAP) except for the smaller suited connectors and smaller pairs. Then in late position you're adding some slightly weaker big card hands. That's not super tight but it's not 65% either. Anyway, I'm quite sure you won't be getting sufficient implied odds for smaller suited connectors in this sort of game. I also think it's far too costly to be playing hands like JTo for three or four bets in a late position.
Check out the threads I referenced above. If you are playing in these games with a loose hand selection strategy, thinking you can read a bunch of maniacs after the flop, I think you're playing so similarly to them that you're just fluctuating around. Perhaps you've gotten lucky and run well a few times, creating big wins. So you've concluded that your loose approach is correct. But I'm pretty sure it will backfire given enough time. A loose hand selection approach here is treating a loose wild game the same as a loose passive game - which can't be right. Just my thoughts
John Feeney
Post deleted at author's request.
>the only profitable pairs in such a game were AA and KK
This makes a lot of sense. (In the loosest games) If you make an overpair on the flop with JJ-99, not only will many of your opponents have odds to draw to overcards, but the compacted board will have high straight potential.
So with JJ-99 and to a lesser extent QQ, you are only drawing to flop a set, and your implied odds go way down when the pot is capped preflop.
>But why would it shift from an ultra-tight strategy being
>correct in a very wild but somewhat variable
>game, to an ultra-loose strategy being correct in a
>maximally wild game?
If the game is variable, you are running into the risk of encountering a dominating hand when the betting does cap. Also, drawing hands that are normally strong in crowds can't get in cheaply enough to be profitable. In addition, all opponents are not playing to the river in this game, so you won't make as much later money when you do hit.
If you assume that all opponents will always play to the river, anything that can hold up even a small fraction of the time in a large field will be playable.
>>If you assume that all opponents will always play to the river, anything that can hold up even a small fraction of the time in a large field will be playable.<<
Yes, of course, this does make sense. I was too quick to conclude that if a hyper-tight strategy should be right in a real world very wild game, there was some logical problem with moving in the exact opposite direction for a hypothetical all-players-to-the-river-every-round-capped game. I'd never thought much about such a game as it has little to do with reality. Having now thought about it, a strategy of seeing lots of flops does make sense - at least in theory. The problem - if you were to actually play in such a game - would be in determining after the flop which hands could be expected to hold up enough of the time to be worth continuing with. But this is something Tubo Texas Hold'em could probably be used to determine quite easily. Its just a step away from what the older simulations did. (i.e., just add some guidelines for what sorts of hands to fold or continue with on the flop...) Anyway, it's not too important except as a bit of theory trivia, as no game plays like that.
John Feeney
Etienne, another intriguing simulation. I would just add a couple of comments to what Greg said. Only a guess, but I would imagine that one reason the normal Advisor_T did best was because that "player" was free to do things like play a small pair when in late position and several players had come in without more than, say, one raise. Naturally, even in an extremely wild game there will be some hands and situations in which you have the opportunity to play more than just a small number of premium hands. Also, as Mason said, in pots with many players in, some additional hands will become playable. I think we have to factor in these (and other) kinds of considerations. Finally, if you were in a maximally wild game, playing this extremely tight strategy, and players started adjusting (e.g., by continuing to try to raise you out preflop, but refusing to give you action after the flop), then you just have to counter-adjust (e.g., by playing a more mediocre hand and trying to steal the pot if you don't flop anything).
John Feeney
10,000 hands is nowhere near enough for this sort of simulation. Try at least 100,000. (I'd use a million if I cared about the results)
Erik,
You write :
< 10,000 hands is nowhere near enough for this sort of simulation. Try at least 100,000. (I'd use a million if I cared about the results) >
Of course you're right, and that's why I distinctly specified that it was 10,000 hands. Other times I will say things like "a quick sim" or "a crude sim". There are methods of checking whether 10,000 (or any other number) is sufficient and I do this before posting any results. I also used the same repeatable deal code for the 3 cases. It would have been nice to have run 3 million hands instead of 30,000, but quite frankly I (and my computer) wouldn't have devoted that much time for this exercise. So it would have been a case of caring for the results, but not having any.
Etienne
A friend and I disagree about how AJ should be played in the first two positions under the gun. One of us feels that you should either raise with it or fold because it plays best with few players. One of us feels that calling is best hoping to get players to call with A10,KJ,QJ,J10 and flop top pair with you. Both of us are winning players in the middle limits. I play 10/20 to 25/50 my friend plays 15/30 to 50/100. We both had a lot of idea's About this hand that I didn't discuss here because we want to here your thought's on this. AJ can be suited or off suit.
It's important to vary your play, as you step up in limit, so I don't believe that playing a hand the same way ALL the time is ever correct. However, that being said, I would usually play AJ, in early position, in the following manner:
These four game types are the most common:
in a LOOSE, PASSIVE GAME:
AJoff CALL AJsuited CALL
in a WEAK, TIGHT GAME:
AJoff RAISE AJsuited RAISE
in a LOOSE, AGGRESSIVE GAME:
AJoff FOLD AJsuited CALL
in a SOLID, AGGRESSIVE GAME:
AJoff FOLD AJsuited FOLD
I agree
Considering the loose-passive game only, I would tend to raise with AJo and AJs if my image was strong. I would tend to raise with AJs if my image was suffering. In each case, the mixing-up part of my play would be calling, not raising.
You speak about image, in your response, as the deciding factor. Unfortunately, from experience, image means VERY LITTLE, if that, in a typical LOSSE AGGRESSIVE game. In a game like that, as a general rule, the table's gambling. There isn't much concern, or even awareness among most of the players of any number of factors-- including IMAGE. You must play a pretty straight-forward game to get the money. Plain and simple.
Jimmy, if you re-read my original post, you will see I was commenting on a loose-passive game, not a loose-aggressive game.
In the typical loose-passive game I play, image does matter. These players react very much based on their perception of you and perception of your current luck. To simply play straightforward, without regards to your image, will cost you money.
I will stipulate there are loose-passive games where virtually every opponent takes the flop. However, this is not my idea of the typical loose-passive game. It's an extreme version of the loose-passive game.
Doug-
I'm just not sure I understand your comment- because for the most part, in a loose-passive game-- you're gonna have to showdown the best hand at the river. To my mind, in a game like this- how does image matter? You can vary your play all you want. I just don't see how either of these two factors is relevant in a TYPICAL loose-passive game.
I'm also interested in the why you would do this. My friend and I had some good discussion on this.
Ill try to explain the reason for my conclusions:
in a LOOSE, PASSIVE GAME: AJoff CALL AJsuited CALL
You know that there's a pretty good chance you'll get to see the flop for one bet. Not to mention, you'll probably be getting around seven to one on your call. You don't want to fold either holding under these conditions for one bet. Your implied odds, in this situation, are huge as well. If you do hit your hand, you'll most likely get paid off in a couple of spots. And, in a game like this-- THE BEST POSSIBLE GAME TYPE-- you'll win the most money with your hands that hold-up-- and lose the least otherwise.
in a WEAK, TIGHT GAME:
AJoff RAISE AJsuited RAISE
Be more inclined to raise more hands up front-- as most likely you'll just take down the blinds-- or get one caller-- whom you have good control over. If you get re-raised-- or multiple callers-- and miss the flop-- you can get away from the hand relatively easily. But these bets lost-- will be more than made up by all the blinds that you steal in similar situations (I believe SUPERSYSTEM gives a good account of this concept in the NOLIMIT HOLDEM section).
in a LOOSE, AGGRESSIVE GAME:
AJoff FOLD AJsuited CALL
You dont mind playing AJsuited or other Big, Suited connectors in a game like this. As a matter of fact, this type of holding- would probably have the greatest expectation in this type of game. However, hands like AJ off or AT off in early position, when youll probably be forced to put in two or three bets pre-flop, just don't have a positive expectation.
in a SOLID, AGGRESSIVE GAME:
AJoff FOLD AJsuited FOLD
If you read my response to Byron, I've explained why I believe it appropriate to fold AJ in early position in a TOUGH game.
Hope that helped.
Jimmy
Can you explain why you would fold AJ suited in early position in a solid aggressive game ? Seems to me like it's a hand that could stand up to a raise from behind.
Thanks,
Byron Curtner
First of all- the Shaun post was mine. Sorry- I posted it from another computer.
Byron commented, "Can you explain why you would fold AJ suited in early position in a solid aggressive game? Seems to me like it's a hand that could stand up to a raise from behind."
In practice, this just is not the case. There are three MOST LIKELY scenarios with this hand:
1. You flop an ACE. At this point- in a solid game-- your ace might not be any good anyway. And, most importantly, from early position, it'll cost you a significant amount of bets to find that out. Not to mention, you won't win more than one big bet against a good player if your ace happens to be good.
2. You flop a JACK. Same explanation as scenario ONE, except it might cost you even more money-- if your opponent holds an overpair.
3. You flop nothing. Now, you're NOWHERE with the hand. Your hand can beat VERY FEW hands that the re-raiser may hold- and your position precludes you (for the most part) from getting free cards from a good player. And, even if you do manage do look at the rest of the hand for free, as mentioned previously, if you hit- you can't be sure you're any good.
If the object of poker, basically, is to win the most, and lose the least, money with your hands-- playing AJ upfront in a TOUGH game-- just doesn't have a positive expectation.
I recommend playing AJ offsuit under the gun at a 10-handed table. This is probably the third most controversial/criticized suggestion for under the gun play. (The other questioned suggestions are playing A9s/A8s, while mucking KQ.)
I ran a Turbo simulation in which I had a player raising UTG with 77-AA, ATs-AKs, KQs, and AJ-AK, and I optimized the cold-calling and 3-betting responses of its opponents. I then ran that UTG player versus a field of opponents optimized in that first simulation to respond near-optimally to his UTG raises. The result was that AJ had a pretty substantial win, about $6 per occurance UTG in a $10-$20 game. Versus a more normal line-up, AJ's win was much less: $1.75. Yet, overall its UTG EV was 15% less versus the optimized line-up than the normal line-up. The normal line-up is looser, and AA, KK, and QQ are all worth more in the looser game. Also, in the normal line-up, the players are calling two cold with AQ offsuit, but not in the optimized line-up, because it was found to be a losing play versus a raiser with those tight starting requirements.
Now the simulations were not perfect, but it's at least some evidence that it's okay to play AJ UTG even if your opponents adapt to you, at least if you play as tight as I listed above. Next, I'll try adding KJs, A9s, and A8s to the starting hands, and see if I can't settle this question of A8s.
To be more sure of the conclusions, I'd have to repeat the whole thing but with AJ folded UTG, but I doubt it would make a difference in the hands the optimized opponents are playing, and thus the only thing it would do is to sacrifice that $6 EV UTG when it held AJ.
-Abdul
Abdul:
Thanks for running the simulation. Those results are interesting. However, the simulation just runs hands through to the river- right? This just isn't accurate in practice. The simulation can't take into account position- Not to mention- it can't take into account the number of times that you, in reality, are forced to lay the hand down because you're not getting proper odds to call after the flop. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see the simulation as being an accurate assessment of this particular hand's value in this case. I'd love to hear some responses on this topic. Thanks for all the input.
Jimmy
the turbo TH software does not play to the river. You load personal profiles of various types of players. I find the loose players are too loose, and the tight aggressive players a little too aggressive, but over all I believe the simulations can be very useful. Abdul seems to have done quite a bit of work with this software, so he could respond in more detail. I would have to say that the simulations are valid and worth looking at.
Abdul,
You write :
< I ran a Turbo simulation in which I had a player raising UTG with 77-AA, ATs-AKs, KQs, and AJ-AK, and I optimized the cold-calling and 3-betting responses of its opponents. I then ran that UTG player versus a field of opponents optimized in that first simulation to respond near-optimally to his UTG raises. The result was that AJ had a pretty substantial win, about $6 per occurance UTG in a $10-$20 game. Versus a more normal line-up, AJ's win was much less: $1.75. >
Why did you abandon the strategy of calling with TT-AA under the gun (making AJo a definite fold UTG)?
Etienne
I didn't abandon the strategy of limp-reraising with TT-AA UTG in certain types of games, nor do I think that limp-reraising with TT-AA would make AJ a definite fold. Actually, I was just in the process of running simulations to determine how opponents could adapt to attack the raises of such a player, raises which are weakened by the stripping out of the big pairs and big suited aces.
If you raise UTG with just TT-AA, ATs-AKs, AJ-AK, and KQs, my adaptation studies have found that a player cannot quite call you properly with AQ. But if you add in A9s, A8s, and KJs, then he can call you with AQ. Even so, AJ is still profitable, partially because your opponents have to play so tight that AJ has equity in stealing the blind even from UTG.
If you raise with only AJ, AQ, 77, 88, KJs, and a quarter of the time with AK, then your opponent can cold call you with a lot more hands, minimums around 33, 76s, QTs, KJ, K9s, AJs, and AQ. Here AJ is profitable, because it's being called by some dominated hands like QJs. And really, what is AJ afraid of but AQ/AQs, AK/AKs, JJ, QQ, KK, and AA? These hands are *always* threats, except AQ when you're raising with your best hands, and even then most players will still call two cold with AQ.
I do note with some concern that my opponents are often calling two cold with hands like 76s, QTs, and AJs, even when I am raising with my best hands, and so by limp-reraising with my best hands, I may make their calls of my raises more correct. It's still my hope that this is more than outweighed by punishing them severely when they call (or raise) my limp with something like KJo, especially when I get to pull off a reraise preflop.
-Abdul
Abdul,
You mention raising a quarter of the time with AK. How do you implement this using TTH2, short of some dubious interpolation?
Etienne
I have it limp-reraise with AK, raise with AKs. Not perfect, but it's the best I can do without splicing together results from different simulations. Also note that the flags have to be turned off.
Thanks to Jimmy for a well reasoned reply to my question. One great thing about this forum is that low limit rec players like me can get such high quality advice.
Just playing devil's advocate here: Do the following points not make up for the shortcomings of AJs that you pointed out:
1. Even though you're in early postion and it is a tough game, you won't always face a raise from behind. Obviously, you're looking a lot better if no one raises behind you.
2. In a tough game, won't you get raises from KK, QQ, JJ, KQs and maybe even TT ? Making your Ace flop look better, although as you pointed out, you won't get much action.
3. The flush and str8 draws obviously help some, too. These should have great implied odds, right?
I'll be the first to admit I don't know much about tough, solid games being a strictly 3-6 player.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Byron:
I learn more from talking to other players about hands and poker theory. It doesn't matter whether those players play low-limit, high-limit, stud, hold'em. It's the discussion, exchange of ideas, and the subsequent thought process about the discussion that makes me a better player.
To respond to your last post:
1. Even though you're in early postion and it is a tough game, you won't always face a raise from behind. Obviously, you're looking a lot better if no one raises behind you.
Interestingly enough, if you KNEW that you wouldn't face a raise from behind, it would be correct for YOU to raise the hand yourself. At this point, you probably do hold the best hand- and want to take control of the action- and limit the field.
2. In a tough game, won't you get raises from KK, QQ, JJ, KQs and maybe even TT ? Making your Ace flop look better, although as you pointed out, you won't get much action.
You're absolutely right- you'll get raises from A LOT of hands- all the way down to 88. But, at this point-- you have six outs (three aces and three jacks). And as pointed out earlier, even if you do hit an ace or a jack-- your opponent may either a) hold an overpair to your jack b) hold an ace with a better kicker, or c) flop a set. In any of these cases, considering your position, you'll probably lose the most and win the least against a tough player.
3. The flush and str8 draws obviously help some, too. These should have great implied odds, right?
Certainly, you will win a couple of extra bets when you flop a big hand (two pair, flush, straight etc.). However, against only one player, the value just isn't there.
Just one guys opinion. Hope that helped.
Jimmy
Jimmy writes:
"1. You flop an ACE. At this point- in a solid game-- your ace might not be any good anyway. And, most importantly, from early position, it'll cost you a significant amount of bets to find that out. Not to mention, you won't win more than one big bet against a good player if your ace happens to be good."
Which is it--a significant number of bets, or one big bet? It can't be both.
"3. You flop nothing. Now, you're NOWHERE with the hand. Your hand can beat VERY FEW hands that the re-raiser may hold- and your position precludes you (for the most part) from getting free cards from a good player. And, even if you do manage do look at the rest of the hand for free, as mentioned previously, if you hit- you can't be sure you're any good."
If you are really NOWHERE when you flop nothing, i.e. no positive expectation due to being ahead and/or bluffing value, then you are getting reraised very rarely. In this sort of game, I would guess THE MOST LIKELY outcome is:
4. You pick up the blinds.
Tom-
Let me attempt to respond to your comments:
1. You commented: Which is it? A significant number of bets, or one big bet? It can't be both.
Well, perhaps I didn't explain clearly enough- because I certainly think that it is both. It will cost you a significant number of bets to find out that the ace is NOT any good. However, you won't win more than one big bet if it IS good. In one case, you have the best hand, in the other case, you don't. All I'm saying here-- is that, in the long run, you will win the least, and lose the most, number of bets given your position with this particular holding.
2. You commented: If you are really NOWHERE when you flop nothing, i.e. no positive expectation due to being ahead and/or bluffing value, then you are getting reraised very rarely.
Im just not sure I understand this comment at all. Please tell me which hands, in a solid, tough game-- with which you would re-raise an UTG raiser- that cannot beat A-Joff- preflop.
*I have a sense that perhaps the biggest disagreement that we have is confusing our game types. I agree with your second comment, as it relates to a WEAK, TIGHT FIELD.
Or, perhaps we really do disagree. Whatever the case, I'll be very interested to read your response. Thanks for the input, Tom. Even if we disagree, it's appreciated.
Jimmy
Jimmy,
Regarding point 1, if you can only win one big bet when you are winning, then you know you are beat once your opponent puts in his third small bet. So you can fold. If what you said were really true, you should never lose more than one big bet post-flop.
It is probably true that your opponent has a "playing advantage" against you. By this I mean that he will, on average, win more when he wins than you do. This is generally true when you are out of position. In this sense, I agree with your statement, "All I'm saying here-- is that, in the long run, you will win the least, and lose the most, number of bets given your position with this particular holding. " However, this is not what you originally claimed, unless of course, you meant that even one or two small bets is a significant number of bets.
My problem with your other statement is very similar. Your opponents can't have their cake and eat it too. Either they are reraising you only with premium hands such as AA, KK, QQ, AK, AQs, or they may very well have to fold when you bet the flop. For example, JJ is dominating you preflop, but it must fold if you semibluff a flop of KQx rainbow. Your hand is also not worthless against AK or AQ, since your opponent must respect infrequent bluffs. On the other hand, if your opponents play very tight against you, you will pick up a fair number of blinds.
I'm not sure of the best way to play AJ from early position, but I'm very sure about this: your solid opponents will make more dough than the weak ones, but they still can't have their cake and eat it.
I have a tendency to raise under the gun with A-J suited in a tough game. (Sometimes calling) I USUALLY muck A-J offsuit.
I like this hand and I think it plays well in the long run. I haven't run any simulations except those exercised through many years of experience.
I think it's OK to play the hand in this situation if you are a better than average player.
Lately I’ve heard and read a lot about playing hands with negative EV to mix up your play and improve your image and keep from being readable. I think this idea is over done. I never knowingly play a hand in a way that has a negative EV. If you are playing the players and the situations more than the cards, your play will be diverse enough without trying to mix up you play.
For example, in a previous post WE DISAGREE ABOUT AJ, Shaun gives good advice on playing AJ UTG. In one situation raise, in another fold, in another call. He is not playing the same hand differently to ‘mix up’ his play. He is choosing the best play based on the current situation at the table. To anyone monitoring his play he seems hard to read, not because he tries to be, but because he plays the game not just the cards.
Bobby, Shaun (Jimmy?) doesn't give advice on how to play AJ UTG in different situations. He gives advice on how to play AJ UTG in different game types. Given that most games are loose-passive, to varying degrees, and most games stay loose-passive to varying degrees, he won't be hard to read per se.
However, I do agree you shouldn't mix-up your play for its own sake. It's a situational matter where the factors driving your decision includes understanding how well your opponents play, how well you play after the flop, and how you are perceived.
First of all, I apologize again for posting under SHAUN'S handle, but that was me.
DOUG,
Let me say a couple of things here. First of all, I'd love to think that every game that I encounter will be either loose-passive or "some degree of loose-passive," but that is not the case. So, this premise of your argument is not entirely accurate. I would say that 15% of the games in which I've played in the last couple of months have been of that type. Granted these opportunities present the most profitable situation, but this type of game is just not easy to find (I play mostly 50-100, 75-150 HOLD'EM).
I agree 100% with Bobby. I play different hands, in different situations, in different ways. As Bobby stated, since I understand varying situations as they arise during the course of a game-- my play "appears" varied to the table.
Interestingly enough, if you sit a table long enough, even with the same players, the game type very often will change over that time period.
It seems that there is a stirring controversy of a deleted post. I know of little of this. And having recently just survived a hurricane in Florida and knowing that the boats I play on are cancelled for awhile I must say that what I read on RGP makes me have to think how stupid people can be. I read RGP but I will never post on it. Comparing it to this forum is like comparing a 1st grader to a Doctor. Hold on now I know that some of the posters here post there but what I am talking about is the content. Here you can get advice from many people, talk about ideas and even some humor. The RGP has posts on porno and other crap intermixed with poker. If I want some porno that's where I'll go. I went to RGP to read poker posts. Attacking Sklansky and Malmuth is the most idiotic thing. These men are proven winners, are proven experts. Now look I am not a 2+2 suckup. I do not agree with everthing they say or write. Some of their books could and should be wriiten with more subject matter as much as possible,for ex: HPFAP. OTG has told me that if they rewrote that book and it contained more info instead of letting some things be learned the hard way, in other words a combo-cookbook and theory book is what he exactly said, then they will have written a most powerful book on hold-em and that this book could not be bettered. However this book is the best currently out there. So many people read 2+2 books, like them and then bash the writers. That makes no sense. This forum is for players who really want to win. It is for people who play to win. Deep down when people play poker we all want to win thats how the game is "won". A lot of people say they play for fun and recreation but deep down they know the truth. This by the way is one of OTG's secret weopons. He told me that when these players fail to admit this to themselves they try to show as much as possible that they are "recreation players", they tend to lose all their money. I know that this sounds stupid but I think thats its true. The reason I brought up OTG is to show that there is more then one way to be a winning player. A tight agressive style is a proven method but there are others. This forum by far is the best poker forum out there. It's just my opinion but to me that's all that matters. As for deleting posts thats the business of 2+2. If you can remember, some time ago I attacked the speeling of forum posters because some were very hard to read. But that put tremendous pressure on me to always spell correctly, so to remove that pressure I posted a apology. Remember this. Some of my views are not always agreed with but I'm a true winner except at 5-10! The reason for this is that I read a lot. I take the game seriosly. I try to play against weak players as much as possible. I also have mastered the before-flop technical strategy and have worked on the post-flop strategies. I still have work to do there! Why Am I all this? 22222222222222+++++++++++++++++++++++++222222222222222
joe, I remember that post where you attacked the spelling mistakes. On your header, you spell defense, defence. Now your one of us! Welcome aboard
AL,
1. Joe, like myself, may have been educated in one of the countries of the former British Commonwealth, where defence is defense, colour is color, humour is humor, centre is center, to name but a few.
2. Nice hearing from you again.
Etienne
I like not having the pressure to spell everything correctly!
I like not having the pressure to spell everything correctly!
Lits git Boris bak to posting so we kan git over wurreing abut bad speling borus wear are you? Good Luk.
Yuz done a goot yob to..
Not to mention the pressure from double postings. :)
Running through a great many thoughts lately I seemed to have missplaced the following information.
We are playing in a 20/40 hold'em game, with a $3 rake, which $2 is taken out on the first $90. We will say the game is typical. Blinds are $10 and $20 with a full table, 10 players, therefore, it is costing us $3 a hand to play, as I see it.
The information I am looking for is whether I should play a tight aggressive game because it is a typical hold'em game. Or, should I loosen up a bit, and try and play a few more hands because of the rake and blinds?
I put the rake into the equation because if you do wait for the quality hand and win, you lose $3 of the pot. Of course you won the pot, but it still cost $3.30 for ten hands. Not counting the toke to the dealer.
I see the posts on loose/tight/aggressive games and the combinations of all three, but does the price of the blinds and rake need to be considered also, when talking about playig more or less hands in a particular game?
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
Yes, the rake definitely must be taken into account.
For example, if we knew everything about the way everyone else plays, the odds of what they might be holding, etc., then when it was our turn to act preflop for the first time, we could determine the average EV of our hand. When you're holding something like AA, you know it's going to be positive, and when you've got 72, you know it'll be negative. Now, some of those hands are going to have an EV that is positive, but is less than $3. Thus, you should fold those hands, as they will cost you money in the long run. If the rake were $2., then you can add back in a few more hands. I think you get the point.
Of course, the problem is, we never KNOW exactly where hands fall in the spectrum. AA doesn't have 1 specific EV, as it depends upon the action up to that point, how many people are yet to act, who those people are, etc. Thus, no one can tell you EXACTLY what hands to play, even if they include position in their strategy, as it will always depend upon the action and players for every hand.
However, the theory still clearly demonstrates that the optimal strategy calls for tighter play the higher the rake is (when the rake comes from the winner's pot). Now, if you're paying a time charge or a button charge that isn't live money in a pot, then you can ignore the rake (with respect to deciding which hands to play). Of course, if the rake is too high, then the game may simply be unbeatable, even for optimal play.
Sorry I have nothing more specific for you. However, I don't think that a $3 rake is going to make a 20-40 game unbeatable. If the game is beatable by you, then the $3 rake isn't going to change that (given that there are few games anywhere with a cheaper rake than this).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Apparently Kelly says that if you bet more than twice the recommended bet even when you always have an edge you will lose. I am not a mathmetician and don't know the details of the proof. Rather I try to use pure logic to find shortcuts (e.g. If you and I alternately flip a coin until one of us gets a head and I go first I will win 2/3 of the time. I get this not by summing an infinite geometric series but rather by saying that on any given round your chances are half of mine.) Anyway with similar reasoning you can see that those who think that you actually have the worst of it by overbetting your bankroll are wrong. To think otherwise is logically equivalent to believing that there is a betting system that will win even though every individual bet had a disadvantage. I'm sure that all that Kelly was saying was that overbetting your bankroll would probably cause it to go down and if you did it long enough you were almost sure to go broke BUT YOU MUST STILL HAVE THE BEST OF IT. For instance if a planeload of blackjack counters descended upon Fitzgeralds for a weekend and each constantly bet 3% of their bankroll with a 1% edge, most would be losing by the end of the weekend but the winners figure to be winnig more than the combined losses of the others. To say otherwise would be to say that Fitzgeralds was using a betting system that would beat the opponents while every one of their bets had the worst of it. To be sure, Fitzgeralds would do even worse if everyone was betting 1% of their bankroll as Kelly recomends but they still would't like it the other way.
Post deleted at author's request.
Another important point is that overbetting your bankroll only becomes a problem if are CONSTANTLY doing it. Thus if you get lucky when you take that shot in 50-100 you will be fine as long as you don't go on to do it in 100-200, 200-400, 500-1000 etc. Kelly's results assume that that is exactly what you do so it shouldn't be misapplied to occasional underfunded shot taking where a few wins would now give you a comfortable bankroll to continue.
David Sklansky writes:
-->
Another important point is that overbetting your bankroll only becomes a problem if are CONSTANTLY doing it.
<--
I disagree. Kelly says that if you overbet your bankroll, this hurts you in the long run by costing you more in lost opportunities when you lose than yielding in increased opportunities when you win.
Take the example of a 15-30 player who wants to take a shot in a 50-100 game. If the 50-100 game is too big for his bankroll, then Kelly says that the cost of the shot "missing" is higher than the benefit to be achieved by getting lucky. These costs might include the needing to drop down from 15-30 after a future losing streak, or being unable to move up to 20-40 or 30-60 for a longer period of time.
If your bankroll is too small for 50-100 (or whatever), Kelly says you'll do better off by saving the money until your bankroll is large enough.
Post deleted at author's request.
If you have well above your 15-30 reqired bankroll and you gamble only with some of the excess it has to be right to take a shot in a good 50-100 game unless there are also good in between size games. In actuality you are really only gambling hours rather than money. Thus if 10,000 was enough for 15-30 and 50,000 was enough for 50-100 you should take 6-5 on a $10,000 coin flip if your bankroll was $38,000. If your hourly rate for 15-30 was $40 you would get to the more profitable 50-100 in 300 hours if you just ground it out. Taking the coin flip means it will take either 0 hours or 550 for an average of 275 hours. But even if you lose you will still get there. And if a coin flip is right so is a $10,000 shot in the game since you ought to be more likely to win $12,000 than lose $10.000. Again it is only if there were good 20-40, 30-60 and /or 40-80 games available that this approach would be wrong.
The coin flip is only correct if you're sure that you won't be able to bet on another coin flip tomorrow. That is, it is either this particular oversized coin flip, or letting your bankroll sit idle.
If you will have other opportunities to put your money to work, you're better off not risking too much of it on an oversized bet.
It would seem to follow then that a poker "parlay" (i.e., parlaying a buy-in/winnings at 30-60 to 40-80 then 60-120, 80-160, etc. all in one day) is the correct winning approach (as contrasted to grinding at a certain limit until bankroll equals X dollars before moving up). Naturally, this assumes a certain ability to play in the various sizes of games due to the style and skill level varying as one moves up.
FWIW, Tom Weideman wrote a nice article about Kelly on rgp on July 13, which he allowed me to archive on my web page:
http://www.primenet.com/~jaygee/KELLY.HTM
It's not a complete treatment, but it's a must read for those wondering what this Kelly stuff is all about.
JG
You might also try Kelly's paper at http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/kelly/kelly.pdf
As Abdul states in another post, the Kelly criterion is used to maximize the growth rate of your bankroll. If you bet too big, you aren't taking the worst of it, but you aren't helping yourself in the long run, either.
There's a common misconception that sizing bets to maximize log(bankroll) is risk-averse. The way the Kelly-Breiman theorem actually works is best explained in the context of dynamic programming, that is, figuring out how to optimize a sequence of decisions.
Dynamic programming problems are solved by determining the objective function, that is, the function that you seek to "myopically" maximize at each decision node, in order to maximize your expected utility for the entire sequence.
You derive a logarithmic objective function when you solve the dynamic programming problem of maximizing linear, i.e., risk neutral, utility over an arbitrarily long sequence of wagers. That is, in order to maximize linear utility for a long series of wagers, you want to maximize an objective of log(bankroll) for each individual wager.
If you instead maximize for risk aversion, the objective function will be much more concave.
Playing 10-20 on the Sea Escape cruise in Miami the other night. Excellent table with several loose passive players and a few unimaginative rocks. I have pocket 8's one away from the button. 5 callers before it gets to me, I call, button folds, both blinds call. Flop comes J67 with two hearts ( I can't remember now if one of my 8's was a heart). A guy in early position bets and gets 4 callers before it gets to me.
Question: should I call?
I deliberated a moment and then folded, fearing that I could catch an 8 but still lose to a straight or flush by the river.
I would have hit a runner-runner straight and won the pot but did I make the right decision? And if so, how big does the pot have to be before a call is correct?
While I'm at it, here's another hand:
I hold black kings under the gun. I raise, button ( a tight but unimaginative player calls ) and the big blind ( loose player ) calls. Flop comes 455, two hearts. Big blind comes out betting. I can't put him on a hand because he is so loose. He could have a 4, 5, or an overpair. I just call and the button calls. Next card is an off-suit J. Blind bets again and again I just call feeling that if he doesn't have the 5 I'll lose money by raising as they will both fold, and if he does have the 5 I save money by not raising. I am not worried about the woman on the button as she would have raised if she had a hand. The river is a Q. BB checks, I bet, Button folds, BB calls and shows K4 off.
Would you have raised on the flop or turn? I think I made a few extra big bets by calling. What do you think?
Thanks for the responses.
Greg
With the pocket eights, calling under these conditions might have been a somewhat less terrible play than it usually is but a fold is still mandatory because (1) you have about an 8% chance of hitting an eight with two cards to come and (2) as you said, the straight possibilities if an eight hits will undermine the value (which includes raising potential) of your set. As for the kings, you probably should have raised to prevent your opponents from correctly calling or betting drawing hands, especially after your preflop raise. See The Theory of Poker. DS has discussed this with more refinement in recent posts.
As for the 88, I think it matters a lot whether you've got the flush 8. If you didn't, the pot would have to be pretty huge to make it worth drawing to. If you did have the flush 8 then I think the pot would need to be about twice the size it was to make it worth taking off one card. Even then I think dumping it is right. Because of the J. If the J had been a K and it had been 2-3 bet preflop, then I think it would be a good call. If you hit an 8 or pick up a draw, then continue. The J gives your loose opponents a lot of runner-runner outs that will use the cards you're gonna need to beat you. That's not a likely outcome but in a pretty loose game you'll get better draws that don't have those trap elements. As for the KK, I'd have raised on the flop. I would not have worried about the better having a 5 -- unimaginative players almost always check 3-or-a-kind. If the player behind you called the raise, well, then that's a new story. ---- Gary Carson PS. I'll tack this onto the end of this post --- Thank y'all, David and the others, who responded to my Kelly questions. Thanks particularly for the lnik to the article. I looked at it, and downloaded to read more carefully later. As does not surprise me, I had a big misconcpeption about the model that the formula was derived from. It appears the correct answer to all my questions was "Go away and read this article, Gary". Thanks.
The 88 is an automatic fold and the KK is an automatic raise on the flop or turn, better the flop to knock out the person behind you. Should you really be playing this high if you do not understand the basic concepts of folding when you are beat and raising when you are ahead?
see ya
Post deleted at author's request.
James Hetfield writes:
"The 88 is an automatic fold and the KK is an automatic raise on the flop or turn, better the flop to knock out the person behind you. Should you really be playing this high if you do not understand the basic concepts of folding when you are beat and raising when you are ahead? "
In my opinion the KK is not an automatic raise. Playing a big pair (Aces or Kings) with a small pair on board it may be correct to smooth call as you *want* someone to improve to a worse hand. With the big pair, there are not many scary free cards on the board with a small pair. Now the situation may be different with a board like TT9 as there is a more likely straight possibility out there or a board like 55x with two suited cards.
Just my opinion.
Rob
This particularly true for shorthanded games.
I play both hands the same way. When you have the two kings and there is a small pair on board it is harder for someone to draw out on you. If you think that you might be against a flush draw you should consider raising on the turn.
3-card guts, 10 people. Everyone antes. Each person can call or fold in turn. If you call and lose, you have to match the pot. If there are more than two callers, all losers each have to match the pot. If there is only one caller, she wins the pot.
This was an incredibly lucrative game. The strategy I used was to open-call with any hand that on average would beat the remaining number of people. So if you view hands from .00 for the worst to 1.00 for the best, any hand of at least N/N+1 will have a better than 50% chance of beating the remaining N people. If someone is in, you place their hand in the median of the hand spectrum that should call in their position. Fifth to last should call with a hand of 4/5 or higher, so if that player is first-in, you need 9/10 or better to call.
Clearly there were modifications to make in this strategy as the game went on. First, the other players did not give sufficient (any?) consideration to position when deciding whether to call. So early callers probably had hands well below the correct hands to call in their position. Second, they may have begun to see how I was playing, so I could take advantage of that; if they think that I always have a strong hand, I can get away with bluffs. Third, their play changed with pot size when it should not have. There would be six callers on a $2.50 pot, but never more than three when the pots were much larger. So if they were afraid to call a $32 pot, I could play slightly weaker hands.
In early position, the N/N+1 rule pretty much holds. You can't really bluff into that many people, and even a .75 UTG is asking for trouble. But later, the play of your opponents becomes a much more important factor. If they had tightened up their play in response to mine, the whole game might have played out by the N/N+1 rule. But in late position, different considerations hold. Assume that only two players are left, and that there are no bunching effects (the hands likely held by the last two players when everyone else folded are not different than those that they would likely hold when people were in). Player #9 should call with a .5 or better. But knowing that, Player #10 would only call with a .75 or better. As such, Player #9 can call with anything, winning without a showdown 75% of the time. Seeing this, Player #10 is forced to call with any hand that on average will beat Player #9: a .5 or better. So in equilibrium, Player #9 always calls, and Player #10 calls .5 of the time. Neither can improve in the long-run by changing that.
The proper playing strategy leads to one outcome, while game theory leads to a very different result. (Note that Player #9 neutralizes Player #10's positional advantage through the game theoretic strategy.)
I'm wondering if there are situations in holdem in which position or hand value advantages could be neutralized through game theory.
There are several reasons why this should be possible. (Against decent opposition, who are thinking about what you have and where many hands don't reach the showdown.) In holdem:
1. People react in certain ways to specific bets beyond just normal pot odds calculation. (Three-bets before the flop, check-raises on the flop, etc.)
2. Some hands are strong overall, but are weak against a small group of dominating hands. Those hands are not played when the threat of a dominating hand is high. Weaker playable hands that are dominated by those hands need to get them out.
3. When few players see the flop, a considerable percentage of flops will miss everyone. In those situations, it can even be preferable to be first to act.
I recognize that game theory has its limitations in poker. But there may be opportunities that have not yet been explored.
The solution when everyone has folded to player 9 is more complicated than this. The reason is that if both players call, the game continues, and the two players both have positive expected return from subsequent games.
Also, there are almost certainly multiple Nash equilibria for 3 or more players, i.e., no single solution. There might be a single Stackelberg equilibrium (that is, one in which everyone plays to maximize their worst-case expectation, assuming that everyone else is implicitly colluding against them), but I'm not sure if this "solution" is a good way to really play the game, even with sophisticated opponents.
This isn't just a problem with guts; it's a general problem with "solving" poker with 3 or more players.
If we ignore the players' expectation from the game's continuation if they both call, then optimal strategy for player 9 is to fold 25% of his hands. (If he played all of his hands, player 10 would do better to play 2/3rds of his hands, rather than half.)
If player 9's expectation from the game's continuation is a, and player 10's expectation is b, then the optimal strategy for player 9 is to play 3/(2-a)(2-b) of his hands, and for player 10 to 1/(2-a) of his hands.
The problem is that a and b are probably not well-defined quantities in terms of game theory.
"If we ignore the players' expectation from the game's continuation if they both call, then optimal strategy for player 9 is to fold 25% of his hands. (If he played all of his hands, player 10 would do better to play 2/3rds of his hands, rather than half.)"
(Ignoring expectation from the game's continuation) After Player #9 calls with anything, Player #10 shouldn't call with anything below .5. If #10 calls with a .37, he loses the pot amount 63% of the time, and wins the pot amount 37% of the time, for a net loss, so he does better by folding .37s. If Player #9 is only playing the best 3/4 of his hands, Player #10 should not call unless he can beat the majority of the hands that Player #9 will call with, which will be only when he has the best 3/8 of hands. When #10 will call less than half the time when #9 calls, #9 has a positive EV in calling with any three cards, forcing #10 to call with .5 or above.
What, if anything, is meant by "ignoring expectation from the game's continuing"?
There is nothing as simple as an "optimal strategy" for players 9 and 10 in this situation. It is not a zero-sum game, because if exactly one calls, the pot will be won, while if both or neither call, the pot will remain. Obviously, if players 9 and 10 collude, they will always collectively win the pot in this situation.
That's the problem with trying to do game theory after bedtime. :)
You're right -- I got confused and was assigning payoffs as if they were playing pot limit, instead of leaving the bets to create the next pot.
Fortunately, Tom Hayes's post gets right to the heart of the multi-player issue I was trying to describe.
A slightly tangential point that should make the game even more lucrative for you:
The statement "So if you view hands from .00 for the worst to 1.00 for the best, any hand of at least N/N+1 will have a better than 50% chance of beating the remaining N people." is not actually true. For example, UTG in a 10 handed game, a ".90" hand (N=9, .90 = N/N+1) has only about a 38.74% chance of beating the remaining 9 people. Ten handed, you would really want to play hands .9259 or better UTG. Six handed, .8706 or better UTG (as opposed to .8333) Four handed, .7937 or better UTG (as opposed to .7500). Generally, you will beat the remaining N people 50% of the time if you play a hand with "value" v such that
v^N = 1/2.
In other words, you want the Nth root of 1/2, not N/N+1.
My personal feeling is that once you get to the higher limits, the thing that separates the good players is how well you can 'read' another player. This is mostly done from your periphery vision where you take into the account of the rhythm of a player's checking, betting and raising motions.
This reading is most critical the few seconds after new information has been presented to the table (ie turn card drops on table, first position player checks...).
As I play with other poker players, I not only try to reconstruct their 'play' of their hands as they are shown to me on the table at the showdown, but I also try to reconstruct the timing of their actions. Let me try to make this more clear. As a person reveals their A-K on a showdown, you can reconstruct that they bet into the flop without flopping a pair, only a gutshot, that he check-called on the turn, and then check-raised on the river as the completed their straight. But in addition, I would try to recall their timing. I would picture myself as him as I fired into the Q-10-7 flop without hesitation with my AK. It would be me studying the blank on the turn and electing to check reluctantly as if I had A-10. etc. etc.
After accumulating experience with a player, the brain builds up a database of motions and timing (not many people can bet, check, and raise the exact same way every time), and when I have to make a read, I can put myself in his shoes and ask "would I raise in that manner if I were him and had Kings full?".
It's amazing to me how I can read some players so easily, and can be so completely clueless with others.
Welcome all responses,
PK Paul
(This is my first post so I hope it makes some sort of sense to somebody.. hehe..)
It is necessary to first have catagorized your opponents as actors or non-actors (see Caro's treatise) so that later interpretations of betting patterns are more reliable. Perhaps with this refinement, those players you are *clueless* about will come into sharper focus?
You are so right about having a read on players. I am bascially a low limit player, and it is sometimes hard to get reads on people playing low limit. But recently my friend and I got a read on a maniac that I thought I would pass along. Everytime, and I mean everytime this guy had a real hand, he would never check his cards after the flop, but would keep betting. When he was either on a draw, or maybe middle pair, etc., he would constantly look at his cards to reassure himself of his holdings, and as it turned out he would either call with a loosing hand, or just give it up. This is a major tell, and has won me several large pots because of it. So your observations about reads is absolutely true.
I will sometimes look back at my hole cards when I have a made flush on the turn. This gives the appearance of a high card flush draw to observant players who have not seen me do this. Now if an opponent has a hand like top pair with an ace high flush draw, I may gain two extra big bets since it's more likely I'll be bet into on the turn.
Another fairly successful ploy is to glance at your pocket pair as if you have a straight draw. There are people who believe that any one who bets without looking at their hand has a pocket pair, so a glance and a puzzled look confuses them greatly. The other side of that is to bet or raise with your straight or flush draw without looking. (Provided you have memorized the rank and suit of your cards, as most players should but few at the low limits actually do.) It works for me.
You write, "My personal feeling is that once you get to the higher limits, the thing that separates the good players is how well you can 'read' another player."
On the contrary. If we narrowly define a "good player" as one who can read other players well, it is clear that what "separates the good players" is anonymity and deception.
I could agree with your thesis if it was rephrased to state, "one thing that separates an average player from being a good player includes the ability to read other players well" (this could of course include many other factors).
I am, by and large, a break even low limit hold-em player. Of course, this is with factoring in the rake and dealer tokes. I play with too little discipline and tend to pay off too many people on the river. I have constructed my own private tournament at the Commerce in an attempt to improve my play and results. I start out with a $60.00 buy in at the 3-6 and play until I either lose it all or double up. If I lose it all, I re-buy with another $60.00, starting a whole new tournament in my mind. If I double up, I move to the 6-12 and try to double up again. If I lose it all at the 6-12, I return to the 3-6 and start over again. If I double up at the 6-12, I move up to the 9-18 and cash out when I have $500.00 or more. I find that the tournament structure makes me play better. (I have been a net winner at tournament play and satellite play from the beginning.) On Mondays, Tuesdays and Fridays I play no limit hold-em tourneys, so it is only on Wednesdays and Saturdays that I practice my limit hold-em play. Thursdays I play in a small low ball tournament. In my mind, I am practicing on my limit HE skills, hoping to improve to the point where I can play with some level of confidence in the limit HE tournaments that abound. Any suggestions or comments?
No comments yet, but some questions:
After you double up, how long do you typically have to wait for your seat at the next limit to open up? Do you continue playing or talk a walk during this time? Also, do you stick with your "doubling" plan to the extent of getting up from a particularly juicy game? What is your success rate at each limit, after how many hours of play? Finally, how tight is your cash supply, i.e. how much can you comfortably lose without curtailing your play for a time?
1. Usual wait time is < 15 minutes. 2. I sometimes continue in the game I doubled through in, but usually play until my blind then get up and look over the available games at the next level. 3. My success rate is good so far. I've made it from 3-6 HE to 15-30 low ball, turning an initial stake of $60.00 into $1,700.00 in a single day. More usually, I wind up quitting at some stage between victory and surrender due to time constraints. 4. My playing bankroll; I am retired, and poker is my full time hobby. If I lose my current bankroll, I go to the bank and withdraw another one. I am several thousand ahead, year to date, but my playing bankroll is really an extension of my personal surplus funds. I can't envision being out of "action" due to not having funds. I play small tourneys and low limit only, although I'll play no limit ring games if the buy in and the blinds are reasonable enough. I won't play over my self-imposed budget. 5. I will get up from a "juicy" game once I've doubled through. 6. I've got more than a hundred hours of playing in my personal tournaments, and have spent much more than half my total hours in the 3-6. I don't keep detailed playing records ( in my aquarium, they get wet and soggy and hard to read anyway) but I think I'm probably some amount ahead overall. I started this personal tournament idea three years ago when I was backing a group of players who had lost their bankrolls and were on the rail. It represented a compromise between their idea of playing in the larger games on my money and my desire to keep my losses reasonable while trying to get them thinking about why they kept setting themselves up to fail. It was surprising to me how few of these very good players were able to consistently beat the lower limit games. When one of these players went on a roll though, they could get up to the 15-30 or 20-40 and take care of all their past make-up in a hurry. Unfortunately, none of them were able to continue winning at the higher levels. Their living expenses would eat up their bankrolls and they would wind up broke and on the rail once again.
Personally, I would never voluntarily get up from a very live game I was sitting in, unless I was called for one I was pretty sure was even better, or the current game was substantially smaller to my preferred limits. I hate giving up a big edge.
Still, I respect your choice of priorities.
I'm not sure how effective playing short-stacked in a ring game will be in simulating tournament situations. Your opponents will not be making the same adjustments they would if they risked busting out. It probably will help you play better, should you get very short-stacked relative to the field, in a tournament. Also, any limit experience ought to help if you are just a beginning limit player.
If your goal were to maximize winnings as a limit ring-game player, I would have objections to your strategy. Since you want to play in limit tournaments, I would suggest adding limit satellites, low-buyin limit tournaments, and limit ring games in which you are not short-stacked to your diet, combining these in whatever proportions seem best.
Even though I like your idea and tried it once myself (never got out of $4-$8), if I was retired with your funds I would take in all of the lower entry tournament series around. I'm about your level but am aspiring to be better and whenever I can I go play Peppermill, or 4 Queens, or those kinds of <=$200 entry tournaments. You get to play with a variety of players as well as world champions for a limited exposure.
Max,
I do play in at least 4 small tournaments per week. I play only in no limit HE and low ball tourneys though. I did play in the eight or better stud tourney at Crystal Park on Sunday and at the limit HE tourney at the Bike, but that was solely for experience. I am planning on getting to the point with my limit Hold-em play that I can enter limit tourneys with the same confidence I have in no limit. I use the double up standard in the ring games, as I think that is the ideal that you would hope for when actually playing a tournament for the blinds to increase. If I'm going to have my own special tournament, I think I should arrange to have the blinds go up at a time calculated to be best for me. This also tends to compensate for the game rake that you have in a ring game that isn't present in tourneys.
John,
Your not playing in the most profitable way for yourself. You say you have little discipline and pay off too much. Since you know what you are doing wrong just stop it now. Why make up some system too rectify a simple problem with a simple solution. I know I am making it sound easy and it isnt but thats the way to go. Good Luck.
This is not a unique concept; parlays have been around since before the first horseplayer. But I don't believe that when playing a parlay you must double-up before moving on, merely a win big enough to move onto the next level (although not necessarily a minimum buy-in). Although you may be winning now, the rake at the lower limits negates a lot of what you are doing, so I'd advise making bigger jumps, say from 5-10 to 10-20 to 20-40 to 30-60. You might also gain skill quicker playing with better players and close up some holes in your game.
There is one thing that I really believe that is most logical when dealing with bankroll theory. And it's that a small bankroll is not worth protecting because you can easily replace it. A large bankroll should be gaurded on your life because it can not be easily replaced. That is a bit of advice from Mike Caro that should be learned and remembered. All of the great poker theorists have said that money management is a fallacy. I agree. I also know that all of these mathematical equations uses to decide what game to play in should not be regarded as the holy grail. These formula's don't take in real life situations like sickness,gas,rent,food and all other expenses. They can't take in the fact that a very high game being played right now offering you a tremendous expectation say at $50-100 while you are in a tough 20-40, is a shot you should take. The rewards far out weigh the risk. If the bankroll for 50-100 is something like 25000 minimum that does not mean that if you have 15000 you should not play in that high expectational game. These formulas will tell you that its not worth the risk. I think that it's clearly incorrect. Moreover say you have 4000 and this money could be regained by you outside of poker It's worth a shot at $50-100 if you can find a valuable game and providing you have skill. These formulas will tell you that it's insane but they don't take into account that you can replace these monies if the worst happens. On the other hand if you can't replace the 4000 then the formulas will do their job in keeping you in a safer limit. The reason I took shots at 50-100 is that the possible benifits far outweigh the risk. If the gamble pays off I can quadruple my bankroll in far less time then ploddering at 15-30. If I drop below a certain safegaurd that I DECIDE then I will perfectly be able to go back to 15-30. Again these formulas don't take these things into account. But thats REAL POKER LIFE. We do not live in a vacume. I am not a math basher but I think that these formulas are not seeing everthing they should see.
In mathematical terms, "Predator" seems to suggest the following:
Let X be monthly eXpenses. We'll think of a "month" as 200 playing hours. These expenses should include insurance, retirement, etc.
Let R be monthly eaRnings you could be making at a "real" job. If R < X, there is a real problem.
Choose your favorite model for the random process of playing poker at various limits. Blackjack would probably be easier to model, and almost as informative. For poker, we might treat each hour as an even-money S big bet wager which you are paid E big bets to make (E is your expected hourly income; S is about your hourly standard deviation).
Calculate the bankroll threshold at which you should quit your job and play poker, to maximize long-run bankroll growth, given the monthly expenses, and what limits you should play at, as a function of R,X,E, and S.
I don't know how hard this is to solve formally, but surely some computer whiz out there can get a good idea of the answer. I will postulate that the extent to which Predator is right is the difference R-X. If this is small, you really want to avoid going back to that job, so you should be willing to nurse along a small bankroll. If R-X is fairly large, you will be able to bounce back from a bust much more easily, so your "effective" bankroll will be larger.
Predator,
I agree with most of your points. A couple of other alternatives to finding a job would be getting staked and selling a piece of your action. Tom Hayes poses an interesting mathematical problem. I would think that if the difference of R-X was small where R > X, you would want to keep your job and play part time. Also if you have to make X too small to survive playing poker full time why not get a job? I just think the whole idea of playing smaller in order to guarentee staying in action has to be viewed in terms of the lifestyle you want to have. If you have a bankroll that will only support $4-8 playing full time to guarentee staying in action, it's worth taking more chances in going broke because making $8 an hour doesn't seem like it would support a lifestyle that most people would want to have. It seems to me that you would be better off having a job and playing something like $10-20 part time. If your bankroll is $100,000 not going broke seems to be a much more relevent concern.
Tom Haley
Another way to look at it is as follows. If you are a good player and hard worker, you will "quickly" max out your effective bankroll. (Where "quickly" is a value from one to four years.) It's easiest to see in blackjack. There's no point in pushing your bankroll really hard when you're betting $25 minimums, because you will soon be maxed out at $100 (or *maybe* $500) minimums, when you start bumping up against table maximums and the paranoia of the pit critters. In poker, it's basically the same. It's hard to find games bigger than $400-$800 on a regular basis, and it's even harder to acquire the skill for games bigger than that.
Thus, the Kelly model does not apply, and since you will reach an upper bound on your income, you might as well make sure you don't go broke trying to get there.
-Abdul
Would it be possible to add a feature to this web site that allows you to "mark read", or "mark unread?"
Many times articles I have already read come back up unread and it would be easier if I could just click them off. Thanx.
The marking of a message as read or unread is a function of your web browser, and has nothing to do with the site that you are visiting.
Most likely, your browser remembers visited links for 30 days (that's the default in most browsers). You can change that setting. In Netscape Communicator 4.0, select "Preferences..." under the "Edit" menu. Click on Navigator. One of the settings you can change is how long Netscape retains its history of visited links.
Increasing the amount of time that your browser remembers links that you've visited will increased the amount of disk space that your browser uses.
I am new to this forum and had the same question as you. I found that if you click on personalize the display at the top you can have the posts come up with the new posts first, regardless of the subject. This way all the new posts since you last visited will be at the top. Randy
I use AOL. Which is fine. But sometimes after I have read the posts the will come up unread. I end up re-reading the same posts, which is a waste of time. I have my browser settings set up correctly. When I read some posts the next day they will be marked unread. Instead of being able to just click them read. I have to click on them and then go back if I want to eliminate them. Another waste of time.
Sorry, but the posts being marked "read" or "unread" is not a function of the website, but of your browser. There is nothing that the maintainers of the website can do to help you there, except for making sure that the links to the messages don't change over time.
Pete,
If you elect to personalize your display, and allow cookies to be written to, this site will remember your preferences.
Every time I access this forum, it welcomes me by name, tells me when I last visited the site, and tells me how many new messages have be posted since my last visit. Also, my name and e-mail address are already filled in if I wish to make a post.
I'm not sure exactly how I got the above to happen. Try filling in your name and e-mail address in the bottom of the listing, and then setting your preferences. No matter how you list the postings, new ones should be marked as "New:". If you list them chronologically (reverse), then all the new ones will be at the top and marked new. If you list them by thread, the new ones will still be marked as new, but you'll have to hunt them down as you browse through the threads.
You'll also have the option of how far back the postings will be listed (two days, week, etc.).
By the way, you should include your e-mail address so posters who wish to contact you on the side can do so without posting for everyone to see. Unless of course you prefer not to. The best that I can tell, I haven't received spam mailings because I included my e-mail address on my postings here.
Good luck.
George,
You write :
< Every time I access this forum, it welcomes me by name, tells me when I last visited the site, and tells me how many new messages have be posted since my last visit. >
You're lucky then. When I access this forum, I'm greeted with "Not you again, Etienne. You were here just 12 hours and 47 minutes ago - nothing better to do? Since then, no new messages have been posted, so go fly a kite". Of course I don't fall for this, and inevitably upon scrolling down I see that there have in fact been a lot of new messages.
< I'm not sure exactly how I got the above to happen. >
Likewise. Still, nothing that a new browser won't fix.
Etienne
There is $50 in the pot. After the flop your opponent bets a hand that you estimate is 60% to have you drawing dead. If you just call he will bet $20 on the next two cards with any hand he holds. The 40% of the time you have him beaten you also have him drawing dead. If you raise on the flop he will fold immediately most of the time that you have him beaten and reraise and keep on betting the other times. Should you make this play if he never reraise bluffs? If he does reraise bluff sometimes, how often would that have to be to change your mind about this play? Assume that if you do decide to call either his bet or his reraise on the flop that you will always call from that point on. (That is an imperfect strategy since it is better to use game theory but it would make the math too hard and barely affect the answer.)
This questions illustrates that it is usually incorrect to raise (or bet into) a probable better hand heads-up, if there is little or no chance that your opponent will fold a better hand. This is so because the money in the pot becomes irrelvant to the betting, and each call, bet or raise reduces the total expectation of the probable losing hand.
In this problem, you would need at least $25 in the pot to call your opponents bet. With $50 in the pot, your expectation is + $10 for calling the next three bets. So folding is out of the question because there is enough money in the pot to cover the loss in expectation for the three calls. But the three calls have reduced your expectation from $20 if your opponent never bet, to $10 since he will (The bets will increase your opponent's expectation from $30 to $40).
If you choose to rasie instead of call, and your opponent never bluff re-raised, you would be gaining nothing on the hands that you win, and losing an extra $20 on the hands that you lose. Not only do you lose the $12 in expectaion on the $20, but you also lose $16 on the $40 he would have bet on the turn and river. This costs you $28 if he never bluffed raised. This is the classic case of not betting or raising when you are only going to be called (or raised) by a better hand.
If he always bluff-raised when you raised, you would gain $20 40% of the time, and lose an additional $20 $60% of the time, for a net loss of $4. If your opponent bluff-raised somewhere in-between, then you would lose somewhere in-between $4 and $28 in expectation. Since the money in the pot is irrelevant for betting purposes, betting with the probable weaker hand has a negative expectation.
The only way that raising would be correct, would be if your opponent never bluff-raised, and you folded to a re-raise. That would increase your expectation $2 per hand. Add another $4 if your opponent called instead of folding when you raised (Wouldn't it be nice if we could make our opponents play the way we want). But if your opponent bluff raised 6% of the time when he wasn't calling, or 17% of the time he was calling, raising would still be incorrect. But now we're getting into game theory.
If you just call you Opponent down you make $10.00 per Hand.
If your opponent never Reraise Bluffs you make an extra $2.00 per hand.
If your opponent Reraise Bluffs 3% of the time or more you shouldn't try to Raise on the Flop.
If your Opponent Reraise Bluffs 20% of the time you stand to lose $4.00 per hand no matter if you Call or Fold.
If you opponent allways Reriase Bluffs you make $10.00 per Hand.
The Moral of the Story: You should Raise a Meek player in this situation, but only call an Agressive or Expert player.
Chris "Hope I got the Math Right" Villalobos
I calculated the expectation of calling my opponent down to be $10 a hand. There is $50 in the pot and it will cost me $50 to see it through and win a total of $100. I will win $100 2 times for every 3 times I lose $50. Therefore my total expectation for every 5 hands is $50 or $10 a hand.
If I raise on the flop and my opponent never re-raise bluffs, I will fold when my opponent re-raises. The cost of this play is $20. The amount I win will be $60 since my opponent will fold immediately. Therefore I will win $60 2 times for every 3 times I lose $20. Therefore my total expectation for every 5 hands is $60 or $12 a hand. Making this a better play against an opponent who will never re-raise bluff.
If my opponent re-raise bluff occasionally I want to know how often I could still fold to re-raise and have the play of raising on the flop be more profitable than calling him down. If my opponent would always re-raise bluff I would have a higher expectation by simply calling my opponent down.
If your opponent will re-raise bluff, I calculated that it would never be as profitable to raise and call your opponent down as to simply call your opponent down to begin with. The question becomes how often would your opponent have to re-raise bluff to make folding to a re-raise less profitable than calling your opponent down.
I call the percentage of times your opponent would re-raise bluff RBF. The money you win is
$60(.4)(1 – RBF) which is the money in the pot times the percentage of times your opponent is dead and doesn’t re-raise bluff.
The money you lose consists of two terms. One term is the amount you lose when he successfully re-raise bluffs and the second term is the amount you lose when your opponent has you dead. The amount you lose when he successfully re-raise bluffs is:
$80(.4)(RBF).
I used $80 because of the $60 you lose that is in the pot plus the cost of your $20 raise.
The amount you lose when he has you dead is:
$20(.6).
Therefore the following inequality can be set up:
60(.4)(1-RBF) – [(80)(.4)RBF + .6(20)] > 10
Solving for RBF I got:
RBF < 1/28 or RBF < 3.6%. So I calculate that if your opponent will re-raise bluff 3.6 % of the time or more you would be better off calling your opponent down than raising to gain information.
Tom Haley
If you call all the way down you win 100x .4 -50x .6 =$10. If he never reraise bluffs you win 60x.4 -20x.6=$12. If his total reraise chances are X and you still fold you have the equation $10 = 60(1 - X) - 20 X . Thus X =5/8 or 62.5%. So it was a bad play if he will bluff more than 2.5% of his total hands.
David,
I misread your problem to indicate that the player in question would call all re-raises. Hence the direction my posting took. However, in the last paragraph of my first posting I did address the situation if the player was willing to raise and fold to a re-raise. My figure was 6% (actually 6.25% rounded down). Your solution states 2.5%.
The equation I came up with was:
.4*60(1-X) - .4*20X - .6*20 = 10
Reducing: 24(1-X) - 8X - 12 = 10 24 - 24X - 8X - 12 = 10 2 = 32X 1/16 = X = .0625 = 6.25%
Your equation did not take into account the $20 you will lose when betting into the better hand and getting re-raised. This $20 is actually less than you would lose by just calling your opponent down. This effects the equation in that you can absorb more bluff re-raises than you could otherwise. Hence, I beleive that the bluff re-raising frequency you must be concerned with is 6.25%, not 2.5%, IMHO.
Of course this figure would be even higher if your opponent called with the worse hand, rather than folding, when he wasn't bluff-raising.
George,
Actually your solution agrees with David's, though your X and his are 2 different things. If your opponent bluff reraises 6.25% of the time he has the inferior hand, this will occur at a frequency of 0.0625*0.4, or 2.5% of his total hands.
Etienne
You're right. He did say total hands. As with the initial post of this thread, I didn't read what he had written accurately.
And silly me thinking that I had caught David making an error. Keep dreaming George. ;-)
I was playing $15-$30 stud at the Mirage and was given a "lesson" at the end of a hand. I had made trip sevens on the board and had been betting all along. The hand started with my door card seven being the bring in and no one raised. On fourth street I paired my door card and bet $30 hoping to take the pot. Everyone folded except a women to my left who appeared to be on a straight draw. I kept betting even after hitting a blank on 5th street. When I hit the 3rd seven on sixth, I thought my bet would end it there. The straight/draw called again. It was my bet on the river with unimproved trip sevens showing and I bet again. I was called by a straight and lost. The gentleman to my immediate right, who wasn't in the hand, launched into a "lesson" about the conventional wisdom saying you should check unimproved trips on the river because your bet doesn't have any positive expectation. While that is done more often than not, why not give your heads up opponent the chance to make an error and lay down the winner fearing a full house? If you check and the straight bets, you'll probably call anyway. Same $30 isn't it? If you bet and the straight raises, you can muck the trips and again its the same $30. However, if you bet and the straight makes a bad laydown, you've won the pot and made a great play. I ignored the lesson as I make it a practice not to discuss strategy at the table. Well, this isn't the table----what do others think?
Betting is right only if she may lay down a better hand. Against the typical player the best play is to check and then fold if they bet. Against some it is to check and then call. Either of these last plays is trying to make or save $30. A bet could theoretically steal the whole pot and definitely should be considered against some players. But not against most.
I would more often than not check the open trips and lay it down if the other hand bet. In the situation I described however, the entire table was filled with regulars that all seemed to play the same solid but unimaginative game. Armed with that knowledge I was hoping for two options to work for me. 1.)Having paired my door card on 4th street had to be a little scary so when I made open trips on sixth (by the way the case seven never showed its face) quads could be a possibility. 2.)I felt that she expected me to make the normal play of "if the trips don't improve then check and fold." In that context, I thought it was worth a shot to force a laydown. As I said, it didn't work!!
I don't understand your bluff. If she wouldn't fold her straight *draw* when you bet your open trips, why do you think she would fold her *made straight* on the end?
Essentially, her play earlier in the hand suggests that she will call a bet, even when it is not correct to do so. This sort of player is the worst to try to bluff.
William
After kicking this around and around, I do agree that the only likely hand she would have laid down was a loser which is to say that my bet had little if any positive expectation. I now believe that I gave her too much credit in figuring that "I had to have more than the board" to bet into an "obvious" straight. This of course supports the conventional wisdom of checking and then either calling or folding. How about a different spin----the trip sevens bet and you have a busted draw. Do you like checking and losing or trying a bet for a possible laydown by the sevens?
I will usually fold my busted draw against their betting trip sevens. First, trying to steal is expensive because I have to raise, which costs me two bets. Second, if my opponent has bet his or her trip sevens, it suggests a full house holding, in which case my raise will never work.
Puppytoes wrote: "Having paired my door card on 4th street had to be a little scary so when I made open trips on sixth (by the way the case seven never showed its face) quads could be a possibility. "
Wait a second. You told us before that your 7 doorcard was the bring-in, and it wasn't raised on 3rd street. Therefore, why should I be concerned when you pair your doorcard on 4th street? Until the action says otherwise, you have a pair of 7s with 2 random hole cards.
With respect to the entire thread, I agree with most folks that betting the river was an error. If she'll pay to draw in the face of trips, then why would she fold if she makes the draw?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I really don't like the play of check folding with three sevens on board. It is undoubtedly the best short term play if you really believe that person has you beat, but what about protecting your image? You don't want to be pegged as a tightwad that is looking for *any* reason to throw a hand away because I know that I look for these guys myself and will wait all night for the right time to steal a big pot from them.
In the case of the three 7's on board, I would bet into anyone I don't think is capable of a bluff raise, and if I lose, I would say something like "damn, I finally make 3 sevens and I'm beat" or "you had a straight and didn't raise me? thanks for saving me $30."
I want the image of a stubborn player who won't lay a hand down to protect myself from steals. When I do make a laydown, I try to hide it as much as I can.
I sometimes bet in a situation like this if I feel that the person may back in to two pair and call with it. Especially if I feel that I would call had I checked and they bet; and that they wouldn't consider raising if they hit a drawing hand but will bet it if I check.
Your situation reminds me of the time a man showed 3 open Aces and I kept reraising him with buried quads -- how much value could he really expect his exposed Aces to have?
If one of your Sevens was buried, I would have bet, but being the bring-in with an unimproved exposed hand, your opponent will a.) fold hands that cannot beat what they see, b.) call for value with hands that can beat what they see (straights and flushes), and c.) raise with hands that are better than what they can't see (full-house). (Some of the players I play against occasionally on the riverboats are even much wilder than that and would raise with a small straight against your 3 open Sevens.)
Put into the vernacular favored today, your bet had "negative expectation".
I think that her hand is the key to this situation. You indicated you felt straight draw on 4th street, so did either of the 5th/6th street cards complete her hand? I have to assume she compeleted her straight on 6th street when you hit your 3rd seven (you already mentioned that she was a solid if unimaginative player...and drawing to a straight staring at three 7's is not solid poker).
In that case your appropriate course of action would be to check and either call/fold (folding is risky though, as it may prompt later attacks on you at the river). She may or may not bet there (I say 70/30 against if she's solid... fearing a check-raise), but she is definitely NOT laying down the straight (or whatever made hand she was shooting for) if she already called the bet on 6th street. If she was weak and called on the draw, she wouldn't call your bet if she missed anyway.
One further point, depending on your image, your perception of your opponent, and your bankroll, a bluff check-raise may be an interesting alternative :-)
Chuck
Chuck....I agree with your analysis and do believe now that she made her straight on sixth street and made a crying call on the river and was surprised that all I had was the trip sevens. My real hope was my perception that she played off a rigid "cue card" which said I would check an unimproved hand, never bet it!! In retrospect, a misjudgement on my part. I found your further point interesting. Isn't it the same type of thought as my move except more expensive? Of course hind sight is always 20-20 but I think that if she was hooked for $30 she would also make the crying call on a check raise bluff. It cost me $30, but I did gain insight not only to her play but to the lesson giver on my right!!
I would not try for the check-raise very often. In fact, I don't think you'd get the chance to raise very often because she probably would not bet with the straight. The effect of the check raise is to get your opponent, who has just 'gambled' in betting into trips, to realize that they fell into a trap and fold in embarrassment...you obviously can only make this move on players who can make the laydown here, though. To answer your question, it's not the same type of move as a check-raise is much stronger than a bet.
Regards/Chuck
I like your suggestion of the check-raise, but as you imply, you need an excellent read of your opponent. The problem with a check-raise bluff is that on the continuum of poker players, there is only a small segment that will lay down for a check-raise. Bad players will call because they want to see, good players may call for value, and excellent players will smell out the play.
Puppytoes,
The other point is that if you had checked the river she might not have bet behind you and you would have saved $30.
Tom Haley
I don't believe for a second that if I had checked she would have bet behind me. I wasn't looking to "save" $30, I was looking to steal the pot.
Puppytoes,
To me, in your original post, you seemed concerned that you would have to call a $30 bet on the river so betting might steal the pot and as you put it cost you the same $30. My point was that you probably wouldn't have to pay the $30 if you checked. If you knew that she would check behind you, I think your bluff had too little chance if she is the type of player I'm envisioning.
Tom Haley
Tom,
A ploy I try to use, with the right type of opponent, is to sneek a quick look at my river card and if I don't improve, check as if I am checking blind.
Of course checking blind would be as terrible strategy here but a fake blind check will often stop a timid oponent from value betting a hand on the river which beats the open trips, saving me the $30.00 in the cases where I am likely to call.
Jim
I'm thinking of playing the Omaha-8 event at the (Foxwoods) World Poker Finals, or maybe the Omaha-8 event at the (Taj Mahal) U.S. Poker Championship.
How strong are the players in $200-$500 buy-in Omaha-8 tournaments?
What skills are the most important for success in Omaha-8 tournaments at that level?
Or would it be better to play the side action at those major tournaments instead?
Due to the split hand aspect and the amount of time it takes to cut up pots, Omaha-8 satellites and tournaments are the riskiest bets in all of poker. You'll seldom be able to play more than a few hands per round, sending the luck factor way up.
The players in medium buy-in tournaments are usually the best in the country, although not all play Omaha-8. So, you'll have the "pleasure" of playing the best tournament players plus the same batch of rocks that frequent your local Omaha-8 games, one of the few games left where being a block of granite still pays off.
You would probably be better off in the side action.
If I have the money, I'm going to enter the WSOP Omaha-8 event. I figure it's the game I have the best chance since the luck factor is a little higher.
you are always better off playing in side games bvcause tournaments are unprofitable
I expect to roast the side action too.
Here is a game which, I think, ought to be fundamental for much poker theory. I am curious whether the game has been solved, and if so, if anyone could provide any references.
There are two players. Each player puts in an ante of $1. Player 1 then receives a random real number between 0 and 1, uniformly distributed. Player 2 also receives a random real number between 0 and 1, but the distribution is not uniform -- the probability that player 2's number is less than or equal to x is f(x), where f is a nondecreasing function known to both players, with f(1)=1. There is then a single round of betting and a showdown (if necessary), with the smallest number winning.
This is really several different questions, since I have not specified whether the betting is structured or no-limit.
Thanks.
I have never seen anything except f(x) = x solved. That is known as the Borel poker model. You can find the solution in at least two game theory texts.
Pot of $100 in a $10-20 game.
Board on the turn is KhQs4d2c.
You hold KcJc, Opponent has JhTh, Fish has 7s2d.
Opponent has a 8/42 chance of winning, fish has a 5/42 chance.
You bet $20.
Opponent should call, since 8/42>20/140.
Fish should not call, since 5/42<20/160.(Ignoring implied odds)
If the Fish had folded, which maximizes his own EV in the situation, you would have a 34/42 chance at $140, worth $113.33.
When the Fish incorrectly calls, you have a 29/42 chance at $160 ($110.48). The Fish's mistake costs you and him EV.
But essentially here, you're losing little or no EV (I had to keep tweaking the numbers to actually make it negative). Despite your 29/42 chance of winning the pot, almost all of the Fish's $20 call goes to the strong draw. It's not that the weak draws generally cost you EV, rather the implied odds of your starting hand decline significantly when you don't get much of the benefit from the Fish's postflop action. But you do profit from the action overall. Before the betting round on the turn, your interest in the pot was 29/42*100=$69.05. You gain $21 on the turn (+41 in pot interest, -20 for your call). You are getting money from the strong draw calling you, since you beat him most of the time. So this would indicate that the "keep the pot small preflop to magnify their later mistakes" strategy may not be right for this type of game. If you can't get people out preflop, raise for value as much as possible to penalize them then, since you won't get much/any EV from the later calls of weak draws. But you are getting significant value from the rest of the field on the turn.
Thus, the problem in loose games is not implicit collusion, it's that the multiple draws out against you leave you with a much lower chance of actually winning the pot with your top pair. However, when there are dominated hands or dominated draws in, it would often be the case that your hand is not as vulnerable as it appears.
The greatest advantage of these loose games is the huge preflop mistakes, and that builds the pot that your hand draws to later. The turn calls and river mistakes will also be profitable. I think people put too much emphasis on designing play to make opponents make mistakes.Not only is the magnitude of individual mistakes what is most important, but you will often make money when they play properly, since their greatest mistake was to play a marginal hand in the first place. (If a player never made a single mistake after the flop, but played every hand he was dealt, he would clearly lose money.) This leads them to make middle pair or top pair-weak kicker and frequently wind up in five-out or three-out situations where they have to call to the river. When an opponent has an 11% chance of winning the $80 pot (before your bet), and he calls a $10 bet, he is playing properly. However, you earn $8.90 from that call. (And give him $1.10 of your call.) He loses $7.80 to keep his $8.80 interest in the ($80 before your bet and his call) pot. If you don't raise preflop, so the pot is $50 before his call, he should not call $10. But if he does, you earn the same $7.80 from the call. The only difference is that had he folded, you would have just earned $4.40 from his surrendering his interest in the pot. So while calling is an error in the second case, you earn the same amount of money from the play as you would when it was a correct play in the first case. And if you didn't raise preflop and he does fold, you gain much less in value. By making the pot larger, while you are making their plays correct, you tie them onto draws and make them keep giving you value. You give up too much by not raising preflop when you have the best of it, and you also let the draws play for one bet.
Centurion,
I'm surprised that no pot manipulators have replied to your well presented post. This subject interests me and I haven't been able to find enough material on it. You mention loose games - I presume your remarks apply to all games. A little while back, the question of preflop capping of pocket aces arose and Andrew Wells argued that he would not always cap the betting for a few reasons, the main one being withholding the correct odds for certain drawing hands after the flop. At the time, I argued that the EV foregone was larger than any prospective gain, but since then I have given a lot of thought to the merits of his arguments.
Using a chess analogy, there is no doubt that a sacrifice is being made - the question is whether it's a bishop for a queen or a queen for a bishop. It appears that some people are withholding more than pot odds.
Etienne
Yes, but it is a positional sacrifice not a material one. More like 1. Nf3 with the white pieces. There is much to admire about Richard Reti, and I try to emulate this style of thinking in my hold'em play. Get'em out of the book and let superior tactics dominate.
Very neat post Centurion. I would use 46 as a divisor instead of 42. A player cannot be expected to know with absolute certainty what each opponent is holding. There are 46 unseen cards remaining at the turn from their perspectives.
You wrote, "Opponent [JTs] should call, since 8/42>20/140." The openended draw to the nuts should NEVER FOLD here. It would be a good play to sometimes semibluff-raise on the turn, even with a calling station behind him. Quite a few of my opponents will make this play. If they also make the mistake of slow playing a set on the flop, then I'll be folding top pair mediocre kicker too often. In a loose game with calling stations I understand QQ may decide to call or reraise (but not raise) and see if the flop contains an overcard, since alot of calling stations routinely play AX for two bets. When the player with bottom pair weak kicker calls for one bet he thinks: I can win with my deuces if the bettor is bluffing. When this player cold calls for two bets he thinks: I can win with my hand if I catch my card. A bet on the river from the busted straight draw will usually cause the unimproved bottom pair to fold because the raise on the turn adjusts the calling station's mindset. This is why a semibluff-raise can be a good play against a calling station when there is virtually no chance he'll fold immediately, whereas a semibluff-bet is useless.
The "huge preflop mistakes" build a pot so that top pair can afford to GIVE implied odds to correct drawing hands. There are no implied odds for the *best hand* against multiple draws (one could say negative implied odds - but I think it is less confusing to refer to giving or receiving implied odds).
I tend to agree with your arguement that with weak/passive players one should bet or raise for *value* much more often than against a tighter lineup. Yet this is because they are more likely to be playing dominated hands rather than because one can't get them out preflop. It is the GOOD player with the marginally incorrect gut shot on the flop (who wouldn't be giving action with the dominated top pair) that I want to manipulate the pot against so that either decision (fold or call) on the flop benefits my hand with two or fewer outs (if needed).
Doesn't your analysis assume everyone checks the river? Even Charlie the Tuna can be expected to bet trip deuces on the river if he can only be beaten by a set. The trouble is that top pair weak kicker may be faced with a difficult check/call, but the busted draw has no such tough decision to make. This further reduces the EV for the *best hand* going into the river. There is some value in losing to the fish with the five outer rather than the opponent on the openender, because the fish is much more likely to return the money to the table than a decent player. This is why I can sincerely say "good hand" to an unaware player, but can't seem to resist injecting a trace of sarcasm if the winner is knowledgable.
"Very neat post Centurion. I would use 46 as a divisor instead of 42. A player cannot be expected to know with absolute certainty what each opponent is holding. There are 46 unseen cards remaining at the turn from their perspectives."
I made certain simplifications in the post. The numerical example just serves to illustrate the main point. You are correct that you generally can't know what exact hands your opponents are holding.
"You wrote, "Opponent [JTs] should call, since 8/42>20/140." The openended draw to the nuts should NEVER FOLD here."
There are situations where an eight or nine out draw would fold. What if there were several people seeing a flop of Kh8d3h, your (normally tight-passive) opponent bet into them from first position (so he isn't bluffing and Kx is the worst hand he could have, except for a higher flush draw), and all folded except you (with a low flush draw). Now on the turn, a total blank, he bets again, but the pot is not giving you odds to hit your flush, and you won't get paid on the river if a third suited card hits. In the situation in the post, the straight would probably not fold in any case, unless the made hand bet all-in and the pot odds were insufficient to justify a call.
"It would be a good play to sometimes semibluff-raise on the turn, even with a calling station behind him."
Clearly, there are several possible strategic options. I was just trying to figure out if ANY situation existed where an opponent's mistake would cost you EV.
"The "huge preflop mistakes" build a pot so that top pair can afford to GIVE implied odds to correct drawing hands. There are no implied odds for the *best hand* against multiple draws"
The terminology I used may not be exact. The point is that you will make a certain amount of money when your starting hand's top pair does indeed hold up, and that said amount will be greater when there are many draws tied on to the pot.
"I tend to agree with your arguement that with weak/passive players one should bet or raise for *value* much more often than against a tighter lineup. Yet this is because they are more likely to be playing dominated hands rather than because one can't get them out preflop."
Not being able to get them out preflop is not the reason for raising. The accepted strategy is that players should not raise big offsuit cards into crowds preflop. Given that people won't fold preflop, especially to a late position raise after they have limped, you want to raise them for value, in part because they are playing dominated hands. (and even when they aren't dominated you gain value by forcing weak drawing hands to call an extra bet, since the profitability of those hands comes from their strength in a few specific situations rather than across the sum of all flops and they lose value and implied odds by having to call that bet)
"It is the GOOD player with the marginally incorrect gut shot on the flop (who wouldn't be giving action with the dominated top pair) that I want to manipulate the pot against so that either decision (fold or call) on the flop benefits my hand with two or fewer outs (if needed)."
Yes. Against medium or better players, an entirely different set of considerations applies. Then you can manipulate the pot odds that you are offering your opponents, in order to gain the maximum value from their (usually correct) actions. With bad opponents, given that they will do x in situation y regardless, the issue is how best to take advantage of that. That form of loose game is what I am referring to.
"Doesn't your analysis assume everyone checks the river? Even Charlie the Tuna can be expected to bet trip deuces on the river if he can only be beaten by a set. The trouble is that top pair weak kicker may be faced with a difficult check/call, but the busted draw has no such tough decision to make. This further reduces the EV for the *best hand* going into the river."
Yes. In real life, people don't check the river, and a board of KQ9 is far from an automatic fold. The above might be clearer for an obvious flush draw, where the made hand would be less likely to pay on the river. The EV of weak made hands is reduced in loose games for that reason, among others. But even while your hand's percentage chance of winning and value relative to other starting hands may decline in loose games, it may be worth more overall in a loose game than in a normal or tight game.
"There is some value in losing to the fish with the five outer rather than the opponent on the openender, because the fish is much more likely to return the money to the table than a decent player. This is why I can sincerely say "good hand" to an unaware player, but can't seem to resist injecting a trace of sarcasm if the winner is knowledgable."
Again, I recognize that there are many additional aspects to the situation. How an opponent will play on the river, and how they will continue to play in the future are relevant factors.
In Omaha-8, I sometimes congratulate opponents who win pots with QT52. The difficult decision is how to reinforce them without alerting them that they're doing something wrong.
When I said the openended draw should never fold *here*, I meant in conjunction with the board and pot odds given in your example as this was a draw to the nuts.
I think you would consider a suited one-gap weaker than a suited connector with respect to their drawing capacity. After all, there are more potential flops which make a pat hand or give the suited connector a good draw than with the suited one-gap. Yet the one-gap may have greater EV than the connector as it will tend to get paid off more when it is drawing and completes. This is because the one-gap doesn't complete the straight with three sequenced cards on the board using both hole cards. Therefore, it is on the flop where one should judge the worthiness of a drawing hand rather than before the flop. It is less certain preflop whether a hand will become a weak draw, good draw, or the favorite. It is on the flop where making the weak draws pay or fold has more value than before the flop.
The very loose games are wonderful when they happen since I can now even raise with good draws with or without positional advantage. As you have shown with the math and logic, it is undoubtedly the good draw that has the best of it in these situations. I have stated in another thread that I would prefer to have JTs over AA in the big blind of a loose game's seven or eight way pot.
You wrote: "The difficult decision is how to reinforce... [poor play] ...without alerting them that they're doing something wrong." This is an extremely important subject which many serious players ignore. I'm not sure how to best do this or keep the table in a *gambling mood* for that matter, other than to always appear to respect everyones play (good or bad) equally.
are so dumb, it defies description. For example, I am playing in a 4-8 kill game with a very agressive, somewhat loose player. He is sucking chips off the talble like a vacumn, but not from me as I am picking my battles carefully and am hiding behind my natural intense, serious look. I finally pick up a KQs, and as I have been doing call the agressive player's raise. The flop is KJ, 6. I bet, and am called by two people, the agressive player, and a guy who has slowly lost about 150 while I have been playing. Turn is Q, I bet, loser calls, maniac calls. River is Q. I look pained, slap the felt, and say, Oh, man, check. Agressive player drops, (dang it) loser bets, I raise, and he calls me. He loses with two pair. I rake in the chips that make the night for me.
Now, it seems to me that a wise player with two pair would check behind me, no matter what the pot odds were for his bet. A shrewd player might even check his straight or even flush, heeding Sklanksy's advice about not betting a hand when the only hand that is liikely to call you, will beat you. I view the board pairing as a check and call, unless I get a tell impossible to ignore. Then I fold.
I wish I could say that I have never done what the loser did that night, but I have. Keeping your focus after bleeding away most of your chips is very difficult. Fartigue, and despair, are serious threats. Wahoo!
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you, but your hypothesis from prior posts is that playing loose in very loose crazy games is correct, and in your latest post you attempted to prove this was true by showing that it is correct to play small pairs in such a game, right? I don't think that's a good example at all. Pairs are different beasts. You can often loosen way up on pairs, as they have such good implied odds and are capable of winning a big pot against a lot of players if they flop a set. Try playing JTo, however, for 2+ bets preflop in such a loose crazy game and you'll get creamed, IMO. Again, correct me if I misunderstood.
-Abdul
No, your not mistaken Abdul. But, I guess I should refill in the blanks. Someone referred me to a model of pairs that Paul had done sometime back where he had shown that only AA and KK where profitable to play for 4 bets in a loose game (he also considered suited connecters etc but the pairs was the easisist part of the model for me to do with a pencil). He had assumed an average pot size of 40 bets strange money -- which is about right for 5-way action and an aggressive game. His model had also assumed that you played both overpairs and sets after the flop. To keep it simple, and because most pairs don't play well as overpairs, too many overcard and straight draws. And, it made the arithmetic simpler. The point was simply that there is an inflection point of about 50 sb potsize where it does become profitable to play all pairs for 4 bets. Some had claimed that wasn't true. It says nothing about JTo. If I'd ever suggested I thought that was much of a hand in a wild and crazy game then I was misstating myself. I don't think AKo is much of a hand in thatkind of game. The real money makers are pairs and Axs. Other hands are profitable, like KTs or JTs or 76s, but have to be played a little more carefully. I certainly don't think my post about pairs applies to anything other than pairs. Sometime this week, when I get my penciled sharpened and get some fresh junk mail envelopes, I'll recalculate some of pauls stuff on suited connectors. His model results did suggest tight is right in loose games with preflop caps. But, very loose games are different. That's been my only point. Gary
Post deleted at author's request.
I know none of the superstars here ever lose but I took a devistating loss yesterday. $1100 in a 10 20 game. I think this is way too much and I don't do it but once in a long time but it hurts very badly. I feel so stupid. I just couldn't quit and at one time I was winning $350. Game was going to break and I would have lost $450 but two players came and we kept playing. My luck deserted me and I lost everything. No flush, no full houese, no straight. All big pairs got beat. Nothing. I am sick. I usually win but this is painful. I could have left sooner and not felt so bad but I just couldn't quit. I don't know why. After being up $350 I took a couple bad beats and was only winning $100 and knew I should quit but couldn't. I felt like it was all over then but I was unsatisfied with only winning $100 and this has happened to me before and then things just got worse and worse. I am so sad. How could I have been so dumb. What is my problem?
First of all, even the best players lose, and more often than you might think. Sometimes they have a big losing session like you did.
Second, deciding when you should quit the game is not a function of how much you are ahead or behind, unless losing a lot effects you emotionally. Then you should quit when you feel you are no longer playing your best game. Even when you are winning you should quit if a bad beat or two has you on tilt. At least take a break for a round or two.
Good reasons for quitting include: You are not good enough to beat the game as it is right now; You are tired; Your bankroll is too small to play the stakes of the game; You are upset or can not concentrate on the game, etc.
If those two bad beats had you upset, then you should have quit then.
Thirdly, losing $250 in two hands at the 10-20 level is not uncommon. Especially in a game with a lot of raising. That's only 12 1/2 big bets. And losing $1100 over the course of an evening is not that uncommon either. The relevant question is how much you are ahead or behind in the long run.
Your posting suggests that you are not that experienced at 10-20. If you are a winning player (a big if you need to ask yourself), then you should have at least $6,000 - $8,000 in your bankroll to play 10-20. Even more if you play in a lot of tough games or games where the players tend to raise a lot. You have to expect big swings when gambling, and your loses are in line with what a good player might experience.
If that loss to too much, try dropping down to 5-10 or 4-8 until you build up a bigger bankroll (and more playing experience).
You might like to read what Mason Malmuth has written about fluctuations and bankroll requirements. Those articles can be found in Gambling Theory and Other Topics, and Poker Essays.
Good luck.
Nobody wins all the time and a $1,000 loss in a 10-20 game isn't out of the question. Feel bad if you played bad, not if you got unlucky. As the late Jack Straus would lament, the worst thing about losing is the embarrassment, not the money.
As the late Jack Straus would lament, the worst thing about losing is the embarrassment, not the money.
Thankyou Earl. That is EXACTLY how I feel. Humiliated.
George...as for your comments (which I appreciate) I am a professional. I made a mistake. I have an adequate bankroll. My problem is that I always make the SAME mistake. I feel that greed is part of my problem. I was pissed off after the two bad beats when I was winning. This is unusual and I don't know why I was mad. My whole psyche seemed to deteriorate. I melted. I could feel myself sinking. It happens to me once in a while (but not often) and I couldn't quit. It was like I was in a dream. The game was also bad but I stayed. I think my ego got bruised. I am taking a break now. I am too embarrassed to show my face! I will win again. The pain will go away. But a lot of time has been lost. The pain really stings when I make a mistake like this. Thankyou both for your comments. We can all learn from each other.
J. Handley,
I would guess that your play went down hill a lot when you fell behind as this is typical. I would also guess that you started playing some lower quality hands that you would not play if you were winning in the same situations. This is also typical.
IMO you want to tighten up some when your losing a fair amount. Leaving with a small loss isn't a bad alternative if your play suffers too much when your behind. I still know how to lose money at poker but you can dig yourself out of the ditch if your patient and play your cards well and don't press. Staying and playing when your play has deteriorated will hurt your bankroll too much so you've got to leave when your play has deteriorated.
Tom Haley
Losing $1,000 or more at $10-$20 should occasionally happen to all good players.
20 SD smallbets/hour * sqrt(9 hours) * $10/smallbets = $600 SD. (SD = standard deviation.) Ignoring expected value, your result was $1100/$600 = -1.83333 standard deviations from zero and will happen about 3% of the time. Assuming an expected value of +1 small bet per hour would push it to -1.98333 standard deviations, or about 2%. Sh*t happens. You may have a standard deviation lower than 20 smallbets/hour (which would make the result more improbable), but in wild games it's hard to get your standard deviation below that.
If you didn't see yourself making any mistakes, then you either got unlucky or you are missing something.
In any case, you should not be worrying that you should have "left when you were ahead". It's all one big game, with the exception that when you're losing, people tend to play better against you and you may play worse, and when you're winning, people tend to play worse against you and you may play better. So, if anything, you should have felt foolish for not leaving when you were down $750 and/or emotionally shaken, but you should feel good about continuing to play while you were ahead.
-Abdul
I have read the many responses to this post and I'm surprised that no one has suggested that you should have set a maximum loss for yourself before entering this, or any game.
I know the feeling of losing 50 or more big bets in a session...been there , done that...but it doesn't happen to me any more. I have a maximum loss for any poker game I enter and when I lose that ammount I quit...and it doesn't matter how good the game is, how long I've been playing or how I "feel"..(I usually feel numb when I've lost this much anyway). I quit and find something else to do for at least two hours at which point I may or may not play poker again by starting a whole new session.
I have read experts like Sklansky say that if the game is good you should continue to play...it just doesn't work for me. I feel too bad when I lose and even if it doesn't affect my play (and this is questionable) it certainly will affect my opponents perception of me....and they may start playing better against me.
On the contrary I put no limit on how long I'll continue to play if I am winning. I have some guidelines as well about how much of a big win I'll give back. When I have booked a big win (40 bets) I will give a portion back but will never leave that session a loser.
The amounts are arbitrary...and I chose them based on what is comfortable for me....but the key is that I never have to second guess myself about what "would have happened" if I had or had not stopped at a particular time....MY rules tell me when to stop and I obey them.
I agree with you. It only takes a small drop in the quality of your play to turn a winning player into a losing one. When you are emotionally off balance is exactly when it is most difficult to judge your current ability. Very much like a drunk trying to judge his own sobriety. Loss limits work for me.
Here is a quote on page 38 of Super System by Doyle Brunson - ‘I have saved a great deal of money over the years by quitting whenever I have lost enough money to bother me.’
Setting a stop loss is ok if the game is only fair or even if it is good, as long as the same game will be there tomorrow. But it is foolishness if it is both very good and the normal game is much worse. No high stakes pro that I know ever sets stop losses under these conditions.
David,
The games I play in, 15/30 , 20/40, 25/50, and 30/60 stud are always there tomorrow and are always just as good.
When I'm a "high stakes pro" playing 75/150 and higher some day maybe I won't bother with a stop loss either....
I still stand by my advice to the original poster for the games he is playing in... 10/20 limit games are always good for a smart player.
I agree that many players NEED to use a stop loss. Of course most top money players are wary of stop loss--to quote Mike Caro, "Stop loss often means stop win." But, for myself I know that if I am running bad I find it very hard to play accurately--no matter how good the game is. Stop loss has preserved my psychological equilibrium more than once, and allowed me to re-enter the same game later, or another game, and still have a winning mental attitude.
Darren
I was thinking the same thing as Jim...Why hadn't anybody mentioned a stop loss. I stick to my stop loss rule very closely. The one time I did ignore it I lost 2.5 times as much as I felt comfortable with and was heartsick for days.
Here is my personal method. Note that I play tight. (1) I buy in at (a conservative) 40 times the lower limit (e.g. $400 at 10-20) (2) I keep two piles of chips: my playing chips and my profit chips. (3) Whenever I get pushed a pot I put it all in my playing pile and then move any amount over my buy-in to the profit pile. (4) If the playing pile is emptied, I leave (usually taking a good-sized profit pile with me). If it never empties, I stay until I feel tired. (5) If I lose my playing pile, I allow myself to play another session that same day only if I take a meal break and play with different players. (6) I NEVER take from the profit pile to play EXCEPT to complete a hand if I use up the playing pile.
Post deleted at author's request.
J,
The bottom line... get your emotions under control!!!
"...devistating loss yesterday...it hurts very badly. I feel so stupid. ... I am sick... I don't know why... I felt like it was all over ... then things just got worse and worse. I am so sad. How could I have been so dumb. What is my problem? "
Doesn't sound like the writings of a winner.
Loss limits aren't recommended for most top players. However they may help you from letting your emotions spiral you out of control and prevent further damage.
Hope i'm never drawing dead,
Albert
When a good player was in a a bad slump, he asked Yogi Berra what his problem was. The guy was really distraught. Yogi said " a 280 lifetime hitter usually hits 280 over the course of a season "
Even the Hall of Famers went 0 for 12. You had a bad outing.
One thing you have to be careful of, it is very difficult to succeed at anything if you think you can't.
Take a little time off until you get yourself in a proper frame of mind.
Good Luck Joe Marcklinger
In Poker Essays, Malmuth gives a series of win rates for 1-5 seven card stud. How does the rake and the bad beat jackpot drop affect those win rates.
The win rates that I give in POKER ESSAYS is what you should leave the table with (on average). That is rake, etc. is already accounted for.
Mason, in these figures what kind of rake are you assuming?
I'm assuming typical rake. But my experience is that in those places where the rake is highest you can win a little more if you are an expert. This is because these places will usually be populated by more novice players.
Mason,
I agree fewer good players are found in games with the higher rakes. I have often decided not to play in such games even when I knew they were beatable. Even though I know I was costing myself money ( by playing in tougher games with session fees ) I simply hate supporting operators who are raping the players.
Under what conditions would you play a 10-20 game with a 10% rake max $10 or a 15-30 with a 10% rake max $12.50?
What adjustments would you make?
My guess would be to play only AA-88, AKs-ATs, KQs, AK, AQ and only in spots where you knew you had an edge. For example I would probably fold 88 and 99 in early position.
Any comments would be appreciated.
The biggest fault in Loose players are Calling when they should Fold.
I usually would say Hold'em is my best game, but in a very Loose game I usually spend Hours waiting for Preflop= AA, KK, possibly QQ and Post Flop= Top Two Pair or Better. Very boring. There are still some Expert Plays that can be used, but for the most part I just bet my good hands since I know I will get called.
I just recently started to Study Omaha-8 and 7 Card Stud-8. I'm thinking these Split Games would be better to play when you are Dealing with People who Call when they should Fold. I think in these two games its much easier to have your Opponents Drawing Dead, this exploits their Biggest Weakness. What do you think.
CV
Chris,
I sometimes play the 7 stud eight or better small game (3-6) at the Commerce. I've watched the 20-40 game there and it looks pretty "juicy" to me. I've seen guys raising on 6th street with a middle pair and a draw to a non-nut low, hoping to either improve their high or make a low. There are players who will go to the river on a draw to a one way hand only. I find that my variance is usually very low in this game since I play few hands beyond 3rd street but play very aggressive when my hand improves on 4th street and beyond.
"I'm thinking these Split Games would be better to play when you are Dealing with People who Call when they should Fold. I think in these two games its much easier to have your Opponents Drawing Dead, this exploits their Biggest Weakness."
Omaha-8 is very profitable against bad players. In my opinion, the primary reason for this is that the value of starting hands and flopped hands is often counterintuitive. Very few starting hands have multiway value, so your opponents are mostly playing hands that are totally worthless. In addition, players used to holdem make the mistake of pursuing holdem hands and draws on the flop. In Omaha-8, top pair is worth nothing in an eight-way pot. Weaker draws (that might be playable in holdem) like non-nut straights or non-ace flushes, gutshots or two-pair drawing to fill are significantly reduced in value due to (1) you will often only get half the pot if you hit, (2) with that many people in, someone else probably has the same combination or the nut one, and (3) almost any card that makes flushes or FHs possible will give someone one. So your opponents will be drawing dead or nearly dead much of the time without knowing it. But I think that most of your profit comes from their preflop calls, especially if you can get your opponents to call preflop raises.
CV,
Omaha-8 used to be my A game. Here are a few of considerations for you to think about. In any split game, you invariably end up tipping more because you win more pots (half pots). Also the rakes often are higher in Omaha. This is because of the third reason; the hands take so much time, around 1/3 less hands per hour. This is due to the large pots, the difficulty in reading the board for the dealer and players, and the many side pots that always seem to be created.
"I usually would say Hold'em is my best game, but in a very Loose game I usually spend Hours waiting for Preflop= AA, KK, possibly QQ and Post Flop= Top Two Pair or Better. Very boring. There are still some Expert Plays that can be used, but for the most part I just bet my good hands since I know I will get called. "
I disagree here. S&M don't necessarily recommend playing so tight in very loose games. In fact, there are more hands that have +EV. I find less hands to play in a loose Omaha game than in a loose HE game. As you said yourself, you mostly need to play to the nuts in Omaha. You can do a lot more manuevering in HE than you can in Omaha.
Other considerations. HE starting hands vary a lot more in EV than Omaha hands. The play is relatively straight forward in a loose Omaha-8 game if you are playing to the nuts. Many writers have commented that it is easier to play Omaha-8 well than HE. This again has to do with the diminished chances to use skill in Omaha.
All that said, I do agree that there always seem to an endless supply of really bad Omaha players that call with the fifth nuts.
I play Omaha now as a diversion or when I am waiting. It moves just way too slow for me. I do play Hi-Lo HE more because it moves a lot faster than Omaha while retaining many of the Hi-lo errors people make.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
I believe that Omaha-8 rewards tight players more than any other game. Stud-8 rewards many of the same reading and manipulative skills that are so lucrative in straight high stud, making it not quite as profitable for tight players as is Omaha-8. Generally though, I agree with your perception.
Chris,
8 or better is easy to win at with bad players that call too much. Thats what your looking for, but study some ok? In loose holdem games you dont need to play that tight. 9,10 suited is a money maker in pots that are not jammed going in. Multi way hands take down the dough in those games. Good Luck.
I agree that 9,T suited is a good money maker in Texas Hold'em. I must have given the impression that I only play High Pocket Pairs before the Flop, I don't. I do study alot, there is just so darn much to learn and so little time.
CV
Chris,
I share your enthusiasm and thought I'd pass on my own stats as a new Omaha/8 player. My regular game is 5-10 hold 'em and after about 1,000 hours of play I'm averaging 0.5BB as a win rate with a S.D. of about $125. Recently we've been playing Omaha/8 once a week. I had no prior experience but have Ray Zee's book and think I'm a decent student of the game. After 275 hours of play against the same field as my hold 'em results, I'm averaging almost 3BB per hour with just a slightly higher S.D. of $135. We are playing with a full kill, however, so my win rate would logically a bit higher (i.e. not every hand is played at 5-10 stakes).
Good luck and get Ray's book if you don't have it already!
Ian,
You can be my new spokesman. As the result of your reading my book you have really shown some impressive improvements to your bottom line. Thank goodness for the players that dont study and play in bad games and go broke so we dont have to compete with very many refined players. Good Luck.
Say you are in Omaha-8 with a Hand like A2xx and the Flop comes 9,8,4. You have the Draw for the Nut Low and believe that there isn't an other A2xx out. You have 16 cards (3's, 5's, 6's, 7's) that can make your hand and 6 cards (A's, 2's) that would counterfeit your hand.
At first it looks like your better than Even money to make the Nut Low, but how do you calculate in the 6 cards that could Counterfeit you?
An other question would be when you have the Nut Flush Draw on the Flop that could Scoop. How should you reduce your chances of making your Draw, but loosing to a Full House or Better if the Board Pairs?
CV
"At first it looks like your better than Even money to make the Nut Low, but how do you calculate in the 6 cards that could Counterfeit you?"
Turn: 16/45 will make the nut low.
If made on the turn, 6/44 will counterfeit, so 38/44 are ok.
(16/45)(38/44)
23/45 chance of a high card or low pair on the turn.
If you miss on the turn, 16/44 will make the nut low on the river.
(23/45)(16/44)
6/45 chance of counterfeiting on the turn, in which case you have no chance.
(16/45)(38/44)+(23/45)(16/44)=chance of nut low.=49.3%
"An other question would be when you have the Nut Flush Draw on the Flop that could Scoop. How should you reduce your chances of making your Draw, but loosing to a Full House or Better if the Board Pairs?"
The value of that draw depends on how many cards of that suit you have, and on what the situation is for low.
If there are two spades on board, there is no low possible, and you don't have a spade matching the offsuit card on the board, eight spades on the turn will give you a safe flush. If so, and assuming that your other two cards don't match anything on board, all except twelve river cards are safe. Twenty-eight turn cards will not give you the flush or anyone a FH, so you would then have seven safe outs for the flush on the river. (This assumes that any possible FH will beat you, which is not always the case.)
(8/45)(32/44)+(28/45)(7/44)=22.8%. (You then have to discount the value of that draw if a low is likely/made)
I'm not sure if this is right, but the figure that I've been using for a backdoor low is 4.3%, and 1.05% for a backdoor flush. (effective odds, not chance of making it) The backdoor low value would decline if there are other possible backdoor low draws out there. The backdoor flush value would increase if a low is unlikely or impossible.
Chris,
Figure out the % chance of making your hand. Then subtract from that the % chance of the counterfeit happening with the remaining card coming. As a wild approximation it happens about 1 out of 7 times depending on what cards can actually come and what may be in opponents hands. In real life play think like this; I can improve say 50% of the time minus about 15% of the time I will be outdrawn equals about 35% of the time I will win or approximatly one third of the time. This gets you through the heat of the battle with a great idea of your chances. After you get sucked out on take your time and figure out what was your exact expectation. Good Luck.
Insurance for holdim and omaha poker by herb j. coddington will give you the odds for various situations and also show you the math involved
10-20 1/2 Kill at 145, I'm UTG with the kill button. I straddle for 30, blinds are still 5 and 10. Poker room management has ruled this as acceptable, however if the killer wins the pot without a flop then the kill remains in effect! It seems to me that this is one time when straddling makes good sense. Instead of having to make the first decision I've reverted it to last (as with an ordinary straddle). I am protecting the required kill bet somewhat. The big blind now has to pay 20 instead of 5 (minimum) to play. Have I gone soft in the brain, is this a great angle or what? All comments appreciated.
What is the chronological order of the following events?
2,1,3,4
First off my conversation with OTG was real. I met this guy on a boat after the hurricane. I decided to interview him because he offers a differnt approach then OTG
Joe"predator"Nardo: What makes you a winning player and how do you approach the game of poker? Modern mathematical player: Math is a science. All science can be learned. Poker can be looked at scientifically. Therefore poker can be broken down mathematically. Joe"predator"Nardo: Give me some examples. Modern mathematical player: First off, I reccomend Skalansk's THEORY OF POKER because it contains very important mathematical skills and relevance to the game of poker. Malmuth has wriiten some extremely important math concepts on poker as well. I assume that most people know this. Hands can be broken down mathematically. For instance there is always one best way to play a hand. One way can net you say 80 cents. Playing that same hand another way can net you 45 cents. So its rather easy to see that you should play the hand the 80cent way. In poker you should always try to play the hand correctly. If the hand loses you must think that this hand was played correctly so in the long run you will win. I know that it's hard to think about that concept when you lose a $200 pot but you must unstand it. You can use math to figure out how to play the hand the best way. Joe"predator"Nardo: Give an example Modern mathematical player: you can use simple math to figure out if you can get a extra bet in. You combine math with your knowledge of your opponent to use the best play. For instance you can check raise instead of betting outright. But I think most poker players know this unless they are very knew to the game. I believe that there are fewer and fewer "rookies" out there these days. You can use math to read an opponents hand. Do you know that a raise before the flop is is mathematically against being a pair? The only exception to this is if you know that the raiser absolutly only will raise with the "big three". Then again players who play this way can win very often. Math is used to figure out pot odds and implied odds. I'm saying this but I know of few poker players who don't know this. There are players who know this but don't use this knowledge in the heat of battle. It boils down to this, math is everywhere in poker. You can learn this. But realize that there is more then math as well. Knowing math combines with getting a good read on your opponents can go a long way to making you into a winning player. Joe"predator"Nardo: I understand these concepts but I must admit that I use basic math of poker and try to develop other skills to beat my opponets. I think that disicpline is extremely important and that a lot of players don't see this. I also think that math can be important as well. Modern mathematical player: All i'm saying is that playing mathematically is a sure way to win. I never said that its the only way to win. I know of winners who have tremendous card sense and this allows them to be winners. All of these thoughts have been talked about for years. There is nothing new about poker anymore. Joe"predator"Nardo: What do you think of computer simulations?: Modern mathematical player: I really don't hold too much value in them. They are not the end-all that many people think they are. After all if a computer simulation says that 66 will win 13% of the time against 9 random players, so what? How many times have you played against 9 random players? This is useless knowledge. In my opinion too much thought is being spent on these types of simulations. More thought should be used on how to maximise winnings on hands based on math times opponent knowledge. But I gather that books written about these computer situations are fun to read. Joe"predator"Nardo: What about math relative to bankrolls? Modern mathematical player: What I do is use a basic rule of 30times the maximum bet for sessions and 300 times the maximum bet for total bankrolls. I feel that this is good enough if you play good and play the best games that are available to you. Joe"predator"Nardo: How do you feel about the argument that poker is a "people's game played with cards"? Modern mathematical player: You could argue that this is true but to deny that math has a strong roll in poker is wrong. Everthing scientific has a mathematical relationship and that is undeniable. By using math I can reduce my errors and increase my winnings. I will let you decide on how to do that. A hint:2+2! Joe"predator"Nardo: I will ask you more questions later but for now I'm gonna play some $50-100 but I don't think I'm gonna do so well. Modern mathematical player: do you know that math can predict how well you can do on average? Joe"predator"Nardo: Leave me alone!
Yeah, right. More likely:
Joe"Predator"Nardo: You mind if I ask you a few questions?
Modern Mathematical Player: Leave me alone. I don't do interviews with people who put silly monickers between their names.
Tom"Thisspaceleftintentionallyblank"Weideman
Modern Mathematical Player: How come you are able to make decisions better than math would dictate?
Me: Were you talking to me pocket protector boy?
Modern Mathematical Player: Uh huh.
Me: I'd tell you, but since you can't load it into an equation, you'd never understand. Not to mention, you're just plain annoying.
Harry "Never Tell Me The Odds" Callahan
I was playing 10-20 Stud in AC over the weekend. The big loser (probably close to $2000) was an aggressive non-stop talker constantly trying to intimidate opponents (Male approx 50) and explain his plays to the people around him to prove his worth. Over the course of the night (and into the morning) his losses mounted as we keyed in on his style. He began punishing himself. He expected to lose - asked the dealer to give his opponent the cards he needed - played more and more worthless hands, etc. - we've all seen tilts like this.
I commented to a player next to me that it was getting PAINFUL to watch someone tilt that bad even though personally I didn't care too much for his demeanor. He said "Are you kidding - this is what poker is about!"
My question:
Is it a flaw which will hurt me in the long run to feel bad for the tilted player or should I not worry about training myself to suppress these feelings at the table?
Mike,
Great post. I'm sure most of us have been in the same position at one time or another. The short answer to your question is don't worry....enjoy the ride and be grateful that you're not the one on tilt.
Those of us who take poker seriously and spend long hours at the table have a dilemma to live with in that we seek out as poker opponents the sort of people who are not very intelligent, and we have to spend big chunks of our time with these people in order to be successful players.
Those who would criticize our "lifestyle" have a strong point about how much of our life we "waste" in the company of people who don't really have much to offer in basic human values.
Please don't misunderstand...I have spent a lot of time playing poker in casinos over the last 13 years and have formed some wonderful friendships with fellow players during this time.....but there is a lot of sleeze out there as well.
Because I play agressively, and when I sit down at the table my goal is to win every chip there, sometimes even genuine friendships get strained. I have often had to talk to friends away from the table to make them understand that there is "nothing personal" in my quest to win their chips.
I caution my friends to NEVER soft play against me because I will not return the favor...it's goes against my style. I'll check raise my best friend on the river and get satisfaction when I'm paid off. After the game I can buy him dinner or lend him money.
Many very nice people play this game mainly for the social aspects of it. They feel sorry for the losers and they would never check raise anyone. I play in some games where it is considered the "proper thing to do" to show your opponent that he's beat on the river to save him a last bet. Because I don't do this myself I may be an "outcast" in these types of games.
I deal with this by reassuring myself that my "purist" approach to poker is correct and those people I play with, whose friendship and respect I truly value, I try to talk to them and make them understand my viewpoint. I have not always been successful and have "lost" some "friends" along the way....but maybe they were never meant to be my friends anyway.
One final point...what you experienced at the 10/20 level game you spoke about is less common as you go up in limits. The player who loses 100 big bets in a 150/300 game doesn't get any sympathy from me or from the other players in the game for the most part.
I lean toward Brunson's attitude: it's okay to feel sympathetic toward a player, but it's a mistake to play sympathetic.
Jim:
Your points are well taken to Mike.
On another note: You must have gone to Weequahic High School and graduated in 1963 as I did. Also, you were on the swim team as your yearbook picture indicated. Maybe I will see you at the reunion in October. If you still have your Legend yearbook check out my picture and see if you recognize me.
Mike, you sound like a nice guy. My last four partners were nice people and now they're dead.
Det. Callahan (retired)
What did they die of?
Mike,
I'm all for human compassion but there's one important aspect which has been overlooked and that is the many times that the steamer recovers. I've seen gamblers, with their wives and suitcases waiting outside in the airport minibus, turn a losing weekend into a winning one in their last few spins at roulette. Steamers in no limit 5 card draw will sometimes win a few big pots that get them out of the red - then watch the amazing metamorphosis as they transform into rocks, or excuse themselves from the table claiming an urgent prior engagement. The guy on tilt who's down $2000 is capable of winning a few big pots which may turn you into the next steamer.
Etienne
I'm a top Yale law student. I'm an ex-ace poker player; you might say I have a gift. My on the fringe buddy is in trouble with mobsters after losing 25 Gs to some not so friendly guys in a poker game. Should I now play the game of my life to save my friend, or are the stakes just too high? BTW, I've calculated my standard deviation and it's 4 to 1 my friend gets busted out permanently in the game of life.
What should I do?
Write a screenplay.
DOn't forget your Magnum.
Don't your partners always die?
Is "Rounders" out already?
1 800 DR LAURA
Don't insult us Italions or ya gonna get it
What the hell is an Italion? Guess you don't need to be a good speller to be a hit man.
This is an abomination. These posts should have been deleted. There is No room for humor on this web site. When are we going to get back to the arcane discussions about the relative merits of standard deviation and game theory as it relates to the intricate correlations of optimum strategy. Do you know how much time it took me to read all of these posts? I am not amused. My mom says, "when a man becomes a man he should act like a man-or take off his pants." Bob A.
>>Don't insult us Italions or ya gonna get it<<
Especially those who bench press 400lbs, eh Predator?
There is one question you should ask yourself: "Do you feel lucky punk? Well do you?"
Call Matt Damon
make my day, bigboy
Don't forget to read some books first.
Recalculate your standard deviation.
I play 20/40 and 30/60 Omaha-8 or better at Commerce and feel I'm a decent Omaha player. I can hold my ground with some local top players and non-local players when tournaments are held at Commerce. However, this Omaha game does not go every day and some times I end up playing the 20/40 High Low Split game which most of the time is going. The game seems to be easy and normally I play against the same players, but I can not beat this game. I have read books that explain how to play this game from starting hands to the famous paint on fourth street and so forth. I have studied also some of players and I can tell what players play more solid hands than others, but I still keep on getting beat by them. I'm the type of player that never blames the dealer or my luck, but I feel embarrassed when my chips play musical chairs with all the players on the table. I wonder if someone could provide some advice as to what is happening to me.
Since your opponents are regulars, perhaps they have spotted some tells. Or perhaps your play is solid but predictable. Playing with a regular group can be quite difficult if your opponents are observant and learn your style or are on to a pattern in your behavior. While your playing, try to visualize yourself from the third person. Try to see in yourself what your opponents are seeing.
Is this stud H/L with or without a qualifier?
This is what helped my game in stud eight or better:
In eight or better stud, one of the most important factors is that starting high hands change greatly in strength depending on the number of opponents and which way they're going. You have to be very careful when playing high hands against more than one low opponent. Against better players, there will often be a hidden ace in their low hands, since a large fraction of playable lows contain an ace. This significantly reduces the strength of your high pair. In a high enough ante game, you might not be able to reduce the field enough on third street with the high hands to make them playable.
Also think of which other starting hands are worth more or less in your particular game: ante structure, frequency of multiway action, do your opponents play high pairs, are there a lot of raises on third street, do people always fold with bricks on fourth street.
The HLSFAP advice to on when to get out early can't be emphasized enough. The fourth street, fifth street and general strategy chapters are the key to this game. This is not a chasing game like high stud. Unlike most limit games, it often costs far more to see the river than to see the first few streets. You generally don't have odds for any draws except for the strongest, especially in a tight game. Not only are you often drawing to half the pot, but you will have to put in a large fraction of that eventual pot whether or not you hit.
In Omaha-8, players who play weak starting hands in a multiway pot are throwing their money away. In stud-8, opponents playing slightly weaker starting hands are not going to rapidly go broke, provided that they know when to fold on fourth street. With a high relative ante and low relative bring-in, it may even be correct to call the bring-in with certain weak hands. If it is an error, it is not a huge one. Once people don't make big mistakes on fourth street or by chasing when they shouldn't, the game becomes much more difficult to beat.
Dan,
As you get the feel for how to knock out the other player that may be going in your direction your results will greatly improve. As well as getting the player with the only hand going the other way out so you can play head up with a player going the same way as you. This kind of gets dead money in the pot which you and one other player can compete for. Few players actually do these plays and the result is that even if you may not be able to make a profit with them the other people tend to check to you far too often for their own good. Good Luck.
Bill,
Board games and upcard games take different skills. Stud 8 also requires 7 stud high skills. I dont know much about the famous paint on 4th street but I hope you are reading books of value and sorting out any mistakes in the books that are not recognized as being universally correct. In stud 8 playing badly on fourth street can be very detrimental to your well being. Keep working on your game and you should get better results if your money holds out. Good Luck.
I have poker skills and a certain amount of people reading and card sense ability. When I am on my "A" game, I usually do quite well. During most playing sessions, whether in a tournament or live game, I get the urge to get in there and mix it up, (gamble) taking the worst of it. I think of myself as more of a gambler than a poker player, but it is beginning to bother me that I haven't managed to stifle these urges now that I know how costly they can sometimes be. ( in tournaments especially) Does anyone have any ideas or suggestions? An interesting benefit derived from this tendency to sometimes knowingly take the worst of it is that I tend to get paid off far more than most other players when I do have a superior hand. I'd like to retain this benefit but still gain a tighter control over my discipline. The advice of "just do it" is worthless without further direction as to the methods of accomplishment.
Post deleted at author's request.
It's not totally clear from your post , that when you get the urge to gamble if you are the one forcing the action, or if you come in a raised pot taking long odds. If you are the one putting the pressure on the other players,.. well, I don't think I'd change much. The better players seem to be able to apply pressure with less than the best hands, yet be able to back off and let go of the hand if it gets too sticky. I think that as long as you aren't going overboard with it, that it is possibly a strong style of play. The only advice that I'd offer ,if any, is to try to be a tad bit more selective as to whom you get in and gamble with when you want to push it. Maybe try to get in there with players you have some control over, that are more easily intimidated. Good Luck !!!
I agree with the last two responses to your posting.
When I get the urge to gamble, I either slow down completely or I become more agressive.
The advantage to becoming more agressive is that every move I make is done for a reason and I become more proactive in thinking about the game. I find the worst of gambling hapeens when I call longshots hoping to hit. Agressive play puts me in control. I gain more information and I can maximize my return. This strategy only works when I am prepared to use the information properly a probable loser.
In short, I thik gambling is OK, just make sure that you are the one controlling the gambling. If you are gambling and the other players are contolling you, that spells disaster.
Post deleted at author's request.
Discipline is the conscious act of delaying instant gratification (in your case, playing too many hands and going too far for the thrill of the action) for a greater future reward (in your case, being a significant winner for the stakes). If you can't seem to muster the motivation to play well, it may be that having fun is more important to you than winning money. However, there may be another reason for your lack of discipline.
In Malmuth_Poker_Essays, essay What's_Not_Important, Malmuth addresses your malaise by saying "if you understand how to play well and learn to execute the right plays at the right time, patience, discipline, and alertness will take care of themselves." You may be confusing your best game with running good. If this is the case, you need to improve your play, and I recommend Malmuth's Poker_Essays_II, Sklansky's Poker_Gaming_&_Life and The_Theory_Of_Poker, Caro's The_Body_Language_Of_Poker and strategy forums like this one.
>>I get the urge to get in there and mix it up, (gamble) taking the worst of it. I think of myself as more of a gambler than a poker player, but it is beginning to bother me that I haven't managed to stifle these urges now that I know how costly they can sometimes be.<<
I agree with Harry C., and would only add that your mention of acting on "urges" suggests that you are sometimes acting on emotion rather than cognition. It might help first to identify more specifically what the urges are about. Do they involve feeling competitive with certain players? Do they involve frustration triggered by losing? Or is it just a gambling urge as you seem to suggest? In any case, if you can find a way to shift your focus soley to the goal of playing *correctly*, your results can't help but improve. This involves acting only on cognition, not emotion. You might even try thinking of each hand as simply a little intellectual puzzle to be solved, rather than a competitive event. That might help correct your focus.
John Feeney
John,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I am mostly concerned with my tendency, in the middle part of no-limit HE tournaments, to make a big bet out of position or a call when I can't reasonably be expected to be in front. Sometimes, I'll make a play on the chip leader rather than wait, even though I'm in a favorable chip position. You have to gamble in tournaments, but I sometimes become a moth around a flame, circling in and out until I wind up getting burnt. I'm only concerned because my actions sometimes fly right in the face of what I know to be correct playing strategy. When you take actions that you know are incorrect, to me that suggests a problem with discipline.
Big John, you write:
>>When you take actions that you know are incorrect, to me that suggests a problem with discipline.<<
That's actually my definition of tilt - making an incorrect play when you know better. Unless it's just a mental lapse or you're not paying attention, then the cause is almost certainly that you're acting on emotion in some way. That's a big topic. But it's a big step just to recognize that emotion is triggering your actions. Then if you can perhaps get a handle on what specifically is going on (You may be acting on any of a variety of feelings, as I mentioned in my previous post.) you'll be in a postion to find a way around it and act on the basis of your thoughts instead. Of course, as any experienced player knows, that's easier said than done.
John Feeney
I used to have the exact same problem, and here's what I did. I would leave the ATM card at home, then buy in once for twenty big bets ONLY. That was it. If I lost it by being an idiot, I was forced to suck it up and take the long, forty five minute drive home, all the while thinking about the incredibly stupid plays that I made.
Granted, this strategy doesn't do much for your EV if the game is 'good', but it does accomplish two things. First, it makes you keenly aware of the fact that you have a finite bankroll. You may have duffle bags full of fifties back at the house, but that's completely irrelevent for this session of poker. You are now forced to 'respect' your stack.
Secondly, it psychologically punishes you for making dumb plays. Since the urge is to 'gamble', you find yourself more and more often in situations where you can no longer gamble because you are (again, for our purposes here) out of money. Instead of hanging out in the cardroom ,your stuck at home watching reruns of Sportscenter, thinking about the dumb plays you made earlier that night.
This obviously isn't a long term solution. But after a couple outings where you lose your stack, you find yourself playing more carefully, and this new attitude, this 'respect' for your stack, stays with you when you revert to playing with your usual session bankroll.
I think it's just a question of retraining yourself, and adjusting the way you perceive your stack.
Hope this helps,
Guy
I am playing 20/40 hold em at the Mirage, middle position and am the first person to call with pocket 7's. The guy to my left raises and the button cold calls, blinds fold, I call. The flop comes ace, seven, blank with two hearts. I check figuring one of the two to have an ace and I was hoping to shut it down with a check raise. The original raiser bets, the cold caller calls again and I raise both call. I now figure the raiser to have an ace/good kicker and the cold caller to be on the flush draw. The turn comes another ace. I bet, both call. The river comes with the third heart. I bet the original raiser folds and the cold caller reluntancly calls. I win with the full house.
How would you rate my play?
I have had a similar scenerio come up virtually every time I play. What I am referring to is when I have a strong hand on the flop, but I sense danger due to what the board is showing. I can't recall ever successfully check raising a person out of the hand on the flop. They will almost always call to see the turn and then fold. So I have begun to think it is better to check to the lead bettor on the flop, call his bet and check raise him on the turn where he is more likely to fold or at the very least make him pay double to see the next card. This enables me to save a small bet if the turn kills me and increase my net win if I am successful with the check raise on the turn. Your comments?
If I'm the first one in the pot, I generally come in with a raise. On the flop with an ace showing I would bet rather than check raise here. The reason is that I might get a re-raise opportunity, and my hand is better disquised. When you check raise after just calling pre-flop, it is pretty easy to read your hand. With the ace and flush draw out there,I wouldn't want to give a free card as well. I'm not saying you played it wrong, but I would be straight forward in situations like this.
There is no question that the best way to play this hand, in practice, is to lead into the raiser on the flop.
You want to get three bets on the flop, if at all possible, and you don't want to give a free card on the turn.
I agree with Mr. Raiseya's assessment of the situation.
I agree that betting out with a set is frequently the best play. But the specifics of this situation might indicate another better play.
With the pre-flop raiser on your left, two hearts and an ace on board, check-calling the flop and check-raising the turn may be a better play.
If the second player does have an ace, he'll not want to risk a free card, so you can count on him to bet. If the thrid player has a flush draw, he'll call both the flop and turn.
In the above situation, betting out stands to get 6 full bets if the flush doesn't come. Check raising the flop stands to get 5 full bets. Check raising the turn stands to get 6 full bets. The worst play seems to be check-raising the flop.
Betting out and check-raising the turn both yielded the same number of bets, but check-raising the river is the better play for two reasons. The first is that there is no guarantee that the second player will raise with his ace (although he should to force the third player to call a full bet). The second is that if a heart comes on the turn and doesn't fill you up, you'll be glad you didn't bet/re-raise the flop (If it does fill you up, the third player will be less afraid of you if you check-called the flop.).
With $330 in the pot on the turn if you bet out on the flop, you're forced to call a $40 bet on the turn to try and fill up. You're about a 3.6:1 dog on the turn. But you spent $100 trying to win between $350 - 430, from the flop onwards.
If you had check-called, there would be $210 in the pot on the turn, still enough for a call, but you saved $40.
The second player is not apt to raise on the flop without an ace. But he'll probably bet the flop, and even the turn too, if checked to and he doesn't have an ace. So there's a good chance for a check-raise on the turn even if the second player doesn't have an ace.
George wrote: "I agree that betting out with a set is frequently the best play. But the specifics of this situation might indicate another better play."
I disagree. The idea of almost always leading with your sets is a pot limit concept. It's frequently correct to to check raise with sets at limit hold 'em. You must consider the size of the pot, the board, and the position of the raiser. For instance, in large pots it could easily be correct to go for a check raise to knock out (or charge them to much if they play) someone with a gut shot draw.
I frequently check raise when I flop a set on the flop. Another reason for doing it is that many players won't believe that you have a set.
"With the pre-flop raiser on your left, two hearts and an ace on board, check-calling the flop and check-raising the turn may be a better play."
I agree with this. If the heart comes you will be glad you didn't check raise. If a blank comes, you may now get the player with the flush draw for two double size bets.
"If the second player does have an ace, he'll not want to risk a free card, so you can count on him to bet. If the thrid player has a flush draw, he'll call both the flop and turn."
I agree.
"In the above situation, betting out stands to get 6 full bets if the flush doesn't come. Check raising the flop stands to get 5 full bets. Check raising the turn stands to get 6 full bets. The worst play seems to be check-raising the flop."
I disagree. A lot of bad players will automatically call a bet on the flop with weak hands but then fold if they don't improve. You might be correct if you are against an ace and a flush draw. But you are not correct if they could be holding other hands.
"Betting out and check-raising the turn both yielded the same number of bets, but check-raising the river is the better play for two reasons. The first is that there is no guarantee that the second player will raise with his ace (although he should to force the third player to call a full bet). The second is that if a heart comes on the turn and doesn't fill you up, you'll be glad you didn't bet/re-raise the flop (If it does fill you up, the third player will be less afraid of you if you check-called the flop.)"
There are some spots where you should wait to the river to raise or check raise, but I don't think that this is one of them. You want to get the third player for two double size bets on the turn. By waiting to the river you will frequently lose this opportunity.
"With $330 in the pot on the turn if you bet out on the flop, you're forced to call a $40 bet on the turn to try and fill up. You're about a 3.6:1 dog on the turn. But you spent $100 trying to win between $350 - 430, from the flop onwards."
I'm not sure what you mean here, but if the flush card comes on the turn you don't have to be against a flush. Thus you are always going to call.
"If you had check-called, there would be $210 in the pot on the turn, still enough for a call, but you saved $40."
I agree.
"The second player is not apt to raise on the flop without an ace. But he'll probably bet the flop, and even the turn too, if checked to and he doesn't have an ace. So there's a good chance for a check-raise on the turn even if the second player doesn't have an ace."
I disagree. With the board as you describe and two callers many players won't bet again without at least top pair.
"I disagree. The idea of almost always leading with your sets is a pot limit concept."
In pot-limit, shouldn't I usually check-raise on the flop with a set in that situation? (With two hearts on board, I can count on top pair to bet to protect his hand.)
If instead the board was unconnected, wouldn't I slow play a set of sevens in pot-limit?
The best way to play a set in PL depends largely upon how deep the involved players are. If the pot is $100 after the flop, and all you've got left in front of you is about $100, you can check-call or bet out, whichever figures to be most likely to elicit the most calls. If you and the key opponents all still have $10,000 in front of yourselves, then you might want to bet out so as to build a bigger pot, so you can bet bigger on the turn, or raise bigger on the river if you fill up.
Pot size manipulation is a VERY important concept in PL, much more so than in limit.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Thanks for your input Mason. I was referring to being up against both an ace and a flush draw for most of my post. And I didn't write what I meant a couple of times
Where I recommended a check-raise on the river was a typo. It should have read check-raise the turn (which is what the point of my post was). You obviously want to get a flush draw's money in the pot before he knows he's not making one. [Perhaps my fingers wanted to check-raise the river instead of the turn. That might explain why they throw chips in the pot when I know I shouldn't. They may have a mind of their own! ;-) ]
I also meant at the end of my post that the second player will frequently bet the turn, hence my saying that there was a good chance of getting a check-raise in on the turn even if the second player didn't have an ace. Even if he didn't bet, waiting for the turn to check-raise is still better in my opinion, because many of the hands he won't bet the turn with he will fold to a bet anyway.
I think many players will bet without the ace because many players will call on the flop for a small bet, but fold if the turn is bet, if they have a mediocre hand. So following through with a another bet on the turn frequently wins the pot. So the second player may very well follow through representing that strong ace. I guess it depends on the players.
The point of using the pot size to determine whether or not a call is correct if a flush card came was becasue I was assuming a flush was made, and pointing out that a call is still correct for $40, but not correct for the $100 you invested in restrospect--another way of saying that you will have wished you hadn't bet out on the flop, if the flush card comes on the turn. Since the pot odds are good, there is no need to look further. If the pot odds were smaller, I would have estimated the chances a player had a flush, as well as calculate the implied odds, not just current pot odds.
The reason I emphasize the ace/flush draw situation is because I think that's where most of the money will be won. Most other situations a player will either call or bet (not raise), or check behind you with hands they would have folded to a bet.
This discussion reminds of a hand that I played several months ago in a hold 'em game. The reason I remember it is that I won a very large pot, but that is not my point. I had two nines and the flop came Jh 9h 4s.
I don't remember all the details but what happened was I floped a set and just called a bet on my right, several players called behind me, and then the first player who previously passed checked raised. When it got back to me I raised again.
My reasoning was as follows. My first call was fine because players with gut shots were getting the wrong odds to play given my hand. But when it came around again, I reraised because by calling they would now ge getting the correct odds. Notice that flush draws and open end straight draws will probably come no matter what I do.
My point is that you need to consider many things in making your decision. Sometimes it is clear to lead, sometimes you should check raise, and sometimes you should check call. The size of the pot is very important when deciding what to do.
Mason says,
"I had two nines and the flop came Jh 9h 4s. I don't remember all the details but what happened was I floped a set and just called a bet on my right, several players called behind me, and then the first player who previously passed checked raised. When it got back to me I raised again.
My reasoning was as follows. My first call was fine because players with gut shots were getting the wrong odds to play given my hand."
It is this last sentence that I question. "My first call was fine because players with gut shots were getting the wrong odds to play given my hand." Why are they getting the wrong odds to call on the flop? Their implied odds are probably correct to take off a card for a gutshot. If you raise however they will be making a mistake. What am I missing here?
In my first post I addressed just the flop, which I still would be inclined to lead into the raiser . But, depending on what happened on the flop, I would check raise the turn as is pointed out in HFAP, where S&M suggest check raising many of your better hands since you will be giving up on many of your semi bluffs on the flop, which balances your play. This seems to me the perfect scenario for what is disscussed in the book. ??Right Mason??
Just something to think about. When you check raise on the flop they may think you have a flush draw. If you check again on 4th street how could someone else with 3 aces now check. You could maybe get another check raise in. Now they would think you may have 3 aces with a good kicker or possibly a full house. Then you check on the end when the flush card comes and they may think he must not be full or he would have had to bet or the flush may not be able to stand it and bet anyway so you can get in three check raises in the same hand. This certanly may or may not have been the way to play this hand but being creative has many merits. I have checked raised three times in the same hand quite a few times. Good Luck.
I've been playing 7cs for a few months now and I am pretty happy with my progress so far. When I started playing casino poker, I decided to play stud just because I had played it in more home games. I new that hold 'em was more popular and I decided I would learn it eventually. One problem I've been running into with stud is keeping track of exposed cards and performing calculations at the table. Third street is a piece of cake (as far as noting exposed cards), I run into trouble later on. For example, suppose I play Aces with a 10 kicker. All my cards are live. Blank on 4th, but then I make a new pair on consecutive cards on 5 & 6. So now it's 6th street. I got Aces up and would be happy except my opponent is on a flush draw and I suspect he already has it. Now I need to calculate my odds of filling up. Aces are live, but I can't remember if my 5 & 6th st. cards are live. What to do? I can beat the low-limit games without making these calculations, but if I hope to move up (which I do) I need to learn how to do this. Right? Do the expert stud players out there remember every single card exposed? If so how? As I said I don't play much hold 'em so I have a quesiton for the hold 'em players (most people here). It appears that the calculations in hold 'em are easier. I'm not suggesting the game is easier, but it doesn't seem as if the calculations are as complex. Is hold 'em the way to go for a fairly new player. Did I get it backwards in trying to learn stud first, when I should have learned hold 'em first and then stud? Thanks in advance... On
Dr.
Its not easy to remember every card out. The good players at least remember the cards that effect their hands and the opponents hand. A few mistakes like you described will not make too much difference as they only cost a small % of a bet most of the time. Work on it when you are not in the hand and try to get a system of ordering the cards if that may help. Learn all games so you can stroll around the casino and get in the best game in the house. Good Luck.
Expert stud players do not memorize every sin5gle cared exposed, although I guess a real mental wizard could. When the cards are first dealt out I look at the upcards and memorize which suit is dead, which cards are dead, and then I look at my cards and see if my cards are live or dead based upon what I can see. If I am up against a guy who just called coming in and makes a 3 flush on board it is important if his cards are live or dead. If his suit is dead than I put him on a pair but if not more than 2 of his suit have been exposed than I start leaning towards putting him on a flush draw.
If you up against a good player who makes a 3 flush showing on 5th street but there are many of his suit out you should start worrying that he is hiding a big pair or is rolled up. Also if a person makes an exposed pair it is very important to know if the other 2 cards have shown themself. If I havent seen then yet I will start to worry a bit. If one is out already than I play the hand as if my oponent does not have trips.
have fun
James
I'm always curious why anyone would suggest that limit hold-em is more difficult than stud. I don't catalog totally, but on the other hand, I rarely forget what has been played, particularly key cards.
In any event, card-tracking is not as difficult as you view it. You have 3rd street down apparently, and as Ray Zee notes, the crucial information comes from tracking the liveness of your hand and your opponents (another good reason to shorten the field, incidentally). On 5th street, you're going to usually be making a decision whether to take a hand to the river or not -- that is the stage where you will reconsider how live the hand is. On 6th street, instead of necessarily looking to calculate odds with 2 pair, you should be particularly aware of whether or not your hand goes nearly dead. If you have 2 pair on 5th or 6th, unless your hand is dead AND you are convinced you are beat, or you are beaten in sight, you will nearly always play to the river.
Of course, the more you can fill in about what your opponent might be playing helps fill in the missing information about how live their hands are.
The really expert 7 stud players know every card that is out. The almost really expert 7 stud players may not be able to tell you every card that is out, but when a card appears on the board they can tell you if it is live or not and have a good idea if it can help the hand. Always remember the seven other starting upcards then the rest of the cards will fall into place. Good Luck.
> Do the expert stud players out there remember every single card exposed?
This is something you can practice and improve upon. All it basically is, is improving your short term memory. And you can do that. I used to be horrible with remembering people's names that I got introduced to at a party or where ever. Then during my college years I worked in a deli for a few months and I noticed that my short short term memory improved tremendously because of all the short term orders I took and prepared. I didn't do it on purpose, it just happened because of the necessity of my job. Then I noticed that I could remember people's names really well. Interesting enough after I stopped working at the deli it started to disappear again (gradually). I started improving my short term memory again once I started to play 7-stud, and it is actually pretty good right now. The way I practice is the way Ray Zee mentioned in his earlier post, that is to remember cards even when I am not in the hand. Paying attention to hands you are not involved in is also helpful to pick up hand reading skills, tells, etc.
Rounders opened today in Dallas to a packed house. It's an enjoyable 120 minutes. A real poker player will get a kick out of it.
I'm laying 3 to 1 there will be a sequel, what are your odds David?
My line is 10-1 against a sequel.
"Rounders" was pretty good, especially for poker players. Question: are there money games where the players would deal for themselves and not have the cards cut by another player? It seemed many of the big hands, including the final one between the hero and KGB, involved some very loose shuffling and dealing without concern from the other players.
I too enjoyed rounders but I was a little disappointed since I expected more. There were 2 real bothersome events from a poker perspective: One was the obligatory string raise, the other was in a no limit heads up game. The protagonist bets 1000 in a pot with a whopping $75 before the flop! This could have easily been fixed, but oh well.
Danny S
Consider the following example:
Five players see a hold 'em flop of Kh-9d-3h with one player holding AsKc (the best flopped hand), one player holding AhQh (the best flopped draw) and that the other three will call multiple bets with gut shots, underpairs, etc. which is common in loose games.
My question is about betting/raising for value. The player with the best hand obviously wants the betting on the flop to be as expensive as possible. The player with the flush draw is getting better than 4-1 odds on a 1.86-1 proposition so it seems that he would "raise for value", again making the betting as expensive as possible. Obviously, the others probably shouldn't even call one bet but we all play in games in which they do.
Sometimes I'm in the situation of having the best hand and other times the best draw. Is betting/raising/re-raising in these situations correct for both players or do I not understand the concept of betting for value?
Interesting. It seems to me that the "value" argument (against reasonable opposition) is going to depend on position. A-K obviously needs to push it all the way on the flop, but what about A-Q? If you're second to act and A-K leads into you, you need to be sure of at least one caller behind you in order to be able to raise for value. A raise may well knock out the inferior hands behind you--a call might actually yield more gravy.
Ian,
You also need to see the ace in the hand of the draw as it may enable it to win the pot by catching an ace since he doesnt know he is up against ak. This hand both players should jam the flop if they have a read on what really is against them. The draw has the most reason to raise to knock out players hoping that he may have 12 outs, or more if the first better could also have a flush draw. If that was the case not raising may be a terrible play. There is always more to think about than what meets the eye. Good Luck.
Perhaps there is more to this than meets my eye, but shouldn't the nut-flush draw (even with 12 outs) be raising with hopes that the callers all call again rather than fold? If they are likely to fold (e.g., not call two bets cold), then the draw probably should not raise, especially if he has a read on what really is against him.
No. You raise to keep any one behind you with an ace and a better kicker from taking off a card. If you fail to drive this player out you lose when an ace falls.
I'm sorry, but I'm still confused.
1. The only ace-hand with a better kicker is AK. The flop has a K in it, so the AK player has top pair with the best possible kicker. It seems unlikely that a raise will cause these cards to go into the muck.
2. If you don't realize that an AK already is out there and you are playing your AQ partly in hopes of catching an ace (i.e., perhaps your top pair with a nice kicker will be a winner), then raising is likely to chase away all the ace-hands with kickers that are poorer than yours (since you suggest it might succeed in chasing away ace-hands with better kickers). Aren't these exactly the hands you want to have continue calling along?
3. Your best chance for winning this pot comes not from hitting one of your ace outs but from hitting the flush. If your raise is likely to drop two (and probably even just one) of your possible callers, it seems to me that it will reduce your EV.
You are right. I did not re-read the original post. Of course you may cause middle or bottom pair (A-9 or A-3) to fold.
The idea of giving yourself more wins is important. If raising gives you 11 or 12 outs rather than just 9 it a big deal because that one extra small bet can sometimes win you the entire pot.
If you are raising because you hope to drop someone whom you "know" has middle or bottom pair with an ace kicker (i.e., A9 or A3), then you are increasing your outs to 11 (since two aces are accounted for). The only way you have 12 outs is if no opponent has an ace kicker.
My concern is that you could pay a high price for those possible two extra outs. If your raise causes A9 or A3 to drop out, it probably also would cause Q9, J9, T9, 98, 97, etc. to drop out as well. And the gutshot draws. And the AJ, AT, A8, A7, A6, A5, A4, and A2 hands.
If one of your two ace outs turns up AND that ace would have made two pair for one of your opponents AND your raise caused said opponent to drop, then you made a wise raise. It is more likely that none of your opponents has A9 or A3. Now if one of your THREE ace outs turns up, you probably will regret your raise. And regardless of whether any of your opponents held A9 or A3, if one of your nine heart outs turns up, it seems like you again will regret raising.
One mistake that you may be making is the idea that in big multiway pots a hand like middle or bottom pair must be beat so therefore it is correct to fold. You must also consider the pot size. If it is large enough, you should call one bet, and occasionally it can be correct to call two bets.
I am an avid gambler. I play anything from blackjack to craps. I have mastered a counting system that has helped me strengthen my blackjack play, and a betting system in craps that keeps me in the game for the hot roll. I gamble whenever I can. I see the poker players at the local pool halls, and the casinos and really have an interest in learning how to play. I just don't feel that i am ready to make the jump. I have basic knowledge of the game, and i have an uncanny ability with reading people. I just don't feel confident jumping into a game not knowing enough.
Are there any books that would be helpful to a player that is just starting out. If anyone could give me some titles that would be useful to a beginner all the way up to advanced, your help would be greatly be appreciated.. Thanks again..
Clozer,
Sounds like you are a gambler not a player. Gamblers loose their money and players win. Time to switch over maybe? The left hand column next to your posts has what you need. Read about everything you can in gambling but get the recognized good books as the bad ones will give you wrong ideas. Not till you get over the idea about waiting for hot rolls at the dice will you have much chance to ever walk away with any money from gambling. Good Luck.
I agree with Ray and then some. If you're playing craps and blackjack, you're not committed to being a winner. The first step in winning is playing games which can be won. Mastering a blackjack system that "strengthens your play" is a crock. Does the system make a clear profit? Of course not. And craps cannot be won period. Your interest in poker is a positive first step in the right direction. It is one of the only casino games for which long term profit is a reasonable possibility. But first you must first overcome your need for action. That means no more craps or blackjack. And don't think that the transition to poker will be easy. Craving "action" will lead to heavy losses in poker, just as it does in other forms of gambling. Poker presents the possibility of a profit, but not the probability of a profit. It will take several years of hard work just to get yourself in position to make a run at a profit. And even then there are no guarantees. The proliferation of available instructional materials and constructive discussion on the subject of poker is continually raising the bar. This web site is a perfect example. So by all means read the books advertised here, they will help you if you're serious. But if you are going to continue playing losing games like blackjack and craps, don't bother with poker. You'll just add another source of losses. And you don't need that.
A number of questions and issues have been raised regarding an article I published in Poker Digest (August 28 - September 10, 1998). The article is “Wheeling and Dealing at the FINAL TABLE”. I have reproduced the questions and issues below.
First though, if you have the article you might want to read it before proceeding. The essence of the article is to help players at the final table to strike a better or fairer deal at the final table. It uses a tournament simulator using two player and three player scenarios. For example, in the three player scenario, the stack position may be 100/200/700 chips. The simulator works by each player putting 1 chip in the pot and the pot then being awarded randomly (this is called in the article a random walk simulator). The 1 chip bet is then doubled to two chips after 35 hands (1 hour) and four chips after 70 hands (2 hours), etc. This is an attempt to model a structured limit betting tournament and would not apply to pot limit or no limit betting. Of course this does not model a tournament perfectly but is a rough first approximation (a really rough approximation). A caveat: there must be enough chips on the table in comparison to the antes or blinds. The article also models a skillful player (5% more skillful) over a weaker player and shows the skillful player’s results significantly better. Read the article for more.
1. Poker Digest numbers versus Card Player numbers - what gives!! (poster).
For the starting stack positions of 100/200/700 chips for three players, Card Player magazine in its July 11th, 1997 edition published the following numbers for the 700 chip player finishing 1st, 2nd, and 3rd..
Card Player: 70.0 (1st) 27.0 (2nd) 3.0 (3rd)
Poker Digest 67.7 (1st) 29.5 (2nd) 2.8 (3rd)
The Poker Digest numbers were not explicitly given in the article but had been translated into dollars which was $16,630 for a $20K, 10K and 5K prize structure.
So the CP and PD numbers are reasonably close. I don’t know how the CP numbers were derived. One of the differences I suspect is that in my simulation the bets double every 35 hands. But I do not know for sure.
2. The All-In Effect.
The article in PD shows that short stacked players win more than their “fair share” of tournaments. For example in the extreme two player position of 10 chips versus 990 chips , the 10 chip player wins 1.3% of the time which is 30% more than what intuition tells us (which would be 1%). The article says that this is due to the All-In Effect.
A couple of posters have questioned this especially when it becomes heads-up play. I don’t have an answer for this (yet) - so I need some help from the professional mathematicians. What I can say is that for the forty or so different scenarios I ran the short stacked player ALWAYS won more than expected. Being aware of the All-In Effect I put it down to that. I need to do more study on this aspect of the research. I suspect it may be related to the doubling of the bet every 35 hands which leads to all-in situations. This doubling of the bets every 35 hands also leads to the model approaching a no-limit situation as the bets become huge in comparison to the chips on the table.
Question for the professional mathematicians: Is there something intrinsic in the random walk concept that would bias the random walk towards the lower stacks?
3. How come scenarios such as 200/200/600 and 300/300/400 for three player situations show that the equal stacked players ended up with the same expected dollar amounts in a “random walk” when the prizes are $ 20K, 10K and 5K? .
Well they didn’t of course. In the 200/200/600 stack position the 200 chip players ended up with $9751 and $9758 respectively , I rounded this to $9750 for the article. In the 300/300/400 scenario the 300 chip players ended up with $ 11092 and 11122. I averaged this to $11,110. I did this for simplicity in reading the tables in the Poker Digest article. It also reflects the fact that this is a simulation and that the numbers are approximate. I did mention in the article that the numbers were rounded and that were accurate to within $ 50.
4. I’m guessing a flaw in the simulator (poster)!
I have laid out the model above. As noted it is a rough approximation to the tournament situation. It probably models Stud better than Hold-Em since in Stud everyone always antes (this is what the model assumes.)
I would appreciate it if someone with access to powerful computers could try to replicate this model to try and confirm the numbers. Any takers ? The simulation used in the PD article ran approximately 200,000 simulated tournaments for each scenario.
Still looking for the truth.
Jim Lochrie
Poker Digest subscription information at http://www.pokerdigest.com Card Player subscription information at http://www.cardplayer.com
Jim,
I have not read the articles or know anything about an all in effect. I do know that if one player has 100 chips and another has 10 chips one is a 10 to 1 favorite to win. If there are three players and one has 50 chips one has 30 chips and one has 20 chips the breakdown of chances to win is 50%,30%,and 20%. I may be sticking my neck out again without knowing anything about the computer simulation, but garbage in equals garbage out. Let the experts lambast me on this one please. Good Luck.
The all in effect recognizes those times when you would have thrown a bad hand away for a bet but because you are all in you get to the river and occasionally catch one or more perfect cards and win. The player with chips will not call your bet (because he has chips) while you do not have to call his bet.
I once wrote an essay (it appears in my book POKER ESSAYS) where I argued that the optimal buy-in for a razz game would be the ante. Now you could go to the river every time and probably win more than the best players in the world do. (This assumes that you can cash out every time you win the pot and then rebuy [for the ante]). This is the most extreme example of the all-in effect that I can think of. (In reality it can't happen since all cardrooms that I know of have minimum buy-in requirements).
Another example of a strong all-in advantage would be in Omaha-8. When playing properly, the vast majority of hands you play contain A2 or A3. (Especially in a very loose game, where the better lows gain value to the point that you can play a dry A2 or an A3 with some extra strength.) You often get quartered with these hands, and as a result, most of the profit you make is before and on the flop. The turn and river frequently cost you money. But if you are all-in, the high hand cannot do further damage to your quartered or sixthed low hand. (And when you play properly, you won't have a strong high nearly as often as a strong low, since good high starting hands are rare.)
Would this mean that I should buy in for the minimum to get that all-in advantage; if my daily bankroll is $250, should I buy in for $50 and only buy more if I lose?
One would think that the chances of winning exactly correspond with the percentages of chips. I'd like someone to prove otherwise--mathematically. And if the all-in effect does effect the numbers, it would icrease the small stack's chances, not lower it (one would think). The simulation showed the 10% stack winning only 3% of the time. Also not considered, was the chances of each stack finishing second (and third). This is important as most tournaments are not winner take all. And what does the results do to the generally agreed concept that the value of a chip in the small stack is greater than the value of a chip in a big stack?
I'm suspect of all poker simulations, expecially if they don't act like real players. And just playing out hands is not realistic, as it ignores position. I know that this will even out over time, but should nevertheless be included, imho. Also some results could never be reached, as back door draws (for example) would fold in real-life to a bet.
One thing that has been ignored by writings on proper tournament deals is the effect of button position and blind (or ante) sizes. Late in a tournament, this probably effects the numbers more than the all-in effect would.
Opps, mis-read the numbers. I should be more careful.
I thought the poster was stating that the winning chances of the small stack was 3%. He was saying that the finishing third chances of the large stack was 3%. That makes a lot more sense. ;-)
So disregard the first paragraph.
(I promise to read postings more carefully... I promise to read postings more carefully... I promise to read postings more carefully... )
Jim Lochrie wrote: "The simulator works by each player putting 1 chip in the pot and the pot then being awarded randomly "
As others have pointed out, there is an all-in effect, in that players who are all-in early in a hand can't fold, and sometimes catch good on the flop/turn/river, when they would have folded to a bet if they still had chips left to lose. However, as we can see, your simulation will not provide this benefit to short stacks, as the all-in effect is essentially present for every player on every round, as there are not multiple rounds of betting. Thus, the chances of a player winning each round have nothing to do with whether or not he has a big or small stack, as each player is essentially going all-in for 1 chip, on that round.
With respect to the underlying question, I don't know why the super-short stack wins so much more often than just the percentage size of his stack would indicate. Let me ask a question. You stated that after a certain number of "hands" were played, you increased the bet from 1 chip to 2, 2 to 4, etc. Did your program properly take account of situations where a player was all-in for less than a full bet? I mean, if there were still 3 players in the sim, and short stack had 3 chips all-in when the bet was now 4 chips, did the program award 9 chips to short stack when he won, and award 2 chips (the side pot) to the 2nd best hand? If instead, the program awarded all 11 chips to the short stack, this could be the cause of your discrepancy.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg - Someone else in a private e-mail pointed out the possibility I may have overlooked the situation you mention. I checked it out but I do handle it properly. If a player only has 5 chips left and the other two players have hundreds and the bet is 16, then the "winner" would get 21 chips (16+5) and one player would be eliminated.
The same person also pointed out that I may have a weak random number generator that over hundreds of thousands or millions of trials may knock the percentages off a little. We are still exploring this possibility and will get back to the forum later in the week.
Jim Lochrie
Altho this doesn't disprove your notion that you got it right, your reply to GregR only states you handle the situation correctly when the big stack wins. His question for the given scenario was "does the little stack get 15 or 37 when it wins?"
First off, there is no advantage to being short stacked when you are playing heads up. To see this, note that if you and I play a hand of poker, you have 1000 chips, and I have 100, the action is limited to 100 chips, which is exactly the same as what would be the case if I had 1000 chips and you had 100. Since the possible action on the hand is the same in either case, the EV for the two scenarios must be the same.
However, if there are three or more players in the hand, there is an advantage, especially if I am all in for a small amount of money. For instance, suppose that two opponents and I play Hold'em hands which each have an equal chance of being the best hand in a showdown. However, I am all in for 1 chip before the flop, and each of them puts in 10 chips, and has a large stack available for further action. My two opponents will probably make further bets on the hand, and their play will be almost totally oriented towards the 18 chip side pot -- the 3 chip main will not play much role in their calculations. For instance, one of them may bluff the other off the side pot, leaving me to win the main although I would not have had the best hand had all three been present at the showdown.
The funny thing is, if I understand your simulation correctly, this effect should not be represented at all, because you are not playing hands; you are doing random walks.
One question -- how are you handling your random walk when one player's stack is not large enough for a "step" in the wrong direction? That is, if your stack had 999 chips and I have 1 chip, and the walk is currently taking 5 chip "steps", the possible outcomes are that I might go bust or that I might have 6 chips after the next step, where in poker, the outcomes after the next hand would be either that I would go bust or that I end up with 2 chips after the next hand. If you don't adjust your simulation to take account of this, it could explain the incorrect data . . .
This all in effect can only work on the specific hand you are all in on. In a cash game in that hand you could have a significant advantage. In a tournament the all in effect cannot work because it is played to a winner take all. If the player with the short stack does run up his chips another player now gets to use the same all in position, so it works out equally for all involved. The computer sim is flawed and it still is garbage in equals garbage out. Good Luck.
I don't believe your analogy proves that the all-in effect doesn't apply to a tournament.
If the all-in effect, just to pick numbers, gave a 5% stack a 7% chance of winning the tournament, this equity increase would have to come from somewhere. Obviously, it would come from the bigger stacks. Let's say the stacks were 75%, 20%, and 5%. The possible equities would be 72%, 21% and 7%. If the stacks were re-arranged so that the first stack was now 5% chips, and the last stack 75% chips, the equities would simply be reversed. The all-in effect will now effect the new stack distribution the same. That is, it will tend to give the small stacks more equity that the chip percentage might suggest, and the large stacks less--kind of reducing the spread between equities somewhat.
Another way of looking at it might be this. Assume there is no such thing as an all-in effect. Also assume two players head to head in a winner take all tournament. Finally, assume that the tournament rules require that each player give 2% of his stack to the other player before each hand. If player A had 75% of the chips and player B had 25% of the chips, player A would be giving player B 1.5 % of the total chips in play, and player B would be giving player A .5% of the total chips in play. So player A would be reduced to 74% equity, and player B increased to 26% equity before the next hand. The rule effects both players the same in the long run, but tends to equalize the stacks somewhat before each hand.
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary Carson asks:
Consider a 3 chip game, two players. I've got two chips, you've got one. We play one hand, either I win and the games over or you win and our relative stack positions have been reversed. What allin effect does this game have?
None, since it's heads up. Here is another way to think about the specific situation. After two hands, there is a 1/2 chance you will have won, a 1/4 chance I will have won, and a 1/4 chance we'll be back where we started. Hence you win twice as much as I do, which means 2/3 of the time.
Ray & Greg,
That point can be easily explained and still be consistent with Lochrie's sims. Assume, A the large stack has 70 chips and a ~69% chance to win and B with 1 chip has a 1.3% chance to win at the start of the final table with 100 chips in play as in the examples. The "all-in effect" (where most of the contribution is from the "option's value") adds a 30% increase in EV over proportional payoffs. That is player B be would expect 1% EV in proportional payoffs. If by some long shot player A dwindles to 1 chip, then A also has a ~1.3% chance of winning from that point on. But at the beginning of the final table A had ~ 69% chance of winning. The option's value is proportionally not worth as much to player A as player B. A's chance of using the option's value is much less than player B.
Of course, there could be something wrong with the sims, but I think there is nothing inherently wrong with the results.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
J. Lochrie wrote: (extract from original post)
I would appreciate if someone with access to powerful computers could try to replicate this model to try and confirm the numbers. Any takers? The simulation used approximately 200,000 simulated tournaments for each scenario.
J.Lochrie reports:
A number of RPG and 2+2 Forum members stepped forward and helped out. Special thanks Jeffrey Siegal who ran an independent simulation that showed that for heads up tournament play a fair deal should be proportional to the stack sizes. My simulation was out by 1/2 to 1 1/2% in absolute terms. I replicated Jeffrey’s results by fixing my simulation.
Jim Geary, Barbara Yoon, Greg Raymer and Jeffrey all pointed to a potential flaw in my simulation that has now been fixed. For the three person simulation the results are out by 1/2 to 1% in absolute terms.
The original post drew a lot of comment regarding the all-in effect. I now have the opinion there is no all-in effect for heads up tournament play. For three person tournament play many of the posters have different opinions. I believe the all-in effect is not well understood and needs to be better described and analysed - but that is another post.
Thanks to all who helped get to the “truth”.
Jim Lochrie
I don't believe that a simulation showing the winning percentages being around the chip percentages proves that the "all-in" effect doesn't exist in heads-up tournament play. It may show that the effect is negligible. But that may well always be the case. Of course, what's the difference if it's non-existant or negligible?
Another factor which would oppose the all-in effect, in no-limit play, is something that could be called the loss-of-implied-odds factor. With a small stack, hands which require implied odds, such as 67s, become almost unplayable. This is because you will never be able to bet enough in a no-limit tournament (or live game) to make playing that hand profitable. This effects your opponent with a big stack too, as he will not be getting implied odds from you either. But he has an advantage, as his 67s is more powerful than yours. By your opponent being aggressive and raising with such hands, you're forced to fold yours. In fact, you probably can't call the blinds in most cases with a hand like 67s.
Because of this, the number of playable (profitable) hands that a short stack can play is somewhat reduced. This can be compensated for by using poker skills (bluffing, reading tells, etc.), but the degree of that is dependant on the ability of the player playing the short stack.
This is less of a factor in limit play. In short-handed limit play you couldn't get the implied odds anyway, as the number of players in a hand is the major factor effecting implied odds in limit play.
I live in Kansas City, and none of the Casinos out here offer card rooms (to my knowledge). I was wondering if anyone knew of any places to play poker in Kansas City. Also, I'm not a high level player, I just play with friends, but was wanting to "take the next step". I tend to learn better when I play with better players, although I still try to read books about the subject. I'm looking for an experienced player who would be willing to teach a novice such as myself, but have been unwilling to find anyone to help me. Any suggestions?
Do you shoot pool? One of the best ways to find a poker game in a non-casino area is to hang out in the local pool hall. Birds of a feather, you know.
I live in KC too. I guess you haven't been to the casinos here in a while. Flamingo has a card room so does Harrah's, and Station also!!! I play 7-Stud $1-5 and Hold Em $2-5 at Flamingo mainly. I was just there this weekend(lost my ass). The Bad Beat for 7-Stud is 10,000, and for Hold Em its over 20,000, so expect a 3-4 hour wait to play on weekends. If you have any other questions feel free to e-mail me, or post one here. Thanks
Thanks Bradley. I guess I should have checked the casinos out before assuming they didn't offer card rooms. (I checked them out on the Internet, and none of them mentioned card rooms.) I guess my next question is: Any advice for a new player in that sort of arena? Any particular books I should read before playing in a casino setting? Thanks in advance for any help.
James Flames
I am probably not the most qualified person to answer your question about books, as I have not read any (yet). Dan's Poker page has book reviews of the books you would want to read. I forget the address, just do an infoseek search for "Dan's Poker Page" including the quotes. As far as play goes at the Flamingo, it was very loose last weekend. This was partly due to the bad beat being so high. One example was I was playing $2-5 HE with a $1 and $2 blind. I was in middle position and had AA. Someone before me raised to $7, so I raised to $12. One guy called cold, and initial raiser called. Flop comes A 10 7 rainbow. I bet $5, other 2 call. Turn in is a 3. I bet $5, initial raiser folds, pre-flop cold caller calls me. River comes a 4. I bet, cold caller raises and beats me with a wheel. I know I'd never stay in for $12 on 52o, but I guess it worked for him. These are just some of the stupid losses you'll encounter at the low-limit tables. BTW, the bad beat is Aces full of Faces getting beat, which is too bad becuase I had AAA88 get beat by 6666x at 7-stud. When I first started going, I'd bring $75-80 and could play for hours on that. And thats was when I stayed till 4th street at stud every hand. Normally its a good game with beatable players whether you play stud or HE. Let me know if you have any other questions, I'd be glad to help.
Do you play at the Flamingo because of the bad beat jackpot, or are there other reasons for your preference?
I expect to be in Kansas City in October and would like to avoid 3-4 hour waits to play. Are long waits common at all 3 cardrooms?
Also, is $2 to $10 Hi/Lo spread anywhere?
Thanx
I play Flamingo because its only about 6 minutes from where I work. I actually haven't played in the Station Poker room, but the casino is the nicest one in town and has the best looking cocktail waitresses too. The only reason there was such a long wait was becuase the Bad Beat is about 2x what it normally is. If it is a week nite, you might have a 0 to 10 minute wait. On a weekend expect about 1 hour. I do believe you can call in and get your name on the list also. I am almost positive they have $2-$10 Hi/Lo at flamingo. I'll find out here in the next week or so, and put a post up letting you know. Flamingo also offers the most Payback on their Players Club Card. And they give buffet comps more readily than the other casinos. But the one drawback is that it attracts lower class patrons because of all of its nickel slots. This really doesn't apply to the poker room however.
Their are 2 riverboat casino's in Kansas City Missori that offer live action poker: the Argosy and the Harrah's. This City with the same name as yours is on the Mississippi River. You may want to phone these casinos prior to making the trip which I assume is not too far of a drive.
The J. Lochrie article and threads has got me thinking about the “all-in effect” in tournaments. I’m no mathmetician, but I must humbly disagree with Mason and others on the source of the +EV for short stacks. IMHO, most of the +EV for short stacks is derived from the “option’s value” for the random walk process. As stated earlier, this can be quite large (30% over proportional payoffs). The basic idea is that when you are close to zero, you can only lose small, but possibly win big. Being very short stacked cuts off much of the –EV outcomes in the normal distribution associated with random walks. These effects increase with higher SD games or situations. Many of these concepts are used in quantitative finance.
J. Lochrie’s simulation is exactly the right simulation to support this. Each player puts in one chip and the pot is awarded randomly. No decisions, simple random walk. As G. Raymer correctly points out, each player is effectively going all in for each round. In every case, the short stack showed +EV over proportional payoffs. Again, this is due to the “option’s value” of the short stacked player. I think Lochrie’s simulations are dead on. These are the results that I would expect.
Does being super short-stacked contribute +EV in the play of a hand? IMHO, it should not. Again, there is a +EV contribution from the option’s value. MM gives an example from an essay for the optimum buy-in. The example points out that if you only had the ante, you can see all future rounds for free. I think there is a simple defense for this type of strategy. I can enter with hands of similar value to the all-in player.
However, I can protect my hand while the all-in player cannot. A form if this strategy already happens in tournaments when two players will implicitly collude and check down a hand to knock out a third all-in player. They only bet if they can likely beat the all-in player.
Also remember, I can see all future rounds for free also and catch miracle cards against the All-in player. My intuition says, seeing free cards can apply to both players, and strategies can be balanced to take that into account.
It would be interesting to model a single table tourny where one player can employ MM’s one chip buy-in strategy. If everybody started with the same number of chips, I think the MM player can be defeated. In fact, I would like to participate in a three handed ring game with MM using his one chip at-a-time buy-in strategy and all of us starting with a hundred chips. (Yes I know, I’ve neglected the effects of blinds and bring-ins for simplicity) All playing advantages can be negated by checking down every hand. Those who are following carefully will notice that the option’s value does not apply here. I think all players will have the same chances of winning and losing.
BUT…I choose not to check it down every hand. I will bet to protect my hand when I have +EV or leading. MM cannot protect his pocket AA and is forced to let others have infinite odds to draw out. My advantage increases the more betting rounds there are. I think I can beat even the “Great one” in this situation. He cannot use his superior skills to beat me. Side note: Notice that there is not much difference in skill level between MM and a monkey in this situation with forced strategies.
Being all-in helps drawing hands immensely. The foregone implied odds are outweighed by the saved costs of getting there. This is true in typical limit structures but may not apply to NL. Being all-in hurts hands that already have value like AA, KK etc.
Do I like playing with a short stack and employ MM’s strategy? Heck NO!!! Not even if they let me. Short stacks do typically help the bad player simply because it reduces decisions and mistakes. They always seem to be on really bad draws. The bad player cannot make bad calls anymore and your chances for +EV are reduced. The bottom line, if you are bad, go short stacked and all-in and reduce your chances of –EV decisions. Being a good player, I welcome as many decisions as possible and never play short stacked. I think most good players intuitively know this. Do S&M, Caro, etc. ever use the minimum buy-in strategy to gain some of the all-in effect. I don’t think so.
Any thoughts are welcome…
Hope I’m never drawing dead,
Albert
I think there is a finance professor named Albert Wang.
Lets play your 3-handed game where everyone has 100 chips, but one player can rat-hole chips and will always start the hand with one chip, so long as he has any money.
The worst he can do is when the two opponents "collude" and decide to check every hand down. Now our one-chipper will show down exactly his fair share of pots and has, as do the others, 0-EV.
However, if the opponents are not "colluding" then often one will bet and the other fold. Sometimes this folded player would have beat you when the other wouldn't have. This is an advantage to you, and you would win more than one pot in 3. That's + EV.
- Louie
Louie,
I disagree. I guess I just don't see it. Same example three handed. I think we all agree that if we always checked it down with the all in player, then all EV's are zero. I hope we can agree that this is true. All players put in one chip... showdown = zero EV.
Let's deviate from this "strategy slightly". MM has one chip all in. Me and the third player will only bet if we start with A23 in the Razz example, AA in HE. I am pretty sure that I will gain by betting over letting the third person draw out on me for free. True when I bet and drop the third person, both MM and I gain. However, when MM has AA or A23 then the third person and I gain enormously when MM cannot bet. The third player and I realize this and now will bet KK and AA or A23 & A24. This of course can be extropolated to include almost all +EV hands with immediate value. Your chips are your tools to cut pot odds when you are leading. We all know that we don't want to give infinite odds for the playing drawing to beat our hand.
"However, if the opponents are not "colluding" then often one will bet and the other fold. Sometimes this folded player would have beat you when the other wouldn't have. This is an advantage to you, and you would win more than one pot in 3. That's + EV. "
I am not disputing this, for the ONE HAND. Any time you drop a player the remaining gain. Typically the leading hand gains the most. All players will get their fair share of leading hands (e.g. AA, A23, etc.) MM cannot bet when he gets his.
Unless the players are betting underdog or -EV hands, then I stand unconvinced that the one chipper has an advantage over the other two.
Certainly, all-in helps the drawing, -EV, and underdog hands. I think this is a key assumption. No bluffing or betting underdog hands to help the all in guy. Most tournament players realize this. I don't think MM finds himself in this position often.
Last extreme example to help illustrate my point: Simple game 5 card stud lowball.
All hands are checked down except one extreme example. When A2;KQ;KQ are dealt to the three players. To magnify the effect we will simply take turns getting A2 once and KQ twice.. Same assumptions about MM. When I get A2 I will bet. Yes, both MM and I gain when the third player folds. When MM gets A2, he watches helplessly as we try to draw out on him. Does anybody want to play this game with me? :)
Note:I think the playing advantages of the full stacks outweigh the option's value of the one chipper.
Mason, please help me with my thoughts here. Do you agree or disagree. Anybody who wants to do some sims, I think many are interested in the results.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
I think you're over analyzing this thing.
If Mason was in the big blind, all-in, and dealt 72o, he couldn't be raised out of the hand pre-flop, or bet out on later rounds. If he had money if front of him and someone raise pre-flop, he would be forced to fold his hand. And if nobody raised pre-flop, he'd have to hit the flop to continue if someone bet the flop.
However, when he's all-in he gets to see the flop, turn and river "for free." That is, he's getting a chance to win the money in the pot in all situations where he would have otherwise folded if he had more chips.
That may increase his winning chances from 2% to 15% with a hand like 72o. The drawback is that if he hits his hand big, he won't win any more than the chips matching his blind. But he still makes out in the long run, imho.
With other hands the effect would be smaller.
Overall, the effect is probably pretty small when averaged out over all hands. But it should have some effect on the small stack in the positive direction, even if only raising a 1% stack to 1.1% in equity.
George,
"I think you're over analyzing this thing."
...Can't really over analyze when the camp is split...
"If Mason was in the big blind, all-in, and dealt 72o, he couldn't be raised out of the hand pre-flop, or bet out on later rounds. If he had money if front of him and someone raise pre-flop, he would be forced to fold his hand. And if nobody raised pre-flop, he'd have to hit the flop to continue if someone bet the flop.
However, when he's all-in he gets to see the flop, turn and river "for free." That is, he's getting a chance to win the money in the pot in all situations where he would have otherwise folded if he had more chips.
That may increase his winning chances from 2% to 15% with a hand like 72o. "
Just replace the word "Mason" with Albert above. and that will negate any advantage that you suggest
"The drawback is that if he hits his hand big, he won't win any more than the chips matching his blind. But he still makes out in the long run, imho."
The advantage is that if Albert hits his hand big, he will win more than the chips matching his blind. And he still makes out in the long run, imho.
Again from before Mason, effectively will check down his AA against his two opponents. Would he opt for this strategy if he had chips? If he would bet, then he loses when he cannot. I'm sure going to bet to gain +EV and to protect my hand.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
With other hands the effect would be smaller.
Overall, the effect is probably pretty small when averaged out over all hands. But it should have some effect on the small stack in the positive direction, even if only raising a 1% stack to 1.1% in equity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With other hands the effect would be smaller.
Overall, the effect is probably pretty small when averaged out over all hands. But it should have some effect on the small stack in the positive direction, even if only raising a 1% stack to 1.1% in equity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First my computer has been out of comission so I have not been able to keep up with the posts, and I have only had time to quickly skim through these arguments.
I do known a couple of top stud players who deliberately buy-in small to take advantage of the all-in effect, for what ever that's worth. However, because of the minimum buy-in rule, whatever advantage the all-in effect may have, it must be very small, especially in hold 'em where you must post a blind to get a hand or call the blind to have action.
I do agree that the down side of this strategy is that you cannot bet to protect your hand, and this is something that you frequently want to do. But I also feel, based on experience, that automatically being able to go to the river in a board game (as opposed to a flop game) is a greater advantage.
In a real life game there may be psychological reasons why you should not allow yourself to get short stacked that are much more important than the all-in effect.
Mason,
"I do known a couple of top stud players who deliberately buy-in small to take advantage of the all-in effect, for what ever that's worth."
...But I think you know many more who never let themselves even get close to be short stacked (Including yourself?)
The more betting rounds there are, the less of a disadvantage it is to be all-in.
Another extreme example:
A simple board game: Face up two card lowball. One chip Ante, Face-up, one chip bet, face-up river.
This simplifies perfect play.
If I have low card I am going to bet and both of us gain if the third player drops. If he stays then only I gain +EV.
If you have low card and I have second lowest, then I still bet. I gain whether the third player calls or folds. You gain when the third player folds.
If you are low card and nobody bets, then you really lose by forgoing +EV and letting us draw out on you for free.
Again if we start with (A,K,K) as our initial cards, we can really magnify these ad/disadvantages. We will only bet if we have the Ace. You forego +EV when you cannot bet.
BTW... I assume that you agree that there is an "all-in" effect (option's value).
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Oops,
I should make the bet 1 million chips with the one chip ante to ensure a fold by the third player and to eliminate correct pot odds to call. You gain a little when you have a K but lose even more than the two small gains when you have an A. You will always have two opponents with an A, I will always have one.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Egads, what a morass, a veritable Serbonian Bog of fuzzy thinking.
The Poker Digest article suggested that there is an all-in effect in tournaments even in simulations that were designed such that there could not possibly be an all-in effect, since all players were considered to ante before the flop and then there was no betting, no ability to fold. It was later shown that the simulations were of course flawed, probably in the implementation of split pots.
Discussions moved to real world ring games where there is an all-in effect, but the thinking seems to be fuzzy. A most useful tool here is Andy Latto's "Magic Glasses". Buy a pair and put them on. You then cannot see any chips in excess of yours in the stacks of your opponents. Heads up, the magic glasses have no effect - there is no all-in effect heads up, as your opponent's extra chips have no impact on you. But if you play multiple players, you'll discover something very strange - some of your opponents will be folding when there is no bet to them! Boy are they stupid! If you take off your magic glasses, you can see what is happening is that another player is betting with extra chips while you are all-in, and other players are folding to that bet. This is a good thing for you, +EV. You are playing one game, while your opponents are playing a different one while simultaneously also playing yours; at best they can collude and play even with you, but otherwise they tend to play very suboptimally in your game.
This would prove that being short-stacked was overall +EV, were it not for a flaw in the glasses. Suppose you have your magic glasses on and you call all-in with AA preflop, then the player after you calls with KK, and then the next player folds AQ and the next player folds 88. Most odd of your opponents to be laying down such strong hands, isn't it? Well, take off your glasses, and then you can see the extra chips that KK threw in - he raised. From your magic glasses perspective, this amounts to "out of band signalling", downright collusion, if you will, by your opponents. From your perspective, KK told the other players to fold because he had a very strong hand, backing up his statement with a side bet, thereby robbing you of EV when you had either had AA or a hand that would do better multiway than heads up versus KK (which is probably darn near every hand.)
Therefore, since there are pros and cons to being all-in, there is no simple mathematical argument for whether it's good to be all-in. My opinion is that the effect of opponents folding for "no reason" is stronger than the effect of the out-of-band signalling, and thus there normally is a positive EV for being all-in. I think the times that wish you weren't all-in because you have a royal flush are more than compensated when you're playing this weird game where your opponents are folding left and right to no bet, allowing you to profitably play more hands. However, when you're in the blinds in hold'em, I think you should prefer to have a big stack, since you're putting in money before seeing your cards and the only saving grace is the implied odds of being able to bet it up when you flop a monster.
Anyway, you can argue for or against being short-stacked - just watch out for that Serbonian Bog.
From the The Dictionary of Phrase and Fable by E. Cobham Brewer, 1894: "Serbonian Bog or Serbonis: A mess from which there is no way of extricating oneself. The Serbonian bog was between Egypt and Palestine. Strabo calls it a lake, and says it was 200 stadia long, and 50 broad; Pliny makes it 150 miles in length. Hume says that whole armies have been lost therein. ... ``A gulf profound as that Serbonian bog, Betwixt Damiata and Mount Cassius old, Where armies whole have sunk.'' Milton: Paradise Lost, ii. 592."
-Abdul
I concurr
Your choice of Simple face up 2-card lowball is a good example: all ante one. I'm all in. Other's may bet, one more face up card. Showdown.
>>>If I have low card I am going to bet and both of us gain if the third player drops. If he stays then only I gain +EV.<<< ... and he loses -EV, and I stay even. Yes.
>>>If you have low card and I have second lowest, then I still bet. I gain whether the third player calls or folds. You gain when the third player folds. <<< Same as above. Yes.
>>>If you are low card and nobody bets, then you really lose by forgoing +EV and letting us draw out on you for free.<<< (((Well actually the better of the other two should bet ...)))
NOOOOOOooooooo. You (correctly) started by comparing to the situation where no-one could bet. You then (incorrectly) switched from that situation to comapring to one where I COULD bet a big hand if I had one.
Compared to the even EV where no-one can bet, it is to the all-in player's advantage on every hand except the ones where the other two are tied: The all in player either breaks even when nobody bets, or gains when somebody bets and the other folds. There are no situations for the all in player that are worse than no-one-can-bet.
-------------------------------------------------------
Lets play any poker game. I ante one; You ante two; I get one hand; you get two; you must choose one and discard the other. There is no betting. We deal out and then show down.
I will win more than 1/3 of the time, and so will win in the long run.
This is the "all in effect" in a nut-shell; where "You" are the combined opponents.
- Louie
I dislike kill games, and I think that many players feel the same way. First, when you plan on playing a specific limit, you don't want to have to expose your bankroll to many of the hands being twice that limit. Second, in a loose holdem or O8 game, the kill is basically money thrown away. The fish will make more kills per capita than you will, but a larger fraction of the hands that you play will kill. Also, fish will get a disproportionate share of the kill money, since they are each winning a larger fraction of the pots than you are. With a fixed limit, you would know what you were getting into and could plan accordingly with respect to swings, etc. If they think the kill promotes action, they are generally wrong. People are reluctant to throw in double-sized bets with garbage, especially on the turn and river, while they think nothing of playing too loose in a non-kill pot.
What is the best way to raise this issue with cardroom management?
You wrote-
"The fish will make more kills per capita than you will, but a larger fraction of the hands that you play will kill. Also, fish will get a disproportionate share of the kill money, since they are each winning a larger fraction of the pots than you are."
I understood the first point you made--about the kill screwing up your plans to play a particular limit. But the quote above confuses me. If you're comfortable with the limits, the only issues, it seems to me, are: 1) your kill rate compared to the rates of others 2) what the different ante structure does to the game With respect to 1), are you contending that, on average, a good player will be killing more per hour than a bad player? If that is what you mean, I understand your point, but I'm not sure that the assumption is correct.
"the only issues, it seems to me, are: 1) your kill rate compared to the rates of others 2) what the different ante structure does to the game"
"With respect to 1), are you contending that, on average, a good player will be killing more per hour than a bad player? If that is what you mean, I understand your point, but I'm not sure that the assumption is correct."
The kills put far more luck into the games. Good players will kill less often than loose players. Overall, though, good players will win much less money as a result of the kills, since a disproportionate amount of the kill money will go to the loose players. If you are winning 2BB/hr at 5-10, you now have to pay a $10 kill anytime you win a decent pot, and the fraction of that money coming back to you is very small. You will also have a sub-par share of the kills put in by others, which will also flow to the loose players. With 3-6 and 5-10 games already overraked (10% to $4), it becomes difficult to make any form of steady profit.
As for the difference in ante structure, everyone or almost everyone sees the flop in Omaha-8 anyway, and most people do in holdem. But later in the hand, people tend not to make mistaken calls when they realize that it will cost them $40 to see the river or the showdown; the games become less profitable as a result. If they tighten up preflop as well, as they sometimes do in holdem, the kill money isn't totally lost, but you have a random hand against strong hands, which is of little value.
I still don't get it--help me out here.
It seems to me you get the same fraction of kill pots as you do of non-kill pots. If you win when it's not killed, you should win when it's killed. Furthermore, you're effectively paying less in ante (compared to other players) if you pay the kill less than they do; you may indeed get only a fraction of your $10 kill back, but you're also getting a fraction of all their $10 kills. What's bad here?
Even if you win the same fraction of kill pots as non-kill pots, the kills will still cost you money, as a larger fraction of your wins kill than their wins. You are not playing many of the marginal hands that they are, so when you win, it will more often be a large pot and kill.
If 75% of your wins kill, and 50% of fish wins kill, while you win 4% of all pots, you put in $30 in kills per 100 hands. You get back only $1.20 of that. Of their 48 kills for $480, you get 4%, or $19.20. So you are losing $30 and getting $19.20 + $1.20 = net loss of 9.60 per 100 hands = .8 SB per hour. The net loss would be about double if all of your wins kill, about 1.6 SB/hr. If your win rate was 6%, and 75% of your wins kill, you would be putting in $45, getting back only $2.70 of that, and getting 6% of $470 = $28.20, for a net loss of $14.10 per 100 hands = 1.1 SB/hr. If all of your wins kill, and you win 6% of the time, you put in $60 and get $31.80 back, for a loss of 28.20 per 100 hands, or 2.25 SB/hr. In any case, this is a significant decrease in your expectation.
Wow, some strange math here. If you're a favourite in the game you're in, why do you object to playing for higher stakes every so often??? Those same players who might not even dream of playing 10-20 are all of a sudden in a 10-20 hand against you - is the a problem here I'm missing? Some of those times when you kill you're big blind anyway so what's the problem posting a double blind if the hand's going to be played for double the stakes?
In addition, loose players tend to win more pots, period, than tighter players. So even if they only kill 50% of the time versus your 75%, they'll probably still be posting the kill blind more often than you will.
Maybe I'm missing something completely here, but I'm all for playing for higher stakes against a weak field. The only way I'm paying more kill blinds is if I'm running really good, so again, what's the problem?
"Wow, some strange math here. If you're a favourite in the game you're in, why do you object to playing for higher stakes every so often??? Those same players who might not even dream of playing 10-20 are all of a sudden in a 10-20 hand against you - is the a problem here I'm missing?"
Even against bad players, you don't necessarily want to play at double the limit due to the swings.
"Some of those times when you kill you're big blind anyway so what's the problem posting a double blind if the hand's going to be played for double the stakes?"
It is better when you are in the big blind, since you only lose another $5 to the kill instead of $10. But killing from a blind is infrequent, since it means that you won the hand before UTG or in the BB.
"In addition, loose players tend to win more pots, period, than tighter players. So even if they only kill 50% of the time versus your 75%, they'll probably still be posting the kill blind more often than you will."
You put up a disproportionate share of that kill money relative to the fraction of pots that you are winning. So they post the kill blind more often, but you post it a larger fraction of the time you win and much less of that money comes back to you. The kills redistribute money from good players to loose ones. The player who is selective about entering the pot, but often aggressive when strong is hurt the most by the kills, since she will kill much of the time that she wins and get little of that money back.
"Maybe I'm missing something completely here, but I'm all for playing for higher stakes against a weak field. The only way I'm paying more kill blinds is if I'm running really good, so again, what's the problem?"
Regardless of how well you play, there are better and worse periods. The SD is sufficiently high in holdem and especially in Omaha-8 that you can expect large fluctuations in your chips. When you have a good run, the kill blinds really eat into your profit. When your EV decreases even slightly along with a huge increase in variance due to playing many hands at a higher level, the medium-run game becomes much more variable and much less profitable. In nine hours of O-8 with a +2 BB/hr and a SD of 10 BB/hr, your likely (middle 2/3) range is 18+-30BB, or -12BB to 48BB. If the SD increases to 15 BB/hr as a result of the kill, and the expectation decreases even to 1.5 BB/hr, that same range is 13.5BB+-45BB, -31.5 to 58.5 BB, a much less certain win with the probability of a large loss significantly increased.
Some interesting points to consider for someone like me - a fairly new O8 player. Still, the kill button seems entrenched in my local game and I don't mind it. I think the most "damaging" effect it might have had is to scare off some potential fish who are regular hold 'em players. They're reluctant to try a new game, period, let alone one in which the stakes are doubled every so often.
Iceman,
I think that you need to explain the rules for killing a pot in your game. That will probably go a long way in clearing up any confusion.
I play most often at Oceans 11 in San Diego County. In a 3-6 kill Omaha8 game, you must kill the pot whenever you scoop a pot with more than $40. in it. In a HE kill game, you must kill the pot whenever you win twice in a row (with the caveat that there must be a flop in the second pot).
Now, in the Omaha games, maybe you have a point. When you win, it is more often a scooper than when the fish win, so you must kill on a higher percentage of your winning hands. In the HE games, I know that a smart player will kill much less often than a fish. At least for me, when I win a pot, I tighten up my standards tremendously the next hand, because I know that hand will be profitable only if it's EV is high enough to cover the "kill tax".
So, what are the kill standards for your game?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
5-10 holdem: any pot of $95 or more.
5-10 Omaha-8: any scoop of $95 or more.
3-6 holdem: any pot of $50 or more.
Well, I must admit that I wouldn't like the kill pot rules for HE at your club. It seems to me that once you kill a pot in HE, that the next pot, and the next pot, etc., are almost always going to be kill pots as well. It's rare for a 10-20 pot to not have at least $95. in it, and it's probably even more rare for a 6-12 pot to not have at least $50. in it. I can imagine these games being played as kill pots something like 80-90% of the time.
I guess I don't see, with respect to HE, why you are killing a higher percentage of your wins than are the fish? It seems that if you're a tighter player than the others, you'll get a little less action, and therefore might actually kill a little bit less often, as you're more likely to get called down than raised by the fish.
Of course, in Omaha8, you will probably kill a little more often, as you'll be coming in with coordinated hands that have more scoop potential than the fish's average hand.
Just a guess, of course.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"I guess I don't see, with respect to HE, why you are killing a higher percentage of your wins than are the fish? It seems that if you're a tighter player than the others, you'll get a little less action, and therefore might actually kill a little bit less often, as you're more likely to get called down than raised by the fish."
A large fraction of the hands you actually play in a loose holdem game are suited aces and suited connectors. In a large field, you can often raise straight or flush draws for value. Most of the rest of your hands will make top pair, which gets action when fish play weaker kickers. When fish win with weak hands, they often couldn't raise with them, and they also might have drawn out on the turn or river on calls they shouldn't have made. A better player can check-raise to build pots, while a fish with a lock hand will probably bet and get called.
I've played Hold'em with these kill rules for more than 1000 hours. I can tell you that it's more like 50% of all pots contested at the kill limit. Part of the reason was indicated in the original post - opponents reluctance to get involved with marginal hands at the increased limit. I prefer the kill games. Players aren't making the right adjustments to the *third blind* structure as yet.
This analysis still seems incomplete.
Let's take your numbers as a starting point for a 20-40 game with a full kill.
You win 4% of hands, 3% of which would kill. About half of all hands kill. (Thus, the relevant game to compare this to for a win rate is a 30-60 game.)
If you were to play straight 30-60, you'll pay $450 in blinds per 100 hands. Playing 20-40 with a full kill, you'll pay $300 in blinds plus $120 in kills per 100 hands. This makes a savings of $30 per 100 hands in a kill game, and the kill pots start out larger.
This still seems like a good deal.
"You win 4% of hands, 3% of which would kill. About half of all hands kill. (Thus, the relevant game to compare this to for a win rate is a 30-60 game.) If you were to play straight 30-60, you'll pay $450 in blinds per 100 hands. Playing 20-40 with a full kill, you'll pay $300 in blinds plus $120 in kills per 100 hands. This makes a savings of $30 per 100 hands in a kill game, and the kill pots start out larger."
First, the swings will be larger in a 20-40 kill game than in straight 30-60. Second, you pay the same blinds as the fish, but you pay a share of the kill money that is disproportionate to the fraction of pots won by you. 4% may be a little low of an estimate for pots won. If you win 6% of pots, and 75% of those kill, you pay $180 in kills per 100 hands, and also $300 in blinds, which in total is more than you would have paid in straight 30-60. And finally, the psychological effects of double-sized bets make the fish not call as much, which cuts into your profit.
I agree that the SD of the Kill-Pot game is larger. I do not agree that the psychology necessarily acts against you. The kill-pot games I sit in are often action-filled; these guys don't tighten up on the kills--they're there to gamble. In my experience, you're much more likely to run into a rock garden in non-kill games. Obviously, this is anecdotal evidence--your games could be different.
"4% may be a little low of an estimate for pots won"
I was using your numbers here, not mine. But this is really the crux of the issue--in my opinion. The big issue is how often you kill relative to the other players. Using your new numbers, 6% win rate, 4.5% kill rate --- you correctly note that your contribution to the pot is now $480 per 100 hands, compared to $450 in straight limit. However, note that the kill pots have $10 in extra dead money compared to a real $40-$80 game; if you're winning 6% of the kill pots, this amounts to .06 x $10 x 50 = $30. So, the 6% win, 4.5% kill rate is actually the breakeven point. So the key to settling this is to figure out accurate figures for win rate and kill rate. I really am reluctant to hazard a guess as to what the kill rate is, but keep in mind if we assume you're killing at say 5 hands per 100, we're assuming that you're killing just as often as the fish in this example---recall that 50 hands are kill pots. If this is the case, then clearly the kill-pot game is not good. However, if the original 4%/3% numbers are accurate--we're in business.
Question:
In a ten-handed loose or very loose holdem game, what percentage of pots will an expert player win?
Response to G:
The pots don't have additional dead money. Kill money plays, it's just effectively dead to you since so little of it comes back. Especially in Omaha-8, random hands in large fields are worthless.
In the games I play in, most people generally see the flop in a kill hand anyway, but then tend to go out on the flop if there is action and they have nothing (which they wouldn't if there wasn't a kill and they just had to throw in a red chip). The cardroom I play in has kills in all 10-20 and lower games; there is no choice between a kill and non-kill game. If there was a choice, then a different type of player might be in the kill game, and it might be better to play against loose-aggressive opps. despite the kill rather than rocks without it.
Good question--I hope someone has an answer...
Clarification on what I meant by "dead" money:
In the straight 40-80 game, the amount of money that starts the pot is $60 (a SB and a BB). In a 20-40 game with a killed pot, you have a $10 blind, a $20 blind, and a $40 kill--totalling $70. This is the $10 of money to which I was referring, although my language may have been incorrect. At any rate, to make the comparison to a 30-60 game, one needs to take it into account. Half the time the pot will start at $30, half the time the pot starts at $70--averaging to $50, or $5 more than the $45 that starts the pot of a 30-60 game.
I wouldn't try to compare a kill game with a *third blind* to an intermediate limit of a regular structure. For one thing, kill games reward rushes. Another reason is due to fewer blind stealing opportunities with the kill in effect.
I've played in a 6-12 kill which occasionally gets converted to a straight 8-16 game by mutual consent of the players. The management doesn't object to the conversion as long as it is a unanimous decision. Convincing all of the players to switch to 8-16 is the hard part. The argument to use in favor of this is the "more chips, more action" argument.
Problem: I feel like I am slowly losing money by playing Ax/Kx suited in the following manner. All analyses welcome!
Game: Typical-to-loose low-limit HE (3-6/6-12).
Pre-Flop: I usually play Ax or Kx suited for 1-2 bets, from blinds and middle to late position, as long as I am sure there will be at least 3 other callers (which usually is the case). My primary intention with this play is to flop at least a four-flush and win with a flush.
Q1: Is playing this hand for more than 1 bet pre-flop incorrect?
Flop: Since most players at this level seem to play almost any Ax or Kx, I feel as if the only hands I can continue with are (1) four-flush, (2) top two pair (i.e., A's and x's or K's and x's), (3) any two pair with backdoor nut flush.
Q2: Am I losing money by only continuing with these hands? These hands seem to flop so infrequently that I think I am losing a lot of money by repeatedly paying for the flop and releasing my hand when nothing shows, and losing big bets when I flop the draw but don't complete it.
For what its worth, I think these hands are worth playing only on the button for one bet with at least four limpers in front.
In low limit holdem, I like to play starters that have at least a couple of ways to hit the flop. As you point out, the flush draw is all these hands offer.
Although I'm just a beginner myself, I suspect you'd be better off not calling a raise with these hands and folding them in mid and early position.
One other thing; you have to know the players you're up against. Now, since I am an affirmed low limit player (five dollar maximum is the most Colorado allows, and beside my bankroll wouldn't support any big action), I have deduced that most low limit player fall into one of three catagories.
1) The rock. This is the old man sitting next to the dealer, who usually buys in for twenty dollars and sees about one in every fifty flops. We all know this guy- he seems to be everywhere.
2) This is the guy who has devised some sort of 'system' for beating the game that simply doesn't work. He is easy to spot, as you will often see him calling to the river with a lone nine of spades when there are four spades on the board, then spitefully tossing his cards towards the dealer when some lucky bastard flips over a higher spade in the hole. As a rule, this is also the guy who has a system for beating instant lottery games, and buys twenty daily three tickets every day, figuring he must win because he has 'grouped' his numbers.
3) The guy who has read a few poker books, and has determined that the most pleasurable part of poker is the 'tough laydown'. Again, he is easy to spot, as you will often see him folding a small set on the turn when someone check raises him. When the check raiser in question flips over mid pair on the showdown, our man here will casually nod his head, take a drag off his cigarette, and chalk up the hand as a 'statistical anomaly'.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the overwhelming majority of players fall into one of these three catagories. If you are raised by number one with top pair lousy kicker, consider getting out. Forget about trying to read the second type of player, as his 'strategy' defies all known logical patterns of thought. Number three, of course, is aching for a chance to fold, so give him what he wants.
All of this is a long way of saying that unless something strange happens after the flop (e.g., tons of betting) you have a damn good chance of having the best hand. Further, if the flop is a rainbow and there's no obvious straight draws, the chance of anyone improving enough to beat you are slim. Bet this hand. Sklansky makes an excellent point in 'Hold 'em Poker' when he says it's better to lose a bet than lose a pot. If the pots laying you four to one in implied odds, you only need to win 20% of the time to break even, something which you should easily be able to do with top pair on the flop.
Jyc,
perhaps you are folding too many hands that do improve on the flop. I could never fold a top pair of aces or kings without having some indication it may not win. If you must get such a big flop to your starting hands to continue than you must play tighter than I can imagine. Good Luck.
As a novice holdem player, I understand that I'm way out on a limb here by making a counter point to Ray Zee's post. Here goes anyway:
Don't forget this is low limit holdem. I think in most cases you'll get plenty of "indication" that your top pair/little kicker is no good. Usually, in the 3-6 games I've played in, there will be a crowd seeing the flop. Top pair with a little kicker just won't hold up very often in these games.
At least I think that's right.
Byron-
As a fellow low limit player, I feel your pain. However, I don't think the problem is as difficult as it first appears. Follow me along here and see if you agree.
a) Playing Axs or Kxs in early position is generally a bad idea, since you have absolutely no pon the flop, and the button bets, he could just have mid-pair and is looking to steal it. Or, he could have a real hand. Either way, you've got no idea, which is why I avoid both of these (particularly Kxs) in early position. Middle position is a little stickier, although here I only play Axs, so if an ace flops I at least know I've got top pair. Kxs I only play in late position.
So- you're in late position with a Kxs or Axs, and you flop top pair. Now if the flop got two of a suit, someone with top pair good kicker or a set is, in a low limit game, going to let you know pretty quick, since they're worried about the flush draw and as a rule aren't calculating their chances at a check-raise (again, this is only a low limit phenomenon) since it isn't one in ten low limit players that could check raise with a gun at their head. Now, if the original bettor is called, or raised, by someone inbetween us, I get out. It's that simple. You've got to like the chances that the original bettor has top pair/ good kicker or better, and the second caller is either a) on the come, or b) has top pair good kicker or trips. Either way, one of them has a good shot to beat you, since neither would have bet or called with a hand worse than yours. Since you've really got no shot at improving (aside from two pair or trips) there's no reason to stick around- just git.
However, when it's checked around to me, and there's a four flush on the board, I usually bet out. There's a chance you could take it right there, and if you don't you're almost certainly being called by mid pair, bottom pair or someone on the come, since if someone had a hand better than yours they would have already bet it.
The problem arises when someone bets in front of you, and noone calls inbetween. What to do? Again, knowing that this is a low limit game, I usually call, since most low limit players will bet out on the come, and many will bet with top pair regardless of their kicker. How many times have you seen someone take the pot with K6o in low limit? At least at the casino I play at, I see this all the time. Further, it doesn't have to happen very often. Figuring that you're going to dump 15$ into the pot (assuming 3-6) to showdown at the river, the other guy's only got to have a worse kicker than you about 30-40% of the time (this depends on amount of dead money in the pot) for this to be a profitable play.
Natually, much of this depends on how lousy your kicker really is. If it's a three or something you probably need to get out. But if it's an eight, say, or maybe even a seven or a six, there's a good chance that the other guy is holding a Kx, Kxs, Ax or Axs where their kicker is even worse. I see this happen ALL the time. Add in the chances that he may just be on the come and you've got a real reason to see it through.
Oh- I forgot. The game I play in is a single blind game, spread limit 2-5, so a check raise doesn't 'save' you any money here, since the bets don't increase on the turn. That's why I said you should call. However, if there's a chance you can get rid of the other guy by raising, then I'd do it.
My comments:
GD writes:
>>Byron-
As a fellow low limit player, I feel your pain. However, I don't think the problem is as difficult as it first appears.<<
I agree.
>> Follow me along here and see if you agree. a) Playing Axs or Kxs in early position is generally a bad idea, since you have absolutely no pon the flop, and the button bets, he could just have mid-pair and is looking to steal it. Or, he could have a real hand. Either way, you've got no idea, which is why I avoid both of these (particularly Kxs) in early position. Middle position is a little stickier, although here I only play Axs, so if an ace flops I at least know I've got top pair. Kxs I only play in late position. <<
This is good advice except that if the game is loose and passive I would play Axs in early position. HFAP (Hold'em for Advanced Players) covers this situation when you play Axs in early position very well so I refer you to the book. You'll have this hand in the blinds also so playing it right in early position will be helpful to your bottom line. Ditto for Kxs as HFAP covers playing this type of hand out of the blinds as I would most likely only play Kxs in the blinds and not in early or middle position.
>>So- you're in late position with a Kxs or Axs, and you flop top pair. Now if the flop got two of a suit, someone with top pair good kicker or a set is, in a low limit game, going to let you know pretty quick, since they're worried about the flush draw and as a rule aren't calculating their chances at a check-raise (again, this is only a low limit phenomenon) since it isn't one in ten low limit players that could check raise with a gun at their head.<<
This is true in a lot of hold'em games.
>>Now, if the original bettor is called, or raised, by someone inbetween us, I get out. It's that simple. You've got to like the chances that the original bettor has top pair/ good kicker or better, and the second caller is either a) on the come, or b) has top pair good kicker or trips. Either way, one of them has a good shot to beat you, since neither would have bet or called with a hand worse than yours. Since you've really got no shot at improving (aside from two pair or trips) there's no reason to stick around- just git.<<
Usually this would be true but you have to take into account the size of the pot and what your chance are of improving and the chances that you might have the best hand. You might have the best hand and you may have some back door draws as well. You decide on the right play by taking all of these factors into account. If the pot is small you have more reason to fold.
>>However, when it's checked around to me, and there's a four flush on the board, I usually bet out. There's a chance you could take it right there, and if you don't you're almost certainly being called by mid pair, bottom pair or someone on the come, since if someone had a hand better than yours they would have already bet it.<<
Mostly this is true. Sometimes players will slowplay even with 2 suited cards on board.
>>The problem arises when someone bets in front of you, and noone calls inbetween. What to do? Again, knowing that this is a low limit game, I usually call, since most low limit players will bet out on the come, and many will bet with top pair regardless of their kicker. How many times have you seen someone take the pot with K6o in low limit? At least at the casino I play at, I see this all the time. Further, it doesn't have to happen very often. Figuring that you're going to dump 15$ into the pot (assuming 3-6) to showdown at the river, the other guy's only got to have a worse kicker than you about 30-40% of the time (this depends on amount of dead money in the pot) for this to be a profitable play.<<
Personally I would consider raising on the flop in this situation. I would be trying to reduce it to a two player contest most of the time.
>>Natually, much of this depends on how lousy your kicker really is. If it's a three or something you probably need to get out. But if it's an eight, say, or maybe even a seven or a six, there's a good chance that the other guy is holding a Kx, Kxs, Ax or Axs where their kicker is even worse. I see this happen ALL the time. Add in the chances that he may just be on the come and you've got a real reason to see it through.<<
I would consider raising no matter what my kicker was unless I really knew the player who was betting well. Also the texture of the flop is important IMO as to how you play it.
>>Oh- I forgot. The game I play in is a single blind game, spread limit 2-5, so a check raise doesn't 'save' you any money here, since the bets don't increase on the turn. That's why I said you should call. However, if there's a chance you can get rid of the other guy by raising, then I'd do it.<<
One of the reasons to raise is to try and knock out other players.
Tom-
Appreciate your comments on my post. I don't have this play down to a science, so any imput I can get on it is always helpful.
Question- Why is it that you raise if it is a two player contest? Just curious. To me, it seems like the other player is not going to fold if his hand is better than yours, or even if he's on the come, no matter what the pot odds are (since low limit players will virtually never fold a four flush, no matter what the pot odds are like). I guess it's simply a question of whether or not you think the guy's got a draw hand, although I'm inclined to think that as a rule he's got top pair. If he's got you legitimately beat (better kicker) you're pretty much doomed (assuming no real backdoor possibilities), and if he doesn't have you beat (his kicker is worse) more often than not you're going to keep taking money from him through the river.
If he's on the come, then there's obviously something to be said for trying to get him to fold. However, most low limit players will simply keep calling no matter what the pot odds are, and there's usually a pretty good chance that the pot odds, once you factor in the dead money, justify his doing so.
But you're completely right on one's need to factor in the size of the pot, along with the texture of the flop. That's something I overlooked, in my desire to formulate a kind of 'general rule' regarding this hand. I'd like to hear your reasons for raising, because if it does make sense (and I'm inclined to trust your opinions on this more than my own) I'd like to start doing it. The method I proposed in the previous post is one that has consistently made me money, but it's entirely possible I'm stuck in a rut, and that I'm losing my chance at making more.
Thanks, Guy
GD,
There might be players behind you and someone may have checked in front of the bettor. Thus your raise might eliminate these players. If someone cold calls a raise your clearly in trouble if a flush card hits. Even if it was heads up I would raise because I like to raise a lot. Seriously, there are quite a few advantages IMO to raising in this type of situation against a player (pardon the HFAP terminology) you have good control over. You might get a good read if the flush card hits, you have the option of checking on the turn, if your opponent re-raises you might be able to make a good laydown, etc. Just my thoughts as others may disagree.
Tom Haley
Combining results from Axs and Kxs doesn't seem like a good idea. It seems quite likely that you're winning money with Axs (unless your inordinate tightness that Ray Zee discussed is a problem), and losing money with Kxs.
Axs is dramatically superior to Kxs.
Very good guys it looks like you have a good understanding of how to think in holdem and what to do with 2 problem hands that can make or break some players. I would favor playing ax suited from all positions in loose passive games when you can outplay the field and adjust your calling stratagy from there if you feel uncomfortable with the hand as the texture of the game changes. I firmly believe you should consider playing higher stakes as you fellas play and think as well or better than almost all the competition you will play against in much higher stakes games. Good Luck.
Not much has been said about the original question about whether to call raised pots with Axs.
Here is a hand from a Mirage 40-80 game I played in recently. Player open limps under-the-gun six off the button, next player (me) folds, next player raises, and next player after that cold calls with A2s. I think this is a bad play, but it seems to be some sort of common wisdom among higher stakes players that it is correct to call two cold with a baby suited ace and two players in the pot. The player who made the play was, I think, one of the better 40-80 pros. As it turned out, the button cold called two and the blinds folded, which was probably about what the A2s player expected. Then it checked through on the flop, the A2s semibluff-bet a gutshot straight draw that he picked up on the turn, got one caller, and took down the pot when he made his straight on the river.
The limper, Mickey, commented that he had an ace but had folded it on the turn, so presumably he had a bigger ace. That's really the main problem with playing A2s here. Both the early limper and the raiser are likely to have aces - the combined probability that at least one of them has a bigger ace is huge, and then you still have to worry about the players behind you. So your ace has almost no value in making a pair, and it's at risk even if it makes two pair. Sure, it's going to be multiway and your flush draw gains some value there, but your implied odds are cut way down by the raised pot, not to mention the risk of a limp-reraise from the early limper or a reraise from a later position player.
In fact, I don't even like the idea of calling one bet with A2s after two 40-80 limpers. After three 40-80 limpers, then A2s would sometimes be okay, in my opinion, but not if the limpers are playing optimally (because each subsequent caller should be tighter than the first, meaning the third player should have a monster and probably not a big pair since he didn't raise so it's likely a big ace, though few play this way.)
And of course, if Axs won't cut it, then Kxs won't cut it either.
-Abdul
Abdul's observation, "...it seems to be some sort of common wisdom among higher stakes players that it is correct to call two cold with a baby suited ace and two players in the pot", is certainly good support for Ray's contention, "...you fellas play and think as well or better than almost all the competition you will play against in much higher stakes games."
John Feeney
Good thinking John, maybe you too need to be at a different table.
I think the time too play these hands, especially the AXs is when you are the first one bringing it from early mid to late posistion. You can bring it in with a raise and try to take control of the pot, rather than call a raise with a hand that is clearly an underdog. Or raise a caller or two whom have limped into the pot with an medium AXs.Played this way you give yourself a much better shot at winning the pot when nobody hits the flop.Everyone talks about the potential hands that they can hit with particular starting hands, yet so much money is won , when no one makes a thing.So you need to set yourself up to be able to win it when nobody hits. As far as KXS, I would play it once in a while late to try to steal the blinds, but to me these hands are not multi way type of hands. my 2 centavos
Ax and Kx suited have value in short-handed high-blind situations. But as Paul Pudaite noted, Ax suited is much more superior to Kx suited than it appears.
If the conventional wisdom of Mirage 40-80 pros is to call two cold with A2s short-handed, I'm headed to Vegas sooner rather than later. But to answer the original question, Axs and Kxs should be played early for a bet if the game is loose-passive.
Abdul wrote: "After three 40-80 limpers, then A2s would sometimes be okay, in my opinion, but not if the limpers are playing optimally (because each subsequent caller should be tighter than the first, meaning the third player should have a monster and probably not a big pair since he didn't raise so it's likely a big ace, though few play this way.)"
Is this misworded? I would think that each subsequent limper can be looser, because he has more reason to believe that the pot will be multiway, thus supporting more drawing hands. Also, he has more reason to believe that the pot won't be raised, as there are fewer good raising hands once 2-3 have limped in, as there is absolutely no "steal equity" at this point. I know that there are a lot more hands that I'll play in late position if a lot of folks have limped in, compared to only a single limper in front of me.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Yes, I got a little overzealous - overall you can probably play a little looser after multiple limpers compared to one limper. You have to play tighter on your big unsuited cards, though, while adding pairs, big suited, and suited connector type hands.
Turbo simulations suggest calling (or raising) one tight aggressive limper with 66-AA, A6s-AKs, K8s-KQs, 76s-KQs, T8s-QTs, AJ-AK, and KQ. For three tight aggressive limpers, the line moves to 22-AA, A2s-AKs, K8s-KQs, 76s-KQs, 97s-QTs, Q9s, AQ-AK. Note that AJ and KQ have disappeared. So, 48 pairs and suited hands (counting 2c2s separately from 2h2s) are added while 24 offsuit hands are subtracted, a net difference of 24 in the looser direction. Actually, that's really too close to be sure.
Note that mucking hands like AJ and KQ after several tight limpers is in sharp contrast to S&M's HFAP, which advises "If you are on the button, a lot of players are already in, and the pot is not raised, you can call with many additional hands. This include those hands in Group 8..." Group 8 includes 87, A9, Q9, 76, J8, 65, 54, and T8. Calling with such hands after several limpers is an excellent way to lose money, IMO (except A9 is okay after loose limpers.)
BTW, this simulation assumed the tight players would have usually raised with their best hands, and therefore their limps imply they have their weaker playable hands. That's why the simulation found it was able to profitably call with so many hands. If you are against tight passive limpers, including those who might be trying to limp-reraise, you need to play a couple notches tighter.
In the case of raised pots, apparently it's true that you should play tighter the more tight players are in the pot. For example, suppose a player raises with a minimum of 77/ATs/KQs/AJ - then Turbo sims suggest that a cold caller needs TT/AQs/AK to call - and given that, a third player would need JJ/AKs to call (mucking AK!) Well, some of the smaller pairs and AK might be playable with some care, but you get the idea. The difference compared to the limper case is presumably caused by the reduced implied odds and the increased "exposure" you have to a big pocket pair behind you that could make it 3 bets.
-Abdul
Abdul wrote: "Note that mucking hands like AJ and KQ after several tight limpers is in sharp contrast to S&M's HFAP, which advises "If you are on the button, a lot of players are already in, and the pot is not raised, you can call with many additional hands. This include those hands in Group 8..." Group 8 includes 87, A9, Q9, 76, J8, 65, 54, and T8. Calling with such hands after several limpers is an excellent way to lose money, IMO (except A9 is okay after loose limpers.)"
Abdul has been trying to prove us wrong for a long time. In this case I agree with him in many situations. In most of the games that I play in today the play has gotten too lose to call with the weak unsuited hands mentioned above. That is when you are playing against players who not only play too many hands but go to far with their hands these calls become wrong.
However, if you read and understand the book you should notice that in multiway pots we do talk about how the unsuited hands go down in value. This effect becomes even stronger against players who also go too far.
In other words there are really two situations. The first is against players who play moderately tight from the flop on and it just happens that an unraised multiway pot has developed. (They may play too loose before the flop.) The second is against players who also play much too loose from the flop on. I have talked about this before on this forum and rgp.
You also need to be careful calling tight players who limp in upfront. Here's a simple example. Suppose a tight player limps in early and you have a hand like QJ. You need to ask yourself what is a likely hand for him to be holding. If the answer is AJ, KQ, KJ, or JJ you should throw your hand away, and with some tight players this will be what they are holding the majority of the time. I would not throw away the KQ or AJ as suggested except if you know that this person also likes to limp with the very big hands, then it becomes correct.
In the HPFAP we explain when it is correct to throw away AJs and KQs in a raised pot. This is the same concept being applied to an unraised pot.
"In other words there are really two situations. The first is against players who play moderately tight from the flop on and it just happens that an unraised multiway pot has developed. (They may play too loose before the flop.) The second is against players who also play much too loose from the flop on. I have talked about this before on this forum and rgp."
In situation #2, the key is to play hands that make the strongest finishing hands. When you make a decent but not great made hand on the flop, you won't be able to narrow the field, and the many draws out against you may leave your top pair with few safe turn-river combinations and thus a much lower value. Axs and pairs go up in value in this type of game, while high offsuit combinations may not be playable in certain cases when they ordinarily would be. (This extends to O-8 as well, where redraws and suited aces are especially important in loose games.)
What about situation #1? HFAP shows that aces, kings and queens are less likely to be out there in an unraised multiway pot (again, it might be different if tight players limped in early position). Also, you do have some capability to protect your top pair on the flop, since people will fold weak draws to a double (or single) bet. With drawing hands on the flop, you often can't bet or raise for value, since in this game there is a high risk of narrowing the field (except when you might want to narrow the field with a drawing hand, like if you have an Axs and the ace is an overcard). You did mention on r.g.p. that you would play 98o on the button in an unraised multiway pot. What other changes would apply?
The A2s 40-80 players might have a better understanding of when to muck their pair of aces, and when to continue with what might be the best hand. This does not apply to overly loose 3-6 games where most would-be players seem compelled to get involved with any ace.
I would handle AXs and KXs in a loose/passive game much the same way you indicated. I'll play both hands up front, and I'll even cold call a raise with AXs as long as I believe there's going to be four or more opponents seeing the flop. But I'm also agressive with AXs and three players ahead of me, so I raise with it too. There are no hands in a no-fold'em game which seem to win often enough to make it worth playing them, including pocket aces. This of course is an illusion. I love to play hands that can develop into the nuts against multi-player fields, I'll take the AXs every hand - all positions - if only I'm that lucky.
OK, so the title of this post is a little misleading. But what I'm looking for, essentially, is a book(s) that will enable me to gauge the probability of various math scenerios that invariably haunt me at the poker table. For instance, say you've got 87s in middle late position and limp, only to have the button raise and the rest (say four other players) fold.Further, for the sake of argument, let's say that the raiser will only raise with pocket A's, K's or AK no matter what his position.
Now what I want to be able to figure out is what odds are of flopping top pair, or picking up a straight draw. I know the odds for a flush draw/ two pair on the flop since these are commonly known figures, but I simply don't have the faintest clue as to how to calculate (or even construct) these other equations. What's the odds of flopping top pair? with an 87? with a 76? with a 9T?
Obviously, problems like this come up constantly at the poker table, and I'd like to be able to figure the odds out. And since I don't know the odds I can't figure pot odds, which leaves me in one hell of a jam.
Now I'm no math wizard (I'm a creative writing grad. student here at CU), but I did finish Algebra 2 in high school, and scored in the twentieth percentile in math on the GRE, so I'm not completely math ignorant. I know the order of operations, etc., so I think all I really need are the formulas. The thing is, I've got no idea where to find them.
If the above scenerio (the aforementioned 87s) is a bad one (that is, if it's obvious to the seasoned pro whether to call or fold) isn't important, or at least isn't the concern of this post (although if anyone can give me an answer on it I'd much appreciate it). What I'd like to get away from is having to ask particular questions re: particular dilemma's, and be able to figure the mathematically correct answer for myself; hence, my desire to find a decent (but understandable) prob stat book, or a poker book that covers these issues.
All answers will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Guy
GD,
I would try, Getting The Best of It, by David Sklansky. There are also examples in the archives.
Tom Haley
Getting the Best of it is good. Also, since you're on campus, why not go ask one of the teachers of a first semester business stat course if you can sit in on the class when they do discrete probability and counting methods?
Gary,
Actually I like this idea. Or spend some money and audit the course or take it for a grade.
Tom Haley
Thursday-Night Poker by Peter O. Steiner.... Poker Strategy and Wining Play by A.D. Livingston, and of course Getting the Best of it by David. In Super System by Doyle Brunson there are excellent odds on preflop stuff, though its not explained how to work it out for yourself.
What you want is a book on combinatorics, but make sure there is a section on Bayes' Theorem in there. Oh yes, there is one that covers both these topics in a gambling and card playing context. From www.amazon.com...
[begin quote]
The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic, by Richard A. Epstein (Editor), Our Price: $32.00
Covering all aspects of gambling, The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic is mathematically sophisticated, but can be read for what it says about the games and strategies, skipping the technicalities. The material is fascinating and detailed, and the analysis is masterful.
[end quote]
That is a "must have" book for math weenie gamblers, so you might as well start there.
You could also just go with a straight math text like this:
[Begin quote]
Applied Combinatorics, by Alan Tucker, Our Price: $87.95
A reader from Santa Barbara, CA, USA , May 24, 1998: Clear undergraduate level text -- good exercises. This book is a very clear introduction to combinatorics which provides a fundamental understanding of the material of elementary combinatorics using mathematics of college sophomore level. I have used exercises and sections of this text to review the subject for my engineering students in system design. It remains my book of choice for the elementary topics in combinatorics. I only wish that the Pigeon-hole and Ramsey Theorem were part of the content.
[end quote]
Sklansky and Malmuth also have books that address the topics, and, come to think of it, if you haven't had calculus, and you aren't quite sure what a capital sigma letter means (or even what one is), then you would likely be lost in sections of the two books I mentioned and you might want to stick to S&M.
-Abdul
There is a hldm book devoted solely to the odds. if you look in the back of card player mag. you will see it advertised. The name escapes me now. If you don't see it there, contact gamblers book club in Las vegas.
The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic is meaningless unless you have a strong background in statistics (it's a graduate level text.) Books covering probability by combinations is what you seek.
David. Don't you think it is time that you wrote a book on statistics as pertaining to gambling? I love the way you explain things.
Feller's 2 volumes "Introduction to Probability Theory" are classics written by a master. They contain very advanced material. But curiously the examples are often accessible to a novice. Novices read sections that stymie advanced graduate students!
I doubt you will make much progress with Feller now. But every time you read it you will find another gem of understanding. And it is in your university library.
I think you meant 80th percentile.
I found an intro book on Probability the other day at the book store by Kolmagorov (spelling wrong) if you want a master. A little thin book seemingly in the style of Rudin. OTOH there a bunch of fairly inexpensive probability and statistics book on the dover label all that have sections on combinations and permutations. Pick one. There is even one entitled _Lady Luck_ which uses a lot of gambling examples and includes some comments on risk of ruin. Its not going to replace Epstein on your bookshelf, but it does have its place.
I'm guessing he did mean 20th percentile. As I remember GRE scores are "upside down". I'm fairly sure because I remember feeling light headed the first time I saw my scores eventhough I knew they were suppose to be low.
First- Some of these calculations are quite treacherous and you might want to visit DejasNews and search rec.gambling.poker for Barbara Yoon and William Chen. They have quite a few solutions on file so you can see what you are getting yourself into. Second- You have received quite a few book references, both Two-Plus-Two and others. I suspect Abdul's recommendation is the Cadillac and of course you can't go wrong with S$M. I would like to recommend the opposite of Abdul. This book "Hold'em's odD(s) BOok" by Mike Petriv is the Chevrolet of this genre,takes a practical approach to computing odds and does an outstanding job. Mike is a writer for "Card Player" Last- Gary's taking a course is a good idea. I'm a retired engineer and probability was never very intuitive for me. Good Luck! Earl
In "Poker Essays 2" - essay "playing 15%", Mason writes that most good HE players play about 15% of their hands, varying slightly depending on game conditions. My query is - does this 15% include hands dealt to the good player in the blinds or just the hands they voluntary choose to play for at least one full opening bet?
If it does not include play out of the blinds, then what would be an estimate of the total percentage of hands played by a good player, factoring in the blinds?
Thanks
Fifteen percentage seems like a very high percentage if it didn't include the blind hands. That would make about 25% overall--which is what you'd like your opponents to play ;-).
I think the blinds were already factored in the 15% figure.
The *15%* includes the blinds even though you would play every big blind if there were no raise. The so-called percentage varies greatly by position, as you are no doubt aware.
Hmm...lets say in a average 6 hr session you get to see about 200 hands. That means you play approximately 30 hands , including the times you get a free ride in the BB. Gee, I'm just a beginner and in my low limit games I can't imagine anyone playing that tight.
"Gee I'm just a beginner and I can't imagine anybody playing that tight."
Welcome to the world of professional poker. When you are up against people that really do play that tight the game can really suck.
You have missed the point of the essay. There is nothing magic about the 15 percent. It might be more or less. It would depend on the game, your skill, etc. What is important is how the 15 percent is derived. In some situations you play far more than 15 percent and in other situations you play far less.
For instance, in hold 'em, if a tight player raises under the gun and you are next there are very few hands that you should play. In stud, if no one raises the bring-in and you are in a late position you should play a high percentage of hands.
The reason I wrote the essay was to point out that some players, particularly in hold 'em, who would argue that they were playing the right number of hands were actually doing a very poor job of hand selection. They were calling too many raises and folding in too many unraised pots. Thus their before the flop strategy was a poor one even though they believed that they were playing tight and well. There has even been some published material that has given this type of advice.
Mason, thanks for re-stating the point of your essay. I think I understand what you are saying - that perhaps in some games you could go 2-3 hrs without playing a hand and then play a cluster all within half an hour? So that in the long term you average around 15%. But I still have a query - in a typical game against typical non-tough players where the raising preflop is average and not hyper, surely your hand selection average goes up just due to the "free" play in the BB that you get and the extra hands you can play in late positions. And if your average does not go up, that is, you still play around 15%, is your hand selection optimal for such a game - ie. does this 15% refer mainly to pretty tough games with competent and knowledgable players, not the loosish, average games prevalent now.
Since nobody else has answered your follow-up question, I'll take a stab at it.
Yes, in loose-passive games you generally play more hands than you would in tighter or more aggressive games.
In tighter games, you have to throw away many pocket pairs, Axs, Kxs, and suited connectors, which you often can play in loose-passive games.
In more aggressive games, you often toss an otherwise playable hand because you are facing a raise (or two) or fear a raise (or two) coming from behind. And, as you noted, you also get fewer opportunities to see the flop for free from your BB.
And yes, IMHO, 15% is more likely to be a "correct" average in a typical tough game than it is in a typical loose-passive game.
A couple of weeks ago I posted a message titled "Stud: What am I doing wrong?". I got a lot of great responses that helped me improve my game; I'm pretty sure I'm now playing with positive expectation although there's still lots of room to get better. I have a couple of specific questions and I'm hoping for some more good advice, and maybe to provoke a discussion.
First, last week, playing a fairly loose 15-30 game, I began with pocket 10s and a 7 up (suited with one of the tens). A few players called the bring-in, then I raised. A couple of players folded and the rest called. There were now five players in the game (the highest upcard was a jack). On fourth street I got another 7 giving me two pair. I grinned and bet $30, hoping the other players would put me on trip 7s and fold. One player did fold (the one who began with a jack) but the other three called, which worried me a bit.
On fifth street I caught yet another 7, giving me a full house with trip 7s on board. Now I checked, giving a free card in the hope that someone would make a straight or flush (there were no pairs on board).
On sixth street I bet; two players folded but the last player called. He had a pair of kings on board, which he had received on fifth and sixth streets. On seventh street I bet and he called again, showing a third king in the hole. (He had begun with king-queen-nine or something like that.) So I won the hand, but I realized I could easily have lost it if the other player had made kings full. My check on fifth street had generated an extra $60 for me, but risked losing the whole pot and more (since he would have raised me back if he did have a higher full house). So my question: Was my check the mathematically correct play, or am I better off (in the long run) betting in that situation, even though the other players would certainly have folded. Or is it so close as to be inconsequential?
My second question is, When should I call with a gutshot straight draw on fifth street? A few nights ago I called almost every time in this situation and almost always made the straight, so I finished the evening with a huge profit. But I know that that was just a fluke, and I really ought to be folding my gutshots a lot more often. I have an idea of what factors to consider: the size of the pot, how live my gutshot card is, how live my pair cards are (or any other outs), what I'm up against, how live my opponents' hands seem to be, and how the hand is likely to be played. But in the heat of battle I have trouble weighing all these factors without pondering my decision for ten minutes. So which are the most important? I would really appreciate any good rules of thumb. I did a few calculations, based on simplified assumptions, and concluded that if I'm heads up against a probable big pair and I have no outs other than the straight draw I should fold unless the pot is huge. But what if it's multiway, say three other players of whom two probably have big pairs (bigger than my cards) and the other might be drawing to a smaller straight or might have two small pair. Is that situation generally worth a call if my gutshot card is completely live?
Nick,
In the heat of battle it is always tough to get the right% figured out. Know some of the basics before it happens. That said lets do something that may work for you. With 12 or more cards out that you have seen, your gutshot on 5th street is about 5 to 1 against coming in in the next two cards. You will put in two bets to hit it so you need at least 10 big bets in the pot at the end for you to break about even. Add a few for the times you make it and still lose and subtract some if you have other chances of winning. So you see the pot does not have to be huge for you to play on in seven stud. Thats why novice players see big games and cant believe how loose the games are or the hands players try to make. Godd Luck.
Sounds like you were in a great game. Normally, a low card raising on 3rd street signals to me a possible big pair in the pocket (against good players, this is not necessarily so). When you checked on 5th street, most people would read you for being full and tough opponents would not have paid you off. You got lucky, the hand played out perfectly, giving your opponent enough temptation to call on the river for what was by then a pretty nice pot.
Low straights are problem children even when they are open-ended. Cut yourself a piece of the proverbial cake.
Against most players, I don't think you should have checked your full house on fifth street. A good opponent will reason that you would have bet trips if that was all you had, so you must have at least a full house, and will therefore not pay you off with a straight or a flush.
Occasionally you will run into players bad enough that this play may be correct, and this could have been such a time. The only question is, if they are bad enough to fail to work out that you have a full house when you check on fifth street, does that mean they are even bad enough that they would have called your fifth street bet if you had made one?
The other thing is, don't assume you have positive expectation until you have a good 100 hours with positive results. And even then, be prepared to change your opinion if you start losing.
William
im happy for you that you are getting better results from your stud game. however i would like to offer a thought. with several people already in you might consider using caution with a buried pair of tens. i would not have raised on third, unless players were rutinley coming in for the bring in and then folding for a raise, which i doubt was the case from your discription of the game. with a multiway pot you need to think a big hand. i believe this was also the gist of the earlier post. your most likly finish is going to be either a pair of tens or tens up. tens up isnt much of a poker hand unless you can manage to get it heads up so your really hoping for trips or a full house. thats a long shot so you might consider going slow to see how the hand develops. dont get married to something you dont want to go all the way with. if you dont trip up by 5th street, and there is still multiway action you may have to bail out. just a thought.
actually i probably would have called the bring in and try to trip on fourth. with tens up on fourth unless i thought i could raise and get it heads up, or at the most three way with my opponents not showing strength i would dump the hand. however im glad it worked out for you, what i want you to avoid is losing a bunch of money on a medioker hand because you cant let go of a premium pair. best hand or best draw.
Nick,
I was wondering what you and the others thought about betting your full house on 5th and checking on 6th if your opponents board develops in such a way that they could have a straight or a flush.
Tom Haley
Post deleted at author's request.
bet,raise how far wrong can you go in limit by simply betting your hand?
Thanks very much to those who have responded. I do tend to agree with those who say I made a mistake by raising on third street with my hidden tens. I very likely did have the best hand at the time but, as Darrell Danfield pointed out, the hand was unlikely to stand up til the end in a multiway pot. At the time I was hoping some players would fold but in retrospect that was unlikely to happen.
Tom Haley asked whether I could have done better by betting on fifth and checking on sixth. If I had bet my on-board trips on fifth street, after raising on third and betting on fourth, I'm sure everyone would have folded. Maybe if I had not been aggressive on earlier streets I would have had a caller on fifth. But probably not -- these players were a bit loose, but not stupid.
As for the player who called my bets on sixth and seventh, was he really making that big a mistake? Remember, he had three kings on sixth, and even though it was obvious I had a full house he had a reasonable shot at making a bigger full house. When he didn't improve on the river he clearly should have folded, but maybe he wanted to know what I had been raising with on third street!
Games can have multiple equilibria. Sklansky and Malmuth's discussion of drawing hands prompted me to construct the following game with a loose and a tight equilibrium.
This game has n players who receive one card from an infinite deck. All players ante $1 and then make simultaneous secret bets of a fixed size. Players receive one card and the dealer wins unless an opponent has a spade. Otherwise non-dealer spades split the pot.
If the bet size is greater than n/2 then there is a tight equilibrium where the dealer wins every pot uncontested. If the bet is not too high there is also a loose equilibrium where everyone enters the pot. Basically if everyone enters the pot then the pot odds justify their bets.
Now imagine you move from a tight Vegas game to a loose California game. You will lose money unless you switch gears and play loose.
Steve,
Good point.
I often tell people that you cannot play S&M tight to fully maximize you wins in a typical loose-passive low limit California HE game. There is now a tighter range of -EV to +EV for all hands. There are however, more +EV hands. This phenomena has to do with the rake and being able to overcome it with more -EV calling. As S&M correctly point out, the +EV set of hands also changes in composition. Examples: Suited connectors, low pairs are now +EV in your loose equilibrium.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
If an expert plays in a loose low-limit holdem game, what percentage of the pots will he win?
If someone is truly an expert he (she) wouldn't waste their time in a game where the rake is equal (or close) to that of a game with a much higher limit. In a nine handed game you should win one hand out of nine on average. An "expert" will probably win more.
I disagree.
In a loose low limit game, the rake is burdensome. The pigeons contest too many pots because of inferior hand selection. The expert will start fewer hands and win fewer (probably larger) pots than the average player.
"If someone is truly an expert he (she) wouldn't waste their time in a game where the rake is equal (or close) to that of a game with a much higher limit."
The only reason I play low limits is that my bankroll is too small. If I had the money, I would play 20-40 or above(after a transition at 10-20). In the games that I play, I notice mistakes even from the best players. Even the winning O-8 players don't seem to know much about hand selection or sufficiently account for position, and the better holdem players are not effective at narrowing the field or playing drawing hands.
"In a nine handed game you should win one hand out of nine on average. An "expert" will probably win more."
You are entering the pot much less frequently than your opponents are. If everyone played every hand to the showdown, you would win 1/9, but in reality, you or someone else often folds the potential winning hand before or after the flop. On the one hand, when you play (on average - more or less depending on the situation, type of game, opponent play after flop, etc.) 15% of your starting hands and your opponents play 25%, 50% or even 100%, they are going to win some pots with weak starting hands that you wouldn't have played. A better player will sometimes knock out the winning hand before the showdown, but this seems much less common than you fold hands like K5o preflop and the board comes Q75K5.
Another factor is that much of an expert's profit may come from making the pots large when they do win rather than from winning that large a fraction of hands that they play (although they do win a larger fraction of their hands than their opponents do). Compared to weak-tight opponents, an expert may win only a slightly greater number of pots, but would win significantly more money from them. An expert in a very loose game will do much better than a player that just plays tight, although both may see about the same number of flops and with mostly the same starting hands.
Why all this fuss about percentages of pots won? There is no such thing as *fair share* or nominal amounts within any particular session. What you might want to be concerned with instead is what percentage of hands you do become involved with which end up winning a pot. If you decide not to play loose against a loose/passive table, then you are necessarily playing fewer hands than the rest of the field. Therefore it will be mandatory to win with those hands you do play, more often than your competitors would with the same position and cards. This is the essense of playing a tight/agressive style. Your average winning pot size isn't necessarily greater than that of your opponents. If you make fewer mistakes than I do, it's more likely you'll beat me and the rake. How could poker be any fairer than that?
"Why all this fuss about percentages of pots won? There is no such thing as *fair share* or nominal amounts within any particular session. What you might want to be concerned with instead is what percentage of hands you do become involved with which end up winning a pot. If you decide not to play loose against a loose/passive table, then you are necessarily playing fewer hands than the rest of the field."
A purely theoretical question, the answer to which would be useful in the kill argument. The change in EV due to the kill depends on what fraction of pots the expert wins and how much more likely the expert's wins are to kill than the fishs' are. We haven't found a good estimate of what percentage of pots in a loose game will be won by the expert.
You'll have to elaborate on the connection to kill structures, I'm not following the logic clearly. Consider though, the impact of the following adjustment in strategy with respect to your analysis. Heads-up on the river with position, pot size is one and a half big bets (at the ordinary limit) away from making a kill, and my opponent checks to me. If I bet with a hand which I believe has a 55% chance of winning if I'm called, then I'm making a mistake because half of the big bet I'm looking to win is deferred into the kill blind next hand. Therefore, I'm only going to bet if I think there's an 80% chance of winning if I'm called. Now the average size of pots I do win is less than what it would be without a kill in effect provided that my opponent is not aware of this strategy change. If we both understand the relationship of pot size to kill amount, then the player in first position should be expected to checkraise with many hands that would ordinarily call. A frequency distribution of pot sizes in a kill game with aware players will be skewed downward from the norm at the range K - 2 * B through K + 2 * B (where K = pot size to enable the kill, and B = big bet amount). The change in EV due to the kill is related to the current pot size instead of the fraction of pots won. A *fish* is much more likely to have won a pot that is just over the kill amount than an *expert*.
In Omaha-8, only scoops of a sufficient size kill. A much larger fraction of your wins scoop than theirs. In holdem, the link is less direct, but a better player is more able to build the pots with a winning hand. A weak-tight player with in that same situation will not win as much. Fish often win with weak holdings, which can't be played aggressively. So the expert is winning a small percentage of the pots, but killing on a large fraction of those. I don't think that the above strategy to avoid killing is the main factor in the EV loss. The issue is that since a larger percentage of your wins kill than theirs, you are putting in a share of the total kill money that is significantly greater than the share of it that comes back to you (percentage of pots won).
How many times have you been exactly 1.5 BB below the kill amount and check-raised? It doesn't happen often. In O-8, high-only pots are usually well below the kill, and scooped two-way pots are usually huge. In holdem, pots are usually either small or gigantic depending on the flop and the number of people in preflop.
I disagreed with the premise that a larger percentage of an *expert's* wins kill than those of a *fish*, at least for Hold'em. In the high/low split games I concur with you since a weaker player is less likely to be on a strong two-way hand.
It doesn't have to be exactly 1.5 BB's from the kill, anywhere from 2.0 to 0.0 changes the checkraising frequency. No, it doesn't happen often, but I've applied the checkraise on the river enough times in this situation that I can't remember how many. There are other adjustments - this was just one example, but I'm reluctant to give away my edge for a game variation I play regularly. With a kill already in effect, depending on position of the kill button to the dealer button, I do adjust my Hold'em play before the flop to increase the possibility of isolation, even in a loose game.
The *expert* should also win more pots that undo the kill than the *fish*. Who will fold to a loose/passive player's bet on the flop when holding marginal cards, but call a bet from a tight/agressive player?
The kill is worse relatively in Omaha-8 than in holdem. Clearly in Omaha-8 there is a major disadvantage to the better player to have a kill. In holdem, there may be strategy variations that partially or totally cancel out the negative effects that I mentioned. But the variance and bankroll differences in a kill game are present, as is the risk aversion of opponents faced with large raises late in the hand.
I prefer the plain vanilla Omaha-8 instead of the kill variation also. The kill for Hold'em is a blessing though. It gets players who would be reluctant or are not really ready to move up in limit, accustomed to playing for bigger stakes. Thus the transition from say 5-10 to 10-20 is more gradual, which tends to restock the aquarium faster.
Couldn't % of pots won be a useful guage for determining if you are playing too tight or too loose? Not a stand-alone indicator, but at least another piece of information to use when evaluating your own play?
If perfect play at table X has an expectation of winning the pot Y% of the time, then deviations from the expectation provide evidence of sub-optimal play don't they?
So does anybody have guesstimate?
Unfortunately with such a gauge, *normal* will vary depending on what type of game conditions you are currently involved in. What may be optimal play in a loose game, becomes sub-optimal in a tight game.
Deviations from the expected percentage could be the result of suboptimal play. Or they could be the result of a good (or bad) run of cards.
In the long run, of course, the actual percentage of pots won by perfect play should approach the expected percentage for that particular game, against those particular players, who are playing their own particular unchanging styles and not changing seat positions relative to one another.
Usually, however, you fail to play enough hours under these very specific conditions to determine with much confidence whether your actual percentage is significantly close to (or far from) the expected percentage (assuming one knew the expected percentage).
I was playing in a fairly tough 10- 20 holdem game. Players three thru six fold, I raised with Ace Ten not suited. Every one folds except the big blind who calls.
The big blind was a woman who played a solid agresive game and was a pro or a very interested amateur.
The flop was Ace, Ace, two rainbow. She bet. I called. My thinking at this point was she is probably on a steal but maybe not, she could have the case Ace and a better kicker or maybe Ace, two. From how she played I felt she had something more than complete trash. I didn't raise deciding she didn't have Ace whatever.
The turn was an eight. She bet, I called but now I am a litle worried. The river brings another eight. She bets, I decided to call and not raise. I knew that I couldn't be beat unless she had quad eights.
My thinking was that if she did have the Ace she calls or pops me once and we split, if she doesn't she won't call a raise anyway. So, it is unlikely that I have any gain in value. But if I only call and split or win, the table now starts picking apart my play. She showed King Ten suited.
So, it was a complete bluff. I hadn't played with her before and don't play in this game very often.
Everyone did wonder why I didn't raise. I thought there was some future value to this play at the time. On reflection, I am not so sure. I hadn't considered, if I raise on the end, I don't have to show down.
What do you all think, thanks
I would have raised on the turn.
Andrew (et al.)
Out of curiosity why would you have raised on the turn.
The way I see it, and I do not have a lot of experience, at the turn the poster still believed his opponent had an A with a higher kicker than his ten. There was also the potential for her to have A2 or A8 for a tight.
While I'm not sure I would have raised on the turn I definately would have raised on the river.
Thanks
She could also have had a pocket pair. If she calls the raise on the turn, then I'll believe she has the case ace or a full house. Now if she checks on the river (I don't believe she'll play for a checkraise after I've shown strength with the raise on the turn) I'll bet the river with confidence that AT is good, and probably get called down. If she bets the river and I didn't catch a ten, I'll fold knowing AT was second best. I wouldn't believe a solid player would bet the flop followed by a bluff bet on the turn since I obviously called on a high paired flop with something reasonable. I think she should have check/folded KT on the turn. With a high board pair, if the move on the flop doesn't pick up the pot right there, it's throwing money away to continue this bluff. Since I'd have been wrong about her not continuing the bluff I'd have made one less big bet than Joe did. Maybe Joe hesitated when he called on the flop, or gave her some other indication that he wasn't prepared to go to the river without improving.
the title says it all
Darrell:
That was a question that was on my mind also. I'm a retired engineer and have had math through differential equations and finite element analysis. I was wondering how Joe average or Joanna average who got a D in high school algebra because they couldn't do word problems would do in S&M's two top theory books.
I'm going to thumb thru Gambling Theory and give you my considered opinion. Before I start I have already formed the opinion that variance/standard deviation will be the toughest nut.
After my review I still feel variance/standard deviation is the tough nut. A grade of D in high school algebra should be sufficient background. No problem formulation is required. Examples are furnished for exercise and after you become proficient you can plug your own numbers into the equations. Good Luck! Earl
I'd suggest the Statistics and Probabilities course over the Algebra.
The math for calculating standard deviation and other such complex material is not necessary to learn. What is important is that you can understand and apply the concepts. Mason has done all the complicated work.
Some of the math he uses most of us wouldn't be familiar with unless we studied statistical analysis. But if you want to understand most of the material in the book, and follow the math, basic algebra would probably be enough for most essays.
What math you do need to know to play poker is basic addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication. Understanding algebra would be helpful, but is not critical. Probability, which combines the skills above, is the main discipline of mathematics used in poker--and then only basic probability.
Most of the calculations you will need to make at the table involving counting the money in the pot (addition), calculating pot odds and implied odds (addition and division), calculating chances of improving (subtration, addition, division, and multiplication [for figuring combinations and factorials]), and figuring out your opponent's likely hands (addition and division).
Of course, just as important as the math is understanding how to apply it. Logic and reasoning is critical there, as well as other disciplines.
If you're motivated to follow the math Mason uses to reach his conclusions, by all means do so. It can only help you. If you are unable to do so, just accept the results of his work. His books have been in print for many years and any erroneous conclusions he may have reached would have been exposed by now.
Good Luck.
To be able to follow the math there is one spot where you need to understand a little calculus. But it is only necessary to understand the conclusions to benefit from the text. The derivations and the theory are provided for those inclined to see where the conclusions came from and to assure that the work is fairly rigorous.
thanks for your thought out response-perhaps i shoud say responces, i find it reassuring. ive been playing poker for a number of years and have the basics down. you may not know the math but if you have drawen at 20,000 flush draws you have a pretty good idea 0f what it takes to hit,and a even better idea of what to do with it if you do hit. nevertheless if still find relativity and quantum theory quite interesting so i suppose i will continue to improve my math.
George Rice writes (refering to Malmuth's mathematical work in Gambling Theory):
"His books have been in print for many years and any erroneous conclusions he may have reached would have been exposed by now."
This is a very dangerous assumption; one that has led many researchers astray in the scientific community in the past [like situations where experimental results were not independently verified, and the "age" of these results subsequently becomes a confirmation of their veracity]. I suggest you take nothing for granted. If you just want advice, and you are willing to accept the consequences yourself if it happens to be inaccurate, then understanding all the minute details behind that advice is not important (I am speaking in general, not just of the advice given in Gambling Theory). However, there is no substitute for examining a subject closely enough to "make it your own".
It turns out, in fact, that there have been several (in my opinion, intelligent) objections raised to what appears in Gambling Theory (especially regarding bankroll requirements and tournament splits) both in this forum and in rgp. This is not meant as a shot against Malmuth - indeed it is simply the way of things. Knowledge has always advanced in this incremental manner. But it CANNOT advance if everyone takes as gospel what has gone before.
Finally, the excerpt quoted at the top of this post is especially misleading if it is likely that the "corrections" are not introduced in such a way that they easily become common knowledge, as is the case when the expositions appear in obscure internet-based posts that expire a week or two after they appear.
Tom Weideman
Of course, if you have the ability to verify work done by others you should do so. Not only does this process verify, but it also helps one remember the conclusions reached. But if you can not verify because you lack the skills, or you simply don't have the time (or inclination), then relying on the reputation of the author or researcher is good enough for the time being.
I realize that previous accepted beliefs are sometimes proven wrong, or brought into doubt. But those who will do that must themselves prove their case.
As for bankroll requirements and tournament splits, both subjects rely on mathematics to reach the answer. I believe that the differences in opinion are based on judgements on numerous factors assumed to be relevant before applying the math. For example, the ability of your opponents could greatly effect the results of both topics. That can be a very subjective thing. But an intellegent person reading about these subjects would, I hope, understand that.
Also, while there has been much debate on these topics, and others, I don't believe that Mason has been proven wrong. It's just that others put more weight on different subjective factors. I haven't seen anybody make an argument that factors Mason assumed to be correct were in fact correct, but his reasoning is flawed.
In fact, the greatest benefit that can be obtained from reading a lot of Mason's material (as well as a number of other posters [especially David's quizzes]) is learning how to think about a situation, and how to apply known factors. For example, if you judge a certain player is likely to bluff 10% of the time is not important in itself, it's how you use that information.
By the way, I agree with your comments in general. And certainly examining a subject close enough to "make it your own," as you put it, is great advice. It's the best way to truely understand something. But not everybody can do that. For them, taking the advice of experts is the next best thing. It's also how our businesses and governments function. But let's not get into that. ;-)
George writes:
"As for bankroll requirements and tournament splits, both subjects rely on mathematics to reach the answer. I believe that the differences in opinion are based on judgements on numerous factors assumed to be relevant before applying the math. For example, the ability of your opponents could greatly effect the results of both topics. That can be a very subjective thing. But an intellegent person reading about these subjects would, I hope, understand that."
Judging from this, you obviously haven't read (or don't understand) any of the posts I'm refering to. That alone should be enough to end my participation in this thread. Still, I'm a masochist, so here goes...
I'd have to be an idiot to point out "corrections" that are based on different starting assumptions (that you refer to as "subjective" - a term that has no meaning in a scientific discussion, btw) than those originally stated. The two situations I mentioned are cases of mathematical modeling where the starting assumptions are simplifications of the real-life situations. The main question in both cases was whether the math provided accurately modeled the problem AS IT WAS STATED. The argument was not with the assumptions and simplifications made at the outset (like all the players involved are equally skilled, or your results are normally distributed, etc.). Of course there were no mistakes in the algebra or calculus, but that is irrelevant.
As for whether you should trust the advice of experts when you don't have the tools yourself, I think that's obvious. But my point is that if things go wrong, DON'T blame those experts if you were unwilling to put in the (admittedly daunting) amount of work required to understand it yourself. It just annoys me to hear people say, "That stock broker really screwed me when he advised me to buy XYZ.", instead of, "I have no one to blame but myself for buying XYZ on the advice of that broker without looking into it myself. It was the chance I took for not spending the time and effort."
Tom Weideman
Tow W wrote:
"I'd have to be an idiot to point out "corrections" that are based on different starting assumptions"
Actually, in the book there are two different ways given to determine proper tournament settlements. They are based on different starting assumptions.
Mason wrote:
"Actually, in the book there are two different ways given to determine proper tournament settlements. They are based on different starting assumptions."
No they aren't. The starting assumptions are that all the players are of equal skill and start with certain stack sizes (in addition to the assumption that the blinds are small compared to the stack sizes, etc.), and these are the same for both cases.
The two methods represent different MODELS of how, on average, the tournament should play out from there (and the different models necessarily lead to different mathematics). It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.
Tom Weideman
One method assumes that the chips which are lost by the player who busts out is distributed proportionately based on stack size to the remaining two players; the other method assumes that the chips are distributed evenly between the remaining two players.
Mason,
You have a nasty habit of clouding the issue by interjecting irrelevant details. Details, I might add, that are generally well known to the person you are responding to (but you seem to imply by your stating these details that they are somehow deep and difficult to understand). I hesitate to even address them, because it just furthers the digression, but I find the practice so annoying that I have to make one more attempt at achieving clarity.
In this particular case, you've outdone yourself - the particular details you give are in no way related to the assumptions vs. model issue raised in the previous post. I'll try one last time, then you can write something that will undoubtedly put me in my place, and we can put this thread to rest.
Assumptions are made in order to define a problem. Assumptions can be correct or incorrect, depending upon the actual circumstances. If we assume that all the players are equally skilled, and they are, then it is a correct assumption. If one player is a much better player than the other two, then our assumption is wrong.
A model is used in order to get to an answer when we have no other way to find it. In the case of a tournament, we don't have a good a priori way of determining how the chips of the third place finisher will be distributed between the top two finishers, so we choose a way to model this (and you have pointed out the two models you use in your book). A third model may not even use the distribution of the 3rd place finisher's chips to the top 2 finishers as a simplification for solving the problem. The point is, these are not assumptions, because they are not initial conditions that define the parameters of the problem, they are just methods used for solving a closely-related problem. We seek a model that most closely mimicks what actually occurs, and in this regard some models are better than others.
I'm sorry if all of this just sounds like semantics - its actually fundamental to the process of understanding mathematical topics like those you address in Gambling Theory.
Finally, I think it's important that you realize that your work, while it is a good start, is not the final word on these topics, and responding to criticism by reiterating what you have already written is an insulting and counterproductive practice. It shows that you are either too lazy to address an issue that goes beyond the scope of your work, or that you are simply unable to fathom it and are covering your tracks.
Tom Weideman
Tom included these phrases in his post: "You have a nasty habit of clouding the issue..." "...I find the practice so annoying..." "...you've outdone yourself..." "...then you can write something that will undoubtedly put me in my place..." "It shows that you are either too lazy..., or that you are simply unable to fathom..."
I'm guessing that because you found Mason's response "insulting", you felt a need to respond in kind? But I didn't even notice anything insulting in Mason's comments, certainly nothing like the phrases you used. It looked to me like he was simply responding to your point about assumptions. If you contend that he is in error in his response, then why not just matter-of-factly say so and make the points you want to make? I see nothing productive in sprinkling a post with hostile, inflammatory comments. They only distract from your discussion - which is almost always intelligent and illuminating. Sorry if it's none of my business, but I'd rather not see this forum develop any more "noise" than necessary.
John Feeney
Thanks, John. I see the light. My days of contributing anything to the din of this forum are over. I return you all to your regularly-scheduled programming of "predator" interviews and glowing 2+2 book recommendations.
Tom Weideman
Tom,
I'm sure I am not the only forum participant who would not want to see you stop contributing here. I took issue with the ways in which you worded some comments to Mason. But that does not diminish my appreciation for the insightful observations and analyses you have shared with us. In fact I doubt I'd have had as much reaction if you were not someone whose posts I value reading. I very much hope you will not withdraw from future participation.
John Feeney
John,
Thanks for trying.
Tom Haley
Dear Tom:
Please don't quit on me now. You can realize how many posts I've gone through to get here. This forum needs you and Abdul Jalib to validate it's existance. Mr. Feeney probably wouldn't have jumped in if he had known it would mean losing you. Further, Mr. Malmuth probably enjoys a good dust up. What we need is for Joey to leave and for you to stay. If you leave it means I've read these 300 odd posts for nought. Please don't leave! Cordially, Earl H.
Earl,
Hope your plea works.
Tom Haley
You are probably correct in that I haven't read all the posts you may have been referring to. But my observation is that the majority of disagreements about poker strategy are based on subjective things. I'd even say that a majority of posters on the forum base their opinion on subjective matters (whether a player plays well, tight, loose, etc.). That's simply nature of poker.
You wouldn't of had to be an idiot to point out corrections based on different starting assumptions. You could simply have been using a flawed argument. ;-)
Keep in mind that when we post our opinions, it's for the purpose of being read by everyone. Explaining things that may be obvious to you is done so other readers will understand my point, even if it's obvious to me that it's obvious to you.
As for the "attacks" on Mason and his work that follow in this thread, I'll leave it to him to defend.
If you go back to the original post in this thread, the poster was curious how much math he needed to understand some of the essays in Gambling Theory and Other Topics. Obviously, he wasn't a mathematician, or he wouldn't have needed to ask that question. Suggesting that he accept the conclusions in areas that he couldn't follow the math was, imho, good advice. Whether or not one should blame himself or "an expert" for advice that turns out bad is totally another issue (And if he's still following this thread, he must be shaking his head wondering why he even bothered asking the question.).
By the way (since you brought it up), I believe your postion is absolutly wrong. If I pay money for a book that supposed to give good advice, I expect good advice. And if you pay a stock broker for advice and he gives bad advice, you have every right to blame that stock broker (And take your future business somewhere else.). This applies even though you and I are responsible for our own actions, decisions, etc. So there! ;-)
> His books have been in print for many years and any
> erroneous conclusions he may have reached would have been
> exposed by now.
If you go back to Tom's original post, you will see that this was the statement he criticized. And correctly so.
If you merely had suggested that the poster "accept the conclusions in areas that he couldn't follow the math," you probably wouldn't have gotten the response that you did.
No one else has really mentioned this but...
It behooves you to absorb all the math you can, not just the bare minimum to achieve a task. By and large, the best players have acute mathematical minds. You get this from embracing and employing math for your whole life. It's not the training (tho that certainly helps), but the doing that somehow fuses those neural pathways together so that you think quickly and sharply at the table. I played chess all thru high-school and college (much to the detriment of my studies when I was immature) and attribute that experience more than anything to my ability to play poker well. I'm sure it was just the thinking, thinking,thinking that trained my mind to take up poker later.
After going "legit" and getting a job programming computers, I was worried that trying to learn a new trade at such an "advanced" age would detract from my poker playing abilities. Nothing could be further from the truth. The more I push my mind in various endeavours, the smarter I feel I am in all endeavours. Pushing yourself to do math and logic away from the table is just about the best recipe to prepare yourself for war at the table. If I enumerate the ten rec.gamblers whose opinion I respect the most, I'll probably stumble across twenty math and science degrees. Not trying to fall into the trap of guruism, but there is a definite correlation here. Don't short yourself.
JG
I thought I would use this opportunity to comment a little on GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS. When the text was first published in 1987 most players who even bothered to look at it thought that the material it contained was rediculous. I remember being told that even if I was right about some of the things that I said it couldn't do you much good playing poker because "Poker is a people game." Furthermore, virtually no one knew what a standard deviation was and they could care less about applying it to poker.
Today, most of those players are gone and the book has been debated in great detail on both this forum and rgp the last couple of years. Especially whether the maximum likelihood estimator of the standard deviation is a worthwhile approximation, are the bankroll numbers realistic, and how should you settle up in tournaments.
I think what this shows is that as Jim points out the new successful players today are much more mathematical in their approach. The more you understand the better chance you should have. Furthemore, the better you are at statistical logic, the more you understand.
For those of you who might be interested I spent almost 9 years working on the text. The finished product is the fourth edition that appeared in 1994. (There will probably be a new edition next year but it won't change very much.) I was also helped by many people since some of the ideas it contains pushed me to my statistical limit.
Today I am very gratified to see the book being debated like it is. When that is the case I know that it has achieved its purpose which was simply to stimulate thinking and show that successful gambling, like all of life, is actually a skillful balancing of luck and skill.
When the book was first published I presented a paper on "Non-self weighting strategies" at the 1987 Conference on Gambling and Risk Taking that was sponsored by the Univ. Nev -- Reno and held in Reno. (The material is contained in the text.) I remember telling people that buying mutual funds was really a "self wieghting strategy" and that this is something the expert investor would not do. Needless to say it got a strong reaction from several people who thought that there was no way that I could be right. When this happened, I knew I had something worthwhile. (By the way, I do own some mutual funds.)
One way of looking at the Mutual Fund issue is that the "average" investor will do better there than out own his own. Not only will he experience less fluctuations, but less losses. The expert, on the other hand, is probably better off on his own, in the long run.
A similar logic applies to gambling. The average gambler is better off playing craps or roulette, than poker, horses or sports betting. Even though poker, horse racing and sports betting can be beat by experts, whereas craps or roulette can not, the average gambler can not beat any of these games. The money the expert is making comes from the "average" gamblers. The house makes money in all games. In house games, the average gambler pays the house. In beatable games, the average gambler pays both the house and the winning players. The average gambler's losing expectation might be much more in beatable games than in unbeatable games. Isn't that interesting.
So how many of you experts can bring yourselves to recommend playing craps or roulette to unsophisticated players, if they insist on gambling?
Mutual funds are about diversification. They may or may not be an example of self-wieghting stratagies, I don't know. It's been awhile since I've red the gamblig theory book, and I didn't pay much attention to the self weighting stuff when I did. But, the point of using mutual funds for diversification has nothing to do with "expert" status. It has to do with most people don't have enough capital to get a close to optimum diversification. In fact, many experts use mutual funds to diversify because they can do so without the investment in research that would be required to do it on their own -- they do it because it's cheaper that way (smaller rake). Diversification has value in that it limits your individual bets, much like the kelly bankroll model. It's like doing kelly betting on correlated bets (kelly, I athink, assumes independed bets - portfolio diversification models assume correlated investments). Mutual funds are an example of a good idea gone bad -- there is an optimum diversivication, either over or under diversification will cost you EV. People who have 4-5 mutual funds are likely way over diversified. But, I have no idea what any of this really has to do with poker.
Mutual funds are indeed about diversification. They are also about letting someone else with more knowledge pick the stocks. Even investors with a lot of capital (such as pension funds) are better off in mutual funds than trying to diversify on their own. Mutual fund managers, while some may be sub-par, are more knowlegable than the average Joe.
And like in the stock market, if the expert in poker is not willing to put in the effort on a given day, he is probably better off at the craps table than the poker table.
My post wasn't about poker per se. It was about putting one's money at risk. An unsophisticated investor is better off with his money in mutual funds than "diversifying" on his own. An unsophisticated gambler is better off at the craps table than the poker table. Both involve giving up some apparent potential gain because that potential gain isn't really there for the average investor/gambler.
I didn't mean to suggest that gambling is an exact model for investing in the stock market, or visa-versa. But there are some similarities.
Post deleted at author's request.
i dont have the big brains to understand mutual funds, but this is a street thing. anyone who remembers this knows my old name. the bankroll requirements are realistist.
For some reason, this thread has been bouncing around in my head for the past week or so. As you may remember the question (to paraphrase) was: how is it that top pair and a flush draw can both be getting the best of it by betting, since both cannot be favorites to win? I can't remember if the question was answered, but if it hasn't been I'd like to take a shot at it.
I think the reason that both the aforementioned hands can be betting for value is because there's 'dead money' in the pot. In a heads up contest, with no dead money from now folded limpers, the flush is obviously going to get beat by the whuppin' stick more often than not. But with the dead money in there, both parties can get the best of it, since both are factoring the 'donations' of earlier players into their respective pot odds.
Post deleted at author's request.
i dont call a double bet befor the flop with a hand that is going to take a long shot flop, regardless of the number of players. i would rather raise myself from the blinds then call a double bet from late position. this i have from the finest authorities, world champions no less. say there is 5 players in, from there i might raise with a hand that plays well, but only for the excitment of hitting a big hand. i dont advertise, no use in a limit game in a casino. the math dosnt work. there is no implied odds. take a pair that turns into a set. going to lose 10 (in a 10-20) bout 7 times, minus 70. hit once. wont make any more if you hit then if you hadnt called the raise. mabey bout 20 bucks. i mean if you hit your going to make a few (minus the 25 persent 0f the time your set gets cracked and you lose a bunch) but over all if you have to call two full bets it going to be a loser. drawing hands as apposed to a set are much worse. which brings me to another topic. when would you ever feel comfortable playihg Q-10 offsuit? hfap says you can play this dog from a middle position. but you have to read between the lines. i almost never play this hand unless i think i have a good chance of simply making top pair with three players or less, or if im making a play for the pot, again with three players or less. if you simply play all playable hands froml hfap in a full ring game, you will lose your ass. again i mention you must read between the lines. just a thought.
i realize upon reading my post that i went from discussing a raised pot, to applying the same logic to a unraised pot. all the difference in the world. but only if you are smart enough to let go of your hand if the flop dosnt hit you pretty hard and there is a lot of action on the flop-in other words they are now collecting implied odds off of you.the main point of my post is that you really need a lot of experience and a lot of thinking bout the game to get away with making moves in a short handed pot, and for a family pot you are going to have to show the best hand, period. think about that the next time you throw ten bucks in just because its a number 5 hand. your win from the month is going to come from the number of 10 bucks hands you didnt pay to see the flop.or in this case, especially 20 dollar hands. im very comfortable trying to out play 2 other players, if i think i have a good chance, but to outplay the field, forget it. also keep in mind im not critisezing hfap, as such, its just that they cover in one sentence what actually takes years to develope.
You are right that you have to read between the lines. You may even have to do a little research beyond the book. I believe you hit the key point when you observed that they are covering a large topic in a condensed way. Every so often someone says something like "S&M say you can play QT in middle position" or "S&M claim you can play hands these unsuited group 8 hands on the button in an unraised multiway pot", etc. But these are overly literal interpretations of advice that was meant to be dynamic and situationally adjusted.
Perhaps they should have put certain of their qualifications (e.g., about unsuited big card hands changing value in multiway pots, or about weaker hands being playable only against weak, easily controlled opponents) in boldface. Maybe then everyone would quit focusing so much on those items that look questionable when taken out of the context of these qualifications. I don't know.
It long ago became clear to me that the hand groups must be adjusted and worked with situationally to be applied correctly. How did I learn this? I asked David. My guess would be that if you asked him or Mason about something like playing QT in a middle position, they would emphasize that it would very rarely be playable there, perhaps only against the absolute weakest, most readable and passive opposition you're ever likely to encounter, and then only if you play it excellently. (Outside of some select steal opportunities in late middle positions) So if you realize that at times the hand group advice is trying, within a manageable space, to encompass a very wide range of situations, including some that are pretty rare, then it's correct. But many players don't seem to consider this.
This may be a good time to refer people again to David's post, "Hand Rankings" of November 8, 1997, in the archives. It addresses some of this with more of an emphasis on the hair splitting debates that go on about the relative placement of certain hands in the groups.
thank you for your thoughtful response, see i dont care about making money i just love to play poker, and i really think it helps rather then hurts the game to smartten peoples up.
John,
Perhaps players need to develop their own standards for starting hands based on position, type of game, and situation. Example, the recent post about A,J where eight different decisions were identified for playing A,J in early position. This was based on the type of game, whether it was suited, and position. Conceivably you could have hand rankings for various combinations of game, position, and situation. For example from the recent post about A,J. You could have hand rankings for a loose aggressive game in early position; hand rankings for a loose passive game in early position; hand rankings for a weak, tight game in early position; and finally hand rankings for a solid aggressive game in early position. Of course that would be a lot of hand rankings to remember so I guess the concepts that would go into making the rankings would be more valuable and more practical to utilize.
Tom Haley
A fair bit of the discussion on the forum concerns proper hand selection. And yet HFAP states that this aspect of the game is reasonably simple and easily mastered, in comparison to post-flop play. And HFAP also states that you will only break even if your hand selection is perfect but your post flop play average. Perhaps this was correct ten years ago when HFAP first came out, but not now under todays game conditions? Is hand selection a more important, if not the most important, aspect to winning play now?
No, I don't think things have changed in that way. I think perhaps it's just that since hand selection *is* a simpler aspect of the game, players feel more comfortable analyzing it. Also, some players are currently looking at ideas like hand "domination" which were not very fully addressed in years past.
Of course hand selection is an essential foundation for one's game. In some games, in fact, its importance can be magnified. Those are the games with a heavy concentration of players who play too many hands, but then play very well after the flop. Mason M. mentioned this phenomenon in a recent article in "Poker Digest".
But the fact that more money is bet on the later rounds means that knowing how to play there remains supremely important.
John Feeney
Concerning this topic, when HPFAP was published way back in 1988 we were immediately accused by many of the old time players of writing a book that was too loose. After a few years players began to accuse us of being too tight, and recommending play that was too tight. Has the pendulum swung the other way again?
As far as I'm concerned you can rip the hand selection part right out of the book and throw it away. If you don't have a good feel for what hands to play in what position against what opponents after about a year of playing then the hand selection list isn't going to do you any good anyway.
more then a year
I agree, Tom. I see the hand groups as a helpful grounding point for players developing their preflop game. But once you have the experience and grasp the concepts involved, you can sort of leave them behind as you make situational decisions. I recall reading somewhere where David S. said he "cringed" every time a player told him they'd memorized the hand groups. I think his point was that the reasoning underlying the groups (and the discussion of how to apply them) is more important than the exact placement of specific hands within them.
John Feeney
I Wanna play some poker
I'd like to announce three excellent new essays on our "Essays" page. One is by Mason Malmuth entitled "Those Marginal Hands Again." The second is a Guest Essay by a frequent Two Plus Two Poster, John Feeny. John's Essay is entitled, "How Am I Doing? Who Cares?: Moving Beyond Excessive Focus on Fluctuations. The Third is a Guest Essay by George Rice Jr., another familiar forum contributor, entitled, "The Sklansky versus Rosenbloom Heads-up Match." Hope you'll all read them, and comment.
I would also like to remind everyone that the Exchange forum is the best place for off-strategy topics. A link to the Exchange appears under Forums, in the green highlighted, left-hand column.
Jessica Vecchione
It's always a pleasure to see a familiar name in published format. Nice work, John and George.
Etienne
I just realized that because Jessica's post mentioned three new essays, my previous post may be misinterpreted as a sleight to Mason (for not mentioning him). I'm sure most readers understood the distinction I made between two fellow '2+2' posters and a seasoned, professional poker writer/player who has many published works to his credit. Just wanted to make sure, after all Mason does exude a lot of power and influence ;-)
Etienne
Having had the opportunity to read John's essay before anyone else, I'll be the first to comment. It is right on, and very important reading for anyone wishing to play professionally. Overcoming the short-term emotional fluctuation is difficult. He describes feelings we have all had, or have seen exhibited in fellow players. Intellectually we know what the short term means, but reconciling it emotionally is the tough part. Not being able to adequately do so has ruined many players. I personally do not think it is possible to completely separate ones emotions from the up and down results. But, I have also found that time and experience has helped temper my emotional fluctuation.
My personal goal is to try and regard each session as a series of decisions. As long as each individual decision is correct, or close to correct, my hourly rate should maintain itself in the long run. As my decisions and my judgment get better, my hourly rate may even increase in the long run. I am trying to feel that the outcome of any individual hand is almost meaningless. That the series of decisions are the only things worthy of further consideration. Session results, and individual hand results are just distractions.
Well, as I said, I'm TRYING to approach each session this way.....
"I am trying to feel that the outcome of any individual hand is almost meaningless. That the series of decisions are the only things worthy of further consideration. Session results, and individual hand results are just distractions."
Only a robot can play this way.
Of course no one can "play like a robot." But just because we can't play perfectly doesn't mean we can't play better, and one of the things we can do to play better is to recognize that result fluctuations can cause emotional fluctuations, and emotional fluctuations can injure our decision making. The solution he suggests--keeping those fluctuations in perspective by recognizing that they are inevitable and reflect neither ability nor character--I think ring true to most of us.
Post deleted at author's request.
Jessica,
I liked John's essay. There is no doubt that detaching oneself from their short term results would be benificial to all winning players. There is also no doubt that this is a very difficult thing to do. I believe one must try to do this as much as possible. I still think it can be detrimental for players to focus on their hourly rate and std deviation in the short run. Maybe play for 2000 hours and then examine the data. Hopefully you'll still have money after the 2000 hours. You may not but there is only one way to find out and that is play the 2000 hours.
Tom Haley
Thanks Tom (and others). You write "There is no doubt that detaching oneself from their short term results would be benificial to all winning players. There is also no doubt that this is a very difficult thing to do."
I agree. This is the natural next step in thinking about the topic of the essay (i.e. "Yes it would be a good dea to do that, but it's easier said than done.") I suggested some general ideas concerning how to accomplish this: shift your goal from winning to playing correctly, gain knowledge of poker theory and probability, and address any problems with self esteem that may be interfering.
Most players will need to develop more specific ideas to deal successfully with the shift of goal (Sounds like Jessica is working on this with some success.) and the self esteem factors. One hint I gave regarding the latter was that, "you may be able consciously to train yourself to separate your attitude about your short term results from your self esteem, thereby keeping the latter from affecting your decisions."
To elaborate, one way of doing this is to tie your self esteem to the quality of your play rather than your results. You consciously try to feel good about good decisions during play rather than monetary outcome. The ideal (admittedly perhaps just an ideal) would be when you could feel really good about yourself after a session in which you lost badly, because you know you played consistently well that session. This is somewhat similar to an idea David S. gives about staying off "tilt" in his essay, "Will Power" in _Poker, Gaming, and Life_.
(I should add that the real ideal is to feel good about yourself fairly consistently regardless of good or bad play. But that's beginnig to stray from the topic, and I think making an effort to shift some of your self esteem from your fluctuations to the quality of your play may be a good first step for many.)
Finally, another observation that I would add to the general topic of excessive focus on fluctuations is this: A major reason why this is so difficult for most players to get away from is that the entire cardroom culture is one of focus on these fluctuations. Just listen to the people around you the next time you play. They're saying things like, "I was ahead, but now I'm stuck; Is she winning or did she just buy more?; How much are you in for?; I haven't won a pot since I sat down; Just been trying to get even all day..." I mean this is the major focus of nearly everyone in a cardroom. It really takes some serious intent to separate yourself from this "culture of fluctuations" and to care instead only about how you're playing.
John Feeney
"It really takes some serious intent to separate yourself from this "culture of fluctuations" and to care instead only about how you're playing." John Feeney
In other words: It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game.
It's that you win if you focus on how you play the game rather than on winning.
John,
Related to your "winning by focussing on how you played" idea. I am somewhat surprised by the number of solid players who choose to focus on their results. It is especially noticeable at a tournament venue when you listen to a player dwelling on the hand that eliminated him from the event. They enter into a process, which I think is destructive, of second guessing their decision and themselves. Example: Player in small blind with no callers in the late stages of a NL HE tourney with less than average stack, moved all in with A-9o and was called by big blind with larger stack who happened to have pocket sevens that held up. To me, there was no question that he made the correct move and got unlucky. He chose to search for a rationale that made his play wrong. It seems to me that you learn only to be more timid and less successful by this approach. In his position, I would move all in 100% of the time with this hand (and some others a lot less worthy)and live with the outcome. Some thinking players are guilty of self abuse to an almost criminal degree. It is my opinion that this self critical habit contributes mightily to their results being inferior to their playing abilities. My tourny results have greatly improved by being able to pull the trigger on bets such as these and thereby getting my share of ante steals and loose calls from blinds convinced that I'm on a steal. In the later stages of tourneys you see many solid players crippled by lack of aggression with position steals. They wait for the starting hand that never comes or comes when they have too few chips to protect it properly.
Post deleted at author's request.
Um, folding isn't so bad either. I think that's a bad example.
Jim, If you fold in that situation you are giving away too much. You have to be able to make a move there in order to get action on your premium hands. I would be happy to move all in against you with this hand. If you fear making a move against one remaining player with A-9o, what do you need to defend with in your big blind?
Post deleted at author's request.
I enjoyed the essay, but I tend to have a more conservative outlook.
Let's move to the game of blackjack for the sake of clarity. Suppose you are playing a great single deck game with all kinds of great rules like double on three cards and redouble after doubling, so that you theoretically have an edge off the top. The casino is financially strapped and a good run with your big black action might just put them out of business. Some of the dealers obviously don't want you to win and will do anything in their power to make you lose. The only question is what is within their power. You play the game and you get killed. You try again and you get killed. You send in your teammates and they get killed. You analyze your results statistically and there is only 1 in 1000 chance of a result this bad due to random chance. Should you continue to play because theoretically you have a big edge? Or should you take your bankroll to some other casino where you theoretically have a smaller edge, but where you are more confident in the honesty of the dealers?
True, it's easy to think you're running bad when really you're within the typical statistical range due to variance. But when you are indeed outside that typical statistical range, then I think you should begin to worry. Are you playing poorly? Are you being cheated? Are you tipping too much? Is the house rake too much?
In the hold'em game I played in where a hold-out cheat was caught (he was playing with 3 cards while we played with 2), I was getting close to quitting the game myself, since I was getting close to my "stop loss" limit designed to limit my losses when the players somehow have an edge over me. If the cheat had not been caught, he would have eventually taken enough of my money to cause me to leave the table.
A more likely scenario is that your opponents might be outplaying you without your realizing it (are you eating Oreos at the table?), or your seat may be a losing seat (in the sense that it is poorly positioned relative to the aggressive players and fish) without your realizing it.
Or maybe you're just being unlucky, but I don't like to depend on that when the statistics say I'm either very unlucky or else there is something awry.
I think it was Professor Cover who argued that if you split your bankroll initially and allocate each chunk to a different gambling opportunity with unknown expected value, then your overall results will be within a constant of the maximum you could have had by allocating bankroll optimally, while also sparing yourself from the minimum of going bust by blowing your bankroll on what turned out to be a negative EV gambling game. This is an even more powerful concept in the real world, since there is an upper limit on how much money per hour you can make, and the only question is how long will it take you to reach that maximum. In poker terms, at worst you won't sacrifice all that much if you play less in the games where historically you have done poorly, and you may save yourself from blowing your whole bankroll on games where you don't have the edge for whatever reason.
A good rule of thumb is to look for another game when your results are -2 standard deviations from break even play, since there is only a 2% chance of this by random chance. In a 4-8 chip structure hold'em game, this would be a loss of 3 racks in 3 hours, 4 racks in 6 hours, or 5 racks in 9 hours.
You're not paranoid when they really are out to get out you,
Abdul
Abdul says,
"I think it was Professor Cover who argued that if you split your bankroll initially and allocate each chunk to a different gambling opportunity with unknown expected value, then your overall results will be within a constant of the maximum you could have had by allocating bankroll optimally, while also sparing yourself from the minimum of going bust by blowing your bankroll on what turned out to be a negative EV gambling game."
I say,
Could you run that by me one more time?
I said:
"I think it was Professor Cover who argued that if you split your bankroll initially and allocate each chunk to a different gambling opportunity with unknown expected value, then your overall results will be within a constant of the maximum you could have had by allocating bankroll optimally, while also sparing yourself from the minimum of going bust by blowing your bankroll on what turned out to be a negative EV gambling game."
Example:
Let's suppose you have a choice of investing your time and money in stud or hold'em or a combination of both. You estimate you can make 1% of your bankroll per hour in stud, 2% of your bankroll per hour in hold'em. (Assume the games are always the same.) If you are correct, then you should just play hold'em and make your 2% bankroll per hour. However, if you suck as a hold'em player, you could easily play with a disadvantage while thinking you should be averaging 2% bankroll per hour, and you could go broke. The safest way is to split your bankroll into a separate stud bankroll and a separate hold'em bankroll. Maybe you split it 50-50, or 33-66, but that's not the point. Then you play along and then suppose you lose your entire hold'em bankroll because you are a sucky hold'em poker player - in this case, your stud bankroll still grows. If you had realized from the start that you suck at hold'em, you would have put all your money (and time) in stud, and you would have done better, but hey, it beats being broke, and you would be only a "little" richer if you had originally put all your eggs in the stud basket.
-Abdul
Abdul,
You make some good points, and I agree. I wrote that a good player need not lose confidence and allow his play to be adversely affected simply as a result of running badly. He should be able to play on, undistracted by normal fluctuations. Implicit in my comments were a couple of assumptions: first that the fluctuations are normal, and second that the player has the knowledge to be able to assess his play relative to the lineup he faces.
I agree that when a downswing (either within a session or across multiple sessions) reaches a certain point of severity, one must consider the possibility that one is not beating the game. Being outplayed in some previously unrecognized ways, a subtle, unnoticed deterioration in one's own play, being cheated, seating factors, and one's physical or emotional state are all valid candidates for consideration. I hope the essay would not influence anyone to ignore that sometimes even very good players lose for reasons other than normal variance. As you show very well, we must not lose sight of this.
John Feeney
I liked Johns essay, and of course he is right. Poker needs to be played ultimately for the love of the game, just like anything else. I think there is a quirk in our thinking about Poker, because of the way it has been portayed in books and movies,.. and it has been stamped in our unconsious minds. I see so many people playing the role of a gambler at the tables, when they have no real clue as to what is really going. The swings are something that I am not sure any mortal can actually survive, if playing for a living.I think there are very few actual pro players, who haven't won a large tournament , and then gone pro, or who have been succesful in business first and then started to play professionally. So, it comes back to playing for the love of the game and following the advice in Johns essay. Nice job John.
Mason's Newest Essay
I found the following statement from the essay to be very interesting:
>>However, I question the accuracy of the simulators. Another poster stated that one of the more popular of these programs didn't take into account the position of the raiser. If that's the case, it may over value some hands a little bit and under value others.
In fact, I believe that this is the problem. My guess is that the simulators may have enough errors in them that in some cases their inherent errors may be larger than the differences that they are trying to measure. Thus they might determine that a hand is slightly profitable when in reality it is not. <<
Unfortunately I believe this statement is true as there were more problems than what Mason indicated. I say unfortunately because, as Abdul has pointed out, we poker players have precious few tools to evaluate strategy with. I still put the poker sims in the "interesting and fun" category. Until the software vendors that write them offer more proof that they work correctly, I will be extremely reluctant to use the results from these sims to adjust strategy in actual play. I think the sims are valuable for a lot of reasons but basing decisions regarding real money on their results is not a step that I'm willing to take at this time. The sims are evolving and I think part of the evolutionary process will be validation of correct operation of the software.
When I play against the strongest possible simulated lineup for a statistically significant number of rounds and my win rate is quadruple that of a live game, it's easy to reach the conclusion that the software model needs more work. I'll wait until the infernal machine can beat me before I'll trust its sims.
Mason writes:
"Well, if your game was seven-card stud, I would agree. You would be holding a marginal hand and if you played it every time it would have very little effect on your long run expectation. But hold 'em is a different animal.
You see, in hold 'em everyone has the same board. In games like stud (or draw poker) the hands are roughly statistically independent of each other. Of course this isn't completely true, but in flop games everyone has the same five cards in the center of the table. What I believe this means is that hold 'em contains far less marginal hands than other forms of poker."
Presumably because they are easily dominated by better hands and have a very small chance of drawing out when that is the case (and you often would make a good hand and bet it aggressively only to find out at the showdown that you were against a higher kicker or an overpair). This is why cold-calling raises too often is a major error, and it can be right to fold strong hands preflop to only one raise in specific situations (HFAP p.17).
Mason writes:
"In my book Poker Essays, there is a chapter entitled "Marginal Hands." In it I talk about hands which tend to be either slightly profitable or very unprofitable. Obviously when this is the case you should throw it away.
So, suppose you have that ace-jack offsuit, are under-the-gun, but are in a tough game that features several players who can use their position to great advantage, and who are capable of making sophisticated plays. Well, it should be obvious that your hand is now either a small winner or a big loser, and you should quickly throw it in the muck."
So if it is generally wrong to play marginal hands in many situations, how can you best take advantage of those players who do?
When should you limp with a stronger hand in order to trap people into playing dominated hands?
(I recognize that you should sometimes limp preflop with strong hands to mix up your play so that opponents can't automatically put you on a high pocket pair/AK when you raise; that is a separate issue.)
Situation:
A loose 3-6 holdem game but with a few reasonable players that may tighten up some when a non-maniac raises UTG. A live non-maniac player considers the following two options:
Option A: place a live 6 before the hand begins?
Option B: Raise no matter what, but pretend to look at his cards first?
Which is the better play? ( And he didn't consider the best play: look then decide, or the better play of a "live fold" or "live call" without looking. )
My answer:
It seems that more playable hands in this game will be looking for as many callers as possible since too many will play anyway so Option A would be better then Option B. I am surprised that these live bets are not the most idiotic play possible in this position.
BTW are "live ones" named after these live bets? Actually I think I heard another reason involving the death of a player during the game and another player then asks that they bring in a live one.
David
Sorry if these questions seem a bit "live"!
In Mason's Poker Essay's he discusses the fact that in Hold'em you don't have a hand until the flop comes. This is such a powerful concept that I feel many players don't take into proper concept. This implies that there are many hands which are purely speculative and require some degree of "luck" on the flop. Therefore these hands require a player to get "in cheap". Some examples are small pairs,low suited connectors,and middle connectors as well as "small paint". Calling raises with these speculative hands is clearly wrong. Yet many players will constantly call double raises with these types of hands. But If you are a serious player then this is good. Mason gives reasons why playing loose can be a winning strategy. I think that these reasons are quite powerful. But I also think that these reasons are being taken out of context by many players that I play against. They call raises before them as mentioned above. But more importantly, they continue with these hands after the flop when it is clearly incorrect for them to do so.An example of this is a hand like TJ. They will play on with this when they are clearly outkicked or worse. I think that it is allright to play these hands before the flop with no raise even if it is a multi-way pot. But there are some factors involved with this strategy. One, you have to know what type of flop you really are after. With TJ, you are not looking for a pair of T's or a pair of J's. You really are after a Draw or trip's or two-pair. When you flop one pair during a multi-way pot you must be very careful on how you proceed with the hand. If you don't flop what you really want to flop then you must be prepared to fold. Notice that this style would require you to have a bankroll above what is commonly reccomended by poker authors. If you have a proper bankroll and play loose before the flop relising that you don't have a hand until the flop comes but then playing tight after the flop you can become an excellent winner. On the other hand playing tight before the flop is also a winning style and requires a shorter bankroll. 2+2's books are great but I feel that many people take the advice out of context including me in some areas. One very important idea is that if you play loose before the flop you must play very tight after the flop because your opponents many times will have you beat. And you must realize that you are looking to flop that monster hand that will enable to win a big pot as well as prevent you from being read. Mason mentions that experts can give their opponents a small head start then outplay then after the flop. This is one way of doing such. There is more to this concept like position and type of opponents but I just wanted to touch on some basic things.
Post deleted at author's request.
"In Mason's Poker Essay's he discusses the fact that in Hold'em you don't have a hand until the flop comes. This is such a powerful concept that I feel many players don't take into proper concept. This implies that there are many hands which are purely speculative and require some degree of "luck" on the flop. Therefore these hands require a player to get "in cheap"."
What they require is high implied odds. This usually means getting in cheap, but not always.
"Some examples are small pairs,low suited connectors,and middle connectors as well as "small paint". Calling raises with these speculative hands is clearly wrong. Yet many players will constantly call double raises with these types of hands. But If you are a serious player then this is good."
Calling raises with hands that should be thrown away is the major flaw in most weak player's games.
"Mason gives reasons why playing loose can be a winning strategy. I think that these reasons are quite powerful. But I also think that these reasons are being taken out of context by many players that I play against. They call raises before them as mentioned above. But more importantly, they continue with these hands after the flop when it is clearly incorrect for them to do so.An example of this is a hand like TJ. They will play on with this when they are clearly outkicked or worse."
Sometimes this is not so clear. Just because someone is putting a lot of chips in the pot doesn't necessarily mean that you are beat. A lot depends on the player.
"I think that it is allright to play these hands before the flop with no raise even if it is a multi-way pot. But there are some factors involved with this strategy."
Against tight players who have come in early you may be in trouble.
"One, you have to know what type of flop you really are after. With TJ, you are not looking for a pair of T's or a pair of J's. You really are after a Draw or trip's or two-pair. When you flop one pair during a multi-way pot you must be very careful on how you proceed with the hand. If you don't flop what you really want to flop then you must be prepared to fold."
You also need to account for the size of the pot. This is very important.
"Notice that this style would require you to have a bankroll above what is commonly reccomended by poker authors. If you have a proper bankroll and play loose before the flop relising that you don't have a hand until the flop comes but then playing tight after the flop you can become an excellent winner."
This is similar to the argument "that the flop is the defining moment of the hand." In reality it is the combination of your starting two cards that is the defining moment. If it were only true for just the flop, then you could play virtually every hand. (If each player was to get his own flop, then this would be the case.)
"On the other hand playing tight before the flop is also a winning style and requires a shorter bankroll. 2+2's books are great but I feel that many people take the advice out of context including me in some areas. One very important idea is that if you play loose before the flop you must play very tight after the flop because your opponents many times will have you beat. And you must realize that you are looking to flop that monster hand that will enable to win a big pot as well as prevent you from being read. Mason mentions that experts can give their opponents a small head start then outplay then after the flop. This is one way of doing such. There is more to this concept like position and type of opponents but I just wanted to touch on some basic things."
One of the major errors that many players make is, as I mentioned above, that they don't take into account the size of the pot. In large pots there are many situations where you are clearly beat that you should take a card on the flop and fourth street. The argument that since there are many players in someone must flop at least top pair, and therefore if your hand is not as least that good you should fold, is wrong.
Mason, I have a question about something you said -
"In large pots there are many situations where you are clearly beat that you should take a card on the flop and fourth street. The argument that since there are many players in someone must flop at least top pair, and therefore if your hand is not as least that good you should fold, is wrong."
For example, if you flop middle pair in a large multi way pot. Are you saying you should call on the flop and call on fourth street then fold on the river if you do not improve? Or are you saying you should call on the flop and call on fourth street AND call on the river because middle pair may be the best hand?
What are some reasons that Omaha 8 must requires a smaller bankroll then other games? And how do you play wired "boss" pairs in 7-stud tournies?
Joe,
A split pot game should require a smaller bankroll as you get half the pot often. You get to take out your edge without having to gamble as much. When split games are very loose and jamming then they become high fluctuating games. Also you can see after the flop easily if it makes sense to play on. In omaha 8 many times that you are playing on after the flop you are drawing at the nuts so you frequently get part of the pot. Bankroll decisions should never enter into how you play in a game just what games you enter. In 7 stud tournies high pairs should be played fast to eliminate players and try to get the pot head-up, then hope to win it fairly early as it is so easy to be drawn out on in 7 stud. In tournament play it is best to win most hands without having to show your cards, meaning you win before the river. Good Luck.
A friend of mine in Florida asked me this and I cound'nt give him a answer. Maybe you can. If you are playing $10-20 hold'em and are winning $7 a hour but then bought Turbo Texas hold'em 2, what could you expext the program to do for you if you use it? I told him that I don't put much salt in it because I have been able to beat all of my poker programs badly to the point that it's unrealistic. Take this into account. I have a original copy of Turbo 1 and I beat $5-10 for $20,000 in simulated 1000 hours. Try that in real life?
The original Turbo Hold'em really sucked, because the players were so bad that I didn't think the conclusions from the sims could be trusted. Turbo 2 is a huge improvement.
Personally, I don't spend time sparring against Turbo 2. I have my wife spar against it, while I look over her shoulder and critique her plays. She can be sensitive to criticism, but in this laboratory environment she takes it well. She spends time sparring against it even when I'm not watching, so I guess she feels like she gets something out of it.
The other thing I do with Turbo 2 is simulations. Sure, the computer players don't play the hands perfectly, but I don't feel that much matters for learning general concepts, since they usually play the hands halfway reasonably. For example, did you realize that AJs in the big blind does worse the more tight players are in a raised pot? (Well, at least for 1, 2, and 3 opponents, and you will rarely have more tight players in the pot than that.) This is because the probability of AJs being dominated (by AKs/AK, AQs/AQ, AA, KK, QQ, or JJ) rapidly approaches 1 as you add tight players. The suitedness appears not to matter so much.
With some care, you can get around a lot of the limitations in the simulations. For example, the Turbo players don't adjust their strategy for where the raise is coming from. However, you can run a simulation where one player raises with the hands you wish to raise with in early position, and then have another player call with everything. From that, you see which hands he made a profit with, and then hard-wire that strategy into a new player profile, and fill the game with that profile. Then you can see how well your opening strategy works when the players are basically adapted to your opening strategy. However, it's not real easy to set up funky simulations, and I'm sure most Turbo users won't bother much with it.
-Abdul
I'd like to jump in here, as you are talking about the software, and the posts above regarding Masons essay are related. I think mason's essay is very short sided regarding simulations, first of all. The posts that he refers to regarding AJ are taken out of context. I was not one of the posters, but you can't talk about whether a hand is profitable in certain posistions without talking about when, and how a specific hand is played.The newer Turbo hldm program and the previous program can help you see how to play a hand from various posistions in order to make more money with it.To say that the software is dangerous or can be dangerous is simply not true. Without software, we are forming our playing strategy based solely on probability theory which is nice, but does not take into account different game and player situations. How dangerous is that? It is easy to adapt your play to the software, and not play the way you would in a real game, and this is why so many people can win easily. If you play honestly against the toughest players, you might find out otherwise. Anyway, the point is that this is the future we are looking at here. of course there are flaws, but I believe that running a simulation against player profiles that have the ability to fold on the flop etc., will give you a much more accurate answer to your questions than starting hand theory based on every hand playing out to the end.When someone said that AJ was profitable from early posisition, they were probably right, as long as it is played in the right circumstances. Anyway ,enough said, Abdul, I'm a little suprised that you haven't written a response to this essay. How come?
"I think mason's essay is very short sided regarding simulations"
I'm probably not as short sided as you think since I believe that I was the first person to publish any conclusions about poker based on computer simulations. The particular series of articles are called "Killing the Pot." They were published in 1984 and were based on programing that I did (on an old Apple 2E computer). Their purpose was to determine proper strategy for "look at two and kill" and "look at three and kill" lowball games. (These articles are contained in my book WINNING CONCEPTS IN DRAW AND LOWBALL.)
Also, over the years I have been involved with my share of computer simulations, and have published a fair amount of material based on the results. (Another example are the computer simulations that appear in our text SCSFAP. For my personal notes and conclusions I still look at stud simulations.)
My concern is that many people use these simulations to draw wrong conclusions. Part of the reason for this is that they don't have a good understanding of how to interpret data and/or they do not understand the capabilities (and non-capabilities of the software.) This is what I am warning against. (This problem is especially acute in hold 'em because the community card nature of the game makes many results dependent on each other. That is any error introduced in the play of a hand will carry over into other hands much more so than in games like stud or draw.)
Post deleted at author's request.
I think you're right. I forgot about THE COMPUTER GUIDE TO HOLD 'EM by Robert F. Zahrobsky. It was published in 1979, and is a good example of the type of errors that I warn against.
Post deleted at author's request.
mason, I appreciate your response. I now understand more where you are coming from with that essay. (The case of Q7 was immediately dismmissed as a joke.) I was more concerned about people reading the essay and deciding that computer sims were worthless. There is quite a bit of research(non-published), as I'm sure you are aware, with computer sims. I feel any serious player can benifit from going in that direction. good luck
AL Raiseya writes:
"I think mason's essay is very short[sighted] regarding simulations... Abdul, I'm a little surprised that you haven't written a response to this essay. How come?"
I did not think the essay was worth a response. In previous posts I noted that I had run simulations where the players adapted to what the early position player is raising with. The worst case is when the later players start calling with AQ, and still AJ proves marginally profitable in the simulations. Mason chose to ignore this.
Aside from that, Mason's points weren't too far out of line. I will concede that if the other players play to exploit AJ, at a huge cost against the other hands you are playing in early position, then AJ may prove unprofitable. 3-betting with AQ is the obvious (and nearly only) example of a play that harms AJ, but which is costly versus an early raiser in general. However, I just did a quick-and-dirty simulation of this, where the opponents optimized their play against AJ specifically, and I still couldn't get AJ to go negative in early position. (Of course, I did not change their postflop play to reflect that the opponents knew that the player had AJ, or they could have hurt the AJ player.)
While never strong in early position, AJ is a surprisingly robust hand. This is because if your opponents don't have AQ, AK, AA, KK, QQ, or JJ, they can't hurt you badly even if they try, and they don't usually have one of those dominating hands. I pointed out this logic before and Mason ignored that too.
The point Mason made about community cards is another way of talking about the domination effect. However, as I just explained, this should have led him to the opposite conclusion of the one he reached.
In general, the concept of community cards aka domination is very important. If you did not fully understand this concept, you would think you could call almost any time you are getting good odds from the pot, like with many players in the pot you would mistakenly call with 98o on the button or Q5o in a raised pot on the big blind. Or you might think that AJ would be a vulnerable hand when in fact very few hands dominate it. Simulations are useful in deepening one's understanding of the domination effect.
Mason writes:
My concern is that many people use these simulations to draw wrong conclusions. Part of the reason for this is that they don't have a good understanding of how to interpret data and/or they do not understand the capabilities (and non-capabilities of the software.)
If "they" refers to me, note that I have a B.S. in Mathematics and Computer Science from Carnegie Mellon University, M.S. in Computer Science from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign pending completion of thesis, and I worked for years at Bellcore and NASA doing empirical/simulation-based research in artificial intelligence, including programming simulators from scratch. I was sometimes selected to peer-review papers for inclusion in artificial intelligence conferences, and some of my own papers were published in AI conference proceedings. As was the general philosophy for this scientific community in the early 1990's, I did not recommend for acceptance any paper that did not include sound mathematical and/or empirical (computer simulation) results to support the general hypotheses and arguments presented. In the early 1980's a more undisciplined approach pervaded the AI community, and the result was lots of papers and books and hype but little real progress and much effort wasted on research dead-ends.
Instead of being concerned about people deriving incorrect poker strategies from simulations, Mason should be concerned about the many people who derive incorrect poker strategies from perception and intuition. They not only lack mathematical/empirical supporting evidence and ignore the mathematical/empirical evidence of others, they go to the point of ridiculing the mathematical/empirical evidence of others, saying things like: "I am correct, and therefore your simulations must be flawed."
Petitio principii. Ipse dixit. Argumentum ab auctoritate. Mater tua criceta fuit, et pater tuo redoluit bacarum sambucus.
(Circular reasoning. Unsupported statement by a person of authority. Argument based solely on authority. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.)
That is not to say that simulations cannot be flawed. We saw a recent example of a flawed simulation in the Poker Digest article on short stacks in tournaments. What we need are more simulations by more people using more simulators, not fewer. As for statements/books/essays not supported by mathematics, sound logic, or empirical evidence, caveat emptor, baby.
-Abdul
Thankyou Abdul, I don't have the backround you have, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist,( which I guess we can say that you actually were), to see that these software programs have some merit and are getting better. Most people play from the books that they read, that tell them to raise with this hand and call with that hand etc., before they start to really take a look at the game in more depth. These programs can take someone like me with no real math backround and teach more about what is important etc. That's not to say that S&M'S books aren't valuable, they are, but software is the wave of the future, and probably the next revelation will come from some types of simulations, when they are able to program more realistic player profiles that react more to past action etc. Thanks for your response.
Speaking on behalf of Mason Malmuth and myself (not really! -- I'm just invoking a long-running joke), my impression is that Mason is not including Abdul among the many drawing wrong conclusions from simulations. But I think he's nonetheless avoiding endorsement of Abdul's conclusions.
Paul Pudaite writes:
"...my impression is that Mason is not including Abdul among the many drawing wrong conclusions from simulations."
If that were true, he wouldn't be trying desperately to show how I am always drawing wrong conclusions from my simulations.
Paul Pudaite continues:
"But I think he's nonetheless avoiding endorsement of Abdul's conclusions."
That's a nice way of saying "he's trying desperately to discredit Abdul's simulation conclusions in places where Abdul cannot directly respond, such as Poker Digest and the twoplustwo essays section." Anyway, I'm amused.
Something I keep in mind, but which I think Mason sometimes forgets, is that criticism is the sincerest form of flattery. I have never criticized Carl Anderson's book Hold'em Poker for Winners, because it's not a good book (well, I guess I can't be sure of that since it was the first poker book I read and I haven't read it since, but glancing through it now it still looks bad.) I nitpick on Sklansky and Malmuth's Hold'em for Advanced Players, because it's the best hold'em poker book, and occasionally on Sklansky's Theory of Poker, because it's the best poker book period. At the tables, everything else being equal, those who understand the mistakes in the best books can beat those who don't.
Caveat emptor, baby,
Abdul
Dear Abdul:
Thanks for spelling out your credentials. I am impressed but not surprised. When you talk about simulations I wish you would give a short discription of the software/program and the limitations as you perceive them. Sitting here in East Tennessee I don't know whether you are talking about Turbo Holdem, which I consider a game until someone explains the program to me in detail (I realize it can do the "hot&cold" stuff) or have your own proprietary software that is setting the standard for poker simulations. I like your degenerate gambler thing much better than "baby". Cordially, Earl Hamman
When I talk about simulations I am talking about Turbo Texas Hold'em 2.0. I've mentioned many of the limitations, but they include insufficient check-raising, vulnerability to check-raise bluffs, too tight postflop heads up because it just won't call or raise when it has no draw and no AK/AQ/AJ/KQ overcards, too tight in some family pot situations because it doesn't take into account pot odds for anything but straight and flush draws, and it doesn't take into account where raises are coming from.
In the simulations, I try to reduce the effects of the flaws as much as possible. For example, when determining what hands to raise with in early position, I run many simulations, having the opponents optimize their play in each case (and choosing the set of hands that do best when the opponents are tyring to exploit you) - it then doesn't matter that they don't know where your raise is coming from, because they do know implicitly what hands you are raising with and how best to respond to your raise. This is not a perfect solution to the problem in Turbo, but it's close.
Many people complain that they easily beat Turbo. Well, of course they do. But if we're just trying to find out the general strengths of hands under various circumstances and how best to play them, it doesn't matter too much if you can beat Turbo, since the computer players are just playing other computer players in the simulations. Also, in my opinion Turbo 2.0, with a lineup of the best tight players and all the toughness flags on and "no new players", puts up a very good fight versus a human, especially if you turn on the "no check raising flag".
BTW, the "Caveat emptor, baby" thing was from the movie "Rounders".
-Abdul
HLSFAP, p. 232: "It's very important to have all four cards working together (in a loose game)"
HLSFAP, p. 206: "Assuming the game you are in is very loose, you will want to play any four cards, suited up if possible, that include an ace-deuce or ace-trey."
Should dry A3 be played in early position in a very loose-passive game?
Is it generally an automatic fold when no deuce flops?
HLSFAP, p. 208: "Two high cards and two low cards make it tough to hit a big high hand, unless it is the nut flush draw or possibly top set. However, top set often can be trouble, because low straights and flushes are fairly easy to make."
Is an A2 with a pair of kings through tens a premium hand?
Would this hand be raised preflop for value, especially in late position?
(I recognize that preflop raising for value is not normally the best strategy. But in a game where everyone sees the flop, the better multiway hands go way up in value, and you reduce the implied odds for opponent hands that want to get in cheaply like 234x or QTsJTs. Also, opponents with trash hands will fold on the flop, so you have to charge them when you can. I have found that preflop raising doesn't make opponents tighten up, and can even make them more willing to stay in on marginal or worthless draws later in the hand.)
HLSFAP, p. 232: "It's very important to have all four cards working together (in a loose game)"
True try if possible rz
HLSFAP, p. 206: "Assuming the game you are in is very loose, you will want to play any four cards, suited up if possible, that include an ace-deuce or ace-trey."
Yes in games that people will play on drawing at bad lows these hands are money makers rz
Should dry A3 be played in early position in a very loose-passive game?
yes you said very and it will make money but we are getting close to the limit. rz
Is it generally an automatic fold when no deuce flops?
no if players will draw for bad hands then play on if you get a decent flop or if you are not comfortable taking the risk just play for the nuts only as some people do just this and still survive. rz
HLSFAP, p. 208: "Two high cards and two low cards make it tough to hit a big high hand, unless it is the nut flush draw or possibly top set. However, top set often can be trouble, because low straights and flushes are fairly easy to make."
Is an A2 with a pair of kings through tens a premium hand?
it is certanly a very good hand that would always be played unless a very tight player was jamming in front of you then you would be facing two aces with an ace duece or something similar rz
Would this hand be raised preflop for value, especially in late position?
many times I would rz
(I recognize that preflop raising for value is not normally the best strategy. But in a game where everyone sees the flop, the better multiway hands go way up in value, and you reduce the implied odds for opponent hands that want to get in cheaply like 234x or QTsJTs. Also, opponents with trash hands will fold on the flop, so you have to charge them when you can. I have found that preflop raising doesn't make opponents tighten up, and can even make them more willing to stay in on marginal or worthless draws later in the hand.)
Remember that many worthless hands that play on also turn into good back door draws rz Good Luck. rz
I was playing No limit poker in Reno about two weeks ago and had the following hand come up. This was the first time I have played no limit outside of a tourneyment.( I wish more games were spread, its quite a rush!)
Anyway, the blinds were 2 and 5 and I was dealt a pair of kings in early position and raised it $50.00. All folded except the little blind(LB) who called. The flop came Q, Q, 8. The LB checked, I bet another $50.00, LB called. The turn came with another 8, LB checked and I paused and decided to check fearing a possible check-raise(I'm not sure I should fear this as much in no limit since you can bet anything anytime). The river comes a blank and the LB bets $200 into me. I pause for a good minute and figure there is virtually no possibility of him having eights full, so the only realistic possible hand I can figure he has is AK, AQ, or a pair of 9's, 10's or j's. I think his bet seems rather large for someone who has queens full since he would probably want me to call and not fold with this hand. He had over $1,000(as most people did) and I only bought in for $100 not wanting to get hammered. So I figured he was betting in an attempt to scare me out of the hand because I appeared extremely tight. So I decided to call him and won the hand. He had Ace king unsuited.
Everyone at the table was shocked at my call and thought it was a gutsy play. I felt very unsure how to play this hand throughout the rounds except before the flop.
Could any no limit experts rate my play and give me suggestions for improvement?
I'll limit my critique to one aspect of the hand, because it's something that I consider to be a mistake, yet I see it happen all of the time in NL play (albeit, tournaments only).
If the blinds are only $2 and $5, why make it $50 to go? It seems to me that the vast majority of the time you'll simply win the $7. Occasionally, someone will reraise you with a worse hand (such as QQ, JJ, AKs, maybe a couple of others), but when they do reraise, it will probably be big, and now you need to make a tough decision, i.e., do they have the feared AA? Overall, I think that unless the game is very loose, you'll get played back at with AA more often than anything else, so when you do contest the pot, you often lose. When you don't contest the pot, you've put up $50 to merely win $7.
Of course, if lots of folks are raising like this in your game, and getting played with, then it's not a bad idea. As for me, I would think "why play with someone who made such an oversized raise, unless I've got AA?" Yet, if you are pretty sure that you'll get action making it $50, then it probably is the better play.
Normally, I recommend raising about the size of the pot most of the time. In this case, make it about $20 most of the time. The main advantage of this is that since you will come in for a raise with more than just KK and AA (right?), no one will be able to gauge what you have by the size of the raise.
Personally, I wouldn't have called you from the blinds with AK. I figure that if I hit my A or K and you'll play with me, then you must have a set (whether it's with the A, K, or one of the other flop cards). If you had QQ, for example, and the flop was A, 9, 5, are you really going to give me any action? Probably not, so why play AK when there is, in essence, no dead money in the pot to contest for?
Without discussing it in detail, I think you played the hand well after the flop.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I'm not an expert, but I'll put my two-cents worth in anyway.
You shouldn't have feared a hand like AQ from a good player. Your bet of $50 was way too much to call with AQ, or AK for that matter. Although some players will call with hands like these. The only hands you had to fear were AA, QQ or 88. AA would have probably come over the top before the flop, but possibly not. After the flop, AA would have feared you having a hand like AQs, and would have folded to a reasonable sized bet on the turn or flop (you bet only $50). 88 would probably not have check-called on the flop, giving you a chance to fill up if you had a queen, or giving you a chance to match a pair in your hand.
I think the only possible mistake you made was not betting the turn. You gave him a chance to hit a set if he had a pair. You also gave him a chance to catch an ace if he held AK, if he was the type of player to play that. He probably would have folded AA, KK, and any other pair (except QQ and 88) to a bet on the turn.
By checking the turn you showed weakness. Almost any hand he held was going to be bet on the river, including AA which beats you, and a pair matching the "rag". However, calling was correct on the river, as he was an overwhelming favorite to be betting a weaker hand.
On the other hand, if you knew he held a weaker hand (let's say you saw one of his cards and it was a nine), checking on the turn is not a bad play. It encourages him to bet out on the river on a bluff with a hand he would have folded to a bet on the turn.
Post deleted at author's request.
i really wont comment about your post flop play, other then the words of the legendary no limit player, that was a damn good call kid. the comments thus far about befor the flop are pretty well on the mark. bring it in for three to four time the big blind. if someone plays back at you there is the very rare dicision to lay it down. otherwise move in.
may i also add that i also wish, and currently lobby for, is more no limit and pot limit ring games. there is nothing like the rush from finally playing real poker in a ring game.
From an early position I like to raise small with aa,kk,qq, jj,1010,99 hoping someone will get cocky and reraise me, then I'll raise right back all-in.I've been beat on the play but it generally does good.Once I had some dumb ass lay down qq against my 1010
The dumb ass who folded QQ could have been me. Of course if I held AA then the dumb ass was you.
It must suck to have no nuts bobby boy
I guess Bobby B goes to the poker room to make money and joey goes to the poker room to show everybody how daring he is. If the two of you played at the same table, I'm sure you'd both get what you want.
Wow!I guess folding qq before the flop when you already have 500 in the pot against 1010 before the flop makes a ton of money.I wish I had that great intuition to be able to read people like that. Memo to all you rocks who think you can play:Stay the hell out of a man's game like no-limit.Go to 10-20 or 20-40,buy 2500 in chips to intimidate the tourists,put on your shades, don't forget your fan,get your headphones,and just sit there.Occasionally play a hand,then moan and cry like a pregnant broad and blame the other player,the dealer,bad luck,and anything but your own poor play everytime you get beat.Say "get a setup",tell your neighbor"how can I be losing I'm better than all these guys?"That is what the rocks do best.
Joey, that post was absolutely hilarious,what a great description of half the mirage poker room.good job
Jack Bullinger,
You give the word monologue an entirely new meaning. Your remote host address is surprisingly identical to that of joey's (1cust44.tnt5.lax3.da.uu.net - 153.37.66.44), so tell him to cool his language.
Joey said,
"From an early position I like to raise small with aa,kk,qq, jj,1010,99 hoping someone will get cocky and reraise me, then I'll raise right back all-in.I've been beat on the play but it generally does good.Once I had some dumb ass lay down qq against my 1010"
Would he still be a "dumb ass" if you had Kings or Aces.
Don't gimme if's,the key to no limit is to make someone make a decision for all of their chips,especially early in the hand,if you need aa to call 3000 all in you don't have enough balls to play no limit.
Today I played in a 4-8 Hold'em game with blinds of $1 & $2. It's $2 to call or $6 to raise before the flop and $4 bets and raises on the flop. On the turn and the river it is $8 bets and raises. I tended to play more hands pre-flop than I might have in the normal structure and threw away most hands that didn't improve substantially or give me a powerful draw on the flop. There seemed to be very little pre-flop raising which I found surprising. Many players simply called $2 with high pairs (QQ or better). Any thoughts?
Post deleted at author's request.
Thats a typical blind structure for a 1-4-8-8 game. You sure this wasn't spread limit?
Its probably not worth it to raise anybody out with big pairs in such a small pot. But as soon as somebody completes the bet I would start playing faster.
As you noticed you can get in cheap and attempt to outplay your opponents on the flop, turn, and river. Note that this structure is good for tight play. You want to be sitting at a table with a bunch of gamblers not a bunch of rocks.
This is the standard "4-8-8" game in Vegas; with 1/2 blinds. Lets compare it to the standard "4/8" structured game with 2/4 blinds.
With no raise before the flop the pot is going to be half as big. That's a big difference. Plan to abandon any pair and especially any kicker that is likely beat. Expect others to do the same. This means that flush and straight draws SHOULD be the pits: heads up in a small pot. (Actually, the bad opponents who make terrible calls who frequent these games greatly improve the value of draws...) So in a tight game, even though it appears you are getting "better" implied odds for 76s (it costs $2 instead of $4 when you can bet $20 later), it turns out these hands get worse implied odds unless the game is good.
With a small flop-bot you should routinely BET instead of check-raising, since the bad hands aren't getting the right odds to chase you down for one bet.
With a small flop-pot and fewer opponents calling the flop, the turn and river pots should also be substancially smaller. Minimum calling hands go way up.
A raise B4 the flop is twice as meaningful. Routinely fold for a raise a hand that was only worth a $2 call. The exception would be quality draws in volume pots.
---------------------------------------------------
Expect silly old rocks to debate the merits of raising with QQ. AKs is a trouble hand when they raise. Your raising requirements go up when such people have called. Your calling requirements are reduced to solid draws when such people bet; or even call a bet.
Expect the fish to try to run down the tight UTG player with their Aces with a 6 kicker. Dogh! Expect the fish to make terrible calls all along the way.
Trouble hands are profitable against the fish; big losers against the rocks. Don't expect the rocks to bet your hand for you. In fact, don't expect ANYBODY to bet your hand, unless they have demonstrated that they routinely bet when checked to.
I believe small pairs benefit the most in these games.
Play straight forward against these clowns.
- Louie
Post deleted at author's request.
My right hand is most valuable, probably because I'm right handed. Though I'm sure that some of the more experienced here might offer differant hands and possibly for differant reasons.
:)
Post deleted at author's request.
In early position, they are all easy to play and equally valuable; fold, they are worth $0.
First game: 3-6 holdem. At Foxwoods, the opponents were actually decent at that level. There weren't any total fish at the holdem table, people did check-raise, and four or five people would see the flop on average. I have 88 in the BB, and it's folded around to the SB, who calls. SB is semi-loose and tends to call too much, but not that much. He will play any ace or hands like Q7s. I raise, since my hand is very strong heads-up. SB calls. The flop is 985, two diamonds and one heart. SB checks. I bet. SB raises! I reraise and he calls. His call rules out 99 or 76, while a high pocket pair would have reraised before the flop. Most probable is JT or a flush draw, or a flush-draw with some straight potential. A set of fives probably would have made it four bets also, and he might put me on a high pocket pair from my preflop raise. Turn is a jack of hearts. He checks, I bet and he calls. The river is the six of spades: 985J6. I figure that I'm safe, since there is almost no hand with a seven that he wouldn't have released by now, except for Ad7d or Kd7d or Qd7d. He checks, I bet and he raises. I call. He shows K7 offsuit.
Second game: stud high in a home game. The starting pot is small relative to the bet size, which is spread-limit, with the same maximum on all rounds. The total of the antes and forced bring-in is about 1 maximum bet. I call the bring-in with a completely live (KQ)J. I catch a queen on fourth, and my cards are still live. I bet the maximum, and everyone drops except for a solid player with (xx)7T. Next I get a king, and he gets a queen. I bet and he calls. He then gets a ten on sixth and bets. I catch a blank on seventh, and pay off hidden aces.
Third game: spread-limit stud-8. Some early limpers. A queen bets the maximum. I have (KT)K. I raise the maximum. All limpers fold. Queen calls. HLSFAP, p.65 : "When the second-best high hand is in the pot and you have the best high hand, you want to punish him. Once a lot of money goes in early, you must be prepared to go to the river." We both caught blanks on fourth, and the queen bet. Should I have folded here? On third, I figured that aces or trips would have reraised, so I thought that she had queens. (I did go to the river, and lost to hidden aces that made two pair.)
Fourth game: 5-10 Omaha-8. I hold A3JT in late position, with the ace suited. Four people see the flop of J73 two suited, and it is checked around. Turn is an ace, making the board two suited without my suit. I fold to a bet from the first player to act, figuring that I have to call two large bets, and that I am playing for half of a small pot with too many ways to lose. If there is a set out there, I have four or fewer outs for half the pot (and people in this game will play dry pairs). If there is a low draw, there is the danger of a wheel. Almost any high card can give someone a straight. Heads-up, I might have called, but with an early position bettor and two callers, I thought that some strength was definitely out there. River is an offsuit ten. Two pair would have shared the high.
Should I have played these hands differently?
You made no serious errors, except if I'm in a 3-6 game where all of the players are decent or better, I have to quit. You can't beat the rake at the 3-6 level unless there are at least a couple of bad players paying the freight. Even if you're clearly the best player in the game, if they're all OK to good, you can't make a profit.
Also, it appears that you made some plays based upon your read of a player. If your read had been correct, then you'd have made the correct play. But your read was wrong. That isn't necessarily a problem, we all misread players. Just be sure that you're reevaluating your opinions of these players whenever your read is off.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
A 3-6 game with all good players is still very beatable. What you have to do a bit more often is make a loose raise with a hand which plays well against your expected number of opponents. Also, strategic concepts which are not generally applicable to low limit games are now in effect. Think about semi-bluffing frequently on the flop, and playing to isolate opponents on your right. Semi-steal opportunities become available which your regular core of low limit players accustomed to five and six way action on the flop may not be prepared to handle properly.
As many folks wiser than me have said, you make most of your money from opponent mistakes, not your own great play. While there are certainly many strategy adjustments to make in a game with better players, this won't be enough to give you much of an edge, as, by definition, these are better players who therefore understand the same concepts, and are doing the same thing to you.
If you are better than these good players, you will have an edge. However, at the 3-6 betting limits, if this is a game like those in Cal. that takes out $3 per pot, then your edge will not be enough to beat the rake. This is a game I would only play to gain experience, not for profit.
Additionally, in almost any game, at any stakes, if there are no weak players, your profit will be small, and the fluctuations, relative to what you're winning, will be high. I have seen top players abandon big limit games where they could earn an average of $100/hour. However, since the stakes were 500-1000, they didn't want to expose their bankroll to 5-figure hourly fluctuations for $100/hour.
Maybe you're describing a table full of experts. When I refer to a *good* player, I mean someone who plays well enough to stay ahead of the rake but who isn't approaching the benchmark one big bet per hour average. When someone can consistently earn this much I'll catagorize them as *expert*. Then there is the *top* player (yes, there are such low-limit players - albeit transitory) who's winning more than one big bet per hour against all competitors. A week in a hospital intensive care ward can destroy a middle limit player's bankroll more certainly than any prolonged losing streak. Is it really surprising then, for anyone to have to start grinding and climbing all over again?
Here's how I look at the pot rake situation: As long as someone else at the table is cracking a hundred every hour, I'm not concerned with the rake's drain on the table. If this is not the case, then the game is sour. If the game is sour and there are a lot of shortstacks, then the game is bad. If the game is bad and there is no waiting list, then there is tomorrow.
We're just going to have to disagree as to how much of an edge is really needed to beat the toughest 3-6 games, and the degree of difference in ability between *good* and *expert* or *expert* and *top* player. I've never played the California clubs, yet I've heard that some of the toughest limit Hold'em games are spread there. East coast Hold'em may be sufficiently different from West coast, that our conclusions drawn from experience are equally valid. Are there any forum contributors who have played both recently that noticed significant differences?
Greg,
You write :
< As many folks wiser than me have said, you make most of your money from opponent mistakes, not your own great play. >
(1) I once agreed with the above.
(2) I'm not wiser than you.
(3) Paul Pudaite showed me the error of my ways - see "A conversation with an old time gambler part 2", September 1, 1998.
(4) You make all of your money from opponent mistakes.
Etienne
>You make all of your money from opponent mistakes.
You often make money (in the long run) even when they play properly. See "Pot size manipulation: giving up too much?".
Dan,
You write :
< You often make money (in the long run) even when they play properly. See "Pot size manipulation: giving up too much?". >
If your opponents are playing properly and you often make money, then it follows that there will be times when you will be playing properly and they will be making money. So, like with luck, the effect you mention has both positive and negative aspects which in the long run cancel each other out. If this were not the case then your opponents would be making a mistake - that of not knowing as much about pot size manipulation as you do.
Etienne
If everyone played optimally, there would be no profit in the long run. When people play marginal or sub-marginal hands, that is their major error, and they might lose money on average even if they play those hands perfectly after the flop. In many cases, play designed to make opponents make mistakes will give up too much in expectation (when wouldn't otherwise be the correct play), especially when they are already committed to keep giving you EV when they play the hand correctly. One example is not raising preflop with strong hands in order to make opponent preflop calls incorrect. This may be correct in some situations, but people overuse this play.
Over the past few months I have devoloped a great intrest for the game of poker and was curious how I could learn to play the game professionaly? I know it takes years of experience. I'm just looking for suggestions.
I also was wondering what kind of person it takes to be a pro and to play on the circit?
Thanks
Post deleted at author's request.
this takes years. at least it has for me. about five to be exact. 5 years ago i didnt know anything about poker. i was drunk one night and was playing in a bar on a vidio blackjack machine. according to the machine i won bout a million dollars. off to las vegas i went. i had a lot of fun but i didnt win a million dollars. next came the several years of studing bj and the thousands of dollars lost. by the way i can finally beat a one or two deck game if the conditions are good and i dont get shuffled up on by using the omega two counting system. any way i was disallusioned by black jack but still had this dream bout being a pro gambler. enter poker. hard work, a ton of thinking about the game, the books from the 2 plus 2 authors and the others, the new programs out for the computers, thousands of hours of experience- dicipline, faith in your ability, this is harder then becoming a doctor, at least it was for me. but there is light at the end of the tunnel. 5 years ago i knew nothing about the game. now i fell confident in my ability at the middle limits (10-20 to 20-40) in any limit game and i am very comfortable at pot limit and no limit. among the skills ive developed is knowing whether im outclassed in a game and changing tables, or changing casinoes. i like nothing better then playing with 8 or ten people who think this is primarly a game of luck. of course im talking middle limits and above, which i assume you are too as you mentioned professional play. if you want to play low limit just reading a book and playing tight should help you beat the rake. i might also mention that i dont live near a casino, or didnt use too, so it took me awhile to get hundres of hours at the table. go for it , its well worth it, but if you think this is going to be easy you can come to my pot limit game by contacting me at .....
Darrell, You say you love to play with people who think hold'em is a game of luck?I'm sorry but playing limit hold'em is a game of about 80% luck.You should know that if you play no or pot limit.Those are games with some skill involved. Unless you really suck and just play wild limt hold'em is a fairly simple game.Everyone basically plays the same starting cards,they all read the same books by the same guys that everyone thinks can play.Sure,in limit hold'em the slightly better players will win an extra bet here,save a bet here,but whoever is hitting the most flops and making the most flushes on the river will win the money.Even no limit isn't always a game of skill,such as Scotty going all in against QQ with AQ,a terrible play mathematically but luck was with him and he went on to win the WSOP.Don't get me wrong,you need skill to play professionally,but you must have luck also.I'm not just blowing smoke I'm 30 and have yet to ever have a job.
"Don't get me wrong,you need skill to play professionally,but you must have luck also.I'm not just blowing smoke I'm 30 and have yet to ever have a job."
Mommy and daddy must have been very kind.
I've won every penny I have,faggot.
joey you are so full of shit you cant see at all
Golly gee Superman,that was a good one.At least my mommy and daddy are from earth not some freak named Jarell from Krypton.I may not be as good a poker player as you because I don't have X-ray vision.If I screw up a hand I can't spin the earth back in time and replay it.I've also heard that the games in Metropolis are pretty damn easy.The big boys play in Gotham City.That hall of justice game on Friday night with Wonder Woman,Green Lantern,Jimmy Olson,and Aqua Man must be a real tough game.What the hell would you do with the money if you ever won?You have no freakin pockets idiot.Next time I spot you at a poker table I'll have my pal Lex sit down next to you with a kryptonite cigar,then we'll see how great your game is.You used to be someone now your just a bitch to Keaton,Kilmer,and Clooney.Stop writing in this forum and keep writing for the daily planet,CLARK! Better yet why don't you just take that slut Lois and get the hell up to the north pole dork.
joey, the games here in dayton. are pretty damn adventerous, why do you bring your omniscient mind and ass, and dont forget about your money and lets play a little luck no limit, geez. if i knew you better i really would invite you.
Where's that guy who said he would perform a public and rather painful act involving a baseball and a piece of string if McGwire or Sosa broke the home run record ?
the main point of my earlier post that i wanted to share with the readers is this, i think its a case of very marginal hand to call a raise cold that plays well multiway, even if its clear the hand will be multiway. if you have a small pair, 3 players come in, number 4 raises, i fold. if i have a suited connector i double fold. this is my reasoning- you will miss your set 7 out of 8 times- minus 140 dollars. what if i call? blinds 15 (in a 10-20) three players in = 45, fourth raises = 65. if the blinds fold you can count on the first players calling so now its 95. going to cost you 20. you are getting 5 to one but its 7 to one against hitting your set. 25 persent of the time you hit and lose a bunch when your set gets cracked. with the drawing hands opposed to a set its much worse, you hit your hand but still dont have anything. i play in these situations in pot limet and no limit but in limit i dont see the implied odds anywhere. small winner or big loser. also i seem to constantly be in jeperdy of loseing my bankroll because i usually play in 10-20 to 20-40, which i cant afford as yet, but then again i dont get my rent money playing poker. so i play tight. in these situations. i not saying i dont make a play with Q-10 by re-raising a thief befor the flop if the situation warrents it, im just saying- and i suspect some players who have been playing for a while dont realize this- that you cant call raises befor the flop in multiway pots unless you just want to gamble, you are going to have to show down the best in a multiway pot. even if your prayers are answered you are going to show a marginal profit, fit for a marginal hand. i am much more comfortable doing the raising in any poker game then calling the raises. as i said i think that actually in the earlier posts this info has been adiquately covered, i just wanted to state it again in abc format for people who havnt thought it through. its plugged a major leak in my limit holdem game.
Post deleted at author's request.
you are probably right about table conditions, if they are playing badly enough to take it to 4 bets on the flop on a hope and a prayer (although if they are praying that would scare me a bit, have you heard the difference between a poker player and a preacher, when a poker player prays he really means it) , but if they are that bad i see implied odds all over the place.
actually, this line of thinking, if followed by the average poker player, would ruin poker. if everyone played as tight, and with as much thought and reason as i recommend, nobody would make any money. what i have suggested goes against everything i have ever seen published, with the exception of hold em from flop to finish. they all say if the pot is multiway, play. i disagree. and i realize this is in direct contridiction to super systems and hfap. but this forum is not directed to average players, and ill take the good karma for getting the reader to give it some thought. actually i have most of the books almost mimirized and there are some parts that i disagree with, thats all about getting your own game plan, based of course on all the conditions that have been outlined so well in the publications. but my point is think about it. the odds arnt there. if it saves you a lot of bucks, thank me in the next life.
Post deleted at author's request.
OK, in your scenario you are paying multiple bets to see the flop, then collecting multiple bets when you hit, and from multiple players all the way.
In a truly loose, passive game, you only pay 1 bet to see the flop, unless you raise. Then, because the players are loose, they continue to call your bets on the flop, turn, and river. Thus, even if they won't raise you, you are still collecting from multiple players. However, since you only had to pay 1 bet to see the flop, the implied odds are the same as your game (just smaller stakes, in essence).
However, I see a lot more loose, passive games as I've described, then I see loose, aggressive games as you describe. Usually, if there is lots of preflop raising, there are not 7-8 players seeing the flop. And, I seldom manage to get in 4 bets after flopping the nuts in these games. I think that the loose, passive games are much more common at low limits than the game you describe.
Too bad I can't find more games like yours.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Post deleted at author's request.
Reraising with QQ is a more effective play than cold calling most of the time. I can't release QQ unless it's three bets to me in a tough game. You have about a 50% chance of catching a flop without an overcard to pocket queens, your main concern.
Post deleted at author's request.
Ok, you also play significantly tighter pre-flop than HPFAP advocates. Is this a deliberate decision to decrease your variance, or preferred style?
Post deleted at author's request.
You're that type of player then, which I find most difficult to read correctly. You're also right on target with the statement: "I'm much more interested in "these are the things you should take into consideration"." A well writen and accurate poker book from this perspective could conceivably forever change the way the game is played.
Post deleted at author's request.
Darrell,
Excuse the "Clintonesque" response. There are multi-way pots and there are multi-way pots. You're describing situations with about 4 or 5 players or maybe better described as "multi-way, non-family pots." What about "multi-way, family pot" situations or close to it? I guess my question is, is there a threshold that exists where the number of likely players involved makes it worth calling the raise cold?
Tom Haley
I have only a small amount of experience with hold'em, but I am starting to become involved. I have three choices: 4-8, 3-6, or 2-5-10. I became a little frustrated playing 2-5-10 because more people tended to pay the $2 and stay and then make "miracle" hands with low cards on the river (or even the flop I guess). It made it very difficult to really tell the best hand. If I have a hand worth playing in this game, should I raise it before the flop more than I would in the other games? This way, I could drive out people that had the odd hands. Or should I just get used to it? Probably, over the long run, more people are going to get out if I bet $10 after the fourth card than I think instead of trying to make some kind of miracle hand. It's just so damn frustrating when some turns over a 7 and 4 off-suit to make a full-house or something.
A thing you have to remember with a structure like 2-5-10 is that the implied odds for chasers go way up *if* there is always someone that pays them off if they hit their hand. Putting up $2 before the flop knowing that you'll get paid off for 2 $10 bets on the turn and the river if you hit your hand is actually correct poker. Of course playing 4-7 off is stretching it but you get the idea. So be careful who and when you pay people off.
I think raising with premium hands to narrow the field is still a good idea. If this just absolutely does not work because too many people play pre-flop regardless than you might want to think about manipulating the pot size a bit by trying to keep it relatively small by not raising. Then see what the flop and/or turn bring and then make people pay for their draws with bigger bets/raises. At that point they might get incorrect odds and you get the better of them. Or they may play correctly and fold and you have narrowed the field down to protect your hand. I would think about using this strategy especially if you are in late position or in the blinds after say 5-6 people had already limped in. If you are in early position and you can send people a $4 bet cold I definitely would do that.
When players aren't folding as often as you'd like (typical in low limit Hold'em), it becomes necessary to checkraise more than you would otherwise be inclined to. This may mean risking a player hitting a miracle card on the turn if it gets checked around, but is well worth it with a hand that needs to thin the field. If you do play a hand, bet or raise the maximum amount allowed at any decision point. In otherwords don't choose to bet 5 if you could bet 10 instead.
I've never played 2-5-10 before, so you can take what I have to say with a grain of salt, but . . .
In that structure, I would be much more inclined to play hands that have potential to make a monster. Hands like A-x suited, 8-9 suited, and pocket pairs get a lot better, while hands like A-J off should probably be thrown away a lot of the time, especially in early position and in multiway pots. A-J off may have the best of it before the flop and on the flop when the bets are small, but there is too much danger of making a pair and paying off big bets to flushes, straights, and trips on the turn and river.
And I would play a lot tighter on the flop. In normal hold'em, the pot tends to be large before the flop, so playing hands like top-pair-good-kicker strongly makes sense, because the times you win a medium-sized pot will more than make up for the times someone has a better hand and you lose a big one. But in 2-5-10-10, the upside on that hand is just not that big.
The other thing is, if you are losing because you pay people off, don't call so much! Be willing to get bluffed out. This is especially true in this structure, where the turn and river bets are large compared to the size of the pot. If you find yourself folding too many winners, you can loosen up again, but that is not your problem at present.
William
My best game is Omaha-8, and I'm now learning the game of pot-limit Omaha. Clearly only the strongest high-only hands can be played in a high/low split game, since you are playing for only half the pot in many cases. But many high hands are playable or even strong in pot-limit Omaha that would be considered worthless in Omaha-8. It suprised me to find that 8765 is a premium hand in PL Omaha. T986 is also very strong, and many experts like to go all-in before the flop with a hand like 9944.
In Omaha-8, the only high-only hands you even consider playing are aces, preferably suited or double suited, or four connected high cards, preferably including a pair of kings.
In Omaha-8, it often seems that random cards are winning the high side. But maybe these aren't random, and specific combinations are strong that better players would normally muck. There are many other factors in pot-limit Omaha, such as wanting hands with redraws (like in O-8), hands that make the absolute nuts, and looking for draws that will be favorites or near favorites against made hands on the flop. But in a very loose Omaha-8 game, a high hand with an expectation even slightly better than average might be very profitable in certain situations. (Especially considering that bad players take weak high draws too far and bet and raise with dry low draws)
Are there possibilities here?
Iceman,
Ill save you some real money in pot limit omaha throw away almost all time 9944. It is a very bad hand except when way in the back and no raise and bad players. There are no experts that play this hand strongly for its value period. The other two hands are marginal at best and only work when suited up and in situations where all the other players look like they have very high cards and you are in the back. They may play well head up in position against a non aggressive opponent. adjust your thinking now about omaha pot limit. Good Luck.
The important thing in pot-limit Omaha is position, stack size, implied odds, card reading and multi-way hands. Some of the connected hands you mentioned are valuable...and I sometimes raise with them, if I am in position and I feel I will not get re-raised. It is important to raise with a variety of hands, especially versus good players. This is not because you feel that you are in front...as a raise in a limit game or hold-em often is used...but because you want to add deception to your play. In this way the implied odds you might get if you hit a big flop may be massive, especially when a player reads you wrong.The hands you quoted were from Bob Ciaffone's and Stewart Rubens book...the situation with 9944 was very unusual, and if you read the play-by-play it becomes clear that pasing this hand was also recommended by the author. A better beginer's book is Ciaffone's first on Omaha.
Dave D
How many hours per week does one need to play poker to a: maintain level b: improve slightly c: improve greatly
20 hrs per week, 30, 40 ect..
What about away from the table reading about poker(mag, books, videos, newsgroups, or just thinking about or discussing poker with a fellow poker friend). How many hours need to be spent on these types of activities? a,b,c
Any thoughts? thanks
hardway8,
My goal is to improve greatly so I can't really comment on holding your own or improving slightly. When I play a lot of poker, I spend 15% to 50% of the time I spend at the tables away from the tables. I spend time on poker everyday even if I'm not playing a lot. Just like the game I guess.
Tom Haley
Depends on how much you've played each game. In only one game (stud) could I go without for a year and still be on my game. Other games I have to totally immerse myself into before playing (i.e., for everyone but Brunson, Baldwin, and Ungar, the no-limit satellites and super-satellites seem to be absolute necessities right before the WSOP even if you were planning to post the $10k).
Otherwise I read and think about strategy every day (I've got so many poker books strewn around the place that my wife has even taken to reading them occasionally). Concentration exercises such as chess and other card games don't hurt in keeping the mind sharp. While playing poker software, I use the poker simulators to compare hand values. Something I also use that might seem quirky but does help keep my mind sharp as far as making quick decisions is driving the Indycar simulator programs (I suspect that any video games requiring quick reaction all help keep your mind alert).
Bottom line though is that you need to play fairly regularly, and how much will vary depending upon your experience at each game. Conversely, it seems that there is also such a thing as playing too much; often at major tournaments many of the players look shell-shocked and beaten already. And they probably are; playing every day and absorbing a lot of bad beats even on winning days has to take its toll.
Balancing the pros and cons, if I had to take a guess at the optimum amount of weekly play, it would probably be somewhere around 3 days or 20-30 hours. Perhaps players would be better off factoring that value into their "BB/hour" calculation before turning pro.
I have some questions about starting hands. Should you play hands like QHJHJS10S, in raised pots, and should they be played from early position? Same hand with no suites. It seems to me that they are worth looking at the flop because if you miss you can get off the hand. In general what about high hands?
Question about betting and rasing drawing hands. Example: KQH23U(the first question is this a playable hand and when?) Flop is AH10H5S. Is it reasonable to bet or raise this hand on the flop.
It seems to me that Omaha-8 is a drawing game and you have to be willing to draw to big flops. Flopping the "nuts" in this game is not always good.
I sat in a game yesterday and won 1 pot in 3 hours. I floped the "nuts" 5 times and did not hold up once. These hands cost a lot of money. An example of on hand that maybe I am playing wrong. AQC25U, flop 3H5S7C. I have floped nut low with no back-up and no other outs. How should I play this hand, I raised on the flop, called the turn. The 2 comes on the river.
Regarding the QhJhJsTs, in general high only hands need better implied odds than hands that work at both ends since you have a lessor chance to hit the flop well but will do pretty good when you flop something. Therefore avoid this hand at the higher limits up front when you probably won’t get at least five-way action and it is often raised. At the lower limits in the typical loose-passive game it can be played anywhere. If the lower limit game has a lot of pre-flop capping it should be thrown away up front and be played in the middle or back only if you are going to get about six-way action. Prepare for some swings in this type of game. The value of the suits does not add much to this hand in a loose game since you need at least two cards to hit the flop to be drawing to the nuts (I may bet or pay off a back door flush). The flop you are hopping for is a set with a wrap for the straight and no flush draw against many opponents. Also note how much this hand drops in value if every card is dropped in rank by one value (JhThTs9s). In this case, most of your straights will only get half the pot when made.
The hand KhQh2x3x is definitely playable in back against several opponents preferably without a raise. I would want at least five opponents in an unraised pot and six opponents in a raised pot. I would avoid this hand in games where it probably would be capped. Up front I would want to figure at least one or two more opponents on average than I’m getting in back. This situation is rare except in the loosest and most passive games.
With that flop against loose players in a multi-way pot, I would put in almost unlimited action(nut flush draw, nut low draw, plus two inside straights). Against a short field of tighter/tougher players it would be more complicated. You make a huge pot when you win and you have many chances at it.
That Onaha is a drawing game is essentially correct. Flopping the vulnerable nuts with little else is about the worse place you can be in Omaha split unless heads-up.
For your last question I need more information for a detailed answer (e.g., how many opponents, how much action?) but in general you probably played correctly and just got unlucky. Note on the flop that you have back door flush potential and perhaps the board pairing fives will help you.
Play Tough,
Rick
This is definitely Ray Zee territory, but since I'm up this late, I'll take a crack at it. Main concept which guides my decisions in O-8 (buy the book High-Low Split for Advanced Players) is that you can't profitably play hands that don't have draws to the nuts.
The first hand, Qh-Jh-Js-10s, I play. I'm obviously looking to flop high with no lows. If the low comes and I don't catch perfect high with a lot of callers, I'm out of there. If I'm going to play a hand pre-flop, it doesn't usually matter to me if someone raises (of course, the guys I'm learning against are unlikely to raise since they think I'm a maniac because I'll often cap it pre-flop with a hand such as this). Before the flop, I don't worry about position much with this hand either. Finally, if it's unsuited, so much the better; if I miss the perfect straight or the top set, I can easily get away from the hand.
Second hand: Kh-Qh-2x-3x. Obviously it's playable because you have draws to both nuts. In fact, if the Ah hits on the flop with a suited card, you have draws to a scoop. Again, position and raises are not going to guide my decision-making before the flop. Your flop of Ah-10h-5s is perfect: I bet and raise till the river or I see a pair. Someone is going to win a big pot and chances favor me strongly (8 outs to nut high and low straights, 9 outs to the nut flush, and an additional 12 outs for the nut low (6-7-8)).
Third hand: Ac-Qc-2x-5x. It meets our criteria, so it's certainly playable preflop. Flop is 3h-5s-7c. You flopped the nut low, but you could easily be quartered, and someone may already have a straight, so the hand isn't as good as it looks. A lot of O-8 hands seem to work out where one player flops the nuts, the next player turns the nuts, and a different player rivers the nuts. It's the nature of the beast.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 September 1998, at 4:21 a.m.
My question is this: how do you reconcile the desire to bet as much as possible when you have the best of it (in order to maximise your returns, and dissuade your opponents from trying to draw out on you), with the desire to minimise the risk of losing all your chips? As an example, imagine you flop the nut straight, but think your opponent has made a set. Do you a) just bet, raise, and reraise on the flop and turn until you are all in (assuming the board doesn't pair on the turn)? Or do you b) check and call on the flop and turn, and wait until the river to jam it (again, assuming no pair on the board)? Obviously in a limit game you would bet and raise all the way until a scare card comes. But what is the optimum strategy in a pot limit, given that strategy a) may result in you putting in all your chips and then getting sucked out on; and strategy b) seems far too timid? (Presumably best play lies somewhere in between)
In other words, does anyone have any thoughts on how someone with a small stack should balance risk control with the desire to maximise profits on his/her good hands, in pot limit (and no limit) holdem? Are there any books which provide good coverage of this topic?
Matt
Matt,
You write:
>>My question is this: how do you reconcile the desire to bet as much as possible when you have the best of it (in order to maximise your returns, and dissuade your opponents from trying to draw out on you), with the desire to minimise the risk of losing all your chips? As an example, imagine you flop the nut straight, but think your opponent has made a set. Do you a) just bet, raise, and reraise on the flop and turn until you are all in (assuming the board doesn't pair on the turn)? Or do you b) check and call on the flop and turn, and wait until the river to jam it (again, assuming no pair on the board)?<<
I respond:
You want your opponent to make the mistake that will cost your opponent the most money. This depends on:
1) The money in the pot. 2) The size of your stack. 3) The size of your opponent's stack. 4) Your opponent's hand. 5) Your hand. 6) How well you have read your opponent. 7) How well your opponent has read you. 8) Knowledge of how your opponent plays.
If your playing pot limit I don't think that you should hesitate to get your chips in the center if this is the play that will make you the most money.
>>Obviously in a limit game you would bet and raise all the way until a scare card comes.<<
I don't think that this is necessarily the case. How you play your hand depends on a lot of the factors I previously mentioned.
>>But what is the optimum strategy in a pot limit, given that strategy a) may result in you putting in all your chips and then getting sucked out on; and strategy b) seems far too timid? (Presumably best play lies somewhere in between)<<
As I stated previously, if option a) is the right play you should make it. Option b) isn't necessarily too timid. A lot depends on your opponent IMO.
>>In other words, does anyone have any thoughts on how someone with a small stack should balance risk control with the desire to maximise profits on his/her good hands, in pot limit (and no limit) holdem? Are there any books which provide good coverage of this topic? <<
With a small stack in pot limit or no-limit it seems that you would be less concerned about getting all of your chips in the center. There are several books that discuss big be poker. Bob Ciaffone has co-authored an excellent one. There is a book written by T.J. Cloutier regarding big bet Hold'em Tournament play. Of course Super System by Doyle Brunson has a large section about no-limit play. Perhaps Earl could shed a little light on this question.
Tom Haley
It's a shame Doyle Brunson doesn't come around here much. But for what it's worth, here's my view, which has been refined courtesy of Bob Ciaffone and TJ Cloutier (incidentally, Ciaffone is the guest tomorrow on the Cardplayer chat session).
To my way of thinking, this is actually a classic scenario: a made hand (the straight) versus a draw (the set). Usually this discussion focuses on the opposite scenario, a flush or straight draw against a made hand such as top pair, 2 pair or set.
What Matt asks is truly a critical question in big-bet poker: when do you want to get your money all out in the middle? The key element in deciding how to bet is "how much money is in front -- of both players."
"Risk control" is not really a consideration. However, it is true that with a small stack, you are in much worse shape as far as being able to protect your hand in big-bet poker. This is because usually the crucial "protection bet" in pot-limit occurs on the turn. Thus if I had to fashion a play to protect a hand with a small stack, I'd try to keep the pot relatively small on the flop and make a move on the turn.
With the beaten set, you would be better off if you and your opponent had approximately as much in front as is in the pot, so you could try to get all your money in the middle on the flop. If there's a lot of money in front of you on the turn, you are then in much worse shape than if you could have got it all-in on the flop.
For a beaten set on the flop, with 7 outs and 2 draws at it, you are approximately 2-1 dog, but this is also what the pot is offering (not counting implied odds). But if you both still had a lot of money in front on the turn, you would not be able to call a second pot-size bet since you no longer have anywhere near pot odds (more than 4-1 against).
With the straight or flush, if I KNEW my opponent had flopped a set, I would usually (depending upon my opponents and deception factors) make a pot-size bet on the flop, BUT only in the event I could be assured of being able to follow-up with another pot-size bet on the turn.
Although your opponent appears to be getting the proper odds to call the flop bet, he'll have to lay down his draw to the turn bet (now he's only getting a 2-1 price on a 4.5-1 chance). Even better, if he's pot-stuck, and particularly with a set, he'll likely have to call off all his chips where he's a big dog on the turn.
If you get sucked out on after making your opponent take the worst of it, well, that's why they call it gambling.
Ray Zee pointed out that I've mangled some numbers here for the set: On the turn, since you now have 10 outs, the actual price is 3.6 to 1 (36 to 10) against filling the set (if you know your opponents hole cards, it is 3.4). Even at that price, it's obvious that you can't be calling a pot size bet on the turn with ONLY a draw and no other outs.
You seem to be concerned with going broke, as opposed to maximizing your profit. If that's the case, then PL probably isn't what you should be playing.
I like to play PL with a short stack. However, I play to maximize my profit (I hope). If I go broke, then I pull more money out of my wallet, and buy some more chips. If I have no more money to buy chips, then this was too big of a game, and I shouldn't be playing it in the first place.
If you're only concerned with maximizing profit, then it all has to do with who your opponent is, what he currently thinks of you, the exact strength of your hand, the texture of the board, etc.
Let's say that you hold JcTs, your opponent has KK, and the flop is AcKcQh. If you jam now, you're sure that your opponent will go all-in with you (i.e., he won't fold). You are a clear favorite, and have a certain +EV from this play.
Now, let's say that you wait until the turn card to jam. If the turn is a nothing card, again your opponent won't let go of his set, and you can get all of your money in. This should give you a better chance of winning, as now your opponent only has 1 card left to draw out on you. But wait, what if the turn card is a club, a J, or a T? Now, there is either a 3-flush or a 4-straight on board. Will your opponent still put all of his chips in the middle, or will he fold when you jam? If so, you will lose a lot of money when one of these scare cards hits. In this scenario, there are 15 such scare cards that might cause your opponent to back down, or 1/3 of the deck. Thus, if most of the money has still not gotten into the pot, then waiting for the turn card might cost you more than putting it all in on the flop and giving your opponent that extra draw to beat you.
The same logic applies on the river. There are still 15 scare cards left, assuming none has hit on the turn. So again, if you wait until the river, your opponent has no draw left. However, will he pay you off now that he has no hope of turning his set into a full-house? Many folks will call you on the flop, because they have 2 things going for them. First, they might be ahead. Second, if they're behind, the have a good draw. With only the first thing left on the river, many will now fold, as they give you enough credit to have the straight that calling your jam is unprofitable.
Of course, there are many other judgments that you need to make to maximize your play of such situations. These are just a few of the important ones.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Final table of a 5 table tournment. 4200 prise money. 50% for first. 300 chips in play I have 60. I am sb, button raises all in with 18 chips. With KQC I call. BB raises me all in. Should I call. I pose this question with out all of the circumstances, I would like to know what the consenses is about KQ suited, is it a strong enough hand to play. My next post will provide the circumstances which have a lot to do with my decison at the table.
There are five players left and the pay out is to four. We have made a deal that everone gets $400 and we are playing for the 2200 basied on orginal split. I can pick-up $220 if I fold and the button is eliminated. If I call and win I will have a huge chip lead. I felt about 95% (I have played with this player many times) sure that the bb would raise with a big A at the very least and more than likely a pocket pair. I was wearing my skirt. The hand makes a club flush. The bb had a pair of J and the JC came on the river to make him a set.
Post deleted at author's request.
No-limit holdem, ten players, blinds of 5-10, no ante.
In all situations:
Player A holds TT in third position.
Player B holds AKo on the button.
Player C holds AQs in the BB.
Situation 1: Each player has $10000 in front of them.
A should open for $30. Raising should be preferable to limping here, since you want to build the pot in case you do hit your set. With an intermediate pocket pair, you don't want to just get the blind money, but most flops will miss you, and you can't really play when there is a likely higher pair out there on the flop. Overbetting is not in order, since you want a caller or two, and you would have to fold to a large reraise.
B should fold. This hand is no good in a raised pot. At best, you will bet a top pair on the flop and take the small pot. There is only a 1/3 chance of your getting top pair on the flop, and if you are check-raised or bet into on the flop, you have a difficult situation. This might be different if your opponent tended to overplay suited aces and hands like AJo in early position, since you might have some potential to win good money on the flop.
If B called, C should call. This is a strong drawing hand, and you have the optimal position, since you want the raiser to have to bet through the field into you when you have a draw, so that you can see if the preflop raiser's bet on the flop gets raised (and you can bluff if the raiser and everyone else check). The implied odds are certainly good in this situation. A small reraise might also be good, since A might rereraise if he has a monster.
If B folds, C should fold. You don't want to play a draw out of position, since you won't get paid if you hit, and when the money is this deep, you can't move in on the flop, so A can shut you out on the turn.
Situation 2: A has only $400. B has $400. C has $400.
A should open for a small raise, like $30 to go. If reraised $100, A would have to consider folding, since that a reraise of that fraction of a stack is likely to be a strong hand. There is only a 16% chance of there being a better hand than TT out there, but it still might be too risky to call a large reraise. TT is a good double-through hand, and limping would make the pot on the flop too small for that.
B should now raise. When holding AKo, the chance of AA or KK being out there is only 4%. A $70 raise will make the pot on the flop large enough that a raise will put B all-in. This raise reduces the implied odds of drawing hands to the point where they should not call. If the raise is called, B would have enough left to protect top pair on the flop by slightly overbetting the pot.
C now has a fold. With a raise and reraise, the bet is now 1/4 of the stack, so there are insufficient implied odds for a draw. Furthermore, such a draw does not want to play out of position. If C flopped a decent draw with 1/4 of her money in the pot, a check by her would just be checked again, so that her draw could be shut out (or folded to) on the turn. If she bet, she would have to be willing to go all-in with a 1/3 or so chance of winning. (And betting 1/4 of her stack to see if she can flop a draw with that 1/3 chance.)
A would probably call a $70 raise. The chances of flopping a set are about 1/8. With two players in for $30, and $15 in blinds, the pot is $145 after the $70 raise. B has $300 left. So the bet is $70 to win $445. While the odds aren't exactly right looking only at the set draw, TT can also make an overpair or win unimproved if B does not have a higher pocket pair. If B would reraise with hands other than high pocket pairs, the call would probably be correct.
Situation 3: Each player has $100.
A would make it $30 to go. This hand is strong enough to go all-in with and the chance of a higher hand being out there is small. B would reraise all-in. When the blinds are high relative to the stacks, the chance of A not having a strong hand is greater than when the money is deep. As before, the chance of AA or KK being out there is small. With the possibility of a fold by a bluff, the decent chance against most pocket pairs, and the domination of AQ or AJ, this would probably be a good move. It would be possible to just call and see the flop, but the leftover money would not be enough to shut out a draw, and more hands calling would make AK much less likely to win.
C would pass. There is no reason to risk your entire stack when there is a high probability that there is a strong hand out there due to the reraise. With AQs, you want to see the flop to evaluate your draw. AQs is probably about 50-50 against lower pocket pairs, hopeless against AA,KK,QQ or AK, and strong only against AJ among the probable opponent hands.
A would call the reraise all-in. Now A is betting $70 to win $145. A only needs to worry about AA, KK, QQ and JJ, against all of which he has about a 20% chance. If AK or AQ is a possible opponent holding, A has a 50% chance against those hands, and a lower pocket pair will be dominated by A.
Is the above correct? Any comments are greatly appreciated.
You have identified a major difference between limit and no-limit. In no-limit you need to be aware of the size of your stack relative to your opponents and relative to the size of the blinds.
If you have a small stack relative to the blinds, say $100 or less in a game with blinds of $5 and $10, then AKo is a big hand. If you have a big stack but the player who raised has a small stack then AKo is a big hand.
If you have a big stack and the raiser is a solid player with a big stack then AKo is marginal at best. You will tend to win small pots and lose big ones.
Fold AQ suited? No way regardless of whether player B folded or not. By the way If I was player C I would raise player A so much that I would find out how much courage he had with TT. Doyle would raise with less and win!
In Texas hold-em,if I raise after the flop in late position holding a flush draw in a multiway pot,what should I consider in deciding whether to bet or take a free card when the turn card is a blank and the action is checked to me?
Do you think you can steal the pot on the river if you don't make your flush and nobody improves!
Wenatchee Max
David,
You bet it if you will get more or equal the number of callers as your chances of winning the hand. Example, say you feel your chances are 4 to1 against making the best hand you need to get four callers to break even on the bet. Other things to consider: will you get checked raised, can you get paid off more on the end by betting or more by checking and betting after your hand is made, by betting on 4th street can it improve your chances of winning by catching an overcard, will a bet on 4th enable you to bluff on the end, by betting with come hands in marginal situations sometimes makes other players unable to read you in the future. Also can you handle larger swings in your results without now playing poorly. Good Luck.
(HFAP, p. 28) "Assume you are in the (live) big blind and no one else has raised. In this situation, you should usually raise only with extremely good hands. Remember, one of the reasons to raise in late positions is to help you to take control of the pot. However, this is much harder to do when you are first to act on the flop."
An exception is given for the case when there are one or two late limpers.
But in an unraised pot, you have the best of it with certain strong hands other than AA and KK, and there seem to be several reasons to raise. There are two types of playable hands: hands (given the hands of your opponents) with above-average value over the sum of all flops, and hands which are not above-average in value overall, but which can get into situations where they are very profitable. Hands in the latter category would then want to get in cheaply, to see if they hit those situations. Hands in the first category would seek to generally get as much money behind them when they have the advantage. So when you have a hand with a preflop advantage, you might want to charge the draws an extra bet even if it won't get you checked to on the flop. 87s or A5s or 22 do not want to put in more money preflop when they are at the disadvantage. While a larger pot makes it more difficult to narrow the field on the flop when your AK makes top pair or your QQ makes an overpair, you usually can't get the better draws out anyway. Players tend not to throw away straight or flush draws. The slightly increased chance of winning from being able to kick out gutshots or middle pair might be outweighed by the benefit from charging marginal hands more preflop. Also, your raise might encourage weak draws to stay in, and if you dominate them, (or if other draws dominate them) this is to your great advantage.
Another issue in the blinds is how to handle play without information. Everyone folds to the SB, who raises. How do you play your hand, considering that it will cost you 6 SB (three hours' profit) to see the river? Clearly, it is important how that player tends to play in steal and SB situations. If he normally asks to chop and doesn't, that is a factor. But if you have a decent heads-up hand, then how do you proceed?
Let me throw this out: When playing the big blind, sometimes you are going to want to resteal on the flop by betting out or check-raising. If you are usually on a steal when doing this, you aren't going to be very successful. So, a case can be made for never raising pre-flop from the big blind in limit hold-em, so that sometimes you can show AA, or AKs afterwards.
What?
Wenatchee Max
This is almost purely a situation of playing the player. Even if you suspect that the sb has a good hand, better than yours, doesn't automatically mean you should fold. You want to learn how the sb plays after the flop, etc.
For example, let's say you have something decent like KJ. You suspect that the the sb has something like a medium to big pair, or a good A (AT or better). However, you don't need to outflop the sb, if he's capable of folding after the flop if it misses him and you put in a bet or raise. Thus, when the flop comes Q84, you only need to fear AA, KK, QQ, or AQ, if the sb will lay down an unimproved A or a pair that may now be beaten to your action.
Some players will play 44 like it's AA in these spots. Since you have little bluff equity against these opponents, they are tougher to outplay when you don't make a hand yourself.
There's a limitless supply of possible scenarios. You just need to learn your opponent's tendencies, and try to maximize your advantage. If this person can simply outplay you, don't let your ego get in the way, and give up more hands to his raise.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
Very good post. This is how the great shorthanded high stakes players treat these situations and if more players thought like you I would have to stay up here in Montana all year long. Good Luck.
Ray:
You just let our secret out. Now everyone will know why we spend so much time on this forum.
i challange you to a game of poker!!
I accept! But it's gonna be no-limit or limit Hold'em!
Will the play of AA, KK, or AKs with the exception of the button and one seat to the right of the button, which includes, QQ, JJ, TT, AK, and AQs and of course calling an unraised big blind, lead to a winning strategy as long as the rest of your game is good?
No way unless you are playing total suckers. You have too loosen up at least a little bit more. Add other poket pairs,middle suited connectors to that list. There is a lot more then that however. Read some good books to learn more. By the way I tried that method at first in 3-6 and take from me, no way!
I think you have part of it correct. You should definitely play strong cards. No one will argue that. However, if you only played the hands you're describing, you'd be playing 22 hands out of 1,326 possible starting two card combinations. That amounts to roughly 1.66% of the time in which you'd be involved before the flop. It would cost you an awful lot in blinds to sit in the game. I'm assuming you play $5-$10 hold'em, you're dealt 20 hands per hour, and you play 8 hours. It would cost you approximatley $110 to play the way you're suggesting. Like a ROCK. If you have lots of time to waste, play no ante low stakes 7 stud poker. Use the strategy you described and you'll make SOME money. Now, when you only play those cards, your observant opponents will realize this. They will know what cards you're holding and will know exactly how to play against you. Players will limp in with marginal cards and hope to flop a monster and break you. I'm assuming that once you see the flop, you're calling 'till the river. (Unless you know with certainty that you're beat.) For example if you are UTG and you raise with AA, you might get someone calling you with 22 and he's hoping to flop a set, otherwise he'll throw away his hand 'cause he'll know you have him beat. The most you win from him is $10. However, if the flop comes x x 2, you'll be a big underdog to lose a big pot. If you get raised on the turn, you'll lose $45. Not a winning propostion. If everyone plays this way against you, expect to go broke quickly. Ideally, you want the situation reversed. You want to risk losing the least and winning the most. You want to be the person flopping a set and taking down a monster pot. If you didn't play small pairs, you'd be giving up on alot of those opportunities. I recommend you read Hold'em Poker:For Advanced Players and The Theory of Poker, both should be excellent investments if used wisely. Good luck.
Please excuse this question if it seems ridiculous. I am relatively new to money poker playing, although I have been making a living a blackjack for several years now.
It occurs to me as I read the varous texts on Hold'em, that it might be possible to develop a counting system to evaluate whether you are getting the best of it in pre-flop betting. What I envison, e.g., is a "point count" that awards points to certain combinations of hands factoring in their value, position, raisers, etc. I am aware that much of poker strategy cannot be quantified like blackjack can, but I wonder if anyone has done any work in this regard.
Sincerely,
RM
Forget about it. It's been tried before and it's been proven a losing strategy.
Rainman,
It is natural for a blackjack player to think like you do. A good poker player will "count" intuitively also taking into account other factors such as likelihood of stealing or type of opponent. It has been said that perfect preflop play (with fairly good play thereafter) will only make for a breakeven player. This, however, should not dissuade you from pursuing this subject - at worst you will benefit from all the thinking about the game that necessarily accompanies such an analysis, and at best you may just end up the new Dr. Thorp of hold'em.
Etienne
I doubt that you could develop or benefit from a shortcut counting system without a thorough understanding of position, game tempo, opponents, image, etc. But once you knew how to integrate these factors you wouldn't need a counting system. Holdem just doesn't lend itself to the rigid application of fixed rules. On the other hand, I imagine that players could better fine-tune their play based on more computer analyses of the first two cards, such as comparing the same hands in the third and sixth position after the blinds, or how one should play when the pot is likely to be raised twice or just once. See Abdul Jalib's posts on computer simulations.
In blackjack you are playing your cards according to the state of the deck or decks. in poker you are playing your cards according to your opponents playing styles. Although there are certainly basics of how you play certain starting hands, you would have to assign certain hands different points based on posisition and how your opponents play. these areas of the game have not yet fully been defined. Starting hand strategys have been based on probability theory and some computer simulations, as well as the experts opinions. If accurate player profiles can be developed, and the testing points to specific profitable strategies, then you will probably need some kind of point system that defines the different strategies, in order to simplify it. i think we have a fairly long way to go yet.
Ray,
What is the biggest mistake you have ever made in a big side action game?
Can you tell us the story?
John,
I am well known for playing in good games and being able to quit at the proper time. But if I could do it all over again, I would have played in alot less bad games or played too long a session. Ive tried to keep track and I believe even though all the long sessions Ive ever played were in great games, I probably didnt make enough to justify it. By going to sleep and coming back fresh even if I now missed the end of the game it would have been much better financially. Too many players play late in bad games or play without sleep then sleep thru a good game the next day. The real money in poker comes from putting the knowledge to work in the best spots. Good Luck.
How good is 2+2's book on tourny strategies? I have read 1 negative review on the net but that person was someone who I don't know. I would like to hear one from a regular on this forum and from 2+2 as long as it's honestly not biased!
I've written a book review on the 2+2 tournament strategy book. It can be found at:
http://www.jetcafe.org/~npc/reviews/gambling/poker_tournament_strategies.html
The summary at the end of this review is included:
This is a fairly short book that will be of use to the inexperienced low level poker tournament player. The information it contains seems quite accurate, and there are a few good ideas within. While this may be the single best book on poker tournament strategy in print, there is still considerable headroom for a better one.
I am a full time recreational poker player. I play six days per week, for a total of 40 to 50 hours. I play small tournaments, ( $15.00 to $300.00 buy-ins) at least six times per week. My net win money games are 3-6 stud/8 or better, 15-30 lowball and Mexican Poker 4-8 and no limit. In tournaments, I prefer no limit Hold-em, but play lowball as well. The only reason I don't consider myself a professional is that I don't depend on my poker winnings to support myself. I have looked at my game, which is constantly improving, and I know which games and tournaments I have an edge entering or playing in. I try to learn by watching players who are better than I. I have gotten past the uncertainty stage where I wonder if I will be a net winner overall as long as I stay in my area of current competence. I don't feel any attraction in pitting my skills against any of the "Superstars". My goal is to continually improve my game and to get competent in limit Hold-em. I read poker books, Card Player, RGP and this forum and experiment during tournaments with different ideas I've read or thought about. My main edge, as I see it, is not playing above my ability in higher limit games. I see many players whose fatal leak is not being able to accept that their ability is a few notches below the competition they are drawn to play against.
John,
You act like a pro, play the hours like a pro, study like a pro, think like a pro, talk like a pro, if you are a recreational player im a duck. Good Luck.
Ray,
I am a recreational player; My poker pays for my children's recreation. Thanks for the post, it Quacked me up. 8<))...
Great post! I agree with Ray Zee's comments. To some degree I may be one of those players you alluded to in your last sentence. I like the action at the $10-20 and $15-30 level and can afford it but while not completely incompetent am not a consistant winner which is frustrating because poker is a serious hobby for me. I don't have the time to devote to playing and learning that you do but when I retire from my career I'd like to and understand what goes into intelligent and sucessful card playing even if I'm not at that level now. I play in the east (Conn/AC) and at the $5-10 level there, the action is like watching water boil. I don't need no fold-em type of action but find play at the $10 and $15 level games more stimulating and true to form. Maybe I answered my own question and should just develop the true grit to sit and be bored at $5-10 until I have it nailed down. Whadaya think? Also can you expound a little more about knowing which particular games and tournmanents you think you have an edge at and how you came to understand this.
Bundo,
One thing I have learned from this forum and RGP, is that game selection REALLY makes the difference in your earn. I spent over two months watching the no limit Mexican poker action at the Bicycle Club before I ever sat down in the game and played a hand. I observed unobtrusively from different positions on the rail, sometimes for five minutes or less, other times for up to an hour. By the time I did sit in, I knew a lot about the tendencies of some regular players, like who would gamble and who only bet when they knew they were ahead. I saw people who could be pushed off a pot and others who would call if they felt they had any chance at all. It got me off to a flying start and I haven't looked back. If you are willing to put more of yourself into poker than your competition is, you will be a winner. I enjoy the progress that I am seeing in my game, and my better results are a natural extension of that progress. Someone recently commented on this forum or RGP that in time you will look back and marvel that you ever thought you knew how to play poker in the past. That happens to me regularly. I am much better at many aspects of play today than I was six months ago, but know that six months from now I'll look back and wonder how I ever thought I was even minimally competent today. Learning about the games of poker is a lifelong process and that is the challenge and the joy of it. You'll never get anywhere near the point of total mastery of the game. Studying and playing poker has made me more thoughtful about my life in general. In the past month, some of my most satisfying moments have come after being knocked out of a tournament and realizing that I played flawlessly considering my current limitations of ability as a player. If you play for four or five hours and look back with no regrets about how you managed your bets, raises calls and folds, you can take satisfaction without regard to the possibly negative payout result.
everything that can be said about poker has been said. today people are just saying it in many different ways.
This question is mostly for Mason and David, but of course everyone is welcome to join in.
The question is, what will be the ideas defining the cutting edge of poker thinking and theory in 5-10 years?
I was thinking about how much interesting new thought has come out in the last 10 years.
David or Mason, assuming you continue to be interested in pushing the frontiers of expert play, what will you be writing about in the future?
The other night I was in a 4-8 Hold'em game and was delt a 6s and 8's. I had good middle to late position, but by the time the betting got to me the raising had been capped. Some of the players at the table were loose...but some of the rocks were even in on the raising and re-raising. I was about to throw my hand away but decide to sat in to see the flop( does this sound like the correct play?)
The flop had 10s 7s and 3s , I had a flush made on the flop. At this point I am happy that I stayed in there were no raises but when it came to me I raised, another player that I had pegged for a rock started to raise, I figured that this woman had hit a flush too, but higher than mine then I called the next card came on the turn it was a 9d. I had figred that that nine made a straight in another players hand. 4 players were left . the first player Checked to the woman, SHE CHECKED, and had me confused, but the next player Opened and I called. The first player called and she re-raised. I am now thinking about folding cause she check-raised, ( Would folding be a good play?} but when the next player folded, I decided to re-raise to see if I could get her out. They both called and I thought I was fried chicken cause I knew they had flushes too at this point and my flush was pretty small allthough I still had an out....KInd of a long out but there was the chance of 9s showing on the river. The river came and I would be dammed that 9s showed! I am a pretty new to playing poker have read a few books, but Would a check raise have been good in this situation? I knew If I checked that she would definitly open...So I tried it and the walked in to the trap {what could have been another good Play?} I re-raised and then it was capped. It work out great for me, they both had flushs the woman had A-J and the other player had K-4. I cant belive I allmost Muked the hand on the turn.But I thought about that hand a lot when I got home that night cause If I didnt catch that 9 on the river I would have had to fold... and lost quite a bit of money. I thought I would ask some of you to give me your Idea of this hand.....Thanks
I was about to throw my hand away but decide to sat in to see the flop( does this sound like the correct play?)
>Under NO circumstances should you call multiple bets with >this hand unless you like giving money away.
I figured that this woman had hit a flush too, but higher than mine then I called the next card came on the turn it was a 9d.
>Under normal circumstances, I would put bettors and raisers >on big pairs (with a spade). The fact that a K4s was still >in the hand after the pot was capped is strange. Someone >had to have a decent preflop hand to cause the pot to be >capped. None of the hands mentioned are.
I had figred that that nine made a straight in another players hand.
>Quite unlikely. Most people (even loose players) do not >play 8J or 68 in capped pre-flop pots.
Would a check raise have been good in this situation? I knew If I checked that she would definitly open...So I tried it and the walked in to the trap {what could have been another good Play?}
>It probably does not matter here with these players! The >fact that the AJs was raising with a full house on the >table and that K4s is still calling all these bets makes me >wanna play wherever it is this game is being spread.
I re-raised and then it was capped. It work out great for me, they both had flushs the woman had A-J and the other player had K-4.
>Your read on other player being a rock was quite off the >mark I would say.
Chuck,
Thanks for the advice, I really thought I was in a hand I had no bisnuess being In. I need to learn these situations...Where I play there seems to be a lot of players who will raise and re-raise on a regular basis and then fold on the turn or after they see the river. I am confused by some of the play at this table. That is one thing about poker that I can not understand, why would people just throw away money?
Thanks again JAY
My standard deviation for 10-20 is about $260 an hour. I feel that this is too high. I am a winning player. About $10 an hour.
What are some specific things I can do to (1. lower my standard deviation and (2. Increase my win rate?
Thankyou.
Fold more often.
I'm a little further along than a beginer 3-6 Holdem player. I usually find myself playing against regulars who overall play better than I do after the flop. This is really not that much of a problem since in the games I've played in, even the regulars play very poorly before the flop. (If there's a 3-6 holdem player in Tunica Miss. who understands that hold'em is a postional game I haven't met him.)
Because I am often playing high starting cards I frequently find myself with two non-paired overcards to a rags flop. Previously, I would try to bet out if I was UTG or if it was checked to me. My thinking was this was a good semi-bluff since I do have 6 outs to make an overpair. This just hasn't worked for me.
Now I just check and fold when I am in this situation. I think that's the right thing to do in these loose passive games. The bluff part of this semi- bluff just doesn't work. Time and time again someone will call to the river with a bottom pair. If my caculations are right, I'm a 3:1 dog to make an overpair by the river. Even when I do make the overpair, I'm frequently shown something like 37 suited that makes two pair with a 3, 7 ten rainbow board.
I think I'm personally better off just letting AK, KQ go in these situations. Obviously, I'm not sure though. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Byron Curtner
As a rule of thumb you should play many of these hands when you also have a backdoor flush or maybe even a backdoor straight possibility.
You seem to be a player who has been doing some thinking about the game. You made a valid point by stating that a semibluff only works if your opponent sometimes lays his hand down. Someone who calls a $3 bet on the flop with bottom pair when the size of the pot does not justify it, is a losing player. Save your semi-bluffs for when you have additional outs such as straight draws and flush draws. Otherwise, give up on your bluffs. It seems to me that you're playing with calling stations and the only way to take their $$$ is to show them a better hand. Bet your good hands for value.
You should also consider the texture of the flop, as Mason and David point out in HPFAP. Even your no-fold-em players will be more likely to play 9-8 than, say 9-5, so be more inclined to call with a flop of 9-5-2 than 9-8-2. (The 9-8 also allow for more straight draws.) Also, somewhat paradoxically, I would be less inclined to call with more players either already having called or still yet to act. In your no-fold-em game a turn card that make you top pair may well make another player two pair if a lot of them are still around.
I appreciate the responses to my question. They are very helpful.
Thanks,
Byron
You'll save a lot of money by checking AK when rags flop and folding them when someone bets. You should sometimes bet the AK to rags if it doesn't look like the flop can help small or medium connectors, but for the most part "fit or fold"
I am still having some difficultys on figuring pot odds...can anybody tell me what I can do to figure pot odds? Or a publication that explanes pot odds well?
Thanks in advance
Walleye,
There's a clear and thorough explanation of pot odds in "The Theory of Poker" by David Sklansky together with examples. You will also find countless examples in past posts - just do a search on "pot odds".
Etienne
Mike,
We discussed this somewhat earlier, look in the archives you may beable to find it. It was fairly recent. Good Luck.
I used the search in the archives w/ the keywords folded and remember. In case anyone else wants to know. -Late.
Could you give me the author's name that started the discussion? I am having a hard time finding it, and would very much like to see what was said. The date, too, would be appreciated.
Thanks.
I used the search in the archives w/ the keywords folded and remember. In case anyone else wants to know. -Late.
UTG raised and I reraised in the next seat with AKs. Everybody else folded and I ended up losing the hand. The table captain of the evening stated loudly that "everyone raises/reraises with AK but its not a hand only gives you a good draw" which I don't disagree with. I think however,my reraise in an early spot was a valid play because I wanted to get as many subsequent players as possible out of the pot. I realize that UTG raised with a strong hand but if I flopped top pair I didn't want to see 10-6o etc. draw out on me. whadduya think?
Your logic is incorrect. One of the reasons you raise or reraise with AK is to limit the field so that you can frequently win without improving. The idea that AK is a drawing hand and should be played as such is extremely flawed.
Mason,
I certainly look on AK as a drawing hand, and a very strong one. If you raise in hopes of winning the pot without improving, how large a pot are you expecting to win? I raise because if it hits, I'm going to play it strong to the river unless someone does something to slow me down. I will only win a big pot with it when it hits, as I'll probably lay it down to a bet otherwise.
You raise because you believe that your overall expectation is higher than calling or folding. If raising allows you to sometimes win the pot without improving whereas calling will not or at least not nearly as often, then that is a reason to raise. It is not your only reason for raising, and it is not what you are necessarily hoping will happen. But in many situations, with a hand like AK it should be enough to swing your decision.
mason is right of course, but as someone that has played his share of limit hold em perhaps i may share a thought. i normaly dont reraise, and i dont raise unless 2 players are in the pot. most limit pots will be multiway regaredless of you making it three bets. the odds against your hitting top pair is 2 to one. im willing to take on the whole field with an ace or king, because its much harder for your opponits to hit a draw if you have part 0f the flop tied up. ie if you had a pair of rockets and your opponetd had a pair and a straight draw thats much worse then if you had onethird ofthe folp tied up. i generally try to go for a large pot with top pair top kicker, and i take my chances with top pair top kicker. you would be surprised at the number of times top pair stands up against the field.
Post deleted at author's request.
Re-raising in this spot is usually correct. The game is not bad if you can win on the flop without improving. The idea of re-raising is to show strength and take control. The odds are against either player improving, so if you have shown strength pre-flop, you are likely going to be checked to if the raiser didn't improve, and you can bet out. If you just called, then you are giving the raiser the go ahead to bet the flop whether or not he improved. Then the pressure is on you, and you will be the one folding because you didn't hit a hand. You have to give yourself the best shot at winning the pot, IF YOU ARE GOING TO PLAY THE HAND. Darrel, and Gary, might be right in small limit games where a raise has less meaning, but at 15-30 and up, this, in my opinion,is proper strategy.
Dayton?????I wasn't sure where Dayton was so I looked it up and found it's a sleepy little working man's town in southern Ohio.I then clicked on the "proudest moments in Dayton history"this is what I got.1900:someone plants a cornfield,1901:someone built a factory.The End. I can just picture Darrell Danfield rushing to the local armory for Friday night poker after putting in yet another double shift at the plant.Sitting down with a table full of Joe Lunchpails in there dickey brand coveralls with there dent proof thermoses guzzling can after can of Stroh's. Opening his chained to his belt wallet that his wife(I don't know if there related)got him for his 10th anniversary at the plant he pulls out $100,he just knows he has the best of it.6 hours and $400 later (another hard earned paycheck blown)he spitefully looks across the table at Cletus,the guy who once ran for 75 yards against Massillon and coulda been a buckeye if he hadn't lost 3 fingers in that farming accident,as he pulls in another $40 pot. Hey Darrell,stop screwing with me and mind your own damn buisness you shit kickin hick!Now go sober up,don't you have to punch in at 4 A.M.
I will generally not raise with AK in early position. I've done some computer simulations with AK played to the river and I found that the return on each dollar bet increases with the number of players (an iteresting note: pocket 2 will win more times heads up against AKu if both are played to the river). I may raise if I am up against a lot of calling stations or I want to take control of the betting at an early stage.
I've seen this claim several times recently and it is wrong. In my book POKER ESSAYS VOLUME II there is an essay entitled "A Few Simulations" which compares ATo to a pair of deuces. First I show that the pair will win more often than AT heads up but give an argument why the AT is the better hand. (You can bluff)
Then I show that in a large multiway pot AT will win more often than the pair of deuces but argue that the pair of deuces is the better hand in this spot. (It either flops a set which is highly profitable or you get out quickly.)
Post deleted at author's request.
Simulations solely based on hands that play to the river are close to useless. Simulations that use player profiles that fold etc. well before the river will give you a much more reliable look at hand profitability.It is fairly obvious why AK would show a larger profit with more players if every hand was played to the river. If you are playing in no foldem type games where a raise has very little value, then limping would have an argument, but even then raising is better because you want to get more money in the pot. Non aggressive pre-flop strategies do not fair well in holdem. Aggression is definately the key, as you will find as you play more, and at higher levels. good luck
Thanks for the comment. I agree that agression is the key to profitable play and I will often raise for that agrresive edge (depending on the players). However, I have found (at least in my usual game) that agression on and after the flop is more effective. If I catch that top pair, I can take control. Second pairs and draws follow along. I like agression when the percentage is in my favour.
Finally, I am not saying that a pre flop raise UTG with AK is not the right play. I think it depends on the situation.
Dan,
AL is right about the value of "showdown" simulations. AK is a poor multiway performer, both according to the literature (HPFAP, p.18) and Turbo sims. What software are you using?
(I also noticed that while the original post in this thread mentioned AKs, there was a shift to AK (AKo) in some of the subsequent posts).
Etienne
Etienne
I used the program called "Ferret" which plays hands right to the river - no decision making. Heads up, AK wins 67% of the time - each dollar bet returns $1.34. With ten plyaer AK wins 18% of the time - each dollar bet returns $1.80. If my math is wrong or if this program has a bug, someone please tell me!
I realize that this type of simulation has extreme limitations. I believe that pre flop raises are best controlled by reading the players at the table. I normally play at a 5-10 table with fairly conservative players and, through experience, I have found that slow playing that AKo UTG will reap greater rewards. Note, however, I will re-raise AKo if the original raiser is near the button. If he caps, I know he is serious with his high pocket pair (unless it's one of those maniacs - then, throw caution to the wind).
Again, please be advised, I do not think that raising with AKo in early position is wrong. When I am in early position, I like to be more misterious (ie its harder to put me on a hand). Others like to be more agressive and knock out potential draws or maximize pots with raises. I think each strategy works.
A re-raise with A-K 1) thins out the field, usually by getting the blinds to fold; and 2) sometimes allows you to take control of a hand either when rags flop or an overcard to the original raiser's pocket pair flops, even if that overcard is not an Ace or King.
Most likely, the original raiser UTG held either A-A, K-K, Q-Q, J-J, A-K, A-Q or K-Qs. It seems to me, then, that the value of the 2nd point above is somewhat diminished when the original raiser is UTG. I generally also re-raise with A-K, but this might be one time when just calling is correct, since the likelihood of winning without improving is less probable than if the raiser was in later position where his raising requirements would be less stringent.
I almost always raise UTG with AK and will re-raise with it more than half the time. The only cards I would rather have than AK are AA, KK, QQ, and AKs.
Can anyone give me any ideas on how to find some local action. I play in one weekly game, and love it, but the competition is weak and I don't think it helps improve my game at all. While I win at least 4 of 5 nights, I have no idea of how good I am at all. I live in Gainesville, Fl (I'm a student) I'm sure it being a college town, there are lots of weekly home games (esp. at my students' budget) but don't know how to find them w/o coming off like a shark or some thing if I actively search for a friendly game and then win. My familily lives in Daytona, and they have a small cardroom at the dogtrack. They play the normal games. Once I played 7 card stud I lost my $20 buy in two hours later and left. In this game there is a 25 cent ante (the house rakes this) then the pot is capped at $10.00, three raises per round, no string or check raises. Can this game be beat??????
I went to my local pool hall and found a three table game with stakes from 10-20 to 30-60. There I found a 1-2 at another pool hall. At this pool hall I found an American Legion 25/50/1.00/Dealer ante 1.00. No rake, cut the pot for new cards. Good Luck! Earl Hamman
I'm sure this topic has been covered may times on this forum, but here are my ideas. I will go as far as saying that "luck" plays as much a part in all games/sports as it does in poker. Here's my argument, baseball for example. Big Mac's 70 home runs. The skill is undeniable. Can you say he was lucky that the last few games were basically meaningless for both teams so he was pitched to instead of walked. I guess. Was he unlucky that one home run was taken away. Yep. When he hit multiple home run games was he lucky they were not called because of rain? Sure. Could it have been unlucky that Sosa had an extra game? Maybe. Was he lucky that he didn't suffer a season ending injury? Definately. And the list of lucky situations goes on. So did he break the biggest record in baseball because he was "lucky"? Wow is baseball a game of luck then? Hell no! Poker isn't either. If the cards freeze up, you'll get over it, Mac had his homer-less slumps. Dealt aces all night, clean up, Mac hit five in his last three games. Someone argues that if you win in poker you're just lucky, buy something nice with their money. Please, add your comments.
-Later, Munson
Munson,
The answer is in your own post kind of. Since Mac can hit 70 home runs he must be skillfull. Thats of course lucky for him. Whether he hits 68 or 72 or the like must be the result of some luck as to how hard they pitch to him and such. So there is some luck but the overriding thing is that it took the skill to get there and its the same with poker. On any given day and maybe a few days bad cards can keep you from being a winner. Over the course of a long period of time a winning player must be ahead. The more skillfull you are the longer and worst the bad cards must be to keep you stuck. Whether you win $500 or $600 for the night might be luck that day, but if you are winning $500 a day its not luck over a period of time, and after a while you should be winning very close to your hourly rated expectation which is based on your ability and the quality of the games you play in. GOOD LUCK.
I think you made a valid point, in that, in poker as well as in sports, there is a factor of luck involved. However, the skill is the overriding factor. Neither you nor I could hit 70 HR's in a baseball season, no matter how lucky we were. Now Mac was lucky to some degree to hit 70 HR's. Lucky in the sense that he faced watered down pitching the whole season. Lucky in the sense that if he played 15 years ago he might have only hit 55 HR's. However he does possess the skills that most people don't have. These skills are acquired through hard work. For a baseball player, it means taking extra batting practice, eating healthy, and exercising in the off season. For a poker player, it means always playing your best game, paying attention at the table at all times, never playing tired, playing with an adequate bankroll, and constantly reading about the game. Now we all have complained at some point in our lives how unlucky we were in a given hand, or how lucky someone else was to draw out on us with a 1 or 2 outer. But you must not look at each hand separately. Rather look at your results at the end of each year. Your goal in poker is to minimize your standard deviation (luck) and to maximize your hourly rate (winnings). At the end of the year if Player A and Player B each played 1000 hours, chances are that they were dealt a similar distribution of cards. The better player will have made more $$$. Hence poker is not a game of luck. Bingo and Keno are games of luck. GOOD LUCK.
Was it lucky that McGwire was on steroids?
Was it lucky that Roger Maris didn't have to face pitchers who were on steroids?
I certainly think there is a large element in poker that people refer to as luck. To me it is chance. I prefer to work under the premise that you try to go in with the better cards and make the opponent throw in his money when he is an underdog. When he is rewarded by chance, I can still be satisfied because I know that he needed help to get there. If you could go back and break each individual poker transaction down to percentages of win/loss when a bet is made or called, you would quickly find out whether you were a +EV player regardless of the short term results. It would be interesting to have a head's up match between two great players and have the victory go to the player who had the total edge in expectation rather than chips won or lost. It would have to broken down by streets, with weighted edge given to later streets. A check on the river when you had the best hand would give you negative points unless your opponent bet out and you called or raised. The bookkeeping for this game would be a real pain.
Skill is your "mean". Luck or chance is your standard deviation. The subject is already well covered in textbooks. Unfortunately most people don't want to study them but rather make vague comments about the subject. I would guess that the mean for McGuire's home run total is about 53 with a standard deviation of about 7. Thus he was lucky to have hit 70 but not as lucky as someone else would have been.
I mjake a distinction between the words luck and chance. Chance is a parameter of your results process that we measure as variance. But, luck can be a confounding variable which directly effects your mean. When Roger Maris set his home run record he was in the batting lineup ahead of Mantle. Luck put him in that position that he was gonna get pitched to more often than mantle. Skill did not put him in that batting order, luck did. But, having that position for the whole season gave him a higher mean than he would have in another batting order position. -- Gary Carson
I've always believed there's about the same amount of luck in poker as in professional sports where the opponents are close in skill. In pro basketball, games are routinely decided by last-second shots and the officials. In pro football, a fumble, flag or just-missed field goal often decides the game. In Indycar racing, someone may wreck in front of leader or a tire exploding may send him into the wall. In poker, an idiot may wrongly call to the river and hit a 1 or 2-outer. While bad luck may take you out, and since your total overlay against your opponents is never huge, the key to winning in poker is the same as it is in all the above-mentioned sports -- always being "in position" to win.
Munson,
Sometimes when I'm in the casino I walk by the slots to see if I can feel some lucky vibes. When I do I get a rack of dollars and proceed to cycle it one time. Whether I win or lose I'm out of there. Usually I win when I get these lucky feelings.
When my un-lucky dealer is in the box when I'm playing poker I always make it a point to get up and take a break until he is out of the box. I have complained to my un-lucky dealer that he is killing me but it does no good. When my lucky dealer is in the box I tip him more because I want the good cards to keep coming. Any dealer can be temporarily unlucky and when they are I let them know about it and threaten to never tip them again. Sometimes if they deal a bad river card I just get so mad and throw them at the dealer.
I go by feel when I play craps, bet on sports, or bet the ponies. I search my inner feelings to find the right bet and when I do I go ahead and jump in there. If I get stuck real bad betting on the weekend football games I know I can always make a parlay bet on the Sunday night game to get me out of trouble. If I've had a bad weekend, I search my innermost feelings to figure out who to bet against the spread and whether to bet under or over. Then I go the opposite way. If this fails I've always got the Monday night game as a last resort. There I will try a parlay again and if I'll just go over and take the home team and see how I do.
I don't want to buy any books because they are too expensive.
Seriously I have witnessed and heard all of these "theories", "strategies", and opinions from gamblers.
Tom Haley
"Seriously I have witnessed and heard all of these "theories", "strategies", and opinions from gamblers. "
That is why they are gamblers!!!
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Munson,if anyone was lucky to hit a large # of HR's it was Sosa.He had 139 more AB's than Sosa,Sosa had never hit over 40 before and McGwire has been the top power hitter in baseball most of his career.His HR/AB ratio is 2nd to only Ruth.I disagree with your comparison of luck in sports to luck in poker.I don't care how lucky he is,Kenny Lofton is not going to hit 70 HR's,all the luck in the world won't make McGwire steal 60 bases.The Bears have gotten every break they can get this year and are still winless.No amount of luck will ever allow the bulls to lose a series to Boston.If the average person applies themself and plays at limits they can afford they can beat poker,for most people no amount of work will get them to the NFL,NBA,PGA.etc. p.s. what is Jax so bitter about?he must've bet McGwire under
I play a few times a year at a small casino which features a poker room with 5 or 6 tables. They usually spread a small stakes hold'em game (3-6 or 4-8), one or two 1-4 stud tables, and one or two 10-20 Crazy Pineapple games.
The hold'em game is juicy, but breaks up a lot. The reason? For some reason, everyone wants to get in the Crazy Pineapple game. I've steered clear of the CP game thus far, but am tempted to try it since 3-6 is now well below my risk tolerance and I know that the people in the game have no idea how to play poker (or, at least, are completely incompetent at HE).
My problem? I have no experience at the game. Does anyone have any guidelines for starting hands? Or opinions on general playing philosophy? I'd really appreciate it.
The Gamblers Book Store in Las Vegas sells books on every type of poker and they have three or four books that cover or have a chapter on Pineapple Holdem.
You can access them through Favorite Links on TPT.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that any game that begins with the word "Crazy" might be one to approach with some degree of caution. If approached at all. Just a thought.
David,
Crazy Pineapple differs from Pineapple in that you make your discard after the flop in Crazy Pineapple and before the flop in Pineapple. I have played both and what I remember is that there will be a lot stronger hands against you after the flop in Crazy Pineapple. I would think that it is very important to have your 3 cards working together in Crazy Pineapple or if not being very strong with 2 of your cards. I like Pineapple better because IMO players make more mistakes in discarding.
Tom Haley
What do you mean by "3 cards working together"? Connected? Pair with a connector? One suit?
George,
This is definitely open to debate. How about the following:
Ad,As,Kd.
Ad,Ks,3d.
Qh,Jh,Ts.
Ks,Qs,Jh.
These are the types of hands I was thinking of.
Tom Haley
Compared to Holdem: When a pair flops expect 50% more trips. Expect 3 times as many concealed sets and overpairs. Expect 3 times as many flush draws. Expect 3 (?or more?) times as many straight draws.
I wish someone would do some "winning hand" computer analysis, but I suspect its 2nd nut straight or better.
You need to make big straights, big flushes, or big sets/Full houses. "Top-Pair-Top-Kicker" is not going to hold up nearly as often, so AK is clearly a "trouble" hand; played in late position against only a caller or two.
Three way starting hands are strong, such as T9s9 (1:trips, 2:straight, 3:flush). Two way are marginal, such as A8s7 (1:nut flush, 2:straight). One way hands need to be AA, KK, or QQ, maybe JJ and TT when nobody raises. Small sets lose a lot of value since others will be making over sets, and pairing the board will give you the small full house.
One pair flops make for crying calls. Small flushes are best when back-doored. Quickly learn who plays this like Omahaha (too tight) and who plays it like Holdem (too loose). Late position is gold in tight games, since stealing is very profitable.
As in Holdem, those who can tell when their weak hand is the best hand will win the money.
- Louie
Crazy Pineapple can be a profitable game, but like Omaha it has a high variance, and like all low-limit games it is (IMO) boring because tight mechanical play is rewarded. As far as starting hands go, I'd recommend sticking to the following: big pocket pairs (AA thru JJ) with any kicker, strong low hands such as A23, and two-way hands such as AA2, which are the best possible in this game. Avoid three-big-card hands like KQJ, and midrange suited connectors, unless you can get in on a big pot very cheaply.
After the flop, play tight. Do not chase, and (very important) do not draw to half the pot. If you flop a hand that is to your liking, rarely slowplay. An exception to this might be a flopped wheel, or nut flush with nut low. Most of the players in your game will be loose/passive calling stations; the way to beat them is to make them pay to call, not to give them free cards. However, you will take a lot of bad beats no matter what you do.
If you really enjoy the game of poker, CP will probably not be much fun for you. (Of course, I feel the same way about Omaha hi/lo, so if you like that maybe you'll like CP.)
Where do you stand if you start A-A-x and do not hit an ace on the flop? I realize this depends on a lot of factors, but, in general, how strong is an overpair?
Sklansky and Malmuth advise limping instead of raising with a lot of hands in early position. I do so because I figure they understand the game better than I do. But from a theoretical viewpoint, I haven't the foggiest clue why this is correct. Why wouldn't it be better to *always* raise or fold when noone else is in yet?
Let's look at an example. Say you have KQ off UTG, and you decide to play the hand. If you raise, your exposure to someone with aces behind you is three bets, and if you end up playing against the big blind, you will pay for two bets -- a ratio of three to two. Also everyone might fold, which is the best result of all. But if you limp, your exposure to aces is two bets, or you might play against the big blind for one bet -- a ratio of two to one. So why wouldn't raising be the better choice?
William
A simple reason for only limping with "marginal" hands like KQ: If you raise, you are likely to get action behind you only from hands that dominate you like AA, KK, AK, QQ, or KQs. So if the flop hits you and you make something like top pair, you are going to pay off until the river. If the flop misses you, you have already sunk two bets. If every one folds, you only win the blinds (1.5 bets). You have put yourself in the win-a-little, lose-alot situation.
If you only call, you are more likely to get action from weakies behind you with holdings that *YOU* dominate or have a decent shot to outdraw like KJ, QJ, KT, QT, or an underpair. Then they get to pay you off.
I leave you with a question: If you raise UTG with KQ-off (or QJ/AJ/AT/KJ/KT for that matter) and get called by a solid player behind you, *WHAT* are you looking to flop so that you can continue to bet with confidence?
I don't understand what your ratios represent. If someone behind you has Aces, and the board comes K-rag-rag, I'll wager that you lose more than your original two bets.
Michael 7 wrote:
I leave you with a question: If you raise UTG with KQ-off (or QJ/AJ/AT/KJ/KT for that matter) and get called by a solid player behind you, *WHAT* are you looking to flop so that you can continue to bet with confidence?
*****
Clearly if I raise with a marginal hand and a solid player reraises cold calls, I am in trouble.
But if I had limped with that same hand, the same solid player would have raised, and I would still be in trouble.
As for my ratios, they are ratios of the preflop investment in the pot. Clearly I could win or lose more than this amount, but it feels like a good measure of how deeply involved I am in the hand.
William
I support this post, and embelish...
Yes, the notion of only getting action when you are beat is a very important one. Except for when the BB is the only one going to call, I would rather raise with 87s UTG than KQo; since 87s is going to win more often than KQo against hands better than KQo (except JJ and TT).
Now if there are a few brain-dead types who are going to call UTG raises with QT (dogh!) then go ahead and raise, which is now marginal. In a solid holdem game routinely folding KQ and AJ UTG cannot be a bad thing.
Just like betting for value on the river, you need to ask yourself "will I get action from a worse hand?". If "Unlikely", then you are mostly (semi-)bluffing and your hand has little "value" since you are not going to win many show-downs with it.
- Louie
P.S. This post ignores long term strategy against like minded regular opponents based on frequency analysis ..., but who does that? :)
My question is not about playing vs. folding. Clearly there are times you would rather fold than play.
What I don't understand is, if you are going to play, why is limping ever better than raising? Why wouldn't you always raise or fold UTG?
William
The idea of raising when you are the first one in is a good one. What it accomplishes is that it gets the GOOD players with borderline hands out. The idea that you are only going to get called by group 1 hands is wrong. The better players will be calling or re-raising with those hands but the lesser skilled players will be calling with more hands. This goes again to another thread that has been discussed about betting out on the flop. You want to be able to show strength before the flop in order to try to take the pot on the flop when you miss, and hopefully you will only get a couple of callers, or better yet, you will win the blinds right there(before the flop). You don't want to play with many players with any hand unless you are on the button and you have 4-6 callers, not raisers in front of you.If you are in a game where you are constantly getting re-raised, then you might want to look for an easier game, but aggression (Isay this, it seems every post), is the key.
Consider a very loose, passive game. There, it is clearly profitable to play a small pair UTG. But it's profitable because, you can expect several calls, but not raises, behind you. Raising would destroy this situation and ruin your implied odds, probably making such a hand no longer profitable.
Another thought: If you always raise with all the hands you ever play UTG (e.g., JTs, QJs, KTs, maybe T9s, 77, A8s, etc.) You'll be inviting observant opponents to reraise you with hands like 88, AQ, ATs - hands which will do well against your average raising hand once they isolate you with the 3 bets. Moreover, note that many of these hands you would be holding would probably prefer a multiway pot once someone has raised. The raiser may well have you beat, but your hand would fair well in the long run were the pot to be multiway. Your raise combined with the reraise has assured that this will not be the case.
John Feeney
You will get the hands you talk about very infrequently, as well as they will not be showed down, unless you are betting or calling to the river evry time. The majority of the time that you come in with a raise under the gun you will have a very strong starting hand. besides, a very good player will re-raise you with the hands you mention for the same reason I am advocating raising in the first place. TO GEt Control of the pot! It's a battle for control. Have you ever seen two players raising eachother, only to show down 2 weak hands. It doesn't mean that they are crazy loose, it's about aggressive play to try to get the edge. sure , you can limp once in a while, but agressive play is where its at most of the time. Think about it; if you raised with AK and were re-raised before the flop, then , the flop comes and you don't hit a thing, would you check, or bet into the re-raiser? odds are you would check, but if that player didn't re-raise, you might be betting the flop even though you didn't hit. that re-raise stole some of your control. of course you have to be thinking about the players who are involved, but whether they have a hand or not, that re-raise has taken control of the pot up to that point. Seeya
>>You will get the hands you talk about very infrequently, as well as they will not be showed down, unless you are betting or calling to the river evry time. The majority of the time that you come in with a raise under the gun you will have a very strong starting hand.<<
There are other hands that can be involved. Depending on the game, there are games in which all of the HPFAP group 4 hands as well as hands like AXs, and small pairs can become playable early. (I'm talking about a very nice game to be in here - admittedly not the norm in the middle limits, at least in my area.) If you open for a raise with all of these I think it can lead to the problems I described.
As a general rule, I agree that you should raise with *most* of the hands you play UTG in most games. This is just because most of the hands that will be playable there (outside of the softer games I mentioned) are defiinite raising hands.
>>besides, a very good player will re-raise you with the hands you mention for the same reason I am advocating raising in the first place. TO GEt Control of the pot!<<
I respect your opinion AL R., but here I think we differ a bit. Those hands I mentioned (AQ, 88, ATs) are IMO really hands that should be folded to a raise from a player with any sort of tight raising standards. I *will* reraise a player with them if I perceive his raising standards to be generally loose, or if he is indeed playing and always coming in for a raise with hands like KQ, AXs, 77, KTs,... (Maybe that's saying the same thing.)
>>It's a battle for control. Have you ever seen two players raising each other, only to show down 2 weak hands. It doesn't mean that they are crazy loose, it's about aggressive play to try to get the edge.<<
I agree to a certain extent. Sometimes there is a logical thought process underlying such raises. Other times it's just an emotionally based "ego" thing. Frequently, if I percieve a player to be trying purely to seize the initiative from me with a raise, I'll deal with it by just calling, then coming back at him with a bet or raise on the next round. I think this works better than just "duking it out" on the same raise/reraise level that the raiser is on. For instance, what David S. describes as the "delayed semi-bluff raise" often takes the air right out of the initiative grabber. (Sometimes just calling him down if you have something and think he'll hang himself can be even better.)
>>[...] Think about it; if you raised with AK and were re-raised before the flop, then , the flop comes and you don't hit a thing, would you check, or bet into the re-raiser? odds are you would check...<<
I understand what you're saying. I think a lot of players do get cowed into submission by these "initiative raises". I also know, however, that when I perceive a player's raises to be heavily weighted toward this goal, I sort of disregard them. He may reraise me preflop, but I just play on the flop with an awareness that that was what he was doing. Sometimes this means that I play after the flop as if *I* had put in the last raise preflop. Other times it means that I try to use his aggression against him.
Overall, I think these are just minor differences in emphasis.
John Feeney
A simple reason for only limping with "marginal" hands like KQ: If you raise, you are likely to get action behind you only from hands that dominate you like AA, KK, AK, QQ, or KQs. So if the flop hits you and you make something like top pair, you are going to pay off until the river. If the flop misses you, you have already sunk two bets. If every one folds, you only win the blinds (1.5 bets). You have put yourself in the win-a-little, lose-alot situation.
If you only call, you are more likely to get action from weakies behind you with holdings that *YOU* dominate or have a decent shot to outdraw like KJ, QJ, KT, QT, or an underpair. Then they get to pay you off.
I leave you with a question: If you raise UTG with KQ-off (or QJ/AJ/AT/KJ/KT for that matter) and get called by a solid player behind you, *WHAT* are you looking to flop so that you can continue to bet with confidence?
I don't understand what your ratios represent. If someone behind you has Aces, and the board comes K-rag-rag, I'll wager that you lose more than your original two bets.
I was playing in a $5-$10 Hold'em game with the following structure. Blinds of $2 and $5, Before the flop: $5 to call, $15 to raise and $10 for every subsequent raise. After the flop: $10 to bet and $10 to raise. Maximum 3 raises on all rounds. The following situation came up. In a 10 handed game and the button to my left I pick up Jh 9h. UTG calls, player #6 calls, player #8 raises to $15, I mucked. Everyone called and the flop came 9c 9d 9s. My reasons for not playing. 1)Raiser was a solid player who raised only with a pocket pair or high suited cards. If he was holding a high pocket pair or high suited cards in hearts I figured I was throwing my money away. 2)I thought each blind would fold, which they did not. My hand required high implied odds which I would not be getting by calling a $15 raise cold, and by losing the players in the blind. 3)I thought that UTG could be sandbagging AA, KK, or AKs. I've seen this player call and reraise with those hands before when he was UTG. If I didn't want to call a $15 bet, I sure didn't want it to cost me $25.
As it turns out, I was only right about 1 thing. The original raiser held AA. As for everything else I was wrong, I missed out on a $175 pot. I think I made the right move by folding. Should have I called the raise pre-flop?
Not with that structure.
Would you have been asking if 3 8's flopped? My advice is to forget the cards you folded once you release them. You'll save yourself alot of anguish and won't convince yourself that you should be playing marginal hands that you know are wrong to play just because they would have won a monster pot.
Danny Sprung
Steve,
Would you be asking this question if you folded 27o and you would have flopped quads? Same chances here. Don't let lucky flops cloud your thinking. Albert
The point I was trying to make is "Should I call for $15 with Jh 9h when a late position player raises, I'm one position to the right of the button, and I expect 3 or 4 callers?" If I were playing in a standard structure game with a bunch of loose calling stations, I would probably invest 2 small bets and hope to get a good flop. However by calling the raise in this game, it costs me 3 small bets to see the flop. I really wanted to know how tight I should be playing preflop? My guess is to play somewhat tighter in this game. In other words to rarely call a raise cold unless I'm holding a big pocket pair or big suited cards.
Steve, the situation you described in your original post was this:
>>In a 10 handed game and the button to my left I pick up Jh 9h. UTG calls, player #6 calls, player #8 raises to $15, I mucked.<<
Even in a standard structure a call here is probably a pretty bad idea. Against typical players I'd just about always fold. In the strucure you were in calling is completely out of the question. I understand that it could be tempting, at least in a standard structure, but I think you need to get very clear on the fact that J9s is not a hand to be cold calling raises with under normal circumstances. It might be a good idea for you to review your standards for calling raises cold. Most players are too liberal with it and lose a lot of money doing it. Just a thought.
John Feeney
I agree with all of the responses to your question. You know the players and your instincts were right in that the original raiser held AA. Against AA (or any high pocket pair), J-9 s is an underdog. You would be patting yourself on the back if the flop came up A99 and the turn produced a J (anyone see Rounders). Playing good can keep you from winning a lot of good pots - but it saves money in the long run. Congratulate yourself for being able to read your competition.
Compared to the standard structure, this straight-$10 bet structure favors trouble hands over suited connectors and small pairs, since you can put in more money early when the trouble hand has the advantage.
I agree with other posts; routinely muck such hands as J9s against raises in short pots. (except re-stealing....) You are going to out-flop the rarely; the rest of the time you fold or put in more money as the dog.
Of greater importance is whether your analysis was accurate and beneficial; your points 1-3 certainly are. (Except for point 3: you should already know how often this player calls UTG with premium hands compared to other hands. If you have seen this player call with a weak hand, then your fear is unfounded since there are many-many more weak hands than those platinum hands.)
The mistake you made was judging the quality of your decision based on what actually happened afterwards. That can easily destroy your career since you are going to remember these odd-ball hands much more often than the routine ones.
- Louie
In a game with a high rake (3-6 or 5-10 with 10% rake to $4), what changes should be made in preflop play?
Kristen,
I would play extra tight and sit out anytime it got shorthanded. I would walk when the game got the least bit tight. Complain often to the management and maybe they might rake slower to the maximum. Dont give any courtesy play to the house and take advantage of them anytime you can as they are robbing the game and you owe them nothing. Play tight up front because you dont know how many players will be in the pot and shorthanded pots with that rake are mostly losers for all. If the game is full of dummies you may be alright. Good Luck.
Hi Im curious how many players actually make a living playing poker. IMHO its not very many. For arguments sake lets take 200 poker players that you are familiar with, you have the rec. players etc. lets say 100 are trying to make money. I think if 5 out of the 100 make more than 50k a year playing 15-30 through 30-60 i would be close to correct. I have read in S/M books that you should be able to win 2 BB per hour. again I don't think anyone does win at this rate and that includes S or M. I have been wrong more times than right in life and I hope thats the case in this situation. Any comments will be appreciated even those that disagree. Thanks in advance RY
"I have read in S/M books that you should be able to win 2 BB per hour. again I don't think anyone does win at this rate and that includes S or M."
You are right, we don't win at this rate. If you read my book POKER ESSAYS you will see estimates of possible win rates. They are much lower than this figure unless you play in the lower limits. You may also want to look at the estimates we published in GAMBLING FOR A LIVING.
The Gambling Forum September 1998 Archive Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo