This may seem like an ignorant question, but I scarcely venture from the low-limit tables into the upper-limit waters. I simply want to know : What are the average or "typical" rakes at the 5-10, 10-20, and 20-40 HE tables? You don't have to be precise, a ballpark figure (within a dollar) will do. Thanks a bunch. Dax (NeilYngRok@aol.com) "24 and there's so much more."
Dax,
I'll fill you in on the two biggest top sections in the Los Angeles area where they charge time rather than rake.
Hollywood Park:
10/20: $5 per half hour
15/30: $6 per half hour (holdem only - in stud they drop antes)
20/40: $7 per half hour
Commerce Club:
10/20: n/a (they spread 9/18 with a $4 dead drop on the button)
15/30: $7 per half hour
20/40: $8 per half hour
Regards,
Rick
about any site in the web with complete information about poker tournaments? Does anybody know a good one? IŽll really appreciate the information.
You can play holdem on the internet on IRC, tournaments too. The SW is at:
The website address is:
http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~gregr/
Hope that helps- Jim
Try Cardplayer magazine's site. 2+2 has a link to there from their fave links page.
I play on Planet Poker because it's the only way I can play regularly (family, job, etc.) I've been winning, but worried about the effect of possible collusion.
Question: Is it possible to win in spite of collusion? How do you spot it? If you do spot it, how do you react?
It seems to me that at best, collusion provides a form of deception, but in the end strong play is what gets the money.
Thoughts?
If 2 good players are at your table, and they are doing a good job of colluding, they will win pretty big. Whether or not you can also win depends upon how weak the other players are at your table. If they're weak enough, and lose enough, then you can still come out ahead.
However, I suspect that many of the colluders (not that I KNOW there are any at all) are not that great as individual players. Moreover, they're probably not that good at colluding, either. Thus, their collusion won't cost you as much as it could, leaving you with a table that you can still beat with good all-around play.
However, no matter how bad they are, you are probably not making as much as you could if they stopped colluding.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
My largest fear on Planet Poker is running into someone playing two hands. If an individual has two computers with modems and two phone lines, whats to stop him from creating two Planet Poker accounts with different handles and playing two hands?
I've yet to see evidence of such a scam, but it makes you wonder.
If the colluders are only playing "better hand", meaning only rarely does more than 1 play at a time, the advantage would be huge. Casual observers may never notice that these two players are never in the same pot. In a 3 handed game (button + 2 blinds) I think I could give the authors a run for their money if I could actually see two hands and pick the better one to play.
Those that are willing to raise their buddy increase their EV but drastically increase their chances of getting caught.
"Better Hand" can easily be detected on computer poker as it would be easy to keep track of which hands which players folded, as the strong hands folded would attract detailed attention. Likewise with raising each other.
So I suppose you are in the hands of the quality and ethics of the guy running the computer.
- Louie
I have a few questions regarding a 20-40 Stud hand I played at the Taj last weekend. It was an eight-handed game with a $3 ante and a $5 bring-in. I was dealt wired sevens with an eight up-card in middle position; all of my cards were live. The player to my immediate right was the first to voluntarily enter the pot; he called the bring in with an Ace up. He is a loose, fairly predictable player-I felt fairly confident if he had aces he would have raised.
I decided to raise myself (as there was only one upcard higher than an eight remaining to act). Much to my surprise, the player to my immediate left, with a five up, re-raised. He is a fairly tough, very aggressive player. I put him on a pocket pair higher than eights. Everyone folded to the ace, who now called the double raise- which concerned me-he is loose, but would need some kind of hand to call a double raise. I also called.
On fourth street I caught an eight (pairing my door card), and the five and ace both caught apparent blanks. I bet out the maximum ($40) and was promptly raised to $80 by the five. The ace thought and thought and finally called the $80 cold. This surprised me--I decided to just call. My original plan was to re-raise the five, representing three eights (assuming the ace dropped). I felt the five might have been making an "information raise" to see if I really had the three eights, and I know he is capable of folding a hand quickly if he feels he is beat. Also, if I put him on the right hand (a big wired pair), I am succeeding in getting more money in the pot with the best hand.
Alas, on fifth street both me and the five caught a blank and the ace made open aces. He bet out and both the five and me folded (the five showed me wired jacks).
I have several questions:
1) Was my raise correct on third street?
2) Should I have re-raised to $120 on fourth street?
3) Was it correct to drop on fifth street? I felt I had to give him at least aces up--meaning I had four outs- or zero outs if he had aces full.
Thanks in advance.
Max,
if the aces hand would have called on 4th street with a 3 flush or 3 big cards then you should go all the way with him. i would also raise him hoping he might fold with just two aces as he is also unlikely to raise back and you can take a free card on 6th or 7th if you want. if you felt he had to have started with a pair or caught a pair on 4th then it may be a fold. maybe you should have reraised the jacks if you thought he might fold as you would want him out of the pot at this point.
I see this as a hand were someone could get themselves into a lot of trouble. The Aces needs only another pair to win. Your two small pair really needs improvement, an unlikely event. I think the initial advice is correct. Fold to the loose player with the Ace. Who cares how many free cards you can get with a bet. If he is truely a loose player, he my re-raise or continue betting, especially with Aces showing. He will never fold. The more money you throw into this hand the more you are likely to lose.
Rich,
sure you most likely will lose this hand and if there was no money in the pot you would fold. but it looks like you are risking 3 bets to win about 12 or more and that makes it a calling hand for me. plus you can improve and get another bet or two. your two pair may not need improvement and that is the reason to play.
Ray,
Why not just fold this had on third street when the 5 reraises?
All you've got is a lousy pair of sevens with an eight kicker and, as the poster said..he knows that the guy who reraised has a bigger pair.
Jim Mogal
I think it would have been incorrect to fold my hand on third street for the following reasons:
1) All of my cards were live.
2) There is already $94 in the pot; it is only costing me $20 to call (4.5 to 1)
3) My sevens are hidden.
4) If I am right in my belief that my opponent holds a big wired pair, he cannot make two pair without my being aware of it.
5) I have a two-straight.
6) My opponent is an aggressive player and I don't want him running over me in the future.
If I don't improve by 5th street and my opponent keeps betting, I will usually chuck it in similar situations.
Best regards.
Jim,
i go with what Max says here except i may not fold on 5th street if thats what he implies.
I might have misread an article by David Sklanski but I have always thought that the odds of flopping a set were:
1 - 48/50 * 47/49 * 46/48 * 45/47 * 44/46 = 19%
Even though I plan to see only the three cards, pre-flop I should consider the turn and the river as a part of my pot-odds decision pre-flop.
Is this incorrect? Should I only consider the flop?
1 - 48/50 * 47/49 * 46/48 = 11%
The probability of flopping a set, full house or quads (a set or better, ignoring 4-straights and 4-flushes) to a pocket pair is 10.8%, making the odds against it about 7.5-1. This fact is useful in deciding whether the amount of money you must risk for the chance of flopping a set presents a good investment.
Unless your preflop call forces you all-in, taking into account to chance of making a set by the river is pointless because you'll be guessing at how much you'll have to invest to get to the river. Sometimes nothing, sometimes 10BB. More importantly, after the flop you'll be faced with a different set of factors to consider, namely the board and the betting action, that you can't begin to guess about before the flop. Finally, it is virtually always correct to fold after the flop unless you make your set, fill in the middle of a 4-straight, or are faced with a gigantic pot or a board that has other possibilities (e.g. 822 flop to your pocket fives -- and this can get tricky).
Bottom line: the only time you'll be faced with a "good" betting opportunity that involves hitting a set is before the flop. Failing to let a pair go after the flop is probably one of the more expensive of the basic mistakes.
Your first number appears to be your chances of making a set by the river if you always stay.
No, you should only automatically consider your chances of making your hand by the river if you really expect to get to the river. A big flush draw almost always gets to the river so a 2:1 dog to make it is realistic (and should raise for value if you can get +2 callers on the flop).
With a pocket pair, you will RARELY be calling on the flop due to your slim chances. So if you are unlikely to call, what's the point of calculating it before the flop?
- Louie
Sir, I really like pocket pairs. True that it is about 8 to 1 before the flop, yet you have better implied odds than that due to the fact of no one realizing it if you hit ie trip 6's on the flop. You really need only about 5 to one odds to call with a pocket pair. Should be a nice pot by the river. I"ve also seen times in a big pot where I missed on the flop, I figure about 23 to one to hit the set on the turn, so I look at a card, cause low and behold, the pot was offering 30 to one odds.
Michael M.:
Louie was talking about the rarity of call "on" (or "after") the flop, not before. It is certainly rare to see a flop bet getting 18 to one or better (you don't need 23-1), and rarer still without having already made a mistake.
"Sir"? Huh? You're new here, aren't you.
I agree with the authors that you need about 10:1 by the river to justify playing a pair, to cover the times you make it and lose. So getting 5:1 means: will you average at least 2.5bb from the opponents after the flop when you make the set? Yes. 5:1 is 'nough for me also.
- Louie
Yessir.
It's been my experience that when player's raise preflop, it's almost an automatic bet on the flop, whether the flop misses them or not. Last night while playing 15-30, I noticed on several occasions player's raising preflop and not betting on the flop, only to muck when someone bets out.. Then on the other hand, I see player's bet and bet all the way to the river, and will turn over Ace high, and are usually beat by some middle pair or something.
I just wonder what others out there thought... for example, raising with AK, and everyone checks to you on the flop, but the flop has missed you. You bet. The turn still misses you, everyone checks to you. Bet or check?? I've found times where I checked, I could have taken the pot, because I lost it on the river. Then other times I've found that when do bet, when it doesn't buy me the pot, it backfires hard and I get raised. It wasn't until last night that I saw so much raising preflop and checking on the flop. Most of the time a raise preflop is an automatic bet on the flop. Any thoughts??
It might depend on your image. There are some games when you raise and the flop is rags, like 9 5 2. Players will always put you on AK. So if you get raise on the turn, sometimes it's good to reraise (this works better if you are head's up against an opponent who will fold to a river bet if his pair does not improve). I sometimes take the free card and pay off with AK if there is a better and all fold to me. Once you raise preflop, bet the flop, check the turn, pretty much anyone can take a shot at you with any 2 cards.
Sometimes it helps playing big pairs like AK, that way, when you try a reraise on the turn people will believe you'll have an overpair.
Just some thoughts,
carlos
the worse the flop for your hand and the more people in the less likely you will bet.
I'm a novice at odds. Assume a two flush on board, I have no flush card. Odds against an opponent having a four flush: 1 opponent=30 to 1; 2=14to1;3=9to1;4=6.5to1;5=5to1;6=4to1;7=3to1;8=3to1;9=2to1. These about right? and I promise to not ask again. Gotta know these things at 4-8 loose game.
What game are you playing?
Old Maid. (Sorry)......Hold Em.
Hello -- Can anyone help with 2 questions? 1. 3-6 HE,9-handed, I had JdJh in 4th pos. and called 3rd in; 5 saw the flop -- 9hThQh! I bet for value, dropped 2; turn was 7o; I bet again, figuring I had the best of it with 17 outs on the draws and 2 others in the pot. 1 dropped. The river was Ao, and I checked and folded.
Should I have raised preflop hoping to limit field? Was I right to bet on the flop or should I have checked to keep people in? Was I right to bet on the turn? Should I have called the river? I figured the other guy had an A or Q.
2. I wonder why ATo is so much lower than AJo in HPFAP hand rankings (gp 6 vs gp 4)? They both make the same straights. Lee Jones says OK to call with AJo ONLY with <= 3 callers in front in middle position (and presumably in late pos, though he doesn't say so), and says don't EVER call with ATo. That seems severe.
Thanks for any insights you can give me.
You played the hand fine although other alternatives are OK as well.
A10 has to worry about 3 overcards when it pairs its lower card as opposed to 2 in the case of AJ. It also has a worse kicker when it pairs aces. These differences are significant in games where players won't usually play ace rag offsuit, but less important in looser games.
In 3-6 HE you are not likely to "limit the field" by raising pre-flop. A raise here might get you perhaps four callers instead of the five you did get. And the players with the A-x and Q-x would have probably stayed in anyway. I think you were correct to bet the flop, but not right to bet the turn. I also think your fold on the river was correct. Black Jack
I think I would have played it more aggressively, depending on the mood of the table.
Sometimes you get loose, but weak, 3-6 players. Last night I somehow managed to bluff and win several 3-6 pots. Wouldn't happen in a typical game, but this group was interesting. They would all call to see the flop, and mostly wait to see the turn, but on the turn they would ditch their hands. So I started betting the turn (and, when necessary, the river) regardless of whether my hand was made or not, and pulled down three nice-sized pots with nothing (or its nearest neighbor). The only downside to this was that I turned a wheel and got no takers when I bet. But better that than the usual being drawn out on!
Anyhow, back to your hand... the upshot is that your bet on the turn gives the opponent a chance to fold; if you don't bet, there is 0 probability they will fold. So I'm in favor of the bet.
I'm not sure about your 17 outs, though. Given the betting, it's unlikely that the flush is already made. Obviously you have the 8h & Kh working for you. But what happens if any other heart comes? You could easily have 2nd (or 3rd) best flush. After all, why else would someone stay in with that board? Ah or Kh in the opponent's hand is not unlikely in this situation. Anyhow, I would discount the 9 hearts not in your hand. 2 of them are good, but the other 7 could actually kill your hand. Making trips with the Js or Jc is not obviously good, either. Any 8 or K beats you unless the board pairs. So then there's the straight cards. The other three 8's are on your side here, and the K's are probably ok, too, since with you holding 2 of the J's the probability an opponent has one is very low (sorry, too tired to do the math).
So in summary, you've got:
4 8's 4 K's
for 8 reasonably sure outs. Then you have 7 rather dodgy hearts and 2 questionable J's. As a quick approximation, we can halve these, for a total of 12.5 outs (that oughta get me my head handed on a plate by the purists!). This means you are about 1.2:1 to make a winner by the river. So pretty much any betting you do would appear to be justified, esp. since it can only increase your chances of winning (from possible better hands dropping).
As it is, it might have been better to play the hand more aggressively. One approach would be to go for a checkraise on the flop (I'm not sure of your position relative to the other bettors). There's a reasonably good chance that the last bettor will bluff at this flop if nobody else opens. Even if the check goes around, what's the problem? You're already in a little bit of overcard trouble with the Q, and a K is your best friend. The only thing you have to fear is an A, although the Ah may be OK. Actually, I guess that's not quite true, because if the board pairs, someone might have made trips, and even that 7o could have given some fish trip 7s. But still, I think there are more cards that help you than hurt you. So a free card isn't terrible, and might be worth the risk when you do get to pull off your checkraise.
After the checkraise (attempted or successful), you bet on the turn. Now people have to face the fact that the turn didn't help, and they're going to have to pay you not just $6 now, but $12 total to see your advertised big hand.
Alternatively, bet on the flop to suck people in, and then go for the checkraise on the turn, and then bet on the river. That might make a weak opponent more likely to believe you had the flush and/or straight all along. I know sometimes the games I get in, people act as if you had invoked a voodoo magic spell when you checkraise, esp. on the turn.
As far as the lay down on the river, it would depend on a few things. For example, what was the size of the pot. If I read your post correctly, it was only something like 3*5 + 3*3 + 6*2 = 36. So after your opponent bets you are getting 7 to 1 on your call. So, do you have greater than a 12.5% chance of winning? This brings up the second factor... did you inadvertently induce a bluff and then fail to snap it off? You had bet the flop and the turn, but then checked. If your opponent read that check as weakness, as opposed to a trap, then it's natural to bet at you. So it's conceivable that the probability that your opponent was bluffing and your J's were good was greater than the 12.5%.
In any case, you ended up in a situation on the river (and I do this to myself all the time), where you've lost your read on what's going on. Is the guy betting for value? Is he bluffing? Is he an idiot? You let him get control of the hand, and now you're stuck in a guessing game. At least if you bet and he comes over the top, you have a better idea of where things stand (unless this is some real tough guy).
One thing I wouldn't do is raise on the river. A call is sufficient to snap the bluff, and a raise just gets you into trouble. If the game you're in is at all like the ones I get in, his late bet might just mean he had 86o and that stupid 7 made him a straight, but he "slowplayed" it because he was afraid of the flush. Now you've checked and said "no flush", so he can bet. When you raise, he is "forced" to call, and your hand goes down. Or even more embarassing, all he has is Q2o, but he just is curiousity, and his curiosity kills the Kate. :-)
--james
PS WARNING: I am not a pro, and I don't play one on TV. I just like to think about these things, and by airing my musings in this forum I might even get construcive feedback. :-)
PPS I wish I could think through hands in this much detail at the table!!! That's why thinking about this stuff "offline" is so important. It's like a basketball player practicing moves separate from playing the game--on the floor, you don't have nearly enough time to think, so the moves have to be instinctual.
IMHO: I think you should have raised preflop with the jacks.
Since it's 3-6, you will probably get a bunch of callers either way. But consider this: 1) you probably getting (almost) the right odds to be raising for value, just on the chance you might hit a set 2) JJ has some chance of standing up on it's own. 3) You may set up a steal situation for a later round if the flop doesn't hit anyone, having already advertised that you "have a hand" 4)If your raise narrows the field, that's OK too 5) you may gain information that saves you $$ on a later round. Some people can't resist reraising with things like KK, AK and AA. Find out now, while the bets are cheap. Depending on the flop, this type of info could save you several bets later.
After all, you are only putting in one more small bet before the flop, go ahead and raise.
Other than that, I think you played it fine. The turn bet was good, and you were probably beat at the river so folding was the best move.
Of course there could be other reasons not on my list....
comments welcome...
Dave in Cali
QT9 is NOT a great flop to JJ against 5 players. It is realistic that someone has a K, someone a Q, and someone a J. If so, you have about 7 outs to SPLIT.
Don't confuse your chances of improving with your chances of winning.
Even if it IS a great flop what would be the point of "keeping people in"? Someone who doesn't have enough to call the flop is VERY unlikely to call if you make your straight on the turn. And, players often call the flop and fold the turn, so lets get that money NOW. Good enough bet for the hand you had, great bet if your hand was as good as you thought.
"I figured the other guy had an A or Q". Really? Would this player have bet this hand for value on the river? Would YOU? Its much more likely she made or had 2 pair OR was bluffing her stiff J.
Unless the opponent had an Ace, the ace looks like a bad card to her. I would have bluffed on the river figuring the stiff Queen would give it up.
- Louie
A very interesting and helpful range of responses. I'm embarasssed to admit I didn't realize at the time that I might very well be drawing dead. And reflecting on my thought process on the river I see that I unconsciously assumed that my opponent knew I had been on a draw (and, obviously, missed it). Got to stop doing that, for sure.
Well, you certainly weren't drawing "dead". If you make the straight flush, I'm pretty sure you win. :-)
But you definitely did not have 17 outs.
I am sympathetic with the "I assumed my opponent knew I was beat" syndrome. But watch for this in others... How many times have you been playing against someone who you suspected of being on a draw, and when a blank hits on the river, they do one or more of the following:
Rarely, this is someone acting trying for a checkraise, but more often, people are more than happy to tell you "I missed my draw".
So learn from their errors and don't do this yourself. I think part of it is keeping your mind set on "I'm going to win this pot". Don't go foolishly into the jaws of doom, but don't give up until it's all over. With that mindset, you can convincingly bet your Jacks on the river, and let your opponent make up the goblins in their own head--Aces, pocket Q's, a made flush or straight, whatever.
best,
--j
Well, yes, but the straight flush was my only certain win. Your advice is good -- thanks.
I'm on the tail-end of a nice rush at an almost ideal 3-6 game and the table breaks (by ideal I mean almost everyone seeing the flop, but then dropping their hands on the turn. People flopping flushes and letting you see them for free. Etc.)
Half of us get merged with another table, which has some wilder players on it.
All three hands in front of the BB call, I look and have red Aces, so I raise. We end up with about 6 people seeing the flop. Flop comes something like J74, all clubs. SB checks, BB opens, next hand drops, next hand goes all-in for 6. I think about things, and after some agony, lay down my aces. Everyone else folds, BB calls, turn and river are blanks, and the all-in guy takes down the pot with two little clubs. BB shows Kc and some weak kicker.
Why did I lay down the aces? Well, as far as I could tell, I was screwed. The guy who went all in was loose enough to go all in with one little club, but he looked too happy. I had no problem calling the BB alone, since I put him on 1 club. But if the all-in guy has equity in most of the pot, I'm not going to win much. If the 4th club never shows, the BB just folds on the river. So even if I re-raise the all-in guy and the BB calls, that's $3 there and $6 more on the turn.
Of course, if one of my aces was the Ac, I have a much more playable hand.
What would you have done?
--james
MHO:
In that situation, either I am the RAISER or I am gone. I would raise if there was only one bet to me, partly to drive out any worse hands than mine, and partly to gain information. No sense spending big bets if you're beat, find that out now while it's cheap. If you get re-raised, you are usually against a made flush, or an aggressive player with the K or A, who has a good draw and probably won't be folding (maybe raising). Since you had no clubs and it was a bet and a raise to you, with the possibility of a re-raise behind you, you should fold.
I say you made a good play in that situation. Your "read" was probably the deciding factor that made you actually LAY DOWN your aces, instead of paying off the whole way.
coments welcome...
Dave in Cali
Interesting situation. I think you had a small positive expectation on the flop, particularly if the BB might be inclined to bluff on the river.
I'd reraise on the flop figuring that the BB will call if he's got a good flush draw, and also to increase the size of the pot to give him something to bluff at. (Although if he folds here you're out $6, few $3-6 players will drop for a double bet with a flush draw, and you want as many bets in the pot as you can get when you're ahead.)
It's 30-60 at Bellagio, I'm on the button, and it's folded to me. I look down and see
I raise, the small blind folds, and calls in the big blind. (I'm hoping he doesn't mind my posting this hand. I'm posting it mostly because I just figured out how to insert his head in the middle of my text.)
The flop comes ten high rags, no clubs, he checks, I bet, he calls.
The turn is another rag below ten. He checks, I bet, he calls.
The river is yet another rag below ten. Some weird straight is possible (of course), but otherwise there's not much on the board. He checks, I check.
He turns over KQ, and I take the pot with ace high.
Comments?
(My hand was actually A3o, not that it matters.)
No profitability in checking and calling...(Calling Station)! Either check-raise the flop, the turn, bet out on the flop or turn or abandon the hand...Terrible play from terrible position!
Huck writes: "What could Abdul have raised with? Answer: Anything." After the flop comes "ten-high rags" and Abdul bets after Mason checks, Huck reasons: "[Abdul] either has a pocket pair, an ace, or some of the flop..."
Does Abdul really give away free cards like this, meaning that he'd check down Kx, Qx, gutshots, 3-flushes and connectors in the face of Mason's intimidating check? I suggest you're reading too much into Abdul's bet.
If I'm right, Mason is in a pretty good position. On the flop he's getting 5.67-1 to call. Of the 1081 combinations of cards Abdul could be holding, Mason beats about 40% of them and has a 20+% chance of drawing out on most of the rest by the river. (OK, I won't take you literally when you said that Abdul could have "anything." But this means that he's less likely to have hit a ragged flop.)
There's an argument for betting or check-raising, but by doing neither Mason substantially reduces the likelihood of folding a better hand or paying too much if he's behind. The ten on the turn makes the case for calling even better. Just because a calling station would make the same play doesn't mean it isn't optimal.
Chris writes: "Just because a calling station would make the same play doesn't mean it isn't optimal."
In many situations I think that's quite correct. Now, I have no first hand familiarity with Abdul's play, so this is just on a sort of hypothetical level. (I agree with Dan H. below, that you absolutely would have to have been there, and have been familiar with all the situational variables to really know how to assess the merits of this play.) But given the possibility that Abdul could be expected to play very aggressively, maybe rather relentlessly so, then a simple call-down strategy with a hand like KQ or any ace, or pair, is not going to be far wrong.
It's almost comical to see how good, very aggressive players will completely hang themselves sometimes against calling stations. (Doyle Brunson even mentioned this with regard to some passive caller at the WSOP one year. All the aggressive, tough players kept betting themselves broke against him. Not the same situation, I know, but roughly the same idea applies.) I've won many pots with king-high, when I knew the opp would bet almost anything. Again, I'm not suggesting anything about Abdul's general play. I've never seen it. (But indications are at least that he's generally quite aggressive, and that he does go for the blinds with a very wide range of hands.) I'm just looking at one situation in which calling in a spot like this can be right. You look at how likely the opp is to bet a wide range of hands you can beat, assessing the the chance that you have the best hand, combine that with the chance that you will hit a winning pair -- and it can be the way to go.
BTW, the posters who are arguing that Abdul had to have some fairly decent hand, that a hand like 52s was out of the question, really should read his standards for blind stealing. I'm not sure about specifically 52s, but he does not shy away from going after a blind with some pretty weak hands. (Not a criticism, just a clarification.)
John Feeney
I think this thread has no real instructive value. This is not a criticism towards anyone responding, rather a mild point that Abadaba dul is simply poking fun at Mason with his image in the post, and the fact that he beat him in a showdown with ace high. I think we have all been duped into responding, when abadab is just having fun.
It's far more insidious. Abdul wants to incite poker riots over Mason's playing of pocket fours.
I'm curious why didn't reraise preflop.
Abdul,
I figured out the italics, I figured out the bold type, but is is unfair to up the ante by placing pictures in your post.
Anyway, IMHO KQ is a hand you would have to make a move with at some point in the hand with this flop. Reraise before the flop, if not check raise the flop, check raise or bet the turn. To me a check call hand needs to have at least an ace or a pair unless he figures you to be very aggressive just about every time with any hand then he may be right to play it this way.
If Mason replys it is only fair he finds a picture of you. It may have to come from blackjack pit surveilance.
Regards,
Rick
Based on all the ancillary compliments she has garnered on rgp (and I recall at least one compliment from DS here), I would rather have someone post a photo of Abdul's wife.
L
First two tens flopped, and given how many hands I know that Abdul would raise with before the flop the combination of me drawing out and having the best hand was enough to go to the river. On the end I thought that he might not try to steal it (as he didn't) and yet I might still win in a show down. I didn't bet or check raise earlier because I didn't feel like getting into a complex situation out of position against an aggressive player.
For further discussion why I chose the strategy I did I recommend the short handed section in the 21st edition of HPFAP. (The bottom line is that folding was never an option except maybe on the end. Betting or check raising while reasonable is by no means mandatory when your hand does have some chance of winning without improving.)
In any case I know you chose my picture as opposed to Ray or David because by doing that more people would read your post carefully.
Mason,
All kiding aside, I like your play. I can see there is little reason to try to "out aggressive" an aggressive experienced, and knowledgable player out of postion with a medium strong hand.
I think many players don't do this even when it is right in that they don't want to look weak. After all, checking and calling is supposed to be the sign of a weak player.
I'll guess that the value of Abduls average raising hand may be quite a bit less than yours, the flop is ragged, he is likely to bet it for you, thus your play is at worse arguable.
Note that I'm writing this without checking Abdul's charts, I'm just guessing that KQ would do quite well against his average hand. Maybe he can do a simulation. Me, I have to go to sleep.
Message to Rick: Stop posting when you are tired and babbling.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Good job on that seven stud article in Poker Digest.
You're right, the flop was TTx, where x was small but not a 3, sorry.
-Abdul
Abdul,
Actually the TTx flop does make quite a bit of difference. If Mason makes a play at the pot on the flop with this kind of a flop it shouldn't be too hard to figure out that his hand was probably weak. When a rag falls on the turn, again it shouldn't be too hard to figure out that it probably didn't help him much and if he bets the river when another rag falls there is enough money in the pot to warrant a call with an A3. Now whether or not he should have made it 3 bets pre-flop is open to debate but there are good reasons not to as well. Whether or not he should have called on the flop and the turn is open to debate as well as this is player dependent in my opinion.
Tom Haley
Mason: You are the man, but I would have tossed after Abdul's first raise. Call e a silly fool (allright, you're a silly fool) but Abdul will take it down to the river more often than not and I just don't feel like being that big a contributor to his excellent aggresive play.
Bob Sherwood wrote:
I would have tossed after Abdul's first raise. Call e a silly fool (allright, you're a silly fool)
If you're saying that Mason should have mucked KQ in his big blind preflop to my button raise, then you are a silly fool, um, no offense.
-Abdul
Abdul,
I think you need to make fun of this guy rather than Mason.
What is this picture, from the seventies?
Regards,
Rick
Listen carefully everybody. Mason played this specific hand, in this specific circumstance, against this specific player, totally reasonably and probably the BEST way (although betting out on the end has things to be said for it). The combination of four factors; Abdul's skill, Abdul's loose raising requirements when first in on the button, Abdul's willingness to fire two (but probably not three) barrels when bluffing, and Mason holding KQ are all required however. Change any of them (e.g. give Mason QJ) and you should play differently.
Mason has allready sort of explained himself but perhaps others would like to elaborate. (Actually this hand is a great example of how subtle differences in a situation can change the right play. Also I wouldn't be surprised if Abdul was actually planning to post something in the future defending Mason. After all Mason's strategy was an implicit compliment to him)
WRONG,WRONG,WRONG!
Checking and calling the flop and the turn has no chance. What could Abdul have raised with? Answer: Anything. What could Mason beat after the flop and the turn? Answer: Nothing Abdul most likely did not raise with 52s as a "great author" might. He either has a pocket pair, an ace, or some of the flop...i.e. Mason can't beat any of them! Either make a play at an aggressive opponent early and win or let it go or FOLD! No calling stations allowed on this Forum!
abdul could easily have QJ, KJ, or lots of other types of hands that don't include pairs or A high.
I like Mason's play here.
1. You up against a tough apponent.
2. He will bet no matter what. You don't loose more when you have the worst hand and win the same if you have the best hand.
3. If you try a play here such as checkraise the turn what will you do when you get raised back. You are basically back to point 1 which is what? Call, fold, maybe raise back? You have put more money in, yet you still don't know where you stand.
I've been in Mason's situation many times I don't think you can win much here if any at all. The question I have for Mason is if you thought Abdul would bet all the way would you have folded on the turn or were you prepared to call him on the end(most of the time)
HUCK,
David posted under my joke post rather than my serious post which was under Mason's response. The fact is that it is often correct to check and call all the way through under certain circumstances (and this was probably one of them). But few otherwise talented players use this tactic even when it is clearly correct. I believe the reason is that most players don't want to appear to be a "calling station" because they associate it with weakness and they don't want to appear weak in front of their peers. Yet it can sometimes be the right way to play certain hands.
Regards,
Rick
HUCKIE BABY, your simply wrong. you are forgeting one aspect which is very important. Can you guess what that is? I'll give you a hint......no, no i won't.
Post deleted at author's request.
Oh my God. We finally got Gary back along with Abdul. I can now die happy.
I did not say that Abdul was bluffing. I said that he was capable of firing two barrels as a bluff. Big difference.
Post deleted at author's request.
Lately I've been finding myself responding to a lot of strategy posts by saying, "That really depends on the player you are up against". These heads-up confrontations are the extreme example of how important table context is. I don't see how anyone can claim that Mason's play was right or wrong, unless they are very familiar with the play of both Mason and Abdul, and perhaps unless they were at the table and observed what had happened over the last few hours.
The lawyer , or was it the gigolo , wrote:
...Mason's strategy was an implicit compliment to him.
Maybe you're right, but I viewed his strategy as an implicit insult. I don't mind such implicit insults, mind you, as if my opponents are making false assumptions about how I play, I gain. Immediately after the hand I thought that Mason was trying to exploit me, judging me as overaggressive rather than as optimal. I ran the hand past a good player and he thought the same thing.
If I were in Mason's shoes in that hand and I were playing against an optimal player, I would have played it pretty hard at some point, normally starting by 3-betting preflop. Playing KQ hard is part value betting, part semibluffing, and part bluff and bluster in case my opponent has that darn A3. I totally agree with Mason that KQ is locked to the river in this situation, but a hand like A3 can be pushed out.
The hands I would have raised with were: 22-AA, A2s-AKs, K2s-KQs, Q4s-QJs, 65s-JTs, 75s-J9s, T7s/J8s, A2-AK, K7-KQ, Q9-QJ, 98-JT, and J9. So I'm playing 42% (558/1326) of my hands on the button. From Mason's perspective, after I enter the pot the probability that I have an ace preflop not counting AA is 34% before Mason looks at his cards, 37% afterwards. Some of those I'm going to keep until the bitter end, but I could be pushed off of a sizable fraction of them. Also, I could easily have had a small pocket pair like 22-55 (5% of the time), which Mason might have been able to convince me to release due to the paired board. Since there is a nontrivial probability that I hold a currently better hand that Mason can push me off of, my inclination in his spot would be to push.
wrote:
On the end I thought that he might not try to steal it (as he didn't) and yet I might still win in a show down.
With the hand I held, my frame of mind was "value bet", not "bluff bet" (any ace should call me), but obviously I decided against a value bet. I expected Mason to show me an ace more often than not. Certainly the fact that I would check some better hands than KQ, like A3, lends support to his check there. Also, I would likely bet a missed 75s or other low hand, and with such a hand I would only fold or raise if he bet. I prefer to avoid the uncomfortable situation of having KQ out of position on the river in the first place, but your posts give me something to think about.
Dan Hanson writes:
Lately I've been finding myself responding to a lot of strategy posts by saying, "That really depends on the player you are up against". These heads-up confrontations are the extreme example of how important table context is.
You said it, David Sklansky basically said it, and Mason Malmuth almost said it, but this is simply wrong, unless I am a bad player, or I believe Mason is a bad player, or I believe Mason believes I am a bad player, or Mason believes I believe Mason believes I am a bad player (well, I've lost myself now.) There is a right way (most likely several right ways with identical expectations) to play Mason's hand against a competent opponent.
-Abdul
I am not a lawyer.
You got a problem with lawyers?
Later, Greg Raymer (Patent Attorney)
Not necessarily. Mason could play it that way simply to mix up his play. I do exactly that from time to time against agressive players just to let them know that if I check it doesn't mean I'll release the hand to a bet. Heads-up, there are lots of reasons to play the same cards in different ways, even against the same opponent.
Mixing your strategy can be part of the optimal strategy.
(I'm not weaseling... that's just how it is, like recall the recent thread where the optimal way to play on the river was to either bet all the time or you could bet with AA and a certain fraction of the time with AK. The latter optimal strategy is a mixed strategy, though it seemed to be weakly dominated in this case by the pure bet-always strategy.)
What's wrong w/ Q3s?
In general open-raising on the button with a hand like K2 would be risky because when the small blind calls you could be in trouble as there is no chance you have him in trouble. Being suited helps, but Q3s and Q2s are shaky. There is more of a difference between Q2s/Q3s and Q4s/Q5s than most people think, as it's not just a matter of your kicker playing directly, but also your kicker making straights, your kicker making two pair with another pair on the board, etc. However, I was wondering myself whether I should include Q2s and Q3s.
-Abdul
In the short handed section of the 21st Century Edition there is a discussion of the problems of playing hands that have a deuce or a trey in them. Some of you may want to look at that.
Though I agree with Abdul that Mason reraising before the flop is a very viable alternative, I disagree with a couple of points he makes about the way the hand was in fact played. (This disagreement makes me a little nervous because, as I have said before, when I disagree with Abdul I am only 95% to be right as opposed to the usua l99.997% and I hate taking that 5% chance.)
First, his comment that he would have more likely folded a pocket pair because the board was paired seems odd. Common sense suggests the opposite. But Abdul may have thought of something I haven't so I'll see what he says.
More importantly is the fact that Abdul seems to have misconstrued Mason's comment that Abdul would often not bluff on the end. The point was that Mason planned to fold if he did not improve but would still win some showdowns.
In any case this hand is extremely interesting and very sensitive to initial assumptions. It is worth a major essay if not a thesis. But against most aggressive players it is obvious to me that Mason's strategy is never too far from optimum as long as we are talking about KQ specifically.
Sklansky writes:
First, his comment that he would have more likely folded a pocket pair because the board was paired seems odd. Common sense suggests the opposite. But Abdul may have thought of something I haven't so I'll see what he says.
If I hold 44, then which board should I fear more on the turn if my opponent check-raises me... TT68 or T368 (or even T568)? Suppose my opponent has KQ. He has 12 outs against me in the first case, but only 6 outs against me in the second case. Just about any hand my opponent could have has a minimum of 12 outs against me if it doesn't already have me drawing to just 2 outs or dead. A pocket pair under a board pair with a couple of cards in between is a very vulnerable hand, agreed? I would almost never just call in that situation, though I might raise.
Sklansky writes:
More importantly is the fact that Abdul seems to have misconstrued Mason's comment that Abdul would often not bluff on the end. The point was that Mason planned to fold if he did not improve but would still win some showdowns.
Malmuth writes:
On the end I thought that he might not try to steal it (as he didn't) and yet I might still win in a show down.
You're right that I thought he implied he would call if I bet when actually it sounds like he would fold. I think a check-call is his best play on the river, again since I would check some hands that beat him but bet many hands that he beat, and since if he were to bet it would be questionable whether I would lay down any hand that beat him. But it's painful to check-call with KQ against me here, as I am going to value bet AQ or better. Again, with KQ I would just try to avoid this situation by winning the pot earlier.
-Abdul
(Abdul on why a paired board (or maybe just this paired board) is more fearful to 44:)
"If I hold 44, then which board should I fear more on the turn if my opponent check-raises me... TT68 or T368 (or even T568)? Suppose my opponent has KQ. He has 12 outs against me in the first case, but only 6 outs against me in the second case. Just about any hand my opponent could have has a minimum of 12 outs against me if it doesn't already have me drawing to just 2 outs or dead. A pocket pair under a board pair with a couple of cards in between is a very vulnerable hand, agreed?"
You're implying a rule of thumb that doesn't work. Its not the presence of the board pair that controls but which pocket pair and which board cards and board pair. A pocket pair with a board overpair and an undercard on the turn (e.g. 55 vs. TT63 is obviously much better than three overcards and one undercard (55 vs. T863), just as a board overpair is much less threatening to a lower pocket pair than two overcards.
Ignoring for a moment the qualifying factor of your opponent check-raising (and reversing the positions of the players in your original post), in your particular examples you in fact have more of a chance of being ahead against two random cards with 44 against the TT68 board than you do with the T368 board, and a significantly bigger chance than when you're against T568. I'd need to spend more time with this, but I would think that the preference for being ahead (that is, not being a 96% underdog on the turn) vastly outweighs any disadvantage from your opponent having a few outs or a bunch when he's behind. Great thread.
.
(-:|~~~~ (best I could do at providing a picture) writes: Immediately after the hand I thought that Mason was trying to exploit me, judging me as overaggressive rather than as optimal.
Shame on him for trying to exploit you in a poker game! But seriously, you can't expect him or anyone to assume you are playing close to what you believe to be "optimal" all the time, can you? You are presumably varying your play to adjust to opponents' variations in their play, as they are simultaneously doing the same. Exactly where your adjustments and his might fall at a given time in a session need not be bound so tightly to your attempt to play in an "optimal" way as a baseline. Maybe that's essentially what Dan said, and what you said about mix being part of optimal play, but I thought it could stand some clarification
You say this: The hands I would have raised with were: 22-AA, A2s-AKs, K2s-KQs, Q4s-QJs, 65s-JTs, 75s-J9s, T7s/J8s, A2-AK, K7-KQ, Q9-QJ, 98-JT, and J9.
But a year ago said this: I need to run more simulations, but right now my best guess for the minimum hands needed to raise on the button is as follows: 22 A2s K2s 54s 53s 63s 92s A2 K4 87 97
So then you were including hands as weak as 54s, 53s, 63s, 92s, 87, 97, K4. I think you felt *those* were optimal at the time. Anyway, you can see how a player might put you on a little wider range of hands than your most current standards. I get tired just trying to keep up with you and those dang changes! Then there's that reputation for aggression
With the hand I held, my frame of mind was "value bet", not "bluff bet" (any ace should call me), but obviously I decided against a value bet.
Lost me there. As I understand it you had A3 for ace-high. There was no 3 on the board. So how can you bet for value against another ace with a better kicker?
Also, I could easily have had a small pocket pair like 22-55 (5% of the time), which Mason might have been able to convince me to release due to the paired board.
More so than an ace? Why?
John Feeney
What a dilemma for Abdul. Should he be irritated at John Feeney for coming up with a good debating point against him or complimented that the guy saves YEAR OLD POSTS from him?
And to paraphrase what Badger said about this hand on RGP, might Abdul have been just a wee bit tempted to return to his old opening strategy on the button with Mason Malmuth in the big blind?
Disregard the part about the value bet vs bluff. On rereading more closely, I see what you were saying. (I had misinterpreted your comment to mean that you were thinking of value betting despite putting Mason on an ace. I figured you'd had too much caffeine.)
Oh, and you should probably feel complimented -- in an irritated sort of way. ;)
John F.
I was attempting to play the hand optimally (i.e., assuming an optimal opponent), an implicit compliment to Mason.
With the hand I held, my frame of mind was "value bet", not "bluff bet" (any ace should call me), but obviously I decided against a value bet.Lost me there. As I understand it you had A3 for ace-high. There was no 3 on the board. So how can you bet for value against another ace with a better kicker?
I was expecting Mason to call me with KQ and maybe KJ (though apparently I was wrong), but that doesn't make enough hands to offset the aces, which I thought he would show me over 50% of the time. In general, I make extremely thin value bets on the river, partially to cover my bluffs, and I also call check-raises with virtually any hand that I'm thin value betting, again partially to cover my bluffs. Here, checking with A3 was the correct play.
Also, I could easily have had a small pocket pair like 22-55 (5% of the time), which Mason might have been able to convince me to release due to the paired board.More so than an ace? Why?
I didn't say "more so." In the face of a check-raise on the turn, I would feel slightly more verklempt with A3 than 22, though at least A3 would have 12 outs to a pocket pair lower than the board cards, not to mention a ton of half-outs to better aces. In any case, the point was I might lay down both A3 and 22 here, a point in favor of playing KQ hard.
What do you think of my bet on the turn? It has a lot of pluses, but one of the minuses is that I open myself up to getting pushed out of the pot by a check-raise from KQ.
I have a gerschpilling in my ganectegezoid, so let me give you a topic:
The fundamental theorem is neither fundamental nor a theorem.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
-Abdul
"In general, I make extremely thin value bets on the river, partially to cover my bluffs, and I also call check-raises with virtually any hand that I'm thin value betting, again partially to cover my bluffs."
You say you call check-raises to cover your bluffs. Can you expand a little more on this I'm not quite sure if I call these checkraises for the same reasons you do. I was going to cut down on this practice mainly because I think I'm loosing money on it, but then again I've just been doing it mostly on instinct without completely understanding the situation at hand or so it appears.
I accept your explanation of the small pair but only if it is smaller than any of the board cards,
You say you were going to bluff with many hands that lose to KQ, but how many of them would you have bet on 4TH ST? If many, surely checking and calling all the way would be right especially given your year old John Feeney discovered opening strategy.
While trying to win the pot earlier is reasonable, my point has been that Mason's strategy was also reasonable and not simply timid as it might appear to some (timid players would fold on 4th st.). And the reason I called it a compliment to you is that he assumed you would sometimes RERAISE his bet or checkraise on the flop or fourth st. with hands you say you would fold. But if you did occasionally reraise instead, you would of course force him to fold a hand with 6 or 12 outs. Given that, a reraise before the flop is a viable alternative but not trickiness on the flop or 4th st. Thus once he decides on the option of just calling your raise, you must admit that against a tricky player like you, his stategy has many things to be said for it and is either optimal or not far from it.
If Abdul , you thought that mason would call you with an ace or better more than 50% of the time, then why would you bet the turn once he called you on the flop. From that point on it's pure bluff isn't it?
First, once Mason had flat called on the turn and then checked the river, then my estimate was there was a better than 50% chance that he had an ace (not just an ace or better, as I think he would have spoken up with a pair and not been so tenacious with cards much weaker than KQ.) On the turn after he checked, my estimate was different; he could have had any ten (that he would defend the big blind with), any two overcards, any ace, a flopped 3-straight/3-flush with a pair or overcard or a 3-straight-flush, etc.
Second, because I would have to call a bet on the river if I checked the turn (pot odds, and my check would induce him to bluff), it can easily make sense to instead bet the turn as a dog on average, as this gives my opponent an opportunity to make a mistake by folding, and also it allows me to put in an extra bet on the river if my hand improves. (If a 3 had come on the river, I would have bet my pair of 3's and called a check-raise.)
It often makes sense to bet as a dog if called or even as a dog period.
-Abdul
I see.
A good "Where the rubber meets the road" question. Any analysis on who is conservative and aggressive in basic character from the responses?
Maybe, in some cases. But maybe just analyses of what is the best play under the circumstances. I mention above having called players down in similar spots (passive approach). But I could also point to many, many times when I've opted to semi-bluff raise on the turn, raise as a pure bluff on the river, or what have you. It's a real handicap if you can't play *contrary* to your basic (passive vs aggressive) personality tendencies whenever it's correct to do so.
John Feeney
On the button, I'd remembered, I mean Abdul probably remembered that he'd read somewhere that against weak players he should try to play as many hands as possible, hence raise. Congrads to Mason though, in that he took not one bullet, but two.
There has been some good analysis on this hand. One important thing to discuss is fifth st. play. I believe all options are close. I lean toward checking and folding in this specific situation. If Abdul will sometimes bluff on fouth st. and often give up those bluffs on the end, that gives Mason high enough pot odds on his fourth st. call since he has two ways of winning. Of course that does not prove that alternatives would not be even better. It only shows that Mason's fourth st. play along with check and fold on the end should have a positive EV.
Mason: Just kidding. I read your essays, books, etc for many hours each month.
Here's a suggestion for a new 2+2 title: "Check and call your way to victory". I suspect it'll be a slim volume.
?Quien es mas macho -- Sr. Ben Dover o nostotros que decimos que es posible que llamando es correcto en este caso? Yo creo que Sr. Dover tiene un problemo de pensando que jugando en un metodo macho es correcto *todo* el tiempo. No es la verdad!
Juan Feeney
John Feeney writes: "?Quien es mas macho -- Sr. Ben Dover o nostotros que decimos que es posible que llamando es correcto en este caso? Yo creo que Sr. Dover tiene un problemo de pensando que jugando en un metodo macho es correcto *todo* el tiempo. No es la verdad! "
Well said. I got almost as much from this post as I did from your recent essay. Just to check out my reading comprehension let me know what you think of my summary, OK? Earn more, beat bigger games. Is that about it? Got it. Can I use that despite your copyright?
Ben (nose not yet brown) Dover
.
John (o Juan),
I think my HE game improved a great deal when I stopped being a very aggressive player. Not that being aggressive is wrong. I was just being aggressive at the wrong time, when it was definitely uncalled for and I was trying to win every single hand I played in and I pushed my hands too far. I decided to take a slightly more passive approach, but tried to be aggressive when I noticed weakness or I was sure (and I needed reason for this, such as a good read on the player's holding or knowing how the player would react to my play). Now I think I sometimes play certain hands a little more passively when I should've played them stronger. But I figure that by thinking about the particular hand I have been improving my game.
carlos
Carlos -- Yes, definitely. While the idea of playing aggressively is valid as a *general* rule of thumb, there are plenty of situations where checking and calling is absolutely correct. Probably the easiest to see is in many situations against an habitual bluffer. But the same idea extends to other situations (against many very aggressive players, to induce bluffs, to balance your play...). That you're thinking about it is a sign that you're expanding your repertoire and your understanding of the game.
John F.
Somewhere deep in the archives (perhaps Exchange) you'll find a chapter listing of my book with exactly that title.
JG
First off, its time to go home if you THINK your A3 was suited and discovered in the show down it was not. It is also time to get some kind of "tilt monitor" in place if you don't notice that the flop was paired. But I suspect this was not the situation at the time.
I think Mason should have 3-bet it. I think he WOULD have 2-bet the flop or turn if he had 2-pair. So your only "fear" on the river is whether he hit the river card or is holding A-modest; since A-paint is a sure 3-betting hand. It think he will fold A8 more than one time in 5, AND call with KJ often enough to warrent a bluff/value bet on the river.
- Louie
Yeh!
Yuck!
Reraise preflop! Bet flop! Win pot! BEST PLAY!
Play it Mason's way. O.K. it works for me! Well almost works! A little to passive to be the optimum strategy!
Play it Mason's way but bet River. Abdul, no fool. He call/raise. Hmmm. Maybe Abdul reraise if Mason reraise flop. Then what does Mason do. Oh man, maybe above not work against a top player like Abdul by another top player like Mason. Unless Abdul thinks Mason thinks that Abdul thinks that Mason thinks that Sklanksy doesn't think but knows that they both think that Zee,Zee,Z,Z,Z. That's all folks! Znoring time!
Vince.
I have to admit that you write the most creative posts on this forum. Maybe we should give you a piece of the ad revenue.
David,
"creative posts" A veiled criticism if I ever heard one. But not one to miss an opportunity to fondle my ego I will accept your remarks as a compliment and leave it at that.
Vince.
BTW - Make the "ad revenue" checks payable to....
I arrived at the casino with only a couple of hours to play. the two 20/40 games were full, with a couple guys on the list, but there was a 4 handed 40/80 game going, and the floor told me another one or two would enter soon (maybe a lie, but i fell for it anyway). i looked at the field, it was a tough field, 1 very aggressive but probably solid player, the other three guys were tight but aggressive, and probably very solid players as they always play in the higher limit games. but after reading John Feeney's guest essay, I figured it would be worthwhile to sit in and learn, and who knows, maybe a donator would sit in.
i played a couple hands, nothing much special...another guy sat in, and turns out, he's a very solid player too.....and another guy sat in, and he may have been the best player at the table. i look around, there's no fish...i guess i'm it. i play one last hand....it is now 7 handed.
I get AJ off UTG. i decide to just call, and hope for a good flop. too good (?) of a hand to lay down and not strong enough to fold.
everybody folds to the small blind. he raises. the small blind is a player that i highly respect. nice guy, very good player (it seems), probably a professional in the technology industry, playing poker as an interesting hobby type of thing. bb folds. i call.
flop is 823 rainbow.
sb bets. i put him either on middle pair like 99, TT or AK, AQ. I raise to see what he does, and to get a free card. a fold just doesn't seem to be a good idea here, especially when i know he'd bet even a KQ on this flop. he reraises. now when he reraises, i think to myself he must not have a big pair, AA thru QQ because with that hand, he'd probably want to trap me on the turn or something. so I pretty sure he has middle pair like 99 TT or two very high cards like AK AQ (probably not KQ now that he reraised). I think my image to him must be a normal 20/40 player who is playing 40/80 for the first time and probably a little nervous (this is actually true)....the guy probably plays 40/80 80/160 all the time, but I rarely do, so he probably doesn't recognize me. i try to use this to my advantage.
on the turn, it is a 5. he bets, i call.
on the river, is a 7. the board is 82357, no flush possibilities. he bets....i think about it for a second. these were my possibiilities...
1. He has a pair 99, TT .... maybe A8. 2. He has two big cards AK, AQ 3. He has two bigger cards than the board, but no A , KQ.
I put a lot of weight (but equal) on 1 and 2. so I figure if I call, its just a complete loser. but a raise may have a very good chance of getting AK AQ to fold. I think he has the abiliity to fold that hand even with a fairly large pot now, and he knows i'm a nervous 20/40 player playing in 40/80 so if i'm raising, i probably have something very good. maybe 87 two pair or higher pair than the board. so if he has a pair, he'll call....if he doesn't he's 90% to fold.
did i play this well given the situation or was i too aggressive? comments please.
There is validity to your thought process on the end. However, whether this is a profitable play (even if it fails often, if it succeeds enough, it is profitable) or a losing play depends almost entirely upon this particular opponent. Since I don't know him, and your description doesn't give me any obvious reads on him, I don't know.
Unless I thought that my bluffing potential was pretty live against this particular opponent, I would have folded to his bet on the flop. As you indicated yourself, you are very likely behind, and may be drawing very thin. The only reason to play on is if you think you can push him off of enough of those hands that you give him credit for having.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Perhaps you should have called on the flop and raised on the turn (much intimidating) IF you are quite sure he will bluff bet 2 barrels like Abdul'play against Mason with probably a couple of big cards and IF you think he may put you on a middle pair.
Giving ONE free card on the flop (but not on the turn) in this situation is not so dangerous since you already have an Ace and he may heave another one.
If K or Q comes on the turn you can now fold and it costed you one small bet.
If an A comes you may at least call on the turn.
This is different. Mason knows Abdul. Your opponent does not know you. In situations like this your ability to bluff goes way down unless you have been earning his respect for several hours. He'd have to have 1-card in his hand not to call your putative raise on the river.
JG
At the beginning of the hand, your UTG limp suggests a mediocre but not bad hand, such as (1) a medium pair, (2) an ace suited with a medium card, (3) above-average suited connectors (such as QJs) or (4) two big cards less than AQ. (Against this lineup I'd probably muck AJo UTG, 7-handed or not).
On the river, he should assume that you'll call or fold a medium pair, having been intimidated by his earlier aggression. Your raise on the end therefore substantially narrows the range of hands that you probably hold to (1) 87 or 77, the former being an unlikely hand for an UTG limper, (2) a slowplayed set or straight (also highly unlikely) or (3) nothing (categories 3 and 4 above).
In other words, he's got to figure you for hitting a miracle card or running a desperation bluff. He might add to the calculus your raise on the flop, which conveyed your doubts about him holding an overpair. A three-bet on the river could shatter that. Also, if he's really got nothing, he might be disinclined to throw it away here for image reasons, effectively telling the table that they can pick him off with a raise on the river: he'll pick up more small pots by showing an aggressive image here with nothing than he'll lose by reraising you. So given these factors and the good-sized nature of the pot (10 1/2 BB), he would be well-advised to call with any pair and the two "big card" hands you suspected him of holding (AK, AQ) and to reraise with anything worse. You're in essence betting that he won't suspect a desperation raise, but I don't think this is the place for it. (I hope it worked, however).
he folded.
You don't tell us what happened but you must have balls of brass. If you don't flop anything with AK or Aj for that matter you through it away. Specially heads up when the pot is not that big. Now if you knew this guy I would say as a big lose cannon bluffer you may raise him but you don't say that either. I suspect that you were a few chips lighter and you just posted to verify what you already suspected you played lose.
I am interested in playing this game. Is there a book published that is worth reading? Any 2+2 stuff? Any other advice from pineapple players would be appreciated.
Dave in Cali
As in all hi-lo split games, hands that can win both ways are much better than 1-way hands.
Unlike Omaha8, unless there are still numerous people in the hand at the river, you will find many situations where there is no made low, even if there are 3 low cards on board. This is because if there are 2 low cards on the flop, people must discard, and therefore their low draws are counterfeited much more often.
The winning high hand usually must be very strong. Unlike HE, top pair, top kicker is not much of a hand. When you have AKQ, and the flop is A7T, you really shouldn't like your hand that much (unless the flop was seen only 2- or 3-handed). If this is a typical lower limit CP game, then so many folks saw the flop (with 3 cards each) that someone is quite likely to have 2-pair or a set. Plus, even if you're ahead for high now, there is a good chance of losing half the pot to a low draw that gets there, plus the chance of losing to a high draw that sucks out on you, plus the chance of losing to a low draw that backs into a straight or flush in addition to their low. When you add these chances up, top pair is often a folding hand on the flop, unless no one else is betting.
There are at least 1 or 2 books out there. I have one, whose title and author escape me at the moment. That book primarily just preaches playing tight preflop. While that advice is correct in a typical loose game, it doesn't help much in any other type of game, so you don't really need to read it.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
what exactly are the rules and structure of crazy pineapple i have seen it written about, but the important stuff for someone who has never seen it are missing
OK.
Here's how I've seen it played. The general structure is like HE and Omaha. Like Omaha8, the game is played hi/lo, with an 8 or better required for low. Like HE and unlike Omaha, you do not need to use 2 cards from your hand. Like HE, you can use 0, 1, or 2 cards from your hand (i.e., any 5 of the 7 cards may be used to make your hand, and different combos can be used for hi and lo simultaneously).
Preflop you are dealt 3 cards. After the flop, you must discard 1 of your 3 cards. Here's a difference I've seen. In California, you had to discard sometime before the turn card was dealt. In Connecticut (although this game is seldom played here) you must discard as soon as the flop is dealt, before any betting occurs. After the discard, play is as for HE or omaha. On the river, you turn over your cards, and the best hi and lo (if it qualifies) split the pot. There is no declare.
BTW, among moderately skilled players, I see a lot more evidence of frustration while playing this game than any other. You frequently have the situation where you start with A24, the flop brings 2 low cards, you discard the 4 so you have the nut low draw, and then a 2 shows up on the turn or river, effectively killing your hand. The problem here is you hear people griping about "throwing away the wrong card". In other words, this game provides an extra avenue for second guessing yourself.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
In the midwest Crazy Pineapple is usually played as FossilMan described, but it is high poker only. That makes it a Hold Em game with very strong hands shown at the end.
In some games I have played in you must use at least one card from your hand; that is you cannot play the board.
As Greg decribed, the game is played as Hold'em, except you are initially dealt three cards, and usually must discard one. Whether and when you discard depends on the particular variant you are playing.
In Pineapple, you discard before the flop.
In Crazy Pineapple, you discard after the flop.
In Tahoe Pineapple or Lazy Pineapple, you don't discard, but can use no more than two cards from your hand to make a hand (although you can use a different two cards for high and for low).
The game is played either high or low. When played hi-lo in a cardroom, there's an 8 qualifier on the low (and no declare).
I've only logged a few dozen hours of this at a 10-20 limit, but I think the high hand is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be if the game's not ridiculously loose.
Two examples. 1) I've had reasonable success pushing a vulnerable hand like an overpair, on flops like 10-7-3. The reason is that most of the hands that might want to draw against you won't with the low draw out there, and you'll end up pitted against a bunch of people drawing at the low. 2) When an ace flops with another low card like a 6 or a 7, AK is a pretty good hand. The other aces will keep a low card for the runner-runner low potential, and few other high hands will be willing to tango with an ace on the board.
Well, an overpair is certainly better than top pair, for obvious reasons. And, that means that it can be played more often and/or more aggressively than top pair.
However, it still isn't a great hand. Let's say you have JJ on your flop of T73. First, there is a 77% chance that a low will be possible by the river. While no one will actually make a low some of those times, you will still be losing half the pot about 65% of the time (my guesstimate).
Among those low draws, there is likely an A. This will connect and beat you for high sometimes. Other low draws may include a 3-straight, a 4-straight, a 3-flush, and/or a 4-flush. These will connect and beat you for high sometimes as well. Sometimes, an opponent won't give up his AT or the like, and he'll catch a 5-outer and beat you.
Then, sometimes your JJ isn't good for high right now anyway. Someone called preflop with A33, and now has a set.
Now, against the right players and under the right circumstances, you should continue with JJ. I am very much not saying that top pair or an overpair should always be folded on the flop. That is way too weak-tight. However, the real trick is judging (from the action and who gives it) when your hand is no good and should be folded, and when you should just call to reduce your exposure, and when you should bet or raise aggressively to drive out some of those weaker draws that might beat you.
It can be quite tricky, and an expert player has a bigger edge in this game than in HE (I believe). When this game became popular in San Diego (for about a year and a half) it was almost always a GREAT game. The only downside is that it only got spread much at 3-6. But this game was at least 2-3 times more profitable than the 3-6 HE games in the same room. And, unlike Omaha8, the optimal strategy for playing in a loose game is less easy to discern, and only the really good players ever became good at this game IMO.
I wish it was spread at high limits everywhere!
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I have no feel for Pinapple hi/lo.
But straight high has the feature that players see LOTS of hands they like; there being 3 times as many hands with both cards T or higher. Thus, bad players play WAY TOO MANY trouble hands.
AK is a trouble hand. It should usually be folded in volume pots if there is a call and a couple callers, even if you DID flop an Ace. I think.
If you do not have a premium hand then you must have a 3-card hand. An exception may be Axs since you can expect callers to the river.
- Louie
Somewhat loose 10-20 HE game. You've been playing for about 2.5 hours and folding almost all of an unbelievably bad string of starting hands. You've noticed that other players are giving you a lot of respect (predictably) when you are involved in a pot.
You are in the big blind with pocket nines. Three limpers. A tough aggressive player raises on the button. You call. The limpers call. The flop comes Q-Q-9. How would you play this?
Suppose you checked, the button bet, you called, and one player called behind you. The turn is an eight. What now?
Suppose you checked, the button bet, you called, and the other player folded. The river is a ten. What now?
I would probably bet the river hoping my opponent has a Jack and raise me so I can make it 3 bet or have my opponent make a crying call with a hand like KK, AA, AQ or KQ. But then, I might've led the bet on the flop to see what would the button's reaction would be and at least try to put him on some kind of hand. Your hand is pretty strong that I don't think there is anything wrong with just betting the flop, maybe your opponents will not put you on such strong a hand when you bet the flop and not wait until the turn to get some action.
carlos
It is hard to answer the questions you posed since they assume my playing that hand in a way I believe to be incorrect. I do agree with checking and calling after the flop. However, I would check raise on the turn, not check call. And I would bet out on the river. One of the reasons to bet and/or check raise (besides to build the pot) is to get information about your opponents hands. With the passive way this hand was played, you did neither. The button could have anything from 4Q's to nothing. You might like to know this before the final betting. Black Jack
With 4 players, it's 2 to 1 against anyone having a Q. The odds are in your favor then, that you indeed have the best hand. The button could be assuming you also have no Q, and he could be playing any combination of A and K. I would either check-raise the flop to see where I stand, to see if I'm re-raised perhaps. But since the button is aggressive I would tend to play like I do have the best hand, and check raise the turn. But I also am an aggressive player. Comments welcome.
I don't think there's much doubt that I had the best hand on the flop. I certainly didn't give it much thought. I may be up against a hand that is drawing live, and the question is how to weigh that against other factors.
I think that a check raise on the flop is almost certainly the wrong play, especially when it is the button who bet. There are a lot of hands that will pull off one more card for a small bet that are (essentially) drawing dead against you---with only a fraction of 1% chance of beating you. You might even get a late position player to call with a gutshot. The more people you lure in here, the better the chance that someone picks up a calling hand for a later round. And regardless of the type of player you are or I might be, I could never hope to get much action by checkraising in a spot with a bunch of strangers who've been watching me fold for the last few hours straight.
Ok. I'd assumed that you were in doubt as to the strength of your hand. Your intention was then, to slow play the hand. So, ok we just call the flop, fine. Yet, I say either bet the turn and if raised, re-raise, or check the turn and checkraise. Both to get more money into the pot. Your hand is strong, but at the turn I say it's time to go for it, even if other players drop. It is just possible you know that letting them in at the river could allow someone to catch some "miracle" card to beat you, that is a larger full house. Good Luck.
I would bet right out. Once you do, there are 11.5 small bets in the pot. This is plenty of pot odds for people to call with JT, or any gutshot straight draw (since they may not factor in the "drawing dead" part of the equation). This flop can provide a wide variety of draws. Plus, once they call for 1 bet, if the button raises, you can just call, and this will go a long way towards disguising your hand. Now, you've gotten 2 bets in from a lot of players, AND disguised your hand.
Whether you should bet out again on the turn or go for a check-raise, or check-call, depends upon the card and the players. If the button is less likely than not to bet again (i.e., his raise on the flop may have been a free card play for AK), then don't go for the check-raise or check-call. If the card is a 9, T, J, or K, then someone may have made a straight. You can either bet out knowing they will at least call, or check and hope they bet for you. Same considerations if there are now 3 suited cards on board.
Most of the time, I will bet out again on the turn, as that will get more money into the pot more often than the alternatives. However, the correct decision is highly dependent upon the players and the current character of the game.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I would put more emphasis on two problems with betting out on the flop: (1) the possibility of a third queen with another "nearby" card weakens any draw, both by reducing the chance of hitting and the amount of action you'll get if it does; and (2) your image. Two 1/2 hours is a long time without catching cards, and there's a real threat that your opponents, having none of this board, will let it go on the flop or for one small bet. The button might be particularly cautious about giving you action, while a show of weakness on your part might encourage him to walk out on a limb.
I would prefer to check the flop and bet the turn. If a rag hits, they might suspect a cold bluff, and if a straight card hits, they might continue with a draw and/or suspect a semibluff on your part. Waiting until the turn, IMO, gives you the best chance to induce a raise that could ultimately tie someone on until the end.
(BTW, why didn't you repop him preflop?)
I agree with you that betting out was not the right play here. Marginal drawing hands can't call with a pair on the board and the threat of a raise behind, especially given my table image. I'm surprised that people are disputing my play on the flop, which, in my opinion, was about the only part of this hand that I almost certainly played correctly.
I wasn't really happy with how the action went on the turn. Betting out might have induced bluff-raises from more aggressive players. As it turned out, I did manage to induce the button to bluff twice---he held K-10---and he might have been more inclined to toss the hand to a bet. I think there's a case to be made for checking and calling here, given my weak-tight image and to make it easy for the guy behind me to call. I'm still not sure how the best way to play the turn was.
The truly bone-headed move, which I left out of my original post, was the bet I missed on the river. Given the Q-Q-10-9-8 board, there are a lot of calling hands out there, and also a lot of hands that will check behind me. Some players will even lose faith in their unimproved queen at this point, fearing a straight. The guy would also have been tempted to call with a hand as weak as K-10.
As for not repopping preflop, I have to be honest that it never even occurred to me. Now that you say it, I note that it might have worked. The limpers would have been pressured to fold with my table image---it might have thinned the field considerably. That said, under normal (image) circumstances, I'm usually content to pay my ten bucks and have a nice big multi-way pot in this spot, given my position.
I'm in the big blind with 10s2s. Loose 3-6 game. Six callers to me without a raise. I take the free play.
Flop comes T 2 8 rainbow. SB checks, I bet, everyone calls until the tilt-master type player on the button, who raises. He is somewhat stuck and his raising standards are very low today. I re-raise, two drop, rest call.
Turn is an offsuit 3, no flush possible. I bet again. Rest fold, tiltmaster raises. I don't think he has a hand, judging from the look on his face. I decide to re-raise. He calls after some thought....
River is a 4. I bet, He calls. He has AT. I guess I read him right.
Comments/suggestions?
Dave in Cali
Sounds fine to me. With your second pair being so low, you don't want to give a free card, so bet it as hard and often as possible (until and unless someone convinces you that your hand isn't the best, which didn't happen here).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You are in a $120 buy-in limit hold-em tournament. You get $800 in tournament chips. The rounds are 30 minutes. The limits start at $10-$20 up to $500-$1,000 or whenever the tournament is over. There are 278 entrants. The first prize is 40% or $11,200, and 27th place gets 2% or $150. Second place gets 23% and third place gets 12%. The limit is at $500-$1,000. You are at the fourth table, and you have $6,500 in chips. An early position player raises to $1,000. A player just to the right of the button makes it three bets to $1,500. When the reraiser next to the button makes it three bets, you ask "what do you have -- pocket aces?" He reacts surprised that you guessed his holding, but otherwise does not make a comment. He remains silent. You are in the small blind. You look down and see two black Kings. What do you do? Fold, call, or raise?
This is an actual hand which I was involved in at the Bicycle Club's Bike Bash IV Tournament. Instead of going with my first impression, and sitting on my chips, I made it four bets. The original raiser folded. We were heads up. The flop came all black cards. I can't remember which, but they were small to medium sized. I had an overpair. I bet. My opponent called. The turn came another black card. I don't remember if it was a spade or a club. I bet $1,000. My opponent raised it to $2,000. I sensed trouble, but I ignored my feelings and called his raise. Another black card came on the river. There were either three clubs or three spades on the board. I don't remember which. I checked. He checked, apparently because there was a three flush on the board. He turned over two red Aces. I was down to about $1,600, and before long I was out of the tournament and out of the money.
When you get pocket Kings, it is awfully hard to throw them away on the flop, let alone before the flop. I was overly excited getting pocket Kings, and ignored my first impression of the reraiser's possible holding. He had just come to the table, and had not had much chance to observe his play. How would you have played pocket Kings under the above described circumstances?
You wrote:
"The limit is at $500-$1,000. You are at the fourth table, and you have $6,500 in chips. An early position player raises to $1,000. A player just to the right of the button makes it three bets to $1,500. When the reraiser next to the button makes it three bets, you ask "what do you have -- pocket aces?" He reacts surprised that you guessed his holding, but otherwise does not make a comment. He remains silent. You are in the small blind. You look down and see two black Kings. What do you do? Fold, call, or raise?"
Since you had a "tell" of sorts on the guy with aces, why on earth would you call? If you are certain the other guy has aces, FOLD!!! You are a 4.5:1 underdog, and the pot is only offering you 2:1. Plus it's late in a tournament, this promises to be a big confrontation, and you only have 6.5 big bets left. You can fold now for free!
Of course, without the tell, it could be most difficult to lay down those pretty kings, I'm sure....
Dave in Cali
In a sense, the strength of your hand is immaterial. What matters is the RELATIVE strength of your hand.
I can't say whether you should have played this hand or not. It really comes down to your read of the other player. If you think that your hand is the best preflop, then you should have capped it as you did. If you have enough confidence in your read of this player, then you fold. You can't just call here, because 3 bets is too much to pay hoping to flop a set (under the circumstances).
Of course, sometimes you make a play preflop, and then reevaluate what you think the other guy has later in the hand also (not that I would have folded on the turn once the pot has gotten this big).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Hi,
Very interesting post, got me thinking. I wish I could do as I say more of the time, although I am getting much better at it:
If you just know that someone has something
which makes you a losing second best,
but the losing cards you have look so pretty, then you must fold em.
You made me remember the nice full house I flopped (66) 677 on board years ago, big pot, three players, then the turn was, yes, you guessed it, another 7...I knew who had the quads, just knew it, but I paid off. His forehead had a sign, I have the case 7, I have the case 7. I just would not believe my nice boat was beaten.
Mark
"When you get pocket Kings, it is awfully hard to throw them away on the flop, let alone before the flop."
As hard as it may be, it is the ONLY correct play! Throw them away before the flop! Not because you asked ( a silly question) and YOU felt he gave you a SURPRISED (silly again) response. You fold because it is the CORRECT play at this stage of the tournament given the situation you found yourself.
Vince.
BTW - It is easier said than done! Throwing away the Kings that is!
Hello, I really need some advice. I consider myself a pretty tight player, and I play low limit.. $3-6 and $4-8. Once in awhile I play on Delta Casino online, and sometimes I get stuck in situations that frustrate me to no end. A 3-way match-up or heads-up. Everytime im in one of these games, All they do is Raise,raise,RAISE EVERY SINGLE HAND!!! This completley throws me off... I dont have much experiance in this situation and I really,really,really would appreciate some advice or strategy. I know most people are goign to say "Just dont play in those games", but I want to improve that aspect of my game, not shy from it. So any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank You!!, Hornet
The issue isn't so much that they're raising, but what they're raising with. You need to get a line on the players, and determine what range of hands they will play this way. If it's heads-up and they'll raise with absolutely anything, then you can call them down with any hand that rates to win a high enough percentage of the time. This will include a variety of hands that have no pair, such as A high and K high.
The much tougher spot is when you're against 2 of these guys at the same time, and they're raising each other. Now it will cost you many bets to get to the river, and it's much harder to call with these marginal (e.g., K high) hands. While it's more likely that at least one of them has some kind of hand that beats you, you're now getting 2:1 on your investment. This still means you need to tighten up, but you certainly don't need top pair or better to call them down.
Now, the situation is much different if the player(s) are somewhat (or highly) selective with their starting hands, and THEN jam unmercilessly once they come in. It takes a much better hand to call them down now.
So, get an idea what each of these opponents needs before he goes into jam mode, and call him down with the appropriate range of hands. Also, you will eventually want to determine how these guys respond when you do more than call, such as bet into them or raise their bet. Some of these maniacs get even more aggressive when you do this, others close down.
Also, don't forget the other guy (when there is one) who is also tagging along. If someone who isn't a jammer is also calling the bets, you now need a MUCH stronger hand to call. This other guy also feels he has a better hand than the jammer, and he may be slowplaying a very big hand.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I disagree a little, but it would help if I knew for sure exactly what game we are talking about. I assume it's hold-em as that is all that is played on the web (as far a I know) and it's a game with frequent raises before the flop. While I have no experience with this game, I will give you my opinion which I think should apply anyway.
This is it. Fold until you have nuts or something you can slowplay. This will do two things. First, they will pay you off. Second, they will get nervous anytime you call. Of course, you may want to adjust your play throughout the game, but it seems to me that playing tight against these manics is better than going in with marginal hand.
These manics will raise you to the river. Then your stuck playing that marginal hand for lots of money when it really does not have a lot of value. Playing nuts will both win you money against the manics who may be raising with marginal hands, and it will tend to throw them off their game by making them call rather then bet and raise when you're in the game, something you can take advantage of later.
If you wait for the nuts in 3-way Hold'em you'll be down to the felt in no time. You need to play at least 75% of the hands you're dealt, while mixing up raising, limp-re-raising, slow-playing, check-raising, call/bluff-raising, etc. Fold a lot and you'll get broomcorned, then when you have something you'll only win the blinds.
Are you sure? Nuts in hold-em is a high pair, I think. The moment they start folding is the moment you start calling and betting. Pretty soon they'll call, then go back to playing strong starting hands. That's what I mean by adjusting your play. If you call with marginal hands, you'll find yourself up against strong hands more often then not.
Two suggestions:
1) Respect position. Play your button aggressively before the flop, especially with big cards. Don't be afraid to sacrifice your little blind with marginal starting hands---you don't want to get jammed with these when you're out of position. The crime in this game is folding the button and the big blind too often.
2) Do some thinking about what it takes to win. A lot of players fail to make the adjustment from a full game because they just don't know where they are. For example, against one opponent with two unpaired cards, it's about 2 to 1 that he missed the flop. What does this mean? When you have a pair, you're probably ahead and you should play it that way. Bet out or check-raise when you have second pair. Don't be intimidated by positional raises and don't give free cards when you have a good hand. Call people down when you're in doubt: it sounds like your opponents are in there a lot with nothing. Calling is not a crime in heads up situations.
Can we get a ruling on how this is *normally* handled, although it's not a normal occurrance.... :)
Home game:
Flop is T,T, xxx
Button bets all the way through to the river.... 3 callers (including the button) at the showdown... Button rolls over his cards, and low and behold, he has a Ten, along with a Queen..... along with a 3... :)
After considerable arguement, the pot was split 4 ways...
Comments
Thanks
Larry
I'm pretty sure that the ruling in almost every public cardroom is that the 3-card hand is dead, and can get nothing from the pot. Once that hand is killed, you look at the other shown hands, and give the pot to the winner.
A harder situation is where the button shows his T, and someone(s) mucks their hand before it is noticed that the button has 3 cards (and a dead hand). While the muckers and maybe others will be pissed, the proper ruling is to again kill the dead hand, and then award the pot to the best shown hand. The lesson here is to hold your cards until you see both of the winners cards, and see that he doesn't have 3 cards.
Of course, in a home game, ruling often differ just because the game is more sociable and the players trust one another.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
What type of poker game should l learn first? What would be the best book for it?
I suggest: Texas Holdem as the first game.
Books: Start with Holdem Poker (2+2) and Winning Low Limit Holdem (Lee Jones ).
soon after: Theory of Poker, and Holdem For the Advanced Player 21st century editon.
After that buy every good poker book, there are not that many.
I also suggest playing on IRC poker and using Wilson Turbo Texas Holdem software to get some cheap pre-experience.
David
Great post, not much I can add, but...
You should practice dealing out hands, or playing turbo HE, until you can unquestionably read the board perfectly every time. In any form of poker, whether casino or wild-card home games, you must know EXACTLY what you have and what you might hope improve to. Then practice reading the board on the computer or in your home game.
Remember your home game will be nothing like the casino, it's MUCH harder to win in the casino. You usually need a good hand to be in the pot at all. The tactics are different, so you need to read about them before beginning play.
The 4 books mentioned are essential reading for HE. Theory of poker is probably the most important one, if you are really serious about being a good player. You will probably have to read it several times and keep referring to it often....
Dave in Cali
p.s.
Should you decide down the road to conquer another game, I suggest 7CS and read S/M/Z's book.
I would also recommend 7-CARD STUD:42 LESSONS by Roy West.I would also recommend Wilson Turbo 7-Card Stud for Windows7-stud i a most fun and challenging game.
Thanx all of you!!! for the information. ;)
Yeh! Well we will see if you still say Than(x)ks when Malmuth sends you the bill!
Vince
A local card club spreads a 4-8 7Stud game with a $1 ante and a $1 bring in. Now the house takes $3 as rake. However if there is no 4th street card the house doesn't drop any money at all.
So for a ante steal, a $4 bet can gain you $9 in a full table. Something that doesn't happen that often, by the way. Now, this game seems to have a larger ante than a 20-40 game with a $3 ante and a $5 bring in (for 8 handed the total amount of money after the bring in is 1.45 small bets). The 4-8 Stud, 8 handed, after the rake has a total of $6, or 1.5 small bets.
Should this game be played to knock other players out, just like a bigger Stud game? What effect can it have on the bad players? Does this game penalize those that play too tight? Any ideas?
Carlos
dont play it!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you and one other player see the pot for the bring in only, that's 10$ in the pot. If that $$ is going to be raked 3$ that's 30%. So it seems like everyone at the table will be severely penalized for tight play and small pots. With that rake structure, you don't want to win a bunch of small pots. I would question whether it's worth it to play in that game, or even possible to beat the rake.
Dave in Cali
Last night the local card club was spreading a 10-20 Omaha/8 game with 1/2 kill. The lineup was made mostly of Holdem Players (with some being rather weak). I decided to sit down since the game looked good. I post a hand in the cutoff seat and get dealt A245 with the 2 and 4 of diamonds. It was raised by a middle position player and I just called. (1) Should I have reraised? I figure that with that hand I wanted as many people in the pot and I was ready to make it 4 bet if someone raised after I just called. The button and the blinds call. We take the flop 5 handed.
The flop comes K 9 3 rainbow and the BB bets. Middle position player (MP) calls. I call. button calls and small blind call. Turn comes a 6. Now i have a nut low draw with an open ended straight. Action gets checked to me. I checked (2) Should I have bet my strong draw at this point trying to get more money in the pot? Should I worry about getting there with the low and get quartered? There seemed no indication that there was an A2, but the game was a little passive. Button checks. River comes a 2. Now I have nut low (A4) and nut high (6-hi straight). Action gets checked to me. I bet and get 4 callers. I scoop the pot.
Here is another hand that doesn't involve a low and was pretty much head's up with a player who I think is a very good HE player. I have never played Omaha with him before. I raise first in with As7sThJh. The big blind calls. Flop comes KJJ (rainbow). BB checks. I bet. BB raises. I reraise. BB reraises!. (1) At this point the BB is showing a lot of strenght and I am guessing that he has a KJ, AJ, or KK. I don't think he would play QT that strongly in this situation. But I do fear KK or KJ at this point. Turn brings a T giving me a full house and BB fires a bullet. (2) Since I figure that if I was behind on the flop, the T makes my hand better, but not relative to my opponent's hand. I decide not to raise and just go on calling mode. River is a 4 (Board now: K J J T 4) and BB checks. I checked behind. (3) I know I probably made a mistake here by not value betting my fullhouse, since if my opponent really did have KJ he would've definitely bet the river, even AJ he would've bet. He says I have a Jack and I show my hand to take the pot.
Any comments welcome,
Carlos
First Hand:
I don't think there is much value to jamming pre flop in a multiway pot with a hand that has little high value other than wheel potential. Even if your Ace was suited, it only serves to increase your variance since no single hand is a huge favorite against the field. In O8, I raise preflop to get the button, isolate a weak player, or take control of the hand for a potential free card on the flop. I don't usually raise just to builf the pot.
Post flop, it was worth peeling one card off for a single bet since you had a strong "draw to a nut draw" with any ace, 2,3,4,5 or 6 giving you a nut low and straight draw. You should ALWAYS worry about drawing to a low just to get quartered, but that is why counterfiet protection (which you had) is so important. Despite the stregth of your draw, you did the right thing by taking the free card, especially in a multiway pot playing with guys that will pay you off when you get there. If you had a king or a pair of Aces you might venture a bet in hopes of saving the high hand if the low doesn't et there.
Second Hand:
Since it was heads-up, he properly played his Jack strongly, as hig must figure that YOU would surely slowplay KK or KJ with that board. I think your slowing down on the flop and turn was reasonable, but you correctly second guessed yourself. You missed a bet on the river. If you have position, you gotta use it. Especially in Omaha.
Post deleted at author's request.
First hand, preflop - I don't really know which is the BEST way to play this hand. The good thing is that it's a strong hand, and strong both heads-up and in a big multiway pot. Since I don't think you're losing much (if anything) by 3-betting here, I think a call is preferable just because it reduces your variance.
On the flop, the call is OK. As M7 said, more than half the deck gives you a nut draw, and all those low cards but an 8 give you a straight draw as well. On the turn, I would bet more often than not. 20 cards out of 44 give you the nut low. Of those 20, 3 give you the nut high (2), 3 give you the very likely best high (4), 7 give you a more likely than not best high (7,5), and 7 give you the low only (A,8). If everyone calls, this bet is profitable. If only 1 player calls, this bet could be setting you up to win with a bluff on the river when you miss. Finally, this bet is only a negative when exactly 2 players call. In this spot, it still may enable you to bluff on the river if necessary.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"Last night the local card club was spreading a 10-20 Omaha/8 game with 1/2 kill. The lineup was made mostly of Holdem Players (with some being rather weak). I decided to sit down since the game looked good. I post a hand in the cutoff seat and get dealt A245 with the 2 and 4 of diamonds. It was raised by a middle position player and I just called. (1) Should I have reraised? I figure that with that hand I wanted as many people in the pot and I was ready to make it 4 bet if someone raised after I just called. The button and the blinds call. We take the flop 5 handed."
I would just call there. You want many players with that hand. Your hand is not strong 2 or 3 way and you don't want to put a lot of money behind it if you will only be facing one or two opponents. Against a crowd, you have a strong hand and a fourth bet would be correct. Also, a 4-bet would create a sufficiently large pot to keep virtually any high draw in after the flop, which is to your advantage with an A2. So I agree with the call with the intention of 4-betting a reraiser if many players are in.
"The flop comes K 9 3 rainbow and the BB bets. Middle position player (MP) calls. I call. button calls and small blind call. Turn comes a 6. Now i have a nut low draw with an open ended straight. Action gets checked to me. I checked (2) Should I have bet my strong draw at this point trying to get more money in the pot? Should I worry about getting there with the low and get quartered? There seemed no indication that there was an A2, but the game was a little passive. Button checks."
Nobody is going to fold here (since they all called on the flop with only slightly better odds and now there's a second low card on board). A bet would gain value even if you are quartered for low.
"Here is another hand that doesn't involve a low and was pretty much head's up with a player who I think is a very good HE player. I have never played Omaha with him before. I raise first in with As7sThJh."
You were in the button, right? This hand is only playable as a steal.
"The big blind calls. Flop comes KJJ (rainbow). BB checks. I bet. BB raises. I reraise. BB reraises!. (1) At this point the BB is showing a lot of strenght and I am guessing that he has a KJ, AJ, or KK. I don't think he would play QT that strongly in this situation. But I do fear KK or KJ at this point. Turn brings a T giving me a full house and BB fires a bullet. (2) Since I figure that if I was behind on the flop, the T makes my hand better, but not relative to my opponent's hand. I decide not to raise and just go on calling mode. River is a 4 (Board now: K J J T 4) and BB checks. I checked behind. (3) I know I probably made a mistake here by not value betting my fullhouse, since if my opponent really did have KJ he would've definitely bet the river, even AJ he would've bet. He says I have a Jack and I show my hand to take the pot." His check-raise on the flop announces a minimum of Jx. Your reraise indicates a jack with high kicker. His raising that would normally represent a monster. It's possible that he would be semibluffing QT or AQT or QT9, but those would probably not be check-raise hands, and a good player would slow down with them once it's obvious that you have a hand. When the T hits the turn, AQT and QT9 make straights, QT still has a draw (unlikely that he would bet again), KJ/KK/JJ are ahead of you, AJ is now behind you, Jx is still losing. JJ and KK and even KJ would probably have been slowplayed until the turn by most players. More likely, he has AJ or Jx. If he's normally an aggressive player, I would be inclined to raise the turn and bet the river. If he's primarily a holdem player, he may not be sufficiently adjusting to the greater strength of Omaha hands in virtually all situations. He may be playing hands strongly on the flop and turn that are actually far weaker than his play would indicate.
I was first one in maybe 2 off the button when I raised with that hand. I would've been happy just stealing the blinds. And it almost worked, only that the big blind called and he got trapped when I had the better kicker with my Jack.
Carlos
As an aside, in limit Omaha or Omaha8, it is probably NEVER a loss of EV if everyone folds preflop to your raise.
In other words, your EV on the hand if played to a conclusion probably never exceeds the value of the blinds alone in a limit game (with exceptions for really weak opponents).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I would reraise preflop with that hand. I normally raise preflop with hands that have a combination of powerfull draws to the nuts, and vulnerable or weak non-nut draws. With your starting hand, you want hands that contain middle connectors out. You don't want your 5 or 6 high straight beaten by other straights. Raising (and in this case reraising) can do that. Raising and reraising with hands like Ad2d5hTh also create the possiblilty of scooping if a runner-runner heart flush comes in after you make a low.
Hey Chris,
It was the first hand I played. I had just posted a $10 blind in late position and the raiser was the first to open the pot. I didn't feel that I wanted to get head's up with the opponent when my hand was more geared towards the low. Now as I said earlier, if the BB had made it 3 bets. After the button and the small blind called. I would not have hesitated to make it 4 bets with that hand, since with 5 players in the hand I am not likely to lose, even if quartered.
carlos
The button is to my left in a fairly passive 2-5 game. I have pocket jacks and raise to $7 after three limpers. All fold but two limpers. A tight player in seat four and an unknown in seat six. The flop is A 8 4 rainbow. The tight player bets $5 and the unknown calls. The pot is now $35. I fold. Comments please..
You have a tight player betting into the raiser, and an unknown player calling the person betting into the raiser. Given your assessment of the other players capabilities, I absolutely agree with your fold. One or both of your opponents had A-x. Black Jack
I agree with the fold. My experience with pocket jacks is: You would preferably play them against either one or two players so that they may stand up on their own or against an entire field of 5 or more, in which case I would be looking to trip up and have a possible big pot. Three or four opponents is not what I'm looking for. Hence, IMO pass up the raise pre-flop here. Good Luck.
" You would preferably play them against either one or two players...Hence, IMO pass up the raise pre-flop here. "
His raise got him against two other players. Had he limped, he was guaranteed at least 4 callers, but if the button and SB folded, he's playing up against 4.
It's also worth noting in a 2-5 game (where the bets on the turn and river don't increase), you won't get paid off as much when you hit your set.
Raise the flop and fold if reraised. Why? You tell me!
Vince.
I guess folding to a reraise is correct because the worst hand I am up against is AK and the pot is still not big enough for my two outs. There is some chance that both would fold (say a weak ace) to my raise. That would be nice but not too likely. Suppose one or both players call my raise and check to me when the turn is a blank. Do I take my "free" card? Or do I bet again? Do I fold to a check raise on the turn? I'm obviously having trouble telling you why I should raise the flop. /moses
Raise the flop for the same reason an early position opponent will bet this flop. The pot is big enough to take a shot at it! If you are reraised you can be very sure you are beat with not much chance of winning the hand. Thus a fold is in order. If you raise there is some chance one of your opponents will fold and a very slight chance they both will fold. The initial flop bettor may have taken a shot with a medium pair and may fold to your raise. The opponent that most likely has you beat here with an Ace or maybe even a set is the opponent that just called on the flop. If he calls your raise or reraises you are in trouble. If he has a weak Ace he may call or fold but will probably not reraise. So unless you make a set on the turn you should check and take a free card. Checking the turn makes calling/folding to a river bet more difficult. Aggressive players may bet the river at any sign of weakness. But you are probably beat and should fold to a river bet if you do not improve.
Vince.
BTW - I never said that a fold on the flop was a mistake. Just a little to passive for my taste. However, I must concede that a fold against a tight player and an unknown opponent in this situation cannot be considered incorrect.
I would fold as often as not here, because the overcard is the A, which figures into more playable limp hands then does say a Q, especially for weaker players, and what with 2 players involved with this flop you are almost certainly up against an A.
As far as the raise before the flop goes, with the number of limpers in the pot before the action reached you, IMO it would have also been correct to limp in yourself and hope to pick up a couple more callers behind you, then (hopefully) hit a set on the flop.
Larry
During the play of a hand, is it improper to make any comment or ask a question which might elicit information or give you a tell as to what your opponent's holding is? I was told by a friend that it is improper to make any comment during the play of a hand. Does making a comment during the play of a hand, especially in a tournament, violate some poker rule of conduct?
You cannot say anything at all which might give away ANY information about the play of a hand which the players still in the hand do not have the right to know. It is bad ettiquette and probably against the rules in most places (I HOPE).
For instance, saying what cards you folded could drastically alter the strategy for one of the players, which would obviously be unfair to the others. You also cannot give anything away if another player happens to show you his hand. Perhaps his lone opponent is at the other end of the table and he is not protecting his hole cards very well.
The same thing applies to folding out of turn. The other players don't know you are going to fold, so if you fold out of turn, you are giving them extra info on which to base their decision which they weren't entitled to have.
I will let others elaborate as to the specific rules, etc.... The point is, if you are gonna play poker, do it with some class. Don't do or say anything that will affect the outcome of anyone's hand, whether you are in the hand or not.
Of course, it's all DOUBLE for a tournament!
Dave in Cali
Part of playing poker is deception. While you should be careful not to give tells that help other players, you can make comments as part of a deceptive ploy on your part. This, of course, may not win you a lot of friends; but sometimes you have no choice. Like when someone asks: Do you have it? Otherwise, be careful not to inadvertanly help other players regardless of whether your helping them beat you or beat other players at the table.
Is it always the case that you should avoid making comments when you are heads up and you ask, "what do you got, pocket aces?" I remember in the movie, ROUNDERS, when Matt Damon's character was asked by Johnny Chan "do you have it?" It wasn't in a tournament, but they were apparently heads up in a cash game. Was it improper ediquette for Johnny Chan to have asked Damon's character what he had?
It was useless question as it usually is. If he needed to know, he would have called.
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
Yes, but in encouraging social/recreational games, chatter is part of the social interactions that many players, especially older players, find so satisfying. I would rather be in that type of game than a serious and silent game.
Tonight I made a critical error playing 5/10 stud and I want feedback, even though it really STINKS that I made this mistake.
It's a maniac game. The player in the 2 seat is raising about 50% on 3rd street. He always raises if he has an ace or the highest card up. He also re-raises about 40% of the time when it's a raise to him. I will make another post and discuss how I fared dealing with the maniac! However, he is 2 seats to my right. Him, me, and one other player are in the pot.
I had a pair of jacks in the hole, six up (and, I HAD A TWO FLUSH!!!!!!!). He raised with a ten up, one ten dead in another player's hand (bring in was one to his right). I re-raised and a player with a nine called, he capped, three players.
I raised on 4th and he promptly reraised again. He kept betting the whole way, even though his board did not improve by much. He showed no signs of letting up, getting his chips ready in advance for each betting round.
I had a four flush and a pair of jacks, king kicker by sixth. The other player had caught an ace and showed no signs of folding. She probably had a pair smaller than jacks to start, but is now drawing to two pair with a better kicker than me. MOST of the cards that could help any of us were live.
I was pretty sure I had the best draw going into the river, and even if I just made two pair they stood a good chance to win. (The player with the ace never bet or raised on it, I don't think it helped her). My flush would most likely be good if I hit. Despite the threatening boards, the maniac keeps betting the whole way.
On the river, He bets again after looking at his hole card. I see the player with the ace getting ready to call behind me. My flush is bust, all I have is a pair of jacks. I fold. She calls with a pair of sixes, he has a pair of tens.
I folded the best hand for one more bet in a big pot. It really put me on tiltus maximus, I had to go take a long walk! I had already been losing a little and that pot would have put me back to even. But alas, I got over it and returned to the game a while later. Things did get better later in the game.
Usually I consider a bad call on the end to be a small mistake. Folding the best hand for one more bet at the end is certainly a LARGE mistake. Certainly this pot would have made up for several river calls in the past or future.
Comments please....
Dave in Cali
You maybe even should have raised on the end.
You were deep into a big pot with no outright sign you were beaten. At the very least you should have called one final bet. And Sklansky may well be right that a raise could have been an even better move. I learned my lesson in a 10-20 game years ago when a better player psyched me out on the last round and I tossed a solid winner. Don't beat yourself up over this---we've all learned from our bad plays (I hope). Bob Sherwood
Dave,
Sometimes good players make the mistake of thinking that the other players are aware, being logical, and reading hands. Of course this is not always the case as it was in this hand. All good players have made this mistake at one time or another. Of course David brings up a great point as usual in that a raise should be considered.
Tom Haley
I had a hand similiar to this a couple of weeks ago. It is funny but I always learn more from a loss than I do a win. If I'm winning, who's going to tell me that I need improvement? Anyway, an aggressive player bet me all the way, with big cards up. I ended up with a stinking pair of 5's, folded the last bet on the river. He proudly announces, I'm glad you didn't call, as I didn't even make a pair. Wowie. Since then, verses a player capable of bluffing at the end, and especially heads up, I will call that last bet, if his board does not have my hand beat. Period. Next day, same situation, player bets on river, I still have that same stinking pair of 5's. He says, nice hand and reveals a split pair of threes. Send me that pot please.
Clearly, you should have called. You logically thought you must be beat by at least one of the two players. On the other hand, the way you described the other players, you could have read thier hands differently. In any case, had you called and lost, you would have said, "oh well, maybe I shouldn't have been in that hand for that long anyway." At least you would know that you didn't let anyone get away with a bluff and had correctly called on seventh street.
As a note, I don't think I would have raised. With a pair you're just calling to keep the other players honest. They obviously knew you were capable of folding. Hence they bet. It seems to be a disease of good poker players to underestimate low limit players. In any case, it's easy to say: "you should have raised, because you had the best hand: one pair." The reality is if you had raised, you would have thought you were at least semi-bluffing. If they folded, you would have thought: "boy, I got away with that one." You wouldn't have know you had the best hand, unless they are the type of player who can't let go of hand at end no matter what they have. Also, the other player, who was bluffing, may have simply reraised. Then, had you know what he had, you should then reraise. It just becomes more and more absurd.
I think what you learned is the lesson that you should rarely, if ever, fold on the end. You have to be facing strong boards and multiple bets.
The raise is suggested with a view to getting the third player to fold a hand that can beat the hero's pair of Jacks; it is not suggested as a way to garner an extra bet from the original bettor although that's also likely to happen if the third player folds.
First, please feel free to critize everything I say. Second, I realize that what I'm about to post is very general, but I have to go into a game with a general schema. I adjust to the players and the game from there. It's just too hard to go in blank thinking I'm going to play every hand as it comes. I've got to have a general idea of what I'm going to do. I worry about he intricies during the game. I've just finished reading the twentith century edition of 7CSFAP and want to make sure I have it right. Please point out if I've missed something important. Please also point out if I got it right. Following is an outline of the general approach, by street, to playing in loose 1-3 and 1-5 spread limit 7CS games.
THIRD STREET
Go in with marginal hands for the bring-in. This includes live hands with two face cards, small and medium pairs, and gut shot straights. Just call with low trips and potential big pairs. You may raise $1 or $2 with small to medium pairs with two to a flush or straight. Sometimes bet with a live three to a flush or straight and with high trips as you are likely to get called. Don't try to get players out of the game. Try to trap them in.
FOURTH STREET
Fold unimproved marginal hands. Call with potential two big pairs and low trips. Sometimes raise with live four to a straight or flush and with high trips when you think you will be called.
FIFTH STREET
Try to set up a double bet with pairs or low trips. This is your chance to get people out. Bet or call, but don't check raise, everything higher.
SIXTH STREET
Generally call or fold pairs and low trips. Only bet if you can drive players out with a double bet. You can bet high trips or better. It all depends on what you think you're up against. Very few players will fold on sixth street regardless. (I've seen players in these games almost always check on sixth street. I think this generally means two pairs. Is this correct?)
SEVENTH STREET
Generally, call everything. Consider betting if you think you have the best hand or if you have a threatening board. (Something not mentioned in your book is that sometimes these players will incorrectly fold on seventh street. It's maddening to watch them call all the way to the river and then fold. One may sometimes be able to take advantage of this.)
If this doesn't make sense, please let me know.
Maybe I've got the low trips and big pairs confused? Maybe I should bet $1-2 dollars with low trips and big pairs, too? On fourth street I can either check, make a full bet, or raise. The later two are an attempt to thin out the field.
Greetings:
You need to take a very hard look at your 3rd street requirements again because they look quite off!!!!!
JPN
See above, "3rd Street Play in Spread Limit Games."
Last night, the holdem games weren't that good, but there was one 5/10 stud game that intrigued me. It definitely contained a classic maniac type player. He was possibly the WORST player I had EVER seen. Raised 50% or more on 3rd, ALWAYS with an ace and almost always with the best high card showing. If reraised, he would raise again or cap about 95% of the time. Once he started, he almost never backed down, betting/raising/reraising all the way to the river. He was a one-man jamming machine!
This is NO LIE:
Once, he kept raising to 50$ on 4th (heads up), after raising to 30$ on 3rd, with just a pair of tens. The other player had a king up (and raised) on 3rd, and had caught a TEN on 4th! (this was the only good player other than me at the table, he KNEW what he was doing raising so many times, and had the cash to do it).
Despite the maniac, I really thought I could make some $$ in this game, but it would be risky and require much patience. I would have to isolate the maniac by reraising with my quality hands, and dumping most everything else.
I must say, it was a bit frustrating dealing with him at first. He drew out on me twice, despite my starting with good cards, and made me fold the winner once. However, I got control of my emotions and decided it was OK to keep playing.
The tactics I was using:
1) anytime I had a larger pair than his upcard, I would raise, knowing he would re-raise. The other players had caught on and it would usually wind up heads-up. I would then just call his reraise on 3rd most of the time. (of course I took notice of the other players actions, doing this only with the probable top pair or other good hand).
2)depending on the exact nature of our boards, I would either bet into him and let him raise me once each round when I had a pretty good advantage, or just check and call if my advantage was less. I was not in ANY pots with him where I had any known disadvantage or catching up to do.
3)If I was still around by 6th, I wasn't folding on the river, even with just one pair! This proved to be very profitable in the end!
4) On the end, I would either bet into him, or more often, try to induce a bluff (it was SO easy). If I had only one pair, I would check, he would bet, and I would call. If I improved on the river, I would check, he would bet, and I would raise.
5) Once I check-raised him with only a pair of queens on the river. I could tell by the way he looked at his hole cards that he was going to bluff. By this time, I had already beaten him heads up several times, and he just folded after I raised!
6) If I improved to something good by 5th or 6th, I would start the REAL raising war when the big bets came around!
7) the best part was when the game got down to 5 handed, with myself and only one other competent player in the game. This proved to be even more profitable. Even though the pots were smaller, I was playing a few more hands on 3rd. It wasn't hard to outplay the weak players and maniac, and I mostly avoided the other good player.
In the end, I made back the 100$ I had lost playing holdem plus won 280$ from this game (50% from the maniac in heads up encounters). The maniac was fairly tame by the time I left, having lost a bundle. I wasn't the only player in a raising war with the maniac! Just before I left, a 10-20 game broke up and the game got 3 new players....
I figure it would usually cost at least 10$, if not 15$ or 20$ just to see 4th with this guy in the pot. The maniac forced me to enter into major confrontations almost every time I got a playable hand. It's usually much easier to decide what to do in a NORMAL game.
I did get to play (a few) pots without him in the hand, and they went more like normall 5/10. What made this game even better was that 3 of the other players were almost as bad a player as the maniac, but not so aggressive.
I felt this experience did me a lot of good. I dealt with the frustrations of a maniac game and handled the pressure. It was tough, requiring much more bravery than is normally required for 5/10 stud. Maybe it's a primer for my eventual move to higher limits (to be discussed later...).
All comments welcome
Dave in Cali
Dave,
1) Thanks for the information. If I understand you right, you have presented a clear blueprint on how to use the presence of a maniac to your advantage: when you have good cards that play best against only one or two opponents, use your own raises and his re-raises to drive everyone else out.
2) Were you able to play strong drawing hands, say for example, a three flush, none or one showing in other hands, headed by A or K? Or did you just let drawing hands go unless the maniac was already out of the hand?
C.J.
C.J.
I will almost always play a three flush with 3 cards nine or higher, especially if I have AK or AQ in the hole. Of course it depends on how live my cards are, and what the boards look like, and how many bets it costs, etc....
In the maniac game: I would play a big three flush against him, but if I busted out on 4th I would most likely get out if he caught good. Since he started with such poor hands, all I needed was to catch one card and I would probably be in the lead. Otherwise it was no dice on drawing hands, small three flushes I was ditching unless I could get in cheap (which was rare).
Thanks for the response...
Dave in Cali
Where do I find IRC Poker. How do I use IRC Poker.
Thanks in advance.
Bill
Go to Greg Reynolds page at
http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~gregr/
Download GPKRv200 and it will take you there. This is a Windows front end... Greg has pointers to solutions for other operating systems as well.
See you on irc!
Writers Ray Zee and Bob Ciaffone warn against playing middle cards such as 7, 8, 9, 10 in Omaha 8. They reason that when these hands hit a straight, there is always a low hand made to split the pot. They middle card straights are also subject to dominating redraws when the board pairs or ends up with three of a suit.
Ive always followed this advice, and have done quite well doing so. Others whom I consider excellent poker players (but I dont have a firm opinion as to their Omaha 8 expertise) like these middle card hands. They reason that in multi-way pots where all others are going low, they can take half the pot at good odds.
Is this a sound strategy? Has anybody developed techniques for playing these hands?
I play in 5-10 and 10-20 house games, both of which draw from the same pool of thirty to forty players. Over the last six months I have noticed definite movement along the learning curve in Omaha 8: fewer and fewer players are showing down without the nuts more and more are going low.
Is it time to give playing middle cards a try? Are there games where it is profitable? Are there flops that will scare out premium high hands and make middle cards profitable?
playing middle cards wont give you an exclusive on them because other hands accidently have some of those cards sometimes and that ruins the idea that they become playable. follow their advise to the soup line. Bob and i are right on this one.
Hi ,
Getting half price in the big blind (UTG raise and X callers) against typical opponents, how many callers would make a hand like T987 playable?
Getting half price in the small blind, how many callers would you need to see the flop (assume the blind never raises)?
I'm trying to see if I'm in the ballpark on this one so I won't put in my answer.
Regards,
Rick
I would never play T987 in a raised pot, even with eight callers. In a $10 small blind in a 15-30 game, I would not even complete the bet with T987 with many players in. The reason is that as more players enter the pot, while the odds you're getting are better, the chance of your hand winning the pot go way down. Even if you make your straight, with many players in there's a good chance that (1) someone will make a better hand later, including a better straight, (2) you'll often only get half (or a quarter of) the pot in the rare cases it does hold up. In this loose a game, even T987 being double suited means virtually nothing; higher flush draws will almost certainly be out there. Nut draws receive much of the benefit of the extra calls rather than marginal and weak hands.
I would play them headup or 3 handed in a spot I could maybe steal the pot. With alot of bad players in I might throw in one bet to hope for a full house type hand which could scoop.
Rick,
This is one of those hands that should be mucked in the big blind BEFORE THE FLOP if only the small blind calls and you get to see the flop for nothing.
In the SB you should call a half bet just about, oh, say, never!
Vince.
Vince, did you see Cappellitti's article in the new Card Player? Sigh....
BillM,
Generally I don't read much of Cappelletti but if you are speaking of his September 3 article it seems pretty good (after a quick read). Of course the hand he speaks of is a couple of noches higher which makes a big difference.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I don't read much from Capalleti either and haven't read his last one. But I will say that what I have read from Capalleti has usually been pretty good. I do agree with you that a couple of notches higher is a big (huge to me) difference for this type of hand.
Vince.
I thought the hand is playable if you are getting about 13 to 1 or better on your call which you often will in a loose passive game against weak players. This asumes you play well post flop. Now I wonder if I'm wrong after reading the above posts. If Badger comes by and flames me, I know I'm wrong.
Regards,
Rick
Post deleted at author's request.
How bad a hand is T987? Why would I throw this hand away at every opportunity? I classify this hand as similar to A,Q in early position in NL Holdem. A trap! Certainly the level of expertise a player has and his ability to play after the flop will influence a decision to play a given hand. But we are talking about limit Omaha here folks. Mason and David have stated in 7SFAP that the most important decision a player can make is his third street decision. I believe that they have said the same for Holdem (preflop decision) but I can't site a refernece. There may be an arguement that can be made that the most important Holdem decision is made on the flop. But were talking about Omaha Hi/lo here folks. So what is the most important decision in this game. Besides game selection the most important decision in Omaha hi/lo is Hand Selection. I have seen in print that Omaha is more of a position game than even Our Sacred Holdem. I of course disagree with that but note it. Either way I can not imagine a position or situation that this hand plays well. But even that doesn't really matter. What matters is something that Mason has said about this game. I believe that it goes like this (forgive me Mason if I misrepresent). Omaha hi/lo is a simple game. If Mason didn't say that then I will. It is a simple game. The best way to play a simple game is to play it with a simple strategy. Now for the paradox. The simplest strategy for hand selection in Omaha Hi/lo is to select hands that have all four cards coordinated. Well T987 are certainly four cards that appear coordianted. And they are! So how do we resolve this problem? Well... well I'm tired. And since Sklansky can do it why can't I. I will leave the rest of the answer to the astute posters on this forum.
goodnight.
Vince.
I agree completely that the hand is pretty bad, and I'd never pay a full bet for it before the flop, but I have to wonder if it's so bad that you can't call when getting big odds like 10-1 or better for a couple of reasons:
1) You do sometimes make full houses, and with this hand there will be some low draws around to pay off your full house if you make it.
2) If you flop a straight on the low end, you have some pretty good re-draw potential against someone else holding the same straight, meaning you might get 1/2 of a pretty large pot, and
3) You can flop some big straight draws giving you odds to call for even half a pot (56 on the flop gives you 13 outs)
Note that I'm not really defending the hand that much, as these are all fairly longshot events, but surely they must add up to enough to make the hand playable in some circumstances (for instance for that 1/3 of a bet in a $10 small blind in a 15-30 game).
Dan,
Your more detailed analysis pretty much mirrors my own. One thing is clear to me. There is a big difference if you change the hand by one rank. For example:
8765 and 9876 seem like they would almost never be playable against a large field.
T987 is of course debatable as discussed in this thread. But note how much better JT98 and QJT9 are.
If I get the energy, I may post this one on RGP and see what comes back. It is somewhat important to a tight player in that it seems half the flops one gets to see are out of the blinds in this game.
Regards,
Rick
Hiya,
The question intrigued me, even though I was sure, as Ray says, that playing them is wrong.
So I ran a series of simulations using Texas Turbo O8, many thousands of hands.
Here is what I found:
Player who plays these cards loses more, the more they are played.
Strong player, 10-20, will only play these in the blinds, but get off them quickly:
Th9h8d7d -- over thousands of hands -- loses $1 per hand. T987o - same within a few cents.
Weak player, 10-20, plays these more than just blinds:
Th9h8d7d -- loses $6.80 per hand. T987o -- loses $2.40 per hand (why less loss? plays em less because of the no-flush chance)
Weaker player, 10-20, plays even more, but not always:
Th9h8d7d -- loses $16.60 per hand (this is huge!!!) T987o -- loses *only* $10.70 per hand. Plays slightly fewer.
DO NOT PLAY THESE. If you do want to, please tell me where, and I will be happy to sit in with you Mark the K
PS I love to run O8 simulations, see my latest post, on AA, I will be happy to answer questions like this on O8 or HE any time.
I bought Turbo Omaha and Turbo Omaha/8 with the intention of running some Abdullian simulations (I think these games work better than holdem for simulations). I gave up because, IMO, Turbo Texas Omaha and Omaha/8 play very badly. I just couldn't see the simulations being really useful, especially when trying to do things like find the difference between similar hands.
Dan,
Omaha/8 Turbo holdem doesn't itself play badly: But some of the players do! I now consider myself somewhat of an 'expert' in these programs, and I am amazed at the job which Wilson does. If you think that some of these players are terrible, then set up a game with Sammy, Sherlock, Son of Sammy, and a few of the other good players. If you can beat those guys, you can win anywhere. If you play against Chasin Charlie, Fearless Freddie, Drawing Danny, etc, then you absolutely right, the program 'looks' bad: That's because those players are programmed to be bad. And you will see players that bad and worse in real life.
I just spent two weeks running a lot of simulations of key situations, using various good, bad and middling players. The results are amazing. The game is so deep, and small differences are crucial. And good players take down the money, just as in real life.
Mark
I was going a lot by the advice of some of the advisors.
Let me give you an example, using the default advisor. I had bottom two pair plus a nut flush draw. On the turn a straight comes on the board. There is a bet, I call, there is a raise, the original bettor re-raises, I call, it's capped.
On the river, I miss my flush. Original bettor bets again, and the advisor tells me I should call, because I have two pair and there has only been one bet and no raises before it got to me.
As far as I can tell, the program doesn't consider the action on previous rounds when determining correct behaviour on the river. Given this, I can understand why hands like AA95 make no money - the computer doesn't know how to play them properly.
Dan,
Given my experience (a lot lately), I am VERY surprised that the advisor will tell you to stay through an obvious straight after you miss your flush, when you have 2 pair -- do you have a current version with all bugs fixed? I never see it do that. I do see situations, like 2 pairs with no outs, where I have gotten marginally dubious assistance, (hands which I think people will come down 50/50 on) so I do not listen like a robot to the Advisor...but it is generally extremely good.
But suit yourself, I think the computer simulator is a useful tool, some other smart people do to. You obviously do not. Some other smart people agree with you. I *have* found though, that in many cases of questions which the human *experts* here agree, the simulations of the stronger players also prove out.
Enjoy,
Mark
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 September 1999, at 1:21 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 September 1999, at 9:56 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 September 1999, at 1:13 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 September 1999, at 3:07 p.m.
Is this a bad beat or rookie mitake? I'm und the gun in loose,passive 4-8 game with AK hearts. I raise,6 callers,Flop-10,8,4 1 heart. 1st player(BB) cks,I bet,2 callers incl.BBlind. Turn-10 heart,BB bets,I call,lat player raises,BB re-raises,I call(error?). At the time I figured they each had a 10, given large pot,thought call was correct. River-heart rag,BB bets,I call(giving respect to FH possib.)last player calls. Show down A,10/10,4,my flush cracked by someone who called my early raise with 10,4 offs from BB.
Maybe neither, in my opinion...
You can debate whether the BB should have called, but the pot was offering him 13 to 1 and there was no threat of a raise behind him. As for the call on the turn, a fold might have been better, depending on the player: his check/call on the flop, followed by hyperaggressive play on the turn, should have sent up some warning flags for you---especially if he was one of the passive players you described. That said, it's tough to fold the nut flush draw.
You're going to take your lumps now and then in those games. Grin and bear it.
I would like to hear comments about the following 2 hands I played recently in a 10-20 game at the Mirage.
The first hand was played against a tight aggressive female player named Nancy (the lady who split the diamond earrings with Barbara Enright at the TOC). Everyone folded to me in the small blind, I raised with Ad Qh, Nancy called in the big blind. The flop came As 9s 6c. I bet, she raised, I reraised, she 4 bet it, and I called. The turn was a blank, I checked and called. The river was another blank, I checked, and Nancy checked, showing me a 9 6 for two pair. First, should I have called the third raise on the flop? Second, should I have bet the turn, then folded if she raised? Third, should I have called if she had bet the river? Finally, what would have changed if there had not been a flush draw on the flop? As a note, the 4th bet on the flop made me think she had a hand rather than a draw.
In the second hand I held black pocket Aces in late position. One player limped in early position, everyone folded to me, I raised, the small blind called, and the early limper called. To preface, the small blind was somewhat loose aggressive before the flop, calling too many raises with hands like Axs, but he played fairly well on the flop and beyond. The early limper was an unknown. The flop came Kh Kd 7h. Both players checked, I bet, both called. The turn was a blank. The small blind bet, the early limper raised. Should I have reraised, folded, or called?
Thanks, Brian Flanagan
...tight aggressive female player... Everyone folded to me in the small blind, I raised with Ad Qh, Nancy called in the big blind. The flop came As 9s 6c. I bet, she raised, I reraised, she 4 bet it, and I called. The turn was a blank, I checked and called. The river was another blank, I checked, and Nancy checked, showing me a 9 6 for two pair.
First, should I have called the third raise on the flop?
An assessment of this hand could easily change according to what you know about the player, but Yes, you have to call, especially given that at that point the pot is getting big. You have some reasonable chance that your hand is best, combined with enough likely outs, and some chance that she's raising on a flush draw, to warrant calling.
An alternative play here would be the "stop and go", just calling her first raise on the flop, then betting back into her on the turn. But it depends on what you know of the player's tendencies.
Second, should I have bet the turn, then folded if she raised
It depends on how likely you think she is to be on a draw. Since you had started to think it was not so likely, then checking and calling there was probably better. If you did bet, and she raised, you'd be getting about 9-1 on your call. Again, against some significant % of opponents there would still be a decent chance you had the best hand. You also have between 0 and 8 outs. You'd have to assess your outs as a function of what kind of hand you put her on at that point, based on whatever you know about her play. e.g., if you know she'd be very unlikely to raise on the turn without top two or better in that spot, then fold, but if she'd routinely raise there with various aces, or bottom two pair (though it's tough to put a tight player on 96, even in this situation), or would raise again with a flush draw (I'm guessing she wouldn't) then you have to call.
Third, should I have called if she had bet the river?
Yes. The river was a blank so it gave you no additional concerns. Given the pot size at that point, the chance that you're best plus the chance that she's been semi-bluffing warrant a call. You call, though you don't expect to win most of the time. You could fold only if you knew her play well enough to be almost certain you were beat at that point.
Now, given that she didn't bet her two pair on the river (though we don't know just what the turn and river were), she starts to look a little conservative to me. If that's the case, some of the assessments above might be affected. Also, as you were there, if her 4th bet on the flop really convinced you she was not on a draw (because of how you'd seen her play up to then) then, yes, you have to take that into account. Because of the situational factors, I find it difficult to be more definitive with this hand.
Incidentally, you might want to consider chopping in the blinds. The game is raked up to about $3 isn't it? I don't want to start a different thread here, but the arithmetic suggests to me that no one is good enough to overcome such a rake at 10-20 playing hands out when heads-up in the blinds in a full game.
In the second hand I held black pocket Aces in late position. One player limped in early position, everyone folded to me, I raised, the small blind called, and the early limper called . The small blind was somewhat loose aggressive before the flop, calling too many raises with hands like Axs, but he played fairly well on the flop and beyond. The early limper was an unknown. The flop came Kh Kd 7h. Both players checked, I bet, both called. The turn was a blank. The small blind bet, the early limper raised. Should I have reraised, folded, or called?
Fold. The small blind appears to be coming out with his king on the turn. I say "appears" because he may be pulling a slight variation on the ol' HPFAP "mimic a slow play" bluff into a paired board. But once you add the early position player's raise, you have to figure you're beat somewhere, and can very likely only win by spiking an ace on the river.
John Feeney
She did not chop the blinds. I normally do.
John: Your analysis is excellent! Players like you are one major reason 2+2 is such a great post-grad study. Bob Sherwood
Brian,
I'm a little tired (finally) so I'll answer just the second question. I'm not going to look at John's answer (who of course is tops in his analysis) until I finish mine.
I would fold against all but the trickiest opponents and maybe I would fold even then.
Regards,
Rick
I thought I would comment on this hand since I know the player.
"The first hand was played against a tight aggressive female player named Nancy (the lady who split the diamond earrings with Barbara Enright at the TOC)."
First, this is not a tight player. She is frequently overly aggressive.
"Everyone folded to me in the small blind, I raised with Ad Qh, Nancy called in the big blind."
She would call with a very wide range of hands here (and be correct to do so).
"The flop came As 9s 6c. I bet, she raised, I reraised, she 4 bet it, and I called. The turn was a blank, I checked and called. The river was another blank, I checked, and Nancy checked, showing me a 9 6 for two pair. First, should I have called the third raise on the flop?"
Absolutely. There is still some chance you have the best hand, and if she had a set she is likely to wait until the turn to raise. (Also notice that a real tight player would not make this call with a 9-6.)
"Second, should I have bet the turn, then folded if she raised?"
No, I think checking and calling is best. If you do bet and are raised you still can't fold. She could easily be raising with a hand like AJ, AT, or two little pair.
"Third, should I have called if she had bet the river?"
That's a little tougher, but I thnk so.
"Finally, what would have changed if there had not been a flush draw on the flop?"
Very little.
"As a note, the 4th bet on the flop made me think she had a hand rather than a draw."
I thought I would comment on this hand because I DON'T know the player.
1) I agree %100 with Mason's assessment of this hand (what there is of it).
2) Mason states that the player in question is not a tight player and is frequently over aggressive. The original poster claimed the player was tight aggressive. I believe that Mason is probably correct in his assesment. Why? Because he's Mason.
3) I am convinced that if Mason did not know the player in question he would have assessed the hand the same way.
4) I am convinced that if Mason knew the player in question and she was a tight player he would have assessed the hand the same way.
5) I am convinced that unless Mason had seen the opponents hand he would have assessed this hand the same way.
6) So much for knowing one's opponent.
Vince.
I have no doubt that Mason's assessment of the player in question is more accurate than mine. I only played with her for about 2 hours. For those 2 hours she played relatively few hands, but backed them up with aggressive betting once she entered a pot. I was going on the only information I had about her up until that point. I wish I could have stood up from the table and asked Mason about her play, as he was at the next table playing 20-40 when the hand occurred. I hope Mason is feeling better. He seemed to be fighting a cold at the time (Thursday night). On Friday Mason had to fight not only his cold, but also Hal, who was running over the 20-40 game.
Regards, Brian Flanagan
Yes, Big Hal was a big winner in the game, but I hardly played a pot against and did pretty good myself.
7) If Vince Lepore would have played the hand I would have assessed the hand the same way.
Different question - why not just call her first reraise on the flop? I'm still learning, but I would think that she wouldn't reraise with something less than AQ.
Bruce -- Let me see if I understand your question. I think you actually mean why not just call her first *raise* on the flop. He did just call her first *reraise* which was the 4th bet on the flop. As for just calling her first raise, he could do that as an alternative, either because he puts her on a draw and plans to bet back into her on the turn, or just as an alternative way of playing it (e.g., just call the raise, then check-raise on the turn, or let her bet her money off against his likely best hand if he thinks that might be the most profitable option...).
But reraising her was quite reasonable too. As you gain experience, you'll find that most players (particularly above the lower limits) *will* raise with lots of hands less than AQ in this spot. They'll often raise with any ace, and sometimes (though considerably less often) with middle or even bottom pair. They'll also raise a lot on draws. So that's why he wasn't too worried at that point that she had him beat.
John Feeney
I misread and thought he raised her reraise. It makes sense that she might raise with some weaker hands against one opponent.
Let me try to learn something else while we're buried here. Would it be correct for her to raise with a draw against just one opponent? I thought you had to have two opponents for break even odds on a draw.
You're right that you need at least 2 people calling your raise to come close to breaking even *if* you are betting or raising with your draw purely for *value*. (BTW, You almost always prefer more than that. Some might not call.) But it's quite often profitable to raise with a draw heads-up as a *semi-bluff*. Its profit comes from the combined chances that your opponent will fold right there or, if he doesn't, you will make your draw. So you do have to believe there is some semi-reasonable chance he'll fold.
So in typical games at the middle limits you'll generally have many more occasions to semi-bluff than to raise for value with a draw. But in some very loose games, most common in smaller limits, you might be correct only very rarely to semi-bluff, while you would have more opportunities to raise for value with draws. A caution: you should probably *not* raise for value without a nut or near nut draw if there is any reasonable chance that it won't win if you hit it (e.g., you have a jack-high flush draw and soemone may well be drawing to a higher flush draw).
Look at discussions of "value betting" or "betting for value" and "semi-bluffing" in _The Theory of Poker_ for detail on this stuff.
John Feeney
Thanks. Didn't think of semi-bluffing since I don't use it in loose games. I suppose another reason to raise here would be to buy a free card on the turn.
Last nite was playing in a pretty loose 3-6HE at "Lucky Chances" in Colma, Ca. 6-8 players in every pot. I played maybe 1 of 10 for the flop. But always tried to act like I was there having fun, jokes, etc. Anyways, I'm in the BB with As-6d, flop comes Ks9s7s, player to my right bets, I say he's on a king, I raise with exuberance, get 4 callers and then say "time" before the turn. I tell everybody I have the nut flush, turn over my ace of spades for all to see and bet in the dark before the turn. Turn comes spade! I get 2 callers!!....I'm laughing my ass off....they dont even have 2 pairs....I bet in the dark again!...My ace is still face up...the dealer cant help her self hardly...river pairs and I get one caller who then MUCKS!....god I love this game I says!
Larry,
Why show your hand before the turn card comes? You only have the draw with an ace on the turn and would have been jammed if you didn't hit. Even when you got the spade, you may have gotten a couple of more calls and perhaps a raise and reraise if your hand remained unknown.
Regards,
Rick
I think the dumbest thing i ever heard of, was somebody drawing at the nuts and showing everybody there ace!!!!!
as I was terrorizing this game already....and had 2 new players @ the table it was time to put a "loose" image out there again. I already knew how many bets I could lose if they draw out AND if they do it will encourage them to go for lousy odds in the future giving me more $$$ for the nite. Any time I get drawn out I encourage the winner to their good play, say "good hand" and all that. As long as I know they will go up against lousy odds I know I will have the best of it. But show a lousy player you raised with 5-7 suited and they wont get it.
by the way....I left with 9 racks. I woudlnt do it in a $20-40 rest assured.
Was the "#1 all time dumbest" a reference to the number of bets you lost by exposing your cards? Yes it's true, that you were against some terrible players, but I think you could have won more money.
You were in the lead as "#1 all time dumbest I've ever seen!" until the caller on the river ran you down.
I was just curious to know what the odds are of not getting a 10, J, Q, K, or A on either the flop, turn, or river? Thanks in advance to whoever has the math skill to answer.
If you take all the AKQJT from the deck, that leaves 32 cards. There are 32!/27!/5! or 201376 ways to choose 5 cards from a 32 card deck, and 52!/47!/5! or 2598960 ways to choose 5 cards from a full deck. The chance that the board will have no cards from T-A by the river is therefore about 1 in 12.9 (11.9 to 1 against).
If you are know some of the cards that are missing from the deck (i.e. your hole cards), the odds change a bit. If your hole cards are lower than T, then the board will be more likely to end up with at least one broadway card. If your hole cards are T or above, then the board will be less likely to have a broadway card.
What does 32!/27!/5! mean?
The "!" means the factorial function. x factorial is defined as 1*2*3*4*...*x, so 4! is 1*2*3*4 or 24.
If you get involved in figuring combinations or permutations, you'll find factorials all over the place.
Can anyone recommend Poker Tournament Strategies by Sylvester Suzuki? Is it worth getting? Are there any other books on tournament strategies that anyone can recommend?
"Tournament Poker" did absolutely nothing for me. One of the worst poker books I've bought.
Wenatchee Max
Thanks Wenate, wenacheeeeeeeee (bless you), weacrachte, watchyasay, Oh Wenatchee (I knew I could pronounce that if I kept trying). Your'e review is good enough me! Of course if Mason or David or Abdul or T.J. or Zee or McEvoy (well maybe not McEvoy) or SKP or Rick or Dan or Fossil or whew Well if one of them disagree I may reconsider.
Vince
BTW - Anyone know What happened to "big john"? Haven't heard from him recently. Him too Max.
Unfortunately, I cannot disagree with Max. I feel that I did not get any real value from Sylvester's book. Now, if I had read it earlier in my career, that might not have been true. As far as critques go, I did not have that concept in mind when I read it, and cannot say whether it would be helpful to a beginner or intermediate tournament player.
Sorry 2+2, I still like your other books.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I didn't think the Suzuki tourney book was good either. However, even though I say that, I can't think of a better tourney book...seems like none that i've read have been good. Can anyone suggest any? or do they just not currently exist?
I'll let you know when ours is done (if ever).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I've got the book. To date, I have only glanced at it. Can't really comment on its virtues. Given the fact that I have played only 2 tournaments in my life and don't expect to play in any in the near future, reading that book is at the bottom of my list of things to do.
I also have just glanced at Cloutier's Omaha book. That seems like a big time waste of cash ($40). However, I guess I better hold off on making a final decision as to its merits until I have studied it.
So little time...so many damn poker books.
I think the book sucks.
"Is it worth getting? " Maybe.
I'm playing a little 6-12 HE at Crystal Park yesterday after busting out of the NL tournament fairly early. I'm in seat 6 with AT suited and take the flop with four other limpers. Flop os J-9-6 with two of my suit. SB and BB check and I bet out; seat 7 a solid, Russian tournament player calls and seat 9, weak calling station, also calls. Turn is a 9, pairing the board. I check, seat 7 checks and the 9 seat bets. I call and so does seat 7. River is deuce of spades giving me the nut flush. I check, fully expecting seat 7 to attempt to steal the pot away from seat 9 by representing a flush, but he checks also. Seat 9 bets, I raise and get called by seat 9 after seat 7 folds. Leaving the table to cash out fifteen minutes later, a player I respect who was sitting in seat three during the hand described, told me that he thought my checkraise was way too aggressive with a paired board. I was shocked that he would think so given the betting action on the river and turn. I would play this hand exactly the same (sometimes going for a checkraise on the flop if the right kind of aggressive player was directly to my left) 99 times out of 100. Had Sergei, in seat 7 bet I would have also raised.
John,
thats certainly not too aggressive to raise him. i would have led out on the hand because most times i see people check it out scared of the flush. plus you played it like you had a flush. but since you knew the players you did right.
On the turn, it is unlikely that the #7 player would have the full house, or he would bet, but you do not know this about #9. On the river, no reason to think that 7 will bet into 9 with a bluff, as you said he calls everything. I would come out betting on the river. Since 9 calls all hands, this means he will call with more hands than he will bet, and you were lucky to get a bet out of him. If he raises you at the river, just call. To check-raise means you need to be fairly sure that a player will bet, plus be fairly sure you have the best hand. What to do if #9 re-raises here? Be in a pickle.
I would have bet the River. Check raises on the river when you make the nut flush most often do not work unless you are against extremely poor aggressive players. Most players will fear a flus and not bet the river but may call with weak hands so I believe in a situation as described the best course of action is to bet the river not try for a check raise.
Vince.
BTW - Why would you care if someone was a "solid Russian tournament player"? What's a Russian tournament?
He knew he would bet because of the way he was eating his oreos.
Hi all,
I ran a bunch of simulations on the T987 in O8 this morning, -- after reading the "middle cards" question. Then I looked at one hand which I find to be an important swing hand, it can greatly increase or decrease O8 winnings:
AAxx. Of course, AA with one or two babies, coupled with flush possibilities is a no-brainer great hand; it is the non-flush middle card, or non-flush middle/high card mixtures which I reviewed. I found that hands like:
AA7h8h, AAKQ offsuit, or AA46 are all nicely profitable (less than one unit) over thousands of simulations, played by a good player. A poor player breaks even or even loses with these (getting a set against obvious straights and flushes, I think dooms these weaker players, both in the simulations and in real life). The most interesting to me, which I often played, and which cost me, were the AAxx where x and x are unconnected high cards not making a flush. These are dropped by the strong simulator player. But the weaker simulator players I set up will play these, and here is the bad news: Losses of 2 small units per hand! ($16-20 per hand in 10-20).
This surprised me so much, the incredible losing potential.
Ray, on Page 215, says it all about this, in H-L-S Powker for Advanced Players, but I had not realized HOW BAD it is! Hope this helps someone else.
Enjoy,
Mark
Wow that IS amazing how bad AA-high-junk is. Was the simulation set up for a fold if a set wasn't flopped? Did it report an average number of small bets to see the flop? I may have been finding too many excuses to play that hand...
I have a hard time believing that even AA95 rainbow wouldn't be profitable in a loose game provided that you can get in for one bet. If the computer plays past the flop with just an overpair in the wrong situations, that would account for its losses.
Dan and Phat,
The simulations were done with both strong and weak players. But AA95 is not so bad, it is hands like AAq9 or AAt8, the A5, givning some decent shot at low which makes it better.
Mark
But the point still is, that if you have weak players playing these hands, they may lose money no matter what. Do you "force" the strong player profiles to play these hands, or what? If these profiles don't play these hands, then what? Do you rotate position, and give the same profile the same hand every time? Do you give the test player the same target hand, and have him only play against other identical profiles? There are a LOT more issues I haven't thought of, I'm sure. If you want more advice on this, talk to Abdul, as he is quite knowledgeable about most of the tools and tricks available in Turbo software.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
Good questions. What I did was to vary it a lot: Good players able to go in from the button or near the button in an unraised pot, or from blinds. Average players (calling too much) going in from more positions. And weak players going in a lot, and losing a lot. The interesting thing is that the strong player do not even do well with these hands. Bad players do terribly. (The varying was done based on making up hands which the TT counting method allows to go in on).
Another interesting one -- which says a lot to me about O8, and also a lot about how good the TT product is (no I am not paid for this):
I ran some tests on two pairs, with hands like KsJh2s3h, where the board might be: Kd2c7h. The players stay the same for each simulation, but the button rotates. As Dan has said a few times, the bad players in TT O8 (and in real life IMO) play these way too long and way too much. The good player will make a very small profit on average, between the 2 pairs holding up, the few times where they can snatch a low, or make a full house or backdoor flush. (The bad player will be hurt.)
But then, on a whim, I changed the flop of Kd2c7h to Kd3c7h, expecting not much change. Wrong wrong wrong. Shows the depth and subtlety of this game. Even the good player loses and a not-insignificant amount! Chalk this one up to remember....
Mark
You may be missing some of the subtleties of simulation. If you are measuring small differences in EV, you need to simulate many, many hands to get a statistically significant answer.
Does anybody know of any place to play poker in Indiana besides the riverboat in Gary. I am having a tough time finding enough players for our local game but I really have that need too get into a good game.
I suggest Harrah's in East Chicago....they spread everything from 1-5 to 50-100....20 plus tables...ask for Mitch and tell him Bob Sherwood sent you. Bob
1. Grand Victoria - Rising Sun, IN. 2. Ceasars Indiana - New Albany, IN.
Both Spread Poker starting at 5-10.
I liked Grand Victoria better.
Aztar is also on the way to Grand Victoria but doesn't have poker.
aztar in evansville does have 7 stud and holdem, up to $10-20
In the future, please put this type of post on our Exchange Forum.
Mason: Sorry if I crossed the line - just trying to be helpful... Bob
I know I'm letting myself in for some flaming replies, but this is a SINCERE question for discussion: Setting luck aside for now, which of the two skills will win you the most money....a THOROUGH knowledge of odds, or a strong ability to read other players? Thoughts? Bob
the knowledge of odds assuming you have no knowledge of either. if you had no odds knowledge you couldnt make any correct decision to play or not. when to fold according to pot size or any intelligent decision. if you were average in each the improvement in reading players would be more helpful. both are nessesary to be a winner and if you neglect one you just lose or win less.
Thanks, Ray...I was assuming average odds knowledge.... I think that's the point where people skills move yoou further into the win column... Bob
ODDS. No question about it. Unless of course your name is CARO.
Vince.
Don't you need both?
Odds also goes into reading other player's hands. When you read another players hand, you often are saying, odds are he has this.
I'm not a good enough player to expound on this but a recent experiance makes me think about it more. Last nite, 3-6HE, Im BB 6 players to me, game is going from slow to loose aggressive, I have pocket 10s, flop is Ad 10h 4d, I bet, 2 callers in middle, 2nd before button raises, call, button 3 bets, SB calls, I cap it, two guys in middle call, turn comes 4h, I check, raiser bets, button goes all-in for 2 bets, I 3 bet it, 2 middle guys fold, raiser caps. river comes a red king. I bet, raiser raises again, I take pause, analyze what can beat me, and what would he have raised with before the flop. figure he must have pocket aces (oh it was two bets before the flop.)and i flat call and tell him "pocket aces is good" as I get ready to muck. He turns over Ks4s and asks "you got pocket 10's?...yes I drag a huge pot....but I poorly misread his hand. This happens too often for me. I give players TOO much credit for playing better cards and reading the strength of their play.
Your question was what's more important: a THOROUGH knowledge of odds vs. a strong ability to read hands.
I say it's reading hands that's more important.
One can get by with a working understanding of odds if he or she is particularly good at reading hands. On the other hand, even a thorough understanding of odds ain't gonna help ya if you can't put your opponent on a hand.
Furthermore, acquiring a thorough understanding of odds is a lot easier than mastering the art and science of reading hands...that in itself tells me something about what is more critical to success.
skp is absolutely right. Take a player like David Chiu, who has never read a poker book. He hasn't won close to $1,000,000(just in tournaments) in the past three years by concentrating on odds. He is not only an expert in putting a player on a hand, but in determining how that player will react to a given situation.
Brett
The question was Odds versus Reading opponents not reading hands! Odds skills are by far more important than reading opponents.
Vince.
BTW- Reading hands is not as dificult as some would have you believe. Also Mr. SKP, you sound more and more like Sklansky (or is it Malmuth, sometimes I can't tell them apart) with every post. Art and Science indeed!
Vince once Again!
Vince,
Reading hands/reading opponents sounds like about the same thing to me.
Anyway, skp wrote: "Furthermore, acquiring a thorough understanding of odds is a lot easier than mastering the art and science of reading hands...that in itself tells me something about what is more critical to success."
This is key. Anyone or reasonable intelligence who can't or won't figure the odds fairly accurately is just plain lazy. Reading hands and/or reading opponents well takes talent plus hard work.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. skp can't be confused with David Sklansky because he can type. However, he could be confused with Mason Malmuth.
Rick,
The original poster wrote ":...or a strong ability to read other players"
I interpreted this to mean reading tells.
You wrote: "Reading hands/reading opponents sounds like about the same thing to me."
You obviously have not read Poker Essays II. Mason went to great lengths to list and less lengths to explain 12 poker skills. Two of those skills were reading hands and reading tells.
Now I will concede that reading opponents is an aid to expertly reading hand but they most certainly are NOT the smae thing as you intimate.
I will also concede that reading an oponent may include categorizing his style of play and if that is what the original poster had in mind then I will back off from my original point stating odds as more important. I don't believe from his post (question) that he was referring to anthing mor than reading tells.
I believe reading tells are of little or no consequence (value) and could in fact lose a player money. This is where I differ in my opinion from Mason's. Mason doesn't list determining and applying pot odds/implied odds as a skill. I believe that it is far more valuable to thoroughly understand and apply the concept of pot odds than to understand and apply the concept of tells.
But then again what the hell do I know. After all "Vince is....VINCE"
VinCE.
Vince, doesn't a tell give you information about a player's hand and how he will act/react? Isn't that what reading players is all about?
Did anyone else notice that I agreed with skp before he posted his opinion?
Brett
3 Bet,
Now you are sounding like Rick, very sarcastic (something I would never do).
"doesn't a tell give you information about a player's hand"
The answer here is the same as 99% of poker questions. It depends. Then there is the question of whether or not you can trust the tell or your ability to read a tell. Tells can cause more cofusion than they are worth and confusion can cause frustration which may lead to Tilt. Calculating odds produces no similar effect. I say calculating odds is more important than tells. Dat's all.
Vince.
NO WAY! C'MON! You CAN'T be Cereal?!! How can you say that reading hands is not very TUFF? That's pure NONSENSE! yada yada yada.
Opinion by SKP!!!
There, I no longer sound like Sklansky or Malmuth...you get a small prize in the mail if you can figure out who I now sound like:).
This dispute has its limitations because people can always plug in different assumptions about the hypothetical student or use subtly different but reasonable definitions of such commonplace terms like "most" and "important."
There's something missing, however. Arithmetic skills (knowing the numbers and doing problems quickly) and observation skills (watching players and finding patterns) are both tools that allow players to exercise better judgment than their opponents. Another related skill, and one that I believe is harder to master and more important, is the ability to correcty decide and execute, or to actually exercise good judgment under a variety of circumstances. Unlike the other skills, the act of simply playing poker makes good judgment difficult. While you can work on it by definition good poker judgment can't be practiced away from the table. Players that are good at it not only have a good understanding of the finite, mechanical aspects of the game and the patterns of their opponents but also confidence, maturity, insight, self-understanding, mental discipline and substantial experience at realizing they have these strengths and using them to their advantage. This is much more than being patient and having discipline.
Most players find it hard to exercise good judgment at the table when things are confusing or going badly, and I'm not limiting myself here to those that are noticeably steaming or on tilt. A very few seem incapable of exercising good judgment beyond simple situations. There is perhaps an entire subspecies of player who knows a lot about hold 'em yet their judgment simply sucks. While average players might improve incrementally with better math or people reading skills, unless they also improve their ability to intertwine these elements and apply them they're going to waste time without experiencing any long-term breakthroughs in results. Note also that good judgment is also impossible to teach; most advice is limited to the removing obstacles to doing it (e.g. "don't play whe upset or tired").
Obviously, the more you know about the game and the players the easier it is to make decisions. But if you tend to get emotionally wrapped up in the game, suspect others of bluffing constantly, hate your opponents, or find your betting arm winning arguments with your brain, the last skills you need are the ability to multiply fractions in your head or the patience to watch an opponent's betting gestures or patterns for hours at a time.
(BTW, to answer the question I'd say that reading opponents is by far the more difficult and profitable skill to acquire and that most average players (like me) should concentrate on it the most).
Exactamundo!!!
Oh, sorry...now, I am having trouble finding my own posting style:).
In all seriousness, that was a superb post which summarizes the discussion as well as one can.
Hey, skp, I'm the only one around here allowed to post in quasi-Spanish! But Vince is allowed to post in quasi-everything else!!!
But I agree that Chris describes a *huge* key to doing well at poker, one which is all too easy to overlook. Without really going on tilt, good players can nevertheless have their judgment thrown off, sometimes for long periods of time. They get out of what I call "The Thin Zone of Correct Play" (copyright 1999, John Feeney ;-). It only takes a little misplaced emotional investment or other interference to end up consistently on the wrong side of (seemingly) close decisions over, and over again.
I agree too, that after a certain point reading hands is by far the bigger factor in winning play. I assumed that was what Bob was asking about. But if he meant specifically reading players (as in tells), then that's a different story. Somehow, as usual, Ray managed to cover it all in a couple of sentences.
John Feeney
Chris,
We were having a little bit of fun with this thread and you come along and write this absolutely terrific and insightful post. Please post more.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Normally I try to stay away from the "me too" or "I agree" type posts but I couldn't help myself.
Very good post. I do however disagree with two points you make.
1) Note also that good judgment is also impossible to teach; most advice is limited to the removing obstacles to doing it (e.g. "don't play whe upset or tired").
This is only true if you are trying to teach good judgement to an unwilling student. Good judgement comes from being prepared. Being prepared for poker can be taught. Strategy and tactics, understood and learned correctly, will lead to good judgement.
2 ) (BTW, to answer the question I'd say that reading opponents is by far the more difficult and profitable skill to acquire and that most average players (like me) should concentrate on it the most).
The problem I have with this statement is that if you read the original posters question and then read your response you get the impression he was asking about getting a read on opponents. If so then I agree with you. However, I read his question to be more interested in reading tells than getting a read on an opponent. Two entirely differnt things. When you get a read on an opponent you are categorizing him as weak, tight, loose etc. A tell is more like if he scrathes his butt he has Aces (scratch his A-- he has A--). Reading tells is a highly over rated skill. The value of tells, IMO, is that they make you conscious of things you should not do.
Of course I understand that there may just be a simple matter of interpretation on this last point. So in fairness I will compliment you on a very good post.
Vince.
odds in lmit reading in NL and PL
Ray, Dave, Mason,
I found the following being offered on a website and was wonder a) Is this a 2+2 item, or a 2+2 appoved item? b) if so can I order it from you guys? I know the stud one is not 2+2.
"TEXAS HOLD 'EM: Offers a complete list of starting hands. Reviews some "before the flop" and "after the flop" strategies. Excerpts are from the classic Hold 'Em Poker book by David Sklansky.
8096 ........... (Texas-Hold-Em) ....... $2.20
SEVEN CARD STUD: Describes the primary starting hands along with some general and specific concepts to guide play. Excerpts are from 7 Card Stud, The Waiting Game by George Percy.
8
I need to see the website. Perhaps you could send it to me privately.
Could you keep us posted on this subject?
Richard,
I think it's a safe inference from Mason's post that it's not a 2+2 item, thus the accuracy would be suspect.
I failed to bookmark the web page so I can't point you there unless I trip over it again.
Frank,thanx for the reply.I agree the item in question is not a 2+2 item(their books more emphasize thought and/or situation analisys to allow for a no-brainer type card).However,being curious,let me know if you find thi website.
1st, here is the website:
http://www.casinocom.com/library/bjt_g.html
2nd, let me introduce to you my favorite search engine: www.google.com Instead of blindly indexing words, it ranks sites by how "important" they are: i.e. how many sites link to them. The linking sites are also rated, and this recursive relationship does a great job at filtering.
I just entered: strategy card starting hands sklansky
and it was the 2nd one to come up.
be well,
Zooey
When a hand in a ring game has been reduced to 2 or 3 players before the flop, should you use the same guidelines for play on the flop, turn, and river that you would in a shorthanded game with the same number of opponents?
Leonard
It depends. If the original raiser is first in from a late position, the answer is probably yes because he could have a wide range of hands just like a raiser in a short handed game.
However, to take the opposite extreme. If the original raiser is a tight player who raises under the gun in a full game, his range of hands will be very narrow (and very good). Now you must play very differently.
For example, if an overly aggressive player raises on the button it could easily be correct to call him through the river when you hold king-queen and you don't improve. If a tight player raises under the gun (and no one else is in) you should probably fold the same hand out of the big blind before the flop.
No!
You play shorthanded poker when you are Shorthanded not for any other reason! You use shorthand guidelines in a shorthanded game not in a full ring game. Psychology is an important part of winning poker. Not just the psychology of getting into your opponents head but the pschology of keeping things simple. Evaluating a situation as it unfolds and applying an appropriate strategy requires complete mental focus. The KISS principle is nowhere more useful than in playing poker. Keep it simple. Use ring strategy in a full ring game. Again, use shorthand strategy in a shorthand game.
Vince.
I totally agree with Vince. At least, I'm sure there must be something that we agree on.
If you understand how to play well in short-handed games, you are most of the way to understanding how to play in pots that are heads up from the flop on. There are some adjustments to make, but the concepts and feel are much the same.
Also, the original poster may have been asking whether a 10-handed game that has folded around to the button requires the same strategy as a 3-handed game. The strategy is pretty much the same. The differences are that in the full game after the folders aces are slightly more likely to be in the remaining hands, but also, as Rick pointed out, the weak players are less likely to be in the frame of mind to attack/defend their blinds at the proper frequency.
-Abdul
Abdul,
I agreed with you on your Bacarrat Position. You just didn't know (notice ) it.
I heard it through the Vegas grapevine (and some other fruits I know) that Abdul Jalib is the best middle limit shorthanded player in the woild. I play a pretty good, actually very good shorthanded game myself if I do say so and I do. I must admit that experience is the best teacher. Obviously from Abdul's response one can see that he is much older (I mean experienced but I can't find the backspace key so I'll just continue). Anyway I yield to Abdul in the shorthanded arena. The main point I was trying to put forth was to not unnecessarily mix strategies. By mixing things that were not meant to be mixed one may experience confusion and frustration which equals TILT. Hey Abdul, you math guy you, how about a formula. Let's see, Let A= confusion (not Confucious) and Let B = frustration. Now the: Cosine A * Sine B = Major T(ilt). Whaddya think !
Vince
Leonard,
Besides the positional factors Mason mentioned, there are pshycological factors in play (I'm suprised Mason didn't mention them, since he has written about them before).
Generally speaking, players willing to play shorthanded are more likely to be aggressive, more likely to defend their blinds, and more likely to make a tricky play. Ring game players usually tend to prefer the multi-way pots. They usually would rather get on to the next hand then defend blinds (with marginal hands), attack the blinds (once again with marginal hands), and so on.
On the other hand, shorthanded players are usually ready to do battle on every hand. If they were not ready, they would look for a full game or go home.
Regards,
Rick
Will finally try my hand at poker after years of playing bj exclusively. Anyone know of casinos around the Chicagoland area that offers games. Usually all you see is Carib stud. Looking for 7 card stud especially. I dont't have a problem traveling to Indian reservations out of state within reason.Thanks much.
betel...go to exchange category...that is a better place fous to post these issues Bob
Hollywood Casino in Aurora, Empress in Joliet, Harrahs in E. Chicago Indiana all offer 1-5 stud.
I found a pretty good 5/10 stud game over the weekend. Fairly loose but not overly aggressive lineup.
3rd) I have (J K)J. Bring in is to my right, a four. I raise. Two players call one with a 7 the other a 9. The bring in calls as well. I am high.
4th) Bring in catches another 4, I catch a queen. Bring in makes it 10$. He was a fairly easy player to read and he wasn't very excited about his hand on 3rd. I had seen him just about always make it a double bet and try to "make a play" when he pairs his doorcard. I decide to raise him, partly to knock out worse hands than mine, and partly to see if he would reraise. If he didn't reraise I would be confident he didn't have trips. One other player calls, bring in just calls. I'm sure he has two small pair now.
5th: I catch a Jack for trips. Bring in catches an ace. Other player catches a possible 3rd card to a straight. Bring in checks, I bet 10$. Other player calls, so does bring in. I'm pretty sure I'm against a straight draw and a two pair fill-up draw. Some (but not all) of their cards are dead. My cards are partially live.
6th) I catch a blank, Bring in catches another ace. I know he doesn't have another ace in the hole because he would have raised for sure on 5th, judging by his prior play. He has 3 pairs, I am almost certain. Straight draw catches a possible blank.
River) I catch a blank. Both other players were easy to read, and I knew they didn't fill. I bet my hand for value, knowing at least one would call to keep me honest. Both call. Bring in has fours and dueces and aces, 3 pair. Other player had a busted straight which made 777 on the end.
Comments welcome
Dave in Cali
You read them all the way. Seems solid to me. Bob
A little confused...
On fifth street it was checked to you but unless I'm missing something you should have led.
You didn't finish describing the sixth street action.
5th I bet out with the jacks on the board, both called.
6th I bet out again, not wanting to give free cards. Both called.
I played for about 12 hours so I was tired when writing. Sorry guys....
Dave in Cali
Some situations are so rare that I have hardly thought about them. When you flop a nearly unbeatable hand, it takes a special determination to think critically about your play because you win the pot, and are happy to go on without a second thought.
Yesterday, in a soft 10-20 game I had 3 such situations, and I would like to invite your comments. In this game there were several players who played too many hands, and played too passively on and after the flop. For example, they would play A7 offsuit. If the flop was AQ5, they would call if you bet into them, and call all the way to the end. They would also check to the river in this situation. So one conern that I had was not getting in bets when I had a good hand. Therefore, I was often reluctant to go for check-raises on the turn for fear of it getting checked around.
Hand 1: I'm in early position with pocket 7's. Four players see the flop in an unraised pot. The flop is 776 offsuit. I lead out on the flop. I figured that this would not give my hand away, and since the flop almost certainly missed everyone else no one was going to bet it for me. I get two callers. The turn is another 6. How do you play it from here?
Hand 2: I have K10 offsuit in the big blind. 4 players see the flop in an unraised pot. The flop is AQJ offsuit. I lead out and UTG calls. Turn is a blank. I check. UTG checks -damn!. River is a blank. I check UTG calls, but does not show his hand.
Should I have checked the flop, and then tried for a check-raise on the turn? The UTG player had just come into the game, so the general assumptions given above do not apply to him.
Hand 3: I have pocket Aces in early position, and raise. I do not remember who capped it, but 5 of us saw the flop for 4 bets each. Flop is A86 offsuit. I bet, next player folds, then a raise, call, fold. I call. Turn is a blank. I bet, the flop raiser calls, the next player folds. I bet the river and he folds. I think I may have misplayed this hand, but I was afraid of not getting bets into the pot. For reasons stated above, this was a rational concern for this game, but it might not have applied to this particular hand.
In all three hands, I want to convince my opponents that I am not as strong as I really am. But doing so could just cost me early round bets that I will not be able to make up later. I invite all comments on these hands, or similar situations.
Cowboy, You did the right thing in all of your hands. Its the old, would you make more if you made small bets rather than a check-raise?, thing. I have had the best hands in the world before and they checked all the way around, and I didnt get my pay off. Sometimes it works, others it doesnt. You played your hands how I would have played them, dont change your technique. It will pay off in the long run!
Jeremy
Hand 1. Bet. Your best chance is that your opponent holds a small overpair or a draw, neither of which will he likely bet. Although the 6 increases the chance that your opponent will fold, it makes it even less likely that he will bet. Resist the impulse to hope that your opponent will hit a longshot draw if he gets to the river for free. He's much more likely to give you money on the turn. Betting the nuts here also makes it easier to pick up pots later when the board is scary.
Hand 2. "Damn!"? What did you expect? If your opponent couldn't raise you on the flop, how can he bet on the turn? Checking the nuts here makes it harder to pick up pots later when the board is scary.
hand 3. When the pot is big and you hold the nuts, just keep pouring in the dough unless you have a very specific plan to increase your earn some other way (rare). If you don't reraise on the flop (a mistake), then you should have check-raised on the turn (bigger mistake). Slowplaying cost you at least one big bet, or perhaps thirty minutes of perfect play in a game like this.
I would have been tempted to check the Quad 7's on the turn, hoping to either induce a bet or bluff downtable, but I wouldn't slowplay either of the other two hands for love or money. Why give someone a free shot to catch up to Broadway, or make some sort of gut shot straight to run over trip Aces? In the low limit games in which I play, I find that people will call raises with just about anything, so when I hit the monsters, I want full payoffs to offset the ridulous rundowns. Sometimes I adjust a little. Examples:
1. 3-6HE, fairly loose game, decent action. Mid-position, pocket Q's. Raise, two cold callers, SB and BB call, everyone else folds. Flop Q-Q-2 rainbow. Check, Check, I check, it gets checked out. Turn card 10d making a diamond draw. SB bets, BB calls, I just call hoping to trap the later players, but they both fold. River comes an offsuit 8, SB checks but the BB bets, now I raise and BB pays off with a J-9, so slowpaying this one got me the most I think I could hope for.
2. Not 20 minutes later in the same game, UTG I raise with pocket 9's, four cold callers, SB and BB both call. Flop comes 9c-8s-6s. Checked to me, I bet, and four people call including both blinds, two fold. Turn card comes the fourth 9. SB & BB check, I go ahead and bet, figuring that nobody will put me on one 9, never mind both of them, and anyone with an over pair, spade or straight draw will put dead money into the pot. They all folded! I showed my hand because the casino offers entries into a prize draw for quad's or better, and everyone was astounded that I would bet my quad's on the turn, and not let everyone catch up. My thoughts were that I knew I was going to win the pot anyway, barring some sort of straight flush miracle, and anyone with that draw was going to put the money in on the turn anyway. I wanted not only to win the pot, my maximize the profit, too.
I think I played both hands to my best advantage. Comments welcome.
In the second hand, you should bet on the turn because there are so many potential draws available, and players with those draws are likely to pay you off. If you slowplay and they miss, they pay you nothing on the river. If you bet and they miss, you win those turn bets. If you bet and they hit, they may raise or reraise you on the river. You were just unfortunate that no one had a draw they were willing to pay for.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Note that in hand no. 2, the only good (or good-looking) draws are TJ and any hand with a 7. Since the 9999 only has two opponents left, I still think the better play is to give a free cards and hope for an overcard hit or renewed confidence in a lower pair.
Checking the quads might be correct if you knew your opponent well. Your opponent either has something he can convince himself to call you with on the turn or river (a pair, a draw or a big card to pick off your bluff), or nothing. If he has something, a check is only correct if he is more willing to bet than he is to call. Most players when holding a little something are much more likely to call than bet, particularly in a game like this.
If he has nothing, checking is correct only if the probability that your check will induce a bluff is higher than the combined probability that your bet will induce a call or a bluff raise. Note that bluff-raising might also cost your opponent another bet somewhere. While this might be the case if your opponent has a strong tendency to bluff here, I still think the "default" play should be to bet the turn. Betting also gives you a certain flexibility after the turn, whereas if you check the turn and he checks behind you, you will feel compelled to bet the river.
Your examples:
1. I agree with checking QQ with a QQ2 flop but would have raised on the turn after two players bet into me. A downstream diamond draw won't fold and an upstream diamond draw might (please God) play back at your here. In any event, the chance that either of the first two bettors will fold is usually quite small, so why not pick up an extra BB?
2. I wouldn't raise preflop with 99 UTG. On the turn, upon hitting the fourth nine after betting top set on the flop, you're looking at a classic case for slowing down, despite the healthy size of the pot. Otherwise you get to represent top set (or better) after representing top pair; the weak hands are outa there. Notice also if you check your opponents will now be hard pressed to put you on trip nines and might call you down with second pair. I would therefore check after the blinds and just call anyone who bet. This sets me up well for the river.
Thanks for the comments and insight, Chris. On the quad Q's hand, I did give some thought to popping it on the turn, and in retrospect, probably would have earned one additional big bet, especially when the BB made her straight on the river. She might have thought I was trying to "protect" my big pair and bet out on the river. Oops.
On the quad 9's hand: I don't generally raise up front with pocket 9's, either, but my table image is such that most opponents put my on premium pairs or a big Ace when I make these moves, and I try to vary my play a bit to keep them offguard. This one obviously worked out well when I hit the set, but the board was scary and I clearly didn't want to slowplay the flop. There were still four opponents in the hand on the turn, not just two, and as I mentioned, they tend to call raises with just about anything, so I was not discounting the possibility of some one holding pocket 8's, pocket 6's,any pair, any two spades, a 7, a gutshot, or conceivably even two overcards and be willing to call a further bet on the turn, or I might even get raised or checkraised. The field is also generally so passive and weak that if I checked the turn, it would be very unlikely that anyone would take a bluff shot at the pot on the end; I might get called by someone thinking I was trying to "steal" with my AK if I checked the turn and a blank fell on the river, but that's about the extent of it. I still feel my best chance of maximizing my profit in this particular situation was to bet out the turn. As Greg Raymer pointed out earlier in the thread, it was my bad luck that no one had enough to call the turn, and given that scenario, I can't imagine what could have come up on the river that they could have hit to call then, either.
Yeah, you and Greg are right (I misread the post). With 4 players left and you in the middle you should definitley bet the quad nines. One advantage of slowplaying in this particular case, however, is that by indicating that you have less than a set you are more likely to get multiple bets if a draw hits.
Here was a situation that came up in a 10-20 game a few nights ago. I'd be interested in hearing what other people think:
I have A-8 suited 3 off the button. Folds to me, I raise, the button and the blinds call. The flop is Q-J-x with my flush draw. The SB (a new player---appears fairly weak) bets, the BB (a loose, passive, calling station) raises, I reraise, the button folds, the SB calls, and the BB calls. The turn is an offsuit ten.
Both checked to me. Suppose there is no chance of the BB folding---you know she holds a legitimate hand. Should you bet?
Not unless you think that bet will increase your chances of stealing on the end to an adequte degree.
There is no chance of the BB folding at any point in the hand. She has a pair (it turned out that she held Q-9) and will not fold no matter what the board looks like.
This is not the issue that I was getting at. My question concerns the benefits you might get from getting the SB to fold an ace, an eight, or maybe even a king. Should I interpret your response to mean that these are not sufficient to merit a bet? If so, a little reasoning would be appreciated, if that's not too much trouble.
Thanks...
Given that I knew the BB had a legitimate made hand and was not leaving under any circumstances, should I have played more passively on the flop? My main reason for reraising was that I wanted to give my ace (and other runner-runner draws) a better chance to win. I did check the turn, but wondered afterward if the same logic called for a bet to pressure the SB.
George,
This post is in response to your three previous posts.
These opponents, this situation, and that board indicate that you must make your hand to win the pot. The reraise on the flop bought you the "free" card yet your opponents still hung in.
I don't see the small blind, who bet the flop, folding any hand containing an ace that he was willing to bet with. I don't see the small blind folding any king that he would lead the flop with. And what hand containing an eight would the small blind bet the flop with?
I think a check on the turn is pretty clear. The reraise on the flop was at worse debatable, and will leave that one to others (am I sounding like Sklansky here?).
Regards,
Rick
I think it's closer than you think.
Let's say that there's no chance he'll fold. Keep in mind that I have a huge draw: 18 cards improve my hand, and 15 make me a straight or better. If he calls, my guess is that it's about a wash after accounting for the possibility of splitting the pot.
I have about a 40% chance of beating the big blind, who holds Q-9, indicating that the "cost" of betting, if the SB folds a hand that can't win, is about $4.
You may be right that the chances are slim that he'll fold, but keep in mind that I've done nothing but raise--he may be intimidated. And if he does fold an ace, I gain over $5 in expectation. If he folds a king, I gain over $20. If he holds a king and doesn't fold, the bet loses me about $2.50 and expectation. If he holds an ace and doesn't fold, I gain a little over $1. If all of my draws are live and he calls, I gain over $6 in expectation.
I think the decision is really on the margin. If he's a calling station, a bet probably helps me. The bigger danger is that I bet into a hand that will fold if unimproved, but would call with a king or a pair with an ace. Factor in the chance that the BB has a king or a set or that the SB is lying in the weeds, and I think your advice to check the turn is probably correct.
I don't think the reraise on the flop is debatable, but would enjoy debating it if anyone disagrees. After all, that's what we're here for. Why leave all the fun to "others"?
George,
I probably should have said the flop re-raise was "close" rather than "debatable". Anyway, I'll still stick to the turn decision on this post.
First a nit: "18 cards improve my hand, and 15 make me a straight or better.". Actually 21 cards improve your hand, if you count pairing the eight as "improvement".
Next: "I have about a 40% chance of beating the big blind, who holds Q-9" You know this after the fact. It is important to analyze a hand based on the information you have at the time.
Anyway, I figure during the play of the hand you can't be too happy about hitting an ace or a nine and you need to figure that hitting a king may only get you half the pot. Most of your flushes will be good (I don't see a set or two big pair here out against you) so you really have the equivalent of about ten or eleven outs.
Any hand that the small blind would bet with the ace almost has to be paired with the flop with the exception of AT and AK. With the AT you will probably still be called and with the AK you will be check raised on the turn if you bet. No player will fold a king at this point (probably KQ, KJ, or KT), since most playable kings pair the board in addition to having the straight draw.
I still don't think it was close. Check the turn and root for the club.
Regards,
Rick
"I probably should have said the flop re-raise was "close" rather than "debatable". Anyway, I'll still stick to the turn decision on this post."
I realize that I raised this possibility in my follow-up post, but after reflection I really think the raise was a no-brainer, given position and the nature of the hand and opponents. LOTS of reasons to reraise here.
"First a nit: "18 cards improve my hand, and 15 make me a straight or better.". Actually 21 cards improve your hand, if you count pairing the eight as "improvement". "
C'mon Rick. This is hardly worth addressing, given my assumption about the BB.
The thrust of my post was to point out that if both can be trusted to call, I'm close in terms of expectation. The reason you might not see this is that you're shortchanging me in terms of outs. 10.5 outs assumes the flushes are good and the offsuit kings always split the pot and that the nines and aces never win. (In fact, I won this pot after checking the turn when a nine fell.) A more realistic assessment would put me at somewhere between 12 and 14 outs.
The main reason to bet here is to give the SB a chance to make a mistake by folding an ace or king. I think you're probably right that he won't. But he might fold worse hands, making a check the correct play. On the other hand, if he'll call with anything...a bet may be correct.
I say your re-raise on the flop just bought you a free card.
You may get check-raised on the turn if the ten made someone a straight, so take the free card. If they don't have a straight, but instead have a straight draw, you still have the flush draw plus an overcard. You have a few more outs, some of which happen to overlap with the straight draws, giving them few less outs.
If you pair aces on the end and no one has a straight, the best 3 kickers to a pair of aces are already on the board, so kicker trouble is irrelevant, because anyone with AK already has a straight.
Also, betting here seems like a borderline decision, high-variance play. Having the free card option is always a nice option when you are drawing.
Dave in Cali
I've seen this hand before. Both blinds had K,T.
I like taking the free card. Mainly because your Ace may not give you any outs. Of course if you check you have very little chance of winning without making your hand. So you may want to set up a river steal. Not an easy decision, huh!
Oh well that's poker!
Vince.
Vince,
George wrote: "Suppose there is no chance of the BB folding---you know she holds a legitimate hand. Should you bet?"
How do you set up a river steal given this assumption?
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Is my speling geting anny beter?
Rick,
George wrote: "Suppose there is no chance of the BB folding---you know she holds a legitimate hand. Should you bet?"
Rick wrote: "How do you set up a river steal given this assumption? "
Your speeling is fine and so is your sarcasm. I do take this quesion of yours as a sarcastic remark. Am I in the ball park?
There is an obvious answer to your question. Just reread what George wrote. with your keen sense of inconsistency I'm sure you will find the flaw with these ASSumptions.
Vince.
BTW- Rick, speeling has to e's's not one!
After reading the 21st Century Edition of 7CSFAP, and based on my own experience playing the game, I have formunlated this question for the authors and contributors to this forum. Should you raise the bring-in in a 1-3 or 1-5 7CS game when you have: 1) a pair of kings or aces; 2) a pair of queens, jacks or tens; or 3) a smaller pair with an overcard kicker, anything from an Ace to a ten?
In 1-3 and 1-5 stud, there is no ante. The bring in is a dollar. If you were to raise in early position, you would likely win a dollar. Considering that a pair of Aces or Kings is likely to be the best hand at the table, you may want to wait until at least fourth street to try to drive people out. If you raise in late position on third you risk just traping people in and making their calls correct and reducing your chances of getting them out on forth or fifth street. But is winning that dollar adequate when you have a pair of queens or a small pair with an overcard?
Comments
Rich,
I probably would NOT bet the max in an early position, as like you said, u probably would drive out everyone and win a $1-$2. I'd bet $2 in a 1-3 and $3 in a 1-5. If the game is like the one in my area, the game is loose and u will get several callers. On 4th street, if u feel u have the best hand, bet the maximum. At that point it is certainly worth driving people out. I have found that only a $5 bet will drive out players consistently.
I have found 3rd street in a no ante game to be where players "volunteerly" ante into the pot. Many players will call in a 1, 2 or 3 bet for right to play the hand. I say let 'em, then drive 'em out on 4th street.
Jack
I have been a semi-pro for 14+ years and I have held MANY part-time, side-line jobs to get me over the bad beat nights etc. I am once again solvent and considering JUST playing poker as my only job. I have the experience, bankroll and guts it takes to pull off the job. How many of you out there have been doing this and if so, how much $$$ can you make in middle limit games? Any help in this area would be GREATLY appreciated. Thanks, Doc River (ex-Card Player Magazine writer.)
i have tried twice and can't ,some might say won't make it .ithink location and game choice is critical .baton rouge has two working players,and one guy who is using his unemp comp.none of them make 500 wk the games are tuff and the rake is bad .my friend went to cali for a few weeks and loved it .i might try again in la but playing in the same 4-8 game here is murder
I won't quit my day job...Last year I cleared just over 10K...This year I'm ahead a little over 9K...No pro here...I'll need my pension, social security and any return on investments when I retire---just so I can continue playing! Bob
Robert, It really depends on what type of games are in the area. In my home town I play with a bunch of rich company owners. We play at one of their houses in a game room. I have played for over a year making a good 500-800 a week. If you can find a private game, and the people you are playing against are at your level, I would go for it. The only problem is when you first get started you cant spend your winnings as you normally would. You should play and keep your winnings in a seperate account, only spending what you need to out of that account. Try to live off of it and if it looks like it will work than by all means go for it! This is just a small means of putting up a safety net in case you fall.
Jeremy
If I can't lie I'm not responding. Same reason I play poker.
Vince
I operate my own business in addition to playing poker. Quite often, I would rather work that play. There is a lot less risk involved.
I think if you plan on supporting yourself by poker alone, you need to play at the 15-30 level or above. Below that you might as well drive a cab.
Brett
Rich:
I generally only raise about 2$ or 3$ in 1-5 with these hands. One the one hand, big pairs are certainly worth more than the bring-ins. So you want at least one or two players in the pot. On the other hand, you still have to raise and give them a chance to make a mistake by entering the pot.
It also depends on how tight the game is.
One time, I had just gotten into the game (1-5) and got dealt split aces. Bring-in and two callers to me, I raised 1$. Everyone folded! The game was obviously way too tight and I left two hands later. No $$ to be made. I would have probably got more out of my hand If I had waited till 4th to raise.
In other looser games, people will generally call a 3$ or 4$ raise, even if they don't have a S/M/Z textbook hand. 3rd might be your only chance to raise, as you will probably be high most of the way. In that case, get the $$ in the pot while you still have the best hand. Chasing out a couple hands is fine too. You don't want to play against 5 chasers. Be satified with winning a smaller pot with big pairs.
As for what pairs to raise with, Any time I am pretty sure I have the highest made pair, I will usually raise (even if it's 99 or 88). Small pairs in the hole with a big upcard are good raising hands, mostly for scare card value (setting up a steal for later).
Also, with big pairs (split or in the hole), I will sometimes put in a small raise to test any higher upcards behind me and see if they reraise. Better to find out now If I'm an underdog, rather than after I'm already committed to the pot.
Good luck.
Dave in Cali
I play $2-$5 spread limit stud, and with big pairs I have as my objective, getting one caller with an under pair or draw. In some games, this will be $5 raise to the left of the bring-in, in other games it will mean waiting until 4th street. Also, you generally need a larger raise if your door card is low.
Last night I was playing in a 5 handed home game. Somehow I seem to not be able to beat these 5 handed games. When we were playing a 4 handed game 3 weeks before, I and another player slaughtered the game by playing aggressive. Playing H2H or 3-handed on irc I seem to do pretty good too. But when 5-handed I only get even (not beaten).
When started playing last night I started off aggressive. Soon I realised that it wouldn't work in this game. Everybody was almost always seeing the flop even if raised preflop. Somebody almost always also seemed to have a decent hand at the end.
I then changed my strategy and tried to play the way it is described in shorthanded section of HFAPL. After NOT getting any of the recommended cards after a couple of rounds and seeing big pots being brought in by real crap to starting hands (even for shorthanded) I changed strategy again.
Now I decided that becuase everybody seemed to be pretty loose and getting aggressive when they got something I would try to see more flops. I decided that I would see the flop with ANY cards if there wasn't any raising preflop. If raised preflop I would only play Ax, Kxs, Big Cards and pairs. I also decide that I would not raise anything preflop, not matter what cards I have. (that after getting KK beaten on the turn by Ax.) I wanted to see the flop.
This strategy got me to get even and take back my losses. I saw many times my big cards or pairs get beaten and was therefore happy that I didn't raise with them preflop. One of the biggest pot that I won I also brought in with 5 2s.
Altough this can't be the right way to beat this 5-handed game (playing crap like 5 2). I have read Abdul's posts about shorthanded, Sklanskys advices in HFAPL and been pretty successful in 2, 3 and even 4 handed games. But in 5 handed games the implicit collusion of the loose players seems to be much harder.
Does somebody have any good advice how to adjust to this kind of games to be more successful?
Thanks
Abbe
I just started playing Omaha Hi-Lo Split (8 or better) and I was wondering what is the average % of the time that the low hand even qualifies? In other words, what % of the time will 3 or more of the 5 cards be either A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8? Thanks in advance for your help.
Dax
Dax - There are at least three different ranked community cards of eight or below 1,561,728 times out of 2,598,960.
In other words, because of the cards in the community hand, low is possible only three our of every five deals in Omaha-8.
Since, once you are in playing a hand, you can see the four cards in your own hand, an even better question might have been:
How often is low possible in Omaha-8 if you have:
a. no low cards in your hand,
b. one low card in your hand,
c. two low cards in your hand, such as AH, 2H.
d. three low cards in your hand, such as AH, 2H, 3H,
e. four low cards in your hand, such as AH, 2H, 3H, 4H.
(But you didn't ask that question and I have to go say the Caro-Winning-Player-Oath three times now).
Omaha8Buff (A student of Mike Caro)
You are a lucky player. A powerful winning force surrounds you. Thanks for the help, OmahaBuff.
I have been reduced to playing low limit games as there is no 10/20 or higher games within a 4 hour drive.
My question is simple:
Should I continue to play in a low limit 5/10 HE game knowing that I am the best at the table? The game is very loose and difficult to beat because of this. I am wondering whether or not the odds of all the players combined generally will beat me.
I find that on most occasions 6 players will call to the river and I am getting beaten with poor draws most of the time. I am usually the best to the river, should I stop playing in this game?
(The swings in this game are tremendous, you can be ahead 300 or down 300 in an hour, the action is fast, the pace comfortable but the swings uncontrollable)
How about posting a detailed description of some the hands that you get involved with in this game. Different strategies are needed for beating loose and wild games.
Firstly, in the low limit games I tend to play tighter, only drawing to nut flushes and calling pre-flop with a pair of 99 or better. So premium hands.
Since the variance is so large I figure that playing only premium hands, irrespective of position, is warranted for this game. Correct?
I have been beaten on umpteen times with KK to gut shot straights and flushes.
1 recent example is:
I have Kh Ks, I raise pre-flop (automatic in this loose game, but no one cares!) I am in position 6 and EVERYONE calls behind (to fluke the good player)(this is another problem as the game gets personal and players "attack" the players that are the best/have the most chips)
I bet all the way through and get called by 4 on the river: (no raising, just simply calling, the game is loose but passive until the turn or river depending on when people catch) Board: 4h 6s 7d 9s 2s
I get beat by a set of nines (sitting directly beside me, to my left, making him act after my bet) and I get beat by a 10 high flush (10s 2s) thats how bad (or GOOD!)the game is!!
"Correct?" No.
"I have been beaten on umpteen times with KK to gut shot straights and flushes"
I guess you should just muck'em from now on.
"I have Kh Ks, I raise pre-flop (automatic in this loose game, but no one cares!) "
Noting is automatic in poker. I guess you include yourself when you say no one cares.
"(to fluke the good player)"
I know what this means and I'm very surprised that you would believe something so silly.
"(this is another problem as the game gets personal and players "attack" the players that are the best/have the most chips)"
This is not a problem! Let any foolish player that is not as good as me attack me. That is without question, I repeat without question, the best scenario a good player can ask for. Bring'em on! especially, I might add, when I have a lot of chips. Stop licking your chops the rest of you poker guys out there he ain't tellin where this game is!
"the game is loose but passive until the turn or river depending on when people catch)"
Gee what a surprise!
"I get beat by a set of nines (sitting directly beside me, to my left, making him act after my bet) and I get beat by a 10 high flush (10s 2s) thats how bad (or GOOD!)the game is!!"
The only half right comment made in this post. GOOD! that is. BTW only one winner so the set of nines lost also. Should tell you something.
Vince.
Vince:
""(to fluke the good player)"
I know what this means and I'm very surprised that you would believe something so silly. "
This reminds me of a post several weeks ago by someone who thought it was another player's fault that he was knocked out of a tournament.
Brett
Yeh 3 Bet I remeber that idiot too!
Vince.
It appears you're not adjusting to the game correctly. Big pairs play differently in loose games. Drawing hands increase in value.
I'm too lazy to go into detail, but you need to learn how to play big pairs in loose games. Your description of the action was not detailed to the point where I could recommend the way you should have played the hand.
I suggest that you get a hold of a copy of the new HPFAP 21st Century Edition and study the Loose games, Wild games, and Starting hands. These sections in the book will give you the information on how to play your cards when you encounter these types of games.
Good Luck!
Low limit games can be quite profitable over the long run, but you will get drawn out on alot so get used to it. I have shown a nice long term profit at low limit HE but have suffered tremendous swings along the way. You can't let the results of a particular game influence the decision of whether or not you can beat the game. Sometimes the suckers just keep drawing out with terrible draws and poor odds and there's not much you can do. Just make sure to charge them the maximum each time they try and it will eventually pay off.
Also, drawing hands, especially ace high flush draws, are more profitable in these games. If you know there will be 7-8 callers every time, you can bend the position rules a little and come into the pot with more small pairs, Axs, and suited connectors. Keep in mind these hands will increase your variance. There's nothing you can really do, you will have big swings in wild games. It's the long term profit that is your main goal.
Dave in Cali
This is good advice. It may seem like pocket aces get beat constantly by gutshots and trash like 7-2o that catches a miracle flop, but the math doesn't lie. Short term luck aside, these people won't be winners for long playing this way. Certain hands like pocket kings or aces are not hands that like alot of competition anyway so I wouldn't take them too far past the flop unimproved in a loose game with more than 5-6 players in the pot if it appears that there are straight or flush implications.
On the other hand, suited big cards and connectors are more valuable since they are powerful drawing hands. Play connectors and suits more often since you will get the correct odds and drop pocket pairs that don't improve on the flop when there are overcards or when the board pairs. In a loose game you are most likely a big dog or practically drawing dead.
I tend to agree with both Dave and Moses, though their approaches are contradictory. Dave suggests loosening your starting hand requirements some where Moses suggests tightening up a bit. I might add that you may be able to knock people out with both strategies. With Daves strategy, you can try to knock em out by setting up a double bet when the minimum bet goes up (fifth street in stud). With Moses' strategy, you scare people just by entering the game. I really don't know which strategy has the better return, but I feel that these games should be beatable.
If they are not beatable, that would mean that the correct strategy is to draw to the river with any decent draw. That can't be correct. Also, don't underestimate these players. Professional gamblers tend to label as a smuck everyone they think doesn't know how to play. Don't do this. First, you will underestimate the quality of their hands. Even "poor" players get good hands, and they play them. Second, you will underestimate their play and will fail to read them well. Someone at the table has a winning hand, and you're not going to be able to scare them off with the low limit bet.
Let me know which strategy works best.
I would like to add that the advantage of Dave's approach is that you can bet strong hands early on and expect to be called whereas with Moses' approach you will see people fold and not bet into you unless they have a strong hand, making their play correct. The advantage of Moses' approach is that you will get a lot of free cards. If you can mix it up a bit, you can play more drawing hands until they catch on and then beat them with nuts once they've let their guard down. Moses' approach requires good timing, both of the cards and your play.
I should add something to my post that might clear things up about mine and Moses posts being contradictory.
I suggested loosening up with drawing hands, I should add that you want to make the pot big when YOU have a drawing hand. I have been raising with 910s, small pairs, and Axs in late position with many callers. I also like to limp-reraise in early position with AKs and similar hands.
The opposite is true for high unsuited cards. Here you must tighten up, sometimes even mucking the poorer hands. If you have AKo in late position with 7 callers, raising only makes the pot big enough to make it more correct for the fish to chase. Keep the pots small with these hands. Only raise to knock people out when it has a good chance of working, such as when you can make it 3 bets in early position BTF. Making opponents call a double bet (especially on the turn) in a small pot can force your opponents into making a mistake by calling. Not true if the pot is really big. These are the hands we die with in low limit. Try to reduce the amount you lose on these hands in loose games and you will probably do better.
Does this help?
Dave in Cali
Yes, it's no wonder I started losing after reading the earlier edition of 7CSFAP. In loose low limit games you have to adjust your strategy to how you expect the other players to behave, i.e., how the hand will be played. Just by counting chips rather than money, does this make low limit games more profitable or less profitable?
I really don't mean to be a smart-ass(I just can't help it), but if you were the best player at the table the title of this post would be "Low Limit Winner." Somebody is winning in this game(probably the player holding the best cards), and you need to figure out why it isn't you.
Brett
Brett,
You are right, but you are also being a smart ass. Players tend to underestimate the competition, but there is also a change in strategy when playing in low limit games, combined with the drop and the tip, that make it difficult to win. Your point is well taken, but I do appreciate people sharing their failures as well as their successes. In fact, I learn more from other peoples mistakes than I do from their successes.
Seems this is a familiar kind of post.
The fact you get drawn out w/these sometimes ridiculous draws *should* make you happy in that most of the time these people will be paying you off , and often they will be big underdogs most of the time.
One must also note KK or AA doesn't hold up all the time, and it is quite possible you may stay in too long w/these hands when they catch bad flops. And a hand like AA is not even a favorite to win if the rest of the table takes the flop, turn and river. and you should adjust your attitude appropriately.
Good luck, if you really are teh best player the money will soon be flowing your way. You just can't expect to win every session....
Ray,
after reading and re-reading your book I wonder what are the basic adjustments in strategy for playing 7-stud Hi-Lo 8 or better in pot-limit (there is no PL section in your book contrary to O8).
You basically say that limit 7-stud Hi-Lo is a game of implied odds since the pots are frequently jammed in the later streets, thus there should not be big differences between limit and pot-limit.
However in pot-limit we have always to take into account the all-in factor by fifth or sixth street, specially with short / middle stacks.
Let me try to define the opening hands:
- any set, 2 A or 2 K, small 3-straights, small 3-flush
- what about A28, A27 or A26 without even a 2-flush
- what about a 2-flush A55, 556, 554 (Max Stern says that after the Ace, the 5 is a key card in this game)
- what about A + small pair
- what about a small pair + 2-straight-flush card (specially if the pair is in the hole)
I understand that the high hands go up in value, almost when playing heads up and/or short or middle stacked.
You also say thet check-raising is a powerful tool, since the obvious high hand can always be expected to bet, specially with a high hand disguised in low. Is it OK to use it in PL (if it is powerful, it is also dangerous).
What about the 2 "expert" plays you discuss:
- check raise in a 3-pot in 5th street with a small open pair to eliminate the high hand
- chech raise in a 2-pot in 5th street with a 4-low and a big card against a high hand to represent a better high ?
What about the other basic adjustments to be made ?
An european player (in Europe poker is only played pot-limit [or no-limit] )
In poker essays, luck vs. skill, pg 98, it talks about the structure of 10/20 stud, and how the suckers get cleaned out quickly. What is the exact structure of this game, and how pronounced is this effect relative to other structures, specifically 5/10 and 15/30? Is this because of a disproportionately small ante relative to the first raise?
Particularly, these two 10/20 structures:
1$ ante 3$ bring in 1st raise completes to 10, 2nd to 20$ 1$ ante 4$ bring in 1st raise to 14$, 2nd to 24$
Further, is it worth it to specifically try to exploit this particular phenomenon, or will the expert player do just as well at any limit/structure that is within his bankroll?
Also, in Poker essays II, it discusses the same phenomenon with 15-30 holdem, 10 and 15 blinds (sorry no pg. #, the book is loaned out).
Would this effect be the same in 3-6 or 30-60 HE if there were 2 chip and 3 chip blinds, i.e. does the 1$ 3$ blind structure make a difference? I believe it was talking about 3 chip, 6 chip betting structure. How does 15/30 specifically compare to 5/10, 10/20, 20/40, 30/60 HE structures as far as this effect goes? Why does that extra 1/6 of a bet in 15/30 make a difference, and to what degree is this effect?
I guess in the end I just wanted further details on this beyond what's in the books. All comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
"In poker essays, luck vs. skill, pg 98, it talks about the structure of 10/20 stud, and how the suckers get cleaned out quickly. What is the exact structure of this game, and how pronounced is this effect relative to other structures, specifically 5/10 and 15/30? Is this because of a disproportionately small ante relative to the first raise?"
In Foxwoods, it's $1 ante, $3 bring-in, first raise completes the bet to $10. As compared to $15-30 ($2/$5/$15), the ante is proportionately smaller, and is much smaller relative to the bets than the antes of higher stud games. Higher antes help the loose players by adding a randomizing factor. Players who win a large share of the pots (although they lose money overall) will not do as badly in a high ante game. Playing too loose both on third-street and beyond is a far more critical error in 10-20 than in higher games where the large starting pot makes many marginal calls correct. Bad players who play too many pairs and weak straight draws don't get anywhere near the odds they need to make those hands profitable with this small a starting pot. Also, the better players in the game correctly play tighter, which means that loose players are constantly entering and staying in pots with inferior hands. In higher ante games, where all players are more induced to multiway action by the large starting pot, many drawing hands will do better.
While "fish" will lose especially fast in 10-20, in many cardrooms most of your opponents in 10-20 will be "mediocre players". They play slightly too many hands, but on later streets they fold too easily in many spots. (And call too much in others.) They are also too passive. These players may actually do better under this structure than they would in a higher ante structure.
"Further, is it worth it to specifically try to exploit this particular phenomenon, or will the expert player do just as well at any limit/structure that is within his bankroll?"
No - if you are an expert, you would almost certainly make more in higher games. An excellent player might win $40/hr in 20-40, but certainly won't win $40/hr in the long run in any 10-20 game.
"Also, in Poker essays II, it discusses the same phenomenon with 15-30 holdem, 10 and 15 blinds (sorry no pg. #, the book is loaned out). Would this effect be the same in 3-6 or 30-60 HE if there were 2 chip and 3 chip blinds, i.e. does the 1$ 3$ blind structure make a difference? I believe it was talking about 3 chip, 6 chip betting structure. How does 15/30 specifically compare to 5/10, 10/20, 20/40, 30/60 HE structures as far as this effect goes? Why does that extra 1/6 of a bet in 15/30 make a difference, and to what degree is this effect?"
Normally, a higher ante structure helps the loose players a bit. The 15-30 with 10-15 blinds and 30-60 with 20-30 blinds is an exception. Mediocre players become more inclined to call raises in the small blind with dominated hands. When they are first in in late position, and they incorrectly limp with a medium hand rather than raise, they will face two opponents almost automatically, while in the normal structure the SB will often fold. Facing two opponents makes these hands much less likely to win unimproved. Also, for only one more chip, they enter the pot with hands like J2o and Q5o, but then they misplay them in multiway pots after the flop.
The local indian casinos in Cal. still have jackpots. In hold 'em, the jpot is aces full or better must be beat. Both cards must play. How often does this happen? How do you figure it out mathematically? Thanks
I posted something on beating quads tens a month or two ago w/explanation. A's full would be more tedious but much more likely. Look at the post and tell me if you really want this figure...
It ain't happenin' that often, that's for certain. There have been some good essays written about the dangers of jackpots in poker, but the main point is all the money it sucks off the table.
Anyway, as to your question about how to figure it out mathematically, it is simple. Take the odds of getting aces full. Then take the odds of a better hand like quads, and multiply the two together. Unfortunately, I don't have those at hand at the moment, but in any event, we're talking about 2 big numbers being multiplied by each other (or on the other hand, using percentages, multiplying two small numbers together) which yields a much bigger number.
So, the odds of aces full getting beaten is rather stiff. Then as you say, *both* hole cards must be played. This makes the proposition even more ludricous. Still, if you can hit the jackpot, congrats...
In a 10-20 HE game on the weekend, there was a heads up play I observed that was unfathomable.
There is no preflop raise, flop comes 227 rainbow. Check, check.
Turn is another 7. Check, check.
River is an A. Check check.
First player tosses KQs face up, doesn't say anything. Other player mucks!
Larry
Huh!
Vince.
Looks like a split pot even with one player mucking
Milt
Nope. Rules are player must show his hand to win. KQ won the enitre pot ( granted it was only $22 ).
L
I have been playing poker for about 1yr 3 months playing about 3 sessions a week,, I have had my share of bad beats and my share of controlling the table!1 in the last month I have lost most of what I have won in the last 3 months ive been out played and catching bad beats so often its not even funny... here is my concern I have a chance to deal poker at the casino that I have been playing at ,, to get me off my game and back into the learning stage,, should I take that offer .. there is 3 outs that I have by takeing the position,, 1) I will not beable to play poker there,, saveing money!! 2) I will be able to study more of the game ,, position plays blinds ,, slow play,, and most of all learn more about the players that have been beating me ... 3) potential of a career in dealing .. please give me your fair oppinion on what this could do for me !!!thanks,, Turn Card
Go for it if you don't already have a job. Dealers see a lot of play. You will gain observational experience. I don't think dealing is a great carreer, however. So if you already have a job that pays more or is more satisfying or has upward mobility, stay there. If you have to work two jobs, you might not be able to play at all.
If you are inexperienced, the situation you described is not uncommon. A couple really bad days can eat up what it took you months to earn. Don't kick yourself, it happens to us all. Use this experience to improve your game and it's not a total loss. Dealing might help you with reading hands and players.
I've been playing for many years, and I can count on one hand the number of dealers that are also good players. Maybe it's because the job is so demanding that they don't have time to pay attention to strategy, but few dealers learn the game from being so close to it.
Dealers are usually considered to be fish when they are playing. It's unlikely that dealing will improve your play. But it will improve your bankroll.
I think you should examine what has caused your loss in the last month. Maybe you have relaxed your play a little too much since things had been going pretty good for the past year.
Brett
3 Bet,
He said "poker player" not poker prayer. On a serious note, I agree with (ugh) you! Da Bears!
Vince.
Vince,
Of all peaple on this forum with the insight and wisdom that you have for the game I was hopeing to read a little more than what you said,, I have read this forum for a long time, sense before I started playing cards,,, can YOU please give me little more,, I respect you opinion and honesty ,, please give me it,,,
Turn Card!
You value Vince's advice? I think we're getting to the root of your problem.
Brett
I deal poker, and where i work there is not 3 good players out of a 100. Dealing will help you to read players a little better but i do not think it will help your play that much. It will give you a idea how the regaurs play and that can be helpfull if you are alowed to play in your own card room.
good luck
TurnCard,
"I have been playing poker for about 1yr 3 months playing about 3 sessions a week"
I have been playing for about 6 years.
" I have had my share of bad beats and my share of controlling the table"
Been there, done that!
"in the last month I have lost most of what I have won in the last 3 months ive been out played and catching bad beats so often its not even funny.."
I could have written this one myself in April of this year.
Now the interesting stuff. The answer to your question: "should I take that offer "
"1) I will not beable to play poker there,, saveing money!!"
This sounds like a statement from a losing poker player. Notice, I did not say Loser! Indicates to me that a little more self discipline is needed. You probably need to decide if you are a recreational poker player or one that is willing to do what is necessary to play winning poker full time. (Remeber you asked for the advice.)
" 2) I will be able to study more of the game ,, position plays blinds ,, slow play,, and most of all learn more about the players that have been beating me ."
This ain't gonna happen! Just ask Mr. Malmuth what he would do to a dealer that was not focusing on his job. A dealer must (must) pay attention to the action as it unfolds. They have not time to be studying poker! Try it at my table and you will be in trouble. Now remeber you are getting this kind of comment that never, never blames a dealer or gets upset with a dealer and always defends dealers. Again, Imagine what Mr. M's response would be.
"3) potential of a career in dealing .. "
There is no good response to this point. Maybe -- If that is what you want to do with your life then go for it! If you want my opinnion I say go to college instead and find a profession instead of a career. But remeber your getting this advice from a High School Graduate.
Now, turn card, my advice is that you look in the mirror and ask yourself what you want. Hopefully, the wise fellow looking back will have the answer you are seeking.
Vince.
Vince,,,,,
Thanks sir yes that was more of what I was looking for !,,, I will do just that ,,, Thanks,, Turn Card!
I have recently moved up from 3-6 to 4-8 hold'em here in Arizona, and the game is really Jekyll-and-Hyde. Sometimes it is just as loose as the 3-6 game (with many of the same players), but sometimes it gets much tighter and tougher, with only 2-3 players seeing the flop on average. I am holding my own in this situation, and I think my adjustments are OK. I recognize that it is going to be more like this as I move up in limits, so I value this experience when it happens. I am not "afraid" of the game, and in fact I am up so far in these games.
My question for the panel is: in a tight, tough hold'em game, in which I am going to have to get in there and mix it up, stealing, defending, etc., will the rake kill me at the 4-8 level? We have a $1 jackpot drop, up to $3 rake from the pot, and a $1 toke.
My approach to the 3-6 level was, if I ever encountered a game like this, I would change tables or go home. If the percentage rake reduction (by only one-third) helps enough, then I will play in these tight games for the experience, but if it is not beatable, I will wait until later (at higher limits) for this experience. I always have the option of running back to the 3-6 game when the 4-8 game gets tight.
Advice?
Thanks, Dick
Dick,
Just a few thoughts while I foul up my keyboard from the condiments on my burger.
If you are mostly in it for the money, you need to look for the looser games at the lower limits. Otherwise, the rake overwhelms you. The 3/6 and 4/8 limits are pretty close, so you should be comfortable switching games at both limits.
I'll assume that you probably play after work or on weekends for about four to eight hours at a time. If the 4/8 game looks good to start, get in that but keep your name on the other board (and visa versa). If the game tightens up early in a session, swich to a better game at the same limit (via the change list) or the other limit.
If you are within an hour or two of going home anyway, don't be afraid to stay in a 4/8 game that tightens up a bit. Use that time to practice the skills you will need to move up to the higher limits (I'm sure you would be better than average at 15/30 in Los Angeles on day one). You won't make a lot of money but it will prepare you for the future. Don't worry if your "hourly rate" is low or even negative for this situation. The rake and tips are less of a factor when you move up and that is where you will make the real money.
Regards,
Rick
Do NOT toke $1 every hand; only for large pots. You won't be paying THAT much rake per hand since the pots don't get big.
Tight games are just dandy if you play in late position and steal shamelessly. "Shamelessly" means less than they will notice and adjust for it. If you play about half your hands on the button (when nobody raises) and mindlessly bet about half those hands when everybody checks to you, they probably won't notice. One way to do this is to "semi-bluff" with any pair or any draw as good as a 3-straight and one overcard.
The major trick for tight games is this: RARELY if ever call 1st bets or raises, routinely suspect a good hand when early tight players are in.
== The value of your hand matters little unless the opponents have a good hand ==
- Louie
Its good practice to play in Jeckle-and-Hide games.
In tight 4/8 games i raise with any 2 cards 10 or better or any pair 8 or better if first in then bet the flop. I win about 30% right there. If i get called it depends if i keep betting.I feel table image is important you must show them a lot of good hands to make this work, and play after the flop.
In real games you will get ROASTED if you routinely raise with QT UTG. Expect to routinely get 3-bet by those in late position. Yuuuuuuck. But against weak-tights it works.
But I think you'd be better off dumping the obvious trouble hands and playing the draws, as 87s has a better chance than QT of beating someone who has a hand much better than QT (i.e. tight players who call raises).
Played an interesting hand in a $50 buy-in no-limit tournament this weekend. 55 players with 6 places being paid 40%/25%/15% for first three places. With rebuys, there s over $9000 in the prize pool. I forget the other splits, but 6th place was only something like $200.
There are about 90,000 in tournament chips and the field is down to 3 tables of 7. The blinds are at 200/400 (no antes) and we are half way through the round. The blinds double after each 40 minute round.
With a hard-earned 3000 in chips, I have a shorter than average stack. A guy brings it in for his last 600 in 2nd position. A tight, unimaginative player with an average stack of about 4500 calls from the cut-off seat. The large stack (almost 9k) also calls on the button. He is a pretty tough player. The short-stacked small blind folds. I have QJo, and simply call the extra 200.
Flop is JT8 rainbow. I have 2200 left and decide that I am not willing to bust out on this hand, so I check. It is checked around. I guess I missed a bet.
The turn as an offsuit 8. I check again. 2nd player in bets a grand and button raises to 5000. I fold.
Was I a wimp on the flop? Was I a wimp on the turn?
How does the player being all-in for the first 2600 affect your thinking here?
Don't think you were a wimp in either case. Too many ways to be behind, your redraws may be no good, out of position and with a precarious chip position.
The all-in player seemingly makes button's (solid player - who was it, by the way?) 5k bet stronger as it indicates he has a hand rather than a draw. However, if you know that he knows that the middle player was fishing and would fold to a big reraise there...hmmmm.
I probably would have folded, but by the tone of your post it seems like you would have won a big pot here :).
Michael...drop me an e-mail, I need to ask you a question.
Good Luck/Chuck
Played a hand of 10-20 HE at Foxwoods yesterday. Here's an interesting hand. It reminds me of Mason's famous 44, not because there is any strategic similarity, but because a low, unimproved pair won a big pot.
10-handed table. Players will be referred to by number, with #1 being the SB, #2 the BB, around to #10 being the button.
1 and 2 post their blinds, 3, 4, and 5 limp, 6 and 7 fold, 8 raises, 9 and 10 call the raise, 1 fold, 2 calls, 3 reraises, all call. 3 had limp-reraised about 40 minutes earlier in a 3-handed pot, and had won with unimproved KK. There are 21.5 bets in the pot. 2 asks the dealer for "No cards higher than a 4, please". He made this same request preflop in an earlier hand, and had shown down 22 (that flopped a full house).
Flop is 3c4d4h. 2 says to the dealer "That's pretty good", and bets. 3 raises. 5 (a very loose player) calls, and 2 calls. Down to three players, and 27.5 small bets (almost 14 big bets).
Turn is the 5c. 2 checks, 3 bets, 7 and 2 call.
River is 9c. Everyone checks. 2 shows 56, 7 shows 22, and 3 wins with 66. Pretty much every player who saw the flop and folded there started whining about folding a winner (e.g., 88, A9, KcQc, etc.) because they "knew" that 3 had a premium pair.
What do you think of this interesting hand?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I think that 3 probably didn't have the intention to re-raise until there was so many players in that it made sense. his previous re-raise with kings helped, but not to the extent that it was a planned image play, since it appears that there were some very loose players in, that he wouldn't be able to run off no matter what flopped. But of course, I wasn't there. Once the flop came #3 played it well, but he wouldn't have won the pot if I was in the #2 seat. #2 should have check raised the turn with 2 pair and open ended, and the size of the pot, it would have been worth a try to get 3 and the others too fold. You would have to tell us if #3 would have let that big pot go if #2 raised him. big pot, it would be interesting.
No chance that 3 could have been run off by 2. It would have taken two players raising each other to get me out of that pot.
The play wasn't made as an image play. The earlier limp-reraise with KK was made for value. The player 3 seats to my right was doing a lot of raising preflop, especially from the button. I thought the hand would have higher EV if I limped and reraised his expected raise. The limp-reraise with 66 was as described. I limped UTG looking for a multiway pot for 1 bet. Once so many players were in, I decided that a reraise would add EV by building a monster pot for those times I flopped a set.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
1) Players who saw the flop and folded there: A) Whining is always ugly; B) player who played A9 doesn't deserve to ever win anythng; C) pretty tough to call that flop with KcQc and probably correct to fold with it, despite all the money already in the pot; D) 8-8: I find that it is usually correct to keep playing with an overpair to the board despite the fact that you "know" (which really means, most of the time, that you suspect rather than know) that another player has a higher pair. I doubt that this player really had 8-8, but if he did, he should have (at least) called the flop.
2) 2 (big blind): I don't think, in this situation, I would have bet out on the flop. You can be pretty sure 3 is going to raise and eliminate other players, so you're costing yourself 2 bets on the come as well as forcing out others who could be drawing dead on the turn should you make your straight then. After that, his play was standard, which is correct.
3) 3 (6-6): I like his re-raise preflop: for 1small bet, it allows him to take control by raising on the turn if the flop is to his liking, which it was. Pretty tough for the whiners to call his raise on the flop after he has 3-bet before the flop. And with 6-6 you want all the overcards to fold. He has to bet again on the turn for the same reason (plus he has turned an open end straight draw) and he has to check on the river with an overcard and possible flush hitting the board. Well played. (I hope you were 3.)
4) 7 (2-2) (By the way, you must mean 5, not 7; 7 folded): he shouldn't have called the 2 additional bets pre-flop with 2-2; he shouldn't have cold called the raise on the turn; and I'd love to have in my game. (I hope you weren't 5.)
By the way, I don't think the hand is too similar to Mason's 4-4 in that Mason called on the flop and bet on the turn despite 2 overcards on the board. This hand was a lot easier to play than Mason's 4-4.
Sounds like a great game.
Andy,
I don't think this will take off like the 4c4d thread on RGP. What else is there to say after Greg's detailed post (we can forgive a small error regarding the seven or five seat), your detailed reply, and Wild Berry's contribution.
Regards :-),
Rick
P.S. Then again, after a good nights sleep .....
Andy,
That's why I said "marginally". The play was nothing like Mason's hand, just the similarity of a small pair winning a monster pot unimproved.
I was the 66 hand, and the 22 hand will always be welcome in my game (as would MOST of the others at that table).
It was interesting how sure so many of those players were that I held AA or KK. I saw clear shock on at least 3 faces when I turned over my cards.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Good going! 3-bet it with 6-6 after limmping before the flop and then show it down on the river! Not only did you play well and win a big pot, but the play is going to win you extra $ in future action. Well done.
I am very new to the complex world of Hold'em Poker. My friends and I play semi-regularly "Friday night poker", but for some reason have never played Hold'em. I am trying to setup a hold'em game for us all to play. I think I can talk them into about $50 per person (that's the max they can cover-up from their wives). My question is what would be the best way to structure this'tournament'? I am currently reading Sklansky's "Hold'em Poker", but this goes more into detail on strategy than betting structures, and I can't seem to find any other info. I would like to start out small, to let everyone get the feel for the game, then increase the betting as the night goes on. My expectation is that we would play for 3 to 5 hours. Any info or references anyone could provide would be greatly appreciated. I want to make sure that everyone's first intro to hold'em is an enjoyable one...(I like to see smiles as they're handing over their cash)
Here is the basic structure I have used the last 3 times, with great success:
2000$ in starting chips (we have green,black,purple chips so this is a convenient amount)
8-10 players
20-30 min rounds, depending how fast you want it to go
blinds limit 5-10 10-20 10-15 15-30 10-20 20-40 15-25 25-50 15-30 30-60 20-40 40-80 25-50 50-100 .............(see below) 50-75 75-150 50-100 100-200 etc....
In our game, it becomes no-limit after the 50-100 round:
ante big blind 10$ 50$ 15$ 75$ 25$ 100$ 50$ 100$ 50$ 200$ 75$ 250$ 100$ 300$ 200$ 400$
If you set it all 20 min rounds, there should be about 5-8 players left for the no limit round, depending on how well they play. It usually takes about 5-6 hours to play. This structure goes slow enough that skill and luck are pretty well balanced, but adjust it according to your time restraints. We have been playing winner take all, but do what you wish on that....
Hope this helps
Dave in Cali
Sorry guys, that's not what it looked like when I posted it! REVISED tournament structure!!!
blinds limit
5-10 10-20
10-15 15-30
10-20 20-40
15-25 25-50
15-30 30-60
20-40 40-80
25-50 50-100 .............(see below)
50-75 75-150
50-100 100-200 etc....
In our game, it becomes no-limit after the 50-100 round:
ante big blind
10$ 50$
15$ 75$
25$ 100$
50$ 100$
50$ 200$
75$ 250$
100$ 300$
200$ 400$ etc...
That should replace the botched portion of my post (which I'm sure didn't help at all)! It didn't look like that when I posted it! My Bad!
I forgot to mention that we have 8 players. I don't know how this should influence the structure of the game.
HE is commonly played with bets of x and 2x. On the first 2 betting rounds, all bets and raises are in increments of x. On the last 2 betting rounds, increments of 2x are used. The blinds are typically 1/2x and x.
I would recommend that you use 2 colors of chips, with values of $0.25 and $1.00. Have blinds of $0.25 and $0.50, and betting at levels of $0.50 and $1.00. This should give people a chance to win or lose within your $50./player target. If this is too small, double it.
Do not play with limits higher than 1 and 2, or you will certainly have multiple players losing more than $50.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I guess the question in my mind is why do you want to have a tournament as opposed to just play some Hold 'Em? If nobody is familiar with the game, this should be sufficiently interesting. Plus, with a tournament, you are guaranteed to bust out some of the players, whereas if you just play Hold 'Em, everyone has a shot at winning some & losing some.
--james
PS for variety, you could play limit Hold 'Em for half the night and then switch to no-limit or pot-limit for the rest of the night.
Here are new tournament winning strategies practiced by some of the player's?
1- Play in a daily tournament at some local casinos where the chip is exactly the same as the chip used in major tournament, example: $500 chip. Then, steal a couple of those chips in order to gain an edge in a major tournament.
2- Sponsor a few players within the same tournament and then at the next break, let's meet somewhere, feed the world class player and then share the jewelry!!
3- Add a few of those stolen chips in your stack when you are transferred to another table!!!
4- Sponsor a few players in a daily tournament and have them collect a couple of high value chips for you in order to give you an edge in a major tournament? No one will know that you are stealing chips if you treat your team adequately. Who cares about winning a $20 or $100 tournament when you can use these chips in the $1000. buy-in tournament ?
5- I let you think about other cheat that can be done!!
At this moment, this is the big talk in Las Vegas because one of the local, well known internationaly in the tournament circle, has just been caught in stealing $500 chips in a daily tournament where those chips have been used and probably are still in use in major ones.
This matter is very serious. A few poker player is damaging the whole world poker community. I feel very bad thinking about those who gives their life in promoting poker and then see these kind of things happenned.
It's time for Damage Control. Millions are in play!!!
1-Do you beleive that major tournament chips should be different than those used in the daily ones?
2-When you are tranferred from one table to the next, should the dealer count your chips and write it down on a piece of paper for the next dealer to recount the chip at the next table? In Vienna, dedicated personnel bring the chips back to the player at the next table,. Wouldn't that be better?
3- If every poker player is aware about the above cheating, would you beleive that everyone from now on will be policing each others?
Mason, I do not have the vehicle necessary to collect feedback from your readers about finding ways in cheating in tournament. Would you mind collecting the feedback from your readers and then formulate a tournament management security rules and regulations that should be applied internationnaly. If not, please let me know, and I will find another way.
I believe every poker player should boycott tournaments that will not follow the future security rules.
I am sorry about the long letter but this is for the good of POKER. By the way, english is my 2nd language. So expect to find grammatical error.
Thank you
Answers to your questions:
1. Absolutely; inexcusable not to.
2. I'm not sure if that's practical, but perhaps it's necessary. Chips definitely should be counted before breaks, though.
3. They should be. I'm not sure who Yvan is talking about, but I do know there is one very famous player from California who has had similar allegations (*NEVER PROVEN OR MADE PUBLICLY*) made against him.
On a somewhat related note, I witnessed the whole incident where Men Nguyen was 86'ed from the '95('94?) HOF tourney. Card Player reported the incident but did not name him. I like Men, most of the time he's hysterical and his record speaks for itself, but his behavior was disgraceful that night. Card Player needs to take the lead on these kinds of issues, and when they're proven, NAME NAMES. I will say that Men's run-in w/ Tom McEvoy was fairly, accurately, and openly reported, probably due to the seriousness of some of the allegations.
Needless to say, the player Yvan mentions and his crew should be banned for life from every poker room and tournament in the world, and it should be fully reported on in CP, PD, RGP, and here.
Here! Here!
Vince.
"On a somewhat related note, I witnessed the whole incident where Men Nguyen was 86'ed from the '95('94?) HOF tourney"
I'm not sure what happened here, but I did hear that Men is supposedly sponsering a team of players (passing chips around)
BillM said:
3. They should be. I'm not sure who Yvan is talking about, but I do know there is one very famous player from California who has had similar allegations (*NEVER PROVEN OR MADE PUBLICLY*) made against him.
There has been endless discussion about this allegation on RGP this week. The player in question was banned from the Orleans for life! According to the posts he is a WSOP Bracelet holder. I wont mention any names since I still believe in innocent until proven guilty, but you can scan RGP for that info if you want. I remember a Reagan Cabinet member,I think Ray Donovan, who upon being exonerated of corruption charges asked the press "Where do I go to get my reputation back". The answer in these cases unfortunately is nowhere.
Randy Collack
I've followed the 2+2 forum for some time and if I remember correctly Mason Malmuth suggests that cheating is all but nonexistant in poker today. I'm sure Mason was refering to ring games since he never seems to play tournaments. Probably best to stick to ring games, eh?
Of course there is a small chance that the regular tournament cheats end up in a ring game after the tournament but you're probably completely safe.
Best,
R. G. Peterson
I was sitting there with my Handy-Dandy Monte-Carlo-O-Matic software this evening and looking at what happens when you have a 4 flush on sixth street with two blanks.
Granted we probably shouldn't find ourselves here to often.
But it does happen.
In any event I found that if the holder of the betwixt hand was dealt to first, the odds of making a flush against 3 other random hands was about 4.5.
However if you were second the odds consistently averaged about 27 to 1.
I realize we thrashed this some in an earlier thread.
But I have to ask.
Does this add any credence to the dealer's myth that seat 1 is a better place to be? Or at least a greater propensity to call in this scenario if you are early?
Comments on possible fuzzy thinking here are invited.
How many hands were in your sample? These numbers (your results) make no sense to me whatsoever.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
They didn't make a lot of sense to me either. Hence the desire for some commentary.
As I look at the sim though one thing does come out.
By moving the flush to the second seat and beyond, 7 random cards come out for each player ahead of the 4 flush.
This may account for the flaky results.
The software firm reccomended 1-3K hands which I used. They went on to say that 30K might be good if "you are writing a book".
Many folks run millons though. I'm not a stats expert so I don't know how many is enough for x level of confidence. Guess I'll have to pull out the old college stats book.
In any event this Monte Carlo tool doesn't take burn cards into account either. That's another 7-9% of the deck.
I'll run it again and see what happens.
OK Greg here's the latest on this.
Simulation was heads up.
The fixed hand was 2d,4d,6d,10h,Jh,8d.
After 5000 hands the odds of filling the flush were 4.14 to 1 with the fixed hand in seat 1.
The same fixed hand was placed in seat 2 and seat 1 was made the random hand.
After 5000 hands the odds of the flush filling on the river were 27.62 to 1.
Similar results were obtained multi-way up to 4 players.
Repeated trial showed the same results within a few fractions of a percent.
Greg,
Toss this one in the 86 file. GIGO. Found an error in my use of reporting functions of the "Monte-Carlo-O-Matic".
DOH! Operator Error.
My apologies.
If possible can the webmaster delete this so as to not mislead someone not reading entire theads?
I would like to thank those that contributed in a positive manner and particularly Mah and Dave in Cali.
I am a knowlegdeable player with ample play experience. I have read most of the 21st Century material but do admit that this situation is STILL confusing to me. The house rake is 5% and caps at $5.00 (FYI a 5/10 HE game). With approx. 20 hands per hour meaning 1 buy-in is eaten by the house per hour (the game runs slower due to the table talk, unusually high number of players in each hand and the constant in-flow of people into the playing area, unfortunately the gaming area is poorly designed and not easily modified).
With that said, can one say that generally speaking I am an underdog in this game. A hand by hand anaylsis wouldn`t be effective because I believe that this game is quite volatile. As I stated earlier it is quite easy to fluctuate +300 or -300 in an hour. I do play tight (premium hands only) and even tighter if 6 players call ahead of me (I`ll drop to QQ or better in order to call). I try and modify my play and I understand what all of you have said that any game should be beatable but this particular game is tough. Typically, you can put in $30 just to see the turn card. Thereby, making large pots and a larger then normal standard deviation. So with that being said, should I continue to play in this game (which by the way is located in Ontario, Canada)or should I wait and save for a quarterly trip to Vegas or AC and then move up to a more comfortable level where the swings are not as apparent?
Thanks again and I apologize for the repetitiveness and lack of providing enough information. I look forward to hearing your advice.
P.S. I have been playing in this game for 6 months now for about 40 hours of play time per week and am ahead $3200 making me $3.33 per hour!! HELP!!
If a lot of players have (just) called before you, you should play any pair, any suited Ace, and any other hand that does well in multiway pots. This likely includes suited connectors down to 45s, and not unsuited big cards like QJ.
However, it also depends a lot upon how these guys play after the flop as well.
With a rake this high, the players do need to be very weak in order for you to make a long term profit.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
With all due respect, you are either not playing "premium" hands, or you are not throwing enough hands away after the flop.
It should be a rare event to have a swing of $300 in a 5-10 game that deals only 20 hands per hour.
Even if you played all 20 hands, and called a raise each time to see the flop, at that point you still aren't even close to a swing of $300 per hour.
Re-examine your game.
Larry
I am virtually certain that this game is beatable, as your results suggest. I have no idea, however, for what hourly amount or at what variance. I also suspect that your biggest problem may be the 20 hands an hour. If the same players can keep coming back despite the exceptional ups and downs, it sounds like the action mostly consists of people trading their money back and forth with nobody beating the game for much.
Based on your descriptions of the game, the lineup seems fairly predictible and stable. So shouldn't Turbo TH be perfect for this kind of question? It seems to me that you'd simply have to generate a lineup that best fits your competition, plug in a reasonable player representing yourself, and run a bunch of sims at the rake level you describe. If the real opponents aren't adjusting to your play, you could discount the usual computer problem of failing to account for such adjustments. You could then modify the lineups until you have one or several that make the game unbeatable at an acceptable hourly rate. Then compare how the lineups play against your actual competition. If the lineups play differently, you should persevere. If they play similarly, find another game. To get to the variance problem, you could run a series of shorter sims.
Your posts suggest that your game appears is unusual in that the action is almost nonstop, whereas most "ram-and-ram" games die down after a few players leave.
I will investigate using Turbo TH.
As for the players dying down that does happen but not too rarely. In this game there are a bunch of plumbers, mechanics and carpenters that own their own businesses and love to play HE. There are 50 regular players and the rest play at least weekly. The club is private and is invites only.
Having these regulars helps to anaylse each player but trying to keep track of the constant movement of chips is difficult. Lately, I have been noticing that the house seems to be the only winner.
Play less trouble hands when tight players have called. Play more drawing hands like 33 or 65s when loose players have called. I think you are missing golden opportunities by folding so much.
- Louie
Agree here, but note the phrase "when loose players have called." Ignore the smaller pairs (55 and below) and (especially) suited connectors (98s and below) when ram-and-jam types behind you will regularly force you to put in three bets or more to see the flop. If the game is at all passive and you're waiting for 99 to play a pair, you're playing too tight. Forget about unsuited hands below AJ.
Whatever the case is, you're still a winner. On the other hand, I've seen players, in 7CS, walk away with a rack full of chips every game. Every hand they enter they win. They rarely lose a hand, and even more rarely have a bad day. I'm afraid to move up until I can compete with those players.
Also, AC isn't much better, The rake is 10% to a max of $4.00. Vegas, of course, is the best; but it's a long trip. Do you really only want to play poker quarterly?
Either move up or figure out how to win more. I agree, it's a tough game. Your time is your investment. At least it's not your money.
Rich P. writes:
[I]'ve seen players, in 7CS, walk away with a rack full of chips every game.
This doesn't mean they've won.
Every hand they enter they win.
No they don't.
They rarely lose a hand, . . .
They lose a lot of hands.
. . . and even more rarely have a bad day.
They have a fair number of bad days.
I'm afraid to move up until I can compete with those players.
Predators don't eat other predators. They "compete" only when prey is scarce. The trick is in becoming a predator and finding tables with abundant prey. Having to share is a secondary concern.
This is the most incredible draw poker hand I have ever played. It happened recently in a wild home game.
Jacks or better to open, trips to win (no joker, no wild). If you fold, you're out and can't get back in, at all. If no one opens, it's a re-ante 1$. If someone opens, there is a draw and another betting round. Usual rules for splitting openers etc.... You must have trips or better to win in a showdown, but you don't have to show it if you bluff everyone out (thus you do not necessarily need trips to actually win the pot). It was spread limit 1$-20$ with a 5 bet cap, unless head to head. Bets were usually kept in proportion to the size of the pot (these players rarely bet the max, how convenient...)
Ten rounds have passed and there's about 60$ in the pot. 7 times no one has opened. There have been a couple unsuccessful bluff attempts. 4 players remain. I am dealt 789TJ, all hearts. Unbelieveable, a pat straight flush!
I am UTG, so I open the pot for 5$. All call to the button, who raises 5$. I don't want to scare anyone out, so I call. Both others call, 4 players. Players draw one, then two, button stands pat, I (obviously) stand pat.
After the draw, I open for 10$, and immediately get raised 10$ more. Next player calls, Button raises 20$! I reraise 20$, first raiser calls, other player folds, button calls.
First player has a straight AKQJ10 (open ended draw).
Button was dealt an AK spade flush.
Other player had made QQQ but decided he was beat, rather than calling the extra 40$ at the end.
Comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
Usually, in a game like this, after the pot has gotten big and so many rounds have passed, no one is going to fold predraw to your bet, almost no matter what. Thus, you probably could have made more money by betting more predraw, and by reraising the raiser predraw.
Then, after the draw, when you stand pat, it looks like a straight or flush. Since the other guys made both the top straight and a very strong flush, they are going to give you some action. Thus, I think it's likely you'd have made more by just betting out $20. instead of $10.
But, you know these players, and that means a lot. In the final say, trust your judgment of what will make you the most against them in particular.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Ditto.
You also may have lost some action since it really looks like you slowplayed a monster: bet a little call the little raise, then BET OUT.
- Louie
Background:
I am a player that enjoys playing up to 20/40 He and HE only. I enjoy playing in casinos that are well designed, that offer the player a smoke (or as smoke free as possible!)free environment, good frequent hostess service and great action.
Question: Which casino in Las Vegas is best designed for dealing the most hands per hour while minimizing distractions to the players in the game?
The most convienient cardroom around me spreads a decent HE game, and several 1-5 studs. I prefer HE, and it's the game I plan to master first, but the stud games seem more profitable (after 100 hrs of 3-6 HE, I averaged 7.3/hr, with big SD. With stud, I seem to get around 10/hr, with small SD, tho I don't really have enough hours to tell for sure.)
My real question is, should I play the stud at all? I want to play stud for real eventually, but it seems to me that mid-lim structured stud would be a whole different game than 1-5 spread. What I really want to get out of my play for the time being is experience, & I'm not sure if I'm getting worthwhile experience at 1-5 stud.
Any thoughts?
P.S. Some may find this post more appropriate for the Exchange forum, but I feel that game selection is a question of Gambling Theory and Strategy. Apologies if I'm wrong about this.
Chris,
I want to play stud for real eventually!! HE it's the game I plan to master first!!!!
Good Luck!!!
Paul
Paul,
Can you explain your comments?
Frank,
If 1-5 7CS isn't real what is it?? If he is going to master HE first, he would never get to 7CS.
Paul
Well, given that translation, I'll respond.
First, I didn't mean I plan to become THE MASTER of HE before I begin to play stud, but rather that I am focusing my energies on that game. Perhaps it is a different sense of the word "master" than you read. Example: I am trying to master French. Previous sentence does not imply pretensions of becoming Voltaire.
As to the "reality" of 1-5 stud, I meant that for a few reasons, low, spread limit study strategy seems very different than mid, structured limit strategy. Implied odds must be figured in a totally different way. Hand reading is different since players may bet or call on third street with anything. There are no antes.
Thanks to Louie for his response to my question. Apparently the meaning of my original post was not inscrutable to everyone.
I think Paul F. found the original post pretentious. Use of words like "master" and "real game" etc. may be pretentious after only 100 hours of play. Or it may just be the medium we're using along with the choice of words.
Put in 3 or 4 thousand hours at different limits and locations and then re-read your post.
As to the question at hand; I would work at both games. I also would play the game that is most profitable the most.
Good Luck! Mike N
Chris,
I was just joshing around. To answer your question, it sounds like your on the right track. In spread games 1-5 7CS, I find the biggest challenge is to find the maximum bet to attract the maximum amount of players to win the maximum amount of money without losing the hand. Every table is different, so you have to get a feel for the game.
DMTOY (Didn't Mean To Offend You)
Paul
Hey, no problem.
Sorry about flying off the handle on you, I should stay away from forums after meetings with the boss :-<
Thanks to all for your comments.
I firmly believe playing low limit anything against brain dead types is an excellent way to get basic experience. You must first learn the "standard" way to play hands before moving onto such things as disguising your hand. You know, 3-bet with Ks when the Q raises, fold Ts when the Q 3-bets it, fold your small 4-flush when someone pairs their door card and someone else appears to have a bigger 4-flush, etc.
In low stud, I would advise playing in such a manner that experienced players can EASILY figure out what you have.
Once you can beat 1-5 stud in your sleep, THEN move up.
- Louie
Chris
I have been playing 1-5 and 5-10 stud for a while now, and I seem to be doing equally well in both. For some reason, my SD is smaller in stud games than in HE, especially 5-10 HE. The holdem games in my area are definitely more wild than the stud games.
My swings in 5-10 stud have been about the same as for 3-6 HE. 5-10 HE has (by far) the biggest swings for me. At 5-10 stud, I am to be able to win decent pots, but have fewer chasers than in 1-5. I think my swings in 1-5 were (proportionately) bigger than they are in 5-10.
The game does play a bit different, so perhaps practice on Turbo 7CS to get the feel. It's really a better game, once you get playing 1-5 will seem boring....
Make sure you're ready, but 5-10 stud is a great game....
Dave in Cali
Tight game 10/20 HE,, average players seeing the flop 4 average to see turn 2 heads up normally ,, UTG, 10s10c, raise and get 5 callers both blinds,, flop 10h 9s 2d blinds check ,, I bet ,, call, raise from button both blinds call , I 3 bet it and button capps it with 4 players,, Turn, 2h, SB bets out,BB raised,, I called button 3bets it,,,SB capped it we are still 4 handed,, river 7h SB bets out BB raises , I call, button 3 bets it SB capped it,, SB 9c 2s BB 9h 9d button Ah Kh,,
Because it's a tight game and an otherwise nondescript card on the turn (1) downgraded your hand to the second nut and (2) inspired two previously quiet players to start pounding you, joining a third. The probability of your being beaten was far from minuscule.
Because with 4 players one would have thought everyone would have known there had to be a couple of full houses out there and that a flush would have known his hand was beat. So it was logical to suspect that maybe someone had quads.
I find that, pretty often, when some one has put in so many bets, or called down a few bets against so many opponents, that you would think you're beat, it can be a case of a player simply falling in love with his hand without adequately considering the possibility that you have him beat. I had this same thing happen to me when I had pocket queens and the board ended up K-Q-T-3-3. My opponent had pocket tens and I would have thought, the way the action went, that she had to know I had her beat. But she didn't. When I called the last bet, both of my neighbors, not involved in the hand, said "pocket kings and pocket queens?" and that is what I suspected as well.
Nice pot!
I do not know :). I'd be feeling pretty good after that turn card.
You obviously got as much value out of the hand as you could anyway. Looked like you were a dead money overpair to the blinds. The only guy to be out in left field was the button. He does not raise AKh pre-flop, but raises and then caps it on the flop with overcards and bd flush, then three bets the turn after the board pairs, and three bets his dead flush on the end. If life could always be so easy!
Can you send that guy to Tokyo...I need him in my home game! I'll pay his travel expenses :).
I recently played in a small limit holdem tournament. Four of us were left at the final table. One player had 85 -90% of the chips and was raising on every hand. SB was $200 and BB was $300. I had $1600 . The Player on my left was a rock and had approximately the same amount (I was unable to get an exact count because he kept shuffling them). The player on my immediate right had $2100, but had shown a willingness to get involved with the big stack (which is why he only had $2100 left).
On the button I picked up AQo. I raised, the SB folded as expected and the BB reraised as expected. Needless to say his J2o outflopped me.
My question is should I have mucked the hand and not gotten involved with the big stack? My feeling is that the player on my right might well have gone all in before I would have been blinded out. Also as it turned out, the player on my left would have to play before me.
For the record the payout 2ns, 3rd and 4th was approximately $390, $250, and $160.
One other quick question is would it have been proper for me to ask for a count of the small blinds stack before I acted on the hand. I am not sure if it would have made a difference, but it would have been useful to know that I could have outlasted him.
Thanks Al
Don't forget to tell us how much first place pays. It's probably about double or less than double the 2nd place figure if it's a typical payout, but there are exceptions out there. If 1st paid an entry into the WSOP 10K event, then I'd say go for it with AQ and try to double up through the chip leader. If not, it depends upon your goals. If you want a shot at winning, you need to play a hand this strong when 4-handed.
If maximizing your EV is your only goal, then you probably just fold everything but AA and KK and hope the other 2 short stacks bust before you.
Here's an alternative strategy that the big stack might let you get away with. Ask to make a deal with the other 2 short stacks. The 2-4th prizes add up to 800. Make a save with these guys, wherein you each guarantee the other 250., with the 2nd place finisher getting 50. extra. Make sure that this is done in the open with the approval of the big stack and the tournament director (otherwise, you're cheating by collusion).
In most cases, the big stack will not prevent the deal. Once the deal is made, you are effectively colluding with the short stacks against the big stack, but it's not cheating because he gave his permission. You can now try your best to win chips, knowing that if you fail, you only lose $50. If you succeed, you might reach a chip position where you have a legitimate shot at beating the big stack. If the other 2 short stacks don't understand the ramifications of the deal, they may still play survival mode, and allow you to steal their blinds when you confront the big stack.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I am just curious why do you think the big stack will not object? It is obvious to me that the big stack have nothing to gain but something to lose. I would like to see them folding AQo and pick on the one that must play.
The big stack should object, but either ignorance or ego may prevent him.
If you have 90% of the chips 4-handed, your ego may tell you to not object, because it looks petty (to some, not to me, I don't voluntarily give up any EV, unless it's a trade-off for future EV). "I mean, come on man, you've got 90% of the chips, why are you complaining because the rest of us want to lock up more than 4th place money? You'll still win, right?"
Of course, if I'm the chip leader, I'll suggest that they simply split up 2-4th evenly, give me 1st place money, and there's no need to risk anything. This counter-argument should often be effective. Hell, since 800 isn't evenly divisible by 3, I'll even kick in 10 so it comes out to an even $270 apiece. How can they pass up a practically free $10?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I believe 1st place paid $730. A deal was not possible because the player on my right expressed a desire to continue playing straight up, but I will keep your proposal in mind for future tournaments.
Thanks, Al
Good Response FossilMan!
One question.
"If maximizing your EV is your only goal, then you probably just fold everything but AA and KK and hope the other 2 short stacks bust before you."
Will this strategy really maximize your EV? Would you please elaborate. Why wouldn't the correct strategy be to attack in a situation where one player has 85% of the chips and the other three are close to even. Especially if the other tthree are adopting a wait and see strategy. If you winn one hand and doble up are you not now in a position to finish seconfd by waiting. Where is the balance one looks for to maximize EV in these circumstances. Is "hope'' really your only ally here.
Vince.
Whenever you're in the money, or very close, every time 2 players go to war, the 2 of them (combined) lose EV, and the other players sitting on the sidelines gain EV. Thus, you actually want to be the person sitting on the sideline. Since our hero in this story was tied for 2nd, he could wait and force someone else to go all-in with the chip leader first. If he is going to voluntary take the risk of busting out when the blinds haven't forced him in, he wants to have more than just a slight edge over the chip leader. He wants to be a significant favorite. By only playing the very top hands, he can do this. However, I'm not 100% sure where to draw the line here.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
First time poster, so please bear with me while I try to get the protocol right! Have been playing low limit HE (3-6 to 5-10) for about 3 years and after a slow start, decided to study the game much like I did in the tournament bridge world 25 years ago - get the literature, study good players' habits, get together with friends after a session to "go over the hands", etc. For the past two years, I have averaged about a $14-16 per hour win rate at this level,playing about 20-30 hours per week. The main thing keeping me back from tackling higher limits is the relative scarcity of these games in my city and the feeling that if I can beat the low limit game regularly with little risk to the bankroll, why bother? I feel I have good mental discipline to handle the swings and run-downs, but a hand came up last night that still bugs me and I would welcome the comments of the group.
Game was a very loose 4-8 Dealers' Choice that was almost exclusively Omaha/8 with some HE and Omaha mixed in. My table image with this crew is that of a very tight, disciplined player and I get a lot of respect for my play. My hand on the button was Ad-2d-5c-6s. Six or seven callers, and the BB(loose,aggressive type) raises. Everyone of course calls. Flop comes down Ks-Td-3d, giving me the nut flush draw with backdoor low opportunities. BB bets, 4 callers to me, I raise partly to gain information as the nature of BB's hand and partly for value. BB re-raises, 2 callers drop, others call. At this point, I have to put him on trips, because I'm looking at the nut diamonds. What else could he have, I'm thinking? Turn card comes Kd, giving me the flush, but pairing the board. BB confidently bets out, 1 player calls, over to me. I ponder the situation for about 30 seconds, and decide I don't really need to put in another $16 dollars to have him show me possibly quad Kings, or perhaps 10' full, and muck the hand. River is a blank, BB bets, the other player calls, and our hero turns over Kc-Qd-Jd-Jc, and scoops up a sizable pot with the Q-high flush. Never did see what teh caller had. He made a nice play on the hand giving me the chance to go wrong by laying down the bigger flush and I fell from grace, but my questions are: 1. Do you like my raise on the flop? 2. When I get re-raised, was I giving this guy too much credit for holding a hand such as trips, especially given that his pre-flop raises in this game are frequent, and often Low-driven sorts of hands? 3. Was the laydown on the turn reasonable, or should I have just turned into a calling station, put in the bets on the turn and river, and taken my chances? Comments appreciated. ( Hope to turn into a regular contributor now that I have figured out how this e-mail thing works!)
Whether you played this hand well or not depends almost entirely upon what you know about the raiser/winner. On the turn, you will have to invest 2 (or more) big bets to win about 15 or so big bets. Thus, you only have to be wrong about his full house (i.e., win this pot) about 12% of the time to make folding on the turn the wrong play. Some players are predictable enough that you can fold here and know that you're almost never wrong. Others aren't so predictable.
You say he raises loosely preflop. However, the question you need to answer now is how loosely does he raise after the flop? If he still raises on any made hand or any good draw, then you should call. If he'll only 3-bet with the current nuts, then your fold on the turn looks good.
Good Luck, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Well, there's 30 small bets in the pot at this point, and there will be no low. You'll have to invest two big bets to win 16-18, so you're getting somewhere around 8-1 on your call. However, pot odds are irrelevant if you're drawing dead. So you basically have to ask yourself if this is the kind of player that would jam the pot with a big draw, or whether he has to have a full house. The single cold caller has to worry you, but it really depends on the player. No hard and fast answers here, but remember that folding errors are terrible in loose, passive games.
I like your raise on the flop, and I might even have capped it when it came back to me.
Whether you can put the guy on trips when he re-raises depends on how good an Omaha/8 player he is.
Is this the game at the Palace?
Yes, Dan, that's the game. You're right, the third cold-caller did give me some concern, but I was basically treating this as heads-up between myself and Wayne(the bus driver). I realize there was too much money in there to automatically fold; that's why I took my time to consider the ramifications. Given the math, the nature of that particular game, and the catostrophe of folding the winner in the face of only two more big bets, in retrospect, calling him down now seems automatic. That's also partly the reason I'm staying away from you and your crew at the 10/20 level; I know I can hold my own the majority of the time; it's these tricky decisions that make the difference and I'm still learning.
Well, calling isn't automatic... If you always call with your flushes on the turn when the board is paired you'll lose a lot of money. The pot has to be large, and the bettor and caller have to be the right players. You could have called only to find out that you were 3rd, and if the same player bets the river and the cold caller raises you have to chuck the hand anyway.
Given that it was Wayne, I'd think it was a fairly close decision. Sometimes he's the Rock of Gibralter, but other times he makes a lot of strange plays. If the cold caller was a fish I wouldn't worry about him, but if was a good player I'd have to give some thought to him having a big full house and trying to trap me for another bet or two.
Are there any good hold-em games in Wisconsin, Michigan,Iowa,or North or South Dakota. Any information as to casino location (Casino name and city) would be appreciated. tx.
Should put this on the exchange forum but Soaring Eagle in Mt Pleasant Michigan has a nice poker room
Everyone, I have played Texas Hold'em for about 8 years now, and have been a fairly large overall winner so far. I am normally very interested in the specifics of hands that are posted on this, and other forums, however, I'm starting to get a bit dissapointed in my 'heroes'. I, like everyone else, grew up in the poker world reading Sklansky, Caro, Malmuth, Brunson, Ray, etc, and they were wonderfully informative, but I'm beginning to wonder some things about them. Every time I read the play of a hand I get a bit more frustrated with the way the 'heroes' always seem to fall back on the 'specific hand, specific instance, specific opponent' excuse for making a 'bad' play. I personally respect the hell out of you guys, but it's ok to say that you thought something that turned out to be wrong, or you had a hunch and followed it . . . every decision you make is NOT mathematically sound I assure you, it's not possible to be THAT accurate all the time, spur of the moment. Just once in awhile admit that you strayed from your own advice and it cost you a pot, or in some cases won you a pot you shouldn't have had. It won't lower anyone's opinion of you damn, we all make mistakes. I prefer to read Jalib lately, because at least he is willing to say he messes up here and there.
Kyle.
I don't recall any of the heroes saying they never mess up. David, in particular, has a big ego (which I think he might admit), but this usually comes as part of the package with a big brain.
Mason took a lot of heat for the 4-4 hand. Many posters felt he played the hand badly and said so. I think it would have been easier for him to not publicize that play, or to say in a couple of posts that he calls to the river with K-Q on a "specific hand, speicific instance, specific opponent."
It can, of course, be something of a cop-out to use the "specific hand. . ." explanation, but it also can be correct strategy to play differently in apparently the same situation depending on the specifics.
I still find the heroes filled with new insights and help to my game. If they're a bit defensive, I think it's a small price to pay. But I also wish, at least a little, that they would lighten up a bit, and I think that's why I too enjoy Abdul Jalib's posts so much. They're well written (S & M admit in their new book they're not exactly Ernest Hemingway), funny, and informative from a different perspective than the others.
Andy, I appreciate your response, and I agree with most of what you said, I just wish there had been a bit more response from my post that from one or more of the 'heroes'. I am looking for them to give me a valid reason ya know . . . just needed to hear their take on it. Guess I'll have to wait and get it in person some day. ;)
Master.
I am a beginning low limit HE player ( < 20 table hours ), so I am still getting used to what to expect in cardrooms. There is a 4-8 game that I have played in a few times. This casino allows dealers to play; they seem to do poorly, and I guess it seems okay with me.
The last time I played I was there until quite late. The dealers were moving on the hour. This casino allows dealers to play; they seem to do poorly, and I guess it seems okay with me. However, about 4 in the morning a dealer sat down at the table who had dealt to our table earlier. 10 or 15 minutes after he sat down I played a couple hands in a row. The second hand, as he considered his action, he commented that I didn't play a hand the whole time he was dealing.
This struck me as innappropriate, but I didn't say anything at the time, as I didn't want make an issue out of nothing. Should I have talked to the floor manager?
I've been reading the board regularly since I started playing, and I am very pleased at the improvement of my poker thought process. Thanks for all your help.
-- conform
His comment was annoying, but he did not break any rules in making it. What I would do, the next time he is dealing and you win a pot, say to him: "See, there is a hand I played!" Then, don't toke him. He should get the point. If he asks you what you meant by that statement, you can then explain to him why you made it. If he has any sense at all, he will then apologize to you, and you can resume toking with the next pot you win. If he decides to be a snot about it, never toke him again, and tell your friends not to toke him either. Good Luck! Black Jack
As long as he was not abusive he has the right to make the same comments as anyone else. Would you think about calling the floor if anyone else at the table had made the same comment.
I am not saying you have to take abusive comments but general comments you just have to learn to shrug off,you will hear a lot worse the more you play.
While a dealer is dealing to you he is gaining valuable information about you if he chooses to. If the card room allows him to play, then the dealer could use some of the information gained to his advantage. I have no problems with any of this so long as all the players know this going in.
However; should a dealer gain information while dealing and therefore being paid by the card room, and then PUBLICLY share this information with your opponents. I consider highly unprofessional and unethical.
Your response indicated it was "his right" to make this comment. I do not believe that it is the right of ANY card room employee to gain information about players through the normal course of employment and then share that information.
I would make a point of informing the dealers supervisor letting them know that you have know problems with allowing dealers to play but YOU EXPECT a better level of professionalism from them. I would also take Black Jack's advise and the next time you drag a pot when he is dealing inform him that you did not and will not toke him because of his actions.
Remember the whole idea of tokes in the first place is to reward good dealers when doing good jobs, his behaviour was unprofessional and should not be rewarded.
Just as you say "it was his right to comment" it is our right to choose not to toke.
Jodder
I have had almost exatly that same comment made about me about 2 weeks ago and it did not bother me a bit. If the table folds more or gives my bets more respect I will happly take down more pots uncontested.Good players just do not have much to fear from any comments, just change your style and steal more from that person.
A friend of mine was at the casino this weekend and observed this dealer in action. Somebody won a big jackpot -- roughly $115,000 -- playing Carribean Stud or something. The player, in what I would consider a substantial moment of generosity, gave each of the other players at the table and the dealer $100. The dealer I had the interaction with (who was dealing HE) was terribly offended that a player would give other people as much as he gave the dealer. He complained loudly, and when a HE player suggested that $100 was a nice tip, he railed at the player until he backed off from his suggestion.
I can imagine that dealing loose low limit games would change your expectations. A lot of the players seem to me to be very superstitious about dealers and the cards they get, and it's not uncommon to see $3-5 tokes on pots of $70-100. I have a policy of always tipping $1 (this is 4-8 HE) unless the pot is quite small, in which case I don't toke. If the pot is very large or we're at the end of a shift of a dealer I found quite professional or courteous, I might tip $2.
I am planning to just avoid the dealer in question as much as possible. Of course he didn't break the rules, but his action struck me as unprofessional, and combined with his mediocre dealing, I would just as soon do without.
-- conform
If I witnessed a dealer doing this ranting to other customers, I'd go to the shift manager and let him know what a bad attitude the dealer had. Maybe after the dealer was on the street he'd appreciate the $100 tip a little more.
It's funny how people are never thankful for what they get if someone else got more (or the same).
I have heard before that dealers usually get toked 10% for jackpots won and in tournament action. I have no clue if this is correct or not. If it is correct $100 seems like a slap in the face and if it is incorrect, $100 is very generous! If anyone knows about jackpot tipping, please post.
Russ
I've never heard that there is an accepted etiquette for jackpot tipping. I think that because it happens so rarely, no set standard has developed. I probably wouldn't tip as much as 10%, however. I mean, tipping $5,000 on a $50,000 jackpot seems overly generous.
As for tournaments, there is a definite etiquette. Figures you commonly hear range from 2-3% for the biggest tournaments, up to 10% for the small daily events.
Personally, when I win a tournament, I ask the tournament director how many man-hours were dealt, and tip an appropriate amount. Thus, if 300 dealing hours went into a WSOP event, and I won the tournament and $200K, I would probably tip about $4.5K, as I think that provides a generous hourly wage (~$15/hour) for the service provided. Plus, the other winners will hopefully tip enough to add up to another $5 or more per hour for each hour dealt.
However, when I play the tournaments here at Foxwoods, I don't tip at all. All tips here go into a pool that is split among every dealer throughout the casino. Thus, if I were to win 10K and tip $500., the dealers who actually dealt to me would only see about $0.02/hour from my tip. In case you didn't guess, I don't like that, as it removes one of the biggest incentives to better, faster dealing (i.e., a better toke rate).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Fossilman,
Thanks for your input! The same splitting effect on dealers tokes happen in Louisiana also. I did win a significant amount at Blackjack and didn't want the dealer to split it. I got up when his shift was over and while he was walking out and told him a place to meet me and I tipped him privately. I think that is a fair way to do it and would do the same for a jackpot. Your absolutely right about the 10%!! That would be way too much. As always, your posts are right on. I'm going to come to Boston to see my best friend( Maybe if the Red Sox go to the playoffs because I've always wanted to go to Fenway). If I do, I'll meet you at Foxwoods and we can play a little poker.See Ya
Russ
I have been a dealer on and off since 1983 and I still get a little upset when a player *tips* other players the same or more than he does the dealer. The players are there for entertainment, the dealer is there to work and make tips. The dealers ranting about the tip is very unprofessional, though.
If I had won $115,000.00 my I would have given at least $2000.00 to $5000.00 to the dealer. $100 is so small compared to the jackpot that i would consider it to be an insult, quite frankly.
A couple of years ago I was having one of my better days in terms of entertaining the table at Let it Ride and I received a very generous $1000.00 tip on a Royal Flush payoff of $15,000.
If the dealer was doing a good job I would think that 1% to 5% of the net jackpot would be an appropiate tip.
Here's a tip:
If you are playing BJ and card counting, tipping the dealer is essential. A few years back a former dealer and co-worker of mine became extremely proficient at $25.00 BJ and wouldn't tip a dime. I finally alerted the Floor person and this player was virtually barred from the very profitable 2 deck game.
JJ
When he is dealing he is working and should keep from making comments, but if he is playing he is just like any other person putting his money in the pot and it's no big deal. I wouldn't quit toking unless he's a bad dealer. Besides, if the dealers are as bad as you say don't worry about toking them because you'll probably get their money back!
Russ
The hand I have waited my whole life for and I am not even playing for money. I taught my son (10 years old) how to play 5 draw , 5 stud and Texas Hold'em just recently ( rudementary play) and we are playing 5 stud with some Paul-son edge spotted chips but not for cash. I thought he was going to beat me but I was working on a flush and draw a real straight flush to the Q of diamonds. I could not believe it and it was my first in non-wild. I really could not believe it in a 5 stud game (what are the odds). I guess the jokes on me since no money was riding on it but it sure felt good. It felt like playing golf by yourself and hitting back to back whole in one's. Oh and yes we did cut the cards.
at the point that you drew the last card.... 43:1 against, if you drew first.
to get 5 card str-flush from beginning= some million:1 (can't remember exact number)
Easy E's figures are out: if the last draw was to a double ender the odds would be 2/43? Didn't notice if it was specified that it was a gutser, which would be 43 to one,as you say.
And there are 40 possible straight flushes in the deck, which contains ~2.5 million hands, which makes a routine flush dealt about a one in 60,000 occurrence, not millions to one.
Calling three big bets to make a five card hand is a long shot which cannot pay as a strategy, as everyone knows, so if it happened in a money game, it probably wouldn't have happened at all ....
I thought no one played five-card stud anymore? The last game I saw was a stripped deck game, which is the popular form of the game in europe and south east asia.
David Zanetti.
My complaint with SM&Z's original 7 stud book was the glaring omission of third street strategy for when the low card brings it in for a full bet.
When should the low card exercise this option, and what adjustments are made when other low cards play for a full bet?????
Amazingly, all three authors saw fit to omit any mention of this important aspect of third street play in their otherwise beefed-up "21st Century" edition.
Is there any other literature out there which includes discussion of bringing it in for a full bet on third street?
I believe Roy West mentions it briefly in his book. I also agree that a complete book of stud should discuss this topic.
"Amazingly, all three authors saw fit to omit any mention of this important aspect of third street play in their otherwise beefed-up "21st Century" edition"
I don't have the book yet, but I think the reason they omitted (if in fact they did) is because this aspect of third street play is not as important as you believe it is. You basically should never bring it in for a full bet. As far as the other players go you just have to watch them.
I'll have to look at Roy's book to check this.... but I also agree that there are few, if ANY instances where I would bring in for a raise when forced-opening....
What would be the gain? Other than ruining the surprise effect of your hand, being the opener? I'd rather hope for an open-reraise opportunity.. I think they skipped it because it wasn't a tool to use (except for shock value?) with any degree of consistancy. Maybe one of the Big 3 can speak to this?
The only good reason I can think of to bring it in for a full bet would involve certain situations very late in a tournament. This is primarily due to the fact that late in a tournament, the antes alone are very significant, and it may be that the antes alone add up to anywhere from 10-50% of an average stack. In this spot, you might choose to come in for a full bet just because stealing the antes alone is a worthwhile goal.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
It is an off the wall play that should almost never be used. If someone else uses it, your counter strategy depends almost entirely on what you have noticed about that player. In general the situation would be similar to the situation where for instance,a deuce brought it in and the very next player raised with a three.
"It is an off the wall play that should almost never be used."
Amen!
I use 7 SFAP 3rd street startegy (hey did I just make a Sklanskyism ("STARTEGY", WoW) and have for years. David and Mason and Z are correct with this one. I am glad Sklansky said "almost never". I can't find many absolutes in poker. I also can't think of a situation where bringing it in for a full bet is correct. Show's how much I know.
Vince.
BTW - I also can't find fault with the Fossilman's tournament example.
Has anyone out there read Dick Taylor's "New Guide to Starting Hands"?
Any feeling on his revisions to S,M&Z's work?
Any thoughts on the various proposed strategies (The Starving Strategy, Tight Pro...Gambler etc.)?
Does this stuff look effective? Seems to be a computer tuned version of 2+2 stuff to me.
Frank -- It's been discussed exhaustively on the forum before. I don't recall what months, but there have been at least two major discussions of it. Try about 5 or 6 months ago, as well as sometime during the first six months of the forum's existence -- roughly. In a nutshell, we're talking simulations designed with major flaws, and performed with a simulator containing serious bugs.
John Feeney
John Feeney writes : " In a nutshell, we're talking simulations designed with major flaws, and performed with a simulator containing serious bugs. "
How would you compare Dick Taylor's (or Abdul's) simulation methods to the simulation methods used by Sklansky and Malmuth in developing their starting hand rankings?
Just curious,
R. G. Peterson
Email me or leave a valid email address if you want to discuss it. With all due respect in case I'm wrong (but sources say I'm not), I believe you are a, hmmm, how shall I say, yes, an agent provocateur.
Too bad I need credentials to join a discussion. Prehaps someone a little higher up in the organization will be able to answer my qustion.
Best,
R. G. Peterson
In this instance you need only a valid email address. Don't worry, I won't reveal your top secret identity to the the CIA. (Of course the NSA is a different story.)
Interesting question. I remember reading Lou Krieger's book. He had his own way of graphing starting hands. Very similar to 2+2.. Abdul has a position on starting hands. Likes to cite turbo Mumbo Jumbo. Look, 2+2, or Mason and Davey boy, came up with a pretty good ranking of hands for purposes of applying various strategies consistent with the situation one finds oneself in! Are their hand rankings optimal? Maybe. If not optimal, pretty close.
When I first read HPFAP I believed it was the Holy Grail. Study this book and get rich. That may be true for others I don't know. It's not for me. I believe that Holdem is a wonderful game because we just can't pin it down! Mason and David gave all of us an excellant starting point to become great poker players. Their hand rankings are important but not a cure all for poor strategic or tactical play.
I expect that all Holdem poker players, once they have mastered the game, will only refer to starting hand rankings when they find themselves in terrible times. Times when they just can't win. They will return to the basics and use hand rankings to reevaluate thir game. When things are going good or even o.k or even going not real good (highly technical stuff here) then master poker players will select hands and tactics based on the current situation. They will have grown out of the learning stage, the stage where hand rankings are important, to the holdem expert stage. There they will play any hand in the right situation and be what we all hope for. They (we) will be poker players.
The bottom line is if it ain't broke don't fix it! Unless someone can show you a major dificulty with 2+2 rankings. a dificulty that will cost you a lot of money then stick with those rankings and move on!
Vince.
Vince,
No argument there. Just wait till I get to the flop, turn and river stuff! :-)
Mr. Taylor's hold'em simulations were not no fold'em and not full blown play either, but rather a strange ad hoc approximation. Then he insisted that his rankings were 100% correct and hence S&M's were definitely wrong even in the small differences, leaving many people scratching their heads.
Despite the flack Mr. Taylor has taken, I find it interesting that one of his observations also occurs in Turbo: the inversion of the values of suited connectors. I call it the "roller coaster effect." The following might be a reasonable ranking of the suited connectors in a normal game where you expect multiway action: JTs, 76s, T9s, 87s, 98s, 65s. Graphically:
JTs *********
T9s ******
98s ****
87s *****
76s *******
65s ***
(The graph is intended to be conceptual, not accurate in detail.)
If either only Dick Taylor's simulator or Turbo Texas hold'em had come up with this, people would dismiss it on the grounds that the simulations are flawed. But with both simulators saying it's true, this considerably boosts the odds that it is true. And of course the explanation is readily apparent: it's caused by domination of medium hands by the limpers.
-Abdul
Yes, I remember that suited connector phenomenon. I don't know if it would hold in all types of games, but it's intriguing nonetheless. But for more detail on the problems I referred to I would point people to January '99 archives here for a long thread or two on this topic. Also, I believe Barbara Yoon on RGP was instrumental in bringing to Taylor's attention the bugs in the software. I don't know if those were corrected. (If they were, then I apologize for suggesting that that was an unresolved problem with his sims. The design flaws, however, were obvious and not resolved -- at least not publicly.) I believe his responses to her were similar to those he gave to challenges here.
John Feeney
Here is a repeat of the comments I made on The Taylor Report
Comments on the Taylor Starting Hand Report
As promised, here are my comments on "The New Guide to Starting Hands" by Dick Taylor. As you will see there are many errors in his assumptions that lead to many errors in his advice. The comments follow below.
1. The only decisions that players make are to play or fold. Their decisions do not seem to be impacted by betting or pot size. This will have the effect of over-valuing medium high cards such as KJ and KT (and QJ, QT, etc.) and under-valuing connecting hands (especially) suited connectors and small pairs.
2. Hands are played based on favorable odds of finishing with the best hand. How large a pot or how many bets you can lose is not considered. This will have the effect of over-valuing hands like KJ and KJ, which can easily make second best hands.
3. If a player does not yet have any information, that is no one has yet acted, he assumes that a certain number of small bets are in the pot. That is, raising is discounted. Again this has the effect of over-valuing hands like KJ and KT.
4. Pot odds are considered only, not in conjunction with the number of players. That is, whether the previous players have raised or called is not considered. This means that hands like KJ which can easily make second best hands are over-valued because the amount of punishment they sometimes take is not represented.
5. After the flop, players only continue when they have either a made hand or a one card draw to a straight or flush. This reduces the value of hands like AK and AQ, especially if they are suited. (Two overcards with a three flush is frequently a hand you should play.) In other words, hands that have some additional semi-bluffing value, or that may still be best, especially short-handed, are ignored.
6. Position is ignored. "Although playing position is generally thought to be the most important factor in selection of starting hands in hold 'em, it is not particularly important to the conclusions we've drawn here." Thus hands like KT which are particularly vulnerable to pressure by players acting later are elevated.
7. The broad spectrum of hold 'em table condition is not covered, even though claims to the contrary are made. The reason for this is that the betting action is not considered. Only a vague notion of the number of players in the pot.
8. Aggression seems to only be thought of in terms of winning the pot. The idea of occasionally building a big pot and then enticing others to continue when you get a favorable flop is ignored. This will have the effect of lowering the value of suited hands, especially suited connectors and small pairs.
9. Taylor states that in a very tight game that AA and KK are the only starting hands that you should raise for value. This conclusion is probably a function of the idea that players only make play or fold decisions regardless of the previous action. This is obviously not the case.
10. The conclusions about hand sensitivity to the number of players in the pot does not take into account size of the pot and the number of additional bets a hand may win or lose on the later streets. For example, on the river a hand like KK becomes more of a payoff hand in a large multi-way pot, but it tends to collect additional bets when played short-handed.
11. Hands like AQs do better in multi-way pots than Taylor gives them credit for because of additional bets that they can collect before they complete their hand. For example, in most situations, if you flop a flush draw with one of these hands you want to raise many opponents. In the Taylor play/fold criterion, this is not represented.
12. Taylor points out that hands like AQs and KQs "are particularly vulnerable to heavy multi-way action, the kind that increases the likelihood of 6 or more foes playing to a showdown." Again he fails to recognize that they occasionally will win a giant pot.
13. In the recommendation to play KTs up front in tough games instead of JTs, Taylor does not account for the fact that KTs can more easily make a second best hand (by flopping top pair with a king) and fails to account for the type of pressure that tough players can put on this hand.
14. Size of blinds and betting structure is not accounted for. For example, in today's modern two blind structure, as compared to the old one blind structure where the "one" blind was half the size of today's big blind, the value of suited hands, particularly suited connectors has gone up.
15. When advice is given on which hands to play, position and other players betting action is ignored. For example, Taylor's Professional Play List has you playing the top 24% of all starting hands. While there are spots where it can be correct to play more hands than this (see HPFAP), routinely calling raises with most of these hands is suicide.
16. In The Savvy Gambler's Play List Taylor points out that 22 and 33 are never worth playing. He fails to realize that these are hands which if you do not flop a set, you usually immediately fold without having it cost you very much. But when you flop a set they are highly profitable. Thus they should be rated higher than their winning percentage indicates.
17. Taylor doesn't understand that when you hit the flop with a flush draw you may be charged many best for the privilege of trying to make your flush. (Compare this to flopping a small set where you will now do the charging.) Thus, hands like Kxs are over-valued.
Conclusion: In my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics, I have a lengthy discussion on what I call non-self weighting strategies. It is shown that in virtually all gambling situations where a positive expectation can be achieved, a non-self weighting approach is far superior to a self-weighting approach. This is exactly Taylor's problem. By using a self-weighting approach where size of pots, additional bets gained or lost, pressure by late position players, ability to semi-bluff, etc. is not considered he has come to conclusions that do not benefit those readers that he is trying to help.
This is a duplicate response to this question. If you read the response under John Feeney's post then don't bother reading this.
Interesting question. I remember reading Lou Krieger's book. He had his own way of graphing starting hands. Very similar to 2+2.. Abdul has a position on starting hands. Likes to cite turbo Mumbo Jumbo. Look, 2+2, or Mason and Davey boy, came up with a pretty good ranking of hands for purposes of applying various strategies consistent with the situation one finds oneself in! Are their hand rankings optimal? Maybe. If not optimal, pretty close.
When I first read HPFAP I believed it was the Holy Grail. Study this book and get rich. That may be true for others I don't know. It's not for me. I believe that Holdem is a wonderful game because we just can't pin it down! Mason and David gave all of us an excellant starting point to become great poker players. Their hand rankings are important but not a cure all for poor strategic or tactical play.
I expect that all Holdem poker players, once they have mastered the game, will only refer to starting hand rankings when they find themselves in terrible times. Times when they just can't win. They will return to the basics and use hand rankings to reevaluate thir game. When things are going good or even o.k or even going not real good (highly technical stuff here) then master poker players will select hands and tactics based on the current situation. They will have grown out of the learning stage, the stage where hand rankings are important, to the holdem expert stage. There they will play any hand in the right situation and be what we all hope for. They (we) will be poker players.
The bottom line is if it ain't broke don't fix it! Unless someone can show you a major dificulty with 2+2 rankings. a dificulty that will cost you a lot of money then stick with those rankings and move on!
Vince.
Post deleted at author's request.
So in other words, the value you get from the Taylor Hand Rankings is the insight you gain from the exercise of thinking about why they are so damned wrong. Sounds about right to me.
When Taylor was posting here, he made a lot of comments that made it clear he really doesn't understand poker very well. For instance, he made the claim that a value bet and a crying call were the same thing.
Not that semantics are terribly important, but from the posts above on the definition of value bet, it appears that there is some overlap between what David S. considers a "value bet" and what you would consider a "crying call".
"For instance, he made the claim that a value bet and a crying call were the same thing. "
Come on Dan. You know as well as I that there is a lot of "value" in "crying"
Vince.
Mason,
I have to admit, my current embryonic understanding of HE doesn't allow me to get all the points you've made on a first reading.
However, I will refer to them repeatedly until they are clear as I foray into HE.
Thanks Again!
Last week in a small buy in (25+0ne 20 RB)he tourney, 70 players pays final 9. I'm at final table, 8 players left, 2 players with 70% of chips. Blinds are 300, 500. I'm 2nd after BB with 4 small bets left, big blind is all in for his lone chip, player behind me has 2 small bets left. I have QJs, I raise for 2 bets hoping to get'em all out, which I do. As it turns out BB won the hand, and I still made it beyond him up to 5th place. I even passed up a KJos to try to lock one more place up if poss. Which did happen when I was forced all in in the SB and BB was all in and I had pocket kings. But was I wrong to raise earlier to go head up against an all in or should I have allowed competition which may have wiped me out too. I was fortunate that with it head up and he paired an 8 that I still had 3 chips.
Your raise with QJ was a pretty big mistake. While QJ is favored over 2 random cards, it's not by all that much (58:42, or about 4:3). Given the fact that you're not much of a favorite over the blind, plus the fact that someone behind you may find a premium hand, your raise here is probably -EV in a ring game. Since you're at the final table of a tournament, making a play that risks almost half your chips (more when the player behind does have a premium hand and 3-bets) is a mistake unless you feel confident that you have a pretty big edge. This would be much less true if you were the short stack, but here there are at least 2 people that must go all-in before you have to.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
10-20 stud, $1 ante, $3 force. The game was average, and somewhat passive. There were a few decent players, one aggressive player (who wasn't involved in either of these hands), mostly mediocre players, and one horrible player (who also wasn't in these hands).
I had (77)A (no 2-flush) and raised. Aces and sevens were totally live. A nine and jack called. On fourth, I caught a blank and checked. The others caught apparent blanks also. The nine bet, the jack called and I called. Next, I pair my doorcard (77)AxA, as does the nine. The jack shows ()J8T. I check, the open nines check, and the jack bets. I call and the nines fold. Sixth street is ()AxAy and ()J8T7. I check and call. I check and call the river and pay off jacks full of sevens. He started with three jacks.
What should I have done differently here?
I have (44)6 with a 2-flush, and am last to act before the bring-in. Three players have limped, and 4s, 6s, and my flush and straight cards are live. I limp, and the bring-in checks. On fourth street, I catch a four. ()Ad3d bets, ()JTo calls, I call, the others fold. On fifth street, I catch a queen, the others catch total blanks. I'm checked to, I bet, they both fold.
Should I have raised on fourth? Should I have slowplayed further?
why are you playing (44)6 to begin with,,? second of all,, the first hand also was played bad your you should have raised on 5th when you knew the J10what ever was ganna bet he reraises you call and then check and fold on6th!
The first hand you could do nothing about. He had rolled up trips. I would have played the Aces more agressively. You still would have lost.
The second hand probably played right. Sure, going in with a small pair without two to a flush is a pretty loose starting hand requirement, but that all depends on the game. Once you got low trips, you bet. It's not strong enough to slowplay. Of course all of this depends on your reads.
Your biggest mistake is underestimating the players at the table. I refrain from making judgments beyond may read of the player.
I think you should have bet when you paired your doorcard on 5th, and probably should have bet on 4th. It may have saved you $$ when you got raised on 4th, you may have been able to figure out his hand sooner and get out early. If you had bet on 5th and got raised with open aces, once again you may have figured out you were beat sooner and saved some $$. Of course, once you checked on 4th, you pretty much told everyone that you don't have two aces so why bother anyway? Ironically, your passive play here probably saved you $$. If you had played it right, you would have lost more with your hand than you did.
On the second hand, I'm not opposed to limping in with a weak hand like 446, "IF" you are last and can't be raised and can get in for cheap in a passive game. It's about 20:1 for making trips on 4th, so you can call the bring in if you think you can win at least a 90$ pot if you hit your trips on 4th. But you had better think strongly about folding if you don't hit trips on 4th, or at least catch a good kicker/scare card that might make your hand playable. Keep in mind that if you make two small pair, your hand has become a terrific second best "paying off" hand.
You should have raised on 4th. As soon as you made the small trips, don't stop betting or raising, as you just may get beat if you don't drive some people out. Make them pay now, while you still have the best hand. If you them all in cheap, you may lose to a 23456 gutshot straight or some other peice of cheeze, then you will wonder why you were playing YOUR peice of cheeze to begin with!
Dave in Cali
Iceman,
First off, I want to say I'm no expert. That having been said here's my humble opinions.
On the first hand you were showing a paired door card of Aces. If you were against the good players on the table you have to realize they may be reading that as possible trips. However the (trip) Jack may have been willing to engage in a horse race up to the point where you showed another pair on board. which you didn't. Thus when he hit the boat on 7th. He was probably pretty confident he had you beat.
This is a case of you're strength showing and his not, but your read of the player might have led you to believe he wouldn't be playing without having a good shot at winning or drawing out.
Still it's tough as he was rolled up and had a fairly inocuous board. Having shown no pair on 6th he caught the boat on end thus you had little in the way of board reading signals.
I don't think there's much you could've done. Especially since many will play trips to the end even against other apparent trips.
On another note, was this a case of marrying aces? We've all been hit like that.
Bottom line : Whether you played correct or not really seems to revolve around you're estimate of the opponent and whether you acted on that estimate. (In my opinion).
We all get zapped like this on occasion, it's a graphic illustration of the advantages of hidden hands.
On the second hand I don't have clue. You took the pot...musta done something right. :-) Seriously though, the jack may have been jacks and thus thought the queen was clearly now queens over. The Ace may have been a small pair and an Ace (I don't suspect a four flush unless this player wouldn't play a four flush heads up against a pair, which makes some sense from an odds point of view) and now also figured you for queens over and decided not to chase any more.
I'm a beginner from England who wants to buy some Poker software (7 Stud and/or Hold'em). Any advice or views would be appreciated on which is the best - Is Wilson Turbo worth the extra money when compared to Sozoban ?
I'm in the same situation. Hit the "ConJelCo" link on the lower left hand side and you can download a demo to what I think is an ok program. I'm new so what do I know? Anyway, there's one.
The only complaint I've ever heard about Wilson Turbo software is the advisor's advice in the Omaha software (some people say it's incorrect more than occasionally). However, the HE software is clearly the best on the market, according to the consensus of RGP.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
The omaha-8 advisor is frequently wrong, as any good player can figure out. That does not mean you won't benefit from the software, only that you must use the advisor cautiously.
I have seen some errors in the Holdem advisor also. Specifically, once I had 98s on the button and raised with 6 players in the pot. Flop was 65A rainbow. SB bets, two callers, advisor says fold. I was getting 15:1 to call for a gutshot to the nuts, with no possibility of being raised, advisor says fold! Overall the holdem advisor is pretty good, but you really shouldn't need to use the advisor that much anyway, except to occasionally confirm borderline decisions.
Dave in Cali
If the Omaha/8 advisor is frequently wrong, then the players can't play all that well either, since they use internal advisors for their actions. Specifically, in the Omaha high game even the 'good' players pay off way too much with hands like 2 pair, and call too much with bottom two pair etc. In fact, they do this more often than even your average weak Omaha player. Any simulations you do are going to be wrong because of this.
For example, one of the first things I was interested in was the difference in strength between a one-gap hand with a gap on the top vs a gap on the bottom (i.e. 9765 vs 9875). The simulations I did indicated a HUGE difference, much more so than I would have thought. In analyzing it farther, I suspect it is because the computer simply plays non-nut straights and straight draws very poorly. It also plays poorly when these hands make pairs and full houses, lowering the overall profitability of both.
I sent a message similar to what follows to Paul. I guess I may as well post it here as well.
As the publisher of Stud and Hold'em Poker for Windows (formerly Sozobon Poker), it is difficult (but only a little) for me to say this. Stud and Hold'em Poker is a perfectly fine piece of software, but it does not play either game as well as Turbo Texas Hold'em for Windows (current version) plays Hold'em and Turbo Seven-Card Stud for Windows (current version) plays Stud.
I won't go into the reasons why that is true here, but that's my current opinion. On the otherhand, Stud and Hold'em Poker is significantly cheaper, and if all you want to do is play against the computer recreationally it would be an good choice.
Hi Paul,
If you are looking for a good poker software, I would like to invite you to visit AceSpade Software's web site.
Henry http://www.acespade-software.com
Since I have seen no-one but this shill for AceSpade software ever say anything good about it, I'll have to assume that there really is nothing good to say about it.
If someone HAS used it, it'd be nice to hear from them. I'm certainly not going to give it a look until someone else recommends it.
I have the Omaha-8 and Omaha High versions of their software. I haven't had time to give it a thorough going-over, so I'll reserve comment until I do.
$10-$20 hold'em, 10 handed, aggressive game. UTG raises to $20, all fold to me in middle position and I make it $30 to go with pocket red aces. All fold to button who cold calls, small blind folds, big blind calls the double raise and UTG calls. We take the flop 4 handed. Flop comes spade king, spade 7, club king. BB checks and UTG bets. I'm not happy, but I'm not ready for the crying towel just yet. I call (in retrospect, I think raise would have been better) and the button raises to $20. BB folds and UTG calls.
What am I facing? Two sets of Kings? What did the button have to cold call $30? AKs? UTG could have suited spade connectors (I guess). If UTG also has a king, it is likely to be KQs to make his initial raise.
I folded. You know the rest. Turn was a red blank, UTG bet, button called. River was club ace, UTG bet and ... result to follow.
Obviously you are correct to be VERY concerned that someone has a K here. However, you probably should have called the raise on the flop anyway. But, let's back up a step.
Play preflop: why slowplay? You did it perfect.
On the flop: I think you're correct that you can't automatically fold here. There are 13.5 small bets when it's your turn. One question you need to ask yourself is whether UTG would bet if he had a K, or would he slowplay it more often than not? This will go a long way towards determining the correct play. However, against most players, I wouldn't fold here. Now, why raise? The only advantage I see is to get flush draws to fold, as you clearly don't expect someone behind you to fold a K. Overall, I'd say you're better off trying to see the river cheaply.
Now, once the button raises and UTG just calls, there are 16.5 small bets. If I were there, I'd be pretty sure that someone has a K. However, I like taking one off now hoping to catch an A on the turn. If I do, I'm sure that I'll win enough extra to cover the needed odds. However, once I miss on the turn, I'm most likely to fold (I might take one off again if we check to the button, he bets, and UTG just calls; in this spot I'm not hoping only for an A on the river, but also that I might still have the best hand).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I believe many people will be able to relate to my post and hopefully offer some advice..
I have regularly played in a house game in Houston for the past 5 mos. Lately I have noticed that the dealers (one of whom is the host's son, freinds, etc) have been cutting the pot more than the "advertised" rake. The game is 5-10 and the cut is supposed to be $3, plus $1 for a jackpot, taken out of pots greater than $100.
The dealers often take an extra $5 chip on the river (even after the first $3 has been cut), and often "shortchange" the pot when "making change". They are stealing from the players....
This bothers me terribly but none of the players (some have played there for 15 years) say anything.... (I wonder if I am the only one who notices????)
Anyone with similar experiences??? This is a big price to play 5-10..... What should I do??
Thanx...
You should tell the host that you'll never be returning because you don't want to play with cheats. In fact, if the pot is raked, the game is probably illegal, so you might want to drop a hint to the local PD about it.
Find another place to play. You're probably being ripped off in more ways than this.
Just walk away.
I wouldn't tell the police. It won't bring you any direct benefit, and it might bring you some detriment (in the form of revenge).
If you think there's some chance the host doesn't know this is going on, tell him in private. Be straightforward. Tell him that if that's his policy, fine, you simply won't play. If it isn't his policy, you thought he'd like to know. Don't try to force him to do the right thing, because it probably won't happen.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Now that's what you do! Fossilman, I knew there was a reason I always look for your threads...It's because you make sense...Later
"If the pot is raked it is probably illegal and you may want to drop a line to the local PD about it". Excuse me but are you an idiot or jsut living in Fantasyland? Not everybody lives in California or Vegas where you can find a game any hour of the day or night! Sure, let's just nark on all the card games in town, that will solve the problem. I'm sorry Stephen but that is not the way to solve a dealer overcutting the pot. I hope your 1st inclination when Saddam is being a bad boy is to jsut nuke him and all his surrounding countries and millions of innocent people. I'm definitely glad you don't play in my game. Somebody might be sweating my hand with me and you'll shout collusion...Get A GRIP!!!
Russ
I think reporting it to the police is a lot more polite than shooting or hanging people, which is the traditional way of dealing with cheats. I guess you don't think it's appropriate to call the police when someone breaks into your car and steals stuff either.
I happen to think toleration of cheating is absurd.
Steve, Like Russ alluded to before, people who live in California or Nevada or any other place with card rooms dont understand what those of us who dont, go through to play poker. Here in Houston there is no legal poker. The nearest casino is 165 miles away in Lake Charles, Louisiana where they charge 5$ rake even in low limit 3-6-12 games. There is also a $1 jackpot drop and comps are thrown around like manhole covers. So the only option we have is at games run by individuals who profit from the game. These games are all illegal. If I see a game which I think is crooked, I just dont go there anymore. Guns or ropes are not an option for me. Calling the police isnt either. The main reason is that I have friends playing at these games even when I leave. Most of the home games here are legit as far as I can tell. Sometimes it isnt the House which is cheating, but just the dealer trying to line his pockets. As far as whether I would call the cops if someone was stealing stuff from my car, of course I would. Except if the theft occured while I was robbing a liquor store. My point being that everyone in the game is "Breaking the Law" not just the game runners. What do I tell the cops when I call. I was playing at this illegal card game and they were taking extra 1$ out of the pots, I want to press charges.
Randy Collack
Billy,
I tried to E-Mail you but you weren't currently accepting mail. E:Mail me at kgould333 and I'll let you know of some Houston games that are straight up and don't overcut the pot.
Hey Russ! Let me know where I can find a game like that also :->. I have been looking everywhere. By the way, I really enjoyed last Sundays game. Glad I didnt leave too early. That game was ripe. And memo to Billy: Listen to Russ, he knows of what he speaks.
Randy Collack
Ha Ha, very funny...You know where one straight up game is I know... Hey, what did I tell Billy? What can a fish like me tell one of the 'Best' players in Houston? I'm trying to remember but I'm at a loss. Give me a call, E:Mail me or post back...I'm headed back to 15-30 for the night. I played for 3 hours and was stuck about $600 and playing relatively tight after 2 hours.I had a couple of bad beats (2 outers and 1 gutshot straight against my set) but I had a lot of KK against AA and JJ against QQ and wasn't catching...I caught about a 30 minute rush(Flopped 2 pair in the blind and then a set and got paid off and left with $15 cheeze and headed to the movies...Why go back? Can't sleep.
Laugh....
Randy... I was thinking the same thing, but did not want to directly respond..... oh... it just might be illegal! Of course it is!!!!!!
Most poker players can understand and absorb a reasonable cut.. say $3-4 per pot, but just cant stand getting screwed! The dealers look at you really funny if you don't tip them, but have no problem in stealing your money..
See you later
The CUT Doesn't go to the dealers...That would be the House. The dealers don't get paid unless tipped! It's kindave like going to a restaurant and getting the $5.95 Enchiladas even though it only takes .43 cents to make the enchilada dinner. The waiter is not screwing you at all and if you don't tip him he might give you a funny look because that's how he makes his living. At least he gets paid half of minimum wage per hour...A dealer gets absolutely nothing except tips! Remember that the next time you think about toking!
Ken Warren reliable author,,???
I can't even recall the name of his book, "Winning Hold'em" or something? He's generally been trashed here and on r.g.p. There isn't much real insight into Holdem in his book and I think there's consensus that some of his advice is just wrong (probably not dangerously wrong). There are probably some good tips but I found the book's organization, structure and writing style confusing.
In the past I have argued that most ring games, with the possible exception of those played at the very highest limits where it is natural for the same players to always be sitting, are essentially free of cheating. This includes collusion which most poker players are so afraid of.
The reasons for this are a little too complicated to go into here, but suffice it to say that in most cardrooms there are several mechanisms which essentially police the games. This most importantly includes the players themselves.
Recently there has apparently been a cheating incident at The Orleans involving their daily tournaments and a well known tournament player. I don't know exactly what is true and what is not true concerning this incident, but I want everyone to know that my thoughts on cheating in tournaments is not the same as my thoughts on cheating in ring games. This is because the mechanisms that police the games in ring games tend to break down in tournaments and the fact that there are so many more things that can be done in a tournament that would be considered cheating.
Mason, I have heard a story about a famous "American" tourney player who BACKS 25-40 players in major tournaments,with the condition they pass their chips to HIM, or other team players, when possible,by losing a pot. The players he "backs" are from his country of origin. At the Orleans (preTOC)he was knocked out of a tourney by one of "the players he had backed". He was very unhappy and let his country man know...and the rest of the table,including to of my friends. To say ring games have very little cheating is a very bold statement. Cheating I've seen and heard about, with little to nothing done about it included..... 3-4 players playing with the same BANK in the one ring game, without others knowledge....removing chips from the table(going all in or bringing them back when it suits)..taking a card from a mucked hand to add to ones hand to make a winner..partners signing,etc. A player once said to me, with regards to cheating at poker..."$20 is a lot of money to some people!" DAZZLER
Darryl:
My guess is that when you show up here to play poker you are at some tournament and are trying to play in a pot limit game. The games that I play in, which is mid-limit hold 'em and stud are very clean. And, they are this way for the reasons that I have given before.
One reason organized collusion in moderate size games in major casinos is rare, is that it would look suspicious if the same players always chose to be at the same table. HOWEVER, in medium size cardrooms, those that typically have only one game in the 20-40 range, two or more players would not look as out of place always playing together. In this situation you should be a bit more vigilant. Even here though, the danger is small for a vareity of reasons, not the least of which is that the better players in the game will quickly smell a rat.
Post deleted at author's request.
I've heard the same story and I know who the player in question is. I doubt that it is "25-40 players", but the story has been around awhile, particularly in the Southern California cardrooms. As for the story's validity, I'll reserve judgment until I've seen it happen (if I recall correctly, this is the same player who was thrown out of an East coast casino for pigeonholing tourney chips in his room).
Would it even be worth your while to pull that kind of scam with 10 players? You're talking about splitting the winnings from such a scam amongst 25-40 people. It just seems like a big waste of time. You could make more money playing in a live game than wasting your time passing around chips in a daily tournament. Furthermore they would need to be well organized and the main player would have to cash in the top 3 every time to make it even remotely possible.
Darryl,
I have to strongly agree with Mason here. What intersts me is that I have heard quite a bit of generic cheating instances like those you cite. However, I have never heard of any specific coroborated instances. The closest coroborated story I have heard of cheating at limit poker occurred at the Trump Taj Mahal a few years ago. It seems that a fellow scooped in some green ($25) chips of a player that was sitting next to him. The player was on a toilet break and the crook won a pot and scooped in a stack of the missing players chips. My understanding of the incident is that the deed was uncovered by the casino surveilence system and the culprit was barred from the Casino. But in 6 years of Casino play I have to say that I have not seen any cheating or collusion or any actions even close to what you claim.
Vince.
I have wittnessed chips being passed both in middle and higher buy-in tournaments. I'm not sure how much of an edge this gives a player but should be watched by all of us. I have also heard of a few instances where a player will pocket a black chip or two at the latter stages of a tournament to be used the next day at early stages where it is more meaningfull. It seems to me that this should be easy to spot by tournament directors by simply counting the chips at the end of a tournament. I wonder why they don't do that.
There are some unique aspects to tournaments that can make it both more profitable for cheaters while also making it less effective. As per the episode at the Orleans, extra chips could help a cheater survive, but it wouldn't guarantee a win or even a cash finish. On the other hand, cash game colluders will always hurt you, as would "soft-play" agreements in tourneys. I've been cheated at both (although not often), and the most devastating is when it happens in a satellite or in a big cash game. I'm less concerned about some clown bringing in a few extra chips at the start of a regular tourney because of the negligible long-term affect on the tourney. On the other hand, I expect an event like the WSOP or TOC would zealously guard their tournament chips and we should not expect to have to even think about that.
But Earl, the affect isn't negligible, it's just spread out.
For example, let's say you enter a tournament with a $35. entry fee, no rebuys, and get T500. Then, during the middle stages, this guy slips T2,000 into his stack during a table change. That's $140 worth of chips. The fact that there are still T50,000 in play, and he might not make the money even with this edge isn't relevant to the long-term affect. The truth is he stole about $140 in EV from the other players.
Like you say, he may or may not get that money in cash form today, and it may have cost you only $1.40 in EV. However, it still was stealing $140 in my opinion.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"However, it still was stealing $140 in my opinion."
Again, the Fossilman hits the nail om the head!
Vince.
A well known poker writer who was challanged for a "sweet heart" check down to the river, at the Gold Coast Tournament a few years ago, had this to say " Us girls have to stick together".
I am a newcomer to poker and really want to learn as much as I can about it. I have Sklansky's Theory of Poker on order and am expecting to have my question answered when I receive it. The play I made last night though is really eating at me and I would like some opinions on it.
I was playing seven card stud, I had KJ in the hole with 10, 9, and a pair of 5's up. I folded. Obviously I was beat on the board, and there were four callers (no raisers). The best board hand was a pair of Ks and another guy with three clubs. Did I make the right move???
Opinions appreciated.
yes
Greetings, everyone. I'm a long time reader of this forum, and a first time poster. Thanks to all for the many insightful posts.
I've been invited to join a regular game in my area, and I wanted ideas on strategy changes due to different structure.
The game is Omaha H/L with an '8 or better' qualifier for low AND 'two pair or better' for high. Also straights and flushes count for high only,with the best low hand a 6-4.
It seems that this is a 'game of Aces', with very few chances to scoop..(maybe with trips and a very good low?)
I'd appreciate any ideas on starting hand and post flop strategy. Incidentally, Omaha is not my best game.. almost all of my playing experience (up to 10-20 level) is Holdem and some stud.
Thanks!
Your preflop starting hand requirements are probably not much different than in regular Omaha8. I'm guessing the major exception is that it is even more important that your low starting hands must contain 3 or 4 excellent low cards. This will also provide you with greater opportunity to make both a low and high.
In other words, in many loose Omaha8 games, just having A2 in your hand is sometimes sufficient to enter a pot. In this variant, you probably never play hand just because it has A2 only.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Huh? In this variant, A2 is even more valuable as you can scoop a pot with just the low. If the same number of people are calling, you should be more willing to play a bare A2 than in regular O-8.
Your high hands go down some in value in this game, as one pair can no longer win the pot.
The original poster does not say what happens to the pot if no-one qualfies either direction. The answer to that question has a huge impact on strategy unless the game is so loose that there's never a pot that someone doesn't qualify for high.
20-40 Hold 'em. Weak-tight, very predictable player raised from position 4 (1=sb; 2=BB; etc.) and 5,6 & 7 fold. I am one off the button (8) with 4-4. Weak-tight almost always limps with a powerful hand in early position and never raises with pairs except K-K or A-A. I figure him for A-Q, A-J, or K-Q. I make it 3 bets. To my chagrin, the button (unknown player) cold calls the 3 bets. The blinds fold and weak-tight calls.
Flop comes J-6-3 rainbow. Weak-tight checks. I bet. Button and weak-tight both call. Turn is another J also making 2 spades on board. Weak-tight checks again and I bet again. Button calls and weak-tight calls again.
River is an off-suit 8 making board J-6-3-J-8 with no flush possible. As weak tight ponders, button grabs $40 in chips and holds it in his hand as if to call any bet. Weak-tight checks, I check and button checks.
Weak-tight delays in turning over his cards. Finally, button turns over 2-2. Weak-tight soups and I show my winning 4-4.
All comments welcome.
Andy,
I think the raise is too aggressive here and is only OK if you think you can get head up most of the time (where your hand is about even but you figure to outplay him). The problem is that you often won't be head up and being against two opponents for three bets is about as bad as it gets for a small pair. I would fold most of the time unless the player behind me and the blinds play very tight.
Once youre in, the flop bet is strong against these opponents. You are hoping you are up against overcards.
The bet on the turn is OK. Note that they really won't fear a jack from you (as opposed to a pre-flop caller leading into a jack high flop). IF you get raised here you probably can dump it.
You wrote: The turn bet is River is an off-suit 8 making board J-6-3-J-8 with no flush possible. As weak tight ponders, button grabs $40 in chips and holds it in his hand as if to call any bet. Weak-tight checks, I check and button checks.
UTG could not have hit this card. I dont like this check once the button pulled this act. This usually means they dont want to see you bet. Bet for value here.
Regards,
Rick
"I dont like this check once the button pulled this act. This usually means they dont want to see you bet. Bet for value here."
I disagree. I don't think you should bet for value here. You will be shown TT,99 or 77 most of the time here by the button. The other hands he will throw away most of the time. So even when you know he is weak and does not want to see you bet you still can't bet it for value against all but the worst.
Berya,
I'm not saying it is a cinch. I believe the tell he made indicated he was weak along with the play of the hand. My guess is that this bet for value would be good at least 60% of the time that it is called which is good enough for me.
I wouldn't worry about getting raised here either. Also, given the fact that you have been the aggressor, there is little chance a check will induce a bluff. Bet the river.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I agree that he is definetely weak, but this does not mean that you should bet. He thinks he is weak because of the previous betting. Now in my experiences when a player gives this tell away it is almost always on purpose.(by the way this player is most likely a weak player because strong players will almost never do this...)
Now my point: if you bet again and he has for example AK, AQ he will not call you. He scared you yet you still bet therefore you have a hand, also there is another player behind him. But if he has a medium pair he will almost definetely call you.
Rick, I am with Berya on this one. I can't see either player folding a better hand or calling with a worse hand. In other words, a bet on the hand is unlikely to be either a good value bet or a good bluff.
I responded that I thought a check on the river was the better play (11:58 P.M. post) after reading Rick's original response, but before reading the other posts. I'm not so sure that the button (or even the original raiser) wouldn't have called me with A-K, but as I say, I thought it more likely that I would see a medium pair higher than my 4s than I would be called by a lesser hand. Acutally, I think now, in retrospect, that 2-2 would have called me down, although I certainly did not expect him to have 2-2. And I did not fear a raise on the river; I feared a call. Thanks to all 3 of you for the responses.
I essentially agree with everything you say, except the bet for value on the river. I felt the button might well have had a pocket pair bigger than mine. His most likely hand, of course, was A-K, and "threatening" to call in advance was an indication that I had the best hand, but all in all, against two opponents in that sitiuation, I felt it was best to show the hand down. Incidentally, I did feel I was going to be head up against the original raiser as the two blinds both are relatively tight and, to that point, the button hadn't come even close to being out of line. Thanks for the intelligent response.
Andy,
I did have second thoughts as to the river bet after berya's and skp's responses. On the other hand, I do think the medium pairs mentioned would probably "test the waters" on the flop and raise. I also think most players would call down an AK or AQ on the river once they have gone that far. But at best my reasoning is close so a check can't be that bad even if I'm right.
Regards.
Rick
P.S. Are you the same Fox who used to sometimes write for Card Player? If so, I remember and article about not allowing short buys that I'm interested in finding (I have all the old issues but no index).
No, I'm not the card player Fox.
I'd b e interested in comments on Roy Cooke's article "From Russia With Regards" and Bob Ciaffone's article "Poker Optimist Odds" in the Sept. 17 edition of Card Player.
Cooke self-criticizes his failure to bet the river, but I wonder what others think about his play pre-river. For those who haven't read it, he was in the big blind with 10c7c and called a raise from early position when 4 other players cold called the raise. The flop came A-8-7 rainbow and the raiser bet. Two players called and Cooke called. The turn was a J. The original raiser bet, the other two players folded and Cooke called.
The river was a 10 (board A-8-7-J-T). Cooke checked and the raiser checked and Cooke won with 2 pair.
Ciaffone's article was a sequel to his previous article on poker optimists which I and other posters criticized. Much as I hate to say it, this one strikes me as even worse than the first one.
Ciaffone advises not to call in the cutoff seat (first seat to the right of the button) with 2-2 when there are already 3 limpers in the pot. He also advises not to raise with Kh-Jh on the button after a flop of Ah-8h-7c in a 5 handed unraised pot when sb has bet out and gotten 3 callers.
A 3rd example criticizes a student of his for calling on the turn with A-J on a board of K-J-8-5 when the small blind bet out after having check-raised him on the flop.
Also of interest was Phil Hellmuth's Hand of the Week article "Jeff Pulver's Four Eights." Enough to talk about above already, but anyone who read Hellmuth's column, I'd also like to know what you thought of it.
I haven't yet read the latest edition of CP so my comments are based just on your summary.
Cooke's hand
I think that all of his plays were correct except the check on the River.
Pre-flop
He has got a suited 2-gapper. There are 6.5 big bets in the pot when it is his turn to act. The betting is closed. The call is a no-brainer IMO particularly for someone like Cooke who plays well after the flop.
Flop
Obviously, I don't think this is a good spot to come out betting if you are Cooke. With that many players cold-calling the raise preflop, odds are pretty good that someone's got an ace. His check is clearly the most reasonable play. When the action gets back to him, he once more has the advantage of knowing that the betting for the round is closed in that there is no one behind him who can raise. Given the pot odds, I think a call is correct although a call would be more correct if the board was such that if he hit a 10 on the turn, there would be no possibility of someone making a straight. In other words, the call would be more correct if the flop was something like A75 instead of A87. Now, if the players who cold-called the raise preflop are all fairly rational players, Cooke certainly need not worry about someone making a straight with 96 (if the 10 hits on the turn). In fact, most rational players probably would not even call a preflop raise with J,9 (except perhaps if it was suited and a couple of other players had also cold-called before it was their turn to act).
In sum, I like the call on the flop.
Turn
The call here is also fairly pretty easy. It is now heads-up. It is reasonable to assume that Cooke has 4 outs to the nuts. It is also reasonable to assume that he has 5 additional "non-nut" outs. Paradoxically, a call could be less correct if the two players who folded before him had called. Even though that would in fact offer Cooke greater pot odds, his chances of winning if he hits one of his 9 outs goes down considerably. Hitting a 10 may no longer give him the pot; similarly, hitting a 9 may see him win just half of he pot.
River
I don't like the check. There is an "easy" straight possible on the board. Many players would not even bet AA here if checked to (although I have to admit that I am not one of them - I almost always take a check on the River to signify a weak or mediocre hand). In any event, the point is that if Cooke bets, he is not going to get raised even if his opponent has AA. If Cooke checks and his opponent bets, Cooke certainly has to call. So, why not bet? In other words, his opponent will call with many weaker hands that he would not bet with. Secondly, his opponent likely will not be able to raise with hands that can beat Cooke's 2 pairs. Thirdly, the board and the play of the hand was such that this was not a situation where a check would be correct in order to induce a bluff.
All right, that post is too damn long. I'll hold off on commenting on the Coach's suggestions.
His king jack advice is just wrong. I asked six good players and they all agreed. Again his general principle is fine but his example is terrible. In order for him to be right you would have to be almost sure that the original better would raise and that the others would fold,
Cooke's Hand:
Your question only addresses the River. For my purposes I will limit the options to four (discounting reraises although they could be considered) . 1) Bet and fold to a raise 2) Bet and call a raise 3) Check and fold to a bet 4) Check and call a bet. Also, since I know nothing of the opponent I will classify him as average. Cooke plays 30-60 so an average player at that level plays like Mason. That makes him a below averge 3-6 player. First I will say I agree with Cooke. He should have bet the River. Second I will say that I disagree with Cooke he should check and call the River. (BTW - SKP did a pretty good job with his post so I opted to attack from another angle)
Of the four options I listed 1,2 and 4 have the potential of winning you a bet from an average player. Option 3 would be a mistake against an average player. Paradoxically, let me say that a check raise is also a mistake against an average player. The reaon is that if you are check raise or even if you check and call you are a dog. The pot offers enough odds for you to call after a check. But being a dog the pot is not big enough to risk being reraised then having to fold. Man, I hope Abdul and Mr S don't read this. They'll think I'm trying to get into their game theory arena (which I'm not because I wouldn't no how to anyway). Option 2 is a mistake against an average player. An average player would not raise with less than the nuts in this situation so calling a raise here is a mistake. Option 1 is a correct strategy against an average player. If raised you are very certain you are beat and should fold. Option 4 is also a correct strategy against an average player. Although an average player may only raise with the nuts ther are hands that he will bet with that he wouldn't call with. So which of the two is the most correct? The answer is not your opponents image but yours. If you are viewed as an aggressive player you should bet. If you are viewed as a tight player you should check.
As for Ciaffone. Don't raise with KJh in the situation described. With not much chance of the limpers folding it seems to me you gotta raise. You want a big pot and a shot at a free card on the turn.
2,2 against 3 limpers and with the button and blinds behind seems to me to be a good call for a good player. Small pairs require that the player be an above average player after the flop to be played in a situation like this. Small pairs are dangerous even with the philosophy of no set - no bet.
All right, I'll have a crack at the Coach. He can then tell me why I am wrong (and I'll probably listen because generally, I believe he offers solid advice in CP).
22
I certainly would call with 22 in the scenario given. 3 limpers plus likely the 2 blinds gives me at least 5 opponents. I have good position and the required number of players to offer me good implied odds of flopping a set.
Incidentally, I find that such hands can also be profitably played if you are to the left of UTG and he limps. His limp coupled with your limp can often result in a "calling frenzy" resulting in a 7 or 8 way pot. Of course, if you have got some aggressive players behind you, the "calling frenzy" theory may not pan out.
KhJh
I guess what the Coach is saying that the sb almost surely has at least an Ace given that he is betting into 4 opponents. Further, the sb may well assume that the button does not have an Ace as if he did, he likely would have raised preflop. Thus, the sb would reasonably assume that the button's raise on the flop is with a flush draw. As such, the sb would in most instances reraise to try and limit the field. If that happens, then of course the raise by KhJh would not be a good move.
However, having said that, I still think that KhJh should raise in most cases. Several reasons for this but I will just list four of them:
1. Of course, if you knew that sb would just call, your raise on the flop is a gimme. Now, sb may not figure out your hand and just call the raise (i.e. don't make the mistake of automatically assuming that the sb is thinking at your level..he may not be).
2. Even if sb reraises and knocks everyone else out, it's not a total disaster as there will be some dead money put in by the limp-folders on the flop.
3. If you never raise with a draw when the flop is Ace high(and this seems to be about the best spot to do so), you become much easier to read when you do raise in such situations. In fact, for these reasons, I would even raise on the flop here with 10,9 (i.e. an open-ended straight draw). You could set up a pretty good bluff if the raise on the flop buys you a free card on the turn and a FLUSH card comes in on the River.
4. Let's not completely take out the joy of playing poker...gamble it up a bit!
AJ
One needs more details to comment on this hand. The suggested fold certainly can be a viable option.
I agree that Coach doesn't give enough details: the type of game, what we know of the players involved, etc. It seems to me his advice is less sophisticated than, for example, S & M, and is better for average players, rather than better than average players, who can play more hands because they will play them better. His basic advice seems to be GIGO: garbage in, garbage out, which is good advice for beginners or inveterate losers, but not of much use to advanced players.
Hellmuth's article is available at Cardplayer's site (and I assume, his). Not the main subject, but he mentions that Miami John won 3 events at the Bike but finished second in the all-around points. Reminds me of the time when John Bonetti won three events at the 4 Queens and didn't finish in the top FIVE in the all-around, or the time the guy who won the Foxwoods all-around didn't make a final table the entire tourney. At the Gold Coast in '96 the points were awarded as follows: 1st-48, 2nd-44, 3rd-40, etc. A joke. All-arounds should be discontinued, they're an extra rake that strongly favors pros and partners, but if you have them, the points should be awarded just like the money, i.e. 1st-37.5, 2nd-20, etc.
As far as Jeff Purver and his $15-30 game, someone please tell me where it took place so I can get on the next plane there.
"Ciaffone advises not to call in the cutoff seat (first seat to the right of the button) with 2-2 when there are already 3 limpers in the pot."
I call every time in this spot.
"He also advises not to raise with Kh-Jh on the button after a flop of Ah-8h-7c in a 5 handed unraised pot when sb has bet out and gotten 3 callers."
I frequently but not always raise. My knowledge of the bettor would influence my decision. Many players will bet any draw in this spot -- this includes straight as well as flush draws. They will also bet a weak ace and some will even bet middle pair.
Sometimes, in this situation of raising with a drawing hand, you may be better off raising with 2 low hearts than with the nut heart draw. This is because while it is a still bad thing for you if sb 3 bets it and moves out the rest of the field, one benefit to you of his 3 bet is that you improve your chances of winning the pot if both the turn and river card are hearts.
An example is this:
Flop: Ah10h5s
Sb bets. 4 players call. You are on the button. You may be better off raising with something like 9h8h instead of Kh9h. With the first hand, if sb 3 bets it, he could cause a hand like KhJs to fold which would be to your advantage.
I disagree. The play only gives you extra help (as opposed to making it with the nut flush draw) those rare times when the ace reraises, AND a high heart folds, AND two hearts come, AND nobody else has two higher hearts. It will save you the pot less than 1% of the time. On the other hand it will cost you more money than it would cost the nut draw anytime you catch one heart but lose.
This is not to say that you shouldn't do it with a lower flush draw.In fact you usually should. I am only saying that the extra reason that skp gives to do it doesn't quite make up for the extra reason not to do it in this particular case where the pot is relatively small.
"On the other hand it will cost you more money than it would cost the nut draw anytime you catch one heart but lose."
Let me put it this way: I certainly don't say that I would rather have 9h8h instead of Kh9h on a Ah10h5s flop. Clearly, I would rather have Kh9h for the reasons apparent in your statement quoted above. What I am saying is this: Suppose the sb bets and 4 players call and I have a flush draw. I am not sure whether the sb will reraise if I raise. I think about it for a second and decide to raise. The sb then does reraise. At that precise moment (i.e., without knowing whether any of the other players will call 2 bets cold), I would say that my play is better (relatively speaking) if I have 9h8h rather than Kh9h.
I understand what you are saying and I still disagree given an unraised pot.
I have always wondered,
Do you pronounce Caiffone as see-a-phoney?
What better time is there to raise the nut flush draw than when its bet from the blinds, 3 callers, and the nut draw has the button?
It will irritate me a little if the bettor reraises, but I will counter by 4-betting it no matter how many people call in between.
The posts on this site are very helpful. What is the general consensus about which is an easy game for a beginner to get into? My 'guess' is 5 card stud? Any thoughts? Steve
5-card stud is deader than disco. Good luck trying to find this game outside of the movies.
I would start with Texas hold'em as you should be able to hold your own at the lower limits simply by playing fewer hands than your opponents and reading some basic strategy books. Start with Sklansky's "Hold'em Poker".
Seven card stud is the other logical starting point. However, it is probably more difficult to make the transaition from the lower to medium limits for reasons that are beyond the context of this post.
Good Luck.
The easiest game to get into is Wilson's Texas Turbo Hold'em Version 3.0. It costs less than what you can expect to lose in your first several sessions playing low limit poker in a casino. Play with it using a fixed limit structure (conventional $3-6, 10-20, etc.) and stay out of the casinos for as long as you can. (You can get information about inputting the appropriate time charge or rake off the internet, or just call your local casino). In a casino you'll play about 30 hands an hour in a normal full hold'em game, a few more if the game is tight, a few less if the game is very loose with a lot of multiway action. You need this information to figure out hourly rates on the computer.
Read and reread the new version of Hold'm Poker For Advanced Players until you have the material down cold. While you don't have to buy a lot of books about poker (in fact, merely reading them will do you little good), the ones by Bob Ciaffone and Roy Cooke are excellent, and the Theory of Poker is fundamental. Mike Petriv's "Hold'em Odds Book" is also a good introduction to the math. Don't read the strategy tips like a cookbook but try to figure out why it works and when it won't. Notice that nearly all poker advice is highly conditional and qualified (you'll find this frustrating at first). Also notice that, at first glance, some of it appears contradictory. Think a lot about why this is so. In fact, spend more time thinking about the game than in playing or reading about it.
Apply what you read to your computer game. Experiment with different lineups. Figure out what works when and why to the point where you can reject one strategy in favor of another for subtle changes in the situation. Do this until the differences don't appear to be subtle anymore. (Generally ignore or at least don't worry about the Turbo "advisor").
Practice correlating what you see a computer profile doing with how the profile actually plays. That is, guess how a profile plays in a variety of situations based on how you can see it play over just a few rounds of betting, then study the player profile screens to see how close you were. Don't zip to the end of hands you're not in but the watch the players and learn how they play.
Practice varying your play according to how specific opponents play and how entire lineups of opponents play. Take this to extremes and develop a good understanding for how much (and often how little) your play should vary according to differences in the game and your opponents. Also notice that you should often play the same in very different situations, and understand why this is the case. Play against the very best profiles and the very worst.
Get a good feel for how much discipline and patience you'll have to exercise in a real game to have any hope of consistently winning. Hone your judgment. Pay particular attention to how well you play and how you feel after losing for a long period of time or after losing a when you were way ahead at some point in a hand.
Appreciate that a comfortable working knowledge of the game takes hundreds of hours and that developing an edge against more experienced players that are serious (or at least semi-serious) about trying to get your money is hard. Appreciate the short-term luck factor in poker, and that there are considerable limits to what one can win a poker at that significant winnings are ground out in dollars and pennies a hand over a long period of time. Read months and months of postings here and on r.g.p.
If you're not interested in hold'em you can learn 7-card stud the same way.
Once you've can consistently beat a lot of different lineups and understand why you're beating them, then go to a casino, realizing that most people don't somewhat more whimsically than computer profiles (although the profiles are much closer than they used to be). Don't play lower than $3-6, and preferably $5-10 or $6-12. Find a table were people play too many hands, but stay away from the "ram-and-jam" games. If you've developed a good understanding of the game and can keep yourself emotionally together you'll soon play better, if you don't already, than most players in the room. Appreciate that you've got a long way to go.
Sorry for running on...
I agree with Chris. Buy Lee jones book (Wining Low limit Hold`em) and then memorize it. (This takes a while) Do what Lee says and you should do good at most any 4-4-8-8 HE game (OVER TIME) with a little common poker horse sense. If you aren`t willing to memorize the book for get about posting many winning sessions.
Good Luck
Milt. Boyle
I recommend you start with holdem - (1) the game is easier to learn at an intermediate level than seven-card stud, (2) low-limit stud is almost a different game than higher limit stud, while low-limit holdem strategies and concepts are more directly applicable to higher holdem games, (3) low-limit holdem opponents typically play very bad, so you probably won't lose money starting out if you've read Holdem for Advanced Players, and (4) in seven-card stud you have to keep track of the cards that are folded, while in holdem, it's a lot easier for a beginner to focus on strategy since you don't have to keep track of cards. The best book is "Holdem For Advanced Players". You should also get "Theory of Poker". I wouldn't waste time or money on computer programs. They won't prepare you for real games. Home games and low-limit cardroom games are a better place to start. I also wouldn't waste money on Ciaffone or Caro or Lee Jones' books - the 2+2 books will teach you everything you need to know, and many of the other books contain errors and fail to explain concepts properly. After a few sessions of 2-4 to learn the mechanics of the game, try moving up to 5-10 or 6-12, since those games will better prepare you for higher levels even if they will be more difficult at first.
In addition to everything else posted:
I find IRC poker to be helpful to get a feel for how the game is played, it's fast paced and probably the best way to get a little experience, and to try out some of the concepts before you sit down at a casino
Lars
I am new to casino gambling, having played less than 100 hours outside the home game. On my last trip to Atlantic City I ran into a situation which raised the question Should I raise with a four flush? I may be supplying too much information but it seems like knowing the opponents is important.
It was a 1-3 Stud table. The low card was to my left, seat 8, brings in for $1. Seat 1 raised it to $3 with a K spades. He is new to the table, he has raised to $3 once before and then folded when a pair came on the board against him. Seat 4 calls with a nine spades(he is a tourist from New York and will play any pair for awhile). Seat 5 Calls with a Ten(He is a friend. I know he is uncomfortable when I am in the pot with him. He also would be in with a pair.) Seat 6 Calls with a Jack Diamonds.(She is elderly and plays rock like. I worry if she calls a raise) Seat 7. I call with AT3 Hearts, 3 showing. Seat 8 folds. $16 in the pot.
4th street. Seat 1(inital raiser) bets $1 with KQ Spades showing(3 spades other than his already seen). Seat 4 Calls with 9X crap. Seat 5 Calls with TX crap. Seat 6 Calls with J9 Diamonds(2 other diamonds have been seen). Seat 7. I raise with AT53 Hearts, 53hearts showing, $3(to $4). No other hearts have been seen. Seat 1 Reraises to $7. Seats 4 and 5 fold. Seat 6 Calls(I put her on a flush or straight draw, possibly two pair). Seat 7. I Call.
$39 in the pot.
Is the raise with a completely live 4 flush a good raise? Seat 1 ended up having a pair of Ks at this point. Is it the correct play for him to reraise at that point if he correctly guesses he has the high hand at the moment.?
You're going to make the flush over 1/2 the time with no hearts exposed; so, you should win the pot enough for your raise to have positive expected value. His re-raise seems excellent because he knocked out 2 opponents and will reduce the expected value of your future bets.
Fat-Charlie
one question I have about this is whether it is better to raise here if you know that catching the third heart on the board will force the other players to fold. It seems like it might be too early to announce that you have a good draw to a flush, especially with 5 total people in the pot.
on 5th street,if you didnt raise on 4th, and you catch the flush and other players get help, your raise might look like a semi bluff more than a made hand, and people might be more likely to chase you. It almost seems like it would be better to raise here more often when hearts are live and you only have the two on your board. Then there is a huge chance that you will catch one or two more, and your hand has great bluff possibilities. (assuming your opponents will lay down their hands). With an actual 4 flush you may be giving away too much. (or maybe not-comments please)
A second question is based on the further play of this hand,(i know the player). on fifth street, all players caught airballs. The king checked and so did Wayne with a four flush. doesnt this play announce that you were on a draw, and it didnt come? would you be more likely to check or bet in this position? When would you be more likely to bet here?
I think this is the weakness of raising to early. You have to continue to play strong, which may make you uncomfortable since you are on a draw. or you have to slow down which announces that your hand is weak.
i am also very new to the underlying theory of poker, so perhaps Mr Malmuth or Mr Sklansky could help us flesh out the "right" things to think about in this situation.
Todd
On the question of giving away too much information, it is important to take into account how you play w/2 suited cards on board but do not have the flush draw.
If these players are going to give up their hands when I catch another in suit whenever I have represented, I want to know about it. The best time to find out is when I actualy do have the draw.
If I find out they all run away after I so easily "convinced" them that I have made a flush, then I have found a cash cow fit for the milking.
At this point I like your raise. There is already a good bit of money in the pot (13 max. size bets). The big advantage of raising is twofold. First, if everyone calls, you're getting money into the pot at 4:1 at a time when you're about 1:1 to make the flush. If people fold, then you got more money from fewer people, which is balanced by the fact that you might win without making your flush. Specifically, you have a completely live A. If you catch an A, that might be enough to win. If not, you might catch a second pair, and aces up will win pretty often.
So, whether your raise sets the hand up to eliminate players or get more money in the pot, it looks good.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
As said before you are going to make your flush over half the time when its completly live, and the AT-flush will hold up almost every time (unless J9d snags the Ad) or KKs make a full).
Unless someone has a bigger 4-flush or two-pair or better, you clearly have the "best" hand at this point.
Notice this: if the Ks have no additional value and the J9hearts does, such as a 3-straight to go with her 4-flush, then the Ks has the WORST hand of the 3; meaning he will win less often than each of you. The fact that he has the "best" hand only means the minimum hand he can make is Ks and that's higher than the minumum hands you two can make. That's not very interesting nor relevant.
Good raise, except perhaps the Ks in the hands of a real player is an obvious favorite to 3-bet it narrowing the field and preventing these snit-pairs from paying you off when you make it. The raise has positive EV, but just calling MAY have even better EV in this particular situation.
I'd have raise $2. Just $1 if I were sure he'd 3-bet it.
A live 4-flush is EQUAL to a live pair of Aces on 4th street, better in multi-way pots.
PS. Few 1-3 players will put you on a flush draw.
- Louie
ok guys, i am a very new player and would like to know some more about this four flush hand. first, i like the reraise advise. but my question is about playing the hand with some hearts showing --at what point do you change the play - two hearts showing - three - four??. i am also new to the net - could u guess. i have been enjoying reading this form. thanks for all the good advise/vano
If you have three to a flush and your cards are completely live, especially if you have high cards showing, you may want to bet to narrow the field and trap players in for your evetual flush or high pair. Two to a flush on third street is worth of bet if you have something else, like a pair. If you are showing three to a flush on the board, you may want to bet as a bluff or semi-bluff; but that play is less likely to work on seventh street. You can bet with three to a flush on third street so long as you cards are live. Do you have any other situations in which you may think about betting?
Thanks for the response rich p. ok - what if you had the hand wayne had - three hearts to start with and then four. at what point would you change your strategy - if you saw two other hearts out in other players hands or three hearts???/vano
Hi Wayne, Some things to consider Concerning the four flush situation, Is the bettor an aggressive player? if so I would be more inclined to just call his bet and raise when I make the flush. However he only bet $1(strange bet)so I would raise to get more money in the pot.
If he was a passive player then raising may be a good idea as it will probably bring you a free card on 5th st assuming no one improves . Also you will get more money in the pot if you do make a flush. However you must be concerned whenever a passive player bets.
Don't be concerned with disguising you hand . A four flush is exactly what they'll put you on , only they won't be quite sure.
If you catch the flush on the next card don't be concerned with opponents folding(some of them will). A flush is a good hand but it's not invinsible. If they all fold , take the pot and be happy (it does happen occasionally).
Don't believe that low limit players are complete dolts. They are people just like you and me . Some of them have been playing for many years and have witnessed all kinds of situations. They are still bad players but they DO THINK!!! That's their problem . They make decisions based solely on their feelings and ignore game theory, Pot odds etc..
I should know . I am a low limit player myself.
Good luck!!! John..
i have read this term, and seen it used in the context of a river bet when the better is holding a moderately weak hand-one pair, two pair, even ace high. I have also seen it used for mid hand bets, where somone bets the flop for "value". I am interested to know what exactly this term means. i understand the basic concepts about this, however, i have had a very difficut time articulating this to others, or even to myself. Also, how does one describe other bets that you make, besides this value bet.
todd
On the river, a bet for value is a bet with what you believe is the best hand, with the intention of being called by a weaker hand. This would be opposed to say, a crying call, which is a call made with a hand that you expect to be beaten, but not with a probability greater than the pot odds you are being offered.
A bet or raise "for value" is made when the odds are in your favor - that is - when the size of the pot and anticipated action gives your hand the correct odds to bet or raise.
For example, if you have a flush or straight draw on the flop, you will complete your draw 1 time in 3, so if you can get 3 or more callers you would want to maximize the number of bets that go in since you are getting a positive ev on every bet (make sure you are going for the nuts or near nuts in this case so you don't lose to a bigger draw).
Bruce -- That's one kind of bet for value. We talked about it in that thread below. The most common kind, though, is what Dan mentioned -- just betting a hand, expecting to be called by a lesser hand. (e.g., you have AK and flop A-9-3. You bet figuring to be called by a lesser ace or another pair...)
It is possible to make a value bet even if your getting called, implies that you are an underdog. This sometimes occurs when you are first to act after all the cards are out. My definition of a value bet is simply a bet that is made at least partly because it will sometimes be called by a hand that loses to you.
Sorry for my barging in, I just couldn't resist. I prefer my (debatable) definition:
It's a bet wishing for a call.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
Izmet,
I like your simple definition.
kwoksing
David, I prefer the definition of a value bet as "any bet you believe will make you win the most money".
A value bet is one where: 1- You believe your opponent does not have a card he represents and you bet or raise him. You may or you may not succeed but if he does have a better hand than you consider your bet as a value bet because you will be paid back at a later stage by anyone who saw your play. 2- Bet against a hand you know you have him beat and he has no choice than calling you. You also know if you check he will check. 3- Check against an aggressive player where if you check he will bet, and you know you have him beat resulting in a check-raise is also a value bet. 4- Bet on a flop to represent the top card with no flush or straight draw 5- In a 3 way pot, the best hand on your right bet the flop with the top card a jack, you bet the turn a king for him to throw his hand away and still have the potential to beat your opponent on your left if he called you.
I would appreciate if you could reply to any of the above if you do not agree with the statements Thanks
Sorry replace my previous definition of the value bet to " The most profitable bet"
The only reason you would ever bet is if you thought it made you more money than the alternatives. Thefore, 'value bet' becomes redundant by your definition. It certainly gains you no new information about the reason for your bet.
I think it generally refers to bets or raises that are good because your hand overall has more "value" then the opponent's. I.E. you prefer your hand over the average opponent's hand. There are other kinds of bets, such as "bluffing" or "advertising". You bet in order to force lesser hand to either call as a dog or fold when they could have outdrawn you.
It can easily happen that before the last round, you can "value bet" with a hand that is a sure loser if called. You still get value since you cause lesser hands who may outdraw you to fold. Such a situation may be if you raise in middle position with TT, get called by a conservative type, and then flop an Ace. If you bet, he'll only call with Aces but you should still bet to get 2-paint hands to fold.
Some bets, of course, are combination bets, where you may will cause lesser hands to fold or call, AND get some better hands to fold.
- Louie
Value Bet! I never liked that term. Mainly because I don't understand what a constitutes a value bet. I relly believed that the term value bet was another Sklanskyism. After reading his response I doubt that he is the guy that "coined" the phrase. Maybe it was SKP. Who knows.
Skalnsky: " a bet that is made at least partly because it will sometimes be called by a hand that loses to you."
Now I don't know about the rest of you but I find this definition vague. Does it mean that any bet made partly because it is sometimes called by a weaker hand is a value bet. Well don't all bets besides bluffs fall in that category? I mean, when I bet I usually bet with the best hand and hope someone calls with a weaker one.
To me the word value means worth. It means getting something in return. I know I am toying with semantics here but I am hoping that it helps pin down this vague term "value bet". Although I have said before and will again trying to pin down something in poker is like trying to catch a "greased pig". (I never really said that before but it sounded good so)
Value bet: Hmmm. I bet because what I get or expect in return has some value to me. I see from some responses that there are those that would tie a value bet to a river bet only. Others find value in flop bets. I guess others would say a bet on any street could be a value bet.
I normally hear the term expressed in relation to a river bet. So for now I will stick to a river value bet. When I bet the river, excluding a bluff, I bet because I expect the opponent to call with a weaker hand. If I feel the opponent will fold if I bet but will bet if I check then I check. I wonder is that a value check. I expect something of worth in return for my check so maybe. That doesn't make sense now does it? A value bet must be somewhere in between the bet with the known best hand and the check to induce a bet. Don't you think? A value bet must be a bet when your are not very sure you have the best hand and/or not very sure your opponent will call if you bet and/or not sure very your opponent will bet if you check.
Now maybe Abdul can ascribe a value (pun)/percentage to "not very sure". I can't. So I won't try. I will try and define a value bet with words given my attempt at analysis above.
Value Bet: A river bet with a hand less than the nuts that figures to yield more by betting than by checking.
Whew, maybe Sklansky's is correct. It sure would be easier accepting his than trying to come up with my own. I don't know I like my definition. I'm not sure I need the "less than the nuts" but I think it's right.
Comments?
Vince.
To say that a value bet is a bet wishing for a call is utterly wrong. There are many times you bet with a good hand while you still "wish" no one calls. This is clear when there are more cards to come but is often true even on the river. Mike Caro has discussed this quite a few times in his Card Player columns.
Hmmm. Interesting, this different view of yours. Of course there are >many times you bet with a good hand while you still "wish" no one calls<, I never disagreed on that. I just felt the term "value bet" should not be applied so loose as "a bet with a good hand".
If you dissagree with my definition (and I'm willing to reconsider), don't you think we should need a new term for "a bet wishing for a call"? What about "pure value bet"? Any other ideas?
Izmet Fekali
Vince writes:
>>Value Bet: A river bet with a hand less than the nuts that figures to yield more by betting than by checking.<<
It seems that Vince's definition does is not necissarily wanting a call. It seems to fit the situation on the river, where you are better off betting when first to act where a call by your opponent implies you are an underdog.
Tom,
I was hoping someone would respond with some good points. Thank you! Sklansky has me mixed up with someone else. I didn't think I would pin down the definition with my first shot at it. But I believe I'm on the right track. I thought searching for a generic definiton would be the best path to take. I came up with my definition in an attempt to apply some measure of worth or "value" to a bet. Obviously when I say "worth" I am not trying to be specific., like 20 value bets should yield a 3 big bet positive return. As opposed to checking and maybe picking up 1 big bet or no return. Although that may be part of the answer.
I still like my defiintion because all it really says is that when you find yourself in a situation, and you must understand the situation, (opponent included), where a bet will yield a positive expectation then you should bet. This, to me, infers that even if the bet makes the opponent fold and that produces a more positive yield than a check would then your bet has "value".
Vince.
But Vince, by your definition every (sensible) bet is a value bet then, even "image" bets, as every bet is done for one sole purpose: to yield a positive result. Why bet otherwise?
You'll obviously have to reconsider, as by your saying >even if the bet makes the opponent fold and that produces a more positive yield than a check would then your bet has "value"<, this impies even bluffs are value bets.
This is certainly not what David intended when he coined the term in his writings.
Izmet Fekali
Izmet (May I call you Izmet, well I already did so..),
The defiition I came up with relates a bet to a check. If one finds hemself in a situation where he must choose between the two then the coice must be dependent on which produces the greatest yield. I suppose if the check produces the greater yield one could term it a value check. Also, I am not opposed to including bluffs in the definition but would need some convincing.
Vince.
BTW - After reading David's initial response I'm not sure he had anything in mind when he coined the phrase.
Mr Sklansky,
I think you responded to the wrong post under my post. I never mention the word or even suggest that a value bet is wishing for a call.
My definition: A river bet (I confined my def to the river) with a hand, less than the nuts, that will yield more by betting than by checking. I excluded bluffs but maybe they should be included.
If you don't mind please comment on this definition.
Vince.
Your definition seems fine Vince.
Yes.
Most of the time when you probably have the better hand against 2 or more opponents, the best outcomes are in the following order:
1) You bet, Nobody calls.
2) You bet, Somebody calls.
3) You check, they check.
4) You check, they bet.
5) You bet, they raise.
I think.
The last two are because better and raisers generally have better than average hands, thus reducing you chances of having the better hand.
Heads-up I would move #2 down to #4, raising #3 and #4 since heads up, callers have stronger hands then betters. <=== Hmmmm.
- Louie
I asked Sklansky about "value bet" a year ago. He seems to use it in a very specific context. He seems to imply that IF THE BET IS CALLED (by a good or tough player), the chances of your hand being good is around neutral (at best). Is my understanding right, Sklansky?
The definitions by others seem too general to have any practical use. By these definitions, any bet is a value bet. Would there be any bet that's not a value bet? Or value check? Or value raise? Or value bluff? Or value call? Or maybe even value fold? Or for that matter, would there be any break that's not a value break? Or any friendly chat with neighboring tourist not a value chat? I'd better go and do some value reading.
Does anyone know who coined "value bet" by the way?
I would say a bet is a "value bet" based on the believed value of the hand. That is, if the bet is called, you'll still be gaining money (on average) by having made the bet. Betting nut hands falls into this category, but bluffs do not. Betting a flush draw with an expectation of a sufficient number of callers is a value bet. Betting a flush draw against a single opponent because he might fold right now is not. Betting 2nd pair on the river because you expect that you'll get looked up by a worse hand is a value bet. Usually when you think you are betting the best hand, you are making a value bet.
If your bet gains you because of the possibility of your opponent(s) folding a better hand than you hold, then that bet is a bluff or a semi-bluff.
I have a couple questions about two five card stud hands I played in at my home game. We play a version of five card stud that is a H/L split, with a declaration after the last round of betting for which half of the pot you are going for. There is no qualifier. You can declare low with two pair and win if everyone else is going high.
This is a very tough game.
I want some feedback on a couple hands.
Three handed. On third street I show a pair of fives, and the other two hands are a 7 high and a six high. I bet, the 7 high raises into the 6 high, and th 6 cold calls, I call, thinking the 7 may have a better pair. Fourth street I catch a blank, 7 catches another low card, and 6 catches a Q. I check and it is checked around. Now I'm definitely puzzled, but I'm thinking the 7 has a pair.
Fifth street is another blank for everyone, except the 7 is a 9 high now, and he bets. We both call. I declare low, hoping the Q low has paired. My reasoning by the end was that the 9 high had a pair of 7s to beat me. My only hope was to declare low and hope for the best. I am wondering what you think about my reasoning? Was it reasonable or totally ridiculous? Results below.
SECOND HAND.
On fourth street I have A475 with the A in the hole. To left is a pair of 9s with no kicker and the third hand is 976 showing.
Fourth street the betting is capped by me with the best low hand at the time, and a fully live A to possibly make a high or even a scoop.
River is a blank for the other two but I get a Jack, ruining my low. The nines check, the 9 high bets, I fold, the 9's call.
I couldn't put the 9 high on a pair with the nines practically dead, and the seven half dead too. I figured he was just gambling on the last card giving him the best low so I folded. I could have called one bet but I figured the open nines would raise behind me and I"d get squeezed for four bets just to see the declare. For one bet it was worth it but for four bets no way. Again, does my reasoning seem logical? Is there something obvious I'm missing about these hands?
I'm asking because I'm having a hard time with this game even tho I feel like I have a good understanding of it.
results below:
First Hand: Everyone declared low and the 9 high took the scoop. Q high was hoping we were both going high, and I was hoping 9 high would go high and that q high had paired up. (He had a couple live cards higher than a five which could have paired)
Second Hand: They both had a pair of nines and the 9 high with a nine in the hole declared low to take half the pot, he had a 7 kicker and it turned out the open 9's would have lost with a worse kicker. The worst part is they debated a while before declaring so I knew I had thrown away the best low hand. In addition, the open 9s told me he wouldn't have raised behind me.
Natedogg
On page 7 of your strategy, you provide a table for defending the Big Blind against Tight, Legit and Steal raisers. Can you provide a similar table for defending the Small Blind against raisers in a loose-aggressive game ? I request this because I cannot get to grips with your statement on page 9 i.e. "When defending the small blind versus a raise, your minimum requirements are about midway between your minimums for calling in the big blind versus calling a raise cold". BTW, many thanks for providing a valuable insight into your approach via the articles on your web page.
You're right; that the statement was obtuse.
Versus a raise from, say, 66/T9s/QJ or better, I would suggest defending your 1/2 small blind (e.g., $5 in $10-$20) with 77/T9s/AJ or better. A 2/3 small blind would lower the requirements to maybe 55/87s/KQ. A 1/3 small blind would raise the requirements to maybe 88/KQs/AQ.
-Abdul
i was playing holdem and there were two players who were friends or something, and every time they were the only two players left in the pot, they would turn their hands over and check it all the way down to the river. they weren't doing anything obvious like raising behind each other to knock other players out. they were playing normal as far as i can tell until they were the only ones left, then they would check all the way. regardless, this practice seems unfair to the other players.
i wanted your opinions as to whether this practice is acceptable or shouldn't be allowed.
also, i'd like opinions on "pushing," i.e. two players giving one or a few chips back and forth to each other after winning a pot.
I wouldn't care if they do that but I'd damn sure be watching for some other suspicious activity. If they are such good freinds they cannot win or lose to one another I am sure thay would probably be reading into either person actions and helping them along. I'd find another table just to be on the safe side. Hope that helps and remember it is only and opinion (and everyone has an opinion they are like assholes; everyone has one and everyone but yours stinks!
Both practices are relatively common, and unlikely to hurt you. The practice of giving chips to one another after winning a pot cannot hurt you at all, especially since the amount is usually very small compared to the size of the pot.
With respect to checking it down. This can hurt you if you are caused to fold in a situation where you otherwise wouldn't, due to these guys playing the hand differently because the "know" they'll get to check it down after you leave.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"Us girls have to stick together" per a well known poker writer when her "sweet heart check down" was challenged at a tournament a few years ago.
Initially let me state I don't know the rules on these issues so these are just my ad hoc thoughts. Tommorow I might feel different.
Situation 1 :
An interesting question.
Clearly one or the other of them will win the pot in the situation you describe. So as for harm to you when you're in a pot. Don't see any that's obvious as you're out.
But it is soft playing don't you think? Suppose all 10 other players did this and only played "normal" against you? (Reductio absurdum?) It would then appear that you'd be the only one actually being played against.
At what point does it begin to be problem?
Hard to say. But this is the kind of things legal types wrestle with all the time. I'll let you decide.
Personally, in a "friendly" game I wouldn't care. In a blood match well that's different again.
As an aside, it could let you learn more about these persons starting standards since both hands are visible, whereas you might have only seen one or none if they didn't turn them up.
Situation 2 :
Well in a sense it's removing chips from the giver's stack, which could possibly be seen as that person removing table stakes, which generally isn't allowed. It could allow someone to go all in earlier. In which case it could hurt you as someone could end up with free cards they might not have otherwise recieved.
However, the intent probably isn't that anyway, strikes me as more of an emotional thing.
Wouldn't bother me unless it was a tournament situation. In a ring game not everyone is playing just for money. No point in making it an uptite game over a few chips. However, that may not be what the rules stipulate.
I support this kind of friendship at my table.
(a) I get to see both players hands. (b) The weaker player wins/retains more chips.
I cant see a single downside.
I have recently begun venturing my game into the club scene. I find that I feel fairly comfortable with quick pace and other facets of the casino game, but I am feel a bit overwhelmed by all of the things that I am trying to think about (odds, reading people, etc). Where do you suggest that I begin when I sit down to a table? Should I first become comfortable with figuring proper pot odds before moving on to another skill? Should I become more proficient at figuring reading people and their skill level before moving on? If someone would take a bit of time to reflect on their early experiences in the cardrooms I would appreciate it.
Thanks Joe
It seems to me that when I sit down to a game, the odds, pot odds, reverse odds, etc. happen quite naturally, requiring little thought (usually). Giving me freedom to consciously try to read opponents. If the odds aren't a natural part of your game, start there.
Darren
You raise in early position with AJ. Everyone folds to the small blind who reraises. You know this guy has to have aces kings or AK. You call. Flop is AJ4. You call his bet. Next card is a 7. He bets again. How do you proceed against various types of players and why?
I believe small blind definitely has the best hand before the flop. Most likely not after the flop. SB best strategy is to re-raise before the flop to be heads-up with the early position. On the turn I will raise SB against all type of players. First, against the tough players because I put him on KK or AKs. Second, against lower caliber of players because I believe I have the best hand. If both re-raise me I will call to the river and pay them.
David,
Hello. I will answer your question as posed. That is I will assume I *really* believe that the SB *has* AA, AK, or KK, based on previous play or whatever. And I will assume we are talking high cards only, no flush draws.
To recap- Me: AJ, Board AJ47, SB: AA, AK or KK
Good player: I think it is very close whether to call or raise. A raise drops many good players with KK, costing me. Most good players will, however, re-raise with either AA or AK, so while I am much more likely to find them holding AK, and be a great favorite in those cases, I don't learn much from my raise against AK or AA. I guess I can raise, hoping that the good player will not drop the KK automatically, and also hoping that AK doesn't reraise; which will give me some info. so I can take control. But I play to the end in any event. (But one advantage of the call though is that I am drawing dead against AA, but the AK and KK are not drawing dead against my AJ.) But then there is table image to consider...
Passive player: Passive player isn't betting at all with KK against the AJ4 board and with the blank on the turn. So I would put them on AK or AA. I would raise against a weak/passive player, looking to see whether they call or re-raise. I fold against the re-raise, and take control against the call. (Another question you did not pose is what to do when you know that they would never re-raise before the flop without AA, AK, or KK, and then they check the turn...telling you they have the KK. I think I would bet this...I hate to slowplay a passive player and find a K hitting on the end)
Loose player: This is much like the good player, but they will not fold the KK so quickly I think, which makes a raise more clearcut in my mind.
Mark
reraise and if you imoprove raise or bet depending on what the blind does,,you have locked top 2 only gut shots to beat you and if you cant put him on a set then raise is your only option,,If he were to have AK then make him pay to beat you,,
I don't have time to write an essay answer and offer you a relatively short response.
Given your initial premise as to what the sb is holding, there is very little doubt that I would raise on the turn.
After the turn card, the abstract odds of sb holding AA are 1 out of 15. If the sb is the type of player who would never bet the flop and turn with KK, his odds of holding AA improve to 1 out of 9.
In any event, it's clear that you are going to be in the lead the vast majority of the time. Thus, the only real danger of raising is that the bettor may fold KK to a raise and you end up losing one big bet (i.e., if you just call on the turn, the sb with KK will almost surely just check and call the river if a blank hits). However, you can't know with certainty whether the fellow has KK or AK and I believe you will be giving up too much by not raising on the turn as you may miss out on the opportunity of causing the sb to make an error by 3 betting you with AK (BTW, if he does three bet it, I would still call or possibly even reraise- I would have to have an absolutely fantastic read on sb before I would fold because the odds just don't favour him having AA although the chances sure become a lot greater if he 3 bets it).
The question does require an essay type answer if one were to factor in all prototypes of players in the sb's shoes but I suspect that my answer can't be too far off (although I am sure that you will correct me if I missed something).
Assuming that we are NOT talking about a flush draw,it would depend on th type of opponent your up against.If you've correctly figured them to be conservative,then pocket aces are a likely reality(pocket jacks too,for that matter).A somewhat more liberal opponent(of course,we've CORRECTLY figured that out)I would then be more likely to consider calling.Correctly reading your opponents is just as important as reading the pot and cards,or so I believe.
In most cases, the fact that you were bet into on both the flop and the turn would point to the sb holding AK. If he had KK, the chances of him checking the turn out of fear go up considerably. If he has AA, the chances of him trying for a checkraise (or even slowplaying the flop by check-calling) go up considerably.
The flop bet and turn bet pattern indicates (all other things being equal) that the feloow has AK. I say raise him with your AJ on the turn. You surely will get a crying call and may even get a confident reraise out of him.
Im not sure how many different various types of players David has in mind, but here is my two-cents worth.
Im assuming that just about all players will fold if raised if they hold KK. Im assuming that just about all players will stay until the showdown with AK.
Passive Player I define a passive player as someone who will not bet KK on the turn, and will check AK on the river if he/she doesnt improve. Theres an 8:1 chance this player has AK (as opposed to AA). This player doesnt have KK. I will raise here (expecting a call) and bet the river if a king doesnt come on the end.
Moderate Player I define a moderate player as someone who will not bet KK on the turn, but will bet AK on the river, even if he/she doesnt improve. Theres also an 8:1 chance this player has AK. I will call here and raise on the river if a king doesnt come. Im assuming that this player will call if I raise on the turn, and then check the river. So I get the same three bets by waiting until the river to raise, but save a bet if a king comes on the end.
Agressive Player I devine an agressive player as someone who will bet KK on the turn, check KK on the river, and check AK on the river if raised on the turn. This player will not re-raise with AK on the turn, but bet AK on the end if not raised. This player is 8:7 to have AK, and 6:9 to have KK. Against this player I would raise on the turn. Ill get three bets against AK whether I raise on the turn or wait until the river. By raising I cant save the bet on the end if a king comes. But by raising on the turn I chase out KK. Since the small blind is 8:6 to have AK as opposed to KK, I will lose 8 bets against AK in the long run when a king comes, but win 6 pots (6x5.5=33 bets) against KK in the long run as well.
Very Agressive Player I define a very agressive player as someone who will bet AK and KK on the turn and river if not raised. He/she might also re-raise with AK on the turn. Against this player I would check on the turn, and raise on the river if a king doesnt come. Against AK you save a bet if a king doesnt come. Against KK you will lose the pot (5.5 bets) the two times a king comes, but win a bet the 42 times a king doesnt come. You will lose a chance for the re-raise against AK on the turn. But those two extra bets, even if the small blind always re-raised with them, will not come close to what you can gain by letting KK bet out on the end (8x4 < 6x31).
Of course there are more combinations of playing styles that you can be up against. But you can use the above examples and figure out the correct action as necessary. Also, if a player is apt to call a raise on the turn with KK, then you would raise. If a player is apt to fold to a raise on the turn with AK, then you wouldnt raise.
I think that you made a few odds errors in your post.
With an Ace in my hand, there are 3 combinations of Aces, 6 combinations of Kings, and 12 combinations of A-K he can have. The Ace in my hand takes away 3 combinations of Aces and 4 combinations of A-K. It does not take away any combinations of K-K.
Therefore, the odds of him having A-K vs A-A is NOT 8:1 (mentioned in the Passive Player section), but 4:1. The odds of him having A-K vs the other two holdings is NOT 8:7 (mentioned in the Aggressive Player section), but rather 4:3. And the odds of him having K-K vs the other two holdings is NOT 6:9 (mentioned in the Aggressive Player seciton), but rather 2:5.
Odds and probability is the weakest part of my game and I'd like to do more work in this area. Hope that you can correct any errors I made in my calculation.
Yan,
Your odds calculations were correct--before the flop. In David's question an ace came on the flop. Hence, there are only two aces left in the deck.
2 Aces X 4 kings = 8 AK 6 KK 1 AA __________ 15 total hands
I did make an error in the pot size for the Very Agressive Player. When a king comes on the end, you will lose 6.5 bets if a king comes (I forgot to add in the call on the turn). And it should also read (8x4 < 6x29). But the conclusions reached are unchanged.
Good Luck.
George,
You're absolutely right. I'm not very good at calculating odds, and you just proved it one more time. Thanks.
Yeah, Like this is really gonna happen. Where you been playing lately Sklansky?
If this guy has to have AA, AK or KK to reraise then you are not playing against various kinds of players. You are playing against a very tight player or very good player. That is if he needs this hand to reraise an early raise from the likes of David Sklansky. If he needs these hands to reraise with before the flop, he certainly isn't going to bet the turn with K,K. That would put him very out of character or make him very good. ( Might not even bet the flop but probab;y would.) Of course if he were very good he would raise with more hands than those mentioned and sometimes wouldn't raise with those hands. I put this tight fellow on A,K 80% of the time. A raise on the turn is in order. You may not get the opportunity again.
Vince.
Vince,
My friend and I were doing a little surfing when we saw David's post. Our first thought was pretty similar to yours when you said:
Yeah, Like this is really gonna happen. Where you been playing lately Sklansky?
If this guy has to have AA, AK or KK to reraise then you are not playing against various kinds of players. You are playing against a very tight player or very good player.
I don't know if the SB was a very good player (he is way too predictable to be good IMHO) but here in Southern California I've never seen a player who will only three bet with such a narrow range of hands. Most of the respondents did a good job in their replies but I always have problems with this kind of lead post (even if it is by David). The whole hand becomes quite contrived and I can't see how it helps anyone's game very much.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Sklansky said that his intention with this thread was to get people thinking about play on the turn. From the number and quality of responses I would say he accomplished his goal. Certainly, I would agree that a player with such a narrow range of reraise hands is most likely a tight player and not a good player. I only added "good player" to my response because a good player may narrow his range of hands against another good or great player in situations of this type. To tell you the truth, though, Rick, what I like about your response the most is that you spelleded (or is that speelded) "Contrived" correctly!
Vince.
Am I the only one to question the wisdom of getting into this situation to begin with? Why call pre-flop? You're only getting 6:1 immediate odds and I suspect the implied odds are canceled out by the times you pay off like a slot machine.
1/7 of the time he's got AA and you're DOA. 2/7 of the time he's got the kings and you need an ace but you can't know it's any good. 4/7 of the time you need the jack and no king, a bad spot indeed. 'Course I ain't no Sklansky.
If I really know my opponent holds only those hands (AA, KK, AK) I'm not going any further with AJ in that situation. I'm wondering if this was 'fuzzy thinking'?
Why call pre-flop? Why raise with AJ in early position? Why climb Mount Everest?
I suspect that David doesn't need to ask us what to do in this situation for his own good. He can propably figure it out for himself. The "Professor" is giving us an assignment to make us think about situations that come up. By asking us "students" to explain how and why we would proceed, we are forced to think the problem out--and hopefully learn something in the process. It's irrelevant in this problem why we raised or called previously. We did, this is the situation now, and what are we going to do about it?
The problem demonstrates that the correct course of action changes depending on the player. Sometimes it's a good idea to raise earlier to chase a weaker hand out, and sometimes it's better to let a player keep betting a weaker hand. Sometimes it's better to wait to raise to save a bet should your opponent improve. Knowing which to do comes from analyzing what cards your opponent is likely to have, and correctly figuring the best course of action to extract the most out of the situation.
Actually, David didn't say he called the raise knowing the player had AA, KK or AK. He said you called the raise. So what do you have to say for yourself? ;-)
"Actually, David didn't say he called the raise knowing the player had AA, KK or AK. He said you called the raise. So what do you have to say for yourself? ;-) " - G M Rice
I'll grant you it's an exercise. Prehaps the correct answer to the test here is "Why call this 3-bet pre-flop when you know you're dominated?" Vince suggests he'd play 72o. I think that isn't right either but at least it's got clear outs. AJ has no clear outs except Broadway or other huge and improbable flops. In the problem the hand hits one of it's best flops, two pair, and it's still not clear where you stand. Why go there to begin with?
I read bridge problems all the time. They have a realistic auction to reach the contract upon which the problem is based. They are self-consistent within the accepted rules of the game. This Sklansky exercise strikes me as quite flawed. Prove me wrong. Identify my "fuzzy thinking".
I was in a similar situation today, AJo early and faced with a 3-bet from late position. In my case the 3-better had a wider range of hands, AA-99, AK, AQ, AJs, maybe others. I still don't like it. I did call but I expect my pot equity was small.
If you go all in with AJ and your opponent can only have AA, KK or AK, you'll win just over a quarter of the time. So if it's 6-1 to call all in and you fold, you're walking away from a profitable situation.
When you still have more chips the possibility of being outplayed from the flop onward is greatly curtailed by your knowledge of what your opponent holds, and by whatever you know about how your opponent plays once the flop is dealt.
You are not going to make a profit calling raises with unsuited AJ.
"You are not going to make a profit calling raises with unsuited AJ"
If I know someone has A,A, A,K or K,K only, I can make a profit with 7,2o!
Vince.
This was not a real hand. It is rather an exercise in head up fourth st. thinking. For such exercises it is actually better to be contrived so as not to muddy the water too much. Thus even if it was wrong to call with AJ, that would be irrelevant to the point of this problem. That being said, those who think that you should throw your hand away for one small bet with six bets in their already and you acting last are wrong. But that deserves a seperate thread.
David,
I believe I understand the point of your question. From the number of responses in this thread I would say you accomplished your goal. I apologize for adding to a silly response with my 72o comment.
Vince.
You are way ahead on the flop and will obviously make the most amount of money the 53% of the time your opponent has AK. How you should play is largely a function of how your opponent will react to your play.
You should bet the flop and generally play aggressively when:
1. Your opponent will play AA and AK fast when you show aggression. (Obviously you need to judge the point at which you should let him lead). You are way ahead when he has AK and don't care if he folds KK because he'll have AK 8 times as often as AA.
2. Your opponent will slowplay both AA and AK and play KK defensively (perhaps fold it) if you show aggression. In this case your opponent will overrate his AK and trap himself when he raises you on a subsequent street. Because of all the money you win when he has AK, you again don't care if he releases KK early. You should also play back when he raises you on the turn or river because he'll usually have AK.
You should slowplay after the flop when:
1. After you show strength, your opponent will (a) slowplay only AA; (b) play AK defensively by just calling and checking after you if you check and (c) not play KK at all. By playing passively here, your opponent will be induced to lead with AK and can trap him with a check-raise on the turn or river.
2. After you show weakness, your opponent will slowplay both AA and AK but will play KK aggressively. Although here you lose a few bets when he has AK, you make up for them when he pushes KK.
Cris,
Your opponent is the small blind and will act before us. Your response is for when we are first to act. Also, David's question specified the flop action. He's asking how we'd proceed on the turn (and river) after the small blind bets the turn.
Sorry to be the one to break the news. ;-)
George
Duh-uh. Of course, not everyone can be expected to read all the way through another interminable Sklanksy post... I should try this when I'm awake.
We are down to 6 players at the weekly NLH tournament at the Mirage. 7 players in the money after reducing first place $350 and 2nd place $150.First prize is $2000. There is $42,000 in chips. The blinds are now 250-500.
Would you have played the following hand and why?
I am in the big blind with $7000 in chip placing me in 3rd position when I am dealt a pair of 10's. The chip leader, which I considered to be a good player has about $12000. A well known excellent tournament NLH player in position 2 bet $2000 from his stack of about $8500. Everyone folds to me. After some thought I decided to go all in. Calling was not an alternative. The only other alternative I had was to fold. He called with AQo. The board is JQx97. He wins.
Here is the reasons why I went all in: 1- I put my opponent on 2 overcards, AK,AQ,AJ. 2- He is a tough tournament NLH player and certainly expected him to fold with this kind of hand. 3- This was an opportunity to become the chip leader and then go for the gold which was my ultimate goal.
I believe it was a mistake to go all in because: 1- He had a bigger stack 2- He, also, saw the opportunity to become the chip leader 3- The first prize was only $2000. I definitely believe he would have fold at a major tournament.
Reading his hand well, your thinking that he might fold was not bad. Unfortunately he appears to have read you with something approximating what you had. A pair of 10s is a very treacherous all-in hand, since the chances of an overcard coming on the flop is about even money -- and that's if you are not already beat. The way I usually prefer to play a pair of 10s is to just call the raise and see if the overcard flops then make a decision whether to make an all-in move. His correct play is to fold if he misses the flop, although many weak players will keep coming with their two overcards (which of course is even sweeter).
One point that I think many players overlook is that by moving all-in before the flop on someone with a 50-50 proposition is that you don't let them make a big mistake. If he gets all of his money in there before the flop, he doesn't have to stand the heat after he misses. This is a very similar mistake to moving all-in on a guy with a big 4-flush draw on the flop -- it is much better to make a reasonable bet instead of moving all-in, and see if he misses the turn in order to REALLY put him to the test.
I really don't like a CALL for a material portion of your stack here with TT against tough player. Even if you put him on overcards, you don't know which overcards. An Ace, King, or Queen would certainly be unwelcome on the flop, but a Jack may also be scary. If he is a tough player, he will probably bet if a paint flops and you check. If he checks beind you, he gets another chance to hit his card or another scare card. In other words, you will be in a guessing game on the flop.
In that sense, I disagree with Earl. I think it is a raise-or-fold scenario since you will be in such a precarious situation on the flop. While I dn't like to Call when I am at best facing a 50/50 proposition, I love to raise and turn the tables on the other guy. By raising, you are reversing the tough decision and forcing him to call as a slight dog, slight favorite, or big dog.
Of course, this thought process assumes that his 2000 bet represents a material raise of your big blind. If you already have 800 or more in the BB, I would simply call the bet and proceed as Earl advocates. However, I don't think you can check-fold to any overcard, and I might even bet out unless an Ace or King hits.
I thought I would comment on just a couple of issues raised by your post.
Yvan C. wrote: >After some thought I decided to go all in.
I wouldn't be surprised if a large part of the reason he called is because you thought about it for a while. If you look at your cards and go all-in pretty quickly, he's going to fold this hand if he's good. After you think about it for a while, he puts you on a small or medium pair or an A that's not AK. If you had been dealt AA, KK, or QQ, you probably wouldn't have had to think so much. Admittedly, this is a process that can be used against players, but if he doesn't know you, he will likely think this way.
>I definitely believe he would have fold at a major >tournament.
Who knows. However, he should play the hand the same way under the circumstances (which includes his assessment of you) no matter what the tournament pays. Thus, whether first prize is 2K or 200K, if the payout is proportionally the same, then the right play is still the right play. While it's very true that the high money does scare some players, a truly good player will make the same decision.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
About 3 months ago on this forum, skp was discussing the merits of limping and then reraising with small pairs. I agreed to try it out and then report back with any results.
First off, I was surprised at how infrequently the situation came up. This experiment was limited to early position, holding 55 thru 99, and getting a late raise. It just didn't happen that often. The number of opportunities was also less than expected since this was only tried at 5-10 and 4-8 limits. I've been playing more 10-20 and a little 20-40, but am not very adventurous there.
Got 2 great results with the play. Once with 88 vs a very aware/observant player. Flopped a set, but no A or K ever came up. I led and he called on the flop, turn, and river. He saw and mentally recorded the limp reraise with the 88. The other time was in a tight casino 4-8 game. I reraised with 66. Flop had an A. I bet the flop and turn and the preflop raiser folded.
The 2 other times, I folded later in the hand. One pot was multi-way and in the other one the preflop raiser continued to show real strength.
I have continued to limp (and try for a reraise) about half the time with AA and KK. Hopefully, my regular opponents will have some doubt as to whether this means AA or 77.
Has anyone else had good or bad results with this play? Are there other long term benefits or dangers?
Abe
What Typically do you buy in with when sitting down at these games? I would figure 20-30 times max bet but would like some other peoples opinions. What are some average swings (wins vs loses at this level of play?
When I play $5-$10 Stud at the Taj or Trop I buy in for $200 and dig into my wallet if I get down to $50 in chips, or so. I NEVER EVER EVER go all-in in a money game. Bring around $400-$500 or so with you to the table.
In 1to5 stud i buy in for 50$. In 5/10 he i buy in for 100$ and bring more money out of my pocket after the blinds go by, however some peope never like to go all in.
I agree, you should never go "all-in". What a shame to have a "monster hand" and not be able to win a big pot. Even if you win, you lose money (the $$ you would have won).
To prevent this from happening, I usually have cash under my chips. Example, I buy in for $100, but if my stack goes down to $60 or so, I'll take some cash out of my wallet and put it under the chips. If I run out of chips during a hand, the cash is "in-play".
Jack.
P.S To answer original question, I buy in for $100 & $150 respectively for 1-5 & 5-10 games.
Mike:
Phil's advice is pretty solid. 200$ is a good starting buy in for 5-10. For 1-5, I think about 120$ is a good estimate. You could certainly lose your whole buy-in pretty quick if you catch some big hands that get beat, but it usually doesn't happen that way. You still need extra $$ just in case you get a bad run of cards. My recommendations, based on my own experience:
If I'm down to less than 100$ in 5-10, I will buy at least 50$ more in chips. I like to have a minimum of 150$ at the start of any 5-10 stud hand. If I catch a monster, I want to be able to jam the pot with big bets!
In 1-5, if I am down to 50$ I will probably buy in for at least another 50$. It just doesn't pay to have to go all-in, so have sufficient cash on the table to play your cards.
The swings can be large in these games, but I find that holdem at the same limits is more volatile. 1-5 you could easily lose 100$ in a couple of hands. Once in 1-5 I lost with (AA)KK (on 4th), then lost with rolled up queens the very next hand I played, 10 minutes later. Since I really bet my hands, I was out 100$ in a very short time. In 5-10, I have had 550$ swings from the furthest down to the most up, and finished near even. Luckily, these big swings are not that common. Typical 5-10 swings for me are about 150$ either way, barring some occasionall big wins. (last week, 600$ in six hours! I wish that would happen all the time!). My biggest losses by far have been in 5-10 holdem, not stud.
Does anyone else think these are reasonable estimates? please elaborate if you think differently....
Dave in Cali
Thanks to everyone who has responded. I've played home games for years where the limits are $1 (sometimes up to $5). I usually do very well and have been reading up alot on playing here lately. I want to play some higher limit games but it is hard to find around Tulsa.
The $5-$10 Stud at the Sands has a 50 cent ante and a $2 bring-in on third street. 4th Street is $5 and 5th Street is $10.
However, 6th and 7th street betting rounds are in increments of $15. Does anyone have any general advice on how to adjust for this structure???
This game fascinates me but I am still not sure how to play optimally compared to a normal $5-$10 game. All comments are welcome.
I don't think you can let the structure affect you here. If you begin to fold too much on sixth and seventh street, you are bound to lose money. What do you think?
the structure will affect all sorts of things. the increased implied odds will help your draws. so taking a card off when you miss on fourth street will be correct more often than the customary 60%. also trying for a free card on 6th st., i.e. raising on fifth street, becomes a better play than it is under typical structure. perhaps you should hold your slow plays all the way to 6th, something that is rarely correct normally. of course, when making decisions to bluff, call a possible bluff, or value bet on end the larger bet changes the percentages some. however, the biggest thing you will be able to take advantage of is the other players incorrectly adjusting to the new structure. one player will stay in with less to have a shot at the bigger bets. another will be easy to bluff late in hands because the $15 bet scares him (noticing this tendency is extremely profitable). one guy might think everyone will fold to the larger bet and will bluff with anything.
other than adjusting for the increased implied odds, i don't think that you need to change much. slow plays are rare and, about the free card, 10/5 is greater than 15/10, so the free card on 5th for a raise on 4th is still a better deal. i hope this helps.
-scott
Hold'em ring game in casino: Is anyone at the table likely to object if I write down my starting hands in a notebook while at the table? Should I ask or just do it?
No one is likely to object, but it may not be a good idea for other reasons.
First, you may be labeled as a pro, even if you are not. The regulars may not give you as much action, especially if they think you are only playing for the $$$.
Second, you may be questioned about "what are you writing down, can I see it?".
Third, you may become unpopular if people get the wrong idea about what you may be writing down. While popularity isn't everything, a well liked player is likely to get more action. Just watch how tight even the weakest players get when someone who is disliked is winning their $$.
Of course these are just my opinions, some will probably disagree. You can keep a notebook, but don't over do it at the table. I often walk away to write stuff down, mostly because I don't want anyone to question me about what I'm writing. Keep the details of poker strategy to yourself. Write down the most important good (and bad) plays you make in a session, you don't need to remember every single hand.
Dave in Cali
Dave - Thanks. I wasn't aware of those negative ramifications. Too bad, though.
Kate, I've made notes at the table for years. I try not to be real obvious about it and every now and then someone will ask me what I write down. And I tell them. About once an hour I summarize the previous hour's play. Number of hands played, won, general character of the table, etc. It hasn't caused a problem yet.
DJ
Just do it. If someone doesn't like it, too bad for them. However, the lost action as mentioned in one of the replies above is a consideration (sometimes it might help you, however).
I would recommend keeping your notebook on a drink table next to you. That way it's below table level, and out of sight of everyone but the player on that side of you. You can just lean over a little and jot down your notes. When not writing, I recommend turning the notepad upside down, so no one sees what you're writing (they might be offended if they recognize themselves in the description that "seat 4 is loose, weak, and plays every hand, but you can easily bluff him on the river".
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg, Good idea. I was just planning to write down my starting hands, position, # callers in front, whether raised, and what I did (call, fold, raise). Maybe when I get comfortable with that and stop making beginner mistakes I can get more ambitious. Thanks, Kate
K't: Watch out for info overload. The Q? I always asked myself was "If I have to refer to my notes am I really giving a tell that a good player could use against me?" I found simplifing and working a instant recall techniques confused opponents after I made a few notes early in the game.
I've come up with a game which I call figleaf holdem. It's holdem with one of the two start cards turned up, so the start is exactly as for five-card stud. Then follows the flop and sixth and seventh as usual, with each player having only one hole card at the end.
I can't see it in any lists of variations, but it looks interesting. If anyone is interested in trying it out, let me know how it plays.
David Zanetti.
Sounds interesting, I shall try it at my next wild home game. A possible variation: make the river another down card for everyone instead of a 5th board card, so everyone has two down cards at the end! (possible problem - complaints about "miracle cards" will go way, way up!)
One thing about the structure you suggested is that you will be able to narrow down your opponent's hand much further if he has only 1 unknown card.
I shall let you know how it plays....
Dave in Cali
Here's a play I made in 5-10 stud, wondering what you guys thought...
I have (AsKs)Ac on 3rd. Bring in is 2$, next player raises with an Ad. Another calls, I reraise, both call, three players.
4th I catch a Kc, Ad catches another diamond. I am high, I bet 5, Ad raises 5, other player folds, I reraised, he called.
On 5th he caught a third diamond, I catch trash, I bet, he called.
On 6th he catches a fourth diamond, the king, I catch trash. He is now high, one of his diamonds is higher than my two rags. He bets, I call.
7th I catch nothing. He bets, I call. I decided the pot was too big for me to fold. I thought he played his hand more like an unimproved big pair than a flush, so I doubted that he had it. Some (but not all) of the diamonds were dead.
It turns out that I was right, he had (Ahxh) in the hole and his aces never made two pair, and he didn't fill the flush on the river. I made the right call but did I use the right reasoning to get there? Comments on the play of this hand?
Dave in Cali
It sounds like you played it right to me. You put him on either a big pocket pair or the other two aces. If he had a big pocket pair, one of them might be a diamond, one might not be. The key here is that with four diamonds on the board, your opponent will bluff enough times to make calling profitable. Unless your opponent is timid and never bluffs, you should call. You will run into a flush sometimes, but he's gonna have to show it to you. I'm not going to lay down a strong had such as AAKK, especially when his previous betting actions led me to believe that he wasn't going for diamonds.
I'm doing some research on poker history and evolution and am wondering if anyone can tell me when seven card stud first appeared. My understanding is that it became popular in the early sixties, but was it around for a while before that?
The dates of appearance of holdem and omaha will be easier, but has anyone got the exact year? And any info on who invented the games.
And what is the current status of five card stud. Is it only a home game now, or is it still spread in casinos?
david Zanetti.
There is (very rarely) a 5cs game in atlantic city. This game plus 10-20 draw are occasionally spread (if there's enough players for a list). It is still played in some dealer's choice home games that I have participated in. The old timers tend to like these games more than 7 card stud or holdem.
There are stripped deck variations of 5-card stud that make appearances in the cardrooms - Asian Stud and Mexican Stud are a couple that I've seen.
In general, though, 5-card stud is not played much, even in home games. It's too boring and its strategy is too abvious for most players.
I remember playing 7 card stud on a pool table while in the army in the mid fifties.It may be older then that? Hold-em was played in Washington state around 80-87.I have heard that hold-em was played in the northwest before Ca but dont know for sure.
If playing stud on a pool table and your cards fall into a pocket are these your hole cards? Get it? ha ha
I believe hold'em dates much further back than that. I was told it was invented in Texas - not just a clever name :-) - and may have been played during the early part of this century.
Chris Van Zele writes: "I believe hold'em dates much further back than that. I was told it was invented in Texas - not just a clever name :-) - and may have been played during the early part of this century. "
I'm absolutely amazed that both 7cs and holdem have pretty long histories. It seems incredible that two games which are now so popular were for so long playing second fiddle to five-card stud and draw. I
Can anyone point me to a book which covers this stuff?? IE poker evolution. .
I thought 7CS ("down the river") was a 1800s river boat game. I have a history of poker somewhere but couldn't find it. I believe poker came to be played in a fashion somewhat similar to its modern day form first in Louisiana through the influence of brag and poke from France. Later it was spread to the north in the US via the American civil war and then back to Europe during WWI. Maybe if you do some research on brag or poke you will find concrete info.
Me: K2KQ is garbage, even double suited. I'd consider it in an unraised small blind.
Badger: Well now... KsQsKd2c is an extremely profitable hand in a typical Omaha8 ring game! It is high variance though. You won't hit the flop very often, so it's not much of a hand in a tournament in the circumstances you were in. The advice in this thread though seems geared more generically, and IMO, is way off base. KK is a very prime Omaha8 hand, if it has any other decent values to go with it, which in this case KQ and the suit are. Love this hand for one bet on the button with a full table of limpers. The more out of position with less people for the more bets, the worse it is. But it should generally be played.
Me: Paint pairs are quite marginal hands in Omaha-8. In the rare cases you flop a set, you have to have it not lose to straights, flushes or higher sets, and when you do win you'll often only get half the pot. Also, these hands are tough to release accurately and as such frequently have to pay off when beaten. Suited kings are worth little in a loose O-8 game, and suited queens or jacks are worth close to nothing. KQ makes few straights, and many of those will lose to flushes and fulls in multiway pots. When you have very strong redraws, like KsQsKdJd, then the hand would be playable. Pot-limit Omaha players know that KQJ has far more straight potential than KQ; two-straights add very little value to a hand. Changing the jack to an offsuit deuce significantly reduces your straight and flush potential. Also, if you flop top two pair with QJ, you would have a strong hand in most games in many situations. Two pair with Q2 usually goes right in the muck unless the game is tight (in which case you should find another game).
Badger: This question is KK, not QQ or JJ. The difference between these three hands is very large -- IMO, something like the differance between (KK)100 and (QQ) 40 and (JJ)15.
Me: It isn't as large as you think, since in a loose game you need to hit your set.
Badger: KKQ2 double suited is even better than what I posted on (only one suit). This hand will scoop about 150% the amount of pots a random hand will when played against a 9-handed field. (It'll scoop about 10% of the time, and get half another 10% or so.)
Me: Showdown simulations are basically worthless. The question is also how much a hand wins when it wins and loses when it loses. When you flop a set in a pot that was unraised preflop and there is only one low card on board, you get won't much action. You'll only get significant action when low cards hit the board and on many of those hands you'll lose to flushes or low straights or at least only get half the pot.
Badger: The hand has enormous positive value, especially is a person plays well and makes sensible laydowns like when a flop is 776 and it's two bets to you. You just can't turn down a hand that scoops at such a high rate.
Me: It scoops small pots and loses ones that cost it several bets. Low draws and suited aces benefit from multiway action, while hands like this don't play well against large fields.
Who is right?
Hi Dan,
I am not Ray, but I thought I'd give you the following info.
KKsQs2 is not ready to be played too frequently. Your comment, "I'd consider it in the SB" is about right. Even KsQsKdJd, while playable (raisable), needs to be played carefully, and against strong competition is marginal, for the reasons you said.
I did some sims of KsQsKdJd, they were very interesting:
Strong player, strong field (dups of strong player): Small losses. .3 of a small bet per hand played.
Average player, average field: Small losses. Strong player, avg to weak field: Gains of .7 small bet per hand. Avg player, avg to weak field: Gains of .2 small bet.
Overall, it scoops about 13%, splits about 6% and no calls on starting raise about 6%. But losses to flushes and full houses are large, especially with sets and straights. It must be played very well to win.
Mark
First, Ray Zee is out of town. He should be back to the forum in approximately 10 days.
When playing Omaha 8 you generally want all four cards coordinated together. However, in late position, and this would include the small blind, if you can get in cheaply, you can play some hands for profit where only three cards are working together. This looks like one of those hands. So it becomes a marginal play if the conditions are right, especially if the game is good. On the other hand, if you never played it (or similar hands) you can't be costing yourself very much, and if your judgement is wrong, they may be costing you money.
See High Low Split Poker for Advanced Players for more discussion.
"When playing Omaha 8 you generally want all four cards coordinated together. However, in late position, and this would include the small blind, if you can get in cheaply, you can play some hands for profit where only three cards are working together. This looks like one of those hands. So it becomes a marginal play if the conditions are right, especially if the game is good. On the other hand, if you never played it (or similar hands) you can't be costing yourself very much, and if your judgement is wrong, they may be costing you money. See High Low Split Poker for Advanced Players for more discussion."
In HLSFAP, there are some examples of hands that might become playable in late position of unraised pots with many players in. Those examples are all two-way hands. In sections referring to high hands, HLSFAP emphasizes the importance of having the hand fully connected. This is presumably because you need the extra flush and/or straight potential to make paint pairs profitable. With KsQsKd2c, the queen and the suited king add very little value to the hand. I always fold a paint pair with nothing else in loose games, in accordance with HLSFAP. Are you suggesting that hands like KK93 rainbow are playable for one bet in late position of loose-passive games?
There is a limit to weak hands becoming profitable even against several bad opponents who are totally passive and call too much on and after the flop. However, something emphasized in the new edition of 7CSFAP is that a significant number of additional hands can be played in that type of game. Many otherwise solid players miss those opportunities and cost themselves a lot of profit. What about in Omaha-8; in late position of an unraised pot against a crowd of passive calling stations, can you loosen up more than HLSFAP's recommendations for "playing in loose games"? What additional hands would you play in this spot?
Dan, Mark, Mason, (Badger?),
I've always avoided calling for a full bet in any situation what many call the "three legged horse" Omaha H/L hand. Of course KKQx is about as good a three legged horse one would ever get. So maybe this is playable if everything is perfect. I'm no Badger.
My question is this. When comparing a hand like this (KKQ2) to one that coordinates (e.g., KKQJ), I look at the former hand as having about half the value of the latter hand. Is this a relatively valid rule of thumb?
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Badger, if you come in and flame me, can you be a little more verbose?
Post deleted at author's request.
Question? I play in Biloxi with a jackpot of four Js or better beat would this type of hand be more playable for no ,raise with KsKQ2s. Would it add to your calling frequency. With a jackpot consideration.
There was a recent thread with talk about a marginal 7cs hand. I played such a hand for a nice profit, but I was the bring in, so it was a bit different situation (5-10 stud).
3rd) I have (44)2 and bring it in for 2$, three other players just call.
4th) I catch a third four. Ace high, who didn't raise on 3rd, bets 5$. Two callers, I raise. One folds, others call.
5th) Ace is still high, catches a jack, bets again! I catch a blank. One caller, I raise again. Both call, three players.
6th) I catch an ace, ace catches a blank, other player has a three flush. Both check to me, I bet, both call.
7th) Both check to me, I bet again. Both call. Aces and queens for the one player, trip threes made on the river when his flush busted out for the other. I win a nice pot.
This is the perfect situation for the small pairs, no kicker: Get in cheaply and make trips on 4th, otherwise fold. If I had made two pair here, I would have probably folded, as it's not worth chasing. If the ace had not slowplayed his big pair on 3rd street, I would have never been in the pot at all, as I would have folded for a raise!
Comments welcome....
Dave in Cali
PS: on 3rd, I also had a TWO FLUSH!!!!! Oh joy!!!!
Dave,
You lucked out. You played this hand because you had to. You luckily made a hand on forth street. Because you were the bring in, your hand was even more deceptive. In general, however, these hands are probably best played in late position when you are sure you won't face a raise. As the bring in, you are the most likely to face a raise. You may then have to either fold, especially if you fear a reraise, or call as you were already were forced to bet once and the pot is now big enough to justify a call. This latter point I'm not too sure I understand as I don't see throwing good money after bad especially early on. I do, however, understand going in for at one more bet when you were merely forced to bet in the first place. Again, it may require being in late position.
Rich
You wrote:
"I do, however, understand going in for at one more bet when you were merely forced to bet in the first place. Again, it may require being in late position".
How big would you want the pot before calling a raise in 5-10 or 10-20? (Obviously the raise costs proportionately more in 10-20). Up till now, I have almost always folded without any question. The chance of a reraise made it an absolute no doubt decision. Pass in early position.
My policy has been to fold the bring-in if raised, in 1-5, 5-10, and my occasional 10-20. If any of these guys would have raised on 3rd, I would have folded and wrote off 2$ as a small loss.
I agree that coming in late with little or no chance of a raise makes it worth it to see 4th with these hands. Once you see 4th, it's either trips or hit the road, two pair ain't gonna cut it.
Does this sound reasonable? any other comments?
Seems reasonable to me. I do not know how much money would have to be in the pot for me to call. My gut reaction is that too many bets spells disaster for my hand, because someone's betting something good.
This is a hand played on Planet Poker this week with my poker student. My 15/30 - 20/40 Commerce player friend thinks I made a mistake and Ill let you decide who is right.
We enter a 5/10 holdem game and post a blind to the right of the button, as does a player to our right. We get dealt an AJo, Two players limp, the other blind checks, we check, the button calls as do both blinds. Note that in Planet Poker (in the absence of other information) the games play a little tighter than most games.
The flop comes J 4 3 rainbow. It is checked to us, we bet, button folds, SB calls, BB checkraises, others fold, and we three bet it. Both SB and BB call.
The turn is an offsuit seven. They check, we bet, both opponents call.
River is an eight. They check and we check it down.
My question concerns checking it down on the river. I thought that against two opponents who have called against that much pressure with no apparent draws (wouldnt a 65 have raised the turn?), we no longer had a reasonable value bet. My friend thinks we had a solid bet on the river. Comments, flames, etc. are welcome.
BTW, comments on my flop play are welcome but this is not the main point of this post.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Yeah, I know all about the problems with the random number generator on PP (refer to the Exchange). It still is a great teaching tool and we are mostly sticking to the lower limits.
I agree with the check on the river. The BB could have had a hand that beat you. He check-raised on the flop, right? I believe if you bet on the river and were called you would have lost the hand. Futhermore, if their hand is no good they would have not called the river bet so I don't see the value in betting.
I would bet. The reason I would do that is because you have to look at it from the other players' perspective. Most players (correctly) do not fold on the River with a weaker Jack or even 2nd pair. As well, if the fellow hit 2 pair on the River he would likely bet because he may fear that you may just check down a good Jack.
In low limit games, people are always griping about being drawn out on the river. Well, one of the ways to combat that is to make sure you value bet a lot more on the River because you will get crying calls with weak hands even when the weak hands don't go on to improve.
I gotta go to court and can't comment in more detail. BTW, I would also bet the River in the other hand where you had the K,10.
Thanks for all the responses.
We checked the river but I indicated to my student I thought it was close. A big factor in my decision to check was that I was up against two opponents and there was no draw out there that wasn't already made before the river (I'm thinking of the 65). Had we dropped one opponent before the river, I would definitely want to fire out a river bet just about no matter what comes.
That being said, with skp, David Steele, FossilMan, and Louie providing convincing reasons to bet, I think I'll be a little more aggressive next time.
Regards,
Rick
I would normally bet the river here and I agree with what skp posted.
David
One of the main points here is that all three players essentially saw the flop for free (admittedly, the SB had to put in some more money, but there were 6.5 bets out there when he called, so he knows he's getting great pot odds for almost any hand).
Given this, it is VERY hard to put anyone on a hand. The BB could easily have a J weaker than AJ. He could also have 34 for 2-pair, and your 3-bet scared him into thinking you had J3, J4, or better (it's not like you really called preflop). Thus, in my mind, the reasons for betting the river revolve around the relative likelihoods of KJ or worse vs. 34 or better, both of which will probably call you. As for the SB, I put him on something like 75 calling for a gutshot and the size of the pot (although your 3-bet should have folded him).
Overall, I would bet here. It's close, but there is the advantage that if you don't bet, it makes it easier for the opponent to more correctly fold in the future when you bet stronger hands than this. Betting hands that actually lose a very little when called is overall maybe the right place to draw the line.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Do not fear the 8. ANY card can make the blinds 2-pair.
You are correct that your main fear was whether or not you had the best hand going into the river. Yes, the only real draw got there when the 7 hit.
I'd have bet it. They should have put more action in if they had 2-pair, and you are new and they are suspitious. In fact, I'd have bet no matter what card came on the river. Any card can make 2-pair, and if someone called all the way with a stiff K or Q, well, nice hand and he deserves another bet.
- Louie
Here is another hand from Planet Poker and again my mid limit Commerce player friend thinks Im wrong.
We (my student and I) have only been playing a while against what appears to be typical medium tight (for 3/6 holdem) Planet Poker players. We call four limpers with a KTs on the button. The SB folds and BB checks.
The flop comes a K 8 3 rainbow. It is checked to us and we bet. All fold except the player on our right who had just entered the game (so we knew nothing about him).
The turn is an ace (I forget if it was suited). Our opponent checks and we decide to check. My reasoning was that I am in an either or position. By this I mean I am either already beat (most likely by a better king or an ace) or I still lead and am not too vulnerable to free cards. My friend (who is eating me out of house and home as I write) agrees with the check.
The river is a nine (no flush possible). My opponent checks. This time I wont give away what I did. Should I check or bet the river?
Regards,
Rick
Bet the river, after trhe check on the turn any thing that has you beat would have bet the river.
oops, after reading Badger's responce I went back and read the oringinal post again. I misread it the first time; I agree with Badger.
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger,
"A somewhat revenue neutral question." Did you work for the government in a former life? Anyway, it sounds like you are saying it is close.
"Betting just adds variance." Good thought here. I think there could be a worthwhile thread on how to reduce your variance * (which is important if on a short bankroll for the limit, in tournaments a lot of the time, and so on). Obviously this is such a situation.
Keep Posting,
Rick
* I realize David and Mason have written about this, but I'm thinking of listing more specific techniques. It is a worthwhile subject in view of what John Feeney has written about moving up in his recent essay. If you are a 15/30 - 20/40 player and comfortable at that limit, and the 40/80 sometimes looks juicy but just a little too big, then it is very worthwhile.
I agree. Similarly, I think simply calling a bettor down with TT on a T44Q2 board is the way to go too. It's pretty revenue neutral, sometimes you'd win an extra bet if you raise, sometimes lose a couple more if you don't have the best hand. Just call 'em down and hope he doesn't have 44 or QQ.
Since you have no information about your opponent, a check is reasonable on the turn (since you could be check-raised). But, if you bet on the river, you may be called since you showed weakness on the turn by not betting. So, I would also check the river.
Mah,
You wrote: "But, if you bet on the river, you may be called since you showed weakness on the turn by not betting. So, I would also check the river.
In general, doesn't it seem that after you have shown weakness on the turn (by checking behind), and your opponent still checks the river, you should be more inclined to bet a marginal hand since he would tend to bet more of his half-decent hands (fearing that he would lose a bet). This of course applies mostly to situations where there are no likely draws out there.
Regards,
Rick
I know that you posed the question to Mah but I'll answer it as well: "Absolutely".
If your opponents hand was better than yours, he would have raised you on the flop? Do you really want him to call you on the river? If you bet that hand on the river do you think he would have called? What's the point. I don't get it.
Mah,
"If your opponents hand was better than yours, he would have raised you on the flop?"
I think most better hands (I'm thinking AK, KQ or KJ) or even worse kings would have bet the flop from my immediate right. If they were slowplaying a big hand like a set, they might check the turn. But once we checked behind they would have to bet the river or else fear losing a bet.
"Do you really want him to call you on the river?"
Yes. Remember, this is 3/6 holdem. Many hands will call that you can beat after you showed weakness on a previous betting round.
"If you bet that hand on the river do you think he would have called? What's the point. I don't get it."
Read FossilMan's reply below. He hits it on the head IMHO.
Regards,
Rick
I say check the river, that way you avoid being wrong in your judgement. You already get to show it down for free, and a bet may be check-raised. You have a marginal hand at best (and you may be beat), so just showing down and possibly winning a small pot is not a bad end result for this hand.
Rick,
It depends on how often you bluff the river in this situation. If you do tend to bluff, then tend towards value betting the river.
hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Albert,
(Note: I tried to post this message this morning but my connection was bad.)
In general, I tend to induce a lot of bluffs which to an extent was what I was trying to do by checking the turn.
I rarely make a pure bluff in a situation where I think my opponent has something (what else could he have on the flop?), I have shown weakness on the turn, and he has already checked to me which often indicates he is in a "calling mode". Besides, what kind of bluffing hands could I have with this flop?
Regards,
Rick
Hi,
I read all the responses which say "check the river." Ok, that is ok. But betting against SOME weak players ALWAYS wins an extra bet, their check of the turn AND river means they lose but will call, especially in 3/6 or 4/8.
Mark
I would likely bet unless I thought it was very timid player or an exceptionally tricky one. The opponent has shown just a little too much weakness to let this go by check-check and will quite possibly call with an 8 or some other worse pair.
David
I think a bet here would be profitable. Typical players would most likely bet a hand that could beat you here. They will also call you down with almost any pair after your check on the turn thinking that you may be bluffing the end. Unless this is a really tricky player (obviously you did not have any info on this particular opponent), I would bet the river.
Just my opinions.
Rob
If I were your opponent, I would put you on an 8. While I realize that other hands cannot be excluded (including the one you actually have), your check on the turn makes a K less likely (even with the A falling). I certainly don't put you on an A. Thus, I am going to call the river with any hand that beats an 8, and some that don't (you also might have only a 3, so pocket pairs 44-77 also become calling hands here, IMO). Thus, you should bet the river for value, figuring that more than half the hands that call you will lose.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I would bet the river for two reasons:
1. Value, expecting to earn an additional bet from someone with an 8, 9 , or a pair who thinks I might be stealing.
2. To give me some protection in future scenarios when I want (need) to steal on the river.
If I get check-raised from the Ace who has the discipline to check it twice, I start looking for a table move, cause this crowd is too tough for a typical 3/6 game.
Bet! Bet the turn! This is a 3-6 game. YOu did not raise pre-flop so the player on your right isn't "scared" of your hand. If he had flopped top pair (ie. K) he most likely would have bet it. Thus, he probably does not have top pair so he either has "something goofy" or a BIG hand (a flopped set). When the ace hits the turn bet! Many many 3-6 players will call your flop bet with underpair, three flush or any other number of goofy hands. He might have an ace, but my tendency will be to bet the turn and check the river. Or... bet the turn AND the river depending on the player. I realize you said you know nothing about him, but c'mon he just pulled into a 3-6 game he PROBABLY is making a lot of bad decisions.
If you get check-raised on the turn... fold. Then on the river you either check it down or bet again depending upon your knowledge of the player.
Regards, Dave Scharf
Thanks again for the responses.
I thought this was an easy bet on the river. I couldn't imagine most players with a better hand checking a second time after we checked the turn (the exeption may be a better king, but wouldn't such a hand bet the flop?).
I agree with FossilMan that any hand that can beat an eight would call us and perhaps a worse hand would too.
Anyway, it seems about four to two in favor of betting (I won't count people who change their mind after a mere WSOP champion weighs in :-) ).
In the final analysis, my friend and I split but he still ate me out of house and home.
Regards,
Rick
I check the river. I'm not much on river betting with margunal hands. The biggest problem I see with your play during this hand is just calling preflop. It seems to me that the most correct play would be to raise!
Vince.
A few friends and I were discussing how to play quads when you flop them.
Both of them came right out with the idea that you should check all the way down to the river if you have to, hoping someone will make a hand and be able to pay you off.
My take on the situation is somewhat different. I want to bet the hand right down to the river, hoping someone will pay me just to draw to the hand that they will then have to pay me off with when they get there.
Thoughts?
You have to whatever is necessary to get the pot as big as possible. I wouldn't start raising until the big bets come around, let everyone get a nice little hand going first....
It might be "time to raise" on the turn, depending on the action. Otherwise, you hope to get in a raise on the river.
I would at least get one bet in on the flop if everyone checked to me and I was last. Someone might accidentally have a hand, or someone might feel like chasing in a loose game....
Of course, It's entirely possible you might make more $$ by overcalling the whole way, it all just depends on the situation. Do whatever it takes to build a giant pot.
Hope you have to deal with this situation often....
Dave in Cali
It's a function of the board, how many opponents you have and their inclination to call with junk (whether because they think you're a thief or otherwise) or bet when you show weakness. Even against one opponent willing to do neither you should often bet because of its effect on your image, including how the rest of the table will perceive you. Remember that slowplaying can not only cost you bets on that round but also future pots against players that "know" you can't have the nuts. Also note that if your opponent can hit a big hand with only two cards to come, he often already has a little something with which to call and, further, that nobody but a completely clueless opponent is going to put in a bunch of bets for value at the end with a board pair staring at him and you suddenly leaping out of the trees.
If I flopped quads often enough to have a tendency here it would be to bet with terrifying or junky flops (e.g. AJJ and 622) because my opponents won't believe it and with other flops of which my opponents might have a little piece (e.g. 877 two-suited).
The harder question is "what difference does it make?" Flopped quads are so rare that the money you make off them (in limit poker) can't have much effect on your earn. So don't argue over it.
The other two posts were good ones. Your inclination to make them pay to MAKE the hand is a good one.
The flop is KK2 and there are 2 weak-tights in the game?, well be happy if you get even one bet so check-along ("come-onnnnn Ace").
The flop is T9s9 and there are 5 passive callers? Who didn't get a gut shot to that flop? Be inclined to win a very large pot.
- Louie
Good timing on this post, cause I was just going to put up a question on a similar topic.
Saturday night 5-10 loose home game. I am the sb with two red nines. Four limpers to me. I call as does the bb. Six of us see the flop of all black 9 9 5. My check was followed by all check. Turn is a red A. I checked again--as did everyone else. River was a red K. I bet and got one call.
I felt terrible about this. Haven't played a hand this bad since Junior High School. My action on every street I now think was wrong. Worst is the check on the flop. With this many preflop callers, probably someone will have something.
What are others opinions on betting out from the blind, and also the number of other players still to act?
You think that's bad...check this one out:
BB in a 5 way pot holds 9s6s. Flop is 5s7s8s. He checks. Everyone checks.
Turn: 8d. He checks. Everyone checks.
River: Js
Our hero figures that this must make someone happy. He checks. Everyone checks until the button who thinks about it for a sec and just flips over his Qs and says "send it". Our Hero then shows his straight flush. Button looks at him and says "you built it, you take it".
On your play, I think a check on the flop is fine particularly if the flop was a rainbow one. However, as I think you realize, you have to at least bet the turn when no one bets the flop. If someone has a weak Ace, they may not necessarily bet (fearing someon's sandbagging a 9) but they will most likely call (or even raise).
Wow! That is an ugly hand. Flop the straight flush and then have the three rounds all checked. I don't think you were the button QQ in that hand either. You would have raised preflop, and probably bet the flop too.
What about this thought on the quads flop. Doesn't betting out (especially from early position) INTO A LARGE FIELD kind of announce that you have a trip card? And obviously (only to you) no one else does.
skp, thanks for looking at this with me.
Abe
It depends on the texture of the flop. If I have 99 and the flop is 998 with two clubs, I don't mind betting. But if the flop is 995 rainbow, I would have to check aginst a large field.
i flopped quad sevens in a 6-12 game at the mirage in vegas...a pretty tough game. i was in first position with 3 people behind me. i checked and everyone checked around. the turn was a low card...i checked and everyone checked again. the river brought a queen...i bet...3 queens called me.. i dont think i could have made any more money by betting on earlier rounds
Obviously, correct play of quads depends on position, magnitude of the quads, character of the table, character of the flop and preflop betting. Generally .... with a KK2 flop ... check to the river. with a k22 flop ... UTG check, on the button bet the flop
if it's checked around ... and call with a 766 2 suited flop, bet out ... many will put you
on a 7 or a str8 or flush draw or a single 6
when they have a str8 or flush draw or overpair
One of the largest *headup* pots I've seen resulted from a loose player coming out firing UTG with a J66 flop. Another player had AJ and caught a J on the turn. He put the other player on a single 6 simply because he did bet out UTG. He thot that with Quads, he'd slowplay.
5-10 must move game. Four 10-20 regulars are in the game.
I have AsJs in middle position. One limper, I raise, one call, button calls, both blinds call. 5 players.
Flop is Jh7s5h. Checked to me, I bet. Button and both blinds call, 4 players.
Turn is 10d. Checked to me, I bet. Button folds, SB (10-20 regular) check-raises me. BB fold, I call, Heads up.
My read is that he is bluffing. I suspect he may have bluffed me out of an earlier pot, but he never showed his hand so I wasn't sure. I thought he had to be bluffing by the way he played. The turn did not fill anyone's draws, and if he had JT, there is no way he wouldn't have bet on the flop. He was a pretty aggressive player and I was sure he would have bet. the only hand he could have had was JT, and he Didn't have it. Or so I decided....
River is the Qh. I might really be beat now, but I'm calling him down anyway.... The pot was pretty big and I wasn't making another critical mistake! He bets, I call. He had Ad7d.
Comments?
Dave in Cali
Dave:
The biggest problem I see with your opponent's play is that the events before the turn makes it difficult for him him to represent anything besides a semibluff, and with this board there are a lot of semibluffing hands out there. On the other hand, he might not care because the vast majority of the cards left in the deck (everything except a 4, 3, or 2) might have induced you to either check behind him or fold, which gives him a certain flexibility on the river.
But overall I like his play because (1) if your earlier laydown were evidence that you were timid or afraid of him, he might have gotten you to lay down a better hand; (2) if you were bluffing or semi-bluffing here, he would either have picked up a good-sized pot on the turn or won it later while making an indelible impression on you; (3) if you were really suspicious of him based on your prior play (I guess you were), you might have just called him with nothing. Good for you for picking hm off because he probably won't be trying to run over you even in spots where he really ought to be trying.
Maybe his mistake was in representing his hitting a double gutshot on the turn because these are so hard to see. ;-).
Am I the only one that thought "set" when he check-raised?
I think he played the hand very poorly. If he was going to check-raise he should have done it on the flop since he's likely to have the better hand AND he's likely beat if you bet the turn (people bet weak hands MUCH more often on the flop). His turn-check raise was bad since if you don't have a pair to pay him off with, you surely have at least a 2-overcard gut shot and are going to call. His bet on the end wasn't so bad since now you MAY lay down your JJs or TTs now that the Q hit.
Nice read figuring he'll attempt another bluff.
Are you SURE he didn't pick up a 4-flush on the turn?
- Louie
Most players in the 5-10 games I have played in will play a set just like this. That being said, you obviously knew your opponent and rightly called him down.
Danny S
He did not pick up a four flush on the turn, that I remember clearly.
As for his having a set, if he had played like he really had a set he might have been successful in getting me to lay down again. He could have easily check-raised on the flop. When he checked and called on the flop, I had no reason to suspect he had anything but a draw.
I agree he played badly, which is the main reason I got suspicious and called him down. He was actually one of the BETTER players in this game (it was a Good game). We became short handed a while later. I held my own against the higher limit players, while making about 150$ before the game broke up.
Thanks for the responses...
Dave in Cali
This is a repeat of an earlier query. thanks for the replies, but no one seems to be sure when 7cs was invented, but it was around in the fifties. But would it have been invented before 1950?
David Zanetti
John McDonald writes about 7 hi-lo being played in the Twenties. My guess is that 7CS must go back further than that. Maybe the turn of the century?
Phat Mack writes >John McDonald writes about 7 hi-lo being played in the Twenties. My guess is that 7CS must go back further than that. Maybe the turn of the century?<
I was out by a long way. I thought the rapid increase in popularity of seven card stud in the sixties was due to it being a newish game. Maybe it was just because it was so suited to the new casino market.
has anyone got a narrower time frame for first appearance of 7CS?
I thought it was time to move up and was looking for a $5-$10 at Balley's AC. I sat at what I thought was a straight 5-10, but instead found myself at a 5-10-15-20. This was the biggest game I ever sat at and was a bit nervous at the time. In addition my stack was only $300.
After playing for a few hours I didn't think the players were much better than in a $1-$5, in fact they were more consistent and certainly not wild. The game was somewhat tight agressive. (Please excuse some of the missing details. This hand was played last Monday)
In this particular hand I found myself with a pair of 7s split with $2 to call and three players remaining to act. I call, everyone folds. It is the opener and me. This guy is very readable and very aggressive.
3rd street: opener: ??, 6 me: 7?, 7
4th street: opener: ??, 6 6 me: 7?, 7 ?
Opener checks. At this point anyone would put him on trip sixes so I just check. "He is trying to sucker me in." I say to myself. If he only had sixes he should bet and hope I fold. I am out unless I get a 7.
5th street: opener: ??, 6 6 ? me: 7?, 7 ? 7
That's right. The 7 falls and I now I have him. I bet 10 and he raises 10 and I call.
6th street: opener: ??, 6 6 ? ? (no flush or straight) me: 7?, 7 ? 7 ? (no flush or straight)
I bet 15 and he calls. On 7th street I don't fill up and I check and he bets 20. I call and he is full. I think I played the hand well and I though that the opener was silly to have bet into me with 6's full since I would have checked if I was full anyway. My friend who was sitting at the same table said I played it ok. He suggested I could have checked on 5th (6s would bet) and then bet out $15 on 6th (6s would raise) and then reraise $15 when the opener raises. Then check on 7th either way.
What do you think about the hand?
I played a 7 hour session and won $295. I don't think I will play $1-$5 again. How much money do you suggest I have for this type of game?
Somewhat tight aggressive games are generally NOT good games.
Good read, there are players who will always bet weak hands (like 66 only) but check trips. DOH!
The combination of calling the 5th street raise and betting on 6th is wrong. Either 3-bet 5th or check-raise 6th. Check-raise is better for THIS game since its more expensive (AND this aggressive guy is a sinch to bet), otherwise lets not get tricky and just 3-bet 5th.
Why would you not bet trip 7s only into someone who has trip 6s ONLY going into the river? He's an underdog to make it (with 10 live card outs he's still a 2:1 dog) and is SURE to call and almost-SURE to check behind you. One of the author's theory books discusses this point very well.
- Louie
Just curious since I've never been to Bally's before.
1. How often and what times does this game go down?
2. How does this card room compare to the Taj and the Trop?
I have never played at the Taj or at Trop. This game was being played in the afternoon on Labor Day. And like I said in my post it was the first game I played in those stakes. I love Balley's card room and that is why I play there. I don't like to be distracted by people or the other games like at the Sands. I walked into the Taj card room once and it seemed too crowded.
Hope this helps ... Mike
Bally's usually has only 3-5 tables going, even at peak times. The only game I've ever seen there is stud high. There's usually one table of 5-10-15-20, and the rest are 1-5. Once I saw 15-30-45-60. The Taj and Trop have much larger rooms, with holdem, Omaha-8, Omaha high and stud high (and the Trop also spreads stud-8), spread at normal structures (5-10, 10-20, 15-30...), at a variety of limits.
I'll refresh the set-up. You have AJo under the gun and raise. A well known opponent 3-bets from the small blind and your are sure he has AA, KK or AK. Is it correct to call one more bet pre-flop when there are 6 bets in the pot already?
David Sklansky writes "Thus even if it was wrong to call with AJ, that would be irrelevant to the point of this problem. That being said, those who think that you should throw your hand away for one small bet with six bets in their already and you acting last are wrong. But that deserves a seperate thread. "
How can this issue be settled? I have an idea. Let's use everyone's favorite tool, Turbo Texas Hold'em to simulate the situation. Stop laughing! Have you a better idea? Please don't post something like "An expert would see the folly of this in an instant. How can I be expected to explain it to the likes of you."
Here's my 30 minute worth of simulation results.
AJ vs AK loses only 1.76 sb per hand played. This is actually a profit since you have 2 sb commited at the time you are 3-bet. Your profit is 0.24 sb per hand.
AJ vs KK loses 2.48 SB per hand. Net loss is 0.48 sb per hand played.
AJ vs AA is hopeless, losing 6.1 sb per hand for a net loss of 4.1 sb per hand played.
We now need to normalize the results because of their different frequencies of occurance.
AJ vs AK 4/7 x +0.24 = +.137 sb
AJ vs KK 2/7 x -0.48 = - .137 sb
AJ vs AA 1/7 x -4.1 = -.585 sb
Add the three results and you'll see this simulation suggests calling the 3-bet is an error of 6/10 of a small bet or roughly 1/3 - 1/2 of an hour's worth of profit for a winning player.
Remember, your mileage may vary. Not every expert plays as well as Turbo Texas Hold'em all though quite a few do. Stop laughing!
Scott
Your method doesn't work because you're not imparting your knowledge of your opponent's hand to the computer player profile holding AJ. Unlike you, the computer won't know exactly when to fold when behind or raise when ahead. Just do a cold simulation of AJ versus the various combinations of hands. AJ should win about 25-26% of the time, making a call getting 6-1 odds + implied seem easy.
Chris writes "Your method doesn't work because you're not imparting your knowledge of your opponent's hand to the computer player profile holding AJ. Unlike you, the computer won't know exactly when to fold when behind or raise when ahead."
A valid point however in the actual hand you rarely know when you're ahead or behind. Let's say you flop an ace only. Your opponent bets. What do you do? 2/7 of the time you're ahead and 5/7 of the time you're nearly dead. How do you minimize your losses here?
Your best flop is jack high (one pair hands only considered). Even with this you are ahead only 4/7 of the time and the action you get will be modest. Keep in mind you'll get this type of flop only occasionally, perhaps one time in eight (i'm guessing here). 3/7 of the time, when you are behind, you'll give good action and be drawing thin or dead.
There is some value to knowing your opponent has such a small range of hands and there will be times when you have him nutted - and know it - and get good action, however they are a very small number of the possible cases (JJx flops for instance - x <> A,K).
Scott
First of all, if an ace flops you you will be ahead 2/5 of the time not, 2/7. A raise on the flop followed by a fold if reraised will save lots of bets against most players. Secondly I suspect turbo is taking at least one card off when the flop comes rags which you would not do. Thirdly if a jack flops you will still get away cheaply if a king shows or if your opponent shows strength. These factors should swing it.
"These factors should swing it."
Question.
How good do you think one should be before it can swing it?(idiot, ok, good, pro, expert)
I don't trust Turbo for this kind of detailed analysis. I have just programmed a "never fold, never bet, always call" profile. With two of these heads up, you end up with an accurate hot-and-cold analysis of how these hands rate.
Then we can subjectively apply factors such as position and such things as Sklansky pointed out. I'm sure that there are some opponents who are so predictable (such as those that ONLY 3-bet with AA, KK, or AK) that YOUR implied odds are better than theirs.
Some important nits:
You do NOT "already" have 2 bets invested. Its only 6:1 to call, heads up, it doesn't batter how the money got in there.
Play at least 50K hands.
You also need to do some changing of the hands to account for the way the suits of the cards match up.
- Louie
You raise under the gun with AK or AQ and get several callers. The flop is rags, missing you completely. When does it make sense to check-raise semi-bluff in this position? Under what conditions? If you try this play, what is correct strategy on the turn and the river?
Check-raising in that situation will look suspicious to your opponents. I'd check and either give it up or call once and hope for an overcard on the turn. I believe this isn't the spot for anything tricky.
The time to check-raise bluff is on the turn out of the blind positions, in my opinion. A blind can have any two cards and has more credibility in representing a legitmate hand.
Does everybody agree? Seems to me they've got to acknowledge you may have a big pair, which would warrant the bet after the flop. If no big cards hit, there's an opportunity to steal on the turn, made more powerful by the earlier check-raise. Opinions?
It's not really a semi-bluff if there's zero chance the opponents will all fold. When was the last time your opponent(s) folded to a flop check-raise? If you play in the same type of game I do then this just doesn't happen.
Scott
First, this probably should not be a common play for you to make. When I make this play, here is the most common scenario. I check the flop, and everyone checks around to a player who likes to bet his draws on the flop, or who likes to bet anytime we all check to him. Then, there is no one between me and the bettor, or anyone in between folds. Now, I can raise and eliminate (hopefully) everyone else. I expect the bettor to call me, but now I can win unimproved if he was bluffing or betting a draw. Thus, if he was merely betting a straight draw, I will win well more than half the time. Add in the dead money, and this raise is great.
However, you must be pretty sure that he's betting a draw, and that the other players will fold. If the game is so loose that they will still all call, or if the bettor is not a habitual bluffer/semi-bluffer, then just fold.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I agree that this is not something you should try every hand, although, if you are playing every hand, you have bigger problems. Something I might try is to bet the flop, putting thoughts of a pocket overpair to the rag flop in your opponent's heads. After all, you did raise pre-flop. Then, check-raise on the turn. Sometimes they'll figure you're trapping, and lay it down right there. Of course, you must know your players. It worked for me in a holdem hand at the TOC, but I tried it on Erik Seidel. Naturally, you won't be facing a player of his caliber every day, capable of good laydowns. But when it works, you feel like you really earned your money. God, I love this game! Good Luck, Frank Brabec NUT-Z
I've played poker on and off for 2 years now (1-5 SCS) and seem to be losing at the rate of 5-7 bucks an hour. Long time ago I a small booklet which explained pot odds, raising, and starting hands.
I just received D Sklansky's SCS for Advanced players, and even though it seems to be an awsome book, I feel as though my knowledge of the game has many holes in it such as why does a high pair play better heads up and a possible straight plays better with several players in the pot.
Will Mr. Sklansky's 'Theory of Poker' and Mr. Cook's collection of writings help me? I really don't wnt to buy a dozen or more books which will at best be confusing.
So, here's my future collection:
Theory of Poker SCS for Advanced Players Roy Cooke's collection.
Comments please!!
John
Roy's book is maimly about holdem.
John,
If you play 7CS, I would recommend the following.
1) Theory of Poker David Sklansky
2) 42 Lessons 7CS course Roy West
TOP gives great poker knowledge and great thinking techniques. 42L/7CS is a terrific, easy to read book for LOW and medium limit 7CS. I read it when I started and think it is the best low limit/beginner stud book out there.
3) After you read TOP and 42L/7CS and begin to play better, make sure your re-read 7CS for advanced players again. It will make more sense. The 2nd time (9 months after reading it originally) I found it to be much more understanding and useful. It is a great book, and I was able to absorb the information and apply it to the low/mid limit game where appropriate.
P.S Turbo 7CS computer simulator is GREAT and will help newer players.
Good luck,
Jack
Mo: I also recommend Roy West's book. As for one example try this. Deal out 2 opponent hands,give yourself a hand with a pair of Aces and another card, and see how many hands you win. Now deal out 7 opponent hands with your same hand containing a pair of Aces, and now see how many hands you win. Does a pair of Aces (or any pair for that matter), play better verses 2 opponents or a field of 7? Good Luck.
I can't comment on 7-Stud specific books, since I basically am Hold-em only player at them moment.
However, I can definitely recommend Sklansky's "Theory of Poker". I own about 8 poker books and it is by the most generally useful, regardless of game. If there was a PhD program in gambling theory, it would have been an award-winning thesis, and then some.
I've only recently acquired Super/System and am still digesting it, so I withhold comment.
--james
If you really like 7CS(asI do),spend the $25 and get Roy West's book.
7 Stud: 7 Card Stud for Advanced Players S&M+Z
Holdem: Holdem Poker for Advance Players. S&M+Z
General: Poker Essay's II (Malmuth)
The only books you will ever need.
Vince.
Mr. Sklansky, you separate the different flops in your book into three categories; Excellent, Good, and Fair. I'm having trouble fitting the concepts of slowplay, checkraise, semi-bluff, raise, etc..... with this chapter; here's an example of what I mean
First two cards
Excellent Good Fair AA KJ4 T33 QQ3
What concepts should apply when I flop the column that fits my cards, or have you already answered this question in your book
Frankly I feel this is the most exciting chapter in any poker book I've seen because to me it gives me the power to know when someone with a likely second best hand would be betting into you when you have them beat(excellent category) and I suppose you can really punish other players with these concepts, however I'm more shady on the good and fair flop categories.
I'm asking what strategies would be best to apply to the Excellent, Good, and Fair categories, it seems a little vague to me on how to use this great information. -thanks -Salamander
IMO, to answer this question, one needs to write a book or, at least, a chapter of a book. Perhaps Sklansky can give you a concise answer.
These hands were played in a two-day tournament with 15 players starting at 10,000 each. There were eight players at my table.
HAND 1
Early on I found myself heads up in the big blind against the small blind, a good aggressive player. I believe he perceives me as weak tight, which is about right, unfortunately. Blinds were 25-50 and he raised 100, which I think he would do with a wide range of hands. I found AJs and raised another 300. He called.
The flop was ATT. I checked and he checked. Turn was a low card and I bet 500. He raised to 2,000. I thought for about 20 seconds and called his raise. The river brought an ace. I checked as did he.
HAND 2
About an hour later the blinds were 50-100 with 25 ante. I was dealt AsKd UTG and raised to 400. A solid player with a large stack (~20k) called in the small blind and the big blind also called. The solid player was new to me. I had been watching him for the two hours we had played so far but that was about all. The flop came Ad5d2c and I bet 1,000 after the others had checked to me. The solid player made it 3,500 (actually this made me think AK) and the big blind mucked. Now what?
My no-limit play certainly needs work. I think I would benefit greatly from your opinions.
Thanks
--- Chris
HAND 1:
Since you were last to act I would have checked the turn. I think your bet on the turn was risky, as you see, he check-raised you (I think this was an atempt to make you lay down your hand). On the river I would have underbet the pot for an amount he would call. He may interpret this as a weak bet and reraise you.
HAND 2:
I need to know what your stack size was at this point. If you were relatively small compared to your opponent he could have used any hand to knock you off.
Thank you for your reply and sorry for the missing info. I had 14,000.
--- Chris
HAND 2:
With only 14,000 he could be bluffing you, but it would be very dangerous to continue. Since, a lot of players will play any Ace with a little kicker, plus the straight combination would make me muck it. Some players will raise with small straight combinations when their stacks are relatively large. With the flop that came, I would not call the bet.
Hand 1
You either pulled a miracle card or are tied with him...no way are you behind. You have to bet there (either a real big amount or a real small one...given your impression of his image of you, the big bet probably will not work though) to try and get him to call with a T or come over the top with a bluff.
Hand 2
I find it would be rather impossible to fold here. It is likely that he interpreted your smallish bet (smaller than the pot of 1450) as a sign that you had a big pair and is either making a move with an ace (or actually has one). You have nut back-door flush draw and if he did flop two pair, you have K and board pairing outs. I expect he had a worse A or a diamond draw. I don't think he would check-raise here with a set or a 34...he'd wait for the turn.
Please re-explain hand 1. You say you were the BB, and your single opponent was the SB. Then, you explain the action as if you were always acting first rather than last. I can't believe you checked the river AFTER the SB checked, as you have the nuts. Please clarify.
As for hand 2, it all depends upon the player. With some players I would call, and then go all-in on the turn when the flush failed to arrive. Against others I would go all-in now, knowing they would give up their draw. Against still others I would fold without any doubt that they had 2-pair or better.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg, TKChuck, mah,
Thank you for putting in the time to try to answer my questions. I must apologize for wasting your time and bandwidth with confusing and incorrect information. I played these hands ten days ago and I didn't put enough effort in trying to recollect what exactly happened. Once again, sorry.
HAND 1
The aggressive player was on the button. At this stage there was still a player between us who moved to the other table shortly after this hand, which has confused my memory. This also means I have to re-evaluate his holding since he is not quite as likely to have a weak starting hand when not heads up against me (who he perceives as somewhat weak-tight). Having said this, he is in a steal position and he does not have that much respect for the player between us either.
Moreover, the turn was not a low card. I just blundered when writing it down in my post. Turn was a Q with no flush possible. (I fully understand that this hand now is completely different from my pervious story.) When I checked the river my reasoning was that he would not call a weak-tight player with a hand less than aces full, and that there was a danger of him having AQ, which will cost me. At the same time I wanted to give him a chance to bluff.
In hindsight, the chance of him having AQ (or TT) is small, while KJ ot TX is much more likely. I also think he would likely call a small bet with these hands. I overestimated this player's ability to read my hand.
My bet and call on the turn are once again open for discussion. BTW, I had about 10k at the start of this hand.
HAND 2
This hand I got almost right. The wheel cards were there and there was a two-flush. However, the board might have been A35 rather than A25. In any event, I don't (and didn't) think this player would call a raise with 34.
I folded, and the truth is I did it primarily because I didn't want to bust out of this, by my standards, rather expensive tournament. After the hand, I kicked myself for folding this hand against this player. I don't know how I should have played it.
I believe my no-limit play sucks and I suspect these hands show parts of what is wrong. I need help to figure it out. Thank you for your time.
--- Chris
Im looking for any suggestions in selecting my first poker book.
My intentions are to be able to make money in poker rooms and casinos on a regular basis. I have no preference in specializing in one game or learning more than one very well. I am open to suggestions.
I am a blackjack card counter as well as a video poker player (for profit). I play poker weekly with frineds and often win. I know all the games but I want to take it to the next level.
Any help would be great. Thanks for the time!
Just Me (You?) (Who?),
My answer may surprise many of the readers of the forum who I believe would pick the Theory of Poker by David Sklansky (an excellent choice which I would get in the top three or so).
Try Getting the Best of It by David Sklansky. It is about half on poker and half on other games. I believe it has some of his best writing and is a pleasure to read (the Theory of Poker is more like a textbook).
That being said, just about any book in the two plus two catalog is a must read depending on what game you want to play. Also check out Mike Caro, Bob Ciaffone, and Roy Cooke among others.
Regards,
Rick
For specific games if your starting out,I recommend 7-CARD STUD:42 LESSONS by Roy West and HOLD-EM POKER by David Sklansky.After absorbing the info in those books(and I mean GET IT DOWN COLD),move on to books like T.O.P. AND THE 2+2 advanced player series.
Just to repeat the rules for holdit, or figleaf holdem, and to ask again, has anyone seen this game before? Or did I invent it?
Holdit is holdem played with one start card turned up, one turned down;high card speaks, then a three card communal flop followed by six and seventh face up communal.
Hand No. 1
I have been running good in the session and try a blind steal with J,9 off two seats to the right of the button. Big blind calls.
Flop: 7s7c8c
I bet. He raises. I reraise.
Turn: 9d
I bet. He calls.
River: 4s
Do I bet?
Hand 2
I raise with JJ in early position and get one caller in late position. This is the type of player who will not call a raise with hopeless hands. Having said that, he is certainly no rock and will call raises with any two high cards even if unsuited, all pocket pairs, medium suited connectors etc.
Flop: 10,9,8 rainbow.
I bet. He calls.
Turn: 10 (there are now 2 spades on the board)
I bet. He calls.
River: Kh
Do I bet?
skp,
I may just do one hand as I just got up for some milk and hope to get some ZZZ's soon.
"Hand No. 1
I have been running good in the session and try a blind steal with J,9 off two seats to the right of the button. Big blind calls.
Flop: 7s7c8c
I bet. He raises. I reraise."
This is a little aggressive here for a steal raise and I supposed I would be infuenced by the manner in which I was running good. Anyway,I wouldn't fear a seven against most players who would usually check call for a round. Look for overcards, a good eight, or perhaps a T9 or even 65.
"Turn: 9d
I bet. He calls."
All four of the later hands mentioned above could still be out there. Now it is even less likely you are up against a seven since you would be raised here again. A good bet IMO.
"River: 4s
Do I bet?"
Yes. The main hand you fear now is 65. I think you get raised by this hand and should lay it down. All of the other hands will probably call you head up (not counting the seven which would have raised on a previous round).
Regards,
Rick
Isn't this too aggressive? He DID check the flop and then check-raised you. Couldn't this be a weak 7? His raise is good because it makes you pay dearly to draw to an over pair which is a possible holding for you. Isn't his failure to raise on the turn possibly caused by fear that you tried a steal raise on something like A-7 and he's out kicked? Would this BB really check raise a straight draw or low pair here?
The river bet doesn't look too good either. Is he going to call with a hand you can beat? Maybe, but he actually has to have that hand, and his check-raise suggests a better hand. He probably isn't folding any hand which can beat yours; so, I don't think the river bet has a positive EV.
Fat-Charlie
Fat-Charlie,
This is a player defending heads up against a steal raise so he is bound to be much more aggressive than in other situataions and much more suspicious that his opponent is betting with little. But his opponent (skp) in fact has top pair which he got on the turn. You need to stay aggressive when you have something or else you will get run over in these short handed situations.
Here are some hands he could reasonably have that he would call with and skp could beat: any eight (except 98 & 87), T9, overcards such as AK, AQ, AJ, AT and maybe KQ or KJ. He loses to 98, bigger hidden pairs than a nine, a better nine, and any seven. The play of the hand tends to indicate the former hands rather than the later.
Note that when betting for value, you don't need a cinch. You want to be a small favorite when you are called (55% is about right to account for the rare times you will get raised or check raised).
I think this hand will win about 60% or so when called. But I could be wrong so let's see who else weighs in.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Thanx for the good response. I'm sure I'm NOT aggressive enough in my game. Sadly, I'm probably one of those weak- tight types; however, this still looks like a dangerous flop for a competent BB to re-raise on a weak draw. Aren't you supposed to reserve your semi-bluffs to flops like A-7-3 with a hand like 8-8?
Fat-Charlie
Charlie (I can't call you Fat-Charlie any more because it just isn't PC),
You wrote: Aren't you supposed to reserve your semi-bluffs to flops like A-7-3 with a hand like 8-8?
This of course is a different hand and we don't really have enough information to know when a bet is appropriate. That being said, betting a pair of eights into a flop like A 7 3 can't really be called a classic semi-bluff.
When you make this bet you need to be believe there is a good chance that the ace is not out there and by betting you can get overcards and perhaps overpairs to fold. If the ace is out there (and calls) you only have two outs, which is far less than the typical number of outs for a semi-bluff.
I've got to get back to Spring/Fall cleaning with my wife for now.
Regards,
Rick
Rick, minor quibble:
The 4 on the river wouldn't make me fear 65 because 65 would give the BB a straight on the turn with which he probably would have checkraised. Board on the turn is 7789.
skp,
This is my real tired response. It is the equivalent to about how I play when I've been at the table too long.
I'll check here and call any bet. There seem to be a lot of hands that he could beat you with and the hands that don' probably won't call your bet. However, he may bet some missed draws and combo hands like pair draw.
Then again, some sleep may change my perspective.
Goodnight.
Rick
hand 1 - bet the river. I doubt he's looking for a check-raise here, so since he didn't bet, he very likely won't raise (unless you're interminably aggressive, and he knows you'll always bet the river, which I doubt). His most likely hand is 8x. If you lose, I bet he has TT or higher, and your reraise on the flop convinced him you had a higher pocket pair after all. He may also have 2 overcard clubs or the like. If he has AcKc or AcQc, he may also call your river bet since you might have been semi-bluffing the flop and missed.
hand 2 - Check and call. I don't see any reasonable hands that you still beat that will call on the end here often enough, and the K very well might have hit him, in which case he will raise (and can you call?). Also, if you check, as Rick said you may induce a bluff which you profit from calling.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
A couple of months ago, I would have agreed with you 100%. However, I am starting to rethink this type of situation.
Five factors tell me to bet here:
1. If I check, my opponent will likely bet any hand that beats JJ and I have to call.
2. My opponent will likely not bet if I check and he can't beat my JJ.
3. My opponent will likely call with a worse hand.
4. My opponent likely won't raise even if he hits a King because I could have AA or AK or even KK the way I have played the hand. Of course, he might raise if the King makes him 2 pair but about the only 2 pair hand he would make on the River is K,10 and if that is the case he may well have raised me on the flop with just a pair of 10's to see where he is at.
5. This is probably not a good spot to try and induce a bluff because when I check on the King, it will seem to my opponent that I have a hand like JJ or QQ and am afraid to bet but will certainly make a crying call. If the river card was a deuce,I probably have a better shot at inducing a bluff i.e. my opponent who misses with something like KJ may think that I have just given up bluffing with my AK.
Of course, your decision to bet or check is entirely dependant on the nature of your opponent. But it seems to me that against most opponents in a fairly weeak game, the better play is to bet.
Gotta run. (I posted this quickly. If I have shown some fuzzy thinking here, please let me know and I'll blame it on haste.
Ah! To bet or not to bet! Oh! What a question.
I doubt that this is the case:
"Of course, your decision to bet or check is entirely dependant on the nature of your opponent"
Must be more involved in betting than being "entirely dependant on the nature of your opponent"
So my friend what is important here. Fossil says check, you say bet! I respect you both. So who's right? Hey, Mason who's right? O.K. Maybe we ought to ask someone who know's. David who's right? (Careful or I'll ask Abdul. But I don't think he knows. So I won't.) I Certainly have trouble arguing with SKP's "5 factor's in favor of betting. But the fossil had just as good reason's for not betting.
It should be obvious to all why I am asking David Sklansky to settle this. Sklansky, as you all know, very definitively described the "8 Mistakes of Poker".
What we have here is either "Betting when you should check" or "Checking when you should bet." BTW neither of these mistakes are as costly as "Calling when you should fold". Just thought I would add that. Wait a minute! Maybe that's the answer. Since neither of these mistakes is very costly, Why worry about it. What's the point! Either of these mistakes cost only a fraction of a bet so maybe one should just use his "gut" feelings when faced with such a "deletarious" (I don't know what that means but I like that word) decision. To Bet or Not to Bet! Don't worry be happy!
Vince.
Vince wrote: "maybe one should just use his "gut" feelings when faced with such a "deletarious" (I don't know what that means but I like that word) decision."
Better look it up Vince, as it doesn't appear to apply very well in this context. ;-)
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Fossilman,
Deletarious (correct spelling; deleterious): Harmful
Substitute perplexing for deleterious. Forgot you were a teacher, Old Man. Thank you.
Vince
Skp,
Excellent post.
Hand No.1
BB throws up 10c9c in disgust.
Hand No.2
My opponent throws away. He told me later that he had J,9 suited. I guess I was wrong this time in thinking that I would likely get a call on the end with a worse hand if I bet.
I should say that I have my doubts as to whether my opponent was telling the truth. I would think that with a pair and open-ended draw, he would have raised me on the flop.
$6-12 HE, pretty loose not too aggressive game.
I have 9d 8h in BB. Pot is raised early, I'm getting 9:1 (or maybe 11:1) to call, so I do.
Flop is 9h 9c Jc. SB checks, I bet, called in four places (middle, button, SB).
Turn is Js. SB checks, I bet, button calls, making me suspicious.
River is blank. I check, button bets, I call. he shows me a Jack.
So... could I have possibly gotten out of this?
I played it over and over while de-steaming, and I couldn't see a way out. Is this just "one of those things"?
If it matters, I hadn't played with the button before, but watching him in maybe a dozen hands, he seemed solid and not too crazy.
--james
PS I had sweet revenge when I flopped a well disguised straight with my 96o in the BB (unraised pot) and it held up despite three fish swimming down the river with me.
Tough hand! I'm not good enuf to muck a boat. With 4 callers on the flop someone rates to hold a J. Even if you checked the turn, you'd probably still call him down when he bets, and this is the same two big bets. It would be easy if there was a lot of action from players you knew were sensible; you'd KNOW you were beat. I doubt many players would REALLY fold your boat. We'd pay off and grumble the way you did.
Maybe you could avoid this in the future with clean living.
Fat-Charlie
In many games you should have saved have saved TWO bets, given three callers on the flop. With four people in there you have a protected pot as well as a good chance for a jack being out. Occasionally you throw away half the pot by checking and folding on fourth st. Very occasionally you throw away the whole pot. Still this is normally the right play. Your game may be an exception but I doubt it. (If everyone checks on fourth st. you now must at least call if not bet.)
Retrospect is everything, but when the jack landed on the turn the first thing you might have asked was: "do I feel like wagering two big bets that none of the four people that contested the pot on the flop was holding a jack?" Then consider: (1) if your hand was any good, there's a reasonable chance it would have been checked to the river; (2) worse hands than yours were not likely to give you any more money; (3) few of your four opponents would likely tip their hand on the turn if they held the jack, meaning that you'd just get sucked in. More generally, there's real danger here and you can't tell where you're at. Surely the game offers you better spots for your big bets.
So its an ok pot, but you're probably already done for and further action won't help you and probably just seals your fate. Also, if you would have checked the turn, the button probably would have bet, the SB called, and you could have said: well, there's the nuts and there's the draw, and if I'm wrong I could still get check-raised, so I'm out of here, or alternatively if everyone let it go and you faced a lone bet on the river, your decision would have been easier and cheaper to make.
Thanks for the input.
Here's my follow-up thinking... comments on my logic are welcome.
I don't see how it helps me to check on the turn. Here's the likely result:
me: check
middle: check
button: bet
SB: fold me: ???
At this point, there's something like 17 small bets in the pot (10 pre-flop, 5 on flop, 2 from button's turn bet), so I'm getting 19:4 or 4.75:1 in implied odds if I call and then check and call on the river (assuming middle folds).
So if I have at least a 17.4% chance of winning (call it 20% :-), it's reasonable for me to call and then check and call on the river.
Given the texture of the flop, it is not fait accompli that a Jack is out just because 3 people called. J9 makes a straight draw for several reasonable hands, and there were two suited cards, so a flush draw could be out. Plus the pot was raised pre-flop, so maybe someone is hoping AA, KK, or QQ hold up.
Furthermore, by checking on the turn, I think I would show weakness after having bet on the flop, so the button is almost obligated to bet, even if risking check-raise from me (SB and middle were weak players and non-factors w.r.t. a check-raise, and I believe button would have agreed with me).
Net net, it does not seem too unlikely to me that I have a 20% chance of winning. So I should call, and then check and call, and I still lose two big bets.
On the other hand, if I bet on the turn and button overplays his hand and raises, maybe I have a chance to get away from my hand.
Anyhow, I'm not trying to justify my play, because I did a damn sight less analysis than this at the table. :-) Basically, my mental processes were about this complex:
pre-flop: "hmm, 9 to 1, call"
flop: "Woohoo! three nines! but 2-suit flop and possible fit to straight drawing hands. better bet."
turn: "Full house! but the basement of it... well, let's let the Jack raise me. bet."
river: "No point risking a raise. check. Hey, he bet. Well, I did show weakness. might as well call."
--j
PS I actually had mixed feelings about the Jack coming on the turn. I was worried that one of my callers had the case 9 with perhaps a better kicker. In this case, the Jack saves me for a "chop". This was not my primary hope (I know, playing for chops sucks), but it does add slightly to the EV of my call, I think. Only slightly, because a) the probability of the case 9 being in the button's hand must be pretty low, and b) he would likely have raised with trips.
The reasons your bet on the turn was a mistake are twofold.
You will almost never be called by a worse hand. So, who's going to pay off that turn bet? Clearly any J won't fold, and it is very unlikely that a 9 will fold.
Second, a J will often raise, and when they do, you cannot fold unless that player is VERY predictable. Thus, you will often lose 3 bets to a J.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
James:
I think a check on the turn is mandatory here for three reasons: (1) you don't have a good reason to believe that you will be called by an inferior hand; (2) there is no possibility of getting a better hand to fold and (3), perhaps most importantly, with this board against most opponents, the probability of being called by an inferior hand after you show strength is less than the probability of being bet into by an inferior hand after you show weakness. Thus, while in this particular case your bet on the turn cost you just as much as if you had checked and called, a decision to do the latter is a better decision and should prove more profitable (or less costly) over the long run.
Checking in this case also gives you more information than betting because (1) you probably won't be raised by a jack if you bet, (2) anyone holding a jack will undoubtedly bet, allowing you to consider the source, and (3) if no one bets your hand is probably good and should remain so. Also note that the free card risk to you is small.
Of course, this analysis is premised on the assumption that you probably are a likely underdog. I like this assumption because you bet into a paired flop and received 4 callers, meaning there's a good chance of someone holding a jack. (Against 4 random hands, you will lose on the river 40% of the time; the calls you received on the flop should at least double this probability despite the presence of two jacks on board but of course I'm guessing here). Even if I'm wrong about whether you're behind, however, there's still the matter of whether a worse hand will pay you off.
I use to play 15-30 Holdem at my local Casino (Speaking Rock, El Paso Texas). But now the guys just decided they want to play 15-30 Omaha Hi-Lo, so these days we're playing Omaha Hi-Lo and no more holdem. So, my question is, What game is more profitable for a good player? At the 15-30 Holdem I use to make 1 BB/hr What should I expect at the Omaha-8 game?. The rake is 4 dollars, and 1 for the Jackpot (In Holdem), the Omaha Hi-Lo is not Jackpot elegible, so we save 1 dollar per hand; but we play as half as many hands per hour in Omaha than Holdem. Is the Omaha Hi-Lo game really profitable? Does anybody have numbers on this? Any comments would be apreciated.
If the game is very loose, especially after the flop, then it is a gold-mine. I think that weak Omaha8 players are easier to beat for more money than weak HE players. However, if these guys aren't weak at Omaha8, then I would prefer to play HE against them.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
David, Greg,
FossilMan is absolutely correct. Nothing is like a weak, loose Omaha H/L game for getting dead money that has almost no chance against your hand.
If this is true, try to get them to put in a "Kill" button. A 1/3 kill works well for this game (i.e., the hand becomes 20/40 with the kill blind posted). Have the killer act in turn before the flop as this keeps it simple and more casinos are doing it this way.
Regards,
Rick
Isn't saying "FossilMan is absolutely correct" a bit redundant, as it almost always the case?
One thing about 08 that is that it is pretty easy to determine if a partiular game can be beaten. A rule-of-thumb that I use is to simply watch the game for about 15-20 minutes and if there is more than one guy who draws to non-nut lows in multiway pots, you know the game has positive EV if you simply play tighter than these live ones.
I think it is materially more difficult to determine whether a holdem game will be profitable.
Michael 7 wrote: "Isn't saying "FossilMan is absolutely correct" a bit redundant, as it almost always the case?"
OK, your check is in the mail. In case my press agent forgets to tell you, let's be less obvious next time, shall we?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Thanks for the answers guys. In fact the Omaha-8 game here is very loose. 6 or 7 to see the flop, and 3 or 4 in the showdown (some guys calling with any low).
Eyy Greg, do you remember me, I played with you at the final table at the 300 limit holdem Orleans event. Maybe you remember that time I flopped quads
Take care
David
Limit poker is probably the hardest game to beat. In addition, the lower the limit the harder it is to beat.
It's not that the games are hard to grasp or there is some complexity to the game that most of us don't understand. Oh no.
You almost always know where you stand and know what you should do when playing limit poker. It's a simple game. Especially in lower limit when you really can't predict with much accuracy what cards your opponent could be holding. Post-flop action can give you an idea but not totally. Everyone who plays limit poker knows that the hardest players to read are the worst players at the table. What the hell did he/she come into the pot with THIS time? That's usually the question going through your head.
Limit poker is mostly a game of playing the odds. What are the odds that my AQ will be dominated by AK this hand? What are the odds that my KQs will lose to Axs this hand? What are the odds my low pocket pair will flop trips? Am I getting odds to draw to an inside straight for one bet? etc. etc. etc. It's important to read your opponents but almost always this is only beneficial when deciding to fold. You can't bully people out of the pots by bluffing, but you can fold when you're beat. This is probably your biggest edge in limit hold'em, which isn't much of an edge it turns out.
There is a saying about hold'em which goes "If you lose with trips and don't lose a lot of money, you played them wrong." This epitomizes the problem with limit poker. A more succinct and revealing phrase that illustrates the same point would be: "If you lose with quads and you don't lose a lot of money, you played them wrong". Understand? No? Ok fine, the point is that it just doesn't matter HOW you play for the most part. Either you have the best hand or you don't. Either your cards are running good or they're not. Either the so-called "fish" (who as a group usually walk away with all the chips) will draw out on you constantly or they won't. It's luck.
That is the one thing that most players refuse to acknowledge. They jokingly refer to it by stating "It's luck when you lose and skill when you win." This is usually in reference to some poor whining bastard who keeps losing with AA to 68o.
The fact is, the odds are that the odds won't work out. Some people won't understand this, but I think the smart ones will. It's extremely unlikely that the odds in card distribution (whether it's the quality of starting hands you are given, or the odds that your hands will hold up/make the draw) will ever even out perfectly. In fact, it is statistically improbable, which is the mathematical term for saying "when pigs learn to fly pal".
Given that the odds are the odds won't come out the way they should, what the heck are we doing in the game?
The pat answer is that your skills will more than make up for any odds anomalies you encounter. This may be true in no-limit heads up texas hold'em and other similar games, but in limit ring games, you can forget it. The advantage you gain by knowing a little about the game is negligible.
The odds are just too much to overcome, and the short term luck everyone talks about can last for your ENTIRE LIFETIME.
Let's look at it this way, every time there is a chance for something to come up, we'll call it an Odds Occurence. Usually in poker this boils down to the turn of a card or the allocation of a card to your hand. Your fourth street card in stud was one OO. The next guy's fourth street card is another OO. The flop is an example of an OO.
OK, so normally one would imagine that you could overcome statistical anomalies by playing enough hands, or experiencing enough OOs to even the odds out. However, the number of OOs necessary to achieve a true expectation of the odds is astronomical.
Take a craps table for instance. Ask the any casino operator in the world if he/she would be willing to bank the craps table for one day and one day only. They get the chance to be the house for one table for one day. This chance will never come again.
Nobody would take this offer if they had any brains. The chance that on any given day a craps table can lose millions is too great a risk. The only way the casinos are willing to offer the near break even odds that they do is that they will be experiencing millions and millions of OOs in even a short period of time.
As an individual poker player, there is not enough time in your entire life to experience enough OOs to even approach an evened variance. As a poker player, you cannot expect the odds to even out for you EVER, as long as you live.
Thus, if you continue to play a lot of limit poker, a game where the odds come into play a heck of a lot more than other forms of poker, you are basically putting your fate in the hands of lady fortuna my friends.
natedogg
Natedogg,
How many times have you posted essentially the same thing? If you really believe this, why do you keep coming back to this forum and RGP? It seems that you would feel it's all a waste of time, and just give it up.
Here's why you're both right and wrong.
Your statement that my luck may never even out, even when considering my entire lifetime, is true. However, that doesn't mean I can't be a regular, long-term winner.
A great player in a HE game probably enjoys an edge of about 10%. By this I mean that his expected profit is roughly about 10% of every dollar he puts into action. However, he could be unlucky, and not win this much, even over an extended period of time (like years). Thus, if his expectation were $80/hour, he might not achieve it. However, if instead of winning 10% he's unlucky and only wins 8% for the year, he's still making $64/hour. Thus, your statement doesn't mean he can't win, though it does mean that he may never know exactly how much he should have won (if his "luck" broke even).
Let's discuss a quote from your post: "Either the so-called "fish" (who as a group usually walk away with all the chips) will draw out on you constantly or they won't. It's luck."
There is no group of players that I would categorize as fish who walk away with the money, AS A GROUP. Almost any player will have their night occasionally, but a true group of fish will always lose money. One night might be too short of a term to always achieve a loss, but give that group of fish a half-dozen nights or so, and they will lose.
The only question is who gets the money? Do you get the money, or did only the house come out ahead? That's the thing you have to beat, the rake, not the fish. If you beat the fish enough, you'll overcome the rake.
BTW, if I had the appropriate bankroll, I would gladly bank the craps table for the day. I bet that a given table in LV, open and active for 24 hours, banks a losing day less than 10% of the time (anyone know the answer?).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Not to get off track, but ever since the corporations took over gaming (what they call gambling)limits are imposed at the tables of most Casinos. I think this eliminates the short term big losses for the Casino.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from your response I think you actually agree the principle of what I'm saying in my post.
My main question for you is where do you get the 10% edge figure? You seem to be basically agreeing with me that it's possible to actually be at a disadvantage for your entire lifetime if you simply account for the odds. But you say that is offset by an arbitrary 10% for good players. Then you say if they're unlucky they might have ONLY an 8% advantage.
I just don't think those numbers are very scientific, and indeed, any numbers we talk about cannot be scientific. It's not a scientific process. But what if a good player has only a 5% edge against a world full of fish. Now, what if an unlucky player's cards end up giving him a drop in 8% instead of just 2%.. Now you've got a -3% disadvantage for a GOOD player, not counting the rake.
My point is just about the principle. And I think from your post that you agree with the principle. The luck factor can easily be so overwhelming for certain individuals that all the skill in the world won't overcome it. And vice versa too of course. An awful player could never learn the truth about his skills if he gets lucky all the time. MANY of the supposed "GOOD" players that I talk to or read posts from strike me as happily naive about their good luck.
Even some of these poker celebrities sometimes blow me away when they describe their play in detail. Every time Phil Hellmuth writes about a hand I think to myself what a lucky SOB. I'm sure there are many tourney winners who are nothing more than lucky, and retroactively justify their wacked plays with vague understandings of Sklansky's "implied odds" theories and whatnot.
Whether you are right or not is irrelevant. I'll leave it to others to explain why.
Put it this way Natedogg, what's your point?
No one can prove what a given player's edge is supposed to be. We can only measure results over a long period, and see what his edge has been (approximately). Then, we can use statistics to argue that these results are highly likely to be accurate, to within "n" dollars, of his "actual" expectation.
As for my non-scientific numbers, I'm pretty confident that my guesses are a lot more likely than your guesses. Over a significant period of time, it is highly unlikely (IMO) that your actual results will vary from your theoretical expectation by 8%. While 1 in a million events do occur, they really do only occur about 1 time in a million (by definition). You seem concerned with things that will happen about that often.
If a "winning" player has gone 2 or 3 years without winning, it is MUCH more likely that he's not a winning player (in the games he's playing) than that he's been unlucky. If we're only talking 2 or 3 weeks, then it may just be a run of bad luck.
If you wish to go on with this, please explain your point, as I for one don't get it.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I've just read Sklansky's Holdem for advanced players. I'am going to Shreveport this weekend and plan on playing on the 4-8 table. How much of the strategy discussed in this book should I stay away from due to the low limit. I have played in numerous no limit tournament type games around town. I dont want to lose my money quickly but also do not want to play so tight that I can't make money on my good hands. Suggestions please.
Just played a 12hr 4-8 game the other day and found out that if the table was loose playing premium hands brought a good profit. When the table was mixed I let it out a notch or 2 and caught some nice flushes and even a back door boat. After the "Wild Bunch went broke the game changed from night to day and we (thoese who were in for the whole wild ride) could not believe how the tone had changed. So get a feel for the game and make your adjustments.
MJ
Joel:
My suggestions:
Keep it straightforward. You'll lose money with FPS (Fancy Play Syndrome) in low limit -- and noone will notice to be impressed anyway :) .
Specifically, reduce/eliminate your bluffs and semi-bluffs at the low limit. People are going to stick around. On the flip side this increase your "bet-for-value" opportunities when you do have the strong hand.
Good luck
-Michael
P.S. Remember BIRCILLH! (Bluffing is rarely correct in low limit holdem! (per L.J.)
I am new to casino poker and need to know the best way to handle a problem with a dealer.
What happens is that in trying to build a pot the dealer tries to pressure the tight players play more hands than they normally would by making loud comments that everyone at the table can hear about which players are only playing a few hands. He is the only dealer that I have noticed that does this. I did not think too much about it at first, but then I realized that he was really not being impartial to all players. Needless to say, if any players had failed to recoginize the tight players they were all made aware of it when he sat down to deal.
Since I am new to this should I say something to him about it or should I just grin and bear it?
Thanks in advance for any replys.
Sounds pretty unprofessional to me. It's possible he's friends with those he's ribbing. It's also possible he thinks that bigger pots make for bigger tips (I'm guessing this is low-limit, as this behavior would never be tolerated at higher limits). Either way, he shouldn't do it, and you would certainly be within your right to complain about it.
The best course of action might be to take him to the side when he's going onto or coming off of break. Point out to him what he's been doing and explain to him that it can effect the play, it's improper, and you'd prefer he not do that. You've not embarrassed him in front of others and you are not subjecting him to discipline by his superiors. He may not appreciate it, but at least you'll know you acted in a mature manner.
If that dealer does it again at a table where you are playing, then you will have to take further action. Perhaps calling a floor person or the shift manager over and complaining about it. If you prefer, go over to the shift manager away from the table and explain the situation, and ask him/her to speak with the dealer. That should do the job. And if it still continues, complain again to the same shift manager. Im sure he/she will be pretty peeved that they were ignored by the dealer the first time.
Walter,
Here's the deal...I deal Poker for a living in House games in Houston and have never dealt Casino Poker. This dealer needs to basically "Shut up and Deal". Dealers get away with much more in Casinos then in House games from what I understand. I would definitely pull him aside and tell him how you feel. It's not quite the same thing as saying " that makes a flush" when the 3rd of one suit hits the board on the river but it's not that far away either.
It is unprofessional and I would definitely say something.
Walter basically do what George said. Confront the dealer, confront the floor person, confront the floor person again, confront the shift manager. If it continues: shup up and play or take a break if it bothers you too much. Also make sure to let the dealer know you will never ever tip him or her again for as long as you play.
David and berya,
Thanks for your responses. I will keep your advice in mind.
Walter
if you could be so kind, i'd like your opinion on the following: i have no interest in regular casino gambling, trying to buck a fixed house percentage. however, over the years i've done very well playing non-casino poker.
a while back i bought wilson's 7-card stud software (vers 2). i played around with this a lot & try as i might - after deducting a house rake -- i can't show a profit (i'm using 10% of the pot, with a $4. maximum & a .50 tip) the game is 5-10, with a $1 ante.
i've set it up so i have the one stronge player against 7 weak players, but after 500,000 deals, it first shows a profit, but then always shows a net loss for the strong player after the house rake is deducted. - it averages about $2.50 per winning pot
is it me, the software program, or is it simply impossible - over the long run - to beat the house rake no matter how well you play????
ive recently made a couple of very quick trips to atlantic city, playing 1 to 5 7 card stud. I found most players, even at this low, beginning level, to play pretty tough & tight.
id really appreciate your knowledgeable opinion.
thanks, john
jjrbk@interport.net
I too have Wilson 7-Cars Stud for Windows and have some questions concerning your game setup. 1:What is the ante and bring-in for your $5-$10 game? 2:How many raises per player are allowed? 3:Is your rake 10% OR $3.00 per pot or just 10%? I set up a $1-$5 spread limit game on my program and after about 1400 hands I'm up about $1000.I think I,d check my rake setup if I were you.
$1 ante, $1. bringin.3 raises total for all plyers. rake is 10%, w/ a $4. cap. i've also found to get a real picture of any results i need to deal at least 100,000 hands.
john
As Richard pointed out, you should double-check your rake structure in Turbo 7CS. To make the game like 5-10 AC games, you need 50 cent ante, 2$ bring-in, complete to 5$, first raise to 10$, 2nd to 15$ etc.... The rake should be 10%, 4$ max, increments of 1$.
A 1$ ante at your 5-10 changes the strategy by making it a higher ante game than A.C. 5-10. This may be why you are not beating the computer. You will have to loosen up or you will go like broomcorn's uncle and ante yourself to death....
The players in 1-5 and 5-10 atlantic city games may seem tough, but if you are a good player and you scout your games well you will find they are not usually as tough as you think. I know from experience that these games are beatable, both "live in AC" and on Turbo 7CS. The rake is a considerable factor, but it can be overcome by a good player.
If you can't beat the computer, perhaps you should play with S/M/Z's 7CS book open. Each hand you play is a hypothetical situation that you can analyze at your lesiure. Think about what "might" happen ahead of time and you'll be ready when it happens in the casino.
Dave in Cali
thanks for answer. a little confused about your explanation of raises. if it's a 5/10 game, how can you raise $15.?
whwn i talk abou computer results, i'm not playing the game myself, but running it on automatic, hi-speed simulation -- usually 100,000+ hands
john
Sorry, once again ambiguous wording.
Ex. 5-10 stud
First raise completes the bet to 5$, second raise is a 5$ raise bringing the TOTAL to 10$, second raise the TOTAL is 15$....
Simulations have their place but I think I have gotten more use out of playing the game than simulating it.
Dave in Cali
Do you keep records that show exactly how well you're doing in your home games? What I mean is, do you know pretty accurately how much you're making per hour? If you do, then you can probably estimate how much rake you would pay per hour if that same home game were raked in a casino, and then you'll have an estimate of whether you can beat that game in a casino setting.
Of course, if your home game is typical, it is easier to beat than most casino poker games (because the players are weaker and/or there are fewer truly good players).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
the only "playing i've done for a long time is with my computer, both as a "human" & in hi speed simulation. that, with a couple of quick trips to atlantic city.
john
Lately I have been playing a lot of poker on the internet and I was wondering how legitimate these games might be. I was just wondering because the last 2 times I had pocket kings..I got beat with pocket aces...what are the odds? Anyway just looking for your thoughts.
Scooter,
Check out the Exchange. There was a recent thread on the subject. For a wide variety of thought, check out www.deja.com. Go to power search, look at the newsgroup rec.gambling.poker and search for the keywords "Planet Poker" or Internet. You should find a wide variety of opinions and experience.
I play but use it mostly for teaching. I think Planet Poker is trying to run an honest operation but they have some problems inherent to internet gambling. Overall, my experience is positive.
Regards,
Rick
I played poker last saturday at Foxwoods. It was the first time I had been on the felt for over 6 weeks. I sat in a 10-20 Holdem agme with a half kill. (I'm going to start a thread on Kill games at some other time.) I began at 11a.m. and finished a $15 winner at 3:30p.m. I left the game not because it was a bad game but because I felt that I was playing terribly. Now this is important because of what follows.
Since I felt that I was playing poorly and I still wanted to play poker I decided to play some 15-30 Stud. So I picked up my chips and sat in on a must move game. I wasn't at the table more than 10 minutes when the player on my left struck up a conversation with me. Always amenable to keeping the opponent on my left friendly I indulged him. His first comment, and I quote:" I was watching you play Holdem. My friend is at that table. He said you were a great player" Now I am not posting this to boost my already considerable ego. I only mention it to point out the differing views of two observers.
Now to the reason for the post. This same opponent then asked: "Can a 15-30 Stud player learn to play Holdem at the 3-6 level?"
My initial response was No. I then qualified that no. I feel that to learn poker correctly you must play at a level that has meaning. That is a level where the money means something to you. A 15-30 player will have a considerable amount of trouble at the 3-6 level. (Unless, of course, he has lost his BR and now must build it back.) 3-6 will just not offer the psychological interest to the 15-30 player. The paradox here is that the 3-6 level can offer a reasonable level of play for a beginner to learn the game. So, anyone else have an opinion?
Vince.
Vince,
Just an aside. Playing horrible for a Vegas player= playing really well for an east coast player (in hold'em). Bring some of the money back to Vegas.
Randy R.
Randy,
Are you saying that someone who is considered to play well on the east coast equals playing terribly in Vegas. What about a california player. Compare the 3. What about stud players? What level do you most play at?
I hope it's not too personal. I'm just trying to find out how big a difference it really is between skill levels.
"how big a difference it really is between skill levels."
Berya, (Randy, hope you don't mind my 2 cents)
Typically 10-20 Vegas games are much tougher than those I've played at Foxwoods or A.C. By much tougher I mean that the average local Vegas player, professional or recreational, has a better understanding of correct Holdem play. I attribute this to experience. Holdem has been played on a large scale out west much longer than back east. Interstingly, I have found that some of the best players in Vegas are originally from back east. Go figure. BTW- I will also have to say the same thing appears true for mid limit 7 Stud although not to the same degree. The reason that the Stud games appear tougher in Vegas is because there are not as many of them as there are back east. Consequently you get a greater concentration of skilled stud players in the same game. Don't let that fool you though becasuse there are some great stud players back east.
Vince.
Vince hit this one pretty good. When I was in the east I generally played 20-40 (Horseshoe in Tunica Miss; Soaring Eagle in Mt. Pleasant MI nad Grand Victoria in Rising sun In (20-40 was less common there)) and in Las Vegas I play mostly 6-12 at Mirage; 8-16 at Bellagio; 4-8 1/2 kill at MGM and 6-12 with kill to 10-20 at Orleans. I also play in the 10-20 at MGM when they get one and occasionally in the 15-30 at Bellagio if it looks really soft. The 20-40 in Michigan and Indiana is dofter than any of the Vegas games and the 20-40 in Miss is softer than all of the Vegas games except the MGM and the 6-12 at Mirage (actually I think the 6-12 at Mirage and 20-40 in Tunica are very comparable; the Tunica has a few experts and the 6-12 sometimes has some really weak tourists).
As far as California players I am leaving for there on Fri for my first trip to California. I plan to post a trip report on the exchange forum on my return, so I should ahve some additional insight.
I haven't been in Tunica in over a year, so the game may have changed. If anyone disagrees/agrees with my assesment I would love to hear about it.
Randy Refeld
Randy,
Thanks for your take on Tunica. I will be heading there Mid October. Trip report will follow. Of course Mason wants this stuff on the exchange. He's right. I'll post mine there.
Vince.
My opinion is that your friend will have trouble with 3/6 HE because the stakes will be too small to have much meaning for him. I think he should start at 5-10 / 6-12, where he can gain meaningful experience but not lose a bunch of $$ while he is learning.
If he is a regular 15-30 player he should have more than enough bankroll for 5-10 HE. But a loss will still hurt a little, so he will take the game seriously. I find that in one of my home games (that is really small) the stakes aren't enough to mean anything to me, so I don't play as seriously when I am there. 3-6 is pretty small if you are used to 15-30.
Dave in Cali
I totally disagree that the 15-30 player cant learn to play at the 3-6 level. This is totally dependant on the player. If he is someone with an ego problem who cannot handle playing a smaller lever, then of course he will have a problem. If he is a good player who understands the game and knows that he is in a learning stage then he should have no problem.
I am a regular 10-20/20-40 player. I am also a regular 3-6/5-10 player. When the bigger games are bad, I just move down and have no problem with this. Why should I play in a tough 20-40 game where I might have an expectation of $15/hour with a $400/hour standard deviation when I can play in a $5-10 game with the same $15/hour expectation with a standard deviation of $100/hour.
Now these numbers may be a little off, but I think you get the point. There is nothing wrong with playing a smaller game. If the player has an ego problem, then he may have trouble with this.
Just my opninions.
Rob
You are a lucky man for thinking this way. I envy you.
As a predominately low-limit player, perhaps I'm a little defense, but this has to be correct. I can understand the stakes being so low that a good player finds the game a waste of time, but then he shouldn't bother playing (I know, must move). I also understand the need to have an incentive to play your best. Since real money, however, only reflects one's quality of play in the long run, really good players, when at the table, must be satisfied with simply making the best decisions they can. The stakes should only be a factor in figuring out how your opponents think and feel.
If a player really "can't" adjust to lower stakes, I suspect he has an emotional attachment to money that hinders him when he plays higher than usual or even at his usual game when he's stuck or on a dry spell. Or maybe he's slow to adjust to different playing styles. While these might apply in varying degrees to most good players, I still can't see them as anything but weaknesses.
I meant "defensive," in the first sentence, not "defense," but feel free to assume "dense."
I lose every time at 6-12 (I confess, that's been three times this year). Just not enough money involved to make you REALLY focus. On top of that, my guess is that most of the players in the 6-12 game are waiting for a seat in a different game, so they don't particularly care enough to play properly either. Net result -- high deviation for all concerned. Theoretically, I suppose it can be beaten, but who is going to play enough hours at the game to show a statistically relevant EV.
But perhaps we are in good company. Stu Ungar once said that, "I have no chance in a 5-10 game, no chance whatsoever." While I understand that thought, I prefer to take Phil Hellmuth's new attitude, quoting words to the effect that, "the next time I win the world championship, I'm going to have enough humility that I can sit down in a low-limit game and win." Now *that* is discipline.
Earl, what Phil ought to do *RIGHT NOW* is have the discipline and humility to play nothing but Hold 'em tournaments. He might do OK in California 20-40 to 40-80, but I'll bet that Roy Cooke, Mason, and Abdul would pay his airfare to get him to the Bellagio 30-60.
I thought it was Huck Seed who said that but I could be wrong. Whoever it was who said it delivers the right message: You have to play at the proper level for you. I personally couldn't play 3-6 and when I do get down to Vegas again (Gawd, it's been more than a year since I've been there), I probably would feel uncomfortable at 30-60. But let me at them 15-30 players...what the hell, I have a few thousand to blow in a weekend.
Huck could grind 30-60. Russ Hamilton made a similar comment about tourneys: Players should only play there best events, not every event. That's why he only plays No-Limit Hold 'em and Pot-Limit Omaha tourneys. Hellmuth is the best ever at all forms of Hold 'em tourneys (for every one he's won, there's three he should've), his wife just wants him to play those only, he's never done much in other events, and his side record is horrific, but he's got too much pride. Give him credit, he admits all his flaws; I guess he wants to be the best poker player ever, not just the best Hold 'em tourney player ever. NOTE: Stu Ungar was the best at No-limit tourneys, but Phil's much better at limit.
Vince - Of course I have an opinion! Does the emperor have no clothes here? Could one of the best contemporary poker players beat a typical 3-6 game? YES.
This is just a matter of adjustment of your strategy to the game that you are in. If Phil Hellmuth, or Mason or David or Ray, sat down in a 3-6 game, it would take a while (maybe 1/2 hour or more) for them to fully realize the depth of poor play to which they have descended, and then they would make the proper adjustments. I actually recommend that the authors DO that sometime, just to remain in contact with some of their readers.
I will also grant your point. If the expert is playing at a level so low that the money doesn't matter, then maybe he is not motivated to play well. But I can't really believe that a professional poker player wouldn't play at any level to win. Even I, an amateur, play my family for pennies (reallly) with a strategy to win, because it's a game and we keep score in pennies. You should see me cut throats in a Monopoly game.
I also believe that it is easier to move down than up. If I suddenly win the lottery and move up to the Bellagio 100-200 game, I am going to have a problem winning. But if a winning 30-60 player sits down in a 3-6 game, you have to believe he has been there sometime in the past, and he does know how to win.
Dick
I have some good news and some bad news. The bad news - if you like the game as it is currently played - is that five-round seven-card stud is now obsolete. The good news is that four-round seven-card stud, or mississippi seven, is a much better game.
To play mississippi take a table of poker players and deal two cards down one up to each player; bet, then drop two cards to each player, bypassing fourth street and giving everyone an express ride to a five card holding for the second round of betting. The sixth and seventh card follow, but deal the last card up. You can leave the last card down if you play limit betting.
Mississippi is 7CS with a two card drop, bypassing fourth street, and the last card up instead of down.
This follows the model of holdem, which is the way seven card poker should be played: four rounds of betting, a multi-card draw bringing five cards into play at the second round, and only two concealed cards.
No doubt Mississppi looks at first glance like another dealer's choice game of dubious appeal. My belief is that it's nothing of the sort. I think I can prove it, but whether I can prove it or not, the market will love this game.
Once you've been dealt two cards for your opening bet, getting only one feels like a rip- off, which it is. A table that starts playing mississippi is unlikely it to change back to old-style seven, because mississippi gives better poker value, and it's faster and more active, so the house profits too.
The layout of mississippi is 3-2-1-1, which compares to holdem's 2-3-1-1 and five-card stud's 2-1-1-1: it fits the classic mould of a high-limit championship game.
Seven card stud has the layout 3-1-1-1-(1) and has no living relatives, but was born of six- card stud, which died giving birth, and was never very popular anyway. Six card stud is 2-1-1-1-(1).
If holdem was played with five rounds it would be 2-2-1-1-1, with a two card flop instead of three. Not as good as real holdem by a long way, but playable. And so it is with mississippi; if you insert an extra round of betting at the fourth card it becomes an inferior but still playable game known as seven-card stud.
Last-card-down was a six-card stud gadget which gave an added incentive to play for another round. It's a poor trade when you look at what the extra round and extra hole-card does when applied to seven-card stud: it kills the game for high-limit poker, which is a serious criticism for a poker form.
Again, look at what the same thing does to holdem: a third hole card at seventh street would spoil the game for anything but limit betting.
Seven-stud's 3-1-1-1-(1) layout is an archaic and imperfect structure. The things which make seven-card stud attractive are the three-card start and the seven card finish. The three card start is a beautiful poker proposition, and it gets better when you add a two card draw after the first round.
I'll stop here for now, but will for the record give the rules to the communal card versions of the 3-2-1-1 mississippi structure, which together make up most of the fourth and last family of poker: actually it may become the first family: the others were just discovered first. This is poker for the twenty-first century.
All these games have four rounds of play and follow the 3-2-1-1 pattern, which I thought could be called the River family of poker games, in remembrance of the founding game of seven card poker, soon to be in honourable retirement.
Shanghai: deal three cards to each player, two down one up. After betting, drop two communal cards on the deck, then a third and a fourth communal. This gives four communal cards and one card face up in front of each active player.
Billabong: Deal four cards to each player, three down, one up. Only two out of the three concealed cards are live. After betting, drop two communal cards, followed by a third and a fourth communal. This gives four communal cards, one card face-up in front of each player, and three cards in hand, two of which can be used.
Pinatubo. This is a stripped deck version with five communal cards based on the popular limit game, Manila. There is a saying "Beware of Greeks playing Manila" because it's an hellenic favourite. Manila shares the inferior 3-1-1-1-1 structure of 7CS: Pinatubo is 3-2-1-1. Deal each player two cards from a 32-card deck, and turn one communal card. Bet, then drop two more communals, then a third and a fourth communal as usual. This gives five communal cards and two in hand. Both cards in hand must be used. >>>The five-communal-card layout doesn't work with a full deck, but Pinatubo is a killer. Try it. Nothing you know about other forms of poker will help you much with this one, but it's real poker. A flush beats a full-house of course, and the ace counts as a six for baby straights. <<<<<
Zanzibar: deal five cards to each player, one face up. After betting, turn two communal cards, then a third and fourth. Only two concealed cards can be used.
Murrumbidgee: this can be played as a stud game or with communal cards. Deal five cards face down to each player. Players discard two cards, and one of the remaining three is turned at random. If played stud style the discards will need to be re-shuffled if more than five players are at the table. If played with communal cards the game proceeds without a reshuffle, with the two card drop/turn, followed by a third and a fourth communal.
Huxley 9/9/99
Huxley,
If you want another variant of 7CS I have one. It's called 7CSF (7 card stud with a floater). Two cards are dealt down and the third one is dealt up. Then the floater (community card)is placed in front of the dealer face down. You have the initial betting on third street low or high starts whatever rules you go by and when that is completed you turn over the floater. If it pairs the door card bets are doubled. You then go around as normal betting or checking or dropping in sequence. You then proceed through the rest of the hand as if it were 7CS. You end up with one extra betting round with the floater and the hands that win are usually better than 7CS obviously. It's fun to play and you seem to get people chasing more than 7CS.
Paul
Paul Feeney writes of the game 7CSF, which is seven card stud with eight active cards(one communal) which makes it eight card stud, and six rounds long.
Mississippi goes the other way: a two card drop, making only four rounds of play, and only two hole cards. I don't regard it as a variation of seven card stud: it's the correct way to play seven card poker with a three card start.
7CS is an obviously inferior version of mississippi, but you have to play it to know that.
huxley,
Take a chill pill I was just offering up another game not trying to take over your world of Mississippi.
Paul
I have been playing 7cs for about a month and would call myself a smart player who is learning, I lose about $5/hour. I live in FL where poker stakes are max. $10/hand. I think I lose because I call and raise in situations where I should fold. I would fold with more marginal hands if I had to put up $3-10 to see the next card. When I only have to throw in a $1 though I don't think its a very big deal-a dollar for a shot to fill. I'm wondering if I can truly learn in this low stakes game and what can be done to maximize time spent in the poker room (more knowledge maximization than $ maximization)?? Should I be more disciplined in the lower stakes game and if it's not a good way to learn what would you suggest.
J. Pfeifer
If this is one of those Florida poker games I have heard of with a maximum pot size of $10 of which they rake $2 a pot regardless and once the pot reaches $10 you can't bet anymore, a big problem you are facing is that you're in a game that's probably impossible to beat. The rake is *huge* (a minimum of 20% per hand), you can't bet enough to protect your hand, you can't bet for value in later betting rounds (if the pot reached $10), etc. This game sounds like showdown poker where 5-6 people put in $2 each by 4th or 5th street and then sit back and wait to see who has the best hand. At least that's the way a friend of mine described it when he lived in Florida and played in them a few years ago. The showdown aspect takes away any advantage in skills you might have, and the huge rake makes it impossible to beat. It's no surprise you're losing money in this game but I suspect that most everyone who plays long term in this game loses money. The only one who wins is the house. You're better of finding another game. Low stakes are fine as long as the rake is reasonable and there is no cap on the pot size. The cap on the pot size takes away many aspects of poker that you'll end up never getting exposed to that are crucial to becoming a better poker player.
J.,
"I live in FL " Speaks for itself. Not a poker paradise.
"When I only have to throw in a $1 though I don't think its a very big deal"
If you are playing for stakes that are not a big deal it will be very hard if not impossible to learn to play the game correctly. Also, when you do move up you will have a tendency to call when you should fold. The number 1 mistake in poker (IMO). Discipline yourself to play correctly regardless of the stakes. Easier said than...
Vince.
You're probably doomed to stay a loser in these games because the Florida rake is too high to be beaten no matter what you do. And if low limit is the elementary school of poker, the $10 pot cap must make these games like special ed. Try home games or the gambling ships.
The rake is equivalnt to 18.5% if the pot reaches 10$ witch it does not always do. If you play very well you might only lose 20$ in 3 hrs or maybe win 10 to 15$, it is almost impossible to beat. You can learn a little discpline and people reading skills at this limit but that is about it.
Fly to Bolixi or drive there if you want real poker. If you get caught in a home game it is a 2nd degree mistermeaner. It is a felony if you are running the game and take a rake, believe my i know.
The boats take 10% to 5$ that also is a very hard rake to beat.
You could do either of two things.a) Visualize chips as unit of play for a contest and imagine the they have more "VALUE" b) find a decent home game where the game is clean and play for higher stakes.
I started playing in a small, private game that consist mainly of jackpots and a game they call fifty-three. Most of the players are stacked with at least a grand, but I dont think that much money is needed for the game we play. Jackpots goes about average with a 5-10 ante, depending on the night. Fifty-three, which I had never played until now, goes like this: Players are dealt five cards, and then three cards a placed on the table face down.These cards act as community cards. For the first card you pay 10, the next 30, and finally 50. This game is only played mabye twice an hour. I only bring around 200 to these games, and I usually win at least a good 400. It seems that whenever I get into the fifty-three game it burns me. Should I just only play amazing hands when fifty-three is called, or just avoid it period? Is my stack too small to begin with?
Jeremy
53: There is no draw and you play the best 5 cards of 8?
I intuitively suspect the average winning hand for an 8-card game in a loose game with be a Q-high straight; give-or-take a lot. If so, you need to draw to hands better than that.
I intuitively suspect the following: I would play AJ or better 4-flushes, trips, and some combination hands like a pair of Ks and an AK-three flush. Abandon flush draws when the board pairs and two people like it. Get very paraniod when there are two cards of the same suit bigger than the second card of your suit (the first being an Ace).
- Louie
Father, I have sinned. The lord hath given me bounty and I squandered it in a moment of foolishness. I tell you my confession seeking not forgiveness (for the tables hath none, though my bankroll may heal), but rather so that others may learn from my story or simply be reminded of the path of righteousness.
Gladly did I buy in for $59 to play in the limit Hold-Em tournament. Full of fire was I! For twice had I gone to this same battle and succumbed to my foes (yea, even before the break on one occasion), but this time I felt ready to conquer all of the world.
Father, I must confess that my faith did waver at the beginning. Though I was dealt many playable cards, the flop missed me and lo, I was left with garbage that must be mucked. And soon I was down to but the dregs of my original T$300, and the mighty prayer of "Rebuy!" I did issue. Carefully now did I bide my time, for as the High Priest did take of me $50 for the extra T$300 he remindeth me: "my son, this is but a single-rebuy tournament".
And lo! My prayer was heard! And the angels rejoiced! And I turned a straight which held up, as the temples are held up by worship of thee. And my house filled up, and no bigger house there was. And so it went, until my chips stacketh high like a tower of praise in thy name. And I said many hallelujias, for I was given much action by those who came to gamble! And I did admonish them, "live by the raise, die by the raise" And I was much contented.
But then came a break in the combat, and many had to relieve themselves, and I counted my chips and lo! I had T$1400, and the High Priest did say "there were 31 rebuys, making the prize pool $4050". And there was much rejoicing. And here is how we count the numbers: T$300 times five tables times ten plus 31 is T$24300, and T$24300 divided by forty (for after the break, a table of sinners was gone) is just over T$600, and yea, my stack was more than twice that high.
And lo! I looked from table to table, and from stack to stack, and my temple to the lord was as great as any, perhaps the greatest! And I did thank the lord. Such harvest and bounty had I not seen for many a long battle.
The conflict resumed, and though I am not a coward, I did let others fight, for it is best to attack only when the advantage is yours. And I did steal some blinds and I did take down a small pot and soon my tower was greater, yet no longer the greatest, but still it measured T$2000 or more.
And the High Priest came to our table and said, "take each of you but one card from the deck, for the other table hath suffered grievous casualties, and one of you must join it". And lo! I did draw the high card (a ten!), and I was taken from my seat of great honor.
Unknown faces greeted me, and the taxes were high, and I was weary. "Fold!" said I. "Fold! Fold! Fold!", for my cards were as ash in my mouth. And it was good, for garbage is as garbage plays. And thus I went, until again the High Priest told us it was a time of rest and relief.
Merry was I, for though we had lost yet another table, and T$23400 divided by twenty is T$1170, yet my stack was larger than this, though somewhat taxed. At least T$1500 did it measure.
And then father, I sinned. Mortally did I sin! And it was not a single sin, but a sin of many parts, of many errors. For on the first hand after the time of rest, I did get AKo in middle position. And lo, an elder, who I had only watched play briefly, did raise to T$200! And yea, it was a time of much thievery from the blind, and methought "I shall stop the stealing! I shall give a lesson to this faithless heathen! For I have a mighty warrior with a mighty weapon to fight for me!" So I did raise to T$300. And all began to fold, and it was good. But the elder, faithless heathen, did call! And yes, father, he was not a short stack, although he was not tall neither. But stacked enough to fight, as I should have noticed. But I am a sinner, and let excitement overcome judgement.
But still I fought. For the flop came JTx rainbow. And the elder checked his hand and I thought to myself "aha! the faithless heathen has aught but garbage, and garbage is as garbage plays!" So I did bet T$100! And woe but he did call.
And then father, I was punished for my sin, yet sin I did some more. For the turn brought K! (still rainbow) And I did have top pair, and a mighty kicker, and glad I was, for the elder checked. And I bet T$200, and I bet it mightily!
But woe! Woe is me! How I gnash my teeth thinking of my foolisheness! For the elder did raise to T$400! The faithless heathen did a checkraise deliver to my sinning hands, and woe, but I was lulled into calling. For I had top pair, and a mighty kicker, and an inside straight draw.
But punished again was I, for the river was a blank, and the elder did bet T$200, and I did call, and lo, my fears were confirmed! To temptation I had succumbed, and the enemy had AQo, and his straight was good.
Mighty to my stack was the damage! From T$1500 to T$500 I plunged, like the Fallen One into the depths. And even then I was granted a blessing, for the small blind did fold to me in my big blind, and I did win the race for the odd chips, and I was reseated behind the button.
But my sinning was mortal, and though 9 places were payed, and I clutched my last few chips like one lost in the desert, at the end I had K4s and did call, and did not win, and my last chip was a big blind of Q5o, and the enemy had an Ace, and woe but the board brought an Ace as well. And I was out in 11th place.
And I did curse myself and my fate and my foolishness, for I had gone to war foolishly with the elder for no reason! I had but to wait, and in the end money would be mine, if not the $1600 first place, then yea, some money, even lowly 9th place, be it only $100!
And my tale is done, but father, may it serve as a reminder to those who do battle in tournaments.
Amen.
Too Funny. :)
-Michael
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
Your play against the elder was OK. You might have considered just calling preflop, unless you thought that others would then call also.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
And I thought I was strange.
Typical elders UTG in tournaments are rightfully only playing premium hands lined with gold. If this is a typical elder dump AK and lament not. If the elder is "gambling" and raising with most other 20/21 hands then that is EXACTLY the kinds of hands you want to play AK against (ones that have an Ace or a King in it). If so, 3-bet and rejoice.
Since the elder did in fact have the cheese hand lined with yellow bronze, you should be gleeful to engage with your dominating hand. He hit is 3-outer so what.
So, you 3-bet with AK 'cause you believe he will raise with AQ, AJ, or KQ. On the turn with 3 high cards, one of you is drawing VERY slim to the other. This makes for a good check since a bet gains one bet if correct and loses two if incorrect, a bet doesn't change your chances much (he's going to call), and that single bet in your diminished stack is worth much more than the single bet you can ADD to that stack; this being a tournament. And the only hands you can beat now are KQ and AJ, which are sure to be in the minority of his possible pre-flop raising hands.
Checkth the turn, payth it off.
- Louieth
On the flop the only hands you can beat are KQ and AQ, unless he raised with a medium pair.
I was just trying to be funny, not strange.
However, some people probably think I am strange, so oh well.
Anyhow...
I agree with your analysis, insofar as I should have checked and called twice. This would have saved me T$200, making my "bad beat" only cost me just over half my stack, rather than 2/3 of it.
However, I still believe that my engaging him was a "sin", because this was a tournament. In a ring game, I can say "bad beat" when he hits his three-outer.
In a tournament, I believe I should not have imperiled my stack, unless I had the way best of it. Nobody else is likely to call the T$200 (maybe the BB) and the "elder" is unlikely to fold. So there's not much reason to raise pre-flop.
Furthermore, it was a "sin" to engage the elder because he had too many chips for me to put him all-in, but enough to seriously damage my stack.
That, I think is the lesson.
--james
1) Your original post was brilliant, a joy to read, funny, not strange. If the poker gods don't smile on you, you should consider a second career as a writer. However, your analysis of your play indicates that the poker gods will, if they have not already, smile anon.
2) I'm not a tournament player, but I understand your feeling that you "sinned" by engaging the elder with a hand that was only slightly better than his. I don't think the "sin" was in playing the A-K, but rather in your play from the turn when the board containing K-J-T should have looked liked trouble against the elder. What hand could he have that you could beat that he would still play?
Still, it was a tough spot and you did get beat by a three-outer.
Thanks for the entertainment, a much needed commodity at this site. I get a smile or two out of Abdul Jalib's posts, but yours had a broad grin on my face throughout.
verily thou speakst in a tongue this tournament varlet took great pleasure in. forsooth. thou spoke the truth.
Please post if you know of any publications that describe strategies specifically for one-on-one hold'em.
Thanks,
There really aren't much of any specific strategies that you should follow for HU HE. Since you don't have to worry about the best 1-5 hands out of 8-10 players dealt in, it's not so much what cards you're holding as what you can cause the opponent to do.
In other words, the correct strategy against each opponent will vary by so much that there really is no basic strategy as to what cards you should play and what you should do on each betting round.
This is a game of knowing the opponent.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Betting strategies are your main concern. I recommend reading the HPFAP 21st C edition Short-handed section.
I calculate the chances of completing a 4-flush on 4th when you have seen no other cards, and when you have seen 2 of your suit as follows:
Chance-of-Making = 1-Chance-of-Missing. *** Missing means catching all three cards of the remaining 39 non-suited cards, = 39choose3 = 39*38*37/6=## 9139 ## number of ways of doing that.
With no other cards seen the total number of outcomes is 48choose3 = 48*47*46/6= ##17,296 ##. *** With two cards of your suit gone there are now 46 cards left, 46choose3 = 46*45*44/6 = ##15,180 ##.
So with no other cards seen you miss 9139/17,296 = 52% or you make it 48%. *** With 2 of your suit gone you miss 9139/15180 = 60% or make it 40% of the time.
But I have always been under the impression that 2 cards gone means you are half as likely to make it. Is that just a holdem flop number?
What's wrong?
- Louie
PS. Yes, if you see 7 other DOORs cards and none of them are your suit, that improves your chances a lot.
Your calculations are correct. Here is another way to get all the probabilities you ask about:
4 flush with no other cards seen (why can't you see them?) gives you 3 chances to catch one of 9 cards out of 48 so 1 - chance of missing = 1 - (39/48)(38/47)(37/46) = 47%
4 flush with 2 of your suit gone gives you 3 chances to catch one of 7 cards out of 46 so 1 - (39/46)(38/45)(37/44) = 40%.
If you see seven offsuit cards out, then you have 3 chances to catch one of 9 cards out of 41 so 1 - (32/41)(31/40)(30/39) = 53% (only a little better than than the 47% if you didn't see the 7 cards.
4 flush in holdem on the flop gives you 2 chances to catch one of 9 cards out of 47 so 1 - (38/47)(37/46) = 35% the well known result.
4 flush in holdem on the flop if you know 2 of your suit are out (did you peek?) gives you 2 chances for one of 7 cards out of 45 so 1 - (38/45)(37/44) = 29%.
The hold'em result isn't half either so I'm not sure what your statement applies to.
The following scenario unfolded last night in a fairly good 3-6HE game populated by a nice mix of calling stations, loose, aggressive types and a couple of solid players who don't usually try anything too fancy at this level. I would put myself in the last category.
I am in late position, one off the button with the red A's. One early caller (shooter type with frequent off-beat raises), then raised by another frequent raiser. Folded to me, I re-raise. Button (usually fairly solid) cold-calls, and the BB, whom I had never played with and had no read on his tendancies, capped it. Original caller calls, raiser calls, and five of us take the flop capped. Flop comes down 9-4-2 rainbow. Couldn't ask for much more, right? BB checks (??), check, bet, I raise, button calls, BB calls,call, call.
Turn comes down 6h, putting a heart draw on the board. Check, check, I bet, button calls(overcards?, pair?), BB just calls (AK?), fold, and now I get check raised by the loose, aggressive player who first raised the pot to begin with. Given the fact about the only plausible hand to beat you is a set (I can't see anyone having 3-5 at this point), do you go ahead and 3-bet it? If I'm still in the lead, obviously, I want to both get as much money in as possible and put maximum pressure on the button and BB, but if I'm drawing thin to a 2-outer over-set on the river, I have to slow down. I don't know enough about this player to know if he would try to put a "move" on me at this point, given the fact there are still two other players in the hand. This is 3-6, after all, and not the 30-60 at Bellagio.
I just called the check-raise, and the button and BB also called. River comes offsuit 8, conjesting the board significantly with small cards. BB checks, check-raiser bets, and given the size of the pot, I call. BB overcalls. Check-raiser makes the comment," You must win." I should have waited for him to turn over his hand, but as it appeared I was about to take down a big pot, I turned over the bullets, BB showed pocket K's, and the other hand went into the muck. I overheard him comment to his neighbor that he had an open-ended straight, and a flush draw on the turn, thus the aggressive check-raise, I guess.
Thinking about the hand later, I wondered: did I play this to my best advantage? Pre-flop, no problems. I jam it to the max with Ace's in every circumstance. Post-flop, what is the concensus? Would you 3-bet the turn check-raise? Would you raise the river bet? Consider folding at any point? Comments, please.
First, this pot is huge, so you can't consider folding on the turn or river, not until there's a bet, raise, and reraise to you. Even then calling probably isn't that big of a loser (in a typical 3-6 game).
In most 3-6 games, against most opponents, I would go into check-and-call mode here on the turn (I mean after he check-raised you). You really can't say with all that much certainty that he doesn't have 96 or 64 for 2-pair, as many folks would play these suited. Plus, the set you're afraid of is still quite possible. The only advantage I see to reraising is to get someone with a hand like 9T, 98, 65, etc., i.e., someone with 5 or more outs, to fold. If you get one of these guys with 5-9 outs to fold, you've bought a lot of pot equity. However, as you've said, you might be down to only 2-8 outs yourself, in which case you want to see the river cheap. Overall, I don't expect any of these guys to fold a 5-card (or better) draw here, so I think that calling is higher EV than raising, in most cases.
No need to raise on the river, as you'll not get a better hand to fold, and you'll probably lose more extra money than you win in most cases.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
4-betting the flop and 2-betting the flop and turn is a lot for Aces. Against almost all players call and pay it off.
Having said that, betting and calling the raise, then check-raising the turn when they flop a set is uncharacteristic of loose aggressive players. If they are "tricky" they would tend to slow play from the get-go, hehehe; if they are not they would tend to have 3-bet it. "Sensible" loose aggressive players may make this play, as will many other solid types.
Against THIS player, I would 3-bet it and put lots of pressure on the 2 2-5 out hands behind you. If there were only one, I think just call and encourage a bluff.
- Louie
PS. One SHOULD 3-bet the flop with this set since its "obvious" the tight player has a premium pair and is a favorite to cap it. Cha-Ching!
Dunc, a suggestion: try and not reveal your opponent's hands as doing so usually leads to less helpful analysis. You can always tell us what he had when the thread begins to peter out.
There is very little doubt in my mind that you ought to 3 bet the turn. I take it that the checkraiser on the turn was also the preflop raiser. He likely doesn't have a straight or 2 pair. He has either a big pocket pair or now picked up a big flush draw (less likely) or a set. If he has a set, you lose 2 big bets by 3 betting him (and if he caps it). On the other hand, if he has just KK and your failure to reraise allows a hand like 98, A5 etc. to beat you on the river, you lose the pot.
Unless you have a great read on this fellow and put him on a set (and I don't know how you can), you must reraise.
BTW, you may wish to consider just calling the flop instead of raising. This is the new 21st Century Edition idea to delay the "thin the field raise" to the turn. However, the play is more dangerous here than in the examples given in the book because with a 9 high flop, there is no guarantee that the flop bettor will lead again on the turn (i.e. a King or something on the turn may cause him to check and thereby deprive you of the opportunity to raise).
It is certainly difficult (impossible) to put this guy on a set because the usual play would of course be to check raise me, probably on the turn, if no scare card came up. I have just had the 21st Century edition of HEFAP delivered, and will get into the book shortly. It might made defined the position a little cleared if the calling station in the blind with KK had come to life after the flop, but when he didn't act, I was sort of on an island trying to figure what what the aggressive guy had. If this player was capable of getting into third level thinking, and he was savvy enough to figure out that I was also capable on getting into that mode and possibly laying down AA, I should be prepared to find a little softer 3-6 game! Thanks for the help.
.
I'm a fairly new poster to this forum, and while we all have our share or horror stories, I don't think this is the place to share them unless there is something we can learn from them about our play. One can always justify his actions by what eventually happened, but in the bridge world doing post-hand analysis, we called these types "results wizards". If I can garner even a small nugget of useful information from the more experienced players out there, it can only help me down the road. This story did have a happy ending (for me), but that's beside the point. Thanks for the input.
Just be careful how you title the post... I almost skipped this thread b/c I thought it would be a bad-beat story. :-)
--james
PS I wouldn't 3-bet pre-flop with AA unless I thought it would thin the field. Sounds like you were suprised that the button and BB called in this game (and expected the pot to be 3-way, rather than 5-way), so your raise was probably correct for your game. If you are in a game where button and BB will always call, then the 3-bet works against you by giving the drawing hands too good of odds after the flop.
Readers of my earlier post, 7CS R.I.P. 1999, , will perhaps have the impression that I don't like 7CS, seeing as I have put forward the argument that it cannot survive in competition with mississippi seven.
I must admit I always had mixed feelings about 7CS. It's complex and interesting, but deeply flawed, and a dreadful high-limit game.
There are three problems: The bet at fourth street, excessive length, and the third hole card.
It's easiest to see how bad these things are by looking at what they do when you inflict them on a perfectly good game of seven-card poker, namely, Holdem.
Holdem could be played with a bet at fourth street by flopping two cards instead of three. Would that be a good thing? Obviously not.
Unless we make other changes, adding that bet makes the game five rounds long with a structure of 2-2-1-1-1. Would that be a good thing? No again.
The last card could be dealt down to each player, giving three hole-cards. Would that be a good thing?
Obviously a bet at fourth, five rounds of betting and a third hole card pretty well destroys holdem as a serious form of poker, though it would be ok for limit betting.
Holdem with a two card flop is playable, but no one would prefer it to holdem with a three card flop. It would be a perfectly good limit game, suitable for a lot of analysis, just as seven-card stud is, but it would never have the status of being a world championship game, if played that way, just as seven card stud never will be, played as it is today.
Mississippi Seven is seven card stud without the bet at fourth street, with only two hole cards, and with one fewer round of betting, making four rounds instead of five.
Mississippi has the same true poker structure of holdem, and is equally spoiled when you add a bet at fourth street, make it five rounds long and turn the last card down - in other words, seven card stud is just as bad a game when compared to mississppi seven, as holdem with a two-card flop and a third hole-card is when compared to real holdem.
Seven card stud is a great game, if you don't spoil it with a superfluous bet at fourth street and a third hole card.
Contrary to the title, the poster never says /why/ 7CS is bad, he only asks us to imagine doing similar things to Hold'Em and assumes we'll see them as bad things without giving us any reason to. As it happens, though, I agree with his assertion so I'll give some real reasons: Yes, 5 rounds makes too slow a game and lowers the strategy options that make sense in later rounds. Final card down also makes the final card decision pointless: if you called 6th, there's no reason to fold 7th unless you missed a draw so bad you shouldn't have called 6th in the first place. I do not, however, think 3down/4up is bad, just 7th down. So I've suggested this (I'll call it Sacramento 7): Round 1 as normal; Round 2 deals 2 up; Round 3 is /down/, river is up. I've played it at home and it makes for a rich strategic game that moves quickly and has the occasional scary ending.
Mason Malmuth writes: Sounds good to me! Everyone will have their own reasons for liking the game, or not. But it isn't just a matter of opinion, there are some facts at hand which show that mississippi has a big edge over seven=card stud:
1. It's faster, and pit-bosses will love that. 2. the two-card draw is undeniably more exciting than fourth street and fifth street. 3. Drawing two cards to three is a very interesting poker proposition, better and more interesting than holdem's three card flop to a two card holding. Aces win far too easily in holdem, in mississippi they get run down by straights and flushes often enough to make a difference. QQ-4 versus K5-5 is very interesting poker, especially with a two card draw, but QQ versus 55 is one way traffic with the three card communal flop. The kicker helps the fives and hinders the queens, with the three card start.
4. Mississippi is suited to pot-limit and no-limit championship play, seven card stud is not (very).
Just to return to the third card down argument: look at how it hurts straights and flushes: they can never be the nuts or near the nuts if three cards are concealed. If you have an apparent straight or flush on fifth street and get called for two pot sized bets by a player with no pair straight or flush showing, what are you going to do on the end?
Betting into a likely full house is suicidal with full pot betting. With limit there is probably a formula which tells you how many times to raise in that situation, but in pot-limit, straights and flushes are not worth the effort and expense of chasing. The third down card will kill you.
The situation is that he can bluff you, but you can't really bluff him. If you were bluffing from fifth, what are you going to do? If you do it as a bluff you have to do it for real too, and it's going to cost you when you get reraised in that situation.
If he bets at you, again, he knows if he's ahead, you have no way of knowing if he is or not. He can bet out with three of a kind, if has you placed on two pair when you check, and he knows you can't raise him if you have the straight or flush.
So the third down card kills straights and flushes in pot-limit betting. They are just too vulnerable.
todd h writes: I have to plead guilty to this. I never liked seven stud, and I'm looking forward to playing the better version of it. Yes, I'm changing the game to the way I like it, but I like a game of omaha, or stripped deck draw, six handed with a thirty two card deck too.
Maybe I'll get some more people to play that too. It's miles better than jackpots.
The multi card draw was one of the pivotal inventions of poker, and I think it's about time seven card stud caught up.
Did I mention that Bob Wilson prefers mississippi to seven card stud?
I meant to quote Mason Malmuth as saying "My guess is that you like this game because you feel that you can win more consistently at it. Well, that might be the case, but that isn't necessarily good."
Something went wrong with my ctrl-v. I'll start reviewing before I send to avoid it happening again.
I still say, winning more sounds pretty good to me, but actually I haven't played mississippi enough to really know if I can win at it. Seven card stud has been my least profitable game, I must confess, so it wouldn't be hard for me to do better.
There are some typos in the previous post, in particular where I meant to quote todd h: "this post sounds a lot like someone who doesnt really like the game wanting to change the game so he likes it instead of finding a game he does like. "
I plead guilty to that! Funny thing is, I think it's going to work.
Posted by: Huxley (huxley@mail.dns.au.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 September 1999, at 5:30 a.m.
Posted by: Huxley (huxley@mail.dns.au.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 September 1999, at 5:22 a.m.
"It's complex and interesting, but deeply flawed, and a dreadful high-limit game."
In the United States, seven-card stud is the dominant high-limit game.
"There are three problems: The bet at fourth street,"
I like the fact that there's only one card at a time. Hands increase or decline in value more gradually, and each card involves different strategic ideas. 4th street can be a pivotal street despite the half-bet.
"excessive length,"
The pace of the game is slower, but that's because the decisions are more involved and you have to concentrate on remembering and taking into account folded cards as well as the situation and players.
"and the third hole card."
This can give a skilled player a large advantage. Players who are predictable on the river give away a lot, while expert play involves adjusting to and taking advantage of these mistakes.
Holdem is an excellent game also. Not everyone likes all games. If you prefer holdem, then play that. Stud definitely isn't for everyone. But I see no reason to change the rules to make stud more like holdem when it's a thriving game as it is. In the New York region casinos, stud is by far the most popular game.
Lee Daniel Crocker writes:
>I've suggested this (I'll call it Sacramento 7): Round 1 as >normal; Round 2 deals 2 up; Round 3 is/down/, river is up
Your game sacramento is the only one I've ever heard of which drops two cards instead of one after the three card start. It is undoubtedly a true form of seven card poker, like holdem and mississippi, which has the same structure.
Mississippi is available on disc - just switch off all fourth street play on a seven card stud programme and you have the last-card-down version of mississippi, which plays well as a limit game.
I have Wilson's Turbo Seven Card Stud for windows, and to modify it I simply entered p0 into every fourth street play domain in the profile editing screens - it takes a couple of minutes to do all seven screens. Once I had eight profiles I pushed the button and got my first set of stats for Mississippi seven.
I would suggest to anyone who is interested in the future of poker should play the game for half an hour for real money, and/or on disc before passing judgement.
Dan Rubenstein writes >In the United States, seven-card stud is the dominant high-limit game.>
Does that mean pot limit? I have played pot-limit stud in an English club a couple of times, and it's played half pot in Oz. I thought from what I have read, heard and seen on this page and elsewhere that limit betting was the dominant form in the US.
As a pot limit game it's way too slow: the issues are rarely clear cut and there is a lot to think about, five times. And the third hole card kills bluffing: it's hard to be agrressive in the face of unlimited hidden strength, which is what the third hole card grants. that's what some people like most about seven card stud: the limit betting and/or third hole card protects them from being bullied by big bettors.
There are only two good ways to start a game of seven card poker; with three live cards or with two. Starting with four live cards (usually two down two up) is playable, and is mercifully brief compared to seven-card stud, but it will never be a mainstream game.
After the three card start, it is customary, for no good poker reason that anyone can show, to drop four single cards, the last one down. My contention is that seven-card stud is popular in spite of those things, not because of them. Seven card stud has the three card start, and that's the best way to start a hand of seven card poker: the rest is out of shape, but it still works because of the strength of the start.
I think I can prove with compass and ruler that fourth street is a blot on a good game, but what I say in way of argument is irrelevent. The game speaks for itself, and it plays better than 7CS, better, I think, than holdem, and better than Lee Daniel Crocker's sacramento too.
Leaving aside any technical argument for the moment, the easiest way to show what adding fourth street, a third hole card, and a fifth round of betting to a good game of poker is to point out that adding any of those things to holdem - which is the only other practical way to play seven card poker - makes an inferior game of poker.
Same thing with mississippi: add in the bet at 4th, the fifth round and the third hole card and it is a shadow of itself called seven-card stud.
It only looks different because the shadow was seen first.
That doesn't matter much either I guess, all that matters is that mississippi seven is seven-card stud, only much better.
Huxley,
I was going to blast you for trying to say that 7-card stud was absolete and trying to change the game to Miss...stud, but you only said it because you are having problems with the game at this point in time. Come on take it easy already. We all get frustrated from time to time.
You say 4th street sucks. I think 4th street is very important. 4th street is usually the place where you can find where you are at for cheap and act accordingly.
Also I think the expert can extract a lot more value from his hand in stud than in hold-em especially against the weaker players and there lots of them.
You don't like the many cards you have to remember. Many people don't like it, but it is just part of the game(most card games). By the way if everybody remembered A L L the cards that went out you would have many great players, but this is not the case as most don't. I'm just saying it because I know if I remembered all the cards I would be a monster in this game. So, if you don't remember most all the cards maybe you should not play stud period.
As far as pot-limit 7-stud goes who wants to play it anyway. Make no mistake the best players still will have all the money at the end(in case of pot-limit it will be pretty quick)
I think something that is being lost here is that many of these games develop so that talented players can exploit weaker players. Why would anyone invent a game where tracking folded cards was such an integral part of the strategy? It is more work, it can tend to shorten the length of time you can play since you need to be mentally sharper than at holdem (at least i do). To make the changes that Huxley is proposing would rob the game of some of its inherent "nature" and minimize the advantage good players have over weak players.
I could imagine looking at any of the games we play and identifying the aspects of each that we do not enjoy, and desiring to change them so they conform more to our liking. I personally think it is easier to read someone at stud since you have distinct information about their hand. I am not as good at reading holdem since i have no info about each persons hole cards. Maybe holdem would be more exciting if it were dealt one up/one down. then there was a comunal flop, and turn and finally the river card is down to each player. this would make holdem more exciting for me, and easier since i am more proficient at stud.
the point is I think "change is bad" (this is one of my scientific mantras, the other is "more is better") and this post sounds a lot like someone who doesnt really like the game wanting to change the game so he likes it instead of finding a game he does like.
Todd Do or do not, there is no try
It seems to me that you are trying to reduce the short term luck factor in seven-card stud. It is precisely this reason why stud thrives at much higher limits than hold 'em. My guess is that you like this game because you feel that you can win more consistently at it. Well, that might be the case, but that isn't necessarily good.
Huxley,
Excellent! I've never played Mississippi Stud, but as soon as you described it, I said YES! out loud. Aside from the benign, time wasting fourth street round, and the difficult decisions created by the hidden river card, the fact that players couldn't engage in endlessly shuffling their hole cards before squeeeeeeeezzzing out the last card would help the game tremendously. It's really great when they do the shuffle 'n squeeze in series: each player waiting for his turn before the next one starts. If I added it up, I've probably spent years watching people shuffle that river card.
I've already pitched the game to other stud players. Good job.
Tom
In our room a verbal bet in turn is binding and a verbal bet out of turn is not binding. An ex-floorman playing as a prop yelled check out of turn and then raised when an inexperienced player bet into four players. This was a low stakes 7stud game. Certainly this is not illegal and when I asked the poker room manager about the situation he said he didn't much like it unless it was not intentional. A dealer was also standing at the desk and immediately named the prop, so I guess there is not much doubt that it was an intentional move. I know in the old days (in school) a move like this would have been standard practice. How do you feel about it? /moses
I dislike it. It doesn't fool me (anymore), but it does often have a significant negative affect on beginners. I'm very sure that many hundreds of new players have quit playing early in their careers because they got burned by someone like this. Those people might otherwise have still been playing regularly in the cardrooms today.
The fact that it was someone who should know better says a lot. He obviously doesn't care. The fact that he was working as a prop tells me something. He should have been fired (or at least warned this time, and fired next time). The purpose of a prop is to keep a game going, not chase out beginners.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
NT
Ethics!
I expected more response on this subject. Doesn't surprise me that the Fossilman and I agree in our dislike for the kind of move described in the original post. Of course it did my heart no good at all to read a response that said that ethics and poker are an oxymoron.
The way one should play poker. Of course this is just another opinion of mine. I am a baby boomer. Born in the late forties, a teen in the dynamic sixties and now an older, Uhmm, gentleman. While growing up I played a lot of sports. Baseball and football were my favorites. The one thing that I had instilled in me by all my coaches and teammates was that it wasn't whether you won or lost but how you played the game. Of course winning was much more fun. But the belief in fairness and integrity were much more important. Playing your best while abiding by the rules was what I and my teammates strived for. When I play poker I have a strong desire to win. But I have just as stong sense of right and wrong. I strive to play fair. I admit to taking advantage of mistakes my opponents make. I try never to take advantage of my opponents. Some may feel that "all is fair in love and poker". Not me!
Vince.
Bob Wilson has made this comment on the new game of mississippi seven, as compared to seven card stud: "I think Mississippi is a significant improvement."
Please see earlier posts "7CS RIP 1999" and "Why 4th ST. Really sux" for the rules and some commentary.
Now I'm going to blast you.
THIS IS THE THIRD POST ON THIS SUBJECT MAN!!!
COME ON GIVE US A BREAK!
MASON IT'S PAST SEPTEMBER 15(who said we have freedom of speech here?)
There is an big effect of the % of winning hands you play on the rake you pay. This is something I have never seen mentioned anywhere (maybe because I haven't been reading the Forum long enough or maybe because it is obvious?!). But here goes:
To take the extreme case, if you win all the hands you play, you pay rake only on those pots. But if you win, say, 1/3 of the hands you play, then to maintain the same hourly profit you must win enough to make up for your lost investment in the other 2/3 -- you are effectively paying a rake on that lost investment.
For example, suppose you were winning $10/hr at 5-10 HE and making an average investment of $15 in each losing pot and $30 in each winning pot, with 30 hands played per hour so the blinds cost you 3x$7 = $21.
If you play only 1 hand per hour, then the size of your winning pot is $68= $21 blinds+ $30 investment + $10 profit + $7 rake.
But if you play 3 hands per hour, winning 1 and losing 2, then the size of your winning pot is $101 = $21 blinds + ($30 + 2x$15)investment + $10 profit + $10 rake. You are paying almost 50% more in rake.
Therefore it seems to follow that a "high variance" strategy pays a toll in extra rake per $ of profit (but may still be more profitable overall).
Comments?
I don't understand your math. In your first hypothetical, the guy is playing 1 hand per hour and winning it. In the second hypothetical, the guy is playing 3 hands per hour and only win 1 of those. Of course he has to win a bigger pot to make up for the losers.
At first I thought your point was as follows. If the pot is being raked, you can't play as many hands. This is because you will only win some percentage of the hands you play, and if a hand is only barely profitable, that bare profit will get eaten up by the rake. Therefore, you can only play hands that beat the opposition by enough money to overcome the rake. Is that it, or not?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
My point was that, for a constant win rate ($/hr or $/hand), the more money you put into pots you don't win, the more rake you pay, since the total of your winning pots, which must make up for the $ put into the losing pots, will be larger. Keep in mind I'm talking about the same win rate in both situations.
I hope this is clearer.
However, since rakes are typically capped (which I forgot to take into account in my original post) might negate my entire argument in many cases.
I still don't see the point. You can't (readily) change playing styles while maintaining a constant profit. And you certainly don't change from one winning style to another that you think will have the same win rate (unless it reduces variance).
Usually, you only change your game when you think it will improve your win rate, right?
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I do not understand the math myself, but would like to offer that you only pay "rake" on hands that you take the pot. You pay "lost bets" on other hands.
It is easy to calculate how much you lose to the rake: % of hands won * rake per hand (using the max is pretty close most of the time) * hands played per hour.
In a raked game, you can avoid the rake by: playing tighter. Slowplaying more in marginal cases.
This will have you winning fewer pots, thus less rake paid.
Good luck.
Kate - You are onto something here, but I think you have it slightly backwards. Instead of assuming a constant win rate, your objective is to develop a strategy to MAXIMIZE your win rate, considering the rake as one of the factors. As Dan Z so brilliantly points out, you only pay the rake on hands that you win. So one of your considerations in determining your strategy for a particular game (suppose it is with a high percentage rake) is to reduce the percentage of hands that you win, with a larger pot size most of the time that you win. This is entirely possible, as you will play more high implied odds hands like suited connectors, and fewer unsuited high-card hands. I have developed such a strategy for myself, playing in loose-passive 3-6 and 4-8 hold'em games, and I estimate that with the average player at my table winning 3.3 pots per hour, I win about 1.5 pots per hour.
Dick
Thanks to all who read and responded to my 2 previous posts in this thread. I think it is necessary to go thru the math in my example to get my point. I won't try again to clarify it except to say that I used a constant win rate so that my example would calculate rake paid per dollar of profit for 2 different styles of play.
Kate
I'm stumped. I'm bright enough to figure out that 20/40 is double 10/20. In 10/20 Holdem the blinds are half that of 20/40 Holdem. Since that is true (I think!). What factor makes it so difficult to get unstuck at 10/20? I have heard someone also make a similar remark about 10/20 Stud (hard to get unstuck). I believe it is a real phenomenon, but I have never been privy to a discussion on it. Thankyou.
There was a lengthy discussion about the structures of holdem and stud which will (in part) answer your question. It was a week or two ago on this forum, I started a thread about poker essays and the structures of 10-20 stud and 15-30 holdem. While not specifically geared toward your question, some of the answers you seek will be there, the response I received was very good.
Dave in Cali
I am going to Chicago in a couple of weeks and would like to know where there is a Casino in town or outside of town that has Hold'em. If you live around the area or know of a place, please let me know.
Thank you in advance,
David
David:
Hollywood Casino in Aurora spreads 5-10 and 10-20 HE along with 1-5 stud. Harrah's Showboat in East Chicago, IN spreads a 3-6-12 HE/OH game along with 10-20HE and 1-5 and 2-10 stud. I've heard that the Empress in Joliet also has a poker room.
Hope this helps.
-Michael
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
"I've heard that the Empress in Joliet also has a poker room. " Also Empress in Hammond, IN.. 15 min from Downtown 4 - 8 Holdem Call a head 1 888 4Empress ask for the poker room and make a reservation up tp 90 min a head of time. (to insure a spot call or the wait can bee a hour or longer)
MJChicago
Maybe its just me, but if I'm going to play in a game where I've never played with any of these people, the hour wait can be a very good time to learn people's tells and betting habits.
I find it difficult spotting habits and tells as a railbird. First of all, if their are multiple tables, you don't know which one you'll be at. I like to sit at the table and unless I get AA-JJ in early position or good odds and some suited connectors of the big pairs in late position all just watch a round or two and that works for me.
This is a different thread to the mississippi question.
I applied the multi-card draw to five card stud and produced two games. Unlike mississippi seven there is no reason to expect that these games will become major casino games, but they look pretty interesting.
The first one I would like to call holdit (I invented a game last week and called it holdit, but I think this one deserves the name more): deal ONE card only, face down to each player; bet, then deal two cards face up to each player; bet: a third upcard, bet, and the fourth upcard and bet.
That gives four rounds of play with an exotic 1-2-1-1 layout. I just thought of that one, and it sounds like a lot of fun in loose company.
The second one I want to call Kalgoorlie stud, after the famous goldmining town and gambling centre: I thought of it about a year ago. Deal two cards to each player, one down one up,as for five card stud. Bet, then deal two more cards face up to each player, then a fourth card face up.
It has three rounds of play, which is something of a rarity in poker, and a 2-2-1 structure.
Kalgoorlie stud plays well with canadian stud rules: a four-flush beats a four-straight beats a pair.
There is another figleaf game I invented recently (at least no one has said otherwise yet) and which I called holdit, which is holdem with one hole card dealt face up. I want to rename that one holdtight.
We played a game in our looose home game that had two down and one up on 3rd, then 1 on 4th, 1 on 5th for a three betting round game, 3-1-1 layout. It is a good game for wild home games, and especially interesting if made something like "low in the hole".... Might be brutal if played high/low, see recent 2+2 post.... Probably won't replace 7cs anytime soon but interesting nonetheless....
Dave in Cali
My theory is that hole cards are like swimsuits: less is more. Figleaf games like five-card stud are played in a thong, two-hole card games in shorts and shirt, three hole-card games in a heavy overcoat. It's more fun with less on.
Last night I was playing holdem. I had been losing, mostly because the game was SO passive that I couldn't make any plays when I had a good hand.
For instance, I had AKs and raised on the button, 8 players in the pot, everyone calls. The flop was AK6 rainbow. Could hardly ask for a better flop, right? WRONG!!!!! Everyone checked to me, Of course I bet, so as not to give anyone a free card. I was hoping to get check-raised, but everyone just called, all 8 players! What could they possibly have, and how was I supposed to read their hands?!!!!!!
Suffice it to say I lost to trip 5's on the river, but the holder of 56 (with no flush draw) just checked and called the whole way! This same player cold called 3 bets before the flop with 6h3h, and 3 bets on the flop which was AsJs6d (of course making 666 on the river and beating my aces and jacks!). It would seem at first that this would be an easy game to beat, but not so fast there skippy....
The purpose of this post is not to complain about my having lost in an easy game, but rather to help some players rationalize WHY we lose in easy games. Also, I feel this forum has helped me understand why I sometimes lose when I know I am the best player at the table. Special thanks to David Sklansky's article on the essays page about why we lose in easy games.
The point is that when games are SO passive that no one will bet, they are (almost) "too good" for the skilled player to win at! When no one will bet, it is almost impossible to make plays. If you can't raise, you usually can't knock anyone out or bet anywhere near enough to protect your hand. It becomes a contest of everyone ante up and we'll deal out the cards and see who wins the pot, no betting necessary!!! Flops such as the AK example are bad news for you when no one will fold and no one will bet.
Another reason I lost $$ in this game was that I never made any of my big draws, while the other players drew out on me almost every time. This is merely a statistical abberation, not the poker gods getting their revenge! Two weeks ago "I" was the one making my draws on almost every hand!
I gave up on the HE game after a while and went to 5-10 stud. I found what looked like a good game and took a seat. But alas, it seems the "gods" must have still been angry with me! Soon after I sat down, it became apparent that no-foldem-holdem can also be played 7 card stud style! No one would fold in this game either, I was just about the only bettor in the game! It was check-call-check-call, then maybe a raise on the river when their 2233 filled up!
Rolled up nines...
I get dealt 999 on 3rd. Terrific start, right? Player one to the left of the bring in raises (a rare raise) with an ace up. Three people call. I reraise (I was last). I want to get as much value out of my hand now before it gets drawn out on by a 23456 straight! There were plenty of callers, so I wasn't going to slowplay. This might be my only chance to raise. Everyone just calls (even the aces). As far as I can tell, I am the only one who "should've" called the original raise (let alone the reraise).
On 4th, everyone, (including the ace who raised), checks to me and then calls when I bet. I don't improve.
On 5th street, a player with a king door card catches another king, becoming high, but still checks! I bet again, everyone just calls! (no one has folded yet). How frustrating, never being given an opportunity to raise! Still no improvement for my trips.
On 6th, the player with the kings catches a third king. Finally, someone other than me bets: you guessed it, the trip kings. I know my hand is completely ruined now, as the other nine and at least four of my pair cards are dead. I fold, not wanting to pay off another 20$. (I had no doubt this was the correct move). In the end, trip kings filled up and beat the straight and flush who foolishly called on 6th and then made their draws on 7th!!!! The sucker who chased me with nothing had just won a big pot!
Looking back, the player with the kings never even had a pair to begin with, and just got very lucky in beating my 999. I didn't take it personally, because I know these players are the ones who pay off my good hands by chasing with next to nothing.
Many players, including me, get frustrated when this keeps happening over and over in a session, like it did to me last night. But what can you do? I guess I could have picked a HARDER game, but then what would my expectation have been? Surely I had a much greater expectation in the easy game than the hard game. However, it's impossible to know ahead of time when the suckers are going to get lucky and hit their longshot draws.
It's very frustrating, losing to bad players, but poker is a long run game. I certainly didn't lose as much last night as I have been winning over many sessions playing in these games....
It still sucks when this happens though....
All comments welcome....
Dave in Cali
Dave,
I agree, but when you are catching, there is no better feeling, that you beat the "MOB".
Paul
Dave,
The games you're describing are the most profitable in poker. Because of the multitudes drawing against you, your variance will be high. However, you don't want to be unhappy when you flop AK6 while holding AK. No one has more than 4 outs against you (unless you're already behind to 66). And, there can't be a whole mob who collectively have that many outs (as the more of them who have a gutshot straight draw or a 6, the more they use up each other's outs). In a spot like this, the only reason you want someone to bet or raise is so you can get more money into the pot, not so you can chase people out.
Now, when you hold AK and the flop is KT6, you'd like to get rid of some callers. But that's because there are now so many more thin draws possible that they can collectively add up to most of the deck being bad for you. However, even in these spots, your pot equity is usually much higher than your share relative to the number of participants (e.g., if there are 5 callers, you'll win more than 1 in 6; if there are 3 callers, you'll win more than 1 in 4; etc.).
Again, more profitable for them to be loose and passive than loose and tricky/aggressive.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
The Other Dave wrote
"The point is that when games are SO passive that no one will bet, they are (almost) "too good" for the skilled player towin at! When no one will bet, it is almost impossible to make plays."
You can't make many plays in these games but you still can have a huge edge by just playing better cards and knowing when to get out ( and when to stay in ). You may get to make a few of those pot-saving plays described in the 21st century HFAP loose play section but that is about it for fancy stuff.
The problem with these games is that they can be boring and you have to listen to a lot of idiotic chatter about lucky seats, bad-beats, people saying river! river! over and over etc.
David
Dave,
It's not just the low limit games! It's all relative to how much the players in that particular game are willing to gamble, whether their on tilt, how much money they have, etc.etc.etc.
I played 10-20-40 last night and got dealt Ah9h on the button with 3-4 callers. I thought about raising but didn't think my hand warranted it. The SB and BB both called making it 6 players. The flop was J95...I was pretty sure I had the best hand and when it got checked to me I bet and everyone called.(Note: The SB called 1st not knowing what the players behind her were going to do.) Turn is 10 with a spade draw....Checked to me.I bet SB and 2 others call...River 7h No flush. SB bets 40. I disgustedly call thinking pure bluff or pocket 8's but hoping bluff obviously. She turns over 8h3h. What in the hell just happened. I was fuming so bad I had to leave after a few more hands. That was the 2nd of two such beats and it just wasn't my night but you know what, I hope that's the kind of players I always play against! Last night I was thinking that it is so much easier with decent players in the game but in the long run I'll take the FISH!!!
Good luck in Cali
RUSS
Was it?
Randy
Randy,
Quit it! You know she's a very solid player...Ha ha ha
Actually, I was hoping one of the "fish" would go out and let an agressive player in, just so I could get in an occasional raise! The "bigger fish" could then help ME round up the smaller "fish"!
Your ace nine losing to a back door non-nut straight made me laugh for about 5 minutes! I flopped a set of queens and lost to a backdoor runner-runner 9d2d flush in the same game! Now you can laugh!
This situation describes a lot of the games I get in ($3-6 in SF Bay area card rooms).
And the other posters have it right... these games are great for EV, but terrible for variance.
Some thoughts:
If you start "gambling" like the fish, you become one of them. You want to make your edge as high as possible to compensate for the increased variance, otherwise your bankroll will do loop-de-loops. You can loosen your requirements, but do so only with hands that are going to win in a showdown. 73o doesn't qualify, but 56s might.
In HEFAP they say something to the effect that "when the pot gets big, your goal is to win it as soon as possible." But in a really loose game, you are only going to win it on the river, so the solution (IMHO) is to either:
a. Make sure you are drawing to the best hand, and then make the pot as big as possible so when you DO hit you get paid off bigtime.
b. Avoid making the pot too big if your hand has few ways to improve (e.g., pocket pairs which don't flop a set), to reduce the odds that the sucker draws are getting.
Thus, in a loose game, I will _rarely_ raise with high pocket pairs (AA,KK,QQ, sometimes JJ) or hands like AKo in late position with many callers, since everyone is just going to call, and then there will be 17 bets in the pot, and even the inside straight draws will be justified (or, horror, the small pairs trying to catch trips on the turn or river).
But with a small pocket pair (where trips or better is my main out), I almost always raise in such a situation, since I am probably going to fold if I don't flop a set but if I do I want the pot to be nice and juicy, since I will have as many or more outs than most of the draws anyhow.
And with a hand like AKs, I really want to pump up the volume since I have so many ways to win...
In early position, depending on the mood of the game, I will generally raise with the high pocket pair, because while I won't get everyone out, I'd rather play a pot with 8 small bets against 4 players than a pot with 8 small bets against 8 players. So if I have a decent chance of knocking out some of the customers, I think I'm winning by raising. Plus, I have some chance to win right away on the turn (not flop--they always call then, right?) if the inevitable backdoor flush and straight draws don't materialize.
Another concept in games like this is that it is more important than ever not to draw at things like a small flush or the ignorant end of a straight, because with all those fish out there, one is fairly likely to have a better flush or straight.
Having said that, I believe that things like K-high flush draws go up in value, because for every time you are beaten by the A-high flush (usually when he/she catches the 4th flush card on the board to make Axo good...), your K-high flush will win against at least one, if not more, smaller flush that calls you all the way to the river. Thus, you come out ahead in the long run. Q-high flushes are still danger-- leave 'em for the fish.
It is a perplexing characteristic of low-limit (or generally, loose) Hold 'Em players that they cannot internalize the fact that the community cards make it very likely another flush is out there when they make their flush. Think about how often you see a fish disgustedly throw down a losing T-high flush in a four-way showdown.
Sometimes I want to say, "HELLLLLLO!?!?!?" Fortunately, I am not the type of player who needs to prop up his self-confidence by criticizing other players. In fact, while I will sometimes say, "ooh, lucky!" I always put a positive spin on it, as in "you must be a magically lucky person, so you better draw draw draw til daddy takes the t-bird away".
Nothing drives me more crazy than the people who need to put other players down. Actually, not true--people who yell at the dealer bother me more.
Anyhow, coming back to no fold'em, I think it is psychologically very important to go into the game prepared for bad beats and focused on the long run. Don't get too attached to hands. It's a very statistical game. And statistics only matter in the long run...
I guess a sports analogy would be baseball vs. basketball. Two unevenly matched basketball teams play 100 times, and the better team will win 99% of the time. Two unevenly matched baseball teams play 100 times, and the better team might only win 75% of the time---baseball is just a high-variance game. (One of the reasons I don't like football very much is that I think it is a fairly high-variance game and they don't play enough games to overcome the chance factor).
So for a baseball team, losing one game means something very different than for a basketball team. And so it is with no fold'em vs. "tough" hold'em.
--james
James,
How can it be correct to raise with a small pair and in the exact same situation be wrong to raise with AA? Doesn't AA have the same chance of flopping a set?
Even if you win a higher percentage of the pots where you didn't raise with your AA, I bet you're not making as large an average profit. It's probably analogous to doubling down with 11 vs. a dealer's 8. You don't win as many hands when you double, but this is more than made up for by the winners being double-sized.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I played in a 10-20 1/2 kill holdem game at FW last weekend. I've played in kill games before. I never thought much about them until this last outing. Then I had the thought that kill games could have a loosening effect on a poker game. I have my reasons but am working on them. I am looking for opinions on the effects the "kill" variant has on the nature of the game itself. Comments please.
Vince
Kill games *SHOULD* reduce the action, if for no other reason than the winner of the last pot should rarely play the next.
Kill games *DO* increase the action, if for no other reason than the seduction of bigger pots. Players LIKE to kill it. Players LIKE to call big raises. Go Figure.
Play in low limit kill games. It'd kinda like playing in the bigger game but YOU only have to post half as much blinds.
- Louie
About a year ago, I played in a 3-6 Kill HE game at Gila River in Phoenix. It seemed like the action came to a complete halt when the kill button was out there. At one point, everyone folded to the kill button seven hands in a row! Maybe this was an abberration, but after about a week of this action, I wasn't too fond of the kill.
Louie,
The original poster asked about kill games, but specifically at Foxwoods. The kill is different (and worse) there.
In California, every time I played in a kill HE game, the pot was killed when the same player scooped 2 pots in a row. In Foxwoods, anytime you scoop a pot over a certain size, you must kill the next pot. Thus, if you play 5-10 HE with a kill to 10-20, you will find that more than half the pots, maybe even almost all the (non-split) pots, are played at the higher stakes. The other difference I saw was that the killer always got to act last (preflop) in Cal., but acts in turn here at FW.
I liked the HE kill games in California, and don't like them at FW. In Cal., I would tighten up a LOT after winning the first pot, and therefore I almost never killed. Here, I kill almost every time I win a pot. I don't like that extra tax on my winning pots.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I have played in both of those types of kill games. The tax on a large pot I think is a bad idea. I like the kill after winning two in a row. While the correct strategy is to tighten up after winning a pot most players I have seen always call when they have won the previous pot and frequently raise trying to kill it. This type of kill allows those players that are trying to give away their money to do it more efficiently.
Randy R.
Look at it another way. Being sensibly selective in these loose games means you are winning less than your "share" of pots. So you win less than a hand a round. So affectively you get to play the higher stakes but have to post the BigBigBlind (kill) less than other's do.
But I agree, I favor (and discussed) the win two in a row kill games.
10-20 HE new guy (unknown) raises UTG, another call from loose player (call raises with any suited Ace), i'm 3rd in with JJ, then another unknown calls from button, 9.5 SB's in the pot ..........
Flop comes K 10 x rainbow, UTG checks, goofball bets.
My question is do u ever go on and play here or muck.
10-20 HE new guy (unknown) raises UTG, another call from loose player (call raises with any suited Ace), i'm 3rd in with JJ, then another unknown calls from button, 9.5 SB's in the pot ..........
Flop comes K 10 x rainbow, UTG checks, goofball bets.
My question is do u ever go on and play here or muck.
"Peeling off a card" is considered when you KNOW you cannot win without improvement, such as if you have a gut-draw. In this situation, you are a LONG way from knowing you're beat. You will often win this pot without help. This changes, of course, when there are lots of callers behind you.
I would raise against the goof ball so long as he's not a stone whimp.
Unknown raisers and goof balls 2-bet with LOTS of hands worse than JJ. You should have 3-bet it.
- Louie
When calculating whether or not to stay with a draw. There are a few things that have not always been clear to me. Let us say you flop a flush draw on the flop with two other preflop players. There are 3.5 sb in the pot. The odds are 1.85:1 against you completing it (approx.) by the river. Lets say one player bets, the next folds and it is up to you. There are now 4.5 sb in the pot, so you do have odds to call(yes? no?) Turn card is a blank. Opponent bets. Do you now need 4:1 odds to continue? Or should you have just not played on the flop? I figure that some of the answer lies in what percentage of the time the player will pay you off on the river when the draw completes, as well as adding in the percentage you make and are beaten. The way i figure it, in ideal situations, where the flush ALWAYS wins and the opponent ALWAYS pays off, you DO have odds for calling the turn bet. Can someone take me through this from the time of the flop calculation on? Because the way i am figuring it, in these scenarios a call on the flop would seem to be almost ALWAYS correct, and i am not sure this is true...thanks in advance.
One thing to consider with these situations is to semi-bluff bet or check-raise. Then you don't have to worry about those odds. Assuming the opponent is cabable of folding a few hands, you will certainly have enough combined odds with the bluff.
Without taking you through it, I believe you are correct that it is usually correct to at least call on the flop but it can be a bad call on the turn if the pot is too small.
David
You are rarely not getting enough odds to call for a flush draw (assuming you have the ace, and your hand will be good if it hits). You may not be getting the right odds in a very small pot with few players, when there is a bet and a raise on the turn, and no raises in the first two rounds. Otherwise, you are usually OK to draw to a flush. If your flush is non-nut, you should have some extra bets in the pot to make up for the chance you might hit but still lose. If the board is paired... should be obvious that drawing could be dangerous....
There was an excellent discussion titled something like "folding big draws" a few weeks ago. Abdul posted a response that you would be interested in....
Dave in Cali
Here was the situation:
Full table 4-8 Hold'em .I join the game in seat 8 and post. Play a few hands (nothing) the button is now on seat 10. Seat 3 posts a "live straddle" ok I have 8-2 off and fold to check out how the others are going to deal with the "Live straddle". The player to my right says "here he goes again" I make a comment "is this guy on tilt all the time" The player says "he sees you come in and will try to get you rattled with the straddle. He is testing you if you call you better be able to call the raise that is *going* to follow" . I think to myself well this should be fun at least I am on his left for each straddle(and the raise to come). I get lucky the next straddle with pocket QQ, hit trips on the flop,lots of action but i keep the pressure on and catch queens full on the river and take down a huge pot. The rest of the game (till he went broke and left) I played only top overcards when Mr. Straddle was doing his thing.
In general how should a "Live Straddle" be played.
any opinions??
Thx,
MJChicago
First off, if the guy to your left likes to straddle you should move so you aren't straddled when its your BB.
The increased wagers before the flop theoretically reduce the implied odds of drawing hands link 87s and 44. The straddle *SHOULD* reduce the number of players contesting the pot B4 the flop, and encourage less folders along the way. Therefore, trouble hands gain value (since a big part of their negativity is their reasonably bad implied odds).
You should routinely 3-bet with any hand worth 2-bets. You should almost always 4-bet any hand worth 3-bets. The significantly larger pot means you should routinely try to knock opponents out at all stages, including the blinds before the flop.
Therefore, straddled pots should make for "pair poker".
Having said that, it has been my expernence that MANY low limit games attract MORE callers when there is a straddle. Go figure. That makes it more difficult for you to judge when to play draws and when not.
- Louie
I'd add one thing: if you always 3-bet the straddler, he may stop straddling. I hate to force my opponents into playing better. So I temper my 3-betting with that knowledge.
Would some one explain what a live straddle is to us dumbies.
Milt -
A "live straddle" is a raise from the player immediately to the left of the big blind, made *before* the first two cards have been dealt to all players.
It's also generally known as a good way to lose money, if you're the one doin' the straddlin' :-)
p0wer
There is some image value to straddling esp. in a very tight game. There are some casinos with very tight structures (like the $2-$3 blind structure in the Orlean's 6-12 game w/$4 straddle) where a straddle doesn't cost you much and might buy you a bunch of action. Additionally buying option of last action preflop has some limited value.
That said, I like the straddlers to my right so I can 3 bet and isolate when reasonable. Contrary to what Dan said _most_ of the straddlers I see crave the action. They are going to 3/4 bet it if you don't (often blind).
Just to add. this was a *VERY* loose game 5-6-7 way action every hand and the pots were huge for a 4-8 game. Before the flop (with our friend the *Live* straddle) there was $60.00 dollars in. If you hit the flop you had a nice pot. And yes "Mr. Straddle" went broke in about 4 hours
"Live" means this player may raise when it gets back aroune if other's just call.
I often go to play at four in the A.M. and often find myself playing three handed. In that case, I like to "live straddle" on the button. It forces the other two guys to make thier descions first on all rounds of betting, thus they are always reacting to me. I find this works very well for me.
A straddle is just another blind. It is not that much different from a blind posted by a player who missed his blinds and wants to get back in without having to wait until his blind comes around naturally.
Best rule I ever heard:
"Don't ever just CALL a straddle. Either muck or raise."
Why let another player in for free with trash cards?
Diane
In a full game you would get 7 hands for the price of 1sb AND you post in late position. From the blinds you get 10 hands for 1.5sb but you post in bad position. Posting late seems like a good idea to me.
In a 3-handed game you get 1 hand for 1sb if you "post", and get 3 hands for 1.5sb when you wait for the blinds. That's not a good deal. IMO.
Yes, raise or fold straddles is the routine strategy.
As per Hippie Chuck's auto-straddling... I can see this if the opponents are easily cowed and you would raise with most everything anyway. Straddling cowes them even more since you have the threat of the raise; and of course actually raising is good for you. But if you would normally be reasonably selective in your raises (say you would raise half the time) then by straddling you are 2-betting with hands you normally wouldn't want to and getting (or threatening) an additional bet a lot of the time when you want to. I doubt the additional "threat EV" makes up the difference.
- Louie
In the fairly loose games I have been playing in lately, I have been aware of how important it is to make some of the long shot calls ( e.g gut-shot straight ) when the odds are there.
What is the correct way to adjust the odds when the board is paired?
For example:
You are at the turn and have to decide whether to put the last call in with no re-raise possible and the board just paired at the turn. Lets also say you have no particular read on the leading hand, it could be top pair, two pair, or a set. Your gutshot will be the nut if you hit it.
How big does the pot have to be?
David
As a "rough" approximation, don't count some of your outs.
So, you've got JTs, flop is 378, so any 9 gives you the nuts. You call. On the turn, the card is a 7. So, anyone who flopped a set or 2-pair (that included the 7) now has you drawing dead. But, you've still got 4 outs to the nut straight (as long as no one is holding 97!).
If the turn had been a 4, you'd be drawing to the nuts, and you'd do the math as 46 unseen cards, 4 of them are 9s, that's 42:4 against hitting, or 10.5:1 against. You call if there are 10.5 bets in the pot (we're ignoring implied odds here).
If I thought there was about a 25% chance of losing even after the river card was a 9, I'd do the math assuming 3 outs. So, that's 43:3 against, or about 14:1 against, and there will need to be 14 bets in the pot before I'll call.
The other reason this situation is worse is not only might you lose after making your draw, you cannot get into a raising war with anybody because you won't have the nuts. Thus, even if a 9 comes on the river, if the person still bets, you probably can't even raise once. And, if they check to you, it's unlikely that they'll raise you, and you can't put in 3 bets. So, your future potential profits on the river aren't as high when the board is paired, thus reducing your implied odds, probably to zero.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
My rule-of-thumb is the pot needs to be twice as big when you are not drawing to the nuts. Then adjust that. Its obviously not so bad of the board paired 22 than when it pairs AA.
A lot depends on the flop, the action on the flop, and which card pairs on the turn.
i.e. let's say you have JTs and call, then someone raises in middle position. The flop comes AK4. You check, he bets, a couple of people call. You call. On the turn, the Ace pairs. You check, the same guy bets again. This is a very dangerous flop, and I'd downgrade that gutshot a LOT. Ask yourself what hands he would have raised with before the flop, bet the flop, and bet the turn again. If he doesn't have a full house already, the Queen you need could easily give him one. I'd chuck that gutshot unless the pot was absolutely massive, and maybe even then.
Now, same situation, but the flop is J73. You have 9Ts. If he bets, the only hand that he can have that is dangerous for you is JJ, and maybe 77. You can't put him on two pair, or probably anyone else for that matter if it's a reasonably tight game. If there are no raises on the flop, that increases the probability that no one has a set. So I would downgrade my gutshot only slightly, if at all when the board pairs. Let's say the 3 pairs on the turn. If you hit your 8 on the river it's almost certainly good because you're not going to be shown 88 or 83 by anyone. If the seven pairs, you have to consider the possibility of an 87, and downgrade your straight draw accordingly. If the jack pairs, you have to worry about J8.
The bottom line is know your opponents, put them on probable hands, and go from there. There is no real 'rule of thumb', other than your best judgement.
In a loose game or multiway hand, a board pair is a disaster for a gutshot draw because the board is usually coordinated, meaning that (1) an opponent is more likely to have a full house than he would if the board were just paired, in which case you're drawing dead; (2) an opponent is more likely to have as good or better draw to a straight than you do, in which case you might be drawing dead (this is usally when you pair on the turn and think: hey, 5 more outs); (3) an opponent might have a better straight draw and an open set and one of your outs in his hand, this last of which might be the best thing for you.
Also, when the pot is large enough to appear to give you the right odds for drawing (which are god knows what anyway), there are often enough players contesting it to raise a big possibility of drawing dead.
Even if your draw is alive and you hit it on the turn, any pocket pair, open set, flush draw, or higher straight draw can overtake you on the river.
So I throw them away.
On the flop, when an opponent otherwise has two pair or a set, the effect of his hand on your straight draw is less severe because you only care about the chance of him filling up when you also hit. This leaves him with one card.
If you have a flush draw on the flop and one of your cards can make an opponent's full house, you've gone from about a 36% chance of winning to about 26%. If you've got a flush draw and gutshot, you've gone from about 45% to 33%. If you've got a flush draw and an open end straight draw, you've gone from about 55% to 40%. (I'm working from memory, you may want to check theese numbers yourself). Or just subtract three outs.
I am not sure what question you are answering but did you say you throw away all gutshots on the flop in a loose game?
David
I was trying to answer your first question, about the value of gutshots when the board is paired.
No, I don't always fold them on the flop in a loose game. (I probably ususally call).
But when the flop is paired and multiway and a gutshot is all I've got, then I pretty much always fold unless I'm getting something like 20-1 to see the turn and I can't remember this ever happening. (Note this also means no overcards, which means I can't be drawing to the nuts. One or two overcards could make me call or raise).
The way to play small suited connectors in NL HE is well known (and very well described in Doyle Brunson's or TJ Cloutier's books):
when you hit it on the flop (2 pairs, trips, straight, flush or even 4-straight) and you can put with accuracy your opponent(s) on big cards or big pairs, then you have a great chance to double your stack.
But this suppose
(1) you are in late position pre-flop (because you can not afford a raise or a re-raise)
(2) you have very good implied odds:
- either the pot is multi-way and unraised, but in this case you can not put with accuracy ALL your opponents on big cards (you can flop trips with 76 and lose to A7s on a flop of 772)
- either you have a big stack against a big stack and your opponent has raised an amount which is less that 5% (or a little bit more ?) your stack, and this time your only opponent is supposed to have big cards
On the other side in NL tournament it is commonly admitted that you have not no take risks with a big stack against another big stack unless you have a very premium hand, especially late in the tournament where you prefer to attack the small stacks (in this case you don't play the small connector) and protect your stack against the big ones.
So my question is: when is it OK to play small connectors in a NL tournament (assuming it is a rebuy tournament in the 1rst 2 hours of play, and then no-rebuy till the end) ?
PS: I HATE to play drawing hands in tournaments ...
I'm trying to figure out just what you feel is the paradox.
"So my question is: when is it OK to play small connectors in a NL tournament"
If you have a medium stack, you can get in cheaply against a big stack, and you are confident of your ability to play correctly after the flop then you may take one giant step and call with small suited connectors.
Vince.
PS: Small suited connectors are drawing HANDS. Learn to correctly play every hand in the deck and you won't have to hate any of them.
PS-PS: If you are not concerned with the number of rebuys you make then you may call every time you get small suited connectors during the rebuy period. That's gambling. Otherwise the best thing to do is as I stated above.
The paradox is simply that:
(1) you should better play small connectors in good position in a RAISED pot against a lonely opponent, so that you can put him with accuracy on big cards
(2) but for that to be correct both you and your opponent must have big stacks (you need big implied odds)
(3) it is almost always wrong in a tournament to play a big stack against another big stack (in this case you don't want to gamble, you want to have a premium hand)
Anyway, I think you are right:
- better play them in the rebuy period since I can gamble a little more, and the implied odds are there because of the multi-way pots: but in this case I want to catch perfect on the flop, and not play 4-straight or 4-flush, and be very carefull of trips
- late in the tournament avoid playing them unless I am sure I can bust my big stack opponent with a favorable flop: in this case I want a loose/agressive opponent because I want him to put a lot of chips with his big cards or big pair. I think it is an error to make this play against a tight opponent who can release his hand on the flop.
KK
Early in a NL tournament you can play drawing hands just as readily as in a NL ring game. That being said, the conditions are so different that it seldom applies.
In a NL ring game, people often have many hundreds of times the BB in their stack. I have seen people sit down with $5,000. in a game with 3,5 blinds. That being the case, they can take a chance with low percentage hands because the amount they can win is so much more than the investment.
The same is true in a tournament, but you are seldom in a spot where you and an opponent both have so much more money than the size of the blinds. Even the WSOP, where you start with T10,000 has initial blinds of 25,50, or a multiple of only 200:1. In this tournament, you can take a shot early, but once you've been playing a while and the blinds have gone up a couple of times, suited connectors aren't as playable.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I would not call a raise with them unless the raise is small (2 X BB)and my chip status was good (I may call a bigger raise if I was one of the chip leaders). If players started limping in, I would also limp. If the flop is 7-7-2, you are last to act, and everyone checks to you in a multiway pot, bet the pot(or approximately close to it). If you get raised or called, use your judgement about the player, and get ready to release it (especially the guy that always plays with an Ace in his hand). You can easily trap yourself with this hand. In a multiway pot, I would check it down if anything higher than a seven came on 4th or 5th street. Besides the guy with the A-7, you need to watch out for someone that limps with pairs. If an 8, 9, Ten, Jack, Queen, King or Ace fell on 4th or 5th, be very careful.
Typical 3-6HE game yesterday with a mix of talent in the game. One obviously brand new player, who made a series of impossible calls, run-downs and miracles to stay alive. It was clearly only a matter of time before he chewed up his $100 buy-in, and who knows if he was willing to go in more? Player to my left (newbie was 2 to my left) was providing ongoing Boomer Eliason color commentary to the player about the quality of his plays, advice on pre-flop raising, etc. Some of the "advice" was pretty basic stuff, but some of it was so far off base as to be laughable.
Question: would you take the advisor to task for his actions? I was waiting to get him away from the table to do so, but he or the newbie never took a break and I didn't want to say anything in front of them both. The more I listened, I wasn't so sure I wanted to stop the flow of lousy advice, but that's probably beside the point. Thoughts?
It's generally a bad idea to give advice at the table as you know. It can annoy everyone including the person you're giving advice to, and if they take it to heart it costs you money.
That said, sometimes a little advice to an absolute newbie can turn him into a long time player rather than a one-shot wonder. That may be long-term +EV, especially if the player looks like someone with money.
I've given a few players advice simply because they were losing money so fast I knew that if they didn't learn a few things we'd lose them from the game forever. If they lose at a more affordable rate, they may play forever.
One thing I NEVER tolerate is other players berating someone for a bad call or bet. That's a no-win situation. It annoys the other player AND educates him. Not smart, and it's not good for the overall game either. I've seen loose happy tables tighten right up because some idiot continued to shame everyone for their loose play. More than once I've asked one of these hotheads to come away from the table for a minute, then lit into him for doing it.
This is a very good post. Let me just add that even if the advice is poor, if it makes a recreational player start to realize that there is more to this game than luck that alone can make him play better.
Dan
What are you, about 6'5' & 250lbs? I could never get away with "taking a hot head aside".
This is a common occurance in the games I play. I play 5-10 stud because the games are loose-passive. Not only do I consistantly make money but the games are more fun than the tight (I'm here to make money) 10-20 games. The players are having a good time, calling for the hell of it and of course, sometimes out drawing you. There is usually good conversation and eveyone is having a good time. Then the jerk gets into the game and starts complaining about bad beats and berating the play of certain players. This changes the whole game. I would like to kill this guy (no particular person, just the type) but have no idea how to do it. Any advise for those of us who don't know Karate.
The Advisor was very friendly and not harrasssing the new player in any way. His advice was along the lines of "you should have raised with thos pocket King's before the flop", "you can't call three players with a 3-high flush", etc. An education thing, for sure, but if the new player all of a sudden wises up and makes a play that costs me a pot when he might not have acquired that knowledge until much later in his poker life, then what? I agree with you that I can't stand the berating and belittling of other players for their play, however "bad" the play was. That serves no one's best interests long term.
Was the newbie being coached while he had cards in his hand? While the hands were still being played? As a dealer, I prohibit that on my tables during the hands. Also, I will not let a plyer badger another simply because he didn't play perfect poker.
Mo Dealer
No, the advice was coming after the play of the hand. I would have jumped in for sure if the play was live. I can see Dan Hanson's point that some friendly helpers to the new player might keep him around longer, or help turn him into a permanent fixture in the game; and I can also see Mason's point of view that the player might suddenly realize he's in way over his depth. But, who knows, if he likes a challenge and wants to get into poker more seriously, that can't be all bad, either. My original post was just that I wasn't sure what posture to take at the table.
It happens a lot that players will actively seek me out and ask advice, especially if they are sitting next to me. They'll say, "Do you think I should have raised there?" etc. My usual response is a friendly, "Well, there's a lot to think about, and depending on your read of the situation you could justify a raise or a call like you did." Or I'll just say, "I don't know... I wasn't really following the play" or something like that. Be somewhat helpful, be friendly, don't lie to them, but don't sell out the farm either. I might say, "I can see why did you that." or something, even knowing it wasn't a really solid play.
I think Dunc's question was more should he take the big mouth ADVISOR to task for commenting on the Newbie's play. My feeling is that if the "advisor" is not harassing the Newbie, or making comments during the play of the hands, you should not interfere. Learning how to deal with obnoxious self-proclaimed "experts" is just as much a part of playing poker as learning the play of the game itself. I would not tolerate anyone harassing a newbie (or anybody else) and I would handle the situation by leaving the table and talking to the floor person (if the dealer was not doing his job). Black Jack
The only time I felt like coaching a newbie was one time I was playing 1-3 7cs. She went all in on 4th. When her friend came by she just folded her cards right then. I really wanted to tell her to wait, that she might have a winner, but she left before I had a chance to say anything. On the other hand, if I had said something, I would have had to expose my (winning)bluff on the river, so I guess it all worked out in the end ::g::.
IN middle position 4 callers before me 3 after,,, 7 of us see the flopp,, I have QQ, I figured I would wait till I seen the flop to invest more money with that many callers,, flop K Q 10 rainbo ,,, SB bets BB folds Utg raises,,, I called 2 callers behind me ,, the turn 4 still 4 suited baord,, SB bets Utg raises I reraise,, both late players call,, sb folds Utg 3 bets it,,, I called,, river A Utg slamms his chips on table I called both late players folded ,, he sais ,, well I flopped it you might of cought me,,, and shows AJ ,, I tapp the table in disbeleif that my QQ LOST 6 TIMES,, that session and looked up and seen Utg throw his cards into the muck and I am still holding mine ,, the dealer is confused that no money has been moved towards either of us and In reality my hand lost thow Im the only player left with cards,,,, Im stuck $400 in this game and Im not about to let this get a way If I can help it,, floor is called and who should have won the pot after all?
Since you saw his cards and can't have any doubts about being beaten, you should do the ethical thing and give the dumbass his pot.
IF THE PLAYER LAYED HIS CARDS FACE UP ON THE TABLE HE HAS A WINNER. IF HE JUST SHOWED THEM WITHOUT LAYING THEM DOWN HE HAS A DEAD HAND.
If at least TWO players, including the dealer recognized that he had the winning hand, then he should be awarded the pot. Otherwise, it's YOURS, BABY!!! Decisions like these will vary by poker room.
Mo Dealer
Allan,
The river was a bet and call situation. If he in fact showed his cards so that they were face up and it was apparent to the table (or the camera if needed) that he had the best hand, the pot would be his.
He is being careless and there are clubs where he may not get the pot but in the big California clubs this is the way it would work (at least if I'm making the decision).
Regards,
Rick
The ethics of poker players is one of the main reasons that turn people away from the game.
I might do some hustling in a game, but I won't take what's not mine. In this situation even if the dealer pushes me the pot I would push it back before anybody can even blink. I wouldn't even think of a decision. There is no decision as far as I'm concerned.
P.s. Where I play you unfortunately get awarded the pot 50 to 70% of the time. It is especially unfortunate for me since this is at least one edge you have over me. Oh well, so be it.
I'm glad to see the other responders clearly understand the ethics here. Similar discussions over on RGP suggest lessons are needed there.
I'm surprised at the lack of comments on how you played this hand. Shouldn't you raise the flop and try to avoid the 3 callers behind you? The flop is clearly dangerous. Shouldn't you raise IMMEDIATELY to find out where you're at? Unless UTG is very tricky, his re-raise should REALLY make you fear A-J. Maybe you could have saved some large bets.
Fat-Charlie
I think he showed the nuts. He believed the pot was halved even though you didn't raise. When you wouldn't show your cards he mucks his knowing he has at least half the pot.
Since he showed his cards, he is entitled to whatever correct share of the pot is his. In this case all of it.
Regards Mike N
I've been playing bad poker for years. I finally decided to educate myself. I picked up Sklansky's "Theory of Poker" and "Texas Hold'em Poker".
Position is obviously very important in determining one's starting requirments. However, in "Texas Hold'em Poker" I can't get a feel for how to account for the blinds. If I directly behind the blinds at a table of eight players should I consider myself under the gun or in early position. And when I am one of the blinds, do I (for purposes of analyzing my starting hands) consider myself in early or late position?
If you act immediately after the Big Blind, you are in early position, and under the gun. If you are one of the blinds, you are in early position. I consider the blinds, and the next player to all be in early position. The next 3 players are in middle position, and the last 3 players(including the button) are in late position. Good Luck! Black Jack
would someone be kind enough to tell me what are the folling limits in 7cs, especially at atlantic city casinos: amount of ante, bringin bet, & dollar cap on house rake for the following betting limiits: 5/10 10/20 15/30
john
John, you wrote:
would someone be kind enough to tell me what are the folling limits in 7cs, especially at atlantic city casinos: amount of ante, bringin bet, & dollar cap on house rake for the following betting limiits: 5/10 10/20 15/30
In atlantic city:
5-10: 50 cent ante, bring in 2$, complete to 5$, 1st raise 10$, 2nd 15$... Rake 10% increments of 1$ max 4$
10-20: 1$ ante, bring in 3$, complete to 10$, 1st raise to 20$, 2nd to 30$... Rake 5% increments of 1$ max 4$
15-30: 2$ ante, bring in 5$, complete to 15$, 1st raise 30$, 2nd 45$.... No rake time charge 6$/half hour
Dave in Cali
dave,
thanks again. in a 5/10 game, when you say first raise 10$, second raise 15$, that confuses me, i thought in a 5/10 game there was a maximum bet of 5$ on the first two rounds (unless possibly a pair on 4th st) & a max of 10$ on the last three rounds. am i wrong????
john
p.s. in the 15/30 game does that mean each player pays 6$ each 1/2 hour (12$ an hour)??
John:
The first raise completes the bet to 5$ (5-10), the second raise is a 5$ raise which brings the total to 10$, 2nd raise is a 5$ raise brings the total to 15$... Sorry about the ambiguous wording....
Oh, one other thing, in all the games, the 4th street limit is OPTIONALLY doubled when there is an open pair on 4th. For instance, in 10-20, if I pair my doorcard, I may bet either 10 or 20, If I check, someone else may bet either 10 or 20, If I only bet 10, someone else may raise 20, bringing the total to 30. All raises must be at least as big as the previous bet....
For the second question, yes it is per 1/2 hour (12$/HR)...
thanks, i fully understand the whole structure now
john
Oftentimes we see decent starting hands in Om8 such as A24Q, but with two of the cards suited along with the Ace. Although pleased that there is strong low, flush potential, and even good straight potential, I always wonder how the three suited cards affect the flush draw possibilities. In a somewhat weaker hand, such as A35Q, with say the A35 suited, if the loss of one out for the flush would make the hand playable in middle position; or possibly raised in very late position? How much detraction from EV should anyone assume in a fairly good 3-suited starting hand in general?
Hmmm, i would think A35Q w/3 suited cards to be an easy call in middle position, though i don't think I'd call a raise cold w/it. But then again it depends on the game, and what the people raise w/and such.
As for "detraction from EV" can you compute your expect ation from a hand independent from the game and players? Do you want to know what the probability is of making a flush (w/ or w/o a paired board) w/ 3 suited cards (or 4) as opposed to only 2? Let me know... (It's not hard to figure out).
Yes, I think that was the main thrust of my question. Presumably pre-flop with 3 suited cards in one's hand, one would have theoretically 10 outs for a flush; whereas with only 2 suited cards, one would have 11 outs for a flush. I'm not sure how to put that into odds, but as Ray replied, the losing percentage comparing the two is not real significant.
I've often wondered what a working rule of thumb estimate would be in figuring how many of your triple suited card suits might exist in other player's hands. Would it be reasonable to assume on average that say 3 or 4 of your other suited draws might be in other player's hands? If so it would obviously change 10 outs to only 6 or 7. Or is that not the type of information worth speculating on?
It's not worth speculating on, at least preflop. Preflop your opponent's cards are complete unknowns. Even if a guy starts raising and you know he must have AA or A2 in his hand, you still don't know the suits of those cards. So, for every assumption you make that "x" number of your suit are in another player's hand, you must also assume that "y" number of the other suits are also out. If you ignore these x and y numbers, or if you don't, your odds of making your flush should come out the same.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Doc,
having 3 of your flush cards suited hardly loses any winning percentage for your hand. it would seem like it would hurt alot but it doesnt. the value of your low cards is much more important than anything else. good luck.
Yesterday I posted the rules to two new five card stud variants: holdit and kalgoorlie stud.
Both these games have a two card drop after the first betting round and only one hole card. Holdit starts with only one card, and has a 1-2-1-1 layout.
Kalgoorlie stud has the one-up one-down start of five card stud, followed by a two card drop, then a fourth upcard, giving a 2-2-1 structure.
If we add in the extra-cards-in-hand principle of omaha and tahoe then we get another two games, which look better still:
Pocahontas five-card stud: deal two cards face down to each player: only one of the cards can be used at the end, but both are held. Bet, then drop two cards face up to each player, followed by a third and a fourth upcard, which gives the same four-round 1-2-1-1 structure of holdit, with an extra card in hand.
Coolibah five card stud: deal two cards down and one up to each player. Only one hole card can be used, but both are held till the end. Then deal two cards face up to each player, followed by a last card up, giving the same 2-2-1 structure of kalgoorlie stud, but with an extra card in hand.
Umm,
It's bad enough to have to deal with Hold'em as the successor to stud without all these new variations.
How's anyone ever supposed to get good or find a game of thier type?
I have an idea. Let's toss 'em all and play stud.
BTW, the chess fanatics aren't proposing changes all the time.
I disagree, there is more to life as a poker player than playing stud and holdem. If you can beat these games, you should be able to beat all games. Just think how much more confused the "tourists" will be when a wider variety of games are offered. I for one wish there WAS a wider variety of games offered.
On the forum, most talk is limited to stud and holdem because they are the two most prominent games, not because other types of poker are uninteresting or unworthy of discussion....
"BTW, the chess fanatics aren't proposing changes all the time". Maybe they should though. Now that opening theory has been analyzed to the nth degree, it might be refreshing to see people playing off the cuff rather than reeling off endless computer-analyzed variations. Fischer himself said that all you would have to do is swap the knights and the bishops.
Andy.
Plus, there are chess variations.
The simplest variant is speed chess.
I've seen people design chess for 3 (on a board with hexagonal squares!!), 3D chess (ala Star Trek), etc. etc.
One of the things that makes poker very interesting is that many of the strategic principles apply across variants (otherwise it would have been hard for anyone to write a book like "The Theory of Poker").
So I, for one, am in favor of variants.
I just am not too much in favor of variants (e.g., with many wildcards) that totally randomize the game, because then the strategic principles go out the window.
--james
I've posted some responses to these posts in the post jurassic poker II. See also the jurassic poker FAQ.
I raise with AKo from early position and get two callers, both of whom are loose and weak players in one form or another. I play $2-$5 HE. The flop comes J74 rainbow (one of those smog ridden rainbows where there's more black than not.) Of course I bet and I get called by a girl experiencing her poker up-flux hook, who coincidentally is compelled to do a little dance upon each successive beat she administers me, "whoo whoo whoo" it goes.
I bet the flop; she calls. The turn is a deuce. Mother of God, I'm momentarily possessed and I check. She bets. The demon persists: I call, even while everything I know says check-raise. (Actually, to put things in perspective, she will call the flop with all sorts of hands and be inclined to bluff after a check on the turn.)
I'm thinking of a King; I'm thinking of an Ace; and I'm concentrating hard. A six hits the river. I focus on the upcoming "whoo whoo whoo," I check. She bets. I call with my last chance at the check-raise bluff squandered. "You win," I'm told. She shows me 43o.
Your thoughts on turn play in situations like this against players like her coming from a player like me?
If she will call 43o for a raise pre-flop, she damn sure is going to call a turn check raise. Hell, she hit her top pair.
Ah, but Woodman, remember she said after betting the river, "You win." I could have convinced her with a check-raise on the turn I had the best hand, and, if so, I'd give it 50-50 she'd fold. At least that's my thinking...
Bet on the turn and check and call on the river. If you can tounce her one or two times by picking off bluffs or by checkraising when you've improved, start betting the river too. Turn up the volume on your headphones.
I hear what you're saying. I think the "flop bet - turn bet - river check-call" play is a good play against a player who will call with nothing on the flop, fold with nothing on the turn and bluff at the river with nothing, but who will not fold a pair on the river for a bet. And the play sets up bluff steals on the river in the future against players prone to a bluff (sometimes the same players who will call you with as little as an ace on the river.) Still, I think a check-raise bluff on the turn can be the best play, but it's definitely image and opponent mood dependant and therefore an intermittant play -- a play that should be considered on occasion.
Wanted skilled, ambitious poker players for full-time position. Pay up to $8.76 per hour.
While I have many years of poker playing experience, Im new to casino playing (a couple of quick trips to Atlantic City.
Im also new to your discussion group, and while I find many of the topics discussed interesting, the central question that I need answered is simply: can one play in a casino -- having a significant house rake to overcome -- and make , over period of time, enough of a profit to make your investment of time worthwhile?
This obviously eliminates players who are just looking for a little entertainment or action. Ideally, if one played full-time you could make a modest living, say 25 to 30K a year net.
Rather than spend a few years of my time in actual play, Ive first turned to the magic genie of todays technology: the computer. I ran a series of various tests, using a large, 500,000 (about 8-10 years of 35 hours a week playing time) sample each time. The software was Wilsons Turbo seven card stud (v.2)
The best figure I could come up with was a profit of $8.76 per hour in a 10/20 game, using a very good player against mostly weak opponents
The 5/10 & 15/30 showed a loss, and a lower profit respectively.
If I changed the lineup of players to a moderately tough one (a much more realist option), all betting limits showed a loss.
Now the question is, am I doing something wrong, is the program playing incorrectly, or what?
I selected as the test player one who plays a tight but aggressive game. And since the computer has no emotion theres no problem with going on tilt or poor money management.
I d love to hear some intelligent comments on this test.
John jjrbk@iinterport.net
PS The 10/20 game had a $1 ante, a $3 bringin, a rake of 5% with a cap of $4 & a .75 average toke . The 15/30 game was $2, $5 & a charge of $12 per hour & a $1 toke
The type of simulation you're describing has one serious flaw, it doesn't learn.
If you play against an opponent for a while, you'll (as a good player) learn some of his tendencies. If you know that he never raises with less than the nuts, you'll fold when he raises, right?
However, the turbo software, while good, doesn't have this ability. With a given set of cards, and a given set of opponent actions, a given turbo profile will play the same strategy every time, irregardless of which opponent is making each action. In other words, if you're using Conan the Librarian (he's a turbo HE character, don't know if they use that name in the 7stud software), and his strategy says to always 3-bet from late position with JJ, he will not vary this strategy because the bet came from a known rock player (because he doesn't know that, it's a fact that the profile doesn't look at when deciding it's actions).
Therefore, the software, no matter how strong it's profile strategy may be, can never optimize that strategy for a particular opponent(s). You can do this.
I can beat turbo HE for at least a couple of bets an hour against a standard rake, even with a bunch of "tough" profiles. I've never tried it, but I guess you're telling me that none of these profiles could beat an assortment of opponent profiles for any serious profit.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Perhaps a better test would be to see if a profile which is optimized to play against loose players can beat a lineup of all loose players, and if a profile optimized to play against tight players can beat a lineup of all tight players.
The player I selected plays a tight, aggresive game & I had him play against BOTH tight & loose players. The only profit was with the looser palyers.
John
But notice also that Turbo seems to have some fundamental limitations that call into question even this sort of simulation -- I think. For instance, if you want to create a TTH V3.0 profile to play well against a tight lineup, it would be nice to be able to make it semi-bluff effectively, right? But as far as I can ascertain, that's not possible because:
1. If you try to use the semi-bluff bet variables themselves (X1, x1, X2, x2), the problem is that the profile folds if another profile raises after it bets. So it bets, say, a flush draw, but folds if it's raised. This of course is not what you would like the profile to do. So the "semi-bluff" feature is essentially useless for semi-bluffing.
2. Instead of the "semi-bluff" bet variables you can just set the profile to bet (e.g., B3 where a profile will bet then call all subsequent raises on that round) a particular hand (such as a flush draw, two overcards, etc.) given particular kinds of boards. That's better than the "semi-bluff" bet variables. But it's still no good. It fails to take into account the number of active players (not to mention any specific "tendencies" of those players). It just *always or never* bets with the hand/board (and very roughly defined position) specified. This is a big problem. To take an extreme example, when was the last time you tried indiscriminately semi-bluffing with a hand like two overcards without taking into account the number of active players? Major problem, eh? And of course choosing whether or not to follow through with a semi-bluff on a subsequent round repeats the same problem.
I think there are other serious problems with trying to set a profile to semi-bluff, but that alone is enough, I think, to raise major questions about how to interpret some TTH sims.
In sum, I don't think a profile can be set to semi-bluff effectively (much less, intelligently). But I don't yet know the software as well as some do. Am I correct in my understanding of this problem? Am I missing some aspect of TTH, which negates it? I'd welcome any clarification.
John Feeney
greg,
Thanks your response makes a lot of sense. it certainly is a factor that doesn't "program" as you explain.
John
I think your simulations do not give a realistic approximation of what you could expect in real life. I have the program you used. I can easily beat weak computer opposition in 1-5, 5-10, 10-20, and 15-30 for a considerable sum. I can beat tougher opponents for somewhat less. But the computer can't make $$ in the simulations because it does not learn from its mistakes, it just performs actions based on preset tables.
In my opinion, the simulations run on these programs should be interpreted cautiously, as they are inherently flawed. Obviously the games you mentioned can be beat, both on the computer and in real life. From experience, the 5-10 games in atlantic city are usually not that tough if you are a good player, and I made plenty of $$ from these games over time.
Don't give up so easy! See if YOU can beat the computer with tough opposition. Practice at home, read you books, become proficient at calculating pot odds and chances of improvement, and THEN take another trip to AC.
Dave in Cali
p.s. if you want more specific advice about AC, email me.
As an owner of Wilson software(both 7-stud and HE),I dont rely a whole lot on the simulation feature(even though it is fun to play with).I personally rely more on playing the hands myself(a few thousand or so)and thoroughly reviewing the STARTING HAND ANALYZER feature.And of course,making sure the rake and ante structures reflect those of the local casino.My reason for is my belief that poker players are like finger prints.No two are exactly alike.The fifty or so profiles to choose from to represent you in the simulation process arent really "you".Your being a long time poker player,I'd like to think you can appreciate this line of thinking.Playing 10,000 hands at the $10-$20 level I made about $12.16 an hour(I'm not a long time poker player).Whether you agree or disagree I'd like to hear a response.
Richard:
Good point about the starting hand analyzer. Actually not much has been said about any of the features of Turbo programs other than the simulator function. The charts and graphs offer an amazing wealth of information. Although much of it is just interesting trivia, some of it can really offer significant insight. The starting hand analyzer is perhaps the most useful feature of Turbo.
In one 5-10 game I have played 5800 hands and made 3589$ profit, which is $0.61 per hand played. If I played 40 hands per hour, that would be better than two big bets per hour win rate. This particular result is somewhat too high to correlate with real life, which is the reason why I am posting it here. I cannot beat casino 5-10 stud for 2.5 big bets per hour, even though I can beat Turbo for this much! This high of a win rate probably reflects the fact that I have unlimited time to make decisions when playing at home. I think a real life expectation would be more like $0.30 - $0.40 per hand played, or about 1.2 - 1.5 big bets per hour.
I don't think anyone else should put too much faith in correlating their results on turbo to their predicted real life results. Example: In my 10-20 Turbo game, I have played 1820 hands, won 9.1% of hands dealt, won 5890$, and averaged $3.24/hand. This would perhaps suggest that I should rush out and invest all my $$ in my phenomenal 10-20 stud playing abilities... but I'm sure anyone reasonable can see the error of THAT line of thought! More likely my sample size is WAY too small and I happen to have been luckier in the recent past than the other players. When I have played 100,000 hands, I should have a more realistic hourly win rate.
The information found in turbo is useful but must be interpreted with caution, as I have (hopefully) shown. Still, there is no doubt that aspiring players will greatly benefit from the use of these programs. Just using the program and thinking about poker will help your game.
Dave in Cali
hi everyone,
I'm new to the poker world and was inspired to take on the game after watching the movie Rounders...i consider myself an average player and would like to improve on my game....i was looking into the wilson turbo program for holdem and am still debating whether i should get the wilson program or the ace-spade program....(it calims to be better than the wilon turbo... )
thanks, Dav
Until this one guy showed up here (and on RGP) and started pushing it, I had never heard of the AceSpade program. I have used the earlier version of Turbo, and like it. I hear the later versions are MUCH better. I trust people like Abdul who say that it is a great tool. I know that it's a fun game to play, as well.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Dave' Thanks for the advice. I will most definitely take your advice to heart.
John
Random thoughts:
500,000 is a small sample.
Real players can do much more than Turbo can simulate. Good players even more. While programming "your" profile you should notice how limited the choices really are; even thought there are hundreds of them.
Turbo is good for Qualitative analysis, such as which of two strategies does better against loose players. But it is bad at quantitative analys, such as by how much.
Get your feet wet for a while, and determine your own realistic win rate.
- Louie
John,
I did some simulations using TTHE and TTO8. The numbers I got for the 10/20 game were a bit higher than yours for 7CS when I played the HE game and quite a lot higher for the O8 game when I had a strong player against mixed opponents. When I strengthened the opponents, the simulations lost or barely broke even. When I weakened the opponents, the simulations $$ per hour went up. (Pretty obvious). For example, against a mixed lot of opponents, with a few weak (like in real life), it won as much as $40 per hour after rake and toke in O8. I win more against these lineups, especially at HE.
A few thoughts:
1. The lineups really count. 2. The simulations for the different games are different, as I think these three games (7CS, HE and O8) are different in real life. A good O8 game is better than any game I can think of, since a weak-avg player in that game will get chewed to death. 3. You should play yourself against these lineups, keep statistics, and figure out how to get better, you should be able to play well and win against TT before you can expect to win much in real life. 4. While I love TT and while Bob Wilson has done, in my opinion, an amazing job, there are people who sit down at the tables for long or short amounts of time in casinos who are much worse in some ways than almost all of his players. People who do not know the rules. Or who do not realize that two higher pairs on board are better than the 22 in the opponents hand, so their Ax has won the HE pot, or who never play a hand until they have the nuts (and tell you so), or who foget that they can only use *two* of their cards in O8, and on and on and on. And watching opponents live is worth a lot...so play live too.
Mark
I posted a message a week or so ago about a four flush hand I played at AC. It has lead to me thinking alot about 4 flush play.
In a 1-5 game, where 3 people call the bring in, you find yourself with a four flush on fourth street. It is checked around to you. You have seen a total of 14 cards and 3 other of your suit(7 total). I believe you now have a 41.2% chance of making your flush by seventh street. Clearly, good enough odds to call a bet if there had been one.
Lets say you check. Now on fifth, you catch an airball. The first player to act bets 5(9 in the pot) on what you think could be a high pair and it is folded around to you. You would now have seen 18 cards and lets say there are still just the three other of your suit that you have seen(7 total). You now have a 32.6% chance of making your flush and too poor odds to call the bet.
However, if you had bet 5 on 4th street, even if you had just one caller, you would then have odds to call a bet on 5th street.
This arguement could also be used on subsequent streets, to support betting.
So assuming you have a perfect read on you opponents, is it the correct play to bet your less than live 4 flush against a field without trips or a higher flush draw in it?
Wayne
I want to keep this thread up near the top, so I will start putting out a post on most days which answers some of the previous days responses. (That starts at the end of the post) I also want to take whoever sticks with me through a short course in poker anatomy.
It's not a big field but as far as I can tell no one has been there before so there are some very interesting bits and pieces lying around.
But if your only interest is in beating the game - which is impossible anyway because no one beats poker - then you won't find much here of interest, though I suppose I could leaven the dough with a few "professional's secrets".
Maybe one a day, here's the first: drug dealers on their way to prison make the very best of opponents. I know it's not original - you can find the same information in poker books - but it's something I have seen myself, and really, get there with a bucket.
What I aim to do over the next few days is set out some observable facts about poker structure, and establish a general rule which is descriptive of what we have, and which shows that poker is now more or less complete as a game, just as bridge is.
Before I do that I just want to take a side track to talk about something which has few emotional connotations: five-card stud bores most people, because it's not a mainstream game, and any comments about seven card poker meet a lot of entrenched and unexamined beliefs.
Caribean stud as I understand it is a licensed game which has been successful in many places as a house game. It is a modified form of 5-stud with some rules of play which give the dealer/banker an unbeateable edge.
I didn't think it would work, but it did. It takes the banker principle of blackjack and applies it to poker, which is itself a successful game.
Caribean has many of the best things about poker: control of what hands you play, the suspense of drawing, the ability to put more money on in good situations. It suits people who don't want to, or can't play poker, for whatever reason, but who like some aspects of real poker which caribean stud keeps.
The big difference in the feel of the game is that it is social rather than competitive. Even the dealer can be rooting for the house to lose, and there is no problem with cheating or having to hide your hole cards. It's a party, and that seems to be enough to make the players ignore the crippling house edge.
There is another game being launched at the moment called Mambo, which is a form of high-lo four card stud where the casino deals the cards: the players compete as in other forms of poker. I would be interested in hearing how it plays.
I wish the promoters of the venture luck. Mambo is a very different proposition to Caribean stud. It only provides a rake (if I am wrong in any facts here please let me know) so apart from perhaps being faster it is no better for the house than any other poker game.
It also introduces a whole new genre which has no established market. It looks like a tough form of poker, so the blackjack contingent are unlikely to flock over, nor are many of the craps, roulette or whatever players, in any great number. If it makes it with the poker contingent it will be quite an achivement, because four card poker has never been played much before, and there might be good reasons for that.
So Mambo has a pretty big hill to climb.
Tomorrow, or if not, the day after, I'll look at five card poker in it's entirety.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Some replies, with thanks to all contributors, and apologies that I can't address everything. If it's important restate it and I'll get to it eventually.
James Kittock writes: "I just am not too much in favor of variants (e.g., with many wildcards) that totally randomize the game, because then the strategic principles go out the window"
I couldn't agree more. I feel the same way about the third hole card.
Dave In Cali writes: "there is more to life as a poker player than playing stud and holdem. If you can beat these games, you should be able to beat all games"
And there is more to life than being a poker player. Anyone who plays too much poker, or only one form of poker, especially with limit betting, is risking getting bored to death with it, which plays hell with your hourly rate.
Frank writes: "I have an idea. Let's toss 'em all and play stud. "
I agree up to a point. Seven stud is the best form, if you give it a reverse heimlich to pop the fourth street bug out of it's arse, and take the top off.
As a dealer, I've noticed that many times my flops seem to be related. For example: In one particular half hour I flopped a pair of 5s 5 times! Or, I'll tend to flop face cards or low cards. Has anyone noticed these trends and is there a way a player can take advantage of them?
JJ
I think this is an interesting subject, but how do you predict when it's going to happen? Usually, by the time you realize it's happening, it's to late to take advantage of it.
It appears that these things happen for short periods of time, but I have not heard of any research being done on this phenonemon.
Here's some other examples:
Rushes--When a player wins 3 or 4 pots in a row no matter what cards he holds. Hot BJ Dealer--When your BJ ties the dealer BJ or you have 20 and the dealer draws on his 16 to 21 (this will continue until the dealers goes on break). Craps--Player throws 26 sixes before he rolls a seven and still does not make his point of 8. (when this one happened a lot of people made some money).
Does anyone have the answers?
"Does anyone have the answers?"
Sure, rare events happen all the time. That sounds like a contradiction since by definition a rare event is one which happens infrequently, but the set of all rare events is sufficiently large that you can expect to see some of its members from time to time. All of the individual events you mention were unlikely before they occured, but the fact that some unlikely events occured is not remarkable. It would be remarkable if no unlikely events ever occured, or if you could have predicted which individual unlikely event would occur in advance.
The answer is simply that certain events stand out in your head, and SEEM more remarkable. However, the truth is, that every sequence of events is unlikely, but most don't appear unlikely.
Go to your craps thing. If you walk up to a table and start betting with the shooter, and the pass line bet loses 10 times in a row, you start thinking "what are the odds of that happening?" That's because 10 losses in a row is unlikely.
What if you had walked up and the rolls had gone something like win, win, lose, win, lose, lose, win, lose, lose, win. You wouldn't even notice, is my guess. However, before you walked up, either outcome was approximately equally likely.
No, I don't mean 10 losses is just as likely as 5 losses and 5 wins. I mean the 2 series LLLLLLLLLL and WWLWLLWLLW are approximately equally likely. However, all those times you played and the series consisted of some combination of about half win and about half losses, you didn't notice, as it appeared to be typical.
If you look at it in enough detail, nothing is typical. Perspective is what causes us to see some patterns and ignore others.
I'm reminded of a religious argument. Someone tries to prove that God exists by pointing out that it is so unlikely that the world would have turned out the way it did, working the way it does, without some guiding force to create it in all its detail. I respond that the world was going to turn out SOME way. The fact that it happened to turn out THIS way doesn't prove anything. If everything were somehow different, you could still apply the pro-God argument. Since the argument is equally applicable no matter what the world is like, how can it be a valid argument? No matter what the world is, you might wonder "what are the odds of this?" Again, however it actually turns out, if you went back in time and tried to predict it, it was a rare event (again, because all events are rare).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
I find this is a hard concept for many people to understand. Often a player will come to me and say something like "I just got two black kings three times in a row. What are the odds of that happening?" I usually reply "100%, assuming you are telling the truth."
You wrote "No, I don't mean 10 losses is just as likely as 5 losses and 5 wins. I mean the 2 series LLLLLLLLLL and WWLWLLWLLW are approximately equally likely. However, all those times you played and the series consisted of some combination of about half win and about half losses, you didn't notice, as it appeared to be typical.
If the above was a fair coin flip rather than a pass line bet at craps, would you agree that the 2 speficic series HHHHHHHHHH and TTHTHHTHHT are exactly equally likely?
Anyway, there was a discussion like this many months ago and I introduced a reply containing a distant memory of a study from about 1981 that analyized shooting for an NBA team (the 76's from 1983 or so who shot 50% - defense wasn't so good in those days). Despite the fact that almost all coaches and players believe in the "hot hand" when it comes to shooting, there were no more streaks than what would be predicted by a coin flip. But as you said, the streaks are what people remember. Amazingly, many people who participate in the forum (I don't think you were posting then) remembered the study and problems with the methodology and so on. We definitely have a pretty tough group here.
That being said, if I came to a craps table on one of my rare trips to Las Vegas (or Foxwoods) and saw ten passes in a row, I would suspect there is a higher likelyhood that something "fishy" is going on rather than the event was totally ramdom.
I know very little about shuffle tracking and so on, but am interested if anyone comes up with valid thinking in reply to JJ(MO)'s post below.
Regards,
Rick
Rick wrote: "If the above was a fair coin flip rather than a pass line bet at craps, would you agree that the 2 speficic series HHHHHHHHHH and TTHTHHTHHT are exactly equally likely?"
Yes I would. I only used the word approximately because it was a craps line bet where the win and lose outcomes are not equally likely.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Some advanced BJ playes are able to use what is called 'sequencing', or memorizing a sequence of cards.
Take a standard 52 card deck, arrange it in order, and then perform a *standard* poker shuffle. Many of the cards will still be in sequence. I was just wondering if there was a way to take advantage of that. Any thoughts, Mr Sklansky?
JJ(MO)
What are the best introductory books on Omaha 8? I'm looking for something geared to new players and lower limits like Roy West's stud book.
Thanks!
I recommend Ray Zee's High Low Split Poker for Advanced Players. The first section of the Omaha part of the book is geared for the low-limit Omaha 8 or Better games. The title of this book is somewhat misleading, because I believe this section has the best advice for beginners.
I just want to second this. This section was designed for low limit games where many players were seeing the flop and going to far with their hands. The rest of the Omaha eight-or-better part of the book is where the more advanced information is, but it's not really necessary in most low limit games.
Patrick,
Yes, Ray's O8 book is excellent.
Also, buy Wilson's TT Omaha High-low program. It is an excellent way to learn and see Ray's writings in action without paying off at the table.
Mark
Besides Ray's book I also recomment Ciaffone's booklet. I have the older one which mostly concentrates on Omaha high but I understand the newer one has more O/8 info.
I have a copy of Bob's new version of the book. It's a good suppliment. But, for a beginner, I highly recommend studying Ray's 22 concepts first.
Sklansky writes:
"Mistake No. 3. Calling When You Should Fold. This mistake is made by most players in the early rounds of betting because they don't understand the concept of effective odds as explained in my book The Theory of Poker. Briefly stated, the concept suggests that it is not worth chasing with a hand even when it appears you are getting good odds because of the bets to follow."
First let me say that I consider this the single most costly mistake in poker. Of course not being an ego maniac I may have termed it something like, Mistake No 3. Calling when folding is a better play. Superior folks usually have a way of emphasizing others inferiority in their wording, "you should fold". Oh, Davey, how Sklansky of you! Now for the reason for the post. "Effective Odds". This term seems a little off base to me. I agree that one must consider the bets to follow when deciding to play or fold. In fact if you don't you are making the 9th mistake in poker. Not considering the play of the hand. So will someone please clarify the term for me. Is Sklansky saying that effectively the odds are not what they may appear to be but may be much higher. Thus the term "effective odds". Not being a Math weeny (Like Sklansky or Abdul) or English Scholar (like Fossil) or down right poker expert (like Mason) I need an explanation. How about an example to boot!
Vince.
BTW - If you think I am being unkind to Mr. S. just read the rest of the 8 mistakes. I bet he calls some of our (us) fellow poker bretheren "Suckers". Must want to make us that have made that mistake feel good. Huh!
Effective odds, as defined in the TOP, are the odds that take into account the extra money that you have to put in on future rounds (and on the current round if raised) and the amount you will win if you make your hand. This is often less than the "pot odds" which only consider the current size of the pot and your current bet.
For example, if the pot is $50 and the bet is $10 to me, the pot odds are 5:1, but if there is one other opponent who calls and then bets again on the turn and river, then I have to put in $30 to win $110 and the effective odds being offered are only 3.7:1.
Sometimes you make much more than what the pot odds indicate due to future action when you make your hand, and this is what is meant by "implied odds".
There were a couple problems with the calculation of effective odds in my example. First of all you don't count the river bet since I'm going to fold if I don't make my draw. Secondly, I added my additional bets to the total that I would win which isn't right. So let's try this again:
There is $50 in the pot and the bet is $10 to me. My pot odds are 5:1, but if I have to call a bet on the turn that means I have to put in $30 to win $80, so the pot is only offering me effective odds of 8:3, alot worse.
Pretty damn funny Vince...
Anyhow, effective odds simply means how much are risking on the current and future rounds to win the expected size of the pot at the end of the hand. For example, in $10-$20, if there's $50 in the pot head-up and your opponent goes all-in on the turn for $20, you're getting odds of 70 to 20 or 3.5 to 1. If you're on a flush draw your chance of hitting is 4 to 1. Since the odds the final pot is offering is less than the odds of hitting your hand, you'd be wise to fold.
If your opponent was not all-in and would pay you off if you hit your flush, your implied odds in this situation would be 90 to 20 or 4.5 to 1 (greater than your odds of hitting the flush) and it'd be in your best interest to go ahead and call the turn.
Vince, I have always considered checking (when I should bet) and calling (when I should raise) as the worst sins in poker.
Calling when I should fold is as you point out an error in the early rounds of a hand. The opposite - folding when I should call - can be an even bigger error than Mistake No. 3.
"How Sklansky of you." Now that's a great sentence.
The term "biggest" mistake might be changed to "most costly" as skip puts folding instead of calling. But mistake #3 might be most common mistake.
But calling when you should fold is sort of a unique case in that while one given instance of it does not cost much, it can be a very costly mistake on the whole. First, when you call early in a hand when you should fold (e.g., play a hand you shouldn't) the error can easily compound itself if you get trapped in a hand you never should have been involved in. Second, hand selection comes up every hand, so if you are prone to call early when you should fold (play too many hands) the bets add up. Was that Sklansky of me?
John, in retrospect, I guess I now have to agree with you and Vince.
I guess what I am trying to say is that "good" players rarely have to worry about the mistake of calling when they should fold. They rarely have to think about this. On the other hand, I see otherwise "good" players constantly make the mistake of checking or calling rather than betting or raising.
"that "good" players rarely have to worry about the mistake of calling when they should fold"
SKP There is some truth, no, a lot of truth in what you say above. Of course when a good player makes a call he shouldn't make he sometimes compounds it by kicking himself in the behind and thinking about it for most of the session. Or at least until he wins/loses his next battle. That is not the point. Good players rarely have to worry about any one specific mistake. Usually they make a few of the garden variety during each session. They are smart enough to know when they are making to many of the same mistake during a session and will figure a way to plug that leak in their game. One of the prime reasons I rank "calling when a fold is a better play" as the number one mistake in poker has to do with what I like in my opponents. I like the oponnents that call too much.
BTW- David made a remark about my saying "how Sklansky of you" to him. Do you think he's mad? I am asking you because I was afraid to ask him. Since you always take his side and sometimes sound a lot like him (that's not bad) I thought I would ask you.
Of course you know that my BTW was only written in Jest, good comrade.
Vince.
I am basically a Backgammonplayer and am starting right now to study Poker.
In Backgammon there are 2 programs, which play a world class game. Expert opinion differs about the question, who is stronger, the bots or the top human players. Well, if you ask me, where I'ld put my money on, I'ld answer: "Bring me an expert of your choice, I'll go with the bots!" (But of course that would be no big bargain)
The BG-machines are trained by neural nets, that means something like they play billions of times against themselves, while learning by there own faults.
Now I am sure, Poker is another story. But apart from psychological aspects, there should at least be a theoretical correct action against a perfect opponent. (Am I very wrong with this statement?)
And how strong are the Poker bots compared to top human players? (e.g. Turbo Texas Hold'em) If you work with them and study some basic books, will you get substantial favorite in a weak, non-educated, loose round?
Comments appreciated, thanks in advance,
- Harald Retter
"there should at least be a theoretical correct action against a perfect opponent."
The beauty of poker is that there is no perfect opponent and to maximize your profit, you need to play slightly differently against virtually every opponent and every table.
Harald,
A Program like Jellyfish 3.5 plays almost as good as the top expert in backgammon. I understand Snowie (sp?) is even a little better. And mainframe software (TD Gammon?) is better still (that may be what you are speaking of).
Anyway, there are no programs for poker that play at that level but there are some worhtwhile efforts if you understand their limitations. I would rate the best poker programs close to what Randy Weaver's "Expert Backgammon" was about ten years ago.
Regards,
Rick
We were playing regular five card draw with a 5 dollar ante. It had checked all the way around three times and it was now 90 dollars to open. I caught a pair of bullets, but I was in poor betting position and checked. Well, it checked all the way around again, and now it was up to 120 dollars to open. I was now UTG and guess what? I caught the bullets again. With 120 dollars to open, there was no way that I was betting UTG though, and I checked. Two people on the end opened and I mucked the bullets. It turned out that a pair of cowboys had won the 360 dollar pot. Was this a bad play?
Bishop
You did not tell us what he betting limits were. Anything less than pot limit made this an easy open. you are dealt better than two aces only about 8% of the time.
You had to open for the full 120.
I have seen a lot of posts here suggesting that major tournaments with large fields are close to crapshoots. While there may be weaker players in the larger field than in another event with a higher buy-in, the greater luck factor may negate this advantage. Due to this, many expert players stick to the side action at the major tournaments.
In what situations will a strong player have a high expectation in a major tournament event (higher than he would have as a winning player in the side action over those hours)?
Which type of tournament is generally highest EV for the expert - stud, limit holdem, NL holdem, or something else?
Which types of tournaments should be avoided from an EV standpoint?
This is actually a simpler questrion than it might appear. It basically is related to the size of the buy in and the stakes you usually play.
Excellent players can expect their average payoff to be about double the size of their tournament buy in. Thus for a 330 buy in, their EV is about +300 or so. This profit is spread out over an average period of about 5 hours. In the example given, thats about 60 an hour. So you compare that with what you could make in a side game.
Of course their are other issues, taxes, volatility, the chance for a score, bankroll requirements, the fact that the intensity of a tournament may keep you from playing your best game in a side game if you are knocked out early.
For pros who normally play 30-60 but are also real good at tournaments, I would recommend playing in $500 or $1000 tournaments when the field is easy or when you want to have a change of pace. The fact that there seems to be a lot of players who play much more often is due more to their lack of success in side games rather than some incredible extra edge in tournaments.
My experience indicates that the playing styles of some players is simply much better suited to tournament play. There are some players that are very good in both arenas but they are rare. My experience also indicates that a good player has a much higher expectation in no limit hold-em than in limit hold-em. My personal best returns are in Omaha Split. I believe this has to do more with the relative weakness of the other players in Omaha Split more than to my own play. The difference in results between limit and no limit hold-em can be partially attributable to the fact that weak players are more heavily penalized for their mistakes in no limit and the fact that they take draws that are reasonable in limit but not reasonable in no limit and they fail to make the adjustment.
UTG is a wild man on a major rush. He was in the game for 3 racks but found himself on a $1800 roll over the course of an hour. The guy was hitting everything in sight.
He puts in his customary raise. A Player three seats to the left of UTG ( a fairly "solid" player who adjusts to game conditions very well) three bets it. I call in the bb with AhKh. UTG caps and we take the flop 3 handed.
Flop: Jc10h5c
I check. UTG bets and "solid" raises. I call. UTG 3 bets and "solid" caps. I call.
Turn: 9h
I bet.
A friend of mine who had cashed out and was watching me play said that my turn bet was pretty strange.
Is it? What do you guys think?
I agree with your friend. The "solid" player raised pre'flop and raised twice post-flop. You have to figure him for at leat a premium pair, and with his post-flop betting, possibly JJ(now with a set). There was no information you could gain with your bet, so I guess you were trying to build a pot. I also guess that you got at least one raise from the solid player, and possibly a re-raise from the maniac (who could be holding anything). Unless you had been playing like a manaic, I don't think anyone would have you pegged for holding KQ through all the previous betting, so what were you trying to do? You weren't going to scare anyone out. Even if the end of your story is that Qh came on the river, I think you were incorrect to bet here. Black Jack
It looks like you are completely missing what's going on here. (I'm probably wrong, but that's the way it looks.) Are you saying that if you were sitting behind a maniac (who has random cards, essentially) that you wouldn't re-raise preflop and go big on the flop with less than premium hands, in order to put heavy pressure on the third guy who appears to have a draw? If I've got two cards in that situation, I will look like a maniac, too. I figure SOLID could have just about any slightly better than random hand, here.
Once "the fire broke out in another spot", most, if not all players with less than super hands are going to go into conservative mode, even some maniacs. If skp just checks and calls, then he may have to pay 4BB to hit his 12 to 18 outs. By betting out, he probably limits his cost to 1BB or 2BB. SOLID will not raise without something REALLY good, now. The maniac may not even raise, and if he does, SOLID may fold. Heck, even skp's bet may get SOLID to fold.
I think this is one of those times where you should bet if you figure you'll have to call all bets anyway. No harm will come, and who knows how much good it can do?
Eric
I'm assuming your play is aimed at putting pressure on the SOLID player as the gambler doesn't appear from your description to care why you may or may not be betting. This is a message bet to SOLID. So, from SOLID's point of view,'If the flop gives SKP an open-ender, does he usually bet out? Or check-raise? Or smooth-call two bets when he KNOWS its going to be capped? Would SKP call two bets with an under-pair like 9's? Not likely so I'm writing off a set of nines with your turn bet. If you turned top straight would you bet out in this situation expecting gambler to raise and put pressure on me (SOLID), or would you more likely trap, calling the raises, then check-raising the river. What if you turned the bottom straight? Would you likely bet then? If you had 7h and 8h you'd likely bet. I think you know I'm trying to drive you out of the pot with my betting and could have just about anything but still likely have GAMBLER beat. If I'm solid, I narrow your likely holdings to 78h's, AKh's, AQh's, AJh's, A10h's, AKo, AQo...or pocket J's or ten's which you've slow-played (for varience), and have now decided to push to see how strong my hand really is after GAMBLER likely raises. But you'd likely have re-raised pre-flop with J's or ten's...wouldn't you? What about J10s? Pocket 5's?! Oi my head.
SKP, I like the bet because of the pressure you put on SOLID. If you hit, GAMBLER will pay you off, if you don't, a bet on the river and a raise by GAMBLER may still let you steal. This is an interesting use of position to put pressure on the player, SOLID, who is supposed to enjoy position on you. spitball
It's a hell of a gutsy bet, but, respectfully, I don't like it. It's possible your bet may keep solid from raising, which he most likely would have done had you let UTG bet, but you're still on the come against two players who have shown an awful lot of power to this point.
I think you hit the nail on the head. When I called all bets on the flop, I thought there was a good likelihood that Solid would put me on Clubs. If I checked and UTG bet (which he could with almost anything in his frame of mind), Solid would likely come over on top to make me pay for the third club (and I would call as I have 12 outs to the nuts and possibly another 6 outs to give me the best hand).
Accordingly, I thought I would bet. I figured even UTG with his frame of mind would not smoke me unless he really had something (given that he has to worry about me and Solid) and I definitely knew that Solid would respect my bet way more than UTG's bet and would not raise me unless he had a set (I certainly didn't put him on KQ).
As it turned out, both players just called my bet on the turn. I hit an Ace on the river, bet, and was called by both players. Solid and I split the pot as we both had Big Slick.
I think your categorization of players needs some work. You have a fellow with AK who 3 bets it before tha flop, then raises after the flop with nothing on the board but a gut-shot? And you call him "solid"? I don't think so.... Black Jack
Don't forget that the bettor on the flop is a wild thing who could be betting anything. Solid certainly should raise the flop to get me out (the cap is a little more questionable). BTW, he has much more than a gutshot. He has also has 2 overcards. He certainly is justified in believing that he has 10 outs as against the wild thing assuming that the wild thing is even ahead at that point.
SKP
My guess is you and solid were both "lucky. Solid more than you. Well maybe not, you called a double raise on the flop with 6 outs and back door possibilities. Wait a minute, Less than six outs. You must have put solid on a big hand. AA, A,K or K,K especially when he caps the flop. How can he cap the flop btw and still be considered solid. Did he figure you would fold after calling 2 bets cold before the cap? My guess is that "wild thing" had you both beat until the river unless he had A,Q, (very unlikely). He probably had Q,Q with K,K or A,Q second likely. He called the river so unless he is wild and "stupid" he had you beat before the river.
Now about your betting the turn. It sure beats checking and having two guys check behind you!
Vince.
UTG had QJ off.
As I said above, Solid's cap is questionable. However, the fact that he made a questionable play doesn't take him away from the solid player category. Hell, these types of raising errors are really inconsequential in the long run and I'll tell you that I make them all of the time (and probably will continue making them).
The initial raise on the flop by Solid is a gimme (with all due respect to Blackjack). If solid 3 bets before the flop and just calls (when the bet comes from a wild thing no less) on a flop that includes a J,10, he would be off my Solid list and into my "weak-tight' list.
Off to the movies. I'll add to this later.
"Off to the movies"
Hey my niece says that Sixth Sense is great! Have a good evening.
Vince
BTW - Solid must consider your play! If you know him and consider him solid my guess is he knows you and considers you solid. His betting certainly doesn't indicate that he considered your play very much. Capping here with A,K is a sign of frustration. Calling your turn bet is also questionable although it is a big pot. Don't you love it when you get lucky and split a pot!
If it is inconsequential it is not an error; if it is an error it is not inconsequential. In the long run errors cost money.
I'm wondering just how good the Turbo software is as a practice tool.
I have played many hours of TTH against 'tough' and 'aggressive' lineups. I've even set up a lineup of all 'Advisor t' with that 'Conan' guy thrown in.
My question is: if I am beating these lineups consistently for 1.5 to 3 bets an hour how can I expect to do in higher limit live games?
I understand that game selection is crucial, and I have played up to 10-20, with most of my experience at the 1-4-8-8 in Las Vegas and AC (almost 300 hours total, winning at these limits, even from the start.) I've also worn out one copy of HPFAP, and I've studied most of the other books, particularly Sklansky's Theory of Poker and Malmuth's Essays.
I'm not planning to quit my job , but can I expect to take a shot at the games up to 30-60 without 'getting killed'?
I bought Turbo Texas Holdem hoping to use the advisor to improve my game. Now I'm thinking that maybe I don't want to learn to play like the advisor. Rick Nebiolo has stated below that he can beat the advisor for 2 BB/hr. I would rather learn to play like Rick Nebiolo (or other top experts).
So here's my proposition. Why don't some of the top experts get on irc poker and play for a little while, and have the windows irc client log everyone's decisions for every round. They could play in both loose games and tight games and against players whose characteristics would be initially unknown. Then publish the results on the web with some annotation on instructive hands as to what they were thinking at various points, and what they were observing about their opponents.
It is customary for books on chess to provide theory followed by examples from real games which illustrate theory. The 2+2 books provide theory. Perhaps now it is time to provide some examples of real world play.
I think that within a fairly small amount of playing time and relatively little effort, something of invaluable instructive value could be produced.
6-12 HE. Loose-weak field. UTG is slumming from his normal 20-40 Omaha. He is excellent at reading hands, is aggressive but often plays the low-limit games like he is on perma-tilt. This is not one of those times. UTG raises and could have any reasonable raising hand as well as any marginal raising hand. Two seat folds, I'm in three seat with two red tens. I raise, four seat and five seat, both very weak players, call, six and seven fold, button raises. The ONLY hand button could three-bet with is AA. SB, another terrible player, calls, and BB, a GAMBLER on a role also calls. UTG calls. He also KNOWS button has aces. I call as do 4 and 5. The flop is 6h 7s 10c. SB, BB, and UTG check to me. Normally I bet the flop after I raise and go for a check -raise on the turn. I rarely fail to get the opportunity to check-raise. In this situation I decided to just call if the button bets, or three bet the flop should I get the chance. Four and five checked, button bet, we all called. Turn is 2h. Again we all check around to the button, he bets, SB and BB fold, UTG calls, I check-raise, 4 and 5 fold, button calls, UTG calls. River brings the Kh. UTG bets and I make a crying call. My question; would it be better to bet the flop hoping button raises and perhaps drive out SB, BB, and UTG? This is the way I usually would play the hand. I didn't think check-raising the flop was a good idea here because I would lose the opportunity to check-raise the turn. BTW, betting would not help clarify any hands in this situation. If 4,5,SB or BB had flopped a straight, they would bet out or raise any bettor. My goal in this situation was to mix up my play a little, and trap as many players as I could for a check-raise on the turn. Toward that end I was successful.If I bet and there is a raise, I'll likely have killed much of my action. Is this a proper application of the delayed thin-the-field strategy? Or was I being careless with a vulnerable set and should wait to apply that strategy when I have an even stronger hand? thx spitball
Correction...pre-flop, the botton isn't three-betting, he's capping...sorry. spitball
With the flop "bunched up" T-7-6, and the pot already quite big, I think you need to thin out the field NOW. The best way to have done this, in this situation, was to bet the flop, knowing A-A would raise,. hopefully driving out sb, BB and UTG. You could then re-raise, getting rid of 4 & 5, setting you up one-on-one with a player who's hand you knew to be A-A and who would probably pay you off on the turn and river no matter how you played either of these streets.
I don't think this was the situation to try to get the maximum out of the others on the turn or river. It was the time to do all you could to get everyone out. I know, or at least I think, that others may disagree, in light of the recent writings and discussion on the best way to get the others out (they will stay for a raise on the flop, but not on the turn). I don't think you were "careless"; it is certainly debatable as to which way to play it, but I still think firing and raising until they show me the error of my ways, in all but the most perfect situation, is best.
I agree with Andy's post. If I read your post correctly, there were 7 people capped pre-flop. That's already a decent size pot for the limit you were playing in. Bet the flop, hope the button raises to rid the blinds and UTG players, and reraise to either trap the 2 in between you and the button, or force them to fold. Top set on the flop in a powerhouse, but many players incorrectly call their draws and you must make them pay for it.
If I understand you correctly, the flop is seen by 7 people. After the flop, you know that the power betting on the flop is going to center around you and the button. You have 2 players between you and the button and 3 players between the button and you. You also know that the button will bet if you check and the button will raise if you bet.
Normally, in my mind, there is no such thing as a vulnerable top set in Hold 'em. I am going to play with the expectation of winning a big pot. In this instance, the way to make the pot bigger is to come right out betting on the flop. You know that the button will raise. Given the size of the pot, guys are going to call even a raise with all kinds of longshots. You then 3 bet it and build the pot even more.
No one with a 9 or 8 is going to fold on the flop even if the betting is capped. Further, with all the action on the flop, no one with a 9 or 8 is going to fold on the turn unless it is 2 bets cold to them. So, if your intent is to have the gutshot seekers fold on the turn, you have to manipulate the betting on the turn such that these guys will be required to call 2 bets cold. How you do that depends on the body count between you and the button in a clockwise/counterclockwise direction on the turn. Of course, the aggressivenes of the button is also a key.
For example, if after the flop betting is done, the only remaining players are UTG, you, seats 4 and 5 and the button, you might well check the turn if a blank hits to let the button bet so that you can checkraise and try and get seats 4 and 5 to fold (BTW, don't worry about the button checking the turn even if you put in the last bet on the flop...he ain't gonna check with AA). On the other hand, if the players remaining on the turn are you, button, the blinds and UTG, you may want to bet the turn and hope that the button raises. Some players will not raise you on the turn if you capped the betting on the flop. If this button player is like that, then I would let him bet and checkraise the field. i.e. if you can't manipulate the button to thin the field for you, you ought to at least manipulate him to build the pot for you.
Bottom Line: While in some ways, you obviously are concerned about getting the gutshot seekers out on this hand, it really ought not to be the paramount concern. The paramount concern here is to build an already large pot.
I think with the players you described and the flop that came, you have to bet the flop and reraise the flop. Get the $$ in now while you have the best hand. You have lots of cards which could hurt you on the turn and river, so charge them the maximum now. The added advantage of this is that you have outs, which gives your bets greater value.
Also, you might still check-raise the turn anyway! If you know the guy has aces, (and he's any kind of player), you KNOW he's not giving any free cards on the turn. The board had the same apparent dangers for his hand as well as yours.
Dave in Cali
I guess I just play to tight, but I'm surprised nobody's considered folding before the flop. Based on your description of UTG, doesn't he either have 2 overcards to your pair or a bigger pair? You're either a slight favorite or a huge dog, and you don't know what the people behind you are going to do.
Even if he doesn't have a big pair, you'll get AT LEAST 1 overcard on the flop about 65% of the time, and you won't know where you're at. If you KNEW all these people would call, you could call hoping to flop a set.
A raise might be ok if he'd raise with 6-6 thru 9-9, but this still only leaves you a slight favorite overall (AA-JJ big dog, 66-99 big favorite, and 2 overcards slight favorite). If everyone REALLY likes a re-raise of UTG from early position, then I guess my flabby butt's just too tight.
Fat-Charlie
Thanks for responding FC. Should I have just folded is a good question. My goal here is two-fold. First, I love my positon in the game and I am using it in this situation. UTG is easily the most experienced player, the most likely to try and put me on a hand (and most likely to be correct). Between he and I is JK, another very experienced and tricky player. The only other player at the table even romotely dangerous is in the BB. When UTG leads off with a raise, we can include just about any strong to medium holding,eg. any S&M right down to group 5. I highly doubt AA, or KK as he prefers to slowplay these to holdings from up front against this field. Remember, he's slumming. He believes he can outplay all of us. So when JK folds I want to either get a)heads up with UTG, play agressively at the flop and hopefully drag a smallish pot, or b) build a big pot if the fish school behind me and hope to make a big hand. If I make a big hand, it will be somewhat disguised because of the three-bet in this position and I'm thinking this will be worth a few extra bets. I felt that I was following through with this plan when I decided to adopt the delayed thin-the-field raise. A second goal here has to do with image. UTG has been pushing the fish around all game. Button ends up 1200 in the whole, largly due to UTG's superior play. He also took a run at me a round previous and the three bet is reminder that I do have a good read on him and that I don't mind shoving match. As it turned out, UTG dragged the pot with A3h.
Hense my post; given that the fish are going to chase ANY draw after the flop am I better off delaying any aggressive move until the turn. Keep in mind we both know that button is playing the rockets and at some point one of us is going to try and use this guy for leverage. In this situation I was expecting UTG to check-raise the flop or the turn and then I make a move to trap him...doh!
Anyway, I was not expecting the responses to be so one sided against. No one feels the delayed raise is in order here? thx spitball
SB,
Great post! Sounds like you thought this through and had logic behind your actions. If UTG is raising up front with stuff like Ah-3h, I like your action; three betting thins the field and screws his odds.
Fat-Charlie
I have always wanted to be able to sit at a table and WRITE DOWN everybody's cards because by the time we are at the river, I have forgotten what was out there and folded. I have recently been playing stud on paradisepoker.com and have taken to finally fulfilling my fantasy! :-)
I have printed out sheets with columns of all 52 cards, and when I see a card I mark it off with a series of codes so I know who had it and where. This has greatly increased my confidence in at least knowing I'm not going to look like an idiot with an obvious mistake, but now I am beginning to think strategy for this and how to apply it.
Paradisepoker doesn't offer real money games yet but they will soon and I want to be ready for it. What suggestions would you make knowing that you can be sure what cards have been out? I suppose for a lot of people whose memory is a lot better than mine this is not an issue. But for me this is a new way of looking at things and I want to be able to use it.
Juan,
somewhere in the archives we discussed some good ways to remember the cards out. learn a system of remembering the cards that affect your hand and later expand it to all cards. it is not a memory thing so having a good memory is not the deciding factor. good luck.
Could someone narrow down which archives these posts are in or what they are titled?
If you can find a copy, "The Memory Book" by Harry Lorayne and Jerry Lucas (Ballantine, 1974) has a good system for memorizing cards. I've never applied it to poker (I'm just learning and I play Hold'Em), but I've used it to great effect in bridge and hearts. It's possible to pull stunts like dealing 47 cards face up and then naming the last five cards.
David
I would like some pointers on third street play in seven card stud. I play in a fairly loose 5-10 game ($1 ante, $2 bring-in).
Suppose the low card brings it in, one player calls and one folds, and then a player to my right with a queen up makes it $5. The player is quite solid; he almost certainly has either a pair of queens or a pocket pair, nines or better (or rolled up queens).
I have (AcKd)6c. My cards are live; aside from the queen the highest upcard is an 8. There is one other club out. There are three players left to act. Should I play this hand (on the basis of two overcards to the likely pair of queens)? If I do play, should I raise?
fold and immediatly read our stud book is the best advise in the world. good luck.
Pardon me Ray, but I would not advise a 1-5 player to read and head 7 SFAP.
Vince.
Playing overcards is only a good play for stealing antes (you probably need a high card up), or (maybe) if you have three overcards, with at least two suited cards, and straight possibilities, and you can get in CHEAP with NO chance of being raised, and all your cards are live. Even then, they are Still borderline hands and should probably be mucked. Calling raises with these hands is suicide.
In your example, he is starting with a pair and you are starting with nothing, so who is the favorite? Do you really want to call a raise when you are the underdog? You should enter pots when you are the favorite and fold when you are the underdog....
Read the book and you will be way ahead of the game.
Dave in Cali
Studette, (Is you a female?)
"Should I play this hand (on the basis of two overcards to the likely pair of queens)"
Not unless your Mike Caro! He likes them thar 2 suiters.
"If I do play, should I raise? "
Not unless you want to be reraised. If this fellow is as solid as you say and he has Q,Q he will blast you again. You see I know this because I am solid too.
"(or rolled up queens)."
You believe that there is a chance that solid has rolled up Queens and you want to take a shot at him with two over cards.
Where is this game being played?
Fundamental to good poker playing is logical thinking (do not misconstrue my words. I don't mean this in a derogatory way). Think about the situation in which you find yourself. You have a hand that is unquestionably weaker than your opponents. That is, if your read on that opponent is correct. Why would you want to chase with a weaker hand unless you have a good reason. The only reason that you could have for chasing a solid player in a situation like this would be pot odds (effective odds). The odds of you beating a pair higher than sixes are not in your favor and the effective pot odds do not warrant a call never mind a raise. Throw hands like this away.
Vince.
I am trying to learn Hold'em and have purchased 2 of Sklansky's books (Hold'Em and Hold'Em for Advanced Players). I have also purchased Turbo Texas Hold'Em and have been "practicing". My question is whether or not the advice in TTHE is (reasonably) accurate. Some (much?) of it seems to be in contradiction with Sklansky. Maybe I am just so new to the game that I can't comprehend the advice. Any comments sincerely appreciated.
MC
keep working thru all the material you can find and soon you will be able to sort out the bad. one thing though is that Sklansky is always right about what he puts in print for sure. if it contradicts him you got it wrong or it is wrong.
The advisor in Turbo HE is not always right. Take the advice with a grain of salt. Play the game with your books open and soon you will be able to determine not only which advice is bad advice but also why it is bad. Consider pot odds, your chances of improvement, your chances of getting raised, etc....
I'm not certain all the stats in the "odds" screen are always 100% correct, so I have my own statistical charts to verify anything the advisor says which might be questionable. Anyway, figuring odds in HE is pretty easy compared to stud so you should become proficient fairly quickly if you study. This is the first skill you should master before attempting casino play.
Dave in Cali
I've read both books and they have paid for themselves about 40 times over so far. I also have spent dozens of hours playing on IRC and that intensive practice with a wide range of player behavior has also been invaluable.
I've found two things very useful with TTH:
1) (original suggestion by MM) Figure out when the computer players in TTH make a mistake.
2) Analyze each and every hand (don't 'zip') and practice your hand reading.
Take the advisor with a grain of salt. If there is a contradiction its most likely the advisor is wrong but use the opportunity to analyze the situation and convince yourself the truth of the matter. If you use the advisor make sure that before you consult it you've thought about what you think the right solution is. Between the advisor and the 'zip' feature TTH was a little too easy initially for me to start flying through a game without really getting the full benefit of learning. Don't let yourself fall into this trap.
The best function of the TTH advisor is that it might indicate when your play is consistently wrong. But even if the TTH's advisor's advice were always "correct" it would be worthless to a new player because it won't tell you why it is correct. Your job is to figure out why and when certain plays are right or wrong and to discern patterns admidst all the noise. You will never learn how to play poker by mimicking the Turbo advisor.
You will also learn that several alternative and seemingly diverse plays (such as either folding or raising in certain situations) may have an almost identical expected value, at least for that hand. The advisor won't help you on this, but the sims will.
(In fairness to the "advisor," there was a lot of negative feedback on it's abilities in earlier versions of TTH. I understand that it is much improved).
A more general caveat: you need to be wary of considering the game function of TTH as anything more than a crude simulation of live play. In real life, weak players adjust their play according to recent wins and losses and weak and strong players alike adjust according to their perception of specific opponents. You need to be able to sense and even predict these adjustments and be ready to exploit them.
Does anyone know, in general, what percentage of hands played in a kill game are kill hands? I'm sure it varies, depending on the looseness of the players. For those of you who keep track of you performance in terms of number of big bets won or lost, what do you consider the size of the Big Bet to be in a kill game vs. non-kill game? I would think if you don't compensate for the kill then the deviation calculations will be larger than expected.
-ab
All the way from practically 0% to just short of 100%. YOu'd have to name to rules for the kill to get any real answer and THEN you could adjust the number for the players tendencies. For example:
1) There is a game in Bakersfield that is _always_ killed by the last winner. This means all but the first hand is killed (almost 100%).
2) At foxwoods I understand the HE kills are based on pot size. Once it kills the amount to keep it killed doesn't change so a significant portion of the pots are killed.
3) In the Orlean's 6-12 kill to 10-20 HE game I got the feeling that if the normal rock's are there the pots only infrequently get killed (<10%?). This is a win two pots in a row kill structure.
4) In a O/8 low limit kill game I play the pot is kill every 4th hand or so (from very possible flaky memory).
I havn't played enough of these games to worry about stats. In any case who cares what size a BB is as long as you keep the units consistent? Its unlikely you can mix these numbers with non-kill games and get anything meaningful.
In the games I play, there are usually 2 to 3 kills per hour. I like kill pots, because the other players usually tighten way up during a kill, so I loosen up accordingly, and find them quite profitable. Black Jack
I guess I should clarify. Where I play, A pot is killed if a player wins two pots in a row, there was no flop on the last pot, and the pot is larger than 3 small bets (I think). The winning player most post a live blind and continues to kill it until he losses.
-ab
Last night I had the nearly ideal situation arise, a pure freeroll from the nuts to the better nuts. Not a very common occurence in HE.
It was 3-6, loose passive game. I am dealt Kd9d in the big blind. There are 8 callers when it gets to me, I raise.
Flop is AdQdTc. SB checks, I bet, 7 callers, button raises, everyone calls.
Turn is Js. I now have the nut straight and a freeroll for the nut flush. SB checks, I bet, several fold, Button raises, SB check-reraises, I cap, button and SB call, three players.
River is the 4d. I bet, both call. One had a straight the other had a set of tens.
It was possible for me to lose to a full house if the board paired, but I had to charge anyone with a set or two pair the maximum amount to try and fill up. I wish these situations were more common!
Comments welcome
Dave in Cali
Hi there everyone,
First let me say that this is a venting post. It may not interest most of you so if you don't want to read a "whiner's story" move on to something else. Wait a minute Mason, don't delete this. It does apply to poker. As a matter of fact it just may be important to some players. So here goes.
Played at FW today. I am trying to play once a week while back here on the east coast. Well I had intended to play 20-40 Holdem but after an hour on all the lists I was called to a 15-30 Stud game. So that's what I played.
First hand. Made 3 9's on fourth street and was beat by a full house. Second hand. Made an Ace high flush on the river and was beat by a full house. 2 hands, $300 behind. Needless to say I was not in a good mood. Especially since this was a tight game and it did not look like I had much of a chance of retrieving my funds. Play on I said to myself. But really I was mad at myself for losing those two hands. There must have been something I could have done, I thought. So I was steaming. Don't forget this was only my second session since leaving Nevada 6 weeks ago.
Anyway I fought myself back to only $80 down. I felt better. then I lost with Kings to sixes (he made 3 on 6th street). I began to whine to myself. I never whine outloud. Then I lost with pocket Aces (Aces up) to 3 tens. My head was now beginning to swelter. Then 3 nines. Lose. Now $700 behind and Iam ready to commit Hari Kari. Fortunately I didn't have a sword. Besides I'm not Japanese. Wouldn't look good. I did all the smart things that I have read about in Card Player. Got up and went for a walk. Ok. didn't help. Still whining abotu my bad fortune. Bought more chips. No help. Changed seats. No go. I was on the brink of tears. Why couldn't I win. I only wanted to play for a few hours and then run home to Boston. How could I be behind $700 in such a short time. Whine! Whine! Whine!
Wait a minute! 9's full big pot. Whew not bad. What;'s this 3 8's another good pot and now I'm only down 100. Huh flush in five and big pot! Wow I'm up $200. O.K O.K cry baby! Hmm a 90$ loss with Jacks up to 3 three's. My luck! Whining again! So with a $107 win the cry baby went home!
I know there is valuable information contained somewhere in this post. That is not a question. Just convincing myself that I should click on the post message button.
Vince
HEY, I lost last night (despite my freerolling flush hand). I never got my $$ back, but you don't here me whining about it! Oops, I guess I just did, please disregard this post!
Dave in Cali
Vince,
It wasn't you it was those damn boards at FW they never move. I was down there Fri. nite arrived about 6pm or so was on the 5-10 7CS list waited about a 1/2 hour snapped and said I got to play something I just drove two hours to sit on my butt and I have to get up early tomorrow. Went to play craps and I got hot came back and of course I missed my call. Put my name up again and went over to the 1-5 game and got in rite away. Didn't play a hand for 12 hands bluffed out a queen with nothing and caught the straight that I didn't need she had already folded. Next win pair of JJ's on 3rd, make it 3 and three callers. Catch another J on 4th. Make it three again two callers. Catch another J on 5th. Bet 5 end of hand.
After a couple of hours of playing what I didn't want to play all nite I decided to go home also a "WHINING WINNER". I should be grateful that I have the versatility to play other games and win rather than whining about it. CASE CLOSED.
Paul
At Foxwoods you can call ahead with an arrival time to be put on a list, that usually gets you in without a huge wait.
CrazyJim,
Thanks I didn't know that. I'll just call from my car because I usually have a 2 hour ride.
Paul
Lets talk attitude.
=== Once you lost the money it is NOT your money. "did not look like I had much of a chance of retrieving my $300" is a detrimental thought. TRYING to retrieve it will cause you to play poorly.
=== If you really did react so energetically to your fortunes at the table then I think you are playing TOO HIGH.
=== If you spent more time remembering how the hands went down rather than how you felt about it, you could analyze your play; which for me puts me in a more objective (and less bad) mood.
=== 7-Stud has high varience. Accept that. Do some calculations, perhaps figuring you average swing per hour.
Come On Vince: I prefer your humor. Don't you think you could have inserted "cheese" to go with your "whine" somewhere in your post? Like "Bought more chips and cheese".
- Louie
"Don't you think you could have inserted "cheese" to go with your "whine""
God, now why didn't I think of that!
Thanks, Louie!
BTW - I am not playing too high, even though it may appear like that. I believe that I am playing too low. The reason I don't move up is BR requirements. I have watched higher stakes games. My style of play is definitely suited to higher stakes action. Excepte for the Wining part of course. Well maybe someday. I will try the "cheese" the next time as you suggest.
Vince.
There's a girl( I can't call her a lady) that plays in a 4-8 game in Houston on the weekends and every time I play with her it gets more and more comical! ( At 1st it was frustrating). In the last 2 months she has whined about everything.
This past weekend I saw her raise with AK UTG and got 6 callers(I'm sure a couple only called to piss her off)
The hand was won by a 96s in the cut-off seat when the flop came K93 rainbow and then a 6 on turn and a duckie on the river. When the hand was shown down she said loudly to the player to her left, " How the hell did he call a raise with that?" and kept ranting about how she's going to go to a bigger limit game because they don't draw out on you(Yeah, right).
A little later she checked a hand down with another player acting as she was being sweet, but actually wanted 2 free cards thinking her hand was no good... Then later the same player she played sugar with check-raised her when he was in the blind and her on the button. She threw her cards at the dealer and said directly to the player in a mean voice"That's real nice", I can't believe you check-raised me!!! She was almost crying which she's already done twice in the last 6 months at this game, usually when somebody tells her to shut up and play her own chips. It goes on all night. " I can't believe you put that River card out there" directed at the dealer plus much more.
OK already....My point is that Vince at least took a walk and shook it off as they say. I can't stand playing with this girl and I sometimes look for oppurtunities to check-raise or bluff her out of a pot and then sho my hand. I've been playing for 7 years and this is something new to feel this way. I do have 1 Question for the forum though. Do you think her being such a pain in the ASS gives her more action and is good(Players will come in with lesser cards just to beat her) or do you think it is bad the way she acts and people will give her less action... Go ahead and respond and I'll let you know afer about 10 posts how she does in the game...BTW, she is a semi-tight somewhat aggressive player...Thanks in advance for listening to me whine about a WHINER! Oh Vince here's another one..You must be from San Franciso....Why, isn't that the Wine Country
N'Crease da Peace,
Jim
I think being only this annoying is bad for her, since it puts opponents in less good moods and they will gamble less. It may be distracting to the solid players making them play worse, however. So, ... I don't know.
But I am sure that the emotional state that is CAUSING her to whine is extremely detrimental to her.
I would also like to observe that her priorities in the game are clearly different than yours. She WANTs to complain about something and will subconsiuously create situations she can complain about, such as checking a good hand down in paranioa and letting some long shot get there for free.
Knowing that her priorities are different CAN lead to a better understanding of what she does, and ultimately into predicting what she will do.
- Louie
Jim,
I really like this post. I haven't been playing much lately and I sometimes forget that you meet all kinds at the poker table. Makes it intersting.
"1 Question for the forum though. Do you think her being such a pain in the ASS gives her more action and is good(Players will come in with lesser cards just to beat her) or do you think it is bad the way she acts and people will give her less action.."
Great question. The answer is not as obvious as it appears. I bet most players will say that a player that acts obnoxiously at the table doesn't affect their play at all. Wrong answer. Others will say that they specifically target "pain in the ASS players just to piss them off" I believe there are players that respond this way. The truth here is that everyone that plays poker is affected in some way by the actions of others at the table. We are all human beings. We are social creatures. We react to others and to the behavior of others. My guess is that because of her image this player will recieve more action from some players that otherwise would not give her action. those that are good players and have learned to deal more effectively with all kinds of behavior will give her action when warranted and not because of her actions. Actually the good players will probably give her a little less action. Becasue they are aware that it is a mistake to target a player like this they usually are over cautious and throw away some otherwise playable hands against her. It is qutie possible that a player that acts like your opponent here will experience the best of both worlds. The fair to average players will give her more action and the good players will give her less.
Vince.
BTW - I get my Whine on de Rhine!
An interesting hand I saw in 5-10 HE. Slightly loose wild game, one tiltmaster type player who's been losing.
"Tiltmaster" raises UTG. Another player in middle position reraises, (wisely, I fold my trash), Button caps, both call, three players.
Flop is 2 5 J rainbow. UTG leads out, then caps after a raise and a reraise. Three players.
Turn is an 8o. UTG checks, next player bets, button calls, UTG check raises, both call.
River is blank. UTG bets, both call. UTG has 55 for a set. BOTH other players were dealt Aces in the hole.
Don't ask me about why it happened this way, I just thought it was entertaining.... The two guys with Aces high-fived each other as tiltmaster was stacking up the pot.
Dave in Cali
I want to put up several posts over the next week or so which look at poker structure in a general way. I'm doing this not in expectation of a big audience here, where most people are only interested in limit betting and seven-card stud, but to get some feed back from a few interested and informed people.
Professional tip of the day: Embezzlers are excellent value at the table: they have a lot of money, and they either need a lot more, or play like crazy to take their mind off their future. Unfortunately they usually disappear off the poker scene pretty quickly for one reason or another. I've played with a couple - not that anyone knew at the time, not till it hit the papers.
To get on with the alleged topic of discussion, poker structure, here are a couple of terms:
STRUCTURE: this refers to the skeletal outline of a game; holdem, omaha and tahoe all have a 2-3-1-1 structure, despite their other differences.
PRINCIPLES, GADGETS AND RULES: these are ways in which a structure can be successfully modified to create another game. For instance the extra-cards-in-hand principle applied to the holdem structure creates tahoe and omaha.
Similarly, the multi-card-draw-to-five-cards principle applied to the 2-1-1-1 five-card stud structure, produces holdem's 2-3-1-1.
(If that sounds like BS try holdtight, which is holdem with one of the two start cards turned up, as in five card stud.)
Other principles are the communal cards principle, the discard principle (seen in draw and pinapple), and one or two more which don't come to mind right now.
GADGETS are any modifications of a poker structure which make it unsuitable for serious championship play involving non-limit betting. Wild cards; a second hole card in five or six-card stud; a third hole card in seven card poker, all rate as gadgets.
The jurassic park principle of reviving extinct forms of life is well known, and it seems only a matter of time before it comes to fruition.
What I aim to do here is take some old games and apply some modern poker principles and gadgets to them and see what comes out. Maybe something will move.
Five-card stud, or stud horse poker as it's cowboy inventor's called it, may well be the oldest true form of poker, having published rules by 1864, and it was the de facto championship game until I believe, the early sixties. It's parentage of holdem and grandparentage of seven card stud are pretty obvious, so we'll start with poker played with five cards.
The original game is two cards to start, one up one down, then three single upcards to follow: 2-1-1-1. What I want to do is show why adding the gadget of last-card-down destroys this game as a serious form.
There are two ways of applying the gadget, by simply dealing the last card down, giving 2-1-1(1), or adding another round at the end, producing six- card stud: 2-1-1-1-(1). The argument is the same for both games.
Take a typical five card poker layout of (?)A-6-2-5 versus (8)8-6-7-2.
Lets say that two aces have been folded, and the ace showing has bet from the start. The Ace bets, and the Eights must decide whether the last ace is indeed in the hole. It is crucial to the game that the ace can choose to bet strongly in this situation, whether or not it is paired.
Compare this layout: (?)A-6-2-5 (?)8-7-2-7. Because the eight has called three pot-sized bets to draw a pair , the ace will not usually consider a bet or a raise even if paired , but it can call if both paired and optimistic.
Obviously the Ace is very scared in this situation, and rightly so.
Look what happens when the last card is turned down, giving a hand like (?)A-6-2-(5) versus (?) 8-4-3-(?).
Again, the Eight has called three pot sized bets to get to this situation, so obviously he has something to be proud of. Or maybe not. But the ace cannot really bet for either value or a bluff, whereas the Eight can.
When the last card is down a player can decide at fourth street to buy the last card and bet if the Ace checks, even with a bust. The last card down is a bolthole into which an inferior hand can duck, and from position of great safety throw out a grenade which is unlikely to be thrown back. Of course three aces could check-raise, but aces-up might have to settle for a check and a call, or a bet and a difficult decision if reraised three bets.
If you have just the pair of aces, or were trying to bluff, you are cornered, not by apparent card values, but by the impenetrable wall of the last card down.
In effect the last card down confers the same protection to a hand as an open pair: red lights are flashing and caution is mandatory.
This is a dreadful fault because it turns card values on their head and gives the inferior hand too much protection. In five card poker an Ace, or any card, must be able to bet if no pair is showing at the end.
Some may say it's just a matter of opinion, and if you are talking about personal preference for a game then that's true. But the criterion I am using is one which gives an objective and not at all arbitrary measure of a game's worth as a serious form of poker: Could it ever be used for an actual world championship match with non-limitted betting? In other words, is it the best available variation of that form and a true form of poker?
The answer for five card stud with one hole card is yes, the answer for five or six card stud with two hole cards is no.
Therefore they are inferior forms of poker, however complex and interesting they might be as limit games, or as dealer's choice. Five card stud, despite it's current and long-standing lack of casino play in the US, was the de facto championship game till the early sixties, and still could function as the world championship game. (Not that it will, unless they make it dealer's choice.)
The other two never were and never could be because five card stud was available and better, while being essentially the same structure.
I think that's an objective measure of the superiority of five card stud over them, and proof that two hole cards is one too many in five and six card poker.
Furthermore, even with the last card turned up six card stud can't be considered as a form suited to non-limit betting because five rounds would ensure that nearly every hand would put someone all in.
So five card stud is clearly superior to the two variations produced by the last card down gadget, and also to the 2-1-1-1-1 five round structure of six- card stud played with last card up. In competition with five-card stud those variations did not thrive or survive. Whereas five card stud, was and still is a standard part of the poker repertoire, and can be played in many casinos around the world. Watch the dealers though.
My law of hole cards for five card poker is that two is too many.
I'll stop there and get back to it in a day or two.
"the extra-cards-in-hand principle"
Now just where in the world does this principle come from?
"the multi-card-draw-to-five-cards principle "
Ditto!
"Other principles are the communal cards principle, the discard principle (seen in draw and pinapple), and one or two more which don't come to mind right now. "
Just what we needed, another science weeny attacking poker.
"What I aim to do here is take some old games and apply some modern poker principles and gadgets to them and see what comes out. Maybe something will move. "
Am I really responding to this garbage. David, please help me!
"Five-card stud, or stud horse poker as it's cowboy inventor's called it, may well be the oldest true form of poker"
funny how this "true" form of poker is not played very much anymore. Must be to old. Whatta ya think?
"But the criterion I am using is one which gives an objective and not at all arbitrary measure of a game's worth as a serious form of poker"
The whole point of "Poker" is that it is subjective and arbitrary. If you doubt this just read the responses to Holdem hands on this forum. Also, look at Sklansky's 8 mistakes of poker very closely and you will find that the very nature of poker is arbitrary. It is one of the prime reasons that Poker vis Chess is the gambling game of choice for millions of people.
Enough! Enough!
Vince.
Hi Vince: You said "Just what we needed, another science weeny"
Thanks, glad to be of service. i didn't realize I was attacking poker though.
You wrote: >>"the extra-cards-in-hand principle"
Now just where in the world does this principle come from?
"the multi-card-draw-to-five-cards principle "
Ditto! >>
The multi-card draw making five cards is the foundation principle or invention of poker, almost: the extra-cards-in-hand and communal card principles were invented much later. I didn't invent them, I'm just applying them to different games to make new ones, in a methodical way.
Gadgets are inventions sich as last-card-down which make a game unsuitable for non-limit play, and I'm removing them from some game to produce new ones.
Wall-Hux or whomever you are,
You Wrote:
"The multi-card draw making five cards is the foundation principle or invention of poker"
"I didn't invent them,"
I(Vince Lepore, real name, Vince is short for Vincent)write:
Oh, really. Well, then, please cite your refernces.
Vince (non pseudonym) Lepore
BTW - At first I thought you were Abdul but now I retract that thought.
It seems to me that the status 7CS has as a professional's game is related to the fact that it is a popular game, rather than it's quality as a form of poker. Any game which has three hole cards and limit betting is a watered down version of poker, which is why is has broad appeal: the professional's edge is less.
In limit betting an extra bet or will gain or lose you perhaps five or ten percent of the pot. In pot-limit a bet gains or loses the whole pot, and you can be reraised three times the pot-sized bet you just made.
A small edge can translate into a huge profit in pot-limit. In limit betting a large edge can be nullified by basic solid play, and the third hole card, and those extra bets an expert extracts are not worth much. You might win, but it will be a slower process.
You mention 7CS in the title, but it seems the gist of your argument is with regards to limit poker as opposed to big bet poker, so that's what I'll address.
Well, at least in the United States, most poker is limit poker, so if you want to play for a living here, it's a pretty good idea to be able to beat that form of the game. That being said, I'm not sure I follow the logic that because a form of poker allows an expert to make money against weak players more easily it is necessarily a "purer" form of poker. If I were to simultaneously organize a chess tournament as well as a nolimit holdem tournament, I'd see much higher correlation at the end of the chess tournament between the best players and the final standings than I would the nolimit holdem tournament, but that's not to say that chess is a purer form of poker than nolimit holdem. Okay, that's a jigged example, but having played many limit and no-limit holdem tournaments, I'll go on record as saying that the limit tournaments are much more intereseting from a "pure poker" point of view. There's just a lot more play to them. In no-limit, the money goes in and boom let's see who wins. It's just not as interesting. In a limit holdem tournament, the late round strategies are much more complex.
Okay, so I'm talking about tournaments. How bout ring games? Well, I think the same is true. The fact that it's easy for the expert to extract the money actually makes it a worse game. NL holdem is a lot of doing nothing while waiting to spring the big trap on the weakie or get all his money in when he is a dog. This certainly makes it easier for the expert player to make a profit, but it deskills the poker experience. You have to do much more work if you want to beat limit poker. That makes it a much more interesting game.
As for your argument that 7CS, in particular, is a "watered-down" version of poker, I disagree as well. I think that there are levels of complexity that you fail to appreciate within the game. I will leave it to other posters to pick up the ball from here.
JG
Jim Geary writes, (thanks for the thoughtful response BTW)
"in the United States, most poker is limit poker, so if you want to play for a living here, it's a pretty good idea to be able to beat that form of the game"
That's my point. The mass market prefers the game which protects them from expert play and aggressive pot-limit betting, and 7CS, because it can only be played with any logic as a limit game, is particularly attractive.
The same situation exists in backgammon: I'm a pretty bad player, but I know worse, and I sometimes play for $100 a point with them - but without the doubling cube. They have no interest in ever learning to use it, they just want to play to the end and see what happens.
So it is with 7CS or any limit game. It's like backgammon without the cube because the hard question is never asked, only a series of easy ones. You can spent a lot of time trying to get an edge, but it doesn't help much if you can't put the weight on when you have it.
"You have to do much more work if you want to beat limit poker. That makes it a much more interesting game."
I guess I have a different perspective: I only play poker for the money, and I would rather win quickly, because that holds my interest. Why do you find virtue in hard work and long hours? That's a bad work ethic for a poker player because it makes you stale.
I lived off $2 ante five card stud for most of '88 and '89 by playing only once or twice a week. That's what I liked about poker playing, it was quick money. Putting in long hours for the same money is ridiculous because there are so many more productive and interesting things to do.
As for complexity as a virtue in a poker game, I prefer a game where you can bet. The game is poker, and you just can't poke hard enough with limit betting for it to be fun.
I wrote: "in the United States, most poker is limit poker, so if you want to play for a living here, it's a pretty good idea to be able to beat that form of the game"
So you wrote: "That's my point. The mass market prefers the game which protects them from expert play and aggressive pot-limit betting, and 7CS, because it can only be played with any logic as a limit game, is particularly attractive.
Actually, it might not EVEN BE the mass market. At my local room, the management has placed severe restrictions on two forms of poker that give the expert an extra edge, pot-limit and kills. They didn't do this because the players were crying for it(the players can always vote with their feet). They did it because the experts were extracting money at a rate that they feared might not be good for the long-term health of the room. In a sense, they were protecting the players from themselves, as I never perceived any groundswell of player opposition to the old way of doing things. It could also be argued that the implementation of such restrictions would be a good shot in the arm for poker in countries where the current m.o. is big bet. Without any ability to do a controlled experiment, I don't know. But I can assert that limit poker is alive and booming here in the U.S.
JG
Sorry about the name juggle. Huxley didn't fit.
I really agree with the angle that limit makes the game last longer, which is good for the house. But from a pro point of view, if the same amount of money is being gambled it's much quicker to get at it with potsized bets. That's why it seems like a better deal for a pro to tackle potlimit when it's available. If you are after the money that's the betting style which works fastest.
Which doesn't change the fact that most games in the US are limit, so that's the betting style most of the pros play.
Your thinking is too short-sighted...
It doesn't do you any good to get all the money now, if the games burn out or the only players left in the game are expert players.
Mason has commented on this in one of your threads and also discusses these issues in one or both of his Poker Essays Books (I don't have them in front of me so I can't quote you chapter and verse). You should re-read these essays.
In my 2-5 game (when I get a chance to play and yeah I know it's chump change to most of the posters here) there are a number of regular players who rarely, if ever, leave the table with chips yet alone anywhere near even. But it's what they like to do for fun. Limit Hold'em gives them a chance to play without losing their money too quickly, they play 5-8 hours on a Saturday and pay $100-$150 to do so. There's no chance they'd keep playing if they lost their money more quickly. I for one would prefer not to lose these kind of opponents.
A buddy of mine has been going to a tuesday night game of 5CS where the players are all immigrants from one country, except him. They have no local poker connections, whereas he can organise a game in half an hour. He tells me that they keep asking him to bring other players, which he declines to do. I beg him to invite me:..... He refuses, pointing out that the players are so bad and losing so much money that they will stop soon, if out of pride if not because of the money (they are all acting very rich). ....... So he can't see the game lasting more than another month or so; less if he invites any players. And if it lasts longer, he will keep winning. He isn't such a great player himself, just solid, but he is the best at the table, and he will get most of the money, while it lasts. ....... As an experienced and connected player with many other interests in life, he prefers to play less and win more, because he can. His tuesday nights currently earn him $200-$300 an hour. Why should he change that for a week of grinding out the same money slowly in the many other games around? The best games are often intermittent or ephemeral. The daily grind is the hardest and keeps you from doing other things..
Why does your buddy think his lucrative game will burn out shortly?
Why are the best games are often intermittent?
RJK writes "Why does your buddy think his lucrative game will burn out shortly?"
Because a few players will get sick of losing every week and the game will collapse. Adding good players to the mix will just hasten the process, and bad players with money are hard to find. He is happy jsut to ride this one down. When it finishes he will find something esle to do on tuesday night.
"Why are the best games are often intermittent? "
Many players hit the tables on a seasonal basis, between other commitments: as a spree, when they get the big annual bonus, or whatever. Playing week in week out doesn't appeal to most people, so the in- between times can get pretty slow. When the moneyed players start playing, for whatever reason, you can make more money in a day than in a week at the tables. Getting invited is the problem.
"Because a few players will get sick of losing every week and the game will collapse. Adding good players to the mix will just hasten the process, and bad players with money are hard to find."
Exactly, and if you really believe this is the case, then it should be clear to you that it would be a mistake to spread games and betting structures that allow the good players to win more money, quicker.
Anyway, that's enough on this thread for me...
Most pro's (actually wannabe pros) are in holdem and to some extent in omaha on both coasts. this excludes the very big limit stud in vegas or AC. I just finished a few sessions of 4-8 stud (after I decided to teach stud to my new european wife, who is very new to poker) even in 6-12 holdem some Bay Area joints are infested with busted pro wannabees. It's almost idiotic to even sit down there. I am starting to realize that 'game selection' IS 1st rate in poker skills.
...some Bay Area joints are infested with busted pro wannabees. It's almost idiotic to even sit down there.
Andras,
I surely don't want to look like I'm saying game selection isn't an extremely powerful part of a player's arsenal. I'm not, I'M NOT, *I'M NOT*. (Seems I was misunderstood by some to be saying as much in my recent guest essay, despite strong statements to the contrary in the essay.) But there's a reason those busted pro wannabes are busted. They don't play very well!! Really, they don't! Now, a table full of them will *not* be as profitable as a table full of complete "producers" or first time players. That's obvious. But a few busted pro wannabes don't really present a big problem IMO. If you don't have serious weaknesses in your game, they won't take money from you. You will take from them. You may even win quite a lot from some of them if they have clear, exploitable, weaknesses in their play (and they often do). (Hint: If I couldn't have some clueless, passive players, I wouldn't mind settling for "typical" busted pro wannabes as players to play short handed with.) If you can find games containing nothing but "live ones", great. But don't worry too much about those BPWs. Worry more about the "doing just fine thank you" pros.
Jurrassic Poker FAQ
1. What's Jurassic Poker?
Jurrassic Poker is a name for a project of mine which aims to bring poker to a state of completion as a serious form by defining all championship-quality games. Some have been missed, and I think I've found most of them.
>>>>>>>>>> 2. So what?
Many games such as bridge and backgammon have many variations, but only one championship form. In poker there are many variations and one way of sorting them out is to assess them using that measure: are they suitable for championship play?
>>>>>>>> 3. What are the rules of mississippi seven?
Mississippi seven is a form of seven-card stud which is suitable for true poker betting, that is, non-limit betting.
Deal the start cards as for 7CS, two down, one up. Bet, then deal two cards face up to each player. Sixth and seventh streets follow singly, but deal the last card up for non-limit betting. Limit players can play the game with last card down.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
4. What's so good about Mississippi Seven?
There are plenty of technical reasons and stats which show that it's better than seven card-stud, but best way for anyone to really know that is to play it. The three card start with a two card flop is very exciting poker. Fourth street isn't
<>>>>>>>>>>>
5. Where can I play Mississippi?
Any seven-card stud player can play mississippi, so try it out when you can. You only need four people for a good game.
Mississippi can be played on computer by turning off all fourth street play in a good programme. In Wilson's Turbo Seven for instance simply open your favourite profile and enter p0 in every domain in the seven sheets of fourth street play. That forces the player to check at fourth, and two cards are dealt instead of one. Assemble a line-up and you are in a game of mississippi.
The last card is still down, which is the inferior form of the game, but it's still much better than seven-card stud, and the stat's prove it.
Bob Wilson regards mississippi as a significant improvement on seven-card stud BTW.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
6. What else have you got?
I have a general rule of poker:
"Any game of poker in which straights and flushes play a significant role must have five cards in play by the second round."
Also a law of hole cards:
"The correct number of live hole-cards in seven-card poker is two; in five card poker, one."
7. But have you anything interesting?
The 3-2-1-1 structure of mississippi plays very well as a communal card game, mostly with four communal cards, but one form plays with five communal cards in a stripped deck. I have named several of them: if mississippi is accepted as the true form of seven-card poker, then Shanghai, Billabong and Pinatubo are also likely to become popular games over the next few years.
I've also discovered a couple of interesting (to me anyway) forms of five-card stud which use the two card flop of mississipi, and also give each player two hole cards, only one of which can be used at the end.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
7. Who are you?
I'm using the pen-name Huxley at the moment because I like to be able to put on and take off my poker hat when I want to. I don't want my actual life ruled by poker in other words, and a pen-name is one way of helping ensure that.
My name is no secret, but I won't usually bring it up here.
I've played poker for a living as it has suited me over a number of years since 1987 when poker became legal here. I have earnt my wages and better, at draw (potlimit, not jackpots) five card stud, seven-card stud, and omaha, all with nonlimit betting. (Either half-pot or full pot, never no-limit).
I've never travelled to compete at a high level or in tournaments, nor do I now rate myself highly as a player, but I have been a consistent winner locally. I gave up regular play several years ago, but I play often enough.
My main interest currently is developing hand- held digital devices including educational games and non-offensive personal security devices.
My security tip: when carrying a big roll, or otherwise vulnerable, use your mobile phone to make a fake or real phone call to make yourself a hard target for criminals. If you don't have a phone, you can talk into your wallet or calculator as a bluff, and it looks real enough. In a taxi for instance, you can pretend to ring ahead, or leave an actual message on your answering machine.
annoying rambling waste of bandwidth...
we get the point already!
I picked the name Huxley for another reason, I was thinking of changing it and the brave new world connection seals it. I'll do a mellencamp and go by the name Huxley-Wallace for a while.
Your post was admirably concise:
"annoying rambling waste of bandwidth...
we get the point already!"
there are a couple of things here: firstly webspace is pretty cheap so it's not really an issue, so I take it you find my posts too long for another reason.
As for "we get the point" you must be speaking for a number of people who you have played the game with and discussed some of the concepts with. Or if not, how can you speak for everyone, or anyone else at all?
I am going to post some more stuff in the hope that it gets some thoughtful responses. But if not, so be it.
"There are plenty of technical reasons and stats which show that it's better than seven card-stud"
I'm sure there are fellows like you that could make the above statement apply to Holdem.
"Bob Wilson regards mississippi as a significant improvement on seven-card stud BTW."
Big Deal! What makes Bob Wilson a poker expert? I always considered ham a Computer Weeny!
'Mississippi can be played on computer"
My point exactly (about Wilson).
"Any seven-card stud player can play mississippi, so try it out when you can. You only need four people for a good game."
The number of players is not what determines a good game. Just where do you play anyway?
6. What else have you got?
I have a general rule of poker:
"Any game of poker in which straights and flushes play a significant role must have five cards in play by the second round."
I'll guess? Your name is Hoyle. I guess all us 7 Stud players have been stupidly playing a game that doesn't have 5 cards in play by the second round. Guess what take this rule and shove it!
"Also a law of hole cards:
"The correct number of live hole-cards in seven-card poker is two; in five card poker, one."
For a minute I thought you were Sklansky but now I know who you are. You seem to have more pseudonyms than the "Great Imposter" Sklansky would never make such a stupid law!
"if mississippi is accepted as the true form of seven-card poker"
7 Stud is Seven Stud by any name. Mississippi is just another variation.
"I have earnt my wages and better..."all with nonlimit betting."
Try doing the same at limit poker like real poker players. Then come back and see us!
"My security tip: when carrying a big roll, or otherwise vulnerable, use your mobile phone to make a fake or real phone call to make yourself a hard target for criminals. If you don't have a phone, you can talk into your wallet or calculator as a bluff, and it looks real enough. In a taxi for instance, you can pretend to ring ahead, or leave an actual message on your answering machine. "
Excellant advice. Maybe you missed your calling. Security tips are obviously your forte.
If you want to push another game for introduction into Casino or Tournamnet play by all means do so. Just leave 7 Card Stud alone. It is a very fine game the way it is played!
Vince.
Vince Lapore makes a number of unnecessary personal remarks, which I will answer, but only once.
"What makes Bob Wilson a poker expert? I always considered ham a Computer Weeny"
"Just what we needed, another science weeny attacking poker"
-- he's talking about me (not BW) that time.
It's clear from your vocabulary that your education has given you no appreciation or understanding of computers or scince, and no respect for those who have. You seem proud of that.
"Am I really responding to this garbage. David, please help me! "
You are reacting with prejudice, but not thinking, and you obviously haven't played mississippi seven, so you are totally uninformed.
Your lack of appreciation and understanding of ideas is clear: your lack of any ideas of your own is obvious from your "daddy help me" plea. Maybe you should just ignore me?
Quoting me he writes: "I have earnt my wages and better..... all with nonlimit betting."
And responds:
"Try doing the same at limit poker like real poker players. Then come back and see us! "
Poker is in a bad state if ridiculous statements like that can pass. Why should anyone be considered a good poker player if they only win at limit poker, or at only one game? I have played and won at both limit and non-limit in several forms of the game. That means in a dealer's choice situation - restricted to mainstream games - I would beat most specialists. I would never consider playing limit poker for a living, but not because I couldn't.
Maybe we should agree to disagree? Your views are now known and understood. Mine are clearly not. Go back to whatever you were doing, because if you are right you need say no more.
And Huxley retorted to the Vince: "Maybe we should agree to disagree? Your views are now known and understood. Mine are clearly not. Go back to whatever you were doing, because if you are right you need say no more."
Hey good idea about agreeing to disagree, and now why don't we all agree that Huxley should stop filling up this message board with messages about "Jurassic and Mississippi poker".
If your "views" are still not clearly represented after close to 20 posts in the last 5 days then exactly how many messages will it take to clearly express them.
Sheesh, enough is enough.
Jodder writes: "why don't we all agree that Huxley should stop filling up this message board with messages about "Jurassic and Mississippi poker".
This is an invitation to all those who aren't interested in my ideas not to ignore me, which I invite them to do, but to start harassing me. Why?
My message headers take no more room than anyone else's, so just pass them by. What's the big deal?
I'm not promoting a commercial product, I'm explaining a theory of poker structure which few people have attempted to grasp, or if they have, they show little sign of it in their posts.
I have said some deliberately challenging things about limit betting and 7CS which some people take offence at. Well don't. If you only play limit betting and think that's it's real poker to bluff someone with a bet of 5% of the pot, well, then we disagree. But don't get upset about it. I'm not the only one who thinks the same thing and it's a common enough view, though few are foolish enough to say it out loud in this forum.
Banning such statements seems pretty insecure.
Huxley,
Vince wrote:
"What makes Bob Wilson a poker expert? I always considered ham a Computer Weeny"
That is not a personal attack. One is a valid question about Wilson. The other is an observation given that he Sells Turbo SOFTWARE. Computer Weeny is not a derogatory remark. It is, in fact, a term of endearment.
You are the second person that incorrectly accused me of making personal remarks about another person. In both instances they involved Bob Wilson. I hope he doesn't get the impression that I don't like him because of your inappropriate remarks.
"It's clear from your vocabulary that your education has given you no appreciation or understanding of computers or scince, and no respect for those who have. You seem proud of that"
I retired from the U.S. Air Force after 20 years. I was an electronic technician for all of that time. After retiring I worked for the Navy. I installed desktops, setup lap tops, plus the office's LAN. I was also the Dos, Windows, MS Office and applications resident Help professional. Don't preach to me about computers. "Just what we needed, another science weeny attacking poker"
Since you feel this statement constitutes a personal attack, I apologize. My intent was to attack your premises not you personally.
"You are reacting with prejudice, but not thinking"
This is true. I am prejudiced when it comes to poker. I never claimed to be a thinker.
"Am I really responding to this garbage. David, please help me! "
Emphasis of my prejudice!
Your lack of appreciation and understanding of ideas is clear: your lack of any ideas of your own is obvious from your "daddy help me" plea.
I definitely agree with this statement. Tell me, though, would you consider this statement a personal attack?
"Try doing the same at limit poker like real poker players. Then come back and see us! "
"Poker is in a bad state if ridiculous statements like that can pass."
You think that was ridiculous, just read what follows? Guess who wrote it? It seems to say that limit poker cannot be played at an expert level. What do you think?
"That's my point. The mass market prefers the game which protects them from expert play and aggressive pot-limit betting, and 7CS, because it can only be played with any logic as a limit game, is particularly attractive. "
"I have played and won at both limit and non-limit in several forms of the game"
Anyone that has played poker at both limit and non-limit can make this type of a general statement. Proves nothing.
"Maybe you should just ignore me? "
Hey, that's my line! Thank you very much. I know that I have very few, if any. ideas of my own (evidenced by my call for help to David) but this one belongs to me so please at least put it in quotes when you use it.
I do not intend to ignore you though you may feel free to ignore me!
"Mine are clearly not."
Referring to your views, you are very mistaken. Your views are understood. You have said that you wish to replace 7 Stud with Mississippi. I understnd that. My views are this. Introduce any new variation you like but leave 7 Stud alone. 7 Stud is fine without your medling.
You have an obvious disdain for limit poker and from you post limit poker players as well. Well I'm here to tell you that it is a lot more difficult to be a consistent winner at limit poker than no-limit. The reason is "obvious". More skill is required.
Vince.
Vince Lapore writes: "Since you feel this statement constitutes a personal attack, I apologize. My intent was to attack your premises not you personally. "
Graciously said, and thank you. I took you for a young anti-intellectual know-nothing, when obviously it's just that you have a good sense of humour and know a lot of things I don't. I am no computer weeny, wish I was. Bob Wilson, Bill Gates and me, computer weenies together, I wish.
Same with science weenie: Johnny von Neumann, Richard Feyman and me, I wish.
I guess I responded in a personal way, and it's not a good thing to do, so let's talk poker, which is all I'm interested in here.
You raised some points: . "You have said that you wish to replace 7 Stud with Mississippi. I understnd that. My views are this. Introduce any new variation you like but leave 7 Stud alone. 7 Stud is fine without your medling."
7Cs is a great game, mainly because the three card start is the best for seven card poker. It has problems with length etc, which you might not be worried about, and it is rightly popular. Still, a two card flop is a better way to play seven card stud, and that's not something I can prove by argument.
Until you have flopped a straight or a book or quads in Mississippi-7CS you can't really compare. You aren't losing 7CS by switching to mississippi, you are just playing it a slightly different, but much better way.
You write:"Well I'm here to tell you that it is a lot more difficult to be a consistent winner at limit poker than no-limit. The reason is "obvious". More skill is required. "
I agree that more skill is required to win the same amount, but is that a good thing?
I've been in the situation of playing the same group of players at limit and nonlimit (Not no-limit, I've never played that).
In the nonlimit games my advantage was translated into rapid profits. With the same advantage over the same players in limit games, with the same ~3/4 win rate, my profits were far less, and the work more arduous
That seems to be the pattern: the expert edge is less in limit games. That is a bad thing from a professional point of view, and a good thing from a non-professional's point of view.
I'll respond to other points if you wish, just point me at them.
"You aren't losing 7CS by switching to mississippi, you are just playing it a slightly different, but much better way. "
There in lies the weakness (IMO) in your arguement. Your presentation is an attack on 7 stud instead of a promotion of Mississippi. I am all for learning new things. I am not a preserver of the old. Holdem was new to me until 20 months ago. Mason and Sklansky have always recommended learning both (plus Omaha, which I am learning now). They have never recommended replacing one with another. This is my point. Call Mississippi what it is, a Poker variant. Try and get Casino Poker Rooms to spread it, get players to ask for it, whatever. I agree with that. I don't believe you will get anywhere with your promotion of this game by demeaning Limit Poker. Limit poker is by far the most widely played form of poker. There is no future for poker without limit.
"That seems to be the pattern: the expert edge is less in limit games."
Absolutely True!
"That is a bad thing from a professional point of view, and a good thing from a non-professional's point of view."
Absolutely false. From a professional point of view doesn't one want first and foremost "Availability" (my term, couldn't think of another term). By availability I refer to the fact that one can walk into most 24 hour Casino Poker Rooms in this country and find a game. 98% (rough estimate) of those games are limit. I like that kind of availability.
BTW -"I took you for a young anti-intellectual know-nothing"
Pretty close!
Vince.
Hi Vince, I've chucked Huxley as you can see. I didn't like the Brave new world connotation. (I think I've invented an acronym, as in that guy FKA Prince.)
>>From a professional point of view doesn't one want first and foremost "Availability" ... By availability I refer to the fact that one can walk into most 24 hour Casino Poker Rooms in this country and find a game. 98% (rough estimate) of those games are limit>>
Never mind the quality, feel the width? You only need seven other players for a game, so what is the real advantage? If you want to play all the time, you can if you want, but if you do it too much it becomes work, and who wants to work all the time?
You write:"Your presentation is an attack on 7 stud instead of a promotion of Mississippi."
You are right. I guess I was intent on stirring a response.
"Try and get Casino Poker Rooms to spread it, get players to ask for it, whatever"
Good advice. Have just started on that route.
"I don't believe you will get anywhere with your promotion of this game by demeaning Limit Poker. Limit poker is by far the most widely played form of poker. There is no future for poker without limit. "
Damn, you've hit three out of three. I have to agree that seems to be the case, in the US at least, which I have never visited.
Limit poker is by no means the dominant form in australia and a couple of places i've visited in Europe, but the US is the biggest market by far, so point taken.
I guess it's aiming a bit high to want to introduce a new family of games, provide a general definition of poker AND bring non-limit betting back to it's rightful place. Two out of three will have to suffice.
We haven't even got a proper word for it. Maybe I'll call it poker betting to stir people up.
Wallace FKA Huxley.
Hi Everybody,
I am a poker student of one of the players who writes on this forum occasionally. Today I had the following hand in a 5/10 holdem game and wonder if I played it well. I was new to the game so I didnt know much about the players.
One player limps up front and I raise with AA in middle position. All fold behind and both blinds and the limper call.
The flop comes T 9 9 rainbow. All check and I bet.
The turn comes a ten. They check and I check behind fearing a trap.
The river is an offsuit four. They check and I bet. I get called by all three players (!) and when I show my hand they all fold.
Since John Feeney (in one of his older essays) says to concentrate on my play rather than my results, I want to ask what you think of my play from flop to finish?
Poker Student
you did fine. you could also consider betting on 4th by assessing your opponents. with your check on 4th you may get a bluff on the river so be prepared to call. rarely will you get all those calls on the end and win with that board. bad players are hard to figure so play good cards and bet them out.
"fearing a trap"
Fear, did you say fear! Who's your teacher? Fear is something you put into the hearts of your opponents. Come back when you've eliminated that horrible feeling from your reasons for making a play.
Fear a poker players enemy/friend. Make it your friend!
Vince.
Lets peak at their hands that they folded. They must be able to beat ATT99 but not AATT9. So at best two each have an Ace and the early caller KK, QQ, or JJ.
Or they are just brain dead. One called with 44 not noticing he was counterfieted. One called with K8 since he's got two pair, by golly!
So now that you know they are brain dead you should have BET on the turn as a big favorite. But since you DIDN'T know that your check on the turn was good as was the bet on the end. And as Ray pointed out you have encouraged a bluff on the end and should call all but the quite timid of opponents.
Feeney is correct. Next time consider leaving off the "they all fold" phrase, as it encourages people like me from doing easy post results analysis. Yes, most people have 20:20 hindsight. So do I, whoopie-doo.
- Louie
This can be a tricky business. Some players that call a lot won't bet without the near-nuts whenver the board is scary. Make sure these types aren't around before you make assumptions about what your opponents are holding in a late round with a scary board.
I would just add that another benefit of your checking as a default play in this case -- when you don't have a read on the opps telling you that a bet is okay -- is that it preserves for you that small chance of spiking an ace on the river. (With AA here free cards aren't a big concern.)
And Landale is correct about Feeney.
John,
I was writing my post as yours went up and hope you are still online. I'm hoping for feedback on the merit of checking both the turn and the river in this very unusual hand (try to use that memory zap thing concerning the three calls "Student" got on the river).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I enjoyed your article in Poker Digest. In addition, it once again seemed to hit home with my own student who is becoming a big fan of your essays and posts. Too bad they put in your picture. I now get one free shot at you in that 20/40 game at Ocean's 11 if I can make it down. Or should I say now I know who to stay out of the way of in that game :-)
Rick -- I post while you post while I post... See my comments under your post.
Thanks for the compliment. But free shot at me, eh? Hey, you've described yourself in posts a time or two. I'm just going to keep my eyes open for this guy who doesn't look like a Nebiolo -- tall with blonde hair was it? (If I ever got out of my own backyard to play poker I'd know.) Anyway I have this vague picture in mind, and I'm pulling out my whole bag of tricks against anyone who looks remotely like that over the next year. Or, like you said, maybe I'll just pass on the game. :-/
Right. Right about that spike. Nothing quite like slow playing the nuts and getting bunches of action from someone who just outdrew you.
Free cards ARE a consern since you WANT straight draws and flush draws to fold against you on the turn when the board is double paired; AND they probably WILL fold since they don't know what you have. Your bet will usually force these draws to abandon their equity, which (against you) is more than a bet.
- Louie
Poker Student,
I don't think anyone would dispute your pre-flop raise.
You wrote: "The flop comes T 9 9 rainbow. All check and I bet."
I assume from the rest of your post that all three called. You have to be a little concerned that a nine could be out against you but it should not stop you from betting here to punish straight draws like QJ, 87, KQ or J8. A hand with a ten could also be in a check and call mode. Note that a typical weak 5/10 player would often play these hands up front or in the blinds even after a raise.
"The turn comes a ten. They check and I check behind fearing a trap."
Vince in his post above may show no fear but I would be worried now. A hand containing a nine may have planned to check raise you on the turn but stopped because he "feared" a ten in the hands of the other players (other than you). If the ten is out he may also be thinking of the check raise. So I like your check here. You hate to give a draw to a straight a free shot but this board is very dangerous and a ten or nine could be in the hands of any one of your opponents. And all it would take is one opponent to have such a card to make you wish you had not bet.
"The river is an offsuit four. They check and I bet. I get called by all three players (!) and when I show my hand they all fold."
It would have been better if you ended the post by indicating that it was checked to you on the river and you wanted to know if you had a bet here. Tell that "teacher" of yours that giving away the ending skews the answers of even the best of us. I wonder if Ray or Louie (OK, I'll even include Vince) would write that the bet was strong if they didn't know the ending.
I'm going to rewrite the above sentence to the following and blast myself with one of those memory loss things from the science fiction comedy "Men In Black". Then you might get a fair answer from me.
You should have written: "The river is an offsuit four. All three check. Do I have a bet here?"
At this point the board is T 9 9 T 4. Any one of the draws mentioned (except perhaps the KQ) won't call on the river. I don't think the ten would check twice in a row but the nine certainly could if he was one of the blinds. The basic problem is that it is hard to figure any hands that you can beat calling you on the end except for an ace or king high and of course JJ, QQ, or KK but then these three pairs are unlikely to be out there (I would think they would have given more action at some point in the hand). Ray, Louie and Vince can call me chicken if they want but I think you should check here.
One factor not yet mentioned is that your opponents probably are not going to worry about you having a ten on nine in your hand (since you raised before the flop). This makes it much easier for them to make "a move" on you on the turn or river. I wouldn't want to face the check raise on either betting round.
That being said and knowing that you bet and got three callers on the river and still won is What the heck did they have?.
Regards,
Rick "the chicken"
P.S. Are you interested in a new teacher? I saw my own student take a card off against a large field on the flop with bottom two pair in a 6/12 Omaha H/L game today with the low already out there and no shot at low. I sometimes have a hard time getting through to her because she won over $400 in the game. Since you seem to be a fan of John Feeney (in wondering how you play as opposed to your short term results) I would guess you would make a great student.
Re the turn, Rick points out, You hate to give a draw to a straight a free shot but this board is very dangerous...
Yep, free cards *are* bit of a problem in this hand, contrary to what I suggested in my post above. (I hastily said they weren't because they often aren't with boards containing two pair.) Still, I agree that the check on 4 was probably best barring a read to the contrary.
I vote in favor of the bet on 5 though, because I think a lot of players (most?) holding a 9 would go ahead and bet it there once everyopne checked on 4.
John,
Sometimes I guess they can have anything. Years ago I'm playing 15/30 holdem at the Bike and I show down top two pair against a player who had three smaller pair if you could use six cards. He went nuts when the dealer pushed the pot to me and the floor had to be called. The next day I see the guy playing 100/200 or something like that. Go figure.
Regards,
Rick
"Sometimes I guess they can have anything." Today I was in the BB and was raised by the button. SB folded and I called with Tc9c. Flop came Jc-8c-Ad. I checked, button bet, I check-raised, button called. Turn was 4h. I bet, button raised, and I called. River was 6s, making board Jc-8c-Ad-4h-6s. I checked with the intention of going to the bathroom after the pot was pushed to button.
I said "I have nothing." Then I turned over my cards and said "nothing." The dealer pushed my cards towards the button and said "ten high." He studied my cards, studied the board, studied his hand, and souped.
What the heck could this guy have had? About the only thing I can come up with is 5c-3c.
Rick,
You wrote above in a dazed and confused state last night: "That being said and knowing that you bet and got three callers on the river and still won is What the heck did they have?."
I'll make a quick guess. I'll assume all three opponents are not blind and can read the board correctly (this is a streach at 5/10 holdem). I would think each call after "Student" bet has to be respectfully stronger because of the previous overcalls. I'm going to assume the limper did not have the overpair since he would have taken a shot with it by at least the river once everything was checked twice. Without doing any math (way too early and I'm way too lazy), I'll guess that the SB had a king high type hand, the BB had either an ace or a king high or the JJ, QQ, or KK, and the limper had at least an ace high but no pair.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Is answering my own posts an early or later sign of insanity?
"The turn comes a ten. They check and I check behind fearing a trap."
"Vince in his post above may show no fear but I would be worried now"
Rick,
First, I thought your response to this young person was excellant. Mine should be disregarded. Just one point. I was not inferring that the poster should show no fear and bet. I was trying to tell him what you so elequently did in your response. Think about the situation you are in and make your decision based on your evaluation of all the factors. Under no circumstances do you make a play because you "Fear" the outcome. Certainly use all your senses and factor the feelings you have into the situation equation. (Does that sound like a math weeny talking, I hope not). Just be sure your decision is based on logic and not emotion.
Vince.
Vince,
(Does that sound like a math weeny talking, I hope not).
I don't think you can be mistaken for a "math weeny". Or a Sklansky. Or a Mason. or a ray zee or skp. But you could qualify as a "weeny".
Regards :-),
Rick
Looks ok. As odds go, it is about 3 to one against anyone having a set of 9's on the flop, verses 3 players, plus they checked to you. I like to make an assessment at a table: Who is capable of a check-raise? Many are not. Also, most players then usually bet their hand right out if they have something, not thinking of a check-raise. I have a tendencey to play like you here, that is check the turn. But if I know my opponents I believe that is a mistake to check, because I just gave them a free card, the river card. And again, was anyone even capable of a check-raise? If not, I can bet more hands behind them.
By the way, I've lost me last 3 times with pocket aces, if that helps you any.
My thanks to everybody who responded to my post. I am new to the poker world and any input I can get from all of you is greatly appreciated. Next time I write, I will not give away what happened on the river. How I played is still questionable as there is so much I have to learn. What I learn from all of you is what matters to me and I will try to utilize your advice to make me a good player since I know I am communicating to the best minds in the poker industry.
Student
P.S. to Rick Nebiolo
Thanks for inviting me to be your student. I won't mind having you as my other instructor.
Dear Student,
It's always fun to analyze an interesting hand away from the table. It is the best way to improve.
I probably spoke out of fustration yesterday when I offered to take on a new student. When my current student called the flop with bottom two pair in that Omaha game with the low already made and no other outs I was ready to pull out the old drawing board and hit her on the head. But I'm not the violent type.
Anyway, I just don't have any time for a new student. I'm going to have to forgive my current one for her little lapses as she shows so much promise and talent and enthusiasm (plus she is very cute). She has a little too much gamble in her so I try to tell her that when she plays imagine that John Feeney, skp, Dan Hanson, ray zee, Louie Lawndale, David Sklansky, Mason Malmuth, Abdul Jalib, anyone I forgot and even Vince Lepore are all watching and all they care about is How She Is Playing!
Regards,
Rick
ok ok hello all here is my problem im not that qiuck with odds ,, if im drawing to a open ended straight, what are the odds I'll make my hand by the river if for say I have 78 and flop was 5 6 k what are the odds of any open ended straight draw,,,??? second what are the odds I'll make my flush is it really 1 in 3 times that seems high,,, any help for novice thanks
Rather than give you the odds, I'll help you learn to calculate them. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach him to fish, feed him for life.
After the flop, there are 47 cards that you have not seen. Your open-ended straight will be completed with one of eight cards. Any nine or any four will complete it. The odds that you will make it on the next card is the number of outs (8) divided by the number of cards left (47). If you do not make it on the next card, you still have one more chance to make it. However, there is one less card left (46 instead of 47). Your odds that you will complete the straight by the end of the hand are the odds of making it on the next card plus the odds of making it on the last card. In this case, your odds are 8/47 + 8/46.
You can use the same method to calculate the possibility of a flush. If after the flop, you have a four-flush, theres 9 cards that will help you, and once again theres 47 cards left.
Your method is fundamentally wrong although it happens to give a result which is within 3% in this case. The odds of making your straight on the turn is 8/47 that's true, and the odds of making it on the river assuming you don't make it on the turn is 8/46, but you can't just add these two numbers to get the overall probability of making your hand since these are not independent events. Here is the correct way to calculate this:
The probability of making the straight is 1 - probability of *not* making the straight. Since there are 39 cards that you could get on the turn which do not make the straight, the odds of not making the straight on the turn is 39/47. The odds of not making the straight on the river after not making it on the turn is 38/46. To get the odds of not making it on either of the two cards we multiply these two probabilities to get (39/47)(38/46) = 68.5%. The odds of making it then are 31.4%.
For the flush, the same method gives us 1 - (38/47)(37/46) = 34.0%.
Bruce is correct. Essentially, you are using the shotgun method. You are saying that I have 8 outs and 2 chances to get one of those 8 outs or approximate odds of 16 out of 47. While this might do in most instances, the shotgun method gives skewed results when you flop something with 12 or 14 outs for example (i.e. flush/gutshot draw and flush/one pair draw respectively). In that instance, one has to use Bruce's method to determine the odds accurately.
As a rule of thumb, the probability of improving your hand with 14 outs on the flop is approximately 50%. For each additional out, add approximately 3% to the 50% figure.
I realize this is a difficul question to answer, as the answer is really "who is in the game", but where do you think the Atlantic City 5-10, 10-20, 15-30 holdem games rank as compared to the comparable games in Vegas or Ca? Thanks for your response.
Zach
Holdem games at the Taj are usually moderately-loose and very aggressive at 5-10. It's not uncommon for 75% of pots to be raised preflop. This game can be very profitable, especially when there are calling stations in the game. But the raising often backs you into a corner and you have to be prepared for the high variance.
Trop games are much saner. They are also moderately loose at 5-10, but are typically very passive. There are many weak-tight players in these games, and aggressive play is key.
I don't know about Vegas or California, but Foxwoods 5-10 holdem is worse than either Atlantic City room. The game is moderate, even slightly tight, and usually passive. Holdem games there are dominated by regulars, and they play better than most Atlantic City players. The 10-20 holdem has a kill on a large fraction of the hands, and is close to a 15-30 game. By contrast, the 5-10 rarely kills. So many decent 5-10 players stay put instead of making the jump right into a 15-30 game, making the 5-10 tougher than in other places.
The hold'em games vary greatly in AC according to the day of the week and the time. Sometimes the games can be terrific, and other times are extremely tough.
This is why I have switched to stud, a game that's always good in AC no matter when.
I have just come back from So Cal, and the $15-$30 stud games everywhere are extremely tight!!!
I must agree, the stud in AC is pretty good everywhere, all most all the time. The HE games are easier during the day (on weekdays) while the "bus people" are there. Weekend nights at the TAJ are best for finding easy HE games.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that the Taj charges "time" on the 15/30 games. Many other places rake that game. I think it $7.00 per half hour, my last trip. Same thing for Stud (someone correct me, if I am wrong). I couldn't handle that "time" charge for 15/30 Holdem, so I played only Stud.
The taj and trop have either identical or nearly identical structures and charges. Trop charges time on 15-30 (stud or HE), but I thought it was 6$/half hour for 15-30. Since I am in NJ at the moment, I will check and get back with you.
Dave in Cali (on the road)
In this month's postings and in the Sept. 1998 archive postings mention is made of yet another post. A post on remembering folded cards in 7 card stud.
Yet I've not managed to find it yet.
In the Sept. 98 post the poster states he found it with search words of "remember" and "folded".
Does anyone know of a way to search the entire set of archives in one pass rather than the month by month method that seems to be provided for.
Alternatively, can anyone say the month, year and post title in question?
It's was an interesting jackpot hand day before at Muckshoot Casino in Seattle, WA in a 4-8 Hole'em. Jackpot is paid for AAfull of 10s beaten by four of a kind.
Before the flop five player were in, three of them had JJ, KK and AQoffsuite respectively. Flop came A J 4 (rainbow).
JJ checked, KK checked, AQ bet, JJ made it two bets, KK called, AQ called.
Turn came another A, JJ checked again, KK checked, AA bet, JJ raised and KK foled.
River came the case A. JJ checked, AQ bet and JJ called. since KK was out on turn, JJ won the bad beat jackpot of 13,000 (with total pool of more than 26,000).
My question is should KK take the odds of hitting the jackpot and call two bets on the turn, with a possiblity of AQ making it three bets and JJ capping it at four bets ?
Thanks, Kuwarsa
most likely the kk should call to hit the jackpot unless he felt that all 4 aces were certainly out. if the situation was played over and over the kk would spend about 1400 to hit the jackpot for a 13000 return.
Its OBVIOUSLY worth a call if he knew what situation he was in. But as Ray pointed out he may already be up against both Aces. It may also be the single Ace that is out has a kicker less than J.
Easy call never-the-less.
Why did the KK call the double bet on the flop? ... the world wonders ...
- Louie
So, if KK calls then the finals hands are JJAAA, KKAAA and AAAAQ. What does this casino do with a double beat jackpot? Both full houses qualify as bad beat hands.
The places I've played, 50% for the losing hand, 25% for the winning hand and 25% for the remaining players at the table. Would each losing hand get 25%?
No. Everywhere I've read the rule it explicetely states the "2nd best hand loses to the best hand".
This applies to this situation; sorry JJ, that IS a bad beat!
It also applies when the 2nd best hand only uses ONE of his cards. This means, Yuuuuuucckkkkk, NO JACKPOT.
- Louie
Part of this post is a reprint from my response to Richard Poirier's post in the thread "Wanted ambitious poker players..." I am posting it again so as to generate a separate debate on the usefulness of the starting hand analyzer and other features of Wilson Turbo games.
I feel too much emphasis has been put on the simulator functions of these programs, while other useful features have been ignored. I for one feel the simulator is of limited practical value, ESPECIALLY to the beginner who wants to practice before attempting casino play. However, there are a wealth of graphs and charts in turbo which never get discussed on the forum.
Here is the reprint from my discussion with Richard...
Good point about the starting hand analyzer. Actually not much has been said about any of the features of Turbo programs other than the simulator function. The charts and graphs offer an amazing wealth of information. Although much of it is just interesting trivia, some of it can really offer significant insight. The starting hand analyzer is perhaps the most useful feature of Turbo.
In one 5-10 game I have played 5800 hands and made 3589$ profit, which is $0.61 per hand played. If I played 40 hands per hour, that would be better than two big bets per hour win rate. This particular result is somewhat too high to correlate with real life, which is the reason why I am posting it here. I cannot beat casino 5-10 stud for 2.5 big bets per hour, even though I can beat Turbo for this much! This high of a win rate probably reflects the fact that I have unlimited time to make decisions when playing at home. I think a real life expectation would be more like $0.30 - $0.40 per hand played, or about 1.2 - 1.5 big bets per hour.
I don't think anyone else should put TOO much faith in correlating their results on turbo to their predicted real life results. Example: In my 10-20 Turbo game, I have played 1820 hands, won 9.1% of hands dealt, won 5890$, and averaged $3.24/hand. This would perhaps suggest that I should rush out and invest all my $$ in my phenomenal 10-20 stud playing abilities... but I'm sure anyone reasonable can see the error of THAT line of thought! More likely my sample size is WAY too small and I happen to have been luckier in the recent past than the other players. When I have played 100,000 hands, I should have a more realistic hourly win rate.
The information found in turbo is useful but must be interpreted with caution, as I have (hopefully) shown. Still, there is no doubt that aspiring players will greatly benefit from the use of these programs. Just using the program and thinking about poker will help your game.
... end reprint ...
Another chart that I feel is useful is the average pot size chart. In my games, I usually win the largest average pot of all the players, but win less than the average number of pots. If I am playing tight, I am not trying to win lots of pots, rather to win bigger than average pots on the hands that I do play. These charts let me track if I am doing well in this area.
Hopefully the forum readers can elaborate on other useful features and/or comment on the ideas presented in this post.
Dave in Cali
I cannot beat casino 5-10 stud for 2.5 big bets per hour, even though I can beat Turbo for this much! This high of a win rate probably reflects the fact that I have unlimited time to make decisions when playing at home.
Dave -- It also reflects that you are able to assess and take advantage of fixed patterns of play in the TTH opps, while they cannot do the same against you. Then there are additional serious limitations to what can be stipulated in a profile. See my post titled "Turbo Problems" in the recent thread, "Wanted skilled, ambitious poker players..." for one of these problems. I would imagine that lots of players trying to construct profiles that play well have run into this and other limitations. I'd like to hear what, if any, limitations they have in fact uncovered. Anybody?
But as for useful aspects of TTH: though I've only put in a little time doing this, I did find it to have some value in practicing head-up and 3-handed play (using the appropriate advisors as opps). But you have to sort of force yourself not to take advantage of what become readily apparent fixed play patterns if you want to get the most out of it. (I hear there's also a bug related to check-raises in head-up play.)
I'm compelled to agree with John about the advantages of setting up short-handed/head-up games(an area where I need more work).For 7-stud,an additional feature to the S.H.A. is the ability to view each starting hand in closer detail(Turbo HE does'nt have this)as to when you win/lose or fold on a particular type of hand.
Another all but unhighlighted feature is the ability to alter ante/bring-in structures in relation to the limits you establish(good for effectively studying Chapter 4 in Sklansky's T.O.P.on ante structures).Ultimately however,I must agree with Dave's asessment to view the results with caution.
Excellent point about ch. 4 TOP.
Anyone who is studying poker should try their games with various structures and see what changes you have to make. It is most easy with Turbo 7CS. For 10-20 try it:
1$ ante, 3$ bring-in, 1st raise to 10$, 2nd to 20$
and also:
1$ ante, 4$ bring-in, 1st raise to 14$, 2nd to 24$
Have the book TOP open while you are playing and see what you can discover. Set it up like the examples in the book.
Let me know what you discover....
Dave in Cali
Dave: It may take a few thousand hands for each setup you've suggested but worth a try.Perhaps we should both try it and compare notes.E-mail me if you can and we can setup details.
Thanks for the great responses guys ...
As far as taking advantage of fixed patterns of play:
I have been ignoring the details of the different profiles, in a effort NOT to learn "how to beat the computer". I put certain lineups in, aggressive, loose, etc... but I always set it up to randomly bring in new players and always be switching them around. I don't care how sherlock or conan plays, they are not real opponents. They are "theoretical" opponents. Each hand I play is a situation similar to something I "might" face in the casino. My goal is to improve board reading, pot odds calculations, and timely assessment of chances of improvement.
By practicing these things at home, they become more natural during live play. This way I can spend more mental energy reading players and hands, since the basics come naturally. Sometimes me and a buddy will both play Turbo and stop and discuss each hand, what options we have, what's the best move, etc.... Great for exercising your mental poker muscles.
I hope this approach at least partially compensates for the possibility that I am taking advantage of the computer's fixed patterns of play.
What do you think?
Dave in Cali
p.s. I have not seen the bug, but will try it today and see if I can find it.
Yes, I think using it that way does allow for useful practice. To the extent that you can ignore clear, fixed play patterns your unrealistically high hourly rate is probably due to basic limitations of the profiles' abilities to play well. Also, there's a certain "transparency" to their play sometimes (mentioned by poster Maria Smith where are you now Maria?). I'm not sure how to define it. Maybe it's just that they lack that ever present bit of unpredictability that almost any human opponent has. At any rate, the limitations in play are probably more a problem for simulations than for the play practice you describe. The profiles do make basic bets, raises, folds, etc. similar to what you're confronted with in a real game. That provides decent practice, at least for some general ring game conditions. They just aren't able to make their decisions with consideration of all the (often very important) variables that a good human player thinks about.
to me, the biggest error that Turbbo 7CS makes is that it lumps all pairs -- 2 to 9 -- together & pays too much attention to much less frequently played hands like gut shot straights.
I consider a pair of 9's to be a much more playable hand -- at least on 3rd st -- than a pair of 2'3. But the program considers them equal & plays them the same
john
Chris' response to "Novice HE" has more discussion on the issues from this thread....
Please see the following post:
Re: Novice HE Posted By: Chris In Response To: Novice HE (MC)
In a game of 5-10, $20 to open draw, I raised the opener $55. He drew two, and I drew two too. He bet the minimum, and I put one of us all in with a raise of $175, which he called, showing his three fives when I showed my three sevens.
The only other person at the table who would have played like that was drunk. What did I do wrong, if anything?
My opponent was familiar to me and I was sure he didn't have three large - nothing over tens. I hoped he had three small, because I bluffed like that with a pair of aces sometimes (but not against him) and he would likely call.
In the absence of any possible reraise I put my money in and hoped he didn't have three eights or nines, or maybe tens.
The other players at the table couldn't profitably play like that because most of the calls would win, since they didn't have a reputation for two-stage full-pot bluffs.
It has been more than 10 years since I played draw poker. If memory serves me right, I probably drew 2 cards just less than a half dozen times in over 6 years of play (i.e. where I knew that I was up against a pat hand and needed to fill up). Your chances of improving by drawing two cards are not that much greater than the chances of improving by drawing 1 card. But by drawing one card, you disguise your hand a lot better,..your opponent can't know if you are drawing to two pair, a straight draw, a flush draw or trips (I should note that in the games we played, we did not use a Joker. The presence of a Joker may make it worthwhile to keep an Ace kicker when drawing 2 cards to a pair. If that is the case, then perhaps drawing 2 cards to trips is not a bad idea now and then to disguise your one pair/Ace kicker draws).
A further tip: If you have a hand like 999Q4 and raise an opener, you ought to always discard the Queen as the chances of the opener having Queens are of course greater than the chances of him having 4s.
Skp writes:"I probably drew 2 cards just less than a half dozen times in over 6 years of play"
What about when you raised with aces? Did you never keep a kicker? I sometimes did (I don't play much draw now myself) which is why I got the call.
Drawing one card and betting might have spooked my opponent because I would more likely do that with big trips: I wouldn't bet in the second round against his possible trips if I only had two pair, so my second round bet would indicate strength if I drew one.
Well, in this instance, I would have thought that he is probably more likely to call you if you drew one card rather than two as your 2 card draw (coupled with your opening raise and after draw bet) must surely make him believe that you have trips. On the other hand, with a one card draw, he may well call hoping that you are bluffing with a busted draw.
Do you play with a joker? If not, I think that there are several advantages to always drawing one card to trips. BTW, if you do play Jacks or better draw without a joker, a great book is one put out by Nesmith Ankeny...I forget the name of the book...winning with game theory or something. Just a couple of months ago, I got Mason's book on draw poker. However, given that the game is nearly dead, I have not yet read it in great detail. I will probably do that once I come up for some air at work.
SKP: I don't play jackpots through lack of opportunity, and I prefer pot-limit if there is a choice. Nesmith Ankeny is (are?) unfamiliar to me. My favourite poker book is Norman Zadeh's "Winning Poker Systems", which has all you need for pot-limit ante-straddle draw, five card stud and pot-limit seven card stud. Those games are not widely played casino games in the US but if you can play them in this country (Oz), and many other places around the world, you can find some great action when the money starts flowing.
In the hand in question, I raised with three sevens, and drew two when the opener did. Seeing as I expected something different from him if he had three large, I put him on three small, so I wanted him to call. If I had drawn one I either had trips or two pair because I don't believe that raising with a draw and then bluffing if you miss, is a good play, even to build up crazy points. Raising the pot $55 to draw is crazy, because you are commmited to a second round bet, which is nine times the size of the openers original bet. Seeing as you only win twenty dollars if your bluff makes the opener fold in the first round it worth looking at what you are risking. Playing with a raise and a second round bet or raise costs 20+55+5+175 = $255 in a 5-10,$20 to open potlimit Draw game. It's just not worth it to go for a draw and then bluff four times out of five into a two card buyer.
Crazy points are only good if you aren't really crazy.
If I drew one and raised it could only mean I had trips, seeing as two pair could only call the two card buyer. I knew my opponent knew I wasn't drawing, so I played on that basis: I let him think maybe I had aces and a kicker, by drawing two. I often did that and bet out if I made two pair or trips. Anyway, he showed three fives instead of three eights, so it made me look good, and I turned a $175 pot into a $525 pot. I think I did OK.
No arguments here.
I'll have to get Zadeh's book if for no other reason than to just make my poker library more complete. Thanks for the suggestion.
Vince Lepore was kind enough to say that this tip was a good one, so I'll repost it under my real name, seeing as it is non-contentious.
I thought of this after a scary midnight taxi ride in a foriegn city. The driver wanted to take me places I didn't want to go, and when I insisted on a direct route to my hotel he started muttering and throwing the wheel around. No one knew where I was and I was at this guy's mercy, and he made me know it before he set me down. If he had some rendezvous with bad guys worked out for me, or if he pulled a weapon, I was gone. It spooked me that I had let myself be so vulnerable. .. In the same situation now, in fact pretty routinely, and in other situations, I know I can make or fake a phone call to maximise my real and percieved hardness as a target. Just pull out your wallet and fake it if you have to. How will he know the difference?
As a routine security measure for women in particular, a phone call to your own answering machine can discreetly assure your security in vulnerable situations of all kinds.
I now usually carry a 130db keyring screamer, which repels most large mammals, up to grizzlies, though don't try that at home.
The Swedes also have a necklace for women with a dye and scent in it which is released if broken. It makes assault very messy and unpleasant for the criminal
By the way, you don't have to be in a foreign country for this type of thing to happen. In Vegas, one taxi driver all but refused to take me and my two buddies to the airport, where our planes were waiting. She wanted us to go to her "associate's" XXX house, which no doubt had gambling as well. I guess she didn't want to take on three guys, as she eventually took us to the airport. The point is you don't have to look far to find sickos, so be careful, especially when you are carrying a large wad of cash!
Thanks for the tip....
Dave in Cali
Ray,
happy to read you again.
Well I'd like to know what are the strategic adjustments when playing 7-stud Hi-Lo in pot-limit (unfortunately there is no pot-limit section in your book, contrary to O8 - please 2+2 guys when do you write a book on big bet poker, and on omaha high ??).
Basically you say that 7-stud Hi-Lo is a game of implied odds since the pots are frequently jammed on the later streets, so there should not be big differences betweeen limit and pot-limit.
Perhaps the main difference is in the all-in factor that often comes by 5th or 6th street, especially when short or middle stacked, or against agressive opponents who always want to intimidate.
I understand that high hands go up in value because they can more easily than in limit eliminate low hands which catch bad by 4th or 5th street (big pair, set)
I also understand that low hands which can also back in high are very good starting hands (small 3-straight, small 3-flush).
But if I only play these hands, I will almost never play (1 hand out of 20 ?), and when I will play I won't get any action even from the loose players.
So what about:
- A28 A27 A26 (with 2-flush ?)
- A55 554 556 (Max Stern says that the 5 is a key-card in this game since it's mandatory to make a small straight)
- A + small pair
- small pair + straight-flush card
You also say that check-raising is a powerful tool since the obvious high hand can always be expected to bet. You especially will use it to eliminate the high hand with a low hand concealed in high or to eliminate the low hand with a high hand concealed in low.
But if it is powerful, il can also be very dangerous in pot-limit:
- basically you risk 4 to win 2 with a check-raise, against 1 to win 1 with a bet
- when all-in after the check-raise, you'd better be the favorite if called
Anyway if you can give me some advice.
KK (an european player)
PS: limit poker does NOT exist in Europe; it's almost dealer's choice pot-limit with 3 blinds, and at times no-limit hold'em
I must second the motion for the "big three" to get busy and write us a good "big bet poker" book. This is a subject which needs more work.
ps. Dave can throw in some "Sklanskyisms" (just to make Vince happy)!!
you ask for the whole book here and now but the main thing is to have much better hands when you play big pots in pot limit games. you steal alot if there is a fair amount of antes to win and get out if your hand doesnt develop. most money is made by the good players blowing the bad ones out of the pots when their hands break off. its a game of reading players well and picking your spots in the big hands. hands with pairs must be played perfectly or will bust you. i dont know anything about having a five as its needed for a low straight as i thought all wheel cards are needed for low straights less the ace. if you play 556 often for anything but steals save money for cabfare home.
Don't put special emphasis on 5s. Low pairs are generally very weak hands in this game. The problem with a hand like (56)5 is that it often makes second-best hands. While limit stud-8 is to some extent a game of implied odds, in pot-limit it can cost you a lot more to get to the river with a hand that "might get there" or "might still be good." Extra outs like a 3-flush on 5th make a difference in limit to turn a slight fold into a slight call - the extra 3% or 5% can give you odds to call a limit bet getting high pot odds and good implied odds. With pot-sized bets, marginal hands are nowhere near the call threshold, and the extra outs don't make much of a difference. Ray's advice to fold certain mediocre hands on 4th and 5th is even more imperative in pot-limit. In pot-limit in general, you play fewer hands for their value and more hands for steals. In situations where you can't steal, you frequently have to play very tight, especially when the players behind you are aggressive.
8-handed 20 limit lowball game. Blinds 5,5,10.
Open for $20, 1 caller. Should I call with a 2-card draw to a 64 without the joker? With the joker?
This hand actually came up: Loose player opens for $20. I have 75322 and I make it $40. All fold. Loose player draws 2. I draw 1 to my 75 low. I catch a 9. Player bets. Should I call?
Carlos
"Open for $20, 1 caller. Should I call with a 2-card draw to a 64 without the joker? With the joker?"
You can call if you are in the big blind, have the joker, and the opener is in a late position or just a very loose player who plays poorly after the draw.
"This hand actually came up: Loose player opens for $20. I have 75322 and I make it $40. All fold."
I would probably only call here. (Unlike hold 'em it is o-kay to call raises.)
"Loose player draws 2. I draw 1 to my 75 low. I catch a 9. Player bets. Should I call?"
You should call unless you know that this player will only bet an 8 or better and virtually never bluffs.
C
5-10 at the Taj. Maniac in middle position raises. Weak Tight in SB calls. I have JTo and call. 3 see the flop. Flop comes J54 rainbow. SB checks, I check, maniac bets, SB calls, I checkraise, maniac 3 bets, SB and I both call. Turn is a ten. Should I go for another check raise?
Danny S
This is a very interesting question. I look forward to reading the replies.
No I would tend to beleive I'm up against trips already or at least a four straight. Probably trips as weak tight would'nt play small connectors.Anyway I would check to sb and call maniac as he could have anything.you may need full house to win.sb may drop anyway if he does'nt have trips.
C'mon David,
You have, in published material, stated what the proper play is when the pot gets big. Now you find a situation like this interesting. Interesting or not I will bite. The most correct play in this situation is to bet. I may add that the possibility that the maniac will raise (with or without a weaker hand) and the SB may fold are good reasons to make this bet.
Vince.
BTW - I had to say bet. Malmuth just made fun of me for checking the river on my stud hand and I don't want to appear too passive. Besides I checked the stud hand because you (again in your publishings) told me to!
Nothing quite like hitting a 3-card outer to go from 3rd to 1st.
It looks like the SB has a J bigger kicker, so is only drawing to 3 cards. The pot doesn't look that big so letting him do so is NOT a disaster.
It matters most if the Maniac is going to 2 bet it with his big pair. Since maniacs tend to do that I would bet into him figuring to put pressure on the tight player and 3-bet it yourself. The larger the pot the more I would tend to do this hoping to knock the other player out. Smaller pots and more timid raisers would induce me to check-raise, since getting two bets is better than getting one bet.
- Louie
Of course, SOME maniacs will 3-bet if you check-raise, in that case I would check-raise-reraise it.
Well, maniac could have anything so the key is to try and figure out what sb has. Given your description of him as weak-tight, I doubt that he would call preflop with 44 or 55 or 76. I further doubt that he has JJ as he would either have reraised preflop or would have checkraised maniac on the flop. Plus, the fact that you have a Jack makes it unlikley that he is holding pocket Jacks. Assuming that your description of sb is correct, he likely has a hand like QQ with which he was afraid to raise on the flop with.
If that is correct, then sb has 8 outs to your hand and given the size of the pot, you don't mind if he folds on the turn. The best way to get him to fold is to bet on the turn and have the maniac raise you (note that if the maniac has a real hand like KK or AA, then he too has 8 outs against you. If they both stick aroud for the river with those hands, then they collectively have 10 outs against you).
A lot depends on what you think maniac will do if you bet. If you think, he will just call, then I would try for a second checkraise. This is less likely to get the sb out (although he still may dump after calling the initial bet fearing that you have a set) but you may as well reap the benefits of trapping both players for a double bet if you feel that the maniac will not assist you by raising again. It is often difficult to know whether the maniac will raise again. On balance, I would likely bet and hope that he raises thereby knocking sb out and allowing you to 3 bet it (or perhaps you may wish to make sure that the River card is not a 5 or a 4 and then checkraise him again for the 3rd time).
Last note: If you know that the maniac has got a real hand like AA and will knock out sb with a raise, then you may as well try for the checkraise because by getting the sb to drop out, you don't really gain enough to offset the loss of his $40 i.e. There are 8 bad cards for you if you are up against one of them and only 10 bad cards for you if you are up against both of them. However, with manicas, you can never be sure what they have or what they will do.
Bottom Line: I would bet and hope maniac raises.
Of course, I forgot a hand like AJ or something which the sb could have. If so, he only has three outs against you individually. If maniac has a real hand, they collectively could have 11 outs against you. Funny, in this situation, if you knew that the maniac has an overpair, you would prefer sb to have a hand like QQ instead of AJ or KJ or QJ.
skp,
I just have a brief comment here. I think you have the small blinds range of hands narrowed down a bit too much. Remember, before the flop he figured to have a chance at being head up with the maniac so 44 and 55 are very possible. I also think two face cards are possible. These are in addition to the hands you mention.
On the flop the SB could have the big hand (set), overpair, jack better kicker, and maybe even overcards if he was playing with a little fustration (I find even weak tight types will often call two more bets with a medium hand when they have one bet in and a maniac put in one of the raises).
I'll post a couple more thoughts elsewhere in the thread if I don'r run out of energy.
Regards,
Rick
Rick, in real life, I can rarely narrow down someone's hand that much. I was going on the poster's description of the fellow in doing so here.
The 1st question is: Will he bet? With a maniac who knows, but probably he will. 2nd question: Do you believe you have the best hand? Probably. Weak-tight I believe would come out betting with trips. It's 16 to 1 against maniac having any pair to begin with(I'm thinking of 4's or 5's). At first I thought, check-raise, but I believe bet. A successful check-raise puts probably 2 bets in the pot, or if worst happens, no bets. A bet gives the opportunity for 3 bets, but at least one, ie no free cards. Plus I see a bet as putting more pressure on the SB, if maniac raises, knowing that a re-raise is possible behind him. No need to get too tricky.
What about if the ten came on the end and fouth st. was check check bet call call?
Well, would need to know what turn card was, and the action of the SB on the end. Shame on you for trying to set a trap for me. By the way, I'm not good enough yet to think this fast at the poker table, in the heat of battle, as opposed to laying here on my couch, with webtv.
David,
I just don't know when to quit but sometimes I like to be first in and get my ideas kicked around a bit.
If I understand you correctly, you decided to check call the maniac and the SB on the turn with your two pair. Now you fill up on the river.
I have two answers. If the maniac gives away his betting by reaching for his chips then look for this and act accordingly. (I don't think this is too sleazy as long as you don't pause unnaturally).
Otherwise, I think you have a lot to gain by going for the check raise on the river. The maniac will tend to bet nothing but won't call with nothing. The SB may not call your bet with a mediocre hand but will almost always call the maniacs bet. If it gets checked down (probably only when the maniac has a fair hand which is relatively unlikely) all you probably lost is one or two calls. You gain this and maybe more with the check raise.
Goodnight,
Rick the Insomniac
I meant a blank comes on fourth st. then a ten.
Well, there is very little doubt here that you would try for the checkraise. A bet is likely to only net you one big bet i.e. if maniac calls, sb likely wont overcall but if maniac folds, sb would likely call. A checkraise is likely to net you 3 (and possibly 4) big bets.
As always - "It depends". Would your opponent three bet the flop with AK and try to see the turn for free? If so, you must bet here, of course you also should have reraised the flop if you believed he had AK.
You mention that he was a maniac. This is a very important issue. Maniac's love to "play" the bully and throw chips. Usually any sign of a potential weakness is enough for a maniac to bet. If he has an overpair, he'll bet it of course. Checkraise this psycho.
If he is a true maniac, he'll bet after you show weakness, even with a hand such as AK.
Interestingly enough you didn't consider (or didn't mention) the possibility of betting with the intention of being raised and three betting him. If you think he has a strong hand such as AA, KK or QQ. The best play might be to bet into him and hope he raises. You could get three bets here. If he has AA, KK or QQ and you checkraise him again, it's unlikely he'll three bet you here.
Very interesting thread, I have only touched the surface.
Dan,
I've run out of gas a bit so I'll just test my instincts. Some maniacs tend to be aggressive early in the hand and then slow down later. Against this type I bet because I don't want the turn checked around.
If I believe the maniac will bet I go for the check raise. If the SB just calls I like this play a lot and would like to gamble with the maniac if he makes it three bets. If the small blind check raises the turn I have a tough decision as you have to worry about drawing dead or to four outs.
Regards,
Rick
Thanks for all of the answers. In real life I bet the turn and both called. A blank came on the end and once again I bet and both called. The maniac had KK and the SB had QQ. After the hand I was sorry I didn't go for the checkraise, especially given the hands of the players involved. BTW, good call skp.
Danny S
"The maniac had KK"
Somehow K,K and Maniac don't go together, especially since he didn't raise your turn or River bet! Careful when you categorize an opponent!
"After the hand I was sorry I didn't go for the checkraise"
Let me know if the same situation comes up again and you decide to check raise. You may say: After the hand I was sorry I wen't for the checkraise! You made the correct play by betting. Remember that and do the same thing in the next similar situation.
Vince
Well on a previous hand the guy raised preflop with A4o, and made it 3 bets on the flop with a board of K74.He had only been in the game about 1/2 hour when the hand in question came up.
Danny S
Saturday, FW, 15-30 Stud.
Hand K,3/K
Action: Raise.
2nd player after me: Hand: 5s, Calls raise.
Bring in Calls.
Note. The 5s is a very good player.
Fourth Street:
Me: K,3/K,9
good player: xx/5s6d
bring in: xx/blank, blank.
Me: Bet; 5,6: Raise. Bring in: fold. Me: Call!
5th street.
Me: K,9,4; 5s,6d,Jc. Me: Bet. 5,6,J: Raise. Me: Call
6th Street. Both:Blanks. Me: Check. 5,6: Check!
7th Street. Me: 3h two pair. Me: Check. 5,6 Check!
Comments?
Gee Vince, you couldn't have been nicer on the river. Did you think that he was going to bet your hand for you?
More seriously there is nothing wrong with your check on the river since it looks like you could be against some sort of draw. A likely hand for your opponent is a pair and a draw on fifth street given his check on sixth street. If he makes two pair he might bet it after you check given how aggressive he appears to be. If that's the case you lose virtually nothing by checking unless you think he would call you with one pair which could be a pair of sixes.
Mason,
Of all the folks that post here with the exception of maybe Mr. S and Jim Mogal I thought you would find this hand extremely intersting.
I raise with a K up. A good player calls the raise cold with a 5s. She raises me on 4th street with a 5,6o. She raises me again on 5th after catching a blank. What does she have? I put her on A,A and no other hand. I was wrong!
"A likely hand for your opponent is a pair and a draw on fifth streetgiven his check on sixth street"
A pair yes but what kind of draw would a good player raise with on fifth street. She caught a non connecting non suited (face) card on 5th street. Then checked 6th street.
Well you don't seem as interested in this hand as I am. So. BTW do you think I should have bet 6th street? (Of course not, thought I would answer for you).
Vince.
If she had aces why didn't she reraise on third street?
It appears that she had either a draw,(ie check on 6th street blank) or had two pair(5,6) and gave you to shots to drop, then gave up. Or earlier in hand possibly trips, but we discount that on 6th street. But if on a draw, I can see her raising once for a semi-bluff, but twice? She did have two pair! Congratulations. OK to check on 7th I suppose, you may snap off a bluff, yet I would bet.
Call me crazy, but people have been known to slow play Aces. Especially pocket Aces. Whether it was the correct play is not the issue, people do it all the time.
Vince, I think I would have had to bet on sixth street. If you got raised again, you would have to figure you're drawing very slim. Even if you are behind, it's very unlikely you'll get raised by two pair or pocket Aces. So bet it, if you get raised, you're probably against a set.
The thing about fifth street is that people will often raise in hopes of getting a free card. On sixth street there aren't any more cards to receive for free. If you get raised here, your goose is probably cooked.
She didn't have Aces. You are right I believe she would have raised on third street with Aces. I thought at the time that she must have been slow playing aces or made, IMO, a mistake by not raising. then she decided to try and thin the field by raising on fourth. Raising on 5th street convinced me that she had Aces. I don't believe she would have raised fifth street with just a straight draw. If she had a set she would have most likely waited until 5th street to raise. She couldn't have two pair. She would not have called the third street raise with 5,5,6 even two suited. So a big pair was my guess. I had Kings so I gave her Aces. Even though there was an Aces out. (I didn't mention that before).
She didn't have Aces but she had a big pair. If I had her hand I would have raised on third street. She had Kings. I think she made a mistake by not reraising on third but maybe not. If she reraises on third she gives her hand away (big pockect pair or set). The only other player left to call was the bring in and maybe she figured he would fold. Maybe a call was the better play but I don't like it.
Except for the third street play, her not reraising, I like the play by both of us from 5th street on. I was semi-right. Even though she didn't have Aces she had a big pair. Her raise was based on the situation she found herself. Specifically, against a K raiser. When I called her 5th street raise her best play on 6th and 7th were checks. I believe my best play was also to check 6th and 7th street. You may argue that 7th street was where I should bet but I believe a check and call if bet inot is the best play.
Vince.
Vince
It's not unusual for a good player in that situation to only call you on third street with the pocket Aces...thinking that it will be heads up and waiting to raise you on fifth or sixth street.
The good player changes his plan when the bring in calls the raise on third street behind him...now he must raise right away on fourth street to get it heads up and abandon the plan to raise on a later street.
Your bet on fifth gave him the opportunity to get in that extra raise anyway.
I agree with your analysis that he was beating Kings and he either had Aces or the other two kings.
Seeing how dead the boards were by sixth street, I would have bet it on the river and fold if raised.
Jim Mogal
Jim,
I'm with you on this one except I don't like the River bet. Since I put him on Aces (wrongly, I admit but clsoe). I though a check call was the bestter play. Of course with this hand I may get a call (but with a good player I'm not sure that would be the case).
I thought you might find this hand interesting. I'm sure you have found yourself in similar situations many times. What really complicates play in these types of situations is the fact that the opponent is a good player. It is very dificult to make a profit from good players. I think this hand is an example of why that is true.
Vince.
Vince if you put this player on Aces I think you should have bet the river.
Here is how I would play it if I thought the player had Aces. I bet the river and get raised I would probably have to call(this time). Most of the time I will bet and get called. I will get called by 1 pair -- I make money. I get called by Aces up -- I loose the same as check call. I bet and a player folds -- well from now on I'm betting anything on the river when I think she only has one pair(next time when I only have kings and she has Aces the pot will be mine or at least it will be mine a lot more than it should be)
Vince disregard this post if most of the time you chicken out on the river(examples: betting two small pair or one big pair for value on the river)
Good luck.
When I said I'd bet on the river...I should qualify that by saying that I would only bet into a player who I expect to call me with one pair of Aces.
I think we both agree that the typical 15/30 player will make this call.
If the player is known to be too "good" to make this call then I would check.
Your comment is right on the money about this being a good example of why you cannot play profitably against good players.
Good Luck,
Jim Mogal
PS I hope to dash out to Las Vegas for a few days some time soon...I'll be at the Bellagio 15/30 stud game most of the time
Reasonble mid-level "good" players will respect your early raise with a King, and not call often with a small pair. If she had an Ace and a suspision, she'd be better off 3-betting it. She's should have 3-bet Aces. She should have bet trips on 6th.
So, the 6 must have it her. So must have the Jack. So she must have had J6/5s, and for some foolish reason chickened out on 6th. Maybe you jumped out of your seat when you caught the blank.
Honestly, I can't think of a reasonable hand she can have. Yes I can. Perhaps she had K6/5 and suspected you didn't have Ks, and raised you on 5th with her pair and two cards over your possible pair of 9s.
- Louie
I just got back from a weekend of playing on river boat.Only 1 stud game. 2 HE games 1-5 stud. 3-6 HE, 20-40 HE.Iplay mainly stud, 8 players 3 that stay on anything, and one would draw out every time(not the same one aleawys) That gets frustrating.And with no where else to play within an hrs drive you play and take your lumps.It seems so much of what I read is deigned for highr limits where it cost more to try and draw out. I say this just to inform readers to take info you read or are told in stride and adjust to situation.It seems with the popularity of poker becoming greater, more people playing drawing hands they shouldn't and more in the same game.At least here they are. If you want to play you have to wait on list, when finally get to play things just dont seem to go by the books. Well, thanks for reading, and let me know cooments.
I know this has to be one of the studidest questions ever posted here....But. I am a Newbie and I was wondering what is the best way to learn? I know experience is probably the answer but what about a poker coach? How do you get one of those? Just a question and any help will be appreciated.
One suggestion is to check in regularly with this forum.
There is a trite, hackneyed phrase: "Those who can, do---those who can't, teach". But if our public school system is any example, the phrase is also true. If you want to learn to play poker, read the good books (starting with "Super System" by Brunson), play at the lowest limits you feel comfortable with, and pay attention to everything going on at the table. Reading the posts here doesn't hurt either, but don't take everything you read as gospel.
Good Luck! Black Jack
If you live in Sothern California, you can take a poker class at Hollywood Park casino. They have a beginner and intermediate class that both start in about a week($25.oo for a six or eight week course). If you can't attend, Bob Ciaffone gives an over the phone course at a surprisingly low price. Just check out any Card Player magazine for his E-mail addresss and/or phone #. Good Luck,
I would not get a poker coach unless you already have a buddy, a spouse, a brother who is 'in line' for a thing like that. Attempting to get a stranger, a MCU (I thing Mike Caro is great,but the MCU is an Ill fated attempt.) Just play, read, play more play different games and for a Christ sake have a job cause you'll need every bit of earning power you can get. PLay low limits but I would play all forms (high low, omaha (as long as you can stand it) holdem of couse. I am not sure if your work gets you around but if you can travel to US spots where there is a poker community, do it ! PS. If you don't already know MCU is Mike Caro University (of Poker) in Los Angeles.
I am an expert blackjack player, but recently I have begun giving poker a try.
Since I played seven card stud when I was a kid (with no concept that the outcome was dependent on anything other than getting the best cards) I figured that I would play and learn that game first. I have read The Theory of Poker and most of 7CS for advanced players. My plan was to play 7CS until I am comfortable that I am playing a winning game. Then my plan was to "graduate" to other games. Most likely Texas hold'em (which I have never played before)would be next.
Why do you recommend playing all forms? Does playing one game help with other games? Should I learn and play other games before I am confident that my seven card stud game is winning?
Yo Glad, you wrote:
"Why do you recommend playing all forms? Does playing one game help with other games? Should I learn and play other games before I am confident that my seven card stud game is winning? "
From a casino poker standpoint, the more games you are proficient at, the better selection of games you have to choose from. You should be able to switch mindsets from game to game as well. If the holdem is better than the stud, play holdem. If O8 is better, play that. As far as your "plan" for tackling stud first, I think it's a good idea. When you start feeling confident at stud, slowly work in HE. Read up on HE first then try out the easier games while you are not playing stud.
From an intellectual standpoint, you should know all the games and be able to apply the key concepts to each. This will help develop your "poker brain". I have played in home games for over 20 years, and I know I can win at these games. It doesn't matter what game they call, I will play it. No matter how different individual games are, basic poker strategy still applies to them all. Obviously you put MOST of your studying into the game you are currently playing!
When you first start, keep track of your wins/losses and see what you get. If you are losing consistently at stud, you are probably not ready to add HE - work some more on your stud! If you are winning over time and feel confident, you are probably ready to try HE.
Dave in Cali
The least understood and least exercised skill is 'game selection'. We all have our 'favorites' - stud is too slow omaha is too brutal etc. etc. Human nature is to fight when cornered out of pride and false notions that 'if it does not kill you - it will make you stronger'. If you are ok in all games your perspective broadens and can pick the most profitable game when in Vegas or while playing on your home turf. I have noticed that 20-40 got very tough in the casino opened a year ago near my house. 15-30 an hour away is much better, of course it's a trade off to travel or try to fight an up-hill battle. So I chose to play stud near my house instead of travelling an hour. I mean this notions are more valid if you play every day or for pros. Needless to say if you are working and have a life - you may not always 'search' for that 'easy' game. At least you must know that your bottom line IS being affected by this.
Ah, I was a newbie once. Wait, I still am.
Chris as a fellow newbie (79 hours at 5-10HE, +$69) I can only say what has worked for me - at least I think its working.
1. Study the best books. WLLH by Lee Jones. HFAP by S&M here, I've also heard good things about Krieger's book.
2. Practice. Investing in Wilson's Turbo Texas Holdem has helped me stay on my game in the poker wasteland of WI. Although the advisor feature has its flaws, its the best replication of any real game you'd play in.
3. Do it. You're right experience is the best teacher. Get some knowledge then hop into a low limit game. I'll state the obvious - be ready to pay your tuition during your first couple of sessions. Play tight and get comfortable with the game, the speed, etc.
4. Have fun. Don't get me wrong... You shouldn't be there to gamble - luck actually becomes a bit of an enemy. But poker should be fun, too. Just profitable fun.
As far as a coach goes, believe me, you'll have 4 or 5 at every table you sit at. The advice is worth exactly what you pay for it too. Good luck.
Michael
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop Danny.
How can I be the flop if you keep talking?!?
Ok, I'm not talking anymore.. I've stopped talking now..
P.S. Na-na-na-na-na-na-na
-Michael
A flute without a hole is a stick And a donut without a hole is a danish. - a wise man
One other thing to do if you have a computer is to use the "IRC" poker channels to get lots of at home practice. You play live games and the speed of play is much faster than in a casino. Experience is key, and getting lots of it for no actual $ is very useful.
I've been reading the posts for about 2 months now. It seems most games being referred to are in vegas. My experiance in LV is limited to only having played in 6-8 HE games and 1 O/8. I tightend up my game in both cases and ended up about even to a very small loser. Had I been able to put in a few more hours I may have been able to make it a positive run but was on a fairly tight scedule. To get to my point however. In the SF BAY AREA where I play usually 3-6, 6-12, & 9-18HE or 4-8 O/8 1/2 kill, the players are extremely loose compared to LV. while I agree with most posts in regards starting hands, how long to stay with a hand and such. And after reading theory and other books, they all assume you are playing with same type logical thinker/players. What about when you are not? When players will stay with 1 ace in their hand, when players will stay with one low suited card against a 3flush board? I keep saying "I love it" but it seems that these same "live ones" get on a rush of trash and winning and I can't seem to get em with the "best of it". I can muck 4 rounds without playing a hand waiting for premium cards. I have now problem with patience but should I loosen up more?....what are my starting hands then?....How long do I stay for an inside straight draw?...these things seem foolish. Live ones stay with pair 3's against AK board and trip on the river!..."GOD I LOVE IT",,,but I cant book the big win in these games....HELP!
It's doubtful you are (or can) play too tight and still lose for the game you described. So unless the frustration you're feeling is leading you to play bad on the few hands you have been able to play, I'd say you're running bad. And when running bad it is easy for a new player to self-fulfill his bad luck, generally by playing too passively and going too far with his 'good' hands.
Roy Cooke said in one of his Card Player columns he believed most professional poker players started out running good. Because of this initial good run they developed a winning playing style and the belief they could make a go of it as a pro. Conversely, players starting out running badly saw the game as pure luck and either dropped out or continued the game with the idea of it being nothing more than gambling.
I can attest when I decided to take the game seriously I ran pretty well. And my luck held up for quite awhile. Eventually however I hit a snag and I ran bad... very bad. If I had never played prior to this bad run, I would have thought the game unbeatable, losing more often than not with my premium hands, by hitting straights and flushes well below a third of the time, by making second best often, etc.
So if the game is truly loose as you describe and you're not tilting, the answer isn't to loosen up. The answer is to ensure you're playing winning poker for a loose game and to deal with the bad run as it lasts.
Loose, low limit games may not be beatable. There is some debate on this. Between the rake or time charges, and the high variance, you simply can't bank on being a winning player, even if you are the "best" player at the table.
My experience has been similar to yours. Nine out of ten times, when I supposedly have the "best of it", I end up getting the worst of it. The "fish" have been running great in the Bay Area this year! I've never, ever, sat down at a table where the "good" players were winning all the money from the bad players. I've seen the reverse plenty of times however.
Low limit loose california hold'em is an extremeley high variance game. In fact, I believe the variance is so high that if you have the bankroll to handle it, you should play higher limits. Unless you are only interested in playing low limits for some reason. If you don't have the bankroll for higher limits (such as 20-40 or 30-60), then you don't have the bankroll for lower limits and are simply gambling and hoping that you'll get lucky enough to survive the variance of low limit and move up to higher limit.
That is fine but you should understand what you are doing if that is the case. You will need to play three or four thousand hours of low limit to justifiably believe that your results are independent of the swings common at that level.
natedogg
I've never, ever, sat down at a table where the "good" players were winning all the money from the bad players. I've seen the reverse plenty of times however.
The good players don't win all the money from the bad players. It's more of a skimming operation, a slow siphon -- what's left from the rake when the bad players are done pushing their money back and forth.
As for $3 - $6, I can understand the lack of desire to try and make money in this game, given the combination of slow-grinding and small bucks. (And I play $2-5 spread-limit my ownself, but it plays much differently than $3-$6.) Add a high 'rake' like California and it may not be worth it, even if beatable.
Sonuvabitch Natedogg writes:
Loose, low limit games may not be beatable. There is some debate on this. Between the rake or time charges, and the high variance, you simply can't bank on being a winning player, even if you are the "best" player at the table.
Loose, low limit games are very beatable, unless the rake is proportionally astronomic. My live play experience and computer (Turbo) research show they can be very profitable.
As fish make a lot of mistakes, it is only logical that a good player must have the best of it. There is no doubt about it. The only issues are can he beat the rake, can he withstand the variance and can he pinpoint the correct strategy. I'll try to address them separately.
Please note that an argument is often made that the fish play nearly correctly in such games (= they call a lot) and their mistakes are therefore not that great for the game to be beatable. True, good pot odds postflop dictate to often chase with dubious holdings and this is an example of a strategy nailed down pat by the fish. "Good" players, used to "normal and sane" games (having no clue about this simple concept), usually adopt "good laydowns" strategy which simply costs them money.
But of course, fish do not play correctly on their EVERY move. It only looks like they are as they often correctly (or with minimum -EV) chase big pots to the river. The thing is, some of the mistakes they make are HUGE and cannot be compensated by playing correctly the rest of the time.
1. The rake
My loose games experience comes from regularly playing with 5% rake capped at 25 big bets, 7 to 12 handed hold'em, typically 5 or more players seeing the flop with not much capping preflop. This kind of rake in this kind of game is extremely beatable and a smart player's EV per hand can be unusually high. The game is somewhat slower than normal (about 25-28 hands per hour), of course, but I still find the hourly rate to be considerably higher than the widely accepted norm. My Turbo sims show it can approach 3 big bets per hour (even with a slow game), my real life experience (about 900 hours of play in the game with more or less the same lineup) seems to confirm that.
With a 5% rake, big pots and lots of unpredictable gamb00lers, it becomes obvious that selective and tight preflop play is called for in these kind of games.
2. The variance
The variance in these kind of games is extremely high, due solely to big pots. Tight play does *not" provide a solution to this problem, although it somewhat tones it down. The obvious answer is a big enough bankroll. Do NOT adopt any strategies designed to reduce variance!
3. The strategy
The best strategy in loosest games is to maximize fish mistakes, build big pots when having the best of it and get the hell out preflop when in marginal situations. As the fish are often calling correctly postflop (good pot odds), it is imperative to hit them with raises when they are not. The time to do it is usually preflop, where they are apt to call with anything. If there is a reasonable chance that your hand is best, you should raise and reraise right there to destroy the implied fish odds. This is the time to maximize their mistakes. Sure, they will try to offset this with correctly chasing postflop, but to no avail. Big mistakes preflop cannot be compensated in any way. Please note that fish very often chase incorrectly too, a good example is when they try to hit a set with their small pairs all the way to the river. This is another reason to raise liberally when having a reasonable chance to collect.
To put it simply, as fish are conditioned to call, it is necessary to exploit this tendencies by raising (building the pot) in situations when them calling is profitable for you. The value of raising in order to knock people out greatly diminishes in such a game. A good example of smart raising is with flush/straight draws and many potential callers. You do *not* want them to fold. And they won't. See my loose games FAQ for more info on this "Ram and Jam" concept.
Please note that SM put a lot more value in eliminating the competition in loose games than I do. You might want to check their views on loose games in their new edition of HPfAP.
Starting hands selection is crucial and somewhat different than "normal" (oh, that eternal "what is normal" question again... is it normal for me to prefer sheep over women? They keep telling me it's not... I dunno.). Suited aces are keepers in any position, raisers in late position. Play looser with suited kings and queens, don't fold small pairs. Raise liberally with big unsuited likely-to-be-best hands (again, you might want to consult SM on this as they recommend the opposite here). Raise the goddamn limpers late with suited connectors from 65s up. Build pots with pairs like 77 and up. BTW, this seems illogical as overcards are bound to fall and pair somebody, but as Abdul points out (and he was first to do so), these hands win more than their fair share and should therefore raise early.
With many in, jam preflop with hands like T9s, JJ or ATs even if one opponent shows you pocket aces! This concept is fairly unknown, but quite powerful. It is profitable to get more money in even with an obvious second best hand, as the best two hands are BOTH profiting from the fish calling incorrectly, the best hand of course profiting the most. Granted, it is a high variance play, and you might want to avoid it (you wimp, you!).
Stay away from unsuited connectors lower than ten, they are losers in ANY game. 98o is a greatly overrated hand and can't earn much outside the blinds even when playing with idiots. You are not much wrong to muck it for one bet on the button even. Hands like offsuit bare aces and kings, bare suited hands like J5s or 96s and second best offsuit hands like QT, JT, Q9 are suicidal trash in early position, maybe breakeven in late position. If you find yourself calling raises with JTo, K9o or A7o, it is time to realize you have joined fish ranks. Muck with a vengeance! If you have to, this is the time to aim for the dealer's forehead.
Generally you cannot go wrong with keeping the Fekali principle in mind: "Big hands should bet early, little hands will bet late." , meaning that drawing hands will torture big pairs late in the hand and therefore should be charged early for the privilege. For a more detailed explanation, see my rgp post on this.
Of course, the above is only the tip of the iceberg and I typed this off the top of my head. Please forgive the generalizations as delving into details probably requires a dedicated book. I feel the loose games section in HPfAP in inadequate or at least incomplete.
... Nine out of ten times, when I supposedly have the "best of it", I end up getting the worst of it. The "fish" have been running great in the Bay Area this year! I've never, ever, sat down at a table where the "good" players were winning all the money from the bad players. I've seen the reverse plenty of times however.
It is impossible for a good player to win ALL the money from the bad players. However, it is quite possible to bust SOME of them. As it is quite possible to get busted. I've had it both ways. But funnily enough, it happened to me only once. Not so with the fish.
Low limit loose california hold'em is an extremeley high variance game. In fact, I believe the variance is so high that if you have the bankroll to handle it, you should play higher limits.
You should be hanged by your nostrils for giving this kind of advice. Playing higher limits requires good knowledge of the game, wit, thinking, alertness, feel and creativeness. Lower limits are much easier to beat with a correct, but somewhat simple strategy. When playing correctly against fish the potential losses will be caused mostly by bad luck, whereas against skilled opponents the correct strategy is often not easy to come by. If we add a possibility of a bad run, results can be disastrous with more money at stake.
You will need to play three or four thousand hours of low limit to justifiably believe that your results are independent of the swings common at that level.
Oh so true. That's why I played lots of loose hold'em in the virtual Turbo world. No tells, no fun, no social interactions, no cocktail waitresses, no fine beverages, no doobie smoking. But no bad beat stories to listen to, either. True, Turbo is crude, but it's the best research tool to date. I find it reasonably reliable in all but extreme cases.
Thanks for your time, gotta run, there's a nice hairy girly coming over tonight. It's the best thing happening to me since my favorite pet was killed by a hit and run driver (yes, it was a sheep, so what). This poker thing is killing my social life.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
"You should be hanged by your nostrils for giving this kind of advice"
Now that's a powerful advice!
hello all
I have a question about the current threads regarding both the odds of completing your flush or straight draw, and the proper way to play these draws.
Here is the situation:
you hold JTs and flop 8,9 giving you an open ended straight draw. according to previous posts (and various texts) the odds of getting the straight are around 31%. Fair enough. So as long as the pot is giving you better than 2:1 odds you should call with this hand.
Question #1: Why do you make this call based on the cumulative chance of making the hand in two cards (or in stud 3 cards). If you dont make the hand on the turn you may have insufficient pot odds to call the river! Since you are making this call based on your chances of making your straight in TWO cards, does this mean you are more or less obligated to see the river, since your call on the flop depends on your getting to see both cards? My peanut brain feels like you should make this decision based on the 6 to 1 against getting the straight on the turn, unless it is a large pot, and you are guaranteed that you will have sufficient pot odds to call the river as well. I understand this is the central reason why these drawing hands like to be in family pots, since you are guaranteed to have correct pot odds and be richly rewarded if your hand hits.
So here is a situation that dramatizes my dilemma:
On the flop (6 small bets) it is checked to you. For reasons that may or may not be correct you check to get the free card. The turn doesnt make your hand, and you are bet into with what you believe is a higher pocket pair. Every one folds to you. You are not now getting the correct odds to call (only 4 to 1) so you should fold. The irony here, unless i am missing something, is that if you had bet the flop and gotten money in to the pot you may actually have had the proper pot odds to call the turn. Add 4 small bets to the pot plus the large bet on the turn, and you have 6 big bets, and a good call.
I always felt like it was a good thing to get a free card on a draw, and a bad thing when your opponent bet into you trying to make it expensive to draw. But in this case the first bet gets money into the pot, which is necessary for the pot to give you correct odds for the higher bet on the turn. This seems like an inversion of this rule.
So if you are heads up, in a small pot, might it be correct to check a high pair against a draw, since on the turn your bets will give the draw poorer pot odds.
Am I insane or retarded.
Todd H. .
Do or do not, there is no try
There is much misunderstanding about this concept. I don't have the time to elaborate but I know others will.
Todd,
There are times it is correct to call to a drawing hand on the flop but not on the turn. Before I even start the math I can tell this is not one of them.
You wrote: On the flop (6 small bets) it is checked to you. For reasons that may or may not be correct you check to get the free card.
Ill assume you are playing 10/20 because the math is easy. There is $60 in the pot.
The turn doesnt make your hand, and you are bet into with what you believe is a higher pocket pair. Every one folds to you. You are not now getting the correct odds to call (only 4 to 1) so you should fold.
You previously said you are on an open ended straight draw so you have eight outs. There are 46 unknown cards. Eight make your hand and 38 miss you. So it is 4.75 to 1 against you winning the hand based on your assumptions. There is now $80 in the pot and it costs you $20 to call. That is four to one. This looks like it is not good enough. Are we forgetting something?
What about the action on the river? If you make your draw and your opponent checks you will bet. In my experience the pair will call about 95% of the time. Now your call is slightly correct. Lets say your opponent bets again. Now you raise. If he is paired, you will get paid off some of the time. Now your call is very correct.
Your assumptions have some problems. Remember that it is often correct to bet draws when it is checked to you on the flop. This adds equity. Other factors add equity with draws. You will win some pots with bluffs. You can pair your draw cards twice giving you a strong made hand.
When you have a draw and you are getting close to the correct odds, it is usually correct to call.
All that being said, there are situations (usually involving an inside straight draw) where it is correct to take one off on the flop and correct to fold on the turn. Ill pull a Sklansky and let others elaborate or maybe you can work it out yourself.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. You dont appear to be insane and retarded is no longer a PC term so I wont comment. I may be insane after I found myself answering my own post in the thread below started by Student.
I think Rick answers your question fully. Let me just add that asking these types of questions tells me that you are capable of advanced thinking...I hope you post more and share what's in that "peanut brain" of yours:)
I don't think Rick answered the question at all. He answered a different question about implied odds. The answer to the original question is very complex, and unlike Mr. S, I probably don't know it.
Jeff Rubens in his book, "Win at Poker", suggests you cannot use the odds for 2 draws when you won't have sufficient odds to take the second draw. Figuring the odds for the second draw requires some guessing about the future bets and using implied odds mentioned above.
Finally, the original question touches on an interesting point. What about betting? If you get 5 callers, it's right to bet instead of taking the free card because the bet has positive EV. Here's that judgement thing again and the reason I don't venture beyond the 4-8 table!
Fat-Charlie
Todd - Good question, actually, about the apparent paradox of using the results of the next TWO draws to try to calculate your odds of calling ONE bet.
The results become the same if you calculate your implied odds for only the current bet, using your scientific projection of how many players you expect at the turn and at the river, and how many bets it will be at each. (We experienced posters call this scientific projection a "wild guess.") So, as Rick has covered, you add into your implied odds all the future opponents' bets, and calculate your current odds based upon that.
Now suppose your scientific projection comes true. Exactly the number of players and number of bets are in the pot as you guessed, on the turn. So the denominator of your pot-odds division calculation is the same as it was a round ago. BUT the turn bet is twice as big. So it is certainly true that you may not have proper odds for a call on the turn for the Big Bet.
Drawing to an inside straight is an example of this that comes up all the time at the table. If there are about 5+ callers, it is often worth drawing to an inside straight on the flop but folding the draw on the turn.
I will now pull a "Sklanskyism" and leave it to some other student to work out the math for an inside straight draw!
One final thought: Early on, I practiced a lot using Turbo Texas Hold'Em software. One of the greatest benefits of practicing against the computer was exercise in calculating pot odds. When a situation like this came up, I could just stop as long as I wanted and figure everything out. And the exact pot size was there for me to look at as well.
Keep posting good questions like this and soon you will be answering some of ours!
Dick
Todd writes:
The irony here, unless i am missing something, is that if you had bet the flop [with a straight draw] and gotten money in to the pot you may actually have had the proper pot odds to call the turn. Add 4 small bets to the pot plus the large bet on the turn, and you have 6 big bets, and a good call.
The thing you are missing is failing to consider your overall expectation from both the flop and turn bets.
If you forget the risk you took on the flop and consider your expection only from the perspective of your decision on the turn, you are in one sense correct: the larger the pot became on the flop, the more correct it is to call on the turn. This is true no matter what proportion of that money going into the pot on the flop came from your stack, one-quarter, one-third, one-half, whatever. However, the better the situation you face on the turn (the bigger the pot), the more money you must have risked on the flop. Assuming the number of players remains constant in each round (well, it can't go up), the more your bet on the flop contributed to the size of the pot, the more risk you took on the flop compared to the expected reward, and, in short, the bigger the mistake you made on the flop. Thus, while your turn bet may look more attractive, your flop bet looks comparatively worse. It is mathmatically impossible for the positive expectation you have on the turn to make up for the negative expectation you had on the flop.
I always felt like it was a good thing to get a free card on a draw, and a bad thing when your opponent bet into you trying to make it expensive to draw. But in this case the first bet gets money into the pot, which is necessary for the pot to give you correct odds for the higher bet on the turn. This seems like an inversion of this rule..
You're taking a rule of thumb (actually, more of a myth) about free cards too far. Free cards are good because they reduce your risk; you get a chance of winning for a reduced price, like a free lottery ticket. When your likely return already exceeds your risk, however, you should bet and not worry about free cards. If a lottery sold only 100 tickets, paid the winner $100 and the tickets were 50 cents each, you wouldn't care that they weren't free, you'd just buy as many as you could. By the same token, if there are enough callers on the flop (three or more), you should bet your straight and flush draws for value.
So if you are heads up, in a small pot, [it] might it be correct to check a high pair against a draw, since on the turn your bets will give the draw poorer pot odds.
Generally no. Remember that your opponent's expecation on the turn cannot be separated from his expectation on the flop. Thus, the more money he pays overall the lower his overall expectation. Also, by failing to charge him to see the turn card, which could complete his draw and cost you the pot, you are giving him something of value for free just as if you had handed him some chips of your stack. There are occasions (in no limit, for example), when this can make sense, but as a general rule you are not likely to diminish the value of his call on the turn by an amount greater than the benefit of letting him draw for free.
Todd -- I think large portions of your questions have been answered but just in case I can clarify anything more I'll respond to some of your comments:
open ended straight draw. according to previous posts (and various texts) the odds of getting the straight are around 31%. Fair enough. So as long as the pot is giving you better than 2:1 odds you should call with this hand.
You're struggling with a common confusion about the uses of immediated vs "effective" odds. I remember struggling with the same questions.
What you refer to in the quote above are effective odds. They encompass the total money you'll invest drawing, e.g., on both the flop and turn, in comparison to the amount you stand to win. They're important to understand in something like a no-limit situation in which you're thinking of calling all-in on the flop. But in typical limit situations you'll do best just assessing immediate and implied odds as you go through the hand.
Question #1: Why do you make this call based on the cumulative chance of making the hand in two cards (or in stud 3 cards). If you dont make the hand on the turn you may have insufficient pot odds to call the river!
That's right. There are situations where you would profit slightly overall by making the two calls -- as shown by effective odds -- but where you're actually losing back some of your profit on that second call. i.e., you'd do even better by just calling on the flop, then folding on the turn. (This can easily come up drawing to something like a gut shot.) Focusing on immediate plus implied odds will reveal your most profitable options.
Since you are making this call based on your chances of making your straight in TWO cards, does this mean you are more or less obligated to see the river, since your call on the flop depends on your getting to see both cards? My peanut brain feels like you should make this decision based on the 6 to 1 against getting the straight on the turn...
Again, that peanut is right (except about the 6-1). As I said above, the immediate odds won't mislead you. Just remember to factor in implied odds as well.
As for your question about checking the high pair on the flop to confront the draw with insufficient pot odds on the turn, the problem is that you've given them infinite odds on the flop. In the long run, they'll make more from that than they lose from your giving them the bad odds on the turn. (This is not to be confused with the "21st Century" plays for very loose games which may look similar... But this time *I'll* let others elaborate.)
John Feeney
Again, that peanut is right (except about the 6-1). As I said above, the immediate odds won't mislead you. Just remember to factor in implied odds as well.
Let me try restating this in hopes of getting a clear unambiguous answer (is there ever such a thing in HE theory? I have doubts...):
Two card odds are not very useful. I should start from single card odds (straight - 4.75 : 1, flush - 4.1 : 1, st. flush, 2.07 : 1, etc) and modify based on expected odds, which will usually push flop odds down closer to the two card draw odds.
Is there any point to knowing the two card draw odds?
conform
Two card odds are not very useful. I should start from single card odds (straight - 4.75 : 1, flush - 4.1 : 1, st. flush, 2.07 : 1, etc) and modify based on expected odds,...
Right (as long as by "expected odds" you mean the same thing as what is usually called "implied odds".)
...which will usually push flop odds down closer to the two card draw odds.
Hmmm, to me that's a little ambiguous :). I would say that they usually push pot odds on the flop or turn *up*, making the call more likely correct (as they add to the expected payoff). I think that's another way of saying what you were saying, right?
Is there any point to knowing the two card draw odds?
Well, certainly for some all-in situations on the flop effective odds have a place -- a big place in pot or no-limit. I think there are some other scenarios where they are useful in limit play. I seem to recall David using some example here on the forum. Maybe one of the math experts can provide one. But I honestly can't think of them off the top of my head right now. I virtually never use them. I'm confident that immediate plus implied odds will give you what you need in almost any limit situation. I do vaguely remember some complex analysis of drawing odds here or on RGP that used effective odds. I just remember thinking that someone went to a lot of trouble for nothing when immediate plus implied would have been much simpler and just as accurate, maybe more so.
Okay, one use of effective odds is in analyses done away from the table. An example is analyzing the value of a backdoor draw. There was a fairly invoved thread on this about 3 or 4 weeks ago. (Look for "odds on a backdoor flush draw" or something similar.) There you have to factor in effective odds since you are assessing a two card draw. But, as that thread showed, they aren't really calculations you'd be making during play. They just help you understand the value of the backdoor draw when you have it.
And I see Chris has mentioned another situation (which actually could involve a backdoor draw among other possibilites) where they are useful. Makes sense.
You understood my question exactly, and you answered it perfectly. Thanks.
Thanks, but notice the other posters pointing out examples of good uses of effective odds. I overstated my case. Still, I would argue that the immediate plus implied are really central, and are certainly the odds calculations to use for calling with routine draws.
You should consider your chance of winning based on two cards to come when when there's a good chance of getting a free card. If you're always thinking in terms of 4-1 or 5-1 or more to hit on the turn, you might ignore some raising opportunties on the flop.
One point where two-card odds are useful are when you know (or believe) you will have proper odds to call on the turn regardless. In that case, you should be comparing the two-card odds to the number of expected callers on the flop to determine if you can raise.
In your first example. You can look at size of pot, fine. Or, just ask how many opponents are you up against? My general rule with draws, at 2:1, if you are up against 2 opponents, you're gonna break even in the long run. So, you need 3 or more opponents with draws like this. However, you have two overcards also, a possible chance for a win. With a draw like this verses three or more opponents, in early position, Ill bet right into the field. If in say late position, verses a large field,(better pot odds), I'll raise the dang thing on the come. Plus, I may get to see the turn for free! Another factor with draws is how good is the draw? If it's the nuts, you have better implied odds, if not, you're implied odds aren not as good, or even a 2nd best hand.
.... Figuring 2:1 to make it by the river means you must calculate your total cost, which is routinely 1.5bb, not the current .5bb..... In your example you are correct to fold the turn, assuming you need the best hand to win. Getting the free flop card and folding the turn is BETTER than getting one call on the flop, and than "having" to call on the turn.
Here's the way I often think about it: If my hand is going to win more often than the number of callers, I routinely bet. If my hand is NOT worth a bet, I usually calculate my chances to call one round at a time. Since with a draw I can expect to WIN more money than I lose when I make it on the turn, I can take somewhat slim odds (easy call getting 5:1 for my 6:1 chance to hit).
With a 8 card draw or better, you will routinely go to the river (usually excepting top pair pairing and its raised to you on the turn). Therefore, the 2:1 odds are used to determine whether your hand is worth a BET, since if you get 3 or more callers you are clearly making money.
So I use the TOTAL odds (2:1) to determine whether I should bet or raise, and the immediate odds (6:1) to determine whether I should call.
- Louie
"Do or do not, there is no try" Really? How do you do without trying to do? There is a difference between not crossing the road (no try, no do) and failing to cross the road (try, no do): in the first you're still looking across the road, in the second you're dead.
"Try" is the difference between "Be" and "Do". If you don't have to try to cross the road (assuming deciding to cross is trying) then you simply "are" across the road.
Therefore, the 2:1 odds are used to determine whether your hand is worth a BET, since if you get 3 or more callers you are clearly making money.
Landale is correct ;). That's a common use that I overlooked.
Warning no poker content(I know it belongs in the exchange, but it is part of a thread here. sorry Mason)
This, for afficianados of the star wars trilogy, was said by Yoda to Luke. It comes about when Yoda asks luke to do something that is obviously impossible (at least to lukes senses). Luke says in a whiney voice: "okay, Ill try"
Yoda says "No, try not, do or do not there is no try"
I look at do and try as the difference between committing yourself to getting something done vs. giving a half assed effort, which fulfills your responsibility to try, but lacks the commitment of doing a thing with the intent of succeeding.
I know personally when i tell someone I will do something they know that I will do it. Many times when someone says they will try to do something, they mean that they don't want to or don't plan to, and just aren't telling you the truth.
Todd
In need of a new Louis Landale approved .sig file ;)
I agree that many say "I'll try" knowing they won't.
However a "try" is an attempt. And attempts can fail or succeed.
A "try" may also be a trial as in a coin flip. I think in this forum we all know we can "try" for heads and the coin doesn't care.
A law school teacher tried that "there is no try" statement on me and I proved him wrong. Really upset him. Oh well.
Bottom line, Yoda, and my old professor...were wrong. They were playing semantic games.
:-)
YES!!!! Its a untrue USEFUL statement.
How about...
"You get more accomplished if you commit to 'doing' instead of commiting to 'trying'". Or ... OK ... "Do or don't do, there is no try". I hate it when I argue myself out of my position...
Other untrue useful statements are:
"If an evil thing happened to you, then remember this: evil attracts evil". <-- i.e. turn the bad event into energy for self improvement.
"The opponent had a valid reason (no matter how illogical or detrimental) for doing what he did". <-- See, it takes only a little creativity to make a strategy post!!
- Louie
"See, it takes only a little creativity to make a strategy post!!"
And we all know how "little creativity" you have, Louie.
Vince.
BTW - Good post!
" ...And we all know how "little creativity" you have, Louie. ..."
My posts have "little creativity" only when compared to YOUR posts. Against almost all others, they are reasonably creative.
- Louie
I would like to thank everyone for helping to clarify this issue for me, (and i hope others?). I am now spending most of my poker surfing here since the onset of name that tune over at RGP
todd
I'm going to setup a $30-$60 game on my Turbo T.H.E. program with a standard 2-blind setup($15-$30).In addition,should I also setup a 3-blind game($10-$20-$30)or is this not practical?Comments welcome.
I think you will benefit from playing the game both ways. The three blind set up will change your strategy some, as there will be more $$ in the starting pot. I'm sure you will learn to make the necessary adjustments quickly. Just figuring out what the adjustments are should make you a better player.
Dave in Cali
why is there no 7CS games in No Cal. Poker here seems so one sided that I am befuddled. Can anyone tell me the story in LA ? what is the biggest stud limit in "Tinsel town" ?
You can find stud games in Northern CA at the Indian casinos and the larger cardrooms in the Bay Area. Not much selection, but it's there.
Andras,
The Oaks club in Emeryville will begin spreading a 9-18 Stud Game pretty soon, I think this Friday at 6pm. Though I don't know if it will hold up.
For example, Casino San Pablo tried to spread a 10-20 Omaha hi-lo game with a 1/2 kill on Thursdays. The game was pretty good both times I played it. It was only $5 for every 1/2 hour. And this past week the game just never picked up. I doubt they will spread it again.
There just seems to be something about spreading this other games. Seems that players just rather stick to mid-level hold'em, rather than mid-level stud or omaha/8.
As for L.A., the last time I was there I played at Hollywood Park and they did have a 15-30 Stud and a 20-40 Stud/8.
Carlos
Maybe this discussion should be taking place in the Exchange Forum. Sorry I didn't notice until I had responded to Andras' post.
Carlos
Correct me if I'm wrong but if one is playing in a game so tight that it is unsound to come in utg with hands like; 77,A9s, KJs,QJs, AJ & KQ, then it seems like they should spend more time on game selection and less time trying to squeak out and extra tenth of a bet in a screwed down game. I think Jalib is extremely intelligent and he is probably a great player so why would he play in games like this? I used to play 30-60 and moved down to 20-40 because the games were sooo much better. Does this make me a quitter? My hourly is about the same at both games($32 an hour over the last 12 months). Could I make more if I tightened-up pre-flop and attacked higher limits? I am an old guy who hasn't read a poker book since super/system, am I out of touch? I play in L.A. and LV about 20 hours a week.
I don't think Abdul isn't posting here since the pumpkin reverted. Two things:
1) Abdul has talked before (here or RGP) about game selection. As I remember he advocated the same move as you have made in some situations. Search www.deja.com or here.
2) Feeny's guest lecture has some things to say about the topic of [not] attacking harder games.
I don't think it makes you a quitter. OTOH if you can get over (what might be) the transient of 30-60 having the same earn as 20-40 then you'd be making more. Only an individual can compare a specific games EV and Variance to another via their personal ability to accept risk.
Curious to know why doesn't Jalib post here anymore?
Mason made a promise not to censor for a while. Abdul came back during that period of time. He posted in exchange and is open about his email address so you might ask him.
Six months ago I began playing regularly at my local card room. At fiirst everything went fine and I averaged almost 3/4 big bet over the first couple months (approximately 100 hours). Then I began to lose at almost 1/2 big bet per hour. Based upon my notes, I came to the conclusion that the biggest reason for this change was that I was not getting as much action from the locals. I do nott believe that random card fluctuations were a significent factor.
A typical game at the 6/12 to 10/20 level where I play would have 4 or 5 solid players, maybe 2-3 players who really know what they are doing, and hopefully 1 or 2 fairly weak players. While I am not a total rock, I definitely play tighter than S&M recommend in regard to starting hands, but fairly aggressively after the flop even if it only partially hits me. Now days, the solid playes tend only to continue when they have very good hands after the flop, and the better players, recognizing that I am basiclly a high card player, began betting into me or raising when the flop consisted of low cards in order to drive me out.
I have responed by betting more aggressively. Selectively reraising on the flop, and sometimes continuing to bet on the turn (against those players whom I think will throw a low pair away). This has improved my results to where I now do a little better than break even. However I believe it is only a matter of time until the strong players recognize what I am doing. My question is, of course, what is my next counter move. I
Al,
If the game is as you describe I think you need to find a better game. (BTW, if a player is "solid" he pretty much "knows what he doing" - perhaps you meant tight but somewhat unimaginative) . At a higher limit such a game may be great because a top player can beat it for one big bet an hour or maybe more with only moderate fluctuations. That whould largely be true because the rake is proportionaly much lower. At the lower limits the rake eats you up.
In California, the 6/12 holdem can be beat for about 1.5 big bets per hour. But you have to stay in loose games with maybe one or two other solid players and at least three or four cluelss types. The others can be weak tight. If you handle swings well, a maniac or two is OK. If I was in your game, I'd be looking for a table change.
That being said, there are some adjustments you can make. But I'm a little tired so much I'll leave it to others. I guess this would be pulling a "half Sklansky".
Regards,
Rick
"In California, the 6/12 holdem can be beat for about 1.5 big bets per hour."
Rick, Rick!
What are you saying? That this young man can win 1 and 1/2 bets an hour in CA. How about you, an experienced poker person. 4 bets an hour. Or Malmuth a notch above 5 bets or the almighty Abdul 8 bets or how about Mr. Penultimate himself SKP 10 bets and last but not Least the Ultimate Poker person (no not Mike Caro) Mr S himself SKLANSKY, 20 bets an hour no less. The rest of us 2+2 posting mugs, somewhere in between.
"But I'm a little tired "
Must be the reason for such a general statement.
Vince
Vince,
I'm beyond tired but if I nap I'll ruin tonights sleep. I've tried surfing a few new sights and and the speeds are so bad I can play one complete game of hearts while waiting for the next link to load. And Earthlink doesn't consider me a canidate for their DSL offer. Sorry if I was a bit grouchy. I do hope you liked the term "half Sklansky" though even though I half plagerized it (right term?) from you.
Regards,
Rick
Rick - By "solid player" I do mean tight, but without much imagination.
Thanks, Al
Move to Las Vegas.
Vince.
BTW - I don't know how long you have been playing poker but 100 hours is a drop in the (probability) bucket. Varying your game is very important, especially when playing with the same folk over and over. Sounds to me that you are doing the right things. I would log at least 1000 hrs with your current strategy before drawing any conclusions.
Vince again.
Actually he should calculate his standard deviation and then see how many hours would be significant. I say this because I am guessing that his standard deviation is low thus he may get an accurate estimate based on fewer hours than 1000. I do agree with mr. Vince that 100 is a small sample size although the problem he states is a common one. I'm not so sure that the regulars will make the right adjustments either.
Tom,
I'm sure that I don't know the right number of hours. 1000 was a lite guess. Just tried to emphasize that 100 was much too small. Your suggestion of "standard deviation" may be just the right thing.
Vince
what's frustrating about this advice, is that 1000 hours may take some of us 10 yrs to accumulate. I get to AC once every 8 weeks. Thus i think it is important to be able to draw some conclusions at shorter timepoints. You shouldnt have to play 1000 hours with one strategy in order to decide whether that strategy is sound. If you are the fish, and you recognize it, then run. Dont prove it to yourself over the long term. In the same vain, if you are the only one at the table who seems to know what is going on, exploit that. I understand that this doesnt make you a "winning" player. But it should count for something.
I think that the non-expert (which I surely am) should be able to get up from the table every single time he/she plays and say: these are the things i did right, and these are the things i did wrong. (it is important to recognize that this is NOT related to whether you won money on the hand or session). You should be able to get up and say here is a list of my opponents style of play, and courtesy of our hosts Mason and David, here is how I can exploit someone with that style of play.
In fact I strongly believe that after you have been at the table for an hour, you should get up and take a walk and analyze you opponents play. I have started doing this, (usually on the way to and from the mens room) since i think more clearly with out cards in my hands. I try to figure out how to exploit each players apparent weaknesses, and then i return. Obviously, if you play with the same 7-10 people, then you should know their tendencies in your sleep, and it is just a matter of coming upwith the appropriate strategy to defeat them.
My limited experience has taught me that the two most important aspects to succesful play are
1. Table selection, for the reasons outlined by others.
2. Mental readiness. This is especially true for stud. in my last outing I took a bath. I played in my home game till 3am, then got up at 9am drove 3 hours to AC, walked the boardwalk from trop to taj and back then started playing. The table was not strong, a little rock like, but i was tired and not focusing, so i ended up hemorrhaging cash.
Vince, I think you are right that you need a lot of hours at the table to detect the subtle leaks in your game, such as playing to predictably. or playing poorly after the flop, but well before. This is especially true when you are talking about 'maximizing' your winnings, which i consider to be a hallmark of arriving at expert level. Where the questions begin "did i miss a bet by ...."
Thanks for the good work you do here, helping to educate us less experienced poker players.
Todd H
An expert, especially at hold 'em, should have a line on most of his opponents after only a few minutes at the table. This in turn can tell you how you expect to do in the game on average.
Now I realize that a non-expert won't be able to do this so quickly. But you should always be trying to evaluate the game that you are in and who plays well and who doesn't.
Todd H,
"You shouldnt have to play 1000 hours with one strategy in order to decide whether that strategy is sound."
Unfortunately, I'm afraid it is worse than that. You not only need adequate playing time you need it at the sme level. So whether the right number is 1000, 2000, 5000 or more you must play it at the same level (15-30, 5-10 etc.) to accurately evaluate your play. S&M will tell you that there is a lot of short term luck in some forms of poker. 7 Stud and Holdem are 2 of those forms. You must realize that S&M's advice is based on the long term. What then is the long term? Believe me 1000hrs is very conservative.
"I think that the non-expert (which I surely am) should be able to get up from the table every single time he/she plays and say: these are the things i did right, and these are the things i did wrong."
It is extremely difficult for an expert to get up from the table and do an accurate analysis of his play. A novice has little if any chance of doing this. Why? Poker is not an exact science as some of our more scientific posters would have you believe. Sklansky's 8 mistakes of poker are indeed mistakes but one may not always be able to tell if one made a mistake or not. Because it is a mistake to call when one should fold doesn't mean that when each time you call and lose you have made a mistake. It requires a lot of experience, IMO, to analyze poker situations correctly.
"My limited experience has taught me that the two most important aspects to succesful play are"
If you think you can win at poker by only: 1. Table Selection and 2: Mental readiness, then good luck.
BTW - Todd, you get to A.C. once every 8 weeks. Are you really concerned with table (game) selection? You put your name on the list and when they call you, you sit down and play. If another game at the same level looks better you ask for a table change but you continue to play at your table until called. Game selection, though a great concept, is not a prime concern of the non-professional. And shouldn't be!
As for mental readiness. You can only become ready mentally through successful experience. Successful experience builds confidence. Confidence is mental readiness.
Vince
one specific example of trying to identify mistakes after you play:
I am on a very live A-high flush draw. on fifth st, i dont get my hand, but my opponent gets what i am sure are trips. I call and make my hand on 6th, call the river and lose to 4 fives, (with 3 kings for good measure). I had read that you should not draw to a hand that is worse than the hand that your opponent is drawing to. But this hand and two more like it really galvanized my understanding of this concept. I can imagine others looking at this (or a less severe trouncing like rivering a full house with trips) as bad luck, where you were sucked out on. However i believe that this would be wrong. I do not know if i am strong enough to lay down a flush to someone who has trips on the board, but it seems like you dont want to be the one chasing long odds, or drawing dead.
"If you think you can win at poker by only: 1. Table Selection and 2: Mental readiness, then good luck"
The point of this comment is that if I read the books, and play a tight aggressive game, these are two things which have a great effect on my ability to win at the table. I have sat at tables in AC where they all seem to be rocks, and you get very little play from them unless they have hands. Even though it is a long drive from DC I dont need to play badly enough that I will sit in a rock garden 1-5 stud game. there is little or no +EV. I believe that I am at the point where the only thing that will help me advance in the game is to play more at real limits (not our .10-.50 game on Sat nights) and get the experience you are talking about.
That said, what do you focus on during the initial 1000 hours as you (hopefully) get better. I hope you understand the point of this question. If it takes you many thousands of hours to determine your skill level, how do you at incremental time points decide if you are on the right track?
Thank you very much for your input on this discussion
Todd
Todd, You wrote:
" I had read that you should not draw to a hand that is worse than the hand that your opponent is drawing to:
Classic example of an eroneous statement made by an ill informed or inexperienced author. The concept here is definitely understandable. It is a very good concept. It would be wise to apply this concept to certain situations. But it is an incorrect statement when made as an absolute strategic concept. When you make a decision to continue with a hand you must consider a number of factors. Your opponents board strength or possible holding is definitely one of thos factors but not the only one. Things like pot size, effective odds, knowledge of your opponent etc. must be considered before deciding that action is best. (God. Todd, did I say all that!)
"a tight aggressive game"
This is a beginners strategy. The best strategy but still a beginner's.
"I believe that I am at the point where the only thing that will help me advance in the game is to play more at real limits"
The main factor to consider when moving up in limits is Bank Roll. If you are playing at a level that is comfortable for you then you may want to stay there. If you feel you would be comfortable at the next higher level or even a higher level then that is where you need to be. If you are playing at a level where the money means very little you are making a mistake and will not learn to play poker correctly. You may learn the basics but you will not lear the number one ingredient in playing winning poker. Patience!
"That said, what do you focus on during the initial 1000 hours as you (hopefully) get better."
Well now let's see. Mason in his wonderful Poker Essays II oulines 12 poker skills )Of course I refer to them as tactics but Mason is smarter than I am). My advice is to focus on learning and applying those skills. They include things like Game selection, Check Raising, Bluffing, Semi-Bluffing, etc.
"If it takes you many thousands of hours to determine your skill level, how do you at incremental time points decide if you are on the right track? "
Keep records. Time, place, level, bank roll and whatever else you feel is important. Afte 200 hours review your records/notes and continue.
Hey Sklansky charges $200 an hour for advice like this. How about a cup of coffee?
Vince.
If I ever meet up with you in AC, or where ever you play, I will buy you a cup of coffee, or a beer, or a scotch
Todd
My suspicion is that you are not playing as well as you think you are, and were just lucky at first. Don't worry, you are not the only one that this has ever happened to.
But I do have a simple suggestion. Get the 21st Century edition of our book Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players, go through it slowly and carefully including the section on loose games, and evaluate your game in comparison. I suspect that you will find lots of places where you can use some improvement.
From the little you've stated, it appears to me that the other players might have a read on you. Just a suggestion, would be to mix up your play. Do not ALWAYS play high cards in early position, once in a while raise with like a suited connector out of position. Perhaps make a bad play once in a while deliberately, or something totally out of charachter for you. Also, do you have any tells? Look at yourself in the mirror. Do you act the same way with a good hand as with a poor one. Also do you ever bluff? Perhaps you need to advertise once in a while. Do you check-raise? Be bold, take some chances. Raise once in a while, knowing full well that you will throw the hand in if rerasied. Do you ever check a good hand twice? And by the way, every opponent you play with has a weakness, what is it? Good Luck.
Is Abdul's preflop strategy online? If so, anyone got the url? Thanks
nmsg!
That's a very good idea. Let's avoid discussing poker and perhaps improving our knowledge to spite someone who has offered so much in the past and now won't be around to even see you spite him. I guess one could always forward an email to him to announce that one is sticking their head in the sand to spite him to make sure he sees it. I guess that'll really show him.
JG
"I guess that'll really show him. "
Here! Here!
Vince.
BTW - I did not announce to the world that I would no longer post on 2+2. Abdul did! This man is telling you that if you have questions for him go elsewhere. He won't respond here! I happen to believe this is the best poker forum on the Web. I have read all of Abdul's post. Now he announces we are no longer in his good graces. Good Luck and good bye, I say.
"someone who has offered so much in the past"
And?
"forward an email to him to announce that one is sticking their head in the sand"
Good idea since he refuses to particpate any longer with members of this forum.
Maybe you should generate that email and see if and how he responds.
Vince.
Two incorrect assertions in your post:
1) Abdul didn't say we were not in his good graces. He choose to not participate on this forum due to censorship.
2) He didn't say he wouldn't participate on with members of this forum. He said he wouldn't participate on this forum.
I agree, 2+2 is the best forum on the web.
We should all know by now that Vince gets in the last Te'rd!
Hey,
Is that University of California, Berkley, 1965. If it is what do you think of the Writing Majors Program?
Vince.
Look over in the links section. Its www.posev.com.
I've read S/S and some of Mason's draw book, but I am no "draw poker" player. The game is 5$ maximum bet, 0.50$ ante Jacks-or-better (home game). Usual rules apply except there is always a re-ante if no one opens. Maximum betting limit still doubles after the third re-ante (10$ max).
I am dealt trip tens (with two small cards), middle position, (7 players). There has been two rounds with no one opening, so this is the 10$ round. $10.50 in pot....
UTG opens for 10$. UTG is a conservative draw player and I know he will not open for a max bet without something pretty good. Next player calls, another player raises to 20$. It's 20$ to me and I have trip tens! I'm not sure what the "correct" play was, but I called. Several others folded. UTG calls the raise, three players. I thought the raiser might be trying to make a play (as he sometimes did, slight maniac) but he might also have something good, I couldn't be sure.
I decide to draw one. I was hoping to "sell" that I had made a big draw, even if I didn't improve. UTG draws one, big raiser stands pat. He often stands pat when "making a play", so there is some doubt in my mind. My tens don't improve. UTG bets 10, raise-master raises to 20$. So much for selling my draw, I don't even know if I should call!
What's the play? How should I have played this situation?
Dave in Cali
Dave in Cali,
IMO I think your call was right, but the drawing of one was incorrect.
Paul
Call before the draw is fine. I like your 1 card draw because I think that it does disguise your hand well.
The fold after the draw is also probably the correct play as 2 players ahead of you have shown a lot of strength.
You should have reraised and drawn 2. Then you can be quite sure he will not try a pat-bluff.
Kid,
I ignored the maniac your right.
Paul
Hi......I haven't read any other responses, so if this is redundant, that's the reason....... The opener called a raiser and a caller, so he must have trips, and why would he call if they were small? I think he beats you, so calling is not a good option with the added risk of the pat hand being real....... by raising you crush the big trips against the pat hand. He really should throw big trips, even if he knows he is being squeezed.
That leaves the pat hand, which can fold, call or raise. Call the raise, and if you catch the bluff, AND squeeze out the big trips, you'll be pumped for weeks. Even better if he throws a straight or a flush.
I play this game alot in my home game on fridays. people sometimes try and bet others out so if it were me I would have drawn the full two cards and bet aggressively. Many in would think I'm bluffing or fold either way you've got a great chance to get the pot. Drawing one to look like a flush or sraight draw doesn't help much and you lose the chance at catching another ten (good luck) or drawing the Boat. Without the specifics of how tight and loose you and the others are its hard to say. How did it turn out?
Dave: Personally,I would've been more inclined to draw two cards(trips or better to win?)"Slight Maniac"raiser sounds to me to be a more than likely bluffer and I would probably ride him out but not re-raise.
thanks for the tremendous response, I didn't know there were so many draw players out there!
As it turns out, I called. I decided that the pat hand was a bluff. I further decided that the opener would not reraise. I then second-guessed myself about the opener's hand, and decided he MIGHT be betting two big pair. In reality, I probably just didn't want to fold my trip tens!!!!
I was right about two out of three. There was no reraise, and the bluffer WAS bluffing (sort of) and had two small pair! The thing I was wrong about was the opener's hand. He had trip queens and only drew one (great play for him, it got two more bets out of me). I guess I should have listened to myself the first time! Feel free to criticize my atrocious play on this hand!
By the way I am playing in a mixed game home tournament not this but next weekend. I will be posting the proposed structure in my next post (9-23). It will include draw, 5CS, 7CS, HE, NLH. I will make it a point to write down the most interesting hands....
Dave in Cali
It is nice to know that I would have won that particular pot dollars. .... Maybe I should visit the US sometime........ Your plan to raise the second round was sound, but drawing one card in the face of a pat hand is an attempt to conceal weakness, so it telegraphs the punch. The one card draw is fishy already because neither two pair nor a draw is particularly credible at those odds. Draw two cards and surely your second round reraise has more cred.
Faced with a bet and a raise from a pat hand and a two card buyer, the trip queens must, or really should, fold. (I tole you he had'em)
Most of my poker experience has been with local friends and trips to Casinos. Are there any good games in the Atlanta area? I have heard that some organized games are played in Covington, but I have no idea how to find out information on these types of games.
Please ignore prior message. I will post on the Exchange.
I've been lurking here for a while and it's time to risk a post and some ridicule. :-)
First a few words about myself so you know where I am coming from. I'm a bit of a book worm - I've read Lee Jones, Sklansky on Poker, Theory of Poker, Hold'em, and Hold'em for Advanced Players (both editions), most of Super/System, Gambling Theory and OT, both Poker Essays books, as well as a bunch of other stuff. I've played a bit of Turbo Hold'em and tons of the World Series of Poker software and I can beat them both for the most part. Still, I'm a total novice with a grand total of 6 hours of tournament play and 6 hours or less of play in 3/6 games at Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun. I finished fifth in my second tournament at Foxwoods, but I'm trying not to let that go to my head. :-)
So far I've played only hold'em in a card room.
I was just moved to the main 3/6 game from a "must move" table about 20 minutes ago. When I first sat down the game was extremely wild (routinely capped before and on the flop), but for no reason that I can see has become loose/passive for the most part. There are two weak-tight players to my right, a guy across from me who seems to be playing right out of the Lee Jones book and the rest of the table is firmly in loose/passive land. For whatever reason, the Jones guy doesn't seem to have noticed that I'm playing a tight aggressive game - he's mostly just playing his cards. I'm in the BB with KK (not that it's relevant, but I lost all six hands in which I had KK during the tournament earlier). Six people call around to me (SB folded) and I raise, everyone calls. Flop comes KQJ rainbow. I debated check-raising, but decided to bet it out. Everyone folds to the Jones guy who raises, everyone folds to me. I figure he could have AK, QJ, T9, AT, QQ, or JJ at this point. I re-raise hoping I can narrow down his hand a bit. He re-raises and I call. I figure he has a strong made hand, either AT or T9 and my gut tells me AT. Turn comes 7 and I check and call. River comes J (hooray!). I bet, he raises, I re-raise, he re-raises. Now it occurs to me that one of the hands I put him on earlier was JJ - I thought I had eliminated it, but David has warned about getting married to a read, so I just called. I'll take a cue from "Student" and not tell you the punchline yet.
Here are the questions:
1. Was betting out on the flop correct? (or should I have check-raised?)
2. What do you think of my re-raise for information?
3. What do you think of my read of his hand?
4. Should I have stuck to my read and popped him one more raise?
5. Did I do anything really stupid?
David
sometimes you need to go with your gut feelings when your opponent is betting strong. either he made a hand and with two J's out he probably did or he's trying to intimidate you into thinking he has the hand that you have. either way i have played at and continue to play at both those casinos and have experienced a few opponents that you have described. many dont need the analsis that you have described but theres nothing wrong with betting out your kings imo
David wrote: >1. Was betting out on the flop correct? (or should I have >check-raised?)
14 small bets in the pot, and you have a strong hand. You hate to risk giving a free card here, as there are so many straight draws probably out there (both open-ended and gutshot). I would bet out since you say the table has become loose and passive. While this flop will usually hit multiple players, those who have hands like K9, A5s, T8o, and the like will often not bet. While you probably don't expect these straight draws to fold, you should charge them for their draw. Usually I would expect to get called in 3 or so places, and maybe raised by hands like KQ, KJ, QJ, AK, JT, and the like, as well as the made straight of AT and T9.
>2. What do you think of my re-raise for information?
I never reraise for information. The only time that's a valid reason is when you will be able to put the player on 1 (or a very small set) hand after he just calls or rereraises.
>3. What do you think of my read of his hand?
Very sensible, but like you said later, what about JJ and others? If he doesn't need to have AT to 4-bet the flop here, then your informational raise didn't really gain you any information.
>4. Should I have stuck to my read and popped him one more >raise?
No. Only drunks, total maniacs, and those who can't read the board go 4 bets on the river with less than the nuts. In fact, most people won't play KJ or QJ (or even QQ) that strong in this spot.
>5. Did I do anything really stupid?
No. Your play was fine. In fact, to the extent that I disagree with any of your plays, I could easily be wrong since YOU were at that table and have a better feel for all the intangibles that can make such a big difference in making the smartest play.
Are you signed up for FARGO? It'll be at Foxwoods during Oct. 1-3. Go to www.conjelco.com/fargo.html to learn more.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
>2. What do you think of my re-raise for information?
I never reraise for information. The only time that's a valid reason is when you will be able to put the player on 1 (or a very small set) hand after he just calls or rereraises.
I figured that I would get enough information to know whether to check and call on the turn and river if I failed to draw a full house. My thinking was that it cost two small bets to save two large bets (if I bet out the trips if rags fell and he raised each time - of course if he raised on the turn I probably would have gotten the same information I did with my re-raise and then I could have checked and called on the river, but I didn't think of this at the time).
So, point taken. I won't re-raise for information again any time soon.
>4. Should I have stuck to my read and popped him one more raise?
No. Only drunks, total maniacs, and those who can't read the board go 4 bets on the river with less than the nuts. In fact, most people won't play KJ or QJ (or even QQ) that strong in this spot.
OK, I'll buy that, thanks.
>5. Did I do anything really stupid?
No. Your play was fine. In fact, to the extent that I disagree with any of your plays, I could easily be wrong since YOU were at that table and have a better feel for all the intangibles that can make such a big difference in making the smartest play.
I barely have a "feel" for anything yet. :-) I'm reasonably confident that I can play the cards better than most people at a 3/6 game, but I'm definitely not clued into the intangibles.
Are you signed up for FARGO? It'll be at Foxwoods during Oct. 1-3. Go to www.conjelco.com/fargo.html to learn more.
No. I'd love to go, but my Wife's birthday has to come first, I'm afraid. Thanks for the response.
David
I have about the same extensive reading but limited playing experience as the original poster, but with regard to item 1, I thought that with a large number of callers and a large pot (as this was since it was raised) that it is important to check raise from a blind position with a strong hand in order to thin the field.
Thanks.
Not when you compare the advantages and ability of thinning the field to other alternatives.
With an early position pair, you often have to knock out players and if you succeed, you're in pretty good shape. You sometimes have a chance at knocking out better hands, and you are highly vulnerable to lots of draws. You have a better chance of suceeding when the pot hasn't been raised before the flop.
With top set and a coordinated board, you're still going to win most of the time no matter what. Even you you're behind or outdrawn on the turn, you're still alive and will rake a big pot when you hit. So you don't need to knock out players as much. You have no chance of removing a better hand.
Also, with 12 SB in the pot and a KQJ flop, making it 2 bets to go isn't going to scare away anyone that would have called 1 bet, especially the draws you are most worried about. Although the draws aren't going anywhere, however, you would still like to bet as much as you can against them because you've got the best of it. You can best do this by betting and raising (3 bets) instead of trying to cap the round at 2 bets with a check-raise.
1. Flop bet.
When we check raise our primary goals are usually to build the pot, bluff or semi-bluff, or knock out players. Consider what you are trying to accomplish by check-raising and whether check-raising is your best means of getting there.
I think you mostly want to build the pot here and make the draws pay through the teeth. (It might be better if you could knock the draws out, but they're not going anywhere with this big pot, so why not make it as easy as possible for them to put three bets in before the turn -- to "let them bleed?") This is best accomplished by betting and raising. This flop can make several inferior hands that will call but not bet, and several others that will raise, allowing you to 3-bet it. Further, with this hand I never, ever, want to risk letting them get to the turn for free.
2. Flop Reraise.
Although the board is scary you are mostly raising here for value; getting more information is a secondary benefit. You have the second nut and a good draw. Raise for value.
3. Your read.
After he 4-bets the flop, you can pretty much put him on a straight, a set or a fast-played 2-pair. The straight is far more likely, given that (1) a set requires him to have a big pocket pair, which most people in middle position ususally raise on before the flop (although, when they don't, it's often with QQ or JJ); (2) even if we limit his holecards to ATs and T9s, the combinations of those cards outnumbers QQ or JJ, and (3) the board looks just as daunting to him. It takes an aggressive player (or maniac) to 4-bet 2 pair here, so I'd go with the straight. Good read so far.
4. Whether you should have repopped him on the river or "stuck with your read."
It would be insane against many players, but I would have raised this guy back on the river. At first glance, when he 4-bets with the pair on board, it looks like your read is in the dirt. But if he didn't have to have a straight on the flop, then he didn't have to have the nuts, or the second or third nuts, to 4-bet the flop. Could he still have a straight? Is he that oblivious?
I doubt it. Re-think your idea of him having a straight. But you now know -- in fact are absolutely certain -- that he doesn't have to have the nuts or close to it to jam, at least not on the flop. Then consider your big threat: how does a player that more or less unconsciously bets his good hands into possible monsters manage to refrain from a preflop raise with JJ? Possibly, but not likely. Sounds more like he's just "playing his cards," like you wrote.
So he doesn't have to have JJ. And if he doesn't have to have JJ, he could have KJ or even QJ. You need him to have at least 3 more possible hands than JJ to raise again. Since I count 5 (8 if we consider queens, but this means he didn't raise with those either), I'd say go for it. Whenever a player might be even a little bit screwey you you don't want to put him with any assurance on the absolute nuts.
5. You didn't do anything stupid.
Keep this Chris guy away from my table. Well analyzed. I have absolutely nothing to add to your post...well ok, maybe I'll just echo in on your comment and Greg's re: raising for information. I have never put much stock on this given reason for raising. Often, the information you get from the other fella will be misleading (as it apparently was in this case). You have to be playing with guys who don't have an ounce of deception in them to raise purely to "see where you are at".
BTW, Chris, where do you normally play and at what limits?
I began playing weekend hold'em in 1996 here in Colorado. About 98% of my play has been spread limit $2-5 hold'em, although I play higher ($10-20) during infrequent trips to Nevada/California. Thanks for the encouraging words. The low limit and betting structure in my game (big bets before the flop) makes it hard for me to relate to medium fixed limit, as my comments, which really need to be taken with a grain of salt, often show.
"You have the second nut and a good draw"
Third not.
2. Flop Reraise.
Although the board is scary you are mostly raising here for value; getting more information is a secondary benefit. You have the second nut and a good draw. Raise for value.
Are you sure your'e not Sklansky. Reraising for "value" here must depend on the opponent. If you are against a good opponent you must consider that he can read that board as well as you and since you are now head up you may want to just call. There is no value in being second best at this point. If your opponent has a straight you are a dog. You are heads up your reraise is only getting you even money. If you feel you have the best hand you are better off to wait until the turn and check raise when the bets double.
Other than that I agree with this response.
Vince.
Right, third nut, I forgot about the 10-9.
Vince, if there's only been one raise and you don't know the raiser do you really slow down with top set just because the flop was 3 cards in a row? I count 15 drawing dead 2-pair combos (yum yum) and a bunch of pair + gutshots that could justify his raise. Besides, even if he's got a straight it's only good 2/3's of the time and he'll pay me a BB if I hit. I don't want to wait for the turn because I can't check there and my bet might slow him down.
I should note, however, that playing back with a set when you were the preflop raiser works better when the board is QJT. You rarely have to worry about all the straight possibilities and, with the right image against the right player, you can often get the dummy end to fold. (They fear K9 excessively).
Chris,
"Vince, if there's only been one raise and you don't know the raiser do you really slow down"
No! I thought the original poster read the opponent as a good player. You must proced with caution against good players. Not too cautious but reasonably cautious. If he is a good player and you feel you have the best hand you have a good chance of a check raise on the turn if you don't reraise the flop.
Vince.
So he doesn't have to have JJ. And if he doesn't have to have JJ, he could have KJ or even QJ. You need him to have at least 3 more possible hands than JJ to raise again. Since I count 5 (8 if we consider queens, but this means he didn't raise with those either), I'd say go for it. Whenever a player might be even a little bit screwey you you don't want to put him with any assurance on the absolute nuts.
If he is truly playing straight out of the Lee Jones book he would just call pre-flop with either JJ or QQ unless he thought he could limit the field, which he knew he couldn't.
I'm not entirely sure I understand the rest, though. Why can I raise if I can put him on three possible hands worse than JJ?
David
Why can I raise if I can put him on three possible hands worse than JJ?
Because you need more than a two-thirds chance have having the best hand for your raise to have the positive expectation necessary to justify the raise.
To define the problem: you are on the last round with a good hand against another good hand which is either better or worse than yours. Your opponent bets, and your problem is deciding whether to raise or just call. (Folding is out of the question). If your hand is better, your opponent will always at least call your raise and you'll win one more bet than you would by calling. If your hand is worse, your opponent will always reraise and you will call and lose two more bets than you would by calling.
So you can see how this is a pretty simple problem. When you're ahead, raising wins you 1 additional bet. When you're behind, raising costs you 2 additional bets. You must therefore win by raising more than twice as often as you lose by raising, meaning that you need more than a two-thirds chance (2-1 odds) of having the better hand.
So if there are exactly 2 combinations of holecards he can have in addition to JJ, it makes no difference whether you raise or call. If there are 3 or more you cost yourself by just calling.
That's theory, of course.
Can you REALLY figure out so quickly at the table wether you are a 2 to 1 favorite ?
I only play pot-limit, and for me to raise at the end I have to be very "sure" (95 %) I have the best hand, or of course if I want to bluff.
Perhaps in 30 % (95 - 66) of these cases, I lose money in the long run, but it's so hard to evaluate and it costs too much in PL when I am wrong ...
The important point isn't figuring out at the table whether you are a 2-1 favorite (actually better than 2-1, so you really have a much broader target). It's knowing that you have to be in order to raise, and that if you are you should. If you know what you need beforehand you can concentrate on other things instead of relying on murky experience.
My guess is that good players frequently ask themsleves in this situation: am I honestly sure that I'm better than 2-1 to take this guy down? In hold 'em, on the river, a little knowledge and observation can make this easy, or at least not difficult.
(BTW, I don't play pot limit, but in that game wouldn't the number be 75%?)
You are right.
In PL, providing the initial pot is 1 and the bettor bets full pot, when raising I risk 3 to win 3 more if called, and I have to call 9 more if reraised. So it is 9 to 3, ie 3 to 1 (= 75 %).
But in a real PL game (the ones that I play), the money is not deep enough to be able to raise or reraise at the end before being all-in.
I this case, an all-in raise is OK if I am only 50 % favorite if called (1 to 1).
But again, the penalty is very severe if I am wrong (it's not limit ...).
To define the problem: you are on the last round with a good hand against another good hand which is either better or worse than yours. Your opponent bets, and your problem is deciding whether to raise or just call. (Folding is out of the question). If your hand is better, your opponent will always at least call your raise and you'll win one more bet than you would by calling. If your hand is worse, your opponent will always reraise and you will call and lose two more bets than you would by calling.
-SNIP-
So if there are exactly 2 combinations of holecards he can have in addition to JJ, it makes no difference whether you raise or call. If there are 3 or more you cost yourself by just calling.
OK, this is very clear and logical, thanks. How far do I take it, though? I'm already talking about a re-re-raise here. (I bet he raised, I re-raised, he re-raised and I'm contemplating popping him one more time or calling). At some point I have to stop with anything less than the absolute nuts, right? What is that point? I've got second nuts, the only thing he can have that beats me is JJ, when do I quit raising?
He could have QQ, JJ, AT, and maybe T9 or QJ. Are we talking about permutations? If so there is only one way he can have JJ, three ways he can have QQ and an awful lot of ways he can have AT, T9, or QJ.
David
Believe me, I don't think you made any kind of mistake by just calling, I was just doing a little analysis. Here's a real mistake a lot of new players make: "this pot is huge (and big enough for me), I'll just call."
The answer about when to stop raising is that you need to know your opponent. If your opponent was a seasoned player that knew you, your might have wanted to just call after the first raise. I know several opponents that I would have strongly considered folding after a 4-bet (if not for the weird prior betting).
To pound without the nuts, you have to know your opponent extremley well (usually not to be confused with knowing him for very long). Raising wars are a rush for some players. If your opponent has a penchant for ignoring or misunderstanding the board, or if he is particularly susceptible to a slowplay, you should often stay with him for more rounds than common sense suggests. I can recall of two instances: 8-betting a small set on the flop and about the same number of bets with a non-nut full house (slowplayed) against what I was sure was a (much hoped-for) successful flush draw on the river. I imagine you don't see these plays outside the low limits.
In your particular case my guess is that your opponent didn't look at the board (or didn't "see" it when he did look) because he didn't want a reason to slow down after flopping the nuts.
That might sound odd, but I also believe that some players don't think about what they should do because they're afraid of coming up with a good reason to fold. Not that it will make them fold, they just don't want to feel even more foolish after they lose the hand.
David,
"I've been lurking here for a while and it's time to risk a post and some ridicule. :-)"
I am the first one to poke fun at new posters. If you have followed 2+2 you probably already noticed. I call it "fun" others may feel it is ridicule. Believe me my intentions are always humorous.
That said I will now say that I have read your entire post. I liked it! I think you have a lot to offer as a contributor to this forum for analysis. You have a knack for relaying your experiences. Oh, there was one thing though, K,K six times. Hmmm. O.K.
Now for your questions,
1. Was betting out on the flop correct? (or should I have check-raised?)
The fact is that you were faced with a difficult decision. You have a big pot in front of you and a lot of potential bets out there. You do not have the nuts and are looking at a flop and field that more than likely has already hit the nuts or second nuts. The problem is that all your opponents see the same flop you see. If there is no straight out there there is a good chance everyone will check if you check. I like your bet. A bet here also disguises your hand.
2. What do you think of my re-raise for information?
If I read your post correctly you now had the Jones guy heads-up. If you feel that you have a good opponent in this Jones guy then you made the right play here. If this guy was an over aggressive type then the correct play would be to call and check-raise the turn.
3. What do you think of my read of his hand?
I liked your read. My guess is AT, or T,9, Especially if you feel he was a good player.
4. Should I have stuck to my read and popped him one more raise?
Yes. Now I would put him on Q,Q and take another shot at him.
5. Did I do anything really stupid?
Besides openning yourself up to ridicule here on 2+2. No.
Vince.
That said I will now say that I have read your entire post. I liked it! I think you have a lot to offer as a contributor to this forum for analysis. You have a knack for relaying your experiences. Oh, there was one thing though, K,K six times. Hmmm. O.K.
Honest injun, I did. It was in almost 5 hours of play in the tournament. I never saw AA or QQ or JJ. I saw more 72 that I would have believed possible. I mucked the kings twice on the flop when an ace came with heavy betting. I took it to a show down four times, beat by two pair or a higher two pair each time on the river card. But I'm not bitter...
1. Was betting out on the flop correct? (or should I have check-raised?)
The fact is that you were faced with a difficult decision. You have a big pot in front of you and a lot of potential bets out there. You do not have the nuts and are looking at a flop and field that more than likely has already hit the nuts or second nuts. The problem is that all your opponents see the same flop you see. If there is no straight out there there is a good chance everyone will check if you check. I like your bet. A bet here also disguises your hand.
It never even occurred to me that it would disguise my hand at all. I wonder what he thought I had? (actually I don't think he considered it, he really was just playing cards)But in his shoes I suppose I would have put ME on AT. One of the main reasons that I did bet was I was afraid everyone might check. No one in this game was taking any initiative and the flop was frequently checked around if it missed everyone. I also figured that anytime you can't decide between betting and check-raising, you should probably go ahead and bet since you are probably making a smaller mistake that way (no free cards when I am in the pot!)
2. What do you think of my re-raise for information?
If I read your post correctly you now had the Jones guy heads-up. If you feel that you have a good opponent in this Jones guy then you made the right play here. If this guy was an over aggressive type then the correct play would be to call and check-raise the turn.
Yes, we were heads up. I don't think he'd play two pair fast with such an obvious straight out, he'd be more likely to "call for value" there. If he's aggressive I think he must have a monster (but that might include trips). He might be capable of raising the flop on a free card play, though, with a draw (KT or something, but he's not too likely to call the flop with that if I read him right).
I'm now thinking that I might have been able to get the same information by calling and simply betting the turn. If he raises again it certainly wasn't a free card he was after and he has something big already. It costs two small bets either way, though. Is it worth a big bet to find out how strong his hand is? If I find his hand is a monster, it probably saves me a big bet later, so I break even. If I decide his hand isn't a monster (say if he has trip Qs) I may get a couple to several extra bets, but if I'm wrong it's going to cost me extra.
What do I gain by calling and check-raising the turn? Do you mean that if he was so aggressive that he's in there with two pair or less, I should just wait until the turn and then start extracting money?
David
David,
Again I like your response. But I am tired so will only address the question below. I'm doing this before reading the results. I don't wan't to bias my response.
"What do I gain by calling and check-raising the turn? Do you mean that if he was so aggressive that he's in there with two pair or less, I should just wait until the turn and then start extracting money? "
Aggressive/over aggressive players will bet heir hands aggressively/over aggressively (DuH. The Duh is for me not you). I just wrote that senance for emphasis. I got the impression from your post that the "Jones" guy was a fair player. Certainly not good. Good players consider thier opponents cards in addition to thier own before cacting. Good aggressive opponents are your worse opponents. Over aggressive opponents can be your best opponents. They almost always bet when they should check. If you were against an over aggressive player and got into a raising war on the flop the most likely result is that he would shut down. He may even fold a weak two pair! Because someone is over aggressive does not mean they are stupid. It means they like to be the leader. They want to make the bet, be in control. Thus my reason for not reraising the flop. Calling and check raising the turn gets you more money and may even win the pot right there. BTW - This is just my opinion. What do I know? Now I think I'll read the results.
Vince.
In the end, he showed AT of clubs for the straight and I took the pot.
David
To recap: bad guy jams on the flop, making you think he's got the nuts, but then jams on the river where the nuts on the flop can no longer be the nuts, making you suspect that he didn't really have the nuts on the flop but making me advise that if he didn't have the nuts on the flop he might only have the 3rd or 4th nuts on the river, and to laugh at your suggestion that he might be still playing what were the nuts on the flop.
At the end, we learn that he bad guy did in fact have the nuts on the flop where he properly jammed but, in an incredible coincidence, also happened to be nuts (or blind) so that he jams with the 6th and very doomed nuts on the river. Well, yeah, sometimes they just don't look at the board. Welcome to low-limit live action. (You might have to buy the first version of Turbo -- the prototype they never even sold -- to find this play on a computer).
After my post, I realized that I forgot to mention that a great many players will jam with a likely second best hand on the flop when the bets are low, especially if they also have a big draw, but will never do this on the river. (In my regular game the bets on the flop are the same as on the river and I forget to adjust).
So allow me to salvage to good bits of advice: (1) your giving much weight to the possibility of him having a straight on the river was, in the long run, a mistake, until your know this guy well, and (2) always pay more attention to Greg Raymer.
So allow me to salvage to good bits of advice: (1) your giving much weight to the possibility of him having a straight on the river was, in the long run, a mistake, until your know this guy well, and
Thanks. I was kicking myself for not being even more aggressive after he showed down exactly what I read him for, so it's good to be reminded that I could have been wrong. :-)
(2)always pay more attention to Greg Raymer.
I will. I've been lurking here long enough to know to listen to what he says. :-)
David
Hey guys,
Your checks are in the mail.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I would advise you to try to play at that guy's table whenever possible. So much for Lee Jones -- a guy who reraises with a str8 against a solid player and a paired board like that is a guy I want to duel early and often. Your post and your command of the game are impressive for a fairly new player.
I would advise you to try to play at that guy's table whenever possible.
I will! Predictability is GOOD...
So much for Lee Jones -- a guy who reraises with a str8 against a solid player and a paired board like that is a guy I want to duel early and often.
Perhaps I haven't been fair to Lee Jones as there is NO WAY he would have recommended this guy's play. This guy obviously read the book, memorized the pre-flop play, and went out to play cards. He played his cards with respect to their inherent strength, but with no regard to what his opponents had or might have. And he didn't read the board very well. He had just enough knowledge for me to use it against him, but not enough to defend himself. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing... (I'm trying to keep this firmly in mind for myself too)
Your post and your command of the game are impressive for a fairly new player.
Thanks, I'm trying. I feel a bit out of my depth at times, though. :-)
David
1. Yes you should bet the flop. With a flop of KQJ you will get played with so you might as well bet your top set.
2. I think the "Lee Jones" guy would raise pre-flop with Ace-King, Q-Q, or J-J and not just limp in. I would re-raise because in the unlikely event he has specifically Ace-Ten or Ten-Nine you have a lot of outs with two cards to come.
3. I think you are correct in just finally calling on the flop and then check-calling when a blank hits on the turn.
4. When you are raised and re-raised twice, I think you should just call and payout to quad Jacks. He knows you have a strong hand to raise out of your big blind and to keep betting the way you did. He either has quads or Queens full probably.
5. I think you played the hand well.
Thanks Jim, I appreciate the feedback. I'm gonna nail this game yet. :-)
David
does anyone know any good places to poker outside the u.s.a
I do not know what your game of choice is, but if you are interested in Pot Limit Omaha, then you should visit the Victoria Casino in London.
Until recently the predominant game of choice has been 7-card Stud, but now more and more people are playing Omaha.
Curiously the card room gets busier earlier during the day on Weekdays, whereas Saturday and Sunday take longer to get going. I cannot offer any explanation for this except that some people might be getting their priorities wrong and socialising at the weekends!
The sit down for the games are Ł100 and Ł500. There is also a Ł1000 game on Wednesday and Friday but this is not pure Omaha; it is a round of Omaha and a round of London lowball (basically the same as Razz). I would not suggest the latter game to a visitor as most are unfamiliar with Lowball and the game is huge. Pots of Ł40,000 are quite common.
Currently the pound is worth $1.6 approx; so Ł40k=$64k!!!
Good luck wherever you go. I especially suggest that you go to Amsterdam in November for their "Masterclassics" week of tournaments. They are phenomenal value. Most of the players who enter only play tournaments a few times a year and they have absolutely no chance to win.
Question I plan to go on a poker cruise soon. What can I expect of the other players loose, passive, rocks, pros, etc. How will the games compare to most casino`s ? I plan to play 4-8 HE.
Check out www.poker-in-the-uk.com which has details of most clubs in the UK, and http://eppa.bigfoot.com/ which has a lot of European info.
Andy.
For a good player, which is generally higher variance - holdem or Omaha-8?
In my own play, I have found Omaha-8 to be higher variance, although one reason for this may be that the holdem games I play in are rarely loose or aggressive. Badger claims that Omaha-8 is normally lower variance than holdem. In loose Omaha-8 games, my perception is that the high variance keeps the many bad players in action despite the fact that a good player often has a higher advantage than in holdem or stud. If you're interested in the arguments as to why holdem or Omaha-8 has a higher variance, check rec.gambling.poker.
IceMan,
I checked out rgp and it is an interesting argument you and Badger have going. My newsreader is dropping posts so it is a little hard to follow (Abdul says I should subscribe to Newsguy).
The action is over there but I believe that Omaha H/L has much less variance than holdem or stud unless you are talking about a supertight holdem versus a wild Omaha H/L and even then it would be close.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Are you "Iceman" on Planet Poker?
"P.S. Are you "Iceman" on Planet Poker?"
No.
I've recently returned from the Australian Poker Championships in Melbourne. During my stay a local player watched my play in PL and NL hold'em(cash games) and asked around the room about me(honesty,etc). He gave me $15,000 to play in the $150-$300 Omaha-hi game. The deal was if I lose I pay 5% and what every I win I keep 20%. I played in 3 sessions and won him $22,250 (I won $4450). I had a good run of cards and played well (a good combination), but my real success was my style...loose/aggressive, which suited that game and the players. A local "TOP" player was also placed in the same game, over five sessions he lost over $28,000. (He was tight-aggressive and got very little ACTION from the table when he held winners, plus he chased too many NUT draws, which never hit). My backer was pleased with my results. Dazzler!
Dazzler, I'm glad you told me that before we sat down together. You sound like someone I want at another table!
There has never been action like that in a West Australian casino. I'll try and make it over next year. I'm looking forward to recieving my copy of your Poker Australia magazine. (I met Dazzler through another medium only yesterday BTW, he lives on the other side of the country.)
Great to see you turn up here with such a flourish, D.
David Zanetti
Hey "Dazzler",
If that guy ever wants to back a loose, aggressive, lousy player give him my e-mail address!
Vince.
It just goes to show ya how those Aussies will toss off money to an ex New Zealander. Playing well is what gets the money. Good on ya mate.
Vince (non pseudonym) Lepore Writes:
"BTW - At first I thought you were Abdul but now I retract that thought."
Abdul Jabil M'Hall (may his camels increase) will no doubt be relieved to hear that he is not me. Vincent, you are the best. I said you had a goood sense of humour, and you sure got me with that one. A pen-name is no big deal, you know who I am: M'Handle is David Zanetti, which was never a secret. I'm changing pen names; get over it soon, please. I live in Australia, and not even Abdul could pull that off from where he is. No, I think if Abdul, or anyone else discovered what I have, they would own up to it pretty quickly.
My aim is to get a few people to at least try my new games. Not one response here has been from someone who has admitted to playing any game I've described..... However I have learnt a few things from the experience, so it has been by no means a waste of time, yet. .....I am changing tack, and I won't be replying to many messages here in the future, but will be posting every week or so seeking new players, and repeating the rules, advising of developments, places to play etc. Play the game you like is my belief. But not too much, or you'll get sick of it.
Rounders revisited. Day two of the 9 day tourney at the Melbourne CROWN Casino. The game (side game)is half pot hold'em with a $5-$10 blind. UTG I make it $25 to go with 5h 7h and get 6 callers, including the BB and SB. The flop comes straight from the movie 4.6.8.(rainbow).The SB bets $125,BB flops and I reraise another $125, "Jackie" in seat #7 calls and reraises all -in, another $930! The SB folds and I come over the top all-in, about $1150! Jackie calls out ..."I call...all in!". I flip my hand over and he keeps his hidden. The turn a 6 (no flush draw) and the river a K. I thought I was beat....He flashes pocket 10s. I win the pot.As the poker room managers were there,at our table, he asked for a ruling on his oversized (more than half pot) bet. The ruling was it stands as I said "call and reraise all-in" and he also said "All-in". I asked him later why raise.. "I thought you had AQ and I felt like gambling". It was a week of fantastic action, 16 tables. From $4-$8 hold'em up to $20K buy-in full pot 7 stud.Big bet poker (half pot to NL)is such a buzz, exciting to play and watch. Roll on the next Aussie poker tourney!The hairs are still standing up on the back of my neck. It's tough to go back to limit betting.
Hello all,
I am a beginner and still learing playing primarily 3-6 hold'em in Indian Reservation card rooms in California. I have 2 questions..
1. I purchased 3 poker books today and I was wondering if anyone can tell me if they are worth reading the first was According to Doyle 2. Scarne's Guide to Modern Poker and 3 is Hold'em Poker for winner by a Carl Anderson. I also ordered Hold'em poker by Skalansky.
2. Does anyone know of any games in Southern California (San Diego, Orange County, or LA) that are open to players? I only know of the Indian reservations to play in as I am only 20 and not yet able to hit up the other card rooms.
I appreciate any responses.
Thank you
Chris Holloway
I would also reccommend "7-Card Stud:42 Lessons"by Roy West as well as the 2+2 advanced player series(H-E,7-Stud and Hi/Lo split)and study all of them thoroughly.
Browse through the Scarne book and then throw it away.
Chris,
Win at Poker by Jeff Rubens is an excellent beginner book. Next, you need Winning Poker by David Sklansky which I believe was re-titled to The Theory of Poker; I'm not sure on this. I found my copy of Winning Poker mis-filed in a Waldens about 10 years ago.
Hold-em Poker, also by David Sklansky, is easier for beginners than the advanced players version, but it still contains a lot of good stuff. It's one of my favorites.
Finally, for low limit players you MUST read Winning Low Limit Hold-em by Lee Jones. Low limit games often play differently than the middle and higher limit games the other books are written for. Lee Jones addresses this very well.
Be advised, I do NOT present these recommendations as an expert. I'm a low limit mullet type tourist who doesn't get to play very often. I've read many poker books, and I've enjoyed and learned the most from these.
Fat-Charlie
IMO, These are the most important books for you to read first before beginning play:
Holdem poker, Sklansky
Theory of Poker, Sklansky
Low limit HE, lee jones
These books (especially the first) will do you much more immediate good than the ones you mentioned.
Chris,
My favorite book is the book of "Tells" but I've been sworn to secrecy by SMZ not to divulge it's whereabouts. In the real world I would just click on books to the left and pick and chose whichever one you like, because if you are already playing in the casino I would recommend reading most of them. It takes a while to transfer your new found knowledge from book to table, and to feel comfortable in the casino environment, smoking, drinking, jerks, money exchanges, etc. Be patient with yourself and grab something new from each session, don't try to buy the casino in your first session. Stay alert and notice things while your playing, learn to ignore what is going on behind you and beside you that doesn't concern the hand. It takes time, but keep smiling that will piss everyone off even when you lose.
Paul
ps: From Norway Holloway
"2. Does anyone know of any games in Southern California (San Diego, Orange County, or LA) that are open to players? "
Oceans 11 in Oceanside, CA, I-5 Mission Ave. exit, 30 miles north of San Diego. Not as big as L.A. card rooms but very nice people. Low limit games, 3/6, 4/8 Holdem, Omaha, 1/4 Stud Hi/Lo. Also, 9/18, 20/40 Holdem. Good Luck
Post deleted at author's request.
Ihaven't read the other responses, but I recommend Norman Zadeh's "Winning Poker Systems" for a complete handbook on potlimit poker. It doesn't cover holdem or omaha, but the principles are excellent, and the games covered are well done, with some charts and detailed starting hands. It's worth having in case you find a big game of potlimit draw or five card stud or seven card stud, and want to know how to cash in. Norman can tell you, and it's a small book selling for about ten dollars.
What ya'll suggest for good book on tournament strategy? He,Omaha etc. Thanks.
The best books for me have been theory of gambling and poker essays.
I like a lot the TJ Cloutier's books on Hold'em and Omaha.
They are not theorical books, but practical ones, and I'm guessing wether there is really a theory for playing tournaments.
I find he describes very well a lot of concrete situations that may occur frequently during a tournament.
And of course he has a very great experience; didn't he win more than any one else ?
I have posted about this type of thing before, so here goes again!
My associates and I have played 4 of these so far, and they have been hugely successful. So far it has been winner take all, 3 1/2 hours of limit HE, and the rest NLH. This time we are using a mixed game structure, looosely reminiscent of the tournament of champions. The games we are using are by popular demand....
40$ Buy-in gets you 2000$ in chips. You may rebuy T500$ in chips (10$) up to 4 times maximum. Eight players, winner take all....
NOTE: unfortunately, I have to put spaces inbetween every line of my table or it is garbled when I put it on the forum, email me if you know how to fix that....
***** 5 CARD DRAW - 3 ROUNDS, 20 MINUTES EACH
1$ ANTE 10-20 LIMIT
2$ ANTE 15-30 LIMIT
3$ ANTE 20-40 LIMIT
***** 5 CARD STUD - 2 ROUNDS, 30 MINUTES EACH
5$ DEALER ANTE, 5$ BRING-IN, 10-20 LIMIT
10$ DEALER ANTE, 5$ BRING-IN, 15-30 LIMIT
***** 7 CARD STUD - 3 ROUNDS, 30 MINUTES EACH
10$ DEALER ANTE, 5$ BRING-IN, 10-20 LIMIT
20$ DEALER ANTE, 5$ BRING-IN, 15-30 LIMIT
5$ INDIVIDUAL ANTE, 10$ BRING-IN, 20-40 LIMIT
***** LIMIT HOLDEM - 3 ROUNDS, 30 MINUTES EACH
BLINDS / LIMITS
10-15 25-50
15-30 30-60
20-40 40-80
***** NO LIMIT HOLDEM - 20 MINUTE ROUNDS
ANTE BIG BLIND
10$ 50$
15$ 75$ - COLOR UP REDS -
25$ 100$ - LAST LEVEL TO REBUY -
25$ 150$
50$ 200$
50$ 300$
75$ 400$ - COLOR UP GREENS -
100$ 500$
200$ 600$
300$ 1000$
500$ 1000$
1000$ 2000$
1000$ 3000$
2000$ 4000$ - DOUBLES UP ETC... -
I could use feedback, especially if you have something to say about the possibility of more than one place or splitting the $$. Another concern is maybe some of the limits are too small when you consider rebuys. I could also use comments if any of the game structures are disproportionate to what they should be. Are the draw structures about right? We want most people to last about 5 hours and get knocked out in the NLH round!
Dave in Cali
p.s. by the way I intend to win... results to follow....
NOTE: unfortunately, I have to put spaces inbetween every line of my table or it is garbled when I put it on the forum, email me if you know how to fix that....
I was going to email this as you suggested, but it occurred to me that others on the forum might be interested.
Messages are displayed as html, so any html tag can be embedded in a message. HTML tags usually come in pairs and look like this: "< em>" and "</em>" for emphasized text.
The easiest way to create a line break is the < br> tag which has no pair, that would fix your problem. It would probably also be possible to create an HTML table, but it would be a pain.
You can do all sorts of things this way, probably even insert that annoying text. If you want to see how someone formatted a message here, just right click on the frame containing the message and select "view frame source" (Windows/Netscape).
David
This is an interesting idea. The home game I play in has done four NL HE single table tournaments, but I like your idea of mixing up the games a bit. For pay-outs, we paid the first three places out of eight. We did $20 buy-in, winner gets $100, second gets $40 and third gets their money back. It worked out pretty well (but I won three of the four, so I'm biased). We haven't done re-buys yet, although we have discussed it and several people are in favor of it.
The ante + BB structure of the NL is a little different, but it should work, I think. I would guess most people will make it to the NL section. It's going to be a lot of poker. 5 hours to get to NL, then a couple hours of NL to get to a single winner. Let me know how it goes.
David
Just finished a 12 hour session at the HE 1-4-8-8 table. I was very sharp and was playing at the top of my abilities. The flops were, of course terrible. Lost $280.00
My question is How do I know if this is a 'normal' swing and not an aberration?
This is only my second session since studying Hold'em Excellence. I feel that I played great and only about 4 of my discards before the flop would have won the pot. Comments please!!
I didn't mean to imply that Lou Kreiger's book was responsible for my loss. Quite the contrary! If I had not studied his book I would have lost at least TWICE my actual loss. Also, new e-mail address. Thanks folks!!
John
In Mason Malmuth's book, "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" he has section on hourly fluctuation (called standard deviation). He shows how to compute your own personal standard deviation on a per hour basis and then you multiply it by the square root of the number of hours. When I played $4-$8 hold-em my hourly standard deviation was around $80. For a 12 hour session this equates to about $280 ($80*3.46). This means that about 2/3 of the time for a 12 hour session you will win or lose $280 above or below your average expectation for 12 hours of play. If you average one top bet an hour, which would be $8 per hour in this example, at the end of 12 hours you should be ahead $96. But this could be as high as $376 ($280+$96) or as low as -$184 ($96-$280). Statisticians normally think in terms of 2 or even 3 standard deviations from the expectation. For a 12 hour session about 95% of the time you will be $560 ($280*2) above or $560 below your expectation. Bottom line is that losing $280 in a 12 hour session of $4-$8 is well within statistical norms.
I strongly recommend Malmuth's book "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" which I think is the definitive work on this subject.
"Just finished a 12 hour session at the HE 1-4-8-8 table. I was very sharp and was playing at the top of my abilities. The flops were, of course terrible. Lost $280.00"
12 hours of terrible flops, while yes it is possible I would hazzard a guess that in the twelve hours, the flopps probably treated you similar to other players.
"My question is How do I know if this is a 'normal' swing and not an aberration?"
How about Choice C? Normal for someone of limited skill and experience.
"This is only my second session since studying Hold'em Excellence. I feel that I played great and only about 4 of my discards before the flop would have won the pot. Comments please!!"
I don't mean to sound harsh but the above message implies many reasons for you to have done badly, EXCEPT to look closely at your own play.
With only two visits to the table since "studying" you still don't have much experience. You have taken the correct step to the game as in studying but don't end it there.
I would recommend less 12 hour marathons at this point and more shorter sessions, with studying imbetween.
"4 lost pots" is NOT a very good way to evaluate your play. How many pots could you have won if you would have bumped out the winner with an extra raise or check-raise?
How many chips did you leak back by playing marginal hands?
How many chips were lost due to taking a hand too far?
The point I'm trying to make is: accept that you are still new, you have an advantage over many other new players because of your study, but as a new player the FIRST place to look regarding the loss is your own play and not to try to find some statistical reason to justify it.
Welcome to the game!
Jodder
I DO look very closely at my play. Took many breaks and asked other players (consistant winning players, that is) what's going on. I guess you can call it a very loose game. Some folks were amazed that I could play so few hands.
Believe it or not, I won only 6 pots during that time. Also, I was able to only make 2 straights, 1 flush, and 2 sets of trips. I've gone back and can't see any mistakes. A couple of players were betting virtually anything like 2-5 offsuit ans doing much better. Weird!
No mistakes? Look again, and again, until you find them.. because even the best players make occasional mistakes.. and if you just started, I would bet that you made plenty, you just probably need more experience to identify them. Not that I am an expert by any means, but I have played a fair number of hours.. and just in my session last night, I know I made a couple of mistakes..
And if it's the case that you are running badly, the best thing to do would be to just leave and come back another day. Tomorrow is another day. Those things do happen..
I never walk away from a game and say I didn't make one mistake. Your mistakes will be more noticable in time. If I have a losing session, but know I played well I don't feel so bad. I feel worse when I win and think I could have played better. That really gets me going.
I had a tremendous 7CS game Wednesday taking in my biggest win for the year. I know for a fact that I could have saved $8 folding my straight to trip fours on sixth (it was obvious he had two pairs on fifth) and ironically in another hand could have been more aggressive betting my trip fours on sixth (I though another player was strong - high pair - and would continue betting into my pair of fours on board, should have bet them)
Keep playing and determine where you could have saved or gained bets.
It seems as if I've read several posts similar to this one the last couple of weeks. My advice is not to concentrate on your short term win or lost but to concentrate on whether you are playing well or not.
So how do you know whether you are playing well. Here I recommend that you read and study Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players -- 21st Century edition, and The Theory of Poker, get the proper playing experience, and think about the hands that give you trouble. (Also you may want to switch to a standard structure game like $3-$6 or $4-$8 since if you become successful you will want to move up to a game like $10-$20 or higher which has this structure.)
JJ, don't worry about it. At that limit, you could lose $1000 in a 12 hour session even if you are the best player in the world. The swings you will experience in that game are enormous. I know you just started and it's very frustrating to sit down at the table and suffer through a terrible run of cards while watching the rest of the table stumble into good hands with garbage starting cards.
The first thing, which I'm sure you know, is DO NOT be tempted to play like them. That is the road to the bankruptcy.
Your best strategy is to continue playing very tight. Don't listen to anyone who tells you that you need to MAKE opportunities for profit. That basically doesn't happen at the limit you're playing. You can't check-raise-bluff the best hand out of a pot. It just won't happen.
Play solid cards and watch everything everyone does. There will be a couple good players there every once in a while and you can learn from them if you watch closely. Don't gamble, don't speculate with new "moves", and don't mix it up at the table. Just watch, hang tight, and absorb. Consider any losses you suffer as tuition, and any wins you post as good luck.
Don't get too fancy or try anything that is much different than this until you've put in a few hundred hours at least. Remember above all else that the swings are ENORMOUS, and if you are down $2000 after eight more weeks, that MIGHT mean you are playing bad and it might just mean your cards are bad. I've seen very good players suffer bigger swings in that amount of time playing the limits you are playing.
It sounds like you're doing the right thing at this early stage. You are thinking more about the game than just about anyone else at the table, you can be sure.
natedogg
I would like to thankl all who took the time to post a reply. Just as I was able to become an expert chess player some time ago by lots of study, analysis, and practice, I know I will be a good player some day. Everyone has to pay his dues.
One BIG advantage I think I have is that as a poker dealer, I can get to know the regular players while getting paid for it!! Also, dealers have a terible reputation(and they deserve it!) as poker players.
John
The rebuy period has ended (each player began with 1000 chips) and we are playing again after the break.
Blinds are now 50-50-100 and I have the 2nd stack at the table with 4800 (9 at the table).
I'm in the big blind with J8o, UTG with 1rst stack folds, all pass to 1 off the button who calls with the 3rd stack (4000), UTG folds, SB with 2000 calls, 2nd SB folds and I have a free play.
The flop comes J 10 2 rainbow, I check, 3rd stack bets 500, SB folds.
I've been observing this guy during the rebuy period and I found him very loose / agressive, winning 2 times with 2nd pair on the flop, and one time with 3rd pair !!!
So I call putting him on something like A10 or K10, OK perhaps he has AJ or KJ, or on a cold bluff.
Turn is a 8, not suited. What should I do now with my 2-pair ?
Since you said he was loose-aggressive I would check raise him all in and put him to a decision.
That's how I would play it, but then again I don't play no limit.
It sounds like you've trapped yourself. I don't like your hand. A lot of players loose their stacks in the blind, because a hand that's a dog seems to get better, only they end up getting trapped. This is a poor hand.
Consider this, the pot is not raised, he could be bluffing, he could have J-T (this is the hand that will kill you). He could even have a pair of dueces. Maybe, Q-J or K-Q. If this player had a showdown type of hand, like A-J, he would have raised preflop to steal the blinds.
In this situation, I would have been the first bettor and bet the size of the pot on the flop. Put him to the test first. Then if you get raised, you can get away from it with a minimal loss.
I am a $20-$40 hold-em player from Houston who plays in games along the gulf coast. I just finished your excellent book entitiled "Hold-em for Advanced Players 21st Century Edition". However, I have a couple of questions:
From pages 56 & 57 of your book on Semi-Bluffing:
"Let us look at the small pair with an overcard kicker. Suppose you have the Ace of Clubs and the Deuce of Clubs and the flop is: Queen of Hearts, Five of Diamonds, Deuce of Spades and there are six people in the pot. It is correct to bet against typical players"
and elsewhere I read:
"Now suppose the flop is: Queen of Clubs, Six of Spades, Three of Diamonds and you hold the Seven of Diamonds and the Five of Clubs giving you a gutshot against many opponents. This is another example of when semi-bluffing is usually correct."
In the first example, I have not been betting into five opponents with bottom pair, an overcard, and no draw. With this many opponents the likelihood of betting and getting raised by a better hand is far greater than having all five opponents fold. If everyone checked to me, I would check and be happy to get a free card. I want to minimize my cost to take a card off. I might attempt this play against one or two opponents particularly if they had checked to me because I would have a decent chance of winning the pot outright. In the second example, I am assuming you got a free play in your big blind and did not actually waste money to see a flop with Seven-Five offsuit. In that case, I would not want to lead into a crowd of players with just a gutshot. I have no chance of winning the pot outright and I am running the risk of getting raised and paying addtional bets to take a card off.
Why is the number of opponents not the dominant factor in these analyses?
Here's my take on the second example. I too am interested in S&M's rationale and lokk forward to hearing from them.
On betting with the gut shot, the key here is that you have a hand that may be worth calling 2 bets cold. If so, why not bet and take the initiative. If 2 or 3 players just call, you have a lot of options available to you on the turn. For example, a Queen on the turn can easily give you the pot if you bet. If you hit your gutshot, you have a well disguised hand and may get unreasonable action from someone holding a strong hand. Furthermore, by betting on the flop, you improve your chances of winning if you happen to pair up on the river. For example, if you somehow knew that the turn card was going to be a Jack and the river card a seven, your chances of winning are greatly improved by the fact that you bet the flop. Last but not least, you bet because you think that there's some chance you may win the pot right there given the raggedness of the flop - of course, that is an essential ingredient of any semibluff.
Thank you for your response. You make some goods points I had not thought of. But let me ask you this. When was the last time you bet the flop into five or six opponents and they all folded? I play about 1500 hours a year and I cannot remember when this ever happened. Against two or three opponents it sometimes happens but rarely against five or six. For a semi-bluff to work don't your opponents all have to be folding at least 20% of the time when you bet to make it profitable?
I agree with you.
In the 2nd example, I'd check and try a semi-bluff check-raise if an agressive LATE opponent is going to bet as what I think is a bluff (representing somethink like QJ).
If it is bet EARLY I have the option to call depending on my pot-odds (ie if others call).
Too dangerous to semi-bluff bet into a large field of opponents.
I am not sure about the math on the 20% but I agree that rarely do all 5 or 6 players fold. But if you play with the same crew, you can often get a good feel for what the 1 or 2 players who called you on the flop are looking for on the turn. With that info, it makes it a lot easier to know when to semibluff again on the turn in order to take down the pot. Semibluffs sometimes come in two parts and at times even 3 parts.
Jim,
You wrote:b>"Why is the number of opponents not the dominant factor in these analyses?".
I think it needs to be given a lot more consideration and I believe in the first example (where you really want no callers) it is especially important.
I'll make this play but I prefer two or three opponents and I'd rather have a king on board (figuring a king would raise coming in). Against one opponent it really isn't a semi-bluff and four or more are just too likely to call you.
There is a little bit of similarity between this concept and the concept of why best at the moment but mediocre and unimprovable 4th street seven card stud hands are so bad against several opponents as are weak pat hands in lowball. The A2 isn't unimprovable but it really only has five outs if called and even then isn't great.
BTW, I'm in a hurry and this post almost slipped by until I saw skp involved so I figured it must be interesting. That't why I changed the title in my response. Usually a post with your title is simply a request for which book is best etc. and Mason and David usually let others answers. Maybe this will get their attention.
Regards,
Rick
The thing with this is that if you are in a game where not everyone is constantly chasing, you can often assume that you are only up against 1 or 2 opponents even though there are 5 or 6 waiting to act after you. What I mean is that in certain games, if you bet with your measly pair of deuces (i.e. you have A2) and the flop is Q82 rainbow, you can likely count on the 1 or 2 players to your immediate left folding hands with an 8, Ax, Kx, small pocket pairs etc. because they have to worry about your seemingly strong bet given that it is coming from early position and they also have to worry about players behind them who have yet to act i.e., the betting is far from closed for them when it is their turn to act. Thus, about the only guys who may call you with marginal hands are the last couple of players to act but if they have nothing (which is quite possible on a flop like this), the pot will be yours. If 1 or 2 players call, you rely on your ability to "play well" to know when to fire a second barrel on the turn. If 3 or 4 players call, well, you better hit an A,2 or Queen on the turn to have any real chance of winning.
Of course, the above relates to early position semi-bluffing.
One last point, it sure helps to have a backdoor flush draw when making this play on the flop. The backdoor flush draw is not important solely because of your 1 in 20 chance or whatever it is of making the flush. Its importance lies in the fact that your chances of making 2 pair or trips on the River go up considerably when you have the backdoor draw.
Skp ended his post with the following: "One last point, it sure helps to have a backdoor flush draw when making this play on the flop. The backdoor flush draw is not important solely because of your 1 in 20 chance or whatever it is of making the flush. Its importance lies in the fact that your chances of making 2 pair or trips on the River go up considerably when you have the backdoor draw."
This is a concept I'm not familar with and am hoping that Skp or someone else could explain the point; how having a backdoor flush could increase your chances of making 2 pair or trips.
Thank you.
I'll answer your question wih an example:
Let's say the flop is Qs8c2h. You have A2 and "take a shot" at the pot (thanks, Vince). You get 4 callers and are ready to give up on your semibluff on the turn if you miss. Let's further suppose that the turn card will be the 6c and the river card will be the 2h (though of course you don't know this at the time the flop betting is taking place). You check the turn, a player to your left bets and 1 other player calls (or perhaps even raises). If you have Ac2c, you will likely call on the turn and go on to win the pot on the River. On the other hand, if you have Ad2h or something, you will likely fold on the turn and miss out on hitting your deuce on the River.
In other words, the chances of you making two pair or trips on the river don't "literally" go up just because of your flush draw. But the chances of you surviving the betting on the turn in order to reap the benefits of the deuce or Ace on the River go up dramatically.
IMO, this is a little known concept even with good players and is the real reason why a backdoor flush draw (when you have something else going for you on the flop) is just huge. In fact, the live ones (unwittingly) use the backdoor flush draw more effectively than many "good" players.
In my example above, I have got the 2h appearing all over the place i.e on the flop, the river and in my hand! Obviously, the suits should be changed so that it makes some sense. Despite the errors, I hope that the principle emerging from the example is clearly expressed.
"Despite the errors,"
I hope other posters don't get me wrong win I poke fun at this guy. Because he is right on the money with advice and not "despite the errors", it is "inspite of any errors" that I read and heed (unless he contradicts mine of course) his advice.
Keep posting those "DISSSSPIKABLE Errors" buddy.
Vince.
P.S. That dispickable is supposed to be from a famous catoon cat. Hope you got it!
Extra outs make ALL your outs more likely. Hey! That's a great concept, thanks.
David
I'll post this here under "Controversy Rick's" provocative thread title. I pretty much agree with the other comments but would only add a couple of things. One is that a bet like the one with the Ac2c and flop of Qh5d2s and 6 people in involves a lot of delicate feel and knowing the players, IMO. For instance, if you know your players well, when you bet your A2 you should do so with a sense of where a player is at if he calls. You might realize that he would nearly always raise with any queen, but would call with a 5 or a gut shot (like A4s). Then you may know whether or not he'll call again on 4 if he doesn't improve with his five. If you won't have a sense of where you're at when people respond in various ways to your bet, it may be better not to bet at all.
Also, notice that there is some reasonable chance that you actually have the best hand on the flop. You'll kick yourself if you check and it gets checked around, so
Also, you have to make such bets at least some of the time to have enough mix in your play in games containing players who read hands and will take advantage of you if they know too easily where you're at (e.g., "Oh, Jim bet. He's got a queen "). Gotta keep 'em wondering a little.
Those things said, I think there are plenty of time *not* to make such a bet as well. If it's a game where there's almost no chance of winning it right there, and a very good chance of being raised, then forget it -- most of the time.
With the 75 and the Q63 flop, I'm not sure about skp's comment about having a hand worth calling two bets cold. Well, yes, I guess it could happen if you had something like seven people in, then on the flop there's a bet, a raise, and several people call. But I would often just go with the principle that if a hand is close to being worth a call if someone else bets, then it's better to bet yourself if there's some chance of winning it right there and the chance of being raised is not too great.
John, your last paragraph more clearly expresses my thoughts. And I agree with everything else you have stated in your post.
Man what a cop out! C'mon defend that 2 bet call with a gut shot. God, I love it when they catch you!
Vince.
Never one to mince words, are you?...That's why we love your posts!
Not a cop out at all. If you recall my initial post correctly, I said something like 'your hand may be worth calling 2 bets cold". What I had in mind is what John clarified i.e. there's a bet from your immediate left, a raise and a couple of other cold callers. In that case, the gut shot draw can clearly be worth a call.
However, I realized (after reading John's post) that my initial post may have given the impression that I would call 2 bets cold with the gut shot draw no matter what. That is obviously not playing well.
I hope I have copped in again:)
One reason to make this type of bet is that the pot is large enough (or almost large enough) for you to call if you checks. Now if there is just a tiny chance that everyone will fold, and a 1 in 25 chance, or 4 percent, may be good enough, it easily becomes correct to bet. Furthermore, your bet on the flop amy successfully set you up to take it on the turn.
"Let us look at the small pair with an overcard kicker. Suppose you have the Ace of Clubs and the Deuce of Clubs and the flop is: Queen of Hearts, Five of Diamonds, Deuce of Spades and there are six people in the pot. It is correct to bet against typical players"
Betting in situations of this type may be more appropriately labeled "taking a shot". I know Sklansky coined the term semi-bluff and it is a good one, but it sometimes doesn't always relay the message. You find yourself in a situation with a pot that is fairly large in relation to your bet. You have a piece of the flop, albeit a small one. if you need to improve, You do not have a lot of outs, but you do have some. Betting in this situation maximizes your chances of winning this pot. Experienced as you are I am sure that you have seen a large number of opponents fold on a flop bet from one of the blinds. Typical players as described in the example will lay down mid/bottom pair and non draw hands in situations like this. Two over cards may call but in this situation 2 over cards are exactly A,K. And quite frankly you may invite someone with that holding to call here. I think SKP mentioned that semi-bluffs sometimes work in stages. Sometimes 2,3 or more of your opponents fold on the flop and the remainder on the turn or river (Of course on the river your bet now becomes a bluff). Bottom line is that the pot is big enough, you have a piece of the flop, you have outs and the flop is non-intimadating. So there!
I am only addressing this part of your post (A great question BTW) because someone else just hurt my feelings on a nother thread. Said my posts were T'erds! Well!
Vince.
This is a 3-6 limit, fairly full and passive table (few pre-flop raises). I have a loose/passive player to my immediate left. The others are unknowns when the following hand comes up.
I'm 1 off the button with QJ-off, it's folded around to me and I limp in...
Loose/pass player limps, as does the SB. BB checks and we see a flop of:
J77 Rainbow.
SB bets, BB folds and I re-raise my two pair, Queen kicker on a semi-bluff.
Loose/Pass calls for two bets and the SB raises. I call time and start thinking...??? Jx?, J7? 7x? KK? geeze! I raise to get heads up and sure enough Loose/pass has had enough and folds. I couldn't believe she stayed in with that flop, what did she have??? Str8 draw to the jack?
Turn is a Queen giving me top two pair, with a two flush now on board. SB checks, I bet right out and get check raised! Duh! What does this knucklehead have? I still can't put him on trips and figure he got a piece of the jack and is trying to chase me out of the pot. I call.
The river is a blank. He checks, and I check it down turning over my two pair. He shows 72-off and drags the pot.
I just had to chalk this one up to "typical low-limit play".
Comments?
I'm 1 off the button with QJ-off, it's folded around to me and I limp in...
I'm no expert, but I would have raised here. QJo might play alright against few opponents. You got lucky having everyone fold to you in this game, so I would raise to try to keep the field small. If the SB is willing to play 72o for 1.5 bets pre-flop, then you are just going to have to pay him off.
David
QJ off is certainly good enough to raise with in late position to try and steal the blinds. If you get called, you are still in not that bad a shape and have a good chance of taking down the pot if the flop turns out to be Axx, Kxx, Qxx, or Jxx.
Your raise on the flop is fine but I would be pretty cautious once the player to your left calls 2 bets cold. Once Sb reraises, I would consider mucking as you are likely beat in at least one spot. Further, the sb's reraise is made after he has seen the player to your left call 2 bets cold. In all likelihood, he ain't bluffing. Given the texture of the flop, he ain't on a draw. In all likelihood, he has a 7 (and you can't necessarily chalk it up as typical low limit play because he of course got a cheap ride in from the blinds - the same thing could have happened in a 15-30 game just as easily).
Your bet on the turn is also a little dicey. I would likely check behind sb because you don't fear giving away free cards here by checking. Based on his flop betting, you can't put him on a straight or flush draw.
One sb checkraises on the turn, you have to think that your goose is cooked for sure and muck it. Sounds to me like you may be putting your opponents on bluffs too often.
BTW, I don't quite understand your opponent's play on the river...perhaps he was trying for another checkraise...and if it was me he was playing, his play would likely have worked as I would have bet the river.
"One sb checkraises on the turn, you have to think that your goose is cooked for sure and muck it."
Is this really the right play skp? The SB certainly has three 7s but Mike has QQJJ. There are 10 big bets in the pot and Mike will get paid off if he rivers a Q or J. Sure he's not really getting 10:1 but he's already committed the first bet.
Don't forget that the player to QJ's left initially called 2 bets cold on the flop. It's likely that he folded a Jack leaving QJ with just 3 outs out of 43 unseen cards (I am assuming here that you know that sb has a 7 and that the player to the left folded a Jack and that bb folded without a Jack leaving 43 unseen cards). Thus, the odds of improving are approximately 1 in 14. I count 10 big bets when it is QJ's turn to call the raise on the turn. He is only getting 5 to 1 for his call. If he hits, he will gain an additional big bet on the River. That still isn't enough to call. Further, most players in QJ's shoes will call the river even after missing which makes the call on the turn that much worse.
Point taken on the Button likely folding a J. This is certainly an area where my thinking is still weak.
I realize that Mike is actually getting 5 to 1 in this betting round. But, at this point he's already committed the first bet. It strikes me as a grey area (still sorting through some of my fuzzy thinking). I guess I'd be thinking to myself (besides 'doh!') 'is this hand salvageable?' That said, I'd rather not be in this position in the first place.
I am assuming QJ folds on the river if he misses. In the loose passive games I play in the sb has to have a 7. If he's got anything else (besides JJ or J7) he isn't passive.
ok... I'll take my first shot at some analysis (which I expect will be jumped all over where I am wrong).
1)When folded to you pre-flop in this situation, I'd consider raising.
2)When the small blind comes out betting on a flop like this in a passive game, I'm not really liking my situation. I'll call, but not likely to raise (I may not be aggressive enough). In the loose passive games I play in the SB is gonna have a J or a 7. Most likely a 7; if he had a J he'll usually check since he'll be worried about someone with a 7.
When you got re-raised you have to be thinking the SB has a 7. A passive player isn't likely to re-raise you if he has a J because he's thinking you have a 7.
3)When you got check-raised on the Turn the SB definitely has a 7. About all you can do at this point is call and hope for a Q or J.
On the turn I'd take the first card and hope for a Q or J.
"I'm 1 off the button with QJ-off, it's folded around to me and I limp in... "
In most situations you should raise.
"Loose/pass player limps, as does the SB. BB checks and we see a flop of:
J77 Rainbow.
"SB bets, BB folds and I re-raise my two pair, Queen kicker on a semi-bluff."
First, you are not semi-bluffing. You need to think about how likely the bettor is to bet a 7 or is on a complete bluff. If you think one of these two situations is likely, you may only want to call.
"Loose/Pass calls for two bets and the SB raises. I call time and start thinking...??? Jx?, J7? 7x? KK? geeze! I raise to get heads up and sure enough Loose/pass has had enough and folds. I couldn't believe she stayed in with that flop, what did she have??? Str8 draw to the jack?"
I'm not sure if this raise is correct. First, if you are against a bettor hand such as a seven you don't want to make it. Second, given the flop, the player who folded may have a hand that you do not want to fold out.
"Turn is a Queen giving me top two pair, with a two flush now on board. SB checks, I bet right out and get check raised! Duh! What does this knucklehead have? I still can't put him on trips and figure he got a piece of the jack and is trying to chase me out of the pot. I call."
Trips is his most likely hand because given the action he has to be afraid that you have a seven.
"The river is a blank. He checks, and I check it down turning over my two pair. He shows 72-off and drags the pot."
He just saved you the bet on the end probably because he was afraid that you also had a seven.
"I just had to chalk this one up to "typical low-limit play."
He made a mistake calling from the small blind with 7-2 off. In the long run these kind of calls will help you more than they will hurt you.
Mason,
Thanks for the comment on my play!
In retrospect, my initial raising requirements in this type of situation are probably too tight. At the time I would have raised if the QJ were suited. Limping here realy didn't penalize the SB enough for playing that 72o. I had a pretty big lead pre-flop with the QJ, his only hopes were to receve exactly the type of flop he got, a set. Another note on this player, based on his subsequent play, he would have probably called my initial $3 raise (for $5.00 total, blinds were $1-$3) and the loose passive player may have dropped. I was playing the QJ as a straight draw rather than "big cards" and raising would have reduced my pot odds (if the button dropped - 7-6 odds, my $6 vs. $4 blinds + sb $3 call, limping for $3 gave me 7-3 odds, not good enough for a straight draw though). Is this last thinking on odds flawed too?
An additional reason for going to the river looking for a Jack or a Queen is that I felt they were "live" since all the other players folded (indicating that they held no "big" cards) - This may be flawed thinking - the button player may have had a Jack. But in low-limit many players I have seen will play a Qx or Jx suited or not - IMHO - "any two cards can win players".
I also discounted the possibility of a Queen or Jack in the Loose Passive player's hand on the button, she would have remained in the pot to the river based on her previous play (hoping to fill up - like me?). that's why a straight draw for her made sense. Again, I was thinking that her hand contained small cards (probably 56o/s) to a straight with one of the sevens or a flush draw (3-flush on the flop). She was short stacked and "wised up", releasing her hand, a late but good play.
I agree that my raise on the flop was very marginal...
Some others have commented on the pot odds, I agree that I was not getting proper odds here. I'm doing a little gambling, not getting the best of it up front, but if I paired the Queen or the Jack, Mr. 72o would have paid me off on the end big time (he tended to discount "the nuts" when he was second nuts), we would have had a raising war. I could have possibly gotten his entire stack in. The implied odds are HUGE in that situation - IMHO. Also, I'm not worried about getting cracked by 7777 in that situation if I get a bad beat by the quads, well that's poker. I fill up (on the Queen) and I'm going "to the felt" with it.
Thanks again to you and all the others who have commented! This is a great forum!
Mason, I have never seen a 3-6 game. We don't have them here in this neck of the woods. Is the small blind a $2 post or a $1 post? If it's $2, would you not call with 72 off?
$1 sb
The small blind is almost always $1 at $3-$6.
Mason, I have never seen a 3-6 game. We don't have them here in this neck of the woods. Is the small blind a $2 post or a $1 post? If it's $2, would you not call with 72 off?
Two people have already told you the sb is $1, but if it were $2 would you really want to call with 72 offsuit? That's the same as saying you would call with ANYTHING. Nearly every time you call with 72 off you are throwing away 1/3 of a bet - it's got to add up.
For simplicity let's say there are always three people in, one person in middle to late position, the sb and the bb. Your 72 has to beat the bb's random cards AND the other person's selected cards. There are three bets in, or 8/3 bets to your 1/3 bet. You would have to win at least one time in 9 to break even and that doesn't seem all that likely to me considering that you will almost always be faced with one hand that is somewhat better and one hand that is much better. Add in the fact that the BB will raise you when he's got good cards and you won't even be able to see the flop a good percentage of the time.
David
This assumes you'll never win a hand unless you flop the best hand. I can tell you that I have never folded a hand in the sb in 15-30 where there has been no raise (unless the bb is a habitual raiser). I believe this is the right play if you play well after the flop i.e. properly recognize steal situations etc. You can't win the pot unless you are in it. I will call the extra $5 in 15-30 everytime.
This assumes you'll never win a hand unless you flop the best hand. I can tell you that I have never folded a hand in the sb in 15-30 where there has been no raise (unless the bb is a habitual raiser). I believe this is the right play if you play well after the flop i.e. properly recognize steal situations etc. You can't win the pot unless you are in it. I will call the extra $5 in 15-30 everytime.
Well, I will bow to your superior experience. But if I was the BB I would start raising more liberally if the SB never folded. I'm surprised you don't see that more often.
David
Good point. I guess that the bb also has to worry about the third player in the hand who called voluntarily and who has position on the bb. As for the simple case of sb versus bb, it doesn't happen in our games as we always chop the blinds.
in the last two weeks I have made 3 huge pots (15 or more big bets) as a result of no raise pre flop with 7-2 in big blind or button(button pays full bet blind). each time I made trips or full house against "real" starting hands and even someone trying to slow play aces before the flop. Don't let'em hitchhike ! I hate hitchikers in my pot!
When the SB bets into a J77 flop, and then reraises into two opponents that are certain to call, you're looking at trip sevens, J7 or JJ, a hidden overpair or a kamikaze bluff. Only with the last are you alive (dream on). You need a running full house to win, less than a 2% chance. Remember, the SB also sees the paired board, and would have to be almost unbelievably aggressive in a game like this to 3-bet less than a set here.
Okay, so you call. On the turn you improve to what is ordinarily a very good hand but in this case is nothing more than a thin (4 out) draw. (Maybe not -- the buton could well have a jack). Distracted, you become trapped and lose 7 more SB's than you would have if you would have folded to that last raise on the flop.
Oops. I guess any jack after the flop will give you a full house too. The problem is that the button is calling all those bets with something, and some of the time it will be with a jack. So even if you're getting 11 or 12-1 from the pot to draw to a jack or running queens, and are assured of getting several more bets if it comes, you need a lot more than the 15-1 you'd need if you knew your draw was completely live. I still think a fold after the last raise on the flop was in order, although it wasn't as bad as I originally thought.
Forgive my rudeness. Yes, the guy in late position made "typical low-limit plays".
He must have been brain dead not to raise with QJ in late position, unless the blinds play terrible and predictable after the flop unless you raise.
Raise on the flop is a good one, but by no stretch is it a "semi-bluff": There are lots of worse hands he'll bet and call you with. ReRaise on the flop pretty bad, if for no other reason in that he thought he was "semi-bluffing" and than got 3-bet. Button can (sort of) reasonably call one double bet, perhaps with a bad Jack. "Semi-Bluffing" players who may "Counter-Semi-Bluff" with a 3-bet is generally not a good idea. "Semi-Bluffs" are best when used against someone you have confidence will react predictably.
When check-raised on the turn you should have put "Trips" to the top of the list. Few players will check-raise less after 4-betting the flop. You know, some people do NOT routinely (and incorrectly, I may add) slow-play trips. You've got a 4 card out and are getting 10:1; close enough for a call if he MIGHT not have trips.
GREAT check on the end!
- Louie
Thanks for the comments Louie!
20/20 hindsight (kicking myself for not raising with the QJ and not dropping on the flop) I agree with you 100%!!!
Basically I'm inexperienced...
Regards,
Mike
I think your mistake was not raising pre-flop. When everyone folds to you and you are next to the button, I think you should raise with Queen-Jack offsuit. Don't give the blinds free flops so they can run you down with hands like Seven-Deuce.
Your raise of the small blind's bet is not a semi-bluff because you have Jacks over Sevens with a decent kicker.
I was in a 10-20 game that had a chamaleon-like quality to it - the mood seemed to change very hour. We were now in the loose passive hour.
I get Ah9H on the button. 4 players limp before the dude to my right takes it upstairs. I call as do both blinds and the limpers. We take the flop 8 handed.
Flop: Qs10h8h
Everyone checks to me. I bet for value with my nut flush draw/gut shot. 5 players call including both blinds and the preflop raiser. I am already thinking that I will check if I miss as there are just too many players here to bully through.
Turn: Qd
I bet (...so much for my thought process above). One of the blinds and the preflop raiser call.
River: Kd
Big blind bets. The preflop raiser ponders his play. Now, I do something here which I wonder if anyone would consider unethical, sharp etc. and accordingly invite your comments. I had $710 in front of me at the time. 7 stacks of 100's and 2 loose chips. I subtly take 6 chips from one of the stacks and put them on my 2 loose chips. Dude to my right continues to ponder and then finally folds. I then call.
I invite comments both on my play and the legality/morality of my little "move" (BTW, I am not saying that my little move caused "Dude" to fold. It may be that he never even noticed. It also may be that had he noticed, he would be more likely to call. Finally, it may be that he had diddly squat and was pondering just to showboat knowing full well that he was going to fold). I bring the question up because a buddy of mine noticed what I did and chided me of being an angler. At first, I thought he was just kidding. Later, it struck me that perhaps there is something to his comment.
Mike Caro would call your move a classic tell. Why would anyone subtly - but not really so subtly at all - telegraph his move? The answer is to deceive his opponent.
You need not feel bad. You did nothing unethical. You were an angler, but so what? A better player, or a least a better read player, would have spotted your move for what it was - an obvious attempt to decieve. Happens all the time.
I wouldn't consider this an angle. I think of an angle as something straddling the line (e.g. hiding cards behind chips in order to get somebody before you to open thinking you had folded). Restacking your chips isn't illegal. If the other player misconstrued your intentions that isn't your problem. Now if you had picked up those chips and started to bet out of turn only to pull the bet back later then I think you are over the line.
If you want to see what REAL angles look like read John Fox's book. I think Mason was too nice in his review... (although the book does contain some really cool ideas if you read around the angles).
Your "angling" aside, I'm more interested in your seemingly automatic call here. While you are getting 14.5 to 1 on your call by my count, you are facing a cold bet on the river from BB in what you describe as a loose-passive game.
Although I don't know the player or the table, I would at least think seriously about what BB possibly could have had to call a pre-flop raise, a flop bet, and a turn bet that would be worse than what you have (A7-A2 offsuit or JX Hearts, perhaps?).
There are a number of players I've played against in 10-20 that I would fold your hand against in that situation in a heartbeat......
Dr. J
Golly, Ray read my mind straight out. Raise. Raise even of the other guy calls.
EASY raise if you think your hand is worth a call, since it only costs ONE more bet to try to get him to lay down his obviously paranoid pair.
Deliberately telegraphing doesn't seem unethical to me, so long as you telegraph your actual intentions.
- Louie
My call here is based solely on pot odds and the fact that it is unlikely that BB would bet here unless he had a straight or was on a pure bluff. If he was on a pure bluff, there is no hand that he could have that would beat mine i.e I have the best no pair hand.
And I agree with you that there are some players who would never bluff in this situation. This fella was not one of them.
Your statement that he had EITHER a strong hand or nothing is, in my experience, inadequate. There are players who will, with *some* justification, bet a hand on the end they intend to call with. SOME players will check-and-call with their small pair then *SURPRISE* bet it out on the end. You'd have to be pretty darn sure this player doesn't do this before you fail to raise-bluff on the end with a hand you are sure is worth a call to catch a bluff.
And in the current situation he MAY be betting for value a weak King, a hand that is a candidate for a "good" lay down against the sensible player who "obviously" has trips.
There are few things worse than betting your hand for value on the end and then folding for a bluff raise. Therefore, bluff raises against these kinds of players is VERY lucrative.
The game has to be particularly loose before you forget about ever bluff-raising.
- Louie
I am obviously not saying that all bets at the end either represent a strong hand or a bluff. However, in the context of this hand and the way it played out, that is going to be the case particularly because the King may have hit the preflop raiser and the BB knows that. Thus, IMO, it is highly unlikley that BB has a pair hand.
The second point I make may be more game specific. In my games, when the pots get big, guys don't bet and fold on the end to a single raise if they have ANYTHING. Perhaps in tougher games, a player may bet something like 98 on the end in order to make me fold a 10 but fold his own hand if I bluff-raise him.
Now having said all of that, I certainly don't say that a bluff raise is incorrect. As you say, it is just an expenditure of one extra bet so why not do it (sorry Vince - I copped out again!).
id raise on the end for sure. he had at best a king and most likely a smaller two pair or a bluff. you only get called by a caller with a king. comments on this?
i forgot the most important point of all. that is to not try to get the other player out so after he calls, your raise looks so much stronger and you are much less likely to get called and you pick up an extra bet.
I agree with this: my bluff raise would seem a lot more credible if the fellow to my right had called the bet.
I am less sure that a raise is necessary heads up against the original bettor. There is no bluff hand he could have that beats my hand. If he has a hand, it is likely AJ for the double gutter nut straight or perhaps something like 9,8 (although much less likely) i.e. he too was trying for the gut shot, missed and bet out to make me perhaps fold a 10. It is highly unlikely that he would bet if he hit a King. Not only does he have to worry about me already having 3 Queens, he also has to worry about the fella to my right hitting what appears to be AK. Further, he would feel that the hand is good enough to snap off a bluff but too good to bet and risk being bluff-raised. In my experience, 99% of players in the BB's shoes would check a King and make a crying call at the end because of the pot odds. They would not bet with a King.
Comments?
Let me preface this by saying that I try to read every one of your posts as you consistently make me think about seemingly obvious decisions. This (to me) seems like another example. You seem to be seeking comment on your 'angle', but I think the play is far more interesting!
On my first read, I assumed that I mis-read the hand because I cannot see you calling with nut-nothing on the river. I saw the value of raising on the end, but not calling. Given the action (and your own thought process), your bet on the flop and turn were pretty automatic...as you mentioned the intention to check the turn was turned upside down when the queen came...and he probably saw that your hand did not need to have a Q in it. Why (if he realized this), he did not raise the turn is questionable. I most likely put him on a KJ who wants the original bettor to fold his AK if you are bluffing. In this case, I doubt your raise will knock him out. If he is bluffing (with a hand like 79), your raise is not going to get any additional money from him. After all of this analysis, pot odds and your knowledge of the player make a call seem like a good alternative. Man, am I dizzy!
Regarding the 'angle', I see this play all the time and have never thought it cheating...people who raise do this quite often and alert players gain from this. I think using this technique is a prefectly legal 'fake tell' that you will not be able to use very often...my guess is that you don't do this normally when you are about to raise :).
Your ability to process all of this information during the play of the hand is impressive. I am clearly a novice at this game...which is why I read your posts :).
Thanks for the kind words. I am glad that the consensus seems to be that my angle wasn't something that crossed the line. To be honest, I don't believe that these chintzy little moves work in any event and I don't know why the hell I did it in this instance.
As it turned out, I guess BB was also on a flush draw or something as he pitched his cards in after I called. No one saw my cards either.
does anyone know any good books on potlimt seven card stud
Andy,
I've never heard of any nor do I know where such a game is played (by serious players). Wouldn't pot limit stud freeze out all drawing hands?
Regards,
Rick
Perhaps this is ignorant, but if drawing hands would be frozen out in PL stud, why are they not frozen out in PL holdem?
Is it because you may not know for certain whether someone is on a draw in holdem, while in stud it is generally more obvious
Todd
Todd h writes: >if drawing hands would be frozen out in PL stud, why are they not frozen out in PL holdem? <
In PL holdem the player gets five cards for one round of betting, in 7CS it takes two full rounds to get to five cards, so it's more expensive. In holdem if you make your nut draw and the board doesn't pair you can bet and profit. In 7CS a flush or straight can almost never be the nuts, because if someone bets back at you, you have to presume or imagine that they have paired their third hole card.
7Cs is not sutiable for championship NL play for those reasons. IE, the extra bet at fourth and the third hole card.
Aren't most 7CS games in Europe played pot limit?
Yes they are. It's a very interesting game.
Andy.
There is an excellent section of 7-stud pot limit in Ciaffone / Reuben book "Pot Limit and No Limit Poker".
Of course it can be played by "serious" players: in Europe all poker forms are played PL (but perhaps european players are not so serious than american players ... but see the last WSOP results).
Draws can be played: remember that a 4-flush of 4-straight by 4th street has almost 50 % chance to win. Also drawing hands have excellent bluffing opportunities at the end since the last card is hidden.
Anyway, happy to see that others in this forum are interessed by big bet poker: so much thrilling than limit.
I have to mention Norman Zadeh's excellent book again. "Winning Poker Systems" covers full and half-pot betting for Draw, 5CS, and 7CS. Computer charts, good theory,and it's about ten dollars and less than twohundred pages.
Anyone wanting to play 7CS at pot-limit should look at mississippi seven, which is the same game, with a two card flop to each player, (bypassing fourth street) and withthe last card up. This helps the drawing hands a lot, and when you get them you can bet like hell when your oppenent isn't showing a pair.
The betting and bluffing possibilities of a straight and flush are severely limited at pot-limit 7CS by their vulberability to raises by hands of unknown strength. Some people just don't play them for that reason, not to mention the two betting rounds they have to endure before they even get to five cards.
I definitely will buy this book.
For the drawing hands,
(1) with short / middle stacks you always can reraise all-in with something like (8s9s)10sJs since you have more than 50% chance to complete your draw either in flush or straight.
(2) with any kind of stack (short or big) you can stand action with hands like (As5s)Qs or (JQ)K against for instance a J up, because you have the added possibility to make a big pair. Then by 5th or 6th street if you catch a 4-straight or 4-flush in addition to your big pair, you are in very good shape and can often bluff out at the end representing your completed draw.
Of course you can not play (34)5 or (8s3s)Qs against agressive opponents, but they are playable in passive games if your opponents respect more your raises and you may easily buy free cards with half-pot raises (like in limit).
The first poker book I took seriously was Norman Zadeh's WINNING POKER SYSTEMS. In terms of bang for the buck it is hard to beat...It's now twenty five years old and generally as accurate and profitable to read today as it was when it was written. For many years it was absurdly underpriced at $4, now it's a few dollars more.
I gave away my third copy of the book years ago, so I'm speaking from memory, but Winning Poker Systems deals with pot-limit Draw in excellent detail, five card stud and seven card stud, even six card stud, which is a rarity. The book is aimed mainly at pot-limit and half-pot-limit betting, but the information it contains is valuable for no-limit and limit betting also.
Anyone who wants to take advantage of the excellent computer charts and poker chops this book contains will have a concise, easily understood guide to any of the games it contains. Get it before they put the price up again.
I remember a statement from the 5cs chapter, that (K)10 and (J)9 are not much different in strength and a good player can win with both. (And much worse cards, once you get the hang of it, BTW.)
The five card stud chapter is the shortest at about six pages I think, but it was enough to give me a 3/4 win rate from the moment I sat down, and I had a dream run of 15/16 to win $6000 over two months, within six months of starting. The one I lost I was $900 up, got drunk, and went $900 down, so that was a fly in the honeyjar. It was $2 ante, half-pot betting, BTW.
I agree. This text is an excellent source of poker theory as well.
This is one of the best books ever published for poker in the area of game theory. The discussion of game theory analysis for bluffing in the game of low ball is the best.
Peter, you are right. Mush of what I read in poker books today seem to have there roots in the game theory expressed by NZ. Maybe his thoughts should be given more credit.
Dear Forum,
A loose aggressive 11 handed 15-30 HE game in H-Town with several decent players on tilt and several other bad players in also. About 10-$12,000 on the table when I finally get a seat at 1:30. Pass on my 1st couple hands and when my 1st pot my enter (A3d) on the button with 7 callers and it's capped before the flop. Flop is 3-3-10 and I'm off and running with a huge pot. Relax and watch hands go buy until a key hand. I've got A-10 spades one off the BB. UTG folds I raise, tilt-boy to my left raises to 45 and with 7 players in at 45 when it gets back to me, I cap it.
#1 Question: Would you cap it or see it for $45? Flop is A-J-9 rainbow... I bet out instead of trying for the check-raise which is an option but I rarely check-raise. Tilt Boy raises again and does thin the field to 4 players which I'm happy about but I could be beat although something tells me I'm good at this point; Regardless, I just call. Turn is the 4s giving me the nut flush draw. I bet out and get 2 callers; If raised, I was going to 3 bet it. Question 2: Would you check-raise here or bet out?
Turn is 10 hearts; Not the card I really wanted to see but it does make me aces up in case one of em' had Big Slick. SB bets out...I call with white flag, tilt boy raises to 60 and SB calls. Question 3: Do you call knowing your probably beat. I calculate roughly 700 in the pot and I've got to call $30 more and I've got $150 already in the pot...DOes it matter? If it's only a penny more should I call knowing I'm beat? I'll post the results of the already painfully obvious conclusion...I don't want you to think it was I'll bad; I did profit $60 for my 2 1/2 hours of fun...WOOHOO
I'll take a crack at this. I'm not an expert, so feel free to disagree, I'm just doing this to see what people think of my analysis.
I've got A-10 spades one off the BB. UTG folds I raise, tilt-boy to my left raises to 45 and with 7 players in at 45 when it gets back to me, I cap it.
#1 Question: Would you cap it or see it for $45?
I would see it cheap. With 7 players you aren't playing AT so much as you are playing a suited ace. You are looking for a flush or a miracle flop like ATT, otherwise with 7 players you are probably beat.
Flop is A-J-9 rainbow... I bet out instead of trying for the check-raise which is an option but I rarely check-raise. Tilt Boy raises again and does thin the field to 4 players which I'm happy about but I could be beat although something tells me I'm good at this point; Regardless, I just call. Turn is the 4s giving me the nut flush draw. I bet out and get 2 callers; If raised, I was going to 3 bet it.
Question 2: Would you check-raise here or bet out?
You might as well try the check raise here. You don't fear a free card as much as you might because of your flush draw (it could help you). The pot is already big, so you aren't going to thin the field much with a single bet. A check raise might fold a couple of people, though, if they were forced to call a double bet. The pot is big enough to try to win it right now if you can.
Turn is 10 hearts; Not the card I really wanted to see but it does make me aces up in case one of em' had Big Slick. SB bets out...I call with white flag, tilt boy raises to 60 and SB calls. Question 3: Do you call knowing your probably beat. I calculate roughly 700 in the pot and I've got to call $30 more and I've got $150 already in the pot...DOes it matter?
Forget about what you have in the pot, it doesn't matter. With 700 in the pot and a 30 bet you are getting 23:1. If you are better than 96% certain that you are beat then you can fold, but otherwise you probably ought to call. Folding the winning hand is a much larger error than calling one bet. Think about whether tilt-boy is more or less likely to bluff in this situation.
OK, people, how'd I do?
David
I just want to address the river play. Regardless of how much money is in the pot, the small blind has either (most likely) 78 or Q8. But for him, I'd call. Unless you believe he's deranged, I think you have to face reality here and let it go.
Given the size of the pot, I would call this river bet every time. I've never seen a player who's so predictable that they might not be bluffing, or betting a marginal hand, into a pot that big. There must be at least the 4% doubt that David Klatte cites, with any players I know. Call, and be prepared to see a better hand. Then, move on to the next hand, and do your best to play it perfectly.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
To be honest I do not even think I would have come in with the A-10 suited in early position. If you do, I am not sure that raising is the best approach in this game. I only say this becasue if it is a losse game anyway you want to encourage callers, and put little money into the pot until you see the flop in order to increase you implied odds if you hit. I would only raise if I believed that raising would cause A-J or A-Q to fold. In this game thjat is unlikley. So there really is little gained by raising.
Once the flop came you should either check and raise, check and fold or check and call depending on how much action you get, If you check and only one player bets (and at most one other calls), by all means raise. If you check and it comes back to you three bet, FOLD. you are almost WAY behind. If you get more than two callers (after your check-ie check-bet-call-call-call) then just call. Raising won't chase anyone, but by calling there is probably enough money (plus implied money) to call hoping to hit 2 pair or a flush draw etc...
On the turn you should just check and call. I would even call a single raise (but probably not 2). You are really checking hoping that it 1) gets checked around, or 2)you have to call as little as possible. You have to figure that you are going to have to hit your flush to win (although you will call 1 bet on the end even if you miss).
Check raising is the worst option. what you are adding to the pot is insufficient to compensate for the $$$ you are putting in comapred to your chance of winning.
Betting out is not so great either. If it gets raised (and even re-raised) you are going to be forced to call again--better to keep it cheap here--you are probably behind.
On the river, I think you have to check and call a single bet. I would call a raise if it came from maniac as well, as he may have made 10's up (who knows). But in any event you were certainly correct to call one bet into a $700+pot.
I totally disagree with checking and calling on the turn. I'm positive I have the best hand and the nut draw. Why check and let it get checked behind me when there's a possibility one might fold for a bet? The most essential tool to winning in Hold'em is not always the cards you play but getting the most in the pot when you have the best hand and the least in the pot when you don't. Comments? (BTW, SB had 7,8o, and tilt-boy had KQo and I was ahead until the river) .
Russ
I've got A-10 spades one off the BB. UTG folds I raise, tilt-boy to my left raises to 45 and with 7 players in at 45 when it gets back to me, I cap it.
#1 Question: Would you cap it or see it for $45?
No I'll just call. With 7 players against you you are better off just wait and see the flop. But capping is fine if you think someone else will cap it anyway.
Flop is A-J-9 rainbow... I bet out instead of trying for the check-raise which is an option but I rarely check-raise. Tilt Boy raises again and does thin the field to 4 players which I'm happy about but I could be beat although something tells me I'm good at this point; Regardless, I just call. Turn is the 4s giving me the nut flush draw. I bet out and get 2 callers; If raised, I was going to 3 bet it. Question 2: Would you check-raise here or bet out?
With 8 players in the pot that was cap before the flop, the flop is not good for you. There could be A with a better kicker, sets, straights and open end straight draws against you. Also there are very few card that can come on the turn to make your hand better. A 10 could make someone a straight, an A could be beat by a bigger kicker or 2 pair.
Turn is 10 hearts; Not the card I really wanted to see but it does make me aces up in case one of em' had Big Slick. SB bets out...I call with white flag, tilt boy raises to 60 and SB calls.
Here is obvious you are beat. But calling still could be a reasonable play.
Peter,
The turn was the 4s giving me top pair good kicker with draw to the nut flush, not the 10h; that came on the river. The reason I said I was probably good on the flop is because I have played with these players and would know if I was beaten in all but one place(tilt-boy). He could have had AK but that's about all that i read possibly being out.
In a game of unknown players I would not have played this hand the same.
Thanks to all posters!
preflop: capping is not a problem with me. Your hand will win more than your fare share and it will be capped most likely anyway. Cap it.
flop: bet out and hope tilt boy raises to thin the field. Even if he has you beat(which is very likely) the pot is huge. You have a backdoor nut flush draw here which is great and very significant here as you have a chance at the nuts. I believe going for checkraise is a big mistake here....
turn: bet or checkraise is fine with me.
river: call
Also:
"I calculate roughly 700 in the pot and I've got to call $30 more and I've got $150 already in the pot...DOes it matter? "
If you say or ask something like this obviously it matters. RUSSSSSSSSSSS WHAT 150? HAH? WHAT 150? I HOPE YOUR HEARING IS BETTER THAN MY MEMORY?
I played in several games with loose aggressive players last night. One holdem and one stud hand worthy of mention....
5-10 Stud:
3rd) I have (A2)A, 5 callers to me, I raise. My cards are live.
4th) I catch a 2 for two pair. I bet, two callers. One has two clubs showing, the other 9 4 offsuit.
5th) I catch a blank. They both seem to catch blanks. I bet, one calls, loose aggressive player raises. I really don't think he has anything so I reraise. Other player folds, he calls. Heads up.
6th) I bet again, he calls. We both get blanks.
7th) I bet, he raises me. I think it's a bluff. It doesn't matter what he might have caught, I have aces up and his board looks weak, so I am calling him. I have folded on the end and regretted it in the past, but not today! After I call, he never shows his hand! He just mucks and says "you win". He didn't even ask to see my hand.
5-10 HE:
I have Kd9d in the big blind. Loose aggressive player raises in early position. He raises about 45% BTF so I can't be sure he really has a good hand when he raises. There are 5 callers (it was a goooood game...) I call.
Flop is 5d7d2c. He bets, everyone calls, I raise, all but one call, LAG reraises, two fold, I call.
Turn is 3h. He bets again, me and one other call.
River is Kc. He bets, everyone folds to me, I call. I thought I was beat as he would certainly play AK this way (I had seen him do it), and that's what I put him on. He had tried several "plays" but had always gotten caught by the calling stations in the game. I call (for the size of the pot). I really thought I was beat.
He had AQ and I won a big pot with a pair of kings!
Dave in Cali
Wow! Was this one guy or did you find TWO like this? Where do you play? :-)
I just love people who bluff alot in loose games.
David
I don't play stud, but I will comment on the end of the holdem hand. I think you have to make that call on the end pretty much 100% of the time. The pot is large, and there are a ton of hands he can have that you can beat. Any pair 8's and through Q's(more likely 10's,J's,Or Q's), any diamond flush draw etc... I only mention this becasue you seem to think that your call needed some defense--it didn't.
I'm in the big-blind(6-12 holdem). Five people call then the guy right before the button raises. The small-blind calls and I look down and see K-2 offsuit and chuck it without a second thought. The flop has TWO kings,and the last king comes on river! Now I silently go into my coulda woulda shoulda mode and wonder if it was wrong to drop my hand,especially since I was 99.9% certain the rest of players would call the pre-flop raise and NOT reraise (it was just a super passive-loose table,with the exception of the pre-flop raiser who had just come from a broken 15-30 holdem game). I would appreciate any advice, Martin
I am a $20-$40 player and I know of no expert that advocates calling raises even out of the big blind with King-Deuce offsuit except if it was a steal situation where everyone folds to the button and then button raises. If the King-Deuce were suited most authorities would call under the conditions you have cited but even then expert opinion is divided. (e.g.-I believe with King-Deuce suited Malmuth would call under these conditions but I don't think Ciaffone would)
I recommend buying Malmuth and Sklansky's new book "Hold-em for Advanced Players 21st Century Edition" which contains a good discussion on starting hands and playing out of the blinds.
Where can I get the 21C HPFAP book? It doesn't look like there's a link for it in "Books." Or am I missing something? Thanks. Kate
just order hfap and you get it as thats all thats being sold.
"If the King-Deuce were suited most authorities would call under the conditions you have cited but even then expert opinion is divided. (e.g.-I believe with King-Deuce suited Malmuth would call under these conditions but I don't think Ciaffone would)"
There is a major difference between 2+2 and many other authors. Much of Ciaffone's writing is intended primarily for beginners. As a result, he oversimplifies concepts, and advocates a very tight, cautious style. Mason, David and Ray are writing for more experienced players, and they go into greater detail. They also recommend plays that will be profitable for a better player who knows when to apply them, but disasterous for a player who uses them in the wrong situations or the wrong games. While Ciaffone himself is an great player, you want to be wary of relying on advice that is meant to keep new players out of trouble when it conflicts with the accepted expert strategies. I suspect Ciaffone's actual play is much different than what he advocates in many of his columns - e.g. never playing suited connectors. (This would not apply to his pot-limit book, which is written for players experienced in limit poker.)
You shouldn't worry about the results but be more concerned about the reasoning why you mucked pre-flop. If you had played and the river was a blank instead of a King, and you ended up with 3 Kings and a lousy kicker, only to be shown AK or KQ by one of your opponents, it would have been a lot clearer to you that your pre-flop call was a mistake right? The problem with K2-off is not so much that someone else has a better starting hand like AQ, but that someone has a stronger King than you do. If you're going to get in the habit of calling raises with lousy hands like that you'd better play very well post-flop. Mucking that hand on a regular basis is definitely not too tight. If you're going to play it, especially in a multiway pot, frequently you'll need to make 2 pairs or better to win. Heads-up is different where flopping a single King (or heck even a duece) could be good enough to win.
If the game is as passive as you descripb I would call. You are getting a 13 to 1 odd to see 3 cards. I have not seen such a passive game in a while. In a normal game I would fold. I just look at a flop of 3 fives after I throw away my 57o in the big blind. The best flop ever for me in my hold them life. What can I say?
Usually you lose 2 bets with these kinds of calls before the flop and you might flop quads once in a blue moon, but what action can you expect with a flop like 555 when you mucked 57o? Unless the players are really weak and love to throw their money away , no one is going to pay you off as much as is needed to make calls of this type repeatedly.
Hopefully I will not get "slammed" too hard on this...
Playing in a 5-10 HE/7Stud home game, steep blinds, $5-$10; In an HE round and I get 98o in what I would call middle/early position (9-handed game, 4 off the SB). The $5 bring in is raised twice before it gets to me and I automatically release my hand. The flop comes 998 and I'm steaming (inside of course)! As I remember an overpair won it, no FH!
I think my fold in this situation was the correct play, 98o is not worth 3 small bets before the flop to me. Also, I had to put at least 1 raiser on a big pair and I was in a possible "in the middle" position with several players yet to act if someone else called (we were playing a 3-raise cap).
Also, 9's full is a marginal full house with all the raises/players. If a face card hits on the turn or river and I'm probably "bolted" (second nuts - screwed! - love that terminology!). I would have called the bring in, but not one raise, let alone two. The game had a fast structure (blind structure) for me so I would have probably seen the flop if I could have limped (alas).
Too tight in this fast blind structure (IMHO)?
Opinions, laughs, sympathy
That's not even close to too tight. You did the right thing. Practice forgetting your cards as soon as you muck them. :-)
David
you play way far too loose. get some starting hand strategy and learn it. there are precious few hands that can call 3 bets cold before the flop in early position and those will reraise most times. good luck.
Mike,
Too loose to even *think about* playing these cards, even if three nines came out or three eights....which will happen to you if you play enough.
Forget those mucked cards, watch the other players looking for tells, what they play, etc.
no, WAY TO TIGHT! hey where did ya say this game was?..I'd like to join!
The majority of this forum's members would probably stick me with the dreaded "weak-tight" label; so, I'm clearly a mucker with your hand. There is an interesting counterpoint here: you are probably better off calling with smaller suited connectors than big cards.
Unless the whole table is snorting ozone, you're facing several GOOD hands. Your big cards other than AA and KK are probably dominated and likely to produce second best. With puppies you either hit the flop and REALLY put them on tilt, or you muck on the flop.
I don't know if this concept has much validity, and I don't know how many players you need for a given number of bets. I'd be REALLY interested in responses from knowledgable players who do have some of these answers.
Fat-Charlie
You're right, but it probably doesn't much matter.
In other words, if I had to call 3-bets cold preflop, I would rather have a hand like 67s, as opposed to any 2 unpaired big cards less than AK. E.g., 45s is better than KJo, in this spot, for the reasons you give.
However, you still should never call 3 bets cold preflop with any of these hands we're discussing. Either call is losing poker (the difference is merely the size of the expected loss.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
98o is a Sklansky group 7 hand. You were worried if it was correct to fold for 3 bets before the flop? You should have been thinking "fold" even if everyone had folded to you and you only had to call the blind..
In the extremely unlikely event that you flopped a full, I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about how you might get beaten. If you get beat, oh well. Most of the time you will simply REALLY LIKE THE FLOP!
As for the results of the flop once you have folded, don't even worry about it. You made the correct choice at the time you were forced to decide. What happens on the flop has no bearing on whether your choice was correct. What if you fold 27o and then the flop is 227? Would that somehow have made it correct to call BTF? I think not!
Now when you make a borderline decision, especially if you thought about it carefully but finally decided to fold, and THEN the flop gives you a full house...
I usually just say D'OH!... and get on with the next hand....
Dave in Cali
"Also, 9's full is a marginal full house with all the raises/players'
I'll take my chances, thank you very much.
Oh yeah Mike,
Listen to Ray he is the man.
15-30he I am first in 1 off the button and raise w/ KQo. Button, a tight passive player, cold calls, Blinds fold. Flop comes 4JQ rainbow. I bet, button raises I 3 bet button caps. Should I save a bet here and just fold it? I know from previous play w/ this person she will not cap w/ a draw, She might have KQ like me. I am 90% sure that she has JQ.
Given your description of the player, you are likely beat but not by QJ as tight players don't call raises with QJ. My guess is that she has an overpair or JJ. She likely would not 4 bet you with AQ.
. . .remember I am a late position raiser I could raise with several hands worse or only slightly better than QJ and she has the button. I didn't put her on a set as I think she would have just called and raised me on the turn. If she is attentive at all she knows I am a favorite to bet the turn. I three bet the flop because I know she would raise me with any queen or the draw and I want to make her pay for the hands she is most likely to have. When she capped it the gig was up I knew I was beat. I consider trusting my reads and making tight laydowns one of the strengths of my game. It sounds like many of you would force yourselves to find reasons to pay off. The same way this woman would have paid me off with hands like AJ,QT,JT etc.
Then you might want to avoid locking horns with the bystanders for awhile, like a few years. If a good player sees you forfeit a big pot with a hand that you first thought was worth 3 bets, it's just a matter of time. All it takes is one special order multibet bluff in the right place and you're toast. So while I agree that a laydown here is justified from an immediate EV standpoint (probably not, though, if she's just got QJ), I didn't factor the hidden cost that Vince and David alluded to, one that could be worth dozens of "tight laydowns" in spots like these.
... after reading my earlier post I should say that I'm really not some sort of David S. apostle (like Vince ;-)) or schizophrenic, but I read their posts, realized they were right, and was struck by your comment about being proud of "tight laydowns" (which I quoted and then unaccountably erased from the above). The only thing you want to be proud of in poker is consistently making the right plays. Poker aspirations outside this goal are weaknesses.
"because I know she would raise me with any queen or the draw"
"tight passive." I think we need to rethink!
The same way this woman would have paid me off with hands like AJ,QT,JT etc.
"Tight passive" will not call 2 bets in this situation with QT, JT and will have dificulty with AJ.
"I consider trusting my reads and making tight laydowns one of the strengths of my game"
There are two mistakes here 1) "trusting my reads" 2) making tight laydowns (I think this is more apporpriately tough laydowns).
1) If you put someone on one hand and not a group of hands you are making a mistake.
2) "Tough laydowns" are the one of the most common mistakes a journeman poker player makes. They are usually made for the wrong reason, saving a bet. When the pot gets big one should look for reasons to bet/raise/call/win, not reasons to fold.
Vince.
You've done everything you can do, time to pull the plug. Although there are 12 1/2 bets in the pot and more to come and it's only(!) 14-1 against your hitting a king on the turn, consider the following: you can still be outdrawn if you hit, you might be drawing virtually dead against a set, you won't be able to push your two pair that hard if they arrive, you won't win as much when you improve to a winning hand as you will lose when you improve to a losing hand, and several cards (an A or a T) might lead to make a compounding error later. The downside risk of opponents playing harder at you isn't worth avoiding by throwing away a lot of chips.
Limon,
Hiya. If you are *sure* she is not on a draw, then why 90% sure she has QJ? I would say 44, QJ, JJ are all possible, AQ, KQ or other less so. You said tight/passive, I guess, but how much so? Would she NOT reraise before flop with JJ or AQ or KQ? If so (and I guess that's what tight/passive means), and since she now caps, FOLD here.
That is one of the benefits of the cheap, before turn raise, you can now fold before it gets expensive. And maybe this will induce her to feel she can run over you and she can re-reaise when you have JJ or QQ next time instead of QJ and then you have here for the big bets.
Mark
There are many reasons not to fold here. On the other hand the one reason to fold saves you at best a pittance in EV if your analysis is in recommending such a fold is correct. As a general rule you should NEVER give up on a decent size pot merely to save one small bet as long as there are probably at least a few very good cards you could catch on the next round.
David and Vince,
I believe what Limon said about the pot-capper being passive so I would put her on a set. (Against other players, they might have raised before flop, then you know more.) If not that, then two pair, or less likely AQ. What outs do I have? Not many (3?), which might be a loser if I get it. Isn't this a time when one small bet can turn into five with miniscule chance of winning? Isn't this a situation where you take one card, if it isn't a K (giving you top two pairs) you fold? But then with two top pairs, against someone who calls and then caps it, what to do?
I have seen so many people who play like this pot-capper, who always show the nuts -- set of J's or 4's -- and you are chasing to get second place. I feel that my game improved very much over the years when I believed the gut about people like Ms. Pot Capper.
David, and Vince too, oh and now I see Russell: PLEASE TELL ME: What am I missing here?
Mark
Mr. Sklansky (if you read this).
Please note that I have arrived! The poster here has innocently coupled the avowed poker guru(except by Mason and Abdul and Caro and that's enough, Oh wait a minute, there was a certain R. Zee that made a few comments but...), David Sklansky with none other than, me! Yes I am the Vince here! (SKP, eat your heart out!) that's right me not Vince Burgio, me Vince LEPORE!
I quote:
"David and Vince"
Let's say it again:
David and Vince,
Now doesn't that sound better than David and Mason or David and Ray, c'mon! And there are a lot less possible jokes with S&L than S&M, if you get my meaning.
Of course, Vince and David sounds better, but my ego is not so big that you can't take the lead. Now, we all know how busy you are so, unlike Rick, I will not make fun of you but will answer this for the both of us! Of course if you do find the time, pardner, and don't agree with my answer then please feel free to correct me.
Mark wrote:
"I believe what Limon said about the pot-capper being passive so I would put her on a set."
It is important to put your opponent on a hand. It is better to put him on a group of hands.
"What outs do I have?"
You need to reread Sklansky's response. He made a general comment about incorrectly trying to save a bet. He did not address this particular hand directly. Of course, I did. If you can read an opponent as well as is implied in this example you should be more than happy to occaisionally donate 5 small bets. Just to keep the player around. Because if your read is that good then you own this player and will have no trouble taking her "cookies". If there is some doubt in your mind about the opponent you would be better off rereading David's and Vince's (that's me) responses again and heading the advice there.
Again K wrote:
"Isn't this a situation where you take one card, if it isn't a K (giving you top two pairs) you fold?"
No. As with all poker questions it depends.
K:
"But then with two top pairs, against someone who calls and then caps it, what to do?"
I would know what to do and I'm sure you would also.
Well David, how's that? No, I haven't changed just because he coupled your name with mine. O.K. well if that is the way you feel abotu it I am dissolving this partnership. From now on It's Vince and only Vince1 Thank you very much!
(Beat you to that one, huh David)
Vince.
Vince,
Oh my pleasure to help your ego....but I still think that I would fold, and if David was giving general advice, well I agree, but not in this case.
Your friend,
Mark the K
This is on you, Mark. You've created a monster.
Brett
Sklansky answered this one correctly but incompletely. (Now has he ever done that before. Hmmm. Naaaa.) First of all you won't save a bet. You save at most a half of a bet and probably much less than that. If you are correct in your categorization of this player, "tight passive", and she caps the flop you probably are up against a set as SKP notes. Should you fold? No! Yes! No! If you know this player, she probably knows you! If she gets the impression she can beat you by being aggressive well then she will be more aggressive. Players adapt to your style of play. This in itself is reason enough to occiasionally call in these types of situations. Just make sure that your hand and pot size warrant your continuing.
Oh! BTW - The next time this situation occurs don't 3 bet the flop with K,Q against a tight player that cold calls two bets pre flops and raises the flop. That way you may save a bet!
Vince.
I agree with Vince. Three betting the flop was a mistake. I would bet the flop and call if raised. I might then bet the turn. Unless the other player has a set it will be real hard for them to raise again (as they don't want to get 3 bet on the turn with Q-J. If any broadway card comes on the turn you can pretty much bet with impunity, the pot is "protected" meaning the other player is unlikely to raise withput the straight.
In addition, you really are letting someone run over you if you lay down this hand. By playing the way I suggest you don't give free cards against draws, and add some level of deception to future rounds when you just call on the flop and bet the turn when you do have a set.
If button is tight and passive and she's not drawing why did you 3 bet it and not just call and see the turn?
The pot is big. Take a card off. If you don't pick up a straight draw or make two pair fold.
Hi all....
Can anybody explain the rules (wsop) for breaking up tables as players get "busted".(correctly and understandable, me being slow and all :) )
It would really make my day....(searched and searched)
Thank's in advance
Daniel
Ps I know this isn't the forum for this kind of Q:s but I tried "Exchange" with no result. (Maybe I'm wrong, but I think most "pro's" visit this page)
Ds
Take two world class NL tournament players. Would it be to their advantage to become partners (50/50 on prize money after buy ins) in big buy-in, no rebuy tournaments? Then when and if the situation arises, they (prior to getting in the money) go all in against each other thereby putting all their chips in one world class players basket. The winner of the chips continuing on solo for the two from there on. I realize that getting in a situation where this could happen may be difficult.
This is not meant as an acusation towards tournament players. Just a question about the feasibility of this type of collusion.
Vince.
Vince:
Just the opposite would be true. It would be to their advantage to even up their chips. This is true due to tournament mathematics caused by the percentage paybacks that all tournaments use.
Mason,
So if they formed a partnership their optimum strategy would be to try and keep each other in play. For instance if by some unusual happenstance they found themselves at the same table. Let's say one player has a big stack and the other a small stack. The way I read your response, it would be to their advantage for the big stack to lose enough chips to the small stack to keep him in play. I assume a situation where they are both not yet in the money or maybe the timing is not important. I don't really understand the logic (mathematics) for this strategy. I take your word for it. I asked the question because I believed that it was just the opposite. I used reasoning instead of logic. My reasoning told me that if you gave a world class player the advantage of a rebuy (effectively this would be the case if one lost his chips to the other) he would have enough of an edge to assure a profit. Once again logic and analysis wins over reason. Shucks!
Vince.
Lets say the "face value" of tournament chips is the total prize money divided by the total "amount" of chips: $100 prize with T$2000 means each T$1 has a face value of 5c.
In a ring game, the face value of your chips is constant: $20 is twice as good a $10. In a tournament, the face value of your chips depends on HOW MANY YOU HAVE. For example, the eventual winner of the tournament suffers a "bad beat" since the actual value of his chips may be worth only 40% of the face value, since the winner gets only 40% of the prize.
The fewer chips you have the more each is worth. 100 chips is NOT 100 times better than 1. This is the reason it would be FOOLISH to bet marginally for value with your last chip: the chip you risk is worth much more than the chip you can potentially gain.
So, you are better off giving half your chips to your broke partner since the value of your stack has NOT dropped by a half.
If memory serves, there was a well publicised case of a player attempting to muck his best hand knowing the opponent had him beat, and afterwards it was discovered they each had significant investment in each other.
- Louie
No but soft playing against each other especially in the late stages would be a very realistic possibility as Mason implies.
If two world class players were to agree to form a partnership in which they each had 50% of the other, The best strategy for the most part would be to stay out of each other's way. Clearly, Each wants the other to survive because they both would have a high expectation of a money finish. If one were to be eliminated the expected return would be lower. In tournaments, Survival is more important thn number of chips. Often short stacks can hit a couple of hands and become large stacks very quickly.
Their best strategy, especially late in a tournament, would be to even up their chips. This maximizes their chance of both surviving.
Note: The reason I say late in a tournament is because at this point in time the chips have changed value a great deal compared to early in a tournament when differences in chip distribution have little effect on their immediate value to the particular player who holds them. (I also need to point out that the chips change value in the sense that the penalty of losing chips when you are a large stack is not as great as the penalty of losing chips when you are a small stack. This is due to the percentage payback nature of virtually all tournaments.)
"Their best strategy, especially late in a tournament, would be to even up their chips. This maximizes their chance of both surviving."
Are you saying that if they were to maximize one players chips through heads-up loss this would have the effect of reducing their expectation. I get that impression. Seems you are saying the more chips one has later in the tournament the less valuable the chips are. Since chip value is relative, one player with a lot of chips vs 2 players with equal but half as many chips, does this mean that both players have a better chance of making it to the money than one with a lot of chips. Or does it mean that with equal chips one has a better chance of making the money than if one had all the chips? Whew!
Vince.
Vince wrote: "Since chip value is relative, one player with a lot of chips vs 2 players with equal but half as many chips, does this mean that both players have a better chance of making it to the money than one with a lot of chips."
It's not getting into the money that we're talking about here, it's the EV of the situation. If you and your partner have T3K and T13K, respectively, your partnership has a combined EV that we'll label EVx. However, if you were allowed to be given T5K from your partner, thereby giving you each a stack of T8K, your partnership will now have a new combined EV that we'll label EVy.
EVy > EVx, in the above case.
However, if there are still quite a few players left in a tournament like the WSOP main event (let's say 50 players), and the money isn't paid until the final 27, it MAY be that the odds of 1 or more of you making the money (at any level) is higher if you skew the chips in favor of one partner. To be honest, I'm not sure of the answer to that one. Anyway, whatever it does to your odds of making the money, evening out your chips increases your team EV.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You have 6-6 or 7-7 in the big blind. There's a raise from middle position, a call, and a three-bet from the button. If you are confident that the original raiser will not cap and that the caller will call, should you ever call in a "normal" game (i.e. mostly solid players)? What if you are in a wackier game where the button is a semi-maniac? I recognize that some of time when you flop a set, you will still lose (and lose big), so that affects the odds.
Here is my analysis:- 1. The first raiser has 5% chance of a higher pair. 90% chance of having two cards higher then your 6/7. 2. The second cold call has 3% chance of a higher pair and 95% chance of having two cards higher then your 6/7. 3. The second raiser has about a 50% chance of a higher pair and 50% chance of having two cards higher then your 6/7.
This menas you have about 55% chance of a higher pair out there against you and you are a big underdog in those situation.
The other 45% chance you can only win about 25% of the time if all go to the river.
Someone is going to bet before the show down.
If you do not have a set you probably must fold and not be in a show down situation.
The above is the best case for you. My quick evauation is to fold.
If the raiser or the cold caller have a high pair they may reraise and then you know you are against a bigger pair and your chance is very slim.
So it costs 2 bets and you expect 3 others to put in 3 bets each; so you get 9:2 or 4.5:1 odds. A benchmark threshold for me is I need to expect about 10:1 for my set to cover the times I lose. If one of them calls you down you get only 5 more bets.
The extra action you can expect IF they have big pairs will, I suppose, about cancel the extra times you lose to their bigger set.
So I'd say call if you can expect excessive action from these 3 if you make the set, or if they are sure to check those few times your hand is actually good on the flop, or if for some reason they are easy to bluff. In this last case, you can call with any old cheese.
- Louie
LL -- you forgot the blind that you already have in preflop. That makes calling a notch better. i.e., 10:2 or 10.5:2 (depending on rake). Anyway, I'd agree with your points. (I only aim for 9:1 [that threshold you mention], but that could be a tad liberal. Ah, who's counting anyway?)
"Ah, who's counting anyway?)"
This is true WHO IS COUNTING?
I have a problem doing just that in a loose game with a lot of chips "flying" into the pot. I have a hard time figuring out the correct pot-odds for a drawing hand. Is there a fast way to get these numbers or is it just a gut feel at that point. Right now I know that there are a lot of chips in the pot and the odds to hit my hand but if I am just a bit off should I just FOLD or go for it. even with the incorrect odds.
thx
mj
Don't count money; Count bets. I like to count "full bets" and "half bets" rather than "big bets" and "small bets".
So if 5 players took a raise before the flop, the raiser bet and is called on the flop, then there is 6 full bets in there, and I am getting 12:1 (half bets) to call. If there is one additional caller, then a bet on the turn I am getting 8:1 full bets to call.
This works whether you are playing $10/$20 or $2.63/$5.26.
Actually, a pretty good idea of the pot size is plenty good, since a "mistake" only costs a small fraction of a bet. The times it matters most is when the pot is "large" and you chances "slim", such as if you are considering taking one more card to snag trip 222s.
If you need to stop and recap the betting to calculate the pot, then do so.
- Louie
Scott,
You wrote: "If you are confident that the original raiser will not cap and that the caller will call, should you ever call in a "normal" game (i.e. mostly solid players)?".
In Califonia, I find that once a pot goes to three bets it goes to four bets over half the time. The only time I would be confident that it won't be capped is when the the original raiser raised all in (or his call would put him all in). And that would hurt your implied odds, since a small pair is a "brave hand" when it flops a set and wants post flop action.
In capped pots, my own rule of thumb is that I need at least four opponents with a small pair, since I'll almost always need to flop a set to win. In a pot with a single raise, three opponents are enough (especially if you have others trapped between you and the raiser), and two weak opponents are enough for a single bet. Other factors will allow me to modify this a bit (up and down).
Regards,
Rick
Thanks. The more I think about it, the easier the laywdown it is. (I always lay it down, BTW). Just wanted to make sure I am thinking clearly.
Hello,
I have only got 2 questions with this post...
1 Where do you play on IRC, and how.
2 I read a section in a book by Doyle Brunson about changing the speed of your game and how that is you should play, and I was wondering is that how you should play when playing low-limit HE or should you play a tighter slow game as compared to the loose agressive game?
Go to www.anet-stl/~gregr and download the windows client to play on irc. It will have everything you need.
Is your URL complete and correct? My browser can't find it, and my ISP is part of the backbone running BGP. Also: is there a Java or Linux client? Some of us don't use Windows.
Fat-Charlie
The URL is not correct. It was rather an obvious anarchistic attempt to bring down the government by spreading false information. Try www.poker.net or better yet Mr. Mummert's page.
Izmet Fekali
YOu can use any irc client you want. There are some ircii macros kicking around that are pretty good. Check the RGP FAQ for location. If you can find them send email to me and I'll forward them to you. irc.poker.net is the name of the server hosting IRC poker.
I just left off the .com. www.anet-stl.com/~gregr. I just tried it and it works. If you still have trouble, replace www with webusers as this is what actually comes up.
This page has links to support other OSs as well. The client is designed specifically for poker, as opposed to being a generic irc client.
Switching gears is usu. used as deception. Its generally unneeded in low limit. Enough of your opponents are loose that solid straightforward play will get the chips.
The idea of occasionally changing speeds makes sense against players who are observant and aware as to how you play. Against players who play too many hands and go too far with them, and are essentially unaware -- as is the case in many low limit games -- the idea of changing speeds has little value.
"The idea of occasionally changing speeds makes sense against players who are observant and aware as to how you play."
I agree with this statement. Just one thing. It may be better to "change tables" against these type of players.
Vince.
I'm curious as to which of the major forms of poker -- 7CS, HE, or OM -- do you think a good player has the best chance of winning at in a typical casino?
John
"I'm curious as to which of the major forms of poker -- 7CS, HE, or OM -- do you think a good player has the best chance of winning at in a typical casino?" Against terrible players, who play way too many hands and call too much later in the hand - Omaha-8. Against mediocre players, who play somewhat too many hands but are predictable, passive and in many situations fold too easily after the flop - holdem. Against decent opposition, an expert will usually do a little better in stud than in holdem.
"Against decent opposition, an expert will usually do a little better in stud than in holdem". WHY?
I think hold-em is the best poker game. I play $10-$20 and $20-$40 hold-em as well as stud. In my opinion, stud players play stud better than hold-em players play hold-em at the intermediate level. If you doubt this, try a simple test. Just spend a couple of hours watching a $20-$40 holdem game and write down the two card holding of the player who wins the pot. Also write down his position and what the action was pre-flop before he came in. Did he limp in? Did call a raise? Did he raise? etc. When I did this I found that about 25%-30% of the time the winning player had no business being in the hand in the first place. For example, you observe that a player wins a pot with Queen-Nine offsuit. You see that he came in under the gun. Well, this is not a playable hand under the gun. I don't think you would find an analogous situation at a $20-$40 stud game. I don't know about Omaha.
I would be very interested in hearing any of your opinions, on how this game plays, or looks: it's called SHANGHAI. It's holdem with a three card start, (two down, one up) a two card flop, with sixth and seventh as normal.
So deal each player two down-cards and one up, flop two communal, then a sixth and a seventh, making four communal at the end, with two hole cards and one upcard to start. This introduces the powerful three card start and card-reading characteristics of 7CS to holdem, and makes small pairs, straights and flushes much more playable and profitable than in either of those games. Apart from a few head to head games with a friend of mine it's never been played, as far as I know, though Huxley (now silent) has mentioned the rules here.
My belief is that holdem players will be very interested in the 3-2 start and that 7CS players will have a lot to like about the card reading possibilities of this game. Flopping a nut straight or flush and being able to make full pot bets to the end (if no pair appears) will be a novel experience for 7CS players.
I'm just looking for honest unemotional opinions based on play of the game, or a spot assessment of it's playing potential based on your poker knowledge. ........Is it a poker pearl, as I believe? Or is it something else, in your opinions? Gentlemen, cast your votes.
Played 6 hours HE. At first I was very tired and didn't play well at all. Was down $180.00 before I knew it. Sure, my trips didn't hold up, neither my AK offsuit.
Took a break and mentally reviewed my strategy. I realized that the game of poker is a living thing. it is constantly changing. There is an ebb and flow to it. Earlier on, I would shoot in a raise with AK offsuit and eventually get crushed when one of my six callers made a straight or flush. No reason to be agressive when everyone within earshot is going to call you. Decided to concentrate my efforts on those hands which increase in value with many callers - small pairs, suited connectors, etc.
Little by little got back. I reduced the value of large pairs and increased that of suited and unsuited connectors.
Ended up only $25.00, but the lessons were priceless.
John
i hope the lessons you learned were that playing badly or tired bring loses. and that changing your play to the conditions of the game is paramount to winning. as far as the ebb and flow of poker i know nothing except that may refer more to water and if you play bad you will get drowned. poker is indeed a living thing as it will bite you badly if you dont handle the game right.
Against opponents that consistently provide multiway action large pairs do never go down in value so much that you should play them delicately. When you're as likely to be up against T8 hands as AJ hands push QQ and JJ almost like you would AA and KK in a tougher game.
In loose Omaha-8 games, nut low draws and suited aces go up in value. As Ray writes in HLSFAP, high hands don't do well in this type of game. The best ones are generally still playable if the game is passive and you can get in for one bet. A hand like KsQsKdJd has enough "extra outs" in addition to the paint pair to be worth seeing the flop. But a paint pair itself has little value (KK is markedly better than JJ). In a loose game, you need to flop a set, and even then your hand is very vulnerable to straight and flush draws, and when it does hold up you may only get half the pot. So KK93 rainbow belongs in the muck, as does a partially connected hand like QQJ4 double suited. My approach has always been to fold high hands without a second thought unless all four cards are connected. Many people, including Mason and Badger, have suggested that my approach to high hands is too tight. In holdem or stud, when the game is loose and you can get in cheaply, many additional hands can become playable. Players who play overly tight in those spots are costing themselves considerable profit. Mason suggested that in late position, after many limpers a hand with only three connected cards like KsQsKd2h would be playable. Badger suggested that a pair of kings is generally a very good holding in a loose game, even without all four cards connected. He also mentioned that I am undervaluing high hands in general. When many bad players are in, and the game is passive, is it possible to play looser than HLSFAP recommends for late position play? Which additional hands could be played?
Dan,
you may be a little too tight in weak player games. but dont go very far left. id always play kkq2 one suit with many limpers in a loose game. i hate to be specific here because then i always have people tell me that the hand i said was ok to play was the hand they now open under the gun with. yes when many bad LOOSE players are in you can play looser than said to if you are in fact a good(much better than the field) player. id still have hands that can make the nuts for low with redraws or make big high hands.
Dan, Ray,
I also routinely through away any three legged high hand. In defense of Badger (does he need defending?), he had an interesting post on rgp indicating that there is a big difference between KKQ2, QQJ2, and JJT2. I would have considered them all close and bad; he indicated that the hand with the KK is much better and playable for one bet in back against many callers (I would guess it also plays OK heads up).
I agree with Ray Zee that once you start playing marginal hands in optimal situations it is very easy to start playing them in situations that are far less than optimal.
Regards,
Rick
I'm back in NJ for a short trip to tie up some loose ends. While I'm here, might as well play some poker! The Sands 5-10-15-15 stud game is great! They have 10-20-30-30 as well but I didn't play it. I might try it before I leave. Made a nice score at 5-10-15-15 then went to the taj. Had an unbelievable night, biggest single night ever.
I played 5-10 HE and stud 5-10 and 10-20 at two different casinos. I must have played in 12 different games. Last game I played in was 5-10 HE. It had two loose aggressive players and four calling stations. One semi-maniac who was a couple to my right.
I get Kd9d in the big blind. two callers then LAG raises. It becomes a seven way pot, I call.
Flop is 2d7dJs. I bet, LAG and several others call, button (maniac) raises. I call, almost everyone calls, Five players.
Turn is a small spade. I bet again, LAG raises. I put him on AK. I have seen him similar hands aggressively every time, whether he flops a pair or not.
River is the Kc. I check, LAG bets, One caller, I call, rest fold. I thought I was beat, but the pot was so big I had to call. Turns out he had AQ and had bluffed on the end! No one else hand a king! It's almost the same hand from a couple days ago! I called on the end for the size of the pot and it paid off. This one pot was a big chunk of my profit from that particular game. I wouldn't have liked losing to a better hand, but I would be furious with myself if I lost because I folded the winner on the end!!!!!!!
variance....
It was interesting how the game went as far as my short term variance. When I first sat down, I went up about 130$ right away. then I slowly missed flops and paid blinds and got rivered until I was actually down about 30$. Finally, I won two pots, (including this one). After almost two hours of not winning a pot, suddenly I am up again. Those two pots accounted for my 170$ win in that game, all of it at the end....
For those players who were talking about short term variance, here's a perfect example of how unpredictable poker is. You never know ahead of time how it will turn out. There's no way to predict it. I got a couple good hands, then hours of total garbage, then a couple good hands.... The good part is that I finished a winner. I was ready to leave anyway! My big stack of 100s made me feel much better about the hours of trashy cards I threw away!
It's unpredictable how this will happen at any given session. This is just one example and your results will vary!
Dave in Cali (on the road)
That's why it's good advice to call when the pot's big. You only need small chance of having the best hand for the call to be profitable.
That's why it's more difficult to play pot-limit. You can not any more play so mechanical, you have to take a tough decision (for a lot of chips).
Having received my edition of 21st century HPFAP and reading it diligently, I have a question regarding your middle position strategy. On p.28 you state small pair and medium connectors should not be played in middle position if no one has voluntarily enterd the pot since you will not get the multiway action that these hands require. However, on p.31 you state that you should almost always raise rather than call when 1) no one has entered the pot,2) you have a playable hand 1-6, 3) reasonable chance all players will fold. When i look at the hand rankings for groups 5,6 they contain 87s, 65s,54s,55,66 which are small pairs and medium suited connectors. It seems to me to be contradictory advice. On the one hand, your saying to muck these hands with no one entering the pot p.28 and then your saying if your first one in you should raise with groups 1-6 p.31 which are the medium suited connectors and small pairs. Which is the correct advice? I must be missing something. Any comments appreciated. Ice
I think that you are confusing middle with late position. The key words are "begins to come into play."
Mason
Thanks for your response. When you say begins to come into play (which i missed) do you mean if your the first one in middle position you sometimes raise with these hands to mix up your play rather than routinely? The reason I'm asking because in late position if i'm the first one in with a playable hand i always raise. However, in middle position being the first one in, i sometimes raise with these hands depending on the competition. Does this sound like a reasonable strategy? Thanks Ice
Remember that there's a difference between early-middle and late-middle. e.g., I would usually just fold QJ from four off the button, but I would sometimes open for a raise with it from two off the button.
Also, you have to distinguish between different types of hands within the same groups as a function of the situation. e.g., I'd make that open-raise from two off the button less often with 65s, though I'd actually find more opportunities to play 65s than QJ from four off the button.
Note that advice somewhere early in the new edition that says that once you get to a certain point of knowledge/skill, you move beyond the groups and go instead with your knowledge of the intrinsic value of the hand in a given situation. I think a major step in this direction is thinking about which hands in a given group a particular piece of advice might most clearly apply to.
A key factor is how loose and how tough the opponents yet to act are. You should fold in the typical game. However in tighter games like daytime Mirage 20-40 you should often raise. And with loose passive players behind you, you should call.
Thanks for the responses. You have answered my question and all deserve a gold star. By the way 21st HPFAP is a great book which has helped my game tremendously. Keep up the good work. Ice
We are looking at more books and have already signed a contract with a new author who is a regular poster on this forum. I won't announce anything at this time since it is not our policy to announce books until they are ready. However, for those of you out there with books in your head, we are always glad to look at a completed draft. However, keep in mind that we don't publish anything unless David and I feel that it is exceptionally good, and assuming we accept the book, we do assist with any rewriting (which could be extensive) if we feel it is necessary.
David Who?
Vince.
Are your books also on tape? For people that have travel time but can not read while driving.
thanks
No.
After a years wait, my casino game called Holdem Challenge will finally be tested at The Biloxi Grand starting September 29. I will be gone for a week to oversee dealer training and the first few days of the 60 day trial period. If any of you are down there please stop by and tell me what you think. I doubt I will be posting for a while so I ask Vince Lepore the to answer any questions directed at me in my absence.
" I doubt I will be posting for a while so I ask Vince Lepore the to answer any questions directed at me in my absence."
O.K. Let's see now, who posted this. Mason, naaa he's to uptight for something like this. Louie, could be, but he is definitely more articulate than this fellow. Rick, no he doesn't even know how to spell Sklansky. Abdul, nope, doesn't post here anymore. Fossil, no way he's a Mason type. Tom, could be, I'll think about him for a while. SKP, SKP, Hmmm, naaaa, SKP would have said that he made a mistake and apologized for it, couldn't be him. Zee, C'MON HE AIN"T NEVER USED A CAPITAL LETTER ANYWHERE. (Ray, cap key, third from bottom on right side of the keyboard). Now even though I don't think that he has the brains to conjure up a scam like this it could be 3 Bet Brett. Definitely his type of humor. Maybe Dazzler, No he doesn't even know where Biloxi is! Huxley, Zanetti or whoever he is. No way. It would have taken him 4 paragraphs to say the same thing. Chris or Todd, no they both like me! Well anyway one of them does. I could go on and try and figure out which of you wonderful 2+2 posters found posting this amusing but I will let others do that for me. I don't have the time. (Does that sound Sklanskyish or what). Tom, I still can't rule him out.
BTW- I will be in Biloxi on the 20th or 21st of October. I will check out this so called Holdem Challenge only if Sklansky sends me a complete set of rules. How to beat the game would be nice also.
Vince.
Vince,
I think the only guy devious and clever enough to pull off such a scam would be VINCE LEPORE! You are definitely capable of writing a "Skleanskiish" setup post right down to the mispelled words and bad grammar. Then you cast suspicion upon everybody but yourself. I have my money on you.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I never thought of that! Vince? No! Too obvious. Evidenced by your response. Nice try though. I now must reconsider whether it really was you. If I find a dictionary with "Sklansky" in it I will name you as the number 1 suspect. Even though you are spelling challenged I think that you know how to use a dicionary. So you are now back on my short list. Of course you also may have gotten help from Fossil (English Teacher you now). Yeah that's it, that's the ticket, a conspiracy. Should have thought of that before. Yeah and I bet Sklansky, with his sense of humor, is just rolling on the floor right now.
Vince.
BTW - Believe it or not this is an excellant poker thread. We have all heard snide remarks about poker players and lying. Well, we have a chance here to test the veracity of the 2+2 poker world. Come clean, oh you, the great imposter that forged oh mighty Sklansky's name and redeem yourself!
Off to Foxwoods!
I wish I would have thought of this, but I didn't. I think the jokester is Mr. S himself. This is an extremely cruel prank on the readers of this forum though, because from now on Vince will be insufferable.
Brett
After reading the S&M posts below under "Contradictory Advice," I think Vince is right (did I just say that?).
Brett
Well it's time for me to spill the beans. The original post in this tread was put up by Vince Lepore. However, it is true that David Sklansky is in Mississippi, and I'm sure that he would be glad to meet some of you if you happen to stop by.
"The original post in this tread was put up by Vince Lepore"
Don't you believe it! Mason, I am impressed. Never, I mean never would I have thought you would lower yourself to my level. Then again this might just be a trick of Sklansky's. Huh! BTW- I still haven't gotten a copy of the rules (and optimum strategy) for Holdem Challenge. When I go to Mississippi next month I want to start a thread on this game.
Vince.
Vince @#*&%#$# wrote: "Of course you also may have gotten help from Fossil (English Teacher you now)."
What's with all this English Teacher crap? Vince, I'm a scientist, not an English Scholar, dammit!
Now, the fact that I went to law school and had to learn how to write in complete sentences with punctuation, capitalization, and no typos does not make me an English Teacher. Nothing against great works of literature and the like, but I have never had any interest in actually STUDYING the English language. Unfortunately, in my line of work, you are graded by what you actually write, not what you meant to write, so I have learned to be as exact as possible.
Later, Greg Raymer (Biotechnologist, Chemist, Patent Attorney, and FossilMan)
"Later, Greg Raymer (Biotechnologist, Chemist, Patent Attorney, and FossilMan)"
Fossil,
Nice try, but you can't fool a fool (me)! Do you think I would ever believe anyone that went to Law school and plays poker. Another good poker lesson for the rest of you. BTW - "Vince @#*&%#$# wrote" Not very nice ling(o)uage for an English Teacher. So I guess you must be a lawyer.
Vince.
P.S. Just a little humor Professor.
Vince wrote: "BTW - "Vince @#*&%#$# wrote" Not very nice ling(o)uage for an English Teacher."
Hey, "@#*&%#$#" is whatever you make it, Vince. So, if it's not very nice lingo, you're responsible, not ME.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
We have a strict policy against foul language on this forum. There will be no more "@#*&%#$#" allowed even if it is Vince's middle name.
Well Mr. Malmuth, if you said that "@#*&%#$#" was Abdul's middle name he probably wouldn't post here anymore. Oh I forgot he already quit. (Do we miss him? Yes.) Well then if you said that about Skp.. Hmm no not him he likes you and wants an another essay (incomplete I might add) published here. Then Louie, no not Louie, he would say "@#*&%#$#" "@#*&%#$#" back at you! GD, Gd he just came back and wouldn't understand it. Fossil is already mad at me so I leave him out. I got it. Say it to Rick and I bet he joins Abdul. Big baby.
Vince. P.S. Your just fortunate that "@#*&%#$#" is my middle name. Yeah that's right Vince "@#*&%#$#" Lepore. My parents felt the same way you do. What a guess!
Vince wrote: "P.S. Your just fortunate that "@#*&%#$#" is my middle name. Yeah that's right Vince "@#*&%#$#" Lepore. My parents felt the same way you do. What a guess!"
Aha! I knew it! Let's sit down and play some poker Vince, I think I have a tell on you.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"Let's sit down and play some poker"
Believe me, I am looking forward to that (fun filled) day!
Vince.
Obviously some readers have never heard of it and want to know the rules / structures / how to beat etc.....
So how about it? Dave? Vince? Other miscellaneous Sklansky imposter? (If it's you Hux, please be as long winded as possible as Vince's replies to your posts are almost as entertaining as your posts!)
Dave in Cali
By way of the computer casino game BEAT THE HOUSE 2,some of us have been playing HE/7-Stud Challenge(single and double)for some time already.Like to see the game make its way to N.E.Kansas/N.W.Missouri casinos.
" ... ask Vince Lepore the to answer any questions directed at me in my absence."
OK.
What's the meaning of life? ..err.. What's the meaning of Poker?
- Louie
"What's the meaning of life?"
Louie,
Sklansky meant questions he could answer himself. Since I know he couldn't possibly answer the above I won't give the correct answer here.
Now: "What's the meaning of Poker?"
Ditto!
Vince.
What's the meaning of Poker?
"... I won't give the correct answer here..."
Shucks. Now think. How often are you going to get a golden opportunity like this?! Are you SURE you don't want to take another stab at it, OJ?
- Louie, Vince's straight man.
How about "Indeed, and I'll let other's elaborate", or "That's a falicious question" or "42"?
Louie,
O.K. Here goes.
Poker: The method by which intelligent humans choose to grumble.
Vince
"take another stab at it, OJ?"
I'd love to but I seem to dropped my glove somewhere and must ask Mark for some help finding it! Touche! Oops another slashing phrase.
Now all of Vince's posts will begin "Speaking for David Sklansky and myself,"
Eight players .50 ante 1-5 7CS. 5 seat 2c brings it in for $1. I'm next 6 seat 44/4 I call, 8,2,3 call. Fourth street 3 seat pairs 88's bet's 5, 5 drops, I catch a blank so I have 44/4x, should I call or raise with 2 players behind me with no two flushes, straights, or anything to worry about and why? There are no 8's or 4's out.
Thanks Paul
I would raise, if not raised back figure 2 pr and not trips. Just what I try, If 8's reraise I consider folding
"should I call or raise with 2 players behind me with no two flushes, straights, or anything to worry about and why?"
Wow! What a situation. Especailly at 1-5. What a great question. I hope all the 7 stud players at all levels respond to this. In structured games at or above 15-30 it is sometimes better to raise with small rolled up hands. Especially against a good line-up.
But that isn't the question now isit? (is it should be one word, don't ya think). My experience at 1-5 tells me that the correct play here depends on your opponents. How loose they are, the one that bet and those yet to act are equally as important. The most obvious answer is to fold. There is only $14 in the pot and even though it appears that your implied odds are correct they probably are not agaisnt good opposition. If you raise you will probably drop everyone except the 8,8. Do you want to play heads-up against a paired door card that is higher than your set. I don't like the situation. I would prefer help. Help in the form of pot odds. The best way to influence pot odds here is to just call. Now you have minimized your investment and encouraged others to call by making the pot bigger.
"There are no 8's or 4's out. "
No there are 3 4's and 2 8's out. How high and live is your side card is a consideration. But only a minor one in this situation.
My bottom line play here is to call and try to make a big pot. If everyone that calls, blanks on 5th street and I had one live card higher than the 8 showing I would raise. Might even raise without a higher card. Depends on the read on the player with 8,8.
Vince.
I wouldn't raise here especially if my odd card wasn't higher than an 8 or looks as though it could help form a possible flush. More imporantly if the two other players wouldn't call a raise then that means a small pot for you.
Just call!
if the player with the 88 is selective at all you should make crying calls all the way down and hope you get some other callers. if he checks then play your hand as the best unless you get raised then make more crying calls to the end. if you fill up then bet or raise and if you get raised then make more crying calls till the end.
Thank you all for your answers. I had just sat down and so had he which is pretty typical in a 1-5 game. The reason I called was because I saw all the garbage on the board and a pair of 8's looked awfully good. I figured him for best two pair because he would of slow played trips by betting 3 not 5. I also figured he might of just had 8's and by calling maybe I could get one more player in but I seriously doubted it. This put us hth, when the other two dropped. He bet 5 all the way to the river and I bet 5 on the river and he called to see what I had. I won the pot with trip 4's and he had a pair of 8's. He said he was trying to steal the pot after the hand.
comments on the rest of the hand
Paul
Poifect!
Vince.
It sure seems that with the growing popularity of poker, that the with the number of new players the way to play changes constantly.(at least at lower limits)I play mainly in Ia. where there is not a lot of places to play but a lot of players. When playing 8 handed stud (1-5) Its not uncommon to have a raise with obvious high pair called or even reraised by drawing hands that shouldn't. 1 or 2 callers is great but more and more it seems 3,4,or 5 and with more then 2 it seems I get drawn out on constantly.So much so that when someone doesn't hit, it does not make up for the times they do. $ wise that is.Just a thought to get some responses. THANKS
with many people in the pot you must learn to get out with pairs at the right time and play more drawing hands yourself. dead cards will kill you in multiway pots.
Dear Mr. Zee:
I have read all of your books, and they have been vastly helpful in improving my game.
I am a fugitive from the RGP group, having been notified about this group through another post at RGP on the deterioration of RGP. I probably will go with both groups for awhile. I think they're referring to the Douglas Grant entity as the main cause of the difficulty, who sounds to me like the kind of guy you would occasionally encounter in therapy groups who had joined to destroy them (Im a psychiatric).
I had posted a message a week or so back, but it was not answered by any of the experts. It's simple: Does it make any sense to play at PLANET POKER? It would seem to me, on my scores, not to make sense at all. Obviously, if you cannot answer this post by reasons of time commitments or other factors, I will completely understand.
If you didn't see it, I posed the question about PP in terms of disability: If one, God forbid, had become a shut-in and loved to play, and this was the only game in town, would one play in it, allowing a functional brain, eyesight, and the use of one hand, minimum.
Thanks again for all your previous help.
Harvey Roy Greenberg, MD
Harvey,
i prefer to play live poker as you have more advantages by seeing the players and the stakes are higher. in on line poker there has been much discussion about protecting yourself against cheating as you are not there to see whats going on. it seems its gotten to be big busisness and the online places like planet poker are doing good things to protect the players so the concern is not as great. if you are not close to a gsame then online may make sense for you and you play the stakes they offer. as in all gambling if you are losing after a time i would not continue in that game as that makes for a true built in protection system for bad play or other factors. the level of play on line currently is quite weak as i understand but so is the play in casinos at 10&20 and below. if you play better than the rake and expenses you should win if you dont then you need to justify playing and losing as worth the enjoyment for the amount of money. as you see we have three different forums on the left side of the page for posts according to their content. check the archives as well as there has been a fair amount of talk about what you ask. good luck.
In the game you describe, I think that these hands do not increase in value until you make trips or two pair, then you could start betting them aggressively. When I play in our home game, which has the same basic texture, I almost never raise with high pairs, since I know that no one will fold. I tend to get in cheap, and then attack when I have made a hand that could stand up. In the beginning, I would bet Ks or A's fast, not get two pair and lose on the river to 5's and 3's. The value these hands gain by trapping opponents when you make premium hands is probably higher than anything you would gain by driving people out on 3rd street.
Another issue here is table image. I have friends who I play with who only raise with high pairs, others will raise with small pairs, and A or K up, or with 3 flushes with a high up card. It is easy to respect a raise when you are sure that the raiser does have a high pair.
BUT, if you are playing a strong aggressive game where you raise late to steal a couple bring ins, or with high live straights or flushes, your raises lose respect, in the sense that some players may incorrectly call with drawing hands (which you want), since they know that you will raise with a king hi straight or flush draw. This is what you want (a table that doesnt know what you are raising with). So you should be happy, at least in principle, that people will call when you have a strong starting hand.
Todd
I was playing in my local 3-6 hold'em game and was doing none to well I was down about 55 bucks after 2 hrs of playing. I dont know what exactly I was doing wrong, but I wasnt exactly getting stellar cards and was beat on the river for 2 big pots. But anyways I made Aces full of queens and lost to 4 queens on my last hand about $45 all in. I took away a $6,000.00 Bad Beat Jackpot. I felt good about winning 6 grand but I still consider the session a losing session, by the fact that I got cleaned out of my original buy in of $100.00. I am trying to keep records of my playing and I wonder if I should figure in the 6 grand under winnings? I honestly dont think so, but I am a rookie and would love other opinions.
Thank You,
Chris H.
no it doesnt count in figuring your winnings to get your averages. it does count in your long term winnings as you pay into the pool so you have to figure some return. just invest it for the future as it will compound to a great amount when you retire. dont lose it as the irs will consider it winnings and look for taxes next year which you will owe unless you can substantiate that much in loses.
Hi all,
I'm looking for feedback on that tricky question: "should I keep playing?" Not poker overall, but tournaments.
A little background... I've been playing cardroom poker for about 10 months now, almost exclusively low-limit Hold'Em. I have a winning record at $3-6 w/about 200 hours logged, a losing record at $6-12 with about 50 hours logged.
Over this time, I've played in 12 small Hold'Em tournaments (36 - 100 players, $25 - $59 buy-ins, $3000-$6000 prize pools, some with unlimited early rebuys, some with just one rebuy). I'm currently stuck over $700 in tournament play, and am feeling angst about continuing. Since it I couldn't relate to you everything that has happened in every tournament, I will give some statistics and facts and ask for your honest commentary.
I enjoy playing tournaments, and the idea of taking a shot at a big prize really appeals to me, but I haven't placed in the money in the last seven tournaments I've played in, and I'm getting really tired of finishing 1 or 2 out.
All comments and advice will be accepted thankfully.
Regards, --james
James
You were either close to or in the money 6 times, so you may not be playing as badly as you think. Tournaments are a different animal from ring games, and require different strategies.
If you have not read the tournament section in Gambling theory, do so. Also poker essays and various different Sklansky books have tournament advice. These are all I've gone by as far as strategy for tournaments goes, and I have a nice record so far.
Since april I have played in 24 and finished 9th (1st time), 2nd, 1st, and 2nd. The rest I was knocked out of, some early and some painfully late. My total profit so far is about 250% of my buy-ins. You only need to win or finish high once in a while for tournaments to pay off.
Perhaps I have gotten luckier than might be expected, and perhaps you have been more unlucky than seems fair. Remember, there is a large luck factor in tournaments that cannot be avoided. Don't give up too easy, but practice in the cheaper tournaments until you get more confident.
Dave in Cali
Thanks for the input.
You are right about the one big win. If I ever took 1st in any of the tourneys I play in semi-regularly, I would quickly have a substantial profit.
BTW, I have the Suzuki book and various of the Sklansky, Malmuth, and Sklansky/Malmuth books, and have read each several times, which has definitely had a positive impact on my results.
It does seem like I see enough terrible tournament players, that even if I get to the final table with the same 10 people and only win money some of the time, I should make a profit (since 10 of us are dividing up 40 people's buy-ins).
--james
PS congrats on the winning record! :)
Another pointer is to avoid tournaments with high entry fees and low total prize pools is possible. Some tournaments are better than others.
for example, in atlantic city the trop has a 10$ buy-in 10$ entry fee 7cs tournament every week. They take up to 112 players. The first prize for a full tournament is about 440$. 8th is barely more than your 20$ you spent to get in.
The sands has a 5$ entry fee 30$ buy-in 7cs tourn. that only takes 56 people max. It's only 15$ more to get in, but the top prize is about 600$ and you only have to get past 56 people instead of 112! More prize $$, less work, not much more risk.
Playing in a tournament is making a really big bet all at once. If it has a positive expectation, then it is a good bet, even if it is a high standard deviation play.
Since you have read the books, perhaps you should consider what it is about your style that seems better suited to ring games. I am naturally aggressive at the poker table so tournaments fit my style. Your style may be more like that of an expert chess player, cold and calculating, and perhaps better suited to ring games. Identify and quantify strengths and weaknesses in your own game, then use this information to improve your play in both tournaments and ring games.
dave
From a personal or emotional perspective, do whatever you prefer.
From a monetary perspective, you haven't played in enough tournaments for the results themselves to have any meaning. If you grabbed any random group of 12 tournaments from the records of a world-class tournament player, or a total chump player who likes tournaments, you could easily expect to find a similar set of results. Thus, you could still be playing at the ability level of either type of player.
However, that doesn't mean that you can't use some judgment here. If you are confident that you've been making good decisions in these tournaments, then you should keep trying. If you are confident that you've made some serious mistakes, but you've learned from each one of them and aren't repeating those mistakes, then you should keep trying. If you have no idea whether your decisions are good or not, and don't think you're any better now than you were 6 months ago, you should stop playing tournaments, at least for now (and try to educate yourself more on tournament concepts, either through reading the published books, or reviewing threads here and on rgp).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"If you are confident that you've been making good decisions in these tournaments, then you should keep trying. If you are confident that you've made some serious mistakes, but you've learned from each one of them and aren't repeating those mistakes, then you should keep trying."
No better advice at any price!
Vince.
Greg, thanks for the advice.
Personally/emotionally, I really enjoy tournaments, but I have been feeling discouraged lately by my inability to make the money.
In terms of the sample size, I didn't expect it to be statistically valid, but I thought it might give some indication of where things are going. Perhaps not, though.
In any case, to address your excellent point:
If you are confident that you've been making good decisions in these tournaments, then you should keep trying. If you are confident that you've made some serious mistakes, but you've learned from each one of them and aren't repeating those mistakes, then you should keep trying. If you have no idea whether your decisions are good or not, and don't think you're any better now than you were 6 months ago, you should stop playing tournaments, at least for now.
I definitely feel as though I've become stronger with each passing tournament (barring one about a month ago where I got pissed off and self-destructed). I have a better feel for when to play fast, when to tighten up, when I can make a move, and when I should lie low. I am able to focus on position, blinds, and chip status of other players, rather than just thinking about my cards. And I think I generally recognize mistakes when I make them (of course, I could be making mistakes that I don't notice). So I think I'm improving.
The most recent tournament I played in (Sunday evening) was no-limit and I felt very good about the way I played, especially in the half-hour after the rebuys ended. I was in decent chip position when we got down to 2 tables, and then got no usable hands from then until I busted out in eigth place (two out of the money).
[Literally the best three hands I saw from 2 tables to bust-out were KJo, A5o, and KTo. I ended up all-in with the KTo in my big blind and caught a miracle straight to survive long enough to get stuck all-in on my small blind the next round with K2o, which lost to J6o in the big blind, who caught not one, but two 6's. I would have gambled with the KJo that came earlier, but the pot was already raised to me by a larger stack who I knew to be unlikely to steal without something that would dominate my KJo.]
I kept notes through the tournament, and only made one error that I noticed (limping in with a hand that should have been dropped, which I had to release on the flop), and it was probably not significant in the outcome.
So to recap, I think I'm becoming a stronger player, and now I am wondering when I can expect to win...
One important lesson I've learned the hard way is to NOT go get in a ring game right after I get busted out. More often than not, this seems to have negative EV, because I am still distracted (or maybe even steaming) from the tournament. So I either take a break, or just go home. :^)
--james
This may not be the most profound post but I was thinking about this a bit and would like some feedback.
HPFAP and other poker books indicate that it is OK to limp up front or UTG with an Ax suited if the game is loose and passive. I'm convinced this is right but the game must in fact be loose and passive. It just isn't a hand you want to play three way with a raise behind.
I mention this because even when the game is optimal I believe the hand is only marginally profitable up front. When the game becomes just a bit less than optimal (maybe it gets aggressive or not so loose) I believe it may be a bigger loser than most people think.
My point would be that unless you are a very advanced, disciplined and observant player, it is probably correct never to play this hand up front or UTG in a full game.
BTW, if I'm right it may be more important than you think because you get dealt this hand so often. Comments and criticism are welcome.
Regards,
Rick
Rick
I think you are basically right. If the game is loose, Axs is almost always a playable hand. I will virtually always play it in any position in a 2-4 or 3-6 game, and in some 5-10 games if they are loose.
In a tougher game, it should often be folded in early position. If you get raised after you limp in, your hand has little value if you don't flop a flush draw. When you miss the flush, your hand may very well be dominated and you can't be very confident if you flop top pair.
Dave in Cali
Rick,
I believe you are quite right. I don't know with what frequency Mason and David call with this hand up front(I sure like to get an estimate) but in middle games that I play I believe this hand is not worth playing at all. My games are too aggressive preflop and almost never qualify as loose passive. I don't remember when the game qualified as loose passive or maybe it's just me.
Even in loose passive games I have trouble with Ax unless I'm in late position. I'm sure better players can make money with it, but it gives me problems. You don't flop flush draws or made hands very often. You DO flop a lone A more frequently. From late position you usually have an idea where you stand.
Loose passive games frequently have players who almost never raise. If you push your Ax from up front when an ace flops, they seldom raise with a "big" ace. They always worry about something. They let you drive the betting and then take the money with a better kicker. I clearly don't have a good handle on how to play Ax up front; I usually muck it and avoid the problem.
Fat-Charlie
I am $10-$20 and $20-$40 player and I never play Ace little suited under the gun in a 9 or 10 handed game. I see this as a weak, speculative drawing hand which I limp in with in middle or late position and hope to see a flop cheaply. The last thing I want to do is to be spending two or more bets to see a flop with this hand. I have no idea how many opponents I will have or what my upfront cost is. I also don't want to be faced with difficult situations where I get a piece of the flop but no flush draw and I have to decide whether or not to continue. Always having to act first makes it especially bad.
In my opinion, Ace-little suited as well as suited connectors like Jack-Ten suited and below are grossly overvalued in hold-em literature. Routinely coming in upfront with these hands means that you are frequently paying multiple bets to see a flop. This significantly damages their profitability. I think over the course of a year at a full table, players who do this have a leak in their game.
Jim wrote: "Routinely coming in upfront with these hands means that you are frequently paying multiple bets to see a flop."
You are adding the term frequently here. I think the point was made that if you know from personal experience in the current game that many players are likely to call preflop, and it is also likely that none will raise, then you can play these hands up front. If you are frequently getting raised, then it IS the wrong game to play these hands up front, right?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Yes. I stand corrected. thanks!
Greg,
I think the main point in my original post is that the type of game where this hand is profitable up front (which is debatable anyway) is relatively rare and usually lasts for a short time (because the game changes). And when game conditions change just a little for this hand, it can become very unprofitable.
I don't think this is so true for hands like small pairs which play reasonably well in softer games UTG. When conditions change, I believe they become only a small loser and the transition is quite gradual.
I was thinking of this hand in terms of my poker student. My advice would be "Almost never play Ax suited up front unless you are absolutely sure game conditions merit it. Play small pairs up front unless game conditions are unfavorable.
Regards,
Rick
Rick, in your estimation, how small is the x in Ax here? i.e. would you apply your comment to a hand like As9s or even As10s?
BTW, I agree with the little lesson you intend on passing on to your student. Hey, maybe you are the fellow who is writing the new 2 plus 2 book that Mason was talking about. In any event, my money is on either Feeney or you. Hanson who has been rather quiet of late is the darkhorse entry in those sweepstakes.
skp,
ATs would be about the worse ace I would often play UTG in a loose passive game. A9s and maybe A8s would be OK if the players are very predictable after the flop and you play extremely well. But for someone starting out I think it is a no no.
My student has a lot of talent and I think will become a much better holdem than Omaha H/L player (her favorite game). She still finds way too many hands to play in Omaha, yet no game rewards tight play so much. Planet Poker has been a great tool for teaching holdem. Even if we were cheated a bit now and then, she won't have to waste her time playing any limit below 6/12 (where the up front collection eats you up in California).
Don't bet on me writing a book at least for a while. My game has more leaks than a raft full of refugees from Cuba. I think there are at least seven or eight regular posters that could write a decent book. I certainly would rather read this forum than about half the writers for Card Player. (Can Roy West be sued for plagerizing himself?)
My money would be on either Greg "FossilMan" Raymer or John Feeney to write the next real good book. You could do one too but such a book wouldn't help your day job (who would want to hire a gambling degenerate lawyer?).
Regards :-),
Rick
"(who would want to hire a gambling degenerate lawyer?)"
For that matter, who would want to read the writings of a manipulative argumentative gambler?
All right, with you bowing out of the picture, I guess my money is on Feeney although the Fossilman is not a bad guess either.
I couldn't agree more. I've been back and forth with that rag, and I've come to the conclusion that it's a total rag unless conditions are optimal.
I may be wrong here, but I think a large part of the profit from that hand comes from flopping mid/ bottom pair w/ a three flush, raising when it gets to you, then waiting to see if your hand comes in. It gets there about 25% of the time, and the nice thing is that a)if you make trips nobody puts you on them, b) if you make a flush nobody puts you on that, c) if the A comes you can catch some poor bastard w a slick or something and make 'em pay through the nose, and d) if you DO show your hand down you'll get PLENTY of action for the rest of the night. Note that none of this can happen if your first to act.
However, in a typical loose passive game you've got all kinds of clowns limping w AJs, AQo, etc., meaning that your hand is sorely dominated. And since NONE of them are physically capable of getting off these hands when they hit you can't hope to make a play at them later on.
UTG, I can lay this down if the game is not just right. However, it's pretty hard when the games you are in go like this (actual hand from tonight... I had already read the original post in this thread and was chuckling to myself when I looked and saw my cards):
Loose, generally passive $3-6 game.
I'm in SB with As 5s. 3 callers, I limp in, BB checks.
Flop is Qs Js X. I bet, there's some calls and a raise and some calls, 4 or 5 of us see the turn.
Turn is 9s, giving me nut flush. I bet, unknown player (UP) calls, Tourist Ted (TT) raises. I hollywood for a few seconds (goodness me, is it worth a call!?!), I call, UP calls. [I don't raise because I want UP in.]
River is a blank [and the board is not paired]. I bet, UP calls, TT raises AGAIN, I call, hoping UP will call, and praying he will re-raise. Alas, he just calls.
I say, "show me a straight flush or send me the pot". I was actually a little worried. This guy had made some real bonehead plays in the time he was at the table, but he could've woken up to a straight flush.
TT rolls KTo for nut straight, I show my cards, UP mucks his. I'm guessing he had the K-high flush.
I take down a $100+ pot.
TT busted out a few hands later to someone else and the game generally got a lot less good after that. Funny how one fish can bankroll a whole table for a while!
--j
James,
Nice hand. But playing Axs out of the small blind is a lot different than limping in UTG with it. By this time you know the pot is not raised (unless the BB does and half of all 3/6 players have a tell on this).
Regards,
Rick
5-10 STUD TROPICANA AC
BOARDS:
ME: (QhJh)9HQs (ALL HEARTS ARE LIVE, SO ARE ALL QUEENS)
WEAK PLAYER: (x x)KsKc
3RD) BRING IN IS TWO TO MY LEFT, MANY CALLERS, Ks LIMPS. HE STARTS WITH VERY WEAK HANDS AND PLAYS ALMOST EVERY POT. I HAVE PLAYED WITH HIM FOR SEVERAL HOURS AND HE HAS ALWAYS RAISED WITH HIS BIG PAIRS AND ALWAYS LIMPED WITHOUT. HE IS NOT VERY SKILLED AND IS EASY TO READ. HE HAS MADE TRIPS TWICE ON 4TH AND HAS ALWAYS BET THE MAX WHEN PAIRING HIS DOORCARD GAVE HIM TRIPS. 6 PLAYERS IN THE POT.
4TH)HE CATCHES THE Kc FOR AN OPEN PAIR. HE CAREFULLY CHECKS HIS HOLE CARDS AND SLOWLY DECIDES TO BET, BUT ONLY BETS 5$ INSTEAD OF 10$. I KNOW HE ONLY HAS A PAIR OF KINGS WITH LITTLE ELSE IN THE HOLE. MOST EVERYONE FOLDS, ONE CALLER JUST BEHIND ME. I DECIDE TO RAISE THE MAX AND MAKE IT 15$ TO GO....
....YES, I RAISED AN OPEN PAIR OF KINGS WITH A PAIR OF QUEENS AND A THREE FLUSH!
DOES THAT MAKE ME A SUPER-GENIUS OR A SUPER-MAGOO? PERHAPS I DON'T REALLY WANT TO HEAR THE ANSWER, BUT I ALREADY ASKED SO TOO LATE!
DAVE IN CALI (ON THE ROAD)
ANYWAY, THE RESULT WAS THAT HE THOUGHT ABOUT IT FOR A FEW SECONDS AND THEN FOLDED! THE OTHER PLAYER FOLDED TOO. I GUESS THEY BOTH READ ME FOR MAKING SOMETHING MUCH BETTER THAN A PAIR OF KINGS! MY IMAGE WAS GREAT AFTER THIS PLAY! STOLE SEVERAL MORE POTS AND MADE ABOUT 180$ IN THE GAME.
BY THE WAY IF SOMEONE TRIED THIS PLAY ON ME (AND I HAD THE KINGS) I WOULD HAVE RERAISED, JUST ON THE PRINCIPLE OF THE MATTER!!!! THE NERVE OF SOME PEOPLE!!!
DAVE
Great play! Even better reasoning! Makes poker fun doesn't it!
Vince.
Is "dave in cali" now "Dave in cali in AC" or
"Dave was in AC went to Cali but came back to AC"
:) Todd
ps Nicely played hand. If he had reraised you, as you or I would have, would you have let go of the hand?
Yes, it's dave in cali, I have a place with my brother there but am not really well settled in yet. I have some unfinished business in AC so I am back in NJ for a week or two.
Yes, If reraised, I would have let go of the hand in a heartbeat! Playing a three flush with a pair of queens heads up against paired-doorcard Kings is pretty foolish if you ask me!
The play was based mostly on my read of the other player. I would NEVER try this against a good player (who would obviously reraise).
One thing I look for in opponents is a tendency to fold too much (especially on the end). Noticing this tendency in players is possibly the single biggest moneymaker there is.
dave
Well played Dave. Even if the weak player would have called, you had a decent drawing hand and you were in with a player you could readily control. What would you have done then?
What are the rules of Sklansky's new game?
I remember there was a free download with a game where the object was to choose the best of 4(?) hold'em hands. The software would correct you if you didn't pick the best hand according to a quick simulation. Then the board would be dealt out. I don't remember if the payout was even money. This would probably be a good time for someone to post the link to that program again.
What should a new poker player keep records of?
I'm currently keeping seperate records for tournaments and ring games, with a record of which cardroom I played in, what the game structure was, how well I did $ wise, and about how many hours I played (for ring games).
Am I leaving anything out that I may regret later?
I've thought about trying to keep records of game character (loose, tight, passive, aggressive), but game conditions change so fast I'm not sure that's feasible. Yesterday the 3/6 HE game I played in (Mohegan Sun) went from the tightest game I've ever played - you could occasionally steal the blinds with a semi-bluff raise from UTG - to the absolute loosest - three normally loose players and three calling stations who, once in a pot, would call absolutely any bet or raise all the way to the river and who would also occasionally oblige you by betting bottom pair into what should have been obvious monsters. This change occured in between one and two revolutions of the deal.
What about tipping? Should I keep track or just lump it in with my total profit/loss? So far I'm ahead tipping $1 for mid-large pots in 3/6 games, but it's been suggested to me that this may be too liberal.
I'll appreciate any advice.
David
My records essentially just have 5 columns: date, location, game structure, hours played, session result and month to date.
I don't think that comments re: type of game etc. will assist very much but I guess those who record this type of info will be better able to comment.
I also do not record opponents' tendencies. Perhaps that might be useful...once again, perhaps someone who does this can talk about the benefits of doing this.
I like SKP's record entries. I also make note of any interesting hands. I say intereting because I find some hands worth revieing for mistakes I or my opponents may have made. Does it help? Record keeping, even if you never use them, helps. At least it helped me, psychologically.
Vince.
"At least it helped me, psychologically"
Wow, I don't know Vince. You sound like a sick puppy to me. I think you might need a little more help but I agree that it can help psychologically.
I keep the same 5 columns that SKP does plus a 6's one. 6's column is "rate the game" (such as: good, bad, excellent and so on) So far I have not found much use for the 6's column, but it might be useful down the road who knows I might also need help psychologically.
berya,
"I think you might need a little more help but I agree that it can help psychologically."
I'm always open to advice. I did indeed need help and your right probably still need more. When I played poker self doubt always entered my consciousness. Of course when I was losing, what do you think! No one that is winning has any self doubt except for me of course. You see when I was behind or when I was ahead my focus was never where it should be. Playing the next hand. Keeping records helped me with my concentration. Sick puppy or not I am now a formidable opponent at the poker table. So be careful young man this "old dog" still has a lot of bite left.
Vince.
David,
For tax purposes, information and convenience, a good record keeping system would involve the something like the following:
Every session bring a notecard. The best would be the type that tear out from a spiral booklet. Use this booklet of notecards for poker only. You can pre-mark the notecard book with little dashes accross the serated edge (in a pattern that is different for every page). Doing this can help prove to the IRS that the cards are consecutive and come from one source.
Each card would contain the following information formatted to transfer to a database program in a computer (I'm still using dbase in DOS but will change to something better for Y2K).
Field Typical Data
DATE 09/26/99
DAY MON (TUE, WED, THU, FRI, SAT, SUN)
LOCATION Bike (for Bicycle Club, CC for Commerce, etc,)
TS EA (which means time started. EA is for early afternoon, LA is late afternoon, EE, LE, EG is early graveyard, EM, LM etc)
HRS 4.8
GAME HOLDEM (or 7 stud, omaha 8, lowball)
STRUCTURE 3/6 (or 1-4/8/8, PL 2 5 (i.e., pot limit with $2.$5 blinds)
RESULT M185 (lost $185)
Naturally, an actual session note would fill up one line on the notecard and would not contain the field names. It might look something like the following:
9-25-99 SAT BIKE EE 3.5H HOLDEM 9/18 P490
This would mean that on Saturday evening at the Bicycle Club a player played three and a half hours in a 9/18 holdem game and won $490
When you fill up the card transfer the information to your database program. After a while you can determine if in fact weekends are better than during the week and your hourly rate at any game and structure. When tax time comes you can seperate your sessions into winning and losing sessions which is what the IRS wants.
You may also want to check out the Poker Tracker software that is spoken of a bit on rgp. If you use it let me know what you think because I'm thinking of using it next year. It can calculate standard deviation according to the evaluation sample I have.
BTW, I would keep a record of tournaments in a logbook. There are too many notes (e.g., deals) to make transfer to a computer very easy.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Did anyone read the tax column in Card Player a few issues ago? The IRS prosecuted a losing! player because he didn't put his winning sessions in income and his losing sessions under itemized deductions. It is so bizzare I am at a loss for words.
I have been keeping records for 5 years now and the best information I find in 'Record Keeping' is (if you do it honestly) is "The Truth". Am I winning or losing at this game called poker?. Record keeping gives you the big pictue. One bad day will not make or break your poker life. Win or lose I "Put it in the book" and then move on. I have seen many players just eat themselves up about 1 bad day. It's so self defeating.
"Put it in the book" and then move on.
MJChicago
Thanks for all the replies. I'll keep the same basic records as everyone else and build a spreadsheet to keep track.
David
A 3/6 hold'em game yesterday. The game has become extraordinarily loose. I call UTG with AdJd. There are no raises and eight people see the flop, which is As9sJs. I bet, figuring that if no one has the flush made that I'll at least charge them for the draw. An extremely weak passive calling station calls, a fair player raises, everyone else folds, I call, and the calling station calls. The turn is a blank. I check, calling station checks, fair player bets. I call, calling station calls. River is another blank. I check, calling station bets (!), fair player raises, I fold, calling station calls.
The fair player has boasted to the table that he plays any two suited cards and has in fact won a pot with 42s. I'm pretty sure he has the flush since everything about his play is consistent with a flush and I doubt he would try to bluff into me with the calling station still in the pot.
The calling station has, in similar positions, decided to bet something like a pair of 9's on the end. She also might have paired the river card (a five, or something) for two small pair. I'm pretty sure she doesn't have the flush, or even see the flush on the board.
The pot is quite large and I might have made a crying call for a single bet, but I couldn't bring myself to cold call two bets when I know I'm beat.
Comments?
David
David wrote: >but I couldn't bring myself to cold call two bets when I >know I'm beat.
How certain do you know you're beat? Just compare your doubt to the size of the pot and the size of the call you need to make.
That is, if there are 19 bets in the pot and it's 1 bet for you to call, 95% certainty is the break-even point. If you're less than 95% certain that you're beat, then calling is profitable (or, in the reverse, if there is at least a 5% chance you'll win, calling is profitable).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
How certain do you know you're beat? Just compare your doubt to the size of the pot and the size of the call you need to make.
Well, there were about 20 small bets in the pot and I had to call four, so about 5:1, a bit less because of the rake. He might have played KsAh/c basically the same. Possibly even QsAh/c. That's four hands he might have had that I could beat. Any two spades would beat me and he would probably play them all the same. But I get stuck there: 10 unseen spades, so he could have (10!/8!) = 90 possible two spade hands (is that right?). He also could have had 99, JJ, or AA, which adds 5 hands, but I'll only add three since I think he probably would have played them slower. In which case the math (93/4 or 23:1) says I was correct to fold, even if I say that there was some small chance he would bluff in addition. This analysis also suggests that I should not call a single bet in this situation.
My gut told me I was 90% likely to be beat, though, which is why I folded (and probably would have called a single bet). I didn't do this math at the table.
Which to trust? Should I be doing this much math at the table?(I'm not at all sure that I can) Am I overanalyzing this?
David
I do the following math at the table.
How much to call vs. size of pot gives me a percentage, and I must be at least that certain of my read (that I'm beat) before folding. Thus, if it's 1 bet to call, and there are 11 bets in the pot, I need to be 11/12 or about 92% certain I'm beat before I will fold.
Obviously, I cannot put a real number of the chances I'm beaten. It is a guesstimate based upon my knowledge of the player(s) and how the hand played out. However, once you put the number on it (i.e., 92% in the above example) you often find that you should call, even in a case where you were about to fold. Against almost all opponents, I am never more than 90% certain I'm beat, and in practice you often need to be at least that certain before a fold is correct.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Thanks, that's very clear. I hope I'm good at estimating. :-)
David
This has been a very interesting thread with many excellent posts. This type of discussion is why I REALLY like this forum. As an infrequent player, this type of analysis helps me learn how to think about the game.
I'll contribute a minor math point; with 10 spades outstanding the number of 2 card flush combos is 45, not 90. The 10!/8! is the number of permutations available, but we don't care in which order the cards were dealt. The formula for the number of combinations of n things taken r at a time (nCr) is: n!/(r!*(n-r)!) or 10!/(8!*2!) = 45.
Fat-Charlie
Fossilman is pretty smart so I'm surprised his 1st response was "Why did you not raise AdJd UTG?" Maybe you would get out 42s or if he would call 2 bets maybe somebody behind you would re-raise and try to get the button and this guy wouldn't call 3 bets cold. Either way, the right move is to raise and take the pot. Comments Fossilman.
Fossilman is pretty smart so I'm surprised his 1st response was "Why did you not raise AdJd UTG?" Maybe you would get out 42s or if he would call 2 bets maybe somebody behind you would re-raise and try to get the button and this guy wouldn't call 3 bets cold. Either way, the right move is to raise and take the pot. Comments Fossilman.
Well, yes, and 20 minutes earlier in this same game, that's exactly what I would have done. But the game had changed (four solid players left and four calling stations sat down) and raising accomplished nothing but making the pot bigger. You couldn't drive people out with a sledgehammer. There were maybe three people I had a shot at getting out of the pot, but they were all smart enough to know that they should cold call with a wide variety of hands if alot of people stayed in and two of them (who I know VERY well from our home game) had already invested their blinds.
So, I played the AJs like an Axs with some extra strength. After hearing my reasons, do you still think I was wrong? I had my reasons, but I'm not totally certain it was the right thing to do. I would be interested in hearing opinions on this.
David
Russ wrote: >Fossilman is pretty smart so I'm surprised his 1st response >was "Why did you not raise AdJd UTG?"
When did I say that? Maybe you meant to type "wasn't" instead of "was"?
>Either way, the right move is to raise and take the pot. >Comments Fossilman.
In a loose game where everyone is coming in, it is correct to just call UTG with AJs. By raising you might knock out hands like Ax where x Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
If you have AJs UTG you should definately raise. The chance of knocking out 42s and other lousy hands are pretty good. Another thing working in your favor is that someone might try to raise behind you trying to gain the button, and now they have to cold call a couple of bets. A raise is crucial at this point.
Zach
Someone wrote not too long ago that when you're in doubt to go with your guts and instincts. You had the highest two pairs on the board so what made you hold back from raising or even just calling? I think you overread your opponents' hands too much. You don't have to have the nut to win in this game but since you already hold one Ace and one Jack, then in most certainty, your opponents have either just a Kd for the 4-flush draw or a pair of 9's. I would have called but that's just my opinion.
David,
FossilMan covered the river exhaustively and well but I'll try to cover the hand from before the flop to river having the benefit of reading all the posts so far.
"A 3/6 hold'em game yesterday. The game has become extraordinarily loose. I call UTG with AdJd."
I'll pretend not to know the outcome at this point. IMHO, it is close between calling and raising before the flop. The fact that a raise may have driven out the hand some think may have beat you is not relevant. In this type of game, a raise UTG will generally mean that five or six will see the flop for two bets instead of seven or eight for one bet (unless someone else raises which is not too bad with suited high cards). In either case you have to hit the flop to win with this many opponents.
Personally, I like to raise UTG in this type of game with a little better hand such as AQs or AKs. Then when I flop the pair kicker type hand, I can play with more aggression. Also note that this is the type of game I will often limp UTG with offsuit hands such as AK and sometimes AQ but will usually toss AJ away unless they are not the least bit tricky either. Weak offsuit hands are murder with many hands yet to play. UTG in games that are only medium loose, I'm raising with my big offsuit cards and calling with my big suited hands. In a tighter game, I'll raise with both the suited and offsuit hands.
"There are no raises and eight people see the flop, which is As9sJs. I bet, figuring that if no one has the flush made that I'll at least charge them for the draw."
The bet is not bad by any means. However, note that the draw is going to be "charged" whether you are the bettor or not. This flop with many opponents figures to get a bet from someone. So you have the option of check raising. If the bet is on your left, the check raise is for value. If it is on your right, your check raise could narrow the field a bit. Either way would be about equal in overall EV (this is a guess based on experience, not Abdulian analysis).
"An extremely weak passive calling station calls, a fair player raises, everyone else folds, I call, and the calling station calls."
I lean towards aggression here. You have the weak player trapped between you and the fair player. The fact that the fair player raised with many others yet to act makes me believe that his hand is only medium strong or he has the small flush (trip nines would also play this way). A big flush would tend to wait for the turn to raise or hope someone else behind does his raising for him. And if I didn't reraise the flop, I would be leading on the turn with just about any card (the stop and go play).
"The turn is a blank. I check, calling station checks, fair player bets. I call, calling station calls."
Since you didn't reraise the flop, I would usually lead into the raiser here. Think of the dilemma it puts a raiser who is only a "fair" player in. He will be calling with almost any hand except the nuts. If he has a medium flush, he calls fearing a bigger flush. If he has a worse made hand (A9, AK, KJ - both kings probably a spade), he would have a hard time putting much pressure back on you. And if he raises, you can do the math. (OK, I'll do it since I need the practice - 15 small bets before the flop and on the flop. You bet the turn, weak player calls, fair raises - that is 23 small bets back to you. You have four nut or near nut outs; heck, that is enough math, you have an easy call (and I haven't even yet thought of skp's ostensible outs and various other ploys).
River is another blank. I check, calling station bets (!), fair player raises, I fold, calling station calls. The fair player has boasted to the table that he plays any two suited cards and has in fact won a pot with 42s. I'm pretty sure he has the flush since everything about his play is consistent with a flush and I doubt he would try to bluff into me with the calling station still in the pot.
BTW, if he is a fair player he doesn't play any two suited cards. If he did he would be a terrible player. Anyway, I agree that his play is somewhat consistent with a small flush. But the pot is big and, as most of the other posters indicate, you don't have to be a winner often to make the call correct. So I lean toward calling given everything that has transpired so far.
Despite the outcome, this makes me think that greater aggression on the flop or turn may have given you extra outs on the river. Besides potentially eliminating the middle player, if a fourth spade hits on the river and you lead into the "fair player", I believe he will lay down the small to medium flush at least half the time. If he raises you have an easy laydown. But all of this depends on a much different approach to the play of the hand and a river card that had to be "scary" to the raiser who was only a fair player.
Anyway, I hope this isn't posted too late to get some feedback on my 2 cents.
Regards,
Rick
I'll pretend not to know the outcome at this point.
Was I that transparent? He did indeed have a small flush, 65s. The calling station showed me 97 offsuit before she mucked them. Then she (a nice old lady) asked me, "Would you have stayed in with the nines?" What do you say to that? I said something insipid like, "It's hard to know, sometimes that might win."
The bet is not bad by any means. However, note that the draw is going to be "charged" whether you are the bettor or not. This flop with many opponents figures to get a bet from someone. So you have the option of check raising. If the bet is on your left, the check raise is for value. If it is on your right, your check raise could narrow the field a bit. Either way would be about equal in overall EV (this is a guess based on experience, not Abdulian analysis).
You are probably right. Except for the four new calling stations, the table had seen an unusually large number of same suit flops (including one nut flush on the board with a five way split) and nearly everyone at the table had been burned by at least one. I thought that might effect how aggressive others at the table would be, but in truth I probably let it effect how aggressive I was, which is bad.
"An extremely weak passive calling station calls, a fair player raises, everyone else folds, I call, and the calling station calls."
I lean towards aggression here. You have the weak player trapped between you and the fair player. The fact that the fair player raised with many others yet to act makes me believe that his hand is only medium strong or he has the small flush (trip nines would also play this way). A big flush would tend to wait for the turn to raise or hope someone else behind does his raising for him. And if I didn't reraise the flop, I would be leading on the turn with just about any card (the stop and go play). Hmm. You certainly make a good case for being more aggressive. In fact, I think this discussion has probably uncovered a big weakness in my game. I probably tend to play too conservatively when a flop comes that might be fairly strong for me, but very strong for someone else. As soon as I saw that flop I figured I was drawing for a full house. But I should have tried to fold sub-nut flushes instead of trying to get cheap cards.
"The turn is a blank. I check, calling station checks, fair player bets. I call, calling station calls."
Since you didn't reraise the flop, I would usually lead into the raiser here. Think of the dilemma it puts a raiser who is only a "fair" player in. He will be calling with almost any hand except the nuts. If he has a medium flush, he calls fearing a bigger flush. If he has a worse made hand (A9, AK, KJ - both kings probably a spade), he would have a hard time putting much pressure back on you. And if he raises, you can do the math. (OK, I'll do it since I need the practice - 15 small bets before the flop and on the flop. You bet the turn, weak player calls, fair raises - that is 23 small bets back to you. You have four nut or near nut outs; heck, that is enough math, you have an easy call (and I haven't even yet thought of skp's ostensible outs and various other ploys). OK, once again I should have been more aggressive.
"River is another blank. I check, calling station bets (!), fair player raises, I fold, calling station calls. The fair player has boasted to the table that he plays any two suited cards and has in fact won a pot with 42s. I'm pretty sure he has the flush since everything about his play is consistent with a flush and I doubt he would try to bluff into me with the calling station still in the pot."
BTW, if he is a fair player he doesn't play any two suited cards. If he did he would be a terrible player. OK, I guess he was terrible before the flop and fair after. He was a good candidate for about fifth best player at the table anyway. I couldn't really call him terrible considering some of the donators at the table.
Anyway, I agree that his play is somewhat consistent with a small flush. But the pot is big and, as most of the other posters indicate, you don't have to be a winner often to make the call correct. So I lean toward calling given everything that has transpired so far.
Despite the outcome, this makes me think that greater aggression on the flop or turn may have given you extra outs on the river. Besides potentially eliminating the middle player, if a fourth spade hits on the river and you lead into the "fair player", I believe he will lay down the small to medium flush at least half the time. If he raises you have an easy laydown. But all of this depends on a much different approach to the play of the hand and a river card that had to be "scary" to the raiser who was only a fair player. And had I been more aggressive from the start the pot would have been even bigger, making the call on the end even easier, I guess. I don't know that I would have folded him by being more aggressive, but I guess it doesn't have to work all that often to pay off, right?
I think I've definitely found a weakness to work on, thanks Rick. I'll report on my attempts at aggression next time I get a chance to play. :-)
David the passive
You might have tried check-raising on the flop to knock out the single small spades and gutshot straight draws and to see if the made flush is out there. A 3-bet from someone means a flush, an instant call is probably the Ks, and someone that thinks and thinks and then calls 2 cold may well have the flush. With a very good hand that's possibly but probably not beaten, you want to play it fast and try to avoid getting trapped.
I am relatively new to holdem. I am a blackjack player and have recently begun to get serious about poker and I have a little dilemma.
I have read and re-read the important literature on the subject and have logged about 100 hours of actual casino play. I live in Colorado and have logged most of my time here (2-5, single blind). I make fairly regular trips to Vegas but primarily to play BJ. Playing more than a couple of hours of poker are a drain on my BJ EV because I don't have the edge in poker that I have in BJ and I play for smaller stakes.
My dilemma: Since I have a family, it is difficult for me to justify long hours at the Colorado tables with little or no income and when I go to Vegas I can't play much poker for the same reason. I have logged many hours on Turbo, but I need more time against "live" players. Recently, I have been spending some time playing the Yahoo! Games, but the games there seem very atypical of any I have played in Vegas or Colorado and are not likely to be the type of game I would ever run into for real money. The typical Yahoo! Player seems to be very loose aggressive with bets being capped on every round and an average of 7-8 players seeing the flop and 4-5 in every showdown. This makes for a very slow game since I seem to be the only player mucking anything with any regularity.
I am hesitant to play for real money over the internet, but if this is the only way to get any live play in, I might give it a try. Doe anybody have any suggestions on where I might find a decent game to practice against live competition on the internet? I would prefer to play for "play" money but if this is not possible, is there a game that I can trust for small stakes?
if you truly have studied you should be able to win in the colorado games almost right off the bat. if you need more practice play some but not for long hours near home. soon you may make more per hour at poker than bj with less hassle. look at my post below planet poker a little way down the list.
With the likes of GD and Chris in these Colorado games, I think I'll go there only to ski! BTW, where the hell is GD lately?
Do we all have to ask, where in de world is GD?
Vince.
I think I saw a post from him on the exchange or other games forum recently. But I've wondered the same thing. GD! Where are you?!
He won that big jackpot before going to Las Vegas. Could he have spent it all there? Are hookers that expensive these days?
Just kidding,
Rick
P.S. Maybe he doesn't have a laptop for his travels.
Hello men!
My God, but I have been away for a while. My abacus- er, I mean, my Mac Performa 475- has been down for the past month or so, and I just got it up and running Sunday. I posted that message on the 'other games' forum from school, but since I'm virtually never there I haven't had the opportunity to post on the poker forum.
And now, like Lazarus, I have returned...
Anyway, about the Colorado games. I don't get up to 'the hill' much anymore, since I'm busy playing the 15-30 and 20-40 games in Denver. But, I can say this; first, I think you ought to play at Bullwhackers, since the games there are pretty tight (even by mid limit standards) and you won't have to worry about the dreaded suckouts/ bankroll swings that are the bane of most new players. Also, stay the hell away from the 3-5 games.
That said, there are a couple things to bear in mind re; 2-5 poker. First, you can play a little loose before the flop (by which I mean playing by the HFAP pre-flop standards, which at least for me are a bit too loose for structured games), and play VERY, VERY tight after the flop. In fact, I don't think it's possible to play too tight here, since there's really no money in the pot until the flop betting commences. Hence, I limp with all kinds of cheezy hands (suited A's, all pocket pairs, weird little suited connectors, etc.) early, but muck literally everything but group one and two hands for a raise, and immediately muck if I don't hit the flop hard. Using this rememdial strategy I managed to win 5.43$ an hour over about 600 hrs. (not much, but still not bad).
I know this wasn't your question, but I'm afraid I don't know anything about Internet poker. Hope this bit helps...
Good luck,
Guy. P.S. Hopefully you'll get off (or have gotten off) to a better start than I did up there. Ray says you should be able to beat the game immediately, but I managed to piss away an entire student loan check (around 3 grand) before I figured out that Lee Jones' starting hand requirements were suicide if you're playing a spread limit game.
i guess us taxpayers have subsidized G.D.'s education after all. at least now he has learned a trade that is productive in life and can earn a living. maybe he will even pay back the loan with all that jackpot money thats oozing out of his pockets. what G.D. was really telling us is that in those loose games you must play tight when the money is not in the pot after the flop.
Thanks for the Colorado info. I will need to adjust my style a bit even though I am up a little since I started playing there. Your Bullwhackers comments really hit home. I started playing there recently after calling Colorado Central Station home for a few months. There is definitely a difference between the regulars at the two places. Also, I have heard rumors of collusion between the CSS regulars. While I haven't seen anything blatant, I have seen some questionable raises now and then which has prompted me to abandon the place.
From my own experience playing in CO over the summer:
Any pair is worth limping for $2 in any position, due to most tables not having too many preflop raises and the high implied odds when flopping a set. Be willing to let smaller pairs go if someone raises behind you unless it looks like 6 or more people will be calling the raise.
I raise PF with pocket 10s and up, and AK-AJ pretty much every time due to killin the implied odds of even pretty decent hands which rely on implied odds.
Other drawing hands, such as suited connectors, are not nearly as strong as you might think, even if you get in for $2. This is in contradiction to some of the literature. Even if you flop a 4-flush or open ended straight, you may not have pot odds to call a $5 bet. Many times only three or four players call the single $2 blind preflop. This may change if the game is fairly loose, but I found this to definitely be true at Bullwhacker's weekday games and some of the weekend tables.
As for which games to play, I really only played at Bullwhackers. The 3-5 game there can give a good player a huge expectation but ridiculous variance. Read the 21stHPFAP loose games/maniac sections and really learn it.
Good luck!
I keep hearing players talk about raising in loose low limit games to reduce the odds for the hands that need those odds. i.e. 5-6s, 7-8s etc. On the chance that I may offend some please excuse me and take it for what it's worth. ARE YOU STUPID! To assume the loose players are going to fold these same hands in low limit games because you reduced their "pot odds" is absurd. This type player can't spell pot odds let alone figure them out and then know how to apply them to their holding. We(yes I do the same at times)give this type player way too much credit. As a result I have been slowly changeing my low limit game a bit....and reading the suckouts a little better. But they still suckout a few...even beat me some...alas I invite them to play some more...cause my time willo come where your money is mine!
DBart wrote:
Any pair is worth limping for $2 in any position, due to most tables not having too many preflop raises and the high implied odds when flopping a set. Be willing to let smaller pairs go if someone raises behind you unless it looks like 6 or more people will be calling the raise.
Agreed, but it also depends on how big the raise is. If a player makes it $5 to go so that's only $3 to call, you can call if there are several players in the pot that like to see the river. The point, however, is that it's a big mistake to muck a small pair in early or middle position when the pot has not been and is not likely to be raised. Also, dump the smaller pairs when there is a moderate amount of preflop raising at your table and one or more of the raisers is behind you.
I raise PF with pocket 10s and up, and AK-AJ pretty much every time due to killin the implied odds of even pretty decent hands which rely on implied odds.
If you raise with AQ or AJ early, you're throwing $7 into a $2 pot with 6-8 players to act behind you, typically including those that like to just call with big aces, medium pairs and sometimes even big pairs. I don't see much advanage to raising with them and taking charge out of position against who-knows-what just to ruin someone else's drawing odds. I call with these hands early (and often drop them for a raise) and tend to limp-raise with AKo. AK and AJ (and AT, KJ and A9 for that matter) are good hands, however, to raise in a short-handed pot when you're behind players that limp with middle cards and above (T8o, etc.) but don't like to fold to a preflop raise.
Other drawing hands, such as suited connectors, are not nearly as strong as you might think, even if you get in for $2. This is in contradiction to some of the literature. Even if you flop a 4-flush or open ended straight, you may not have pot odds to call a $5 bet.
You'll have to throw away some draws after a short-handed flop but it usually isn't much of a problem that the straight and flush draws don't get as big of an overlay that they do in fixed limit. The bigger problem is whether you can see the flop for $2.
As for which games to play, I really only played at Bullwhackers.
The games at the Station and the Lodge are softer.
The 3-5 game there can give a good player a huge expectation but ridiculous variance.
I agree with G.D.: stay away from $3-5 until you know what you're doing and have a big bankroll, and maybe even then.
You should try the lodge. suited connectors work very well in late position, especially if there is a bet and a couple of callers ont the flop before the action gets to you.
If i ever raise in early position, i hardly ever get any action, i usually end up picking up the $2 blind. I guess people don't like cold calling $7 when they can see the flop for $2. i usually just limp.
The thing i don't like about the 3-5 is that the betting is often capped pre-flop with 6 players seeing the flop. In my experience, those same six people will stay and see the river.
Here's a question for you colorado players, ever see a person bet 2 dollars on the river heads-up? It seems to me that raising to 7 almost always wins the pot. Just wondering if anybody else has noticed this phenomenon.
Lars
"Here's a question for you colorado players, ever see a person bet 2 dollars on the river heads-up?"
Yeah. Me twice in the last few months after flopping monsters against newbies. I bet the minimum all the way and they moan and groan at their hand but can't let it go. Believe me, if I thought I could slip in an extra buck or two I'd have done it.
"It seems to me that raising to 7 almost always wins the pot."
Of course it does. Raising it to $5 often does to. It should almost every time that you've got the best hand. Even when they think you're trying to buy it, they think: "buy what?" and don't care; the next hand is out in seconds. But acting a little out of line can encourage a few to slip into a calling mode. As long as it's just a few the game gets easy.
The Yahoo poker does suck. Try playing on "IRC poker". The interface is a bit strange but is good once you get used to it. Download "GPKR" to play.
The IRC poker has a system where you can only play the bigger games after you win (play) money at the lower levels so the competition is definitely much better as you go up. Also they have a fun no-limit tournament at most times and a pot-limit game where you can lose all your money and go back to the low-limit hell.
David
For GPKR, go from Favorite Links at left to "Computer Poker" to "Poker Related Links" which has a link to "Greg Reynolds' Gpkr GUI" under "IRC Poker Server". I agree with David's recommendation.
I would like to play IRC poker but am use to the type of interface seen on Yahoo and every other poker site I have visited, ie, a table with chairs. Are there any other programs which would allow me to access IRC poker using a more familiar interface?
You should try www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/poker/
Zoso,
I think Planet Poker is good for learning at home despite their recent problems. I would stick to the 3/6 and 5/10 levels. You won't make a living but it is realistic in that they are playing for real money so the play is fairly similar to real casino play.
Regards,
Rick
I think Planet Poker is good for learning at home despite their recent problems. I would stick to the 3/6 and 5/10 levels. You won't make a living but it is realistic in that they are playing for real money so the play is fairly similar to real casino play.
It seems to me that it's quite likely that you will run into multi-player collusion in ANY internet game for money. Five players sit down at a table and open a common chat window, or make a conference call on their second phone lines. They always know who has the best hand and who is drawing dead.
I wouldn't mind playing poker from home since Foxwoods is a two hour drive, but frankly it scares me a bit.
David
I have tried just about every place on the web and here is what I have found for FREE practice "Real life" type games. give or take a bit.
1. CasinoCoco.com
(The free side of Planet Poker Fixed 5-10)
2. FunCom.Com (no-Limit and fixed limit)
3. www.Won.net/gamerooms/hoyle (fixed and fun tournaments)
4. mplayer.com
5. IRC
I have tried a few other but these are the best I have found If any one has any other please left me know. '_'
MJChicago
I have been playing a lot recently on paradisepoker.com and have been learning a lot, they have lots of different games. I like playing mostly seven card stud but sometimes holdem and omaha and it is all free and it looks very good.
Wow..your are correct this is a very nice site thanks ! mj
well on your advice I checked out the two top choices you mentioned....and got booted from both 8 times total...so I just neatly place them in my waste basket and will forget about them.
Larry,
If you got booted from both I think it's your PC not the site. Clean out your Web Cache . This should help.
mj
One thing that bothers me as much as collusion on the internet is payments/payouts. If I am charged a cash advance fee on my credit card and have to pay a fee to get a payout, this is just another "rake" I have to overcome. Do you know how they handle payments and payouts?
Thanks to everyone for your replies to my questions.
Regards,
Zoso
If you send in a check there's no fee (or rather, you get it refunded). If you request a check payout there's no fee there, either.
I believe ParadisePoker.com offers play for fake and soon real money (Oct 15?).
f6-12 holdem with a kill at mohegan sun. i have AK and in early position. raise preflop, get reraised from dealer and i cap. flop comes 8 8 K. i bet and get raised by dealer. hheads up. i reraise as does he i call. turn is A i bet he rraises i fold thinkink he might have 8 and before it gets too expensive to find out. i realize i should have folded earlier if i thought he had an 8. comments please.
I like the pre-flop raise, but might slow down a bit if re-raised until I see the flop, unless the dealer is the type who might re-raise on just about anything to freeze out the blinds. I agree with betting the flop, but when he raises again, I would be more concerned with him having AA than him having an 8. If he's got pocket K's, I suspect he would be more likely to wait until the turn to raise. When the A appears on the turn, he is statistically less likely to hold either KK or AA, but you would not want to totally discount the possibility, either. Once you have bet the turn and get raised, I would call, and check-call the river. If you fold to the raise on the turn, I think you are giving up too easily. Others might disagree and bail out, but heads up I think you have to call this guy down to the end.
You can't worry about him having an 8 and his chances of having AA or KK are definitely reduced because of all the Aces and Kings that are visible to you.
Call and take your lumps. You may find out that he is the one taking the lumps.
Heads up against an aggressive player who obviously has enough to pay off the river, I prefer to "just call" one bet before it would be obvious I'm beat.
This will save 2-bets when I AM beat, lose 1-bet when I have the better hand, can encourage the player to bluff, but most of all disallows the player to sucessfully bluff, since I will call on the river.
After showing such strength before the flop and betting out on the flop, I would be VERY inclinded to "just call" this player down.
Your "offensive" attitude (often bet/raise, rarely call) is a very good one for the first bet or two. But sticking to it in fairly large pots can be extremely costly when the opponent realizes you can lay down a real hand. There is NO SHAME in checking and calling in big pots.
- Louie
PS. This player had AA or AK. Bad fold; IMO.
Okay, most agreed and thought AA or AK. I forgot to say what Louie said. No shame in Checking and calling a big pot.
I'm going to post this before I read the others responses. I can't put the dealer on an 8 unless he's got Quads and then he would slowplay it a little bit. He's either got your hand and is ultra-aggressive or pocket Aces...With pocket Kings he would probably slowplay. Re-post after reading other posts.
Kevin I think you should have called this player down.
2blinds + 8 small preflop + 8 small on the flop + 6 small on the turn = 23.5 small bets. That's a lot of bets to give up.
He either has AA=1, KK=1, or AK=4. 2 to 1 in your favor (sptlit, still almost 12 small bets).
What about an 8? Well if he has A8 or K8 or 88 you should fold. But if he was taking a shot at you with something like 89s which is most likely in my opinion then you should have called based on the pot odds.
Bad fold IMO.
You raise in early position and then get reraised. You cap and he calls. To me, that means he has a pretty good hand to reraise and then call your reraise.
After the flop, you get raised twice. I am guessing there is no else in the hand so he isn't thinning the field.
On the turn, you get raised again. You were raised 4 times in 3 rounds. Seems like he has something.
What hand did you think he had to reraise preflop? 89 suited, as was mentioned? Seems doubtful.
I might be too conservative but after getting raised twice preflop, I would have eased up on the flop and especially after the flop.
Is there way more bluffing in 6-12 than in 4-8?
Kevin,
This is just another way of looking at what most of the others have said. When you were raised on the turn you were not the favorite (unless the guy is a total maniac). But there were 23 small bets in there when you were raised on the turn. It will cost you four small bets to call him down. If you win you gain 25 small bets at a cost of four small bets. I like my chances of splitting the pot with an AK or finding the guy was just on tilt or even had a hand like KQ and figured you for a "folder".
The fact that you will look weak when you are up against AA or KK should not bother you. When the pot is big, checking and calling an aggressive player is not bad with a medium strong hand, especially heads up. If he was raising or betting into a field, it would be different because he would realize that the pot was protected by many potential callers.
Regards,
Rick
BTW, if that guy had an eight, I'm checking him out just about every chance I get.
3-6HE game Saturday night. Game very loose, but fairly passive. Some pre-flop raising, but mostly 7-9 players seeing every flop. I pick up 6d-5d in middle position, and if it's true that suited connectors go up in value in multi-way, passive games, this has to be the sort of spot in which to play this hand. Button raises, both blinds call, and 8 of us take the flop. I've never seen the button player before, but after about a half-hour of observing his play, I had put him on being fairly conservative type.
Flop comes down Kc-5h-2d. Everyone checks around to the button, who bets. I quickly thought that if folded back to me, I might try a check-raise to force out limpers to my left and take my chances heads-up with the button, but four players called before it got to me, and I just called. I'm thinking,"Put up a 6,5, diamond, or something that gives me a shot to the low straight." Turn comes 4d, giving me a gut-shot straight-flush draw, plus my pair of 5's. The remaining 6 of us still in (what are they all drawing to?, I'm thinking - straight draws, K's?, pocket pairs?) check to the button, who bets again. SB and BB fold, but remaining 2 opponents to my right both call. I call.
River comes 3s, giving me the 6-high straight. First player remaining bets, player on my immediate right raises. This player is usually very solid, but gets into modes where he makes very unusual plays on occasion, but he certainly isn't bluffing at this point. I smooth call, hoping to trap the button into calling with his (presumed) Ace, and lo and behold, he re-raises! First better calls, and right-hand opponent(RHO) caps it. Fully expecting to split this pot with RHO,figuring that he must have some sort of hand containing a 6, I of course call. Button and other player also both call the cap. RHO turns over 7s-6s for the nuts. Ouch. Both the other players had an Ace. (What was the guy on the button thinking about, raising on the low end of this straight?)
Questions:
1.At first, I couldn't believe that this guy had got past the flop with nothing more than a 3-card straight. No pair, no back-door flush draw, nothing. However, the more I thought about this hand over the week-end, could he have been correct in taking off a card after the flop, given that there were now 20 small bets by the time the action got back to him? When the 4 hits the turn, he's now of course committed to draw to the river, and he hits his open-end 6-outer.
2.When I catch a piece of this flop, would I have been better off betting the flop, hoping that the button raises to thin the field? If he raises, I assume that I am behind, of course, but if I'm not drawing completely dead, am I better off reducing the competition?
3.Would it be correct to semi-bluff the turn? My chances of winning the pot right then are probably zero, and in retrospect would not drive out my RHO, even if the button raises, but from a theory point of view, would anyone make this play?
4.Would anyone check-raise the turn, given the size of the pot, and increased outs available once the 4d hits the board?
5. Should I have been involved in the first place?
Pain of losing this pot of over $150 was eased by taking home over $425 profit at end of 10-hour session, but that's extraneous to this discussion, I guess. Comments and criticism more than welcome.
Several thoughts:
1. Ya, I would play your hand preflop given the stated conditions.
2. The fella with the 76 definitely was incorrect in calling the flop.
3. A bet from you on the flop cannot be all that wrong (if it's wrong at all). The advantages to betting rather than check-calling are numerous.
4. A bet from you on the turn also can't be all that wrong particularly if you think that if the button raises, you can get other hands with a 6 to fold. Ideally, you would also want other hands with a 3 to fold but that probably ain't gonna happen.
5. A check raise on the turn is a bit more dicey. While you have picked up an additional 3 outs (i.e. the 3 treys for a straight), notice that you have probably lost three outs that you had on the flop (i.e the three sixes). Further, the fact that you have a couple of players calling the button's bet before you may mean that some of your outs are busy i.e. they are holding a 3 or worse yet, you may be drawing dead to diamonds. Nevertheless, a checkraise can be the proper play if you synthesize the following considerations and your synthesis shapes out the right way:
a. What will the button do if you raise - will he just call or will he reraise?
b. Do you want him to reraise or do you want him to just call?
c. Will the button or any of the others with a gut shot draw or a marginal 1 pair hand "put you" on a 63 and fold to your checkraise?
d. If the button reraises, will anyone with a bigger diamond draw than yours (or a 3 or 6 in their hand) fold if they are required to call 2 more bets cold with a possibility of a cap (from you) behind them? (note, I would not even consider that a 76 is out there at this point given the flop. About the only 76 that would call the flop is 7d6d and that hand is impossible given that you have the 6d).
e. If you happen to be the only diamond draw out there, will your chances of being paid off in more than 1 spot on the river increase if you checkraise the turn.
Interesting hand. It's tough spots like these that cause many people not to play such hands from middle position. Personally, I love these types of games and dealing with these types of situations.
It certainly occurred to me that I might be drawing dead on diamonds after the turn when there were still several of us hanging around. About the best possible card for me (or so I thought) was a black 3 on the river, and obviously making two pair at this point might have been very dangerous, giving someone else a straight. That's the reason that looking back it might have been to my advantage to start the action up right on the flop to (hopefully) get rid of the gut-shots/ runner-runner diamond draws, and although I was in all probability behind the button after the flop, get the hand down to the point where if I improve, I'm probably the winner rather than get into a split pot or have the disaster happen that did occur. What I was pleased about was that I did not even remotely go on tilt after this beat; I kept my composure, played solid the rest of the night, and took home a nice win.
I should learn not to post when at work...too many damn distractions...work gets in the way of proper hand analysis...anyways, when I began analyzing the turn bet, I somehow got it in my head that the flop had 2 diamonds which it didn't...so the comment I made about 7d6d theoretically being a calling hand on the flop is of course gobbledygook. As well, the fact that you picked up a flush draw through the backdoor makes it less likely that you are drawing dead to diamonds which might make a checkraise on the turn more appealing than I initially thought even if the button does not reraise i.e. the checkraise may be proper just for value. I say "may' because frankly, I haven't analyzed the issue to the nth degree...ok, back to work.
Let me begin my answering Question #5 first. I would fold 6-5 suited in middle position. Yes it plays better against a lot of opponents rather than a few opponents but there are some things to consider. With a lot of opponents, a flush draw for you can frequently be a flush draw for someone else. Their flush will be bigger than yours. Even a straight draw for you can be a straight draw for someone else plus occasionally you get counterfeited on the board and end up splitting the pot with someone else. With a lot of opponents all kinds of draws, re-draws, gutshots, runner-runner are possible and you are not drawing to the nuts usually. Of course you have no chance of winning with anything like top pair and even a low two pair is very vulnerable against a lot of opponents. The other problem is that in loose games people in late position frequently throw in raises if a lot players limp in just to juice up the pot. Of course players with good hands like A-A will raise with them as well. Bottom-line is that you frequently end up having to call raises to see a flop under these conditions which damages the profitability of playing suited connectors. I would play this hand out of the blinds or on the button and dump it otherwise.
With regard to #2, when you catch a piece of the flop, I would not bet. Your bet will probably not eliminate anyone who stays with any kind of draw because the pot is already large. One of the problems with limit hold-em is that you simply cannot bet enough on the flop to eliminate a large field. You want see the turn as cheaply as possible. It is not worth investing more money than necessary in the hopes of reducing the competition because the competition is going to stay if they have any decent chance of winning.
On #3, I would not semi-bluff because you have no chance of winning a huge pot like this outright. The people who stay will be the people who have a chance of beating you or who have you already beat.
On #4, I would not check-raise the turn either. Again, there is no point. You need to get lucky and end up with the best hand.
What actually happened to you is not unusual in playing these kinds of hands against a large field. The Five on the flop ultimately counterfeited your hand and made someone a better hand. Note also that any one with a Six has the same hand you have. This dramatically reduces your equity and the profitability of getting involved in the first place.
However, I expect I hold a minority view on this subject.
The pot is large and the flop is not dangerous to you, so you are practically a synch to call on the turn with just your pair. Since you ARE most likely going to the river I think you should routinely increase your chances of winning it.
I would have put some action in on the flop, probably by betting. Check-raising is certainly an option but once the 4 call in front of you, you kinda don't get much benefit from driving anybody else out. Except that the AK is going to 3-bet it and you can knock them out that way.
You hand is down right almost worth a raise-for-value on the turn, since you've got a gut-shot flush draw with a pair; even though its likely one of these hits won't win for you. And since raising can realistically save you the pot once in a while, you should have done it. Better yet, bet it out and HOPE the AK raises.
=== Protect those big pots ===
- Louie
In the hand given by Dunc the flop was Kc5h2d and the player who won held 6s7s. If the flop contained one spade such as Kc5h2s it would have been correct for the player to call. I'm pretty sure it would have been correct for him to call, but can anyone show me the math on this. What I'm looking for is 1card and 1card analysis in terms of bets and expectation for this player.
Thank you.
I don't know about the math but intuitively, I would say that the call is still incorrect given the position of the player holding 76 in relation to the flop bettor. That is, the preflop raiser was on the button and 76 is in the blinds. This could very well be one of those situations where everyone checks to the preflop raiser. I forget if 76 was the sb or the bb. If he was the sb, he could well find that there's a raise behind him from any one one of several players.
I don't like it but I'll let the math people correct me.
I agree that the call may be ok if say you were to the right of the flop bettor and the action comes back to you unraised.
I take it that you wouldn't recommend a call if the flop did not have a backdoor straight AND backdoor flush draw i.e. he needs both to make the marginal call on the flop.
Look for a recent archived post by Abdul Jalib. The thread deals with this very issue.
Notice that with a single spade, the 76s has a "whip-saw"; a 3-straight/3-flush.
Thank you Louie I will look it up.
Hey Berya, when you do look it up, let us know what the answer to the question is, would you.
Skp,
I found a discussion that Louie was refering to. If you do a search for posts by Abdul you will find a good recent discussion it is called:
"How many outs is a runner-runner flush draw?" Started by the Analog Kid.
It is dated about August 25 thru August 30.
P.S.(you can search for posts by Louie if you prefer to since Abdul is longer with us)
Hi,
I was reading Sherer's (sp?) tournament book and reflected on a recent situation I was in. He refers to tournament Foxes (selective aggression) versus Farmers (tight-conservative) and how you have to switch gears during phases of the tournament. Ken Buntjer's book calls them Alligators and Owls; same concept, different terms. I find that the books explain these general concepts of switching from conservative play during the rebuys, then more aggressive after the rebuys, but they do not give any specific examples. I do my share of blind stealing. I am aware of stack sizes, position, player types, etc. However, I am still trying to sharpen my game when it comes to switching gears. When is OK to be in survival mode and when is it time to "go out with your guns blazing" as Tom McEvoy says?
For example, I was more than doubled up in stack size after the rebuy/addon period in a low buyin tournament with 5 tables. I got tangled up in a hand with my KQo that got beaten by AA. This reduced me to a small stack. I was switched to another table where I was immediately the big blind, the limits just went up to T400 and I did not know the players. Middle position player with medium stack, roughly T3600, raises to T800. It was folded around to me. I have AcTc and T800 left, not including my posted blind (T400).
1.) Would you call, raise or fold? (Would you be a fox or farmer?)
The flop came 4hKs6h.
2.) Would you bet out or check-call or check-fold? (Would you be a fox or farmer?)
As is customary, I will post my results after your input. Same bat-time, same bat-channel.
Thanks, Keith O
The style only matter if you have enough chips in front of you. Your example does not apply because you only have 800 chips left and your big blind is 400. You must call with AT suited. With that flop you are probably a big underdog. But with 400 chips left you probably have not much choice but prepare to go all in. Any good player will put you all in anyway. I will not bet hopping the opponent did the wrong thing and let me keep my 400 chips.
In general you should be agreesive at any stage of the game when the bet is going to make your opponent think. When the bet is small compare with the stack of chips in front of the other players you should be more conservative and only raise or bet with very good hand or very good drawing hands as semi bluff.
This means usually conservative before the rebuy ends (unless you have a lot of money and just want to gamble during the rebuy period).
After the rebuy ends, be very aggresive against those players whose stack is low relative to the size of the bet.
OK, was this too easy? a no-brainer? Is anybody home?
I posted this because I know we all second guess some key hands that we were in when we bust out. "Did I do the right thing?" we ask.
"1.) Would you call, raise or fold? (Would you be a fox or farmer?) "
Well, I called the raise. I felt the raiser could have been stealing with a marginal hand. I saw him at the final table, raising the blind with 8h6h. He later won the tournament.
"The flop came 4hKs6h.
2.) Would you bet out or check-call or check-fold? (Would you be a fox or farmer?) "
I wanted to bet into him, representing a King, and hope he would fold. I hesitated while reaching for my chips because I realized he would call me all in regardless of what he had. Also, all I had if he called was an overcard, no flush draw, no pair, nuthin! Now that I hesitated, I realized that the bluff would not work. So, I checked, which was an open invitation for him to bet and steal. I folded to the bet. I felt that betting into him was my last "foxy" move I could have made. Perhaps, next time if I plan my bluff in advance, It will be more convincing, instead of reacting to the flop.
I made it through the blinds for a full orbit. Got AdJd on my next blind. Made another 1/2 orbit when I bet all in with pocket 6s, that were beat on the river by the BB's AK. An uneventful ending.
Thank you for any confirmations, constructive criticism, etc.
Keith O
Early morning at the Bellagio, 15-30 hold'em
Nine players in the game.. Stuck $700 with $300 left, I make a seat change to the 10 seat, on my next button hand, I pick up AcAd. UTG calls, a lady who has been making questionable plays and putting bad beats on everyone all night long calls (Bad Beat Lady- BBL), call, raise, one cold call, and I 3 bet it. SB folds, BB and all call until it gets to the original raiser. He 4 bets it, and the lady to my right caps it... We see the flop 7 ways capped. The flop comes 2h7h5d. Everyone checks the to woman who capped on my right, she bets, I raise. BB folds, remaining players cold call the 2 bets. (6 players in all) Next card comes, 9d. All check to me, I bet. UTG calls, BBL check raises! The 3 players in between her and I folded. I put her on top pair and possibly 2 pair, 97, based on the way she had been playing all night. I probably should have popped her back to put pressure on the UTG player to call 2 big bets, but I guess being stuck and bad beat by the BBL all night long had an effect on my thinking. I just called, as did UTG. The river brings a Qd. Not a good card an someone could have back-doored a flush, but not too likely. Now the board is 2h7h5d9dQd. UTG immediately mucks, guess he had a flush draw that never got there! BBL bets, I called, hoping my Aces were good. She says "I only have a 9." WOW!! I had won an $800+ pot!! It ends ups the original raiser had QQ. He had laid it down because of the check-raise by BBL. He didn't want to call 2 big bets to see the river, where he would have made his set. And the BB had 2 diamonds, and didn't want to call 2 bets on the flop for a runner-runner. Whew!! It's funny how things worked out
If the woman to my right did not cap pre-flop, I would have
Then everyone would have checked to me and the BB may have called 1 bet while folding for 2 bets on the flop. And if the BBL did not check-raise the turn, I would have been beaten by the set of Queens because he surely would have called one bet. That hand started a rush that turned me from being stuck about $850 to cashing out with $1900! And what a rush it was!!
Comments on my play are welcome!
Good seat change:)
1) "Stuck $700 with $300 left": Not a good policy. I would sell my car to raise money to play in this game.
2) "I make a seat change to the 10 seat": Hope you had a good, sound reason for making the change, other than that you were losing in the seat your were in.
3) Your play:
-on the flop: You might have considered just calling and waiting to raise on the turn. By raising, you caused all the others to check to you on the turn. Your raise on the flop only got one player out; with each player already having contributed 5 small bets, it's likely they're going to put in 2 more.
-on the turn: Once they've all checked to you, you have to bet; you can't give any free cards at that point. I would have re-raised to,as you put it, put pressure on UTG.
-on the river: When BBL bets, you've only got a crying call.
4) Q-Q: I find that souping pocket overpairs when the action indicates I'm probably beat costs more money than almost any other mistake. Q-Q probably felt he/she might be drawing dead to an already made straight, but I would have taken my chances with this overpair, even if I felt I only had 2 outs, with all that money in the pot. Good for you Q-Q folded.
Great pot!
You wrote...
"2) "I make a seat change to the 10 seat": Hope you had a good, sound reason for making the change, other than that you were losing in the seat your were in."
What other reason should I have moved for? I did move for the reason you stated above.
Sorry, didn't mean to come across so negatively. The way your original post read, it seemed you moved just because you were stuck. I wasn't trying to be a smart-ass, but re-reading that portion of my post, it reads that way to me too. My apologies.
This hand is a prime example where analysis will prove nothing. You may if you like try and apply a logic tree to the play of this hand and I will lay fifty to one the only fruit you yield will be apples.
Good seat change, Skp's line!
Vince
any poker players in oklahoma send me an email.
Thanks Kyle
In the future please put this type of post on our Exchange Forum.
I just came home from a 10-20 game that was very tight and passive. Usually 4 players seeing the flop and a raise was definitely narrowing the playing field. I would say that 6 of the 10 players were decent players with 2 calling stations and a couple of moderate players. I found this game to be a perfect fit for my play. This is the 3rd time I have played in a game like this and the 3rd time I've shown a profit. Tonight I played for 5 hours and took $600.
I'm not as concerned about the money as I am in the game. I don't know if 3 times makes it a trend or I just played well and caught some cards on 3 different occasions. I play better the higher the limit(Blast me, I know the limit should have nothing to do with my play) and I suck at 4-8 but I play great at 10-20 and 20-40. I found it much easier to run a bluff during this tight passive session(I think I was successful 6-8 times and when someone ran a bluff at me I was usually holding the gadget). I think I let go of a winner 1 time tonight but I didn't see the hand. My question to the forum is what game coincides with what players. Do loose players do well in tight games or do tight players do well in loose games. I know there will be quite a bit of variance but I'm mainly looking for your opinions on this matter. Thanks in advance,
RUSS
While this is an interesting question, I think that you have got it wrong. The proper question is "Are you making the appropriate adjustments to the game that you are playing?"
With this being said, I suspect that many forum poster do best in the type of game that you have described. This is because in some ways they view this as the standard game and gear their play (whether knowingly or not) to it. The further the game gets away from this type the poorer many people do because the more adjustments that are required.
Let me start by saying that I am a maximum of $3-6-12 Hold 'Em player simply due to the size of my paycheck and bills, so everyone understands the maximum level that I am competing at.
That being said, I would like to also say that I have only started playing casino poker within the last six months, but have played poker in the home setting since I was 4 or 5 years old.
I think Mason is right in saying you should adjust to every game. I find that being able to adapt to whatever limit/style the majority of the table plays puts you at an advantage over the players who are stuck in a certain style of play. If you are to play a hand, then play it according to the information that you are ascertaining from the other players through previous play, tells, tendencies and how the cards are running.
I'm only 22, but I learn quickly. I have noticed in the short time I have been playing in structured games that THE BEST players are the ones you will see slow/tight playing hands all night (regardless of chip stack size is even better in certain cases) and then firing in on a hand in what is presented as a very loose manner. These players realize that the majority of players can not see deep into your mind and see exactly how you feel or think. Most of us can only pick up things from what is presented on the outside. Great players and psychics can see what is happening on the inside, but otherwise it is all a matter of spin. Just as politicians have "spin doctors" to positively influence public opinion of even negative situations, a poker player needs to be his own spin doctor in creating a table persona to fit the certain situation. In doing this, it will help prevent other players from making an easy read of you if they can at all, and it will keep you "live" in a game that you would otherwise might be an easy mark.
Mason
I think this is a very important concept. I run across many players including myself who fall into a tight agressive approach which is good. However, if your sitting in a game for 6-8 hrs. and new people are sitting down the flavor of the game may change. For example, the game starts out tight agressive and your in early position and don't play Axs because your not getting the callers that you need to makethis hand profitable or you find yourself dominated. All of a sudden without realizing it the game becomes loose passive after the new players sit down and your still thinking your Axs is no good yet this is exactly the type of game this hand does well. I think as a poker player the toughest thing to do is make adjustments at the table when the game changes while your sitting there. It reminds me of a football team that is getting killed in the first half and comes out in the second half makes adjustmentsand wins. But in poker there is no halftime and so you have to be constantly aware of whats going on at the table. Any comments appreciated. Ice
I think you have it exactly right. Expert poker is a game of constant adjustments. These adjustments include short term as you have just described, and long term.
When I say long term you must recognize that as the regular players adjust to you, you must adjust to them over time.
Theoretically you should be adjusting your style to fit the game you are in. Nevertheless, I think that tight play wins the money against loose players over the course of a year. It may be to get optimum results, tight players should loosen up and play more hands but in general playing tight works better. When I say playing tight, I do not mean playing passively. I mean only coming in with quality hands in early position and loosening up a little bit as your position improves. I also mean being very selective about getting involved in raised pots. I know of no player who ever went broke in low and middle level hold-em games because he played too tight. On the other hand, I know of a lot of players who had to stop playing because they got involved in too many hands over the course of the year trying to play like an expert.
I'll just echo in by saying you gotta adjust to the game conditions as they present themselves and as Jim noted above, the mood of a game can change pretty quickly. A hand like KJ which might be mucked preflop in early position at 6 pm in a given game can be a hand with which you 3 bet someone at 8 pm in the same game.
For me the best games are those where the players are readable on the turn. When I am in such games, I loosen up considerably and particularly in late position...steal opportunies in such games can be plentiful.
On an overall broad categorization, give me the loose passive games any day of the week. Next in line would be the loose aggresive games. You Vegas types can keep the tight games (although I have to say that I did enjoy playing those games at the Mirage but I don't think I would want to do it day in and day out).
Speaking of loose and aggressive games, how much do you need to loosen up? I play on vacation in Vegas once a year for 7-10 days in 3-6 and 4-8 holdem games. I've had 3 trips to San Jose on business in the last 18 months and played 3-6 each time at the Bay 101.
Bay 101 is a different world. They play 9 handed with a $3 time charge (dead money) on the button. There are also $1 and $3 blinds. There are always walkers; it feels like I'm constantly posting. Waiting for a good hand means watching your stack melt away quickly.
I'm interested in the best way to adjust and what I need to defend my blind.
Thanx - Fat-Charlie
I'll let the Californians answer your question but it would seem to me that you definitely need to play more hands in time charge games as opposed to rake games. The hands I sppeak of are the suited puppies, small pairs and perhaps even unsuited middle connectors in late position.
Thanx - I'll try that next time out on the left coast. It's just that I HATE those hands. I know, they're supposed to be playable in good position, but I always get raised by a blind and see only big cards on the flop. Ok, I exagerate, but that's what it FEELS like.
I will give your advice a shot next time.
Fat-Charlie
I'm a Newbie who just learned to tighten up his game.
I play regularly with friends, playing for chump change. The game is VERY loose.
I had just finished Sklansky's Hold'em Poker. I played the hand rankings by the book. My friends were razzing me the whole night for my tight play -- but I didn't lose a single showdown!
Even in these early stages as I improve my game I can see the huge difference that tighter play can make.
I thought I would post a hand that I played over the weekend. It's not as interesting as some I've posted previously, but might be worth some discussion.
The game was $30-$60 at The Bellagio on Saturday evening. Before the flop a weak, loose player limped in early. A loose, aggressive player raised in late position, another loose, aggressive player who also played very poorly reraised on the button, I made it four bets in the small blind with two kings. The big blind folded and everyone else called (including the weak, loose player who added three more bets to the pot).
The flop came Q-10-5, three different suits. I bet, the weak,loose player raised, the loose aggressive player folded, the player on the button reraised, I called, the original raiser now made it four bets, and we both called.
A 5 came on the turn. I checked, the player on my left (who made it four bets on the flop) bet and we both called.
Another 5 came on the river and the action was the same as on the turn. The player to my left turned over Q-10 (he had flopped top two pair) for fives full of queens, the player on the button turned over A-Q for fives full of queens, and I won the pot with fives full of kings.
All comments are welcome.
Mason,
The pre flop play seems to suggest you are not against aces since you put in the last raise. Of course I'm sure some players sometimes go one bet short of capping just to disguise their hand a little. But that is my guess. Capping in Las Vegas is probably a much stronger indicator of aces than capping in California with the three raise limit.
If the weak-loose player concurs with my image of such a player, I wouldn't worry about a set on the flop. This type tends to wait until the turn to put in the raises. However, even if I thought I had the best hand here, stoping just short of capping (at five bets) seems reasonable.
Damn I wish you didn't reveal the hand of weak-loose because (honest) top two pair seemed to be his most likely flop. I would have loved the five on the turn and would be pretty sure I was best at this point.
It is morning for you but I just hit the wall where I am becoming incoherent. I would have put in a check-raise on the river (or perhaps the turn) but wish I didn't have the benefit of hindsight. So posters won't miss David so much I'll end it by saying "I'll let others elaborate".
Regards,
Rick
It just goes to show you, those who start with the quality hands finish with the money.
John
Mason(The King)
Have you ever lost with K's???
Good Hand
Paul N/S
This sounds very similar to a 3-6-12 game I was playing a few weeks ago. Sometimes, its hard to figure out exactly what they have. But, when the third five fell, your hand became stronger. Phones ringing, gotta go . . .
The second five was much more important than the third five. Any hand that was beating him on the turn was still beating him on the river. I would have check raised the turn and bet the river.
Just my opinion.
Rob
"The second five was much more important than the third five".
I agree, my oversite.
"I would have check raised the turn and bet the river".
I disagree. I would not check raise the turn for several reasons. Mason could have been reraised and it may have forced the weaker hand to fold. The pair of fives could have scared a bad player from cold calling. You can not rule out that the player that bet on the turn didn't make a set of Queens or Tens. Maybe even a pair of Aces.
Look at it this way. By checking on the turn and river four big bets were added for the two that Mason put in. If he had check raised on the turn the late position player may have dropped. Now, instead of getting two for one on the turn, he would be getting three for two. If he was reraised, it would be four for three . If on the river he bet, he would only be called making it even money.
I just saying, this is the way it could have happened.
Just my opinion.
I think you played the hand prudently and correctly. Even weak players get pocket Aces and pocket Queens and they bet them too. I like your four betting pre-flop. I like your plays on the flop, the turn, and the river since you have got the other guys betting your hand for you when you have the best of it. When you don't have the best of it, you have minimized your loss.
Why not reraise the button on the flop in hopes of either knocking out the guy to your immediate left,or at least to make him pay oh so dearly? To disguise the strength of your hand maybe? Because you were convinced he wouldn't fold? The reason I ask is because who would have put him on Q-10 until after he four bet the flop?
The first raise on the flop, from weak player, was a strong indication that the raiser had a hand. Weak players, in contrast to maniacs and loose aggressives, rarely raise without one, although they may have difficulty gauging its real strength. IMO, Mason should have been justly worried that this guy has TT, QT or, given that he's inclined to call 3 cold with QT, perhaps 55.
Mason,
Nice of these fellows to bet your hand for you! (I believe I've heard that from you before somewhere)
Seriously, your description of the play of these two was right on the money! Don't tell me you were afraid of Q,Q or A,A (maybe T,T). If I'm not mistaken there are one bet and four raises in Vegas. Someone with A,A would have capped preflop. Your fortunate that the river was bet, Your play is to bet the river or at very least check raise. You know that the loose player doesn't have Q,Q or he would have raised coming in.
Vince.
Vince, what about the button? His play is completely in line with him having AA or QQ. While it's a close call as to whether to bet-out or checkraise the turn or river, I believe that just flat-calling is definitely a good choice. If one of these is better, is has more to do with MM's read of the button player in particular than anything else.
Don't forget, when these guys do have weaker hands than MM, they might fold to his bet or check-raise, thus costing him money.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I never seem to get in on the ground floor on one of Mason's "hand to talk about" posts. Late as it is, here's my two bits.
I agree with Vince. I think that I probably would have checkraised at least on the river. While the button may have had QQ and just smooth called the turn in order to suck MM in, you can probably rule out QQ once he just calls again on the river. If the button beats Mason, it is with AA and with that hand, I reckon that he would have raised on the turn.
That leaves the fellow who is driving the action. Now, good players would likely raise with QQ on the flop even if the initial bet comes from their immediate right given the size of the pot. However, weak players who are often oblivious to the size of the pot etc. usually just smooth call a bettor to their right with top set in order to keep players behind them in the pot. I forget Mason's exact description of the player but generally, it seemed to me that Mason didn't think much of the fella. This coupled with the fact that this fellow did not initially raise preflop tells me that he probably did not have QQ or AA (BTW, I wish Mason wouldn't be so quick to reveal the other players' hands - it's way more fun to try and figure it out ourselves).
The checkraise on the turn is a little more dicey given that the button could have QQ and also because a checkraise at this point is unlikely to drive the button out if he has a hand like AQ or AK or AJ etc. One way to get the button out on the turn may have been to bet and hope to be raised again by the player to Mason's left. I probably would have bet on the turn. In order of preference, my play on the turn would be bet, check-call, checkraise.
Skp,
I certainly like a bet on the turn. Precisely for the reason you give. The possibility of getting raised by loose aggressive and dropping the button. If the button had A,A as Fossil thinks may be a possibility he would cap preflop. When a pot is as big preflop as this one you might as well cap when you have the best hand, That's why I don't give him A,A. No cap. If he has T,T he raises the turn. The early guy just limped. No way is he a Q,Q limper or even a T,T limper from mason's description.
Vince
Mason, I believe check-raise on the river was the right play. Not because we know the outcome of the play but because: Weak-loose player:
1- He would have raised before the flop with QQ, TT, AQ.
2- Could he have A5. Sure but with 3 fives on the board when you reach the river, well forget about it. I would not mind paying some extra bet to find out with a check-raise
3- His most likely hand after 4 betting on the flop was QT . Loose aggressive player:
1- The chance he had QQ's or TT's was quite possible even though there was a QT on the board. Like SKP said, he could have slow played that hand on the turn because he wants you around with your big pair.
2- But instead of raising on the river, he called!!
3- His call was a bad play. His got put you on a KK's or AA's!! The bottom line: Your KK's are good and you lost 2 big bets.
"you lost 2 big bets. "
What makes you think the loose aggressive player would just call!
Vince.
My main reason for not check raising on the river was that I felt the original limper might have TT. Furthermore, if I check raise the player on the button does not have to call.
It was clear to me that the original limper had either TT or QT since he made it four bets on the flop. TT becomes more likely as the hand progressed because he keeps betting. He is suppose to realize that I have an overpair and thus have him beat, so when he keeps betting I have to lower his chances of having QT. As you can see, I don't have to be right.
There are many interesting posts on this thread, and Q-T seems like weak-loose's most likely hand. I'm curious why there's been very little comment about the possible hands and the play by the button. Isn't T-T a likely hand? Didn't he grossly overplay A-Q on the flop? Even loose aggressive players sometimes show down with a big hand.
Fat-Charlie
From Page 167 of the Malmuth and Sklansky book on "21st Century Edition of Hold-em for Advanced Players":
"Suppose you have two Kings or two Queens in the big blind. The player under the gun raises and six people call. Our preferred way to play this hand is to not re-raise and then when the flop comes to bet out, unless it contains an Ace. You should come out betting enlisting the original pre-flop raiser to be your unwitting partner to knock people out."
This assumes that your bet will get raised on the flop by the under the gun pre-flop raiser. This is not necessarily a valid assumption. If his pre-flop raise was based on pocket Tens or Jacks and an overcard flops, he probably won't raise your bet with four opponents yet to be heard from. If his preflop raise was based on two big cards, unless he happens to flop top pair, he probably won't raise your bet then either. In either of these two scenarios, he might even fold out of fear of it getting raised behind him. In other scenarios where he does raise your bet, he may well have a better hand than you making you a huge underdog since you could be playing a two outer.
I would always re-raise with pocket Kings since my raise will put into the pot another seven bets with me almost always having the best hand. This is great leverage. Although I am an underdog against a collective, when I win I will win huge. With pocket Queens I am not as sure. Queens are not nearly as strong as Kings plus my hand is instantly dead if an Ace or King flops without a Queen especially with a lot of opponents. On the other hand if I do re-raise, the first raiser might well cap the betting and drive out some players before the flop.
Sound advice. Charge the fish pre-flop. One out of eight flops you'll have a set and can really punish a big field. About 1/3 of the time the flop will come ragedy or with a smaller pair and you'll lose a lot of your customers so get 'em pre-flop.
Lastly, if five players have called a UTG raiser they could easily hold many of the overcards you fear making a favorable flop more likely.
I like your advice. I prefer the HPFAP strategy with only one or two opponents when deception is of more value than when there are a lot of opponents. Why give up another five or six small bets for a possible "unwitting partner" on the flop?
Jim,
Generally I play these hands (especially the kings) as you describe. However, I won't deny the merit or what S&M advise. A lot depends on the style of the pre-flop raiser. I think it works best when he has a lot of follow through on his raises. Many will routinely bet when one overcard flops and will bet overcards on all but the most dangerous boards (e.g., 8 9 T suited twice).
In any event, either strategy should work pretty well. When one has good alternative preflop strategies, I think it is a good idea to mix it up. You can provide quite a bit of deception at little cost. It can pay off big on later streets. I'd like to comment more, but "Mean Streets" is on HBO3 in a few minutes and I haven't seen it in a few years.
Regards,
Rick
Jim B writes >>>From Page 167 of the Malmuth and Sklansky book on "21st Century Edition of Hold-em for Advanced Players":
"Suppose you have two Kings or two Queens in the big blind. The player under the gun raises and six people call. Our preferred way to play this hand is to not re-raise and then when the flop comes to bet out, unless it contains an Ace. You should come out betting enlisting the original pre-flop raiser to be your unwitting partner to knock people out."<<<<<
I don't have this book yet, I'm waiting for it to come out in paperback. What type of game is this with 6 cold callers? Sounds loose and maybe wild. If that's the case there is almost no reason to assume these same folks will fold for two bets on the flop with any draw. Bottom pair calls. Overcards call. Backdoor straight flush calls. These players came to play, not to fold.
Since you can't make them fold for two bets post flop I think it's vital to charge them pre-flop when they still are full of hope. One of the most favorable situations in on a flop of 9 2 2 with no flush draw. The field will now fold en mass leaving you against overcards, nines and deuces, maybe 2 or 3 callers.
Here's a final small advantage to the pre-flop 3-bet. If you catch an ace high flop and UTG bets out and all others just call you'll be getting over 26-1 to spike a set. That's enough pot odds to go for a backdoor straight as well.
Here's a final small advantage to the pre-flop 3-bet. If you catch an ace high flop and UTG bets out and all others just call you'll be getting over 26-1 to spike a set. That's enough pot odds to go for a backdoor straight as well.
While having the correct odds to play the hand farther even on very slim draws is fun, that doesn't somehow make it good to raise to create those odds. You could say the same thing about any hand; if you raise preflop, you'll be more likely to continue to play after the flop! But I'm not going to raise 73o just to make it better to play inside straights later.
This in in fact the whole point of the S&M advice: you want to make it less correct for hands like the bottom pair and inside straights you mention to call you on the flop. The pot is already big enough (and will certainly become bigger) that your main concern is winning the hand, not keeping people around to pay you more bets.
Keep in mind that the original qouted text is from the loose games section but S&M still say it is not for the sort of game where every player is so terrible that no matter what you do, they'll be along till the river.
The situation is rare that you don't want to raise with kings or queens preflop. However, when the proper situation comes up, be prepared to take advantage of it.
David
I think the point that Scott is making is that as a result of making the pot large because you have the best hand (e.g.-pocket Kings in this example) a side benefit is that implied odds can work in your favor. A pot with eight-way action three bet pre-flop could make a two outer worth pursuing on the flop if an Ace shows up. We still raise because we have the best hand not to create better implied odds. Is this right, Scott?
Jim B writes "Is this right Scott?"
Exactly so. You are raising with the best hand. The huge pot odds are a side benifit allowing you to maybe pursue a slim draw correctly..
A note as to the game. If six folks cold call a UTG raise they are suspected of being very fishy and likely to chase to the river. Temporary insanity is not a likely explaination. Fish chase after big pots. They are unlikely to draw a line that says "Gee, 16 bets out there is not enough to chase my skinny draw, if only the pot was 24 bets." They call. They draw. They suck out sometimes and they lose all there chips often. Bless them all.
One of the ideas that both David and I have tried to stress on this forum and in our writings is that once you play the first two cards reasonably well (at limit hold 'em) the real money is made from the flop on. In the loose game section of the new version of the book we discuss some plays where it may be correct to give up some ev before the flop to gain it back plus some extra after the flop. This is an example of one of those plays.
We also state the following on the bottom of page 159 of the new edition:
"There is a bit of a two-edged sword here. If you're playing against extremely terrible opponents, it's hard not to raise with pretty good hands because even though you're costing yourself money on the later streets, your're gaining so much before the flop because your hand is usually so much better than theirs."
So if you are in a game where you are pretty sure that the play we are describing won't work because they all come anyway or because the original raiser won't make the flop raise, then you don't do it. However, where it does work -- and as you move up in limits where many players get overly aggressive and make these raises automatically, you should find many spots where it will work just fine -- it can be very beneficial.
You will now discover that playing the hand this way has occasionally saved you a large pot that you would have otherwise lost. This is frequently better than occasionally losing a larger pot.
We are down to about 30 from 75. I'm in excellent chip position as I have enough to fully play 3 hands. Nobody is short stacked at my table of 8(each has enough to play at least 1 - 1.5 hands). Final table gets paid.
AS the cards are dealt a Queen is flashed and burned.
Utg folds. Next one calls(could have great variety of hands, probably has an A or a K suited in his hand or a jack suited). I'm next with pocket queens. The player after me is the only one who is probably going to fold. The button will call he has played the last 8 or 9 hands out of 10 as will definetely the big blind. The big blind I believe gave up his blind once in 6 rounds of play!
These players are totally unpredictable. Don't ask me how all 3 of them got here so far, they did. One of them will absolutely no questions asked will bet if an Ace or King comes or any other flop for that matter. This hand will take a lot of my chips, probably half to play all the way.
What do I do?
Raise.
You are still MANY hands away from the money. It sounds like 9 get paid, and there are about 24 players left. Based upon the stack size info provided, it will take 3-4 rounds or more to reach the money. This is too soon to be playing total survival poker. You still need to win chips to make the money, and especially to win.
Even knowing that 3 of these players won't fold, you need to raise to ensure that no one else plays, and to get more of their money into your pot. You will win this pot close to half the time, so make it bigger.
This strategy will probably cause you to not get into the money quite as often, but you will get there with more chips much more often. If I guesstimate some numbers, your EV will increase by raising at least 10% (as compared to just calling), while the chances of finishing in the money will decrease only something like 1% (and maybe not at all?).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I am a person new to casino poker. I play 7-stud, Texas and Omaha High/Low 8 better occasionally (at low limits). I know that this is a subject that could be endlessly discussed, but I would like everyone's imput on something.
I have been developing my style and knowledge of poker as fast as I can through experience, reading and discussion. The streak and/or luck factor in poker has left me only one issue that I need to resolve in order to manage my bankroll.
What I am talking about are the "I can't do anything right" streaks. You are playing your best game in your familiar limit and player setting, tall/even stack, and keeping/discarding hands according to your own logical guidelines.
For example, the other day (I am currently in the middle of the said type of streak) I am playing a house game with me dealing casino style (rules and all) a mix of $3-6-12 Texas, $1-2 Stud (or higher limit) and a little Omaha high/low. It's always a shorthanded game because there are five players sitting at the table, with no one else coming over.
Playing Texas, I have not dealt myself one starting hand for close to an hour. One particular hand, I deal Ace-Five offsuit. By no means would I keep this hand (I was one after the only $3 blind) in this position and only very rarely otherwise even so. So I muck, and there is the one blind with one call on my left, with a raise and a call by the blind and the orignal caller.
Flop comes 2,3,4 offsuit. One bet of three, called by all three players. Last two cards are blanks. One player folds on the turn when an king shows itself after a bet of $6. The last two players stay in and only check the last bet. Winning hand is a pair of kings on the last bettor.
Second hand. I start Texas (still dealing) with pocket fives. I decide to pay for a flop and pay three. (May be my mistake right there.) One folds, so fourhanded. Flop comes 5,7,9. Making my trips, I see a check, check, I bet $3, and get called by two players. Next card an ace. One bet of $6 led by first position. Call call by us other two. (I play slowly on hands like this.) Last card comes as a 9. It's checked to me where I bet $6 and it gets called as one person folds. Showdown, guy makes nines full of sevens.
Last hand in mind, same session, still Texas. I am in last position, and I have King four suited spades. It's made six. I fold. Flop comes Ace, Jack rag spades. Winning hand is a pair of jacks for roughly a $35 pot. I had the nuts, but the starter didn't fit.
What I need to know is what the hell is going on? Is it bad call/bad beat/bad fold, or just bad playing? Should I have just stopped at some point? Where are my mistakes? I know I am new to this type of playing against solid players, but the same strategy has worked before in these situations in both conserving me money as well as winning pots. If anyone can give me some advice, I would appreciate it.
Stumped in Chicago
Nick nazacny@ameritech.net (I leave the email in case I was an idiot. Don't post that!)
Is it possible you are playing too tight for a short handed game?
Mathematically there is no such thing as "being on a streak"; there is only "have been on a streak". This means the chances of you getting AA on the next hand are ALWAYS the same no matter how well or bad you are doing; not counting cheating.
Psycologically there IS such a thing as "being on a streak". Unless you are a logic-bot, YOU play better when winning and unless the opponents are logic-bots, THEY play worse when YOU are winning.
So generally continue when winning and generally leave when losing; but KNOW its because of psycological dynamics and NOT "lucky" streaks.
If you FEEL unlucky at a skill game, then for all practical purposes you ARE unlucky. Take Roy West's advise: "Play happy or don't play".
- Louie
That's good advice. I would also say that if you *know* a game is good and you *know* you are playing well, stay with it.
I've been in "good" low-limit games where I was stuck 3 or more racks because of bad luck (e.g., my draws never hit and opponents' always did), and kept going with the game for many hours until things finally started going my way. I won't say I've always turned a profit, but I've generally either walked away a winner or much less of a loser than I might have.
On the other hand, if you *don't know* whether or not the game is good or if you are playing well, it might be a good idea to leave stuck before it gets worse.
--j
This is a controversial topic - \ There are some days when you can't do anything right - no matter how you play !!! Otherwise the experts would not have a losing day (and we know this is not quite true !) I happen to believe this to be true - besides game selection knowing what kind of day you are having EARLY is also very valuable. There are roughly three kind of days. 1) You can't do anything right - get many 'good , playable' hands but they are always second/third best. 2) You can't do anything wrong - play some iffy hands but always turn out a winner. These days you can push your 'luck' and learn much valuable lessons how to play marginal hands. 3) Normal day (40-60%) of time. play tight agressive and book a win/breakeven or small loss if get tired/careless etc. Important is to learn to adjust your play not only to the opponents but CONDITIONS !!! If one can learn to pick day 1 and just leave 60% of the time early and leave eventually most of the time you will see drastic improvement of EV. I know this flies in the face off most math wizzards and those who 'like ' to believe poker is more exact ! But use some common sense. All who have played any amount of time can testify to what I described.
Andras writes:
If one can learn to pick [the days when nothing goes right] and just leave 60% of the time early and leave eventually most of the time you will see drastic improvement of EV. I know this flies in the face off most math wizards and those who 'like ' to believe poker is more exact! But use some common sense. All who have played any amount of time can testify to what I described.
I don't know anyting about the 60% figure but quitting early on bad days is good advice for average players and it has nothing to do with contradicting theory or experts. Most players can't play their best after adverse results, just as they don't play well when tired or sick. Average winning players, however, usually must play their best in order to win and often can't play with much if any positive expectation after a bad streak. Their judgment is off because (1) frustration and distraction impairs their ability to watch and think and (2) diminished confidence and the perceived need to "do something different" makes bad or merely sub-optimal plays look attractive. (But maybe the best reason to leave early is that playing is no longer fun, and if you're an average winning player you're playing for fun.)
Really good players aren't impaired by short-term losses because they were never bothered by them in the first place or they've grown out of it. When they leave early, they so so for different reasons.
Aspiring players might want to tough out a bad session by concentrating on ignoring it. But if your hourly is close to the break-even point, the need to always play your best should be an inflexible, iron rule. If you can't play your best even when you wish you could and know you ought to, you should leave. If you're unwilling to accept that then at least understand that your problem is your reaction to an external event and neither the event itself nor anything else outside of your mind, and take it from there. (One exception: you may be taking your losses in perfect stride but others at the table are trying to pound and won't let you bluff because they think you should be on tilt. This is a good opportunity for adjustment, but if you prefer not to because the adjustment cramps your preferred style then switch tables or quit).
The foregoing applies to average winning players. If you are a losing player, you might want to stick around and get it over with in a hurry.
The sixy percent was developed by a proprietary computer formula on Chicago - initially for option pricing, taken by graft and converted over to poker by me.... NOT !!!!!
hand 1: If there's a raise BTF, I would not call with this hand. However, if there's no raise, and you have position, A5 can be a good hand in a short handed game. You just have to be creative!
Hand 2)once you are in with the 55 and flop a set, you should play as fast as you can. You bet the flop, that's good. but not raising on the turn was a critical mistake. The player with top two pair should have been raising as well, both hands were badly misplayed! With what you and he held the pot should have been capped on the flop! When you didn't raise the turn, you let the guy with two pair (the worse hand) draw to beat you cheaply. Again, between you and him, there should have been substantial action on the turn as well! Charge them to try and draw out on you. Do not slowplay trips!!!
hand 3)calling a raise with K4s is a bad idea, so folding was the right play. The results of the flop have nothing to do with whether you made the correct play.
Dave in Cali
I know when you win money in a tournament, you fill out a tax form, and the taxes are taken out, but when you cash in from a session at the tables, you don't pay anything regardless of how much you win. Does that mean one doesn't have to declare the income, say if they played every day, winning a hundred or so a day, and over the year, it added up to some serious money.
thanks, Paul
You ALWAYS have to pay taxes.
However, with winnings from ring games, those who choose to avoid taxes are much more likely to not get caught.
The IRS expects you to keep records of every session you play. At the end of the year, add up all your winning sessions (ignoring, for now, your losing sessions). This winning total goes into your gross income. Now, add up all your losing sessions. If less than your winning total, fine. If more than your winning total, reduce to the equivalent of your winning total. Take this losing amount and you may use it as an itemized deduction.
If your standard deduction is larger than your itemized deductions, SOL. If the winning sessions make your gross income so high that you lose the right to take certain deductions, SOL.
Here's a real kicker. If you live in Connecticut, there are no itemizable deductions. However, you have to pay CT state taxes on every penny of gross income from your Federal return. Thus, CT taxes every winning session and ignores every losing session, even if you have a net loss for the year.
Gee, I wonder why so many people choose to cheat on their taxes?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
BTW, this post belongs in the Exchange section.
*** Disclaimer: The following should be interpreted as rumor and is NOT a substitute for proper and legal advise ***
Not that I have experienced it, but there is some sort of $10k cash out limit that will trigger an IRS form even for "ring" games. I suspect some high roller regular winners get around this with some sort of strong box IN the casino.
Yes, you are obligated to declare your winnings. If memory serves, you can deduct your expenses (hotel, car) if you are a "professional" (but I don't know for sure what that means) and you can of course deduct your losses up to the amount that you won over the course of a year.
So if you average LEAVING the casino with $100 more than you came with, you are obligated to declare that as income. This $100, of course, is after drop, tips, coffee, and prime rib.
It is my understanding that some people actually do declare their winnings accurately.
Gratefully, the IRS is obligated to accept your personal records of your wins and losses. One scum-bag "friend" of mine would routinely, and "illegally" always record $50 worse than he actually did. So HE knew how much he made. So as long as you don't dilegently use the players bank or some other bank account, the temptation for creativity on your tax return is very high. The IRS can tell if you jury-rig your records before any audit, so be sure to record as the year progresses. Avoid attracting attention to yourself and be sure to declare SOMETHING if poker is your only form of income.
- Louie
Income is taxable from "whatever source derived." This includes gambling winnings. However, any winnings are offset against losses for the year, and only any net win is included in income. Net losses are not deductible!!!!- unless you treat your poker playing as a trade or business and file schedule C - and then they can only be carried forward to future years.
With schedule C you can deduct any expenses incurred in playing poker - hotel, airfare, travel, etc. You could even lease a car and deduct 100% of the lease payment if the car were only used to drive to and from casinos and poker rooms. The drawback to treating poker as a trade or business is that you will have to pay self-employment tax on your net win for the year in addition to regular income taxes. Self employment tax is the social security tax which is 15%. An additional benefit is that if you have a losing year you can carry the loss forward to future years and offset any net wins.
If poker is your full time pursuit, it may make sense to file under schedule C as a trade or business - assuming you have sizeable expenses - otherwise, the self employment tax will wipe out any benefit from filing as a trade or business.
If poker is a part time pursuit and your wins do not substantially alter your lifestyle, only your honesty will require you to pay tax on your win. If you do not intend to declare your winnings, you should probably keep them in cash so that you do not have frequent cash deposits into your bank account that would prompt an IRS agent to ask on audit, "where is all this cash coming from?"
The $10,000 limit mentioned in the post above is referring to a "Currency Transaction Report" better known as a CTR. This is required to be filed by anyone - a bank, casino, retailer, car dealer, etc. anytime a cash transaction of $10,000 or higher takes place. This is not a tax form. The purpose of CTRs is to maintain a record of large cash transactions in an effort to uncover money laundering or any illegal activity. The purpose is not for taxes - the report does not indicate whether you win or lose. It could be that you cashed in $10k to buy chips and lost it all, or you could have won and cashed out $10k or higher in chips even though you started with $1k.
Hope this helps.
Paul et al;
Note that I read recently that you should be filing EVERY year, even if you don't make a profit that could affect your taxes. Supposedly a Superior Court judge was nailed by IRS last year or year before (can't remember, check old Card Player issues for article) on this. The judge hadn't filed in previous years because he lost more than he won (so, no tax payments would have resulted). One year, he had a good year and made a profit. He reported it, but the IRS nailed him for not reporting his break-even years previously....for the reasons Greg mentioned (affecting gross income)
So, if you have ANY gambling income (even if your losses would officially/legally wipe it out), file anyway....
You say "the IRS nailed him" for not reporting his previous breakeven years. What was the penalty. He did not owe any additional tax. I'm surprised the IRS would do anything. Technically under this rule, you would have to include every winning bet you make in a year and deduct every losing bet - an absurd proposition.
It is absurd, but that IS the rule. However, you don't have to break it down bet-by-bet. You are allowed to break it down into sessions.
A session, for poker purposes, is essentially every table change.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Checkraise and All,
If you still have Card Player from either the previous issue up to two or three issues ago check out the tax column by Yolanda Whatshername and her partner (somehow Yolanda is a name that is easy to remember).
The IRS prosecuted a losing player because he failed to properly place winning sessions under income and losing sessions under itemized deductions even though it would have had no effect on his taxes! It almost seemed beyond belief. The article was truly scary.
BTW, I couldn't find the link in the Card Player Website so you will have to find a hard copy (I will have one tonight). Maybe Yolanda has a website and someone could post the URL.
Regards,
Rick
I'm not doubting what you say; it just surprises me. Also when you say the IRS "prosecuted" the guy, I don't understand what you mean. Tax evasion as a criminal offense would only hold up if you owed taxes, you knew it, and failed to report. But this guy did not owe any taxes. I find it hard to believe the IRS would do any more than tell the guy how to report properly in the future. Unless this guy had had problems with the IRS in the past and was willfully disregarding the reporting requirements.
If the IRS is going to pursue every individual who does not report every winning gambling session, it's going to be quite an uphill battle. No casual gambler complies with this. Even the biggest loser has an occasional winning session. With the proliferation of casinos throughout the country, more people are wagering than ever. This is truly a paperwork accounting nightmare that is completely ridiculous. If everyone did start complying with this, the IRS would complain and change the rule - too much paperwork.
Not quite the paperwork nightmare you envision.
You don't file your records with your return. You only need the records if they audit you, which is a low-percentage occurrence.
Thus, you can put anything you want on your 1040. If they don't audit you, it won't hurt you. However, if you sign your 1040 and it contains false or incomplete statements, they can prosecute you for this lie, even if the tax liability is identical.
Now, if you can show to the auditing agent's satisfaction that it's an honest error, they most often aren't going to do anything to you. Even if you owe more money, they'll most likely just ask for the money plus penalty plus interest. However, if they think you purposefully tried to avoid taxes, they MIGHT do a whole lot more.
Feel free to cheat on your taxes if you choose. However, if you're going to do so, you probably owe it to yourself to learn what the potential penalties are if caught. No need to fool yourself about the downside risk of this particular gamble.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Something to watch out for is that the $10K level on the transaction report filed with the treasury dept is not fixed. In high crime and drug areas the level the banks must use is lower, dictated by the DEA or treasury Dept. For instance in Lawrence Ma, if you deposit more than $2K in cash it gets reported.
Not that anyone will do anything, but a pattern of it will bring government scrutiny your way.
I'm not sure, but I think you're referring to "Suspicious Activity Reports." The CTR is required by the Treasury Department and is only required at the $10k threshold to the best of my knowledge.
I ran into this while I was manufacturing computer components. I was routinely getting wire transfers from europe and canada in the $2K to $30K range, and depositing $1000 to $3000 in cash a week. I was approached by the DEA twice, making sure I wasn't a drug dealer. It could have been something other than a CTR but reports were required of the bank on these activities...rather unnerving as a whoe too. They told me anything over $2500 in the Lawrence and Lowell area came under scrutiny.
The wire transfers definetely are not subject to CTRs. CTRs are only for cash transactions - no cash in a wire transfer. If these reports were filed for wire transfers then they were definetely suspicious activity reports not CTRs. As long as you made the money legally and pay your taxes, no worry.
There's a place i play holdem at that doesn't have a rake, but instead it has what are called contributions. 3-6 and 5-10 games have the person on the dealer button pay $3, 10-20 charges $5 per half hour, 15-60 is $6, and 20-40, $7. Naturally, it is wiser to play 5-10 than 3-6, but how does the 5-10 rate compare to the 10-20, and also, how do these contributions compare to say, a 5 or ten percent rake. I find people play looser, since they have to pay even if they don't play any hands, so they tend to play more hands. thanks, Paul
Having to pay $3 on the button in a $3-$6, $5-$10, or even a $6-$12 game is bad news. If the game is nine handed then on the average you will have the button 3 or even 4 times per hour so it is costing you $9-$12 per hour to play in this game. In a rake game, if you are tight and aggressive player you will win on the average about 2 pots per hour so if they rake $3 or $4 out of each pot it only costs you $6-$8 per hour. This extra hourly cost adds up to a lot of money over the course of a year in these little games where you can only average maybe $10 or $12 per hour.
The $5 collection per half hour in a $10-$20 is not too bad. In the bigger games having to pay an extra buck or two each half hour above what it is in the $10-$20 can hurt over the course of a year unless you are a top player. Personally, I avoid collection games and prefer a rake game for anything below $20-$40. At $30-$60, the Bellagio only collects $5 per half-hour which is a great deal for the players unlike Commerce where you have to pay $10 per half-hour for $30-$60. This extra $10 per hour adds up to serious money when you play a couple thousand hours each year.
Sounds like you might be talking about Turning Stone Casino. At any rate, they have the same pay structure.
While some of the dealers and players are kind of slow, which reduces your payout per hour, the cardroom management has actually told me that they end up making more money from the 3-6 and 5-10 games, because they actually are dealing 40 hands per hour or close enough to it.
I usually end up playing 5-10 because the games are enough easier, but it depends on the day.
David
You are correct, it is the Turning Stone. One night i played 5-10, and was averaging about eight callers a hand, with rare raising pre-flop. i played tight, and won with ease. when i played equally loose, and hit bad cards, i lost with ease. then another night, i played 5-10, and it was very tight, and i played looser than i should have, but i would say when it's tight, it's not really worth the time and money, and it's best to move up higher in stakes. an extra buck a half hour from 10-20 to 15-30 seems like a reduction comparitively considering that's a 50% increase in stakes, so i guess i'll play as high as i can afford. i think the 20-40 is two dollars higher per hour than 10-20, which is only 4 an hour, but doubling the stakes. at this point tho, i would stick with the 5-10, because the dealers are off the street, and slow. i don't think they go around the table once every fifteen minutes to make 40 hands an hour. i would believe 30 at this time. 40 might be their goal tho. anyway, thanks for the info. Paul
the higher stakes you play the more time you pay but you should win more per hour than the extra time if you are indeed a winning player for the limits you choose. pick the game that has the worst players and gives the best hourly earn. if you are not a winning player and most people know if they are, then if you must play, play in a small stakes game and play as tight as you possibly can before and on the flop and low and behold you may become a winning player. i like rake games if they are very loose but time games if tight as i will steal pots in tight games and the rake then becomes a killer. dont play in rake games that have most pots uncontested to the end as a general rule.
A poker chum does not have Internet access, but has been quite interested in my comments to him about this forum and the quality of the analysis available from the poker community. He asked me to post an Omaha/8 hand in which he was involved a couple of nights ago and see what the group thought about it.
4-8 Omaha/8 game. Very loose, but quite passive with little pre-flop raising. My friend is easily the most conservative, solid player at the table, but I think he's sometimes too conservative! His hand in middle position is Ad-Jd-10h-8h. He calls, and 9 players see the flop, about the average for this game. Flop comes down Qh-9d-7d, giving him the full wrap straight and nut flush draw, barring someone hitting the one straight flush that beats him. Anyway, about the best possible flop he could hope for, I think.
Four checks to our hero, who bets. Only 1 person folds. Turn card is 3h. When checked to him again, my buddy checked. ( I said he's conservative!) He explained to me that at this point, he still has nothing but potential, and if a low black card hits the river, he's in the muck. The hand gets checked out.
River is Qd. Three checks to my buddy, he checks, and player to his immediate left now bets. Button calls, BB and UTG both call. Faced with a paired board, a bet, and 3 callers to him, my friend folded. He explained to me that several times in the previous 3-4 hours of play, he had seen several players not bet the non-nut full house (seems reasonable) but freely call at the river, with or without a low on board. I will give the full results after some comments from the forum to these questions:
1. Would you play this hand to start with? 2. Would you bet the flop, or try for a check-raise? 3. Given the pre-flop bet and number of callers, would you bet the turn anyway, even though your hand is still in development? 4. Would you continue to push the envelope by betting the river, even though the board paired? 5. Is the fold reasonable?
Comments welcome.
1. NO
1. Would you play this hand to start with?
middle position with Ad-Jd-10h-8h is pretty marginal. However, as long as he is certain that no one will raise behind him the vast majority of the time, then this is OK, given the number of callers preflop. However, he also needs to be sure that he is going to be called down by non-nut straights and flushes after the flop, as well.
2. Would you bet the flop, or try for a check-raise?
Whichever got the most money in the pot. It is highly unlikely that he is going to get a hand with any decent draw to fold, so the main goal should be to get the most strange money in the pot, given that he is going to win here probably about half the time.
3. Given the pre-flop bet and number of callers, would you bet the turn anyway, even though your hand is still in development?
I count the following outs for our hero: 4 nut high outs w/ no low, 9 nut high outs w/ low, 9 outs to non-nut high w/ no low, and 6 non-nut high w/ low.
In my mind this is about the equivalent of about 11-14 outs, or a win rate of almost 1/3. Since he will get at least 2 callers on the turn (in this game, right?), he should bet.
4. Would you continue to push the envelope by betting the river, even though the board paired?
I would never bet the river here, unless I was last to act and everyone checked to me. Even then I would check if any of the early position players would check a small full (or check-raise a big full).
5. Is the fold reasonable?
Only if he is highly confident he has lost. I count 9 bets preflop, plus 8 on the flop, plus 4 bets on the river, or about 12 big bets before our hero acts. Once he calls, there is no one to act behind him, so he has no fear of a check-raise. He must be confident that he will lose here greater than 92% of the time for a fold to be correct. Given that no one bet the turn when a set was the current nuts (no straights, etc. were possible), only someone who had Qs up is likely to have filled on the river here. So, I would be less than 92% sure that I held a loser in this spot.
Early in my career, playing in a game like the one described, I folded the bottom full (2s full) in a spot like this, and the best anyone else held was the 3rd nut flush. Later, this turned out to be a not uncommon occurrence. If someone else had been pushing all the way, and still pushed the river, and then was called in 3 spots, I might be more than 92% sure that my nut flush was no good. On these facts, I'm not so sure.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
1. Would you play this hand to start with? no
2. Would you bet the flop, or try for a check-raise? i would try a check raise.
3. Given the pre-flop bet and number of callers, would you bet the turn anyway, even though your hand is still in development? yes
4. Would you continue to push the envelope by betting the river, even though the board paired? no
5. Is the fold reasonable? yes. But I'll call for one extra bet.
conservative players would never lay ten or 15 to one on any bet yet when they fold a big hand for one bet with many bets in the pot thats exactly what they are doing.
with such bad players id call with the hand. bet the flop and turn, and bet or call the river and if i lose wait for the next hand.
Post deleted at author's request.
""Ad-Jd-10h-8h""
"And this was an example of a great hand to play 9-way before the flop. This is exactly the kind of hand you sit down in a loose passive game to play."
Doesn't this hand have too many gaps? If the eight was a king or queen it would be a decent hand, but isn't the straight potential here much reduced by the unconnectedness - all you have is the nut flush and slight straight potential.
Dan,
I agree totally that's why I answered no.
Paul
Thanks to all the posters over the past couple of days. In discussing the hand and the comments from the first couple of posters last night with my buddy, he agreed that his biggest mistake on the playof the hand was failing to bet the turn. Well, that's not exactly true, because as I'm sure many of you suspected, his really big mistake was not calling the river, cause here's the collection of hands(?) that the table came up with at the showdown:
1. LHO who bet the river: 10 high diamond flush. 2. Button - low diamonds and a Q. 3. one of the blinds - K high diamonds (the eventual winner) 4. UTG - a Q.
Needless to say, in retrospect, in a game so weak that the third overcaller can't muster up more than trips, folding the nut flush was a hugh error in judgment. Moral: learn from it, and move on. Thanks for the input.
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
It seems as if I am constantly seeing gutless advice spewed forth on this forum. This type of advice usually ends something like this; ". . .if you follow this strategy you will save a bet when you are loosing and lose a bet when you are winning but you will avoid the chance of being bluffed.". Who is worrying about being bluffed? I welcome players to make moves at me because they dont know what I hold. When you always bet and raise you disguise your hand. It takes a lot of balls to put a 3-bet bluff on a guy who just raised you. 99% of players wont do it and the ones who will are easy to spot and steer clear of. Game theory comes into play with these "movers", with everyone else you should be betting, folding or raising 90% of the time.
Am I wrong? I come from europe and a pot-limit background, maybe I dont understand the subtle inticasies of checking and calling.
There is no such thing as gutless advice.
There is good advice and bad advice.
If following someone's advice either makes me more money on a hand, or loses me less, then it's good advice. Why should I care whether the specific advice was to call, fold, raise, or whatever? If I have more money in my pocket as a result, that's all that matters, right?
Using a term like "gutless" is either a poor choice of words, or intended to rile people up.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Hey Fossilman, don't let Limon get you worked up. He's an upset Euro who's still pissed that his boys can't hold the largest lead ever in the final day of the Ryder cup and then whine about spike marks. Back to Poker, most Euro's do play a more aggressive style at the table...That being said, they when a lot more money by raising on the end with marginal hands sometimes and lose a lot more then they should of by calling raises instead of mucking. Later...
RUSS
Hey Russ, I tried to e-mail you but it keeps coming back. Can you send me an e-mail so I have the right address. Thanks Randy Collack
Post deleted at author's request.
When you always bet and raise you may disguise your hand, but you also guarantee that any player with a hand is going to call you down. I've seen plenty of guys try and run over a game in limit, with the net result being that everyone at the table starts looking them up with as little as A high.
When you always bet and raise you may disguise your hand, but you also guarantee that any player with a hand is going to call you down. I've seen plenty of guys try and run over a game in limit, with the net result being that everyone at the table starts looking them up with as little as A high.
Isn't this good as long as fold those hands that can't beat A high? :)
xx
I'm not too clear on exactly what Limon was suggesting, but here's my take. There are players who do use a very consistent bet-bet-bet, raise-raise approach whenever they have anything and as bluffs following up virtually all their preflop raises. The problem, I think, is what GD touched on. It's a one-dimensional approach which better players (and probably calling stations as well) will eventually defeat. You start calling the person down with very little, you start restealing from him, you let him bet your hand for you, etc. A player with that approach (And again, I'm sort of guessing at exactly what approach Limon was describing.) is really very close to a habitual bluffer. So playing him as such will pay off.
Some check-calling and some willingness not to always bet after raising preflop (e.g., when it's multiway and you totally miss the flop...) is needed to provide balance to your play. Also, the "always aggressive" player will make a lot less on hands where *he's* being bluffed if he doesn't learn to let the bluffer bet his hand for him a good deal of the time.
I was going to respond to this silly statement but after reading Fossilman's result I decided nothing more need be said!
Vince.
nt
Mr Badger,
What is the breakdown of a Champion Tournament Player? Please.
Thank you!
Vince
Post deleted at author's request.
Sorry!
How about: "what qualities are valuable".
I was looking fo a deinitive answer on your take of what is needed to be a Champion Tournament Player.
Vince.
Post deleted at author's request.
"I think the main thing is to recognize every tournament decision is much more crucial than in a ring game."
Can I interpret this into "patience" and be correct in determining this as the number one factor in tournamnet strategy. Or is "situational understanding" a better term. If you feel that I am trying to get you to be more specific you're right. By the way didn't you notice I spelled question wrong (queation). Now really. But it does bring to mind creation, queation, creation. Might be a "freudian slip" on my part. Trying to creat a tournament super star. Anyway, the tournament books that I have read are not very informative. Cloutier's is o.k. but it is very vague and one needs to read between the lines to grasp the tactical and strategic value in the book. Of course I had the same problem with 7 SFAP when i first read it. Sklansky is not the best communicator.
Hey, thanks for your response. Please continue with more valuable insight.
Vince.
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger,
"After the first round (or maybe two), you need to not ever make a lazy or non-thoughtful play. No mistakes"
I played in a $120 stud tournament today at Mohegan Sun. Before that I played to $20 satelites. I finished 3rd in the first satelite and 2nd in the 2nd Sat. I made non-thought ful plays in both satelites that I believe prevented me from winning one. Try as I may to forget abotu the satelites, I was so demoralized by the time I got to the tournament that I made several early mistakes and then a whopper at the third level that knocked me out.
On the long road home I convinced myself that the most important quality a champion can have is "Heart". I'm not sure you can learn that.
Vince.
Baccarat! Yeah, so what! In an earlier thread I started I made a comment about Abdul. I said Abdul left so why talk about him. Well one responder thought I was a narrow minded idiot. Imagine. Another called my posts terds. what does he know?
Anyway I get the impression that "Abdul doesn't post here anymore" is not what most of us 2+2ers want to hear. So I'm posting here to bring him back Yes me! D. Sklansky can't do it especially from Mississippi. Malmuth hasn't got a chance. SKP, Fossil, GD etc don't even understand his postings. (And you a scientist, fossil). Just a joke guys! Well if he were impressed with you guys he would return. He's not. Now me that's another story. Me, he wants. I've got something he wants. I left him alone the last time he was here because, quite frankly, I wanted him to go. I am not fond of people smarter than me. That goes for the above and some others that post here. No not you louie I like you. Can you guess why.
I can see that you all think Abdul has something important to contribute. Hell, Sklansky even started a thread where he said Abdul was the only one that could come up with the answer to his question. Right. Anyway, if you want Abdul back all you have to do is respond intelligently to this post. One other thing. One of you dual posters. rgp and here. You gotta go up to rgp and tell them that we are discussing Bacarrat on 2+2. Abdul will appear like magic.
For those of you that don't have the slightest idea what I am talking about here's some background. a few months ago before Mason made me leave by deleting a post of mine I started a thread on bacarrat. Abdul had quit prior to that because mason had deleted one of his posts. Mason likes to erase things or he did. Doesn't do it anymore that I can tell. Now the bacarrat thread that I started dealt with the beatability of the game. I stated that the game was not beatable. Abdul and everyone else except for my buddy Abe and SKP and a few others agreed with Abdul. He claims the game is beatable. Claims that computer simulations are enough to prove the game can be beat. I don't buy that. Now to keep this thread here instead of on the other game forum we must relate bacarrat to poker.
Bacarrat is a very simple game. A game of perfect information. A game, like dice, only played with cards, where there are no mistakes. Did I say A game of perfect information. Not true. That is why Abdul and Sklansky say it can be beat. You can count cards they say and gain an advantage that way. I say bull dookie. And now we have the poker analogy. 2 experts against a, well to be kind, a non expert (me of course). I've never written a book or won a major poker tournament or made a lot of money at poker. Neither has SKP, nor, Fossil nor GD (Jackpots don't count) nor Rick, nor Louie nor Big John (btw - anybody heard from him, not been here lately) nor Tom nor almost all of the posters here. So the question is why should we take any advice from anybody just because they say they know what they are talking about? That is the case with Abdul and Bacarrat. Why should we believe him because he claims he can beat bacarrat. And why should we believe Malmuth because he wrote a few books? I have answers to both of these questions. But I won't reveal them until I see some responses. Wouldn't want to spoil all the fun.
Bacarrat, by the way, CANNOT be beat in the real world.
Vince.
HERE HERE! Bacarrat can not be beat!.....and if abdul thinks it can he should be man enuf to explain himself here!
nt
Many baccarat games are dealt virtually to the bottom of the shoe. In those games, end-shoe situations can occur in which the tie bet gives a huge advantage. If you can get away with the required bet spread, and have the bankroll to withstand losses from betting on bank and player with about a 1% disadvantage the rest of the time, then in theory the game could be beaten. I don't doubt Abdul and John May at all that beatable baccarat exists. I just question (1) whether the bankroll requirements and necessary bet spreads are so large as to preclude serious play by most people, and (2) whether the game is beatable as spread in most U.S. casinos (which in general are careful about surveillance, aware of factors like penetration, and which bar counters in blackjack).
Dan,
Although your post is excellent it does not include the reason that we should believe authors like May or contributors like Abdul (As far as I know he is not an author). Putting ones trust in an author such as May, and in no way am I demeaning Mr. May, should in my opinon be justified by some form of credentials of the author. The problem with listing credentials that point to an author's prowess at a gambling game is that it is difficult if not impossible to verify the veracity of those credentials.
Vince.
Dear Lep'r
The Star Chamber should be laid to rest!
"The Star Chamber should be laid to rest! "
God, I wish I had said that!
God, I wish I was smart enough to understand what it means!
God, I wish I was smart enough not to respond to it!
Vince.
I believe the math gurus are correct in that counting cards at baccarat CAN lead to favorable situations. I also believe you are correct that in practice you cannot wait for weeks in a baccarat pit waiting for a favorable deal, and then expect to be able to suddenly make huge wagers in order to make you hourly rate more than $10 or so. After a couple attempts, they'll throw you out.
So it CAN be beat, but really not.
"No not you louie I like you. Can you guess why?" Yes. We both appreciate the healing force of strange humor. The difference between us is you chose the dark side ....
- Louie
Is Baccarat beatable?
Oh geez, here we go again.
Abe wrote (rhetorically):
"Is Baccarat beatable?"
Sklansky has said, yes. Abdul has said, yes. John May has written a book saying yes. Vince said "show me".
The number I have seen published from simultions these fellows refer to is +.07% That is a computer sim number. Computer sims are believed to play perfect strategy with no mistakes. Do you think humans play that perfectly?
If my recollection is correct 6 or 8 deck BJ shoes go positive roughly 10% of the time. Let's say the same is true for Bacarrat.
These fellows have all said a huge BR is needed to beat the game.
So you have a .07% advantage if you are perfect in your counting and betting strategy. You have to wait an awful long time for shoes to go in your favor. And you need a huge BR. Do you really believe that in actual casino play this game has been beaten? Can be beaten?
Tell me, why should we take the word of John May or Abdul or Sklansky or anyone else. This is not a math issue. Sklansky thinks it is. This issue is a practicle one. What good is a system if it is unusable by the intended user?
Vince.
BTW - Geez is spelled cheese. Come on Abe!
layed down 9h6h on the button. Flop comes 5h7h8h. Two hands later I discard 2h3h. Flop comes Ah4h5h. Was able to keep my composure(barely). Played well but still managed to lose $120 in about 6 hours. Amazing!
John
JJ(MO),
Why worry about it? You will correctly lay down hands before the flop and find they "would have hit the flop hard" throughout your poker careeer (although I would play the 96 suited on the button against a very large and unaggressive field for one bet - maybe).
BTW, assuming you are telling the truth, the chances that this happened are 100%.
Regards,
Rick
This is a little annoying. The guy asked a perfectly legitimate question about the chances of flopping a couple of straight flushes. I think he should be able to ask that without the standard "well, if it happened, the probability that it happened is 100%". Why people think that's so clever I'll never know.
JoJo,
I was kidding around some but there is a major flaw in many players thinking regarding the probability of events happening. In retrospect, two spectacular flops in a row are going to happen now and then. That they will happen on the next two hands is very remote (I'll leave the math to Vince Lepore who is covering for David Sklansky).
Actually I wrote this for the benifet of my student (who reads the forum at work over her coffee). She will throw away a hand she used to play (when she clearly shouldn't) and be upset when it hits the flop. I'm still trying to get her to think like a player rather than a gambler. I was hoping this would help a little.
Regards,
Rick
and then very small percentage of the time.
Such crazy things happen sometimes.
I saw a player flopping quads with a pocket pair in his hand twice in a row. Chances for this happening must be 1:10000000000000 or something like that (sorry mason for this is just estimated :) ). Sad end of the stroy: This player lsot a lot and made a bankrobbery.
M.A.
It isn't too hard to figure out the odds of flopping a straight flush with either of these hands.
In the case of 96, there are two SFs you can flop: T9786 and 98765.
In the case of 23, there are also two: A2345 and 23456.
(With a hand like 89, there would be four: 98765, T9876, JT987, QJT98).
So both of your SF flops were equally likely.
How likely? Well, the number of distinct possible flops (assuming we only know your two cards) is (50 * 49 * 48) / (3 * 2 * 1), which works out to 19600 possible flops.
For either 96 or 23, two of these flops give you a SF.
Given that you are holding the hand, the probability of flopping a SF is therefore:
2/19600 In terms of odds, this is 9799:1. Call it ten thousand to one.
Now the probability of this happening in both cases is just square of this happening once:
(1/9800) ^ 2 In terms of odds, this is 96,040,000:1 Call it a hundred million to one (!).
Actually, the answer depends on exactly what question you ask. Above, I've answered the question:
Q1. "Assuming I'm dealt 9h 6h on one hand and 2h 3h on another hand, what is the probability that I flop a straight flush in both cases?"
Different questions would be:
Q2. "What is the probability of flopping straight flushes twice back-to-back?" or
Q3. "What is the probability of flopping straight flushes twice in four hands?"
The answer to Q1 already assumes you have hands that could flop straight flushes. Answering Q2 or Q3 would require that you also factor in the probabilities of getting hands that can draw to straight flushes.
I don't have time to work it all out right now, but I can answer a very specific question for you:
Q4. "What is the probability that I will be dealt 9h6h and the flop comes 5h7h8h, and then, two hands later I will be dealt 2h3h and the flop comes Ah4h5h."
There are 52*51/2 = 1326 distinct possible starting hands in Hold'Em. There are 19600 possible flops. The probability of having this precise convergence of hands and flops is:
1/1326 * 1/19600 * 1/1326 * 1/19600 = 1/675,459,308,160,000 ~= 1.5 x 10^-15
Given there are about 31,557,600 seconds in a year, you can expect to see that particular convergence about once every 21,404,013 years if you can play one hand a second.
Now before you get excited and run off and tell your friends that you were witness to a once-every-twenty-million-year event, I must remind you that the above answer would be the same for ANY particular pair/flop, pair/flop combination. In other words, the answer is the same to the question:
Q5. "What is the probability that I will be dealt 7c 2s and the flop comes Kh Jd 3c, and then, two hands later I will be dealt Kh Kd and the flop comes Ah Kc 3h."
or, for that matter,
Q6. "What is the probability that I will be dealt Ah Ad and the flop comes Ac As Kc, and then, two hands later I will be dealt Ah Ad and the flop comes Ac As Kc."
In both cases, the answer is again approximately 1.5 x 10^-15.
--james
[Note that the above count of starting hands considers hands like Kh Kd and Kh Kc as distinct, even though in terms of pre-flop play there is no meaningful difference. If you consider the categories of "pairs", "suited cards", and "unsuited non-pairs", there are only 169 distinct starting hands in Hold'Em: 13 pairs, 78 suited combinations, and 78 unsuited combinations.]
Look Kittock, put your head out of your Buttock. JJ didn't want discussion on what sorts of questions he may or should be asking, nor did he want an accurate, useful, and comprehensive answer to his question(s).
It was a retorical question; He wanted EMPATHY!!
Shheeessh.
Nor should you be making posts out of material suitable for an essay.
- Louie :)
Rick, BTW, is almost right. The chances of events in the past is always 100% or 0%.
Louie,
You wrote: "Rick, BTW, is almost right. The chances of events in the past is always 100% or 0%."
I wrote:"BTW, assuming you are telling the truth, the chances that this happened are 100%."
Now how can what I said be anything less than 100% correct (unless you are referring to some kind of Star Trek time warp thingy dingy).
Regards :-),
Rick
Try to imagine Data saying "Captain, we are experiencing a time warp thingy dingy" while keeping a straight face. Then image him saying, "Captain, we are experiencing a Temperal Anomoly".
Just to nit, its POSSIBLE that he is telling "the truth" but is incorrect such as if he remembered it wrong.
Anyway, how about "BTW, Rick's comment is almost complete, ... 0% or 100%."
- Louie :(
James wrote: "Now before you get excited and run off and tell your friends that you were witness to a once-every-twenty-million-year event, I must remind you that the above answer would be the same for ANY particular pair/flop, pair/flop combination."
This is a key consideration for these types of questions.
Many folks ponder the supposed improbability of certain events. However, SOMETHING has to happen (in any normal universe, at least). Therefore, asking how unlikely something was, after the fact, doesn't necessarily tell us anything.
Let's say I drop a nickel on a smooth, flat surface. What are the chances that it will end up on an edge, rather than heads-up or tails-up? I don't know, but it's probably pretty unlikely. However, that doesn't mean you should call the newspapers when it happens to you. There are probably a million people out there every day dropping their change on the floor. If the odds were 1,000,000:1 against, then about 1 person per day would experience this phenomenon. Not worth a story in the news, IMO.
Remember, every day you are involved in hundreds of events, similar to dropping your change, which might result in an apparently unlikely result. The fact that these "unlikely" results happen to you occasionally is, in fact, expected.
I've lost focus in this post. What I really meant to get at is sometimes it's how you perceive things that matters. In this case, as James showed us, any SPECIFIC combination of 5 cards is just as unlikely as any other. However, because we attach significance to those that can be labelled "straight flush", "full house", and the like, we notice when those specific unlikely combinations occur.
If you want to ask these sorts of questions and expect a real answer, you need to phrase your question very particularly. For example, in this thread, the poster might have asked, assuming I am dealt random cards, and always stay to see the flop, what are the odds that I'll flop a straight flush twice in 4 hands?
This question can be answered. To describe what happened, and then say, what are the chances, cannot.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"...However, SOMETHING has to happen..."
Another two examples are ==1== throwing darts at the dart board. The chances of hitting any single point is zero, but eventually you have to hit SOME point on the dart board. ==2== Someone will eventually win the Lottery. But when it happens to a particular person they usually feel "blessed" or "intended" or "deserved" to win it, even though its dumb luck.
Unless of course I win the Lottery, in which case its because I'm such a great guy and deserve to win it.
- Louie
That's the problem with you scientists you never read the entire question.
"Was able to keep my composure(barely). Played well but still managed to lose $120 in about 6 hours. Amazing! "
This little exerpt from the original post should tell you what type of answer this fellow wants. He doesn't want to know the odds. He wants to know "What's the odds"! (of this happening to ME). If you don't get it from "keep my composure(barely)" you must get it from "Amazing". This should've been a piece of cake for a real lawyer. I only responded because you were so eloquent in your response not to mention just how correct you were. The problem is that now we know that you know a heck of a lot about something that really isn't very important. Odd(s) isn't it!
Vince.
James, even though it was a rhetorical question, I found your analysis enlightening, to say the least. Thanks!
John
JJ,
Thank you for your thanks. It was a much nicer response than the ones from people who must feel threatened by my twin abilities to use a calculator and explain things relatively clearly. I can't otherwise fathom their hostile reponses to my post which, as far as I know, nobody forced them to read in the first place.
Anyhow, it did occur to me that your question was rhetorical... but you'd already gotten a couple of rhetorical responses (i.e., sarcastic ones), and I thought there might be some value in giving a sincere answer that could be educational or otherwise helpful even if the particular answer was only of marginal interest.
But perhaps I was wrong in my assumption that this forum serves a greater purpose than to ask rhetorical questions and post marginally witty rhetorical responses.
At least Greg (FossilMan) picked up on the "philosophical" angle of my post and expounded on it in a thoughtful way.
In any case, explaining things is something I like to do, so I imagine I will offend certain reader's sensibilities again in the future. As a defense mechanism, I would advise them to immediately close their browser every time they see my name.
--james
PS While Louie Landale did manage to come up with an alliterative jab at my surname which I haven't had the pleasure of hearing since about fourth grade, I must point out that an erudite insulter would look up my name in the OED. Although my name is actually of Polish (or perhaps Czech) origin, it happens to have been Anglicized in a way that would have been rather unfortunate a few hundred years ago. After I discovered this, I was quite glad that the term "kittock" had fallen out of the lexicon.
After reading my retort, I don't think the playful sarcasm was as obvious as I intended.
I thought your detailed post was excellent and probably the best one last month. You did a great job of expressing the difference between statistical reality and "common sense".
Sorry about the name jab, I've been known to occasionally get carried away, being blissfully unaware with my head up MY buttock.
- Louie
JJ, unlike many of the anal retentive folks here who seem to think your post here was a request for an overly indepth analysis of the likelihood of getting two straight flushes in only a couple of hands, AFTER you mucked them, I'll just say the following: You were right to have folded. You had real s****y luck too. Life sucks, then you die. I'm weeping for you pal, honestly.
About 3-2, but most seem to think it happens more frequently. Check the archives.
My local cardroom will organize weekly a PL tournament dealer's choice. We will have the choice between:
- hold'em - omaha - omaha 8 - stud - lowball (like razz but straight and flushes hurt) - stud 8
I wonder what is the best strategy for choosing the right form according to chip position and the stage (rebuy period, middle stage, last table).
Of course I suppose I ALWAYS have to choose the most positional games: hold'em, omaha, omaha 8 (I guess omaha 8 is the most positional in PL).
When low in chips should I choose the game with less variance (hold'em), and with a big stack the game with more variance (omaha 8) especially against short stacks ?
What about short handed ?
All advices appreciated.
Does the choice change every hand, or every round?
If it changes every hand, HE is the most positional game, IMO, and you should call it on your button every time. Of course, I should mention that I've never played Omaha8 pot limit, so maybe it's more positional. Mostly, I'm thinking that Omaha8 played limit is the least positional flop game, IMO.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You can take away my status as your press agent, but I gotta disagree with the FossilMan here. In big bet poker, I think it is much more difficult to play Omaha High out-of-position than hold'em. This seems pretty intuitive to me- because it is so much riskier to give a free card and so much more difficult to bluff, a bet usually signals strength and a check usually signals weakness.
Give me the button and any four cards in pot-limit Omaha.
How about stealing preflop?
You may be right about Omaha hi in general, I've not played a lot of it PL, and not done that well when I have.
However, hands are much closer in rank in Omaha, hi or hi/lo. As such, if someone goes all-in with you preflop, it is usually not a terrible mistake. However, if you have an overpair to both of your opponent's cards in HE, you are about a 4:1 favorite.
I think it would be easier to steal preflop in HE. Also, since everyone tends to be short-stacked in a tournament (as compared to a ring game), most of the betting occurs early, where again HE might be easier to gain an edge than Omaha.
BTW, since you indicated that I might be wrong, no royalty check for you this month.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You're right; I'm wrong. You were talking tournament play and I was thinking money game. Of course, blind-stealing is much more important in the later stages of tournaments than it is in big bet ring game. I guess the right answer for calling the game on your button is:
1. Omaha High Early 2. Hold'em (late) 3. Stud almost never 4. O-8 never (this would seem to be a really crappy pot limit game)
Post deleted at author's request.
I often find that I have good opportunities to steal on the flop at Omaha8 when I have position on 1 or 2 opponents and the flop comes with 2 or 3 big cards.
Since they often are expected to have at least 2 small cards in their hand, their hand have less chance to map the high flop and they will never chase in PL to backdoor low.
The last time I made this play, I was on the button with no spade, the flop came Ks 9s 2s, my 3 opponents checked, I bet 100 in a 400 pot representing the flush (I had nothing) and they all folded.
So I think Omaha8 can be very positional in tight games (this is normally the case for a tournament after the rebuy period), since I can see depending on the texture of the flop if they have low hands or high hands.
Am I the only person who thinks that picking a game where you are much better than your opponents is more important than picking the most positional game just because you get one more hand on the button (assuming you play a full round of each game) ?
Andy.
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
I would definitely not try this play in Omaha high without the As or perhaps the Qs.
I often find that given the same flop a lesser high hand is required to win in Omaha8 that in Omaha high; this is due to the fact that good opponents always have at least 2 small cards such as A2 A3 or 23 in their hand in O8.
What do you mean when you say O-8 is *good* pot limit game? 1. One that promotes multiway flops? 2. One that promotes action on the flop? 3. One that balances playing people vs. playing the cards? 4. One that enables skilled players to destroy weaker players? 5. One that gives weaker players the "illusion" of being able to survive while getting the worst of it over the long term?
I like pot limit hold'em because of reasons 3 and 5 above.
I agree that pot limit Omaha can be a bad game with *good* players because of the excessively tight play that is needed when you lack position. But, boy, it an be a great one when you have a couple players who don't understand this. Of course, it doesn't say good for long.
Post deleted at author's request.
So a freind of mine who knows I play poker approaches me after seeing the movie "rounders" and starts asking me questions about poker. He mainly wants to talk about tells and is very disappointed to find out that tells are a tiny part of the game and are way overblown in that movie. . .or are they?
In the many years I have been playing winning poker I can probably count the number of capital T tells (such as, he blinks his left eye when bluffing) I've noticed on 1 hand. The players who had these tells were usually so bad that I would have won all their money anyway. Small t tells abound (such as, he only 3 bets the flop w/ a draw) but this only makes me think it is more likelt that big T tells are also out there and I am just not noticing them.
Now we know "rounders" was fictional but it had a lot of expert collaberators and they seemed to place a high value on tells. So forum members sound off, how many big T tells do you notice per session, month, year? How much do they help you?
I have played with many "tell" masters all were unsound players. One said he noticed I had a tell. He told me I became somewhat flush when I raised all-in. I asked him what it gave away about my hand. He said he wasn't sure once when it happened i had a draw, the other time I had a set. I think this is the nature of most tells.
First, it's important not to confuse betting patterns and habits with physical "tells" because the former are much more patterned and reliable.
As for how often they're used, at the low limit games I frequent I virtually never play a session where I don't consciously consider someone's card handling, bet handling, eye contact, gestures or comments as indicative of whether he was going to act or the sort of hand he was holding. Just looking to my left over the course of a couple of hours usually results in some change to what I might do otherwise if people didn't signal.
On the other hand, except for calling a few bluffs that I might have called anyway, I can't remember winning a single big pot just because of a tell. I can remember losing money by being misled by what I though were "tells," but this hasn't happened in a while. Tells have often helped me bail out of pots.
IMO, tells aren't a discrete category of poker skill but just something you pick up on when you watch closely and think about what you see. Being good at spotting them won't make you win and new players shouldn't get caught up in trying to always watch everything everyone else does. Just watch for patterns in how your opponents play and use tells to help you define their hand or intentions.
I understand tells are a much bigger thing in big bet games. Caro's Body Language of Poker is definitely a good, but keep in mind that the reliability and frequency percentages were Mike's little joke (I presume).
A few years ago I wrote an article in my column in Card Player where I estimated that if you were an expert at $20-$40 limit hold 'em and played 40 hours a week the tells were worth an extra 2 big bets a week. Over a years time this does have a fair amount of value, but tells in limit poker do not have any where's close to the value that some claim.
In a typical limit game, if tells are used in conjunction with other information, I think they are worth maybe $1-$2 per hour over many thousands of play.
Here's my opinion on the importance of tells:
I consider myself to be a fairly good tell reader, and they're not as cut and dried as "huge hand tell", and "bluffing tell." The only surefire bluffing tell that I see abound is picking up a stack of chips and then letting them quickly drop 1 by 1 before betting. Still, this is only with a few players.
The importance of being able to read tells is dependent on your other skills. A friend of mine is weaker than many in his mathematical abililty and analysis of his opponents betting patterns but makes up for it with fantastic tell-reading skills.
I find that while tells are important, there are better ways to pick off a bluff.
Here's an example from a 15-30 stud game I was in the other day. I started with a pair of jacks, and was up against an obvious spade draw and a straight draw. however, on 6th street, the spade draw made open 5s and bet out, leaving the straight draw next to act, and myself last. However, spades were falling on my board and the straight draw's board. Down the river I don't improve, but catch yet another spade. The open 3s bet out, and b/c he bet right into the obvious straight draw (which 2 pair or trips would normally check to)I figured he must've had a flush (doubtful) or be bluffing. The straight draw folded and I overcalled with my pair of jacks and won. My friend who was there said "you saw his tell too?" when i hadn't, but he hadn't noticed the bizarre betting pattern. So, whatever means a player has to read his opponents he can use - my friend makes up for his card-reading deficiency by noticing tells, and while I can't spot tells as well as him I picked it off via other means.
Point of story is - if me and my friend has a baby he'd be a better card player than either of us because he would've seen two pieces of evidence.
Max
Mr Kotter,
Is your real name Gabe by any chance?
Mason's response to this question is probably the closest you will get to a correct estimate of the value of tells in limit poker.
"capital T tells", "Small t tells"
I like this distinction of yours regarding tells. It "tells" a lot about tells. Mike Caro's book of tells is a fine example of what is WRONG with reading tells. He goes to great lenghts to show how certain body language indicates specific hand type or player veracity. Anyone that has studied communication (just a little in my case) will tell you that the biggest mistake one can make is to draw a stereotypical image or specific meaning from the limited information obtained from observing another persons one time behavior. What may be a tell for one person may be natural behavior for another. The classic example of this is the player whose hand shakes when he has a good poker hand. Obviously from nerves. Of course there are those players whose hands just shake when they pick up chips to bet good hand or not. From not so obvious reasons. Then you have the smart player that will shake his hand if he thinks you are being observant and looking for tells.
What may be interesting in the area of tells is how one's read of an opponent affects one's play. Poker players as I am sure you are aware will categorize opponents as to their style of play. Passive, aggressive, weak, tight, etc. I believe that when a player makes a tactical move such as raising in a situation that normally doesn't call for it and then claims that he had a tell on his opponent he is actually making the move because of the category he has placed that opponent. He may actually believe he saw something like a hesitation when in fact his action was driven by his categorization of the opponent.
I'm tired now. sklansky cop out!
Vince.
I have found that tells can be a big deal with lousy card players (ie players with no poker face). I play with lots of guys and the best ones to play with are the ones who lean forward and ask who's bet it is when they have killer hands. they arent aware of this, of course, and nobody tells them.
I have been playing poker with the same 8 guys ( +/- 1 guy) for 14 years. In that time I can tell you that yes after seeing these guys once a month for the last 14 yrs they do have very distinct *Tells*. Only after seeing the "Tells" many many many times is it a 'True Tell' . To sit down at a card table with 8,7 or nine people you've never meet (2-3 you may have played with in the past) and pick up a tell i find it hard to believe. Tells take time and ***repetition*** to be worth while.
MJChicago
When I used to play a lot of tournament bridge, occasionally someone during the play or bidding would provide a "tell" that would tip off their holdings, usually by way of hesitation, voice inflection, etc. Over the years, though, I came to rely more and more on my own analysis of the facts - counting points, distribution, and improved play and bidding technique to become a better player. While the "tells" would help on rare occasions, more often than not, I would misinterpret the "tell" based on a false assumption.
The point I am trying to make is that in my own limited experience in poker at low limits, I have been better off spending my time and effort on study, research, and discussions such as on this forum rather than killing my brain at the table looking for the one true tell per month that might make a difference. Not that I am not observant at the table; on the contrary. I spend every waking moment watching what's going on, but more to get a read on how people play rather than observing their spine angle or the timbre of their voice.
I think one distinction that needs to be made here is the difference between tells and telegraphs.
A tell is a behavior or mannerism which gives some indication about the true strength of someone's hand. For example, the "shaking hand" tell in Caro's book says that a player who's hands are shaking when he bets is not bluffing. (actually I have found this one is pretty reliable most of the time).
A telegraph is when someone's mannerism gives you an indication of what they intend to to, regardless of the strength of their hand. For example, sometimes I see opponents counting out the exact number of chips needed for a raise. I usually conclude that they will be raising and consider that before calling. Of course some tricky opponents provide false telegraphs and you should be wary of this. But for the most part, these observations can be very useful and profitable against weak or easily predictable opponents. Calling stations are great opponents for value bet situations since you often see them getting ready to call ahead of time.
LOOK LEFT BEFORE YOU BET!
Dave,
Don't you --- and other too -- simply *know* when someone is bluffing? I played a bunch this past week for the first time in a while, and I realized when I read kotter's question that I *knew* when several of the semi-maniac California players were bluffing, every time. I always *knew* when they were not. Not all of the players, only 2 or 3 obvious regular crazies.
Was is the way the chips flew into the pot, or the way their bodies were positioned? I don't know. But I knew -- really knew -- what to do. I won pretty well, I would have won more but for a few cases (especially one monster pot where I flopped TTTQQ and one of these poor players with Q6o in mid position grabbed a 6 on the turn [to go with the board's QtQ) but the pot was too big to back out, and HE was so afraid of my hand, which could have been QQQTT, that he played it weakly and surprised me. On that hand, instead of throwing the chips in, he put them in quietly AND DID NOT RAISE for the first time, but when he played strong for real or bluffed, the chips flew in, but sonething was different on good hands and bluffs....
I am now thinking about how I knew....but I am not sure. By the way, this was in the Garden City Casino, in SJ or Sunnyvale, I found the game there very very easy and good. (at one point the play was so loose and poor that the *dealer* said "Is this craps?")
Mark
"To save Mason a post, I'll go ahead and remind the readers that Mason determined long ago that I don't know what I'm talking about and that no one who cares about staying in Mason't good graces will pay any attention to anything I say."
Well, Gary, this is exactly the sort of comments that you constantly make that hurt you in the long run. Instead of sticking to poker strategy and showing people that you just might have something worthwhile to contribute, you just can't control yourself and you let your mean side get the best of you. That's probably why you are such a loser on these forums, and I suspect that it carries over to the poker games and many other aspects of your life.
To answer your post, let me pose a question to the rest of our forum readers which is actually quite important. Suppose you have two aces and you raise and you get one caller. The flop comes A-10-7, then a 4 and finally a 2. You bet the flop and the turn and are called, but to your amazement a raising war breaks out on the river. At first you are thrilled because only a 5-3 can beat you and that seems to be impossible. But after a lot of raises it becomes your opponents most likely hand no matter how rediculous it seemed at first, and (eventually) you should just call.
So my question is this. How many raises should you go with this hand before you call, or should you do what Gary Carson suggests and just pour all your money into the pot and go home a loser?
On the river without the nuts, maybe two or three but certainly no more. If my opponent was a novice, a drunk, or for some reason didn't seem to know what he was doing I might see how much money he had in front of him. I might make it four raises if it gets him all-in.
"The flop comes A-10-7, then a 4 and finally a 2. You bet the flop and the turn and are called, but to your amazement a raising war breaks out on the river. At first you are thrilled because only a 5-3 can beat you and that seems to be impossible"
Mason,
The above is a totally different situation than the one you described in your original post in this thread. The above becomes obvious after two or maybe three raises. That was not the issue with your original post. You did not bet the turn nor the River. Your play was a river bet, At the very least a river check raise was in order especially with the button calling. I like a turn bet better than your check. IMO you did not trust your read on these two players and checked when you should have bet. That said, the fact of the matter is that by checking you can show that you collected four bets that you may not have if you had bet. So you have proof and I as usual have speculation.
BTW - The only post that you deleted of mine was one that you felt was a personal attack on another poster. I'm not positive but I believe the following would classify as a personal attack. Especially the "loser" part. What do you think?
"Well, Gary, this is exactly the sort of comments that you constantly make that hurt you in the long run. Instead of sticking to poker strategy and showing people that you just might have something worthwhile to contribute, you just can't control yourself and you let your mean side get the best of you. That's probably why you are such a loser on these forums, and I suspect that it carries over to the poker games and many other aspects of your life. "
Vince.
I think it all depends on who is doing the raising on the end. I just got off a session where a newbie made it 80 on the river with pocket 9's with a board of A 10 4 6 K. This was not a move but he really had no cleu whatsoever about anything going on. If someone bets on the end with A 10 7 4 2 I am going to raise about 90% of the time. If I get re-raised I will then consider the source. I might re-raise if I know the player or had earlier put that player on a big A or a set or whatever. If re-raised I'll just call and show it down. In LIMIT games, I think anyone who raises more then twice with less then the nuts is foolish and should evaluate their play.
I assume you meant that a six falls on the river. Or else the seven on the flop was a six.
I'd look at it this way:
His first raise is either a pathetic bluff or the 2 helped him. If the 2 helped him, what would he need to stick around? Maybe A2s (played badly).
His second raise is probably not a bluff and the 2 must have helped him alot, because you've shown strength. For some reason he must have stuck around with 22 and he figures you for two pair.
His third raise indicates some serious strength because he doesn't care that you've re-raised him twice. Now I have to put him on 53 and just call.
David
Mason,
I would be curious to know where Gary or anyone else advocates unlimited raising on the river with this board (which of course as David Klatte said had be A T 6 4 2 to make the 5 3 the nuts).
That being said, if the caller was a cold caller I would do the following:
Typical player - He would get in five raises before I just called.
Solid player - would rarely put in more than four raises with a set and would be unlikely to cold call the raise so it probably doesn't matter. But even here I would only call after about the sixth raise.
Maniac or tourist - He would get in only about four raises. I don't want to embarass him too much when he is beat and the 5 3 is possible.
If the caller was in the blind they would get somewhat less action from me since a 5 3 is much more likely if the player is reasonable.
Regards,
Rick
Mason's board was AT742. Why do you want to make the 7 a 6? Doesn't 35 in your hand make a 5-high straight, and the nuts, in this case?
I'll admit that I at first had your thought, and then caught my error.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
Your right but I'll blame David Klatte since he mentioned it first :-).
Anyway, it doesn't really change the analysis.
Regards,
Rick
Rick wrote: "Anyway, it doesn't really change the analysis."
No, it doesn't. I've just been in the mood to do a lot more ribbing lately. Don't know why, really. Maybe I'm reaching early middle age or something.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Mason's board was AT742. Why do you want to make the 7 a 6? Doesn't 35 in your hand make a 5-high straight, and the nuts, in this case?
Oops. I should have looked twice when I thought Mason made a mistake. :-)
What can I say? Guess who the newbie is?
David
Mason,
Let's assume I am your opponent and I have an advantage on you as I know who I am playing against. You raised preflop. I would read your hand as either AA, KK, QQ, AKs. I call you so my hand could either be KK, QQ, JJ, AKs, AQs, AJs, A10s, tens.
Flop comes and it is A-10-7. You bet, now, I have a better read of your hand. You either have a AA, AKs, or KK. I call you so my hand could either be a AKs, A10s, tens. It is hard for me to read your hand as AA since I have the other Ace in my hand. I don't want to raise you as yet.
Turn comes and it is a 4. You bet. No change in your hand. I could have the highest 2 pairs now on the board. But I just call. I don't want to raise you yet.
River comes and it is a 2. The board has a straight. You don't know what I have but I have a read of your hand. Most likely your hands would be Aces up with a K kicker, or Kings up. Most unlikely would be a set of Aces as I am holding an Ace.
You bet and this time I raise. You raise back. I raise back forcing you to think I have the straight. You raise back because you see the improbability of my having a straight. I raise back because I see the improbability of 3 Aces. You raise back but now begin to have doubts that I could have the 5,3 suited draw for the straight. I raise back because I we could end up having a tie-hand anyway. You call.
My answer would be 3 raises.
Somehow I think you miss the point of Mason's post. He was trying to bash Gary Carson and didn't really think out what he was saying. Oh, excuse me for putting words in your mouth Mason. So correct me if I'm wrong.
Vince.
Oops, sorry Vince. I did not realize there's something else going.
I was only trying to prove a point to Rick and some of the posters that it works the other way around, raises I mean.
For a maniac, my guess would be 3 raises at the most.
For a typical player, my guess would be 4 raises at the most.
But for a solid player, I will keep on raising until I have no more money on the table.
Just my humble opinion..
Analyst, (BTW- What do we call you for short, forget it.)
"I was only trying to prove a point to Rick and some of the posters that it works the other way around, raises I mean. "
You are not the one that needs to say "I'm sorry". My apologies. You were doing what this forum is purported to be all about, discussing poker.
Vince.
There has to be some limit on the amount of money you are willing to put in on this hand. If we assume your opponent's hole cards were 5-3 then the odds of him catching the nut straight is about 119 to 1 against. If one was up against a true disbeliever who was willing and able to pay more than 119 to 1 that would make it right to call with a 5-3 in the hole. So the very most you should be willing to lose to the 5-3 in the hole and make it unprofitable for him is to give him a payoff at less than 119 to one.
As to the very least you are prepared to lose is a different interesting question. So my question to Mason is : How would you PROVE the optimal amount of raises necessary before you should quit?
I'm sure you both have already considered that the most important factor may be your assesment of THAT PARTICULAR PLAYER.
And you might want to not skin this sheep so that you can sheer him again sometime.
But I could be wrong.
Dan
I normaly play 4-8 or 6-12, For 4-8 I usually start with no less than 100.00 (12.5 BB) 6-12 at 150. I find this buy-in a comfertable range for me at LL games. I am goung to Vegas next month and would like to sit in a 10-20 or 15-30 game for some experince in higher level games. I figure that I would a 12.5 BB buy-in work or should I make it 20 BB?
Thanks for the help
From what I've seen written, plan 40 BB +
You will need a bigger buy-in because in $10-$20 and $15-$30 you will discover there is more raising before the flop than in the lower limit games. About $400-$500 sounds about right for $10-$20 and about $500-$600 for $15-$30. There is actually an analytical way of computing bankroll requirements based on hourly standard deviation and the number of hours you plan to play. Malmuth's book, "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" has a great discussion on bankroll requirements. My hourly standard deviation in a $10-$20 game is about $200 per hour. If I play a 9 hour session, the fluctuation grows as the square root of the number of hours. So I could swing $600 above or below my expectation. If I play a week and plan on playing 50 hours, then for $10-$20 game I would need about $1500. Just to make sure I double this amount I earmark $3000.
And if Mason would have reraised into tens full on the turn because the raiser was "weak" you would have said:
"No, Mason [it is elementary that you] have to lower your estimate of the chances he has QT as the play progresses and he keeps betting.
This player has [some] idea what you have and he doesn't care. He demonstrated that before the flop.
If you look hard enough for reasons to play [aggressively], you'll find them. That doesn't mean the reasons are good ones."
Ho-hum. But thanks for the input anyway.
As a Newbie at 7-card stud, I am having a hard time doing everything at once. Keeping track of cards that are out is a big part of it. Obviously, it would be nice to remember all the cards that are out, but I'm not there yet (if ever).
Can anyone help me prioritize which things to remember about what cards are out? The number of cards out for the suit of my flush draw must be near the top. The number of cards out matching each of mine is also up there...
What else is most helpful? Should I be keeping track of the same kind of information on my most likely opponent (the one who plays way too many hands)? How about keeping track of the suit which has the most cards out on the first round? What about keeping track of the aces? kings? What about the number of cards matching each player's door card?
I suspect there are many more variations. Does anyone have a favorite system?
Sue, Obviously it's pretty tough to remember all of the cards. You asked which are most helpful. Make sure that you can remember which up card each player in the hand started with. Often the cards will get rearranged on the table and it's good to know when a pair card appears whether or not it matches the door card. I always say to myself, A is starting with a 6c, B with a K, etc. Then look for dead cards that match yours in rank or suit. Also try to notice matching cards on the deal. If three Kings are out, you have less worry about them pairing.
Hope this helps,
DJ
Sue M,
This is low limits 7CS where most players play too many hands and don't have your knowledge of the game as to when to drop or stay. Patience with yourself in the beginning is very important, someone on this forum told me to look at hole cards as they are dealt, therefore giving me time to observe the cards coming out as Ray Zee said and remember each card as it is dealt. Believe me I don't do this perfectly, but I'm improving each session. Hang in there and keep smiling.
Good Luck
Paul
I still regularly read RGP, as i am sure many of you do. However the nature of the group has taken a significant turn toward spam, name that tune, trip reports which I love to read, but very little in the way of "analyze this hand", or "what should a player do when faced with this situation". Recently there was a thread which said, this newsgroup (RGP) is starting to suck, everyone should go to 2+2 and post and read there.
I assume this wasnt a post from one of our hosts under an assumed name :).
Anyway this was met with swift and rather heated retaliation against the "deletion" policy of the hosts of this forum, as well as the "capitalistic" nature of this site. (thank you conjelco for nearly silent webhosting).
Question 1. Are any post with poker content being deleted? I would have guessed no based on the rigorous debate, and playful rancor of Louie (see you in mississippi), and others.
Question 2. Is it really true that our hosts, as alleged on RGP really do not tolerate dissent? again i would say no, but i am a relative newcomer to this forum.
In closing, I have, in the past 2 weeks found this forum to be invaluable for me as a beginner/novice player, and I believe that the folks ranting over at RGP have it wrong.
Any comments?
Todd H
PS to mason. This may be more appropriate for the exchange, but I really feel it is on topic for this board. I hope you agree. TH
I agree that this is a good topic for this board since the attacks by a few on RGP have been so vigorous. The fact is that we hardly ever delete a post and we have no objection to dissent. In fact, we encourage it because dissent stimulates debate. To see that this is the case just check our archives.
I believe that what has happened is that a small number of people are just jealous of our success and try to take shots at us whenever they can. In fact, when we started this forum over two-and-a-half years ago we were afraid that we wouldn't get any response at all. Instead, what we got was not only overwhelming, but of surprising high quality.
We are a commercial site however, and we do have some very specific commercial reasons for being here. They most have to do with showing some of the major book buyers like Borders and Barnes & Noble that we are legitimate. To this end we did establish posting guidelines and we will enforce them. Fortunately, in all our time these guifelines have only been violated a very small number of times and we have only had to delete no more than a handful of posts, and it has been many months since we deleted any (with the exception of blantant ads).
We even have a link to RGP and have always encouraged our posters to look at and take part in that forum as well. I do agree that it has deteriorated the past few months and this is a shame, but perhaps it is only a passing phase that it is going through and will be better again some time in the future.
Finally, let me thank all of you for participating and making this forum some of the best discussion on the Internet. By the way, this includes Chuck Weinstock of ConJelCo who has made this all possible. You can pay him back by ordering any of our books from either this site or the ConJelCo site.
I think I this post should've been posted on the 'Exchange' forum.
Penis,penis,penis,penis,penis,penis,penis,penis, penis,penis,penis,penis,penis,penis,penis,penis, penis,penis,penis,penis,penis,penis,penis,penis, penis,penis,penis.
"Finally, let me thank all of you for participating"
I am just a lowly poster here on 2+2 but I would like to echo Mr. Malmuth's thanks. I really enjoy myself here with all of the regulars and newbies. Take it form a poster that had a post deleted (justified I might add) this is the best poker discussion forum on the net.
Vince.
Remember that the thread on RGP being referred to was started by somebody slamming RGP. I did see several posters say (paraphrase) "we don't like their censorship but their books are the nuts". I'm in that class and have suggested twice ways to both achieve Mason's goal of visible content control without strong censorship.
A few comments Mason's 3rd paragraph.
"We are a commercial site however, and we do have some very specific commercial reasons for being here. They most have to do with showing some of the major book buyers like Borders and Barnes & Noble that we are legitimate. To this end we did establish posting guidelines and we will enforce them. Fortunately, in all our time these guifelines have only been violated a very small number of times and we have only had to delete no more than a handful of posts, and it has been many months since we deleted any (with the exception of blantant ads)."
1) Suggesting that a book company that you want to convince to carry a book on a marginally taboo subject (its illegal in many places in the US and the world; its attacked by several large and politcally powerful organizations in the US) would have a problem with a post by Abdul that use the anatomically correct words for the male gentalia is stunning. My personal opinion is that Mason is the one jealous (of Abdul) and had to delete those posts. Now he is stuck coming up with an explanation.
2) You promised to not delete posts for a period of time (month?) that recently terminated so your comment as to how many posts you've deleted in the past short period of time is disingenuous.
Why not just continue posting here and test Mason's veracity. Unless of course you feel that fairness is a one way street. Quite frankly this is a poker forum and that should be the discussion subject. I have had a post deleted in the past because of a personal attack on an author but I had to agree there was a time and place for everything so I stayed away for a while (Until Abe begged me, yes he did, he likes me he really likes me, to come back)1 accepted the deletion and agreed to try not to be hard on other posters. Very hard for me. In fact under the rule of no personal attacks I may have deleted some of my posts since returning as a participant. That hasn't happened. Believe me I test Sklanky and Malmuth every chance I get.
I for one am against any form of sensorship and agree that Mason should not delete ANY post regardless of content. But that's not to say that I disagree with 2+2's right to do so. Once you accept the rules and agree to participate your only recourse to change a rule is to petition the host. Otherwise you must defer from participation. Abdul chose the latter. That is his perogative. We the not so well informed miss his money making comments and if we choose can go to rgp where he posts. I like the interchange here on 2+2 regardless of the threat (however minor) of sensorship. From my experience rgp doesn't offer nearly the same poker rapport as seen here.
So there!
Vince.
Vince wrote: "veracity" WTG, Vince! "participant" 2 tough ones in a row! "Sklanky" Oops! Wait, I think you did that on purpose. "sensorship" Oops! "perogative" Oops! "rapport" Who taught you this word?
3 out of 6. Pretty good, buddy.
Later, Greg Raymer (English Teacher)
Greg,
And Vince has the nerv to criticise my speling! He even said I cant spel Sklanski!
Regaurds,
Rick
Fossil wrote:
"3 out of 6. Pretty good, buddy. "
"Greg Raymer (English Teacher) "
Gotcha!
Vince.
Vince-
Hate to use your post as an opportunity to air one of my personal grievances, but I gotta do it. You stated that you were against sensorship (sp?) in any form. I wish people would get it through their heads that only the government (who has a monopoly on the use of force) can censor the people. Private citizens (and by extension private companies) can't censor other people because they don't have the power of the law and its related ability to compel you to express (or not express) your views through the use of force.
Your participation on this forum is a free market exchange between you, other forum participants, and the commercial sponsors of this site. If you choose to trade here, you do so freely, but YOU choose to participate according to the rules and constraints imposed by the host and other participants. Just because you buy a ticket to a movie, this doesn't give you the "right" to shout obscenities throughout and interfere with other consumer's right of enjoyment or the proprietor's right to maintain standards that enable him to earn a buck.
If Al Gore and his army of technocrats pass a law aainst gambling-related chat sites on the internet (or even hate sites for that matter), that is CENSORSHIP. If Mason deletes Abdul's post because he he referred to a penis, that is a business decision made by a private citizen. Abdul is free to take his penis talk to RGP or Penthouse.
Not understanding the difference is the type fuzzy thinking that the liberal press in this country perpetuates in order to cloud the difference between true freedom and the ideal of governing thought according to the twisted "liberal" notion of morality.
That might be a legal definition but it isn't the common definition. The definition of censor I found in a common dictionary I pulled off my shelf was:
"A person authorized to examine literature, plays, or other material and who may remove or supress what he considers morally or otherwise objectionable."
It doesn't state specity whether the authorizing agency is the government or a private business. Obviously the scope of the authorization is different, but that doesn't mean its not censorship.
Anybody got an OED and want to tell us where in the list the legal definition falls?
Just because you buy a ticket to a movie, this doesn't give you the "right" to shout obscenities throughout and interfere with other consumer's right of enjoyment or the proprietor's right to maintain standards that enable him to earn a buck.
This is about the clearest way of looking at this issue that I've seen.
> If Mason deletes Abdul's post because he he referred to a > penis, that is a business decision made by a private > citizen.
If Mason deleted every post that mentioned the dreaded P word (including your own), then you might be able to argue that he is merely making a business decision to enforce the "Acceptable Use Policy."
But I get the impression that it is more of a personal decision made by someone who (like most of us) doesn't like others pointing out his mistakes.
I have read at least a dozen posts that mention the P word that apparently were not deleted. (If I checked the archives, I suspect I could still find them.) There are certain individuals that seem to be specific targets of 2+2 censorship. Why do you suppose that is?
MM said: "Finally, let me thank all of you for participating and making this forum some of the best discussion on the Internet. By the way, this includes Chuck Weinstock of ConJelCo who has made this all possible. You can pay him back by ordering any of our books from either this site or the ConJelCo site. "
I have ordered 6 books from ConJelCo in the past 6 months. There site is easy to use and the prices are good. Of course, the 2+2 books are very good.
This site is ten times better than RGP. There is too much trash to filter through on RGP. This thread is degenerating into a typical RGP thread (because of "freedom of speech").
Thanks to all the excellent posters (Badger, Abdul, Fossilman, Ray Zee, etc.) my eyes visit this site daily.
KeithO
(newbie lurker)
Post deleted at author's request.
Well, nine hours and the post is still here.
I think some of you guys are overreacting a bit. If a couple of posts have been censored for language, that's not really so bad is it? I mean it's NOT a public forum, it just looks alot like one and they have a right to keep it family clean if they want to. Compuserve and AOL have (or at least had) strict guidlines about language on all their forums. It's to be expected really, since the content does reflect on them.
And if a few posts have been deleted because they go beyond discussion of controversial topics and slide a bit towards slander, well I for one don't blame them for deleting those either. It's not a public forum and free speech doesn't apply here.
But I've been reading here for a while now and I've seen plenty of controversial topics discussed along with quite a bit of good natured ribbing of our hosts and mentors. It is clear that they do not indiscriminately delete posts.
But I absolutely LOVE the incredibly high signal to noise ratio here. We should all be supporting this forum, not blasting it.
David
Here is a link to the 3 posts of Abdul's which Mason deleted earlier this year. You can judge for yourself the controversialness (or lack thereof) of the messages in question. I find #3 to be the most telling.
http://www.posev.com/posted/censored/
I don't recall the details, but I think that post on the exploits of the blackjack team could be seen as one of the longest misplaced posts ever on the forum. i.e., I think that at that time the forum was just the Gambling Theory and Strategy Forum and the Exchange Forum. As there was virutally no theory or strategy in that post, but just an interesting story, it may have been seen to violate the posting guidelines (see column to the left -- "acceptable use policy", wasting people's time...) by it's length and either should have ended with the point it made in its first sentence or been put on the Exchange Forum. Perhaps the fact that Abdul can really tell a good story made it seem espspecially wrong to delete it. But imagine if it had been a really long, boring story by someone no one knew. Just a thought. At any rate, I'm sure that with human interpretation of the guidelines some rare deletions about which people will disagree are inevitable. But it hardly seems to warrant the uproar that some make over it.
http://www.posev.com/posted/censored/
Thanks for the link. I read the three articles. The first article was excellent, but definitely used some inflamatory language. I can understand why it was deleted, but I hope it was done with a request to re-write it with slightly different language.
The second article reads like a personal letter to Mason. He probably deleted it without a second thought thinking that no one else would be interested. It probably should have been an email anyway.
The third article is really interesting and I can't for a minute imagine why it was deleted.
But I appreciate the opportunity to judge for myself, thanks.
David
I also have seen a number of posts knocking 2+2 and personal attacks towards MMand David. This is absolutely ridiculous. These people would be better off spending their time thinking about their poker game rather than spend time with personal attacks. In addition, even if they were jerks so what! If someone is putting information out on poker that is helping my game and win money i don't care if he paints his toenails. Your goal as a poker player should be trying to constantly improve your game thruogh playing, reading and thinking about the game. Good Luck Ice
> I also have seen a number of posts knocking 2+2 and > personal attacks towards MMand David.
The reason given for deleting one of Abdul's posts was that it contained a personal attack and violated the "Acceptable Use Policy" guideline that posts "possess a minimum of courtesy." Yet, I, too, have seen numerous undeleted posts that contain personal attacks, and not just towards MM and DS. In fact, some of these personal attacks were made by 2+2 authors. But only specific individuals were targeted for censorship. Why do you suppose that is?
Who wants yesterday's papers. Deal the cards.
Post deleted at author's request.
Uh, Gary, that was Paul. Sorry if your reading comprehension problem is flaring up.
By the way, Gary, as you can see, you are now surrounded by Feeney's. There is no escape. Throw down your weapons and start posting with your hands up!
I think the gist of this is that a few people, for various personal reasons, use the censorship issue as ammo to act out their anger. There are one or two people who felt hurt/angered by Mason's or David's disagreements with or criticisms of their poker knowledge. They still haven't resolved this anger, so they rage on. (One even dredged up posts from a thread long expired on rgp, trying to stir things up anew. Another is one of those who come onto the forum and make antagonistic posts under silly names just to "monkey wrench". This is rather disturbing behavior. I would hope he might think of the example he is setting for his son.) Others, I am coming to believe, have come to rely on constant admiration from others on the net to fuel their self esteem. They get this on rgp. But when they haven't gotten what they wanted in this regard from one or another 2+2 author, they have become extremely competitive, seeking to boost their self esteem through "defeating" those they perceive as their primary "competitors". (Then there are those like Michael H. who I don't think fit these categories, but seem to have gotten dragged into the whole thing for whatever reasons. I would guess Mason would be happy to listen to any elaboration Michael might provide on the alternate system for the forum, but it sounds like something which may not be too feasible.) I think these folks ought to just look within and try to arrive at more productive ways of feeling comfortable with themselves.
That the censorship issue is just a cover for other unspoken feelings and motives is easily seen in how totally out of proportion the complaints are to anything that has taken place. A few people complain bitterly about the censorship while tons of others post away in vigorous debate with no problem.
As for rgp vs Two Plus Two, I've said before that I found that my browser could easily take me to either place. You may prefer one or the other. That's fine. Each has its pluses. We're just people, sitting in front of computers, with a couple of different resources available for communicating with one another. Use one, use both, whatever.
Assumeing that "Michael H" is me the technique I suggested is the one used by www.slashdot.org in their forums. The idea is that each post starts out with a nominal "rateing". If its warrented its rated down. I can't see how this part is any more complicated then what is currently done. A value add would be that really good articles or threads could then be rated up. The display options lets one decide at what level you want to read.
Obviously changing forum software and procedures involves a cost and am not in any way suggesting that this what the HAVE to do. Its just a suggestion and a pointer to an alternative.
A few comments:
1) To an earlier post you made about "its their forum, they can choose". I utterly agree. But thats not really the issue. A 2+2 forum poster posted to RGP that people should stop using RGP and start using 2+2. The responses were along the lines of "no, we like to have a free forum [also]". The only reason I even have responded so far is that Mason sent email to me.
2) FWIW I thought the responses on RGP that encouraged copying 2+2 material entirely unconscionable.
3) Censorship is insidious. The reason I'm so strongly against censoring articles after the fact and without some level of recourse is that its impossible to tell thats its gotten out of hand until well after the fact. To me timeframe doesn't matter. The fact we know that the last time Mason censored an article was 6 months ago is uninteresting. The fact he reserves the right to censor again is.
4) The commercialism issue is uninteresting to me although it makes a strong argument for why you don't want to lock yourself into either of the two forums. If I was Mason/Dave I'd probably try to be somewhat careful about attacking other authors on their forum where the aopposing author can't comfortable respond.
5) As far as Mason/Dave/Ray/Lynn's personalities. I don't give a flying rats ass. I've never attacked any of them on a personal level. I try to hold myself to standards well above that.
Assumeing that "Michael H" is me the technique I suggested is the one used by www.slashdot.org in their forums. The idea is that each post starts out with a nominal "rateing". If its warrented its rated down. I can't see how this part is any more complicated then what is currently done. A value add would be that really good articles or threads could then be rated up. The display options lets one decide at what level you want to read.
But would that require someone like a moderator to be reading and rating all posts before they're put up? I can't imagine Mason or David or Ray or whomever having the time to do that. I mean assessing and rating every post would have to take more time than just purusing the posts and once in a blue moon spotting a gross violation of the posting guidelines, no?
To an earlier post you made about "its their forum, they can choose". I utterly agree. But thats not really the issue. A 2+2 forum poster posted to RGP that people should stop using RGP and start using 2+2. The responses were along the lines of "no, we like to have a free forum [also]". The only reason I even have responded so far is that Mason sent email to me.
I'm not sure what post of mine you're referring to. Anyway, the problem I saw with a number (not all) of the posts in the rgp thread was just what I spelled out in my post above: underlying stuff not being addressed, instead being masked by the various censorship complaints and general insults (not from you). It may not look that way to most people, but my old psych training brings such things out in relief for me sometimes. (Just for the sake of clarity, didn't Mason email you in *response* to a post of yours in the rgp thread?)
As far as Mason/Dave/Ray/Lynn's personalities. I don't give a flying rats ass. I've never attacked any of them on a personal level. I try to hold myself to standards well above that.
And that's commendable. I hope it was clear that I tried not to include you in the group whose motives I speculated about. And I'm sorry for being a bit vague, but I don't like to name names and thereby make it personal if I can make my point without doing so.
To the first question the answer is "no". Post default to a certain rateing (WLOG say 0). If the decision is made that the post doesn't meet standards then its dropped to say -1. This is no different the amount of work done currently to identify posts with the P word in them and delete them. What it does do is allow people to decide what they accept and adjust to that level.
Another idea is that Mason does as RGBM does. Place posts that didn't pass the criteria on a separate web page. Maybe leave a place holder (a place holder would work nicely for the deleted posts WRT maintaining structure).
The RGP thread that I believe spawned this thread was started by "r.g.p deterioration" by drubenst@yahoo.com. See www.deja.com for more info.
As a partial response to Mason: if you look back at our email conversation (posted [with Mason's OK] to the RGP thread ref'd above) you'll notice I mentioned I have tried to encourage a few less attacks.
Well, it's none of my business, but you may want to talk a bit with Chuck Weinstock about that slashdot.org system. He'd probably be the one to assess it. Of course Mason may want to keep the ability to delete a post for reasons along the lines that Ray Zee mentions in the other thread. As Ray presents it, I don't think it's unreasonable. Mainly, I'm thinking about posts that are just personal attacks that would be better confined to private email (if anywhere).
Yes, I saw that rgp thread by drubenst... I think I just misunderstood something. You said in a post above:
"The only reason I even have responded so far is that Mason sent email to me."
I must have misunderstood what you meant because you did respond in that thread prior to that. Maybe you just meant you only responded further than your original post in that thread because he emailed you? Anyway it's not important. Just a little confusion.
Ah, rereading your post. The only reason I responded HERE. Bad antecedent. Sorry.
(Sorry if I don't summarize your thought correctly Ray.) As I understand his basic point was this is a free service make of it as you will. Point taken. Point is that it COULD be a lot better. I'd have to guess that the readership of RGP is an order of magnitude larger then this website. Maybe thats good for elitest reasons. Maybe not.
I thought I would comment on your comments:
"1) To an earlier post you made about "its their forum, they can choose". I utterly agree. But thats not really the issue. A 2+2 forum poster posted to RGP that people should stop using RGP and start using 2+2. The responses were along the lines of "no, we like to have a free forum [also]". The only reason I even have responded so far is that Mason sent email to me."
I sent you email because you seemed to be one of many who was involved in the discussion concerning how we operate our site. As I told you I picked you at random.
As for the poster who suggested that discussion move from RGP to this site that was solely his opinion and none of us at 2 + 2 had anything to do with it. We even have a link to RGP and have always encouraged our posters to visit it.
"2) FWIW I thought the responses on RGP that encouraged copying 2+2 material entirely unconscionable."
These kind of posts will in my opinion only hurt both forums. As I said before I suspect that they are just made by people who are jealous for reasons that I don't understand, and they just look to take a shot whenever they can.
"3) Censorship is insidious. The reason I'm so strongly against censoring articles after the fact and without some level of recourse is that its impossible to tell thats its gotten out of hand until well after the fact. To me timeframe doesn't matter. The fact we know that the last time Mason censored an article was 6 months ago is uninteresting. The fact he reserves the right to censor again is."
I agree that knowing the last time an article was censored is uninteresting. But someone brought this point up and implied that we were censoring many more posts than we were. Again, we are a commercial site and we do and must reserve the right to enforce our posting guidelines. Virtually everyone who participates in this forum (and this includes David, Ray, and myself) all agree that the quality of information is very high. I believe that the posting guidelines has a lot to do with it.
"4) The commercialism issue is uninteresting to me although it makes a strong argument for why you don't want to lock yourself into either of the two forums. If I was Mason/Dave I'd probably try to be somewhat careful about attacking other authors on their forum where the aopposing author can't comfortable respond."
I agree that both forums have something to offer. But I also agree with some posters that RGP has deteriorated in quality the past few months. Again I hope that this is just a passing phase.
As for comments on other authors I agree that any comments that we or anyone else makes should be done in a professional manner. However, if something is worth criticizing and it is an appropriate topic for one of our forums that I see no reason why it can't be discussed.
"5) As far as Mason/Dave/Ray/Lynn's personalities. I don't give a flying rats ass. I've never attacked any of them on a personal level. I try to hold myself to standards well above that."
Good for you. This is precisely what all posters should do. If you look on RGP you will see that several of thier regular contributors constantly violate this. One of them even goes farther and suggests that people come here and put up posts under fake names in an effort to sabotage what we are doing. Perhaps the next time you are on RGP and you happen to see one of these posts you might considering pointing out the shamefulness of their actions and suggestions.
Michael Hunter wrote:
"5) As far as Mason/Dave/Ray/Lynn's personalities. I don't give a flying rats ass.
Mason Malmuth responded.
"Good for you. This is precisely what all posters should do."
Vince Lepore disagrees with Mason because: I do have a "flying rats ass" to give! So let me know if you need one.
Vince.
> Again, we are a commercial site and we do and must > reserve the right to enforce our posting guidelines.
Few, if any, people believe you do not have the right to enforce your posting guidelines. Some of us would prefer that you enforce them more even-handedly.
> Virtually everyone who participates in this forum (and > this includes David, Ray, and myself) all agree that the > quality of information is very high. I believe that the > posting guidelines has a lot to do with it.
Your selective enforcement of the posting guidelines has caused several of the forum's most intelligent contributors to cease (or drastically reduce) their postings. I suspect that this, in turn, has cause other informed contributors to voluntarily curb many of their disagreements with 2+2 authors. Which has reduced the quality of the information here.
What a shame.
I cannot speak for others (and I'm unsure how you can), but I can tell you why MM's censorship of this forum bothers me. The censorship might be targeted against specific individuals who have raised credible concerns about the wisdom of some 2+2 authors' strategies.
Take Abdul, for example. One of his posts was deleted because it mentioned the P word. But many posts (both before and after his) have mentioned the P word and were not deleted. Another of his posts was deleted because it was interpeted as a personal attack. But many posts (both before and after his) have included personal attacks. A third post was deleted because it was said to be too long. But many posts (both before and after his) have been longer.
You wrote: "There are one or two people who felt hurt/angered by Mason's or David's disagreements with or criticisms of their poker knowledge."
While I cannot tell you Mason's motives for targeting Abdul's posts, it certainly is possible that he felt hurt/angered by Abdul's disagreements with or criticisms of his poker knowledge.
I cannot speak for others (and I'm unsure how you can)...
Clearly, I didn't try to speak for anyone. I speculated about the motives of some, and offered what others have told me about their own motives (without getting too specific, as I don't think it's necessary).
A third post was deleted because it was said to be too long.
I think I speculated that the fact that it did not address theory/strategy, the theme of the forum on which it was posted, *combined* with it's length may have been the reason for the deletion. At any rate, this identification of Abdul's three posts has been beaten to death hasn't it? I mean I and many others have talked about which ones we would or wouldn't have deleted, and why. But in the end it comes down to the judgment of some human being. No one would be able to "get it right" to everyone's satisfaction all the time. Abdul has probably posted here some hundreds of times with, what, 3 or 4 deleted? The complaints seem excessive whether or not I or anyone else would agree with various deletions.
Regarding a point you made in a couple of other posts, it looks like Mason's decisons not to delete a great many of the posts that do violate the guidelines (like every post in this thread) simply reflects an attempt to bend over backward to be tolerant following all the censorship complaints. Notice Gary Carson's repeated taunts in the thread about his book. Many of his posts in that thread are just attempts to push the guidelines to the breaking point by intentionally adding to a thread that belonged on the exchange forum, mixed with taunts toward Mason. It gets old after a while.
> No one would be able to "get it right" to everyone's > satisfaction all the time. Abdul has probably posted here > some hundreds of times with, what, 3 or 4 deleted?
MM claims he censored a maximum of 9 non-commerical posts. At least a third of those deletions were Abdul posts. If I were to rank all this forum's posts according to their compliance with the "Acceptable Use Policy" none of Abdul's posts would make it into the top 10 percent.
Tell me that MM isn't biased in his censorship.
Tell me again . . . this time without laughing.
If I were to rank all this forum's posts according to their compliance with the "Acceptable Use Policy" none of Abdul's posts would make it into the top 10 percent.
Oh, no, no. His would be at the 67th percentile.
...9 non-commerical posts. At least a third of those deletions were Abdul posts...
...without laughing.
Sorry, but that laughter is about the level of statistical significance of your sample size. Even if Mason *is* biased in his censorship of Abdul's posts, the importance of that bias is trivial in light of how few of Abdul's posts have been deleted. Going by your reasoning, if Mason had only deleted one post ever, and that post was written by Fred Smith, then you'd be saying, "*One hundred percent* of the posts censored here have belonged to Fred Smith. Mason sure is biased against Fred!
I suspect that you, too, are reasonably certain that MM targeted Abdul.
But with Tom's reduced participation on this forum, I guess his duties had to fall upon someone. ;)
Commercial/capitalistic? Boo flipping hoo.... looks at all of the pop-up ads in browsers.... I don't see that much of a problem here... How do people think things are paid for, anyway? Seen any PBS telethons lately on poker server fundings?
Free speech? A bit overrated... this is a private site on a "public" forum (Internet), yet everyone is freaking... when some of those people starting funding this site (other than indirectly, through book purchases), maybe they can talk..
And why weren't the free speechers complaining about people being able to delete their OWN posts? Isn't THAT censorship also? (can we quibble about outside censorship vs. post-release self-censorship?)
Why are some many people unappreciative of ...a free service that gives great discussion (contradictory, anti- and pro- DS/MM, if you've noticed) ... a service that's a LOT easier to manuver around and read (Thanks again, Chuck!) ... a chance to talk/learn with no commmitment required??
Guess we all know the answer to that. We have a few rules? Some people MAY have made a "mistake" in deleting (even if it was for their own ego, which i SERIOUSLY doubt)? Grow up
Shut up and DEAL (literally and figuratively)!
PS- Thanks to Chuck, Conjelco, David, Mason, Ray and all of the posters for making this site what it is.... and for the benefits I and everyone else has gotten from the Forum...
I read Abdul's 3 deleted posts (and his rantings against you) and would like to know what made you decide to delete them... The "male member" one didn't offend me personally, although I didnt' see Abdul's purpose in using the term. The other two seemed fine...
I'm more curious about your thought process in this matter than anything else. If you'd rather email me directly than post here (OH NO! CENSORSHIP! RUN!), feel free. I promise not to re-post it here...
I would like to see Abdul come back, however- he gives good post!
Ed:
You will have to look at the archives, but I did put up a post shortly after deletions explaining my reasons for why they were removed from our page.
Mason,
Did you really delete a post because it had the word "penis" in it?
If so, did you follow your own "penal" code for the erection, err.. I mean erasure.
I can understand Abdul's frustration. It must have been a "hard one" to swallow.
Vince.
Vince you are a sick guy(ha ha) I'm just joking when I say "sick"(ah.. Who knows maybe you are sick?). Well anyway I'm sure you would have told us if you were seing a doctor regularly.
Vince, stop trying to get Mason to delete you posts he is a rock like most of us.
P.S This post is going to look really stupid if Mason deletes your post after all.
Gary,
"I'll go ahead and remind the readers that Mason determined long ago that I don't know what I'm talking about and that no one who cares about staying in Mason't good graces will pay any attention to anything I say. "
I don't know how Mason feels about your advice. If he doesn't like it I think that it is his loss and quite frankly should ignore anything you write. At the same time I, for one, would love to see you continuously post on this forum. Of course, you must update your opinnion of the "Cincinati Kid" before doing so!
P.S To the rest of the forum members that know Gary. Please encourage him to stay here and contribute. To those of you that do not know Gary, you are missing a fine poker mind. You may want to encourage his posts here also.
Vince.
Vince.
I disagree, and do so somewhat reluctantly. I also think that Gary has a lot to contribute but in the past he has insisted on doing so with such a heavy layer of insults and name-calling that one is often not sure if his posts are just an excuse to take an obnoxious jab. Witness his clumsy swipe and Paul Feeney below, or his repeated dissembling about the reasons he has been censored here.
I have a question about the value of rebuys and add-ons in no-limit hold 'em tournaments.
In both Gambling Theory and Other Topics (Malmuth) and Poker Tournament Strategy (Suzuki), it is shown that rebuying generally has positive expectation (excluding cases where you have a huge chip lead).
However, in both places the discussion seems to be centered around limit play, and I'm wondering if this result applies equally well to no-limit play.
Intuitively (which is generally the wrong way to answer questions involving probability!), the answer I come to is "no". In limit play, an extra $X might allow you to limp in and see a hand without going all-in in the middle-late stages of the tournament, and that could make a big difference if you get a great flop.
On the other hand, in the middle-late stages of a no-limit tournament, the sequence of play seems to be "fold, fold, fold, small stack all-in, fold, fold, big stack call, fold" or similar. In this case, it shouldn't make a lot of difference if the small stack has $Y or $Y+X, especially since X could be pretty small compared to Y late in the tournament.
Any insights would be welcome (esp. as I will be playing in a no-limit tournament again on Sunday and want to know if I would be making a wise investment to take all my buy-in add-on options).
Thanks! --james
Mason's general thesis is that if you have few chips they are worth alot (each) and if you have alot of chips they are worth little (each). That's just as true in NL as it is in limit. So in general the smaller your stack is the more it pays to rebuy, right?
In practice, though, I think table conditions come into it alot, especially with unlimited rebuys. If your table has solid players, then you may be able to avoid rebuying too much. If your table has alot of weak loose rebuyers, you either have to get lucky, or you have to rebuy alot also, just to survive to the end of the rebuy period. I played in one NL tournament table where the betting was routinely raised to 75-150% of a buy-in pre-flop by a woman who just kept opening her wallet. If your best hands hold up, you are golden, if they don't you are broke real quick. Here you either get lucky, rebuy, or go play in a ring game. I went and played in a ring game.
That's my $0.02, but I'm sure the experts will have more to say.
David
In addition to what Fossilman said, I would add that you should consider the total number of chips that are on your table i.e. how many rebuys have been made by the other players..and are there a number of big stacks out there.
The name of the game in no-limit is taking all of your opponents chips and you can't do this with a short stack.
At the WSOP the most popular rebuy tournament is the Super Satelite...it costs $200 to enter and allows rebuys for the first hour. This event usually generates over $40 000.00 from about 120 players so there is lots of rebuying going on.
My rule of thumb is that I will rebuy if it is early (during the first 20 minute session) and there have been less than five other rebuys at my table.
I will not rebuy if it is late in the rebuy period and my rebuy stack will be shorter than half the other players at my table
Good Luck
Jim Mogal
It depends more upon the size of the blinds/antes than it does on whether the betting is limit or NL.
If a rebuy stack is T500, and blinds are still only T15,T25, then you will have enough chips that while waiting for a good hand, the blinds won't significantly eat up your stack. If the blinds were the same and a rebuy only got you T100, then it might be wise to give up.
However, because of the value of chips in a short stack, you probably are giving up some EV by quitting the tournament. However, you are giving up a very small amount of EV in a spot that is VERY high variance. If rebuys were $10., you might be buying an EV of $10.05 - $10.50. However, those rebuys are something like 20 to 200 fold higher than the EV you're losing, so it actually takes a big bankroll to make this rebuy correctly.
Fortunately, most tournaments still give you big enough stacks during the rebuy period that you can afford to wait for a premium (or near premium) hand. I mean, if people are making it T500 to go preflop with blinds of T15,T25, then you should wait for pretty big cards before committing, anyway.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
re buy when:
1. you are one of the best players
2. the blinds are not right in front of you and they are not big in relation to your chips.
3. the table you are at is a good one and your seat is a good one.
4. no extra juice is taken out of your rebuy or its small.
5. other reasons i cant think of now.
Here's a comical play from 1-5 stud. A friend of mine is playing stud for the first time in the casino. He is on my left. He brings it in for 1$ with a three showing. I had been joking about "trying to steal" a few minutes before. Everyone folds to me, I have an ace up with 2,7 in the hole and no two flush, two aces and one seven are dead. As a complete joke, I raise the maximum and make it 6$ to go, trying to steal his 1$ bring-in! He calls!! Everyone is laughing!! (I wish he would have tried to re-steal by reraising, he DID have a pair!) On 4th I catch the case ace! The table erupts with excitement! I bet 5$ and he folds!
Stud tactics for the bring-in
I have tried a new tactic in 1-5 stud. When you are the bring in and have a playable hand, try bringing it in for 2$ or 3$. First off, you build a pot when you have a hand. Most players will call a 2$ bring in as readily as 1$, but they seem to raise less often since "you probably have something". Also, this tactic sometimes stimulates action. When everyone just calls the 1$ bring-in people will often check and check and check since the pot is so small. A bigger pot will stimulate action, and lets face it, 1-5 often needs stimulation to keep from being BORING!
Similar reasoning can be used in 5-10 or 10-20, but you of course must be much more careful about getting reraised. Don't bring it in for 10$ in 10-20 with (JJ)2 if there are unduplicated queens, kings, or aces out there. I think it usually works better in 1-5 spread limit than bigger split limit games. I do like to bring it in with a raise with a big pocket pair less than queens when they are probably the best pair (no aces, kings, or queens showing).
Of course you should consider the value of deception when contemplating this move. Sometimes bringing it in with a raise might be detrimental. I played two hands at 10-20 stud which illustrate the point I am trying to make:
1) I am the bring in with (AA)2. I only bring it in for 3$ because I am hoping someone will raise. There is an unduplicated king, queen, and jack out but no aces. Sure enough, the king, directly to my left, raises. Two other people call, I reraise. If I had brought it in with a raise the king would have probably reraised and drove everyone else out. In this case I was better off not bringing it in with a raise. I won the hand with aces up. Limp reraising made me and extra 30$, just on 3rd. Had I brought it in for a raise I would have made much less $$ in the end.
2) I have (JJ)3 and I am low. This time I bring it in with a raise for 10$. There are no cards higher than my pair showing. I knew I would get at least a couple callers, which I did. I got my opponents to make a mistake by entering the pot, plus got more $$ into the pot while I had the probable best hand. Turns out I won with Jacks up.
comments welcome....
Dave
Dave,
most times when i have aces i gladly want the king to reraise and drive out the other people so i can play headup against the kings and have dead money in the pot to boot. with jj3 this is a very marginal hand except against a smaller pair with a smaller kicker and playing headup. that is your goal with jj3.
Dave,
Re "Similar reasoning can be used in 5-10 or 10-20, but you of course must be much more careful about getting reraised. Don't bring it in for 10$ in 10-20 with (JJ)2 if there are UNDUPLICATED queens, kings, or aces out there."
It was pointed out by someone on this forum a couple of months ago that when there are 2 of a rank showing, it is MORE likely that that rank is paired (by one of the hands) than if only one is showing: 3 live cards into 2 possible spots (6 ways) vs. 2 live cards into 4 possible spots (8 ways).
I don't remember who it was who pointed this out on this forum a couple of months ago - if you're out there, come and take the credit!
C.J.
P.S. Dave, keep up the great posts. One of the classics (maybe Morehead?) extols the enormous value of learning from others' experiences at the table.
From Page 168 of 21st Century Edition of Hold-em for Advanced Players:
"If you have the Ten of Spades and the Nine of Spades and the flop comes: Ace of Diamonds, Seven of Clubs, Six of Hearts, if the pot is big you should bet out in early position against a large field. You do this not only because you might get a straight but because it is important to get a hand like King-Jack offsuit out of the hand. You would bet even if you knew someone had a Seven or a Six and would call all the way. If a Nine or a Ten comes on the river you want to maximize your chance of winning. The general concept is that if an Ace comes and you have the upper end of a gut shot you should usually bet to prevent over cards to your two cards from coming even though they are under cards to the top card."
I am struggling with this concept. Against a large field, someone will usually have an Ace so a pair of Nines or Tens on the river will not win the pot. By betting into a large field you will probably get raised by someone with an Ace which means it will cost you 2 bets to take off a card. By checking you minimize your investment to continue on with your gutshot. The only way for this ploy to make any real difference is for everyone with an Ace to fold while someone with a Six or a Seven has to stay all the way. This is such an unlikely parlay that it cannot be worth the cost of betting into a large field and getting raised. With regard to K-J offsuit,they will be folding anyway when the guy with the Ace bets. If no one bets, I get a free card which is a wonderful thing when I am playing a gutshot. I don't need to betting the flop with a weak draw just to make sure it is bet when there is a large field. Plays that maximize your chance of winning have to be balanced against the additional cost you are incurring. Over the course of the year, I don't want to be routinely spending 2 or 3 bets to draw at a gutshot. What I am missing here?
the point is that if you are raised you found the aces. for the cost of one small bet you can make a fully informed decision about drawing to your 4 outs based on the pot odds. on the other hand, when you are not raised you are now rather certain that there is no ace out there. against no ace, betting maximises your chances of winning the pot. this pot is worth winning because of the large field. you want your one pair to be good. your flop bet representing aces should have narrowed the field to pairs, lower than yours, and straight draws. you can sort of ignore the ace, because of the lack of a raise, and treat your hand like two overcards and a gutshot. be careful though because in hands like these your pair may have made someone's straight.
Okay, let's say it gets raised with several callers back to you. Now what do you do? I think you would feel obliged to call because the pot is that much bigger and it is only one more bet. Well, it has now cost you two bets to pursue this strategy. Suppose it gets raised and re-raised with several callers back to you. Do you call two more bets?
In addition, a guy with an Ace may just call and not raise so the absence of a raise after you lead may not mean that no one has Aces. This could easily be the case with a large field if the guy with the Ace doesn't like his kicker.
It is unclear to me that you can get away with just one bet or that if you do you are really going to get any meaningful information.
if it is raised then the ace is out there. my pair will be no good, but my gut shot will make the nuts. this part is easy. do i have 11-1? if so i call; if not i fold.
It's a semi-bluff play. With all semi-bluff plays, you gain equity by virtue of making better hands fold. In this case, you bet to make KJ and the like fold. Notice your bet may also cause some, albeit few, players to fold a hand like A2s or a pair of Nines or Tens. And by not giving a free card you may eliminate hands with a Ten or Nine and better kicker than yours or even another T9. The key phrase is "if the pot is big." However, for the reasons stated above and because of the likelihood no-one holds an Ace, you don't need the pot to offer the effective odds of 5:1 normally required to draw to a gutshot. If raised on the flop, you should fold unless the new money in the pot gives you the required odds to draw to the gutshot.
"If raised on the flop, you should fold unless the new money in the pot gives you the required odds to draw to the gutshot."
I am not sure about this. You would almost always call if raised on the flop given that you are drawing (albeit a slim draw) to the nuts. You probably will have the necessary pot odds and most definitely would have the necessary implied odds to peel off a card.
If you're beat and you don't have odds to draw to the best hand, you lose money by calling. Of course, like you say, if you do have odds to draw you make money by calling.
KOP,
You wrote Notice your bet may also cause some, albeit few, players to fold a hand like A2s or a pair of Nines or Tens..
If the pot has a lot of players and the bet came from early position, I believe many of the better players would fold a weak pair of aces and an underpair to the top card on the board. I certainly would.
BTW, a thread very similar to this was on the forum about two months ago. Chuck has really improved loading of the archives and you may want to check it out. You will need to use your unzip utility but seaching is very fast using your browser.
Regards,
Rick
I agree with Jim. In this large field, it is unlikely that you will win with a 9 or 10 if you hit it. Someone has an ace, but might not raise with a small kicker. The time to bet this hand is against a small field where you are representing the Ace and may force the others to fold. Against a large field, you must make a big hand or get out with a minimum loss.
The question of whether to raise or fold A2s or pocket Tens or Nines in an unraised preflop pot with a flop of A76 rainbow versus an early position bettor is interesting. You have to answer, would my opponent bet an open-end straight draw or a gutshot draw? Would he tend to attempt a checkraise with a strong Ace or two-pair? Would he bet a weak Ace or check the weak Ace and then fold or check-raise?
For example, against Abdul I would usually raise with these hands. Why? Because he will always make this semi-bluff bet and since I'm playing "sub-optimally" tight, Abdul has to fear my raise with any weak Ace. If he holds an Ace, I've outplayed him with my A2s, Tens or Nines. On most occasions in this situation, I will have him hand dominated as my hand will be much better than A2s, Tens or Nines. If he has a gutshot draw, I've forced him to fold since he's not getting the required pot odds.
Therefore, I believe, S&M saying you should always semi-bluff with T9 in this situation is wrong as well. It's best to sometimes bet here. Other considerations figure into the equation of whether or not to bet or check and I don't think there is an optimal by-rote play.
Thanks KOP but I got a couple things:
"It is a semi-bluff play". Sklansky tells us in the Theory of Poker that for a semi-bluff to be correct the opposition has to be folding a significant percentage of the time. In this situation with a big pot and lots of players I am not sure its a good semi-bluff.
"You don't need the pot to offer the effective odds of 5:1 normally required to draw to a gutshot". I believe you are thinking of the odds when it is an open-ended straight and not a gutshot which is only 4 outs from over 40 unseen cards.
"If raised on the flop,you should fold unless the new money in the pot gives you the required odds to draw to the gutshot". I think a calling a raise in this spot will be automatic because there will be probably close to 10 bets already in the pot plus the implied odds if you hit your hand on the turn.
Would anyone try this play? Check on the flop to see if and where the action might come from. If there are stronger hands out there and the action is bet and raised or even re-raised by the time it gets back to you, bail for minimal cost and low variation. However, if it gets checked to a late player who might be betting second pair, a draw, or a 9's or 10's, for example,once in a while try putting in a check-raise semi-bluff. If the bettor puts you on a weak Ace and doesn't have a good Ace or better, you will probably win the hand on the turn but you would have to be willing to keep betting if a blank hits. If however, an 8,9,10 or even another Ace comes on the turn, you would of course keep betting.
Anyway, this play may have a good chance of succeeding if your table image is that of a very solid player, and while it would be a high variance play, might be worthwhile on occasion to mix up your play. Thoughts?
I think that the reason this example is so confusing is the presence of an A on the flop.
If the pot has gotten big preflop, what are the chances that no one has an A in their hand? And if they do, it really won't matter that I bet and got KJ to fold, because I still need to hit more than one pair to win, and KJ's presence won't stop me from hitting 2-pair or better.
I guess that you're saying that betting out on the flop is better for the following two main reasons:
First, because sometimes, even if only occasionally, no one has an A, and if you get overcards to your T9 to fold, you've increased your equity in the pot.
Second, you will often not get raised, but someone else would have bet if you had not. Or, even if you get raised, it still might have been 2 bets to see the turn. Either way, if your being the initial bettor does not alter the number of bets you invest, while it does reduce the competition, it has increased your EV.
Is that about right, or do I still not really understand?
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
But when you bet you do alter the number of bets you invest to take off a card. When you bet you are never getting a free card and a significant amount of the time you are paying more than one bet to see the turn. This issue is whether or not the extra investment is worth the increased likelihood of winning the pot by specifically driving out a hand like K-J, catching a pair of Nines or Tens, and having this hold up as the winning hand against a lot of opponents. This is a very unlikely parlay.
I think that many of you are missing the point. One of the ideas that we stress in the section on loose games is that when the pot gets large you must do those extra things that can increase your chances of winning even if they only increase your chances of winning a little bit.
Notice that when the pot is large calling to try to hit a gutshot on the flop is almost always the correct strategy. Therefore you are going to play and even call a bet and a raise if the pot is very large. So the question is are you better off in these situations by leading with a bet yourself or are you better off by following conventional strategy by checking and then calling.
Our advice is to lead in these situations. The reason is that every now and then you will hit a pair on the turn and because of your flop bet your pair will be the best hand on the river where if you hd checked and called your pair might not be the best on the river. It won't happen often, but once the pot gets large enough it doesn't have to happen often for the play to be proper strategy.
While this advice may seem to be close to a semi-bluff to some of you, it really is a very different type of play because you don't expect everyone to fold. (If you were semi-bluffing you would expect everyone to fold some percentage of the time.) What you do excpect is for certain types of weak hands to fold and given the size of the pot you actually prefer these hands to be out of there.
Changing the subject slightly, one of the errors in advice that I see others make when they talk about loose games is to attempt to maximize the amount of money their opponents put in the pot when they either have the best hand or a draw to the best hand. What they fail to realize is that they might be better off if their opponents folded because they would now not be drawn out on or this might open up other ways for them to win.
Mason,
Would you make this play if you thought that there was no chance that everybody would fold(well 1% as you never know) and that you would get raised 50-60% of the time?
First, I generally don't have estimates this exact. Second, even if I did, it would depend on the size of the pot among other things.
I think your response clarifies the situation quite a bit. I guess I am still left with a nagging concern that these "extra things" are costing me money over the course of year despite occasionally dragging a pot because of the scenario that has been discussed. Yes, I am willing to pay a bet to go for a gutshot but when I always bet in this situation I never get a free card. When I lead into a large field I will frequently get raised costing me 2 bets more often than if I just checked. The scenario outlined is that someone with a hand like K-J folds, I hit a pair of Nines or Tens, and this holds up as the best the hand against a large group of players with a large pot involved. This is such an unlikely parlay. Let us go to the other end of the spectrum of catching an Eight on the turn and still losing the hand on the end. The Eight of Hearts could give one of my many opponents a flush draw. An Eight on the turn followed by a Nine or Ten could give someone a better straight or at least tie my straight which dramatically reduces my payoff. In these unlikely scenarios, I may be sorry that I spent more than I should to see the hand through. With a lot of opponents these things seem to happen more often than seems reasonable.
I think the idea discussed here is great when it is coupled with other ideas like betting when there is a reasonable chance your opponents will fold plus having some outs if you are called. All of this works well against a small number of opponents. But doing this against a table full of players is definitely counter-intuitive and something I am going to have to spend a lot time thinking about.
"You must do those extra things that can increase your chances of winning even if they only increase your chances a little bit."
But those extra things cost money, as Jim points out. I believe the scenario he describes, that is, that it will cost you two bets on the flop, coupled with the unlikely event that you pair on the turn and the pair holds up, outweighs the "little bit" of extra you gain by betting. And if you want others to fold, why not try for a check-raise instead of leading? In theory, you could cap it if there were a lot of bets to you, and then you would certainly get most of the other players out, increasing your chances of winning the pot, but costing you a lot of money. The example you use, of getting K-J to fold because of your bet seems unlikely: K-J would fold to any bet and the likelihood of there not being a bet with a lot of players is slim. With a gut shot, it seems better to hope for a free or cheap card than to take a chance of having to put two or more bets in for a "little bit" of extra chance.
One of the things I've never heard discussion of, but which I think is an important point, is that when a long-shot gets very long, increasing your odds of winning is not very important. You certainly double your chances of winning the lottery if you buy two tickets instead of one, but if you keep doing this you end up just losing twice as fast. Virtually guaranteeing you'll have to put two bets in by leading with a gut-shot draw strikes me as a (distantly) related phenomenon.
BTW, this is why I think your writings are excellent: one can disagree with you and still respect the logic of your analyses and the way they get us all to think.
1. Increasing your chances a little bit makes sense in this case because the pot is big. If the pot was not big, this argument would not hold.
2. Doubling your chances on a longshot can easily switch it from a fold to a play providing it does not double your expense. Your example of buying two lottery tickets instead of one is not logical because you are paying twice as much. On the other hand, if you could somehow get two lottery tickets for the price of one you might switch from a negative expectation game to one with positive ev.
1) I still think Jim's points are valid: yes, the pot is big, but there are a lot of players and the chances are greater that the scenario he develops will unfold than the one HPFAP describes will.
2) Long-shots, if they are very long, are still sucker plays even if you have a positive ev. If I found a merchant who would sell me two lottery tickets for $1, it's still a sucker bet. And if I was getting 10,000,000 to 1 on my bet, and only 9,999,999 people played, giving me a positive expectation, it's still a sucker bet.
The example you use, of getting K-J to fold because of your bet seems unlikely: K-J would fold to any bet and the likelihood of there not being a bet with a lot of players is slim. With a gut shot, it seems better to hope for a free or cheap card than to take a chance of having to put two or more bets in for a "little bit" of extra chance.
If you have a chance at a free card by checking, then so does KJ, right? Doesn't this boil down to whether it's better to get the free card or get KJ (and similar hands) to fold?
David
1) I think it is indeed better, in this situation, to hope for the free card than to get K-J to fold.
2) Even if this is not the case, the likelihood of there not being a bet behind you, as Jim pointed out in his posts, is slim. So K-J is going to fold to that bet. And even if K-J folds to your bet, it's going to be an awfully difficult hand for you to play if a King or Jack comes out on the turn or river. Betting into the large field just doesn't seem that it would have a postive expectation.
I had the following perfect set-up for pulling off a bold ploy in our weekly pot-limit hold'em game. This is the type of play that I've heard about big bet experts using once in a while to survive a run of bad cards during a tournament, but have never had the balls to try myself. I thought this was a great opportunity, but didn't pull the trigger.
A solid, but sometimes overly tight player limps in for $5 under the gun (blinds are $5-$5) in a full ring pot-limit HE game. After two more limpers, I raise to $35 in the cut-off seat with pocket Jacks. The button and blinds fold and the tight UTG guy reraises the pot (to a total of $170). Its folded to me.
I have JJ. I have about $900 left. He has about $2000. I have bordeline odds to flop a set if I call the $135. I KNOW he has Aces with the old limp/reraise ploy. He is capable of laying down a big hand against me. He might not pay me off if I hit a set, reducing my implied odds.
Importantly, I have position.
I decide that since I know what he has and he doesn't know what I have, I am going to call him and put a post-flop move on him unless the board totally bricks.
I call and the flop is a perfect KQx.
He fires out a sort of hesitant $200 bet.
I second-guess myself and think "I was wrong and he's flopped a set of Kings. He was considering whether to bet out (automatic with AA) or go for a check raise."
I also start thinking, "I can only raise him $700, and that would put nearly $1300 in the pot. Even if he does have Aces, he's getting almost 2 to 1 on the call." He's going to look me up. Now I've hesitated and he knows I don't have a set. Why didn't I think about the pot odds before calling his reraise.
In short, I wimp out. I fold.
He gives me a "that was scary" shake of the head and tables his Aces face up. I now think he would have folded, giving me KK or QQ.
Was this a crazy ploy from the start? What would you do in his shoes on the flop against an aggressive, but (in your mind) winning player.
Perhaps you have not enough chips to make him fold. Would be better with at least 3/4 of his stack.
Another good PL play (that I also have not tried yet ...):
A good tight player opens in early position with a raise and you call in last position with nothing, "knowing" no blind will overcall. Then the flop comes 3 rags, he bets and you just call. What will he think you have ? He knows you put him on a big pair or AK or perhaps AQ.
Normally he checks on the turn if no A, K or Q comes and your full size bet wins the pot since he is fearing your trips.
Of course for these plays to succeed both you and your opponent need to have at least a middle stack (and I'd prefer to have a bigger stack than his)
No good PL or NL player is going to lay down a pair of Aces simply because K-Q hits the flop. And certainly none of the really bad HE players of any limit will throw the hand away (the bad players wouldn't throw away a single Ace). So what you are left with is a narrow band of players who would (possibly) lay down that hand for that flop for that amount of money. It would've been a mistake to do so, for a lot of reasons, so you made the correct play, regardless of whether or not it seemed like "wimping out".
Calling here when you know he has aces, hoping that you can get a bluff opportunity later, that he won't pay off for some reason, is way too risky. He has aces, you have jacks, give it up.
I think you played it correctly. If he's a good player, he should know that a late position raise does not necessarily mean you have a big pair. He probably thought that you were trying to pick up the pot since no one had raised. He had bet enough to make you worry about loosing the rest of your money. Plus, could you be sure that he did not have Kings? I think he underbet the pot to make you think he hit a set of Kings. You know, the salesman act.
Here is a hand played with my student on Planet Poker last night. The game is fairly tight and we don't have a great read on the styles of the players since we have only been playing an hour (which is about 20 hands in PP).
All fold to us in the cutoff street (next to the button) and we raise with an A2d. The SB is the only one to call.
The flop comes Kd Jc 7d. The SB bets, we raise, and the SB calls.
The turn is an Ah. The SB bets. What is our best play here?
Also, any comments on our flop play would be welcome.
Regards,
Rick
Looks like he's playing the stop-and-go. If true, he can beat A2.
Since I have a decent but not great hand, I'm ready to call this guy down unimproved. I would just call here, and then bet or raise the river is I make my flush, or make 2-pair.
Of course, there are still a lot of hands this guy could have here, a few of which you beat now, and many that you don't. In fact, against a strong opponent who respects my play, I would suspect a hand like AJ or A7s. He made less than top pair on the flop, but knows that he's likely best on the flop. Then, when I raise, he fears a K. Then, on the turn, he catches 2 pair, and bets again.
He also could have been semi-bluffing the flop with a hand like AQ, and thinks he got lucky on the turn.
Wait, what about QT, especially QdTd.
Man, that's the problem with these short-handed games (which this one became when they all folded to you in late position). There are so many hands that even a very reasonable opponent can have. If this guy is a maniac or newbie, he could literally have anything.
Call the turn, and decide later what to do on the river.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I respect the Fossilman's opinions a lot but lately, I have been disagreeing with him quite a bit and here's another instance.
In most cases (and particularly on something like Planet Poker where the sb doesn't know my play at all), I would raise the turn and (if called) check down the river if I don't improve. And here, when I say "improve", I mean hitting a deuce or Diamond - not an Ace.
The thing with the raise on the turn is that it is a protected one. It is going to take a pretty frisky sb to 3 bet me given that I was the preflop raiser and am playing this hand like I hit the mother lode (i.e. set or AK). In all likelihood, he will not 3 bet me on the turn. If I check down the River after missing, I would have invested two big bets which is the same investment I would have to make in calling twice (which I would).
Thus, I see very little downside in raising on the turn.
The upside is obvious. If you go on to hit the river, you may well make an extra bet and maybe even two if the sb bets on the River to represent Diamonds or something. On the other hand, if you just call the turn and a Diamond hits on the River, the sb may put you on Diamonds and just check thereby depriving you of the opportunity to raise.
A second benefit (although less likely) of raising on the turn is that the sb may fold a better Ace.
Use position to your advantage - Raise on the turn I say.
If the sb 3 bets you on the turn, he almost surely must have Broadway and you can lay down on the River if you miss your flush. Your friskiness on the turn would in that instance cost you 1 bet more than had you called twice. Notice that if he does have a straight, you will amost certainly make 2 bets on the River if you hit a Diamond as Broadway will not be very scared of the Diamond given your raise on the turn.
You may be right.
However, in the 20-40 game I usually play in, there are lots of hands that they will 3-bet with on the turn here, many hands that beat A2, and some that do not.
Overall, I would do better just calling in that game, I believe. However, that doesn't mean that your strategy isn't better in most games.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
the only hand that a river 2 would beat that a river A wouldnt beat is AQ. when you see the case A there are only four AQ. i have doubts about your two pair being good, but it is only slightly better than trip A's,K,J kickers on board. his full houses correspond to higher two pairs. am i missing something?
scott
I would certainly raise the turn and check the river if I didnt improve.
The worst scenario would have the SB reraising the turn then I can surely fold the river if I dont make the flush. But I think it would be very rare for the SB to 3-bet it here.
If you just call twice it costs the same 2 bets. Raising the turn will likely cost the same 2 bets unless you improve you make an extra bet.
There is also the possibility of him laying down a better hand.
Just my opninion.
Rob
I'm new at this so tell me if I am totally off.
It looks to me that you're in an ideal situation having a nut flush draw with top pair.
The sb's betting indicates that he is likely on a flush draw as well. It doesn't look like that Ah helped him.
I would raise him too.
I assume it's 10-20? I'd raise. (If this was a $3-6 table I might just call because the players are so passive and unfamiliar with check-raising that when they bet you often have to give them credit).
Consider the SB's possible holdings on the turn:
1. A straight. It doesn't make sense for him to bet the nuts into you after the scarecard ace hit, especially since you don't have to have much here. A bet is too risky for the nuts and you would expect a modicum of deception.
2. An ace or 2 pair. He might have an ace, but his bet and call on the flop and his failure to checkraise on the turn suggest otherwise. If he had ace-rag, he might have just checked the flop for lack of fear of a free card. If he had AK or AJ, I think he would more likley have check-raised on the flop and would almost certainly check-raise on the turn. So if he has an ace, an ace is all he had when he bet the flop. But this means that he failed at being deceptive but coincidentally has now just happened to hit although he doesn't want to keep up the decepetion by being tricky. Sounds far-fetched.
Also, there are a lot of hands he could have bet on the flop that he wouldn't like anymore after the ace hits. I think he's propelled by the inertia of an initial attempt to run you down and wants you to think the ace helped him.
So I think you're ahead with about a 2-1 chance of getting even better. I'd raise now because if I'm right this is the best place to get him to put in another bet.
If I'm wrong and you improve, two things might happen: (1) he might just check and call on the river so that a mere call on the turn cost you a bet or, (2) he might be misled into giving you several extra bets.
Chris,
I don't know if you can rule out straight here. I do agree that he most likely does not have Ak or KJ as I think he would have gone for the checkraise, but then again you never know. He might have bet something like AT on the flop or AJ which would make him two pair now(AJ). Anyway I think he has: AT, AJ or a straight.
Course of action: if you plan to call him down then raise now and check later. If you raise and get 3 bet fold if you don't improve on the river. Call and fold(since you don't know the player I don't like this one) and therefore I would raise because the only hand he can comfortably reraise is a straight. You might be mildly surprised since he might show you KQ, QJ, KT and probably many others.
With the nuts the SB is looking to maximize value and trying not to give Rick a reason to be cautious. He especially wants to avoid the disaster of Rick folding.
Why wouldn't he go for the check-raise? Rick has shown a prior willingness to bet and raise with his hand. He should be inclined to continue after the SB shows weakness twice (by not reraising the flop and by checking the turn). There is also the chance that the ace hit Rick's hand. Certainly there is no free card threat (SB has little reasons to suspect Rick's draw and knows Rick will call anyway if he has one).
What if Rick is bluffing or pushing a lower pair? The ace followed by a bet is meant to tell Rick that he needs a hand to win. A bet on the turn therefore increases the likelihood that the nuts go unrewarded.
Even if Rick has a hand, the bet encourages him to slow down while a check also tells Rick it's okay to keep betting. What if Rick is bluffing? A bet by the SB is tantamount to saying: everytime he's bluffing in this situation I don't want to take advantage of it.
A similar analysis applies to AT/AJ. Sure, they could be there, but of all the hundreds of hands that the SB could have been dealt and then played this way, do AT, AJ or QT really stand out as the best candidates? What about KT, QJ or JT followed by a semi-bluff with a gutshot Broadway? Or Kx or Jx trying for a rebound off the scarecard? Before the turn, I would expect to see any of these hands from a typical player. It's therefore not likely that the SB just happened to be holding an ace or the nut straight draw and hit.
I'm not sure I understand the flop raise. The only thing I can think of is that your student did this to try to get a free Turn card. (Sorry, I am blessed with hindsight right now, knowing that buying the free card did not work!)
On the flop, this is clearly a drawing hand for your student - he must improve, presumably with a diamond or an Ace. Any extra bet he puts in is not a value bet heads-up. This is the kind of raise I want to make if there are 3 or more people still in; then it is for value. (PS - If the opponent is betting the flop with a drawing hand, e.g. a straight draw, I would not like that either, but it is more toward borderline than a drawing-hand raise.)
Not knowing the opponent at all, I would not recommend raising the flop.
I agree with the crowd that raising the turn is right, after catching the Ace. Remember, the SB only called pre-flop and represented a King with his flop bet; I'm betting that he does NOT have AK.
Dick
I was wondering about the raise after the flop as well. I was under the impression that you wouldn't normally raise with a drawing hand like a flush with an overcard. Is that right, as a general matter?
I would raise this hand at least 90% of the time.
You have nine outs to the nuts, three outs to a probable best hand and add the possibility that your opponent may fold to your raise.
An no-brainer raise in my opinion.
Rob
I agree though you need to vary your play (perhaps not as much on Planet Poker of which I know nothing). One variation is to call the flop and smoke him on the turn even if you don't hit an Ace or Diamond. For the most part, I would raise almost automatically on the flop and consider whether to take the free card or fire another barrel on the turn.
Dick,
Head up you generally have to be aggressive. A single opponent is likely to be "testing the waters" with a bet with a small pair or be on a draw himself. If you limit your raises to your made hands head up, you are not raising enough IMHO.
The raise will often save you money on later streets. If they make it three on the flop, you can be pretty sure you need to make your flush to win (althogh I may call down many players if I make a pair of aces).
Regards,
Rick
Well Rick here is another one for you. Since you don't know the player and the player does not know you and he can't possibly pick a tell on you as he can in a live game here is what you can do.
Call the flop and raise on the turn. You probably take the money without even seeing the river card.
Good luck.
I would consider 3 factors here: 1.SB has a hand to call the raise (in a tight game)before the flop (without making 3 bets). 2.SB has a hand to bet the flop and call the raise on the flop (without making 3 bets?). 3.SB has a hand to bet on the turn after those raises, specialy when the scaring Ah turned (without chech-raise?).
I would strongly put SB on AJ or AQ, or a weak hand like an inside draw with a pair because of the 2 question marks.
Calling is good for both possibilities. Save money if you are beat and induce him to bet on the river if you have the best.
Jikun
Thanks all for your input!
When we were faced with the turn bet, my student shouted "raise" (BTW, she has a tendency towards "hyper-aggression" and was later fascinated when I was able to track down Abdul's deleted post (with the "p" word) via deja.com on the effect of aggressive female players on their male opponents).
Anyway, I thought it was close. Believe it or not, I reasoned we were either way ahead and wanted to trap the SB a bit or we were way behind and needed to catch up. A call seemed to work a bit better in both scenarios. So we called.
When a blank hit the river the SB bet and we called. The SB shows a QT for the straight. My student said "You're right again" and I said "No, the decision on the turn was close and I'm not sure we made the right play".
The thing I like about PP is that you can write down the hand without others seeing you (I hate looking like an egghead at the table) so we made a note (along with some other hands) and at the end of the session decided it might be interesting to see what the forum thinks so we picked that hand to post.
Anyway, the only thing I'm still pretty sure of is that the decision was close (based on the debate). And the lesson to my student is that the end result didn't make me any smarter for calling :-).
Regards,
Rick
Recently I was playing in Hold'em game all folded to the small blind who said ,"chop." I thought my hand was above average and said no. This was met w/alot of grief from the table, and claimed it was rude to not chop and it is a typical courtesy to do so.
This i had never heard of. I thought when the SB offers to chop it's up to the BB to take it or not, and wasn't rude to decline...
I recently told this story to some people who i play w/locally and they claim that the people in the card room were trying to pull one over on me (and did).
Any comments on this is appreciated!
Thanks
You should either chop or not. You should not consider based on the type of hand you are presently holding. It should not matter if you hold AA or 27o.
I personally chop as that is mainly the practice where I play in the middle limits, but that is what I choose to do even though I'm giving some +EV.
The only thing that's rude is to chop one time, and not the next. This is only because most people, when they ask if you want to chop, mean to say "Do you want to always chop?", as opposed to "Do you want to chop this time, and discuss it again next time?"
I used to play in a game where we negotiated the chop every time. Made for some fun. "Let me take back $3, or I'll raise." Or, "You can take $5 back, or call my raise."
Anyway, it's best if you make it clear with the person. In the above case, when they ask if you want to chop, there are two wise answers.
The first is "Yes, but only if you agree to chop every time." If the pot is raked, I would pick this answer.
The second is "No, I never chop." If the game is a time charge or a button charge, I would pick this answer.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
The first is "Yes, but only if you agree to chop every time." If the pot is raked, I would pick this answer.
I would also pick this one if I were playing in a game that is larger than my normal game even if there is a time collection.
Randy Refeld
The strength of your hand should not dictate whether you want to chop or play. I personally always chop, but will play if the person next to me doesn't chop. The other people at the table should not comment on what you decide to as long as you are consistent in your ways.
But if it's the case you are changing your mind depending on the hand you hold, then it is bad etiquette.
Chopping seems to be the standard at the 5-10 games I play in, too. Although I'm not fond of the concept, I'll always chop if for no other reason than too keep a "friendly" position with the table. Even chopped JJ in the sb once (you should have heard the ooohhhs on that one, "What a nice guy)
I've seen people suddenly not chop with big hands in this game -- suddenly it seems like they're a marked man.
In the low limits I think it's best to keep the fish happy.
-Michael
Be the flop.... See the flop.... You're not being the flop, Danny.
he should have asked you long before it got to him if you chopped. he could have looked at his hand before asking. you were right to decline. he also had the right to decline if you said yes after looking at your hand. you never want to always chop with the small blind unless you are also chopping with the person on your left. if you are a good player you should only do automatic chops when it is to your advantage such as an aggressive person on your left and good player on your right. or when its raked alot early on before the flop and the players will call your raises.
In the low limit games in which I participate, the standard etiquette is to chop regardless of the strength of your hand. In fact, as I rarely even look at my blinds until it is my turn to act, I have often chopped not even knowing what I held. I agree with the others that it should be 100% consistent, though. No attacking either blind if you have a good hand. I've seen raising wars break out when the small blind had what he thought was a good hand, went after the BB, and ended up losing over $40 in a heads-up confrontation at 3-6. Reap what you sow, I guess.
Here is hand I was not sure whether to call or not on the turn.
In the SB I get A 2 6 K w/ a suited ace and call. (Is a call neccessarily incorrect?) (The game is passive and loose.)
7 players see the A A 2 flop. I bet and 5 call. (this kind of flop might easily get checked around at this table so i bet).
The turn is a 7. I bet and get raised and reraised and I call (4 see the river).
Which is a blank ... I check and call a bet and lose to A 7. (as i suspected).
I thought maybe i shouldn't call the double raise cold on the turn, although others insist I must call as there's a good chance i still have the best hand and the riases on the turn maybe coming from 77 or even 3 4 bc of the betting the flop...
All comments welcome... Thanks in advance.
.
Well, it depends upon the players doing the raising.
If you're confident enough that one of them has A7, then a K on the river is your only out. Unfortunately, there are also 3 low cards on the board, so someone is likely to have a low for half the pot.
12 small bets into the pot preflop and flop (6 big bets). I count 10 big bets to you on the turn, and 2 for you to call. That's odds of 8:1, but you're only gonna win half, which makes it more of 4:1. The 3 Ks are only gonna show about 7% of the time.
2 bets to call here, plus the chance of a cap raise behind you. At least 1 bet, maybe 2 or more, to call these guys down on the river. When you lose, you lose about 4 bets. When you win, you win about 10 or so bets. Thus, you need to win here about 28% of the time. Since you'll improve to a likely winner 7% of the time, you need to be ahead right now about 21% of the time (and not got drawn out on by the player with an A hitting some other kicker to beat you, don't forget).
Is there more than a 21% chance you still have the best high hand?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I thought maybe i shouldn't call the double raise cold on the turn, although others insist I must call as there's a good chance i still have the best hand and the riases on the turn maybe coming from 77 or even 3 4 bc of the betting the flop...
Your call is definitely correct mathematically speaking. There is probably no way you can avoid this bad result. If you raise before the flop or check raise after the flop the player with a7 probably will not fold.
(This probably belongs on the Exchange board, but it is directly relevant to this board so I am posting it here.)
I have just reconfigured the forums so that it will no longer be possible for individuals to delete their own posts. I have done this because deletion often results in dangling threads. For example see Vince Lepore's post with subject "Re: Hand to Talk About" dated 9/29 at 9:25pm. This was part of a thread "Hand to Talk About" started by Mason on 9/28.
Vince's post was a reply to a followup by Gary Carson which he apparently decided to delete. The result is that Vince's post "dangles" and this makes reading the entire thread difficult.
If this change causes problems for anyone, please let me know.
Chuck
Post deleted at author's request.
Others have done that in the past, causing dangling threads. It was never a problem before. If that's all of sudden a problem now, well, okay. It's even been discussed on the forum before, and nobody thought it was a problem.
Actually it's a fairly rare occurence, and when it has happened it has often drawn complaints from those who responded and now see their posts responding to "nothing".
I have deleted my own posts on a handful of occasions, usually just to correct a mistatement or serious typo or something just minutes after making the post, before anyone has responded to it. For me, the new sytem would only necessitate being a tiny bit more careful before hitting the "post message" button.
Post deleted at author's request.
I think that there is more here than Gary Carson wants to admit. By deleting the post he did he managed to delete one of mine which was very critical of him. I pointed out that his mean side, which accounts for more negative posts and non-constructive remarks than I care to count does nothing but destroy his credibility as someone who is knowledgeable about poker and as a real person worthy of respect. I frequently think that many of his remarks are just designed to prove to others that "S&M" must be wrong even though he knows in many instances that this is not the case. Thus the information that he produces can be very dangerous to someone who tries to adopt it all.
However Gary, with this being said, you are still welcomed to post on our forum as long as you can stay within our posting guidelines. This means no personal attacks. However, you are free to criticize our ideas or anyone's else for that matter as long as you do it in a professional manner. I believe that if you are willing to do this, David and I will benefit from your contributions, our forum readers will benefit, and that you will benefit most of all and take your place as a well respected member of the internet/poker community.
Post deleted at author's request.
You're right. The post is still there. But since its gotten buried here's what I wrote so that everyone can see it.
"Well, Gary, this is exactly the sort of comments that you constantly make that hurt you in the long run. Instead of sticking to poker strategy and showing people that you just might have something worthwhile to contribute, you just can't control yourself and you let your mean side get the best of you. That's probably why you are such a loser on these forums, and I suspect that it carries over to the poker games and many other aspects of your life."
I think that your attack on Lynne Loomis demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about. She no longer does any work for us and hasn't in almost five years but is working full time for Anthony Curtis at Huntington Press. I asked her to help with the reviews because she is a close friend and highly competent at what she does.
Again I extend the offer to you to become a responsible member of this forum and gain some respect from the poker/Internet people. The choice is yours.
Post deleted at author's request.
You sound bitter.
Gary Carson writes "Even when it was just demonstrated that you made a completey baseless and empty accusation about me, you make a post which tries to excuse it. You acccused me of doing something and you were wrong. And, you can't even apologize. What kind of person are you?"
Welcome back Gary. Make yourself at home. Feel the love. I'm sure we're all in for a kinder, gentler Forum.
It seems to me Mason is being a bit hypocritical.
He states:
"However Gary, with this being said, you are still welcomed to post on our forum as long as you can stay within our posting guidelines. This means no personal attacks."
Yet, earlier submitted:
"That's probably why you are such a loser on these forums, and I suspect that it carries over to the poker games and many other aspects of your life."
I would certainly consider this a personal attack on Gary by Mason. And, I think it should have been removed from the forum.
-ab
I had decided that I was going to start posting to 2+2 again from time to time. But, I don't want my stuff in the 2+2 archives and I had intended to delete most of them after a day or so.
Gary, I really appreciated your responses to my first post. And in general I think you offer alot to this forum, so don't take this the wrong way. But the threads have gotten so chopped up that they are almost impossible to follow.
I really hope that this ruckus doesn't cause you to abandon 2+2, but surely you can see that scrambling the archives doesn't help anyone.
David
I have taken advantage of the delete option a number of times, mostly to correct errors. I enjoyed having this option and wish you would reconsider this policy change.
Perhaps, if a deleted post has been responed to, the phrase "Post Deleted By Author" or something similar can be put in its place. Those wondering about the dangling threads would then realize the reason, and those posting responses could delete their responses if they chose.
I would imagine that allowing posters to delete their posts would also reduce the size of the archives somewhat. Although not that much as to matter. At least the follow-up posts explaining errors wouldn't be posted.
Post deleted at author's request.
"A private, for-profit website without an author delete option is a bad idea, IMO."
Uh, why? How could the utility of a post delete function be a function of who owns the website? (BTW, I like your posts on r.g.p. a lot).
Post deleted at author's request.
I think your posts are just as protected by coyright law here as they are elsewhere (not that it matters much, given the fair use exception). While I appreciate your concern over contributing value to a commercial entity, consider that no one is making money off of your posts as such, they're just using them with others to help promote products, just like the ad banners on remarQ and deja.com do for rec.gambling.poker. I say this only because it's a frustrating to find baffling replies to a deleted post. But as you suggest, this may be a minor matter because very few people delete their own posts (although if there was ever a contest on which posts deserve being deleted I'd happily offer up a bunch of mine....)
OK guys, I think this has gone far enough. The reason for the archives is that we think they are benficial to some of you. Especially those new to the forum. Topics frequently come up which were discussed at length before and it can be very helpful to say to a new poster "Check out the archives for more discussion."
As for whether there should be a delete option or not I'm going to leave that to Chuck. I just don't know enough about this Internet stuff to be the right one to make the decision.
When POKER DIGEST started over a year ago we did consider starting a column called "The Best of The Forum" where we would pick off some of the better posts and just reprint them. I notice that there is a column in THE CARD PLAYER that does this. But we have never followed through on it and have no plans at the moment to do any such thing.
i agree with those that say once a post has been responded to it shouldnt be deleted. before that it would be nice to have the option so that you can correct mistakes or rethink your comments that may have been hasty.
to those that want to make attacking or nasty posts put those on rpg and your posts that follow the acceptable guidelines on 2+2.
for those that cant follow, i hope Mason deletes all the posts and if he can, bar them entirely for it ruins the experience for most of us.
the rules here are not unreasonable and are the same standards you would have in most any public place. this forum is like a poker room. if you attack the other participants or management and argue or use foul language you get barred.
if you dont like the rules suggest constructive changes politely or dont post here. just read the others.
none of the 2+2 people make a whole lot of money from this forum for the time they put in. the rest of the posters do it for knowlege or the love of the game and its not fair to waste their time.
Attacking or nasty posts have no more place on rgp than they do here. And there are very few of those types of posts on rgp.
I think it is absolutely ridiculous that the person in control of this site, Mason, can't follow the rules himself. As pointed out by the analog kid above, his message to Gary is a personal attack. Mason owes Gary and the rest of us an apology for his childish behavior.
I also object to Mason's response to Darryl Lanyon's post about the Australian poker tournament. If it is alright for Mason to announce the 21st century editions of holdem and stud for advanced players, why is it not alright for Darryl to announce the largest Australian poker tournament ever? (the obvious solution would have been for Mason to advertise his books in a banner at the top of the forum, with a directive or link to the exchange).
Mason, how can you expect others to obey the rules if you don't?
3 Bet Brett
"I think it is absolutely ridiculous that the person in control of this site, Mason, can't follow the rules himself. As pointed out by the analog kid above, his message to Gary is a personal attack. Mason owes Gary and the rest of us an apology for his childish behavior."
The message to Gary Carson was actually an invitation for him to rethink his behavior and become a respected member of the poker/Internet group and to make positive contributions to this site. The invitation is still open but the choice is his.
"I also object to Mason's response to Darryl Lanyon's post about the Australian poker tournament. If it is alright for Mason to announce the 21st century editions of holdem and stud for advanced players, why is it not alright for Darryl to announce the largest Australian poker tournament ever? (the obvious solution would have been for Mason to advertise his books in a banner at the top of the forum, with a directive or link to the exchange)."
The Exchange Forum was established for precisely the type of post that Darryl made. Many people were complaining about the loading time required for the strategy forum and The Exchange provides some relief. This doesn't mean that Darry's post isn't important or doesn't have value. It just needs to go where it belongs.
As for the announcement of the books, we felt that since these new editions contain so much new strategy information, much of which was never published before, that this forum was the appropriate place for them.
"Mason, how can you expect others to obey the rules if you don't?"
I am well aware as to what the rules are and I do my best to abide by them. As Ray pointed out I and the other members of the 2 + 2 team devote a great deal of time to making this site a success and we get very little in the way of monetary return. However, if we all pitch in and do our best, everyone will benefit.
Mason Malmuth writes "As Ray pointed out I and the other members of the 2 + 2 team devote a great deal of time to making this site a success and we get very little in the way of monetary return."
I'll contribute a buck if that helps keep things on the up and up. I suspect others will as well.
Best,
Scott
> The message to Gary Carson was actually an invitation for > him to rethink his behavior and become a respected member > of the poker/Internet group and to make positive > contributions to this site.
Mason, The Analog Kid made it perfectly clear that it was NOT your invitation to Gary that was a personal attack. Rather, it was your following statement to Gary (which you posted not once, but twice): "That's probably why you are such a loser on these forums, and I suspect that it carries over to the poker games and many other aspects of your life."
If you are going to delete personal attacks on this forum, why don't you begin with your own.
Post deleted at author's request.
Chuck,
I've also noticed that threads sometimes dangle at the bottom of the message index (there are some right now that are obviously part of a larger thread). I'm guessing that when you create a new "recent archive", you may do it by date or time posted. This isn't much of a problem so long as we can keep the thread complete in the archive. If you want specific examples, I'll provide some when I have more time.
I didn't really want to get involved in the other aspects of this debate but I have a few thoughts:
First, as John Feeney mentioned, it would be nice to have the ability to delete and correct a post when no one has yet responded (this usually occurs when I realize after posting it is in the wrong place in the thread).
I also believe it is rude to delete a post after someone has responded. If you want to make a correction, make another post. One poster did this to me a while back and I decided not to ever bother responding to his posts again.
By the way, good job on the reorganization of the archives.
Regards,
Rick
Iread this forum to skrew people out of their money faster. I resent not being able to delete my own B.S. All this baby talk is like a cult for the banal. Please help me make more money
I won't pretend to know what the solution is, but I just went back to look at some older posts and the large number of dangling threads was quite annoying. It makes the discussion very hard to follow and would, in the long run, make the archives very difficult to use. So I vote for whatever works.
David
I believe Vince once suggested that you should consider "deleting" a post simply by replacing all the text with "deleted by xyz". Then there would be no dangling threads. I agree.
- Louie
Louie,
That sounds like a good idea. If it was Vince, maybe Vince is smarter than I thought.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. In your other post in response to me being almost right you did a :( "thingy dingy". I only know a couple of these. What does it mean :-).
The solution of allowing deletion of posts but replacing them with a body that reads "Post deleted by Author" is a good one. Unfortunately, I do not have time at the moment to make this change to the underlying software.
I will put it on the queue and will implement it when I have time.
In the meantime, I think that the problem of authors not being able to delete their own articles is more than offset by the problem of dangling threads if they do.
A special note to Gary: in my original post on this subject I used one of his posts as an example. There was nothing at all personal in this...it was just the first example I came across when trying to diagnose the dangling threads problem.
Chuck
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk@cloud9.net)
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 1:05 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 2:18 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 2:36 p.m.
Posted by: Larry F. (fishead@neteze.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 8:50 p.m.
Posted by: Fat-Charlie (charles_parker@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 September 1999, at 5:29 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 12:42 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 September 1999, at 8:11 a.m.
Posted by: berya (aispi4@arrow.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 11:04 a.m.
Posted by: limon
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 1:03 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 1:48 p.m.
Posted by: limon
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 6:54 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@mail.dnvr.uswest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 8:43 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@mail.dnvr.uswest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 9:02 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 8:45 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@mail.dnvr.uswest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 2:09 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 2:31 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 2:44 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 5:29 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 8:21 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 September 1999, at 5:04 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 September 1999, at 9:37 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 3:21 p.m.
Posted by: russell (russell@worldweb.net)
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 4:41 p.m.
Posted by: Russ (kgould333@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 September 1999, at 4:30 a.m.
Posted by: berya (aispi4@arrow.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 10:51 a.m.
Posted by: XQSME (annika-daniel@swipnet.se)
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 3:39 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 4:06 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 6:05 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 6:52 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@acm.org)
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 6:53 p.m.
Posted by: Kathy Liebert (pokerkat1@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 2:40 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 3:26 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 2:43 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 10:40 a.m.
Posted by: ScottW (scottw@avmltd.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 3:49 p.m.
Posted by: peter cheung (peter.cheung@crystalwebsite.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 6:40 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 6:40 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 7:36 p.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 11:15 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 12:48 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 September 1999, at 12:10 p.m.
Posted by: ScottW (scottw@avmltd.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 2:43 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (chollowa@uci.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 4:16 p.m.
Posted by: Bruce
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 7:41 p.m.
Posted by: Fat-Charlie (charles_parker@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 September 1999, at 12:43 p.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@siol.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 September 1999, at 1:31 p.m.
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 September 1999, at 6:14 p.m.
Posted by: Bruce
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 5:53 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 7:54 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 8:04 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 8:32 p.m.
Posted by: john reynolds (jjrbk@interport.net)
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 9:40 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 September 1999, at 9:17 a.m.
Posted by: Jim K (jimfireguy@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 September 1999, at 1:23 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 2:36 p.m.
Posted by: WallAce (davidz@mail.dns.au.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 10:26 p.m.
Posted by: JJ(MO) (johnjomp@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 September 1999, at 7:04 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Saturday, 25 September 1999, at 10:31 a.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Saturday, 25 September 1999, at 1:07 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 September 1999, at 9:46 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Saturday, 25 September 1999, at 10:23 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 September 1999, at 11:48 a.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 September 1999, at 10:38 a.m.
Posted by: DrToast (DrToast@concentric.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 September 1999, at 4:51 p.m.
Posted by: Kerbernes Kid
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 12:22 p.m.
Posted by: Iceman (lgrubart@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 September 1999, at 2:18 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 September 1999, at 3:03 p.m.
Posted by: Iceman (lgrubart@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 September 1999, at 4:44 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 September 1999, at 5:43 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 September 1999, at 10:59 p.m.
Posted by: Iceman (lgrubart@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 September 1999, at 9:50 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 September 1999, at 3:59 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Sunday, 26 September 1999, at 7:27 p.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 10:17 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 2:34 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 September 1999, at 11:15 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Sunday, 26 September 1999, at 12:38 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 September 1999, at 5:30 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Sunday, 26 September 1999, at 8:43 a.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 September 1999, at 7:30 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 September 1999, at 7:56 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 12:34 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 2:03 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 1:25 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 1:57 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 5:03 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 8:22 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 10:46 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 10:09 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 9:48 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 September 1999, at 7:51 a.m.
Posted by: Richard G.Poirier (shogeybaby@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 September 1999, at 8:59 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 1:51 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 2:14 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 6:48 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 11:35 a.m.
Posted by: Bill D.
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 2:00 p.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney (Feen9876@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 September 1999, at 6:05 p.m.
Posted by: wade (waderoth@cc-cci.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 September 1999, at 6:34 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Sunday, 26 September 1999, at 7:54 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Bacarella (michael.bacarella-RST@bankerstrust.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 September 1999, at 8:32 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Sunday, 26 September 1999, at 9:24 p.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney (Feen9876@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 September 1999, at 10:18 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 2:10 p.m.
Posted by: wade (waderoth@cc-cci.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 September 1999, at 7:59 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Sunday, 26 September 1999, at 9:17 p.m.
Posted by: Harvey Roy Greenberg, MD (HRGSMES@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 September 1999, at 11:30 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 11:47 a.m.
Posted by: todd h (thrawn@compuserve.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 September 1999, at 9:42 p.m.
Posted by: Chris H. (chollowa@uci.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 September 1999, at 8:20 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Sunday, 26 September 1999, at 9:11 p.m.
Posted by: James Kittock (james@animal-farm.sf.ca.us)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 2:29 a.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 7:59 a.m.
Posted by: James Kittock (james@animal-farm.sf.ca.us)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 8:44 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 9:46 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 1:37 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 2:27 p.m.
Posted by: James Kittock (james@animal-farm.sf.ca.us)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 9:09 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 5:34 a.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 7:40 a.m.
Posted by: berya (aispi4@arrow.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 10:05 a.m.
Posted by: Fat-Charlie (charles_parker@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 1:08 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 2:27 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 4:59 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 7:04 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 3:17 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 8:07 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 11:29 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 1:43 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 3:51 a.m.
Posted by: James Kittock (james@animal-farm.sf.ca.us)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 3:06 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 5:04 a.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 8:20 a.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 8:27 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 2:07 p.m.
Posted by: Todd H (thrawn@compuserve.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 11:56 a.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 9:27 a.m.
Posted by: Rich P. (rp0546a@american.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 9:24 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 8:42 a.m.
Posted by: Bill D.
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 2:04 p.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk@cloud9.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 10:31 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 1:25 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 2:22 p.m.
Posted by: berya (aispi4@arrow.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 5:07 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 5:51 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 2:22 a.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 11:33 a.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk@cloud9.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 11:03 p.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk@cloud9.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 11:03 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 1:43 p.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk@cloud9.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 4:33 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 4:56 p.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk@cloud9.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 5:00 p.m.
Posted by: Fat-Charlie (charles_parker@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 8:37 a.m.
Posted by: Russ (kgould333@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 6:46 p.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk@cloud9.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 7:25 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 10:20 a.m.
Posted by: Zach (zzh@visuallink.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 7:57 p.m.
Posted by: Analyst
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 8:05 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 1:07 a.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk@cloud9.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 7:21 a.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@mail.dnvr.uswest.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 6:54 p.m.
Posted by: Zoso (koman21@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 11:47 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 11:56 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 1:38 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 2:15 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 8:58 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 2:30 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 3:44 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 8:11 a.m.
Posted by: Zoso (koman21@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 10:39 a.m.
Posted by: DBart (deadbart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 2:38 p.m.
Posted by: Larry F. (fishead@neteze.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 3:43 a.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@mail.dnvr.uswest.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 4:46 p.m.
Posted by: Lars Rocha (lars_rocha@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 3:44 a.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@mail.dnvr.uswest.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 8:13 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 11:58 a.m.
Posted by: Kate Gasser (kgasser@ti.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 1:00 p.m.
Posted by: James Swinson (JSwinson@Stratos.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 3:18 p.m.
Posted by: UCB65
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 3:49 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 2:34 a.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk@cloud9.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 7:50 a.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 10:48 a.m.
Posted by: Juan Carlos (juanco2@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 7:50 p.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 9:49 a.m.
Posted by: Larry F. (fishead@neteze.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 7:34 a.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 11:17 a.m.
Posted by: Zoso (koman21@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 11:15 a.m.
Posted by: Kate (kate@thegassers.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 5:40 p.m.
Posted by: AcesOver (acesover@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 1:28 p.m.
Posted by: kevin (concannon2001@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 1:08 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (barb@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 1:24 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 1:28 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 1:36 p.m.
Posted by: Russ (kgould333@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 1:42 p.m.
Posted by: Russ (kgould333@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 1:39 p.m.
Posted by: berya (aispi4@arrow.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 2:07 p.m.
Posted by: jimmy jazz (jgzaroff@ford.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 5:28 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 4:21 a.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (barb@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 3:21 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 4:43 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (barb@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 5:06 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 5:35 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 5:38 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 7:01 p.m.
Posted by: berya (aispi4@arrow.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 12:04 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 4:47 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 6:26 p.m.
Posted by: berya (aispi4@arrow.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 10:03 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 12:18 p.m.
Posted by: berya (aispi4@arrow.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 2:34 p.m.
Posted by: Keith O (kohara@ixl.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: peter cheung (peter.cheung@crystalwebsite.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 5:02 p.m.
Posted by: Keith O (kohara@ixl.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 1:21 p.m.
Posted by: Doh Sun
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 7:18 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 8:01 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 12:13 a.m.
Posted by: Doh Sun
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 4:31 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 12:05 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 11:04 p.m.
Posted by: Kyle (kyle_mcdaniel@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 September 1999, at 9:11 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 2:26 a.m.
Posted by: Russ (kgould333@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 2:39 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 2:50 a.m.
Posted by: Nick Zacny (nazacny@ameritech.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 10:05 a.m.
Posted by: Iceman (lgrubart@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 10:54 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 3:44 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 5:18 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 7:58 p.m.
Posted by: Fat-Charlie (charles_parker@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 2:59 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 3:06 p.m.
Posted by: Fat-Charlie (charles_parker@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 6:42 p.m.
Posted by: Jon Ingrisano (JIngrisano@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 3:46 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 5:02 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 5:40 a.m.
Posted by: JJ(MO) (johnjomp@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 7:42 a.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney (Feen9876@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 7:46 a.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 8:01 a.m.
Posted by: Rob H
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 10:31 a.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 3:42 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 8:58 a.m.
Posted by: Martin
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 10:44 a.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@mail.dnvr.uswest.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 3:06 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 11:46 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 1:03 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 4:38 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 10:25 p.m.
Posted by: Calhoun
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 5:58 p.m.
Posted by: Yvan C
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 6:54 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 10:31 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 3:50 a.m.
Posted by: Fat-Charlie (charles_parker@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 1:33 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 8:51 a.m.
Posted by: Scott Horton
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 9:58 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 11:54 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 11:59 p.m.
Posted by: Scott Horton
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 2:18 a.m.
Posted by: DBart (deadbart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 8:02 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 10:24 a.m.
Posted by: Scott Horton
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 12:30 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 4:17 p.m.
Posted by: berya (aispi4@arrow.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 9:08 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 10:58 a.m.
Posted by: Nick Zacny (nazacny@ameritech.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 10:37 a.m.
Posted by: DBart (deadbart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 12:54 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 1:10 p.m.
Posted by: James Kittock (james@animal-farm.sf.ca.us)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 6:47 p.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 10:36 a.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@mail.dnvr.uswest.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 1:54 p.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 10:01 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 8:40 a.m.
Posted by: Paul (Holdemguru@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 11:38 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 1:00 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 1:03 p.m.
Posted by: checkraise
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 1:29 p.m.
Posted by: Easy E
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 1:45 p.m.
Posted by: checkraise
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 1:59 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 3:56 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 4:04 p.m.
Posted by: checkraise
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 4:44 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 4:54 p.m.
Posted by: CrazyJim (gallen@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 2:36 p.m.
Posted by: checkraise
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 3:27 p.m.
Posted by: CrazyJim
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 12:13 p.m.
Posted by: checkraise
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 5:58 p.m.
Posted by: Paul (Holdemguru@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 11:46 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 12:32 p.m.
Posted by: DBart (deadbart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 1:02 p.m.
Posted by: Paul (Holdemguru@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 11:52 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 1:04 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (barb@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 3:15 p.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 3:32 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 3:41 p.m.
Posted by: peter cheung (peter.cheung@crystalwebsite.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 3:45 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 12:37 a.m.
Posted by: Badger (stevebadger58@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 1:27 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 8:36 a.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney (Feen9876@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 9:17 a.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (barb@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 3:00 p.m.
Posted by: Badger (stevebadger58@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 6:30 p.m.
Posted by: Badger (stevebadger58@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 6:39 p.m.
Posted by: limon
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 5:14 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 5:26 p.m.
Posted by: Russ (kgould333@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 6:20 p.m.
Posted by: Randy Collack (rmitchcoll@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 8:32 p.m.
Posted by: Badger (stevebadger58@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 7:41 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 8:02 p.m.
Posted by: DBart (deadbart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 9:26 p.m.
Posted by: limon
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 12:14 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 4:40 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 10:15 p.m.
Posted by: JJ(MO) (johnjomp@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 5:15 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 September 1999, at 10:51 p.m.
Posted by: Badger (stevebadger58@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 1:22 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 10:00 p.m.
Posted by: Badger (stevebadger58@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 2:01 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 9:18 a.m.
Posted by: Badger (stevebadger58@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 5:24 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 1:18 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 12:51 a.m.
Posted by: Larry F. (fishead@neteze.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 2:44 a.m.
Posted by: JJ(MO) (johnjomp@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 5:11 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 8:31 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 9:12 p.m.
Posted by: S'o Sam
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 11:05 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 8:54 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 3:28 p.m.
Posted by: Abe (abespringfield@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 10:49 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 11:02 a.m.
Posted by: JJ(MO) (johnjomp@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 5:37 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 10:41 a.m.
Posted by: jojo (jojo@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 11:18 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 11:45 a.m.
Posted by: M.A. (aigner.martin@vienna.at)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 11:07 a.m.
Posted by: James Kittock (james@animal-farm.sf.ca.us)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 2:05 p.m.
= 1/9800
~= 1.0 x 10^-4
= 0.0001
= 0.01%
~= 1 x 10^-8
= 0.00000001
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 3:43 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 10:43 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 1:39 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 3:51 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 6:37 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 11:04 p.m.
Posted by: JJ(MO) (johnjomp@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 6:13 p.m.
Posted by: James Kittock (james@animal-farm.sf.ca.us)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 2:53 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 7:04 p.m.
Posted by: John Bono (bono_john@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 5:17 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@mail.dnvr.uswest.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 6:23 p.m.
Posted by: Kerbernes Kid
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 12:58 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 2:19 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 5:26 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 5:37 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 6:05 p.m.
Posted by: Badger (stevebadger58@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 6:50 p.m.
Posted by: Kerbernes Kid
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 8:03 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Ward
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 10:54 a.m.
Posted by: Badger (stevebadger58@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 5:10 p.m.
Posted by: Badger (stevebadger58@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 5:17 p.m.
Posted by: Kerbernes Kid
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 7:59 a.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 6:49 p.m.
Posted by: Badger (stevebadger58@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 7:09 p.m.
Posted by: mr. kotter
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 4:30 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@mail.dnvr.uswest.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 5:25 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 6:01 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 6:37 p.m.
Posted by: LittleMetalMax (fareast@inch.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 5:12 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 10:34 p.m.
Posted by: mark (mrmarcusp@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 10:43 p.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 11:10 a.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (barb@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 3:16 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 9:47 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 10:40 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 4:31 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 5:15 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 9:45 p.m.
Posted by: Russ (kgould333@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 6:52 a.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk@cloud9.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 9:58 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 1:01 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 2:13 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 2:44 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 4:47 p.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk@cloud9.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 8:59 p.m.
Posted by: Analyst
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 8:21 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 1:06 a.m.
Posted by: Analyst
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 10:30 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 10:44 a.m.
Posted by: Eric Leong (eleong@netcom.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 October 1999, at 6:31 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Abrams
Posted on: Monday, 11 October 1999, at 3:15 a.m.
Posted by: Jason B (Funwalleye@Aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 5:56 p.m.
Posted by: Easy E
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 6:21 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 6:34 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@mail.dnvr.uswest.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 6:07 p.m.
Posted by: Sue M
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 8:29 p.m.
Posted by: DJ (DPJungk@ix.netcom.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 12:38 a.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney (Feen9876@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 5:38 a.m.
Posted by: todd h (thrawn@compuserve.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 8:38 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 9:22 p.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 9:52 p.m.
Posted by: L.D. Silver
Posted on: Monday, 4 October 1999, at 4:41 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 9:54 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 1:44 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 9:08 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 10:31 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 12:12 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 1:26 a.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 11:27 a.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 12:28 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 4:47 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 3 October 1999, at 2:55 p.m.
Posted by: Keith O (kohara@ixl.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 4:45 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 11:51 p.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk@cloud9.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 9:33 a.m.
Posted by: Carson de Castro (flyinfilipino@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 11:02 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 6:04 p.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk@cloud9.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 8:50 p.m.
Posted by: Iceman (lgrubart@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 11:26 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 3 October 1999, at 3:07 p.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney (Feen9876@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 11:09 a.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 3:45 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 4:43 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 2 October 1999, at 5:35 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 5:45 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 8:27 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 9:21 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 12:36 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 2:57 a.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 3:34 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 9:33 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 12:48 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 3 October 1999, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 3 October 1999, at 3:33 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 October 1999, at 7:40 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 October 1999, at 10:33 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 October 1999, at 11:15 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Friday, 8 October 1999, at 12:21 a.m.
Posted by: Easy E
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 6:56 p.m.
Posted by: Easy E (ezeriver@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 7:09 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 7:19 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 1:02 a.m.
Posted by: berya (aispi4@arrow.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 11:01 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 September 1999, at 9:25 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@mail.dnvr.uswest.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 5:01 p.m.
Posted by: James Kittock (james@animal-farm.sf.ca.us)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 2:33 a.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk@cloud9.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 10:28 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 11:42 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 10:40 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 2:10 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 7:57 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 2:03 p.m.
Posted by: C.J. (nerrie@ms.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 October 1999, at 1:23 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 9:09 a.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 11:04 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 11:41 a.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 5:30 p.m.
Posted by: KOP (thekingofpoker@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 11:55 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 12:04 p.m.
Posted by: KOP (thekingofpoker@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 12:17 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 12:27 p.m.
Posted by: Bill (hamlet2@gte.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 12:50 p.m.
Posted by: KOP (thekingofpoker@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 1:18 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 2:13 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (barb@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 2:45 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 4:43 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 6:43 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 2:56 p.m.
Posted by: berya (aispi4@arrow.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 3:35 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 4:57 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 7:09 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 11:18 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 11:42 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 11:40 p.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk@cloud9.net)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 8:25 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 11:45 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 12:45 p.m.
Posted by: Kerbernes Kid
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 2:14 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 2:04 p.m.
Posted by: manalamancha (manalama@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 2:16 p.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 October 1999, at 3:25 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 1:18 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 2:06 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 2:27 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 2:42 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 3:58 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 2:25 p.m.
Posted by: Rob H
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 2:36 p.m.
Posted by: Jonathan Ingrisano (JIngrisano@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 2:42 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@mail.dnvr.uswest.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 2:44 p.m.
Posted by: berya (aispi4@arrow.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 3:19 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@mail.dnvr.uswest.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 4:25 p.m.
Posted by: Dick in Phoenix (RLA48@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 3:04 p.m.
Posted by: Jon Ingrisano (JIngrisano@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 3:18 p.m.
Posted by: Rob H
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 4:36 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 1:15 a.m.
Posted by: berya (aispi4@arrow.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 3:28 p.m.
Posted by: jikun (jikun@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 1:29 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 1:50 a.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 3:27 p.m.
Posted by: berya (aispi4@arrow.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 3:45 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: Randy (refeld@netzero.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 6:08 p.m.
Posted by: Doh Sun
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 4:33 p.m.
Posted by: Packerfan1 (Packerfn1@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 5:49 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 11:23 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (barb@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 10:23 a.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 3:39 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 4:06 p.m.
Posted by: peter cheung (peter.cheung@crystalwebsite.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 2:16 a.m.
Posted by: Chuck Weinstock (weinstock@conjelco.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 4:05 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 5:13 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 5:37 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 6:10 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 6:54 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 8:16 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 8:57 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 10:54 p.m.
Posted by: Kwoksing Eng (kwoksingeng@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 12:42 a.m.
Posted by: Scott Horton
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 12:42 a.m.
Posted by: The Analog Kid (allanb@san.rr.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 4:38 p.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk@cloud9.net)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 9:14 a.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 6:24 p.m.
Posted by: Badger (stevebadger58@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 6:55 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@mail.dnvr.uswest.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 7:53 p.m.
Posted by: Badger (stevebadger58@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 8:08 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (cralger@mail.dnvr.uswest.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 8:29 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 9:06 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 9:19 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 8:41 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 9:17 p.m.
Posted by: Scott Horton
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 11:22 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 3 October 1999, at 10:29 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 October 1999, at 12:03 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 September 1999, at 10:25 p.m.
Posted by: Chico
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 3:23 a.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk@cloud9.net)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 9:04 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 2:10 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 1 October 1999, at 6:12 p.m.
Posted by: Chuck Weinstock (weinstock@conjelco.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 October 1999, at 9:27 a.m.
The Gambling Forum September 1999 Archive Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo