![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
On a recent trip to Las Vegas, I discovered the world of small tournament poker. The following situation arose. Limit Holdem Tournament, $30 buy in with rebuys, 33 contestants, Payed 4 places. We are down to the 10 or 11 players with my table containing 5 players.
Chips Hand Action Comment
UTG 2 - Fold #1 25+ - Fold #2 8 JJ Raise/Call Solid Player SB 6 ATo Reraise Solid & very Aggressive Player BB (me) 17 AKs Reraise
Since I lost the hand, I have wondered if I should have folded since AKs is still a drawing hand"? Actually I think I am really asking the broader question of "is it better to be sure of reaching the final table with a moderate amount of chips or is it better to take your shot earlier even if you may not be the favorite and have a chance to go to the final table in a strong chip position.
You didn't say who won however I think that JJ won. Was I right? If it was me with that situation I would have have folded. If I had fewer chips then you have then I would have played. My thought process would have been this: Two players with lesser chips raise and reraise. Of the two there's a good chance that one could have a pocket pair. But realize that this is a very borderline situation because AK suited is a strong hand. I would have folded but that's because of the way I play. In your situation I believe that you can call or reraise. I use to play and try to survive but sometimes that would leave few chips. Now I'm extremely agressive. Either I have a lot of chips or I'm out of the tourny. Notice that Doyle Brunson and Stu Unger are extremely agressive. Between the two of them they have won 5 WSOP titles. Hmm!
It was hard to read the notation on my browser, but I think you have the following chip counts:
2,25+,8,6,17
You have a solid chip position already, which will be well above the average at the final table. You don't need to make a move.
The answer to your general question is, "Attack when you're hungry, and before you get weak." You don't need to be chip leader at the final table to win. You just don't want to be short stacked. As full as you are in this situation, however, you should be resting in the shade and waiting for situations where you have an advantage.
In order to win this tournament, you will have to pass through 5 or 6 more of these situations. If you attack each time you find yourself here, you will surely run into a big hand or have someone suck out on you, and you will fall short of first place. So wait for unraised pots, or for positions where you suspect someone is stealing, or when you have a real hand. Avoid reraised pots unless you have monster hands, or notice a tell (from the stealing reraiser) and suspect that the original bettor will fold to two bets (shake down play).
If the first raiser had more chips, your reraise would be appropriate as an attempted shake down: The first raiser will probably fold if he has enough left to continue to play. In that case, you are heads up against a short stack who might well have been desperate enough to reraise with AQ (or even AT). That's good. However, in this case, both players are fairly short and will almost have to call. You are probably a big underdog against two opponents, both of whom have indicated strength.
Randy H. wrote: "You are probably a big underdog against two opponents, both of whom have indicated strength."
I disagree. Unless one of your opponents is holding AK, AKs, AA, or KK, you should be in excellent shape. About the worst case I can think of is when you are against AQs and JJ. Even in this case, you have at least a 32% (depending on suits) chance of winning in a showdown.
After the flop, you are in great shape with an A or K, and may be paid off by a smaller pair. Contrast this with no-limit, where the boogie-men AA and KK are more likely, and the underpair will outplay *you* after the flop.
-Tom Hayes
Posted by: Tom Hayes (hayest@math.uchicago.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 August 1998, at 2:33 p.m.
In structured limit eight or better stud, you raise on third street with a high pair in order to narrow the field. When there is a large starting pot relative to the bets, knocking everyone out is fine.
In a spread-limit, no-ante game, the situation is very different. I found that against reasonable opposition in a 2-10, no-ante, $2 force game, a raise of $5 on third street with a king up will be called by all the lows. A raise of $8-10 will knock everyone out and you just win $2. Either situation is undesirable. You really can't play a big pair with many competent opponents calling. Not only will you be in danger of facing straights and flushes, but a large fraction of playable lows have hidden aces. Also, many opponent boards will get threatening, and the low will have the information advantage. But just winning $2 hardly seems worth it for a decent hand.
Even heads up vs. the bring-in, I figured that the large raise would be better than letting a possibly playable low have a cheap card.
Virtually all of the money I won was on low hands and low hands that developed into scoops. However, the high hands should be more profitable in the spread-limit structure than in a normal 1x-2x structured-limit game. Under structured limit, a high hand can't put significant pressure to the pot on the early streets. A low hand that is still around by fifth is usually the favorite, and the high hand often has to just check and call the double sized bets. In spread-limit, you can make it too expensive for the weaker lows to draw. Many players will be reluctant to call a large bet on third with a hand that they may need to fold on the next card. (While folding a premium low starting hand heads up on third, or on fourth after a bad card may be a mistake in certain cases, the other players virtually always folded lows after catching a high card)
In what situations should you only make a small raise with a big pair in a no-ante game?
Would the strategy be different for aces-high kicker than for a pair of kings or queens?
I sometimes play in a similiar game, $1 to $4 spread limit, $8 on the end, no ante, $ bring in. If dealt a pair of kings, 1 exposed, I'll raise $4 on third street.
Sometimes, everyone drops for a $1 win, more often, 2 or three lows call the bet. If a third king later hits, everyone folds for a small profit. More often, everyone calls down unless their hands fall apart, someone takes the low side of the pot, and one of the lows raises on 7th street with a flush or straight. Even getting half a pot can be a loser after rake and dealer tokes when heads up.
If records had been kept, I suspect the big pairs other than aces have be losing hands for me. The tempation to fold is great, and maybe it's the proper move in this structure.
There's nothing like a quailty low hand on third street in this game.
It seems that I have stired up a little controversy once again. I admit that it can be mathematicly proven that it could be a correct play to fold AA if a tournament pays 4 places with 5 players left and 2 players go all-in before you act. However In that situation I will call every time. Even if I'm short-chipped I'm in there for a chance to triple up my stack. Skalnsky posted me that it is correct to fold if you are short chipped and to accept the gift. I disagree. I am not interested in just placing. My goal is to win. If my play in trying to obtain that goal puts me in the money but also knocks me out, then so be it. Suppose that you are short-chipped and you do fold. One player gets knocked out which puts you in the money. So what. You still are short chipped and need a lot of help to place higher. I ask you this. You put a all-in player on a pocket pair. You have AA. He goes all in. There is one more player left to be knocked out before the money. Can you honestly say you would fold? I know that this situation is different but it does have some similarities.
If you had 250 and players hwo go all-in had 2000 chip leder has 10000 you I should fold. But it will be mistake which i will make evry time situation come up. I just can not fold rokets before the flop.
It's kind of obvious, isn't it, that you should call in the new situation with an odds-on chance of getting in the money. The first situation offers the option of GUARANTEEING a payoff. Also Sklansky's response was 'severely' short-chipped, implying that even tripling leaves you way behind. Take the money and run.
If your goal is to win the tournament, then you should call and attempt to triple your stack.
My goal, however, is to maximize the amount of money I expect to receive. Depending on the tournament pay-out structure and the size of my stack, the correct decision for me sometimes will be to fold those pocket rockets. And I will do so.
Different people have different goals. What's wrong (and illogical) for you might be right (and logical) for someone else.
Can some one give me raiting of hands like 579 suted 67T suted. Game 7 stud 8-beter
Both trash.
where i live in ohio big bet poper continues to gain in appeal, among the more experieced players, and the relative newcomers alike. currently in dayton (my home town) there is more then one low limit pot limit game that go on a regular basis- and have been doing so for more then a year. the closest casino to me is the grand victoria in indiana- as of yet they dont have a pot limit game- but the management has agreed to work with me on that and the last day i played i ran into five different players that want to attend my pot limit game at my house. the next nearest casino to me is the soaring egale in michigan, there pot limit has replaced there 20-20 game and is run six days a week, often the game goes all night and turns into the next days game. the next nearest casino to me is the players island casino near st. louis where they have a 5-5 blinds pot limit omaha every tuesday which is always full and kicks off a 11 am. the next nearest casino to me is in iowa where their 5-10 blinds pot limit has replaced their 20-40 hold em. these are the closest casinoes to me and the ones i play at- of course pot limit-no limit is spread over the world and continues to attract poker players of every sort of experience and background. i would also like to mention that these games have not seemed to hurt the attendence at the casinoes, though i will admit that in some instances they have killed the higher limit-limit games, simply because the more skilled players, or at least the players with more money seem to prefer big bet to limit- in the cases i have cited. i personally enjoy limit and big bet on a almost equal basis- they are both great games- just different. however i will say that i am glad that as time goes on i seem to have more and more places to test my big bet skills. comments?
Hi everyone
I have a friend in London who is looking for some limit poker (preferably 7stud). It seems all of the casinos offer pot-limit only. Does anyone know of any home games that would welcome an American ex-pat?
Kind regards,
Mike mjmorell@yahoo.com
i have a home game where we play limit- a lot of 7 card. im in ohio. go up to 10-20. are you anywhere close to dayton ohio. if so im at DPOKER @ AOL. com. they play a lot of limit 7 card over here in the states, go to atlantic city- 7 card capitol of the world.
sorry, i misread your poast. silly me. thought you had a friend from uk over here. tell him to play pot limit- its a better game.
I'm doing some research in to poker and was wondering if anyone knew of a list of celebrity poker players. They could be anyone from the arts, journalism, drama, politics, etc. it doesn't matter, as long as they are in, or have been in the public eye at some point, and preferably in the UK.
If anyone could point me in the right direction I would be very grateful, I'll explain more on reply.
Robert,
I don't mean to be rude but I have a point I'd like to make. This forum gives you an opportunity to ask some of the most respected poker authors and authorities in the game anything you like to help you with your research. And they will answer you.
And you want to know if anyone from EastEnders (a popular British soap opera) has ever played the game ?
Andy.
Sorry, but I don't know any UK celebrities that play poker. I am writing simply to suggest that your post belongs on the Exchange Forum, not here in the Theory and Strategy Forum.
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Didn't Winston Churchill say "Blood, Sweat, and Tears, makes a good poker player"
1) Game pace - some of the games play much faster than others. While the theoretical advantage of a better low-limit player is higher in the split games, holdem has many more hands per hour. Stud high is probably the slowest of the four games, since people like to hesitate, especially on the river. Should this be a factor in game choice?
2) Variance - As a player with a positive expectation, I want to minimize my variance, although not if this means decreasing expectation. I would then consider the variance of the respective poker forms in choosing games. However, with respect to keeping games good, it would seem necessary that the variance be high, so that fish with a low expectation would win a significant fraction of the time. Overly loose play is found much more in holdem and Omaha-8 than in the stud games. Also, the split games might have lower variances, since people win half a pot more often. Should this be a factor in choosing games, or is the expectation so much higher in the higher variance games that it is worth it if you withstand the swings?
3) Fish psychology - "If I was them, which one would I play?" In Foxwoods, there are two boards - one for low limit stud and stud-8 at the entrance to the room, and one for holdem, Omaha-8 and high limit stud in the very back. A complete beginner might not even know the other board was there. Also, non-players may be familiar with stud from home games. Limits may also be an issue - Omaha-8 began at 5-10 with a kill to 10-20, and stud-8 began at 2-10 with a half-kill to 3-15, which might be higher limits than a beginner might want to play. Stud high began at 1-3. This might partially explain why the Omaha-8 and stud-8 players were decent at those levels. Even the 3-6 holdem players weren't atrocious. At the Trop in AC, the 2-4 holdem players are far worse than the 1-5 stud high players. Taj 1-5 stud high players actually aren't bad. Does this work as a factor to identify the best low-limit games?
I am familiar with and am comfortable playing any of the four games, and at any limit 5-10 or lower.
Sandard deviations can be a tricky factor to consider when trying to select a game. The reason for this is that the bad players usually have much higher standard deviations than the good players. The ideal game would be one where assuming that you are a good player your win rate is high but your standard deviation is low, and the bad player's standard deviation is very high. This would help perpetuate the games. At the lower limits your best bet is probably hold 'em. Omaha eight or better would be good if they are playing bad, and this frequently is the case. But keep in mind that it is easier to play Omaha eight or better well than it is to play hold 'em.
Taking a break from the poker game today I walked through the Mirage sports book, I saw the odds that Roger Maris’ home run record will be broken this year are -170 for Yes +150 for No.
I just finished re-reading David and Mason’s book "Gambling For A Living". There is a section about sports betting called "Regression to the Mean". The idea is that when a player or team does extra well for a period of time you would expect them to regress toward the mean and do closer to what is expected. Mark McGwire has had an exceptional year so far, but to break the record he must continue to be better than his lifetime average. Would you expect him to regress to the mean and come up short? Bet No.
I’m also thinking about Mason’s essay "Trying For a Parlay and Then Some". With multiple players in the hunt this is really a parlay. The odds of not breaking the record is really the odds that McGwire comes up short times the odds that Griffey comes up short times the odds that Sosa comes up short. Although the odds for each player may be bad, the odds of the parley may be good. Bet Yes.
Opinions?
I like the do. I think a quite plausible explanation is that the combination of factors that has allowed MM (or Jr or SS) to excel are still present and that the season thus far is not just a setup for a regression to the mean.
Good point. The high number of players (3 or 4) within range may imply that the 'mean' is higher.
Bobby,
I think that as the players get closer to the record it will be tougher and tougher. Already pitchers are pitching around McGwire more (he has had a lot of walks this year) and I expect the same thing will happen to Griffey more. McGwire and arguably Griffey play on teams that are not contenders. The theory that I have heard is that pitchers will pitch around these two because their respective teams tend to be behind in more ball games. Sosa on the other hand is playing for a wild card contender so his opportunities may continue. The other thing that McGwire has mentioned is that Maris hit 17 home runs in September of his record season. Batting ahead of Mickey Mantle who hit 54 home runs that season didn't hurt either. I believe that Sosa and Griffey are about on pace as McGwire is slightly ahead. Therefore it looks to me that Griffey and Sosa would have to pick things up a bit. The other factor I would consider is a possible public bias. Perhaps if any of these players was playing for the Dodgers that might indicate one. I think most fans are inclined to be rooting for the record to be broken but I'm not sure how to evaluate a public bias with this bet.
I would rate McGwire's chances at about 45%. I would rate Griffey's chances at about 35% and Sosa's at about 35%. The chances that none of them would break it by my odds (definitely open to debate) would be .55 * .65 * .65 or 23%. This would translate to odds of 3.34 - 1 of them not breaking it. If all three had an equal chance to break the record my calculations tell me that laying the odds would be correct if each had a 28% chance to break the record. By my very subjective weight of the chances for each player this would mean that McGwires chance would have to be greater than 36%, Griffey's and Sosa's would have to be greater than 21.7%. Perhaps I rate their chances of breaking the record too highly. I think that determining each players chances are the key to making the right bet.
Imo all three individually have a much better than 28% chance to break the record. Given all this, I think I take the odds and bet that one of them will do it this season. However I would be leary because I'm not sure that the line is skewed due to any public bias one way or the other and I respect the odds makers ability to make a line. In other words I would view my own estimates of each player making it with a lot of skepticism and do more research before I made the bet.
Tom Haley
Since the right-handed home run record is still 58, one would think Junior would have the best chance since he is the only lefty in the contest. But I think psychological problems will inhibit his attempt. He is testy with the press and has become spoiled. McGwire doesn't like all the attention much either, but he does like to hit homers. Sosa, however, seems to be reveling in the attention and with all the home games in Wrigley, he may be the one to do it. Your odds seem pretty sound to me, but historically as the season winds down and the pressure intensifies, home run rates have dropped significantly. I saw a graphic earlier where Howard had 34 and Reggie 37 (I think) at the All-Star break one year and neither reached 50! This may be why the line seems low. A big factor in favor, IMO, is that the lords of baseball want the record broken to increase attendance. Certainly, my attendance is way down since the strike, but I do watch Sportscenter to see how the big three did that day.
> The other thing that McGwire has mentioned is that Maris
>hit 17 home runs in September of his record season.
This illustrates a major difference between baseball in 1961 and today. When Maris and Ruth were playing, there were no divisions. The late season no longer mattered for most (if not all) opponents. Now, with three divisions per league and a wild card, many more teams are at least within range of a playoff spot. Many more pitchers won't take risks against these hitters. McGwire has had solid totals at the break in previous years and then faded. His pace has already dropped substantially since the break. With four hitters close to or above the record pace, the chance might seem higher. But public perception probably errs towards inflating the odds of the record being broken. I think the schedule of remaining teams that these players will face would be the key.
One thing that I would like to correct. Maris did not hit 17 home runs his last month. Something like 9.
Tom Haley
Roger Marris's hair was falling out and he was also developing an ulcer. If Grifrey, Sosa OR McGwire EVEN TIE the home run record I will walk naked through the Mirage poker room with a baseball hanging on a string from my privates.
Ow!, and no thanks, I don't think we really want to see that.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I am a relative neophyte to poker, so it is entirely possible that my question lacks any logical basis.
It seems to me that fast (loose) play in a structured limit poker game is a good way to lose the largest amount of money in the least amount of time. A conclusion that seems to be born out by the testimony of the experienced players on this site. However, it seems to me that this is largely due to the structure of the game, which lends itself to playing a technically correct game and seeking small advantages (I think).
My question is: in a table stakes or pot limit game does fast play become a sounder method of maximizing profits?
My thinking is that, psychologically, a good fast player might be able to dominate the table. However, I admit that I am approaching this from a psychological , not a technical angle. More technically, by fast playing a table stakes game could a skillful player strongly influence his pot odds, implied pot odds, reverse pot odds, etc.
Any input that any of you feel like contributing will be appreciated. However, I am truly a beginner--so could you dumb it down a bit for me.
Thank you, Darren
Darren,
I was hoping someone who knows more than me would answer your question because it is an interesting one.
All the same, I would say that a fast style is perhaps more likely to be successful in a big-bet game provided you know what you are doing.
This proviso is very important - I expect you did not intend to start playing like this straight away but it would be an extremely unwise approach for someone still learning the game.
Play tight when you're starting off is advice that I was given on this forum and I think it's very sound. If you have a strong hand by all means bet hard but make sure you are not doing it on marginal values.
Good luck,
Andy.
Hello everyone.
6-12 Hold'em session. 9-handed. Game fairly loose, usually 5-6 people before the flop. A couple drop on the turn and maybe 2 or 3 stay for the showdown. Not to agressive before the flop unless people have big hands (big pairs, AK, AQ, etc). Here are a few hands I played and I was just wondering if I could've done anything different to maybe win the pot (I flopped monsters and got outdrawn).
I have Ad2d in middle position. 2 people in front of me limp. I limp. Button raises. Small blind calls. Big blind folds. Everyone else calls. I get a dream flop Qd7d8d. Small blind bets (he probably had KQ). 1 caller and I call. Button raises. At this point i can narrow his hand because SB has a Q and there is a lesser chance Button has QQ. So I put him on KK with Kd. SB reraises I call. Button caps it. Turn brings and 8. SB checks, limper checks. I check! (is this a good play, since I know Button is betting) Button bets. SB calls. limper folds. I raise. Button calls. SB calls. River brings and 8. So board is now Qd 7d 8d 8 8. I check and fold.
Few hands later. I have TT on the BB. 5 people in. I check. Flop comes A T 2 of mixed suits. I check, guy that had KK on the other hand bet (he is in middle position now), 2 callers. I raise. He calls. Turn brings an A. I check. He bets. folded to me. I raise! He looks at me and just calls. River brings a 2. Board now A 2 T A 2 (my TT no good anymore). I check and he checks behind me. He shows me A9o
Different hand. I have KK in late position. Action gets capped before the flop with 5 people in. Flop comes 9 9 2 (with 2 diamonds). SB bets (same guy with KK and A9o before reraised my raise with KK). It gets raised to me and I reraise. Both call. Turn brings Qd. SB bets! It gets folded to me. Should I had folded? I figure he must've had QQ and spiked his 2 outer on the turn. I called him all the way and got no help on the river. He in fact had QQ.
Last example. I limp with Q8s in middle position. SB folded. BB in. UTG in and someone in late position. Flop comes JT9 of mixed suits. UTG bets (i put him on a draw) so I raise to narrow the field. BB calls and UTG calls. Turn brings A. Gets checked to me and I bet. Both call. River comes J. Check to me. I bet and get check raised by the BB!. UTG player folds. I call. BB had AJ.
I was wondering if I played these hands correctly or I made some mistakes that lead to the results described. I appreciate any comments. Thank you.
carlos
There doesn't seem to be much point in trying to disguise your nut flush in the first example. I would have capped it on the flop rather than rely on the button. When the turn pairs the board, it's likely I'm already stuck with a dead hand (but your game is very loose so it's hard to be sure). I expect the small blind reraised on the flop with middle or bottom set. When the small blind checks the turn, I'd be inclined to think my read was wrong. I'm going to bet on the turn to defend against a possible free card play by the button. If the button raises, I'll call but I'm probably up against a boat now. If the button calls and the small blind checkraises I'll think seriously about a tough laydown. I think you would have slowed the action down to a call out of everyone had you bet the turn, thus saving one big bet. The checkraise on the turn with the board paired seems like a mistake because there is no chance of getting a hand with any possibility of beating the flush to muck, and your flush is no longer the nuts.
I have to be almost certain someone behind me (preferably not from late position) will bet on the flop in order to checkraise a set. Far more often I'll play this for three bets on the flop and come right out betting. On the turn in the second example, I'd again prefer to come out betting (someone with a set of aces is likely to raise) trying for three bets instead of two or four. I'm not saying you made a mistake (as it turned out you probably saved one big bet) the way you played it.
I probably just cold call the raise on the flop with pocket kings in the third example. I'm going to find out if the small blind has pocket aces anyway, so I don't need to throw in a reraise. Again, it's unlikely you'll get anyone to fold for two or three bets who has you beat. It's also possible a T9s got trapped before the flop and has escaped (maybe the raiser on the flop - but you didn't post the action in enough detail). You're getting 15:1 pot odds to call the bet on the turn (as a 22:1 underdog if you need to catch a king). Make that a maximum of 17:1 implied odds since you can expect your raise on the river to be called. This is another semi-tough laydown, although you might split with the other pocket kings and beat jacks. If you really trust your read on the small blind, muck. This game is very loose with alot of action, you can wait for a better opportunity.
With Q8s in the fourth example, it is better to not have played. You flopped a straight, and got trapped. KQ has you buried, any singleton king, or queen can get lucky while you just pay off all bets. Any hand which doesn't have a piece of the flop (the ones you need to pay you off) is not going to stay beyond the turn. Moreover, your hand cannot improve. Assuming I did play the hand, there is no way I'm going to bet the river when the board pairs with the jack. It's not very likely you're going to get called by a hand you can beat (unless you think the big blind had JX and didn't bet top pair on the flop).
Although you didn't play badly for this action game, you managed to get unlucky. The post-mortem is more often about saving or gaining an extra bet, rather than figuring out if a loser could have been transformed into a winner since you are obviously an experienced player. I don't see any way you could have made the eventual winning hand in all of the examples fold incorrectly.
In these types of games, I'm not sure it matters how you play as to whether or not you'll win a particular hand. As Andrew noted, about the best you can do is save bets when obviously beaten. Also, raising to "narrow the field" is a pretty worthless maneuver in these games. Bet and raise for value.
I'll be in Paris (France) on a Saturday very soon. Has anyone played poker there recently (or even not so recently)? I've heard they play mostly pot limit and that 4 and 5 card omaha are popular. Any info on limits, rakes, dress codes and especially locations and hours would be most welcome.
--jazbo
Jazbo,
There's one place which sounds pretty classy (I haven't been there) and that's the Aviaton Club De France (ACF), 104 Avenue des Champs-Elysees, 75008, Paris, telephone (33)0145622688, fax (33)0145639430, website : http://eppa.bigfoot.com/acf - they're also the official sponsors of the EPPA website (European Poker Players' Association). They sent me a very professional-looking booklet listing their many amenities and services, including Poker - Limit, Pot Limit, No Limit - Hold'em, Omaha, 7 Card Stud, 7 Low Ball, Courchevel, 7 Stud & Omaha Hi-Lo - Buy-in 500FF/1,000FF/2,500FF/5,000FF/10,000FF - Table charge per hour - free non-alcoholic drinks, free French breakfast at 4am, lounge room, television, bar, restaurant, airconditioned, correct dress is required, opening hours every day from 2pm to 6am.
When I called them, they told me that the games were primarily pot limit and that limit games were only spread on demand. As this was not for me, I didn't go into details regarding what exactly the rake was, though I recall him mentioning "no jeans and running shoes" as satisfying their dress code - from the photos, though, the place looks more like an English gentlemen's club, suggesting a jacket and tie wouldn't go amiss.
Etienne
I read in Card Player about a disagreement between two top pros in some tournment. Men complained (acording to the article that I read) that the "players" should make a dicision about a "Directors" ruling. I am new at tournament poker. Why would the players decide on a ruling made by the Director?
So far I have read T.J. Cloutier's book which is good but still has a lot of empty spots to fill. However it offers a strategy towards no-limit tournys which is good. But I desired more knowledge. So I then bought a copy of Supersystem. And boy am I totally confused! That book is incredible.Skalnsky's section is in my opinion the best how-to ever written. Doyle's no limit is awesome and so logical yet so sinister that it should be illegal. Yet now I'm confused as to what strategy is correct for tourny's. Doyle said in his book that the startegy he mentions his section IS NOT THE CORRECT STRATEGY for tourny's. But he uses several desriptions of plays that HE DID INDEED USE when he won his WSOP titles. His style is a mind-boggling style. I mean who ever heard of purposely calling a opponent with a worse hand by design? Anyway it will take me awhile to really absorb that book. Is there any forum members that can unconfuse me and help me with deciding what parts of Doyle's section can be used correctly in a no-limit tourny?
Joe,
You hit the Nail on the Head. I was just going to post the exact same type of message. I must say that my No Limit Tourney knowledge is lacking, and the info that both Doyle and Cloutier give seem to contradict one an other.
The weekly No-Limit Hold'em Tourney I play in has many weak players in it, but I still under preform my expectations.
CV
Chris,
I think there is quite a bit of difference between playing in a small buy in no limit tournament. The blinds in these smaller tournaments start out high relative to your stack size and increase faster. If you are playing in a no-limit or pot limit tournament where the normal bring in raise is 4 times the big blind, it doesn't too many rounds to make it an all in decision to call before the flop when someone raises. In the WSOP main event the blinds start out at $25 and $50 with a $10,000 buy in. The blinds are much smaller in relation to your stack size and thus the pots relative to your stack size are smaller to start out. Later in the tournament it gets down to all in pre-flop mode a lot more.
Your performance shouldn't be a big concern in these small no-limit tournaments. It's hard to outplay someone when the only decision you or they have to make is to put your stack in pre-flop when the blinds are big relative to your stack. I think you understand what I'm getting at.
Tom Haley
Predator,
Maybe Doyle will answer it for you since he has posted here before. I think what Doyle was referring to about tournaments was that he wouldn't play a big pot until he could afford to lose one. So early on he would try to win small pots without a showdown and build his stack slowly. Later in the tourney when he had chips he would play his normal game. At least that's what I remember and how I understood it.
Tom Haley
it will take you awhile to absorb doyles section on no limit. i think you are incorrect about doyle saying his stratigies are incorrect for tournements, ive pretty much memorized his no limit section and i dont remember that. anyway what particular strategy are you refering to? if its the deal about the suited connectors, some peole play them like doyle, some people dont. if you have a pair and a straight draw, or a pair and a flush draw, or a straight flush draw you are either a small dog or a small favorite to crack a big pair or top pair- or two pair for that matter. if you play it fast on the flop with a raise all in or a check raise all in you have two chances to win. also if you play it fast on the flop and get called your enemy cant get away from his hand if for instance your flush comes on the turn. its either raise or fold- calling to make a draw in no limit seldom makes sense. of course there are exceptions depending on stack size. rather then explaining further no limit principles let me refer you to yet one more book, and really i think probably the best on big bet- pot-limit and no - limit poker by stewart reuben and bob ciaffon. may i also mention that bob teaches private lessons at a very reasonable cost, just dont take up all his time as i plan on requireing quite a bit of it myself. go to favorite links off to your left on this foroam. bobs web page if one of the favorite links.
i remember now what you are talking about, his section in the beginning of the book about tournements. he just saying that in the ring game he would start playing fast, jamming it up, creating a image, then switch gears and go slower and try to make a hand and get it paid off. he would usually lose his buy in but later get even or end up winner. in a tournament if you lose your by in thats that. so he is probably a bit more cautious in the beginning of a tournament. he not talking about general abc of no limit- no great strategy change.
one more thing i would like to mention, when doyle won the wsop he had a lot fewer people to go through then is now the case. you might consider taking a home run attitude- either hit a home run early or strike out. if your successful in bluffing (semibluffing) through some pots or drawing out and busting a couple of people early this greatly enhances your chances of coming into the final table. in other words take chances early, and then if your successful in amassing a pile of chips switch gears and slow down till the field gets narrowed down then switch again and speed up in the rush to the final table. ill be down in atlantic city also so i hope to see you at the final table.
one final commet. (in case you havnt noticed i think no limit hold em is the cadillac of poker games- where have i heard that befor). i dont think ive had very many original ideas in my life. my idea of a good time would be to have the super system book befor it was published, and to have it never be published. in other words now that doyle and david and mason and t.j. and bob and tom and etc. have smartened up every dummy (including me) from here to timbucktoo dont be suprised if someone lookes you up for all your money when you are putting a play on the pot. you have to play your player. dont bluff someone that cant be bluffed. dont try to make someone lay down a real good hand. pick your spots and have the courage of your convictions. if you think you can win by moving in a freightload of chips then do so. dont do anything because it is written on page 234 of some book. the ones that are going to come out on top in big bet are the ones that can most accuratly judge individuals and individual situations.
good luck, and i hope we meet each other at the final table and your the last person i double through, and eliminate from my food.
signed , im not at all confused..... no really i hope i have cleared up your question somewhat, or at least have not muddied the waters, if your new to no limit you have an admirable goal, i know, im new to no limit also
Just as a comment I talked with T.J. at the WSOP and he stated one of the main reasons he wrote his book is to try and bring players to pot and no limit. I hope he succeeds as I enjoy this style and structure.
I posted this on r.g.p but got no replies so I'm trying here:
The instructions for Triple Play video poker state (paraphrasing from memory): "Choose cards to hold from a five-card poker hand....Replacement cards are drawn from three separate 52-card decks with the original cards omitted."
Notice that it does not say that the original five-card poker hands are drawn from 52-card decks. Does anyone know for a fact if these machines are fair video poker machines or slot machines (with only the draw phase being fair)?
If the machines are in a Nevada casino they have to conform to state law which assures that they are fair.
The machines are located in many Nevada casinos. TP is the hottest thing in video poker right now.
What exactly does the state law require? Does it require any machine which displays cards to deal the cards fairly, even if the machine does not claim to to do so? (Most video poker machines state somewhere on the machine "Uses one 52 card deck," but these don't.)
Here's one I observed which is a possible counterexample. The Odyssey have a "jackpot video poker" game which gives you a chance at the jackpot when you receive the jackpot card. The jackpot card is dealt much less often than 1/53 cards, so there is something other than a simulation of card dealing going on inside that machine.
some time back in some publication- it escapes me what it was- i saw where you offered to answer questions about poker for a reasonable fee. do you still do that- how does it work? you can poast your response, im sure others would be interested, or im at DPOKER @ AOL.com
Does anyone know how many WSOP braclets that Sklansky and Malmouth have won?
WHY DON'T YOU DIRECT YOUR QUESTION TO THEM?
I may be wrong, but I think the number is zero. However, this is a bit misleading, since it is clear they don't play in that many tourneys anyway. If you're not in it, you can't win it.
to my knowledge none. why , how many have you won? how many has chip rease won, who everyone knows is the best poker player in the world, -to my knowledge none. if im wrong about this please correct me. also correct me about the spelling of chips last name.
Reese--as in Reese's Peanut Butter Cups
loconti,
I think David Sklansky has won one. I know he's placed in several.
Tom Haley
I have 3.
grand victoria casino, 5 dolllar rake. biggest game is a 10-20 hold em. several players are pushing for 20-40 or for pot limit but nobody pays us any mind as that would break up the only two 10-20 s they have going. player opens for a 20 dollar live straddle. im in position number three. i look down and im not really that impressed, kQ offsuit. i immediatly try to raise to 30 but i am informed that i have to take it to 40-funny rule they have. i take a deep breath, try to look dangerous and i take it to 40 in a effort to get heads up with the straddle. my plan didnt work, i get called in six places for the full 40, there is now over 250 in the pot, no further raises.dealer turns some cards- K blank,. blank. i ask the dealer, what am i suspose to do bet 10 dollars into a 250 dollar pot? dealer looks at me but dosnt say anything. i bet 10 dollars into a 250 dollar pot. i get six callers, no raises. the turn comes another blank, nobody has folded and i have six players trying to crack my top pair. i bet 20 without hesirtation. the pot has growen to such a heap that i no longer know how much is in there. i get 5 callers, no raises. the river is another blank. i check, get no betters and take down a huge pot with top pair, ok kicker.should i have bet on the end, should i have raised in the first place?
I BELIEVE YOU PLAYED THE HAND RIGHT UNTIL THE RIVER. THE INFO YOU GAVE SEEMED TO MEEN THERE WERE NO STRAIGHTS OR FLUSHES OR SCARE CARDS I WOULD HAVE BET THE RIVER TO GET MAX VALUE FROM THIS HAND.
I must kindly disagree with you Bill. I am usually a staunch advocate of betting the river for value, more so than most people, it seems. However, our hero is in a spot where people were probably quite likely to call with suited gumbo hands, and then the pot's so big that they've got more than good enough odds to call for a 5-outer. With that many folks drawing, there's a decent chance that someone just hit 2-pair (it could easily be that more than half the deck is bad for you, and you don't know which half). If it were down to 1, 2, maybe even 3 opponents, I would bet the river. But not against this many. I'd rather check and call, hoping to induce a bluff from top pair, worse kicker, or second pair.
Also, I would almost never fold to a raise here, unless the player who raised is 100% readable. Any good player may raise here in an attempt to knock you off of AK and other 1-pair hands that you're likely to hold. If you give up this pot mistakenly, it's going to take you days to make up the lost EV.
Final note to Bill. Please turn off your caps lock key if you can. Using all caps conveys that you're shouting, and should only be used if you really intend to convey such.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Having played at the GRand Victoria a lot myself I would say you played it correctly. The "blank" on the river very easily could have made someone 2 pair (these people at even the 20-40 limit will play any two cards).
Note to D: I am having a problem with my e-mail and can't retrieve your phone number. If you have ICQ my # is 14370068 (I have everything working beside my e-mail program)
BASICALLY YOUR STATING NEVER BET THE RIVER WITH A NUMBER OF PLAYERS LEFT TO ACT? I WOULD HAVE TO DISAGREE IF YOUR RAISED DEPENDING ON WHO IS DOING THE RAISING YOU CAN THROW YOUR HAND AWAY, AND IF YOU CHECK AND SOMEONE BETS YOU CAN CALL.
You should have called before the flop, but given you raised you should have checked and called on the flop, and gone for a check raise on fourth street. Given the structure and the size of the pot, your flop bet was totally meaningless.
MASON COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU WOULD PLAY THIS HAND IN THIS MANNER? I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHY RAISING BEFORE THE FLOP IS WRONG. I THINK THE CHECK RAISE SHOULD BE USED SOMETIMES ON FOURTH STREET AND SOMETIMES AFTER THE FLOP AND THE PLAYER SHOULD BET IT OUT SOMETIMES.
MASON I JUST THOUGHT ABOUT THAT CHECK RAISE ON FOURTH STREET ALITTLE DEEPER AND IT SEEMS TO BE A RISKY MOVE,BECAUSE ALL OF THOSE CALLERS THAT CALLED THE RAISE COLD.
The reason you check raise on fourth street is to try to knock people out so that they can't draw out on the river assuming your hand is good. If you just bet they will all call anyway, and probebly be correct to do so because the pot is so large compared to the bet.
This is a concept I am beginning to appreciate. If the pot gets large enough, no single bet will drive other people out. but a check raise representing the nut, when you have a hand such as the one described in the original post, may. As far as I am concerned, given the number of people in this pot for the number of bets, Bill W should be grateful the river was not an A. Or a trip card for one of his opponents, with a medium or low pair.
im the one that is greatful. i think mason has answered the question correctly. my intention was to get heads up with the straddle. since i was able to take the bet to 40 dollars i really feel that although a bit bold considering my position, i feel i should have had a good chance at succeeding in doing this. has i succeeded i would have felt very comfortable both befor and after the flop. however i must have forgotten that i was no longer in las vegas, and my plan failed miserably. i realize that my thinking goes against the advice of hepfap but hey its a free country. anyway since i made the pot so big it was correct to draw to almost anything, a check raise certainly would be in order- but i wonder why mason advises waiting till the turn. at anyrate with the bet doubling on the turn i certainly would have been justified in taking the risk, and then worry about what to do about a raise when i came to that bridge. however with that said its refreshing when the best hand really does hold up against the field as this is often the frustrating problem ive encountered with limit hold em. im glad you all have seemed to have enjayed mulling over my little predicament.
>>...a check raise certainly would be in order- but i wonder why mason advises waiting till the turn...<<
I believe it's because with such a big multiway pot even a double bet might not knock too many people out on the flop. Confronting players with having to call two bets cold on the turn would give you much more leverage to pry them out of the pot.
Bill Do you shout a lot at the table also?
I definitely would have tried for a check-raise on the flop and maybe on the turn depending on board and # of callers. My thoughts are to significantly cut correct drawing odds. Make em call two bets cold on the flop. Most likely they are going to all call one bet on the flop.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Alot of those draws would be correct on the flop for two bets anyway. There are two reasons to check/call on the flop as Mason suggests. First, to avoid having to call a raise. Second, when you check with the intention of raising on the turn, it's much more likely that someone in late position will bet allowing you to checkraise than if you bet out on the flop. For the checkraise to be correct, the pot must not be offering correct odds for the 5-out or less drawing hands. When these players cold call your checkraise on the turn without at least 8:1 odds they are in a negative EV situation, and of course they might correctly fold right there on the turn.
In his recent article in Poker Digest, Mason Malmuth speaks about someone on the Internet saying that A8s is correct to play UTG and that it should be raised, not called. That someone is me of course. The constructive criticism is appreciated, and I encourage Mason to continue to offer such positive comments.
In my best Mason Malmuth voice, it should be obvious that Mason Malmuth is wrong in his explanations for not playing/raising A8s UTG. He argues that if the computer opponents were to adapt, then they would adapt to this play of A8s and start three betting the player with weaker hands than normal, hands which put A8s into jeopardy. Where did he think the strategy for the best Texas Turbo player came from? Adaptive coevolution! That is, the players were pitted against each other and refined over successive generations. And this evolved strategy plays A8s UTG (A7s too.) True, Texas Turbo Hold'em does have one gaping flaw, and that is that the players do not adjust for where the opener is positioned. If the opponents were all adapted to maximize their own expectations with our subject player frozen UTG, we might find that A8s is not playable UTG. I did test versus a range of line-ups but perhaps other line-ups would have yielded different answers. In any case, computer players evolving their strategy against each other does lead to a certain "myopia", so this approach is not foolproof.
However, it's not like I'm advocating playing looser than S&M in Hold'em for Advanced Players. UTG, I'm advocating playing lower grouped hands and throwing away some higher grouped hands than recommended by that book. If Mason Malmuth wants to argue that players can adapt to run me over because I play A8s UTG, then I can argue that players can adapt to run Mason Malmuth over because he plays other hands UTG that I would not.
The suitedness of A8s gives it a little robustness, an out if it comes up against a bigger ace. It's very dangerous to call or reraise my UTG raise with a hand like AJo, as I, or a later player, may have AQ or AK instead, in which case your AJ is in worse shape than my A8s would have been. A8s is in fact almost as strong as AJ (not against each other, though), and simulations show that you need a hand one notch better than my minimum raising hand to call, and so, with some consideration of the other hands I would play, you really need AQ to mess with me.
The second conceptual error is that Mason Malmuth advocates aggressively three betting someone who will raise with A8s UTG. This is first off suicidal if the only other hands the player raises with UTG are AA and KK; that is, you must consider the full range of hands he raises with. Second, my simulations suggest that you can three bet with AA, KK, and not much more, even versus someone raising with a fair number of hands. There are good reasons for this: the raiser could have AA, KK, or other hand that beats you, or someone left to act could have such hands. Even on the button, such three betting is dangerous. At a real table, three betting achieves a certain psychological leverage, but again your opponents will eventually adapt to this and stop getting out of your way when you three bet. More simulations need to be run to be sure of my conclusion here.
However, Mason is probably correct in that calling seems better than raising UTG with A8s. In one simulations of a tight $10-$20 game, A8s achieved the following expectations for various opening plays:
+$1.47 Call, then call if one bet back, fold for two or more
+$1.15 Raise, then call any more bets
+$1.09 Raise, then call one bet back, fold for two or more
+$1.01 Call, then call any more bets
-$0.67 Raise, then raise if one bet back, call for two or more
-$1.22 Call, then raise if one bet back, call for two or more
Actually, the difference between +1.47 and +1.15 is probably not statistically significant, but since A9s and A7s produce similar results (calling was best in the sim), and A2s-A6s have about zero EV but if you play them then raising was best in the simulations, I think this is probably not a random fluke. My initial simulation(s) either had different line-ups, which tipped the close call the other way, or else they were not run sufficiently long. (And yes I do know how to test for statistically significant differences, but since TTH 2.0 does not include variance figures this is not possible. TTH 3.0 should have variance figures, though.)
Raising or calling is such a close decision that my choice would depend on other factors, such as what other hands I am (or have been) raising or calling with.
Simulations are tricky beasts to be sure and can produce erroneous results. But what exactly does Mason suggest as the alternative? Play the hands that he pulled out of his ass? No offense to Mason's ass intended... I just don't see how any human could be expected to divine through years of experience whether A8s is a +$1.47 proposition or a -$0.01 proposition UTG in a tight $10-$20 game. It's just too close to call - the variance swamps the EV - even taking statistics on it might require more than a lifetime of data to produce a statistically significant difference!
Even if we suppose that Mason's experience magically tells him which hands can be played before sufficient trials are accumulated, let's consider what games Mason has the most experience in: $20-$40 at Mirage, with a rake. With a rake, A8s is shaky at best, and may be negative.
But Mason's criticism is legitimate, and even before I read his article I had planned to run some simulations to address the problem he notes about opponents adapting to your play. My hypothesis, which I would like to test, is that seemingly overly tight play preflop may actually boost your overall EV by making it tough for your adaptive opponents to make correct decisions after the flop. If you play too many hands, your opponent's strategy may become simplified: contest the pot with any pair or big ace. The marginal hands are worth more the fewer marginal hands you play. I plan to test this by having a few different grades of tightness preflop, and then scoring them by the worst each does against a series of different line-ups, a sort of sloppy minimax strategy optimization. Will A8s survive this procedure? +$1.47 is too close to say.
-Abdul
Abdul writes:
>>In his recent article in Poker Digest, Mason Malmuth speaks about someone on the Internet saying that A8s is correct to play UTG and that it should be raised, not called. That someone is me of course. The constructive criticism is appreciated, and I encourage Mason to continue to offer such positive comments. <<
Since I’m not situated near a casino at this time (lot of poker withdrawl) I haven’t read the article. I no doubt need to buy a subscription.
>>In my best Mason Malmuth voice, it should be obvious that Mason Malmuth is wrong in his explanations for not playing/raising A8s UTG. He argues that if the computer opponents were to adapt, then they would adapt to this play of A8s and start three betting the player with weaker hands than normal, hands which put A8s into jeopardy. Where did he think the strategy for the best Texas Turbo player came from? Adaptive coevolution! That is, the players were pitted against each other and refined over successive generations. And this evolved strategy plays A8s UTG (A7s too.) True, Texas Turbo Hold'em does have one gaping flaw, and that is that the players do not adjust for where the opener is positioned. If the opponents were all adapted to maximize their own expectations with our subject player frozen UTG, we might find that A8s is not playable UTG. I did test versus a range of line-ups but perhaps other line-ups would have yielded different answers. In any case, computer players evolving their strategy against each other does lead to a certain "myopia", so this approach is not foolproof. <<
It seems to me that your idea is that a hand like this, played like this is worthwhile in a tight game (perhaps overly tight?) where you don’t have a lot of multi-way pots because players are playing tightly pre-flop. Also the type of game where players behind you will respect your raise. If they will fold A,Jo, A,T, A9s or maybe even an A,Qo because you made this play in early position then you have “promoted” you’re A,8s. The other thing that you are implying, if I understand you correctly, is that the frequency of being dealt A,8s isn’t that high so players adjusting to it isn’t that much of a concern. This could be construed as a “variance” type play if I understand you correctly. No approach is foolproof. Someday I would really like to see the newest poker simulations like TTH2 discussed in depth. It seems to me that if Paul Pudaite can come up with the optimum strategy from a game theory perspective for solving the Ultimate Problem, we are on our way to having some very sophisticated poker simulations. I have always been somewhat skeptical of the faith put into poker simulation software. This is because I don’t have any knowledge about how the program was written. You could say that I don’t know how a word processor is written either. That is easy to address because it does what I want it to do and there are benchmarks that are used to validate a word processor. The trouble that I have with poker simulations is that I have nothing to validate their operation with, I have no benchmarks. I recognize that hand evaluators can be benchmarked and verified. The bottom line for me is that it is hard to put a lot of faith in the results. With all of that said TTH2 does have an extensive player profile definition and I think that a diligent user might actually configure these profiles to the point where benchmarks could actually be developed. I would like to spend more time configuring the profiles to develop some benchmarks. I have found Wilson’s new versions of Texas Hold’em and Omaha/8 to be fun and challenging. I get bluffed some and picked off some. I do find the games entertaining and my wife did a psychological experiment on me using this game that seems to have really help me take my game to higher level. Perhaps someday I can get her to post a paper she is writing about the experiment. I like the game.
>>However, it's not like I'm advocating playing looser than S&M in Hold'em for Advanced Players. UTG, I'm advocating playing lower grouped hands and throwing away some higher grouped hands than recommended by that book. If Mason Malmuth wants to argue that players can adapt to run me over because I play A8s UTG, then I can argue that players can adapt to run Mason Malmuth over because he plays other hands UTG that I would not. The suitedness of A8s gives it a little robustness, an out if it comes up against a bigger ace. It's very dangerous to call or reraise my UTG raise with a hand like AJo, as I, or a later player, may have AQ or AK instead, in which case your AJ is in worse shape than my A8s would have been. A8s is in fact almost as strong as AJ (not against each other, though), and simulations show that you need a hand one notch better than my minimum raising hand to call, and so, with some consideration of the other hands I would play, you really need AQ to mess with me.<<
This is consistent with the idea of “promoting” you’re A,8s hand.
>>The second conceptual error is that Mason Malmuth advocates aggressively three betting someone who will raise with A8s UTG. This is first off suicidal if the only other hands the player raises with UTG are AA and KK; that is, you must consider the full range of hands he raises with. Second, my simulations suggest that you can three bet with AA, KK, and not much more, even versus someone raising with a fair number of hands. There are good reasons for this: the raiser could have AA, KK, or other hand that beats you, or someone left to act could have such hands. Even on the button, such three betting is dangerous. At a real table, three betting achieves a certain psychological leverage, but again your opponents will eventually adapt to this and stop getting out of your way when you three bet. More simulations need to be run to be sure of my conclusion here. <<
I agree with your comments here. I know we’ve discussed this on the forum before but there is probably an optimum 3 bet frequency pre-flop. I say probably because I don’t know how to prove it.
>>However, Mason is probably correct in that calling seems better than raising UTG with A8s. In one simulations of a tight $10-$20 game, A8s achieved the following expectations for various opening plays: +$1.47 Call, then call if one bet back, fold for two or more +$1.15 Raise, then call any more bets +$1.09 Raise, then call one bet back, fold for two or more +$1.01 Call, then call any more bets -$0.67 Raise, then raise if one bet back, call for two or more -$1.22 Call, then raise if one bet back, call for two or more Actually, the difference between +1.47 and +1.15 is probably not statistically significant, but since A9s and A7s produce similar results (calling was best in the sim), and A2s-A6s have about zero EV but if you play them then raising was best in the simulations, I think this is probably not a random fluke. My initial simulation(s) either had different line-ups, which tipped the close call the other way, or else they were not run sufficiently long. (And yes I do know how to test for statistically significant differences, but since TTH 2.0 does not include variance figures this is not possible. TTH 3.0 should have variance figures, though.) <<
This is consistent with the variance type play I was discussing earlier.
>>Raising or calling is such a close decision that my choice would depend on other factors, such as what other hands I am (or have been) raising or calling with.
Simulations are tricky beasts to be sure and can produce erroneous results. But what exactly does Mason suggest as the alternative? Play the hands that he pulled out of his ass? No offense to Mason's ass intended... I just don't see how any human could be expected to divine through years of experience whether A8s is a +$1.47 proposition or a -$0.01 proposition UTG in a tight $10-$20 game. It's just too close to call - the variance swamps the EV - even taking statistics on it might require more than a lifetime of data to produce a statistically significant difference! Even if we suppose that Mason's experience magically tells him which hands can be played before sufficient trials are accumulated, let's consider what games Mason has the most experience in: $20-$40 at Mirage, with a rake. With a rake, A8s is shaky at best, and may be negative. <<
This is consistent with the tight game vs. loose game strategy that I mentioned earlier.
>>But Mason's criticism is legitimate, and even before I read his article I had planned to run some simulations to address the problem he notes about opponents adapting to your play. My hypothesis, which I would like to test, is that seemingly overly tight play preflop may actually boost your overall EV by making it tough for your adaptive opponents to make correct decisions after the flop. If you play too many hands, your opponent's strategy may become simplified: contest the pot with any pair or big ace. The marginal hands are worth more the fewer marginal hands you play. I plan to test this by having a few different grades of tightness preflop, and then scoring them by the worst each does against a series of different line-ups, a sort of sloppy minimax strategy optimization. Will A8s survive this procedure? +$1.47 is too close to say. -Abdul <<
Highly interesting and I might add very well done imo. I personally would enjoy seeing your results even though I am skeptical. I believe you are actually getting quite a bit out of the TTH2 simulations and I think it is because you must have done some of your own benchmarks to at least satisfy yourself that the results are valid and give you data that you can interpret and use. Please keep posting on this subject because I think you have some very interesting and valuable insights.
Tom Haley
Abdul,
For a tight $10-$20 TTH2 lineup, I get +$1.13 as the EV for calling with A8s under the gun (call call fold), a figure close enough to your results. However (and you also raise this point), as the hand has about a 30% win rate, after rake and tokes it is demoted to zero EV.
Etienne
I wrote, "If the opponents were all adapted to maximize their own expectations with our subject player frozen UTG, we might find that A8s is not playable UTG." Actually, that was a misstatement. The best player has already coadapted to counter, as best it can, the raises of A8s UTG and the rest of the hands being played there and everywhere else. But the TTH players don't know where the raises are coming from. Therefore, in late position they are calling or reraising too often when the raise is coming from early position. If A8s is playable because of a flaw in the opponents' strategies, it's because the opponents are too loose with respect to early raises, not too tight. (This can be partially addressed by tightening up the later position players.)
I plan to address this flaw in TTH by running a series of simulations that I mentioned. These simulations will have the effect of the other players implicitly colluding against the subject player, and thus should provide a lower bound on what hands can be played UTG, plus or minus the remaining limitations of the program.
-Abdul
I have HPFAP in it there is something to the effect that it is sometimes correct to draw to middle or bottom pairs due to the size of the pot. However, there isn't any example or information on what pot odds one needs. Could someone help me with an example, ie What position should I be in? What should the texture of the flop look like? and what kind of odds do i need and why? Thanks
The odds of making a set on the next card are about 23 to 1 (2 "outs" of the remaining 47 cards in the deck). Of course, if you do hit your set, you are likely to get paid off with a couple of big bets on the turn, so your implied odds are generaly significantly better than your pot odds. You must also consider that someone else may draw to a straight or flush on you, or you may be drawing dead to a higher set.
Here is one example of when you might want to peel one off in hope of hitting the elusive 2-outer. You are on the button. Early position player limps in and gets raised by aggressive player directly to your right. You have TT and make it three bets in hopes of getting heads-up against aggressive raiser. Big blind calls, limper cold calls two bets and original raiser calls. Total of 12 small bets in the pot. Flop comes A-7-2. Big blind bets, original limper folds, aggressive player to your right calls. There are now 14 small bets in the pot. You are likely to be against two handslike A-K and A-Q or A-J. Since no one capped it pre-flop, a set of Aces is unlikely. So, if you call and hit a ten, your hand is likely to be good, withou hitting any other drawing hands or "scaring"you action.
Think about it this way. You are getting pot odds of 14 to 1 for your call. But, if you hit your set (a 23 to 1 shot), you are likely to get at least one big bet on the turn from each remaining player, and possibly 2 big bets from each. Let's assume that if you raise on the turn, one of the other players will fold, but the other will call you to the river.
So, your implied odds for hitting your set are: (14 small bets in the pot + 3 big bets on the turn + 1 big bet on the river) = 21 to 1. In this case, it would be a borderline call. As you can see, it probably doesn't happen that often. Also, if you paired card is on the board, rather than in the pocket, you may not get as much subsequent action. Sorry for the elementary explanation, but I hope it is more helpful than generalities.
By the way, you can see how you implied odds will get squeezed if you fear a raise, and possible reraise on the flop. Consider, for example in the case above, if the big blind checked, the other two called, and you feared a check-rasie from the big blind. In that case, you may have to put in up to 4 bets on the flop.
Michael wrote, "The odds of making a set on the next card are about 23 to 1 (2 "outs" of the remaining 47 cards in the deck)."
I realize he was discussing a situation where you hold a pocket pair that isn't an overpair on the flop. But I believe the original poster was asking for advice on how to play your hand when one of your hole cards matches the bottom or middle flop card.
In this situation, if the field isn't particularly large, you might have 5 outs, since two pair also will win the pot fairly often. Since two pair (and even trips) sometimes will lose, you might want to treat your hand as having only 4 outs. Since small-field pots are generally on the small side, the pot odds usually still do not justify the chase. If the field is larger, two pair will win less often but still should be taken into account (perhaps treating your hand as having 3 outs).
If you have bottom or middle pair with an ace kicker, you occasionally might want to raise with it from late position. Several advantages. First, against a small field of solid players, your semi-bluff raise might just win the pot immediately. Second, your raise might buy you a free look at the river (if the turn doesn't help your hand). Third, if you end up showing your hand, your flop raise makes your play less predictable (and gets you more action when you raise the flop for real).
Mason,
I have been playing hold'em and 7-card stud for about 3 years now. I have been reading a lot of books on these two topics. My question for you is, what books out on the market are a must read for these games? Also what are some really good books on tournament poker? I have recently got done reading some of your books(7-card stud for Advanced players and Texas Hold'em for advance players) and also the Super/system. I really want to become a solid and aggressive player in stud and hold'em. Not only in ring games but also in tournaments.
Thanks,
Dice
You need to read and reread many times THE THEORY OF POKER by Sklansky. POKER TOURNAMENT STRATEGIES by Suzuki which we publish is good but not great. I also recommend that you slowly read most of the other 2+2 books. And the books by Ciaffone are pretty good even though I don't agree with everything they say.
10-20 Holdem, late position with AQ suited, one limper, I raise, both blinds fold, limper is the only caller.
Flop is 345 rainbow, he checks, I bet, he hesitates, I am absolutely positive that he want to check raise, but he decides on just calling. I’ve been running very hot, turning over nothing but aces, kings, and sets. If I was running bad he would have checked raised me there.
Turn is a 5, he checks, I take the free card.
River is a 2, he checks, I bet, he calls with 88, I win $61.50 with a wheel after rake and toke.
If he had check raised the flop, I probably would have taken off one card, then folded when the 5 fell. I would have lost $40.
I won this pot only because I was already winning, a $100 swing, 5 hours wages at 1 big bet per hour, this is very significant. I think during the next couple of hours I won 1 or 2 other small pots solely because of my winning image.
My comment, sorry it took so long to get to the point, is that this seems to happen all the time. When I’m going bad I seem to be forever losing these kinds of pots and when I’m going good I’m able to pick up these pots, or get there when given free cards.
I read a lot of advice that if the game is good and you feel good you should keep at it even if you are badly stuck. I am convinced you should give it up. Play longer when you are winning. I think the advantages of a winning image and the disadvantage of a losing image are very underrated.
In general, I agree. The idea is, if losing has affected your mental state, you are NOT playing your best game, no matter how "good" the game is.
You have raised a point which I have advocated for years. When players are willing to give you free cards, not raise when they should, and not value bet into you in games with large pots relative to the bets such as limit hold 'em, you have way the best of it.
You also have the best of it when player lets come into a hand cheaply. Example: 3-6 limit hold'em kill pot. I am last with 68s. Several people drop. Winning player, but not the killer, does not raise. I call. Flop is 68J. I check. Two drop. Winning player bets. I raise. Other player drops. Turn blank. River blank. I bet both times and am called both times by a winning player whom I correctly figure for a pair, but not trips. He had A's. I win a hand that I would not have played if he had raised. Surprise!
Bobby,
This subject has been discussed on RGP a lot and some highly regarded pros have argued that you should play longer sessions when you're winning and shorter sessions when you're losing for the reasons you state. The other thing that I would add is that most players play much better when they are winning and so they should play longer when they are playing their best.
Tom Haley
I tend to agree with you about playing more when you are winning and less when you are stuck. For me, it's about my own mental state rather than how other players perceive me. This applies even if the game is good.
But are you sure it was your winning image that won you the pot? I don't think you won the pot only because you were already winning as you suggest. IMO, a weak timid, play is usually more indicative of a weak, timid player. Terrible players sometimes win and amass lots of chips. It shouldn't make aware players respect them, however. A winning image is more a function of how you are winning rather than solely the fact that you are winning.
By your account, you were turning over nothing but good cards. You raised behind him pre-flop. A weak timid player is not going to check raise you with a pair of eights. It just doesn't look that strong to such a player, but he has to call "just in case."
Good luck and I hope that hot streak never ends.
You are right about weak timid players, your current image probably wont affect their play.
But, in the middle limit games I see players who are too tricky, too loose aggressive. If they miss a flop of small cards they ‘put’ the raiser on AK and consider stealing. If they miss a flop with an ace in it they ‘put’ the raiser on KK or QQ and consider representing the ace. Most of these players lose in the long run, but they can cause you problems. You win extra bets from them, but occasionally they cost you an entire pot.
When these players are deciding whether to get cute or not they seem to back off against ‘hot’ players and go for it against players who are running bad. Overly aggressive players often are playing by the ‘seat of their pants’ and your current image can be the deciding factor in their decision.
I want my opponents bluffing frequency to be extreme. If extremely rare I profit by making good lay downs. If extremely often I profit by calling. If they are not extreme I have tougher decisions to make. When I’m running hot it seems that my opponents bluffing frequencies drop. This is just an impression of mine, it is so hard to measure these things, plus my perception of reality may be altered by my running good.
>>When I’m running hot it seems that my opponents bluffing frequencies drop. This is just an impression of mine, it is so hard to measure these things, plus my perception of reality may be altered by my running good.<<
As your comments suggest you realize, you have to be careful about drawing conclusions about causation simply because you see a correlation. Sometimes it may be that you are running hot in part *because* your opponents' bluffing frequencies drop rather than the other way around. Their bluffing frequencies may drop simply due to the cards they are getting or other factors unrelated to how you are doing. The same could be said of their other shifts in aggressiveness/passivity.
But, as you and others said, when it becomes apparent that your image *is* causing others to play meekly against you, then you have a good situation. Just be aware of which players are affected by such image changes and which are not. As I believe Mason pointed out in one of his essays, a skilled, knowledgeable player is not going to play differently or be intimidated just because you've been holding some cards.
I disagree about the "other way around" statement. The very reason you bluff is to make a player lay down his hand. Of the many types of players who will lay down a hand "hot" players miss the list. They've been running hot, and they will CALL. So that is exactly the kind of adjustment a "good, knowledgeable player" makes, is it not?
>>...So that is exactly the kind of adjustment a "good, knowledgeable player" makes, is it not?<<
You mean to stop bluffing someone because he's running hot? Yes, it can be. But I was posing a "which came first" question. i.e., if because of their cards (or their moods or whatever) your opponents start playing more passively, you may *then* do better as a result. It was just a caution to observe when your winning has caused your opponents' passive play and when it may have *resulted* from their passive play.
John Feeney
Bobby,
I believe your perception of reality is just fine. I agree with your points. I believe that there are certain players who will take a shot at moving you off of a hand when they believe you're weak after the flop. I also think that these players will try this less often when you are winning and more often when you are losing. I agree with Lone Star in that if you automatically call a check raise and fold on the turn you're giving up too much to these types of players. I agree that these types of players tend to overplay their hands a lot and are long run losers. I also think it is important to observe, if possible, how players play when they are ahead and when they are behind.
Tom Haley
Bobby, I have just a few thoughts on the way that you think he would have played the hand and the way you would have played this hand if you had been losing instead of winning.
>10-20 Holdem, late position with AQ suited, one limper, I raise, both blinds fold, limper is the only caller.
Someone limps in, then you raise. Now if you are a typical fairly tight player, this indicates a strong holding. You are not trying to steal as the limper will certainly call. The hands that I would put you on if I had been the limper are pocket 10's through A's, AKs, AK, and AQs. Perhaps a somewhat looser player would also raise with AJ and A,10s as the limper is unlikely to have an A.
>Flop is 345 rainbow, he checks, I bet, he hesitates, I am absolutely positive that he want to check raise, but he decides on just calling. I’ve been running very hot, turning over nothing but aces, kings, and sets. If I was running bad he would have checked raised me there.
Again thinking of the hands that you are likely to raise a limper with, a check raise on his part here is suicide. You most likely have a hand that beats him, and if you don't and in fact only have AK or AQ you are now likely to make a correct mathematical decision and decide if the pot size justifies the outs that you have. If you are an aggressive player, you may three bet his check raise representing an overpair (which, again, it is quite likely that you could have given your play of the hand so far). Now what is he supposed to do with his 8,8?
>Turn is a 5, he checks, I take the free card. River is a 2, he checks, I bet, he calls with 88, I win $61.50 with a wheel after rake and toke.
>If he had check raised the flop, I probably would have taken off one card, then folded when the 5 fell. I would have lost $40.
I guess I am not understanding your rationale here and feel that if this is truly the way that you would have played the hand, you are allowing yourself to get run over. He limped before the flop. Are you truly afraid here that you are beat with no outs? What sort of hands do you think he would have limped with? Okay, A5s and 6,7s are legitimate possibilities and in that case your play (of folding on the turn after the check raise on the flop would be correct). With most any other hand that he could be holding, you certainly have enough outs to call the turn bet, even after the check raise. The way I would see this hand is that a 2, an A, or a queen are most likely valid outs for me if I am currently beat. The chance that he is getting out of line with AJ or A,10 in an attempt to push you off of a bigger A are also valid thoughts.
>I won this pot only because I was already winning, a $100 swing, 5 hours wages at 1 big bet per hour, this is very significant. I think during the next couple of hours I won 1 or 2 other small pots solely because of my winning image.
I would disagree with your analysis of the reason that you won this particular pot, though I agree that in general your image tends to help you when you are winning. I think your opponent most likely considered the group of hands that you would raise his limp with, and elected not to get too aggressive as he might have been badly beat with only a couple of outs himself. Give some thought to what sorts of hands an opponent could have when you see a ragged flop. What sorts of hands could he have played from the position he opened in before the flop. Given the range of hands that you think it is likely that he could have, what is he trying to represent after the flop and how likely is it that he actually has the hand he is representing? Making a big laydown due to an inaccurate assessment of your opponent's possible hands is an extremely costly mistake.
Regards-
A quick question - at the showdown in 7-Card Stud, are you obliged to show all 7 cards or can you just show the five you are playing ? The reason I ask is that a short while back a guy was pressing me to find out whether I had a flush already made or hit it on the river, I wanted to conceal the fact that I had already made it but wasn't sure if I could.
Thanks in advance for any answer, and apologies if this would have been better placed on the Exchange Forum, I'm not sure where etiquette queries should go.
Andy.
It's not just etiquette, in most cardrooms you must show all 7 cards at the showdown to be awarded the pot unless all of your opponents concede the pot to you.
There's no particular requirement about the hole cards having to be shown in any particular order. Some people intentionally shuffle their hole cards before showdown so no-one can tell for sure if they made their hand on the river, or whether the straigt drew to the inside, or whatever.
With any called hand, you must show all seven cards. Usually, the dealer will turn your cards up if you don't.
As for concealing the fact of whether or not you got it on the river...who cares? You got the money. I've played in many games where some idiot who keeps losing his chips, is constantly saying, "you got that on the river...right?" I guess these people would rather be playing 6-card stud??? So you can tell them to go find that game...and have fun. This occurs in stud more than any other game, but can you imagine in High-draw, you draw one to a flush...hit it...and win the pot. The guy who stood pat with his straight says, "you got that on the draw...right?"...it's just as stupid in stud. If you win the pot by making a draw, and a weak opponant wants to make you feel bad about it...I say let him try...let him cry! If he constantly badgers you, propose this.."If you want to pay me $xx per hand, I'll ask the dealer to deal them all up to me." Or any creative comment will do. Maybe best of all, you can ask him what he thinks about your hand, and then agree with whatever he says...regardless of the truth. If it's, true he'll never know...he only knows what HE thinks is true.
C.J.
Andy Ward asks:
at the showdown in 7-Card Stud, are you obliged to show all 7 cards or can you just show the five you are playing ?
---------------------
generally, this situation is covered by the local "house rules," which will vary from casino to casino.
most cardrooms require that the winner of a pot display all seven cards face-up on the table. the rationale for this rule is to make sure that the winner has *exactly* seven cards, and no more and no less.
in atlantic city, new jersey, the "winner must show seven cards" rule is not only a house rule, but also a casino control commission regulation.
tiger
Mason what is your opinion on the book written by Reuban and Ciaffone on pot-limit and no-limit poker?
It's the best book on the subject and I recommend it.
How should I play KQo before the flop? The high card strength goes way down in value in a large multiway pot (like ATo or KJo). However, this hand is not strong enough to raise to narrow the field in early or middle position. In a very loose game, would this hand become playable in early or middle position due to the straight potential?
i would play the hand, then see what happens, if you are raised consider that, if you are not, but 10 people stay for the flop consider that. you might want to read the extensive review below under, did i play this hand correctly or is this why limit hold em is the best game in the world? it discusses this hand. you might decide that the best way to play this hand in a early position is to throw it away and avoid the headache.
The original poster complains about big offsuit cards going down in value in multiway pots. Nobody really seems keen on simulation results, but anyway, the TTH 2.0 simulations disagree. KQo is worth more UTG in a loose game than a tight game. I wouldn't play it at all UTG except in a loose game. Certainly A9s and A8s have higher EV's than KQ according to the sims, though _Holdem for Advanced Players_ recommends playing KQ but folding A9s and A8s UTG in a typical game. There are 12 ways to make KQo, but only 4+4 ways to make A9s or A8s, so if you dump KQo but play A9s and A8s you're actually playing fewer hands than the default S&M recommendation.
What's really important is whether people will be playing hands that you dominate, or hands that dominate you. In a loose game, KJo, Q9o, etc. will eagerly call your limp. KQo is still weak, because even fish can hold AK or AQ, and also it's not suited. In the sims, KQo plays better with a limp in a loose game, but better with a raise in a tight game, when opening in early position.
However, it's important to have a good shot at having the biggest unsuited high cards in the pot. The probability of having the biggest cards rapidly decreases as you go to weaker hands. KJo and QJo are negative in the sims for both loose and tight games UTG, as one would expect.
-Abdul
>The original poster complains about big offsuit cards
>going down in value in multiway pots.
They do.
>Nobody really seems keen on simulation results, but
>anyway, the TTH 2.0 simulations disagree. KQo is
>worth more UTG in a loose game than a tight game.
What assumptions is the simulation making? The profitability of KQo as high cards will depend greatly on the willingness of opponents to pursue marginal draws on the flop and turn. If computer opponents don't draw to four or five outers even when it is correct to do so, your top pair will hold up more often. Real players tend to call when they should fold or raise, and in a loose game, normally mistaken calls with any reasonable number of outs can become correct due to pot size. Also, does the computer check-raise and slow-play properly, etc? Straightforward play would favor hands like top pair, and they would then be overrated by the simulation.
>I wouldn't play it at all UTG except in a loose game.
Many bad players will play any ace. With KQo, you want Axo to fold pre-flop.
>Certainly A9s and A8s have higher EV's than KQ
>according to the sims, though _Holdem for Advanced
>Players_ recommends playing KQ but folding A9s and
>A8s UTG in a typical game.
Axs is good in loose games due to implied odds. Either hand is risky under the gun, since many potential raising hands will dominate them. In a more typical-passive game, I would play the A9s or A8s UTG.
>There are 12 ways to make KQo, but only 4+4 ways to
>make A9s or A8s, so if you dump KQo but play A9s
>and A8s you're actually playing fewer hands than the
>default S&M recommendation.
>What's really important is whether people will be
>playing hands that you dominate, or hands that
>dominate you. In a loose game, KJo, Q9o, etc. will
>eagerly call your limp.
If people frequently played those hands, that would add more value to KQo. However, you might run into more hands like ATo and A2s in such a game. While these don't dominate you, there are a lot of mediocre ace hands (even from players who don't play Axo) which are decent favorites over you.
>KQo is still weak, because even fish can hold AK or AQ,
>and also it's not suited. In the sims, KQo plays better
>with a limp in a loose game, but better with a raise in
>a tight game, when opening in early position.
I have avoided raising it in early position, since I would probably have to fold to a reraise.
>However, it's important to have a good shot at having the
>biggest unsuited high cards in the pot. The probability
>of having the biggest cards rapidly decreases as you
>go to weaker hands. KJo and QJo are negative in
>the sims for both loose and tight games UTG, as one
>would expect.
Neither KJo nor QJo should be played UTG. KQo adds straight potential, plus people play more hands with kings and queens than with jacks, and you dominate many of those hands.
With marginal hands, rake becomes an issue in low-limit games. Folding the borderline hands may increase EV as well as reducing variance.
Do you use simulation results as a basis for your professional play? If so, I would be interested in finding out more about the changes you recommend from the accepted strategies and in what evidence you have in support of those changes.
You wrote: "Many bad players will play any ace. With KQo, you want Axo to fold pre-flop."
and "However, you might run into more hands like ATo and A2s in such a game. While these don't dominate you, there are a lot of mediocre ace hands (even from players who don't play Axo) which are decent favorites over you."
Reconsider. This is a loose game. That means you must show down the best hand to win. With so many folks in there, the best hand is almost never A high or K high. That means, to win, you must improve. If you improve, then Ax in another player's hand only matters if there is also an A on the board. Thus, I don't think that you're concerned whether Ax folds preflop. You just want the flop to be K or Q high.
The real concern is AA, KK, QQ, AK, and AQ. These hands can trap you when you flop top pair. The concern about facing these hands is reduced, however, when you will sometimes be getting played with by people holding KJ, KT, K9, QJ, QT, etc. If you are getting paid off by these inferior hands enough, that compensates for the times that you lose to one of the dominating hands.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You don't want to be playing AT or KJ in a large multiway pot. Despite the fact that you may get paid by someone holding KTo or QJo or JTo, hands like ATo and KJo do well against small fields rather than large, since there will be fewer draws out that will cumulatively take expectation away from your top pair. With AT or KJ, your opponents are receiving implied odds from you, as you usually have to stay with top pair to the river, while low wired pairs or A2s can muck immediately if they miss the flop.
In addition to the dominated hands, there will also be more weak drawing hands against your KQo preflop, for which the calls may only have been marginally wrong preflop, and also, since there are many of them, the otherwise mistaken calls may help each other. I realize that Axo is not the problem in this situation. But in a loose game, people often overplay middle suited connectors and Axs in early and middle position, so you will often be facing multiple draws later in the hand.
In any case, you wouldn't cold call a raise in early or middle position with KQo, since there would be a good chance of facing a dominating hand. In a different situation, when first in, open-raising would probably knock out the dominated hands that are essential to your profitability. While you might also get the marginal drawing hands out, your raise would probably show a loss, since you would often be putting more money in against a dominating hand behind you..
So if ATo and KJo wouldn't be playable in this situation, why would KQo be?
>So if ATo and KJo wouldn't be playable in this situation,
>why would KQo be?
Sometimes KQ flops an open ended straight draw, and also AT is dominated by AJ/AQ/AK/TT/AA (partially by JJ-KK) and KJ is dominated by AJ/KQ/AK/JJ/KK/AA (partially by QQ), whereas KQ is dominated by AQ/AK/QQ/KK/AA, which is less likely to happen (6 ways to make pairs, 12 ways to make offsuit nonpairs). ATo and KJo are not far behind KQo in the simulations for UTG in a loose game, and they're very close to zero EV (AT is a tiny bit positive in the sims.) It should be obvious that KQ is superior to KJ, and it's not quite so obvious, but AT has more problems when it flops an ace than KQ does when it flops a king.
-Abdul
Also, when you look at the hands that dominate KQo, you see that these are hands that consistently bring forth a pre-flop raise in loose games, and so a careful player can find out where he/she is at quickly after the flop. In an unraised pot, KQo is a good hand.
> "What assumptions is the simulation making?"
Far too many to state. Most of the computer players *do* take pot odds into account.
>"If people frequently played [KJo and Q9o], that
> would add more value to KQo. However, you might run
> into more hands like ATo and A2s in such a game. While
> these don't dominate you, there are a lot of
> mediocre ace hands (even from players who don't play
> Axo) which are decent favorites over you."
I agree with Greg Raymer's response to this.
>"I have avoided raising it in early position,
> since I would probably have to fold to a reraise."
Huh? I don't believe there is any hand you should fold after open-raising and being 3-bet and only having to call one more bet. I'd feel sick with KQo, but I'd call and then play the hand very passively if I flopped a K or Q. True, if it's 4-bet back to you, you can lay it down, but even then, if several loose players have called the 4-bets, and the 3 and 4-bettors don't require AA/KK/AK to pull this stunt, you can probably call hoping to flop a straight draw.
>"Do you use simulation results as a basis for your
> professional play?
I take the simulations into account. When in doubt, I tend to believe the simulations. In fact, I can't think of where I disagree with the simulations in terms of the relative value of hands, though I often move the "zero line" up a bit, playing less hands than the simulator finds playable.
>"If so, I would be interested in finding out more about
> the changes you recommend from the accepted strategies..."
I've mentioned many such changes. Here's another one. In loose games, the suited aces follow sort of a roller coaster ride of value, falling in value from AKs to A6s, rising from A6s to A3s (with A3s = A7s), and then plumetting down to A2s (with A2s << A6s), which often isn't worth playing. It may seem like there should be no difference between A3s and A2s, but think about the relative vulnerability of each of these hands when they flop or turn wheels versus many opponents. I've never read about this nonlinear ranking in any book, but it seems very plausible to me.
>"and in what evidence you have in support of those changes."
Usually I can see rational explanations for the patterns revealed in the simulations. However, in general, people often see patterns and explanations where there are none. I wouldn't think much about the results except: I think TTH does a good job of simulating aggressive heads up play, though it lacks a good check-raise maneuver and so overvalues position; I think TTH does a fair job of simulating fishy opponents; I'm hoping that its flaws do not significantly bias one hand over others; the results are similar to those produced with other simulators I don't have access to, even though the results do not completely jive with S&M (e.g., A9s and A8s rating slightly higher than KQo in TTH and another simulator, whereas _Hold'em for Advanced Players_ rates KQo one group higher than A9s and A8s; another poker analysis using a third poker "simulator", which hasn't received good reviews, moved A9s and A8s up to S&M group 4 on par with KQ.)
The question I keep asking in response to y'alls questioning of simulation results is: what is the alternative? No fold'em simulations are a popular, but clearly inferior, alternative to full simulations. The only other alternative is human intuition/experience. Do you believe 3 poker simulators or two poker book authors when it comes to distinguishing small differences in expected value? One way I look at it is what would blackjack strategy look like if it were derived from human experience? Probably it would look much like John Patrick's, like splitting 5's versus 6, which is not the best play. Humans are not good at detecting differences in expected value except when the difference is very large or the variance is very small.
-Abdul
Abdul,
What if there is a "bug" or "bugs" in the software? It wouldn't be the first off-the-shelf software that was sold with bugs.
Tom Haley
Tom,
You write :
< What if there is a "bug" or "bugs" in the software? It wouldn't be the first off-the-shelf software that was sold with bugs. >
You are right, there are bugs and flaws in the program, as is to be expected from a project which is so complex and ambitious.
A little while back, Abdul posted his findings regarding QTs vs. JTs in a multiway pot based on TTH2 sims. I decided to take a closer look at how some particular hands played out with me "forcing" the flop. It was an "everybody folds to the SB" situation with the latter holding AA and the BB holding QTs. It played out like this :
SB raises, BB calls. (Forced) flop 8 9 J (rainbow).
SB bets, BB raises, SB reraises, ..... betting capped at maximum of 4 raises.
(I know that AA is played aggressively, but what about the straight threat?)
Turn = blank
SB bets, BB raises, SB reraises, ..... capped again.
(Once again, totally ignoring the possible straight threat.)
River = blank
SB bets, BB raises, SB calls.
Pot = 21 big bets.
Another hand went like this (SB and BB still holding AA and QTs) :
SB raises, BB calls. (Forced) flop 9 J K (rainbow).
SB bets, BB raises, SB reraises, BB reraises, SB calls.
(1 raise less in this case.)
Turn = blank
SB bets, BB raises, SB calls.
(Seems to take into account the possible straight threat.)
River = blank
SB bets, BB raises, SB calls.
Pot = 14 big bets.
Upon further investigation, I found that TTH2 did not recognize flops of 89Q, 89T, 8TJ, 89J and 78T as "3-card straights" , and so if the board ended up as, say, Qs 9h 8d 4c 2s, someone holding QQ would "think" he held the nuts and would bet appropriately.
I posted my findings in that same thread, and also notified Bob Wilson of Wilson Software. Bob replied that he knew about this bug, and that it would be fixed for Version 3. I didn't say it then, so I'll say it now - I think Abdul should hold off drawing any conclusions regarding QTs vs. JTs till this bug is fixed.
A few days ago, I wanted to examine Bob Morgan's assertion that it would be better to fold T8o in the big blind following the small blind's raise (John Feeney's "hold'em quiz"). Well, TTH2 agreed with John and the others who maintained that a call was in order, unless the BB could definitely put him on AA, KK etc. If you knew that he had AK, it's still a definite call. I then wanted to see how T8o would perform with the "forced" flop of 9 7 2 (rainbow) against certain hands. Because this was heads-up play, I used Advisor_2 and was surprised to find that after such a promising flop, he would only call the flop bet and didn't raise. It took a quick sim to show that he was foregoing more than 50% of his EV by doing so (against an average hand). How a profile plays is crucial in determining whether a particular hand/flop/scenario is fairly represented or is over/under exaggerated. There are other situations where the profiles play too rigidly (either aggressively or passively) and here too discrimination of some sort could be the end result.
Sensitivity to pot odds are limited to straight and flush draws only. There are many other situations which would benefit from this feature. Also, sensitivity to pot odds is turned off if play becomes heads-up.
Does all this mean that the program is not worth purchasing? I have always extolled the virtues of TTH2 and still maintain that it is a prerequisite for any serious hold'em player. In the hands of an intelligent user, who is aware of its limitations and shortcomings, it can be a very powerful tool. So I for one will continue to take Abdul's findings seriously.
Etienne
Etienne,
Thanks for posting your findings. What you did is more or less what I was talking about with benchmarks. I just haven't had the time to develop some. I was thinking that in heads up situations would be the most practical for implementing the benchmarks. I would really like to do some for multi-way situations and I would guess that this is a more complex task.
I am not knocking TTH2 because I think it is good product. I felt highly confident, given the complex nature of the progamming task, that there would and will continue to be bugs in the software. I think that this doesn't necessarily detract (what software product doesn't have bugs?) from the product as long as you are aware of some of the limitations and take these deficiencies into account in using the tools. IMO Wilson needs to be a little more software quality concious. I think that Wilson needs to take the work you've done and expand on it and make it part of there quality control process. BTW, IMO Wison owes you a free upgrade. No doubt that as the users get to be more sophisticated and exchange information the quality of TTH2 will improve. I still want to do some work in developing bencmarks like you have done but I don't have the chance as I can't even respond to my e-mail because I'm on the road most of the time right now.
I too find Abdul's results and posts highly interesting and benificial. I will reiterate my encouragement that he continue to share them with this forum. Again thanks for posting your results as we all have benifitted from them I believe.
Tom Haley
Bugs in simulators are addressed by the scientific method. That is, any finding from TTH 2.0 should not be considered fact in any sense until it is independently verified by other researchers using other simulators. (And even then, it should be considered fact in only a very limited sense, within the assumptions of the simulators and conditions of the experiments.) The only time I feel strongly about results from TTH is when they confirm results from a couple other simulators. These confirmed observations include the increased value of A9s/A8s and decreased value of JTs (KTs>QTs>JTS, but just barely) relative to S&M. Etienne's noting of a straight-related bug in TTH 2.0 still leaves a couple other simulators saying KTs>QTs>JTs. It would be nice to have more confirmations from better simulators, but that will have to wait until there are more/better simulators.
Here's an example of a result from TTH that I don't agree with. Its best player (with all adjustments on) raises on the button with KTo after several limpers. I reported this to the Turbo author as seemingly suicidal, but he ran simulations to show it was positive. I suspect this is because Turbo has a bloated positional advantage, and the players don't limp-reraise with strong hands. But maybe there is something I don't understand and it's a good play?! I'd have to see confirming results from a couple other simulators before I'd consider incorporating this play into my strategy.
-Abdul
Etienne,
A very informative and well thought out post. I think your comment, "In the hands of an intelligent user, who is aware of its limitations and shortcomings, it can be a very powerful tool", is key. Such software can undoubtedly produce useful information *if* the user knows how properly to structure the simulation in order to address the question at hand, and knows how to *interpret* the results in light of the understanding of shortcomings that you mention. Abdul (who is clearly capable of such work) has shared some intriguing and provocative findings with us. But I won't be surprised if he brings us some revisions and changed conclusions down the road as his and other players' simulations evolve along with the software.
For now, I know I have at least benefited from being prompted to think through some situations more thoroughly than I had before. Mason and Abdul's recent debate on A8s made for some fascinating reading. I haven't yet changed my play of A8s UTG (Well, I did try raising with it once but, with my sample size of 1, didn't like the result and reverted to my former approach. :)), but I hope to see further discussion of this and other topics.
Another important point about all this is that some of the questions which have stirred debate, such as those concerning QTs vs JTs and even whether to call the raise with T8, are *very* situational. When the hand values are very close, or the decision is close, I believe situational factors will often dominate. This is basically what David S. said in a post titled "Hand Rankings" on November 8, 1997. Those interested in these issues should take a look at it in the archives.
John Feeney
We are down to the final seven players at a no-limit tourney. It is only paying 7 places, so you decide to go for the win. Two big stacks, directly to my right have about T10,000 between them. I am in the small blind with T2500, roughly tied for third with the big blind who has about T2200.
UTG (an unknown player with T1200) limps for T400. Floded to me in the small blind. I have A-8 of spades. I decide to call T200 and see the flop, as I don't want to risk a big chunk of my stack with this hand at this stage. Big blind (an aggressive, but not very skilled player) doesn't raise.
The flop comes: King spades - 7 spades - 5 hearts. I am first to act with an overcard and the nut flush draw. I think for a second about moving in in an attempt to pick up the T1200 pot, but decide that it would look too obvious given this "bluffable" flop situation. I decide to check and go for a check-raise if someone makes a weak bluff attempt, and fold for a big bet or bet and call.
Sure enough, the big blind stabs at the pot with a weak T500 bet. I am now sure that he does *NOT* have a King or two-pair, or he would have legitimately bet to protect his hand with two spades on the board. I put him on second/third pair, a straight or flush draw, or garbage. The UTG makes life easy by folding.
I figure I'll blow the big blind out of the pot and move all-in for my remaining T2100. To my surprise and dismay, he calls for his last T1300 without hesitation. I am still sure he doesn't have a big King, or two-pair, but get a bad feeling that he may have something like a J-5 of spades (bottom pair with flush draw). Or maybe he was trying to induce a raise from the limper. No, this guy is not that smart. But hey, like Texas Dolly recommends, I have my money in with plenty of outs. And since I have no more decisions to make, why waste brainpower trying to read his hand?
Turn comes Jack of clubs. River is a 2 of hearts. To my delight, the big blind says "I missed" and turns over Q-4 of spades. I say "so did I", and take down the money with my Ace high.
A few questions: 1) Should I have raised before the flop?; 2) Do you like this play on the flop or would you take other action (check & fold, bet right out, etc.)?; 3) How could this guy make such a call? I would have been steaming if he had spiked a queen or a 4 to beat me, but would somehow have also felt responsible for putting myself in such peril given my nice chip position.
who knows why people do the things they do. i would have thought along the same lines, i generally check raise all in on a even money situation. if i were him of course i would have laid down my hand. if you bet out and got raised, you might have a call there (im no expert on tournament situations, or money games for that matter), but you would no longer have two ways to win- ie. a fold or a draw out. with 12 outs (times two) they say that they say in housten you are even money. even money plus the chance of winning on the flop puts it at better then even money in my book. of course you might have won on the flop with a simple bet, but the check raise is much more scary, plus you get the chance to pick off a bluff with a all in semibluff. (of course as it stands i realize you would be a bit of a dog against a made hand if you bet and get raised, but as long as we are folling doyles advice we got to protect our children and our image if that should happen-though i suspose that wouldnt apply to a tournament). any way i would have played it like you did- try to pick off a bluff with a all in checkraise. anybody else care to comment on this interesting situation?
i have no idea what you are talking about. i play pot limit omaha and while im not as yet knocking them dead i think i have the rules down pat. take two cards, and only two cards, and no less then two cards, from your hand. match them up with the five board cards and form the best poker hand. high or low. number one makes sense. trips on board, nobody has quads, highest pair makes the best possible hand which is a full house. if there is one pair on board, if nobody has a set, full house, flush, or straight- then the highest two pair wins. i dont know what they are playing in calif. but its not omaha.
something is wrong with what you are saying. my explaination should suffice for getting the rules straight. write it down, call the casino, and ask them to explain what they are doing.
I dont want to be taken the wrong way on this , so ill make it short, and please dont think i am criticising working with computers, and i encourage the programers to make them eventually so smart that they can beat a world champion. my computer is stupid, no matter how smart i try to make it, the problem is i know what my computer is thinking, and my computer has no clue what im thinking. now obviously the fine players who are inviting a rethink of playing axs up front know a whole lot more about running simulations then i do but ive found that axs is not a profitable hand up front in a tight game. i will admit ive not done a lot of experemtation with the prospect, nor have i tallied the results, thats not my point. my point is that these simulations do not yet come within a universe of human intelligance, or stupidity. comments?i
I have to agree with you. Poker has too many variables. Its easy to make believable Simulations of Blackjack because the Dealer has to act a certain way, but Poker is an entirely different beast that quickly becomes so complicated that only the "Human Brain" is able to keep up with its complexity.
I think that Raising Axs UTG is a trap hand for me. Abdul may have the experience to play it right, but what do you do when an Ace hits the Flop? I would be very tempted to Show down my Axs and probably be shown a better Kicker. In fact I've been on the recieving end of the TTH2 PC players when they have played these types of hands. I just slowdown and let them try to run me over when I have AK or AQ.
CV
im not saying id never do it, but in a ring game it would have to be damn tight, and my winning would not have so much to do with showing down any sort of hand as on other factors.
AK with a board of 3389K beats TT with that board, just like it does in Hold'em. The hand AK is playing is KK33A, and the hand that TT is playing is TT33K.
In Omaha, you use two from the hole, and 3 from the board to make the best 5 card hand you can - why do you think that's wrong? It's confusing for a little while to players that are not used to it, but it's not hard to figure out.
of course silly me. stephen is right you know, i read you question but did not look too closly at your board. bit to much to drink this am. good thing im not in a pot limit game this am. read these poasts and that should answer your questions. please be careful , dont try to use three out of your hand or just one out of your hand.
Now that I have Supersystem to go along with my 2+2 I have all the books that I need. However I am curious about a book titled Thursday Night Poker. A poster on RGP said that is was excellent. What is your view?
I have not read it.
I liked it. The book tries to outline appropriate play for the rather looser home games that most players play in. However, if you usually play casino poker, then it is not for you.
I'm a beginning holdem player. I've read a few of the 2+2 books and have a good understanding of fluctuations and standard deviations and have just recently been getting some decent playing experience at the tables in the Bay Area. My question to the experienced players (pros & semipros) is this: Say you play 5 days a week, how many on average are winners and how many losers? This question may sound stupid because I know its all one big session and you shouldn't let short term fluctuations get you down, but I'm really curious from quys like Mason or David & others who play for a living how often they actually walk away winners.
On the same note, do guys like Mason, David, & other pros have days or weeks of bad luck too or does that reduce the more experience and knowledge you get.
Thanks in advance.
Matt,
I think you are already focusing too much on short term results. It depends on the difficulty of the game and how long you play. IMO the results aren't that predictable over the short run. I'll give a somewhat crytic answer by saying that if you are much better than your opponents you should have winning sessions often.
Tom Haley
Sklansky has said in the past that he only plans to win 2 out of 3 Sessions.
I believe that if you are really interested in how you are doing, you should keep accurate records of your Session Wins and Losses (I hope you allready do). Its very easy to make a Spread Sheet of your Sessions which can tell you your average Hourly Rate and other things like what Size of Bankrole you should be keeping, and how much Variance is in your game. You will probably want to purchace "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" for some of the Formulas used in these Calculations.
CV
I am a part time blackjack player who is interested in learning poker. Are the fluctuations as bad in poker as they are in blackjack? I feel confident about my abilities in blackjack because it can be quantified -- using simulations, testing myself at counting, and various books showing the expectation from various spreads, etc. How can you determine whether a poker loss is due to negative fluctuation or just poor playing?
I have read Fundamentals of Poker by Malmuth and Loomis, (very basic), am currently reading Mike Caro's Book of Tells, and just ordered a copy of Advanced Hold Em by Sklansky. Anything else I should read or learn to get started?
Revere14
If you're just beginning. I'd suggest investing in Wilson's Turbo Poker Simulators. The Hold'em one is very good. It will keep track of your wins and losses. This will give you some idea of your Fluctuations.
Of course, this is not the same as a Live Game. You definately need to get lots of experience at the Table. But you should be confident in your game before you sit down at Casino Poker, unless losing money doesn't bother you.
If you are a good Poker player your Fluctuations should be less than in Blackjack.
CV
Revere14 wrote:
>I am a part time blackjack player who is interested in >learning poker. Are the fluctuations as bad in poker as >they are in blackjack?
No. For a given win rate, I believe that you almost certainly will require a smaller bankroll for poker than BJ. This is because most winning poker players have a much larger edge than a BJ player with the same hourly win. That is, most good BJ players achieve an edge of maybe 1%, at whatever stakes they play. Most winning poker players have much more edge than this, some may even exceed 5%.
>I feel confident about my abilities in blackjack because >it can be quantified -- using simulations, testing myself >at counting, and various books showing the expectation >from various spreads, etc. How can you determine whether a >poker loss is due to negative fluctuation or just poor >playing?
That's one of the hardest parts of this game. Mostly, you have to have good judgment, and confidence in that judgment. When you're not sure, you hopefully have some trustworthy friends who can watch your play and advise you.
>I have read Fundamentals of Poker by Malmuth and Loomis,
>(very basic), am currently reading Mike Caro's Book of >Tells, and just ordered a copy of Advanced Hold Em by >Sklansky. Anything else I should read or learn to get >started?
Try to read everything you can, of course. However, other good reads are Super System by Doyle Brunson, Theory of Poker by Sklansky, and Winning Low Limit HE by Lee Jones. Mostly, you should try to gain experience at lower limits, and move up as you see that you are beating the game and have the bankroll to do so.
Good Luck, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
The Fossilman pretty much says it all. I would only add the following to your question: "How can you determine whether a poker loss is due to negative fluctuation or just poor playing?"
One answer would be that if you don't know, it's probably due to poor playing since being able to assess your current game is a function of good playing. What I do is keep a little 2"x4" notepad diary during a session and record every time I win a pot and where my stack is each hour. That way, when I win an above average number of pots in an hour but my stack is negative (or even or only slightly ahead) from the time before I know I need to think back on the past hour and figure out why this is so. Since I'm only thinking back on the last hour it's easier to actually remember what occurred. If I'm playing too many hands, taking marginal hands too far, calling with inferior draws (lord but I hate drawing dead!) etc. then I can catch it early enough that tightening up has enough time to take effect on my bankroll. If all the wins are small pots (not being raked for the max) then I can assess the game to see if I need to get off of a too tight table, whether my table image is too tight, did I just catch the few short pots at a normally loose table, are there a couple tight players that look like they are leaving etc. If I flopped several draws with proper odds that all missed then I can figure it was negative fluctuation and play accordingly.
Whenever someone asks if I'm writing down the individual hands I always tell them "no, I'm just recording what is being paid in rake/drop/toke to see how much I'm paying for the privilege of playing." And this is the truth because I am figuring that as well, I just don't want anybody to know that I'm using the information to improve my game.
Mark
Revere14,
After you study the Theory Of Poker by David Sklansky you should be able to determine this easily.
Tom Haley
Bankroll fluctuations in poker can be almost an order of magnitude lower than in blackjack.
In a multi-deck blackjack game, to win $15/hr you can be looking at a standard deviation of $400-$500 per hour, or even more depending on how you're beating the game. If you're beating the game by spreading small but leaving the shoe on negative counts, your variance will be smaller. On the other hand, if you're beating the game by playing all counts but spreading 8-1 or more, the variance will be quite a bit larger. If the game offers surrender, variance will be cut by perhaps 20% or so.
In Holdem, a typical standard deviation for a good player might be somewhere around 15 Big bets per hour, with a win rate of perhaps 2 Big Bets per hour. Therefore, if you're playing 5-10 Hold'em you might have a win rate of $20/hr, with a standard deviation of $150/hr.
Different games and different limits are going to show different results, but typically a winning poker player will see much smaller swings in his bankroll than a winning blackjack player.
Dan
Which are the best books to study for an intro to Omaha? (I know Ray has an advanced book) Any ones to especially avoid?
Mason, David and Ray I value your opinions
I'd say pickup Ciaffone's and Zee's Books on Omaha and avoid the rest.
CV
I found Shane Smith's work to be an appropriate introduction for Omaha H/L 8 or better.
In Omaha 8 or better you can win 1/2 or1/4 or3/4 of the pot. 1/6 is another possibility. So who can tell me ALL of the possible fractions?
OK, I'll bite.
First some assumptions. Rake, Drop, tips are neglected. Also there are no side pots (almost impossible in a low limit game with a big pot. :)....)
This is my quick stab at the fractions of the pot one can drag in Omaha:
1 ¾ 2/3 5/8 7/12 ½ 1/3 ¼ 1/6 1/8 0
Of course there are multiple ways to drag the same fraction. The time it takes to have the dealer push me 7/12ths of the pot is the reason why I don't play much Omaha anymore. This along with the side pots. Tho, I think some of the worst play is in low limit Omaha...
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Assuming no more than 10 players and no less than 2, I arrive at the following: 1/20, 1/18, 1/16, 1/14/, 1/12, 1/10, 1/9, 1/8, 1/7, 1/6, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 11/20, 5/9, 9/16, 4/7, 7/12, 3/5, 5/8, 2/3, 3/4, 3/10, 11/36, 5/16, 9/28, 7/20, 3/8, 5/12, 13/60, 2/9, 11/48, 5/21, 4/15, 7/24, 7/40, 13/72, 3/16, 11/56, 5/24, 9/40, 3/8, and the lovely sweep.
The way I see it,the least that one can win in Omaha 8 is 1/14 of a pot.This happens when the final board is a straight(leaving 15 cards of that straight left)For example,the board is A,2 3 4 5 .If everyone stayed the seven people with 2 wheel cards split the low.I would therefore guess that the answer would be 1/14 and all the fractions greater than this that combine lows and highs.(seven people splitting low or high combined with 1-7 winning the other half,then 6 people splitting low or high combined with 1-7 winning the other half and so on down to one)
I am too lazy to do this completely, but a key point to consider is how many ways you can tie in each direction.
On low end, the worst case appears to be when there is a wheel on board, and anyone with two unpaired wheel cards can tie for low. Since there are a total of 20 wheel cards, with 5 on board, there can be at most a 7-way tie for low. So the low fraction can be 1/n, where 1<=n<=7.
On the high end, the maximal number of ties also appears to occur when there is a straight on board, which allows from 1-way to 7-way ties.
However, these are not orthogonal-- you can't have a 6-way tie for high and a 7-way tie for low. I don't have the time to work out the details, but at a minimum, the answers must include:
1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6, 1/7
(all possible with broadway on board)
A wheel on board with a possible flush for high adds
1/6, 1/8, 1/10, 1/12, 1/14 (low) 2/3, 5/8, 3/5, 7/12, 4/7 (low split + high)
A wheel on board with some players having a 6 or 67 for the high straight allows 1-4 way high splits combined with 1-7 way low splits for:
1/2 (1/n) + 1/2 (1/m) where 1<=n<=4, 1<=m<=7.
This set of numbers together with (1/n, 1<=n<=7) _might_ be complete. So at a minimum the answers are:
1/7, 1/6, 11/56, 1/5, 5/24, 9/40, 5/21, 1/4, 4/15, 7/24,
9/28, 1/3, 7/20, 3/8, 5/12, 1/2, 4/7, 7/12, 3/5,
5/8, 2/3, 3/4, 1
(Mathematica-aided list!)
Total of 23 possibilities (so far). Anyone want to add to this?
There are 28 distinct possibilities, namely those numbers of the form
1/2 (1/m) + 1/2 (1/n),
where n < m and n ranges from 1 to 4 (or -infinity) and m ranges from 1 to 7, or where m = n and ranges from 1 to 7 (or infinity).
This is because a low or high can be split at most 7 ways, and at most 4 ways without playing the board. If both high and low play the board, then m = n in the notation above. As already pointed out by someone else, when the board is a low straight, all 28 possibilities can be realized by appropriate sets of hands.
The complete list of fractions: 0, 1/14, 1/12, 1/10, 1/8, 1/7, 1/6, 11/56, 1/5, 5/24, 9/40, 5/21, 1/4, 4/15, 7/24, 9/28, 1/3, 7/20, 3/8, 5/12, 1/2, 4/7, 7/12, 3/5, 5/8, 2/3, 3/4, 1
Since James Layland posted this entire list, minus the smallest 5 entries, I would assume that this was some sort of transcription error.
-Tom Hayes
< * Types of splits *
If a player is shut out of either the high or low, they will win a fraction 1/n of half the pot, or 1/2n of the entire pot.
If a player wins part of the high (split m ways) and part of the low (split n ways), they will win 1/2m + 1/2n = (m+n)/2mn of the pot. If m=n, this reduces to 1/n.
* General conclusions *
As far as I can tell, there is no way for more than 7 players to split either the high or the low. I will not present a proof, but here is an example: The board is 5432A. That means that anyone with two wheel cards can make a wheel for low. However, after the board is dealt, only 15 wheel cards are left in the deck, so only 7 players will be able to have a wheel. The same would apply to a board of 65432 if nobody had an ace, or for high, a board of TJQKA.
There is no way that more than 4 players can split if anyone can improve on the board. This is because there are only four cards of each denomination. If the board is 9TJQK and somebody has an ace for the straight, only three other players can have an ace to split the high. Note that improving the board by making a flush or straight flush eliminates the possibility of a tie, so if 2+ players *both* improve to tied hands, it has to be because they have a card of a particular denomination.
In a pot where both the high and low are split, and both splits involve more than 4 players, it means that all players are using the unimproved board for both high and low. (Otherwise, the conclusion of the previous paragraph would be contradicted.) Therefore, both the high and low will be equally split. (Here m=n).
* Categories of split fractions *
0) Scooped pot
0 1
1) Player is shut out of high or low, and splits the other n ways. Fraction = 1/2n, and n=1..7
n=1: 1/2 n=2: 1/4 n=3: 1/6 n=4: 1/8 n=5: 1/10 n=6: 1/12 n=7: 1/14
2) Player wins both high (m players) and low (n players), and m=n. Fraction = 1/n and m&n=1..7
Fractions: n=1, m=1: 1 n=2, m=2: 1/2 n=3, m=3: 1/3 n=4, m=4: 1/4 n=5, m=5: 1/5 n=6, m=6: 1/6 n=7, m=7: 1/7
3) Player wins both high and low, and m>n. Fraction = (m+n)/2mn, m=2..7 and n=1..4 (these limits are due to the fact that a scenario where m<>n, m>4, and n>4 is impossible)
Fractions: n=1, m=234567: 3/4, 2/3, 5/8, 3/5, 7/12, 4/7 n=2, m=34567: 5/12, 3/8, 7/20, 1/3, 9/28 n=3, m=4567: 7/24, 4/15, 1/4, 5/21 n=4, m=567: 9/40, 5/24, 11/56
Here is a list of all fractions in numerical order:
0, 1/14, 1/12, 1/10, 1/8, 1/7, 1/6, 11/56, 1/5, 5/24, 9/40, 5/21, 1/4, 4/15, 7/24, 9/28, 1/3, 7/20, 3/8, 5/12, 1/2, 4/7, 7/12, 3/5, 5/8, 2/3, 3/4, 1
After working out the numbers,i get:(ascending order):0,1/14,1/12,1/10,1/8,1/7,2/7,1/6,11/56,1/5,2/9,5/21,9/40,1/4,/4/15 ,7/24,13/42,9/28,1/3,11/30,12/35,7/20,3/8,11/28,5/12,9/20,8/15,10/21,1/2 ,8/15,4/7,7/12,9/14,3/5,5/8,2/3,7/10,3/4,1
Here is another list of the possible Omaha fractions in ascending order, along will all of the ways that each fraction can be reached. (If there is no low, the fraction will be listed with the word "only", if there is both a high and low, two fractions will be listed as a sum, with a zero being used if the players misses out on either the low or the high.)
0: (0 only) (0 + 0)
1/14: (1/14 + 0)
1/12: (1/12 + 0)
1/10: (1/10 + 0)
1/8: (1/8 + 0)
1/7: (1/7 only) (1/14 + 1/14)
1/6: (1/6 only) (1/6 + 0) (1/12 + 1/12)
11/56: (1/8 + 1/14)
1/5: (1/5 only) (1/10 + 1/10)
5/24: (1/8 + 1/12)
5/21: (1/6 + 1/14)
9/40: (1/8 + 1/10)
1/4: (1/4 only) (1/4 + 0) (1/6 + 1/12) (1/8 + 1/8)
4/15: (1/6 + 1/10)
7/24: (1/6 + 1/8)
9/28: (1/4 + 1/14)
1/3: (1/3 only) (1/4 + 1/12) (1/6 + 1/6)
7/20: (1/4 + 1/10)
3/8: (1/4 + 1/8)
5/12: (1/4 + 1/6)
1/2: (1/2 only) (1/2 + 0) (1/4 + 1/4)
4/7: (1/2 + 1/14)
7/12: (1/2 + 1/12)
3/5: (1/2 + 1/10)
5/8: (1/2 + 1/8)
2/3: (1/2 + 1/6)
3/4: (1/2 + 1/4)
1: (1 only) (1/2 + 1/2)
*********************************
These are the fractions in your list that are not in my list:
2/7: (1/7 + 1/7)
2/9: (1/9 + 1/9)
13/42: (1/6 + 1/7)
11/30: (1/5 + 1/6)
12/35: (1/5 + 1/7)
11/28: (1/4 + 1/7)
9/20: (1/4 + 1/5)
8/15: (1/3 + 1/5)
10/21: (1/3 + 1/7)
9/14: (1/2 + 1/7)
7/10: (1/2 + 1/5)
When both there is both a high and a low, all fractional pot splits will be in the form 1/2n. For example, if 3 players split the high, they will each get one-third of half the pot, which is 1/6. That means that if a hand has both a high and low, both pot splits will have even denominators, like 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/10, 1/12, or 1/14. That is why none of the above fractions are possible (splits of 1/3, 1/5, 1/7, and 1/9 are used).
I solved it then read the other posts, and this post agrees with my findings. .. err .. I agree with these findings.
There are a total of 28 different possible fractions you can get at Omahaha high/low.
"Sadistic"? Naaaaw ... this was just a nerd test ...
- Louie
In Omaha 8/better there are 12 possible fractions to get a share of the pot. With a board like A2345, every single hand with A2, A3, A4, 23, 24, 34,35, 67, 67, 67, 67 and K high flush.
3/4,1/2,1/4 1/5,1/6,1/8 1/7,1/8,1/9 1/10,1/11,1/12
Am I correct? Please advise
1/2,1/4,1/6,1/8,3/4,5/6,7/8,2/3,5/8,5/12,1/3,7/24,3/8,1/3
I think that is all of them, but I am doing them fast in my head so maybe I missed some; haven't read the other replies yet.
Every now and then I like a little mathematical challenge so I'll take a shot at it.
I think the easiest way to solve this is to put this is in a simple matrix. The most a pot can be split for high is 7. This occurs when a straight is on the board. There are a total of 5x4=20 cards available for that straight, 5 are already on the board which leaves 20-5=15 cards for 7 potential players which all get 1/7 of the pot (assuming no one has a higher straigh and no flushes). The same holds true for low with for instance a wheel on board A2345. However with a high straight there can't be a low, and with a low straight there can't be a high straight 7 way split. The best we can do is a low straight that qualifies as a low with a higher straight possibility. In that case 4 people can split the high straight part, for example with a board of A2345 each would be holding 67. So all the fractions that can occur for the total pot are all the possible additions between the the fractions of the low and high part of the pot. The matrix looks like:
Sorry but the matrix is not working very well in this editor. When I tried to type it in with tabs, spaces, _, |, etc. and previewed the message the editor just bunched it all together one line after the other and it looked completely confusing, so much for my simple matrix :-) (Does anybody know how to get around that?)
Anyway I did it on paper and if I could have typed it in better the matrix would have had the fractions for the high part of the total pot on one axis and for the low part of the total pot on the other axis. The fractions of the low part of the total pot are 0, 1/2, 1/4, 1/6, 1/8, 1/10, 1/12, 1/14 and for high 0, 1/2, 1/4, 1/6, 1/8. After completing my matrix and disregarding duplicates I ended up with:
0, 1/14, 1/12, 1/10, 1/8, 1/7, 1/6, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 1, 2/3, 3/4, 3/5, 4/7, 3/8, 5/8, 5/12, 7/12, 4/15, 7/20, 5/21, 5/24, 7/24, 9/28, 9/40, 11/56.
A total of 28 fractions (including 0). There are some ugly numbers in there. This would be fun if that would ever happen: "Dealer, I'll take my 11/56th of the pot please".
"Dealer, I'll take my 11/56th of the pot please"
****************
"Also, you're a great dealer so I think you deserve a nice big $2.00 tip for your efforts this hand. That means I should toke my share, which is 39 cents. Can I write you a check?"
This thread has been extemely impressive. I just hope you guys were'nt expecting the final answer from me . I said I was a sadist, not a masochist.
Other than inside computers, I've never seen a floating-point chip used by a cardroom.
At my table, the lowest denomination chip is worth $0.50. So, if three of us split a $50 high-only pot, one of us will receive 17/50 of the pot and the other two will receive 33/100 of the pot.
Two more fractions to add to the list.
Posted by: Steve Macleod (smacleod@shaw.wave.ca)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 August 1998, at 6:57 p.m.
Posted by: Matthew Bjorge (ferday@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 August 1998, at 8:14 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 August 1998, at 10:04 p.m.
Posted by: pokerbluff
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 August 1998, at 11:23 a.m.
Posted by: Randy (refeld@computelnet.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 August 1998, at 4:05 p.m.
Posted by: Jelle Schoen (jschoen@securitydynamics.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 August 1998, at 6:27 p.m.
Posted by: Matthew Bjorge (ferday@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 August 1998, at 8:19 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 August 1998, at 9:20 p.m.
Posted by: Mitch
Posted on: Friday, 14 August 1998, at 2:18 p.m.
What are some guidelines for play before the flop when players make it three or four bets, or when you have a strong hand and have the potential to reraise or cap?
Clearly it is important to know the opponent, and to see if they normally cap with AKo or QQ or even other hands. Whether the initial raiser will ever fold to two additional bets is another crucial factor. But in general, JJ should be folded when the pot is reraised before it acts, but can call two more bets if it limped, QQ should call three bets rather than cap, KK or AA should always cap, AKo would depend on the raiser and reraiser's normal hands for the situation, but should generally call.
Is the above correct?
What about hands like AQs, AJs or KQs?
When several people call the capper or reraiser, can certain slightly less strong hands be played?
You're going to need about 5 or more people seeing a Capped Pre-Flop before playing hands under Group 1 and 2. This all depends on your opponents, but a couple things I allways think about when calling or Raising in these types of situations is my Implied Odds and Pot Odds. I'll happly call a Capped Pre-Flop with Medium Pocket Pairs if 7 or more people will see the Flop, I'm hoping to Flop Trips or better. Medium Suited Connectors play even better and possibly only need 5 players to see the Flop. Unless the game is very Loose-Agressive, you are most likely up against at least one Big Pocket Pair.
AQs is a tough call and is very tricky to play right. This takes knowing your opponents well if you Flop something like Top Pair. I somtimes throw it away and sometimes play it. It depends on how I feel about the game.
AJs I'd probably Fold before I called a Double Bet. Unless I Flopped a Flush Draw I wouldn't like my hand. Top Pair is asking for Trouble with a capital "T", and the Straight possibilitys are very limited.
KQs is a good hand but unless alot of callers are in the Pot I'd Fold it. I'd be wanting to make a Straight (this isn't a very good hand for Straight Draws), or Flush with it, and not Top Pair in a Capped Pot.
CV
An other thing to think about is the Fact that if many Tight players are seeing a Double, or Triple Raised Pot, they might all be holding High cards, thus Counterfiting one an others hands. This would make holding Medium cards (that could make Big hands) even more valuable.
CV
So:
It IS often proper to fold to two more bets when you open-raised in early or middle position. (Mason's essay Limit Holdem Quiz #1 indicated that most players won't do this.)
When it is three bets as opposed to four, medium pairs and medium suited connectors increase in value somewhat over unraised/once raised pots, since the high hands counterfeit each other, and would then be playable against fewer than 7/5 opponents. (Also, the third bet probably keeps out all but the strongest suited hands in your suit; you wont face Axs or Kxs or QJ against your 76s, adding value to your medium suited connector.)
If you open for a Raise, especially in early Position, you should be able to play eventhough the Pot is Capped when it gets back to you. If you find yourself throwing a hand away in this position you shouldn't have raised with it in the First place.
When I suggested throwing away some hands like KQs, I was thinking that I hadn't acted yet. If I had Raised with this hand and then got raised and reraised. I would call if the Pot Odds and Implied Odds looked favorable.
When I call with Medium Suited Connectors and Medium Pocket Pairs I'm thinking about the Odds of Flopping a Strong hand that could Beat a High Pocket Pair. If the Pot was Capped with 4 Raises and there was 7 players in the Pot, calling might be Right because Flopping a Hidden Set is around 7.5 TO 1. I then need add my Implied Odds (which have gone down considerably because of all the Pre-Flop raising) minus the chances of me making my hand but still getting beat. This is a close call between Folding and Calling and would depend on how loose the game is.
One thing I have to say is that if I was constantly being put in situations like these. I would be strongly considering finding a Softer Game.
CV
Chris Villalobos states: "If you open for a Raise, especially in early Position, you should be able to play eventhough the Pot is Capped when it gets back to you. If you find yourself throwing a hand away in this position you shouldn't have raised with it in the First place."
This is clearly incorrect.
I remember clearly a few weeks ago in a semi-tough game opening with a raise twice holding AJ, but folding for the two bets when it came back to me each time. Unusual, but not out of line.
I may have over simplified my statement, but I still believe it holds true in most cases. Some places where I would break from it is if I was on the Steel, or if I was against a very predictable player. Now that you've critisized my opinion please explain yourself. We are all here to improve our games.
CV
I don't believe in automatically capping with AA or KK. I know this is contrary to prevailing hold'em philosophy. If by capping the pot (I assume anyone will call for two bets more who has already put in two) I make it large enough so that it would be correct for a hand with five or fewer outs to cold call my potential raise on the flop, then I prefer not to cap pre-flop. An exception would be when it is three bets to me and the action has not yet reached the blinds, in this case I will cap with AA or KK. If I am the original raiser and also have the option to cap the betting, I consider the pot odds which may be available on the flop. I believe money is made in poker by those players who make fewer mistakes than their opponents. If by not capping before the flop, I can control the size of the pot such that players will be either making a mistake by cold calling on the next street or will fold for two bets, then I have made some on-the-flop decisions more difficult for the competition. To be considered is the additional possibility that the pot will just be capped by a player behind you anyway. In this case you have gained some deception value for possible use later in the hand.
Andrew,
You write :
< If by not capping before the flop, I can control the size of the pot such that players will be either making a mistake by cold calling on the next street or will fold for two bets, then I have made some on-the-flop decisions more difficult for the competition. >
I can see the validity of pot size manipulation under certain circumstances, but when you have AA, the EV you forego by not capping should more than outweigh any possible post-flop EV gain due to opponent error. IMHO, you are making the bigger mistake.
Etienne
Etienne states:
"I can see the validity of pot size manipulation under certain circumstances, but when you have AA, the EV you forego by not capping should more than outweigh any possible post-flop EV gain due to opponent error. IMHO, you are making the bigger mistake."
Please don't take this personally, but this reasoning is clearly wrong and tells me you have little or no experience playing cards. Mathematics is only about 10% of the game.
Joe,
You write :
< Please don't take this personally, but this reasoning is clearly wrong and tells me you have little or no experience playing cards. >
I have very little poker playing experience, a fact I don't hide.
< Mathematics is only about 10% of the game. >
Fine.
It would have been nice, though, had you shared some of your experience and told me why my "reasoning is clearly wrong".
Etienne
We've already been through this before but it's clear to me that Etienne is right.
This would be true if I were only going to play one poker hand for the rest of my life, and I happen to have been dealt pocket aces.
I expect to recover this *missed* opportunity to cap before the flop in two possible ways. First, an extra call or two on the turn because I didn't represent the big pair becomes possible sometimes. Second, since I don't always cap with the best pre-flop hands, in a future hand where I do cap it, the competition is much less sure that I have a *real* hand. There are other hands/situations where I'll cap it pre-flop without a big pair too. I simply do not want the middle and bottom pairs, or the gut shot draws (when four or five players stay for the flop) to correctly take a card off for two bets after the flop. There is an essay in Sklansky's "Getting the Best of It" (one of the paradoxes) which I believe applies in this situation. The EV in pocket aces is realized by forcing players to fold so that you are against just one or two at the river, or by having them make a draw against the odds.
Andrew,
You write :
< This would be true if I were only going to play one poker hand for the rest of my life, and I happen to have been dealt pocket aces. >
I must admit that at this stage hold'em to me is X days at the Mirage, sitting as a complete stranger at a $10-$20 or $20-$40 table (not because I've worked my way up from $3-$6 and $6-$12, but rather as a starting point 'cause I agree with the rationale of Tom Haley's learning curve philosophy as outlined in "I Couldn't Give a Hoot About My Variance" above) with the typical 20-30 minute player turnaround, where maybe after day 3 there will always be 1 to 3 players at the table whom I now know (or more precisely, who now know me). This total disregard for the concept of regularity, and familiarity with one's opponents, so prevalent in my hold'em thinking is a flaw which I'll have to work on. Mason M. says that it takes about 10-15 minutes for a top player to size everyone up, so I have no choice.
< I expect to recover this *missed* opportunity to cap before the flop in two possible ways. First, an extra call or two on the turn because I didn't represent the big pair becomes possible sometimes. Second, since I don't always cap with the best pre-flop hands, in a future hand where I do cap it, the competition is much less sure that I have a *real* hand. >
I did some back of the envelope calculations to reach my conclusion. The whole thing's very difficult to quantify, but I shall have another look.
< There is an essay in Sklansky's "Getting the Best of It" (one of the paradoxes) which I believe applies in this situation. >
Unfortunately, I haven't read "Getting the Best of It". However, on a recent trip down to the November 1997 archives (at the recommendaton of John Feeney to look at "Hand Rankings" --8 Nov-- by David Sklansky, a must read for everybody, pity I didn't see it earlier, thanks JF), I read through an interesting thread titled "Caro's objection to frequent pre-flop raising". Summarizing and snipping, Erik Reuter stated : "I believe Caro's claim is that the AA frequently picks up enough post-flop money to oftentimes make raising with AA less profitable than calling". Again summarizing and snipping, David Sklansky replied : "This however is not the case in the majority of casino games from 10-20 up to 40-80... Furthermore if it is the right play it is not usually because of the deceptive value". Now I know that this thread is about limping vs. raising, and not about capping, but if you've already mentioned David Sklansky, it's the closest thing I could find on this AA pre-flop vs. post-flop debate.
< The EV in pocket aces is realized by forcing players to fold so that you are against just one or two at the river, or by having them make a draw against the odds. >
I think you're giving too much credit to the player. In order to see how expertise (or lack thereof) contributes to a hand's EV, I took TTH2's tight lineup #1, froze the button on seat 10 (Advisor_T or Simple Simon) and gave it AA. For those unfamiliar with TTH2 (Turbo Texas Hold'em), Advisor_T is the program's best tight player, while Simple Simon is known as the "dumbest player in the world" and plays passively to the end of every deal without ever making a decision. The results for $10-$20 were :
Advisor_T : EV = +$61.3 per hand
Simple Simon : EV = +$45.7 per hand
For the button holding 77, we get :
Advisor_T : EV = +$5.1 per hand
Simple Simon : EV = -$11.2 per hand
So as you can see, you don't need any fancy plays to eke out a healthy EV with AA - your statement would be more applicable to a hand like 77.
Etienne
I'll continue to refrain from always capping with the big pocket pair. I probably want or have to cap about 70% of the time anyway, and I just tried to show specific instances where I felt capping was not optimal due to the number of opponents for certain sized pots. An application of Morton's theorum could be involved here. Again, my primary contention is that one profits at poker by making fewer mistakes than the opposition. If I can play in such a way as to increase the possibility of a mistake from another player, then I have gained even though sometimes this means forgoing one or two small bets on an early round.
I used to play exactly what my image was. Tight, very serious and solid. I was able to bluff when it was correct to bluff. But against some opponents, my good hands were rarely payed off. Then I got Caro into my head. Now I APPEAR like a wild man yet I still play tight, solid. Now my good hands get payed off much more even by other solid players. My win rate has gone up. Of course this is in Florida. I can't bluff as much I've noticed. But the extra called good hands more then make up for this. My image has nailed it home! Does this mean I'm no longer the predator?
I'm a college student who used to play 2-4 stud pretty tight and always lost money. Lately I came into some money (about $900) and my attitude about money loosened up and i started playing with more confidence. I have since moved to 2-4, then 3-6, then 6-12 holdem and am averaging about $50 an hour in winnings. I know this is unusual and won't last but my confidence is so high that I can raise as a bluff whereas before I would never do that. Once I even reraised a raiser as a bluff cause I KNEW he put me on a bluff. In the past the extra raise would've scared me enough not to try the bluff. Now I win big pots cause people think I'm a habitual bluffer even though I usually only aggressively bluff heads up. This gives me a decent shot of winning and good advertising if I get caught.
Joe:
I've written about this many times before so I won't go into details again. But I don't agree with your approach and I know of no successful players who play as you describe in limit hold 'em. I suggest you look at my book POKER ESSAYS for a discussion of what image is appropriate for each game.
I don't get enough quality hands to be worried about whether I'm going to get called; if everyone ALWAYS believed I had the nuts when I bet, I'd be plenty happy. Furthermore, there are too many calling stations out there to worry about whether or not you are going to get paid off -- usually you will. If I were primarily a limit HE player, my major concern would be how to avoid being consistently run down by maniacs -- NOT whether I was going to get paid at the river.
As Mr. Malmuth points out (elsewhere) there is more money to be made bluffing ..err.. stealing at holdem. And in the loose always-a-showdown games, there is more money to be made playing and betting your marginal (but winning) hands assertively (such as capping it with a big flush draw) than there is is waiting until you are sure; and then getting paid off.
A similar thing happened to me; where when I became more alive in a game (telling jokes which projected a "fun" image) I noticed that I was actually playing much better, taking advantage of situations I would never dream of while in my rocking-out mood and strategy.
I suggest you are playing better and this is associated with your "fun" image.
"Predator"? Predator's take; which looks like what you are doing now. What you describe doing before is letting them give it to you. If so, you ARE a "predator" but WERE a "carrion".
- Louie :)
Here is situation. Two players whith low cards in adoor call opening bet. Any one of them can have: 3 cards lover than 8, 3 suted cards whith 2 cards lower than 8, pair of 8's or lower wihth kiker ace or lower than 8, pair of aces, three of a kind. there is posobility of a raise.
Whith what hand can i call if not all three cards are suted?
1) any 3 cards lower than 6.
2) 567,457,467,347,357,367.
3) A27,A37,A47,A57,A67.
4) 237,247,257,267.
5) 678,568,458,468,478.
6) A28,A38,A48,A58,A68,A78.
7) 238,248,348,258,358,268,368,278,378.
Any thing else for other tread.
I am by no means a sold 7stud hi/low player, so just consider the following thoughts:
If the two opponents who called with low cards WOULD have raised with a solid hand, then you can play lots of stuff when they do not raise. If they would NOT raise even with a great hand then you must tighten up a lot.
Hands with an 8 are weak against 2 better low draws. You have to hope you make it and neither of them do.
Avoid the one way hands: groups 4 (237) and 8 (238). I dislike the staight 8 group 5 (568) hands (but I can't say why). Avoid the A8 group 6 (A38) hands against likely slow players (BTW, A28 is MUCH better than A78).
There must be more to this than I can think of.
- Louie
I thintk almost same i like gruop 1 2 5. 3 and 7 is for is not bad but i need more practice to play them. What yuo think about one-gap straight, two-gap straight; whit high card being 7. you did not like 8 this is resonable maybe i shuold to.
I was looking throught my new issue of Card Player and came across an article written by Bob Ciaffone. In the article he explains that playing 98o should be mucked. In the situation explained in the article his student was on the button, 7 people called and so did he. The flop came 5-6-7 rainbow and his student won a huge pot. He went on to say that position and pot odds are not as important as the number of people you have to fight for the pot. He goes on to say that unsuited connectors belong in the muck.
I clearly disagree with Mr. Ciaffone. If the game was loose passive and I was on the button with 7 players calling I would also call.
I would appreciate all comment and suggestions. Please let me know if you agree or disagree.
NOTE: In the article it did not say what limit the student was playing and what type of game (loose or tight). It also didn't say if anyone raised. I assume it was a loose game with no raise.
Thanks,
Dice
I think it is very close. This in fact is a hand that could proabably be analyzed fairly accurately by Abdul and his simulator(because value bets, tough folds, bluffs, and inducing or stopping bluffs are not as germaine to this hand).
I haven't specifically run this situation, but maybe I'll have time in the next week.
One hand I have run is QJo. Versus several limpers playing random hands, it's a huge money maker. Versus several limpers playing tight and not raising with their big hands, it's a huge money loser. These are extreme cases, rarely approached in real cardrooms, but this pair of experiments underscores the main strategic point: don't be dominated. It also underscores the extreme difference between no fold'em simulations and more realistic simulations, and also the sensitivity of the results of realistic simulations to what opponents are chosen.
In a real game, I would be inclined to fold 98o after several limpers. The reason is, you guessed it, I don't want to be dominated. People tend to limp with hands that dominate 98, like T9/J9s/Q9s/K9s/A9/T8s/J8s/A8. Also they tend to limp with hands like QJ and JT: hands that block the straight draw of 98 and that make straights when 98 makes two pair. On the other hand, I would be thrilled to call with 98s after several limpers. (I've done sims with two limpers, and even if they're tight, 76s shows a profit.)
One way to look at it is that in multiway pots, suited kings and queens start becoming more appealing, and so do suited connectors and pairs. Who's paying to increase their value? It's not AK, AQ, and KQ offsuit - they do okay. So, that only leaves the smaller offsuit cards to pay for the increased winnings of the rest of the hands.
A partially offsetting effect is that you have big odds, knowing that you can probably see the flop in a multiway pot for cheap, and you'll have position. But I think this effect is overemphasized by many players.
-Abdul
It matter whether this is a tight game or loose game; not just how many people are in.
If in a tight game suddenly there are 6 callers, you can BET there are some pretty good drawing hands out there (77, Axs, QJs). Compared to loose games where there are routinely several bad draws out (K6, 52s, 43, and 97), low suited-connectors don't go up much in value in a tight game since there is a much higher chance of having your flush beat already; and two split pair isn't going to win very often against 6 tight players.
In a tight game with your 98 you will surely be up against a couple straight draws when you hit two pair; and are likely to be up against two pair and a straignt draw when you make a straight; and a single pair isn't going to win since any overcard is likely to beat you. Pray for flop 993.
98 has much more value in a loose game; not just because of good implied odds when you hit and get paid off, but also because 98 is going to win a larger share of pots since there will be several worse hands out.
I think this situation (many tight players in) outweighs the "reverse bunching" affect, where since tight players play high card then there must be more cards for your low hand to hit.
- Louie
All good points. But in the past I've seen a couple of posts where Mason came at it from a different angle which would see the 98 as better against six callers in a *tight* game. His point (if I can get it right) was that such unsuited connectors do better in a game in which the other players do not have the tendency to go too far with their hands (e.g., a tight game). He didn't elaborate much, but I assume his reasoning was that if you flop something like just top pair, or perhaps even two pair, it's more likely to hold up if you don't have a bunch of players who are going to take a card off with all sorts of longshot draws.
But if you factor in your points as well, maybe the combination explains David's statement that it's very close. And it does *seem* very close doesn't it?
...mmmm...
I wonder which has greater weight: tight players start with better hands and so are more likely to beat 98, vrs tight players are, as a group, going to abandon weak draws letting 98 win more often with "pair" sorts of hands.
whath is corect image for stud games 10-20 and lower?
Since the ante is small and the players are hard to bluff the answer would be that your image should be looser than you really are to elicit extra calls.
Little stud is a game of small pots. This means that getting an extra call every now and then can be well worth it. Thus a loose image should be what you strive for.
The opposite is probably true for big stud where the pots quickly becoem large relative to the bet.
How much money i have to win in 1-3 before i go to play 1-5? And how mach money i have to lose in 1-5 before going back to 1-3?
500, 500
I should have posted in more detail. When I play now it appears that I'm there to gamble. I join in on the table talk, laugh and appear that I'm only playing for the fun. On the ocean cruises there are always new people everytime I play. Most of these players there drink a lot and are there to win and have a good time. I'm faking the way that I appear to them and that puts them off guard. I then take the chips"most of the time". Sometimes I raise with such a rediculous hand that they ask me were I learned how to play. Of course only now do I have the money to make that play. It has been paying off because when I have a hand whether or not it's a very strong hand they pay me off. But sometimes when I bluff I get picked off. When I first started playing they called me when the strengths of the hands were not close in value. For example I would have AK, flop a A. They would have A4 suited. They would call me all the time. But then after a while they started playing better against me. One friend of mine that I met told me that it was because they now knew where I was and required stronger hands against me. That was obvious. So I changed gears against them to get them to call me more often when I had a strong hand and they had a weak hand. It took me a while to play this way but I think I am now far better then I was when I met you at the Taj. Many people can pick up on the fact that you are sitting there very quiet, observing every hand and realize that you are a solid player. I think that you can be a 2+2 player and hide that fact. You don't have to play CRAZY TO APPEAR CRAZY!. Either way so many things in poker have more then one way to be useful
Let's all greet the next Mike Caro, Jr.!!!!!
Hey, Joe seems like a nice guy, don't insult him.
Last night I watched a very rare $50-$100 game(hold'em) being played and I was tempted to play. I knew four of the players and I don't rate them high. I play against them regularly in $15-$30. The others I just met. The gane shifted from tight to action many times. One big $3000+ pot developed and was won with a TJ suited straight to the king. One question that I have is this: In HDFAP the book is geared up to $30-$60. It is mentioned that other skills are needed for higher limits. What are those skills? And even though HDFAP is geared up to $30-$60 can it's strategies produce winning play at $50-$100? What would you make at $50-$100 according to the tables in Poker Essays:ie: ok,good.great?
Card reading skills don't seem to be teachable in a textbook format. Accurate card reading (and seeing through deception) is essential to winning at the higher limits. Strategy and tactics can take you through the middle limits if you're disciplined though.
Generally, the games get tougher as you move up. We wrote $30-$60 because we didn't want to encourage someone to jump into a game that was very tough (for them) and where they might lose their money quickly. When you are in this type of game, you need to play very well just to hold your own. Hand reading skills are very important, but being able to do all things are also important.
Played 5-10 up to 40-80. Seems 15-30 is a break point. Above, the weakest players seem to disappear. Interestingly, at 40-80, the best players seem to be fewer??????? Comments??
In Vegas, LA, and smaller venues, you'll often face the same fields at 20-40. A lot of those players are also habitue`s of the tournament circuit -- they've seen all your moves before and then some (a prominent example, Dr. Stern says that 20-40 stud is his main game). Further, I suspect a lot of those players are trying to scratch out a living, so unless I have a specific reason for practicing against that type of field or style of play, I dodge those games like the plague.
At 40-80 and up, if your game is truly sound, your biggest advantages come from your anonymity, ability to disguise your hand, and willingness to fight. A "solid" player will only win while good starting hands are coming to him/her and will eventually get eaten alive during periods of no hands and marginal hands (and in short fields). But, if you are lucky enough to live in S. Calif, you have a good chance to stumble into those games where the players aren't always as stout as their financing.
There are occasions, albeit rare, that a 50-100 game can play almost like a 3-6 game. If there are no 50-100 professionals in the game, then maybe you'd be a favorite, even if you've never played that high.
In my opinion the key to tough 50-100ish games is superior heads up play from the flop on.
As for how much money you could make, I've heard that it's not unusual for good players to average a big bet and a half per hour at 40-80, which would be $150 per hour for 50-100. Of course, it really depends on how soft the game is, in addition to your skill. You could also easily be the fish and not even realize it.
-Abdul
That's right I don't calculate my standard deviation. I keep records which include hours spent at the table and monetary results. I don't bother with figuring out my hourly rate either. It would be easy to do but it seems like a waste of time. I enjoy playing cards and I'm just hoping that I never run out of money. I keep track of my wins and losses because that's how you keep score. I seem to have a good idea about what games have a high variance and what games present themselves with a good opportunity to win money. I also feel I know what games are too big for my bankroll and to be quite honest I'm not all that concerned about losing my entire bankroll. I don't live off of my bankroll either so maybe that makes a difference. I don't "pyrimad" either so maybe that's the key.
I have read a lot on this forum and RGP about how you can use your standard deviation to evaluate how well you are playing. One thing Mason has stated is that when your standard deviation is too high it can mean that you need to read hands better. I already new that and I don't think I'll ever be perfect at reading hands but I'll keep trying to improve. In other words it wouldn't matter what my standard deviation was I will always try to read hands better. I think that goes for everything in poker. I could always improve on just about everything.
My opinion is that a lot of players simply enjoy keeping statistics about themselves and analyzing what they mean. I think that's fine if you enjoy it. For me I just seem to have more fun by just keeping it extremely simple buy focusing on having fun, playing my best, and trying to improve.
It also seems to me that my outlook is compatible with playing poker full time. If I am worried too much about going broke then I probably don't have enough money. If I can't sustain the life style that I want to have it should become obvious pretty quickly. Then I would either have to change my lifestyle; get a bigger bankroll and play higher; or find another source of income to at least supplement my poker playing. It seems that if you aren't very focused on your hourly rate you might actually have a better chance of not deceiving yourself as to how good you are. I just found it was more fun for me to keep only the essential statistics such as time of play, money won, and game played. I'm not even sure the hours are necessary.
There is one more thing I would like to discuss regarding the subject of going broke. The following is a very contrived and simplified example. Say that I'm going to play poker for the next 25 years. Say I start out at $10-20 and I play really bad but I can improve. Also assume I can lose $5000 a year playing poker and I'll quit after getting $5000 down and save another $5000 and work on the things in my game that need improving. So for the first 3 years I lose an average of $5000 a year but I gradually improve to the point where I win $20 an hour (sorry to use hourly rates it's the only way I know to get my point across). Now for the next 22 years I play 2000 hours a year and make I make a total of $880,000. You've invest $15000 dollars to make $880,000. I don't know why but I think this is better than starting out at $3-6 and working your way up. In fact I'm not sure that playing in $3-6 hold'em games is very relevant to playing in $10-20 and up hold'em game. Don't take this as poker snobbery as my experience has been that these games just play a lot different. In actuality if you read the Theory of Poker and HFAP and think about your game you probably will improve pretty fast. I know you don't all of the sudden turn into a higly skilled player as you gradually get better so I think things would be better than the risk-reward amounts I stated. If your destined to be a terrible player you should know that after going through $15000 or $20000. My whole point is that being too conservative can be very expensive. There are other things about variance and expectation that I could mention but I'll see if anyone else is interested and responds.
Tom Haley
As you know, "EV" is one of my pet peeves in life. I believe that the surest way for someone to ensure that they never get rich playing poker is trying to make a "sure" steady living at it. This brings to mind the time I mentioned a successful parlay that I'd made on RGP, and sure enough, someone piped up, "it still didn't change your EV." Jeeeez.
Earl,
I know where you are coming from.
Tom
Actually, this is a good point, and I agree with what Earl is saying. A large portion of my book GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS addresses this. It is difficult to get rich playing poker if your goal is a steady income. On the other hand, you won't necessarily go broke, and a steady income can produce a good life. I have watched many poker players, particularly the tournament stars, lose their wealth quickly. I for one would rather have some money and steady income than to have to tell someone just who I am and then ask for a stake. However, not everyone feels this way, and if your attitude is different, I don't object to it.
Tom,
Good post. I walk through life with a poker bankroll that fluctuates based more on the needs and holidays for my children and grandchildren than on my poker results. It is my extra money. Today I employed it for four hours in a 15-30 lowball game at the Commerce. Tomorrow, it will be used for the no limit tournament at Crystal Park. I know that my oldest son, his wife and their two children will be visiting at the end of this month and I plan on using it to fund a day at Disneyland and a couple dinners and maybe a present or two thrown in. Variance for me is a moot point because I always get more money to play poker if I somehow exhaust the playing bankroll. The $450.00 I made at lowball today will find its way back into another players pocket or will be used to fund some family outing that might have gone undone had I not had this discretionary money. Being somewhat "fishy", (I have gills, but prefer not to show them when actually in a game) keeping real accurate records isn't something that has been a high priority for me. By reading most posts on r.g.p. and bulletin boards like this, I am beginning to grasp that there might be more to this game than I heretofore envisioned. Don't worry though, your tapping on my aquarium isn't apt to make too many changes in my playing style since I am an overall net winner by my method of keeping score.
Big John,
This is sort of relevant. I have played with some pros who I consider not to be very good (usually their pro status is short lived) who get angry when players they consider to be "suckers" beat them in a poker game. Of course when these "pros" win it's all skill and when the "suckers" win it's all luck. Who really is the "sucker" or "fish"? The player that has fun playing cards, has a nice family, has grandchildren, doesn't worry about eeking out every nickel and enjoys taking chances or the "pro" who is scratching buy, in constant jeopardy of going broke and seems to be constantly ill tempered.
Tom Haley
Tom, I think what you are saying is that you are more of an intuitive player as opposed to a deductive one.
A deductive player relies heavily on the math and is constantly trying to objectively quantify everything to a binary (yes or no) level. Hence the heavy emphasis on mathematical calculations and terms like EV. They usually play a bit slower than others because they want to know in their own minds that what they are going to do is the correct thing to do. Naturally a big hole in their game tends to be the people factor.
Intuitive players have put so many hours into the game that they can rely on their first instinct for most situations. They can come up with the correct reasoning for a particular play but it takes some time to actually think it through (if they care enough to do that). For the intuitive player the most important things are "am I winning, am I losing, am I having a good time." Usually the biggest hole in their game is that they tend to bleed back too much, too fast. I mean, let's face it, the fun is in playing, not folding so the natural inclination is to decide in favor of playing a hand rather than dumping it.
Have you ever been reading through a holdem book and said to yourself, "That's right, that's the way I do it, and now I know why" or thoughts to that effect? Or even the reverse, "That's not right, I've tried it and it never works" (that's me reading HFAP and trying to apply it to $2/$4 and $3/$6).
Mark
Mark,
Actually I try to do well in both areas. I think you understand my point about $3-6 hold'em. Again I'm not knocking this level of play and I am all for games at this limit. I know a lot of players just prefer these games and also there are players that would rather start out at a lower limit. I just wanted to say that I think there are other ways at approaching mid limit games than "paying your dues" at the lower limits.
Tom Haley
Tom,
Personally I think that the main purpose $2/$4 and $3/$6 games serve is to keep the card rooms going. It's only secondary that they provide a venue for new players. My best description of them is that they are "a pile of chips at one end of a table being constantly pushed across a hole in the middle of the table." They can be beaten, but not by a significant number of players.
Mark
The problems I find with 3/6 and most Low Limit games, is that they are too good. (I think Mason actually did an Essay on this Subject.) I've found that moving up from 3/6 to 4/8 at my local card room (4/8 is the biggest game)has increased my Hourly Rate dramaticly. And the games are usually much better when I can play them Short Handed. I think this is due to the fact that I can actually get into more Pots.
CV
First of all is the fact that it can be important to keep track of your hourly rate and to analyze the accuracy of that rate with the help of your standard deviation. That would be the case if you are making your living ,or a good part of it by playing poker and you play at a place that offers a choice of different stakes and different games. It could add up to a lot of money if, for instance you have been playing mainly 20- 40 and your results would have proved that it is generally more profitable to play 15-30 (A common California mistake).You also need this kind of analysis to decide whether your bankroll is big enough for a particular size game. As to the idea that deductive players tend to be weak in the people factor, I believe that this is a rationalization that is used by those who can't or won't put the effort into studying the math and logic of poker. They need to justify their ignorance. After all if you take a good intuitive player and teach him math and logic, will he not now have both skills? There seems to be an absurd notion indirectly put forth by some people that if you learn probability you lose you instinct. This is obviouly ridiculous. It may be true that those who got into math young did not develop good people skills but that doesn't mean that those who have these skills will lose them by studying. The best players (Ray Zee, Chip Reese, Huck Seed to name just a few) have them both. So any player who does not try to incorporate deduction into his game at the appropriate time is either stupid or lazy.
I don't believe we have to give up instinct to learn probability -- actually, the two go hand-in-hand. The most spectacular plays occur in that split-second when all of the logical pieces come together quickly with that flash of insight. In a fast-paced game, *that* is what breaks down an opponent's ability to figure out what to do.
No matter how "instinctive" a player is, without the foundation of logic and probability, a player would still lose, rarely knowing how best to exploit what he/she perceives. But just as there are those who hope that instinct can make up for a lack of knowledge in logic and probability, there are just as many who see the game as merely a math exercise.
The two extremes of a range that I give are not intended to be absolute for any particular person and they certainly aren't intended to be an example of what is the best style of play for everybody. I figured that it was obvious that a player will have to find a compromise between the two in order to be successful.
I agree that the more a person relies on their intuition the more likely it is that their intuition is wrong. They end up making their decisions based on what they want to do at the time, not on what they know to be correct.
You state: "As to the idea that deductive players tend to be weak in the people factor, I believe that this is a rationalization that is used by those who can't or won't put the effort into studying the math and logic of poker. They need to justify their ignorance."
That statement is illogical. Just because I say a deductive player needs to work on their people skills has nothing to do with with my own deductive skills. It has everything to do with personality type. I've known many deductive types and nearly all (not all, just nearly all) needed to work on their people skills. That doesn't mean they couldn't work on them or didn't want to work on them, just that they needed to.
Mark
>>So any player who does not try to incorporate deduction into his game at the appropriate time is either stupid or lazy.<<
Pretty rough, don't you think Mr. Sklansky? Is this what we mean by 'math types' not having people skills?
You write -
"for the first 3 years I lose an average of $5000 a year but I gradually improve to the point where I win $20 an hour "
What will most likely happen is you have talent and learn how to win within a couple of months or you do not have a talent for the game and lose $5000 a year for the rest of your life.
My most common opponents have played for many years and still lose. They lack talent and will never learn how to win.
Bobby,
I actually agree with what you say especially if you read and study the right books like HFAP and the Theory of Poker (sorry for seeming like a shill for 2+2 but that’s what I think ). In my mind this actually supports my argument that working your way up so you don’t go broke is too conservative. If you knew after you lost $5000 that you didn’t have what it takes it seems to me that you shouldn’t waste your time at a $3-6 game to start out. Since it only costs $5000 dollars to find out it is well worth spending the money because it would cost you too much money if you were good enough to beat games at the $10-20 level. If you aren’t good enough you could probably win it back playing $3-6! My basic point is that risking some money in playing at a higher level to gain experience is worth it.
Without getting into a lot of numbers, I think the idea of playing at $10-20 game and sacrificing expectation to insure that you never go broke instead of playing in a $20-40 game where your expectation is higher but you are taking a chance of going broke is too conservative. If you can make an extra $10,000 a year playing $20-40 but are taking a chance of going broke the “insurance” premium you pay for not going broke is too expensive. Without looking I’ll bet I could support this from the data in Gambling Theory and Other Topics. In fact Mason talks about this in the book when he discusses the Adventurer. From what I’ve read on the internet players value not going broke way too highly.
Tom Haley
The idea that players value not going broke way too highly, is frankly, one that appeals to me. The problem with going broke lies in the definition. "Broke" to me means having lost all the money I brought to play with. To some fringe level "professionals", it might mean not having a place to sleep or enough money to get a pack of smokes. When a player puts everything on the table and gambles with his basic survival money, EV and variance are immaterial as the problem is beyond the scope of those variables. A player willing to risk that much has zero chance of being successful as a poker player. The money that we all gamble with has different values to different players. I understand "tilt" better after watching people get up from low cost tournaments where they had to spend two or three hours trying to hustle the original buy-in from players in the casino. Losing has to mean more to them than it would to me.
Tom,
You're right, poker is different things to different people. And for you, and many others, concepts like EV and standard deviation aren't worth learning. However, I still think ALL players ought to keep records of their wins and losses, and a total amount won or lost. Also, I disagree with your statement that:
>It seems that if you aren't very focused on your hourly >rate you might actually have a better chance of not >deceiving yourself as to how good you are.
I think that most poker players, including those who lose regularly their entire lives, THINK that they are pretty good players. If they kept a record of their wins and losses with a running total, then they'd have to confront the truth, which most will never do. Now, I'll admit that this is one of the reasons I can make money at the game, because these weak players continue to play, and continue to play the same losing style. That doesn't mean I wouldn't advise a friend to do otherwise. ;-)
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I suspect that Tom is speaking less about the act of keeping, or ability to keep, records or calculate EV and variance, but rather more about the idea of whether it "matters" to his approach to the game. It's one thing to be ignorant of a concept and yet another to recognize but intelligently make a decision to discard what may work for others. If only playing a short range of hours each month, a player's EV and variance could be quite misleading -- for those of us who spend the bulk of our time running businesses, raising families, and working, understanding is more important than deceiving ourselves in either direction. (While I've played for 20 years and study incessantly, the number of hours that I play in a particular year would have minimal statistical signficance.) While I agree with you that it's important to KNOW if one is a winning player, it's also important to accept that however a particular session (or sessions) turn out doesn't mean that a player is incapable or a superstar.
Earl,
Yes and thanks. I might add that I believe there are many players who do judge their prospects on statistically insignificant results and I might add I've never heard of one that decided that they were a loser.
Tom Haley
In this thread there seemed to be several bankroll comments that, to me, seemed to miss the point.
Mr. Malmuth's excellent bank-roll requiremens do require detailed long term records for proper calculation. However, those calculations make the assumption that going broke is some kind of disaster, such as having to get a real job or losing your house; and so minimize this risk (3 standard deviations?).
For the many serious part-time players out there, who have jobs that cover their expenses, the calculations do not apply well; since these people's personal level of risk is so much greater than the full-time pros: risking your entire bankroll in a GREAT high-limit game during the World Series is certainly an option for the part-timer, but not the full-timer. And for these people, keeping the records and doing the calculations has minimal utility, compared to the pros' need to do so.
So it seems that most everybody in this thread is correct, so long as you apply their comments to the correct group of poker players.
- Louie
I watched that $50-$100 game again and I decided to play. I bought in for $2500. After 1 hour I did'nt get dealt anything resonable. Then I pick up QQ on the button. There was 1 limper in middle position. I raised. The small blind called. The limper folded. The flop was 9,5,J with 2 clubs. The small bling checked. I bet and he calls. I now think that he has either a flush draw or 9 something or J something. The turn is a dreaded club! He checks! I decided to bet putting him now on Jack something. The river is a 4 of hearts. He checks again. I bet deciding against checking behind him. He calls me. I say QQ's. He turns over 45 of dimonds! How the hell can that be in $50-$100? He has no pot odds. He had bottom pair. I had'nt played a hand in one hour. Tell me the difference here and some 3-6 situations! Mean while I have lost $350 here. However I did'nt say one word. I should have stayed in the game but this play absolutely blew my mind so I got up and left. I know that it was wrong but I did'nt expect a $50-$100 player to play that way!
I think that there are a couple of questions that you need to ask yourself about this hand. First, was this the first time that he had shown down a hand like this. You state that you had been at that table for an hour, so you should know if this was a fishy player or not. If he was a fishy player then this hand should not surprise you.
Second... Did this player play this hand in this fashion to get into your head (which he obviously did). It seems to me that from *his* perspective that $350 is a small amount to gamble if he can influence your future play. Keep in mind that his thinking may be that you had AK and that he had the lead all the way
Please understand that I'm not defending his play but am merely trying to give you something to think about.
You're right, he played it pretty crazy -- I would've check-raised you on the turn.
...and many of us would have checkraised you on the flop... Albert
This is common, until they know you better, some players will put you on AK or AQ and pay off heads up any time they have a pair and the flop is free of aces, kings, and queens. The odds of outdrawing you plus the odds you do have AK or AQ makes this a not too bad play.
I kinda think I'm the favorite here.
Not necessarily. Let's say that Mr. 45 can put you on one of 5 different hands (AA, KK, QQ, AK, and AQ). After the flop, he's ahead of AK and AQ, with you having 6 outs to catch up. He's behind AA, KK, and QQ, but has 5 outs to catch up. In the first case, he'll win about 75% of the time, and in the second, he'll win about 20% of the time (while math-based, both are rough estimates, anyone let me know if I'm off by much).
Here's the thing. There are 16 ways each to hold AK or AQ, and 6 ways each to hold AA, KK, or QQ. This means that after the flop, he should figure that 64% of the time you've got no pair, and 32% of the time, you've got an overpair. Thus, even if we ignore the money already in the pot, he's the favorite (given his assumptions as to what hands you might hold). Once you consider that after you bet the flop into him there are 7 small bets in the pot, he's just about got to call you down, in the absence of other information. About the only thing he did wrong is to miss the check-raise on the river to win another $100 from you, so be glad you didn't lose $450 on that hand.
Good luck next time.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT THIS PLAYER OR 95% OF THE PLAYER UNDERSTAND THIS MATH OR LOGIC? MY CONCLUSION IS THE PLAYER PUT HIS OPPONENT ON TWO BIG CARDS, AK, AQ AND FELT HE/SHE HAD THE BEST HAND AFTER THE FLOP.
SECOND, YOU COULD SIT THERE AND NOT PLAY A HAND FOR 10 HOURS AND IT WOULDN'T REGISTER TO MOST PLAYERS OR, THEY FIGURE YOU MUST FINALLY HAVE A BIG HAND AND THEREFORE, BASICALLY KNOW WHERE YOU ARE IN THE HAND AT ALL TIMES. NOTHING SCARY COMES ON THE FLOP, LIKE AN ACE, KING OR QUEEN, THEN THEY FIGURE YOU ARE NOW CHASING OVERCARDS.
I AGREE THAT THEY MISSED A RAISE ON THE TURN.
MAY THE FLOP BE WITH YOU
NEVADALARRY
Note that even if you add JJ and TT to the mix (thus reducing the possibility of being up against overcards from 67% to 53%), the 45 is still only a slight underdog and the preflop money makes it correct for him to check and call to the river.
The difference is that in $3/$6 the pre-flop betting would be capped, 7 callers, and the small blind would have made a straight with 6 2 offsuit. Instead of losing 3 1/2 BB's you'd have lost 8. There can't be that many fish at $50/$100 so why would you leave a game where you think you've found one?
Mark
They were'nt fish but then again they were'nt Mason or David either. As for the people on this forum who said that they would check raise me I some how doubt they would call a raise in $50-$100 with 45 with only the raisor in the pot. The next time I play I will buckle down and prepare for a long session and see what happens.
Actually I think you did the right thing by leaving when you did.
You're playing way over my head but I believe it is applicable to all levels of poker. Sometimes you just can't shake the effects of a hand. No matter how hard you try you keep seeing that maroon across the table shuffling your chips and it just aint fair! At low limit it's quite a bit easier to survive these phases because 2 good size pots can recover a couple hours of tilt. I can imagine that at $50/$100 the tilt recovery time would be measured in days.
More often than not though I've found that the cold light of day shows me that the play wasn't all that bad and was sometimes the best one possible. In your case the only questionable play by your opponent was calling the pre-flop raise as you point out. After that he has a good chance of being ahead of you and a decent chance of catching you if he isn't.
Mark
Your thought to try it again is good, because you don't want one experience be your barometer for playing at this level.
But, don't try it again with the attitude that "I will play only this or that way." You have to evaluate each game individually, and you need to constantly keep updating you evaluation. Playes attitudes change quickly for whatever reasons, a bad beat, getting hungry, running out of time to play, etc. And here is something that you have to be aware of, in some, not all, higher stakes games, there are players that have "deep pockets" and get a bigger thrill out of chasing then concerning themselves with correct pot odds, or losing thousands of dollars.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
Joe:
I think the point that you are missing here is that you got in the game because it looked very live. Now when someone verifies what you observed you are bewildered. I regularly play in the $40-$80 games at The Mirage -- both stud and hold 'em, but mostly hold 'em, -- and there are plenty of live players. If there weren't, I wouldn't play.
On the other hand there are also several people who regularly play who are extremely good, much better than the typical $20-$40 pro. This is why most players who attempt to move up from $20-$40 fail to do well. They are attracted by the live action, but get thrown off by the excellent players.
I suggest that if you are doing well at your regular limit to go a head and take a shot at the bigger game when it looks good. But if you do poorly, or get upset because of the way a hand played, do just what you did, move back down and try again at another time.
Predator,
This one is simple. If your opponent made a bad call you should be glad and not angry.
Tom Haley
<< I must say I agree with the "Raise on the flop/Raise on the turn/pay it off" croud on this one.
Raise on the flop is better than on the turn if the tight player is unlikely, but may, bet no-pair on the turn. If he'll sure to check on the turn, then I think call, and check-and-fold on the turn is best.
((Notice the J9x flop could easily give a tight raiser some sort of overcard straight-draw, and so may go to the river.))
I also believe he made only a marginally bad call before the flop. Your late position raise with just one limper by no means is a sure big pair. If he can expect either the limper or the BB to call the raise he's getting (by quick calculation) 11:3 for his call in a 3-way pot. Its even BETTER if he knows it will be heads up since his chances of winning goes up a lot vrs 1 player than vrs 2 (a pair if 5s can easily beat one player).
Once heads-up against someone who probably did not start with a pair and probably did not flop a pair, it would be suicide to lay down any pair. The fact that you are likely to have a "quality" no pair like AQ means little it this sitiuation. In fact, its an advantage since he pretty much knows when you make a pair and when you don't.
BTW, I prefer 54s over QT when the tight player (who will not raise with a hand weaker than QT) raises on the button.
- Louie
Hey,
I would have raised pre flop and check-raised on the flop. Be glad you didn't loose any more on that hand.
Bob
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Saturday, 15 August 1998, at 6:24 a.m.
Posted by: Mark (aamarkhays@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 15 August 1998, at 3:26 p.m.
Posted by: Lawrence (Nevadalarry) Stultz (Nevadalary@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 17 August 1998, at 3:37 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 14 August 1998, at 4:16 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Friday, 14 August 1998, at 9:11 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Sunday, 16 August 1998, at 11:27 p.m.
Posted by: Bob (bob93@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 August 1998, at 10:34 a.m.
There was a somewhat wild early morning 10-20 (1/2 kill at 145) hold'em game going shorthanded. The two seat is on full tilt. The three seat is the action, playing loose/agressive and winning most of the money on the table. I'm in the four seat. The six seat is playing tight/passive. The seven and eight seats are regular tight/agressive types. The nine seat (in between multiple short breaks) is steaming a little and is off his *A* game playing loose/agressive. It usually takes a split pot to undo the kill. I'm the big blind and post 10. The little blind is also the kill and posts 15. The hand is dealt at 15-30 limit. Everyone calls including the small blind. I call for 1/3 of a bet getting 20:1 pot odds with 72 offsuit. I wish I could say I caught max on the flop, but it didn't happen. My question for everyone is (assuming you have experience with, and play well holding garbage cards) what are the true odds you need before the flop to call without the possibility of a raise behind you when holding any two cards?
BY THE WAY IS THAT AT FOXWOODS IT SOUNDS LIKE A GAME THAT I WAS IN WITH A PERSON BY THE NAME OF QUE?
Aye, Q was in the three hole.
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE WAY Q PLAYS THE GAME OF HOLDEM IS HE GOOD IS HE GOING TO GO BROKE? I WILL GIVE YOU MY OPINION AFTER IHERE FROM YOU?
He plays a very intimidating style which may be best countered by a tight/passive approach whenever he's involved in a pot. He is able to accurately determine what level of thinking each opponent is at, resulting in more successful bluffs than would otherwise be possible. He seems to enjoy a wide open game perhaps for stakes below what he is normally accustomed. I doubt he'll go broke anytime soon since I've recently seen him wheel seventeen racks to the cage.
I TALKED TO A FEW PLAYERS THERE AND THEY DON'T THINK HE'S A GOOD PLAYER I WOULD HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH THEM IVE WATCHED HIM FOR SOME DAYS NOW AND HE'S A LOT BETTER THAN PEOPLE THINK.I PERSONALLY HAVE BEEN VERY SUCCSESFUL PLAYING AGAINST HIM IN ONE ON ONE SITUATIONS.
I'm inclined to also agree with you here. I don't think he's a *bad* player, it's just that he seems to find an excuse to get involved more often than everyone else. I would have thought he would be most troublesome heads-up though. I suppose Myron doesn't think very much of Q's play since he'll sit for days when there's a *live one* at the table.
Post deleted at author's request.
Andrew,
Is this Q,5o revisited? You probably already know this but recommendations for this exact situation are in HFAP.
Tom Haley
Andrew,
It's all about implied odds. When you only have to call that third of a bet they're tremendous. You're only calling a fraction of a bet, then on the flop everyone puts in *full* bets. That's why in a 15-30 structure you can typically play just about any two cards for that 1/3 of a bet in the small blind.
If i have pair of split kings. Player whith Quen raise. Player whith Ace still to act. What is best play in this situation.
reraise
I've been putting some hours in recently on the studying of how the Human Brain works. I've discovered some amazing facts about our Minds. They are much more powerful than we give them credit for, and have been quoted as being a 'Sleeping Giant'.
Now we have all heard about the Intuitive Player. This person seems to make the right plays without a proper education in Poker Theory. We might say this person is Gifted, and that they were Born with an innate ability to play properly. I personaly don't believe that we need to be Born with Talent to learn to play Poker well. These "Gifted" players just got a lucky head start.
One thing I need to point out is that we all have the ability to use "Intuition", and we should strive to excercise and perfect this powerful Tool of the Mind.
The more experience one has at Poker the more powerful his/her Intuition becomes. Of course, even the most powerful Intuitive Player will not make totally correct decisions if their basic understanding of Poker Theory is flawed.
The way our Minds use Intuitition to subconsciously make the right choice in complex Poker scenario might go as follows: 'Having considered the virtually infinite database of your previous Poker playing experience, and integrated that with the trillion items of data you have presented me with in the current decision-making situation, my current estimate of your probability of success is 83.7862 per cent'
The results of this massive calculation registers in our Brain, is translated into a biological reaction, and is interpreted by conscious Minds as a simple 'gut feel'.
The point I'm trying to make is that Intuition should be given more credit than it has, and could possibly be re-named 'Superlogic'(coined by Tony Buzan). The next time you're in a Poker game you may want to concentrate a little harder on what you're feeling about some of the hard decisions you have to make. It might be your Brian trying to tell you something that is too complex to consciously quantify in the amount of time givin to play your hand.
CV
The problem with that approach is that your previous experiences in a particylar situation may have been statistical flukes.
Of course, we always need to know Fact form Fallacy. I'm sure there are many Craps players out there that use their Intuitive abilities to try to find Hot and Cold Tables. They are truely living in a Fantasy World.
You and Mason suggest that a person to do much Deductive thinking away from the Table. I veiw this as a way to bring facts and experiences to the subconscious or Intuitive Mind. This would tend to correct any statistical flukes or deviations we would see in the short term.
One question I might ask a Professional is: How often they deviate from their gut feel, and how often that deviation was the correct choice?
CV
Chris,
To make sure that I'm not labled an "intuitive" player my opinion is that using "gut" feel as the basis for your decisions can be dangerous. I think players tend to remember when their "gut" feel was right and forget when it was wrong. I hope this isn't too presumptuous but a big part of improving as a poker player is improving your deductive skills. It takes practice and like you state in an earlier post it takes time away from the table in thinking about the game. Say a flop is put down that contains 2 suited cards with a K or Q. A player leads right out and you have to make the right play. You get better at making the right play by analyzing the hand later away from the table. I do this all of the time. I do it for the hands I win with as well because winning the hand doesn't mean I made the right play.
Tom Haley
I'm heading down to Vegas in a couple hours so I want to make one last point before I leave. David, John, and Tom make some good points. I wasn't trying to say that we should throw out all Deductive reasoning and play by the seat of our pants. Intuition is good at helping us make the right choice. If we have done all the Math, and used all of our conscious abilitys, but the choice is still close. We then should go with that gut feel.
CV
One of my favorite Roy Cooke columns, maybe two years ago, was about the importance of "feel". Feel is more important heads up than multiway. I often stop counting down the pot when I wind up heads up for the flop. (Interestingly, Texas Turbo hold'em does the same.) I don't want the mathematics to distract me from the feel there. If I were superhuman, I could have my superlogic and eat my mathematics too.
I liked the response about a large part of "intuition" actually being the subconscious perception of facial expressions, body positions, recent betting patterns, and so on. My wife once asked me if it's possible to get a tell without being able to describe what the physical sign was. I replied, "absolutely."
-Abdul
Abdul wrote:
> I liked the response about a large part of "intuition" actually being the subconscious perception of facial expressions, body positions, recent betting patterns, and so on. My wife once asked me if it's possible to get a tell without being able to describe what the physical sign was. I replied, "absolutely." <<
I do a lot of talking within myself whether I am in a hand or not. A lot of this talking is to the effect of "His mouth is very tightly closed and then he bet... He then folded when he was raised, maybe that was a bluff. Watch for it next time and see what happens then"
These internal dialogs take place with each hand that I play. I suspect that after years of play, this is where your subconsious mind (gut feeling) takes over. I play a solid game, with solid starting hands but when my *gut feeling* tells me that I should raise this player *regardless* of what I have in my hand, then I usually do just that.
I think that is where such greats as Doyle begin playing their opponents hands rather than their own. It comes from instincts developed over years of play.
btw.... If you've seen me play, I'm no Doyle :)
Just my 2c
Lar
Chris,
I'll play devil's advocate a bit here, but understand that I'm really not disagreeing with you. I don't know the answers. I just see some potential problems when it comes to "intuition".
Often for me it can be impossible to distingish between intuition and the perception of subtle cues or other information. For example, a few days ago I called a player down with 88, when two aces came on the flop and he check-raised me. As I called on the turn and river, I felt uncomfortable about it because I "sensed" that he had an ace. But I called because he is something of a maniac who might easily check-raise and bluff all the way in that spot. Well, it turned out he had A2o. I asked myself how it was that I had sensed it and realized that I had noticed certain features of his play against *me* in recent days. But I had not really stopped to acknowledge them to myself and make the decision to use these observations in making decisions against him.
Specifically, the first couple of times I played against this guy he held over me, making his draws and beating me. But the next several times, my hands held up and I made some draws, and just generally pounded him. In response, he became more passive against me, checking and calling more, giving me more credit for hands, especially big pairs and big cards. As I said, I had noticed this, but hadn't really thought about it. It was sort of in the background of my awareness.
In the hand I described, I ignored what I "knew" and acted out of my awareness of his usual style of play. Was this ignoring my intuition? I don't really see it that way. Perhaps he had not exhibited his shift in style against me on enough occasions yet that I could confidently identify it as a valid - not just random - change. But I was beginning to notice it; I just didn't acknowledge my still subtle awareness of it.
With regard to the idea that experience improves intuition, I would agree that it improves the ability to pick up on subtle cues, to quickly recognize patterns of play, to assess an opponent's strategy, and to see quickly the correct decision (e.g., a complex decision such as raising with the probable second best hand in a multiway pot). A decision in any of these areas may be made so quickly that we see it as based on intuition or as being made in the unconscious. But perhaps it's simply being made without taking the time to put it into words to onself. Experience makes these decisions more and more automatic because you're basically just repeating something you've done before.
Another sticking point I always have with ideas about intuition is the lack of formal research. No doubt *some* sort of serious research has been done on the topic. But I've never heard of any that would apply to these questions about following one's intuition in poker.
Finally, you asked about players following or not following their intution (in a post below), and how often they found it to be the right decision. I've tried to look at this and found it very hard to nail down. About a year and a half ago I devoted a period of several months to following much more frequently than usual my "feel" for situations. I saw it as acting on the basis of subtle, barely conscious perceptions. My purpose was to improve my feel for the subtle cues coming from opponents and other situational information which I might otherwise ignore. I did significantly worse during that period than I had during the previous period of the same length or the period that followed when I returned to "business as usual". But I honestly could draw no conclusion from it. It seemed I had run badly during that period anyway. So I couldn't tell if the "experiement" had anything to do with the poor results. It was also not possible to conclude anything based on individual incidents of following my "feel". Sometimes it was right, sometimes not. (I think this relates to David's point.)
Because my purpose at the time was only to improve my "feel" for the game I didn't bother to write down each incident so that I could later look at some percentages or in some simple way analyze the data. That would help some in looking at your question. But it would still be an "experiment" with major design flaws. Perhaps if many players were to record all the relevant plays from periods in which they tried consciously to act on the basis of their feel or intuition, and periods in which they tried to act only on the basis of their logical analyses, you would begin to get more useful data. But it still seems loaded with problems.
However, I could perhaps see designing what is known as an analogue study to look at this. e.g., poker players (subjects) are run through a well designed procedure involving being presented with a poker hand (perhaps even against live opponents trained to act/respond in certain ways...) and required to make a playing decision. It would take a lot of thought and probably a *series* of studies to gradually come up with an effective design. But somehow you could make sure that one group of subjects acted on the basis of "feel", the other on the basis of logic. Then you'd look at things like in which group more subjects made the correct decision. What a can of worms! I don't know, Chris. I think you might as well just keep studying and base your decisions on all othe data of which you are aware at the time, trying hard (as I failed to do in my example) to include even dawning bits of awareness and awareness of more subtle bits of information.
John Feeney
John,
I commend you for your usual insightful analysis. I thought of something regarding deductive analysis at the table in the heat of battle. I'm sure it's clear to all that I work hard on my game away from the table. To be honest most of the work that I do away from the table involves deductive analysis. I recently came to the realization that over time my thinking speed has increased a lot i.e. I am able to consider a lot more things faster. I attribute this to the work I do on my game away from the table.
I'm not knocking intuition or intuitive play as my intuition has gotten better and more refined but I don't rely on it consciously very often. I do know exactly what Abdul is talking about with his reference to tells and not being able to detect the physical sign.
The other thing that I would like to throw out is imagination. After Huck Seed won the WSOP he was asked to describe his poker game in a few words and he replied that his game was "imaginative." To me this is deeper than "intuition" in that it implies a level of creativity, resourcefulness, inventiveness, and cleverness that are really not qualities of intuition per se. I believe that someone like Huck Seed is an incredibly fast thinker, blessed with tremendous deductive skills, and has excellent intuitive skills. I believe some sort of magical combination of all of these qualities comprise Huck Seed's "imaginative" poker game. I also believe that the truly great players are "imaginative."
Tom Haley
Huck Seed went to Cal Tech and got a perfect 800 on his math SAT.
What's Cal Tech? What's an SAT?
S.S.
Cal Tech is the California Institute of Technology. It's the west coast equivalent of MIT. The SAT is the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Pretty much the standard college entrance exam. A perfect score is 800. I.e. you miss no questions. Every year only a handful of people even come close to a perfect score- let alone make one.
In other words, he is a math genius.
Regards,
Leigh W. Davis
What's an MIT?
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
800 is not necessarily a perfect score on the SAT. It is just the highest reported score. That is, if you score 800 or higher, they just give you 800.
Actually, I don't think you can miss a question on the SAT and still get an 800.
You could when I took it (1981). I got an 800, as did more than a handful of folks (maybe a few hundred, I'd guess). Of course, out of the hundreds of thousands who took it, I'm still proud of my score.
Also, I doubt I'm a math genius. I am very good at math, and maybe more importantly, I'm a test-taking genius. Test-taking skills are at least as important as knowledge and genius when taking the SAT (as is true of almost all tests).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
And to think, I used that math SAT score to become a lawyer!
I got 800 on my math SAT too. I can't say for sure that this required getting all the answers right, but missing 1 question on the verbal section dropped your score to 780 that testing period.
I have lots of friends who also scored 800 on the math SAT. It in no way makes you a math genius. However, doing well on standardized tests is undoubtedly a good indicator for potential poker success. If I always played with my SAT-taking intensity, my EV would probably triple (and I'd be on drugs to regulate my blood pressure).
Regarding superlogic, I pick up impressions all the time which I can't pin down to a specific tell. Generally I can get it to the level of "strong means weak", or "this action feels really fishy". I often wish this weren't true, and I could point and say, "Ah, he's scratching his head--could mean dandruff, or... 'I raise!'"
-Tom Hayes hayest@math.uchicago.nospam.edu
Intuition can be good once you've trained and refined it. The problem with that is that you really have to work on your playing skills in order to have much impact on your intuitive skills. When I first started playing hold-em, I played in a small no limit ring game at the Commerce. Bobby Hoff, T.J. Cloutier, John Bonetti, Huck Seed and others would sit down before tournaments or while waiting for a seat in their games. I would light up with intuition when playing against them, playing K 3s and J 9s and making some pretty impressive plays up until they got the hand they wanted and busted me with it. As I studied the game, my intuition became refined and it started telling me to play AKs and pocket aces and kings against them and to make sure I got all my money in the pot before the flop to avoid being outplayed. When my intuition improved, so did my results.
My local casino does not offer poker so I have had little experience with the game. I played it for the first time when I visited a casino in another state. I am a fanatic blackjack player and have done quite well counting cards during the last couple of years. I am interested in poker because it offers the potential for a skilled player to consistanly win.
I was forced to play manila poker beacuse it was the only low stakes game on offer. The old greek men I played against beat me quite easily. The dealer told me later that those guys were there just about every day playing the same game. I need some general advice on poker. How do all the different styles compair ? Which style offers the most potenial profit once mastered? As a beginer what sort of games an coditions should I look for ? Is it worth trying to master poker ?
Using manila poker as an example, what is the best stratagy according to the card odds. Assuming you are playing against 5 players which just play a solid game never bluff of play loosly etc. Based on my first two cards for instance is there any basic sound advice like only play on a pair or better ?.
Suppose I have 9,10 and the card in the middle is jack. how many rounds should I stay in the pot and chase my straight.
I noticed that security was alot more relaxed than I imagined. The cards which we were playing had dots worn off the back of them. If I wasn't so busy concenrating on the basic game I would have been able to locate who was getting certian cards. A couple of times I also saw a flash of other players cars as they were being delt.
Any advice would be helpful.
Thanks.
< < <<"As a beginer what sort of games an coditions should I look for?">> I advise you to look only AFTER you can beat some form of poker computer program. Then ... tight beginners (well, actually everybody) wants games where the opponents call far too much, but rarely bet. Games with routinely Medium sized pots with several people are great games. Huge pots means lots of raising, something beginners should AVOID. Do not start above $5/$10.
<<"Is it worth trying to master poker ?">> It is certainly lucrative to be a "master" at poker. Being "good" makes for a slightely profitable pass-time. Being "very good" will pay for things like fun vacations. Being "excellent" makes for a tough easy living.
Yes, "trying to master" is a excellent idea if you intend to do it.
2+2's "Gambling for a Living" will be an excellent text for you right now.
Be warned: the only real similarity between Poker and Black-Jack is "money changes hands". These games require drastically different mind sets.
- Louie
One general piece of advice to a beginner (and an expert for that matter) would be TO AVOID GAMES POPULATED WITH OLD GREEK REGULARS WHERE THE CARD BACKS ARE MARKED. In this game, I'll bet you will be in big trouble when you finally pick up a monster hand.
Posted by: Michael T
Posted on: Monday, 17 August 1998, at 9:53 a.m.
When I played that $50-$100 game I expected better players. I expected better players making better plays. I was prepared to use strategy designed to beat better players not weak plays. I expected that because of this stake. I was incredibly confused by the play of some of these players. It's possible that they are super experts playing in a way to make you think that they are weak as discussed in Poker Essays. But In some instances I don't think that that is the case. I have played a lot of 3-6 and 5-0 and 15-30. Each level met expectations with better players at each other. I wanted to feel what it feels like to play 50-100 with real money and not tourny chips. It seems that sometimes even at 50-100 solid play and not trickery will get the money. There is no way That I would ever have expected this. But I can tell you this. If you can afford to take ONE SHOT AT 50-100 TAKE IT because it feels incredible. I would love to be a expert at 50-100 but I'm not quite sure how to get there because there is few info on that level of limit hold-em but I'm quite sure that being a expert on limit hold'em in general has to help you.
Predator,
I know that you know that criticizing players for making a bad call is ridiculous. I'm not the players call was bad but you thought it was and that's what I'm addressing.
You write:
>>It seems that sometimes even at 50-100 solid play and not trickery will get the money.<<
This is encouraging perhaps all you need to do is decide to risk some money.
>> There is no way That I would ever have expected this. But I can tell you this. If you can afford to take ONE SHOT AT 50-100 TAKE IT because it feels incredible. I would love to be a expert at 50-100 but I'm not quite sure how to get there because there is few info on that level of limit hold-em but I'm quite sure that being a expert on limit hold'em in general has to help you. <<
This applies to my ideas about gaining experience by investing some money. If you want to play at this level deciding to invest some money might be worth it. Imo it's a risk-reward problem. Good solid play might just well increase your expectation dramitically over $15-30. How much to you think you can stand going through? You just might win some big bucks fast. Working your way up by winning at the $15-30 and $20-40 level could take a long time.
Tom Haley
Tom Haley
Some of the visitors to this forum may not be aware of the fact that I am available for individual tutoring or consultation, in person or by phone, (some of the better posters on this site are my students.) My fee is $200 per hour or $500 for a three hour session, If two or more people want a joint lesson the fee is 50% more in total but therefore less per person. If you are interested in the cheaper group lesson but know of no one else playing the same game at the same skill level to join up with, I will try to be a "matchmaker" if you send me a profile of your needs. I can be reached at Dsklansky@aol.com.
Dave, can you provide an example(s) of the information that is presented in a "Private Consultation" that you have not already provided in print?
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
Private lessons are individually tailored for your game your weaknesses and any question you might have. When I am asked a question I can almost always discern a particular conceptual problem that you might have that needs to be expounded upon besides merely answeing that question. As to whether I give information not given in my books the answer would basically be yes because of the amount of detail I can go into in private lessons
Once signed up for "X" number of session(s) is there a period of time where follow up questions can be presented? I ask this because it never seems to fail that a situation or thought will come up after the fact and, the next thought is, "Damn I wish I had asked or thought of...."
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
Within reason, yes.
As someone who has benefited from consultations with David, perhaps I can provide some idea of the unique benefits of learning directly from him. I can assure you they go well beyond what you can (and must) gain from the books alone.
First, I should mention that I first contacted David to help me with my game back around 1988. At that time I was in graduate school and had only played maybe a few hundred hours of poker. But I was quite serious about learning and was determined to become a winning player. I'd been playing in low limit hold'em games and was struggling, as so many do, to beat the no-fold-em crowd. I was also having trouble dealing with some wild players. I had read (though not truly absorbed) all the books. I knew enough to be fairly tight. But my results had been rather poor.
So I decided I needed to get some personalized help from someone who really knew what this game was all about. I checked around a bit, and David's name kept coming up. The cost worried me (It was the same back then, and I envisioned having to spend $10,000 or something in "tuition" just to become a winning player.) But when I contacted David, decribed my situation, and ask him how many hours of instruction it might take for me to see some real results, his answer was, "maybe three." Well, he overestimated. Though I couldn't be positive because of a small sample size, from what I could see my results turned around like night and day after just the first hour. Certainly if you could see a graph of my results pre and post-Sklansky, you would see a steady downward slope, changing abruptly to a steady upward slope.
In the first session we did David provided me with lots of information about playing in loose games, much more than you can find in any book. He also corrected some misconcetions I had about hand selection. I'd been playing some hands in early positions which it seemed to me were according to HPFAP. But David clarified that his starting hand groups were only helpful guidelines, not to be followed slavishly and to the letter, but to be adjusted (often radically) for the situation. Thus commenced what was for me a long term learning project in correct hand selection going waaaaay beyond the simple guidelines to be found in any of the poker literature.
I did some other sessions with David around that time as well. He helped me to tie together strategic concepts that need to be integrated in order to beat the kinds of games I was in. A *very* important phenomenon was that often something he would explain to me would lead me to new insights in other areas as I began to see conceptual connections and to gain the groundwork necessary to arrive at valid ideas on my own.
David mentioned in his response that he elaborates on important points. In fact, those elaborations often turn out in the long run to be some of the most valuable material in a consultation. A couple of years ago I was asking him about the differences in play between two different hands on the flop. In answering he said something like, 'You know, there's a very important formula for this that I've never written about. But it tells you exactly what to do here.' He went on to explain a simple yet rather profound little formula related to when to bet a hand. Quite illuminating really, and with farther reaching uses than may have been the case with some of the other topics I asked him about that day.
I've consulted with David on numerous occasions since those sessions in the late '80s, having always found his teaching to be the most authoritative there is. I can specifically remember having questions, and thinking, "There is absolutely *no one* else who's answer I would really trust on this." Now that my time is spent in middle limit games (the highest in my area) this confidence that, if I have a question, I can get a truly athoritative answer is even more important to me. I would expect to use David as my coach or guru, if you will, even if I were regularly beating up on a tough 400-800 game somewhere. It's sort of like the golf pro going back to his teacher for a tune up. When the teacer has the depth of knowledge David has, you're never going to outgrow benefitting from him.
Perhaps I've been a bit long winded, but I've long felt that most players have little idea of the importance of direct consultation with an expert. It's really an *essential* piece of your poker education. I might also ask, in what other field do people have the opportunity to consult with the person whose knowledge is arguably the greatest in the field? The price may seem a bit steep, but is really nothing when you consider what it may make you or save you at the tables. You'd be amazed also at the boost it gives to your confidence hust to have gaps in your knowledge filled in with information you know is correct. And with David you *know* it's correct.
Why can't I get the "Life in Hell" panel out of my head, where the seeker asks the Swami for his money back, and the Swami says "No way"?
I would be interested to learn who the other regular posters to this forum are, that have taken and are taking lessons from David.
Some of the visitors to this forum may not be aware of the fact that I am available for writing glowing testimonials. My fee is $200 per screen page (20 lines of 80 characters, counting white space). If two or more people want a joint testimonial, the fee is 50% more in total, but therefore less per person. If you are interested in the cheaper group praise but know of no one else hawking similar wares or services to join up with, I will try to play matchmaker, as soon as your first check clears.
For the humor impaired: :-)
-Doubting Thomas
I profile players to determine how I can expect them to play. This serves me well until I run into a "tricky" player which I cannot or incorrectly profile; at which time I get crucified.
I was wondering how the better players really get to identify their opponent's playing style and patterns, other than "watching them when you are not involved"?
- Louie
One of the ways that players learn is by comparing notes about other players. A lot of players will talk pretty freely about each other, and it's easy to pick up a lot of information.
I played 8-7 suited on the button with 4 limpers in a fairly tough $10-$20 hold-em game. I flopped a flush with A-9-2 on the board. UTG limper (very tough, but not overly aggressive player) bets out, one caller, I raise, UTG calls, other caller folds. She checks and calls the turn. No heart comes on the turn. The river is also a blank.
She checks to me on the river. I think about betting out, but then figure I will be a big underdog if she calls, so decide to just turn my cards over. She mucks her hand. The more I think about it, the more I think I missed a bet because she may have put me on a King-High flush draw and was intent on looking me up all the way top the end. Also, with most of the hands that could beat me (such as Q, J, T, or nine-high flush), she would have reraised on the flop to drive out a possible King-high flush draw. However, she is the type of player who would wait to check-raise me on the end if she had a made nut flush. (She perceives me as pretty aggressive and I think I surprised her by checking the river.) A couple questions:
1) Would you have played my hand differently on the flop or river.
2) What hands would you call with on the end if you were HER. (I was not even sure she had an Ace, as she is not the type to limp with a weak ace in early position).
DID YOU PLAY 78 SUITED TO MAKE A FLUSH OR A STRAIGHT? I HOPE SO CERTAINLY NOT TOP PAIR. NOW YOU MAKE YOUR FLUSH AND YOUDON'T BET IT,YOU PROBALLY SHOULD NOT PLAY IT IF YOUR AFRAID TO BET IT. BASICALLY BET THAT FLUSH IF YOUR RAISED JUST CALL.
Actually, I was playing to make a straight-flush since I will only bet the nuts. Just kidding- your's and Mason's point is well-taken. I played this hand like a wimp and cost myself at least one, if not two big bets. Since I play with her often and she has a memory like an elephant, I hope to recoup the foregone profit by stealing one from her next time.
Your chances of stealing have probably gone down. If your opponent thinks that when you bet you require the nuts or are bluffing, your chances of bluffing have gone up. I suggest that you bluff less but value bet more against her.
DID YOU PLAY 78 SUITED TO MAKE A FLUSH OR A STRAIGHT? I HOPE SO CERTAINLY NOT TOP PAIR. NOW YOU MAKE YOUR FLUSH AND YOUDON'T BET IT,YOU PROBALLY SHOULD NOT PLAY IT IF YOUR AFRAID TO BET IT. BASICALLY BET THAT FLUSH IF YOUR RAISED JUST CALL.
I thought I would make a few comments:
"I played 8-7 suited on the button with 4 limpers in a fairly tough $10-$20 hold-em game. I flopped a flush with A-9-2 on the board. UTG limper (very tough, but not overly aggressive player) bets out, one caller, I raise, UTG calls, other caller folds. She checks and calls the turn. No heart comes on the turn. The river is also a blank."
I would usually wait to raise on fourth street. Your raising on the flop won't knock anyone out, and if the flush card comes you will be glad you didn't raise on fourth street.
"She checks to me on the river. I think about betting out, but then figure I will be a big underdog if she calls, so decide to just turn my cards over. She mucks her hand."
You should bet everytime.
"The more I think about it, the more I think I missed a bet because she may have put me on a King-High flush draw and was intent on looking me up all the way top the end. Also, with most of the hands that could beat me (such as Q, J, T, or nine-high flush), she would have reraised on the flop to drive out a possible King-high flush draw."
You won't drive out a possible king-high flush
"However, she is the type of player who would wait to check-raise me on the end if she had a made nut flush. (She perceives me as pretty aggressive and I think I surprised her by checking the river.) A couple questions: "
Virtually no one will make that play. They will be afraid that you won't bet because of the scary board.
"1) Would you have played my hand differently on the flop or river."
Already answered.
"2) What hands would you call with on the end if you were HER. (I was not even sure she had an Ace, as she is not the type to limp with a weak ace in early position)."
There are many hands that she should have called with. And, if she thinks that there is some chance that you are betting a busted flush (with the king) as you suggest, she should call you with very little.
MM- Thanks for the response. I guess I already knew the answer.
I am surprised about your advice to wait until the turn to raise it. I thought HFAP recommended maximum agression if you flop a baby flush.
Shouldn't I charge the King-draw the maximum to hit the fifth flush? Perhaps this is offset by driving out the single-pair players who would be drawing dead.
If your raise on the flop can knock someone out who might have a higher flush card, such as 9, 10, J, or Q, then you should raise. But that's not the case in your situation.
[flop small flush on button. Its bet and called ...]
The very fact that she perceives you as aggressive is plenty of reason to bet for value. If you doubt betting this hand for value, then you should routinely bet yourself into this situation just so you can bluff on the end.
As to waiting for the turn to raise...
As Mr. Malmuth suggested, raise on the round that gives maximum chance to knock out the single weak spade draw. If there were two calls I would assume a plenty big draw was out, and I'm dead when the fourth suit gets there; nothing I could do about it.
Routinely waiting to raise on the turn has Mr. Malmuth's advantage of saving a SB if the 4th suit comes on the turn and MIGHT knock out the J draw; but it has the disadvantage of a possible check to you on the turn, and anounces the strength of your hand such that it would be difficult to get paid off.
A raise on the flop and bet all the way is more likely to get called on the end; then a call on the flop and a raise on the turn. (Yes; a "delayed semi-bluff raise" on the turn with the K draw followed by a bet on the end can be a very strong play...) And a raise on the flop is more likely to get called by the third player.
I suggest you play this strong hand in a manner that is consistent with your overall strategy, rather than trying to tweak a little more EV on THIS hand.
Consider how you play other hands in this situation. If there are several other hands you would raise with, then go ahead and raise with the flush; its disguised, and it helps intimidate them next time when your hand is not nearly as good. If they know you routinely slow play strong hands, they'll run over you when you DO raise.
As suggested in one of Mr. Malmuth's posts: Equity from strong hand bets empowers weak hand bets.
- Louie
Played a hand a couple nights ago that I'd like some comments on. On 4th street:
me (42)A5 #1 (xx)JQ #2 (xx)38
I bet, #1 raises, all call.
5th:
me (42)A54 #1 (xx)JQJ #2 (xx)386
It's checked around.
I think this was a mistake on my part, I should have bet?
6th:
me (42)A548 #1 (xx)JQJx #2 (xx)3868
Now it's capped between #1 and myself, with #2 calling.
My question is should I have bet on 5th (I think so), and is capping it on 6th with my 8-5 vs an 8-6 reasonable?
Yes and Yes
My first reaction was to bet on 5th and hope the apparent full house raises and knocks out the player who doesn't know that his made low is currently good. But I don't think the pot is big enough at this time, especially since you have to hit to get any of it. But then, you also have a slim high draw .... Mmmmm.
On 6th street he has either 5, 6,7, or 8 cards to beat you. If 7, its about 3.5-to-1 against him hitting. So 3.5 times you get half of all raises, and 1 time you lose all raises. Capping it looks to me like a 1.75-to-1 proposition. Its even better considering your low re-draw and the slim shot you have for trips or a straight winning high.
Mmmmm on 5th. Cap it on 6th.
- Louie
4th street - you(42)A5 #1(xx)JQ #2(xx)38 I would have bet as you did and then reraised when it comes back to me.
5th street - you(42)A54 #1(xx)JQJ #2(xx)386 Bet straight out and if player #1 raises, reraise him. You caught a good scare card so it is doughtful that #1 will raise you, although he is playing a one-way hand while you are playing a two-way hand. Your goal here is to try to knock out player #2 so you have a free-roll on player #1 if you catch any card 8 or lower on 6th street which doesn't pair you up.
6th street - I agree with making player #2 pay as much as possible to draw out on you on the river. It is possible that he also has 2 pairs and is drawing for a full-house. Although in his shoes I sure wouldn't like my chances against player #1's probable 3J's or better. Hopefully if you had played it stronger from 3rd street onward, player #2 would have been long gone and you wouldn't have had this worry.
Good luck, Ted
Hi everyone, I am new to this site and I am a blackjack player who has played very little poker. My question is which game would be the best to study first? It seems to me 7 card stud (high only) would be the best choice. Also, out of the common games offered in casinos which one can be the most mechanically played? If these questions have been ask repeatedly here then I apologize. Thanks in advance.
Mike
Basic holdem play is simple. Basic 7-Stud play is a little more complicated, especially in the structured games with antes. But "par" holdem is more difficult than "par" 7-stud.
There are several computer poker games/simulators out there. Get one, and beat it routinely before venturing into the casino. Learning mechanics and basic play will be much faster and much cheaper.
"Mechanical" poker players rarely do much better than par. But you must know mechancical play before adding creativity. (No Tom!! don't jump on that one...)
- Louie
One 400-800 pro recommends learning hold'em before stud, basically because most stud pros really suck at hold'em but not vice versa. I feel surprisingly comfortable in a tight-aggressive short-handed 20-40 stud game, despite being a hold'em specialist. My most enjoyable and profitable poker session ever was a ten hours long three handed 75-150 hold'em game versus two 75-150 stud pros. I knew I would wind up with all the chips, and it took some time because of their deep pockets, but I did. (Of course, they probably would have kicked my ass in three handed 75-150 stud.) So maybe it's true that hold'em should be learned first, but I haven't really had enough experience with stud to have a strong opinion.
I feel like stud is the more mechanical game, but that doesn't make it the easier to become a winning player in. Stud pros have higher advantages over inferior players than hold'em pros have, because of the additional information available in the upcards in stud. As for becoming an extremely skilled professional, hold'em is the more difficult game.
But that's not the real issue. I always try to look to the long term. If you are going to remain living in your present area, ask the high stakes pros about which games are most profitable. And also consider that if you start with stud your hold'em play may be forever crippled, if that high stakes pro is correct.
-Abdul
>My question is which game would be the best to study
>first?
Holdem or Omaha-8.
> It seems to me 7 card stud (high only) would be the best
>choice.
Don't play 1-3 or 1-5 stud high. The low-limit, no ante stud games are very difficult to profit from. (high relative rake, structure leads to tight play and small pots, and bad players draw out on you more often in stud than in holdem) Against weak opposition, your advantage is greatest in high/low games, or in some holdem games.
Low-limit holdem often does not play anything like proper holdem, and the strategy is very different than for a holdem game with at least minimally competent players. If you make the right adjustments in your play, low-limit holdem can be good.
> Also, out of the common games offered in casinos which
>one can be the most mechanically played?
Omaha-8.
Also consider stud-8 if it is spread in your area. Unlike holdem and Omaha-8, the game is not significantly different when played against terrible opponents, so the experience you gain will be more directly useful in higher stud-8 games.
Stud *can* be a more mechanical game, but as you noted, there are more advantages to a skilled player. Far and away that makes it a much more difficult game to master. (It's not by coincidence that the stud fields at the WSOP continue to shrink while the hold-em events continue to set records -- "everyone" must think they play limit hold-em well.)
The main reason I could think to recommend hold-em first is that most stud players don't learn how to play position well, a key to survival at hold-em.
One area I disagree with is that someone's stud experience will cripple their hold-em game. For a person who has spent years playing stud, it is blissful to sit down in a hold-em game and not have to catalog the board and to deal with all the other interrelated up-card variables. This seems to free up a lot of mental energy to play the players.
Still, I'd also recommend that a new player learn what games are offered locally, then learn all of the games -- and -- try to regularly play all of the games.
I have just submitted a column to POKER DIGEST on this very subject. I expect it to be published some time in the next six weeks.
The recent craze at my local cardroom has been the introduction of a kill into our 20-40 holdem game. (if a player wins two consecutive pots he or she must post a live $40 blind and the limits double to 40-80 for that hand.) It has generated a lot of action and from what I have observed, it is to the more skillful players benefit. I do however have a couple of questions regarding playing in these "kill" pots.
- I have basically been following S&M's advice in "Holdem poker for advanced players" regarding late-position blinds if I have posted the $40 in late position. If it is passed to me in late position, I almost always raise regardless of my holding unless up against habitual blind defenders. Is this strategy correct?
- What strategy should be used when you have to post this blind $40 in early or mid position?
- What should be defended if posting in late position and facing a raise?
- Am I wrong in assuming that this "kill" gives me (and other strong players in the game) even more of an edge due to the fact that weaker players will habitually defend their $40 blind?
Any thoughts would be appreciated..
Derek
Derek wrote:
>- I have basically been following S&M's advice in "Holdem >poker for advanced players" regarding late-position blinds >if I have posted the $40 in late position. If it is passed >to me in late position, I almost always raise regardless >of my holding unless up against habitual blind defenders. >Is this strategy correct?
I would think not. In a HE kill game like this, where you must post blind money after winning 2 pots in a row, I believe that you must tighten up significantly after you've won a pot. This is because, whenever you win the second pot, you are forced to put up $40. This is live money, so you haven't lost $40, you do get some pot equity for it. However, because it is blind, you are putting up $40 with random cards, so the value of this is less than $40. Thus, every time you win a 2nd pot, you are paying some percentage of $40 dollars from your winnings. Thus, you are actually winning less than someone else would win (if they had won that same pot), because it is their 1st pot.
Now, you've posted $40. Still, if you end up winning, you'll have to post $40 again. Thus, you still must play this hand tighter than you otherwise would. Thus, you shouldn't raise as much as S&M suggest for a post, because in their scenario, you don't have to post again if you win.
>- What strategy should be used when you have to post this >blind $40 in early or mid position?
Tighten up more than S&M suggest (for a post in this position).
>- What should be defended if posting in late position and >facing a raise?
Think of this like being the big blind. If it were your big blind in a 40-80 game, what would you defend with against this player in these circumstances. A big factor is whether you'll have position on the raiser, something you seldom get in the big blind. Thus, as compared to your standards for the big blind, I would say defend more loosely if you have position, and the same if you don't.
>- Am I wrong in assuming that this "kill" gives me (and >other strong players in the game) even more of an edge due >to the fact that weaker players will habitually defend >their $40 blind?
I think that the biggest edge I get from a kill game is that I know to tighten up after winning the first hand, whereas most players seem to ignore this factor. Another change I see in kill pots is as follows. Some players tighten up on all kill pots (not just their kill), because they are uncomfortable at the higher stakes. If you see this, be more inclined to steal when in a position to do so from these players. Other players loosen up on a kill pot, because they want a shot at winning this "extra big" pot. If you see this, don't try to steal, because they play even looser than ordinary. Be aware of these changes, and others, that players make during kill pots.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I believe raising is the best play depending on position, how many players have already called.
On a kill hand, where I play they have installed a rule if you win the blinds or the pot preflop you have to post again.
This has slowed me down a little, I would appreciate comments and suggesttions.
Certain hands are better in large fields, such as suited connectors and small pairs.
Other hands are best against fewer opponents, such as high offsuit cards without straight potential.
87s should be folded when on the button in a normal game and it is folded to you, since it is weak against two random hands. However, this is a very good holding in an eight-way pot and you might even raise it to take advantage of opponents playing too loosely on the flop in a raised pot. ATo is the reverse. JJ is unusual in that it prefers one or two, or else many callers, but not three or four.
The question arises as to Axs, medium pairs and high offsuit connectors, as to how many callers you want and in what situations those hands are strong enough to raise to narrow the field when you need to.
Axs is good in packed fields, since marginal draws don't threaten your made flush. Also, the implied odds are advantageous, especially in a game with little preflop raising. However, the ace-weak kicker holds up better in smaller fields. Likewise, the offsuit connector hands may gain value in large fields for their straight potential, while losing value to their top pair getting drawn out on more often. Medium pairs are very strong heads-up against random hands, even or dominated heads-up against most playable hands, and in large fields, they almost have to hit the set.
There may also be a difference between getting several dominated callers to your KQo such as QT, KT, Kxs, Q8s as opposed to being called by hands like 73o, J4o and 82s. Likewise, your A5s does not want A7o to call. In a loose but not insane game, AKo, KQo and AQo might even gain in value due to facing more dominated hands. But there would be more sets and straight and flush draws against you when the game is loose. If EVERYONE sees the flop, those hands seem marginal, since top pair will rarely be enough to win.
The hand rankings are not absolute, and the strengths of hands vary greatly depending on how loose the game is, how aggressive the game is, what specific incorrect preflop calls the other players make, even to how players react to different pot sizes on the flop.
In a more aggressive game, the suited connectors, middle/lower pairs and Kxs and Axs go down in value, since your implied odds are lower when you have to put in more money preflop. (An exception might be if there would be so much later action due to the size of the pot that your hand would still pay off when you hit it. With the flushes, this is unlikely, but is conceivable for the other hands.)
When players play approximately correctly preflop, but overplay weaker hands with two high cards that often get dominated and make second-best hands, the highest offsuit and especially high suited hands may gain in value. Axs will also do well, since your odds have increased.
When players just play anything, draws to monster hands gain in value, and high offsuit cards decline in value. Axs is strong, Kxs is playable in an unraised eight-way pot, and KJo or even AJo might even have to be mucked.
(p.24 HFAP) "…playable hand that you would prefer to play against a small number of opponents. This would include hands like A7s…" Should Axs be avoided against three or four opponents?
A recent post dealt with KQo; it was generally agreed as playable UTG in a reasonably loose game, since it gains value from dominated calls. What about QJo and JTo in fairly loose games? (Many of the slightly incorrect calls that help KQo hurt QJo and JTo.) How would these three offsuit-straight potential hands be regarded when eight people see the flop, many of them holding complete trash?
(Middle) suited connectors lose value in small fields, and would not be good hands for blind steals from the button. (Unless your opponents were too tight on the flop, see Mason's essay "Limit Holdem Quiz.") What about middle and lower pairs first in on the button? You will be playing the rest of the hand at an information disadvantage, despite better position.
With AKo and AQo, how important is the factor of dominating weaker hands versus the factor that more marginal draws are out against you? While HFAP indicates that AKo and AQo lose much of their value in large multiway pots, many of the simulations seem to favor playing the highest offsuit hands against many opponents, since they are called by dominated hands to an extent that even increases their profitability in large fields.
Some simluations also view that AA gains value with more opponents. A recent post even suggested that the more opponents, the higher your EV with aces, with nine opponents being the best. The main reason that QQ and KK are stronger than low pairs is that they make overpairs. Those overpairs will be more vulnerable against multiple opponents, who may pair an ace while drawing to a flush, etc. QQ and KK clearly want to narrow the field, but are still strong against many callers. In a loose enough game, you might even have odds to call on the flop with two outs provided that your set would be a virtual lock if you hit it. AA might be different in large fields, since you don't have to worry about overcards. In this case, you might prefer to play only against playable and semi-playable hands, rather than have nine random hands against you. You probably want middle offsuit connectors and low suited cards in other suits to fold. When your opponents cover the entire range of possible hands, your overpair will be in jeopardy in many situations, and you will often not be able to play it fast.
I agree with most of your assertions. Here are some points where I have a slightly different perspective:
87s should open-raise on the button.
ATo is worth slightly more in a loose game than a tight game. What's really important is whether people are calling with dominated hands, which they do more often in a loose game.
Pairs 77-QQ are stronger than you say or S&M say in Hold'em for Advanced Players. Suited aces are also stronger. Suited connectors should go down slightly in the groupings to make way for the raising of the pairs and suited aces, IMO, for both tight and loose games.
Axs is playable against 3 or 4 opponents for one bet, as is KTs-KQs.
A hand like JTo is in worse shape in early position in a loose game than in a tight game, but that's partially because there is so much equity in stealing the blinds in a tight game. (And if you start stealing with such hands, your opponents will adjust to exploit you.) If the JTo open-limps in the tight game as well as the loose game, it's about equally bad off. Same for QJo. Neither are playable in early position in tight or loose games, with the possible exception of when you're playing against idiots. If the game is so loose that 8 players are seeing the flop, suited cards and pairs will go up in value, at the expense of hands like QJ and JT, but for 8 players to be seeing the flop every time, they must be calling with hands like J5o or basically any other two cards, which could make QJ and JT profitable.
It's very profitable to raise on the button with most hands, in order to drive out the small blind and then fight for that money with the big blind, who will likely call. Your positional advantage is enough to compensate for somewhat weak cards. You can open-raise there with any pocket pair and suited connectors down to 76s or maybe 54s. The risk of being dominated is low, and you don't necessarily have to win in a showdown. With small pairs, you're not playing with an information disadvantage. The big blind called with something. If the board is all low, there's a good chance your pair is best, even if it is lower than all the cards on the board. It's easier, though, when you have a small pair and are defending versus a legitimate raiser - then you have a good idea of where your opponent is, like a board of KQJT would be an easy fold. In no fold'em, your pair is a slight favorite versus two overcards, and then don't forget that in you get to raise the bajeevers out of your opponent when you make your set.
AKo and AQo are worth roughly 10% more in a loose game than a tight game. Again, what is important is that people are calling with dominated hands, not so much how many opponents are calling.
Biggish pairs like QQ hold up much better to multiway action than you might expect from some books. Their value is going to be higher in a game likely to have 3 to 5 callers than a game likely to have 1 or 2 callers. They don't always wind up as an overpair, but when they do, they're very powerful.
-Abdul
The following was posted by "Coffee" on Stanford Wong's BJ21 blackjack site on August 18,1998 :
"My friend told me an amusing story about the one (and only time) he played poker in LV. This was at the Four Queens, 7 stud game, when they still had their poker room. He had just won a huge pot with only a flush. His friend was standing and watching outside the room, so my friend signaled to him for a cigarette, by placing his index and middle fingers to his lips, gesturing holding a cigarette, then pointing to his chest. Immdiately, he felt a tap on his shoulder. It was the poker room floor person, who told him that he was no longer welcome there. Needless to say, my friend was shocked and surprised. When he asked why, the floor person accused him and his friend of signaling each other about the other players' hands. When my friend protested, saying he was just signaling for a cigarette, the floor person replied that everyone knows that if you want anything in the poker room, all you have to do is ask the floor person. Well, as this was the first time he ever played poker in LV, he didn't know this! Like I said, that was also the last time he played poker in LV!"
Could this have really happened, and for the reason stated?
Etienne
Etienne,
This could have happened imo. The old 4 Queens card room wasn't what I would call a first class operation. I don't think this will happen very often though in LV.
Tom Haley
Within reason, yes.
I just wanted to get some opinions, if I could, on the Showboat Poker Tournament coming up, NOV 1-15.
Im thinking of heading out to VEGAS, but am concerned about the room closing, despite the ad in card player.
Also, just wanted to get everyone's opinions on whether this tournament will be heavily attended-- and will provide decent side action.
Oh, and one more thing-- If you were going to this tournament would you stay at the SHOWBOAT-- or at the MIRAGE. That is, do you think more action will still be at the MIRAGE, during the week of the tournament?
Thanks in advance.
Jimmy,
I don't guess the side action at the Showboat tourny will be that good. I would guess they will have nightly tourneys as well as daytime tourneys. It always seems like the action at the Mirage is good. Bellagio should be open by then too. Personally I would stay at the Mirage.
Tom Haley
Recently in 20-40 at the Mirage...
An opponent raises in middlish position, maniac cold calls two, I defend the big blind with 63s, which is debatable especially in a raked game, but I think the presence of the maniac dramatically improves its value.
The flop comes Q63 two suited. I check, preflop open-raiser bets, maniac raises, I (check)reraise, preflop open-raiser folds after some angst, maniac four bets, I five bet, maniac looks like he is going to six bet but just calls. Turn is a 9. I bet, maniac calls. River is a 9, also bringing in the flush draw. I check, maniac checks. I turn over my partially counterfeited two pair, and he turns over Q5o to scoop the pot. Maniac soon leaves with 5 racks of chips.
I publicly apologize to Q5 offsuit for saying that it was a sucky hand in raised multiway pots.
-Abdul
Abdul,
At least you got your money in there when you were the favorite.
Tom Haley
Tonight, at Crystal Park Casino I survived, as usual to the money in the small no limit tourney. (they paid 18 places) Just as I was almost to the cloth and the blinds and antes were going to bust me again, I caught a rush! For some time now I've wondered what it would feel like to have the cards run over you at the final table. When all the smoke had cleared I was heads up and the chip leader by a small amount. With blinds at T10 and T20 K with T1k antes, he and I agreed to chop it up since there was only T180,000 and the game had become a crapshoot. I am thankful for all the sage advice I've read both here and in rgp. It is truly the tiny and subtle differences that one makes in his playing that separates the almost got there player from the ones that do get there. For me, pausing and thinking before committing myself to a hand was the key tonight. I avoided busting out on two occasions by thinking rather than reacting.
Big John,
Sounds like fun. Sometimes it's worth it to save a bet and keep some chips.
Tom Haley
Sometime after Thanksgiving, I am planning a cross country trip from, Massachusetts to Southern California. Driving.
It is my plan to stop at casinos along the way stay a day or two at each place and play some poker.
My general route is Massachusett to Mississippi to Las Vegas including Reno and Lake Tahoe.The Southern California for the winter.
I am looking for interesting places to play and see. Warm places, I won't be going to Iowa. I am a solid 10-20 to 15- 30 holdem player, an adequate seven stud play at either 5-10 or 15-30. Somewhere in between at 7 stud 8 or better and Omaha HI-LO. I would also like suggestions of places in Southern California.
Thanks for any help yoou might give me.
Joe,
If you’re going on I-40 through New Mexico give Sandia Casino a try in Albuquerque. A $10-20 hold’em game goes down everyday often with a half-kill to $15-30. I am on the road right now but a pot limit game probably still goes down everyday. On the weekends there often is a $15-30 and $10-20 game or a $20-40 and $10-20 game.
Tom Haley
Tom
Thanks for the tip, I apreciate it.
Joe M.
Before his fatal motorcycle trip, Andy Morton and I were discussing in email big blind defense on the flop, specifically the merits of betting out versus check-raising on the flop, after defending the big blind heads up versus a preflop raiser (in middlish position, say).
Betting out on the flop...
Pros: Betting out gives your opponent a chance to fold, and you're risking just 1 small bet to win 4.5 small bets. Most opponents will fold often enough that you make an immediate profit by betting any two cards.
Cons: By usually betting out, the odds you are getting preflop are effectively cut in half, meaning you have to fold a lot more hands. Opponents will eventually adapt to your frequent betting on the flop by frequently calling or raising you. When you do check, it's a license for your opponent to steal, unless you are check-raising most of your good hands, but in that case your bets will be a license to steal. When you bet, your opponent has position on you, so he can fairly easily semibluff raise you.
Check-raising on the flop...
Pros: You're defending with a lot of hands on the big blind because of the huge odds you are getting from the pot, but since many of these hands are inferior it implies you will be dumping them frequently on the flop rather than to draw to a hand that might not be good; since you'll be checking and folding a lot, it makes sense to check-raise with your good hands (including any pair). And this will cause your opponent to give you some free cards when you do miss. Most of the time the preflop raiser won't give you a free card on the flop, he'll bet, so if you have a hand, you might as well try to take not only the pot but one more bet from your opponent.
Cons: Your opponent will almost certainly call your check-raise, especially if he has two overcards. You are risking 2 small bets to win 5.5 small bets, which isn't nearly as good odds as betting out. And then you almost have to follow through with a big bet on the turn, further reducing your odds. Also, if you check and your opponent bets, you're getting 5.5 to 1 odds to call on the flop, so you actually should not be folding much on the flop; if you're not going to fold, you should seriously consider betting, since it gives your opponent a chance to fold and give you the pot.
What additional pros/cons do you see for betting out versus check-raising from the big blind position on the flop heads-up versus a preflop raiser?
Which play do you think is generally best when you have something like middle pair?
What about when you just have a draw?
Or when you have a monster?
-Abdul
I'd say "it depends." If this is an opponent I don't normally play with (i.e. won't be adjusting over the big picture), I bet in a heartbeat if I think he missed. If this is someone with whom I play frequently (someone I can count on to bet almost automatically, and give me some respect), check raise everything if I think they missed. If I have a monster, I like check-call the flop, bet the turn because you guarantee some money goes in on the turn, and there's always that chance you can go to 3 bets or more. Aggressive players often read check-calling, betting the turn as a stab at the pot with nothing and raise automatically. This is often an opportunity to get them to put a lot of money in the pot with an inferior hand.
If I have second pair and I think there is some chance they hit, I think it's a toss up between check-call, check dump. Daresay I, "The decision is often based on intuition." If you decide to defend with a hand like 10-8 suited, you'll be putting yourself in this precarious position a lot. I think the play of the hand is tied in to the decision to defend. If your opponent in the hand is one whom you give some credit to, and whom you don't have much control over, I think there is some merit in curtailing your blind-defensive activities. I will defend/not defend based on these considerations a lot moreso than what simulation might prescribe (tho I have tried to factor this in as well).
Clearly you have to mix up your play with regards to betting out and check-raising after defending your blind. But you have left out a number of other strategies as well, namely check-calling followed by betting out the turn, check-calling followed by check-raising the turn, and check-calling twice followed by betting (or even rarely check-raising) the river. All of these are reasonable things for you to do with made hands, and therefore they are decent ways to represent made hands when you have missed.
But in the universe of options you have provided, I think that your mix should lean toward check-raising with both your bluffs and your made hands, especially against your weaker opponents. There are two reasons for this other than those you have listed:
1. A shocking number of players call check-raises with absolutely nothing, just to save face. They are then prepared to fold when you next bet. Against these players, you get the pot + two small bets for your good and bad hands alike, while betting out gets you just the pot.
2. If you establish yourself as a frequent check-raiser, players start to use their position poorly against you.
Tom Weideman
>>[...] Betting out on the flop... [...] Cons: By usually betting out, the odds you are getting preflop are effectively cut in half, meaning you have to fold a lot more hands...<<
But, if you're comparing betting out versus check-raising, then, looking at the odds from before the flop on, they're even worse for the latter, no?
As for which is better - betting out or check-raising, I'm going to end up agreeing with both Jim Geary and Tom Weideman, but...
Looking just at bluffs, if you were playing only against players you'd never see again then to me it seems close. Check-raising and following through with a bet on the turn will probably have the higher success rate, but requires a much bigger investment (so has less favorable pot odds). Betting out might get the nod because it has the smaller fluctuations.
I did some simple math on this, looking at it from the flop on, and assuming that you give up betting and lose the pot if your opponent fails to fold at the point when you most expect him/her to. It turned out that if you assume betting out has a 20% chance of success, and check-raising has a 40% chance of success, then check raising does better. But if you shift check-raising to a 35% chance of success, then betting out does better. So it will be close, depending on the actual success rates.
But against players who know you I think that the broader benefit of check-raising, which Tom W. mentioned, could be the deciding factor. Another benefit is that, as Ray Zee advocated in a recent thread, it just makes you more scary to play against.
Of course in deciding how to mix up these and other betting patterns against typical players, a big factor for me is to remain aware of how my opponent is viewing my play. I want to keep a step ahead and constantly act counter to his conclusions about me. And if he's smart enough to expect me to do that... then I don't ;-).
John Feeney
Abdul,
I would also consider checking and calling all the way with a made hand against an agressive player who is liable to bluff on every round and might be bluffing against you.
Tom Haley
I have recently started playing in many of the small buy-in tourneys for the enjoyment of playing, to improve my poker skills and to observe the social consequences of a gambling lifestyle closer up for a book I hope to write. I think it is a very inexpensive method of playing poker on a regular basis. In fact, between tournament prize money and single table satellites this year, I am $4,500.00 ahead. In my regular ring games of 15-30 low ball and 3-6 and 6-12 HE, I am ahead less than $1,000.00 for the year. (+2,700.00 in low ball, down 1,950 in HE) In the tourney play, I find myself improving after I experience getting to each level of rounds a few times. I am adjusting my play by watching other players who seem to be comfortable with playing at those levels and who tend to get to the money consistently. I've learned to pace myself better when I am in a good chip position in the early and middle rounds, and to think about what I'm trying to accomplish by playing or not playing a hand. As far as my continued observation of the consequences of a lifestyle in gambling, I am now convinced that there is a large number of compulsive degenerate gamblers who survive around casinos on a sub-subsistance level in a state of homelessness and continual need. Many panhandle their way into these small tournaments, desperately trying to hit a score that will turn their life around. Their goal in life seems to be to emulate the heights of an Eskimo Clark including their inner certainty of losing it all and being broke on the rail in the very near future. I've tried bankrolling a few to buy-ins, but have had to give it up when I witnesses their seeming need to self-destruct whenever they close in on success. I was once at the final table with two of them when one, who was the chip leader, suggested a nine way chop of the money. The other, who was about third chip leader was quick to voice his assent. I found out later that both were being put in for 50% of their win and they wanted to make sure that they got enough to assure that they got some money for themselves. Fortunately for them, the second chip leader vetoed the deal and they were forced to play on until a four way chop could be made.
Big John,
I'll jump in here and try and answer. I think most hold'em players that are winning in live games have to make some adjustments if and when they start playing tournaments especially in the later rounds.
As far as the compulsive degenerate gamblers playing poker. They're around the card room, just don't lend them any money. One thing I have noticed about these types. They will get into the game on borrowed money and play almost maniacal in an effort to get a big score. Heck it's not their money so why not?
Tom Haley
Low limit tourneys can be a very good way to sharpen your poker tournament skills. They are good practice. Many top tournament players cut their eye teeth on these "baby" tournaments. On the other hand they are not entirely realistic because the competition is so weak and the blinds and limits escalate so quickly.
In any type of gambling environment you are going to have your share of bust-outs and hangers ons. They tend to congregate together and help each other out because of reciprocal reciprocity. The "half-way" talented ones find a way of keeping each other going at the lowest limit games.
They enjoy each others company and eventually fail because they get to be martars to their friends when they finally "blow themselves up."
Poker attracts the very lazy in life. One proof of this can be seen in the ratio of over weight to normal weight individuals. It is alarmingly high.
Poker players as a group are lazy, bad health, no exercise, poor eating habits, smoking, drinking, foul language, overweight, hustler types that want to make an easy living without exerting much effort and being able to sit down all day.
The single biggest dissappointment about gambling for a living to me is the association I must make with what I consider to be this "negative" element. I don't have any friends that smoke. Yet The fact that I freely associate with smokers and frequent smoke infested establishments while trying to make a living is the most disgusting, oxymoronic, hypocritical action I have ever taken in my entire adult life.
I am feverishly working on new skills so that I can leave my poker playing life behind.
Joe,
A lot of players have curtailed their activiy due to the smoking issue. Cal is an option since smoking is banned in the card rooms their. I can't give you any help with the rest of the folks you mentioned. Seriously, you might try trading the markets. Lot of volatility this week in just about everything.
Tom Haley
Just got back from Vegas and had a good trip which I might elaborate about in the 'Exchange'. I'd thought people might be interested in some comments I have about the Private Consultation I had with David.
John Feeney wrote a excellent post below about how a private consultation may help certain individuals who are not yet experts at Poker.
The first thing you'll most likely want to do before asking for a Lesson is Boning up on your basic Probability Math concerning Poker. I hadn't really put much effort in this lately, and I think my Lesson suffered because I couldn't provide David with some quick answers in this area. Unfortunately, this turned out to be one of my weak areas, and it really shouldn't have been. So, instead of going over some Advanced Poker Strategies, we had to waste some time. Hopefully, no one else will make the same mistake.
The rest of the Lesson was spent talking about Strategies that would help me beat the certain Games and Structures that I would be playing in. There was definately information that David imparted to me that is just tough to receive from a Book.
CV
Chris,
What were the math baiscs that you couldn't cough up instantly? I doubt they were of "how often will the flush get there if you flop a 4-flush"-caliber.
I'm also interested in hearing what you got out of it beyond the stuff that's accesible to all in The Theory of Poker, HPFAP etc.
Once I read the 2+2 books (and some others) and started playing a lot, I noticed the only way to improve was by doing a lot of thinking and adapting theory to whatever the concrete situation at the table required. Understanding what makes a certain play correct in some situations, and wrong in others and thinking about this is what improved my game. That's the point where you incorporate knowledge/theory into your game, as in contrast to only (trying to) apply (book) knowledge to poker situations. I'm interested how your private session influences your understanding of the game.
Spielmacher
The basic Mathmatics that I was having difficulty with were:
1) Quickly change percentages to Odds
2) In Hold'em: Quickly tell how the cards that are in your hand and on the Flop change the probability of what your opponent may be holding.
3) Master the Pot, Effective, and Implied odds chapters in TOP.
As for your question: "I'm also interested in hearing what you got out of it beyond the stuff that's accesible to all in The Theory of Poker, HPFAP etc."
Eventhough you have read and studied all the 2+2 books. There are going to be some areas where you might think you have a good understanding, but in actuallity your thinking maybe flawed. Home studying anything is hard to do. And Poker is even harder since there are only a handfull of people in the world who can correctly answer the questions you may have about Poker Theory.
CV
I read and re-read all the books hoping stuff somehow stays in my subconscience. But right now by improving strategy is to work on the mental processes and routines at the table as well as working on my intuition and memory. I tend to get lazy, and distracted too easy. Can you help me with the lazy distracted problem?
I have played a lot of stud in my past and I'm thinking of playing some small $300 and $500 tournys at the Taj in Decenber. My ring game stratedgy is sound but what modifications do I have to make for a tourny? I know that stealing anties is extremly important but what other modifications do I have to make?
Predator,
Besides the ante stealing (which is an extremely important tactic), when the limits go up you'll get someone all in long before 5th, 6th and 7th a lot. So the play of the hands on those streets is not quite as important as a live game IMO.
Tom Haley
A recent post on RGP. "Ran some quick simulations on the question of whether 2 big cards wants(a)lots of callers or(b)few callers. 6-12 game 100,000 hands AK vs. loose field: Avg. # of players to see flop 5.6 Won 33.4% of pots Net profit $1,700,000 AJoff vs. loose field: Avg. #of players to see flop 5.6 Won 33.4% of pots Net profit 455,000 Akoff vs. average field mixture: Avg. # of players to see flop 3 Won 50.1% of pots Net profit 1,005,000 AJoff vs. tight field: Avg.# of players to see flop 3 Won 35% of pots Net profit 369,000 He then states that you want as many marginal hands as possible. This can't be true. This is why simulations can be very dangerous in the hands of wrong people.
Post deleted at author's request.
I'm disputing the part that AJ and AK off do not do well against a large field of humans
How often do you expect them to win? I think any holding that can win 30% is really good.
If Two Plus Two publishing would write a new book that was solely about how to play 40 or 50 specific (Hold'em) hands, it would be a top seller, IMHO.
What is needed is the thought process before making your decision - as to fold preflop, call, raise, or reraise.
The reasons why you are making these decisions.
I realize this has been done to some extent, but more specific examples would be extremely valuable in my opinion.
All comments appreciated
I couldn't agree more! Sign me up for a first addition. A workbook on figuring probabilities, odds, and such would be a wonderfull help too. It has been too many years since college statistics.
Hold'em Odds Book by Michael Petriv (or something like that) gives a good primer on that subject. Available from Conjelco.
Two Plus Two is hard at work on several new projects. It is our policy not to announce new projects until they are close to completion, and it will be a while before these new works are made available. So when the time comes we will let you know.
How should I adjust my play in 10-20-40 hold-em as apposed to straight 10-20 hold-em. Thanks in advance for any help.
Before answering this question I need to know whether you can bet less than $40 on the end if you choose.
10-20-40 hold-em is exactly like straight 10-20, except that after the river card, one can bet $20 or $40. In other words the last bet can be $20 or $40.
Post deleted at author's request.
I don't have a lot of experience with this kind of game, so I'm curious about hearing your logic on big pairs.
It would seem to me that you'd have a pretty big pot going by the time the flop hits, assuming you had raised preflop and had multiple callers. Why wouldn't you want to push this hand--to squeeze out marginal draws--on the flop? Sure, it's not going to hold up all the time, or even most of the time, but you presumably are going to have the straight and flush draws in the pot with you, as well as maybe a guy with top pair, giving you reasonable odds; it would seem to me that the overlay in the pot built preflop would compensate you for the times you'll pay off the $40 on the end--if the draws you're up against are not obvious.
Again, I don't have experience here and haven't thought about it much. The few times I've played with this kind of structure, I don't think the idea of folding an overpair to draws on the flop ever entered my mind. Should it?
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary,
I may be wrong but it seems to me that the pot is laying you enough to play the big pairs even if 25 cards will beat you and your opponents have 2 chances to get there. If you can get away from it on the turn when say flush card hits I would think that you should definitely play it on the flop.
Tom Haley
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary,
I agree with that and there are some flops to Aces which reduce them to a fold. I was just thinking with all the money going in there that the pot is laying you quite a bit.
Tom Haley
Gary,
I would be remiss if I didn't state that when you could be drawing dead you have to estimate the chances that you are drawing dead, know your chances of improving, estimate the chances that you have the best hand now, estimate the hands that are drawing, know what the pot is laying you, etc. to decide what the best play is. In a multi-way pot it should be easier IMO to estimate your chances of drawing dead. If 7 players were in the pot and it was laying you a million, you wouldn't lay down black aces very often when a third heart hit on the turn. Hope I didn't state the obvious.
Tom Haley
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary,
Your welcome.
Tom Haley
David Sklansky writes:
"Before answering this question I need to know whether you can bet less than $40 on the end if you choose. "
Why is this important? Wouldn't it almost always be correct to bet the maximum amount on the end?
I've played in some home games with a similar structure. Most of the time, players will bet the max on the end, but will sometimes bet less. I think betting less than the max is usually a mistake.
I can think of two situations where it might be correct to bet less than the maximum.
1) You are pretty sure that you can influence how an opponent will respond by betting less than than the max.
2) The pot is very small.
Against certain players, #1 is sometimes true, but not usually.
With this structure, the players tend to see the flop more often than in the standard game. Therefore there are seldom very small pots on the river so # 2 above does not usually apply.
When else might it be correct to bet less than the max?
- Greg
I play in three or four small no-limit hold-em Tourneys each week. They usually average slightly more than 100 players and have unlimited re-buys the first three rounds. They usually pay two tables, although the second table usually represents only a return of your buy-in and rebuy or add-on costs. I have found that it is better to limp in with pocket aces, kings or queens in the early rebuy periods and hope to get played with. If no one raises and the flop looks fairly innocent, I'll push it all in and hope for the best. If I get raised before the flop, I go all in. When someone acts before me on the flop, I'll still push it all in if there is no overcard to my pair or no pair on the board. With an overcard or a pair, I am willing to give the hand up to any serious betting action. Premium pairs occur too seldom to be content to just win some small blinds with. I've talked with many no limit players, whose play I respect, and they feel much less disposed to trying to trap with the big pairs than I do. I feel that the big three category one hands are strong enough to risk it all with when the rebuy light is still lit. What do you think?
John,
Your way of playing the big pairs will work against weak players that call too much. In the tournaments you play in that simplified strategy my do just fine if you dont put yourself in positions where you only get played with when beaten. Good Luck.
Ray, I know that what you are saying about this working against poorer players, but it also works against some of the better ones who look for opportunities to play fast early on. Like anything else in poker, you have to weigh the risks against the rewards. I slow played pocket kings tonight and got raised all in when a queen flopped. My kings stood up and I doubled through early. By the end of the rebuy period I was in a comfortable chip position and ready to be much more selective with hands played. Now for the denoument; I busted out on a flop of 4-4-10 rainbow when my K-10s got beat by A-4s. My mistake was in calling the raise after I bet the flop out. Even though I've played enough now to not make these kinds of fatal mistakes, I did do it tonight. I find that when mistakes cost me money I tend to remember them better. When I play again next Tuesday, I'll bet that I won't make that same mistake again. Thank you for taking the time to reply to my earlier post.
I think it's a great idea to engineer scenarios where you get bunches of money in before the flop with your big pairs. After the flop, I'd be a little less dogmatic.
JG
Reuben/Ciaffone make THE point about pocket aces and Kings in their no-limit/pot-limit book. They say that the primary purpose of Aces is to get Kings or Queens all-in before the flop. With Kings, it is to get AK or an underpair all-in. After the flop, you have either got a small winner or a big loser. Only an inexperienced limit player will call a big raise on the flop with only top-pair/top-kicker. An overpair is NOT holy city in no-limit.
An overpair is a great hand for snapping off semi-bluffs such as weak-kicker top pairs with a straight or flush draw. However, if it gets to this point, your advantage is drastically reduced.
I do agree with your point about trying to maximize profits with your big pairs in samll tournaments, but the art is in how to get someone in preflop. I find that a baby raise from early position may induce a big raise from AK, AQ, or QQ from a weaker player in the back. If you are first in from late position, I think a normal raise (pot-size+) looks more like a steal from the blinds, and you may get action from any two big cards. Im am always more suspicious of a first-in, late position limper.
Since my playing skills are truly suspect, I've had to analyze and adapt in my no limit hold-em tournament play to the fact that there are many players in each tournament who are superior to me. Since I know that I probably can't outplay them, I try to out survive them. I try to play somewhat fast in the early periods when there are rebuys available and to amass a good sized stack. When the rebuys are finished, I almost always add on the maximum and come back from the break with a mindset to avoid all but the premium hands until my chips have eroded due to blinds and antes or the tournament is down to the final three tables. Once we have gotten down to three tables, I look to see who is left, and what their relative stack sizes are to mine. With this information, I formulate a strategy of play to try to get to the money. By the time we get to the final three tables, a number of real good players have been eliminated. I assume they get eliminated by other good players, or by players like me, who try to avoid confrontations until they have superior starting cards. Once I have gotten to the money, I open up a bit more and am more inclined to steal blinds and make moves on the blinds and antes or on players that I perceive to be weak. I am always trying to move up the payout ladder when I get to the final table and will really mix it up when there are four or fewer left. I know this is far from optimal playing strategy, but it seems this is what I need to do in order to be competitive for the money in these small tournaments. I really admire and envy the computing and strategic knowledge that I read on this forum, but I know I can't compete on that basis. I'm trying to improve my game like the rest of you, but know my level of comrehension is limited. I thought you might be interested in seeing the mindset that one of the "dead money" tourney participants has that allows him to pay his buy-in and take a shot tournament after tournament. I am somewhat amazed, and a little offended, at the attitude exhibited by some of the more knowledgeable players when they discuss the mistakes the winners made in playing the hand that knocked them out of the tournament. They don't seem to realize that poorer players don't usually realize that they are taking the worst of it when they put their money in. A player goes all in with his pocket kings and gets called by someone with pocket nines. He gets beat by the nine coming on the river and gets hysterical about his bad beat and the moron who took a "two outer" up against him. When he moves all in with his pocket nines and gets called by the moron's pocket kings, he is just running bad and can quote you the odds against the moron having a premium hand against him. Of course, when he sucks out on the river, it is only justice for the cumulative bad beats he has suffered in the past. Sorry for the rant, but I wanted to illustrate that while some of us "fish" make poor plays, we still hear and understand the things that are said around us. I personally like to smile and say "sorry" when I put a bad beat on one of these guys. My sincerity might be questionable, but the smile is genuine enough.
John, on one hand you poohpooh your skills, but on the other hand you seem to have defined general correct tournament strategy:
1) try to get a lot of chips early
2) pick your spots and survive to the money rounds
3) steal your way up the payout ladder
Mastering tournament nuances is halfway to not being dead money. Mastering poker is the other.
The only thing I might take issue with is your add-on strategy. Taken to the extreme (which is usually a sign of a bogus premise, but here I go), imagine you were heads up and had all the chips save 1%. Adding on might microscopically increase your chance to finish first, but more than anything, it just juices up the second place prize unnecessarily. Tho this example is absurd, there does exist a continuum upon which there is a range where it is incorrect to add on because you contribute more money to the prize pool than you expect to take out due to increasing your potential standing. If you are near broke it's a great idea to add on. In tournaments where add-ons purchase chips proportionately to the original buy-in chip/cash ratio, it is safe to say that if you are the chip leader you are now sporting the rest of the field an overlay. However, many tournaments nowadays offer add-ons that offer chips for cash at a ratio substantially greater than the original buy-in. In this case, there are a lot less points on the continuum where it is incorrect to add on, tho chip leader at the first break is still probably one of those points. Also, when playing in this type of event, one should try to avoid rebuying before the add-on period as you will be basically gambling with chips for which you paid a premium versus what your opponents will have paid for theirs.
As for the "rant," most of the tough players with whom I play never cry. Most of the crying comes from people who haven't yet got the total package necessary to being a tough player. Sounds like you have the right attitude. Good Luck.
JG
Jim,
Thanks for the insight into add-on strategy. The tournament I played in tonight gave T500 for $60.00 and one optional rebuy of T800 anytime during the first hour for an additional $50.00. I had built up to T850 by the break and added on to bring myself up to T1650. With the blinds at T25 and T50 after the break, this left me in a comfortable position to wait for something decent to play. I regret to report that I squandered all of them on a pretty stupid all in call. On the plus side I learned a new game tonight and managed to leave the casino with a net $101.00 profit for the evening after deducting my tournament loss. This new game, not to be a tease, comes from East India and has to be a game theorists dream. Each player gets three cards face down and betting proceeds blind. If a player decides to look at his hand and then folds, his pot equity reverts to the remaining players. Any player can double the stakes blind when it is his turn to bet. Tonight there was a pot in excess of Four hundred dollars and neither of the two remaining players had looked at their cards yet. I estimate that each had put roughly $90.00 into that pot so they had gained that extra equity from bets other players had forfeited along the way.
Generally, my approach in the no-limit super-satellites (similar to a fast-action tournament) is the antithesis of your strategy.
In the first stage, I do not intend to rebuy. If I get knocked out, I'll come back tomorrow. This is an economics issue: I get more play for a new buy-in than I do with 2 buys in the same event. Instead of risking 420 to win 10,000, in effect, I'm risking 440 to win 20,000.
After the rebuy period ends and you have not added on, although the blinds have increased 3-fold since the start of the tournament, because it is no-limit, you can turn a weak or middle stack into a contender with 1 or 2 all-in hands. Conversely, when you do add-on, your newly-added-on stack can be wiped out in one all-in hand.
It's true that your strategy reduces the need to "outplay" a superior player in the middle stages, but if you have the opportunity to play a tournament every day, you may want to experiment with not rebuying and seeing how far you can go. Over the course of a year, I believe you'll find it to be a more profitable approach.
Earl, I would have a difficult time justifying not adding on at the break. I depend on those extra tournament chips buying me time to wait for a premium hand to contest the pot with. Perhaps it is mostly mental, but knowing I have these extra chips in reserve to pay those blinds until I get a good starting hand seems to allow me the inner calmness to be much more patient. Since you are a good poker player, you are probably getting some edge from that fact alone; I recognize my limitations enough to know that I need the extra chips to be competitive. A meaningful percentage of my middle tourney chip gains come at the expense of players being so short stacked that they are forced to play inferior hands. I look forward to someday having the skill to entertain your single buy-in strategy. Thanks for taking the time to post.
I'm a seven card stud player who is used to the regular casino structured game. That is with a dollar ante and structured 10-20 Tajmahal type game. I've read seven card stud for advanced players by " Sklansky and Malmouth " many times and try not to stray from their guidelines. The casino is a little far for me and I have now found a neighborhood game which is allot less tougher. Game selection has been one of my best weapons. My problem is that the new game is a 1-10 spread limit game where the betting is 1-5 until the last two bets, where it is 1-10. Also, if a pair shows up early you can bet 1-10. They are usually ten handed and three of them have early spit cards where you get to see two card's with one bet. Allot of times you get two see two cards for one dollar on the first round with 11 dollars or more in the pot. I have been playing more hands in certain situations and play pair hands with nothing but elimination of players in mind because of the big ante. I'm going to list each game in detail and any ADVICE that you may give will be appreciated. By the way I love this game.
THEY ALL HAVE A DOLLAR ANTE, ARE ALL SPREAD LIMIT, AND THE LOW CARD IS FORCED IN FOR ONE DOLLAR. WHEN RAISING YOU CAN ADD 1-5 OR 1-10 TO THE ORIGINAL BET. EXAMPLE: PLAYER BETS 3 DOLLARS ON SIXTH STREET, I CAN RAISE IT UP TO 13 DOLLARS. 1-10 BETTER; NO STRUCTURE. I CAN MAKE IT ANYTHING FROM 4 TO 13.
#1) REGULAR SEVEN CARD STUD 1-5 on third, fourth and fifth street unless a pair comes up, which makes it 1-10. 1-10 on sixth and seventh street
#2) SEVEN CARD STUD WITH A SPIT CARD AFTER THIRD STREET BETTING. The same betting structure as above only now a spit card is put on the middle of the table after the third street bet. Yes two cards for one bet! You get the spit and the fourth street card.
#3) FIVE CARD STUD WITH TWO SPIT CARDS The betting starts after two cards are dealt to everyone , one up and one down; then the low card comes in for a dollar.( As told above you can call or raise anywhere from 2 to 6 dollars. That is 1-5 better up until the last two bets or unless a pair shows which makes it 1-10.) After second street a spit card is thrown and everyone gets another down card. Yep two cards for one bet again. Now everyone has two down one up and the spit in the middle. After betting everyone receives another upcard. After betting that ,a spit is thrown in the middle and betting continues. Then the final card is dealt down and the last bet takes place. Everyone has five cards and can use both spit cards, for a total of seven cards.
REMINDER FOR ALL GAMES: It is 1-5 until the last two bets unless a pair hits which makes it 1-10. The last two bets are 1-10
#4)FIVE CARD STUD WITH ONE SPIT CARD The betting starts after two cards are dealt to everyone , one up and one down; then the low card comes in for a dollar .( As told above you can call or raise anywhere from 2 to 6 dollars. That is 1-5 better up until the last two bets or unless a pair shows which makes it 1-10.) .After second street a spit card is thrown and everyone gets another down card. Yep two cards for one bet again. Now everyone has two down one up and the spit in the middle. After betting everyone receives another upcard.Then the final card is dealt down and the last bet takes place. Everyone has five cards and can use the one spit in the middle for a total of six cards.
Mason, Im a good customer of yours. Can you please respond to the above post.
I would like to pose a query:
To wit:
If you had to name the single most important thing that makes you a successful gambler (poker player) what would it be?
Some examples are: Patience, discipline and money management, etc.
I'll post my answer later. I think I will be the only one with this particular response. Regardless, I don't believe there is any "right" answer, but I am curious to see what gets the most replys.
Joe,
It's close between the enjoyment of winning which means being right, the enjoyment of money, enjoyment of being directly rewarded for performing well (in the long run), and intelligence. Hmm........ I'll go with enjoyment of winning.
Tom Haley
Joe-
All things being equal-- and, for the most part, I think most of the top players ALL play real solidd-- the single most important factor, to my mind, would be GAME SELECTION.
The thing that has had the most impact on my game is developing the discipline and patience to play only certain hands in certain positions. Once I starting developing the ability to sit out many hands in row when I had only trash, my game improved considerably.
There is a very good essay on the subject on this website:
http://www.twoplustwo.com/reber1.html
Regards,
Leigh W. Davis
Attitude.
The ability to walk away from a big lose and come back the next day without the lose affecting your new game.
Fil
I think most of these posts reflect the discipline theme (which is my choice).
The real question is, what attribute would have the most effect on your poker game if it was MISSING (therebye implying that it has the most value)
Without a doubt- discipline... ... to shake off bad beats .... to approach the game in the best frame of mind .... to show patience and wait for the money hands (which vary, depending on the type of game- loose, passive, etc) ..... to continue to play your best, paying attention to hands, focusing on the games...
Increasing my poker discipline has been the single most important factor in starting the turn from a losing to a winning poker player.
DISCIPLINE- the keystone of the great poker future.
Can someone advise on the following three queries:- In 10/20 and 20/40 games:- 1.what % of the pot does the casino take for the rake ? 2.what is the maximum amount casinos take for the rake ? 3.On average, how many players pay to see the flop ?
Thanks in advance for any replies.
The rake at the 10/20 and 20/40 is $3.00 max at the Mirage. Or has they indicate 10% not to exceed $3.
On average, how many players pay to see the flop ? This is a crystal ball type question depending on the game. Loose, 5-10, tight, 2-3, typical(mix of loose and tight players, most common) 3-5 players.
I don't play anywhere else in Vegas, mainly because they are the only cardroom that I am aware of anyway, that spreads 20/40 and 40/80. For what it worth, 40/80 is a collection game, $5.00 on the half hour.
Hope this helps and,
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
This book is accepted as the best ever written on hold'em by most players. What I didn't know but just found out is that it also is a great book for tourny strategy with a few modifications. If you make the modifications you have an excellent book in which to base your strategy on. I bought a lot of books on tournys but I think that I really didn't need to but like Mason I like to collect poker books even if they are horrible.
The Problem:
I have a friend of mine and we have differing views on how the following hand should be played. BTW... This is a real hand played at Barge in a ring game this year.
First some background.... Player A has been on a bit of a rush and has quadrupled his buyin, he is winning many uncontested pots but when he is called down, he has the goods. He is check-raising consistently and has a very strong table image. Player B has been playing pretty tight, hasn't been heard from too much in the hour that he has been sitting there.
Player A is in the BB with A3
Player B is in LP with A8
There is no raise before the flop so we had 2.5 SB in this pot.
Flop comes A83 (rainbow)
Here is the actual play of the hand.. Player A bet out, B raised, A re-raised, B makes it 4 bets. Player A calls.
Turn Player A checks and calls Player B's bet
River Player A checks and calls Player B's bet
Strategy Arguement #1
Player A feels that he made a *huge* error in playing this hand.... He had a terrific read on Player B. When Player B went 4 bets on him, it meant that he either had a set or 2 pair. At the time he felt that his *best case scenario* was that they would split the pot with Player B having A3. He feels that he should have laid this hand down without calling the 4 bet, or if he did call the 4 bet then he should check/fold on the turn bet. He feels that this type of hand is the difference between a *Good* and a *Great* player. A *Great* player is gone on the flop.
Strategy Arguement #2
Player A made a *huge* mistake in going 3 bets on the flop. Player B's most likely hands a AJ, AT, A9 and not AQ or AK since the pot was not raised pre-flop. Let Player B raise the flop and then check and call him down letting him bluff off his money.
I realize that I have not given you the turn/river cards. At the time, It was felt that the hand was made on the flop and that the turn/river cards were of no consequence. Which strategy is the best and why??
Regarding Strategy Argument #2...
This doesn't seem valid to me. First of all, if the LP has A-J, A-10, or A-9, he's drawing live---he has 6 outs on the turn and (usually) 9 outs on the river; if this is the case, he must be punished up front for the draw. Secondly, making it 3 bets gained the BB valuable information--namely, that he was hopelessly behind. He does not get this read without making it 3 bets, and it is important; he saves himself at least a check raise on the turn, even more if he has the discipline to muck the hand when the LP player makes it 4 bets.
The mere debate about this hand illustrates why many players do not make as much money as they should. I refer to the fact that no one brought up the idea that Player A should have checked on the flop. That is almost certainly the right play. But the reason has nothing to do with advanced strategy ! Rather it is because Player B is likely to have nothing. Thus a check will likely elicit a bet from a hand that would have folded if you bet. And even if it doesn't, the free card that you give may make him a second best hand on fourth st. Not makeing that check will cost you FAR MORE MONEY than missing the opportunity to make fancy plays or expert laydowns.
Thanks for the quick reply David, I appreciate it...
But let's take the hand a bit further now so that I can follow your thought process...
So we check the flop. What do we do on the turn if he checks behind us. How does the hand play out if he bets the flop... Do we check-raise here or call and check-raise the turn.
David,
This may seem crazy but I have a reason why the check isn't considered very often. Most players that have read your book, The Theory of Poker, have got it in their heads that inducing bluffs is not desirable. You explain in the book that you don't want your opponents bluffing at the correct frequency. In order to accomplish this goal you should try to stop bluffs when your opponent doesn't bluff often enough in order to lead your opponent away from the correct bluffing frequency. If your opponent bluffs too often then you want to induce bluffs from your opponent, again, to lead your opponent away from the correct bluffing frequency. Along this line of thinking (not necessarily mine), most players don't bluff often enough so stopping bluffs is the desired strategy against most opponents. I think that Abdul's post about defending the blinds illustrates my point. Comments?
Tom Haley
P.S. I believe that 2 pair on the flop is not a hand that you have to consider stopping a bluff with.
I was talking about a specific hand not an overall bluffing frequency. For example if I have a mediocre hand and there is an $80 pot and a $20 bet, I wouldn't want to induce a bluff if it raised his bluffing freqency on that hand from 5% to 15%. That concept is not related to this example.
David,
One last thing. Is the concept here simply using deception?
Tom Haley
I don't understand your question
David ,
To reiterate, the situation is that the pot is small, you have two pair, with top and bottom board cards, you're in the big blind, and your opponent most likely doesn't have much. You would bet when you expected a hand to call you that wasn't justified in doing so. In this case if you bet your opponent will fold correctly when they have nothing. By checking your good hand you are disguising your hand and trying to get your opponent to make a mistake by either betting a hand that they would not have even called with or calling when they improve to a hand that is second best. In this case your opponent got lucky and happened to have a bigger 2 pair. The criteria for disguising your hand, using deception, is covered in the chapter on deception in the Theory of Poker as this hand more or less fits the criteria enumerated there. If the pot was a lot bigger you would bet thus not disguising your hand trying to win the pot immediately and not being concerned about winning extra bets. In other words it would be correct to bet when you don't want to give your opponent a free card to beat you on a long shot that they would have folded had you bet when the pot is big enough. Are these the concepts that apply here?
Tom Haley
In this particular case the pot would have to be gigantic which it of course couldn't be. But we can use this situation to illustrate an advanced concept. Namely how large does the pot have to be if you think he will check no pair behind you as opposed to if you think he will bluff with no pair. Though you will check in either case in this particular example I hope you see that you wouldn't need as large a pot to bet into the guy who will take a free card.
David,
Got it. Thanks.
Tom Haley
Player A feels that he made a *huge* error in playing this hand.... He had a terrific read on Player B. When Player B went 4 bets on him, it meant that he either had a set or 2 pair. <<
I don't understand the "huge" error in playing this hand...?"A" was in the BB, and got a "free" play and, flopped two pair.
Player B, apparently just limped in, therefore, not showing any strength from late position.
If player A, had such a good read on B, then he must have known that A wasn't making it 4 bets w/AK on the flop or top pair with a good kicker. (and I think we can all agree that 8-3 is not a factor). Therefore the only holdings B could have was a set of 8's or 3's, or, top two pair.
Player A mucks the hand on the flop and gets ready for the next hand. There are three hands that A can put B on and two of them beat him.
>>Player A made a *huge* mistake in going 3 bets on the flop...<< Would this have been a mistake if A had won the pot? You would say he won extra bets. But sense he lost then it is a "mistake?" He found out he apparently was up against a very good hand by 3 betting it. But sense it is limit holdem he decided to call all the way just to make sure he was right.
PlayerA should be happy that B didn't smooth call the 3 bets and then raised on the turn.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
In 1987 when I came to Las Vegas there was a certain hold 'em player that I was told by everyone that he was the best. I was constantly told things like "His judgement is so good that he can always lay down two pair in the right spots." Today the guy is broke. I guess he laid down two pair too often (besides playing too many hands).
My experience is that you never lay down hands in this spot. The fact that they are usually beat isn't enough. You must take into account the size of the pot.
Over the years I can think of many situations where I would call on the river believing that my hand had no chance and I would win the pot. Virtually everyone of these situations is similar to the one that you have described. They usually have an ace with a small kicker and overplay the hand because they don't think that your hand can be very good.
When you say "I would call on the river believing that my hand had no chance" I aggree.
But in this case, if you know your opponent very well, you can fold on the flop and save 5 small bets.
I agree. If you know your opponent extremely well, and I emphasize the word "extremely," you can sometimes make lay downs that otherwise are not appropriate. But you better be sure that you are right.
Regarding strategy argument 1, two factors justify player A's call: (1) the likelihood of splitting the pot, and (2) the fact that his A3 can draw out. Note that it only costs A 1.5 SB to see two more cards. Under the facts described, player A has a 36% chance of splitting the pot if B cannot have a set of eights, and a 28% chance if B can have a set of eights. (Would this guy really just limp in with pocket eights in LP)? If the pot is split, A recovers 4.75 SB that he'd lose by folding. When A doesn't split the pot, he'll draw out about 9% of the time and take down 13.5-15.5 SB. These factors clearly outweigh the 1.5 SB he will lose between 2/3 to 3/4 of the time.
I meant 1.5 big bets to see two more cards. But the correct play is still to call.
Here's some questions I've been meaning to ask for a couple months now.
Why and when did 7 card Stud Hi/Lo Split get the 8 or Better qualifier? What is the Biggest Strategy change that needs to be made when the 8 or better rule is added?
I haven't really studied Hi/Lo Split games yet. I'm debating on whether to study Sklansky's or Zee's text first.
Thanks, CV
Chris,
David has an excellent section in doyles book which tells you that without a qualifier you almost always play for low. In 8 or better you play with high hands very often and quite frenquently when less players are in. Read davids stuff first as everything he wrote should be read before playing poker at all. Good Luck.
In Omaha-8, one of the most significant advantages of a strong player in a loose game is to only play hands with multiway strength. Certain starting hands have several ways to eventually make the nuts, while others have virtually none. While most hands are close in value heads-up, "In a multiway pot, (many of) these hands are total trash." The best multiway hands tend to make the absolute nuts - nut lows, ace high flushes and straights, sets of aces, aces full (or even kings full or six or seven high straights with a wheel for low). Due to this, when you are in a very loose game, you want to play the best starting hands in large fields. If a preflop raise significantly narrows the field, you would be losing much of the profitability of your hand. Furthermore, you might be knocking out a lot of the marginal hands that give value to combinations like A2. (see "Preflop raising in loose games: a mistake?") You also might make your opponents tighten up. However, if those results were unlikely to happen, you would want to put in as much money as possible behind your hand preflop. While the flop considerably changes the value of hands, some starting hands have a preflop advantage and others do not. When you have a hand with above average value over the sum of all flops, you would want to push it for its maximum value. (This would not apply to a few playable starting hands, which are playable because of their large implied value in specific situations. With those hands, you generally want to see the flop cheaply - four low cards without an ace or four high cards suited up.) But for those hands that do have above average value, you would want to raise whenever almost everyone would be likely to call - such as in late position when several people are already in. If you are dealt a better hand with a low, you should raise it for value if you will be called.
When N people are in, correct starting hands will definitely have values greater than 1/N. In addition, since your hands tend to make the absolute nuts, you want as many marginal draws tagging along as possible, as they will often be drawing dead to you. The large pots will encourage them to do that. Raising wars could be very profitable when you have a lock for high and get action from a lower high hand that thinks he is best, trapping lows in the middle.
Dan-
I'm glad to see someone else thinking about this--I think it's an interesting question. In the games I play in, I think it has a paradoxical answer.
"When N people are in, correct starting hands will definitely have values greater than 1/N."
I don't think anyone in their right mind would dispute this.
"In addition, since your hands tend to make the absolute nuts, you want as many marginal draws tagging along as possible, as they will often be drawing dead to you. The large pots will encourage them to do that."
This argument is essentially identical to the one made by Randy H. in a previous post (See- "More on loose Omaha: Programming Your Opponents"), and is really the crux of the issue--since we're ignoring the possibility that they tighten up preflop. How does preflop raising affect the play of your opponents after the flop? In my opinion and experience, they play BETTER for two reasons:
1) They alter their play very little (see below) based on the preflop raise. They call with the same gutshots etc., that they always call with. Since your preflop raise has essentially increased the ante, such play is better in expectation because the pot is now bigger.
2) Your raise has alerted them to the possibility that their rag lows may not hold up because of A-2 or A-3. They will be more inclined to throw these away.
This needs to be weighed against the punishment you can deliver preflop. How much different from 1/N is a premium starting hand?
>1) They alter their play very little (see below) based on the
>preflop raise. They call with the same gutshots etc.,
>that they always call with. Since your preflop raise
>has essentially increased the ante, such play is better
>in expectation because the pot is now bigger.
But many of them are drawing with a zero or near zero chance to win, so their calls are essentially lost money to them anyway. With a gutshot on the flop, not only is that at best a 4/45 chance for probably half the pot, but when you hit it, virtually every turn/river card will enable a FH, flush or higher straight, or many other people will split the gutshot with you, especially if it is a combination like JT. So their $10 call might be a $9.50 error in a raised pot instead of $9.75. Bad low cards are totally worthless, and many seemingly four out FH draws actually have no outs.
>2) Your raise has alerted them to the possibility that their
>rag lows may not hold up because of A-2 or A-3.
>They will be more inclined to throw these away.
That would be more of a problem. If the raise narrowed the field, or it they start to be more careful against you, then you would just go back to limping with strong hands. But there are holdem games where players pay no attention to preflop raises and just put in however many chips. The same in Omaha-8 would be very lucrative.
>This needs to be weighed against the punishment you
>can deliver preflop. How much different from 1/N is a
>premium starting hand?
That's the issue. If Omaha-8 is theoretically the most profitable game against loose players, it is because of the (1) significant disparity between hand strengths in multiway fields, and (2) the fact that most draws on the flop that appear valuable to an inexperienced player are actually worth little or nothing. If factor #2 is more significant, then preflop raising would depend on whether opponent decisions on the flop would be influenced by pot size. If they would otherwise fold marginal draws on the flop, but the larger pot encourages them to continue, then the raise might be advisable. If they play those draws anyway, then you may want to magnify that error instead, and not risk altering their play by raising.
How would you figure out the "value" of a starting hand?
Good points.
On valuing a starting hand, you can do some of this analytically. In particular, assessing the probability that portions of hands like A-2 or A-2-3 will make the nut low, on the flop, backdoor, or on a one-card draw, is a straightforward and relevant exercise. Same goes for some of the "high" combinations.
I guess a simulator could be used to do valuation, but you'd have to be very careful about your playing assumptions. For example, I wouldn't expect to be in there showing down with an overpair too often. On this topic, I saw a book in the Gambler's Book Store in Reno called "Omaha Express" or something like that. I only had a few minutes, and I didn't end up buying it because: 1) I couldn't figure out exactly what the author was doing. 2) The numbers looked suspicious, or at least didn't look like the numbers I was looking for. At any rate, the book did have a fairly exhaustive list of O-8 starting hands with numbers attached to it. Has anyone seen this?
Great thread Dan and George. I only have a few minutes but here are a few thoughts on the subject. I play holdem and stud at the higher limits to overcome the LA County low limit pre hand collection (which of course is very unfavorable to tighter players - this subject is worth a complete analysis but I still haven't caught up on others comments on the subject in the archives). However, Omaha 8 or better is very worthwhile at the 3/6 kill level because the many games in my area are almost always very loose. Very loose Omaha 8 games are much more profitable than a moderately loose game without much of an increase in standard deviation. This of course is first explained in Mason's Essay Book One and Ray Zee's HLSFAP. In my experience, these loose low limit games tend to fall into two categories.
In the first category, there is a lot of calling pre flop but not much raising. Here, raising a lot of flops pre flop for value (as opposed to narrowing the field) does tend to wake up the players to the fact that you have a monster and probably the A2 but I've noticed only a bit of unwillingness to pay me off and this only comes from the few semi sensible players. In these games I try to find quality hands without the A2 to raise with such as A34K double suited or the very best high only hands and avoid value raising with all but my strongest hands containing the A2. And I now agree with a previous post of George that raising in these games too much does tighten them up quite a lot (I believe David Sklansky responded to George with a post containing nothing more than the title "George Is Absolutely Right". Very clever, but then again David can't type fast (by his own admission).)
In the second category of loose game, there is both a large field and a lot of raising and capping before the flop. The players are there to gamble (these games are more frequent at night and on weekends). Here, you might as well raise with your very best hands that include the A2 suited with backup and avoid big capped pots with hands that need to hit perfect (such as four high cards) or a quality A3. In these games, they don't seem to notice what I am in there with and I get paid off anyway.
Note that the games can switch between types as players move in or out and depending on who is winning so you must alter your strategy accordingly.
Regarding "Omaha Express". My recollection on this book was that it covered Omaha high only which is why it is stored in my garage. The advice did seem pretty fair (I believe this was Mason's view also). A book that contains quite a few tables and statistics is "Omaha Split 8 or Better For Low" by John Payne and it was available at Gambler's Book Club around 1992 (I think it is out of print; however, I misplaced by GBC catalog). Payne has also written books on Holdem High Low and one version of Pineapple Split. They aren't in the class of Two Plus Two but the perceptive reader can pick up some good advice as little has been written about the latter two games.
When you limp in in an early or middle position, and are raised later, it may or may not be correct to fold. There may be a significant chance that you are against a dominating hand, and that you would be likely to make a second best hand if you hit the flop. However, if there is any value in your hand, and especially if there are several other callers or if there is a lot of dead money in the pot, calling one bet may be better than folding.
Middle offsuit cards (JTo, QJo, KJo, KQo, ATo, AJo) - These hands would be in trouble against certain high pairs and also AK/AQ (for some of these hands). Much of the high card value of your hand may be lost when it is very likely that you are dominated. These would tend to fold. (A clear exception would be when your opponent often raises drawing hands in late position to manipulate pot size to encourage errors after the flop.)
Suited aces - These are not threatened by pocket pairs. You do lose implied odds for your draw, and your top pair of aces must be played more cautiously in a pot that was raised preflop. But there is enough value in your flush draw to see the flop, especially since you may have odds to draw out on AK or AQ if you are indeed against one of those hands.
Suited connectors - These lose implied odds to the raise. Also, if you are against an ace or king in your suit, you lose some of the value of your flush draw. These might tend to call one bet, since they are unlikely to be trapped by a dominating hand.
Low/medium pairs - These would tend to call one raise, since they would have implied odds to see if they flop a set.
If there is a reraise or cap (in a normal game), different considerations apply, since you are likely to be facing a much stronger hand.
"When you limp in in an early or middle position, and are raised later, it may or may not be correct to fold. There may be a significant chance that you are against a dominating hand, and that you would be likely to make a second best hand if you hit the flop. However, if there is any value in your hand, and especially if there are several other callers or if there is a lot of dead money in the pot, calling one bet may be better than folding."
There are virtually no hands that you should fold for one more bet after you have limped in.
"Middle offsuit cards (JTo, QJo, KJo, KQo, ATo, AJo) - These hands would be in trouble against certain high pairs and also AK/AQ (for some of these hands). Much of the high card value of your hand may be lost when it is very likely that you are dominated. These would tend to fold. (A clear exception would be when your opponent often raises drawing hands in late position to manipulate pot size to encourage errors after the flop.)"
I suspect that the reason you may be running into trouble is that you are limping in with some of these hands when you shouldn't be playing them. For instance, limping with ATo in early or middle position is frequently a mistake.
"Suited aces - These are not threatened by pocket pairs. You do lose implied odds for your draw, and your top pair of aces must be played more cautiously in a pot that was raised preflop. But there is enough value in your flush draw to see the flop, especially since you may have odds to draw out on AK or AQ if you are indeed against one of those hands."
In many games you should not always be limping with a suited ace. It depends on your positio, etc.
Mason's post succinctly addressed what I considered the problem with the original poster's premise (limping with inferior hands is the trouble more than dealing with the raise), but the last sentence caught my attention:
Mason wrote: "In many games you should not always be limping with a suited ace. It depends on your position, etc."
Wasn't this a point in dispute between MM and Abdul? Not trying to be an instigator of anything more than intellectual discourse, but Mason what is your position on barging in early with A8suited? I only bring this up because my fallible memory thinks that perhaps you had switched camps. Thanks,
JG
It all depends on the game. In most of the $20-$40 games that I play I will limp in UTG with A8s. There is enough multiway action that I believe it is correct, but you need to play the hand well.
At higher limits usually throw the hand away. The games tend to be tighter and I am more likely to get isolated. But this is not a function of the limit, it is a function of the game. If you were in a tight but aggressive low limit game, then you should throw the hand away. If you were in a loose and passive high limit game, the opposite would be true. It may also be right to raise with the hand UTG if the game is tight passive. (By the way, I can't remember the last time I saw a tight passive game.)
>There are virtually no hands that you should fold for one
>more bet after you have limped in.
What about two more bets (or three)?
Now you should fold a lot of hands, with pairs being the exception.
Can anyone help me with the same problem in pot-limit ? A typical situation would be that I call for 25 with a group 3/4/5 hand in early/middle position, and then someone raises 100 or so. At the moment I'm folding these on the basis that if it's not good enough for me to raise, it's not good enough to call someone else's raise. Is this correct or are there some hands with which it would be correct to limp then call (Ax suited ?). Game is moderately loose but can vary wildly according to the make-up of the table. Would similar considerations apply to no-limit ? Thanks in advance,
Andy.
VERY little of the information with respect to how to play hands preflop as recited in HE for AP applies to pot limit or no limit play. You should completely forget the hand groupings, as hands that make the nuts go way up in value in PL/NL, and hands that don't make the nuts go way down. Thus, while you can play KQs very hard when it makes a flush in limit, you have to be real cautious when it makes a flush in PL/NL, as there is really no hand that will put a lot of money in the pot against you other than the nut flush.
For PL/NL, I suggest reading the book by Ciaffone and Reuben. I think that it is the best so far.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
4-8 HE, loose-to-average SoCal 9-handed game. UTG folds, I raise with QQ in 4th position, elderly lady in 7th and BB call. Flop is J 3 3 rainbow. BB checks, I bet, lady raises, BB folds. My experience with this lady is that she does not bluff, is fairly passive and tends to call often. My first feeling from her raise is that she has more than top pair. I put her on A3s and reluctantly fold my queens. Calling seemed a low EV play what with only two outs and a smallish pot. But in hindsight(I am a beginner and my confidence in my card reading skills is low), I think I may have been wrong to fold so quickly, and that she might have had AJ or KJ. Any comments on this play? What in general should a pocket overpair do when a board pair flops?
In this situation, you can only play the player.
The thing to do is to decide what are the chances that she has trips, vs. the chances that she has some other hand (that you're ahead of!). Based upon that estimate you can then decide if you want to call her down or not. Also, based upon that estimate, and other factors you know about this player, you can decide if you should reraise, bet the turn, check-raise the turn, etc.
Again, ALL of these decisions depend upon the player (and, indirectly, the current pot size) more than anything else. I include the pot size, because this is what you'll use when you compare your estimates of what the lady holds. In the given hand, there are 9.5 small bets in the pot after she raises you. If you call her down, it will cost you 5 small bets to win 13.5. If you think that there is at least a 27% chance that she doesn't have trips, you can call.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
There are two things wrong with this analysis. You dont need a 27% chance that she doesn't have trips. It is more like 20% because you can spike an ace. On the other hand you are not necessarily going to win 13.5 bets since she might not bet again without a 3.
You're right, but since considering these factors is complicated, and because they go in opposite directions, I decided to just include the basic number without mentioning the modifications.
If we are going to be more complete, we also have to include the chances of our being ahead on the flop, but our opponent catching up on the turn or river, and the chances of our winning from behind other than spiking an A. All of this seriously complicates the issue, and doesn't change the final number by a really large amount. Thus, I'll stick with the basic number for my decisions at the table.
The biggest mistake in my post was in not stating that the complete answer required consideration of other (unmentioned) factors.
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Yes there is that third factor also. However not taking into account the possibility of spiking a queen is more than a minor error that more than makes up for the other fine points. Thus your 27% is definitely too high
Since she does usually play timid poker and she knows you raised before the flop, she would have just called after the flop with KJ or AJ. Another consideration is that she had AA or KK which alot of timid players just call raises with in low limit games. So she had one of these three hands to come out and raise you.....good fold.
I've always had a question about this- how do you experts determine the percentages that you throw around, as far as expected actions?
My question- how do you determine if it is 20 or 27% likely that a player will do something, or will have something, if you don't know the card mixes AND you don't know the player very well?
I've been unable to evaluate the pot odds vs. these "think" percentages myself, mainly because I can't fathom how you get those (what I assume are ballpark) percentages...
Now, if you had a lot of experience against a person, I'd believe that estimating might be valid.... but in these cases?
Someone please enlighten me..
You're right. These are ballpark figures, guesstimates, or whatever else you want to call them. The better you know the player, the more accurate your guess. If I have just sat down, or a new player just sat down, then I will use a figure that is representative of an "average" person in that game, given the action up to that point. This average person plays differently in 3-6 as compared to 20-40, even though for each individual, this may not be true.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
And if it is not an"average" person that has just sat down there is nothing in the poker laws that says you cannot be politically incorrect. Thus if you have never before seen fat redheaded gay guys with beards raise in similar situations without having trips you have every right to take this into account if this new player fits that description.
now THAT was an interesting stereotype... or group...or whatever...
Where did you get THAT one? (besides being an extreme example of what your point was...)
Easy E,
Let me try. You have to analyze what you can win by analyzing what the pot is laying you and bets you expect to win versus how much money you have to put in and compare that with your chance of ending up with the best hand. In this particular case if the pot were ten times the size you would certainly call because the chances of her not being a big favorite would never be small enough to justify folding. On the other hand if the pot was 1/10 as big, you would have to fold because the chances of her not being a big favorite would never be high enough to justify continuing. I'm sure you were aware of this already.
IMO arriving at the odds of her having you beat is a function of what your opinion of her ability as a poker player is. You'd have to think the chances are very high that she is a prohibitive favorite if she is a straightforward calling station type player. If she was some sort of maniac you might come to the conclusion that the chances were decent that you were a decent favorite, better than 20%. If it is a reasonable player, you have to at least think about what they think you have and how they play against other people in these situations to come to the estimate. Of course when you are confronted with a situation like this in the heat of battle chances are that you won't be able to put it together fast enough to do this. However, if you work out the problem away from the table after your session I think you will gain a lot of insight as to how you should have played it. This particular situation comes up frequently enough that you will face it again and now you will have a good idea as to how to play your hand and the estimates you should assign. IMO this is all part of working on your deductive poker skills away from the table.
Tom Haley
JYC said:
"But in hindsight(I am a beginner and my confidence in my card reading skills is low), I think I may have been wrong to fold so quickly, and that she might have had AJ or KJ. Any comments on this play? What in general should a pocket overpair do when a board pair flops?"
What you should do in general is very difficult to determine. It depends on the situation and your knowledge of your opponents style. In the situation you describe you are well on your way to playing expert poker. You will encounter many such players,,,in other words you know for a FACT that they must have you beat. It just wouldn't occur to them to raise you with a jack. After all you could have aces, or a three!
So, in the final analysis don't do too much second guessing. I think I should have called? All this will do is cause you to make bad pay offs in the future. By the way. If it turns out you laid down the winner once in a while, congratulations. Bad players NEVER lay down a winner.
Dear JYC,
As many people have said, it would depend upon how this player plays. Given the style of game and your description of this lady as 'does not bluff, calls too much', etc, I get the feeling that this lady would not raise you unless she could beat you. The minimum hand which would beat you is KK. The best hand which you could beat is AJ. In my experience, it's only a reasonably sophisticated player who can raise with just top pair, especially against a preflop raise.
Often you find these players at low limits - very unsophisticated, their minimum calling requirements are low and their minimum raising requirements are very high. When you play against these people, you just KNOW where you are, as long as you are aggressive - only by giving them the opportunity to raise will you find out what they have, but by checking you won't discover anything.
Also, remember that a sophisticated player would only raise on the flop (without a 3) against another sophisticated player - to put pressure on, stop bluffs, get a free cards bluff for themselves, etc. If you yourself were an unsophisticated player, I might play back at you once with AJ and drop it if you don't stop. But against a top player I'll show it down often enough.
As for what to do with an overpair when a low pair flops, I would simply suggest pumping the pot as hard as possible - that may mean betting, or checkraising. You certainly don't check it round or check and call. If anyone has the 3, you're going to find out soon enough, but only by betting.
Richard Cavell. Getting even luckier with more experience.
In this type of game, with this type of player, there figure to be four possibilities.
She has a three.
She has two threes.
She misread her hand.
She misread the board.
In general you want to play the pocket overpairs fast on the flop. Against this lady, to bet out is correct since there is no possibility of playing for a checkraise. I doubt she'll bet the flop with anything QQ can beat (including AJs with a backdoor flush draw). However, against a player in late position who is capable of using this advantage, I would play for a checkraise. If you're then reraised, you can be fairly sure that QQ is no good.
In another thread, Big John wrote: "This new game, not to be a tease, comes from East India and has to be a game theorists dream. Each player gets three cards face down and betting proceeds blind. If a player decides to look at his hand and then folds, his pot equity reverts to the remaining players. Any player can double the stakes blind when it is his turn to bet. Tonight there was a pot in excess of Four hundred dollars and neither of the two remaining players had looked at their cards yet. I estimate that each had put roughly $90.00 into that pot so they had gained that extra equity from bets other players had forfeited along the way."
OK. Please tell us the rest. Especially, what happens when a player looks at his hand, and doesn't fold?
Also, in addition to the rules, please tell us the name and location of this game.
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"Always looking for new sources of +EV."
Greg,
The game is spread at Crystal Park Casino after 8:00P.M. "Sonny" is the host and the game is called India Pak Flash. When the blind bet is at 32.00, and a player decides to look at his hand and wants to play, he must put in 64.00 to continue playing. The next player who is still blind can call with 32.00, or he may elect to look at his cards and call 64.00 or raise to 128.00 if he decides to continue playing. There are some serious GambOOlers in this game, and it isn't that unusual to see three or four players remaining blind when the bets have reached 32.00 or even 64.00. You can look at your cards at any time you choose, investing very little in the pot beforehand and playing only holdings which would be a pronounced favorite against "X" random holdings. The last time I played, I was to the immediate left of a maniac and wound up losing more than I should have due to not thinking of the correct best strategy to counter this position. There is a small no limit tourney there tonight that I will be playing in and then I might just wander back in the back and get some additional playing experience to report back to you.
FYI. Blacky Blackburn was the first person to introduce this game and may still be involved in some way.
It sounds very similar to 3-card brag which is played in England. I've never played it but I can assure you it is a mean game and a lot more difficult than it sounds. In the English version, the deck is only shuffled when someone makes "a prole" (ie trips) and the best players can track the discards through the deck so they don't need to look at their hand ! If you are up against someone this good you will get slaughtered.
PS Greg, thanks for your PL response below.
Andy.
FossilMan,
In the interest of pure research, and at your behest, I returned to the India Pak Flash game and spent another few hours developing playing strategy. Notice I didn't qualify that by inserting winning in front of playing? There were some happy East Indians seeing me return to their game. I am just starting to get used to the idea that I'm a "fish" in hold-em, and now I'm a "fish out of water" to these players. They love it, I love it, one of us is going to be proven incorrect. There were only four players, including myself last night, unlike the full table eight handed games I sat in the first two nights. I decided that I wouldn't look at a single hand until someone else had looked and bet, or until I was head's up with only another player and we were both blind and he had made the last bet. When head's up against another player, I found out that I could call his last bet blind and request that he "show". Both of us look at our holdings then and the better hand wins. More to come later....
Playing in this manner, you can separate the game into two separate and individual games: The first involves putting in money blindly until one of the oppponents has looked at his hand and chosen to play on by doubling the size of the last unsighted wager made. If you are next to act, you can look at your cards, fold, match the previous sighted bettor's wager, or double his wager;you can also put in half the bet unsighted, forcing the next blind player to either look at his holding or double your bet blind. If he chooses to look, he either folds, matches the previous sighted bettor's wager or he can double that bettor's wager. Once there are only two sighted bettor's contesting, either can force a showdown by matching the last bet and saying "show". You can choose to continue the wagering by either calling or raising without requesting a "show". This first game requires a good knowledge of probability and the ability to read players. The second game, where you just get to a pot that is only contested by you and one other unsighted player, requires all the skill of a coin flip. You simply match his last bet and ask for a "show". You are getting much better than 1:1 payoff on an even money event due to the money contributed by players who have dropped from the hand. My goal has been to try to almost break even in game # one so that I can reap the harvest when game # two presents itself. I am hoping that someone less lazy about computing mathematically based strategy than I will decide to take an interest and figure out which game # one holdings should be discarded against one known and bet hand and two other random hands. Which known hands should be played against two known and bet hands and one random hand. With three other players still active, I've been playing with nothing less than one pair of Queens or bettor. Against two opponents where one has looked and bet, I lower my requirements to a pair of nines or better. Against one better, I call with A-Jx or better and raise or continue the action with a pair of kings or stronger.
In a recent article Mr. Malmuth stated that low limit and high to medium limit stud games should be played differently . For example, high pairs should be slow played in little stud in order to trap your opponent, rather than played fast to eliminate players as in big stud. The only game I can afford right now is a low limit seven card stud game and all of my poker knowledge comes from books by Mr. Malmuth and Mr. Sklansky which are intended for medium and high limit games. The people I play against are typically very bad and extremely loose. I have only begun playing poker and reading poker books about 3 months ago and have allready had some success. Any other information on "little stud" that varies from what "Seven Card Stud for Advanced Players" says would be much appreciated.
First off you have to deal with the dilemma of the new poker player. Low-limit games. You didn't mention what limits you've been playing, but if you're playing 1-2 or 2-4 stud it's a waste of time. First off these games are generally unbeatable. Sure you might have a session where you win some money, but in the long run the high rake and the wildness make the games useless. Mason will have to help me out on this one, but I'd guess that even if you can get a + win rate it's only going to be a couple bucks an hour (if that). Now since these games aren't profitable, the only thing left is for experience. If you're a social player who likes playing every hand, go for it. But if you're playing low limit games with the hopes of improving to move up to higher limit games, stay away. You're not going to gain any valuable experience in these games. I'd say start putting together a bankroll. Keep reading, learning, and studying. 7CS becomes a game of skill around the 3-6 to 5-10 limit. A necessity is to understand the reason for the strategy in 7CS4AP. If you can understand why they advise you to play that way in the 15-30 games, you'll learn how to make the adjustments yourself. Good luck.
I thought that this was a very insightful post. I believe that an expert player can show a profit at very low limit stud, perhaps a little more than most of you think. But if someone plays that well, they will almost always be at a higher limit.
I have written two articles on the subject of what game a new player should be playing. I won't repeat them here but you can get both of them. The first one is in issue no. 7 of the INTELLIGENT GAMBLER. This is the news letter that ConJelCo puts out, and I assume that it is still available. The other will appear in a future issue of POKER DIGEST. I submitted several columns to them at the same time so I assume that it will appear some time in the next six weeks.
Without giving my reasons, I suggest that if you are a small limit player and you have aspirations of becoming an expert poker player you would be better off playing hold 'em. At the middle limits both games are attractive, and at the high limits I recommend stud. (Of course there are always exceptions.)
I've read 7CS4AP, and the article in Conjelco's "Intelligent Gambler", and I'm a bit confused.
I play in a 5-10 game where the ante is $1 and the bring-in $2. In other words, the ante and bring-in are proportionately *larger* than in the standard 15-30 game that is the model for 7CS4AP. Should I play my 5-10 game with proportionately higher antes according to the recommendations for high-limit games on pp. 103-5?
Normally $5-$10 stud is played with a 50 cent ante and a $1 bring-in. You are in a structure that is different and conforms to our book. So our book should be the basis of your strategy. You should pretend that you never read the ConJelCo article.
A few observations while looking through some statistical reports of TTH2. Contrary to the mathematics of a 52 card deck, a tight player will end up with more full houses than flushes. By "end up" I don't necessarily mean winning the hand (though this also holds true for hands won), so theoretically the hand could have been made on the flop and folded on the turn or river, or, of course, beaten. An average player will experience about the same number of fulls and flushes, while a loose player reverts to the statistical norm and has more flushes (both hot and cold) than full houses. For a given tight player, the difference is greatest when he's under the gun, and as the starting hand possibilities increase with position so does the gap between fulls and flushes close, till we reach the button where the number of fulls and flushes is about equal. The small blind then reverts back to UTG conditions, while the big blind, not surprisingly, is the only position (for a tight player) where flushes outnumber fulls, as nature intended them to do.
The European variation of 5 card draw, which I've played a fair bit of, has 2-6 removed ie. uses a 32 card deck. In this game, as opposed to its American 52 card counterpart, flushes beat full houses. This is because flushes are less frequent than fulls in a 32 card (7-A) deck. The tight player in hold'em (especially in the early positions) has also in effect removed 2-6 from his starting hands. This may partially explain the phenomenom described above.
Etienne
So many people have read HDFAP and use or have tried to use it's playing style. Down here I have run into many players who know this and therefore go against the book. Something sort of like that no-fold'em book of sorts. They read and study the 2+2 book especially the chapters on before flop play. They then search out games and pick out a table that looks as if the people are playing according to the book. They then can read the opponents hands much better. I don't know if this is successful but several players that I have met told me that they do this all the time. They tell me that more times then not they are able to pick off plays made by these opponents because they are following the book. Are there any comments on this? Could this be a new comming thing?
It's called reading hands and it's been around a while.
Predator,
You enjoy the challenge of more difficult poker games don't you?
Tom Haley
On rare occasions I have seen a player who appeared to be playing so exactly "by the book" that it helped me know a little better what that player was doing in certain spots. But I'm talking here about players who have read the book and seem to follow it without having absorbed its many pieces of advice regarding varying one's play, making adjustments for varying game conditions, and so on. It's been a long time since I've run into anyone like this. Most players, even those whose only formal study of the game has been reading HPFAP, seem to exhibit plays which I assume reflect either their personalities or some additional thinking they have done.
How would you "go against the book" in playing against someone who was following the HPFAP guidelines for, say, early position play if they were following the advice about varying one's play against observant opponents? For example, you couldn't be sure that their limping didn't mean a big hand (e.g., AKs). Nor could you be sure that their raise ruled out something like 98s.
There are some "book" plays that you can sometimes recognize. The problem, though, is that it's often easy to guess wrong about what the player is doing. For instance, you may see a hand get checked around on the flop, then a player (who you know has read "the book") bets out from an early position on the turn when an innocuous card comes off. You might figure they are making a play for the pot as described in the book. But I'd advise being careful about indiscriminately bluff-raising in this spot. The player may be bluffing, but may have been planning to check-raise a strong hand on the flop or may have stumbled into something on the turn. (Of course "the book" tells you how to play against the book player here. You raise when you've picked up a good draw.) It will help to really know your player here, but then you're going beyond just the basic observation that they've read the book.
But if a player really does exhibit nothing but very straight forward book type play then, as I'm told chess players put it, you want to get him "out of the book". I would think the best way to do this would be to play against such a player in a short-handed game. Unfortunately he'll probably quit first.
John Feeney
The *book player* will grumble when three players are away from the table, refuse to post the big blind when just five handed, and won't even be at the table for (reduced rake) shorthanded action. I love playing against very tight players who seem determined to do everything *the right way*. At my best, I'll often three bet with middle pocket pairs if this type of player is to my left, and raise with some marginal hands. By reducing the possible starting hands of these pseudo-rocks to group 1-3, additional steal opportunities become available with most raggedy flops when they come in behind me for a cold call. If this type of player calls a raise ahead of me, I'll limit my play to group 1-2 and a few of the multiway drawing hands in other groups (such as JTs T9s). It is always much easier to get accurate early round reads on these type of players when the pot is raised or reraised before the flop. Therefore when in doubt raise it up.
David Sklansky --
I was disappointed to see the Card Player magazine has decided to drop your "Fighting Fuzzy Thinking" column. Have you found a new venue? In the interim, how about posting some columns on this forum?
David Sklansky is now writing for POKER DIGEST.
After seeing the cover of the current issue and reading the story about David and his early years, I am wondering if the publisher is considering starting a new religion with David and his father as the Diety's. If so, can I be the Holy Ghost?
You ave pre anticipated my game plan by a few years. I will be accepting holy ghost applications starting about June 2002.
I plan on submitting my application early. (Along with the nonrefunadable processing fee, of course) Is it still your policy that the first twelve applicants will be guaranteed disciple status should they fail to be selected as part of the Trinity?
I don't know the background on the move of Fighting Fuzzy Thinking from the Card Player to Poker Digest, other than reading the blurb in Card Player. If the cause of the move really was Card Player's disgruntlement with lack of poker in the columns, I think such a thing could have been avoided with just a minor adjustment to the columns: making their relation to poker explicit.
An example is Sklansky's column where he criticized the purchase of large diamonds, since fakes are indistinguishable from real ones and cost a fraction of the price, and the price difference could be applied to aid the sick and starving children of the world if the person didn't want that money. There are some conceptual problems with this, such as fakes not lasting forever and possibly not being cost-effective as a result, and the fact that some people with large diamonds dedicate their lives to the aid of sick and starving children whereas some without any diamonds don't do anything to help anyone, but let's just go with the hypothesis.
While reading the column I kept expecting there to be a tie-back to poker, but none was forthcoming. I also listened to a random disgruntled reader rant about how this particular article had no relevance to poker. Here are some examples of possible tie-backs to poker:
* Many poker players play higher limits than where they make the most money or even than where they are winning players. They do this for the status symbol of the higher limits, but they might be better off playing at lower limits, and using the huge amount of additional money they win to buy fake diamonds or other status symbols.
* Many poker players use fancy plays intended to humiliate their opponents, not to necessarily make the most money. Their egos might be better massaged by knowing they always make the best plays.
* Many poker players refuse to leave a bad game, because they don't want to be seen as the one to turn tail and run first. The result is that a bunch of good players can often butt heads against each other pointlessly for hours. They would be better off putting the egos into check and splitting up to find some fish to feed on. The ultimate ego boost is winning, and we must always keep in mind that this is the goal of poker.
Quite possibly, Sklansky would put a different and more subtle spin on the connection. But whether Sklansky is talking about politics, diamonds, or UFO abductions, I'm sure he can tie it back to poker to keep his reading audience feeling like there is some poker-relevance to his columns. It might help Sklansky to think of the poker-relevant issue first, before abstracting and analogizing the issue into some other domain such as how to eat sushi.
In any case, I'm glad Sklansky's column continues on in Poker Digest, where clearly, with his promotion to godhood, Sklansky's knowledge of poker is given due respect.
-Abdul
Quite frankly I was relieved to see non-poker related articles once in a while. So what if it "doesn't tie back to poker." Does everything have to be about a bad beat?
By the way. I have known David for a long time. I like listening to him talk about ANYTHING. It is his thinking and thought process that impresses me. Where does he come up with these ideas? The subject doesn't really matter. If he wants to throw a little poker in now and then fine. In my opinion David is truly a genius of our time and we are lucky to have him talk about any subject that he feels like discussing.
Not sure where to insert this into the thread, but here goes:
As some rgp & tpt readers may already know, I used to publish a theoretical game newsletter. It featured computer simulations and expert consensus analysis applied to specific problems in an attempt to advance the science of tournament Scrabble. I even used DS once as a fictional character in a simple gambling-type analysis as an unseen tip of the hat to someone whose work I appreciate. It was like Conjelco's Intelligent Gambler, but without the hook of appending something to sell. I didn't really make any money just publishing.
Invariably some subscribers and (more likely) non-subscribers would ask me to "dumb it down." (Disclaimer: most internet gambler types wouldn't have had too much challenge with the material.) Doing so probably would have tripled my subscription base and allow me to retun a profit approaching minimum wage. But I always resisted as I felt my publication served a niche market and I was more interested in honoring my noble mission than getting the $25 checks. Eventually, I folded and returned paid subscriptions in full when it became too much of a drain given all the other responsibilities I had taken on in life. Then, one day I saw a word search in Card Player, and instantly I understood why I'll never make it in publishing...
JG
Is any of this material available in electronic format? I'd definitely enjoy looking at it. Perhaps you could slap it on a web page.
Got a chuckle out of your mention of the Card Player word search. I bet working one of those at the table would do wonders for my image!
I would like to add a little more to this Sklansky deification and revelry. The only thing that I could ever claim to be an expert in is software development. I would describe the evolution of software development as an ongoing chaotic process of distilling creative ideas. I am absolutely positive that David could bring some order and rationality to this chaos and be extremely valuable in helping companies improve their bottom line significantly.
Tom Haley
John, I thought you were the "Holy Ghost" with all the lucky charms you wear to ward off evil sprits?
Have you ever been to Hackensack, New Jersey? It may be in the U S of A, or there abouts. It would probably take a "Holy Ghost" to find it!
May the flop be with you--on your journey.
Nevadalarry
The Commerce Casino has been spreading a 7 stud 8 or better at the 3-6 level for the past month or so. I've only sat in it three times so far, but the games have been good with some players seeming to have no clue about the importance of having a hand with some scoop potential. It is not unusual to be playing short handed for a high percentage of the time, but the rake drops to $1.00 at four handed and is $2.00 at 5 or 6 handed. In a full game the rake is $3.00. There is a $3.00 action kill for any scoop with $50.00 or more in it.
I recently purchased TTH for Windows, Version 2... I play against a lineup that is tight and beat it pretty routinely. Can someone suggest a lineup configuration that might be representative of a typical 15-30 HE game in So. Cal? I'm not very computer literate, so you'll need to use player numbers or names such as Advisor "T" etc. I now have it set to play against numbers 1,2,5,7,9,10,11,and 16. Also, how indicative of actual playing ability would beating a TTH lineup be? The games seem reasonably plausible, but some of the starting hands seem far too loose to me to be representative of tight play.
I have a suggestion that I have never seen before but I think would be helpful to someone at your stage. Pick some arbitrary line up, and don't worry about how you play your hands but watch the other computer players play and see how many mistakes you can catch. Then change the lineup and do it again, and so on.
By the way, when I say mistake I'm not implying that there is anything wrong in the program. But if you choose an opponent who is programmed to play too many hands, you should quickly spot it. Also, the earlier you spot his mistake the better you will be doing. In addition watch for playing errors on all betting rounds.
I have been wondering something very similar to Big John's question. What would be a good TTH lineup to choose to simulate (as much as is possible) a typical Saturday night 10-20 game at the Mirage? I don't get there very often but I want to prepare as much as possible.
Ethyl
For a typical Mirage 10-20 game, I suggest picking all tight players and switching on all the toughness flags. Here's one possible line-up:
Gypsy Rose, Conan, Francis N. Stine, Advisor_T, Lash La Rue, Sparkle Plenty, Lollie La Rue, another Advisor_T, and Lancy Howard.
(Sparkle Plenty is actually an "average" player, but one of the better ones.)
If you desire a more rocky game, as is common for the Mirage 10-20 game, then add more Gypsy Roses. You can also use Crusty Jack with those flags on. If you desire a tougher game, then add more Advisor_T's. If you desire an easier game, like one where a couple of tourists have wandered in for a quick slaughter, then add in a couple of loose players like Omar the Potmaker, Dorothy of Kansas, Judicious Jammer, or Welcome Waldo. You can also "roll your own" opponents, creating them from scratch. Note that with those flags I mentioned turned on, the loose players may play much tighter and more aggressive than you desire, so you may have to switch the flags off to simulate a really fishy game.
You can also sometimes find Mirage 10-20 games with all fish, with all the players like the loose players in Turbo with the flags turned off.
You can combine Mason's good advice about deducing player styles with mine by starting with that tight line up, and turning on the flags for "random seats" and "bring new players in" and turning off the flag for "show player's names" and "peek at winner". This will simulate a tight game that gradually becomes easier, like a Mirage 10-20 game on a Saturday night going from very tight at 8 pm to looser by midnight and sometimes completely insane by 6 am. Then at about 10 am, you have to suddenly replace the entire fairly easy table by a table of all very tight players. :)
-Abdul
When Wilson fixes the problem with the computer opponents not going for the checkraise when clearly appropriate, then simulations of 15-30 might be quite realistic. In the mean time a tight 15-30 lineup I use sometimes for a tune-up is nine ADVISOR_T's and the human player. I have been experimenting with modifications to ADVISOR_T which seem to show a potentially better game than the original. These consist of (at this time) primarily a reorganization of how pocket pairs are treated by the software engine.
At what point does the process of synthesizing the poker information begin? I have spent a lot of time reading poker books, playing poker games and thinking about the information I've picked up. I would have thought that all of this effort would have manifested itself into a coherent playing strategy by now. In other areas of study that I have pursued, acquiring a solid framework of basic knowledge has led to a heightened awareness that made advanced study easier to assimilate than the beginning lessons were. My poker "instincts" don't appear to be improving even though I've added many thousands of knowledge reference points.
My main advice is read, play, read, play, read, play, read, play. Make sure you understand all of Sklansky's "Theory of Poker", and you just have to play hundreds of hours for the concepts to become proceduralized in your play. However, you can speed up the process considerably with a mentor. If we're ever in the same casino, I could watch you play a few hands if you want some feedback. (I play at Mirage mostly, but I often visit Hollywood Park, where I think you said you play sometimes.) I'm always happy to attempt to answer questions in email too at abdulj@posev.com, though if you post your questions here, you'll get a wide range of responses including some from people with more years of experience than I.
-Abdul
Abdul,
I know that you are correct about what it takes to improve my game, or anyone's game. I've been spending less time playing in ring games and more time in the small buy-in tournaments of Southern California. I read from some poker book everyday, but, at age 55, and with global atrophy of my brain, the storage retrieval system functions in a hit or miss manner. In a curious way, my "dumbing down" has improved my play in low ball which has been my bread and butter game for 35 years. I've given up my "Chess Master" style of play where I would try to think about what my opponent thought I was thinking about what he was thinking I had been trying to do, and just wait and bet my good hands as strong as I can. Simple and straight forward seems to get the money. In hold-em, I am just not comfortable yet with all the additional variables that need to figure in your decisions. I do play A-8 and A-9 suited strong from up front though.
I know how you feel. One thing I found after my lesson with Sklansky, was that the 2+2 books tend to give alot of Advanced information. Maybe its too much. So, I'm walking around with all this great "Expert" info in my head, but I still can't beat the 6-12 game at the Mirage. Whats wrong? Is it that the 2+2 books are giving the wrong information? Do I have some "Tell" that everyone is picking up on? Do I just lack talent, and should quit while I still have a life to look forward too?
What seemed to have happened to me was that I skipped alot of the Basic infromation. The 2+2 books took me to such an Advanced state so quickly that I got lost. I had become a "Book Player" and didn't even know it. I suspect there are alot of players like me at the Poker Tables.
If you are really serious about playing Poker I would suggest booking a Lesson with David. He should be able to show you where you need to improve.
CV
Chris,
A couple of years ago I attended around five teaching seminars David gave at the Commerce. There were usually around two dozen or less players who showed up and David seemed disappointed that they were 6-12 players by and large, and not the more sophisticated and knowledgeable players from the Terrace or even the top section. It turned into a simple question and answer format with David fielding questions and imparting a lot of great information. Unfortunately, at the time, I was strictly a low ball player, and not too diligent in my pursuit of poker knowledge. I do know now how much more profitably I could have utilized David's experience and insights, but plan on waiting until I'm selected as the Holy Ghost so that I can take advantage to the 30% discount he so generously offers to family. I did save a bundle back then because David had arranged for the Commerce snack bar to sell all his books at a discount to people attending his talks.
John,
You will come around rather quickly. I can tell from your posts. Learn from other people when you can and dont be afraid to spend some money to learn as it ultimately can lead to millions later in life. Not only will the money you make at poker will add up but your thinking should enable you to make great deals and investments in the future. Good Luck.
Ray,
Thanks for the supportive post and suggestion. I already have invested in just about every poker learning tool I can find, including your book on 7stud eight or better and Omaha eight or better. I've yet to buy a book that didn't make me an almost immediate profit on it's purchase price after a single glance through. I am already doing better in my poker results than I would have thought probable when I first began reading poker books some two years ago. I am just concerned that the filing and retrieval system within my brain hasn't managed to synthesize all the information in a way that makes it easier to apply in game situations. Last night I played in the no limit holdem tourney at Crystal Park Casino and actually felt very comfortable with my focus and command. I really believe that I was as aware as any of the other participants, and able to respond appropriately to all the challenges of playing. While I didn't win it, I did make it to the final table in a field of better than 250 entrants, and was a legitimate threat to win it all.
Today, I picked up my first copy of the New "Poker Digest" Magazine at the Texas Station casino poker room. I like it. But, of course I like to read any and everything pertaining to poker. I got Vol.1/No.3, where can I get the first two or one issues? I guess I haven't been paying good attention to the goings on in the Las Vegas poker circle, because it was a "surprise," to me, to find this magazine.
I have not had the pleasure of reading though the magazine yet but, I did glace over Dave Sklansky's mini-autobiography. Very interesting I must say. Hackensack, New Jersey? I actually thought Dave was an extraterrestrial entity from way beyond our solar system.
Dave also has his "Fighting Fuzzy Thinking" column, which is excellant, naturally.
I recommened if you can get a copy, it will be worth your while to read it.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
Is there a way to get some of the articles via the internet?
carlos
Via our site we have a link to them. You can send them feedback once you get to their site and ask them what their plans are.
The following is the information as listed in the Publishers vitals:
Editorial, Subscription, and Advertising Offices
1455 East Tropicana #300
Las Vegas, NV 89119
http://www.pokerdigest.com
Phone: (702) 740-2273
Fax (702) 740-2257
There have been three issues published so far, I have only seen Vol 1/no.3, and like I indicated in my original post, I think the information is worth reading.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
This I did last night. A player who raised UTG. I know him well enough to know that he had AA or possibly KK. 3 other players called."rare in this particular game" I called with 88. The board came with J33.He bet and 2 of the other 3 folded. I raised and won the pot. I was thinking the whole night if I played that right. Should I have waited for the turn? UTG had AA which he banged the table in disgust saying or mumbling about " ratty trips". The caller I gave a paint-J suited. It's possible that the caller could have JJ as this was a hand for him to cann the preflop raise but I took the chance on making he play. I have also noticed that some of these boat players will call a turn raise with overpairs at $50-100 hoping to hit it at the river. Others will raise back at you picking up your play. Damm this level is awesome to play but so damm different then 10-20 and 15-30!
Joe-
WHERE IS THIS GAME? Any $50-$100 game where a UTG raiser is so weak/tight to lay down AA or KK to a raise on a J33 flop has got to be very profitable. Does he think that you cold-called his UTG bet with an A3? 34s? J3? Either this player had a pair of tens, AK, or he just plain sucks. Maybe he had AK or AQ and put you on AJ. That is the only way I could see a decnt player in this situation folding to your raise.
No way I could put you on JJ, because if you had JJ, I think the right play would have been to smooth call, so your raise doesn't get me off of AA or KK on the flop. As a matter of fact, with this board, I might just call your raise and check-raise you on the flop, especially if I had AA and didn't fear overcards. (unless there was a flush drawe, in which case your rasie smells an awful lot like afree card play.)
Joe,
Micheal has this one right but if you know a player will fold because he is scared of trips it is an automatic bet and a sure win. Ive played with people like this and love it but at the higher stakes those players have long gone broke. Good Luck.
This is very similar to a hand I posted awhile back about reading a possible semibluff-raise when I held the AA but in the small blind. In your example, you made the move that I was trying to get some response to. In otherwords, is it a good play to make the raise with a pocket underpair representing trips? I still don't know if this is a reasonable play. As others have posted, I suspect this UTG player held AKs instead of the big pocket pair. Maybe I put too much of my play into what I think an opponent should have done, but if I held AA UTG in your example, I'd have three bet on the flop.
I don't think this guy even had Ace-King, let alone Ace-King or Ace-Queen suited. Wouldn't most players peel off a card with those holdings? He obviously raised it weak and mumbled some garbage about trips to save face.
My question is how come Joe is playing 50-100 and I am not!
Did you SEE the aces??????????????????
I cannot fathom this.
I've been playing seven-card-stud for several months, and I lose much more than I win. I've read _The Theory of Poker_ and _7CS for Advanced Players_, and I try to play as those books recommend, but too often I find I've been betting and raising when I think I have the best hand, only to find out I was already beaten, and should have checked or folded.
Here's one scenario:
My starting hand is (Qc 9c) 5c. There is one other club out, and one other nine, but the queens and fives are live. The highest card on board is a jack. No one raises on third street and two players fold, so there are now six players.
On fourth street I catch the queen of hearts. However four more clubs come out, so my flush chance is effectively gone. The player who had a jack catches an offsuit ace, and one other player catches an ace. (No one has paired his door card.) The AJ checks, another player checks, and then I bet, thinking my pair of queens is the best hand and I should try to eliminate players. Everyone calls.
On fifth street I get the six of hearts. Three players now have pairs on board -- tens, nines, and threes. No more aces fall and there are no kings out. The player with nines paired his door card, but there is now another nine out and I have the last one in the hole, so I'm not worried about him. The other players do not have paired door cards. I look around and see some possible flush draws, some possible straight draws, but nothing particularly scary. I think to myself that some players might have two pairs but no one has a pair of kings or aces. The pair of tens checks, and I'm next. I still want to eliminate players, so I bet. Is this correct?
Where I typically run into trouble is if someone now raises me. Let's say it's the player with the pair of nines. I think to myself that he's just bluffing -- he wants everyone to think he has trip nines, but I know he doesn't since I've got the last nine. However, that player's fourth-street card was an eight -- he could be on a straight draw. Suppose three players now call the double bet and the rest fold. I call the raise, but now I wish that I hadn't bet in the first place, because my pair of queens doesn't seem so great any more in the five-player pot.
On sixth street I catch the eight of hearts, giving me a gutshot draw of 5,6,8,9 together with my pair of queens. I look around and there are no sevens currently visible, but I can't remember if there were any held by the players who have folded. One player has caught a king, but my queens are still live. It is unclear whether the other players have made their drawing hands -- someone now has three diamonds on board but there are lots of other diamonds out. The raiser with the pair of nines has caught a jack. If he has TQ in the hole he already has a higher straight than I'm drawing to (but if he was bluffing with just a pair of nines, or with a small two pair, he should be ready to fold now). The pair of tens is still high, and he checks again. Now what do I do? I'm reluctant to bet for fear that I'll be raised again. However I don't want to check for fear of giving everyone else a free card, if they're all on the come. Maybe if I bet, two or three players will fold, mistakenly thinking that I have a queen-high flush in hearts. Or maybe I should bet to set up a steal on the end.
As I mentioned, it seems to be this type of hand where I lose lots of cash. I have great difficulty in reading hands -- is this something that will simply come with more experience? I would greatly appreciate any advice from more experienced players.
Nick,
When you play 7 stud many hands just require you to go to the end and pay it off. So many hands fall into the position of having no clear idea of exactly what to do and have pot odds to continue on in hopes of drawing out. Since it is hard to knock out people on 6th street i would suggest that you dont really bet with that intention as anyone with a real chance of winning on 6th will play on. When facing open pairs you should slow way down and usally go out early on unless you believe no chance for trips and your pair will make a higher two pair and it is very live. This hand you described gets complicated for anyone and it would pay to keep the pot small and exit whenever possible if things get worse. Remember you have his last nine but that makes your hand relatvely dead when against other people. Your playing 6 stud with multiple players in. Your card reading will improve with time and thinking. Good Luck.
Nick-
I like the pseudonym. F. Scott would be proud
Nick,
How did this hand finally play out?
-R-
"On fifth street I get the six of hearts. Three players now have pairs on board -- tens, nines, and threes. No more aces fall and there are no kings out. The player with nines paired his door card, but there is now another nine out and I have the last one in the hole, so I'm not worried about him. The other players do not have paired door cards. I look around and see some possible flush draws, some possible straight draws, but nothing particularly scary. I think to myself that some players might have two pairs but no one has a pair of kings or aces. The pair of tens checks, and I'm next. I still want to eliminate players, so I bet. Is this correct?"
No, you should check. You are describing a situation where you won't eliminate any players. It appears that everyone has improved their hand. Who do you think will fold. Plus your hand is fairly dead.
"Where I typically run into trouble is if someone now raises me. Let's say it's the player with the pair of nines. I think to myself that he's just bluffing -- he wants everyone to think he has trip nines, but I know he doesn't since I've got the last nine. However, that player's fourth-street card was an eight -- he could be on a straight draw. Suppose three players now call the double bet and the rest fold. I call the raise, but now I wish that I hadn't bet in the first place, because my pair of queens doesn't seem so great any more in the five-player pot."
If you bet, are raised as described, and then three players call, you are in very bad shape. You should have folded.
"On sixth street I catch the eight of hearts, giving me a gutshot draw of 5,6,8,9 together with my pair of queens. I look around and there are no sevens currently visible, but I can't remember if there were any held by the players who have folded. One player has caught a king, but my queens are still live. It is unclear whether the other players have made their drawing hands -- someone now has three diamonds on board but there are lots of other diamonds out. The raiser with the pair of nines has caught a jack. If he has TQ in the hole he already has a higher straight than I'm drawing to (but if he was bluffing with just a pair of nines, or with a small two pair, he should be ready to fold now). The pair of tens is still high, and he checks again. Now what do I do? I'm reluctant to bet for fear that I'll be raised again. However I don't want to check for fear of giving everyone else a free card, if they're all on the come. Maybe if I bet, two or three players will fold, mistakenly thinking that I have a queen-high flush in hearts. Or maybe I should bet to set up a steal on the end."
There is a concept that Sklansky has written about. I think it is in GETTING THE BEST OF IT where he points out that with certain type of medium strength hands in a multiway pot you can be a favorite over everyone of your opponents, yet be such an overall dog that you should not bet. It looks like you are in this situation on both fifth and sixth street.
"As I mentioned, it seems to be this type of hand where I lose lots of cash. I have great difficulty in reading hands -- is this something that will simply come with more experience? I would greatly appreciate any advice from more experienced players."
I think that you are losing on these hands because you are playing them poorly. Perhaps these comments will help. Best of luck in the future.
I neglected to mention that on sixth street due to the size of the pot you should call even though there is a good chance that if you hit your hand and you will lose.
What?!?! Unless I am remembering wrong, doesn't this contradict what has been discussed in various Advanced books?
If you are in a situation where you lose 2 out of 3 scenarios, shouldn't you be bailing? No improvement You improve, they don't You both improve
Unless that table was REALLY weak, those nines and the other pairs aren't just staying in with lowere pairs...
Enlighten me on your reasoning for that statement, oh Great One! :)
Yes it is in Sklansky's: Getting the Best of It; a horse racing analogy with profound implications to poker.
With a live Queen in the hole and only one club showing I would have raised a Jack on third st. trying to get head up behind him. If you get lots of callers fine. Now if you catch a queen you are in good shape. A club, nine or pairing your door card works well too.
The hand you described illustrates why 7-stud is so much more of a difficult game to skillfully play than hold-em. Hand reading, cataloging and situational analysis become incredibly complex with so many more factors to evaluate on-the-fly.
As Ray Zee notes, when a lot of players are involved, you may occasionally get lost in the hand and end up paying it off. You can avoid that trap more often however.
Usually, multiple-player hands in stud indicate that you have a very loose table; in general, these types of games are more profitable when played with large drawing hands rather than medium pairs with weak kickers (I estimate that the average number of players that should be in on 4th street of a full-table stud hand is approximately 2.5 -- if I'm consistently looking at more than 2 players when I get involved, I take another close look at who is playing what kind of hands).
My thoughts on the hand itself. Dr. Stern advises *not* playing 3-flushes that cannot make the nuts, in fact, he advises not playing anything less than an A-K-x flush -- pretty tight. While I will vary somewhat from that advice, I always have it in mind and am looking to pick up the Ace and/or King by 5th Street. Nonetheless, that bit of advice alone would've kept you out of trouble.
You did an excellent analysis of how live your hand was, but did you also consider how live your opponent's hands might be?
On 4th Street, as when you paired the Queen, many players will bet out. However, a flat bet will not discourage a large field, in fact, most of the time it will encourage trailers to back in for the "pot odds." If you could've raised to narrow the field, that would've been the best play. Against 6 players though, you have no way of knowing if a pair of Queens is the best hand, so there is no sense in trapping yourself into the hand unnecessarily; I would've taken a card off just to see what happened (often, you'll also gain decreptive value where you improve later and no one knows how good your hand is).
As with the 4th Street bet, the 5th Street bet with one pair into a large field will usually not accomplish anything other than trapping you into the pot. Notice how this is so much different than when against 1-2 players, where you are not particularly trying to push anyone out, but are value betting your 2 Queens. Clearly, here, you may be beat in more than one place, have no reason to semi-bluff, and no reason to value bet. Check.
On 6th Street, it's YOU that wants the free card -- check. You aren't going to steal against a large field on the end either. Also, even if you make a straight on the end, it's only 9-high and could cost you a couple more bets.
I think you read the hands well, and knew precisely what you wanted to do, but misplayed the situation. A pair of Queens against one player with a 4-straight or 4-flush is only a mild favorite, and against a full field is no favorite at all.
Large fields in stud must be handled similar to "no-fold-em hold-em" games -- your pairs will be run down a lot, big draws go up in value, and thus you should try not to trap yourself early. While I can wholeheartedly advise using the 2+2 books, I also advise you to read the stud section in Super/System (Reese and Brunson do an excellent job dissecting a hand similar to yours) and the Stern/McEvoy/Johnson book on "Championship Stud." A different perspective is sometimes all it takes to put the last few pieces of the puzzle in.
"My thoughts on the hand itself. Dr. Stern advises *not* playing 3-flushes that cannot make the nuts, in fact, he advises not playing anything less than an A-K-x flush -- pretty tight. While I will vary somewhat from that advice, I always have it in mind and am looking to pick up the Ace and/or King by 5th Street. Nonetheless, that bit of advice alone would've kept you out of trouble."
I have not read the Stern book so I don't want to comment on it. (The book is sitting on the desk along with several others that I intend to read.) But this advice, applied to a limit stud game is completely inaccurate. You should be playing most but not all of the three flushes that you are dealt. See our book for the specifics.
It could possibly be right, especially late in a tournament, depending on the payoff structure, chip position, etc, to throw away many of the "playable three flushes," and again since I haven't read the book I don't want to criticize. (In fact, situations can develop late in a tournament where you should play your hands very differently.) But this text is suppose to be on tournament play and applying this specific peice of advice to a typical ring game should prove very costly.
I agree that the advice is too tight -- nonetheless, I do always consider the potential hazards when outside those parameters (getting beat by an A-K-high flush when holding an A-Q-high flush is bad enough). There are many variables to consider when playing a weaker draw, and not getting tied onto the hand is one of them.
The Stern book has sections on both ring games and tournament play, and his advice differs from McEvoy's in that McEvoy would play a greater variety of flush draws (although McEvoy goes on to note that "you lose nothing at all by throwing away flush draws").
I'm not sure anyone plays as tight as Dr. Stern advises, so as with any other book, take it with a grain of salt.
Having an Ace-Queen flush lose to an Ace-King flush in stud is VERY rare. In fact, I would recommend raising with ANY Ace high flush as this figures to be the best hand most of the time. If I make an ace high flush down the river looking at a King, Queen, and jack suited in my opponents hand I will most often bet or raise. They just don't have this hand beat that often. (Most players mistakenly call in my opinion.)
As for the hand in question, when you paired queens, the best play may have been to check hoping a player on your right bets so you can raise and try to thin out the field. A second option would be to call and then try for a check raise on fifth street when the bets double. You MUST try and thin the field with this type of hand and look for opportunities to do so at all times.
If, because of your opponents boards and or playing styles, you don't feel your check raise will work, then I would probably try to suck along as cheaply as possible.
I'm a bit surprised that in all the discussion about this hand, no one has asked about the structure of the game. Judging by the play, it appears to be low-limit. Strategy at $1-5 spread limit has to differ from structured low limit. What was the ante/betting structure, Nick?
--jazbo
10-20, with $2 ante and $5 bring-in.
Thanks to everybody who responded for the helpful comments, especially Earl and Mason.
Among games where players play too many hands preflop, there is a distinction between games where players take hands too far from games where players tend to fold marginal and worse hands on the flop. Different strategies would apply depending on which of those two types you are playing in. (See Mason's r.g.p. post "Going too Far.")
In a very loose game where players also take virtually any draw too far in the hand (Game #1), frequent preflop raising may be a mistake, since many of the opponents' later calls may actually become correct due to the greater pot size. (When the amount of EV you sacrifice preflop by not raising is less than the potential gain from their incorrect play later in the hand; you don't do this with the very strongest hands.) With eight or nine callers, and a pot that was raised preflop, opponents may have odds to draw on the flop with two or three outs. If they would make those calls on the flop anyway, rarely raise preflop, since you maximize their error when they call on the flop without the odds to do so. High pocket pairs and high suited cards might still tend to raise, since these are strong in large fields.
In a game where players play too many hands preflop, but then tend to fold on the flop (Game #2), it becomes important to magnify the cost to them preflop. By raising preflop with many semi-strong hands, you penalize them both for playing inferior starting hands and for folding on the flop when they have sufficient interest in the pot to continue.
In loose games in general, there appears to be a difference between a game with 5-6 callers where people might play every ace and also marginal hands like QTo and J9o, as opposed to a game with 8-9 callers where people play every starting hand. When everyone is in, low pairs and low straight potential on the board become dangerous. The overpair value of JJ-99 (and the top pair value of a ten) would be mostly lost, since they are too vulnerable to low straights and sets when they make overpairs on the flop.
In Game #1, hands like lower pairs, suited connectors and suited aces gain in value, since their implied odds go way up. But what about high offsuit hands? While top pair on the flop will be drawn out on more often, it may increase in overall profitability, as simulators have shown. (In a loose game, these hands may be less strong relative to other good hands, but they may increase in absolute worth.) Your opponents would often play and bet dominated hands into your stronger offsuit hand. When you hold KJ, your profit will increase significantly when hands like K9, J9, JT, KT and K4s are in there. Preflop, should Group 5 offsuit hands be avoided in early position and group 6 offsuit hands be avoided in middle position?
When do you raise with the better offsuit hands? (with which hands in which positions would your raise gain value and reduce the implied odds of the drawing hands to an extent that makes it ok to make their postflop play less/not wrong)
In Game #2, the offsuit hands are stronger, since they can narrow the field. But the implied odds of drawing hands would not be as high. Would I avoid Group 5 drawing hands in early position?
Which semi-strong hands would be proper choices for preflop raises in Game #2?
In Game #1, clearly you don't bluff or semi-bluff or slowplay in most situations, as your opponents won't fold. When even raises won't narrow the field, you don't sacrifice EV to try to prevent people from getting free cards. (Example: AK against a board of T73o) Also, in this type of game you can frequently bet/raise/check-raise draws for value. In Game #2, unless everyone was in, you can often bluff at flops like J44 or Qc6c4c. You would often raise with second-best hands to narrow the field. You would slowplay mega-hands in many situations, or sometimes even check-call a good hand until the turn to tie in dominated hands (if free cards were not a problem).
What other changes are there?
For those of you who keep close track of your session results in order to compute your hourly win rate, do you include jackpot (either high hand or bad beat) winnings? I have been fortunate enough to win three high hand jackpots in the last two months. At first I was not counting them as poker winnings. But after some thought, I am wondering if I should include them, since the house pays for them by taking extra money out of every pot. Comments?
Ethyl
I would tend to think that if you exclude the jackpot drop as part of your winnings, then you should consider the "jackpot bonus" as profit.
Maybe you would have a separate entry for 'other' or simply redistribute the high hand or bad beat jackpot throughout your sessions.
carlos
Ethyl,
I don't think so. Even though the jackpot drop subtracts from the pots you win. I'm not overly concerned about my win rate in the short run but if you are this will distort it way too much IMO.
Tom Haley
I would definitely count in high hand bonuses. These tend to be small, and are paid out frequently, so if you play enough you should expect to get quite a number of them. Over the short term, they skew your results a little, but so does winning one really big pot. Over the long term, they are an expected part of your winnings.
Bad beat jackpots are tougher to consider - they tend to be large enough and hard enough to hit to really skew the results for a long time, and you have to play a lot of hours to have any expectation of hitting one.
In relation to this +ev tracking, I would like to ask all the participants in Jackpot games, do you have any idea how much the house takes for Jackpots actually goes back into the Jackpot(S)?
Second, if you add Jackpots to you EV, then must not you also subtract that extra amount taken out of each pot that you win?
IMHO, if I was going to fine tune my EV to the nth decimal point, then I would have to substract the amount that I should have won but didn't from each pot. Figure it out over a period of time, you win, for example, 100 pots during the month, even at .25 cents, that is $25.00 that you didn't get. That may not change your EV much but it does change it.
Also, it has to be cranked into the equation the amount the house starts the Jackpot at, say $4000.00., or whatever. I have seen Jackpots in California get up into the $50,000 range, before they discontiued them.
Dave and Mason, probably could formulate a methode for approaching this problem and coming up with an answer to the impact Jackpots may or may not contribute to EV, based on size of Jackpot, amount taken by house each pot and what the probability of a player winning a Jackpot might be.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
Post deleted at author's request.
Ethyl,
One other point not previously mentioned. Many of us calculate pot odds before calling with a drawing hand. A bonus or jackpot can easily turn a fold into a easy call, even for a one-outer. The EV of calling without the bonus may be around -0.95 BB, while the EV(bonus) could be +100BB or more. the bottom line is I am varying the way I play because of the bonus or jackpot.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
I have not played stud in a long time but I have played a fair amount. I was reading a post about "what am I doing wrong". It was mentioned that you should play most of your flush draws if not all. I clearly cannot agree with this. A flush draw without live high pair potential or live straight potential or in a position of ante stealing is not worth playing. To call a raise without any possible backdoor help and nothing but a flush draw,ie:2hTh6H is a good way to lose. To good players this is common knowledge but to new players this is not. A high card 3-flush like AKJ can be played heads up if the high cards are live as well as the suit. This hand is stronger then some people think. In the lower limits like 1-5 many people play every 3-flush dealt. This applies in AC and Foxwoods. Some people will tell me that this advice is wrong but I know a stud player who is a real world class player like MM and Ray,David and he plays incredible but stinks at hold'em! He talked to me about winning stud when I first started playing casino poker. However I soon fell in love with hold'em and stopped playing stud except when there was no good hold'em games going. Interestingly enough is that I'm a moderate loser at 5-10 hold'em but a winner at 5-10 stud. In case anyone is curious about my 50-100 play, right now I'm up my daily expenses and thats it but I haven't played nowere near enough hours.
A fundamental principle of poker says that when your opponent knows that your hand is at least as strong as it in fact is, that the only reason to bet would be as a bluff. One consequence of this is that if you cannot represent a stronger hand, it is never correct to bet.
In illustration of this, Sklansky gives the following (approximate) example in his book, _Poker Essays_.
7-stud high-only. You are dealt Ac Ad Jc Jd Js Jh 2c. Your opponent's board is Qs 6h 7h 2d. Should you bet or check?
Applying the reasoning from the first paragraph, he concludes that betting would be a horrible mistake. I propose that, on the contrary, there are many situations in which this bet is a no-brainer. I invite discussion and side bets before I give my own reasons for suggesting this.
-Tom Hayes
If you check, you give your opponent a free look at your hole cards.
George,
I think this situation has been discussed here before. The rules for 7 Stud for most casinos is that if you call and can't beat the opponent's board, you get your last bet returned. In this case if the guy with 4 jacks bets and you call and you can't beat his board you get your last bet returned and you get to see his hole cards. So betting would not protect your hole cards.
Tom Haley
>>The rules for 7 Stud for most casinos is that if you call and can't beat the opponent's board, you get your last bet returned<<
Tom, I am most curious where these casinos are located? I have played in most all the major casinos across America and Europe, and I have never heard of getting back a bet, if you can't beat your opponents board at the end. I am not indicating that it doesn't exist but, I just have not experienced it. In London, 7-stud hi, is played pot-limit, in fact, pot-limit is just about the only way they play any poker game. Wouldn't it be a little ridiculous for one player to bet 1000 pounds and the other player calling because they know that they can't beat his/her board, and would get their 1000 pounds, back? If I was playing past 5th street and ended up not able to beat their board at the end, I would call every time just to see what type of starting hands they play.
I must say this is an interesting concept.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
Nevalarry,
Good to see you posting again. I looked in the archives but couldn't find the thread. Jessica posted about a hand in hold'em where the board showed a straight and nobody could beat it. Someone mucked their hand and she was asking something about the ethics of the situation. I replied that it was similar to the situation in 7-Stud that I mentioned. Greg Raymer said he had never heard of the rule at that time. I solicited responses and indeed it was confirmed that it is a common rule for 7 stud (at least in the States). It is where I play most of my poker, ABQ. It would be interesting to see if this was a rule at the Mirage.
Tom Haley
As I promised, I checked with the Mirage poker room today and, the Mirage poker room does not have any money back rule for 7-stud, if you cannot beat your opponents board after calling on 7th st. However, one dealer indicated that he had heard of the rule at the Plaza downtown but, the rule is only used in small limit games for tourists just learning 7-stud.
I think the limit size would be a determining factor governing this rule. Do the casinos that you contacted, Tom, enforce this rule at all limits of 7 stud? Say at the 5-10 and up? Or, 10-20 and up?
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
Nevadalarry,
Thanks. I do appreciate you checking that ought for me because I've been curious. It makes a lot of sense.
Tom Haley
John Fox (no relation) talked about calling in jacks or better draw game (many years ago in Play Poker, Quit Work, and Sleep Till Noon) in order to 1) get a wild and crazy image ala Mike Caro; and 2) to sometimes even win the pot when the original bettor believes himself to be bluffing and soups when you call. I believe this rule was in effect at the Normandie many years ago when I started playing there, but was rescinded for exactly this reason: some angle shooters were calling the opener who they suspected of bluffing when they could not beat the opening jacks and then would show their lower than jacks hand to reclaim their call: it's a no-lose situation--if the opener showed down a hand, they showed their less-than-jacks holding and got their call back; if the opener souped they simply took the pot. This strikes me as a good reason to not have the rule in effect.
7-stud high-only. You are dealt Ac Ad Jc Jd Js Jh 2c. Your opponent's board is Qs 6h 7h 2d. Should you bet or check?
I guess I have to get a bit technical, because we are trying to find an answer to this particular scenario by disregarding the other factors leading up to this one decision, check or bet?
I have to ask, what did the player do on 6th st., with 4 Jacks showing? Check or bet?
If the player with the queen called a bet on 6th st., what could he/she be thinking or wanting to make? Or, if it was checked to him/her and given a "free" card to try and catch up, what could he/she make to give action on the last card?
It would have to be 4 queens or a str8 flush, in which case the 4 Jacks lose.
But, just looking at the issue of checking or betting with all the cards out, I would bet. If my opponent played this bad to get to this stage of the game, it may be possible that he/she may call to see if I am bluffing!!!!
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
Is today April 1st?
Ok, lets pretend it isn't April 1st and this is not a prank being played. With the information provided, was it not correct to logically think about prior actions, especially 6th street?
I don't play 7 stud (anymore), but the evaluation, again based on informtion provided, IMHO was justifiable to ask what the play was on 6th street. The exposed cards didn't change. One player knows for absolute fact that his opponent has 4 Jacks on 6th st. Therefore, what is the difference between the action on 6th st., and 7th st.?
Or, was I correct in my evaluation and your comment, "is this Apr 1st., directed else where? Or, are the responses, thus far, way out of line?
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
Larry,
I think David is suprized that this is being discussed at all. To make this situation work lets just say that someone had dropped a 100 Dollar Bill in a 3-6 Stud game just to see everyone play for it. Now your opponent would be getting the Odds to try to Draw Out on your 4 Jacks.
On 6th street you must bet your 4 Jacks so that your opponent doesn't get Infinite Odds to draw out on you. On the end you can't bet your 4 Jacks because only 4 Queens or a Straight Flush will call, or raise you.
This reminds me of a Play a guy used to make at a Low Limit Hold'em game. Every time he Flopped a pair of Aces with a weak Kicker he would show his Ace to his opponent and then bet. Of course anyone who couldn't beat a Pair of Aces would fold, and anyone who could beat it would Raise. If he got Raised he would then look very confused and call.
CV
Chris-
I don't think the $100 analogy is fair. Larry's point, if I can paraphrase here, is that a call on 6th street was made with a hand that had at most two outs. Given the size of the actual pot, it is likely that this call was incorrect. Hence, you could make the argument that the player is irrational and might call a bet with no hope of winning. However, this seems like a stretch. More likely is that the guy had rolled up queens and refused to release when things got bad, or something like that. Betting on the end seems like a mistake; it would seem to get you nothing, if Tom Haley is right in stating that by betting you can't even put a price on the revelation of your hole cards.
George,
I finally found the thread in the archives (there are a lot of great threads in there!). It is in the May archives titled,
A K Q J 10 On Board - No Flush
Jessica Vecchione -- Monday, 18 May 1998, at 5:40 p.m.
TP points out that this rule is utilized in Atlantic City and Foxwoods. David Russell calls it the impossible call rule. It is meant to protect weak players. I can verify that it is a rule in Albuquerque. I'll try to call the Commerce and the Mirage in the next couple of days to see if they use it if Nevadalary doesn't get back to me first. Wasn't there a rule in high draw that if you called on the end and couldn't beat openers you got your money back? I'll report back when I find out or if someone provides additional information before I call. O.K Tom I give, why is it correct to bet? I'll admit to you that I don't see why.
Tom Haley
Tom, first I currently use two ISPs, AOL and EarthLink, so I can be reached at either.
Second, I must be honest with you 7-stud is not my forte, but I have never heard of this rule. And, it must be a well kept secret or they (casino) doesn't volunteer this rule as common knowledge.
I play almost everyday at the Mirage (20/40 hold 'em) I will be playing there tomorrow, 28th, and I will ask specifically about this rule.
Never to old to learn
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry--ps I will put this on 2+2 also.
I enjoy reading the many posts here and the wealth of information that is shared. I am a retired E.E., but at one time in my life I didn't know an electron from a cow pie. But I eventually learned not to step in cow pies or look for electrons my sticking my finger in a light socket.
Poker is a very fainting game to me. At first I thought it was a very simple game to play. Now I realize it is very complex. And I believe it is a game that you can study and play all your life and still never learn it in its totality.
I just finished watching "Goodwill hunting." It is an excellent movie to validate an important point about life (and poker), "what is obvious to one may be a big mystery to another." Chess players just amaze me how they can "see" in their mind's eye, ten moves in advance from what they are confronted with at the present.
Poker requires the thinking of a chess player, the mind of a psychologist and the fortitude of a lion. Not everyone has all three qualities at the top rung of their intellectual ladder. But we have some of all three at varying degrees.
To improve on our weaker points, we attempt to learn from others that we observe to be strong in the areas that we are weak, via reading their books, private lessons, observing them and asking questions whenever the opportunity presents itself.
There are new players coming into the games every day and they are going to ask elementary questions and "reinvent the wheel" over and over. Those of us that have the experience will be "surprised" by their questions. We, "experienced" types may surprise ourselves by asking questions, perceived by our peers as elementary.
And, I have never seen two poker players that totally agree on how any hand should be played. There is always a slightly different perspective on how or what strategy could or should have been used at some stage in the play of the hand.
The bottom line is this, poker was here before we were born and it will probably be here after we are dead and buried. Our replacements have already been born and are being born as this is being read. And they will be asking the same elementary questions and learning the same basics of poker just like we have.
I respect every question as a sincere quest for knowledge and, every opinion as a valid point from the individuals perspective. As far as saying who is right or who is wrong; or, correct or incorrect, etc., it is insignificant to me. I look at the issue, make my comments and review the merits of others. Thus I am a contributor and at the same time, gain objective views and knowledge from other contributors. That is how I would like my responses to posts on this web site to be received.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
Would I be correct to assume that Nevadalarry's post is in response to the subject heading I chose, "Check or bet? Is Sklansky right?"
If so, I can only say that I wanted something attention-grabbing. I'm sure that even if the consensus were ultimately that "Sklansky is wrong," this would in no way detract from his deserved reputation as an expert poker player and theorist. But my goal was to raise some issues about a particular poker situation, not to assign labels to anyone's logic.
Nevadalarry makes some important points, none of which I dispute. Still, I feel that a little "trash talk" has its place in a theory forum. This is not a court of law, after all. Perhaps I should take David Sklansky's reply, "Is this April Fool's Day?" in that sense.
-Tom Hayes
I thought this was being posted as a new "thread" and had no direct relation to any particular subject matter past, present or future. If I posted this subject in the wrong forum, I apologize and stand corrected.
Nevadalarry
Guess #2-
Image. This bet costs little in terms of expectation. You may encourage people to take draws at you on future hands based on incorrect implied odds.
Even if there was any merits to these esoteric arguments it has nothing to do with whether I was right. I used this trivial example to show beginners the difference between the last round of betting and earlier rounds. I didn't expect anyone to look at it in any other way. Meanwhile I am noticing more and more of you guys out there thinking about trick shots without first totally understanding the fundamentals. Sort of like being penny wise and pound foolish.
OK, OK, fair enough. But give me some credit---I'm just playing along with Tom's brain teaser, which pretty much has me stumped. I hope his answer is better than either of my lame offerings.
Don't disappoint me, Tom.
Betting would be analogous to the "Crazy Caro" image play of: raising and standing pat in 5 card draw with nothing (9 high), then checking it down on the river, turn your cards over and getting weird looks.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
The only situation where I think it would be correct to bet is if your opponent was a maniac and was willing to risk two bets on the obscure chance you may fold to a bluff raise.
That being said, I have yet to meet anyone who would ever throw away 4 jacks to a raise on the river.
Well, I'm quite pleased to see so many thoughtful answers to my question so quickly. I had a number of different answers in mind, and various respondents came up with almost all of them. Bear in mind that my original statement was, "There are many situations in which this bet is a no-brainer," so it is correct to consider a number of different possibilities, and that betting is *not* always correct.
1) Your opponent may have misread your board.
Surprisingly, nobody came up with this. However, I would think that this situation comes up with some regularity in the casino, and should often be quite obvious. I have seen people fold with the nuts on board quite often in hold'em, and heard various stories of "impossible calls" in 7-stud. In this particular case, if your opponent didn't bitch or moan when your fourth jack came, he probably has no clue what you have. The only playable hand your opponent can have with which he had a chance on his *last* call was rolled-up queens. You really ought to be able to tell if he has them.
2) Your opponent may be on tilt, and much more likely to bluff than he properly should.
Consequently, betting out will get you an extra bet more often than it will lose you one. If your opponent is ordinarily a good player, you *may* have even more reason to think he is on tilt. Because he called when the fourth jack hit, he must have *some* draw at you. There are only two possible draws to beat quads, so he either started with rolled-up queens, or he has a straight-flush draw. However, if it's a good player, only the rolled-up queens are possible. Because he called on sixth street, you know he must be at least a little bit on tilt (assuming the pot was not laying correct odds, which presumably it wasn't).
3) Image play.
Ideally, this is in combination with some suspicion that there is another reason to bet, such as situation 1. How does this get you image? Well, first off, all the disciples of David Sklansky decide that you are the fuzzy-thinking anti-Christ. The table professors may offer you a few free lessons on the spot, which you, of course, completely fail to comprehend. "What do you *mean*, I can't bet for value. I *won*, didn't I?" Second, if you want to pull a *real* Mike Caro on them, when your opponent folds, you shriek, "YEEEEessss!!!", jump up, flip over your hole cards, and continue, "total *garbage*! In your face!"
4) Best of a bad situation.
Well, I just thought this up, and *never, ever* do it, but... You peek at your hole cards and notice that one is the jack of spades. Uh-oh. You are in big trouble now for not pointing this out sooner. Still, you may get away with it if you don't have to show down. Bet out, then cash out.
5) Hide your hole cards.
I didn't have this in mind, but George brought it up, and it's a valid reason to bet. But only if you have a tell that your opponent missed, or if you think reasons 1-3 are just about compelling enough on their own. Interestingly, the reverse case, that *showing* your hole cards may be valuable to you, can also arise. In this case, be less inclined to bet out than reasons 1-3 would indicate. Then sadly shake your head, saying "Damn, missed a bet, trying for a check-raise. Wired aces."
6) Your opponent may be consciously willing to pay a big bet to see your hole cards.
What can I say? I've seen it. It happens. You should know if this is the case, and take advantage. Be aware that there is some chance this will kill the golden goose if he resents it, and/or the other players ridicule him.
-Tom Hayes
Post deleted at author's request.
Folding? You've got to be kidding! 5 Jacks is immortal....At the very worst, a floorman would unwind all the betting and return the pot to it's contributors. Folding would be almost criminal. I'd raise back and make a side bet that this was going to definitely be the hand of the night.
> A fundamental principle of poker says that when your
> opponent knows that your hand is at least as strong as it
> in fact is, that the only reason to bet would be as a
> bluff.
A counter-example from hold'em. You have KcKh. The board shows KdQs2d/3s. Your opponent somehow knows you have the pocket kings (perhaps you didn't protect your cards very well). You know that your opponent knows. Is there any reason to bet other than to bluff? Of course there is. You have the current nuts, and you don't want to give your opponent a free card to make a straight or flush.
> 7-stud high-only. You are dealt Ac Ad Jc Jd Js Jh 2c. Your
> opponent's board is Qs 6h 7h 2d. Should you bet or check?
Betting would be a no-brainer if you had seen among your other opponents' exposed cards enough to elimate the possibility that you are facing quad queens or a straight flush.
>In Holdem, a typical standard deviation for a good player
>might be somewhere around 15 Big bets per hour,
>with a win rate of perhaps 2 Big Bets per hour.
>Therefore, if you're playing 5-10 Hold'em you might
>have a win rate of $20/hr, with a standard deviation
>of $150/hr.
The SD is that high in holdem? So even a solid player would lose almost half the time. In four hours of play, the good player would have a 95% distribution of +$80+- $600. As the SD of bad players must be even higher, anyone other than a total incompetent should win at least some of the time, often for a lot.
Anyone have any idea what the comparable figures would be for Omaha-8? I'm wondering if the scrubs get broken too quickly there, and that's why you sometimes find tight games which are less profitable than the other choices at that limit. At Foxwoods, the players at Omaha-8 and stud-8 are often fairly decent at the low limits, maybe because the bad players lose too quickly and stop playing those games. At the same limits, both in Foxwoods and AC, holdem and stud high have plenty of terrible players.
These standard deviation numbers are way too high. Mine are about 40 percent of these figures. Also a good player has a win rate closer to 1 big bet an hour.
Post deleted at author's request
"Mason, the parameters of your bankroll distribution probably depnds more on your game selction than it does your playing skill. If you limit your play to games with lots of gambling going on (7-8 people seeing the flop, people cold calling 3 bets to see the flop, etc), and if you're a good player, then your win rate will be much closer to 2 bets an hour and your std dev will also be much higher."
Once you get out of the lower limits the best players only win at about 1 big bet an hour.
"The risk/return ratio in poker is pretty much dependent on what you want it to be. You can pretty much pick a point on the efficient frontier you want. B/J players can't make those choices, but poker players can."
I disagree. Playing skill will increase your win rate and lower your standard deviation.
"I'm just guessing that keeping your risk low is important to you."
This is not accurate.
"If so, you probably have a very stable win rate of about 1 bet an hour. Another player, on a table you prefer not to play on, might well average 2 bets, just with many more wild swings."
Again, this is just not accurate. I do not play against anyone with this type of long term win rate. And I do not know of anyone anywhere who averages this type of money in the long term in a game of any size. (If it was possible, the game would probably burn out.)
"There are 20-40 games with common pot sizes close to 2k. you just have a higher risk of ruin."
An occasional pot might get this size -- 50 big bets -- but they are certainly not common, no matter where you play. I suggest that you watch some more.
Post deleted at author's request
Gary,
Interesting post. The late Andy Morton pointed out on this forum that he knew a player who went from Cal to Las Vegas and her standard deviation went from I believe 11 BB an hour to 7BB an hour. The implication was that this was due to the tamer games at the Mirage. I'm certainly not an expert on statistics but it seems that better playing skills would increase your expectation and not necessarily reduce your standard deviation.
Tom Haley
Post deleted at author's request
Gary,
I agree but I can see some situations where improving your skill level will also decrease your standard deviation. But I think you have delineated the a lot of important points about variance if I understand variance correctly. The quest for me is to improve my skills.
Tom Haley
I have a prototype version of Turbo Texas Hold'em that includes standard deviation, and indeed the type of game had a large impact on the standard deviation, possibly an even larger impact than whether the player is loose or tight himself. I'll try to dig up some data later.
In the real world, measuring my results after each and every hand for a couple hours for a couple games, I found that my standard deviation was 14 small bets per hour in a tight game but 20 small bets per hour in a crazy game, though I was playing very tight preflop in each (tighter than I normally play, and basically the same in both games.) Standard deviation converges pretty quickly, but I think I'd need larger sample sizes from more games to feel confident about it.
Okay, so let's suppose a great poker player has a 3 small bet per hour EV and a 14 small bet per hour standard deviation, while a weak pro has a 1 small bet per hour EV and a 20 small bet per hour standard deviation. Now let's compare to a great blackjack situation (single deck, downtown Vegas rules, 4 rounds to 2 spots, 1-3 spread, 100 hands per hour), which has a mean of 3 small bets per hour and a standard deviation of 32 small bets per hour, and to mediocre blackjack game (double deck, good rules, 1-5 spread, 60% penetration), which has a mean of 2 small bets per hour and a standard deviation of 28 small bets per hour.
Okay, now to compute the optimal bankroll growths. You can skip over the math if you are allergic.
Let's define r to be the win rate or mean result or expected value, V to the be variance (i.e., square of standard deviation) of this win rate, and B to be our bankroll. I am assuming Kelly/logarithmic utility, so our goal is to maximize log(B). The Kelly bankroll B is then V/r. William Chen noted over on rec.gambling.poker that the "expected rate of growth would simply be U = r/B - V/2B^2..." I've been using just r/B in the past, but I think his adjusted figure is more precise. You can rewrite it as U = r/(V/r) - V/2(V/r)^2 = r^2/V - r^2/2V if your bankroll is the proper Kelly bankroll.
Plugging in we find that the range of hypothetical pro poker players would make 0.12% to 2.3% bankroll per hour, compared to the range of hypothetical pro blackjack players making from 0.26% to 0.44% bankroll per hour. The upside is better in poker. On the other hand, it's also much easier to be a losing poker player than a losing blackjack player (and not even know it.)
So, I think the answer is "it depends." Sklansky could have save me a lot of effort if he had responded with one of his one liners. :)
-Abdul
Abdul,
It seems to me that the more money you have to stick in the pot the higher your variance is. It also seems that multi-way pots with a lot of players drawing at hands tend to be high variance games. Therefore loose wild games where there is a lot of action are the worst for variance. Is there a way to prove mathematically which games have the highest variance?
Tom Haley
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary,
Thank you for expressing the concept so elequently and in a way that I attempted to do but not very well.
Tom Haley
Post deleted at author's request.
From Gary Carson,
"If the amount of money is constant, then the max variance is when your odds are even. Moving either direction, either favorite or dog, will increase your variance."
Huh? If I bet on a gamble that has a 10% chance of success, how can that be a smaller variance than if I bet on something that has a 50% chance of success? If something has a 90% chance of success wouldn't my variance be much smaller? Please explain.
The variance is a function both of the frequency of wins, and of the size of the wins. On an even money bet, variance is maximized when the chance of winning is 50%.
At 50% success rate, 1/2 of your bets win, and 1/2 lose. The expected outcome (0) is as far from a typical outcome as it can be. The variance is 1.
If you have a bet that wins 10% of the time, the expected outcome is -.8 bets, and the most common outcome is -1 bet (.2 bets deviation from expectation). 1/10 of the time, you win 1 bet (1.8 bets deviation from expectation). The variance is 36.
If you have a bet that wins 90% of the time, similarly the variance is .36 .
Post deleted at author's request
I playted a hand recently that caused me to challenge the no-limit conventional wisdom of "Raise or bet with glee, a caller never be."
It was folded around to me, one spot before the button during the one-hour rebuy stage of a small no-limit hold'em tourney. I look down to see pocket Queens. I have about T600 in chips and the blinds are T25/T50. I make it T250 to go (my customary bring-in during the early stage is to raise the size of the pot after my call).
The button and small blind fold, the big blind calls. I know the big blind from limit play and he is a solid player. He tries some tricky plays on me, because I think he views me as somewhat weak-tight due to one bad session i had with him. Of course, I don't think I am weak-tight, but in this case, I was concerned about HIS perception of me.
Anyway, the flop comes Ace-9-3 rainbow. He checks to me. Here is my quick read on the situation:
1) He doesn't have a strong Ace (AK or AQ), or he would have repopped me before the flop, given my steal position and his image of me.
2) He might have a weak Ace, and is willing to check it down since there are no obvious draws and he doesn't fear overcards.
3) He might just have a medium pocket pair or a big king and will fold to my bet.
Therefore: If I bet the flop, he is only likely to call if he has me beaten with an Ace. If he doesn't have an Ace, he will fold a hand that I cold have beaten anyway. This seems simple enough- since he is not likely to fold a hand that can beat me, I check behind him.
Another rag comes off on the turn (a seven, I believe.) He comes to life and bets his last T250. Now I read the situation, less quickly:
1) I am really convinced he doen't have a naked Ace, as this would be a bad bet and he is not a bad player.
2) He has A7, or made a set of nines or threes on the flop, or trip sevens on the turn and is trying to induce a call, thinking I am a weakie trying to show down a weak Ace or medium pair.
3) It is a stone cold bluff.
Since it is still during the rebuy period and there is a meaningful probability that I have the best hand, I decide to look him up. Additionally, I think I will get ongoing value with a call by discouraging this guy (and others) from taking shots at me when I check in the future given the high-profile nature of this hand.
In this situation, I think I made the right decision by calling with a hand that I never would have bet. Any comments on my play, his play, or any analagous situations where there is a paradigm shift between betting and calling?
I am assuming the following: you start the hand with T600, the big blind starts the hand with T500, and everyone started the tourney with T500.
I think there is a strong argument to be made for moving all-in preflop. I think by making it 250 to go, you are giving your opponents too much chance to outplay you after the flop. What hands do you hope your opponent will call with preflop that he would fold to an all-in bet? I would think most of them put you in a pickle when an overcard flops. Also, almost all the hands which he will call with in both cases, you would much rather have him all-in preflop (all but AA and KK).
As far as checking on the flop goes, I think this is the right play, especially in hindsight. You might as well give him the chance to bluff. When he does bet on the turn, I think you have to call. If he'd had an ace, he might have given *you* another chance to bluff rather than bet out. Ditto for trips and two pair.
On the other hand, what will you do if he checks the turn? If you check again, you have given him two shots to draw out on you, in the hope of inducing a pure bluff. It might be more reasonable to just give up on inducing the bluff (after all, there's an ace on the board and you raised preflop). That way you prevent him from drawing out, if he has a draw. Did you think he would be especially likely to bluff, since he thought you were a rock?
-Tom Hayes
Maybe I am a rock, but I was not intent on inducing a call. I would have been happy to check behind him on the turn and show the hand down or call a bet on the river unless a King fell. I figured the only "draws" he could be on given the board would be to pair a pocket King (3-outer) or make set to a smaller pair(2-outer). Given the long odds, I figured my highest EV play would be to try to take the sizable pot without any further investment.
By the way, when I said he may be on a stone bluff, I should have mentioned that it was equally likely that he had a medium/small pair, and didn't want me to get a chance to draw out with a non-Ace "steal" hand like KQ, KJ, or QJ. However, I didn't put him on this hand since it is a terrible play (for a solid player) to call a raise in the blind against a possible steal when you have a medium pair. I always figure you should reraise all-in or fold since you will be in such peril and out of position when the inevitable overcards flop.
p.s. I hear you about going all-in with the Queens, but I sometimes like to keep a second barrel to fire given that there is still a two-thirds chance that an Ace or King will NOT flop. If you go all-in, an AK can call and get a through ticket for 5 cards.
"I am assuming the following: you start the hand with T600, the big blind starts the hand with T500, and everyone started the tourney with T500."
I see the Big "T" has found its way into a more erudite web site. Tsk,Tsk,Tsk.
For example, what does "spiking an Ace" mean?
I generally use the term to describe when someone catches a card to beat you, even if it is not his primary draw. An example is if you have pocket kings to a queen-high board in hold-em and someone is drawing to the Ace-high flush, but catches an Ace on the river to beat your pair.
The term is is also used sometimes if a top pair with a weak kicker pairs the kicker on the end. However, you never hear of anyone "spiking" a flush, straight, or set. And the term is almost always used on the river for hold-em.
I always undersrood it to mean hitting your pocket pair on fourth or fifth st.
"Spiking" has the connotation of hitting a very thin draw. Probably used most for 3 outers; Hitting a kicker, overcard, etc.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
ive understood it to mean a ace hits on the turn or river and you have an ace in your hand. example, i had ak raised preflop. got one caller. flop came all rags so i bet. got called. i was a bit worried till i spiked an ace on the turn (giving me a pair of aces). my aces held up. david surely you dont have to hit a set to spike an ace, do i missunderstand this term?
Would appreciate any analysis:
20-40 ten handed HE. Player one, loose, calling station in middle position opens the pot for a raise (atypical, as he's pretty passive). Player two, tightish typical player on the button calls the double bet. Player three, experienced pro, very tricky, whos only bad flaw is that he is a little to loose before the flop sometimes and overbets his preflop hand; this pays off sometimes later on in the hand through deception and difficult to read him; anyway, he three bets it in the small blind. Me, in the BB with KsKd - no.1 will not fold and I don't think no.2 will also, I'm jammed in the centre, if I raise I know that no.3 will certainly read me for AA or KK and probably no.2 also; with these factors in mind I decide to go with maybe a little deception and just call. No.1 and No.2 both call.
Flop - Kc Qc 7c. small blind leads out. I raise. No.1 calls, no.2 drops and small blind reraises. I cap it and they both call.
Turn - 6d. Small blind bets out. I see no.2 loading up and ready to go all the way. I think that I'm either ahead here - up against a big flush draw and/or 2pairs or maybe even smaller set; or I'm up against a made flush. I call, no. 1 calls.
River - Qs. Small blind bets out. I raise. no.1 drops. small blind reraises. What would you do? What do you read small blind for? thanks in advance.
Post deleted at author's request.
Even when you get a good read on a loose player, there's nothing to say he/she can't wake up with a real hand. Possible pair of Queens in the pocket; I pop it back one more time and call down a reraise. No matter how good any hand is, if it isn't the absolute nuts, it is only worth a certain number of bets.
I don't take any hand that is not the nuts beyond five bets on the river. I see so many second nut flushes firing in raise after raise (presumably because of what they think an opponent was representing) with genuine recklessness. I agree with you here (kings full against possible quads) to raise it to four bets then call it off.
Just call. If the small blind three bet before the flop, then QQ is more likely than KQ or the AJ flush.
I agree--he has to have QQ. Crying call.
I suspect QQ, but I'm going to put in another raise and will call a reraise. I put the raise in for two reasons; to make more money if I'm the best hand, and to show I'll bet a hand that isn't the "nuts" aggressively. Good players will remember that you "went too far" with a loser and will put more money into pots when you have the "nuts" than they otherwise might. I'd only be this aggressive with a hand that is the 2nd "nut" though, and hope that I wouldn't have anyone ask to see my hand when I muck it after being shown QQ. If anyone asked after the cards were irretrievable, I might answer "nut flush, what else?"
You are paying two bets, $80, for image ???
Just call, when the small blind shows QQ, muck your hand, say you had a small pair, improve your image for free, never pay for it.
Bobby,
Suspect QQ, not convinced. If he raises back, then I'm pretty well convinced, but put in that last $40.00 for the possibility that I'm wrong. In this game, I don't think that is too much to advertise the "illusion" of action. In my mind, about $10.00 of that last call is advertisement and the other $30.00 is the insurance cost of avoiding a catastrophic error if I should have the winner. I get many calls when I want them, due, at least in part, from "image".
Well, you've given us some good clues. You said that this player sometimes overplays his hands preflop. This tells us that he certainly doesn't need to have QQ or better in order to 3-bet preflop. Of course, just because he'd 3-bet with JTs or some such doesn't mean he can't also be dealt QQ (or better).
Here are the hands that might still be possible after his reraise on the river: AxAc, QQ, AcJc, AcTc, JcTc, 77. The question is, even if he'll overbet some hands preflop, with which of these would he do it? AA and QQ are obviously still possible. The others are all dependent upon what you know about this player. If he is capable of 3-betting with all of these hands preflop, then I would put in 1 more raise, and call any further raise by him. If I can only assign a small chance of something other than QQ, then obviously just call.
I know many players who would play AcAx like this, including the rereraise on the river (they think you might lay down your J high flush at this point, and they don't put you on QQ or KK; if you have 77, or won't lay down, then they'll lose one more bet, but had a chance to steal a big pot from you).
Later, Greg Raymer
I quote:
"...with these factors in mind I decide to go with maybe a little deception and just call..."
Maybe your deception worked...
Also this "tricky pro" could have a few hands here, depending on how you read him. The Ac with another ace or queen hoping to raise out a low flush. KQs, JcTc, 77, Nut flush etc. Remember, you have catagorized him as loose and "tricky". You were also being trying to be "tricky" yourself.Although some of these may be remote possibilities,Bayes theorem is just begging for one more raise.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Bayes Theorem is crying for one more raise? I'm not so sure.
The only reason I think you can make this argument is that the K-K hand is so well disguised. The call on the turn, after the raises on the flop, would look a lot like the Ace of clubs to me, probably with a king or queen. The pro's initial read on the river raise might be trip queens, leading him to reraise with just a flush. In this case, your statement is correct.
On the other hand, you could also argue that the pro needs a full house to reraise. A raise with trip queens with a 3-flush on the board seems like a mistake against most competition, and it is reasonable to assume the pro sees things that way. I think the only possible hands making a full house, given his preflop play, are K-Q and Q-Q. Even assuming K-Q seems optimistic for a hand that was 3-bet preflop in the SB. Even so, Bayes Theorem in this case gives you 2 to 1 odds, making a raise a knife's edge decision.
I'm in the call camp.
albert how could you ever play so tight, dont you think the situation is calling for at leat three more raises. your responses seem quite intelligent albert but if your not willing to invest at least 300 into the big full you would never get paid even one bet when you have top pair in my home game, if you even looked at your chips everyone would fold.
Cap it. The range of hands he could be playing is much, much wider than the case queens.
Of the spectrum of hands he could have that might dispose him to reraise, QQ comprises a very small percentage of the possibilities, certainly less than 1/3. Rere.
JG
What did the small blind have? I expect it was QQ or you would not be thinking so much about this hand. Thanks for a good post
i would reraise, and keep reraising for several more bets, -in no limit i would move in- i might keep reraising all in in limit. the only thing your afraid of is quads. id put small blind on flush, probable nut flush with all that raising going on. with any luck he has that or the underfull. if he has the quads id just have to lose all my money.
geez, im kind of suprised at some of the responses to this poast. id have to put in at least several bets befor i really started to wonder what the man has, ive got the monster.
Based on the way this hand was played the pro must seriously fear that you have a full house. Thus for him to raise back he ought to have QQ or KQsuited. There is only one combination for each hand (because you have two kings in your hand) and it is debatable whether he would have three bet before the flop with KQ. Of course there is always that chance that he had a brainlock. In my games you would be about even money to have the best hand.
Anybody that doesn't raise back at least one more time hasn't got a hair on their ass!
David,
CV pointed this out to me, unless we're both missing something, when Sabrina holds the Kh,Kd there is no way that he could even have K,Qs. Therefore if Sabrina holds the Kh,Kd she would only have to evaluate the chances of him having a brain lock against what the pot is laying her.
Tom Haley
i guess im just kinda use to quick dicisions, what the hell does is take for you to risk some serious money. for me it would be a knee jerk response, at least for the next 2 or 3 hundred. if you raise me or call me down for that much in a limit game then mabey-and just mabey, ill give some consideration to the quads. for me this is a no brainer. i have never in my live failed to lose all my money to quads. and that includes pot limit omaha where i have a lot more to worry about.
of course if i was playing with a bunch of pansies who never risk serious money without the absolute brass brazillias i would take that into consideration, but only after the 2 or 3 hundred.
what the hell is a brain lock?
DPOKER,
I knew I shouldn't have posted about this hand. Brain lock is when someone puts in $300, via back and forth raising, in a $20-40 limit hold'em game with all the cards out without the best possible hand. It is also when you use the same strategy for limit hold'em as you do for pot limit hold'em.
Tom Haley
Brain lock is also the mistake of getting too narrow an early read on an opponent, then refusing to reevaluate this read on a later street due to unexpected action.
Thanks so much everyone for all the responses. I've been away for a few days so couldn't respond. Anyway, Sb had 77. I only called. From all your posts I guess I have a way to go in reading players and being more aggressive, given the particular game conditions. Also, I should have considered the effects of my underplaying my hand and his perception of me.
I have not read any of the other posts yet, so here is my read on the situation. With the following rational below to explain my conclusion(s). I would put the LB on the following hands pre-flop
1) On AK 2) On Jts, 9Ts, Kqs, or even on a small pair (because he may want you out figuring he can out play the other two callers). 3) Pocket Aces , Queens or Jacks.
After the flop; The Flop is 3 suited and you cap it. With the limit on raises the flop action tells me player 1, is somewhere hoping to make a hand, possibly on a draw and the LB is still on the possible hands that I indicated above.
On the turn; LB leads on the turn to see if you are really as strong as you indicated on the flop. But, you show weakness. So here I have to ask you, want you would think if you were the LB? I would think that you don't have the flush. And, the #1 player is on draw or has a small flush but is afraid of a bigger flush or maybe has two pair. As the LB, I would put you on possibly top pair with the Ace of the suit working.
This is probably where I go against all the mathematics of poker but, I would raise on the turn and see how the action goes. I have put my opponents in the tough decisions making position at least for the moment.
The river pairs the board; And #1 is still in. Sense you played soft on the turn the LB leads again on the river, because he feels he has the best hand, a full house is a non factor and feels confidant that he has player 1 beat with a higher flush.
Of course with the nut full house you raise him.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
This is related to an earlier thread about flopping aces up where I mentioned that the most important thing is to check if it is head up and you are first. Here is my two part question. You are first with QJ in the pocket. You somehow see that your lone opponent holds 67 of spades. The flop is AK10 with one spade. The game is 10-20. With a $10 flop bet and $20 from then on, how big would the pot have to be at this point to make it right to bet if (a) you know that your opponent will take a free card if you check,?and (b) you know that your opponent will take a stab at stealing it on the flop if you check? I assume that your opponent will not try anything fancy from that point on (so you can't check raise if a spade comes on the turn).
ALthough not totally accurate, I've simplified the numbers to make the math easier. I've assumed a 1/25 chance to make a flush after the flop, and a 1/5 chance to make a flush after the turn (assuming a spade came on the turn).
A few observations make solving these two questions easier.
1. Your opponent will always fold if you bet the flop. Obviously, if the pot was really large he would call. But that turns out to be irrelevant to part A.
2. Your opponent will probably call on the turn with $60 in the pot on the turn before any bets. That will give him the 4:1 odds he needs to call a $20 bet on the turn.
3. You will always bet the turn.
Question A:
The pot size that you should bet is $60 or more. Less than that and you do better to give the free card and take the $12 equity on the turn bet (if he'd call). More than that, you are giving up too much equity in the pot already to justify chasing the $12.
Actually, an argument could be made for always betting. The pot odds will never be right for a call on the turn, unless your opponent picks up a belly straight draw to go along with his flush draw. And then a call is probably right with exactly $55 in the pot or so. So why not bet and give your opponent a chance to make a mistake and call the $10 bet?
Indeed! Always bet that straight.
Question B:
Ignoring the check raise for the moment, the pot would have to be about $290 to justify betting out. But this is not realistic (the pot size nor no check-raise.).
The proper pot size to check-raise is $40. Then the gain from the pot justifies the risk of losing by just calling. Lower than that, at first glance, and it's better to check-call. But as in the first problem, there won't be enough in the pot to justify a call on the turn, unless you just call with exactly $40 ($40 + $10 + $10 + $20 = $80 needed to call on the turn). But this increases your deviation without increasing your expectation. Better to just always check-raise and give your opponent the chance of making a mistake by calling on the flop.
As for betting out, since we'll be check-raising most, if not all, of the time, we always do better to get another $30 of your opponent's money into the pot (or $10 with the fold), rather than $10 (He should only call the bet with a very large pot.). Besides, how big can a heads-up pot be before the flop in a $10-$20 game be with the hands these two players hold?
I think the best solution to this problem is to always check-raise, no matter what the pot size.
One argument in the border-line situations might be to check (or call) and give your opponent a chance to make a mistake on the turn instead. I think he's more apt to make that mistake, but the magnatude of the mistake is so much bigger on the flop (he'll lose most hands on the turn, hands he'd never make the mistake of calling with on the turn.). You probably do better in the long run to give your opponent the chance to make the mistake on the flop. Besides, the bet's smaller, somewhat making it more likely that he'll call on the flop.
(a) You know that your opponent will take a free card if you check
Let X be the pot size at this point. Consider your opponent's position. He will only call on the flop if his effective odds justify doing so.
Probability[backdoor flush] = 10/47*9/46
Opponent figures to win another $40 on the last 2 rounds of betting (he doesn't know you'll fold if he makes the flush). So
Expectation[backdoor flush] = (X+10+40)*10/47*9/46
Expectation[no spade on turn] = -10*37/47
Expectation[spade on turn, no spade on river] = -30*10/47*37/46
Adding the last 3 expressions, his total expectation is positive when X > 262.44. In other words, he will only consider calling your flop bet if the X is larger than $262.44.
Similarly, your opponent will only call on the turn (assuming a spade has turned) if he is getting sufficient pot odds, or
(X + 20)/20 = 46/9 - 1
giving X > $62.22 for the case when you check and
(X + 40)/20 = 46/9 - 1
giving X > $42.22 for the case when you bet (and he just calls).
Assume X is less than $62.22.
Expectation[checking] = X*Prob[no spade on turn] + X*Prob[spade on turn]
Expectation[betting] = X
So for X less than $62.22, both checking and betting give the same expectation X.
Assume X is greater than $62.22 and less than $262.44.
Expectation[checking] = Expectation[betting] = X
For the range 62.22 - 262.44, X is always greater than 42/44*X + 260/99. Assume X is greater than $262.44.
Expectation[checking] = Expectation[betting] = For X greater than $262.44, betting has the higher expectation.
(b) You know that your opponent will take a stab at stealing it on the flop if you check
Upon checking, your opponent bets and you naturally raise (if you just call, then it's like betting in scenario (a) with the assumption that your opponent doesn't again violate pot odds principles on the turn). The pot is now X+30, and calculating effective odds for a backdoor flush as above, your opponent will now call if X is greater than $242.44. (X + 60)/20 = 46/9 - 1
giving X > $22.22, so it's an automatic call given that he's called the flop.)
Assume X is less than $242.44.
Expectation[checking] = X+10
Expectation[betting] = X
So for X less than $242.44, it is better to check.
Assume X is greater than $242.44 and less than $262.44.
Expectation[checking] = Expectation[betting] = X
For the range 242.44 - 262.44, 42/44*X + 2130/99 is always greater than X. Assume X is greater than $262.44.
Expectation[checking] = Expectation[betting] = Summarizing: Given even a small chance of your opponent attempting a steal after a check on the flop, for most realistic pot sizes (after all, it is heads-up and we are only talking about QJ and 76s) it is better to check. So, for example, it would be correct to check if the pot size was 7 small bets and you estimate your opponent will steal 25% of the time after a check. For the same steal frequency (25%) one would start thinking about betting only for a pot size greater than 13 small bets.
If you can dismiss a steal as a possible play by your opponent, then for X greater or equal to 6 small bets, betting is correct - for X less than 6 small bets either betting or checking is correct.
Etienne
Etienne,
Let me try to come to the same conclusions with a much shorter argument.
In case (a), you should always bet because your opponent is going to play correctly, and you are ahead. By checking, you allow his fair share of the pot to increase. The size of the pot is irrelevant to this argument. See my other post in this thread.
In case (b), you should always check because you strictly gain. It's like getting 2 flop rounds of betting, without giving your opponent a chance to improve. The key here is that your opponent knows he's behind, and doesn't intend to pull any more moves, so the information that you are strong is no use to him.
Since you seem comfortable with equations, you should try taking more complicated assumptions into account when analysing situations like this. Double-checking the math in my other post would be good practice. On the other hand, finding short arguments which let you skip all the equations also has practical value.
-Tom Hayes
Tom,
You write :
Since you seem comfortable with equations, you should try taking more complicated assumptions into account when analysing situations like this.
I thought about the 2 pair and trips scenario, but for some reason dismissed it.
Double-checking the math in my other post would be good practice.
I generally always try to do this.
On the other hand, finding short arguments which let you skip all the equations also has practical value.
I find that by going through a problem systematically and, alas, longwindedly, I am honing those very skills necessary for "finding short arguments". You are presupposing a level of poker understanding to which I'm still aspiring, and at this stage, unfortunately, there's quite a way to go.
Etienne
Etienne wrote "I find that by going through a problem systematically and, alas, longwindedly, I am honing those very skills necessary for 'finding short arguments'. You are presupposing a level of poker understanding to which I'm still aspiring..."
I definitely agree that working out the details of a problem in their full g(l)ory will improve your understanding all around, including making it easier to find short solutions. However, I find it is useful to switch back and forth between looking for concise answers, and working out the details. Sometimes after working out a few details you will be struck by a very useful simplification, but *you may not notice this until you switch gears and look for shorter answers*. How often to switch gears like this is something you have to pick up by trial and error I think.
Hope this helps. -Tom Hayes
Tom,
You write :
... you should try taking more complicated assumptions into account when analysing situations like this.
It just struck me that you (and everyone else with the exception of George Rice, Jr.) ignored the possibility of a backdoor straight which is more likely to occur than 2 pair or better.
Etienne
Good point--the backdoor straight should also be taken into consideration.
However, there are only 9 pairs of cards making the backdoor straight, compared with 15 pairs of cards making 2 pair or trips. Also, the straights are only worth half the pot to our opponent. Consequently, if a Q or J hits the turn, the pot would have to be really huge to make it correct for the opponent to call; well into the range of values above which it is clear that we must bet the flop and turn for value. So this omission, although careless, doesn't affect the results of my analysis.
-Tom
Tom,
You write :
< However, there are only 9 pairs of cards making the backdoor straight, compared with 15 pairs of cards making 2 pair or trips. >
The backdoor straight I had in mind was 6789T - in fact I hadn't even thought about the possibility of a shared pot with a runner runner Q J! There are 16 pairs of cards making this backdoor straight, so it certainly deserves a place in the analysis.
Etienne
> The backdoor straight I had in mind was 6789T . . . There
One "minor" point. Your opponent's ten-high straight loses to your ace-high straight.
Mitch,
You write : In this analysis, when we put ourselves into our opponent's shoes, we naturally don't "know" what we're up against. So analyzing 2 pair or trips or 6789T is legitimate, even though in actuality none have any real chance of winning. Similarly, when analyzing a possible steal by him, we do so because he doesn't know about our straight.
Etienne
This seems to be a good example to illustrate the Fundamental Observation (a.k.a. Theorem) of Poker.
In case (a), the correct answer is "it depends". Let's consider two cases: (a1) your opponent thinks 2 pair 6's and 7's or better will be enough to win. (a2) your opponent thinks he needs a flush to win. In case (a2) your opponent is correct, given your actual cards, so you have no chance to make him play incorrectly. Consequently, you should play purely for value. This means betting out the flop regardless of pot size. In case (a1), your opponent may make an error on the flop and/or the turn. In this case, we can determine the best action by retrograde (reverse order) analysis.
For simplicity, we will assume we can only win one bet on the river when our opponent makes 2 pair or trips, and also that our opponent will expect to make exactly one extra big bet when his flush hits, but no extra big bets when the 2 pair or trips hit.
On the turn, when the opponent has made a flush draw, he will call if the pot size is at least $63 (effectively $83, with the implied big bet on the end). When the opponent has made a pair on the turn, he will call if the pot size is at least $163. Consequently, on the turn, we will bet if the pot is at least $143, or when our opponent has picked up a flush draw (in which case the FOoP says we can gain no advantage by tricky play).
On the flop, let's assume that our opponent will expect us to bet the turn as well if we bet out the flop. He should reason as follows: 10/47 of the time, a spade will turn. In this case, he will call, as long as the pot size is $23 to begin with (thus $63 after the flop action, and we bet out the turn). If the pot size were less than this, he would clearly fold to a bet on the flop. 6/47 of the time, he will turn a pair, in which case he will call again if the pot is $123 to begin with. When the pot size, P, is between $23 and $123, our opponent will reason that 37/47 of the time, he loses $10, and 10/47 of the time, he invests $30, and gets back 9/46(P + 80). Thus he will call when P > 262, which is impossible. When P > 123, he will reason that 10/47 of the time he invests 30 and gets back 9/46(P+80), 6/47 of the time he invests 30 and gets back 5/46(P+60), and 31/47 of the time he invests 10 and gets back 0. Consequently, he should call if P > 228.
When is it reasonable for us to check? Clearly we should bet the flop if we know he will call, i.e. P > 228. Also clearly, we should check if P < 43, since we can still pick up the pot if the turn is a spade, but we can win 20 on the end if he makes runner-runner 2-pair or trips. Now suppose 43 < P < 228. If P < 143, we would check again if a 6 or 7 hits, whereas when P > 143, we would bet if a 6 or 7 hits. First suppose P > 143. 10/47 of the time, a spade hits the turn, and we lose 9/46(P+40) - 20 in expectation. 6/47 of the time, a 6 or 7 hits, and we gain 20 + 5/46(20) in expectation. Solving, it is profitable as long as P < 131, i.e. never. Now suppose P < 143. In this case, we lose 9/46(P+40) - 20, 10/47 of the time, while we gain 5/46(20), 6/47 of the time, which is profitable when P > 69.
In conclusion, there is a small but noticable difference. In case (a1) we should check the flop when P < 69, and bet if P > 69. In case (a2), it doesn't matter when P < 43, but we probably should check, since we may be wrong about him never bluffing; we must bet when P > 43. Note that these numbers are rather sensitive to the implied odds our opponent thinks he is getting. If the opponent thinks he is going to make a bundle with trips, it may be much more worthwhile to keep him around.
Since this is taking so much room, I'll analyse case (b) in a separate post.
-Tom Hayes
I'm afraid that I don't quite understand part (b) of this question. If I read this correctly, which I doubt, you are asking when we should bet the flop, given that our opponent intends to steal-bet if we check, but otherwise to play straightforwardly as in case (a).
If this were what was meant, then I would say "Never!" What could be the possible advantage of betting out, when we are ahead, and our opponent would do it for us? I would check-raise unless I thought I would get paid off by two-pair or trips, in which case I might check-call, as discussed in my analysis of part (a).
-Tom Hayes
Why is it that I believe the correct answer will be one small paragraph? These 8 paragraph diatribes while probably statistically correct and mathematically sound are somehow missing the point. I'm sorry. Not only that they are boring as hell!
I suppose you think you're going to find the secret to good poker in some 5-word zen koan, without doing any real thinking. No doubt you're right. I'm *sorry* you had to click on the scroll bar before you could get to the next note. Yeesh.
David,
I haven't peaked at any answers yet. It is good to see George posting. I figured that Etienne would have a response. I'm going to leave check-raising out of my analysis for the sake of simplicity. I think the concepts still apply. My answers are based on the following calculations:
The chances of a spade falling on the turn is:
10/45 as there is 10 spades in the deck and 45 unseen cards.
The chances of a spade coming on the river after 1 spade comes on the turn is 9/44.
The whole premise here is that you want to give your opponent a chance to make a mistake. I am assuming that the player A is not a loose calling station.
a) If your opponent will always take the free card on the flop, you want your opponent to make a mistake on the turn when they pick up a flush draw when a spade falls on the turn. Therefore if they are getting greater than 44/9 from the pot on the turn they are correct to call when they pick up a flush draw. Therefore if the pot contains 44/9 * $20 they should call on the turn. This is approximately $98 dollars rounded to the nearest dollar. Therefore if the pot contains less then $78 on the flop you should check and $78 or more you should bet against the player who will take a free card on the flop. Of course you should bet when they pick up a flush draw.
b) Against player B you still want to give your opponent a chance to make a mistake. At first it would seem that it doesn't matter on the flop if you don't check raise and player B will always bet behind you. It does matter in that you want to give B a chance to fold if the pot is laying B enough on the flop to call twice. In this situation when B is getting sufficient odds to chase for their runner-runner flush you want to bet to give B on opportunity to fold incorrectly. Therefore you must evaluate the cost to B of making his runner-runner flush:
A flush card will not hit on the turn 35 times and hit 10 times. When the flush card hits on the turn 10 times, the flush card will miss on the river 34 times. I calculate the cost of making the runner-runner flush to be
35 * $10 + (10/45) * (35/44) * $30 = $350 + $5.30 = $355 rounded to the nearest dollar.
Therefore if there is greater than or equal to $335 dollars on the flop you should bet on the flop giving your opponent a chance to drop.
Tom Haley
I resubmitted this after I detected a slight error in my math. There may still be more and it would be good to have those pointed out. I did notice that everyone else assumed 47 unseen cards as I assumed 45 unseen cards.
Tom Haley
This wasn't an esoteric math problem. The opponent who always checks behind you will gain if he gets 4-1 when he picks up a flush draw. So you better get him out on the flop if there is $60 in there. The guy who will try to steal it should always be check raised (even if he would fold had you bet into a $400 pot). And Tom, next time multiply by 35/9.
David,
I'm sorry I just can't resist asking you this question. Is the reason that you always check raise against player B even though B would fold a $400 pot when you bet, because B could get a little help on the turn like pairing up or picking up a gut shot draw and they would at least call again on the turn and maybe call on the river if they improved again?
Tom Haley
P.S. Thanks for the math correction.
No. It is because you gain equity. Essentially you are betting 20 not 10 into this 400 pot which you want him to call .(This would be true even if he was all in at this point but it is even better if he is not.)
David,
I just thought of that. Since it costs $20 him on the flop instead of $10. Thanks.
Tom Haley
>>Essentially you are betting 20 not 10 into this 400 pot which you want him to call.<<
But if the pot were big *enough*, you'd want him to fold, right? So if it were somehow over about $600 (so he'd be getting over 30-1 on his $20 investment with his back door flush draw), you'd want to bet if you knew he would fold, or check-raise if you knew he'd fold to the raise.....right?
Sure, even if you'd rather he would fold, you still want to get the most money in the pot, since you are ahead.
What I was getting at was that if for any reason you think he might fold for a bet, but might call the raise if you check-raise, then you would want to just bet - if the pot is big enough that you want him to fold. (As Tom Weideman pointed out in a recent thread about defending your blind, there are players who will call a check-raise on the flop just to avoid embarrassment.)
This is a "Ripley's believe it or not" scenario but I had composed an answer to Dave's post with very similar results as Dave's, except for the $60. Then, I got a complete wipe out when power went off, so here is some of the thoughts that I had come up with.
I started out by saying my response was coming from a "layman's" perspective...
Leaving the math else where, I viewed Dave's question(s) and the conditions as follows:
1) The QJ combined with the flop has only so much money winning potential against one opponent which we know has only a back door flush draw to beat us.
2) If I know that my opponent is going to check behind me for a free card, then I saw two options:
1a) To check the flop and give my opponent a chance to
catch up in the hand, obviously not wanting them
pass me. In this case my opponent needs to catch
a spade. And unless I am playing against Homer
Simpson he probably does not want to see a spade
pair the board. (He isn't suppose to know what I hold).
2a) Bet and probably win the pot now..
3) If I know that my opponent will bet if I check, then I would check raise.. Because this is where I will, IMHO, extract the maximum potential value for my holdings.
4) I also indicated that I was at a complete loss for the need to consider pot odds if I was going to bet the flop in this case. I hold the "nuts" at this point, therefore, I would not even be calculating pot odds, but concerning myself with the thought, "if betting now would gain me the best results?"
4a) I can see where maybe betting in a certain situation would either give my opponents correct pot odds to call or incorrect pot odds if they were to call. But I didn't see that situation in the particular case.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
So for X greater than $62.22 and less than $262.44, betting has the higher expectation.
This is greater than the check expectation by a constant factor of 900/99.
(He will call your bet on the turn if
So for X greater than $242.44 and less than $262.44, it is better to check.
This is less than the check expectation.
Once again, checking is recommended for X greater than $262.44.
Posted by: Tom Hayes (hayest@math.uchicago.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 August 1998, at 8:16 a.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 August 1998, at 11:31 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Hayes (hayest@math.uchicago.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 August 1998, at 9:13 p.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 August 1998, at 11:18 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Hayes (hayest@math.uchicago.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 31 August 1998, at 3:11 p.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 September 1998, at 12:44 a.m.
Posted by: Mitch
Posted on: Sunday, 6 September 1998, at 2:20 p.m.
> are 16 pairs of cards making this backdoor straight, so it
> certainly deserves a place in the analysis.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 September 1998, at 7:14 p.m.
< One "minor" point. Your opponent's ten-high straight loses to your ace-high straight. >
Posted by: Tom Hayes (hayest@math.uchicago.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 August 1998, at 7:47 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Hayes (hayest@math.uchicago.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 August 1998, at 8:03 a.m.
Posted by: Mean Old Bob
Posted on: Saturday, 29 August 1998, at 4:32 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Hayes (hayest@math.uchicago.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 August 1998, at 9:01 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 August 1998, at 12:08 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 August 1998, at 12:11 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 August 1998, at 2:59 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 August 1998, at 3:56 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 August 1998, at 4:02 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 August 1998, at 4:16 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 August 1998, at 6:34 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Hayes (hayest@math.uchicago.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 August 1998, at 9:23 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 30 August 1998, at 3:39 a.m.
Posted by: Lawrence (Nevadalarry) (nevadalarry@earthlink.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 29 August 1998, at 4:46 p.m.
5-5 pot limit hold em. im utg with AA. i limp hoping for a raise and a reraise so i can come over the top and get most of my money in befor the flop. obviously if i get any callers should it go like this (ive got bout 750 in front of me) im moving in on the flop regardless of what comes out. alas i dont get to make any move pre flop. three callers,lb raps the table, bb raps the table. 30 in the pot. flop ATT two hearts. lb checks, bb checks, i check, next player bets 30 , next folds, next folds, little blind calls 30 and raises 90. bb calles 120 and raises the size of the pot. what would you do, and what do you put lb on and bb on?
this actually happened bout seven days ago in a side game. i doubled through two people, made bout 1500 in bout 3 seconds.s one player had j-10 , one had A/ 10, not to worry
I don't think this is similar to the post below. In that case, the history of action is what makes you worry about quads. You're gonna win this pot, and, if you play in a pot limit game which features 6 limpers before each flop, you're gonna make a lot of money period. Who cares what they have? The BB for sure has the goods--at least a ten. The SB probably has the goods, but could be on a steal if he's an aggressive player. I think you should just call the BB raise, hoping that either the bettor or the SB has a ten--you wouldn't want to blow either of these players off a ten with a weak kicker. Hell, if one of them has the goods, they may hit it again for you. Since the SB and BB act before you on the turn, chances are you'll get to put all your chips in the pot without even having to bet!
I would just call the flop action so as to hopefully keep in as many players as possible. The original bettor might have a T, and he might stay in, as well as the blinds. Obviously, they don't all have a T, so at least one of them must have KhXh (X is probably a Q or J, maybe a 9), or a good A, or be bluffing.
Anyway, I wouldn't even consider dumping my hand at this point. No one has to have TT for any of these actions to have occurred. There are a wide variety of possibilities. I'd be playing to maximize the amount of profit for a win.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
if any of you would care to take the time to respond to this just be warned that for now, as i cant afford the resonable prices that david charges for personal lessons, i write down everything you poast , - when i have several hundred pages ill sell it to you for 23 bucks, it would make a great book. anyway the question concerns the 20-40 hold em question below. seems the poaster has the big full, possible flush on board, possible quads. owner of possible quads is a agressive, tricky, pro(?) , in this situation ive stated that i would invest probable large bucks befor really taxing my brain power. every one else disagrees, which makes me think either im stupid or they dont have enough money to play this game, or something like that, or mabey im better off in big bet where you dont have to have to have the big brains to make the most proffitable dicision in obvious cases. any response will be duley recorded.
Your answer definitely is way off. However that might not mean that you are a bad poker player. You may simply be lacking one skill that involves multiway pots. That skill is related to "painted forehead" puzzles. Since I can't type I will ask for someone else to elaborate. Then do some of these puzzles. That should patch the leak.
comon guys what the hell is painted forehead puzzel. if its playijng your player i know something about that. help me out here.thanks dave
Since nobody else has spoken up, I'll take a crack at it.
I believe David's somewhat cryptic mention of a "painted forehead" puzzle is a reference to a class of puzzles which address "meta-knowledge" and/or "common knowledge." These concepts refer to the "depth" of knowledge among two or more people. For example, consider the two of us. I know my middle name. That's just regular knowledge. However, my first name (assuming my post tag is real, which it is), is common knowledge between us; that is, I know that you know it, I know that you know that I know it, you know that I know that you know that I know it, etc., More formally, meta-knowledge refers to higher orders of knowledge beyond regular knowledge (you knowing that I know something is 2nd order, you knowing that I know that you know something is 3rd order). Common knowledge is sort of meta-knowledge of infinite order.
A typical puzzle involves a group or a member of a group deducing something through the use of meta-knowledge. The first recorded example, to my knowledge, is the "puzzle of the hats" which appeared in Europe around the turn of the century. A number of versions of the puzzle have appeared since then. My personal favorite, though it is less popular in textbooks due to its politically incorrect nature, follows:
There is an island with one hundred cannibals, each of whom has a (non-cannibal) spouse. If the spouse of a cannibal is unfaithful, a red dot appears on the forehead of that cannibal. There are no reflective objects on the island, the people never communicate, etc., so the cannibal cannot "see" the dot if it appears. The spouses like to sleep around, so there is a lot of cheating going on--say 75 of the cannibals have red dots on their foreheads. Cannibals tend to be the jealous types, so if a cannibal can determine for sure that his spouse is cheating, he will eat his spouse at 6 AM the following morning in the public square. All of the cannibals are perfectly rational, and this is common knowledge. One day, all of the cannibals are convened at the beach. They are getting ready to devour a sailor who has been shipwrecked. Just before the sailor dies, he announces: "At least one of you has a red dot on your forehead!" It is common knowledge that sailors always tell the truth, and it is clear that all of the cannibals heard the statement.
Question #1 (10 points): What, if anything, happens? Question #2 (40 points): If anything happens, what did the
sailor tell them that they did not already know?
What does this have to do with poker? Well, these puzzles are usually cast so that you have to deduce something about YOURSELF using metaknowledge, while poker generally involves deducing something about your opponent. However, both involve making judgments about how your opponent will act, given what he knows or thinks about what you and the other players in the pot have, or what he thinks you think HE has, etcetera. Going back to the 20-40 example, the player is reraising in full knowledge that a full house is possible and that you are likely to have it. This is intimidating. To take another example, Tom Hayes posted something regarding a 7-stud hand with 4 jacks on the board and why you should bet it. The reason not to bet it is if you know that your opponent knows what you have and is rational--that is, that your opponent can read your board and is not on tilt.
...I'll feel safe playing with him again.
But half-seriously, here are a couple quick follow-up questions.
#3) What happens if only ten savages are there to eat the sailor?
#4) What if the sailor asks, "Why do so many of you have dots on your foreheads?"
#5 is a spoiler (scroll down to see it)
#5) Suppose it is the day before all the red-dots are supposed to eat their spouses. You've just realized you have a red dot, and so, you realize, have all the other red dots. With the long, hard, tropical winter fast approaching, shouldn't you try to grab up a few of the other cheating wives? After all, they're going to be eaten tomorrow anyway. Might this not precipitate a run on the cheating wife market? Suppose the dotless want to get in on the wife-eating. Not knowing whether they're dotless yet, they would have to act at least a day before they learn they are dotless. Carry this line of reasoning out to its logical conclusion.
-Tom "Sorry old chum, but you were just going to eat her tomorrow."
geez mabey i dont have the big brains necessary to solve these problems but this is a street thing. ive got the big full i bet i get raised. dua- raise back. whats to think about? i have to admit that i really feel more comfortable with pot limit or no limit lately, mabey because i dont have to think so hard, or mabey im just plain wrong, but having digested all the info on these poasts my opinion hasnt changed, raise, then raise again. of course even though i may not have big brains, i dont consider myself stupid either- but id at least take it up six or seven bets, even without the mortal nut. ive played my share of late night poker (limit) at the mirage and with what ive seen its going to take more heat then that to make me cool my heels with the big full. still i appreciate the input and will take all advice to heart.
You remind me of a no limit player I saw years ago, who always went broke with the second nut flush whenever the nut flush was out.
He would ask, what are the odds that the guy who just raised all-in has the nut flush?
What he should have asked was, what are the odds that the player would raise all-in WITHOUT the nut flush. Against some players this is zero percent.
we are not talking bout no limit poker in this series of posts, least that dosnt address the original question. but you are right to an extent, if i make a play at the pot and you have a higher flush then i do there is nothing magical i can do (at no limit) im going to pay y ou off, within reason. maber if i have 70,000 and so do you i would think about it but in general im going to pay you off. thanks for the response.
thanks for the response, interesting concept, still im going to invest some money with the big full. this considering the info given- of if i had no info at all. id have to be playing against the known tighest player in the world befor i would start to worry bout a couple of hundred when i held th boss hand.
I know of one painted forhead problem. I would be interested if anyone knows a source for them; they are good exercises for reaching conclusions based on what someone thinks that someone else thinks. I will give the one example that I know of this below:
Three expert poker players are taking a walk in the park on a summer day. They stop under a tree and take nap in the shade. As they are sleeping a vandal comes by and paints each of their foreheads. The three awake at the same time, and each sees the other two. Immediatley, they start laughing at the others painted foreheads. Promptly they stop laughing.
Why did they stop?
The answer is that they each concluded that their own forehead was painted, and thus were no longer amused. The problem is to see how they could have figured this out when no one could see his own forehead.
D-
Maybe you should give up limit poker.
Mason has noted elsewhere that no limit and limit poker are different games, and it's not impossible for someone to be good at one and not the other. I think it's not uncommon for no limit players to have trouble in limit games--they can't read hands and bluff way too much.
Look at that 20-40 HE post below. I'm no expert on big bet poker, but I imagine that part of the confusion might stem from the fact that a big bet player just might not SEE that kind of action late in a typical hand. For example, how do you play in no limit when you flop the top set with three suited cards on the board? Hell, it might not have even got that far before you had all your chips in the pot! Remember, this player had a pair of kings in the big blind in a triple-raised pot. You might have been all-in before the flop even hit. That same hand played out with a no limit structure is very likely not to have the same kind of action on the end.
If I understood correctly, you stated in the previous thread that you would raise and reraise approx. $300 on the end before considering that your opponent had quads. I don't know if you realize this, but that is the equivilant of approx. 7 reraises.
Since you are a Pot Limit player by your own admission, think about how many times you have ever reraised 7 TIMES on the end in PL without the nuts. Even if you could get into this situation, how many opponents do you know that wouldn't stop to think about what you are reraising them with when THEY don't have the nuts.
I'm not saying that aggressive opponents wouldn't reraise you maybe 1 or 2 times, but 4 reraises on their part is a little too much to hope for and not expect to see quads when you finally decide to call.
Good luck. Ted
Poker must be played quickly.
When you make a bad decision at poker, what is the most likely cause?
Faulty reasoning Or Lack of Experience
I think an expert, with lots of patterns in his head, had to do very little reasoning, faulty or otherwise.
Comments welcome.
Many mistakes are caused by emotions.
Human beings are not logical they are psychological. As hard as you try, your emotions will occasionally cause bad decisions. The best you can do is keep it to a minimum. Fortunately your opponents are human beings too.
When you play poker, because you don't have a lot of time, you need to make decisions very quickly. Thus you need to know what to do. If you have to sit there and think, just the back that you are doing that means that you are making a mistake.
The best poker players do a great deal of thinking away from the table. This allows them to make instant decisions at the table. When a tough situation comes up, they may have already thought it through, recognize it as something familiar, and immediately know what to do.
This should be your approach. Spend some time going over those hands that gave you trouble when you are away from the table. This should help you in your future play.
i really that the poasts on this fororam indicate that you have no chance in large risk situations.
i ment i really think,dame it, i really think...
The following is a conversation I had with a old gambler in Florida. He agreed that I could post this as long as I did'nt use his real name. Predator: How long have you been playing? OLD TIME GAMBLER: I have been playing for 35 years, everything from 5-stud to hold'em PREDATOR: What is your best game to make money? OLD TIME GAMBLER: 7-stud is my money game although I have played hold'em for a good time. 7-stud is what I reccomend to new players. I think that it's easier to win at. Predator: Tell me what makes you a long-time winner and what kind of books have you read? OLD TIME GAMBLER: Joe I think that you have to realize that when you play poker you are playing against people's minds. Thats more important then the math that all these books teach. I was never good at math but yet I have never been broke and poker is all that I do. Yet here is a warning, playing poker to make a living can be the most lonely profession there is. You have to be able to make that choice. PREDATOR: What about books? OLD TIME GAMBLER: I have read a few mostly in disinterest. Doyles book was fair but I think that you learn how to become a good player by suffering through the hours of game play. PREDATOR: I just got the Supersystem. I have some from 2+2: OLD TIME GAMBLER: Sklansky's and Malmouths books are good to read but not on how to really play poker. They deal with technical things but like all poker books they miss the real point. PREDATOR: Hold on there. 2+2's books are the best out there. They along with this forum have helped me immensely! What is this real point that poker books are missing? OLD TIME GAMBLER: They all miss the fact that people play so different at times. I have coined a new phrase for this: Multiple style syndrome! Some come in playing very solid, hard to beat but then have a few drinks and now they play horrible. Others use drugs which makes them appear as if they are of multiple personalities. Some books talk about players changing their style after being yelled at or after suffering a bad beat but I talking about something deeper then this. PREDATOR: Jeez, this is a lot to think about and take in. OLD TIME GAMBLER: I think too much is put into math these days and I don't know why. If you can know what is going on inside heads you will win. I have been playing for over 30 years and I have won my whole living. Never have I worked some stinking job or borrowed money. Joe I will tell you that the best thing to do to become a constant winner is to learn the ground rules and then learn how your opponents play but beware because outside influences can change how they play and you better adapt or plan on losing. One other thing I think is important is that you should always strive to have the best starting hand in whatever game you play in. In the long run this will make you a winner for life. Go easy on the math because I have yet to meet a purely mathematical poker player who wins constantly. Math has some importance but not the great statistical oasis it is supposes to be. By the way there are no plans for a book. Why should I give up my secrets that I had to learn the very hard way?! He. He!
Three points. 1.Does he really think that he would do worse if he learned more math? I made this point on a previous post but I will repeat it here. Just because there are many mathmeticians who are weak in other areas of the game doesn't somehow mean that learning math causes these weaknesses. I will admit that there are some Quants out there who focus on the wrong thing. Just look at some of the needlessly long answers to some of the questions on this website. But to deduce from that the idea that it acceptable not to learn all the math you can (e.g. when you are sure that an opponent has either AK AA or KK knowing that it is 60% that he has two pairs when the flop is AK6.) is inexcusable. 2. Besides knowing math and people there is a third thing, namely knowing logic. This, not math is mainly what our books are about. Only those who haven't read our books think that we are highly mathematical. 3. Do you really think that this guy could make a living out of the 20-40 games at the Mirage playing weekday aftenoons? If not, his credentials are not high enough for his opinions to be taken seriously. (His comment about always try to start off with the best hand is an example of a statement that is clearly wrong as I'm sure you well know.)
David Sklansky wrote, "Do you really think that this guy could make a living out of the 20-40 games at the Mirage playing weekday aftenoons? If not, his credentials are not high enough for his opinions to be taken seriously."
This remark strikes me as pig-headed and elitist. Suppose a poker player is able to find and play exclusively in games that are far softer than those you refer to. Why would he necessarily acquire the skills for beating a field stocked with tight aggressive pros? Suppose by virtue of his superior game selection he is making ten times the income of the typical Mirage pro. From the viewpoint of someone trying to make money at poker, I would say his credentials are outstanding.
All this is purely speculative of course. Old-time gambler's remarks should be judged based on their own merits, such as they are. By the way, I'm sure the old-timer didn't mean for his comment about starting hands to be taken so literally.
To tie this back in to poker... there are lots of players out there with experience which it would be valuable for you to understand. Not all of it pertains to poker, and not all of them are going to give it to you in the form which would be most useful. You have to take it with a grain of salt, and may need a bit of thought to extract value from it. If you dismiss someone as an idiot, just because they say or do one stupid thing, you may miss a valuable lesson you could have learned.
Post deleted at author's request.
If you cannot beat the typical Mirage 20-40 game, you are at best a mediocre player at that particular game and therefore are making a lot of mistakes. Thus anyone who takes your advice may be taking wrong advice. And if that advice conflicts with someone who IS beating that game it now becomes probable that it is wrong. An analogy would be an old time baseball player who never made the majors who insists weight training is counter productive. He might be right but I would especially doubt it if most of the new breed of younger players are lifting weights. The objections to my comments would have some vlidity if I said 75-150 but I didn't.
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary:
I actually think that you have it totally wrong. Many years ago when I first began to play poker I would meet people who would tell me "I'm a pot limit player." Well as the years went by I began to discover something. Virtually none of them could play, and most of these people are broke and long gone.
There are two reasons for this. First these games don't go on a regular basis so you don't get the time in to become an expert player. Second, pot limit games, no matter where they are located, that is whether they are a casino or a home game, are generally built around a major live one. Thus many players will just wait to get their money in when they have a big advantage. (I'm not critical of this, because of the structure of the game it is frequently the correct strategy.)
Afternoon games at $20-$40 limit and higher in Las Vegas can be pretty tough. Of course if you play well, you'll win your share in them. But I, as well as David, have watched many a player come and go. Only those people who understand how to play poker well are still around.
Post deleted at author's request
If you have learned things from weak players it is because you are smart enough to discard what doesn't make sense. My point was that if you are a semi beginner you are taking a big chance when you try to learn how to play from somebody who is fairly likely to be making a mistake. And if that player has trouble beating a fairly tough game of the type he is expounding upon, that probably means he has some wrong ideas about that game. If you are not already a thinking good player you will not know which of the ideas are wrong. This was the general point I was making. I just used the Mirage 20-40 game as an example
Post deleted at author's request.
Unfortunately, many poker concepts are not that simple because they are counterintuitive. Here are two examples.
1. "When first to act and you hold a hand like top pair you need to bet so that you don't give a free card." The counterintuitive situation is "the pot is so big they will all call anyway so you should check and possibly get a check raise in."
2. "A loose image will gain you more calls." The counterintuitive situation is "in games like hold 'em and stud where the pot is large and it is often correct to call why do you want to encourage someone to play correctly."
Notice that in each example I gave reasons to play your hands exactly oppositely. The correct answer depends on many things, but it should be obvious that in these examples the size of the pot should play a role. Other timnes it can be a very different factor.
Consequently it can (1) be very difficult to tell good advice from bad advice, (2) trying to learn from a marginal player can be dangerous, and (3) if you want to get good at poker, you must do great deal of thinking about the game.
Post deleted at author's request.
In the beginning the Math Type created implied odds. For some reason, probably due to a totally unwarranted feeling of inferiority, some people-types responded with implied quant bashing. Those that really want to improve their skills in any area should get off their backsides and learn. I was once a quant with limited people skills - I would shift from foot to foot while looking down at my shoes, when engaged in a conversation with someone. Well, after many years of intensive therapy, hypnosis, workshops and self-help books, I can proudly say that when talking to someone today I don't shift from foot to foot anymore, and I now stare at their shoes.
Etienne
Post deleted at author's request
Gary,
Any apparent disagreement between my original post and yours can be directly attributed to 2 "people-type" characteristics, namely, poetic license and humour.
Etienne
Post deleted at author's request.
I consider myself an old time gambler, having started playing casino poker (low ball)in 1962 in San Jose at the Garden City Hof Brau. There are old timers who learned enough, for them, in the first year and then basically played with that sum of knowledge for the rest of their playing days. There are other old timers who listened and read, took an interest as new theories and ideas were put forward; they adapted their play to the ever changing conditions and generally treated their poker playing as a business or at least a sideline. Have dinner with a member of either group of old timers and they will claim to be net long term winners. When the check comes for the dinner, the old timer that stopped developing his game will look away uneasily as you pick it up, the other old timer will let you pay the check too, but he'll pull out a thick roll of cash and peel off a few bucks to cover the tip. The "legendary" ASQ of John Fox and Mike Caro fame pretty much quit low ball two years ago, taught himself 7 stud by playing 2-4, 3-6 and 5-10 and now sits regularly in the 15-30 grinding out a steady big bet per hour. He was at least 67 years of age when he decided to make the change. He is an old timer well worth listening to.
Predator,
Did he really say anything that you can take to the poker table and make money with? I think you have to ask yourself this when you are a party to these conversations. Take this week in the stock market as an example. A common theme was we need a "capitulation" before this downslide ends. I didn't read or hear a lot of details or evidence about what the precise definition of a "capitulation" is and how you recognize it. Nor did I read or hear evidence regarding how these "capitulations" correlate to market bottoms. I am not saying that there aren't ways to recognize that the odds of a market turnaround are in your favor. All I'm saying is that some of the opinions offered were not presented with facts or reasoning behind them. Therefore these ideas don't tell me much about making money in the stock market. The point is that people often spout opinions but offer few facts or reasons to back them up. This all too common in our society. I know people from other cultures where this doesn't seem to be the case (next time I'll take it to the exchange forum). This is a common trait with ignorant people. Perhaps our society has more than it's share of ignorance.
Tom Haley
Tom Haley
I'm not going to get into the "Poker is a people game more than a math game" argument. My comment relates to a rather telling utterance by "old time gambler" that no one else seems to have noticed:
"Yet here is a warning, playing poker to make a living can be the most lonely profession there is."
I know several such people, and I can believe they are indeed lonely. The reason is that they possess the (forgive me for being so direct as to drop this name) "Puggy Pearson mindset" that makes them think they have to work any angle and take any shot necessary to seperate the sucker from every single penny. These guys may occasionally get away with something, but they lose so much when other players catch on to how despicable they are. Their "friendships" are phony, and the times they do make an honest mistake everyone assumes the worst. This is where the loneliness comes from.
The newer breed of professional who, say, understands some math, knows that the chips will come his/her way eventually, without having to resort to fuzzy ethics to make a living. They make genuine friendships with other players, both professional and recreational players, and loneliness is just never a problem.
I look forward to the newer breed of poker professional completely supplanting the old-timers.
Tom Weideman
Let me point out the specific advice from the old time gambler which I picked up on in my first reading, and comment on its merits.
1) Knowing your opponents is more important than knowing the math from poker books.
2) Pro poker is a lonely job, maybe not right for you.
3) (by implication) It would be more productive to just get playing experience than to spend time studying poker books.
4) Comments about "multiple style syndrome". Although he doesn't really give advice, this might be something to think about and keep in mind.
5) Winning formula: Learn the basics, learn your opponents, try to figure out what is going on in their heads, being aware that outside influences may strongly affect their playing styles. Also try to play better starting hands than your opponents. This should make you a winner in the long run.
6) Go easy on the math. It has some importance, but is not the most important thing.
I don't think there's anything objectionable here. I love the mathematical side of poker, but I realize that many people have little idea what mathematics is really about. They think "mathematics" means arithmetic, algebra, and calculus. It's quite possible that when Old Timer refers to mathematics, he's thinking of the odds tables that used to be de rigeur in poker books, but really aren't that useful.
Advice 3 is bad advice for some people, and perfect for others. At some point you need to get playing experience. Of course, Abdul Jalib has given much better advice: "Play, read, play, read, play, read." The real issue is how to balance the two. Of course, if I were selling poker books, I might improve Abdul's advice to "Read, play, read, read, play, read." I would slyly hint that he had my book in mind, and definitely not the internet.
By the way, I find it somewhat amusing that the one piece of advice I got while playing in a weekday afternoon Mirage 10-20 game which I still remember was to "Try to figure out when someone is likely to go on tilt, and when they have come back off." Sound familiar?
-Tom
Post deleted at author's request.
I thought I would comment on some of this.
"For me, an ideal table is with 2-3 tight/weak players, 2-3 maniacs, and 3-4 loose/passive who will defend agressively. Plus me, of course."
This would be a nice game, but this combination won't occur that often.
"On such a table, at mid-limits like 10-20 or 20/40, I've found that the tight/weak players have almost all read s&M and Caro's tell book. They don't think they are tight/weak, but they are."
There is a tremendous difference between the stuf that we write and what Caro writes. Your grouping this together shows a fundamental lack of knowledge as to what is really written and what advice many players try to follow.
"At such a table, I play a lot of hands, very loose preflop, very tight after flop. When I'm in a pot, it tends to get huge -- that's why I need the maniacs, to help out with that."
This is without a doubt a formula to go broke fairly quickly. It sounds like you try to make the pots large and then fold if you don't have a very strong hand. Digressing a bit, every now and then I run into someone whose description of how they play is actually very different from the way that they play. I suspect that you may fit this category.
"At such a table, there tends to be 7-8 people seeing every flop. The S&M readers don't seem to understand that, although much of it can be applied to this kind of table, it wasn't written with this kind of table in mind."
Again you need to read what we have actually written.
"And, since I don't exhibit the Caro-style tells, they quickly conclude I'm a total fish."
Virtually no one at these limits and playing hold 'em exhibit the Caro type tells. I have written that when I switched from draw and lowball to hold 'em and stud it was as if "someone had turned the sound off." Furthermore, tells are often only good in close decisions to swing you one way or the other. In the games that you describe where the pots are huge they would have little value.
"Consequently I win a lot of money from them. The interesting part is that it tends to take the maniacs only a couple of weeks to start to be able to at least partly read my hands. The S&M/Caro devotees take months before they even realize that my bets/raises/calls/folds might actually have some purpose. These would be theorists think they understand both the poeple and the math of the game. They understand neither. They catogorize people as either good players or bad players. They tend to make that determination soley on what group your showdown hands are in. They think mathematics of poker is about computation of probabilities. It's not, the math of poker is about game theory, non-transitivity of hand value, optimazation. Often the fish (the maniacs) have a better grasp of this then those who buy the books. Why is this? --- gary carson "
You are describing many of the bad players that populate these games. This is why poker is good. Sklansky has written (see POKER, GAMING, & LIFE) that only about 10 percent of the people who read and study our books compared to 1 percent of the people who don't become good players, and many (but not all) of those good players have graduated to the higher limits.
Post deleted at author's request.
Mason, I don't think you read Gary's post very carefully. All (yes, all) of your objections seem to be based on misinterpretations of what he wrote. I hope you will correct me if this is not the case.
Also, I think your comments about the non-applicability of Caro's Book of Tells to mid-limit hold'em are too strong. I consider my copy to have paid for itself several times over already in those games.
Gary, you write, >>...I've found that the tight/weak players have almost all read s&M and Caro's tell book. They don't think they are tight/weak, but they are... The S&M/Caro devotees take months before they even realize that my bets/raises/calls/folds might actually have some purpose. These would be theorists think they understand both the poeple and the math of the game. They understand neither. They catogorize people as either good players or bad players. They tend to make that determination soley on what group your showdown hands are in.<<
You may not have meant your point to come across as it did (to me),but I would offer a word of caution against making the same kind of simplistic categorizations that you have concluded these players make. As I mentioned in a recent thread, there are certainly a few of these "too-literally-by-the-book" players out there (some of whom, I would add, are just at a particular stage in their learning), but in my games most of the players who have done any amount of reading have gone beyond the books with their own thinking and further study. Many of these players are quite capable of making appropriate adjustments in games such as those you describe.
I would agree that there may be a certain correlation between being weak-tight and having read books. A weak tight player is overly cautious. That cautiousness may prompt some reading in an effort to protect one's money. But I wouldn't just equate being well studied with being weak-tight and one dimensional. I mean you've read these books haven't you?
John Feeney
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary,
Let I think I understand what your point is and I think it is a good one. You write:
>>The S&M/Caro devotees take months before they even realize that my bets/raises/calls/folds might actually have some purpose. These would be theorists think they understand both the poeple and the math of the game. They understand neither. They catogorize people as either good players or bad players. They tend to make that determination soley on what group your showdown hands are in. They think mathematics of poker is about computation of probabilities. It's not, the math of poker is about game theory, non-transitivity of hand value, optimazation. Often the fish (the maniacs) have a better grasp of this then those who buy the books. Why is this? <<
Your point seems to be that there is a significant number of players who read books, including 2+2 books, who aren't very flexible in their thinking and thus don't fully understand or apply the strategies contained in the books very well. To put it succinctly they are mediocre. Now the "maniac" you're referring to, seems to display more flexibility in their thinking and thus is more sensitive to how their opponents play than someone who picks up a book and expects to follow a rote strategy. Did I understand correctly?
Post deleted at author's request.
In the latest issue of Poker Digest David explains the reasoning for calling or raising in 7 card stud on 6th street, in a three handed pot, when the lead bettor has a straight, you have a made flush, and the lone player behind you has an obvious two pair with a 10% chance of improvement.
He discusses certain pot sizes and situations where it is correct to call, and other situations where it is correct to raise.
My question is this: assuming the two pair calls your raise, (or just calls behind your call) should you bet or check on the river? I have a tendency to bet here. Am I wrong? What if your opponent then raises? Should you always call for certain pot sizes? I usually just use my judgment. How would you analyze the situation mathematically and logically.
It is probably right to bet since the straight will probably call.
I think I made a very good lay-down the other night, but welcome comments.
20-40 hold em. I am UTG and raise with K-K. Very tough player two seats to my left calls the raise and every one else folds.
Flop comes J-4-3 rainbow. I bet and opponent calls. Turn is 2 of the 4th suit so board in now J-4-3-2 rainbow. I bet and opponent raises. I just call. (Should I have raised and found out exactly where I stood?)
River comes Q. I bet and opponent raises. I fold.
My thinking: What hand can he possibly have that I can beat? He would not call my pre-flop raise with pocket 2s, 3s or 4s. He could have A-Js (or even conceivably A-J) but I don't think would raise me on the river with a Q now on the board. Not impossible, I suppose, that he also has K-K, but not very likely. A-A also possible, but not as likely as J-J or Q-Q. I have seen this player only call an early pre-flop raiser before with J-J.
I realize the pot was now $430, but I didn't think I had a 1 in 11 chance of having the best hand.
Appreciate any replies.
I think you were correct to fold. A "very tough" player probably would have reraised you preflop with QQ, so JJ looks very likely. Is this someone who might have called your raise with QJs? That could be another possibility.
As you did, I would have just called the raise on the turn. If you reraise, and he makes it four bets, you pretty much have to fold and so have deprived yourself of the (small) possibility of improving to win on the river.
Similarly, you might have just checked and called on the river. It would probably lead to the same result but you gain some information too. And there's always some very small chance you did have the best hand. (e.g., if he decided to make a move on the turn with a hand like AQs)
John Feeney
Post deleted at author's request.
I'm sure you were bet since very few players will semi-bluff raise twice in a row. However, I question "very tough player." Expert players know that in hold 'em if someone raises on their right, they are not in the big blind, no one else is in, there are very few hands that you should call with. That is they either reraise or fold. I suspect that you were confusing a very tight player with a very tough player.
However, if I am right and you are looking at a very tight player, then it is even more likely that you are beat.
Thanks, Mason. You are correct, a better description of the player would have been "tight" rather than "tough." Thanks to everyone else who responded too; the different perspectives were helpful.
I agree with your play up until the river; at the river I would have checked and called. Its' been said before, but always be very careful about tough laydowns at the end when up against one player, especially if you lay down on occassion, and your opponent is perceptive enough to pick up on this.
Your post reminds me of a 20-40 HE hand where I bluffed a good player out of a $450 dollar pot in a similar situation. I had noticed that he was able to lay down a hand on the end to a raise, even when he was leading the action throughout the hand. The flop gave me a high open ended straight flush draw with 2 overcards; but on the end all I had was a King high hand. He bet on the end, I raised and he folded after thinking about it for a long time.
Basically I played the player and he outthought himself. When this worked, I found myself in a similar situation the next day with him and I ended up bluffing him out of another $500 pot.
His perception of me as a tight player probably made the difference in him folding both times, so be very careful about tough laydowns on the end.
Good luck.
Ted states:
"Your post reminds me of a 20-40 HE hand where I bluffed a good player out of a $450 dollar pot in a similar situation. I had noticed that he was able to lay down a hand on the end to a raise, even when he was leading the action throughout the hand."
"His perception of me as a tight player probably made the difference in him folding both times, so be very careful about tough laydowns on the end."
In other words, always call? This can't be correct. This "tough" player may have thrown away a $450 pot but he also may have made 15 "good" laydowns inbetween bad folds. Hence a net profit.
Joe, I never ment to state that you should always call, and I've layed down a few winners in my time. However laydowns on the end should take into consideration your opponent, his perception of you, your perception of him and the possibility that you have misjudged the situation.
In the hand described in the original post, I just felt that the player should have checked and called on the end instead of bet and fold to a raise.
I had noticed that the opponent that I played against, seemed to almost always lay down to a raise on the end, if you had played strong throughout the hand, so I took advantage of this situation. My opponent also made another mistake in not looking me up the next time a situation like this came up.
I don't know about you, but if I decide to make a tough laydown on the river, the next time against the same player I will almost always look him up if I have ANY chance of winning the pot. I find that this stops perceptive players from taking steals at me like I did at my opponent.
Ted
(Should I have raised and found out exactly where I stood?) Yes, and then checked on the river and called if bet into.
Mistake of calling forty on the river is out weighted by the catastrophic mistake of giving away 430.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
Let's compare the strategies of bet-and-fold versus check-and-call on the river. The entire difference in profitability comes from three possibilities. A: your opponent will call but not bet with a hand that you can beat. B: your opponent will raise with a hand that you can beat. C: your opponent will either check or call with a hand that beats you.
Possibility A wins $40 for the bet-and-fold strategy. Possibilities B and C win $390-430 and $40 for the check-and-call strategy.
Even ignoring possibility C, by choosing bet-and-fold you are asserting that it is at least ten times as likely that your opponent will call when he is beat than that he will raise when he is beat.
Hopefully everyone understands that I posted that question not only to test your math and logic skills but to make a point that it is almost always right to check to somebody who will always bet but not if he won't (unless giving a free card will just get him in more trouble)
David,
The problem you posed was extremely revealing. By doing the math, making mistakes, thinking about how to solve the problem, and seeing the results at least I gained a great deal of insight. I'll be waiting for the next one.
Tom Haley
Is it just me, or do others notice that there is a growing number of players that seem to care more about being correct from a percentage standpoint in their decisions than they do about their results? At the tables it is now fairly common for a player to verbally justify a losing call by explaining the mathmatical rationale he used to arrive at his calling decision. If I bet on the river, thinking that I have the best hand, and you call me because of your estimate of the pot size, my bluffing frequency and your holding, doesn't the result itself speak to your decision? I have been known to call many, many times with the losing hand only to be shown the winner. When shown the winner, I muck my hand and remain silent or nod and say "nice hand". There is a name for players who discuss their playing strategy at the poker table: "loser". This is just my opinion, of course.
I also see it all the time Big John. Small people, small minds, a little information and big egos is the reason. Some people have always felt the need to rationalize their actions to others so that everyone else will realize how intelligent they are or would like us to believe they are! It's sad but true. What they don't realize is that we don't care!!
> What they don't realize is that we don't care!!
I guess that's OK for you, but I *INTENSELY* care what others are holding and what their justifications may be for playing a particular hand. Heck the guy is giving you a free lesson on how he plays. You ought to be listening and you ought not be giving out this kind of information for free.
Now you have touched something very dear and near to my heart. Allow me to expound a bit on my perspective of today's mathematical games. All the mathematicians out there will probably have a field day on me, but, from what I remember from my college days, didn't Einstein's Theory of Relativity center around the concept that the Sun's circumference is perfectly round?
So, what is my point? It seems that all the mathematical computation I see today concerning, calling, betting, bluffing, etc., is centered on the play of at least one million or more hands being played?
I clocked the dealers at the Mirage several times to get an average on hands dealt per hour. I found that on average 31 hands are dealt per hour. I vary my play in the hours that I play, but for sake of discussion, let's say seven hours per day on average is played and we play 365 days. That means that I (we) would have to play 12.625 years, to just be dealt one million hands. How many will I play and how will I play them?
Ok, so now what the h___ is my point. Good question. To me it means that the probability of the "in the long run" being reached will be around the same time the human race reaches the end of the Universe.
Therefore, I play in what I call the world of "reality." That means that when my judgement says it is correct to bet, call, raise or fold during a particular hand then that is what I will do. And doing this 10 times and losing nine, with one win giving be a positive or negative result in the "long run" is not paramount on my mind. Twelve years from now, if I am still playing, have the bank roll to play, am still alive, etc., I will not remember what I did in a similar situation 10 years ago. I am interested in my win or lose today, this week, this month and especially at the end of this year. And, does it concern me that I won only 55,000 but possibly could have won 65,000? No! Because I could have also only won 45,000 instead of the 55,000 that I did win.
But, if the players today need other rational to justify their play, then, go for it. That's why there is chocolate and vanilla ice cream. But I don't think you will see too many "real" Pros pleading their case at the table to get approval for their actions.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
Nevadalarry wrote:
"All the mathematicians out there will probably have a field day on me, but, from what I remember from my college days, didn't Einstein's Theory of Relativity center around the concept that the Sun's circumference is perfectly round?"
Quite a memory... I've never heard it stated quite this concisely before.
As for the rest of it. Your (and Big John's) "no-nonsense" approach to strategy and the results derived from that strategy gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling about my job security.
Tom Weideman
Tom,
I play with percentages firmly entrenched. Are you sure that warm fuzzy feeling isn't caused by overconfidence? I was objecting to the increasing incidence of player's discussing their justification for making a losing call after the play of the hand. Do you disagree with my premise that a player who tells other players at the table exactly what thought processes he uses to make a calling decision, contributes to his future losses? ( Sorry for that tortured sentence) While I own up to the "fishy" nature of my play, I reserve the right to beat better players repeatedly thanks, in part, to their incorrect policy of trying to isolate me and outplay me with inferior holdings. "Hubris doth make "fishies" of us all.".........Mike Laing
Big John,
"I was objecting to the increasing incidence of player's discussing their justification for making a losing call after the play of the hand."
First of all, this statement does not jibe with your original post (and its title), where you essentially state that the mathematical musings of your opponents are meaningless since you got the money.
But even if the above statement is true, then what exactly is it that you object to? You claim that your opponent's post-mortem causes him to lose, so why object? If you object because you are afraid that the player will be giving away valuable secrets to the other players in the game, then I can actually agree, but the tone of both of your posts in this thread is such that you believe that he is NOT spouting anything particularly valuable.
In short, either he is saying correct, important stuff, in which case you'd like him to shut up, or he's spewing nonsense, in which case you shouldn't care. You seem to be trying to play both sides of this at once.
Tom Weideman
P.S. Maybe I am overconfident - I'd better take a closer look at that.
Here is a trick I didn't see anyone address. I will spout off some numbers like it is 15:1 to make a flush with one card to come, how could he call with insufficient pot odds. All the time watching maybe a particular player to see their reaction, like, "are you full of it buddy?" This is kind of neat to do after this player just lost a big pot to runner runner flush, etc. Without out thinking they will tell be the correct odds. This gives me valuable information about this players knowledge of poker.
Also I have found that a player giving lessons at the table is talking to a happy winner that isn't really listening. and those that are may be getting misinformation and, even if it is correct it is short lived in other players memory, especially tourists. (Opps, I mean other players)
And, in my original response to this post my long dissertation made short is, situations in poker are none with a quick assessment followed by an action and I don't really believe that all the math, frequency of bluffing, pot odds, etc., are really processed completely prior to the final action. IMHO, most of these thoughts are done after the hand is over, and the brain has time to slow down to assess what did take place and what such and such was, like pot odds.
Try this sometime when a player makes a call on the end and starts talking about pot odds. Ask him/her if they knew how much money was in the pot? I will bet they start something like this, "well there was 5 players before the flop, calling two bets, that is $100 or whatever..," Now is not the time to be restructuring the betting, and the amount of money, you should know that or be pretty close to the figure when you are ready to take the action.
Or, you could say, "Wow, you had 15 outs" and, see if they don't respond with "is that how many outs I had?" or, "I had at least that many." In reality they probably don't know how many outs they had nor if they had the correct pot odds to call. They just know there appears to be a lot of chips in the pot therefore, they figure they must have the correct odds.
I will say something if they start to smarten up a real dummy at the table. but generally I will just let them try and impress the table with their "book" learning.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
I must add this addendum to this post. I use to be the worst at knocking an opponent for playing bad and quoting statistics, etc., at the poker table until a few years back Mason Malmuth, subtly straighten me out.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
Tom,
1. I was lamenting the increasing frequency of players spouting their calling rationales after losing the pot. 2. Sometimes their recitations do educate other players; this hurts them and, less directly, me. 3. I find their face-saving, aquarium-tapping, whining harangues, annoying, counter-productive and lamentable. 4. I can and will have it both ways because, whether he is correct and educating other players, or wrong, and not educating, he is still damn annoying and I wish the trend would reverse itself and become much less prevalent. 5.Instead of the subject I chose for a heading, I should have used: Shut up and let the results speak! 6. The later the hour, the more commas I use.
I think you're right. I recall the hand I watched that made me decide to learn holdem. I was playing stud at MGMGrand in Reno. A big commotion at the 10/20 holdem table. I walked over. The flop was something like JJ2QQ. Two of the local, everyday players were trading raises. I got their in time to see about the last 20. I don't recall how much was in the pot, a whle bunch. After the showdown, the JJ kept repeating over and over, "the only possible hand that could beat me. Do you know what the odds are against that?" All I could think was, odds? when you know what hand he has, there are no odds. I like your comment about probability of bluffing. How the hell does anybody compute that? I get a lot of calls on the river from players who think I bluff a lot. I don't, but they think I do. It's because I play a lot of hands. They see me showing down a lot of what they think are weak hands -- like A2s utg. In a normal game that is weak, but when you are at a table where you know 7 players are going to call no matter what then preflop position tends to lose much of it's meaning. There is a place for math at the table -- figuring bluffing percentages isn't often one of them. Gary Carson
Mason posted the following to r.g.p.:
"When reading the posts from this gp it is obvious that many of you are struggling with how to beat "no-fold'em" games. The reality is that these games are extremely easy to beat for a lot of money if you make the proper adjustments, and these games require many adjustments from conventional strategy.
Let me address one area where I think that most of you are having trouble. It is the fact that in these games typical players not only play too many hands but are going too far with their hands. This is very different from games where many players are playing too many hands but not going too far with them."
In games where players play too many hands but don't go too far with them, what strategy adjustments would you make?
Some of my thoughts on the issue:
In a game where players play too many hands preflop, but then tend to fold on the flop, raising preflop with many mid-strength hands would penalize them both for playing inferior starting hands and for folding on the flop when they have sufficient interest in the pot to continue. Offsuit hands might be stronger than in no-fold games, since they can narrow the field for protection. But the implied odds of drawing hands would not be as high. So you would play more hands like KJ that are risky in games where players take their hands too far. (In those games, the many marginal draws out against you may cumulatively leave your made hand with a small percentage chance of actually winning at the end.)
Relative to No Fold'Em Hold'Em, have you read the book by the same name by D.R. Sherer? If you have, what's your assessment?
Loose play pre-flop, tight play after the flop. This is an interesting situation. Normally the loose games I have played in are loose from beginning to end.
The strategy difference between a loose tight (LT) and a loose-loose (LL) game would be in the LL games looking at more hands to beat after the flop versus less hands to beat after the flop in the LT games. Predicated on that, what, if any, strategy changes should or could be make for playing in a LT game?
Let's see, in a LL game I rarely play too many hands up front and I don't think I would change that strategy. I would continue to play groups 1, 2 and 3 hands from early position. Exception would be AQ off suit or similar hands I do not play from early position in LL games, therefore, I would not change this in LT games.
Middle position hands in LL and LT games.
I would add all hands from group 4, except AJ off suit. And group 5 I would play just the
pairs and suited combinations.
Late position.
Many players would probably play just about any two cards from groups 6, 7 and 8, however, I might just resort to only playing groups 1 and 2. Why? If many
players have already limped in or even called raises, say 6 players, that means they are
probably playing all those hands that are advocated as best played in mutiway pots, I.E.,
suited connectors, small pairs, etc,. Therefore the deck may be rich in big cards. The point
I would keep in mind is this is a LT game. And if I understand this concept, players playing
Kx suited, will probably not continue if they flop the "X" card, hoping to make trips or two
pair. Whereas in a LL game they would continue to play.
The "personality" of the game, which is not to easy to explain, may influence me to
playing group 6, 7 and 8 hands but not the unsuited hands or two gapped suited hands. This
is a personal thing, I don't like these hands, and experience has shown me they cost more to
play then they return, even in LL games. In LL or even in a LT game I want the cards that
are going to give me options and possibilities to work with after the flop. IMHO, str8s and
flush draws have greater winning potential then big pairs, unless of course, they flop a full
or quads, etc,. Small pairs are good if they connect for a set or better.
Now looking at implied odds in LT games or LL games. I, again, probably go against all the math of playing poker, but implied odds are not a real concern to me in these games. Why? I will probably have all the pot odds I need to continue to play through to the river, from the action pre- flop. And, so will my opponents, unless they are looking to catch the one or two outers. God bless them.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
I looked for this post from Mason on r.g.p. but could not find it. When did he post it? I am interested to read what he (and others) have to say. Thanks.
Ethyl
On http://www.dejanews.com
Go to "power search"
Power search: going too far
Forum: rec.gambling.poker
Author: malmuth
Once you are in the message, click "view thread" to choose from other posts on the topic.
20/40 holdem game at the Mirage. You are just sitting down in seat 10, table 6, fresh in the game and have posted your big blind. Seats 1 & 2 fold, seat 3 calls and seat 4 raises. Everyone folds to you. You look down and find AQ off suit.
A) What do you do?
More information, the player in the 4 seat just looks like a loose player, you haven't see him play before but instinct alerts are high that he isn't a solid player. First impression of seat 3, he is a player that is not too confidant but does know a little bit about playing the game.
Ok, I call.
Flop is Q-4-4.
B) What do you do?
I check. Seat 3 checks. Seat 4 beats
C) What do you do?
I raise. Seat 3 folds. Seat 4 reraises!
D) What do you do?
I reraise and watch the reaction of seat 4 closely. He doesn't like it now and calls.
Turn card is an eight. A flush is now possible in spades.
E) What do you do?
I bet and seat 4 calls.
Turn card is a Queen.
Seat 4's eyes are like he hit mega bucks. He has a queen.
F) What do you do?
I bet. He calls.
G) What does his just calling with the nut full house tell you? Told me he was a loose weak player and great for the game. He had Qts, raised early middle position. Made top pair on the flop w/weak kicker, but did pick up the flush draw on the turn.
Your analysis please
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
What is to analyze?
Pete, I am asking for anyone's analysis on each stage of play. I provided what I actually did. Comments as to differing strategy or how I analyized each stage, flop, turn and river if any, is all I am looking for, unless you all think I played it prefectly?
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
Nevadalarry-Your reasoning here is flawed.A loose-weak player would have had Q-8s and would have snapped you with the 'real' nut full house
I think you played the hand just fine. A possible exception with the bet on the end. Since Q8 would give the nut full house, you correctly judged that he had a Q, and it's not impossible that he could have Q8 suited, picked up 2 pair on the turn and thought that you had an overpair. You did characterize him as a loose player didn't you?
I think your observations of your opponent are right on the money. If I was against you in the hand, and somehow decided to call until the end you can bet it would have been raised, because of the possibilty that you had an overpair to the queen on the flop. However this is theoretical because in all likelihood, I would have been gone on the flop.
Good luck. Ted
A) Preflop, I might have raised again, but most of the time, I would just call, as you did.
B,C) Flop. Checking seems necessary. You might wait for the turn to make a move. Check-raising is more natural though, and may save you money against a 4.
D) Probably just call. It's hard to fault your play though.
E) Bet out. I would bet out after just calling the third bet on the flop too. He is very unlikely to raise with less than trips.
F) Sure, bet the river too.
G) His just calling the river indicates he is a weak player. However, he strongly overplayed his hand preflop and on the flop. I think this is more significant than his "brain-fart" on the river. I would watch out for this player to make a lot of strong bluffs and semi-bluffs in other situations. I think when you went 4 bets on the flop you shocked him into momentary submission. Depending on the composition of the table, this player could be either a strong asset or liability, in my opinion. A lot depends on just how loose his hand selection is.
That's my take.
-Tom Hayes
Thanks everyone for you comments.
Here is something that, if you don't already have in your play book, I think is an important poker concept to maybe add.
What I thought was most interesting about this hand, was I knew nothing about this player at first, yet he played just like I figured he would by his mannerisms at the table. To me this is important, especially in higher limit games where you can get stuck quickly, when you don't know too much about your opponents. And, as some authors and poker expects advocate, you should try and watch the game for awhile before sitting down. But this is not always the case. So it is important to be able to get some kind of immediate assessment of your opponents my observing conditions each time you sit down to play. You might be sunrise to find that many players do redundant things at the table which could provide you an early line on what kind of player they are .
What I keyed on, in this case, was what he did when he got his first two cards: he picked them up like a stud player and started scuffing them up high, I couldn't see them but experience has shown me that players doing this are pretty loose in their starting hand requirements and seem to have more gamble in them.. Don't ask me why But I have just noticed this to be a good tell.
In all my playing years I have found the players to be careful of are the ones that take very careful steps to not expose any more of their hand then what they need to see. And, most all good players seldom need to look back at their cards, at least not constantly.
PS, I don't hit a home run every time on these types of tells, but I get more hits then strike outs.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
Nevadalarry wrote: "In all my playing years I have found the players to be careful of are the ones that take very careful steps to not expose any more of their hand then what they need to see. And, most all good players seldom need to look back at their cards, at least not constantly."
Great, now I have to be sloppy with my hole cards and risk exposing them to my neighbor if I want to avoid giving a tell about my playing style.
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Can someone help me out with the following problem?
I play in an extremely loose hold'em game with as many as 8 players generally seeing the flop. Assuming I have been given a free play from a blind with K3(clubs) and the flop comes Ac Js 4h giving me 2 backdoor straights combined with a backdoor flush, what sort of pot odds do I need to call a bet and see the turn card.
Thanks folks..
Lar
I'm sure someone can give you the exact computations but, with the pot unraised preflop I'm pretty sure you aren't getting the right price -- I think you'd need about 20-1. I'll tell you how I work it out at the table. You're close to even money to get a turn card you like -- 10 flush cards and 12 straigth cards. A flush card gives you about 20% of the pot. A gutshot draw about 8%. Each of those about 1/4 of the time. 1/4 of 20 plus 1/4 of 8 is about 7% of the pot that your hand is worth. But, the wheel might not be good, others have weird draws also. So, 20-1 would be marginal. This isn't a real exact analysis, but at the table is when you've got to make the decision -- I do pretty rough computations a the table. And, right now I'm still drinking my coffee. It does matter how many players will see the river, is this a bouble bet on the end game, etc? gary carson
Gary...
I think that your 20-1 estimate is pretty high. If I remember right (and I think I do) I need 27-1 to be taking a card of for my flush draw alone. When I combine that with also having 2 backdoor straights, I'm betting that it comes down closer to 11 or 12-1. Hopefully, someone in this forum can provide us with the definative answer.
Post deleted at author's request.
Larry, I don't have a calculator so I'll let you do all the arithmetic. But, here's the numbers you need to multi;ly, divide and add to figure the excat probability of making a hand. I've included the term for a backdoor 2 pair, but I don't like that draw much. 6 cards give a flush draw only 6/47 * 9/46. 4 cards give you flush draw and a gutshot 4/47 *(9/46 + 4/46) 12 cards give you a gutshot 12/47 * 4/46. 6 cards give you a draw to 2 pair 6/47 * 3/46. Compute all those terms, add them up, that's the probability of ending up with 2 pair or better. Divide that number into 1. (or the percent into 100) subtract 1 to get the odds. That's prob a little less than 20-1 -- I'd ignored the 2 pair possible and the 4 cards that hit 2 draws. But, I still think even 20-1 is marginal because of possible raises now and on the turn, only the flush draw is the nuts (that big straight will not likely scoop the pot), etc. Somebody want to do that arithmetic. I think I've got all the terms right. but, somebody might want to check that also. --- gary carson
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
Remember when you are doing these backdoor calculations that the answer assumes that you are all in or that there will be no fourth st. bet. Otherwise you need higher odds on the flop to call than the simple calculation would indicate.
One way that I would look at it would be that it's hard to miss a flop by more than that. I don't ever count on backdoor possibilities other than as a supplement to an otherwise decent hand.
Larry,
Your expectation (in small bets) for the situation described is :
0.06938*(P+X) - 0.7974*T - 0.93061
where P is the pot size in small bets when it is your turn to call on the flop, X is the number of small bets you win on the last 2 rounds of betting if you make the draw, and T is how much the turn will cost you in big bets. This assumes your backdoor straight or flush (exclusively) wins the pot, and ignores other potential winning hands like trip kings or threes.
Etienne
I think you'll hit one of your "draws" just under 7% of the time and will need to win about 30 small bets in a passive game to make it worthwhile. To win that many bets, the game must be extremely passive, with something like 7 players seeing the flop, 5 players seeing the turn and 3 opponents on the river, two of which will call your raise, and no raising until you hit your hand. Not a very likely senario. Although 26 small bets appears to be the break-even point, you'll have to win more to make up for the times that your straight loses in this weak, passive game. I believe the analysis is as follows: you'll hit a card you like on the turn about half the time, and about half of those cards will give you a gutshot (as opposed to a flush draw). If a club falls on the turn, your flush will hit about 20% of the time, about twice as often as the gutshot. Therefore, you'll lose a small bet after the flop about half the time (-.5 SB), lose 3 small bets on a busted flush about 17.6% (.22 X .8) for -.53 SB, and lose 3 small bets on a bust straight about 24.6% of the time (.27 X .91) for -.737 SB. The downside adds up to -1.77SB, which divided by the percentage of the time you'll win, 6.8%, comes to 26 small bets. A basic problem with this hand is that you can never raise until the river. In all but the weakest and most passive games, I would muck.
Lately I have been doing a lot of thinking after each session. I write down those hands where I was involved and I lost or won the hand. In the case where I lost the hand I try to figure is there was something I could've done to avoid the fatal result or in the case where I won the pot I wonder if it was the best way to play it for maximum profit.
Here are two examples of hands that played over the weekend, I think the first hand I played right but just got unlucky, the second hand I believe I made a few mistakes that could've netted me at least 3 big bets.
I would appreciate any comments on my analysis of these hands.
HAND 1. 9-handed 6-12 hold'em. I just sat down into the game and played 1 hand where I had TT in late position I raised and the blinds folded to me, so I don't have much information at this point about the game, only that one guy has a lot of chips in front of him.
I'm in BB and find JJ. Guy with lots of chips limps (he is 4th left of the button, call him player A). Guy 6th left of the button raises (player B). Everyone folds to me. I reraise (*was this a mistake not knowing how the players, but I also wanted to see if the original raiser would reraise showing that he had KK or AA*). Limper calls the double bet. Original reraiser caps. I call.
Flop comes 9 J Q rainbow
I check. Player A bets. Player B raises. I reraise (*decided that at this point it was not necesarrily to disguise my hand*).
Turn T. Board looks 9 J Q T
I check (knowing that KK or AK or any king for that matter beats me). Player A bets. Player B thinks for a while, makes a not-so-happy expression and calls. I call (hoping the board pairs).
River A. Board looks 9 J Q T A (no flush possible)
I check. Player A bets. Player B calls. I fold (*this seemed like a pretty automatic laydown to me knowing that with the heavy action preflop and the heavy action on the flop there was a K out there and my call on the turn was to see the board paired and with with a full house, if it didn't pair I know it would be a check and fold situation*).
Player A shows KQo Player B indeed had AA
Hand 2. 4-8 Hold'em The game has a good mix. One 20-40 player waiting for the big game to start. 2,3 agressive player. Myself. And the rest of the field being pretty passive.
I call UTG with 88. 1 person limps. Player A raises. Player B calls. The blinds play. I call.
Flop comes A K 8 (with 2 hearts)
I check (*I decide that since the original raiser hit the flop, and there is a possible flush draw I would check raise.*). Player A bets. Player B raises. Everyone in between folds. I reraise (*at this point there is no need to slowplay, plus the flush draw is there and I might be against 2 pair [AK]*). Player A calls (*should I had interpreted as this guy having AA or KK and tried to slowplayed his set? or just that he did have 2 pair and thought I had a set? or just AQ or AJ. In hindsight I figure that at this point AA, KK beat me and AK, AQ, QQ, JJ, even AJ I beat. I put player B in flush draw or gut shot straight draw.*) Player B caps it. I call.
Turn comes a 5 of spades. Board A Kh 8h 5s.
I check (*this is the play that I think was a mistake, I think I should've bet and prevented the free card for the flush draw. But at the same time If I was against AA or KK, I could gain some information by what Player A does on the turn.) Player A checks. Player B checks behind.
I then wished I would've bet and gotten 2 more BB.
River Black A. Board A K 8 5 A (no flush possible).
I bet. Player A raises. Player B folds. I call. (*This i wonder if it was a mistake from the way the hand was played. If my opponent did have 2 pair or a set I think he would've bet the turn not giving any free cards. Since he didn't I shouldn't have put him on a full house but rather on 3 aces.*)
Player A had AQs I win with a full house.
carlos
Hi Carlos,
You write:
>>HAND 1. ...I'm in BB and find JJ. Guy with lots of chips limps (he is 4th left of the button, call him player A). Guy 6th left of the button raises (player B). Everyone folds to me. I reraise (*was this a mistake not knowing how the players, but I also wanted to see if the original raiser would reraise showing that he had KK or AA*). Limper calls the double bet. Original reraiser caps. I call.<<
I probably would have just called the initial raise here. The raiser is not late enough to be trying to buy the button, so there is little reason to believe he does not have a strong hand. A reraise would be warranted, however, if you thought it would drive out the limper. But I doubt you could have expected this in a 6-12 game.
I think the rest of your play in this hand was fine.
>>Hand 2. ...I call UTG with 88. 1 person limps. Player A raises. Player B calls. The blinds play. I call.
Flop comes A K 8 (with 2 hearts)
I check (*I decide that since the original raiser hit the flop, and there is a possible flush draw I would check raise.*). Player A bets. Player B raises. Everyone in between folds. I reraise (*at this point there is no need to slowplay, plus the flush draw is there and I might be against 2 pair [AK]*). Player A calls (*should I had interpreted as this guy having AA or KK and tried to slowplayed his set?<<
I wouldn't borrow trouble yet. I'd just assume that it meant he didn't have such a big hand until proven otherwise.
>>or just that he did have 2 pair and thought I had a set? or just AQ or AJ....<<
Yes, these are probably more likely possibilities.
>>Turn comes a 5 of spades. Board A Kh 8h 5s. I check (*this is the play that I think was a mistake, I think I should've bet and prevented the free card for the flush draw.<<
Yes, I think you should have bet to prevent what happened. As you concluded on the flop, there's no need to slowplay and your previous action has scared them into not betting.
>>But at the same time If I was against AA or KK, I could gain some information by what Player A does on the turn.) Player A checks. Player B checks behind.<<
The ironic thing is that if Player A did bet after you checked, you should probably raise. Then if player A did have a big set, you'd be facing a third bet which you'd pretty much have to call. If you bet out, and PLayer A had a big set, you could just call the raise. (I think it would be clear that reraising would not be waranted.) So you'd spend just two bets on the turn.
>>...River Black A. Board A K 8 5 A (no flush possible). I bet. Player A raises. Player B folds. I call. (*This i wonder if it was a mistake from the way the hand was played. If my opponent did have 2 pair or a set I think he would've bet the turn not giving any free cards. Since he didn't I shouldn't have put him on a full house but rather on 3 aces.*)<<
I agree with your analysis
John Feeney
Thanks for responding John,
I was in San Diego this weekend. The first hand I played at Viejas Casino and the second one at Ocean's 11, it turned out that both were winning session. But I am trying to develop an analysis of every session I have, including key hands that I could have played differently. I figure that once a rigorous style for a particular type of hand is established, it is easier to alter it in order to throw your opponents off.
carlos
In response to Carlos John Feeney states:
"I probably would have just called the initial raise here. (With two jacks) The raiser is not late enough to be trying to buy the button, so there is little reason to believe he does not have a strong hand. A reraise would be warranted, however, if you thought it would drive out the limper. But I doubt you could have expected this in a 6-12 game."
I disagree with this. I re-raise here not only because I believe I may have the best hand but also because I want to PUNISH the limper.
That is something I have been doing lately, when there are say 2 or 3 limpers and someone raises in late position I will make it three bets with any hand in group 1 or 2 in order to try to get the action heads up, or narrow the field as much as possible. Depending on the make up of the game, sometimes all the limpers will fold to a double bet. If the field is too loose, or will usually cold call the 2 bets. I will just call and try to go for the check raise on the flop (especially if I have a big pair and no overcards flop).
In the case where I had the JJ I figure that there was only 1 limper and the raiser so it was a good idea to get the action heads up by making the limper fold. As I pointed out, he cold call the bets with KQo and ended up getting pretty lucky.
carlos
In a case such as the one Carlos described I don't think it's too big a deal either way. But I would lean toward just calling if I didn't think there was a good chance of getting it head-up. I understand wanting to punish the limper, but here you have what appears to be a legitimate raise from the other player, putting you in a position of "punishing" the raiser as well - a raiser who has position on you.
The other factor that would figure heavily into it for me would be my assessment of how well these other two players played. I felt they were both pretty weak players I'd be more likely to make the raise as well. But if the raiser is skilled/aggressive, I'd probably just call.
John Feeney
You seem to have slow-play fancy-play syndrome. I suggest you bet out when you have a very strong hand and the board has two broadway straight cards and/or two suited cards, doubly so when you suspect that another player has a strong second best hand, triply so when the pot is large. The reason, in case it's not obvious, can be found in Sklansky's _Theory of Poker_ in the section on free cards. You don't want to risk a free card when it might give a pot that was rightfully yours to someone who would have folded had you bet, especially when they are only going to catch hands that beat you, not make second best hands. Instead of risking giving a free card, you should bet and try for a 3-bet.
On your second hand, given the way you played the hand, facing the river raise on the AAK board is kind of a tough spot: it's hard to know whether to call or 3-bet. What does he think you have? Would he pay you off with AQ if you 3-bet? Would you lay down your hand to a 4-bet? Might he 4-bet you with AQ? I fear a top notch player would raise or fold versus my 3-bet with his AQ, and so I would just call the 2-bet from a top notch player. Against a weaker player, I'd make the value 3-bet, since I've got a pretty good read on him and he's just going to call with AQ. But in general, you should tread carefully with a baby full house on a board of AK85A - the paired aces often result in aces full.
-Abdul
Thanks for your response Abdul,
In both cases I flopped a strong hand, but with a threatening board. In the first hand there was an original raiser and I knew someone would bet. Before the flop I made it three bet to try to get the action heads up. I figure that a check raise on the flop would make the limper fold. Unfortunately he won the pot with the straight, and even in that hand if my tactic would've worked the AA would have not folded and he would've spiked his set on the river.
In the second hand, also with a raiser before the flop, I figure that check raising would guarantee at least 2 bets. As it turned out it, the action was capped on the flop (3 raises) by the player with a flush draw.
I guess my question is it better to bet a set into the original raiser to get raised and then reraise? or just call the raise and guarantee a check raise on the turn? I would tend to think it depends on how the opponents play and their style, but when you show up at a place and been playing for maybe 15-20 minutes is a little hard for figure out.
carlos
I think you missed the poiknt of the advice Abdul was trying to give you Carlos. At least you did if I understood what he was saying. Just bet. In fact, if you are a new face, the best way to disguise a set is to just bet. -- Gary Carson
I think Carlos understands my recommendations; he's just questioning them a little.
In my original response, which died in a crashed Netscape, I said that if you are having trouble getting yourself to bet with a set, then think of betting as deceptively straightforward here.
When I flop a set in the face of someone I'm pretty sure has a strong hand, I'm going to bet it, and he's going to raise and I get to 3-bet if I'm correct, but I still get one bet into the pot if I'm incorrect. Your way, of check-raising, gets 2 bets in if you're correct (more if you're lucky), but if you're incorrect you give a free card. Worse yet, your opponent may also slow play a second best strong hand, and you both slowplay the pot into oblivion and give it to the third guy who would have loved to fold on the flop if you had let him.
If I'm heads up, after I bet and get raised I might then just call and go for a check-raise on the turn, but with more players in the pot, or a scary board like yours, or a large pot like yours, I'm almost certain to reraise on the flop. As it turned out, given your opponents' hands and the board, any money you put into the pot was losing money, but you can't look at it that way - you have to consider the range (and probabilities) of hands your opponents could have had, and how your strategy would have fared against them on average.
Try these scenarios on for size:
In hand 1, limper has 87s, raiser has 77, and you reraise in the big blind with JJ. The flop comes 9JQ. You are a monstrous favorite. There's almost no way you can lose against these two hands. You check with the intention of raising. It checks through. The turn is a T. You lose.
In hand 2, you call UTG with 88, someone calls with QTo (it's 4-8, after all), player A raises with AK, player B calls with QTs, the small blind calls with 87s, the big blind calls with 96s, you call and the limper calls. The flop is AK8. The blinds check, you check with the intention of raising. QT checks, AK checks (feeling his hand is strong enough to slowplay), and QTs checks. The turn is a J. Now you bet and walk into a firestorm of raises from QTs and QT, who both just made the nuts, whereas they would have folded to two cold at any point on the flop. You lose, and you blame the AK slow-player, but it was nobody's fault but your own.
-Abdul
I'll add one extra little observation about the advantages of betting out in these instances (a point I am embarrassed to have overlooked in my original response):
In the first hand Carlos wanted to knock out the in-between player by check raising on the flop. This is probably not a bad goal given large pot size and the threat of something like a gut draw taking the pot away from him. Usually if you expect the bet to come from a late position player, then check raising if you want to knock out players in the middle makes good sense. But here, since the late position player had shown enough strength to cap it preflop, there was a very good chance he would raise if Carlos bet on the flop. Then by making it three bets Carlos could confront the middle player with having to call two bets cold just as he did with the check-raise.
John Feeney
Something pretty interesting happened to me last night in a 2-4 game I was playing while waiting for some friends to leave. I was playing mostly against very (*I MEAN VERY*) passive players. The whole time I sat down (1 hour approximately) I saw one raise before the flop by this guy that had AA.
Anyway, the hand went like this:
I had 66 in the SB. 5 people call. I throw in my $1. BB checks.
Flop AJ6 with 2 diamonds. I figure I am not slowplaying my set :) I bet. BB calls. UTG player calls and 3 other people call.
Turn comes 7c: Board AJ67
I figure I am still good and I bet $4. BB calls. UTG calls. Everyone else folds.
River comes 8s: Board AJ678
I think and figure that maybe the BB and UTG made a runner runner straight on me, but I don't care and still bet. BB calls. UTG calls.
UTG shows me JJ. I am shocked. BB slowrolls his AA.
I just thought it was a funny case of passiveness.
carlos
We have been asked by Poker Digest magazine to submit a "Best of the Two Plus Two Forum," column monthly. I will be compiling the article. If anyone objects to their posts being used in any of these articles, please e-mail me as soon as possible. I will contact each new poster that I use in the articles for permission to use their materials, but if you e-mail me now, I can keep your status on file. Thanks for your help, and all the fine posts. Sincerely, Jessica Vecchione
Post deleted at author's request.
My e-mail address is: jessicavecchione@twoplustwo.com
I HAVE BEEN PLAYING 10-20 HOLDEM WITH A HALF KILL 15-30 OVER THE LAST MONTH I HAVE MADE A LITTLE OVER 6000.00 DOLLARS MAYBE PLAYING 30-35 HOURS A WEEK. I CONSIDER MYSELF A PRETTY GOOD PLAYER BUT I HAVE NEVER PLAYED AT THE 10-20 LEVEL BUT I HAVE VERY GOOD TOURNAMENT EXPIERENCE PLAYING AT HIGH LEVELS.DO YOU THINK I HAVE BEEN JUST LUCKY OR COULD I KEEP A PACE GOING LIKE THIS?
Assuming 35 hours per week, that's 140 hours with a win of $6000. That's about $43 per hour in a 10-20 game with a half kill. Yes, you've been lucky and should expect your hourly rate to come down over time. The half kill makes the game just barely bigger than 10-20. So if you're very good it might ultimately settle at just over $20 per hour.
John Feeney
TL,
Probably somewhat on the lucky side but who knows? There is only one way to find out. I will say that at least I think it might be good to go over your play and form an opinion on how lucky you've been. A good player getting good hands and playing them well can win a lot of money pretty fast.
Also you should get some sort of clue by computing your standard deviation. My advice is to use the 2+2 literature in evaluating your standard deviation and win rate. Or maybe someone more knowledgeable about statistics would explain.
Tom Haley
Yesterday, I kept detailed hand records for about four hours of casino hold'em. Today, I typed them all up and computed the standard deviation. The number I got was about 1.6 big bets per hand. At 40 hands per hour, this should be an hourly standard deviation of about 10.1 big bets. This seems a bit too low, compared with other posts I have seen. Is it? I thought I got plenty of hands during that time period. About how much data should I need before I have an accurate estimate of my standard deviation?
Also, I used the simplifying approximation that my expectation for each hand was 0. Should this bias my results much?
Quick follow-up. I wasn't able to keep detailed hand records for the next 6 hours of my play, but I recorded my stack size each time the button passed me. I'm getting a standard deviation of 7.3 big bets per hour based on these 6 hours of data (22 sample points). Since this is even lower than my previous number, I wonder if I wasn't confusing big bets and small bets in my memory of what typical results should be.
Yes, you switched your units in your memory. I use small bets for standard deviation. Your standard deviation should be about 14-20 small bets per hour or 7-10 big bets per hour, if you are a tight player in tight-to-crazy games.
Your method of recording your chip stack size each lap is good, though you'll need more than a couple hours to pin down your standard deviation. 6 hours of data should give you a decent estimate. It's a lot easier than recording the exact results of each hand. You should do your recording just before you take the big blind each lap.
I don't think you should ignore the mean here, because your mean for a few hours could be large. Variance is easy to compute as E(X^2) - E(X)^2, where X is the random variable (stack size each lap in your case) and E(X) is the expected value of that random variable. In English, you compute the difference of the mean squared result and the squared mean result. Then take the square root to convert variance to standard deviation.
I feel small bets per hour should be the metric of choice, partially because EV of winning players is usually in the 1-3 small bet per hour range, which sounds better than 0.5-1.5 big bets per hour. Also, $10-$20 makes a good base game when we wish to talk about $/hour winnings - it's easy to translate $10-$20 earnings to other games (e.g., multiply by 8 for $80-$160) or back into small bet units (divide by 10). And using small bets makes things more consistent between poker and blackjack - in blackjack, the units are always the smallest bet size.
However, the Internet poker community seems to overwhelmingly use big bets per hour, and it creates confusion when some of us go against the majority. What do you think the standard unit should be: small bets or big bets?
-Abdul
Post deleted at author's request.
Hmmm, well maybe, but what's the size of a small bet in 1-4-8-8 (with $1 and $2 blinds, $2 to go, raise to $4 or $6, $4 on the flop)? I usually use half a biggest bet to be my "small bet" unit in my results for such weird games, because the variance is dominated by the effect of the big bets. (Of course, really results from weird structure games have to be kept separate from normal games.) So perhaps that's an argument for using big bets as the unit.
-Abdul
Post deleted at author's request.
I wouldn't expect the units to be an important issue. Presumably anyone comfortable enough with numbers to care about these statistics has no trouble with the conversions. This was my first time estimating my standard deviation, so I had no "feel" for what the numbers should be. Now that I've done it, I doubt I will forget it.
Sounds about right. My standard deviation in 10-20 HE is about 9 big bets per hour.
If you want to be absolutely precise, there are some intricacies you need to take into account in order to estimate your standard deviation from observations of the results of individual hands. This is because both your expectation and your standard deviation change depending on your position. For example (unless the game is very soft), under the gun your expectation and standard deviation should be very low but positive if you are playing correctly, while in the big blind, your expectation will be nearly -1 small bets and your standard deviation should be quite high.
Practically, this heterogeneity shouldn't make too much difference. In fact, your simplifying approximation (expectation = 0) isn't going to make much difference, either (more on this below).
Your second approach (recording stack change at each "lap" or "orbit") avoids these problems, since this will give you homogeneous samples (assuming that you and your opponents don't change strategies!).
Again, assuming expectation = 0 isn't actually going to make much difference. Your average squared result will be about 25 big bets squared per orbit; while your average result squared will be about .25 big bets squared per orbit, so the relative error of your standard deviation estimate from assuming expectation = 0 is only about .5%.
In fact, for small samples, you will get more accurate results by assuming your standard deviation is 0, rather than using the sample mean, because the sample mean will primarily reflect luck rather than long-term expectation. (Stated another way, assuming 0 expectation for small samples is a favorable trade-off of bias against variance.)
Of course, the main reason for recording results by the orbit rather by individual hand is because it requires much less effort.
In contrast to hold'em, individual hands of stud will generate a homogeneous sample. That means that in terms of bankroll fluctuation, stud and hold'em will tend to play out on somewhat different time scales. I have heard some anecdotal evidence suggesting that this effect (or something else) is tangible at time scales on the order of 1000 hours: supposedly, if you match high stakes stud and hold'em players with the same annual winnings and the same hourly variance, the stud players will generally have had the worst losing streak during the year.
If you look on our essays page you will find an essay called "Computing Your Standard Deviation." It is an excerpt from my book GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS. It will show you a method for estimating your standard deviation that is much simpler than what you are trying to do.
Mason --
I've become quite wary of using session results to estimate hourly standard deviation. Many players practice non-self-weighting behavior at the session levels and this can skew hourly standard deviation estimates. The most common (and detrimental) behavior is refusing to quit when stuck; a second and often associated behavior is booking small wins. For such players, hourly standard deviation estimates based on session results will be much less statistically efficient than sampling at equal intervals, and possibly even biased.
On the other hand, an analysis of session results for its own sake can be quite illuminating. For example, it can be used to evaluate whether you're applying productive non-self-weighting behavior, such as whether you're spending more time in the more profitable games.
In the essay that is posted I say to use at least 30 observations but the more the better. This should handle the efficiency problems that you mention. I'm not sure about the bias problem.
Yes, 30 sessions should typically suffice. In fact, you'll want 30+ sessions in order to capture some of the variation in game conditions that you wouldn't get from, say, 120 "orbit" observations which might arise from only half a dozen sessions, even though the textbook standard error of your hourly standard devation based on 120 orbit observations will be half that based on 30 sessions.
On the other hand, 30 sessions probably won't be enough for the worst offenders -- for example, players who report that they win in 90%+ of their sessions. For these players, you only expect to observe 3 "negative tail" sessions, and there's some extra noise associated with that sampling. You might need as many as 150 sessions for these skew session distribution players to get an estimate as accurate as you'd get for a symmetric session distribution player.
As for bias, I don't think you can eliminate it, and actually, you don't even want to eliminate it. Instead, the difference between hourly standard deviation based on equal interval sampling vs. session sampling might be a pretty revealing statistic.
There is also a problem if you get too many observations. It is the fact that the game may change. In some cases this will be the player whose sd is being measured because he gets better; in other cases it will be the game itself, especially in a small cardroom where a producer may have gone broke, etc. My guess on too many observations would be approximately 150.
As for the bias, I'll have to pass on that one. I haven't done any real statistical work in years and I have just forgotten too much. We'll just have to take Paul's word on it. Perhaps he will elabrorate.
I also agree that 30 observations is an acceptable minimum for most players, but in some cases 50 would probably be better. This is to account for the problems that Paul describes.
In any case, the maximum likelihood estimator should prove to be a most useful statistic for many of you. It has helped me a lot in my poker game, and I believe that those of you who track it will also find it beneficial.
The Gambling Forum August 1998 Archive Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo