Is player expertise rewarded in 7 Stud High, more than in Holdem? Won't a good Stud High player win more consistently, if both play six days a week? Why is it that 20/40 Holdem is the preferred level for Holdem pros, while professional Stud High players play and survive years, playing 30/60 and 75/150. Someone please help me on these. Thankyou
JBK,
If there is little preflop jamming in holdem, the weaker players find it hard to ever walk away winner from the table. In holdem the best hand stands up much more often than in 7 stud poker, thus it follows that the bad players get to be ahead more often in stud. This may be why the holdem games dont get to be as high stakes as the stud. Also, in stud since you can see the cards around the table there is more to follow to keep you interested in the game. This brings in more regular players that do not play strictly for a living as in holdem. As to which game is easier to consistantly win at, my vote is for holdem. The cost per hand is usaully cheaper and the blind money is still live where in stud it is dead money. A holdem player can afford to be much more selected in his starting hands than in 7 stud. With all this said, both games are beatable by good players for close to the same hourly rate. All pro players should try to be proficient in both games to be able to take advantage of being able to play in the best game available. Good Luck.
In the previous issue of THE INTELLIGENT GAMBLER, which is the newsletter that ConJelCo puts out I addressed many of these questions. Go the the ConJelCO page (we have a link to them) and you can find out to get it.
Let me summarize quickly a few of the answers.
Question: Is player expertise rewarded in 7 Stud High, more than in Holdem? Answer: Taking $20-$40 as the model limit, I believe that the expert stud player playing against a similarly skilled lineup will do a little better than the expert hold 'em player.
Question: Won't a good Stud High player win more consistently? Answer: This is mostly a function of the standard deviation. Based on data that I am collecting the expert has a somewhat higher standard deviation at stud. The typical player has a higher standard deviation at hold 'em. I know this sounds illogical but it is what our data shows. I speculate that it has to do with the fact that reading hands is more effective in hold 'em because you can see the last card.
Thus the expert hold 'em player will win a little more consistently than the expert stud player, but the merely good stud player will probably win a little more consistently than his hold 'em counterpart.
Question: Why is it that 20/40 Holdem is the preferred level for Holdem pros, while professional Stud High players play and survive years, playing 30/60 and 75/150. Answer: I believe that this has to do with the progressive ante in stud. Generally speaking, as you move up in limit the players get better, but a tourist type still plays the same. Thus the gap between the best players at the particular limit you are looking at grows in hold 'em. Eventually the best players are so much better than the tourist type players that they win the money too fast, and thus the game dies (at that limit.)
This doesn't happen to the same degree in stud because the progressive ante "handicaps" the best stud players. Thus, even though the "experts" get better in stud as you move up in limit, the balance of luck and skill that any poker game needs to thrive is maintained.
I am a poker player that would like to add some blackjack skills to my repartee. Here in the UK Blackjack is a 6 deck game, with some limited rules - only double down on 9-11, split any pair except 10s, 4s or 5s, repeat splits and doubles on splits are allowed. My questions are:
1. I have some familiarity with counting, however I do not want to expend huge amounts of effort into a complicated count. As I understand it, an unbalenced count would mean I would not have to adjust the count for the amount of cards dealt out. If this is the case, I would prefer to use such a count, regardless of any loss in accuracy - which count should I use?
2. There is almost no awareness of counting in casino personal in the UK, so bet spreads can be as large as is optimally effective. What bet spread would be best and on what counts (based on answer 1.)?
Thanks
Dave D
I'm not much of a proponent of unbalanced counts because of the possibility of getting false true counts however they are extremely effective for betting. KO blackjack appears to be a good shoe count and also unbalanced zen 11, both authors give the appropriate bankroll requirements. I personally prefer a true count and use a hybrid of halves with side counts but would recommend hi-lo to you. It is a very easy count and very effective with the shoe game. With hi-lo and your set of rules in the UK, for example, a bank of 7,000 with 25 at a true 2, 50 at true 3 and 75 at true 4 or higher would be appropriate and will probably net you about 8 an hour. Although you mention that worring about bet spread is not a problem- proportional betting is valid in BJ, and you are not going to have a very significant edge until you get to a true 4 with this game. I hope this is of some help to you. Best!
I nosed in here with the idea of asking a question, and here I am answering one.
Unlike the other person who responded, I am a big proponent of unbalanced counts. If you want to use true count conversion with an unbalanced count you can, and it is no harder than with a balanced count. I do it every time I go to a casino. You just need to know how. Pop over to T-Hop's page, and you can get all the answers you need.
http://www.jvm.com/thop/sourceboard/index.cgi
By the way, those are peculiar rules about splitting pairs. Only total idiots split 5's. Only experts and idiots split 10's. Splitting 4's vs. 5 or 6 is the right thing to do when you can double after you split. Very strange.
Whether that game is actually worth playing or not depends on how deep they deal, and how on well your bankroll will tolerate a big bet spread. Also whether they hit soft 17, but that's not as important as the "penetration".
Best regards, Pete
Great advice Pete - just what I was looking for! However could you please tell me a simple count, i.e. what values associated with what cards, and at what count values the bet is increased - I looked up the site you gave, and it was excellent, the KO count especially, but no specifics seem to have been given.
Many thanks
Dave D
In answer to your question about bet spread -- if you really don't get any heat, don't put any limit on your spread. Find out what the right "Kelly criterion" amount is for each advantageous count and bet it. When the count is against you, bet the minimum, or much better yet, take a stroll.
Pete
I was keenly interested in Mr. Malmuth's latest post. In fact, I was hoping the aspect of cheating would be brought up, because I didn't want to broach the subject myself.
I have been faced with quite a dilema lately as far as cheating has been concerned. In my opinion it is rampant, especially at the higher limits.
Let me explain: I play poker in Vancouver B.C., Seattle, Oregon, northern and southern California and Las Vegas. Although at times the games can be very good, I have been very suspicious lately of the practices of certain groups of people.
The type of cheating that I am speaking of is collusion and in one casino I play in several people have been barred for getting caught. In fact when some players were warned that some of their practices were considered "unethical", they, and the games with them moved in mass to a new casino that recently opened. The management at this new casino could care less that this goes on because they feel that they need this group of players or their business will suffer. That and they are just plain lazy, aren't really concerned about it, and are not very good at their jobs. (unprofessional) The players talk about it constantly. Are concerned about it, and want it to stop, but this group of people practically "run" the card room.
Specifically they bet and raise like crazy when a "stranger or strangers" are in the pot but proceed to run the cards out (or bet extremely lightly in high stake short handed games--in other words just call with the nuts or 2nd nuts) when it is just down to "them."
They also stake each other, play out of the same bankroll, and speak in foreign languages before, during and after the hands. (Although they are very careful about doing this during the hand, sometimes they just slip up)(wave off hand signals are also very common.) Management dosen't care, and in my opinion they are ruining the games. (This is not hearsay by the way, I have witnessed all of these events first hand.)
In my opinion these games are unplayable especially when there are three to five of them playing at the same time. Two of them playing together although less of a problem is still very troublesome. (Sometimes there will be several sets of husbands and wives in the game.)
What is worse is that in some of the lesser populated areas where there are only one or two games at the higher limits this can put a real crimp on the people who are aware of what's going on but now can't play because they refuse to participate.
What I am going to say next will be considered very controversial. 95% of the collusion to which I refer is being practiced by certain ethnic groups. Namely Phillipinos, Vietnamese and Koreans.
I have a great deal of respect for foreign immigrants that come to this country and try to make a life for themselves. They work hard and are very supportive of each other. They really go out of their way to help every member of their "group", especially when it comes to financial aid. Making sure that everyone succeeds and is supportive of one another is a precept we would all do well to emulate. The problem is that when this very same group participates in a game such as poker they just refuse to take each others money, but don't have any problem at all taking everyone else's. It is almost an "us against them" situation. Sometimes I feel like I am playing against a team. Poker is an individual pursuit, man against man, all or nothing, and perhaps in their backgrounds this is frowned upon, but they have no qualms about taking "my" money. Actually if they had to play against each other there wouldn't even be a game because nobody would ever bet. Yet they never seem to have a problem with 4 or 5 of them getting into the same game. (The two people I mentioned earlier that were barred for cheating were caucasian by the way, and are also allowed to play in the new casino.)
Here are two more events I personally witnessed. While playing at the commerce club top section in August I became interested in a 6 handed 150-300 game that was going on next to mine. This game looked very good and I was watching it with interest. I immediately suspected four of the participants of playing together. (But of course I had no proof.) I was very suspicious and decided to watch the game as closely as possible. My suspicions were confirmed when the two "strangers" quit, one at a time. The remaining four "partners" stopped playing immediately--then--two of the remaining players went over and gave all of their cash and chips to one of the other players, while the last two players stayed and talked for quite some time. I had entertained thoughts of playing in this game and I am very glad I didn't. The next day at the Hollywood park in a 20-40 hold-em game I was playing with seven Vietmamese and one other player. This was a very strange game. Whenever I or the other player folded no one would bet. The betting was fairly normal before the flop, but after the flop all betting stopped if I or the other man were not involved in the pot. (It was very eerie seeing 4 and 5 handed pots checked out all the way hand after hand.) I quit immediately.
Strangely enough I have encountered little or none of this going on in Las Vegas. Although I have "heard" of different instances. ( About 5 years ago in a deal yourself cardroom a man with very large hands who had been winning consistently for days, often times huge pots with the strangest of hands, Q-6, J-4, etc. was caught holding out cards and was just asked to leave. He turned up 200 miles to the north in another small game when someone recognized him and told the owner-- again he was just barred.)
As I said I was reluctant to bring this up but very much wanted to talk about it. I would love to hear from people about the situations I have described or any others they are aware of and fully expect to receive much criticism. Still, all in all, I believe this is a serious problem that is getting way out of hand especially when management won't do anything. The fact that it can be very difficult to prove dosen't help matters either. But I do feel it must be discussed. Something (although I don't really have any idea what) must be done.
There are just so many aspects to this that I can't possibly get into all of them here but I will end this by saying that I have just about given up on many of the games that I used to enjoy playing in.
Thankyou very much for this forum.
If you read my posts in the earlier thread on cheating, you'll understand that I agree 100% that collusion is the most likely form of cheating that any of us face in a public cardroom. It's there, it's real, and there's not much protection against it till you see it happen -- hopefully not to you.
Incidentally, I believe that the problem with collusion at the higher limits is one of the reasons that Caesar's Palace closed it's poker room. When I lived in Las Vegas (1985-1986), Caesar's reputation was that nothing but teams were playing at the higher limits.
The thing is, collusion is apparent to a good player much more than to a bad-to-average player. A good player sees the hand develop and reads the hand front-to-back, and then at the end, back-to-front. Ironically, the problem with making players aware that collusion is always a threat means that every low-limit player who ever lost a pot because somebody put a good move on him will think he was angled out of the pot.
Your take on the Asian colluders is nothing new: David Spanier noted a similar incident happening to him in California in his book, "Total Poker" written some 20 years ago. For what it is worth, I believe that persons of color have more of a bond than the rest of us. That is to their benefit and to your detriment -- and it applies in all areas of life. At Binion's this year, during several satellites, the tournament coordinators had to constantly remind Asian players of the English-only rule -- particularly at tables near the rail. AIYAHH!!
But collusion can't just be laid at the feet of ethnic groups. Both times this year when I was had by colluders, they were Caucasian. Both times they were local residents of Las Vegas whom I'd played against before. Both times their faces were embedded in my brain for future use.
My advice: when you are at a table when something like this happens, just look up at the guilty parties and say in a real disgusting voice (loud enough for everyone to hear) "you gotta be kidding me." Because you aren't going to get your money back and the dealer could care less (in fact, he probably knows the people who cheat you), so you may as well embarrass them. If that doesn't work or make you happy, you may want to consider investing in a 9mm and settling up outside.
Caesars closed their room because when The Mirage opened they lost all their business. For many reasons, players like myself, couldn't stand playing there. We were poorly treated and the staff was rude and incompetent. When a better place came along, all the regular players left and they didn't have the core of players anymore to form their games around.
>>I was keenly interested in Mr. Malmuth's latest post. In fact, I was hoping the aspect of cheating would be brought up, because I didn't want to broach the subject myself.
I have been faced with quite a dilema lately as far as cheating has been concerned. In my opinion it is rampant, especially at the higher limits.
Let me explain: I play poker in Vancouver B.C., Seattle, Oregon, northern and southern California and Las Vegas. Although at times the games can be very good, I have been very suspicious lately of the practices of certain groups of people. The type of cheating that I am speaking of is collusion and in one casino.<<
I agree with you it is important to be concerned about it.
>>I play in several people have been barred for getting caught. In fact when some players were warned that some of their practices were considered "unethical", they, and the games with them moved in mass to a new casino that recently opened.<<
This is good at least one card room was concerned about their long term business and decided that the cheating players weren’t good for business and was diligent enough to kick them out.
>>The management at this new casino could care less that this goes on because they feel that they need this group of players or their business will suffer. That and they are just plain lazy, aren't really concerned about it, and are not very good at their jobs. (unprofessional)<<
Doesn’t sound like I would want to play there. I’m sure that a lot of other players wouldn’t either. Doesn’t sound like they will be in business very long.
>>The players talk about it constantly. Are concerned about it, and want it to stop, but this group of people practically "run" the card room. Specifically they bet and raise like crazy when a "stranger or strangers" are in the pot but proceed to run the cards out (or bet extremely lightly in high stake short handed games--in other words just call with the nuts or 2nd nuts) when it is just down to "them."
They also stake each other, play out of the same bankroll, and speak in foreign languages before, during and after the hands. (Although they are very careful about doing this during the hand, sometimes they just slip up)(wave off hand signals are also very common.) Management dosen't care, and in my opinion they are ruining the games. (This is not hearsay by the way, I have witnessed all of these events first hand.) <<
This is something that you must indicate to the card room management as you probably did. If you don’t voice your objections they will assume that you condone it or don’t care yourself. I know that I would let them know about what I saw just before I made my exit from the place.
>>In my opinion these games are unplayable especially when there are three to five of them playing at the same time. Two of them playing together although less of a problem is still very troublesome. (Sometimes there will be several sets of husbands and wives in the game.) <<
I wouldn’t even mess with two of them.
>>What is worse is that in some of the lesser populated areas where there are only one or two games at the higher limits this can put a real crimp on the people who are aware of what's going on but now can't play because they refuse to participate. <<
Yes it would put a crimp on them but I think their business would suffer also. Sounds like it is time to move if your a pro.
>>What I am going to say next will be considered very controversial. 95% of the collusion to which I refer is being practiced by certain ethnic groups. Namely Phillipinos, Vietnamese and Koreans.<<
This is very controversial as this is only your opinion. In all fairness a similar complaint was brought up a while back. It could be that there are a lot of people of this ethnic background playing poker and you notice some of the bad ones. Rest assured that cheating is not solely in the domain of a particular ethnic group.
>>I have a great deal of respect for foreign immigrants that come to this country and try to make a life for themselves. They work hard and are very supportive of each other. They really go out of their way to help every member of their "group", especially when it comes to financial aid. Making sure that everyone succeeds and is supportive of one another is a precept we would all do well to emulate.<<
I do too.
>>The problem is that when this very same group participates in a game such as poker they just refuse to take each others money, but don't have any problem at all taking everyone else's.<<
The other side of this is that I know people of this ethnic background that have no interest in poker and/or gambling and have all of the fine qualities that you mentioned. They are very dear friends of my family as well.
>>It is almost an "us against them" situation. Sometimes I feel like I am playing against a team. Poker is an individual pursuit, man against man, all or nothing, and perhaps in their backgrounds this is frowned upon, but they have no qualms about taking "my" money.<<
This is not endemic to a particular ethnic group. Cheaters never have any problem taking your money.
>>Actually if they had to play against each other there wouldn't even be a game because nobody would ever bet.<<
That is correct. If a card club allows cheating to occur unchecked they will eventually close their doors and be out of business.
>>Yet they never seem to have a problem with 4 or 5 of them getting into the same game. (The two people I mentioned earlier that were barred for cheating were caucasian by the way, and are also allowed to play in the new casino.) <<
Tipping the floor person could be a way to accomplish this.
>>Here are two more events I personally witnessed. While playing at the commerce club top section in August I became interested in a 6 handed 150-300 game that was going on next to mine. This game looked very good and I was watching it with interest. I immediately suspected four of the participants of playing together. (But of course I had no proof.) I was very suspicious and decided to watch the game as closely as possible. My suspicions were confirmed when the two "strangers" quit, one at a time. The remaining four "partners" stopped playing immediately--then--two of the remaining players went over and gave all of their cash and chips to one of the other players, while the last two players stayed and talked for quite some time.<<
Again I feel that it is your obligation to bring unethical behavior to the attention of the card room management. If they don't give you any satisfaction it is time to leave.
>>I had entertained thoughts of playing in this game and I am very glad I didn't. The next day at the Hollywood park in a 20-40 hold-em game I was playing with seven Vietmamese and one other player.<<
A lot of people would be uncomfortable with this situation. Think of the converse, however, how would 2 Vietnamese people feel against 7 Caucasians.
>>This was a very strange game. Whenever I or the other player folded no one would bet. The betting was fairly normal before the flop, but after the flop all betting stopped if I or the other man were not involved in the pot. (It was very eerie seeing 4 and 5 handed pots checked out all the way hand after hand.) I quit immediately.<<
Not good and I would have done the same thing. I would have brought this to the attention of the card room management which you probably did.
>>Strangely enough I have encountered little or none of this going on in Las Vegas. Although I have "heard" of different instances. (About 5 years ago in a deal yourself cardroom a man with very large hands who had been winning consistently for days, often times huge pots with the strangest of hands, Q-6, J-4, etc. was caught holding out cards and was just asked to leave. He turned up 200 miles to the north in another small game when someone recognized him and told the owner-- again he was just barred.)<<
One of the reason’s for dealers. Card mechanics can be virtually undetectable. As I have stated in another post, I think new laws are a bad idea, however.
>>As I said I was reluctant to bring this up but very much wanted to talk about it. I would love to hear from people about the situations I have described or any others they are aware of and fully expect to receive much criticism.<<
I hope you didn’t take my comments as criticism. Far from it. Seemed like you were being honest and had a lot of legitimate concerns.
>>Still, all in all, I believe this is a serious problem that is getting way out of hand especially when management won't do anything. The fact that it can be very difficult to prove dosen't help matters either. But I do feel it must be discussed.<<
I respect your opinion. Cheating is a serious matter. If you see things and don’t inform management then it is shame on you in my opinion. If you see things, inform management, and management gives you the cold shoulder, shame on them.
>>Something (although I don't really have any idea what) must be done. There are just so many aspects to this that I can't possibly get into all of them here but I will end this by saying that I have just about given up on many of the games that I used to enjoy playing in.<<
I feel that the best way for players to show card room management how they feel is to inform them of the suspected cheating and tell them what they need to do about it. If management fails to act, honest players will vote with their feet so to speak, and the card room will suffer and eventually won’t have a business.
>>Thank you very much for this forum.<<
I too am thankful for this forum.
Would there be a software program on Hold'em that would be considered better than any other to help me improve my level of play. If they are all considered about equal, would you recomend one in particular for either a Mac or a PC?
Ray, software will not be very useful in most aspects of the game. A computer can not play back at you based on any cognizant type of logic. It usually makes plays based on preset precentages. Exp. if A happens do B 20% of the time, C 30% etc... Where it can be useful is to help visualize information in S&M. Say you have K 10 s under the gun. Look up in S&M what is recommended to do with this under the gun and play it out while comparing the flop, turn and river to the appropriate section of the book. Do not pay any particular attention to how the computer plays back and do not apply what you learn to an unimaginative rote playing method. Turbo or Hold-em lite will both serve this purpose.
I've just started my Poker career and I'd like some input on what sort of table limits I should play. I will be in Vegas for 4 days with a $1000.00 Bankrole. I've been studying the S,M&Z books on Hold'em and Stud High. I have'nt had much casino experience though. Should I stay at the Low Limits for now? ie. 3-6 and 1-4 spread. From what I've read, play at the lower limits is very unpredictable, and I should see larger Bankrole fluctuations.
Play $3-6 and $4-8 holdem. $1000 is by no means a lifetime bankroll for these limits, but it should last you the weekend. I recommend you play hold'em as those games might actually mirror what you've been studying whereas the valuable lessons from the MSZ stud book are generally inapplicable at lower limits. (Tight play gets the stud money there). As for swinginess at lower limits, if you're a good player you may be able to reduce this due to stepping away from high-variance plays (such as pumping TJs on the button multiway (not that I'm for or against this!, just an example)). At higher limits, your $1k bankroll will be in jeopardy in even one session. Personally, I always want to bring 15 buyins for the limit I intend to play "just in case." (This is based on untiltability, some players may need protection from themselves.) If you have a good first three days, and think you have gained some wisdom, AND aren't scared to lose, go play the $10-20 game at the Mirage on your last day. Other tips:
Best of luck. Scratch that. Forget luck.
Best of mental clarity during your poker experience.
Jim Geary
I agree with virtually everything that Jim says. We have always recommended that you should start small and work your way up. Also, I believe that you will be better off in small stakes hold 'em than small stakes stud for precisely the reasons that Jim gives in his post.
Thanks for the advice. I started with the 3-6 Hold'em game at the Mirage, and played it the first two days. It was just too easy, I felt I was taking candy from babies. So after I built up a 400+ profit I attempted the 6-12 game. Talk about day and night. You guys who play the upper limits have all my respect. I think the major problem I had with the 6-12 game is that I've been stressing loose game strategy which takes the money from calling stations, but are just not profitable in tight games. (Not raising with big unsuited connectors before the flop and trying to play small pairs. Just a few examples.) The next time I hit Vegas I'll be better prepaired for the bigger games. Thanks again.
Zardoz
2 days??!! And you're moving up? Try 6 months or 500 hours which ever comes first. Poker takes a long time to learn how to play well. And I do mean a very long time (of course, that's the fun part). And it always seems very easy when you're winning. It's not. And those babies you took candy from have a funny way of growing fangs and taking it back.
Many good players get up and take a walk after a couple of bad beats. They do this to regroup and re-organize their thinking. Well, I do the same after I've gone on a rush or mini-rush. I remind myself of how hard this game is and caution myself to remain as tough as nails.
Take my advice and play your next 500 hours at $3/$6. If you do only half as well as you did over the weekend, you'll build up a $5,000 bankroll and some valuable experience which will enable you to move up with a reasonable expectation of survival at the next stop.
Aces,
Marc
(nt)
Hello all,
Where on the web can I find a comprehensive listing of Las Vegas poker rooms, including what games they spread and what limits are offered?
Thanks very much.
Mark
Try Pokercentral.com. Jon Wetzel has a poker room database. You should find what you are looking for there. We provide a link to that site on our links page.
I would like to direct everybody directly to http://PokerSearch.com if they are looking for a comprehensive guide to poker rooms. This is a brand new site that is a poker room guide. We have a forum for discussions about games and playing conditions. On line you will find Tournament schedules, limits and games for about a 100 of the most popular rooms in the US. There are close to 500 rooms in the database.
I've just read 2 posts , one here and one at the poker search page (on the Mirage- Omaha 8b) and they both mention kills on scooped pots or 1/2 kill ????? What is a kill,,, please --- when is it used / or apply to ?
thanks russell lawrence
( jrl@emi.net)
I hope I can get it all correct as I don't play a lot of Omaha Hi-Lo. Rules can vary according to the card room. Almost all Omaha Hi-Lo games that I encounter have a half kill nowadays. If a $10-20 Omaha Hi-Lo game has a half-kill, when the half kill is active the limits are raised to $15-30. The small blind is still $5 and the big blind $10 and the player who has the kill button with the kill side turned up acts last and has to blind $15. A player gets the kill button in Omaha when they scoop the pot which means they win the entire pot by having the best hand on the high side and the low side or there is no low and they win the entire pot on the high side. The player who scoops gets the kill button. I believe that if the pot is greater than or equal to $50 in a $10-20 game and someone scoops, the kill is active thus raising the stakes to $15-30. If a player scoops and the pot is less than $50, they get the kill button but the kill is not active. If they scoop the next pot they have to make a kill no matter what.
In a high only game if a player wins two pots in a row they have to make the kill. A full kill doubles the stakes so in a $10-20 game, when the kill is active the stakes are raised to $20-40. The "killer" has to blind $20.
I hope that in my rather long and inelegant answer most of my information was accurate.
Thanks Tom for the explanation as I was going to attempt it and you did it much better than I could ever do. Also, kill pots refer to anytime someone doubles the stakes in a game by putting in extra ante or blind money. In lowball some places play you can look at two cards then kill the pot by putting in double the big blind. Good Luck.
Thanks Tom what I've read makes much more sense now
jrl
When an insane net.sociopath named Doug Grant moved into rec.gambling.blackjack, hundreds of readers fled to Wong's website discussions groups at www.bj21.com. In the wake of the vote which just passed to create the new newsgroup rec.gambling.blackjack.moderated, Doug Grant, upon losing his audience in the unmoderated newsgroup rec.gambling.blackjack and his ability to spam/bomb/libel/troll in the moderated newsgroup rec.gambling.blackjack.moderated, will likely move full-time into the unmoderated newsgroup rec.gambling.poker, sending *thousands* of readers fleeing to the forum discussion here. Doug Grant has, in fact, threatened to destroy (presumably via spam and bombs) all unmoderated gambling newsgroups if the moderated blackjack newsgroup is created. Granted, he does not generally follow through with his threats, but he did essentially destroy rec.gambling.blackjack as he had threatened.
-Abdul
This is both good news and sad news. It is good news for the readers of RGB because they can return to their real common interest - playing and winning at blackjack. It is sad because an open newsgroup has to be monitored and censored. The other sad aspect is the potential trouble for RGP. I suspect that if the same behavior is continued on RGP, interested and active participants will take action there as well.
We certainly welcome additional activity on the Gambling Forum, but not at the expense of RGP. The addition of this Forum to the poker/gambling community allows Two Plus Two authors to be involved in many of the threads. The demise of RGP might make it impossible for David, Mason and Ray to personally address most of the questions.
We are concerned about this potentially unwelcome activity on RGP, and will support actions to counteract it and maintain RGP's integrity.
Sincerely, Jessica Vecchione Marketing Director Two Plus Two Publishing
Dear poker players,
I for one don't mind the possibility of a moderated newsgroup. The less spam and advertising we have to sift through, the better.
I don't think that we have anything to lose as long as we trust the moderator to behave properly.
The game is 20/40 Holdem, loose aggressive play with one fishy calling station in the game.
Here's the situation and I am asking opinions on what is the correct play on the river and why...
You raise in early position with 9,10s spades. Five people call your raise including the fish who is in last position on this round. Flop comes 9d, 10h, Js. You bet out, two people call, fish calls. Turn is 7s. You bet out, middle two callers fold, fish raises, you call. River is 4s. You bet out, fish raises again. What is your play at this point?
Thanks for any opinions and I'll give the results of the hand if anyone is curious in a couple of days.
Regards-
Whether against the fish or not, I just call here; you have far from the nuts.
You call. It's 50%/50% whether the fish has a higher flush. He/She could have made two pair or may have a lower flush. Even if it was an 80% probability that the fish had you beat the pot odds justify a call. Don't, repeat, don't raise.
Fold. Fish has Ace-eight or King-eight of spades. (Possibly Queen-eight, but only because you said he was fishy)
This is one of those situations where you have to possess the ability to put your "feelings" into numbers.
This is my opinion without having any further knowledge of the way the guy plays. I haven't played with him, you have, after all I may determine that he rarely if ever bluffs on the river with a raise (many players are simply incapable of attempting, or even considering that kind of a play--others try it all the time.) It would also depend on how the game has been going. I rely on my judgement quite a bit in these situations. With 11.5 big bets in the pot I need about a 12% chance of this raise being with a hand I can beat. (In other words would he raise me on the river with anything but the first or second nuts, and in this case the third nuts also works.) The correct price is 8% but I like a little overlay working for me on most of my plays. (Don't forget that a lot of fishy type calling stations are scared to death of raising on the river without having a real big hand.)
Bottom line: If I have about 12% worh of doubt I call. When my feelings are somewhere between 7% and 11%--in actual play I have what is called a "tough decision." I would "lean" more towards calling around 9%-11% and more towards folding at 7%-8%. If for example I feel there is only a 0%-6% chance he is bluffing--I fold.
In my experience it is uaually more clear cut than this. Either it is around 15%-30% and you just call. Or, it is a 0%-3% shot and you fold. It is when you have a 7%-11% estimation of this raise being a bluff (or with a hand that you can legitimately beat--in this case a smaller flush or say king-queen off) that you are faced with one of the most difficult decisions in all of poker. There isn't much that can substitute for your experience and judgement in these types of situations. So, I go with my "feelings."
AskMrMoney sez...Fold. Fish has Ace-eight or King-eight of spades. (Possibly Queen-eight, but only because you said he was fishy>>>>>>>>
A true fish can raise here without even noticing the flush possibility. If he's got Q8o for the near-nut straight, he may be snow blind. A fold is not an option. I know a few fish that, under the same circumstances, I would re-raise. Bless them all.
I can't agree here. When I read the original post, the only question in my mind was call or reraise? Fishy or not, this player is not very likely to put you on a flush, as you raised preflop and then bet the flop with only 1 spade there. While he should realize that you might have backed into a flush with the KsQs, AsKs, or AsQs, he will think it much more likely that you have a straight, set, or overpair.
If I were the fish, I might have raised the river with just the straight, thinking that KQ is the only LIKELY hand for you to have that beats me. Furthermore, unless you have the A or K high flush, you're not likely to reraise me, so I am really putting in 1 more bet at even money in a situation where I expect to win more than half the time. If you think that this means I am a fish, well, so be it. However, I agree with the concept (written about by others) that most players, even winning ones, bet and raise too infrequently on the river.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
[Big pot; bet two pair plus flush draw on turn get raised by fish who has a straight. Make small flush on end and get raised again...]
I count 20 big bets: 7 before flop; 6, +1 for dead blinds, 2 on the flop, 8 on the turn, 3 so far on the end.
So you're getting 20:1 to call.
Fish will certainly misread their hands or the board more than one time in 21, so calling is out of the question except against a fish that NEVER bluffs AND checked his hand one last time before the raise.
Fish will often raise again with just the big straight. Fish will usually raise with any flush. So a Re-Raise on your part is NOT out of the question; but ill advised I think since your flush is very small; distributionally speaking.
This player can have A8s, K8s, Q8s, or KQs to have you beat. This player can be making a mistake with many more straights than that: same hands but not spades; which there are 15 of each. So you are about a 15:1 favorite before he raises; and I believe he's 15 times more likely to make a mistake than have the hand.
Do NOT fold. At least call. With good card reading and an easy lay down if re-re-raised I would strongly consider re-raising.
- Louie
I think you call here: fish or no fish, KQs /A8s is something I would have to give him credit for,
I appreciate all of the responses to the above. I did make a crying call for three reasons: one was, as one poster replied that the fish might have had the nut straight and not realized the flush got there, second, as I had played the hand like pocket A's I thought he wouldn't put me on a flush draw, and third the pot was simply too big to lay down 4th nuts.
The fish flipped over 8s,5s and commented that he didn't put me on a flush draw as I raised in early position.
Again, thanks for all replies...
Regards-
Damn! I threw away another big pot! Actually, I made two mistakes in my analysis of the original post. The first mistake (not serious) was that I overlooked one possible hand the player could have had. Namely the K-Q of spades. Secondly (and fatal) there was a flaw in my analysis that in retrospect would have made this an easy call. (Which would be correct regardless of the outcome)
First, I'm going to make a couple of assumptions. One, I'm going to assume that he wouldn't play a hand like 8-4, 8-3 or 8-2 of spades for two bets before the flop. (If he were playing those kinds of hands a call would be simple.) Second, he wouldn't raise on the river with less than a flush. (If he would raise on the river with say, a set or a straight, then this is something that I should know from playing with him and again a call would be mandatory.) So just for the sake of argument let's say that he wouldn't raise with any hand less than a flush. This being the case a call is still required because there is only one hand you can beat (8-5s) and four hands that you can't (A-8s-K-8s-Q-8s and K-Q of spades.) From a strictly mathematical point of view the odds are four to one against my having the best hand. Therefore there is a 20% chance he has a hand that I can beat. Since in my previous analysis I said I only needed about a 12% chance of having him beat to make a call correct-then on the basis of this logic alone I have to "pay it off."
Now that I have had the time to think about it more thoroughly (and this has nothing to do with knowing the correct answer) I realize that I made a mistake based purely on the math.
However: I am going to stand by my previous analysis in this regard. There are many weak players that I regularly play against that wouldn't dream of raising on the river with less than a "huge" hand. (nuts or second nuts) In this situation they would be the ones making a crying call with the 8-5s. Therefore, when this type of person raises me on the river there is now NO hand I can beat and my chances of winning have gone down to zero. In that case, I would have no problem at all with throwing this hand away.
you're crazy he cant have you on spades!!! re pop him
I have been reading the bank roll section of Gambling Theory and Other Topics and have been having trouble resolving the statistical analysis with the notion that previous results do not influence future results when the trials are independent. Specifically, my problem is with the following three statements:
1. "A win is guaranteed after a particular number of hands if you play with a positive expected value".
Suppose your luck has been running very bad and you are exactly even after the prescribed number of hands. Are you now assured of never falling behind again? (I think not)
2. "A particular bankroll exists that will guarantee never going broke if you play with a positive expected value"
Suppose once again you luck has been running bad and your original bankroll is cut in half. Is your bankroll now in jeopardy? If it is then your original bankroll could not have been enough. If you could not have cut your bankroll in half under the given parameters then your oringal bankroll was more than necessary.
3. "Bankroll calculations assume never removing winnings"
It seems to me either a bankroll is adequate or it isn't. If a particular amount is an adequate bankroll it should not matter what playing history a player has.
One final note. I understand and follow the derivations in the book. They all appear to be solid, well-grounded calculations.
Thanks for any explanations anyone can give.
Paul
If we say that 200 bets are an adequate bankroll we usually mean that this reduces your chances of going broke to less than 5%. Nothing is certain. As to your third question, the bankroll requirements would have to be much higher if we did not specify that you let it accumulate. For instance you will probably hit a 200 bet losing streak eventually if you play long enough. However this losing streak will most likely come at a point where you have built your bankroll high enough to withstand it.
I am still confused about bank roll requirements. Two questions: First, how and when do I start drawing down accumulated profits. (Assuming I wish to continue playing at the same limit) Second, Mike Caro's bankroll requirements published in a recent issue of Card Player Magazine seem to be far lower than those of Sklansky and Malmuth. Comments please!
Perhaps this will help. In my book GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS I wrote on page 52, fourth edition.": "Another point that needs to be made is that the various tables assume no removal of dollars from the system. So if you conclude that $5,000 is an appropriate bankroll and you now win $100, this $100 must not be removed from your bankroll. If you remove winnings, your level of risk will be higher. This is because some of the "paths" that allow you to stay in money take into account early wins, especially the tables that provide figures for a 95 percent chance to win."
The bankroll numbers in my book POKER ESSAYS are based on three standard deviations, and thus you should not be too worried about removing money once you have increased your bankroll by say 10 percent. However, when I say 10 percent this is just an "educated guess" on my part.
As for the Caro bankroll numbers I don't really understand the justification for their basis. In his GUIDE TO DOYLE BRUNSON'S SUPER/SYSTEM he repeats the CARD PLAYER article plus gives additional tables and explanations. You may want to take a look at that.
As for my numbers seeming too high, you must keep in mind that they are "worst case" scenarios. I feel that if you are going to play poker seriously for a long period of time you must be prepared for that enevitable bad run. Over the years, from my own experience and the experience of others who I am associated with, the accuracy of these number have been justified.
In reality, what you should do is to compute your own bankroll requirements. To do this you should first compute the standard deviation of the game that you play and then follow the bankroll computation procedures. All of this is discussed in the GAMBLING THEORY book. It would be interesting to see how close your own computations come to the estimates that I give.
Thank you for that reply, Mason it is very helpful. I shall indeed attempt to compute the standard deviation in my own game and let you know the results. It is interesting to note that you imply that you and some of your poker colleagues have over the years experienced very bad runs. When this happend to you (or them) did you ever lower the limits at which you were playing or did you press on knowing that a large enough bankroll and correct play would win out in the end? I have personally built my bankroll form $200 to over $3000 playing first at $2-$4, then at $3-$6 and now at $4-$8 Hold 'Em. To do this took immense discipline and patience on my part (some months) and yet I am still not sure I am a winning player. How would I truly know that I am a wiining player and at what limit level of game could I make a living as a full-time pro, should I chhose to do so?
In my book POKER ESSAYS, VOLUME II there is an essay entitled "Moving Up." I suggest that you look it over and then get back to this forum if you have any questions.
Neil,
It depends on what you can live on as to what stakes you can play and be a pro. I think you need to be a good winner at 5&10 or better to just squeak by. A good 5&10 player might make 100 bucks a day, maybe more at some out of the way places full of weak players and less at the clubs full of regulars that play tight and slow. You can tell whether you can be a winner or not by just observing and being honest with yourself. If you play better and know more than your opponents it should be obvious to you. Then if you are sure you have better self control there is no way you will be a loser in the end. Good Luck.
Thank you Ray, this comment is helpful and confirms my own thoughts. My own desire is not to play full-time but to be semi-pro. I am gradually working to build my skill and bankroll so that I can play in a 20-40 game.
I also believe that if I succeed in building this bankroll and continue to play for sometime at my chosen level while further increasing it, then I must be a winning player. Do you agree?
Thank you for taking the time to post a response.
Neil,
If your winning regularly you are playing a winning game. If you have outside income you can play higher as your money is no longer finite. Take shots at higher limits when the game is good and you will get the feel for it. Good Luck.
Thank you Ray, I will do that. Its obvious, why didn't I think of it!!
Part of the problem comes from the language used. Mason indicates that 3 standard deviations is sufficient to effectively assure a win, but this simplification leads to troubles.
Here's an example: Let's say that we treat every occurance that has a probability less than 1/1,000 as "impossible", for all intents and purposes (Note: A 3-sigma occurance - like losing your entire bankroll following the Gambling Theory numbers - has a GREATER probability than 1/1000). Now look at the throw of two dice. Throwing two consecutive twelves has a probability of 1-in-1296, i.e. it is "impossible". Throwing a single twelve has a probability of 1-in-36, which is very possible. Now suppose we throw one twelve (a relatively common occurance); suddenly the "impossible" (throwing consecutive twelves) is possible, as the chance of throwing the second twelve on the next roll is only 1/36!
My point is that your confusion is based on the idea that an event of "effectively zero" probability can result from a combination of two or more improbable but certainly possible events. You understandably believed that when something is "assured", it is not affected by possible events which are supposed to be accounted for.
My recommendation is that you go back and look at the analysis from the point of view of your percentage chance of going bust, and deciding on your bankroll based on the risk you are willing to tolerate, rather than accept as gospel the "3-sigmas-is-assurance" rule of thumb.
Tom Weideman
At the three sigma level, the chances of going broke are 1 and 1/2 out of 1,000 (if my memory serves me right). So there is a very small chance that you will go broke.
However, for most practical purposes many statisticians will assume that the total universe of events is contained within three standard deviations of the mean. (When I worked in the aerospace industry many years ago this was an assumption that we often made.)
Put another way, even though it is not exactly correct, for many purposes it is close enough. This is why I use the language I use.
Mason,
It has been a while since I looked at it, but I seem to recall a problem in your three sigma rule as derived in "Gambling Theory and Other Topics." (I hope i remembered the title correctly!)
In a nut shell, you look at the min of the function EXPECTED WIN - 3*SIGMA, where EXPECTED WIN is EXPECTED WIN PER HAND times N, SIGMA is SINGLE HAND SIGMA times SQRT N, nad N is the number of hands.
The problem with this approach is than you may go broke (i.e., result worse than 3 SIGMA), at points other than the N which minimizes the above function. True, for any other particular N, the chance is very small (i.e., outside of three SDs), but cummutively their importance cannot be ignored.
A better approach is that of a random walk with an absorbing barrier. To make the math tractable, you need to take advantage of Peter Griffin's biased coin approximation of positive expectation games with non-unit payoffs. (See "Theory of Blackjack.")
Sorry if the preceding was a bit dry. It is late, I am tired, and my newborn has just started to cry. TIme to go and check on her...
Pat Sileo
Pat:
Given the way poker is played, a random walk is not very practical since you don't have detailed information on the play of each hand. All you have are your results at the end of the day.
I believe that your other complaint has already been addressed in this thread. It is why I say in the book that the bankroll numbers assume that no money is removed from the system. If you are a winning player it is very unlikely that you will start off losing several hundred bets, but it will eventually happen. However, when it does happen you should be safe because your peak bankroll had probably grown above your starting point. I also recommend (in the text) that you increase your bankroll 10 to 20 percent to account for the "non-self weighting affect."
Hi, Mason.
I'm a little more awake right now, so let's see if I can make myself more clear. Let me start with the following claim:
USING YOUR 3 SIGMA CRITERION, THERE IS A GREATER THAN 0.15% CHANCE OF RUIN WHEN PLAYING INDEFINITELY AND NOT REMOVING/ADDING ANY MONEY FROM/TO THE BANK.
At first glance, this is might be surprising due to the following. Assuming that results are normally distributed (with the Central Limit Theorem on our side, this is hopefully a reasonable assumption), there is a 99.7% chance (from memory, hopefully right...) of being within 3 "sigmas" of the mean. Then there is a 0.3% chance of being outside of MEAN plus-or-minus 3*SD. We don't care about being on the high side (well. we care, but are very happy about it!), so that leaves half of 0.3%, or 0.15% chance of being worse than 3 SDs low (and hence broke).
The reasoning is seductive. I fell into it myself - YIKES - fifteen years ago. Unfortunately, it fails to capture all of the ways one might go broke.
To see this, we must first look at the derivation of the "3 sigma" bankroll criterion. We first examine the function:
H*(HOURLY_WIN_RATE) - (SQRT_ H)*(HOURLY_SD)
where H is hours played, HOURLY_WIN_RATE is the expected dollar win per hour played, SQRT_ H is the square root of the number of hours played, and HOURLY_SD is the standard deviation of our hourly win (in dollars).
[NOTE: In my previous post, I framed things in terms of N (number of hands played) rather than H. Mathematically the approach is the same, but with N we would replace hourly expectation and stn dev with the corresponding per hand figures. In blackjack, per hand data is the norm, but poker expectations are usually stated in hourly terms.]
The reason we are interested in this function is that it defines the lower 3 sigma envelope of possible results as a function of hours played. It is U-shaped (since it decreases with SQRT_H, but increases proportional to H), and it is a straightforward exercise in calculus to find the H which minimizes it. Denote the minimizing H by "Hstar". Plugging this back into our original objective function (and "changing the minus to plus..." - Young Frankenstein),the 3 sigma criterion states that the bankroll should be at least
(SQRT_ Hstar)*(SD) - Hstar*(WIN_RATE)
where I've dropped the now redundent "HOURLY" notation.
For those who could follow the derivation (which is fortunately not a requirement to being a great poker player), it is clear that the 3 sigma criterion is an amount which, AFTER EXACTLY Hstar HOURS OF PLAY, there is only a 0.15% chance of being behind by more than this amount. And it is certainly the case that we have gone broke should this 0.15% chance event occur.
The trouble is that we could be in the 99.85% category and STILL GO BROKE. A simple example: Playing 10-20 Hold'em, after Hstar hours of play the player's bankroll has been reduced from "3 sigma" to just $40. Since he is not more than 3 sigma down after Hstar hours, this case falls into the 99.85% category. BUT IT WOULD NOT BE AT ALL SURPRISING TO SEE THIS PLAYER GO BROKE BY HOUR Hstar+1 (simply due to normal fluctuations).
There are various senarios of this nature not captured by the 3 sigma criterion (including the possibility of going down more than 3 sigma BEFORE Hstar, but then making a recovery above 3 sigma by the time Hstar rolls around), but the key point is that the 3 sigma criterion UNDERESTIMATES your bankroll in the sense that the risk of ruin is greater than 0.15%.
Does this mean that it is wrong to use the 3 sigma as a rule of thumb? Absolutely not, if for no other reason than the fact that most people are willing to tolerate a far greater risk of ruin than 0.15%. What is the actual risk of ruin with the 3 sigma bankroll? I've already gone on far to long in this post. If interested, look for the next one (but not before January).
Mason, if you've read all of this, thanks for your patience and endurance.
Respectfully,
Pat Sileo
OK, I read it all, and agree with all your points, but so what? I think that you will agree that the three sigma criterion which I used and presented in GAMBLING THEORY is a pretty good one.
You can show that your required bankroll using the above criterion is
(9)(SD) BR = -------------
(4)(WR)
where:
BR = bankroll
SD = standard deviation
WR = win rate
I present this equation in my book POKER ESSAYS. Again, I agree that at 3 sigma there is still a very small chance you can go broke, and your other point is also correct. But so what?
By the way. Most people complain to me that my recommended bankroll requirements are too high. It's somewhat surprising to hear that someone thinks that they are too low.
The bankroll formula didn't come out properly. Here it is again.
BR = [(9)(SD)] divided by [(4)(WR)]
Um, I think "SD" should be squared here, unless you mean variance.
Tom Weideman
Tom is right. The formula should be
BR = [(9)(SD)(SD)] divided by [(4)(WR)]
Let me start off by saying that too much fuss has been made historically about finding the "ideal" bankroll for positive expectation gambling games. (This opinion is neither novel nor new.) That out of the way, let me reply to two of your points in turn.
1. [MM] " OK, I read it all, and agree with all your points, but so what? I think that you will agree that the three sigma criterion which I used and presented in GAMBLING THEORY is a pretty good one."
If by "pretty good" you mean that it is unlikely that a player using a 3 sigma bankroll is overbetting relative to that player's risk tolerance, I think I agree. My agreement is qualified because it is based on my (imperfect) recall of a comparison with the random walk model I did in the mid-80's, and because it is based on my personal assessment of other players' tolerance for risk.
Issues surrounding my bad memory will be clarified once I get back into my office after the holidays, as I will then be able to refer directly to the needed material. There remain, however, a few issues which can be addressed here.
First, although it is unlikely that they are overbetting, it remains quite possible that they are underbetting. I know that I am willing to tolerate a 2.5% risk of ruin. It might be the case that if I use a 3 sigma bankroll that I am losing $/hr relative to what I could earn at the 2.5% exposure level.
Perhaps more troubling is the possibility that I recognize that a 0.15% risk of ruin is far too conservative for me, and instead adopt a "2 sigma" bankroll, thinking that I then have a 2.5% risk of ruin - where the actual risk is greater than that. (Same argument that the actual risk exceeds 0.15% for the 3 sigma bankroll.)
Which gets to my general wariness of discussions about "good" bankrolls which do not explicity reference individual risk tolerance. What is required is a table or formula or whatever that allows someone to say, "This is my win rate, this is the standard deviation, this is the risk I am willing to tolerate, therefore I should use this bankroll." This seems greatly preferable to the other case where myself or someone else has to make a personal assessment of someone else's risk tolerance.
2. [MM] "By the way. Most people complain to me that my recommended bankroll requirements are too high. It's somewhat surprising to hear that someone thinks that they are too low."
To be precise, I did not say that the requirements were too low in any absolute sense, only that they were too low for someone willing to tolerate only a 0.15% chance of ruin. Since I suspect that most people are willing to tolerate a far greater risk of ruin, then it remains possible that a 3 sigma bankroll is really too large for them.
Pat Sileo
Pat wrote:
>Which gets to my general wariness of discussions about >"good" bankrolls which do not explicity reference >individual risk tolerance. What is required is a table or >formula or whatever that allows someone to say, "This is my >win rate, this is the standard deviation, this is the risk >I am willing to tolerate, therefore I should use this >bankroll." This seems greatly preferable to the other case >where myself or someone else has to make a personal >assessment of someone else's risk tolerance.
You need to look at my book POKER ESSAYS. I did something very similar to this.
Pat responded before I had a chance to. To avoid repeating some stuff, I've edited this post to include (I hope) only new stuff applicable to this thread.
I'm embarrassed to admit that I didn't think of all of this when I read that section of _Gambling Theory & Other Topics_ the first four times. But now it is clear to me where the problem lies, and it is related to my earlier post in this thread. It's shameful that I didn't put 2+2 (no pun intended) together back then.
The problem lies in the assumption that the entire universe of possibilities lies in the ±3*sigma range around the mean. When you do this, you automatically dismiss the possibility of there ever being a greater-than-3*sigma event. This leads to problems in the minimization process described by Pat that appears in _GT&OT_. To see this, consider the portion of the calculation that deals with the number of hours. When N is calculated, it is implied that there is NO way to go broke before that many hours are up, because for this to happen, a greater-than-3*sigma event would have to occur, which we have postulated as impossible. Thus we have assumed that the player's first opportunity to go broke (based on his WR and sigma) is after having played N hours. This simply is not the case, and it messes up the mathematics.
Let's see if a simple model will demonstrate this point more clearly. As I looked for such a model, it occured to me that using a 3-sigma tolerance will not provide as clear of a picture as I'd like, so I increased the risk level a bit. A standard statistical calculation (using a normal distribution) gives a probability of around 0.14% of ending up 3*sigma below the mean. The same calculation can be done for any number of sigmas, and _GT&OT_ uses this calculation to make adjustments for 5% chance of ruin (1.64*sigma). This is the risk level I will go with. In other words, I will (foolheartedly) assume that all of my results will fall within ±1.64*sigma of the mean. Although this will come out to be disastrous, we will see that it has the same effect as making this assumption for 3*sigma, except for the DEGREE of the disaster (and maybe "disaster" is a bit strong for the 3-sigma case).
Here's the model I propose:
You play a game in which you are paid even money on a bet that is 2-to-1 in your favor (say you roll a single die and pay $1 if it comes up 1 or 2, and get paid $1 for a roll of anything else).
Let's look at the possible outcomes after six rolls of the dice. I'm not inclined to write down the 64 different (ordered) win/loss combinations, but I would like to point out that there will be one possibility that looks like this:
LLLWWW
This is one of many (20) ways to reach an even score. Now suppose we consider bankroll requirements. Since we are ignoring events that have <5% probability as negligible, we don't worry about the fact that beginning with 3 consecutive losses (whose probability is 1/27 = 3.7%) can bust us if our bankroll is *3. This result is included within the statistics as one way to reach break-even, but if our minimum bankroll calculation gives us a number less than 3, that result is in error. There are several paths that pass through ruin points, and the errors generated by these paths accumulate to make things worse (i.e. they don't "average out").
It should be clear from this that the higher the accepted risk is, the further the calculation diverges from the correct answer, since greater risk leads to "ignoring" a greater number ruinous paths. Another troubling problem is that when we keep the risk level low, we need more sample points, and this adds to the number of ignored ruinous paths (but still the demand of lower risk improves the approximation).
In addition to these comments, I'd like to add on an interesting calculation I recently performed using this model which points out how this method can go astray.
For the game described, we can use the classic "gambler's ruin" formula to calculate the exact ruin probability for various starting bankrolls of the two players. Conversely, we can use your accepted level of risk to calculate exactly what minimum bankroll you will need. We will then compare this exact number with one calculated using the statistical model in question.
Your opponent has an infinite bankroll, and we'll call your probability of winning a single game "p". Furthermore, we'll denote your bankroll "B". Since your probability of winning a single game is greater than 1/2 (i.e. your even money bet is made with an edge), your probability of ruin is given by the equation:
Prob of ruin = [1/p - 1]^B
For our case above, we accept 5% risk, so the probability of ruin is set to 0.05. The probability that we will win a single game is p=2/3. Plugging these in gives:
0.05 = [0.5]^B
Now we can solve for B using logarithms to get:
B = 4.32
This means that a bankroll of just $5 in this game has better than a 95% chance of breaking the bank. Now let's do it using the statistical method. The equation for minimum bankroll from _GT&OT_ comes out to be:
B = (2.69*sigma^2)/(4*WR)
[Note: the "2.69" factor comes from the square of 1.64, the number of sigmas associated with a 95% confidence.]
We can easily find the win rate:
WR = (2/3)(+1) + (1/3)(-1) = +1/3
The value for sigma^2 is a little trickier. It be computed using the "usual" formula (the ": :"'s should read "average of", and the "x"'s are just possible values of wins/losses):
sigma^2 = :x^2: - :x:^2 = [(2/3)*(+1)^2 + (1/3)*(-1)^2] - (+1/3)^2 = 1 - 1/9 = 8/9
Plugging in these numbers for WR and sigma^2 gives:
B = 1.79
This value is significantly lower than the exact value of 4.32.
The astute reader will no doubt jump in here and point out that even though a win rate and a standard deviation can be calculated for this game, the results are not normally-distributed, and therefore the 95% confidence <=> 1.64*sigma association is not valid. Very true. However, there is no apriori reason to believe that poker results are normally distributed either, and the point of this discussion was mainly to demonstrate Pat's assertion that the statistical analysis of bankroll requirements is not strictly correct in that it does not treat ruin adequately. Though the individual hand-by-hand or hour-by-hour results of a poker game do not match those of a random walk, IMHO such a model (with an absorbing barrier to represent ruin) is absolutely necessary in order to give a reasonably good analysis of this tough question.
The bottom line is two-fold:
1. Mason's suggestion of using his bankroll requirement numbers as a lower limit for the confidence level you are looking for is right on the mark (and in fact is even a bit of an understatement). 2. Be VERY careful if you decide to try to do your own calculation for a higher degree of risk using the equation given in _GT&OT_, as it's accuracy drops as the risk level increases.
Sorry for the length of this post - it took on a life of its own and kept growing.
Tom Weideman
Didn't read Tom's post until AFTER I made my other post earlier today. Everything in it looks right to me. The fact that Mason's appoach is OK for very small levels of risk tolerance, but breaks down as the tolerance for risk increases is in accord with my general recollection of ealier analysis. (I will post a summary along with a simple formula which approximates the random walk approach after the first week of January.)
Pat Sileo
I think the bankrolll requirements for the confidence levels in _Gambling Theory_ are too low. They only take into account the bankroll needed to surpass the confidence level at the most critical juncture. For example suppose your win rate is w, your deviation s=10w. then the formula claims to have a 95% confidence of not busting you only need B=100w. I claim this 95% confidence is only that you aren't broke at the time T=100. The problem is that you might have already gone broke and recovered, or will go broke later.
Here's my formula: The chance of going broke for bankroll B, win rate w, and std dev s is: exp(-2Bw/s^2) = p(broke).
You can manipulate this formula to find B for various p(broke).
This is based on the chance of going broke with B=1 and each bet being 1, with your chance of winning being (1+w)/2 = p. Now the std dev for one play is around 1 for w close to 0. the chance of going broke x is just the solution to the quadratic x = p*x^2 + (1-p). Reason: on the first flip he either loses and goes broke or wins, in which case he needs to go broke twice. Solving and throwing out x=1, we get x = (1-p)/p.
Bill
This explaination is being posted simutaneously to the 2+2 forum and the Bankroll thread on rgp.
I didn't finish my explaination of my derivation. My claim was that given a bankroll B, win rate w>0, and standard deviation s, the risk of bankrupcy is approximately:
R = exp(-2Bw/s^2).
If B = s^2/w, then R = 0.13 for our formula instead of the 5% for the formula in _Gambling Theory_
Explaination. We take the gambler's ruin problemm where the bets are the same size, which is solvable in closed form. Suppose the bet size is $1, and your probability of winning (there are no pushes) is p = (1+w)/2, and w>0. Let x(B) be the chance of going bankrupt with an integer bankroll of B. Note that we have:
x(B) = x(1)^B (Losing B dollars is the same as going bankrupt with $1 B times).
Also, x(1) = (1-p) + p*x(2) = px(1)^2 +(1-p). Consider the first play. Either he loses and is bankrupt or he wins and needs to lose $2.
Solving for x(1) we get x(1) = [1, (1-p)/p]. Note if p<=1/2, the actual root is 1 and for p>1/2 the solution is x(1) = (1-p)/p. Thus x(B) = [(1-p)/p]^B.
Now, suppose we take the case where w<<1, B>>1, so it would take lots of trials to go bankrupt. The binomial disribution approaches the Gaussian by the law of large numbers. Then:
x(B) = [(1-w)/(1+w)]^B ~ exp (-2wB). Now let's suppose that in one sufficiently large time unit, N trials are done. The win rate for the trial period would be W = Nw, and the standard deviation would be S = sqrt(4Np(1-p))or approx sqrt(N) since p is close to 1/2.
Then X(B,W,S) = x(B) ~ exp(-2WB/S^S).
The result we have is that if the distribution of results for a 1-hr session is normal then the formula is exact since we can make w arbitarily small and B arb. large...
Since this is the assumption made in _Gambling Theory_ anyway for poker results, I believe this ruin formula is more accurate.
Bill
"Here's my formula: The chance of going broke for bankroll B, win rate w, and std dev s is: exp(-2Bw/s^2) = p(broke)."
This is the same approach that I use. I derived it for my own use (blackjack) in the early 1980's, presented its derivation as a portion of the presentation of my paper "The Evaluation of Blackjack Games Using a Combined Expectation and Risk Measure" at the 8th International Conference on Risk and Gambling (later published in a book of the conference proceedings). To my knowledge, it was the first time the formula appeared in print, although Peter Griffin had previously outlined a procedure (in "Gambling Ramblings"?) that is equivalent to the use of the formula.
It should be noted that in deriving this relatively simple formula, it is assumed that (i) the relavant risk of ruin is relative to "playing forever", as opposed to a player who quits when, say, he doubles his bankroll, and (ii) that w is much less than s (usually true in most gambling games of interest).
It is straightforward to now compare this formula with MM's n-sigma bankrolls. I have this on a spreadsheet right now, but don't have time right now to transfer it here. If no one else beats me to it, I'll do it eventually.
BTW, the formula is usefully re-written
B = - (s^2/2w) ln p
where "ln" is the natural log.
Here's something interesting that I just happened upon:
The new-and-improved bankroll formula mentioned here:
B = -ln(R)[s^2/2w]
and the bankroll formula provided in _Gambling Theory_ actually DO converge to each other (as expected) as the accepted risk drops. Here's proof in a nutshell:
The probability of ruin (R) in Mason's model can be written as:
R = (0.5)[1-erf(x)]
where:
x = (number of standard deviations [n])/sqrt(2) and "erf()" is the error function
One series expansion for erf(x) is:
erf(x) = 1 - [1 - 2!/[1!(2x)^2] + 4!/[2!(2x)^4] - ...]*[x*sqrt(pi)*exp(x^2)]^(-1)
As we decrease risk, more standard deviations are used (increasing x), and the terms in the series after the first term drop off more rapidly, so for a sufficiently large number of sigmas, we ignore those terms, leaving:
erf(x) ~ 1 - [x*sqrt(pi)*exp(x^2)]^(-1)
Plugging into R gives:
R = (0.5)[x*sqrt(pi)*exp(x^2)]^(-1)
Now plug R into the new bankroll formula:
B = -{ln[0.5] - ln[x] - ln[sqrt(pi)] - x^2]}*[s^2/2w]
And again, for large numbers of sigmas, x^2 dominates the other terms, leaving:
B = (xs)^2/2w
Plugg in for x and we get Mason's result:
B = (ns)^2/4w
Bottom line: Mason's bankroll equation converges to the correct one in the limit of vanishing risk of ruin. This isn't surprising, since in the limit the chance of going past the ruin point and coming back again vanishes.
I'm sorry if I've carried this forum a little too far into gratuitous mathematics, but for the people out there that can appreciate it, I thought this was just too interesting to keep to myself.
Tom Weideman
Actually, this isn't too surprising. In fact, this reminds me of thermodynamics--you often can approximate a log of an intergral by taking a log of it's peak. The bankroll can be considered as the log of the risk desired. The formula in _Gambling Theory_ is a measure of the probability you are broke at the most critical time T, which is a lower bound for my formula.
In fact the crux of your proof stems froms the fact that log Integral[x,inf] exp(-t^2) ~ -x^2 ax x->inf.
Actaully, don't the equations seem to fit quite nicely into thermodynamics and statistical mechanics?
variance = temperature Bankroll = energy time = time win rate = ?? some sort of external power source
Cute!
I suspected that an elegant proof of this result was possible, but never really thought hard about it.
If the MM formula was much easier to apply than the random walk model, then your proof would tell us when it was OK to use the easier approach. Of course, this is not necessary since the RW model is very easy to use.
It strikes me as useful to post the difference in bankroll requirements of the two approaches for a particular game (with various levels of risk tolerance). Probably should be a new thread, but others know the ethics/protocal of such points better than myself.
What would be a typical win rate and stn dev for a game commonly played by readers of this forum? How many hands per hour can be expected? (The answer to the latter question allows us to investigate the difference between using hourly data and per hand data - Per hour data should underestimate the bankroll at least slightly, maybe more than slightly. We'll see...)
Silly idea from from previous post - hourly data doesn't make any difference. Bankroll is proportional to variance divided by mean - both vary linearly with N - hence no difference.
NEVER MIND.
--Does anyone know where I can purchase a card shuffler for 2 to 10 decks? I bought a battery operated single deck shuffler, and it really was garbage! Any info would be much appreciated as I need it for a christmas present. Thankyou in advance.
--dinker
If anyone would have such a device it would be Gambler's General Store in Las Vegas, Nevada. I believe that they have an 800 number, but I do not know it off hand.
Beautiful People,
At my local casino there are at least four pairs of people who are nutcases. Whenever one of these pairs sits down at a table, they raise and reraise every round until the betting is capped. They do this every round in every hand; and therefore they could not be said to be colluding in a sophisticated sense at least (I am very aware of partner collusion; this borders upon stupidity).
They know nothing about poker. They just get a rush out of building huge pots and having a chance at it. They always show down and ask the dealer who has won. It could be called collusion in a sense since what they think is positive expectation for them relies upon the play of their friend, but let's not argue about that.
Let's create a model of this game. It's $4-$8 hold'em, capped betting every round, every game. If you put in one bet, you have to put in four. This is effectively $16-$32 hold'em, with no raising. Call or fold every round. Usually some people who aren't very good will, for example, call the first raise and then fold when it is raised again (and continue to do so for an hour). You could say that there is a $30 donation to the pot every game from this.
These two must-raisers have literally any two-card combination each. They will play all the way to the river. Everyone else will almost always fold beforehand. So it's 16-32 holdem with three players (those two and you), call or fold every round, no raising, against two robots who call every round. Every pot starts off with about $20 (representing dead money from folders).
My usual reaction whenever this happens is to tighten right up and fold with anything less than the nuts or a nut draw with pot odds, because I worry about my reverse implied odds. Ordinarily you would call four bets preflop with less than a dozen two-card combinations. However, I have been trying to figure out how one would extract maximum money from this game. I think that very loose, very passive play could in fact be the play with best expectation here (I can't believe I'm saying that).
What are your chances of having the best hand in the showdown? You could add up all the possible two-card combinations which could beat yours. If your hand is in the top 169/3=56 two-card combinations (the top third), you will probably win. However, you might get badly beaten any time they happen to have one of the 56 better than yours, whereas you will not badly beat them any time you fold the 57th best hand and each of them had an even worse hand. What percentage of the possible combinations would you call the river with? That's a question my poor brain can't answer. It's a good theoretical exercise (although this IS a real game that I'm describing!)
Now consider, working backwards, how you might bet after the turn. You might say that you should fold any two cards which do not put you in the top third of all possible hole card combinations. But, the river will rearrange that list of the top 169 possible hands. If you fold on the turn a hand which later would have been in the top 56, then you have lost money, which you do not regain when a hand moves from top 56 down upon the river. The only way to do play properly post-turn is to figure out, intuitively, whether each of the cards that might fall on the river would make a random hand better than yours, and add up whether you are likely to remain a top-third hand after it.
Carry this back to the flop and preflop. Also, considering the first and second rounds are only half as expensive, you can afford to play looser during those rounds.
Throw out all concepts of semibluffing, tells, raising to drive people out, in fact all strategies which rely upon raising (that means about all of them).
How on Earth do you play this game?
Yours,
Richard Cavell
This past August I was on the East Coast and joined in on a 10/20 game in Alantic City. The two players to my immediate left I knick named raise and re-raise and it didn't take too long for me to realize that I had my work cut out for me if I was to stay in this game. My starting hand selection became more selective knowing that once I put one bet in I would have two more to face. When I called, I generally felt comfortable capping the bet if it was down to the three of us. I obviously didn't win every time I challenged them. However, after my stack grew by about $700 they began to slow down. After it had grown to about $1,000 one of the players left our game and went to a 10/20 stud game. I'm a novice at this game and can't give the technical answers to your questions. It seems to me that if you can establish a good table image, and not go on tilt, you can many times watch the chips of the crazy's dwindle away. While at the same time there will be times that it's best to pack your bags and either go to another table or call it a night.
Richard,
If you wanted to just assure good wins a player could play good starting hands and top pair after the flop and win most nights. However to get closer to the maximum from them you need to play loser and more daring. You cant play all hands since there are other players that are playing tight that you must contend with. Play fairly good starting hands such as anything with two big cards or any ace if most others are gone. Continue after the flop with any draw or second pair to the end and just grin and bear the results. This way you will get most of the live money lost as well as have some big swings in results. Since it is not just the three of you playing it is too hard to get an exact set of hands to play on each of the streets. Even if they play the way they do all hands , you are good enough to still get a "feel" if they may have helped on the flop and can act accordingly. Good Luck Richard.
Ray Zee makes an important point: You can't just calculate which hands are mathematically likely to show a profit against 2 "random" hands and just call these guys down. There are 6 or 7 other players in the game, and while they may be folding a lot of hands, they won't fold big pairs, big slick, and the like. In those cases, you must beat 2 random hands plus 1 or more good hands.
The first thing to do is to try to move just to the right of these maniacs. Yes, I meant right. This way, you can call 1 small bet, and then see who else, if anyone, is in against them before you ever have to put in more than 1 bet. If it turns out that its going to be just you and the maniacs, then you can play your cards mathematically. If anyone else is in, you must tighten up significantly. Also, don't forget, just because a computer simulation says that A2 is a mathematically good hand to beat 2 random hands, that doesn't mean that you need to call after the flop is unhelpful. Remember, just because a hand is mathematically sound preflop doesn't mean that it's still a good bet postflop. Also, some hands will be unsound preflop (if your analysis assumes that you play them to the river), but excellent investments in that you concede your $16 if they don't hit the flop, but expect to win much more than 1/3 of the time when the flop does help.
Finally, if these guys will truly ALWAYS cap the betting every round, then you should never bet or raise, as this might wake them up when you do have a good hand, and they'll stop raising (although I bet that they'll still call you down, so don't bluff). In fact, the only reason I can see to ever bet or raise is if it will cause some other aware player who saw the flop to fold because it's you (not a maniac) showing some strength. Thus, if you flop top pair, you would want to drive out another decent player who won't stay against a known hand (yours) that is already better than his is, while he clearly would call down the maniacs with 2nd pair or such.
BTW, are you going to tell us where this juicy game is at?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Dear poker players,
Thanks for your responses. There were a couple of things I forgot to mention. The rake is 10%, capped at $5. Normally this is a serious problem in $2-$4, but with pots averaging $200, it can effectively be ignored. Position becomes irrelevant in selecting your starting hands, since you know whether or not it's going to be raised. However, Greg's idea of sitting effectively in last position (to the right of the maniacs) is superb. You can afford to fold so many more hands than normal because your implied odds are enormous. Usually, to control my variance, I limit myself to Groups 1,2, and a bit of 3. This means I fold almost always, but it doesn't really matter at all.
You're right in that I am playing against other players who may play well, but none of them would recognise the name 'Sklansky' - and I'm not kidding. I think that the US is so full of rocks that you assume everywhere else is too. They are capable of winning, but I would not respect them much. The players who know what they're doing sit on the larger tables, because there are plenty of fish for everyone at the higher limits - there's no point for a good player to sit on the beginner's table.
I agree that raising is a bad option - you should quietly put your chips in knowing that you'll put more in. They do tend to tighten up when their stack runs out (which happens reasonably quickly), so the rush lasts for about half an hour. The game is at Crown casino, Melbourne, Australia, which has few good players at all. They have advertisements in Card Player. There will be a large tournament next year in March or so. Do come if you're considering it.
But, with all that money flying around the table, I want some. So I'll play with them when my stomach settles again.
My analysis of the game was incomplete, and I know that it is approximate in some areas. I should have mentioned that if you fold every hand, you will obviously win nothing. If you play nothing but AA, you should win slightly. If you play every hand, you will break even (minus the rake). So correct play lies somewhere in between. My proposal is to find the peak of the curve in between. (I suppose that's what we're doing normally anyway). Even if you played slightly more tightly than them, you should show a positive expectation.
Thanks for your replies; I'm going down there now - I'll bet it's happening as we speak.
Richard Cavell
Actually, you have hit the nail on the head. You recognize that if you only play aces "you should win slightly." Notice that if you add in a few other hands such as kings, queens, jacks, ace-king suited, ace-queen suited, and perhaps ace-king, or king-queen suited you should do quite well.
What about other hands? The problem with the other hands is that they are very difficult to play. What do you do with a pair of nines when there is an over card on board, you did not flop a set, and you know it will be capped every round. It should be obvious that playing a hand like this in the type of game that you are describing can't be much better than break even.
Thus we have your answer. Play only the premium hands in a game that features 3 or 4 players to a pot but every round is being capped. If you follow this strategy you should do quite well in the long run. However, it won't be much fun and you can go hours at a time without winning a hand.
Being a novice at this game, I apparently was lucky to have been in the recommended position to these type of players as decribed in my post to Richard Cavell.
My question at this point is that it sounds like I made a mistake in my game by taking an agressive posture against the two players I was faced with.
Other than possibly keeping the one player in the game, what would have been my advantages to playing the passive role?
Thanks for your guidence.
Late one night, back in the early-80s when the Fremont had a decent-sized poker room (but no really big games), I found myself involved in a game similar to the one you described. Looking back on it, I vaguely remember the money traveling in circular fashion around the table ("chip transfers" I believe the fish called it) -- until one of the 6 a.m. rocks showed up, cracked a couple hands and racked out.
So, all I can add to what has already been said is 1.) part of your strategy may be to hit a good lick and cash out (because you *will* go down the other side) and 2.) play nothing but big draws (because your big pairs will routinely get cracked).
Sounds like fun. Hmmmmmm ... I wonder if that 20-something bimbette I met on IRC still wants me to come down and play on the beaches of Oz with her ...;-)
You've said a couple of interesting things. Firstly, once they realise that they're losing fast/that you're beating them, they do slow down, so it is definitely a hit-and-run strategy to wait for the best hands and belt them.
Secondly, you implied that the draws are the ones to go for. One thing that I've done for a while in this type of game is to only play the nuts or close to it. While I would be folding incorrectly ( a hand which is 60% likely to win should definitely be played normally) I want to control my variance, and I will win in the long run anyway. Since they will play until they are all-in, their stack is always at risk and if I don't get it this hand, I can get it next time.
Thirdly, Australia is an island and is therefore surrounded by beaches. There are hundreds of thousands of 20-something bimbettes here. On behalf of the entire population of Australia, you are welcome to them all. When you arrive for Crown's mega-tournament in July, you can borrow my Toyota and go for a swim. Watch out for sharks.
Thanks for the recommended playlist Mason. This is almost the same as what I was using, so I at least got something right.
Have a nice day,
Richard.
You have touched upon another idea which can be important in these situations. If you play conservatively you have the "nuts." That is you can't lose and these live players are guaranteed to lose all their money. But if you play some questionable hands and gamble with them they may jump off winner and quit the game, being satisfied with their win. Thus we have another reason to play very conservatively.
This may well be too difficult a question to answer in a "thread" like this. After playing in games 1-5 all the way up to 15-30 (over several years), I'd like to know how strong a player has to be in "odds/mathematical" knowledge to be able to beat a "typical" 15-30 stud game? My opinion is even If this person could beat these games (with no mathematical sophistocation), game selection would become most important. I personally think that many players with a grasp of the "basics" and great discipline can beat MOST of the games in public cardrooms with the exception of the highest limits and toughest players.
Thanks in advance......
Knowing the exact odds of making a hand is not very important. Just a rough approximation is good enough. However, knowing how your hand relates to the size of the pot is extremely important. For example, in hold 'em many poor players will call you down with bottom pair in a small pot, and many better players "know" to fold this hand even if the pot is large. Needless to say both of these plays can be wrong and thus costly in the long run.
Once you become a pretty good player and begin to play a little bigger, game selection does become super important. I also agree that a player with a grasp of the basics and good discipline can beat the low limit games where many "tourist type" players will be found. However, I also think that once you reach the middle limits, usually $15-$30 and higher, you will need some additional poker skills to be successful.
Help me with this one. I currently earn 1 big bet per hour playing 5/10 stud in AC. I am starting to study holdem in earnest. Here is my question:
Assuming expert play, will it be easier, harder or of equal difficulty earning 1 big bet per hour playing holdem as opposed to stud.
All opinions welcomed. Send me email at dlazar@worldnet.att.net I will also peruse this newsgroup periodically for responses.
Thanks, Dave
Using $20-$40 limit as a model game, based on my experience and conversations that I have had with expert players I believe that the stud expert will make $5-$10 an hour more than the hold 'em expert assuming that the level of competition is about the same. The reasonably good player will do about the same in either game.
By the way, while you will find some experts playing $20-$40 hold 'em, the stud experts are generally playing higher.
I have been wondering - which portion of a holdem hand (pre flop, flop, post flop) has the biggest impact on a whether the player will win or lose money, and if a player could play only one of these periods expertly which would have the greatest influence on his profits?
fourth st.
I have played tournament poker in the past but never no-limit.
I am slated to play in a small buy-in no-limit holdem tournament soon (no re-buys) and would appreciate any advice or tips on how to alter my strategy vs. regular fixed limit games.
Thanks, Dave Lazar
In general, I advise reading the no-Limit section in Super/System and Tom McEvoy's latest book on tournament strategy. I've not read the book, but I have read some good reviews of a recent book by Bob Ciaffone on big-bet poker strategy. The authors here may also have some excellent books that discuss some of the issues involved.
Some General Thoughts:
No-limit tournament strategy doesn't differ as much from a no-limit (or pot-limit) cash game as does a limit tournament vis-a-vis a limit cash game.
Throughout the tournament, the most important factor will be your position rather than the hand you are holding.
On the flop, know ALL of your outs exactly.
Unlike limit games, courage will be a valuable commodity, especially short-handed.
You can and should hold back early in a NL tournament because it is much easier to double-through just one player -- but you are also always in jeopardy of being eliminated. A number of players will be playing much faster eary on and you should try to maneuver yourself into a heads-up position against one of these with a premium hand.
If you get to the final table, follow McEvoy's advice on how to play small, medium and large stacks. In particular if you find yourself with a large stack, play only premium hands and premium position. Try to force your opponent to jeopardize his stack without jeopardizing yours.
If you get in a position with a large stack, pound the smaller stacks unmercifully, but be cautious of turning a medium stack into a contender.
If you get in a position where it is medium stack versus medium stack, don't needlessly cripple your stack with a middling hand.
If you get deperately short-stacked, look for big cards to get it all in with -- and try to get it in with a raise. Note that if you are holding K-Q, although you are beat versus an opponent holding a bare Ace, you at least have more opportunity to improve your hand. On the other hand, K-small versus A-small is a much bigger underdog.
As I've ranted about here in the past, K-x suited (where x is 2 through 9) is a piece of trash unless you can get in cheaply. DO NOT jeopardize yourself pre-flop with this hand and do not go all-in short-stacked with this hand if it is at all possible.
Be wary of stealing from the small blind; a good opponent will look you up with much less than you might think. Conversely, short-handed, I would steal with any Ace, King, or connected hand (you may in fact not be stealing).
Watch for opportunities where your implied odds may be enormous; small suited connectors can even stand a small raise in late position if your opponent has a large stack.
Which brings me to my final piece of advice: DON'T SLOWPLAY ACES OR KINGS PRE-FLOP!
If you find yourself in a position of being blinded out, go all-in the hand or two before your blind to get the additional bets from the blinds in the pot if you win.
Early in the tournament, I may try to slowplay Aces or Kings. My thinking is this: you may not get big pairs very often, try to get more out of the hand than the blinds. If you can win a big pot early, you will be safer and can bully the table around a little bit. Plus, you will be able to limp in with JTs later and the players will think twice about raising you.
I slow played aces from an early position in a pot limit satelite at the 4 Queens and ended up with 30% of the chips at the table and won the satelite.
I am not sure that slow-playing a big pair is wise, especially in a tournament. A pair of aces is not very likely to improve, so I get the feeling that you should make the other guy pay up BEFORE he has outdrawn you.
A similar concept is found in backgammon match-play, where you can find positions which you might both double AND drop depending on the match score.Your aim is to win the match. The key concept in a poker tournament to remember is that you want to win the tournament, not the most money on the hand. After all you can't spend tournament dollars!
If you slow play before the flop in a no limit tournamnet, you run the risk of putting your chips out there when you are taking the worst of it after the flop. Hold em is a game where the difference between starting hands is small, and you have very little idea of what might happen after the flop. You have a big overlay before the flop with a big pair, so intimidate your opponents with your good hands. If they notice that you don't raise your monsters, why would they fear your bets?
Your aim in a tournament is to stick around till they hand out the money. Slow playing runs the risk of busting out. Bad idea, in my opinion
Kieran
I agree with Kieran's post. In tournaments it is frequently more important to win pots than it is to win the maximum amount of chips. This is particularly true late in the event.
I agree, but I look at this from the other end: it is more important *not to lose* ANY pot -- especially late -- than it is to win maximum chips. Even in a limit tournament, I'm satified just to win the blinds/antes late -- that will be enough to win the tournament if you never get cracked.
Situation: weekly low-buyin, fast-paced limit HE tournament. Rebuy period is over, blinds are 200-400, limit is 400-800, and you have 1200. Big blind is 2 hands away, and you have AsQd. You raise (I have no doubt that this is the best play, but let me know if you disagree). Unfortunately, 1 player behind (PB) you calls, and you think he is a mediocre player, not good, but not completely unaware. The big blind (BB) also calls, and she is both tight and very aware. Flop is 2s 4s 6s. BB checks. You have only AQ high, but also a draw to the nut flush (and 2 overcards), but further only 1 small bet left. Do you bet the flop or not?
I thought that PB would probably check with any hand except a made flush, a set, or possibly a medium pair (66 and 88-TT). Therefore, I decided to check, as this might give me a free card, and I felt that I wasn't likely to lose anyone. Plus, my thoughts continued, if I waited until the turn or river to bet, I might then be able to get someone with a drawing hand to fold, even if they made a small pair. I felt that they might give me credit for an overpair scared of the flush or straight on the board. Plus, I could always just check it down and maybe win with highcards.
Unfortunately, PB did bet, and BB and I both called. At least I was getting a good price on my flush draw. It turned out that PB did have 88, but BB made a pair of tens on the river to win. Turns out that I had 2 shots at 12 cards to win, so I was the favorite after the flop.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Obviously you had to play the hand, regardless of position. A real timid opponent may have just called pre-flop and tried to stay alive, but I would also have raised.
But after your raise, you had one bet left, so I don't think you go wrong whether you bet or check on the flop. If you bet, you probably get called due to your stack size, so you have no semi-bluff. If you check, you get a free card and a chance to stay alive if you miss, or you get bet at and get 2-1 on your case chips. You just got unlucky (not knowing at the moment you called exactly what the other players held, you had 15 outs, -plus- you could've backdoored a straight draw; better than even-money to win versus a single buried pair).
#1: Checking is good when you are going to lose the pot to someone who is going to call now (or would call now but fold when you bet on the turn, which is unlikely); AND this player will check it down leaving you 1 bet left over for the next two hands. A chip-and-a-chair.
#2: Betting is EXCELLENT when the eventual winner of the pot will not call the bet (You gain 7 bets).
#3: Checking is better if you are going to win the pot AND both players will call on the turn but only one on the flop.
#4: Betting is better when you are going to win the pot and they will both call you now but not on the turn.
Judging from the above betting outweighs checking, since both #1 and #3 are unlikely (will they will check down the winner?) and #2 and #3 matter little. #2 is both likely and important.
Also, you are certainly going to call. Also, you will be somewhat sad that you check should the player behind you check, indicating you probably just gave him a "free" card.
Bet.
If you feel you should check this hand then you should NOT have raised before the flop, saving for the end two bets.
- Louie
Something that you might want to consider is how late in the tournament is it? Specifically I believe that early in a tournament your emphasis should be more on accumulating chips while late in a tournament your emphasis should be more on surviving. Of course many other factors come into play, but in a close decision I would be more inclined to bet early in the tournament and more inclined to check late in the tournament.
Let me follow-up to my own post here.
A concern of mine that I didn't bring out very well in my post is as follows. Sometimes in a tournament (or a ring-game as well), the cards are such that you can't get your opponent to fold now, but, unless they hit, you will be able to get them to fold later. This becomes important in a tournament when you're running low on chips, as if you only have 1 bet left, you've only got one shot, and you've got to make it count. Now, many of you will tell me, and you would be right, that if you only have 1 bet left anyway, you should be prepared to go all-in, or you shouldn't have let yourself get in that position. Others will tell me that it shouldn't matter, because you can't get someone to fold for just 1 more bet when its your last chips and they can eliminate you by winning. You're both right. However, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't take the best possible shot with that 1 bet.
Here are some examples. In an Omaha hi/lo tournament, I am down to 5 small bets. The game is tight, with most hands played heads-up, and about 30% of the pots being won by the preflop raiser (with no flop, as everyone folds). I am dealt A234 with the A suited. I raise, and get 1 caller, who started the hand with 6 small bets. Flop is 45T, with 2 of my suit. I bet and he calls (3 of my bets in the pot). Turn is a Q, not making my flush, and I bet all-in, because I sense his desperation and weakness. He calls, and I can tell he doesn't like it. River is a 9, no flush, and he beats me holding A25K (pair of 5s). He says, and I know he's telling the truth, that he would have folded on the river if I had checked the turn and bet the river. Thus, my aggressive play, while correct if I had plenty of chips, backfired.
Second example. No-limit HE tournament. I hold QQ on the button, blinds are 100-200, and I have about 2K in chips. Player with about 2600 in chips makes it 600 to go from early position, and I know that he has QQ, JJ, AK, AQs, and possibly TT or AJs. If he held AA or KK, I am sure that he would have just called, looking for an opportunity to reraise preflop. I also know that he is too tight to play anything less than AJs in early position. Thus, I know that I am either a big favorite, or about even (if AK). I move all-in, and he calls, as I knew he would. Flop is all garbage, and the turn is a K, making his AK good. I know this player, and I know that if I had smooth-called preflop, and then bet my 1400 stack post-flop, he would have folded his bare overcards (no flush draw on the flop). While this play would obviously decrease my chances of winning those extra 1400 in chips, it would greatly increase my chances of winning the hand, and would leave me room to get away with less of a loser when the flop includes a K or A.
Anyway, I just wonder how much thought I should put into this concept of not betting aggressively now (when you think you can't get someone to fold their draw), in favor of betting aggressively later (after their draw has busted, or at least has fewer cards to draw to). While this strategy sucks in a ring-game (you're giving free draws), it certainly must be better (sometimes) in a tournament.
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I've seen similar results from the NL play you describe and I believe you have a valid point. I view this delayed move-in bet as giving the opponent "an opportunity" to surrender.
On the other hand, if you move all-in pre-flop, you are in a situation where you *force* your opponent to put his entire stack out in the middle where the result is a coin-flip (i.e., A-K vs. Q-Q), and you give him no way to save face, re-evaluate his position, or even lose courage. You WANT to give your opponents as many opportunities to make a mistake as possible -- particularly if that mistake saves you from being eliminated.
On the flip side, I believe that A-K should be played the same way, because if you force an opponent with a middling pair to call an all-in bet pre-flop, he will most likely do it. Thus in many situations, it is much better to give him an opportunity to back down when overcards hit, even if they don't hit you.
Your discussion of this point reminds me of why I was not impressed with the players in the last NL tournament I played at The Orleans. There seemed to be no subtlety to many of the player's game: their big play was to move all-in pre-flop on nearly ever hand. What I like about a NL hold-em tournament is that their *is* so much more flexibility and room for creativity in the game.
I manage a bowling center with a cardroom. I often play to fill in the game when it's shorthanded. Some of the players get mad when I check raise or slow-play a big hand. Unfortunately, I play tight and need to check raise to protect my hand. I'd like to play and make money in the game (which I use for extras and tournaments) and not make anyone mad. What should I do?
In my small experience in public card rooms. I've found that being a friendly person kept people happy to lose to me. Tell good stories to people not in a hand. Become buddies with the guys sitting next to you, (this really helped me when I thought the player might have been better than I was). Smile sometimes! Remember, A happy opponent gambles more. Don't be a Rock. Don't try to punish a Steamer too much.
Then you can play your best game, take all the money, and have everyone happy to pay you off.
Zardoz
I agree that you should be a nice guy. Unfortunately I can only do this when I am winning. Other times I am a rock. Chatting to other players is an excellent way of gaining information about them.
I use two table images. One is tight, superaggressive, and cold. I don't say a word and I stare at my opponents. I do this against weak players when they are getting confused/tired, to intimidate them if it will work. I do this especially when they become maniacal. They will return to the loose-passive state shortly.
The other is the 'really nice guy' image, quite the opposite. When I am comfortably in control of their raising, then I am the nice guy, and they don't mind losing their money one bit. It's rather Machiavellian. The people must be ruled through fear. But when they are under control then you can pretend to rule them through love.
I like to play low limits, because the medium-limit game is usually made up of World Series regulars waiting for the high stakes game. On the low limit tables, you need to entertain the other players. With some bad players, it's up to you whether they lose their entire stack. Be nice. It's good for you anyway.
Richard.
When you are running the joint, there is sometimes resentment, irrational or not, when you take a seat in the game and proceed to win. This is always going to be a problem with some of your customers. Ask yourself if the chronic complainers would be upset if they were check-raised by someone else. I recommend that you play your hands as straight-forwardly as possible to avoid giving the other players nasty surprises, they are not going to like check-raising and slow-playing and bluffing from the house man! Unfortunately this will result in far less then optimal play on your part, but you will have to balance your performance in the game against the possibility of it breaking up if it gets too short-handed. It is best for the game if you fill the seat as unobtrusively as possible.
I was wondering if anyone has a good strategy for playing medium pocket pairs on the flop after two overcards have hit. In early position I bet out and fold if I am raised. This happened to me today I had raised before the flopn with poket nines and the flop was A 10 rag with two hearts. I bet and was raised by a player who loves to semi-bluff. Since there was only 10 SB's (including the raise) in the pot I decided to fold. Did I play this hand wrong. Maybe I should have check-raised? BTW, the game was 6-12. In a higher game I might have re-raised.
Mr. Bungle,
There are 10 small bets plus 5 more he will bet at you. You will put in 5 bets to call him down. It is a simple 3 to 1 decision to make. If you think you will win 1 out of four times play on with him. You may need to rethink your strategy of betting and folding on the flop. Even the worst players catch on to the idea that they can raise you and win the pot. Good Luck.
In addition to Mr. Zee's reply (consider the 3-1 call down) there are many people who will take one shot at you. Against these players call the raise, prepared to check and fold on the turn. It is also generally good since it costs the opponent twice as much to bluff which WILL discourage many opponents.
This play works when you generally just call raises, planning to raise on the turn.
Your early raise with 99 is good, IMO, only if you have good control over the opponents, such as you will only get a play from a player with Aces if you bet when an Ace flops. Appearantly this is not the case for the game you described. 99 is a relatively weak hand with an uncertain future in early position. Generally play it conservatively. The chances of you winning a show down if called when there are two overcards is small.
- Louie
Suppose, after much observation, you have concluded that a particular solid player you play against often always just calls with AA and KK in early position if first in. (And otherwise seems to raise with standard raising hands)
How would you adjust your reraise/cold-call/fold strategy so as to take advantage of this knowledge when he raises early first in?
JP,
Now you can play most any hands against him if just headsup. You can run him off the pot on all bad flops and call him down if he is a bluffer when the flops come small. Let him bet the flop and raise him out on some hands when in danger or reraise before the flop and out play him later on. The times he does call you will know not to play on unless you have him. Soon you will be his worst nightmare and his play will fall apart. Play this strategy as aggressive as you have the experience and nerve to follow through with it. You will lose many pots but will show a profit to your plays. This is our long run objective. Good Luck.
In Holdem for Advanced Players, it says that in typical game you should play Grp 1-4 in early position and Grp 1-5 in middle position. Should you always/usually play Group 5 hands in the middle positions when you believe that the early position limpers (say one or two people) are also playing by these standards?
In other words, assume (for this discussion) that you *KNOW* that when your opponents limp in early position they definitely have a Grp 1-4 hand...why should you play a Grp 5 hand? Is it OK because of your position over them---it is justified for to "see the flop"?
Remember, you are in middle position and you have 3 or 4 people to act behind you up to the button. You might not have the "button" for all betting rounds and you might up raised pre-flop behind you. And you have to deal with the fact that the early limpers *have* a Grp 1-4 hand (i.e. superior to your Group 5 hand that you have in middle position).
I am confused about this matter because in "Sklansky, the Video" he saids you should raise in middle position first in with QJo (I Agree) but should FOLD if raised in front (I Agree) or even if CALLED in front from early position limpersyou should fold the QJo in middle (I Don't Know...sounds reasonable). Since QJo is a Grp 5 hand, I am confused about the Advanced Holdem book saying in typical game play Grp 1-5 when there are early limpers (who should have Grp 1-4). Thank you for your help in this confusion....
Group 5 hands should be played in midddle position only if the early limpers are looser or weaker than the typical good player.
Anyone concerned enough to ask this question has little need for the theoretically correct answer
In my own play, I almost always throw away hands like king-jack offsuit, queen-jack offsuit, queen-ten offsuit, etc. if the first person in, in an unraised pot, is an excellent player, a very tight player, or someone who routinely limps with big hands such as aces or kings. Even though the pot is not raised, you can still be easily trapped with a second best hand once the flop comes.
Should I start chopping the blinds?
I don't chop in hold-em games. (This is one of the reasons I like to play stud-no chopping and you can come and go without having to wait for your blind.) I believe I have a very good reason for doing this. But, I am starting to have second thoughts. I'm not a mathematician so I need some help quantifying my ideas.
I've never talked about this but the reason I don't chop is because I think that I have a very definite edge over my opponents in heads up "blinds" situations. Most of my opponents, in my opinion, either over defend, or under defend their blinds. I also feel that I am a better than average short-handed player. Often times I can win quite a few bets from someone who got to aggressive, or "took off" one too many cards. Against experts I would just as soon chop (except against overly aggressive experts) but I wish to remain consistent and either always play or always chop. So I always play. (Besides, most experts' play, for what I believe are the same types of reasons.)
Here's my dilemma. Many of the games I play in have a $3 rake. If I am playing 10-20 heads up in the blinds, as soon as the small blind calls they swipe $2.00 out of the pot. $1 for the rake and $1 for the jackpot. (In 10-20 they take $1 on 20-40-60, for 20-40, it is--$1 on 40-80 and 120. No jackpot drop on 20-40 and higher.) Some casinos have the "no flop no jackpot drop" rule. This means they are taking $4.00 max. a pot! (Some casinos take the $1 jackpot even if there is no flop!) How can I quantify my skill level against the rake and the quality of my opponents to determine weather or not I should chop. Is there a mathematically correct procedure for determining weather this is viable? What do you do and more importantly why do you do it?
The reason I have started thinking about this is because of a 6-12 game I recently tried. A game I rarely play. This game was so good and easy to beat (and the risk was so much lower) that I have been passing up the bigger games on occasion to feast on the easy pickings. Problem is that the rake is $1 on 20-30-40, plus the $1 jackpot if you see the flop. (Same rake for 4-8 and 10-20 in this casino. 3-6 is 50¢ on 10, $1 on 20 and 30.) If I raise before the flop in this game and get called on the flop, and then, say, my opponent folds, they have raked off $3. Instead of $18 profit, I have only $15. 17% of my profit is gone. (And I am purposely neglecting tokes.) Is this worth it? Does it make trying to steal the blinds less attractive? What should I do in this game? (What if you play 3-6 or 4-8?)
Am I correct in thinking I have an advantage here? (Not chopping) Or am I incorrect, because the rake (and jackpot drop) negates my edge. Should I be chopping in some games and not in others? Should I chop against experts and not against weak players? What about jackpot games? I would like to remain consistent. Would it be considered unethical to be inconsistent?
Actually, I like to play the blinds. Maybe this is something that can't be quantified and it just ends up being a "personal" thing. Perhaps the idea of the rake negating my edge is insignificant and I shouldn't even worry about it. (My gut feeling is that I should chop in the little games and not in the big ones, but where do I draw the line.) That being said, if I am wrong I would like to know about it, and why. Any thoughts?
Being a stud player first and foremost, I hate the idea of chopping. Another reason I hate the idea is because you have to play the blinds in a tournament. Furthermore, if you play well short-handed, you are probably giving up part of your "win" by chopping. But playing in "jackpot" games is also giving up part of your win.
You may find the following thread in the archives helpful.
To chop or not to chop Nevadalary -- August 16, 1997 at 20:09:51
There are some good points regarding chopping in this thread that I think would address at least some of your questions.
David Sklansky recommends not just reading TOP but studying it. I have been doing exactly that and believe I have discovered a serious error in the book. The premise of Chapter 6, "Effective Odds" is that with more than one card to come pot odds must be adjusted to account for bets that must be called BEFORE you make your hand. Bets gained after you make your hand fall into the category implied odds. Consider the following example which is similar to examples presented in TOP. The game is 3/6 Hold'Em and you have flopped a four-flush and you have to call a $3 bet with $10 in the pot (including the $3 bet). Assume that you are assured a win if you make the flush and that your opponent will fold when you do. Assume your opponent will bet the turn. Finally, assume, for the sake of simplified math, that the odds of receiving a flush card are 5 to 1 on each round. Then the chances of receiving one or more flush card on the turn and river are 9/25 (9/25 = 1 - (4/5)x(4/5)) or odds of 16 to 9. According to Sklansky's logic a call on both the turn and the river is a break even proposition because the ratio of the amount you can win ($16 = $10 in the pot + $6 bet on the turn) to the amount you must call ($9 = $3 on the flop + $6 on the turn) is exactly the same as the odds of making the hand. Although it is true that you will break even under the given conditions there are two problems with the logic. First, the call on the turn loses money. When you call on the turn you will be getting oodds of 19 to 6 or 3.17 to 1 which is less than the 5 to 1 required to break even. ($19 = $10 in the pot + $3 called by you + $6 bet by opponent on turn) If the call on the turn loses money than the call on the flop makes money which brings up the second problem. The reason the call on the flop makes money is because the opponent still bets when the flush card comes on the turn. That is you are receiving implied odds. However this violates the assumption of zero implied odds. If the opponent folds when the flush card comes on the turn than this call loses money also. The bottom line is, if you cannot count on any implied odds, then it is only correct to call on the flop if your immediate odds are greater than 5 to 1.
Paul
The term "effective odds" simply compares the total rewards to the total cost. Sometimes part of that total reward can be put into the category of "implied odds." In your example it would be wrong to call on the flop if you could not count on at least one more big bet if you made your hand on fourth st. So you could look at the flop bet as a pure implied odds problem. It is also true that in this example it might be right to call on the flop but not on the turn. However the whole concept of effective odds was something I used to show that there are times when you should fold when it might appear otherwise. But it is always true that if an effective odds analysis shows that you would make a profit by going to the river (including an expectation of future bets that you might want to call implied odds) than a call on an early round must also be profitable even in those rare cases when you don't actually play to the end.
It is important to understand that sometimes you need to analyze a hand using effective odds rather than on a street by street basis. to give a contrived exmple: There is a total of $29 in the pot after your opponent has bet $10 on the flop. You have a 20% chance of making your hand on each street. Your total chances are thus about 36%. The bet on fourth st. is also $10. Discounting bets on the river, your effective odds are 39-20 which means you should at least call on the flop (clearly you call on 4th st. getting 49-10). However if you looked only at the flop bet you would be looking at 39 to 10 odds including the fourth st bet, which isn't good enough to call.. Thus you needed effectife odds analysis to lead you to the right play.
David Sklansky states:
“But it is always true that if an effective odds analysis shows that you would make a profit by going to the river (including an expectation of future bets that you might want to call implied odds) then a call on an early round must also be profitable even in those rare cases when you don't actually play to the end.”
The wording on this confused me, so I have a few comments which I hope will make it clearer in case anyone else was similarly confused.
David’s statement is correct if you interpret effective odds analysis as comparing Total Reward with Total Cost, but it is important to realize that the specific method he used to determine effective odds in his follow-up example would need to be modified if you needed to analyze situations where the amount you win or lose might not always be the same.
David gives an example in his follow-up post where an effective odds analysis indicates that you are getting 39-20 effective odds and with a 36% chance you should call. Your reward when you win is always 39 and your cost when you lose is always 20. However this assumes that your opponent will pay you off if the flush card comes on 4th street. But if he won’t, this type of simple effective odds analysis doesn’t apply, because you have to consider a third case where you may only win 29. If your opponent won’t call a bet when a flush card hits on 4th, then the EV of a call on the flop becomes negative. (-.76).
Case 1: (64%) No flush on 4th, Opp bets, No flush on 5th........................................... -20
Case 2: (16%) No flush on 4th, Opp bets, Flush on 5th........................................... +39
Case 3: (20%) Flush on 4th.................................. +29
Overall EV = -12.80 + 6.24 + 5.80 = -.76
Its also confusing to say as Paul did that without an expectation of future bets your immediate odds must be at least [ 4 to 1] on the flop to make a call correct. While true as far as it goes, there are situations where future bets are not only an expectation, but a virtual certainty. (Without future bets, it would be even better for you.).
For instance, if we change David’s example so that there is $34 in the pot on the flop instead of $29, you are only getting 3.4 to 1 immediate odds but you must call even if your opponent will not call if a flush card hits on 4th. If there is no flush card on 4th, your opponent MUST bet giving you 54 to 10 odds ( if he doesn’t bet you do even better), so on average you are getting better pot odds than the chance against making your hand. (EV = +1.04)
As David suggested, the concept of effective odds is most useful in demonstrating those times when you should fold when it might appear otherwise. In demonstrating those times you should call when it might appear that you should fold, effective odds may be less helpful because you may have to include some allowance for future bets.
Here's an explanation with (almost) no math.
In the situations described in this thread, you can call the flop and turn, and you will catch your flush card and win the pot often enough that these plays (the combination of the 2 calls) yield a positive EV taking everything into account. Let's pretend that your average profit for this play is $1.50.
It is possible that your EV for the call on the flop is greater than $1.50 (let's say $1.90), and that the EV for the call on the turn is negative (let's say, -$0.40, with the two plays adding up to our total profit for both plays of $1.50). In this type of situation, you only call the flop bet, and fold if you don't make your flush on the turn card.
This kind of situation is actually quite common. Whenever there is a small pot preflop, and you are bet into on the flop, there may not be the necessary immediate pot odds to justify calling with your draw. However, if you hit your draw on the turn, then every bet you get out of your opponents, from that point on, is pure profit. Taking these implied odds into account, you often should call. On the other hand, if you miss on the turn, and your opponent bets again, the size of his bet just doubled, and now your immediate pot odds are even worse than last time, and the amount of potential future profit has gone down (because there's only 1 round of betting left after you make your draw).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Thanks all for the responses.
Paul
Wrong calculation? If the odds of receiving a flush card are 5 to 1 on each round. Then the chances of receiving one or more flush card on the turn and river are 11/36 (11/36 =1 - (5/6)x(5/6)) or odds of 25 to 11. Therefor the effective pot odds of 16 to 9 are not high enough for a call.
Peter
I am looking for suggestions on how to improve my mental resolve in the heat of the poker battle. Are there any good texts devoted to this mercurial subject?.
There are lots of good physical exercises to strenghten muscle power and conditioning, are there any that strengthen the mind?
I have read a lot on this subject but it has been of limited use. I am looking for something more definitive. Anything that would help me think clearly and make the right decisions under the duress of bad beats, ultra-loose zany games etc. would be most helpful.
I already know things like "treat every hand as a seperate entity" and "the ability to play well while sustaining heavy losses is a crucial skill" but how does one effectively put this into practice? Is this a skill that can be developed?
Thanks for any suggestions.
Just a suggestion as I don't know if you have read this book or not but David Sklansky's recent book:
Fighting Fuzzy Thinking in Poker, Gaming, and Life
has some good material pertaining to this subject in my opinion.
Tom Haley
I am currently working on the same thing. For improving your intuition try Nancy Rosanoff's "Intuition Workout". Mike Caro has a "positive poker" cassette tape to strengthen your subconscience. Richard Allen 2nd foolproof package that models his seminar has some psychological tools.
I am trying these and I think they are helping but I can't honestly be sure at this point. Sometimes I'll get an intuitive flash but not act on it.
I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't trying to say that David Sklansky's recent book; Fighting Fuzzy Thinking in Poker, Gaming, and Life; was the only source for the material. I was just saying that it was a good source. I am not familiar with that many books or learing tools.
I would like to address "bad beats." I honestly believe that experience is the key. As an example, although not exactly a bad beat, when you get a pair of Aces in the pocket cracked enough times it gets to the point where it isn't a big deal because it has happened so often. When someone draws out on me when a real long shot comes in I try to focus on what the odds were. I try to think of myself as someone who is fading a bet with the odds in my favor and realize that if I fade enough of them I will win eventually. I look at this as the same thing as the casino fading hard way bets on the craps table. Sometimes the craps player gets lucky and wins a lot of money but most of the time they don't. I try and remind myself that a being big favorite does not mean that the result is a certainty. A horse that pays 6-1 for a win ticket isn't that rare. Likewise somebody getting even money when the odds are 6-1 against in a hand isn't that rare. If it was a certainty, then we wouldn't be able to make money from the losing players because they wouldn't be around very long.
Mental agility in the heat of battle is a difficult skill to obtain. One of the things that David Sklansky recommends that I try to do is what he calls pre-plan fancy options. There is a good discussion of this in his book that I mentioned. I try to mentally prepare myself before each session for the difficult and hard to read situations that I anticipate in a poker game. I also try to have an idea of the type of game I want to play in and the type of game I want to avoid. Also when the inevitable situation occurs that I did not plan for, I will mentally note the hand after the play and go over the play of the hand away from the table after the session is over. Again, I believe that experience is a good teacher here.
I always review my session away from the table. I try and analyze which hands I played well and which hands I played not so well. I try and determine if there was a way I could have played my hands better and resolve to do it.
One last thought on an unexpectedly long post. Most players (I have this flaw as well and have worked hard to overcome it) play much better when they are winning than when they are losing. Its a trite saying so forgive me for using it but it's really all one big poker game. Have a bank roll that is sufficient for the level you are playing at. These are just some thoughts I had on the subject.
Hmmm. I have my doubts that the type of psychological stability you seek can be "bought" by reading books or hearing good advice.
Most poker players can recite and perhaps even internalize the old "one long session" saw, *when they're away from the table.* How you behave in the heat of battle -- under emotional duress -- often has very little to do with what you understand intellectually. That is to say, your psychological train rides a completely different track at the table than it does when you're in your conjectural pose.
IMHO, affecting the change you are talking about requires conditioning your habit-response reflex, which must happen at the table. When Joe Fish turns over his 9-4 which made the winning gutshot straight on the river, if you're immediate reaction is adrenalin-charged rage, it doesn't matter what you understand intellectually. Your physiology has already screwed you; you're at risk of steaming off some cash. You must change your reflexive reactions to maintain uniformity of attitude at the felt.
That said, I do think that it's possible to expedite the conditioning process. After your habitual reaction to a bad beat, if you can look at it critically and evaluate what your reaction should have been, you're better prepared to avoid the rage habit-response next time.
That may not be very clear, but I think it describes what happened to me. Even if I tilted when I got snapped off, I'd start thinking about how I *should have* reacted. The tilt period became shorter and shorter, until my immediate reaction to snap-offs became a shrug.
Another perspective that I found helped me play consistently was never getting into the frame of mind that I would have to settle for a loss or a break-even for a session. Realizing that "Damn, I'm going to go home a loser tonight" virtually gaurantees that your play style will change.
The way I learned to keep the "I will win" outlook was the result of a period of about a month, during which I played as long a session as it took to leave a winner. I was lucky enough to go home winners 15 consecutive times, and attribute this partly to the attitude I described above. For each of those sessions, I was "sure" I was going to regain my losses, and my play for the entire session said so. Since then, there have been times when I did go home losers, but by then I'd learned to preserve the winning frame of mind while at the table. BTW, this is the Mike Caro Winning Aura principle (say to yourself, "A powerful winning aura surrounds me", over and over again.); I try to make my attitude and play continually reflect that I expect to leave a winner. Notice, however, that this was learned at the table. I don't see how I could've ever internalized this attribute away from the felt.
- Bruce
As an aside, it's interesting to note that in spite of my cool headed play at 20-40 in a California cardroom, my 1-2 home game players (the Palo Alto Tiltboys) are consistenly and effortlessly able to send me off the deep end. ;-) But that's another story: see link (www.pickem.com/tiltboys)
WOW! Advice from one of the Tilt Boys! Is this an honor, a curse or some kind of omen from the poker gods?
In all honesty, of all the responses, I have found yours to be the most useful and I do apppreciate your words of wisdom.
Incidentally, while sifting thru some chaff on the internet one day I came across your web page and derived some real enjoyment from your your perverse humor. I think I would fit in well with your brand of lunacy. If you or any of your cronies are ever looking for a poker report from the "Right Coast", send me email at dlazar@worldnet.att.net
Dave
Bruce Hayek stated:
"The way I learned to keep the "I will win" outlook was the result of a period of about a month, during which I played as long a session as it took to leave a winner." "I try to make my attitude and play continually reflect that I expect to leave a winner."
What difference does it make weather or not you go home winner? The object of the game is to make money. If you can't quit a loser, you can't play. If you "always" expect to go home a winner, when you do lose the loss will be that much harder to take. After all I "never lose," I always go home a winner. Instead, why not just try to play well, your very best, at all times, and then just let the chips fall where they may.
Kenny,
Your two excerpts from my post, out of context, seem to convey that I think it matters whether I leave a winner. If you reread the entire paragraph, you'll see that I mention that, after the good month, "even if I left a loser, having had the winning sessions was helpful to be able to keep a positive outlook." (approximately) The point of that paragraph was that my experience at the table is what helped me to internalize a perspective that I already understood intellectually.
The context was *maintaining level-headedness, consistently, during your play sessions.*
My whole point, which apparantly zipped well over your right shoulder, was that obvious rational statements such as your "why not just try to play well, your very best, at all times" don't do you any good when you've suffered a heavy emotional hit at the table. Rational thought goes out the window. That's what tilt is all about, and I dare say that I have the credentials to speak about tilting ;-)
Your further mention that if I expect to always win, losses are that much harder to take. I didn't say I always expect to win, I said that *my attitude* was that of expecting to win. This increases the confidence and assurance of each decision I make, which is a far, far better outlook than frightened, timid, or worried. (Think about those players at the table who always wince when raised, and always look like they expect to be beat -- under enough emotional duress, anybody can take on those attributes.)
If you are able to "always play your best and let the chips fall where they may", then congratulations. If you never waver in this outlook, then my post wasn't relevant to you. If that's the case, I dare say you gained that perspective after putting in your time at the table, taking the emotional hits, and working through them. Which of course was the point of my little essay.
- Bruce
p.s. -- I should mention that first-hand lessons about tilting are available in Palo Alto, CA every wednesday night, by invitation, for those who want to "put in their time" on the tilter-coaster. To obtain your invitation, send email to tiltboys@cs.stanford.edu
I believe that the best way to stay level handed at a poker table is to become extremely knowledgeable as to how to play poker very well. Of course this takes some time. But I know from my own personal experience that when you get to the point of never seeing anything happen that isn't suppose to happen, it's hard for anything to bother you.
I believe that when many players lose a pot that they were a favorite in they react something like "How can that happen to me?" and then begin to steam. If they understood that the upsetting event is suppose to happen, let's say 15 percent of the time, and if they then review their history and see that, in the long run that is exactly what is happening, they won't get upset.
Many players feel that they should never lose a hand. For example, when playing stud, I am constantly in games with players complaining about how their aces keep getting beat. If they would only understand that this hand is suppose to get beat fairly often, they would play better.
An interesting aside, which is probably worth a discussion all by itself, is that when certain players are steaming, they can make the game very good. This idea becomes important at the higher limits where most everyone knows how to play. Put another way, if you are losing in the game, the steamers may be winning and will now play their best. If you are winning, they might be steaming and the game will be very good.
Thank you for this comment, which appears from my own limited experience to be true. What you are basically saying is that knowledge plus experience enables you to look at things reasonably. After all what is steaming other than allowing your emotions to get the better of you so that you start to play irrationally?
However, when you have less than complete knowledge or limited experience it is helpful to realize that one must always attempt to play one's best and that it NEVER pays to steam. It is often difficult to believe this though in the heat of play.
One difficulty I find is to remain aggressive when losing or after I've taken a few bad beats. Any suggestions?
I'm confused. If you are steaming why are you still playing in the game? Therefore, it is illogical to steam.
The problem as Mason points out is that most players especially "some pros" think that they are suppossed to win every hand that they play. So, when they lose a pot, expecially a "big" pot that they desperately want to win, "their whole world comes apart."
In all of the years I have been playing poker I have never "once" seen Doyle Brunson, Chip Reese, or Ray Zee get upset about losing a pot. I wonder why?
David Sklansky:
I am unclear about something I read many years ago and was reminded of in your latest posts. ("Theory of poker" error?) On page 51 of your book "Sklansky on poker," you give an example of expert hand reading. Whereby you can correctly identify a players cards by his play. In your example, the flop is A-Q-6, different suits. The button bets--gets a call--hero calls. (After having raised before the flop and checking the flop in 7th position-5 players plus the blinds.) The pot contains $270 before he calls on the flop. "Effectively" it is going to cost him $60, (calling twice) to win the pot. (Assuming no raises) Unless my math is wrong, it is 5.07 to one against making a gut straight with two cards to come. Therefore, you need about $304 in the pot for a break-even play. This seems more than likely. Here is where I am confused. In your example, you say it is correct to call on the flop because he is getting 14.5 to one on a 10.75 to one shot. (I get 13.5 to one, but who cares) Fine, no problem so far. On the turn, it costs him $40 to win $330 after the button bets. 8.25 to one on a 10.5 to one shot. Not enough you say to call for a gut shot straight draw! (In the example hand a nine comes giving him an open ender making a call worth it, therefore you are able to put him on J-10) Now if you ignore the fact that the 9 makes him an open ender and you analyze it from the perspective of calling twice, once the flop comes down, the price is $60 to win $310. (Assuming at least one more bet or call plus any other implied odds) 5.16 to one, (on a 5.07 to one shot) good enough for a break-even call. If you analyze it one street at a time as you do in the example, it isn't worth going for a gut shot draw after the turn. One analysis is right, the other is wrong. Which is correct? I have always analyzed these problems from the perspective of getting two draws. (Assuming of course I can correctly factor in any raises or reraises that might occur.) Is this wrong? I've always wanted to ask you about this and here is my chance. Care to show me the errors of my ways?
If an effective odds analysis says it is wrong to fold than it is always going to be wrong. The converse however is occasionally not true. Thus it is sometimes right to call for one round only even if the effective odds aren't high enough to give you a "through ticket " to the river. This situation is most likely to occur in games with highly escalating bets.
What adjustments would you make if you are playing in a 10-20 Texas hold'em game in which live straddling is allowed and you are seated immediately to the left of the live straddler. This is assuming a typical crowd in a 10-20 game(2-4 solid players, 1-3 rocks, 1-3 loose cannons). Thanks!!!
Play tighter. Change seats.
Yes play tighter when an habitual straddler is just to your right.
But change seats? Since you are playing only premium hands in early position isn't this exactly when you want some bone head raising blind right in front of you?
Should you move to "late" position when the straddler is in position (3 seats to his right) you will often not get to play those one bet call hands that are profitible on the button, since it will always cost two.
Yes, change seats if one to his right, since you will never get to see a free flop in the blind.
What did I miss?
- Louie
Once a round the game is almost twice as big. You would like to be in late or last position during that hand. This simple fact almost certainly overrides all other considerations.
When there is a live straddle to your right your best option is to JACK-HIM-UP.Blow his brains out of the pot.
JACKING-HIM-UP, as you say, works but only if you have a hand that merits this action. In otherwords, play tight and wait to punish him when you finally have a hand.
My friends and I play poker every Tuesday night, and I am looking to employ a new tactic tonight. Our favorite game is five card draw, Jacks or better to open, and trips to win. Depending on what is dealt of course, everyone generally aims at trips. My question, to all the experts out there is, if I am dealt a pair of sevens and some combination of three spades, hearts, diamonds or clubs....do I not have better odds at landing a flush than I do by holding my pair of sevens. That is, in a game where I need trips to win(or any game of five card draw) isn't it statistically more likely to get two spades in two cards than it is to get a seven with three cards?
As long as I am on the subject, wouldn't the same hold true for straights? If I am dealt, say, a pair of threes and a 7,8,and 9...aren't my odds greater of successfully getting the straight than I am of landing my trips? What do the experts say?
As for those of you reading this message, how do you usually play? Is there any site on the internet that addresses questions like this? It just seems to me that if everyone else is shooting for trips, my winnings will increase greatly if I shoot for flushes and/or straights nearly everytime! Even if I am dealt a pair of threes and a 7,8, and 10...it still seems like I have better odds at getting my straight(by dropping the threes), than I do at drawing another three. And the odds of getting a flush by holding three of the same suit seem even greater than those for a straight!!
Are there any number crunchers out there that can help me out or at least offer an opinion? Thanks in advance!
--Dinker
[Game is five card draw, Jacks or better to open, and trips to win. Hero questions whether he should draw to a pair and try to make trips, or break the pair and draw to a three-flush or three-straight. Examples include 7789x and 3378T.]
My advice is Don't play these hands at all! If you are dealt a small pair and three cards to a straight or flush, you should fold. If you play this game as I have seen it played, the rule is that if you fold any hand you are dealt out next time (if no one wins the pot that time). In this game, the pot can get very large, at which point it becomes the right play to draw to something no matter what you're dealt. My advice still applies, however, to the first hand dealt. If it isn't likely to make trips or better and win immediately, FOLD. If you are still in on later hands, then draw for the trips. I don't know the numbers offhand, but I'm sure that you're more likely to make trips than the flush or straight. Plus, in this game, it's usually the first person to make trips or better that wins, not the person who makes the best hand (how often will you make trips and not win the pot?).
The best way to make money in loose home games is to play as tight as you can without the other players getting resentful (and therefore not inviting you back to the next game).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg's advice on how to play this game as well as the generic home game are right on the mark. As to your specific question, most holdem players could rattle off that the odds to flop a set with a pair are about 7.5:1, and the odds of hitting runner, runner to a flush are about 4%. Therefore, the hitting trips is a definite favorite.
However, this odds calculation is not impossible to compute and is a good exercise for aspiring poker players. One of them is an "AND" calculation; the other an "OR." After seeing how these are done, you should be able to figure out the answer to all your future odds questions yourself.
The "AND" goes "I need a suited card AND another suited card."
The odds are:
(10 of your suit remaining/47 other cards) // ya gotta get that first suiter.
TIMES
(9 more of your suit/ 46 more cards) // ya gotta get that other one, too.
EQUALS
(90 / (46*47)) = .0416 or about 4% .
The "OR" goes "I need a seven or a seven or a seven."
The odds are:
(2 left in the deck/ 47 other cards) // one way is to get that 7 on the first card
PLUS
(still 2 left / now only 46 other cards) // or maybe I can get it now
PLUS
(still 2 left / now down to 45) // last chance
EQUALS
(2/47)+(2/46)+(2/45) = .1304 or 13%
This is slightly better than the holdem-flop-a-set odds because you already have eliminated three non-sevens from the deck (your discards).
This number is not completely accurate, however. You must take into account the times you hit a 7 early and hit another 7 late, which this model credits as two successes but is in fact just one. The difference is less than 1% (.002775, I believe). Given the above examples, the exercise is left to the reader. (I hate it when they say that!) For few-outers you can usually neglect this factor, but for, say, flush draws with two to come, you need to do the eliminate-the-double-success subtraction. (That is, calculate the probability that this occurs and subtract it from .139)
To base your drawing decision solely on this statistical analysis assumes that when you make a hand, you win. In the real world, this is not the case. For example, if you are last to draw and one of your opponents stands pat, and you know he doesn't play tricks, go for the flush. This can be taken another level, however. If you know your opponents will reason thus, and you are the first to act with a set of deuces, you might want to consider standing pat to throw them off of drawing to better trips. (This needs to be weighed against the odds of going for the boat, and them not being aware, etc..) If you know your opponents might think like this and you are last to act and... well, that's poker.
Regards,
Jim Geary
jaygee@primenet.com
http://www.primenet.com/~jaygee/
Jim Geary wrote:
***** The "OR" goes "I need a seven or a seven or a seven."
The odds are: (2 left in the deck/ 47 other cards) // one way is to get that 7 on the first card PLUS (still 2 left / now only 46 other cards) // or maybe I can get it now PLUS (still 2 left / now down to 45) // last chance EQUALS (2/47)+(2/46)+(2/45) = .1304 or 13%
This is slightly better than the holdem-flop-a-set odds because you already have eliminated three non-sevens from the deck (your discards).
This number is not completely accurate, however. You must take into account the times you hit a 7 early and hit another 7 late, which this model credits as two successes but is in fact just one. The difference is less than 1% (.002775, I believe). Given the above examples, the exercise is left to the reader. (I hate it when they say that!) For few-outers you can usually neglect this factor, but for, say, flush draws with two to come, you need to do the eliminate-the-double-success subtraction. (That is, calculate the probability that this occurs and subtract it from .139) *****
Umm, there's an easier way. The correct probability of getting another 7 is found by calculating the probability of not getting it (using "AND"), and then subtracting that probability from one:
miss AND miss AND miss = (45/47)*(44/46)*(43/45) = 0.875
Then NOT missing three times is 1-0.875 = 0.125 (12.5%)
This is the probability of getting AT LEAST one more 7. The probability of improving to a "trips or better" hand also includes drawing three cards of the same denomination, which tacks on some more percentage. Assuming you did not throw away a second pair, this probability is also easily found:
6 ways to get trips of the 3 denominations you threw away 24 ways to get trips of the 9 denominations unseen
Total number of ways to get three equal cards on draw:
6*3 + 24*9 = 267
Total number of ways to get any three cards on draw:
47*46*45 = 97,290
Probability added accounting for drawing three equal cards:
267/97,290 = 0.3%
The total probability for improving a pair to trips or better is 12.76%. Throughout I assume no bug in the deck, btw.
Hmmm, maybe I've gone too far. I'll stop now.
Tom Weideman
Heh, heh. Oops. I wrote:
Total number of ways to get three equal cards on draw:
6*3 + 24*9 = 267
How "267" came out of my calculator is a mystery. It should be 234. I'll leave the rest of the arithmetic to those of you who are clearly more competent than I am. :-)
Tom Weideman
Tom's method is a good way too. The reason I offered the calculation in the format I did was that my perception of this situation is warped by the fact that I primarily encounter it during tournament Scrabble, where you may be drawing 7 to a deck of up to 93. In this case, if you can cancel out some epsilons it makes it much easier to do the calculation.
Regards,
Jim Geary
jaygee@primenet.com
http://www.primenet.com/~jaygee/
Hello,
At what point can I begin to feel confident in my average hourly rate? I have yielded an average hourly rate of $35/hr after 6 months worth of play at 10-20 hold 'em.
Do I need to put in more time before I begin to rely upon this rate as my goal? Any ideas/suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks a lot!
A win rate of $35/hr at the 10/20 limits is really quite exceptional and unless you are truly a world class player, you will not be able to maintain this number no matter how good the game is.
You mentioned six months but did not specify the number of hours this encompasses. There are varying opinions on this subject but I believe a round figure of 500 hrs. of play is a pretty fair statistical sampling. Keep in mind that if the game has a very high standard deviation (e.g. extremely loose-agressive shootout type game) you might need closer to 1000 hrs. before drawing any real conclusions. I would be interested on what other people consider a valid statistical sampling.
The following is a reliable guide for expected poker earnings:
Good player - 1/2 big bet/hr Very Good Player - 1 big pet/hr Expert Player - 1 1/2 big bet/hr Elite Player - 2 big bet/hr Elite Player vs. VERY bad players - 2+ big bets/hr
Anyone have a different opinion of this scale?
Dave
I might quibble with your last figure [Elite Player vs. VERY bad players - 2+ big bets/hr]. It is my opinion, with nothing very substantive to back it up, that any player from good on up does about the same against a table full of bad players. Bad players are typically bad because they call too much. In a game full of them, whoever has the best hand wins, and thus it is tight play that takes down the money. Since a good player can play tight as well as an elite player, and as they'll both get dealt the same cards in the long run, they'll both earn about the same in this game. Of course, if you insert a few good players in the game, then the elite player can start to use his superior skills (by knowing when to bluff, etc., against the good players).
I could easily be wrong.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You point is well taken and understood, but simply playing tight in a loose game is probably not enough to make two big bets/hr in the long haul.
Some of the skills an elite player might utilize that a good player would miss are:
1. Reading opponents cards and physical tells to know when they are bluffing.
2. Memorizing exposed cards to more accurately determine pot odds and chances of improving a hand.
3. Recognizing when opponents shift gears and adjusting one's play to compensate.
4. Utilizing psychological ploys that make opponents think you are looser or tighter than you are.
5. Being immune to tilt.
Don't underestimate the advantage an elite (world class professional) has against a loose table compared to the advantage of a good player who just plays tight.
I think that we're talking about different situations here. The game I'm thinking about is the ultra-loose home-style game where almost everyone is a calling station. In a game like this, it doesn't matter if you know someone is bluffing, because you still have to have a good enough hand to beat everyone else as well. Thus, while an expert can make more money by knowing that Jim's tell indicates a full-house or better, and thus he can fold his flush (where a good player would call or raise), in most situations you still won't win unless you have the best cards.
It appears to me that you're discussing a typical, somewhat-loose casino game, like 10-20 in California, where there's plenty of loose money, but still only 2 players in a typical showdown. In such a game there is LOTS of opportunities for an expert player to use his skills. I'm still not sure that an expert has that much more edge in the ultra-loose game.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You need to understand that as you move up in limit you can't achieve these types of very high win rates because the other players tend to get much better. For example, in GAMBLING FOR A LIVING, Sklansky and I wrote for a player who plays $75-$150 he will have the following results (per hour):
Very good player: -$50 Selective very good player: $0 Excellent player: $50 Selective excellent player: $125 World Class Player: $100 Selective World Class Player: $140
Mr. Malmuth,
I read in your book "Poker Essays" (which is a damn fine read and I thank you) the hourly expectation for various players in limit games.
What is the hourly expectation for players of various skill levels in a pot-limit game, in relation to the size of the blinds? Is there a way to nail that figure down, or is the betting range too wide?
Chris Black
I don't have any experience in these games and they don't go often enough to know the answer.
Hourly rate is a very useful figure, but nobody seemed to answer the original question, part of which was how many hours of play do you need to determine an hourly rate? Also what about the fluctuations or should I just re-read the bankroll stuff?
I must confess I have experienced much higher rates per-hour (over 500 hours of play) in a 4-8 game.
I don't consider myself a very good player, or even a good one. Am I experiencing a statistical blip? Is my sky about to darken with statistical chickens coming home to roost? Comments please.
Neil,
Only three possibilities here:
1. You have been extremely lucky and are due for an inevitable "adjustment period" where you will sustain a protracted period of heavy losses. Better shield yourself against losing your mind when this happens.
2. You have grossly underrated your caliber of play and actually belong in the rareified air of 2+ big bets/hr.
3. A combo of the two where you have actually been both lucky AND good.
Dave
I have to disagree that good, better, and best players should all do about the same against a table full of bad players, since "tight play" gets the money.
There are PLENTY of plays that can be made against the bad players that do not work against the good ones. While showing down the best hand is usually true there is PLENTY of money to be made or saved along the way in a manner that is much different than against solid players. Usually this means betting weak hands for value; such as routinely betting 2nd pair on the end.
If you wait for the nuts against typical fish you are not playing nearly enough hands.
- Louie
Dear David Sklansky,
A few years ago I got to play with you, it was some what interesting. I thought I would be playing agaist a some what tight player, but I was surprized. I wasn't playing agaist any player, you where always walking. You would play one round and then walk two or three rounds. This was for three or four hours.
I often wonder why you did this. It was a 50 and 100 holdem at a side game a the world series. Here's some of my thoughts why:
You hoped knowone would notice how tight you were playing.
You hoped the game would get loose or change some faces.
You were playing the sports book and didn't want to lose your seat.
You have some reason I haven't thought of. The bottom line was there a reason. I,ve seen this done many times and I consider this rude. I would like other people's thought's on this to.
Dave Russell
Well, look on the bright side. Players who walk constantly, cannot be paying enough attention to the game... In David's defense, often Mason and David are besieged by people who take them away from the table for short periods of time. This is more likely to happen at the World Series when players come into town who don't have many opportunities to meet with Mason and David. In my opinion, it is much more courteous to play when you have a seat locked-up.
I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion, Jessica. And it is especially more courteous to those poor souls who are on the list while that someone is walking around.
(I responded once before on this subject. My post didn't last long; now I think I know why. I don't expect yours to disappear, but it'll be interesting to see how long before mine is culled again.)
David wrote:
<(I responded once before on this subject. My post didn't Since this forum has been up, we have been accused of censorship several times. It is not happening. This is an open forum where all views are welcome, and it will stay that way.
Mason,
Sorry for the delay in responding...took a break for the holidays.
I did you and David Sklansky a huge disservice. Since I knew my post wasn't the one full of invectives, I looked again. My post was indeed right there in the archives, and so must have been in the forum all along. Please accept my apologies, and do also please keep up the valuable work.
(Now what was that other thing that goes with advancing age? $%!%@*&, I forgot.)
Posted by: David (dgg@atl.hp.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 7 January 1998, at 12:10 a.m.
Cognitive dissonance.
Average player much less likely to see a Backdoor Flush against himself
when Flop, Turn, River are all the same color.
Agree or not?
Erin,
I agree. He's very likely to be concentrating on whether the possible fourflush on the flop gets there. And when it doesn't, he could easily overlook the backdoor, having spent his cognitive energy the other way.
I'd like some input on which texts would help me round off or complete my Poker Education of Hold'em and 7 Card Stud.
Here is what I have so far. 1)The Theory of Poker, 2) Hold'em for Advanced Players, 3) Seven Card Stud for Advanced Players, 4) Winning Low Limit Hold'em by Lee Jones, 5) 7 Card Stud (The Complete Course in Winning at Medium and Lower Limits) by Roy West 6) The Body Language of Poker by Mike Caro.
I think I have picked the best books available, but I am willing to take any suggestions. Also, right now I feel very confident at Low Limit Hold'em, but lack experience at other limits and games.
Zardoz
P.S- David, Mason, and Ray: This gives you a good chance to plug your books.
These all seem like good books. Read 'em. Does anyone have any view about the pot limit and no limit books by Rueben and Ciaffone.
Also what about the tournament stuff and pot-limit hold 'em books by Tom McEvoy and T.J. Clothier
David, Mason and Ray dare I ask for you comments too?
>Does anyone have any view about the pot limit and no limit >books by Rueben and Ciaffone.
I don't know, but I've only heard good things (ordered it for Xmas myself).
>Also what about the tournament stuff and pot-limit hold 'em >books by Tom McEvoy and T.J. Clothier
I didn't like this book at all. It seems chock-full of apparently useful but actually useless comments. Things like play tight but don't let yourself get run over, and wait for good cards but don't let yourself get blinded off (neither of these are exact quotes, the book ain't in front of me). Basically, I felt that this book gave me no advice that I could apply to my game, as the method of applying the advice and exceptions just weren't spelled out. In fact, they seldom even tell you what factors to consider in analyzing a situation.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I recommend the book by Reuben and Ciaffone. I do not recommend the Cloutier-McEvoy book, or McEvoy's new tournament book.
Mason:
Why do you recommend/not recommend the three stated books? How would you rate each on a scale of 1-10? Thanks.
Kevin, Try some of Caro's little publications like 12 days to hold-em success. Caro has a knack of seeing some of the less obvious stategies, it's like it's a deeper philosophy. Also good but slightly tedious is Richard Allen's foolproof, it's like a research of the literature.
Just a note:
If you wish to find T.J. Cloutier at any given time just head out the the nearest crap table. He is a fixture there.
I am grateful for the comments. Mason, why exactly do you not recommend the books by McEvoy and Cloutier?
Neil wrote: I actually was hoping not to get into this, but I suppose since I've been in the "review" business, I need to explain why I don't recommend either book.
First, TOURNAMENT POKER by McEvoy. The book contains a huge number of pages of hype, and generally rambles on as to how he plays the different games and is filled with numerous errors. Let me give a quick example. On page 31 he advises that playing a small pair heads-up may be profitable if you have position. He say the following."If it looks as though you will be able to play your small pair against only one player, you might consider reraising an aggressive opponent to limit the field and get heads-up."
Now here's a piece of advice that I have never seen published before. The only time when this type of play is profitable is when you are against an opponent who can quickly release his hand on the flop if the board misses him. This usually means a weak-tight player, who has raised first in from a late position where his range of raising hands will be large. It also is a little helpful if your target is a small winner in the game. Notice that this is not the type of player the author describes.
I also found his tournament advice vague. He still seems to want to deny that rebuys are correct, and his two tournament chapters "Tournament 101" and Tournament 102 say very little.
On the other hand, it is not a bad "introduction to tournament poker. In fact, I would have taken the hype out, streamlined the advice, and called it INTRODUCTION TO TOURNAMENT POKER.
I actually thought CHAMPIONSHIP NO-LIMIT & POT-LIMIT HOLD'EM by T.J. Cloutier with Tom McEvoy was better.
For future work of my own, I have written some additional reviews. I had not planned to publish these for a while, but here are two books of interest.
Pot-Limit & No-Limit Poker by Stewart Reuben & Bob Ciaffone (10). Without a doubt this is the best information ever put out on these games. It contains terrific discussions of no-limit hold 'em, pot-limit hold 'em, pot-limit Omaha, as well as some other games played with a "big bet." In addition, advice on tournaments and satellite play is given. And, to help you learn the material quizzes are provided. However, it is not an easy book. Much of the material is quite complicated and a quick easy read "won't get it." But if you are interested in any of these games, and some of them do appear around the major tournaments, especially the World Series of Poker, this text is must reading.
Championship No-Limit & Pot-Limit Hold'em by T. J. Cloutier with Tom McEvoy (6). This book covers some of the same material that the Reuben, Ciaffone book discussed above does, but not at the same level of detail. Even so, Cloutier does a reasonably good job of discussing many topics. These include starting hands, play on the flop, turn and river, and reading your opponents. He also gives pretty good advice on how to play in no-limit and pot-limit tournaments.
I do however have several complaints about the book, and because of this, I do not rate it higher. First, there are too many stories about T.J. Cloutier as well as other filler material. Second, the authors need to learn that six-five suited is really a better hand than six-five offsuit, and that the "bunching factor" has virtually no effect in hold 'em. And third, I strongly disagree with the constant reminders that no-limit or pot-limit is more difficult than limit play. I believe the opposite is true. In fact, the best part of the book are the sample no limit hands at the back of the text. What is interesting is that virtually everyone of these hands would be more difficult to analyze and play correctly if it were limit play.
For me to recommend a book, I need to give it a rating of at least an 8. However, a 6 is not that bad as far as poker books go. In addition, both the McEvoy book and the Cloutier-McEvoy book are priced at $40.00, and I consider this price way too high for books of this quality.
To be very honest with all of you, if you want to get good at poker quickly, you will need to study our books. However, this is not a guarantee of success. In POKER, GAMING, & LIFE by David Sklansky there is an essay called "Are Great Players Born." It discusses among other things the role that good books play in your becoming a top player and what your chances of success are even with their aid. I suspect that it should be must reading for most of you.
Thank you for your pre-review review. I have many of the books published by twoplustwo. I know you have many articles on tournament poker but it would be useful to have a volume devoted to this topic including an answer to the basic question of if it is worth playing a lot of tournaments.
Yes, I know that this is too simplistically put and that there are many considerations but advice in this regard would be helpful. After all, one only has a limited number of hours on this earth in which to play poker so how to best spend one's poker hours seems an important question.
I have one quibble: In no-limit poke and pot-limitr you also have to decide how much to bet at any one time as well as all the other factors one has to consider. Doesn't this added complication make it harder than limit poker? If not, why not? I will look over the books you recommend.
Neil wrote: I don't believe so. In fact, this frequently makes things easier since you can always lead. That is you can always bet enough to protect your hand.
My thoughts on Mason's review of the new McEvoy tournament book.
I agree with the concept that many *hands* are more difficult to play in limit poker (but not necessarily that a limit game is more difficult). I also agree that the book is a good *introduction* to tournament play.
Nonetheless, I found some nuggets of information buried that I would not have comprehended the validity of -- nor importance of -- if I had not played in many tournaments over the years. In fact, the few nuggets that I gleaned, I hadn't realized the significance of what he said until I went back and read the chapter the second time.
But most importantly, the book illustrates strategies that many of your opponents are likely to be playing -- the biggest benefit of all. Nor does it hurt to know how McEvoy plays when facing him ...;-)
I have the book that you mention by Ciaffone and Rueben. It is called Pot-Limit & No- Limit Poker. I would recommend this book. I would also recommend Bob Ciaffone's most recent book, Improve Your Poker. I exchanged some e-mail with Bob regarding these books. If you buy any of the books directly from Bob, he will autograph it for you and the shipping is free. His e-mail address is:
coach999@naplesnet.com.
He'll be using this e-mail address for the winter is what he told me.
I hope to be posting my list soon and I'll give a short synopsis of these two books because they are on my list.
I've found both of Lou Krieger's books, "Hold 'Em Excellence" and "More Hold 'Em Excellence," to be extremely beneficial to me. They're well-written, extremely readable texts. I also just bought Bob Ciaffone's new book, "Improve Your Poker," which I find to be filled with great concepts.
Zardoz and all others,
When you want to learn about a subject, read all the books that you have the time to. Sure some are much better than others and some have many very wrong ideas and instructions. If you read enough you learn how to weed out the good info from the bad, and this makes a better player as well. If you are just begining to play be careful what advise you follow, but as you become an intermediate player you can digest it all and spit out the trash. One of the most important things to be able to do in poker is have the ability to understand just how your opponent thinks and views the situation that he is in. By studying enough material, one can learn how the different authors think and use their strenghts and weaknesses to improve your own play. Good Luck.
Ray Zee Wrote: When you want to learn about a subject, read all the books that you have the time to. Sure some are much better than others and some have many very wrong ideas and instructions.
The first book I seriously read about gambling was written by John Patrick. This was because all the Book stores carry his titles. What a major waste of money. Not only the book, but in the casino as well. I really had to search to find 2+2 books.
When I did start to learn the truths about gambling, I found the subject to be alot like sex. Most people think they're experts at both, but in reality they don't know a damn thing.
Maybe you guys should get a column in Playboy.
Zardoz
Thanks to all the people who contribute to the forum. I know I wouldn't have come as far as I have in the past months without having 2+2 books and a place to ask my novice questions.
Zardoz,
I am going to take into account that you are a fairly new, and inexperienced poker player in making my recommendations. From what I can gather your goal is to at least make a significant income from poker. I feel that a player in your situation should be focusing on the following:
1. Strategic concepts which includes the correct fundamental strategy for the game you are playing
2. Reading hands.
3. Learning to play the games that are spread.
4. Bank roll management.
5. At least the rudimentary basics of the mathematics of gambling.
6. Advice from players that you know is accurate.
Knowing what books you have now and with the previous ideas in mind I recommend the following books in no particular order(for now):
1. Sklansky On Poker by David Sklansky. This book has a lot of good, fundamental content on strategic ideas and reading hands. It also gives advice on specific games.
2. High-Low Split Poker For Advanced Players by Ray Zee. I don't know of very many books that delve into high- low split poker. Ignoring high-low split games would be a major mistake for an aspiring professional or semi-pro poker player. This book contains a lot of good, sound strategic ideas and advice on reading hands as well.
3. Gambling Theory and Other Topics by Mason Malmuth. This book contains a lot of good stuff regarding poker and gambling in general. There are a lot of good concepts of bank roll management presented in this book as well. There is also a section in this book that contains reviews of different poker books.
4. Getting the Best of It by David Sklansky. Another excellent book that contains a lot of strategic ideas and contains a very good section on the mathematics of gambling. The chaper entitled, The Eight Mistakes of Poker, is still one of my favorites as I go back and read it from time to time.
5. Improve Your Poker by Bob Ciaffone. A very recent book that I hesitated to put in this list because it contains a lot of advanced concepts that I don't think you can absorb without the basics. I hope that I didn't sound to presumptuous there. However, this book contains so many good ideas and concepts related to poker ( I intend to post my own review of this book) that I felt it was worth putting in the list.
6. Hold'em Poker - This is in many ways one of the best books that I have ever read on the subject of poker. The chapter on Flops You Want is, in my opinion, is one of the best chapters I've ever read about poker. This is the book that got me into poker some fourteen years ago. There is a recent revision of this classic book that applies to today's modern structure. There are very few revisions from the original which is proof in itself of the value of this book.
I guess that you noticed that all of them except one are Two Plus Two books. I guess you probably also noticed that three of them are written by David Sklansky. I guess it may not always be evident but I am a big David Sklansky fan. I have read all of the Two Plus Two books except for the books on fundamentals and the Blackjack Essay's book. I think that this applies to my suggestion that you focus on advice from players that you know is accurate. David Sklansky wrote an article for Card Player magazine a while back that focused on this very topic. I would also recommend reading David Sklansky's Card Player column as I feel it is very good. Bob Ciaffone's column in Card Player is also very good.
I didn't mention some of the other Two Plus Two books because I feel they may be a little too advanced at this point but they certainly are great reading material. Even though draw and lowball are not as popular as they used to be Mason Malmuth's book, Winning Concepts in Draw and Lowball, is worth reading. I really like the way be did the "Reasons" chapters in this book. I've used this technique myself to develop my own poker reasons.
I haven't mentioned some of the other books that aren't published by Two Plus Two. One book that you may want to consider at some future point is, Super System/A Course in Power Poker by Doyle Brunson. This book is considered the "bible" of poker. It is over twenty years old so it has become a little dated and it is advanced in my opinion. There are other books that I would recommend but again I would start with the six that I mentioned.
Tom Haley
In my opinion No. 1 on this list should be Sklansky on Poker Theory. Notice I am recommending the original version of this book, which is now called "The Theory of Poker." Published in 1978, the price has worn off but I think it was $4 or $6 bucks. I just love the first edition of this book which I think is masterfully written. I still have that copy all taped together, a page of errata, and the opening comments by Bobby Baldwin. I can't understand why he ever changed it.
I wish I could have read that book. I actually tried to get it from the Gamblers Book Store in Las Vegas back around 1990. Of course I had no luck there.
I've got one just as yellowed and dog-eared (bought in the mid-80s) -- it's called "Winning Poker." Is that the same book with a different title?
Earl,
Winning Poker and The Theory of Poker are essentially the same book just different publishers. These books are revisions of Sklansky on Poker Theory. At least this is my understanding.
Tom Haley
WINNING POKER and THEORY OF POKER are the same book. If the both have a yellow cover they were both published by Two Plus Two.
I love 2 - 5 handed hold'em games. I recently found myself in a 3 way game with a fairly by-the-book decent player and a very, very aggressive player who, while fairly good, seemed to disregard hand value. I stuck around because I love to play and thought that I had an edge in terms of hand selection. (comments?)
I immediately noticed that this guy would raise on the button with over 50% of hands. He would then do the best he could to run over his opponent post flop.
Early on, I found a KJs in the big blind. Hyper-Boy popped it on the button, and thinking to discourage his stealing activity against me somewhat, I three-bet him. He called. (What do you think of the three-bet?)
Flop came Q62, one of my suit. I bet out and he raised. Given that this guy was capable of raising with *any* two cards, what's my correct play at this point?
I find this situation comes up often in short handed. A very aggressive player will bet until the river with nothing if it gets you off your hand a majoirty of the time. A call down with A-high is easy, but how about my K high?
- Bruce
Ironically, in a limit game, the best defense against a hyper-aggressive player is to simply call him all the way down. It is immensely discouraging to a super-aggressor for someone to just call them down. He wants to make all these moves on you and all you do is call -- disrupting his rhythm and perceived "pressure." Once he thinks you are a calling station, he'll slow down with the garbage and start betting for value. Alternatively, call to the turn and then check-raise him with nothing. It doesn't take too many plays like this before he will also slow down. Once he slows down, turn the tables. But while you are making the call play, if you get involved at all, be prepared to take it to the river -- if he's raising 50% of the time, just having slightly the best of it in hand selection will ultimately win out.
>>I love 2 - 5 handed hold'em games. I recently found myself in a 3 way game with a fairly by-the-book decent player and a very, very aggressive player who, while fairly good, seemed to disregard hand value. I stuck around because I love to play and thought that I had an edge in terms of hand selection. (comments?) <<
If you love to play short handed by all means do it. I will say that I am not to anxious to play against a knowledgeable and aggressive opponent in short handed play. But there is such a thing as being too aggressive.
>>I immediately noticed that this guy would raise on the button with over 50% of hands. He would then do the best he could to run over his opponent post flop. <<
Not necessarily a bad way to go if his opponents are unwilling to play back and too tight.
>>Early on, I found a KJs in the big blind. Hyper-Boy popped it on the button, and thinking to discourage his stealing activity against me somewhat, I three-bet him. He called. (What do you think of the three-bet?) <<
Sounds good so far.
>>Flop came Q62, one of my suit. I bet out and he raised. Given that this guy was capable of raising with *any* two cards, what's my correct play at this point? <<
I don't know a lot about your opponent but I agree with a lot of what Earl says about check calling against too aggressive players. It sounds like you wouldn't want to fold routinely on the flop against this player in this situation. I would probably make a call .
>>I find this situation comes up often in short handed. A very aggressive player will bet until the river with nothing if it gets you off your hand a majoirty of the time. A call down with A-high is easy, but how about my K high? <<
Say you are in a $10-20 game, neglecting the rake if any. You each put in $30 pre-flop and there is $5 of dead blind money as well. This makes the pot $65. You each put in $20 more on the flop and $20 more on the turn (I'm assuming what the action was on the turn). Going into the river there is $145 if I counted right. If you check and your opponent bets on the river the pot is offering you $165 for a $20 call. Pretty good odds for a call in my opinion. There are other alternatives like check raising if you think your opponent would lay down a slightly better hand than yours. A lot depends on your opponent.
Earl and Tom,
You guys are spending too much time on the forum and are getting way too good at poker. Your thinking is way up in the expert class. I will be at the Rio in jan. and would be very pleased if you both stayed clear of my games.
*Laughs* Thanks Ray ... now if I just had enough smarts to comprehend everything you say in your Hi-Lo book ....
Ray,
And I was going to introduce myself when I took a seat in one of the $200-400 games (maybe that's to low) that you are going to be playing in. Now I am going to have to remain anonymous. Just kidding. Thanks for the compliment.
Tom Haley
I was wondering if anyone had ever compiled this information in this format. Since I am used to reading blackjack tables, it is easier for me to visualize the tables in this format. I hope this helps others like me out there!
I Have been playing hold'enm for about four years now, progressing from 3-6-12 to 10-20-40 currently. During this time interval I have had a four month losing streak (I am a weekend player and generally put in 60 hours a month playing). During these streaks, I generally get outdrawn at the river by gut-shot straights and small flushes. I have gotten trips cracked and there have been times in which my best hand for 8 hours was a trip. During this streak I tighten up my play and have make very few mistakes (I'm an intermediate player and this is after some self-reflection and show of hands at the river). After losing one to one and one-half buyins, I generally quit. My questions are: 1. To the experts, what have been your longest losing streak in term of hours/days/months? 2. Is there anything that I can do to remedy this? 3. Should I go to a lower hold'em game and try using my "slightly better" skills to bluff them off pots/decrease my losses? Thanks in advance.
My two-cents worth (but at least it's not in Asian currency).
I also have played infrequently for the last 4-5 years, although perhaps for more days in a row and with a background of playing nearly every day for several years.
Your approach *does* have to be different if not playing regularly. A change of tables when losing is sometimes called for. Of course, if the table is to your liking, don't change just because you are losing. However, you should check yourself out and see if you are getting in a mental funk because of the beats. You could actually be tilting to the point where even the fish are reading you.
As part of this change-up, I've tried to widen the scope of games that I can play competently. A stud player originally, I gradually widened that to include razz and hi-low, then added no-limit hold-em, limit hold-em, and over the past few years, all versions of Omaha (still working hard to learn the last part). The point is, having a variety of games to choose from increases not only your potential win, but also has the potential to snap you out of a long skid of bad cards and bad play. It also unglues your butt from that chair where the vultures have their gunsights zeroed-in.
Thanks for the input. I also play blackjack and have on occasions took a lengthy walk. Merry Christmas.
The fact that you are contemplating 1:moving to a weaker game and 2:increasing your bluffing indicates to me that you have some reading to do. Bluffing in weaker games will extend your losing streak. Read Sklansky's "The Theory of Poker" for more information.
Aces,
Marc
Spiderman,
The book Gambling Theory and Other Topics by Mason Malmuth has an excellent discussion on the topic of losing streaks. I would recommend it highly. Also the book Fighting Fuzzy Thinking in Poker, Gaming, and Life by David Sklansky has a discussion on losing streaks as well. Sklansky's book has a neat way to determine if you are playing a losing game in a relatively short period of time.
Tom Haley
Just a comment but $10-$20-$40 is a very unusual game. I wonder if your strategy is not right for it.
If it means the bet is $20 on the flop, $20 on the turn, and then $40 on the river, live players will be rewarded more for hitting their longshot hands, especially if they can usually collect several $40 bets on the end. If this is the structure, you may be folding too much on the flop or fourth street.
If it means $20 on the flop, and $40 on both the turn and the river, the live player will now be punished for trying to make those same draws. If this is the structure, you may be calling too much on fourth street and/or giving too many free cards in an effort to checkraise a lot on fourth street. In HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVAMCED PLAYERS we recommend to try a fair amount of check raising on fourth street, but in this structure you shouldn't do it as much.
I took "10-20-40" to mean "10-20 and 20-40", but if it is the 10-20-20-40 structure, I submit that Peter Parker's biggest leak is most likely not folding too many hands early, but rather paying off too often on the river when he gets beaten.
Tom Weideman
Thanks Mason, but the format means 10 on the flop, 20 on the turn, and 20 or 40 on the river. Gutshot draws with no card showing is 4/47 on the flop (1:11 odds) and 4/46 on the turn (2:21 or 1:10 approximately). With four people calling a raise preflop (5 x$20), it is correct to draw to the straight. However if two of these callers fold then it is incorrect to call on the turn with a $20 bet. Yet I consistently get these calls by the other players and during the losing streak, get beaten by the "magic card". Another example is when I was in the late position and called with 9s10s(six people in the pot $60). The flop comes 9h 5d 3s. Everyone checked to me and I bet. I get two callers--big blind and button (pot now at $90). The turn comes Ks. Once again I bet and was reluctantly called by the BB only. The river was a Jh. Because of the reluctancy in the previous call, I went ahead and bet and was shown Jd 4d. Is this crazy or what? Things like this keep happenning to me during this streak and it's very frustrating. Thanks for the input though. I am thinking about stepping back, taking a deep breath, buying another poker book to keep me occupied during the holidays and restart in January. Merry Christmas.
As often happens in this newsgroup, the responses vary in value and content but don't answer one of the original key questions, namely, what kind of losing streaks have players experienced?
I play 5/10 and 10/20 stud in AC and NYC and make almost exactly one big bet/hr but have seen some mind boggling winning and losing streaks over the last two years.
I had a weekend at the Trop where I lost $1200 (25 hrs). I had a four month span where I lost $3000 (170 hrs). I also had a crazy winning streak in which I won $4200 in two months (110 hrs). I recall one 3 hour session where I was rolled up six times! I have found that whenever I have a really hot streak it is inevitably followed by a really cold streak. The hard part is maintaining one's sanity when faced with a seemingly never-ending succession of astrnomical, implausible bad beats.
Anyway I have posted on the subject of maintaining a positive winning attitude when really getting hammered and am always intersted in what the top players do to improve this portion of their game.
From one poker player to another the only sympathy I can offer is "I've been there, and it sucks"
Dave
David,
If one plays in games with lots of raising or plays a very aggressive style which one should, then getting stuck 100 top bets is something that happens and is not any adverse indication. The way you handle it is an indication of whether or not you can perform in these conditions. If you believe these events are all rare or out of the ordinary you are not perceiving reality correctly. Good Luck and happy holidays.
test
[4 month losing steak in 10-20-40]
You have not given enough information. Overall what is your hourly rate in this game? How many hours do you have playing it? Are the opponents generally the same as when you were beating it?
Were you ever beating this game?
Judging from your other post I would guess you play an assertive style. I can relate to betting 3rd pair for value, but I suspect others cannot. This assertive play drastically increases your varience and therefore exaggerates winning and losing streaks.
If your are making little you can expect long such streaks.
Anyway, since your attitude is OBVIOUSLY bad at this time then by all means drop down a level and play there. No, not so you can "bluff" them out, but rather so you can play your fine learned "by the book" game and let them give you money while you are on auto pilot. When your attitude returns then start putting an occational play on these people, and when you do that selectively, confidently, and successfully then go back to this higher game with your good attitude.
======================================================
Recently I had a $2800 drop in 30 hours in a game I am otherwise consisitently beating for $38/hour. Even to my own surprise I maintained a good attitude, at least the next day. OK, so now I'm "only" making $32/hour.
After deliberately getting laid off 3 years ago I spent the next year earning only 60c/hour. That's a long non-winning streak. Man, depression is depressing.
Before I "had" to get that job I had no losing months in 4 years; excepting the last three. The woman ... Otherwise, I believe my longest streak was 8 losing sessions in a row when I INTENDED to play 9+ hours each. Back then my attitude dropped faster than my chips so I "got" to go home without too much net loss.
Recently I have had specific losing situations; such as going 60 hours without flopping a set, and then getting the next 3 sets already beat on the flop. I got 10 hands heads up against the player seeing 80% of all showdowns, and won only once. One session I had KK four times against AA. Another I had AQ against AK 5 times. Another I missed 3 flushes in a row! Wait ... Another I went 8 hours playing 6 hands and winning 2, was even (good small blind game) and then won 120 bets in the next 2 hours. Another I hit almost 2/3rds of my semi-bluff hands (there's nothing like betting the worst pair and getting there to piss off the weak-tight players ...) Another I hit 5 sets in a row.
But I believe that's all to be expected.
=========================================================
While there is such a thing as "have been on a losing streak" there is ACTUALLY no such thing as "am on a losing streak". But if you believe you "are" then your attitude is bad and you ARE, so long as you believe it. I believe. Change your belief.
I've had to fight back bad attitude at the table. One way is to tell a joke: "This horse went into a bar and the bar-tender says: 'hey fella, how come the long face?'" ... Another way is to play SPEAKY tight until you win a show down fair and square. This means put no money in before or on the flop unless you are confident you have the BEST hand. Good enough is not. You may go 4+ hours before winning a hand, and can routinely go 30 hands without playing one, but you can build up your appearant and actual psycological energy in this manner. Another way is to find a couple mistakes that you made and fix them mentally a few times. Another way is to calculate the amount of theoretical money the idiot just lost; even though he won the pot. Another way is to tell another joke: "A toothless termite goes into a saloon and demands: 'Is the bar tender here?'" ... or ... "A skelaton goes into a bar and orders a bib, a beer, and a mop."
Of course, you can always comiserate at the table or on the internet in order to justify your terrible mood, thus prolonging the bad steak with shitty play. That's easier.
=== Losing streaks are a test, not a punishment. ===
- Louie
I recently had a dispute with a poker buddy over a hand. She was on the button with six callers but no raise before the action got to her. She raised and everyone called. She finally lost the hand in a showdown to two pair. Her hand was Ace, Queen offsuit.
Away from the table, after the game, I asked her about her raise, suggesting that as I understood it, this hand does not play well in a multiway pot and that her raise in late position would not thin the field if that is what she wanted to do.
She was affronted by my challenge to her poker prowess, (she writes for Poker Player Magazine) and told me bluntly that I need to "read more". I qouted the passage from David and Mason's book,' Hold 'Em for Advanced Players' that warn specifically against playing this hand in a multiway pot. I was told that this book is not "the Bible", and that there was very little statistical difference between Ace, Queen suited and off-suit. When I said I believed that suited Ace Queen played well in a multiway pot. I was told that for all intents and purposes there was no difference between the hands suited and not suited.
I would have dismissed this if it had not come from someone who is supposed to know what she is talking about. However it did lead me to ask, have David or Mason changed any of their views as to the ranking of starting hands in Hold 'Em since writing their book? Also, has new computer research changed their (or anyone else's) opinion? Comments please.
By the way I regularly beat up on our local lady 'expert', so my "Bible"must be doing some good!
Our opinion on this hand in this situation has not changed. I suspect that the lady in question will continue to give her money away.
You also said Poker Player Magazine, which does not exist. I'm curious, did you mean POKER MAGAZINE or THE CARD PLAYER
Mason, it was poker magazine. Has your opinion of any of the hand rankings changed and if so how?
My personal opinion of the hand rankings has not changed. However, you must understand that the hands actually move up and down the rankings. There are many examples in HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS that show this effect.
In my own play I frequently subdivide Ax suited into three subgroups. They are A9s and A8s; A7s, A6s, A5s, and A4s; and finally A3s and A2s. I play the two hands in the first subgroup more often, and the two hands in the last subgroup less often
Thank you, Mason. I do much the same so its good to have it confirmed. The reason I do this is because I sensed that there were stronger and weaker hands in the A suit caegory. I vary my play with this hand depending on my position and the aggressiveness of my opponents, but iI am not sure I am doing it for the right reason.
After reflecting on your response I am unsure as to whether I fully understand what you mean about the hands moving up and down the rankings. Could you expand on your answer please and point me to the examples in your book?
Turbo Texas Holdem will raise every time w/AQ on the button, regardless of the number of callers. Presumably, this action is based on statistical probability ( and perhaps a psychological edge) Any comments?
I don't recommend Turbo Texas Hold 'em.
Sorry Mason but I have to ask you to expand on that again! Is this because you don't recommend any computer programs for Hold 'Em or this one in particular. I thought it was the strongest of the programs.
The play is not realistic and the "pop-up advice" is very inaccurate. It does have some nice features, and it may be better than some of the others, but I don't recommend it.
Mason, I've just read through this dialogue and note you prefer A-8,9 suited to the lower rankings. What about the theory that A-2,3,4,5 have the extra outs of a straight? (See Doyle's book.) Doesn't that tip the balance back?
I don't believe that this advice is accurate for a limit game. It possibly might be correct for no limit but I doubt. I would rather have A9 suited over A2 suited in virtually every situation that I can think of.
Mason and Anthony,
I think that in a tough game, A9 suited is probably better than A2 suited, because the 9 is worth something to you where the 2 isn't. Although, as I have mentioned, I spend much of my time on nofoldem tables. I play Ax suited in any position because of its great value with so many pay stations. I think that I get some extra equity out of the straightness of it (and yes, I've hit the bicycle after failing to get the flush many times).
There is actually a kind of in-joke here at Crown about 3 5 offsuit. A pro here told us it was a great hand, and soon everyone was playing it. Now you sometimes see people raising with 3 5 offsuit. I think they're insane, but they swear it's a great hand.
The reason is that if the flop contains rags, your 3 5 offsuit could be worth something. With a flop like A 3 5, you have two pair against your opponent who is beaming with his top pair high kicker. Obviously a flop containing 2 4 gives you a bicycle draw.
There is also a little bit of extra equity in the fact that if an Ace flops, it's very likely to help other people as well as you, and give them a second-best but normally excellent hand. So they will give you action thinking that the rags have missed you completely and that they have the best hand.
At least everyone admits that it's a bit of a joke. But they still play it. If I catch it tonight on the button, I'll play it just for fun.
Richard.
Mason,
Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that A2s and A3s are more playable than A6s or A7s because the former can make a straight.
Russ
This is basically a no-limit concept that I believe is over rated for that game, and is certainly overrated for limit. There are many spots where a pair of sevens will win but a pair of deuces won't. In addition, when you flop a pair of deuces, any card on fourth street can beat you unless it is an ace or a deuce.
I've noticed in Card Player several times references by some of the writers to "Their Students".
How does one become a student? What cost would be involved beside your potential losses? What would you expect in the the way of instruction? How long would one normally undertake being a student? Finally, would all of the instruction take place in Las Vegas or is some of it handled via telephone or computer?
Thank you for your answers.
David Sklansky does give lessons, and they are very good. You may want to email him at Dsklansky@aol.com. I have not been giving any lessons, but may reconsider after the first of the year.
I too see the references by some of the writers in CARD PLAYER to their students. I do not know anything about it.
Sign me up! I'm sure many people who study your books, and post on this forum would enjoy the chance to sit in on a live seminar given by you guys. Uh.. Is my bankrole big enough?
David and Mason do give occasional free seminars. Check the calendar. I went to one last month. I was very good except for the folks with the craps and slot questions.
Happy Holidays and a prosperous New Year.
A couple of years ago, a good friend and I spent a great deal of time studying Hold'em. We read Sklansky and Malmuth and Caro, we studied and compared. Then our ways parted.
We play at different times and in different casinos.
He now tells me that in over 500 hours of play he has encountered a steady loss at Hold'em of nearly his entire bankroll. He says that he has tried lower levels, but the loss continues at about the same rate.
He has excellent life habits and disciplines and is not a "gambler" or one to go on "tilt."
What pertinent questions can I ask him to try ti find the "leak" in his game?
If you're really interested in helping this guy, I would think that you should sit in on his game and study his play.
If you can't possibly do that you might want to ask him the questions from the back of Hold'em for Advanced players. He should know the right answer for all of them (well most of them). Once you find his weakness you can set on correcting it. If you need any help don't hesitate to post. We're all here to improve our game.
He might have an obvious tell or might even be exposing his hole cards
Barry:
There are great differences in the advice given in Caro's PROFESSIONAL HOLD 'EM REPORT and our books. (To see this just compare Caro's starting hand chart to what we recommend.)
Needless to say, I think that our advice is "top notch." Make sure your friend is following that advice.
The previous poster's recommendations are good ones. Either sweat your friend or quiz him with the questions and answers in the back of HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS.
Two things you might watch for / quiz him on are:
-- Does he cold-call raises too much? -- Does he check-raise enough on the flop
to drive out opponents?
JP wrote: In stud, this characteristic is not true. There are many hands where the correct play is to call a raise. This is just one of the many ways that stud differs from hold 'em.
First, re the Hand Values dialogue, I note you gave the answer to Russ on the value of A-2,3,4,5 suited. Thanks.
Now, my question. In a 6-12 game at the Mirage last week, I raised on the button with KJ offsuit and got 2 callers. (The game was moderately tight.) Flop was Q, 10, 4 mixed. They checked to me and I bet the flop with the open ender and both called. Turn was another 4 and they checked again, as did I. River was the A and first position bet, was called and I overcalled with the straight. They both had an A and had made two pair on the end. My thinking at the time was that a raise might be re-raised with a full house, both from either the initial better or from the caller trying to trap me in with an overcall. Since I had checked the turn, either (or both) of them could be holding A-4, and may have called my flop bet. In retrospect, though, I feel I lost 2 big bets since I'm sure they both would have called a raise. Any thoughts on raising 2 players on the end in this sort of situation?.
Anthony,
You play your hands against what you read your opponents as likely to have. Never play what they could possibly might have. In your example there was no indication that you did not have way the best hand. Be careful crossing the street where there is nothing to be gained by taking a chance, but in poker take calculated risks. Good Luck and happy holidays.
Thanks for your reply, Ray, and hope you are having a good Holiday Season yourself.
You were right to figure the A 4 as a possibility since they both called you that far with just A high. I think you were correct in just calling. At best you would be risking 2 more BB's in order to win 2 more BB's. More than likely one of them would have dropped figuring you for AQ or the straight you had. That would be risking 2 BB's to get only 1 more.
The problem with this hand is that even though you believe you have the best of it you can still be beaten. Once you figure in the xtra raise you will likely call if you are beaten, then your best expectation from your raise is even money. Most likely expectation is that you are actually giving odds to the other players. I really don't like doing that.
Mike Caro wrote about nearly the same scenario just recently. The difference was that the hero is in the middle position. In his case he points out that you are better off calling rather than raising since a raise will probably lose the overcall. You then risk the re-raise if you are beat but can only expect 1 call if you aren't. If you don't raise you have a good chance of making the same amount if the third player overcalls.
Mark You were right to figure the A 4 as a possibility since they both called you that far with just A high. I think you were correct in just calling. At best you would be risking 2 more BB's in order to win 2 more BB's. More than likely one of them would have dropped figuring you for AQ or the straight you had. That would be risking 2 BB's to get only 1 more.
The problem with this hand is that even though you believe you have the best of it you can still be beaten. Once you figure in the xtra raise you will likely call if you are beaten, then your best expectation from your raise is even money. Most likely expectation is that you are actually giving odds to the other players. I really don't like doing that.
Mike Caro wrote about nearly the same scenario just recently. The difference was that the hero is in the middle position. In his case he points out that you are better off calling rather than raising since a raise will probably lose the overcall. You then risk the re-raise if you are beat but can only expect 1 call if you aren't. If you don't raise you have a good chance of making the same amount if the third player overcalls.
Mark
[1 call, I raise on button KJ. Flop QT4 both check and call. 4 on turn all check. Ace on end its bet and call to me]
This is an easy raise: You have no reason to fear a full house. A4 is the only realistic hand that can have you beat that they would have played this way; and you have good reason to expect a call or two.
If you were in middle position you should consider going for the over call. If you had flopped AQ and caught the T then you have less reason to expect calls from the raise.
I would have been tempted to bet on the turn. You have a solid draw and an overcard, and reasonable chances to steal it from the pair of Tens, and enough to call a raise. Also, the advertising pays very well when you bet solid hands against several people.
I suggest that you tend to ignore possible hands that are not your primary two suspisions; until you DO get raised.
Missing these value bets and raises is VERY costly.
There are monsters under the bed; except the ones you put there.
- Louie
I am an above average intermediate range hold em player. I mostly play in Connecticut with a few side trips to AC. A couple of weeks ago as I was playing 10-20, a Russian emigre sat down to my left, and we started to chat. I could see from his play that he wasn't a total fish. He imparted to me that he had read all the appropriate books including Sklansky and Malmuth Advanced (a book some of my friends refer to as "the bible"). At that point, I turned to him and said in a loud voice. "Do you see all these players on this table? They read the book, too." This got a laugh and seem to loosen up the table a bit. I refer to S&M loyalists as "book players". Book players are the easiest marks in "hold em" at any level. David and Mason, in most of their writings, usually put something in small print, not very emphasized, about varying play. Book players, for the most part, cannot do this. They are tight- ssed, low variance players who exhibit cognitive dissonant behavior and are, thus, easy marks. They believe that since they are playing "correct", they cannot lose. Thank you S&M.
There is plenty of stuff in our books about varying play. And it becomes more and more important as the game gets tougher or shorthanded. But if you stray too far from our normal guidlines in a nine or ten handed limit game then it will be you who will be the easy mark.
MERLE,
Here is what I have observed during my time at the tables. These comments apply to hold'em for the most part. Almost all players (at least 9 out of 10) are way to loose and they eventually loose a lot of money or tighten up. The ones that tighten up are the survivors and play close to break even or better. Few win a lot of money over a prolonged period of time. I am assuming that you feel that players who read books are easy to read, easy to run over, and don't bluff enough. This may be true if they simply follow a rote strategy. I know that the authors themselves don't recommend this approach. I have read more than one reference from the Two Plus Two authors advocating hard work and thinking about strategy away from the table. I have also read in many of the Two Plus Two books that since poker is such a complex game, all of the situations that come up in a poker game can't be covered by a book.
The converse of all this is that I have also seen a lot of players that don't read try to win by bluffing way too much. This is especially true in a 9 or 10 handed ring game. Now I'm not saying that bluffing in hold'em is wrong and in certain situations that come up often betting a marginal hand aggressivly is the correct play. They have this mistaken notion that even if their bluffs lose money they will get paid off on their good hands which they do. They just don't get enough of them and it costs them way to much money to be in the pots that they are in. I have heard of some players who compete for a lot of pots in limit hold'em be successful but I have never seen one myself. At least over a long period of time. I know from personal experience that you do have to play your marginal hands well in limit hold'em. I hesitate to use the word bluff because a lot of times what you may think is a bluff is actually the best hand. It is an indisputable fact that you will win a lot more pots without a showdown if you are percieved as a tight player and I feel that you do need to be able to do this in hold'em.
So perhaps you're one of those rare players that has great natural poker instincts and an abundance of poker talent and you will be a big winner for a long period of time. More power to you because most people don't have these talents myself included. I'll just have to continue to improve my game by reading (including this forum) and thinking and keep winning along the way.
Merry Christmas,
Tom Haley
David,
Your response sounded quite defensive. My comment was meant to be complementary. Playing any limit hold em game without reading your book would be suicidal. The point I want to make is that there is a difference between reading a book (book player) and understanding a book; memorizing tables (book player) and understanding why your memorizing them, and I truly believe that to be successful you have to go beyond the rote learning. Tom Haley made an observation that 9 out of 10 players are too loose. I could never make that observation. My experience is that each table presents a different venue in time and space. I know we've all sat at a relatively tight table at 8:00 pm which went totally balistic at midnight and haven't we all seen "fools" who hit trip eights on the river to destroy our Aces and Kings and walk away winners. By the way, these are the players I fear most, not the book players.
Let me pose this question: If a maniac gets in the game, everybody agrees, including me , that you should tighten up or leave, especially if he is close in on your right. Doesn't this strategy have a dual solution? What if the majority (9 out of 10) players in the game are ultra conservative (book players). Shouldn't you loosen your play ??? Think about it.
Remember, its one neverending poker game, a war made up of small but winable battles.
I am Russian emigre (from your left).I was playing 3-6 hold em whit you.Can you tell me why i was easiest marks for you? I refer to myself as "book players",but i know about varying play,blufing,semi-blufing,slow playing, check-rasing and stuff.I losing smal or wining big on evry sesion.Help me plese improve my game.Thanck you.
On a recent poker holiday in Europe (something I recommend to anyone for a real treat) I encountered a game in Paris that I was unfamilar with and was looking for guidance on.
The game is called courcheval and is played pot-limit. It is like omaha high EXCEPT one of the cards from the flop is exsposed before the first round of betting. thus, the pre-flop betting round is with one exsposed board card and then there is a flop of only two cards. The rest of the game is played like omaha. The game is played with four or five cards dealt to the player depending on what the button decides.
The action was huge! and the French seem to love this game.
My question is this.. Is there any major changes I should make from my omaha strategy to play this game? other than the obvious fact that if you have a set with the exposed pre-flop card you are a favorite.. What about connectors around the exposed card? Flush draws?
any comments would be appreciated.
Derek Purvis
Derek,
I played it in Paris and it is an easy game to adjust to playing. Since you see the first upcard, most hands must be built around it. The good omaha hands that dont include this card become worthless without other great possiblities. and it becomes easy to read the other good players since you can put them on part of a hand early on. As in all omaha when alot of players are in the winning hand is usually close to the nuts. Good Luck if you go back and give the Frenchmen my regards.
[Courcheval: Omahaha pot limit high but one of the flop cards STARTS exposed; so the regular flop has only two cards]
An Omahaha hand is evaluated primarily on the number, quality, and relationship of its two-card holdings. These two-cards that do not match the exposed card drop DRASTICALLY in value. Big 4-card straight holdings are almost worthless when a small card comes. Weak 3-card straights go way up when you catch a good up card. Of course, starting with a set is great.
AAKK spades and clubs is pretty weak when it shows a red 8. You have dropped your chances of making a flush draw by 2/3rds!! and your chances of flopping a set by 1/3rd!
Ac7c6h4h becomes good when it shows the 5c. I'm sure you have more than doubled your chances of making a straight or flush. I'd raise; at least until I do some serious math.
You must match that up card.
- Louie
Intuitively I'd suspect many of your less disciplined opponents will play their usual hands even when they miss that up card. Then they fold on the flop. If so, you must punish them before the flop when you DO match it.
Hi 2+2 gang; I'm sure many other people on this forum are *VERY* interested in seeing actual results from winning poker professionals and semi-professionals. Therefore, I'm offerring my results in anticipation that others will post something similiar for their current yearly status for the 1997.
You can delete your e-mail address and/or real name from your posting in order to maintain privacy. Please offer your results here, We would like to see how others are doing in this profession...You should briefly indicate your experience level, where you generally play, what type of poker you play, the level you play, hours, results, etc. I'm sure most of you won't bother to offer the level of detail that I've done...something more generally is fine too...
This was my first year as a full-time "Poker Pro", I've played poker for about 4 years learning from the TwoPlusTwo books and others. I only play Holdem and mostly in the L.A. California area. Sometime in the latter part of 1996 I became "good enough" to consider playing professionally. I've keep accurate records of my results and they are posted here below...
====== Jan 1, 1997 to December 24, 1997
All Levels = + $25,774 in 1,941.25 hrs = + 13.28/hr ======
40/80 = - $ 3,026 in 52.50 hrs = - $ 57.64 / hr
30/60 = + 1,746 in 209.5 hr = + 8.33
20/40 = + $ 8,446 in 580 hr = + 14.56
15/30 = + $ 18,517 in 795.75 hr = + 23.27
10/20 = - $ 1,910 in 121 = - 15.79
6/12 = + $ 2,001 in 182.5 = + 10.96
From my data, I've found that the $30/60 and $40/80 games are too tough for me. I lost at the $10/20 but it's only 121 hours of data. It seems that the $15/30 and $20/40 are the best bets for the working pro...as indicated in the 2+2 literature like Gambling for a Living and Poker essays, etc.
Also, it seems that I did the worst at the Hollywood Park Casino, where I happen to play the most hours also. See below breakdown for only the "core" $15/30 and $20/40 games...
==== $15/30 and $20/40 games combined results by casino ====
1. Commerce + 9,087 in 165.75 = + 54.82 /hr
2. Bicycle + 8,909 in 294 +30.30
3. Crystal Park + 3,536 in 103.5 +34.16
4. Normandie + 1,886 in 35 +53.89
5. Hollywood Pk + 6,964 in 736.5 + 9.46
6. Mirage - 3,419 in 41 - 83.39
So, is it true, the casino with the highest rake has the best game ???!!!!
Of course #4 and #6 are of no signficance due to the minimum hours played there at these levels. However, I can't but help notice that my win rate is the lowest at HP AND my win rate is about $30 per hour for the other five casinos played (excluding HP only). That is I would have won $31.29 per hour for $15/30 & $20/40 games played (excluding HP data for the year) instead of the $19.60 per hour with HP included for the year.
Note that all of the $15/30 and $20/40 games excluding HP totals is as follows:
Casino #1,2,3,4 & 6 + 19,999 639.25 hours = + 31.29/hour
I know that it's not *fair* to exclude the one casino that I "happen" to do the worst at for the year. But, I did accure over 600 hours in total for the other five (non HP) casinos at this level with a most respectable $31.29/ hour win rate.
Anyway, my data tells me to "avoid" the HP and avoid $30/60 and higher for time being. The games at HP are generally tougher for the $20-40 level, but the $15-30 usually are very loose and sometimes wild. I think the other casinos game are less wild (i.e. more passive) and more suitable for my style and experience. Also, I think the excessive noise level of the PA system at HP must be affecting my concentration and/or playing ability. I think HP is the noiseist cardroom casino on the planet---mainly due to their PA system for the low-limit board.
I would appreciate any comments and feedback on my first year experience as a Pro. I hope to do better in 1998. I greatly look forward to seeing your results...remember you can maintain your privacy here...share your results...I did...
HAPPY NEW YEAR to all...
First Year PRO
I found these numbers highly interesting. Here are a few quick comments.
1. There are many players who can win at $15-$30 and $20-$40, but who will lose at $40-80. This is usually a function of the game being tougher, or you not being selective enough. It doesn't mean that you aren't good enough, but it does mean that there is room for improvement in your game. (We discuss some of this in GAMBLING FOR A LIVING.)
2. Another indication of the same priniciple is that you are not beating the $20-$40 game for enough to move up.
3. Have you computed your standard deviation numbers? I suspect that they will be too high by my standards which are approximately $300 per hour in a $20-$40 game. I suspect that they are at least $400 an hour. If I am correct it is an indication that your hand reading skills could use some improvement and/or that you are playing some hands in a spot where you should be throwing them away.
4. It actually makes sense to me that you would do the poorest in the club that you play the most at. If you play well and are against players who don't know you, you are in a very good poker situation. If you play well and are against players who are familiar with your play, many of them will make adjustments that will reduce your win rate. It might be worth it to play at the other clubs more, and at HP less.
5. Finally, win rates converge slowly. Thus these prelimninary conclusions of mine may not be very accurate.
Thanks for a most interesting post.
mason wrote: 3. Have you computed your standard deviation numbers? I suspect that they will be too high by my standards which are approximately $300 per hour in a $20-$40 game. I suspect that they are at least $400 an hour. If I am correct it is an indication that your hand reading skills could use some improvement and/or that you are playing some hands in a spot where you should be throwing them away.
I reply:
I agree with Mason that this was a very interesting post, and that seeing your standard deviations would be very interesting as well. Among other things, you might ask whether your sigmas are different at the HP vs the other casinos combined for some game (15-30 HE?) where you have plenty of data in both situations. While a year is not long enough to detect small differences in your expectations in the two situations, you might be able to detect significant differences in your standard deviations in the two situations. If your game (or your opponents' game against you) is truly different in the two situations, I would suspect that fact might show up in your standard deviations.
This is not the first time we've heard Mason suggest that in the neighborhood of 11 big bets is too high for a good player's standard deviation. Each time he has attributed his lower achievable standard deviation (7-8 big bets, as I recall) to superior hand reading skills. I don't believe this is right. Quite some time ago, a friend who had been playing professionally in the 10-20, 15-30, and 20-40 Hold'em games in LA moved to Las Vegas. His standard deviation dropped over night from 11-12 big bets in all these games to less than 8 big bets in the Mirage red chip games. He did not learn how to read hands over night; he moved to Las Vegas, where the games he encountered were different. (Yes, the observations in both cities were made over a sufficient length of time that the differences she found were significant.)
[As an aside let me relate another finding this player made. For a sufficiently long time he kept track of his stack size both at the end of every 60 minutes of play _and_ at the beginning and end of every session. Thus, he was able to calculate his standard deviation both using the formula found in _Gambling Theory_ (session data) and directly from the statistical definition of standard deviation (hourly data). The two results were astonishingly close. This observation should stop all the arguments found recently on r.g.p. as to whether the formula in Mason's book is useful for everyday purposes.]
Andrew wrote:
>Among other things, you might ask whether your sigmas are >different at the HP vs the other casinos combined for some
>game (15-30 HE?) where you have plenty of data in both >situations.
I agree. Your standard deviation converges much faster than your win rate. This would be interesting to see.
Andrew wrote:
>Each time he has attributed his lower achievable standard >deviation (7-8 big bets, as I recall) to superior hand
>reading skills. I don't believe this is right.
You may very well be correct. These ideas contain much speculation on my part. Exactly how your standard deviation relates to your win rate is an area where much more data needs to be collected.
I have some other preliminary standard deviation data that I am not ready to share because I need to collect more of it for it to have real meaning. However, it seem to show that relative standard deviations drops dramatically in higher limit games, particualrly hold 'em where the "ante" does not progress. This would agree with your observation that game tightness also has a lot to do with it.
I appreciate your final comments concerning the accuracy of the formula. Any good statistical text will explain why this approach does produce a good estimate of the standard deviation if you follow the guidelines that I set forth in the GAMBLING THEORY book. However, a little independent verification never hurts.
My standard deviation rate is exactly the same for both the $15-30 and the $20-40, 9.7 big bets per hour. That is my standard deviation is $291 for the $15/30 and $388 for the $20/40. This was computed using Mason's formula in the Gambling Theory book for a sample size of about 30 sessions (about 250 hours each for the $15/30 and the $20/40 games). I was quite surprised that it came out almost exactly the same (i.e. 9.7 big bets per hour) for both the $15/30 and the $20/40. I computed this standard deviation about six months ago when I wasn't running as bad (I've lost about 140 big bets during the last 2.5 months).
It would be interesting indeed to calculate my SD during this recent bad two months. Also, it would be interesting to calculate my SD for the Hollywood Park casino vs. the other casinos for the $15/30 and $20/40. I'll do that when I get a chance and post it here...may take a while.
You said Mason, that I might benefit from playing HP less because of the possibility of other playing learning how you play thus reducing your win rate, etc. But, if I started to play say the Commerce heavily---I would probably create a similar problem/situation also. Do you strongly believe, a working pro at the $15/30 and $20/40 games should "rotate" a schedule between the local L.A. clubs and work one day per club on a schedule. Instead of playing heavily at a "favorite" club (because it's convenience, you like the food there, they have nice VIP parking, etc). Does this have merit to play equally in all the big clubs? I know people in Vegas don't have this luxury...they basically have the Mirage and maybe the Horseshoe.
And finally, you said that you suspect that my SD is probably too high by your standards. Are you saying if my SD is too high by your standards say $400+ in the $20-40, I can't win in the long run or what?? Or that my win rate will face tremendous variations.
What do you think of my winning + $31.29/hour in 639.25 hours at the "other" casinos for the $15/30 & $20/40 VS. the lowly $+ 9.46/hour in 736.5 hours at the Hollywood Park casino. Can anything be concluded from that? Or is the 500+ blocks of data for each of those NOT enough hours to concluded anything?
Thanks...
A couple of observations and comments. First, I don't play at your level, but am a recreational player with a winning 97 record at 6-12 and occasional 10-20 over a few hundred hours of a little under half a big bet per hour.
I began tracking my play in more detail mid year by both time of day, day of week, and day of month. The results show conclusively that the toughest games (ie frequent losses) are mid-week day games just prior to the 15th and end of the month. On the other hand, Friday and Saturday evenings/nights have been very lucrative. I am sure that people tend to play looser just after payday and when they're out for an evening and also drinking. Also (though I've kept no formal record of this) when there's a good sports game on TV the atmosphere is more boisterous, which makes for a better and livelier game. In such situations I try and seat myself looking away from the TV, even though I love sports! I'll keep more precise records in 98 to include a grading (wild, tight etc) of the type of game there is.
Have you kept any record of these factors in your stats? And what do you (or anyone else) think of the importance of this at the higher limits? The day games are sometimes full of grinders, but the night games can be great if you adjust accordingly.
Anthony wrote:
[Data collected] at 6-12 and occasional 10-20 over a few hundred hours [show a winrate] of a little under half a big bet per hour.
I began tracking my play in more detail mid year by both time of day, day of week, and day of month. The results show conclusively that the toughest games (ie frequent losses) are mid-week day games just prior to the 15th and end of the month.
I reply:
It's very appealing to track your performance as a function of different things like time of day, day of week, whether the game is loose or tight,etc. But the effect these variables have would need to be enormous for them to show up "conclusively" in so short a time as a few hundred hours. Your observations are consistent with what we might expect, but I'm certain there are other players out there who have experienced the opposite correlations over such a short time.
I don't mean to imply that collecting these data isn't worthwhile, just that you need to be careful about how you report your conclusions. Also, anecdotal observations ("Games are more boisterous during major sporting events") may be more useful than quantitative data collection over short time intervals, for many purposes.
Normally, I only play on weekends. I don't like to play every day so I just play when the games are usually better.
Yes the games are tougher during the week. They are also tougher during the day. But this is relative. In Some of the places where I play the livest players only have 2-6 hours to play and almost always play during the day. So I think that every place can be different. I was very interested in the remarks of a previous poster about how his standard deviation changed when he moved to Vegas. I think the tougher games can be beat, they just require different skills. In the loose wild games I just crawl into my shell and play very passively. In the tougher games I am much more aggressive and bluff and semi-bluff more.
I haven't kept records differentiating between the games, or days of the week, I just lump them all together. I put the good with the bad. Although I would be interested in seeing your results on this. I have been playing a lot of 10-20 lately and my standard deviation is 195 with a win rate of 47. I believe they will both come down with time, especially the win rate.
You are accurate when you say that the win rate will come down when the deviation comes down. One lesson about life, that for me has been long in learning, is that those more willing to take risks reap the greater rewards. Minimal risk and minimal deviation nearly always means smaller rewards.
Earl wrote:
>You are accurate when you say that the win rate will come >down when the deviation comes down. One lesson about life, >that for me has been long in learning, is that those more >willing to take risks reap the greater rewards. Minimal >risk and minimal deviation nearly always means smaller >rewards.
I agree that this poster's win rate will drop, but my bet is that his standard deviation will stay about the same. However, your point about higher risk means higher reward is a point well taken. In my book GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS I wrote "Speaking of expectation and standard deviation, also keep in mind that the strategies with the highest expectation are often accompanied by the highest standard deviation" (See page 277, fourth edition.)
But I do know of two exceptions. They are surrender in blackjack and reading hands in poker. When you become skilled in these two areas your win rate will go up and your fluctuations will go down. Yes, it is occasionally possible to have a free lunch.
Recently the term "reading hands" has been bandied about quite a bit. Could you narrow down what exactly you mean? To a certain extent, all one ever does at a poker table is read hands based on the various pieces of info available. Your blackjack example is very clear, however.
Anthony wrote:
< I only record into my computer database program the hours played, the level (i.e. $15-30, $40-80, etc.), the casino, the date and the result. I generally try to be game selective and select the better game and avoid the worser games at the level I intend to play at for the session. And we all know, that generally the better games are after working hours on weekdays (about 4pm til midnight) and almost anytime during the weekends/holidays. Even if you bother to record data regarding when a major sports event is on or when it's Friday night, etc...you need LOTS of hours before it really means something.
Let me try to answer all the issues you raise. However, before I start what I am about to say is what I think is correct, not necessarily what I know to be correct. So keep that in mind when you read my comments.
First, even though standard deviations converge fairly quickly, win rates do not. So there is probably no statistical difference between some of you results even though the win rates look very different.
However, I do believe that players do adjust to you. From my own experience I believe that I almost always do better when I visit a cardroom that I don't normally play at. I base this more on the way I observe people playing against me than on my results. So even though I'm not absolutely sure, I think that there is value in rotating the clubs. Whether this out weighs VIP parking, food comps, etc. is a decision that you will have to make.
I believe that if I played the same games that you play in my standard deviation would be lower. (I don't mean the same limit, I mean the exact same games.) I also believe that your standard deviation is a little too high. So what does it mean? My specualtions are that you are either playing too many hands in certain situations or getting traped for extra bets here and there -- that is your hand reading skills can still get better. However, it could reflect the particular games that you are in, and I can be completely off the mark.
Finally, having a standard deviation that is a little too high doesn't mean you can't win. However, if my speculations are correct, it would mean that you won't win as much as a top player. One thing that I do know for sure, your hand reading skills, no matter who you are, can almost always get a little better.
One last note. Just because your standard deviation is in the range that I think is optimal, doesn't mean that you are playing well. For instance, suppose you decided to always throw away two aces. This would certainly lower your standard deviation to the levels that I talk about, but it wouldn't be good poker. That's why you need to look at both parameters over a long period of time to draw good conclusions.
Thank you, Mason for your very insightful observations on the possible merits of rotating clubs, value of card reading, etc, etc.
Mason wrote: < I am confused/uncertain what you are trying to say when you said "probably no statistical difference between some of your results even though the win rates look very different". Are you saying that as far as the win rate is concerned that if one club played for about 500 hours shows a win rate of say $100/hr and another different club played also for 500 hours shows a win rate of say $200/hr doesn't have much weight or consideration??
Are you saying that it would if each club was played for 5,000 hours instead of 500 hours each??
I definitely agree with you that if you played in the exact same games (via Twilight Zone-time travel technology) that I played in---you would indeed have a lower standard deviation with a higher win rate too. I am basically very "green" and new to the world of professional poker. I have lots to learn especially in areas like card readings, tells, identifying the best post-flop strategy for special situations, etc, etc. Thanks for all your help...
Let's assume that your standard deviation in each of these games is $1,000 per hour, you play for 500 hours each, and your win rate is $100 and $200 respectively. (Note: a $1,000 per hour standard deviation with these win rates is probably very low.)
First, the standard deviation for a total of 500 hours is $1,000 divided by the square root of 500 which is 44.72. The standard deviation of a difference is the square root of the sum of each standard deviation squared. That is you take 44.72, square it, then add it to itself, then take the square root. This produces 63.25.
Your difference between 100 and 200 is 100. Divide 100 by 63.25 which gives 1.58 standard deviations. Most statisticians would want 2 standard deviations to consider the difference significant. In reality since a $1,000 per hour standard deviation is probably too small your differences are probably only about 1 standard deviation a part. As hard as it is to believe, you have not played enough to conclude that there are any differences in this hypothetical example. However, 5,000 hours in each game would be more then plenty with a difference of $100.
This reminds me. Several years ago I took my first trip to Atlantic City. The poker rooms had been opened for about a year. I met several players who had very little understanding of how to play poker, but they were obviously the lucky ones among a large group -- none of who played very well. Needless to say they were pretty big winners for the limit that they were playing at, but their future as poker pros was not very bright, and they didn't know it. Yes, the standard deviation can be very cruel and it takes a long time to be sure of your results.
But there is one thing that I am fairly sure of. There is no question in my mind that you are asking the right questions and doing the right things to become a top player. It will take some time, and the natural fluctuations of the game will make sure that you will have your doubting moments. But if you keep working at it I am sure that you will get there.
Thanks Mason, for the clarification of how the standard deviation relates to the sample size and win rate. Also, thanks for your kind words and encouragement on my experience/results as first year professional poker player. I definitely owe alot of my current success to the TwoPlusTwo books since I never participated in poker playing much at all as a youth. I am a classic example of the "book learned" studious type player. I started my poker education about 4 years ago with your books and others.
Finally, as I promised earlier in my thread, I am posting my standard deviations for the different casino results. In particular, you should recall from my previous threads that I had bad results at Hollywood Park for 1997 and excellent results for everywhere else (especially Commerce & Crystal Park $15-30 games).
My best casinos for the $15-30 games during 1997 were the Commerce and Crystal Park resulting in a +$71.69/hour win rate in 118.75 hours. The standard deviation for this interval is $350.36/hour using the Formula in Gambling Theory.
My worst casinos for the $15-30 games during 1997 was the Hollywood Park resulting in a +$13.64/hour win rate in 523.5 hours. The standard deviation for this interval is $277.74/hour again with Gambling Theory Formula.
Also, I calculated my standard deviation to be $244.07/hour for my worst "running bad" period of 7-2-97 to 12-22-97 at the Hollywood Park. During this period at HP I had a "win rate" of -$13.78 in 213.5 hours.
Any insights and observations on these different standard deviations for the hot and cold rushes would be appreciated.
Your sample (which isn't very large) suggests that your win rate increases as standard deviation increases. That suggests that you can beat the loosest games, but have more difficulty with tighter games.
Also, your loss rate during the worst period is about equal to the rake. So no one except Hollywood Park was making money from you. A small comfort, perhaps.
Posted by: MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 28 December 1997, at 9:19 a.m.
Posted by: Poker Pro Results (santa@north.com)
Posted on: Monday, 29 December 1997, at 3:52 p.m.
Posted by: Paul R. Pudaite (pudaite@pipeline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 29 December 1997, at 5:30 p.m.
Hi, since no one else dares to post their numbers, I'll post mine...over the last 4 years.
Total P&L +3,918, over 450 hours, 10-30 stud/hold'em to 40-80 stud/hold'em with most of the time spent in 10-20 or 15-30.
Std dev normalized to 15-30 + 280.32 Real Average per hour +8.7 Normalized Average per hour +21.77 (normalized to 15-30 schedule) winning sessions - 50 lossing sessions - 36 lost 2000 in one session of 40-80 hold'em of 2 hours, which explains some of the difference between the normalized average per hour versus the real average per hour.
i guess that puts me in the ok category.
Is there no one out there willing to spill the beans on how they've made over six figures from gambling? I loved the idea of the S&M title purporting to show us how to do this but I have yet to meet anyone who claims to do it. I exempt those folks in my own business (the securities and commodities markets) who have bankrolls large enough to make a six-figure annual win rate a normal occurrence.
A bankroll over $100,000 seems to preclude the ability to take full advantage of the few games in which we can develop an edge. Playing properly at blackjack with a $100,000 BR should produce a win rate high enough to produce a six figure annual win. The question is whether you can continue playing at such a level for long enough (without being barred from the entire world) to make it worthwhile. Poker is a possibility but, as these posts attest, it is difficult to determine whether your win rate over so short a period as twelve months has a great deal to do with your playing ability. This would seem to leave horse-racing and sports betting. I know very little about sports betting except that I know no one who claims to beat the spread often enough to make anything close to $100,000 per year.
Until I began making a decent living at my day job, I harbored (and still do) a longing to make a living from horse-race betting. I have pursued handicapping and betting with the fervor of a zealot. I have consistently made a profit and I have played within the bounds of propriety given my bankroll. The six-figure earn rate might be a consistent possibility but playing at the level required begins to put pressure on the mutuels required to create a decent ROI.
I am in a quandary. I long to believe that it is possible to make a decent living as a professional gambler and yet I have no role models. In a way, I suppose this is asking for the key to the grail--why would anyone who can do it want to create more competition by showing other people how. On the other hand, the postings here and on other WEB sites indicate that I am not alone in my quest. Are there any professional players out there willing to pass the torch?
Lucky Stiff,
I posted on the book Gambling For A Living a while back. David Sklansky wrote a response. You may want to go the archives and read the following two threads:
Gambling For A Living. Can You Really Make $100,000 a Year? David Sklansky -- Thursday, 23 October 1997, at 8:03 p.m.
Gambling For a Living Tom Haley -- Saturday, 18 October 1997, at 1:34 p.m.
I more or less raised some of the concerns that you had. I actually have done a fair amount of betting on the ponies myself. The response by David Sklansky is most interesting indeed. Highly recommended.
Tom Haley
Lucky Stiff,
You are hanging with the wrong crew. There is a fair number of horse players making much more than that figure every year. They bet high and exploit every inequity in the line and the pools. They treat the game as a business just as the BJ and poker players that win that much each year. In poker to win 100G's you really need to play 20&40 or higher and find good games and put in the hours. If you play higher, less hours and fair games easily brings the result. Many players make that amount and much more. I know personally 200 or more that do it and keep their money. Years ago I knew a friend that became a millionaire from gambling that never made a bet over 100 dollars. Impossible but true, as he played medium stakes for many years earning just about 100G's a year and saved his money. I have a few friends and know of many slot players making that figure and much more by putting in the hours and work needed to be tops in their field. It is not out of the reach of most good players if they really become very knowledgeable and have the discipline to to not go off when things dont go well. Good Luck and happy holidays.
slot players getting positive expectancy? do you care to elaborate please.
Ray Zee said: < Interesting post, Mr. Zee...Could you let me know what your friend played? Was it strictly poker or some Blackjack and other stuff too.
Thanks and Happy New year to all...
I agree that to make $100k+ per year from gambling, you are more likely to succeed at poker, the horses or sports. All take a tremendous amount of preparation and study time, yet the rake at the horse track and sports is debilitating to a bankroll. But if you want to succeed as a horseplayer (where you might make 6-figures on a single exotic bet), the most important book to read is Andy Beyer's "Beyer on Speed."
As for the poker end of it, for the limit games, you will have to put in enough hours at a high enough limit that produces the hourly rate to make $100,000. Assuming 40 hours per 50 weeks (hey, take a holiday), that's $50 an hour. I don't play regularly, so I can't give you a win rate, but the average win rates I've seen posted here of 1-2 big bets per hour (which seems low to me) would dictate a 20-40 game. The reality is that the 20-40 games are more likely to be populated by better players, so perhaps assuming a lower win rate, 30-60 would be more likely to produce the $100k.
To keep that win rate high, you would have to change games frequently (it seems unlikely you will make it in one poker room such as the Mirage). This means you will have to be skilled at several games and should literally "hit-the-road." A good player with the proper bankroll who made the rounds in all the states that offer decent sized poker games should be able to make the $100k.
Those who have a reasonably well-paying job or business would be better served to focus on a different target, that is, the tournaments, where the "six-figure" payoff might occur in one day, but in the meantime allows you to live what passes for a normal life.
Another benefit to the "outsider" tournament approach is that when you do play, the unknown factor increases your win -- I know their faces, but few know mine; I know generally how they play, but not only do they not know how I play, but they do not know that I know their style of play. (I think someone called this the "stealth" factor; it helps if you've lived in Vegas before, you can usually tell the hard knockers by the way they dress and act).
Another alternative is to seek out the big pot-limit and no-limit games. Your swings may be greater, but you could get to that $100k very quickly.
You should do confidence intervals on your results and t-test difference of means, in order to determine what conclusions, if any, you can make from your results.
Below, I do 95% confidence intervals on your results, assuming a 20 small bet per hour standard deviation, since that's about what you reported. I've included a URL link to an explanation of 95% confidence intervals for those who wish to understand this simple computation. The format is [lower,upper] for the lower and upper bounds, given in units per hour. If the ranges for two different samples do not overlap, we can loosely conclude that the difference is significant (again, the proper way is a t-test difference of means.)
>40/80 = - $ 3,026 in 52.50 hrs = - $ 57.64 / hr
[-6.9,+4.0]
So that means your expected value is probably between -6.9 small bets per hour and +4.0 small bets per hour.
>30/60 = + 1,746 in 209.5 hr = + 8.33
[-2.4,+3.0]
>20/40 = + $ 8,446 in 580 hr = + 14.56
[-.90,+2.4]
(Perhaps it comes as some surprise that your 40-80 expected value *may* be *considerably* higher than your 20-40 expected value. Of course, you could also be a 40-80 megafish or a small fish at 20-40.]
>15/30 = + $ 18,517 in 795.75 hr = + 23.27
[+.16,+2.9]
(Now that's an important result... you are almost certainly a winning 15-30 player! 800 hours is also about the earliest you can usually say this, if you are winning in the 1-2 small bet per hour range in reality.]
>10/20 = - $ 1,910 in 121 = - 15.79
[-5.1,+2.0]
>6/12 = + $ 2,001 in 182.5 = + 10.96
[-1.1,+4.7]
There seems to be not statistically significant difference between your results for the various game sizes. I hope I've disuaded you from placing unfair emphasis on your results when broken down by game, casino, etc. I broke down my results like this for most of the year, and I was unable to determine whether any game, casino, or time or day was better than any other. I could probably make such conclusions if I include my lifetime results, but then the games and myself have changed so much over my lifetime, that any such conclusions would be suspect.
The only significant result I found was that I had significantly poorer results for shorter sessions... this may be caused by bias in the sampling procedure... that is, I often quit when I'm losing, and keep playing when I'm winning, because of table image. (When I'm losing, the table starts playing more aggressive, and hence generally more correctly, against me, whereas when I'm winning, the table starts playing more cowardly, and hence suboptimally, against me.) It could also be from leaving bad games quickly, and staying around in good games a long time, regardless of my actual results thus far in the session. Or it could be a genuine effect, that I play less well the less time I have to learn about my opponents, but because of the bias in the data this is not something that can be properly concluded. Similar biases may also create similar effects along the other dimensions, so beware of making conclusions even in those rare cases where the statistics suggest that you can.
-Abdul
Abdul wrote:
I've noticed that Poker Software, is for the most part, looked down apon by Poker players. Though, I admit the stratagies used by the Simulated Players is sometimes poor, and any experienced Poker players would be wasting their money on the Software. The benefit of Poker Software for the inexperienced player would make purchacing the Software a worthwhile investment. I think this is especialy true with a game like 7 card stud. I've found that by reading books and using Software, this form of Poker is much more complex that it appears. I still haven't played it in a casino due to the fact that I'm only now becoming a winning player on the PC. (I feel that mastering Hold'em on the PC was much easier. Once I did master it on the PC I found I was a confident winning player at the Low Limit tables.)
This is what I believe "GOOD" Poker Software can provide to beginning players. First, It provides beginners with a no stress environment to learn the game. If the beginners find an area of play they are unfamiliar with, the PC will wait until the player has consulted the texts to find the proper strategy play. The players can sharpen their strategy so that each play is like reflex, and will not disrupt a real game. For example: I would rather be concentrating on whether my Semi-Bluff will cause my opponent to fold, and not whether I should even be considering a Semi-Bluff in the first place.
What I don't believe is the myth that PC Poker will teach a beginner to be a poor player. The beginner is already a poor player and can only improve.
The one thing I hate to see, and I see this alot. Is a beginning player, after reading a book on Poker being told by an advanced player to head to the Low Limit tables and take their lumps. This can be very costly advice. If a player can't beat PC Poker he will definitely be a Fish in the Casino.
I agree 100%. Turbo Texas Hold 'em was invaluable to me in learning the basics of Hold 'em. I don't care how poorly the computer players play - they can't be much worse than the people at the 3-6 tables I frequent.
Zardoz (or anyone else) - what software do you recommend for Seven Card Stud?
I agree and disagree with you. My main complaint about Turbo Hold 'em is that the pop up advice can use a lot of improvement. A beginner who follows this advice should not be very happy when he ventures in the casino.
On the other hand, if the pop up advice just didn't exist, then I would like it.
Well, we are in agreement then. The so-called "Professional Advisor" is a feature that I never used once I realized that it differed so greatly from the advice you and David give. In fact, I wrote my own Windows program to quiz myself on starting hands.
Speaking of Windows, I much prefer the older "DOS" version of Turbo Texas Hold'em. The Windows version doesn't work well unless your display is set to 640x480 with 16 colors, which I consider primitive and barely usable. Also, you are pretty much forced to use the mouse, whereas in the DOS version you can do everything from the keyboard.
Jon
When advised of Mason Malmuth's comments that Turbo Texas Holdem is "unrealistic", and the pop up advice is " inaccurate"' Bob Wilson of Wilson Software stated, " Mason Malmuth has a problem with any product, or person, he considers as competition. I'm afraid you're not going to see anything but criticism about a product unless he or one of his colleagues authored it". As a relative beginner, even I recognize that TTH has flaws, but I also recognize that it has been a very useful tool to practice how to react to the myriad of situations that occur in holdem. Mr. Malmuth?
" Mason Malmuth has a problem with any product, or person, he considers as competition. I'm afraid you're not going to see anything but criticism about a product unless he or one of his colleagues authored it".
I have reviewed many products that I have nothing to do with favorably. (See another post on this message board.) Further, even though I did help with the World Series of Poker Computer Adventure, that time was voluntary, and I do not nor have I ever derived any income from the game.
I suggest that you compare the pop up advice in TTH to what we say in our books. Then come back and reprot to us on this forum.
Again my main complain about the TTH product is the pop up advice. I think that most of the other features are well done.
Mason, since you worked on the WSOP software, after all this time, I'm curious your opinion on the software now (in particular, the satellites and the tournament play).
Incidentally, I have some interesting long-term data on results from that software as compared to the real thing, and I'll share that after hearing your analysis. Someone named Dick Taylor once wrote on here that he could beat the WSOP tournament every time and would e-mail the strategy to anyone who asked, but I wrote and never heard back, so I'm also curious as to any other opinions and data.
I only worked on the limit hold 'em and the limit stud side games with the majority of my 200 hours going into the hold 'em game. I believe the limit hold 'em is fairly realistic but on the tight side. It would have been better but we ran into memory constraints and ran out of time.
The documantation has always been a little incomplete. To help make the games more realistic we designed a live one and a maniac who get into the games "at random." Sometimes they are both there, sometimes only one, and sometimes never. The other players mimic our published stategies to some degree, but they do not always recognize every situation as a real player would.
I believe that if you can beat the limit hold 'em games "pretty good" that the program offers you should be able to at least break even in a typical "weak" $10-$20 hold 'em game. I don't believe the stud plays this well.
The no-limit tournament strategy, which the game employs, is very weak, and I had nothing to do with that part of the program. It would have been better but the programer ran out of time and there were memory constraints. Ironically, a weak no-limit strategy is probably good because it allows you to beat the game fairly often which makes it more fun.
Okay, the data I promised. Please note that I no longer live in Vegas, so I only play tournaments during 3-4 visits a year (although that is the focus of every visit). Most of the live satellite data is from the WSOP with some 1997 results from the 4Queens included.
Software: Using the WSOP satellite and tournaments exclusively over a 4-year period, I played 576 satellites and won 180; entered 213 main events and won 19.
Real life: 1995, 6 NL satellites played, made it to heads-up in 4, declined all deals and lost all 4. 1996, 15 NL satellites played, won 3 and split 4. 1997, 12 NL satellites played, won or split 6.
[I realize that the split aspect makes calculating a win percentage impossible, but after my results in 1995, I came back determined to accept all deals. Interestingly enough, this year, in all but 2 satellites, I made it down to the last 3 players in every satellite I played (25 total, all games) -- unfortunately, not all resulted in a deal. Next year I intend to take a different approach to deal-making.]
Incidentally, I haven't played enough main events over the past 3 years (considering a main event anything other than a single table event) to compile a meaningful set of data.
However, I think based on some old records, the software results were uncannily close to live tournament play (even given that the caliber of opponents was not WSOP-quality). In 1985, I played 86 smaller events, ranging from Bob Thompson's Wednesday night tournament at the Stardust (with usually 150-200 players) to the smaller ones at the Tropicana (with maybe 40-50 players). My results for that year were 10 wins with 15 additional in-the-money finishes (note that the smaller tournaments usually only paid 4-5 places).
How is the above data relevant to the software? The old main event data tracks very close to my WSOP software main event results (9-10% wins). My software satellite percentage was approximately 31%. My real-life satellite results nearly mirror that percentage, even given the nebulous concept of considering a split a "win".
But these results have created a new set of questions for me. Does this mean my live opponents are as inept as the software or does it meant that the strategy I employ works equally well on the live opponents as it does on the software? Alternatively, does this mean that my previous tournament experience (admittedly dated) makes the WSOP software a more "normal" tournament opponent for me? For the future, does it mean that my now-ingrained attitude (that I *will* win a certain percentage of satellites every year) has given me a confidence factor that in fact means the difference between success and failure? Opinions are welcome.
Incidentally, I've found that the biggest benefit using the software is in the NL satellites and tournament, using it to judge decisions on whether to play a hand in a particular position, to practice calculating odds "on-the-fly", and to evaluate various tournament "phase" strategies. I'm not aware of any other software that can give you this tournament practice.
While the software does have some weaknesses (and I surely wouldn't recommend the strategies it employs), I'm amazed at how much better some of the software opponents play as compared to many of the players at the real tables. Perhaps because NL is not spread in Vegas very often, many of the "live" players really seem to flounder on how much to bet, raise, evaluate starting hands, and make other decisions.
Finally, I don't play the limit side-games in the WSOP software because I don't want it to affect my thought processes in those games that I play live. However, for a tournament tune-up, it's a cheap way of evaluating your decison-making processes.
Any comments on available stud software?
I use WSOP stud for practice, but the robot players are far tighten than what I find in low stakes live games.
I downloaded demos of two games last year, but found the cards hard to read (spades and clubs looked the same).
Thanx
I use ConJelCo's Stud and Hold'em Poker (Sozobon). You can configure the players to be Tight or Loose, Bluff More or Less. Unfortunately, you can't make them play smarter, but they do try to learn about your betting "patterns". I haven't seen this effect the game play though. The players are programed to get tighter as you go up in Limits. You can adjust the pot rake. It also costs alot less than the Turbo Games.
One thing I though was amusing was that this program doesn't recomend that you use its "Railbird" advice column.
Are the graphics and human interfaces sufficient to make the game enjoyable? Do they offer spread limit betting?
Thanx
No spread Limits. It's not the most exciting game I've played, but it was a good learning tool. Sounds like you should buy WSOP Adventure.
In addition to sharpening strategy, the PC can provide a realistic view of the concept of randomness. There have been a lot of good posts about beats, tilts, streaks, and how to handle them. But, if you can learn to say "Nice hand" to the PC that just sucked out on you for the umpteenth time in a row, then when that happens at the table, it isn't so unbelievable after all.
I agree almost completely with this post:
Yes, PC poker programs are a waste of money to teach experienced players; Yes, its a great way to learn the mechanics of the game in a stress free environment relatively cheaply and quickly. I suspect any single such program is better having than none at all, for begineers. Yes, if you can't beat these games you can't win at the tables.
You also can get a feel for certain dangerous situations such as an Ace or pair in Holdem or player pairing their door card at Stud. You also can get a good feel for what sorts of hands tend to win or lose show-downs; giving opportunities for good lessons on value-betting and routine folding.
But I strongly disagree with your direct reference to semi-bluffing and implied reference to strategy: besides as already noted about value betting and folding you are in great danger of learning BAD strategy with these games. You can easily "learn" bad situations to semi-bluff since the computer players play so badly and usually do NOT react like real players.
While bluffing OPPORTUNITIES abound in these programs bluffing STRATEGIES do not; since much of the art of bluffing has to do with recent history (such as whether you bet on the last card, or bluffing as a function of who raised before the flop) and the programs remember nothing of this sort. Also in these games you can bluff consistently and no-one will "learn" to call you more often than they would when you started.
My advise would be to stop playing these games as soon as you are confident you will consistently beat them. Yes, you CAN and WILL learn BAD PLAY against these programs since they seldom simulate real play of real players.
- Louie
Louie,
What I ment with the statement: The players can sharpen their strategy so that each play is like reflex, and will not disrupt a real game. For example: I would rather be concentrating on whether my Semi-Bluff will cause my opponent to fold, and not whether I should even be considering a Semi-Bluff in the first place.
is that the Begining Player should be thinking on the Second Level when at the Casino. They should have all the basics mastered. This will free there mind to think on a higher level than just playing there hand.
With that said I think anyone who can understand the concept behind the Semi-Bluff (and can use it properly) can also realize that the Computer has its limits.
Zardoz
I also agree with this, any poker software you buy is only for practice, practice, practice, and anybody who has not memorized Sklansky's books on Hold-em. If you don't know the basics of the game you will only be throwing your money away. I currently have the WSOP game and most of the books by Sklansky and Malmuth. I am a low-limit player, 2-4 and 3-6 and before I ever sat down in the game I played the WSOP game until I knew most of Sklansky's chart. When I first started playing blackjack in AC 13 yrs ago I got a BJ program and played until I had the basic strategy memorized.
I am doing the same with this program so I can also learn pot odds, implied odds, drawing odds, etc. and with a program you can take all the time you want to make your decision. A program is nothing like the real thing but with learning on a computer you can't lose any money and you can sharpen you reflexes of when you think you should fold, check, call, or raise.
You can also think about applying the concepts of S & M as you practice so you can memorize them and when you play for real you will be comfortable in using the concept at the table when you use real money.
I like to play the WSOP no-limit tournament so I can learn the concepts of no-limit play. And as the book says, if you have the best hand you have to raise and be prepared to go all in, and as the levels progress you WILL have to steal the blinds to survive and also learn to play short handed.
And just for the record, last week I got on a roll and got to the final table, and the computer gave the names Moss and Brunson as two of the final players. I ended up in 5th place.
As it has been said before a computer game is for practice as there is no comparison to sitting in a real live game with real money.
As far as I know, there is no substitute on the market for the WSOP tournament/satellite game. There are some weaknesses in the computer players (i.e., some players will call an all-in bet preflop with hands such as 10-9s, J-10s and so forth), but it is excellent practice for overall strategy. One concept of live play that has seemed particularly relevant in the simulation is being able to dump hands when clearly beaten -- even though the pot is large and even if it happens repeatedly. Perhaps the hardest concept to see and fully grasp in live tournament play is that you *can* surrender a big pot in order to fight another day and yet still come back to win. Thus, to my mind, global tournament strategy practice is really what the WSOP software offers.
I would like to compute my hourly standard deviation, but don't know how to proceed. My records show how long a session was (anywhere from 1 to 5 hours or so) and how much I won/lost at that session. Is this enough data to compute my hourly S.D.? If so, how? (I would know what to do if I had won/lost data for every individual hour). Thanks in advance.
You have enough information to compute the standard deviation. The method to do it is found in my book GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS.
Thanks Mason. I'll buy the book.
Jon
It's amazing but I just knew what Mason's reply was going to be even before I clicked on the message.
Does anyone who DOES NOT have a book to sell care to inform the rest of us how to compute SD :-)
Merry Christmas
When I tried to copy my Word Perfect file that contains the essay From GAMBLING THEORY that shows you how to compute the standard deviation the equations and table will not copy correctly. I will have to talk to Chuck Weinstock and have him scan the essay called "Computing Your Standard Deviation," and then we will post it in our essay section. This may not get done until after the first of the year.
In the meantime you will have to buy the book. Since one of the purposes of this web page was to create demand for our products, I don't think my suggesting it is so bad. Besides, how else can I stay in action.
Let N = number of sessions
Xi = result for the ith session
Ti = duration of the ith session
Let U = (SUMMATION(Xi))/(SUMMATION(Ti))
(i.e., your win/hour, over all N sessions)
Then your variance =
(1/N) * [ SUMMATION((Xi*Xi)/Ti) - ((U*U)*SUMMATION(Ti)) ]
where the sums are again over all N sessions.
and your standard deviation is the square root of that number.
Thanks J.P. The formula is now part of my spreadsheet.
Jon
Every spreadsheet has a built in formula to calculate SD. I used to use 123 and now am using Excel for this purpose. Earlier I had used Mason's formula from his book.
I think the Excel built-in standard deviation function would only be useful if I had results for every individual hour of my play. I doubt that Excel has the more general version that JP gave. I couldn't find it, at least.
Jon
The formula in the GAMBLING THEORY book is the maximum likelihood estimator for the standard deviation. The reason why it is unique is that it allows you to estimate the standard deviation per hour when you do not track your results after each hour. You only track per session and how long you played per session. Do not use the spread sheet formula since it will give equal weight to each entry.
I compute my standard deviations using an excel spreadsheet. It's not difficult to program the formula into the spreadsheet. Before these spreadsheets were available it was a tedious calculation. Now its easy.
Can you program these calculations into a spreadsheet using Microsoft Works? I have spent hours trying to figure out how to do this. I am not very computer savvy.
Thanks for the formula...I did a B.S. in Math about 30 years ago and I haven't kept all my books.
Glad to see Mason has a sense of humor...I'm sure all those Mirage regulars don't want to lose any of his action ! ;-)
Seriously though, I have profited from the writings of Sklansky, Malmuth and Zee for the 11 years I have been playing poker...and I greatly enjoy having this forum to read...especially when I am in "exile" at home in St. Lucia where I can't play poker or buy poker books!
Best wishes for a healthy and Happy New Year to all,
Jim Mogal
Mason,
Since I was the first one to "stick in the needle" let me be the first also to thank you for your quick work in posting your excellent essay on Computing Your Standard Deviation in the essay section of this forum.
When you said that you would do it in the new year I kinda thought you might have been bluffing...but I read you wrong.
As I recall I used to have the same problem when I played poker with you!!
Again, thanks for the freebe, it's much appreciated. I hope also that you or someone else will respond to SendAlive1 who wrote on December 29 and asked how to set up the spreadsheet to automatically compute the SD. Like him, I a computer newbe and need all the help I can get. An email response would be OK if you think this is not of general interest to the readers of this forum.
Happy New Year
Jim Mogal
To David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth:
I know you feel that playing the proper starting hands is the least important of the other skills, but from my experience in 6-12 limits and lower, I believe most of my winnings come from opponents who play junk hands. I guess in higher limits, most players play proper starting hands and so there is little advantage. Anyway, my question is regarding the change in value of different startings hands. You might not feel this is important because you already have a good intuitive feel for this, but I believe most players are confused. Isn't ATo(Group 6) better than T9s(Group 4) when heads-up? I feel your book, HPFAP, does not stress enough of this change in value. For example, you recommend raising with Groups 1-8 when first in on the button. But with ace unsuited only raise if blinds are very tight or very weak (p. 27). Are you suggesting that 32s is better than A6o? Even T9s seems worse than A6o in this position. It might take a whole new chapter, but I feel it would be most helpful if you make different sets of hand rankings with respect to position, number of player, type of opponents, etc. For example, is 87s really better than AQo with seven callers? Whenis AJs really better than AKo? I feel your table is based on a loose game with many callers, thus adding value to suited connectors. Actually, I really doubt the vaule of your Group 8 hands. Is 32s really playable in a typical 20-40 game? Isn't it worse than a random hand heads-up? Even with everyone calling, isn't Q5s better?
Thank you All for any inputs.
Danny,
The reason you make most of your money from players that play junk hands is that they play junk hands badly. If they played junk hands well you might find that your profits plummet severely. Good players play much closer to the proper starting hand requirements as well as play the hands properly or close to it. Thats why I always advocate that improving playing and reading skills is the most important part of increasing your win rate. As to the bulk of your question ill defer it to Mason although it seems you answer your own questions mostly. Remember a book can only get so large and cannot include all situations unfortunately. Good Luck and happy holidays.
Ray,
I believe playing proper starting hands is the most basic and easiest part to learn. That's why I think one should master this fundamental part first. It should also be the easiest part to give concrete guidelines. I agree that a book cannot include all situations, but it seems very difficult for someone who is not already an expert player to apply a table, made for "typical" situations, to all situations. That's why playing proper starting hands is not so easy, after all.
Thanks for your response. Happy Holidays.
In a post about two weeks ago(titled, "Statistically speaking), I inquired about the drawing odds in a game of five card draw, jacks to open trips to win. I was very impressed by the quantity of responses, but not necessarily the quality. With no intentions of offending, perhaps they were not the answers I was looking for.
I asked if it was not to my advantage to split a pair in fair of a three flush or three straight. Overwhelmingly, the responses recommended holding the pair. I don't have any stats to provide to the contrary, but this just doesn't seem right!
I have played twice since posting my inquiry. The first time I tried holding the pair whenever possible. I enjoyed moderate success. On the second occasion, I went for flushes and straights whenever possible. I enjoyed incredible success this way. These results lead me to believe that everyone responding to my original post was a dealer in a casino.
I am by no means a member of the actuarial community, but it seems to me that (in a game of trips to win) I have a 2 in 47 chance of drawing a match for my pair. On the other hand, it would appear that I have a 10 in 47 chance of drawing two cards of the same suit.
I guess what I am really asking is for someone to provide the real world probabilities(i.e. a statistician or poker pro)for matching a pair versus matching a three flush or three straight.
Thanks for all your responses and this post is by no means intended to offend.
---Dinker
You have the statistics wrong. Your 10 in 47 odds apply to the first card, the odds of the 2nd card being of the same suit is 9 in 46. You have to multiply these together to get the odds for BOTH cards to be of the same (correct) suit, so your odds are 90 in 2162, or approximately 1 in 94.
Althought you are correct in concept, my calculations agree with Ray's: approximately 24-1 against hitting the flush drawing two cards (the most accurate way of calculating the 2-card flush draw is to determine the decimal probability and multiply together).
Arghh, Typo! 90/2162 is just over 4%, or 1 in 24. I can calculate, I just can't type.
Rich
Let's do the math. Assume you are dealt As Ah Ks 9s 5c. You can keep the aces, or keep the three spades.
1. What if you keep the Aces?
There are 47 unseen cards, and you will get 3 of them. This yields a total of 16,215 possible draws (47x46x45/6). Of these draws, 14,190 contain no Ac or Ad (45x44x43/6), and therefore 2,025 will contain either or both aces. This means that you will improve to trip aces or better at least 12.49% of the time (you will actually improve a little more often, as your 3-card draw might be trips, which would give you something full of aces).
2. What if you keep the As Ks 9S?
There are still 47 unseen cards, and to make a flush, you need to hit 2 spades in a row. The chances of the first card being a spade are 10/47, and the chances of the second card being a spade are 9/46. Multiply these together, and you get 4.16%. This hand might also improve to trips if you are dealt two aces, two kings, or two nines in your draw, but the chances of these occurrences only add up to 0.65%. Thus, your total chances of qualifying with this draw is only about 4.81%, which is, by the way, much, much worse than 12.49%.
Keep in mind, that just because the second draw performed better than the first in your personal experience (as described in your post) does not mean that this trend will continue, as your sample size is VERY small, and is therefore statistically meaningless. Imagine trying to determine the batting champ in professional baseball based upon the batting averages of each player at the end of the first week of the season. If you're a baseball fan, you know that these early averages are nearly meaningless. The same is true of your sample.
Good luck, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
The math here looks good: about 2.5 times more likely to make trips or better drawing to the pair than to the flush. Lets not forget you must catch two out of two good cards for the 3-flush but only 1 out of 3 good cards for the pair. The author's two-day trial is statistically meaningless.
But .....
The flush is more likely to win the pot. Much more likely if you are talking about a small pair.
And ... in typical games you have $0 equity if you miss. In the game described you generally maintain 1/n equity in the pot since usually no one will make trips or better. This makes the cost of missing not as bad.
So the 3-flush is not as bad as it appears.
A three-straight-flush is better than a small pair in this game.
- Louie
Louie wrote:
>The flush is more likely to win the pot. Much more likely >if you are talking about a small pair.
I disagree. In my experience, this game is typically won by the first person to make a qualifying hand, and it is relatively uncommon (no more than maybe 15% of time sounds like a reasonable guess) for someone to qualify with trips or better, and yet lose to a higher hand.
>since usually no one will make trips or better.
I see you do agree with me.
>So the 3-flush is not as bad as it appears.
Not as bad, but still nowhere near as good as a pair.
>A three-straight-flush is better than a small pair in this >game.
I still don't agree. We've shown that the chances of improving the pair are about 12%. I'm guessing that the chances of improving the 3-str8-flush are still much less than this (anyone got the exact number?).
YMMV, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"Flush is more likely to win than trips" meant once you make the hand, ignoring chances to make it. But if two people make trips or better the median hand is something like a J or T high straight; medium trips lose most of the time and any flush wins most of the time.
Yes, typically only one person makes a qualifying hand in Jacks to open Trips to win. Maximizing your chances to make it weighs much more than maximizing your chances of beating someone who also makes it. Much more, but not completely.
Lets see; our figures were 12% to make trips for a pair and just under 5% to flush a 3-flush? 3 straights are a little easier to hit than 3-flushes (even though 4 flushes are easier to hit than 4 straights) since in addition to the 8 cards adjoining you can hit you can also hit one of the 8 cards not-adjoining and still have a gut draw for the last card. I think its about 7% to hit a solid 3-straight (789). Even if its a little less when added to the 3-flush then a 3-straight-flush is almost as likely to hit as a pair, but you also tend to win the occational confrontation much more often; hence my suggestion that a 3-str-flush is better than a pair.
- Louie
Anyway, I disliked this game since it allows one player to choose the game for the other players; in what is nominally a "dealer's choice" game. Generally play the first hand normally meaning usually fold and use this time to take care of business away from the table.
>>A three-straight-flush is better than a small pair in this >>game.
>I still don't agree. We've shown that the chances of
>improving the pair are about 12%. I'm guessing that the
>chances of improving the 3-str8-flush are still much less
>than this (anyone got the exact number?).
I calculated this in the topic of this forum, "Jacks to open, trips to win". I didn't include the possibility of "accidentally" making trips, but the correction for this contingency is small. In fact, it's so easy to compute, what the heck, here it is:
Number of ways to draw a pair of a card we already have (and make trips) is 3! = 6. There are 3 such cards, so we add 3x6=18 more ways to "get there" to our already 180 ways. Thus the EXACT probability of improving to trips or better when starting with a three-card straight flush is... drumroll...
198/(47x46) = 9.16%
This assumes, however, that all three of the cards in the straight flush have three cards out there to make trips with, AND that the 3-straight has two spaces on each end. For example, comparing this draw to a draw with a pair would be like making a decision on:
5h6h7hTcTd
If the decision was instead about:
5h6h7h7cTd,
then there are fewer ways to accidentally make trips when drawing to the three card straight flush, and its odds are (slightly) lower than quoted above. Note, however, that Greg is correct when he says that the pair draw is better even under the best of straight/flush draw conditions.
Tom Weideman
how would someone go about figuring out the standard deviation of tournament play? I guess if one played enough tourneys, one could estimate their expectancy, but what about standard dev? wouldn't there be lots of losses, with a huge win every once in a while, does that destroy the std dev formulas, since they assume normal or lognormal distributions (i think).
Tournament Player,
I know I am being repetitive but David Sklansky's book Poker, Gaming and Life has an essay that I feel would be very helpful regarding this topic. I believe it is called, Is Your Wallet Fat Enough For Tournaments.
Tom Haley
Thanks, I read the chapter, and its fairly useful, but it only talks about bankroll and expectancies. There's nothing in there about standard deviations, which I find useful. So thanks, but this does not answer the question.
Calculating the standard deviation of a nonnormal distribution is done the same way as always (well, I think you can make some improvements with limited sample sizes but never mind.) It's just that usually the computations we do using the standard deviation assume a normal distribution, e.g., confidence intervals and risk of ruin.
I suggest you use a technique called "bootstrapping" to deal with the skewed distribution. Let's say you wanted to calculate the probability of going broke with $10,000 bankroll over the course of 100 $300 entry fee tournaments. Usually, 100 samplings would be enough for the central limit theorem to kick in and the distribution to become approximately normal, but for big tournaments, the results are probably sufficiently skewed that this is not true. You happen to have data of your results for 50 tournaments, taking first place in just one of them. First, you still need to estimate your expected value, and then adjust your actual results to conform to this. Your results hopefully do reflect to true distribution, so they don't need to be adjusted other than for expected value.
Now imagine writing each of these results on a slip of paper and dropping it into a hat. You can draw a slip out of the hat, record the results, and return the slip to the hat. Continue until you hit 100 tournaments or go broke on your pretend $10,000 bankroll. Now repeat a million times, to nail down the probability.
A somewhat related technique is to use the "sample distribution".
-Abdul
--Thankyou very much everyone. You are all correct, my stats were wrong. I guess it does make more sense to hold the pair. But I still have another inquiry regarding a game of trips to win. Let's suppose these odds are correct: say(rounding up of course)I have a 13%chance of drawing a match to my pair and a 5% chance of getting my flush....what about the odds that someone else has trips as well. If I have a flush and they have trips, then we are looking at a very big pot which I would win. Thus, it would seem to me that the odds of 13:5 actually are misleading. Wouldn't they (the odds) be even greater in my favor in the long run? I realize that one lucky night does not a successful theory make, but [as I am only twenty-six years of age(and probably have alot of poker lessons to learn)] it seems to me that shooting for flushes and straights will prove beneficial in the grand scheme of things. That is, if I don't get them, I can always drop out of a raising war. Thus, when I do get a staight or flush, I will win the pot almost all the time...and these times have the chance for a big payout!
Is there anyone out there who shares my thinking? I should also note that we play relatively friendly games with pots that rarely exceed $50. The biggest problem that I can foresee (in a game of trips to win), is that if you drop, you're out for good. Thus, if I'm holding out for a flush or a straight, I have to continue matching raises and/or bluffs.
Again is there anyone out there who shares my sentiments? Or better yet, does anyone know someone who applies my theory and loses on a regular basis? Also, I don't want to make this theory of mine set in stone. But we have all had hands like this: 9c 9h 3h Kh 6d. I would think that anybody in their right mind (except the guys I play with) would take a shot at the flush!
Also the odds you have shown me for flushes make alot of sense. What about the odds for a straight? Say 2h 6d 7c 8s Jh? Are the odds similar to those of a flush? Better/ worse? Or what about an inside straight? Say 2h 6d 7c 9s Qh?
Thanks alot for letting me pick your brains! And thanks for not getting annoyed with me as I continue to look for a definitive theory to stick to. And please tell me if I am way off the wall or if this really is a judgement call.
---Dinker
I'll answer a couple of questions.
First, the odds of making the straight are worse than making the flush. The odds of making the inside straight are worse than the outside straight. I haven't calculated them, but believe me, the flush is the easier draw to make, and as we've seen, drawing to the pair is a much easier draw to make.
Second, in my experience playing jacks to open, trips to win, it is the first person to make a qualifying hand who wins the pot. Therefore, you should do whatever gives you the bvest chance to be that first person. It was relatively rare that I would see someone make trips and lose to a better hand. If the odds indicated that you had a 13% chance of making trips (when drawing to the pair), and a 12% chance of completing a 3-flush or 3-straight, then you would probably be right. However, the difference between 13% and 5% is huge, and you should ALWAYS keep the pair (unless someone shows you his hand, and he has already made a larger set of trips).
BTW, I'll give my previous advice again. Don't call this game when it's your turn. This is almost a pure gamble, as unless you fold on the first hand dealt, the pot gets so big that everyone must call. As such, unless someone wins on the first hand dealt, this becomes showdown poker, where skill is almost entirely irrelevant. Since you're spending time here, I assume that you think skill is important, and that you want to make it part of your game. If so, then call a game like straight 5-card draw, lowball, or holdem when you're the dealer, as these games are all highly positional, and give you a large edge as the dealer.
Good Luck, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg Raymer wrote:
> First, the odds of making the straight are worse than
> making the flush. The odds of making the inside straight
> are worse than the outside straight. I haven't calculated
> them, but believe me, the flush is the easier draw to
> make, and as we've seen, drawing to the pair is a much
> easier draw to make.
The conclusion is correct, but the initial statement is not (a rarity for Greg). I'm assuming there are two open spaces on both sides of the 3-card, no-gap straight, like 678. In this case, there are a total of 96 ways to be dealt two cards to make the straight:
4,5 (16) 5,4 (16) 5,9 (16) 9,5 (16) 9,T (16) T,9 (16)
6x16 = 96 (odds of making straight = 96/(47*46) = 4.44%)
Drawing to the 3-flush, the number of ways to be dealt two cards and make it is 90:
any suited card (10) x any suited card (9) = 90
(odds of making flush = 90/(47*46) = 4.16%)
Before Dinker brings up the 3-card straight flush, I suppose I should include that as well. The number of ways to improve say, 678 all suited, to a straight or flush is not quite 90+96, since there are redunancies we have to account for. Specifically, all of the correctly-suited draws in the straight calculation have to be removed. There is one such draw for each of the 6 categories listed above, so we just have to subtract 6 from that count, giving 96-6+90=180 ways to improve to a straight or better. The odds are:
180/(47*46) = 8.33%
Note it is STILL better to draw to the pair to try to get trips (unless you know you have to beat a hand higher than the trips you are drawing to).
As for the playability of this game, I have to differ with Greg once again. I'd be bored with this game, but if the other players are playing it the way most do, I'd be happy with my prospects of beating it. Here's why:
Everyone opens the pot whenever it is legal for them to do so, regardless of their chances of winning it. Because everyone is doing this, everyone is also calling with absolutely anything out of fear that the pot may get carried-over and they would be left behind. If you only open in the first round of betting with trips or better, you stand to get paid off well. Further, you probably should only call a bet in the first round with an open-ended straight draw or flush draw (no pairs or two-pairs), and if someone else opens when you have trips or better, you can probably play it pretty fast and get paid off (though you won't be reciprocating when the roles are reversed).
If you get to later rounds (you missed a straight or flush draw in the first round), then you use mathematical considerations to decide whether the pot constitutes calling and drawing with pairs (btw, two pairs should be broken when drawing in this game, to improve chances for getting trips - if other players are not doing this, your have another edge). Your judgement can help you decide if your tight image (remember, you'll be folding a lot on first rounds) will help you to get out players on later rounds to make more dead money in the pot. For example, if someone opens in front of you when the pot is large, and you know this person will ALWAYS do so with any hand qualified to open but not to win (JJxxx through AAKKx), a raise with any hand whatsoever may be correct if your tight image causes players to fold.
At the very least, if you get into the "crap-shoot" because of a first round busted draw, you are in at least a break-even situation, and considering how much you can outplay your opponents in the first round, your ev in this game can't be all that bad.
Tom Weideman
Um, I forgot to point out that the first-round strategy I outlined may not be correct if the ante structure is too high compared with the bets. In that case, (or in the case that others start mimmicking your obviously successful strategy), I would agree with Greg that there are better games to choose in dealers choice.
Tom Weideman
Well, at least I prefaced my comments with "I haven't done the math". Let this be a lesson to you all, do the math!
Thanks Tom.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
DS, MM, RZ & other forum posters...
Please read, or reread, Louie Landale's Dec. 2, 1997, 10:31 p.m. post, now in the archives under Barry Hope's original post Nov. 30, 97', 6:42 p.m., and critique it for me. Is his information on 7-stud ante stealing accurate(especially his "controversial opinion")? Apologies to Louie - I am just seeking other opinions. Thank you. KK
I was going to re-post the relavant portions here but couldn't get into the archive.
In my opinion you should rarely if ever apologize for such an inquiry. Even if I had a well deserved reputation through noted victories or publication, which I do not, you should still not apologize.
You should seek advise from those with reputation, such as buying books or frequenting forums of successful card players. You are more likley to get good advise from them than you are from some clown from the table such as myself. But once you have advise you should ignore the source and consider it on its own merit. The supplyer of such advise should present it in such a manner so that it CAN be evaluated on its own merit; i.e. with solid math, logic, and facts. Advisors (should you ever run into one) who imply "because I said so" or "because I have reputation" in their various forms (such as "I won the world series, you haven't") have an ego problem that they are wrong for trying to project on to you.
I notice that the 2+2 authors are of this glorious group of presenting advise clearly. I notice that many other authors, unfortunately, are not.
The advise is what matters not the source; you challenge the advise not supplier. Advise cares not for apologies and seeking wisdom is not an offense.
Your willingness to seek out information and assume the responsibility for making your own decisions bodes very well for your career as a human being.
- Louie
Besides, I'd really like it if someone would comment on one of my posts once in a while. :)
PS: Opinions are a different manner and you should certainly be more willing to accept an opinion from someone with reputation than from someone without. Distinquishing Opinions from Advise from Answers is often difficult.
PPS: Well said bad advise is usually more useful than poorly said good advise.
The Gambling Forum December 1997 Archive Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo