![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
This is a true story. I had a good night playing 7-card stud. I won $450 at 10-20 in Florida. Then I decided that I was done for the night. I drove home but felt that I was thirsy, so I stopped at a convience store to buy some soda. Well a man walked in and decided that he wanted to rob the store! He took all the money from the store plus my money in my wallet. The police came and I was there for 4 hours filling out paperwork! I know that this is'nt poker strategy but but I dare you to top that bad beat! I bet that this gut,if he plays poker would lose at least $400 an hour by the way he looked! This happened last night and is true. By the way I was scared out of my mind!
Bad beat Joe- It seems to me that there are a lot of scumbags out there these days. Glad you only lost your money and time. Makes a fella' kinda wonder though, huh? Many times I have left a session playing in a bar in an unknown town and felt that weird feeling I was in danger as I walked to my truck. I always feel better once the truck starts and the doors lock. I was robbed once a 3 AM by 2 guys who I beat the previous night at the table. I never saw them again though. Stay healthy. Doc-
I think Doyle Brunson's "bad beat" tops yours.
Guy just got convicted for following a woman home from a casino in Tunica to Memphis a year ago, after watching her win a few K, and you know the rest.
Just last week, I found myself walking through a casino, counting down a wad, trying to remember what I started with.
Idiot!
Too easy to get complacent. Take care all.
This came up in a PL Omaha hand. I had a 16 out straight draw - KQJ8 with a board of AT9 rainbow. I am a favorite over trips with that hand. Player A led out from early position, and I raised. Player A reraised, and I capped the betting. A blank hit, making the board two-suited. Player A bet and I called. A third suited card hit the river. Player A checked, and I checked. My straight draw never got there, and so Player A's trip aces held up. Player A said that I made a huge mistake on the flop, and that I should never raise with a drawing hand in pot-limit, no matter how strong. My reasoning was that I am probably a favorite on the flop, so I should get the money in then. If an obvious straight card hits the turn, the made hand will likely escape and not pay off. With a weaker draw, I might call and hope for a bluff opportunity depending on the opponent and other factors. But with a strong draw, it seems like I should just raise away, especially since the opponent could also be on a draw, which might give me a freeroll.
I would be even more inclined to raise on the flop if my draw included a nut flush draw, which almost definitely would not be paid if it hit. But even with a strong straight draw, it seems like a draw that is a favorite should get the money in on the flop rather than wait.
Was the raise on the flop wrong? How should a 17 or 20 out straight draw generally be played on a three-suited flop?
I'm not too sure about the raise but I think on balance you're right, you were favourite and there's nothing wrong with getting the money in in that situation. One thing you haven't mentioned is checking on the end - a pot-size bluff representing a back-door flush might have done the trick, it depends how good your opponent is (better players are more likely to fold - keeping people honest in PL Omaha is a loser).
You need 17 outs in Omaha to be a favorite against a set.
I had none of the suit, so it was likelier that he had some backdoor flush. And it's probable that one of his two aces was in that suit. Normally, I would have bluffed in this situation against a better player.
you should have bet on the end. there is no problem with the raise on the flop.
In The Theory of Poker Sklansky writes that if you start with 3 spades as your 1st 3 cards in seven stud, and have seen seven other cards, you have a 23.6% chance for a flush if 0 of the 7 are spades and a 19.6 % chance if 1 of the 7 is a spade. I tried to duplicate his figures but could not and believe that I must be using the wrong formula. Can anyone provide the right one and an explanation of how the %s were determined?
If you are holding AAKK single suited in Omaha, what is the formua used to determine your odds before the flop of making a flush by the end of the hand? If the flop includes 2 other of the suited cards, what formula is used to determine the odds of ending up with a flush after the turn (I think I know the answer to this, i.e., 52-7=45, 4-13=9,9-45=36, and36/9=4 to 1 against)? Again, if the flop contains 2 more of the suited cards, what formula is use to determine the odds after the plop that you will get the flush by the end of the hand? If the AAKK were double suited, what formula is used to determine your odds before the flop of makiing a flush after the flop?
You have 3 spades on third street in 7-Stud and have seen 7 other cards. What are your chances of making a flush by the river if (x) of the 7 upcards are spades?
-------------------------------------
Case 1: 0 of the 7 cards you see are spades - This means that there are 42 unseen cards, 10 of which are spades, 32 of which are not.
a) The chance that you end up with exactly 5 spades - You can end up with 5 spades in 6 ordered ways (SSxx, SxSx, SxxS, xSSx, xSxS, xxSS) Each way has a probability of (10/42)*(9/41)*(32/40)*(31/39) = 3.3235%, which, multiplied by 6 yields 19.941%
b) The chance that you end up with exactly 6 spades - You can end up with 6 spades in 4 ordered ways (SSSx, SSxS, SxSS, xSSS) Each way has a probability of (10/42)*(9/41)*(8/40)*(32/39) = 0.8577%, which, multiplied by 4 yields 3.431%
c) The chance that you end up with exactly 7 spades - You can end up with exactly 7 spades in only 1 ordered way (SSSS) This has a probablilty of (10/42)*(9/41)*(8/40)*(7/39) = 0.187%
Adding a), b), and c), we get 23.559%
-------------------------------------
Case 2: 1 of the 7 cards you see are spades - This means that there are 42 unseen cards, 9 of which are spades, 33 of which are not.
a) The chance that you end up with exactly 5 spades - You can end up with 5 spades in 6 ordered ways (SSxx, SxSx, SxxS, xSSx, xSxS, xxSS) Each way has a probability of (9/42)*(8/41)*(33/40)*(32/39) = 2.8303%, which, multiplied by 6 yields 16.982%
b) The chance that you end up with exactly 6 spades - You can end up with 6 spades in 4 ordered ways (SSSx, SSxS, SxSS, xSSS) Each way has a probability of (9/42)*(8/41)*(7/40)*(33/39) = 0.6191%, which, multiplied by 4 yields 2.477%
c) The chance that you end up with exactly 7 spades - You can end up with exactly 7 spades in only 1 ordered way (SSSS) This has a probablilty of (9/42)*(8/41)*(7/40)*(6/39) = 0.113%
Adding a), b), and c), we get 19.572%
-------------------------------------
I am fairly sure that you can't do this calculation without handling cases a), b), and c) seperately, so that is why the formula gets ugly.
Odds of AAKK single-suited (all four cards are the same suit? :) ) making a flush by the end (48 unseen cards, 11 of your suit, 37 not of your suit):
a) You get 3 suited cards on the board 10*(37/48)*(36/47)*(11/46)*(10/45)*(9/44) = 6.41767% of the time
b) You get 4 suited cards on the board 5*(37/48)*(11/47)*(10/46)*(9/45)*(8/44) = 0.71307% of the time
c) You get 5 suited cards on the board (11/48)*(10/47)*(9/46)*(8/45)*(7/44) = 0.02698% of the time
Adding a), b), and c), you get a flush 7.158% of the time, or about 1 out of 14 deals. (This number includes boards like AdAhJs7s4s when you hold AsAcKsKh, so some of these times the nut flush is not the best hand you can make.)
----------------------------
"If the AAKK were double suited, what formula is used to determine your odds before the flop of making a flush after the flop?"
You can use the answer to the single-suited example, 7.158%, for each suit seperately. If you hold AsAcKsKc, you will get a club flush 7.158% of the time and a spade flush 7.158% of the time. Because these two events are mutually exclusive (you can't get both flushes on the same 5-card board), you can simply add the percentages to get 14.316%, or about 1 in 7 deals.
----------------------------
Odds of getting a flush on the turn if the flop contains two cards of your suit: 9/45 = 20%, or 4-to-1 against. You are correct.
----------------------------
Odds of getting a flush by the river if the flop contains two cards of your suit (45 unseen cards, 9 of your suit and 36 not of your suit):
a) You get 1 suited card on the board 2*(36/45)*(9/44) = 32.72727% of the time
b) You get 2 suited cards on the board (9/45)*(8/44) = 3.63636% of the time
Adding a) and b), you get a flush 36.363% of the time, or 4 out of 11 deals.
Can't beat Gary Carson's story -- has to be one of the worst pocket pickings in history. Did have a knife pulled on me at a 7-11 in Vegas with my entire bankroll in the car. I got lucky -- the guy wasn't close to me and I got into the car and left. Moral of the story. No idea. Maybe don't mess around too much if you have a lot of money on you. Get where you are going and get gone after you are finished.
Sorry to ask a recurring question. Perhaps we should archive the responses. What is a good program to tutor hold'em and other games. I recall someone indicating software can play structured games effectively, but not no-limit.
I've been playing poker seriously for around seven years. When I first began playing I bought all the requisite poker books, read them, and I felt my game rapidly progressed. I was beating the low limit (5-10) game and would occasionally play 10-20 with some success playing every weekend. The cardroom that I played in then abruptly closed for two years and I was forced to play in AC and Vegas in the summers (I teach school) and had modest success.
The last two years seems to me that I'm not getting anywhere. I can barely beat the low limit games that I play in vegas and my hometown, and at times play horribly. I feel that my my poker playing abilities have plateaued or declined.
My question for the forum is - Does this happen to anyone else, and what do you do to get out of your "slump." Is this a common problem amongst poker players? I'm looking for some methods that have worked with other players. Thank you for your consideration. This is a great forum.
Tom B. (Detroit, MI area)
Tom- It sounds to me like maybe the card room that you played in that closed was a factor. Perhaps you knew these players well, knew their tells etc. and also the card room's closeness to your home may be a factor.
I know when I travel to play, I play not as well the 1st day or so because I have to get used to my surroundings, the people, even what the chips values are according to the color the casino uses.
All these factors and more can effect your game. Also, I believe that with the advent of technology, poker players have the resources to be better players.
Maybe too your financial situatioon may have changed. Maybe you play too tight because money is tighter to you now. I am just guessing.
My advice is to play somewhere on a regular basis and play your best game. Try some games that you are not too familiar with and learn them also. Learning is a lifelong process and study new material. Review, and create your new self image.
I have gone on 15 loss slumps and 23 win highs. I know my attitude towards life affects my game. I hope your game improves soon. Doc-
Tom- I'm from Ypsilanti, so it's always good to hear from another Michigander. I think Casino Windsor spreads some hold 'em, so you may want to check that out. Also the Soaring Eagle in Mt. Pleasant, which I know spreads some 6-12. I completely agree that it may have something to do with not having a regular poker room; I was in Vegas over Thnaksgiving, and while I did real well, it took a night to feel comfortable. I was playing at the Monte Carlo, and everyone else was dressed to the nines, while here I was looking like a scrub.
Try these places. Hope things work out.
"The last two years seems to me that I'm not getting anywhere. I can barely beat the low limit games that I play in vegas and my hometown, and at times play horribly. I feel that my my poker playing abilities have plateaued or declined."
Tom,
Remember, there are mostly losers in a casino. Especially in a low limit game where the rake is a large percentage of the blinds. Of course these games can easily be beat by good players. I congradulate you on your success, and more importantly willingness and ability to note your mistakes. Admission is the step towards improvement.
Evaluate your style of play. Do you play better in a tight/passive, loose/aggressive, tight/aggressive, or loose/passive. Most players cannot adjust to the different types successfully. You should find the game that best suits your style. This might mean moving up in limits.
Not everyone can be tops at what they do. Natural talent, experience, training, etc. limits our abilities. Many would like to be as good as Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Claudia Schiffer, Monica Lewinsky(?)...at what they do. I may not want to play against a Brunson, Sklansky or Malmuth in Poker for money, (unless there are some fish in the game), but I'll play them anyday for money in tennis, squash, kayaking, speedskating, etc....and beat the shit out of them... :)
As in all activities, mimmick the traits of the successful, and quit the things that losers do.
Hope i'm never drawing dead,
albert
Stop the skid by putting the brakes on. Play ultra-ultra-tight; throw away the books; and make a mental note of the $3 $5 $10 that would have leaked from your stack had you tried to make some plays. You don't need a pen and paper to do this; just get some idea. I know when I reached this point in my game and continued to play well but discovered that over long sessions I was leaking a large amount of money which usually left me about even.
I've been playing hold em for about 9 years and I feel my game is not as good as it was 3 years ago.
In 10-20 structured limit Hold 'Em, what would be the typical size of the Big Blind and Small Blind?
Darren
SB 5
BB 10
My Situation: I live and work in Taipei, Taiwan--where poker is nonexistant. However, it has always been my desire to learn how to play a respectable game of poker.
My Solution: I ordered some top-notch poker books and began to read and study. I organized a regular poker game for some of the ex-pats here.
My Problem: In the course of playing poker for the last 6 months I have been averaging winning 9 big bets/hour. This of course is not the problem. My problem is that I really don't think that I am learning anything playing with these guys and girls. (They almost just give me their money--I don't have to think). Of course this is a great game, but I still have the desire to improve, and this game isn't doing the trick.
My Question: Do any of you know any training exercises that I might be able to use in my situation? Anything that has helped you to improve your game?
Darren
I am writing a research paper for school. Need any information you can give me. Need when, where it started. How it was played in the beginning. How it has progress and where it is headed. I already know how to play. I would like to download or print all information you send me. Please send to my e-mail address. Thank you.
I read a book several years ago called "Knights of the Green Cloth (felt?)". This book contained biographies and histories of gamblers and gaming in the old western United States. If I recall, the book mentioned a game that was brought in from (Paris?) that evolved into blackjack. The few paragraphs that the book contains on your subject might not be very useful, but if the book contains a bibliography, it might steer you in the right direction.
Read a book about four years ago on gambling by a professor of statistics from a california school (maybe UCLA) that gave a brief history of blackjack. Traded the book and forget his name. The book was paperback and relatively short (less than 200 pages -- think closer to 100). It discussed in very general terms craps, blackjack, sports betting etc. The prof wore sunglasses in the photo on the back of the book. Super cool professor type -- right. Anyway, an online search at a good bookstore might turn up the book.
You're probably referring to Peter Griffin's "Extra Stuff - Gambling Ramblings" (Huntington Press, 1991; 176 pages), which has a photo of the sunglassed author riding an elephant near the end cover. Peter Griffin, who taught mathematics and statistics at California State University, Sacramento (and passed away a few weeks ago), also wrote "The Theory of Blackjack", considered to be the blackjack equivalent of Sklansky's TOP. Apart from being an excellent book, there is very little historical content in "Extra Stuff".
No it wasn't Griffen. Wish I could be more specific for the scholar but I put down everything that I remembered.
Fine game too. I managed to book a nice win over a six hour period thanks to a contributor who insisted on losing $1,000.00 one hundred at a time. He got so stuck that he went up to the 20-40 to "get even". This is a new limit for the Commerce and the game is hard to keep full. The 20-40 regulars sit in while waiting for their regular game to have an opening and we got a smattering of top section players who wanted to give it a try but thought the 20-40 was a bit too steep for them.
I know that this isn't theory or strategy I'm posting, but getting up to date information on where good games are being spread is every bit as important in my opinion. This is a new limit and a good, beatable game.
John,
Thanks for the info on the game. If we could get our regular players to post on the exchange forum located on the left side of this page what games are spread where and their impression of the quality it would be very helpful. Good Luck.
Sorry I double posted by mistake a previous post. Its funny how every time I do things in haste without thinking the results are stink.
After more than a year of boycotting Northern Indiana, five dollar rake joints, I have starting wondering about the profitablility of this game: 2 to 10 Stud with no ante. $2 bring-in. you may bet 2 to 10 at any time. max raise to 20, with open pair on fourth card. Rake 10% to max. $5.00 .
JBK,
The 25 cent cost per hand makes it beatable IF loose bad players and multiway pots that go further than they should. If the pots get headup I wouldnt want to play unless I could get $100 pots and I would not take a hand anytime two other players were out of the game. Good Luck you will need it.
JBK,
The 25 cent cost per hand makes it beatable IF loose bad players and multiway pots that go further than they should. If the pots get headup I wouldnt want to play unless I could get $100 pots and I would not take a hand anytime two other players were out of the game. Good Luck you will need it.
Recently had pocket aces two from the button with blinds 500/1000 betting 1000/2000 and had T3800 it was checked to me and I made it 2000 everyone folded and I collected. My question is at that point with about four tables left am I looking to possibly trap the blinds and maybe a limper or do I play aggressively because the blinds are headed my way? Regards JD
JD,
Maybe if you are willing to risk the 5300 to double 3800 being about a 2 to 1 favorite if you get action. Its possible you know to have gotten a call with your raise and tied a player on to the end with a little luck.
I have been in the same situation and made the same choice. I am thinking now that it might make sense to call and rumble, especially from close to the button (where it can't get too multi-way on you). I doubt it makes sense to just call with kings or queens -- only aces.
I think your image is important; also the style of the players still to act. 2 from the button you may be suspected of stealing. I think a raise is quite likely to get action from a way inferior hand, which is exactly what you want. Every time someone calls you in this situation, you gain, and are the favourite on the flop too. So get your money in and hope for the best.
Matt
2 from the button is a definite steal position. If I see the first person in limp from that position, I get suspicious. It just makes too much sense to raise with any hand that you intend to play for someone to limp with a moderately good hand (say, AQ). Thus, if I'm the big blind, and flop top pair with my T7o, I'm not going to go to war with you. You might trap me, but you also might not. Plus, don't forget, what if I flop 2-pair or better? In that case, you'll wish you raised and simply taken the blinds. Overall, the raise is by far the better play, given the situation. If you raise, I'll likely play back at you with quite a few hands, which is just what you want.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
If you slowplay and get good action and win the pot then you played it magnificently,if a blind with 8 3 beats you then you played it horrible.
Mr Malmuth, I have read Poker Essays and I believe I have a pretty good understanding of what you mean by self-weighting versus non self-weighting gambling experiences. However, when I try to explain it to someone else, I can't seeme to do it without giving an example of each, and when I'm asked to define it without giving an example I find that I can't, which leads me to believe that I don't have a true understanding of what I am talking about.
Could you please define what a self-weighting strategy is without using an example?
Gregory-
I'll give it a shot. As implied in the name, a self-weighting strategy is a strategy where each decision is weighted equal to all other decisions. Conversely, a non self-weighting strategy is one where decisions are weighted according to the situation.
The gambler can choose which situations to bet, and often how much to wager on each situation; and thus change the relative "weight" of each situation.
If there were a test of 24 essay questions, where 4 were each worth 20% and the other 20 each worth only 1% the "self-weighting strategy" student would ponder equally on every question, but the "non-self-weighting strategy" student would focus on the four and breeze through the other 20. The sensible student would determine the score for each of the questions before answering them.
Notice that if a non-self weighting strategy is correct for one side of the wager than a self weighting strategy is correct for the other. Mmmmm, is that always true?....
Casinos obviously prefer self-weighting strategies since they have the advantage in the routine bets; but gamblers prefer non-self-weighting strategies of waiting for favorable situations, such as a high-count Black-Jack shoe (or 10 Reds at a roulette table .... JUST KIDDING!!).
Large armies prefer the self-weighting strategy of "attrition" since they are sure to win, but small armies prefer the non-self-weighting strategies, usually meaning taking chances. Lee at 7-days, Alexander at Guagam-xyz, and Hitler at the Bulge all had the feature that the aggressor ignored most criteria and focused on the one that appeared to be important: the psycological frailety of the opponent.
Speed cops prefer the self-weighting strategy that allows the most number of speeding tickets, but motorists with CBs prefer the non-self-weighting strategy of slowing down in those areas that actually have speed cops.
Professors prefer the self-weighting strategy of representative test questions, but students prefer the non-self-weighting strategy of knowing which questions are on the test and studying only those.
Suckers play every hand; winners are selective.
- Louie
FOr those of interested in writing a Guest Essay they can be submitted directly to me. If accepted we will give you three books of your choice.
I have an essay I would like to submit. How do I get it "directly to you"?, and what does "accepted" mean? spitball
The essay can be sent to me at MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com. Accepted means that we post it on the essay section of our web page (after any appropriate editing or rewriting that we require.)
Bill Gates is a nerd. So is David Sklansky. They are both most likely of equal intelligence. Bill Gates is worth $60 billion. David Sklansky is worth $??? How come? Did David waste his life? His intellect?
Albert Einstein was probably even smarter. Doesn't say anything about his money, does it?
No he wasn't
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein.
I had to post on this subject, particularly because it's related to poker. Many physics professors have an IQ equal or greater than Einstein had. The difference between them is Einstein had great intuitive and creative ability. This difference is the difference between having a genius level IQ and being a true genius. In poker, the true geniuses operate on an intuitive level.
What do IQ and genius have in common? In my opinion, very little. IQ tests measure things like memory, knowledge of vocabulary, and ability to solve useless puzzles like crosswords/word association etc (at least the IQ test I took when i was young did). My definition of intelligence: the ability to rationalise bullshit (cf Marx, Hegel, Plato, Jacques Derrida etc). My definition of genius: the ability to see reality (or a specialised part of reality) as it really is (cf Einstein, David Hume, Warren Buffett, Doyle Brunson etc)
Matt
Actually, the one thing that all geniuses have in common is the ability to solve those silly puzzles you refer to, presumably giving them the ability to understand more complex puzzles in their fields of interest. As for the person of normal intelligence (such as myself), I would say devoted effort to a field of study could result in high-end status.
Don't mean to be pedantic, but there are/were plenty of geniuses who were useless at IQ type puzzles. Could Picasso solve differential equations? Many of the most creative scientists and mathematicians are not brilliant at mental arithmetic. Many of the best puzzle solvers never achieve greatness in any field. etc etc
Matt
Warren Buffett? Jimmy Buffett maybe ;-)
Hey you forgot Will Rogers :)
Matt
What else ? The name of Plato mixed with names like Marx, Hegel, Jacques Derrida , David Hume, Warren Buffett, Doyle Brunson etc.
I will definetly not try to defend the giant, because this would have been very rediculus, but I will use that statement as an indicator of the spiritual poverty of our ages......
Bill Who?
This temporary condition of Gates being richer shall only continue until such time as Sklansky is successful in enticing him into a PL Hold'Em head's up home game. I will be reporting on the ongoing negotiations to set up this game. Should it take place, I suggest you buy Microsoft puts that are well out of the money.
as usual some idiot equates intellect with money. How is it that when someone makes money they become more intelligent? If you have ever used a Mac, then you would know who the real genius is and who is a thief. seeeeeeyyyyaaa
good point, but the reality is... perception is reality
Overpriced, limited software, and terrible marketing. You call that genius? Although Commodore went through the same thing with the Amiga(except the price). Best PC architecture ever designed but bad marketing/limited software. I know this isn't poker related, but Amiga's had it going on before Mac's did.
No rational or intelligent person would equate money with intelligence or determine the worth of a person .With that said I think it is fair to judge an individuals worth if he or she is claiming to be an expert in any zero sum game. Put another way,if one claims to be the best poet, social worker,teacher etc money is not a yardsrick. But if one claims to be the best futures trader stockbroker or gambler then I want to see his bank account.
Never happen. Read the posts on R.G.P. about Gates' net worth ($55 BILLION!!!) and how much he'd have to lose in order to even see any effect. It was something like this. If Gates was in a $10,000-20,000 limit HE game, it would be like a person worth $100,000 playing in a $.01-.02 limit he game. It is almost impossible for most people to even comprehend how much this man is worth. If he bent over to pick up a $100 bill, he would actually lose something like $2,000 for the time it took to do it(like 3 seconds). Anyway, Big Bill doesn't need to play big stakes to give him the "poker rush" we all love. He obviously gets it all the time while playing $3-6.
The value of any human being is not equal to the his net worth in monetary measures. If you know the story of Microsoft, you know luck and opportunity played a major part in it's success. If you know David Sklansky's story, you would realize that expectation, not luck, has made him the success he is. I hear Gates is taking up poker. Maybe if Sklansky could get him to play long enough you might ask,"If Bill Gates is so smart, why isn't he as rich as David Sklansky?"
If mickey mouse knew minnie mouse was just a cartoon character, would he still chase her tail? If Doc River is so smart why does he live in Montana? If most people who gamble win, why are the casinos getting bigger? I had the aces on the flop then the king hit and some compter nerd sucked out on me. Shucks... Doc-
Mickey has no choice,he is an animated object. If Dman were smarter, he would live in Montana. Scratch a "gambler",find a liar.
T.R.,
I'm from Albquerque and write software from time to time. Microsoft got started in Albuquerque in the mid 70's and I got to witness MSFT from the beggining. I worked for MITS and Pertec right after Microsoft went their own way and won the rights to the Basic interpretor source code. Actually Pertec and Microsoft both got the source code and went their separate ways. I guess Microsoft did a lot better.
To answer your question Bill Gates and Paul Allen worked their butts off on software development and building the company. They were very focused. They have had some good breaks along the way but they recognized the potential of the PC and were involved from its inception. The bottom line is that they had a vision and were very successful (to say the least) at building their business. Most of the super rich have gotten that way by growing their businesses. I don't think you'll find a lot of professional poker players who are billionares.
Tom Haley
Unfortunately you can't take yourself public by playing poker.
Alright, here's the situation my friends and I have been arguing about. It's a question dealing with "playing the board".
I'm holding A, 4, he's holding 8, 9,. The board brings 5,5,2,6,Q. There is no flush, and neither can make a straight obviously. The best possible hand is the pair on the board (pair of 5's).
He says he "plays the board"... do I win with a pair of 5's, Ace kicker, and he loses with pair of 5's, Q?
OR
What if we both hold and Ace and different low kicker. Do we split the pot because the next highest card is the Queen on the board, or do we go to the next highest card in our hole's.
Thank you.
Steve-your playing the community cards plus your two cards to get the best five card hand.You win Regards
Question #1: You win
Question #2: You split if you hold A4 and your opponent holds A3. In all other cases where each of you hold an ace, the player's second card will determine the winner.
I HAVE READ MOST OF YOUR BOOKS AND CAN ONLY THANK YOU FOR IMPROVING MY PLAY. MY QUESTION IS HOW TO PLAY STRAIGHT AND FLUSH DRAWS ON THE FLOP. I GENERALLY BET THEM BUT DON'T RERAISE AS I DON'T WANT TO NARROW THE FIELD. ON THE TURN I CHECK BUT SOMETIMES BET DEPENDING WHOM I'M AGAINST.AM I PLAYING THESES DRAWS CORRECTLY. ALSO I FIND WHEN I'M NOT HITTING THE DRAWS MY BANKROLL TAKES BIG HITS. ANY SUGGESTIONS WOULD BE HELPFUL. CONTINUED SUCCESS AND KEEP THE BOOKS COMING. LARRY (I PLAY 5-10))
I HAVE READ MOST OF YOUR BOOKS AND THANK YOU FOR IMPROVING MY PLAY. HOWEVER , I HAVE A TOUGH TIME WITH STRAIGHT AND FLUSH DRAWS ON THE FLOP IN 5-10 HOLDEM. I GENERALLY BET BUT DONT RERAISE TO KEEP MY ODDS GOOD FOR DRAWING. ON THE TURN I GENERALLY BET AGAIN DEPENDING ON THE PLAYERS THAT ARE IN WITH ME. WHEN MY DRAWS ARE HITTING I MAKE A TON OF MONEY BUT WHEN THERE NOT IT GETS TO BE A VERY LONG NIGHT. AM I PLAYING THESE DRAWS CORRECTLY? ANY ADVICE WOULD BE APPRECIATED. CONTINUED SUCCESS AND KEEP THE BOOKS COMING. LARRY
Generally, on a forum, all capital letters means you are yelling. Take the caps lock off.
It is my understanding that on any drawing hand in a low-limit structured game, you should check, not bet. A free card is best here. In most games, it becomes check-call, because someone always bets. But betting first invites a raise, so your effective odds gets worse by betting. Another advantage of checking is if there is a bet and then a raise, you can simply fold and it costs you nothing. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
Karpov thanks for the advice. Sorry about the caps. i'm a bad typer.
I you going to bet overcards way you will not bet flush draw? Overcards is 6 outs flush draw is 9 outs. Many times whith overcards you only have 3 outs sometimes you nees runer-runer to win. If you have AQ and flop J74 one player can have QJ and second player can have A4,then you draving close to dead. I somebody have 77 you draving dead. But player whith 56 have 8 outs which garante him a win.
1. Your hand is AQ655
His hand is Q9855
You win. Your ace plays. His Queen plays. You have a higher hand.
2. You have say A4
He has say A2
Your hand is AQ655
His hand is AQ655
You tie. The Q and 6 on the board play becuase neither of you have a higher card(besides the Ace).
3. You have say A8
He has say A7
Your hand is AQ855
His hand is AQ755 You win. Your 8 plays over the boards 6, so does his 7.
Good luck.
Hello,
I've been out of the poker scene since the early 90's. I played semi-professionally for a couple of years with reasonable success. I'm bringing my wife out for her first trip to Vegas next week. I was wondering where the best cardrooms are these days with all the new casino's that have opened since I was last there. I'm mostly a 1-4-8 or 10-20 hold-em player. I mostly played at Binion's and the Mirage back then. Where's everyone playing now. Thanks for any advice and I'm glad to have found this forum.
Lanny
x
The Monte Carlo spreads an O.K. 1-4-8-8 game, and I hear the Orleans has some nice 6-12 games.
Ok, I was in a class at work for 9 hours today, the heat was on about 85F, the system we were learning about was way over my head, and the teacher had a funny New England accent. So what did I do for the afternoon part? Try to derive a formula for calculating whether or not to play starting hands based on position, hand rank, and number of units bet. Ok, bear in mind, these numbers I used could be way off base, as I'm not a math whiz and I didn't do any real in depth calculations. Thats where I'm hoping someone can take over and test(maybe using Turbo HE).
Ok, so here's what I came up with. I'm sure these numbers need tweaked, but lets just go over my idea first.
Calling Value = Hand rank + calling factor + unit factor
Hand Ranking Values:
Group Value Zone
----- ---- -------
1 1000 raise zone 850 +
2 900 __________
3 800 call zone 650+
4 700 __________
5 600
6 500 fold zone < 650
7 400
8 300
Ok, this table is used to determine whether your cards fall into the fold zone, call zone, or raise zone. We first use this table to find our starting value of our hand. Let's use 99, which is a group 3 hand(S&M of course). So we see for a group 3 hand we start off with 800(which is in the call zone so far).
Ok, next step is to determine our calling factor. This is done with the equation (B + (P - (U*2))) * 10
where B=# of Big bets in pot P=# of players who have called U=# of units(BB) the bet currently is
lets use $2-5 limit for our example.
Seating chart SB BB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 3 5 * 10 10 * * * you
B=6(we'll count the blinds as equaling 1 BB) P=2(spots 3 and 4) U=2(10=5*2)
so our calling factor is (6 + (2 - (2*2))) * 10
(6 + (2 - (4))) * 10
(6 - 2) * 10
+40
We add this 40 to our hand ranking value so we have +840 which is still in the calling zone.
Now we take into account the number of units we have to call. This table looks like this.
Units Value ----- ------- 1 0 2 -100 3 -200 4 -300
We have to call 2 units ($10), so our value is -100. so now we arrive at our final calling value. Which is 840-100=740. This is in the calling zone, so its OK to call.
Calling Value = Hand rank + calling factor + unit factor
740 = 800 + 40 + (-100)
I went through calculations with a couple different group hands and varied the number of callers and they all fell into the call/fold/raise range which I play IRL. Lower group hands that start off in the fold zone can be bumped up with a high calling factor(many callers) and a 0 unit factor(unraised).
There are probably many things wrong with this, thats what I want some of you math weenies to figure out. Just want to know if you guys think I'm onto something here, or if I should lay off the crack pipe for a while.
Thanks, W.P.
hmmm, guess the formating didn't look like it did when I wrote it in this text box.
Maybe this will look better. Group 1 value =1000, Group 2 value = 900, Group 3 value = 800, Group 4 value = 700, Group 5 value = 600, Group 6 value = 500, Group 7 value = 400, Group 8 value = 300,
Raise zone is 850+, call zone is 650+, fold zone is anything less than 650.
Seating chart SB-$1 BB-$3 1-$5 2-* 3-$10 4-$10 5-* 6-* 7-* 8-you
so seat 1 made it 5, seat 2 folded, 3 raised, 4 called raise, 5-6-7 folded.
Unit Values 1 unit=0, 2 units= -100, 3 units= -200, 4 units= -300
I hope this makes it easier to understand. My previous post is very hard to read. Sorry. And also, if after you call, there is a raise by a later caller, you re-apply the formula, with the new number of Units you have to call.
W.P.
How much money would Bill Gates lose trying to figure all this out? :):)
I am going to play in the AC tournament this week. Any special dvice on how to do well in an Omaha 8 or better tourney? Thanks for your help.
When is 2 + 2 going to put out a "Sports Betting Essays" book? Buda
We have no plans to do anything like you are describing.
I try to figure out how big ego must have somebody, to think that he can beat a game with a 10% takeout, like sports betting.
It is as imposible as it is to beat craps, roulette, or lotto.
So for those who wait 2+2 to publish a book in the subject maybe the best advice whould have been :
DONT BOTHER...
I have a 4 team parlay this weekend you can bet everything you own on call me now.
You are a magician or a profet ?
.
I personally know a man who has made vast sums of money beating Pro Football. To say it is impossible is ignorant. If you are interested 2+2 had an intersting section in their book how to make 100000 a year gambling. It covered sports and horses.
2+2 approach in horse betting, (in contast with the poker where 2+2 is the best) is very very poor, and is good only for novice players... The horse game, has many factors, such as breeding, training, medication, human intention, conections, weather, form cyrcles etc... Many can claim that they can beat the game, NOBODY so far has come with a winning approach... The best handicappers consistently present a 10% loss, in their win wagering (15%-22% take out, depents on the track)... Personally, I have written programs to sumilate the game using various different approaches, including very sophisticated algorithms that try to find the right distribution (bernoulli, normal, student etc), I even used technics to predict the form of the horse based in the theory of Biorythms.... The result ???? Hundreds of wasted hours and lost bets..... That does not mean that in the sort run I dint show some profit. Yes this happen, but the profit was shortly evaporated from the "bad beats" and the dead horses...... Try to read the best writters in the field: Bayer, Ragozin, Quinn, Crammer ect... and tell me if you find the winning algorithm... No my friend, the game is UNBEATABLE....
Maybe for you. And Me. But once again I personally know 2 people who have done quite well with the ponies. 2+2' ideas were, IMO, ways to get you thinking about betting
"Try to read the best writters in the field: Bayer, Ragozin, Quinn, Crammer ect... and tell me if you find the winning algorithm... No my friend, the game is UNBEATABLE...."
False. For starters read Tom Brohamer's book Modern Pace Handicapping. I've met the man and he is a winner in every sense of the word. Now, is it easy? No. Toughest game I ever played. Next to sports betting that is.
Just because YOU haven't found a way to beat horses/sports, doesn't mean its impossible.
I'm not here to plug my own service, but my monitored regular season NFL record( at http://www.thesportsmonitor.com ) is 137-90 ATS over the last 2 seasons.
It can be done. It is being done. Maybe YOU can't do it.
If anyone else thinks I'm bragging, I'm not. People who beat horses and/or poker are the brightest of pros. Sports is quite ridiculously simplistic next to those enterprises.
With lots of sport services out there it is expected that a few will have winning records. This doesn't mean that you will do this well in the future.
However, there is no question that sports can be beat. In fact, as we state in our book, the most successful gamblers are the big sport bettors.
I've been told by Joe G. that you are solid,not a scamdicapper.I know Joe is stand up and I believe him.He said your best is the NBA,sucks for you.Me too,the last 3 years I've been about 60% on the totals.Sucks.Also which no one has mentioned is elements of sports betting which are just as important as handicapping,always getting on at the best number and self control.If any of you readers would like to make money on sports call Dave,other recomendations are Private Players of Pittsburgh,Prefered Picks,Mike Neri, CSI.Don't call Kevin Duffy,Stu Feiner,Mike Warren,Jeff Allen.
They take out more (17%ish here) at the horse track, a game which is easily beatable if you know what you are doing.
This situation came up recently in a NL Holdem tourney.
Everyone started with T600, and we are only 37 minutes into the tourney, and everyone is still relatively evenly stacked. Very loose-passive game, everyone seems to be nervous about making a mistake. You can limp from any position, generally with 5+ callers seeing the flop. I have 22 UTG. Blinds 5-10. The game is so loose-passive I decide to limp. Person to my left raises $10, gets 3 callers back to me (including the BB) and so I call. Flop is 234 rainbow. BB bets $50. There is $150 in the pot. So I raise to $150, getting 1 caller plus the BB. The turn is a 4. BB bets $100. What would you have done different up to this point, and how would you play this hand out?
A Poker Guy!
First off I would have raised after the flop w/ the set of 2's, Would anyone w/ a 34 or 24 even have called your raise this hand? Yes maybe the BB has the A5 or 56 but I would expect him to be all in if in fact he has made the straight on the flop. But his slow play now allows you to draw out on him if he does have the straight.
After the turn comes and is a 4, you have made the bottom house, I would go all in. Maybe trapping a couple of straights, My play in tourneys may vary If this were a freeroll, Or if I had put up some money to play. It may not be the right play but Its what I would do in this giving situation. If you get beat by the bigger house...I would say good hand and get into a live game!
I suppose you got beat by th BB w/ a pair of 3's or 42?
Walleye
I would smooth call the bet and hope for a raise or overcall from behind. On the river, I'm going all in unless it is another 4. Some chance here that you will be beaten by pocket threes or even fours, but I like your chances to win a nice pot here. These opportunities don't come to you that often in NL tournies, and you have to really try to maximize the win when they do.
I agree with your play. What do you do if the BB bets all in infront of you on the river. I think I still call but it's got to make you think about being second best.
I agree....But Thats the chance I take, It may make me the chip leader and then your in a good position to win......Or yor the first out!
Walleye
Even if you are chip leader at this stage of the tourney, you are not in a "good position to win" - it is too early. You need to maximize your profits at this point, so you call and wait for the river. Hopefully somebody improves on the river and you squeeze a few extra chips out of the opposition.
If no four comes on the river, I call all-in. If a four comes, I fold. There are many hands that the BB might shove it all in with other than a bigger full house. If you get paralyzed just because you might be beat, you can never be successful in tournament play. As soon as that board paired on the turn, I would have been committed to calling all-in or calling less than all-in and putting the rest in if no four fell on the river.
I probably would've put in a monster re-raise before the flop. I think 22 plays lousy in an early position/small pot/4 opponent situation. Pick up the $95 and move on.
Raised the BB all in. You need to take this opportunity to double up your chips and demonstrate your agressive image which will be noticed by all the players for them to remember before challenging you. If you loose to a better a full house then the juicy side games will be there waiting for you.
For anyone wondering, the BB had 33, and I busted out. I thought I played it ok, but was looking to see if I had missed something. I didn't put the result in initially in the post because thats not really the point. That hand is over so it doesn't really matter what he had. Yeah, he had me beat, but I am always looking to improve and was thinking about what, if anything, I would do diff next time if I was faced with the same sort of situation. There were people on both sides of the fence that replied, and I think I would probably not play it a lot different other than maybe not force the all-in when he raised $100. He was scared that I had pocket 4's and was trying to play the hand gingerly, but would not have folded under any circumstances. Thanks for all the replies.
A Poker Guy!
I would call and come over the top on the river.
I have never found Mr.Sklansky or Mr.Malmuth listed at the final table of any major poker tournament. Are the odds just too long for them to play in tournaments or does it require a different type of player?
Many of the best professionals avoid tournaments:
1. The luck factor is much higher than in live games.
2. Winnings are taxed and reported.
3. The variance is also much higher.
4. At major tournaments, the side games are very lucrative, since many players play above their normal level, and in games that aren't their best.
Aggressive players do better in tournaments. If Sklansky or Malmuth played in a tournament, they would make certain strategy adjustments in their game, and would probably do very well. But they might tend not to play tourneys for the reasons above.
(I think Sklansky did win some WSOP events.)
.
As my name indicates I am a novice poker player, trying to learn. I have two questions. One is pretty easy -- I am in the Northeast and would like recommendations on the best lower limit hold em games in Atlantic City, Connecticut and elsewhere close to New York/New Jersey given the rake, the level of competition, the day of the week, and any other relevant factors anyone can think of.
Number two is just a cross check on my basic poker thinking. After reading and playing pretty continuously for several months the following are factors I try to consider when playing a hand. Am I leaving anything out? 1) Current value of my hand 2) Chance of improving value of my hand (pot odds) 3) Likely value of my opponents hands given:
a) their position
b) their bets
c) their tendencies/skill level/tells/emotional state
d) the cards showing 4) Position 5) My image and my possible tells 6) The image my opponent thinks he/she projects 7) Evidence of team play or other forms of cheating
What am I leaving out?
Thanks,
A Novice
You need to always consider how much money is in the pot.
"5) My image and my possible tells 6) The image my opponent thinks he/she projects"
You need to understand and get down pat the basic fundamentals of play before you worry too much about psychology.
"7) Evidence of team play or other forms of cheating" Despite the claims and sometimes hysteria, this is not a problem in the major card rooms, especially at the small limits.
Hi,
in 'Winning low level hold'em' Lee Jones don't suggest to play ATs almost anywhere, but does suggest to play AJ in for example in middle pos. (0-3 callers in front). Also HPFAP states ATs (class 3) higher than AJ (class 4).
Somehow it just feels to a non-experiensed player better to have ATs than AJ also in low limis. What do you think? Or perhaps this don't make basically any difference?
T
Yout would at least treat A10s as Axs and Lee does suggest playing that in middle position with callers and/or loose passive game.
I would definitely call with it in early position as well and was surprised it was not specifically recomended in the book, as you were.
Also, for what it is worth, a quick simulation on Turbo Texas holdem shows this to be a good play.
( Note: I just got the program and may not have done the correct experiment )
David
with all due respect
.
...looks like I should be using my last name on my posts. I wouldn't want anybody to mistake me for the smarter one... Intelligence is only correlated with good poker player. It is not a necessary or sufficient condition...
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert WANG
Is "smarter the albert" some sort of psychological condition? I work in the mental health field and I am familiar with such terms as psychogenic polydypsia, acute exacerbation of schizophrenia,and la belle indifference,but this is a new one on me. Seriously, many of these posts belong on Exchange, not Theory and Strategy. Earlier I posted what I thought was a serious question regarding a tactic I used in PL Omaha: Ace Only Flush Bluff. It recieved one response. Later I posted an ad hominen attack on Mike Caro. It went round and round and ended with similiar attacks on David Sklansky. Darrell, I'm not implying you are doing this. I'm merely using your post to make a point. The point is this: I was wrong to attack Mike Caro personally whatever I think of the majority of his work. We posters need to consider,before we issue a post,whether our post is contributing to the purpose of this forum: the expression and exchange of concepts and ideas applicable to the improvement of our poker games. Finally, David's comment, I think, merely exhibited his notorious dry sense of humor.
.
If you examine the archives of this forum,you will find that it was initially much truer to it's title: Theory and Strategy. I think lately we seem top be going in the wrong direction, myself included. Please see my post just below. So in an effort to head back in the right direction, I have a question. Ranking of starting hand values, determining of various odds applicable to poker, and the like are all important. But I feel the single most important asset is the ability to read your opponent's hand,either by how he is playing the hand or by "tells". I would appreciate comments and examples on how you go about this.
Dman,
That isn't a theory or strategy question, it is a philosophy question. In my opinion, the single most important asset you can have is the ability to understand what type of game you are in and to know what strategy fits that game. I've been in many games where the ability to read players was close to useless. I keep a mental "tendency" file on players, adding to it or modifying it as the course of play continues.
In tournaments I tend to develop strategy ideas against particular players, then waiting for an opportunity to isolate when I have reason to believe I have discovered an exploitable weakness. In NL ring games I try to have a game plan that leads to "all or nothing" decisions. I don't commit with many hands, but when I do I usually am willing to take them all the way. I don't try to do much limping and hoping to flop "the nuts".
Each player needs to develop a playing style that fits in with his "comfort zone". I can't play certain styles because they conflict with my patience, impulsiveness or gambling philosophy. When I'm against another player who is playing a style that is outside my comfort zone, I counter by adapting some greater defensive standards in my own style. I do this by raising my playing standards by a notch or two. If he is playing me as a "wide open rammer jammer" and I am now playing "normal", he is likely to find that his strategy against me is no longer profitable.
Post deleted at author's request.
RE: "Oops, I agreed with what you said John. Does that mean you don't know what you are talking about?"
Gary,
It isn't proof positive, but I'd probably admit it if placed under a polygraph.
On a more serious note, I've enjoyed many of your postings, both here and on rgp, but not your mean-spirited, put-down ones. It is certainly possible to disagree without carrying your argument over into personalities and engaging in name calling. I hope you continue to post in the future and to see you do so without having to resort to ad hominum attacks. I, for one, believe you have much to contribute to this forum, especially if you do so in a positive vein.
Big John
Thanks for the post. I didn't mean my question was directly r/t T&S. I was referring to the direction some of the posters,myself included take at times. Please see my post below under "David, if you think you're smarter the Albert". I agree with you there are games in which you find yourself unable to accurately read opponents. Getting drawn out on the river, with 3 nines,by a player who took 2 raises preflop with T-7o. I look at the board and call his raise on the end because I can't convince myself he has the only possible hand that can beat me. Board went 3-9-6-2-8. When he raised on river, I put him on trip 8's and seriously considered raising. Only reason I just called was thought maybe he was playing 45s. I don't mean this as a bad beat story but I am interested in what you would have done here.
Dman,
I would have paid him off like you did, smiled and said, "Nice hand, sir. Well played." Mentally I would be trying to calculate how much money he was going to be spraying into my future pots. If you play a hand correctly and get beaten, there isn't a problem with your game. If he plays many such hands, hoping to hit a four outer on the river, he is going to contribute a lot of money, over time, to your stack.
Post deleted at author's request.
If you do not know hand ranks you will be the one hwo makes game god. But i still think you know what you"re taking obout. But do not put coach in front of a horse. I you play bad all games in witch you play will be good.
See exchange:Love Bad Beats
Is there any way to recognize a team of players at a table quickly? Before they make a large profit. What should you do if you suspect team play? Just leaving the game isn't enough. Especially, if you plan on playing in the same card room regularly.
The second/third member of the team dosen't need to be at the table since the knowledge of just one of your opponents down cards being in the flop is a help.
I know of some team players who play so poorly together that they ruin themselves. I have never seen a team playing couple who was ever any good. Maybe they exist but I doubt it. If you are a top notch poker player than you should WANT team players in your game. Why? Because they are so busy with watching each other that they foul up and go on tilt faster than a college boy on a drunk. I know I have heard of team players who will clean your clock. I don't think so. I wish I could sit at a table that is full with everyone on one team playing against me. I will make oodles of $$ when it is over. But then, I play better than most. Hopefully you do too. Doc-
Doc - I agree with your posting. I think that team players are so busy colluding that they forget to play properly. Like you, when I notice colluding, I play with them.
Of course, this works only when I spot the team. They ususally give themselves away by playing as a team on virtually every hand. I suppose that there are many expert teams out there that can play more subtly and go undetected. In that case, I dont think there is anything I can do about it, except play my best game and hope that I dont get jammed.
That reminds me of a time when an obvious team tried to jam me when I held quad J's aginast one of their aces full. It was hard to hold back the smug look on my face. A story for a different time.
Has anyone noticed a drop off in the number of pro players in vegas since the tournements at the Taj and Foxwoods have begun? Do you expect the games to be easier during this time?
This is a slow season in Las Vegas, that is less tourists. If anything the games will be a little tougher until after Dec. 25.
I've noticed, while watching the wsop tapes, that quite often players go all in when making a bet that is a bluff or a hand that is strong. It seems to me you can achieve the same results without committing all your chips.
Whats wrong with betting a consistent amount in relation to the blinds whether you are bluffing, semi-bluffing or betting a strong hand?
If you bluff someone that has a strong hand you are a favorite to loose. If you have a strong hand you should still win a large pot. While betting consistent amounts may cause you to over pay weaker hands it seems to me you will come out better during the tiomes you are beat in addition to still being able to pick off a percentage of pots when your not called or raised. In addition, it is hard to read the strength of your hand because it will appear that you bet the same amount whether your hand is strong or weak.
It seems to me you would be less likely to be knocked out of the tourney when yur bluffing while still being able to come back over the top of anyone who comes bets back at you.
Whats wrong with my philosophy? Whats so great about always going all-in?
Let me first say that I am a limit hold'em player with very limited NL Holdem experience. But not knowing much about a subject never stopped me from voicing an opinion before so I'll take a stab at this . First of all we are talking about NL Holdem so we first need to define No Limit. No Limit in this case means that if you call, bet or raise you must call, bet or raise at a minimum the amount of the big blind (if you have that much) or the amount of the previous bet if it is higher than the big blind and the maximum you can bet is the amount of chips you have in front of you. Now the question as I understand it: Is it better to bet an amount relative (consistent) to the size of the big blind or is it better to bet a huge bet and go all in regardless of the objective, bluffing, semi bluffing or betting a strong hand? The answer that comes to my mind is "YES" One has the option of applying the best tactic for the appropriate situation. This is one of the things that makes NL different than Limit. You the player is given the option to choose the correct (amount) tactic. Your ability, skills and experience will determine the tactic you choose. To be successful at NL you must know when to bet consistent with the blinds, a little more than that, etc. and when to go all in. As with most poker questions the correct answer is in my opinion, It Depends! My Take on This. P.S. If stp reads this I would be interested in reading your take on my answer. Respectfully Vince
As a general rule, I agree with you. When I play NL (which is always in tournaments), I almost always raise, if first in, by an amount equal to 3x big blind, plus the amount of the antes, if any. This, with blinds at 50 & 100, I'll raise to 300. If there is also an ante of 25, I'll raise to 525 (in a 9-handed game).
I agree that this completely disguises your hand, and prevents you from being read for a steal or a big hand. However, I do see many players, some good, some not, who often raise first in by an amount MUCH larger than this. When I see a guy who usually raises by about my standard suddenly raise first-in by 20x bb, I really don't know what to think. Either he really wants to guarantee the steal, or he is playing AA or KK in a suspicious manner, hoping that a hand like AK, AQ, TT, etc. will play back at him and create a big pot. However, I'm never sure. I guess this is one reason that I haven't won the WSOP (another is that I've never entered).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
The correct answer is: You want to make your opponent have to decide if he or she is willing to risk all the chips in front of them by one turn of a card. Either one blinks-its over. That's what is called guts. Guts win in poker big time. Brains win second. Chuck the books out the door and use your testosterone. Doc-
Doesn't this all depend on how Deep the Money is relative to the Blinds?
If we both had 1000.00 on the Table and the Blinds were .25 and .50. I would just wait until I had great hand to play back at a person who Raises more money than they should.
Now if the Blinds were 100.00 and 200.00 we would both have to loosen up quite a bit.
Later, AN1
Whether you are all-in or not is less important than whether your opponent has to call all-in, or just risk some of their stack. If you have $10,000 and your opponent has $2000, a bet of $2000 rather than your normal size $1000 bet has some value because now your opponent has to risk all his chips to call. In a tournament this may well improve your chances of winning the hand enough to make it worthwhile to risk the extra $1k.
Consider another situation. In a tournament, you have $10k and your opponent has $15k. You are heads up on the river, you read your opponent for a middling hand, and a scare card has just come. You know that if you bet, you are totally beat if your opponent calls, totally beat if he raises, and obviously you win if he folds. In this situation, a bluff bet of 8k, rather than your total 10k, may have some value - you win the same if your opponent folds, and you still retain 2k, giving you a chance to struggle on, if your opponent calls or raises. In a cash game this strategy is not as useful, but in a tournament it could make the difference between elimination and survival, albeit with a much reduced stack.
N.B. To avoid revealing your bluffs, clearly you must play the same way when you have a real hand.
I believe that TJ Cloutier would also agree with the standard unit bet whether your weak or strong. From reading his book and playing next to him, he believes it is a form of bad no-limit play to be constantly shoving your chips all in.
Wenatchee Max
Greg obviously your limit expertise is not bad either. Congratulations on the second place finish at Foxwoods. Maybe theres a business to be had in fossils. Regards JD
My experience with NL Holdem is limited to small tournaments. I also play PL Omaha&Texas hold where the pot can get pretty hairy. You don't go all in all the time or even most of the time,but you have to some of the time. If you don't run over someone now and then,you will be the one who ends up road kill.
Post deleted at author's request.
I have read "Championship Stud" by Stern and McEvoy and liked the book. However, I disagree with one piece of advice for 7 stud $20/$40 ring games,and that is their recommendation to play small trips (9 and smaller) slow. I think this is a mistake for a number of reasons not the least of which is the possibility of losing to a drawing hand or losing to a larger pair that makes trips. My experience is that it is better to play small trips fast and large trips slow. Although, depending on the game, I sometimes also play large trips fast. I would appreciate your comments or suggestions.
Irish Mike
Small trips are strong enough to WANT action from single bigger pairs; and are in good enough shape against 4-draws. If you are playing against brain-dead types then you should raise with small trips if you expect action, and slow play if you do not, but expect action from lesser hands later. But, if you are playing against opponents who are trying to figure you out .....
I think Mr. Caro expressed it well: do what looks natural. In this case, if you rarely raise with small door cards then you should slow play small trips, and if you rarely call with large door cards you should raise with big trips.
You need to consider all aspects of your strategy. For example if you routinely raise in early position it would be foolish to just call with AA or KK, since the opponents would know what you have. But if you routinely call with big suited connectors, then calling with AA or KK has some merit. Same with bluffing: consider bluffing only in those situations where you could REASONABLY be betting for value, at least from the opponent's perspective.
So .... how to play trips "correctly" depends on how you play other hands.
- Louie
Playing small trips correctly is dependent on a number of factors. Type of game(limit stud 10-20, 15-30 or 20-40 are my levels), opponents and position are the main factors that should be considered. Early position, loose game I play'em fast and raise (unless I am sure I can get a check raise in) regardless of my image (usually tight). Mid position, loose players still to act, I play'em fast. Tight players left to act behind me, I'd play'em slow, if raised and other callers, I'd get as much money in the pot as possible and reraise. Late position only tight players and bring in, I play slow etc.. You get the picture, I tie my strategy to the situation. Opinion By Vince.
I did a study the past week. I sat and watched players' chips during the game I played in. I clocked in 54 hours this week. During this time I noted that over 75% of the players were at one time or another up at least equal to 2 times their buy in. Even the piss poor fool players. At the end of each session, only 20% of these players cashed out ahead. Lesson: If you want to make money in poker, cash out ahead. I know this sounds simplistic and stupid but analyze your own game and find out how many times YOU have done a blow-back. Cash out UP. You have now been given the best advice you will ever get when it comes to playing poker..But do you have this self control? Or does GREED make you lose? Doc-
This is generally incorrect. If you have positive expectation in a game, you would expect your results to continue to be profitable in that game in the long run. The variance is so high in poker that you will often swing way up and way down. But the long term trend is positive in good games for a solid player, and leaving better games will only reduce your profit in the long run. If you have an expected value of +1 big bet per hour, and you are currently up four big bets in your first hour, it doesn't make sense to just get up. In the next three hours, you would expect to make three more big bets on average, not to lose what you have. You might even lose more or win much more, but that is just from the variance in the game.
While this is definetly true, I am trying to make a point that most people don't get. That point is: When you have made a profit that meets your expectations, leave! Surely if you do this, in the long haul you will find yourself much more up in the $$ dept. I am not saying leave if the game is good etc. I am just saying, quit up! Don't do blow backs and don't be the guy everyone is happy to lose to because they know you will play and give it back in the long run. Use the ultimate discipline. Leave a winner! Really, it is why we all come now. Isn't it. Good luck. Doc-
I have found that I can quit a game that isn't too good if I happen to hit a nice early rush and am up at least an amount I would be satisfied with after a short session's play. I was in a 15-30 lowball game at the Commerce the other day, hoping a 10-20 stud hi-lo would be spread soon. I didn't care that much for the lowball game but decided to sit in anyway. After 45 minutes or so I was up $170.00 and the game had gotten worse when a weak player quit and a strong player took his place. Since the stud hi-lo didn't look like it would go anytime soon, and the lowball wasn't that attractive to me, I cashed out and drove over to the Bicycle Club where a very good No Limit Mexican Stud game was just getting started.
The deciding factor for me is whether or not I believe there is a better game or tournament available. I have been spending more time looking for good games than in the past, but doing better in the games that I decide to play in. If I'm not happy with a game that I'm in, I look for a "good" exit point. For me, a good exit point is after I've won a pot or two recently and the big blind is coming up next hand. I don't know whether quitting while ahead makes any sense from a money management standpoint, but I do know that I always feel better after booking a win.
A couple years ago I experimented with quitting 3-6 hold'em games whenever I had won at least $60.00. I would get up, walk a lap or two around the casino, come back and put my name back up on the board. I booked a lot of small wins this way, but on my losing sessions I would sometimes get buried for up to $300.00 which was my session limit at the time. Overall, I doubt that my results were any better than they might have been if I'd stayed seated in the first game that seemed ok to me and asked for a table change if I spotted another game that looked better.
Most successful players will quit after they've booked a good win if they lose a couple pots. They say that they didn't want to give it all back. Losing players often lament the fact that they were way ahead and gave it all back plus all the money they came with. It may be "all one big game", but I still like to pick my own entry and exit points with an eye toward current chip standings. On Saturday I was up $1,350.00 in a N.L. Mexican Stud game and gave it all back leaving the game down $57.00 for the night. I felt that I had played well and should have won a pot that contained over $2,700.00 had the cards just broken even for me. After building my stack up again from $250.00 to over $700.00, I again lost a couple pots to leave me a little less than even for the night. It seemed like a good point to exit then as I had been playing for about 5 hours and was getting somewhat tired. One or two hands made a huge difference between booking a very good win and having a slight loss. If I had prevailed in the $2,700.00 pot, I'm sure I would have cashed out right away. This game isn't always available, is seldom as good as it was Saturday night, but I had a good session, played good strategy even though I didn't get the money on this occasion. I left satisfied with the session.
Great points John. Doc-
"Most successful players will quit after they've booked a good win if they lose a couple pots. They say that they didn't want to give it all back."
Why do they do this? I don't. In fact I am much more likely to stay and play when I am WINNING. I would MUCH rather invest the PROFIT for a chance at an even greater profit. People that hit and run or always have to quit a winner are losers in the long run. Just watch them on a losing night and you will see what I mean.
I don't disagree with what you are saying, I just fail to completely agree. Since you are going to be leaving the game anyway, why not pick a point that seems favorable, on an earn per hour basis, to make your exit? There are cycles in poker, not predictable as to when they occur or their duration, but cycles nontheless.
I leave games that I don't like by picking a favorable exit point when I can. When sitting in a good game, I play up until the time I've set to leave or until I feel tired. If I hit a nice upcycle of good cards and won pots that seems to have ended right before the time I'd normally be leaving, I will rack up and leave a little early.
Let me repeat: I like leaving a game with a win. I would prefer to always do so, but do have to settle for quitting with a loss sometimes. If I'm losing and it is almost time to leave, I'll do so. I won't spend an extra hour or two hoping to hit a rush and get my money back. You seem pretty certain that it is all one big game and that all parts of that game are equal and the same. I disagree. Your bias is to use the chips in front of you to parlay your win. My bias is to exit games intelligently when exiting anyway.
If I find a game that is always good, in fact the best, then I'll begin to agree completely with you. The truth is that games change frequently and unpredictably and that winning players are better able to recognize when conditions are less favorable for them and exit with their win intact. The player who remain, muttering about the "hit and run artists", justify their stubborness by reciting their mantra: "It's all one big game anyway, It's all one big game anyway." Just watch them at the end of the year when they total up their meagre earn, made mediocre by their refusal to look around them and recognize the potential of the game they are in versus the one they could be in.
> The truth is that games change frequently and
> unpredictably and that winning players are better able to
> recognize when conditions are less favorable for them and
> exit with their win intact.
Good players don't need to leave just because conditions become "less favorable." Good players usually[1] should leave when conditions become "unfavorable." As long as you still expect to win[2], continue to play if you want. In the long run, your bottom line will improve if you do.
Of course, I'm one of those players who believes it is one long session anyway.
[1] As someone else once noted, it sometimes makes sense to play in a -EV short-handed game if you believe that, by keeping the game alive, the game will improve and you can more than recoup your expected losses.
[2] And you don't know of a better game elsewhere.
Mark,
I've heard many people talk about "it's one long session, anyway." I guess this is true if you believe that you adjust to different game-styles well enough that they don't matter. I think poker is a series of short, separate sessions, punctuated by study, and hopefully, improvement. I certainly wish I could go back in time and play against the me that used to be. I have no doubt that I would have a tremendous "edge" over the old me. Unfortunately, there are many players that have good reason to look forward to playing the current me.
In my experience, games change. After a few thousand hours sitting in different games you begin to recognize games that are likely to be profitable and those that aren't. I might leave a game that I feel isn't very good, keeping an eye on it while I sit in another, then return to the original game when I see that a couple tough players have left and those that remain figure to be producers for me. I prefer shorthanded games when playing lowball or Mexican stud, but limit Hold'em almost never gets played shorthanded in the small limit games I usually frequent.
I feel better when I am in a game that I can believe I have some "edge" in. This "edge" should be greater than the rake and tokes. I will sit in games where I don't feel that I am a favorite, but only until such time as I can find one that better meets my standards. I search for profitable games, spending a meaningful percentage of my cardroom time looking for overlays. Based on my understanding of your post, you must think that I am wasting valuable table time by doing so. Last week I spent three hours at the Commerce one afternoon waiting for them to start a game with an eight name board; at the same time, I was watching the 15-30 lowball to see if it would improve enough for me to want to play in it. When it became obvious that nothing was happening for me that afternoon at the Commerce, I went over to the Bike and waited almost an hour for a NL Mexican Stud game to start. When that game got going, I played for about an hour and decided to quit because the game wasn't too good and none of the weaker players had any chips in front of them. The two other players that had decent stacks were strong players and had better position on the weak players than I did. I had booked a decent win and wasn't willing to sit there and try to grind it out. Most days I find a game I like and just sit down and play for five or six hours. If I'm playing a tournament that nite, I might go in early if there is a probability that a game I like is being spread at the cardroom sponsoring the tournament. At times, I like to head in early and play a couple satellites to put me in sync for the later tournament and to attempt to get a cheaper entry.
It is because of the above that I have developed game parameters for me to consider before and during my participation. To me, game selection is as important as playing ability and bankroll requirements. The better the game I'm playing in, the less ability I need and the safer my bankroll is. I guess it would be nice to be such a strong player that all games looked equally "juicy" to me, but, alas, such is not the case. Poker survival demands that I exercise all the game selection possible.
> I think poker is a series of short, separate sessions,
> punctuated by study, and hopefully, improvement.
I wasn't being literal when I said poker "is one long session, anyway." Of course it isn't. I only meant to suggest that you cannot increase your profits by predicting a bad run of cards and quitting the game until your bad luck "drains away." The next two cards you receive are equally likely to be pocket rockets, regardless of whether you continue playing today or come back tomorrow.
> I search for profitable games, spending a meaningful
> percentage of my cardroom time looking for overlays.
> Based on my understanding of your post, you must think
> that I am wasting valuable table time by doing so.
I have no idea how you reached this conclusion by reading my post. Of course, table selection is important. I never suggested it wasn't. In fact, my second footnote suggested it was. That said, it still is possible to overdo it. If you spend four hours looking for a game where you have a $40/hour EV but are left with only an hour to play, then you might have been better off playing five hours at the first game you saw where you had only a $20/hour EV.
Perhaps you should re-read my post. My point was that a good player doesn't necessarily have to quit just because the table got tougher. If you still have a +EV, you might well want to continue playing. But if you have higher EV elsewhere, then you usually should move elsewhere.
Mark,
It isn't about "having" to do anything. I choose to exit certain games after they change and become less beatable. I could remain there, perhaps profitably, but my question to you is: Why should I?....
I know many stubborn players who will continue on playing a game when it is no longer good enough to entice them to sit down in it if they had happened to walk by it and see an open seat and no board.
My overall earn is a factor of my game selection, playing ability and time. If any one of these three are unsatisfactory, my earn will suffer. Of the three, I happen to believe that game selection is the most important.
I don't have the lightening quick analytical mind that instantly computes all the data and spits out the correct response. I've played with hundreds of players whose playing skills are vastly superior to my own. I've had to loan money on numerous occasions to many of these players. Poker, like all other businesses, requires a multitude of abilities in order for the owner to survive, let alone prosper. The lack of even one essential skill is sometimes enough to bring the business to ruin. I specialize in avoiding ruin, letting the rest of it pretty much take care of itself. Just as Sklansky has the Theory of Poker, I have the Theory of Survival: Don't turn a big win into a loss; don't allow a loss to become a disaster. Don't allow your disasters to become catastrophic.
> It isn't about "having" to do anything. I choose to exit
> certain games after they change and become less beatable.
I didn't suggest you have to do anything. Once again, I urge you to re-read my post, where I wrote, "As long as you still expect to win[2], continue to play if you want."
> I could remain there, perhaps profitably, but my question
> to you is: Why should I?....
If it's profitable, then you might want to stay to increase your expected profit. Or you might want to quit and spend time with family or friends. Your choice.
> I know many stubborn players who will continue on playing
> a game when it is no longer good enough to entice them to
> sit down in it if they had happened to walk by it and see
> an open seat and no board.
Perhaps these players are stubborn, but they are not necessarily irrational if they choose to stay in a game that is tougher than it once was but remains profitable. Is this concept really that difficult to understand?
The concept that many players continue to play in games that are no longer attractive enough for them to have been willing to join in the first place is, in fact, difficult for me to understand. BTW, I did go back and reread your post.
You think I should continue to play in games that got tougher but are still profitable, while I believe it is more profitable for me to leave these marginal games in search of one that is superior. I try to avoid tough competition except in NL games. I respect your thoughts and opinions, I just don't happen to share some of them.
I speak of what works best for me. Tonight I joined a soft 3-6 hi-lo stud game while waiting to see if the 15-30 lowball would improve. The lowball game broke up, but the hi-lo stud game was a lot of fun and I remained there for about five hours winning a whopping $60.00. I keep score with the money I win or lose, but I don't play as a job. It may be that my priorities are different from a player who approaches poker as a professional pursuit. I have a goal to improve my play to the point where I consider myself a strong player. I don't think I need to play against tough competition all the time to realize my goal. I am realizing it by tiny increments on an almost daily basis. Tomorrow I'll be playing NL Mexican Stud at the Bike, another game that I like and would be willing to play even if I wasn't convinced that I was a favorite. Last Saturday I dropped $1,200.00 in that game (mostly on one large pot). I wanted to throw that result in so that it wouldn't sound like I want people to believe I only book winners.
The topic of this discussion seems to be whether players can increase their profits by quitting poker sessions when they are ahead rather than continuing to play.
> There are cycles in poker, not predictable as to when
> they occur or their duration, but cycles nontheless.
What does this have to do with when one should quit? What does this have to do with any poker strategy?
> I leave games that I don't like by picking a favorable
> exit point when I can.
Okay, let's examine some of your favorable exit points.
> When sitting in a good game, I play up until the time
> I've set to leave or until I feel tired.
These are both good reasons to leave.
> If I hit a nice upcycle of good cards and won pots that
> seems to have ended right before the time I'd normally be
> leaving, I will rack up and leave a little early.
Earlier, you correctly noted that the occurance of these cycles were unpredictable, so how do you know that another nice upcycle is not about to begin?
Regardless, if you were planning to leave soon anyway, then this reason is basically a repetition of one of your earlier reasons.
But if you choose to quit significantly in advance of the time you planned to leave, then you are giving up expected profit if the game offers you a positive EV. There are, of course, many rational reasons for giving up expected profit. For example, you now might have made some money during the session and you don't want to risk going back into the hole because you enjoy quitting a winner. That's fine. But you should understand that you are giving up expected profit in order to savor this victory.
> If I'm losing and it is almost time to leave, I'll do so.
Again, if it's really close to your planned exit time, then this is basically a repetition of one of your earlier reasons. If it isn't, then you again are giving up expected profit if you quit early in a game where you have +EV. Since you are losing, however, there probably is a greater chance that you are in a -EV game (perhaps for reasons you are unaware).
> Your bias is to use the chips in front of you to parlay
> your win. My bias is to exit games intelligently when
> exiting anyway.
If you are in a profitable game, then parlaying your win certainly can be an intelligent decision. Quitting also can be intelligent sometimes.
> The truth is that games change frequently and
> unpredictably and that winning players are better able to
> recognize when conditions are less favorable for them and
> exit with their win intact.
It is important to recognize when conditions become less favorable. But you seem to imply that it also is important for winning players to "exit with their win intact" even when the game remains profitable (albeit less profitable). Why is this?
In another portion of this thread, you came up with one good reason: a more profitable game is likely to exist elsewhere. I offerred another reason: you want to spend time with family or friends.
In my original response to your post, I thought it was important to make it clear that a good player also could rationally choose to remain in a profitable game even though it isn't as profitable as it once was. A person reading your post easily could conclude that good players should quit whenever conditions become less favorable to them.
> The player[s] who remain, muttering about the "hit and
> run artists", justify their stubborness by reciting their
> mantra: "It's all one big game anyway, It's all one big
> game anyway."
Why do you consider the remaining players to be stubborn?
I might often remain in such a game. However, I do not complain about "hit and run artists." In fact, if these early quitters are solid players, I'm very happy to see them leave my game.
We've already discussed why they might believe "it's all one big game anyway."
I agree with Doc River, Big John, you make some good points. The best of which, in my opinion, is that even though you were up ~$1300 and then lost it back and down $57.00 you quit. Why did you quit, you were tired! best reason in the world. I think our illustrious authors, Sklansky and Malmuth have always recommended to us followers that playing tired is a big mistake. Quiting when your head is an ideal and practicle concept. I agree with Doc that most solid poker players would show good results in their percentage of session wins if they followed this advice. However, they would have to insure it didn't lead to playing to long in a session where they started out behind. Sometimes it just happens that you get behind early and if you are not wise or disciplined enough you may find yourself trying to dig yourself out of a hole and instead going deeper and deeper in. I in fact do quit many sessions when I am ahead and feel that my mental state has been affected in an adverse way. Maybe I'm not as focused and winning doesn't mean as much. Or maybe I don't want to lose the gains I've made. Whatever! The point is that I usually quit for other reasons besides being ahead and I believe this is the correct strategy fo me. Just my opinion. Vince
Big John, you hit the nail on the head. If it's a tough game and you find yourself up a good amount, just how much more do you expect to win from it. If it's a juicy game, just keep playing till no one wants to play anymore.
I should add or until the nature of the game changes.
You will actually end up costing yourself money. If I am playing in a game where I have the advantage, and I quit anytime, then I have lost potential profit from playing. What you are talking about is the equivalent of a stop-loss in reverse. This type of thing has been proven wrong hundreds (thousands?) of times.
Doc River wrote:
> When you have made a profit that meets your expectations,
> leave! Surely if you do this, in the long
> haul you will find yourself much more up in the $$ dept.
As others have pointed out, there's no reason to believe that this ("you will find yourself much more up") is true. For *some* players, being well ahead for the session makes them play unreasonably loose (since they don't consider the profit "real" till they leave the table). Such players would benefit from leaving early.
It's probably more common, though, that when a player is ahead for the session, he plays with more confidence, & other players are more intimidated by him, so by leaving early he's losing the opportunity to profit at a *greater* than usual rate.
There is of course the legitimate psychological aspect. If one is primarily motivated by maximizing long-term profit, leaving a session after reaching a pre-determined profit would rarely be the best move. Personally, I'm a recreational player, & I try to maximize long-term enjoyment, which is not *perfectly* corelated to profit.
Meaning: say I visit Vegas only once a year. If I finish my visit with a $50 profit, I'll have good feelings for the rest of the year just remembering how I beat the games. If I finish with a $50 loss, my loss of enjoyment will be greater than the $100 difference would rationally suggest. So in such cases, it makes sense for me to give up some long-term profit for the sake of this enjoyment. (For instance, on the last day, I may quit early, or move to a smaller game, for the sake of locking in a win.)
It's like investing in the market. One might show that mathematically one maximizes long-term profit by being 100% in stocks. However, most of us must give up at least some of that profit potential to reduce the variance to a level which will allow us to sleep at night.
Vortex - I agree with Doc - when you get ahead an appropriate amount - quit a winner. Your argument would be valid if all factors in the game remained constant - but they don't. For example, I can play at my peak for about four hours in a 7 stud game, then my alertness and concentration start to drop. In addition, the change of one or two players can alter the pace and character of the entire game. I play by these rules: Ffirst, do not lose more in one session than you can win back in another session at the same limit. Second, quit when you are ahead an appropriate amount. Third, if you are ahead, set a limit on how much of your winnings you will "play back:
Irish Mike
What all the expert book writer's forget or don't agree with is somethiing that I call NARDO'S THEOREM. Number one we never ever play poker in a vacume except on a computer. Nuber two, and this is the big one. Just because you might be ahead early,the game is perfect for you,AKA "live ones" does not mean you must play for long periods because the live one's stand to lose more. I can tell the it's a fact that sometimes you WILL end up losing to these same live one's because it's a fact that cards WILL CHANGE on you and these live one's CAN END UP WINNING OR GETTING THEIR MONEY BACK!Number three is that if you find yourself HAVING HALF OF THE TOTAL CHIPS ON THE TABLE, GET UP! You are now risking TOO MUCH FOR TOO LITTLE!
If that is the case after i have invested $300 in the 20-40 how could i have end-uip winning many times over $1000. up to $6000. I beleive as long as the game is good and are winning you must play as long as your body and spirit can tolerate it. I use the approach of loosing 3 hands in a row to revisit my level of discipline and focus to see if i am tired or require a short or long break. Usually at that time, after 12-14 hours, i collect my winnings and go home. Never leave a game because you win.
Louie's Theorem: There is no such thing as "I am on a streak"; only "I have been on a streak".
- Louie
"Vortex - I agree with Doc - when you get ahead an appropriate amount - quit a winner. Your argument would be valid if all factors in the game remained constant - but they don't. For example, I can play at my peak for about four hours in a 7 stud game, then my alertness and concentration start to drop."
This means you are tired and that is an appropriate reason to quit.
"In addition, the change of one or two players can alter the pace and character of the entire game."
In other words the game may be tougher and that is also an appropriate reason to quit.
"I play by these rules: Ffirst, do not lose more in one session than you can win back in another session at the same limit. Second, quit when you are ahead an appropriate amount."
What is an appropriate amount? How do you know how much you are going to win? Why on earth would you put a limit on your winnings? You have got it half right. Put a limit on your losses but never put a limit on your winnings.
"Third, if you are ahead, set a limit on how much of your winnings you will "play back:"
I'm sorry but I cannot agree with this advice at all. I have been arguing against this particular old bromide for years. Figure out your "blowback" and then quit when you hit it. I guarantee you that 95% of the time you will indeed blow back EXACTLY what you have allocated.
Anyone that is afraid to invest their profit for greater profit doesn't understand the essence of the game. Quitting a winner is great psychologically but financially it will bite you in the butt. I'm sure Irish Mike is a winning player but I firmly believe he isn't making anywhere NEAR the money that he should.
To quote Amarillo Slim: "If you can't play when you are winning---Then WHEN CAN YOU PLAY~!
If someone said that he always quits when ahead "X", then your Amarillo Slim quote might apply. BTW, when discussing money management, Mr. Preston might not be the best source to reference. I like staying in good games, ahead or behind. When quitting any game, I look for a good exit point. If I am in a good game and up by a considerable margin, I am willing to quit the game after a few losses, even if it is still good, rather than letting my win turn into a loss for the session. Being willing and always doing so, are much different things. I let the quality of the game serve as the primary determinant of my continued play.
As for your guarantee about always hitting a "blowback" target, that is hogwash. I routinely adjust my "stop loss" while playing, setting a figure mentally, that if broached, will cause me to reexamine the quality of the game I'm in to determine if I want to continue playing in it.
If I am winning $400.00 in a 15-30 lowball game, I might have a two stack reserve before triggering that reassessment. If, instead, I continue to win and reach the plus $700.00 level, I guarantee you that I would set myself a $300.00 blowback limit, locking up a $400.00 session profit. When the game continues to yield profit accretion, I would raise the amount "locked up", committed to not turning my good win into anything less and yet, willing to add to that win if the game allows it.
If I am losing $400.00 in a 15-30 lowball game, I automatically assess the quality of the game. If I conclude that the game doesn't look that promising for me, I'll get up and quit. If I still like the game, and my chances in it, I'll buy in for another $300.00 and continue playing. Should I get even, I'll reassess the game and decide if I still like it, continuing if I do. I might lock up "break even" once I reach plus $200.00, continuing from there in the same vein as if I'd started out winning.
In No Limit play, I decide when I first sit down the amount that I'm willing to invest for that session. Since I usually play in NL games where the initial buy-in is $500.00 or less, a typical total investment committment would be for $1,500.00 or less. If the initial buy-in is $200.00, and I have decided my maximum exposure will be $1,000.00, I will set the rebuys at $200,$200 and $400. I am looking to quadruple up my last buy-in before deciding how or whether to continue. Usually, after quadrupling, I'll continue in the game, but will have become a different, more conservative player, waiting to pounce on others mistakes when I have a big hand. Prior to quadrupling through, I'll tend to want to mix it up pretty good, looking for opportunities to play some hands and make a score. I will usually risk more in a NL game than in limit at whatever levels because, if there is enough money on the table in NL, I can get even and ahead with just a couple of good wins. You don't get "buried" as easily in NL.
As for bankroll management, I never play for any amount, in any session, that I couldn't lose for 30 days in a row and still be able to continue in action. I don't even have a poker bankroll, as such. I have practiced discipline, in business and in gambling, for my adult lifetime and the concepts you characterize as "financially biting you in the butt" have served me profitably for more than 35 years. I will quit as a winner for this week, month, year, decade and half century, can you say the same?
More excellent points John. Doc-
.
"If someone said that he always quits when ahead "X", then your Amarillo Slim quote might apply. BTW, when discussing money management, Mr. Preston might not be the best source to reference."
Why not? He is a lifetime winner just like you.
"I like staying in good games, ahead or behind. When quitting any game, I look for a good exit point.
If you are quitting why don't you just quit? What is an exit point?
If I am in a good game and up by a considerable margin, I am willing to quit the game after a few losses, even if it is still good, rather than letting my win turn into a loss for the session.
Why? Because you are scared you might end up loser? Are you that unconfident in your abilities?
Being willing and always doing so, are much different things. I let the quality of the game serve as the primary determinant of my continued play."
It's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game.
"As for your guarantee about always hitting a "blowback" target, that is hogwash. I routinely adjust my "stop loss" while playing, setting a figure mentally, that if broached, will cause me to reexamine the quality of the game I'm in to determine if I want to continue playing in it."
So if you are up $500 and you set your blowback to $300 how do you come up with this arbitrary amount? If you have the best of it and continue to play, you will continue to win in the long run. IF you run away because you fell back to some arbitrary amount then you aren't maximizing your gain. People who set an amount to fall back to are really telling themselves that they want to quit now and are scared to stay and play if they "lose some back." They don't have any confidence in their abiltiy to come from behind. How they are doing makes too much difference to them. What difference does it make if you lose some back. As long as you are a favorite to beat the game how you are doing is "hogwash."
"If I am winning $400.00 in a 15-30 lowball game, I might have a two stack reserve before triggering that reassessment. If, instead, I continue to win and reach the plus $700.00 level, I guarantee you that I would set myself a $300.00 blowback limit, locking up a $400.00 session profit."
OK fine that is your business. Where do you come up with the $400 session profit? Why not $500 or $350? Are you worried that you will go off if you start to lose some back? If you get aces cracked four times in a row in jammed pots will you now quit because you are playing perfectly? Where do you come up with these arbitrary numbers. Does the casino "quit" at 2:00am because they have racked up a nice win for the day. No of course not. They still have the edge so the keep right on playing. What's the difference?
"When the game continues to yield profit accretion, I would raise the amount "locked up", committed to not turning my good win into anything less and yet, willing to add to that win if the game allows it."
How do you define a good win? Why not go for a great win? Or a fantastic win? Or a supercalifragalisticexpealidocious win?
"If I am losing $400.00 in a 15-30 lowball game, I automatically assess the quality of the game."
Why $400? Why not $200 or $300 or $150? Where do you keep coming up with these arbitrary numbers.
"If I conclude that the game doesn't look that promising for me, I'll get up and quit."
Makes sense.
"If I still like the game, and my chances in it, I'll buy in for another $300.00 and continue playing."
Why $300? Why not $500, or $200? or $1000? If you figure you can beat it what diference does it make how many chips you buy or how much you plan to risk as long as you can afford it?
"Should I get even, I'll reassess the game and decide if I still like it,"
What is so magical about getting even?
"continuing if I do. I might lock up "break even" once I reach plus $200.00, continuing from there in the same vein as if I'd started out winning."
So if you get up $200 and fall back to even you quit? Why? If the game is good why are you so concerned about quitting even? Are you afraid you might fall back to loser again? Can you not take or absorb or stomach the fluctuations? So you go up and down. What difference does it make? When the day is over and you are tired or don't feel like playing anymore you count up your chips and go home. Right? Or do you always have to be even or winner? It is all one big game inturupted by sleep and meals. What difference, if you are a winning player, does it make, whether or not you actually go home on the plus side. Isn't the goal to maximize wins and minimize losses? If the game is good and you feel like playing and aren't tired then why set up a bunch of arbitrary numbers that are only going to affect you psychologically? Just play poker man!
"In No Limit play, I decide when I first sit down the amount that I'm willing to invest for that session."
Great idea. Set a limit on your losses.
"Since I usually play in NL games where the initial buy-in is $500.00 or less, a typical total investment committment would be for $1,500.00 or less. If the initial buy-in is $200.00, and I have decided my maximum exposure will be $1,000.00, I will set the rebuys at $200,$200 and $400."
Where on earth do you keep coming up with these rebuy numbers? Why not just buy in the whole $1000? You may get a big hand right away and take off like a rocket!
"I am looking to quadruple up my last buy-in before deciding how or whether to continue."
The next time you play why don't you just keep right on playing as long as the game is good and you still fell confident in your abilities REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU ARE DOING! Stay with your initial buyin that you are willing to lose and just play until you are busted or beat. Give it a shot and see what happens. Stack your chips haphazardly and don't count your money. Just play poker! Try it one time. You might like it.
"Usually, after quadrupling, I'll continue in the game, but will have become a different, more conservative player, waiting to pounce on others mistakes when I have a big hand."
So when you are winning you play differently than when you are losing. Why? To protect your win? Is leaving a winner of such high priority that you must CHANGE YOUR GAME PLAN in order to continue playing?!
"As for bankroll management, I never play for any amount, in any session, that I couldn't lose for 30 days in a row and still be able to continue in action. I don't even have a poker bankroll, as such. I have practiced discipline, in business and in gambling, for my adult lifetime and the concepts you characterize as "financially biting you in the butt" have served me profitably for more than 35 years. I will quit as a winner for this week, month, year, decade and half century, can you say the same?"
No. I have had losing days, weeks, months and 1 losing year. (In the beginning of my poker career when I was young and inexperienced.) It is not important to me to end up winner for every session that I play. For you it is and that is your business. What is important to me is that I try to play as perfectly as possible on every street, hand and session. I quit when there are appropriate reasons to do so without letting how I am doing affect my decision. I will end up winner playing this way and in the interim I just let the chips fall where they may without pulling arbitrary numbers out of a hat.
Excellent post. I think you state clearly the principles that you embrace. I practice money discipline for several reasons. It works for me and that has its own attraction. I play in a variety of games and most of the time I don't leave a game that still looks good to me. I have a game plan that works. I've had losing weeks, months and years, but not this week or month or year. It isn't all the same game where you just take breaks. Game selection is vitally important to a player who plays daily.
I wish you well in your poker playing results. You asked what makes a good exit point? For me it is a time when I have had a recent run of good results and the blind is coming up on the next hand and I am ready to quit. Tonight my exit point occurred when the game broke up after playing three handed for a couple hours. I would have continued in that game for much longer if possible. I booked a $97.00 loss after seven hours of play in a 15-30 lowball at the Commerce. I had been down as much as $550.00, so it wasn't too bad an end result.
Doc,your recommendation is the best advice an honest poker player can give. The question is at which time period should you leave the game? In October i lost only one session and i play every day. Some day i win $40. dollars after 4 to 8 hrs and other days $6000.dollars. I play 20-40. When i am ahead and start loosing i will not accept to go in the red for that session because psychologically it may affect my confidence level if i loose 2-3 days in a row. I want to be satisfied about myself that i have enough discipline to quit a winner. I beleive that is most important. Money will follow. November was a bad month and i lost my confidence level until i decided to find out what the hell my problem was. Once i found it, my bad period was over. In December, I have lost one session already but still i am ahead $3000 after the first week. I will try everything possible not to loose another session. Everytime i loose 3 hands back to back, i quit for the day.
From a purely mathematical perspective, this is nonsense. It's all one long poker game - the money you win or lose after one year will not be increased by quitting whenever you're up. In fact, if you're a winning player, quitting early means you'll win less. The amount of money you win after a year will simply be your win rate multiplied by the number of hours you play.
However, there are many human factors at work here. If you're the type of player who loses his discipline when he has a big stack in front of him because each chip means less to you, then by all means quit when you've reached your goal. On the other hand, winning often gives you a psychological advantage over your opponents. If you can exploit this, then the most profitable hours you'll play are the ones right after you've won a lot of chips. By quitting early in this situation, you're losing a lot of potential profit.
You should quit the game when you believe you are tired and not playing your best, or when the game changes for the worse, or when personal factors in your life indicate it's time to go home (i.e. your wife is waiting for you).
Focusing on money management as the 'solution' to your poker problems is a bad idea, because it might be hiding the real reason that you don't win (i.e. you have some big holes in your game).
Dan
DITTO....
All I have to say is "wow" to the majority of responses.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
n/t
Sorry I didn't read all the other responses; but ...
You can win a WHOLE LOT MORE OFTEN than 75% of the time if you always play until you get ahead, and then leave. You will have countless little wins and a few huge losses.
This is an excellent money management "strategy" for those who's objective is to go home a winner. But it is a terrible "strategy" for those who wish to be life-long winners; since it will cause you to routinely play in bad games and to quit the good ones, and will artificially control the times you play and therefor your life.
"Self Control"? You mean "Self Sabotage"?
- Louie
However, this is an EXCELLENT strategy for long time losers who go to the club with limited funds; since it will limit the hours they play and so reduce their losses.
You have been winning. Now you are losing. What has changed? Are your bluff's now being called? Have the weaker players left? Have one or more players figured something out about your game? Are you tired? Have you changed your style of play? Has a dominant player entered the game? Has the makeup of the players to your left and/or right changed? Did you get your win just by getting the cards? Are you hungry? Did you drink alcohol?
Lots of things to think about before you leave a game where the tide has turned. Would love to hear others opinions on factors to be considered in the play/quit decision.
I think a much better approach for players is to learn to stay calm and disciplined in the face of short-term fluctuations. Ok, if you find it impossible to avoid loosening up and going on tilt when you are ahead, or when you give back a lot of your winnings, then by all means quit with your winnings when you feel yourself beginning to play carelessly. But surely it is better to train oneself to overcome these little blips - that way you can stay at a good game, even if you take a few bad beats. Surely this is better for your long-run profits than simply walking out every time you take a hit.
Matt
Another point: if your objective is to have the most winning sessions, this "money management" strategy is good advice. If you don't care how many winning sessions you have, but are concerned solely with maximising your profit, this advice is bad (assuming that your decision to quit is based solely on the amount you win or lose, rather than whether you are feeling tired, have gone on tilt, think the game has got harder etc).
I'll back this opinion up with an example. Suppose i offer you a coin-tossing wager. Heads you win $1.10, tails i win $1. (Let's say i am willing to give you this edge just because i enjoy gambling) Of course you would take the bet. Now let's say you win 5 times in a row. Do you quit just because you are ahead? Of course not! Even if your next 4 tosses all lose money, you still don't quit.
Now let's say you have had 1 good winning session against me (say you made $55). You come back the next day to play against me again, but this time you are unlucky and lose 5 times in a row. Eventually you manage to claw back your losses and are now $1.10 ahead. Do you quit just so you can come out a winner? No!
Let's say you have been playing against me for 2 hours and are ahead $1.10. You have arranged to meet a friend, but notice you have 20 minutes to kill. Do you quit just so you can be certain of coming out ahead? (or because you want to pick "a good time to leave") No! You continue playing, because you are likely to make money.
The only reasons to leave this game are:
i) you would prefer to do something else (have a meal, watch a movie, go back home to get some sleep etc) ii) you suspect that the odds are not favourable any more (e.g. maybe you think the coin is biased) iii) you don't have enough money to stand the fluctuations (i.e. you can't afford to risk losing) iv) you think you can get better odds elsewhere
So I think the only legitimate reasons to leave a poker game are:
i) you want to do something other than play poker ii) you suspect the game is no longer profitable iii) the swings are too big for your bankroll iv) there is a better game elsewhere
P.S. This is for people interested in playing poker for maximum profit. It does not apply to those who get their enjoyment in other ways (e.g. having a large number of winning sessions, but making less money overall).
I've read most of the postings on this subject and they have some good advice on money management and self control.
Doc - the only problem I see with your advice is that, if everybody followed it to the letter, there wouldn't be a game. Also, your 75% statistic would not apply.
You said that 75% of all players are up at one time or another. In order for some of those players to get up, they would have to take chips from some of those players who were up. If those previously ahead players left while ahead, the other players in your sample would not have the opportunity to win money and add to your statistic. Finally, if 75% of the players left as winners, the remaining 25% would be so incredibly stuck that they would likely go broke very early.
Money circulates around the table, everybody's stack grows and shrinks regularly. The good players keep more than they give.
Finally, the way you worded your intro is somewhat misleading. You said that a person can win 75% of the time by leaving while ahead. That is a different thing than noting that 75% of the players are up at one time or another.
Any comments from the statistics guru's out there?
Nobody seems to have commented so far on how implausible Doc's original numbers are. He said that over 75% of the players were up at least equal to two times their buy-in at some point, even piss-poor players. I'm not sure if he meant they *had* 2x their buy-in or they had *won* 2x their buy-in, but I'll assume the former (that is, that they had won an amount equal to their initial buy-in before losing it, because the latter would be even more unlikely.
Now that may have been his observation, but it seems really unlikely that that would be the expected result (which is what counts if you want to apply his suggested strategy in the future). Suppose you take a slightly above-average player, who is expected to beat the other players for an amount exactly equal to the rake + tokes in the long run. For such a player, the probability of doubling his initial buy-in before losing it can be computed exactly: 50%, assuming that he plays until one event or the other happens. If you are looking at an exactly average player (who is breaking even *before* rake + tokes), or allow for the possibility that our above-average player sometimes wins more than the initial buy-in, the probability will be less than 50%. In order for the probability of winning to be 75%, our slightly above-average player would need to have the stop-win average 1/3rd of the initial buy-in. That's because such a player, facing what is a net fair game, will have a win probability equal to loss_amount/(win_amount + loss_amount), assuming that he plays until one or the other of these goals is achieved.
Of course, a much better player (who has a positive expectation against the rest of the table much greater than the rake+tokes) could achieve this 75% with a higher stop-win, but such a player has much less incentive to stop.
I conclude that one or more of the following is likely to explain the reported observations:
1. The players Doc observed were extraordinarily lucky during the period he observed them.
2. The tables observed included one or more major donators who were bleeding chips so fast that even the "piss-poor" players had positive expectation during the period observed.
3. Players rebought one or more times after the initial buy-in, and their rebuys were included in the observed stack sizes when they reached 2x of the initial buy-in.
4. Most of the players had positive expectation over the rest of the table when they sat down, but they became negative expectation players while they played, due to fatigue or other factors.
5. The reported data were exaggerated due to errors in the collecting, analysis, or reporting of the results.
Any opionions from the the experts would be greatly appreciated.
Game senario: 20/40 typical to slightly aggressive.
My experience of the most costly mistakes has been:
(1) Playing Axs in early to middle position with one or less callers in front.
(2) Playing AJ offsuit in early position - Regardless of whether I limp in or raise.
(3) Playing small suited connectors in early or middle position with out a *minimum* of 3 callers in front, especially if it is raised!
All comments and advice appreciated.
None of these hands Axs, 76s, or AJ are significant winners in early position, and can easily be significant losers. It cannot cost much, if any, to routinely pass early (except in the best of loose/passive games).
But AJ should be a small favorite if this is a "good" game and you expect action when you pair, and also if you think you can win your share of pots (steals, no-context show downs) when nobody makes anything much.
AJ early is in a lot of trouble if you are playing against sensibly selective and assertive opponents; AND you are unlikely to win without the best pair. If due to their superior play or your insecurity with your inferior position you believe you will be outplayed now and after the flop, by all means pass all these trouble hands early.
Better yet, pass this game unless YOU dominate THEM when in good position.
- Louie
I know this is anecdotal evidence,but I've been killed by AJ every time in early position. Depending on the action, I'm not happy with it in middle position. I will not take more than one raise with it. I think it tends to be one of those hands that can win you a little or lose you a lot.
Another costly mistake that I see losing players make is calling a raise with hands such as A-10, A-J, K-J etc. When these players hit top pair on the flop, they are usually in kicker trouble and refuse to release their hand. They've only got 3 outs (actually less b/c of the possibility of a redraw on the river) but they consistently go on to lose three bets on the flop, a bet on the turn and one on the river. Including the pre-flop raise, that's 9 small bets (approximately 3 hours work for a very good player).
I believe that this error is a more costly one than the ones you have pointed out but maybe the experts can correct me if I'm wrong.
Point well taken-- I probably tend to overvalue hands like A-10.K-J,A-J,Q-10 when already in for a bet, but what about position? Do you mean not to call a raise with these hands in late position? What about suited?
I have not had the time to post anything on this forum before (I barely have time to read it), but since I regularly play in a slightly aggressive 20-40 game (it would be less aggressive if I wasn't in it, but that's another story :-) ) I thought I would comment. I would throw all of those hands away to a raise, even on the button in most instances..... I am certainly no expert, and there are many here whose advice you would be wiser to listen to than mine, but I have been a consistent winner at this level (and slightly smaller) for some time, and that's how I would play those hands. If you aren't comfortable playing this way, or you don't trust your post-flop judgement enough, I don't think you will give up much just tossing these in the muck for a raise in this kind of game. Just my $0.02 - for whatever it's worth.
Keep shooting,
Steve
If you have AK you WANT the opponent to have AQ. Likewise when you have other premium hands you WANT the opponent to have a lesser good hand. The converse is applicable, and thus the title "trouble hands".
Rarely, if ever, cold-call TIGHT raises with Trouble Hands; you'd be better off with a suited connector. If the raiser is loose and you like your hand for 2-bets, then usually make it 3-bets .. err .. if you don't like your 20/21 hand for 3-bets rarely call for 2-bets. Suited trouble hands, however, are often a different matter.
The value of "trouble hands" is when they are the "BEST" hand currently out. What the weakest trouble hand an opponent will play from which position is "premium" information about that opponent. Watch and Learn. Selectiveness in Early position and judgement in Late position maximizes their value and minimizes their liability.
== Play of trouble hands separates the "Are's" from the "Wanna-Be's".==
- Louie
PS: "Advertising" occationally with 87s early is used to "trick" the opponents into playing their trouble hands against your premium hands. Cha-Ching!!!
I would only call if I'm up against a weak tight player who I know will stop firing on the turn if he's got nothing and even then I would like my pre-flop call more if my hand happens to be suited. When it is suited, I would sometimes three bet before the flop to try and make it heads-up with me in control and with better position.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 December 1998, at 12:32 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladnerdowns.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 December 1998, at 1:46 p.m.
I vote for all those trash hands that people play in the big blind, in a raised pot, for "only one bet more" because they are "getting odds to call with any hand". Generally trash hands just trap these type of players when the flop hits them a little bit. Now the pot is even bigger, and "they have outs" so they will call a bet. Now by the turn the pot is so big and "they have outs" that they have to call. So they end up going to the river on a hand that should have been thrown away from the start. Big blind trash, especially in a raised pot, is my vote for the 3 most dangerous hands.
A Poker Guy!
They're only dangerous when you play 'em.
Judging by the responses, it should be obvious how easy it is to play bad in hold 'em. The game appears so simple to play but as we all know, it is so difficult to play it well. The apparent simplicity of the game I think explains why the game continues to be profitable for good players.
I'm thinking of selling a "system" for winning at least 80% of your gambling sessions against a "fair" coin flip. I'll open Casino Albert where my patrons can practice my system "Alberto Martingalo" that also can be also easily applied to games such as roulette. For $100 you get the system, and get to play at Casino Albert under the watchful eyes of my "tutors".
The game is simple. Toss a coin, heads you win, tails the casino wins. The casino betting limits are $1-10. You must play my system to guarantee at least 80% winning sessions in the long run (>100 sessions). My tutors will help you with applying "Alberto Martingalo" to your betting to achieve %80 session wins. In fact, if you deviate from system Alberto Martingalo, you will be kicked out of the casino for being such a poor student and your $100 will be forfeited. If you don't win more than half your sessions, you will get your $100 back and ALL THE MONEY BACK YOU LOST AT CASINO ALBERT. This amazing guarantee only applies to players who have used the system perfectly for more than 100 sessions.
I will be nice and teach you a little bit of the system. Each session has to begin with the minimum $1 bet. If you win, you lock up your win and quit your session according to system Alberto Martingalo. MONEY MANAGEMENT is the key here. If you lose, you bet $2 next time. If you win the $2 bet then you quit your session. If you lose your $2 bet, you bet $4 the next time.
That is all I will reveal about system Alberto Martingalo. Send me $100 for the rest.
For a limited time you can learn the system at Casino Albert for free!!!!! Again, if you don't win more than half your sessions, you will get ALL THE MONEY BACK YOU LOST AT CASINO ALBERT. This amazing guarantee only applies to players who have used the system perfectly for more than 100 sessions.
The money management ideas that Alberto Martingalo teaches you can be applied to poker, blackjack, roulette, etc. Imagine winning almost all the TIME!!! Impress your friends and members of two+two & RGP with your session win percentages and your money management skills.
Send me your money now for system Alberto Martingalo...
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
albert
The Martingale system is not a new system.It was very popular in Europe before my lifetime. I do not like the system. I beleive it is the most dangerous ones. It will work for a while but there will be a time upon multiple loss in a row where you will reach bankrupcy. Yes it can be applied in roulette and blackjack, etc. I have used it more than once. And by the way instead of paying $100. you can buy a book for 4-5 dollar that will explain the whole theory. To be certain that you can make a living in playing poker i recommend you to stick to Slansky and Malmuth. But if you want to become a looser continue to play casino game applying the Martingale theory.
Alberto, for $100 I won't report you to the various state attorney general's offices. How 'bout that?
Oops... How about if I teach it to you for free...
I must admit don't have my licenses yet. Stop win strategies do work for improving winning session percentages. (See the "How to win at least 75%..." thread) I'm willing to teach it, but I sure won't use it myself. ;)
Hope i'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Dear Professor Martingalo,
Many years ago I stumbled upon your remarkable winning system. I played a variation of it at the Sands Hotel in Las Vegas in order to get my free airfare, meal and hotel room comps. I would play basic strategy "21" using a progression of $5-10-20-40-80-160 and beginning over again if I suffered the six consecutive losses. I treated my double downs and splits as separate decisions. The pit bosses rating my play would usually give me a rating average of about $25.00 per hand and I qualified for my "freebie comps" in a single two hour session. I always tried to play at full tables and didn't try to play any faster than absolutely necessary. Round trip airfare was $80.00 and returned to me in cash, the airport limousine to and from casino was free both ways, the room was a good no smoking with a king sized bed and the meal ticket was for an amount sufficient to cover my order. I could always get all the free meals I wanted from the pit crew.
My point is that even a martindale system can be profitable when used intelligently for an appropriate +EV activity. I can guarantee you that my average loss in the two hours of "21" was much less than the value of the comps. The remainder of my stay, I could do whatever I chose to, wherever I chose to.
While playing poker i told one of the player " I do not understand why i am often playing from behind before i win a few thousands". He replied: " We always play better when we loose". Very interesting!! I did not comment on his statement because when i sit down at a new game before making any play at somebody i take about one hour to study the players. During that time i play very tight and by the book. But this does not mean he is wrong. What do you think? Do you play better when you loose?
I play better when I am losing. At one time, I used to play very poorly when I was stuck. I was trying to make up my losses by forcing marginal hands. Of course, things just got worse.
Since table image is very important, it is hard to play marginal hands when I am stuck. Other players will call me down or play their marginal (but better) hands against me. So, I tighten up and wait for good hands. At some point, a series of wins will come and these wins will be with solid hands. This will give me the appearance of being on a rush. Also, by that time, the table will view me as a tough player, only playing solid hands. I can then play a few marginal hands and push semi bluffs for a few pots. I have recovered from many a poor start with this method.
Finally, I find playing marginal hands to be a lot of work and very frustrating. I really have to be on the ball in order to steal pots, calculate odds for draws and read other players. When I am stuck, I am not in good mental condition and I don't have the skill level required to play marginal hands properly. So, I find it easier to just wait for the solid hands that often play themselves.
Not all poker players have equal ability, experience or reputation. These truths serve to inhibit discussions, to a degree, on this forum. Opinion threads such as the How to win 75% of the time...one, consistently generate the highest activity. You don't need to be a good player in order to have an opinion about quitting a game that you are winning in. There is much precendent for each side of the argument, so you are safe to wade right in and express yours.
I post a lot. I know I'm not a poker expert, I'm certainly not possessed of an extraordinary intellect, but, I still think that expressing my thoughts, and illuminating some of the reasons for my poker actions, contributes to the furtherance of poker theory and strategy. I am getting better in my play, but my strong suit has always been avoiding ruin. I get up and leave games with money in my hand or in my pocket, refusing to give in to the emotional need to chase after lost money when the game doesn't favor me. I capitalize on my winning sessions, though not trying to get rich from any, single, session. I pick my games and opponents in an attempt to give myself the best chance of winning, not to satisfy my ego that I am capable of stepping up in level of competition. I leave it to others to claim the status of being #1. People who play against me regularly are usually happy to see me sit down in their game, believing that my presence made the game get better. I am considered very lucky when I get up with a rack or so of winnings and leave the game. People remember my weak calls and unwise raises, failing to note the many times they paid me off those extra bets that I was able to extract because they were playing against my "loose" reputation rather than the hand I actually had. I lose, more often than I should, but I leave an impression in their minds when I do so, making it seem like I've lost quite a bit more than was the actual case. The other day I played in a game with a regular who had been present the day before when I dropped $230.00 in the game. He asked whether I had dropped more than a $1,000.00 that day. I smiled, shook my head side to side in the universal negative, and answered, "Not Quite." I cashed out 5 hours later with a win of $785.00 and he made the comment to me that "at least you got half of it back."
I encourage anyone to post. It isn't always the questions that stimulate new ideas and strategy breakthroughs. Often, one player makes an assertion that he believes is accurate and is challenged by someone holding an opposite point of view. Later, after working out the math, someone posts conclusive simulation evidence that argues a more precise guideline for actions, resulting in our changing our response in that particular situation. (I raise in certain Hold'Em games now UTG with A9S.)I believe we are all capable of furthering and refining our playing skills. The time I invest here is enjoyable, but I wouldn't do it if I didn't think I was benefitting my game with the time spent here more than I could by doing something different.
It is obvious to me that many of my poker foundation beliefs are less than totally correct, otherwise I would have results superior to my actual ones. I sometimes learn a new skill that is at odds with my core of knowledge, resulting in my making adjustments to that core. Better results are indicators that the process, while slow and gradual, is working for me.
There is an interesting aspect to poker that these threads have touched on. It is the idea that the games need to be highly fluctuating. This way someone can think back to when he was ahead earlier that night or think about the big win he had last month. This is one of the hooks that keeps bad players winning.
The best players don't even think about how often they win or lose. They usually concern themselves with what they believe to be their hourly rate and make sure that they are adequately bankrolled to withstand the fluctuations.
No limit hold 'em is a game where a top player will win almost every time. It is also a game that doesn't exist anymore.
"This is one of the hooks that keeps bad players winning."
Typo?
"NL Hold'Em is a game where a top player will win almost everytime. It is also a game that doesn't exist anymore."
First, I disagree with your conclusion that a top player wins almost every time. My experience is that I win quite often against better players, certainly often enough to refute your claim. I've played against some of the best, including Bobby Hoff, Huck Seed, Randy Holland, T.J. Cloutier and many others. Second, NL Hold'Em does exist, weakened and relegated to third class status because many casino operators have bought into the misinformation that no limit is bad for their business, but it is still spread occasionally in several cardrooms. It refuses to die because it is a fun game and it places a different premium on poker skills than those used by the limit players. Big bet poker is anethma to those limit "grinders" that construct their earn in tiny, tidy tidbits, stealing a blind here and squeezing an extra call there. Big bet poker appeals to the type of player who is willing to risk the day's outcome on a single hand. Big bet players aren't like limit players, constantly in search of drunks and self-hating compulsives to prey on, although they are certainly welcome in our games; We are willing to put our money up like men and let the turn of the cards, on a single hand if need be, decide our fate, standing ready to play anyone who steps forward with money in his hand and the natural good looks that all big bet players seem to possess.
In my opinion, and I'm not saying this just to offend, limit players tend to be lesser people in most areas of their lives. When Shakespeare penned...."Why man, he doth bestride the earth like a Colossus, while we mortal men do toil among the pillars an posts of life in search of a dishonorable grave.".... he was obviusly quoting two limit players just cleaned out in their first venture into big bet hold'em. They were speaking of the big bet specialist, probably Bobby Hoff, who had given them this lesson in humility. I'm sure they never went back to NL, preferring instead to toil in the lesser vineyard of limit poker.
Since you have long been a vocal opponent of big bet poker, lending your name, voice and reputation to the movement against it, it is surprising to me that you would believe top players would win everytime. I suggest you throw aside your timerity, take some of those publishing profits and sit down in a baby NL game to play for the sheer joy of it. You never know, you might prove to be good at it in spite of your worries. I see it as a sure thing, you taking $1,500.00 from a poor limit player who hasn't the skills to defend himself against your superior experience strategy and knowledge in a 40-80 game. He is doomed, over time, to losing that money to you. At least, in my trying to win it from him, even if it's in a single hand at NL, he has a good chance himself to win that particular confrontation and double through. For him, at least, NL offers a better chance than limit. Your argument about players losing so much in big bet that they wind up out of action for extended periods of time thereby hurting cardroom operations, is just incorrect. Players will lose the same amount playing at limit as in NL. If your argument is valid, shouldn't all cardrooms cease spreading bigger limit games? 3-6 games with a $3.00 drop on the button would be much better. How much less could someone lose if 3-6 were the maximum spread game?
"..natural good looks that all big bet players seem to possess." ???????!!!!???
You mean like Bob Ciaffone? :):)
"This is one of the hooks that keeps bad players winning."
This was a typing error on my part. It should say "This is one of the hooks that keeps bad players returning."
Your opinion of limit holdem player is disgusting. I play limit, spread limit, pot limit and No Limit holdem, Lowball, Omaha and 7 card stud and yes there is a few no limit hold em games in the bay area up to $1000. buy in. I also played with the best as well in limit and no limit and yes i played poker for 36 years. Never i ever downgraded limit poker player. Yes the No Limit and limit player are a different breed but that does not make one better than the other. As a matter of fact, i beleive the one that can master both games is a genius compare to the population. You said: "Limit hold em player tend to be lesser people in most areas of their life" . I personnally succeeded in every areas of my life and i play with very successfull people, such as : Business owner, lawyers, engineers, doctors, and all levels of society around the world. Today some of those professionnels are retired and do make a decent living at poker.I don't know if you can do better but i will certainly not insult you on your previous comments because that will downgrade myself to your level. One day you will have the pleasure to see me at your NL table and then we will see who is a lesser person.
"the natural good looks that all big bet players seem to possess." Precisely my reason for not playing No Limit! I'm so intimidated by you gorgeous creatures. Love Vince Lepore By the way some of us "lesser people" limit players play for other reasons than preying on those (wonderful) "drunk and self-hating compulsives". Although the other reasons escape me right now. Oh yeh, I got one, we also love high living, good looking, suicidal No Limit players. So, Come On Down, Cowboy! Bring your six shooter and some more of those beautiful Bard Barbs (God, I didn't realize old Will had such a grasp for what a losing Limit Poker player feels, thanks for the quote, very enlightening). Oh yea "Big bet poker is anethma" (anathema)... O.K. Are you a lawyer, politician or something else equally unimportant! Respectfully Vince
You sound like a gambler (like you would find at the craps table or something), not a poker player. You sound like you let your ego interfere with your decisions. I bet you aren't a very good NL player.
In truth, I am more of a gambler than a poker player, but I'm trying to change that as I've concluded that poker is a better game when you are one of the more knowledgeable players. I can't comment too much on my NL playing abilities other than to say I seek out games and seldom pass up a chance to play when I can find one.
I'm sorry that my joking in some of the posts has led you to believe that I have a big ego. I come here to learn and improve like most of the other forum regulars. In the future I will stick more to theory and strategy and stay away from attempts at humor. Good luck to you.
Hey, no hard feelings. I hope that I wasn't too rough on you. Sometimes all forums need someone to say what they really think and not to hold back. So really, thank you.
Big John:
You've really demonstrated an ability to "disagree without carrying your argument over into personalities and engaging in name calling". Like you, I really despise the "mean spirited, put down" posts that aren't warranted on such a public forum.
BTW, I really enjoyed reading about your strategy of booking any win over $60 during your 3-6 HE sessions. No wonder you've done so well against the "who's who" of no limit poker. How could they have possibly seen you coming!
Anyways, now that you've finished name-dropping about your poker opponents, you can tell all your friends how you're swapping strategy with Mason on the internet. Cool! Maybe you want to leave out the part about how you openly offended him on his own website - just a little tacky wouldn't you say?
Save the trash for rgp. It's the lack of it on this site that makes it so much more enjoyable.
I take your point. I was attempting some humor that, apparently wasn't perceived as humor. I will try to stick to posting about theory and strategy in the future. It wasn't my attempt to insult Mason.
"It refuses to die because it is a fun game and it places a different premium on poker skills than those used by the limit players."
Limit holdem is a more strategically complex game than no-limit holdem. You are playing a broader range of hands, both before and after the flop, and you often have to continue past the flop with only a small chance. Your opponents will have many more possible holdings, which makes hand reading more difficult. You often have to play to the river, as opposed to all-in before the flop. And protecting your hand can be a challenge. Finally, there are several factors that go into a limit player's decision that are not issues in NL where either you have a strong hand, you bluff, or you get out. NL will give a better advantage over bad players. But excelling in limit holdem takes more skill.
"Big bet poker is anethma to those limit grinders that construct their earn in tiny, tidy tidbits, stealing a blind here and squeezing an extra call there."
It's a different game, that's all. Winning the maximum number of tiny tidbits is the hard part. You can't just win it all on one hand by flopping a set. When decisions are of relatively equal importance, you really have to play all situations well to win. Over the course of several hours, everyone gets strong hands, and the players who can get those few extra bets, and make good laydowns will be winners in the long-run.
Excellent post. I agree. What I posted earlier was meant to be tongue in cheek and, somehow, misfired. I do better, results wise, in NL. This is probably because I am a better gambler than I am a poker player. I'm here on the forum to correct my poker playing deficiencies. I appreciate the posts like yours which detail some of the skills I'll need to acquire. I should probably post less and read more.
Post deleted at author's request.
and so the debate continues about limit vs no limit. so much around us is not as it seems to be. Although Brunson, Ungar, and the like are or were great players, they were also backed financially. This takes pressure off and also gives you the ability to slap a 50,000 raise in someones face without having to go through too much mental stress. Don't get me wrong, there are some great no limit players, but the game comes down to whos got the most money behind them, in my opinion. There are so many situations that come up in holdem, where all the skill in the world can't point you on the winning side of a situation, and you just have to make a decision.Why should you lose your whole stack for one incorrect decision?Advocates say that's what it's all about, but it doesn't fly.It seems that the name of the game is to wait for a big hand and then hope you can trap someone. You buy in for 2000 and flop trips, and bet. Someone raises you all in for your 2000, and you have to make a decision. these situations come up over and over.Do you try to stare him down to try to get a read on whether it's a bluff? No,.... it's stupid! As a tournament game no limit is great. but to try to play this game regularly, and make money,.... well, you better have a backer.That's why it's dead. Saying that better men and women play no limit is ridiculus as well. By saying this you are revealing yourself in a way that says you play for other reasons than to earn extra money.Do you play it so it will make you feel that you are living a more full life?You seem to mention well known plyers that you have played with. Maybe you play for recognition,.... and that's fine,... I play for money.Skilled players will win more often in no limit because they know how to trap and intimidate. these are fine poker attributes, but they are in my opinion not as skillful as the attributes that it takes to beat limit games. seeya
Al,
Calm yourself, big guy. I was just having a little fun with Mason. Limit players have their place in a well-run poker heirarchy. NL poker is a fun game. It offers a different kind of challenge than limit. Bluffing is more important and you better have some ability to read players also. NL players have commitment to a hand.
I did mean what I wrote about big bet players being good looking though. I was dead serious about that.
Gee John since you are so good looking, smart and successful how do you explain a 'hair-trigger' temper?
I am very calm thank you.
Big John, I always enjoy your posts, but stop picking on limit players. Where I live there is no NL Holdem, unless you play in the dinky tournaments. So I have to settle for limit and the occasional PL. I enjoy both. But the fact is it requires a different set of skills (the key word here is different not superior) to win at NL/PL than limit. It takes a very good player to be a consistent winner at either and a excellant player to win at both. BTW, since I play mostly limit, I now know why I'm so fat and ugly. Thanks.
Dman,
I've always found you quite attractive.
Several recent posts have mentioned Mexican stud. For those who don't know, it's five card stud with the 8s, 9s and 10s removed and a joker added. The joker is wild if face down, and is an ace or str/flush completion if face up. Dealt like normal 5-stud, but after each betting round, you have the option of exposing your upcard and getting your next card down.
Second street - It seems that you would need a pair or two live high cards to play (prob. including an ace). Something like two kings or a down joker should be slowplayed, but a pair of sixes should be raised aggressively. The problem with a low pair is that you won't know when anyone else improves, but your opponents know exactly what you have. In a raised pot, I would be inclined to fold a pair below the raiser's upcard. Overcards might be all right - a seven raises, you can play AK if aces and kings are live.
Rolling upcards - Obviously conceal pairs, and maybe aces. Otherwise, turn everything up unless you are trying to represent something specific.
Fifth street - Straights or flushes are very unlikely, so shouldn't generally be expected even if an opponent board looks threatening.
No-limit - If played no-limit, you wouldn't want to chase, and would probably slowplay most hands with any strength. A pair of fives is much weaker, since you would have to play fast to protect your hand, and that makes you vulnerable to split higher pairs. A hidden ace would be good if the money was deep. You would fold unmade hands a lot on third if the pot becomes high relative to the remaining money.
Is the above generally correct? What other strategies are there?
I read that one of the other rules is that a flush beats a full house. I haven't worked it out on paper, but it seems to me that this rule might have a very important effect on the game.
There is much more to the strategy of Mexican Stud than you mentioned. Position is very important because it allows you to decide last whether to take the next card up or down. You get to see what hole cards have been turned up and also which players elect to take their next card up, keeping their hole card secret. This information allows you to infer certain holdings and to anticipate betting patterns that might develop. You can keep someone from betting into you sometimes by not turning your hole card over and, thus, representing a hand stronger than your actual holding.
The biggest error in limit MS is usually not betting when you are the high hand on the board. Giving a free card can be deadly in this game where catching even a small pair makes it correct to continue with your draw. There are situations where it is correct to check/call, check/raise, and check/fold. On second street, if you hold 2/* (joker), and your opponent has A/A, you are ahead. When you have position, this can be milked for several bets. Unlike some other games, in 4-8 MS, you can bet 4 or 8 on the first betting round so it is different than normal limit. If someone brings it in for four, you can raise it to 12. Flushes do beat full houses. If a straight or flush is possible, you have to check to it unless you want to risk being raised by a "nut" hand.
I would suppose you would tend to turn up your hole card when it is obvious what you have and the opponent will NOT make a mistake if you keep it hidden; or when you have nothing and do not plan to bluff. But you must do some randomizing in order to fool the opponent: keep an obvious hand concealed once in a while. i.e. "represent" representing" something.
- Louie
Does anyone know if there is anyplace to play no-limit hold'em in Las Vegas? If so, where are the games and how tough are they?
Mr. Malmuth, I recently read an article (or interview, can’t remember) by (with) you. The article dealt with collusion and cheating in poker games. First, let me say, I agreed with your summation. I think poker games in Casino Card rooms are honest and players can be fairly certain that they are not being cheated. Let me add that I think that if someone gets cheated they must broadcast it as loud and widespread as possible. A few weeks ago I was playing 20-40 Hold’em at the Taj Mahal. The following incident occurred: After the dealer dealt all of the cards, the player in the 7th seat stopped the action and claimed he had seen one of the cards of the player in the 3rd seat. He said it was a face card. An argument pursued on whether or not the 3 seat should get a new card. The floor was called. The player in the 3 seat showed the floor the card that he said was in question. The floor told the person in the seven seat that he was wrong. It was not a face card and the 3 seat kept the card and play continued. The 3 seat then raised and the 8 seat reraised. Now heads-up. The flop came K, rag, rag. 3 seat bet, 8 raised, 3 reraised and 8 called. Turn and river were blanks. 3 seat bet all the way and 8 called. The 3 seat then turned over AK. The 8 seat (pair of nines) went ballistic. He started yelling that he had been cheated. He blamed the card room management especially the floor for claiming the 3 seat didn’t have a face card. It was obvious that the 3 seat had switched the cards and did not deny the accusation after confronted. The Card room eventually compensated the 8 seat by giving him a free room for a night (his statement). Now, if the 3 seat switched the cards before the floor looked, although unethical, it appeared obvious that it was unplanned and not collusion with the floor. I don’t believe the 8 seat was cheated. But the impression of cheating was broadcast throughout the hi limit section of the Taj Mahal. A tourist or novice poker player as well as many experienced players could have certainly concluded that cheating actually did occur.
This incident raises a number of questions regarding cheating and the impression of cheating. Least of all, the effect on the publics opinnion of poker if the notion that cheating occurs in public card rooms gets around. Though it is most important to identify actual occurrences of cheating my questions deal mostly with the impression or methods of cheating. My questions also are directed to your experience with Limit Hold’em and Stud only. Also because of my respect for David Sklansky, if he would also respond to these questions I would greatly value his answers. All my questions refer to play in public card rooms.
1. Have you ever been cheated? 2. Have you ever felt you were being cheated? 3. If the answer to question 2. is yes, how did it effect your game? What did you do? 4. What should a player look for in regards to cheating? 5. Are you aware of any card mechanics dealing in casinos? 6. What is the most effective measure that we the HONEST POKER PLAYERS can take to ensure that cheating does not occur?
My list could go on but in the interest of time (yours) I will stop here. Anything you feel should be added to this subject please feel free to express your thoughts.
Thank you very much, Vince Lepore
I was reading r.g.p. and there was a post in there from a guy who said he had played against you, I believe at $20-40 at the Mirage. Anyway, he said that you "define the word tight". I then later on read a reply from you that said the 2nd encounter you were in with this gentleman you had raised pre-flop with Q8s and won right there. Seems like an oxymoron to me, "defines the word tight"/raises with Q8s. I understand that you were in late position, and this was probably just a steal attempt. So I guess my question is that. Was that just a steal attempt or did you really "want to get in heads up hand with this guy?" Or was that a bogus post made by someone claiming to be yourself? TIA.
W.P.
I'm not Mason,but I too am considered tight. And when I do come in with less than the nuts, as long as I don't back off on the turn, I am usually conceeded the pot right there. And many times, I have absolutely nothing. And everyone thinks tight players are so easy to read. The truth is they can be as hard to read as loose players.
Hold 'em is a game of playing tight. The best players all play tight. This is a function of the community card board. In stud, I play close to twice as many hands.
But even though I play tight, there is still plenty of opportunity to mix it up. This can be seen from our book HPFAP. When we first wrote it we were accused by the so called better players of writing a book that was way too loose. Now the opposite is true.
The following hand occured last night at the Tropicana's "Second Chance" No-Limit Hold-em tourney during the U.S. Poker Championships. There are about T40,000 in tournament chips (and prize money) in play. All the money is in the first 3 places, so I am playing to win here. I start the final table with T4500, down from being one of the two large stacks after a bad beat (but that's another story). The blinds are T200/T100 with T25 antes. There are a couple of short stacks, a couple of large stacks near T10,000 and the rest are close to mine.
Since the field is very aggressive and tough, I wait patiently for two rounds without playing a hand, hopin to catch somebody out of line. I get blinded down to T3500 before I have a chance to make a move. I am one from the button and have AdTh. It is folded to me, so I raise it to T900 to try to pick up the blinds and antes. The SB folds, and TJ Cloutier calls the raise from the big blind. As I had not been playing tight, he is obviously not defending with garbage. The big guy has about T5000 in chips before the call.
Th flop comes 8c5c5s and TJ checks to me. I check behind him. The turn comes Tc, giving me top pair/top kicker, with a possible flush on board. TJ checks it a second time to me. There is T2125 in the pot, I have T2600 left, and I think it is highly probable that I have the best hand. However, a free card here could easily beat me if TJ has AJ, AQ, or AK. He could also possibly have two overcards with a draw to the flush, or a made flush. What about a five? Pocket 8s? I have to quickly think through the possibilities and act decisively. If I bet here, I definitely DON'T want TJ to think I am weak and call since there are too many ways he could bust me even if I currently have the best of it. What would YOU do!
As background, TJ and I had contested two pots when I was at his table briefly when the tourney was down to two tables. I think he would rate me as an aggressive, but not out of line player. In one hand, he had limped in the SB when I was in the BB. I flopped a flush draw to my Q7s (a Ks had flopped), and made a pot-sized semi-bluff. TJ called and then we checked down the hand after I hit my Queen on the turn and the flush didn't get there. He showed a K3s winner and I mucked my had. In the other hand, I came over the top of his T800 UTG raise for all my chips and took the pot down uncontested. (I had pocket Kings, but didn't show them; he flashed me a Queen and tried to imply that he had QQ, but I think it was AQ.)
You certainly had a tough decision. If your trying to win the whole thing, I think you should move all in. If he has a big club make him pay to try and get the last one. It sounds like he has AK or AQ maybe. If you check and no club comes on the river are you prepared to call if he bets, moving all in takes away this tough decision also. Any other notables at the final table, do you know when the next no-limit game the Trop is going to hold Danny H
I posted the results of the hand below, an obvious bummer for me. This was a pretty tough table for a small tourney. There was TJ, Ken Buntjer, Jim? Bucci (not sure of the first name or spelling?, but his Dad is a well-known tourney player), and two oter Vegas guys that seemed to be pretty tight with the tourney pros. There were only three other "amateurs" like me.
The Trop has a regular weekly no-limit HE tourney for $220 with one rebuy. I think they hold it on Fridays at 4:15. You should check Card Player to confirm. It is a nice structure with $500 chips, with blinds starting at only $5/$10. There are three 30 minute rounds and then the rounds go up to 45 minutes, so you really get some play. They also add a $25 ante after the first 100/200 round, so it gets pretty interesting in the later stages since it is much more difficult to steal the blinds with the $225 of dead money in the pot.
What would you do if it wasn't TJ Cloutier. Maybe a solid player that you hadn't known before? It appears that you are giving Mr. Cloutier quite a bit of respect here. Maybe that is what he is counting on! Maybe he feels you are more likely to make a mistake because you are (may be) intimidated by him. I am only speculating and don't claim to fully understand Mr. Cloutier's reasoning. He may have played the way he did for entirely other reasons than those I've stated. He may have had a real hand. I don't know. The point is that I would pay him the respect he deserves but play my best (tournament or ring) game at all times. I make the decision on this hand based on the situation with appropriate consideration given to the skills and experience of my opponent and myself. You said that you felt that you had the best hand ("highly probable") so Bet (and I would bet it all, given your rendition of the hand and the stage of the tournament and the chips you had remaining). My guess on his hand is AKs or AA. No way he just calls the raise with anything else (he figures he has the best hand with the AA and possibly with the AKs so he slow plays). Since you have an Ace he more than likely has AK. He Mucks AQ (or raises all in here), mucks AJ or any other Ax besides AK. Raises with any pair from 88 (maybe 77) to KK ( he may muck 99 and below) and mucks anything smaller. Anthing else he mucks. If he has AA he bets the flop (remember this is a tournament) looking for a call but not giving a free card. On the turn his check convinces he has AK and I must bet. If I'm wrong, I am probably drawing dead and see you at the next tournament. If I'm right, and I believe I am, he folds and I am in fair (good for the button) chip position. My Opinion Vince Lepore
This seems like the time to make your move and go all in. He is not going to pay if he is still on a draw. I would think AQ or AK, maybe even KQs. Given your stack size and your hopes of winning, not just doing well, I think this is the time to increase your stack size by the amount already in the pot. I doubt he has anything to call with.
My initial reaction was to go all-in, but if you are called you are out of the tournament. Now after some thought I believe this hand should be checked down here and, hopefully, on the end.
TJ can't be too smug himself, unless he has 88 or the nut flush, (no reason to think so, and unlucky for you) because he must have some of the same concerns you have, and he has you identified as a tough player who would check the nut flush on the turn. While its possible he could have an overpair like JJ or QQ and be wanting to show them down cheaply himself, he also would check down many hands you could beat, and you win a small pot safely.
Of course,iIf you check and he bets out on the river, its a different set of trouble, but the board is awful strong to bluff into, since if he bluffs and is called he is becomes short stack.
What did you do, and what resulted?
You are neglecting to consider if he has a lone club (which is very possible), that you would be letting him draw out on you for free. You need to bet to get the pot now.
I believe TJ will play very tight until is down to 3 players where the money is. On the turn i would bet $1000. If he is slow playing he will go all in after your bet, if not he will throw it away. By betting 1000 you are also inviting him to come, so he will think twice before calling or going all in. If he calls, be aware. Check the river, after he check. If he bet the river, throw you hand away and save the remaining of your chips. But on the turn you must bet a decent amount. If you would have been down to 3 players, then i would have gone all in.
The logic of this play is commendable. Knowledge of the oponnent is essential to this strategy. I would only be concerned that the $1000 bet may allow Mr. Cloutier to call with over cards given the chip situation. $2500 is a no brainer and he has to let it go! My opinion Vince
Only betting $1000 would allow him to call with one overcard in clubs - let alone two overcards, and could give him the hand cheap. You need to go all in.
.
You go all in. It doesn't sound like he is setting you up - he has no reason to assume you are going to bet behind him after the passiveness of the hand so far, so a setup on a check-raise is improbable. By the turn, if he is looking for additional profit on this hand, he is making some sort of a move. I would put him on two overcards, with a club draw possible, so I would want to make it a bad move on his part to pay to draw out to this hand. Best case for him, he would have about 14 outs - a bit less than 1/3 chance. So if you match the pot, he could be justified in calling. You need to bet at least the pot, and considering what you have left, you go all in. He doesn't have enough chips to take a "chip leader's" stand to see you down. If he calls you, he has a made hand and you are screwed, but you can't play cards scared - especially NL.
Despite the fact that I was a little baffled by TJ's check on the turn after I had shown weakness on the flop, I decided against outthinking myself and made what seemed like the "usually correct" play of moving all-in when I hit the ten on the turn (for all of the reasons posted by others above.) I figured that TJ did NOT have a made flush, or he would have played more aggresively on the flop. (I had seen him bet out on the flop from the big blind with a flush draw earlier in a similar heads-up pot.)
I was correct in that he didn't have a flush draw. Unfortunately, he called me without much hesitation and announced "a flush is good", while turning over an A-5 of spades. I think he was planning to check-raise me on the flop, then froze up on the turn when the third club hit. He must have figured that if he bet big and I called, he was likely to be a loser, but that I might bet a hand he could beat. Although he was right, I still think his call was a tough one given the play of the hand, but I guess that is why he is a World Champion and I work for a living. But like a told TJ when he extended a handshake, I have been knocked out by a lot worse players in my day.
For those of you questioning the merit of defending the blind with an A-5 suited in a heads-up no limit pot, another tournament regular watching from the rail told me that he has seen TJ call a steal-position raise with a small ace and then bet big on the flop if the ace hits. This guy thinks that TJ makes this play because the "stealer" is more likely to have two paints, a medium pair, or a weak ace than to have AK or a big ace. And he counts on the "TJ" factor to possibly intimidate weaker players into laying down AT, AJ, and even AQ. If he tried this play on me, he would have crippled his stack, as I was mentally committed to this hand (with a top-pair flop) unless the board looked squirrely.
Any comments on TJ's play? P.S. There was a mistake in my post above- the tourney chips cost $200 for $500, so there was only $16,000 in prize money at stake. Because of this, anything other than the top two spots was certainly not worth TJ's time, so I think he was willing to take extra chances to win bigger pots.
Thanks for posting this piece of the puzzle. I had problems with my previous response and had to rethink my anaylsis. My recent thoughts led me to believe that TJ or any other bb may decide that a $600 call was worth the investment at this stage of the game. That begs the question: With what hands would he take the chance? That is not why I responded to this post, though. I responded because posts of this nature and the reponses given are precisely why I continue in this forum. They definitely require quite a bit of and analysis and thought. I suppose we could agrue the merits of various plays in this specific situation ad infinitum (I think that's right). But Poker concepts are created by taking results of many specific situations and developing generalizations. By the way I agree with your play on the Turn! Thanks again Vince
Hmmmmm ... I think the more interesting question is how did TJ read you? You had previously shown him that you will semi-bluff if you are on a flush draw. When you checked the flop, he was probably thinking that your chances of being on a flush draw had just diminished. He probably figured you for Ax, maybe suited (but not clubs) when you checked the flop. He probably considered the very, very remote chance for pocket 8's, and a slowplay, but did not let that deter him. I think he figured Ax because you did not bet the flop, which you would have with an overpair, yet you had something good enough to go for a steal with. So when the club hit, he knew he would have to call, but that he had decent odds you had not made a flush. If he was wrong, he still had 7 outs to catch up.
Now, I am probably swimming against the tide here, but I don't like your all-in move on the turn. I think I would rather take my chances on giving him a free river card as I don't really have any confidence that I am ahead, and would figure the free card works just as much in my favor as his. If a club or non-ace overcard falls, and he bets, I muck. If he bets anyway, I do some deep soul searching as to whether or not I think a low top pair will hold up.
A Poker Guy!
I think there is some merit to your reasoning. However, I would have joined the short stacks if I didn't pick up this pot and would have kicked myself if the free card cost me a shot to win. I guess I made the "macho" decision to commit a sin of commission instead of omission. BTW, the fourth club did fall on the river and I think it would have saved me from being broke since I would have laid it down to a bet or checked behind TJ.
I don't know how TJ got such a good read on me in such a short period of time, but he seemed to know *exactly* where I was at and I don't think he really feared a made flush. He is really a tough player. And he plays POKER, he doesn't just splash chips at the pot like some of the other tourney studs.
Michael, after seeing the result, i would have played it the same way i proposed to you before. TJ would have called your bet of 1000 on the turn because he made a set of 5's on the flop. That call as I mentioned before should have been detected as a warning that you were probably beat. Because of the last club on the river, TJ had no choice than checking it and you to check behind. He win the pot and you are still alive. At least you would have some chips left for a better opportunity. Do you agree? If not, after we now look at the results, what do you beleive should have been the best strategy, considering as you mention before, no free card on the turn?
The conventional advice typically says to raise with AK unsuited in early position. The purpose of this being to limit the field, AKu being a hand which does not play well vs. many opponents. I have not found this to be the case. I play alot of 1-4-8-8. Raising early with anything often sets off a feeding frenzy, ruining the purpose of the play. So I no longer raise with AKu. I will however reraise with it, as this move often achieves the desired affect. Comments, please.
I think in your case it makes some sense to play like that. In a loose-passive game, instead of a loose-aggressive, I think that raising from middle position or early position makes sense. Low-limit games vary widely, and I think what type of game you are playing in affects the way you should play this type of hand.
In small loose games I do the same with QQ and JJ. This results in a smaller pot before the flop, so if the flop comes as you like with 3 cards less then your overpair, a bet has a bigger chance of folding all the singleton Aces and Kings.
I do the same generally with JJ,but I usually raise with QQ.Which brings me to the idea of starting hand guides and rote starting play. I think the key word is guide,not rulebook. Games tend to L/P or L/A,but hands can be either. The ability to shift gears to optimal mode is crucial.
There are several reasons for raising, and limiting the field is just one of them. You are also raising because you have a very good hand with a good chance of winning. Any time you play hands like that, you like to make everyone else pay as much as possible.
There are also reasons NOT to raise: raising gives information about your hand, it increases your variance, and it may hurt your winning potential if it changes the texture of the field against you in a poor way.
Some examples:
If raising with AA will almost certainly get you nothing but the blinds, then you don't want to raise with them (this is rarely the case, but in some games it can happen).
Some games have a lot of players who will play any Ace or any suited king from any position, as long as they can get in for one bet. However, they'll fold those holdings for two bets. In this case, it might be correct to just call with AK, because those are exactly the players you want calling you.
A good player weighs all these factors to make a decision, and that decision will change from time to time. If you've pre-decided that you're never going to raise with AKo, then you're not thinking hard enough during the game.
Dan
Yes,but one of the biggest reasons to raise with AKo is to limit field,as it does not play well vs. multi opponents. If I just call early and someone else raises, I will usually reraise. If you read my post carefully, you will see I never form absolutes. Thanks.
"...I never form absolutes."
I reread my own post and I did say "no longer", I should have said "usually don't".
Is it the raise before the flop that's the problem, or the temptation to pour good money after bad once you miss the flop? After all, you want value for the hand once you get it, but it seems the post flop bet is almost automatic. Maybe that is the bet that should be examined more closely.
Since I already play tight,if I run every time the flop does not hit me, the table would run over me. Believe it or not, on weekday nights there are actually some pros at my table and I'm not talking about retirees. No offense to retirees meant. While I don't take it to the river everytime, I can't afford to display a weak-tight image.
Dman,
I wasn't suggesting that you run whenever the flop doesn't hit you, merely that there are situations that arise where you might be far better off to just back off the hand. For example, you have AcKd and the flop comes 7h8h9h or Qh9h8s, if you have several players behind you including a kamikazi or two, you might consider lying low. One of the great drawbacks of raising with AK is that lots of players put you there, so with those types of players and flops respect is hard to come by. Betting those flops into those players is peeing into a strong wind. In fact, it is often worse, as it will come back to you 2 or 3 more bets. At least the pee won't multiply.
I don't believe that checking AK after you've missed the flop will necessarily earmark you as a weak-tight player. Obviously, you can't and shouldn't check every time you miss but if you are in early position with several players contesting the pot, a check would generally be the better play. This is particularly true if you are seen to be capable of also checking a big pocket pair against a large field (with the intention of checkraising a player to your right). For example, if I hold pocket Aces in an early position against a large field and the flop is something like Q,8,6, there will be times when I'll come out betting and there will be times when I'll slip it in the hopes that a late position player bets allowing me to raise and thin out the field.
By the way, I think that too many players check and call with AK after they've missed on the flop. I think that this is the worst alternative in most cases. Better choices would be to (a) bet or (b) check and fold or (c) check and raise. A raise before the flop followed by a check-call on the flop has Big Slick written all over it. You may as well be playing the rest of the hand with your cards face up.
Another observation (Geez, I'm going off on tangents here but what the hell): If I'm going to check and call on the flop with two overcards, I would rather have a hand like QJ instead of AK. If you happen to hit your overcard on the turn, you are less likely to run into two pair if the overcard you hit is a Queen rather than an Ace. Further, you are more likely to get paid off.
Would anybody know where I can get a copy of anthony holdens book, titled big deal. thanks
.
Unfortunately I also have been trying to find a copy for Holiday presents. All stores I spoke to told me that it is currently out of print. Even Gamblers Book Shop couldn't help. good luck.
Did you try CONJELCO? They're linked here on 2+2's webpage. Look at bottom left corner of this screen. It's worth a shot and they discount for internet purchases.
Just bought a copy at Gamblers Genral Store in Vegas. 800-322-2447. Good book.
When the money is deep, QQ and JJ are among the most difficult hands to play. While your hand is very strong heads-up unless you are facing a higher pocket pair, you are at an information disadvantage throughout the hand. The vast majority of the time, you will not have an overpair or set on the flop, and any further action is very risky (although you may well have the best hand). Due to this, I like to go all-in preflop with these hands when the blinds are high relative to the stacks. But when the blinds are very small, your situation is more complicated. If you play these hands too strongly, you will find yourself either the winner of a small pot, or else facing AA or KK. However, you should be able to do more with QQ than 22, since QQ has value apart from being able to flop a set.
One thing I do sometimes is to "test the waters." I want to know if a higher pair is out there. Let's say the stacks are all about 1000, and the blinds are 5-10. Solid player in early position makes it 30 to go. If I'm in late position with QQ, I might just raise 20, in order to see what I'm facing. If I just call, I won't know how to respond if I have an overpair and I'm bet into. But then I preserve my chances of flopping a set if I am facing an overpair. If I raise 100, the opponent would either fold or reraise, and I can't call a reraise since it is almost surely from AA or KK.
What are some general ideas on playing QQ and JJ in no-limit games against good opponents where the money is deep?
This is just picking a nit.
Your example of a $20 raise over a $30 opening bet would be an insufficient raise in many no-limit games. Even though the game is 10-to-go, the opening bet is not a $20 raise, but a $30 bet, and any raise must be $30 or more.
I would guess that this is more typically the case in 3-blind California no-limit games, where the to-go amount is usually the sum of the blinds (or thereabout).
QQ generally plays the same as 22 when the money is deep. The goal in nl is to trap other players. QQ unimproved might win the pot, but cannot be confidently used to trap anyone, so why try to force the issue? There is one exception:
If you are really good at playing the players, and have big testicles (or a big stack), there might be a good situation for it. If you knew someone would always slowplay AA or KK, you could call/raise their huge preflop bet with QQ if there was no one to act after you. The only hand that you really hate to see is AK, which makes them close, but still slightly behind. But, you have to be really confident of your read to take that chance. I would not recommend trying that with JJ however.
Note: I tried the QQ play against an all-in pre-flop bet this week when I was absolutely certain the person would not have bet KK or AA that strongly, and I was being pounded mercilessly by 2 big stacks. I was exactly right, the person had AK. However, sigh, a K fell on the flop and an A on the river. So I sort of lean towards seeing the flop cheaply and releasing QQ unimproved against any sort of pressure, unless you are really desperate.
A Poker Guy!
In the book "Gambling for a living" it was stated that the advice on the advanced counts was not accurate in Ken Uston's book "Million Dollar Blackjack." Could you please elaborate. Thank you Ron
Might want to try Stanford Wong's BJ page for a nice conversation on that question.
N1
If I am thinking of the right book, Gambling for a Living is a 2+2 book. So the question is relevant here. I am also interested.
a three level count is so hard why not go with a two level count. i recomend the omega 11. however i cant imagine the advanced point not being accurate, untill the 2 plus authors explain what they mean i would assume it to be accurate. by the way i strongly recommend the omega 11. i spent months trying to get the advanced point down till i switched, and oh what a relief it was. however it does count aces on the side, which even kenny dosnt (or didnt) recommed anymore. however after comparing it with the blackbelt count i decided it was worth it.
Black Jack is such a monotonous, boring game! Forget it! PLAY POKER! V/R Vince
z
The discussion about the count was not that the count itself was inaccurate, but that claims of its power are. The book (MDBJ) claims that the advanced counts won so much more money than the Dubner, Einstein or other level 1 counts. This is simply not true, except maybe for single deck games (and then there are a whole bunch of caveats). There was a historical example (a few weeks or days of team play) cited in MDBJ that "showed" that a team using complex counts won $350 an hour, while a team using level one counts with no ace side counts won $150/hour. I believe this example was from Atlantic City shoe games, possibly with early surrender (if only!). This example was not strong evidence of anything other than the very high standard deviation involved in playing blackjack.
I've noticed a good number of BJ and Sports Betting posts lately, maybe there's room or interest in an "Other Than Poker" Forum, to help keep this one for poker?
In one of Uston's later books (I think it was Uston on Blackjack), he concedes that his original idea that the higher level counts were much better was wrong. He says to play an easy count perfectly is better than to play a complicated count with a few mistakes. I agree with him.
You are the BB. How would you have played this hand? This is the final table of a free-roll play-off limit hold-em tournament and we are down to 4 players with a total of $11,000 in chips. The top two players win an entry fee for the Shooting Stars No Limit Hold-Em tournament schedule for April 99 at Bay 101. The value of the entry is $1050. Blinds are 300-500. Pre-Flop: Player 1 is the leader in chips and fold. Player 2 raise and still has 300 in chips. Player 3, SB, call and still has 100 in chips. Player 4, BB, has 7-2 offsuit and has $1500 in chips. Should the BB call, re-raise, or fold?
You didn't say how much the raise was for,but it's pretty clear these two small stacks are taking their stands,not that it should matter to you. 7-2o: there are dogs and then there are mongrel dogs chasing 18 wheelers on the interstate. The best thing for you to do is fold, hope the flop hits one of them big, misses the other completely, and the pot is conceeded without any futher betting. This would allow you three more shots at a hand before you had to post the big blind. I hope you're not going to say you raised them, they whimp folded, and allowed themselves to be anted out.
Easy fold for me...or raise if they paid three spots. however if i were the chip leader in the BB and the other three were all-in or close, and committed to the pot. I would definitely raise with 72o to put all three all in to almost guarantee my win. this only if I think they will all go all-in.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
albert
You hang on to your $1500 as long as possible, anticipating at least one, if not both short stacks get eliminated. Odds are the money leader, if he "does his job" should be working to accomplish that - it is almost his obligation. I would fold almost any hand in this situation. Your overall strategy would be entirely different if the tourney only paid to one place. Even if it did, you cannot defend your blind with a a 7-2 unless you are facing immediate elimination by getting blinded off in the next round. Considering your money position, your chips are too valuable to risk in this scenario.
I did re-raise the other two players all in which cost me 8 chips out of 15. I happened to catch a deuce on the flop and paired while the other players didn't. So by eliminating them i won a free entry to the Shooting Star. Was it the right strategy? No. I beleive what everyone of you proposed which is throw your hand away. If i would have thrown my hand away we would have been down to 3 players and i would be the SB with 8 chips. The second player would have 33 chips and the leader had 69. As a matter of fact, 6 more hands and the game was over if i continued to get rag hands like i received for the past half hour. I knew no one had a pair and figured that if one of them would have won i was good for 3 more hands instead of 6. So, i threw the dice based on that assumption and it worked out ok.
I wish to apologize for the content of several of my posts that offended forum readers. I was trying to be funny and entertaining and it apparently didn't work very well. I will confine my posts in the future to theory and strategy.
Hey Big John, Your Humor is great! Anyone that is offended shouldn't read your posts! Keep on Truck'n! Vince
BJ,
i'm offended that you don't think I have a sense of humor... Go post over in RGP where you can really let go of your offensive attitudes. Besides, being offensive is not just a trait, it's a lifestyle...
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
John-
Look- it's not your job or responsibility to apologize for a post. While I've never played a single hand of NL, I'm more than willing to concede that both limit and no limit place a premium on different skills- which, I think, was the gist of your post. It's obvious to anyone with the sense of humor of a sea cucumber that your jabs at limit players were all in good fun, and you shouldn't feel bad if a bunch of sniveling low-rollers have a problem with that. That, my friend, is simply not your problem.
.
Don't apologize. Your posts get people thinking. There is nothing wrong with that. When you say something controversial, just be ready for the response.
Big John,
I think most posters know your tongue is firmly planted in your cheek,with a lot of your posts. Keep on posting.
Fat and ugly as always,
Dman
"I will confine my posts in the furure to theory and strategy."
I hope you're joking.
Big John -
I personally appreciate your "attempts" at humor, and the "theory and strategy" content in your posts is also valuable. I encourage you to continue on both counts, and I'm pretty sure that most people that read this forum can tell the difference between the two.
Big John, Your posts are well written and insightful. In fact you are the few who knows what he/she is talking about and can convey it in good English. If your readers are offended because of your sarcasm, it is their loss. They should pay attention what you are saying not how somehow it reflects on them. Andras
John, Thank you. I was offended by your previous comment as you have read. Someone who can stand up and apologize like you just did is very high in my book. I can only say that I do have high regards for you more than ever. Sharing thoughts with you is very educative. You are a professionnal and respected person. English is my second language. So excuse my writing mistake. Thanks again.
Is there same kind of starting hand groups for Seven card stud, like there is for Texas hold'em? If there is where can iget them? Pardon me for asking these bonehead questions,but you have to start somewhere.
Buy Seven Stud for Advanced Players, TwoPlusTwo. The best advice for starting hands, bar none, you will find in this book. It is not an easy book to understand so if you are new to poker just read the third street chapter and then play low limits (1-5) until you grasp the value of various starting hands. SSAP was written with mid level (15-30) Stud in mind but the third street advice is so valuable that it should be the first concept a novice poker player learns. My Opinion. Vince
Stud is very different from hold 'em. You have up cards and the hands are more sensitive to the number of players. Because of this an idea like hand groups would not apply very well.
I would suggest reading 7 card stud, the waiting game by George Percy the book is a great place to start and talks about starting hands amoung other things.
I have tried a few experiments with Wilson's TTH to look at how seat selection affects profits. It seems that the seating theory expressed by Mason in Gambling Theory and Other topics is not only correct, but a much stronger factor then I would have expected.
In my experiments the table has one side of loose players, the other side tighter. ( BTW This seems be a fairly common arangement at many real games I have seen). Advisor_T was placed in various positions to compare results over a large number of hands. The experiments found that by keeping the loose players on the right leads to about .25-.40 BB/hour more profit out of a total max profit of just over 1 BB/hr.
There are many other factors that one can take into account and experiment with but as a base seat selection strategy it is definitely worthwhile to grab those "Lucky" seats with statistically more players than you can mathematically count to your right.
David
The advantage of position is amplified in Turbo Texas Hold'em because the players in general will not check-raise (they'll do it once in a blue moon).
Well also because they will be always loose or always tight within the confines of their individual program. People tend to be one way or the other but can change from hand to hand. The programmed players have the ability to change their styles, but not from hand to hand. This does not invalidate the overall truthfullness of the concept.
But conclusions about the value of position should be tempered when TTH is used as the testbed for those ideas. This doesn't mean that there's nothing to learn from TTH, but that you need to take its limitiations into consideration, especially when attempting to run experiments that push right into its limitations.
Not sure how this will be received here since it seems to be 90% poker to about 10% blackjack but here goes:-
I've just written an article on pro blackjack players and how they affect a casinos hold %. I have run extensive simulations and determined that blackjack players do no more to harm the casinos bottom line than poker players do, and in fact probably drastically increase casino profits, even including highly skilled professionals who win consistently.
I want to give this paper maximum exposure since the potential exists for an effective compromise between industry and professional, for everyone's benefit.
I had 5-6 of hearts in the big blind in a rather loose 6-12 game. A player I have never seen before raised; a player I don't know well called, and another player who calls way too much early in the hand also called. The small blind folded, and I called.
The flop was K-7-6 rainbow with the 7 of hearts. Notice that I have bottom pair and a backdoor straight flush draw. If I play to the river, I will hit a straight or a flush about 8% of the time. I checked, and it went bet, call, raise.
What do you is my best play now?
William
Fold.
Not anywhere close to a "tough decision".
Fold. For 2 bets? Fold. You're draws are long shots, you know you're losing at the moment, the pot isn't that big, and you're not being asked to risk 1 bet but 2. Get out of there and save your money to engage your opponents when you aren't starting from such a weak position.
The only reason you played that hand (I'm assuming) was because you were in the big blind anyway. You don't have position, you dont have much of a hand. Getting sucked in and playing big blind hands to the river gets really expensive. So, fold.
A Poker Guy!
Don't listen to them Mel. Keep playing the way you know how.
The pot not's big enough to call for two bets.
In one of Sklansky's video's, in a similar situation, with one less opp, he votes for a raise here.
Material enough for two essays?
Erin:
Your Post seems like a ploy to get Mason to respond. Why don't you work out the problem yourself, post it with the proof on why it is correct to Re-raise in this situation, then maybe you will get Mason to respond. I look down on lazy people who want the Authors to do all their Homework for them.
AN1
But, of course, I have thought about it myself. And I’m still interested in MM’s and DS’s opinions.
Let’s say the Flop is Kd 7h 6s
and you have the 6h 5h vs three opps.
If your opps will play any two cards,
you’re a 3.25 to 1 dog.
If your opps will play no garbage,
you’re a 4.59 to 1 dog.
If your opps will play any two cards GE Ten,
you’re a 5.69 to 1 dog.
If your opps will play only AK,KK, or AKs,
you’re a 93.41 to 1 dog.
If your opps will play only AK,KK, or AKnon suited,
you’re a 72.87 to 1 dog.
If your opps will play only Group I,
you’re a 67.29 to 1 dog.
If your opps will play only Group I with AK any,
you’re a 61.97 to 1 dog.
If your opps will play Group II or better,
you’re a 26.79 to 1 dog.
If your opps will play Group III or better,
you’re a 10.64 to 1 dog.
If your opps will play Group IV or better,
you’re a 8.63 to 1 dog.
If your opps will play Group V or better,
you’re a 6.28 to 1 dog.
If your opps will play Group VI or better,
you’re a 5.81 to 1 dog.
I hope, for your sake, you can read cards better than you can read people’s motives for posting.
Erin,
You write :
< Let’s say the Flop is Kd 7h 6s
and you have the 6h 5h vs three opps.
If your opps will play any two cards,
you’re a 3.25 to 1 dog. >
While 6h5h is not something to write home about, it surely must be better than a random hand. Using TTH2, I make it a 2.45 to 1 favourite versus 3 opponents who'll play anything (and a flop of Kd 7h 6s). As for the other figures, you must have put in a bit of effort - did you use a simulator, or some other method?
Etienne
Yes, it’s better than ONE random hand.
6h 5h vs ONE opp who will play any two cards and with a Flop of Kd 7h 6s
and with no betting
the 6h 5h will have the best hand by the river .618 per cent of the time this number is exact.
But as MM has pointed out in a different context you have to beat a Parlay
so with three opps
.618 x .618 x .618
gives .236 this number is an approximation.
The other numbers were calculated in a similar way on the back of a large magic envelope.
x
this problem might be a little closer than it looks on the surface.If you think that two pair is good if you make it on the turn, then i'd stay, as if the player behind you calls you are getting roughly 7-1 and it's about 8-1 before any implied odds, and it's close to even money that you will at least improve to a big draw hand along with your pair.If the players that are in are not too tough I think I'd be inclined to chase here.The one problem I see is that if you make 2 pair it might give someone a straight card. You are still on the cheap street, so the raise is not as bad. the board also implies a one pair type of hand you might be up against. I'm sure I'll take heat here, but with the excellent chances of picking up a big draw if you don't hit boosts the implied odds in my eyes. I haven't seen the video that someone posted about, but I'd be curious to see what David says about this type of situation. Not a dumb post at all William.
I folded.
But was this really right?
Any 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, or heart will help my hand on the turn. And a 7 might let me pick up the pot with a check raise bluff.
If I call, I am likely to get to see the next card with 16 bets in the pot by paying 2 bets. (As I said, the game was not that tough, so a reraise, while possible, is not that likely.)
Alternatively, I could reraise myself, and possibly get the pot heads up on the turn. If my remaining opponent has something like AK or KQ, this is worth it.
William
I too would fold in such a situation.
However, I have had good success in many cases betting a flop like this as a (very) semi-bluff. I have a reputation as a very tight player and can frequently win on either the flop or turn. I do call a raise then fold the turn if no improvement.
Any comments.
The person who raised bet? Then the two other people bet and raised? In this situation, I'd think there was probably a good chance that a re-raise is coming from the original bettor, especially if he's a loose agressive gambling type. You could wind up in this pot for 4 bets on the flop.
If this is the case, then you could be looking at a raise on the turn as well, making your draw pretty expensive if you hit it.
There's also a chance that you could hit one of your outs and still lose. If you're up against a set or two big pair, you're drawing to a running flush or a running straight, which could easily lose since there would be 4 straight cards on the board and you'd have the bottom end.
Even if the two players driving the pot each have a king, they can re-draw against you if you make your two pair, either by hitting their kickers or by having the 7 pair.
This is just not a close decision. You're in a bad situation, you're centered between two players who are driving the action, and you have a really marginal hand. Fold.
Dan
Playing tight but aggressive, what is a reasonable expectation at a 2-4 stud game with a $0.50 ante and a $2.50 rake? At 20 hands an hour, it costs around $8.75 to sit there. Is this game worth playing? If I'm breaking even, am I beating it?
Seems to me that Vegas 1 to 5 stud with no ante and a rake of 10% up to $2.50 is a vastly better game, especially for someone who's done some reading and is playing by the book.
What is the best game to garner experience on in LA (without a huge bankroll)?
Both games are beatable. It depends on the players of course, but I would suspect the game with the $.50 ante would be looser than the vegas 1-5. I play in Tunica where the rake is 10% up to $4 for stud. The game is still beatable here (dependent on crowd), so surely a $2.50 rake is beatable.
Michael 7's post got me remembering this. Recall that KB won three consecutive tournaments at the Gold Coast in '93. In 1996 he also won an event there. The next day a guy at the table asked who had won the tournament last night. Another guy said KB. Guy #1 went "Isn't he the guy that won three in a row...?". A third guy at the table exploded, "Jesus Christ, one of those was a partners event, and in another he & I were headup, I had the chip lead and made a deal, but I never would have done it if knew I was going to hear this three in a row crap for the rest of my life!"
BTW I agree w/ MM, KB's book is WAAAY overpriced and the content is very vague and simplistic. Too bad, because the guy is obviously a great tounament player. Of course, imagine what a book by Men the Master would be like! :)
BBTW according to Card Player, Scotty Nguyen won three in a row at the 92 LA Open. I don't know if this is true, if it really was three consecutive, or just three in a row that *he entered*.
I played with kb in several of the tournaments in LA last year, ( I kept ending up a the same table with him, and played a few sattelites against him). Nice guy, but he really didn't show me anything. I have watched and played with other big name players who DID show me something. Anyway, I'm sure he is solid, but he's not even close to someone like TJ Clouter etc.
i agree this shit is over simple. i know no one that can wom a ring game 8 out of ten times. with some of the advice i see i wonder if they would like to take us for a ride, this includes hfap.
.
Where is the exchange forum?
Now make sure to bookmark this.
Just in case you couldn't Bookmark.
Thank you!
I faced the following problem in one of my latest interviews, and I was given ten minutes to solve it. I want to share it with you guys:
We have a basket containing 12 (twelve) EGGS that are absolutely identical BUT only one has different weight than the others.
We have an old fashion scale (with two disks that remain in balance only when both disks weight the same) that we can use it the maximum (3) three times.
The objective is to identify the egg that differs in weight using that scale with only 3 tries.....
weigh 6 against 6. Take the heaviest group of six and weigh 3 against 3. From the heaviest group of three weigh only 1 against 1, if one is heavier than the other you found the heavy egg, if not the heavy one is the one that wasn't weighed.
You are assuming that the egg of different weight is heavier. We don't know if it's heavier or lighter than the others.
Your right. Oooops!
He never said the egg was heavier just different (weight).
1. Take any 3 eggs and weigh them against 3 others. If the scales tip :
2. Take the heavy 3 and weigh them against 3 of the other 6 which you know are all standard
If the scales tip on this one, you know the egg is heavy and is one of these three. 3. Weigh two of the eggs - if the scales tip it's the heavy one, if they don't it's the third one.
If the scales don't tip the egg is light and it's one of the other three. 3. Weigh two of them, if scales tip it's the light one, if they don't it's the third one.
If on the initial test 1, the scales don't tip - well I'd love to say "I leave this as an exercise to the reader" but I'd have to get back to you on this one. It must be something along these lines. I guess if you gave this answer you'd have got half the job :-).
If on the initial test 1 the scales don't tip, you know the 3rd group (not on the scales) contains the "bad" one but you don't know if it's heavy or light. Take 2 of this 3rd group plus 1 of the good ones and weigh against 3 good ones. If scales don't tip, you know the 3rd ball(not on the scale) of the 3rd group is bad, and balance it against any other to find out whether it's heavy or light. If the scales do tip, you then know whether the "bad" ball is heavy or light. Balance the 2 balls from the 3rd group that are now on the scale against one another to find out which is the bad one. I think this is an awfully hard test to give someone in an interview...perhaps that part of the original post was made-up and the author just wanted to try out this puzzle?
Er, sounds good but unfortunately the "3rd group" contains six eggs not three. You're right that is is tough for 10 minutes but some companies (Microsoft being one) have particularly stringent technical interview tests. In the meantime, have we tried hard enough that the original poster can give us the answer ?
I don't guess there's too many folks in this round world that could ever solve this in ten minuts.
It must have been a memory or interest test.
There are 24 possible outcomes: any of the 12 eggs will be heavy or light. (Use the notation 3-H for the outcome "egg #3 is heavy", 11-L to mean "egg #11 is light", and so on) Because there are 3 weighings and 3 outcomes per weighing, there are 3*3*3 = 27 possible outcomes of scale-weighings. Therefore it is possible to identify the bad egg and whether it is heavy or light.
--------------------------------
Weigh 1+2+3+4 against 5+6+7+8. They will either balance (1), 1+2+3+4 will be heavy (2), or 1+2+3+4 will be light (3).
(1) The bad egg must be in 9+10+11+12. Weigh 9+10+11 against 1+2+3. They will either balance (1A), 9+10+11 will be heavier (1B), or 9+10+11 will be lighter (1C).
(1A) The bad egg is 12. Weigh 12 against 1. 12 will either be heavier (outcome 12-H) or lighter (outcome 12-L).
(1B) The bad egg is in 9+10+11 and is heavy. Weigh 9 against 10. They will either balance (outcome 11-H), 9 will be heavier (outcome 9-H), or 10 will be heavier (outcome 10-H)
(1C) The bad egg is in 9+10+11 and is light. Use the same method as in (1B) to find the light egg (outcomes 9-L, 10-L, or 11-L).
(2) 1+2+3+4 is heavier than 5+6+7+8. Outcomes 1-H, 2-H, 3-H, 4-H, 5-L, 6-L, 7-L, and 8-L are possible. Weigh 1+2+5 against 3+4+6. They will either balance (2A), 1+2+5 will be heavier (2B), or 3+4+6 will be heavier (2C).
(2A) The bad egg is in 7+8, so only 7-L or 8-L are possible. Weigh 7 against 8. 7 will be lighter (outcome 7-L) or 8 will be lighter (outcome 8-L).
(2B) If 1+2+5 is heavier, the possible outcomes are narrowed to 1-H, 2-H, or 6-L. Weigh 1 against 2. They will either balance (outcome 6-L), 1 will be heavier (outcome 1-H), or 2 will be heavier (outcome 2-H).
(2C) If 3+4+6 is heavier, the possible outcomes are narrowed to 3-H, 4-H, and 5-L. Weigh 3 against 4. They will either balance (outcome 5-L), 3 will be heavier (outcome 3-H), or 4 will be heavier (outcome 4-H).
(3) Use the same method as in (2), reversing the roles of 1+2+3+4 and 5+6+7+8.
Bravo.
Did you do it in 10 minutes :-) ?
You beat me to it... I was in such a hurry to correct my wrong answer I didn't read your new post.
Yes, but it can be summarized in simpler (I believe) manner.
- Take any four vs. any other four - For now, assume (with out loss of generality) that is is not in balance, thus creating "heavy" and "light" balls. We now take any two "heavy" balls and one "light" ball on the left. Take the other two "heavy" balls and one "light" on the right. Weigh it.
- If it is in balance, weigh the two "light" balls to find the bad one (its light).
- If its not in balance. Weigh the two "heavy" balls on the side which went down. If in balance, it was the one light one on the other side. If not, the heavier one is it.
Its easy to see what to do when the initial weigh is in balance.
-paul
Heh... it sounded that well-written and succinct in my mind as I thought it, but I somehow couldn't maintain that in the writing. Hence the very specific (and tedious-looking) solution. Yours is much more readable.
On a side note, I actually was prepared to write a post that the solution was impossible. I figured that any one of twelve eggs could be the "bad" one, but there were only 2*2*2 = 8 possible outcomes for the weighings. (There are 3*3*3 = 27 possible outcomes, because the scales can balance, but I missed that the first time around.)
----------------
What if you are given 4 weighings and 40 eggs? That would result in 3*3*3*3 = 81 possible weighing outcomes. There are 40 eggs, one of which is heavy or light, so that would yield 80 egg possibilities. This problem may be solvable, but I don't know? Anyone want to take a crack at this?
(If this problem has a solution, maybe it is solvable for 5 weighings and 121 eggs... 6 weighings and 364 eggs... 7 weighings and 1093 eggs... etc)
"What if you are given 4 weighings and 40 eggs? That would result in 3*3*3*3 = 81 possible weighing outcomes. There are 40 eggs, one of which is heavy or light, so that would yield 80 egg possibilities. This problem may be solvable, but I don't know? Anyone want to take a crack at this?"
Not solveable. With 80 possible solutions, the first weighing needs to divide them into 27, 27, and 26 in order to have each subgroup be solvable in the three remaining weighings. If the initial scale is in balance, then that yields 2*n possibilities if n eggs were left aside for the first weighing. The only even number in the partition is 26, so there must be 13 eggs left aside in the initial weighing. But that would leave 27 eggs involved in the initial weighing, which can not be evenly distributed between the two sides.
Now with 39 eggs, you might get a partial solution by weighing 13 against 13 at first, dividing the possible solutions into 26, 26, and 26. But if the first weighing balances, you will have the 13 egg/3 weighing problem, which can't quite be solved completely. (Set 1 egg aside from all three weighings and use the 12 egg/3 weighing solution. If all three weighings balance, the 13th egg is bad, but you don't know whether it is heavy or light.) So 39 eggs can't be solved completely, but you might get close.
A better way to pose the problem is: what's the largest number of eggs that can be completely solved in 4 (or 5, 6, ...) weighings? Clearly, you must set aside at most 12 eggs from the initial weighing (of 4) to be able to completely solve the problem, and there is no advantage to setting fewer aside. Take it from there...
Dave,
You write :
< Now with 39 eggs, you might get a partial solution by weighing 13 against 13 at first, dividing the possible solutions into 26, 26, and 26. But if the first weighing balances, you will have the 13 egg/3 weighing problem, which can't quite be solved completely. (Set 1 egg aside from all three weighings and use the 12 egg/3 weighing solution. If all three weighings balance, the 13th egg is bad, but you don't know whether it is heavy or light.) So 39 eggs can't be solved completely, but you might get close. >
You wanna get me fired? Seriously, though, 39 eggs (in 4 weighings) can be solved completely, as can 120 in 5 ... etc.
Etienne
You're right. I overlooked the significance of having a known good egg around when you get down to the 13 unknowns. Thirteen unknowns can't be resolved in three weighings by themselves, but thirteen unknowns plus one good egg can (you start by weighing 5 unknowns vs. 4 unknowns + the good egg). So 39 can be resolved in four weighings by starting with 13 vs. 13, and going from there.
Matthew,
You write :
< What if you are given 4 weighings and 40 eggs? That would result in 3*3*3*3 = 81 possible weighing outcomes. There are 40 eggs, one of which is heavy or light, so that would yield 80 egg possibilities. This problem may be solvable, but I don't know? Anyone want to take a crack at this? (If this problem has a solution, maybe it is solvable for 5 weighings and 121 eggs... 6 weighings and 364 eggs... 7 weighings and 1093 eggs... etc) >
This problem has etched its mark on my psyche ever since that fateful day 15 years ago, when I faced a similar problem in a not-to-be-forgotten job interview. I was given 3 minutes to solve the same problem with 3279 eggs in 8 weighings. As luck would have it, I managed to come up with the general formula for the relationship between N (the number of weighings) and E (the number of eggs) in 2 minutes and 56 seconds, and the rest is history.
E = (3^N - 3)/2
so it's actually 4 weighings and 39 eggs, 5 weighings and 120 eggs, 6 weighings and 363 eggs, 7 weighings and 1092 eggs ... etc.
I am now deputy director of Quality Control at a huge poultry farm.
Etienne
Thanks for the eqn. Etienne...I wouldn't have been able to derive it since I have a nasty habit of putting all my eggs in one basket...
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
My reply to Cassandra's attempt was wrong, but here's the correct answer. Divide the 12 eggs into 3 groups of 4 each, call them A, B, and C. Balance A vs B; if equal, odd egg is in C: balance C1,C2,C3 against 3 from A: if equal, C4 is the odd one -- balance it against any other to determine if it's heavy or light. if not equal, you know whether odd one is heavy or light; balance C1 vs C2; if unequal, you know which is odd; if equal, C3 is odd. If A does not equal B, and A heavier than B, balance A1, A2, B3 vs C1,C2,C3. If equal, balance A3B1 vs C1C2.
if equal, B2 is odd (light)
If not equal then If A3B1 heavier, A3 is odd (heavy); but if A3B1 lighter, B1 is odd (light) If A1A2B3 not equal C1C2C3 then, if A1A2B3 heavier, balance A1 vs A2, heavier is odd one.
If A1A2B3 is lighter, B3 is odd (light) If A does not equal B and A lighter than B, logic is identical to above, just reverse "heavy" and "light"
I solved this some time ago when I was the editor of a puzzle column.
I am assuming that the egg with the different weight is heavier than the others.
6 eggs on one side of the scale, 6 on the other
One side will go down, take the 6 eggs from this side, place 3 on one side, 3 on the other
One side will go down, take these 3 eggs, place 1 egg on one side, one on the other (leave the 3rd egg aside)
If one side goes down, that egg is the heavy one.
If the scales are balanced, the 3rd egg that is put aside is the heavy one.
You can use another process to find the heavy egg - can you find it?
Matt
Yeah, Eat all the eggs but one. Belch, then go play poker. Da! Doc-
Okay friends, gather round the screen for a good ol' dose of poker 101. Today we will discuss the advantages of playing poker like a "guy" and not a human with compassion for your fellow man. These techniques will guarantee you 3 things: 1)More $$$$$ being thrown at you than Bill Gates gets in the 1st two seconds of his day. ( for reference, he is the one smarter than Skalansky?) 2)Cheers and applause from those old enough to remember the rat pack. 3)An image totally opposite of the one you believe you should have in these "polite 1990s'." (YUCK!)
Here we go! If you don't smoke, start. Better yet start your smoking career with the biggest, smelliest stogey you can find. Light this offender while sitting next to the whiner at the table. (You know him, he's the one that whines about everything from lack of women and cards to cigar smokers).
Tell loud abnoxious bad beat stories to the guy you just beat badly. Then smile. Then smile again. then tell another.
Drink heavily throughout the day. Then go play balls against the wall stupid style poker and suck out on the "PROS." Then leave.
Call all women players dames. Do this to them often. Tell em' they are dames! They may have forgotten this fact.
When you win a pot, brag! When you lose a pot, brag about how you have so much money in the bank that you can lose big pots all day long and still afford a good romp up in Carson City. TRY to steal a peak at your neighbor's cards. Announce your hand after you fold it when there are still live players. Raise more than the amount allowed. If you do these simple deeds, then you too will have passed Doc River's "How to put your table on tilt 101 course for beginners." Whiners and Alan Alda types need not apply. End note: Big John..Post away buddy! I dig your stuff! DOc-
Incorrect: A word. Incorate: A word used by "guys" chewing cigars. Refer to previous post. Doc-
That is a great post.
I'm new to this site and apologize if I'm rehashing a topic that has been discussed before. I spent several months playing poker "for fun and profit" in Las Vegas and, while the experience was in many ways memorable and fascinating, the daily dose of noxious fumes was a high price to pay for the privilege. While most of the smokers were considerate, and I didn't take it personally, I'm of the opinion that poker should be treated more like a sport, and that one shouldn't be required to suffer the side-effects of secondhand smoke to participate (and, hopefully, excel). After all, mental stamina and alertness are keenly dependent upon one's overall physical condition. At one time, I was informed, the MGM boasted ashtrays which sucked the smoke down. Perhaps these devices should be made mandatory. If poker rooms had to depend exclusively on smokers to survive, they would be in sorry shape. Your thoughts?
The ashtrays at the MGM apparently didn't work. They clogged very quickly and were removed.
If you want to play poker you have to deal with smoke,it's that simple,when I first started playing poker 12 years ago it was rare to see someone at a poker table not smoking,my how times have changed.I usually smoke 3 or 4 an hour,how ever if some whiner objects to my smoking I will chainsmoke, if I get tired of smoking I will just let them burn,my record is 65 cigarettes in 5 hours at mirage 20-40,after 5 hours my whole end of the table was on tilt and I had a pile of chips up to my chin,what a day.My point is if someone is at church,the grocery store,the movies,etc.they have the right to object to smoking,but in a poker game,pool hall,bars,social clubs,strip joints you have no basis for an argument.Do you eat meat?Did you know that red meat is worse for you than cigarettes.Let's ban that too.I'm sure people who have had a family member killed by a drunk driver would like to see alcohol banned.No more alcohol.Alot of people have problems with interracial relationships.Outlaw them.Well I guess they can stay legal but not in public because it offends some people.How long before poker is outlawed?
1st they came to hang the witches. It didn't care as I was not a witch. Then they came to outlaw drinking. I didn't care, cause I did not drink. Then they came after the smokers. I did not care because I did not smoke. Then they came after the gamblers. Suddenly I cared. Get the point? Doc-
I don't smoke normally, but if there are people at a table who complain about the smoke, I'll light up right away.
1. They concentrate on avoiding the smoke insteading of playing.
2. Nicotine is a strong chemical which has been proven to relax you and take the edge off without decreasing your calculation ability (unlike alcohol).
I was trying to encourage a solution that would be agreeable to both smokers and non-smokers. Since most of the time, the cigarette smolders away in the ashtray, its alleged benefits going up in smoke, that seems the place to nip the problem in the butt. And as more and more people become intolerant of cigarette smoke (the restrictive laws being passed are certainly an indication of this trend), the casinos will sooner or later be obliged to cater to that predilection for the obvious reason that won't be able to afford not to. I've seen non-smoking areas for slot-machine players in many casinos and one small casino on the strip actually experimented with a casino-wide ban on smoking several years ago. Perhaps if you had been rushed to an emergency room as a kid because an attack of bronchitis threatened your ability to breathe, your attitude toward somebody else concerned about safeguarding his lungs might be a shade more respectful.
Even more effective for distracting your opponents -- a nice big fat smelly cigar. There was a guy in Chicago named Norbert who used that method at chess tournaments. Another method invented by a guy named Walter at one of those same tournaments -- he brought in a live chicken and tied it to the leg of his table.
All USCF chess tournaments are smoke-free now.
Thank goodness. Maybe there's hope that will eventually be true for poker, though less likely I suppose because of the money involved.
Personally, I think that lighting up just to irritate your opponent is indicative of a lack of common courtesy.
I am a smoker but I do respect the rights of non-smokers. If the player next to me finds cigarette smoke particularly offensive, I try to smoke less or try to keep the smoke away from him as much as possible.
Some things in life are more important than increasing your EV.
In any event, I don't think that irritating your opponent is going to somehow increase your EV. In fact, I find that the games are usually easier to beat when everyone at the table is getting along with each other and having fun playing the game. I mean, think about it, if your opponent is a very good player, your smoking frequency ain't going to negatively affect his game one bit. In fact, he may now play even tougher against you. If your opponent is a live one, once again the fact that you are now smoking more ain't going to make his play any worse - it's already bad. However, if he finds your actions to be particularly inconsiderate, he may leave the game. Do you really want that???
Normally, the smoke just pisses them off and they want to beat me really bad, so they'll play anything.
What really pisses me off are complet moronic brain dead imbeciles like you and Joey whose mother lets them use the computer while she is talking on the phone to her psychic.
And your mother is out giving $20 blowjobs.T.J.,what a name,you wouldn't be a cat diesel power hat wearin,own sister screwin,fightin because someone didn't call bank on the 8 ball trailer park piece a trash redneck now would you T.J.?
Yeah, I guarantee I am smarter than you. Btw, you piece of shit, it's ironic that you are implying that I am juvenile when you are the one bringing someone's mother into the conversation (when you weren't even in the thread before).
Seeing as how Joey and Karpov must use vulgarity and profanity in order to post I suggest they be disallowed from using this forum.
Anyone that must resort to the gutter in order to speak their mind lacks common decency and courtesy.
The truly intelligent in this world have the class to represent themselves in a dignified manner even when they are being put down.
And if they can't...they simply choose to ignore it.
You've never heard a bad word before, little kid? When someone mentions my mother, I can use whatever damn words I choose. But anyway, thanks for your opinion.
Please show some respect for the readers, and moreover the providers, of this forum by obeserving the very reasonable Acceptable Use Policy they have outlined.
Personal insults and vulgarity don't contribute at all to the purpose of this forum, they just serve to send it the way of many of its predecessors, or less desireable contemporaries.
I recognize several of the posters involved as ones who have contributed thoughtful and useful posts in other threads, and who I'm sure would agree that this forum is valuable. Why disregard the wishes of the providers, cheapen the forum, and possibly down the road convince them that its just better to pull the plug? The EV can only be negative.
Nobody likes to be insulted. However, responding in kind does nothing but perpetuate the problem.
Thanks, J
...and yes, I know I don't have to read it if I don't like it (though it does have to be sorted through), but this post is not about me wearing my heart on my sleeve, but about all of our self interest in preserving the forum as it has and should be.
Buy a small portable battery operated fan. Lots of players I see have them.
I don't smoke but I do play cards. When are the card players going to be banned next? How about twinkie eaters after that. Perhaps, having children? Having an opinion? Smoke em if ya gottem. Let God sort em out. Doc-
But that doesn't keep the smoke out of the room.
I've been playing for a couple of months now and I have always wondered about the following scenario as it happens quite often. I flop top pair with a good kicker(A-J). I play it fast and agressive, raising if there is a bet in front of me. As with most low limit games 3 or 4 others are contesting. Turn and river brings two seemingly non-threatening cards. Now should I continue to bet or should I just check. I have been checking unless my opponent is someone who would call with just about anything. I figure anyone on a draw would fold if they didn't make their hand or I would get raised/check raised if they did make their hand. Am I being to conservative? Any advice would be great. Thanks.
In most cases I would raise on the turn and then check on the river if I haven't improved.
You didn't really provide enough information. Assuming the hand was unraised before the flop, and you hold AJunsuited, chances are good that if an ace flops you have the best kicker. Remember though, there are lots of low-level players who refuse to raise in any position with AK or AQ, so nothing is guaranteed. (And with either of these hands suited, even strong, aggressive players do not always raise). With a flop like AT3rainbow, you definitely want to raise on the flop if you can to make it unbearably hard on the gut-shot straight draws like KJ or QJ. If that raise eliminates everyone but the initial caller, and he calls, then I would infer he most likely has an ace with an inferior kicker, something like A8s. (If he reraises, you're definitely in a pickle). He could have trips or two-pair, but then why didn't he checkraise against that large field? Okay, so now you've decided you're heads up against someone who is at a terrible disadvantage. Out of the remaining 45 cards, he can claim but 3 outs to beat you (plus the slim chance of a back door flush if he's three-suited). The fact that he called your raise suggests that he's committed to his pair of aces and will call all the way. I say, under these circumstances, bet away! Not incidentally, if it turns out your opponent's hand is AQ or AK, and even A3, then your raise on the flop has in all likelihood precluded his raising you on the turn or river.
A correction and some additional analysis after a good night's sleep. The sentence "If that raise eliminates everyone but the initial caller..." should have been "If that raise eliminates everyone but the initial bettor..." But my miscue points to another scenario: let's say you're looking at that same flop (A 10 3rainbow) and the betting goes check- bet-call-you raise-fold-fold-fold-initial bettor folds-original caller calls. Since this individual had the chance to raise on the flop and didn't, I would discount AK, AQ, 10 3, A3, as possible holdings. I would be somewhat more wary of the initial bettor calling my raise than this individual (trip 10's or 3's are still distinct possibilities). By the way, I don't equate wariness with tentativeness. Let's say however that the betting went check-you bet-fold-call-call-fold-call. With no flush draws, it's likely someone has paired the ten with K10, Q10, 109, or, less likely since you hold a jack, J10. I would infer also that another pair of aces is out there but that I have them outkicked. If the turn comes K, Q, 10, or 9, I would check (another observation: I've found that many low-level players will readily play A9offsuit even if willing to dump A8offsuit through A2offsuit ) and see what happens next. If anything else fell, I would bet to prevent a free round and hope to eliminate everyone but that other pair of aces, although if the other longshots are willing to pay for that final chance, that's by no means horrendous. Sorry if all this seems verbose or pedantic, but I don't see much value in relying on catchall generalizations. Just like with chess, or any competitive sport, I believe that thorough preparation for the actual events cannot be overemphasized.
First you state that 3 or 4 people are contesting. Then you state that you bet "if my opponent" (singular)... Well in the first case with multiple callers on the river it may be best to check (and call unless you are sure you are beat). In the second case your right on the money betting into the player that will call just about anything. However, it is not always correct to bet on the river against a single opponent just because you think you have the best hand. In general, you should bet for value if you think that your bet on the river will win more that it will lose (>%55) when your heads up on the river. My opinion Vince
Lets assume you believe you have the best hand on the turn and you believe there is a good chance the opponent will pay it off; even though it is "obvious" he is beat.
My personal benchmark is to assign one most likely hand for each opponent in the pot; so if there are 3 callers you should have a notion of the 3 most likely hands out against you. I routinely bet on the end if the river does NOT make one of these hands, and routinely check if it does. I also tend to check if the river card reduces the chance that the opponent will call.
So I have AJ flop Jh8h4d, raise and get a cold caller. Well, I would say I was most likely up against KJ and two hearts; so would check a K or heart on the end. I would also check a Queen since the presumed KJ is less likely to call with the Queen hits, and the straight draw is still a possibility.
If I have the lead I routinely bet on the end unless I have a specific reason to check. If you believe the opponent with the 2nd best hand will NOT routinely pay it off then you will show a great profit by routinely raising with draws and betting them out. Occationally playing draws aggressively like this is VERY profitable.
Look at it this way: if the opponent could have any two cards and you have no idea what he has, then any river card can make his hand. BUT ... no matter his hand he is a big dog to make it on the end, usually about 7:1, and is usually a bigger favorite to pay it off with just one pair.
When in doubt, bet it out.
- Louie
PS. Yes, Yes ... check to induce bluffs ... Yaddy Ya...
What if everyone folded but the person you raised? Assume he was the initiator. I still doubt his hand would be as strong as that of someone calling two bets. Would you be more likely to bet out? Another query: in the scenario you posit, would it be advisable once you've raised for that KJh to reraise?!!
Yes, I would be more likely to bet out vrs someone who bet and then called, as opposed to someone who called cold. I would, as stated, be much more inclined to bet out vrs one opponent; if for no other reason than this single opponent is much more likely to suspect a bluff since we are heads up. And since the cold-caller is also more likely to have a hand he woun't call with, such as Ax draw.
Once **I** raise it would be adviseable for KJ to reraise, since I am unlikely to have AJ (I didn't raise before the flop) and I raise very liberally on the flop. Such aggression makes up for an inadequate manhood... ;) But against "sensible" opponents, especially those playing 10/20 and below, I would be inclinded to FOLD KJ; since few opponents raise with less than top-pair top-kicker: I dislike 0/3/5 out hands a lot. Actually, I would call and fold on the turn unless against the Rock. Higher level "sensible" opponents raise more liberally. There have certainly been times that I have confidently ReRaised with KJ pair.
You must know with which hands an opponent will raise; this usually means what is the weakest hand he will raise. Once you know this your re-raise criteria should be fairly obvious.
So, what's the weakest hand YOU routinely raise with? Don't assume the opponents are doing the same.
- Louie
You really didn't give enough info. You said you floped top pair, but was it A or J. If A, you might want to take it slower,as you can be outkicked, though your kicker isn't terrible. If J, you want to bet on the turn,but check on the river. You're giving up too much action on the turn, but on the river you will probably only get action from someone who can beat you.
I read an earlier post farther down the page saying Hold'em is available at the Blue Heron. Can anyone who plays their let me know when the best times would be for a newbie to play day/night weekend/week I live up near Ottawa so it's about a 3 1/2 hr drive but I need somewhere to learn. I play a fair bit of BJ which has you skulking around in the wee hours finding a good game. I assume poker is a little different however I want to maximize my playing time against fairly easy competition. In other words busy enough for a game or two to be going but not so busy that your waiting around for a seat, and can see everyone at the table picking their teeth with the bones of it's last occupant as you sit down. Thanks for all replies. Regards, A Counter
First of all, so Mason doesn't have to : "please place posts of this type on the exchange forum". It can be found on the left hand side of this page. That being said the games at the Blue Heron are passive and tight even on the weekends with the occasional maniac exception to prove the rule. Unforetunately Harris the lousy #$$&* cancelled the roving casinos and his plan to implement 40 permanent sites in Ontario. As a result I reccomend going on Fri and Sat nights, sometimes it's a decent game. Actually if you are just starting out it's a good place to play.
m
I recently read an article (or interview, can’t remember) by (with) Mason Malmuth. The article dealt with collusion and cheating in poker games. First, let me say, I agreed with him. I think poker games in Casino Card rooms are honest and players can be fairly certain that they are not being cheated. Let me add that I think that if someone gets cheated they must broadcast it as loud and widespread as possible. A few weeks ago I was playing 20-40 Hold’em at the Taj Mahal. The following incident occurred: After the dealer dealt all of the cards, the player in the 7th seat stopped the action and claimed he had seen one of the cards of the player in the 3rd seat. He said it was a face card. An argument pursued on whether or not the 3 seat should get a new card. The floor was called. The player in the 3 seat showed the floor the card that he said was in question. The floor told the person in the seven seat that he was wrong. It was not a face card and the 3 seat kept the card and play continued. The 3 seat then raised and the 8 seat reraised. Now heads-up. The flop came K, rag, rag. 3 seat bet, 8 raised, 3 reraised and 8 called. Turn and river were blanks. 3 seat bet all the way and 8 called. The 3 seat then turned over AK. The 8 seat (pair of nines) went ballistic. He started yelling that he had been cheated. He blamed the card room management especially the floor for claiming the 3 seat didn’t have a face card. It was obvious that the 3 seat had switched the cards and did not deny the accusation after confronted. The Card room eventually compensated the 8 seat by giving him a free room for a night (his statement). Now, if the 3 seat switched the cards before the floor looked, although unethical, it appeared obvious that it was unplanned and not collusion with the floor. I don’t believe the 8 seat was cheated. But the impression of cheating was broadcast throughout the hi limit section of the Taj Mahal. A tourist or novice poker player as well as many experienced players could have certainly concluded that cheating actually did occur.
This incident raises a number of questions regarding cheating and the impression of cheating. Least of all, the effect on the publics opinnion of poker if the notion that cheating occurs in public card rooms gets around. Though it is most important to identify actual occurrences of cheating my questions deal mostly with the impression or methods of cheating. My questions are directed to experience with Limit Hold’em and Stud only. All my questions refer to play in public card rooms.
1. Have any of you ever been cheated? 2. Have you ever felt you were being cheated? 3. If the answer to question 2. is yes, how did it effect your game? What did you do? 4. What should a player look for in regards to cheating? 5. Are you aware of any card mechanics dealing in casinos? 6. What is the most effective measure that we the HONEST POKER PLAYERS can take to ensure that cheating does not occur?
My list could go on but in the interest of time I will stop here. Anything anyone feels should be added to this subject please feel free to express your thoughts.
Thank you very much, Vince Lepore P.S. This is a repost of an earlier post to M. Malmuth to which I got no responses. Since this is a subject that interests me I am restating it to the group. So give me some answers, Big John, skp, DMAN, Karpov and the rest of you forum guys!
Vince,
Yes, I've been cheated. I played in many private games and have had players caught holding out cards, bringing in marked decks, stealing money from pots, players exchanging cards, etc. etc. I've been cheated in public cardrooms too, and observed others being cheated.
I've had dealers from the California games section take more than one $25.00 chip, put it in their tray and give change for only one chip. When money is at stake, people will always find ways to steal. I think it is currently better than in the past, but things still go on occasionally.
Honest poker players go to public cardrooms and keep their eyes open. If you see something that looks suspicious, go to a floorman and tell him of your suspicions. The cardrooms have people who know what to look for. You can never be 100% certain that you are not being cheated. In life, there are few guarantees, you must assume certain risks if you choose to interact with people other than yourself.
Big John,
Don't you think the nature of PL/NL tend to lend themselves to an increased risk of being cheated? Other than dealers overraking, the only incident I know of took place in a PL game. See my post below. On a diet,Dman.
Tolerating cheating is what increases the risk that you will be cheated. NL/PL just makes the single instance of cheating more rewarding financially. If you can manipulate one card at the right time in NL, you can bust anybody since people will always go all in when they have the current "nuts". If you know the dealer is going to bring you the card you need to make the hand that beats the current "nuts", you will make all the money.
It is probably more common currently, for teams of two to four players to sit in the same game and collude while all play from the same bankroll. This is a type of cheating that is difficult to prove. While not foolproof, it can be effective when players know what they are doing. Even if you suspect people are playing together, you can't just come out and accuse them without proof certain. With physical manipulation of cards, proof positive can be obtained and a conviction could result.
Some people see more cheating than actually exists; others fail to see any cheating. Part of the lack of seeing cheating can be attributed to vested self interest, and part to that player being vigilant enough to forestall the moves of cheats. Most of the rabid cheat conspiracy theorists are looking for a source, besides their poor play, to blame their losses on. No matter which side you come down on in this issue, you will be attacked by people who hold the opposite viewpoint. I know that if I were a card cheat, or part of a team of colluders, I wouldn't choose a game with Mason Malmuth in it to practice my craft.
You fellow posters came up with some valuable responses to my questions. Thank you. Leave it to Big John to come up with the appropriate reaction to cheating. In so many words we all need to get mad as hell and not tolerate cheating. The only time I ever felt like something unethical or dishonest was going on was when I played in firehouse games in Maryland. "Friends" in those games would sometimes only raise a "non Friend" or check to the river against friends. I didn't like it, made it known and was told that I was wrong and paranoid so I stopped playing in those games. The games are no longer allowed because of action by the Maryland governor. I play a lot at the Taj Mahal. I was told that a high limit player was barred from the casino for raking another players chips in with his pot. Seems the player next to him went to eat and left his chips ungauded. This fellow won a pot and as he pulled the pot towards him he drapped his arm over a stack of the absent players green chips and dragged them into the pot. Nice guy huh. Well thanks again to you all for the answers. Vince
Vince, your post has made me think that I'm either very lucky or that I'm just a blind bat who couldn't spot a cheat if he showed me 2 spade aces. I honestly have never felt that I've been cheated in a public cardroom (Perhaps, a lot of this is due to the fact that I am just a recreational player who averages 20 hours a week and I generally just play in the local Vancouver casino and at the Mirage when I get to Vegas once or twice a year). Both the Vancouver casino and the Mirage I have found to be well run cardrooms where there is little concern of being cheated.
As well, I play the medium limits of 10/20 and 20/40. Now, this is entirely a guess on my part and I say this based on intuition more than anything else, but I think that if cheating were to occur, it would likely occur in either the very big games or the very small games.
In any event, I too would be interested in hearing from others as to some tell-tale signs of cheating.
As for what I would do if I suspected cheating, I would probably just report my suspicions to the floorman. However, I would point out that it is just a "suspicion" that I have but that the floorman should now take it upon himself to scrutinize the player's actions. I may or may not leave the game depending on the particular circumstances i.e. the type of cheating that is occurring, is the game profitable despite the cheat's presence etc.
Cheating is tantemount to stealing which is a crime. Did the casino have the offender arrested? Probably not. I don't think I've ever been cheated in a casino, but then short of catching someone how would you know. I know I don't like it when dealers toss the cards too high and if they keep doing it, I might say something. If I saw a dealer who tossed the cards too high and slid down in my seat to catch a glimpse, am I cheating? I know Mason has written on this and feels it isn't cheating, but I wonder. Also I noticed where they now have poker on the internet, played for real money. What kind of opportunity for cheating would that sort of thing open up? Would any of you guys play for money on the internet? I don't think I would. I don't want to imagine a time when we all sit like hermits in our rooms playing poker in front of our monitors. I know most good poker players are somewhat loners. It's the nature of the game, but a sense of comraderiere does exist in the poker room.
I got off on a tangent there and forgot to add that I did catch a guy trying to stack the deck in a home game. First I noticed he never played a hand in the small blind. Then I realized he started picking up the discards before the hand was finished. He was 2 to my left and I saw him put a crimp in the deck for a false cut. The kicker was : this guy was a cop and his chief played in the game,too. What did I do? I insisted on an extra cut by me ,which our game allowed,though it got pretty quiet. I could tell others in the game wondered what was going on. I watched closely after that and never saw the cop or the chief try anything out of the ordinary. Since they were usually losers, I never said anything else. Also I've seen dealers overrake the pot on more than one occasion, though they always deny it.
I don't know how one would go about getting corraborating data to prove it, but I heard, from a floorman at the Horseshoe Club in Gardena, that there were over 150 people caught cheating and formally barred for entering Gardena cardrooms between 1974 and 1976. He confided this to me in the way of reassurance that the clubs were doing a good job in making the games safe for the patrons.
On several occasions, while I was in games at the Horseshoe, players were removed from my table and their chips distributed evenly to remaining seated players. Cheating in player dealt games was so common in the 60's and 70's that there was simply no question among regular cardroom patrons that cheating was occurring. Collusion, such as knocking knees under the table to let a friend know that you had a made hand in lowball, happened everyday in every game.
Aware players who refuse to turn a blind eye when they observe cheating are the single best defense against it. If I saw my brother cheating in a game, I'd turn him in. The sad thing is that some floor people would rather tolerate cheating than face down a patron who is a generous tipper. In Gardena, the worst cheats and colluders were always the first to get a cup and pot out $40.00 for the floorman and another $10.00 for the porters whenever we got a new deck of cards. On several occasions I observed the guy holding the cup and the money put the pot out money for the cup onto his own stack.
What do you guys say about the situation where two friends who never bet against each other heads-up refuse to do so even though there is another player (who is all-in) thrown into the mix. Obviously, by agreeing not to bet against each other, the two friends are in effect reducing the chances of the all-in player winning the hand.
Management at the cardroom I play at encourage players not to do this on purpose but they say they can't do anything about it if the friends continue to show down their hand instead of betting. I know that some of the players get quite upset at this and in fact accuse the friends of either cheating or at the very least playing unethically.
I'd be interested in hearing how other cardrooms handle this situation.
That is definitely an unclear situation. I think it fine for them not to bet. The all-in person is being punished for not having adequate funds on the table, and shouldn't have a say. Of course, this is not going to be a popular answer.
"What do you guys say about the situation where two friends who never bet against each other heads-up refuse to do so even though there is another player(who is all-in) thrown into the mix. " Flat out cheating in my book. This is precisely one of the reasons I quit playing in Maryland firehouse games. They also would raise only when a third "non friend" was in the game and once they got him out they would check to the river. Call it friendship if you will or unethical. I call it cheating. But I've also found that for the most part these ffiends don't play very well so I was still reluctant to call them cheaters. I know that doesn't make sense so I just avoid games where this takes place. Vince
In the tournaments I play there is a mother and two daughters. When they are the only live players in the pot, ie one or more players are also all in, one of them will say to the dealer "All the way, we're not betting against each other". I think this is out of order but I suspect a complaint would make myself unpopular. Any suggestions ?
Cassandra, Don't let me in that game! I don't think, no i know, I wouldn't be able to hold my contempt for that family. I have two sons that play poker. I taught them that at the poker table, as in war, to play the game, there are no friends and family. The GAME cannot be played any other way. Next time this happens please at least let the tournament director know! my opinio Vince
I have played 15-30 and 30-60 lowball against a mother and her two daughters on several occasions. This particular combo will bet as long as anyone else is in the pot when they have a hand, but check it down when they have only each other. They happen to be the three worst lowball players I've ever played against at the 30-60 level, and I wouldn't think of mentioning words like collusion in their presence. I doubt if they play the way they do against each other for any reason that they would see as unethical. They also pass chips in the form of loans back and forth and I don't object to this either. I've thought of suggesting that we play at one of their houses and I would pay them a $1.00 per hand rake which they could divide any way they choose to.
Big John, The impression of collusion even by seemingly inept players cannot be good for the game of poker, tournament or ring game. I may be wrong but I would say something to players that blatantly cheat or are unethical even if they are poor players. I hope you follow through with your suggestion that you ask peolple like this to play at your home and I hope they accept. I certainly don't want them in my game. An opinion Vince
Recently I was playing in a 20/40 game in Atlantic City. I had the big blind. My hand was 4 and 5 of spades. A maniac raised to 40. Three people called. Then the small blind made it 60. I folded. A late middle position player then made it 80. I ususally don't like to be involved in wild pots in a situation like this. I can put a lot of money in in a marginal situation. I would have won with fives full of fours. The flop was Q45. The raiser to 80 held A3 of clubs. He won the main pot with a flush. A side pot was won by the small blind with pocket kings. I would have won a pot of about $800. Did I make a good fold, a marginal fold, or a bad fold? I am asking about the long run, not based on this particular hand.
Good fold on both this particular hand and in the long run. Playing these types of hands out of position just because the pot is "big" and you already have a bet in the pot can be hazardous to your stack. Unless the flop hits you very hard or misses you completely, you will be trapped into calling additional bets with bottom pair, a possible second-best flush draws, and gutshots. In the long run, this will increase your varinace without improving your expectation.
If you want to take a shot with marginal hands, restrict it to calling SINGLE raises from the blinds, calling single bets (or raises in multiway pots) in late position, or playing smaller pairs, which are less likely to get trapped after the pot (no set no bet.) Of course, you can make a sub-optimal play once in a while for deceptive purposes but don't overdo it.
You made the right play. There were six players in the pot, which is a lot - so I might have had a thought about getting in. Based on the limited info of your post, I would put the maniac on any hand and the small blind on a premium hand. If I thought the other three would only play against an early raise with strong (high) hands, I might consider getting in, hoping that all low cards hit and I am up against a bunch of overcards or high pairs. I would not make this move regularly, but occasionally as a bit of advertising. However, with the threat of additional action behind me (was it three raise limit?), I would have saved my advertising budget for a time I could have made this play for only one bet, and/or when my call would have stopped the action.
I have been looking for live instructional critique of my poker skills. I have not been able to find anything like that. Although I don’t live in Las Vegas I am quite sure that this does exist. If not, I was thinking that this would a dynamite teaching/learning environment. Picture a class of 10 people playing Texas Hold'em, Live, two instructors wacthing and video taping each hand. Then after each hand the instructors would give constructive criticism. I would defiantly pay to have someone like Mason Malmuth and David Sklansky to critique my play for a couple of hours. I think something like this would be very popular If it was available on a monthly basis. Mason, David what do you think? Is there a chance that this may happen in the future? If so Id like to sign up!
Walleye
David Sklansky had a post earlier where he offers to give private consultations. You might want to look in the archives or contact him directly.
Carlos
I too would be interested in being critiqued...e-mailed D sklansky he says he charges $200.00 hour......if there is anyone out there interested in coaching me let me know...i am free to travel now to anywhere. I am interested in making poker my full time career..I have read all the books, trying to gain expeience by playing..but there is nothing like a real expeienced person showing you the ins and outs and telling you when you screw up and how to correct it
I know this is a poker forum and not one for MENSA members. Nevertheless, everyone seemed to enjoy the previous problem about the eggs. So, here's another one that I think you'd like:
A census taker arrives at Mr. Smith's door and asks if he has any children. "Three" says Smith. "How old are they?" asks the census man. Smith says "Well, I'll let you figure it out. The product of their ages is 72. The sum of their ages is the same as my house number."
The census man then looks at the house number and says "you know what Smitty, I need a little more info".
Smith replies "Well, I'll tell you what - my oldest girl, Susan, just loves chocolate ice cream!"
The census taker then declares the ages of the three children.
Can you?
Good one skp...
8,3,3
Only because I know that susan also likes to put all her eggs in one basket, and calls with second pair way to often....
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Bravo!
Before the remark about Susan, there are 12 possibilities for the ages (and house number):
72-1-1(74), 36-2-1(39), 24-3-1(28), 18-4-1(23), 18-2-2(22), 2-6-1(19), 12-3-2(17), 9-8-1(18), 9-4-2(15), 8-3-3(14), 6-6-2(14), 6-4-3(13)
The house number 14 is the only number that appears more than once, so that must be the source of the census taker's confusion. So the ages are either 8-3-3 or 6-6-2. Because the man has an "oldest" child, the ages must be 8-3-3.
-------------------------
I once heard a math/logic problem that went something like this: Paul and Sally, both mathematicians, are given slips of paper. On Paul's paper is the Product of two numbers and on Sally's paper is the Sum of the same two numbers. Both of them know this. The following conversation takes place:
Paul: "I don't know what the numbers are." Sally: "I don't know what they are either." Paul: "Well in that case, I know what they are!" Sally: "Oh, well then I do too!"
Assuming that both numbers are positive integers, what are some possible combinations of the two numbers?
MB,
It's late after a good win tonite....
Lowest possible positive integer combination is 1 & 4
both know that Paul does not have a prime number on his piece of paper otherwise the answer is obvious to him. Sally still doesn't know so her sum does not have a distinct soln for the products. Paul, figures Sally can't figure the answer so it has to be a product that has a sum with multiple solns. Since paul now knows, then there is a soln and Sally now knows...this after I've been drinking....
Example,
Paul has a 4 written on his piece of paper and Sally has a 5. Paul does not know whether the numbers are 1&4 or 2&2. Sally has a 5 on her paper. She doesn't know if the numbers are 1&4 or 2&3. Paul figures since sally does not know she can't have a 4 on her paper and she must have a 5. therefore the numbers are 1&4. since Paul figured it out sally now knows the numbers are 1&4...
Are Paul and sally related to susan? and do they like eggs?
...turning the lites out...
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
I don't get it.
If the numbers are 1 and 4, then we know that Paul has 4 on his paper and Sally has 5. Furthermore, when Paul sees 4 on his paper, he knows that Sally must have either 4 or 5 on her paper. Either way, Paul would know before he even has his conversation with Sally that Sally can't deduce the solution. So, when Sally tells Paul that she can't deduce the solution by looking at her piece of paper, that wouldn't surprise Paul at all.
But according to Matt's problem, Paul was surprised!
In other words, if Paul has 4 on his paper, he can't rule out 2x2 just because he learns that Sally can't figure out the answer by looking at her paper. He would know that without ever speaking to Sally.
Matt, have you provided us with all the necessary info? Frankly, I can't see a solution to this mindbender.
hmmm.... a little more awake....
Skp, if sally had a 4 on her paper. she would easily deduce that paul did not have a 3 on his. He would guess 3&1 without ever talking to sally. so paul does not have a 3 and the numbers cannot be 3&1. If it cannot be 3&1 then it cannot be 2&2 or sally would have figured it out. But sally can't deduce 2&2, So she must have a 5. From Sally's point of view she cannot deduce from the 5. But, Paul now with this info paul can deduce that the numbers are 1&4. Since paul can figure it out then sally knows the answer is 1&4 and not 2&3.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Got ya! It was driving me nuts for the last hour. I am at the office and should be working on a fairly important project but instead here I'm wondering what's up with Paul and Sally. Thanks.
These puzzles are related to poker. Here Paul and sally trust each others logic completely. That is how they are able to deduce the numbers. Now if sally was a moron or a maniac, she may give the miss the logic or wrong answers on purpose to drive Paul into the loony bin!!! (I've been called a moron or maniac a few times myself at the table by bad unaware players)
:)
In poker you often face situations like over calling on the river or calling two bets cold on the flop. You have to figure out if you can "trust" what the initial caller has or the raiser on the flop. that is what level is he playing at. How aware is he. The "...what does he think you think he thinks you have..." has application in many games and puzzles..
Always important to make incremental increases in EV
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
I believe that the PRODUCT will always be a number that can only be derived two ways; itself times one, or as the product of two prime numbers, i.e. 143: (1, 143), (11, 13).
I don't know where to go from here. Notice that there are two other "prime pairs" that add up to 24, (5, 19) (7, 17), so maybe I'm wrong.
I think the problem should say "My oldest child..." not "daughter" since 6,6,2 is a solution if the other six year old is a boy. Or am I missing something? Maybe it's that "oldest" implies 3 daughters because if only 2, "older" would be used?
Yes. "oldest" implies 3 girls.
If the problem had said "older" girl, the census taker would have required yet more info because as you have surmised, he would still be faced with two possible solutions: 8,3,3 or 6,6,2.
Which book or books should I consult to determine the following probabilities? And does the author demonstrate how he arrived at his figures?
On third street in eight-handed 7-stud, what are the chances of a pair of tens being best? pair of jacks? pair of queens? pair of kings? pair of aces?
If I have a pair, what're the chances of there being one or more other pairs out. (I came up with about 70% but have lost my computations and wasn't very confident in the way I arrived at this figure anyway). Two other pairs out? Depending of course on what pair I had, any hand with three overcards? Any hand with two overcards?
Mark -
You won't find this information in any books, or be able to obtain it using commercial simulation programs (to the best of my knowledge). However, I have written some simulation tools myself and can attempt to answer some of your questions.
In stud, the likelihood that your pair is the best hand is highly dependent on the other upcards. If there are no higher upcards than your pair, the probabilities that your pair is best are approximately as follows :
Aces 98 % Kings 94 % Queens 88 % Jacks 84 % Tens 80 %
If there is precisely one higher upcard, the probabilities drop as follows :
Kings 81 % Queens 78 % Jacks 74 % Tens 71 %
If there are two higher upcards both of the same rank, the probabilities are only a point or two down on the above. However if there are two higher upcards of different rank, the probabilities are as follows :
Queens 69 % Jacks 65 % Tens 62 %
Note : if there is one of your pair cards on the board this does not affect your probability of having the best hand very much but of course it does hit your chances of winning the hand significantly.
If you have (22)3, the chances of this being the best hand are 75 %, which I think answers your question about pairs (this is the chance that at least one other pair is out). If one or more of the upcards duplicate each other, then this increases.
I can't answer your other questions without writing some extra code so I apologize for my laziness :-).
If you are interested, these probabilities were obtained using a Monte Carlo simulation, but you really need to write your own software to be able to find this stuff out.
If anybody else has any queries of this nature I would be happy to try to answer.
Hope this helps,
Andy.
Thanks. These numbers accord with my gut sense. For instance, if two aces have folded before I act with my pair of kings, I reckon those cowboys to be nearly equivalent to a pair of aces in strength.
Correction to the above. The chance of (22)3 being the best hand is 25 % not 75 % - 75 % is the chance that someone else has a pair. I expect you realised this anyway.
Andy.
yep. thanks again.
how bout the high hands- ie the raising hands if you were playing omaha high only (of course i know to stay away from the middle cards)- call in early position and call one raise? call one raise from late position? i know the flop wont be playable most of the time but when it is there is scoop potential and if you make the high and the low comes you can jam a multiway pot, or so it seems to me. guess thats my main question on starting hands. advice appreciated. of course ive read rays book and i understand his logic, but he dosnt really address position- just says best shorthanded against people who only play low. that being the case seems dont call in front and dont call a raise multiway. but what about when you get there multiway and get half of a huge pot and the lows get quartered or sixed? or the lows dont get there and you scoop a jammed pot-or at least as jamed as you can get it. so how bout it can you call up front, then call one raise? can you call a raise cold? advice appreciated.
Bob Ciafone wrote an excellent book called OMAHA Poker. There is a section that touchs on 8 or better. Buy it, read it and heed it. It's all you will need to know about starting Omaha hands. However, ensure you understand fully the meaning of 4 coordinated cards. I found out the hard way what this means. More important make sure you learn to evaluate flops and what you need to continue to the turn. Although a fairly simple game once learned, this game can kill a novice poker player. My opinion Vincent Lepore
Get Shane Smith's book on O8. My synthesis of his starting hands for high are: (1) a pair of Broadway cards, plus two additional Broadway cards (preferably connected), or better (two pair of Broadway cards) (preferably at least single suited); and (2) at least three Broadway cards (preferably at least single suited. Try to avoid any hands that are not at least single suited. In most games, calling a pre-flop raise should't be a problem. Playing tightly after the flop is the key. The value of high hands goes way, way down when two low cards come on the flop.
For those interested there are two new essays on our essay page. One is by me and the other is by Sudhir K. Padmanabhan.
I can't find any new essays there..yours or Sudhir's. The most recently essay was from last October.
I enjoyed your essay Mason. As I was reading it, particularly the complexities involved in real-world poker, I couldn't help thinking of the parallels to computer chess. Look at the latest IBM Deep Thought vs. Kasparov and what that can teach us in the poker world. I agree with you about the existing state of the best PC-based poker software. You even wrote yourself that a proper intellectual treament of proframming the complexities of poker would take years of work from first class minds.
I guess my Q is, do you believe this could be done (perhaps it would run on a bigger machine) but just hasn't been done yet? Or were you doubting it is possible to build world class poker sofware unlike chess which can now compete with the best ever.
It’s a two part problem.
One.
Discover the best strategy from a game theory point of view.
This would be difficult and run into most all of the problems that MM pointed out.
Two.
Assume God whispered the best strategy in your ear from a game theory point of view and your job is to implement it.
This would be easy and a great programmer with a huge experience in Hold’em could write it in about three months.
Like FredAces, I can't find them. And since I wrote the second one, I am quite interested in having a look at it in its final format. Do we have to reboot or something to have the info on the Essays section updated?
no message.
Flopsy,
Remember the IBM machine couldn't beat Kasparov until the software was optimized to play against him. In poker, I think that a dedicated poker machine with the capabilities of the machine that played Kaparov, an expert software team, and an expert professional could produce a computer program that plays extremely well. As I've stated several times previously, I think that verifying the proper operation of sims like TTH2 with benchmarks is necessary to do valid research and use the research results in real play. However, this does not mean I am putting TTH2 down, far from it. I think it is a very interesting and worthwhile program and is something I enjoy using. I expect that it will evolve into an even better program over time.
Tom Haley
The biggest problem with making a poker program as comparatively strong as a chess-playing program is the nature of the two games. The only limitation placed on the ability of a chess-player is calculation. Everything is in front of you in a chess game. The game is so complex, though, that it takes on an artistic quality. But, nevertheless, everything is known by both players. Poker, on the other hand, is governed by the rules of probability. Deep Blue will beat an expert level chess player every single game without fail. There is no chance involved. But, even if we could determine "perfect" strategy for the poker program, it would still lose a certain number of sessions. Poker would be even more difficult to program at such a high level because of variation and deception, which are no good in chess.
As a chess teacher myself, I get discouraged when my students show me games where they played very incorrect ideas and still won. I can't convince them that they played the wrong move or idea because they won the game. This also happens every day at the poker table. But the difference is - when the chessplayer begins to play very strong competition, they will lose every time playing such poor moves, but the poker player will still occasionally win a hand, which just reinforces the negative idea. That is what keeps poker games good, though.
The point is - the best poker program in the world won't beat the average amateur every time, but the best chess program will.
Will wrote: "The only limitation placed on the ability of a chess-player is calculation. Poker, on the other hand, is governed by the rules of probability. ...."
Probability is calculation also, no big deal. People are very poor at estimating probabilities while a a properly designed poker program with the ability to do bayesian estimation and model the game and the players would preform well at this task.
Will wrote: "The point is - the best poker program in the world won't beat the average amateur every time..."
I would expect that TTH can beat almost any of the regulars at my local cardroom 6-12 games and below.
Chess has had a lot more resources put on the problem, where computer poker is just starting out now. I think poker will be easier then chess. The only real problem is the practical issue of computers playing in real world poker games.
David
I agree. TTH2 would beat my 1-4-8-8 Friday and Saturday opponents like a rented mule. Weeknights it would hold it's own. BTW, I beat TTH2 like a rented mule, but I'm aware many others can to.
I would love to see the bellagio or mirage put in some strictly shorthanded games.In my opinion they are the best games.Why is it when a game is starting to get shorthanded all the rocks and grinders start screaming at the floormen to fill the seats?If they can't fill the seats then they either move to a full game,take a walk or quit.When I ask why they don't want to play shorthanded they just say"I'd rather play in a full game."WHY?They all think they're superstar players,isn't that when the best players have the biggest advantage,in a shorthanded game?It just amazes me how everyone at the table's bladder can be bursting at the same time when the game get's shorthanded?Is it because they are scared that their blinds will get annihilated?Is it because in a 2,3 or 4 handed game you have to play alot of hands?Is it because of the rake?Is it because they won't get their full complement of 8 free hands per round?These things can cut into that hourly rate.Maybe it's because they're afraid they might make a big score or take a big loss,that's much more likely shorthanded,you get alot of action on your hands but there's lots of hands you have to pay off all the way.Please enlighten me as to why shorthanded is so unpopular.
The answer to all the questions you ask is yes. Those are the exact reasons tight players don't like to play in a short-handed game.
I know how annoying it can be to have the game go temporarily shorthanded, and then break, when by playing on, 5 or 6 handed, the game is kept going for players just walking in, as well as for you. In my experience the games fill up quite quickly.
However, many tight players don't like the increased volatility of a short-handed game. Many realize that short-handed situations don't suit their style, and they feel their edge has decreased. Others are intimidated by shorthanded play. Also, loose - calling, or aggressive "live ones" may suddenly not be playing so badly 5 handed.
A reason I don't like to play shorthanded is from getting "burned" on the blinds. By that I mean it is a five handed game and all the players nod their heads to continue to play. Then the big blind gets back to them and now they don't want to post. This has happened to me too many times, and by players that I thought had some integrity. They just wanted to get their hands that they paid for when they posted their blinds. This may be trivial in some aspects but it is damn annoying.
There may be a certain limit thresh hold were it may not be ecumenically feasible to play heads- up or short handed. Also some players are not good at playing short handed. If you know your "limitations" and playing short handed is not your forte then why play?
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
" If you know your "limitations" and playing shorthanded isn't your forte, then why play?"
My answer to this question would be that experience is a very good teacher. I love shorthanded play, especially heads up. Shorthanded play is one aspect of being a complete player. If you happen to play tournaments and believe that you are particularly good at shorthanded play, your confidence is often enough to assure you of being offered a deal more favorable than your chip position would merit.
i need a hell of a break on the rake, otherwise im neither crazy about or afraid of shorthanded play. i prefer stud to holdem shorty. but i like em both. without a hell of a break on the rake forget it, im against all the money going to the cardroom. shorthanded play takes experience to gain confidence just lik anything else. it a whole different ballgame. a full game is the percentige mans meat.
Commerce 15-30 lowball rakes .50 per hand two or three handed. Is that break enough for you? In Mexican Stud they rake all the antes save one, no matter how many play. Hold'em shorthanded has a much reduced rake as well. Shuffle up and deal. I play a little heads up in my dining room. There is no rake as long as you are losing. Unfortunately, due to your proven playing ability, you've been barred. Sorry.
Big John writes, " If you know your "limitations" and playing shorthanded isn't your forte, then why play?"
Playing short handed is great if, all players playing take their blinds. I ran into just such a situation yesturday at the Mirage. The players wanted to keep playing short handed until they had to post their blinds. If the table is short handed and everyone wants to play then let's play, but to me it is "shooting an angle" to get a couple of "free" hands and then take a walk when it is time to put up the big blind.
So to prevent this from happening in cardroom or casino "ring" games, to me, I just refuse to play short handed. I have had, like I stated, players whom I thought had good integrity, pull this "angle" on me.
If you and I are sitting in a ring game and it gets down to four or five handed and you agree to keep playing, then I take your word that you will also post your blinds when it is your turn. In the 20/40 HE game, blinds cost $30. In the 30/60 it is $45. In the 40/80 it's $60. And, unless, money is like water to you, you are not going to play hands out of the blinds that you don't feel good about, especially in limit hold'em. So you post your blinds and fold and when you have position, I don't post, see how you like continuing to play when it gets short handed.
Unless it is a special situation like in a tournament or we have a special arrangement to play short handed or heads up, then NO. That is my "limitations."
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
Larry,
I was quoting the poster I was replying to. I love shorthanded play. In lowball, when the game gets five handed or less and they don't send a prop player, players usually balk at taking the blinds when they prefer full games. I usually poll the remaining players to see if they want to play shorthanded. I'll say, " I'm willing to play all the way, including heads up, how about the rest of you?" What usually happens is that the gambling players continue playing and the rocks sit out, wishing they could find a way to play shorthanded without having to post those blinds. The tighter you play, the fuller the game needs to be for you to have positive expectation.
If there was no shorthanded play in lowball, I'd quit playing it altogether. I probably make more than 100% of my total overall profit from shorthanded play. I often wait until I see the game shorthanded before I buy in.
I really hate myself when I don't pay attention to my spell checker and the replacement word it is providing. Obviously I meant "economially" in my post NOT "ecumenical."
Main Entry: ec·u·men·i·cal Pronunciation: "e-ky&-'me-ni-k&l Function: adjective Etymology: Late Latin oecumenicus, from Late Greek oikoumenikos, from Greek oikoumenE the inhabited world, from feminine of oikoumenos, present passive particle of oikein to inhabit, from oikos house -- more at VICINITY Date: circa 1587 1 : worldwide or general in extent, influence, or application 2 a : of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches b : promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation - ec·u·men·i·cal·ly /-k(&-)lE/ adverb
Gentleman, how about a book on shorthanded play? I think that many of us would like to learn more.
While we are on the topic of books, are there any plans for a new poker book? If so, when do you expect it to be completed?
Without being specific we plan to put out new material on short handed play approximately next June.
Joey,
I think the main reasons are that:
1) usually it is much easier to read hands in a full game than in a short handed game.
2) usually you will have bigger fluctuations.
I guess these are more or less re-stating what you said but I think these are the main reasons. I think that players who shy away from ALL short handed games are limiting themselves way too much.
Tom Haley
I am not a super tight player at least not yet. I need to work on a few leaks in my game. However I notice that at times I play much better poker at 20-40 (maybe 15-30) vs. the 6-12 or 4-8 etc limits. Not that I don't respect money but MM had what I considered the most overlooked comment about limit -"money must count for something at the limit you play" and I am not quoting word for word. The fine line is the bets must matter monetarily yet it should not break you (i.e. 80-160) could break my whole bankroll fast so I am not playing that limit. Anyone else considered this aspect ? Also in California the 20-40 games are not that hard and I think I have what it takes to play most (not all) of these games. At the same token there is NL game that I could play with the same $ budget (500-1000) per session BUT my skill and intestinal fortitude coupled with the players there would make this game a negative EV event 99% of the time.
I find that I play very well when I have no fear. I'm a world-class player at 3-6. I'm a marginal loser at 5-10. If you can play 30-60 with no fear then that would be the limit you would play. If you have a big enough bankroll and become as good a player that you can be you will notice that now you have no more fear
Joe predators has no fear
Andras, I hope you refer back to this message since Iam posting three days later. I experience the same kind of game varience that you do . I play at a loss of about 2 big bets per hour in games smaller than 9-18. Suprisingly I post a win percentage of about 1.5 - 2 big bets per hour in a 20-40 and bigger game. Now armed with that info why dont I play bigger games only? Well I would love to only play 20-40 and bigger games, but because of where I live I dont have the access to games of any kind unless I drive for 2-3 hours. this combined with my life, job and family tends to put a constraint on my ability to play more than 1-2 times per month on a good month.
I did however travel on business to Southern CA, many times in the last few years where I posted some very consistent wins in 9-18 and above. I also visit Vegas 3-6 times per year and play consistently in the bigger games especially around Holidays, or Bigger fights of any sort. I tend to like bigger games with 4-5 very consistent or Pro players and 2-3 average tourists and hopefully a couple of maniacs or very loose players.
I wonder if you have ever tried PLH or PLH & Omaha Eight or Better 1/2 and 1/2? I have played the Brits and some of the best in Vegas and have posted wins in 19 out of 23 sessions. This suprised me because I never studied this game I had only played Tournaments. This game is the perfect money game for me because it keeps me aware that money is money not just a chip. When I buy in to this game I only take money from my poker bankroll that I can loose and not emotionally suffer from. I have bigger swings in limit than I do in PL. I also understand that I need more than 23 total sessions before I turn pro so Im not packing my bags quite yet, maybe after the Newyears trip to Vegas?
I wish I could explain why these game variances happen but Iam not sure. I do belive that in smaller games the players dont understand that Iam representing a strong hand when bluffing or raising. I also dont experience as many players cracking a set of Aces with the perfect perfect turn and river cards. You are playing in general a much more sophisticated player that may be at a money level that means something to them also. I do like the maniac at these higher games though so you can single them out and kindly remove them from their gambling budget.
Well I hope this helped a little post back any response
One part of this chapter puzzles me. The example is given of betting an inside straight draw with the board Q 6 3 and you holding the 5 and 2. What puzzles me is that there are 6 players in the pot. Earlier the authors state that one of the preconditions for a semibluff bet is some chance that the bet will win the pot right then and there. With six players taking the flop I cannot imagine even in a fairly tight game not one player having hit the flop in some way and your chance of getting everyone to fold as (virtually?) nil.
Obviously S&M put in the scenario of 6 players deliberately. The only reason I can think of for making this bet comes under the rubric of "if your hand is worth a call or even almost worth a call than it is better to bet" tactic. 6 players gives you 6 to 1 on your bet which I think is not even almost enough to try and hit an inside straight. Is this bet made because you expect two or more callers thus giving you about 8 to 1 on your bet - enough with the implied odds (plus the virtually nil chance of everyone folding?). What if someone raises? What am I missing here? Explanations from the authors and comments from others all greatly appreciated.
Have you considered that there's probably about a 4% chance that everyone will fold?
And if only one calls might he not fold on turn if an Ace or King hits?
Or if nothing hits, and you check and you have check raised before on Turn with Q good kicker he might check it back to you.
I wouldn't bet that hand with monopoly money.
i often wondered about that one myself. mabey dave or mason will comment. in the meantime excellent advice concerning bluffing and semibluffing can be found in Improve Your Poker by bob chiaffone (might have mispelt that last name). his advice- 4 or more opponents dont. then he goes on to give examples with 3 or less. a good deal of the book deals with bluffing.
The situation..............
>
> 10-20 stud game has turned to 20-40 game because of lateness....
> (may be of importance later)
> I have been playing middle limit stud for several years now and by no means
> do i know it all, but i don't think of myself as a total fish either.
> PS. This game is comprised of five rather "sophistocated" players and one
> total loose cannon whose calling requirements are so low, miniscule wouldn't do
> him justice.
> Third st.: I pick up split sevens with a suited king. Everyone folds
> except myself,loose cannon and a player i will the "chemist" who raises with
> the ace of clubs. Also note my cards are all live.
> Please note that i believe the cannon has a red four. The chemist(last
> position) i have noted he will raise with a pair of aces,three suited cards,
> three high cards, pocket pairs(from 2s on up) and possibly will raise on an
> outright steal with a lone ace.
> I chose to raise the chemist and it accomplished to push the cannon out.
> Chemist calls.
> Fourth st. : Chemist checks (after a raise he would still check aces to me) he
> believes me to be a smart player. I check thereafter.
> Fifth st. Chemist bets what i still believe to be a one pair hand while i
> catch a second pair of eights.
> hand review.........chemist, ace clubs, three of diamonds,queen of
> hearts...1queen has been folded
> Myself......... upcards....seven of spades,eight of hearts, eight of diamonds
> I bet $40 on fifth. He cold calls. I put him on the dreaded aces at this
> point.
> Sixth st. we both catch blanks. I bet, he calls.
> On seventh st. I check after no improvement and he shows down naked aces.
> HA! I pull a rather nice pot with my two pair.
> He then makes an issue out of me raising with split sevens. He says that it
> was a terrible play. I do not think it was that bad a play considering he could
> be betting anything. Also note i checked fourth st because of the possibility
> of him having those aces. I also think looking back......he was stuck badly at
> the time (possibly tilting) and was prone to raise with anything if he thought
> it would win.
> Everything i have read says that it isn't necessarily bad to occaisionally
> raise with the second best hand. As long as you don't do it too much.
>
> Opinions.........? P.S............Yours truly booked a $420 win
>
If you were 100% percent certain that your opponent had Aces, then raising was a poor play. But as you said he could be raising with a three flush or even just the ace. As far as him saying "that was a horrible play". That is a common quote for someone who just has Aces beat by two smaller pairs. I'm rather curious as to why he didn't reraise on third street. Then what do you do? I think I'd have to fold at that point.
Criticism of another players strategy should only be done when asked by the player in a forum such as this! By the way I think that you should have raised or thrown away your hand (before it got to the chemist) on third street. If the chemist was in last position and raised, you must have called the bring in. Also from your post the "cannon" is after you so he called the bring in also. Now the Chemist raises. You allowed the "chemist" to take the initiative by just calling. Now because of the size of the pot you are forced to at least call. But with your hand you need some help and by raising and forcing out the "cannon" you lost his most likely dead money being put in the pot. His money is the help you need to continue. From fourth street on I agree with your play. My opinion. Vince
winning big pots is a lot of fun and there is nothing wrong with the way you played. winner needs no excuses, dont let his ragging bother you.
Just got back from the $500 limit hold-em at the Taj. I had 800 out of 85000 in chips. 27 players left, paying 18 places. We are playing 200-400. I've just been moved to a new table and don't know the 2 players I'm about to get involved with, except that one has played fairly loose. My BB and I have pocket 99. The player in third postion raised and the loose player in 6ht postion made it 3 bets. Should I fold call or reraise, which would put me all in. Thanks for your answers. BTW both players had plenty of chips.
Danny Sprung
Even though your chip position is horrendous I would muck the hand. At this stage of the tournament, with your chip level your trying to survive. You cannot afford a mistake on your part. Calling a double raise with 99 is a mistake! If you didn't have enough chips to get through the small blind then a call is inorder but you can play a whole round and may find a better situation to go all in or a number of others may get knocked out. Maybe enough to get you in the money. Just an opinion Vince BTW at this stage of a tournament when you move to a new table treat all your opponents as solid until proven otherwise.
Don't you think with 2 big stacks battling it out, it improves your chance to win the hand by going all-in. Only 800 in chips is going to be blinded out very quickly. This may be the last chance at a good hand. The next round does it for in just in the blinds. The chance that both of those hands will be inferior to 99 is pretty big.
I highly doubt that both hands would be inferior to 9,9. Your best situation would be if both other players held pocket pairs lower than yours. An unlikely scenario. Even if both players held overcards, they will see that you are all in and not likely bet unless the board has helped their hand. In other words, neither player is going to bluff at the pot. Each wants the other in so as to increase their collective chances of knocking you out. Thus, your pair of nines will have to survive the River card against two high card hands.
9,9 against one hand consisting of two unpaired high cards is just a small favourite. If your opponents happen to hold 4 overcards to your nines (i.e as between them), it is highly unlikely that your nines will remain the best after all the cards are out.
Pass with the pocket nines.
Caveat: I have played a grand total of 2 tournaments in my time so if I'm wrong with my analysis, I'd appreciate hearing why.
Despite the three-bettor's loose playing tendency, the fact that he (having a big stack) reraised an early position raiser (who also has a big stack) indicates that the tree-bettor has a strong hand. Otherwise, why would the three-bettor risk his chips against another big stack?
Hey skp, I'm with you! Muck'em! vince
If you make it four bets here is there any chance that the original raiser will fold and leave you heads up with the late raiser?...if so I would reraise and hope for the best with the pair of nines.
No way a raise hear is in order unless suicide is your goal! Opinion by Vince
Thanks for the answers. I did in fact muck the hand, though I consider all three alternatives reasonable. The best thing about re-raising is it may get you heads up. Of course just calling keeps 200 in chips in case the flop looks terrible, ie AKQ. I'll never know what the two players had, but i ended up losing the rest of my chips and finishing out of the money. To respond to those who thought I should just try to survive until the last two tables, I clearly would not have made the money without winning at least 1-2 more hands as I was basically the only short stack at all 3 tables.
I have been running cold lately and don't know if it is bad luck or i am just not playing well.....I was dealt J,Q off on the big blind there was a call, and a raise on the button I called. the flop came 10c,Jd,6h all different suits...i had top pair so i bet...call, call. the turn another 6c. I bet not believing anyone was holding a 6. next player folded....player on the button raises...i called.....river 2c...i check he bets i call...he has two 10's in the pocket....i should have folded at the turn....right?
No,folded on the river.
If your going to fold the turn was the place but do you have a fold here? It depends on the playing style of the button player and his/her sense of your play. I would tend to call down aggressive players, players who are tricky, and players who perceive you as being somewhat of a folder.
I would lay down on the turn against tight unimaginitive players, players who rarely bluff, and players who think you call too much.
Also note that the pot is short handed so that you should expect agression from most opponents even with substandard hands.
Just because you were in fact drawing near dead (you had no easy way of knowing at the time) should not have any bearing on your play. You only found that out after the fact.
Regards
Rick
>>I was dealt J,Q off on the big blind there was a call, and a raise on the button I called. the flop came 10c,Jd,6h all different suits.<<
Since there was a "call" from a player between you and the raiser, I would suspect the raiser had a legitimate hand.
You don't say if the caller was in early, middle or late postition. This is important because it should give some indication of the strength of their hand. The earlier the call the stronger the hand possibly could be. Some players will "limp" into the pot with AK,AJ,AQ,KQ suited, hoping players behind them will be enticed to call, thus getting volumn pots on these types of hands.
But predicated on the fact that there was another player in the pot, I would not call the raise for the BB. Ask yourself this, what are you hoping to make? You flop a Queen or Jack and you are probably in kicker trouble and even if you aren't your opponent can make you think you are by playing aggressively. Otherwords you are having to make the difficult decisions or guessing whether or not you actually have the best hand.
I would wait for a better hand to call a raise out of the BB with another player having already entered the pot. I would not be inclined to think the button was on a "steal" raise.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
If I held a stronger hand, say top pair/top kicker (or over pair) against a tricky opponent who might be trying to set up a steal or who is just tricky i would re-raise the turn. If reraised then you lay down, if just called then it is quite likely that you check the river and your opponent checks behind you.
Any comments on this play?
carlos
His play was pretty predictable, except many players would have gone ahead and raised 2nd set on the flop. He figured you didn't have trip jacks, because you would have probably reraised with them in the blind. So he thought it was okay to slowplay them till the turn. Since he was the preflop raiser, I certainly would have put him on at least an overpair, assuming he is not a maniac. I would not have called on the river.
You should have dumped the hand or else raised with it to narrow the field. Limping shows weekness. Limp only to trap. This hand was not playable in my opinion. Doc-
I had pocket kings (KcKd) next to button, all players in between bb and me fold, I raise, button and small blind folds, bb calls. Flop comes Jh Jc 5h, bb checks, I bet, bb calls, turn: 8h bb checks, I bet, bb calls. River: 2h, BB bets, I fold. BB turns up 5d 10d. I'm pissed, was there enough in the pot to call?? or did I save myself a bet and got a bad beat.
I'm just a novice but it seems to me that with 6 BB in the pot and the bb in a perfect bluffing situation -- heads up with a 4-flush on the board, and he could have anything since he's a blind -- it would be worth a call.
I disagree, he lost that particular pot, but he would be money ahead in that sequence of check, call, check, call, bet when the fourth suited card hits and he doesn't have one of that suit. The BB took a chance and got lucky, guessing that his opponent didn't have a heart. Some will say he outplayed the pocket kings, but, his showing of the bluff would be a mistake in most games, as would all his calls from the first to the last. I would have folded to the river bet.
I would like to address Big John's comment, "his showing of the bluff would be a mistake in most games,..."
What was wrong with advertising this bluff? Isn't one of the key purposes of running a successful bluff to advertise it? My experience has shown that this sometimes will put an opponent on "tilt." If the player making this bluff is an above average player, then he probably set himself up for some weak calls against his good hands, don't you think?
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
I think that showing this particular bluff opens the bluffer to all aware players at the table. Collectively, they learned more about him than he profitted by exposing his bluff. I think it is almost never advantageous to provide opponents with free looks at your arsenal. Had I been the player folding the pocket K's to the bluff, I would have been happy to learn what my opponent had when betting the river. If you know his hole cards and replay the betting sequence of the hand, you realize how poorly he played until the end. If he chased all the way to the river with bottom pair, with the intent to bet the river if another scary card fell, I want him in my games in the future. If I had bet out on the river after check, call check, call, the pair of Kings would have been dead meat. If not called, no way does anyone see my hand. Exposing your cards is a negative EV move.
The opponent here sounds like a maniac to me. I wouldn't have shown off this bluff either. I would have been too ashamed of calling the raise with these cards in the first place. This guys play was bad from the get go. Showing this bluff is like telling the table "Look at what a lucky dumbass I am". Besides if enough advertisement to show down your bluff, when you get called.
Image, my friend, Image! If your purpose is to try and put someone on tilt then by all means show the bluff. But the image you protect may be your own. Our illustrious authors have on more than one occaision espoused the importance of a tight and aggressive image. Bluffing does not lend itself to tighness. Bluffing certainly can be considered aggressive but the aggresive part of your image is not the part that can be concealed. When you don't show a bluff the opponent can only guess to the contents of your hand thus not affecting your image in any way. Consequently, I agree (as usual) with Big John that "his showing of the bluff would be a mistake in most games,..." (in most situations I think). My opinion Vince
I would have played this hand differently. First of all, a call on the river is mandatory. There are a LOT of players who would simply put you on two big cards in this situation and figure the flop missed you. They are going to bet any hand in this situation. Folding for one bet when you have an overpair is a weak play.
Most players would have raised you on the turn in this situation if they had a jack, btw. Or, if he thought you were going to bluff again on the river with your AQ or something like that, he might have gone for a check-raise if he had a jack.
You might have considered this play: When the BB checks the flop, check behind him. The only card that is likely to hurt your hand here is the Ace, and it's a fairly small pot. Now, if he bets the turn, raise. Now YOU are representing the jack. If he re-raises you or bets into you on the river, you can probably fold. Either way, this hand costs you 2 BB, instead of the 2.5 that it costs by betting all the way to the river. Several other good things can happen too - he might be slow-playing Aces and will lay them down. Or, you can hit a king on the river and get another big bet if the other player has a real hand.
Try to modify your play in these situations. It makes you tougher to read. Sometimes just bet your kings through. Other times, bet the flop, and if you think the player is calling with some kind of a draw check the turn to induce a bluff on the river. These heads-up situations are a good time to be a little creative and show the whole table that it's tough to figure out where you are.
By the way, if he had checked the river, would you have bet?
Dan
I don't think giving him a free card on the flop is such a great idea. I think betting was right here. I don't think this is the type of situation to give a free card. An ace is not the only card that can hurt you here. There are 2 hearts on the board.
That's true... But when you're giving free cards with the intention of making MORE money on later rounds, this is the time to do it. Initial pot is small, and you're heads-up. Let's say he has the heart draw. He checks, and you check. Now he's likely to bet his heart draw on the turn as a semi-bluff. By raising now, you making him pay MORE for his draw, and at a time when he's only got one card to come. This is a strong play, if you're against a player who is likely to semi-bluff that hand.
If the player is weak and timid and will never bet his draw or try and bluff you, then just bet the hand for value.
If the player is a very tricky player who just might make it three bets on the turn without a jack, then you probably don't want to try the raise on the turn.
The point is that there is no 'standard' way to play this hand: Heads-up in these kinds of situations calls for all sorts of different plays depending on your image, the character of the other player, the exact texture of the board, etc.
Varying your play here is important not just for this hand, but for future action. I play against a LOT of players who are totally predictable in situations like this: If they have an overpair, they'll bet and call any raises. If they have two big cards (more likely), then they might bet the flop, but they'll fold at the first sign of resistance, or they'll check and call. I win a lot of money from players like that, because if the flop misses both of us I'm going to take the money.
Dan
With 4 hearts on the board, I would have folded also. Your Kings don't look very strong anymore after the turn. I probably would have checked on the turn behind him. If a rag hits on the river, bet or raise if he bets.
Obviously, a lot depends on what you know about your opponent, what he thinks of you ...yada yada. But, If I was playing against a player I've never seen before, I'd call on the river. Notice that many players in this situation would check with a heart even as high as King. So, when your opponent bets, you can probably put him on the Ace of Hearts or no Heart at all. If he has the Ace of Hearts, what side card could he have that would have made him play the hand the way he did i.e. call the pre-flop raise, check-call the flop and the turn? Perhaps, he had A-5. It would have to be offsuit. Would he call the pre-flop raise with A-5 off? Maybe. Maybe not. Would he just meekly check-call on the flop instead of betting or check raising?
I agree with Dan Hanson. Many players would take a crack at the River in this situation in the hopes that the initial raiser doesn't have a high Heart and will lay down his hand. I further agree with Dan that these heads-up confrontations are a good opportunity to mix up your play. For example, I may have checked behind my opponent on the turn. Notice that when your opponent calls your bet on the flop, there's a fair chance that he holds a Jack or a Heart draw. (I would add that I'd likely be more inclined to check the Turn if I held the King of Hearts as then there would be very few free cards which I could give that would beat my hand). Checking on the turn may also induce a bluff on the end or induce a call on the end if he checks again and you bet.
your either against the worlds fair or nothing. for one bet its a easy call. people tend to bet on the end when its the only way to win.
I wouldn't check the flop because that gives him a free look at the turn (make those drawing hands pay!). I would figure he didn't have a jack because he didn't raise on the turn. Since you were heads up from the start, the chance of your having the best hand was much much greater than if there had been several callers and he was the last man standing after you bet the flop. Also, your pre-flop raise had "steal" written all over it . You intentionally or unintentionally set him up to draw this conclusion. As it happened, he took the bait but you didn't reel in the fish.
By the way, if I had been your opponent, I might very well have check-raised on the flop figuring I had the best hand at that point, but clearly not strong enough that I would want the hand to continue.
I would have called. If he didn't raise me on the turn, when the third heart fell, I'm not going to give him credit for much. I would have checked on the turn and considered reraising him if he bet. But then I am a tight-maniac at times. What amazed me was his call! He must have read some of the posts about 10-5s. I have called an unraised pot in the SB with it, but playing it heads up preflop-no way.
I haven't had a chance to read everyone else's responses yet, so this may have already been covered. I would have figured the odds of a bluff to be higher than you did, since having a heart would not be sufficient for him to bet, he needed a high enough heart that a bet would make sense. I would tend to discount him having a 2 in his hand, such that it somehow helped him, and would have a hard enough time believing that he had a high heart that I would make him prove it. There are some hands where you should just accept that you are going to pay him off if you are beat.
Sometimes it helps to think about the river bet as you are paying to see what kind of cards he plays, and how he plays them. That way you don't feel like you threw away money when you are beat, that you got value for your money instead.
A Poker Guy!
Yesterday I entered the Colma NL tourney (Lucky Chances- I hate that name...) I make it to the final table (8players) my first(!) hand is KK (3rd to act), I raise T2000 (blind are 500-1000 with 200 ante and I have maybe 6-7K. Obviously I try to trap someone to double up. guy on my left raises me to all in. Trap shuts closed on me or on him. I push all my chips in. Now at the lucky chances house rule is to heads up all in at the final table both cards are turned over before the flop. He has KQ off. The flop is 10 10 9 - turn blank, river a J. My thoughts were immediately if I had raised all in right away he may have folded (unless he is a very bad player) His chip position on me was about 5:3 (3 being me). So if I make this hand and I am a big favorite before the flop I may have the chance to make serious money (1,2,3 place) What would the tourney pros would havbe done ?? Was a trap a bad idea ? Help !!! Did I screw up big time ???
Hi, It's old question, "The chicken or the egg, which came frist". Poker is a game of chance or luck plus good card play. You did ok, just a bad beat. Have a nice day ron
kk against kq. all in you can take that gamble all day long.
Against that hand, you were a tremendous favorite. He needed a miracle. Unfortunately in poker, miracles do happen sometimes. If I knew the guy had KQ against KK, I would love to put him all in every time, without hesitation. So as far as losing to that hand, it was just bad luck. For what it's worth, I'd have played it roughly the same way. The difference is that with 3100 already in the pot, I would not really have given a rats ass about trapping people, and would have preferred to just drag it down preflop.
He might not have folded to an all-in raise either. People will play any pocket pair aggressively at that point, so he might have figured you for a lower pocket pair. There were only 4 hands that he really had to fear ... AA, KK, QQ and Ax, with KK being the most dreaded.
A Poker Guy!
Andras,
You played it fine. You wanted a player and got one who was drawing extremely thin. You couldn't ask for a much better situation, realistically. Don't let the results discourage you. You just got sucked out on big time.
... 3100 in the pot... IMO, if you want to trap, you have to be pretty sure that someone will reraise you. Your 2000 bet would give the BB 5:1 odds on his call. If you feel that there is a good chance that nobody will reraise, than you probably should raise all-in and drag the 3100. As it was the best possible confrontation happened. You got put all in by a hand that you completely dominated. KK vs KQ, that's a confrontation that you dream about. The blinds are also very large. So your play was correct. the hell with the final board.
Hope I'm never drawing dead (like KQ vs KK),
Albert
For the record, KK beats KQo (assuming no overlapping suits) just under 91% of the time. Hence all the salivating. I also think that moving all in with AQ (much less KQ) against a modest early position raise in a NL tournament is questionable. (Just ask Chuck Thompson). If your opponent was typical of what you saw at final table, I'd return to this tournament a lot.
Here is the situation: AC limit HE tourney final table. 6 players left. 1500 in chips, with approx 43000 in chips out there. Last in chip lead with the next lowest stack being ~5000 or so. Blinds 300-500 (limit 500-1000). Two from button I get Ah5h and raise 1000. All fold except big blind. Flop comes 5 8 J rainbow. BB checks. Put final $500 in. After thinking about it BB calls. Turn blank, river a 6. BB turns over 7h 9h for straight.
Did I go all in too soon?? I figure I had 14 hands before I go bust, and I figured maybe one of them would be good enough as this, but I probably would have half as many chips. Im a beginning tourney player, but this hand bugged me a bit. Comments appreciated.
You played it as good as you could. You got him to chase with 3 outs. But since he only had to call 500 to see the turn and river, he was not too far off from getting odds. When you are the short stack its hard to force people out. He called preflop when he was behind, he called the flop when he was behind, he just caught up. I doubt he would have called the flop if you had enough for another turn-sized full bet. Your only other choice would have been to just become the ultimate rock and hope that others busted each other out so that you would move up. It's all a question of whether or not you are playing to win, or playing to just place as best you can. That move with Axs suggests you were playing to win.
A Poker Guy!
You made the right move, IMHO you have to commit yourself at some point in this situation (last place) and this is a good hand to do it with.
anybody know how i can get a hold of any vodeo tapes of the world series of poker? I keep missing it on espn and i would like to have a copy for my personal collection.
call card players magazine, they have em i think.
i was at a omaha hilo the other day. i kinda zoned out. i was playing way above my bankroll which for me is the norm. there was a lot of money (for me) in each pot, and each pot ment something for me, as far as my income for the week. i started thinking about that and started thinking about my enemy. a race car driver. on tv. a truck driver with his rig broke down. (the live one). a couple of retired gentlemen who seemed to have no fear, and i would guess have retired well. some others. i feel like doyle brunson when he moved up from the gansters game to the up town games. the money is over my head but the action is great. and i feel confident even though omaha hilo is new to me and if i lose this one i dont play for another week. anyway im the favorite to win a significant lump thanks to dave ray and zee. and of course my hard work. not only that but this is not a knock down drag out fight. everyone at the table can afford to be there (except me), are relaxed, ameiable and enjoying themselves. well the story wouldnt be any fun if i hadnt limited my loses to a few hundred, wasnt my night. i came home feeling good. having said that id really appreciate some advice regarding high hand at omaha 8. good hands, call and call one raise from early position? dont call from early if a lot of pots are being popped? call from late if its multiway? raise from any position to try to get it heads up? omaha is such a crazy game there really isnt any good advice?
of course i ment dave, mason, and ray. and im not trying to sound in any way sarcastic. i owe a huge debt of gratitude to the three of you and need advice on the high hands.
ive spent the better part of 7 years now learning stud and hold em, are the split games worth learning?
I've only been a "student" of poker for a year. I don't know if I'm qualified to answer your question. Sklansky's contribution in SuperSystem was in 7 card hi-lo, a game which I believe is rarely, if ever, played any longer. In Gambling for a Living, S&M write about the difference between a good player and a selective good player and one of the qualifications is the ability to play more than one game well. That way you can always be sitting at the best (most profitable) table. Be that as it may, I do not like Omaha hi-lo. I used to love Omaha hi only. It was my most profitable game. Now I rarely get a chance to play it. I abandoned Omaha hi-lo because I found the guys I routinely beat(at hi only) were now splitting pots with me. It may be that my play at hi-lo is not good, but I think Omaha hi-lo gives the poorer player too many outs, whether he is aware of it or not. This may be why it has become so more popular than hi only. As for me, I continue to to study Texas & Omaha Holdem. I am not a professional and these are the games I enjoy. If I were a pro, I would learn (as you have) 7 card stud. Between Holdem and Stud, you ought to be able to find a good game.
Darrell, (If I may call you Darrell) I believe that one of the 2+2 authors (I'm not sure which) has stated that it MAY be o.k. to occaisionally take a shot at a higher level than your bankroll calls for. I belive they state or assume that you at least have enough to comfortably play one session. (maybe 100 -200 Big Bets). Also the game itself (opponents) must warrant taking the shot. I don't know about everyone else but I can tell you that I have played over my level. Usually for all the wrong reasons. Mainly TILT! Playing in a game without an adequate bankroll for at least that session is a big mistake. You give the other players a big edge by playing above your level. Sklansky and Malmuth both emphasize the short term luck factor in Poker. You must consider this when going to a higher level than you can normally afford. You may be the best player at the table and in the short term still lose. You must realize, from your own post, the effect (adverse) of not having an adequate bankroll has on your thinking and mental state. As far as Playing OMAHA. Read Bob Ciaffone's OMAHA Poker. It's a good starting point! An Opinion Vince
im playing over my leval because i feel im the favorite to win almost any limit poker game. i can supply or replenish my bank with my regular living.
I certainly was not critisizing you for playing at a high level. I was trying to point out that anyone that plays at a level higher than their bankroll allows on a regular basis is making a mistake. Your most recent post indicates that isn't the case. I was also trying to make the point that if you decide to "take a shot" at a higher level than your bankroll warrants, it is advisable to do so with at least enough money to play comfortably for the time you plan to play. opinion only vince
I like to raise occasionally with a hand like TJQK to throw some deception in my game. I guess too many people kept saying,"there's one ACE Duece", when I raised. Many people raise only with AA or A2s in Omaha/8. Why be predictable?
A case can be made for never raising pre-flop in Omaha/8, but I like to put money in the pot when I have a good hand. I also like to raise in late position pre-flop with low hands in case I get quartered I can still make a profit.
Malaga Max (formerly Wenatchee Max)
i agree put money in early with a good hand.
Okay, let's suppose you have A,Koffsuit on the button and there are three callers + the blinds. You're playing 1-4-8-8 Hold'em with utter strangers and this is your third hand of the night. Would you raise or just call pre-flop?
Let's say you raised and there are three callers. Flop is 9,6,2rainbow. Opponents check. Would you bet? What if there were only two callers?
Now say flop is Q,9,7rainbow. Opponents check....
I'm just soliciting other players' opinions. The experts seem somewhat divided on how to tackle these situations.
raise pre flop. bet the flop,then if no action, bet the turn. the experts are not divided on this one. however i dont always raise preflop, depends on the game.
1-4-8-8 is the game I usually play in. A while back I posted a similiar question about AKo, except I was talking about early position. In late position, I would raise an unraised pot the max, almost every time. With two overcards, I would bet the max, when checked to me. When checked to me on the turn, I would bet again. If check raised here, I would fold. If checked to on the river, even if I paired the A or K, I would probably check. Why? If I didn't pair, I couldn't beat anything but a bluff, there's nothing out there to scare anyone, and anyone who would call has got me beat. If I paired,I would still not bet. Everyone can see the A or K on the river, and the only person who will call me is the one who can beat me. Exception would be with someone I knew would call me with any pair.
Fellow Poker players. Unless I am reading HPFAP incorrectly the answer is on page 23, The first Two Cards: Late Position, "However, if there are many players, DO NOT raise with unsuited high cards..." This is very good advice. Against many callers AKo/s goes way down in value even from late position. With one caller or possibly two (depending on their calling position) I might raise to drive out the blinds and take control of the pot in a 20/40 game. But, in a 1-4-8-8 game a raise here may not work. With AK suited I would definitely raise.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
True, in my experience, when you are new to the game, they are usually going to call you, if for no other reason than you might be an idiot who doesn't know what you're doing.
If I were playing with strangers, and this was the third hand delt, I would not raise. Players are trying to get a line on your play when you first start and I feel that it is important that you give them as much incorrect information as possible from the start. Most players form a first impression and keep that impression far to long, for this reason I would not raise. I feel raising is the best idea, any time I would raise with a suited AK I would also raise with an unsuited AK.
I would almost always raise pre-flop with AK on the button, unless there are a lot of callers, and three callers is getting up there - but I would still *usually* raise. You want to drive the SB out and you have an excellent hand.
With AK overcards, I would *usually* bet the flop against two or three opponents who checked - but I would also like to know if one or both were the blinds (it helps determine possible hands they could hold).
The second flop with the queen I actually like a little bit better - it would be tougher for an opponent to have 2 overcards. This makes it easier for you to know where you are. I would be more inclined to bet the second flop early in the hand instead of waiting.
I am assuming when you say that it was only the third hand of the night that you had been sitting there a while. In this case, did your opponents see you as pretty tight? If so, this is a perfect opportunity to steal the pot in either one of the flops you mentioned. You showed strength pre-flop by raising. Continue to show strength unless you are re-raised, then I would probably pass. In fact, the second flop may be best actually. By betting out and getting only called you can be almost sure that noone has trip Q's. On the turn when you bet again, you are pretty much representing Q's. Remember, after the flop I think the chances are that you are no longer the best hand. But I still think you are the favorite to take down the pot uncontested.
Actually I meant third hand of the night literally; in other words, no one has formulated an idea of how I play.
But, adopting your assumption, if they did regard me as a tight player, then don't their calls after my raise indicate stronger hands then if I'd been frequently raising all evening?
Some players who raise pre-flop will always bet out on the flop whether they have anything or not. I think that's too predictable.
If you do bet out and continue your "bluff", at least be aware of what your table image is and don't keep betting out when you miss subsequent flops.
Malaga Max (formerly Wenatchee Max)
I appreciate the comments.
Some tangential (?) observations. At this level, I've found that few players can part with pairs, raise or no raise. Since one person is dealt a pair 1/17 of the time, that means that roughly every other hand a pair is out there (on average). With a rag flop the intermediate pairs go way up in value. On that first flop (9,6,2rainbow), opponents with 22, 66, 77, 88, 99, tens, jacks, queens would not likely be intimidated by that flop (to say the least!!) -- in those shoes, I'd be check-raising the pairs and slowplaying the trips. 87 is the one legitimate drawing hand. Most troublesome, perhaps, are hands like A6s and K9s, because if I'm still around when the ace or king comes, I get bushwhacked.
On the second flop (Q,9,7rainbow), there are fewer held pairs to worry about, but there is an awfully good chance that someone has paired that queen. 10,8 and J,10 are the open-end straight draws. Had I raised pre-flop, I would most likely check this flop against three callers. Against two pre-flop callers, I might bet.
The key question of whether to raise with this sort of hand in this spot is whether your raise will limit the field so that you can sometimes win without improving. With just three people in at $1-$4-$8-$8 (and I'm assuming blinds of $1 and $2) the answer has to be yes.
You should also bet with either flop. You may have the best hand and you can't afford to give a free card.
I have played the way you recommend but found that, in certain games, people with money already invested in the pot pre-flop (blinds more or less excepted) simply could not be "ousted" by a late-position raise. Then, against three or four opponents, I would "bluff" the flop and narrow the field, often bet the turn, sometimes the river and lose when the final board showed something like Q94 7 3 to 98s or 64s.
I think we'd agree (correct me if I'm wrong) that betting into a field of six players on a no-help flop would be less than optimal (yes, they've checked to the raiser, but I would gauge that at least one or two have been helped and won't budge and that at least one other person has a drawing hand). When heads up, I would bet most flops.
By the way, sometimes I find myself playing devil's advocate in these posts to induce novel or time-tested arguments that will either corroborate my habitual tendencies or send me back to the drawing board.
If you are playing in a very loose passive game where noone will fold, then you are correct. In most cases, the games are more like the one Mason described. Of course if I were in a game like the one you described, I would only be betting with very strong hands. Six people seeing the flop and no one will ever fold. That is like a dream game isn't it?
"The key question of whether to raise with this sort of hand in this spot is whether your raise will limit the field" The key point in this statement is "whether your raise will limit the field". You should have a good feel for the opponents that will act after you to believe a raise will have the effect you desire. Preflop play in this situation is somewhat opponent dependent. A definitive "yes" raise in this situation without considering this aspect of the hand is not correct. By the way, I believe this is what you are saying but I'm not sure. The problem I have with your answer is that from the way I read it you assume that the (some) players that act after you will fold thus limiting the field to < 6. This contradict's the conjecture that player's that have voluntarily entered a pot are more likely to call a raise. Also, those in the blinds may be more inclined to call in anticipation of a "big" pot. Although trying to limit the field in this situation is correct, I don't believe that in most instances a raise will accomplish this. One other thing, for what it's worth, I don't play 1-4-8-8. Opinion by Vince
You have a number of ways to win:
1) High Card 2) Draw Ace or King on turn or river 3) Draw Ace/Ace; King/King; Ace/King on the turn and river 4) Bluff successfully
You have a number of ways to lose:
1) Any pair or more opposing you 2) A successful bluff against you 3) You bluff unsuccessfully
The possibility of a bluff against you is something to be considered on almost any rainbow flop to relatively few players, which makes your ace playable and a bluff on your part a sometimes successful play.
I would probably run a bluff just to introduce myself. Or not. Maybe just get a cup of coffee and wait.
How's that for analysis?
A Novice
raise,bet,bet
I've had the pleasure[?] of playing in some hyper loose low limit hold and it's become obvious that a raise [or even reraising] drives out no more than 1-2 callers. I've thought about whether I should raise pre-flop with decent hands such as KJs and my thinking has gone in two directions:
1] Raise at least once since players are staying in with poor hands, they need to pay for that right. After all, my hand will be amongst the top three with 8-10 callers.
2] Don't raise and get good value for good drawing hands like 10-9s...but with such large pots, it forces people to chase longer. I've actually seen a pot won with 2-7o played by the button [can't remember if it was a raised pot.
If I had a deep bankroll, I'd be raising those family pots with no hesitation but currently I'm picking my spots.
Suited connectors go up in value in a loose game - "premium" hands go down in value.
Sklansky had a great analogy as to why in one his books (or articles). Imagine a horse which always completes the race in exactly one minute, an excellent time (a premium hand). Now you are up against one other horse, who completes the race ramdomly anwhere between 0:59 and 1:03 - sometimes it wins, but usually it doesn't (a come hand). So there is a 20% chance you will lose. Your horse/hand is a 4:1 favorite heads up.
Now you are up against that same horse, along with five other identical horses. Now how do you feel about your premium hand? Not so good. Why? Because odds are that one of the five will post a better time than 1:00.
In a game that you cannot get heads up, you should play hands like T9s strongly, as well as KJs (unsuited they are much weaker in this game as compared to a tighter game). Ace-anything suited and small pairs also go up in value. A premium hand such as AK goes down in value. In particular you need to be very cautious marginal hands such as AQ and AJ. In a tight game T9s is weaker than AQ. In the game you describe, I would rather have T9s.
Go ahead and raise, get the pot built up, and keep the other hands committed. These are the hands that make monster pots in no foldem. In a tight game, you can make money by pickup up small pots. In this game, you make your money by building a monster and hitting your hand.
This post applies to no-foldem holdem.
Mr. Sklansky's analogy applies much better to stud than holdem; since in Holdem there are only a few possible hands that can lagitimately contest a pot (flush draw, a couple of gut draws, 2nd pair, and 3rd pair ...). After a few callers, any additional ones do not affect your chances of losing much, if at all. If you have a straight and are against one flush draw you CERTAINLY want the other flush draw (of same suit) to call. If 2nd pair calls you usually want the other opponent with 2nd pair to call as well.
Your analysis of changing hand values in loose games is on the money (except perhaps "premium" hands), but that does NOT mean you should raise with them; although it could. To this I had the trash hands get WORSE in multi-way pots: you prefer 85 heads up.
Since the opponents are going to call regardless of pot size, "manipulating the size of the pot" is usually a waste of money. But "check to the raiser" tendancies encourage late raises.
You beat no-foldem games primarily with pre-flop and flop hand selection. Then comes getting hopeless overcalls on the end and getting the tight players to give excessive action. These can be accomplished with relatively weak marginal bets and raises early. THIS, I think, is the main reason to raise with marginal hands.
But after all the theoretical/psycological smoke clears, the main reason to raise is if you think you are ACTUALLY going to win the pot more often than the number of callers you expect. If so raise, if not call. Start with that, then adjust it as you see fit.
- Louie
"You beat no-foldem games primarily with pre-flop and flop hand selection. Then comes getting hopeless overcalls on the end and getting the tight players to give excessive action."
I completely agree with this statement. In fact, I can't think of anything more important in a very loose game. Patience is a virtue that is essential in poker. The previous poster is right on about hand selection in these games. Hands like AQ get beat so often in these games that I, with very few exceptions, limp in with it. Suited connectors become very important. Sometimes I am surprised in these games because, unlike tough poker when you can easily read the board, low-limit wild games lead to surprising outcomes. My philosophy in these games is to only play the hands where you have high % nuts, and not to play fancy at all. It's not necessary. Playing fancy is usually done to get more money in the pot. In these games, just betting gets money in the pot. And forget about fancy play to steal many pots. Maybe this message is old and worn-out, but the information seems so important to me, I had to ramble on a little about it.
->>>Maybe this message is old and worn-out, but the information seems important to me, I had to ramble on a little about it<<<-
The most important stuff bears repeating. Many players who play well in the tougher games get bored in these games waiting for hands and try the fancy stuff which has lttle value. The tried and true mentioned in the above posts are very close to the best way to play.
Raising before the flop, even in no foldem hold'em games is a good investment for two reasons. If you are in a early position often players will fold and that improves you chances. If you are in a late position you get good value for your raise because players will stay in and call. If a hand is to be considered "premium" I feel that it will stand up 20% or more of the time. If you have more money in the pots you win than the pots you loose you should make money! Sure you will get drawn out on but that is what keeps loosers playing - God bless them.
Thanks to the kind words a couple posts above. But to nit-pick a little:
There is plenty of opportunities for "fancy plays" in the very loose games; its just that these plays are different than "normal" fancy plays. Make it 3 bets to the field, check raise the maniac 3 times in one hand, cap it AGAIN with the nut draw on the turn, raise one last time on the river, ...
And to this post ... the hands you will get to fold B4 the flop are the very weakest hands; and these are the ones you WANT in the pot. Raises have value when you can get the lagitimate draw hands to fold, like Axs, 55, and 87s. If you have AKs and are against 5 callers, why not have everyone else with group 12 hands come on in also?
I suggest that "raising to thin the field" is a beneficial aim when against the marginal callers, not against the hopeless ones. So ... consider which types of hands will fold if you raise. (Such a consideration leads to the conlusion of not raising with KJh early in a normal game: all the worse Ks and Js and hearts are likely to fold; often leaving you naked against a better hand in better position.)
- Louie
Nice posts, Louie. I've been playing in a 5-10 HE game where there are a lot of familiar faces. There is this one guy (not a maniac) who never calls the flop but when he plays always raises pre-flop no matter what position. He plays a lot of mediocre starting hands, like KJ, Q10s, etc. but insists on raising every time. I love to play on his left because all I do is sit and wait for a premium hand, three bet him, and usually isolate him and one or two limpers and destroy them (discounting bad beats). He asked me once if I thought his play was too aggressive. I thought to myself that 'predictable' was more expressive of his style. In fact, I would categorize this fellow as a passive, compulsive preflop raiser? Would you argue that this person is aggresive or passive?
...
It could mean one of two things depending on the context:
- It might just refer to a hopelessly bad call i.e. it's clear to everyone else that the caller has no chance to win the pot
- It usually refers to the actions of a second caller (usually after the river). When you make an overcall, you need to have a stronger hand than what you may just call with. That is, you may call with a fairly weak hand if you think the bettor may have bet an even weaker hand. But when you overcall, you need to beat both the bettor and the caller. Thus, you shouldn't overcall without a fairly strong hand and that's exactly what weak players do.
In the loose games you are going to get hopeless calls.
Yes, "overcall" refers to actions after there has been at least one caller.
Bad players generally consider the hand value of the better (as influenced by "image") but fail to consider the presumed hand value of the caller. Bless 'em.
But since I really like to nit-pick:... Actually, with potential over-callers there are times when you should be more willing to RAISE when your hand is weaker, in order to discourage an over-call. A flat call with players behind you indicates you believe you have them beat as well.
If your hand is worth one bet to call and win this pot, its usually worth one more bet to raise if that will increase your chances; yaddy yaddy ya. This is especially true in these no-fold'em games where the pot is routinely huge by the time you get to the river. When in doubt, RAISE on the end. (Players are much more likely to call a double bet on the turn, when they can still improve, than the river) And who says there is no place for fancy plays in these loose games .... ;)
- Louie
"You beat no-foldem games primarily with pre-flop and flop hand selection."
This statement clearly can't be right. In games where pots get big your play after the flop has to be crucial. Think about it. A mistake that can cost you many bets has to be worse than a mistake that can only cost you a few. The same is true for a terrific play that saves you many bets as opposed to one that saves you true.
I do agree that many players cost themselves money in very loose games by not understanding the proper adjustments in hand selection. They may play the right number of hands, but their mix of hands is wrong.
Post deleted at author's request.
This is not a strongly held view on my part, so correct me if I am wrong. My experience with small pairs in a loose low limit games has been dismal and I often fold them. If suited connectors go up in value then low pairs should go down in value as well as the stronger pairs. In a low limit no fold em game you lose the option of an effective semi-bluff and someone will ALWAYS get a higher pair at a full table.
You are left hoping for low trips -- which will lose to higher trips, straight and flush often enough to kill your bankroll and everybody in no fold em is in with god knows what gunning to beat your little pair of 3's. Also, you are generally making a terrible call if you don't get your trips on the flop, so you will often fold prior to making your trips on the turn or river. Overall small pairs seem to me to remain crap and possibly GO DOWN in value in a loose game.
Shorthanded they are great regardless of limit.
Waiting to be educated.
Novice.
It's a matter of degree. The value of small pairs does go up in a loose game (i.e. as compared to a tight game). The same holds true for suited connectors. Both hands offer good implied odds.
With a small pocket pair, you should get out after the flop if you don't flop a set. (Even here there are some exceptions. If the betting is "closed" by the time it's your turn to act, you may want to pay to see the turn card if the pot is big enough. For example, if a bet comes from your immediate left and several people call, you may want to peel off one more card depending on the texture of the flop. You know you can't be raised and you still have good implied odds if you spike your card on the turn. When you make this play, you should ensure that if the board has a two flush, one of the cards you hold is the same suit as that two flush. This is because you don't want to be in the position of making your set but running into a flush).
By the way, even in a loose game, I wouldn't be too concerned about running into a higher set when you go fishing in with a small pocket pair. These set over set confrontations are very rare.
In a loose game, I would play my set fast i.e. I'd get as many raises in as possible on the flop. If the game is real loose, even players who are drawing dead or nearly dead will call you anyways so there's no need to slowplay.
If I understand your reasoning skp you are saying that the low probability of flopping trips is offset by the size of the potential pot in a loose game. This is a good point. However, discounting the probability of higher trips, or a straight or flush seems to me a mistake in a loose game. The number of people drawing (often with correct or close to correct odds) to inside straights and even 3 flushes is larger than in a tight game, as are the persons with medium pairs which did not make a set on the flop but are staying in hoping for trips, and the low pairs on the board calling and hoping. Sounds like a great situation to be in, but I'm still not sure that the cost of seeing the flop plus the cost of losing occassionally but big when you do make trips is outweighed by the size of the pots you win.
In a tight game you don't get the pot odds to see the flop, but you also don't get enough people drawing to low probability hands to beat you any significant number of times if you make your trips, and you have the possibility of a successful semi-bluff if the opportunity presents itself.
Still undecided.
Still a Novice.
I agree with everything you said except for the last line of the first paragraph. In my experience, playing small pocket pairs in these types of games has been profitable in the long run. Yes, your flopped trips are going to get run down by gut shots, backdoor flushes etc. but not often enough to offset the big pots you take down when your set holds up. Also, don't forget that even if the gut shot gets there on the turn, you will go on to fill up a number of times on the river.
My records show sets lose about twice every nine times I have flopped them. But maybe my results are different then others; I rarely slowplay them on the flop. The lower limit games I play in have a standard routine: raise (or check raise) 2 pair on the flop, and slowplay a flopped set, so I try to be different.
One fun play: If you miss hitting a set on the flop, it is not unusual for a pair to be on the board. In passive games many players who have a 3rd matching card will not bet an "exposed" set until the turn. If this happens , (or even if I must call a single bet),and if my pocket pair is higher then the pair on the board, I usually look at the turn, because if you hit one of 2 outs on the turn, you have a very strong, very deceptive hand.
I've hit the full house several times in this situation, and frankly I can't say for sure if it's all that profitable long term, but it can really make your session when it hits.
I think they go up in value, but you are right - if you don't hit them on the flop, almost always fold. If you do hit - don't stop raising. Even if a pair comes along, I would be inclined to press my full house all the way.
Makes sense Dan. I am skittish because of a loss to a full house when a LOWER card to my low trips paired. Crazy hand to stay in with on the other guys part even to see the flop. Know it was a bad beat --- but you get more bad beats in a very loose game and my inclination is to stay away from hands that fall into such traps more often than others. Will bet the hell out of low trips if i am lucky enough to get them in a loose game, that I agree with.
Novice.
This hand occured in a limit HE tournament last nite. It was a no re-buy tournament, paying 3 places. Blinds at this point were 25 and 50, with bet sizes of 50-100 anytime (non-normal structure) There were 20 entrants. I got KhKd in 7th position of an unopened pot, made it $150 to go, and had only the small blind call (a woman who had been re-seated to our table seconds earlier, and who had just been dealt her first hand) Both the small blind and I had about T700 in chips. I felt she had two big cards, as it is not unusual for tournament players at this casino to play a medium pair fast before the flop. I felt she would play back with a big pair.
Flop comes 5d7h8h, she checks, I bet she calls. Turn is 2h, she checks, I bet, she calls. Up till now I felt pretty good about my hand, but now I feel she has a heart draw, at worst. The river brings 3h, she bets out. Since I have the Kh, I call based on the possibility he had something lame like Qh, but she shows me Ah6h. (She had checked the nuts on the turn.)
Comment on my play are appreciated. TIA
The
Sounds like you did everything right but got unlucky. However, one possibile alternative would have been to check the turn with the intention of calling down any bet on the river. This may enduce a bluff with the scary board when your hand is better and saves you a money when your hand is worse. There are not many free cards to beat you against the most likely hand she has (based on what you know at that point in time).
I think in the tourney you are much less inclined to risk the pot for an extra bet, even at +EV face value.
But I don't think this is one of those +EV situations, since the only hand you are drawing dead against is the Axh; and that board isn't very scary when only one person called.
- Louie
Doesn't sound like you could have played it any other way. But why didn't she check-raise you on the turn? Either she was afraid of the board pairing or was pretty sure you would call her on the end. Whatever it took to get you into a position where you were all in is how I would have played it. I would have check-raised on the river, even taking the chance you would not have bet, if it meant I could get you all in. If betting on the river got you all in, fine. I haven't played in many tournaments, but it seems to me eliminating players, not winning an extra bet, is what it's about.
Actually, I wasn't all in; still had about T400. Luckily, about 6 hands later I picked up AA on the button, in an unopened pot. I made it T150, and he played back, I re-raised, and he played back again and put me in for my last T50. As it was he had JJ and since I had stolen the blinds the previous time I held the button he put me on a steal. The board showed 5 rags so the aces held.
What could you do in that situation but take your medicine? You have to pay off in that situation.
You played it right. She made a mistake in not raising on the turn. The bottom line, you saved money.
My thanks to 2+2 for accepting my guest essay "Profitable Bluffs in Hold 'em". Special thanks to Mason for his suggestions on improving the first draft which I submitted to him.
I invite comment from the Forum regulars on the plays described in my essay and further invite discussion on other profitable bluffs not mentioned in my essay.
Great essay. However, most of these bluffs only work against fairly competent players. Of the many excellent bluffing situations that commonly arise, here are two of my favorites, as they work against just about anyone.
1) You're in early position w/ two paints, and the flop is a rainbow w/ a low pair and no card higher than a nine. Great check raise bluff, since players in late position will often try to steal w/o even a piece of the flop.
2) Bet out when the flop is one suit, and the highest card is a jack. Since in many low limit games people will play ANY ace, and often any king, there's a smaller chance that anyone got top pair. If someone calls, then bets out on the turn, fold.
Both of these have worked for me in the past- the first one is particularly effective in the blinds if there was no preflop raise, since you could have any number of lousy cards that just happened to get a huge piece of the flop.
I like the first play more than the second.
However, as always, you need to know how tough your opponent is when you pull a move like that. For example, a tough player who bets in late position and is raised by you in the blinds may put on his thinking hat and say to himself "well, I know GD is a good player. If GD really did hit trips, why would he raise me (a late position bettor) and narrow the field. Sounds to me like he's just representing trips - he can't really have them. Well, I'll just raise him back. Or maybe I'll just call and pop him on the turn."
In your 1st example you probably have the best hand,it is not a bluff if you have the best hand,anyone with any pair would probably re-raise you or at least call all the way,you may get someone to lay down A-high,that would be the only way I could think of this being a successful bluff. In your 2nd example you say alot of players will play ace anything or K anything,that means chances are good someone is drawing to the joint and isn't going anywhere.
The first time I read through it I was a little skeptical about the value of the bluffs. However, after taking a closer look, I realized how great these bluffs were in serious higher-limit games. I can tell you spent some real time and energy writing it and it paid off, it is a great essay.
I'd like to add one of my favorite bluffs to the situation you discribe in numbers one and two; five or six limp in, paint and rags flop, check around, pair the paint or another rag on the turn. Now the good player in the blind bets. If I'm sitting in middle position and all fold to me, I raise if I've got two cards higher than the rags. I'm trying for heads-up with the bettor or outright win. I consider it a semi-bluff because I assume the blind will bet his top pair on the flop seeking clarification. Any bet on the turn from him I'm suspicious. My two "overcards" give me outs. What could I have? I've made an unprotected raise in an awkward position. Often this seeming weak play is enough to induce folds all around.
Somewhat risky. What you are doing is spotting a likely bluff and raising yourself as a bluff. Obviously, you are risking more than the initial bluffer.
As well, in your shoes, I couldn't be so sure that the guy in the blind doesn't have a real hand. He may well have checked top pair/weak kicker on the flop to keep his options open. In fact, as stated in my essay, that's the reason why a bluff on the turn by the blind will often succeed.
A couple thoughts on the low limit game. I was reading Lee Jones' book last night, and while it's a well written book, with good ideas, there's a couple things that it missed. When I first started playing I bought this book, and followed it almost verbatim... then wondered why certain plays he recommended often costed me a fortune. After further deliberation, I think I've refined the strategy for the low limit game, and thought I pass on these tidbits for comments/ criticism.
Play 1- Playing suited connectors w/ top card lower than a nine in middle position.
This play, in my opinion, is usually a disaster. In most of the low limit games I've played in, people in late position will play almost ANY suited face card, which obviously hurts your chances of getting paid off when you make the flush. Mason said as much in an earlier post, and for that, Mason, I am indeed grateful.
Play 2- Playing suited aces w/ lousy kicker in middle position. Again, most players will play any ace- and while you're really hoping for a flush draw, this alone doesn't make Axs profitable, considering that you'll only make the flush six percent of the time. One of your major outs involves top pair. But in a game where every ace is playing, there's a disturbingly good chance that some yahoo w/ A9o is going to call you all the way to the river when you've got a dud for a kicker. Couple this with the payouts you make when you do get the flush draw but don't make it and you've got a VERY marginal hand.
Play 3- Playing AK heads up against a tight, preflop raiser. In fact, I would extend this to playing anything against a tight, pre flop raiser except for AA, KK and MAYBE pocket queens if the raiser in question has been silent for four or five hours, then comes out of the gate raising. While AKo plays better shorthanded, I think it's at its best against three, maybe four players. Heads up it's a disaster, since you'll only flop a pair 30% of the time. When the flop misses you (and it usually will) what are you going to do?
When I think of all the ways low limit players lose money (and there are many) I think this is the biggest culprit- playing too many hands pre-flop if there's been a raise. This is particularly true in a 2-5 game where the raise is 5 and it costs 2 to limp- in most cases I just fold here. If the game is passive (and most are) then there's at least a 30-40% chance that the raiser has got a big pocket pair- either that or a big suited draw. This obviously puts the hurt on your small suited connectors, as well as most 'middling' pocket pairs (tens, nines, usually even jacks).
I realize that most of this is self-evident, and the only reason I mention it is because I think there's a lot of low limit terrain that hasn't been covered, or, if it has, has been covered improperly. While I won't pretend that the low limit game is all that hard, it does require some modifications in one's strategy. These three moves immediately come to mind, but I know there are others which I've either a) missed, or b) don't have time to set forth. I'll be interested to hear what you all think.
I strongly disagree with Nos. 2 and 3.
Axs is ideal in the type of game that you are describing. Your problem may be that you are not distinguishing between a raise and a limp when you have one of these hands or that your play from the flop on may need some improving.
Well, Mason, I could live with that, but if G.D.'s first point were true, why does HPFAP say that you can play a Group 5 hand(including 87s and 76s) from a middle position in an unraised pot? Have I missed something here? Because suited connectors go up in value in a loose game and this can very much be expected from a low limit HE game. So why not play them?
He specifically said, if I remember his post right, that many players were routinely playing any face card suited. If that is the case, it can hurt the value of small suited connectors.
HPFAP is for Middle Limit games where you have fewer players in general seeing the flop, thus making the semibluff an essential part of winning. Semibluffing at low-limit is less likely to be correct since there are usually more players involved. I can sometimes pick up a pot when I started with 87s from middle position with a bet on a flop which doesn't help me (as long as it doesn't help anyone else and I get the first bet in). This however is very improbable if the game is loose low-limit since checking and calling is what the *contributing* players do.
I would not disagree with folding AKo against a player that has been asleep for four hours - why give this guy any action except with AA or KK. But against any other player, including a tight player, I would play this hand.
I agree that playing AKo head-to-head against a pre-flop raiser who only raises with AA, KK, QQ, or AK is fruitless, because an even bet is the best one can do. But if I'm the aggressor with AKo (pre-flop raise), I'd much rather have one caller than two, three, or more.
I completely agree. What I'm talking about is situations where there's a raise before it gets to you, the raise was made by a total rock, and the pot is going to be heads up if you call.
I agree with point #1. The value of low suited connectors is more in their being connectors, than suited. The few times you do draw a flush, you will either get very little action or be beaten by a bigger flush. I disagree with #2,though I prefer to play A/2-5 suited. This gives me the small chance for a straight draw also. Ciaffone rates A2s equal to JTs. I don't go that far with it. But anytime you are below AJ, you worry about kicker problems. I agree with #3. AKo is a hand that cannot win,short of bluffing, without help. While I like to play it against a limited field, I don't like it heads up. I used to raise with it from any position,now only if I am sure it will reduce a large field.
Why don't you like AKo heads up?
Let's say opponent has intermediate pair like 99 or 88. Unless he catches trips, any flop with a higher card, particularly ace, king, queen, or jack has to give pause and increase the odds of a successful bluff if you bet the flop without having paired. Especially if you're the type of person who'll raise AJ, KQ, JJ, etc. against a small field. Any Ax or Kx and you're a prohibitive favorite. He could have QQ but then why didn't he raise? Even if he does, you're not much of a dog (52/48). I would expect to bring the bacon home 65% of the time or more in this situation.
There are those occasions when even loosey-goosey low limit play resembles high limit play. Maybe the losers have tightened up. Maybe it's just one of those hands when most players were dealt unspeakable trash.
You are 2-1 to flop either an A or K. I play tight and aggressive, more so than S&M. I'm sure the others I play with on a regular basis recognize this. For one of them to stay heads up with me, I assume they have the bacon. I didn't say I don't play it, I just don't like it.
My experience (again anectotal) is that if a player who hasn't raised pre-flop since the Bronze Age suddenly comes out blasting, they've got AA or KK 90% of the time. This is particulary true if the player in question is over seventy or a middle aged woman. In cases like this, the problems w/ AK are- well, you know how the phrase goes, the worst thing is getting there.
Low Limit HE
"Play 1- Playing suited connectors w/ top card lower than a nine in middle position." "usually a disaster"
"Play 2- Playing suited aces w/ lousy kicker in middle position." "you've got a VERY marginal hand."
"Play 3- Playing AK heads up against a tight, preflop raiser" "Heads up it's a disaster"
If your strategy states throw away these starting hands in all situations your are going to find that you are giving up too much in a loose low limit game. Why in the world anyone would throw away Axs in middle position in an unraised loose low limit game. These conjectures do not seem to have been well thought out or proven in any reasonable way. Of course that doesn't make them wrong, just suspect. My opinion Vince
Well, OF COURSE there suspect. And, if follows, that of course there not proven. They are simple ideas, thats all- possibilities for refining low limit strategy in particular situations, which I have merely posted for your consideration.
Whoooaaa, boys! Hold on just a second, and let me explain what I was trying to get at here.
My opinion of hands like suited connectors and suited aces is, admittedly, a bit skewed, since in the game I play in bets on third street are the same amount as bets on fourth and fifth; hence, it costs more to GET there, but you can't extract as much once you do get there. And I'll be the first to admit that the ideas I've set forth in this post are based exclusively on anecdotal evidence and have no mathematical backing. In fact, after reviewing the matter, I'll admit I'm wrong.
But that really isn't the point. The occasion that inspired this post happened this weekend, in an incredibly loose passive 2-5 hold 'em game at the Bullwhacker casino in Blackhawk, Colorado. Now we've all played in some loose passive games, but this one beat all. And to further sweeten things, I was playing with what may have been the worst collection of hold 'em players ever assembled in the Western world. One guy, after getting a particularly bad (but not unusual) beat put on him, began folding his cards without looking at them, telling the dealer that he wasn't going to play until the dealer 'straightened out'. About six of the guys there appeared to be regulars, and religiously played, from any position 35o, which they called the 'Ethiopian Slingshot' and vehemently maintained had religous powers. Anyway, you get the idea...
I played for about fourteen hours and lost, due in large part to two savage beats put on your hero from which I couldn't recover (I won't bore you with the details, except to say that both involved situations where I flopped top set, and lost to pocket pairs that caught runner runner quads). These two hands alone, had they come through, would have swung me about 175$ into the black. Still, as I thought back on it, it seemed like I still should have come away with some chips, if only because the game was so good.
After brooding over my losses for a while, I got in the car and drove home. And like after every losing session, I started thinking about just what had gone wrong. Now usually I can point to a couple dumb plays that cost me a couple bucks, but in this case nothing sprang to mind. What, exactly, had gone wrong?
Here's what I came up with. As a rule, we talk about 'types' of games- loose passive, tight passive, loose aggressive, etc.- and this sort of catagorization does a good job of giving our fellow players who weren't in the game and idea of what kind of game it is. But within these types are a million subtypes- for example, there are loose passive games where almost everyone sees the flop, then folds if it didn't hit them hard, games where maybe only five or six people see the flop but chase almost any goofy draw, and so on. Further compounding the problem is loose passive games can vary simply by what sort of hands people are willing to play preflop. Sometimes you find a table where people play almost any suited cards. On other occasions it's people who will play any ace or king, or any two connectors. In otherwords, simply calling a game 'loose passive' may have some value, in that it helps give someone a general impression of the game, but it does a woefully inadequate job of detailing the particulars of the game you were in.
I don't know this for sure, but I'm willing to guess that with a few exceptions (AA and KK spring to mind) most playable hands have a marginal +EV, and that it's the cumulative EV of these hands that provides the substantual profit a good player can show. But any of these hands on their own show a neglibable profit. In otherwords, in order to show a decent profit, one needs to know how to play almost all these 'so-so' hands well.
Now we'll all admit that certain hands, like the infamous suited connector, is a situational hand- that is, it only plays well in certain circumstances. Now what I was wondering is if a hand like 76s, which is generally a gem in a loose passive game, may not be worth the trouble in CERTAIN KINDS of loose passive games. In other words, the term loose-passive is not absolute- it does not denote a PARTICULAR value, but rather applies to a group of games with common characteristics. However, it seems like there's a chance that at times one will one across a game that is, say, loose passive, but that lacks the characteristics which make 76s profitable. What are these characteristics? Do they exist? I can't answer that. The characteristic I proposed, that is, games where everyone plays suited paint, was quickly shot down by Mason, so we can eliminate that. But that doesn't prove, or even indicate, that there aren't certain kinds of loose passive games in which certain hands that ordinarily would play well don't.
All this is a long way of saying that a player might further their EV if there was some way to identify the subsets of 'loose passive' (or 'loose aggresive', etc.) and make the according strategy refinements. For instance, AQ can be a powehouse in a game where the table will fold if they don't get a piece of the flop, but it can run into real problems if three or four people are committed to playing the hand to the bitter end.
As I mentioned previous, I'm not committed to this idea. But I do think it's worth throwing around.
I think your point regarding suited connectors is the one conjecture that Mason did tend to agree with. He said that if players routinely played any suited face cards, then hands like 87s are devalued.
In general, I agree that suited connectors are overvalued in loose passive games, particularly out of position. Many players will routinely play all or most suited connectors, including "gapped" hands in any position. Like you, I don't have any scientific evidence, but I think that these hands lose money for most players in the kinds of loose games that you describe.
The characteristic you're looking for is a *chasing quotient*. The suited connectors usually win when they complete a good draw, and when you bluff or semibluff an uncalled bet on the flop. Therefore when there are more players willing to go to the river calling all bets holding bottom pair with no extra outs or a pocket underpair, the EV of your suited connectors dips into the negative. You need loose passive players who are also willing to fold their trash when they only get marginal help from the flop.
Recently I posted to message saying that I had won one hand in 4hrs at hold em. The chances being about 1:50,000 under certain assumptions. Seems like a reasonable answer.
Yesterday I lost a ton playing head up against a player who flopped bottom trips while I flopped top two pair, three times in a row!
Both of these events are outrageous anomolies, so called "tail events". The problem with discussing these tail events is that such as classification only can happen by looking back over a data set. Ie, for any given big swing of money, I could find a tail event.
This leads to the question: is there a theory of "tail" events in poker? Meaning, has research been conduction on the notion of, "in a given n hour session, what is the probability that I will experience a tail event?"
This of course would require a full definition of all possible tail events. Perhaps it could be quantified, perhaps not. Since there are only a finite number of hand arrangements, this could theoretically be done.
The reason that such a theory would be interesting is that these tail events are the ones that either (i) make you want to quit the game or (ii) keep you playing. I assume that the frequency of tail events correlates to variance of the game, but it seems to measure something somewhat different.
Perhaps the probability of a tail event is actually a second order variance.
Any comment on this idea would be of interest.
-Paul Martino
I think that one of the 2+2 books contains a very good chapter on bankroll requirements because of such problems. I think the name of the chapter is "Is your wallet deep enough" but I can't remember which book (they all just start to blend together).
Besides psychological reasons, why would it matter how many times per hour you get a good hand beaten? Will the results affect the way you play? Knowing some sort of average could be detrimental to the way you play. When something like that happens to me I say to my opponent, "wow, I can't beat you today," and look sort of angry. Try to look like a steamer in this situation in case you really do get a good hand in the immediate future, your opponent is less likely to respect your betting (at least in the games I play in). If I do get a good hand in the immediate future, I like to call their bets down to the river and look disgusted doing it, like I am chasing a bad hand. If I am sure I have the best hand on the river, I raise. Then, if I was wrong and didn't have the best hand (small portion of the time if I choose the right hands to play this way), then I appear even more angry and hopeless. The more angry and/or hopeless you look, the less they will respect your show of strength. This is the only thing that can be gained from such experiences. If you look hopeless enough, you can have several callers for your raises even on the flop through the river.
The book is POKER, GAMING, AND LIFE by David Sklansky and the chapter is called "Is Your Wallet Fat Enough."
I couldn't remember the name of the book. Do you agree with my conclusions in my above post?
I once sat down, went 4 hrs before winning a hand, then went 3 more before winning another (6-12 HE, Commerce). I also three times have won over $2000 in about 6 hrs at $10-20 HE. Outrageous anomialies, tail events, 1:50000 ? PUHLEEZE. Whining about bad beats is not allowed here.
This is not whining at all, I am looking to find some mathematical basis for these "tail" events. Further, I am attempting to quantify the chances of a tail event in an n-hour session. These events could be good as well as bad.
You clearly have misunderstood what I am discussing.
-paul
Post deleted at author's request.
This is exactly the kind of analysis I am interested in pursing. I have been spending a few days trying to figure out an attack. (I have a mathematics degree). But nothings has struck me yet.
-paul
You might take a look at Options Evaluation theory.
After publishing their initial work
Black and Scholes received some criticism for underestimating
the occurrence of tails.
Some fix ups were suggested.
If I were going to try to analyze tail events I think I'd start with a fairly simple subset -- eg define an unfavorable tail event as getting a very good hand (eg, 2 top pair) at the same time that another player gets a better one (eg, bottom trips). One could categorize all possible flops (by patterns of combinations of gaps and suitedness-- admittedly, this would not be trivial); figure out how many in each category, then for each category figure out how many flops would produce a given final hand. (eg, for flops of the type x(2)x(3)xxx w/o flush potential(such as 259TJ)it's not hard to count the # of flops that would make, say, a straight. Then you could figure the probability of any given hand occurring and being beaten by another given hand. This may not be at all what you had in mind since it's more brute force than theory.
I am going to Vegas, and want to try one of the poker rooms for the 1st time. whats the best game to break in on, and not look like a fool??????
what type of game do you want to play? Texas hold'em or 7 stud? I would recommend the Mirage's 1 to 5 7 stud or their 3/6 hold'em games. Also many of the Casinos have small limit card rooms and to my knowledge most are very accomodating to new players.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
The Palace Station has a low limit 2-4 hold and a 1 -5 seven or lower also The Excaliber has low limit games.
Remember this is casino poker not home poker so follow the book as to what hands to play and what hands to fold.
there are always new people at a 1-5 stud table. You won't stick out at all there if you don't know all the rules and/or courtesies.
Omaha is not my game. However, in my town, a new 20-40 Omaha hi-low game has just sprung up. The game has a lot of fairly weak players. At least, they are weak Hold 'em players but I suspect that their weakness will carry over to Omaha. In any event, I intend on playing in that game soon. I have started to read Bob Ciaffone's book and Ray Zee's book.
But I have a simple question for now.
When I play hold 'em, I look at my cards, protect them, and never look at them again. I think that looking at your hand after the flop, turn etc. gives away a lot of information about your hand.
So, my question is "how should I go about memorizing my Omaha hand?" Any tips would be appreciated.
P.S. Any comments on Cappelletti's Omaha book? Is it worth a read?
If you check "favorite links", you will find Dan Kimberg's book reviews, which is a complilation. Mason Malmuth has written many reviews there. He does not think much of Cappaletti on Omaha. I don't think he reviewed The Best of Cappaletti on Omaha. I think these books are drawn directly from his articles in Card Player. I know he has developed a point system for rating starting Omaha hands, but this applies to Omaha hi only, I believe. I don't use his system and I haven't read his books. I would be interested in others opinions of Omaha hi-lo vs. Omaha hi only.
When I play Omaha/8 I try to memorize my hole cards. It really shouldn't be a problem when you are playing coordinated cards. Say Ad2dJT. Memorize what you have for low, the suit if you can make flush. And the other 2 cards, which should be usually a pair, another 2 low cards, or connectors.
Carlos
... hmmm... Cappelletti on Omaha... :)
Where is this new 20/40 Omaha game?
Albert
Come on down to Beautiful Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
P.S. Don't forget your umbrella!
Being Canadian myself, I cannot help but note with some chagrin that a 20-40 game in Canadian dollars is just barely larger then a 10-20 game in the US.
Being a holdem player, I had problems picking up 4 cards at a time.
One shortcut is to independently remember suits, because most of the time you'll only be able to make a hand in one suit. So AhAdKd2s is AAK2d, and AhAdKd2h is AAK2hd. The cases where you are at risk are non-nut flushes, calculating opponents outs, and straight flush draws. Then you might have to look back.
Like a previous poster said, most of the time you'll be playing coordinated hands, so experience makes remembering you hand easier.
John
The other thing is, since there is so much information in your hand, it is less important if you do have to look back. To take an extreme case, suppose that you *only* look back to check on flush draws. This might sound like a dangerous tell, but in fact it still doesn't tell your opponents much, because they don't know whether you found that you have no draw, a non-nut draw, or the nut draw. Contrast this with the situation in Hold-Em, where people often look back when the third suited card comes, giving away that they don't have a flush.
William
5-10 stud has a .50 cent ante and a $2 bring-in, for a starting pot of $6, or 1.2 SB.
15-30 has a $2 ante and $5 bring-in, for a starting pot of $21, or 1.4 SB.
Is the difference that huge? Clearly no-ante or pot-limit stud requires very different play, since the starting pot is insignificant compared to the potential bets on later streets. But for 5-10 and 10-20, it doesn't seem the starting pot would necessarily be too small to play for, especially if many players have limped.
You mentioned that high pairs in 5-10 and 10-20 should be slowplayed. Is that true of both wired pairs and split ones?
When slowplaying a high pair, on which street do you tend to enter the action with a check-raise if the opponent boards don't look threatening?
The answer is yes. Stud strategies essentially switch from trapping to knocking players out between $10-$20 and $15-$30.
The second answer is that you should slow play more according to the situation than whether your pair matches your upcard or not.
Fifth street is usually when you make your move.
The first half of the book is mostly a complete waste with sections like "Poker's Ten Commandments" telling you advice column lines like "Don't steam", not to play no-limit with money you can't afford to lose, and that if you lose a hand it's not the dealer's fault. The authors bash limit poker about twice per chapter.
The sections by Stewart Reuben are a total joke, and are more a collection of anecdotes than any real ideas on strategy. When he is telling you about the game, it's more just a listing of a few scattered thoughts rather than insight into what factors should go into your decisions, or what even to consider on each street. I wouldn't have a clue if I tried to play pot-limit stud or pot-limit London Lowball.
That said, Ciaffone's advice on no-limit and pot-limit holdem is solid. If you aren't familiar with these games, this book will be a very good introduction. It is especially strong in showing how the strategy changes relative to how deep the money is, and the chapter on satellite play is useful. Ciaffone shows in good detail exactly what the major differences from limit holdem are, and describes the traps that players used to limit holdem get into in no-limit. Ciaffone's chapter on no-limit lowball is also very well done, although I've never seen that game actually played anywhere.
Unfortunately, the pot-limit Omaha chapter was written by Reuben, and is of little use. In the end of chapter quizzes, you get a better impression of how Reuben actually thinks about the games. Pot-limit Omaha is a relatively simple game, but this book isn't the place to learn it.
In summary, if you've wanted to play no-limit holdem, but weren't sure where to start (my situation), this book is an excellent choice. The book is also very good for pot-limit holdem play, and emphasizes the strategy aspects that are unique to pot-limit betting. But if you are interested in pot-limit Omaha, you should look elsewhere.
I also think Stewart Reuben's chapters are weak. It is obvious from the text that he is a good player, but his writing focuses more on anecdotes and random examples than on consistent poker principles. His writing reminds me of those poker books from the 70s and early 80s that gave you the impression that the author was a good player, but never quite told you how to play well yourself.
Matt
>The sections by Stewart Reuben are a total joke, and are more a collection of anecdotes than any real
>ideas on strategy. When he is telling you about the game, it's more just a listing of a few scattered
>thoughts rather than insight into what factors should go into your decisions, or what even to consider on
>each street. I wouldn't have a clue if I tried to play pot-limit stud or pot-limit London Lowball.
I cannot disagree more. I think that Reuben writes some of the best chapters. One of those chapters is "Pot-limit Omaha"; I play a lot of pot-limit Omaha and this chapter has been very helpful to me. It is not possible to cover every important situation in twenty pages, but he came close. Reuben does assume that you have read "Omaha Hold'em Poker" (or have at least some experience of the game). Also, I found his "anecdotes" very entertaining!
/David
if you are interested you should call bob himself. home 517-792-5891. no better advice anywhere, any game, any limit. tell em darrell from ohio sent yza
In a tournament what does Freezeout mean? Thanks, a novice.
In a tournament what does Freezeout mean? Thanks, a novice.
In a tournament what does Freezeout mean? Thanks, a novice.
Freezeout, as opposed to Sudden Sayonara, is a Tournament which is scheduled to end once one Player has won all the Chips.
CV
Hello all!
I'm looking for good books on Hold'em. Even though I already have "Hold'em For Advanced Players" by David Sklansky, I'm having difficulties to link the poker strategies by Sklansky into acutual play in casinos.
What I'm looking for is a book which talks about poker strategies in terms of step-by-step approaches. I know there should be tons of different situations to consider, but there should be several *standard* approaches which any poker player uses. In fact, could be called, "basic strategies of poker, " much like blackjack's basic strategies, which many blackjack novies learn at first.
Anyway, if anyone knows any good information, please let me know. Thanks in advance!
I would suggest Lee Jones "Winning Low Limit Holdem". Also "The Theory of Poker" by Sklansky. "Improve Your Poker" by Ciaffone is an excellent read, though not specific to your request.
But why not just get all the books? As someone coming from the game of chess, I believe it will be many years before my fairly complete poker book collection will be anywhere near the size of my very incomplete chess book collection.
David
There is no standard to follow since every hand in each position can be played differently after the flop.
The only standard is to follow Sklansky's starting hand requirements, and after that it depends on how many players are still in, did the flop help, any raises, pot odds, how many cards will improve your hand, will the board give someone else a better hand ie. straight or flush, what type of player put the first bet or raise in. A pair of aces is nice but if the board has 3 to a straight and there are 5 other people in your chances to win are slim and none.
Buy every book by Sklansky, Malmuth, Caro and read them to understand the concepts of playing the game of poker to win. No two cards play the same every time and these authors teach us what to look for when we play to win.
There is no step by step rulebook. There are only general guidelines to follow. In chess, if you play every move correctly, the worst outcome will be a draw. In Holdem, you can make every move correctly and still have losing nights. This is because of luck, which is chance flucuations in probability. When you're on the negative side of those flucuations, you can play pocket Aces, Kings, and such all night, and get hammered by maniacs playing 10-3. Ouch, that hurt. Don't tilt. Don't become the maniac. Stay on the side of solid play with long term expectation. Don't give in to the dark side. The world is chaos. Man is here to make order from chaos. Read both of Sklansky's books on Holdem. Read Lee Jones' book. If you can absorb the info and properly utilize it,* with experience*, you can beat any low and mid level game.
Many thanks go to David Steele, David D and DMAN. I appreciate your great inputs.
David Steele wrote:
>I would suggest Lee Jones "Winning Low Limit Holdem".
>Also "The Theory of Poker" by Sklansky. "Improve Your
>Poker" by Ciaffone is an excellent read, though not specific
>to your request.
Thanks. Since many people recommend Sklansky, I'll probably buy his major books.
>But why not just get all the books? As someone coming from
>the game of chess, I believe it will be many years before my
>fairly complete poker book collection will be anywhere near the
>size of my very incomplete chess book collection.
I agree. By the way, IBM's Deep Blue is extremely powerful enough to beat the world chess champion, but according to the magazine called, "Intelligence," the computer cannot beat solid poker players. Also, the computer cannot be human Go players. I find the results quite interesting.
David d wrote:
>The only standard is to follow Sklansky's starting hand requirements,
>and after that it depends on how many players are still in, did the
>flop help, any raises, pot odds, how many cards will improve your
>hand, will the board give someone else a better hand ie. straight or
>flush, what type of player put the first bet or raise in. A pair of aces
>is nice but if the board has 3 to a straight and there are 5 other
>people in your chances to win are slim and none.
Well, I can follow Sklansky's staring hand requirements in terms of positions. Other than that, I find quite difficult to follow. (If there were a strategic poker flow chart to follow, playing poker might be a bit easy. . )
DMAN wrote:
>There is no step by step rulebook. There are only general guidelines
>to follow. In chess, if you play every move correctly, the worst
>outcome will be a draw. In Holdem, you can make every move
>correctly and still have losing nights. This is because of luck, which
>is chance flucuations in probability. When you're on the negative
>side of those flucuations, you can play pocket Aces, Kings, and such
>all night, and get hammered by maniacs playing 10-3. Ouch, that
>hurt. Don't tilt. Don't become the maniac. Stay on the side of solid
>play with long term expectation. Don't give in to the dark side. The
>world is chaos. Man is here to make order from chaos. Read both
>of Sklansky's books on Holdem. Read Lee Jones' book. If you can
>absorb the info and properly utilize it,* with experience*,
>you can beat any low and mid level game.
This poker's uncertainty is the reason why I don't like poker. Since I'm so used to playing blackjack that this uncertainty is quite difficult to cope with. At the same time, this uncertainty is the reason why I'm so interested in poker since I cannot get similar experience just playing blackjack!
Anyway, thanks much for the inputs!
Hello all,
Is there any book on Yahoo poker? written by 2 + 2 authors (You can play Hold'em on the net)
The reason why I'm asking this is that since I can play Hold'em against real people (but virtual money), I think Yahoo poker is one of the great ways to practice poker. (I don't want to practice at the casionos and lose lots of money!)
If there is no book on the subject, then what do all of you think of Yahoo poker in terms of winning strategies?
Thanks in advance!
How will you know if you are developing bad habits which may be difficult to get rid of in the live environment, when there are no real stakes involved at the virtual tables?
One solution would be to take virtual stakes as seriously as you would real money. If you can do that, you can learn skills like patience, hand selection etc, without having to pay "tuition" as you would in a real game.
Matt
You'd learn lots of bad things in a game like this that you'd spend a long time unlearning once you started playing for real money. The problem is that even if you treat the game as serious, none of the other players are.
Poker Student,
I play sometimes on IRC poker. You start with 1000 in what is called 'etherbux'. At first you are limited to the 10-20 leves. Once you get your bankroll to 2000, you can play at the 20-40 level and you need 5000 to play 50-100. Also, you need 3000 to play the omaha-hi and hold'em pot limit games.
The main problem is the fact that you will end up playing against terrible players that will not really add anything to your poker learning. And as Andrew said, you can develop bad habits by calling a lot of hands you shouldn't (since it doesn't cost anything). But if you make an effort to increase your virtual bankroll and can get into the 50-100 games, then the players are not so bad and you can actually get some experience. However, this experience does not substitute from being at the table with real people who can notice things about your behaviour while playing and viceversa. It's not a bad idea to toss in a couple of real life sessions in between your virtual sessions.
carlos
The poker game on Yahoo is not poker. If you are going to play online, at least play IRC Poker. It plays pretty loose but not nearly as loose as Yahoo. The Yahoo players are really, really, really, bad. You would never encounter a table like one of those for real.
I agree with Karpov. Forget Yahoo and check out IRC. I found it linking from this site through Ken's poke page (great site) to Dan's Poker page (also good.) Download Greg Reynold's excellent interface and start playing.
Greg's program includes hand rankings, player stats, your own stats, pot odds and other very nice features. IRC has a lot of regulars, most of which seem to have some real casino experience. The chat is frequently amusing -- what you might find at a real game -- and the players are a nice group of people.
Play the game to win. I think the skills needed to beat what Karpov has rightly characterized as these quite loose games, are exactly the kinds of skills beginners need to develop. That is, waiting for good starting cards (Sklansky rankings) by criteria of position , weather or not pot was raised, and what kinds of cards other players might raise or call with -- e.g. paying attention to showdown and relating it to the action. (this, by the way, takes a little practice and concentration.) You will also get some experience on how do deal with a maniac at the table (See "The Effect Of a Maniac" in Malmuth's POKER ESSAY'S; also "How to Play in a Loose Game," in Sklansky's GETTING THE BEST OF IT.) You will occasionally run into these kinds of players in a real casino, and you need to know what to do. You can also practice game selection and of course discipline.
I have been playing quite a bit IRC poker lately, and think I am getting good tourney experience -- especially in the final stages. As far as my ring play, I have been clicking call way way too much and have not been able to build a bank big enough to get into the bigger games carlos describes. This is a good motivater to play better, as are the tournament rankings.
Heed the previous warnings about learning bad habits, the most fatal of which is probably calling to much. If you genuiely try to play these games to win, rather than to just have some fun, then I believe IRC has some value.
Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing! The "feel for poker" can only be acquired through playing against real (other) people in a real (actual) setting. My opinion Vince
The IRC-poker which Greg Reynolds have developed is a very good way to practice. Atleast if you are beginner(like me). The most played games are of course Texas Holdem, but 7-stud, omaha,chinese-something is also played.
I´ve played the Texas Holdem-tourney alot. And I think it really have improved my gameskill. In the first two tourneys I´ve played in real life I placed in the money(and those players are experienced). I would never have come that long without playing on the net, no question about it.
There are also a rankingsystem on the tourney.
So download Greg Reynolds IRC-poker-client at http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~gregr/
I think the original post was playing poker on the net and not using simulator software to sharpen skills. I haven't used simulator software very often and don't have an opinion on it's value. My point was that if you are going to play for "real" money, play in a casino card room. I believe that developing a "feel" for poker would be very difficult if not impossible by playing on-line. The interaction with opponents in a face to face encounter is extremely important in learning to play the game . Opinion by Vince
Many thanks go to Andrew, Matt, Steve, Carlos, Karpov, PeterP Vince, and Lucifer. I really appreciate very informative inputs on my inquiry.
Matt wrote:
>One solution would be to take virtual stakes as seriously as you
>would real money. If you can do that, you can learn skills like
>patience, hand selection etc, without having to pay "tuition" as
>you would in a real game.
Yes, at the Yahoo poker site, I've been doing what you described here. I'm taking my stake seriously; however, I'm having difficulties doubling my bankroll. (It has been one of my objectives to measure my skill but not much successful. . .)
Steve wrote:
>You'd learn lots of bad things in a game like this that you'd spend
>a long time unlearning once you started playing for real money.
>The problem is that even if you treat the game as serious, none
>of the other players are.
Perhaps this might be one of the reasons why what I've learned from "Hold'em for Advanced Players" does not work since people at the Yahoo site might not be seriously playing Yahoo poker at all. Very often some people stay until the showdown even without having a pair! (Well, it's not real money anyway.)
Carlos wrote:
>But if you make an effort to increase your virtual bankroll and
>can get into the 50-100 games, then the players are not so bad
>and you can actually get some experience.
PeterF wrote:
>Greg's program includes hand rankings, player stats, your own
>stats, pot odds and other very nice features. IRC has a lot of
>regulars, most of which seem to have some real casino experience.
>The chat is frequently amusing -- what you might find at a real
>game -- and the players are a nice group of people.
Perhaps this is one of the cheapest ways to practice poker on the net! Hopefully, I can use the stuff I've learned from "Hold'em for Advanced Players."
PeteF wrote:
>Play the game to win. I think the skills needed to beat what Karpov
>has rightly characterized as these quite loose games, are exactly
>the kinds of skills beginners need to develop. That is, waiting for
>good starting cards (Sklansky rankings) by criteria of position ,
>weather or not pot was raised, and what kinds of cards other
>players might raise or call with --e.g. paying attention to showdown
>and relating it to the action. (this, by the way, takes a little practice
>and concentration.)
Well, I've been following Sklansky's hand ranking in terms of positions. I've won such as AA, KK, AK (suited & off-suited); however, have never won the games with weak starting hands recommended from late positions. Perhaps one of the major reasons might be I haven't be able to read opponents' cards! (I guess this means I need to learn more about Hold'em. . .) By the way, I appreciate your recommendations on the books. Thanks!
Lucifer wrote:
>So download Greg Reynolds IRC-poker-client at
>http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~gregr/
Thanks for the URL!
Vince wrote:
>I think the original post was playing poker on the net and not
>using simulator software to sharpen skills.
Yes, I'm interested in playing Hold'em against real people.
By the way, are there any reasonably good Hold'em software programs which any beginner should get?
When I go to the local casinos, I play blackjack about 98% of time since that's the game I can beat. (I know how to count card.) Even though I win money just playing blackjack, I'm *very* interested in playing poker. Why? Because when I play blackjack, I'm nothing more than a card-counting machine. This is the reason why I'm very interested in real gambling aspects of poker which I cannot experience just playing blackjack!
Anyway, thank you much for informative inputs!
Poker Student,
I recant. Just left IRC game. Jammed pot before the flop. I catch a King to my AK. One of the pre-flop jammers catches a gut-shot to his 64o and jamms the flop. Straight gets there. Another hand two players jam with middle pair and no kicker. River brings four to a straight and I dump my overpair. Neither has the straight, but they cap it anyway. This is not real world poker. Yahoo is even worse.
IRC tourneys start with up to 20 or so people at one table. Not in MY favorite cardrooms. But when I survive to the end, I occasionally get into the zone and feel like I am playing real poker. So I guess I still like IRC.
However. -- Need to get out of your room (I need to get out of MY room) and get back into real world and play some real poker!
ps -- know what you mean about bj. If you really beat bj, you should do fine in poker. Several years ago I would look enviously into poker room (people would be winning enough chips to put into a *rack*) while I was grinding bj. I studied Caro's "Crash Couse in Seven Card Stud" in Caro On Gambling. My simple rules were never slow play any pair -- if i didn't think it was the best I folded; if I did I raised; if I wasn't sure I folded.. Play only live quality come hands in unraised pots and improve immediately or dump. Usually play to end if I am committed unless someone pairs door card and bets, shows 4 (sometimes 3) to straight or flush and bets or raises, or catches open pair which I think I can't beat. Not sophisticated poker, but enough to start beating 3-6 stud game right off the bat. Thank's Mike.
Years later I am a much more knowledgable poker player, but reading your post, I remember those days when *every dollar* was important, when my hearbeat would actually pick up a little when I contested a pot, when, novice that I was, I was probably playing better poker than I am today. You ( I ) need to play poker as steamlessly as you (I used to) play winning bj. Good luck.
Yahoo! poker is about as close to playing poker as playing chess is to playing poker. Money means nothing, nothing is at stake, there is no risk in any decision, and although you may take it seriously - few if any of your opponents take it seriously.
One problem with the Yahoo! poker room is the fact that few people who play either know or care what they are doing. When I played in the "Advanced" room, people were raising with 62 and the like. So you can't really take it seriously. I'd try to find a poker simulation before I relied on the Yahoo! poker room.
Bill
"When playing low-limit Omaha eight-or-better, if you are simply the tightest player both before the flop and on the flop, you have a significant edge. However, if the game is fairly good, you will cost yourself a lot of profit if you play too tightly before the flop."
The first sentence has won me more $ than perhaps any single sentence in poker literature. The second has got me in some trouble. The question is, if any A-2, most A-3s (with some help--suited A--or position), or four cards 10 or higher are group 1 hands in normal everyday pot, what would group 2 hands be? Group 3?
What about 3 cards 10 or higher w/ two of them suited? A-4 suited with help? A hand like queens and treys? I know all other factors are important, perhaps too important to be able to answer this question. But it seems some of the good players in my game are getting away with playing a lot more hands than I am, enough to shake my confidence a litle.
Thanks in advance for any ideas from anyone.
Omaha-8 is a community card game, and so a lot of the multiway value will be contained in the strongest hands. Only certain hands can make the nuts, and some do it much more often than others. That is even more true when you add the low element. In the loosest Omaha-8 games, you will virtually always have to show down the best hand to win.
When your opponents are playing too many hands and taking them too far, somewhat strong hands that make the nuts (although less often than the premium hands) can become profitable. Take for example 2346. Or A4KJ double suited. However, you can't play many more hands, and the other good players in your game may be costing themselves money by playing too loose before the flop. As the game becomes looser, the increase in value primarily is realized by the best hands - aces double suited will still make the nut full or nut flush, only with more players tagging along. When A2 holds up, it will earn even more when the game is very loose. So marginal hands are dangerous in this game, and a player would probably be better off not playing hands like the ones you described, since they don't hit and hold up often enough to pay off. You need redraws in this game, especially when the game is loose, and hands like QQ33 or KJT4 that can hit the flop, but will be vulnerable to later outdraws almost regardless of what hits are going to cost you money in the long run. The chance of getting your set or straight is small, and the chance of it holding up is even smaller, and much of that time, you'll only get half the pot.
Peter,
Iceman is right on here. When a poker game is mostly showdown hand selection is most critical as the hands with the best chances of making the winner will be the most profitable ones to play. When the game gets tighter and pots are won without showing down poker becomes a game of people playing, and skill throughout the hand becomes the determining factor of how much and if you win. Good Luck.
Thanks Ray and Iceman,
Iceman's analyses: "As the game becomes looser, the increase in value primarily is realized by the best hands. . ." is a great help to me, and very succinctly stated. This is a truth that I somehow had sidestepped in my attempt to profitably play more hands. Very important.
Ray's addition, explaining the major diffrences when the game gets tighter, completes the answer. I realize that the players I admire are picking their spots to make a play a lot more carefully than I had thought. The specific situation resembles a tighter game, within the loosish game we are playing, enough for them to use advanced thinking on later streets for additional profit.
I probably am already playing the hands in my "fairly good game" that avoid costing "a lot of profit if you play too tightly before the flop" (High-Low Split for Advanced Players, p.183). For short-handed moves I need to play good poker--even in low limit 0-8--or just not bother.
Thanks again, gentlemen, PF
I read Kimberg's review of Holdem Excellance by Kreiger. What is your opinion, if any, of this and his subsequent book? TIA.
If you've read the 2+2 books, You don't need Krieger's first book.
As for Krieger's second book, there are some very good essays in there. But my only complaint is that almost all of the essays have appeared in his Card Player columns. So, when I bought the book, I was quite disappointed as I had already read all of the material.
So, bottom line: Get his second book if you don't collect and keep your Card Player mags or if you want all of Krieger's ideas in one book rather than in several places.
I should add that I often re-read Krieger's book when I am running bad and feel that I am about to tilt at the tables. He's got a lot of stuff in there that all good players already know about discipline, not going on tilt etc. Even though I know all of that, it sometimes helps to be reminded.
Loose 10/20 game. I'm on the button. 6 players before me limp in. I see two beautiful black aces. I know that even if I raise, there will be a multiway pot. The 6 limpers will all call. The big blind will also likely call with any kind of holding. The small blind may or may not fold. Thus, I know it will be an 8 or 9 handed pot. While I don't mind making everyone pay $20 to try and crack my aces, I think (although this point is probably debatable as well) that with Aces, one would rather be up against 2 or 3 opponents instead of 7 or 8.
In any event, I raised.
But it seems to me that there may be some valid reasons for just limping in.
For example, let's say the flop is a non- threatening Q,9,7 of different suits. Most of the time, because of my pre-flop raise, the action will be checked to me on the flop. I'd of course bet. Now, notice that several of my opponents would have probably got a piece of the flop i.e. one pair, gut shot etc. All would be justified in calling the $10 bet on the flop. There are very few turn cards that I'd be happy with.
On the other hand, if I just limp in before the flop and get the opportunity to raise a late position bettor on the flop, many of the one pair hands, gut shots etc. may fold (Not only do they now have to put in $20 to catch their card, the pot is also a smaller one even if they do catch it). Of course, if these players fold, my Aces would have a better chance of holding up.
Is this logic correct? I doubt if it's correct enough to make limping in the play of choice but ...I wonder.
I recall reading somewhere that one of the hallmarks of an expert player is he knows how to manipulate the pot odds so as to maximize his EV. Does this have anything to do with the above scenario and whether or not you may choose to just limp in with the Aces?
I would limp, no, I would raise, wait, maybe I would raise. Then again maybe it is not such a good idea. That is about the situation you are in. What really makes this decision more difficult is that no one raised in front of you, so you could put extra pressure on the blinds, making it three bets. And, there may actually be one player out of the remaining original callers that understands what three bets usually represents and just how big a dog they are going in, and possibly would fold a marginal hand, thus reducing the playing field. But as one player stated the other day at the Mirage in a 20/40 HE game, "you don't have anything until flop."
If you don't raise you are almost guaranteed two more players in the pot, the LB and BB, total eight hands that your two Aces have to beat. Individually you are a big favorite, but collectively you are a big dog. You would be bettor off with AKs or even JTs in this situation. But they, Aces, come around according to probability, once in every 221 hands and they are so damn beautiful to hold and admire but, they can be very costly.
So after all this "verbrage," I would limp with them and see what the flop brings. The flop added to your hand gives you 5/7s of your total hand or 71%. You may like the flop and if you don't you can get away from your hand very quietly and inexpensively.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
I am going to raise the pot every time. Sure, on a raged flop people who flop a pair are going to get correct odds to call but they would even if the pot contained eight bets rather than sixteen. The big thing is that you will have redraws (e.g., bottom card pairs the board). The other consideration is that aces can flop trips (and fill up) just as easily as a pair of threes. In this case you can win a monster, especially in the case of set over set, which is not unlikely given the number of callers.
SKP wrote: -- For example, let's say the flop is a non- threatening Q,9,7 of different suits. Most of the time, because of my pre-flop raise, the action will be checked to me on the flop. --
Unless you are playing with a table full of wimps, I would think any decent player with a queen would lead into you (and the queen will often be there with so many callers before the flop). One caveat: when this bet comes from early position, fear a call by a decent player in the middle because this often indicates a player has flopped a set. If the lead bet comes from late position, your raise will narrow the field.
SKP wrote: -- I recall reading somewhere that one of the hallmarks of an expert player is he knows how to manipulate the pot odds so as to maximize his EV. Does this have anything to do with the above scenario and whether or not you may choose to just limp in with the Aces? --
This concept is covered in HPFAP. It refers to two basic strategies. First, avoid a raise in late position against a large field with hands that rarely make a great flop (e.g., AQ offsuit). Second, consider a raise against a large field with hands that would hit the flop hard when they do flop. These hands prefer many opponents drawing against it (e.g. 88 after flopping a set) or many opponents (e.g. JTs after flopping a draw). Of course these hands are different than aces in that they are easy to get away from when you don't flop well. But if you play well (assume you have the black aces), you should be able to get away from the worst flops (e.g. 9h Th Qd) when facing a lot of action. In other cases when you are not confident of your situation the redraws come in more than most players think.
The main problem with aces is that so many players go on tilt when they get cracked yet forget the monsters they can win with this hand. I'll take aces against any number of opponents.
I agree with the overall message of your post.
However, while I too would rather have Aces over any other hand no matter how many players are in the pot, if I had a choice, I would probably like to have just 2 to 4 opponents instead of 7 or 8 when I have Aces. But sometimes you can't do much about it.
By the way, do you always raise pre-flop in a multi-handed pot when you have Aces in one of the blinds? If so, do you often check-raise on the flop after a semi-ragged flop like Q,9,7?
Raising in the blinds depends a little on whether or not you are in California (three raise limit) or Nevada (four raise limit). If there is no raise or one raise I will reraise in both structures. But if it comes to me at three bets in California I will sometimes call in order to provide some deception. In Nevada I would probably raise hoping someone would cap because the extra money just has to be worth it.
BTW, your essay was outstanding. I hope some day I can contribute something equally worthy.
Regards,
Rick
the only valid reason for limping is a sort bankroll period, otherise raise, period
The other night I was playing in a 10-20 game and I was delt Aces. I was in late position, and was about to raise when the player to my right raised. I decided not to re-raise but just to call. My thinking was that I did not want anybody to put me on aces. The flop were rags, and it was checked to the raiser, he bet, Then I raised. I got the field down to three, The turn came and paired the board w/ an 8.It was checked to the player on my right he bet and I raised. I won the hand Aces up. The player to my right showed me his pocket kings and grumbled "why didn't you raise pre-flop?" When I have a preimium hand and it is raised pre-flop,(Like it often is in lower limit games) I will call, then come out raising on the turn. A lot of times it chases the players out that are on the draw, because its 2 big bets instaed of 1. It has worked for me.
BTW my next hand delt in this particular game was Aces again, First time ever that this has happend to me. I raised pre-flop and took the pot down, Go figure?
Walleye
The problem with doing this consistently is that when you do make it three bets, your perceptive opponents will know that you can't have pocket aces.
To be honest, I don't like your play. I will always three bet with Aces when the two-bettor is to my immediate right. This is because I will three bet with a variety of hands in this situation. So I need to make my opponent think that I could have Aces and put him on the defensive. As well, by three-betting, you have the desired effect of getting more money into the pot AND limiting the field.
By the way, in your example, I would be inclined to just call on the turn when the board paired and wait to see how the third player reacted. This is because when the board pairs, you don't have to worry about the third player making a two pair hand after the river. But you do have to worry that he has an 8 in which case he's going to make it three bets. In other words, there's less of a concern that the free card you are giving (actually, the cheap card that you are giving will hurt you). Now, if the third player just calls or folds on the turn, you can still raise the guy with pocket kings on the River.
Skp,
In this hand the 3rd player was UTG and checked the flop and then the Turn, I had no fear of him. His play was sloppy all night. If he had an 8 he folded the winning hand on the river.
Walleye
I love to limp in with Aces on the button, it is the perfect place to do this. I agree with your logic, IMHO what you gain by increasing the pot size at this point is not worth the information that you give up, and the chance of the next round checking to the raiser. I would, of course, re-raise if one of the blinds raised. I rarely limp with aces one chair to the right, however. Here, it looks like you are trying to buy the button, therefore you are not giving up too much info.
If people are putting you on Aces when you raise on the button, you're not raising enough with your other hands.
IMO, this should be a mandatory raise if there are already callers. You have the best hand, in the best position. What more could you ask for?
Dan
>>IMO, this should be a mandatory raise if there are already callers. You have the best hand, in the best position. What more could you ask for? <<
Playing against just one other player or two at the most.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
What does this mean? That you wouldn't raise your aces if there are more than one or two callers?
It's a myth that Aces play poorly against large fields. This myth developed because you win less often when you have lots of callers. However, when you do win, you win more money. The expected value of a pair of Aces goes up as the number of callers increases, as long as they are paying the same amount of money. (i.e you'd rather play against 3 people paying $20 than 6 people paying $10, but you'd rather be up against 6 people paying $10 than 3 people paying $10).
No matter how many callers you have in the pot, you are the pre-flop favorite to win the pot over any other player. That means you should make them put more money into that pot. You have an overlay.
The only time I wouldn't raise with Aces before the flop is if I were heads-up and I thought the deception might be worth more than the pre-flop extra small bet, or if I thought raising was going to win me only the blinds.
Dan
Agreed. But, if you had a choice, wouldn't you rather be up against 3 people paying $20 each instead of 6 paying $20 each. For example, if two people limp in and I raise with Aces in position #5, I am usually hoping that everyone behind me folds and that I am left with only the limpers and perhaps the big blind as my opponents. I realize that there are other reasons why I want everyone behind me to fold i.e I buy the button etc. but limiting the field is also a desired byproduct of my raise.
No. With Aces, I'd rather be up against as many people as possible, as long as they are all paying as much as I can make them pay.
When I get pocket aces, what I'm thinking is, "How can I make the biggest possible pot?" because I'm the guy that is the huge favorite to win it.
If I were in a game where there was a player who ALWAYS raised before the flop, and I were in early position, I would call with my aces to get as many people in the pot as possible, then I would re-raise the raiser when it came around to me. I have absolutely no interest in limiting the field.
That said, I would rather be up against 4 people paying $20 than 8 people paying $10, because either way the pot is the same size, but I have a better chance to win against 4 people, and the end pot will probably be not much smaller than with 8 in, since most players fold on the flop anyway.
Dan
I like your thinking, but I don't think I will ever limp in with Aces except in the big blind - then rarely.
In the past two weeks I twice held trash in the big blind (28o and 4To) and saw the flop for free. Each time I flopped two pair and once filled. I was up against Aces who limped in. I would never have called a raise with those hands. I know you said the BB would likely call, but some hands are just not callable.
As my grandfather always said "Bet your hand. It's better to win a small pot than lose a big one".
To me, there is two different concepts here. Players limping with Aces to try for deception and a player with Aces deciding to raise with 6 or more callers already in the pot, not including the two blinds.
In the first concept, raising to protect the Aces by narrowing the field is the correct play. And anyone that does not raise in these situation is not making the right decisions to give this hand the best chance to win.
In the second concept, I do not believe a raise is going to reduce the field and is only making a bigger pot, giving the big field more reason to chase and probably get there. Maybe someone can convince me otherwise, if they can show me that in the long run, raising under these conditions of being last position, with 6 or more callers, will make such a profit that it will over come the loses when the Aces lose, which will probably be 90% or more of the time against SIX or more players.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
Pocket Aces don't lose 90% of the time to six opponents, unless you are in the habit of folding lots of times when you in fact have the best hand. I don't have Percentage Hold'em in front of me, but if I recall correctly, I think it says that aces hold up around 30% of the time against nine opponents with everybody going to the showdown. That should normally be a lower bound on the % of the time that aces are going to win, because some of the time your opponents will fold a hand that would have backed into the pot by the river. So that means that preflop against nine opponents you are getting 9:1 on every extra bet that goes into a pot you are only about a 2.3:1 dog to win. Playing against the best 6 out of 8 opponents, you are still getting 6:1 money odds on a pot that you are more likely to win. Unless you think you can make a bunch of extra bets through deception by limping, raising it up preflop with those kind of odds looks really, really good.
"Loose 10/20 game."
"Thus, I know it will be an 8 or 9 handed pot"
"But it seems to me that there may be some valid reasons for just limping in. "
"let's say the flop is a non- threatening "
"if I just limp in before the flop and get the opportunity to raise a late position bettor on the flop, many of the one pair hands, gut shots etc. may fold"
"Is this logic correct? "
Yes! This logic is correct! That is not to say that limping with AA in situations like the one stated is correct or not correct. I don't believe there is an absolute answer to that question. But what I am sure of is that analyzing situations like this and considering alternative strategies in lieu of alwalys playing them the same way is one way to improve one's game! I believe that raising in this situation is a correct strategy (and generally should be done) for a number of reasons. You may gain control of the hand, get more money in the pot when you have the best hand and/or have more money in the pot if you make the best hand. Another reason is you may possibly get rid of one or more of the blinds. On the other hand limping in has some merit for the reason you mentioned. However other previously advocated reasons for limping such as for deception may not make much sense in a case like this. Think About It! Vince
I don't think that the deception factor in this scenario is a reason to raise or not to raise, but it certainly is a secondary influence. I would be more inclined to limp on the button with AA or KK, as opposed to one seat to the right of the button. One of the contributing factors as to why I would so inclined is that a raise on the button sends more of a signal than a raise just to the right of the button. There are many, many other things to consider from late position, including whether or not the blinds generally defend or not.
I agree with Vince that deception is not much of a factor in these instances. First of all, I might very well raise with a hand like J,10 suited or pocket sevens or something in the situation described (i.e. on the button in a multi-handed pot). So, when I raise, It's not a "gimme" that I hold Aces or Kings.
You are right, because I will raise with hands like this on the button in a multi-way pot - so why not raise with AA.
I haven't read the other posts so forgive me if i repeat something. The odds are already there for someone to chase. Raising will get more money in there for you so when you win you'll win a nice pot, and it helps you to get some control. If it is a wild game where if you raised you could expect it to get capped with all those people then maybe I'd ponder a bit, but I'd still raise. manipulating the pot odds happens much more in big bet poker than limit.You simply can't bet different percentages of the pot in limit. Now, if you had jj, then I would'nt raise.
All valid points.
I particularly like the advice not to raise with JJ.
But, I would at times raise with a hand like 77.
There are enough players in the hand to get the proper odds to flop a set. Since it will be top set you must raise to take the benefit of the action. I would raise with all big pairs here.
"There are enough players in the hand to get the proper odds to flop a set. Since it will be top set you must raise to take the benefit of the action."
I agree with the raise here in most instances but not because of getting the proper odds to flop a set. If you are a very tight player known only for raising with high pairs in situations like this and an A flops you may not get any action because of your raise. I believe that you must consider all factors before making a decision to raise or limp. In most cases the correct play is a raise, I agree.
"I would raise with all big pairs here."
I disagree with this part of the response. I doubt if a raise with JJ, QQ or even KK is ALWAYS warranted in a case like this. It may be better to see the flop with these hands and make your decision on how to proceed then. Also, I consider AA as a special hand. Because of the fact that there are no over cards that can affect my decision I usually play them differntly than any other pair before the flop, after the flop, on the turn and even sometimes (worry of overcards is not they main concern here) on the river.
My opinion Vince
I would *ALWAYS* raise with AA, KK, QQ in this situation. When everybody is staying to see the flop, how can you not raise with premium starters? When you choose not to raise, you are giving tacit permission for the too loose players to hit a cheap flop and put the "bad beat" on you. When my premium starting hand gets run down by someone who shouldn't have even been in there to see the flop, I take a certain comfort in knowing that I did all that I could to make his playing a mistake. Losing any pot becomes somewhat more bearable when you can review your play and conclude that you acted correctly. Slowplaying AA just invites self recrimination.
ALWAYS RAISE. You did the right play. During a tournament at the Peppermill in Reno, There were 6 players in a 20-40 that capped it before the flop. One of them had pocket aces. The flop and turn was capped. The player with the pocket aces bet on the river and got 3 callers. He won the whole enchilada!!! The flop showed flush and straight draws. I beleive in playing selectively and agressively all the time. Get action to receive action. This player also played it right and he jumped up in the air shouting his victory!!!
How sweat it is.
z
First, I usually don't answer Omaha questions. Second, both David and Ray were traveling for the past two weeks and have been available to participate in the forum. I'm sure that they will return to these pages as soon as they have some time.
thank you for your respone as it is of some concern to me as ohaha is rather populer in my region. hope youll forgeve me for adviratizing the compition, but the again compitition is what the world is about. again ill be looking forward to some advice on this game as soon as dave or ray is back in town. till thin, always darrell
Darrel,ease up,buddy. Omaha is not Mason's game and I've never seen him post on it. It's also been apparent that David has been otherwise occupied. I haven't seen a post from him for a while. Their responses are gratis, so I don't get upset when there is none. Like to my post about Holdem Excellance by Kreiger. Okay so maybe I'm a little upset. I just want an opinion. Are his books worth the investment or will they actually cost me money at the table? I have two of Ciafone's books and both were given positive reviews by Mason, on Dan Kimberg's book review page, which can be linked through this webpage. I would also note this is a forum and myself and others tried to answer your question. I have six of 2plus2's books. Bottom line, they are the best. BTW, you know Ciaffone's webpage can be accessed here,too. Also, I've always appreciated your thoughfull comments to my posts, as I have others. Mason wrote in Poker Essays about talking to expert players, as a method of improving your game. The beauty of this forum is those of us who are learning have access to the opinions of many good players.
darrell,let me say this quite frankly. I am quite blunt so forgive me for that. What I'm going to say is going to probably piss you off, but it is vary apparent that you are easily agitated and in need of attention. When you post, there is the subject box and the message box. I get very tired of reading your posts put in the subject box. You obviously want attention, or feel some sort of special needs,or maybe this is your way of calling for help. I can tell you that you should not be gambling, and that's for sure. Maybe in your mind this is your way of having fun, but you are a pest at best. If you continue to post long messages in the subject box, I will be one of the first people to contact 2+2 and ask that your posts be deleted. grow up, or get some help.
I think your boy Darrell is P.U.I. (posting under the influence)
his home number is area code 517-792-5891. any game any limit. 25 per hour. specializes in big bet. by the way bob dosnt know i posted this but if you call him tell him darrell from ohio turned you on to this.
Any comments about this simulator as a training tool?
The following situation occured in a 9-handed no-limit hold'em money game with $2/$5 blinds and average stack size of about $750. I have about $600 in front of me.
A solid, straight forward player limps from early position. I call from middle position with pocket tens. Two late position players also call. The small blind raises to $30. The BB and early position player fold and I cold call. The other late position players fold, leaving it heads-up between me and the SB raiser, who has more than a grand in chips. This guy is a very aggressive and wild player who enters most pots with a raise. I am hoping to flop a set and double through since he is the type of player who will play top pair or an overpair for all his chips.
There is now an $80 pot and the flop comes 9-8-5 rainbow. He calmly checks to me. A bell goes off in my head since this guy NEVER checks heads-up after showing strength before the flop. I smell a trap and check behind him, figuring that the free card may help me since I can pick up a straight draw with a 7 or J or hit my set. (I know this may sound a bit wimpy, but something in this guy's manner just concerned me that he had a monster for this innocuous flop like AA or event a set of nines or eights.)
A six came on the turn, which put two spades on the board. He springs to life and bets $150. I am not positive that I am beat now, but figure that it is raise or fold time since he has a lot of outs (or acare cards) if he is betting with two face cards or a big Ace. I decide to fold, reasoning that I will have to risk my entire $550 to possibly win a $230 pot, and if I am leading it is probably not by much.
He drags the pot without showing his hand, which leads me to believe he had me beat since he habitually shows off his big bluffs. Any comments on this hand or the play of unimproved intermediate overpairs in no-limit in general? I typically play them very carefully unless I am heads-up against a predictable guy who likes to lead into tight players on ragged flops with AK and smaller pocket pairs.
I think you made the right decision. You were already a dog before the flop, and the board has only helped you a little bit by giving you a gutshot. Lastly, his bet is bigger than the pot.
William
M7,
You did right. If he bet out you needed to raise him and then guess right the rest of the way. Good Luck.
WHAT ADJUSTMENTS/STARTING HAND REQUIREMENTS SHOULD A PLAYER MAKE IN A 6-12/10-20 HOLD'EM GAME WITH A $5 RAKE VERSUS A $2 RAKE.
Don't play the 6-12 game for starters!
But seriously, I don't know if any of the other players would change their strategy so I probably wouldn't change mine. I think that there are differences in strategy when you are playing in a time collection game as opposed to a rake game. But I can't think of any reasons why you would play differently just because the rake is higher.
If there are any reasons, I'll let the experts tell me.
As the rake gets higher you need to play tighter in shorthanded pots. a 6 12 game with a $5 rake is not worth playing unless the game is very loose with poor players that have little chance of winning and the ante is small. Good Luck.
I agree Ray. An Aussie casino spreads a $10-$20 game with a (5%)$5 capped rake. The chips go in a circle and down the drop over the months. Now the game is rock, super tight, 9 handed with 2-4 looking at the flop. The best games for min.cost re:rake are ramming/ jamming games. I play a regular $5-10 game with a $5 flat rake, any pot over $100. The game is 10-12 players with pots between $250-$400. No onone misses $5 then.
I agree with skp, no I more than agree, especially the point, dont play 6-12 (or 10-20 for that matter) with a $5 rake. The California 6-12 Hold'em games may be the best poker games (for action) spread anywhere (anywher I've played that is) and I love playing in them. But if the rake per hand was $5 I would refuse to play at that house (the $3 drop(rent)/hand is horrendous enough)! I would also pomptly find another place to play. I agree with Ray Zee that a rake this high at this level requires a lot of loose players (like those in California) that have no chance of winning against you (Unlike those in California). One of the reasons I stopped playing in the Maryland Firehouse game (15-30) was because I thought the rake ($5) was too high! We as regular poker players have an obligation to not allow a house to gouge us or our fellow occaisional player. Opinion by Vince
AAHHHH!! Rakes...
I am truly amazed that there hasn't been any attempt at banding together by the players who spend 1000 plus hours playing low limit games in cardrooms each year. Most of these players aren't good enough to make much, if anything, from their play. It seems to be a good way for them to pass the time doing something that they enjoy. They are good enough to play at break even after the rake and tokes though. I know at least 50 players between the Bike, Commerce and Crystal Park, who fit into this category. If they simply got together once and all agreed to meet at one cardroom and negotiate a $2.00 drop instead of $3.00 per hand, they would each assure themselves of at least an extra $2,000.00 per year. There isn't a poker room manager (other than the Commerce) who wouldn't salivate at the thought of 50 extra players each day playing low limit poker for 5 to 10 hours each. I can assure you though that the players themselves would never think of doing this and would be distrustful of anyone who suggested doing it. I find it very frustrating that players won't even act in their own self interest when the savings would be immediate. Of course, as soon as one cardroom agreed to make rake concessions the rest would have to follow or risk losing more of their customers to the lesser drop.
There is also another point to this argument. I believe that if the rake was lowered in these games it would result in there being more games at sometime in the future. Thus in the long run the cardrooms would make more money.
There is also a fly in the ointment. The way I understand things is that the local governament has a say in setting the rake at many cardrooms. This is because they collect a tax from the rake. Thus cardroom management would have to meet with their appropriate city officials to get any rake change on. But it could be done. In fact, it has been done before. (In 1987 the Bike lowered the rake on its hold 'em games after initially charging more for them.)
The Bike raised and lowered them this year too. Crystal Park had a half price rake in their top section for about one month. It can be done. The problem is that players won't reward the cardroom with their increased business when they lower the collection. It is unreal to me that people won't drive to another cardroom that is, at most, 10 miles out of their way, in order to save $2.00 per hour in their personal rake when playing the same game they play in another card room.
The same is true when card rooms offered the "no juice" satellites. I was astonished that the place wasn't absolutely packed during the couple days that they were run at the Bike and at Crystal Park. If people aren't careful about what they are paying to play poker, how can they seriously consider themselves "aware"?
Being unaware is a trait of the unsophisticated poker player.
Have you ever played in a great game and wondered why there weren't more tough players around? Don't worry, someone will eventually tell them and then the game won't be so great anymore.
If a cardroom lowers its rake and the business doesn't pick up right away and they decide to reverse their decision then they were simply impatient. It takes time for the word to get around. But there is another point. Poker players as a group are the greatest creatures of habit I have ever seen. I have played with people that wouldn't walk across the street to a better game, or casino, simply because they didn't want to change their habits. Only when their game starts to weaken or disintegrate do they eventually succumb.
Progress takes time, patience, and perserverance. The truly intelligent operators will realize the benefits of a resonable rake and impliment the necessary procedures. As a result they will have most of the business and this makes for a happy customer. Businesses should realize that happy customers are very desireable. Greed will kill all of the rest.
"There is also another point to this argument. I believe that if the rake was lowered in these games it would result in there being more games at sometime in the future. Thus in the long run the cardrooms would make more money."
In Foxwoods and Atlantic City, the rake is 10% to $4. It takes a quite solid player to be able to beat that rake in the low-limit games. When the new players come in, they can't be ahead for long, before the rake breaks them. They lose a few hundred each time, then don't come back. The games remain tight and primarily full of regulars, and are usually unprofitable as a result. The cardrooms out East really need to bring in new players, but this is difficult for them to do with the high rake. Also, these rooms are part of full casinos, so management perceives no incentive to promote poker when they think that they make more money when people play the tables and slots. What they don't see is that many people (myself included) would never go to casinos at all if not for poker, and that we bring a lot of people with us when we go to play poker. Also, adding more slot machines or Let-It-Ride tables would only add a small amount more profit, since the existing slots are never full, and the casino already has the maximum number of $100 and $25 tables at a given time, so they would have to add lower limit tables to fill them up. In the cardroom itself, they have 30 games of no ante 1-5 stud, which is a high rake game, rather than promote higher limits where the games aren't always full. Foxwoods has no serious competition, and the Taj and Trop are the only rooms of any size in Atlantic City, so rake cuts are unlikely. But they need to see that a lower rake might lead to lower profits in the short run, but would lead to a significant increase in player base and profit in the long run.
Iceman,
Very good letter sir. Email it to any managers you know as it is right in the mark. Unfortunately many csinos are not run by real long term astute people. Good Luck.
In Alberta, the government mandates a fixed rake of 5% up to $5.00 in the Holdem and Omaha games,and 10% up to $5.00 in the Stud games.
After the rake increased from 5% to $3.00 in Stud, the game virtually died out, because the players all went broke. Stud here is a 1-5 or 1-5-10 spread limit game, which virtually ensures that each pot will be right at the max rake and usually not much more. A 7-handed stud game with this rake and the 50 cent ante is simply brutal for any player's pocketbook.
The last time I played Stud, it was a 'bad beat' playoff. The casino was getting out of stud (no players left), but they had a $5,000 bad beat jackpot that had to be paid out before the government would let them close the game. So, they offered us regulars a one-day playoff wherein the requirements for the bad beat would be lowered each hour until someone hit it.
It was illuminating, to say the least. Our table played for 7 hours, with no new players entering the game. At the end of those 7 hours, there were two small winners at the table, and everyone else was down somewhere between $50 and $300.
Dan
I have been playing recently at Casino Arizona in Phoenix. In my opinion it has a very low rake for the higher limits. Any game 15-30 and up has a $5 half-hour collection. The 10-20 game has a lower rake than the 3-6 and 4-8 at a $2 per drop and a $1 jackpot drop (15-30 and above have no jackpot). The smaller games have a $1 jackpot drop plus a $2 dollar drop for a pot $10 and above and an additional $1 every time the pot is 10 times the minimum bet ($30 for a 3-6 hold'em game).
However, in the 10-20 games they have a must move table, when it gets shorthanded the players at the table will always ask the management for a rake reduction. Sometimes in the late hours the floorman will give us free play (except for the jackpot drop) and sometimes if all the players agree not to win the jackpot then they eliminate dropping the additional $1. So it is a good deal, even if it's a full game and more so when it gets shorthanded.
I think that the management understands that it's better to keep the games running even shorthanded since it will be more likely to get a full game and more rake once 2 or 3 more players join in. This is a good deal for the players and for the house.
Just some thoughts,
Carlos
From September 1996 to November '97, I was a regular in a 20-40 game (in Vancouver, B.C.) with an incredible $8 rake. Obviously, the game was not going to last forever. The B.C. casinos now have capped their rake at $3 ($2 in the 4-8 and 5-10 games). As well, 20-40 is no longer being spread. A 15-30 game is spread at one of the Casinos twice a week. On the other days, the biggest game you can find in the casinos is $10-20. One of the local social clubs has a regular $20-40 Omaha hi-lo game.
I am not sophisticated at executing simulations, but would love to see the results of a fairly complex simulation to optimize my late stage strategy for small no-limit hold'em tournies. Following is my "thesis" for playing a large stack against random, but basically solid opponents that are short-stacked and fighting for survival:
1. The illustrative short stack has 2.5x the big blind.
2. The short stack will attempt a "legitimate" steal of the antes anytime they are first to enter the pot and their hand meets one of the following criterion: 1) any pocket pair; 2) any suited ace; 3) any offsuit ace with a kicker above a seven; 4) any two face cards.
3. You have a larger stack and are trying to build it in circumtances where you have a good edge, not just protect it to survive.
4. If you reraise the "stealer" all-in, all players behind you and the blinds will fold.
Based on these assumptions, which I think are reasonable for the late stages of tournies, here are the data that would be useful:
1. What would be the minimum pocket pair with which it would be worthwhile to move all-in against a possible "stealer" assuming you are looking for at least a 50/50 match-up against the stealer, who would have any random hand meeting the criterion outlined above? What about a 60% edge; and 65% edge?
2. Repeat the analysis for number 1 above to find the minimum kicker to an unsuited ace that would be worth a call for the 50/50, 60, and 65% edge. (I am assuming that a call without a pocket pair or ace is out of the question.)
3. What is the EV for your reraise, taking the "dead" blinds into account.
4. My personal (empirically derived) standards are to reraise against a legitimate steal with A9 offsuit or above or a pair of eights or better. It would be interesting to see what the edge and EV is for each of these hands against a random stealing hand meeting the criterion above. What about the EV for each of these hands? Of course, I will raise or lower my standards depending on the type of player making the move, but when people are in survival mode it is impossible to nail down their hand unless you have ESP, so I think a quantatative approach is useful.
I think that other posters who play tournies may also be interested in the results. Thanks in advance for any assistance. I wish I could do the analysis myself, but I don't have the POWER.
Michael 7,
I'm afraid I have too much other profit-impacting work on my plate at the moment to be able to look into your question, but I think that your own "personal (empirically derived) standards" are probably not too far off the mark. And if not yours, then someone else's. In fact, given the combination of no-limit and tournament, I would be very hesitant about trying a simulation.
Etienne
Thanks for responding. Sorry you are too busy and didn't mean to single you out, but you always seem to be on top of the quantitative analysis related to the game. Happy holidays.
Michael,
Interesting questions - give me a couple of days and I will get back to you on this when I have some free time over the holidays.
Andy.
Thanks for your help. Have a great holiday and don't work too hard!
Hand ranking for 78-stud
Gruop1 1.AAA 2.888 3.777 4.666 5.555 6.444 7.333 8.222 9.345s 10.234s 11.235s 12.245s 13.A23s 14.A24s 15.A34s 16.A25s 17.A35s 18.A45s 19.456s 20.346s 21.356s 22.236s 23.246s 25.256s 26.567s 27.457s 28.467s 29.347s 30.357s 31.367s 32.678s 33.568s 34.578s 35.458s 36.468s 37.478s
Group2 38.KKK 39.QQQ 40.JJJ 41.TTT 42.999 43.AA2 44.AA3 45.AA4 46.AA5 47.AA6 48.AA7 49.AA8 50.A26s 51.A36s 52.A46s 53.A56s 54.A27s 55.A37s 56.A47s 57.A57s 58.A67s 59.A28s 60.A38s 61.A48s 62.A58s 63.A68s 64.A78s 65.237s 66.247s 67.257s 68.267s 69.238s 70.248s 71.348s 72.258s 73.358s 74.268s 75.368s 76.278s 77.378s 78.345 79.234 80.235 81.245 82.A23 83.A24 84.A34 85.A25 86.A35 87.A45 88.456 89.346 90.356 91.236 92.246 93.256 94.567 95.457 96.467 97.347 98.357 99.367
Gruop3 100.AAK 101.AAQ 102.AAJ 103.AAT 104.AA9 105.A26 106.A36 107.A46 108.A56 109.A27 110.A37 111.A47 112.A57 113.A67 114.678 115.568 116.578 117.458 118.468 119.478 120.A28 121.A38 122.A48 123.A58
I am trying to open discussion on starting hands. In my head first 123 hands are sort in 3 starting groups. I am sure i made at last 12 mistakes. So if somewere i wrong i like to know about it. Were i wrong and way. And i like to know if there a hand beter than A58 whith i miss.
Any coments,opinions,sugestens and critick are welcome!
P.S. Forgive me my speliing plese.
Boris,
Starting hand values change greatly with the number of players likely to enter the pot. Your hand rankings are close but the Ace hands are stronger than some of the other low hands. The chance to catch an ace and win high is important. In shorthanded pots the high pairs do quite well if played well. All your hands except for some three card eight and three card seven starters would be played for a raise or two cold unless the raises came from very tight players. Good Luck.
I was playing in my regular half omaha 8 half stud 8 game earlier this week, when the subject of starting hands came up. One older, tighter player, suggested that 5-5-5 was the best stud split starting hand, as it blocked all low straights. I still think I'd prefer rolled up aces, but what do you think of his view? (He didn't really get an argument, and I offered no opinion, as I think talk like this at the table just serves to educate some of the lesser players, and maybe would lead to them thinking more about the game than I would like!) Frank Brabec
Depends on the game. In a very loose game, you might prefer 543s. And against solid players, AAA won't get much action. 555 is disguised, so you might even get a high hand entering the pot.
I play a lot of Omaha Eight/Better. My only real consistent deviation from the basic strategy in Ray Zee's book is that I am willing to play a high hand such as 9TQK (all cards > 9 & no A) - whereas the Ray's book sticks to T-A as high hands. I view this hand having the same benefit as TJKA where you pray for "NO LOW!" and are hoping to scoop -- you have the same tight grouping of cards, I see no real difference between these two hands. What am I missing?
Dan,
678 on board makes one of your straights and gives a low to somebody for sure. Now you are playing for half and most likely also facing a freeroll against your hand. Good Luck.
This is undoubtedley true, but the low-frequency of this one particular flop would make this hand playable in a loose, passive game, especially for only one bet, no? Still trying to learn more better poker, Frank Brabec
I think the "passive" part might be the important one, but once I deem a hand playable in Omaha 8/Better (I play very tight), whether it is for one bet or two I really don't care - before the flop that is.
Forgive me if this is the wrong forum for this question and please direct me to the right one,but is anyone familiar with the single-deck,full penetration,even money on bj,game at the Grand Casino in Biloxi,Miss. and its either po or neg exspectation for a High-opt I count?
Thanks,Pak Man
/
This is not about poker so read on if not intereseted. I still play poker and I do love it so. However, there has been some posts about trading so I thought I would relate some of my recent experiences.
Most of my money is in the stock market in individual stocks that I am long on. As investments I have learned the hard way (as Jim Geary pointed out) that taking profits too early from good investments can lead to huge investment errors. Still I must admit that I am affected emotionally by "the grass is greener" syndrome and I am tempted to trade in and out of stocks a lot. Also, on-line brokerages with their dirt-cheap commissions, make the allure of active trading nearly irresistible to me. So I thought, what the heck, I'll take $2000 and open up a margin account with an on-line broker and experiment a little bit with active trading. My original thinking was that I would trade options. Looked over a bunch of stuff on indexes and individual stocks that I am familiar with. The premiums were too high basically and I had some concerns (probably unfounded) regarding liquidity in the smaller cap names. Scratch options I'll buy and sell individual securities and absorb the $7 commissions each way and use margin. Granted $4000 of buying and selling power isn't a lot but it would give me a feel and hopefully I could make a small profit.
I am not recommending any securities or trades in the following. The symbols have been changed to protect the innocent. My first target was a short sale that I was very confident in. I half expect some down market action and I knew for a lot of technical and fundamental reasons that ABC was in decline and I had a good strategy for where to enter the short. My thinking was that ABC would re-test its 52-week low and if it fell through it the drop could be fast and steep. At least that's the way it is when the market gets really panicky when a stock drops a lot. Anyway I decided to short at its 10 day moving average with a tight stop slightly above a "false" breakout point above the 10 day moving average. If ABC starts going the other way I take a small loss. If it tests its 52 week low I make a small profit, and if it falls through I make a big profit. The 2+2 posters would be proud of this analysis I thought. I have assessed my risk-reward ratio and the odds looked in my favor. I thought, "This is like shooting fish in a barrel." Everything worked to perfection, the market tanked short term just as ABC hit it's 10 day moving average. However, a funny thing happened on my way to fame and fortune as a short term trader. The stock started to hold firm and actually rallied a little while the market was tanking! Fortunately I put my stop to cover high enough to account for a false breakout which it did! Well the market action finally killed any attempt to rally in this stock and it started to sink just as the market was rebounding. You guessed it. The decline in ABC was slow and the market (tech stocks exploded to the upside) started to rebound. There I was sitting on a short that was going my way but so what. There was stuff on the long side heading for the moon. I decided to cover my short for a small profit and get on some high flyers. My first stops were DEFG and HIJK. I knew DEFG was due for a nice rebound and HIJK would be good because LMN is acquiring them in a stock swap and I could play LMN for a discounted price (this wouldn't matter much unless I held my shares until HIJK was acquired). HIJK started going up immediately. Hmmm that's good I don't mind this but I don't think I want to sell it anytime soon since I think it is going up a lot. How about DEFG? Well it rallied feebly then fell back to where I bought it and decided that it still had some short term weakness (which it did). Decided to sell (I held it for about an hour) and buy one of my favorites OPQR. OPQR rallies another point for the day from 38 to 39 after falling back from 39 3/4. Good I am thinking. Well the market continued to rally and the tech stocks were really strong. Old OPQR started to fall! Then I knew that it was in a consolodation mode after a very big run-up so I sold OPQR after a day of owning it for a loss of just the commissions and thought, let's try STUV. The previous day STUV had been up almost 50 points. It was down in the morning but started to rally. I said it is going to follow through and rally again. O.k. great I thought I'll jump on the bandwagon. I bought in and it immediately went up and then just as fast came down and I was slightly in the red on this one. After about an hour of trading in a narrow range I decided to close it out for a small loss because I thought that it was weakening. Sure enough it weakened and fell off from the point I sold it for the day. I was in STUV for about 1 hour. I am thinking this is fun but I am sure generating a lot of commissions even if they only are $7 each way. I started thinking that I needed to recover my recent tiny loss with STUV and if I did I would have paid for all this activity with my ABC short and a new tiny profit. Well old ABC was just about where I had covered it at and it looked to me like it was destined to test it's 52 week low. You guessed it, I got short ABC again. It went through it's 52 week low but stabilized slightly below it and I knew it was time to cover. I did again for a small profit. Meanwhile LMN and thus HIJK are soaring so I am making some profits on paper. I said well the place to be is long so I bought some WXYZ and it went up from where I bought it. Now my buying power has been used up and at this time I am not inclined to sell anything in my small on-line account and ride the market up as long as it goes up. Kind of like what longer term investors do. I am getting cured very quickly of my case of the "grass is greener" syndrome.
Does a flush beat a put or a call?
Sorry. I just couldn't resist. LOL
Professional poker players make money from weaker players that make more errors than they do.
Professional traders make their money from weaker traders that think they know what they are doing but instead are making a number of serious errors.
You are a weak trader with limited experience who is attempting to learn to trade by jumping into the lake and getting your feet wet. I happen to believe that this is a fine way of doing things. Nothing teaches like experience. But I learned many years ago that in any endeavor involving money there are professionals with many years experience waiting on the sidelines to clip the wings of the young and inexperienced.
What you are saving in commissions you are more than losing in slippage and execution. An 1/8 here or a 1/4 there times 100 shares will add up to more in the long run than the $7.00 per trade commission that you are getting.
Trying to day trade with out the benefit of sophisticated, up to date and real time information is a major drawback. You need to know the order flows and be able to have instant execution. You are underfinanced. You are taking a shot. This seldom works. Your margin costs will also add up.
All of the strategys that you are employing have been exhaustively examined by the professionals and you have no edge. In fact, I would say you are experiencing, in the vernacular of the newsgroups, negative EV.
The non professional can make money in the markets but it is hard work and very time consuming. Kind of like a full time job. However, he can invest his money in an aggressive growth mutal fund that has been well researched and then forget about it for 35 years. It should double about every 5 years and you will be able to retire nicely.
Day trade at your own risk but just remember that you are gambling against the professionals just as the amateurs that sit in my poker game are taking the worst of it against me.
Good luck.
J. Monroe,
I think an order of magnitude change in position size would make things very interesting. On every trade I made I was on the plus side and so far anyway every exit I made was at least o.k. I would have definitely pulled the trigger earlier on a few but I got a little greedy (this is easy to say after the fact). If my position size would have been bigger I would have been satisfied and got out. I have always found that experience is the best teacher and I got what I feel is some invaluable experience. It was kind of like being in a casino for a few days and playing craps. It has been very interesting experience and so far it is actually very profitable relative to my stake. I actually don't trade the bulk of my money this way as I have a surprisingly longer time horizon for investments in stocks. Also I have some very small positions that I am actually holding right now because I am on the plus side and I think they are going higher. So my capital is all used up except for the equity I've built up from my appreciation (now I could buy some options with that!). I am not sure I would really want to be involved this much in watching price action (I do have access to real time quote information which I used) as it is very exhausting and harrowing. One thing I have learned is that I would leverage myself less if I was trading in significant size. I do agree that there are a lot of "sharks" out there. I don't agree with the mutual fund advice since the vast majority underperform the averages. I do think that short term on-line trading has potential and I am learning as I go but I'm not sure I want to be this close to the action.
Tom Haley
Poker and day trading have many things in common. To be successful you must understand that it's a negative sum game and overcome the house rake/commission just to break even. If you're paying someone $7 commission for a service that is worth $25 where do you think the difference is coming from? Charity? Not a chance in the world. It's built into the rotten execution price you receive.
To succeed at poker you must excel at some areas of the game that your opponents do not. What, as a novice, do you see as your edge? Obviously you've taken a short course in tech analysis. What new insight do you bring to the party? Porbably none.
Don't give up. Just understand that your results could be nothing more than a fortunate random run.
To J Monroe:
SSSHHHHH!
To Haley:
Seat Open!
To Pro Trader,
One thing I love about the financial markets and poker is that it really doesn't matter what other people's approval or opinion is. All that really matters is the money you make.
Tom Haley
Tom -- thanks for an interesting post. I'd love to hear more.
Keep watching the "rake" -- the best analogy in poker might be a dropped ante since it doesn't go into the "pot" and you don't just pay when you win. Also, you may want to check out Tim Harley's contention that you're going to get rotten execution for $14 (remember that you're making round trips!). Have you been comparing your fill prices to the quote when you sent in your order?
Paul,
You ask:
>>Also, you may want to check out Tim Harley's contention that you're going to get rotten execution for $14 (remember that you're making round trips!). Have you been comparing your fill prices to the quote when you sent in your order?<<
So far the fills have been super good. I will keep all posted. I'm testing the waters with $2000 and I realize that even with $14 round trip it is way too small. Right now my $2000 is kind of tied up in stuff that luckily for me has been going out of control so I don't want to sell right now. As I stated previously, an order of magnitude increase in position size would make things extremely interesting IMO. I'll report back soon and thanks for the comments and support.
Tom Haley
The following is an old article from the Street.Com. If there is any interest I will post part 2. If not, sorry for the waste of bandwidth.
I was literally losing thousands of dollars while doing the same exact trades as my partner!
Technician's Take: Penny-Wise, Pound-Foolish: Part 1
By Gary B. Smith
Special to TheStreet.com
6/22/98 12:15 AM ET
What a dolt I've been!
Now for you regular readers, this comes as no surprise. Boy, let's face it -- for even the casual reader, it comes as no surprise. So who is surprised? ME!! I keep shocking myself with how stupid I can be.
The subject? Online brokers -- an area I thought I knew well. Had been an "early adopter," if you will, and loved 'em. And for 99% of investors out there, they're terrific. Glad they came along.
But you active traders out there? You know, the ones who are wheeling and dealing from your little basement dwelling like I am? The ones who are saving big bucks by using Mr. $5 Broker? Well, you're getting murdered. Ripped off. Annihilated. That money you think you're saving? Right. It's killing you. How do I know? Pull up a chair and listen to my tale.
It all started many years ago, when I was using a full-service broker. One of those friend-of- a-friend deals, but I really liked the guy. He came up with some great ideas, and he held my hand while I learned how to trade options. The only problem: His high commissions were weighing down my trading model.
But, after a few conversations, I finally got him down to about 7 cents per share. Thought I was getting a deal. And, I was . . . until I saw how cheap I could do it at E*Trade (EGRP:Nasdaq).
Yep, it was those darn E*Trade ads that caught my eye. Just $15 for a trade! That sounded like heaven. But, I gave my guy one more chance. Sadly, the Big Brass told him that was as low as he could go. The end of a great relationship.
So, off I went to E*Trade, and I was pretty happy with them for a few months. Until I read about this new firm, Aufhauser. Now, they had a deal where if you paid $800 up front, you could do 24 trades a month for free. And that was all kinds of trades: stops, limits, market orders, the works. And even if I exceeded my 24 trades, all additional trades were only $8 a month. Wow! I was having an orgasm just reading the copy on their Web site. I couldn't get my money to them fast enough.
And man, what a great start. The day after I opened my account, I got a call from one of their reps. He gave me his direct email, and said he was my personal contact. My man, Jeff -- my Personal Contact!! For all I know, everyone got the same treatment, but it made me feel like I was a player.
Merrily we rolled along, Aufhauser and I. Oh, I needed to email Jeff quite a bit because of Aufhauser screw-ups, but you know, I thought that's the way things were. I was blazing new trails, and since I was spending less than $8 per trade, I could put up with a glitch every now and then. Well, maybe it was a bit more than every now and then, but what the hey -- my commissions were a rounding error!
And then Aufhauser was gone. Melded into that corporate deathstar called Ameritrade (AMTD:Nasdaq). Shoot, though, I could deal with that. Sure, they had a ton of early technology problems, but I still had my man, Jeff. And sure, I was having to email Jeff just about every day with some idiotic problem, but heck, that's the way things were. And again, I was saving ton on commissions. I could laugh at all those unenlightened fools at Discover and Fidelity who were paying twice what I was paying. Once again, Ole' Gar proved to be the smartest. Move over, chumps -- there's a new boss in town!
Now those constant emails to Jeff covered a wide range of problems. Incorrect fills (thank God I had my own time and sales!); commission errors (they tried to sneak some $45 charges in there, but I caught them every time!); and some executions that just got lost in the shuffle (thankfully, I learned to scrutinize every confirmation statement!) But, again, what did I know? I just thought that's how things were supposed to work. And, at less than $8 a trade, who was I to complain?
Well, you know the old saying: the happiest man in town is the village idiot. So, this village idiot and his wife journeyed to Hawaii. And to refresh your memory, that's where my partner, Wesson, jumped in and traded for me while I sipped Lava Flows poolside.
Wesson, though, was not an Ameritrade man. No, Wesson, was one of those ultraconservative types who was a loyal Schwab (SCH:NYSE) fan. I love the guy, but get serious -- Schwab? That was for know-nothings who didn't mind getting ripped off by their broker. Well, I'd have to work with him on that. For now, he'd get a good feel for Ameritrade, and probably thank me later for subtly introducing him to the exciting world of low commissions. Poor guy would probably buy me a car with all the money I'd end up saving him.
Also, the one thing to know about Wesson is he's a diligent guy. He'd get up every morning, whip through Investor's Business Daily, enter my orders on Ameritrade, enter his orders on Schwab, wait for fills, and then enter limit orders for each position. And then, without even a breather, he'd email me with all the relevant info. And, as a courtesy, he'd even let me know what his fills were at Schwab. As well as the whole operation was going, I could have stayed in Maui permanently.
So, I'd get up every morning about 6, fetch coffee for my wife, grab a few newspapers, and mosey back to the room to check email.
And starting on morning No. 1, I found messages that read like this:
"Gary, we bought 1000 XYZ. My fill was 27.75, yours was 27.875."
And this:
"Gary, I sold 1000 XYZ at 29.75. I noticed you weren't filled. You might want to check on that."
And this:
"Gary, I shorted 1000 TNT at 45.25 and also covered today at 43.25. Ameritrade had no stock to lend, so you weren't filled."
And this:
"Gary, our short of ICU didn't work, so I covered at 33.125." I checked Ameritrade. You covered at 33.375. You might want to ask Jeff about that."
And this went on. Day after day. Oh, Wesson and I were having a heckuva run and we were killing it across the board. But compared to Schwab, Ameritrade was bleeding me to death!
Oh, trust me, I'd follow up with my guy, Jeff, all right. In total, over 10 days, we exchanged over 40 emails. Some of the fills were indeed bad, and they were fixed. On the others, I got everything from, "Well, Schwab got Wesson a better fill because they must make a market in that stock" to "Yes, I know the stock traded at your limit price. But, that was at the ask; it has to hit your price on the bid in order for you to be due an execution."
What was this??!! Sure, I was saving a bundle on commissions, but I was getting killed everywhere else. An eighth here, a quarter there, no stock available to short, wins that turned into a losses because I didn't get filled. Damn it, I was literally losing thousands of dollars while doing the same exact trades as my partner! Add this on top of the fact that I was talking with Jeff as much as I was my wife, and I was furious. MY HOUSE OF TRADING WAS INFECTED WITH WOOD-EATING CARPENTER ANTS, AND I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT!
This had to stop. Saving $15 on a trade was ludicrous if my executions were costing me $125 a trade. No, I had to find a new broker, and quickly. A broker who didn't screw up every hour on the hour. A broker who was reasonably priced, but still gave me quality fills. Ah, forget that -- how about a broker who every once in awhile actually got me an eighth or quarter better than my limit. Shoot, how about a broker who almost never said no when I needed stock to short. In fact, as long as I'm throwing in the kitchen sink, how about a broker who could take both my stop and limit orders at the same time so I wouldn't have to watch the screen all day!!
Yeah, I know, just a pipe dream. Schwab couldn't do all those things. Fido sure couldn't. Heck no one could. This online trading stuff was just a big ole' sucker play. And, as usual, I was the sucker....
Next week: Does Gary end his marriage to Ameritrade? Is there a Shangri-la, where the ideal broker really does exist? Does Wesson ever stop laughing at his partner's stupidity? The answers to these and more in next week's exciting conclusion!
Gary B. Smith is a freelance writer who trades for his own account from his Connecticut home using technical analysis.
Why not just bet some basketball?
Is this video set any help for beginner? Thank you for you advices.
I got the video and found it to be useful but it is pricey. Not only that, but you really don't get much more than you get in "The Body Language of Poker" (In fact, in many respects, you get a whole lot less.)
At the risk of offending a group of people I respect, admire, and having read posts her by all of them, even have affection for, I'm going to bring up something that has bugged me for some time.
First, I have all the books -- they are the core of my poker library. I have no problems with the prices -- no question that they have paid for themselves 100s of times over. However. . .
Why are they so poorly bound? My third copy of HFAP, less than a year old, already has pages falling out. My third Theory of Poker has the cover falling off. My Seven Card Stud FAP is little more than a pile of paages. I have purchased, packed, unpacked, read and re-read thousands of books, and most of my older paperbacks still resemble what they were sold as.
One possible answer is planned obselescence, motivated by money. This seems a shame for a group of people whose business rests on their integrity. Which, by the way, as far as the truthfulness and accuracy of information I don't doubt, and I never have.
Thanks. Sorry. BF.
B.F.,
There is no planned self destruction of the books. Its too bad you have to think badly of someone so quickly. I know we had some problems with the bindings in some of the books and Mason said he will take back all bad copies and replace them. Our books are the kind that are not read as novels and the pages and bindings get more abuse than normal. As the editions go on we have raised the quality as best we could. Good Luck.
Explanation accepted. Ungrateful of me to to impune people who spend so much time effort and thought, gratis, on helping players and promoting the game.
Running bad and a litle surly.
Sincere apologies, BF
There is no question that we have had problems with our binding over the years. We have had to redo thousands of copies of Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players, at great cost to us, and a great cost to our printer, Creel Printing here in Las Vegas.
Part of the problem with this is that when we received the books and inspected them, everything looked fine. There was no way for us to tell that the glue was bad, and that some of the books would fall apart. We began to realize that there was a problem about nine months after we started to sell that printing. Unfortunately, several thousand books had already been sold.
All binding work is subcontracted out and we are no longer with the bindery that caused the problems. However, we believe that our bindery problems are solved and have been very pleased with the last four books that we have done. (If you want to check these include The Professional Poker Dealer's Handbook and Poker Tournament Strategies). Also, no book of ours is bound unless I spend a great deal of time at the bindery and make sure that all work meets the high standards that we insist on.
By the way, if you compare our books to any other books in the gambling field you will see that we print on better paper, have higher quality art work, uv coat all books, use a very sturdy cover stock, and so on. That is our printing costs are higher than virtually any other publisher in the gambling field. We do this because we feel that our books need to be the best in all aspects, not just the information that they contain.
I also want to address the idea of planned obsolesence. Somehow 2+2 became a national publishing company. I believe that this is the first time a publisher of sophisticated, high quality gambling books has ever achieved this. Because of this you can find our books in over 400 stores nationwide (including all Borders and the larger Barnes & Nobles). However, the quickest way for us to lose this success is to produce books that fall apart. These chains and our other major buyers (including our national distributor Hervey's Booklink and the world's largest book wholesaler Baker & Taylor) would quickly drop us if our books did not hold up properly, and this would be a disaster that we would not recover from, and we would not be able to afford the cost of all the returns.
With this being said, with the exception of the very bad bindery run of Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players, we don't have complaints concerning our other books, except for an occasional isolated instance, and this includes The Theory of Poker. Also, as far as we know, we have not sold a bad copy of HPFAP for over three years.
Have you ever considered spiralbound? The way your books are used it might help.
Mason: Thank you for the good explanation for the bad binding on some of the HPFAP books sold in the past. My problem is that I have one of those books that fell apart, and now have to use a "binder clip" to hold it together and find it very difficult at best to use the book on a regular basis. I purchased the book about a year ago through Cardoza Publishing, and would like to know what I have to do to get a copy that will not fall apart without it costing me another $29.95. I don't mind sending it back to the publisher, but I don't want to get into a hassle with them about replacing it for a charge. As it turned out, the book started to loose pages shortly after I started reading it and did not do anything about it immediately, and now it has totally fallen apart; and I still refer to it regularly, but find it increasingly difficult to use. Your comments would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you, Marc Scher
Where do I send my Hold'em Poker for Advanced players for replacement if my binding has not held up and what is the procedure? This is an oustanding investment in customer service. I will gladly pay shipping.
You should take the book back to your place of purchase.
My first copy of HPFAP had a binding problem and I was starting to have many pages come loose. I figured it was because I am hard on the book spines when I spread them to read and leave them spread when I am interrupted by something. I lent it to another player and he returned it with several pages missing entirely. I ordered up another copy from Conjelco and threw my old copy away when the replacement came.
I certainly got my money's worth from my first copy and expect to profit even more with the current one. I only return goods that fail to give me full value. You won't be getting any returns from me, or questions about how to do it. You keep putting out top quality poker information and I'll keep ordering it. The value for me will always be inthe information, not the packaging. Happy Holidays.
I have some experience with publishing chess books. The number of books published and the retail prices are pretty similar to poker books. The fact is, with so few books published, the quality of the bounding,etc. suffers.
I've come to the conclusion that Omaha HiLo is the right game for players who like to play tight. What % of your book on HiLo is devoted to Omaha?
Dman,
You are right for low limits and its about 50 50 although both sections compliment each other. Its really two complete books in one. Good Luck.
Mason. You recently stated that your standard deviation for 20-40 hold-em was $280 an hour. A number I find hard to believe but if true more power to you.
My question is this. Even though you probably don't play much 10-20, what is(was)your standard deviation for that limit?
If it is around $180 or $200 an hour then how on earth can you keep your 20-40 standard deviation down to $280?
I suspect that if I played $10-$20 my standard deviation would be less than half what it is for $20-$40.
>Mason. You recently stated that your standard deviation for 20-40 hold-em was $280 an hour.
I'm wondering if the above assertion has any accuracy. I know that you've published the figure of $500 as estimation of the SD for expert 20-40 players.
$500 per hour would be more in line with a typical player. In addition, some players are much higher.
To All, you may enjoy this true story (although I hope I don't bore you). Last winter I am at the Mirage. 20-40 Stud game. Game goes short handed. I'm in the 2 seat. After a while Malmuth sits in the 1 seat. Play for about ten uneventful minutes. Sklansky sits in the 3 seat. 6 players total. Picture this I'm between my two poker idols in a short handed game. Another uneventful 10 minutes. Sklansky leaves to play Hold'em. Game goes to 4. My heart sinks. I figure the game will end and I won't have played a hand against Malmuth or Sklansky. Next hand. Malmuth raises w/Queen up, I have K up, look in the hole, rolled up Kings. I call. I smooth call. Malmuth and I go heads up and I've got rolled Kings. Fourth street, Malmuth gets a blank, me, I get another King. I couldn't believe it! Shocked I bet (I didn't care), I could see Malmuth picking his cards up to throw them in! It didn't matter, I bet anyway! I turned my cards over and said "How about this FOURKING hand". The game broke. That's the only hand I ever played against the master! What do you think! Would you (could you) have done differently. I relly think the Malmuth factor influenced my play. I would have checked the hand to the river against anyone else (except Sklansky of course). Comments? Vince
"Game goes short handed. I'm in the 2 seat. After a while Malmuth sits in the 1 seat. Play for about ten uneventful minutes. Sklansky sits in the 3 seat."
Good game selection. Ray musta been at CPK waiting for you to soften them up. :)
JG
I definitely think that if it were not Mason, you would have checked, which has to be the correct play. What were you afraid of? him drawing out on you? :)
Anybody who checks with an open pair of kings in this situation might as well just turn their hand over. It is extremely obvious that you would have quads and be waiting for your opponent to catch up. What if Mason had qjt suited and made a straight flush?
Danny S
Even if it is obvious you've got quads, you can follow Sklansky, Malmuth and Zee's actual advice and check. Look at 7CSFAP, page 57. "If (your opponent) catches nothing on 5th Street you probably should still check" In fact I think I'd check till the River and try and squeeze maybe one bet out of him!
Nonsense, it is not all obvious that you have four King's. He just called earlier in the hand. Checking is the only correct play here. How can he make a straight flush if I have all the kings? You lose a lot of money in poker if you worry about people drawing out on you with 4 kings.
Decided to gamble it up last night in a typical, but fairly passive $10/$20 holdem game. Three weakish limpers in the pot and I call with K-7 of spades on the button. Both blinds also call.
Flop comes 955 with one spade. Early position player bets, middle position player calls and I call looking to hit runner-runner flush or gutshot, a weak King or just steal the pot on fourth street since I didn't think anyone was strong here. (I told you I was gambling!) Both blinds fold, making my plan look even smarter.
A two of spades turns, giving me great implied steal odds. Early player bets out, middle calls, and I pop it. Early guy grimaces and hesitates, but makes the call. Middle lady folds. River makes the flush with a Jack. Checked to me, I bet and get paid off.
Table expert who has dubbed me THE GUY WHO ONLY PLAYS ACE KING imparts his wisdom on the table and pronounces "Show us your A-5 suited." I say "you're close" and turn over my dubious holding. He scratches his head and proceeds to get check-raised-on-the-turn when I flop two sets later in the session.
Comments?
So you played poorly and one a pot. I see people do that all the time. Play like that long enough and you will have a new rep. One not as nice as the rock. It is good though to mix up your game once in awhile, I just don't see why you are so amazed at this play? Try 3/9 off suit next time for a REAL thrill! Doc-
I'm not really "amazed" at this play. I just thought it would be a good basis for a discussion of bluffing potential in position with a pair on the board, semi-bluffing on the turn with some decent outs, or using someone's (mis)perception of your game against them. I like to use real life examples to illustrate concepts, but that's just my style. But I guess your style is to use this forum as an opportunity to denigrate someone's game? Take that attitude to rec.gambling. By the way, I "won" the pot, not "one" the pot.
Good luck and happy holidays. Maybe you can go to Stockman's Bar or the Outlaw on X-mas and give poker lessons to some drunk Cowboys and YOU can get a real thrill.
Hey, you asked for comments. If you have such a fragile ego, then don't end your posts with... comments? I was not slamming your style but rather giving caution to this style of play. Have a happy holiday back atcha' and by golly, I already gave them cowboys a lesson yesterday. Doc-
Congratulations...great hand.
I second that sentiment.
Hey, nothing wrong with getting outta line once in a while.
But, I am more interested in the hands where you flopped a set and waited until the turn before raising. Is this your usual practice or do you mix it up by betting on the flop, check raising on the flop etc. It seems to me that many players err (particularly in heads-up situations) by waiting for the turn before they pull the check raise trigger. I think that this is wrong. In the long run, you make more $$ by check raising on the flop (or betting the flop).
It's easy to prove this. In a $10-20 game, if you assume that your opponent will only call you once you have raised him on the turn, you will make $10 on the flop, $40 on the turn and $10 on the river for a total of $70. On the other hand, if you raise on the flop and your opponent calls you down all the way, you will make $20 on the flop, $20 on the turn and $20 on the River for a total of $60. Not much of a difference.
The one drawback to a raise on the flop is that your opponent may just fold. In that case, you may have lost out on $20 that your opponent may have bet on the turn if you had just called on the flop.
But consider all of the good things that can happen if you check raise (or bet) on the flop. Your opponent may have a big over pair. If so, he will likely make it three bets on the flop. He may just smooth call your raise on the flop and then pop you on the turn. Many players take a check raise to mean that the raiser only holds a mediocre hand and not a set. Some creative players may even semi-bluff raise you on the turn if they happen to pick up a flush card.
Even if your opponent holds AK, it is unlikely that he will fold when you check raise on the flop. He will probably call to catch a pair on the turn. If an Ace or King hits on the turn, you have got another great check raise opportunity on the turn.
Further, I would say that by building a reputation of check raising (or betting) on the flop when you hit a set, you will get a lot more "respect" when you make those plays when you just have top pair or something. In other words, when you come out firing on the flop, your opponents can't know whether you just have a mediocre hand or whether you have a very strong hand.
I have gone on way too long here. Bottom line: When you flop a set, I'd recommend a check raise (or a bet) on the flop as a rule. Check raise on the turn now and then to mix up your play.
Any Comments?
I don't know what your looking for here.This is the type of play that can cost you big if your wrong, and you're right, you were gambling.When you lose one of these hands and it costs you alot , and you lose that session, you will be kicking yourself all the way home for playing that way. the fact that you were aware of your bad play isn't good enough. This is the fallacy that many players live under. They think that because they know better, that knowing better is good enough. It's not. as soon as you realize that just one stupid gambling play in a session can jeopardize your profit in many more ways than one, you might be less likely to brag about it to us. Now go to your room, and no dessert!!
Al & Doc, What are you trying to do, impress Mason, David, & Ray with how tight you play? M7 took advantage of his position, table image, and the game conditions in this hand. I seem to recall reading about these concepts somewhere, the book was called "Hold 'em for Good Players" or something like that. Then, when he had the table on tilt, M7 took full advantage of his NEW image by maximizing the value of a nice run of cards. Which, SKP, is I'm sure why he waited to raise on the turn. Hmm, utilizing your opponents' opinion of you, didn't I read about that in some book, "The Idea of Poker" I think it was called.
M7 took a shot with garbage on the button and got lucky. Big F... Deal. Doyle Brunson got lucky with garbage a couple of times, too. Whass matta, you guys sore 'cause YOU never get 'lucky'?
billm, go to your room immediately, you're grounded for a month!
M7 is really thinking at a higher level in this pot. I salute him for his thinking and fortitude. He may have picked a bad hand and spot to do it although give him credit as he seemed to read the players correctly. I got footprints all over my butt from doing the same things and I never learn. Good Luck.
That's really good advice. He shows he is thinking, and knows his players, but i would have folded after that flop, only cus i dont like to "gamble", i like to win.
I dont like the hand selection too much, but like the thinking you used. I think you could have played it better though. If I was going to play that hand, I would have raised on the flop. That could have probably bought you a free card on the turn, which would have been better overall since you were drawing kinda slim. A re-raise would have let you know where you stand. You needed a runner-runner as you weren't able to drive the other player out. A raise on the flop might have convinced him to lay it down. Changing it up and taking advantage of your image is a smart play though.
A Poker Guy!
You should also thank the "table expert" for pointing out the surprise and improving your image. I like this play. I have a similar playing style. I find it very useful in a game with regulars. I find that it works best if you try it every 3 or so hours (assuming you are playing in a regulars game where the same faces are staying put). On the weekends, for example, I would never play this way because there are always a lot of callers in the game. Bluffing goes down in value on the weekend.
I almost stopped reading your message half-way through because of the garbage you were playing, but then I realized what was really going on and think it's great. If you are a regular and playing in regular games, I would suggest having some playing sessions where you don't try to mix it up at all. It will make bluffing a great opportunity for you later.
I am also considered table granite. However, I think it's a misnomer in my case and yours. Rocks rarely,if ever, bluff. I bluff alot more than my opponents think I do, depending on who's in the hand with me. I don't bluff the maniac or the unaware,as that is a waste of time and money. You picked your spot and it paid off. However, in your position I would have raised on the flop to get the free card on the turn. You would have got paid off on the river when you raised. Probably. I see loose players try to run bluffs. It rarely works. Someone is going to make it show and tell time. I know it's been written that win/lose on bluffs should be equal, but for the tight player, I don't agree. Tight players need to show a profit on the their bluffs as they tend to not get as much action at other times.
In all seriousness the problem I have with the way this hand was played is that you were trying to set up more than one person for a bluff. Bluffing in limit or stealing as I like to call it is been done when the situation warrants it. In other words, if you say to yourself," I'm going to play this hand on the button and try to bluff if I don't hit the flop", is wrong in my opinion.Any hand can turn into a steal situation if the circumstances are right.But to decide before hand without regard to the flop and how many players etc., isn't going to work very often. You improved on the turn which made your play okay from there on, but going in and on the flop.................??????
Your Point Escapes me! (Where's the move?) I'm sure it must be me! (calling the flop is certainly questionable, but not a move). Please enlighten me! (betting the flush on the river is not a move, is it?) Must be the turn, although I have made a similiar play on the turn for other reasons than "implied steal odds". Which btw is a also a new one on me. Please explain. Also what exactly is the point of your post! Oh! Yeh! I am only responding to this post because everyone else (almost everyone) on the forum responded! Vince
I have to agree with Vince on this one. You didn't make a move, you took a card off. About a year ago I submitted a post about this play. I went through a period of a couple months where occasionally I would take a card off. I was in a bad streak at the time and probably made runner runner like you on one of these plays. This move is very dangerous especially if you exhibit cognitive dissonant behavior. As one poster put it this so called move can cost you a ton in the long run because if that turn card gives you a draw there is a likelihood that your participation created the pot odds that would allow you to play on, sort of like a Frankenstein syndrome. I'd much rather play connectors like 45 suited or loose connectors like 68 hearts in middle position and try to hit a flop as a move to show the world I'm not a rock, which I am. As Ray Zee noted beware of small samples.
"This move is very dangerous especially if you exhibit cognitive dissonant behavior" Yeh, that's it! That's waht I meant! Seeeee! Vince
.
The situation is as follows: flop K85 rainbow, you're in the big blind with K7o. There were 3 or 4 limpers preflop. Do you bet?
The answer always seemed obvious to me (which is to definitely bet), but on rec.gambling.poker there's been some people saying that checking is usually a better option.
My reasons for betting are: 1. You don't want to give a free card 2. You want to put pressure on the early position players to fold the hands they have odds to call with (like 89) 3. You don't want to fold to a semi-bluff, or to check-and-call 4. You want to set up the bluff by which you bet this flop *without* a king
The reasons given for checking are: 1. You get information *before* you risk any money 2. You can check-raise the button when he bluffs 3. If you give a free card, you might get action on the turn from a much worse hand
What's the correct answer, or as usual does it depend on the game?
One factor that I would take into consideration is the lack of a raise pre-flop, which would cause me to lean towards believing that my King is boss. Also, I would like to know if the small blind is involved?
But, I am still concerned about my weak kicker, and with that in mind would like to find out where I am *now*. I would bet unless I thought that I could get in a check raise. I would probably fold against any real action.
I don't know the posistion of the callers but if someone has a king with a good kicker they are likely to raise. you should most likely bet unless there is a specific reason for checking based on the players in the hand.When you have what looks like the best hand you need to bet it until someone makes you think it isn't. There is always an argument for the other side, but remember that you are going to have this same situation come up and someone is going to beat you with kt once in a while or some other better hand. being reasonably aggressive and leading is the way this game should be played. You will make more money in the long run. goodluck
"...as usual does it depend on the game?"
Yes. Very situationally dependent. Examples: In a game with a number of aggressive players you might want to check to let someone bet for you with something like middle pair or a bluff. With an aggressive move maker on the button, you might check-raise. In a game of passive, predictable players you might bet, knowing that you may get calls (but probably not raises) from hands you can beat, while no one would bet less than top pair if you checked.
I don't think that checking with some frequency here will ruin your ability to bluff in the same spot in the future. That's because there will be those times that you're seen betting the same top pair due to the dictates of the situation. There will also be times when you have the same top pair with a good kicker (say you have KQ in the same situation) and will be betting. Overall you'll be seen betting that top pair sometimes and checking it other times.
BTW, I would quibble a bit with the idea that someone with a hand like 98 has "odds to call" here. Even with four limpers and the small blind in, when you bet a player holding 98 is getting 7-1 on an 8.5-1 shot where he frequently won't be confident that all of his outs (e.g., hitting a 9) will be good if they hit. Even considering implied odds, then, it doesn't look too good for a call. If the pot were bigger or you added a backdoor flush draw it might swing it. But routinely calling with 98 there would not, IMO, be a good idea. (Other exceptions could involve times when you know your opponent well enough to know there is profit in calling him down or setting up a play on the turn, etc.)
John Feeney
Al and John's thinking is a little to good here for the likes of me, maybe we should stay out of their games. When John came around to a game I was in I was smart enough to say hello and get out of town with my chips in hand.
Hehehe. My wife said I should frame that or something. :-)
The kicker doesn't matter unless someone else has a K, so don't worry about the kicker until someone gives you reason to worry about it. You are too vulnerable to try and make any fancy moves. Bad things will happen to top pair when you give everyone a free draw to beat you. If you check and someone else bets, you really don't get any information. You will learn a lot more from a raise after you have bet.
Now, let me be controverial (maybe?). I say in all but the loosest games, ANY top pair is worth a bet. I don't care if 4 makes top pair, I will bet it. I dont care if the flop is 234 suited, if I have a 4, I will bet. Until someone gives me a reason to think I am behind, I will keep betting top pair. It makes it really hard for people to put me on a hand unless they want to invest some money.
Now, before anyone starts thinking I am crazy, remember that this only works if you play appropriate starting cards (S&M groups, adjusted to the particular game) and read other players reasonably well and are not afraid to toss a loser when you have evidence that you are behind. They normally see me turning over winners, so when I bet the 234 suited example they would generally figure me to have a much stronger hand (and I would probably have a 45s or A4s, giving some extra outs for the straight) and they will quickly let me know if I am behind. Dont try this with a BB trash hand, and once you no longer have top pair yer on yer own :). Yeah, once in a while someone will slowplay a get a couple of bets out of me, and yeah, overcards do fall more often the lower the top board card is, but not often enough to make it unprofitable.
Any similar or dissimilar experiences out there?
A Poker Guy!
You're example tries to make things more extreme. Betting with 45s makes sense in that case. However, if there are more than 4 or so callers, I wouldn't bet with 45s either.
I'd bet more often than not, but it depends on how you perceive your opponents, including what they think of you. Against an agressive player that likes to bluff I would check and call or check raise (perhaps on the turn). Against very good players or several passive types I would always check and either fold or call depending on the bettor's position and proclivity for betting second or third pair. I would bet out against most tight players. If I've been caught bluffing or have picked up a lot of pots without showing anything I'd be mroe inclined to check and call, but if I've been showing quality cards I'd be more inclined to bet and fold if raised. As for the free card analysis, I disagree that you "don't" want to give one because you might desperately need one yourself.
Bet! And hope everyone folds! Vince
It's always hard to make a judgement here if you're not at the table yourself, but generally: i like having top pair of Kings and a weak kicker a hell of a lot better than top pair of Aces and a weak kicker, cus people tend to play aces so much more. Still, with all these limpers in, I would check here for the following reasons:
1) You have disguised the fact you have top pair 2) Someone is bound to bet, and if it's only the button, i would reraise, and get some players out 3) If there is a lot of action, you get out cheap
Note that the main reason to check here, is that there are so many players seeing the flop. If there were less, i am betting. Merry Christmas
I see that the odds to draw one card with one round is number of outs to number of cards in deck. Can someone tell me how to figure drawing one card in multiple rounds? Say you have pocket pairs and want to figure out your odds of improving for the remainder of flop, turn, and river. Thanks in advance.
New,
Take the number of cards that wont help , put it over the number of cards left in the deck, multiply that by the next figure for the comming round and or more rounds or events. That figure is the chance of it NOT happening and that percent subtracted from 1 will give the percent chance that it will happen. Good Luck.
Ray's answer is of course correct if you want the exact answer. For play at the table, though, I prefer an approximation I can do in my head. For Hold'em, I use the rule of thumb: there is approximately a 2% per out per card to come chance of hitting your draw. So for example, the approximate chance of a pocket pair catching a third of that rank on the flop is 2% * 2 outs * 3 cards = 12% (the exact answer is 11.755%). 12% is a little less than one eighth, so I know the odds are a little bit higher than 7:1 against (they are actually 7.5:1 against). If you want to know the chances of hitting the third card by the river, the approximation says 2% * 2 outs * 5 cards = 20% (4:1); the actual answer is 19.18% (4.2:1).
Likewise, if you are trying to fill a four-flush on either turn or river, the approximate chance is 2% * 9 outs * 2 cards = 36%, a little bit lower than 2:1 against. The exact chance is 1-(38/47)*(37/46) = 34.97%, which works out to 1.86:1 against.
This approximation breaks down if the numbers get really big: if you were trying to hit one of 15 outs with any of the five board cards, the chances would not be 2% * 15 * 5 = 150%, but something rather lower than that (84.68%, to be precise). But for most normal poker calculations, it works pretty well.
If you want the correct answer to Holdem odds questions get Mike Petriv's book.
I have played on planet poker online a few times. I have seen some things that are simply indescribable. I would like anyone elses view or comments on this subject. Thank you.
There have been several threads on RGP lately that have talked about experiences on planet poker. You might want to check dejanews.com for those.
Personally, I wouldn't play online although Steven Landrum pointed out on RGP that a value online poker might be able to offer is available and fair headsup play.
I am opposed to online poker, especially for real money. Can you attempt to descibe the "indescribable"? Are you saying play is terrible,scary,or what?
Well were should I begin? The play is definetly terrible if anyone has anything they are in till the end, reguardless of the stakes. I have tried playing super tight and that does not seem to work real well either.
When I first started playing I went up a couple k. Then cashed out 1k and shortly lost the rest back on some astonishing hands. In one about 4 hour session I lost with queen's full to quads of the under card on the river; two set's of trips to bigger set's; and quads to quads if you can believe that. I have had bad luck before but that gives those words a whole new meaning. People cold call $30 with 7 2 off suit and manage to win hands on the river. I don't think anyone who plays now has any idea what an out is let alone pot odds.
When I first started playing the play was much better yet still unbelievably big hands winning pots. Top pair you can throw away whether there is one or ten callers. I have played alot of cards and never seen anything like it in my life. One thing is for certain you will never see a bad beat pot on planet poker or anyone playing on a regular basis that is any kind of a poker player at all. I guess the one good thing I recieved from planet poker besides a few dollars, was to realize how much information you really get from watching someone in person. I envite anyone to be able to put people on hands by the way they bet on planet poker. I monkey could confuse a good poker player if he was only able to see it's bets. People bet bottom pair with 4 outs the same as an openeded straight flush and you think no one could cold call $20 or $30 with j 3 but when you have q j and you trip j's lose to j's full of 3's then you understand planet poker and how to lose a quick $150. Any comments to my complaining would be appreciated.
Thank you
Planet Poker had some of the tightest games I have ever seen. Boring as hell.
I have been playing on Planet Poker for about a month now and my experience has been that the games are usually very tight. I haven't seen anything even approaching what you describe.
They do still have some technical problems that need to be worked out.
My financial dealings with them have gone without a hitch; twice I have asked them to mail me a check to partially cash out my account, and both times the check arrived in about a week.
Jay
Is there a PRINTED book or computer program of statistics for the probability of making certain hands? E.g.) In Stud, You have 3 diamonds, 1 is out (you see on the board). 2 cards to come. Is there somewhere I can LOOK UP the chances of making the flush? What is your FASTEST AND EASIEST formula for figuring these odds?
see the post below regarding this by ray zee. also, any basic statistics book has a probability section that covers this. it isn't all that difficult.
The "advisor" function in TurboTexas Holdem by Wilson Software does this nicely at the flop,turn and river. Get it at Congelco or the Gamblers Bookstore in LV
One of the worst players in our regular poker game has discovered something that he thinks is very valuable to him. He has learned how to hit and run.
Personally I find this very amusing because I know it is just a matter of time before he gets stuck and will go for a bundle. Well, last night was the night. In fact, he had the game beat and even had his chips racked up but couldn't resist playing a few more hands. He lost one, and the rest as they say is history. He blew back his $300 win and about $1200 more. I knew it would happen eventually but I was just hoping I would be in the game when it did.
Now he is back to hitting and running again and he is so scared to stick around and play you can see it in his face. He used to just sit and play and not worry about how he was doing. He lost of course but at least he enjoyed himself. Now he is so worried about losing that he can't enjoy himself when he is winning and everyone knows that it is just a matter of time again before he has a horrible losing week.
This very same player brags about his 21 consecutive wins but doesn't talk about the 22nd night when be blew $3200. You see he cannot quit when losing unless he has been playing for a couple of days and is ready to pass out. But if he gets up a hundred or two. Bamm! He is gone.
Why are people so afraid to win--yet so determinded to lose?
You said when he used to play longer he lost consistently. He probably went home feeling like shit night after night. He's now found a way to feel good about himself most nights. There's nothing wrong with that. He still probably contributes the same overall and he is more likely to continue playing now. Thats good for you and thats good for the game. Why be so smug about it? So what if he brags about 21 consecutive wins? A good player will probably never have 21 consecutive wins. You should encourage anything that gets him to come back night after night. You know he's a loser, but why take pleasure in it? Isn't taking his money enough?
A Poker Guy!
W. H.,
I see this a lot of times with poor players. When they get a fairly good win they are gone. This is exactly the kind of behaviour you want. Think of it from their point of view. Nobody likes or can stand losing consistently so this player feels that he is cutting into his losses when he takes home some money. Of course he is fooling himself. Let him and compliment him on his smart money management technique.
Tom Haley
I have recently just logged my 250th hour of Texas Holdem. This is just since I have been keeping records. After looking over my notes. I notice one thing that really sticks out. I seem to sit down and start to win. But by the end of the session I seem to have lost all my winnings.
In a game last week I sat down to 6-12 game, won a couple of nice pots. I was up a good $200-$250 in just the first hour of play. Then about the 2 hour mark I hit a bad beat. I was On the Button when I looked down to see 9s Js. There were no raises and I called. The flop came Kh Qd 10c. To make a long story short, I was beat by the nut straight. From that point I seem to be on a downward spiral. I tighend up my play. But the cards were not with me at all. Once I was in Middle Position. and was Delt KdQd. I called then it was raised, So I called the raise, and The flop was garbage. That Kind of thing happend to me sevral times.
I just can't put it all together. Im not quite sure if it is the game selection or my play that needs to be worked on. I play at a small Tribal Casino where 6-12 is ussually the Highest limit that is avaiaible. I have noted that there are a lot of BAD players that tend to suck out on you in this game. I know that in the long run they are loosers, But right now they sure have been putting a hurting on my Bankroll. I decided to take a week off, and see if this bad Ju Ju will be shaken.
Any advice or simular experinces shared on this topic would be greatly appriciated!
If you are in a loose "no-foldem-holdem" game, you need to make sure you are adjusting your strategy to this type of opponent (high cards go down in value, suited connectors and pairs go up in value, don't bluff as much). Also, keep an eye on the rake. At this limit, a high rake (which is often the case at smaller games in smaller rooms) can make it nearly impossible to win in the long run.
In light of your complaint about flopping rags to big overcards "several times" I would focus on attitude more than selecting a better $6-12 game and would begin by reading and rereading John Feeney's essay on this website. My peace of mind, concentration and results improved as I gradually took a longer view of the game instead of agonizing over bad cards, suckouts, tough nights, missed shots and other "bad luck" events. These things either happen to you or somebody else every time you play so why care? Holdem "works" for only because its big luck component not only allows but virtually forces weak players to win occasionally. I know you know this, but learning to love it or at least completely accept it can free your mind for better things. Low limit players will put on a veritable show for you and you'll see stuff after you stop counting and recounting your chips while obsessing about whether the evening's blip on your year-end tally is slightly upward or downward. You'll also have more fun and be less bored. As for "spiraling downward" as the evening wears on, quit if you can't maintain your concentration. Otherwise try to ignore the short-term results. Walk more, have a beer, relax. As for technical advice, the first response to your post was good as are dozens of archived others concerning no-foldem.
"focus on attitude more than selecting a better $6-12" "took a longer view of the game instead of agonizing over bad cards, suckouts, tough nights, missed shots and other "bad luck" events." "learning to love it or at least completely accept it can free your mind for better things." etc.. If better advice is given anywhere else I certainly haven't seen it, so anyone, fill me in! I ditto this post and recommend read and heed to all low limit poker players. Thanks Chris Vince Lepore
Walleye,
If you play with better cards in better positions than your opponents, play the hand more skillfully throughout than your opponents, and the rake is not too high to preclude winning, than you must win in the long run. Violate any of these and you are a dead duck. An hour of bad play takes out a whole days worth of good playing. People that use small samplings of occurences to make judgements for future actions can get themselves into some unusual beliefs. Dont let it happen to you. Good Luck.
Ray,
Wish I could have seen you in Cal. Hopefully I can make it to Vegas for the Rio thing. As far as your advice AMEN. I suspect that there are some problems after the flop.
Tom Haley
Try limiting your sessions to 2 hours max. Many people think they are playing just as well after 2 hours, but they are not. Sorta like the drunk that thinks he drives just as well when he is drunk. His thinking is impaired but he cant see it. There are so many people that start chasing after they have won a few pots (hey, I had outs) and give it all back eventually. Also, the longer you play with other people, the better read they have on you.
Good luck,
A Poker Guy!
Ray Zee:
"People that use small samplings of occurences to make judgements for future actions can get themselves into some unusual beliefs. Dont let it happen to you."
Right on, Ray.
When I hear a player complaining about "them" -- and god knows i'm not immune -- I immediately wonder if they are gamblers instead of poker players, or if I am beginning to think like a gambler instead of a player. Whose money do you think was in those pots, enough to win several hundered in an hour in a 6-12 game?
We all wish every pot was a new all time high. At best it's a ranom walk with an upward drift. They call it standard deviation, but I like bad Ju Ju better -- e.g. my win rate is $10/hr with a bad Ju Ju of $250.
Happy New Year all.
Here I go again. Watch how everyone will jump on me and say I am wrong..BUT!, It sounds as if you should have quit when you were up if EVERY time you are UP at the beginning and EVERYTIME you go home booking a loser apparently you need to have the WILLPOWER to cash out up! Maybe you get tired after a short play. You say that you tighten up after you lose some so THAT is a definite warning sign to QUIT..UP! Try it. You might just leave EVERYTIME..(almost) up! Playing marathon games is not for everyone. Doc-
If you are better than them, eventually you will win. Every player will get the same cards through a lifetime of play, so luck becomes a constant, and the more skilled player will win. Look at your poker career as one long game, not how you did last week. Just keep playing, and look at your overall winnings, not this session or that.
I agree with you BIG FIG except that apparently this person is not playing well. Perhaps he is not as good as you. Thus, if he continues on the way as he has been going, he will be swearing off the game or be broke in no time. What this forum does not understand is that we are not all great poker pros who will win in the end if only we play our best. It took me years and thousands of dollars to learn how to win consistantly. There were many nights of self doubt. Many near suicide days. Days when I worked a job and played cards too. Days when I wondered if I was just chasing a ghost or was I an addict who enjoyed losing. Not just money but everything! But then after a few more years of playing,I can just about be assured that I will whip butt no matter where I play. But it took more than just playing my best because in the beginning stages of learning, "your best just ain't good enough." How much more misery does this poor soul need to go through with bad advice? He should QUIT when he wins! If he quit when he was UP every time, I bet he would be richer than he is now. Poker is like priesthood. It is a life's vocation. Pain, suffering and self doubt are all part of it. Anyone who is TOP FORM and won't admit this statement is just bluffing themselves. Ask the old time REAL PROS. They'll tell it the way it is. Hope I made my point. I don't leave everytime I'm up, but I am an old fart who has paid his dues. I know the game in and out and I AM ahead in the long run. You can take that to the bank. Doc-
Doc, I don't know if it's me or you, but your posts are starting to make sense to me. BTW, I am not a great player, just an OK player who is trying to get better. Reading the posts on this forum is like talking to the old and new pros. In fact, it's better because you guys don't think of us as opponents. Hense you will freely share info. Also, if Walleye plays to the "ignorant" end of the straight and gets beat, should he be suprised?
Doc (maybe I shoud say Father). Your post is more interesting than the first guy that started this. He asked for advice and the responses are telling him how to live his life. God bless america! Vince
The responses to this post have been superb. I want to mention MASON's latest stud/holdem article in poker world about fluctuations in both games. What I have learned in playing - reading - playing - reading - in the last several years is that most people who think they play well have one major fault.
They play too many hands.
Examine your play, over and over again. Are you playing too many hands ?? I think after 6 years of part time play its finally begining to dawn on me. You lose so much more when you play those marginal hands. I just got back from a two day mini-vacation where I was a winner. What was my biggest regret? I blew back about $200-$300 playing hands that I should not have played.
Final advice - 1) Concentrate on limiting your hand selection.
2) Concentrate on reading your players and their play.
3) Reread and play, reread and play.
Good luck and have a Merry Christmas.
Tom B.
I have come to think of the phemomenon described in the original post as the Rip, as opposed to the Rush--a natural methphor since I am from San Diego. I also play at a tribal casino where there are many regular, skillful players. The edge you might enjoy against poorer players decreases as you go up the limits. If you are playing the top limit, then it is very likely you are against the top players in your area. You can beat them by following Ray Zee's advice, once again sensible and comprehensible. Play your position well and look for opportunities to steal. But remember that you are playing the best. You can also beat them by picking up your chips, especially if you have jumped off to an early lead, and are now beginning to lose. Quit when you're ahead is very good advice.
Better advice is to quit when you are losing before you wipe out your bankroll trying to overcome a tough table, and a bad run of cards. I know this from personal experience. My first post to this forum was titled the Dead Seat Syndrome. What I have learned to do is to get my butt out of the seat, either to leave or to find another table, and a game that I can beat. Example: Last night I wasted three hours in a tight, tough 2-4 game. I am stuck 160 and so frustrated I could sh.... I went to a 3-6 with a kill. The table is looser, and I began to draw better cards. I pick up a couple of small pots and began to feel like a competitor. I get more or less even, and then I get lucky. I flop a straight in a kill pot against two players less skillful. I hook them like the fishes we all love. One is chasing a flush, one is playing middle pair with an Ace kicker. I make it four bets to go on the turn, and neither one of them get there. Despite this both of them call me at the river. I keep the kill three times with agressive betting of trash and leave a significant winner, given the limits.
To quote a competitor of the luminaries who sponsor this forum. "If the other players are helpless, and cannot defend themselves, you're in the right game." MJC.
The beginning player can't depend upon abstract positive feedback the way an experienced pro can ( e.g., "I played my best but lost simply because the 9 to 1 shots drew out on me time and time again. I would have lost considerably more had I NOT been playing well...)." Since one needs to master the art of adapting night to night or day to day to changing conditions, when one loses in a given session, the inexperienced player should be asking himself if his play was responsible for the poor results. And since there are so many variables, the beginner reflects, how is one to be sure of anything? It's the uncertainty that preys upon one's emotional equilibrium.
Thanks for all the posts. Its good to hear from other players about the swings of the game, I feel re-freshed (so does my bakroll!) I am learning this game more and more every day, Thanks again.
Walleye
In an effort to escape the Tough Cards I was encountering in 4-8 Hold Em, I graduated to 10-20. No help. Even when I played good cards in good positions Tough Cards would often (but of course not always) beat me.
Now I think I know why. Even in the 10-20 game, virtually every suited combination, connector, one gapper and A-X would be in play. This would mean that even when I raised, 4-5 callers pre flop would be expected. The flop was then a selection process in which I was left with the one or two players who were helped by the flop no matter how bad it looked. On the occasions it helped no one or their draws did not work out for them, I would win.
The problem is in the numbers. It is hard to beat five players all on a draw.
Thus I switched to Omaha/8, where the Tough Cards are expected and always present, with much better results.
The "Afraid to Win" post below reminded me of something. I remember playing out west (I think it was around L.A. or maybe Vegas) five or six years back in a couple of low spread limit hold-em games where there always seems to be at least three guys about one-hundred years old who each had about ten to fifteen dollars in front of them. They were the definition of rocks, and whenever they played, they inevitably got all in early in the hand. If they lost, they would drag another thirty bucks out and buy in the for the minimum. I am just wondering, is there some logic to this strategy, or are they basically doing the equivilent of playing the slots one quarter at a time to make their gambling experience last on?
Almost every player I know who continually buys in for the minimum is a losing player. I don't quite understand why they do this. Firstly, they can't protect their hand if they catch a good flop plus they continually piss off their last few chips coming in on hands that they would not have called with if they had more chips in front of them.
Not a good strategy.
I see this strategy as a way for people that don't like making decisions to play a decision making game.
In satellites in limit holdem as opposed to no-limit, (1) a player's result in the earlier levels will depend somewhat more on the QUANTITY of pots won rather than the QUALITY, (2) it is much more difficult to come from behind with a large disadvantage in heads-up or three-way play when the blinds are large, (3) the reward/risk ratio on bluffs and steals is higher than in NL where you need to risk much more of your stack to represent strength effectively. So:
Would this imply to play considerably more hands than in ring game limit play early in the satellite, even if the blinds were very small relative to the stacks?
What types of additional hands would be played? (suited connectors and small pairs, or hands like KJo and ATo)
Is there a book that treats the 5 card draw game where an individual must either open the betting or fold (i.e., no checking the opener)?
Steve,
Norman Zadeh, Winning poker systems has a chapter on pass and out. It s a good book for draw and lowball. Mason Malmuth and Mike Caro have written on Draw poker and are must reads as well. Good Luck.
I would also add Nesmith Ankeny's book to the "must read" list for Draw poker players.
Does anyone have an idea of the number of professional poker players (7 Stud or Holdem) in Las Vegas? I am interested in the number of pros at the 10-20,15-30, and 20-40 level. I will qualify my definition of a pro to include poker players that have a positive expectation of greater than 3/4 of a big bet per hour (Some players may be this good but not play professionally). What is the probability of sitting at a Las Vegas game at these levels and facing a pro, 2 pros, more than 2 pros? Is there a "best time" to play to minimize the probability f being in a game with multiple pros? I know this sounds like a wimpy post but it's really not the case. I believe that information like this is extremely important in considering strategy especially game selection. Consequently I feel it is a valid question for the forum. Hope you (at least some of you) agree? BTW this info for other Poker centers, like North/South California, AC, Mississippi, etc may be very avluable to a traveling pro. Info for these areas is also appreciated. I can tell you from experience that AC has more wanna be's (yes I'm one) than successful pro's as defined above. Happy Holidays Vince
There are more pros in Vegas than Don King has hair.
Vince, Great question, but I think it might be more important to question how many live ones will be at a table at any time. If you are playing well, you won't be tangling with the pros too often. If the game is good, your encounters with pros will likely be straightforward.
The games, 10-20 and higher (stud and holdem) have all been very good and profitable here in Vegas.
Happy Holidays, Jessica
If you are a solid player, then it is the NON pros that you should be wary of. (and looking for too) It is the lucky drunk who sucks out on you in higher limit no fold em that you should be watching out for. In the long run, the drunk will lose it all. But if you have a bad run and you get sucked out on repeatedly, then you are in danger. I like playing with the pros. I am a pro, although I play in Montana. Yes, pro players from Montana are good. Enough with the Montana jokes already! Anyhow, The core players and the true pro's generally don't make much from each other. They pass chips back and forth, but they are after the tourist and the novice. They wait like patient snakes ready to zap the chips from the lucky drunk or lucky tourist when the timing is right. I would rather be more concerned with this question? When are the bad players most likly to be in a game, and wait for them to go on tilt and then share in the profits with the other pros. Hope this helps. Doc-
I was wondering if we could share some successful bluffing situations. I normally play $10-$20 Texas Hold-em on St. Louis area riverboats. I will post some of my bluffing situations when I get more time (I'm busy with last minute Christmas preparations). Thanks and to all a Very Merry Christmas and very profitable river cards!!
Royal Flush
Check out my essay "Profitable Bluffs in Hold 'em" in the "Essays" portion of this Forum.
I too would be interested in hearing about bluffs that seem to work for the Forum participants. I look forward to hearing your ideas once you get your shopping done.
Happy Holidays to all! See you in the New Year.
Last session, I was playing No Fold em at Hollywood Park. I had just taken a tough beat by getting drawn out on the river. I wasn't happy, but it was early yet and didn't bother me too much. But then the very next hand, I was dealt pocket Aces in the little blind. There were about 5 callers and I decided to pretend to steam. I put on my "pissed off by bad beat" face and tossed in a raise. Four called and the other folded. The flop came as Qc 9h 5h. I had black aces. I bet out, again seemingly steaming, and two folded, the others calling. The turn brought the Ah. I was then concerned with the made flush and draws (along with a possible straight draw). I am first to act, what should I do? I opened with a bet again, one folded and the other raised me. I was definitely thinking that he had made his flush, but do I fold my trip aces? I probably made the mistake in calling, but my fold on the river was made an easier decision when the fourth heart fell. But where did I go wrong? Or did I play wrong in the first place? Could I have saved myself a bet by folding on his raise? If that last heart hadn't fallen, should I have checked and made a crying call to his raise on the river?
Wyatt,
You played most if all ok. The decision to fold on fourth street is if you feel for sure he has a flush and you are not getting proper pot odds to take a card off. As you know its about 3.4 to one against you filling up here depending on what you think is in your opponents hands. I would not fold and would call on the river as in many years of playing I just see too many times the player is making a grand stand bluff or just betting a top two pair hand for value. If you know your opponent then thats a different story. Some would say to check on fourth street but I feel that many times the bet will get rid of that small flush draw that may feel he is now drawing dead. Remember too that even the bad players know that a person that starts making faces and acting during a hand has a lot better hand than he is trying to convince everyone he has. Merry Christmas and Happy hollidays to all. Good Luck.
I would never check after the turn card in this situation. By betting, the most you can lose is one bet if a made flush raises you. By checking, you may allow someone (who would have folded to a bet on the turn) a chance to make his hand on the river (by say hitting a gut shot or a low single heart in his hand).
An error in checking may cost you the pot while an error in betting will cost you only one extra bet because even if you had checked you surely would have called on the turn if your opponent bet.
I agree. If the opponent has the flush he will raise you, especilly if he has a low flush. You then must calculate the pot odds to determine if you should call the raise and attempt to draw out. If you hit, you will have him by the throat, and may be able to check raise. If you miss, oh well. You were losing anyway. Calculating the pot odds is the key here.
No, it's not. The KEY here is whether or not this guy has a flush if he raises you.
Pot-odds decisions are usually very small when you have a major draw in a multi-way pot. So the pot is laying you 3-1, but you need 3.4-1 to call. If you call, you're making a fraction of a bet error. What is FAR more important here is evaluating whether or not there is a 25% chance that the raiser has a flush or a 100% chance that he has a flush.
In a heads-up situation like this, it is almost never a certainty that a raiser has a flush. He may be taking a shot at the pot, he may be semi-bluffing top pair with a big flush card, he may have two pair or a smaller set, or he may something as weak as top pair and he's raising the turn to buy back his bet on the river.
If I've got top set in this situation, against a typical player, not only would I call the raise on the turn, but I'd call the bet on the river, since the pot is just too big to give up to someone who may be bluffing, or who may be betting his two pair again, hoping that a small heart will fold.
Remember too that you raised out of the small blind. Even with your 'act', a good player may have figured you for a big pair. Given that, a bet on the river by him when the 4th heart lands is a good idea no matter what he holds, because he knows that he's got a 50-50 shot of getting you to fold the best hand.
Depending on the nature of the player, I would have given strong consideration to BETTING when the 4th heart landed. If he had a small made flush on the turn, he might lay it down on the river.
Dan
No, it's not. The KEY here is whether or not this guy has a flush if he raises you.
Pot-odds decisions are usually very small when you have a major draw in a multi-way pot. So the pot is laying you 3-1, but you need 3.4-1 to call. If you call, you're making a fraction of a bet error. What is FAR more important here is evaluating whether or not there is a 25% chance that the raiser has a flush or a 100% chance that he has a flush.
In a heads-up situation like this, it is almost never a certainty that a raiser has a flush. He may be taking a shot at the pot, he may be semi-bluffing top pair with a big flush card, he may have two pair or a smaller set, or he may something as weak as top pair and he's raising the turn to buy back his bet on the river.
If I've got top set in this situation, against a typical player, not only would I call the raise on the turn, but I'd call the bet on the river, since the pot is just too big to give up to someone who may be bluffing, or who may be betting his two pair again, hoping that a small heart will fold.
Remember too that you raised out of the small blind. Even with your 'act', a good player may have figured you for a big pair. Given that, a bet on the river by him when the 4th heart lands is a good idea no matter what he holds, because he knows that he's got a 50-50 shot of getting you to fold the best hand.
Depending on the nature of the player, I would have given strong consideration to BETTING when the 4th heart landed. If he had a small made flush on the turn, he might lay it down on the river.
Dan
I agree with your statements, but I must be having some sort of calculation breakdown here. I figured it is like 4 to 1 with one more card to come. 9 ways to fill up, 1 way to make quads? 10 outs/47 unseen cards. What am I doing wrong?
Karpov, I am talking about filling up from fourth street and assuming you need to fill up because the opponent has a flush.
An interesting question. Ray Zee points you in the right direction. I will fill in some details.
You hold: As Ac
Flop/turn: Qc 9h 5h / Ah
As you noted, there are 10 river cards that give you a full house or better. There 6 seen cards, so there are 46 (52-6) unseen cards. At first glance, therefore, it appears as if there are 36 bad cards and 10 good cards. Thus it is 36:10 or 3.6:1 against you.
But this assumes you are behind at the moment. And you can only be behind if your opponent holds two hearts. Logically, one of your opponent's cards cannot be a A, Q, 9, or 5 because three out of those four cards also are hearts. For all practical purposes, therefore, you "know" that one of your opponent's cards is a non-harmful card. Essentially, there are only 45 "unseen" cards, 10 of which help you. Now it is 35:10 or 3.5:1 against you.
But wait. We can do better than this. What can we deduce about you opponent's other card? We know one of your opponent's cards is a non-harmful heart (e.g., the king). This means your opponent's other card must be one of the remaining 9 hearts (e.g., the Q, J, T, 8, 7, 6, 4, 3, or 2). The chances that the other card is one of your ten outs is 1 out of 9 (i.e., the queen).
Thus, if you put your opponent on a flush, then there really are only 44 "unseen" cards, 9-8/9 of which help you. Now it is 34-1/9 : 9-8/9 or 307:89 or about 3.449438202:1 against you. Or, as Ray Zee noted, "about" 3.4:1.
But, this analysis assumes your opponent would play any two suited cards. In most games, this is not a good assumption. To compute the pot odds more accurately, you would have to know what hands your opponent might hold on the turn and the probability of each of those hands. Most players who reach and raise the turn are more likely to hold a Qh than a 2h. In most cases, I would guess the pot odds are at least 3.5:1 against you.
On the other hand, this analysis also assumes your opponent always holds a flush. Would your opponent sometimes raise the turn with QQ (especially if one was the Qh), 99, or 55? Many would. Some might also raise with AQ, A9, or even A5. Is a semi-bluff raise with KhJx unimaginable? Others might raise as a total bluff. Once you factor these considerations into your analysis, you usually don't even need 3.4:1 pot odds to call the raise.
Boy, I would have a hard time throwing that one away on the river. What if the other player had, for instance, A9, or 99, or presto? I would often play those exactly like he had. If someone can drive you out of a pot with a raise when you have a set of aces on the turn, you can easily get taken advantage of. I don't think you should be tryin to optimize and save one bet with a set of aces. Play the hell out of them and if ya lose, ya lose.
Betting into a 3 flush board when you have top set is the only way to play it (unless you are sure someone else will bet, giving you the checkraise). The chances of someone having a made flush aren't that high really, and you can still improve. If they have a weak flush they may just call anyway, where they would have bet if you had checked. There were 10 BB in the pot after he raised, so a call is automatic. If there was a 1 in 12 chance that he didnt have a heart on the river, then you should call. You have to be the judge of that, but I would rather make a one bet mistake than a pot sized mistake at that point with top set.
A Poker Guy!
You should bet on the turn, as you did. Don't give the free card. When he raised, if he's bluffing, you're the leader. How painful to fold trip aces when you are the leader if he's bluffing. If he isn't bluffing, you have ten outs to beat the flush even if he has made it, and wouldnt that be lovely. So the question here is do you call, or raise. I would have called here, cus i dont think he's bluffing. If you had hit the boat here, i would have certainly checked if the fourth heart falls. He surely would bet, and i would sneak in a nice check raise on him.
But the full house didnt happen, so if the river card was not a heart, i would have checked. If he bets here, i would have called. Since the fourth heart did come up, now i have to think i'm beat. i would check and folded if he bets, and call it two bad beats in a row. Merry Christmas
IMO, Most times bet the turn, check call the river. I would probably have gone for a check raise on the flop and bet the turn.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
What about the fact that you were appearing to be "steaming". Consider this:
Had your opponent(s) believed that you were playing your quality cards they might have folded.
With respect to all the other responders. All of them make good points but I don't think anyone of them gives the proper response to the post.
"I decided to pretend to steam." In no fold'em hold'em other players usually could care less why another player raises. Quit frankly there is no need for any deception in this type of hold'em. If you were trying to induce callers by trying to convince them that you were raising because you were mad and didn't really have a strong hand you made a mistake. Remember AA plays poorly in a multi-way pot. You're raise may have been correct but if it was correct it was because you were getting more money in the pot with the best hand. You must realize though that in mutli-way pots AA usually needs to improve to win.
"The turn brought the Ah. I was then concerned with the made flush and draws (along with a possible straight draw). I am first to act, what should I do? I opened with a bet again, one folded and the other raised me..." "But where did I go wrong?" A bet on the turn in this situation is not usually the correct play. The best play here is to try for a check raise. You should consider the opponents first. Which is more likely to bet? What type of hands they normally play? etc. What you want is for the last player to act to be aggressive so the check raise is most effective. No one raised the flop so it's unlikely some one has the KhQh or other high heart connectors. With the flop and the calls there maybe small heart draws and straight draws so by check raisng you may get rid of a straight draw or even a low made flush or flush draw. However, if the bet comes from the middle position and the late position calls it is probably better to just call the turn. Now because of the size of the pot unless you are absolutely sure that your opponent won't bluff or would only bet the nuts, you should call the river. Those that critisize someone for "keeping them honest" on the river are just plain wrong when the pot size and opponents play don't warrant thowing a hand away. Remember you rated this as a "No Fold'em Holdem" game and that statement alone usually warrants a river call with three (3) Aces. Opinion By Vince
Deception in NoFoldemHoldem is an oxymoron. You can't decieve those who aren't paying attention and/or won't fold their cards. One of the few valuable tools in NFHE (other than solid straightforward play) is the checkraise. You should have used it here. With top set bet into the 3 flush. If he bets the 4 flush on the river, the decision has to be based on your knowledge of the opponent. If he has the flush, he beats you. If not, you win. So what are the chances that he is the kind of player who will bluff into the board? Do you know? Does his opinion of you conclude that you are the kind of person who will bluff into this board? Bottom line, if pot odds = odds he is bluffing: call,otherwise fold. BTW, I've seen players hold onto two underpair like grim death in this situation.
The general concensus in poker, and especialy holdem, since position remains the same, is that the earlier you act, the worse your position, and as you move towards later position, you are stronger. I'm entertaining the philosophy that being dead last, or first to act are strongest, and it is weaker, and more dangerous as you move to the middle. Sort of like a curve on a graph, rather than a straight line.
I enjoy first to act just as much as last, and in heads up, I don't care one way or the other. Just keep me out of the middle. Why do i feel first and last are equally strong?
1) first can check raise, this is stronger than check, and getting screwed when noone bets, simply cus someone will bet more often than nobody betting 2) if i check, knowing that someone will bet, i am not first anymore, i am last at this point, free to fold or raise 3) i have absolutely no pressure of anyone betting before me 4) i can often check raise a late bettor, and get everyone else out 5) if i'm betting, i'm almost always prepared to call a raise, and willing to fold if i'm bluffing 6) a card falls, and you are first to act, you can make a very quick and unhesitating bet if you are bluffing. I very often steal pots with absolutely nothing
Paul,
Welcome to the forum as these are the first posts I remember seeing from you. You have a wonderful insite and I hope you will keep adding your good ideas. Merry Christmas everyone and Good Luck.
Ray,
Thanks for the words of encouragement and warm welcome. Coming from you, that means a lot to me. I am new to the game (two years), but have been very serious about it. I don't get a chance to play a lot, living in Syracuse, but i treat the game as a science, and an art form, and i do a good deal of thinking about it. But i am far from where i want to be, and i hope it's always that way, even as i improve. Any advice is greatly appreciated. Thanks again. Paul
Very interesting and insightfull post. I however would caution you against this in no-limit played with a tough bunch. You know the player who has a 20/20 bullshit detector and a ton of money... Perfect against a weak-tight bunch however. merry Xmass !
Andras,
Thanks for the advice! I'll have to think about the no limit game, and how i'd look at first position. Thanks. Paul
Good point. Against a tough bunch of big-stacked no-limit players with 20/20 bullshit detectors, I think the best position would be to take a seat at the 10/20 or 20/40 table.
Paul,
You make a lot of excellent points. IMO what you are stating is consistent with advice in HFAP. IMO if you are checking a lot of weak hands when first to act, it is right to check a lot of good hands as well. I have found that this is really devatating in Omaha/8. One thing I do see is that players in early position often play too predictably and become very readable.
Tom Haley
"I'm entertaining the philosophy that being dead last, or first to act are strongest"
This is one for Sklansky's "Fuzzy Thinking" column. The fault with this "philosophy" is simply stated, but alas I don't have the time nor wherewithal to put it down here. Besides it should be self evident! Respectfully Vince
just a couple points. when you are first and check, it is far more likely that you are weak than you are checking a strong hand. and so it goes as each person checks, the player in the last posistion gains information. in a game with weak players, you might be able to play the way you state, but with stronger players in the game, they will have already stolen the pot before it even gets back to you.When someone in late posistion has raised pre-flop in holdem, and then you bet from first posistion, the player in the middle is in a tough spot, so he should probably fold unless he has a good hand, but if you checked raised in this situation the result would be the same, but you are out an extra bet not quite knowing at that point how strong the original raiser might be, and you are setting yourself up for a re-raise when you might not want it. The better play is to bet with a good hand in this spot. The point is, that the power to check raise from first posistion isn't as strong all the time as you think. This is just one thought , but last posistion is definately stronger than first, without a doubt.goodluck
Would you settle for last being the best, followed by first, and then everything in between. sort of like a Jay on a graph as opposed to the straight line or the curve? Fuzzy thinking? No. Dead wrong? May be! Thanks for the input. Always appreciated. Paul "Big Fig" Newton
"Big Fig",
You are definitely getting on the right track here. Middle position play has some problems that have not been discussed that extensively. Here are a couple more examples.
# 1: Holdem pre flop in a loose passive nine handed game. In early position I would call with a 77 figuring to get about five or six opponents with only an occasional raise. In middle position with two out of three callers already in I would also call figuring I would still get the callers I need. But let's say for some freak reason it comes pass, pass, pass and now it is up to me. With only three players left behind other than the blinds I figure to be playing only against about three opponents completely out of position (I'll assume one blind and two in back call). Three opponents are not quite enough implied odds for a set and too many to steal against in a loose passive game. I think the best play is to toss the hand away here yet I would have called in early position. (BTW, in a tighter game a raise would work better since you can often steal the blinds or get head up with one blind which should be OK.) (Note: Three opponents when you act last is usually just good enough implied odds since you make more money when you do flop a set.)
# 2: Flopping a set from middle position. When I do flop a set with a hand like 77 and the board is something like a Q 7 5 rainbow (i.e., offsuit), I believe I make the most money with the hand in last position followed my early position with middle position being the least profitable (in middle assume I have opponents both before and after me). The reason is that any decent player must be suspicious when a player bets on my right and I just call (and with this flop I don't want to narrow the field). A lead bet in early position could be made with many hands (thus you may get some action) and a raise from late position rarely drops anyone out or puts you on a set.
Those are just two examples and I'm sure others could come up with some more but dinner is waiting for me.
Regards,
Rick
A agree with case #2. With some flops, I love being in early position because I can check-raise a large field.
However, in case #1, you mention a loose passive game where you're dealt 77. You would be able to call in early position anticipating many callers and no raises, but you would have to fold in middle position if everyone happened to fold before you. This is a good thing! Let's say that you are in one of the first four positions and you are in one of those hands where the other three players in early position are dealt complete trash. You would much rather be fourth to act and be able to fold than be first to act, call, and then watch as the others fold after you. (I guess what I'm saying is that you should be happy to have the extra information that middle position gives you over early position.)
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary Carson said: . “ Also, I like having the maniac types about half way across the table from me -- or to my left. I don't like them to my right. In a real loose aggresive table, it's hard to keep control of the betting with an aggresive player on your right. But, with a maniac 4-5 seats away, and either another maniac or a tight, aggresive player to my left I can usually adust my stratagy to build very large pots when I've got much the best of it -- (after the flop I'm talking about). Middle position this is much toughter to do. This does not apply generally to all games -- the looser the games, the more it applies.”
I like your thinking about keeping a single maniac across the table from you. The conventional wisdom of keeping the maniac on your immediate right seems to work best when the rest of the table is weak/tight and you can isolate on him with the right hands. In a loose game with a maniac the extra information gained by having him across and the potential for winning giant pots seems to work better.
I’m not so sure I would want the maniac on my left (or a second maniac on my left). However, I can see situations when you flop a big hand (such as a set without too many possible drawing hands), check the flop, the maniac bets, and you check raise for value. It would seem that your medium good hands (top pair, best kicker) play well if you can count on the maniac to raise your lead bet. Are these the situations you were thinking of or could you provide some other examples?
Regards,
Rick
Post deleted at author's request.
Thanks for responding. I was concerned that I joined the thread too late to get any feedback.
Regarding case #2: I agree that it is good to get in a check raise with a set with some flops in early position. However, in the example provided I was in the middle and the flop was a "ragged rainbow" (Q 7 3 off-suit) with the bet from my right. With this type of flop I would rather be last to act but next best would be first to act as calling a bet from the middle is almost a dead giveaway that I have flopped a set. BTW, be suspicious of calls on the flop from the middle by the better players when there is no plausible drawing hand that he could have. Such a player would probably raise with pair kicker (e.g. AQs), not play two pair (Q7 in this example), and probably slowplay a set (77).
Regarding case #1: I agree that you would rather have the additional information. The point I was making was that, in the game described, when acting first you typically would expect to receive several calls (giving you sufficient implied odds). On the rare occasions when you didn't it would be just bad luck for that hand. Note that this is offset by the occasions when you would get the whole field (remember, I am speaking of a loose, passive game here). In such a game with a medium pair in the middle and having three loose players on your right fold pre-flop (once again, this is a freak), you are faced with a dilemma that few players handle well.
I don't actually agree with "Big Fig" that first is better than middle on the average, but I do believe it presents problems that have not been sufficiently covered in the poker literature and "Big Fig" was on to something with his post. Hopefully some other examples can be provided in this or a fresh thread.
The point that you and Gary both make about calling UTG making it more likely for others to call (and less likely to fold or raise) is a strong one. I hadn't thought about that directly before. On a somewhat related note, when I am the big blind, I am happy to see an early limper. This greatly decreases the chance that someone will raise and I will often see the flop for free. I hate to see the first few players pass because it usually means I will have to call a raise if I want to see the flop.
Hey Big Fig, Get real! "Would you settle for last being the best, followed by first, and then everything in between". Please, think about position. Think about gaining information for making an informed decision. Think about every round not just before the flop and the flop. Think about Holdem games and the usual number of players after the flop (2 in most games (not no foldem games)). Reread HPFAP (Holdem is a Position game!). If you still believe that it is USUALLY better to be first than second or anywhere else in between, after first that is, well then.. "Fuzzy thinking? No. Dead wrong? " Forgive them O Lord, for they know not what they say! Respectfully, an Opinion by Vince
Post deleted at author's request.
Wrong! First is Worse! Last is best! After first is better than first! Loose Game, Passive Game , Tight game etc, Vegas, AC, Foxwoods, etc etc! Holdem is a position game. The more information one has the better decision one is able to make. The later one acts the more information available for ones decision. First to act, though sometimes advantageous from a tactical view point, is never best or better or even good from a strategic view point. Tactically it is sometimes better to get the first bet in, especially on a rag, rag, rag flop. However, this tactic in a " no foldem" game will get the tactician killed. Strategically, in any game of imperfect information, the more information you can get the better. This is especially true in "no foldem" holdem. In a sane holdem game, if there is such a thing, one is more able to put an opponent on a hand or group of hands and can apply tactics based on his evaluations. J curve, though a nice idea, is fatally flawed! Try it, if you must! opinion bye Vince
Post deleted at author's request.
How long does it takes for the books to be sent to my house if ordered from this web? I placed an order This past monday.
Typically it takes about one week from order to delivery for in stock items.
However, what with Christmas and an overloaded post office, we've been seeing slightly longer delivery times. In the case of an order placed on the Monday before Christmas I would expect the books to arrive about the middle of next week.
Note that we attempt to process and ship within 1-3 days of receipt of your order and that we almost always ship via Priority Mail.
Thanks Chuck! I will look for it this wed. I'm heading to Las Vegas this Thursday so it is perfect timing. Peter
Got my book exactly on wed. Also, got an e-mail from chuck. Thanks a bunch! Peter
I just ordered a book on Sun, 29 Nov 1998 and recieved it exactly 2 weeks later.
I have ordered a number of books from Chuck's company and have usually recieved them in 8-10 days of ordering( I'm in south Florida ). One time an order was late and I called Conjelco , the information was taken down and they said I would be called the next day. The order arrived the next day and that evening I was called by Chuck . IMHO one of the best bookstores on the net.
I once had a minor problem with an order from Conjelco. I was called by Chuck W. Talk about service. I don't think the owner of Amazon.com has called any customers lately to see if their problems were solved.
This is the second time that I make it to the final table (back to back) to coin Ken Buntjer memorable phrase. At the final table I am not performing well. This two times I went in with a best hand (heads up) and got drawn out very badly both times. The second time I even think I should have not played the hand (KQ - I don't recall if rainbow or suited) but there were two weaker stacks to 'vulture out' there. The first time I had KK which I think I will allways play (or quit tourneys alltogether). My question is how many of you tourney pros will muck KQ at the final table heads up agains an average opponent. (of course if I have a whiff that the person has an ace I will muck always but you never know for sure - right ??) Remember I play to win not to show - which may have been my downfall this last two times. Anyway, I am heading to Vegas today and quit tourneys for a while to play at the Bellagio. Cheers !!!
You gots to play that.
I support Karpov. KQ is a big hand in heads-up play. You are only drawing nearly dead against AA and KK and in pretty bad shape against AK, AQ, and QQ. Against other hands that you are likely to face such as ace-rag, or a small pocket pair, you are only a slight dog. See Andy Ward's post below on some great simulation data for some heads-up matchups for certain "calling" hands against likely betting hands. Of course, I would rather attack with this holding than call.
As anecdotal evidence, Johnny Chan won a huge and pivotal pot with KQ at the final table of the 1984? WSOP against Bob Ciaffone and Frank Henderson. I think he called a decent preflop raise from BC's A4s. Not that this one case means anything, but it does show that a master like Johnny Chan ascribes decent value to KQ for short-handed play. However, this was not an all-in bet pre flop.
It was the final table in 1987. The raise preflop by Ciaffone ($5000) was not that significant compared to the amount of money on the table (each had over a 1/2 million). Chan did hit the flop with top pair and moved all in on Ciaffone's $185,000 bet.
The point I'm making is that yes, K-Q has value heads-up, but the amount of money at risk is relative to how much value the hand has. If I were extremely short of chips and the blinds/antes were high, I'd consider it a monster hand. If the situation were reversed and there was much to lose in relation to the blinds, as with Chan's play, even heads-up, I'd play it a bit cautiously before the flop.
Brent Carter hates KQ, suited or not. Just to be finicky, whenever I use the term "heads up", I mean that you're down to the last two players, not that you think you're only going to have one caller. There's a big difference btwn playing KQo agn/ one opponent and agn/ one caller when it's seven handed.
Certainly. The probability that you are up against a strong hand is much higher when 8 people have been dealt a hand versus just two of you. Nonetheless, if you are referring to the Chan/Ciaffone scenario, they were down to 3-handed and Frank Henderson was a relative onlooker, as his stack was pretty close to the cloth. I don't recall the exact amount, but Frank once remarked that he backed into 2nd place by Ciaffone's play on that hand.
Still, I like Chan's play to just call with K-Q and make a move on the flop. But compare this to an early hand in this years' WSOP, where we have a full table, low blinds, and Pat Callahan has A-Q suited against just one opponent. The flop cames Q-9-3 and Callahan moves all-in. It shouldn't have been a surprise when he was sent home looking at K-K.
You're quite right. What the hell was Ciaffone thinking when, A.-He bets $185,000 into a $13,000 pot w/ nothing, and B.-Calls a $300,000 all-in re-raise from JOHNNY FREAKIN CHAN when there's also a tiny stack left?
"Never go broke in an unraised pot." - Doyle Brunson
I bet Chan would have played the hand the same way w/ pocket dueces.
I think you´re right, KQ is a very powerful hand in shorthanded play. But at the beginning of a final table, it can be a big mistake to fall in love with this kind of hand.
I´d raise before the flop with KQ, but being called, it depends on my chip position how to continue playing the hand. Being chipleader, I´d play KQ strongly against a short stack, and carefully against a stack which can hurt me.
Having an average stack and the flop doesn´t help me, it´s an easy hand to get away from. I´d probably fire one single time, if I have position on my opponent and he checks, but this probably is a semibluff. Since most of the players, who call a preflop raise with any kind of a suited hand don´t make it to the final table, the other player has some kind of a reasonable hand (maybe something like a big ace or a medium pair). And against these kind of hands, King high isn´t a good enough hand to go all in with. Most players won´t fold a holding like 88, when the flop comes something like T63. You have to catch a scare card, to be able to steal the pot. And even worse, they might have flopped a set and try to fool you by checking and calling. So I´d rather waite for better situation to be aggressiv. I´m already in the money, but the first 3 get the big part of it. So you gotta find the right mixture of surviving and being aggressive.
Hope, you´re all gonna make it to the final table lots of times next year. Best wishes.
Michael :
Here are the results of the simulations I have run. I have posted them up here so everyone can have a look and comment as they like. The original post is dated about a week ago and can be found below, but a brief re-statement of the problem is as follows.
NL Tourney, a short stack, 2.5 x the big blind, raises all-in. Given that he has one of : a pair ; a suited Ace ; an unsuited Ace with a kicker higher than 7 ; or two face cards, what is your EV with various hands ASSUMING everyone else will fold (big assumption).
You are risking 2.5 big blinds to win 4, so your chance needs to be greater than 38.5 % to attain +EV (ie > 1.00 the way I am expressing it). I assume this is what you mean by a 50-50 matchup, while 60-40 would correspond to EV 1.20 (= 46% chance of winning the hand).
Pocket pairs : It may surprise you to hear that ANY pocket pair has plus EV in this situation. A pair of deuces is 41% (EV 1.07) to win. A pair of 6s is 50% (EV 1.30) and any bigger pair is obviously favourite. 8s are 55% (EV 1.43).
A + unsuited kicker. If your kicker is lower than an 8, your chance is around 38-39 % (EV 1.0). A8 is 41.5 % (EV 1.08), A9 is 44.5 % (EV 1.16), AT is 48 % (EV 1.25) and above that you are favourite.
The other possible surprise is that you discount hands without a pair or an Ace, but in fact KQ suited is 46 % (EV 1.20) and KQ off is 44 % (EV 1.14). Both these hands are significantly better than A8 off. I leave it to those who know more about poker than me (nearly everybody :-)) to interpret these results but I suspect this one is because with KQ you are unlikely to run into a dominating hand whereas with A8 it is more probable.
So, if you set your standard at 44 % (EV 1.14), your minimum hands would be a pair of 4s ; A9 off ; KQ off. What this means in response to your original query is that if you're going to play A9 and 88 you can also play 77, 66, 55 and KQ.
You should be able to use these percentages to calculate EV with different pot odds, if the short stack has a different amount or if you are one of the blinds.
Any queries or comments from anyone are welcome. A final warning - any computer simulation is only as good as your assumptions :-) .
Andy.
Excellent data. I appreciate your hel over the holidays. I was a little surprised that KQ plays so well, but I think it is a function of my assumptions, which are skewed toward being up against an Ace-rag, which would give KQ two "live" cards higher than the opponent's kicker. However, in survival/steal situations, this is the hand I beleive you are most likely to be facing. I still have a philosophical problem CALLING with pocket twos through sixes since the best you can hope for is that you are against two overcards. However, your data may support some deviance from the conventional wisdom. Thanks again.
Hi there!
Thanks for a great forum... I'm a magician from Denmark spicing up my income with gambling (mostly blackjack and poker). I'm wondering if I should start playing in local "illegal" pokerclubs, since we only have one casino in Denmark offering poker, and they are robbing the players. So I'm eager to know if any of you poker players have anything good or bad to say about private clubs. Please feel free to post any message/advise to me here, or E-mail me!
Ed Norton? ...the reason many of us avoid private clubs... ...and i don't appreciate the advertising....
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
I'm very sorry, but I didnt catch a clue! Who is Ed Norton? What advertising? Is this some kind of American injoke (I'm Danish remember)?
Albert is making a reference to a recent motion picture about poker:"Rounders". I haven't seen it, but Ed Norton was an actor in it and I assume "Worm" was a character. I think part of the plot centered around cheating in private poker rooms. I have never played in a private poker room. I understand pot limit is very popular in Europe. I would be very careful about the games, in private poker rooms.
Well, if one is an accomplished magician (I assume you mean illusionist and not sorcerer -- if it is the latter, roulette is your game), one may have a level of protection against card cheats not afforded the general populace.
back in the early 70's I played alot in small cardrooms in northern california. I saw about a dozen hold-out and 1 bottom dealer. these are all desperate people, and quirky characters.... and it doesn't take long to see that something is going on unless you are desperate and quirky yourself. I wouldn't worry about private clubs or games unless you are playing for alot of money, and then you're more likely to get robbed by gun than by team play or hold-out artists.
I have played a lot of 10-20 Hold'Em in the last month with my strategy based on that in HEFAP for typical games. I would be very interested to hear from more successful players regarding their performance figures as I was the tightest player by a long way at most games I played in. My averages break down as follows:-
Profit : £10 /hour
Number of pots contested per hour: 4
No of pots won per hour :1
Thanks in advance for any responses.
Dave J
you need much more data than 1 or 2 months.
Al,
I accept your statement but consider the data to give a good indication of my results overall. It is only recently that I have recorded and analysed my data in detail. Would you consider providing your data for comparison ?
Dave J
A freindly poker game at home recently turned up a dispute regarding wild cards. A few too many beers perhaps, five card draw with lots of wild cards was dealt. Came down to two players, one of which ended with three wild, and two Kings (5 Kings). The other player ended with five wild cards (5 Aces?). One players position being a wild card can only match a natural...5 Kings wins. The other figures them wild cards can be whatever he wants em to be...and chooses Aces...5 of em...5 Aces wins. The pot (about $30) has been set aside in wait of resolution of this dispute. All opinions and or facts on this issue greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Wild cards should be good only for aces, straights and flushes if not stated otherwise before the hand is dealt. That's my belief. Doc-
This is why I stopped playing home games 20 years ago. Too many situations where the rules are not clear, and not a floorman in sight. I've seen wild cards played both ways. To be fair, I think you have to split that pot, or let them find a way to settle it (flip a coin, etc.).
A Poker Guy!
Momma said, Wild Cards are like new born babies, You never know what they're going to be! (before ultrasound, that is!) He that lives by the wild card, dies by the wild card! I know not what course others may take but as for me give me a poker game free of wild cards or give me death! Etc., Etc., Etc,!!! BTW, If wild cards is wild then Aces can be in there places! 5 Aces is der winner, I believe! An opinion by Vince!!
Wait until you get into the Royal Flush beats 5 of a kind argument. I mean a Royal Flush is the highest possible hand, isn't it? My advice echo's poker guy, split the pot, and then either don't play wild card games (an impossibility, I know) or define exactly what a wild card is. Ideally a wild card can be anything that a player wants it to be. (Give this logic your one hero has 5 aces)
Again I advise the Solomon split the pot method. $30 is too little money to lose a friend over. Good luck
Tom B.
Clearly, 5 wild cards wins. If he can use his wild cards to represent kings then the ace, straight or flush rule does not apply to this game. If you held AKQJ plus a wild card, you can use the wild card to represent a 10, can't you? But there is no ten in that hand, so wild cards do not have to match anything, either. He's just mad he got beat. Five aces beats five kings.
I just finished reading "A FRIENDLY GAME" by Bert Morris and last week I saw "Rounders."
How paranoid should I be of getting cheated? (at casino card rooms)
gator, I would reccommend watching the videotapes of Steve Forte, and reading books such as 'Gambling Scams' by Darwin Ortiz, and the two 'Cheating at Blackjack' books by "Dustin D. Marks". These sources will make you aware of what's possible with a deck of cards. (Anything!) The Forte videos especially will make your eyes bug out. They are not directed at casino dealt games, but much of the skills he displays can be modified to still work under 'casino conditions'. Until Steve publishes his much talked about "other set" of videos, these are the best sources of info around. jason
I don't know if anyone has holdem software of any kind, but, even with its limitations, it's been an incredible tool for me, and i highly recommend it. Several reasons:
1) Any time i come to a pocket that i automatically fold, one click of the mouse, and i'm at the next hand. Add that to the fact that the hands play out much faster than in real play, and each hand is immediately after the next, i get many times the hands in that i would get in a casino. Of course casino play is far more valuable per hand. 2) I can take all the time in the world to sharpen my tools, be it figuring pot odds, or what everybody has based on their previous play, etc. Of course in real play you dont have that kind of time, but it has made me faster at these aspects of the game. 3) It's a great warm-up before i go and play for real, since i dont play for real all that often. 4) I can try new things, without it costing me money.
I agree with you. The best part about such a program is speeding up your calculation abilities.
have you seen any good computer simulations for 7 stud? thanks in advance.
Not really no, although to be fair I have not seen Wilson's stud program. You can download a version of Sozobon's stud software from the Conjelco site for free, which makes it value for money if nothing else. It's not too bad for getting a feel for trouble hands.
To digress, I find this a little strange because in many ways stud is easier to simulate. I have created my own program which I have found quite useful (particularly for short-stack play) but gave up on hold-em because the only way to do it effectively is to have a massive rule-based system like TTH2.
Andy.
thanks for the tip - will try conjelco (hope it works for mac)
Agreed. For people like Sklansky and Malmuth, programs such as TTH2 by Wilson, are of little value. For people like me, still on the steep part of the learning curve, the ability to simulate 8 hours of play in less than an hour is beneficial. TTH2's computer players play better than most of my weekend opponents, though generally not as good as my stronger opponents.
I've only played in six tournaments before, and every time i made it to the final table, somehow winning my very first tournament entered. I feel i have some sort of knack or 'feel' if you will, and i was wondering if my strategy was just luck, or sound play. These were all limit holdem games with unlimited rebuys early on, and one add-on half way thru, and then that's it. My strategy was:
The moment i got under the $500 amount which allowed me a rebuy, i bought one. Now i have just under $1000 at the very start, and i feel very comfortable at this time. Now i play painfully tight and aggressive, seizing opportunities to win some pots here and there, and then as the blinds go up to the point where i must be more aggressive, i do so. Basically, i go from very tight and aggressive, to somewhat loose and aggressive. I'm usually right in the middle moneywise when i get to the final table, then i have to trust myself to pick my moments, and i seem to have a knack for that. Is this sound play? Comments are welcome.
I don't know about "sound play", but it sure sounds like a solid strategy! If it were me, I think I would press on until proven wrong! An opinion by Vince
I don't know about "sound play", but it sure sounds like a solid strategy! If it were me, I think I would press on until proven wrong! An opinion by Vince
I agree with the basics of this strategy - it is a fifty word summary of Ken Buntjer's book.
I don't believe in rebuy strategies except for the tiniest of tournaments where everyone makes multiple rebuys ($20 more when most everyone at the table has taken 3 or more rebuys is a bargain that few can pass).
But if you have the "feel" for how to play the final table, then hey, that beats any book: trust those instincts. To find out if your approach is correct, jump out of a small pond and into a bigger one.
Several years ago I was playing 1-4-8-8 at the Luxor. Typical game. Someone in late position raises. I call with KdQc. Several players see the flop. Can't remember the exact flop, but I think there was a king or straight draw, know there were two diamonds (save the comments on any lack of finesse on my part; I was just getting my feet wet). Anyway I'm still hanging around after the flop is bet. Turn comes diamond. Checker on flop now bets out representing flush. Initial raiser (heretofore mild-mannered) loses it. Gets up cursing, chucks his AsAd face up, and heads for the nearest little old lady to pummel into annihilation. Suddenly liking my hand a wee bit better, I call and, sure enough, as if inevitably, river comes diamond and yours truly had once again proudly stumbled into the winner's circle.
More to follow...
please post on the Exchange Forum. It was a good story though.
CV
I suppose, intrepid Internet sleuth that I am, that I could track down the Exchange Forum. But since I'm feeling lazy right this moment, what are the parameters for that particular forum and where do I found it?
You can enter the exchange forum by clicking on the column to the left.
My only comment is that you shouldn't have called the raise before the flop with king-queen offsuit.
I know Sklansky did a proof on this question, but I don't have the article. I tried to do a quick proof for my friend. I was wondering if this is the correct way to go about it.
A friend of mine tried to convince me that the Martingale System (Doubling your Bet after a Loss) is a workable system against Gambling games like Craps and Roullete. His theory was you have to win sooner or later and will recover all your loosing bets plus the ammount equal to your original bet. He is not worried about table limits or Bankrole limits.
His theory is to bet 1.00 on an even money bet and if you lose you now double it to 2.00 if you lose you double again to 4.00.
1+2+4+8+16........until you eventually win.
Pass Line (even money bet) at Craps has a 1.14 disadvantage. Even money Bets at Roulette (Red vs. Black; Odd vs. Even) have around a 5% disadvantage.
I tried to explane that his losses will eventually outnumber his wins in a negative expectation game. Here is how I tried to prove it (I do not have formal training in Probability)
First lets take a game that has exactly 0 expectation ie. Flipping a Coin. Lets also say that your Bankrole for now is 15.00 and you Bet 1.00 to start with. Every time you win you Start over with a Profit of 1.00.
Betting Progression would look like this: 1, 2, 4, 8
What are the Chances you will lose all 4 bets (.5)(.5)(.5)(.5)= 0.0625 or 15 to 1
So 15 times you win 1.00, but then a time comes where you loose all your Profit for an Expectation of 0.
What if we tried this with Roulette:
What are the Chances you lose all 4 bets (.55)(.55)(.55)(.55)= 0.09150625 or aproximatly 10 to 1.
So 10 times you make a 1.00 Profit but then a time comes where you loose all your Profit plus 5.00.
Well he then tried to make the System so complex that I couldn't do the Math. Do you guys have any better Solutions to the Porblem?
Thanks, Chris Villalobos
Your friend is right. With an infinite bankroll and no bet limit the Martingale system will win. Good luck trying to find these conditions. Basically all the system amounts to is making each bet the size of your total loss plus an amount equal to your first bet. You could start with any arbitrary amount but the amount doubles quickly. The amount of wins and losses and negative expectation does not matter as long as you quit after a win. Mathematically, the system is sound. If you bet black on roulette, it will eventually land on black. In fact i'd like to see a wheel that landed on a single color for more than an hour or two. Here is an interesting bit of trivia concerning bankroll. Take a penny, and add double the amount to it each day. for instance, day one you have one cent. on day two add two cents to it, sou you will have a total of three cents. Ath the end of the month your total will be over 10 million dollars. if you were doing this on the roulette wheel, that is the amount you would bet if the ball missed you 31 times, to win a whopping penny. You could find something better to do with your money, especially if you had an expendible 10 mil you wouldn't be concerned with how you could beat a roulette wheel or craps table.
I think before even worrying about the analysis you put forward, you should question the infinite bankroll assumption. That simply is not a good assumption. It can _never_ happen in real life. There is a finite amount of money on the planet.
Even if it were tenable, why would you want to play craps if you had an infinite bankroll? you obviously don't need any money. Your not getting a very good rate of return on your infinite bank roll either :)
Once you get to that point I think its fairly obvious that the probablity that you lose N bets in a row approaches 1 as the number of bets approaches infinity. For some N this will mean you just lost all your money.
Both Gator and Chance state the Obvious. If my friend had an Infinite Bankrole the System would work. But if I am going to prove to my Friend why Betting Systems don't work in a Negative Expectation Game I need to show him simply why his Complex systems don't have an advantage. I can't just have him push the "I Believe" button.
Please don't try to tell me its because Casinos put betting limits on their Tables.
Thanks, CV
The key here is that the martingale system WOULD work if each bet had an advantage.
If "work" means "have positive expectation" then the martingale system does indeed work "work" with disadvantageous bets. But it merely exploits the discontinuity at infinity: the limit of the expectation is not the expectation of the limit. This mathematical curiousity has little relevance to the real world. I think it's important to acknowledge the sense in which this system does "work" if we expect other people to acknowledge the very practical sense in which it does not work.
With a finite bankroll this system has a nonzero chance of avoiding ruin if the bets are advantageous. But with disadvantageous bets any finite bankroll will eventually be ruined.
Well, any betting system works if each bet has a positive expectation.
Chris,
If your friend had an infinite bankroll, the system wouldn't work. I suggest looking at :
(1) www.bjmath.com, especially the articles "Mathematical Proof That Progressions Cannot Overcome Expectation" by Richard Reid, and "Ruin for Negative and Positive Progressions - The Martingale" by Mike Lea.
(2) the archives for a thread entitled "David Sklansky's Card Player Article" initiated by Chas Friedman on May 6th, 1998.
Finally, something not too mathematical for your friend - an excerpt from a post to bj21.com by Norm Wattenberger (July 15th, 1998) :
"A. First, you've only assumed an infinite bankroll and infinite limit. You'd also have to assume the casino has an infinite bankroll and that you have an infinite amount of time. You'd have to prove that there is an infinite amount of time, that you will live infinitely and, either that the sun will never nova or that interstellar space travel will be invented and you will travel to an infinite number of suns playing roulette.
B. Assuming all of the above is possible, you still wouldn't win. It can be easily shown that for any finite bankroll and limit, Martingale will fail. It can also easily be shown that at any level, you can double the limit and the bankroll and still will not win. Therefore, if you double infinitely, you cannot win.
C. Even if you could win, how much would you win? Well, you always win one unit. But, you have bet an infinite number of units Therefore, your EV is one over infinity, which is zero.
D. Or, let's look at it financially. Forget infinity. Suppose we cheat. We say that after a mere 1,000 losses, the casino has a promotion that forces a win. You still lose! You started with a one dollar bet and doubled 1,001 times. On the 1,001st bet, the casino gives you a win. You have now won one dollar. But, you had to bet 2.14301721437254 x 10 to the 301st power dollars. Suppose you brought this exact amount of money with you so that you could bet without pause and it took four days to play the game. Suppose a mere 1% inflation rate. After four days, the money that you brought with you will have dropped in value by about $1 followed by 297 zeroes. And you will have won $1. Overall, you will have lost more money than has ever existed."
Etienne
Thanks David and Etienne for the answers and Links.
CV
It would work. MARTINGALE is NOT a system. It is just betting the amount of money you have lost plus an initial bet. Example: coin, betting on heads paying even money to your wager, lets say you lose the first four, then win the fifth and stop. your beting through bet number four $2, $4, $8, $16 Note that the total wagered so far has been $30) now your fifth bet (double bet #4 of $16) is $32. when you win this, you have recouped your $30 in losses plus a $2 profit. you only won 1 out of five bets but came out ahead. if you took a bet paying even money and would win only 1 in 5 and bet $2 evey time you would have a negative expectation of -$1.20 every flip. The same example above showed the same situation with a positive value. It's not a function of expectation. I would like someone to demonstrate differently.
In case of confusion, these are the conditions I am assuming to use.
1> unlimited bankroll (this is the one point really makes the whole discussion pointless)
2> no bet limit
3> I'm not talking about infinites and imaginary numbers and large improbabilities. I'm talking about practical real world circumstances. The cances that a normal roulette wheel would land on one color a hundred times in a row is 1 in a trillionsomeoddnumber. I would expect to win 1/100 betting on same color everytime. One takes ones chances. This one win would put me in the black regardless of previous losses.
Furthermore this would work really well in blackjack. (under the above conditions) assume using basic strategy, no counting. you would be at around 1-2% disadvantage. I don't know a single perfect strategy player that lost 100 hands in a row. Eventually you will even be dealt a blackjack and get paid off at 3/2, hopefully it would be at that 10th doubled bet of $2048, pretty good pay off.
These conditions are imaginary, and I believe it is partly due to the martingale, that there are house limits on betting.
.
You are wrong and won't convince any of us that you aren't.
The martingale system loses because to realize its expectation it requires an infinite bankroll and an infinite amount of time, and at any given point in time the house is still expected to be ahead. There is no finite point in time when the bettor has expectation of being ahead when betting martingale on a -EV game. At T +infinity there is a discontinuity where the martingale will have with probability one won its bet, but the house will also be expected to be ahead. Funny things happen at the unreachable point.
The house has limits on the betting because the house does not have an infinite bankroll and cannot withstand the variance associated with bets that are too large, even though the house realizes its edge on every bet made. This has nothing to do with the Martingale.
"You are wrong and won't convince any of us that you aren't. " - This depends on what is being said:
The statement "Using the Martingale, you will always be ahead after a win" is true
The statement "The Martingale has positive EV because you will always be ahead after a win" is false
The statement "If you use the Martingale continuously, there is a 100% chance that at some point in the future you will be ahead of where you are now " is true
-------------------
Your statement "At T +infinity there is a discontinuity where the martingale will have with probability one won its bet, but the house will also be expected to be ahead. Funny things happen at the unreachable point." is right on target.
Let me first say that I believe that the Martingale system does not work practically. and most of the reasons that Etienne states seem very logical, except for one...which is a pardox...
Etienne states:
".....It can also easily be shown that at any level, you can double the limit and the bankroll and still will not win. Therefore, if you double infinitely, you cannot win."
This is analagous to the old Greek paradox of:
"You can never walk to the wall because in order to walk to it, you must first walk halfway...and then walk another halfway (1/4) and then halfway again (1/8), etc....and since we know you can double the numerator infinitely and always keep going halfway, then you can never reach the wall."
When one talks about infinite anything, paradoxes can come into play quiet easily.
Okay, I'm in late, but... WHAT THE (&*&(*%$&?!?!
Am I missing something, or is CV's friend trying to assume a negative expectation bet can be made positive by simply stating "Then I have an infinate number of chances with no table limit!"?
If you win $1 five times and lose $1 six times (hitting a 6 in craps), you lose a buck mathematically, no matter HOW many times you expand it out...
Here's an answer for your friend (that any pro blackjack player can relate to through hard experience)- If we're assuming that infinity plays a factor in this "problem", then what makes you assume that you can't lose INFINATE times without EVER winning, therebye rendering the Morongale system worthless???
That's what the casino limits are all about in the first place....
I think everyone's going off the deep end on this one?!
A few weeks ago a posted a thread about how to win over 80% of your sessions. It was intended to argue against using winning session % or stop wins (money management) as a tool for success. I presented a simple martingale system with a bit of convoluted humor to make my point.
Martingale strategies can promise high session win rates. With infinite money you can win infinite times and lose infinite money.
Back to the real world. Martingales just redistributes your sessions to small wins and catastrophic losses. You cannot change EV with a martingale strategy.
The true barrier is the betting limits. This forces some max losses with your many small wins. This helps the casino achieve the long run much quicker with less std. The EV is still the same tho.
Simple example. Betting limits are 1 to 2 dollars. Max bet 2 dollars. You only get one doubling before you start at 1 again. The smaller the betting limits, the tighter the final distribution of outcomes.~ %50 wins with the typical -EV.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
.
.
I'm not sure, based on the thread, if we are talking about the theoretical side of martingaling (infinite everything) or the practical side. Let me hit on the practical side. I had this discussion once with a friend of mine and no matter what I said, his reply was that he had done it, and it worked. So we made a bet. He gave me the parameters for a game (I did roulette, craps, and non-card-counting blackjack), and I wrote a program to simulate the game with whatever martingaling system he wanted to use (martingale, reverse martingale, double martingale, whatever). He got to pick the betting limits. The only thing I required was that he pick a game and rules that really existed (including the maximum bet size limit). Then we ran it through a few million (or was it billion?) simulations. Oh, I also threw in a few non-martingaling betting strategies ($1 every hand, random bet amounts every hand, etc.) as a control.
You know what we found? No matter what betting system he picked, the expectation of the game always approximated the house advantage and every betting system converged on that same percentage for that game. The only real difference between betting strategies was the short term fluctuation. Some strategies cause you to win a lot or lose a lot in the short term, others cause you to win a little or lose a little in the short term, but in the long term they always converged on the same percentage. I even doubled, tripled, and quadrupled the betting limit for him and the end result was the same. Basically the house advantage is the house advantage, and how much you wager doesn't have any affect on that in the long run. Which means martigaling is no better or worse than any other betting strategy in the long run, but in the short term can produce a long series of small wins, thus giving the bettor a false sense of hope.
A Poker Guy!
"No matter what betting system he picked, the expectation of the game always approximated the house advantage and every betting system converged on that same percentage for that game. The only real difference between betting strategies was the short term fluctuation."
This is also the theoretical result....
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
albert
I can't believe that a system which has existed in various guises, since before Martingale was a gleam in his pappy's eye and has been totally discredited time and again and has cost more rich men their fortunes than any other, is still considered worthy of discussion on a forum such as this one. BTW, I used it a couple times playing blackjack. It really seemed to work.
I think posts above have given plenty of arguments and references to help you convince your friend that his Martingale system will not work.
If he is talking about infinite bankrolls and infinite limits, then he could not possibly be considering a practical application to put his money at risk. I hope not anyway.
All of us who gamble need to come to grips with the realization that progressive systems don't work. However, I argue that they do have some useful function. The important thing is to know that they don't help your expected value, they simply change the distribution of your gambling session results. Here is an example:
I have a good freind who will gamble recreationally on occasion. He has a good job, and does not have any aspirations of being a pro gambler. He never gambles with so much money that the outcome will have much impact on his life -- he's just having fun. For him, walking out of the casino a winner, even a small one, is a victory. He knows that the more common result is that people walk away losers, so if he has won in his session then he feels that he has "beaten the odds".
So for him, his martingale betting behavior enhances his gambling satisfaction. He is proud to say that he almost never loses. So what is wrong with this? nothing. He well educated in probability distributions and mathematical expectation, and he knows that all he is doing his changing his distribution so that he has a high probability of winning a little, and a low probability of losing a lot, and an even lower probability of winning a lot. And he knows that he is doing nothing to his expected value. But it doesn't matter. He can suspend his belief so that he feels like a winner much the same way one suspends his belief in charactars when watching a movie.
If your freind wants to make an annual trip to vegas, and be able to come back and impress his freinds by telling themm that he won a little bit (when they expect him to lose big), then a progressive betting system may be just the right strategy for him.
A friend of mine couldn't find a way to win in football,she tried straight,teasers,14 point teasers,4 team teasers,mutuals,round robins,ifs,etc.In 6 years she's never posted a winning season.This year she tried something different,on Thursday night she'd bet the game for $500,if she won she was done for the week,if she lost,she'd bet an early saturday game for $1100,if she lost that then bet an afternoon game for $2300,etc.She was up about $5000 through 10 weeks and it had only been necessary for her to play on sunday once.In the 11th week it happened,on Monday night she took over 41 for 9000(Mercifly only 9000 because she wanted to get down for 21,000)Denver 30 kc 7.She's now out of action and still making payments to bookmakers.
I was just studying up on "'Winning Low Limit Hold'Em" and I came across a problem. I was dealing out imaginary hands and came across this with AQs in middle position. On page 39 he says with three or fewer callers in front raise with AQ and only call with AQs. Is this some sort of misprint or is their some rfeasoning behind this that I cant figure out. I think the book is really good besides that.
You absolutely want to raise with AQs once three people have limped in.
So what is the real verdict here? The two people in the thread below make a pretty good point that AQs plays well against a large field while AQo does not. But you insist on driving people out with AQs. Now I am confused.
One message said that with 3 limpers, raise with AQ suited. Barring a reraise, (and even then!) this pot is going multiway, the limpers won't be folding.
You misunderstand. The book is suppose to be written for a low limit game which most of you refer to as "no-fold'em." With that being the case, once three people have come in, all your raise will do is build a big pot. You won't be driving out many players behind you.
x
Lee's logic is that AQs plays good against a multi-way pot where as AQoff does not.
Post deleted at author's request.
With all due respect to Lee Jones, once there were three callers, I would raise with either AQ or AQs. While not always easy in low limit games, I would try to force out any marginal hands behind me. A strong hand in late position or the blinds may reraise or merely call for deception. Either way, I feel like I would rather play vs. 4 opponents who have paid $10.00 to see the flop than 8 who have paid $5.00.
For an excellent (basic) description of numerous gambling systems and the reasons why they don't work, try "Darwin Ortiz on Casino Gambling". This book is aimed at someone new to gambling, but still manages to be an informative and entertaining read. If I remember correctly, Mason gave it an 8 in "Gambling Theory and Other Topics". Hope this helps. Jason
I sat in on a 10-20 stud/eight or better for awhile tonight, but the game broke up except for one other player and myself. He wanted to play stud/high, but I got him to agree to a little head's up Razz (7 stud/low only). We played head's up or three handed for an hour or so with the house taking zero drop in order to see if we could build a game around it. I enjoyed the game a lot, both the strategy of head's up play, and the opportunity to make adjustments on the fly when it was necessary.
It has been suggested that one viable use for internet poker rooms would be to spread head's up games for people preferring that mode of play. This would reduce fears of collusion since you would be against a single opponent. I don't understand why more players don't seek out head's up play, especially those players who are "live" in their playing style. I've played heads up with two of the "prop" players at the Commerce in the past, but they don't seem to care that much for the action. Both of these "props" are successful players and you would think they would be well seasoned in short-handed play.
I watched a head's up $400-800 Hold'Em game at the Commerce tonight too. I think this is the kind of game people would like to see played when THE POKER CHANNEL becomes a reality. I see 64 entrants, each putting up $10,000.00, and playing a single elimination match, winners playing winners until two get to a final match with the entire $640,000.00 going to the winner. This is enough money to attract some truly great poker talent, and to attract crowds of viewers looking to see how the "real players" play.
Big John,
I see lots of players who would do better short handed or heads up than they do in ring games, but who refuse to play when the game gets short. Equally ironic is that the "average" player obviously wants to play lots of hands, but when the game gets short giving them the opportunity to play even more hands than they normally do, they refuse to play. The chance to play a high percentage of hands dealt to you, and playing many more hands per hour than in a ring game are two of the fun things about heads up or short handed play. Of course game selection becomes mighty important.
John Feeney
Some of the best players that I know will tell you that they have won most of their money short handed and that it is a much better game whether it is stud or hold 'em.
We've started to play a game that's called 3 card hold 'em. It's a hi/lo game w/ 8 or better to qualify for low. You can use 0, 1, or 2 cards from your hand. Everybody gets dealt 3 cards and there's a board just like in O8, or hold 'em.
I would appreciate it very much if somebody could tell me if there are any books published on this stupid game. I don't even know what a good starting hand is. I try not to play too many hands since it seems to be truly a game of chance. I assume AAx (w/ x being a small card and suited) are about the best hands, but I don't really know for sure. If anybody could tell me a strategy other than to take a smoke break during this game, that would be great.
Thanks in advance, bjpro
bjpro,
The same basic concepts apply here as in omaha but you need to make some adjustments for the fact that you do not need two cards in your hand to play. Most of these will be adjustments you can figure out with a little thought. I think there is a decent book on the subject of omaha eight or better you can order from this forum on the left side of the page. Good Luck.
This game is called Tahoe HiLo. It is common in Montana. I played it last Sept. in Yellowstone. I didn't have a clue how to play, but I would assume that Ray is on track.
Yeah, I guess you CAN find a good book on O/8, although I'm not sure who the weirdo author is.... Lee, or Dee, or something....
Something sucked me in to buying that crazy thing.... :)
Use Omaha/8 starting requirements except: 23, A3 or 24 for low may be more playable; King High suited wins a 2 card flush probably 85% of the time (maybe even when board is paired)(but beware if 4th suited card hits board); Tens and Jacks are more playable than in Omaha (still hope to flop a set - sets win more often in Tahoe).
I am going to try and explain myself once again and then offer a challenge. I know that there is no way possible to change the house edge through manipulating bet size. House EV is house EV period. However, I state that the Martingale system under the correct conditions will win definately. Quickly consider this: you walk into a casino up to the roulette table, put a thousand down on black, black hits, you pick up your thousand plus thousand win, walk to the cage, cash out and never bet again. The casino had had about a $10 EV on that bet, but they lost a $1000 and you won. The house will get their money back, that bet won't cause a ripple in the ocean of bets they recieve and their EV and percentage is virtually uneffected. OK. Obviously you can't win your first bet and walk away a winner everytime. In roulette, betting on black you expect to win 1 in 2.xx times, wich gives the house their edge. The only fact relevant here is that you will win at least once. By making each succesive bet the cumulative total of prior losses plus an original bet, you essentially are only making one bet in the long run.
Now on to the obvious, you HAVE TO have enough money to weather out the sometimes long periods of not hitting your color, and doubling bets rises exponentially. Second there CANNOT be a limit to the amount to wich you can bet. Third, you MUST END on a WIN. Under these constraints, you cannot lose. By the way these conditions do not exist on this planet. Chris' original post assumed these conditions ("he is not worried about bankroll or house limits") making his friend correct. Here is my Challenge based on Poker Guys response. I am willing to accept a wager of anything with anyone to write a program based on roulette (on single color) craps (on pass) using the Martingale system. I don't have the programming skill necessary. The program must use these parameters: 1.) No Bankroll constraint 2.) No bet limit 3.) # of trials, 1 million + X or 1 billion + X where X=any number of succesive trials ending with a win. I am fully willing to back up the claim that this will show profit. I don't understand why so many seemingly intelligent posters here have difficulty accepting this. I further want to reinforce the fact that I know this is not practical in the real world, only Bill Gates has the bankroll, and every casino (even Binions) has a limit. I hope someone will back me up on this.
If I understand what everyone is trying to say on this subject, then I have to agree with you. The EV of the particular game is completely irrelevant when talking about the Martingale system. The fault of the system is in the limits. Even if you were 9 or 10 times more likely to lose the hand than win, a Martingale system would still win if their were no constraints on the bankroll or limit.
You hit the money shot. I wish I could have expressed it like that. THere really is no need to write a program, if people could just think of it clearly "fight fuzzy thinking" as Mr. Sklansky would put it. Thanks and Rock on!
Gator,
"The program must use these parameters: 1.) No Bankroll constraint 2.) No bet limit 3.) # of trials, 1 million + X or 1 billion + X where X=any number of succesive trials ending with a win."
This is where you don't understand the problem. You can't challenge somebody and say , "My system works as long as you win...". that is basically what you are stating in your assumptions.
What if i took the challenge with the slight change that X= any number of successive trials ending with a LOSS?
Theoretically, infinite bankroll,betting limits and trials yields an infinitetesimal chance for an infinite loss. Any limit on bankroll, betting limits or trials gives you the same expected loss as flat betting.
You can however guarantee any session % win rate given high enough limits. Yes you can win 75%, 80%, 95%, 99% or more of your sessions,
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
i am not an expert on this but here goes.
run the betting strategy until the system reflects a win if ever. it is a property of the system that if one winning bet is placed the whole system will show a win (the bet size must be increased to compensate for both the previous loss and the house edge).
so saying the system will never show a win is the same as saying that black will never show up in roulette. the probability of this occurring is zero (to be precise can be made as close to zero as you like - this is where the infinite bankroll comes in).
from the above i believe
(1) the system will show a win (as per the first post) with probablity one (although a bound when this is achieved cannot be given).
(2) the ev has nothing to do with it as per the second post.
(3) the system will also show a loss with probablity one provided you do not stop when you win.
You got it, the only thing that I might question is that the probability of 1 if not quiting on a win. This would only be the case if your ending bet was larger than the sum ofg previous wins. Ending on a win maximizes profit and garuntees no loss, but ending on a loss does not imply a losing series. Thanks.
The constraints I give were stated in the original post that started the thread. I added the 1 million + X, and that is not illegitimate or biased at all because it simulates your freedom to quit playing at any time as you would at the table. If you were to quit say after your 20th double bet that would defeat the entire purpose of Martingale. Ending after a win (any win) is the essence since that bet is equal to previous losses. Do you get it? You would win 100% of sessions. You are correct that there is an infinitly small chance of an inite loss, and that would happen if the wheel you picked went infinately red. MORE LIKELY there is an infinately great possibility of infinite win. This would happen at a roulette wheel you picked in a casino. The infinite chances are negligible, the problem you have to worry about is the wheel getting lucky and hitting the same color twenty times in a row. Starting with $1 the next bet costs $800,000. With the large number of roulette wheels around the country this probably happens more often than you think. Only in theory can Martingale win forever. at a $2 minimun table you could only double about 11 times before you hit the $5000 talbe limit. An 11 streak is common in both craps and roulette, it will happen just about every day. Thanks and good luck.
The comment that Bill Gates has an adequte bankroll is totally wrong. Futhermore you can not yse thge arithmetic of transfinite numbers in cases like this.
The problem with martingales was most succintly stated by Mr. S in a recent article. You can never sum negative numbers (bets with negative expectation), and somehow come up with a positive number. Impossible.
Let's say that you play a game where the chance of winning is 1-y and the chance of losing is y. Using the Martingale system with a starting bet of $1, you get the following results:
1) If y is less than 1/2 (a +EV game), your average bet size will be (1-x)/(1-2x) and the EV for a bet of size B will be B(1-2x). Therefore, your EV per bet will be (1-x).
2) If y equals 1/2, your average bet size will be infinite and the EV for any bet is zero. Therefore, your EV per bet will also be zero. Your variance will be infinite, I suppose.
3) If y is greater than 1/2 (a -EV game), your average bet size will be infinite and the EV for a bet of size B will be B(1-2x), which is negative. Therefore, your EV per bet will be infinitely negative.
Please see my soon-to-be-posted message under a new thread above called "Martingale Poker"
The Challenge is based on the assumption of an infinite bankroll. It's not *just* that no one has such a bankroll in the real world. But even in an imaginary world... if you had an infinite # of dollars (or of seashells or anything else), then dollars would be *worthless* to you. Things obtain "value" ONLY if they are in limited supply.
(If I recall correctly, the *first* lesson of college economics was: "Man's desires are infinite, but the means necessary for satisfying these desires are LIMITED. This is what gives rise to 'value'.")
So... If you had infinite $s, then you'd be able to use this system to assure yourself of winning a bet that'd be absolutely worthless to you. If you had something *less* than infinite $s, then the bet you'd win would be something *more* than worthless, but your chances of winning would be something *less* than assured.
Gator,
My post only dealt with the practical side of the question of martingaling viability. (I had a friend that wanted to go to Las Vegas with me, and martingale it up for a weekend. He was going to take money that he could ill afford to lose because he was convinced it was a foolproof scheme). I'm not much interested in the theoretical side of martingaling unless it can be tied to some practical application.
If you have an unlimited bankroll, and no betting limits, then, as you said, you only have to play til you win a hand for this to work. But until I can figure out how to make money because of this, it won't keep me awake at night :).
A Poker Guy!
In that case, your friend is very wrong. Martingale's only practical application is discussing it on web boards.
...STRIKE THAT...
"...only IMPRACTICAL application..."
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
albert
People have been e-mailing me, asking me to recommend Holdem Software. Actually, as much as i have enjoyed the World Series of Poker software that i own, it is very limited. I cant help but think there is better software out there. I just dont know what or where it is. I like the WSOP because:
1) the table is graphically very easy to view 2) you can click to the next hand to speed up play when you fold 3) you can play in the $10,000 no limit holdem tournament, which is a thrill to win, even if not for real
However, what it doesnt have, and what i really could use is
1) the ability to give myself a specific hand, and give others specific hands, and run simulations 2) set the abilities, and styles(tight, loose, etc.) of the various players 3) after setting all the simulation specifications, be able to run the same situation thousands or millions of times over
I would be willing to guess that this kind of software is out there. Does anybody have any recommendations?
WSOP is a game. I have it. I have won innumerable times. Wilson Software Texas Turbo Holdem 2 is a tool for serious if not necessarily expert players.
That tth2 software sounds really good. Could anyone answer these questions for me:
1) Where can i find it? 2) How much does it cost? 3) Is there a Mac compatible version
Also, any info on similar type software that's Mac compatible if tth2 is not, would be greatly appreciated
Thanks,
Paul
Conjelco on the internet carries it. Gambler's Book Club carries it. It can also be purchased directly from Wilson software. They're on the net and advertise in Card Player. It isn't cheap at $90.00. Unfortunately, I don't think they make a Mac version. Check www. wilsonsoftware.com.
On the essays page (see the column to the left to get there) I have an essay on the accuracy of thses programs. I suggest that you read it before using any of these software programs as a serious tool. I do agree they have value, but you need to understand their limitations.
I agree they have limitations and for players of your ability, TTH2 has little to offer. But not everyone has your ability. As I have posted in the past, for players like me, on the steep grade of the learning curve, TTH2 as well as any book from 2+2 accelerate improvement. I have reached the point where there is not much I can learn from the former, but alot remains to be learned from the latter. I primarily use TTH2 as a warmup to playing in the poker room, when I haven't played for 5 or 6 days.
BTW, have you or David examined TTH version 2?
No, I have not had a chance to look at the new version, and I understand that it is better than the old one. But my cautions still apply.
Mason, I thought I saw something a few months ago (here in Forum?) concerning new poker software that David S was creating, or promoting, or something?
Does that mean that DS's product, if there is one, isn't any better?
Also, while I agree with you pretty much on the "take it with a grain of salt" research statement, I also believe that, to some extent, better software programs could help replicate true games (at least, based on what I've seen so far in Turbo V2 products that I have) and can therefore help in "research"- much as I've used the 2+2 books.
While I agree with you that errors could be possible, I feel that those errors are as important to experience, and fairly close to the "errors" that real players, INCLUDING experts, make all of the time in live poker.
Unless you believe that there is an expert poker player that makes 100% of his/her plays correctly 100% of the time (which I'm sure you don't), then Turbo products do seem to replicate some of the plays that I've seen myself, erroneous or "not".... I can't say I've seen much poker software (I have WSOP also, but never treated that seriously after becoming World Champ for the 3rd time), but the analysis capabilities that come with Turbo have helped me in pointing out some leaks (I've just started using them).... ...and besides, any computer game that makes me scream and curse at it on tilt, just like the casino, can't be THAT far off!!! :)
Easy E,
I am a computer professional and I believe from experience that a computer could be programmed to play extremely well.
Some discredit thier predictabilty. Well that's the programmer's fault not the computer. A random number generator could be used to make on the fly variations.
Even superstitious behavior could be emulated if you wanted to take the time to figure a way to program it. However it would be very time and resource comsumimg.
Therein lies the real problem. Software created to be marked has to make to the market. So some compromises are inevitable.
Unfortunately many work a day programmers face such conflicts :
1. If they are technical perfectionists they often want to implement solutions that management can't live with. The techy wants to perfect his program without regard to time, cost etc.
2. If the programmer is burned out or mismatched in the field he may, on the otherhand, stop short at the earliest point he can get away with. As I can attest, Programming can burn people up. At some point event the most diehard get fed up with the constant hairsplitting demands of it. Unless of course they're making enough money that thier lives seem good to them.
Anyway, I'd guess that some behaviors could be programmed exactly, just to be on the safe side.
And I agree, the current crop has it's shortcomings. Though I'm a computer professional, I'm also a computer critic.
An example of a shortcoming I believe exists in Turbo 7 Card Stud for example is that I've not found a way to simulate the quite common decision to fold if an opponent pairs his door card as opposed to pairing a later card.
From what I've looked at the profiles don't have a ready way to specify this. And yet it is a very common tactic.
Hopefully, over time these things will be ammended and these can become usefull tools.
If and when they do, however, the idea that poker can't be played to a set of rules will have to go away. After all, all's Turbo software is, is a set of instructions (the program) that reads tables and lists full of preordained actions to a set of events on the card table.
If you were to come up with a winning profile all you'd have to do is memorize the table a la blackjack.
Once that profile became published, a table of players who all new it would run like a crapshoot. Who ever got the cards would win.
Large Luck Frank
In the archives another poster also mentioned easily beating WSOP. How do you do it? Is there a simple weakness or bug in the program? Or is it just really bad?
Opponents play bad, are predictable and if you repeat the same manuver, they will respond the same way. Not so with TTH2.
In a word... play aggressively.
As I recall the game (I beat it on my second and third attempt) NONE of the players will ever play back at you with nothing. So, attempt to steal every pot and if you ever get called SLOW DOWN.
Regards, Dave Scharf
(Peremptory caveat: this topic may be covered in Lee Jones book on Low Limit Hold'em, which I haven't read yet, or scribbled on the imaginary blackboard at the nearest asylum for the considerably deranged, i.e., poker refugees)
My experience is only with 1-4-8-8 so maybe this comparative analysis is lopsided, but it seems to be that the factor which primarily accounts for the distinctive texture of this brand of Hold'em is the size of the come-in bet ($2). In essence, then, the entrance fee is a half-bet and, therefore, if there were no pre-flop raises, one could see twice as many flops for the same price as in the structured-bet counterpart to this game, 4-8 HE. You're thinking, well obviously. And moreover, you're thinking, but there ARE raises. But do raises have the same effect in this game as in 4-8? I'm talking about the maximum $4 raise which is used 95% of the time. One could argue that since one hasn't committed as much, proportionately speaking, it's easier psychologically to release a marginal opening hand when raised. But I think that more often what happens is this: the lower entrance fee prompts more players to call who, when raised, because they now feel committed to seeing the flop, will call the raise thereby sweetening the pot and in turn entice other marginal initial callers or even those who had intended to fold to see the flop because hey what the hell any hand can win and how can one resist this golden opportunity, yet another chance to win the night's biggest pot.... The proverbial snowball effect. Now, with the pot of chips simmering nicely, all sorts of come hands are chased with epicurean relish and all the raiser has accomplished is to manufacture sufficient pot-odds for these blokes to go the distance and send him scurrying to the day-old bread shelf.
So the next time he holds a hand like AQoffsuit, chastened by an interminable succession of just such failed attempts to control the action, he doesn't raise ("false bravado," he now acknowledges), gets a cheap look at the flop, and catches the "ideal" A 7 2rainbow, adds a heavensent Q on the turn and the big blind yanks down his pants with 72offsuit when the board's 2 finds its soulmate on the river....
The moral the story: Sometimes 2 + 2 = more than four.
Actually, I believe I have discovered the correct play for 1-4-8-8. Watch for my soon to be published Holdem Poker: the Spread Game. Subtitled Winning at 1-4-8-8. Hey, if Jim Geary can publish a poker book, so can I.
Is there a situation were it is corect to play hand x,x-1s and not corect to play x,x+2s, it is corect to play JTs and not corect to play KJs, it is corect to play 87s and not corect to play T8s, it is corect to play 54s and not corect to play 75s. Week ago i hate one gap hands. I play 76s and fold 97s in same situations. Play 33 and fold J8s in same situation. But i start doing my home work on one gap hands and discover that they not match worse than no gap hands and i misplayed many of them. Any coments welcome.
The difference is that a no-gap hand has four possible straight combos, and a one-gap hand has only three possible combos. But, as you get farther up the ladder, the strength of the KJ flush is much stronger than the JT flush. So in your x-1 vs x+2 analysis, the one-gap combos have added high card power (moreso as the card values go up), you are more likely to hit top pair. I would rather have KJs than JTs, but would rather have 56s than 86s.
You write: " I would rather have KJs than JTs, but would rather have 56s than 86s." What is your point. I woud rather have 44 than 33 but play them in same way. I woud rather have 85s than 74s but play them in same way. I woud rather have K6 than J3 but play them in same way. In witch situation you will play 65s and fold 86s.
I would be inclined in a passive game to play 56s from middle position if, say three, other people had already limped in. I would not be inclined to play 86s until I was in late position. I would also raise occasionally with 56s from early position as variance of my normal play. I would not do this with 86s. Both of these situations are borderline where the strength of the 56s vs 86s would cause me to consider playing the first hand, but definitely not the latter. There many are more situations where I would play KJs differently than JTs. KJs certainly has strength without straight or flush considerations, so I might raise with it first in from middle position, where I would just call the JTs (which relies on it's straight and flush value). On the other hand, if I was in late position with many callers, I would be more inclined to raise with JTs to build up the pot, and just call with KJs.
When you trying to vary your play from any position hand it self do not mater, as long it is suted, and you do it not often. I will do it whit Q2s. It drives my oponent crazy. Regular holdem players in Mohegan Sun call Q2s Boris's hand. And i belive 65s is not good to call in midele position whith 3 limpers. Maybe 5 limpers, but then it maybe corect to play 86s?
We obviously disagree on proper HE strategy
Post deleted at author's request.
In witch situation you will play 87s and fold T8s.
Post deleted at author's request.
I think that decisions like this involve very small differences in EV, and that too many good players waste a lot of time splitting hairs like this.
It's far more important to devote your energy to analyzing BIG decisions, like whether the players that are already in the pot are the type of players who will give you an extra bet on the river if you make your hand, or if they are the type of weak players that can be pushed around easily.
I know a lot of fairly good players that waste hours discussing whether or not to play KTs if they can also play Q9s, but devote little or no time to worrying about whether they should value bet their top pair/no kicker on the river against a calling station. One decision involves pennies, and the other involves full big-bet errors.
Once you've gotten to the point where you are tight enough to not play real trash out of position, you should spend more time on the other stuff, IMO.
I know a player who has very bad pre-flop flundamentals. He'll call raises from tough players with KTo, call with any ace in middle or late position, etc. Yet, he wins at poker, because his instincts for stealing pots are tremendous. If he calls with garbage all night, but takes down one big pot that another player couldn't have won with the same cards, he just paid for all those bad decisions, and then some.
Dan
My response is limited to the middle suited/unsuited connectors and those with one or more gaps. Hands with a rank of queen high or greater are complicated by factors concerning high card strength and hands with a rank less than 45 lose some of their straights for the purpose of this discussion.
I believe that hands in the middle with one gap are very close in value to pure connectors. I have two primary reasons. First the straight that you can't make (with a one gap hand) is a bottom end straight that can very easily lose to a better straight which is often out there because most people will play the danger hand. For example, look at 87s versus 86s. If the flop contains a 9 T J when you hold the 87 you must fear that a KQ could be out there and you could not put in a lot of action fearing this hand is out against you. But the worse straight with an 86s would be made when the flop is 7 9 T which would require your opponent to hold a J8. This hand is much less likely to be played than the KQ and I would raise in this situation aggressively.
The second reason one gap hands are close in value is that when you make a straight your hand is a little more disguised and it seems that you get more action and calls when you make your hand.
However, I do believe that hands with two gaps are very inferior and should be rarely played (if at all it is when suited and for a partial bet in the blinds - an exception might be J8s on the button with many callers). The reason is that a hand with two gaps (e.g., 85s) needs both a seven and a six to fall to make an open ended straight draw and this is much harder than the 86s which needs a seven and either a five or a nine. This doesn't count the double belly busters (i.e., two-way inside straights) which are much easier with the single gap. I'm no David Sklansky (who is?) with the math but several years ago Chip Johnson published a book of hands and flops called "Tayak's Tables" (or something like that - my copy is in deep storage) and it illustrated just how close these hands are in value.
One other minor point is illustrated in comparing the hands 97 versus 87. Sometimes you may challenge someone who you think is on a steal with a flop such as K 7 2 and the hand goes to the showdown. In cases like this I have found that my nine "kicker" sometimes saves the day for me.
Regards,
Rick
Does Ax go up in value in low limit no foldem holdem? Cause I fold this hand unless in the blinds? should I adjust?
Walleye
If it is suted yes. I will play it in late position. Some books say you can play it in midele.
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
Ciaffone rates A2s=JTs and I would tend to agree. I will generally play it from middle on, often raising in an unraised pot. But UTG, I'm not so sure.
Trying to equate A2s to JTs is a big mistake. There are many spots where I would play JTs every time and never play A2s. An example is first in UTG in a typical game.
Post deleted at author's request.
"I agree with Mason on this one -- the whole idea of some sort of global equivalence (or even ranks) of hold'em starting hands is a big can of worms without a lot of value."
I disagree completely. Hand rankings allowed for hold 'em to be much more easily quantified and better understood by most players.
"As Mason says, in many games you might play JTs from UTG but not A2s. Also, in some very loose games I'd play A2s from UTG but not JTs. The possible nut draw in a very loose game makes A2s worth playing while JT just isn't big enough to play UTG in a very loose game."
I disagree with this statement completely. I can't think of a situation, even one that would virtually never happen, where you would play A2s UTG but not JTs UTG.
Post deleted at author's request.
I find the nature of the players to be as important as whether or not the game is loose or tight. If the players play very predictably after the flop, the hand goes up in value for me, because it's easier to get off the hand if an Ace flops and I know I'm outkicked.
If you can seriously outplay your opponents after the flop, then more of these marginal hands become playable. In the typical games I play in, I'll generally call with Axs from any position.
Dan
Post deleted at author's request.
I think way to many players play Ace anything. I wouldn't ever play the hand Ax in low limit (no foldem), its a losing proposition. I would play Axs in middle position with a few callers and no raise, in which case I'd muck it. I wouldn't play AXs in early position at all, in late position if there are at least four callers (in no foldem you can bet there will be) I'd play it even with a single raise. Play after the flop is tricky. This may seem a little to tight, but in no foldem its your best shot at cleaning up, if the flop hits you, play it aggressively. Don't give that Ace too much respect in low limit. Rock On!
SUITED IT IS A PLAYABLE HAND - YOU ARE HOPING MORE FOR THE NUT FLUSH DRAW THAN THE ACE. THIS IS NOT THE CASE IN A TIGHTER GAME.
The only time I play Ax consistently is shorthanded(5 handed or less)
I can't imagine that avoiding A9o and lower could be much of a leak. In limit, Ax sux, but I think it depends on what you mean by "no-foldem." In a passive game with little raising and many players seeing the flop, A9o and below generally are a waste of time and AKo through ATo go down in value (with ATo going wayyyy down) but are playable depending on position, players, raises, image etc. Axs in early position or UTG is playable in passive games because (1) the entry fee is small (2) the pot is big and (3) you have a chance at a monster hand. If there's hardly ever a raise before the flop, who cares if you're UTG? If someone raises in late position but will always get 5-6 callers, who cares if its 2 bets to see the flop?
In aggressive no-foldem games with multiway capped pots before the flop, all unsuited cards except pairs go way down in value. In these games, focus on the big suited connectors and pairs, generally avoid playing an ace lower than AJo and play AQo delicately. For example, if you pay 3-4 bets to see the flop with AJo, even in late position against complete idiots, you will usually either (1) miss the flop entirely, in which case you paid a huge premium with a drawing hand; (2) hit one of your pairs but be unable to exploit it and often end up wishing you'd missed the flop; (3) very rarely hit a big hand (AJx or JJx) but only get action from hands that, preflop, beat you 70-80% of the time (AQ, KK etc.), so that in the long run you're really not sucking out.
Of course, these games can switch from passive to aggressive from hand to hand or hour to hour, so adjust.
Wondering what the rakes are around the country.
Here in Northern California, the rake at the best card club in 20-40 hold'em is $3 on the button....if you take a walk and miss a round, they will still take $3 from you (and put it in the pot)
They probably get out about 20 hands per half hour - with the table being 9 handed, that's the equivalent of paying $6.66 per half hour.
How does that compare with the Mirage/Bellagio/AC/So.Cal/Mississippi?
Casino Arizona in the Phoenix area has a $5 half-hour charge for any game 15-30 and above.
carlos
Foxwoods (Connecticut) collects time, $7 per 1/2 hour.
Here in Southern California Hollywood Park and Crystal Park charge $7 per half hour. However, Hollywood Park takes $3 from the pot in the $20/40 Stud Hi/Lo (Crystal Park may do this also). The Commerce charges $8 per half hour. The Bike no longer has a viable top section but before it jiust about vanished they were taking $3 on the button even if there was no flop. I believe the Normandie collects $7 per half hour also but I haven't been there in a while.
Regards,
Rick
In Indiana and Illinois, the rake on all games, up to and including 20/40, is 10% to max. $5.00. For 20/40 and ten players, at thirty hands per hour, that's about $7.50 per half hour.
Assume the blinds are T100-200 and your stack is T2000, and the average stack is about that much. When you are first-in from a middle position against typical opponents, moving all-in or making a pot-sized raise and seeing the flop are both potentially strong options. Do you TEND (also considering how aggressive the players remaining to act are, whether they fold easily on the flop, whether you are likely to be called if you make a small raise, etc.) to move all-in with intermediate pairs and see the flop with high offsuit cards, or the reverse?
The advantage to moving all-in with high offsuit cards is that you get five cards to pair, and will often win in cases where you would have folded had you seen the flop. Against aggressive players, I am more inclined to see the flop or even to limp preflop, since the chance of being bet into by a bluff or top pair-lower kicker is high.
With intermediate pairs, your hand is probably the best preflop, but will rarely be an overpair or set on the flop. The redraws are relatively minor with these hands, and if you are behind on the flop, you have little chance of winning. You will often have the best hand on the flop even though an overcard hits, although it is difficult to know that you do. Also, you don't want to take the chance on a crowd seeing the flop.
I don't play that way with either hand. A modest raise before the flop may be called for with the middle pair (and a limp isn't bad either), but the two offsuit paint hand is a piece of cheese in a full field, and isn't worth playing unless you are confident you can buy the pot.
With your stack size, I'm not even going to limp with the two big cards, the problem being that you are out of position. Look at this in context with a topic discussed further down on the board: you have K-Q unsuited and limp, the flop comes Q-7-3 -- now what do you do? In limit, you could bet this board without worrying too much about a raise; in no-limit, you are going to trap yourself for your whole stack.
Moving all-in before the flop with a middling hand is also going to win you a small pot or lose you your whole stack. Disregard this kamikaze strategy employed by many of the players in the small tournaments at the Orleans. The only place I would play this fast is in a single-table satellite.
For better advice, see Bob Ciaffone's book, "Pot-Limit & No-Limit Poker," and TJ Cloutier's book, "Championship No-Limit & Pot-Limit Hold'em".
Raising intermediate pairs from a middle position is just lookin for trouble in NL. Its dangerous to try and steal blinds with that hand with so many people to act after you, and its not a good trap hand because you need flop a set (drawing to 2 outs). You risk a significant portion of your stack to steal the blinds. It's hard to defend against a re-raise, or a raise on the flop if overcards fall. There is no time pressure yet, I would wait for a better hand.
Now if I were inclined to play that hand anyway from a middle position (I'm assuming its folded to you?) then I would probably go for the pot-sized bet. There are so many people that will call any bet with two overcards (AK, AQ) and I dont really want to have the whole tourney hinge on essentially an almost 50-50 shot. The AK's of the world like to be all in so they cant second guess themselves. So I do a pot sized bet, pray (which is what this hand always forces you to do anyway) that everyone folds, then pray I am not reraised, then pray for either a set or a 236 rainbow flop, and then pray that I can drive them out with an all-in bet if I didnt hit my set, and if all else fails, pray that I somehow end up with the best hand. Too much religion required for me.
A Poker Guy!
Imagine a 4-player poker game. One card is are dealt face up to each player and high card by suit wins the pot. There is no betting. The pot is created by ante only and there is a 25% rake with no cap (meaning the full ante of one player is immediately dropped to house).
For the first hand of the game (which then continues indefinitely), the ante is $1. The ante for each subsequent hand is double the ante of the last hand ($1, $2, $4, $8, $16, $32, etc.) The winner of each hand is kicked out of the game and replaced by the next player on the list. (As you will see soon, the list will always be full so let's not worry about running out of players.) Nobody may ever leave the game except after winning a pot. (Because it has been so popular in these Martingale threads, let's assume that everybody has an infinite bankroll so going broke is not a problem.)
What happens to average player Joe when he plays this game? HE WINS! Every single day! Why? Let's pretend that he just won the 7th had of the night. After everyone anted $64 dollars, a $64 rake was taken and the pot was $192. Joe won this pot and therefore made a $128 net for the hand. Even if Joe had played and lost every hand since the beginning of the game, he would only have lost (1+2+4+8+16+32) $63 up to that point, so he leaves the game at least a $65 winner. A similar calculation would show that the winner of the Nth hand would leave the table up over (2^N) dollars!
Of course, after a few hands, the money would be astronomical, but everyone has an infinite bankroll so it does not matter. There is no possible way for anybody to ever walk away from this game a loser. But what about the casino? It makes an absolute killing in rake! After N hands, the casino will be up (2^N-1 dollars). But wait! If everone including the casino wins in this game, where does the money come from?
The answer, of course, is that all of the money comes from the players that lost the previous hand. As a new player sits down, the three losers at the table are in the red exactly the amount of money that the casino and the other players are in the black. In the long run, the casino flourishes and the poker community loses as a whole, even though every player but three are up at any given moment.
----------------------------------------------
Translate this scenario to the Martingale Roulette Casino, where players with infinite bankrolls sit down and play single-zero roulette, betting only on red or black, using the Martingale System. Players who win a bet (and are therefore at that instant are lifetime winners) are forced to get up and walk around the casino for at least five minutes before sitting down to play again. Because of the obvious -EV nature of roulette, the casino will continue to make money, and therefore the roulette community must continue to lose as a whole. Looking in the casino, you will see thousands of lifetime roulette winners walking happily around the casino and the owner of the snack bar could honestly tell you that he has never met a lifetime roulette loser in person.
The casino's winnings and the winning players' winnings have to come from somewhere, though, and that money comes from the players that are seated. At any given point in time, the roulette tables are full of losers that have racked up huge amounts of debt. Once again, the casino wins and the gamblers, as a whole, lose. Such is the nature of -EV games.
Just a side note. It is obvious that in this environment that the Martingale Roulette Casino may be lifetime losers at any given moment if every player at every table has just won. So let's change the rules of this casino slightly. If a player (who has just lost 4 times in a row) bets $16 on red, the casino waits for a player at another table to bet $16 on black. They then intantly transport the two players to the same table (infinite bankrolls, Star Trek type transporters, let's just throw in world peace too while we're being hypothetical) and spin the little white ball. The same thing would be done to pair all opposite bets in the entire casino together.
This obviously does not affect the players' EV or the casino's EV one bit, but it does lower their variance considerably. By operating in this manner, the casino can never lose money on any single spin, but can make money if the ball lands on green. Realize that this simple manuver means that the casino will always be, at every given moment, a lifetime winner against an army of Martingale players. Because it is obvious that seat selection and opponent betting have no effect on a player's EV, this change does not compromise the "integrity" of the Martingale system from a player's standpoint.
And if the Martingale complete trash in this setting, it must be complete trash in the original setting. But then you already knew that.
What do you mean by the Martingale is complete trash?
I'm not sure what the original poster meant but I've always thought of it as a system for people that didn't understand that addition was commutative. If you understand its a way of changing the distribution of outcomes (sub sequences) and not your EV (overall sum) then its not trash.
the ev probably does not exist : for systems with unbounded bet sizes there is no guarantee that the sums converge.
where does the commutivity of addition come into it?
I was responding to "What do you mean Martingale is complete trash[?]" That is a more general question so I ignored the "money is worthless" assumption. Given the name of this thread I probably should have been more clear.
Your typical martingale bettor doesn't believe that each of his bets is independent and that the house advantage works against each and every one independently.
I probably should have not used the phrase "Martingale is complete trash" without qualifying it better. Martingale is a system that accomplishes a number of things, both bad and good. (It redistributes your session profits drastically.)
The perception that you can always leave the table a winner is a dangerous one, and I was trying to use a couple of examples to show what really happens in a Martingale setting. In the long run, your average bankroll at any given moment will be negative. This is illustrated by a large (it might be simpler to say infinite) army of Martingale bettors each using the system simultaneously. At any given moment, the casino will be ahead and the collective army will be behind, but there will be a definite number of winners at that time.
The amazing thing about the Martingale setting is that given any (large) dollar figure, there is a 100% chance that a Martingale bettor will be down by at least that much at some future point, and a 100% chance that a Martingale bettor will be up by at least that much at some future point.
...thanks matt.... :)
Why stop there. You might as well charge a 99% rake. Or have a roulette wheel that has only one black and one red. The rest all zeros!!!!. The Martigale system will work just as well!!!!
Let's start up a casino ...and I'll guarantee a % winning session rate of over 80% using martingales or get all your losses back!!! See my previous thread a few weeks ago about guaranteed 80% session win rates using martingales.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
albert
Check-raise a "tricky" (especially as he is sensible) opponent everytime heads-up after you raised with a big pocket pair and an ace has flopped.
Comments?
Unless he wiil reraise occassionally with a worse hand.
Nice answer! Tell me, what would you do if someone check-raised you EVERY TIME an Ace flopped after they had raised preflop! Puhlease! I believe he said tricky and sensible opponent. Just a "bad thought" is my opinion! But then again I read Sklansky. He states in HPFAP that Holdem cannot be played by rote. I guess I must have misunderstood. Vince
I have 3 replies to the original post.
1) You might win the 1st, 2nd or 3rd time you played like this, but I bet..(pun intended) that you would lose your shirt playing like this with the same players for more than a hand or two.
2) Play predictable and you can predict a loss..predictably!
3) This is beginner stuff. Who ever told you to play like this is NOT your friend.
Play with their heads, sure, but not like this.. DOC-
Now this is a response I can appreciate! Thanks Doc! Vince
Doc:
The frequency of the situation I described will occur very infrequently, i.e. heads-up after pre-flop raising with the same opponent and then check-raising when an ace hits the flop. Nonetheless, the value of such a play is:
1. Getting an extra bet and the likelihood of stealing while the play is still fresh.
2. As he "wises up," you may get many extra bets given you have better pot odds to call a reraise (as his bluffing frequency will increase in this spot). And, remember, you still have outs if you're mistaken to his hand.
3. Your frequent check-raising will likely payoff on future hands in the form of free cards and from those who think "you never got it" and call you down with a loser.
I RECENTLY RAN ACROSS A DEUCES WILD WITH A PAY TABLE OF THE FOLLOWING: RF 4000
FD 1000
RFw2 125
5 of KIND 80
SF 50
4 of KIND 20
FH 20
FLUSH 15
STRAIGHT 10
3 of KIND 5
WHAT IS THE ADVANTAGE OR DISADVANTAGE?
According to a program I ran it is about 99.73%, assuming perfect play.
Danny S
Here's the tricky part. You need to use a new basic strategy in this game. In particular, two changes worth noting: You hold both pairs with two pair and go for the full house. You play for more straight flushes when holding one or two deuces. With one deuce, keep 79s. With 2 deuces keep 710s. There may be other changes two.
Danny S
I appreciated the patient nonantagonistic tone of this essay. I believe Sklansky had a few curt, dismissive words on this subject. Their comments seem to be reactions to naive simulations like www.cs.cmu.edu/People/mummert/poker/. The computer work behind Mummert's essay was careful. But the essay doesn't address or even admit its limitations. By playing all hands to a showdown it incorporates severe biases. For example, AK is a great hand because it is easy to get away from. If 10-10-x flops you simply dump it. But a high pair might pay a lot of money to see who has the third ten. If Mummert's essay acknowledged these limitations then we could try to diagnose the biases and use simulation tools more effectively. Unqualified acceptance or dismissal of these results leads nowhere.
To his credit Sklansky paid prize money for computer solutions of poker situations on this page. His harsh criticism of naive results shouldn't be interpreted as resistance to productive use of simulation tools. I think we all would like to see more sophisticated simulations incorporate his feedback.
Steve Watson wrote, "To his credit Sklansky paid prize money for computer solutions of poker situations on this page"
Steve, I read an essay "home computers and poker, by Mason Malmouth (12/11/98). Is this the essay you are referring too?
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
The Gambling Forum December 1998 Archive Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo