At one of the bay area casinos, they normally have two 6-12 games, and one 20-40 games. Due to my work schedule, I can usually only play from 3pm to 9pm. During that time on weekdays, the 20-40 game is usually dominated by props and solid players....it seems to me that my expectancy is around zero in that game....and if i'm lucky, it goes up to 40 after selective players start playing it. in the 6-12 game, its your regular california 6-12 game, and it seems my average can be anywhere from 15-20/hour. So I've concluded that for the most part (except in unusual circimustances) to play in the 6-12 game, even though my bankroll can withstand 40-80. Any comments on this decision?
Your question is similar to mine. I play in southern Cal and those 6-12 games are a plenty, and good. my concern is with the structure of the game. I don't know if your structure up there is the same, but with three dollars on the button for a collection I think this is a tough game to beat. I've run simulations on the game and structure, and the biggest winners are net losers. If you can maintain a two big bet per hour rate I suppose it can be beaten, but that is asking for alot. I was hoping that mr Malmuth or Sklanksy wouldaddress these issues. I know that you can't always trust a simulation, but I don't think it's too far off the mark in this case. Good Luck!
There are many players who will beat the $6-12 game (even with this rake) for a little bit who won't beat a higher limit. If this is you, you should stay at $6-12 until your skills get better. However, a very good player will do much better at $20-$40 than $6-12.
I'm not a professional player by any means, nor do I wish to be one...I play recreationally, yet I still like to win money. In the 6-12 game, I've been averaging $15-20/hr over 200 hours, in the 20-40, its around $10-$15/hr around 100 hrs. Admittedly the sample size is small. However, 15-20 / hr in 6-12 does not seem like 'beating the game by a little bit', it seems like crushing it. The question is this: is it reasonable for a player to consistently crush the 6-12 game, and be a smaller winner in the 20-40 game, while playing just as well (with the money difference caused by the skill of opponents) to decide to play in the 6-12....without bankroll being a concern in either game.
Unless ther is a huge disparity in the two games, anyone who can beat 6-12 for more than $10 an hour can do even better in larger games.
In my experience, in games above 6-12 there will be a lot more raising and less callers pre-flop. In a 6-12 game I can call with AQ (or maybe raise) and see how things go on the flop. If I don't have a pair by the turn, I'm done.
In 15-30, if it's folded to me I have to raise with AQ. I get two callers, a maniac and a strong player. Unless I hit the flop, I'm in a lot of trouble. I have to bet any random flop. Now I'm heads up with over-cards. Can I get my opponent to fold if I bet the turn? Will he raise me with no pair? It's not so much the cards that determine the winner, it's who can play the mind games better.
I'd rather play 6-12. At least there, by the time I get heads-up, I'll have a hand.
Ken,
I think this was an excellent post and you make some very valid points. I agree that as the limits increase the games tend to be tougher and thus making the correct decision is often more difficult. That is the way it should be IMO because the rewards are greater for making the correct decision and the penalties are greater for not making the correct decision.
Tom Haley
Your brief analysis and anticipation of expectation are sound.
Your DECISISION not to play the 20/40 is not sound. You are NOT in a position where you have to make a choice now and live stick to it: You are not marrying a particular structure.
I strongly recomend you give the 20/40 a few shots. While playing be SURE to spend time analizing and profiling the players, so you can make an informed decision later. You may find the props are the typicial weak-tights and the solids will stay out of your way. If this is the case you MAY want to play in the predictable game.
Get the solids on your right and the props on your left. Play VERY tight up front, tighter than you want in the middle, and more assertively in good position, but not otherwise "loose". This is one-pair poker; most unlike the 6/12. Put players on particular hands and particular kickers. Tight and solid games is where "trouble hands" got their name; and rightfully so.
- Louie
If you kept accurate records, you would know for sure. This decision seems to be a matter of style. How well you play shorthanded should be considered. Just don't decide before you get to the cardroom what you're going to do. Choose the right game after you see who is playing well, badly, on tilt, etc.
Does anyone know of any Atlantic City casinos that have positive expectation video poker machines ?
TMAN asked: Does anyone know of any Atlantic City casinos that have positive expectation video poker machines?
Yes, there are a few. Cash back is high enough to play 9/6 Jacks or Better at a couple of places. There are also a tiny number of 10/7 Double bonus machines and a few Double Joker machines that are positive off the top.
--jazbo
Where are these machines?
9/6 Jacks (positive depends on cash back, which you should check with the casino): Trop, Claridge, Showboat, Marina, Taj, Ballys, Plaza, Resorts (denominations $.25 to $25).
10/7 Double Bonus: Plaza (currently not available), Hilton (1 machine, $25).
Double Jokers are supposed to be positive at the Showboat and the Taj, but I don't play these myself, so I can't attest to them.
I have recently found a 3-6-12 hold'em game on a riverboat in East Chicago. It is like a normal structured 3-6 game, but on the river, there is the option to bet either 6 or 12. Of course, in practice most of the bets are 12. My feeling is that this alters the game quite a bit, but I am unsure of all of the ramifications of this rule change. Would anyone care to comment on how they think this changes the game?
Many Thanks, Dennis Eichhorn
Dennis,
There is an article in the archives regarding this exact structure that might be helpful to you:
3-6 strategy with 12 option Rich Van Ollefen -- Monday, 15 September 1997, at 4:17 p.m. 1 response
Greg Raymer posted some excellent advice regarding this structure.
Tom Haley
I was in a pot the other day in late posistion with a pair of queens. the pot was raised and called before it got to me and I re-raised. The small blind called and the other two players called. The flop comes 9-9-5 different suites. it's checked to me and I bet. Just the small blind calls. the turn brings a 6 . the small blind checks and I check behind thinking that this guy called three bets cold and called on the flop, Hes got something. An 8 comes on the river and he bets and I call. hes got a pair of sevens for the straight. I talked with him later, because I have seen this guy winning substantial amounts of money with hands that don't quite justify it, yet he seems to be extremely analytical. Anyway, his answer about that hand was that the pot odds and implied odds were high enough for him to justify calling a double raise cold, etc.. Am I missing something? I felt his implied odds would go way down looking at a doudle raise cold. he also reffered to the Turbo Texas Hldm program. Well, I have since seen this program, and the strategy it imploys seems much looser than I am used to playing, and it seems to be much to generous with the implied odds. my question is , #1 Am I losing my mind , did this guy play close to correctly. # 2 Is anyone using the strategy that is used in this Turbo Txs Hldm software succesfully. I feel like I have arrived on another planet. Someone bring me back to earth here. thanks
don,
I think that you know the answer to question #1 already. He just got lucky and a long shot came in. They come in a lot more than you would like them to. As for the turbo texas hold'em strategy I am not that familiar with it. I do have this game but I don't use it at all.
Tom Haley
It is 7 1/2-to-1 to flop a set. The player in the small blind must do a little better than that he can occasionally flop his set and lose. Against the right players, who will give a great deal of action, his call is probably marginally correct. But against most players the answer is no.
Before the flop, its a tough call. You surrender your blinds so much that you are always looking for something to defend with. Maybe it's not statistically correct, but it helps your table image. After the flop, he may tentatively put you on AK or AQs and with 13 half bets in the pot, he only has to be right 20% of the time to make calling correct if heads up.
One thing about Turbo Texas Hold-em; I got the windows version upgrade, against their set line-up1 with Tricky Dicky, Nicely Nicely, Myopic Mike, etc. I'm stuck $1400 in the $10 - $20 game after 1050 hands. Even though I'm having a bad run of cards, this seems like a very tough line-up. Usually 2 or 3 players seeing the flop, an occasional bluff, and most of the profiles will not fold if they've got something. I think it may be good practice for limit tournaments or tough $20 - $40 games.
He didn't call three bets cold, he called 2 1/2 half-bets cold. As Mason stated, if he's got 4 loose players to go with him to the river, he has marginally good implied odds to chase (1 1/4 full bets to potentially win 8-12 full bets).
On the turn, I would've bet your hand. You didn't charge him to draw, yet you paid him off when he got there. Maybe that's what he was talking about when he said he had implied odds -- when you didn't bet the turn, he had a free roll.
1. In a relatively tough 10-20 HE game (preflop raising about 25% with reraising about 10-15%, mostly solid players, one maniac, and one weak tight), if an early position player raises, should you call the double bet with group 6-7 pairs (55,44,33,22) if you are in the middle position/late position? Consider that with your call there will be 4-6 hands in the pot. The reason this question was brought up was because I did not read DS comments concerning calling raises with small pocket pairs in the late position in HPFAP. He covered the idea of raising with them but not calling an early positional raise. In the above scenario, I chose to chuck pocket 44's from a late position only to see 4 2 2 flop (I would have won approx $400 pot had I called). Please keep in mind that this is a fairly tough game.
2. Same game--I had KK in the last middle position and decided to raise an early position caller. Both I and my opponent next to me (late position) "splash" the raise at the same time. He turned to me and said that he thought I was calling and therefor he was raising. If he had known that I was going to raise, he would have reraised. The button called the raise as did the early position player. The flop comes Q Q x rainbow. Early player checked, I bet and was raised by my "neighbor." Button cold calls double bet and so did the other person. The turn produces another small card. Early player checked, I checked, "neighbor" bets and received two calls. I folded. At this point there were 11 double bets ($20); with two outs the pot needs to give me 22 to 1 odds for me to call. Neighbor checked on the river when another rainbow hit and won the pot with pocket 10's. Please comment.
Thanks in advance--spidey
1. If you can anticipate the type of multiway action that you describe you should call with all pairs.
2. You don't need 22-to-1 since there is some chance that your two kings are good. You probably should have bet. See our book.
Notice the lack of raise by the early players on the turn is good news (folding would have been great). Also, the hero would most likely just call with a Q on the flop, to "trap" the other players; HeHeHeHeHe. Thus, all players have indicated they do not have a Queen; at least to some degree. While that may not make it MORE than even money, that is plenty good enough evidence to call this large pot; especially combined with the long shot K on the river.
Call with KK on the turn.
I would have checked the flop since someone who will announce he was going to raise will surely bet on the flop; at least, that's what I've seen.
Notice that you COULD raise with impunity on the turn since surely nobody can beat AQ at this point; the hand your raise would suggest.
This post reminds me of a mistake I commonly make. I get fixated on say "someone has got to have a Queen" and then proceed to ignore evidence to the contrary. Other than stalling shamelessly (and getting advise quick off the internet) before making a big lay down in a big pot, I'm not sure what to do about it.
Well, other than fixing my 2 minute time machine; or hitting the reset button; or pulling my head out of my butt.
- Louie
(Tom: notice the gentle nature of this post? Its the new me :)
Louie,
I did notice. The new you seems very mellow.
Tom Haley
Based on your neighbour's comment (assuming you believed it to be genuine) can you really put him on a queen? I assume that's what you feared yet he told you he would have three-bet without hesitation had he seen your raise. I'd be more likely to put him on the pocket pair than AQs and would never put him on any smaller holding that included a Q - even AQ off. As such, he can only beat you with AA and QQ, both of which I'd have to pay off with KK.
Even with AQs, the guy shouldn't be too alarmed that he just smooth called since he might prefer callers behind him. Since you put the comment in your post, I take it you believed him yet you folded fearing a Q when it was unlikely (based on his pre-flop comment) that he had one!
I think you made a good lay down, though it was wrong. What hand can you put the callers on -they called two bets cold. You said it was a relatively tough game. I would think one had a queen and was worried about his kicker. thoughs of you who think he made a mistake tell me what these two hands had. Both called two bets cold and then called the turn. It looks like a queen to me.
An excellent point: what could the callers have? Medium pairs or pair "x"? AK and a prayer? Flush draw not described?
But there are no hands they could reasonably play this way; except maybe the SB who doesn't want to raise with his Q on the turn trying for drawing slim calls. But he would make more money if he bet out on the flop; the potential raisers being behind potential callers. The UTG caller must surely have a BIG Queen if she has one at all; and is in great shape to raise on the turn.
The original poster's original asessment that the game is tough must surely be wrong; especially considering that only 25% of pots are raised. A game with 8 solids, one WT, and one maniac will surely be raised most of the time.
- Louie
On question #1, I don't think you call two bets with pocket fours, even 5 handed. Isn't it 9:1 against flopping a set? And by calling two bets your implied odds are reduced. I envision a scenario where the $20 call will net you about $150 in profit if you hit which is a 7 1/2 to 1 return on a 9:1 shot. And then there is always the chance of a higher set. You probably need implied odds of around 12:1 on your preflop call to justify the risk of hitting an losing and the variance involved in the play.
In the situation you describe, if I'm going to come in, I'm going to reraise to get it heads up. My thinking here is that the raiser is most likely not paired. My reraise says strength, and it is a slight favorite against a hand like AK. he will not hit the board 67% of the time, so if an Ace or King doesn't hit, I'm betting or raising and the hand usually ends in my favor quickly. I only do this from late position, and usually sixes or better. pairs are a funny thing, you want them multiway or head up. If it's heads up then you have to play it aggressive before the flop. i have found plays like this to be profitable as well as image enhancing. When the original raiser hits the board, and comes out smoking, I'll throw my hand away, but sometimes I'll turn my cards up so they can see what a loose canon I am re-raising with a small pair. Have a nice day.
The closest Card room to me is about 2.5 Hours away. Have you guys ever thought about taping a Lecture and producing an audio tape of it? I know Mr. Sklansky has a vidio out, would it translate to audio only?
Thanks, Chris
I spend a lot of time on the road too, and would be very interested in purchasing any 2+2 audio tapes.
- Greg
We have no plans to do any audio tapes.
I think you might reconsider. At first thought I could see that your objection might be that tapes are easily copied, so it might be a problem. But I don't think so. If that is one of your concerns, then think about it. Your books are easily loaned from one person to the other. It's really the same premise with the tapes. No one is going to loan a tape to someone else if they think it might give them an edge. other than that, I know that reproducing tapes is very inexpensive, and I think you would suprise yourselves at how well you would do with audio. I'd love to be sitting in my game , head phones on, getting tips from you guys! Anyway, I hope you will reconsider. Seeya
When I put up the first post to the Two Plus Two Gambling Forum on July 8th 1997, I was quite nervous. In fact, Mason and I held our breath for the first week, not knowing if anyone would join in. Well 8 months and almost 1,600 posts later, we are no longer nervous. The Forum is quite a success. I see from our "hit" reports that more and more of you are lurking every day. In January we averaged 2,000 hits per day, with some days reaching almost 3,000 hits. If you are new to the forum, don't forget to look at the "Archives." There are hundreds of threads covering topics like; hourly rate, bankroll requirements, playing shorthanded, starting hands, KTs verses JTs, standard deviation, general strategy…you get the idea. So thanks to all of you for the continuing success of the Two Plus Two Gambling Forum, and thanks to Mason, David and Ray for taking time to answer many of the posts. Please don't hesitate to e-mail me with any ideas for these pages, or anything else you'd like to discuss.
Sincerely, Jessica Vecchione Marketing Director
This week end: UTG aggressive-want-to-be raised and will raise with any 20/21 hand. Weak-bad calls but will fold on the flop. Loose-Goose re-raises, and he has a premium hand or ANY pair. I just call in the BB, knowing UTG will cap it and he does. I'm first with disquised Black Aces 4-bet 4-way pot. All three opponents will go to the river with any flopped pair and most likely pay it off. So far so good.
Flop is KhQhTs. Looks familiar. That's as bad as it gets; excepting 3 hearts. I check knowing its going to be bet and probably raised by the time it comes back to me, and it is. I gained no information about the UTG hand since all pre-flop raising hands are betting hands with that flop; yes he could have JT at this time. He will re-raise if he has KQ or better, including a big draw. This player MAY raise again with a big draw, and MAY double bet it on the turn.
Loose-Goose's hand is more concern, since now I know he started with a premium hand, but would raise now with any big Jack. This player will not raise any more without a set. Either player COULD have a flush draw, but that's unlikely since there are only 3 big hearts available.
If both players have a J then I'm gold since I have the highest hand and they are drawing to the same cards; AJ is very unlikely. If both players have two pair or a set then I'm in the hunt, since an A wins as does a Q without also pairing the board, and even a long shot running pair might win. If one has a set or two pair and the other a J draw I'm dead, since I can only realistically win with one of 3 Jacks and will have to split once in a while. Catching an Ace AND pairing the board is a bit too much to ask.
Both players will show down any hand better than AA no matter what. Bluffing or semi-bluffing is out of the question against these two.
What should I have done?
- Louie
Raise .... to define your hand! Just kidding! You really didn't explain what happened on the flop, so I'm not sure whats going on. But with a capped pot and two players against you with that flop, I would tend to release if there was too much action on the flop, or if I didn't improve on the turn.
Louie,
I'll take a stab at this one. The way I viewed this hand is that on the flop it looks like the UTG player will probably re-raise. According to your criteria the Loosie-Goosie will not raise again without a set. Loosie-Goosie may cap it or raise again on the turn when UTG players bets. If he does you know he has got a set and unless I improved I would fold. So I would call the raise cold when it got back to me on the flop. If Loosie-Goosie calls then I would check and call all the way. My opinion is that the pot is laying you enough to do this based on the possible hands that could be out there against you that you could beat. Your kind of tied on to the hand and UTG is making it expensive to play against him/her.
Tom Haley
P.S. I was playing this weekend 7 handed. UTG (solid player) raises, player to my immediate right (loose kind of weak) calls it cold, I peek down and find a pair of black aces. Of course I make it three bets to go, the button (straight forward, a little on the loose side) calls three bets cold, and the big blind who has just sat down and I have never seen before caps it and everybody calls. Flop is Kh,Qh,9d. Not quite the same flop or the same situation. On the flop big blind checks, UTG checks, player to my immediate right swings into me. What should I have done? I think the situation I was in was a lot less complex than yours.
First of all, I like to thank both Tom and Louie for their advises on my post earlier. I don't profess to have the experience that you guys do but would like to take a stab at answering these questions. In Louie's situation, I agree with Tom about calling the raise on the flop when it got back to me. All the preflop action has made the pot 16smallbets and now with the action on the flop (presuming the weak player folded) would make the pot 22+ small bets if you were to call. If UTG reraise, it would still be OK because from your description he could be on a draw. If "loose-goose" re-reraise then I would release my hand. From your information, he is a solid player and I would have to be worried about KK, QQ, AKs, AJs (especially AhJh--a reraising hand preflop for me). On the turn I am more inclined to release my hand if faced with a double bet. In Tom's case, I would raise the weak loose guy to eliminate other players. If UTG had made a set and planned to check raise then he might be hesitant because you three-bet preflop. If there is a reraise then I would simply call and see what happens on the turn. Both cases are extremely tough and I have been there before. I think that at this point in time reading your opponents and "gut instinct" could really make a difference.
Spiderman wrote: Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
I'm not sure which of my two comments you were criticizing, but I think you might have misunderstood me. In Tom's case, the flop came Kh Qh 9d (Tom reraised preflop with black aces). His chance of making a flush is nil. If someone had flopped a straight then he needs runner-runner to win providing the flush does not come. I think his pocket AA would play best in a small field. Moreover he reraised UTG preflop signaling a premium hand (high pair, suited high connectors). A raise on the flop could represent a set,overpair, top two pairs, nut flush draw, and to discourage callers. In Louie's case I would NOT reraise. To me it would be a close decision between folding and calling on the flop because of the potential to be reraised by the initial bettor. Love to hear back from you. Spidey
Sorry, my attribution got screwed up somehow. I wasn't responding to your comments directly related to this thread, but to the following comment within your response:
"AhJh--a reraising hand preflop for me"
So, what I am saying is that I would generally not reraise with this hand. In fact, the only reraise situation that comes to mind would be if I were in the blind, and the first person in the pot were a raiser in late (i.e., steal) position. Then, I might reraise because there's a good chance I have the better hand, and I want to take the momentum so that when I bet the flop my opponent will fold unless he hits it pretty well. BTW, this situation should come up almost exclusively in tournaments. If there's a lot of blind stealing in your HE ring-game, because no one else came in from early or middle position, find a better game, yours is too tight and aggressive.
Sorry about the missing quote. I'm sure I pasted it in, so I don't know why it disappeared.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
[have AA 4-way capped B4 flop; board KQT vrs two opponents, one with two cards bigger than ten the other with a premium hand, TT or better; its bet-raise to me on flop]
If I were to make the first cold call on the flop and then it was capped I most CERTAINLY would call again. My hand has IMPROVED if they both have raising hands; since these are most likely sets; hands I can outdraw with an A or Q. The pot is plenty big to take the loss if against AJ.
As stated, the situation I'm dead in is if one has a J and the other a set or two pair. The one with the J does not have a re-raising hand.
But it does appear I was getting 10-1 for the call. Should have called ... ==== Sigh ====
I should have said a set or a straight. But I think you know what I meant.
Tom Haley
Posted by: Spiderman (mqv2982a@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 5 February 1998, at 6:52 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (graymer@gcwf.com)
Posted on: Friday, 6 February 1998, at 1:09 p.m.
Posted by: Louie (louie.landale@internetMCI.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 5 February 1998, at 9:49 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 5 February 1998, at 11:34 p.m.
I'm a bit confused re your opening statement when you knew UTG would cap so you just called. Why didn't you cap yourself? Do these people think your a fish calling two raises cold without cards to back it up? By allowing UTG to cap you could weaken your position in later betting rounds. I always cap rather than call to a sure cap.
[Not cap it yourself with AA, let someone else?]
I feel I'm much better off having the disguised hand. As other readers will attest; I do not believe in raising and turning my hand face up. :)
Yes, THESE fools will have no idea what I've got. They would assume, since THEY play "correctly", that I will play any old piece of cheese they would in that spot. If I cap it they will "know" what I've got. I WOULD cap it with AKs just to disguise it.
But even against sensible players this disguise has benefits. Big Benefits. It puts enough doubt in their minds that I'm sure to get paid off, and I can make some hands that will get excessive action; such as when they make two pair and a small pair comes on the river.
Hand years ago: Fairly Solid Tight (FST) Raised, I Raised, FST ReRaised, I just called heads-up with AA, HeHeHe. Flop T93. FST bet, I raised, knowing I was representing JJ or QQ. FST called. Turn card 4. FST check-raised; I called. River 7. FST Bet. After successfully fooling him and KNOWING he would never cap it pre flop with TT, I foolishly JUST called; especially since he would not re-raise with the set, since I "could" have just made the straight. == Sigh, $10 lost forever ==. Anyway, compare that to ReReRaising with the AA. Now KK just calls me down. Fooled him once, shame on him for the rest of the hand.
BUT WAIT !!!! There's an important issue going on here. I know for one that I get focused on the betters and raisers and forget all about the callers. I have to FORCE myself to consider them. How often has the VERY TIGHT player called UTG, then get raised by the aggressive, and you have marginal hands like AJo? Yes, this is a good hand against the aggressive raiser, but a marginal hand to even over call the tight caller; the player with the real hand...
Or you are raising with Top Full (KK board Q8883) against the maniac, and forget about the WT who is sneaking in his calls...
- Louie
Hi Mason,
I have a question about continuing with a draw hand in 7-card stud. In your book, you said that players should usually continue with a flush draw if they have made a pair along with their draw on 4th street. Would this situation hold if it's heads-up instead of multi-way, you know you're up against a big pair, and the pot wasn't raised on 3rd street (while this situation sounds oxymoron, suppose that you know it's a big pair because the player flashed his cards)?
For example, you hold QQ85(h). While your hearts are very live, you are sure that you're heads-up against KKXY.
Thank you. Moonie
ps. I've enjoyed your books very much.
Yes, I believe so.
I would automatically continue in this situation. The difficult case is to know when to continue when the 4th card is a blank or semi-blank (you start with KQ4 suited against someone who probably has 9s. Now you catch a T offsuit.) The number of bets on 3, the ante structure, are you cards completely live or just reasonably live (if they're not live - don't play), the possibility that your opponent might also have a 3 flush or 3 straight that has broken off, how well you read him, how well he reads you, etc. are all factors in this decision.
I have been playing 10-20 stud for a while now in AC, and have averaged about $13/hr. Recently, I've been thinking about moving up to 15-30 stud. Several issues have deterred me from doing so thus far:
The two games differ in rake and ante. While the 10 game has a rake structure in which the house takes out $4 max/pot ($1/$10 in the pot up to $40), the 15 game has a time charge of $12/hr. Ante-wise, the 10 game has a $1 ante and a $3 force, the 15 game is double in ante, and $5 in force (more than 1.5 times). I have been told by friends who play the higher game that even assuming my relative strength to other players is the same in 15 game, if I maintain my current playing style (tight in general), I should not expect to make 1.5 times my 10 game expectation due to the more expensive structure for the 15 game.
I've also been told that the 15 game is more aggressive than 10-20 because there's 140% ($21 in the pot for a raise of $15 on third street) of a small bet at the onset in the higher game vs. 110% ($11 in the pot for a raise of $10) of a small bet for the lower game. The higher onset money leads to more stealing and more raising right from the 3rd street, and probably more looser but correct calls on later street due to pot odds. In the aggregate, the higher aggression in the 15 game leads to greater standard deviation while the expectation does not increase proportionally.
Thirdly, I was wondering if anyone has any insight on the specific type of marginal hands that I would play in the 15 game that I would not play in the 10 game, in order to take advantage of the looser and more expensive structure. By the same token, I would appreciate any tips on the play style for the 15 game in general.
Thank you in advance for your feedback.
Moonie
Moonie wrote: "The two games differ in rake and ante. While the 10 game has a rake structure in which the house takes out $4 max/pot ($1/$10 in the pot up to $40), the 15 game has a time charge of $12/hr."
At $4 per hand the house should clear approximately $100 per hour. This is about the same as $12 per player per hour.
"Ante-wise, the 10 game has a $1 ante and a $3 force, the 15 game is double in ante, and $5 in force (more than 1.5 times). I have been told by friends who play the higher game that even assuming my relative strength to other players is the same in 15 game, if I maintain my current playing style (tight in general), I should not expect to make 1.5 times my 10 game expectation due to the more expensive structure for the 15 game."
If you maintain your current playing style which you describe as "tight" but I suspect is "tight and trapping" you won't be playing the $15-$30 as well as you play the $10-$20. Thus your win rate will probably drop.
"I've also been told that the 15 game is more aggressive than 10-20 because there's 140% ($21 in the pot for a raise of $15 on third street) of a small bet at the onset in the higher game vs. 110% ($11 in the pot for a raise of $10) of a small bet for the lower game. The higher onset money leads to more stealing and more raising right from the 3rd street, and probably more looser but correct calls on later street due to pot odds. In the aggregate, the higher aggression in the 15 game leads to greater standard deviation while the expectation does not increase proportionally."
If you play the $15-$30 very well you should expect to win more in the long run than you do at $10-$20.
"Thirdly, I was wondering if anyone has any insight on the specific type of marginal hands that I would play in the 15 game that I would not play in the 10 game, in order to take advantage of the looser and more expensive stucture. By the same token, I would appreciate any tips on the play style for the 15 game in general."
See our book SEVEN-CARD STUD FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS.
Hi Mason,
In the section on "Hourly Rate" in "Gambling for A Living", you classified three types of players: very good, excellent, and world class.
Could you please give your criteria for such classification and approximately % of players you would group under each type? For someone who plays according to your stud books, what type would that person be?
Also, I see that for a very good player, the expectation peaks at the 15 and 20 games, and decreases as the games goes higher. How much of this decrease would you attribute to higher ante and rake vs. decrease in relative playing strength?
Lastly, as the games go higher up, what is the % breakdown in terms of various factors attributing to a player's earning? For example, 60% contributed by tourists/occasional bad players (easier to beat), 40% contributed by regulars whom you can learned to beat (harder to beat), or such. In asking this question, I am trying to understand the dynamics of the higher limit games and how good one has to be to beat them.
Thank you, Moonie
Moonie wrote: "The two games differ in rake and ante. While the 10 game has a rake structure in which the house takes out $4 max/pot ($1/$10 in the pot up to $40), the 15 game has a time charge of $12/hr."
Mason wrote:
At $4 per hand the house should clear approximately $100 per hour. This is about the same as $12 per player per hour.
But the $100 per hour is being paid disproportionately by the loose players who win far more than their share of pots in the $10-$20 game, no?
While the good player in the $15-$30 game with a time charge is probably not paying more in proportion to game size than in the $10-$20, he is paying more in absolute terms.
(e.g., the 3 good players may end up paying $8/hr in the $10-$20, and the 5 looser players $15 each. In the $15-$30, the good player pays $12, which is a 50% increase over $8, which is in exact proportional increase to the game size)
I suspect that in stud the true rake between players is closer than you think. There are two reasons for this. First, the stud expert can play a lot of hands, many more than in hold 'em. Second, the stud expert will constantly be knocking players out of the pot. So my guess is that even though he still won't play as many hands as a "live one," he may win about the same number of pots, or at least the difference in the number of pots won won't be that great. These comments do not apply to hold 'em.
Are there any 2+2 electronic books? i.e., that you can download electronically.
No, and we do not have any plans for doing any.
In one of your essays (_Poker is our Horse_?) you either stated or implied that _Fundamentals of Poker_ was really sold at a loss in an attempt to improve the poker scene. If thats true wouldn't that booklet make sense free?
FUNDAMENTALS OF POKER was not sold at a loss.
My over employed status looks like it is going to be changing sometime in the near future which means I’ll be playing a lot more poker which means I’ll be posting more of the hands that I would like some feed back on. Any opinions are appreciated. Playing $10-20 Hold’em 6 handed. The UTG player calls, next player calls, a pass, I peek down and find A,Q and I raise. Button and small blind pass. Big blind calls. The players in front of me are loose and play straightforward (good game). I have played a lot against the big blind. She is a loose player that is difficult to run out of a hand when she has got something and she puts you on little. She is also capable of bluffing (even check raise bluffs) when she thinks you are weak. She likes to gamble. Also she perceives me as a solid, tight player. We are on very friendly terms but that makes no difference as we are both very competitive. I know that she has put me on high cards at least. Obviously she is the player that I am concerned about the most.
The flop is 7,4,2 rainbow. It is check to me and I bet. She calls and a player between myself and her calls. The next card is a J with no two flush. It is checked to me. Should I bet or should I check? I know that the big blind has a pocket pair or two cards ten and above. I honestly do not know where the player between us is at in this hand but I am thinking he is probably weak but probably has put me on high cards as well.
How should I play it on the river depending on what happens on the turn?
Against most players you should bet again and check on the river if you do not improve. Against aggressive players it may be better to check but then call on the river.
David,
Thanks for the response. I did check the hand and the big blind bet on the river when a blank fell. The middle player folded and I called and won with my Ace high. I was patting myself on the back after the session for this play but then I started thinking that I got a little too cute with the hand because there was too much money in the pot to let my opponents have a free shot at beating my probable best hand. I tried to rationalize my play by saying that maybe the big blinds bet on the end caused the player in the middle to fold some under pair. Upon further review I decided that chances of the big blind going for a check raise on the turn without a hand in this situation were remote. I should have bet this hand on the turn and checked it on the river. If I was heads up against the big blind then I probably would win more money by inducing a bluff from her than betting the hand on the turn. I went back and read the chapter in Hold'em for Advanced Players on inducing bluffs and I don't think it quite fit the criteria specified in the book. At any thanks again, the advice is mush appreciated.
Tom Haley
Anybody know a good place to play limit hold'em in the Reno/Tahoe area?
Thanks
Try Circus-Circus. I found their 3-6 game fairly easy.
In Reno, the Peppermill has a regular 10-20 game on most nights which is mainly locals. The Reno Hilton (not the Flamingo) has predominantly smaller limit games, with the occasional 10-20 and a small No Limit game (2-2, 5 to go, 40 buy in - most players have about 300-400 on the table) and with good action on Wednesday nights when there is the weekly free roll with rebuys at 7. The other places with several tables are Circus Circus (3-6 and 6-12) and the Cal Neva, which can be great if the Jackpot is high.
In Tahoe, the best action is at Harveys, which has games up to 10-20 though again all the players seem to know each other. A smaller room is at Harrahs. Lastly, there is a small room at the Hyatt on the North Shore which can get good action during the Crazy Pineapple tournaments on Friday nights.
If you're in California this week, don't think of going over 80 or 50 without a sled and chains. Good luck.
Harvey's has a 2-6 HE game that has been very user friendly the two times I played in it this year. Also are generous with food comps, and easy to get room rates. Gary
You got to love that 2-6 spread. A good palyer can make weaker opponents pay for trying to Suck-Out. When I played this game I was just Starting, and I found that the locals were very friendly and Loose-Passive (especially before the flop). I really had a good time. Both Harveys and Harrahs have good low Buy-in Tournys.
Chris
The no limit game at the Reno Hilton has blinds of $2 and $5, $5 to come in, with a $50 buy-in. The game generally goes on Mon., Wed., Fri., and Sat. nights. The Reno Hilton does not spread 10-20 limit except during their Pot of Gold tournament weeks, during which they have limit hold 'em up to 30-60.
The Peppermill/Reno spreads 3-6 always, 10-20 most afternoons and nights, and 20-40 on the weekends. As of recently they have been advertising a Friday 7PM start time for 20-40, 'though the game has been starting earlier than that.
Late in a turnament 1/2 Hold'em+1/2 Stud. Limit 2000-4000,300 ante,500 force. My stack about 10,000. 8 players left,5 plases pay. Tabele very thight. My hand (22)2. I put a bring in. King raise. Quen reraise. 7 cap it! I fold and take second place!!!
I agree that you need to be very selective in this spot at this stage in the tournament. But folding a small rolled up hand is being too conservative. It's true that at this stage in a tournament you gain when a major confrontation develops between other players. Thus you need to be very selective as to what hands you play when there is already significant action. But I would play three deuces.
What you think other players have. Problem is the old player may have (77)7?
[Stud final table: K raises, Q re-raises, 7 re-re-raises, hero is low with 222]
Certainly the 7 is not bluffing; so he has either 777, 7AA, or 7KK. There are 3 ways to have 777, six ways to have 7AA, and if we assume the K has KK than one way to have 7KK.
You are a big favorite with your small set vrs two players with big pairs (the KK will likely fold), and are an uncomfortable dog if vrs 777 (7:2 dog?). You are 7:3 favorite to have the better hand.
In a ring game than this is a clearly playable hand; assuming the 7 will cap it with pocket AA.
In the tournament you have other considerations that would suggest that you do NOT play this hand. Enough to overcome the above, I don't know.
- Louie
If a typical player has a seven up and aces in the hole he will almost always reraise. If he has three sevens he will reraise much less often, being inclined to get the raise in on fifth street when the betting limit doubles. So even though this is a tournament, the fact that the player with the seven up raised again makes it less likely that he has three sevens.
He will raise whith (77)7 and he will probobly not cap it whith one pair.And wath the Q have (AA)Q,(AQ)Q,(QQ)Q?
I play to win the tournament -- no way do I fold a set in that situation. The odds against 2 players being rolled up in the same hand are so incredibly high as to not be worth evaluation. The most likely holding for the 7 is a pair of Aces.
Furthermore, in stud, underpair vs. overpair and small set vs. big set are not the longshots they are in hold-em -- even if he has a set, you are getting the correct price to chase with the smaller set. Finally, you are getting great action on the hand; I would've got my stack in the middle as quickly as I could.
20/40 HE - loose game, six callers in front with one raise. I know the pot is going to have at least six-way action. I'm on the button witk K5s. Should I call or fold?
Limit hold-em is not my favorite game, but given your situation, and although you didn't tell us where the raise came from, I take the flop. You are getting 6-1 now with high implied odds if you flop a hand. Still, I don't even go past the flop without A-x suited on board -- which, of course, would also likely hit your fellow chasers and get you paid off.
I don't like seeing the flop Kx(s). With six callers in front one of them could have Ax(s) in which case you are paying off if you flop a flush. Flopping a king is a loser (SOMEBODY is on a king), and K5 can't flop a straight.
I fold, and don't think twice about it. I'd call if there were no raise. There just isn't that much to help you, and there aren't a lot of ways you know you're drawing to the best hand.
The concept of chasing a pot pre-flop with a generally non profitable hand, regardless of the odds the pot is offering you, is a loser. You can't really determine your odds in situations like this, you can only estimate, because you don't know for sure what the future action will be. I have to assume you are playing in a game where a raise actually means something, but beyond that you cannot play holdem with a chase-it mentality. Stick to hands that have real potential. be the chaseeee, not the chaser. You want to be the one raising in a pot like that, not the someone calling with crap. As it is, your good hands will be drawn out on enough as it is. If someone in front of me raises, I'm going to have a raising hand to play in that pot, I want control of the situation. Say goodbye to your money if you call a raise with shit too often, or at least be ready for major swings.
I almost always throw this hand away. The problem with calling is that your implied odds are not as good as they seem. In a typical $20-$40 hold 'em game you will have to pay to make a flush assuming that two of your suit come. On the other hand I would play any pair in this spot.
I folded and watched a small flush win a $700 pot and beat myself up because I thought I was playing too tight.
I then called with J9o in 8th position with 5 callers and no raises in front. The flop was 8c 8s 7s #4 bet and was raised and I fold. I could be beat with quads or a full house. The 10s could make my inside straight and someone else a flush at the same time. The Tc came on the River and I would have won another $700 pot.
The truth is I should have never put a penney in either pot, right?
[K5s on button with raised 6-way pot? J9o late vrs 5 callers no raise?]
Kxs is a poor hand. Its playable IMO, surprisingly if there are fewer callers and you are last. In this case you can realistically win with a K or even an X, and can semi-bluff the draw if you flop it. (Yes, you can also dump a pair K or 5s if someone bets on the flop.) None of these advantages apply in a multi-way raised pot. You must make two pair or better, which is unlikely.
Auto pass Kxs for a raise, but consider calling in the BB.
J9o in multi-way pot cannot be better than marginal. Your pair value goes way down since you are in real danger of being dominated (KJ) and your straight chances are poor. Even if you DO flop the best pair there will be lots of good draws to run you down.
J9 is much worse than JT.
5 callers is too many for this hand, even in next to last position.
That was a good routine fold with your very weak gut shot on the flop vrs a raise (board paired and 2-suited). Don't forget with the board paired straight draws go down in value even more that flush draws, since if someone has trips they are very likely to have a side rank nearby (they play suited-connectors); which are cards that you need for the straight. Thus, someone may already be full or might fill up with the Ten you needed. That's Cha-Ching! for them.
------------------------------------
A real issue in your post is you looking at the results of a particular instance of a decision, in order to justify or nulify that decision. That's not good. Would someone please jump in here and say that better.
You MUST expect the correct decision to turn out wrong and the incorrect decision to turn out right. Its a highly desireable serenity "skill". I, fortunately, am blessed with an equivelent skill: I can't remember my hole cards unless I look 4-5 times before the flop (it looks really funny but what can I do?). Thus, I rarely say "Dang, I had that!".
- Louie
You can play the hands your talking about ,NOOOO Problem! Then you might as well go bet the hardways at the crap table on your way out the door. Poker is the one game where you can bet when you have the best of it. So, why do you play poker to win money or gamble. If you want to gamble there are plenty of other games where you can stay close to even and if you get lucky make a ton. But in the long run you lose. The same applies here.
Bob, I have to be the loose goose on this one, because I'd be tempted to play the K-5s in late position with all those callers (the J-9 I would've dumped). As Mason noted, calling the K-5s is definitely a high-variance play, but if my table image was right and the table was loose, I'd be quite intriqued to see what happened if I hit the flop. Still, the flop I'm looking for includes the Ace to give me the nut flush draw. This is key, because when *your* Ace hits, you get callers holding an Ace as well as callers on the same flush you are on (and as Brunson noted in Super/System, you can't flop an Ace without someone potentially having a straight draw). As you saw, a lesser flush got there -- and you likely would've won an even bigger pot because he would've pushed it when he hit.
Louie mentioned not analyzing your play based upon the outcome, and that is indeed wise. I try not to even care what happens after I've mucked a hand -- because it has no bearing on how I play the next one like it. My analsis above is what I'm thinking *before* the flop -- I want to know what I'm looking to hit so I can have a good feel for the outcome. If 6 people are calling, it's likely there are other flush and straight draws out there; if I hit the nut flush, I'm probably going to get paid. This is what makes the hand worth calling: you have invested 2 half-bets for a likely return of perhaps a dozen or more full-bets.
If you do play K5s in late position, know what you want to hit. I got trapped in a tournament when TJQ rainbow hit the flop.
I would think you want the flush, the flush draw, KK, 55, or K5. Even then, you need to play good poker.
Where is this 20 - 40 game?
Max, you mentioned the exception where I would seriously consider NOT playing the K-5 for a double 1/2 bet -- in a tournament. As I've mentioned before, playing a suited K-small for a lot of chips in a tournament is the most likely way to get you headed to valet parking. Still, if the situation was right (including that I had a lot of chips) I'd take the flop.
Usually muck. If the raise did not come from up front, I'm probably going to have to try for a free card if I flop a flush draw. Will the pre-flop raiser automatically bet if checked to on the flop? How well do the players who see the flop defend against a free card play? Have I been projecting a tight-agressive image this session?
I want to start playing the Small No-Limit Tournement at my Casino. 1) What types of changes will the Sklanksy Starting Hand List have to go though to be modifyed to No-Limit? I know that Unsuited High cards go down in Value while Axs and Pocket Pairs go up in Value. This is due to the fact that your objective is to get "Doubled-Up" by making Hidden Trips or The Nuts. (I'm just spitting out the information I've just learned from Ciaffone's Book "Pot Limit and No-Limit Poker") Are these changes Big or small? 2) I guess what I'm trying to ask is: Can a small Pocket Pair or Axs withstand a Raise from a probible Primium Hand to see if it can make Hidden Trips or the Nut Flush and possibly Bust the Holder of the Primium Hand? Seems like a good play to me! 3) What about Small and Medium Suited connetors and one gap Suited connectors. These are still the most troublesome starting hands I deal with in both Limit and No-Limit. 4) Any other good Advise is welcome.
Thanks,
Chris
The answer to these questins depend omthe size of your and your opponents stack, which gives you your implied odds, plus how he plays. Thus you can play more of these hands against calling stations with large stacks than you could otherwise.
In a small no limit tournament,
> Can a small Pocket Pair or Axs withstand a Raise from a
> probible Primium Hand to see if it can make Hidden Trips
> or the Nut Flush and possibly Bust the Holder of the
> Primium Hand?
Generally, no. In small tournaments your stack size relative to the blinds, and thus to the size of the raise, is too small to support this kind of speculation. In a live game, or in the early rounds of the final event at big tournaments ($5,000-10,000 buy-in and corresponding starting stacks), generally, yes.
Position becomes much more valuable when playing drawing-type hands in no-limit. A more fruitful pursuit than seeking to play a particular hand is to search for opportunities where you have high implied odds to hit a hand, i.e., a suited connector in late position for a small bet where your likely target has a big stack. Yes, you can stand a raise with A-xs (or even 6-7s) -- if the price is right in relation to BOTH your stack and your opponent's stack. As far as hitting the nuts to bust the premium hand, it's not going to happen often enough to win the tournament -- more likely you will find yourself double-parked at the rail if you collide with the premium pairs too often.
This particular hand occured on IRC poker, so the actual play is not too realistic but the situation did provoke some thought.
I was in the SB with 7's, it was an uraised pot with 2 callers, so I called. The BB raised, everyone called and I re-raised. The BB made it 4 bets, everyone else and I called.
The flop was A-rag-rag. I checked, BB bet, 1 caller and I folded.
I thought the extra small bet might garner me enough information to justify the investment.
I was hoping to differentiate between big pocket pair or AK in the BB's hand.
What are your opinions on the worth of this play?
What would the minimum pair be for which this play would be advisable?
Calling and then coming back and raising would be the wrong play in this particular situation with the possible exception of a pair of aces or kings in cases where the big blind raises with a lot of hands.
Its a cheaper to "find out" what the BB has by just calling, figuring to call on the flop unless its hopeless. You also get one more card to catch the set; compared to building a big pot pre-flop and auto-folding without a set.
But its not usually worth finding out at all with your need-a-set pair; except heads up since its no longer a need-a-set pair.
Isn't the pot now big enough that you should take a card off? You are getting 18 to 1 on the flop. With implied odds, it seems like the re-raise has tied you on, at least on the flop. So, even though you've gained some info about the BB's hand, you've made the pot so big that you have to call anyway. The attempt to gain information makes your hand more difficult to play. You take a card off for the implied odds, now if the BB has KK or QQ, he may check the turn tempting you to call on the river because the pot is so big. I say get in cheaply and hope to flop a set.
I agree that the reraise with a small pair in bad position was ill-advised. On the other hand, after making the 4-bet play, I agree that the pot was big enough to take off another card for the 1/2 bet with no raise. This is similar to stud where you will pay the 1/2 bet on 4th street with a small buried pair, looking for the longshot that gives you a set so you can make the opponents pay on the expensive streets to follow. The bonus in this situation is when you hit the set, you can let the BB bet and put the other caller in the middle for your raise.
>>Isn't the pot now big enough that you should take a card off? You are getting 18 to 1 on the flop.With implied odds, it seems like the re-raise has tied you on, at least on the flop. So, even though you've gained some info about the BB's hand, you've made the pot so big that you have to call anyway. >>
True; for the situation stated. I was speaking more generally where you would NOT be correct in calling once you determined the raisors hand. If you will doubt the information gained, or if you make the pot so big that you are going to call anyway, the play to gain information was bad.
== Gaining information has merit if you will change your play based on it. ==
>>The attempt to gain information makes your hand more difficult to play. You take a card off for the implied odds, now if the BB has KK or QQ, he may check the turn tempting you to call on the river because the pot is so big.>>
"More Difficult" has a flip side: More opportunities. If you calculate assuming you must make a set, then opportunities that you get when you do NOT make a set SHOULD only improve your prospects, and therefore should be welcome; difficult or not.
The only exception I can think of is when you are CLEARLY outclassed by the opponent and you know it: She knows what you are thinking about what she has, about what you have, ..., and can manipulate you to a degree you KNOW you cannot match. That is you KNOW you are likely to make the WRONG decision. In that case, ignore situations where you do not make a set. And find a better game.
And learn great Poker game theory.
>> I say get in cheaply and hope to flop a set. >>
Agree here. == Make the obvious play most of the time. ==
- Louie
I probably would have played this different than the experts. There are other posts about small pairs down below. Anyway, I probably would have raised to begin with. I'm not getting quite the odds I need to play this hand for trips, so I would have raised to try to get the big blind out. Had the big blind folded, and a large card like an ace shown on the flop, I would have bet right out. I know this might sound too aggressive, but I think you have to put yourself in the best posistion to win the pot , if your going to come in at all. Now if you raise and the big blind re-raised, then, you have your information, and probably a heads up pot, which also gives you the best shot. I would probably call the re-raise and release when the Ace came on the flop. If I knew that this player was fairly tight, I probably would fold when the he re-raised. Seeya
Going out on a limb in early position is best reserved for very predictable tight opponents. Such as those that will fold any pair except Aces when an Ace flops and you bet; and most certainly will NOT raise without the goods. I'm sure most every body here has made plays similar to this one; with happy and unhappy outcomes.
Here's a related problem I have yet to resolve: ARE the opponents MORE or LESS likely to call if you raise B4 the flop, compared to NOT raising B4 the flop? SHOULD the opponents be MORE or LESS ...
- Louie
Louie writes:
>>Going out on a limb in early position is best reserved for very predictable tight opponents. Such as those that will fold any pair except Aces when an Ace flops and you bet; and most certainly will NOT raise without the goods. I'm sure most every body here has made plays similar to this one; with happy and unhappy outcomes. <<
I agree with you on this point. So I guess weak-tight players would be ideal opponents for this type of play.
>>Here's a related problem I have yet to resolve: ARE the opponents MORE or LESS likely to call if you raise B4 the flop, compared to NOT raising B4 the flop? SHOULD the opponents be MORE or LESS ...
- Louie <<
I assume you are talking about the playing one of the blind positions. Against aggressive players, especially those that are capable of "re-steal" plays, I would call more for the following reasons:
1) I am out of position.
2) I don't want them to get a good read on my hand pre-flop. Raising with a pair of sevens might seem deceptive but I am not sure how much betting pressure you can stand agains most flops.
3) Players give up on a hand easier when the pot is small and not much of their money is invested.
It would be interesting to see if other players have opinions on this.
Tom Haley
In the hand that was first described, two players called. Some of what I'm saying definately has to do with who you are up against, But with no raising from the two players in this situation, you can play passive and call but then your not really getting the odds you need to just call. Betting out on the flop if the BB folds is really a semi-bluff. You have a small number of players, and you have shown strength from the blinds. If you were one of those two players, ask yourself what you would do if you didn't have an ace.
billy,
I know one thing I wouldn't give him/her the pot all of the time simply because they raised in the blind and bet on the flop and I didn't have an Ace. There are several players that I play against fairly often that won't let me do this either. Some will and some won't. The ones that won't tend to be very aggressive, gambling type players.
Tom Haley
Good point tom, It's just for me it's a raise or fold situation with those sevens. Whenever i find myself ready to CALL in any situation, I'm asking myself if I wouldn't be better off folding, or should I raise. So, whenever I can I raise. Remember, if you did call me in this situation and you didn't have an Ace, I still have a pair. So, really you would be in one of those raise or fold situations.
billy,
I agree with your point. If I understand Louie correctly he was asking are the opponents more likely to call on the flop after you raised from the small blind or if you called in the small blind. Upon further review I may not have understood his question.
Tom Haley
It of course depends on the players your up against, but in general I have found them to play weak tight in this situation. So they are going to call only if they have some- thing fairly strong since the perception is that the small blind would only raise with a big hand since it is in weak posistion. I have raised with absolutely nothing in the small blinds in tournaments, and it has worked well. You need players that are capable of thinking about it though. Of course nothing works all the time, but the scenario that was presented where you have a couple limpers would be ideal for me. I think these little perception plays, where you bend the accepted rules so to speak and use the collective Hldm mindset to your advantage can be a gold mine.
I am in last second position in a stud game with a 4 and pocket 7's, 2 suited. No one called, so I raised the bring-in. Player behind me reraised with a 9, and both the bring-in and I called. Next I catch an A suited, but one other A is caught by the bring-in. I checked, raiser bet with unsuited Q, and the bring-in folded. I called, hoping to catch another suit to make a four flush. I caught a 5 off - now my board shows 4A5. The other player caught blank. I check-raised him, hoping that he'll think I have a straight or maybe AA or AAup. He's a good player and folds big pairs in some cases. I think if he only had a pair of 9's, he would have to fold. It would even be difficult to call with Q's up at this point.
In order not to introduce any bias, I am not going to reveal the showdown. What do you think of this play? What about check raising for deception in general on 5th street?
Kathy
If this player WILL lay down a pair and MAY law down QsUp then by all means raise every time; until he figures it out.
Consider check-raising on 4th and betting on 5th.
I doubt he'll believe you stole, and then called his re-raise with 2-3-4.
Raising is obviously better than calling against this player. I don't THINK a call is in order, with just your one over kicker.
I count 5 BBets in the pot just before you raise, it costs 2 to steal. You show immediate profit if he folds 40% of the time, plus your hand has value. If we assume you should NOT call his 5th street bet, then I'd GUESS if he'll fold 15% of time then its a good semi-steal raise. If you SHOULD at least call on 5th, then almost always raise (if he may fold) since you are likely to get to the river for the same price. Ooops, scratch that. You are high and have to check on 6th first to get your "free" card. In this case it costs only 1BBet to steal which shows immediate profit if he'll fold 16.7% of the time; your "call" now already "in" the pot.
The player you described with fold at least 30% of the time. Good raise.
I was not too impressed with your call of the re-raise. Small pairs + small kickers will rarely beat two people, one with a big pair; unless, of course, that big pair will routinely lay it down against aggression later!
- Louie
You very well may get a free card on sixth street even though you are first to act. If that isn't true he is a player who can be check raised twice when you do in fact have him beaten.
Is it worth bluffing on 6th and again on 7th if I don't catch two pairs?
Kathy
If he calls on 5th he is very likely to call on 6th, and rightfully so; assuming you don't seem to improve.
Do not bet 6th and check the river. Plan to bluff both rounds or neither.
Should you bluff? Golly...
Well, you said he was the kind of guy who may very well lay it down on 5th. He didn't. So he is more likely to either have a hand to pay you off, or a draw. Neither of these hands warrant a bluff on your part.
If you aren't confident that you know the likely hands he'll call with, then tend not to steal. There will be plenty of opportunities where you are CONFIDENT that your estimation is close.
How to play when steals don't work is far from the best part of my game.
- Louie
A long while ago I had wriiten a post to you about the idea of a book from 2+2 on nothing but tournaments. You told me to read some of your past books which are good but had no plans on making a tournament only book Now I just find out that their will be a book, which by the way I must get or else their will be trouble. I wonder what caused that to occur. I think that there were many people like me asking you and 2+2 to do it. Either way I hope I can get one.
We received the excellent manuscript for the tournament book from Sylvester Suzuki shortly after that original thread. It should be ready in March. I'll keep everyone posted.
In addition to receiving the unsolicited manuscript, to make this book "work," both David Sklansky and myself spent a great deal of time making sure that all of the material is accurate. The book should be available in late March.
Of pot-limit hold'em,no-limit hold'em,limit hold'em,7 card stud,omaha 8-must, which of these games could mastery be gained in the quickest time period? A better question perhaps is this. Which is the easiest to beat and be a winner?
I just got back from playing in a Small Limit Hold'em tournement. The Blinds increased so fast that I was almost Blinded out before I got a playable hand. I ended up just going all in and getting lucky, though not lucky enough to make it to the last table. Some of the people I saw with big stacks in the Tourney couldn't win in a Ring game if there life depended on it. I think I could have done better in a No-Limit Tournement since some of the weaker players could have been convinced to go All-In with the Second or Third Best Hand.
One thing I did notice(Mr. Malmuth writes about this in Poker Essays): Loose Players turn into Weak-Tight players when the Blinds start to increase. I should have been doing more stealing before and after the Flop. The funny thing is these same people would never let me get away with this in a Ring game.
If I can try to answer your question (Somebody correct me if I'm wrong). For Small tournements I think its hard for good Players to show their skill in any game. Though maybe No-Limit would be easier than Limit.
Chris
Chris,
In fast increasing blind games, a playable hand changes radically from a ring game and you must adjust your play. Any time players change from the proper strategy there becomes opportunities to use your skill to take advantage of the situation. You are right in that small buyin tournys can be a crap shoot if the players play agressively. Good Luck.
When the alien ship crashed near Area 51 years ago there were 5 survivors. As an experiment they taught each to play one of the forms of poker you described; and then played against the off duty airmen. They didn't play tournaments back then.
Although the O8 alien was the last to master the mechanics (betting, reading hands correctly) it was the first to break even in a game. The 7stud alien was the first to master the mechanics and be able to actually play, but it eventually broke even only after the limit holdem alien did.
Brain-dead-close-your-eyes-NUTS-auto-pilot is fairly easy to learn in O8; but it requires considerable patience and discipline. Its a cinch to at least break even in any game considered "good". It CAN be quantified to require no judgement at all.
The no-limit holdem alien was the first to make a million. Telepathically reading minds is a very useful skill in that game. It also got them shot, and that's why we don't hear about it.
But they told ME .....
- Louie
The tournament book that we will soon be publishing addresses this question. The answer is seven-card stud eight-or-better and ace-to-five lowball draw.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't you write in one of your books that the easiest SIDE games to master were also Stud 8 or better and Lowball? is there any difference between the tourneys & side games?
The reason why these are good tournament games is that very few people play them well because they are not widely played. However, some cardrooms will offer them in a tournament format even though they don't normally spread the game. Thus they become very beatable tournaments because many of your opponents will not have any idea how to play them well.
Okay, here is a question for you . Which has better long term profit potential.
Playing a marginal hand on the button when you have a raise and 5 people in front of you ........OR.......... Raising , or reraising a weak tight player, with a marginal hand, and continuing to bluff once the flop hits ? neither?, both?, ???
Marginal hand (errr, rephrase to drawing hand) in good position against a lot of opponents should be profitable. A marginal hand against a weak player with too much money invested usually gets what it deserves -- he doesn't know what he's got; how's he gonna know if you can beat it?
Did I say, weak player? I meant weak tight.Oh well
6-way raised pots almost always have a show down. Therefore a marginal hand, by definition, makes little. If it made a lot it would not be marginal.
Heads-Up pots against a Weak Tight player usually do NOT have show downs. Therefore the value of the hand has much less meaning; marginal or otherwise. Since WT players often fold, this situation must be greater than the first one; regardless of what you hold: 3Kings is not worth much more than a gut shot against a player likely to fold. That's why they're called "TIGHT".
Except for the part about RAISING the WT. When WT players bet they almost always make it to the show down; so you must have a very solid hand to continue. That's why they're called "WEAK". And except for the part about CONTINUING to bet. When WTs call a bet, they usually make it to the show down. Usually give it up, unless an overcard comes.
I disagree with Earl. In the long run HEADS UP against WT players is more profitable than 6-way raised pots. The large pots are much more profitable WHEN YOU PLAY, but the WT situation lets you play much more often. All those blinds you win (and save) add up quickly.
However, against Solid Tights, especially the kind that will adjust against you running all over him, this situation is a nightmare. Go find the 6-way raised pot game.
----------------------------
I played in a short handed $2-10 game against 4 very WT players who were used to playing at 11-handed tables: sterio typical little-old-men. I raised 9 out of 10 hands and bet the flop 8 out of 10 hands. They knew I was "live" but couldn't do anything about it, since they didn't make top pair good kicker often enough. And when they DID they let me draw cheaply. Cha-Ching!
I won $2 and $7 so often that it vastly overshadowed the $7 and $15 I would lose much less often. After a couple hours and $250 later they quit mumbling to themselves.
- Louie
Billy asks:
"Okay, here is a question for you . Which has better long term profit potential. Playing a marginal hand on the button when you have a raise and 5 people in front ofyou ........OR.......... Raising , or reraising a weak tight player, with a marginal hand,and continuing to bluff once the flop hits ? neither?, both?, ???"
Just my opinion, but I'll take the heads up shot against the weak tight player "almost" every time. I hate calling. Even on the button with what seems to be pot odds. I just don't do well in those situations. (The only hand I really like in that spot is a pair, with the possible exception of two big suited cards. But then most of these cases aren't marginal.) A hand like J-9 suited I hate because it just seems to cost me money in the long run. I like to try and take control of the hands I play. I would prefer to be behind someone I can control, and can read fairly well. Just because someone is weak tight, or even a maniac doesn't mean you can't "read em." Their weaknesses also carry over into giving away their hands. Anyone that plays too many hands,or plays hands weakly, can be read a "little" easier when pressure is applied to which they must react.
Yesterday I learned about a mistake I have been making for years--so it is entirely possible I am wrong about this as well. :-)
Minimum BankRoll requirements for a GIVEN hourly rate and SD have been clearly documented by Malmuth. These accurate calculations result in un-intuitively high requirements.
But from a practical point of view, if someone were to lose nearly that much money, shouldn't they realistically reconsider if their projected hourly rate is really as high as they first thought? And as you lose that much money wouldn't your calculated hourly rate drop enough to "prove" that you shouldn't have started out in that game in the first place?
That is, if you lose your Minimum BankRoll isn't it more likely, much more likely, because you over valued your Hourly Rate or undervalued your SD, rather than just being unlucky?
- Louie
I don't think so. Playing 40 hrs a week for let's say 25 years, is a small sample size. You could easily lose your minimun bankroll and be playing well. You could lose your whole life and be playing well, especially if you are playing in games where the skill level is reasonably close between players. Another player who has been playing for a living for 20 years reccomends 900 big bets.
The bankroll requirements are higher than necessary if you are willing to drop down in stakes as you continue to lose. As to the other question, losing your bankroll does probably mean you overestimated your hourly rate. It is a Bayes' theorum problem: which is more likely, you got that unlucky or your ego is too big?
It is not possible to have confidence in one's hourly rate in poker.
Unlike, say, blackjack, long-term poker results are a function of decisions based in large part on predictions of the actions of other people.
The playing time required to garner confidence -- in a statistical sense -- in the magnitude of poker results is longer than conditions can remain the same. Things change. People change. Games change. You change.
We hope to tolerate a lot of comments on this forum, but one thing we will not tolerate is inconsiderate remarks directed at a racial or ethnic group. This forum was designed to discuss gambling. The internet has thousands of outlets for myriad topics, and some of them, no doubt, tolerate bigoted, racist comments. We will not. Perhaps some of you have noticed that our forum has a post which makes an unkind remark towards Jews. My hope is that the poster just wasn't thinking and made a regrettable mistake. The next time this happens, I will suggest to David, Mason, and Ray that we delete the post. I would appreciate your comments regarding this future action. Please contact me privately (by e-mail) so that the forum can stick to it's primary purpose - the discussion of gambling. I also suggest that you do not respond to this post on the forum, so that we can stay on-topic. If you feel compelled, a private e-mail to the poster is probably more appropriate.
I am happy to report that the poster e-mailed me to request that the post be deleted, and to explain that his remark was not to be taken seriously, he meant it jokingly. He sincerely hopes no one was truly offended. I am glad I had an opportunity to address the censorship issue. We haven't yet offered a policy on this issue, and perhaps we should. Therefore, I'd like to hear from any of you who have thoughts on the subject of maintaining the integrity of this forum.
i don't think you need to worry about it. I have heard just about this one situation, and the "poster" let you know that it was supposed to be a joke and requested you take it off. That says to me that he or she wasn't out to Offend anyone. I would just let it go.............for now.
I think you should have a well stated policy of allowing only Poker (or gambling) material and actively and fairly delete posts or parts of posts that are outside the bounds.
Otherwise, clowns will start posting stuff like this:
Hear about the dyslectic agnostic poker player? He said: "There is no Dog".
I have always been a strong believer in our First Amendment Right of free speech. It must be noted that I frequently see strategies recommended, both on this site and in the vast swamp of poker literature, that should clearly be censored. Were these strategies to fall into the hands of young, impressionable players, the consequences could be devastating. Racial slurs, okay. Child pornography, fine. But inaccurate poker information, never! We must all join together to stamp out this plague before it is too late.
Steve Z.,
This problem can be easily solved, if you and others of your talent level post more frequently to counteract the bad advice. And do me a favor, if I post bad advice, it's because I don't know better. So tell me!
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Mr Zolotow oh no,
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to your vast poker wisdom and post a few responses to this bad poker advice for young impressionable players when you see it occur.
if someone needs censoring on this forum, the members will openly censor them. please do not take it upon yourselves to take out those posts that you feel are inappropriate.
Keep deleting the bad beat stories as you no doubt have been. It is refreshing to find a poker forum which is of such high quality in content!
Copy of e-mail message sent to Jessica Vecchione.
Jessica,
Perhaps I am too sensitive to remarks like the ones made by Randy Chase. I just think that slamming ethnic groups, different nationalities, and different religious groups is low grade humor. Perhaps his remark wasn't a slam to Jewish people and maybe I took it the wrong way. Whatever the case may be I did think it was in bad taste. I don't know if I'm the only one who thought so.
As far as censorship I don't think that anything really has to change. Chase's comment seems to be one out of thousands that was bad and he did delete the comment. I did see the profane posts that you deleted a while back and I think that was appropriate. I know that Mason was really upset about comments that Abdul Jalib posted regarding cheating. He didn't censor it and has always discussed the topic openly. In spite of that people like Abdul and Dick Taylor will rail on about this forum being repressive (repressive is the word that Taylor used on RGP). Personally I wouldn't give them any more ammunition. Thank you for listening and I hope that I wasn't the only person offended and I didn't cause any undo controversy.
Tom Haley
if one is going to isolate out the "offensive" messages and take umbrage, just examine the messages: from god and "limp dicking" in. the series of exchanges was stimulating and fresh and many people might have been offended. exactly. please protect us from those that know what is right; or worse, what is politically correct.
mr. e,
I probably shouldn't have been as upset about the remark as I was. I am sure that there are people who are Jewish who read and participate in this forum. It just felt bad because they may have felt slighted by someone's inane comment. As far as censorship my vote is no which I think I made clear.
As far as politically correct goes. I have been reading a thread on rgp regarding racism and this term has been brought up frequently. I really don't know what is politically correct and after reading that thread please don't involve me in that topic! I honestly do not know what is politically correct or why the term is used and after reading the thread in rgp, I don't think I want to know.
Tom Haley
"Politically Correct" PC is a style of communicating that will not offend anybody.
Its basis is in the belief .. err .. obvious self-evident truth that everyone has the RIGHT not to be offended, and if they ARE offended then it is the other person's fault.
The not-too politically correct people point out that the PC people are not conserned about the truth. "Short People rarely make Pro Basket Ball Players" is a politically incorrect statement. True doesn't matter.
The rational PC people point out that it is a useful tool to reduce bigotry in this country. And it is very easy to use "true" as a guise for bigoty: "Rumanian immigrants are genetically inferior since they do poorly on IQ tests". Both of these statements are true.
The irrational PC people blather their highly energized offensive attacks liberally and without consern for the feelings of those who disagree with them.
- Louie
20/40 HE - loose game. If you have 4 or 5 callers in front with no raises, is it stupid to play the following hands? 25s, 49s J9o, T9o 87o 76o, 65o, 54o
Bob Morgan writes:
>>20/40 HE - loose game. If you have 4 or 5 callers in front with no raises, is it stupid to play the following hands? 25s, 49s J9o, T9o 87o 76o, 65o, 54o<<
My opinions are for the situation you are describing:
25s,49s, 54o, 65o, 76o - Unprofitable.
J9o, T9o, 87o - Marginally profitable in a loose passive game. It depends a lot on how you play after the flop relative to your opponents.
And I am not sure about the 87o but I have won some big pots in loose passive games with hands like these, playing them from late position.
Also it would depend on the blinds and how much they raised in the blinds.
Tom Haley
Bob,
Tom hits the nail on the head when he says, "It depends a lot on how well you play after the flop relative to your opponents". The weaker they are and the more they will pay off in case you hit determines how weak of a hand that you can play. Good luck.
Tom read my mind exactly. These three hands are marginal only in the better of the good games.
They're best value is advertising against the not-too-swift tight players who would never DREAM of playing crap .. err .. junk like that. It makes them *SUSPICIOUS* when you fire in an early ReRaise against the tight UTG Raiser; a situation where you are BOUND to have a solid hand; two cards Ten or Higher .......
- Louie
In games where you are against many players who play too many hands and go too far with their hands, none of these should be played. If they don't go too far with their hands the J9o and the T9o are marginal.
If you think about it against players who go too far with their hands it is important that your "marginal" connecting hands be suited.
Mason,
Would you clarify your statement a bit. Bob's position is the button. In your book HEPFAP, you had stated that group 7 (J9o, 109o) can be played from this position and sometimes be raised if you are the first one in the pot. According to your advice, if the game is loose ("players playing too many hands and going too far with their hands"), then these hands(group 7 in general or just J9o,109o) are not playable. Does this mean conversely that if the game is tight, you would be more inclined to play these hands? Some of the other hands listed by Bob are group 8 or worse hands. When would you play these hands? Thanks in advance. Spidey
What are the main changes in strategy when dealing with a triple blind pot-limit game (10-10-25)? I guess we have to tighten up in last position and not to steal too often since there are already 3 persons to act. And perhaps to loosen up in the blinds in an unraised pot. And also to try some steals in the big blind if a few last poisitions have just called. Is my analysis OK?
Phil,
Yes, what you say is correct,but remember this is just a small increase so increase you play very slightly. If you over do it you will get punished without being able to feel it as it will come gradually to get you. In addition, with 3 blinds other players will open with weaker hands and have a looser game. Good Luck.
What would you consider an adequate buy-in for this game and at what point -- if necessary -- would you reach back for more chips?
Earl,
The usual rule is 40 times the big blind is the minimum buy-in in pot and no-limit games. I like to have about 100 times the big blind minimum. With much less after you ante for a while and make a few calls you find that you must double up to be just even. The exception is when playing no-limit and the game is very active. Then a shorter stack can move in on the weak starting hands and run them off small pots or race being a favorite or small dog. With the small stack if you run into a big hand you lose only a buyin sized pot. A good player should keep enough money on the table to punish the weak players when he beats them. There are many other considerations as to how much money to play with that require a player to think about. Keep playing good Earl.
Thanks, Ray. This is an issue that perhaps takes more thought from me than it should, because although I prefer the "big stack" approach, I can also see some merit in trying to run a small buy-in up while limiting the exposure. This particularly applies to taking shots at bigger games than I can "theoretically" afford.
On the other hand, I've seen more than one person try to take $500 shots at the Mirage pot-limit game by playing just one hand -- literally running to the bank machine to give their money away hand by hand (a good beat story: in one game, this guy had just come back from the bank machine. I looked down to find KK. I raised, he raised, etc. till I set him in for the balance of his newly-minted stack, and turned over the KK; he turned over JJ. The flop came Q-Q-Q ... and off to the bank machine he went.... :-).
Earl wrote: "I prefer the "big stack" approach, I can also see some merit in trying to run a small buy-in up while limiting the exposure. This particularly applies to taking shots at bigger games than I can "theoretically" afford."
This has been my approach to PL. The now almost defunct OCC used to spread a regular 3,5 blind PL HE game, $100. buyin. Whenever this game looked good, I would buy in for $200. and try to run it up. Usually, I was willing to add to my stack as it wilted and risk $500. total for the evening. Sometimes, I would walk away with a profit exceeding $1000. In fact, I used to average $50/hour in this game (albeit, a small sample size, and I only played when it was very good).
Lately, the PL game at the new Oceans 11 club has usually been half HE and half Omaha (hi), with blinds of 10,20 and 5,10, respectively. Minimum buy-in is $500., and many of the players would customarily raise the stakes preflop whenever they wanted to play (for them, a preflop raise is the same as limping in, it's only a reraise that "means" something). This meant that you could never limp in preflop cheaply, but could only try to get it all in preflop when you were dealt premium hands and race it off. Basically, the volatility in this game is too high unless you're willing to buy in for $2,000. or more. Also, the game is never as juicy as it was. The size apparently scares off all of the weaker players. Since I'm not willing to follow my previous strategy at these higher stakes (in fact, I'm not willing to play at all at these stakes), I must forgo the pleasures of PL for now.
However, I think that the short buyin strategy is excellent if your natural style is to play pretty tight preflop, i.e., you have a lot of patience. But, to make money with this style, you must be aggressive once you do come in. They're going to assume you've got AA or KK everytime, so go ahead and raise/steal even when you don't, and they'll likely fold unless they can beat these hands (or think they've got odds to try and snap you off).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
The pot limit game at The MIrage does not go anymore.
I guess we know why ...;) Is this a temporary decision or is there some flexibility to starting it back up?
There's a good no limit game at the Players Club in Ventura, CA every Wednesday and usually on Saturday.
I think this small stack, play tight strategy is only really viable in holdem pot limit... in omaha (high) no hand is really a big favourite over any other, even aces double suited isn't a monster over other drawing hands (i.e. 8765 suited). In most plo action you have to either raise with a wider selection of hands and/or limp with a wide selection of quality hands also.
Dave D
20/40 HE game fairly tight to average. Everyone folds but the button. He is a professional player and plays position well and sometimes bluffs. I have Jh9h in the SB and make a loose call. BB calls also. Flop: 10c Qd As What do I do? (1) Lead with a semi-bluff (2) Check and call (3) Check and fold (4) Check raise semi-bluff (5) I realize I could be drawing dead also.
What is the best advice on how to play a straight draw when you are first to act?
Usually bet.
I like betting through the middle player. In limit HE, I wouldn't worry about being dead in this situation -- you hit a near-perfect flop; if I couldn't bet this flop, I wouldn't have played the hand to begin with.
I don't see what good betting will do. When I see first position come out swinging into the raiser, I think "Ace bad kicker" and he wants to find out where he is. If the small blind has two big cards he'll call. If the raiser has any two cards higher than 9 he's going to raise (either with a set, two pair, top pair, or a pair and a straight draw).
Also, don't like this draw that well. If an 8 hits, great, you can make some money. If a king hits, you win or split the pot and won't get any action.
I think its should be very obvious to all three of you that the Button will bet this flop. So betting out looks suspicious. I'd check raise figuring to win immediately.
With other sorts of flops, such as T84 then by all means bet assertively. And again on the turn if called.
Your hand "value" is not that good since you are likely to be getting only 1:1 for your money as a 2:1 dog. Small chances of stealing GREATLY increases this hands value.
Betting draws assertively disquises your real hands quite nicely.
- Louie
I would have bet instead of check-raised because you give up the opportunity to win the hand with the semi-bluff bet in the early position. Additionally, if you check and the button bets, your check-raise blows out the middle player whom you would like to have along for the ride if the button is going to call. Further, if you lose the middle player and the button calls your check-raise, you've trapped yourself on 4th Street when you don't hit the straight -- and we know that's going to happen 4 times out of 5. The only value I would see in a check-raise here would be to *maybe* slow down the button on 4th street -- but there's no guarantee of that. (In a limit game, I wouldn't imagine the button would fold for another 1/2 bet if he had a hand.)
I agree with Mr. Sklansky; would love to hear from Mr. Malmuth or Zee on this one.
Both of your opponents figure to have average hands at best here. The button was first in with a raise and the big blind called getting 5 to 1 for his money. By betting out they must give you credit for some kind of hand and will most likely fold hands that you dont want to play against. Good Luck.
The original poster said that the player on the button plays position well. By betting out, you are basically saying "I got a piece of that flop and want to see where I am." I think the button is going to raise with almost every playable hand either because he is way ahead or becuase he wants to test you and/or buy a free card.
I'm thinking that betting out and getting raised will give you pot odds to call on the turn. Is that the reason to bet out here?
I have seen excellent analysis of the play here on the flop and have much new to digest. However, I have seen no reference to the pre-flop call by J9s in the SB. Is this play so obviously correct? I thought that the SB should normally raise or fold to a possible steal raise. It seems failure to re-raise has complicated life a lot. In particular, the BB could easily have Ax (here but not for a re-raise).
Depending on what hands the button will raise with, what the big blind will call with, and how they play from that point on it may be right to fold , raise ,or call with this hand. Calling would be the right play only against loose weak players. Folding would be right against tough players. Raising would be right against weak tight players who loosen up for button ante steals. Getting back to the original question, the main reason to bet is that neither opponent has to have anything to call with. And there is no guarantee that the button will bet if you check.The general principle is that on the flop, if you are first and have to call someone else's bet, you are better off betting it yourself. This hand is not an exception. (By the way, if you are called on the flop, you should probably bet again on fourth steet no matter what comes.)
>(By the way, if you are called on the flop, you should probably bet again on fourth street no >matter what comes.)
Please explain what happened to the following two semi-quotes :)
On the Turn
1. check hands with outs
2. Should semi-bluffs be continued on the turn? No, because opps will catch on and start raising.
I'm curious what the attraction is for high level players to the tournament circuit. It seems like it's a longshot even for experienced players to make consistent money. It seems that a few players will win, or be in the money in a high percentage of tournaments for about two years. Then the fade away and a few new players tear the circuit up for a couple of years, and so on. It used to be jack keller, Johnny Chan etc., now its Men the man, and TJ Clouter.
Anyway, I'd be curious to hear from you tournament players on how you see it. Thanks
Zen,
>>I'm curious what the attraction is for high level players to the tournament circuit. It seems like it's a longshot even for experienced players to make consistent money. It seems that a few players will win, or be in the money in a high percentage of tournaments for about two years. Then the fade away and a few new players tear the circuit up for a couple of years, and so on. It used to be jack keller, Johnny Chan etc., now its Men the man, and TJ Clouter.
Anyway, I'd be curious to hear from you tournament players on how you see it. Thanks <<
I certainly don't profess to be one of these players you are talking about but I assume that many are staked at least to a partial degree. Also the one table satellites offer a way to earn their buy-ins cheaply. I know one guy who claims to make a lot of his income from solely playing satellites.
People love a deal- top players and weekend players- where else can you put up $1000 and win $100,000. The top players know there's a lot of dead money in the pot from players who have little to no chance of winning they'er just happy to play with the big names.
From David Russell:
"People love a deal- top players and weekend players- where else can you put up $1000 and win $100,000. The top players know there's a lot of dead money in the pot from players who have little to no chance of winning they'er just happy to play with the big names."
The only problem I can see with this analysis is the fact you are not getting anywhere near the price that you think. If you win 100k you will be in the 31% tax bracket or higher. Over 117k puts you in the 36% bracket. $36,000 is a big price to pay for winning a tournament, where you took all the risk. Many tournament players "say" you can write a lot of this win off, but that remains to be seen. Also, dead money "wins" all the time. Now weather or not this "deduction" compensates for all of the "dead money" in the pool is a question you will have to answer for yourself.
Mr. Anthony wrote: "The only problem I can see with this analysis is the fact you are not getting anywhere near the price that you think. If you win 100k you will be in the 31% tax bracket or higher. Over 117k puts you in the 36% bracket. $36,000 is a big price to pay for winning a tournament, where you took all the risk. Many tournament players "say" you can write a lot of this win off, but that remains to be seen. Also, dead money "wins" all the time. Now weather or not this "deduction" compensates for all of the "dead money" in the pool is a question you will have to answer for yourself."
As for taxes: You're only going to have to pay taxes on your profit for the entire year, as long as you keep proper records for the IRS. Thus, if you're able to average a profit of 100,000/year, then you'll have to worry about paying 31%.
The main "tax" problem I see for tournament players is that they generally won't stay near their average every year. When one extra win above average might double your profit for the year, you're going to have huge fluctuations in your income. Thus, when you hit one of those years where you lose money, you won't get to write those losses off against next or last year's wins.
Thus, the only difference between a winning tournament player and a winning ring-game player is the increase in volatility for tournament pros. Both can average a good profit overall. Of course, if you're really good, you'll be playing both types of poker, and this will decrease your fluctuations.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I don't know if the author of this question was addressing tournament play in general or just the "big ones".
As a major tournament player here on the coast, I've done fairly well by playing live play and tournament play. One compliments the other. For an example, the entry fees for all my tournament play comes from winnings in live play. All my winnings from tournament play bankrolls my live play. I have never been staked. I don't like sharing earnings. The smaller tournaments are also excellent learning experiences for new players, even though the play is a bit different with tournament chips vrs. real money. I believe that one day when everyone wakes up to the poker world of corporate sponsership, just like golf and bowling, one will be able to earn a substatial amount of money on the tournament trail. Like golf and bowling one never has to place 1st or 2nd to earn a substanial income. There are pro golfers and bowlers earning in excess of $250,000 per year by placing in the top 10. So just get to the final table and go from there. Biloxi
I don't think Major Poker Tournaments will EVER get Major Sponsors like Bowling and Golf.
Poker is a LOUSY spectator sport. Who would want to watch 4 hours of a Poker Tournament on TV?
- Louie
One might ask that same question about bowling and golf. I don't watch either but I know many who sit and watch 10-12 hours of golf...
However, there are about 60 million poker players world wide with about 4.5 million serious players who might want to watch the final 2 hours of the World Series of Poker.
I just returned to Los Angeles from playing for a couple days at the Mirage. I have been kicking myself all day for what I perceive to be a misplay of a hand in the 10/20 game. I'd be interested to hear anyone's opinions.
Basically, I was in the SB with KQo. Two players in middle position limped in, and when it came to me I briefly considered raising. I didn't, and the BB, myself and the two others saw the flop.
It was all small cards, and the upshot is that even though I paired my Q on the turn, the BB, playing 7-2o, flopped an open end straight, and made his hand on the river.
I was upset with myself because I knew the BB to be a tight player, who never would have called a pre-flop raise with 7-2. If I had raised with my KQ in the small blind, I would have won a modest pot, instead of losing one I feel I misplayed.
Is KQo worthy of a SB raise in the situation I've described?
I believe that you have already answered this question. If the big blind is tight and your raise is likely to get him out, then a raise makes sense in this spot. On the other hand, if the big blind comes a lot, then you should probably only call. By being able to play the pot three handed you will frequently be able to win without improving.
I'd also raise with KQ from the BB if the SB calls and there is one middle position limper. KQ shorthanded needs to take control of the action. The easiest way to accompilsh that out of position is to bet into most flops having raised pre-flop.
Part of the reason for raising with this hand is to knock the big blind out. If you are in the big blind much of your incentive to raise has been eliminated. I don't buy the idea of taking control of the action in this situation.
Taking control of the action, as we describe it in our book, usually means eliminating everyone else. This has already been accomplished. For example, I think you are more likely to win the pot by calling and betting no matter what flops than by raising and betting no matter what flops. Your preflop raise will encourage players to stay in because the pot is larger.
It sounds like your both right under the right circumstances. But I have to lean with the raise. I feel most players respect a raise, especially out of the blinds, and they are not going to stay just because the pot was raised. Maybe in a 6-12 or smaller game. Just the opposite, they are going to feel they need something to stay on the flop. I don't say to myself, Well, the pot was raised so now i'll go for my gut shot. We are talking about only 2 or 3 players in the pot. Now if there were 4-5 people in the pot and there is a raise then it makes sense that a player would go further sense he is going to get much better odds.
Good point. The players I'm facing also respect a raise out of the BB more than a raise under-the-gun. I also want to be just a bit less readable, so I look for occasional opportunities to raise without AA KK AKs from the BB, like small pocket pairs when just about everyone is staying for the flop (holiday weekend no-fold'em atmosphere), or no worse than KQ with the conditions described.
A big criteria for such "loose" raises is the kinds of hands the callers may have. A WT UTG caller may very well be very strong, so don't even think about KQ. But if the callers are fairly assertive than tend to raise with hands that THEY WOULD have raised with.
It can also be very dangerous to make this raise against a player who likes to limp with big hands up front.
No doubt about that. I certainly do consider my opponents tendencies before making decisions like this.
I will be at the Monte Carlo Casino for a few days next month and am interested in any opinions on their holdem games (assuming they have them). If not Monte Carlo, what is recommended nearby? Thanks for any help. LouB
LouB,
The Mirage is practically next door. They will allways have a game going, plus you can watch the Big Kids play some very High Stakes games. I feel that most any Low Limit Hold'em game on the Strip is apt to be good. Some places do Rake more than others though. Have fun exploring.
I found the 1-4-8-8 game at the Monte Carlo (1-4-8-8 = the only holdem limits I've seen played there) very nice, and not very tough. There were often some pretty loose players there, and no one too aggressive or truly superior. Also, it usually wasn't that tough getting into a game (unlike the ludicrous wait at the Mirage). Furthermore, the room itself is small, but very nice, and the people (both employees and patrons) are on the whole quite pleasant. I did not stay at the Monte Carlo on my last trip to Vegas, but I will on my next. For my tastes, it is the best room in Vegas. Another nice room nearby is at the MGM, where they have 4-8 and also higher limits. It is quite similar in character to how I described the Monte Carlo.
Best of Luck!
Try the game at Harrah's, diagonally across the street. They have a friendly unstructured 1-4-8-8 game with one $2 blind, 11 handed. There is also a bad-beat jackpot and if you play a couple of hours ask for a $5 food comp. Good luck,
Russ
I posted this message to the wrong place last night and am posting again to get more responses. For those interested, please see "Re-raise from SB with 7's" for Louie and David's responses. Thanks.
I am in last second position in a stud game with a 4 and pocket 7's, 2 suited. No one called, so I raised the bring-in. Player behind me reraised with a 9, and both the bring-in and I called. Next I catch an A suited, but one other A is caught by the bring-in. I checked, raiser bet with unsuited Q, and the bring-in folded. I called, hoping to catch another suit to make a four flush. I caught a 5 off - now my board shows 4A5. The other player caught blank. I check-raised him, hoping that he'll think I have a straight or maybe AA or AAup. He's a good player and folds big pairs in some cases. I think if he only had a pair of 9's, he would have to fold. It would even be difficult to call with Q's up at this point.
In order not to introduce any bias, I am not going to reveal the showdown. What do you think of this play in light of the fact that I am most likely to go first on next street? If he calls on fifth, should I 1)continue bluffing to the river, 2)check on 6th and bluff on 7th if I don't catch, or 3)check and check if I don't catch? What about check raising for deception in general on 5th street?
Kathy
A real hornet's nest of a hand -- dig a deep hole and try to power out of it, eh? I wouldn't have raised the bring-in with the little buried pair, no kicker. I'd like to ride that cheaply to fifth street and dump it if I don't hit the set (most likely hands to get your head split in stud are the 2 small pair and the small straight). Conversely, if I have a big kicker, I would likely raise on 3rd versus a small number of opponents (against a big field, again I'll limp in and try to hit the set).
But I don't have any problem with the check-raise on 5th street versus one opponent. You might blast him off a middling pair, but on the other hand, Queens-up would have no problem calling your raise on 5th street; in any event, you've represented pairs instead of a small straight (most players will not get involved with 2-3-4 off).
You didn't say what either of you caught on 6th street, but checking it out is not a bad option if you are missing. There isn't a huge pot out there to be won -- I wouldn't be looking to invest a lot of bets unless your particular hand is improving, particularly because your overcard situation is not that good. If you get called on 5th, you are probably going to the river regardless.
To bluff successfully you should represent the same hand from 3rd street to the river. If I'm sitting in your opponent's seat, I give you credit for possibly a big pair or a big 3-flush on 3rd street. On 4th street, you checked when both Aces hit the board -- since I see two Aces, I discount the possibility that you made trips, so again I say to myself, "probably pocket pair". You check-raise on 5th street, but I can't put you on 2-3 and you don't have a 2-flush on board, so I also can't put you on a pair with a 4-flush. So maybe you have a buried pair and hit the 5 for a set. But, I would ask myself why a player would tip off a set on 5th street heads-up. Most likely, you get called here, although I would possibly dump the middle pair with no other outs -- I would believe that your hand is either very good or very bad.
Earl states in response to Kathy:
"A real hornet's nest of a hand -- dig a deep hole and try to power out of it, eh? I
wouldn't have raised the bring-in with the little buried pair, no kicker. I'd like to ride
that cheaply to fifth street and dump it if I don't hit the set (most likely hands to get
your head split in stud are the 2 small pair and the small straight). Conversely, if I
have a big kicker, I would likely raise on 3rd versus a small number of opponents
(against a big field, again I'll limp in and try to hit the set)."
I couldn't disagree more about not raising on 3rd. st. I consider it pure cowardice to just limp in here. You must try to steal the blinds at every conceivable opportunity. Especially with a legitimate hand. Two 7's have value.
As for check-raising on 5st. Why not! You gotta take a shot now and then. If your image is right (and he doesn't have a monster) it will work. If not, c'est la vie.
This is stud -- raising with your little pair no kicker in a medium stakes game may be the epitomy of courage, but be prepared to be reraised by a knowledgable opponent with as little as 2 big cards. The only value two 7s have is if your opponents will fold -- not likely when facing a 4 for a board card. Stud is truly a game of strong fronts and not even my little sister is going to believe you have her beat with a 4 showing and in the steal position.
Your opponents will put you on a possible pair, but anyone with a half a hand will come right back over the top of you. Some players will come back over the top of you just to "check you out." Most certainly in a 15-30 or higher game you are going to get reraised. So you're going to get a whole lot of your money invested on a very marginal hand.
This also applies to the discussion about whether or not to bring in for the full amount when forced-in with a little card. A strong opponent will turn you upside down and shake your pockets out with your weak board, weak pair. At the very least you are going to be made to pay to draw to that weak hand.
Most good stud games start out with a battle on 3rd street and I'd rather use something besides a piece of cheese for a shield and a sword. I believe Mr. Brunson said, "play for profit, not pride." It's sure a shame we don't have more limit hold-em players wander into the stud games ....
Allright here goes,
Earl states in response to my response:
"This is stud" Yeah, so, your the only guy that plays both games?
"raising with your little pair no kicker in a medium stakes game may be the epitomy of courage, but be prepared to be reraised by a knowledgable opponent with as little as 2 big cards. The only value two 7s have is if your opponents will fold - not likely when facing a 4 for a board card."
So your saying everytime a small card raises someone re-raises? Get real. People fold "all the time" when a small card raises. Maybe not in the 1-5 games your playing in but 15-30 and higher they sure do. Especially if your image is right.
"Stud is truly a game of strong fronts and not even my little sister is going to believe you have her beat with a 4 showing and in the steal position."
I agree. If you taught her how to play she will quickly go broke.
"A strong opponent will turn you upside down and shake your pockets out with your weak board, weak pair."
So I am going to win a lot of bets from a strong player when I have buried aces or kings and a small up card in the steal position, while he is trying to shake my pockets out. People raise with small up cards all the time. And they steal the pot! What planet do you live on!
"At the very least you are going to be made to pay to draw to that weak hand."
I can always give up in the face of strength can't I?? I can muck it if I don't improve, right? I can proceed with caution if I get too many callers, ok? In my opinion this is a raise or fold situation. Raising sure beats limp dicking in trying to "catch a set" when the price doesn't anywhere near warrant doing so.
"Most good stud games start out with a battle on 3rd street and I'd rather use something besides a piece of cheese for a shield and a sword."
Fine you wait for aces, I'll play what I get and try to take advantage of the "situation." Man, you pseudo know-it-alls really take the cake!
It's sure a shame we don't have more limit hold-em players wander into the stud games ....
I'll be playing stud at the Mirage during the World Series. 15-30 and up. Wherever I can get a seat. I especially like the 40-80 stud there. Look me up. I'll be the guy wearing a red hat and suspenders.
P.S. By the way,I sure hope you play the way you talk and re-raise me every time I raise with a small up card in the steal position. If you do I should have a great trip!
-
The reference to stud was merely a reply to "going after the blinds." Solid play wins in the long run, and there's a significant difference between playing with the small pair, poor kicker (showing), and small pair, big kicker. I agree that situation is everything -- but 774 in the steal isn't much of a situation.
Of course I enjoy the Mirage stud games during the WSOP, but I'll have more interesting commitments downtown. Still, a 40-80 game with live ones in it might be too hard to resist.
Here is the situation as I understand it. You are playing $15-$30 stud, the first five players past, you have a 4 up and two sevens in the hole, behind you there is a player with a 9 and the bring-in. What do you do?
You should raise everytime and "be happy" if you win the antes. If the player with the nines reraises, you should frequently, but not always, give it up.
Mason, why did you come in and spoil the fun. We could have had 15 or 20 more posts from these two.
=== Mason, why did you come in and spoil the fun. We could have had 15 or 20 more posts from these two. ===
Maybe if I was involved. :)
Earl: Teach me that serenity. Seriously.
"Serenity now, serenity now"
-Frank Costanza
JimmyR wrote: "What planet do you live on!", "Raising sure beats limp dicking in", and "Man, you pseudo know-it-alls really take the cake!"
Why the venom? Just because the guy disagrees with you doesn't mean you should rant and rave at him. Let's all behave like civilized folks here, and continue trying to educate, not insult, one another.
I'm not concerned with Earl here, as I'm pretty sure this won't bother him any. However, there are some folks out there who forever lurk and don't post because they don't want to "be wrong" and have such comments thrown at them. Just take it easy, and everyone will enjoy this forum that much more.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Earl has a strong point. Your hand has little value, since you are playing in such a manner that it cannot win a show down: your trying to bluff out better hands.
With weak hands like that generally calculate your chances of stealing immediately; any "value" is extra change.
Yes, Stealing with a high card is MUCH better than a low card.
I wander into stud games.
And it sure is NICE when the stud players wander into the Holdem Games. They sure do like to chase.... :)
Kathy, I think this kind of play is really about knowing the player you are against, more than what type of up card you have. From your description , you seemed to have a good idea how this player reacts in general, so in my opinion you played it correctly. If the check raise didn't work, I would put on the brakes unless of course I improved. Good Luck!
In order not to introduce any bias, I am not going to reveal the showdown. What do you think of this play in light of the fact that I am most likely to go first on next street?
I think the play is a reasonable one, but not one you can do all the time. The play has merit because of the cards you can catch on 6th street: Many cards you catch may cause him to fold to a bet when he shouldn't, such as a heart, a 5, a 4, a 3, a 2, a King. An Ace will cause him to fold correctly, but that's irrelevant, since it would have whether or not you raised. And the card you want to catch most, a 7, should look completely innocuous.
If he calls on fifth, should I 1)continue bluffing to the river, 2)check on 6th and bluff on 7th if I don't catch, or 3)check and check if I don't catch?
I'll usually continue betting in these spots if I catch a semi-bluffing card (see above), otherwise I'll often check and hope for the free card.
If he catches some card that looks totally useless like a rainbow duece or trey, it might be best to bluff bet on 6th and on the river.
Not to take anything away from the authors here, but Bob Ciaffone wrote an excellent article on this very situation, posted today at http://www.cardplayer.com.
By the way, if you had bet into the raiser on 4th street when your Ace hit, hoping that he would raise to drive the bring-in out and thereby get heads-up, your check-raise might have been more compelling.
I actually did think about betting out on 4th with my A and two suits on the board. But since my A was somewhat dead, I'd rather go in cheap with a three flush draw with a third player than going heads up with marginal kicker potentials. I would have most likely folded on 5th if I didn't catch a 5 to pretend that I had a straight possibility. But you're definitely right about having the check raise look more credible with a fourth street bet.
Kathy
Sorry about the belated post. Wow, I had no idea I would get so much dissension about my raise on third street. After reading all the responses, my conclusion is that I believe that given the circumstances, it was absolutely right for me to raise.
Bill raised a good point about knowing the player. I had been sitting at the table for a long while without playing a hand. It just so happened that the player was someone I know pretty well. I have seen him fold some big pairs against the right players. He knows that I play tight and aggressive. After all players had passed before me, there was no reason for me to assume that I didn't have the best hand at that time. The hand was definitely worth stealing with. In addition, under these circumstances, it wouldn't be even be too far-fetched to say that I was raising for value against the bring in, since there was almost no chance that my friend would re-raise me without a legitimate hand. This is a much better play than letting him in cheap with something like AQX and draw out on me later. And knowing the player, he was definitely not the type to call a raise with AQX. The fact I ran into a legitimate hand was pure chance.
Also, I agree with Jimmy that in general, most players DO NOT reraise a small card without a legitimate hand, at least not in the middle stakes of $10-$20 to $15-$30 I play. Many pots do indeed get taken by the small card raiser whether or not they are actually stolen. Granted, having a bigger kicker is definitely a better hand, but it doesn't mean that a small kicker does not warrant a raise in the right situation.
ps. there were two other cases where everyone had passed before me on third street. I didn't try to steal even with a big card in either of the cases. Given this, my friend would not have thought that I was stealing and would not have called me, much less raised me, with a poor hand and hoped to draw out on me later.
Given the anticipated fold of this particular opponent, even I could agree your raise on 3rd street was a good one.
However, you mention not "letting him in cheaply on 3rd street with A-Q-x and draw out on me later". Assuming this was not someone you played against regularly or had a weak-tight read on, the raise to try to eliminate (specifically) A-Q-x would be quite debatable. This is precisely the type of hand that some opponents would play back at the little-kicker/late-position-raise with. Here's one reason why.
In no-limit hold-em, all of the money sometimes goes to the middle pre-flop where one player holds A-K and the other holds J-J. With all the money in, the outcome at the river is nearly an even match, a coin flip. The situation you mention in stud, with A-Q-x versus a small pair/no overcard on 3rd street is similar: your 774 has no equity versus three overcards. Thus facing a reraise from the bring-in, your 774 is either a dog against a bigger pair or no better than even money against three overcards -- this is one reason the kicker is critical. (Perhaps this is why Mason recommends taking one shot at it and dumping the 774 if played back at?) The bigger kicker also helps prevent being played back at; someone looking at a paint will be less inclined to attack with marginal holdings.
I like your analysis of how the other players were thinking, particularly your read of their read on you -- with that good of a read, the hand you held was much less significant (and indeed it appears you were playing the opponent rather than your hand). Given the player, it appears you could've raised with 2-7-4 offsuit and he still would've passed without a solid hand.
I'm curious, since you had such a good read on this opponent, how would he have played if you had simply called and tried to ride to 5th street cheaply? Would he have bet legitimate hands only or would he have tried to buy the pot with anything? Would he have checked 4th street and given you a free card? Could you have check-raised him off the hand on 5th street? Conversely, would you have played 774 on 3rd street the same way against a hyper-aggressive or unpredictable player?
Once Again, I must respectively disagree with my esteemed colleague--Earl.
You mention that A-Q-x is the type of hand that some people play back at you with in the aforementioned situation. This is not my experience. A-Q-x is trash, looking at a raise. Normally what happens is that you catch a 6, then a 5, and now, on 5th street must either keep on betting or give up if you believe someone is goint to "go with you." If someone raises in the "steal" position and I have A-Q-x how do I feel about this hand? I don't like it at all. Not only could the raiser have a legitimate hand but they could also have something like 7-7-4 and make two pair or trips while I am still trying to make one pair! (Not to mention catching a scary board).
In fact, when I first started playing stud I used to "steal" all the time with hands like A-Q-x, and A-K-x, and even worse. Experience taught me to be very careful making these kinds of plays because aware players who have seen you do this will take any pair against you and then out-play you later, especially when you don't catch big cards.
Granted, that stealing with a "big" card makes all the difference in the world--but in real life you must play what you get and as I stated before I will try to steal "almost" every single time with this particular hand in this particular situation.
You also mention a no-limit hold-em analogy. I don't think this is particuarly relevant for this reason. A-Q-x or some such similar holding that decides to play or even "play back" at what may "appear" to be a steal, will, on many occasions have to fold on 5th street once the bets double. You are not always going to "go to the rive" with these hands as you would in an all in situation at no-limit. How on earth does the A-Q-x "know" you only have a pair of sevens. Will he be able to fold if 7-7-4 catches the one card he is really rooting for? Namely a seven. I don't think so. If A-Q-x is the hyperagressive type he is gong to lose a lot of bets. What if 7-7-4 catches an Ace--he had to be stealing with something, and this will also give you pause.
There are other considerations that were partially addressed. Many times you are able to tell when someone is playing back at you on sheer nerve. Simply because you think, that they think you are stealing. In this situation is is clearly correct on occasion, to re-raise them! Now what is A-Q-x to think when he catches a 4, then a 9, if he even decides to go to 5th. street!
In general I believe it is correct to try and steal the antes with this particular hand and then use your "judgement" to try and get a read on the situation as it develops. I agreee that you would be very happy if everyone folded but if you get one, sometimes two callers this is not as bad as it first appears. (Many times the bring-in will also call the raise with as much as an ace or a very small pair.) Many people, myself included will often times steal with a live Ace, or king over-card in the hole. So catching one of these cards gives your hand value as well as credibility. Your board may develop into a three flush or three straight, or you might catch a running pair-- that will give your opponents food for thought. Pairing your door card, while a long shot is another factor to consider. This will almost certainly win you the pot against rational players. There are just too many things that can go right as opposed to the things that can go wrong. (Especially when factoring in the times that you steal the antes.) Your image is very important. If you are always stealing in this spot, yes, people will jump all over you. But if you are selective, and pick your spots, you will be giving your opponents a tough decision and for the most part in my opinion the majority of players will give you the benefit of the doubt and just let you get away with it--for now. If they don't you then have to use your "judgement" to decide what to do next because nothing is written in stone. There are to many variables to say it is x or y. You just have to play it by ear. But in general, if you don't fold on 3rd. st. you will usually be gone by 5th. st., if you don't improve or catch a scary board--or have a good read on your opponent. How live your cards are is another very important consideration. In fact, if my door card (or hidden pair)is duplicated somewhere and there is a very aggressive player behind me this might be a situation where I wouldn't even attempt a steal in the first place. Especially when I can "sense" that he is going to come after me. (Against a passive opponent I would still attempt the steal, but if he calls or raises I am usually done with it.)
This is they key: In the higher limits the better players are very astute at ascertaining when you are out of line and when you are not. How they do this is a mystery suffice it to say that a combination of experience and card savvy allows them to make what appear to be some very strange plays. The average player may make some of these plays by simply reading, studying and concentrating very deeply when they are playing, watching every hand and learning their opponents habbits while they are waiting for a hand. Every once in a while a situation will develop that calls for a raise or re-raise without much of hand becaue of something you have observed. Yet, if you are not alert, or don't have the "nerve" to make these types of moves you will be costing yourself some money at the bottom line.
Stay focused and pay attention and try to take advantage of the "situation at hand" because on some days you will barely get a decent hand with which to play. In the immortal words of Ray Zee-------Good luck!
Maybe this thread would be good reading for those who think stud is dead -- perhaps they can enjoy the intricacies of such an apparently innocuous little hand like 7-7-4.
Given that the best play is based upon the entire situation, no play is absolute. Some players will look you up with the board 4, some will call, and some will put down their hands.
This discussion reminded me of Bobby Baldwin's little list of the stages players go through, as I have in the past believed that raising with a small pocket pair/no-kicker was usually the correct play, and may someday be convinced again that it is the best play. In the meantime, I view it as a drawing hand, one whose value changes dramatically based upon the board cards. It's intrinsic value lies in the fact that the pair is buried; thus with the small kicker, I don't want to potentially give up the hidden pair due to a reraise. (Another no-limit hold-em analogy: in late position, while I can call a small raise with small pairs or suited connectors, I can't usually raise myself, because a reraise might force me to give up the hand -- which could've potentially won a large pot.)
My experience is somewhat the opposite. There are many players who will reraise when they are the bring-in if everyone folds to the last player who now makes an automatic raise if they have an ace-queen in the hole. However, if I remember the original post correctly, the raise in this case did not come from the last player (before the bring-in), but the player in front of the last player, and she was looking at an overcard to not only her pair but more importantly her upcard. Now I believe that even the more aggressive players will be reluctant to reraise with just an ace-queen in the hole.
I couldn't agree with your post more!
Kathy
ps. Responding to Mason's post below: I haven't noticed the agressive reraise from an A or K held by the bring-in when the last person raises in a likely steal - maybe the games that I am in, 10-20 mostly, are not that aggressive. However, as you mentioned, my situation was slightly different in that my actual position was second to last. Also, I had maintained a tight image. In two almost identical 3rd street cases, I passed on a steal even with high card up (K in one time) because I had trash in the hole and didn't want to deal with getting caught.
Yet precisely because of my tight image, I decided to call the reraise from the 9. Since my pair was hidden and two suited, and there's already some dead money in the pot (given that the bring in called also), I decided that this is not a bad hand to call another small bet. Although I realized that it was a marginal call, I didn't want to fold too easily and be considered "tight and weak".
If I called on third street, he would have undoubtedly raised with a pair of 9's, 3 flush (probably have to be more than 9 high), a pocket pair either bigger or smaller than 9's. If he had a pair, he would have continued betting on 4th and 5th if my board is not threatening, then perhaps checked on 6th if he caught nothing else with only a small or medium pair.
If he had a three flush, I believe he would have checked on 4th if he caught nothing scary. But would bet otherwise.
If I didn't raise on 3rd, called his raise on 3rd and continued to call him 4th, when I check raised him on 5th, I think he would most likely put me on slowing playing trips, or just catching trips on 5th, or a straight given my board. With only one pair or even two pairs, I think he would think strongly of folding. I believe check raise on 5th in this case would work similarly to the original case. The only difference is that one 3rd street, I had no reason to believe I couldn't steal the pot or actually had him beat. And I can't risk a chance of letting him in cheap with a low flush, or some high cards.
Incidentally, I found your comparison of AQx and 477 interesting and went ahead with a simulation. It turned out that 477 beats AQ3 (64% vs. 36%), 477 beats AQ9 (62% vs. 37%) - not a bad one at all.
Against a hyper-aggressive and unpredicatble player, I might not raise on 3rd, because my chance of stealing is not high, which reduces the success potential of my raise. I might just call and hope that he folds in this case. If he raises, and he is a bad and unpredicabel player, I might be tempted to call and see if I catch another flush card on 4th or a high kicker. At this point, it's difficult to say for sure how I would have played with this player. But I would certainly be more cautious, and most likely not go for the check raise on 5th street.
Kathy
ps. I like your point about playing the player vs. the cards. The theoretical success of raising with 2-7-4 offsuit is very interesting. However, although I find it a tempting idea, I would have to concede that I'm not good or bold enough to take this kind of risk at this stage of my game. Maybe Doyle would?
I accept the mathematical premise that, in general, the hand that starts best finishes best in the long run.
Not much of an improvement from AQ3 to AQ9; given that A-Q versus 7-7 is only approximately a 52-48 loser, it's intriguing that one additional overcard versus one additional undercard kicker (AQ9 vs 477) would drop the win percentage -- particularly that significantly. Does the simulation take into consideration flush and straight draws for either hand, and if so, disregarding those outs, do the same percentages hold?
Since I don't use the simulation software (perhaps I'm outdating myself and should), I'm curious if this is Caro's Poker Probe or is there something else on the market?
Out of 50,000 hands:
4(s)4(d)7(s) vs. A(h)Q(h)9(h) = 51% vs. 49%
4(d)4(h)7(s) vs. A(h)Q(s)9(c) = 59% vs. 41%
My program is called Poker Hand Simulator by John Cleland. I downloaded it from http://www.rocketdownload.com. It's free and it works well.
Kathy
Thanks, I'll check it out.
You stated that there was "no reason to assume" that your hand was not the best after five players before you had folded...In the very next sentence you state "The hand was definitely worth stealing with".
It seems that you are a little confused about why you are raising here.
I suggest you reread Mason"s post earlier in this thread where he suggested that your raise was correct because a pair of sevens was the likely best hand until you are reraised by the nine! At this point a fold is in order most of the time...85 to 90% I'd guess.
I'd only want to call a reraise by a nine with a pair of sevens if (a) I had some good reason to believe that my pair was still the best or (b) I had a live overcard kicker.
An example of (b) would be if my original raising hand had been (4K)4 instead of (77)4
Robert Skyler wrote: "I suggest you reread Mason"s post earlier in this thread where he suggested that your raise was correct because a pair of sevens was the likely best hand until you are reraised by the nine! At this point a fold is in order most of the time...85 to 90% I'd guess."
In a very large ante game such as a $40-$80 with a $10 ante (as opposed to a $5 ante) I would call the reraise if the four was a straight-flush card.
Wow...Mason your response surprised me here...but I don't want to dismiss it out of hand.
I'm not much of a numbers guy anymore...but I can't imagine that there is any siginficant difference between (77)4 with the 4 suited to one of the sevens as opposed to the 4 being of a different suit when it is pitted against a probable pair of nines!
You say however that this would make the difference between your calling a reraise or not in a 40/80 game with a $10.00 ante?? .
I think I would have to agree with R Schulyer who said that he could find a lot of better places to put his money then calling this reraise with (77)4
See you in April
Jim Mogal
Here's a quick computer simulation of 100,000 hands each.
Dead cards: Ah Kd Tc 6s Jd
7s7c4h 40.39% 9d9s2c 59.61%
7s7c4s 41.99% 9d9s2c 58.01%
Two things to notice. The pair of sevens does this well because the nines has such a bad kicker. But, having the four suited does increase its chances approximately 2 percent which should be enough to swing it. So I would keep playing if the 4 was suited to one of my sevens and I was in a high ante game such as the $40-$80 with a $10 ante.
What sort of percentages would we get with 774 versus 99Q, QQ9, or AQ9?
Is there a significant game theory advantage to this as well, since sometimes you will call and sometimes you will not?
If I have (6K)6 I and Q raise in front of me is it corect to raise whit 2-suited,two suited in hole,two suited in hole same color as open 6?
Does the fact that the bringin cold called a reraise from the last player help or hurt my call? On the one hand, he increases the pot and could have potentially had only a pair of 3's. On the other hand, he might have me beat also. He's not a very sharp player, but I haven't sat with him long enough to know how he plays.
In general, I almost always fold in face of a reraise in a case like this. However, as I mentioned in a previous posting, I had been folding many hands, and didn't want to appear weak and tight. So in a way, this hand was sort of an image play.
Comments?
Kathy
You generally prefer to play the pair of sevens head-up. It would depend exactly what the third player has, but if the bring-in also calls this will usually hurt you.
Actually, if you are against an overpair in one seat, the third or 4th player improves your chances to co-favorite, thus giving you the "odds" to draw to the third seven (your potential return is nearly the same as what you put in the pot; out of 4 players, you are at least 25% winner). I ran this on the poker simulator and this gibes with my idea that a small pocket pair with no kicker should "usually" be played like a draw in stud (assuming live cards). Interestingly enough, if you are against 3 players, one with a big pair and the other two with big three-straights, you have a slightly better chance of winning than any of your opponents. You might want to run this:
player 1: 4h7c7h player 2: 2s9c9d player 3: JhQdKc player 4: 8c9h10d
Your example assumes you are going to the river. In actual practice you fold on 5th. st. most of the time. Therefore, the price becomes incorrect.
As one would normally fold a three-flush or three-straight on 5th street ....
The 774 is an interesting proposition because it appears to be either a 3-2 dog or 3-2 favorite against a single opponent's most likely holdings (i.e., 3-flush or 3-straight draw, or pair). Against an overpair, this remains true on 3rd, 4th, and 5th streets; only on 6th street does it rise to 3-1 against when facing an overpair.
As noted by the authors here, the value of the overpair falls off much more than does the underpair when a 3rd (or more) opponent enters the pot. The true value of the underpair is where it is hidden and live -- how to exploit that best is the real question.
If the game was an absolute, it would die off like 5-stud; that's why we play and that's why we debate situations. Unfortunately, we don't have as many experienced stud players to compare notes and ideas as do the limit hold-em players.
I disagree with this analysis. Much of the value of the small pair is that it makes small two pair head-up and beats the overpair. This is particualrly true in the games whith the larger antes -- that is $15-$30 and up. The draws will only continue on the later streets if they have improved. Thus your hand plays much worse than the simulations show.
Kathy,
I agree with Robert, if you had the best hand and were the favorite then you weren't stealing which is basically what you said. I interpreted your comments as stating that you wouldn't mind winning this pot without a contest. I also agree that with the player profile you described for your opponent, you should frequently fold when re-raised. Lets say that this is one of the times that you decided to play on. Now what about the check raise on 5th, was this a good play? Does anybody else have an opinion?
Mine is that you had little chance of getting him to fold to your check raise. This is basically because there is too much money in the pot to fold a decent hand at this point and your implied weakness due to your steal position.
Tom Haley
Tom,
I didn't want to get into discussion about what I would do on 5th street on a hand which I undoubtedly would have folded after being reraised by someone representing a pair of nines on third street.
Since I raised with (77)4 and was reraised by a nine there are hardly any holdings my opponent might have which I would want to play against at this stage. He is a big favorite to have a pair...and the most likely pair is 99 ! Maybe, just maybe he has (55)9 or (66)9 ...but this is a stretch.
Anyway, to answer your query... I don't think I would take any other action than check and fold on fifth street with (77)4A5 in the situation described where my opponent RERAISED with a 9 coming in and has live overcards .Remember my A is dead.. The last hand I want to make here is 2 small pair...I can think of a lot of better places for my money than in a loser like this.
Robert Skyler
Robert Skyler wrote:
"Anyway, to answer your query... I don't think I would take any other action than check and fold on fifth street with (77)4A5 in the situation described where my opponent RERAISED with a 9 coming in and has live overcards .Remember my A is dead.. The last hand I want to make here is 2 small pair...I can think of a lot of better places for my money than in a loser like this."
Just a quick note. If the ace wasn't dead you should be prepared to go the river. Second, two small pair, while not the best hand in the world, will frequently beat an overpair in head-up pots.
In a earlier post I mentioned that a hand like (4K)4 would be preferable to (77)4 if I wanted to call the reraise on third street. It follows that a hand like (4K)4xx can call to the river if the K remains live.
I don't agree however that (77)4A5 is a hand to call with even if the A is live because half the time if I do improve to Aces up it will be on 6th street and I can't even get called since it is visible.
Robert Skyler
You also have a bad three straight. That gives it a little more value.
I have an unusual question for Mason and David in that it does not directly relate to poker. I'm a big fan both of you and have read most of your works. I was wondering if either of you were fans of the late novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand. I think her philosophy emphasizing rationality and independence fits well for professional gamblers. Prior to the Feb, 6 issue of Cardplayer I would have thought it likely both of you were admirers of her. However, after reading David's column in that issue I'm almost certain he must view her philosophy with disfavor. In any event I was simply curious and would welcome any comments. Thanks.
I have only read one of Ann Rand's books, THE VIRTUE OF SELFFISHNESS, and thought that it was extremely good. I suspect that my thinking is closer to her ideals than David's, but he would have to answer that one to be sure.
There are two cases where extreme selfishness seems illogical. One involves extraordinary wealth where the marginal utility of the money falls rapidly. If you give some of that back to people who are horribly poor through no fault of there own (which usually means non Americans) you have increased the number of utils in the world. I don't believe the argument that doing that reduces incentive, since most very wealthy people would continue to derive satisfaction from their achievements even if there was less money in it. However I never said that the government should force this charity. Indeed they wouldn't want to since I suggest most of it be sent abroad. So I'm not sure Ayn Rand would disagree on this point. The second case where selfishness is illogical involves all of those situations that can be shown to be analogous to the Prisoner's Dillemma paradox.This deserves a whole article but in a nutshell, the paradox shows that there are times when everybody would be better off if they relinquished control to a higher authority rather than allow everyone the freedom to strive for their own optimum goals.
There are lots of situations where everybody is better off if every body does one thing, but each is better of if he does another.
Such as standing or sitting at a football game. Standing you see better but everyone is better off if everyone sits.
Or being in a nation at war. You are better off working for your own good but clearly everyone is better off if everyone contributes to the war effort.
But these situations are the exception not the rule.
- Louie
In game theory these situations are called the "prisoner's dilema" and have been widely researched. If you are interested in scholarly articles about these feel free to write me by e-mail.
HOW MANY CASINOS IN LAS VEGAS EMPLOY PROPS IN THEIR CARD ROOMS AND WHAT IS THEIR AVERAGE STIPEND/BENEFITS AS COMPARED TO OTHER CASINO EMPLOYEES.
The only ones that I am aware of are the Station Casinos, Sante Fe and maybe Stardust. These are generally pretty low limit games and from my experience the props do not play exceptionally well, so my guess would be the pay is not great but that would be purely a guess.
One in particular (Sunset Station) uses quite a few props as I recently found myself in an early AM game with just myself and three props.
Regards-
At one of the casino boats I play on they offer a bad beat jackpot where you win a $ 2,500.00 prize if you have a hand beaten that is better than aces full of tens. The player who wins the hand also receives a 25% payout and the other players at the table receive a small bonus as well. The game played is 7 card stud. My question is what are the odds against someone in an 8 player game having a bad beat and how should one change their strategy, if at all in playing in such a game.
Aces full of tens? Are you sure? Most Stud jackpots are based on Quads (of various ranks) being beaten. It's only about 375 to 1 to make Aces Full of Tens or better in seven card stud (going to the river). I don't have the time to run the simulations (and there are too many unknowns relating to how tight the game is to get a definite answer anyway), but my very rough estimate is that in a very loose game this jackpot would be hit about once in 10,000 hands. That makes it worth about $.25 per hand.
How many tables do they have? You should be able to estimate how many hands they deal per day and figure how often the JP should be hit to check my guestimate.
--jazbo
I am invited to participate in a BJ Tournament at the Reno Hilton in two weeks time. I have limited Tournament experience (only couple of times). Any advice or tips are welcome.
My experience has been that the games are very structured and basically it comes down to a betting strategy Any suggestions? Thanks.
For starters, I suggest you look at our book GAMBLING FOR A LIVING. If you are very serious about casino tournaments (including blackjack) you may want to pick up a copy of CASINO TOURNAMENT STRATEGY by Stanford Wong. It contains everything you need to know.
Thank you for the quick response and suggestion. Do you know where these books can be bought in San Francisco?
Try Conjelco Online at the Bottem of this page. Its around 6 to 10 days for delivery.
I'm in a 4-8 HE game and find myself with Qs9s on the button. There are 4 callers, then a raise. With me and the blinds to act ... I call, Knowing the raiser to be weak tight I put him on AA or KK.
Is this a bad Call for the button?
Anyway, the flop comes Qd Js 8c. All check to the raiser who bets. I've flopped top pair, don't like my kicker and don't necessarily want to pair it.with 6 players to act behind me. I feel I want to 'pump it or dump it' Hoping to: a) limit the field. b) get a look at the turn card with no bet -- perhaps picking up a draw and getting a 1/2 price shot at it. I choose to pump it. And get re-raised and heads up with the original raiser. I call.
Is this a bad raise, then call given the 17SB in
the pot.
Turn comes a 3s. I'm now sure I've turned 17 outs and up against KK or AA. Raiser bets and based on:
a) the strength of my draw b) the chance that he may fold to a raise c) barring a him rivering a set -- he will not bet the river
I choose to be aggressive and raise him. Knowing that if I miss, he will not fold to a bluff on the river even if the scariest card comes down -- conversly he will pay off 1 BB if I hit.
I pair the 9 on the end and beat his KK sucking 1 more bet from him on the end. ====================
Considering that I'm mainly tight aggressive and play about 25% of my hands ....
a. Was this play too aggressive? b. What minimum % can you put somebody on a fold an
overpair to aggressive play? c. Was I just kidding myself and compounding my
errors as the hand progressed?
Chris K.
Is this a put on? You KNOW he has aces or kings and you call anyway??? Good God! You don't need advice. You need a psychiatrist!
Chris wrote: [4-8 HE game, Qs9s on the button. There are 4 callers, then a raise. I call, Knowing the raiser to be weak tight I put him on AA or KK.]
"Is this a bad Call for the button?"
I would fold here, as I generally don't consider this hand worth paying 2 bets to see the flop. However, since you're getting about 6:1 on your preflop bet, this isn't much of a mistake, especially since you seem to be able to read the raiser pretty well.
"the flop comes Qd Js 8c. All check to the raiser who bets. with 6 players to act behind me. I feel I want to 'pump it or dump it'."
You're right, this is raise or fold time. However, the only good reason I see to raise is to eliminate the field. This way, you're up against a hand where you know where you're at, and what outs are good. Against the other callers, you'll be guessing if your outs are any good.
I would choose to dump it. If you manage to get heads-up, the pot is big enough to justify the chase against the likely overpair. However, what about the callers? There are apparently 5 or 6 of them, and certainly 1 of them could have flopped 2 pair, a set, or the straight (T9 is a good hand in a volume pot like this). It may be that 1 of them is slowplaying or going for the check-raise, because they knew the raiser was likely to bet for them. This is my #1 reason to give up here.
"I choose to pump it. And get re-raised and heads up with the original raiser. I call. Is this a bad raise, then call given the 17SB in the pot."
Now that you're heads-up, and know where he's at, you've got pot odds to call the re-raise. However, you should be afraid of trip Queens, another possibility, which would limit you to just the gutshot T as an out.
"Turn comes a 3s. I'm now sure I've turned 17 outs and up against KK or AA."
Why are you so sure? How does the appearance of the 3s influence you this way?
[Raiser bets, Chris raises.]
Don't agree with this. Why raise when you're not the favorite and you're pretty darn sure he won't give up the overpair? You shouldn't raise here unless there's a viable chance he'll fold the overpair, which very few of us can do in limit HE.
I'm glad you won. This is the best of both worlds. You've got more money in your pocket, and through the use of this forum you'll learn how to play better. I love it when I realize after the fact that I misplayed a hand and won anyway. What I hate is losing a hand, knowing that I played it perfectly. I'm out the money, and my game is presumably no better than it was before.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
>>I'm in a 4-8 HE game and find myself with Qs9s on the button. There are 4 callers, then a raise. With me and the blinds to act ... I call, Knowing the raiser to be weak tight I put him on AA or KK.
Is this a bad Call for the button?<<
This isn't the greatest call in the world but there is some compensation since you have your opponents poosible hands pegged so precisely. The pot is getting big and no doubt it will get bigger.
>>Anyway, the flop comes Qd Js 8c. All check to the raiser who bets. I've flopped top pair, don't like my kicker and don't necessarily want to pair it.with 6 players to act behind me. I feel I want to 'pump it or dump it' Hoping to: a) limit the field. b) get a look at the turn card with no bet -- perhaps picking up a draw and getting a 1/2 price shot at it. I choose to pump it. And get re-raised and heads up with the original raiser. I call.
Is this a bad raise, then call given the 17SB in the pot. <<
No, I don't think so. You got heads up and increased your winning percentage by raising with a hand that you know is worse than the bettors hand. I think it was a bettor play than calling or folding.
>>Turn comes a 3s. I'm now sure I've turned 17 outs and up against KK or AA. Raiser bets and based on:
a) the strength of my draw b) the chance that he may fold to a raise c) barring a him rivering a set -- he will not bet the river
I choose to be aggressive and raise him. Knowing that if I miss, he will not fold to a bluff on the river even if the scariest card comes down -- conversly he will pay off 1 BB if I hit. <<
I think a) and b) are the most important considerations and to a lesser extent c). It would depend on your estimate of the chances of him folding on the turn when you raise, the size of the pot, the chances of getting re-raised, and the chances of drawing out. This should be a pretty straightforward analysis since you know so precisely what he has.
>>I pair the 9 on the end and beat his KK sucking 1 more bet from him on the end. ====================
Considering that I'm mainly tight aggressive and play about 25% of my hands ....
a. Was this play too aggressive? b. What minimum % can you put somebody on a fold an overpair to aggressive play? c. Was I just kidding myself and compounding my ,errors as the hand progressed?
Chris K. <<
Most players are reluctant to dump an overpair on the turn and they would be right. It is very hard for me to estimate the chances that your opponent would fold to the raise on the turn. The Theory of Poker describes a play somewhat similar to this on the turn. My suggestion would be to set this problem up and do the math. Plug in different folding percentages and see when it is profitable to make this play. I believe it will help you get a feel for when it is right. Your raise on the turn is representing a big hand such as two pair, trips, or a straight. You have to consider how likely it is your opponent will beleive you have such a hand and if he did the only hand he would be dead against would be the straight. Would he believe that you would call the raise cold preflop with something like 10,9? If not he is likely to take another card off on the turn and see it through to the river.
Tom Haley
If you knew for sure that this player had KK or AA, then I believe you should not have called the initial raise. You were not getting quite the odds, and if you made a flush, with 5 other players queen high might not have been good. Also someone could have easily had the T9 as someone else mentioned. You got lucky, take the money and run!
Chris,
Perhaps you should not have called before the flop. It certainly is not the worst call. What is important is how you thought about the hand and played it. Your thinking process was very good and that leads to making a great player. Your raise only works if there is a chance you may have him beat, as he and almost all other players including myself will not throw away AA or KK into a board that weak with all that money out there. Many times i am sure he has that hand in those spots only to find out otherwise. That is what may make your raise correct. Good Luck.
In addition to other comments:
If you are percieved as "aggressive"; such as if you have made similar plays recently, then the big pair would be a fool to lay it down on the turn.
And one of the reasons to raise on the turn is that since you plan to pay it off it costs the same, plus you gain an extra bet when you hit, which you did. But in this situation I think you plan to lay it down on the end if you don't improve, "knowing" you're beat, then the raise on the turn loses some value.
- Louie
Louie writes:
>>In addition to other comments:
If you are percieved as "aggressive"; such as if you have made similar plays recently, then the big pair would be a fool to lay it down on the turn.
And one of the reasons to raise on the turn is that since you plan to pay it off it costs the same, plus you gain an extra bet when you hit, which you did. But in this situation I think you plan to lay it down on the end if you don't improve, "knowing" you're beat, then the raise on the turn loses some value.
- Louie <<
This is part of the "compensation" that I was talking about. Raising on the turn and showing down on the river when you don't improve is a good play a lot of times when you intend to pay it off anyways because you have some doubt. As Louie points out this play was not an option since there would be no way you would call on the river because you had his hand pegged so well (a bluff raise is another option but calling is not when you don't improve). You also know that two pair or a straight will be good on the river since you have his hand pegged so well. If an Ace falls you may be able to bluff him out also.
Tom Haley
This is a blackjack question about the "key card" concept. I recently played double deck blackjack after reading a Mason Malmuth book, and resplit to four hands of 8 versus 10. One of my hands drew a 5 for a total of 13. My chance of winning by drawing to 21 was quite small, since most of the 8's were already gone. It would probably have been correct to stand. Similar playing variations probably exist for other cards. You can probably remember seeing a player draw 7-7-7 or several aces. These situations are probably infrequent, but are there any important multiparameter variations?
There are multiparameeter variations, but all but a few, are for more than one deck and are barely significant. The key card concept is significant with one deckers but I would not worry about it with more than one deck. I personally stay clear of one deck games because they're watched too closely. Your 8 splits I believe would have been a losing proposition regardless, and I believe that you still minimzed your loss by splitting them even though there was a depletion of 8's.
A freind just back from Vegas said in a game at Sam's Town they had a house rule allowing a player who has called a finished hand to muck his hand even if requested to show them to a partipant in the final outcome of the hand. Is this a house option? Is it a common rule?
Such a rule encourages unethical player collusion and partnerships.
After being a dedicated hldm player for many years I finally started playing stud about 6 weeks ago to learn a second game. I had been reluctant, since I had read that the deviation was much larger in stud than hldm, and I didn't want to swing much more than I was in hldm. Anyway, I am truly enjoying playing stud, and it seems to me that it has an advantage that Hldm doesn't,... at least for me. That advantage is the structure of the game. I can wait for decent starting hands without going broke in stud, where in Hldm although it is only a two card starting hand game vs three cards with stud, you can still be sitting for 2-3 hours much of the time without seeing much. In the mean time the blinds and time collection eat you up, and by the time you start to get some playable hands half or three quarters of your stack is gone. So I'm wondering if the difference in structure has any bearing on the overall deviation bettween stud and Hldm. Okay Earl, I know you can fill me in on this one.
There is little or no difference between the structure of hold-em and stud. Instead of structure perhaps I should say cost. This, after all, is what you are refering to I believe. (In fact, the standard deviation in hold-em is a little bit higher because of all the pre-flop raising. In stud, I would say 80% of the pots are only raised once on 3rd. st. Hold-em games, on the other hand, you frequently see one, two, or more raises before the flop. This makes the two games close because of the extra betting round in stud).
In Las Vegas 20-40 hold-em costs you $3 a hand. ($30 in blinds divided by 10 players.) 15-30 stud cost you $3 a hand. These two games are appx. equivalent. (Actually, in practice, I feel that the 20-40 stud game is slightly smaller than the 20-40 hold-em).
It is harder to get a three card starting hand than it is to get a two card starting hand. The proof of this is the fact that if you were playing in a game where you started with only one hole card it would be the easiest game of all for which you could get a good starting hand.
The differences you speak of are illusory. I think the reason for this is your newness to the game.
I play in Calif. where Hldm is 9 handed. 15-30 Hldm is $ 2.77 per hand plus $12.00 time charge. The stud game is a $2.00, not three dollar ante. It seems as though in Hldm you play more hands per Hour also. Maybe ten hands or so. I know three card hands are more difficult(except Large pairs), that's why I mentioned that. I have also played in the 6-12 stud, where it's a dollar ante, and they rake $3.00 from the pot. That seems less expensive, than a $2.00 -$6.00 blind and $3.00 button collection that the 6-12 holdem game has. if I counted the three dollar charge for every pot that I won, compared to the three dollar button charge that I pay in Hldm, the rake charge would probably be about half or less in the long run. But again, I'm sure you are right to a certain extent that it's just my newness to the game. thanks for your comments I get the first part of your name, what's the 999?
As a former stud lover, I can tell you that their is no comparison in my opion to hold'em for many reasons, but I will just mention a couple.
1st: The pots are much larger. Can you imagine having trips rolled up in a stud game and to be heads up with only 40 bucks in the pot. That happens a lot in stud. You are very patient only to find out that when you do catch some great hands, it's usually heads up play and action.
2nd: When playing for a period of 5-6 hours in a session, I don't want to have to remeber which cards are out and what's been folded. In stud their is no button. If I am in the #1 seat, my cards are dealt first to me the whole game. If I am in #4 seat, players who stay in usually get my cards if I can not drive them out.
3rd: On the Gulf Coast, most of the casinos have antes. I will have my buy in eaten up by antes long before they would be eaten up by blinds.
4th: The reason that stud is almost a game of the past, is that most good players are patient players. When 30 hands per hour can be dealt in hold'em vrs. 18-20 hands per hour in stud, one does not sit there bored to death.
I still love stud and mostly play in stud tournaments, where the action and fun still exists. (p.s don't forget. In hold'em you can have the nuts and know it. I don't think you can in stud unless you are dealt a royal)
Biloxi
You make some valid points about 7 stud. Also, I've read Davids Sklanksky's article about why he doesn't like 7 stud. My decision to start playing stud was more about finding good games than the game itself, although also, as I posted already, playing both stud and hldm has helped both of my games. I think most of us are lazy about game selection, which is the most important aspect of the game after you have reached a profficient level of play. I think many poker players let their egos get in the way so they sit down in games where they aren't underdogs, but they aren't favorites either. The stud games that I have been playing are not like you described. I get more action than I want in some cases. And I feel that my stack is more stable in stud, at least so far. If the game was going as you described ,with no action i would have been gone after the first half hour, looking for another game.
Sklansky also says in a footnote to his article that this was written a long time ago and is no longer true. The fact is that both he and I spend at least as much time playing stud as we do hold 'em and/or other games. Stud at limits of $15-$30 and above is well worth playing.
I have just written an article on this subject that will appear in the next issue of the INTELLIGENT GAMBLER that ConJelCo puts out. I won't divulge what I wrote here until after the issue is published. You may want to check with ConJelCo -- we have a link to them -- to make sure that you are on their mailing list.
I might also add that you can download the "Intelligent Gambler" from the ConJelCo web site. The file is in PDF format and can be read using Adobe's Acrobat Reader. Adobe's tool can be downloaded using a link supplied by the ConJelCo Intelligent Gambler page.
The next issue of The Intelligent Gambler will be out in May. It is sent out free via regular mail to everyone on our mailng list.
If you are not on our list and would like to be, you can signup using the URL below.
Back issues are available in PDF format on our Web site at www.conjelco.com/ig.html.
Chuck
Billy,
I believe you may be playing much too tight in holdem. Holdem lends itself to very tight play as it is 9 or 10 handed and the blind money is live, so it makes it much harder to open with a weak hand. Losing half your stack waiting for good hands is not the thing to do. Lose half your stack by putting your money in good situations regardless of your hands. As you progress in ability you will first look at the situation and how to play it and then worry about your hand. In games where you get called all the way down then you of course must play hands that can turn into the showdown winner. Many players will do better at stud as it takes different skills. Play the game most suited to you. Good Luck.
Thanks for the vote of confidence Billy. Actually, looking back over the years, I've logged much less time at hold-em than stud (considerably less at limit hold-em), so my answer is necessarily biased. But I believe you are correct in that -- overall -- you don't have to wait as long for a playable hand in stud, although conversely, the opportunities for thievery in a *normal* hold-em game should offset that aspect. What I mean is that your opponents not being able to see any of your cards in hold-em provides steal opportunities, whereas in stud, a good player will use that 3rd card to figure out the texture of your hand and a steal has less opportunity for success (again, see Ciaffone's article on this topic).
As a comparison, my last hold-em game was in the Rio tournament and I managed to play for over 11 hours without ever holding a big hand. In a stud tournament, you will have an incredibly difficult time even surviving a few hours unless you catch some cards. The nice part is that in a cash game, you can easily survive those short dry runs. Yet one poster noted that you must steal the antes whenever possible, and while this is true, most people blow back their good ante steals in one hand while trying to protect another ill-advised steal. Mason's comment about giving it up when played back at is well-taken, albeit difficult to implement at times. Often it takes more courage to muck a loser than it does to try to jack the opponent around.
Six weeks may not be enough time to see the deviation in stud, but it is definitely there. Years ago, the successful stud players were the hyper-aggressives (I must confess that I was one), but most of them are now extinct: as in all games, the skillful stud players are now selectively aggressive, and particularly at the higher limits, the skillful stud players are very close in ability. This means your swings will be higher and your return less. But at the medium limits, there are still plenty of loose cannons, firing wildly at the first sign of food.
Another big difference in the games is that hold-em players quickly learn that position is most important, yet up-and-coming stud players do not play position well, since it is a more difficult and nebulous concept. Sitting last to act in stud is *not* the same as sitting on the button. (See Chip Reese's discussion of how to play stud position in Super/System.)
Your approach to picking up a new game is admirable, as I believe the majority of players can be classified as either stud players or hold-em players, and this can cause attitude (not to mention financial) problems when "their" game is going awry. Mixing up where you play and the games you play is also a good antidote for becoming a target. The medium-to-high limit games always attract the same players, so it's important (and more fun) to have a choice of game.
Thus you may be interested in the thread below discussing stud 8-or-better. I've spent the last few years trying to learn and refine my stud8 game, and while I'm not quite there yet, I'm as enthused about the game as any new player might be. It seems to me that the deviation is smaller due to the split pot aspect, and the opportunity for skillful play is even higher, as few players have much experience at the game (although I understand some California casinos offer it regularly now). Incidentally, I highly recommend Ray Zee's book on high-low split -- it carried me to the lead in the first big 8-or-better tournament I played (I must confess that I ultimately got eliminated before the money).
A final thought: every player in town plays in that first WSOP limit hold-em event; in contrast, the stud events draw a lot fewer contestants. Why?
The discussion of the differing structures in hold-em and stud has been interesting, and I agree with much of it. One idea that should not be overlooked is the fact that the common board aspect of hold-em makes it more difficult to draw out; consequently you are less likely to chase in hold-em than you would in stud. This tends to cause stud to be more volatile and leaves many stud players with lousy dispositions.
I would, however, disagree with the assertion that at the higher limits the skillful stud players are very close in ability. While it is true that higher limit stud uses a progressively larger ante which serves to reduce the expert's edge, many of the best players use differing skills to produce their advantages. There are two stud players that most experts would consider among the top five in the world, and their approaches to the game are as different as night and day. The reason that this can be true,I believe, is that stud due to its structure and format (lack of a common board) gives a player more latitude for expert play when compared to hold-em. This is not to say that hold-em is easy; stud simply offers a multitude of choices where there might be more than one correct answer.
I understand that many, if not most, of the participants on this forum are hold-em players. Stud can offer them another source of profit potential.
I agree that stud leaves more latitude for differing succesful styles of play -- particularly as contrasted to limit hold-em. However, the fact that two players have different styles of play doesn't lessen the fact that they have equally superior ability (just as we would not discount Mozart's ability because his style was different than say, Beethoven). Put those two players in the same stud game and I believe their variance will increase while their return will decrease.
Stud players may have lousy dispositions, but did you ever have the opportunity to enjoy the old Razz game at the Stardust?
Yes.
When you look up "crotchety" in the dictionary there's a picture of that Stardust Razz game.
"I can wait for a good starting hand, without going broke in stud".... And so can your opponents--and wait, and wait, and wait, as you will find out.
I've been asked to Host a Home Game.
How can I run a good game where Skill isn't out run by Chance. Most of the Home games I've played in have many games where the best options are to Fold, or go for the Nuts.
The People who want to play in my game don't know much about Poker, in fact they might have trouble figuring out what hand beats an other. Should I give a lesson and explain winning concepts to these people? How can I discourage the players from playing crazy Chance dominated games? My main concern is trying to hook these people on Poker so that they might enjoy it as much as I do, and hopefuly this Home game will become a regular occurrence. Any good advice?
Thanks, Chris
I might offer to give a lesson on 7 Card Stud. I think this might be the best aproach for all players involved. It will give the bad players a fighting chance if I at least go over the starting hands.
I play in a monthly game where no one else is relatively serious about poker-dealers choice. To try and wean them off of baseball, etc. I introduced them to Omaha hi/low.Boy did that catch on-now called about 2/3rds of time. I think it is the easiest game for people to get a relative quick feel for general strategy--the raise if you have best hand, draw to best hand works well a large percentage of the time. Gary I
I assume you are not part of a Poker "network" and must follow the standard.
So, you can make the rules. For new players stick to the basic games as played at the casino. Those crazy games are for people who are familiar with these games but are "bored".
Play versions of Stud, Holdem, or Omahaha. Do NOT allow pass the card variations. Avoid "Declare".
Yes, give enough lessons that the players are can read their own hands and know what beats what, and understand the mechanics of betting and raising and playing in turn (don't tell them about folding!). I advise some "practice" hands before the game really starts.
All games should have the same ante/blind structure. There's nothing wrong with Stud with a Blind or holdem with an ante and no bring in.
Avoid antes. Dealing antes (1 bet) for everybody is acceptable. This greatly simplifies making change and keeps the game going at a nice clip.
>I assume you are not part of a Poker "network" and must >follow the standard.
I tried to get involved with a network based out of Nevada and found that I was the only person from Idaho who would have been a member.
>So, you can make the rules. For new players stick to the >basic games as played at the casino. Those crazy games are >for people who are familiar with these games but are >"bored".
I think a part of it is that most home players want at least two pair every hand. This is probably more reasons for me to teach them winning concepts.
>Play versions of Stud, Holdem, or Omahaha. Do NOT allow >pass the card variations. Avoid "Declare".
Good points.
>Yes, give enough lessons that the players are can read >their own hands and know what beats what, and understand >the mechanics of betting and raising and playing in turn >(don't tell them about folding!). I advise some "practice" >hands before the game really starts.
I'm thinking about going farther than that. I'm not really interested in making money from these people. What I am really interested in, is 1) Experience for me. 2)Possibly recruting other players who have potential to become good players so that my Casino trips aren't solo.
>All games should have the same ante/blind structure. >There's nothing wrong with Stud with a Blind or holdem with >an ante and no bring in.
To keep things simple I think I'll stick to 1 and 2 unit bets. With a 1 unit single blind for Hold'em, and a 1 unit bring in for Stud. No antes. I haven't had a chance to play draw games since I'm new to Poker. It seems that the good Casino Draw games died out years ago.
>Avoid antes. Dealing antes (1 bet) for everybody is >acceptable. This greatly simplifies making change and keeps >the game going at a nice clip.
The one thing I don't want to do is over ante.
>>>> To keep things simple I think I'll stick to 1 and 2 unit bets. With a 1 unit single blind for Hold'em, and a 1 unit bring in for Stud. No antes. >>>
If each player can choose the game then this is VERY unfair to the players sitting to the left of the Holdem Players: they MUST blind each round, AND may have to bring it in on another hand. You must choose. I suggest 1 blind every game, even stud.
This is satisfactory if the dealer calls the game for the entire round.
1-2 bets is excellent.
Having the winner of the previous pot ante is another possibility.
Hmm, Rocks and Beer party anyone?
That post wasn't very helpful. You might as well spell it out.
Thanks Chris
Ok,
What I was referring to was that if the winner of the pot throws out the entirety of the initial money for the next hand, then there is zero incentive for anyone to be the first to enter a pot, as you're not trying to win the money that's out there because you must forfeit exactly that amount should you win the pot. Much better to systematically (a la holdem) or randomly (a la stud, antes notwithstanding) assign the burden of putting the initial money in the pot.
The Rocks 'n Beer Party reference was the name of the countermeasure employed by those dastardly RGP types should some casino be so foolish as to implement this type of structure. Fold, Fold, Fold, Fold, Fold, Cocktails!, Fold, Fold. ..... Sorry, that was kind of a flip reference for this Forum.
Anyway, I was trying to succinctly say why making the winner of the previous pot put up the at-stake money for the next hand is a bad idea. No penalty for being an uber-rock.
Regards,
Jim Geary
Chris, since you're trying to get new players interested, they're less likely to go broke quickly in a winner ante game. If some of these players are to eventually travel with you to a public game, they should get comfortable with and accustomed to folding alot of hands without making an initial investment. You'll still need to return to a normal ante structure when the game begins to meet regularly. This was just a suggestion to get a game going in the first place.
Here's the format from the best home game I've ever played in. The host is always the dealer button the first hand played. Someone else had the "game" button. The holder of the game button picks a game, and that game is played for one orbit. As soon as the dealer button is back to the host, the game button rotates one position clockwise, and the next person selects a game to be played for an entire orbit.
Whenever HE or Omaha is called, there are 2 blinds, just like in the casino. Whenever stud is called, the dealer antes for everyone, and there is a forced bring-in by the low card. Thus, all of the games are very much like in the casino, and there is no issue of positional advantage being apportioned unfairly.
Most important, the host had a list of approved games, and no other games could be called. His options included HE, pineapple, Omaha hi or hi/lo, 7 stud hi, lo, or hi/lo, 5-draw hi or lo (and a hi/lo variation I won't go into that I have only seen in the Chicago area). Pick your own favorites, but tend to stick to casino games, and avoid the weird games. Even if there is a weird game you like, avoid it if others will use its presence to piggyback in their favorite "poker" game.
Have fun, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Playing by rounds as Greg suggests in a dealers choice game is absolutely a must.
I too play in a home game when every I am home from college. And when I first started playing I had very little knowlge of the game, so me friend delt a couple of pratice hands so I could get the hang of betting and a feel for the game. We also play inteticall to the way the casino is run, except we play $.010-$0.30 which is ten times less then the casino. We also have a jackpot for anyone how gets 4 of a kind or better and the hand goes to 7th street. The jackpot rake is the same as the rack at the casino. Me friend also introduced me to manson's books and other good books ie "the waiting game" By goerge pearcy of something like that.
We also often go to the casino after we play for a couple of hours at his house, because 3 of us are good players and the others are poor players and just play for the fun of it. I DO THINK THE KEY TO GETING THEM HOOKED OF POKER IS TO KEEP THE GAME LOW LIMITS AND INTRODUCE THEM TO SOME BOOKS AND MAYBE AFTER SOME HOURS OF PLAY INTRODUCE THEM TO THE CASINO AND 1-3 TABLES WERE THEY CAN START TO MAKE SOME MONEY Hope this has help you
Dave Zart
NAU
My position would be either (one off the button or on the button) with 2 callers in early position plus 2 more in middle.
Are these Dangerous hands to play in 20/40HE.
Q9s Q8s J9s J8s t8s 97s T9o 98o 87o 76o
Would you play any of these, if so which ones and why?
Would you also play them under the same conditions with an exception: One of the early players raised!
Thanks, I love your books!
Bob,
First off, for a raise none of these hands should be played unless you have some specific agenda or reason to think you may win this pot without making the best hand. I try not to play weak hands in spots where I can not win without making the best hand. When you see the good players playing junk, normally it is in spots where they feel a creative play can win the pot. When you see weak players with marginal hands it is usually in situations where they are trying to make miracle hands. See the difference. Now back to your question Bob. The first bunch of suited hands can be played against 4 players if you have a feel for what they might have and they are not too tricky and aggressive. If they are, then the hands are strictly marginal and can be played at your choice.* Remember your only advantage on the hand is that you have position.* If your positional advantage doesnt overcome your inferior hand status you should clearly fold. In a no-foldum holdem game a case can be made to play all of them, and a case can be made to wait for better spots and take less risk. Thats a personal decision. I know you are trying to get a exact fix on what hand to play in every position, but most of the marginal hands all fall into about the same pot of soup. One day all of a sudden you will wake a with a feel for it all and play naturally and creatively in those tight spots. Good Luck.
David Sklansky's new Sklansky Poker Challenge is a part of the Windows 95 software Beat the House II by Interplay Software. A playable demo of the Sklansky Poker Challenge is now available for download.
Though I've tested the download with both Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer, if you have any difficulties please contact me.
Chuck
How to play AK EARLY position - Raise 50% of time/Trap AQ AJ AT Axs
If early raiser, smooth call, don’t give my hand away by showing power.
How to play AK MIDDLE position - Raise If early raiser, smooth call, don’t give my hand away by showing power.
How to play AK LATE position - Raise If early raiser, smooth call, don’t give my hand away by showing power.
How to play AK Blind positions - Call raise, check-raise on the flop, and lead on the Turn. If they check flop also, lead on the Turn.
How to play AK late position - If checked to you, bet Flop and Turn.
How to play AK - late position - If I am the Raiser preflop - I never bet AK when the Flop comes 3 rags. You subject yourself to a re-raise by the blinds. You shut yourself out of a free draw at making your hand.
Ace-King is the most "over-rated" hand in hold-em.
That being said I raise before the flop (first one in) with the hand 90% of the time. I have been beat more times than I care to remember by hands that would never of called the raise. So I gladly bring it in for two
Correct thinking, remember there are blinds out there that are worth winning uncontesed.
Ace-King is the most "over-rated" hand in hold-em.
That being said I raise before the flop first one in) with the hand 90% of(the time. I have been beat more times than I care to remember by hands that would never of called the raise. So I gladly bring it in for two bets. I will sometimes limp on the button with ace-king against players that never throw away their blinds. I don't always raise in the small blind for the same reason.
What is to trap? You don't have anything. You are trying to make a pair, which is vulnerable even when you do make one. Frankly I am happy to steal the blinds with ace-king. If I get callers that is fine too.
Of course this is just my opinion. I also raise with a large variety of hands to open the pot in hold-em. This way people aren't going to know when I have a big hand. Still, unless you hit (yes. there are many exceptions) you don't have much with a naked ace-king. (Chasing after the flop is a whole nother can of worms, but basically, I don't. Again there are many exceptions). If it has already been raised I don't always re-raise. I mix it up. When and why depends on so many variables that I think it is impossible to give hard and fast reasons without writing a chapter in a book!).
One last point. I also throw this hand away before the flop, on occasion. Something most of my contemporaries never do. Often times for only one raise. Do you?
When I have AK I am trying to limit the field to 1 or 2 players as now I can win without hitting my hand. I will play it that way preflop if at all possible. If it looks like a multiway pot I will slow down and try to hit the best hand and narrow the field at the next best opportunity. With an early raiser,reraise as this is a great spot to get it head up. By not raising you will get players behind you and mess up your good situation. Good Luck and keep thinking.
The idea of limiting the field with a hand like AK or AQ is very important. This will allow you to frequently win the pot without improving.
Generally open with AK the same way you would with a big pair, if for no other reason that they "synergize" well together; one disquises the other.
AK is an EXCELLENT hand short handed against unaggresive opponents, since they will let you win with no pair, or heads up against middle or late position raisers, since you will usually have them "dominated".
I just want a rule of thumb answer, I realize it depends on what player bets etc.
What is the best way to play in these situations?
Best way to play AK - early position - If I am the preflop raiser with 2 or 3 callers and the flop is rags. (A) Should I check? If I check and someone bets, should I call? (B) Should I lead on the flop and the Turn? (C) If I bet the flop and the Turn without improving, should I continue to bluff on the River without improvement or give it up?
Best way to play AK - late position - If I am the Raiser preflop and have 2 or 3 callers - (A) Never bet AK when the Flop comes 3 rags. You subject yourself to a re-raise by the blinds. You shut yourself out of a free draw at making your hand. (B) If the flop is rags bet the flop and Turn (C) If I bet the flop and the Turn without improving, should I continue to bluff on the River without improvement or give it up?
In general, great players writing about a specific hand, give a specific way to play that hand. Game theory suggests following a mixed strategy (simplistically this implies finding several reasonable ways to play the hand and varying your play among them), and great players in practice seldom play the same hand the same way every time. The only player who gave mixed strategies for most hold'em hands was Mike Caro in something called the Professional Hold'em Report. As I recall he would recommend 3 strategies for each situation, the first to be used about 60% of the time, 2nd 30% and 3rd 10%. While I disagreed with many of his answers or rankings, I loved this novel way to communicate the importance of using mixed strategies. By the time he had covered every common situation, the overall strategy would have become way to complex for most players to memorize, but it might serve as good basis for programming a hold'em game that would be quite tough to beat.
Playing in loose games is generally accepted as being better than tight games, at least in the lower levels.
But there is MUCH discussion about "narrowing the field" with check-raising etc.
But is seems odd that you seek loose players and then try to get them to play better once you are involved.
Could it be that these loose players are actually playing correctly when you make 1 big pair (i.e. its to your detriment), but lose a bunch of money when you make 2 pair or better, or a draw?
>>Playing in loose games is generally accepted as being better than tight games, at least in the lower levels.
Depends.
>>But there is MUCH discussion about "narrowing the field" with check-raising etc.
>>But is seems odd that you seek loose players and then try to get them to play better once you are involved.
As you know I only play Low-Limit games due to the fact thats all that is spread at Cactus Pete's in Jackpot. What I clearly enjoy playing in, is a Loose Passive game. Most of the 7 Stud games are this way, and somtimes the Hold'em is like this too. The best Loose Passive game I was ever in was one where the players allways Checked to the Raiser, never Check Raised, and either folded or called. At one point I felt as though I was Conducting a Symphony, the players would let me run the show. I wasn't trying to make them play better, but I was trying to control the type of mistakes they were making (this was mostly with my Drawing Hands).
Now compare this to a Loose Aggressive game where I have no control, and just have to sit and play Weak-Tight until I get a big hand I can get paid off with.
>>Could it be that these loose players are actually playing correctly when you make 1 big pair (i.e. its to your detriment), but lose a bunch of money when you make 2 pair or better, or a draw?
When I raise with a Pocket pair of Aces in early position I know the first two or three callers are making a Big mistake, but when the rest of the table comes in also I really get worried because I know that unless the board looks very scary I'm going to the Showdown, and have a good chance of losing to two pair or better.
Individually, they are leaking money. Even if you aren't successful in limiting the field with an early (on the flop) check-raise you had to make sure middle pairs, gut-shot draws, and backdoor flush draws are not getting correct odds to call. Check-raising often on the flop in no-fold'em games is critical.
I have two questions for the 2+2 folks. I usually play holdem in the casino atmosphere and recently met with a player from my home town who host holdem games at his house. He invited me to play there and I have done so on a couple of occasions. 1. There have been some articles (CARD PLAYER)concerning police breaking up home games, arresting the participants, and confiscating money. How safe is it to play in a home game and is it a felony or misdemeanor if you are charged with illegal participation in gambling? 2. The format of the game is 6-12 on one night and 10-20 on another night with "overs." The game, from what I have seen of it , is loose and aggressive with lots of callers and lots of preflop raising with marginal to weak hands (one person automatically raise with A or K suited even if it is a low card). There are two tight aggressive and one player who IMO is a bit better than the rest. I consider myself tight aggressive or so I hope. The 6-12 game has a jackpot and a $6 rake (max or 5%) and the 10-20 has a $7 rake (max or 5%). Can these games be profitable to a non-professional player such as myself? Thanks in advance. Spidey
Spiderman,
Generally when police raid home games just the owner gets in major trouble if at all. Most states now allow home games if the pot is not cut. They may take your money just as do the hijackers, so bring less and give it up when asked. This game has a high rake so why not just play in the casino? In private games there are more risks of being taken advantage of, so to play it must be much more profitable unless its the only game in town for you. Good Luck.
I won't tell you that you can't make money in this game, but with a rake that high, and with lots of preflop raising, you are going to have to be one of the best postflop players in the world, or you are going to have to be an ultra-rock preflop. You are going to have to stick to the truly premium hands here. Play AA, KK, AKs, probably QQ, JJ, and AQs, but not much else (unless it's a rare hand with no raise preflop, or 1 raise and you're halfway there in the BB).
Some people will disagree with me, but in this game, you've got to think you're going to AVERAGE a profit of $6 or $7 before you play the hand. That's a lot.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Many people have told me that it's important to have the most money on the table in a pot limit game. This requires that you periodically rebuy to insure your chip superiority.
It seems to me that if you are the most skilled player at the table, it would pay to have more money at your disposal. But aside from this type of edge, is there a mathematical advantage to having the most chips? If so, where will this extra profit come from? Will certain hands, such as small pairs, go up in value?
Todd, When lots of people tell you something that they dont do themsevles you can be sure they are wrong. You generally want to have enough to cover the weaker players on your right and have less than the better players on your left.Any player adding greatly to his stack on my right is having a death wish unless there is a fish in the game he is looking to break. The amount of money in front of you may determine how or if you play a hand. Thats pot-limit. Small pairs do go up in value when you have lots of money as well as suited connectors. Big pairs have to be played more carefully also as it is harder to shut out a draw and give poor value to come hands. Good Luck.
Let's say, there's a winning 20-40 hold'em player who wins about 40 bets per hour, with about $500 std dev per hour. If the player plays in 5 hour sessions, what percentage of the time will he come out ahead by $100 or more versus come out behind $100 or more (leave out the -100 to +100 range)? My intuitive feel seems like 65%....what do you think?
First, I think that you meant $40 per hour, not 40 bets per hour. It is my general experience that the best players at $20-40 hold 'em will probably win a little more than 2 out of three times (if they play 5 hour sessions) and the best stud players will win a little less than2 out of 3 times even though the best stud players may have a slightly higher win rate.
Can't we just use some simple mathematics. Win rate = 40 ; st. dev. = 500. Playing 5 hours = 5 * 40 = 200 is the average win. 500/(root of 5) = 223.6 ; * 5 = 1118 to get the total st. dev. To win at least 100, Z value = -100/1118 = -.09 which equals 53.6%. To lose at least 100, Z value = -300/1118 = -.27 which equals 39.4%. If we use 300 st. dev., 300/(root of 5) = 134.2 ; * 5 = 671 total st. dev. To win at least 100, Z value = -100/671 = -.15 which equals 56%. To lose at least 100, Z value = -300/671 = .45 which equals 33%. To at least win, Z value = -200/671 = .30 which equals 62%.
the math maybe simple to you, but not to everybody!!! thank you very much for working it out...I'm glad my intuition was actually pretty close (65%).
It would be interesting to consider the impact of lower limits on this.
For example, I used to play a lot of 15-30 stud in AC and would agree that 2 out of 3 is a good estimate for winning sessions. However, I've sinced moved to Colorado and play a lot of 1-5 where my winning session rate is almost 5 out of 6.
To be expected I guess?
[winning 5 of 6 session at $2-5 in Colorado]
Yes, this is to be expected. The $2 blind is relatively very small (2/5ths of a bet, rather than 1.5 bets in typical structured game). So the player can play more conservatively, especially early when someone else bets: there is little reason for you to speculate about them not really having the hand; you just fold.
Are there any good sources for information on liars poker (with serial numbers). I was recently introduced to this game and it intrigues me. Thanks for any responses.
jsol
Somewhere I have a Liar's Poker little book, no doubt bought at the Gamblers Book Story LV.
It wasn't very good.
You should do some math and determine the "average" number of any given number between the two bills. Then do some expected "best" distributions. I think the average number of most numbers is about 4-4.5.
But its mostly a "tell" game where you watch the opponent and determine if he is exaggerating or not. "Strong means weak and weak means strong" should keep you WAY ahead in this game. Someone who thinks about it and reluctantly bids 6 five's is sure to have a lot of five's.
The problem with this game is that people bring stacked bills; usually ones with lots of Zeros.
- Louie
I wonder if I have the same book. It was thin, self published, and written in Courier font. I picked it up last summer at the Gambler's World in Reno. I gave it to a friend who collects books on games, so I can't give you a thorough review, but a cursory read on the plane home revealed some effort was put into it. Even if all the info isn't correct, it certainly would make a good launching point for thought on the game. A quick peak at the GBC web site revealed a book called Liars Poker: A winning Strategy. Sounds like the same one. For $4.95, you could do worse.
Jim Geary
There are fewer nines than any other digit on the average for Federal Reserve Notes. This is because serial numbers do not go all the way up to 99999999, since they stop a million before this. Source: Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
I think that an important concept that often escapes many of us is that, at EVERY level, the average poker player loses. That is, even those players skilled enough to play 100-200 lose on average, *when viewed as a group*, because the house takes its cut. Of course, this is not the same as saying that the MEDIAN player loses. It may be the case that 90% of the players win a little, and 10% of the players lose a lot. Also, it may be the case that 90% of the players lose a little, and 10% of the players win a lot. I am a beginning lower limit holdem player who is moving up in the ranks, and my question is this:
What percentage of the holdem players have a positve hourly rate at limits like 10/20, 15/30, 20/40, and 50/100?
I realize that this information may be largely dependent upon location, but I'd like to hear what people from everywhere have to say.
Thanks!
Without a doubt the bigger the game the higher the percentage of players who have a positive hourly rate. My estimates: 3-6-- 0%, 6-12--10%, 10-20--20% (higher in places where 10-20 is the biggest game.) 20-40--35%, 40-80--55%, 75-150--60%, 200-400--70%.
>>Without a doubt the bigger the game the higher the percentage of players who have a positive hourly rate. My estimates: 3-6-- 0%, 6-12--10%, 10-20--20% (higher in places where 10-20 is the biggest game.) 20-40--35%, 40-80--55%, 75-150--60%, 200-400--70%.
Well, I'm not sure if your estimate on the 3-6 game is correct. I seem to have a positive hourly rate though my sample size is small. About 100 hours. Maybe I'm missing something here?
3 years ago, I had a $10 win rate for over 1000 hours in 3-6 hold'em, so I believe there are winning 3-6 players, even though relatively the rake is outrages. And are you not contradicting yourself, because you advise people to move up after they are winning low limit players? How can low limit players move up, if there are no winning players?
My wife still plays 1-2 and 2-4 because she is not a winning player. But I wonder if she will do better in 3-6 because the rake is relatively lower. The collection in LA is about $10 to $15 per hour for these low limit games. A winning 1-2 player needs to win more than 5 big bets per hour before the rake.
Due to the rake, it is nearly impossible to become a winning player at the limits your wife plays at. In fact, if she is a winning player at those limits, she possesses skills that will not necessarily serve her well at the higher limits. I recommend she move up as soon as possible, because the evolution of her game is being stagnated.
I think David is just trying to "tweak" the 3-6 players noses a little bit. Of course some people win at 3-6, although it is "almost" impossible to do so with the outrageous rake. (Maybe he should of said 1 to 3%). David let me ask you this. Do you think if you played 3-6 for two years that you would only break even?
For the most part "serious" players trying to make money are playing higher where the rake is proportionally smaller.
I was trying to come up with a percentage for a 10-20 game I have been playing in lately. It is the biggest game allowed by law. My origional guess was 25% but after thinking about it I believe it may be as low as 10%. Attrition is starting to take effect, and some of the players who thought they were "pretty good" don't play as well as expected. In fact some of the players "I" thought were pretty good are actually long run losers. With $5 a hand disappearing off of the tables (for all games) only the best are going to survive.
Now that I think about it maybe David was right. After all, he has never made a mistake,,,,right Dave?! LOL :-)
In Washington State there are some games that collect time rather than rake. For instance, I played in a $4-$8 game in Spokane that collected $4 per hour and a $10-$20 game that collected $5 per hour. Surely, a good player can make money in those games. Caro reminds us that when the pot is raked, it is important to concentrate on the bigger pots because the cost is proportionately less. We all want to win big pots, right? Easier said than done. To me, it means you should play basically late position if there are a number of players already in, and always raise. Play pocket pairs and big suited connectors in late position, and always raise. If you have TJs in late position and no one has come in the pot, throw it away. If you have a good hand in early position, limp in and reraise if the pot is raised with a lot of players.
Anyone else with strategy for beating the rake?
You beat the rake by winning less pots but playing in a manner that tends to make big pots. This means if its otherwise marginal to call or fold on the first round then fold. If its otherwise marginal to raise or slow play then slow play. If its otherwise marginal to bet or check-raise then check-raise.
Also in low limit games: If its otherwise marginal to bet or check then check so long as it doesn't look like the rake will be maxed out otherwise.
Playing less hands on the first round is by far the best way to limit the amount you must invest in the rake.
I am amazed at how many people complain about the rake as a loosing proposition. I guess we are blessed here in Mississippi with the rakes at 10% but with a max of $3 in low limit games and $5 in 15/30 are above. But folks, there is no rake unless you win a hand... Hello.. you don't suffer from a rake if you are not in the hand. Most people loose money playing poker professionally not because of rakes, but because they play too many hands and loose, and or they play in to many hands where the pot odds are horrible. Most authors talk about the winning hands in a game. I talk about what I leave the table with. The average hold'em player should only be playing about 2-3 hands per hour. If your pot odds in any hand you play are less than 3/1, get up and move to another table. Biloxi
I disagree with "If you have TJs in late position and no one has come in the pot, throw it away" No argument with concentrating on bigger pots, but I will take TJs in above scenario, raise, and take my chances. Good chance I will either pick up the blinds right there or go one-on-one with a blind, and in most cases, pick up the pot on the flop. Even if called (or raised) by later position, I still have a legitimate chance at the pot. Granted, I have no ace, but my opponent(s) don't know that. I would qualify the above with the type of players I was against. If weak tight players are behind me, this would make it more attractive. These small pots are needed to supplement your stack until the big pots show up.
Russ
Agree. If the players in the blinds tend not to defend, then you can try to steal with just about any reasonable holding. You're 3.5:1 to pair up on the flop as well. The problem with playing hyper-agressive is that few of us will release the hand if the flop doesn't help, or produces a draw without the necessary pot odds. There is temptation to bluff bet with JT as overcards to the flop if checked to from a blind heads-up, but this play has negative expectations. Playing with two overcards to the flop is best done when you are up against a player you have good control against.
Couple fundamental questions: When discussing hourly rate are you including the rake? Since it is possible to be winning from the table but losing to the house wouldn't it be wise to figure in the rake to help determine when it is time to move up from the $1/$2, $2/$4, $3/$6, and $4/$8 games?
Mark
David's figures bring a few questions. First, at the higher levels where there are more skilled players, does this fact lower their hourly rate, even though they are playing profitably? Second, what is the difference (other than bankroll), between a good 30-60 limit player and a 200-400 player? I recently read in Cardplayer about a Vietnamese player who started at 20-40, made 100k his first year, and now plays 100-200 and 200-400 limit. Apparently he 's made over a million dollars in the past,(which he blew on Baccarat) and is making 50k a month playing the high limit games. What is the difference in skills?
I read Ray Zees comments about playing the situations more than your cards, which makes me think about stealing blinds and raising tight players and going after dead money etc., but I'm curious as to what the key differences seem to be as the limits go up. Is it not going on tilt? Math Knowledge, reading players,all of the above, or something that is not defineable? Thanks
Billy,
The main thing the good players do at higher limits that the good smaller limit players have not yet learned to do is attack. There are many spots to steal small pots that the less refined player misses or doesnt see. When your bankroll is smaller and you are not 100% confident in your ability yet, you tend to try to have the right hand to win the pot. As things get better, you tend to figure out how to win the pot first. The good high stakes players are better at limiting the field properly, reading hands, winning one more bet when they win a hand and losing one less bet when losing a hand. Billy, if you start playing your situations more you will up your win rate as well as have higher fluctuations while learning it. Good Luck.
Somehow my response was put in the wrong place. Please see my second response to How to interpret my win rate-directly above
I reached your conclusion about low limits late last night. I have played mostly 5-10 holdem for the last year for about 300 hours. The rake where I play is 10% to $5 max. Over this time, I am pretty much dead even (within $50 - I do keep records), and estimate I have paid $2500 in rake. While I am not an expert, I am willing to consider myself better than average at my level. My expectation at this level is not worth sitting in a smoke filled room for 5 hours at a time.
I'm not sure that I'm ready to move up to 10-20, but it might be the only way to beat the rake long term.
A top poker player will easily beat the game at this limit. Even though the rake is extremely high, a top poker player will still easily overcome it. But, if you are good enough to overcome the rake, you will usually move up to a higher limit where you expect your overall win rate to be higher.
Danny. I too have shown around a $10 per hr. win rate at 3-6. And though my sample size is very small ( 50 hrs. ), I feel I will still be showing a positive hourly rate when my sample size is much larger since I have become immeasureably better since that first hour of play.
one thing I guess, is that most winning 3-6 players move up to 6-12, and then up to 10-20, and they stop moving up once they start losing...thus the Peter principle - most players move up to their level of incompetency.
From tournament player,
"one thing I guess, is that most winning 3-6 players move up to 6-12, and then up to 10-20, and they stop moving up once they start losing...thus the Peter principle -most players move up to their level of incompetency."
I disagree with this. I know many winning low limit players (3-6),(4-8) that never bother, nor would ever consider moving up. They are very happy where they are.
TP wrote, << There is some truth to this. But the fact that they were winning players proves that there must be other winning players who have not moved up yet. How many depends on whether they are like me, staying in 3-6 for 2 years, or if they moved up after one winning session. Also, once you become a losing player, you will eventually realize, and will go broke or move back down.
The following is from "Poker Faces - The Life and Work of Professional Card Players" by David Hayano... a wonderful book to add to your collection (1982 University of California Press. Page 93
..."Most occasionals, regulars, and social gamblers realize that losing is inevitable. In casino games of pure chance, where the house establishes a set edge or percentage over the player, it is unlikely that a gambler will win consistently. When the factor of player skill enters into consideration the chances for winning improve statistically but increased competition lowers the odds somewhat. Even professionals and winning regulars who do survive are subject to frequent, unavoidable downswings in daily fortunes. Indeed, within every poker club and cardroom, the majority of players will be losers IN THE LONG RUN. Providing exact figures for gambling losers and winners is difficult because it is not always possible to determine for individual players how long the "long run" may be and whether the player--for one reason or another--has misrepresented himself. Other factors add to the confusion: a player's changing frequency and level of play, unaccounted daily expenditures on collection fees, food, and drinks, lavish purchases when winning, and gains and losses in gambling other than poker.
I would estimate unhesitatingly that 95 to 99 percent of all cardroom poker players eventually lose more than they win. And, of course, even professional poker players are not immune to devastating losses. In fact, they place themselves in a far more precarious position than the average social gambler by playing for enormous stakes nearly every day"
This doesn't exactly agree with David Sklansky's observations...but its food for thought.
Heres hoping that we all can end up in that small group of lifetime winners --- good luck to all (except when you're playing at my table)
Jim Mogal
Recently I have had a good run in 6-12 hold'em. Although the total hours of play is very small, I would still like to make some sense out of this. Total hours = 138.5 ; win rate = 29.90 ; st. dev. = 101.38. Am I correct by taking 2 standard deviations? 101.38/(root of 138.5) = 8.61. Win rate = 29.90 + or - 2 * 8.61 = (12.67,47.12). This means I am at least 97.5% sure that my win rate is at least 12.67. Does this still hold even though I know I have had a good run? Is my standard deviation accurate with so little data?
Having had this good run, I have also taken some shots at 15 up to 30-60 hold'em. With only 28 hours of play, my win rate is negative 64.61 ; st. dev. = 414.94. This of course is very discouraging. Is this enough data to show that I am not ready for the bigger games? Has anyone had similar experiences? In an earlier thread, David Sklansky said that if one was a winning player, moving up would increase one's win rate if the two levels are not very different. This makes a lot of sense, but the problem is the two levels are usually very different. Any thoughts?
Your data on the bigger games is simply insufficient to come to any conclusions. Your data on the 6-12 game however IS almost certainly enough evidence that you are a nice winning player at these stakes.
I hate to type and thus sometimes oversimplify my answers. First I was speaking of regular players. Anyone who can beat 3-6 will eventually move up to at least 6-12and beat it for more, given the higher stakes and lower proportional rake. Secondly the higher percentage of winners in the bigger games is because of (1) The even smalller proportional rake,(2) the fact that most recreational losing players won't play this high, and (3) it is worth it to some players to earn a small fraction of a bet per hour from the occasional bad player who sits down at these stakes.
Previous respnse put in wrong place
You are correct, insofar as the math is fine.
However, calculations like you have done, where you take your win rate and look at +/- 2 sigma, have what I consider a subtle, but nasty, flaw.
That flaw is that you are not an island. Your data is not the only data in the world. The fact of the matter is that there is tons of data out there from players who play in a (similar) winning style. And the evidence and collective wisdom say that no matter how good you are, your winnings are not going to exceed a certain limit at a certain game: usually something like 2BB/hr and probably more like 1.5BB/hr in a 6-12 game in Los Angeles (I assume LA, your email address is USC) with its large rake.
So using as a starting point a win rate of 2.5 BB/hr, especially with a relatively small
You are correct, insofar as the math is fine.
However, calculations like you have done, where you take your win rate and look at +/- 2 sigma, have what I consider a subtle, but nasty, flaw.
That flaw is that you are not an island. Your data is not the only data in the world. The fact of the matter is that there is tons of data out there from players who play in a (similar) winning style. And the evidence and collective wisdom say that no matter how good you are, your winnings are not going to exceed a certain limit at a certain game: usually something like 2BB/hr and probably more like 1.5BB/hr in a 6-12 game in Los Angeles (I assume LA, your email address is USC) with its large rake.
So using as a starting point a win rate of 2.5 BB/hr, especially with a relatively small amount of data, is looking at the world through rose-colored glasses.
You address this in a sense by saying 'I know I've been lucky (or had a good run)'.
What I'm saying is that we can infer, with almost statistical certainty, that you have INDEED been lucky because your results exceed what is generally conceded to be the upper bound on similar results. There is almost no chance that your actual win rate is +1 SD from your current win rate, although the math would say that there is approximately a 16% chance.
So while you should be pleased with your results you should understand that you are almost certainly simply a data point on the right (upper) side of the bell curve of all 'tight-aggressive / S&M / winning' 6-12 poker players. And your future results are more likely to approach the mean as this curve than continue as is.
Now put yourself in the shoes of your symmetric opposite counterpart on the bell curve... Let's assume your 'real' win rate is 1.25 BB/hr. (A completely respectable figure) This poor guy is winning $0 per hour after 138 hours, and is cursing out his luck, S&M, dealers, and the Poker Gods, not to mention questioning his ability to play poker. Yet he is as good a poker player as you are!
Such are the paradoxes for those starting out, trying to see if they can win at any positive EV gambling game.
Actually, after more thought, I believe my math is wrong, because it relies on a random sample. Since, I know I had a good run means my sample is biased. Therefore, you are right in that I am at a data point on the right (upper) side of the bell curve, and my conclusion that I am at least 97.5% sure that my win rate is at least 12.67 is invalid.
You talk about moving up to 15-30, 20-40 and 30-60.
I think going from 6-12 immediately to these limits, especially 20-40 and 30-60 is dangerous (to your bankroll)
You should play some in the 10-20 and 9-18 games before attempting the higher limits.
6-12 players tend to be very different in style and awareness than higher limit players. You need to gain experience carefully by encountering these better / more aggressive / more wily players in situations where your whole bankroll will not be in danger.
In the 10-20 and 15-30 games you will often encounter these types of players (who are often waiting for a higher-limit game), while the stakes won't seem so daunting.
You're right about moving up slowly. I feel like I might now be a losing player, but in the 90% of losing players who just think they are running bad. This is why I am trying to make some sense out of my win rate, but I guess the data is never enough.
As far as playing 9-18, I feel my win rate might not be higher than 6-12, because the stakes are not much higher and the players are tighter. And for 15-30, 20-40, and 30-60, I guess I must be the big fish, because I do not see much difference in skill level among these 3 limits. Usually, the first one in raises, and everyone folds to the blinds or someone re-raises, always leaving at most 3 people seeing the flop. It seems like everyone except the blinds is working as a group to steal the blinds. Any advice on how to play the blinds? I often lose 3 rounds of blinds before playing a single hand. Many times, people go smoking leaving 5-6 people at a full table.
As a new player, I feel like my neighbors at the table might be able to sometimes see my two pocket cards (playing hold'em). I cover and squeeze them and lift them just enough on the corners so that I can see them. Is it a rare thing for other players to peep my hand or do I have a good reason to be cautious? What is a fool-proof way to protect my poker hand for prying eyes? Thanks for your attention. I realize this type of question is almost absurd given the nature and wisdom of almost all of the posts I have read here.`````Rookie~~~~~
Sitting in the 2 3 8 or 9 seats (long ends of the table) when possible may be more comfortable for you.
You definately need to protect your hand from other players at the table as well as Kibitzers. Even though I don't think of myself as un-ethical. I have no qualms with sitting in seat 8 so I can stare down at seats 5,6, and 7. I have gained some valuble information from people who don't protect their hands enough.
You want to protect your cards with both hands and only look at the corners, just don't mangle the cards in the process. Be careful because the Hearts and Spades start to look alike without a lot of light on them.
Chris,
When other people are exposing their cards to me (rarely happends) I will tell them to be careful as I can see their hands. I believe this is the ethical thing to do although I know that some players if they could see my hand would not tell me. In the long run this is the best policy in my opinion.
Tom Haley
You are right Tom, but the problem I have had with telling people is that they have a very hard time saying "Thankyou". I guess I'll make exceptions acording to the way I perceive the person.
Chris,
Heard that.
Tom Haley
Hi Chris and Tom.
Maybe players don't say 'thank-you' because they're embaressed to be making such a blunder. It's kind of like being told your your fly is open by some woman you don't know.
Cheryle Haley
Cheryle,
I admire a woman who has enough courage to tell me my fly is down. Just as long as she doesn't yell it from across the room.
I do understand where you are coming from, and if I was playing in a game where people didn't sit at the table with untucked flannel shirts, John Deer Baseball caps, and complain fiercely when they got Sucked Out on. I might consider changing my evil ways. Until most of these people start acting respectable they will not get my respect.
Sorry, I didn't mean to Vent on you. Maybe that responce belongs in the RGP. Chris
Whenever I am going to play a hand if someone exposes their cards I take a look. I don't look when I don't plan to play, because I don't want to risk them becoming aware of what I am doing.
It's happened to all of us - some old guy who's been sitting in a bar or bus gets up and, lo and behold, you notice that his wallet (in his back pocket) is about 85% exposed and ready to be the victim of either gravity or some nifty fingers, whichever comes first. I would immediately tap him on the shoulder and tell him to watch his wallet. Someone else might choose to follow the guy a bit hoping for the wallet to fall out. Another might help himself. If I was the old guy, I'd sure hope that it was Tom Haley who was behind me.
Thanks.
I am confused by a seeming contradiction in 2+2 literature.
The question I am raising concerns advice given when faced with the 4th street situation (hold’em) when a possible completed draw hand comes on the turn. You do not hold the completed draw, but you have a hand which can improve to beat the draw (2 pair or trips).
For advanced players states as a general rule that from the front you check hands that can improve and bet hands that are dead if the draw has been completed. Yet, in The Theory of Poker, Sklansky writes [pg. 82] that “the higher your chances (to outdraw your opponent) the more reason you have to bet.”
I understand that there are rarely concrete rules to such poker situations (making it a wonderfully complex game). But in this case, there seems to be a contradiction in the basic manner in which the situation is accessed.
From my prospective, the Advanced Player’s position makes sense in that with a hand that can re-draw you do not want to have to pay off a raise from a completed hand. It also makes sense that with a hand that cannot improve, you bet to prevent a free draw if the opponent’s hand is not yet completed, and since you can’t improve if your opponent is completed, you do not have to pay off the raise.
To me, the deciding issue rests in how vulnerable are you to the re-draw. For example, if the 3rd flush card hits on the turn and you have ONE flush card (with your two pair), then the 4th flush card possibility is not as scary on the river. Even is your flush card is a 10 or jack, you are only vulnerable to a handful of opponent’s holdings [plus an opponent with such holdings will likely call your bet, and thus will draw anyway; so your bet can only serve to make them pay for the draw] But, if you do not hold a flush card, you risk allowing a mid to lower single flush card to beat you [a card that may not call a 4th street bet for the chance to draw.] It seems to me that the chance of being raised (costing you 2 additional bets) is more than compensated by the times you will prevent your opponent from drawing for a 4th flush card without a premium flush card (in that case losing the entire pot 20% of the time). But when you hold a Jack or so of the flush suit, opponent hands that can beat you if the 4th flush card hits will still draw even if you bet (the hands with a lower flush holding will lose if the flush hits), thus you do not seem to be giving up as much with a check . . .
I have found the work from 2+2 to be instrumental in my poker thinking evolution and I look forward to your response
Randall Busack
Right you are. This is one of the few topics that is underexplained in their writings.
Much depends on the chances your opponent will raise bluff, just call with the nuts to trap you, or bet a worse hand if you check. In the specific situation mentioned most players are more likely to bluff if you checked than to raise bluff if you bet. So in the case where there is a fairly large chance you are beaten, it is better to bet your no outs hands and check and call with your some outs hands against those players who will not get tricky if you bet but might get tricky if you check. HOWEVER this is an exception to the general rule that having outs INCREASES your inclination to bet marginal hands.
This is a play that I observed in a Hold'em game yesterday. I was not involved with this hand. The game is $10-20 Hold'em. Player one seat away from the big blind called, two callers in the middle, and a player two seats from the button raises. Everyone folds except the active players so there are four players seeing this flop for two bets while the blind money is dead. Flop is Ah,4s,5s. Everyone checks to the raiser who bets and the first player in calls as the other two players fold. The first player in is sitting on a lot of checks. He is good player and solid player. The player on the button is also a solid player who would raise with a group 1 or 2 hand and A,Q in the situation described before the flop. The player who raised isn't a tricky player while the player in early can be tricky. The turn is a 3d so the board is Ah, 3d, 4s, 5s. The early player checks and the late player bets and the early player check raises.
I was thinking about this hand and the principle of checking when you have outs and betting when you don't have any came to mind. The player who raised pre-flop promptly called which told me that he at least had a pair of Aces. With the two flush out there I think it would be a mistake to check a pair of Aces. My question would be when if ever should you re-raise in the situation where you get check raised but have a decent hand ? It seems to me that a lot of players will represent the nuts when they are quite sure that you don't have them. At the time I felt the solid, tricky player made a bad play by check raising but upon further review I changed my opinion and realized that he made a very good play. I originally missed something and I wonder if anyone else ever finds themselves in the situation of the pre-flop raiser and how they proceed. For those who are interested and want to know what the tricky player had I will put it at the end.
--------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- Ks,Qs
Tom,
I think the Early player who Check-Riased the Turn made a bad play since the Late player who probably has Aces isn't going to fold. I'd have a hard time believing the Check-raiser had 6,7s or the 2, and was just trying to be Tricky. I guess if the Check-Raiser was thinking that if the third spade fell he wouldn't get paid off, plus the fact that the Pre-flop raiser might fold the best hand. Maybe this would be the right play.
I don't think this play works well because the Check-Raiser can't buy the Free-card. If I was in this situation I would try to Check-Raise the Flop on a weak player. Though being out of position makes this play risky.
Reading your post, I was pretending that I was the late position player. If I were check-raised after the offsuit 3 appeared on the turn, I would have to be wondering if the early position player hadn't flopped a set or 2-pair, and slowplayed it until this point. Against some players, I would also suspect 22 or 33 in the pocket, plus 67 is always possible.
The best play lies in your judgment as to the early position player. Think about what hands he would play in early position without raising preflop, and which of those hands he would check-raise with now. The original post said tricky, so I am likely to just call him down at this point. If he were tight, I would be inclined to fold, as I may be drawing dead. This is a pretty tough spot to be in, but also a common one.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
[Apparent tight game. Late raise vrs Early and two middle callers. Flop: Ah, 4s, 5s. Early checks and calls, other two fold. Turn: 3d. Early Check Raises ...]
If we accept that this is a solid player in a reasonably tight game then this player does NOT have a 2. He is also unlikely to have 55 or 44. This is "pair poker" and knowing how people play premium and trouble hands is crucial. In this case we have a very good idea what hands this player will NOT play.
So what DOES he have?
The best hand this player could reasonably hand is AhKh; and hand very much worth putting in a lot of money on the flop, and would be tempted to raise or re-raise B4 the flop.
With this much doubt, if I were the original raiser I would CERTAINLY pay off with any pair Aces. I would also tend to re-raise with most any cheese at all, since the best he could have is Aces and that is unlikely the way the hand was played previously.
Now if the flop was AsTh9h there would be MUCH more reason for concern.
== You MUST have a strong hand to represent before you can represent a strong hand ==
... against most worthy opponents. Don't think "If I raise I will seem strong"; think: "If I raise I can represent this particular strong hand". On the other side, don't think "She raised so she must be strong"; think "She raised and is reasonably representing this particular hand"; so long as she is a reasonably worthy opponent.
I can safely say I've seen many bets that were so obviously bluffs that I want to SCREAM at the opponent for folding.
- Louie
This post is long so skip it if you don’t care.
1) Tricky player knows that he will not get re-raised. In fact the pre-flop raiser had no idea where he was at in the hand after the check raise. I agree that there was little chance that tricky player had a straight. In the heat of battle an unusual play will confuse a lot of people, however, including myself (hopefully not very often).
2) Since tricky player has Ks,Qs and he knows that the pre-flop raiser has Group 1 or Group 2 as well as A,Q he more or less deduced the following:
Number of Combinations for:
A,A - 3 since an Ace is on board K,K - 3 since tricky player has a K. Q,Q - 3 since tricky player has Q. J,J - 6 T,T - 6 A,K = 9 since an Ace is on the flop and he has K. A,Q = 9 since an Ace is the flop and he has K. A,J suited = 3 since Ace is on the flop although As,Js is bad news for tricky player. K,Qs = 3 since tricky player has Ks,Qs.
Therefore the number of hands with an Ace = 24 and hands without an A = 21.
3) Like a lot of players, pre-flop raiser will bet the flop and bet the turn with a pocket pair and if he doesn't have Aces will show down on the river.
4) Tricky player believes that pre-flop raiser will almost always fold K,K; Q,Q; J,J; T,T and always fold K,Qs to this check raise.
5) Tricky player knows that 3 twos will give him a split and 9 spades will give him a win to beat him when he has an Ace except when pre-flop raiser has As,Js which obviously means tricky player is dead and will lose at least three big bets probably 4.
For the sake of simplicity tricky player thinks that he will win instantly 21 times. Of the 23 times the pre-flop raiser has Aces without As,Js; tricky player knows that 34 cards will not help him and 12 will. There are 3 out of the 12 that will help him will give him a split. Nine out of the 12 will give him a win.
The key here in my opinion is how the pre-flop raiser will play on the turn. A lot of players do not like to call on the end with a marginal hand and bet on the turn when checked to in order to stop a bluff on the river. A lot of players will simply check call with a flush draw. I believe that the pre-flop raiser if he had lets say a pair of kings would have played his hand the same way on the turn by betting after he was checked to. If the tricky player called him, the pre-flop raiser would show down his hand on the end if it was checked to him again and he didn’t have at least a pair of Aces. By the way a spade came on the river, tricky player bet and pre-flop raiser called. I do not know what the pre-flop raiser had for sure but I know he at least had a pair of Aces.
From another viewpoint how often would the pre-flop raiser have to fold instantly for the tricky player to show a profit? The way I view it, it would be characterized by the following:
Percentage of Times pre-flop raiser folds instantly * Pot size after pre-flop raiser bets on turn
+ Expectation when pre-flop raiser does not fold
Must be greater than
Expectation when checking and calling
and Expectation when checking and folding.
I think it is pretty clear that checking and calling has a higher expectation than checking and folding. Therefore one only has to compare the check raise play to checking and calling.
Percentage of times pre-flop raiser folds instantly = PF
Pot size after pre-flop raiser bets on turn = $135.
Expectation when pre-flop raiser does not fold to check raise
( 1 - PF )( ( Expectation when pot is split + Expectation when flush comes ) - Cost Per Hand )
I am going to neglect the As,Js possibility because it makes this messier and it is only one hand in a limit game. A qualitative estimate can be made regarding the cost per hand. There are 3 cards that will make a split and 9 cards that will make a flush out of 46 left in the deck. The expectation when the pot is split is $57.50 which is half the pot after the flop betting. I am also going to assume that tricky player will get paid off when the flush card hits. Therefore:
( ( 3/34 ) * 57.5 + ( 9/34) * 175 ) - 40 = Expectation when pre-flop raiser calls.
11.40 = Expectation when pre-flop raiser calls.
Expectation when checking and calling:
( ( 3/34 ) * 57.5 + ( 9/34 ) * 155 ) - 20 = Expectation when tricky player checks and calls.
26.10 = Expectation when tricky player checks and calls.
135 * PF + ( 1 - PF ) * 11.40 > 26.10
123.6PF > 14.7
PF > 12%
Now to beat this hand to death. If pre-flop raiser raises on the turn instead of calling.
( ( 3/34 ) * 57.5 + ( 9/34) * 195 ) - 60 = Expectation when pre-flop raiser re-raises.
-3.31 = Expectation when pre-flop raiser re-raises.
135 * PF + ( 1 - PF ) * ( -3.31 ) > 26.10
138.31PF > 29.10
PF > 21%
Now to really beat this hand to death. If pre-flop raiser raises on the turn and doesn’t call on the river when he it is correct not to call.
( ( 3/34 ) * 57.5 + ( 9/34 ) * 175 ) - 60
-8.60 = expectation when pre-flop raiser raises and correctly doesn't call on the river.
135 * PF + ( 1 - PF ) ( -8.6 ) > 26.10
143.6PF > 34.70
PF > 24.1%
If pre-flop raiser has A,K; A,Q; or A,J.
Possible hands from tricky player according to pre-flop raiser’s point of view.
1) Tricky player has an Ace, weaker kicker.
This is a possibility. Knowing that he would have to pay it off twice he might try this play. This would be a bad play on his part. Much better option is to check and call because he gets to pick off a bluff.
2) Tricky player has an Ace,6 and picks up up an open ended straight draw on the turn.
Again a possibility but same category as 1. Much better option is to check and call.
3) Tricky player has a set.
This is a distinct possibility. However, he does not know you, the pre-flop raiser, don’t have a set so a re-raise is justified.
4) Tricky player has two pair.
Again this is a possibility. You would think that the only Ace little card would be suited. Therefore if you do not have the Ace of spades his chances are small of having this hand.
5) Tricky player has a flush draw.
This is a possibility since he could play you off a mediocre hand like K,K.
6) There is a tie, players have same hand.
A possibility but check and call would be a better play.
7) Player has a straight.
See 4.
Since tricky player is a good player 1, 2, 6 can be eliminated.
3 is a distinct possibility, 5 is a distinct possibility, 4 and 7 are remote but possible.
Lets assign some probability estimates:
3 is 40% 5 is 40% 4 is 15% 7 is 5%
If you re-raise and get re-raised you can simply fold knowing that you are beaten. With number 3 he would be cautious and call most likely. Number 5 he would call and a re-raise would be right. Number 4 would slow him down and number 7 he would no doubt re-raise. For numbers 3,4 and 5 he would probably check on the river and you could show the hand down for the same cost as calling the raise and calling on the river. I think that this hand illustrates a lot of good opportunities to make a good play based on good thinking by both players. Tricky player got the best of it in my opinion. Please check my math and my logic. Not re-raising with a set of Aces would be very bad.
Tom Haley
I am also assuming that the tricky player would raise pre-flop with A,K or A,Q.
The first hand that I put your tricky player on was ATspades. If your raiser had Ace big kicker or a large pair, then I think he should bet the turn after being called on the flop. I'd have to have at least AQ or AK to call the check raise, and a minimum of trips to re-raise in this spot, with the flush draw out there. Ace medium kicker should check the turn in my opinion.
The bet hands with no outs and check hands with outs scenario was when there was a possible complete hand on the board, such as a pair or third flush card hitting the board, so to me this situation is different. The tricky player should probably come out betting on the flop at least. If the original raiser just calls on the flop, then the player could continue to bet and represent strength without having to put 2 bets in when the flush was his only out. I think the check raise was a little too risky, the original raiser could just of easily had AA.
I liked Tom's analysis of the hand, but I think there is a major flaw. Tom assumed that the pre-flop raiser would bet any flop. That's almost certain. But he *also* assumed that the pre-flop raiser would bet the turn with hands like KK, QQ, JJ when the board is A-4-5-3.
I think most good players would check the turn and either call or fold on the river if bet into. The old "induce a bluff" play.
When I see a pre-flop raiser bet the turn with an A on the flop after being called, I figure he either has an ace or he's now on a pure bluff with something like KQs.
I think the check-raise with the flush draw will lose money in the long run with this kind of board and player.
Tom:
Wow.
Your probabiltity estimates should be compared to the chance that the TP has nothing and is stone bluffing. There are a lot of hands that will miss that flop, and this is a Tricky Player TP after all.
I like the check raise so long as the TP believes that the Other Guy OG (who raised pre-flop) believes that the TP will play 22, 33, 44, 55, 45, 67, A4, A5, or A2 before the flop. I also like the raise if the TP believes that the OG believes that the TP would slow play these after the flop, and slow play solid hands like AA or AK before and on the flop.
If this is really a "tight" game and the TP is really a solid player, none of the above weak hands are routine calls, and the slow plays are certainly not routine; except for the trickiest of the TPs playing against the most readable of aggressive OGs.
So I asserted that a good enough pair-poker OG could not put the TP on ANY REASONABLE hand except the big flush draw, and is VERY likely to pay this off with any pair.
But the situation is much different as conditions change. If this is a fairly passive game or the TP is quite unselective before the flop then these hands are MUCH more likely, and could convince OG to give it up.
Or, as I said, the flop had medium cards in it.
And besides, if I disagree I get to make that great statement at the bottom of my post, surrounded by "==". :)
I do like the original analysis showing where the TP makes immediate profit when the OG folds. This is a very practical way to evaluate the hands. Certainly if the OG was a typical "expert" Offensive player who will routinely Bet-Fold without thinking then TP should raise every time.
- Louie
I just have one comment. If you have a hand like KK and got one caller to the flop of A(54) AND that caller is probably not looking at a hand like J3off, betting a turn card of an offsuit 3 seems wrong. It seems the call here was almost surely with a hand with an Ace, a set or maybe something like 65s. Checking with KK here will rarely cost you the pot and will induce many bluffs. Now if I had a hand like TT, I would bet. More free-cards can beat me AND some of those hands would fold to a turn bet. When betting does not rate to make an opponent fold, I could easily be behing or about to be check-raised and free cards to hands that would have folded are not very dangerous, I will use my position by checking. Even with TT checking to a single opponent can be right. Maybe they called the flop with KQs with the ace. If so, I really need to bet, but I would expect most players to fold that holding, so even betting a TT may be wrong, since river cards of K,Q, and J are less likely to beat me (and if they do, they were probably drawing to a 4 flush and so would not fold anyhow)
how is it ? Is it better than Isle of Capri's old poker room ? Also, does anyone know of any "Thursday night poker" games in the Dallas area. I am from there and enjoy playing this kind of poker as well as the real thing.\
Thanks !
nt
I am playing in a $2 limit or sometimes $5 limit dealer's choice game on the Eastern edge of Fort Worth. Most of the players are retired. This is a friendly game. No one is too serious about poker. The game is held on Sunday, Tuesday, and Thursday of each week. You can call me at 817 860-7244. Mike Baum
It has been stated that expert black-jack card counters can experience about a 1% edge. Bet $10,000 and expect to "earn" about $100. This is the theory. No problem with that. Your R.O.I. (return on investment) is about 1%.
What is the typical professionl poker players R.O.I.??
My intuitive guess is between 5% and 10%.
If you put $500 on average into the pot every hour in a 10-20 game does that mean you earn $25 an hour?? (5%)
Maybe it is more like 10%. Now if you put $200 per hour into the game you will earn $20 an hour.
Maybe this is not a relevant concept. I have never read anything about it. Perhaps my facts are in error.
Anyone care to elaborate?
I do not play poker and therefore this may not be the answer for your question. But, if you are hinting that there is a direct relationship between card counting and about 1% R.O.I. for BJ, is not what happens in the real world of gambling. What is meant by the 1% as a likely edge is that in your game (in computer simulation) if you do everything else right with several other (more) important factors, you may improve your odds. And, in my opinion, compared with some of the other factors, card counting assumes a minor importance with probably 90% of gamblers I believe that in fact it is misleading and unfair to stress this to beginners and to the average gambler for that matter. It may raise unrealistic expectations and lessen the importance of the more important aspects of skills required. You bet $10,000 and expect $100 R.O.I. Cool! Things are not that simple... Learn how to count and you have increased your odds by about 1%! I wish it was that simple. In my view, in the pyramid of successful gaming (BJ) skills, card counting may be way at the bottom as to its importance. But it is another tool. Without the other more important tools in your arsenal, your COUNTING may do little and not really COUNT in the results department!
Since many of you go directly to this forum you might not have noticed that you can now go to our home page and play a sample of a neat new game that I invented called Sklansky's Poker Challenge. It involves picking the best poker hand out of four and then reevaluating after fifth st. The sample version is Holdem. The full game is presently available as part of Interplay's Beat the House 2. I expect it to be a real game both as a table game and video game in casinos shortly. Any comments about the game would be greatly appreciated. (There are no naked women in it but I'm sure that if you become an expert the women will follow.)
David,
My wife and I downloaded the game and decided to do some gambling playing your game. We ran out of money and now I don't know how to get more. What selections do I use to get some? I liked it but I just did too much gambling with the odds not in my favor and got punished.
Tom Haley
Don't know but Chuck will. Waiting for his reply.
I will have to check with Interplay on this. My guess is that they have it set up to only be playable for a short period of time in hopes that you'll purchase the product.
Chuck
I've communicated with Interplay. My contact there says that I am right about limited play time on the demo. He suggests changing the coin denominations to quarters. This will give you four times the play. (Though this advice doesn't help much if you've already used up your play.)
Chuck
David-- Boy that is sneaky.--Doyle Brunson
As a footnote to Doyle's comment. When someone like David, who has a reputation for being extremely tight, promises beautiful, naked women - Doyle expects him to deliver the goods. If word gets out that David bluffed Doyle, some people will ask what happened to his legendary table feel, and the rest of us will raise the frequency with which we bluff Doyle a little more.
It's a fun game to play, and one that I'd probably stick a few bills into while waiting for a seat in a live game. A few questions though... After getting rivered a few times after doubling down in favorable situations, I'm wondering if the hands are randomly dealt or are they preset in order to create a larger house advantage? Or is the built in edge sufficient to "guarantee" a house win with a random draw? What is the house edge with perfect play?
Game is dealt randomly. House edge depends on the bouses but it is very small against expert play.
I am in a 15-30 stud game. I entered on 3rd street with a three flush (A high, A in the hole). Including me, there're three players in total and the other two are loose and fishy. (I don't remember if there was a raise on 3rd street since the hand was played a while ago).
On 4th street, I catch a live Q. One player catches 2 suited on board, the other player catches something like a J. I check, the J bets, and the 2 suited calls. I decide to call since different possibilites are live.
Then I catch a pair of Q on board. The 2 suited guy now has 3 suits, and the J catches blank. I decide to bet, the reason being that I want to get rid of the J and go heads up with the 3 suited. Even though the three suited is bad for me, I don't necessarily believe that the player has the flush yet. Given that he's not the type to bluff raise without a flush, I would fold if he raises and feel OK if he just calls. At this point, everyone calls.
On 6th street, I catch yet another Q. I have three of them showing on board. But the 3 suited now catches 4 suited on board. Should I check or bet? I checked because it's too likely that he now has the flush (he had to have called with something even if he's bad), and since he's not going to fold the flush, there's no reason for me to pretend a full house. I only have 20% chance of making a full house by the river. However, on the flip side of it, he could really only have 4 flush, and I am now giving him a free card. But although I am missing a bet and allowing him to catch, I am not in that bad of shape as he only has 16% of beating me on river (0.8 when he hits X 0.2 when I don't hit = 0.16) I am not so concerned about the third guy since he has nothing threatening showing at all. After I check, both of them check as well.
On the river, I made my full house. But I think I might have made a sucky play when I tried unsuccessfully for a check raise. This is my thinking. If they can't beat the QQQ, they won't call my bet. If the guy actually has the flush, he would be tempted to bet since I have now checked twice. As it turns out, the guy does make the flush, but has checked behind me.
Although I won the pot, I might have missed out on two big bets in this hand. Even though I feel pretty good about checking on 6th, I think my river check raise attempt was a case of misjudgement, as I remember David Sklansky saying in one of his books that you should bet instead of check-raise if you have any doubts that the other will bet (paraphrase). I guess what he means by "doubts" is if the other player has not been very aggressive all along, or my board shows strong holding, or simply that the hand has been played out in an unusual way (like this one) that players have now become diffident about betting in general. David, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Any comments are appreciated. Thanks.
Kathy
Kathy, first, thanks for the tip on the simulator -- I like it (although unfortunately, so far it shows I've had some rotten luck near the end of my last 3 tournaments).
About this hand, I would've bet on both 6th and 7th street. On 6th street, if you bet, I don't believe he keeps drawing to a flush if he's not there yet -- so you win immediately or find out where he's at. Someone who would raise into 3 open Queens with merely a flush would "rush in where angels fear to tread." (I once had a man with no pair showing foolishly reraise me on the river when I showed 3 open Queens; after we got him all in he showed Aces-full.)
On 7th, you could possibly make 3 big bets by betting and getting raised. (This play takes on exponential significance in pot-limit where your relatively small bet grows the pot tremendously if the opponent raises.)
Earl, no problem. Since you play a lot of hold'em, I've heard that Turbo Hold'Em is very good. It's not a simulator, but it's a computer game. Good luck.
Kathy
Had you bet on 4th. st. you would have more credibility when you catch open queens and then three queens--justifying betting all the way.
Once I made 3 queens I would have bet anyway, and continued to bet after filling up for two reasons.
1. You have little fear of a raise (on 6th st)
2. He may not have the flush but he does have a flush draw which he may or may not decide to draw to. If he folds you gain--if he calls and you fill up you gain--if he raises after you fill up you gain--If he calls your re-raise after you raise when you do fill up you gain--If he decides to raise bluff on the river you gain (assuming you call without filling). You only gain by checking when he makes the flush and bets (and you fold when you miss and raise when you fill) or bluffs (and you call.) Making it a tough choice for you when you don't fill.
If you don't fill you can always check on the river and then try and decide what to do if he bets.
Betting just feels right (on 6th st.)--even if he beats you. Against passive players betting is always more attractive than checking. Many weak players are afraid to bet anything but will call with everything.
Betting when you made two open queens was fine. Personally, without being there, I would probably have bet or folded on 4th. st.--checking and calling is very weak. Taking control of the hand and showing strength by betting is much more appealing. I feel you should of continued betting on 6th st., taking charge of the hand and putting them in the position of guessing. Do you Remember what Slim used to say? Guessers are losers.
Have a nice day and wait for Earl to give you the correct answer. :-)
On sixth st you should bet UNLESS you are almost sure you are up against a flush AND you think the flush will be afraid to bet. Otherwise since you have to call you do better by betting. On the river it is better to bet against most players but NOT because they may raise. Rather it is because they may check a flush behind you.
I think we can all pretty much agree that this hand should have been bet on 6th and 7th. I was interested in hearing more about the fourth street decision.
The information was incomplete ...Kathy said she didn't remember if the pot was raised on third street. She also did not mention how live her flush draw was on third street and if any more of her suit fell on fourth street.
My feeling is that if I limped in with a three flush, broke off on fourth and someone representing a pair of Jacks bets,... it is a close call whether or not I continue here.
If however there was a raise on third street (and we would have to know who raised...and if he leads on fourth street) and my flush draw was very live (less than two of my suit exposed in other hands on third street) then I would be inclined to continue on fourth street in this three way action pot.(with the "fishy" players who will call with one pair on 5th and 6th street).
If we want to complicate this decision a little more lets talk about the value of our "live" A in the hole and the live Queen we catch on fourth street.
Complicated game this 7 card stud :-)
My flush was pretty live. I think there were 2 flush cards out by 4th street. I agree with all the comments that I might have played 4th street too passively also. I was prepared to call, but thought others might not bet and that I might actually get a free card. But it seems I read the situation wrong.
Kathy
I don't think you played 4th street to passively....I would not have bet under any circumstances with a busted flush draw and I mentioned in my previous post that there are several circumstances where I would FOLD when the Jack bets out on 4th street after I check.
Notice that had you bet your two-overcard 3-flush on 4th street you stand a reasonable chance of making the MADE flush lay it down on 6th. That demonstrates one of the best reasons to be assertive with marginal hands: opponents are much more likely to fold when you appear to improve, than if you checked and called.
As it is, it LOOKS like you only have 3-Qs so the MADE flush shouldn't fold. But this player is very unlikely to raise, and you intend to call.
6th: Bet hoping the DRAW folds.
If you bet on 7th you figure NOT to get raised, unless the guy is an idiot and he has a flush, or a genius with a counter-bluff raise (thinking you are an idiot betting out 3-Qs only), or your Queens full is dead. Rarely make it 3-bets when it is this obvious you have QsFull. But betting looks better than checking since the made flush may very well check; especially after checking on 6th.
7th: Check into agressive players, bet into most calling fish.
You should have bet on 4th. You are very unlikely to get raised considering their weak boards, and you obviously intend to call anyway.
How's that 2+2 quote go: == Routinely bet if you intend to call and if you wish you had bet if they check == and their hand is not OBVIOUSLY strong.
- Louie
I think it's ok to try for ck raise on end, esp. if you think oppon is sure to bet flush now that you've checked twice. Betting is also ok.
Big mistake not to bet on 6th. Case 1: oppon has flush, if you check, he bets & you call, but if you bet he'd call. Thus in case 1, you are a dog, but both betting and checking result in 1 bet going in. (Note that there is a huge gain from betting if there is any chance he'll fold the flush) Case 2: oppon doesn't have flush. If you check he checks, but if you bet then 2a) he calls with draw to flush, or 2 pr or lower trips or b) he folds with draw. Thus in 2a you get in an extra bet as favorite and in 2b you avoid giving free card to hand that could easily beat you. Bottom line: Case 1, betting and checking break even Case 2, betting gains; therefore it is clear to bet.
Not that I've shown why it is right to bet on 6, I should add that there is one situation in which betting on 6 is wrong. That is when you are reasonably sure he has a flush, but will check if you check and call if you bet.
Thanks everybody for the valuable comments. Not that it would make my decisions any different, but as it turned out, the guy actually made the flush already on 6th street, and checked it on 6th and 7th. I think the point is knowing the player. With hindsight, knowing that the player is rather passive, the best strategy seems to be checking on 6th (since he would check the flush), and bet the full house on 7th, and check if I don't make the full house.
Kathy ps. although I would be giving him a free card if he doesn't have the flush yet, the chance of his beating me is not that great (only 16%).
Kathy,
Please post more 7 Stud hand situations if you have any. 7 Stud is a nice change of pace.
Tom Haley
No problem, Tom.. I'm playing 7 stud pretty exclusively right now and was actually hoping that I would see more stud posts in this forum. But I guess most poker junkies posting here are hold'em addicts from the West.
Kathy
I second the motion for more stud posts. I've recently started playing stud, and am trying to grasp its concepts. Of course, I'm reading Stud for Advanced Players, but the real life situations are very informative, and I'd like to read more threads like this one.
I'd also like to echo someone else's comment about stud....."...Complicated game!!!..."
Jessica,
I wish you the best of luck in Stud playing ventures (except of course when you're playing at my table) What stakes are you playing?
I also appreciate the stud problems and will try to respond where appropriate....When posting a problem it's important to remember details like what were the open board cards on third street?...was there a raise on third street?... how many of my suit was exposed (on flush draws) ..how many of my straight connecting cards are gone ? as well as the usual information about the stakes and the type of players involved.
Glad you remembered my "Complicated Game" comment...did you also remember my time honored greeting to my Holdem playing friends mentioned in an earlier post..."A mind is a terrible thing to waste" :-)
I've been getting my feet wet in the 5-10 at the Mirage. This is against Mason's advice. He feels that Stud, below 15-30, is not Stud because of the ante structure. While I understand his point, I feel I need to absorb the dynamics of the game and look at 100's of starting hands at a limit where it's ok to sit around and wait for an absolutely perfect situation. I don't want to be battling good players for antes when I can barely reconsruct a hand after my session. Also, I don't want to play at a higher limit than my best game which is Hold'em, (I play 10-20.)
I've been sitting in the 5-10 while I wait for my Holdem seat. But, I'm going to have to commit myself to an occasional 3 - 5 hour session if I'm going to get anywhere with it.
I'm curious about the ante structure below 15-30. I have been playing in both a 15-30 and 6-12 where the ante is a dollar and bring in is 2 dollars. There is $5.00 in the pot to start.The games at this level are tremendous. I'm curious why Mason doesn't like the ante structure.
I think you could try 10/20 stud....and of course the great leveler, small buy-in tournaments such as those that are spread daily in many rooms in Las Vegas. Although stud is my main game...I became reasonably competent in all the other games mainly by getting a lot of experience at these small buy in tournaments. In fact, along the way I managed to win tournaments in Omaha Hi-Lo (which I never play),Holdem, No-Limit hold-em and Pot Limit Holdem (which I play occasionaly) and Razz (which I wouldn't play with someone elses' money!) If you checked around I'm sure you could find four or five small buy in (under $50.) stud tournaments a week in Las Vegas....In my opinion this will really accelerate the learning curve.
I'm not sure about Mason's advice that stud is not stud below 15/30. Personally I still play 10/20 now and then and I have always found that dropping back to 10/20 has helped me a lot when I begin to lose my focus (and as a result my money) at the higher limits.
Again...Good Luck
I would like to play 10 stud... the only game I know of here in LA has the same structure as the 15-30. $2.00 ante and $5.00 bring in. I'm not quite sure how to play in that game. The stud tournaments is a good idea.
At stud games below the $15-$30 the ante is proportionately much smaller when compared to the bets than at $15-$30 and higher. This produces a trapping game as opposed to a game where you must fight for the antes and try to knock players out.
I have nothing agaist this ante structure. It's just that if you want to develop real stud skills that will eventually allow you to be successful at higher limits, you won't develop them at small limit stud. It just plays too differently. These comments do not apply to hold 'em.
In Atlantic City 40/80 is played with a $5.00 ante and $10.00 bring in which is almost identical to a 10/20 game with $1.00 and $3.00 bring in.
Also a 25/50 game is played with $3.00 ante and $5.00 bring in
[3 open Queens vrs 4 flush on 6th street]
With two random hole cards lets say he's 50:50 to have the flush. Lets say he'll fold the flush draw. Let's say the flush is the only way he can beat 3Queens and the other player CANNOT beat 3Queens and will fold to any bet. Let's say he'll check the flush on 6th and 7th regardless, but call with the flush now AND on the end.
You consider betting:
Half the time he has the flush and you lose when you don't hit one of your 10 out cards of what appears to be 33 cards you haven't seen; or 23 of 33 attempts.
-.35BB = Half the time you lose 23/33ths or .7 of a bet if you check.
Half the time he has the draw and will fold. You win anyway most of the time since he'll miss the flush most of the time. But you lose 16% that he makes the flush AND you miss the full, for about 11% of the time. There appears to be .5 BB on 3rd, 1.5BBs on 4th, 3BBs on 5th for a total of 5 bets and it costs you 1 to bet to save that 5 BBs.
+.275BB = Half the time you save the pot 11%*5 or .55 if you bet.
Betting nets [-.35*(.5)] + [.275*(.5)] = -.075BB; Whoopie Dooo!
Checking you neither win nor lose any money. BUT WAIT!!! Checking nets you an additional bet when he has the draw and you BOTH improve; which is worth .05 of a bet.
So checking is worth .125 of a bet more than betting; assuming 16% is correct and you have a completely live hand and he has random hole cards.
Good check on 6th.
Anybody sneeeeerrring at all this? Well in a 5/10 game this means this decision was worth $1.25 (not counting any image you gain or lose by checking). Don't you wish ALL your decisions were worth this much!
- Louie
I think he's more than 16% to get there since you have at least 3 non spades, and we don't know about all the other exposed cards. So he has 9 outs out of 52-9=43 cards, or 21% chance to make it. This is more reason to BET. In fact if my arithmetic is correct 21% is just enough to BET!!!
Bad check on 6th, you lost 5c. :)
Analysis goes out window if he will bet the flush if you check. Steve Z and myself already stated that a check is right if he will call with a fllush but check if you check.
My position: one off button or on the button with 3 callers in front (no raise)
Trap hands: should be folded? J9s Q9s T8s 97s J8s J9 T9 98 Q8s
I do not have a hand that I can flop the nuts, a Set, or a big draw.
(a) I do not have a hand that will likely flop the nuts (Ace high flush)
(b) I do not have a pocket pair, so I can’t flop a SET.
(c) If I flop a straight or flush, I can still get beat by a bigger flush, straight, or fullhouse.
(d) I can’t bet first, therefore I do not have two chances to win the pot.
(e) A raise at this point trying to steal the pot would be totally useless and you may even get re-raised by the blinds.
(f) Isolation is impossible! - You can’t take control of the hand.
All comments would be appreciated!
Against typical players in an unraised pot many, but not all of the hands that you give have positive value. See our book HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS.
>Against typical players in an unraised pot many, but not all of the hands that you give have positive value.
>See our book HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS.
With all due respect!!! I read page 26 again. You suggest calling with Q5s. What are you expecting to flop?
Top pair is no good, You can't make a straight. Two flushes are higher. Good Position, with a poor hand against 3 players isn't worth much in my opinion.
>With all due respect!!! I read page 26 again. You suggest calling with Q5s. What are you expecting to flop?
>Top pair is no good, You can't make a straight. Two flushes are higher. Good Position, with a poor hand against 3 players isn't worth much in my opinion.
I dont have my Holdem for Advanced Players in front of me, but i think you might want to read that chapter again.
If i remember correctly, Q5s is used as an example where if you have the button and *many* callers in front, you can call with hands as weak as Q5s.
-Rob
The problem with all these books and tapes, comes down to the reality vrs. la la land. Don't misunderstand me, I've learned a lot from books, but nothing in the world subtitutes live play experience. I've read all the statictics on draws until I have formulars coming out of my ears, but when I arrive at that live play table, some how a player hit's that flush that 1 out of 3 times when I'm in the hand, or flops trips that 1.6% times when I've got pocket aces and raised before the flop. My point is this. Keep track of your play. Watch the button, because position is power. (suited connectors in late postion will win you more money than any premium hands) Be aware that there are players who will call to the river on a possible draw, because loosing $500-$1,000 in a session means nothing to them and they don't believe in skill anyway. Biloxi
>>> My position: one off button or on the button with 3 callers in front (no raise) Trap hands: should be folded? J9s Q9s T8s 97s J8s J9 T9 98 Q8s. I do not have a hand that I can flop the nuts, a Set, or a big draw. <<<<
>>> (a) I do not have a hand that will likely flop the nuts (Ace high flush) (b) I do not have a pocket pair, so I can’t flop a SET. <<<
Nut (including sets) and Nut draws are much better than those that are not. But this is not Omahaha. You will rarely NEED the nuts to win.
>>> (c) If I flop a straight or flush, I can still get beat by a bigger flush, straight, or fullhouse. <<<
These hands will rarely make the low straight unless they get counterfeited. A split full house (J9)==[AJ998] is a VERY strong hand. Flush under flush is also rare.
>>> (d) I can’t bet first, therefore I do not have two chances to win the pot. <<<
Why would you WANT to bet first? Much better to have a better chance to steal those times when everybody checks, which are less often. The chance to steal when you flop a draw is a VERY big part of these hands. If you are very likely to get ONE caller to pay you off these hands drop considerably.
>>> (e) A raise at this point trying to steal the pot would be totally useless and you may even get re-raised by the blinds. (f) Isolation is impossible! - You can’t take control of the hand. <<<
Yes, rarely raise without very good psycological dominance over the opponents, or to "advertise". But you CAN take control of the hand with a raise; against the right kind of weak opponents.
>>> All comments would be appreciated! <<<
The suited cheese look acceptable to me. The unsuited J9, T9, 98; well, don't really cut it.
Being ON the button is quite a bit better than NEXT to the button; unless the button has dependable fold-before-the-flop tells.
- Louie
The position that you are in allows you to play a lot more hands than in the other positions (early,middle). If you adhere to the advice in HEPFAP, all of these hands can be played in an unraised pot(you have listed groups 4-7 hands). IMO post-flop play of these hands is much more important as well as the ability to read your opponents. I will occasionally raise with J9s for deception purposes. You can still flop a set even though you do not have pocket pairs, i.e. 995. As far as isolation, if you have a tight aggressive image and say raise on the button with J9s, there is a good chance that your opponents will check to you on the flop. Your position allows you to take control (call, fold, bet, raise) and you have the luxury of seeing your opponents act before you. In summary, unless there is a raise by a supertight/rock player, I would play these hands and will likely raise with them if I am the first one in the pot. Marginal hands require more post-flop skills, but they are definitely playable. Spidey
Spiderman wrote:
>IMO post-flop play of these hands is much more important as >well as the ability to read your opponents.
I think that this is the key issue. These hands should be played for a single bet preflop if you can play them well postflop. By playing them well, I mean that against your current opponents, you will know when to call and fold if you only flop 1-pair, and know how to most profitably play your draws (when to just call, when to semi-bluff). Maybe even more important, will these opponents pay you off when you flop 2-pair or better, and when you complete your draw.
>I will occasionally raise with J9s for deception purposes.
I would almost never do this, as I think that the normal gamut of raising hands is broad enough that your opponents still won't know what you've got. I would be more inclined to raise for deception with something like 88 or AJs. This could slow down opponents with better hands (like AQ when you flop an A with your AJ), and will build the pot such that when you hit, they'll have to pay you off for the size of the pot.
>In summary, unless there is a raise by a supertight/rock >player, I would play these hands and will likely raise with >them if I am the first one in the pot.
These aren't good hands to raise with unless you are in a steal position, and a steal is your #1 goal. Here, I would be thinking more about the likelihood of the blinds defending than I would about what my cards are. If I ever find out that you will steal more than rarely with cards this weak, I'll be 3-betting you when I'm the BB, sometimes when I don't have anything.
Good Luck, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
>Bob Morgan writes:
>My position: one off button or on the button with 3 callers >in front (no raise)
>Trap hands: should be folded? J9s Q9s T8s 97s J8s J9 T9 98 >Q8s
>I do not have a hand that I can flop the nuts, a Set, or a >big draw.
Board: 2-3-7-8-T Nuts=J9 Board: A-4-6-7-9 Nuts=T8 I can keep going, but i think you get my point.
I have J9s, flop is 4-8-T with 2 of my suit... This is not a big draw???
>(a) I do not have a hand that will likely flop the nuts >(Ace high flush)
Hmmm... How many hands actually "flop the nuts".
>(b) I do not have a pocket pair, so I can’t flop a SET.
No, but you can flop 2 pair, trips, flush draw, straight draw....
>(c) If I flop a straight or flush, I can still get beat by >a bigger flush, straight, or fullhouse.
If you are always thinking there are bigger flushes, straights, etc. out there then you are in big trouble. If i flop a flush or especially a straight with any of the above hands, I will gladly take my chances on what happens next.
>(d) I can’t bet first, therefore I do not have two chances >to win the pot.
It cant be checked to you?
>(e) A raise at this point trying to steal the pot would be >totally useless and you may even get re-raised by the >blinds.
Yeah, but so what. You do not have to try to steal the pot to have a profitable hand. I probably wont raise here with hands like JJ, TT, KQ, etc.. but that doesnt make those hands unprofitable.
>(f) Isolation is impossible! - You can’t take control of >the hand.
You dont have to isolate hands to win them.
In my opinion all the hands you mention are playable in the situation you mention, although i might toss the suited 2-gaps and the unsuited one-gaps.
Just my opinions. -Rob
Since everyone must act before you, there are additional strategies available from late position. If you flop open-ended, middle or bottom pair with backdoor posibilities, or even just have two overcards, you can try to semi-bluff bet or raise immediately. If there is a decent chance everyone will check to you on the turn, you may have the option to see the river without a bet. If an early position player bets and two other players call, you can call with a gut-shot draw. Two overcards with a gut shot or backdoor flush possibilities are playable here. You don't need draws to the nuts in hold'em, for hands to play profitably. If you don't use your good position to play agressively, then you might as well muck all these hands and play (tight/passive - hope for flops that fit like a glove) nothing but cards you'd like even up front.
I posted recently that I had started playing 7Stud to learn the game, after years of playing Hldm. I have to say that it has been the best move that I could possibly make for several reasons. I know that there are quite a few players that play both games, so this might not interest them, but I also know that there are many players like me that play one game only. First off, it has allowed me to play in good games when my Hldm game line-ups don't look to great. In the past I would still sit down in a game that I knew wasn't that great because I felt there were no alternatives. It has forced me to think alot more about both stud and Hldm, and which skills I need to improve on for both games. It also seems to me that there are the same amount of poor players in both stud and Hldm, but there are not as many highly skilled stud players as I find in the Hldm games. For me I find that I can read hands much easier etc. in stud as well. Of course the fact that I have not had a losing session in Stud so far may be influencing my thinking, but I don't think it is all luck. Here is where I plug for the boys. The only book I have used thus far is 7Stud FAP(Zee,Sklanksy,Malmuth) and it has helped me tremendously. I certainly am no expert, and I'm not playing perfectly, but I feel I'm already playing better than 90% of the players I'm running into so far. So if you are a one game player, like I was I would urge you to pick this book up, play some stud along with your hldm, and I think you will see both games improve. That's it. Have a profitable weekend.
I agree wholeheartedly with your recommendation of 7studFAP.
I also like Supersystem and Roy West's recent 7 Stud book. Both helped my game quite a bit.
Mike Caro has some older materials still available on 7 stud which give his sometimes unique perspectives on the game.
There's also a book by Konstantin Othmer which I found interesting. Mason Malmuth gave it a poor review but I found it worth musing over.
My review of the Othmer book isn't that bad, I did give it a 6 on a 1-to-10 scale. In addition, since I wrote my review in GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS a new version of this book has come out which is better. He has dropped his constant advocation of a wild and crazy image, which must be wrong in a game like stud where it is frequently correct to chase. This alone makes the new version better.
Sorry Mason, my copy of GTAOT has you rating it at a 3 with a quote saying "I found much of it to be extremely inaccurate and silly."
Maybe we're talking about different books and/or editions but it's the only Othmerbook I'm aware of.
You are right. My higher rating for the book is for the new edition of the text and the review that I am thinking of is a review that I have written but not yet published. I believe the new version, which is the one you would purchase now, is much better than the original.
I'm curious, I play a lot in Atlantic City at the Taj. I'm thinking of moving up to the 15-30 stud and Hold-em games. It seems the predominent theme in this forum usually references the 20-40 stud and hold-em games in Vegas. Will I be facing the same type of pros in AC, in a 15-30 game as opposed to 20-40 games in Vegas. Thanx in advance to anyone who has some insight.
I forgot to add. In AC the limits usually go from 15-30 and then 30-60. We don't see many 20-40 limits.
Hmmm... haven't played AC for two years but I remember there used to be a lot of 20-40, especially at the Taj.
I spent two weeks in AC ending Feb 2 and there was always a 20/40 stud game at the Taj and at Trop there was usually a 25/50 game with the same $3. ante and $5. bring in.
The action gets a little spotty mid week but there was always at least one game of either 15/30 , 20/40 or (at TROP) 25/50 going all the time.
These games tended to be better than those at the Mirage in Las Vegas... I only go to Las Vegas once a year...during the WSOP but its usually the same people I see all the time.
On the other hand I'm in AC every 6 weeks or so and I always see a lot of new players every trip.
Try the 15-30 holdem games at the Taj. I find them much softer than the 10-20 games. The 20-40 can be real good or real bad. Pick your spots.
As far as the stud games you're on your own. I dont play stud.
Good Luck, Rob
My experience has been that the AC 15-30 games are quite playable. I seldom saw any "pros" worth worrying about. 20-40 seemed to me to be the next step up the ladder that attracted the truly superior players.
Where do you teach?
I am teaching at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. I tried again this afternoon to download the game. It took me another hour, and at the end the computer says `not enough resource to launch the application`. What is wrong ? What resource is needed ?
I once was a guest speaker for Walter Schneider's gambling class. Is he still there? As for computer question, we need Chuck.
You can try to ftp it directly from
ftp://ftp.conjelco.com/pub/bth.zip
Login as "anonymous" with your e-mail address as password.
Chuck
Walter Schneider retired two years ago. I came to Carleton in 92. I heard that the gambling course was quite popular. John `Tomare?` (sorry I forgot how to spell his last name) was a student from that class and he became a pro. since then. John and I meet at poker table here in Ottawa quite often. I really enjoyed your books `The theory of poker` and `Holdem poker for advanced players` (with Mason). They are very nicely written (and are correct !). Unlike Walter, I enjoy playing poker (and occasionally other games offering nonnegative expectations.) There used to be conferences on gambling, is it still true ? I would like to go to such a conference. By the way, do you have an email address ? Perhaps it is better to communicate via email for this kind of topic. My email address is shown above.
?What does this player have?
You are in a typical $1-5 stud game against typical Synapse Challenged Opponents (SCO).
You: (K6)K228(9) SCO: (??)J558(?)
You raise on 3rd SCO calls and you think he has Jacks. You bet on 4th. He bets on 5th with forboding and calls your raise reluctantly. He checks and calls reluctantly on 6th. Down the river SCO checks blind and you bet. Then there is a pause .....
SCO picks up all three cards and takes a full minute sorting them out and looking back and forth between hole cards and his board; he's confused. He looks at your board only once. He then asks the dealer to explain the rank of hands. You know, what beats what?
Huh? Well, Straight Flush, 4 of a kind, Full House, Flush, Straight, 3 of a kind, 2 pair, 1 pair, and no pair.
SCO goes back sorting and looking; quite confused. He then asks the dealer to EXPLAIN each and every rank of hand. The dealer explains them all very slowly and sarcastically giving examples of every rank while SCO listens intently.
SCO starts sorting and looking confused AGAIN!!
What's the problem? Hint: What does this player have?
- Louie
My guess...JJJJ
It's hard to read a player if he doesn't know what he has himself.
No, its not JJJJ.
One of the points of this post is to demonstrate that many situations are VERY CLEAR once you get out of YOUR reality and get into the OPPONENT'S reality.
Hint: This player does not know what he's got. The reason is so silly to experienced players that its no longer consiously available to them.
Hint: this player DOES know what he's got. He just doesn't understand it.
Figuring this one out is good practice for other situations; such as when the idiot calls a double bet with a 7stud 3-flush, calls it capped on 4th with the 4-flush, and bets his 4-flush and open pair on 5th street into two players that CLEARLY both have big concealed trips or Two big pair. YOU know you and the other have big hands but many assume that it must ALSO be obvious to the 3rd player. Its not.
Some people can't understand this, and so quickly reach their potential at reading hands.
Louie,
My guess is the player has two pair. Probably JJ55. SCO's confusion is because he thinks the game is the best 5 cards of seven and he is only using four cards for his hand.
Wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened at 1-5 stud. Just my .02
John
Louie,
I agree with what you are saying here. I think this is hard to do but definitely worthwhile. I'll take a stab that he has 3-pair.
Tom Haley
I have long recognized that some opponents have realities patently different from mine. I refer to them as "Other Planet People" (OPP), and they cause me great distress. I cannot fathom how they think, and if you can, you are truly gifted. I tend to assume, wrongly I guess, that anyone who has his shoes on the right feet, has real money in his pocket, and has found his way to a poker room, needs to be somewhat rational. Even if I know someone is an OPP, I have difficulty reading his hands. Let me give you some two examples.
Example 1. Playing 15-30 stud at the Taj in Atlantic City, I raise with split 8s and a King. Two players call. I hit an 8 on 4th Street, bet, and both opponents call. I hit a blank on 5th Street while the OPP hit his 3rd diamond showing. I bet, and both opponents call. On 6th Street, I hit a blank, and the OPP hit his 4th diamond showing. I check, he bets, the other player calls, and I call. On the river, I fill up, and check. The OPP bets, the other player calls, I raise, and the OPP re-raises. What's going on in his head? The third player folds, and I call.
Example 2. Playing 5-10 stud at the Trop, I raise in the eight seat with pocket Aces and a 6, after several players limped in for the bring-in. The two seat calls showing a Queen, and everyone already in calls. On 4th Street, the Queen hit a Queen, and I hit a 6. The OPP bets his Queens, and I call, after everyone else folds. On 5th Street, the OPP hit a 9, and I hit an Ace. (?,?)Q,Q,9 vs (A,A)6,6,A He bets, I raise, he re-raises, I call. On 6th Street, the OPP hit another 9, and I hit a 2. (?,?)Q,Q,9,9 vs (A,A)6,6,A,2 He bets, I raise, he re-raises. What's going on in his head? I call his re-raise, and call on the river.
My poker analyst friends were unanimous in their criticism: I should have re-re-raised in both cases.
I almost forgot. In Example 1, the OPP had a flush, and in Example 2, the OPP had Queens full.
Tom D
I think I would have played the 1st hand (8's full) the same way you did. The reraise on the river is scary since you are representing what you have....and he should beat 8's full to raise here.
ON the second hand I think I would have put in another bet on 6th street and if he only calls this, lead out on the river netting me at least one more bet then you got. I would back off if he put in the fifth bet on 6th street or if he calls on 6th but then leads into me on the river.
By "back off" I mean I would call but not raise any more.
Jim,
Thanks for your insights. Your're right about putting in another raise on 6th street, with the Aces full hand. I like it. I didn't know my opponent, and had not been at the table very long, but one thing that nagged at me during the hand was that he hadn't re-popped me on 3rd street, to knock out the four players between us. With split Queens, that should have been automatic.
Tom D
Tom D. says that he makes eights full against 4 diamonds showing, and in the second ex. he makes aces full looking at Q-Q-9-9. In both cases he raises once on the river.
For the life of me I would have to raise at "least" one more time with both of these hands. Calling here is just too damn conservative. I believe that even David Sklansky would raise one more time with both of these hands. (And we ALL know how tight HE plays)!
In fact, anyone that wouldn't raise AT LEAST one more time with BOTH of these hands is just too big of a nit to play poker and should stay home and read the funny papers.
Jimmy R
I was playing stud at the Taj a while ago and hit Kings full on the river. The player on my right hit sevens full, and bet out. I flat called, hoping one of the two players on my left had hit a hand and would raise. The first player called and the next player raised. He had hit his flush. The guy on my right fired in a re-raise. I flat called, hoping we could do it one more time. The flush just called.
"Full house, Bub", the guy on my right announced to the flush, and spread his hand.
"No good", I said, and showed my hand.
His face turned different shades of red and purple, and he started calling me names like "chicken s__t wimp", and he challenged me to go outside to fight, because I hadn't raised with Kings full. It was funny at first, but got annoying pretty fast. I asked the dealer to a call the floor, but she didn't understand English all of a sudden. Anyway, the guy finally shut up, lost some more of his checks, and left.
Was that you?
Tom D
ROFLMAO! Funny story. Well played. Nope wasn't me. I don't care how you play your cards. Besides, I live in God's country. (I do think you should or raised the second time around though--who knows you might of got one or two cold calls--and maybe--just maybe--numnuts on your right might of re-raised)!
P.S.
Revision:
If David Sklansky, Ray Zee or Mason Malmuth re-raise, you should fold. (Why call, if you know they know you know they have you beat)!
Better be careful though. If Ray knows you are capable of making this fold he will re-raise you on occasion with jack. ;-)
Tom D,
Level 0 thinking OPP only concerned what they have.
Level 1 thinking players are concerned with what they have and are trying to read what you have.
Level 2 thinking players are concerned with what they have, are trying to read what you have, and are trying to figure out what you have read them for.
Level 3 thinking players are concerned with what they have, are trying to read what you have, are trying to figure out what you have read them for, and are trying to figure out what you think they have read you for. Complicated as I hope I stated it right but I know what I mean.
Level 4 and up - approaches game theory all the way to game theory.
Example of Level 3 is in The Theory of Poker by David Sklansky.
My Opinions
If player is a level 0 player you can't put them on a thought so you should re-raise because of your hand strength.
If player is a level 1 you have to decide if he read the possible strength of your hand correctly. If you think he did (he should have) you only have a call.
All others you only have a call at best a.
Tom Haley
I like Tom's response a lot. A lot better than this one:
Hand 1 the player know's he's got a flush and a flush is real good. Obviously you don't think he's got a flush since you called on 6th. Since you only have 1 pair showing you could not reasonably have a full house since that takes two pair or trips. He also knows that he would have BET the flush draw and "knows" you would also suspect him of doing so. He knows HE would raise without beating a flush just because he other may only have a draw and trips can beat a draw. So its perfectly reasonable for him to re-raise with his flush against what is probably at best trips.
That isn't "obvious"? :)
Hand 2 is perfectly reasonable up to 6th street. He thinks his pair Queens is PERFECTLY disquised. He would certainly call open QQs with just a pair and over card and has no little doubt QQ is the best best hand on 4th street: your call is NOT distressing at all. And heheheh, he has a SET!!!!! "Obviously" you made Aces Up and raised on 5th street, so he should certainly re-raise with his set. On 6th street he has Queens full and can't possibly be beat by someone with only a pair of 6s. HE would certainly raise with 6sfull against ANY BOARD so is not conserned at all by your raise.
I'll bet both were "surprised" by the "whimp" that "just" called with his full houses!
Should you have re-raised on the end? That's debateable but not the topic at hand.
I don't intend to be mean, but YOU are the "OPP" here. You assume that your reality is the "right" one (and rightfully so) but you also assume that it is obviously the "only" reality in existence (fatefully wrong).
And your priorities are NOT the same as theirs. They have every right to value other things than the money in the game, such as making big hands. Most "OPP" would rather make $20 with a royal than $40 playing the hoot out of a pair of Ks.
The following is not actually true, but its a very usefull position to take:
== Their reality is just as valid as yours, but not as usefull ==
- Louie
I was in a similar situation years ago in $1-4 stud. I made quad 6's in 5 and two open pair on 6th against 99KK, and HE got the last bet in. My friend scolded me mercilessly, since this player would have gleafully given me all his money with Ks full. This was one of a few hands that triggered my "in his head" crusade.
For once I can agree with Jimmy: you should examine your approach to gambling if you can't take several raises with those hands in those situations against those opponents. A quote from a stock market strategist: "I'm convinced of the inevitability of failure when attempting to secure a small safe return."
Particularly in Example 1, you should have quickly figured the lights were not on in your opponents' head when they called the doorcard pair bet on 4th street -- that hand merited several raises when you filled up.
In example 2, you made a great move by not taking the second reraise when you filled on 5th and 6th streets, because that play would keep most opponents coming. But you should've pounded it on the river. Fours and straight flushes do happen occasionally in stud (I once saw 2 fours and a straight flush in the same hand), but it is rare enough that I'm just going to have to lose my money if someone shows a freak.
Tom D,
One thing that you have to keep in mind when you get the responses like you got from JimmyR, Earl and your experienced friends is that it is extremely easy to see what happened when all of the information is available. Of course someone who re-raises you in the situation you describe with the hands they had is clueless. This may not have been obvious during the play of the hand. When players hear all of the details and see what happened it is very easy to see what the right decision was. They are forgetting that they have all of the information available to them about the clueless player. However, I must admit that you should be able to discern that a player is at level 0 very quickly.
Tom Haley
It doesn't matter WHAT LEVEL player you are playing against in this situation. Re-raise ANYBODY at LEAST one more time and you will be right in doing so 49 times out of 50.
Jimmy R,
Perhaps my brain is working overtime and thrashing about too much. If I was the OPP hand in example 1) with a 4 flush showing and we are on the river, when somebody raises me I would assume that they are representing a hand that can beat a flush. If I was the player with the full house and I knew that a player with a four flush would know that I would put him on most likely a flush, I would suspect that when he re-raised me he could beat a full house. This is because with his 4 flush in plain sight he has to know that when people raise him they are saying they can beat a flush. If he knows that they can beat a flush, then he would have no reason to re-raise with his flush.
Example two is more of the same. OPP has played his hand such that he has announced to his opponents that he has queens full. If I raised him on the river and he was Level 2 or above, I would know that he knew that I put him on a full house. Therefore he knows that when I raise I can beat his queens full and would not raise again unless he could beat my probable full house.
I will concede that level 1 players could misread your hand and you should probably re-raise against them. Maybe 98% of the players fall into level 0 or 1. I still think that a player that is at level 2 or above the re-raise is not justified.
I will also say that most players don't conviently fall neatly into the categories that I have mentioned. But most players that simply try to read your hand most of the time will be cognizant of what their opponents have read them for in these situations.
Tom Haley
Tom,
Against a good player both hands, eights full and aces full will lose most of the time when they raise you back in these two spots. Your decision would be to call or fold. If against a weak player whom you think is just playing his own cards then a raise back again is the right thing to do. This is a great example of the different way you may play a hand based on your opponents ability. Good Luck.
Well Tom you've got six new opinions to consider along with those of your "poker analyst friends"...
What do you think now??
Complicated game this 7 card stud ! :-)
Against thinking players .. err .. level 2 or above players you can easily determine how often you should raise. He would 1bet AsUp. I would 2raise with Trips. He would 3raise with 3 Aces. I would 4raise with small full. He would 5raise with big full. I would 6raise with quads ....
This works since in almost all cases the minumum hand the player could have is at least twice as likely as all the stronger hands combined (you're often giving 2:1 on your raise, if he ReRaises): if he has Aces he will usually improve to AcesUp. If he has Aces and has better than AcesUp then he will usually have 3Aces etc... At least it works so long as you know what at least he probably has and know his minimum betting requirements.
Against typical brain dead bottom players I adopt a brain dead strategy, adjusted the more I know about the opponent:
I raise once extra with the made straight or flush so long as the opponent is very unlikely to have a higher straight or flush.
I raise twice extra with a full house.
I raise three extra times with a full house bigger than they can make.
I raise 4 extra times with quads.
I will not stop raising with a straight flush.
So far I have always gotten the last raise in with Quads or better against brain dead types.
- Louie
5-10 stud in Foxwood. My hand(9s9c)9d. 2c bring it in,6h call,Qs call,Ah raise,Kh call,Jh fold,Jc folds. My option raise or call???.I call to discuise my hand!? 2c fold,6h call,Qs call. My hand(9s9c)9d3d 6h6c bet-10$,Qs4c call,Ah4s call,Kh4h call. My option raise or call???.I raise to represent 4flash? 6h6c raise,Qs4c call,Ah4s call,Kh4h call. My option raise or call???.I call to discuise my hand!? My hand(9s9c)9d3D3c 6h6c5s bet,Qs4c2h fold,Ah4s4d call,kh4h2s fold. My option raise or call???.I raise? 6h6c5s raise,Ah4s4d call. My option raise or call???.I call to discuise my hand!? My hand(9s9c)9d3D3c3s. My option bet or check???.I bet? 6h6c5s7d raise,Ah4s4dJs fold. My option raise or call???.I raise? 6h6c5s7d call. My hand(9s9c)9d3D3c3s(9h)!!! My option bet or check???.I bet? (??)6h6c5s7d(?) raise
(he have 3's fuul beten). I raise. (??)6h6c5s7d(?) raise
(he have four 3's beten). I raise. (??)6h6c5s7d(?) raise
(he have four 3's beten and everybody kmow it). I raise! (??)6h6c5s7d(?) raise? I raise!! (??)6h6c5s7d(?) raise?? I raise!!! (??)6h6c5s7d(?) raise??? I raise!!!! (??)6h6c5s7d(?) raise???? I raise!!!!! (??)6h6c5s7d(?) raise????? i call all in. Any coments welcome!!!
Boris,
I put him on a straight.
Tom D
four 6's
You're just darned lucky -- he had 4 on 4th.
He's hand was (6s7s)6h6c5s7d(6d). But even if got four6's on 4's-stret i was favorite on third
Well Played.
But you when he raised on 6th he already told you he had 6s full, and your re-raise told him nine's full or quad 3's.
So on the end when he raises you he is telling you he has 4 6s. Your re-raise is quads.
But then he gave you 8 extra raises. What a dunce!!!
- Louie
I have to drop disuise some time.I have three 3's showing on 6 sreet.
SCO has three jacks and three fives and this is what is causing his confussion. He doesn't understand if he has a full house of not.
Or he has a pair of jacks, a pair of fives, and a pair of eights and doesn't understand were three pairs fit into the ranking of hands.
3-Pair
I didn't consider Jacks full of Fives full, but the way the hand went down it seems unlikely.
Seems obvious now, huh?
You gotta get out of your head and into the opponent's. This is a great skill even for the super frequency-counters.
- Louie
I haven't looked at anyone else's responses. I guess the old 3-pair.
I haven't looked at anyone else's responses. I guess the old 3-pair. Trips full of trips might merit consideration if he had shown some enthusiasm about his putative boat on 6th.
Im in a 1/5 7 stud game at the Trop, and I have split aces, with one caller. On 5th street, I bet five and she fires in a raise with 3,4,5 of clubs on board. I look straight at her for about ten seconds, then she gives me a forced smile before straightening her board, as if to say "Look how strong these cards are." I thought for a few seconds and folded. She turns over her hole cards(foolishly, I thought), to reveal the deuce of spades and queen of hearts. I knew in my heart she had not made her straight yet, but did I miss an obvious tell? By the way, I probably should have checked fifth street anyway, no?
Scott,
Its hard to say but one thing is for sure if she had a flush why would she try to get you out of the hand without you committing more money. In other words why wouldn't she simply smooth call and suck you in.
Tom Haley
I'm not a tell expert but I've seen this move from many players and haven't been able to pick out a particular pattern.
IMHO, the $5 bet on 5th street was pretty optimistic given her board.
All comes down to how much you know about the way your opponent plays.
Reads like she gave you three tells, but the question you should have been asking yourself, in my opinion, was: How many clubs did I see allready? Especially on Third Street. I have to admit though, Easier said than done.
I think checking might have been the best play. Since she most likly would have bet. Then you would have raised her, hoping she would fold. She would have to be pretty tough (or dumb) to raise you back. If she did raise back I would assume she had a made hand.
Chris
Chris,
Although I agree with you that checking is the best idea, I am not sure that raising her potential bet is a good idea. Mason said in his book that against 3 suited cards on board on 5th street, you should check and call to the river if you do not believe that the person has made the flush or straight yet. (However, when someone bets out 345 suited, I would be inclined to think twice about going further with the hand). However, suppose you don't quite believe her yet, I think raising brings too much danger without necessarily accomplishing your goal of putting her on a hand.
I understand your point that by raising you can get her to reraise you with a made hand and therefore you end up saving money by being able to drop the hand immediately. However, it is very difficult to predict how people will react to your raise with a made hand. Suppose if she decides to suck you in by simply calling and then raising you on 6th street. By then, although you suspect that she has the flush/straight, you decisions are harder because one more card adds additional complication to the reading of her hand. Even if you do decide to drop the hand by then, you will have cost yourself an extra bet. Granted, I understand that it is a 1/5 game and the players may not be that tricky, but it surely is a distinct possibility.
Even if she doesn't have the hand made yet, she can still call you with many hands that she can beat your later to make your raise an unprofitable one. Consider the following likely cases. She has a 4 flush or 4 straight. Unless she has good reason to believe that you already have a full house, she almost certainly would call the additional bet. The pot has gotten large enough by then that she is making the right play. Given that her board is 345 suited, it is very likely that she is on these draw if they are not made already. If she proceeds to catch another suited card or a connector, you would have regretted putting the raise in.
Also think about the possibility that she could have two small pairs. After all, it is very likely that she started with a pair of 3's and a 4 or 5 and ended up catching the second pair. Now she's using her scary board to represent an even stronger hand. In this case, although you're the underdog, you do want to draw to a second pair to beat her. But you want to chase as cheaply as possible.
I just think there isn't much you can gain from raising on fifth. I think at this point, you are either a big underdog or a small favorite. Although I see the rationale for checking and calling her, I think this hand needs to be played as carefully as possible, with minimal investment. The best situation for you is that she has nothing or only 1 pair to go with the 345 club's and that she would fold immediately. However, given her board, the possibilities of her calling you with potential winner hands overwhelm the simplistic scenarios of her either folding immediately or reraising immediately.
Hope you find the above analysis helpful.
Kathy
ps. by checking and calling, you may get her to bluff a worse hand all the way; and therefore, make the money you wouldn't make if she folds immediately.
< --------------------
although sklansky teaches us that "everything that happens at the poker table has significance," i'm not convinced that this was an "obvious tell" or even a combination of conflicting tells.
considering the fact that the game was 1-5 stud, i'd suggest that your opponent simply made an excellent, albeit unintentional, semi-bluff raise. do not forget that bad players are entirely capable of making good plays, whether they be deliberate or inadvertent.
tiger
Scott: My question to you is what happened on 3rd and 4th st? How did she get to fourth st with 2sQh/3c? Did she call a raise with that junk? If she is that bad of a player, then by all means you must call her bet on fifth st. Fred
Posted by: Fred M (jmorim2315@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 28 February 1998, at 10:55 a.m.
Sorry if this has come up before but I'm a newbie here.
When I try to use the next/previous/next-in-thread/previous-in-thread links on these pages what I get seems to be more or less random. I keep having to go back to the index to keep some semblance or order in my reading.
BTW, excellent content here with much less noise than R.G.P.
Hope it stays that way.
I'm not sure about navigation. Maybe Jessica Vecchione will post a response, I believe she's the Editor. Thanx for your input on my question. I played 15-30 hold-em in AC last night, and did not feel intimidated.
I'm actually not sure how that code works. I will look at it as soon as I get a chance and see if I can:
a) come up with rules for how it works, and b) if not then try to fix the code so that it
at least does something predictable.
Chuck
Along these lines. When you click on a message you always have to readjust the windows to align it properly.
It would be very nice when you click on a message somewhere down deep along the thread to be able to go back to the spot you started at with out having to go to the top of the index and start all over again.
One nice thing about rgp is that it is very easy to access the posts and it is very quick. This system is very slow, but worth the wait. Thanx, John
Thanks Chuck, I know you're very busy.
One of the problems I have with RGP these days is that I just can't keep up with the shear number of posts which makes it hard to follow threads all the way through. The layout of this system is much more condusive to following such threads if it only worked more smoothly.
The content-to-noise ratio here is excellent. Hope it stays that way.
It seems to me that the links "next" and "previous" as opposed to "next in thread" and "previous in thread" simply give the messages in chronological order as they were posted to the forum...disregarding what thread they are in.
I find this feature useful when I come back to the forum after a long read the previous session. Using the "next" command I can quickly read every new message since my last visit and usually it doesn't matter if the "next" message is in a different thread...since I can just skip it and get back to it using the "previous" command.
This way I can avoid the long wait to load up the whole Index
As long as someone's going to look at the threading, can something be done about the server's performance? I find it really slow, especially retrieving the initial screen. It's not my internet connection because I am one of the lucky 100,000 people in the US with a cable modem connection. It may be the software, it may be the hardware, it may be the archiving policy.
The forum loads slowly because it is growing in size. For a long time after we started the forum it was pretty stable at around 200 message. This morning I looked and it was at 500 messages!
Our current archive policy is to archive threads where all messages are older than 20 days.
You might want to consider the "digest" feature, which will give you a threaded page suitable for either printing or browsing without going back and forth to the index.
Chuck
I would suggest that you reconsider the 20 day period and begin cutting it back to see if that makes things better.
What affect would it have on the current message board if you archived threads where all messages were 15 days old or even 10 days old?
You would have to look back and see how often threads last longer then 10 or 15 days historically...and even if you did cut off a thread after, say, 10 days and put it in the archive...it would be easy enough to revive the topic with a new message.
Whatever you decide... this is still a great forum and I hope everyone continues to keep up the good work.
I've watched the forum with some surprise for a few days since David posted this "catchy" subject header. I felt it was time to voice my opinion.
I'm no prude, and consider myself an avid poker student. I love to read David's work. But my first reaction to it was not a poker reaction. I am surprised there wasn't one post from anyone offended by it. I may be the only one who had that response, and if so, let's get back to poker.
Obviously most of the forum participants are male, just as the vast majority of poker players are male, but someone of David's stature certainly doesn't need to resort to this kind of tactic to attract attention.
Actually, now that I think about it, a poker analogy does come to mind--from no limit hold'em. If you raise someone before the flop with J's or Q's and are reraised a big amount, it's well known you should probably fold because you're either up against an even bigger pair and are a big dog or you may be up against A-K and are a small favorite. You have lousy equity in the hand. Similarly, David stood to gain little from choosing this headline. With his name recognition and status as a forum host, he was getting a small incremental gain from the male readers, but took an unnecessary risk of being a big "dog" with female readers, and maybe some more sensitive males too. Even though I'm fairly certain he didn't intend to offend anyone, and was simply trying to add some spice, a better strategy might have been to choose a catchy headline like "Purple Poker Pumpkins" or "Alien will win 1998 WSOP" or even the more balanced but blander "Pictures of attractive naked people."
I would bet this type of come-on would have been certain to deliver the same expected click-through value with much lower "risk."
I haven't seen this phenomenon before, but it appears to me his thinking went momentarilly fuzzy. He might wish to consider how this was perceived by his followers, especially the many female ones.
From one of today's foremost web designers (and instructors): "There are only two kinds of images people will wait to see on the web -- and they both involve bodies. Unless you have an image of a naked or dead body on your page, ...." Perhaps Mr. Sklansky was using an analogous "attention-getter."
I can't speak for Mr. Sklansky, but it seemed obvious to me that his headline was pure satire, even a statement on the headlines used by advertisers for years to get your attention. Don't you remember ,"SEX!", "Now that I've got your attention", and so on. he was being completely obvious with his intent, he had something for EVERYONE to read. Now that you have made this statement I'm sure you will see a post from him letting you know the obvious,... that he meant no harm. If his post really offended you, then I would suggest that you slow down on the amount of poker that you play, as you will be going to Tilt-Town much too often.
I once wrote that those people who get angry at someone who cuts them off in their car are being illogical unless they would get equally mad if the car in front of them was cut off. The only exception would be if they knew it was you they cut off. Therefore I will only accept your indignation if you would have also berated me had I offered naked men. I did like your no limit hold em analogy. I didn't know any females were aware of that concept (just kidding). But this brings up another point. Any respect I have achieved has come because people can count on what I say to be truthful, accurate, illuminating, and helpful to them. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether I am a jerk or a nice guy. In fact I sometimes purposely am not nice just to make this point clear. If you are relying on someone's expert technical advice it is ONLY his accuracy that matters. There are some endeavors where political correctness matters. Being President of the United States might be one of them. But his ADVISOR on curing cancer better be the best man for the job even if he married a sheep. And if more people thought this way less people would die. (Bet This was a little different answer than you expected you mass murderer.)
What Drama! When I tuned into the forum this morning the first message I saw was Christina's...I saw at the end of it that David had replied and I thought to myself....Oh God I hope he doesn't APOLOGIZE.
What a relief! David, Congratulations on an appropriate response....Christina, PLEASE lighten up. If you ever look a the notorious r.p.g on Usenet you would realize that David was just spoofing the type of spamming that goes on there and ,of course, is absent from this forum.
You mentioned, Christina, that maybe you are the only one who was offended and if so let's get back to poker...
I hope that this is, in fact, the case.
"I didn't know any females were aware of that concept..."
Nice re-raise.
I was pissed too. I clicked on the sight and there weren't no babes there!
That's ok I guess. You gotta understand that David's been married 7 times (tied with Larry King) so I think he's got broads on the brain.
Christina, at least two male friends of David's thought the title was at least inappropriate and told him. I called David immediately when I saw it and asked him to try and stay away from that kind of sensational headline. As someone pointed out, it does spoof RGP's spam....but we don't want to welcome real posts like it, or have to devote an entire thread to explaining our sense of humor. In private, David did agree. I hope you'll post some poker material, as we have far too few women posting to date. Yet, when I look around the poker room, I see more and more women playing all the time.
Boooo! Hisssss! Now you are doing just the opposite and playing up to this person because she is a women. If one of the regular women who post here complained, I could see it, but this women has offered nothing to this group except a complaint. When I read a post by a female player asking about strategy I don't qualify it in my mind as to gender. If there are more or less females than males posting it does not matter! It's about poker not gender. Maybe Mr. Sklansky showed a little bit of poor taste, but his headline was certainly not offensive.
Inappropriate was the term I used, not offensive. Also, I might add that Mason called me a few minutes after my last post and asked me why I didn't mention that he was one of David's friends who considered the post title inappropriate. He also added that this was exactly the type of thread he wanted to avoid on our forum. As I have written before, we are trying to maintain a dignified forum, for our readers, and because we have now obtained national attention. (David and Mason will be featured in an article in Cigar Afficionado Magazine in the spring, among other things.) We are also involved in promotions with radio and television stations, as well as national bookstore chains. We often direct their representatives to this site. One of the things Mason tries to do with through Two Plus Two Publishing is advance the image of gambling as a serious subject. In my experience working with our promotions, this is often difficult to get across, even to intelligent people.
I truly am not interested in discussing gender or political correctness. I am interested in maintaining decorum and making people feel comfortable posting here. As I have written before, I think we all know what is appropriate and what is not on a gambling forum.
My job at Two Plus Two is to address all complaints, male or female. A couple of weeks ago I immediately addressed a complaint that involved an inappropriate racial remark. It came from half a dozen people to my private email address. It is also my job to try and get as many people involved on the forum as possible, and I believe women are currently under-represented, and I hope that will change soon.
Now, let's be done with this and get back to gambling problems.
lets gamble im to yong for naked women
Dear Tournament Junkies,
I want to hear some opinions about this. My question is, in a tournament, should you stay in with draws?
I was playing in a tournament today. The blinds rose fairly quickly, so that noone got much of a chance to build up a stack before the blinds went up. I had about T1400 and the blinds were 200-400, so the big bet was 800.
I had 25 of hearts in the big blind. Flop comes A3 of hearts and a nine. I check, a very predictable lady who has no understanding of probability, the books, etc, bets, and I know that she has an ace with any kicker and nothing else. I also know that she will bet right to the end and will call any raise that I make, but check/call after I raise. I will not be able to get her to fold. I have a straight draw and flush draw (12 cards out of 46 unknown give me a hand unbeatable against her), so I stay in. Everyone else folds and I have correct pot odds to draw all the way. It costs me T1200. My draw doesn't come and I fold on the end. Let's assume that she definitely had an ace (she would never bet any other legitimate hand and never a draw). I am now left with T200 and I now have to go all-in before the flop either on my next big blind or before. I go all in with K8s two to the left of the big blind figuring it's the best I'll get, and I'm out of the tournament.
In a cash game, I must stay in, because in the long run I will gain more than I will lose, despite losing 3/4 individual trials. But in a tournament, you're not playing for the long run, and you can't rebuy. If the draw missed, I was something like 90%+ certain of getting eliminated embarrassingly early. So, I am probably going to get eliminated by staying in. If I didn't draw, my chip position wouldn't change. And I definitely won't get eliminated by folding. But if I fold then I can't gain on that particular hand.
So when I think about it, drawing in that situation seems to be hopelessly incorrect. Despite being about even money after the flop to make my hand by the river, having correct pot odds, being able to read this woman correctly and being able to force her to make fundamental mistakes, etc, I am making a play which means I'm probably going to lose my entry fee.
At least a few top players tell me that you should basically never draw in a tournament. I think that this would be true unless you have a big stack and can easily suffer missing the draw. Maybe I should have stayed just for the turn card because that would not have hurt me so much.
By the way, I know about 'taking a stand' when you're in chip trouble. However, noone had a significant lead - the organisers just don't give you so many chips to start off with.
Perhaps it comes back to the principal that in a tournament you just want to survive. You're not there to push marginal edges or to accumulate theoretical statistical advantages.
I'm new to tournaments. I usually play in cash games, and I do okay (despite the enormous variance at low limits). But last week I played in my first tournament ever and got second out of 46. I wrote down all of my hands, and now I realise that in that tournament, I only ever drew three times, went all-in every time, and hit it (obviously). Maybe then, I was just blind lucky to finish in second place.
Any thoughts?
Richard Cavell
Richard writes:
>>Dear Tournament Junkies,
I want to hear some opinions about this. My question is, in a tournament, should you stay in with draws?
I was playing in a tournament today. The blinds rose fairly quickly, so that noone got much of a chance to build up a stack before the blinds went up. I had about T1400 and the blinds were 200-400, so the big bet was 800.<<
This isn't a lot of chips in relation to the blinds. If the limits were about to go up then you would be pretty close to being blinded out with another orbit. If you had some time then 2 orbits.
>>I had 25 of hearts in the big blind. Flop comes A3 of hearts and a nine. I check, a very predictable lady who has no understanding of probability, the books, etc, bets, and I know that she has an ace with any kicker and nothing else. I also know that she will bet right to the end and will call any raise that I make, but check/call after I raise. I will not be able to get her to fold.<<
I think she is playing it right in this situation.
>>I have a straight draw and flush draw (12 cards out of 46 unknown give me a hand unbeatable against her), so I stay in. Everyone else folds and I have correct pot odds to draw all the way. It costs me T1200. My draw doesn't come and I fold on the end. Let's assume that she definitely had an ace (she would never bet any other legitimate hand and never a draw). I am now left with T200 and I now have to go all-in before the flop either on my next big blind or before. I go all in with K8s two to the left of the big blind figuring it's the best I'll get, and I'm out of the tournament. <<
You did the right thing in my opinion. Your going to have to win a pot in the next 20 hands,your chances are good here and you were not close to a payout. Your chances of getting a big pair in the next 20 hands is small and they aren't guarenteed to win either. Another alternative was that you could try and win the blinds without a contest but your stack isn't a major threat so that possibility is reduced. If you get a premium unpaired hand you will have to raise and they to can stand up against one player but again your chances are small in the next 20 hands of picking up such a hand. On the positive side, if you win you probably can take a more aggressive approach with a lot more chips and steal some blinds which will help you immensly at this point.
>>In a cash game, I must stay in, because in the long run I will gain more than I will lose, despite losing 3/4 individual trials. But in a tournament, you're not playing for the long run, and you can't rebuy. If the draw missed, I was something like 90%+ certain of getting eliminated embarrassingly early. So, I am probably going to get eliminated by staying in.<<
In my opinion there is nothing embarassing about getting eliminated early.
>>If I didn't draw, my chip position wouldn't change. And I definitely won't get eliminated by folding. But if I fold then I can't gain on that particular hand.<<
That is right I think the risk reward ratio favored playing it as I stated earlier.
>>So when I think about it, drawing in that situation seems to be hopelessly incorrect. Despite being about even money after the flop to make my hand by the river, having correct pot odds, being able to read this woman correctly and being able to force her to make fundamental mistakes, etc, I am making a play which means I'm probably going to lose my entry fee.<<
I don't agree, I think drawing was the right play in this situation as I stated earlier. You may have wanted to put yourself all in on the flop if possible.
>>At least a few top players tell me that you should basically never draw in a tournament. I think that this would be true unless you have a big stack and can easily suffer missing the draw. Maybe I should have stayed just for the turn card because that would not have hurt me so much.<<
When you have a short stack you need chips plain and simple.
>>By the way, I know about 'taking a stand' when you're in chip trouble. However, noone had a significant lead - the organisers just don't give you so many chips to start off with.<<
A lot of small tournaments with short rounds have a big luck factor.
>>Perhaps it comes back to the principal that in a tournament you just want to survive. You're not there to push marginal edges or to accumulate theoretical statistical advantages.<<
It sounds to me like you were too far from a payout to worry about survival.
>>I'm new to tournaments. I usually play in cash games, and I do okay (despite the enormous variance at low limits). But last week I played in my first tournament ever and got second out of 46. I wrote down all of my hands, and now I realise that in that tournament, I only ever drew three times, went all-in every time, and hit it (obviously). Maybe then, I was just blind lucky to finish in second place.<<
You'll need to hit some hands like anybody else who is playing in the tournament. If you finished 2nd in half of these tournaments you would be doing quite well in my opinion.
>>Any thoughts?
Richard Cavell<<
Your experience today mirrors the norm rather than the exception. I'll play a draw when I have a big stack or when the antes/blinds are low in comparison to my stack. It is rarely correct to play a draw late. If you are forced to go all-in, it is much better to play any 2 random big cards than it is to play 2 small suited cards.
Should you play a draw in a tournament?
The answer is it depends. There are many factors that should influence your decision. Some of them are the current size of the rebuy stack, whether the size of the rebuy stack changes with time, and how loose your opponents are playing, the sizeof your stack in relation to the bets, how late in a tournamet it is, the size of the stack of the player(s) you will be against, etc.
To give an incomplete simple answer, let's suppose you are in a small buy-in no-rebuy tournament. The event has just begun and the initial play is very loose -- which is typical for this type of event. In the tournament book that Two Plus Two will be publishing we say that at this juncture in this event you should be taking advantage of loose play and play hands, even up front, like small pairs, medium suited connectors, and Ace-little suited. Later in the tournament when the play has tightened up it frequently is wrong to take this approach.
I guess I've been very lucky in the last 3 weeks. I placed 1st 3 times in hold'em tournaments and 2nd in stud tournament. First, I've thrown away most of the books and began observing every hand I play, and when not in a hand, am very careful to observe what people do play. This is what I discovered:
1st: In a tournament with rebuys, it does you no good to play aggresively because of small blinds and unlimited resources player have in re buying over and over. I am usually a calling station with trap play and go for a lot of draws in late position and on the button to win bigger pots. (you might as well throw away your A,A A,K K,K in early play if you don't flop trips or two pair and you see a straight or flush draw) 2nd: The real skill of any tournament comes after the break and add on session when the rebuys are done. When the blinds get bigger, my conservative and aggresive play kicks in. Against my A,A or premium cards you will definitly pay to try to draw out against me. 3rd. In late position, I've had more sucess in rasing with the suited connectors (ie: Q,J or J,10) and hitting my straights, then I have in rasing with premium cards for two reasons 1. The straight and flush draw possibilities on the flop and 2. Everyone puts me on premium hands so that if a 8,9,10 come on the flop and I have the nuts, I've developed a trap hand by checking to the turn. Lastly, I've discovered with some big stacks that my going to the bathroom or for a walk has saved me more chips than staying in play. I mean that! I've been drawn out on in some many hands my beginners to the river in mid tournament play than ever getting eliminated by good players. I wait for the novices to burn out and then I get into high gear in the latter part of the tournament. (Buy the way, In the final stages of a tournament, I treat those chips as if they were real money. In other words, if I am dealt a pocket pair of jacks and bet 1,000 and a A, or K flops, I'm out of there on any bet before me because I guarantee you someone has the overcard and I would never call with a thousand of my own dollars) Hope this helps! Biloxi
Since I am now based in Colorado, just about all my 7 stud play is at the 1-5 level. This is after years in NJ playing, usually, at 15-30.
Perhaps because of this higher level background, I notice I approach the spread limit betting question quite a bit differently than most of my opponents. Specifically, I usually just bet and raise in $5 increments in just about all situations. About the only exception to this is when I'm really sure that my opponent will fold for $5 but will call for $2 or $3. This situation is extrememly rare.
I watch my opponents, even some of the better ones, and I just don't understand why they bother with $1, $2, $3 or $4 bets. Frequently they give away the strength of their hand by betting according to how strong they think they are. This is clearly incorrect.
I have been told that I am very difficult to read because of my betting style. However, I think I'm probably the easiest person at the table to read since I always play a straight-forward game at this level with very little trickery, bluffing or other sophisticated plays. When I'm betting or raising at red level its because I think I have the best hand and want to get the most money into the pot that I can. Against the typically weak 1-5 player, I'm usually right.
I've also been told by some more timid opponents that I'm "ruining" the game by chasing them out too often. Duh!
In any case, I'm wondering if there are any valid arguments against constant $5 betting. It seems to work quite well for me but I'm always willing to consider alternatvies.
Another reason to bet less than the maximum would be where you are first to act with a mediocre hand that will probably face a maximum bet if you check but is not likely to get raised if you bet. Of course you also need to occasionally make this play with a hand that would welcome a raise to balance things out.
Thanks David. Good point. I'll consider that in the future.
I was also wondering about a simulated free card play. By that I mean that in 1-5 stud it's sometimes difficult to take advantage of a free card play by raising on 4th before the limits go up an 5th. But often against timid opponents, a $2 raise can freeze them on 5th street just as well as a $5 raise would.
In that case you must consider your position and opposition carefully because its probably a close call between having the possible "free card" advantage as opposed to getting more money into the pot with a maximum raise and having a better chance at knocking out some opponents.
[Spread Limit: Bet less than full bets?]
Rarely bet more than the size of the pot. I suggest 1/2 to 2/3 or the pot, so bet $5 when it reaches $8.
Yes, usually bet $5. But an occational $4 bet should confuse them. It is DEFINATELY my experience that the $4 bet (say on the river or when you pair your door card), will cause them to make a mistake.
While I can't put my finger on it, I have had much success betting $4 on the end when I really want a call, AND when I am stealling. Finger on it: now that I think about it the $4 bet will make them suspect that their current evaluation of your hand (such as it is) is incorrect. So consider $4 when you think they know what you've got.
In the spread limit you WANT to get called down, due to the very small ante. This is a different mind set than the 15/30 where you are usually happy winning the antes.
- Louie
This is pretty close to saying "only bet less than the max on 4th street" since there'll usually be >$8 by 5th street.
I'm not sure I agree that this is superior to betting out the max on 4th street always if you're going to bet.
What about third street raises? Here again I will usually raise the max.
I have found that this gives me the aggressive image I want. Once the table catches ot that that's what can be expected from me in every hand I play, they'll usually adjust and start calling me with their more inferior holdings. If they don't, I find another game.
This is the attitude I see a lot of poor players taking at these low limits. That and the attitude which says "I'll call...its only one more dollar".
My point here is that I believe that most weak 1-5 players are trainable to play their normal weak game at your higher betting levels. My hourly return at this level seems to support that as well.
Jim,
I have recently started playing 1-5 spread stud (holdem is my better game I think) after reading SCSFAP. I also tend to bet the max when I have the upper hand because I know that the majority of the players at this level will chase with weak hands. I occasionally mix up my play with $2-4 bet if I am against a really tight player (I find that if I check they will bet the max the next round or they will raise with a made hand, thus I can save some money while maintaining an aggressive table image). My question is what is the expected (or yours) average profit per hour? I have logged about only 20 hours in four playing sessions and have a net profit of 2xmaxbet/hr. Is this too much and should I be expecting a drop or losing sessions in the future? Spidey
I have close to 1000 hours over the last two years and I'm currently averaging $12.23 per hour.
As a qualification, I play against almost universally weak and passive competition with an occasional maniac to liven things up. Since this is 1-5, I hope I don't sound conceited when I say that I'm almost always the best player at the table and by a very large margin.
I would never make that claim at 20-40 for example.
Here in the Northeast a good 1-5 player can make almost as much as a good 5-10 or mid range 10-20 player with considerably less downside risk. If you calots of callers for your draw hands,can live with your big pairs getting cracked often and don't fall asleep from the game's slow pace $10-$12 an hour is a realistic expectation. I logged well over 1000 hours at this limit before moving up and found that people will call a red chip as readily as 3 or 4 whites. Many will even cold call a raise,especially chasing draw hands. So go ahead and bet the max. All you will do is build a bigger pot. Be wary on the river though because on your bad days those straights and flushes get there for them....A LOT!!!
Posted by: Spiderman (mqv2982a@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 23 February 1998, at 2:11 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Neyer (jneyer@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 23 February 1998, at 2:36 p.m.
Posted by: STEVE KIRBY
Posted on: Saturday, 28 February 1998, at 12:29 a.m.
I think you are right to nearly always bet the maximum in a one to five game. However, there is at least one situation where I do deviate from that practice.
If I have a small pair with a weak kicker, in late postion, and everyone else has just called the opening one dollar bet. In that situation I'll usually just call the one dollar bet on third. Assuming of course I've got a good live draw.
I think it makes sense to just call along here and hope to get a cheap shot at trips. Obviously, i could be wrong here and would welcome contrary opinions.
Byron
I probably wouldn't do this myself unless the pair was hidden and I also had a live 2-flush to go with it. I have found that, even at 1-5, my profits improved substantially when I simply stopped making $1 calls on marginal hands just because it was cheap. At this level, you find yourself saying "Well, it's only $2 on 4th street." or "Well, it's only $3 on 5th."
It's that attitude more than any specific play that's dangerous. I find it better to start strong and drive the action myself whenever possible.
You corect about this but if our descipline is beter call is corect.
Jim: I agree 100% with everything you said. Our game is $2-$5 and I always bet $5 by fourth st *except* when I don't mind multi-way action. On third st. it really depends upon game situations. Fred M.
Okay Louie,...I give up.
Leaving aside all the talk generated by David's attention getting humor(?), the fact remains that playing poker is one of truly equal professions. Public poker games and tournaments are open to anyone, regardless of race, religion, color, gender or age(although there is usually a state imposed minimum age, there is no maximum.) Virtually anyone can accumulate enough of a bankroll to start playing in small games, and work/win their way up from there.
Strangely enough there are several gender based arguments that suggest women should do better than men at poker and several that suggest the reverse.
Women should do worse: Nuture-they are not brought up to be as competitive or with as much emphasis on game-playing, therefore they are severly handicapped. Nature: women's brains are wired differently from men's, making them better at communication, but worse in math and logic (skills required for poker expertise.)
Women should do better: They are capable of manipulating men, both by appearing sweet, innocent & helpless and by letting men's hormonal surges push them over the brink as they try to compete and impress. Women are more capable of withstanding pain (nature has developped this attribute so that childbirth can be tolerated,) and this ability allows women to survive tough beats without cracking under the pain.
I certainly agree that there are many differences between men and women (thankfully). While I agree that men are generally more aggressive than women, I take issue with the assumption that men are more competitive than women. Women are extremely competitive but not usually with men. The competition between women (usually for men, and often for power within their own spheres) is fierce and often ugly.
I don't believe that men and women have ever spent as much time together as they do in modern society. When the sexes were more segregated, women certainly competed to establish dominace within their group.
I have worked in business, farmed vegetables, and now play poker. What I have observed in these various situations is that competitive women gravitate towards jobs that control people, and more passive women become the controlled (secretaries, assistants, etc). I have also observed that trend among men. As more and more women enter new fields, I believe you will find an equal distribution of competitive and passive men and women in the workforce.
I think the hardest thing for a competitive woman to learn is to compete against men without feelings of guilt. For this is something that is generally discouraged in girls.
Back to agression - Men tend to be more aggressive than women. They are bigger and stronger, so it is easier to pull off. Competition, especially in modern life, doesn't rely on physical strength. Competitors use other and all means at their disposal.
I have always considered myself to be a competitive person. My experience at the poker table just confirms this to me. I hate to lose. It makes me feel inadequate. I want to win. I want that extra bet on the river, even from the little old lady who won't bet a full house because she is so polite. I've enjoyed dragging a pot against young cocky males. But, I've had to steel myself against extremely agressive, serious opponents (all of whom have been men). Over-agressiveness seems naturally offensive to me. But don't get any ideas, I've already worked this problem out at the tables........
Any excellent response.
Please wear a name tag so I can be sure to recognize you if we ever meet up at a poker table.
You don't need a name tag.
She's the young woman in the 8 seat at the 10-20 table at the Mirage nearest the back exit.
And oh yeah. She has most of the chips...
(-:
Jessica,
Extremely aggressive, serious opponents are tough for anybody man or woman. Rest assured you'll come across agressive, serious female opponents as well. Maybe your opponents put you in the aggressive, serious category as well.
Tom Haley
See why we hired her?
In general, the women that I've seen at the poker table are too passive for a game like holdem. It doesn't mean that they aren't extremely intellegent, Just not quite aggressive enough.
But, Then there's Barbara Enright.....thats aggressive.
Last Saturday evening I played for the first time in a $15-$30 7-stud/8-or-better game. I usually play stud high or holdem at the $10-$20 or $15-$30 stakes but there were no holdem games going at those stakes and the stud selection was very poor (rock-like short handed games). A couple friends of mine have been telling me for a while that 7-stud/8 is a great game to get to know as it can be profitable. Up till about 9 months ago I hardly ever played this game except a few times at the $5-$10 level so I wasn't about to jump into a $15-$30 game. But since then I have been playing in a weekly $5-$10 and $10-$20 HORSE game so I have been exposed to it a lot more and when they annouced open seating and I noticed that several of the faces weren't the "regulars" I decided to give it a go.
To make this game even more fun it had a 1/2 kill (which was really a 1/3 kill) which means if someone scoops a pot larger than $150 that player has to post a $20 live bet and the stakes go up to $20-$40. During a "killed" hand the forced bet and everybody who decides to play in between the force and the live bet puts in $5, it becomes $20 when it passes the live bet and from then on you match the "raise" or can raise yourself, etc. The live bet still has the option to raise himself once it gets back to him even if no one raised in the mean time (unless it's been capped before it gets back to him). So you are guaranteed to play for at least $20 on 3rd street, and frequently for $40. This created at times some really good action. It wasn't unusual to have 4-5-6 players for 2 or 3 bets.
Beginners luck gave me a couple of wins early in the game so my education for this evening looked like it wasn't going to be too much at my own money's expense. It also happened that we had several players throughout the evening who were action packed. One couple sat down fresh from the BJ table with a stack of greens who didn't even know the rules of what 8-or-better meant. After the rules were explained to them they decided to stay and play. At first I thought that they must be putting up an act, however this wasn't the case. They genuinely never had played before. Below I describe a hand I was involved with that I thought about afterwards. Most of the hands I had through the evening were relative easy to play because I either had complete trash or solid hands so the decisions were easy. But this one gave me different thoughts how I could have played it. Thanks for any comments.
First of all I had "killed" the previous hand and had to post the $20 live bet.
3rd street: I started with (4d7d)3c and also happen to be low so the action started right from me with $20 to go. A solid player (SP) next to me with an Ace showing made it $40 right away. He is actual a friend of mine who is one of the regulars in my weekly home game. I have a bit of a tell on him whenever he is betting/raising with a made hand as opposed to a drawing hand. I was convinced he had split Aces and wasn't low at that point. An action packed lady (APL) called $40 with and 8 up, the BJ couple (BJC) (they did play as a couple and the usual rule of 1 player per hand was unoffically and gladly waived by the table) also called $40 with a 9 so I figured my low draw was the best at this point and I called. I also have a straight potential and have a hidden 2-flush.
Q: Do you agree with this hand selection?
4th street: the table looked like
Me (4d7d)3c3d
SP (xx)AJ
APL (xx)84
BJC (xx)9T
I checked figuring SP would only raise and try to isolate me if I bet and I did not want that. So SP bet, APL, BJC and myself all called.
Q: Would you consider this a loose call? I am now most likely behind for my low draw but I now have a 3-flush plus a pair to go with it and all my cards are involved in various ways.
Q: I was thinking if APL raises (which she didn't) and I have to call $40 I might have to lay it down. Do you agree or not agree? Or is my hand strong enough to stand a raise by her? I hate to get in the habit of making too many questionable loose calls.
5th street:
Me (4d7d)3c3d2d
SP (xx)AJ5
APL (xx)84Q
BJC (xx)9TK
Obviously I caught a great card. I checked, SP bet, APL and BJC called.
Q: This were the thought of a check-raise semi-bluff entered my mind. Is this a total crazy play? In stud high I rarely make this play. I do make the play of raising on a 4-flush with a pair and 2-3 overcards occasionally if I feel the players against me won't play back at me strong and my board looks scary enough. But this is always in late position, I almost never do it in early position (and maybe this is something I need to consider more in stud high). But the thought occured to me as I realized that I had more outs than I ever have had in a stud game. My flush draw was the only one on board and looked to be good if I hit it and my low draw was the best on the table at that point. The reason I did not do it was because I hated the idea of bricking on 6th and than having to lead out. And all I really had was draws (although pretty live ones especially the flush).
6th street:
Me (4d7d)3c3d2d7s
SP (xx)AJ5Q
APL (xx)84QK
BJC (xx)9TK7
I checked, SP bet, APL called, BJC folded, I called.
Q: At this point I was again thinking a bit about the check-raise semi-bluff. The good it might do 1) I can represent a 7-low made to APL and maybe she'll lay her draw down which mean I can then win with and 8 on the river as opposed to losing by just calling 6th and 7th street only to be shown a 8-6 low by APL. 2) If APL does lay down on 6th street because of my check-raise and a hit a flush I might scoop the whole pot as opposed to splitting with a low APL can make on the river. The bad it might do is 1) SP reraises me with potential Aces up, APL folds, I have to call, brick on the river and probably because of pot odds make a crying call just to make sure SP does have 2 pair 2) SP reraise, APL calls (which she could have since she was that kind of player) I call and lose on the river with or without paying someone off. So again I just called on 6th street.
7th street: I caught a 7 and made a full-house. I wasn't convinced SP would bet so I bet for value. He called and I was happy to see that APL had bricked and folded. SP had Aces up and I scooped a nice pot. Again I was thinking of a check-raise on 7th street but again I decided against it. I just wasn't convinced SP would bet. This decision I question much less.
As you can see check-raises were going through my head non-stop in this hand but I never did raise once. Even though I scooped a nice pot I felt like the quintessential calling station (which I guess is not always all bad). However, I felt I could have done more, or try to get more involved in the hand so if you have any comments or ideas let me know.
Thanks for your help.
The place to check raise would have been on fifth steet EXCEPT that the better play was probably to bet. You are lucky someone else bet it for you.
Where did you find this game?
This game is at the Mohegan Sun in Connecticut. They almost always have this game going on the weekends. I don't know about during the week since I almost never play there during the week. It tends to be a game of regulars and that is one of the main reasons I don't play in it usually. However, I know a couple of the players in it and they say that it can be a good game even with the regulars. And if some loose new players sit down on top of that it can be a good game which was the case last Saturday. I don't think they always play with the kill.
were is 5-10 HORSE is it in a "sun"?
The one I mentioned in my post is a home game. They rarely spread HORSE in the Connecticut casinos, sometimes during tournaments they'll get a game going.
No matter what your rationale you played the hand in a typically weak tight mode. After your deuce on 5th street a check raise is almost an automatic play.SP may suspect you have a made low but with your pair of threes he should just call,which would probably elicit a call from at least one other player. With the great potential you hand has you should want as much money in the pot as possible.
I humbly disagee with David that betting right out is the best option.In this case SP would definitely put you on a low, probably raise and probably drop the other two players. Now you are heads up behind on the high (but granted good potential),and just a draw at the low.BTW with 2 cards to come and about 20 outs I would reraise however.
I have been playing for many years, read most all of your books, and I still learn so much from this forum.
The amazing thing is I've read your books 4 or 5 times, but each time I read them - I learn something new that didn't ring a bell before.
We are all lucky to have some very intelligent players that are generous enough to share some of their wisdom on this forum.
Thanks to all of you for answering many of my (dumb) questions.
Dear Mason:
I have a question concerning your article in Pocker Esssays Volume 1 titled "To bet or not to bet." You mention that you put your opponent on a hand of AA or KK (due to his limp followed by a re-raise.) On the river there was a King on the board and a pair (thus if he had pocket kings he would be filled up.) You stated that it would be equally likely that he had either AA or KK. My question is this: does the presence of the K on the board come into play when calculating the probablity of your oppontent's holdings? That is, would the king on the board make it less likely that he has a pair of kings?
Thank you for your insight
Randall Busack
Given that there is a king on the board, there are only three ways that he can hold a pair of kings, and six ways that he can hold a pair of aces. It is therefore more likely that he holds aces in this case.
If you read the essay I am holding ace of hearts - ten of hearts. Thus with a king on board I have one ace and one king accounted for. Thus there are three aces left and three kings left meaning that my opponent is equally likely to have aces or kings. This is clearly explained in the essay.
There was Ace in Mason hand.
In "Poker Essays", you give some projected win rates for limit Hold 'em games at a variety of limits. Are these win rates net , after time charges and/or pot rake? If they are do they also account for dealer tokes?
By the way do you regularly toke dealers and if so how much. I know that some players never toke and I know that you have written that you believe that dealers should be paid a better wage, even if this means higher time charges, so that tokes become unneeded. Do you have any guidance on a sensible toke level.
Also, assuming equal standards of play is it better to play in a pot raked game as in AC or a time charge game.
I play in a $4-$8 game where the time charge is $3 per half hour is this a 'fair' price? Is it possible to come out with a profit long term assuming one can beat the game, play wise?
Lastly should one play looser in a time charge game rather than a pot raked game? If so, how much looser?
Although I have addressed this to Mason Malmuth, I welcome others comments and experience. Thank you.
The following are pretty much a repeat of what Mike Caro has published on these issues in CardPlayer magazine.
In a pot-raked game, you need to play much tighter, especially preflop, because the pot is that much smaller than it would be. The analogy here would be to the size of the antes in a stud game. The higher the antes are relative to the bets, the more inclination there is to steal, and thus more inclination to defend, and thus more inclination to play looser. If the pot is smaller initially, play tighter as there is less to gain for the same risk.
In a time-charge game, play whenever you have a small edge, as none of that edge is being lost to the house. The time fee is gone whether you play loose or tight.
Against equally skilled opponents, the selection between a time charge game and a raked game depends upon your style of play. I'm much tighter than average preflop, and therefore win less than my "fair share" of pots. As such, I do better in a raked game. If you make your profit by playing more hands than average preflop, and then outplaying your opponents on later streets, you will do better in a time charge game. Of course, consider the total dollars/hour removed from the table. Better for me to pay $3/half-hour than $3/pot, as even I will win more than 2 pots/hour on average.
BTW, $3/half-hour is about as cheap a rake as you'll find anywhere in the country. The only thing cheaper than this would probably be in a home game (since home games are usually free or very lightly raked).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
See my other response. I don't agree with the Caro advice. It's can't be right to play much tighter in a good game just because it is raked as compared to a time charge.
I think Mr. Caro is refering to small limit raked games where there is a reasonable chance the pot will NOT be maxed out. If so then he's right about being more selective and being less agressive since you need to be a 6:5 favorite just to tie the rake. 10% advantage is a lot to give up.
But if you are in a game where the pot is routinely maxed out, such as 5/10 or higher then go for it. Consider the "rake" just a variable "time charge". The amount of "conservative" play would be proportional to the amount of the Max rake compared the expected size of the current pot. In 10/20 or above this is a very small amount indeed.
- Louie
Yes, but Greg, Mason and Louie, when you do record keeping or make statements about "win rates" etc, do you include the collection taken out of the pot and/or tokes?
My record keeping is based on how long I play and how much I leave the game with. Thus rake, tokes, etc. are already factored in.
What about a double-blind pot-limit game (10-10) with a 50/hr time charge. Do you consider it expensive or not ? Since there are in average 4.5 betting rounds per hour at a full table (8 players), you need to make 50 + 4.5 X 20 = 140/hr to simply survive.
I think that Louie is correct. Caro's advice is more relevant to low-limit games. In Mason's 20-40 game in LV, where the game is raked 10% to a cap of 2 or 3, the rake is done as soon as the blinds are posted. Thus, you will play incrementally tighter because when you come in your pot odds are reduced by only that 2 or 3, relative to a pot size of 30 to 90+.
When I am in a game like 3-6 in San Diego, Caro's advice is more apt. In this game, they drop $3 from the big blind on the flop. Thus, while a successful steal means you get all $4 of the blinds, if there is a flop you lose $3 to the house. In this case, let's say that 3 people limp ahead of me, and I'm considering coming in with a marginal hand. I will be competing against at least 4 opponents, but am getting immediate pot odds of only 3:1 (plus the small blind). Thus, I should be a lot tighter about entering the pot initially. However, after the flop, all I should do is consider the pot size, and forget about the rake that is now only history.
Later, Greg Raymer
Actually your rake is also history before the flop. As you point out in your example you are getting 3-to-1 immediate odds. In addition, most low limit games are very loose, and when I say this I am including play on the flop and beyond. Thus I stand by my statement that the advice to play much tighter in a rake game is inaccurate.
Another small point is whether you should steal more in a low limit rake game. If the defenders in the blind are aware that the pot has been reduced in size you should now come at them more since they should defend less. Game Theory tells us to bluff more in small pots than in large ones for precisely this reason. Thus the rake shold make you steal looser and defend tighter.
Any comments are welcome.
Alternatively, if you find yourself using the phrases "steal more" and "low-limit" in the same sentence, you might want to ask for a table change.
Neil,
Three bucks per half hour is real good in my opinion for your $4-8 game. The players in California would love it if their time charges were this low. However, as a comparison if I remember correctly, the $40-80 Hold'em game at the Mirage in Las Vegas charges $5 per half hour. This is info I got from a friend who played there (BTW my friend played against Malmuth and Sklansky at different times in the game). I found the rake at $10-20 to be very low at the Mirage also.
In one of Mason Malmuth's books he talks about tipping and gives the advice to keep it to an acceptable minimum. Tipping can actually be a fairly controversial topic. I have played in games where the dealers won't accept a tip of anything less than a dollar. Then I have played at the Mirage where the dealers seemed happy to get $.50 when someone dragged a $200 pot in a $10-20 game. My policy is to tip a dollar but only if the pot is not small. Even if it is large I tip a $1.
Neil wrote:
"In "Poker Essays", you give some projected win rates for limit Hold 'em games at a variety of limits. Are these win rates net , after time charges and/or pot rake? If they are do they also account for dealer tokes? "
They are my estimates of what you should earn at the end of the year. That is they account for tokes, time charges, etc.
"By the way do you regularly toke dealers and if so how much. I know that some players never toke and I know that you have written that you believe that dealers should be paid a better wage, even if this means higher time charges, so that tokes become unneeded. Do you have any guidance on a sensible toke level."
I toke those dealers that I feel do a good job. I am not known as a big toker. I leave that for the tourists.
"Also, assuming equal standards of play is it better to play in a pot raked game as in AC or a time charge game."
It's better to play in hose games with weak opponents.
"I play in a $4-$8 game where the time charge is $3 per half hour is this a 'fair' price?"
It's as fair as any.
"Is it possible to come out with a profit long term assuming one can beat the game, play wise?
Yes.
"Lastly should one play looser in a time charge game rather than a pot raked game? If so, how much looser?
How loose you play should be mostly a function of your opponents and how skilled you are.
Example: 7 stud...4th street. You have live but small pocket pair. Several players in and you're last to act. It's checked to you.
Bet (for value or to eliminate opposition) or take the free card?
My approach is to bet if I think it will eliminate some opponents but take the free card if the game is loose and passive.
Comments?
I almost always take the free card. The reason is that the only players who will call my bet are those that are favorites against me with higher pairs. Also, if someone was check-raising, then I'll really wish I had checked. Furthermore, if I spike my card to make trips, it is more likely that someone will bet for me on 5th st (when they may check to me if I show strength on 4th st).
The main exception is when my board is such that betting will allow me to pick up the pot on 5th street (against by then hopefully only one or two opponents) if I catch a scare card.
Oh, and one other thing... It's extremely rare that I'll be in this spot, since if I have a baby pocket pair I usually have a very large card in the door (usually largest on the board), meaning I won't often get to act last on fourth street.
Tom Weideman
Jims answer to his own question is correct. Toms is similar and takes it out a little further. When you bet with the worst hand, you do it for a reason. In this case it may be to win right there or to set up a nocontest win on 5th street as Tom points out. This is what thinking ahead is all about. Tom's very advanced thinking about how a check on 4th street induces a bet on five can do well for him if he hits. I would take it one step further in that a bet now on five gives you an opportunity to raise and maybe steal it if you judge you opponent to be weak. I would play small pairs in the hole with a small upcard in an unraised multiway pot most times if very live and all times when my side card is adjacent or flushing to my pair. Good Luck and keep thinking.
To recap, Tom recommends playing small pairs in the hole only with a large kicker that's bigger than any other card on the board. Ray says he'll play small pairs more loosely, especially if flush or straight possibilities exist.
I have vacillated myself between these two positions. The advice from a number of authors would be to only play small pairs with a big kicker. S&M&Z's advice in 7StufFAP is not so clear cut and indicates that all factors need to be considered.
I still wrestle with this issue and have come to use the nature of my opposition in the hand as the deciding factor. What I look for now is to get in cheap against a number of opponents who will likely pay me off for enough money that it makes drawing to such a poor hand profitable if I hit.
The great danger is hitting just enough to get sucked in. It takes a lot of discipline and patience to recognize when such a suck-in situation is developing. Therefore, I'll usually want to hit fast and big or get out.
This usually means hitting trips or a high flush card to go with my starters on 4th street. It also means that I probably won't play if all I have is a small pair with straight possibilities as, even if I help the straight on 4th street, it's going to be low. It also means I'll probably only play this in late position so I can be sure to be getting in cheap and against the right kind of opposition.
> To recap, Tom recommends playing small pairs in the hole
> only with a large kicker that's bigger than any other card
> on the board.
Hang on a second. I only said it's rare that I would be in that situation. The reason is that all of the elements have to be there on third street: It has to cost me just a bring-in (not a completed bet), I have to be in late position (without an expectation of a raise behind me), my cards have to be live, and generally some flush or straight potential should exist. There are many other factors as well (generally player dependent).
The last thing I wanted to do was promote a narrow view ("this is the right way to do things") - I was only pointing out in passing that there is a reason why I don't find myself in that situation very often.
Tom Weideman
Sorry Tom, I didn't mean to offend. You responded much as I expected you would. I just thought the issue needed some clarification; at least in my mind.
jim
OK OK Let me contribute a 7 card stud problem. 20/40 limit typical game. My hand is (Q 2)/Q I raise on third street and am called by (X X)/7. The other cards exposed on third street are 3,A,9,4,5,5 (In this example suits are irrelevant as no flush draw was ever apparent in either hand).On fourth street we both hit a J ...I bet he calls. On fifth street I hit a 6 and now have (Q2)/QJ6 facing 7JT I led out with a $40 bet and my opponent deliberated a while and makes a "crying call" By "crying call" I don't mean that he said anything he just looked hesitant...(he could have been acting of course).
On sixth street my hand is (Q2)/QJ69 facing (XX)/7JTK and he leads into me!
I'll stop here for now and give the rest of the hand later. Since I mentioned the "rest of the hand" you already know that I did not fold on 6th steeet but I sure thought about it.
Also consider your action if opponent had checked on 6th street...(I would have bet since at this point I would have put him on one pair smaller than queens).
Finally what would you do if he check raises on 6th.
Over to you 7 card stud experts.
Jim,
If he is a player with no imagination or speed, he probably has the straight or trips or kings-up and you should fold. If he is an agressive player you should call his bet and make a decision on the river as to call or not. Good Luck.
It almost impossible to answer this type of question without knowing the other player. Also important is the position you raised from (could it have been a late position steal?) If not, and if he is not a maniac, he probably started with a)7x7 where is x could easily be an A or K, b)789 (crying call was a fake weak=strong, or c) a 3 flush which contains cards that relate to the board cards he hit (K97 or KT7).
The fact that he made a 'crying call,' then bet out on 6 is inconsistent. I'd assume a real weak call that got unexpected help, rather than a strong hand that was setting up a check raise and then thought better of it. Therefore, I'd guess he started with a 3 flush, picked up a gut shot, then made Ks. K97JTK, he has now bet out with Ks and double gut shot, queens not too live. He might be weaker, T97JTK, and have decided to semi-bluff. I'd call on 6 and again on the end, especially if I made 2 pr.
It wouldn't amaze me to lose, but in normal hi-ante stud, you can't start laying down reasonable hands in heads up pots on 6th or 7th, when your unknown opponent suddenly bets out, especially when he bets in a situation in which he might logically try for a check rasie with a big hand, and where he knows you probably won't raise his bet, but he'd call if he checked and you bet.
Steve,
If you saw my earlier post,(lower down in this thread) "Ugly Naked Man Drawing Dead on 6th Street" you will see that this is how I DID play the hand.
Its reassuring to know that you endorse this line of play.
As you aptly said its "impossible" to give a definitive answer without "knowing" the player. I just have that nagging doubt that I was looking for an excuse to call on 6th street. We've all been there...we "put the opponent on a hand we can beat"... in this case 7Q7JTK of K97JTK or T97JTK and sometimes suspend reality in the process.
When this guy bets on 6th...I KNOW he has a hand. He fits Ray's description as a player with "no imagination or speed" and maybe if you or Ray had "been there" you would have "known" enough to fold. I wasn't sure enough to give it up and paid off when I made two pair on the river.
Thanks for your insights.
Jim Mogal
A tough decision and a very opponent-dependent answer, but I don't like the fact that a K just hit the board on 6th street and that he (apparently) holds a very live hand.
What position in the hand he called the 3rd street bet is the most important factor and key to the hand.
He might've trailed in middle position with the draw, but with a pair of Ks buried, he likely would've reraised to ensure heads-up.
Conversely, if he came in last, he might have split 7s with a big kicker (in which case, he likely has 2 pair). Probably not the draw from last position, although note that he could *now* be on a draw at 6th.
And of course, from any position, he could be rolled-up (with the set heads-up, he wouldn't want to notify his customer on 5th street and, being high card, he must bet on 6th to make sure you don't get off the hook).
I've also seen this same play heads-up when the opponent holds the same hand -- pocket Queens (and if that is the case, he has the best hand AND freerolling on a draw).
Unless he's a very tricky and gambling player, you are likely beat. (Certainly he may be betting because he was going to have to call, having picked up a draw along the way).
Jim,
I'll take a stab at it, even though I'm still licking my wounds from my last post.
A lot depends on your respective positions relative to the bring-in, what kind of player your opponent is, and what kind of player he thinks you are.
I would guess that your opponent has (Q,7). If he is a player who will come in with any pair, he might think that you don't have to have Queens, and if you do, your hand is crippled. Of course, if he would come in with any pair, he could have (X,7), including (K,7). I can't think this guy would have come in with (9,Q), or (A,Q), giving him a straight on 6th. (I know it happens).
His "crying call" on 5th Street looks like he's flat-out chasing.
On 6th Street, his betting out with (Q,7) 7,J,10,K isn't too bad, I guess, if he thinks you might toss Queens, and he's going to call your bet anyway. I realize two 9s and an Ace are out.
Note: My guess was influenced by your use of the word "sure" when you wrote "I sure thought about it", referring to folding, making me think you almost threw away the better hand.
If your opponent had checked on 6th, I think betting is the better play. You probably still have the better hand, and you make it more difficult for him to lead into you, on the River. with no hand.
If he had check-raised on 6th, I guess you'd have been in trouble. I might think that he started with (10,10), and put in an "Academy Award" crying call on 5th. I might have to toss it if this opponent isn't someone who could make this play without a hand that can beat Queens. He would be committing himself to betting out on the River.
Tom D
Jim,
I don't get a chance to play a lot of stud but I'll give it a go. I thought about (7,Q)7. It makes him an open ender on 6th and like Tom D said he is going to have to call anyway so his bet would have a lot going for it. If he had a king in the whole with a pair of 7's then would he lead out on 6th giving you an oppurtunity to get away as cheap as possible? I don't see any 8's out there yet so he could have started with something like (8,8)7 or (7,8)7. Could be rolled up with 7's but the relative rarity of the hand would make it a small possibility. He could be slow playing a straight. I viewed this as unlikely. I don't think he was acting on 5th, I would guess he had a real dilema between calling and folding. The six in your hand is card he could use if he had (8,8)7 or (7,8)7. He might have some doubt that you really had the Queens. Another thing that he does know that your board isn't that strong. He has seen a J (his hand) and 9 in other hands already. He has a T and a K in his hand also. Unless you have a 6 in the whole or are rolled up the chances that you have two pair at this point are reduced. He knows that going into the river there is a good chance that two pair will win it for him.
If I had to guess one hand I would guess (8,8)7. The question is what should you do on 6th when he leads?
Let's take raising. If he has two pair with a K then he is going to re-raise most likely. If he does, depending on the type of player, you may be able to get away from your hand. Also, depending on the type of player, if this raise will coerce him to check on the river with two pair or less, then the raise may be right. Imo if you feel that you will have to call on the river anyway, the raise loses its value.
Let's take calling. If you feel that you have to call twice no matter what he has (he'll bluff on the river if he doesn't have a hand), calling twice seems like a the right play to me. If he will bet the river with any two pair and above and not bluff ever then raising seems right on 6th.
Let's take folding. Obviously if this player would only bet if he had K's up or better, then I would fold. But almost all of the time, this would not be right.
This is all a long winded way of saying that against most players I would favor a raise because I would think there is a pretty decent chance that my Q's are the best hand at this point.
One last thing regarding a check raise. This to me is totally dependent on the player who check raises.
Now I will await the answer and I certainly expect to learn something about playing 7 stud here.
Tom Haley
Well here's the sad story. The guy had (89)/7JTK on 6th street and I'm DRAWING DEAD. The hesitation on 5 was an act of course and I guess he figured that I might not bet if he checked on 6th (he was wrong about that) and so he gave up the attempt to check raise and just lead out on 6th.
When I saw that Ray Zee was the first to respond I was apprehensive that others would not reply. Especially after I closed with that line about over to you 7 card stud experts. ...I guess I shouldn't have worried...thanks to Earl and Tom D and Tom Haley for their thoughts on the subject.
Ray is a great player and one of the things great players do is stay out of trouble by analyzing situations correctly. While the rest of us are looking for some excuse to call (or even raise) on 6th street ...like maybe he started with (7Q)7 so maybe I still have the best hand...Ray had the situation pegged.
What Ray said was that if it was a player without imagination or speed he has the straight or trips or Kings-up and I SHOULD FOLD. Its true that 6th street folds are rare but it was in order here. Moreover I think a good player gets a solid read here that he's beat because If my opponent IS agressive he WOULD try for a check raise on 6th...because he would expect me to continue betting when he checks. Because he did not check we can identify him clearly at this point as the "player without imagination or speed" and bail out.
I see it clearly now ..but in that hand he got my $80 (yes I made queens up on the river and called there too). The hesitation on 5th street was an act and we find this out when he bets on 6th street.
By the way, Ray didn't say what he would do if opponent check raises on 6th ..but I believe a fold is still in order. I have seen some people make this move on 6th street with a 4 flush and a pair...but not when they will be in the lead on the river.
My apologies to Jessica for the title. I couldn't resist :-) I hope my remark about over to the "experts" didn't prevent some of the recent 7 card stud posters to other recent discussions from commenting here.
Jim,
I knew I would learn something. I figured if he was acting he would have made his move on 5th. I guess the dilema was call or raise not call or fold.
Tom Haley
[Split Qs, opponent makes crying call on 5th; bets out on 6th when falls high. Call with Qs?]
First, you need work on tells if you can't tell the difference between a genuine pregnant pause and a faked one. This is one of the hardest "tell" to fake. Look for elements of exaggeration, even a little.
[.. Advise: call if tricky, fold if unimaginative ..] >>>If my opponent IS aggressive he WOULD try for a check raise on 6th...because he would expect me to continue betting when he checks. Because he did not check we can identify him clearly at this point as the "player without imagination or speed" and bail out. <<<
NOOOOOOoooooo. The tricky imaginative player will check-raise IF he just made the hand. This player is LIKELY to bet out if he doesn't have enough to raise, such as if he just made Ks or picked up a straight draw. Against both of these hands a call is in order with Qs only.
This shows a good example of why its solid poker to assign "profiles" to new players at the earliest opportunity. Adjust as the game continues. Unimaginative players will not be making imaginative plays, so you could/should have known whether this player was of the imaginative sort or not.
== There are players who will be ROUTINELY tricky. They bet weak and check strong. Assume these players will continue to do so==
- Louie
Years ago I found myself heads-up playing at the end of a 10/20 game. The opponent was of the "routinely" tricky type; such that he would always bet a bad hand and always check a good one. So I spent the next hour ROUTINELY check-raising him with impunity; and he spent the next hour either betting and folding or giving me a free card. He gave up before he wizened up. And I'm sure he was mumbling "Dang, that punk got SO lucky. I was obviously the better player ..."
Raising is out of the question.
This problem is one that has a simple answer.
You have to be there! (I know Ray said basically the same thing, so I will just word it differently).
I could tell you instantly what I would do If I could simply look at the player.
I have the ability to tell what type of opponent I am up against just by looking at them or by playing with them for a few minutes. (Experience I guess).
Most straightforward, honest poker players won't be lying in this situation because it simply wouldn't occur to them! They assume you are going to call because you went this far, and also because they would call you if the situation were reversed. They are also somewhat afraid that you will no longer bet. Now, because of their scary board, they bet, for fear of missing out on the opportunity. Knowing that you "will call," they must have a good hand.
Unless the person is a maniac, an idiot, an expert, or someone that I have seen make this play before (with a draw) I would have a very easy fold.
Will I be folding the winner on occasion. Yes. C'est la vie.
Does anyone out there know of the whereabouts of Stu Ungar? I am not aware of him entering any major tournaments. Has he given them up? Is he playing in cash games?
Does anyone know if he intends to defend his title this year at Binion's?
It seems strange not to have heard from one of the games most high profile players.
Threads on the Gambling Forum will now be archived after they are 15 days old instead of 20. A thread is only as old as the youngest message contained in it.
Remember that archived threads are readable via the link at the top of the Gambling Forum.
Chuck
Gee Chuck...Don't I even get a "credit" for making the suggestion? :-)
I bet you will end up reducing the period again within the next few months.
Keep up the good work
Jim Mogal
I have been a poker player for roughly 20 or so years, and not a compulsive gambler. I think there are many players, including many who post on this website that feel that the information givin by Malmuth and Sklansky is accurate and up to date, and I would agree. I would also venture to say that anyone who has had any contact with these two gentlemen in person, or read enough of their comments get the feeling that these two also feel that they pretty much know it all and the rest of us, well we just don't measure up. Are you getting my drift here. Especially after the ridiculus comments that were made by mr Sklanksy in response to a person who objected to a headline he used, and another small incident, I am looking at these two in a whole knew way. Mr Sklansky said that it doesn't matter if the person who is giving the information is an asshole, as long as the information is correct, that is all that counts. He is simply wrong. Have any of you noticed the incomplete answers you are getting to your posts from him? I can only speak for myself here, but you two guys(Malmuth,Sklanksy) have a PR problem. Every time I hear someone talk about you two, it is that David is unapproachable, and Mason is a complete ass. Well, I'm sure that you guys are selling books,(because we don't want to be left behind...TeeHee), but not like you could be. You guys need to come down to earth, and realize that there are plenty of people in this world who are capable at solving general poker problems, but they are busy contributing to the betterment of society, such as teaching, engineering etc.. There are thousands of people who could do what you two are doing,.... but we are stuck with a couple of egocentric know it alls, who never admit to making a mistake, and tell us that their books and their books only close the gap of improper information. I do not care if you are the smartest men on the planet, because of your superior attitudes, and your unwillingness to truly be helpful, I will never buy another of your books. I'm only one person, but there are many many more who feel this way about you two. YOU ARE SIMPLY WRONG. At the very least, go see a PR firm, maybe they can help you , to help us little people.
It's funny to see this post here, because I just had a situation happen, well, that pissed me off. I have an aquaintance that makes a ton of money at the track. he has an angle. I found out about it, but in order to use the information I need to do a complete analysis. Well, who could I better think of than Mason Malmuth or David Sklansky. I e-mailed mr Malmuth and asked if he could help me or if he could possibly refer me to someone with statistical analysis ability. Instead of getting a polite yes or no, we are not interested, or whatever, the reply I got , was" DO NOT CONTACT ME AGAIN" ! Well, I e-mailed Mr Malmuth and let him know that I was dissapointed at the way that he responded to me, and that I would certainly not ever contact him. I have been posting here for about a month or so, and it's been fun. But I have to say that I agree that it does matter how you treat people if you want to sell them something. I will also not be purchasing any further from these two.
Ouch! It takes an enormous amount of PR sense to avoid saying anything publicly that will not offend *somebody*, so running an open forum seems quite a bit riskier than any poker game.
Nonetheless, the responses posted by the authors have usually been succinct -- if they required further explanation, well, that's why they sell books.
As far as personalities, Mr. Sklansky's reputation precedes him, so I'm certain he's not vying for the Mr. Congeniality award and I doubt that most aware players expect that. What you see is what you get -- a straight answer, no fluff.
That's not to say that I don't disagree with certain analysis and opinions, but then, that's why this forum is so helpful. By listening to other opinions, we may see why we are wrong -- or we may see more clearly why we are correct.
In order to succeed, a poker player has to be mentally tough, emotionally stable, intellectually enlightened, and yet have a certain amount of attitude to go with it. Anthony Holden is a great read and I've heard that he's quite a charming person -- but I doubt that he'd sell any "how-to" books on poker.
Earl, you've got a good attitude, I'd buy one of your books. If you really believe that these two derive their main income from playing poker or gambling of any sort, you are wrong. The game that Mr S is trying to get everyone to try is his big hit, so too speak, and all the power to him, but he does not derive his main income from poker and hasn't for some time. Poker is a funny thing, the real honest mathmeticians will tell you this. Poker is only a game of skill when it is heads up. That's why game theory can only create optimal strategies for only two sided games. If it was a skill game between 9 or 10 people game theory investigators would have long ago created optimal strategies. Yes of course there are general strategies that we can use to help us play a game closer to the probabilities, but for these two to put in print that they are winning strategies is wrong. It is purely for their profit , not yours. They know something about gamblers, that they are always looking for a way to beat the game even when they know they can't. tHAT IS WHY ONLY IN THIS INDUSTRY CAN THEY MAKE THE RIDICULUS STATEMENTS THEY MAKE ABOUT EVERYONE BEING LEFT BEHIND. IF YOU LOSE, YOU JUST ARE A GOOD PLAYER. I didn't mean to go into capitols, I hit the wrong key sorry. i couldsay more but I won't right now. but poker and commodities are the perfect vehicle for strategy and system sellers. wake up and smell the coffee.
Interesting. I own one of Sklansky's books, one of Zee's, and none of Malmuth's -- it wasn't planned that way, it's just the way my library worked out. On the other hand, I have other author's books that were bought at the time they were more relevant to what I was trying to accomplish.
But I digress. The first time I played 10-20 stud, in 1985, merely the concepts of "Winning Poker" made me a winner -- the players were SO bad. Now there are a lot of good players and that is why the expectation is so much lower in the bigger games. Thus to stay ahead, a player has to glean advice, thoughts, and concepts from every possible source while discarding the unusable portions from those same sources. This includes not only poker books, but strategy and indeed, stock market analysis.
My personal opinion is that poker can be most easily beat by using the skills gained in live play to maximize your potential for a big score in the tournaments. Indycar drivers and football coaches talk about "staying in position to win" -- and that is the approach I believe is correct to becoming a big winner at poker.
A quote from Andy Beyer's Picking Winners (which could have just as easily been describing poker): "Horse racing is the only endeavor that men think they can win at without special study, skill, or application."
No one can become a winner based on a simple system or even from a book. The idea that a particular play has this or that expectation is only marginally relevant to the overall scheme of things. At the core of the game, it is the players we play -- not the hands.
That is why the "game theory investigators" you speak of fail so miserably: few intellectuals have the fortitude to play beyond 1-4. And even if they did, while chess can be beaten by a computer because the human element can be rendered irrelevant, despite some great advances, I don't believe that will ever happen in poker.
billy,
You're steaming.
Tom Haley
If poker were only a game of skill when played heads up, then long-term results would tend to make each player a loser by the amount of the rake.
I can't speak for anyones else, but I have played thousands of hours of poker and have not had a losing year in the last 5 years. I'm not a game theorist nor a statistician but I believe these results are significant. I also know enough other players who have demonstrated a similar or better set of results that I must believe there's skill here somewhere.
I learned my strategies from books and I perfected them at the poker tables. Maybe I'm due for one hell of a losing streak to balance the skill-luck books. We'll see.
Until then, I appreciate the informative and thought provoking writings to be found in a variety of books and in this forum. At the poker tables you need to be able to cope with all kinds of personalities and attitudes. I have learned many an expensive lesson from opponents with despicable personalities. S&M&Z display an attitude of confidence which many mistake for arrogance. This does not lessen the value of their advice in any way, in my opinion.
Billy,
You're real honest mathematicians aren't being real honest with you. A game theoretical approach is best explained in a textbook by using two players, e.g. VonNeumann-Morgenstern but I assure you that it can applied to a ten player game. Hint:me(1) and my opponents(2).
Good Luck
I am surprised at the strength of opinion about S & M's personalities expressed in this forum. I have to say that I regard such considerations as far as they apply to poker as being irrelevant.
What we all have to consider is the accuracy of the information given and its applicability.
I personally feel a debt of gratitude to the scholarship of S, M and Z. You only have to look at the quality of available information pre their books to realize what an enormous step forward their theories are.
In my own case, I am sure that the study and application of their books and theories has saved me thousands of dollars in poker 'education' at the tables. S. M. and Z. never make outlandish claims about what you can make playing poker. They only point to a winning approach which from practical experience I believe works.
I constantly observe losing players flout these principles at the tables and lose. The winning players I watch seem to stick very closely to the playing methods suggested by S., M. and Z.
Lastly there is so much complete guff talked around the poker table about how to play by completely ill-informed people that it is refreshing to find opinions based upon thought, research and experience.
I value the opinions of many of the contributors to this forum but I realize that some come here not to learn or contribute to lively debate but to boost their own egos by displaying their supposed wisdom to an internet audience.
Neil,
I sometimes think to myself, if I here one more bad beat story I'm going to scream. When I hear players talk away from the table it always seems to be about how some weak player who drew out or played some garbage and hit their miracle. I can't even remember the last time I heard anyone say that they played terrible and they need to improve their game. So this forum and RGP are the only places that I get to discuss a lot of strategy. Also I have gotten a lot out of the two plus two literature as well. You can't imagine how much time I've spent reading and thinking about poker and what the authors have written. Bottom line, this forum is great and I'm grateful for it and I have definitely benifited from it. Seems like their is a world audience who is benifiting as well.
Tom Haley
Tom,
I agree wholeheartedly with you views. This forum is one of the only places where one can have a genuine discussion about poker between those who wish to better their game and true experts.
Like you I think a lot about the game and here we can voice our thoughts and questions. Long may it continue!
Neil
>>> I am surprised at the strength of opinion about S & M's personalities expressed in this forum. I have to say that I regard such considerations as far as they apply to poker as being irrelevant. What we all have to consider is the accuracy of the information given and its applicability <<<
Agree.
>>> ...but I realize that some come here not to learn or contribute to lively debate but to boost their own egos by displaying their supposed wisdom to an internet audience.<<<
This seems to conflict with your first assertion. Appearantly it matters to YOU the personality you have infered of some of the contributors.
You may find that some of the frequent contributors do not respond to posts to which they agree or to which they have been successfully swayed.
To your first assertion I add that the assertions should be well said. To someone who CONSIDERS advise instead of just TAKING it, well said bad advise is more useful than poorly said good advise.
- Louie
Earl, I could not have said this better myself.
I am one of the many people who visit this website on a daily basis to expand my poker horizons. I do not visit this website to catch up on the latest who-has-a-grudge-against-whom campaign. Personally I do not care.
This site is first and foremost about intelligently discussed topics concerning poker. Mr. Malmuth and Mr. Skalansky (as well as many others) have done an outstanding job along these lines. This site does as advertised.
Opinions will be diverse, and this is how we learn. A finite universe of ideas will not expand indefinitely. An infinite universe of ideas can. The learning comes not from the opinion-as-gospel approach, but rather upon the reflection of various opinions.
This site should not be turned into another tabloid page. There are too many of those already.
Poker players are very fortunate to have a site of this quality. Let's not self-destruct.
To all involves with maintaining this site, keep up the excellent work.
I would just like to take this opportunity to say thank you to the two people ahead of me in this thread for agreeing not to buy any more Sk+Ma books. I assure you that I WILL buy several more such books, and, that being the case, I look forward to meeting you two at the tables.
Dennis
(P.S. - Thank you to all respondents to my previous post. You have all been quite pleasant and informative, and I appreciate your time in sharing your knowledge and experience with me.)
billy,
I might know somebody who could help you with the statistical analysis. Send me some e-mail if you want to and I'll try and put you in touch with him.
Tom Haley
Tom, I need an address
billy,
thaley@nmia.com
I think this Forum is starting to be taken for granted. I know more people are starting to post here, and there are going to be some personality conflicts. We as adults need to keep things under control, or what we have might go away. Personally, I'm suprized the Authors answer as many questions as they do.
Chris
Anything can be said, you have to decide what is true for you . if you can honestly say to yourself that you have benifited from this forum, then just ignore the other stuff.
Both Mason and David are good guys when you get to know them as I and many others have been lucky to. All gamblers are a little different personality wise as measured against the general public, thank goodness. None of the authors make really any extra money by doing this forum. It is basically a freebe for our customers and fun to partake in. If you think Mason and David seem to be know it alls, it is because they really do know it all. When either of these two friends of mine talk, I listen. I have known David for almost 30 years and I cant get more than 5 minutes out of him. Thats just how he is and doesnt reflect on how he views you. Thats all I have to say and I hope this gets left in the dust. ray zee
Marketing Genius,
Are there any particular posts or subjects where you think the information has been sketchy? I think dealing in specifics would help focus the discussion. The comments about the Naked Woman post are specific.
The only thing other thing that I would comment on is the demeanor of the person bearing the information. In the field of my expertise, my analysis and commentary are usually very blunt and very direct. I find myself not wanting to waste a lot of time on what I consider irrelevant topics. This does turn people off sometimes. However, my intent is not to show how much I know but rather to solve the problem at hand as fast as possible. I will admit that the more effort I put in to communication the more people listen to me. At any rate I'm not selling any books either. I also know that people can seem arrogant and conceited and this may not be the case.
Tom Haley
Lately, it seems like a good portion of my job has focused on this forum. The experience has been both nerve-wracking and interesting. What I have learned is an old lesson…you can't please everybody all the time. Mason and David aren't perfect, but if they were saints, would their gambling information improve?
There are a few points in Marketing Genius' post that I'd like to address.
1) INCOMPLETE ANSWERS: Is that really fair? Mason has done so much writing on this forum, I know it has cut into his time for other activities…including playing poker. Ray posts whenever he can, and David has many projects going, plays lots of poker, and does the best he can.
2) 1000's CONTRIBUTING TO BETTERMENT OF SOCIETY: No one disagrees with the statement that there are plenty of people (teachers, engineers, etc.) who could solve general poker problems. We are probably better off at the tables that, for the most part, they are too busy to be playing poker.
3) PR PROBLEM: Well this is news to me. As I have mentioned before, David and Mason are featured in Cigar Aficionado in the spring. The current issue of Chance Magazine features several articles about poker written by Mason. The next issue will have an interview of David. The New York Times uses us as a source of authoritative gambling information. We seem to be getting lots of PR. Not because David and Mason are so charming, but because they are so legitimate.
4) THEIR BOOKS CLOSE THE GAP OF IMPROPER INFORMATION: We stand by that statement. It's why we sell so many books.
I'd love to get feedback privately. You all know my e-mail address.
Since it is a huge mistake to berate a live-one at any poker table (they often leave), corollarily it is also a mistake to eschew advice from those extraordinarily successful player/writers who are the BACKBONE of this forum. Let's not blow this unique opportunity to explore poker ideas with those who have an abundance of experience.
I agree with Andrew. These guys are giving us free consultancy. What a deal! The least we can do is keep it civilised and buy their books.
It seems as though on the poker tournament circuit that a player named Men " The Man ", ? has won more tournaments or been in the money in more tournaments than probability would suggest. Could we use Bayes's Theorem here, and how would you proceed ?
Tournament skills involve global strategies, as well as localized poker strategy. This aspect favors more ambiguous strategy concepts over mathematics. As such, I don't see how any theorem would be relevant.
I'm still waiting for Men Nguyen, An Tran, and Johnny Chan to collaborate on a tournament poker book. I'll probably always be waiting.
Richard,
Are you the same Richard Epstein who wrote,
The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic ?
Tom Haley
I think there is more to your question than meets the eye. Unfortunately I cannot address the question I think you are really asking except to agree with you that it is a Baye's Theorem problem.
I'll take the dish. Solving this problem: 1) Compute your odds of winning a tournament if you have paid the entries of, say, 40% of the competitors. 2) Apply the inside-out Bayes' Theorem discussed in FFT.
If Men wins 60% of his tournaments then he wears his x-ray poker glasses to only 60% of the tournaments he enters.
I'm not sure I understood. Are you saying that he pays the entries of several players?
In general game-players, especially those with mathematical backgrounds, spent much of their youth developing a certain set of skills that enabled them to become winning players. Very often they spent time developing these skills, when other people were developing social skill. As someone who passed up dates, to sit in smokey game-rooms and say 'check smuck' or 'only a moron would bid with that hand,' etc. I can truly state that it is very hard to catch up on lost opportunities. Just think of Bobby Fischer or John MacEnroe or Al Roth. David can certainly seem curt and opinionated. That is because he is curt and opinionated, but his opinions are usually right and almost always worth thinking about. He doesn't want to waste his valuable time and mental energy discussing things that seem obvious to him. Mason is certainly much more accessible, more willing to end to elaborate on various topics. Even were David and Mason as difficult as some readers have suggested, everyone should be grateful that they take the time to give readers of this forum the benefit of the expertise. Yes, there are bigger winners that D & M, and yes, there are better players (but not very many,) but there aren't a whole lot of knowledgeable players willing to give good advice away, and there is a lot of poker advice, sold not given away, by players who know less and don't play nearly as well.
Lastly anyone is free to read their posts. If they are found to be inaccurate or impossibly supercilious, then stop reading them. If you questions are not answered to your satisfaction, then ask them elsewhere or try to work out the answers yourself. And if you feel that changes in their attitude would be helpful to many readers, try to suggest them a non-confrontational fashion, and perhaps they will even adapt a little to suit their reader's expressed needs.
I couldn't agree more.....AMEN
Steve and Jim,
In reading Sklansky, I always pictured him as a street-wise punk who grew up in an Ashkenazi ghetto in the Midwest or Lower Eastside and lived by his wits alone. One step ahead of the other guys; not like you describe yourself.
You're not going to beat players with math skills similar to yours and who possess superior social skills. Believe me, if you can read the opponent and play the opponent you will own the opponent.
Besides if you don't apply a stochastic game theoretical approach to a game like hold'em, its not even worth your leisure time to play the game. Unless you're truly bored. You may as well get a real job.
My answers to posts are short because I can't type, and I want to make you think. Ialways elaborate if it is necessary or requested. Our books are the best because they are the only ones that actually turn an intelligent beginner into an almost immediate winner in games of 20-40 or smaller. Other books are either incomplete or incorrect in enough spots that their advice although sometimes helpful is not enough to turn beginners into winners. Finally, just because poker involves luck and psychology it doesn't mean you can be an authority on the game (with the possible exception of shorthanded no limit) without knowing math and logic and have the ability to explain it.
I like the books that S&M write, they are good, accurate. I like this forum, it is informative, although maybe not as much as it could be...but I'm still better off for it to exist than not to exist.
However, given all that, I can still think Sklansky and Malmuth are a-holes...and I do...however, I still highly respect them for the poker knowledge and will continue to purchase their books given they are as high quality as the previous ones.
You can have respect for someone, but still dislike them. You might not like Barry Bonds as a person, but he is still a great baseball player. You may not like Deion Sanders or Dennis Rodman, but they still are great in their sport. You may not like your boss, but maybe they are good managers.
I repeat, I have great respect for their books, but I dislike them...and that's ok.
For those that care, let me point out that I have not met either of these two guys. My opinion was formed by their posts in this forum, and in the rgp newsgroup.
Some of my best friends were assholes when I first met them.
Some of the worst assholes I know started out as friends.
Only time and exposure tells. Now I know that I certainly can't tell enough from first impressions (or a person's writing for that matter) to really judge. That doesn't stop me from making judgements but I have learned not to go public with them as rashly. You never know, you might be the asshole. Sometimes, to some people, we all are.
Yes, I agree, it takes time to know someone before you can really have a 'true opinion' about them. But first impressions are sometimes the only impression, and the written language can be interpreted differently by individual readers.
The way I interpret what I have read from them on this forum, I have formed the initial impression that I don't like them, and I am an underdog to like them if I knew them....but I definitely still respect their opinions.
Heh, "an underdog to like them".
I like that. Can I use it?
Without a detailed explanation of the reasons for calling them "a-holes", my impression is... WHAT YOU SAID IS WHAT YOU ARE if you cannot belatedly justify it. You have not done it yet Tounament Player!
Let us not turn the GF into PF (Personal).
You can not call anybody asshole in public place. In Russia you will go to jail on 15 days fof this. Lucy you in free country.
Am I the only one who would like to see the "Boris" character being barred from posting on the forum? His unfunny statements and boring opinions cannot interest anyone. Boris, shake off your retard con-Russian accent or stop wasting your own and other peoples'time.
Robert T.
Robert,
Take a look at the posting "Re: Contest Problem Boris -- Saturday, 28 February 1998, at 6:53 p.m.".
This is not the work of a goof. He obviously put a lot of thought into it. I seems to me to be the closest contender for best answer yet.
Dan
I propose we bar Robert T. from this forum for his outrageously racist comments. My family emigrated from Kiev in 1906 during the pogroms and probably met several Robert T.s on their way to freedom. What do you think Mr. Sklansky? [Hint: names ending in 'sky' are most likely Russian.]
Accent is very hard to shake off.I check this forum way it is only qustens you ask?
My tail is between my legs and both feet are stuck in my mouth.It's hard to type while rocking backwards. I will offer no excuse, but I feel that an apology is in order. Tom, hit it on the nose when he said I was steaming. That's an understatement. If I was at the tables I would have probably thrown the pink slip in too. I was reacting to the response I got from Mr Malmuth, and nothing more. My reaction was worse than the reaction I received from him, so I do apologize. It was simply immature on my part. Anyone, who has read any of my posts knows that I reccommended their stud book recently, and I still do. I'd like to also apologize to the group that posts here, your responses helped to wake me up. Mr. Sklanksy, you need not offer any defense of your books, and I'm sorry if my words made you feel that you needed to do so. I would like to say to both of you that as the cliche goes, a little knowledge can sometimes be dangerous, but when you have too much knowledge sometimes it's easy to pre- judge and an opportunity can slip by that is right in front of you. Again, my apologies to both of you, and the group. Billy
Such an apology takes guts and class Billy.
Good work.
Thank you. In defense of Mason he thought you were a system seller who was running a scam, rather than a member of this forum.
billy,
I wouldn't worry about it too much. I knew that it was out of character for you. Everybody has steamed about something or other. I just don't want to do it at the tables. Your gesture shows a lot of class and humility. Send me that e-mail.
Tom Haley
I'm glad to find an air of civility prevailing on this fourm. Thanks Billy for setting a great example for all our posters (published and unpublished).
I'm going to start posing interesting poker questions and giving away a free book of your choice for the best answer. The game is no limit holdem. the blinds are irrevellantly small. Somehow you see that the player who has brought it in for $200 has AK offsuit. You are in the big blind with two queens which is about a 55% shot against his hand on a hot and cold basis. You have $1000 in chips. He has more than enough to cover it. You know he will call if you move in. If you just call or raise less than the max, he will call any bet on the flop or bet all in himself if he flops a pair or better or a straight or a flush draw. If he does'nt he will still call your flop bet as long it is no more than 25% of the pot. How should you play this hand? What about if your had only $500? What about $5000?
If I know he has AK, and he will call any bet on the flop (even if nothing helps him), then I will just call....because it's a free option to see the flop....once the flop comes, I will bet all in if A, or K do not show up. Even if he has a straight draw or a flush draw, he'll be an underdog to my QQs (I think). I would make this play regardless of my stack size (500, 1000 or 5000) since all of these numbers are much higher than the blinds (as you mentioned).
The free option of putting him all in after you see the flop (knowing he will call) is worth a lot. You can turn a 55% chance of winning into a 75% (guesstimate) chance of winning if nothing hits for him, which should happen about 50% of the time (no Ace or King about 60% of the time, and guesstimating 10% of the time he'll have a straight/flush draw) .... and if he hits, you can fold, and lose just a small call. I would do this even if I only have $500, because the call of $200 leaves me with $300, and half the time, I should have a super chance of doubling up, while half the time, I'll throw my hand away. Even though it'll hurt me alot for me to lose the $200, I still think its better to play this way. With $1000 or more, I think it's a definite play.
This is all assuming there's no one else behind you.
If I win (which is probably very unlikely), please keep your books...because I have everyone that you've published already.
I retract my answer....I misread the question...specifically the part about 'calling the flop if he doesn't get a pair or straight/flush draw but only 25% of pot' .... i thought it was call no matter what flops.
Sorry.
`If you just call or raise less than the max, he will call any bet on the flop or bet all in himself if he flops a pair or better or a straight or a flush draw. If he does'nt he will still call your flop bet as long it is no more than 25% of the pot.`
I guess you also assume that if Ace or King hits the turn then he bets. What if the turn gives him a 4 flush or/and 4 straight (with 2 over cards) ? I think you might need to address this situration in your question---at least it does not seem trivial (to me) to be negligible in the calculation. Anyway, I will try some calculation.
`You know he will call if you move in.`
I suppose that he will only call your raise befor the flop instead of reraising you all in.
Since I would be close to a 2-1 favorite on the flop, that is as far as I want this player to go. So, I would not go all in, but I want to make as much money as possible since I'm the favorite. With the 1000, and 5000, I would raise half of my stack.(with 1000 stack: make it $500., and with the $5000 stack, make it $2500). If the flop was favorable, I then would bet the rest on the flop and the player will fold since the bet will be half the pot. With the 500 dollar stack I would just call and bet the balance on the flop.
Since we know the opponent will call an all-in preflop re-raise, there is surely no point in doing that with a small edge, particularly since we know what he has to help us post flop. This is assuming that there are no other live opponents (the problem did not specify). But I do want to maximize my win, if I win. You say that he will call up to 25% of the pot on the flop without a pair or better. Once the flop has come without an A or K, or a three card flush in one of his suits, I'm about a 3.4-1 favorite if he stays till the river. So if I go all in on the flop or make a huge overbet, he should correctly fold.
My aim, if I'm ahead on the flop, should be to make a flop bet that implies a threat to his whole stack but is no more than 25% of the pot size, while not allowing proper odds for a one card draw. If he only plans to decide one card at a time, he is about a 6.5-1 dog to improve on the turn, and about 6.3-1 on the river (assuming he has not made a four card flush or a straight draw without me hitting a queen by the turn).
With the $1000 starting stack, I'll raise another $200 preflop to $400. This will give a preflop pot of $800. Assuming he did not improve on the flop, I'll bet $200. If he does not improve on the turn, I'll bet $400.
With the $500 stack, I call preflop, bet $100 on the flop, and if still in front, my last $200 on the turn.
With the $5000 stack, I raise preflop to $1000. I'll bet $500 on the flop, and if still ahead on the turn, I could bet $1000, but if I think he'll call it, I'll bet the size of the $2000 pot. I might get it all in on the turn against certain opponents, who might suspect a bluff with a big overbet.
Note that in all cases, I lay it down on the flop or turn if he has made an A or K and I have not improved. Also, if the opponent is a chronic bluffer, I might well check the turn with the large stacks hoping to pick one off.
Interesting problem - in real life, strategy should be based mainly on what you know about the opponent's likely hands and his responses to various situations- too bad I can't actually see their hands.
There's no sense me posting an answer here, because I agree with Jim. The correct play is to threaten his entire stack pre-flop while not endangering your own. With the bets Jim advocates for $1000 and $5000, this is exactly the scenario. The only other viable option I would consider would be to throw away the hand -- with zero invested, await a better opportunity than 6-5 on your money.
Under your assumption that the player with QQ has 55% chance of winning if goes all the way, and that the player with Ak will fold if he does not flop a pair or better or a straight or a flush draw, and if QQ bets more than 25% of the pot, my strategy would be: (I play the QQ hand) raising the 200 bet to the amount which is slightly under 2/3 of my stack, and then go all in with the rest 1/3 on the flop if there is no Ace or King on the flop. For example, if he has 500, then he should bet 333 (slightly less than 500*2/3) before the flop (assume raising 133 is allowed). If the flop has no Ace or King, then he bets the rest 167 which is over 25% of the pot. My rough calculation shows that the expectation of this play is about 0.18StackSize, since the probability that no Ace or King on the flop is about 0.664 (the probability that no Ace or King or straight on the flop and no flush draw is about 0.63). The expectation of the `move all-in` play before the flop is only 0.1StackSize.
It is a very good question, the accurate calculation seems to be quite involved.
Well, David, I'm glad to see you're getting everyone to return to poker from bashing you, your books, your tact, and your political correctness! (Slamsky?). Your idea of the problem series is terrific! Plese keep it up.
You also may have unwittingly created a new form of contest. When you conceived of this, did you think through what was likely to unfold when you asked for the "best" answer to a poker problem in a internet-based threaded discussion? Unlike a typical contest, where the entrants have a fixed amount of time to complete their work independently, this is very different. People see others' answers first and thus have the opportunity to build on them. So I suppose by "best" you probably meant the first person who posts a complete, correct answer.
However, as there was no pre-announcement, this would favor those who just happened to check the Forum at the right time. Anyway, some food for thought for organizing the next contest. It doesn't matter that much since most of us are here to learn and share; but you're also dealing with some extraordinarily competitive poker-types who have a visceral reaction to the words "contest" and "give away..." and play to win.
Returning to the problem, I must congratulate Jason Gao who appears to me, by my calculations of the expected values, to have been the first person to solve the problem correctly by using a strategy of betting 2/3 of your stack before the flop (in all 3 bankroll cases), and then betting the 1/3 balance when the A-K misses the flop, thus offering the opponent the required 4-1 odds in that case.
The only other point I can make as a later threader which you might award extra credit for (see my competitive juices coming out too!) is that I felt part of your wording was potentially ambiguous, and initially led me to a different possible answer. You said the opponent "will only call your after-the-flop bet if it is not more than 25% of the pot."
I'm no English major, but I think this can be interepreted two different ways: (1) The bet is not more than 25% of the pot; or (2) The call is not more than 25% of the pot. If you meant the former then the right answer is the one already mentioned--to bet 2/3 of your stack pre-flop, then the post-flop bet is 25% of the pot and the opponent is getting 5-to-1 on the call. If you meant the latter, the right answer would be to bet only 3/5 of your stack pre-flop, then bet the larger 2/5 balance afterward, giving the opponent only 4-to-1.
The right answer is as follows:
Keep your damn cards down because David Sklansky can see them and I can't!
When i mowe all in e=0.1a(e-is my expectation,a-is my money ).If I make it x to go.Let's count.If x<0.6a then I can make him fold unimproved hand,if x>0.6a then I can not make him fold unimproved hand.My probabilyty is-10% I get Q, 30% he get A or K and I do not get Q, 60% we will not get any help.If i get Q-I will set him all in.If he get A or K and I do not get Q I will fold.If we will not get any help-I will bet all in(if he stay he win 15% and I win 45%).If he fold when we will not get any help then e=0.1a-0.3x+0.6X=0.1a+0.3x(x<0.6a) e=max when x=0.6a e=max=(0.1+0.3*0.6)a=2.8a.If he stay when we will not get any help then e=0.1a-0.3x-0.15a+0.45a=0.4a-0.3x e=max when x=0.6 e=max=(0.4-0.3*0.6)=2.2a.If I have 500 then rules will not let me make it 300 to go,so to x be close to o.6a i have to raise 200$ or call.If I call e=0.1*500+0.3*200=110.If I raise e=0.4*500-0.3*400=80. This mean I will raise 401$ when I have 1000$,I will call when I have 500$,I will raise 2801$ when I have 5000$. If i favorite on flop I will bet,if not I will fold. Exseption if I get Q and he will not get A or K and I have 500$ i will bet 126$.
I quietly fold the hand and wait for a better opportunity. Aprox 2/3rds of the time I will win 1/2 to 2/3 of my stack on the flop and the rest of the time I either lose 1/2 -2/3 of my stack or I risk the balance of my stack. it is too close a call for me, it's a coin toss. I fold.
Further Exp.: I'm only about a 1.7-1 fav. on the flop against him either hitting the A,K or flush or straight draw. That's too small for me to potentially risk my whole stack. The only way it would make sense would be if I could get him out before the flop.
I'll use your numbers here. You say that you're a 1.7:1 favorite to still be ahead after the flop. So, if you want to reduce risk, bet 60% of your stack preflop, and then whenever he misses, bet the remaining 40% to make him fold. With the $1000. stack, this will net you $600. about 63% of the time, and lose you $600 37% of the time. The expected value of this play is $156.
I am pretty sure that I've never been in a game that's so loose and easy to beat that I can pass up opportunities that have such a high EV and still expect to come out ahead in the end. If you're never willing to risk your entire stack, then you're in too big of a game. The right attitude here would be, if I'm in a game with $1000 in front of me, I must have a bankroll of many tens of thousands in my pocket. Thus, I cannot pass up such high +EV plays, because when they fail, I will reach into my pocket for more.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg I was playng in no limit game(100$ bay in) today in foxwood.One gay, very good player, slitly drunk-raise 250$. He show hand to player next to him.I saw it.It was AsQs.I have 8h8d on big blind.I was wining 712$.I call.Flop 9s8c3s.I check.He bet 562$.I call.Turn Ks.River 3d.I will never play no limit again!!
I believe that there are 6 key observations to make here that guide us to a correct answer (each of 1-5 follows from a brief calculation):
1. If your opponent doesn't flop a pair or better or a straight or a flush draw, AND you don't catch another queen on the flop, you would like to bet more than 25% of the pot and pick it up right there, if you can.
2. If your opponent flops a pair or better or a straight or a flush draw, but not a pair of Aces or Kings (or trip A's or K's, or a full house, or quads), it is best to go all in.
3. If the flop contains at least one queen and your opponent does not flop a hand better than 3 queens, you would like to get as much money in the pot as possible.
4. If your opponent catches an A or a K on the flop, and you don't catch a queen, you should only call a bet if you are getting around 11 to 1 or better, and it is easy to calculate that making the appropriate size bet pre-flop for this to be the case is not optimal.
5. There are flops that will give you a second best hand, but are still worth drawing to given proper pot odds (including flops like the only four-flush with an A or K, KJT, and even QJT).
6. If we raise pre-flop, the rules of the game say that we must raise at least $200 unless we are going all-in (I believe that I probably would've missed this observation had I not read Boris' post).
With these observations in hand, and by checking the EV's on the extremes, we can see that the best way to play the hand is as follows:
A. Before the flop, bet the largest amount LESS THAN 2/3 of your stack that the denominations of your chips and the rules of the game allow (e.g., if there are no $1 chips but there are $5 chips, $665 with a $1000 stack, $3330 with a $5000 stack, and $200 with a $500 stack).
B. If the flop contains a queen: move all-in if your opponent will call, otherwise, bet the largest amount less than 1/4 of the pot that the denominations of your chips will allow.
C. If the flop does not contain a queen: only fold if the flop contains an Ace or a King and you have neither the only four-flush nor an open end straight draw. Otherwise, go all-in.
I should note that when I refer to the "best" answer, I am referring to the way to play the hand that has the highest EV. Not everyone has achieving the highest EV as their goal, but it certainly is my goal when I play.
Thanks for the interesting question!
Dennis
Well, I suppose I want to Maximize my profit while risking the least. Each particular betting interval is going to present a situation with a pot size and bet size designed to make your opponant make increasingly incorrect calls.
Pre-flop, your opponant is about a 2.5-1 dog to flop a pair or better. You know his hand and won't pay-off should he hit at any particular point. Additionally you know he will call the flop for 1/4 of the pot regardless of what flops.
So the idea is to sweat the flop for the minimum and bet the maximum that he will call on the turn and river yet you also want to manipulate the pot so that you can make a decent enough bet on the flop should you still be ahead. For the $1000 I would raise $200, then bet $200 on the flop if no flush or straight draw flops for him, then bet $400 on the turn leaving me nothing to payoff with on the river.
Should my opponant flop a draw, I'll probably He'll probably put me all in so I don't have to worry about betting, but If he checks I'll bet $300 on the flop and $300 on the turn.
For the $500 -- I would call then move all in on the flop. For the $5000 -- I would make $1000 straight, then $500 on the flop and move all in on the turn -- if he flopped a draw then its $2000 on the flop and all in on the turn.
In addition, should he draw out on me on the river by making a bigger pair -- I'll show my QQ and:
For $500 -- ask for $20 for bus fare home. For $1000 - ask for $50 to live on till payday. For $5000 - ask for $100 so I can play $3-$6.
[No Limit Holdem. Opponent makes it $200 with AKo, there are no blinds, and you have QQ. Your stack is $500, $1000, or $5000. Opponent will call a bet %25 of the pot with just overcards and will go all in B4 flop if you want, and anytime he makes a pair or better. What to do ... ]
I assume "25%" of pot means the BET, so he'll call with his overcards getting 5:1.
>>>I'll also assume he'll take the same odds on the turn.<<<
I assume you can only bet in increments of $1.
Your objective is to get him all in when he's NOT going to make it, but not go all in yourself if he DOES. Realistically you can't avoid losing your whole stack if he makes it on the river. But if you have reserved a TURN bet and also reserved a FLOP bet then you save money if he makes in on the Flop or on the Turn.
He is a 6.5 to one dog to catch his overcard and he'll take 5:1. So you WANT him to call these bets.
Notes: if he makes a flush draw it appears you are still a 6:5 favorite so put in all your money in that unlikely case. Do not bet if you are beat. Do pot odds calculations if you are beat; usually this means fold your stiff QQ.
Your objective is to get him all in on the turn if he hasn't out drawn you already; by offering him a 5:1 bet for the REST of your money. Similarly you want to offer him a 5:1 bet on the flop. You want the B4 flop bets and Flop bets to support the exact 5:1 all-in bet on the turn.
OK, here we go ....
S - Your Stack Size
X - Amount of prospective TURN Wager on your part.
Y - Amount of prospective FLOP wager on your part.
Z - Amount of prospective B4 flop wager on your part.
S=X+Y+Z is optimal..
So; you want to bet all-in on the TURN giving him 5:1: you intend to bet X so you have already bet S-X; the pot is then 2(S-X). You want the pot to be 4 times as big as X:
>>> 4X=2(S-X); 4X=2S-2X; 6X=2S; X=[1/3]S.
>>> So your TURN bet will be 1/3 (6/18) of your stack.
On the FLOP you want to give the same chances; except you have only 2/3 of your Stack to play with (since you are saving 1/3 for the turn bet above):
>>> 4Y = 2([2/3]S-Y); 4Y = [4/3]S - 2Y; 6Y = [4/3]S; Y = [4/18]S.
>>> So your FLOP bet will be 4/18 of your stack.
BEFORE THE FLOP you bet all the money not reserved for Flop or Turn bets:
>>> Z=S-{[1/3]S+[4/18]S}; Z=S-{[6/18]S+[4/18]S}; Z=S-{10/18}S; Z=[8/18]S
>>> So your Before Flop bet will be 8/18 of your stack.
Bet Z = 8/18 of your stack B4 FLOP. (44.4445%)
Bet Y = 4/18 of your stack on the FLOP. (22.2222%)
Bet Z = 6/18 of your stack on the TURN. (33.3333%)
S=X+Y+Z = 8/18+4/18+6/18 adds up as sanity check. OK.
-----------------------------------------------------
For S=5000 the above answers XYZ apply: you want the total bet B4 fop to be (5000*[8/18]=) $2222 so raise $2022; and if you still have the better hand bet $1111 on the flop and $1666 on the TURN. Tip the dealer the odd $1.
For S=1000 the above answers XYZ apply: you want the total bet to be $4445 so raise $244 and Bet $222 on FLOP; bet $333 on TURN. Again the odd $1.
For S=500 he has already bet [2/5]S. If you can raise only $22 then the above answers XYZ apply: go ahead and do so; and bet $111 on flop and $166 on TURN; again odd $1. If you cannot raise $22 then just call. Bet $100 on the Flop into the $400 pot. Bet $150 on the TURN into the $600 pot. Bet $50 on the end if you still have the best hand; MAYBE he'll call. [The edge you get by saving bets outwieghs the 6:5 advantage you COULD have gotten with that extra $50, by moving all in B4 the flop.]
- Louie
Sparing everyone all of the math, the solution is as follows (assuming $5 chips):
$1000 Stack: Raise to a total of $670. After the flop, raise all-in if he doesn't help. If he helps with flops of AKQ, AQx, KQx, QJx, QTx, or JTx, then also move in. If all suited (one of his suits), fold if AKQ or xxx and move in with any other Queen. If he helps with any other flop, then fold on his bet.
$500 Stack: Basically the same except that the pre-flop raise is to a total of $400.
$5000 Stack: Raise to a total of 3335. All else the same.
Correction for my solution: Because of the pot odds you're getting (5:1), you should call with all suited flops, including AQJ, AQT, KQJ, KQT and xxx. AKQ is obviously impossible in one of your opponent's suits.
Also, if your opponent flops a straight (QJT), you have 11 outs, so you should call all-in.
I assume that this problem is basically about the proper pre-flop bet. The answer is 2/3 of your stack rounded up to the smallest chip size or minimum raise amount.
Excuse me. If the flop is QJT you only have 7 outs, plus a back door chance at a running pair or a tie (AK). You must fold with the $1000 and $5000 stacks. You should call with the $500 stack ($300 bet on the flop).
I should double check myself before I post. You're getting 3:1 on your money with the $1000 and $5000 stacks, so you should call with them too.
After our weekly limit two-way game we have a $300 one table NL holdem tournament with rebuys up through the first three 20 minute segments and one optional $300 add-on. Usually a lot of rebuys, with the total prize pool normally between 5000 and 6000. We pay 80% to first and 20% to second, and normally a proportional split is negotiated when it gets down to two. I've been doing fairly well, cashing in about 50% of the twenty tournaments to date. I missed the money last night, and think I misplayed the final hand, but am interested in the group's reaction.
We are down to three, with blinds at 300-600 - Steve has about T12K, and is playing tight. Greg and I each have about T6K. I'm in the big blind and pick up A-6d. Steve folds, Greg raises to 1600. I call. He could have a pair (not necessarily big) or big paint, based on his normal play.
Flop comes 2-2-3 with two hearts, one diamond (my suit). He checked, I bet $1k, and he called. Based on his play, this told me he did not have an overpair, since he normally would set me in. So, I put him at worst on something like AK or at best maybe KQ.
Turn was the 4 of diamonds, giving me the flush draw and gut shot (plus the two overcards). He checked, I set us both all in, and he called. He turned over AK, the river was a blank, and he and Steve split the $4800 down the middle.
I made the play because based on his usual pattern I did not think he would call the rest of his stack on the turn with just two big cards. Plus, I had some outs if he did call - I figured that even if he has a bigger A, I have three sixes and three fives (assuming he doesn't have the heart draw) plus eight or nine diamonds.
My guess is that I waited too long to make the play, if I was going to make one. I probably should have either shut down completely and lived to fight another hand, or made the big play on the flop, once he checked.
Comments appreciated - should I have even called preflop? Should I have made a big play on the flop? Or, should I have just checked along and tried to show down the hand?
Jim Rankin
$2500 in the pot on the flop and you bet $1k, you are asking to get called. I agree with your retrospect that you should have either dumped it or moved in on the flop.
Jim writes:
>> previous snipped<<
>>We are down to three, with blinds at 300-600 - Steve has about T12K, and is playing tight. Greg and I each have about T6K. I'm in the big blind and pick up A-6d. Steve folds, Greg raises to 1600. I call. He could have a pair (not necessarily big) or big paint, based on his normal play.<<
Tough spot, depending on who is raising. Doesn't sound like you would want to call this raise if he had a pair or big paint. I don't think your ace high wins enough but if I'm wrong someone will correct me. It just seems like the prevalence of Ace big card domination will kill you a lot.
>>Flop comes 2-2-3 with two hearts, one diamond (my suit). He checked, I bet $1k, and he called. Based on his play, this told me he did not have an overpair, since he normally would set me in. So, I put him at worst on something like AK or at best maybe KQ. <<
What told you he didn't have an over pair? Because you bet $1k and got called or because he checked to you? If it was because he checked to you, then you'd have to ask yourself how much would I have to bet to get him to fold Ace, big card. It is true that you might want him to call with two big cards without an Ace but if you can pick up this pot at this stage of the tournament it would be very helpful.
If it was because he called a fairly small amount and didn't check raise, I would be very cautios after the flop. When he calls he probably figures that he has a pretty good chance to have you beat. The flop with little cards wouldn't be that threatening to your opponent.
>>Turn was the 4 of diamonds, giving me the flush draw and gut shot (plus the two overcards). He checked, I set us both all in, and he called. He turned over AK, the river was a blank, and he and Steve split the $4800 down the middle.
I made the play because based on his usual pattern I did not think he would call the rest of his stack on the turn with just two big cards. Plus, I had some outs if he did call - I figured that even if he has a bigger A, I have three sixes and three fives (assuming he doesn't have the heart draw) plus eight or nine diamonds.
My guess is that I waited too long to make the play, if I was going to make one. I probably should have either shut down completely and lived to fight another hand, or made the big play on the flop, once he checked.
Comments appreciated - should I have even called preflop? Should I have made a big play on the flop? Or, should I have just checked along and tried to show down the hand?
Jim Rankin <<
He has a pretty good idea with the little cards out there and the way you played it pre-flop and on the flop that he probably has the best hand on the turn. If you really could narrow his hand down that closely pre-flop I question calling the raise. I know it's short handed and Ace high can be a good hand short against a lot of aggressive players but your opponent seems fairly conservative to me.
I think if you were going to make the aggressive play the time to do it was on the flop. On the turn, little cards would not be threatening to your opponent and he did have two overcards and a draw to a 5 for wheel. Too bad his wheel didn't get there as he would have been pretty suprised not to win.
Tom Haley
You read him pretty well, but he read you a little better.
Jason, you are absolutely right. Probably one of the hazards of playing too often at the same table - I thought I knew what he had and he figured out what I had (or at least what I probably did not have). I certainly misread the likelihood of him calling.
We talked after the thing ended - Greg said that if I had made a big play on the flop (as Earl, Tom and I agree would have been preferable to doing it on the turn) he would have put me on a pair, and might have laid it down.
Tom suggests that I possibly should not have called the preflop raise, but I'm not so sure. This particular opponent could easily have anything from J-10 suited up (he stayed alive by making a straight after getting all in preflop with that hand earlier in the same tourney). So, with position, I still like the call. But I don't like my play thereafter. Fortunately there's another opportunity this Thursday.
Jim,
Upon further review, I think calling the raise was right since it was small and it looks like he wouldn't bet on the flop without a hand and you could probably pick up the pot when he checks to you on the flop. If it would have been me with A,K and the situation that you describe, I would have shoved my whole stack in. I wouldn't have minded winning the blinds only. With that flop if I had A,K I would have bet at it, probably about $3000. But then again I wouldn't have gotten all your chips and he did. I'll bet you hope he is on your right next week.
Tom Haley
I think the original call was the worst. They say that more people bust out of tournies with AK AQ then anyother hand. That leads me to believe that A6 cannot be much better. After that, you made the best of a bad situation.
Chris K.
I was out one turnament whit AK
I believe that a far greater percentage of people in tournaments, perhaps 90-95%, have a negative expectation vs only about 55-65% in ring games, and I am interested in whether there is agreement with my conclusion and also what you would guess the percentages are. By expectation, I do not mean the chances of winning a specific tournament or ring game but instead the net $ result, + or -, of playing in, theoretically, an infinite number of games. Here is my reasoning: I ring games, there is no rule that a predetermined percentage of people must lose as there is in tournaments. Therefore, if there were no rake, the average person who by definition plays better that half of the people and worse than the other half, would about break even over time. Since there is a rake to overcome, perhaps only 35-45% of the people are good enough to break even after the rake. Thus, a person who is better that 70% of the people in ring games would be a long-term winner. On the other hand, a person in a tournament who beats 70% of the players wins nothing. In most tournaments,he must beat 99% to win anything and come in about 5 or 6 (beating 99.8%) to win a substantial amount. Of course, when he does hit, the payoff is much more than a ring game but this does not compensate enough to change my conclusion because he will not hit often enough for his expecation to be positive. Here is why. A person who on average will beat 70 % of tournament players in a large numbe of tournaments has what stataticians call a confidence interval or range of outcomes around him for each individual tournament because each tournament is a combination of the persons skill and luck. By definition, out of a theoretical million touraments he plays he will beat 70% of the players more often than any other percent, 69 or 71% slighty less often, 68 or 72% less often than that, and so on. The farther the result from his average, the less often that result will be acheived. I believe intuitively but have no hard data to prove or disprove that the number of times a 70% player finishes in the big money will be far lower than it needs to be for him to break even long term. This is especially true since in most significant tournaments you will have to beat some world champs to win while in most ring games there are no world champs and even when there are a 70% player would still have a + expectation because he is better that more than half of the rest of the players in the game--he doesnt need to beat the champ to win! I am very interested in your comments, especially Mason and David S. because much of what I am hypothesizing rests on gut feel re how stat theory would apply here. Specifically, do you buy my theory that a much higher % of tournament players have a negative expectation that ring players and what would you guess the breakeven % is in each case?
The proper mental approach to playing a tournament is that you don't have to beat 99.5% of the players, you only have to beat the table you are at.
In a 200 player tournament, let's assume that tables will be combined when they go to half strength. That means the number of tables you will play at will average out to be about 6 (disregarding all the "balance shuffling" that occurs when it gets down to 2 or 3 tables). Even assuming a co-leader at your table, you may only have to beat 4 players per table. So you actually have to beat 24 out of 200 players -- 12%. Of course, you will have to beat everyone at the final table to win, although that doesn't change the math dramatically.
As far as having to beat the world champs, most of those guys get sent to the rail too -- you don't have to beat all of them, just the one or two that end up at your table.
I take issue with your 70% figure because the reality is so far off -- you might finish 200th in one tournament and in the top three in the next. Trying to average those numbers into a percentage range doesn't reflect the reality of top-weighted payoffs. Ungar took 15 years to win his 3rd WSOP title, but the $1 million for last year undoubtedly set his tournament EV into a very positive range (-10k x 15= -$150,000 + $1M = +850k (and that assumes he paid full fare for each year he lost, which seems unlikely)).
If I had to guess at win percentages, I'd smooth player skills into 5 categories - great, good, average, poor and terrible. I'd would assume that the following table would describe tournament results by group:
% in Group Win % % Tourn Won Great 10 3.5 35 Good 20 2.0 40 Average 40 .5 20 Poor 20 .25 5 Terrible 10 0.0 0
Totals 100 % 100 %
Obviously there is a spread of abilities within each category. Also the average skill is higher in those tournaments with higher entry fees and fewer entrants. (Although the World Series Final Hold'em may be an exception because there are so many satelites, and because a number of relatively weak players enter to be part of such an exciting event.)
The above figures would imply that about 10% of the player have significant plus equity, 20% rate to double their money, not counting entry fees & tokes, and the other 70% have negative equity. (The fact that a player might in trying to raise his $ expectancy, lower his chance of winning probably doesn't change the above too much, since I think that the equity breakdown is similar in both cases. The exception would be that the more places paid, the less equity is captured by the best players - imagine every entrant finishing in the money with first getting slightly more than last.)
I would be curious if one of the statistical experts could calulate the probability distribution for someone who rates to win 3.5% of the tournaments he enters, winning various numbers, from 0 to 10, of tournaments out of a 100. The high numbers might correspond to what Men, Phil H, or Johnnie Chan have accomplished, while the lower numbers might reflect the results of those like myself, who feel very unlucky in tournaments. (It might be relatively easy for a good programmer to set up a simulation that ran a million sets of 100 to create the distribution for players for each win %. I visualize the result as a table with win % along the top, .5 upto 5.0, and percentage of wins from 0 to 10 running down.)
David Sklanksky wrote an article about this. I believe it is in his book about poker and everday life.
Ron,
Do I buy your arguement? Yes and no. Yes if everybody simply paid a buy in and their entry fee and just played in tournaments. No, when you factor in the satellites, particularly the one table satellites. I'm not proficient in statistics and I am offering no mathematical proof that what I am about to say is correct. I feel that a player in the top 30% would win many more than his fair share of these satellites. Thus his expectation of playing in the satellites is on the positive side. I believe that there are a significant number of players making money at the satellites and also getting free rolled in the tournaments.
The second part is getting someone a backer. I've read about several types of arrangements between a player and a backer. It would be interesting to read other commentary but it seems like these are pretty good deals for the players. I am not sure of the various risk levels that a player faces when that player has a backer. From what I understand there are arrangements where the player essentially risks no money.
Tom Haley
Thanks to all of your responses to my post, but no one has directly adressed my point. I asserted for reasons given in detail that I believe only about 5% of tournament players have a + expectation vs about 35-45% of ring players and asked all to state their oun specific numbers and why and no one has. The obvious conclusion is if you are not a very top tournament player you should stick to ring games. The more global conclusion is that if only people with + expectations were to enter torrnaments they would not exist because there would not be enuf players. Please comment. By the way, the thought that you play only 2-3 tables and therefore have to beat only 18-27 players to win is bad logic. Whether you are on the same table with all other players or not, eventually you will meet up with players from other tables that have built up big stacks at those tables. Just because you were not there when they built those stacks, you still have to overcome them when they get to your table which you will have trouble doing if you have not built up a similar stack at your table.
The point about "bad logic" for not having to beat the entire field in a tournament is not well-taken. True, we weren't there when they built the big stacks, but those (let's call them equivalent) big stacks were playing at much smaller stakes when they built them. When tables are consolidated to 2 or 3 tables on the end, the blinds and antes have risen proportionally. Thus, we are facing an equivalent individual battle with these players, rather than the many smaller battles you imply we would still be facing by proxy.
I once pointed out to a low-limit player that the cream eventually rises to the top. His dry reply was, "so does the crap". Even in a tournament.
Dead money wins tournaments.
I'm going to side with Ron (that ring games are better).
In a ring game, the bad players can keep re-buying and will continue to lose money to the good players forever.
In a tournament, the bad players will bust out and leave. Now who are you left playing against? The good players.
And not that I would do it, but I suppose some ring game winners do not report their earnings to the IRS, while the poor guy who wins the WSOP, owes Uncle Sam $280,000. Ouch.
"And not that I would do it, but I suppose some ring game winners do not report their earnings to the IRS, while the poor guy who wins the WSOP, owes Uncle Sam $280,000. Ouch."
Sorry but I think it is more like $395,000.
I think your assertion that there is a lower percentage of tournament long term winners than in ring games is a good one, but for two reason's you haven't addressed.
1) As the tournament progresses you are no longer facing the "average" croud you are now facing the survivors, which on the whole will be the better players. AND at these later stages you are playing for larger tournament stakes. So to win a tournament by far most of your gamble will be against the much better players.
2) Tournament payouts tend to be top heavy, in that 1st place is worth a lot. Therefore I assert that if you cannot realistically outplay the solid opponents short handed at the end of the tournament he has little chance of positive EV for the entire tournament. I and confident that if you took all the 1st place money and turned them into 3rd place money that EXTREMELY few people would have a positive expectation. To win a tournament you must: Be a solid ring game player; Be a solid tournament player; and Be a solid short handed player. (Yes, and get lucky...)
Few people excell at all three, so few win tournaments.
- Louie
7-stud post on popular demend.i am hold'em player 3 hands on 4's stret (7s5c)5d7h;(AsJc)JdKh;(9sQc)Qd8h. What is equaty of 2 pairs?Hwo is faworite to win?Hwo is playng favorite
Boris,
Thanks for your hard work on your posting. The 2 pair is a tiny favorite over the 2 jacks and the 2 queens is a slight dog to the 2 other hands. In a real game all 3 hands will play till ones board becomes too threatening to continue. The 2 jacks look like it would have a playing and betting advantage. It could also catch a scare card to win without the best hand. However, it will be first to lead most of the time and that will put it in a difficult playing disadvantage. A person that reads the cards and players well, will do fine with the 2 pair. Others may make too many bad laydowns with the 2 pair. The 2 jacks will do well with an agressive player who can take the pot away from the others. The 2 queens needs to be last to act and able to get away when beat. Good luck Boris.
Thahks i can not tipe and spell
The Gambling Forum February 1998 Archive Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo