![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Of course your suggestion also brings on responsibility. So we expect to hear from you a lot.
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
Hey Sklansky,
Badger isn't even a *****SuperStar*****. What are Scott and Feeney too think. Nuttin Poisonal Badger but just because you win at Omaha (is that poker) Tournaments doesn't cut a lot of mustard with me. Oh. I get it. Sklansky owes you a lot of money. Sure money talks.
Vince.
so i'll break the ice and be the first person with just a watch (no bracelet) to post here. the only question is what should i post about. hmm. how about a bad beat story? everyone loves those and they definitely belong on the general theory forum. no, that doesn't feel right... how about a long post about why mississppi is better than stud. i, for one, miss those posts. wait, i like 7cs.... maybe i should just ramble for a while and say nothing of substance. yeah, that'll get the ball rolling over here.
scott
Scott,
You are showing your'e youth! Don't become a s(n)cott nosed kid.
Vince.
hey! let me ask you something. before i started us off, how many poker theory posts were on here? uh..none? and how many now? uh..more than none? and i claim all the credit. besides, what does sncott mean?
scott
Suppose you are in the Big Blind and the button raises and you call with 98 of hearts. Just you and he. Against the typical player would you rather be all in at this point or not?
David I'd like to answer the question but I'd need more info about the game is it NL tournament? or BB is a short stack in a ring game.
i would rather not be all in. this is because i can usually win a heads up hand before showdown. he probably has me beat right now with at least a big card or maybe a pair. i don't like no fold'em from here. i would like the chance to outplay him postflop so i can win without improving. one pro of being all in is i can draw for free, but i'd rather not have to draw at all.
scott
Suppose you are in the Big Blind and the button raises and you call with 98 of hearts. Just you and he. Against the typical player would you rather be all in at this point or not?
I never want to be all in when I play. However, considering the theoretical nature of your inquiry, the answer is still no. Against a typical player that I read well or have good control over I want plenty of chips in front of me in order to maximize my gain when I do make a hand. If I flop nothing, I lose nothing more.
I don’t want to be one of the nit-pickers that the forum has been plagued with lately, but I’m not really sure what is meant by a typical player. I’m sure that the typical players in the games David Sklansky plays are quite a bit different than in the games I play. Putting that aside, I’m assuming it’s a limit game and that the button has to have something when he raises, that he’s not raising with two random cards. I’m also assuming he’s not gutless or an idiot. Let’s look at the possible scenarios:
1) Opponent has a big pair. In this case, you are dog meat. You have little chance of outplaying him and he’s going to win about 80% of the time in the showdown. If you knew what he had, you would want to fold.
2) Opponent has a small pair. In this case you are almost 50-50 if the hand goes to the showdown. The expectation on your call if you are all in is
.5(3.5 bets) - .5(1 bet) = 1.25 bets.
Therefore, in order not to want to be all in you would have to be able to outplay him for an expectation greater than 1.25 bets per hand. In other words, the extra bets you can extract the times you make the better hand, plus the bets you can save when he has the better hand that he can’t save when you have the better hand, plus the net amount you are a better bluffer than he is must average out to 1.25 bets per hand. This is highly unlikely.
I’ve read that an expert can expect to win about two big bets (= four bets) per hour if he is by far the best player in a limit game. If an expert player could dominate a typical player for 1.25 small bets per hand when he has a mediocre holding like T9s, he would be able to win much more than four small bets per hour.
Therefore, you would want to be all-in in this scenario as well.
3) Opponent will raise with any Axo or Kxo. Your opponent beats you about 52% of the time when these hands go to the showdown. Your expectation on your call if you are all in is
.48(3.5 bets) - .52 (1 bet) = 1.16 bets
You aren’t going to be able to outplay him for 1.16 bets worth. You want to be all-in.
4) Your opponent has Axs or Kxs. Your opponent wins about 55% of these for an expectation of 1.03 small bets. Same conclusion.
5) Your opponent has two big cards. He wins about 60% for an expectation of .8 bets when you are all in. Ditto.
I could go on, but this is getting tedious. It certainly looks like you want to be all-in for every reasonable scenario. (All of the above win percentages were derived using Mike Caro’s “Poker Probe.”)
your numebrs don't measure what you think you're measuring. you don't have to outplay the whole ev of calling with T9s. you only have to outplay supposed loss of ev future action. T9s allows you be hit lots of flops, which in turn allows you to play very aggressive heads up. and that allows you win without the best cards. you still win (and win more) when you have the best cards. but you lose more when you both make hands but his is better. you just have to outplay the difference. this hand may not even require being able to outplay your opp.
and your 2 bb per hour number doesn't really apply here either. a hand like this comes up less than once every 60 hours (guessed numbers) so even if he can play it for 3 sb profit it only adds .05 sb to his hourly rate.
scott
Scott,
If I call this one sb in the big blind, I'm getting 3.5:1. When I'm all in preflop, my expectation on the call has to have positive EV with 9-10h. I think there are far too many times when a combination of flop and bad position would force you to not take this hand any further if there was money to be bet and called. I vote for being all in with the preflop call.
I believe you are correct about my reasoning being off. I think my conclusion may still be correct, but being right for the wrong reason still makes one a moron. It reminds me of an adage: It’s better to keep your mouth shut and have people suspect you are an idiot than open it and have them know it.
If Mason Malmuth were to delete my post before it manages to mislead someone, I certainly wouldn’t scream censorship. I’d probably consider it a mercy. I’m going to go crawl under a rock now.
man! this is the second time i have responded to one of your posts and you have responded with an apology. as vince would say 'get tough.' since i'm not vince, i'll only say it once. who cares if you look stupid on the forum? (which you don't. we all make mistakes.) if you keep your mouth shut you'll never learn. stop being embarassed. i mean, i can understand self effacing humor, but try some self aggrandizing humor. it makes you feel good. malmuth won't delete this. he didn't even delete my plea to my mother.
as for you having the right answer. you seem to be squarely in the majority. but i think that T9s is a strong enough hand here that you don't even have to outplay your opp to profit from future action. look at how low david t the buttons stealling requirements. you can push him off a lot of these hands
scott
It’s not really an apology. It’s an admission that I’m incorrect. Doing this is important. I didn’t want someone who was trying to learn how to calculate expectation to be misled by my screw up. I made an elementary thinking mistake, which is easiest to see in the 50-50 case. When one of the players is all-in, the big blind’s expectation on his call is
.5(3.5 bets) - .5(1 bet) = 1.25 bets.
So far, so good. But let’s suppose the big blind is not all-in, but for some reason he resolves that he is just going to check and call the button down. In this case, his expectation is
.5(8.5 bets) - .5(6 bets) = 1.25 bets –- the same! (But his variance is higher.)
For some bone-headed reason, I concluded that the expectation in the second case would be zero. (And I hope to God that I’m not making some different elementary mistake now.)
I certainly seem to be in the minority here, but in this cas and knowing only the opponent is a typical player, I would expect he or she will call the river or fold to my all in. I have a drawing hand, and I would take a shot at a draw all the way. His bet is automatic and I cannot let him steal.
98s is a drawing hand. The button may have a pair or a bigger drawing hand. As it stands now, a drawing hand against one person doesn't offer the necessary pot odds. All in is best assuming no miracle flop....
j
Since we only have limited info to go on I'll give you my best shot.
In bad position with a drawing hand I have no interest in playing out this scenario against one opponent. So I'd have to be all in to continue here - I won't call a stealing button bet in the BB without at least a Q in my hand. Except in different circumstances - If this were a NL tournament and there was an aggressive player stealing my blinds I'd go all in with 5-2 in the bb to stop him.
Some of you apparently misconstued what I was asking. Assume it is a 10-20 game. Everyone folds to the button who makes it 20. You can expect him to have any ace, any pair, any two cards above a seven plus hands like kxs qxs or75s. Thus folding cannot be right and reraising is an option.
But my question assumes you simply call. What I am asking is whether AFTER you call you will do better in the long run if you or your opponent were now all in as opposed to if you both had money to continue to bet.
A second question is this: Suppose you did have money to bet all the way through the hand, but if you won, the pot would be raked $20. Would you still call before the flop ,given this rake does not alter your opponents strategy?
1. I'd want us both to have chips to continue on with the hand.
2. Wouldn't call with $20 rake.
I assume there is a point the this exercise and that point will make you look like a genius and us look pretty stupid huh.
Q2: I would not call if a $20 rake. I probably would not play if there is a $20 rake.
Q1: I figure I have a 50.8% shot head to head with 98s. I'd prefer to not be all in, but I could live with it. It would also depend on my knowledge of the other player. In the past 4 years, the only time I have been all in is (1) in a tournament or (2) a no-limit game. In a 10-20 game, I'd make sure I had enough to cover the round.
I have seen a 98s all in call win in a big tourney head to head. Paired the nine and that was the high pair.
if you would not want to be all in, then you should call with the $20 rake.
scott
Explain that please. Intuitively think you might be correct, but I would appreciate a logical arguement.
Thanks
you still get to play the future action. so if the ev for that is positive, say equal to K. calling with the $20 rake is paying $10 while expecting to win $15+K. when K is positive, this is clearly a good deal.
scott
Thanks, I got it!
"What I am asking is whether AFTER you call you will do better in the long run if you or your opponent were now all in as opposed to if you both had money to continue to bet. "
David,
You should have left well enough alone. By asking the question this way you beg too many questions. Too many varibles. If one just calls an all in bet he is limited to winning 3 1/2 sbs. But if he calls and he and his opponent and he have an infinite amount of chips, well, you can see the problem. Now the issue takes more of an it depends type answer. How well does the opponent play and how well you play are now prime considerstions. In fact hand strength is now of secondary importance. Gee, I was just beginning to like this thread too!
Because I can't answer the first question I can't answer the second one either
Vince.
BTW - What I liked about this thread before you "misconstrued" me up were the responses. Both sides were taken and a reasonable analysis was done and countered. Those are the things that forum discussions are made of. I particularily liked the responses that started with "I hate going all in". Now those are the responses of true "Poker Players'. They want some influence over whatever hand they are iplaying. The Math guys do: Let a=the EV of being all in. Let B= the EV of having more chips. If A>B then A. Wow! Vince.
the second question is really a very similar question. the pot would have $15 in it (rake excluded), so you could take a slightly negative ev for future action and still call the $10. but not too much.
this guy will chase me down with an A or a pair. but he will fold an unimproved Kx, Qx, JT, etc. there are 30 overpairs out of 587 possible hands. here we lose big no foldem and lose bigger with more action. against almost most of the other hands we are ok no foldem, but being able to win the pot those times we both miss should easily make up for losing more to KK et al and the rare higher flush and K9 when the 9 hits. because when the 9 doesn't hit, we can win by betting. the 9 does not usually hit.
very rarely would i want to be all in this early in a hand. and i don't think this is one of those times.
scott
what i meant, of course, is that there are few hands that i would play if i weren't all in, but i'd prefer to be all in. there are clearly scores of hands that i would fold if i had money left, but would take the 3.5-1 odds if i didn't have to worry about future betting.
scott
Scott,
You are in the sb, so calling would cost you $15.00. There is $50.00 in the pot when you call but the BB has yet to act. When you called, you were being offered 35:15, not 3.5:1. The BB is now offered 5:1 to defend. If you raise, in an effort to get it heads up, it costs you a $25.00 bet into a $35.00 pot. Now the BB can call but is only getting 3:1 odds to do so. However it turns out, you will be first to act for the next two betting rounds. Assuming all three of you stay and the flop is neutral for all of you, how do you like your chances? I need more of a hand in the sb than I'd need in all positions except UTG and 2nd-UTG. While I might raise 3rd-UTG, and first in, with 9-8 suited, I would then at least have the possibility of stealing the blinds, or failing that, maybe playing against only one other player. Hopefully, that other player would be one of the blinds, giving me the positional advantage. My considered opinion is that people who play too freely out of position in the small blind probably aren't able to outplay people who have shown a respect for position when committing money to a pot. I could be wrong, and probably am, but I would fold the hand against a typical player raising first in from the button.
Hopping around between forums I have gotten two different questions confused. Scott is in the BB and is getting 3.5:1. I call, but wish I was all in. I would rather keep my equity in this pot through to the showdown than try to overcome my opponent and a positional disadvantage. If I weren't all in, I would bet out on the flop regardless of the cards. In the sb in this example, my answer above stands, I fold.
Here's how I'm going to interpret your question.
If I'm all-in, I will have some equity in the pot. In a hot-and-cold analysis, 98s will win just under 49% of the time against a RANDOM hand. I will guess that 98s will win between 40-45% of the time against the overall lineup of hands that this opponent is raising with. In this case, my equity in the pot will be 40-45% of $45, or between $18 and $20.25. I will round this off to $19 for ease of discussion. Since I called $10 more to be in a spot to have an equity of $19, an all-in call made me an EV of $9 over folding.
If I'm not all-in, and both my opponent and I have lots of money in front of us in this 10-20 limit game, will I win more than $9 in this pot, as compared to folding? I BELIEVE that this is what DS is asking, but I could EASILY be wrong.
I think that against a typical opponent who is of comparable overall skill (OK, that's not typical, that's extraordinary) I cannot win more than $9 by playing this pot. If the opponent is very predictable, and can be moved off the pot on the flop, turn, or river by aggressive play with semi-bluffs and the like, then maybe I can make this much profit.
Against most opponents, I believe that calling will be better than folding, but I don't think that I will average a profit (EV) of $9 (as compared to folding, which I am defining as an EV of $0).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
With a $20 rake, I fold.
In my other post, I determined that my EV for calling all-in was $9 vs. folding preflop. My equity in that pot after the call was $19. If it is raked $20, I cannot call all-in.
If the hand is played out, I believe that I will not average a profit (EV) of greater than $9. As such, how can I profitably call when my EV (which is less than $9) is reduced by $20? Since I can't, I fold.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
With 98, you should prefer to be all in against one opponent in order to realize all of your hands' drawing value. When you have chips, your opponent will freeze you out of some of that value, probably nearly all of it, by making bets or raises that you cannot afford to call.
Against a number of opponents you would prefer to have chips in order to realize the better part of the hand's drawing value, although you will rarely be able to realize all of it (e.g. when you flop a gutshot to the "ignorant" end).
Since a $20 rake will more than wipe out the value of your hand against your opponent, you must fold.
This really depends on what you consider to be a typical player. If he's the type of guy who'll chase an unpaired A or K to at least the turn (and maybe the river if he picks up a draw), then I'd rather be all in. If he's weak tight, then I'd rather he wasn't.
First of all it is important that you understand that the two questions are actually almost identical. If you think future bets are to your advantage then it would be correct to call with a $20 rake, since even if you were were all in, you would be getting 15-10 odds which would show a profit. The only way it would be wrong to call with this rake is if you think that future betting costs you money.
Now whether you would prefer not to be all in (and thus would call even with a $20 rake) is not so easy to answer. My guess is that against all but the most timid players you would want to be all in. This is mainly because of the times the flop comes something like KQ4 and you fold to a bet from Ace rag and thus give up a good chance to outdraw. Greg Raymer's answer was therefore the one I like the best.
As to what this has to do with anything, I should tell you that this question occurred to me because I was discussing a specific play with a good playing friend of mine. The question was what to do with this same 98 suited in the SMALL blind when the button raised. Logically it follows that if you prefered not to be all in in the previous case (and would therefore accept a $20 rake) you certainly would not fold in the small blind. However the converse is NOT true. Even if you would prefer to be all in because you lose ground from the flop on, it still may be right to play given the 30-15 odds you are getting at that point. There are other factors as well such as the fact that you may be playing in a three way pot. (By the way, for those who might have wondered, this is the kind of thought process I go through often when determining the best strategies for a given situation.)
So the next question is whether you should play this hand in the small blind. But that is a question for the Holdem Forum and I will repost it there.
so, i lost to greg even though i called the questions being almost the same just because i thought i could push the typical opp of his hand frequently enough to not want to be all in. i am sure that the difference is that i play against the same weak players every week who *know* that i know exactly what they have. in my game i still think i was right. against a player of nearly as much skill as you, i agree with david's answer that you should want to be all in.
wait a minute. i still don't. you get to take first shot. sure you want to be able to draw at K Q 4 against Ax. but don't you want Kx and Qx and KJ to fold when 2 5 7 flops or 2 5 T or 2 5 A or even 3 6 9.
if you are considerably better than the button, then you want future action. he doesn't have to be timid. a loose aggressive who thinks i'm loose aggressive may pay me 3 bets to draw to his over cards when i flop a pair. he just has to be bad. if you are comprable (or he is better) then the question becomes 'how does he play against you'. if the player calls you more than he should then you want to be all in. and if he respects your aggression then you don't. it isn't really about the player, it is about how the player plays you.
scott
You might be right scott but i doubt it. because what happens when you try to steal on the flop but get caught?on the other hand i should have given you credit for being the first one to see that the two questions were the same. greg may have benefited from your post.
Question #20 on page 37 of the recent issue of Poker Digest asks: If someone plays any pair, any 2 big cards (10 or higher) any 2 suited cards, any 2 connected cards and any Ax what % of of all hands delt are played.
A - 31% B - 42% C - 53% D - 64% E - none of the above.
Without looking can you answer this Question.
well, with a pen and a piece of paper and about 30 seconds i came up with about 67.3%, but that is figuring each class of cards separately and then adding their probability, so it doesn't take into account that, say, AA is counted 3 times (pair, Ax, and 2 big cards), so if i had to guess blind the actually total i'd probably think around 60%. I don't know which is more likely currect, C or D. Probably C.
any pair = 3/51
any 2 big cards = (20 * 19)/(52 * 51)
any 2 suited = 12/51
any 2 connected = 8/51
Ax = 4/51
27/51 + (20*19)/(52*51)
(27*52 + 20*19)/(52*51)
(1,404 + 380)/2652
1784/2652
.673
okay, i just redid the math so as not to count anything twice, and i get 43.7%, which suggests to me that i made a goof in my math somewhere and the answer is actually 42%, or something pretty close anyway.
i'm too lazy to post all the math again when it's evident that nobody cares. however, i would like to know if i got the answer right.
C. 53% I did the math too and found D a better answer but I double counted some of the outs.
I have been trying for a while now to figure out a really good system of recording results for my spreadsheet on my PC. I have only been playing a while now, but seriously nonetheless, and want to get a permanent, and very comprehensive system for January 1 2000.
Obviously, I want to record the locations where I play, how long that I play, the stakes I'm playing for, and my winnings and losses. there are, however, some other things I want to record and calculate but am either not sure if I should be, or am not sure how to. These include:
1. I have been recording the time of day that I am playing and compiling statistics for my wins/losses at particular times of day as opposed to other times of day. Does anyone really think that this is necessary? Am I likely to notice a difference?
2. I have been recording my high dollar points, and my low dollar points, as well as my eventual results. Is this likely to do me any good, and if so, should I be comparing these points to the stage of the game in which they occurred? Are there any other stats that I could calculate from this info which would do me good?
3. I have been recording a $/hr average and computing a total $/hr average, but play at lots of different limits, and in lots of different games. I want to standardize this but am faced with the problem of not knowing my $/hr in each particular game. I guess I could just record all of this info, but would still like to know what others find most usefull
4. I want to also reduce my $/hr average to a BB/hr average, but this doesn't seem completely accurate. A 5-10 game for example, is for higher stakes than a 3-6-12 game, but the 3-6-12 would seem to have a higher BB. I have thought of just adding the bets at all stages of the game. 5-5-10-10 would then be a 30 game and a 3-3-6-12 would be a 24 game. Then I could reduce this to a unit TOTAL bet/hr expectation. I would like to know if there are methods that others find more usefull.
5. The games I play in tend to change mid-way through. Most are dealer's choice, and limits often go up as certain players leave the game and others enter. How do I account for this in my notes. I want to have a rough idea of my results in particular games and particular situations but this often makes it impossible.
6. How do I account for tournaments when I figure stats like $/hr average. Are they separate from my other game results, or is there a decent way of combining the data?
There are other things that I am considering, but I'll just leave these thoughts for now. Remember, I have talked to a few people about this already, and most laugh at the thought of recording so much in the first place. I am not sure that is the right advice but I don't want to record too much either. It is surprisingly difficult to keep track a lot of different things, and I sometimes have the tendency of getting overly obsessed with statistics. (I am a former BJ counter, and I think to succeed at that game stats are a must)
My main objectives are to streamline those things that I do record but to preserve any valuable info I could use. I also record personal notes after each session, but these seem less usefull statistically, as they often reflect my mood of winning or losing.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated, and I'd especially like to hear how others keep track of their results
Brad S
Brad,
Get quicken - record your wins in the deposits and your loses in the withdrawls. You can use the check payee for the casino so you can determine your profit and loss by casino. Game in category ie: 10-20HE 6-12 Omaha. The hourly rate is the only bugaboo - you can record your hours played in the memo section and keep a running tally on the rate.
Quicken is capable of running reports by payee and category.
Hope this helps.
I just recently realized I could be using my quicken in this way and will put all my tournament and ring results on quicken in the future.
Which version of Quicken. There are many on the market.
I have both quicken and quick books - I was talking about the personal checkbook package - quick books can be used too but it costs a lot more money.
I am considering putting my 1999 results on but will probably start fresh in 2000.
I'm gonna keep tournaments on it too.
I use Excel on a Mac. It works well for me. It does stats (more on that later). It draws graphs, and the data can be exported to any other programs I need.
Just consider what variables you want to collect. As a general guideline, for every variable you will need a minimum of 10 data sessions and preferably 32. So, measuring 5 variables (game type, limits, $ won or lost, time, hands won/hands played) you will need a minimum of 50 sessions to get any meaningful regression analysis.
Ray invites 9 people, who have never played Poker before, to play Texas Hold’em at his place for 2 weeks.
The rules are that all the players must keep at least $1,000 in play.
The First week Ray plays Limit 10/20 Hold’em with the group. What is Ray’s Hourly win Rate?
The Second week Ray plays No-Limit 10/20 Hold’em with the Group. Now what is Ray’s Hourly win Rate?
Which game would Ray rather play with these people if he wishes to maximize his EV in the Long Run? Given that each player has a $5,000 bankroll that replenishes once a month. If at anytime a bankroll hits $0 or less, that person will never play at Ray’s game again.
The No-Limit Game is just has a 5SB and 10BB.
The last question is elementary, but I find that a lot of good players would choose to maximize there short term profits while cannibalizing their Long Term EV.
CV
Variable Ray = any Ray(ok player) or Ray Zee
1. any Ray.
10/20 limit
2. Ray Zee
Bust them all. Go to a nearest casino for more profit making potential unless it's the only game left on this planet.
Ray goes on tilt by the 4th day and committs suicide cuz he finds out the hard way you can't out play someone who doesn't know when he is being out played.
:-)
If this game is supposed to occur in the winter and Ray Zee can talk nine people into coming up to his cabin for two weeks to play poker, than Ray could make a lot more money in real estate than he ever could playing poker.
If the game takes place in the summer, and these people have never played poker before, I think Ray would bust at least six of them during the first week. In the second week, when it is NL, I'm pretty darn sure one of the newbies would bust Ray with a series of 5 outers and runner runner suck outs.
If the game is in the summer, I want in! While it is true that I've played poker before, making me technically ineligible, I submit that I would bring stability to the game and, to be brutally honest about my ability, none of the others would suspect that I'd had any prior experience.
If the game is in the winter, could you please make sure that Mike Paulle is invited to attend and post the daily play by play on the internet?
Environmental note*
*If you allow Mike Paulle to go out into the woods to forage for his own grub, you are liable to have a dramatic reduction in your bear and buffalo population. Insist on paying him money for his work. Don't fall into the room and board trap that Crystal Park fell for.
80 an hour for the limit game with people that never played before. 500 an hour for the no limit same condition. n/l for all choices . if Rounder plays i over feed him pasta and he goes away. if Big John plays i take half his action.
Huh.. I thought for sure you would say Limit because of the fact that you would burn out the game too fast in no-limit. I may not have set up the question too well, but I did figure you would want to string out the easy pickings for as long as possible.
Thanks for responce though, its interesting to see what you'd expect the differance in hourly rate would be.
Makes me think that if I didn't like a players company I would want to play more no-limit. ;^)
CV
This probably isn't a good title for this thread, but I just couldn't resist the cheezy Shakespeare pun.
Moving on.... My question is, when you're heads up and out of position (this applies mostly to HE, but can also apply to Stud or Omaha or any other inferior card games), what factors make you lean towards betting, and which make you lean towards check/ raising?
I have some ideas on this, but I also want to see what all of you think.
To Bet or not To Bet that is the question.
GD there is something about great minds thinking alike. I wonder what it is when it's you and me? Oh well! This title for a thread has been going through my ear paths fro a while now. I beleive it is because of the heated discussion on betting into a big field in a large pot. No I'm sure that is the reason.
2 bet or not to bet into an opponent heads up! This is poker. This is the true challenge of playing well! You are out of position. Think of it! Out of position. Mason has said, I beleive in Essays II thet the most important factor in mid limit Holdem is understanding position. If we agree and I do then what is the most difficult situation to be in in Mid Limit Holdem. It has to be Heads up and out of position. Yes you got the title right "To bet or not to bet" that is the question. And who better to paraphraes than the Greatest of them all "The Bard" Billy boy Shakespeare.
To bet or not to bet. What be best Thine eyes must glare Perk those dog ears Tis information I seek.
Be he meek or strong bad of the deck or fourlong Aye to bet or not to bet! That is the question.
Consider thyself first Is he fearful of thy thrust? Advantage yourself of his weakness Bet marginal against weakness Check and capture his over agression
To bet or not to bet Aye that is the question!
Vince.
Vince,
Why man, you doth bestride the earth like a Collossus, while we mortal men do grovel from pillar to post in search of a dishonorable grave. All Hail Vincent!
Factors to bet - my cards and my opponent.
Factors to check ditto.
Factors to check and raise ditto.
Well, uh, yeah.. I mean, I'd like to think that your hole cards and your opponent will factor into your decision. But I think an analysis can go farther than that.
I've been reading this forum for a while, and have been impressed with the quality of technical advice given. But today's topic is not a technical one. Like many others who read this forum, I am very familiar with the works of S&M, having read and studied all of their hold'em works. But in my trip to Vegas this past weekend, it was painfully obvious that there's much more to the game.
It became clear that while I may have been technically superior in understanding the game, I was not prepared for the mental aspect of losing good hands. I was smart enough not to go on tilt(how could I be sure?), but I could not keep myself from steaming on the major losses. When my trips on the flop got drawn out by a runner-runner straight, I had to leave the table, even though I thought I could beat the game in the long term.
So my question to all of you is, can this mental aspect of the game be worked on, or is it just another one of those things that come with experience? It's hard for me to imagine at this point that I could just tell myself something, like "bad beats happen" and have that prevent me from getting all bent out of shape. I'm hoping against hope that there's some technique or realization I could find to keep my head on straight.
I eagerly await advice and comments.
Mike
read john's essay. don't tolerate the bad beats saying 'they happen.' welcome them knowing they keep the losers playing. about 8 months ago or so, i used to get mad at bad beats. i had another problem. i felt i was so much better than my opp that i could take by far the worst of it preflop or on 3rd street. these seemed to go hand in hand. i still beat the game but my fluctuations were huge. now i just take the best of it and fold the worst of it. i am more disciplined (or apathetic. it's just score.) and now my wins are more consistant and higher on average.
of course, i've never played for rent money. so maybe that changes things.
scott
It may help to remember that bad beats don't just happen, they happen all the time. There is a large amount of luck in poker. To get a feel for just how much, think about this: Most pros strive to make one big bet per hour. Think of how many big bets go into the pot in a typical hour. Think about what a small percentage of this amount one big bet is. If you are mathematiclly inclined, or have had some math jammed down your throat, think about how very large the standard deviation in poker is compared to the expectation.
Mike,
I went to a Chicago catholic school in the 50's and got the hell beat out of me by the nuns (my school burned down in 1958 I was in it at the time), got beat up by DI's in Marine Corps boot camp in the mid 60's, got beat up by 20 sailors in 1967, got beat up by 7 Portugese police in Lisbon 1985, lived through two typhoons in S/E Asia, earth quakes in Quatemala City and San Jose Costa Rica & tornados in Indiana in 1988 that damn near destroyed my business - I ought to be tough right.
Bad beats affect me like anyone else. Thing is to get up if your on tilt and wash your face off look in the mirror and cry like a baby until you feel better.
Casinos should have motherly women on stand by to give us a hug when we feel bad.
Keep your chin up and remember behind every bad beat is a sucker waiting to give you back your money with interest.
I seldom steam anymore. Part of this can be attributed to experience, part to an understanding that bad beats are unavoidable when you are consistently taking the best of it, and part of it to the fact that I built a little three cell prison in my basement and whenever someone puts a really sadistic bad beat on me I kidnap their butts and take them home for some reeducation and torture. Believe me when I say that after surviving a two or three week stay in my little reeducation center, most of these people will NEVER,EVER put another bad beat on me. Ask Ray Zee sometime what he has been feeding those three grizzlies that are constantly hanging around his Montana cabin?
I, too, think that devouring your opponents at the dinner table is a proper way to exact revenge. However, when my opponents are too fast (or too skinny), I am consoled by the fact that if you never got a bad beat put on you, there would be no game.
I also think about this; in my HE career, I estimate that I've had A's beat at least 900 times. Other 'big' hands, such as K's and Q's, have been snapped with even more frequency. The way I look at it, nothing in HE is sacred; there are 'good' and 'bad' starting hands, and 'good' and 'bad' flops. That's it. But nothing is invincible. And who really cares what happens to your set? Again, how many of my sets have been snapped on the river? Hundreds!!! So what's so special about this particular one?
Thanks for feeling my pain. Like most things in life, I don't think there's going to be a quick fix for this one. But your words and those of the other posters here tell me that
a) experience and perspective should heal this wound or
b) I need to dig a basement under my house.
Mike
"got beat up by 7 Portugese police in Lisbon 1985,"
God, was that you, Rounder. Sorry, but me and the boys really had fun that night.
Vince
Vinny,
These guys were straight of the farm or the hills.
Bad scene thought I was dead they robbed me and threw me in a car I thought I was going to end up in a ditch.
Then dropped me off at the US embassy. PHEW - close call.
I've only been playing non-home games for a few months, but something that really helped me feel better about bad beats was when i started counting bets carefully. knowing that i had the best of it, and i made the right decision even if i did get drawn out on or didn't make my draw was much easier than just having a vague sense that i deserved the pot and didn't get it.
hope this helps.
conform
Probably the best single place to start is with beginning to do all you can to become more interested in the quality of your play than in your short term results. Aim to care about your decisions rather than the outcome of individual hands. Make sound play, rather than winning today, your goal.
didn't somebody write an essay on this?
scott
It does sound familiar... Oh, okay, Another Mike, as Scott suggested in his first post, try my essay over there in the essay section.
<-----------------
The one on fluctuations.
You might also see David's essay "Willpower" in _Poker, Gaming and Life_.
Also, a while back on rgp Kojee Kabuto wrote a very good post with thoughts similar to some of those in my essay. I can't recall the thread. Maybe Kojee will read this and say something.
Thanks for the link, John. Your essay is excellent, and should be required reading for all players. I've forwarded it to friends of mine that don't get the edge I do by reading this forum. :-)
Let the days of tilting end, and let the days of good play begin.
Mike
AMike,
Master the "SMILE" whether your pissed off or happy. People who beat me with outrageous hands I congratulate them on playing the hand so well. You will get paid back ten-fold as they will stay in with even more ridiculous hands than what they just beat you with and if you do go to the end just say you got lucky when you win. Remember YOUR the one that matters not the SOB that just beat you. People love compliments on there play so the more you give them the more they are willing to stay in a pot to get another one. Occasionally I do deviate from this type of play but it keeps me alert to see if it is working throughout the game. Everyone has there breaking point, but if you can put it off for one bad-beat, and maybe the next your probably on your way to enjoying cards and life alot better.
Paul
People love compliments on there play so the more you give them the more they are willing to stay in a pot to get another one.
I've only been playing poker for a few years now but in that time I have come to the conclusion that when someone compliments me on a hand they are being completely insincere. In fact, I am often insulted when I get complimented after putting a particulary bad beat on someone because I know they really don't mean it. It's courteous, but phony sounding. Am I alone on this one?
Brenda it is kinda of like saying "god bless you" when you sneeze - "nice hand" is a reflex comment not ment to be much but a niciety I rarely say it myself I wil say "well played" if it was and I will say "you just outplayed me" if that happened.
If your madder than me and I just got the bad-beat thrown at me I guess you win.
Brenda,
No, you are not alone. I don't much care for the "Nice hand, well played." when it is dripping with sarcasm. I find that a simple grin accompanied by "Well, you got me this time." is unoffensive and neutral enough that it can be a compliment, a concession or an acknowledgement that you've been sucked out on. I feel much better if everyone at the table plays the cards the way they prefer, not having to suffer criticism, ridicule or enlightenment.
One of the problems with some pros in cardrooms is that they hustle too much. Generally, people who do what you complain about also make a great deal of effort to be the live one's new friend. My feeling is that this hurts poker because most everyone, except the hustler, quickly sees through this. I believe that it is best to just be quiet when you lose a hand (no matter how it happened) and go on to the next hand.
Good words to live by, Mason. I've been playing about 3 years. The first 6 months or so, I knew zip about the game and was stumbling around probably laying a few horrendous beats on people and not even realizing it.The next 6 months or so, I started to acquire some knowledge about the game, and couldn't wait to share it with my new-found pigeons. I call this my "smart ass teacher" phase. After a short while, though, I began to realize that I was accomplishing two bad things: a) begining to educate some of the more observant types that there was a little more to this game than they had thought, and b) making myself a big target at the table for those who couldn't wait to lay a licking on me.
Over the past couple of years, I have become much better at the table in just sitting there and quietly taking the punishment. About the most sarcastic I get anymore is the occasional, "Please, sir, may I have another?" Maybe the fact that I have played a fair amount of decent level amateur golf has helped. Expect the unexpected. If the guy has a 40-footer for a half, EXPECT him to make it. That way, when the rare occasion comes along, and he actually does, you aren't surprised. Same thing with the runner-runner stuff cracking your sets. Getting mad about it doesn't help a bit.
Dunc,
I will often equate a bad beat to the 40 footer or chip in - guess we picked a couple to tough games to invest time in.
The ability to control your mental state is a very learnable skill. The following authors' ideas once applied should help you control tilt instantly and effortlessly: Anthony Robbins, Richard Bandler, John Grinder, Robert Dilts, Connirae and Steve Andreas, Charles Faulkner. Controlling your mental state is a skill. The good news is that with the proper instructions, it is a skill that is very easily and very quickly learned. It's just a matter of knowing how. I used to tilt excessively, but thanks to the works of the above mentioned neurolinguistic experts, I resolved it in less than a few seconds, permanently. And so have traders Tom Basso, Ed Seykota, and Jack Schwager; so have athletes Andre Agassi, the entire San Antonio Spurs, the entire LA Kings, golfers Mark O'Meara and Dan Jansen; so had Princess Di, Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, and Al Gore; so have the top rifle shooters in the Army; so have Phil Collins and Sting. And many other achievers. Mental state control is extremely easy and unbelievably quick too learn (only a few minutes to create a permanent change). But you have to follow the proper techniques.
Kojee -- That's yet another whole area that may indeed be very helpful for lots of people. I'm not too familiar with it, but I think it may share some elements with "behavioral/cognitive" techniques used by psychologists. Thanks for the references.
I was thinking of your post in which you talked about the best players being "connoisseurs of good decisions". I thought it was well put. I had started to write a response to it but never got around to it. I checked back though, and see that it was in an rgp thread called "Psychologically speaking". So anyone ambitious enough can find it on deja.com.
" Anthony Robbins, Richard Bandler, John Grinder, Robert Dilts, Connirae and Steve Andreas, Charles Faulkner. Tom Basso, Ed Seykota, and Jack Schwager; so have athletes Andre Agassi, the entire San Antonio Spurs, the entire LA Kings, golfers Mark O'Meara and Dan Jansen; so had Princess Di, Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, and Al Gore; so have the top rifle shooters in the Army; so have Phil Collins and Sting."
How many of these people play poker (you name dropper you)? What major poker tournaments have they won? No seriously I'm interseted. No No don't click me off. Help me! Help me!
Vince.
Calmness after bad beats. Tenacity when short stacked and bleeding. Patience when hand after hand gets annihilated on the river. Objectivity when nothing seems to turn out right. These are all traits that we can use. Calmness, tenacity, patience, objectivity and other poker friendly emotions have components and follow a certain syntax that we all can program in our minds in less than two minutes.
"I eagerly await advice and comments. "
We'll see!
No advice here!
Just Comments:
Another Mike are you serious!? I could accept a post like this from our Columbia College student Scott. He's a teenager and youth would account for Bad Beat woes. But, not to my surprise, Scott actually had some advice for you. Of course I am assuming you are an adult of more advanced years than our 18 year old Scott. Rather than ASSuME that, if you also are a teenager novice then disregard my comments. Actually you can disregard them even if you are as old as say Fossilman. But if you choose to pass them off as ravings of an old Uncle you will be missing out on the truth. Missing out on what may be the answer to your quest for ending the bad beat woes.
First thing: Grow Up! Ego my friend Ego. The driving force of youth, is a double edge sword for the poker player. We all have an ego. Without an ego one cannot excel, especially at poker. But an over inflated ego is the down fall of an otherwise "technically sound" poker player. You know that! You don't need advice from this group. Your just looking for support of what you already know. Bad beats happen. Yes, they do. Duh! Did wittle wunner wunner stwait beat your twips. Ogh. Too bad Tweety! What do you want here? Who do you expect to help you here. Sigmund Freud died many moons age. You've seen Sklansky's nominal response. Do you think he has the time or the understanding. No, Oh wait a minute there is someone here that can help you. Why didn't I think of it before. Of course. He's the only one that helps us all. No not god. Well maybe god. Actually he is just that old "Man in the Mirror". Yeah that's the ticket. That's the one! Ask him while your'e shaving in the morning. I bet he'll help!
Vince.
Vince,
You saw right through my tale of woa and added another one for AMike. Get over it!!! It's only a HAND!!! Like I smile all day at the table Yeah Right!!!!
Paul
I like the websie's new expanded setup.
I am currently living in Southern California, and think I am a reasonably good player. I used to live in Nevada, and for some time (a couple of hundred hours) averaged $17.50 an hour in $5-10 stud at the mirage, and a whopping $5.75 in more than a thousand hours in $3-6, $4-8, and 1-4-88 holdem. I also played there in 10-20 stud and holdem games, and in some nolimit and pot limit live games, but not for any reasonable amount of time.
In so-cal I play only small tournaments and in much larger games ($15-30 and $20-40), which I really can't afford, because the drop in the small games seems outrageously high. I just don't think it can be beat. Am I wrong? Is anyone beating $6-12 and below games in So. Cal?
Chris,
It is more the way it is taken (always, from either a dead button or excessively large "ante" ) no matter what the size of the pot) rather than the amount that really hurts. I wrote a little bit on this in a reply to Jim Brier on the holdem forum last night and you may be interested (the post title mentions rakes - you should be able to find it).
Anyway, I do know of some who do quite well (about $15 to $25 per hour over time in the 6/12 and 9/18 holdem), but they play well in loose games and work hard to stay in good loose games. I doubt 3/6 holdem is beatable for much in Los Angeles County but I don't know anyone who plays and records his results in a manner I would trust. Small limit Omaha H/L is beatable for a decent amount due to the linear increase in expectation as the game becomes very loose.
I'll try to check back later tonight.
Regards,
Rick
I have no problem with the aggressive label part of the weak/aggressive continuum, especially since you can tack on "overly" to differentiate solid aggression from the maniac type. It is the weak part that I have problems with.
In many of the ring games I've played in, and some tournaments as well, the weak/tight players come in two separate, and very different, varieties. For lack of a better term I've tentatively been calling them weak and timid. The tight/timid player usually has something when he's in a hand and is too timid to bet himself, but not at all unhappy to call. In some strange way he seems to relish the idea of someone else betting his hand for him and then calling his way to victory. He will almost invariably checkraise with the nuts on the river. A call from him instead of a raise doesn't give you any useful information about his holding. The weak/tight player is just weak. He doesn't know where he's at with a hand and will make incredibly bad checks, folds and calls. He is a blessing to any game the two of you are in. The timid player can cost you some money if you continue to treat him as just weak/tight. Both are poor players, but the timid one is far more dangerous to an aggressive player IMO. I would appreciate any criticism, comments or other observations concerning this subject.
John,
I consider weak players those who play way to many hands in the wrong positions. Like any suited cards any 3 gapper utg etc. Weakish players tent to play alot of hands 40-50 with the wrong ones in the worng position.
I don't confuse weak with tight as a matter of fact they are pretty much 180 degree apart. Aggressive is another misunderstood classification. (By me) I consider an aggressive player one who controls the hand takes the lead and sets the stage.
My fav player to have at the table is weak aggressive as opposed to weak passive.
Isn't your definition of "weak". Closer to loose. By your definition, essentially all a weak player does is play too many hands. If this is the case what is your definition of weak/tight?
I suppose I can't define weak/tight since I consider weak the kind of cards one plays and what position they play them in. Tight to me is a tough desctiption too.
Tight when? and in what positions? For example: Say a player mucks 9T utg but raises with it on the button with 2 limpers. Is that a weak play or tight? I think it is smart.
I don't play just any suited cards for example I won't play 75s in most any position. But will play 65s in later position. What does that make me? I don't play Ax in most postions but will play Axs in mid to late position What do you call that?
I have to stop thinking about this I'm getting confused.
Hey Rounder, I thought you didn't care about suited cards?
Mike - I never said I didn't care about them I said I don't play them cuz their suited - I'd only play the ranks in position I'd play them off suit with the exception of AXs - to many good thinks happen when you have an A in your hand and I love the nut flush. :-)
Does that mean you'll play 65o at all? I know I never do.
- Andrew
By weak, you mean bad, and bad players fall into too many categories to call them all weak. For example a maniac is a bad player who fits under your description of weak, but I would not classify a maniac as weak.
Why not if he is playing and over betting bad or marginal hands in bad or marginal positions.
Hey - maybe this is a good topic there seems to be a diverse opinion out there.
Just cuz a guy throws alot of chips in the pot doesn't make him strong.
No, but it does make him aggressive and I don't consider aggressive players, whether their good or bad, to be weak.
Good descriptions. I certainly don't feel I have this game mastered by any means, but it never ceases to amaze me by the way some people, at least those with some level of experience at the table, play their hands. With a brand new player, you take your chances, but when people with whom I have been playing for a year or two still won't raise premium pairs at ANY time, and just sit there at the table waiting for someone to bet their hands for them, I just can't for the life of me understand why they can't or won't raise the level of their games even marginally.
i think that these labels only affect our discussions. what we call someone is not as important as the patterns we find in their play or the mistakes we see them make. what you call 'weak' does not affect your game at all. that said, i use the term weak tight in my posts etc. so here is what i mean. i call players weak tight if they are tight players who act predictably when pressured.
scott
Big John,
I have said this before and so has Mason.
Weak/ tight: Tight refers to the quality of hands a player selects. Almost always the best hands. If you prefer, Group 1-3, sometimes 4, Mostly 1 and 2. Weak refers to the way he plays those hands. Bets/raises when he thinks he has the best hand and checks/folds when he thinks he doesn't. A weak player plays in a predictable manner. That's all there is to it folks. You got a problem with that!
Vince.
Most people use passive/aggressive as two sides of the same coin. We all know that all players fall somewhere in between the two extremes. Weak/tight is used to describe people who play tight and passive. I just think there are two kinds of weak/tight players. One, the passive bettor, who I referred to as timid/tight, has a strategy of letting others lead when he figures he's ahead, thinking that he is disguising his hand and punishing the aggressor at one and the same time. These people aren't making as many bad folds and hopeless calls as the weak/tight hopeless players. I thought by isolating this category and looking at each of the individual subsets, we might be able to raise our collective awareness and discuss different playing strategies that we each employ.
Of course, Vince, I'm sure that you've already done this and incorporated it into your overall playbook. I was hoping that,like Gary Carson, you'd publish that chapter here on the forum, or on RGP, for all of us to read and critique. I guess my subtle probe didn't work, huh?
"Of course, Vince, I'm sure that you've already done this and incorporated it into your overall playbook."
Oh! Sure John, take it out on me. The only guy here on 2+2 that really likes you even if you are a lawyer. We go back a long way. How soon they forget!
Vince.
Vince,
I am not actively engaged in the practice of law. To the best of my knowledge, other than a few cases in small claims and a misdemeanor or two, I've never acted as a lawyer. My constant lying is probably what got you confused. An honest enough mistake, and I forgive you. When are you going to tire of the dreariness of Connecticut and return to God's country, or Las Vegas?
God's country - you mean Arizona or the land of fruits and nuts and earth quakes. :-)
If I was from Illinois or Indiana, I'd probably mistake a forsaken desert for God's Country too. I once read a report that conjectured that after three winters in the midwest most people would commit suicide rather than leave California to return there. In that same report, Arizona was only even money. :-)
I think i fall into your new catgory sometimes. I'm usually a pretty aggressive player, but when i feel another player is too aggressive and will bet many more hands than he will call with, i will go into check and call or check and raise mode against that player. But this is only against players who are very aggressive, who consistantly bluff. To me, this is also a good way to balance my play and table image.
Idle conversation over the 1-5 table in AC last week. The subject was purposely misidentifying your hand to entice your opponent to muck his hand.
You hold 2 pair. up against an obvious flush. at show down you announce "full house 6's full of 5's" when in reality you have 6's and 5's. You opponent mucks you rake pot.
The consensus at the table was:
1 Always protect you hand, turn it face up and this will never happen to you.
2 This type of play is akin to bluffing.
I was astounded, mostly because of a looong thread in RGP regarding Badger and a straight flush in a tourney.
What is the consensus here?
Fair play, angle, or dishonest.
Thanks for your input.
Todd
i agree with consensus #1. on the morality, i consider it angle shooting. i think it is dishonest but not illegal. similar to flopping to induce a charge call in basketball. i would never do it. i play for the sport. if someone beat me, they beat me.
scott
poker is a highly competitive game and getting the win is the goal. you should be able to do whatever the rules allow. that is what rules are for. however it doesnt work that way in life. things that are considered unethical are banned but not illegal. so that many times you can do these things and get away with it. what happens is that they sometimes work. if you do it too much everyone knows and doesnt fall for them anymore. what does happen though is that we all play together for most of our lives and our paths cross back and forth all the time. when you shoot angles it will follow you the rest of your life and you will regret it at some point when you grow up.
There is a former WSOP Champion, who I won't name. I'll just say that he's a known Jerj.
A few months ago in a superstellite, after I was all in, he announced that he had a straight after the turn card came. I looked at the board on the river, which was 6-5-3-3-5 and he boarded his cards face up and announced straight. I mucked my 6-9 without giving his cards even a cursury glance. His cards were 6-4. Someone said, "Hey, that's no straight!" I was really pissed at myself, that I had stupidly mucked. The Jerj, a little embarrassed, offered to split the pot with me "if no one objects". His good buddy, another well known steamer, John Bonetti, made the objection right on cue. I didn't want, or deserve half the pot anyway,since I had stupidly thrown my hand away, but I resented the Jerj making such an unethical move. Of course, I learned a valuable lesson. The Jerj explained to the floorman who was called over that he was just joking when he said he had a straight and that everyone at the table had been kidding around and joking all night. I always look forward to his "Hands of the Week" in Cardplayer, but I doubt if he will ever feature that particular one. I sure hope that I've concealed his identity enough in this posting, since I really wouldn't want to embarrass Phil.
Since when did Phil Donahue take up poker?
Vince.
Good guess, Vince, but not right. Although both have those boyish good looks that might appeal to some forum participants. As far as I know Phil Donahue has never won the WSOP final event or intentionally miscalled a hand. I'll give you one final hint: his website is:
www.philhellmuth.com
Big John,
If I were you I would spend some extra time thinking about his game.
Good luck. Make him pay.
Bloody Hell! Next time pop him in the muth.
Actually, I believe posting it here will serve nicely. People need to learn that misdeeds can result in more longterm problems than the shortterm gain was worth. Since I had read, like everyone else, that he was finally growing up and was making a real effort to be a good poker citizen, it was personally disappointing to see evidence that he still acts rashly without thought to the consequences. His pattern of intemperate behavior reflects badly on the image he is always trying to project.
John,
The "Hand of the week" is usually some obscure 10 year old story about something not unusual that happened in Wicsonsin. His negative attitude exhibited in the column has turned me off more than once and I rarely read it any more.
As much as i'd like to agree with you that this huge ego was being a total jerj, I can't.
His declaration and remarks seem to indicate a fairly common table (trash) talk pattern among some very experienced players. I doubt if he expected that you would muck your hand but I don't doubt that he enjoyed "stealing" the pot from you.
Players who get ""lucky " at an early age, no matter how good they may be, are often too immature to handle the success and too insecure to admit that they have much to learn. Many seem to believe that they are God's gift to poker and they may do anything to TRY to prove that.
Of course this also goes for some senior players with attitude: I once saw a self proclaimed seniors champion tap-check from the blind position and all other players check, but the champion, knowing the dealer wasn't watching, insisted he hadn't checked and insisted on betting. The players folded in turn but I raised with bottom pair and ended up winning the pot that he was trying to steal. Thanks, Oklahoma. BTW, players around me had been complaining about his play that day and seemed delighted to see me resteal.
I believe it is dishonest and cheating. Any players constantly doing this should be banned from public cardrooms (and private games as well)
Todd,
I have, as an honest mistake, misread my hand and announced a hand better than I actually had. If that was the case then you have an honest mistake. This more than anything should point to the need to protect your hand and look at the opponents hand before you release yours. In reality the best play is to turn your hand over and let the dealer read who is the winner. An "obvious flush" is not a flush. It becomes a flush when it is turned up and verified. Had he done that the Casino may have stepped in an awarded the pot to the best hand. I know that is the policy at the Taj in AC.
That said your question appears to be one of an ethical nature. If a person makes an intentional move as described is he committing an offense? It is not illegal to intentionally announce a different hand than one has seems to be the consensus. I wonder if that is true. Fossilman and Big John should know. I think that it can be considered cheating. Is cheating at cards in a Casino illegal? Good question. If not illegal is it unethical. I guess that depends on your personal moral code. Mine syas that it is unethical. I would not intentionally miscall my hand. I think that it is "dirty low down" (that's cowboy talk) to do that. John Wayne taught us to be fine upstanding citizens. I think it is even more important to have high moral standards in the poker world. I say we black list the bum! I vote for dishonest!
Vince.
Vince injudiciously wrote: It is not illegal to intentionally announce a different hand than one has seems to be the consensus. I wonder if that is true. Fossilman and Big John should know.
For those who might not know or remember, John and I are both attorneys, and since this is a "rules" question, I believe that is why Vince names us. John and I are not being named (I hope) because Vince thinks that we commonly pull angles like this. Right, Vince?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"John and I are not being named (I hope) because Vince thinks that we commonly pull angles like this. Right, Vince?"
I am sometimes unclear with remarks I make. Fossilman, who (or whom I don't know) has my respect is absolutely correct. I named John and Fossilman beacause they are lawyers. In this case I was being honest. So with that in mind oh ageless one Answer the question. Is it illegal to cheat at cards in a Casino? Can one be prosecuted for say, Stealing?
Vince.
Vince,
Since I am not an attorney I can give you the answer without charge. (though I do feel a certain shame in doing so) It is illegal, and you can be prosecuted for theft. In practice, most cardrooms do not press criminal charges. I believe that most feel that it would open them up to civil liability and cost them money by having to assist in the prosecution. (provide witnesses and evidence)If you need additional guidance, you'll have to retain Greg to provide counsel. He is probably licensed to practice law in the state you currently reside. While I can't say that I've never practiced law in Connecticut, I can say that I shall never do so again.
I'm not sure that you naming me as an attorney is actionable; it is, however, predjudicial to my image. I am not an attorney. In California, where I reside, you have to pass a bar exam to be an attorney. I have never attempted that kind of bar. The fact that I frequently prevaricate when posting might account for your confusion. Forgive me if I mislead you in this regard. I did spend three years as custodian at Western State University. It is often difficult to distinguish between law students and custodial staff unless you search them for cash. (janitors have some, law students don't) If you get up to New Haven and stop by the Yale law library, don't be confused by the picture of the class of 1968. I can assure you that the tall man on the left end of the top row is not me, though he does bear a striking resemblence to the way I looked more than 30 years ago. I hope this ends the confusion.
Yup! Pretty Clear now! Thanks a lot O.J.
Vince
Ya, of course cheating at cards is illegal and you can be prosecuted for it. From a practical viewpoint, no one gets the cops involved and the cheater just gets barred from the casino.
Some months ago, a fellow at our Casino bought $300 in chips, put it on the table and went to get a bite to eat. He was away about 30 minutes. In the meantime, the lady in the seat to his left had apparently called bets in various hands with about $80 of this fella's chips. Talk about a bad beat - not play a hand and lose $80. Anyway, the lady was caught red-handed on camera and she has been banned. Too bad from a strictly EV point of view as she has been a regular donator in the game for several years.
As for Phil "Donahue", good lord! Do these supposedly world class players have to rely on these "moves" to win? It's a bloody shame.
I have announce a better hand by mistake a number of occasions over the years. Others have done the same to me, hopefully also by accident. I always look carefully. I do not feel funny. It's my money.
I think it is dishonest to do it intentionally and have caught cheaters and have had them tossed out of the casino. Gotta' have some scruples
Couple of comments.
1. In some rooms, if you announce a hand and do not have that hand or better, you lose to the guy who mucked. In these rooms, if you announce a hand, anyone knowledgeable player who can't beat what you announced will immediately muck and ask to see your winner. In some cases, you might lose the pot even if you could beat what he mucked, because you don't have the hand you announced.
2. Of course, always protect your hand, and don't muck it until you are 100% sure that the opponent has a better hand. Don't believe them, even if they are your best friend. Even friends make mistakes.
3. The Badger incident on RGP was not at all a case of misannouncing a hand. In that case, Badger turned over a hand (full house?) in Omaha, and the opponent said something about that beats my flush. As he did this, he turned over his hand, and actually had a straight flush. However, the dealer and players did not notice, and the hand was mucked. Badger won the pot. The ethical issue was whether Badger should have spoken up and told the opponent (in a $500 entry fee tournament) that he had beaten Badger. Badger kept quiet, many folks at RGP felt he should have spoken up and gotten himself eliminated from the tournament, while others thought he did nothing wrong. Opinions are clearly varied as to the ethical nature of this act.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Last weekend I played in a 10-20 7CS. On 2 occasions, a player (seat 5) mucked the winning hand at the showdown. He showed the man next to him (s6) and me (s7) his cards then threw them into the muck. Occasion 1 he was looking for a flush and got a straight on the river beating the 2 pair from the guy in seat 4. Occasion 2 he was looking for a boat and drew a higher 2 pair beating the man in seat 2 who had a lower 2 pair but mucked the hand.
Should I have said something? I did not
Ah good, an easy question.
If the player only shows you, and not everyone (i.e., he does not "table" his cards), then you are under an ethical duty to NOT say anything. If you do point out to the guy that he has a winner, and he then tables his hand, the other player can rightfully accuse you of breaking the rules (the "one player to a hand" rule).
Of course, there is no specific penalty for breaking this rule, and it is unlikely that the floorman will do anything to you. Most likely, the floorman will explain to you that you're not supposed to do that, and tell you not to do it again.
However, the dumb mucker will win the pot (in most rooms).
This is a good reason to not intentionally be an ass to someone like me. I would normally follow the rules here, but if you've been an ass, I'll be sure to tell that guy to table his winning hand. In fact, I might even give the weak player some unsolicited advice, such as "I know that guy, and he's bluffing. You should call him." This is even more true if I know that the ass can't hold his temper, will likely do something stupid, and get kicked out of the room.
Fortunately, I've never (yet) had to resort to such tactics.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I guess I think, reluctantly, that deliberately miscalling your hand probably isn't illegal. That being said, my vote is ...
Sharp angle shot, highly unethical, borderline illegal. Protect your hand or just turn it up, and if you think someone tried this deliberately, I would call the floor and put in a complaint. One simgle complaint won't get sanctions against the guy, but the complaint would serve as a warning AND allow floor people to maybe see a pattern over time.
This is analogous to suspicion in a bridge tournament that your opponents are unfairly communicating. You "log" such an incident with the Director, and basically nothing is done. But if the director gets 2 or 3 such complaints about a pair, he/she starts watching them.
Dick
This is not really a theory question, but. What is the opinion of long term winning players on this forum as to the quality of play vis-a-vis today with say, 20 yrs ago before the "information explosion" on poker?(this forum and 2+2 publications being prime examples)
Has all this information increased the % of winning players relative to the general poker population, or has it remained pretty static, despite the absolute increase in actual people numbers playing the game?
If not, why not? Or does more information not necessarily imply comprehension and application?
Post deleted at author's request.
"However, the gap between the best players and the good/decent players is smaller -- significantly smaller in Holdem, less so in the other games."
That gap is lowest in Omaha-8, and greatest in stud.
I have no idea of the increase in winning players but I have to think in the last 25 years with the influx of immigrants from S/E Asia the poker rooms have increased their population considerably.
I spent quite a bit of time in S/E Asia in the 70's on business and there is a culture of gambling out there unlike anything I have ever seen the two S/E Asian casinos in Hong Kong and the Getting Highlands of Malaysia are over flowing with players and the race tracks are so crowded you can hardly get to the windows for a bet.
So I suspect this influx of new talent is contributing to the popularity of poker in the 90's
Actually the percentage of players who are winners will never change that much. Common sense should tell you why. Thus what we have right now compared to 20 years ago is a lot more winners -- and a lot more losers.
With the high cost of playing in public card rooms, the strict ratio between winners and losers has to have the losers pulling away.
I have played poker for 30 years. 22 years professionally. Not once in that time have I used the term "Linear." Not only have I never used it, I have no idea whatsoever what people are referring to when they use that term. I see it mentioned a lot especially by the likes of Gary Carson, et.al. (Hell every post Carson makes he says linear at least once.)
Are these people just being snobs?
Would anyone care to explain--to what I guess is a total moron--what this term means and how on God's green earth it is applicable to poker?
What the hell are people talking about when they say everything is linear? Or not linear? I'm serious about this. I am totally mystified. Thank you.
linear is a math term. generally, it means 'like a line.' specfically, it means different things in different contexts. if you want some examples i could provide them. the one time i remember seeing it, gary used it to describe a linear function. that means that changes in the value of the function are proportional to the change of the variables. so you can do your math with the inputs and scale your results later. his pont (well, my point. he was agreeing.) was that outs and probability of winng are not linearly related. so you can't just do the math with the outs and scale your results to make the probability. i hope this helped.
scott
Once you get away from very simple probabilities many things cease to be linear. (For those a little more mathematically inclined, this is because a probability space has a measure of 1 while the standard real world number system which most of us are use to working in is infinite.)
A simple example is with one card to come if you double your outs you double your chance of success -- linear. If you keep the number of outs constant but now have two cards to come you do not double your probability of success even though many people think so. Both Sklansky and I have discussed this before.
In our book GAMBLING FOR A LIVING we wrote up a concept originally proposed by Sklansky in which we show why it can be profitable to bet every combination in a Pick Six. This works because of the non-linearity of the population uninverse (all possible pick six combinations which is a finite number) for a Pick Six. This can be a hard concept to grasp. For example, Stanford Wong, who should know better, has disputed us by saying that if you have a set of bets that are profitable yet they contain a subset of bets which are not profitable there must be another subset of bets which is profitable. (For those of you familiar with abstract algebra this sort of sounds like LaGrange's Theorem.) But in a non-linear system this does not have to be the case.
Getting back to Gary Carson I am not sure exactly what point he is trying to make by pointing out that certain things in poker do not follow a linear model. However, if you conclude that certain aspects of poker are a little more complex than they first appear and that other aspects are somewhat counter-intuitive, then you should be on the road to success.
the simple example is too simple. there is no reason (other than fallacious intuition) to believe that the chance of making your hand is linear with respect the number of cards to come. a more potent example is that, although with one card to come the chance of making your hand is linear with respect to the number of outs you have, this is not the case with more cards to come. that is the chance of making a 8 outer in 2 tries is not twice the chance of making a 4 outer in 2 tries. while your example is important to guide towards correct play, i think that this one will better give people an intuitive feel for the math.
also, how does lagrange relate to his result (which does not, in fact, seem to disprove yours)? groups, especially finite groups, have a certain structure that does not extend to the sets considered in measure theory. i have never seen any results linking order and measure. while they are not entirely dissimilar concepts, i do not think that any results transfer.
i agree with you on the important point (poker is complex etc.) and i apologize in advance for getting close to the esoteric limit for the forum.
scott
Your Holiness,
I confess that I used the term in a post today. Forgive me father for being a snob and forgetting where I posted it.
Anyway, I used it in reference to your expectation in Omaha H/L as the game gets looser and looser. In Omahaha subtracting a tight player and adding a loose player pretty much adds to your expectation in a linear (i.e., fixed amount for each loose player added) fashion. This is true since you are almost always drawing to the nuts.
This is not so true in holdem as beyond a certain point adding a loose player and subtracting a tight player adds only a little to your expectation but a lot to your swings. Mason goes into this in detail in one of his essay books.
I'll say ten "Hail Mary's" tonight and we should be even.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Is your student's name Mary? If so, coincidence or not?
Il Padre, Il Padre,
Scusa mio, U misunderstand. Thesea boys here, led by the master mathematician Mason, do indeed explain linear extremely well. But Gary Carson was not saying linear to you when he called. He said; Hey Pope, whatsa matter for you, Can'ta you hear! Whata you got a "tin ear" not a "linear", a, a "tin ear". I cana see howa youa were confuseda youa holiness. Gary sometimes speaks with broken "Polish". "Forgive Him O Father for he know not what he does"
Cardinal Vincenzo
Pope I could have used your linear blessing last night. I was in a tournament with a Ac5c had 20 outs times 2 and linear or not my calculations showed I was favored to win but lost to KK - I have to stop listening to the experts on this board they are making me crazy.
Will you hear my confession.
I would like to log my hours and win/loss on a spreadsheet and have my std. deviation calculated but I can't seem to figure out how to write the formula. I have the one from Gambling Theory and Other Topics but I'd like the calculation to be done automatically. The STD function on my spreadsheet (Microsoft Works) doesn't take into account the number of hours for each session. Any help is greatly appreciated.
The answer is relatively simple but will take some extra accounting. Keep track of results by hour when you play. This will not only allow you to calculate std dev on your spreadsheet but will normalize results in accordance with hours played. Remember, poker is not baseball and it is total results that count, not the number of wins and losses.
While feasible, this is not an easy approach and is why the formula in the Gambling Theory book was created. To have your spreadsheet compute the standard deviation using the maximum likelihood estimator you will have to develop columns for each of the compoents and then add these up. That's what I do.
Funny you should ask. I have been doing just that for 2 years. I thought I was doing it correctly simply by dividing my winnings/losses by the number of hours played to give me my per hr rate then simply calculating the non biased (n-1) standard deviation using Excel's function (prob same as Works). I checked my calculations with Mason Malmuth's calcs found in his book on pp60-63. His std dev calcs are different from my calcs, and I have not found the reason. I also used his method to calc mune and that ans is different from what Excel gives me. I am working to resolve it but have little spare time this month.
Maybe Masonwill address this issue
I have not worked out the entire spreadsheet method, but I noticed one flaw in your method.
Try normalizing your result by the square root of the number of hours, not the hours value itself.
Dick
Thank you. I'll try it tonight
I think that Mason's formula gives an estimate of your intrinsic standard deviation, and uses your results to calculate it. The STD function in a spreadsheet probably just gives you the sampling standard deviation which is not the same thing.
Eric
A Row from my spreadsheet:
date time game res bb/hr std
10-Nov 5 10 - 20 120 6 1.9
std deviation formula:
(E44-B44*A$53)^2/B44
(bb/hr - time*avg_bb/hr)^2/time
with the avg bb/hr at A53
Zooey
It's important that you use the formula in the Gambling Theory book since it accounts for playing sessions of different lengths of time. What follows is a description of my excel spreadsheet which may help you put this together properly.
The first column is the date.
The second column is the result. Also known as Xi.
The third column is my total (running) result.
The fourth column is the length of play in hours. Also known as Ti. (I round to quarter hours.)
The fifth column is my total (running) time.
The sixth column is the win rate. It is simply the running total divided by my total hours or the current entry in the third column divided by the current entry in the fifth column.
The seventh column is Xi*Xi/Ti. That is your current result squared divided by the length of time played.
The eight column is the number 1. (Their sum is the number of playing sessions.)
On the bottom of the page I have two entries. They are the mean and standard deviation.
The mean is simply the sum of the second column (your overall results) divided by the sum of the fourth column (your overall number of hours played).
The standard deviation component is much more complicated. First add up the eight column (your number of sessions) and divide 1 by this number. It is then multiplied by the sum of the seventh column. This completes the first term. Second, square the mean and divide it by the sum of the eight column. Then all of this is multiplied by the sum of the fourth column. This completes the second term. Now subtract the second term from the first term, take the square root, and (assuming I described everything right), you should have the standard deviation.
By the way, I use a little trick on my spread sheet. The last row of entries is always zeros. For instance if my spread sheet looks like
11/13/99 340 340 1.50 1.50 226.67 77066.67 1 11/14/99 -101 239 1.00 2.50 95.60 10201.00 1
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
When I add a new row in I add it in above the zero row and always sum through the zero row. For example, by summing from the first row through the zero row in the last column my number of playing sessions is 2 just as it is suppose to be. Now if I add a third playing session and add it just above the zero row and sum I now will get 3 playing sessions. This allows me to never have to adjust the formula (on the bottom of my spread sheet) for the mean and standard deviation.
I think you answered a lot of peoples questions just now. Thank you for sharing that info. I feel it is valuable and time saving.
Thank you, Mason. Your answer was exactly what I was looking for.
In response to your question, I created a web page where people can download an excel workbook that will calculate mean and standard deviation estimates for them.
http://www.geocities.com/happy_flop/index.html
It might not work in MS works.
I have an excel spreadsheet for $10-$20 that does all the computations and I have tested in with the data in "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" and gotten the exact same results. I will be happy to E-Mail to you. I have done this for others like Kevin and Jason.
I've managed to set up my own spreadsheet to do the calculations now. I guess you just have to calculate individual pieces of the formula seperately and then put them all together. Thanks for everyone's input and offers to help.
Last week I tried to introduce a two tier betting structure to regular players in a home game that universally featured spread limit games.
It was a totally foreign concept. Noses were wrinkled, and players were fumbled -- always betting the wrong amounts. It was not well-received. They felt very constricted.
The question was posed to me -- "What's the point of a two tier structure?" My only answer was "Well, that's the way many tables do it in Vegas." Not very convincing or authoritative -- I must admit.
So I now forward the question on to you fine posters. What is the point? More specifically, why would you choose a two tier limit game over a spread limit game, or vice versa? What are the strategic implications of playing in one type v. the other? And in a spread limit game, what are factors used to determine what you should bet or raise within the spread?
Thanks for the help.
Jon,
If you can play and your opponents who cannot will stay then spread limit is great. The problem is that it gives too great an advantage to the skilled player.
When spread limit is spread in Las Vegas it is usually populated by several local rocks just waiting for the weak tourist to drop in. The most common form in holdem is 2-10 spread limit (at least a few years ago). The tourists don't have a chance, even in the short run. Without this type of scenario (an endless supply of tourists who play badly), the game dies out. In the end the spread limit sharks get their just due because they never develop the skills needed to beat the split limit games.
I had an aquaintence who preyed on these games for years. He never improved as a player taking advantage of the pure live ones and now is out of poker to the best of my knowledge.
BTW, Mason Malmuth discusses more of the problems with spread limit in his first book of "Poker Essays".
Regards,
Rick
There are two problems with spread limit versus structured betting. The first problem is the most significant. Spread limit slows down the game a lot compared to structured betting. Suppose you were playing a spread limit hold-em game with a $40 high bet and blinds of $10 and $20. Now you have people betting $5 then someone raises $16 followed by someone trying to call and needing change followed by the next guy raising to $28 and then someone making it $40, etc. You might get 20 hands an hour which is not profitable for the cardroom when they operate on a rake system. It is also boring to the players. A structured game moves much faster making it more profitable for the cardroom, the dealer, and the players. The second problem is the skill factor. A spread limit game favors the better player to such a large extent that the weaker players don't win often enough to make the game fun.
Jim,
As to your first point, I totally agree that it slows down the game. Something else I have noticed -- it is much harder to track the pot in a spread-limit as opposed to a structured limit.
However, both you and Rick talked about the HUGE advantage better players have over weaker players in spread-limit. I have not come across much regarding spread-limit in my limited readings. Could you elaborate on where this advantage comes from?
Thanks.
It comes from the fact that the better players will bet the limit usually when they have the best hand forcing the weaker, chasing players to pay through the nose on their draws. On the other hand, when the good player is chasing, the weaker player will frequently not bet the limit but make a smaller bet making the draws on the part of the good player even more profitable.
A good example is the $1-$5 spread limit 7 card stud game that is featured in many casinos and cardrooms throughout the country. When I learned poker back in 1995, this was the game I played in. When I had a good starting hand like Aces or Kings or just the best pair, the low card would bring it in for $1 and maybe three or four people would call. I would raise anywhere from $3 to $5 and two things usually happened. Everyone would fold, allowing me to win the pot immediately or one guy would call and chase me all the way to the river paying $5 a card. When the situation was reversed and I was one of the players limping in for $1, I never got raised. The only time my opponents would make the big $5 bet would be on sixth street or at the river. The rest of the time they would just bet $1 or $2. I played this game about 6 months (500 hours) and I averaged better than $8 per hour which included a $5 rake. Later on, the cardroom I played in started spreading a $2-$10 spread limit 7 card stud game with no ante and a $2 bring-in by the low card. This game lasted about 6 months and died because so many players were losing so much money. There were maybe 3 or 4 of us that were averaging better than $10 per hour and the others that moved up from $1-$5 were simply losing too much money so the cardroom dropped the game. Instead, the players who wanted to play higher had to switch to hold-em which is what I did in 1997 because there were no decent sized stud games where I played.
x
HOW DO OTHERS SEE YOU AT THE TABLE !!
Grab a pencil and paper and keep track of your letter answers.
There are 10 questions.
1. When do you feel your best?
(a) In the morning (b) During the afternoon and early evening (c) Late at night
2. You usually walk
(a) fairly fast, with long steps (b) fairly fast, but with short, quick steps (c) less fast, head up, looking the world in the face (d) less fast, head down (e) very slowly
3. When talking to players, you
(a) stand with your arms folded (b) have your hands clasped (c) have one or both your hands on your hips (d) touch or push the person to whom you are talking (e) play with your ear, touch your chin, or smooth your hair
4. When relaxing at the table, you sit with
(a) your knees bent and your legs neatly side by side (b) your legs crossed (c) your legs stretched out or straight (d) with one leg curled under you
5. When something really amuses at the table,
you react with
(a) a big, appreciative laugh (b) a laugh, but not a loud one (c) a quiet chuckle (e) a sheepish smile
6. When you enter the poker room, you
(a) make a loud entrance so everyone notices you (b) make a quiet entrance, looking around for someone you know (c) make quietest possible entrance and try to stay unnoticed
7. You are working hard, concentrating hard on a and. You are interrupted. You:
(a) welcome the break (b) feel extremely irritated (c) vary between these two extremes
8. Which of the following colors do you like most?
(a) red or orange (b) black (c) yellow or light blue (d) green (e) dark blue or purple (f) white (g) brown or gray
9. When you are in bed at night, in those last few moments before going to sleep, you lie
(a) stretched out on your back (b) stretched out face down on your stomach (c) on your side, slightly curled (d) with your head on one arm (e) with your head under the covers
10. You often dream that you are
(a) falling (b) fighting or struggling (c) searching for something or somebody (d) flying or floating (e) You usually have a dreamless sleep (f) Your dreams are always pleasant
POINTS:
1. (a) 2 (b) 4 (c) 6 2. (a) 6 (b) 4 (c) 7 (d) 2 (e) 1 3. (a) 4 (b) 2 (c) 5 (d) 7 (e) 6 4. (a) 4 (b) 6 (c) 2 (d) 1 5. (a) 6 (b) 4 (c) 3 (d) 5 (e) 2 6. (a) 6 (b) 4 (c) 2 7. (a) 6 (b) 2 (c) 4 8. (a) 6 (b) 7 (c) 5 (d) 4 (e) 3
(f) 2 (g) 1 9. (a) 7 (b) 6 (c) 4 (d) 2 (e) 1 10. (a) 4 (b) 2 (c) 3 (d) 5 (e) 6
(f) 1
Add the total number of points.
OVER 60 POINTS: Others see you as someone they should "handle with care." You are seen as vain, self-centered, and extremely dominant. Others may admire you and wish they could be more like you, but they don't always trust you and hesitate to become too deeply involved with you.
FROM 51 TO 60 POINTS: Your seen as an exciting, highly volatile, rather impulsive personality; a natural leader, quick to make decisions (though not always the right ones). They see you as bold and venturesome, someone who will try anything once; someone who takes a chance and enjoys an adventure. They enjoy being in your company because of the excitement you radiate.
FROM 41 TO 50 POINTS: Others see you as fresh, lively, charming, amusing, practical, and always interesting; someone who is constantly the center of attention, but sufficiently well balanced not to let it go to your head. They see you also as kind, considerate, and understanding; someone who will cheer them up and help them out.
FROM 31 TO 40 POINTS: Other people see you as sensible, cautious, careful, and practical. They see you as clever, gifted, or talented, but modest. Not a person who makes friends too quickly or too easily, but someone who is extremely loyal to the friends you do make and who expects the same loyalty in return. Those who really get to know you realize that it takes a lot to shake your trust in your friends, but, equally, that it takes you a long time to get over it if that trust is broken.
FROM 21 TO 30 POINTS: Your seen as painstaking and fussy. They see you as very, very cautious and extremely careful, a slow and steady plodder. It would really surprise them if you ever did something impulsively or on the spur of the moment. They expect you to examine everything carefully from every side and then, usually decide against it. They think this reaction on your part is caused partly by your careful nature and partly by laziness.
UNDER 21 POINTS: People think you are shy, nervous, and indecisive, someone who needs to be looked after, who always wants someone else to make the decisions and who doesn't want to get involved with anyone or anything. They see you as a worrier, who sees problems that don't exist. Some people think you're boring. Only the people who know you well know that you aren't.
55. so? people see me as bold, impulsive, and dominant. do you know why this is? because i am bold, impulsive, and dominant. wow.
scott
Thanks for the responses.
DS response puzzles me. If the proportions between winning and losing players has remained constant, is he saying that all his and 2+2s teaching and output has had no effect? That poker would be exactly the same today if the the large influx of new players had occured but the production of books, magazines, the net, videos, courses etc had not? If so, what of the claim in HEPFAP (1994 ed) that "the players have got tougher over the years"? Answers, both common sensical and other, please.
There is no way to prove any of this - it is guess work. There are certainly more players these days than ever before and a lot more money around to play with, note the Dow records.
I often wonder where all thede $100 bills come from some players seem to have an endless supply of them and others wear out a path to the ATM - I don't know where it comes from but I hope it is in fact an endless supply.
Common sense approach: Use the analogy of checkers. 2 players to a game. In a sample of one match then 50% of the players are losers and 50% are winners. Now take a million matches. Wow, same % of winners and losers.
But wait, checkers isn't poker! But the general idea applies. The % of winners and losers won't often change in games simply because the population of players has increased -- but wait. Maybe that's not exactly right for poker. You see, many more poker rooms are springing up so more people have access to it. It is these recreational players (who see poker as gambling fun that they "pay" for) that make up many of the losers. There are probably, with the increase of publicity for poker, more of these players out there. More losers = more winners, right? But that doesn't necessarily change the % of winners and losers. Before 1,000,000 played and only 10% won (10,000 winners). Now 10,000,000 play and still 10% win (now we have 100,000 winners).
Another possible factor affecting this issue is the house rake. That is, it is theoretically possible (and in fact likely, in many cases) that all players at a table (or in a particular casino) are losers. For example, if 10 players each buy in for $20 at a $1-5 HE game and then play for hours without re-buying (and assuming no one else joins the game) then everyone will be broke. How long will it take? It depends on pot-size and rake size, but it will happen. One might be able to argue that we have more "losers" percentage wise now because of so many inexperienced people sitting down and playing unwittingly against the house.
The point of the previous discussion was, I think, that today's players who who are good are generally better than the "good" players in the past and that the gap between "excellent" and "good" today is not that large. In fact the gap is probably smaller than the luck factor at many times during the poker session. Moreover, while there are many more poker players today (simply given population growth + increased interest + increased access), there are probably about the same % of winners now than in the past.
BD - Todays game is a lot different than the olden times of 20 years ago. I understand there is a lot more pre flop betting and raising than there ever was in those days. Maybe someone familar with this can comment.
Funny I was reading somewhere that TJ was considered the best hand one could get pre flop, the theory was you almost always got a piece of the flop with it.
Of course there was a time when a straight beat a flush until Hoyle figured out that a flush was a bit harder to get.
Good point about the change of playing styles Rounder. I'm not sure it affects the winner/loser ratio but it certainly has changed the game.
As an aside to your aside about straights and flushes. It actually is very un-obvious that a straight should beat a flush. For example, in hold-em when a flop comes with both and one player has an open-ended straight draw and the other has a flush draw then the flush draw (with 9 theoretical outs) is a small favorite over the straight draw (with 8 theoretical outs). What this essentially means is that while flushes should out-rank straights in general, at times they are more likely to occur than straights even though both hands are drawing.
It's pretty simple.
As B.D. mentioned, in checkers the total tally of games won vs. games lost is always equal. It dosn't matter how good the contestents are, there will always be the same number of games won as lost.
The same thing happens in poker to an extent. As long as the relative distributions in skill remain the same, there will always be the same proportion of winners as losers. This is independent of the absolute distribution is skill which may increase or decrease with time.
- Andrew
i was thinking. how many people would fall for a check raise twice in a row? at first i thought not many. but then i realized, if they will usually check behind you, then you can check raise for a free card. consider heads up play. you check raise the flop/4th st. an apparent blank hits. you check the turn/5th. what would influence your opp to check behind you or to bet? i would like to see people discuss some examples against various opp types. i think that the really interesting opp is the rather tough player who considers you an imaginative tough player. as is the fashion for these kind of posts, i will post my thoughts later.
scott
Check-raising for a free card is an interesting concept. I'm not sure I like it though, but I've seen others do that in some games. I think as an opponent, it can be baffling when someone check-raises, and then checks on the turn, unless some kind of "scare" card hits.
When you check-raise on the flop, you should be somewhat aware of who is going to do the betting. Say you are the big blind you check the flop, and the button bets, well you raise, and several players drop out. Since you're trying to buy a free card on the turn, you are drawing, but will not get the players you want in there. Say the guy to your immediate left bets, you get some calls, then you check-raise, well for the most part, all of those callers will stay, and you'll get the multiway action you want for your drawing hand.
This is unless you also want to semi-bluff. If you think you can win the hand without a showdown by these moves then that would certainly make it correct.
I think the best play for getting a free card on the turn is to look at your chips when the turn falls, reach for them, but quickly put your hand out and check. Look like an amateur and you just hit something but are afraid to bet it.
D-M
say you check in the bb with a flush draw. utg bets what appears to be top pair good but not great kicker (he limped preflop). it is folded back to you. if your raise here will buy you a free turn, then it would be a great play. and this is without any 'win without a showdown' benifits. i am sure there are other examples.
also there are plenty of times when you are likely drawing to beat the button but want everyone out on the flop. a hand like middle pair, 3 straight draw springs to mind.
scott
Consider this:
With a somewhat stong hand in early position and hopefully near the beginning of your session, you check raise the flop, then with luck check raise the turn.
Yes the second check raise might be checked around but if successfull the advertising value will make people very aware of a check raise all night. This could potentially get you a lot of free cards when you have early position and are drawing.
i agree that for this to work in a multiway pot you may need some advertising. and that this may be worth while. but first look at heads up. you check raise. then you check. when would he bet? when would he check?
scott
I consider this a fairly common strategy like raising the flop for the same reason.
I find alot of good things tend happen when you bet and raise.
really? clearly it is not as effective as raising from last position to get a free card. it may be player dependent if it is effective at all. how often do you check raise check, hoping for a free card? how often do you check raise check raise? in what situations?
scott
I tend to check raise when I am on a flat bluff or have the nuts. I will often raise or bet the flop for free card purposes if I am on a draw.
I don't check raise a lot - I tend to use it sparingly I tend to do it more on kill pot situations when the stakes double.
but you said that you use check raises to get free cards as a 'common stategy'.
my question was, when can you check raise to get a free card and when can you double check raise for value. raising for a free card is usually done when you have position on the bettor. that way, when he checks to you, you can check along. the reason that the check raise may not buy you a free card is that your opp is free to bet behind you if he thinks that your check raise check means weakness. but if he thinks it means weakness then you can double check raise for value.
scott
"my question was, when can you check raise to get a free card and when can you double check raise for value."
I think a check raise for a free card would only be successful under certain specific conditions. Some of them might be:
- Your close proximity after the bettor to act
As it was mentioned before, it probably wouldn't work too well if you checked, the player to your immediate left bets, and there are 3 callers before you raise. In this situation, the chance all of the players will check behind you on the turn is infinitesimal.
- The weakness of the players in the hand
If the players are not likely to back off a medium-strong hand, like middle pair good kicker, it's pretty unlikely that paying two bets on the flop will keep those players from betting on the turn, especially if the turn card isn't scary.
As for double check raising for value, there probably aren't that many times it would work well. One would be if the turn card is an overcard, but still helps you. Say you have AT in the BB, and the flop comes T62. You check raise from the BB, and get a caller or two. The ace falls on the turn, and you check, hoping one of the players on the left caught top pair. You check raise with top two. But if the turn is a blank, like a 3 or something, it's unlikely (depending on the game) that it could have helped anyone, so a check would have a chance of having the other players check behind you (again, depending on the game).
Mike
i agree with your two pair example, but i want to consider check raising the flop with the intention of checking (or check raising) the turn.
you argue that in multiway pots you can't get a free card because "the chance all of the players will check behind you on the turn is infinitesimal." and you can't double check raise for value because "a check would have a chance of having the other players check behind you."
i am sure you see the problem there. but forget about multiway for a moment. for now just consider heads up. it is complicted enough. how would people react to a check raise check? why?
scott
some thoughts.
i think that when drawing heads up against a passive player the check raise check will get you a free card. one of the benifits of check raising the flop is, if the flop is checked through, then you get a free turn. against a tight passive player this may not be what you want since he may fold to a bet. but if he will call a bet on the turn, i think that a check raise on the flop will induce him to check. against overly aggressive players, i think they are looking for any excuse to play fast and will consider your turn check to mean weakness. i think that they will bet. if you have a hand that you will call with the river against these opp, i like sometimes double check raising and he will check the turn. if you are beat you lose an extra sb. if you draw out you win at least an extra 3 sb. and if your read develops sucj that he might fold, you can win the pot with a river bet. one problem is if the player often 3-bets check raisers, then the play can easily backfire. heads up against a tough player i like both check raise check (for free cards and for value) but i am not sure which circumstances would be best for which. i think that our bets are masked because we bet hands of various values and draws. we should also mask our checks and our check raises. i would appreciate all comments
scott
Scott -- I haven't had time to really respond on this topic, though I think it's interesting. I've known players who have used the "check-raise on the flop for a free card on the turn" as a routine play. I haven't done it much so I can't speak from experience. I've definitely used a double check raise for value more often, but that too has been fairly infrequent.
I agree with your thoughts above. You raise a question: "heads up against a tough player i like both check raise check (for free cards and for value) but i am not sure which circumstances would be best for which."
Off the top of my head, lots of more aggressive tough players are going to bet again when you check the turn as long as they have something as good as top pair. They'll hate falling for what they recognize might be a try for a free card. As you say, passive players are going to check behind you without something fairly strong (2 pair or better?). Against more aggressive players I can imagine that the times they check along, they'll be happy to get a free card too. If it's because their hand is fairly weak (bottom pair or some such), then maybe betting out would have won you the pot. Hmmm, against these players I suppose the free card version of the play may be of little use. You won't get the free card often, and when you do you might have been able to pick up the pot instead. So maybe use the free card version against passive players and the value version against aggressive players?
I like your idea about the double check raise with a hand you'd call with on the river, but which is drawing. I'm short on time right now, but it's something I'll be thinking about. (Main danger I see is the chance opp will bet yet again on the river. But that may well be outweighed by the gain on the times you hit combined with the times he checks the river when you miss.) I also think you have a point about masking our check-raises.
I was focusing mostly on player types. But there are also all the elements of how your hand develops in conjunction with your read of your opp's hand. Sklansky had an article with an example of this for a triple check-raise in Card Player about a year (?) ago. I'll, uhm, let him elaborate. (Guess that's straying a bit from check-raising for a free card, but it looks like you were going beyond that anyway.)
i hope he does. i looked through the card player archives, but i did not find the article. it must have been an interesting hand. a triple check raise. wow.
scott
"They'll hate falling for what they recognize might be a try for a free card."
but won't these same players hate falling for 2 check raises in a row? i am trying to determine how typical solid players would react. whatever they do they risk being embarrasingly outplayed. it wouldn't bother me much (my ego is quite resilient) but i suppose a lot of players would feel quite stuck with a good but not great hand like top pair. i try to put myself in that position. i think i would be inclined to bet the turn. so the vlaue play would work more against me. i suppose it would be the same for other players. but either way it gives them an opportunity to make a mistake.
i don't think people would bet top pair after getting hit with 2 check raises. it's possible, but i think when you have a marginal calling hand with a good draw and you miss your draw and the guy you've check raised twice bets the river, you can usually lay it down. your image should be fine. there will be an obvious draw and aware players will realize that you did not make a 'good laydown' but missed your draw. then they will realize you will sometimes check raise twice with a draw. i think that they will become more predictable as they consider you less predictable.
scott
As you mentioned about yourself, I know I have *tended* to go ahead and bet again on the turn, risking falling for the double check-raise, when I have something like top pair. I think it's partly that push to get the most value out of a hand, and also a product of having not been check-raised a second time more often than not. I do think, though, that there are decent player who very often just opt to check along there.
You're probably right that most players aren't going to bet a third time with something like top pair when they've been check-raised twice. I recall doing it once about a year ago (betting the third time), but the opp was a real nut. (That's the technical, psychological term.)
You might consider checking before the turn card is shown. You've already check-raised showing that you 1) have a hand 2) are hoping for a free card 3) on a bluff run [unlikely].
If you see the card and then act your opponents can attempt a rational decision. If you've already checked they have less info and might fear a raise.
You'd have to mix this up a bit and check blind with both types of hands. I don't really like this strategy, check-raising for the free card, at all.
i don't like checking blind. i play in a game where i am by far the best player and dominate the game. if i ever get in a real game i will do my best to similarly dominate the game. i think checking blind hurts your image in this sense.
but if there are several situation where check raising for a free card won't work, then i double check raise for value (with a different hand) in those situations. so i think occasional check raise checks with both draws and with hands you would normally check raise bet would be a good strategy.
scott
I also do not like checking blind. Not for image reasons. Just because I like to act on the full set of info including the next card to come. I typically act fast (if I do ask for time it's to determine my read on the player based on the cards out). I do occasionally check blind. Maybe once a month. After this discussion I think I'll re-eval whether I really want to do that ever.
My suggestion was just for this thread.
Scott, are there no casinos where you play?
To dominate in a home game is, as I'm sure you know, a different animal that in the casino games. They are not, however, a different species since many games begin to resemble a home game with the same players plus a small influx of new ones. In the casino there are other good players whom you simply cannot dominate. Likewise they cannot dominate you.
Regards Mike N
right, i agree with the info reasons as well. my thinking here is that some opp will check behind you on the turn. against these opp you gain a sb if you draw hits on the turn, save a sb if your draw does not come, and maybe lose a sb if your draw comes on the river. so it would be a good play. against other opp, who will bet behind you, you can double chack raise for value.
as you may or may not know, i am 18. my fake id is not good enough to show to a floorman. i have not played one hand in a casino or cardroom. i have watched a few at the taj and the games up to 20-40 looked soft. maybe i could not dominate the table (some punk kid comes in here and tries to push us around? we'll show him.) but i think i would have had little trouble outplaying it.
scott
I believe it does. The short term results in a game like limit hold'em are extremely volatile and most players it seems underestimate this volatility. Of course if you play with an edge you will win in the long run. I believe that when players underestimate the volatility of short term results it often leads to tilting because players expect to win at a rate that is fairly constant and when they don't they become frustrated. The concept of hourly rate is valid but only after many, many hours of play.
Tom,
I agree with you on this subject. There is enuf going on in the game to worry about then your hourly production. Focusing on the game and the players is a full time job for me, with new players coming in and old players leaving. I don't count my chips anymore unless I have to rebuy more. I cash out at the end of the day and then I calculate my +/- differential on the way home in my head and feed it into my spreadsheet and that's it.
Paul
Thinking the right way about hourly rate should in fact DISCOURAGE tilting. Normally people go on tilt because they are badly stuck and now try desperately to get even. The player who knows that each hour on average will continue to bring a small but sure win understands that grinding away at his steady game is the only right course. In other words thinking in terms of hourly rate should keep you from worrying how you do each day. (One interesting time I use the concept is when I am in an especially good game and have other important things to do. Rather than mess up my schedule or my health to play a couple of more hours that might win me five grand, I ask myself whether I would sit in that chair if someone simply paid me the 500 or so that I would average making. If the answer is no, I quit.
It is far easier to tilt if you are playing outside the safe parameters of your bankroll. I really think that many good mid-limit players fail to succeed due to playing too high for their bankroll. I have seen countless examples over the years of players chasing their losses by moving to a bigger game that they suddenly become convinced is "softer" than it is. When you are too stuck to get even in the game you are sitting in, bigger games that offer you an opportunity to get even do look "softer". This effect is more than doubled when you are paying living expenses out of your bankroll because playing is how you earn your living.
As an amateur, I don't have a real playing bankroll, or the pressure of trying to support myself and my family from my poker earnings. If you play in the same game for any considerable period of time, you can observe, first hand, the effects of the increased pressures a player is under when he is running bad and the bankroll is under immense strain. For some, losing the entire bankroll is as devastating as losing a close loved one. If they aren't careful, it may break their spirit to the point where they don't ever come back. I know several people who blew off six figure bankrolls over a period of months or weeks, and who still haven't made it back to stability after several years. Their games are not nearly as strong as they once were. This may be a confidence problem or it may be that regrowing a big bankroll is infinity tougher when you are living off the "seeds" of one.
David,
What games are you talking about where you can play for an hour or two and reasonably expect to win $500?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg -- Sounds like a ploy to get David to reveal his hourly rate (in general terms). ;-)
I can say this: If it were Rounder, we'd be talking about 30-60 to 50-100.
If you are setting in an extremely good game your hourly rate should go out the window. Your hourly rate is diluted by the vast number of hours you spend in tough games. If your hourly rate is $200 and you are in a "great game" spending two hours doing something else costs you more than $400.
Unless of course you took this into account and are looking at the subset "great game" hourly rate when making the determination. It didn't seem in your post like you were.
Have an attitude that is focused entirely on making an excellent decision on the hand that you are playing NOW. The hand before no longer exists while the next hand does not exist yet. That hand that you are currently playing in the NOW represents the present moment, the only moment you will ever have. Once it's gone it's gone, giving way to a brand new present moment/hand. Give grattitude to your Creator for that moment/hand, and show him that grattitude by producing the best possible decision that you can ever come up with at that decision point in time. It is an unprecendented once in the history of the universe opportunity. The point is that the long term (that measurement of time during which your individual expectations ultimately add up and prove themselves) is made up of a series of NOWS that will never ever happen again. Savor those NOWS and all the opportunities to be keenly observant, objectively analyitical and and sure of action that it offers. It will never happen again. This is the best method that I know of on how to enjoy poker in the present moment while simultaneously reaping its long term rewards. The mind can only focus on one thing at a time. If you fill it with a lazer like focus on making excellent decisions NOW and do it with an attitude of grattitude for the NOW, you will thus lesson the mental space by which tilt producing thoughts can occupy. Play happy.
Thank you Obee Juan, the force be with you.
I was merely speaking of 100-200 when the game is quite good.
All right, Mason, it's time you showed David how to put his posts under the post he intends to respond to rather than just posting his piece under the last post in the thread at that time.
And it's also time you showed me how to avoid run-on sentences:)
All of this frustration can be avoided once you learn about standard deviation and long term fluctuation. Mason Malmuth's book "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" contains the most comprehensive discussion on this subject ever put in print. Malmuth shows you how to quantify luck and fluctuation and how to use it to determine bankroll. He also has tables that show how many hours you can run bad and what the long run really is. Players have been posting a lot of problems on this forum and others concerning fluctuations, running bad, luck vs skill, bankroll, etc. and Mason's book really answers all of these questions.
I recently got very frustrated with my ups and downs, and decided to do an experiment. I created 4000 random one-hour poker results (for my 4-8 hold'em game, I used a Normal distribution with a win rate of $4 per hour and a sigma of 90). It is inserted below. Both the ups and downs AND the long streaks are breathtaking.
This can serve as a commercial for my new poker page - it is at http://www.annabelles-treasures.com/poker. (See my Exchange post.)
To read everything I said about this set of random numbers, follow this link to the Fluctuations Article.
Here is the cumulative sum of 4000 random hourly results, with mean +4 and sigma 90 -
Dick,
The old saying that a picture is worth a thousand words applies here. Very good stuff. I would venture to say that if a player played part time and didn't wasn't ahead after a couple of years his tilt button may have become easier to push. You illustrated my point much better than I did in that most players aren't ready for extremely volatile results.
Tom Haley
if this is a cleverly disguised cover to sell your wares on the forum i applauld your ingenuity. please see Chuck for your ad rate which i suspect will be 15% of your hourly winnings for life:) interesting chart but all i see is ups where's the downs?
One thing that this type of example starts to show is that you can run poorer or do very well (when you don't play that well) for longer periods of time than most players believe is possible. Furthermore, this implies that many players are playing in games that put their long term survival in jeapordy (given the size of their bankroll).
When you say 'far greater' I don't think you can emphasize that enough. I was talking to my buddy Paul a couple days ago (another player who, like me, derives almost all his income from Hold 'em) and as he said, "The problem with playing cards full time is that you're always either scared or depressed; depressed because you're on a down streak, or scared because you're winning and you know the beats are on their way'. I think this pretty much sums it up.
Dick,
Maybe my math isn't where it should be but correct me if I'm wrong. After about 1200 hours isn't your winning pretty linear. So where are the "breath taking" wins and losses. Does this thing say that after 4000 hours you are $20,000 ahead. I don't understand the "sigma" part of this equation so I know I'm wrong. But for arguemet sake if you had a mean of +4 for 4000 hours wouldn't you expect to be closer to 16,000. so much for excel.
Vince
Dick,
I just read everything you wrote on this chart. Great work.
Vince.
Nice looking trading range breakout into an up trendline. Good work Dick. I like your site. I hope that in the future, you would also provide suggestions on how to keep oneself from going on tilt during the long and discouraging going nowhere 1,300 hours. Your studies prove that emotional control may be the most important skill in professional poker playing.
Another randolm walk.
Hajimemashite, Kabuto-san ...
The up trendline was also broken ...
This whole thing is a companion to Mason's essays in Gambling Theory and Other Topics. I wouldn't give my work the title of "studies." Don't forget, this is nothing more than a set of 4000 random numbers. If I run it again the graph will look entirely different, and the commentary would be different.
I think emotional stability is important, but I like to think that the main lesson from what I have posted here is that BANKROLL is the single most important thing. To just add a decimal point to the numbers, consider someone who quits his job, moves to Vegas or California, and starts playing 40-80 hold'em. To be realistic, he must have a working bankroll of $20,000 [ my random worst losing streaks were about $2000 at 4-8 ] PLUS more than six months of living expense money. How many of these players do you think have this ??
I'm not sure my web site will be able to tell people how to handle bad runs; I'm not sure how to handle them myself. I am thankful I DON'T do this for a living; and for me, it is a lot of fun when I win and not so much fun when I lose. Surprise!
Dick
gee, i wish that were true.
At that limit the players are much more aggressive and your stdev goes through the roof.
how much?
200,000? it seems that that might be high, but maybe not by that much.
Dick,
I read your website. Interesting stuff. However a few questions come to mind.
That having been said, this is a nice analysis of what even a winning player is up against. A breakeven or worse player is up against worse! The verbal description of the results on your website did the most to drive it home for me...3 years of playing without a measurable period above break even. Geez, what a waste of ones life (as one dealer I know at the Mirage would say).
This of course leads to another question.
How can any player know when he has a real profit he can pay the bills with?
I believe poker shares this characteristic with all risk based forms of earning an income, including trading. Books on both topics (trading, poker) read essentially the same way...+EV and Money Management.
However this doesn't lead me to "legitimize" poker as a way to making a living so much as attack trading as being no more than a poker game being played by MBA's using the world's business assets as chips (and in reality it's people). Although I really believe the big wall street players...much like the casinos, really don't lose. Commisions = Rake.
It also leads me to attack those who point to trading as a "home business". Well maybe. If you're rich enough you didn't need to win anyway.
In the same vien, it really kind of proves the same about poker. That being it is not really a way out of the 9-5 for anyone except those that could've left it anyway. (Realize that for me, leaving 9-5 and owning my own life is the only reason to pursue risk based profits, but it MUST work...no room or time for falsehoods.)
So it would seem niether is the answer to freedom for those of us stuck in "working class-land".
I believe this fact is convieniently played down by authors and industry people in both arenas. After all, have to have that "sucker money" ("liquidity") in the pot ("to trade against").
I realize this is herasy at the current moment in the history of the stock market...but go see what Warren Buffet had to say in FORTUNE this month...
Sincerely, Frank
Frank - A very thoughtful post.
First, the answers to your questions.
"How can you know that your rate is x per hour, for sure and not some anomaly." This is the subject of the entire study of Statistics. You have a sample of X responses to a political poll. What is the "band" of possible real election results based upon this small sample?
For the mean of your poker results, see Mason's essays in Gambling Theory and Other Topics. Basically, the maximum likelihood of your mean expected gain is your actual average gain. the band of results with a 95% confidence is +/- 1.6 sigma and the 99% confidence limit is +/- 3 sigma, where sigma is the standard deviation. The standard deviation per hour goes up by the square root of the number of hours played.
For my personal game, and for my random number generator, I assumed a certain win rate. It was not my current average. I wished to hope that my long-term win rate is positive, based upon the very poor strategy of my opponents and my own brilliance.
SD - I forget this one from statistics class 28 years ago; perhaps Mason or some other statistician in the crowd can answer it. But again, the maximum likelihood estimator is the actual SD of your results.
To determine if your "risk-based forms of earning a living", including trading, have a real positive expectation, you can use Mason's essay, and the bands of 1.6 sigma (if you want to be 95% sure) or 3 sigma (if you want to be 99% sure).
I certainly question day trading, especially for those amateurs sitting at home in front of their computer. There IS insider information. How often have you seen a unexpected rise in a stock price, followed by good news from the company? Guess what, the stock did not go up because of random fluctuations. (PS - There is no Santa Claus either.) Long term , there is an advantage to the stock holder, because most businesses grow their business, but it must be far less than the expert's poker expectation, maybe on the order of 15% a year for a good company.
One last response, and I'm probably not disagreeing with you - Warren Buffet would be the exact opposite of day trading ... He always buys for value and holds for a long time. I didn't see his Fortune comments, but I bet he didn't say, "Buy and check the price every hour."
Dick
Dick,
Hmm, yeah I had stats class too. I seem to recall that inferential stats was when you took a sample and inferred about the population.
In any event, the reason I question your assumtions of $4 and $90 is that you've assumed a net winner set of numbers. Key word here is assume. And of course then the graph goes on to show an approximate 4/hour win rate. As should be expected. By the way, have you made multiple runs. I.E. have you seen a case where winning begins early and then losses mount up, or other variations?
Depending on where I took samples from...and I have every game from Feb. 1999 in my spread sheet, I could use anything from about -100/hour to + 100/hour. The empircal 1 sigma is about 200 in an hour, for a mixed bag of 1-5 stud, 5-10 stud, and various hold 'em games from 2-6 spread to 4-8 fixed.
Point is the problem is knowing for real what your rate is. There must of course be some sample size of size x that guarantees (theoretically) a confidence interval of y. So we probably need to know how many hours that is.
Your work however does clearly point out that a player who really has a 4/hour rate can go an awful long time without any results.
Perhaps the bigger questions are, "What is the best possible strategy to insure a +EV?" and "What fluctuations are inherent in even the best strategy(s)?"
As Dave and Mason seem to point out on occasion...max +EV often comes with a higher SD. So it would seem at least to potential strategies might be out there. One for Max +EV (damn the fluctuations) and one for minimal SD (Damn the max EV).
I personally would be willing to trade Max EV of to some point for less downward fluctuations. Others may not.
Nice Website. Nice work!
I have one comment on the "don't conclude you're a loser until 2000 hours of play"
I think this is dangerous if interpreted by a beginner as to not re-evaluate your play when losing. It may be true that the player is in 'statistical flux' (what do I mean by that?) but it is more likely he is playing poorly enough to be a loser.
I believe the "best" players have enough of an edge in the loose games filled with weak players to overcome the statistical flux (over the 2000 hours).
I have myself recently been through a period of losing where I have been blaming the cards. I believe it's partially true, (ie nut flush losing to 26s on the flop and too many more to count) but I have been analysing my game and attempting to improve. These improvements take the form of 1) tilt factor. 2) opponent knowledge 3) folding when beat (ties to item 2)
Regards Mike N
Absolutely right, Mike. I did not mean that losing should not be taken seriously. Constant re-thinking of one's game is a necessity.
And statistically, the most likely average win (or loss) rate is the one you actually have compiled. The 95% and 99% confidence limits are centered on your actual rate.
what information do you keep other then wins ,loses and timeplayed? i havent kept records to date but will start on 12-1 thanks
I record Casino; Game (HE, 7CS); limit (1-5, 10-20); number of hrs played; the day (mon, tues); the time (morn, aft, evening,); how I feel at start (grade 1-4). And, I keep a note book on players which I review weekly, usually on a Thurs nite.
I am having trouble with the use of the word "texture" when talking about the composition of a hand and the game at that moment.
"Texture " is becoming a buzz word and it doesn't seem to quite fit. What do you think?
My dictionaries indicate that "texture" involves substance or physical material although some of the definitions can fit: something composed of closely interwoven elements; the essential part of something; an identifying quality; a basic scheme or structure...
However, "composition" seems to fit better: the formation of a whole especially by different things being put together; general makeup; the ordering or arranging of something into proper proportion or relation...
To me, "composition" tastes and sounds better and is less filling. How about you?
I like the concept of " texture" but I think Roy Cooke, for one, should stop the use of the word "texture" or he should take up weaving. I love the concept of "composition" in poker; it says the same thing and adds a bit of art and intellect.
Texture is most appropriate for describing the "flop" or community cards in games like Holdem and Omaha or the opponents board in 7 stud. It conveys the concept of substance to the individual parts taken as a whole.
Composition conveys the "makeup of the whole" or parts of the whole. The individual elements become central as opposed to the whole.
opinion by Vince.
I like the term "personality" of the table best it aptly describes the complex and emotional aspects of a mix of several people doing the same thing at the same time.
"I like the term "personality" of the table best "
Rounder, are we talking about the same thing here? Personality applies to the players. Texture and composition appl to the "board". Oh! I gets it! You be foolin old Vince. Got me!
Vince.
Fuzzy Thinking
"Western thinking is based on Aristotle ... around 2000 years old. So much of our logic and decision making depends on True/False or Yes/No Decisions. Are you tall or short? Do you like your Job - Yes or No? Such questions have answers indicating different levels of truth.
Lotfi Zadeh was the pioneer worker in the area of Fuzzy Logic (Fuzzy Thinking) and his work has been made accessible to the public in two books:
Fuzzy Thinking by Bart Kosko
Fuzzy Logic - The Revolutionary Computer Technology that is changing the world by Daniel McNeill and Paul Freiburger."
Just thought David would like to know where he got his idea.
Vince
I read the book. Also Lofti Zadeh is the father of Norman Zadeh who wrote a good poker book. The kind of fuzzy thinking they espouse is a very technical kind and not what I am fighting.
"The kind of fuzzy thinking they espouse is a very technical kind and not what I am fighting."
Well, David, if that is the case why don't you call it what it really is "Fuzzy Wuzzi Thinking"?
Vince.
In all seriousnes that would have been a better name for THEIR concepts.
I surrender!
Vince.
Eastern thinking, sounds like a Wahington D.C. oxymoron to me!seek the Buddha and non-attachment....let those cards go.....play correctly...not to win..
Vince,
If that is the basis for western thinking then what about eastern thinking - I could use a bit of advice here.
May the force of chi' be with you my son...hehehe...
In Vegas for the annual cigar extravaganza.. A friend bet a box of Davidofs he could make more in 3 days of blackjack than I could with poker. We started with 2 grand. I ended up 2240 ahead - he made 4800. Our new bet is for the year 2000. He will play 21 and I will continue with poker.The winner gets 1st class RT Hawaii & 1 week at beachfront cottage on Maui. Silly bet? -- for whom?
Please allow me to correct a typing error...the f is right above the v. Davidov is actually the correct and original spelling. Sorry..
Let's see, You won 2240. He won 4800.
"Silly bet? -- for whom? "
Gee do you really want an answer?
Vince.
BTW - If you can afford a box of Davidofs why are you playing low limit poker? O.K will the real Bill Gates stand up!
just tell the casinos he's counting. and then make more than $0.
scott
I bet a pal $1000 I could get into my 15 year old tux in time for his 25 anniversery party - I had gained 30 pounds and had 6 months to get back to fightin' weight. Who made the stupid bet, "I did"
I like this bet much better. $1000 that rounder can get into his tuxedo before you can get away from the BJ table and learn how tp play poker well enough to afford to buy Rounder a tuxedo that fits!
Vince
Thanks Vinny you made my Sat. Morning. :-)
cartoons not enough for you? wolverine on x-men is cool.
scott
I've played both BJ and poker - I don't think it is close - poker player should win if their skill levels are close.
Three days is too short a time period for either of you to be able to prove which one of you is right. The luckier man will win. Good luck.
I would think that the poker player has the edge, assuming that this is a 2,000 non-renewable bank (i.e., if you go broke, you cannot win because you cannot renew your bank, and can only tie if the other guy goes broke also).
To bet enough to have any kind of hourly earn at BJ, you will have to overbet this size of bankroll, and face a serious risk of going broke. In poker, you can start at 3-6, and if you're a winning player, you will very likely not go broke, and I think your win rate will be higher than the BJ player anyway.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
MY BROTHER IN-LAW, A LONG TIME PIT BOSS FOR DEL WEB CORP. IN NEVADA TELLS THIS STORY. THE HOTEL CASINO WAS HAVING THIS BIG PROMOTION. THE PIT BOSSES FROM THE BJ TABLE AND THE CRAP TABLE WERE STANDING IN FOR THE DEALERS AND WERE ALL WEARING TUXEDOS. MY BROTHER-IN-LAW WAS DEALING AT THE BJ TABLE WERE HIS NEW $1500 HAIR PIECE. IT WAS A VERY HOT CROWDED NIGHT. HE WAS SWEATING AND HE FELT HIS HAIR PIECE GRADUALLY SLIP UP TO THE TOP OF HIS HEAD UNTIL IT FORMED A BUBBLE ON TOP. HE GRABBED IT AND THREW IT TO THE FLOOR AND CONTINUED DEALING. SOME LADY SAW THIS HAIRY THING ON THE FLOOR AND STARTED SCREAMING AND KICKING IT THINKING IT WAS SOME ANIMAL. AS HE BENT OVER TO PICK IT UP HIS TUXEDO PANTS SPLIT UP THE BACK. HE HAD GAINED 25 LBS.
OK. I stand corrected.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
How do you know your friend didn't cash in a check or do a cash advance? I assume you didn't observe much of his BJ play, since you were playing poker. Before I'd wager a trip to Hawaii, I'd be sure to confiscate his wallet. He might be the best of friends, but some people are just plain treacherous when money is at risk.
Your friend will enjoy Hawaii I'm sure.
Let's see, BJack in Vegas, one deck at SlotsofFun where they dont care if you count apparently....just don't be too obvious.
Play 18 hours a day at $1-$50/bet for the whole trip.
Yeah, sure, any poker player can beat that expectation easily.
Assumming he play's $300-600 the whole trip and gets dealt QUADS repeatedly against complete idiots who happen to have access to Bill Gate's bank account.
Bad bet chief.
I mean no put-down but where exactly are you suppose to play ?? In Vegas ?? I mean dice and BJ cards have no memory and feelings but you will be playing with the 'creme de la creme' in vegas if you play poker. I think he has the best of it if he gets lucky. Is he a counter ? Good luck anyway !
...when losing hand needs to be quads?
The TH'e bb jackpot at the Grand in Tunica is now over $111k but i'm wondering if you're chasing jackpots [which a lot of the players are doing], is it a better bet to stick with the smaller [$10-30k] totals that need only aces full of tens beat.
My gut feeling [without knowing the math] is that the 'pot odds' are better with the A-10's.
btw, a hand there this week came within a 1 in 45 shot of hitting...quad sixes were flopped and trip jacks were made on the turn...just needed that last jack on the river.
on the table rather than down the rathole.
The alure of a big payday brings in alot of mugs to play poker - I have seen alot of them play hands and say it had jackpot potential that's why I played it this accounts for all the suited 3 2 and 1 gappers and any pair in any position these guys play - long live the jackpot it makes people do things that can be profitable for a winning player.
Post deleted at author's request.
A few months ago the hold'em jackpot was over $35k and it drew the 20-40 crowd (where there is no jackpot) to the lower limits and it was fun - these guys had no idea what they were doing in these games - it was a turkey shoot for me. They brought lots of money in the game and tried to run over it. It was fun and a side benefit of the jackpot scenario.
I do agree jackpots are not good overall because of the drop but there are some perks like the one above.
"Game theory may be about poker and baseball, but it is not about chess"
What is meant by the above?
Vince.
what is meant is that since chess is a game of no chance and perfect information it can be solved without game theory. but this is not true. game theory does concern these kind of games. i have not done any game theory for a couple of years. and even then i just read a book and attended some lectures by a friend of mine who was doing research. (he showed that surreal numbers follow a well defined algebra.) it was a while ago, so i could be wrong. a game is in a certain state and each player makes a desicion to move it to another state. you can't use nash equib or other tools for chess, but it is a game in the game theory sense. and i know there have been game theoretic results for simpler perfect information no chance games. so it follows that game theory could study chess.
scott
Jeez. I've got it: They've cloned Sklansky.
sklansky went to wharton. i would never consider pursuing business or enginering or anything else productive. i am studying math and philosophy and literature. i could not be less unemployable.
scott
of course, i meant that i am studying math and philosophy and literature and poker. and that i could not less employable (or more unemployable. i think my problem was i unsure which to write.)
scott
Ah yes. I, too, studies philosophy and literature as an undergrad. In fact, I am not languishing out here in Colorado, working (sort of) towards getting my M.A. in creative writing. Fear not, my good man-- there are TONS of opportunities out there for sophisticated and refined men like ourselves. Just head down to your local underground cardroom and demand a job as a prop. The money's good, the hours are great, and it beats the hell out of teaching high school.
Scott (18 year old Columbia student) wrote:
" but this is not true. game theory does concern these kind of games."
Then he wrote:
"i could be wrong"
Scott,
Knowing very little about game theory I was impressed with your response. One thing though. It is not a good idea to make definitive statement as in the first case and qualify it as you did in the second. Something about credibility and confusion. Yours for the former mine for the latter.
Vince.
it was to the best of my recollection. i never gave game theory any serious study. so i could not be sure i remembered correctly. i thought about it later and i was not wrong.
also, wouldn't it hurt my credibility and your understanding more if i had not included a qualifier and was actually wrong?
scott
Vince:
Game Theory is the science of choosing mixed strategies. For example, in many situations you can show that you should bluff some small percentage of the time and check the rest. So doesn't it make sense for Scott to say something like:
"but this is not true. game theory does concern these kind of games" 85 percent of the time and
"i could be wrong" 15 percent of the time.
This seems to me to be exactly the type of answer that an expert game theorist / poker player would give.
Geez Mason, give me a break. You are the expert not me. I like your response and somewhat except your premise. But you are aslo complicating thigs by qualifying Scott's staement. It is not, IMO, what Scott said or meant. But even that is not the point. You and Badger (below) are now saying that there is Bluffing in Chess. That's a stretch. Because one make a move in a direction other than his true intentions does not make it a bluff. I fail (as usual) to see a "Bluff" in chess or any game of perfect information. Once player 1 moves in chess. It is the players 2 move. 2 has all the information he needs to determine his move. The player 1 has not bluffed in any way shape or form. If 1's moves decieves 2 into believing he is on a differnt path than the actual one that is not bluffing. That is a mistake of evaluation on player 2's part. There is no information being withheld from 2 to make his decision. I don't buy the bluff thing. So o.k. then what's a semi-bluff. Cutting a pawn in half and moving both pieces to different positions?
Vince.
Mason wrote:
"Game Theory is the science of choosing mixed strategies"
Mason,
Where did you get this definition. When I first read it I said wow that's right. Now that I've thought a little about it I think it's way off. I have to go on the road now. So it will bother me all day long. Thanks!
Vince.
that is a perfect definition for the kind of game theory that is sometimes used in poker. but that is just a portion of the whole math field of game theory.
scott
Here is what I think though I am not an expert on game theory.
From a game theoretic point of view, chess is trivial. Since you have the entire ( finite ) possible move tree available, you simply process it so that you get the best possible result ( win, loss, draw ). There is no debate about what move to make.
Imaging that it is tic-tac-toe, you can see the move is forced. In reality of course the chess move tree is too big and you have make a choice a different way.
I also believe that the huristics typically used to actually make chess moves for computers can not draw on game theory either. Instead they also make use of the move tree processing but process only a managable portion of it and then "evaluate" the end position instead of verifying a win/loss/draw as you could with a complete move tree.
D.
Vince - Perhaps what the author meant is there is no bluffing in chess. (What? You didn't think there was any in baseball either?)
Omaha8Buff
Chess is not a game of imperfect information. Also, I don't think Von Neuman and Morgenstern ever liked chess. But they loved poker. In fact it was their study of heads up poker that formed the basis of Cold War strategy - the most major area in which game theory has been employed.
Vince,
I am in the mood for responding today so let me try a guess.
Is it because in chess, you have rules/moves to follow (no deviation), whereas in poker and baseball, you have to use whatever strategy best applies to a particular situation?
Lady Gambler,
I was not going to read any posts thia evening. I am on my way to Madison Wi tomorrow and need an early bed time. But for some reason I decided to see what was going on. Low and behold ther you were. Since I asked for more participation by you and since you seem to be interested in serious discussion I will be as humorless as possible. Quite easy for me I might add. Badger makes a good point about someone not knowing what they are "talking about". I assume that he was referring to me. He would be correct if I were making a statement but in fact I was asking a question. I found the statement I asked about in the online encyclopedia encarta. I will post the relevant parts of the article below. If you want a more detailed discussion. the web site is www.encarta.msn,com. Search for Game theory when you get there and then "Game theory, A sketch" I guess Badger will have to take his arguments up with the authors of the encarta article. I'm quite sure he knows more about game theory than they do. At least that is the impression one gets from his post.
"Game theory was intended...: to provide a theory of economic and strategic behavior when people interact directly rather than "through the market." In game theory, "games" have always been a metaphor for more serious interactions in human society. Game theory may be about poker and baseball, but it is not about chess, and it is about such serious interactions as market competition, arms races and environmental pollution. But game theory addresses the serious interactions using the metaphor of a game: in these serious interactions, as in games, the individual's choice is essentially a choice of a strategy, and the outcome of the interaction depends on the strategies chosen by each of the participants. On this interpretation, a study of games may indeed tell us something about serious interactions"
Given the above discussion I can accept the authors point of view. Poker is definitely a game of interactions among participants. I am not sure that Chess quite measures up to that definition. An important concept for poker players is "the outcome of the interaction depends on the strategies chosen by each of the participants". Game theory is an attempt to quantify these strategies to identify maximized winning strategies. Whether or not game theory is an important factor in winning poker is I believe debateable. The most I believe that can be said is "It depends".
Vince
badger said the same thing that i did. and we are both right. didn't you learn when you were 12 that encyclopedias are the last place to learn anything? the person who doesn't know what he is talking about is the person you quoted, now revealed to be the writers for encarta. we are telling you that game theory applies to all games. as for whether there is personal interaction in chess, i have no idea. but that is not part of the definition of a game.
scott
"didn't you learn when you were 12"
What makes you think I was ever 12 wise guy!
Vince.
"badger said the same thing that i did. and we are both right."
Scott,
This is quite an ASSertion. Since you said the same thin and one of you is right it follows that both of you must be right. Right? Of course you are an 18 year old student and as far as I know Badger is a poker player. Both of you say that the author of this article Doesn't know what he is talking about. O.Kay. Now the publishers of the Encarta Encyclopedia feel that this author is credible enough to publis his work. Now not being a "Game Theory" expert am I not faced with a dilemma. Sort of a game. What is my best strategy? Beleive Scott and Badger because scott says "badger said the same thing that i did. and we are both right." or do I believe what was put forth in an encyclopedia with a rather rational expalation. Oh well if I only knew a little more about Game theory it would make things so much easier.
Scott wrote:
"as for whether there is personal interaction in chess, i have no idea. but that is not part of the definition of a game."
Of course it is part of poker. Wouldn't you agree?
Vince.
yes. it is definitely part of poker.
scott
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger,
I knew you were not referring to me. You know better (Just a joke fella, ha ha). Anyway I posted a response to Mason's rather semiweak response above. Please read it applies to your comments also. Quite frankly I appreciate you participating in this discussion along with all the other posters. Could you imagine only being in a discussion with Mason and Scott. Ooh!
Vince
being a rated chess master for the better part of 20 years, I would have to say that chess involves a distinct amount of variance based upon the opponents liklihood of commitiing mistakes. This is the same type of thing we try to do with the fundamental theory of poker. In chess, players are categorized as generally positional, or tactical. Some like open positions, others like closed. Knowing your opponents tendencies, and giving him choices which make him/her uncomfortable is critical to winning play. This applies to poker. Chess and poker are more alike than many would believe.
In attemtping to induce errors, complicating a position that makes an opponenet choose between complicated sequences of candidate move trees does increase the probability of error. Luck in chess, as in many instances in life is defined as when preparaqtion meets opportunity. I defy anyone that can refute this definition in poker!
being a rated chess master for the better part of 20 years, I would have to say that chess involves a distinct amount of variance based upon the opponents liklihood of commitiing mistakes. This is the same type of thing we try to do with the fundamental theory of poker. In chess, players are categorized as generally positional, or tactical. Some like open positions, others like closed. Knowing your opponents tendencies, and giving him choices which make him/her uncomfortable is critical to winning play. This applies to poker. Chess and poker are more alike than many would believe.
In attemtping to induce errors, complicating a position that makes an opponenet choose between complicated sequences of candidate move trees does increase the probability of error. Luck in chess, as in many instances in life is defined as when preparation meets opportunity. I defy anyone that can refute this definition in poker!
Post deleted at author's request.
"All games have game theory,"
How insightful? Thanks.
Vince.
In a theoretical sense, chess does not have bluffing. There is no hidden information to bluff about.
In some small practical sense, what a player seems to beleive about the position may influence what the second player decides to play. However, theoretically correct play in no way depends on what the opponent is thinking.
Tic Tac Toe has a theory about how to play but it is trivial in a game theory sense. Chess is just as trivial. ( Thats why I switched to poker :) )
Post deleted at author's request.
In all games there are players just below the Expert level that can beat Fish faster and better than a true Expert.
It's a semi sound trappy style.
Is this what you mean?
Post deleted at author's request.
It seems to me in chess it doesn't matter why your opponent made his move. There is still a "best" move for every position. When Kasparov plays Deep Blue i think he expects Deep Blue to find the best move everytime. Although there are gray areas where one move might be nearly equal to another. This may be where game theory comes in. When playing deep blue, kasparov tried to keep things as simple as possible, whereas against Karpov he might choose a line that leads to the greatest complexity feeling he has an advantage in this line. In fact, i remember a game played between kasparov and karpov where kasparov intentionally played a very unorthodox move in the opening for the purpose of confusing karpov. This move was probably one of those that was in the gray area, but he felt he had an advantage this way because it took karpov longer to figure out the postion. Anyway, i agree with badger that there is some game theory in chess (even at the highest level), but in chess i don't think it is a thing of necessity like it is in poker.
In the CP article by DS he mentions in 7CS LL games that "high cards unsuited and small pairs go down in value" I don't have the article in front of me, so if I'm slightly off have a field day. Could someone enlighten me to a further explanation.
Paul
My experience in LL games is exactly that, even in shorthanded games. The reason may be the nature of the perticipants who are often either less experienced or more cautious. Many of the LL 7CS games I have been in are older folks or young people tired of getting beat up on the casino floor (i.e. blackjack, craps etc) and come to sit at a poker table for a break.
Also, LL home games are such that everyone draws out. In our home game everyone stays.
Paulo,
I haven't played LL Stud in a while but I'll try something here. Sklansky is right about the Unsuited high cards. LL brings too many callers. Part of the equity (hate that word) in playing high unsuited cards such as A,K,Q is the possibility of making a big pair and having that pair win the pot. That can be expected to occur with a relatively high frequency in a tight game. LL Stud does not lend itself to being a tight game. Other factors such as raising to limit the field with hands like this also are more effective in tight games. Three unsuited high cards play better heads up.
Now small pairs. I quite frankly do not see them losing much value in LL stud. In fact, I would play live small pairs frequently in loose passive games. These are the type of games that frequently exist in the LL world. Of course they are dangerous to play in any game and one must be cautious when proceeding but in the right situation they can be played profitably. Maybe Mr S will respond and I can correct him again. It's a tough job but Malmuth won't do it so that leaves one of us to show him his waywar ways.
Vince.
Low limit HE is killing me. I'v only been playing a few months but I can't even luck into a winning session. I'v read the books and play pretty straight forward. When I played low limit stud I did very well and have since moved up and am doing OK. I figured with study and disapline HE would go the same way. Wrong! So, I have a new plan. Opinions wanted.
Quit playing low limit games. Study advanced concepts such as HEAP. Practice with computer. Play only tournaments. Then if/when I feel I'm ready play at higher limit ring games. What do you think?
Of course the other options is to continue to just play stud.
I don't think it is a good idea to play in a bigger game if you cannot beat a smaller game. I would stick to low limit hold-em. I recommend you start writing down the hands you are playing in a little pocket size memo pad. At the end of a typical 8 or 9 hour session you should have 20 hands or so that you can forumlate as problems. Try posting some of them on this forum and get some responses. Also find some good players that you can discuss hands with. Although I cannot say that this applies to you, I have noticed that players who have problems beating low limit games make the following mistakes:
1. Overvalueing suited connectors and small pocket pairs. When pots start getting raised you frequently have to dump these despite what you hear about how they play well against a large field. They may play better against more players than fewer players but they are still long term money losers in raised pots.
2. Playing too loose on the flop. Pot odds being what they are, players are frequently lured into calling bets and raises to gutshot draws, bottom pairs, or even just overcards especially in raised pots because they look at the current and implied odds which seem favorable. The problem is that the board frequently contains a two flush, an open pair, or has some other composition that seriously threatens the ability of your draw to hold up even when you get lucky and hit.
3. Not understanding the long run. Even in low limit games the long run can be longer than most people realize. You need to be accurately recording the number of hours in each playing session and your results. You can than do a statistical analysis of your data after about 10 sessions or so using the techniques in Mason Malmuth's book "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" to determine if your results are statistically significant.
Actually I believe that skipping low limits might not be that bad an idea. The reason is that small games don't prepare you very well for the bigger games and that NOBODY makes decent money at stakes below 6-12 in public cardrooms. There has been too much discussion lately on this forum about small wild games in my opinion. I liken it to a medical school that offers a course on what paramedics do. That's fine to have one course but more than that is counterproductive. We're trying to turn out doctors here.
I view it like going to school. If you don't understand arithmetic you are simply not ready for algebra. If you don't understand algebra, you shouldn't be trying to take calculus. If you cannot beat a low limit game that is frequently made up of novices and inexperienced players, you probably cannot beat a higher limit game consisting of better and more experienced players. In addition, it is imperative that a player find a game he can definitely beat so that it can bankroll him into a bigger game as he is learning. I agree that playing in limits below $10-$20 is not where a serious player ultimately wants to be.
Dr. Beaker Here,
You are probably right for HE with the cards laying out in the middle of the table as long as you can see them you're alright. In 7CS I have to learn new procedures to win, which includes memorizing cards turned, and all the other stuff that I won't list. I may have been able to do this at higher levels, but I could also be out of money. Train and Gain. I agree with Jim on this subject, but I don't know once I make the big quantum leap to Dr. Zhivago's level that I would play HE at lower levels just because of all I've read on this Forum.
I think that you have to start low at one of the games and go up. Whether you have to go back down to the bottom for your next game, I would say no.
If anyone understands this you have now graduated like a cylinder.
Dr. Beaker
I have to disagree with just about everything you say here David.
"small games don't prepare you very well for the bigger games"
This is true in some respects. Obviously the strategies are much different.
However, if you are just starting out it is best to learn the basics at a cheap table. If you have to look to see if you have made a flush when a third diamond comes on the turn, have to spend a lot of time determining how much money is in the pot, or have to pause to decide whether it is worth it to pay a bet with a draw you will be PUNISHED in a larger stakes game. A decent $10-$20 player will read you like a book and you will lose every session.
At a low limit table, if you play with realistic starting requirements and have any poker knowledge you are likely to come out close to even if not ahead. Its basically a free education.
This is why that start doctors out cutting up cadavers instead of patients. Best to get out the kinks in a controlled environment where you can't mess things up to badly.
"NOBODY makes decent money at stakes below 6-12 in public cardrooms"
I guess this all hinges on your definition of decent. $15 per hour is VERY obtainable in a $3-$6 game in San Jose. With no Casinos within a couple of hour radius you get every would be craps player in silicon valley gambling like a maniac at the poker tables. If you are in a high tax bracket and have gambling losses you can offset (or for some other reason do not pay taxes on your winnings) this turns into the equivalent of a fairly respectable $28 per hour pre tax wage. You won't make millions but some people make less.
More importantly, lower limits are a good place to learn how to play. Med Students don't get paid very well either (most of my med school buddies are down close to a hundred grand) but it does position you pretty well for the future.
"There has been too much discussion lately on this forum about small wild games in my opinion"
I know that when I first started to play the low limit advice was the most valuable part of the forum for me. I also think that it is a plus to all players to get new people involved in the game. Finally, without the basics the more thought provoking threads don't make much sense.
"I liken it to a medical school that offers a course on what paramedics do. That's fine to have one course but more than that is counterproductive. We're trying to turn out doctors here"
I think your analogy is misplaced. I liken low limit to a premed course in anatomy and physiology. Disecting cats may not prepare you for open heart surgery but it does lay a solid foundation.
I'm not sure where Jakell lives but if it is in the Los Angeles area you definitely don't want to play below 6/12 holdem. The collection for 3/6 and 6/12 is usually the same and it is dropped dead on the button (that means they take it even on an ante steal or a chop of the blinds!). The 6/12 games are not too tough since the better players are collection adverse.
Regards,
Rick
Of course you should start out small in order to get used to the basics. I did say that medical schools should have ONE course in paramedicine. However I do not think it is very important to master the nuances of small games before moving up. I can tell you that many of the biggest and best players started thier careers basically at 10-20. (And I highly doubt that 15 dollars an hour is easily obtainable routinely at a raked 3-6 game. Don't forget that very good games involve less hands per hour. Besides, anybody who can make that much at 3-6 can make much more in bigger games [though the converse is not true].)
Suppose two players do about equally well at Ten Twenty most of the time.
But, about 20% of the time, the Ten Twenty game starts to play like a three six game.
My money’s on the guy that came up from three six and five ten rather than the guy that started and stayed at Ten Twenty.
Yes, I don't really think David would disagree with that. But the basic concepts you need to beat the small games can be learned fairly quickly. I would just say that if you're confident in what you've learned, and confident in your ability, and you have some other source of income, there's no need to force yourself to earn your entire 10-20 (or whatever) bankroll at the lower limits -- though that is what I did. I played 3-6, starting out losing, turning it around to winning, then forcing myself to continue till I had 6k in winnings with which to move up to 6-12. Shortly thereafter, in 10-20, is where I feel I really began to learn poker. If I had it to do over I would stay in the small games only until it was clear I could beat them, then move up.
John, you and I are kindred spirits because your experience parallels mine. I started out at $3-$6, won a few thousand and moved up to $6-$12. I won some more at $6-$12 and started playing $10-$20. I augmented my playing bankroll at $10-$20 and have been playing $20-$40 for about a year. The cardrooms don't spread anything higher around here in East Texas and Louisiana unless you want to play pot limit.
Post deleted at author's request.
David,
I don't think I was the one that you imply misunderstood your point. Could it be that you meant to post your response above under "E.S."? I only decided to bust your chops in this post since you seem to make this mistake (posting your response in the wrong spot) quite often. Then again, I think I heard that Albert Einstien couldn't tie his shoes (or was it program his VCR?). No matter, you almost gave me a heart attack :-).
Regards,
Rick
I grew up with 7 and 5 CS. I did and still do very well in low limit gammes. I feel I mastered low limit in 2 years. Unless I want to work 16 hr days, I'll never make a living out of it. I moved to 10-20 and 15-30 7CS and do well too. So,I move to HE and get killed for the first month. I got a book, played like my life depended on it and now I can leave the table with a little more than I came with. I think ya gotta' read and practice till you can win at low limit then move up
Post deleted at author's request.
Jakell,
What limits are you playing? It might be that you are having trouble overcomig the rake as opposed to actually beating the game. For example, while I think that 3/6 hold'em with a $3 button charge is beatable, it might be worth it to step up to 6/12.
How much are you losing right now? If you are losing less than 1 small bet per hour over a period of 200+ hours, I would say go ahead and move up. If you are losing over 2 big bets per hour, stay where you are, or find a lower limit game. It'll cost less to learn the lessons you still need to learn.
- Andrew
Jakell,
One more thing. I would reccommend trying IRC poker as a practical way to practice the skills you need to beat low-limit holdem. The games are much more realistic than a simulation.
- Andrew
Some of the people above in this thread are excellent players and have been playing for some time. They may have forgotten what it was like in the LL jungle. While I agree that LL games may not necessarily "prepare" you for winning at Mid Limit (ML) and HL Holdem, some of the skills needed for ML and HL are learned at the basic level, just as Jim Brier notes. These skills can be tested in the LL game and adjusted in the higher limits. Observe the higher limit games. I spent an over an hour a night just watching the 10-20 HE players. It definitely helps.
Jakell,
I posted about this some time ago. I believe that a player has to take into account the opportunity costs of starting out at $3-6 instead of $10-20 even though he may win at the former and lose at the latter. I base this on the premise that $3-6 and $10-20 are a lot different and that $3-6 experience will not help you all that much at the $10-20 level.
Tom Haley
The one item I thought would be the most controversial was not even mentioned. How about spending my learning time in tournaments instead of low limits? Remember I am new to HE but not new to poker. I play 10-20 & am easing my way into 15-30 stud. I worked my way up just as most of you have suggested. I think tournaments will allow me to practice advanced strategy & reading players, skills I will need at 10-20 and above. Having played too much low limit stud, I really don't think these skills can be developed at low limit. Play only good starting hands, bet if you think you're best, fold when you're not, pretty much sums up LL HE. At least it did at LL stud.
Jakell,
Tournaments are a great way to learn a lot of the fundamentals for a cheap price. If you are a losing player, tournaments give you a chance to play for up to two hours for $50 or less.
On the other hand you have to be aware that while the fundamentals are similar, the particulars are different. But by all means play in cheap tournaments.
Good luck.
BTW, what limits are you playing at right now? How are you doing?
- Andrew
Andrew,
I"v been trying to learn HE at the 3-6 level (lowest limit available). I am averaging 3 losing sessions for every win. Don't lose much, don't win much. Play very tight (DS Group 4 is my absolute minimum). Play aggressively if I catch a flop. (top pair, top kicker or better). I think my play is OK for 3-6 but I have no control over the outcome. If I have a night of good cards I do OK, if not, I lose. That is my point. I want to eventually play at limits where skill is rewarded. I know I do not possess the required skills at this time, but I'm trying to figure out a better way of learning.
I vote for starting at 6-12 if feasible after the couple of learning sessions at 3-6. The game will still be quite loose but also you will get some variety with occasional chances to play against 1 or 2 players instead of the whole field. This will allow you to learn some skills that can be used in bigger games.
I question the 15/hour in 3-6, I would want to see their books before I believed this. One of the reasons is that there are usually no players that play even reasonably well in these games and so I cannot imagine who these "superstars" could be. 15/hr in 6-12 is pretty damn good and at least there I are some players that could easily play 15-30 but drop down to the 6-12 for bankroll reasons and are good enough to make that rate. The players that regularly drop to the 3-6 are always poor players from what I have seen.
About 30 years ago when I was 18 I started playing poker. The games were private then and they had a $10 limit and a $20 limit game, occasionally playing no limit. $10 and $20 was worth a tad more back then too.
Anyway, they legalized poker in that area. $2 maximum bet! Believe it or not this put a dent in the private games. Then when it became legal to play $5 the private games died! Everybody went to the cardrooms.
Well, those $2 and $5 games were MUCH tougher to beat than the $10 and $20 limit games. In the bigger games people put THOUGHT into their play. In the small games they just put in the chips.
Playing in those small games was profitable (small hourly collection-no rake) but very tough. After all that's all there was unless you traveled. Go to vegas and play 10-20 or 20-40. Come back home and play $2 to $5. There really is no comparison between the two game structures. Low limit players will never realize that until they step up. Be prepared for a world of difference. But once you get used to it it's not that big a deal.
In The Theory of Poke Skalnsky writes: "Knowing the mathematics of Poker can certainly help you play a better game."
I am new to poker. Can some one point me in the right direction for written or other resources for learning the math of poker?
you should know combinatoics and probability theory. i do not know a good combinatorics book of the top of my head, but "a first course in probability theory" by shelden ross will cover almost all you need to know. if i remember correctly, there is even a chapter on elementary combinatorics (which is all you need for poker). oh, and game theory is allegedly useful every once in a while.
scott
I have always thought it was a 22-1 shot to pick up three of a kind on the turn or river when you have a pair in the hole. But recently, I have seen some references incolumns and elsewhere (I think Mason Malmuth has alluded to this a few times) that it is only an 11-1 shot, and therefore it could be okay to chase. I don't know how it gets to be 11 to 1 (I'm almost illiterate when it comes to math); but even if that is the case, once you get to the big bet turn and river; there would have to be $440 (in a $20-$40 game) to justify the chase. I have seen pots get this big; but rarely. Can someone explain the reasoning here?
It seems to suggest that if a pot is growing to the $500 range or more; you ought to take the heat with your pocket 9s or 10s; even if there are two face cards on board.
Thanks
11-to-1 is taking into account that there are two cards to come.
My understanding is 7.5:1 to get a set on the flop and 11:1 on the turn. What are th odds on the river?
Pyramid,
If you want to take the advice of an Ivy League, underage egghead listen to scott - :). If you are a normal type you may want to try "Getting the Best Of It" by David Sklansky. The first section covers just about all you need to know and is written so the average reader can grasp it. Plus it has lots of other essays that are among his best.
Regards,
Rick (filling in as an "official 2+2 brown-noser" for the day)
We play a lot of poker with wild cards, and we are not sure if 5 of a kind beats a royal flush. When there is 1 to 2 wild cards. Baseball has 2 wild cards so I don't know how to figure out the probality.What do you all go by? Thanks Mike
In most wild card games, 5 of a kind beats a royal flush. The reason is because a royal flush is simply an Ace-high straight flush and straight flushes lose to 5 of a kind. Just like a Six-high straight flush beats 4 Aces and 4 Deuces beat Aces full of Kings, etc.
Hmm.....
The reason one should beat another is because it is less probable.
With one joker there are exactly 13 hands that make five of a kind (eg XXXX J), and there are 25 royal flushes (eg the 4 natural ones, and in each suit (Jok, K Q J T s ) (A Jok Q J T s) etc.
Thus since there are 25 royals and only 13 5 of a kinds, the 5 of a kind should win.
if you want to listen to mr. brown-noser here, then go ahead and but getting the best of it. but if you're a self-reliant egghead that likes to be able to derive the math he needs, buy the book i suggested. and getting the best of it, too, but for different reasons. i doubt the whole book is a math lesson. learn poker from poker books and learn math from math books.
scott
Well, you've hit the problem right on the head. The fact, is the average mortal CAN'T learn math from math books because math books ARE TOO FRIKCIN' COMPLICATED!!!
A not bad math book for mere mortals is "The Mathematics of Games and Gambling" by Edward Packel
Bill C. -
Yeah, it's not too expensive either (about one third the price of Scott's recommended book). I ordered it, but it won't arrive until after the first of the year. I wonder why it will take so long. In the meanwhile, David Sklansky's Theory of Poker (also not outrageously expensive) seems good reading on the subject, as does Scarne's New Complete Guide to Gambling (which is even cheaper).
Omaha8Buff
I find Sklansky, yellow book excellent, but not the first book you should read. I keep it as a reference book in the bathroom. It's popular.
Scarne's book is not too helpful (I'm being kind here)
Or, you can pick up a copy of Mike Petriv's "Hold em's odds book", which pretty much covers all the math you'll never need to know for the game.
GD,
I have it. The typeface gives me a headache. When I'm not feeling so lazy I'll work on it a bit more.
Regards,
Rick
Pyramid,
All the math you need to know, you probably learned in high school. The simple combinatorics and probability taught there should be sufficient.
If you want to know how to actually use it at the table, there is an excellent essay here
- Andrew
I did go to school in California where they were just legalizing the State Lottery. I wonder if that had anything to do with it? But hey, I can recite Shakespeare and thats all that matters.
I tell you, when I went out into the real world and stood tall in front of my employers a sang out, "To Be or not To Be...", they hired me on the spot.
Um... did I say it was a NAVY recruiter.
CV
Andrew,
Thanks for your help. I looked at the page you linked. I either have a better understanding now or am really confused.
In reference to hold'em: First, I assume we are talking an after the flop bet. The "Outs When Drawing One Card" says that you have 9 out when drawing to a 4 flush. The chart above seems to imply that you would only bet or raise if you had 5 or more opponents who are or will be calling. Have I interpreted this correctly? If not, can you help me.
Thanks Again
In reference to hold'em: First, I assume we are talking an after the flop bet. The "Outs When Drawing One Card" says that you have 9 out when drawing to a 4 flush.
This table refers to when you have only one card left to draw. In holdem this would be after the turn has come.
The chart above seems to imply that you would only bet or raise if you had 5 or more opponents who are or will be calling. Have I interpreted this correctly? If not, can you help me.
Yes and no. If you are betting or raising for value then this is correct. What I mean is that you'll profit from every bet that you put in.
On the other hand, when you are head to head, and sometimes with two opponents, you can semi-bluff for value. Here you make up for the outs that you don't have because sometimes your opponent will fold. Sklansky's Theory of Poker has probably the best treatment of semi-bluffs you'll find.
It looks like you're well on your way to getting a hold of the essential math that you need at the poker table.
Good luck,
- Andrew
and hoping you'll welcome me. i've given up my beloved BJ for poker (had to...not my choice). but if i had to give one for the other, poker is second in a 2 man race.
next time your at a bj table and the dealer has an ace up ask if he wants to chop?(it's fun try it)
no pun meant just drunk
I'm posting this in response to two inexplicable beliefs held by the poker community. Both of which I have heard expressed countless times on this forum.
1. That it is impossible to win $15 per hour at 3/6 holdem (or as some people continually state, to win at all); and
2. That it is somehow easier to win at a table where the other players play rationally.
THEORY
It is the difference between you and the other players in the game that determines your hourly rate in terms of bets per hour. This is true if you play at 3/6 or 100/200.
TABLE 1. 10 players who are all superstars and play at the exact same level of expertise play in a room for a billion hours. At the end of the session each player will be pretty close to even. Because there is no edge winning is random. Bets per hour for any player equal very close to 0.
TABLE 2. One player at a table with 9 others who are nearly, but not quite, as good as he is, the player will be able to eek out a small win over many hours and his variance will be high. He holds a small edge which in the short run is often overcome by luck but in the long run will make him an overall winner. Bets per hour will likely equal less than one. A slightly better player may win one and a half big bets (which is the figure I hear most often about what an expert should expect to earn).
TABLE 3. One player at a table with 9 others who are not even close to as good as the player. This isn't a result of the one player being great, rather it is a result of the other 9 players being very bad.
The other 9 players:
-love to gamble
-get bored being out of pots
-play passively so as not to punish the field with a monster hand
-have tells galore conveying when they are on a draw and when they have a made hand
-make it very obvious when they plan on folding behind you
-don't know or really care to think about what you may be holding
-are willing to call a bet on the end with no real chance of winning
-and generally make lots and lots of other big blunders that I can't think of right now
Of course the correct strategy for playing at table 3 is markedly different than the correct strategy for playing at table 2. In addition, there are some downsides to playing at table 3 that might not be readily appearant to the novice at first blush (things like implicit collusion). There may even be specific hands that play better at table 2 than table 3. However, at the end of the day the player at table three has a dramatically higher edge than the player at table 2 and will win significantly more bets per hour.
I Propose That The Above is True and Would Love To Hear Intelligent Arguments As to Why it is Not.
In the real world, table three might charge a higher rake than table two which will cut out some of the difference between the per hour profit of a player at table 2 and 3. However, if a player at table 2 can expect to earn one and a half big bets an hour after the rake, I propose that a player at table 3 with a much larger edge can still win three big bets per hour after the rake.
In the real world, it is also true that three big bets at table 3 might be worth less than 1 big bet at table 2. It might also be true that because of this a player at table 3 might be able to win more money (not more bets) if he played at table 2. This however, does not change the truth of the above statement.
Is there a flaw in this logic? Or in the logic of those who can't crack a low limit holdem game and complain when their opponents don't, "play correctly".
Thanks
E.S.
I'm not going to say you are wrong, because you aren't. You are, however, somewhat naive and simplistic.
You attack the following:
"1. That it is impossible to win $15 per hour at 3/6 holdem (or as some people continually state, to win at all); and
2. That it is somehow easier to win at a table where the other players play rationally. "
1. Of course it is conceivable that any amount could be won at a table. I think that having a mean win rate of $15/hour at 3/6 is very dependent on the other players. They have to be pretty bad. This is, of course, possible and maybe even common. However, I think that if you select 9 opponents randomly from the population of regular 3/6 players in North America, then you will have a hard time getting 2.5BB/hr.
2. The problem I have here is the phrase "easier to win". What does that mean, exactly? Does that mean that the mean win rate is higher (in terms of bets/hour or even dollars per hour)? I'll agree that irrational play is probably bad, and therefore good for you, so that statement 2 is false in that sense. On the other hand it could be a reflection of variance. In a rational game, you will probably see the effects of your mean win rate faster. In that sense it would be "easier to win". Your mean win rate might be lower, but your results will be more consistent.
However, I agree that I would prefer to play against 9 very bad opponents than against 9 players over whom I have only a slight edge but who are "dependable".
Eric
E.S. writes: "Of course the correct strategy for playing at table 3 is markedly different than the correct strategy for playing at table 2. In addition, there are some downsides to playing at table 3 that might not be readily appearant to the novice at first blush (things like implicit collusion). There may even be specific hands that play better at table 2 than table 3. However, at the end of the day the player at table three has a dramatically higher edge than the player at table 2 and will win significantly more bets per hour."
This difference in skills required to beat these game is significant. It's why some folks can't beat low limit (a very small percentage of winning players). Most that can't beat low limit can't beat any game. A player that regularly beats Table 2 might be hard pressed to win his regular number of bets per hour at Table 3, rake effects excluded. This is because his skill set might not fully exploit the errors of Table 3.
This is often the position I find myself. This year I have won only a fraction at lower limits compaired to my wins in games 15-30 and up. My current skill set is geared to this level and I don't shift to the loose/wild game skill set as well as I could.
In my book POKER ESSAYS I state that a great player at $3-$6 hold 'em can make $12 per hour and a great player at $3-$6 Omaha eight-or-better can make $15 per hour. However, I doubt if anyone is doing this on a consistent basis for it that was the case they would quickly move to a higher limit where their overall earn would be even higher.
Only true if winning the most money is the most important motive to play.
It’s easy enough to think up other reasons someone could win at higher stakes than he’s currently playing.
Here’s five while I’m typing.
He could win the same at double stakes, but with more swings and agro.
The girls are prettier and the jokes funnier at half the stakes.
Game selection is twice as good at half the stakes.
He’s a functional alcoholic, but can only drink half as much and still win at the higher stakes.
He’s really there to play the ponies.
Mason says a great player can make $12 per hour at 3-6.
My question is: Is that before or after the rake?
If the rake is, say, $12 per hour, does that mean the player is actually making $24 per hour from the game itself, netting $12 after the rake, or are they netting $0.00 after the rake?
Tommy
Tommy,
Unless stated otherwise, bets ($) per hour is always net of the rake. (convention by common usage)
Tom D
After rake and tips. It is what you leave the table with.
But this makes no sense!
Mason says, for example, that a good player can make two to three big bets per hour at 3-6. That means, at most, $18 per hour. Where I play, the rake is about $15 per hour. So that means a good player can GROSS somewhere around five big bets per hour.
It also means that any gauge of skill based on "per hour" earnings would need to be tempered by the local rake condition to have any absolute value for comparison or other judgements.
It also means that everything needs to be rethough for 20-40, since the rake factor is less signifinant as a percentage of earnings. For example, a good player GROSSING five bets per hour, as you say a 3-6 player can do, would then be earning FAR more than is normally associated with the earn rate of 20-40 professionals.
Something doesn't add up here, in the math. I'm amazed that no author has yet shed light on this glaring discrepency.
Tommy
That's because there is no descrepancy. As you move up in limit the games get tougher and your relative win rate goes down. In addition, the high win rates that you reference for the small games are for players who play great. In a sense these people don't exist because they will move to a higher limit if they play that well.
If you're going to play low limit hold'em, you will need to play a lot tighter than you think to eek out a win.
Since, almost every pot is a multiway pot big unsuited high cards are not playable. Big pairs will get cracked more often, but are still playable.
The hands that do the best are big suited cards. e.g.--AKs, AQs, AJs, KQs, JTs, QJs, KJs, ATs.
You can also play any Axs in any position most of the time (when the game is loose and passive).
You need to stay away from small connectors (suited or not) and small pairs. These hands lose alot of money. I've seen plenty of players flop a set of twos and threes and get them cracked for a lot of dough. Furthermore, I've seen players with 56s get cracked by 72s.
The reason why I suggest a tighter strategy is because LOGIC does not apply in these games. It's almost impossible to figure out what people are playing when they came to gamble with any two cards.
When playing these low-limit games you should consider the basic mathematics. I suggest reading the chapters on odds in the Theory of Poker.
Note, I'm just posting some basics. Others may want to elaborate.
You are way off on your starting hand requirments. In a loose passive game you can actually loosen up. In particular, small pairs and suited connectors become much more playable. Its just important to be able to get away if you are hit by the flop but aren't hit very hard. Its pretty simple math. In a loose passive game the pot odds and the implied odds are more likely to be their for speculative hands.
That's if the game is truly loose and passive. I find this very rare in the $3-6 and $4-8 games. Of course, this is my opinion. I have not encoutered a loose passive game if the last few years.
From my experience, I believe that if you can not read your opponent, you will have to play much tighter. This is the case in the majority of games that I have played in at the $3-6 and $4-8 limits.
E.S.,
I'm not sure that this is a flaw in your thinking but Table 3 can be found at limits higher than 3-6.
Tom Haley
THEORY
"It is the difference between you and the other players in the game that determines your hourly rate in terms of bets per hour. This is true if you play at 3/6 or 100/200."
" I Propose That The Above is True and Would Love To Hear Intelligent Arguments As to Why it is Not. "
First, what is it with you and other posters that feel it is necessary to emphasis "intelligent arguments"? It really makes me and Big John feel like second class dopos.
Second, This is one heck of a theory. A General Theory of Poker Relativity. Of course this theory of yours doesn't really say anything now does it? Relatively speaking of course. I guess one could argue that your theory is akin to the problem that Von Neumann attempted to quantify with Game Theory. The interactions of the participants. Your simple theory is really nothing more than a simple statement that really says nothing. Am I being intelligent enough? Well to bad it's the best I can do!
Now for your Tables.
Table 1. Your theory says that it applies to the differnces between you and others at the table. You have concocted a situation here with 10 equally skillfull players. Results 0. Right? Wrong? A simulation of randomness may point to you being correct but that is the problem with simulations. In a game populated with human players one must consider more than skill level when predicting the results. The results of this table will, IMO, be determined by factors other than poker skills. Psychological strengths may be the determining factor.
Table 2. A player playing at only a slightly better level than 9 other (each playing at the same level) players may not win in that game. In fact I doubt that it would be any different from one with all players of equal skill. To win at poker requires other players to play badly. That does not mean to play less skillfully than you.
Table 3. Sklansky writes of losing in good games in the latest Poker digest. His article is very timely and appropriately addresses Table 3. I advise that all here , except Sklansky of course, read and heed. He wrote it why would he read it. God.
"Is there a flaw in this logic? Or in the logic of those who can't crack a low limit holdem game and complain when their opponents don't, "play correctly"."
Both. The flaw in your "Theory" is that you have not "intelligently" expressed your point. I for one cannot find anything in your post that says anything other than your opponents skill level "might" matter. The flaw in the other is obvious.
Vince.
Here are some related points:
1. From direct experience I am inclined to believe Masons number of 2 BB's max in 3-6 and that virtually no one does that because they play 6-12 or higher pretty quickly.
2. The drop will kill off all your comparisons. It is too signifigant at lower limits to not include in your theory.
3. To hit the 1.5 BB's in the bigger games, you need to have some fairly bad players in the game some of the time. If most of the players play just a little worse then you, I believe it will be very hard to max out and probably hard to win more then a fraction of a bet.
4. Having a full table of bad players probably won't help you over having half a table and the swings will be bigger. See 2+2 essay on that. Your table 3 though i better then table 1.
I would like to add a table between table 2 and table 3. I believe a player would do better at table 2 1/2 than at table 3.
BTW, my knowledge of hold'em is not very sophisticated, so as I'm writing, I'm thinking 7CS, and I believe that bad players do better in 7CS than they do in hold'em.
It's easy to fly down the highway on a clear sunny day, but you better slow down when it's a foggy rainy night. I compare table 3 to a foggy rainy night. With a table full of bad players, you are going to have to play a lot of multiway pots, and multiway pots are inherently more difficult to navigate. Compounding these inherent difficulties, bad (illogical) players, impossible to read, add more fog. A good player, in this environment, is going to make a lot of "Fundamental Theorem of Poker" mistakes. Betting as you would if you knew your opponents' hands (optimum) is hard to do when you actually have no clue what they have.
Some people talk about no fold'em games as if all you have to do is pick starting hands, put on a blindfold, and put the pedal to the metal until the showdown. I don't believe that works. I think, as mah mentioned above, you have to play squeaky tight, and playing squeaky tight puts the squeeze on your hourly rate. Also, every hand goes to a showdown, and during every round of betting the players don't know who bet, how much the bet was, who's turn it is, or what their hole cards are, so you're lucky if you get to look at twelve hands in an hour. How are you going to make 3 BBs an hour looking at twelve hands?
Tom D
I totally agree with you. This is how it really is. I think a lot of players get fooled into playing more hands than they should and end up being losers. In these games you want to play the hands that are going to make big wins when you play.
nmsg
This is hard to believe, but I find there is almost a universal belief in the Poker community that cards have hot and cold streaks! I've seen many players leave perfectly good games because the "cards were not going their way". And also players that will play garbage becase of the cards were hot. Yes indeed, our fortunes do run in streaks but I think it is folly to make a Poker decision based on the outcome of the hands of the recent past.The laws of thermodynamics are never repealled for our convenience.
the only truth in rushes and their not so fun counterparts is in the minds of our opponents.
scott
"I find there is almost a universal belief in the Poker community that cards have hot and cold streaks"
"The laws of thermodynamics are never repealled for our convenience"
Just goes to show how much you know. Why do you think they have decks with red backs and decks with blue backs. The red are hot decks and the blue are cold. Very much in keeping with the laws of the theromdynamics. Hah!
Vince.
"Editor's note: Mike Caro is generally regarded as being today's foremost authority on poker strategy, pychology, and statistics."
The above is an excerpt taken from a "CARD PLAYER Magazine" mini bio of Mike Caro. Are they serious? Isn't it against some Code of Journalistic Ethics to print blatantly false nformation. Foremost authority indeed. Caro, I read your books! Blah! Anyone disagree? If necessary I will quote some of the ridiculous strategy this guy recommends.
Vince.
Are you suggesting you get nothing of value from Mike Caro? If so I'd suggest a course in reading (english) comprehension. Mike does not worship or even bow to the alter of S&M like many here do but I'll assure you that if you find his work without value you're a bigger fool than most.
When I first started gambling seriously, the first book I picked up was Caro on Gambling. I could have done much much worse. His "crash course" in stud made me a winner with virtually no experience. His "concept" essays got me mentally on the right track. I have moved on through all the major poker and bj works, and Caro on Gambling still has an honored place in my bookshelf.
I find that reading Caro, Sklansky, Malmuth, Zee, West, Nelson to name a few all valuable. Each has a somewhat different approach. They all contribute to my knowledge of the game. I use many of their tactics and mathematical approaches to refine my game. Of the above mentioned, only Caro and to some extent, Roy West offer any psycological advice. Interested to hear Ric's opinion
Please quote vince. It would be nice to parse someone elses work than MM and DS
Todd
Don't forget the Book of Tells. That books is certainly the only excellent work covering tells.
D.
Vinny,
Out of my book of appropiate sayings.
"If you don't blow your own horn someone might use it as a spitoon."
Caro is trying "very trying" - I do like his video on tells.
Don't forget "Play Poker, Quit Work, and Sleep Till Noon" by John Fox. This book was out before Caro was even known. I think John Fox even made a reference to someone called "Crazy Mike" in his book. Crazy Mike would practice looking sad in the mirror.
Mike Caro, John Fox and Art Sathmary (ASQ), were friends and often discussed poker ideas.(Some people have alleged that John Fox was a nom de plume for Mike Caro, but I've been assured that this isn't true). Mike Caro was called "Crazy Mike" for many years, and still is by many old time Gardena players. It was a commonly held belief for a long time that Mike Caro knew a lot about poker theory but didn't have that much self control during actual play. Once, after I questioned his playing discipline on RGP, Mike wrote to tell me that he was the most disciplined player that I was ever likely to encounter. He said anything different was simply illusion. I witnessed Mike Caro playing NL heads up Hold-em at ESCARGOT last year against Robert Turner. At one point he had Turner so baffled by his play and running commentary that Turner decided to always check when it was his turn to bet first. My opinion, from watching and listening to him as he plays, is that he is an excellent heads up player and would be a dangerous opponent for me and anyone else I've ever played. FWIW, I'd never willingly play him heads up at any poker game for significant stakes.
I wouldn't either, unless it was by accident (like I could be forced to play him in a tournament). But, if you're faced with him or someone that uses similar tactics, ignore it (I'm talking about the angle shooting).
It isn't angle shooting, but rather, running poker commentary. It can be disconcerting when he tells the world that you are betting a J7o when that is exactly what you are betting. Even when you try to avoid listening, you can't help but pick up on the similarity between what he says you are thinking about doing and what you actually are contemplating. When Mike Caro shuts up and tries to concentrate himself, that is a scary time. Thankfully, it doesn't often happen.
That's scary!!!
I have agree that the John Fox book is one of the best poker reads you will find, mainly for the humour. hhI think the Caro book of tells has more useful concentrated information however.
D.
I have not looked at the book in a long time. But, I will look at it again and see if I get any more out of it.
I was able to acquire a copy of Brunson's sipersystem from him. It is out of print and difficult to come by.
Vince,
Mike did do the Draw Poker and Statistics sections in Brunson's Super/System. It's pretty good.
Are you going to give us some redicules claims Mike Caro has stated in print? Or were you just pissed off when you made the claim, for whatever reason?
"Or were you just pissed off when you made the claim"
I was certainly "pissed off". I will say that I am not a fan of Mike caro's. I think that anyone that recommends ridiculing other people for other than comedic purposes is not a nice person. I have long ago discarded any material that I had from this guy. But since you asked I will pick out a few wonderments from Poker's foremost authorities latest Card Player article. Shall we begin.
" Caro's Law of loose wiring"
"If choices are not clearly connected to thier benefits, people usually interact in ways that make outcomes unpredictable. If choices are clearly connected to thier benefits, people sometimes act in ways that make outcomes unpredictable."
This is a law! Caro's Law. He must be a lawyer. They don't worry about making sense out of things they say. They just say them. What in the hell does this LAW say. Oh, maybe you are going to interpret this for me. Old Vince is too stupid to grasp the significance of this LAW. Well you are right. I have no idea what the purpose of this Law is and frankly don't car(o). Although I can see the benefit of the law, not! Of cousre that could be because I didn't "clearly connect benefit to choice" as suggested by the law.
"The truth about poker player"
"2. Some hands that your opponents play at whim are the results of spontaneous decisions about whether to fold, call or raise."
Interpret please? Do you have any idea what in the Lady Gambler he is talking about here. Me neither.
"3. If you're an accomplished player who's profitting from the flow of the game, many of your play-or-don't -play decisions are made by whim at the last moment?"
Is he serious? Accomplished poker players base their decisions on a whim? I love this guy.
Now those of you that defend this guy please refer me to some strategies or tactics this guy has developed that make sense. Good Luck.
Vince.
You make some very good points, he can be vague as hell. Now calm yourself before you start to hemorrhage.
-Larry
This is hard to believe, but I find there is almost a universal belief in the Poker community that cards have hot and cold streaks! I've seen many players leave perfectly good games because the "cards were not going their way". And also players that will play garbage becase of the cards were hot. Yes indeed, our fortunes do run in streaks but I think it is folly to make a Poker decision based on the outcome of the hands of the recent past.The laws of thermodynamics are never repealled for our convenience.
Hopefully, you are preaching to the choir. However keep in mind that as long as some of your opponents believe in this stuff and are apt to change their strategy based on it, you might have to also.
This applies to dealers, set ups and seats (unless you want better position on a particular player.
Like the cards care! As Rounder says, the only reason I would ever change seats in a game would be to gain better position on a maniac or weak passive player, or to get a better view of a TV set. If it was MY casino, anyone asking for a deck change would have to post a Big Blind.
You may not be able to predict when cards run hot and cold. But you sure can take advantage of your opponents when they play cold. When I'm running lucky, I notice that my opponents tend to freeze, that is they tighten up as a result of my streak thus allowing me to get away with more bluffs and semi-bluffs than usual. It's like they autosynchronize into "let's give this guy more respect than he deserves" mode. This psychological tendency definitely demands a temporary shift into a higher gear (from tight-aggressive to loose-aggressive). Yes, I believe in playing "rushes", psychological rushes that is.
John Feeney has another excellent article in the most recent Poker Digest. In it he describes players who appear to be winners (in the sense that they keep a lot of chips in front of them and try to "talk the talk" of a top player), but if you examine their play closely it is clear they can't possibly be winning. His main point is that you must play against them according to their actual ability and style rather than their artificially manufactured winning image.
Anyway, a couple friends and I are convinced that there are a substantial number of what we like to call "trust fund pros" around the cardrooms. They talk about their hourly rate and how they beat the game and portray confidence but in reality are in the range of big losers to slightly better than break even players. That leads us to believe they have to have another unspoken source of income outside of poker, whether it is a trust fund, insurance settlement, investment income or whatever. They will not talk about this because poker gives them a cover for the fact that they are just goofing off.
Here is an example of something that happened last week. I'm washing my hands in the men's room and a player who I've played with a couple times a year or two back is chatting it up with another guy and saying how he is "knocking down $300 to $400 a day" in the yellow chip games. My memory was that this guy is a terrible player but maybe he improved. It is possible.
My friend has been car pooling with me on Monday and Wednesday and was in this guy's 20/40 game that day. On the way home I ask him about the player. He said that he was about his weakest regular opponent and gave several concrete examples of the kind of mistakes the guy makes. Yet he always tried to portray the kind of confidence and image that John Feeney describes. So another "trust fund pro" is uncovered.
Maybe some of you have "trust fund pro" stories or thoughts of your own but in any event have a happy Thanksgiving!
Regards,
Rick
I am sure there are a few of those types however a couple of observations. Arround the Bay area most players admit to the investment activity, I would say it is the number one topic surpassing sports and Who Wants to Be a Millionair. In fact I am quite suspicious of most of the day trading success claims I hear about.
A second point is that it is a rare poor player that keeps enough chips in front of him. It seem to me that even some of the better players play too short stacked a lot of the time. I would tend to give some respect to a player that brings extra large chips for the game, all other things being equal. Of course the poor players might be better off short stacked.
D.
I should probably clarify a bit for those without access to Poker Digest. In that article I talk about a player who for a long time most average and weaker players were convinced was a long term winner. They believed this mainly just because he always had a large chip stack in front of him, and it seemed rarely to shrink very much. It just always seemed to go up, up, up, or at least stay the same. But I (and a couple of better players I polled) had no doubt whatsoever that there was no way he could win given his play. Finally, one day after he had lost a couple of pots in close succession, I observed him very covertly sneeking chips out of his coat and onto his stack. This was just a bit of final confirmation of what had been obvious anyway -- that his play was so flawed that he had to lose in the long run.
I put that anecdote in the article as an illustration (mostly for "intermediate" level players who may be less sure about what they're seeing) of the importance of learning and applying enough poker theory to see through illusions such as that generated by that player. (Others could include, e.g., believing someone is a great player because he plays very fast, has been winning a lot over some limited time, and seems very confident...) I pointed out that by seeing through such smoke, you will do better against such a player, because you will be aware of the specific weaknesses in his play.
Rick points out some other elements that may contribute to such illusions in some cases. Of course we all know plenty of very good players who keep a lot of chips in front of them, or make most of their income in ways other than poker, etc. It's just that those are some of the things that can contribute to these illusions when they do occur.
btw, I don't actually think there's anything wrong with creating the illusion that you win when you don't. It may actually help you do a little better. As I think I said in the article, when your opponents misperceive how well you play, they will not play as well against you. And it's generally better for your image at the table to be seen as winning.
Comments?
True.
I'm sure those with at least three stacks in front of them get bluffed less.
This is usually a plus.
I've also observed that the shortstacks (five big bets or less) are less succeptable to steal moves after they have committed one bet on the flop. I realize this is a generalization, but they seem more comfortable peeling off another hundred after they are all-in rather than before.
John,
I hope I didn't mis-portray your article. I figure just about everyone has access to Poker Digest but that may not be true out in the boondocks.
Obviously, as David Steele mentioned, there is nothing wrong with developing outside sources of income even if you play just about full time. It is just that we find quite a few that would like you to think they make big money at poker when they don't.
Personally, I would never want to shatter their illusions. If someone wants to blow off most of a trust fund in the cardroom, that is fine with me up to a point (I wouldn't want to see someone's life destroyed). My main point is that there are quite a few who use the cardroom as cover in order to bolster their ego.
I do think it is important that a top player maintains a winning image. Complaining about bad beats or how bad you are running just inspires your opponents. I also like to keep a lot of chips in front of me (that it may represent my life savings is another matter ;-).
Regards,
Rick
No, you didn't mis-portray it, Rick. I just wanted to add a little detail to be sure that the point of the article was clear. I know there are cardrooms that don't yet get Poker Digest (Of the two I usually play at, one does and one doesn't.), though they're continually expanding.
btw, I find it fun to have something I wrote brought up here. I only have a tiny bit of apprehension as I wait for Jim Brier's "Feeney problem #1". :-/
One of the most amazing discoveries of my youth was that not all people play poker for the same reason: to win money. I learned this in the back room of a pool hall at a perpetual low limit game. One of the regulars at the game was named Doug. Every twenty minutes or so, he would ask how everybody was doing. Player #1 would be up $20, Player #2 up $10, Player #3 was even, I’d announce down $50, Doug would do the math and be up $20. If there was a young lady present, I would be down $70 so Doug could be up $40.
At first I thought Doug was joking, but he wasn’t. Then I thought he’d catch on that he was losing, but he never let on that he did. And he never quit the game. I got what I wanted: money. Doug got what he wanted: to be a Winner.
Since then I have always made an effort to uncover the motivations of the people I play against, not only to play better myself, but to be able to give them what they want.
I don’t know the specific economics of the various games people play in, but I recommend trying to discern the image your opponents wish to project, and then treating them in a manner that reinforces it. Gamblers, High-Rollers, Winners, Losers, Lucky, Ill-fated, Conspicuous Consumers; they are all out there. Letting them get what they want will let you get what you want.
The next time you see an "Illusionary Winner" away from the table, take a moment to introduce him to your friends as a Professional. Someday he may seek you out to give you some action. It’s a win-win situation.
I have been losing a lot of money lately. Yes, I know this is anathema to the masses but please bear with me.
When I cash out, bleeding like a punctured ulcer, I may have two or three racks of chips. There are players who SWEAR I win every single time I play. I'll often hear as I make my way to the cage, "Look, he got'em again. Every day. He always wins." Sometimes, when one particular guy I know is in the room, he will make a point of saying to me from wherever he is in the casino, "you never lose do you."
You'd think they could tell by the look on my face--my chin touching my Mr. Willie door--that I couldn't possibly be winning. But no, all they can see are the chips.
OK, I may as well be honest. My "trust fund" is just about dry. I may have to get a "real" job soon playing poker. It's been fun all these years pretending I could play, but now I guess I'll just have to give it an honest shot.
I'm just so very glad John Feeney wrote that article about me so that I could see what a fool I have been and begin to mend the error of my ways. Thank you John. Thank you very much. I really appreciate it.
BobA(nus)
Oh Bob. Bob, Bob...my friend. I think I detect a bit of BobsArcasm. But Bob, have you read the article? It's focus was not actually on this type of player; it was on the importance of learning enough to see through illusions (such as that created by losing players who successfully project a winning image) in order to increase your earn.
But even if the focus *had* been on "outing" such players, in fact even if an entire issue of the magazine were devoted just to that, I doubt it would have the slightest effect on any game anywhere. I think the worries about specific topics being covered hurting the games are largely unfounded. An article appears, may or may not be read, may or may not be thought about, then quickly fades into obscurity, largely forgotten by most, to be seen again only by those ambitious enough to go looking for it. With or without articles those ambitious players are always going to be the ones who learn the game better than others. Yeah, that oversimplifies it, but I do think the impact of such an article on the "illusory winners" is minimal.
Then there's the whole ethical question. It's way more than I want to get into now, and I don't personally see a right or wrong here, but one *could* ask: When we look at things from the perspective of "Will it help or hurt the games?", with the automatic assumption that anything that could hurt them is bad or wrong, does that really guide us as well as some larger prespective might? Someone outside of poker, for instance, might often conclude that choosing to do something that some feel hurts the games (wising up a live one...) is ethically better than choosing not to. Admittedly, I struggle in some effort not to hurt the games, but I don't deny that there are other valid perspectives.
Just as complex is that there may be aspects of educating players that hurt some of the games on certain levels, but helps in the development of higher limit games and the growth of poker as a whole. Another big topic.
Poker is a weird thing, no doubt about it. And I'm thankful for that, because without it, I may not be have the opportunity to enjoy the humor - as dark as it sometimes gets - of BobA. I mean that.
David,
A bull market is making everyone look like a stock market guru. Years ago it was real estate.
Anyway, I'm not saying top players won't admit to or even brag about outside investments; however, poor players who are "poker pro wanabees" often have a secret outside income. In order to gain acceptance, they make the kind of moves described in John's article in order to keep up the illusion of being a winning player. As John stated, it is important to play according to this player's play and not his image which will often fool the intermediate player.
I agree 100% about keeping plenty of chips in front of you. First, you don't want to run out in a jammed up pot since if you play well you should have the best of it more often then not. Also, when players circulate through my game in the big clubs like those in Los Angeles, I would prefer that they think I am winning and tough. Keeping at least seven or so stacks in front of me helps with this even on my bad days.
A quick story: Years ago I remember a 15/30 player at the Bike who started his day earlier then me and always seemed to have a ton of chips in front of him. Sometimes I avoided his game (even if it seemed to be pretty good). One day I start a game with him. I get my usually $1000 15/30 buy in which is more than most. He plops down $2000 and starts with four racks! He was a decent player but his chips often was keeping me out of good games (he was good at game selection).
Regards,
Rick
Many of the pros in AC do not like to broadcast that they are making a living at the game. They feel that keeps the tourists away from the games they are in, and they may be correct. Sometimes they do not like to even be acknowledged at the table excep by a nod etc. I once sat down in a 5-10 game and won a nice pot on the first hand. Someone at the table said, "well, it must be the seat. The last guy just killed us from that seat". I knew the last guy who was in the seat was a pro who suggested to me that it was a very good table as he was leaving.
On the subject of amount of chips for a buy-in: What would you think is a reasonable buyin for games: 5-10 stud vs. HE 10-20 stud vs. HE 15-30 stud vs. HE 20-40 stud vs. HE
I know it depends on one's variance calculation, but when a guy buys in for 1000 at a 10-20 game or 500 at a 1-5 game it makes me wonder.
I ask you because you obviously have experience in buying CHIPS (you movie star, you)
Yeah but don't look like a dork when you do it.
:-)
I don't know about you but I look for a lot of chips on a table - it is one of my table selection criteria.
I like to see the equivelent of 1 rack per player no matter the limits.
The more chips the better - I also don't assume a player is good just because he has a ton of chips I will assess his skill level as I will any other but I will of course watch the chip man a little closer.
Worst players I know often have huge stacks on front of them - problem is they aren't there for long.
To a certain extent lots of chips on the table does tend to make for an interesting game. I look for a game where players are cracking c-notes more than once an hour. In otherwords, where the amount of chips on the table is increasing faster than the rake.
I would like to consider myself a trust fund player. Unfortunately, I have no trust fund. Considering the many weaknesses in my game, it is a wonder that I haven't quit a thousand times over by now. I am constantly surprised at how little playing ability someone needs to have in order to make a profit playing poker. I've been playing in public cardrooms since 1962. In all that time, I've never once left a cardroom broke, never once needed to borrow money and never been too depressed at my losses or too elated when I won. I've had many people tell me about the weaknesses in my playing style, this either before or after hitting me up for a loan.
I'll be leaving my house sometime in the next half hour to drive over to the Bicycle Club to play NL Mexican Stud. I will sit in that game and wager my money against any and all comers, not because I am a great player, but because I enjoy the game and believe that I have a good chance to make a profit tonight. I think that it is highly probable that we do a big disservice to our hope for financial gain when we appear too concerned with whether or not another player is a long term winner or loser. As long as you have the money for a buy-in in the game I am playing, I will tender you the respect that your buy-in deserves. I will believe that you feel that your skill is equal to the task of separating me from some or all of my stake. I've lost a lot of money to terrible players over the years; not as much as I've won, but still, a lot of money. The worse a player is, the better I hope his financial situation is. Rather than concern ourselves with the "outting" of trust fund players, shouldn't we be making an effort to develop more of them? If Bill Gates wants to tell me that he is a constant winner at poker, and I have been beating his brains out over the felt, I would smile and nod my head in agreement. If anyone at the table challenged this assertion, I would back his claim of prowess with any example, true or false, that I could think of. If we aren't going to give the contributors the satisfaction of believing whatever they want to believe while we take their money, what are we giving them in return for their financial support? I can't tell you how many times I've seen a weak lowball player drive away, by ridiculing his play, the only player at his table that he could outplay. Well, I'll get down off my soapbox and head on off to the cardroom. If you are a trust fund player like me, come sit in my game, there is strength in numbers.
John,
I loaned a guy some money last week and he swears he'll pay be back at the Sr. Tourney, I hope he is a man of his word. BTW I have my reservations at CP.
Just as an aside to the TF palyers thing. Some of the most consistant losers I know start with more than one rack - is it me or is this a "tell".
John I have never been broke, busted or a borrower but I am a weak guy for a hard luck story and have loaned to losers a few times - to date have not gotten one dime back. Hope the guy at CP is an exception.
I would say it might be a tell if they start with quite a bit more then a rack in regular chips. I have seen that player who will buy 2,3,4 racks to start a session.
There are a number of strong players that routinely keep a few large chips on the table to use as needed. Also maintaining enough chips would not be a sign of weakness.
D.
If I *loan* someone a low limit buy-in, I hope they don't pay me back, that way I don't get bothered again for more money. I'd rather remind them that they didn't pay me back that $30 the first time when they come asking for more. Not that I'll give it up to just anyone though.
Andrew,
Your post hit home.
I've never been much for lending or borrowing money but sometimes I have a moment of weakness. Ten years ago I won a big tournament at the Bike and a couple of days later am playing in a 20/40 holdem and doing pretty well. So people figure I'm pretty pumped up. A player who I had seen around and had also done well in an Omaha tournament just a few days before hits me up for about $30 bucks for a taxi back to the hotel and for some reason I relented. I see him several times over the next week or so with chips in front of him and he never makes any attempt to pay me back.
Later I learn this guy is one of the most notorious mooches in the poker world. An example: A couple years later I'm playing at the Normandie and there is a mid level tournament going on. This same guy hits up the player sitting next to me for a tournament buy in (about $220). Apparantly, from listening to the exchange, the mooch already owed the player a small fortune. His line to get evem more money was that his only chance to pay the player back was to win the tournament! And it worked! The mooch got his buy in.
Fast forward about three more years. I'm in Las Vegas for a wedding and take in a couple of $110 and $220 buy in Omaha H/L Tournaments at the Alladin. I get lucky and place second in one for about $7,000. The mooch is hanging around the tournament. A few days later I'm having a late night cocktail and the mooch approaches me and goes into his BS story how he is a top tournament player and would I like to back him. He must have forgot he owes me since I really hadn't been on the tournament trail much. I remind of my previous experience and the fact that I am aware of his reputation. I finish off by saying that the $30 I lost to him was money well spent in that it buys me the right to never have to listen to his BS again.
Anyway, I thought he was barred at our club but just a month ago he was hanging out and up to his old tricks. I wonder if he will ever run out of "marks".
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
If you are speaking of "Charlie" Satoot, he has owed me $20.00 for over two years. I try to remind him in public of this sorry fact whenever I happen to see him at a tournament. The man has absolutely no pride and appears not to suffer embarrassment. I would prefer that he never pay me so that I can continue to remind him of the flaws in his character. I am also worried that, if he ever did happen to pay me, I might be stupid enough to loan him money again.
Of course, if you weren't referring to "Charlie", then I guess I've tarnished his reputation in the poker community unnecessarily. Shame on me.
Big John,
It wasn't "Charlie" who I don't really know. It is more of a Las Vegas based player who is in Los Angeles once a while during tournaments. If I see you this Friday or Saturday night at the Bike, I'll let you know. I would be amazed if you don't know of him. (Hint: He fancy's himself a ladies man.)
Regards,
Rick
And he won't draw to an inside straight when the pot is offering him 16 to 1... go figure!
This subject had surfaced before here and there. Figuring out anyones long term EV is like trying to figure out how much the Kennedy fortune is worth in 1999 !!!! Everybody lies for one reason or another. I doubt however as rounder has stated that buying in for two racks is a sure sign (close it may be) of an TF player.
John,
I only have one minute.
You wrote " Rather than concern ourselves with the "outting" of trust fund players, shouldn't we be making an effort to develop more of them?"
Perhaps you misunderstood. I don't advocate "outing" these players at all. Just recognize they are out there and adjust you play accordingly.
I would go out of my way not to confront them or critisize their play. And I do want to develop more of them. What better place to spend an insurance settlement or whatever then at the clubs.
That is why I have advocated the rule that used to be posted at Foxwoods by universally applied and enforced. As long as a player checks, bets, folds, or raises in accordance with the rules, his tactics or strategy shall not be subject to critism."
More later when I finish work.
Regards,
Rick
That rule, among others is now prominently displayed at Foxwoods. I couldn't agree more.
From the Scientific American June, 1999.
Godel remarked to his close friend, economist Oscar Morgenstern,
that in the future it would be deemed a great oddity that
20th century scientists had discovered the elementary physical particles
but had failed even to consider the possibility
of elementary psychic factors.
godel, you may know, was insane. his incompleteness theorem shattered his mind. i have seen no support for psychic factors, rational or empirical. if i were to encounter such evidence, i will reconsider my stance.
scott
Godel was insane?!!!! What?
His incompleteness theorem shattered his mind?
After Kurt Godel published his first two mathematical proofs of the incompleteness of formalized arithmetic in 1931, he went on to enjoy a very successful academic career for a long time. True, Godel had some unorthodox veiws, but he could hardly have been said to be insane. If being an introverted intellectual makes one insane, or if understanding godel numbering and it's implications about finitary formals systems of aritmetic shatters ones mind, then I guess most of those same mathematicians who nowadays would deny the truth of Hot/Cold streaks and ones ability to 'ride' them, are also insane.
Post deleted at author's request
Gary is of course c-----t. However we all know that most people do not mean this when they use this expression.
Lets play "Fill in the Blanks."
Sklansky wrote: Gary is of course c_____t, that is a 'c', 5 spaces, then a 't'. The only thing I can come up with is "catshit", what do I win?
See what you can think up, other than my needing a Lobotomy.
Sincerely, Bill Bruford
Hot and cold streaks do exist!
Predicting when they will start and when they will end can not be done. However we are faced with the problem of what we do while we are in one.
This reminds me of a 5-10 session I was in a month or two ago. I bought in for $200, won my first hand to bring up to about $260. I then went for a few hours playing only my big blind when unraised.
I was litterally on the verge of being blinded out when once again in my big blind I flopped a full house. I went all in and they held. This then lead to a some amazing hot hands, bringing me up to $400ish.
Finaly I was dealt Ax both diamonds, myself and two others. Flop came all spades, player 1 checks, player 2 bets, I re-raised hoping to take advantage of my rush. Both mucked.
The moral, yes hot/cold cards do come both within sessions and over many sessions. The only thing that we can do is to take advantage of the image that we might benifit from them and to take advantage of others misconceptions.
O.K. But let's not WE be the ones who give too much respect to another player on a "Rush".
really? i had heard that after his incompleteness theorem he lost faith in reality. he became a hermit. i had heard that when one of his students showed the axiom of choice to be independent of the other axioms, and he wanted godel to check his work. he had to leave them under godel's door. and return several days later to see them outside. he never even talked to godel. if i am wrong, then i stand corrected.
scott
There was a series on PBS that featured several highly regarded scientists. One of them conducted an experiment. They gave a crossword puzzle to a group of students in the USA to solve. The next day they gave the same crossword puzzle to a group of students in the UK. The group in the UK completed the puzzle in less time the the group in the USA. They performed the same experiment by giving the crossword puzzle to the UK students first, then the next day the students in the USA. This time the students in the USA completed it in less time than the students in the UK. The students in both locations had no idea why they were doing these crossword puzzles. So there was no bias in this experiment. Does anyone know the name of the scientist?
Bill Gates?
The students must have gotten some help over the internet.
Vince
It was a controlled experiment. Neither group knew about each other.
Does anyone know the name of the scientist?
DOCTOR BEAKER!!!!
Come on guys, every single time that people have been challenged to repeat these kind of results under truly controlled conditions THEY HAVE FAILED. Ever heard of James Randi ? I'm not closed-minded, but give me some real evidence and I'll re-think my position. And real evidence in this case would mean a very large number of repeat runs.
Andy.
There was a large number of runs. I am currently researching the data. If you're interested. The experiments were conducted in Boston somewhere. I wish I could remember.
John Feeney has written about the illusory winner. How about the illusory loser - the player who wins big consistently but who pretends to be loser? Does anyone know someone like this? And what can we learn from this guy?
If you can find a mid-limit lowball game to sit in, that is all you will find. It isn't at all uncommon to have a new player sit in the game, buy-in for $300, lose $60.00 on the first hand and promptly start complaining loudly and quite seriously about being "stuck $250.00". My experience is that, almost to a man, lowball players want you to believe they are big losers in the game. Even when they win $800 and admit to being ahead $200, they are quick to tell you that they are still stuck $600 because they dropped $800 the night before.
I've seen a few hold'em players do the same thing Big John describes concerning the lowball players. (I think they may have been converted lowball players anyway.)
But this points to an interesting question which I have sometimes wondered about. Most players agree that to be seen as winning is advantageous (players won't so readily take shots at you, etc.). But I wonder if in some venues there could be an advantage to being seen as a losing player. Where I play, there have at times been games which hang on only tenuously. Say you have a 20-40 game at a cardroom which is just barely surviving from week to week. It often gets started late, breaks up more often than a really "healthy" game would, hangs on short handed sometimes, etc. In short, you're worried about losing your game.
In a game like this, where you may be one of only a few players helping to keep the game going over time, I wonder if weak players seeing you as a winner might just keep them away. Maybe they'll like their chances better if they think you lose. So maybe under these narrow circumstances it could make sense to keep a small stack in front of you, talk about being in for more than you are, etc. I don't really think such tactics matter all that much one way or the other, but it's something to think about, eh?
I read the following in a post on RGP and thought it was interesting and wanted to hear what others thought about it. I won't mention who posted it or what the post was in reference to since I don't want to bias anyone's thinking.
"Maybe in a 10-20 game you don't want to scare the liveone away, but in the bigger limits, suckers take it personal and they won't quit because you tell them how bad they play. Some of them have big ego's and have the,"I'll show these pros a lesson or two, RAISE IT UP!""
I think this is a mistake. If this person plays poorly already, why make him mad? Futhermore, even though he may raise hands with lesser values, it will be harder to read him.
Mason,
I certainly believe that on average, one doesn't ever want to make fun of someone's play. But I've never played bigger than 20/40.
From what I have seen and heard second hand of the 40/80 on up, there is a lot of ego involved. My guess is that if someone thinks he is a great player but really is only OK (at this level), ridiculing this player may just cause him to play worse and play longer when he is stuck. BTW, weak players just don't drop in on these games (I'm thinking the real big games) unless they are rich. These types one should never ridicule.
I guess that verbal taunting and how to handle it is a big part of survival at this level. Taunting just doesn't fit my own style if I ever get there.
Regards,
Rick
I wouldn't ever resort to criticizing or taunting another player. It just isn't how I go about life.
I don't take it from anyone and I don't give it eigther.
Mason,
There was a seminar at Hollywood Park Cas. a while back, Roy Cooke suggested that sometimes you might want to consider humiliating certain players, I guess to throw them off their game. I've never tried it, but I've seen it done(whether they intentionally do it for strategic reasons or not, I can't say for sure) and it always seems to create a creepy sense of tension at the table. I don't like it, plus I don't want somebody tightening up and waiting in the weeds to get even with me. I'd prefer they play a lighthearted game.
Danny,
I think Roy has a point. With any game there may be players who turn into suckers once they're emotions get in the way. Humiliating them may be the key that unlocks their pocket book. I sometimes try to suckout on one player at my game just because he go's on tilt when that happens. I do think this would only be good on players that usually play well. I'm always nice to the complete fish.
Anything for an extra buck especially if the person is a jerk.
CV
"suckers take it personal and they won't quit"
I suppose from a strategic point of view if the above is correct then it would be strategically correct to "ridicule" a poor playing opponent. I say if because I don't play high stakes poker and don't know if it is true. My guess is that it there is some truth to it. I don't practice this type of thing and would not feel comfortable doing it but If someone would fall for this type of thing I supose it is part of the game. Iw nder though how you do this in a full game. If it is correct for you to ridicule it must be correct for other good players in the game to ridicule also. So now we may have 5 or six players ridiculing one. That might be fun.
1) "God, you stupid bitch how could you play q,7?" (The dealer starts it off after all the Casino has a stake in keeping the game going) 2) "Yeah, blondie what in the hell was going through that empty little head?" (Lady Gambler) 3) @##%&$$#$#$ (Mason is playing) 4) You goofy dumb ignoramus, why don't you quit? (Secretly I want you to play though cause your so bad, author of the above) 5) Did Sklansky teach you to play ding bat? (Gary Carson here) 6) You, you.. Penis! (Abdul is in the game and hopes this will also send Mason on tilt).
I guess this might work better when you are heads up.
Vince.
Now, now, dear Vince, forget about the blondie. Just me playing at the table will give all the men a rise. I'll try though not to include Sgt. Cletus Johnson except during heads up between you and me.
I'm thinking Lady Gambler is a guy. Now, this is just my hunch and I have no evidence to back it up. This can't be the same Lady Gambler that was so disgusted with Brenda when she first began posting. C'mon Lady Gambler, put down that cigar and let the rest of us in on your practical joke.
Sorry to disappoint you, Big John, but I am what I said I am. I do apologize if I have exceeded the boundary of decency of how a woman should speak. But I play in a man's world and it's vicious out there. I have to use whatever strategy I know of in order to win the game and if taunting the guys is the best strategy to apply, I will use it too. You are right in one aspect though, I smoke cigar once in a while with brandy to go with it.
L.G.,
Please don't worry that you've exceeded any boundries with me. I think women should speak as freely as they choose. I'm just surprised that you would castigate another female poster for doing basically the same thing you are now doing. My conclusion, after trying to reconcile your latest posts with your earliest, was that it was the work of two separate individuals. If it was the work of two, odds are that the second would be the imposter rather than the first. Since it is at least nine times more likely that forum participants are male rather than female, I concluded that you were a male posing as Lady Gambler. I await your meeting with Badger and his ensuing report. Badger will surely get to the bottom of this puzzle.
Big John,
Don't ever compare me to Brenda Wyatt again. You of all people should have seen the difference between me and her. She wants a sugar daddy, she wants Ray Zee's baby and she sucks at tournament. I don't need nor want a sugar daddy nor do I publicly write that I want a person's baby nor do I suck at tournament. I have repeatedly said I play poker using strategy I know best and if distraction/attraction of the men to me will give me an additional advantage to whatever poker strategy I use in order to win, I will do so.
I am sorry to see you are greatly affected by my feminine edge over you. (I hope I did not put you on tilt.) But I guess I deserve it, tit for tat. I taunted you guys and now it's your turn to give me the heat. Just take it easy though, one at a time is all I can handle.
BTW, when I was responding to Vince's post yesterday and I cannot find a subtle word for erection, I asked help from my friend and he said "rise" is better. Now, does that solve the puzzle? And if Badger is relentless in his pursuit of my mystery, he is welcome but I won't give any clue, the harder the pursuit the grander the prize.
L.G.,
O.K., no more comparisons. But, if Badger does persist and somehow manages to pierce your veil after solving your mystery, please don't post any pictures of Little Stevie Jr. on RGP; they don't allow binaries there.
Post deleted at author's request.
Lady Gambler said: "I smoke cigar once in a while"
She gives "Good Cigar" too, I should know.
Jeffrey,
In your dreams. But you'll never know in actuality how good it can be.
Oh Yeah! In acuality huh?
And you can keep the CEEgar.
Oh Rounder, you too? And I like Italian men so much!
LG,
Thanks for telling the forum your play by plays. QDoreen was a "tight aggressive" she had a Kd up made it $6 and I called with 6c6s/7h. Everyone else dropped. She caught a Qc and I caught a 5s she bets $5 and I call. She gets a 9h and I get a 6d she bets $5 and I make it $10. Put it in and blanks to the river but she called to the end. I won she wasn't happy but I didn't care because of you LG you helped me to win a couple of extra bucks even though she was a good looking woman. Treat them like plastic.
paul
Paul,
But you did not play me. You played Queen Doreen!! She does not have the charms and the guts I possess.
I know you said before that you treat women as plastic when playing poker with them and again I say, even if you have bad eyesight, you won't need Viagra to be a man when you play with me.
I'll do my best to distract your reading one of your "6" into a "9".
L.G.,
If you can turn my 6" into a 9", there will be lots of money in it for you.
Big John,
Very easy. Just reverse the position.
Vince,
Don't force your sense of humor, it just doesn't work. Let it happen naturally. Remember, quality over quantity.
This is just wrong.
Even if it was right for a given session, it probably shows long-term -EV. People prefer to return to pleasant experiences where they spent money when given a choice vs. unpleasant ones.
One thing a year of fatherhood has now taught me is that when you have a happy equilibrium, you don't do a damn thing to disturb it.
JG
Unfortunately, I would have to say this is true. I speak from personal experience. I have played pretty high from time to time and I know how bent out of shape your ego can get especially if you really need the money. Now why would I be playing so high if I really needed the money? I'll save that for another time.
If I am losing at a high limit game it is usually because some other very good players are winning. This makes me hate them. Especially if they're snotty and snide. This hurts them in the long run of course because there will come a time when I refuse to give them any of my action but for the present it's working. They will do arrogant little things to get on my nerves and they know they are doing it and they know it is having an effect. So they do it even more.
What I'm saying is that the intimidation that takes place can be a lot more subtle than outright verbal insults. For example. The guy that just beat me will be talking with his neighbor about how well he played that last hand and his neighbor will be handing him kudos. Or, after winning a pot he will make a remark that is aimed to hurt. Such as, "hey, that guy is running really bad so I played an inferior hand. I normally wouldn't do that but he can't win a pot so it wasn't a bad play." Not to mention this is done and said with an arrogant smirk and an air of confidence that borders on the sickening.
It's the little things that can make you smolder. Once your stuck badly it can be tough to quit. Especially if you're weak. There are times in my life when I have been very weak. I'll admit it. These guys got to me a time or two. Or should I say I let them get to me by staying in the game when I should have been long gone--let alone seated in the game in the first place.
I would not scare away the live one. I'd complement them on their guts. My biggest game is 15-30, yet I have sat around and watched a 150-300 7CS at the Trop where at least 2 players chided and told 2 other player how bad they were playing. The "bad" players continued to play even worse. The bad players even tipped the dealer a green whenever they won. One of the bad players was a politician and the other a movie mogul. Lots of money; didn't matter hat they lost. Haven't seen any of them since the summer
Here are my thoughts.
First, I know two players who regularly lose in the high limit hold 'em games -- $60-$120 and above. They are furious as to how they get treated and they just can't wait to go back and show those who treat them so badly that they can play. So at least with these two, it does seem to work and is a motivator to keep them playing.
Second, the strategic aspects of high limit hold 'em change from the smaller limits because the games are played much tighter and more aggressively. Specifically, at limits of $15-$30 and below you usually don't want someone to get mad and start raising a lot. The reason for this is that you are looking to play as many hands as possible, and most of these hands are the type that require high implied odds.
At the high limits this won't be the case. Now you have reduced the number of hands that you play which means that you are not looking for high implied odds. Now you might welcome someone to start raising or reraising with hands that he shouldn't play because you will only be in there if with a quality hand anyway.
Of course I have over simplified this a little. And these comments are not aimed at high limit stud because of the larger (relative to the bets) ante.
All comments are welcome.
Mason,
I'd like to comment on one part of your post. I realize I'm preaching to the choir to some extent but maybe I have a different twist of merit.
You wrote: "First, I know two players who regularly lose in the high limit hold 'em games -- $60-$120 and above. They are furious as to how they get treated and they just can't wait to go back and show those who treat them so badly that they can play. So at least with these two, it does seem to work and is a motivator to keep them playing."
I would think that the "bad treatment" that works as a motivator for the two players you speak of often spills over to other types of weak players to the detriment of the game. For example, consider a rich businessman who realizes (at some level of his consciousness) he is outclassed but can well afford losing and likes to play against the best and at big stakes. My guess is that these types would prefer to play in a friendlier enviornment. I wonder if the big limit players make the instant adjistment to their table demeanor, especially when things are going against them in the short run.
Gambling has grown tremendously over the past decade. It has grown where it was already established (e.g., Las Vegas) and in new locals (e.g., Indian reservations). However, has middle to high stakes poker grown at the same rate? I don't have hard data but it seems like it has not.
If so, I'm convinced one of the major reasons is that the live, recreational players get treated so poorly by the players who are out to make a buck. And this is a shame because the game is so much fun when people play in a civilized and courteous manner.
One of my favorite old poker books is "According To Doyle" by Doyle Brunson. In it Doyle tells a story of some young pro player making fun of the play of a brain surgeon (if memory serves me as my book is in storage) who was pissing away a few bucks in the casino card room. Of course the brain surgeon soon left to go play craps or a house game. Doyle later pointed out to the "young pro" that if the brain surgeon cared and applied himself, he could probably be a top player. In any event, he was certainly making more than the meager living of most "pros" and should be shown respect.
Anyway, imagine any high stakes player in the blackjack area being told by a house employee that he shouldn't have hit this hand or stood on another hand. Yet this type of thing goes on every day in poker rooms. And it is a shame.
Regards,
Rick
"First, I know two players who regularly lose in the high limit hold 'em games -- $60-$120 and above. They are furious as to how they get treated and they just can't wait to go back and show those who treat them so badly that they can play. So at least with these two, it does seem to work and is a motivator to keep them playing."
I used to be one of these types of players. It took a while but I no longer play against those guys that "messed" with me in the past. I know what they did and I can't STAND them anymore. I get depressed when they come into the room. There are in the minority but they can sure ruin my day. They don't get ANY of my action these days. If one of them enters a game I am currently playing in, I'm gone. I can talk too. They know I have spread the word. I have helped my fellow "live ones" figure things out. I would rather see them not get any action from anyone as opposed to wising up some other bad players. They have gotten the message and it has hurt them and they know it but it did get them some short term gain. I feel that the people you speak of in the quoted paragraph will eventually do the same once they realize they can't win. Had their opponents acted with class and treated them with dignity and respect however, they may have continued to play WELL beyond the point that they know is appropriate.
"Gambling has grown tremendously over the past decade. It has grown where it was already established (e.g., Las Vegas) and in new locals (e.g., Indian reservations). However, has middle to high stakes poker grown at the same rate? I don't have hard data but it seems like it has not."
I agree that middle to high stakes poker has not grown very much, but I think that the outrageous rake that many cardrooms charge has a lot to do with it. That's why you have so many props where you live.
Mason,
You wrote: "I agree that middle to high stakes poker has not grown very much, but I think that the outrageous rake that many cardrooms charge has a lot to do with it."
I would love to get into a detailed analysis of rake, but I'm not in a postion to do so for personal reasons. I will say that the reason the button and time charges are so high is that there is no real competition despite Los Angeles being the so called "Poker Capital of the World". After all, one cannot open a cardroom in a sensible location without overcoming enormous obstacles. So we really have no idea how well a card club could be run and how low the rakes could go and still allow a reasonable profit.
"That's why you have so many props where you live."
Mason, I believe I've read your material on this issue and to a large extent am in agreement. In fact, I would love to write a book (OK, maybe an essay) about the need (or lack of need) for props, correct use of props, abuse of props, unbelievable behavior by props yet they don't get fired because they have a friend in the right places and and so on. But once again it would not be wise.
In the meantime, I think I had a few thoughtful comments on the subject at hand. Other than agreeing with me that middle to high stakes poker is not growing as fast as it could or should, do you have any feedback on the topic you did bring up and I responded to?
Regards,
Rick
Rick, if you look up the thread Mason pulled this from on RGP you would find that by posting it here Mason is engaging in some trash talking of his own.
I think that action demonstrates pretty clearly what his thoughts on the topic are.
jaeger
Jaeger,
I had already read the RGP threads before posting. Mason's RGP post seemed reasonable considering what I know of the history between him and the player who was taunted.
My point above was that Mason got off topic. I don't dispute that time collections and button charges are excessive in Los Angeles and that props to an extent compensate for this; however, the topic of the thread seemed to concern whether taunting was a viable tactic at the mid to upper limits.
If I was to summarize my thoughts in a nutshell, I believe that the top level players sometimes use taunting effectively to keep some players on tilt and coming back for more. However, it usuallly spills over to players who should not be taunted and the over all impact is very negative.
I believe there is a vast pool of potential players who don't play in the California card clubs or the Las Vegas card rooms at all or as much as they would because of the lack of civility (among a host of other reasons). The fact that things seem better than the Gardena or Stardust days doesn't change my opinion on this.
In Las Vegas no high roller would be chided for a bad play while making a bet on the craps table. But if he or she were to walk into the poker room he invariably would face ridicule from his opponents. And most of these players won't stick around to "show those players" how good they are. They will just go back to where they can play and not be made fun of. And that certainly isn't in the typical poker room.
Actually Mason has written about this problem before and we are in general agreement to the best of my knowedge. However, I think it even applies more so to the top level games he was bringing up in this thread. And I was hoping for feedback from him on that.
Regards,
Rick
Basically this is hustling and the ethics of hustling are open to debate albeit within the rules. I have found in myself that as the stakes go up, my ego becomes less involved so I have a hard time understanding the psyche of the competing egos at $60-120 and up. If I lost a pile of money and the other players started ridiculing me for my poor play I would tend to believe them and head for a better game or the cashier cage ASAP.
Life is too short to play with ( or to be ) an asshole.
Now you tell me, when it's too damn late to change. Thanks a bunch!
My guess, Mason, is that this concept was the work of Mike Caro. If not it sounds like something he would promote. All is fair in love and war. No less in Poker. I like people and find it dificult to berate them so that I can take money from them. Difficult? Did I say that? Maybe that means that under certain circumstances I would fall prey to this type of tactic and fall prey to greed. I doubt it? I have been in situations where I have had an enourmous edge advantage over a single opponent and refused to continue to play. There is a great amount of people that sit down at a poker table and do not have the slightest idea of correct poker play. There is another group that understand poker well but cannot control there desire to gamble for even one minute and consequently play as a novice or worse. And on and on. Your example of two consistent losers that continuously return to the tables inspite of constant ridicule is not transferrable to "They come back because of the ridicule". There may be more complicated reasons than that. They may just like poker at that level. Tell me, how many casinos in Vegas spread high limit poker these days? Could it be that these two return because it is the only game in town? And maybe they can afford the losses. Does it matter? I have been playing poker in Casinos for a 6 or 7 years now. Mid Limit. I see the same faces day in and day out. Good players and those that can't play a lick. Ridicule isn't what keeps them coming back. If I have to start purposely ridiculing other players names to keep them around I will not play anymore.
Vince.
BTW - If Lady Gambler is reading this she can disregard all of it. If ridiculing her would keep her at my table then so be it! I love her style. I'm still trying to come up with a follow on to "Sex and Poker". She responds so well!
unless I am personally attacked then I can give a lot more than I get. I can get at people in more ways than with an acid tongue. Success is the best revenge.
I find it so easy to be nice even if I take a "Bad beat" - I look at it a an opportunity not a loss.
These A$$H---s who think they can improve their win rate with their mouth are wrong - the very best players I have run into are also the nicest people.
I agree and feel it is much easier to be a pleasant player than a jerk. I see no reason to berate players especially when they are loosing. I also would not offer to tell them what I think they are doing incorrectly, at least not at the table and not unless they specifically asked me. I have come to the aid of some players (and dealers) who have been beratted at the tables by obxoxiuos players.
Post deleted at author's request.
Apropos of nothing at all......
I have often wondered about the way people seem to put an inordinate value on their lives. Over the years I have posed a question to a number of friends, business associates, relatives and fellow drinkers in taverns I was frequenting.
If you were given an opportunity to earn $1,000,000.00 tax free, by submitting to a medical experiment which was painless but could result in your death approximately one chance in 10,000 times, would you accept the risk or pass on it?
I have always felt, and still do, that based on simple risk/reward parameters, that this was a risk I'd willingly assume. The overwhelming majority of people I've polled have said that they wouldn't put their lives in unnecessary danger for almost any amount of money. These are the same people that will undergo elective surgery with a 1% mortality rate, go skiing, pilot a small aircraft, swim in the ocean, scuba dive, climb mountains, run rapids, skydive, play basketball in their 40's when they are very much out of condition, etc., etc., etc.
People seem to differentiate between assuming risk for pleasure and doing so for profit. At age 57, I probably don't have another 10,000 days to live. I would certainly scuba dive tomorrow if I had the chance. I am a certified scubadiver, but in the condition I'm in, it has to carry with it at least a one in 10,000 chance of my dying during the act. The pleasure of diving again would be great, but not nearly as much of a benefit to me as $1,000,000.00 tax free.
Poker theory: I am not risk adverse. I am able to tolerate higher risk than most people when I feel the reward offered for assuming that risk is greater than the consequences of the penalty. This colors my decision making ability. Rounder obviously is highly risk adverse when playing poker. It is unfortunate that the method he has chosen to prevent his having losses will, ultimately, cost him more than he thinks it will save him. He is already in the long run and doesn't realize it.
Interesting post! However, I can't really agree with your logic. In Mr. Badger's post, he spoke of a situation in rouletter where the player would get a better payoff than the odds would dictate. And it would be a travesty not to take advantage of such a situation. But the difference between that situation and your hypothetical "$1M for a 1-10000 chance of death" is an important one.
Put simply, there's no agreed quantitative value on life. This is probably a question for rec.gambling.philosophy, but my response to "I have often wondered about the way people seem to put an inordinate value on their lives." is- How can you not place such a value on life? If you lose it, you don't have another day to take advantage of the odds in your favor. And while I can see the merit of Big John's assertion that there are certain risks you would knowingly assume, I can't reject the claim that the risk would never be justified, because the payout is infinitely large.
Mike
It isn't about logic, it's about choices. I would welcome the opportunity to exchange my 1/100th of 1% chance of dying for a net $1,000,000.00; others might not. Whether we admit it or not, our lives are our primary currency. We exchange pieces of our lives daily for other types of currency. Risk of death is unavoidable. We tolerate greater or lesser amounts of life threatening risks by our choices of activities. I would wager that the cumulative total life risk associated with going to and coming from work over the course of 35 or 40 years is greater an 1/100th of 1%.
If you live to be more than 80 years old, that is only 30,000 days. By the time you are an adult, there are less than 23,000 days in your life bankroll. By accepting the proposition at that time, you are giving away an average of only 32 hours for the $1,000,000.00. Now that I think about it, this does sound like a wager that Rounder would go for. He'd be the heavy favorite; almost a "sure thing".
I would be interested in seeing who would accept the offer and who would turn it down.
It's a very hard question to quantify without the money on the table and the risk at hand.
John a Million is not eneough any more I'd do it for 10 million. I'm already am worth over a Mil and it ain't much after all. But 10 mil is "F--K You" money and I'd take the chance for that.
.
First, let me start by saying the crew of people who took the time to delve into this issue have done well to dismiss most of the doubts I have about the "theory". But, as I read posts from you, scott, Scott Horton and a few others, I am amazed at the ferocity of your rhetoric towards Rounder, like he's some sort of heretic and you are all Jerry Falwell.
Maybe the Earth isn't the center of the universe, Maybe the Earth isn't flat Maybe God is dead
And maybe staying in on a hand when you have a gutshot to the nuts getting 14:1 is wrong. Burn Rounder at the stake for having such a thought!! The "Theory of Poker" is a great book on the game and on gambling in general. It's a good book, but it's not the only book. (Clarence Darrell to William Jennings Bryant during the Scopes monkey trial, about the Bible)
Differences of opinion and the actions taken based on those opinions is what makes horseracing, maybe it's what makes poker as well. Badger, if everyone learned to play and think like you do, how well would you do at the tables? You should thank your lucky stars (if you believe in such a thing as luck) that there are millions of Rounders in the world happy as hell not maximizing their profits and leaving them for you.
Post deleted at author's request.
You are right. You were never negative and I'm sorry for saying you were.
SammyB
Badger wrote: "And I've never read The Theory of Poker."
From what I gather, SammyB is simply trying to say that if he could, Rounder would rename Sklansky's popular book to "A Theory of Poker", or there about. Nothing to get your panties in an uproar over Badger.
Sincerely, Frank
i have no animosity towards rounder. i don't believe i have ever attacked him personally. for a long time i patiently tried to reason with him. it is just that i have gotten sick of this topic recurring. as an aside, i believe almost everything he says about tournaments. i have a ton to learn from him in that arena.
scott
xx
Hey gang - don't worry about me - I'm doing just fine.
I'll be back in Arizona tomorrow morning and looking forward to my next poker session.
I'm beating the hell out of my local game. Because I have figured a way to win consistantly by *not* doing what losers tend to do. Play to many hands, stay in hands to long looking for miracles, bet and raise at the wrong times and play the wrong cards from the wrong positions.
I have been successful in life by trying to emulate successful people - doing what they do and doing the opposite of that losers do.
It is just that simple.
My strategy is adaptable and will change as the game changes. My short handed game is a lot different than my full game - my NL is a lot different than my limit tournament strategy and my ring game is different than both.
I guess I am saying I will dump a losing hand as soon as I know it can't win or will have a hard time winning. Regardless of the pot imvolved. I will also get out of pots that are to small to play for.
I just can't see what is so wrong with that.
I am not risk adverse - I have made big bets on horses and speculate at the outcome of other sporting events. You know, like gambling. I have never bought a lotto ticket but love to play craps and blackjack - but avoid them now.
I just love poker all aspects of it.
Most of all I like to win - NO - I love to win.
I have a strategy to do that, just that.
Hey, there are sessions (1.8 out of 10) when it doesn't work - but I'll have to accept that. I'm winning - since Feb. this year when I altered my strategy. It has nothing to do with a run of good cards I put it down to doing the opposit of what losers, I see every day, do.
I'm not calling you guys losers I am sure you all play better than me but I have a theory that works for me and I don't mind sharing it with others. Although, my advice is usually scoffed at I like the give and take.
BTW - as a result of the converstaions on this board I am, in the right circumstances, "drawing" out on 2 over cards with the right size pot when I would have mucked them on the flop in days gone by. Hey, maybe there is hope for me after all.
Rounder,
I'm kinda new to this poker site, but from what I've read, you try to stay away from drawing situations, right?
So my question to you is, if you have lets say A-10 suited and the flop misses your ace and ten, but it has two of your suit giving you a 4-flush draw, do you rarely go for the flush? The reason I ask is that it seems like I haven't hit a flush or straight for my last 6 sessions, and have blown a very large chunk of cash in their pursuit playing 6-12 hold'em.
Regards, Robert
Robert D.
The short answer to that is yes. IF the pot is big eneough. IE: It is about 1/3 I will hit the flush and It would be the nut flush - have to go for it.
Now give me a 54s and a 4 flush with I may just muck it I just hate drawing for 2nd best hand.
Badger,
"It's just neverendingly interesting to me how poker players can rationalize (different) mistakes."
Mistake rationalization has been going on for years ask my parents. Playing a hand in the "now" as you say is the best way to play it, but without your past mistakes or correct plays in the past to rely on and all the other info you have gathered from experience, I make the best judgement at that moment whether to drop or fold. Once I make the decision that's it either wait for the next hand or do corrective surgery on my decision to play further. I really don't analyze it in the now but I store it away for the ride home if it is still in the cranium. Most of the time it is a hand I lost, sometimes one I won, but I would say 80% of the time it was one I lost. I learn something from this analysis ALWAYS!!!!
I think rationalization is very detrimental to improvement of your play. IMO.
paul
I spent a week in Vegas and of course I went to the Bellagio among other places. I was watching the 30-60 game there. It appeared the hardest damn thing is to play there anything bigger than 6-12. The 30-60 seemed like a bunch of crocodiles in the Nile and no Cattle to drink. Watching and waiting. Near me was a guy from New York city also watching the game. I asked him why not play a few hands with the 'big guys'. He said to me while he played poker for years in AC and NYC he comes to Vegas for entertainment. He said there was nothing relaxing or entertaining with that game - other than watching it. He also said he has a lot of doe, usually plays black chip BJ or craps in Vegas in a tune of 20k 50k a day (win or lose). In ordder to get comped he will do what he likes and enjoys. While we all (who play poker here and there) I think played there once at least - I can attest to the wisdom of this encounter. Anyway do you get comped at all playing 30-60 at the Bellagio 5-6 hours ???
No, there are no special comps for $30-$60 players versus other, lower limit players. If you are willingly to play poker for at least 5 hours per day at any limit then the poker room will book your room for you at the Bellagio and give you a casino rate which is $99 a night except Fridays and Saturdays where it is $129 per night. In addition, if you talk to Bill Cheeks or Kamil in the morning they can put you on a list for a buffet comp. If you are staying at the Bellagio you can usually get 2 or 3 free buffets a week. But the poker room can only give out about 40 per day so you get put on the list.
At the Bellagio, they have hold-em at $4-$8, $8-$16, $15-$30, and $30-$60 which they spread every day. Sometimes in the evenings they have a $60-$120 or a $100-$200 hold-em game in the high limit area. I found the $15-$30 game to be one of the softest games in the country since the good players go to $30-$60.
Comps can be very expansive.
Frankly, I think people who play games under unfavorable circumstances just to try and get a free meal or a room discount are penny wise and pound foolish. I play at the Bellagio because they have the lowest rakes and collections in the country. They only rake $3 out of every pot in a $15-$30 game with only $1 on the first $40, a second $1 on the next $30, and the final $1 on the next $30. So if the pot is $60, you only pay a $2 rake. Compare that to $1-$5 stud game with a 10% rake and a $4 or $5 max. For $30-$60 they only collect $5 each half hour versus $9 or $10 in Los Angeles. In addition, the Bellagio has a greater choice of games and there are an abundance of weak playing tourists who come in from all over the world. In many other cardrooms, $15-$30 is their big game and only the best of the local talent play in it.
What is exactly 'unfavorable' ???? Getting a buffet line pass when you have 10k in your pocket and risk it on 30-60 is favorable ?
When I speak of favorable versus unfavorable I am referring to the rakes, collection, and types of players who play in the mid-size games like $10-$20 through $20-$40. The Bellagio is very favorable because the rake structure is low for a $15-$30 game and it is full of weak playing tourists. Over the long haul I win about 2 pots per hour, sometimes more if I am running good and sometimes less when I am running bad but 2 pots per hour is a good average. So my cost at the Bellagio $15-$30 game is about $6 per hour. The $15-$30 game in Los Angeles charges about $6 per half hour so it costs me $12 per hour to play. At Commerce, they charge $7 per half hour so my cost is $14 per hour. An extra $6-$8 per hour to play $15-$30 adds up to a lot of money over the course of a year. The free food that they give you in the LA casinos does not begin to make up for this difference.
It depends what you have to do for the comps. I use the Harrah's Gold Card and get coupons in the mail for cash for playing poker. Furthermore, I use the Harrah's Visa Card to get points for free meals. Note that, the Gold Card allows me to get a players rate for a room in Vegas. I always get a room and there is no requirement that states I have to play so many hours like you do at the Mirage or the Bellagio. So, all comp programs are not created equal.
If you are good at playing poker then you should be having lobster and fine wine and giving your comps to a looser.
Table Guy
Hi. I'm a freshman in college and my poker experience consists of about of year of playing with Scott and 10 days on an Indian reservation in Arizona. The most annoying thing there was the killpots - doubling the limits when someone won two pots in a row and then making them post a late position blind. For a college student on a tight bankroll, the doubled limits were extremely annoying. Sorry if this has already been discussed, but why do the casinos do that and how should they affect my game?
I assumed the killpots increased the chance of someone hitting a rush because they can usually see the flop for free after killing the pot. It also seemed like the killpots should encourage tighter play by effectively decreasing the 2nd pot size by a big bet. Thoughts?
missed you at thanksgiving. Craig brought home a scottish girl, it was super funny. Read my posts in the other topics.
oh, Killpots, right. I'm sure I already told you this, but standard ring poker has gradually reached the public eye to be a less and less gambling game. People have begun to realize that there exist "good" poker players. So, casinos try to gamble"ize" poker by adding such things as killpots, jackpots, and such.
The flipside is that "new" structures provide opportunities for skilled players to exploit them for profit until the general population catches up ar is educated by poker writer's whose earnings come elsewhere.
As far as killpot strategy. I know the answer, but I'm not telling;-)
hi. you missed 10 hours of poker fun of friday, with no killpots. or jackpots. or any other kind of pot. (that has to make djtj's dad happy.) i am glad that you decided to post, but i see you did not include your email address. what's the matter? are you chicken? afraid of some teeney weeney hatemail? come on. dive in. by the way, alexb's email is aab61@columbia.edu.
there is a bunch about killpots in the archives. if anything that changes the way your opp play changes the way you play. also, kill pots do some things. like if you kill it you are a late position blind and you should be raising with several marginal hands that you would normally fold. but since you can't fold a raise beats a call. this especially applies when it is folded to you. and some other stuff that i can't think of now. it's all over the archives.
scott
They do it to increase action. My hourly rate would deiminsh if the kill weren't there.
I have found very few low limit players willing to see a $32 raise on the river.
I actually losen up a bit on a kill pot. specially if there are a couple of maniacs around. They put me on being tight and if I come out with a raise on a kill and bet or raise on a flop I usually can win right there.
One night last month I won 6 consecutive pots 4 of them kills a total of $750 - Left shortly after that. Got Big pairs everytime and they held up - who was talking about rushes - naw they don't exist.
Hello Fellow Poker Enthusiasts,
I hope you enjoy my first posting.
It concerns my evaluation of the question, "why the hell am I playing this stupid game anyway?". I ask that question about mostly everything I do, and usually if I don't come up with a good answer after a reasonable time period, I stop. Of course 'reasonable' is situ. specific.
I am currently a low limit player, solely because of bank, or lack thereof. I play mainly $1-5 stud and occasionally $2-4, $3-6, or $4-8 HE. I've been playing less than ten sessions per year, on average, for the past three years. Overall I am certainly -, but have eeked enough winning sessions so that hope of better days ahead lives, hence the name.
I really began asking the "why..." question as I began understanding the game. As I read books and discussions about expected winnings, it seemed at first that if I were to become a consitant winner, the kind of game I'd play might be considered pretty boring. Cool, calm, steady and on course. Unaffected by the swings and bad beats.
This thought, I thought, was supported by a post from E.S. "1. 10 players who are all superstars and play at the exact same level of expertise play in a room for a billion hours. At the end of the session each player will be pretty close to even. Because there is no edge winning is random. Bets per hour for any player equal very close to 0." The "1." is to delineate this type of table from tables where the players' play is inferior to yours. But then, I thought about it a bit more. I WANT to be at a table where the players are as good as me, which at this point in my game, isn't hard to find. Then I want to improve my game until I beat them. Maybe this is in line with Van Neuman's concept of mutual benefit. I wouldn't know I haven't read it. If I play better, then they have to play better too. But if simply beating players who are worse than you is it, I don't want it. It is easy, and my game will probably get worse, by association. It is the improvement in my game which I seek and that can only come from playing people of like or superior skill. This is confirmed by experiences where games won OR lost with good players where much more rewarding than the other type.
Should I just play tournaments?
I could go on and on without saying much more so I'll wait to hear what y'all have to say.
it sounds as if you are playing for sport. i understand this and i harbor similar feelings. but being good at poker invlolves adapting your game for the maximum advantage in any sitaution. if you are not playing for a living, then table selection might not be as important. but you should learn to crush the bad players, not just beat the good ones. so you can, and should, often play weak tables. but, if i had the money to lose, i couldn't resist sitting in the toughest game i could find. not every day, mind you. i wouldn't play there when i wanted dome money, just when i wanted a game.
and you should be unaffected by bad beats. when someone shoots over you in basketball, do you throw a tantrum? of course not. even more so with the swings. if you are playing purely for sport then the score does not really matter, does it?
scott
Beating a table full of maniacs can be tougher sometimes than beating a table full of rocks. You must possess skills for both types of lineups.The reason you would prefer to play agains the bad players is because playing against the rocks produces no positive outcome. They never play a hand (unless it is a BIG hand)and they don't give any action when you have a hand.
If there isn't a lively player or two in the game that either call, raise or pay off too much then the game degenerates into a rake feeding contest.
The best alternative (for you)is to find a game with a selective mix. Good players and weaker ones. Now you have a profitable situation that enables you to make some money from the weaker players while at the same time letting you benefit from the knowledge and experience you are gaining by observing the stronger ones.
Phil
I couldn't agree more. For me, the competition is what it's all about. I began playing casino poker a little over a year ago. (1-5 stud). Started reading and studying the game and became fascinated with all the different strategy and skills required to play well. Did very well at 1-5, moved up to 5-10 and did even better. Moved up to 10-20 and did OK, but realized that I could make more money (hourly rate) at 5-10. So, I dropped down and began looking at my winnings as income. But, I became bored and my game got worse. I was no longer working my way up, I was just trying to win my average hourly rate. Bottom line, poker was no longer fun.
I no longer worry about hourly rate, positive EV, or only playin with fish. I play in the toughest 10-20 games I can find (not rocks, but rammers and jammers). I feel this is preparing me for the higher limits. I don't look at winnings as income, but as a way of keeping score. Don't get me wrong, the money is important. Like any kind of competition, losing sucks. If I was losing at these limits, I would drop down.
Personally, I would rather play 300-600 and come out a little ahead at the end of the year than stay at 10-20 and make a ton of cash.
Now I think I've heard it all.
You'd rather be even at a high limit than win a lot of money at a lower limit.
Well, I guess it takes all kinds.
I couldn't agree with you also. I have played poker with a rather competitive group of high-school friends for just over a year (niels, scott, jamesh, blah blah blah). Anyway, last summer I went to a Indian casino and played 2-4. The point is that I hated it. I always thought that I loved poker, but I was loving the competition against playing against friends I knew to be intelligent. For that reason I would always want to play friends no-limit heads up, or any sort of poker game that maximized the feeling of competition and lessened the feeling of a 12 hour grind.
I don't know what to do either, but I get the feeling that ring games, no matter what limit end up going to the grinders. No direct competition, no fun.
What I figure I will do once I turn 21 is play no-limit tournaments every once in a while to satisfy my competitive desire for poker. See, I think that players who play for money have lost sight of a little of the romantic edge of poker. Surely, EV will make you money, but it is boring and life-draining and generally sucks.
Poker is also viable as a sport, but you have to realize that you cannot enjoy yourself as long as you are playing against people who are playing for money. They won't engage you. They are like the Utah Jazz, a team that just isn't fun to play, and win by pretending to be robots.
if maniac mark was at the casino playing J6s in a pirate hat, you'd have fun.
money is score. even if you're playing 'for sport', you're playing 'for money'. it's just not rent money. and tight play is not sufficient. there is lots of competition in ring games.
no limit is a different game. it takes different skills. not better skills or worse skills. just skills that i (and you) don't have.
i am the one who hates the jazz. you were defending them just a couple of days ago.
scott
you seem to underestimate the power of J6s, that was your first mistake. No one ever sees it coming. The second was to make fun of my pirate hat. your scurvy schemes will earn ye a one way ticket to the boneyard. And you capitalized the Jack in J6. Apparently you do have a shift key.
The whole crew is coming online what an age we live in!
alex
hey Mark, The Fall was incredible!
i don't know how the 'J' got there. wait! there it is again. and what about those mysterious parantheses?
scott
I think the problem is that we don't have any money. What makes poker fun is the challenge and the people in the limits we could afford simply weren't up to the level of our game. Once you have the bankroll to play people who can kick your ass (like me and scott, but richer), poker should be more fun.
If your looking to just have fun - play golf or take up skiing. I take back the golf thing as I play it for keeps too.
Poker is serious stuff and if you are playing it for real money can be a 1st or 2nd income.
Guys who play for "fun" are usually fish and easy to beat cuz they just not serious eneough. And, like to play to much and in to many hands.
"usually" is the important phrase here roundie,
i can have a little lower hourly rate, and enjoy the pleasure of trying to brake various players at the table. It just gives me higher personal pleasure.
People are wrong that say that money is the only goal of poker, it is the only qualitative goal. Its a question of personal preference.
In much the same fashion, you criticize a man who would rather play 300-600 and win little then play 10-20 and make a lot. Scottie Pippen turned down a lot more money to stay with the Bulls during their run. Money doesn't equal happiness. Don't critize people who extend this into their poker playing
If you knew about Chicago sports you'd know if your a Bull or a Bear you are a god in chicago and endorsments are worth a lot more than salary go ax Jordan he gambled his pay check away on playing real bad black jack. His out of Basketball money dwarfed his bulls pay. Besides I don't think much of pro Basket Ball players anyway.
Hey have that play for fun attitude I really don't care.
I'm in it to win and win consistantly.
I look for soft games to take down - but to each their own and I wish all success.
i don't see the play for fun attitude win and the playing to win attitude as contadictory. i am often competitive in sports and games without the added lure of money. i have a basketball game to play in just over an hour. our team is rather bad and i believe we are heavy favorites to lose against our unknown opponent. still, i will play to win and i will have fun. there is no money involved and i am not realy hurt if i lose. but it is more fun to play to win. so, if i were to play poker competively, treating money as the score, i would be playing for fun and playing to win.
scott
if rounder is on the other team we'll be able to buy them off for a few big bets. what does he play again, 1-2?
This is getting good! I'm beginning to think we might be able to arrange some type of Headhunter Bounty tourney during Christmas break. How about we call it the Young Turks against the Old Jerks. Maybe Rounder, Vince, Rick and Big John against this whole group of High School Sweethearts? We'd have to have it in California because my parole is only good inside the state. What do you say Scott, Alex, Niels, etal? Are you ready to RRRUUUUUUUMBLEEEEEE?
Sounds like fun, but my mommy doesn't want me to spend Christmas so far from her. If you come to Maryland, I'm sure we can find you a spot in our game. If you've got the bankroll. We do play 50/100 (Cents).
I'm sure Ray Zee will loan the "Old Jerks" his private jet and more than ample funds for the buy-ins. Since I've had another pretty good year, I might be able to bribe, err, I mean convince my parole officer to let me travel that far out of state. Please find out what constitutes "corrupting a minor" in Maryland, as we ancient ones don't need any of that sort of trouble. I see that all you boys go to pretty expensive schools, but since you play that .50-1.00 I'd guess that means you are all on academic scholarships? I went to University of Nevada, Reno; I assume none of you were able to score high enough to get in there and had to settle for these lesser schools? Go Huskies!!!!
I'm sure Ray Zee will loan the "Old Jerks" his private jet and more than ample funds for the buy-ins. Since I've had another pretty good year, I might be able to bribe, err, I mean convince my parole officer to let me travel that far out of state. Please find out what constitutes "corrupting a minor" in Maryland, as we ancient ones don't need any of that sort of trouble. I see that all you boys go to pretty expensive schools, but since you play that .50-1.00 I'd guess that means you are all on academic scholarships? I went to University of Nevada, Reno; I assume none of you were able to score high enough to get in there and had to settle for these lesser schools? Go Huskies!!!! Well, what do you call a Wolfpack?
This conversation is ridiculous. You are the only real card player that has responded. I guess these other people never played organized sports. In organized sports, people keep score. How fun would basketball be if the pros didn't keep score? (seriously). If you say that your results don't matter and you refuse to keep score, you are one of the following:
1. A lousy player who understands he can't win 2. A gambling addict in deep denial 3. You have money to burn 4. Not real bright or 5. Not competitive, or feminine
Where is the enjoyment if you don't keep score? If you play every hand and hold on to every draw, you eventually will hit something. But where is the skill there? You have to keep score if you want to be proud of your skills.
On the other hand, why berate the people who feed the rest of the table?
of course, i keep score. but i did not bet on the game. i play to win, not to win money. it just so happens that winning in poker is winning money.
scott
Charlie, you are being highly intolerant. Now, I keep very serious score in poker (very similarly to Scott). But for a moment, I'll pretend I don't
Now, you say that people who don't keep score in poker must fall into one of several undesirable categories. One of these is feminine which you equate to non-competitiveness. A joke perhaps? hahahahaha. good one.
anyway, now for the serious part. You say "whats the enjoyment if you don't keep score". No enjoyment for you! Poker is a game that provides people differing pleasure if played for different reasons. Your holier than thou attitude is completely ridiculous because you assume that people play poker for the same reasons you do. People who play home games with friends do so because poker provides them with medium of entertainment. They are just as entitled to Poker as you, who plays for money.
alex
Oh, oh looks like we have enlisted the All-Ivy Poker team on this forum. Maybe Sklansky (former Wharton dude) can be your mentor.
If you like competition among friends, the casinos in AC will "rent" you a table and dealers, and you can play among yourselves -- any stakes
I went to DePaul Univ. in Chicago. Can you do a mid-west team. But wait, I'm living in Arizona too maybe a S/W team, I lived in the UK most of the 80's maybe I can play for the European team and I am Italian so I qualify there too, I'm over 50 so I qualify for the seniors team.
Ah, I guess I'll just play for myself as usual. :-)
Because I HATE money!! Chips are FUN!!
WGAF
Well I have been asking the same myself for the last 7 years. Poker is for the masochist or for the well healed with a serious lack of imagination. Simply said I am a gambler. You better find out what makes you tick and will have a better perspective on this game too after that. Doing just tourneys is a very smart idea. Many excellent players are doing that just to get the edge. Playing ring games will take a bigger bankroll, more time and seriously your chances are not that good. Also if you are a gambler find some other ways to 'tempt lady luck' - poker IS NOT THE only game with the edge !!!
Phil - I frequently ask myself the same question, but for a slightly different reason. I spent most of my life helping people, or at least trying to help them. (Now I am retired.) It goes against the grain to prey on the weak.
Yet I enjoy playing poker.
There is an old saying: “If you look around the table and can’t see the fish, you’re it.” I don’t want to prey on the weak, but I don’t want anyone preying on me either.
I have two solutions for you.
(1) Play with your friends and don’t over power them all the time. This is easy to do: simply stay in more pots than you should. The problem is that you’re not playing your best game. It’s a little like playing tennis with your wife.
(2) Play (as you have suggested) in tournaments. You either need lots of luck or lots of discipline to make it to the final table. Until the re-buy time has passed, there will be maniacs who will play trash and who will sometimes luck out against you. As the tournament progresses all but the luckiest maniacs will fall by the wayside and you will have the opportunity to play against a more skillful group of opponents.
You, Scott, and Scott's ivy league pals (some of whom have the grace to use the shift key) have suggested they enjoy better opponents, and I do too. It’s more exciting with better opponents.
Since tournament chips have no resale value, they (at least to me) are just a way to keep score. I think money, to some poker pros, is the same as tournament chips are to me, just a way of keeping score. The poker pros I have met are genuinely nice guys. (Mike Caro comes immediately to my mind.)
Then, of course, just as in society in general, probably some who play poker are bullies who enjoy preying on the weak. If you watch a bully, the bully might generally seem successful while picking on someone weaker. However, you don’t have to become a bully to be successful. You can keep your scruples in society, and also in poker.
One could argue that beating weaker opponents in a tournament amounts to the same thing as beating weaker opponents in a ring game but, at least to me, it has a different feeling. Perhaps the reason is that weaker opponents will attack (by betting and raising) your pile of chips which you are trying to defend (and expand). I’m not explaining it well, but it doesn’t feel like you are taking advantage of someone weaker than you when you are in a tournament setting.
If you come from a background of home or family games, a background of playing every hand, of always being in on the action, it might seem as though you would get bored playing far fewer hands in a tournament. However you start with a tiny stack of chips and soon realize that chips saved are even more valuable than chips earned. You may sometimes feel grateful to be out of the action and thus have more of an opportunity to watch how your opponents play. (Plus, if you’re out of the hand you can’t lose any chips).
Just some of my thoughts.
Buzz
Buzz you're awesome, couldn't agree more
people in tournaments have no delusions that you're trying to knock their socks off. I guess I'd feel less like a shark in a tourney then in a ring game. Less predatorial, and more honestly competitive.
alex (one of the Ivy league buddies)
FYI:
http://www.pokerdigest.com/articles/mchanging4.htm
Nice essay from John Feeney on the way people view you at the table and how it can change.
MJ
MJ Chicago,
It is great to see that Poker Digest is archiving his articles. He writes fantastic stuff and I hope he continues. His most recent one is also very good and is discussed in a thread below (in case you missed it).
Regards,
Rick (official John Feeney brown-noser)
With the end of the year coming up, I think we should all cast our votes for post of the year. I vote for Rick's post! (MJChicago gets an honorable mention.)
John,
I'm a fraud. Example: I was scanning RGP last night and there was a new thread started by hippychuck entitiled "Card Player/Poker Digest" in which subsequent posts slammed Poker Digest as lacking content. I was going to post and point out your articles as an example of exellent new writing (along with Lee Munzer's WSOP coverage) but decided not to get involved in a flame war for lack of time. So I really don't qualify as an "official John Feeney brown noser". You can take back your vote.
BTW, I would defend Mason and David and zee when they write new stuff but that is like putting a bulls eye on my forehead and I'm fighting enough battles right now.
I do hope to start posting there again once in a while as long as I can avoid posts that involve a) smoking, b) the movie Rounders, c) music trivia, d) bad beats, e) poker software, f) vicious personal attacks, and g) fluff filled trip reports. At least something interesting like "Sex and Poker" and Lady Gambler's measurements are discussed in the 2+2 fluff section. BTW, the recent flames by MrHeadsUp on RGP were fun although I didn't dare post.
Regards,
Rick
I was going to post and point out your articles as an example of exellent new writing (along with Lee Munzer's WSOP coverage) but decided not to get involved in a flame war
Uh, yeah, I noticed that Rick. Well, that's okay. I put a little post up myself. I know Hippiechuck and figure it was just his humorous way of baiting me to post again on rgp, as I've been mostly absent from there lately. I mean it *had* to be that... didn't it?
.
In following up with a second post to Chuck's response to me, I had occasion to refer rgp readers to Alex's work on the poker bio-suit. Here's a snip from my rgp post:
"Actually my own play generally transcends what most players would see as discernible "reality". This is not just a product of my own extreme abnormality (though some doubt that), but is the result of my having extended my "Multiple Changing Images" concept...
I have now taken the next step into the strategic application of the "poker bio-suit", first introduced to the poker world by AlexB on the Two Plus Two Forum in this thread:
http://www.twoplustwo.com/cgi-bin/exchange.pl?read=4155
Now, I know this may seem strange. But my failure to post here of late is directly attributable to this and other revolutionary ideas being discussed on the "Other Topics" forum at 2+2. Of course the other forums have their pluses too. (There are several now.)"
Well, it should be, uh, interesting to see the rgp responses to this.
you want me to be a celebrity endorser of McDonalds? I'll do it for five dollars, no less!
alex
do you dare contend that you're so-called "multiple table images" theory has added more to the body of poker literature then my bio-suits post?
If anything, in a thousand years your essay might be recalled as a transitive piece of writing that prepared the world for the bio-suits. A little like how portrait of the artist as a young man sets up for Ulysses. except, I would have written Ulysses and you would have written portrait.
just kidding, You're awesome John. I'd vote for you any day.
No, you're right Alex. The bio-suit theory is clearly the central development in poker theory in our time. Had Rick posted about it, it probably would have made post of the millenium. As it is, his post about my writing is *clearly* the most well informed post in some time. However, I am having second thoughts given his unwillingness to viciously flame Hippiechuck on RGP. Hmmm...
Be patient brother it's a growing process for them, that you wouldn't want to deny them, the realization that they will come too!!!
Brother Paul
.
Can you really understand what he says (writes)? You said "thanks". How do you know?
Tom D
Well, Tom, I've probably been reading Paul-lingo a little longer than you. Also, there's this genetic "Feeney" thing that enables us to communicate.
who used to win the wrestling matches when you were little?
j
.
I am just starting to develop an interest in poker. I recently ordered Steiner's Thursday Night Poker, but then heard that it wouldn't be of much use. My goal is to first improve my home play with friends. Then I want to take it to the next level, low limit play at the casinos. What books would you recommend, from start to finish? thanks.
Playing home games does nothing to get you ready to play in casinos. It is night and day and will just mess you up.
there are alot of good books on beginning poker just <------ click on the 2+2 Books.
I wish you success.
Playing home games is preparation, and is not night/day from casino games. Last time I checked, both were poker.
The important thing is to put yourself into the correct mindset that will not differ in a casino. Make sure that your desire to beat your friends does not enter into your decision process, etc. The important thing to do is think! You can do that at home.
Beg all you want I have played both and there not the same game.
Difference is like the difference between NL HE and Limit. Like I said night and day.
Not to argue - but home games have there place - and I like them too but they are different from casino games.
I hope Rounder is wrong, Jag, because I am trying to do the same thing that you are. I am a self starter, too.
First, playing in a home game gets you used to playing poker. Period. Track the cards. Track the bets. Watch players.
Second, these home-games are typically super loose. Rounder is right in that these games are different from the tighter games you will probably find in the casinos. However, the fundamental concepts are still the same, and you fundamental approach and starting requirements are not THAT much different. The big difference, IMO, is in the nuanced play. It doesn't work in home games.
Third, playing in a loose home game where the players don't know any different than to chase every pot will teach you discipline. When you fold 80-90% of your starting hands you will stick out like sore thumb. You will have to make a conscious effort to fold, and you will be mockingly noted by those with whom you play.
Books. Others may justifiably disagree, but here is what I have done. (Note that I have not yet expanded beyond 2+2 books).
1. Start with a general book or two. Sklansky's "Theory of Poker" and "Getting the Best of It" are good introductions to fundamental concepts that game-specific books will further develop.
2. Delve into game-specific books that you are likely to play in your home games. So far I have read Sklansky's "Hold'em Poker", 2+2's "Seven Card Stud for Advanced Players", and Malmuth's "Winning Concepts in Draw and Lowball." I will soon be delving into Brunson's SuperSystem, Jones' "Winning Low-Limit Hold'em", and 2+2's "Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players". I am sure I am missing some.
3. Incorporate the fundamental concepts of these books into your home-games. I've been making a killing in games with my friends.
3.5 Watch the forum. A lot will be over your (and my) head. But a lot of fundamental poker is discussed here. I won't list my hierarchy of favorite posters, but some will not hesitate to answer questions that are remedial or simplistic (to them). Dick In Phoenix has a good beginners website.
4. Set a "test" for yourself. I will be making my first trip to a casino hold'em table in April in Arizona (hey Rounder and DIP!). Study for it like you would a final exam.
Good luck.
They ARE worlds apart, even though the fundamentals should be the same...
1) Run into better players more often 2) More agressive games more likely (raise/reraise) 3) Money is usually larger (depends what you play at home) 4) Wild cards/goofy games (i.e what I call "Slot poker- put your money in and hope") throw many reading skills out of wack 5) At home games, if you fold 80-90%, you may not get to play any more- tends to anger home players, who are playing for "fun" (as opposed to money?) 6) Many more unknown players rotate into games within a few hours- so you can't play tendencies as much 7) You will find very few games (even the loosest games) which are as loose as the home game (partially stakes, partially "friends" playing, etc)- again, maybe your home game is closer to casino experience than mine.
I'll go on a limb and say you will NEVER find a home game that is as tight as an average-tight game, much less very tight or tight-agressive. 8) etc etc
Having said that: I've found that my casino poker experience/training has helped my results in slot poker games a TREMENDOUS amount... and I fold more than I used to there... but can't fold too much because games are soooo loose. The converse is not true, although some loose experiences in slot poker can remind me to tighten up in casinos...
The best book by far is Sklansky's "The Theory of Poker." Digest it well. One of the basic poker problems is that optimum strategy is a function of near-infinite variations of game structures and opponent playing patterns. TOP provides a framework for thinking about the game on a general level as well as how various strategies and tactics can succeed and fail. You'll need this in order to adjust. All poker is adjustment.
Also, understand that certain approaches aren't suitable for home and low limit games dominated by loose passive play. In these games, you generally win by aggressively playing better hands, and to a lesser extent by exploiting your image and picking up tells.
Other good general books (although weighted toward hold 'em and stud) are Roy Cooke's recent collection of essays, Malmuth's Poker Essays I & II, Malmuth's Theory of Gambling and Other Topics, Doyle Brunson's Super System (a somewhat dated but still excellent classic), and Bob Ciaffone's Improve Your Poker. Mike Caro has a good short book, but I can't remember the name of it. I didn't read all of Stiener's book but I though it wasn't bad.
I don't play much stud, but George Percy's "7-Card Stud, the Waiting Game" is an ok introduction. Seven Card Stud for Advanced Players by Malmush, Sklansky and Zee is very good although it's geared toward middle limit casino play and won't help you much with your home game. I've heard that Roy West's book is pretty good for low limit casino play. (The markedly different stucture of these games requires different approaches).
For Hold 'em, Hold 'em Poker and Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players are the basic texts, as well as the books mentioned above.
For Omaha, Bob Ciaffone's book has no parallel so far.
You can get these books from this website or from the Gambler's Book club website or from the back of Card Player. (As a generaly rule, if you can by a book about poker in a bookstore it probably isn't very good, except B&N now carries the 2+2 line).
Just remember that you don't need to build a poker library to become a good player and reading everything written about the game will not make you one.
Also read everything you can on the internet, and get some good software. Caro's Poker Probe and the recent versions of the Wilson "Turbo" games are excellent despite their limitations (just get the one for the game you'll be playing the most -- they're expensive).
I agree with the other responses as far as which books to read. I also found Lee Jones' Winning Low Limit Hold 'Em to be a valuable addition to my library. I suggest reading this AFTER you read TOP, HFAP, etc. My reasons for this is that the 2+2 books will give you the knowledge you need to play, and the Lee Jones book will specifically address the animal that is low limit poker. My problem before I read Lee's book is that I was trying the "moves," etc. addressed in Sklansky's texts - They DO NOT work at low limits. After reading Jones' book, and gaining more experience, I have improved my game significantly. Remeber, I have very limited experience, but this is the direction that I've been taking, and so far, so good.
Good luck and best wishes, Tim
Jacksonville Jaguar,
You made the best beginning you could of made you had the guts to post and you asked for help. Listen to learn and learn to listen.
One That Doesn't
Muhhamad Ali said that one cannot learn to swim if one is not willing to get wet. My advice is that you get your feet wet by actually playing at a real public cardroom. Do this for 3 weeks before reading any books. This way you'll know how it feels like to be stupid once you've finally read the good books later on. Start with The Theory of Poker by David Sklansky. Then read a book that is specific to what you personally like to play. In holdem, Slansky wrote a book by himself called Holdem Poker. He has also co-written a book with Malmuth. Kreiger and Lee Jones have also written some very good books on Holdem. In 7 stud, I would greatly recommend that you read Brunson's Super/System. The stud chapter there is by far the best. For Omaha 8 or Better, check out John Payne and Ray Zee. The skill that you want most to develop when you're starting out is the ability to determine which hands play well against many opponents, which hands play well against a few opponents, which hands play well against both many and a few opponents, and which hands play well against neither. And what "moves" are available to make these hands fit the ideal situation. Be aware of this while you're reading these books and most especially when you're playing. Good luck.
is not that they are too loose but that they often include strange variations involving wild cards, weird rules, and splitting the pot. While these games often take much skill and I would love to see them in a casino, mastering them won't help you much in public games.
It seems to me that home games attract these sorts of variations because they promote and reward loose play. Home players don't want to play five hours of straight hold'em or stud. They are driven by the excitement of chasing big pots and winning with big (wild card enhanced) hands. They want excuses to play hands that they otherwise shouldn't in a straight game.
Many home players are playing for a different purpose. And this has been why they are reluctant to mirror casino variations and structure. While my friends and I play fun, I also play to improve my game competitively. The two are not necessarily compatible.
The ante structure in home games varies wildly. Usually there are also bigger antes in proportion to the bets. With all these things that promote loose play, it seems that home games are harder to beat than most pros think. I know that tightening up is the way to go, but then you immediately become the weirdo that people don't want to play with. Then you have accidentally tightened up the whole game.
--Charlie
then steal the huge antes. adapt.
scott
i am not sure about most home games, but i have played the vast majority of my poker in three different home games. (the rest was in other home games). my estimates of casino games comes mostly from what i have read.
one was my .5-1 high school game that was usaully 8-10 handed, sometimes as low a 5 and sometimes as much as 13. we played he, 7cs, some 7cs high low (declare for a while, then 8 or better), a rare round of no limit hold em, and an occasional round of o8. we never played wilds. almost everyone in the game had read some books. three of us owned the theory of poker and other 2+2 books and we had lent them to four others. the game was on the tight side and very very aggressive. i think that many casino tables would be softer than this one.
the second was my dad's game, which was loose passive. but they played real games with no wilds. they liked high low, omaha or 7cs, a lot. but those are real games. i think that this game was like a very soft casino game, but one that you could find once in while if you looked for it.
the third is the one that i have put together here at columbia. it is shorthanded, 5-6, and we play exclusively 7cs. this game has a loose aggressive player, a weak tight player, a couple of loose passive players, alexb, and me. alexb makes some mistakes, but i think he could beat the typical casino game if he maintained his focus. i do not think this game is that far removed from casino tables.
i feel that i am well prepared for casino poker. poker is poker. adapting the concepts to whatever game you happen to be in is the whole game. the tactics that work in one game may not work in another, but if you understand poker you should be able to adapt quickly.
scott
Scotty,
How did you play 10 handed 7cs? Just curious.
the game was tight enough that we very rarely ran out of cards. less than once a month. we reshuffled people's down cards on the rare occasion that we did. it's not perfect but it was ok. the structure helped. no ante. a full sb bring in.also, the more people the more we tended to holdem. we never played stud with 12 or 13.
scott
Another option is to have the person behind the dealer sit out for that round. Whenever I've played 10 handed stud, this is how it was done.
I've also played stud with blinds. That was kind of fun too.
- Andrew
The route I took was to read Sklansky's HEP and Jones WLLH (both available from www.conjelco.com). I then played 40 or 50 hours on Wilson's hold'em game (available from conjelco or www.wilsonsw.com). I think the Wilson games will save you at least their purchase price and probably many more buy ins worth of beginner mistakes. IRC poker is another training ground you might wish to explore. Its probably a bit wilder then you'll encounter in real life but the game and player adjustment skills you'll learn are transferrable to the real world.
As I worked my way through my first 100 hours of casino play I bought HEfAP, Super/SYSTEM, TOP, and other books. During this period of time I think you should balance gaining experience with study. You'll need both. Keep good records, play relatively short sessions, and keep track of at least one hand per session that you want to investigate later (and then spend the time at home to delve into it!).
A lot of the concerns people raise about home games are valid. But if you can gather a bunch of like-minded friends (who want to learn the game and step up to casino play), maybe with a (semi-)serious player or two who does play in cardrooms, keep the stakes small, and play under the same conditions you will encounter when live (ie same structure, maybe scaled down, so if you plan to play 3-6 you could play 50c-1 or something like that), then this can be very beneficial. A home game with large antes and wild cards, well it is poker but what I have described is much more useful.
Andy.
www.pokersoft.co.uk
I agree. Buy TOP, HFAP. If you want to become a better player, lend them out when you're done. If you're not feeling charitable, tell your friends to check the local library. The books there will probably suck, but they'll give your friends a feel for the very basic strategies.
Right. That sounds similar to the first game Scott described. Also, David mentions in one of his videos that he first learned in a game at U. Penn. in which he and his friends would play hands and discuss and analyze them afterward. I never had a chance to put together a game like that, but I think it would be a tremendous learning tool.
yeah, it really is a good learning tool. People get so tired of being referred to as "the dumbest guy at the table" that they read up and get better. Peer Pressure works! Don't do drugs, kids
alex
well, they are.
scott
scott, you need to act more responsibly. Several posters have expressed their opinion that you are their idol. You must realize that your position of prestige amongst this elite crowd comes with responsibilities. If you were a virtual no-name amongst the 2+2 crowd like AlexB, then things would be different.
i'm an ugly moron with a big mouth and an ugly face, and a big butt, and my butt stinks, and.......I like to kiss my own butt
jimbo
alex, this was your coolest post yet.
scott
What libel! My attourneys will have a feild day with you. They have been waiting for some chap to come along and make just such a mistake!!!!
are you talking to me? you must be talking to me, cause there's no one else here.
by the way, why do you like to kiss your own butt?
scott
hehe - just haven't posted to this forum yet...
Anyhow, our home game rules...Hey, I'm probably running up to New York in 2 weeks (Dec 13) - what day is this Columbia poker game?
isn't it cool how the forum remembers who you are? it says 'welcome back, scott'. or djtj in your case.
yup, our game rules.
it is whatever day you get here. though it is usally on a wed.
scott
If you brand new to the game I would not recommend choosing Sklansky's Theory of Poker. It is an advanced text and if you have a hard time understanding posts on this forum you will have an even harder time with TOP. If you are truly new read Fundamentals of Poker by Malmuth and Loomis. Its very short, easy to understand and will get you started with poker terms and basic strategy. If you want to learn holdem read Lee Jones's Book and Holdem Poker by Sklansky. Then step up to more advanced text. Its important to understand the very basics before you jump into a book like theroy of poker.
I assume you at least know how to play the game. If so then get these books in order: (1)Roy West's "7 Card Stud; 42 Lessons, 1996, Poker Plus Pubs, Las Vegas (where else) or (2) for Hold'em get Andy Nelson's, "Poker: Hold'em Book One" Pokerbook Press, Bolder, CO (3) Software (cheap - like free-almost) is Scenario Software "iPoker" for the Mac. (4) Believe it or not "Bicycle Poker" for Windows ain't too bad and only $12.
Next get yourself a nice conservative baseball style cap (worn with the peak facing the "normal way"), and go to a casino, any one, and play in the $1-3 or $1-5 table. Put up a hundred dollars, and get your chips (but not like the dude in the Caro Video does it - what a dork!). Sit back and relax. Bet 'em when you got 'em (remember no ante at this limit. Follow Roy West's or Andy Nelson's suggestions.
Expect your heart rate to increase when you see your first shot at a pot. Expect your hand to shake when you rake in your first pot. Ah, nirvana attained.
After the visit to the casino and some success, you are ready to get one or all of Sklansky et al's Book (buy it or them from this site; they are cheaper here). They are excellent. The Theory of Poker is the best on the market, I think, for content and clarity, but not the first book you should read. Notice that on the back covers, Sklansky seems to be punching himself in the face. I do not know why. The book is good. he should have no regrets.
Anyway, do exactly asI say and life will be good. Get yourself a good money manager and quit school and go play poker. BONUSES to expect: Wait till you see the dynamite babes that hang in the casino card rooms. WOW! That's a bonus. The pre-packaged, microwaved food is yummy and is delivered to by buxsom servers. A comp in itself.
At Deja.com's poker forum, Abdul Jalib gives one of the most interesting replies I've read in a while now, to someone named Acesfull who think's acting wacky is wise.
The name of the thread is "Deception in Hold'em", and it was about 5 or more pages back from the beginning page at the time I posted this message.
Don from Orange County,
Don,
I don't want to live in the 70's no more!!!
Paul
actually it ain't, but it sure is fun!
The points about home games as useless due to the use of wilds or other non-casino variations is well taken. It's dealer's choice, so I call hold-'em, but no one else does. Still, I am about as much of a beginner as it is possible to be. Much of the terminology thrown around this site is foreign to me. To be fair to myself, I have been counting cards at blackjack for a few months and feel I already know about all there is to learn unless I want to try a more complicated system. However, I have a feeling poker is FAR more complicated. It sounds like Sklansky's TOP is the way to go, though I hope it doesn't assume too much pre-knowledge from the reader. Anyway, thanks for your responses and the encouragement. By the way, does anyone know if the IL/IN gambling boat poker games are rip-offs? I had heard this, presumably because the house takes too high a percentage of each pot?
The games at the Hollywood (aurora) and Harras (Old Showboat) are good and the action is great mankng up for the rake.
Harras is spreading lower limit games and holding tournaments now but the others have no tournaments (yet) Hollywood has a great 5-10 game and spread 10-20 and 20-40+
I don't pay to much attention to the rakes as there is nothing one can do about it. There is no jackpot drop which is good.
I will certainly try my hand at those casinos as soon as I am ready. Unfortunately, I think playing poker with a bunch of presumably knowledgeable guys would be far more intimidating than testing my blackjack skills against a casino. Forgive my ignorance, but I assume the X-Y designation indicates the minimum and maximum bets? Are you allowed to wander in the poker rooms to just observe games? Seems like one could learn a lot about playing strategies that way...
Yes. The X-Y designation is min/max bets. For example, in a 5-10 game, pre-flop and flop betting and raising is $5. On the turn (4th card) and river (5th card) betting and raising is $10. These are called fixed limit games. Sometimes, though you'll see spread-limit games. Like 1-4, for example. This means you can bet any amount from $1-4 on any card. Understand?
You should feel absolutely comfortable walking around the cardroom, watching games, etc. I've done that many times - on nights when I had no intention of playing, or when I want to watch a higher limit game, and see if I can do a mental play-by-play of the hands.
Last year was the first time I ever played in a public setting. The worst thing in the world happened to me - I walked out a little bit ahead. I say that was bad because it gave me a false sense of security. The 2nd time I played, I made a few dollars as well. The 3rd time - I got slaughtered. That was when I "discovered" that people actually wrote books about this stuff, and there was far more to poker than I'd ever thought.
I am telling you this because it sounds as if you are in a similar place as I was. The minuatae will fall into place for you over time (i.e., game structures, etc.) so do not worry about that component. Study study study. Take what you learn to the room. Analyze your play when you are done & study some more. You are in a better place than I was 1 year ago, as you are reading this forum, etc.
I have had the opportunity to play quite a bit more recently, and I do have +EV now - at the low limits. If nothing else, I am participating in a hobby I enjoy very much, and making a couple of bucks at it too.
Enjoy yourself, and good luck.. Tim
Thanks for the info, it was quite understandable. There is a deeper concern here - from what I have heard of TOP, it probably won't delve into the basics too much. While I certainly want the details and TOP is at the top of my list, would a book like Malmuth's Fundamentals of Poker cover me here? I especially need to master the terminology. Maybe Steiner's book will handle all this and I need not worry.
TOP has a nice glossary that will help you with a lot of the terms. It also has a section that breaks down game poker variations and betting structures. I found it very helpful. If I had a question that wasn't addressed by DS, I was able to ask about it on this forum. I've asked questions ranging from "What's a kill pot" to "How many players comprise a full stud table." You will get helpful responses. Just don't expect a serious answer from Ray Zee.
" You will get helpful responses. Just don't expect a serious answer from Ray Zee."
I don't know if the last comment regarding Ray was tongue in cheek or not. But I have found Ray to be extremely helpful. Yes his responces almost always contain some degree of wit, and he has vocalized a few times how he will "boycott" individuals who continouesly and flagrantly post on the wrong forum.
But my rule of thumb is always read the Ray posts.
My comment was limited to Ray's response to some of my more remedial definitional questions. He had some fun with them. No offense intended. Ray has been very helpful to me on this forum, I just don't know if he can pass up the opportunity for a pun.
all i ever see are bears and wolves, how can you expect me to pass up a chance to be punny.
Zee,
Be careful sounds like your going to need more cave sessions to get through the isolation of the winter. Just remember I'm monitoring and you don't want me to have to call Dr. Stalagmite and his assistant Senor Stalactite. Take a dip in the calcium pools and you'll feel better.
Dr. Beaker
Can someone tell me how to figure the odds of hitting a flush with 2 suite hole cards in Hold Em? I'm getting some Poker books for Christmas, and was wondering what book would be best for helping with this kind of math.
Thanks
Holdem Odds by Mike Petriv
Holybull - I’ll give it a try.
You can see two cards in your hand, both of the same suit.
That leaves fifty unknown cards in the deck which include eleven cards of your flush suit and thirty nine cards of the other three suits.
Your question doesn’t ask about the odds on the flop, so we won’t consider them, but rather just answer your question.
There are five cards to be dealt to the common hand.
You will hit the flush if the five cards are all flush cards, if four of them are flush cards, or if three of them are flush cards. However, if four or five of the cards in the common hand are flush cards, it’s a matter of whoever has the highest card of the flush suit (not already in the common hand) in his/her individual hand.
First we need to consider the number of possible five card combinations of the fifty cards left in the pack. The calculation is as follows:
50*49*48*47*46/(1*2*3*4*5) = 2118760 possible five card combos.
For five cards in the common hand to be of the same suit as the two cards already in your hand, the calculation is as follows:
11*10*9*8*7/(1*2*3*4*5) = 462 combos having five of the flush suit cards.
For four cards in the common hand to be of the same suit as the two cards already in your hand, the calculation is as follows:
11*10*9*8*39/(1*2*3*4*1) = 12870 combos having four of the flush suit cards.
For three cards in the common hand to be of the same suit as the two cards already in your hand, the calculation is as follows:
11*10*9*39*38/(1*2*3*1*2) = 122265 combos having three of the flush suit cards.
Finally, to answer your question, the probability of the common hand enabling a flush in the suit in which you already have two cards is:
(122265 + 12870 + 462)/2118760 = 0.063998282
Inverting that number amounts to one chance in 15.6.
So there must be 14.6/15.6 ways not to get the flush and 1/15.6 ways to get the flush.
*Thus the odds are 14.6 to 1 against getting the flush.
If you wanted the odds of having three cards in the common hand the same suit as the two in your hand, use 122265/2118760 = 0.057705922.
Inverting that yields 17.3
*Perhaps you can see a short cut here. It’s 16.3 to 1 against having exactly three cards of your flush suit in the common hand.
Somewhere, as I recall, David Sklansky has written that having two suited cards increases your chances of having a winning hand by approximately three per cent. That’s an average value, depending on the particular cards you hold. Clearly you have a better chance of hitting a winning flush with AX in the suit than with 32 in the suit.
Lawrence Hill, in the November 12 edition of Card Player magazine shows a table where the winning percentage against random hands in a ten player game of AK (suited) is 3.5 per cent better than AK (non-suited). Also in the same table and also against random hands in a ten player game, KQ (suited) is 2.9 per cent better than KQ (non-suited). So you can see that the three per cent figure is just an approximate rule of thumb value.
Hope this helps. Maybe it will give you a rough idea of how to proceed in doing the math. There are other ways to do the math also. Finally, there are little gremlins at work in my computer (or perhaps in my brain) and I don’t guarantee the accuracy of any of my calculations. But I hope that other eyes will spot any errors I might have made, and other fingers will point them out to you.
Good luck.
PacPalBuzz
It's important to realize that the 3% figure only relates to winning the pot, not to the amount of money you can win, and thus only applies when there is no more betting after the first two cards, as is often the case in no-limit.
In limit play, suited connectors are significantly better than their non-suited counterparts and the gap in their value increases dramatically as you go down in rank. An AJs, for example, may allow you to stay with a draw and spike a winning ace on the river whereas you would have to fold AJo on the flop. As for Ax and Kx, there is simply no comparison.
Hi,
I am reading 21C HE. Can someone give a one sentence definition of:
1. Passive
2. Aggressive
Thanks
1. not bet or raise much.
2. bet and raise much.
and those aren't even sentences.
scott
Hi Scott,
Are these a b/4 the flop concepts or in the game in general.
Sorry if this should be on the HE forum
Sorry,
The definition is on p. 19, 2C HE
Thanks for the help
it belongs on this forum. these terms apply to all games. they are not limited to preflop. although, some players/games are passive preflop and aggressive postflop or vice versa. if preflop is implied by the context of the passage then it may just refer to preflop behavior in that instance.
scott
A couple of week ago I had a really bad session, and need advice about how to deal with it. 3-6 game, up 120 in the first hour, didn't leave, and 9 hours later was $300 in the hole.
I started to feel frustrated by a couple of big bad beats, in particular I was holding AK suited, the flop came QJT rainbow. My raises were met with reraises to the river, where I was beat by a flush held by a player who had AT, and was playing his low pair/gutshot straight, runner-runner flush. With this, he kept throwing money in the pot, and caught a good card at the end.
I know this is a common beat, but Geez, I seemed to be on the losing end of these hands all night after the first hour. Up until this night, I had 3 winning sessions in a row, and never lost more than $150 in one night, with alternating winning/losing sessions. I generally play tight-aggressive, I have read the books (HPFAP, Winning Low-Limit Hold em)and don't play to the river if I'm cleary beat, and don't play spec cards.
Is this type of beat common, or at least to be expected? How do you get over it when it happens? I didn't loose my rent money, but it still stings. And it has kept me from going back to the table, because I'm afraid I'm going to get hit hard again.
Comments from those who have been there are welcome.
The more you play poker, the more likely you are to experience losing sessions, losing weeks, losing months, and for some professionals, like former World Champion Tom McEvoy, losing years. I am a $15-$30 and $20-$40 player primarily. I had one week this year where I lost almost $5,000. I had a three month period where I lost $9,500. We are playing in a game where the standard deviation, the statistical measure of fluctuation or "luck", is incredibly large compared to the expectation over a short period of time. The best way to combat these feelings is to develop an understanding of this by reading Mason Malmuth's book "Gambling Theory and Other Topics". In this book he shows you how long you can run bad for a given size game and how to compute your own personal standard deviation. This is part of the challenge of being a successful poker player is acquiring the mental toughness (and bankroll) to withstand bad runs. The lack of bankroll and the inability of certain talented players to cope with bad luck are two factors in removing otherwise competent players from the tables.
Jim, I play the exact same limit as you and am in the middle of a losing streak. Thanks to your post, I no longer feel as bad as I did before I read it. My streak is nothing compared to yours. Good luck.
If you play poker and plan on playing for a long time then this is one day out of many days when you just had a bad day. Do you keep records of your play? If you do then put it in the book and move on. If the money is a BIG problem then set limits that you can live with or stop playing. It's one session try to view it in a larger context.
Best of it!!
MJ
It is not uncommon to be on the wrong end of a bad beat for an extended period of time. Sometimes I just out last the dry spell - I'd suggest a day off and back on the horse. For get the bad beats and move up to a bigger game where this happens a bit less.
Get used to it - it is the game we choose to play and bad beats are a part of it.
If you're not having fun playing poker, you don't ever have to go back. It might be different if you were a successful high-limit player who could make more money playing poker than at anything else, but if you are a low-limit player and find it too frustrating, quit playing. Large swings are part of the game. The uncertainty of where you're going to end up is part of the fun, for most players.
I hope Mr. Wong doesn't mind me passing on to you a paragraph of wisdom that helped me greatly through my blackjack days. It applies as well to poker and other forms of pos ev gambling.
If you want to win you must play when you have an edge. If you want to win big you have to bet big when you have an edge. If you are going to bet big you are going to lose big, regularly. If you can't afford to lose big, don't bet big. If you can't afford to lose, don't play.
Granted, $400 is a big swing in 3-6. But over 9 hours it is not unheard of and it will happen again. The key is to keep track of your winnings so you are confident that, in the long run, you are beating the game on an hourly basis. That way $400 losses won't send you cowering.
I murdered our local 3-6 game last year, but I did take 2 near $400 losses and a couple more $300 losses. In other words, don't let it get you down. Know that you have a +EV for every hour played. To realize on that profit you must endure periods of sustained loss. Wouldn't it be great if we could predict losses and skip out before they happen? It don't work that way.
However, if you feel hurt by a sustained losing streak you are almost surely not playing your best. Have the discipline to leave the moment you realize you are starting to play poorly.
Two things not pointed out above. First, long sessions wear anyone down. There's no way to be as fresh at 8 hours as you were at the 4-hour mark. During that time, minor mistakes add up more insidiously than the big beats.
Second, over 9 hours, a lot of money is raked off the table in low-limit games such as 3-6. At the end of your session, if you started with the same players, I'd venture to say that NONE of them were winners.
Play shorter sessions at higher limits, even if you invest the same amout of money. This will at least give you opportunities for a nice win instead of doing a grind job. Another bonus is that mistakes made at higher limits stick in your mind much more vividly.
Dealing with this type of session is part of the deal,as the Wisdom of Wong message mentions it applies to any form of pos.ev gambling.Do you have a bankroll?for 3-6 if your bankroll is 300 BB you have plenty left just have to manage it in context.Your session time to me suggests you were chasing or steaming if either happens leave the table.One of the worst traps is to start to fear losing,the result,less hrs played will hurt you in the long run.You should play if your focus and game are up to standards.
Thanks for all the great responses! They helped put things in perspective, and I now realize that swings will be part of the game. After reading the posts, I went back to the table. It was a wild 3-6 game, with people throwing money in the pot (and re-raising) holding junk cards. Knowing any bet I put out would probably be raised at least twice by the time it came around to me, I tightened up considerably. I came away up $50 in a couple of hours.
I was ready to get rid of the saddle this weekend. Spent the weekend in AC at the US Poker Championships and could not get on a table. Waited 2 hrs twice, but did get to watch some excellent NL Hold'em. Lots of weirdos, lots of 'em. Saw at least 2 super stars and even saw Lou Krieger (I think). Went to the Trop where I got on a 15-30 table and proceeded to drop (is my wife looking?...no) almost $800 in less than 1.5. Four bad beats against tourists. What a killer lesson for me. It happens. Lost with 2 boats on 5 cards-Kings over Queens vs A/6's (case ace on the river); T's/J to Q/4 (no queens showing). Rolled up A's unimproved to a river draw to a flush with 5 (yes 5) spades showing not in the winner's hand and Aces up to an all in trip Queens. My comments to the winnwer,"Nice draw. (aside to myself..hope you do it the next time)". Meanwhile I lick my wounds and prepare for next weekend.
IMHO, the key to sanity is understanding standard deviation.
Say your SD is 12 BB/hr. For a 9 hour session, your SD is approx 9^.5 * 12, or 36 BB. ($216). You will have a -$300 result or worse about 8.5% of the time, one in 12.
I once made a rule, when I first started keeping records, that I could throw as big a temper tantrum as I wanted whenever I had a 1 in 20 day (%5) or worse, and when it wasn't that bad I had to smile and suck it up. I relaxed, and now my temper tantrum criterea is a 1 in 20 week. Hopefully I'll get to a monthly line in the sand soon. :-)
I'm mostly kidding here, but knowledge of how bad is bad is a very good thing to have.
Zooey
This doesn't exactly fit as General Theory, but this is the best place to put this problem.
Last night, during my regular hold-em game, I experienced something that is really bothering me.
THE HAND: On the button with QJ, four people see the flop of K/Q/10. Checked to me, I bet. One caller. Turn is a 7. Checked to me, I bet. River is a 5. Checked to me I bet, and get called. The final board is K/Q/10/5/7.
My opponent turns his hand over first (J/5) and the dealer mis-states, "Jacks and 5's." I turn over my hand and the dealer reads it for Queens only and pushes the pot to the other player. Obviously, I had him beat and he was drawing to a tie.
When I turned my hand over I released the cards -- the dealer mucked them very fast, but not so fast that I could see his error. The player who received the pot said nothing. The 4 players next to me all said that the pot should have came my way. I protested.
The dealer -- who is actually the floor manager who was filling in -- didn't agree, but he did say that he would have the video reviewed. At that point I felt ok with that decision.
Unfortunately, the cardroom uses a looping tape and by the time I had cashed out(6 hours later)the segment had been taped over. Therefore, there was no resolution to the conflict.
A few lessons: Never let go of your cards. Protest immediately and don't let the game continue. This pot was not large, but the point is I have to beat other players and the rake -- when I have a winner I don't want to have to compete with dealer error also.
Any thoughts on how I should have handled this? I'm going back tonight (the game is really a great game), should I mention my displeasure to the floorman?
ABSOLUTELY NEVER PHYSICALLY RELEASE YOUR CARDS UNTIL THE POT HAS BEEN CORRECTLY PUSHED TO YOU!!!!!! Once I actually held up the game because the dealer was trying to muck my hand (after misreading it). "Sorry" I said but " I'm not releasing my cards till you push me the pot". The floor was called but sided with me saying he would rather players just hold on to their cards until disputes are resolved rather than trying to figure it out after the hands are mucked and the pot has been pushed. Give it up on "reviewing the tape", by then it is already FAR too late.
You can have my cards back once you push me the pot or I am satisfied that I am beat (ie I have actually seen the cards of the hand that beats me).
Dave in Cali
Hi,
I have been playing HE at the Orleans in LV. Two questions:
1. Is there any problem keeping a written record of play after the hand is over while still at the table?
2. When it is my turn to act, can I ask the dealer what is the amount of $ in the pot?
I'm not an expert on etquette, but here's my view:
1) write anything you want at the table
2) not dealers job to keep track of pot amounts for the players. Slows game down for players to ask. Keep track yourself like all good players.
I've seen a few players taking notes during major tourneys. The ones I've seen doing it haven't lasted long enough for their notes to be noteworthy. A cash game may be a different story. If you are going to do it, I recommend using a small notepad under the table as Holden did for his book (or maybe something like a pilot's kneeboard), or else use a mini-recorder away from the table as Tom Sims does for his reporting.
I'd guess that most players make mental notes and write down the significant aspects later -- if it's that important, you will remember it. Poker may be about strategy, but this isn't chess, and you're liable not only to look like an incompetent geek to the better players, but also drive off the less intellectually minded players. A lot of people admire Bill Gates' bankroll and technical savvy, but I doubt that many want to look and act like him.
I've rarely seen anyone ask the dealer for the amount in the pot except in pot-limit games. Most dealers routinely tell you how many players are in the pot and simple math will give you a quick total.
A lot of people admire Bill Gates' bankroll and technical savvy, but I doubt that many want to look and act like him.
I'd rather look and act like Bill Gates (whatever that perception seems to be) than look and act like most of the poker players that I see. Fat, lazy, loudmouth, knowitall, arrogant, snide, bad-dressin, walkman listenin, sunglass starin, Mr. T. starter set wearin, ain't got no life outside the poker game sittin, bunch of degenerates!
Bill Gates as an anti-role model? Hmmm. Never thought I'd hear that one.
I have serious problems with anyone who would put on a pedestal Bill Gates over a professional poker player. Now, I was the first to criticize the clothing, but I cannot abide by someone saying that Bill Gates is a more positive role model than a poker player.
Bill Gates is a degenerate on a much larger scale than any poker player. He is responsible for the manipulation and subsequent job destruction of multiple corporations. Furthermore, he dresses much worse then Mr. T, and doesn't own sunglasses (prefers Dilbert glasses)
Honestly, poker players are superior because they have no pretentions about their life. They know that there job is to grind away money from dumb people to smart in a structured environment. Bill Gates rejects the structure that has made the US rich, and forces smart people out with strongarm tactics. Then he spends millions on a public image that portrays him as the messiah of american technological progress. Apparently the money did not go to waste, he got jimbo here to believe him.
He is bombastic, arrogant, and a degenerate in ways that pro poker players are not. Someone mentioned he plays once in a while in Vancouver, and never tips anyone.
Know the players before you make a judgement.
alex
You do have a point. Maybe it is the perspective we view things. I don't play poker for a living but have been around long enough to appreciate the validity of your characterizations too. Poker players -- particularly in Vegas -- could dress and act better. On the other hand, in my business, I deal with the techies on both ends, business types as well as programmers. No one that I know that is "in the know" considers Gates and Microsoft as anything more than a necessary evil, and no one looks up to him with even the same reverence as did the folks of Chicago look up to Al Capone. Read the 205 page Findings of Fact from Judge Jackson and it's obvious why. The only thing I see to admire is the way he's gotten away with it as long as he has; ironically, Ted Kaczinski, Gate's alter ego, has admirers too.
I play at hte same place,most of the dlrs say the # of players after the 1st round,either do the math than or count as each player bets(#bets,not$in pot)most of those dlrs don't call out # after flop or turn so you'll have to count after.Read chapter of HDAP on loose games subject 'don't appear to be thinking,other players will take you more seriously and play better.When I started there I would obviously study many situations this behavior sticks out.Now I pretend to watch TV occassionally while watching table results are better.If you have unique situation and want to write down leave table/room and write it up.
Somewhere sometime back in AC, I won't say specifically who or where in this post....
I am in late position with 66. Counting the bets, I see there are 5 small bets in the pot when it gets to me, I call. 6 players take the flop.
Flop is 6 5 2 rainbow. SB bets, everyone calls, I raise, everyone calls.
Turn is a 9 bringing a two flush. SB bets out again and four people have called when it gets to me. I raise again.
Now here's the thing, I am in the ten seat. This particular dealer tends to ignore the players in the one and ten seats, plus tends to assume that no action means a check (often skips over people assuming they have checked).
In this instance, the dealer did not pay attention to the fact that my raise was CLEARLY in the pot and the action CLEARLY not completed. He prematurely burns and turns a five. Now of course, we all know the card is no good (since the action is not complete) and must be burned and reshuffled and a new card dealt after the action is complete. I know I am fixin to be screwed....
After the action is complete, with 3 out of 4 calling the raise, the "new" river card is dealt, which is a four. sb bets, call, call, I call knowing I am beat. The pot is huge. Unbelievably, three people have a three (sb has 33) and made their gutshot on the river due to the dealer's mistake. So I had three people calling a turn raise for a gutshot and the dealer's error took my rightful full boat and turned it into a made straight for 3 opponents and a three way split. This one pot could realistically take me 6-12 hours of play to make up.
I knew there was nothing I could do but I did complain in writing to the management about this dealer's lack of competence. (he stills works in AC by the way). This same dealer did the SAME THING to me again about two weeks later, but this time I would have won the pot either way. I STILL complained again but nothing was done (of course).
To me this type of thing is absolutely unacceptable. I know there is nothing I could do to get the pot back but any criticism / comments / suggestions are welcome.
(Any dealers who read this, please don't make this mistake. I know most dealers are competent, so don't let this type of thing happen at your table. To me this is the absolute worst mistake a dealer could ever make.)
Dave in Cali
I can appreciate how annoying this kind of mistake may seem but isn't it true that this error does not affect EV at all? I mean next time he could reverse the cards and you get the 5 on the second card.
The biggest problem I see with these dealer errors is that the live ones get totally pissed off about it, even any exposed cards, and they may leave as a result.
So, I agree the dealers need to avoid this mistake but for you, why don't you attempt to completely ignore this non-EV event.
D.
True the EV of my bets were not affected, but I realized at the time just How good a bet I was making, so it just kind of pissed me off for that reason alone. Also, the casino did lose one good customer for the rest of that night (namely me). Hopefully I wasn't the live one (I think not)! Good response.
Dave in Cali
I disagree strongly with that "EV" crap rationalization. Sure, the "next time" this dealer makes the same error, it may be in your favor---but who knows when "next time" will occur? Maybe he'll wise up and never make that error again. Or maybe he'll make that error in a high stakes game and someone will break his fingers for him and he'll never deal again. Or maybe when he makes the error again, it will be against you again. Where is it written that he can't cost you money four times in a row, before he makes you money?
If this dealer has done this more than once to you, he certainly has done it to others. I don't understand managements refusal to deal with this problem. I would not play while this person is in the box, and I would let him know why (politely).
Good Luck! Black Jack
math does not care if you believe in it. it is not about the 'next time'. if someone told you that there would be a mistake like this before you acted, that your full house cards would be shown to the table and then reshuffled, there would be no effect on your situation. mistakes of this kind do not directly affect your earn. they still should be avoided, though, as they slow the game down etc.
scott
Those of you who think that math is the major force in the outcome of poker hands are delusional. I do not deny that math plays a part, particularly in the "long run", but people skills (including having the dealer NOT be a factor in the games outcome) are also extremely important. "EV" is only valid if there are known variables, and known constants (k). Putting in a dealer who sometimes makes a mistake and sometimes doesn't introduces a factor that cannot be overcome with "math". Math is no more the sole answer to poker outcomes, than science is the sole answer to the human condition. Black Jack
"A dealer makes a mistake sometimes?"
the dealer dealt a random card, and then dealt another random card
in both cases he was equally likely to get the card he wanted. Math does not explain the human condition (very deep), but it does explain that drawing one random card out of a deck twice, it is equally likely to be a certain card. Math does explain that.
Other mistakes, like the dealer putting a spy telescope beneath your cards and announcing your hand, cannot be overcome with math. But the described one does not affect EV.
AlexB has it exactly right.
And it doesn't help if someone who should know better throws a big fit about it and screws up the atmosphere of the game for essentially no reason.
As I said before, the dealer problem is serious for the reason that many players will have this big reaction to it.
D.
If the exposed card gets shuffled back in with the rest of the pack, it is not neutral EV, because it gives extra information to other players. For example, if I have a gutshot and need that five, I now know that my chance of getting it has improved, because there is at least one five left in the pack.
This difference can be trivially small in holdem, but in Omaha it can be huge, because the stub that's left over after all the cards are out has only five to seven cards in it when the mistake is made. In the casinos here, they re-shuffle the exposed card with the other six. Well now, if that's my gutshot card, I just went from having an 11-1 shot to better than 6-1.
Such mistakes have induced calls or fold from me before.
I think the casino should re-shuffle the exposed card in with the muck in Omaha when this happens, but I don't think any place actually does that.
why are you less likely to gain information than your opp?
scott
Your opponent may not need information. He may have a made hand, or a hand that is an automatic call or fold regardless of which card is exposed. Or he may have already acted and not get a chance to use the information. For example, a common way this error plays out is for the dealer to expose a card before the last person to act has done so. Now he gets to see more cards than I did before he has to make his decision. That should always be -EV for me, if he knows what he's doing.
For me, these errors are almost always +EV, because I know how to make use of the extra information, and most of my opponents don't, or it hasn't even occurred to them to think about it. So these dealer errors are to my benefit. My point was that any time you are giving players information that others players can't use, it's not EV neutral.
you make a good point how it is not neutral for each situation (though in hold em in almost is). but in the long run these mistakes break both ways.
scott
Dave
This is one of the reasons I HATE about 15% of all dealers. They're lucky it ain't the old west, I'd a shot about 30 by now.
"What's that? Your sorry!" BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM
-Zack
I think everyone is missing the point here. These types or mistakes should NOT be made! They create TREMDNDOUS ill will.
Anyone that laughs off this type of error has never really played any serious poker. Dealers that are prone to making this kind of a mistake keep on making it, unless serious steps are taken to correct the problem.
I've never dealt except for one time in a private game while waiting for a seat. They were short on dealers so I agreed to fill in for a while. In a HUGE pot I brought the river card too soon and cost a friend of mine a lot of money. I was mortified and never dealt again, period. I shouldn't have been dealing in the first place. I was doing great until that happened. You could cut the tension with a knife!
I've seen dealers make this kind of mistake and just shrug. Wrong attitude. This is why we have "professional" dealers. This type of mistake should never happen. What if it were in a casino that had jackpots and that last card, that now has to come back, would have been a jackpot payoff card? Pretty hard to shrug off a $40,000 misdeal and just chalk it up to "neutral EV."
have you ever had a dealer mistake help you? if you haven't then you haven't played 'serious poker'. what if the second card gave everyone the jackpot? would you still be whining?
scott
scott,
I envy your high degree of common sense.
Sincerely, Martin D
of all the compliments in the world, who'd have thunk i'd get this one? maybe i should print out the post and carry it around with me for the next time i need to show someone i'm not crazy. i would say 'how can a crazy be admired for his common sense?' and then while they are looking at the paper i hand them i will have time to run away.
thank you, martin d.
scott
Why don't you pat yourself on the back some more and waste everybody's time that want's to read the REAL responses. Send your personal salutations through e-mail--that's what it's for.
Why are you such a jackass. If you don't like it, then don't read his messages. Or don't post. In any case, don't tell people to do other stuff then they are, when they aren't hurting anyone who isn't a freaking weirdo or moron.
Are you Saddam Hussein? You sure sound like him. "Shut up, bring me Kuwait", "Shut up, lets go bomb people", "Shut up, I'm a giant pansy with no sense of humor who rejects people for being people instead of poker discussing robots."
scott has gone out of his way to be friendly, humble (which he isn't normally), and serious in discussing in this forum. If you scare him out of here, you will be losing a lot. As to his being an idiot, I think there are few more intelligent people I have ever met.
So, Saddam. Why don't you quit playing poker, get off our american forum (make your own in Iraqtown or wherever you live), and play poker with your henchmen. Maybe you don't like losing, or people telling you no, but thats life. Also, you were damn funny in the South Park Movie.
alex
this whole thread is rather trivial. and what did you expect to be my response to martin's post? if you were looking for real insight, you should have known you could skip my post.
i note that you posted this during the simpsons. that is a much more serious problem than personal salutations. perhaps if you laughed more, you would not be so terrified of death approaching. i understand that time is valuable, but that is no reason to be ill humored.
scott
Ladies and gentleman, I'll be brief. The issue here is not wheteher we broke a few rules or took a few liberties with our female party guests. We did. But you can't hold a group of high school friends responsible for the behaviour of a few sick, perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole high school system. And if the whole high school system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you "Fed up with idiots wasting my time", isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you want to us, but we're are not going to sit here, and listen to you bad mouth the United States of America. Gentlemen! Forward!
Scott:
I admire your common sense approach to the subject, but jackpot or not, win or lose, I simply NEVER want this type of error to occur, EVER. This is one of the very few dealer mistakes that invariably gets someone VERY upset and will probably ruin a game if it happens. Every profession has some things that you must simply NEVER let happen. In the laboratory, you NEVER use ether around an open flame. Poker dealers should simply NEVER make a mistake that directly costs any player the pot, or his results may be equally explosive!
To all: good responses to what I knew would be a somewhat explosive topic.
Dave in Cali
i agree the mistake should be avoided, but it is not even close to the worst mistake a dealer can make. some accidental mistakes (misreading hands, mucking the winning cards, etc.) are actually minus ev. since good players have the winning hand more often than not, these mistakes are more likely to hurt him. these are worse mistakes than turning over a card. and, of course, intentional mistakes, like cheating, are far worse. sure, the misdealt card will get people mad and should be avoided. but it should not get you mad. because you, unlike your opp, understand that it is a neutral event.
scott
Post deleted at author's request
Logic is doubtless unshakable but it cannot withstand a man who wants to go on living.
i tried to work that into my post, but i couldn't. i should stop bothering to make actual points and just write cool quotes.
scott
Gary you wrote:
"I don't think Dave does understand that it's a neutral error. I think he really does think there is some card that you're "supposed to get" and if the dealer doesn't give you that specific card then something has happened that goes against nature itself and puts the universe at risk of some kind of special destruction. "
I DO understand that this is a neutral error, at least as far as the EV of my play is concerned. I know that the result of any given play is irrelevant. Only the EV of the play really matters in the long run. The insinuation that I somehow think that there is a card I am "supposed to get" is wrong.
In this case, on both occasions, I had ten outs to make a full or quads, they had four outs to make a straight, then I had the rest of the deck if we both missed. I'll take these odds any day on any flip of the cards. But if you flip over one of my boat cards and then say "just kidding", and then turn over a straight card instead, I'm STILL going to be pissed off!!!!! Win or lose, please just GET IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME.
The real point is that this type of error inevitably makes someone at the table (in this case me) SO angry that it hurts the game itself. Mad players make for bad games and lost revenue for the house and dealers. While I didn't have total cow and explode, I was pissed off enough to leave the game. I am only human so why would I play when I am obviously pissed off and probably tilting? Many other players (needless to say) would not have been nearly as polite about the incident as I was here. Often times this type of mistake will completely ruin a game and result in a huge arguement, sometimes breaking the game.
Dave in Cali
Post deleted at author's request
Gary - you were at the table? Were you the Magoo in seat 7?
Just kidding... I am happy that you understand that I do not have fallacious concepts about what card I am "supposed to get" making any difference in the EV of my play. After all, I have my Reputation (however small and self-proclaimed that may be!). The whole thing just kinda pissed me off, that's all!
As one poster did correctly state, there is a Very slight difference in the EV of everyone's play, because they now know that one particular card is still in the deck and their chance of getting it has slightly improved (albeit this is trivial in holdem).
One other thing, it's poker "Gods", plural! No, the Gods didn't like me (or you) that day, that is clear. Oops, there goes my "reputation" again....
Dave in Cali
ps. I am planning on writing for 2+2! I will write the main text, Vince will fill it up with colorful language and metaphors, then Mason will remove all the offending 5 letter words that Vince inserts into the text!
Is this a recent occurance? If not, why post this now? I can tell you how to solve the problem. It's easy. Just REFUSE to play with those dealers whom you consider incompetent. Why take a chance? Just take a break, chill out, grab a snack, etc, and tell the boss why you are doing it. Tip the competent dealers very well. The bad ones, don't tip at all. Just make sure that he is in fact, incompetent. There are MANY players who don't like certain dealers for God knows what reason. Maybe their hairstyle?
As a dealer, I can tell you that there is a flip side to this story. We are absolutely TIRED of players whining. Most of the players complaints have nothing to do about the dealer's skill. Players will complain and harrass the dealer about every little stupid thing imaginable. That's the reason most valid complaints don't get addressed. They get lost in the shuffle, so to speak.
Poker seems to bring out the worse in players. I try to be cordial and error free, but sometimes that is not enough. there are folks who really try to insult me for no reason at all. Yet, when one of their female friends are dealing they act like angles, even though she deals 23 hands an hour and makes tons of mistakes. There are MANY things that a player can do to make a dealer's life easier, and I'll address that later on.
And DAVE(California), be glad we don't act like this is the wild west. I'm a very big and strong former U.S. Army Paratrooper and former Nationally ranked marksman. Hehehe
The problem here is that when people are dealing with money they become very anal. It is just the nature of people. You can be cordial cause it ain't your money on the table. Thats part of the job, and its the reason you get tipped. In effect, that is the reason the job would be better performed by a robot, because animosity is inevitable. Don't feel bad that dealers get bad reps, that is just part of the career.
Good response.
FYI, I tip all the dealers, almost without regard to their skill level. I buy 50 cent peices, not for being stingy, but for tipping in 1-5 or 2-4 games when the pot is below 10$. Otherwise, they get a buck or more from me every time. I even tip the slowest, most pathetically incompetent dealers, as long as I think they are TRYING to do a good job. This particular dealer has consistently been inattentive, absent minded, and mistake ridden, not to mention slow. For the record, this particular dealer is the ONLY dealer I have EVER intentionally stiffed. I figure he gets one stiff for every dollar that was in that pot, then I will start tipping him again, provided he has improved his level of service. The management has been notified politely in writing twice now about this dealer.
BTW I used to work for tips, and I know poker dealers are just average people like me trying to make an honest living. By no means was my original post EVER designed to get people to stiff the dealers.
Dave in Cali
Dave, I can assure you that written complaints to either Kate Dumas at the Tropicana or Tom Gito at the Taj do get read and are considered seriously. They do not shrug off complaints. These are the people to whom you should address your complaints in writing. These errors can be serious problems and the management need to know.
As a player I'm easy on dealers and as a floorman I am very protective of them when they face abusive players (there is no question that if a survey of Hollywood Park dealers could be conducted fairly, I would be the floorman they would most want to have come to the tabel when faced with an abusive player).
I agree with the logic of scott and others indicating this mistake having no effect on EV. That being said, this mistake was worse in that David was the raiser in seat ten on each of the previous betting rounds. That one might even piss me off.
Regards,
Rick
Dave One simple solution- ANNOUNCE your raise in a clear voice! Granted, the dealer was an idiot for not paying attention enough to check what the raiser's action is going to be, subsequently....
But if you have a verbal confirmation, that others can verify, then you might have a better chance at getting some action taken.
Also, I'm assuming that you aren't really complaining about one hand or two, as they are meaningless as far as your win/loss situation...
The original thread is gone... this isn't worth saving.. thanks
Hey I tip the dealers because that is how they make their living. But it is really a scam by the casino owners who don't pay them sufficient wages.
On page 44 Mason shows a formula that allows you, by plugging in your hourly rate and Standard Deviation, to calculate within 3 S.D.s how many hours it will take to assure yourself of a win.
If your hourly rate is $40 and your S.D. is 200 then it will take 225 hours before you can be assured of a win.
I'm assuming that if your win rate is -$40 an hour then it will take 225 hours to be assured of a loss.
My question is what if you are a break even player and your win rate is $0. Since you can't divide by zero how do you work the formula?
It takes exactly 0 hours of playing to assure yourself to break even.
Or it takes an infinite amount of time to assure youself of a win (or loss). I'd say the formula works.
If you have no win rate, then there is no 'signal' behind the 'noise' of variance. Your results become a random walk.
Is he implying that you should have won 9000?
I've heard tell recently of a complaints about dealers. Well, as poker players, we complain to the management but nothing ever gets better. This has to change! As probably the most progressive poker reformist to date, I have reached the conclusion that the best option for the entire poker society is for there to be robot dealers.
Benefit #1: No more mistakes. Robots don't make mistakes.
Benefit #2: You don't have to tip robots. What are they going to do with your $5 dollar check. Eat it?
Benefit #3: Players can't get mad at robots no matter how idiotic they are. Anyone who says "That robot is cheating me" or "That robot is colluding" need only be told that robots have no need for money and they would promptly shut up.
Benefit #4: You could give Robot dealers funny names. I've had enough dealers named carl, earl, etc. to last me a lifetime. Time to move on to names such as gustavus, zarathustra, K., Meursault, Epson, Turnip, and Fakadeli Dixit (try pronouncing it, a friend assures me it is a genuine indian name, "x" is pronounced as "sh" in hindi, also the "a" is "aw")
Benefit #5: You could make the dealers wear costumes that would offend a normal person's dignity. For Christmas, they could all be santa. For Easter, all rabbits. Thanksgiving: turkeys and Presidents Day : George Washington and the boys.
The possibilities are limitless.
alex
Yes. But you won't have anyone to blame when you lose a nice pot due to your bad play.
John
"Your action sir. You have 15 seconds to comply".
I like it !
Andy.
Sure, the idea looks good on the surface, but you are disregarding Groening's Rule of Robots, namely, that they tend to go bad and kill people. The cleaning bill alone from two or three maimings would be so high that the casino might have to increase the rake. Unacceptable!
In the event that robot dealers become the standard, I propose replacing the "button" with a live hand grenade or some other form of heavy artillery. This would balance out the advantage of position with the responsibility of keeping the body count to a minimum.
In several 2+2 books I have come across the term weak tight. At one time it was a rage in AC and Foxwoods for people to say He's or she's weak tight? If you use the definition given by 2+2 it should really say "solid" not weak. Often people have said that I was weak tight. But that was a mistake. I'm a solid player who bluffs a little, has great discipline and is very aggressive when I hold a hand to my liking. How can that be weak? A weak player should be one who does not have discipline,is not aggressive,calls when it is 100% that his or her hand is beaten,never ever bluffs, plays way too many hands,never folds and any of dozens of other reasons.I have always hated the term weak tight because I believe that its a term that is not really correct given the definition of weak tight. I say now that we should classify poker players as either bad, good, great. But then I imagine some would say bad loose, good agressive and so on!
Joe,
Perhaps we should classify aggression players by some sort of testosterone count. Super maniacs get a 100 and calling station types like you describe at a 1.
That way we could call come on a loose 85 and so on.
There are two words in the term 'weak tight' (duh), both are important. Tight refers to decent starting hand requirements and some level of discipline. Weak refers to the player being passive, never bluffing and too easily pushed off a hand. Attributes such as lack of discipline, plays too many hands, never folds, and calls when clearly beaten can not be applied to a weak tight player. 'weak tight' is different than 'weak', 'loose' and 'calling station'.
didn't this come up ten seconds ago? or maybe a month. i am not really sure. the whole thing could have been my imagination. anyway, weak tight is tight and predictable.
scott
Weak / Tight
Weak = When to play Tight = how they play
When / How
MJ
Of course they would. Wouldn't you want to know how "good" or how "bad" a player is?
Weak tight seems to be a player who plays few hands not because they aren't worthy of playing, but because he/she is afraid. They seem to like high drawing hands and will call to the river, almost never bluff, and if they catch, they'll bet. With strong hands such as AA, KK, QQ, they rarely raise, probably since it is still only one pair. Actually maybe this is just weak?
Phil
I responded to a challenge by Larry Gable on my thoughts on Mike Caro last week. I recieved no comments in return. To ensure that it wasn't just buried I decided with some help to post it agai. Comments please?
"Or were you just pissed off when you made the claim"
I was certainly "pissed off". I will say that I am not a fan of Mike caro's. I think that anyone that recommends ridiculing other people for other than comedic purposes is not a nice person. I have long ago discarded any material that I had from this guy. But since you asked I will pick out a few wonderments from Poker's foremost authorities latest Card Player article. Shall we begin.
" Caro's Law of loose wiring"
"If choices are not clearly connected to thier benefits, people usually interact in ways that make outcomes unpredictable. If choices are clearly connected to thier benefits, people sometimes act in ways that make outcomes unpredictable."
This is a law! Caro's Law. He must be a lawyer. They don't worry about making sense out of things they say. They just say them. What in the hell does this LAW say. Oh, maybe you are going to interpret this for me. Old Vince is too stupid to grasp the significance of this LAW. Well you are right. I have no idea what the purpose of this Law is and frankly don't car(o). Although I can see the benefit of the law, not! Of cousre that could be because I didn't "clearly connect benefit to choice" as suggested by the law.
"The truth about poker player"
"2. Some hands that your opponents play at whim are the results of spontaneous decisions about whether to fold, call or raise."
Interpret please? Do you have any idea what in the Lady Gambler he is talking about here. Me neither.
"3. If you're an accomplished player who's profitting from the flow of the game, many of your play-or-don't -play decisions are made by whim at the last moment?"
Is he serious? Accomplished poker players base their decisions on a whim? I love this guy.
Now those of you that defend this guy please refer me to some strategies or tactics this guy has developed that make sense. Good Luck.
Vince.
BTW - Those of you that think this guy is a "Genius" as he claims please refer me to his "Genius" work in poker.
Vinny,
Mike Caro is in the business of selling books, tapes and some on line poker casino. He is a self promoter and has to be way out to be different.
I personally don't subscribe to much of what he has to say but I read it and watch it because the competition does and I like to know what they might be thinking.
ROFLMAO............
I am waiting for my lunch to be delivered, so I'll take a crack at the Caro thing. I am neither a suporter nor detractor of Caro, and he does strike me as a self promoter, but none-the-less, he has some interesting observations which he points out.
Ridiculing people in general in not a good practice, but there are exceptions, and it depends on how one does it.
Loose wiring.....??????? lost me here
Spontaneous plays. I have seen players win a previous hand with say, trip nines. Next hand or so later he/she gets a pair of nines and decides to bet all out or raise in spite of other's showing Aces/kings etc. They bet because they feel "the 9's were lucky for me last time" and this might be an omen".
Whim...In this case I think the word whim takes on a different meaning from what one conventionally means. In this case, it says to me that the game is uncoventional, and that over the course of the game you as the "superior" player have picked up something about the other player(s) which you can use to your advantage. Typically with Caro, it is probably a tell which you pick up at the last moment. This "last moment decision" (Caro might consider this a whim) makes you bet or fold. It is a "feeling" that you get and cannot explain except to describe it as when a lot of actions at the table come together, you have some specific recollection of similar events happening in the past, and you decide to act accordingly.
I watch his videos and they do make sense.
Just wanted to post that I think you're awesome. As regards to Mike Caro, well, he's just fancy talking. And poker is for regular talking, not for fancy talking.
alex
"Just wanted to post that I think you're awesome. "
AlexB,
Your'e making me blush. I know I should just humbly accept wonderful compliments like this and say thank you. Leave it at that and move on. But, really, you did forget to add Superstar to your discriptive. You know "Awesome Superstar". You see I need something to distinguish me from that geek JF and that junior frankenstein S something or other besides my gorgeous self. Gosh, I hope Lady Gambler is listening. Did you get that dear heart, Ms 36,24,34 (thought I'd forgotten huh. "Awesome" is the new superlative preciding my name.
Danke,
Vince.
Vince,
we could call you the "mad genius" of 2 + 2 postings.
rats
Oh Vince, dear Vince
"B-e-a-u-tiful Stra-a-anger" dah, dah, dada, dah!
Austin, I mean Vince.
I like Caro more than you do Vince. He has done a lot of serious thinking on poker, and has shared his thoughts with us. Even if I don't agree with someone, I am willing to listen (I even humor you at the table).
I think Caro has made some very good points concerning position, and some interesting and entertaining points on table image. His thinking is different than S&M.
His most useful work is his 12 day success programs for Holdem and Stud. And his work on tells is unique in poker literature.
But I don't consider anyone involved in poker to be a genius. Sklansky is as close as anyone, but I think there are many more people in the world who deserve the title first.
But Sklansky is the foremost poker author. His success in tournaments and live play is living proof. This is where I disagree with you, in that I know you prefer Malmuth. He just doesn't back up his theory and writing with practical application.
There comes a point where you must leave all writers behind and form your own strategy and style. Sure, you still utilize what you have read, but you use it in your own way. You can't learn to win just by reading.
Brett
Playing FW 1-5 7CS .50 ante. Clown in seat 1 has xx/Jx5x dealer turns over 7th card it's a 6h. Seat 2,4,5,6,8 is out. I (seat 3)have Ah6c/Adxxx/x. Seat 7 has xx/KdxKhx/x. Now seat 1 goes all in. Seat 6 and I call. Seat 1 clown has j's and 5's. I have A's and seat 7 has K's. The CLOWN WINS. So then he starts whining to me about how he lost a bet and the dealer should of made that mistake. I backed up the dealer saying that he's new and everyone makes mistakes. He then continued on this whining to me and I snapped. I said you got my 6 either one of us catches a card we snap your neck off and so on. Anyway he left the table shortly after that, but what do you do when someone keeps whining to you about a hand he was very fortunate to win?? Besides shoot him.
I HATE WHINERS!!!!!
Shooting him would be fine by my standards.
Offer him some cheez mit der "vhine".
vince.
my friends and i are going to a new casino in upstate ny in december. it allows 18 and we all want to play. i will likely play 10-20, but my friends want to play smaller. niels, the studious one, looked into it and saw that, for games below 10-20, they have a $3 button charge. at 30 hands per hour, that almost a bb per hour in 5-10. can this be beaten by a good player? john feeney told me you were the guy to ask. my friends are all decent, even maniac mark. niels is very solid. the others are alexb, djtj, and jamesh. if you can, guess at their skills by the posts of theirs that you've read. if you can't remember many of their posts, just guess how i'd do in the game. i believe you've read some of my posts. thanks.
and while i've got your attention, rick. (how do you like the new paragraph?) you posted to the 15 year old that the student is a dog until he gets a week of experience. my first week is coming up. am i a dog? why?
scott
Scotty is this the 1st casino venture for you young turks? Let us know how it workes out.
I went to San Diego and played in the Sycuan Casino for a weekend. Ended up 200 after playing three days in 2-4 holdem about 5-6 hours an evening.
Niels played in Arizona for a week over the summer, was short bankroll, and ended up almost to the felt before coming back and almost breaking even. He also tore up some tourneys
alex
Rounder, when you get a chance, could you please e-mail me. I have a buddy who is coming down to Phoenix for 4 months just after New Year's and he plays a lot at Casino Arizona. He's also a decent golfer (5 Hcp) and he'd like to hook up for golf games, poker, etc. I have searched recent posts and can't locate your e-mail address. Apologies for cluttering up the forum with tourist stuff, people.
Scott,
I'm guessing all of you will do pretty well if you just play your "A" game and don't get caught up in trying to impress the table with your precociousness. I would love to be sitting in the game watching the reactions to your play.
Since it is a new poker room in the area, there will be many really bad players in the LL games. With a $3.00 dead button drop, you need to play more aggressive in pots you are in so that the average pot size is big enough to overcome the rake. This is the main reason So. California LL games are so wild. The maniacs and the solid players are working together to increase the average pot size enough to overcome the rake rape.
I'll be looking for a fascinating report from all the young turks after your Christmas "break". I think that the group of you should have a side bet on which of you will win the greatest number of BB's over the total period of play. You should give the others a handicap, of course. Good luck and have fun!
Big John -- I'm not clear on the button charge thing. I think there are both live and dead button drops, depending on the cardroom. Could you clarify how these work? Is a live button drop just like having another blind on the button which is dropped if there's a flop? Not sure if these guys have found out if theirs will be live or dead.
Dead button drop at the Commerce, Bike, Crystal Park, Hollywood Park and Hawaiian Gardens. This money doesn't play, and it gets dropped whether there is a flop or not. Unlike Rick, I don't work for any cardroom, so I can refer to this sinister practice as rape and murder. It constitutes both, since it is screwing the players against their collective will, and, it kills the successful development of mid limit players from the low limit training grounds. Many intelligent players come in, do the per table hourly drop math, then exit, never to return. There is an overt conspiracy to limit the number of cardrooms and keep the rakes higher than would be customary were there open competition. These co-conspiritors have collectively contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to city, county and state politicians to keep the competition out. They have association meetings under one umbrella or another where price competition is covertly discouraged. These allegations have been given to various government agencies but, to date, no concrete action has been taken. It is my strong belief that, sooner or later, a price war on rakes will occur. Unfortunately, it is also my strong belief that most players will not support the club with the lowest rakes. This will give the owners a good laugh, and reinforce their already strongly held belief that poker players are, as a group, incapable of uniting for their own common good.
Big John,
You wrote: "Unlike Rick, I don't work for any cardroom, so I can refer to this sinister practice as rape and murder."
I despise our way of taking the rake and believe it is bad for business. However, it is the law as interpreted by the local sheriff since 1989. But laws can be changed if there is a will to do so.
I have written many posts on RGP regarding rake and a few buried in the archives of 2+2. I have and will continue to speak up on this issue in a constructive manner. I do believe it is bad for business and for the players.
"...it kills the successful development of mid limit players from the low limit training grounds. Many intelligent players come in, do the per table hourly drop math, then exit, never to return.
I am in complete agreement. Management rarely considers what I like to call "the customers not present". The rake and the way it is taken is one of many things that limit the customer base to a microscopic percentage of the population base.
"There is an overt conspiracy to limit the number of cardrooms and keep the rakes higher than would be customary were there open competition."
There is no question that existing cardrooms such as the Bike and Commerce have fought hard to defeat ballot initiatives to open new ones in other cities such as Cypress. One point they covertly make is that not all rooms do good business. You and I know that part of the reason is terrible location (e.g., the Bell/Regency) or horrible management (the El Dorado). I'm not big on conspiracies (you aren't the type to listen to Art Bell by any chance); however, I think some of these initiatives would have passed if the clubs were even more jammed and the excess capacity spilled over to these poorly located or managed rooms. And I do think reasonable and fairly collected rakes would have made the demand for more clubs obvious By fairly collected I mean in low limit drop from the winner of the pot after a threshold is reached as it was done prior to 1989.
"Unfortunately, it is also my strong belief that most players will not support the club with the lowest rakes."
I'm starting to think you are a genius. Within the city, the clubs that have lowered rakes are usually ones that are not doing well (e.g. the Bike in recent years and Crystal Park). I am speaking mostly of top section. The low time charge attracts the collection conscious, which tightens up the games, which makes them tougher. So the Commerce hardly loses any business despite having the highest collection (although that is changing lately as the Bike improves).
I promised scott earlier today I would answer his question in the lead post of this thread. (scott - my brief answers to your questions may have to wait until tomorrow morning) Anyway, scott did inspire me. A couple of hours ago I started an essay using MS Word on rake that grew to four pages as I was in a grove lubricated by four beers and anger from dealing with my wife's medical insurance company most of the day. I decided to put it on the shelf for a little while and fine tune it a bit (and review it sober). However, I soon intend to post it on 2+2 and hopefully get your and others input.
BTW, now I'm disappointed you didn't stop by for a drink with us at Crystal Park. If Rounder sticks around, maybe we can get together. I'll try to talk my student into coming if that is OK with you guys, but she is a little shy as you may have noticed :-).
Regards,
Rick
Oh yeah Rick, by all means bring her, ooooooyeah baby ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooyeah oh oh oh yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmyummm oo oo oo ooyooyooyooy lalalaaaaaaaa etc.........
Rick,
I didn't mean to imply that you have said nothing about the dead button drops. What I tried to say was that you were in a position where you had to be mindful of who your employers are and what their interests are. I am not in your position, and can therefore speak more freely.
I don't watch or listen to Art Bell. In regards to having a conspiracy theory, I have been present at two golf tournaments where executives of many of the various cardrooms were talking a little shop. I have also seen many meetings held at various cardrooms where these same executives get together to discuss their common interests. It is obviously in their best interests to try to limit competition, but I'm not convinced that they maximize their long term profits by overcollecting on the low limit tables. I believe, as you do, that there are many poker players who don't frequent public cardrooms because of the exhorbitant collection fees. I believe cardroom management is mistaken if they believe they can continue their practices indefinately.
When you stifle competition, thereby limiting supply, if demand remains steady, or increases, you can charge higher prices for your product. A conspiracy exists when several members of a group tacitly manipulate prices in ways that discourage price competition. This is called "price fixing", and it exists today in the Los Angeles cardrooms. The practice is illegal, but it can be very difficult to prove.
On those very few occasions where a cardroom did lower their fees to attract business, it was always their time collections for the yellow chip and higher games, which affected less than 1/3 of their poker tables. The low limit games continue to generate unfairly high revenues. The Bike did rollback some, or all, of their low limit collections, but this was more a response to their ill-conceived earlier increase in conjunction with a jackpot type promotion.
I have, over a long period of time, systematically stripped myself of any loyalty to any cardroom. I used to average between 1000 and 1500 hours annually in the Commerce Club. Now, I spend no more than 100 hours there. I used to back between 8 and 12 players in ring games six day per week. I don't do it anymore, mostly because I wasn't able to make a profit doing so. I negotiated with a couple cardrooms willing to discuss paying me to have my players play in their rooms.
I now go out and look for the most favorable situation for me, determined to pursue my own selfish interests exclusively. Where I once used to stay longer at a table to keep the game from breaking, I now get up and leave when it isn't very good and there are one or two players missing. It had become common practice at the Commerce for some floormen to "lock" up an empty seat for 10 or 15 minutes for a "phantom" player. This allows them to continue charging the maximum drop while playing 8 or 7 handed, thus getting out more hands and increasing the hourly table drop average. I complained about this practice several times to no avail. I then began to sit out hands which meant that, playing 6 handed, they could only drop $2.00 per hand. Each time, as soon as the floorman saw what I was doing, we got fresh players. I don't like having to battle these extraneous things when I'm trying to enjoy myself playing poker. I have voted against this type of crap by taking my business elsewhere.
I can see a time coming when the problems associated with fighting the costs of playing will be more than I'm willing to endure. When that time comes, I'm going to be starting my own very "juicy" home game with $3.00 per half hour collections. I'll save you a seat Rick.
AFAIK, all button drops in upstate NY (Turning Stone and Akwekasne (or however you spell it)) are dead.
John,
Ocean's 11 has one of the better drop systems in California outside of the Indian reservations (I'm thinking 9/18 and below). The threshold for collection should be higher, but at least the drop is taken from the pot and if there is no flop there is no drop.
If you want to see something really amazing, check out a 3/6 stud game at Hollywood Park (BTW, I believe the collection for this game is worse at the Commerce but I am not as intimately familiar with what they do at low limit). Anyway, each player "antes" up 50 cents. The drop is $3 and the game is usually seven handed since someone is usually smoking. So one lonely 50 cent chip sits in the middle in addition to the $1 bring in. Per the Theory of Poker, this should dictate tight play since what is left in the middle is so small. But few tight players would stand for this large up front rake. So we have a customer base of mostly loose collection oblivious players along with some fair players who play the game in such a way that the real ante is put in on 4th street.
I try to imagine our structure and collection method being imposed on the small daytime games in Las Vegas that are usually populated by tight but unimaginative retirees hoping a few tourists will drop in. I think the players would get up so fast from that game that they would leave contrails.
Imagine a fantasy state where Las Vegas gambling wasn't allowed but you could open a card club as easily as you could open a hardware store. Assume there was price competition and reasonable regulation (e.g., rules helping to prevent cheating, mandating more space between tables for fire safety and so on). I think an area the size of greater Los Angeles could support a dozen well located clubs as big as the Commerce and a bunch of smaller ones. And most would make money but they would have to be managed well to do so. The demographics favoring and fundamental appeal of well done poker is that good IMHO.
Regards,
Rick
Very good points, Rick. I agree with you and Big John about all of this. That dead button drop is outrageous and does have to kill the development of players who would otherwise move up the limits gradually.
btw, one of the the best collection deals for the player that I know of is right here in San Diego at the Lucky Lady, a former lowball-only club which just got hold'em in the last year. By law, they charge $3 per half hour (time charge) for all limits. They generally have up to 15-30 and sometimes 20-40. They may soon start a weekly 30-60 game too -- still $3 per half hour.
John,
Although the Ocean's 11 drop in the 9/18 Kill holdem is high, at least it is taken from the winner of the pot and you need to flop. Based on the two or three times I have played it a while back, the game is not so wild and I would guess that one could develop some of the skills that would transfer to the 20/40 game.
Contrast this with the Commerce 9/18 holdem. There are several games going but you must play in the loosest games since the drop is always taken and the solid player pays just as much as the loose ones (who I doubt care much about the drop anyway).
The bad thing is that the skills you develop in the loose games just don't help you to graduate to the bigger limits. Maybe this is what the clubs want All I can say is that there is an ocean between 9/18 and 15/30 and it should be just a river.
Regards,
Rick.
TAYAL,
I expect an essay by XMAS. You guys have the power. USE IT.
Dr. Beaker Here
I should note that I lack Scott's self-confidence. (Actually, I think everyone I've ever met lacks Scott's self-confidence.) Are you guys saying that you could pay $9/hour at a 3/6 or 5/10 table and still pull down a decent profit?
My biggest concern is playing with a severely short bankroll. When I was in Arizona, having my AA's beaten in 6/12 killpots pretty much bankrupted me and I'd have to grind it back at the 1-3 stud table. Any advice for my winter break? I can't even fall back on playing super-tight because of the button charge instead of a rake.
scott,
I didn't see your message until a few minutes ago. I've been having too much fun reading Big John and Rounder's tournament posts lately (in addition to speculating at your sex life and/or lack thereof on the holdem forum). I'll be back online this evening but I have a few questions.
Is the button drop dead or does it count towards your bet?
Do they drop it even if there is no flop?
How much is the drop at the limits you are thinking of playing?
How many play at a table and do they have smoking? (The no smoking law in California means more walking.)
A while back I had been writing bits and pieces about this mostly on RGP. You may be able to find them if you use a deja.com power search. Keep in mind I work for a casino and have to keep a low profile. To search I would use my email as an entry and set to rec.gambling.poker and maybe use the keyword "rake" or "collection" in your search. A smart guy like you should have no problem.
When I said student, I meant someone who hasn't played before. You sound like your have been swimming with a group of hungry sharks and the last bit of whale carcass has already been eaten.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I'm still working on getting through that Beck album. I'll ask my musician brother if he has any primus tapes. BTW, is Shawn Colvin and David Mathews considered cool by you young whipersnappers or is this another sign I am pushing middle age?
to be honest, i don't know the answer to any of your questions. hopefully, niels will post an answer. i am lazy and trust my friends to check these kind of things.
i'll check rgp.
on us being sharks. i'll let you know, once we've swam around outside our aquariam.
i asked around and noone knew who this shawn person is. so he is either too cool for me, or i'm too cool for him. as for dave matthews, a lot of pansy young people like him. let's just say he does not draw the metallica fans.
scott
Hey, hey, hey!!!!
Don't be dissin' Dave Matthews. That's one deadly band he's got going on... sure, it ain't power chords at 130db. But, that don't mean he sucks.
btw, I'm a big fan of both Dave Matthews & Metallica.
he's ok, his band is even good. but the songs are very similar. he's one for two live. metallica is 2 for 2. the red hot chili peppers, the best live band around, is 5 for 2. they were that good.
scott
Not exactly sure how that 1 for 2, 5 for 2 thing works, but no matter. Haven't had the opportunity to see the chili peppers live yet; they are at the top of my list of bands to see live. Metallica is great live and would definitely put them ahead of Dave Matthews. I enjoyed the Dave Matthews concert, but got annoyed at the 2 minutes between each song, rather unnecessary and killed any momentum. For live shows it's hard to beat Radiohead. I've seen them twice, both were astounding shows.
rjk,
You wrote: I enjoyed the Dave Matthews concert, but got annoyed at the 2 minutes between each song, rather unnecessary and killed any momentum..
That would annoy me also. I like groups that avoid all BS between songs. The reality it that most musicians have a pinhead IQ (sorry brother Steve) and little to say so just play and shut the f__k up.
Most of the live shows I've seen were in small "stand up and watch the band" type places back East in Providence and Boston. It wasn't quite mosh pit but the band always seems to play with more energy facing a standing crowd. The best small show I've seen was ex New York Dolls singer David Johanson who later did a gig as Buster Poindexter. Maria Mckee of Lone Justice also blew me away about twelve years ago. During a down period I got to see Greg Allman in a crowd of about fifty (it was snowing).
My friend John Cole who started posting on the Exhange said he once saw the Ramones and they never said a word between songs except "1- 2- 3...". I like that.
Out here I catch an occasional show at the House of Blues. It is a great venue with good music most of the time. The Bodeans put on a good show a while back. Other then that it is cover bands at the Commerce. UGH!
Regards,
Rick
P.S. BTW, I would like to execute Barbara Streisand for pretentiousness for putting acceptance speaches for various awards on albums.
"That would annoy me also. I like groups that avoid all BS between songs. The reality it that most musicians have a pinhead IQ (sorry brother Steve) and little to say so just play and shut the f__k up."
I couldn't agree with you more. But, what was interesting (and most annoying) about this show was that he wasn't talking. They were doing things like tuning and/or changing instruments. They were just sort walking around not doing much of anything waiting for everyone to be ready. I saw some of the most unprofessional things in my life. A couple times the guitar tech tuned a guitar using a tuner onstage while the band waited for him to finish, I have no idea why he didn't have a tuner offstage - this is basic guitar tech equipment.
"My friend John Cole who started posting on the Exhange said he once saw the Ramones and they never said a word between songs except "1- 2- 3...". I like that."
yepp. This is particularily important for a unknown or little known band. I saw the Fastbacks open for Pearl Jam a couple years ago. I had no idea who they were but they came out a banged out 5-6 songs in a row. It really grabs your attention.
U2 is particularly brilliant with transitions from one song to the next. Several times during a show they will slide form one song to the next without stopping. It's quite effective.
I can't figure out how to work this RGP thing. Scott, when you get the info, email me. As for your questions, Rick:
3/6 and 5/10 have a $3 button drop. The drop is dead, but if the hand is heads up, the drop goes into the pot instead of to the casino. (I doubt this will apply much at these limits.)
10/20 has a $5/30min seat charge.
All tables have 9 players, and there is smoking.
I'd like to hear opinions on this. It seems to me that if I was 21, there'd be a myriad of better places for me to play.
Sounds like the Stone.
It's pretty much a toss-up. I play both the $5-10 and the $10-20 (And $15-30). The $5-10 game is usually fairly weak, and loose passive. The big games have gotten steadily tougher as the local loudmouths have busted out, to the point where I think my earn is the same at either game. If BR is a consideration, play the $5-10. There are also usually 3 or 4 1-5 stud games going (yes, with a horrendous $3 button) in which every player is playing every hand, with maybe a raise every 4 hands. I usually play there while waiting for a HE seat. Its the only game in my life I've never lost at. So if you get stuck, its a good place to build a stake.
Good Luck, and have fun!
Oh, and standard lowlimit advice holds: forget the semibluff, and simply accept you're always going to have to show best hand, which is often second pair. Raises are not noticed, you need to check raise for attention. Nobody is usually paying attention to anything other than their own hand, anyway. If you do give the higher limits a try, just a touch of tricky goes a long way.
"another sign I am pushing middle age? "
Rick,
That thing around your waist that you are pushing is not middle age. We sometimes (politely) call it mid drift.
Vince.
scott,
Two things:
First, yes the drop is beatable, but your friends will probably find 3/6 very frustrating. Beating 3/6 with a $3 button drop is difficult, and requires a little bit of daring and a lot of patience. I would really recommend playing at 5/10 or 6/12 if they want to have a less stressful game. In a 3/6 game you have to extract 2 1/2 small bets per round to keep from drowning.
Second, in general most players look at young players as bad. Because of this they will call most of your bets, and will make frequent plays for the pot. This means that the value of semi-bluffs goes way down, and the value of calling with marginal hands goes up. Avoid semi-bluffs unless you are heads up, and if you think someone is trying to bully you out of a pot call with marginal hands like middle pair middle kicker, or better yet, RAISE!
- Andrew
As a young player myself, I agree that you will get called more but I don't usually find that people make too many plays at me. Think of it this way - they see you as a (generic) bad player. As we know, it is often easier to bluff a good player than a bad. So I think people are less likely to bluff at you, and my experience bears that out. However, YMMV as they say...
I have played at Turning Stone Casino quite a bit, is that where you guys are headed? My friends think the 3/6 is beatable and easy, but I can't stand playing there, and personally have had trouble beating the rake. The 5/10 is definitely beatable IMHO.
If you _are_ going to TS, drop me a line at the e-mail above (not the yahoo address I usually post under) and let me know when. I'll probably be there this weekend some and during the week next week, once my final schedule gets easier.
DeadBart
small caps scott,
Somehow your question inspired a few rants (speaking of rants, I love Dennis Miller - is he considered cool by you college types?). In addition, my four page tome still sits on my hard disk ready to be unleashed at a later date.
Expect the action in a new casino to be good (I assume poker will be new to the area - not true if it isn't). The $5 per half hour time charge on 10/20 is competitive with Los Angeles. Top players make about $20 to $30 an hour at this limit (although this game has tightened up the last few years in Los Angeles compared to the 15/30).
At the 3/6 and 5/10 level, dead button drops always work against the solid players. I would tell your buddies to stay away from 3/6 unless they are just trying to get a feel for things You would average more money working at Burger King. The 5/10 is probably beatable for up to $15 per hour. As mentioned in my posts to Big John and John Feeney, the dead drop is so hated by solid players that you won't find too many at your table. Expect to be one of the better players from day one as long as you don't tilt or listen to Rounder as his advice sucks for these games (unless you really want to lower your swings at some expense to your expectation :-) ).
Note that the dead drop means you can loosen up a bit since the pot will not be raked. Play as if they are charging time except you can skip a round once in a while without paying (don't do this too much as it is impolite).
If you have any questions try to post them early. I work tomorrow, am busy tomorrow night, but may be able to post more on Thursday.
Regards,
Rick
Hello everyone.
Im one of those young begginers just starting off and seeking the advice of the pros (and no, my interest did not suddenly appear after having watched Rounders :)). My question is a classic: how should i start off? The first books i bought (in a regular book store) were written by Cardoza and Andy Nelson. After that i read Tournement Poker by Mcevoy and i just ordered Theory of Poker, Sklansky on Poker and Hold'em for advanced players. I also watched Caro's videos on tells . At christmas time im going to play for the first time in a card room. The only games i have played in before were home games that are very loose and wild (but i always do well). I was wondering what kind of tables I should play in and what should i expect? Also, are there any books that are highly recommended for a player like me?
I look forward to your advice. ps: as you have probably guessed im french (hope my english is correct). Therefore ill be playing in Paris. If by any chance somebody has played there, is there a significant difference in skill compared to the US?
just keep reading till you can tell the books that have things in them that are wrong. then you can feel you are understanding the game.
you will i guess be playing at the aviation club in paris. all the games are pot limit or no limit. the smaller games 500ff(100$) buyin will be dealers choice variants of holdem or omaha. see Bruno who runs the games for advise before you play. the players will bet with more recklessness in paris than for the same sized game in the u.s. its been a while since i played there but i imagine my perception is still close. good luck and please post how you are doing on the exchange forum(other topics)as we are on the edge of our chairs.
I've played at the ACF but only in several tournaments, not cash games. I found the Sunday 8 P.M. Fr 1000 no-limit hold'em tournament to be pretty good. There are rebuys during the first hour, but of course you don't have to rebuy. (If you are a good enough player it pays to rebuy). There were some pretty wild players at my table last year. They played too many hands and made rebuy after rebuy in an attempt to build a big stack. There are several tips I can give you just off the top of my head: -respect early position raises. Throw your hand away when in doubt (except maybe when you're in the blinds and almost out of chips). -watch how the other players play: are they loose/tight, passive or aggressive? You will have to reraise a loose and aggressive player sometimes when you're in the blinds to prevent him from stealing too much. -As a beginner you will have to play tighter than in limit hold'em because it will be more expensive to continue with drawing hands. Some books I found worthwhile: "Poker tournament strategies" by Suzuki and "Pot limit and no-limit hold'em" by Mc Evoy and T.J.Cloutier (This book has some good examples but the rest of the book is just fill-up material: stories about their adventures etc.).
De bonne chance!
Thanks a lot for your help Richie. I hope you dont mind me asking a few more quetions:
For the 1000f hold'em tournement, is it reasonable to expect a profit without rebuying? (this probably sounds pretentious for should i even expect a profit? :-)). If i rebuy, how should i deal with players who just keep on rebuying and play wildly? I have no idea how to play with these "extermniators". I suppose i should just play premium hands and try to steal a few pots from time to time...Also, approximatly how many players participate in these weekly events?
thanks again.
Event A occurs 99% of the time.
So the Odds of event A are 99 to 1.
An Independent Event B occurs 96% of the time.
So the Odds of event B are ( 96/4 ) 24 to 1.
What stops you from saying event A is 4.125 times more likely than event B.
( 99/24 ) = 4.125
Or, should you be stopped?
There are alot of misconceptions about odds and it leads to a lot of bad plays on the felt - then justified by the odds the THOUGHT they were getting.
I think you have got your odds going backwards.
A 99% chance of Event A occurring does not equate to 99:1 odds.
99:1 odds refers to the probability of Event A *NOT* occurring.
No, I didn't get the odds backwards.
I meant event A will happen 99 times out of 100.
I meant event B will happen 96 times out of 100.
Ya, and what I am saying is that if Event A will happen 99 out of 100 times, the odds of it happening is not 99 to 1. The odds of it *NOT* happening are 99:1. That's what I meant by saying you have got your odds backwards.
By the same token, the odds of Event B *NOT* happening are 24:1.
Thus, the the probability of Event B not happening is 4 times greater than the probability of event A not happening (as it should be) based on your 99/24 calculation.
But this doesn't mean that the inverse will be true. i.e. it doesn't mean that the probability of Event A happening will be 4 times greater than the probability of Event B happening.
First of all you compare percenages rather than odds. Thus a 99% shot is simply slightly more likely than a 96% shot. Secondly you got things twisted in your example. Perhaps you were trying to compare a 99-1 DOG with a 24-1 dog. In that case the 24-1 dog is exactly four times as likely.
As to Rounder's comments, have you ever thought about the fact that people who do not know how to do probability problems are more likely to deprecate their importance. Sort of like the fact that people who do not understand how DNA works are more likely to believe in creationism. This is not ironclad proof of anything but commonsense would tell you that we may be dealing with people who are espousing positions because that to believe otherwise would require an intellectual effort that they do not want to undertake or is actually beyond them. (MIke Caro's recent stance that most poker situations do not have a typically right or wrong play associated with them is yet another example of this syndrome.)
A good example of this is the 'suited cards' thread on the Holdem board.
I don't think you understood the comment - but since your the genious around here who am I to say.
What does it matter if we’re talking odds or percentages?
What does it matter if we’re talking about favorites or dogs?
Is a 99% Fav favored to win more than four times as often as a 96% Fav?
From what I've read here and in your books most poker situations do indeed NOT have an absolute right or wrong answer. Implied odds calculations require you to surmise what your opps will do if you catch your hand, so it depends on what you think they might do. Raising, calling and folding with a particular hand in a particular position can rarely be categorized as right or wrong. You must consider the opposition and whether they are loose or tight , aggressive or passive, weak or tight, on tilt, expert, tourist, or just varying their play for deception. So again it depends. Just take the thread of raising preflop utg with AQ. Is it right or wrong? Many think it's right, many think it's wrong, all think it depends. I think there is no right or wrong, just correct or incorrect which has the connotation of adhering to a plan or not.
"Sort of like the fact that people who do not understand how DNA works are more likely to believe in creationism. "
Are you serious David? Since when are you an authority on the relationship between peolpe that do not understand how DNA works and thier belief in how things got started. I take it that you do understand how "DNA works". Please enlighten us less knowledgeable and while you are at it please expalin the relationship of DNA to how things in this universe got started. I for one am all ears. BTW - As I understand it, the way that DNA works requires more than commonsense to understand. Is that true? Does that make (common)sense? Maybe Paul Feeney can help. He's a chemical whiz.
Vince
Post deleted at author's request
So since I don't fully agree with every word you say I must be some kind of f---ing idiot who just ignores your words of wisdom & infalable strategy because I am to stupid to understand - OH HIGH ONE!
You SIR are making brain surgery out of setting a broken arm.
I had a good laugh when you compared building a bridge to developing poker strategy.
Have a nice Cheistmas -
Rounder wisdomises:
>You SIR are making brain surgery out of setting a broken arm.
And you, sir, are making broken arm setting out of brain surgery.
The game of poker is an extremely complicated endeavor. You are trivializing it way too often.
I enjoy making fun out of the authorities probably as much as you do. However, when taking on the likes of Sklansky, I prefer to have some solid arguments on hand. I'd advise you to do the same. Sarcasm only will not do.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
"Event A occurs 99% of the time.
So the Odds of event A are 99 to 1. "
Event A occurs 99 out of 100 times.
The odds of event A occurring are 99 to 1.
The odds against event A occurring are ~100 to 1.
If as Sklansky states you have your odds twisted then you are correct Event A is 4.125 times more likely to occur than event B.
Did that answer your question?
Vince.
If A and B are two possible outcomes of the same event then they cannot have the percentages you speak of. If A occurs 99% of the time then all of the other possibilities must be some fraction of one percent, including B. The same reasoning applies to B.
If A occurs 99% of the times, then it might be reasonable to ask how many times will AB occur, which is .99*.96*100 = 95%. I think this applies to cards.
If, however, as you asked, these are two separate events, and you run one hundred trials of both, then in event 1, A will occur 99 times, and in event 2, B occurs 96 times then it seems obvious that B is not four times as likely to occur as A. What is exactly four times as likely A not happening, as David stated, is B not happening.
As to David's comment about DNA, knowledge of it and its function in living organisms in no way excludes creationism as part of ones belief system. Unless, of course, you are speaking of strictly biblical creationism and its literal interpretation. Were you? Now that I reread your comment, it is probably true that the percentage of people who believe in creationism and don't know about DNA is a bit higher than those who both believe and know, but probably only a bit. there aren't too many people who don't know about DNA, or at least genetics in some popularized context.
Erin - I hate to be Clintonesque, but I think it may depend on what your words mean. Specifically what do you mean by “of the time”?
You could make up a special 100 card deck by combining two 52 card decks and removing one ace of spades, one king of spades, one queen of spades and one jack of spades (let’s call it “deck one”). Then if you could (1) get a completely random shuffle, and (2) draw a card at random, it would seem that you would draw the remaining ace of spades one time out of 100. You could say that 99% “of the time” the first card drawn from that particular deck (deck one), after a perfectly random shuffle would be a card other than the ace of spades.
In the meanwhile, you could make up an identical, but separate deck (let’s call it “deck two”). Four times out of 100 the first card drawn from that particular (separate but equal) deck with a perfectly random shuffle would be a red ace. You could say that 96% “of the time” the first card drawn from deck two after a perfectly random shuffle would be a card other than a red ace.
But now in order to have a card other than the ace of spades drawn from deck one more frequently than you would have a card other than a red ace drawn from deck two, you would have to specify that you would use each deck the same number of times. And then, if the decks were used the same number of times, the events would not be independent. Rather, there would be a one to one correspondence between the events. If you drew from deck two a thousand times, and from deck one only once, you clearly wouldn’t draw a card other than the ace of spades from deck one 4.125 times as often as you would draw a card other than a red ace from deck two. Au contraire, wouldn’t you expect to a card other than a red ace from deck two to be drawn more frequently than a card other than the ace of spades from deck one?
Since you have described the events as being independent of each other, you can’t necessarily tie them together.
Moreover, if you had a one to one correspondence between cards drawn from deck one and deck two, then the likelihood of drawing a card other than the ace of spades from deck one would be 99/96 times the likelihood of drawing a card other than a red ace from deck two. Clearly the 4.125 is a bogus figure, perhaps applicable to one particular situation which you have not specified. I wonder if you already knew that when you made your original post.
What does this have to do with poker?
Can anybody tell me how to calculate odds for more than one card to come(for example:omaha high,after the flop,you have 13 outs).Thanks
The formula is 1 minus (32/45 multiplied by 31/44).
You have 45 unseen cards on the flop and 44 unseen cards on the turn. Those numbers are the denominators in the fractions above. The numerators are the number of bad cards for you on the turn and river respectively. Thus, the chances of missing works out to 32/45 times 31/44. The chances of hitting therefore is 1 minus this product.
In hold 'em, your chances of making your draw with 13 outs and 2 cards to come amounts to approximately 48%. When you do the math above, you will find that your chances in Omaha are slightly greater.
check David's book for more on this. if you cant do the simple math you need to learn it to be truly successful. those that really learn it will make tens of thousands more in their career, those that barely get it may break even in like, and those that wont put in the time will go the way of the buffalo.
K.I.S.S.:
In holdem it's as simple as 2 & 4 to figure the odds. Count your outs and multiply the total by 4 to get a percentage of the time you'll hit on the turn OR the river; multiply by 2 after the turn. This is close enough and only deviates at higher numbers like straight flush draws which are automatic calls anyway.
If you don't have a feel for percentages you can convert to odds by memorizing or by using fairly simple inversion.
For example: You have an open-ended straight draw which is 8 outs; 8 x 4 = 32% you'll hit it by the river or 16% you'll hit it after the turn. To convert to odds it's as simple as... 32% you'll make it, 68% you won't or about 2:1; after the turn 16% you'll make it, 84% you won't or about 5:1
By-the-way, in many draws you'll also have a runner-runner winning draw(flush and/or straight and/or trips/two pair) which all-together add up to another out.
... snip boring calculations 2C-C*C. ...
Summary: multiply the chances of you missing by the number of chances; that's your chances to miss.
- Louie
Don't confuse this with the chances of winning; since even if you make your straight with 2 cards you can still get outdrawn; say by the flush.
I play in a cardroom that has a few regulars always at the table with a constant flow of others coming and going (usually after the regulars bust them out). I tend to get less action from the regulars -- nearly all of my profit comes from the visitors.
During my last two sessions I've gone one two terrific rushes. For example, last night during about a 45 minute stretch I had pocket rockets twice (won both times, once with quads), A/K twice (won one lost one), and two straight flushes (insane -- one didn't get much at all, but the second was a monster pot). Obviously, when the cards run right you can roll up a huge stack.
Unfortunately, both times after about 30 minutes of this rush I couldn't get action to save my life. In fact, I soon cashed out with very large wins when the cards weren't coming and I wasn't getting action.
What do people suggest during those oh-so-wonderful minutes when the cards are coming your way but the other players are afraid after getting shown monsters repeatedly? I did try to vary my play -- and made comments like "I've gotta play my rush".
Run over them.
Steal pots?
Yep, speed it up after you've won some monster hands and the cards cool off.
Play T2o and raise, even out of the BB. Make sure you get to a showdown and either way say you thought you were Doyle Brunson. You should get action after that.
I have been accused by Mike Caro of putting forth the idea that there is almost always a right way and a wrong way to play a hand in a particular situation. He counters that almost all situations can be played in more than one way depending on the players involved and their frame of mind. And in fact even in the identical situation you should play your hand more than one way to mix up your strategy. Here is my reply.
First is the fact that Mike Caro mischaracterizes my stance on this issue. The whole thing came up when he became aware of a criticism and a challenge directed at other poker writers that I put on this forum. One may have misread that challenge and been mislead into thinking that I was saying that there is a "best" play and that others writers don't find it enough. Those who have read my stuff know that this is not true. However before going any further I will say that in many multiway situations there really is a best play that should be deviated from only occasionally. And yes other writers don't know them as well as me or many highly successful players. Mike is well aware of these situations since opening strategies in his best games of Draw and Lowball are in fact pretty automatic.
However that was not my point. It all started when a thought popped into my head that seemed to prove that two plus two writers are truly superior to others. That thought was that we get into debates on poker tactics with all comers. Why don't other writers? After all they do post on rgp or even occasionally here. I came to the conclusion that they were either consciously or subconciously aware that there was a big risk in doing so. That risk (a risk we take everyday) was that their weak analytical abilities (especially when they do not have days to ponder or look up other authorities) would be exposed to the world. Lou Krieger would probably be first to admit that his skills lie in writing prowess and the ability to digest other's ideas and make them simpler. But I don't think others would. Mike says I have no evidence of this. After all when directly attacked those writers do defend themselves. But that is different. There they have no choice plus have plenty of time to think.
But what of the day to day questions posed here and on rgp. I virtually never see them enter into these debates. Again I believe that it is because they risk exposure as mediocre thinkers. After all to debate you cannot merely give your conclusion but must also supply your reason (yes I know that I do not always do this but I am always prepared to if need be). I believe that even when these writers are sure they know the correct answer they hesitate in giving it because they know their is some fuzzy thinking behind it. And that again is because, unlike other endeavors, the majority of poker writers are not the best in their field, either as players or thinkers. There are a dozen posters on this forum who could do a better job if they tried. Their cogent analysis proves it to me. And I am not just talking about fans like John Feeney. The same goes for Abdul, Badger and yes probably even Gary Carson. If I am wrong about this it is easy to disprove me. All it takes is for these writers to enter into discussions about poker plays either here or on rgp. If they give a good account of themselves I will admit I was wrong. Just remember that you will be presenting positions to some real talent on this forum aside from me Mason and Ray.The risks are slightly less on rgp (I guarantee that Barbara Yoon will never find any flaws in your reasoning that are not strictly mathematical). But even there you will encounter some good thinkers.
Now what does all this have to do with my supposed idea that there is usually a best play? It is that I do think there is a best play once all the parameters have been specified. In other words if you tell me that you know that your lone opponent would only make the reraise he did with AA, KK, or AK and that he will always bet on the flop but check no pair on fourth st. And then you ask me how to play two queens when the flop is j98, there is a definite right answer. But that answer is by no means obvious. In fact it is deliciously difficult. You must take both logic and a few probabilities into account and integrate them properly. There are many people who can do this problem and others like it. But as far as I know only four write poker books (one is Norman Zadeh).
Of course Mike and other writers will claim that in the real world we can never be sure what all the parameters really are. This I think is embodied in his law of loose wiring. I agree. And again my claim that there is almost always a best play only applies to when you do know those parameters. However there ARE times when you can make an awfully accurate guess about those parameters. Furthermore and just as important is the fact that if you correctly analyze a situation with parameters specified it gives you a pretty good feel for the situation and how the best play may change when the parameters are different. Many of the questions posed on this forum DO specify parameters and the poser expects an answer to that particular question. So again I challenge othe writers to address it.
Finally I would like to address an issue that has not been raised but I expect will. That is the idea that the ability to analyze these questions accurately somehow diminishes other abilities. It reminds me of an arguement I had with a friend about all the horrible mathematical decisions many coaches make (when to punt, when to fair catch, when to bunt , when to steal etc.). He admits the mistakes but points to their ability to recruit, motivate etc as more than making up for it. Hogwash. their mathematical errors are devastating and they are not smart enough to correct them. Their strenghts on the other hand are much more accessible to all, at least to the point where they would be quite a few people out there who could get almost as good at these attributes while not making tactical errors (and understand that the coach makes these errors even though he assigns proper probabilities to making the first down, kicking the field goal, preventing a score etc. He just doesn't know how to integrate this informaton Just like most poker writers) On balance the educated coach would certainly win more games. And YOU will win more money picking a similar head coach.
"In other words if you tell me that you know that your lone opponent would only make the reraise he did with AA, KK, or AK and that he will always bet on the flop but check no pair on fourth st. And then you ask me how to play two queens when the flop is j98, there is a definite right answer. "
Geez David, you really ought to get Mason to hire Big John. You two have a lot in common. You just don't know it. One thing is a big ego.
I am no fan of Mike Caro, you know that. If your representation of his position, below, is true then you have confirmed my suspician that this guy is far from being a "genius" but just may be "mad".
"He counters that almost all situations can be played in more than one way depending on the players involved and their frame of mind. And in fact even in the identical situation you should play your hand more than one way to mix up your strategy"
Anyone with any poker experience knows you can play most situations in more than one way but they also know that there is almost always only one correct play for a given situation. Which brings me to your statement. The one I began this response with. You went to great lenghts to explain the "superiority" of the 2+2 authors and then you put forth an example that really is meaningless. It gives know insight into how to play poker. It is in fact a logic problem. A controlled logic problem. It basically says that if one can control all the variables, one can come to the correct conclusion. That is, given that one has the necessary mathematical/logic skill.
Well, guess what Mr S. I read 2+2 material and quite frankly more of Masons work because you show people how to PLAY poker. You usually explain that math is a tool not a cure all. That is where your strengths are in my opinion.
You wrote:
"It is that I do think there is a best play once all the parameters have been specified."
After reading your entire (long) post I have come away with a simple math/logic lesson. Define your parameters and I can give you an answer. Big deal. No, do not misconstrue my words. I admire and envy great mathematicians. I respect their work. So math is not the issue. It's place in PLAYING poker is.
Poker is at best a pseudo logic game. Poker is played by "reasoning' creatures that rationalize thier decisions. If, as all 2+2 authors espouse, one must know their opponent to be successful at poker then it follows that one must understand how their opponents think. Lessons in logic may be the answer. I don't know. But I don't think so either. Lessons in reasoning may be a much better way to serve your readers.
Vince.
Vince,
What makes you think that *I* have a big ego? I'm not denying it mind you, just curious about why you would think so. It wasn't my Dorchester High School post about the Everett football team was it? Hell, Vince, I didn't even go to Dorchester High School. A friend told me that story.
Post deleted at author's request
You mean the part where Vince says he reads more of Mason's work Gary.
First of all, the simple fact of the matter is that 2+2 materials, products, and writers are SUPERIOR to most everyone else by a wide margin. The only one that comes close is Bob Ciaffone in my opinion. All of the others like Jones, Krieger, Caro, etc. seem to address beginners and low limit games for the most part. I have serious problems with some of the stuff these other guys put out, especially Krieger. I posted one as a problem but no one seemed interested so I dropped the idea. Having reviewed most of the material on Hold-em in particular and poker in general, the only source of credible information that I find useful in my play at the $15-$30 and $20-$40 level is that which is published by 2+2 and Bob Ciaffone. The rest of the stuff is a muddy mixture of truth and error or simply too vague and conceptual to be usefully applied.
Secondly, I believe that for the vast majority of situations you will face at the poker table there is one best answer once all the relevant factors are taken into account. I don't see how any winning player could really believe otherwise. To believe otherwise would be to operate in a fog. The trick is identifying in your mind what these factors are, being able to weight them properly, and then arriving at a decision once they are correctly taken into account. The whole purpose of reading books, articles, entering into discussions with others, and posting on the forum is to become aware of all the factors and how to be more successful in your decision making.
Vince, logic and reasoning are the same thing. My point is that if we reason better and win more money than other writers it is very unlikely that any attrubutes those other writers have superior to us would be enough to make their books more worthwhile. If Mark Weitzman, Huck Seed, or maybe even Patri Friedman as well as a few others undertook the task of writing they would have a shot to surpass us. Anyway to change the subject, why don't you goad Lee Jones, Andy Nelson, Mike Caro, Bob Ciaffone, Roy Cooke, Lou Krieger, Roy West, Tom McEvoy, Barbara Yoon, or some other writer into accepting my challenge and tackling these poker problems posed here or on rgp.
Mr. Slansky, your opening post was easily the most interesting read I've ever experienced here, or on rpg. But I think writers like Caro don't post here probably for the same reason I don't see you posting at Deja.com, or at least I haven't seen you posting there since I bought my computer. I'm not psychic, so why don't you at least tell us why you don't post there. Is it in some small part due to the 2+2 forum being your turf, and Deja seemingly being Caro's? If that's not true at least to some small degree, why don't you simply submit your challenge on the Deja.com forum yourself, instead of trying to coax Jim Brier into doing it for you?
Sincerely, Martin D
Martin,
Dave can't post at Deja or it will cost him $300, scouts honor. He's got a bet going with Izmet Fekali that he won't post there until after Jan. 1st 2001.
If you're curious about the details, go to deja and punch up the thread "Mr. Sklansky: please read." Then call up Izmet's response to Jim Geary, where he gives the computer site addresses, which will explain why he has to recruit suckers like us for now.
Hope this helps, Danny
David wrote:
"Vince, logic and reasoning are the same thing."
Vince pointed out:
"Poker is played by "reasoning' creatures that rationalize thier decisions"
Human beings do thins for a reason. They usually rationalize their reason. In some instances for motives understood only by themselves. And in some instances even they can't explain thier reason. Most normal human beings, David, present company excluded, do not go through a SOUND REASONING process such as LOGIC before making decisions. No where is this more obvious than in a poker game. They will find a reason for their decision through rationalization. To say that process is the same as logic (deductive reasoning) borders on the absurd.
Your little example with the Q,Q by your own admission requires "logic and math" to determine the correct decision. I may be wrong but you must mean logicla deduction. And of course math can be considered a formal logic process.
My point, obviously missed by you, perhaps not well WRITTEN by me is that your arguement and example gives little if any insight into deciding the best way to PLAY poker given the current situation.
Gary Carson disagrees with me but Mason expalins a poker situation such that it is readily understandable and translateable to actual play. Not that you normally don't. It Just seems that sometimes you gotta show us how smart you are with this math thing. This seems to be one of those times.
Sklansky wrote:
Why don't you goad...
Vince writes back:
Look Son, You once ended a post with "Sic em Vince". Now you want me to "Goad" some fellows I don't know. I have been critical of Caro here on 2+2 because I don't like people that recommend insulting other people in a poker game just to gain and advantage. But I don't "Sic" and I don't "Goad". Besides, you do a pretty good job of that yourself. I've read all your posts concerning Gary. Someone claims that you can't go to rgp because of a silly $300 bet. Well most of the fellows you named have web sites. Why don't you go to each one and extend them an invitation to discuss poker here on 2+2 heads up with you. I'm sure the rest of us here would agree to stay out of those discussions if asked nicely.
Vince.
Post deleted at author's request
Why should those authors or anybody else (myself included) give away ANY information for free. What's in it for us? Only the big egos give away the goods for nothing. I know whence I speak because that was my motivation when I first started posting, but I decided that it wasn't worth my trouble, time or effort to educate my competition. You, on the other hand David, are getting paid for it, if not directly then indirectly. Book sales, private lessons, new sponsors, consulting gigs, free advertising, etc., etc. See my point? By the way, Lee Jones HAS posted and answered strategy questions in the past on RGP. So have I. Why don't you give Izmet (whoever the hell he really is) his $300 bucks and post over on RGP yourself once in a while instead of relaying messages through people here who will report them there. Just think of it as a horse that ran second. You don't ALWAYS have to have the best of it. I get tired of waiting 30 seconds for posts to load up here.
Maybe they do not post for the reason you say. But I doubt it. More likely it is a convenient excuse. I am pretty sure that if one of those other authors were quite certain that they could make an impressive impact with a particular contribution to rgp without any risk of exposing fallacious thinking, they would. It might not help them as much as it helps me, but it would almost certainly gain them enough sales to make up for lost poker income, from that one post. By your standards Abdul, Badger, and Gary Carson must be fools to post. They would be, only if they thought as illogically as most poker writers.
I propose this. Many questions posed both here or on rgp involve situations that are rare or are very close. Thus opponents knowing the right answer is insignificant. So tackle just those, for all to see. And don't fall back on "there is never one right answer". Even if that was true you could give the pros and cons of various answers.
The truth is that virtually no one on either forum is real advocate of the "it depends" school of thought. If they were there would be no reason to pose questions. Hundreds of good and not so good poker players go back and forth on these questions. The other writers virtually never join in.
When I first hit Vegas, oldtimers were constantly proposing and betting on card and dice propositions that could be calculated precisely if you were adept at probability. But they didn't at first, understand that. After me and my ilk were around for awhile, the discussions continued but the betting stopped. Even when someone had a very strong insinctive opinion they could not bet because they feared that anyone who took the bet had calculated it out or consulted with someone who did. They still believed they were better gamblers than this new breed but not when it comes to propositions. The situation is similar here. Forget me. With people out there like Abdul, Scott, Badger, Rick, Izmet, Feeney, Rick, Patri, Jim, and a host of others who are excellent analysts if not yet excellent players, mediocre writers are in the same spot.
If I am wrong, prove it to me for just a couple of weeks and I promise I will admit it.
Jim you wrote:
"First of all, the simple fact of the matter is that 2+2 materials, products, and writers are SUPERIOR to most everyone else by a wide margin. The only one that comes close is Bob Ciaffone in my opinion. "
While this statement is probably true, I think you left out someone.
Personally, I really liked Roy Cooke's real poker and think it should be included in this statement. If anyone hasn't read it, it is a great book. If anyone disagrees, I'm sure we will be hearing from them soon.
Other than this one small point, I totally agree with your post.
Dave in Cali
It would seem to my relatively novice experience that you are suffesting that by saying,
"Secondly, I believe that for the vast majority of situations you will face at the poker table there is one best answer once all the relevant factors are taken into account."
is just saying "it depends". Once it depends on relevant factors, which could be called "variables" it depends even more on not only what the variables are but -variables by their very essence change- what phase the variables are in.
No matter how much rhetoric one throws at it, poker is still a game of chance. Yes, in the long run odds will out, and I'll play the odds when I have the cards with which to play them, but getting those cards comes down to chance. It makes poker sort of unpredicatble and kind of fun.
SammyB what I think of as "the correct play" will not work all the time, it will simply show a profit over many thousands of hours of play. Some plays are correct and still lose most of the time but when they work, what you win more than offsets the amount you lose when they don't work. The fact that an endeavor is complex with a lot of variables does not mean there is not an optimum method of play for a given situation.
Jim, I understand your point, but in many, many cases the information on which your optimal decision is based is unknowable. So, it seems to me it isn't so much that there IS an optimal decision as much as there WAS an optimal decision once all the facts are in. My point about variables is quite clear on the hold em forum with the discussion of AQ, to raise or not to raise. Sure, there must be an optimal play.
AQo UTG, 10-20 10 players. BB sb have only raised with big pocket pairs. Button is known to raise with medium pairs but will not reraise with Ako or Aqo. Most of the players are loose but passive.
Ask this question with all these parameters of 100 experts and they'll come up with 2 different answers and 50 different reasons for them.
It's an easy question, is there an easy answer?
Sammy B. makes a good point but only about questions regarding before the flop play where there are too many trees to completely analyze.
I believe it is an easy question. In my experience I have found that raising with AQ offsuit under the gun in loose passive games like the $20-$40 games in Lake Charles, Louisiana and Shreveport, Louisiana works best for me. I usually have the best hand and my raise tends to drive out the guys who would otherwise limp in with little suited connectors, small pocket pairs, and other holdings. If I don't raise, I get 5 limpers whereas by raising I get it down to 2 or 3 normally. The fact that the blinds only raise with big pocket pairs and that the button won't re-raise with big slick or big chick is not a significant consideration because it is unlikely that they will have these specific holdings when I have AQ offsuit under the gun.
Now move the game to the Mirage or make it the $15-$30 game at the Bellagio, and it would depend on the specific line-up of tourists and locals as to whether or not I would raise with this hand under the gun. In general I would but if I happen to up against a tight, aggressive line-up where players only come in on good cards, then my raise will not be as effective in driving out players and normally only 2 or 3 guys take the flop anyway in this kind of a game.
If some expert told me that my play with AQ offsuit under the gun was wrong, I would tell him I know it to be right for the $20-$40 games in Louisiana. My own personal experience would take priority over the opinion of some expert who doesn't play in that particular game.
That is my point exactly, when the parameters are clear, as they are for you in your home game, then the optimum play is, if nothing else, clearer. But I believe clear parameters to be the exception, not the rule.
But SammyB think of the hundreds of hold-em problems that get posted on this forum every month. How many times have Sklansky, Malmuth, Zee, and other luminaries like Feeney, Nebiolo, Lepore, etc. answered by saying "I don't know because it just isn't clear to me"? I would argue that the more experienced players almost always know exactly what they are going to do. The fact that they sometimes differ simply means that sometimes some of them are wrong especially when they disagree with Sklansky!
Jim,
None of the luminaries that you mention, and let's mention Greg, all the scotts and David Steele as well, are never at a loss for an opinion about a certain situation, but do they agree?
I'm not saying Sklansky is wrong about anything that he posts, but I think there is just a little more truth than might be thought in his joking post about disagreeing with malmuth and zee in private.
I've been reading your posts for several months, now, and besides the whole odds thing, I feel the most important non specific education I have received is to not treat all opps alike, not treat all hands alike, not treat all tables alike, and certainly not treat all flops alike. The " it depends" cop-out for me has been quite valuable in seeing that there is a flavor to each and every situation that "depends" on the ingredients of the moment.
I understand some things are clear, but Jim, honestly, do you ALWAYS reraise with AA, KK, AKs. According to Addul it's wrong to steal the blinds with AA. So, is it wrong to steal the blinds with AA in a no limit tournament when you will eliminate one of the players and get a seat at the next table?
If there is ALWAYS an optimum way to play a situation, wouldn't a computer make a great poker player?
I appreciate all the time you take with me.
Thanks,
SammyB
Sammy -- Some poker problems are presented with too many unknowns (variables the values of which are unknown, unspecified parameters, or whatever terminology one might prefer) to arrive at one clear best answer. Plenty of other times enough is known or specified in assumptions that such an answer is possible. But the thing is that even in the former case you can discuss and weigh the possibilities, looking at the implications of different possibilities for the final answer.
SammyB,
"If there is ALWAYS an optimum way to play a situation, wouldn't a computer make a great poker player?"
You pretty much got it here. One thing though. The problem is not tying the optimum play to the situation, the problem is defining the situation.
Vince.
You are absolutely right, Vince. One of the great strengths of our humble and modest authors is that they were key not only in coming up with creative strategies for complex situations, they illuminated situations that were once played by rote as much more complex than previously thought.
I cannot remember the last time I did not re-raise with AA, KK, or AK suited unless it was for deception purposes with only one other player in the hand. With regard to raising the blinds with AA from the button after everyone else has folded, I always do this because the blinds expect me to steal so I like to raise on my good hands as well. I believe David Sklansky mentions this in his writings as well. However, my experience is at full tabled, structured, limit hold-em not no limit or tournament play which is altogether different. Comparing limit hold-em with no limit hold-em with tournament hold-em is like comparing bridge with pinochle with gin rummy. They are different games.
With regard to computers playing poker, I think in about 100 years, information technology will be sufficiently advanced to where a computer might make an excellent limit hold-em player especially with a full table at the middle limits. I remember years ago critics argued that computers would never play decent chess or backgammon. Well, due to today's technology computers are quite proficient at these games.
A 100 years!
You're giving humans way too much the best of it.
My guess is that in less than five years there will be a ten player structured limit holdem game, played by casino rules, that an average expert would have to be lucky to break even in.
The bots play a pretty good game of poker on IRC. At least from what I have seen. I also know the guy who designs them is one hell of a poker player himself.
There are different bots, programmed by different people. One of them, Lokibot, is run by a group at the U of A for testing concepts in their computer poker playing research.
Much, much less than 100 years. A group at the University of Alberta is writing a computer program that they believe will be a world-class player in a few years. This is the group that produced the best checkers program in the world (Chinook), and a number of other notable accomplishments.
One of the team members is a world-class player himself, and a Ph.D candidate in computer science, so I think he'd know.
First of all, I really don't understand your need to always be right. Even though you usually are. I would think you would be more secure in that.
As to your point, you are right again. Given the parameters of any particular hand there is only one correct play. That of course is the one that yields the most profit, be it in the particular hand or in future hands.
Caro is also right in that you should not always play your hands the same way, otherwise the other players will pidgeonhole you in the same way you are trying to do to them. He is also correct that you can never be 100% sure of the meaning of the other players actions.
You are also correct that most poker writers just regurgitate S&M writings. Cooke and Ciaffone are (in mu opinion) guilty of this. They really con't say anything original. Cooke is very good at analyzing a situation after the fact, but since I have played with him alot, I find that he usually twists the facts of the hand to support his analysis (in his articles).
Which brings me to my point. So many readers and posters on this and other forums are looking for the magic formula that will make them win, and they will never find it. The dynamics of each game and every hand are very complex, and cannot be boiled down to a correct play unless all of the variables are known.
This is why my analysis of a situation could be different than Vince's, because without actually being there, I can't know everything that went on at the table. Even if we were both at the same table, we might make different assumptions or conclusions about the other players.
This is where I think poker writers do a disservice to their readers. They mislead them into thinking that if they read the books, they will become winning players. Most will not. The books will give them some of the necessary tools, but only the most intelligent and insightful players will be winners in the long run.
Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful for all poker books. I have learned a lot from them. But more importantly, they keep the tables full of wannabes who can't apply what they've read.
Thanks
3 Bet Brett
You may be surprised to know that I agree with eveything you say. However you leave the implication that we are one of those writers who claim that reading our books guarantees that you will become a significant winner. I have on many occassions stated that I think it will give you about a 10% chance. However reading no books gives you less than a one percent chance. And reading most of the other books might bring that number down further.
I disagree with you Brett. I have only been playing $15-$30 and $20-$40 hold-em for about 2 years and I win far more money than the vast majority of the players I play against. In these games many of them have never read a book and they have been playing poker for 30 or 40 years. Some even longer. I think the adage from Poor Richard's Almanac-"The school of experience is a costly one but fools will learn in no other" really applies in poker. In fact most never learn, they simply keep paying out.
Richard Dunberg claims to never have read a poker book. I'm sure Ray has played many hours with him. I bought Davids first holdem book in the 70's for $1.95. I feel Bob Ciaffone's openers are better than S&M for limit holdem. This is mainly because I know how the pot is going to develop by playing tighter up front. I do feel David is the greatest pure thinker of all poker writers. His game selection is superior. When I see him in a game I usually put my name on the board.
I'll concede that the majority of players haven't read any poker books. But that doesn't mean that they haven't been influenced by them. At some point, someone has told them that the game can be beaten and that there are proper starting hands. These ideas are promulgated by those who write poker books.
My point was that these writers don't emphasize the sad truth that most people will never beat the game, regardless of how much they study. They will sell more books if people think that by reading them, they will become winners. We (winning players) profit by this continuation of the myth.
I liken this to those like myself who became interested in gambling by reading the works of blackjack players and theorists. Although some of us were able to master the counting systems and strategy, most could not. But ask anyone at the Blackjack table and they will tell you the game can be beaten, whether or not they have ever read a book or learned basic strategy.
By the way, if you are playing in Vegas, beware: Many of those player who have never read a book are fully capable of taking your last dollar!
Brett
This bashing contest is beyond control. How on earth can 3-Bett Brett say that Bob Ciaffone is guilty of plagiating S/M and does not have a single original thought?
Have you read any of his stuff?
A few specifics.
1) His book with Stewart Rueben on Pot limit and no Limit poker is the best on these games. Even Malmuth admits to this on this site, see his critique of Ciaffone's Hold'em quiz in the essays section. Super System doesn't have any analysis of the betting strategies discussed in the Ciaffone /Rueben book and must come second.
2) Improve your Poker is with The Theory of Poker and HPFAP the best book you'll read on general poker theory and Hold'em specifically. Many, many things that are discussed in Improve your poker aren't written down anywhere else. There is some REALLY clarifying stuff in chapters like 'Raising and missing', 'How many enemy' 'Satellite strategy', or any of the other chapters, barring maybe 4 or 5.
Improve your poker will Improve your poker, as stated by Ray Zee is true. The greatest difference between the approaches of Skansky and Ciaffone is that 'The coach' is a little less math oriented but more people oriented. He analyses poker more as a game then as a science. The two approaches actually complement each other perfectly. Also he is a great writer. Not to take away from Mason Malmuth, or to a lesser extent David Sklansky, but their prose would improve a lot with some heavy duty editing. Lastly Ciaffone has got a sense of humor. He's fun to read. As off jet I have never had to supress a smile reading a Mason Malmuth essay jet.
I felt I needed to write these few words in defense of Ciaffone as a small repayment for the stuff I learned from his books, and to spread the word that 3-Bett Brett's comments are slanderous and off the mark. Read Ciaffone and judge for yourself.
Spielmacher
Actually I have read Ciaffone, and with a couple of exceptions, most of his stuff is nothing that isn't covered by S&M. I was really commenting on Cooke, but I would say this about Ciaffone:
If I had never read a poker book, and I needed to learn how to win, I would take Sklansky over Ciaffone any day.
Brett
There is not always one correct play (for example, a game theoretic decision might actually be, 'Flip a Coin').
However, there IS always one correct way to think about a poker problem. I think stressing this is much more important. I would think more highly of a person who approaches a poker problem properly but comes up with a bad solution because his initial assumptions about the players were off, than I would a player who comes across the right solution but for the wrong reasons. The first person is guilty of an error in judging his opponents. This can be learned easily enough. The second person can't think, at least in the context of a poker game.
I've just reread your original post, and I'm not sure just why you bothered to write it.
Whenever someone commits to paper an idea or theory, the 'question' is not whether or not that idea is 'right' or 'wrong', but rather if the proposition in question has any utility. This may not be so true in more esoteric fields of study (i.e., certain branches of epistomology), but it HAS to be true of poker, as all poker ideas/ theories etc. ought to have some concrete application.
As far as poker goes, the belief in question has some utility IF it can make someone a better player. That, after all, is the point of all poker discourse. But your post does nothing to further this cause, since whether or not there is, in fact, a 'correct play' has nothing to do with whether or not players will continue, and ought to continue, to TRY AND FIND the correct play.
In sum, let's say that you are right and Mike Caro is wrong; what would that change?
I ordinarily wouldn't bring this up, but since the post came from you, a man who constantly points out that certain debates have no merit (remember the stink about the Taylor hand rankings), I think we should hold you to a similar standard.
You're right. That's why I read and participate in this forum. For years I've been fed up with the majority of gambling literature, because I believe that they are writing the books just to make a buck and build their ego. They usually have some expertise in one area, but lack in others. It's this lack of knowlege that leads players to the poor house and even death.
Post deleted at author's request
Gary,
If David builds his ego anymore he best be careful. Someone ought to explain the lesson of Babylon to him.
Vince.
David appears to not suffer shoddy thinking very well. What he lacks in charm and grace he makes up for in prodigous reasoning. When he first published his works there were many players dismayed. They were perfectly content to let the suckers mull in a moras of misconception. I praise David for trying to objectify and or quantify poker knowledge. I also respect his acknowleldgment of Poker publishing pioneers such as Norman Zadeh whose works are monumental when considering the tools with which he had to work. Players such as Peter Goldberg and Victor Resnick did not publish but edified many of us who would listen.
Post deleted at author's request
Everyones trying to make a buck. I've got nothing against that. But, don't con me into following a strategy blindfolded. I want to see your poker player balance sheet. I want proof that your strategies are profitable. The only way I can prove it is by doing the math myself. It's a lot of work. My father told me when I was a kid, "Son, if you want to do it right, you gotta do it yourself."
Mr. Sklansky,
With all due respect, I don't think I've ever seen you Mason or Ray debate anything on this forum. That's not to say that you don't contribute, but when you write something and say "I'll let others explain why", that's not a debate. When Mason writes, "If you buy our book, you'll see we're right", that is not debatings. When Ray makes is humorous observances, that's not debating either.
I'm sure that you actually have debated a point or two, and if you could give me the links I'd love to read them.
- Andrew
Re: Incredible Hand Posted By: Mason Malmuth David Sklansky and I have been talking about an alternative strategy for the player with the two aces. Above, I have argued that his fold on fourth street was correct. A superior play may have been for him to call the final raise on fourth street and then to fold on the river if an ace does not come and if he is facing another bet.
All comments are welcome.
This is as close to a debate between the two as I've seen since I have been here. This was a great hand posted by Mason and it is in the archives. I learned quite a bit about HE from this discussion.
Paul
Actually, there were several good debates on the value of AA vs differing numbers of opponents that in the end actually had Mason changing his mind.
Are you saying we do not debate at all or do not debate among ourselves? Clearly the first clause is incorrect. As to the second the main reason is because we rarely disagree. But if we did, we would talk about it privately until we agreed, so that no one would know that Mason or Ray had ever made a mistake about something.
Actually,
I was saying that I haven't y'all debating with any real interest here. That wasn't meant as an accusation that you don't debate, just what I'd seen. "The Authors" here seem to actually be more like a set of zookeepers here, rewarding posters with whom they agree , while trying to keep the masses in line.
Of course, I have to admit that I'm writing this after being awake for 30+ hours, so take it with a grain of salt, my mental faculties are not at their peak.
- Andrew
It is not accurate to call us zookeepers. Uh never mind, strike that.
Now THAT was pure unadulterated humor.
- Andrew [waiting patiently for feeding time]
If it is fair to make an analogy I believe the closest thing to poker away from the felt would be guerilla warfare. To that end I nominate Sun Tzu as the greatest poker writer in history.
Post deleted at author's request
Very well put. I am talking about the use of tactics and strategy and not the horror of conflict. I have obviously never been to war. I stand by my statement that Sun Tzu's writings have great application to poker and to preparing oneself for poker
That response seemed to have zipped right past eveyone.
Andrew here's one of many links one could provide to threads in which David debated something. He, Mason, and Ray have done so many, many times here. But what you may be seeing, I think, is that sometimes when David, for example, spells out what he knows about an issue, and then someone disagrees, he may not always follow up because he's already said what he has to say. That is, it's my impression that he won't always get involved in long, drawn out back-and-forth when he's made a clear, correct point that someone just doesn't see. He'll let others pick up the ball or just leave it rather than take what may be a lot of time to try to clarify a point that the other person could probably see if they'd just think through it more on their own. I'm sure you've done that. You make what you know is a "definitive" statement, someone just doesn't get it and comes back with a counter-argument that's actually irrelevant, so you just leave it to die. You know?
Also, as much as you've been hangin' out here, Andrew, you're as big a giraffe as anyone!
John, I believe that Bob Ciaffone feels the same way. He gives his opinion about a matter (e.g.-don't pay a full bet to see a flop with pocket Deuces in a volume pot) and a short explanation. He is not interested in getting into a heated debate over it because from his standpoint it simply is not worth his time. In addition, for many poker problems his answers are based on his 40 years of playing experience, over 20 years as a professional, and not necessarily on pure analytics. Could he ever justify his opinions to a sufficient level to satisy someone else who believes differently? Who knows? Why should he care?
Understood, Jim. But he could go a *little* further than just one post, as David and most others do at least a fair bit of the time. And he could give more of the reasoning behind his opinion as I recall. Now if we could just get him posting here a little more than about twice a year. It's kind of funny; each time he posts here, there are a few "Welcome to the forum, looking forward to more from you" comments from people here. Then winter and spring go by before he posts again! But I give him credit for being one of the very few authors who has even dipped a toe in the water.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 December 1999, at 4:08 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 December 1999, at 3:01 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Thursday, 9 December 1999, at 4:20 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 December 1999, at 4:38 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Thursday, 9 December 1999, at 5:49 p.m.
Posted by: Chico
Posted on: Thursday, 9 December 1999, at 5:54 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 December 1999, at 6:22 p.m.
Posted by: Chico
Posted on: Thursday, 9 December 1999, at 6:29 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 December 1999, at 8:25 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 December 1999, at 9:33 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 December 1999, at 10:52 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 10 December 1999, at 12:40 a.m.
I think there may be a correct DISTRIBUTION of plays; say where you call usually, fold some, and raise-bluff rarely.
I think it is almost trivially true what you say.
Imagine a set of all possible strategies Si
Each possible strategy Si will have a specific EV over the long term. For some i it will have the maximum EV with the outside chance of a tie.
Because of the above mentioned game theory points the winning strategy may require some random variation in calling, raising folding but with a specific distribution.
D.
I'll except "obviously true". I mention it because this fact seems to rarely manifest itself in the discussions here. Its routinely "how do I maximize this hand right now" which is an important criteria but not the only criteria for playing a hand.
For example, a player bets on the end and can reasonably be bluffing. Your hand cannot beat many bluffs. If the player will always call a raise with any hand better than yours and you calcuguess your odds are slightely good, it appears you should always call to maximize this hand's EV.
But if this player is already bluffing too much you are probably better off folding and encouraging him to bluff even more often than he does now, to maximize this session's EV; since its a great investment if he'll bluff one additional time because of it. Likewise you should call even if taking slightely the worst of it if the player doesn't bluff enough. Likewise you can call or fold depending on the inactive player's tendancies.
- Louie
The dismissal of discussing/debating hands does tend to look like a cop-out - especially when the folks who dismiss it do lurk and read the discussions. There is not always one best answer, but there often is, and when there isn't that's no reason to avoid discussion, particularly here where most folks remain civil almost all the time. For any hand there is a "boiling down" process, a process of analysis, by which you zero in on whatever the best answer(s) may be. That process can be fruitfully discussed.
To so discuss the variables that need to be considered in a hand, and how to integrate and apply them, will also bring sizable pieces of general theory into discussion. (In that regard I take issue with Badger's recent claim on RGP that "posting hands" has far less value than general theoretical discussion. They fully compliment one another.) To claim that it's not worth discussing hands because there are always variable elements that can be hard to specify is tantamount to saying you just can't discuss poker.
I'm constantly amazed at the level of knowledge and acumen shown in threads containing posts from players who may only have played small limit games (or may even have just played in their first casino game ;), but think like the toughest 30-60 players. And that's not to mention all those who do play higher.
In fact, it occurs to me that some high limit players may also avoid participation here out of a similar fear of exposure. i.e., some players who play at limits like 100-200 and higher probably don't post here because of a strong commitment to "not educate the players" (though I think they'd do better to educate them enough to create more games at those limits - but that's another topic). But others probably just don't want a 10-20 or, God forbid, a 2-5 player (e.g., think Chris Alger, who could undoubtedly be tearing up a 100-200 game if he had one to play in.) showing them where they're wrong about something. I would hope that some of these players as well as the authors would rethink it and get involved.
Dan Hanson brings up the interesting point that authors may see little upside to such debate. It's a valid point, but I do think that as these debates go on, many in the poker community will see a willingness to participate as an indication of an author's fluency with theory and its application. Occasional mistakes (unless they are profound) do not really damage a poster's (author or whomever) credibility as long as it's clear that he thinks through issues effectively and intelligently, and can recognize his error and adjust accordingly. But a total lack of participation may eventually be taken by some to indicate the fear of exposure David mentions. That's got to hurt book sales and damage credibility.
Also, in my experience there are many professional fields in which the top authors do engage in public debate. In fields like clinical psychology and psychoanalysis, panel discussions and the like are an integral part of the exchange of ideas. The absolute top authors regularly debate both in writing and face to face in front of professional audiences, with audience questions added to the mix as well. I think that those who avoid it are probably assumed to lack confidence in their ideas. There is some difference with poker, as a poor showing here may be judged more harshly because of the direct link between the quality of information and the money it makes or loses us. (Ironically, the stakes are probably actually higher with regard to good vs. bad information disseminated to psychotherapists, but they lack the concrete immediacy of money.) Nevertheless, I think the analogy is worth considering. I'd like to see more of this debate.
(btw, I think the reason I'm a fan while some others are identified mostly as critics is that I can see when the wheel has already been invented, and prefer to move on. Also, I'd like to think that I'm a better gambler. When you're dealing with a slippery, difficult poker concept on the edges of your understanding, it's often a bad gamble to barge (no pun) ahead having prematurely concluded that "S&M" are "wrong on that one".)
"In other words if you tell me that you know that your lone opponent would only make the reraise he did with AA, KK, or AK and that he will always bet on the flop but check no pair on fourth st. And then you ask me how to play two queens when the flop is j98, there is a definite right answer. But that answer is by no means obvious. In fact it is deliciously difficult. "
David,
With all the freaken genuises on this forum you would have thought one would take a stab at this little "deliciously difficult" problem of yours. Where are you o Columbia boy wonder. Stop the physics for a minute and give Skalnsy an answer.
Well while the math wonderkind ponders this probleme I will venture a guess. And a guess it twill be. For I am not a math nor logic poker player. I play by the very large seat of my pants. Which makes my stab at this perfect meat for disection and comparison to you genuine genuis types. Kind of like "the Goliath of the morons" against David and his team of cerebrals. Remember my take on this is my gut feeling if I were to find myself in this situation. First since he reraised he must be acting first since I must have raised for him to reraise. O.K. so far. Mason stop the snickering. I've been kind to you lately but the holidays are approaching and my Scroogeness is showing it's ugly head. So be careful.
O.K. so I got ladies and the other guy got one of the 3 things you mention. I got 3 sb's in the pot and he got 3 sb's in the pot. We gonna leave it like that which makes him the SB and Me the BB and we don't Chop. I know that makes Mason happy. He hates chopping. 3 Big Bets in de pot. O.K so why didn't I cap preflop if I am a 4 to 3 favorite to have the best hand. Because I play poker that's why. O.K were on the flop. I see the flop. He sees the flop. He bets. I raise. Hmmm. I'm not hearing anything fellows. I said I raise. Now what you didn't tell me but what I figured out for myself was that this guy will not reraise me on the flop without a better hand than A,A. He is so tight that he will only call my raise. I know that. What I'm not sure is if he will call my raise with just A,K with this board. Well because Skalnsky mentioned the turn we will continue with him just calling the raise. 5 big Bets in the pot now. Oh yeah, even though I play from feel I still count the bets and know where I'm at. I must thank Roy Cooke for that. His article on how to keep track of bets in the pot helped me in that respect. I don't care if you like me mentioning another author or not David. Get over it. O.K the turn is a blank. He checks, I bet, he folds. He bets. 6 big bets in the pot. I have 6 outs. 44-6 = 38. 38 to 6 (If I know he has A,A, K,K or A,K I can subtract 2 cards from the total remaining, yes?) What's that 6 1/3 to 1. Pretty close. I call even though I know that if a T comes I don't get called and if a Q comes I may not get called. River a blank. He bets I fold.
So let's see. I call the reraise. I raise the flop. And call or bet the turn. And fold or bet the river.
O.K geeky boys your turn!
Hey, btw, have you other math wizs noticed that Abdul is posting on the other gambling forum. Yeah, he posts Sporting Lines. I think he even posted the size of his penis in one of them. Wanted to get Lady Gambler to read it, I guess. I'm surprised Mason didn't delete it! That would be funny. I can just read Gary Carsons thread heading. "Mason deletes Abduls penis size. " Gary certainly would get some "headway" with that one. Big John would probably get right in the middle of all that. His ego would probably force him to post a photo of his enormity. Well I don't think it's right. Who does Abdul think he is? Does he think he can just post anywhere he wants to on this Forum. I think he should be spanked, I mean banned. As a matter of fact anyone with a penis should be banned. No not you Scott I meant anyone with a penis that knows how to use it. Don't worry when you grow up your Uncle Vinnie will show you how. Along with those other College Clowns you hang with. I did like the physics stuff though. Where the hell is the Mars probe. Nice going guys.
Vince.
Actually Vince, I really hadn't thought through this problem. But I did mean that he threebets and YOU act first. Sorry
As to why I sometimes say I will let others elaborate, it has nothing to do with my arrogant elitisism. It is partly because I can't type but more because I think it is better for the forum and the players themselves to take a crack at it first. Most people retain concepts better if they deduce it themselves. That is how I teach algebra (and I am the second best algebra tutor in the world often getting failing students A'S) and I am a much nicer person teaching algebra than poker.
Sorry! Sorry! Do you know the agony I went through and the time I spent on that post. And now no one will read it. Except maybe Mason. he probsbly wants to delete it because, well you know I said penis again. Well I don't have time to go through this thing again. I'm going to FoxWoods in the A.M. and I need my sleep. David please remember who you are dealing with the next time you put out a little "delicious delite". Three bet. Act first. Not so tough. Will give my gut read on that next week. Unless of course your'e not through defining the problem.
BTW - If I got 300/hr to teach algebra I might consider learning it first.
Have a nice day.
Vince.
ok, vince. the reason noone tried to answer it is that it was not clearly defined. but since you asked, i'll take a crack at it. first of all, i would bet that you are acting first. limp-reraises do not accout for most 3-bets. second of all, his limp-reraising from the small blind does not strike me as the most likely scenario. i put you utg, him later. the positions don't matter for solvig this question, but it would be hard to get this kind of certainty if you were in a later position. anyway there is 7.5 sb in the pot.
the flop is J98. i'll assume it's rainbow. he knows you don't have a straight. he knows you don't have two pair. you could have a set. you could have a draw/pair combo. you could have an overpair. you could have overcards, perhaps with a gutshot. i assume he knows you know he has AA KK AK. i believe he thinks your possible hands are AA KK AK AQ AJs KQs QQ JJ TT 99 JTs T9s QJs. actually, AK's calling the preflop 3-bet is barely correct when you take into acount his likely making a second best hand, but i think he would have made the call.
strategy : check the flop. when he bets, raise. if he doesn't reraise, bet the turn, unless it comes A or K. then check fold. assuming he reraises. if the turn is a obvious blank (not a 9, T, J, Q, K, A), check and fold. if it is 9, T, J, Q, bet. you will not be raised and he might fold. if it is an A or a K, it will miss him 2/3 of the time. he may believe it made you two pair, and he might fold to a bet here or on the river.
one downside to this is that AK is getting odds to call your turn bet. if you just check call the flop, AK will fold on the turn. but i think that the pot is not large enough for this kind of thinking to dominate.
i probably missed some stuff. but this is my stab at it.
i'll be on the look out for uncle vinnie. i don't agree with the spartan's 'lessons' on this particular topic. however, i was not aware that itallians shared this custom.
scott
I don't think you have the betting right. I'm first. I bet, he raises, I reriase, he reraises, I call. Unless Sklansky again misinformed me. If we count the blinds we have 8 1/2 sb's.
Check raising the flop is correct since you know he will bet. I assume you call if he reraises. 9 1/2 or 10 1/2 sb's in the pot. Betting the turn if he doesn't reraise the flop is correct. Unless an A or K turn. If he reraises flop and A or K turns then folding is correct. If he raises the turn calling is correct. If he reraises flop and A or K turns then folding is correct. Don't bother bluffing the river, he ain't leaving.
You done good kid. Problem is that Sklansky said there was one correct way to play this hand and only one. Now wonder what that is?
Vince.
My undergraduate field of study is economics. I my classes they taught us concepts such as diminishing returns maximum return on investment etc. I believe this is to what David is refering. I feel his call to his peers to defend their positions to be excellent and long overdue. As regards limit holdem I am squarly in Bob Ciaffone's camp. That is to say I do not play any cheesy suited connectors up front. This includes JT. I would like my coach and David to go toe to toe. I doubt this will occur. I have played with David, Mason and Bob. Bob whines alot and does not play poker the way he teaches it to others. This does not invalidate his approach. David only seems to play in games with very high +EV. When I played with Bob he was propping at HP. I have only played lowball with Mason many years ago. Of the three David was by far the better player. As regards Krieger, Jones, and other erstwhile pretendars I don't care if you show or not.
I also had a generally high opinion of Bob's writings until recently. Then I was shocked with four different articles defiantly disagreeing with my advice. (He advises: don't isolate live ones with king queen, don't raise on the button on the flop with the nut flush draw, it is "revolting" to call on the button for a cold raise with six others in with 98suited, and don't take into account a back door flush draw on the flop since it will almost never turn a fold into a call.) I simplify of course. He defended the KQ advice by saying he teaches less than world class players who he wants to keep out of trouble. But that excuse doesn't work for the other examples where the hands don't require that much skill.
I attribute these shocking articles to Bob's experience at no limit, plus maybe a desire to stand out in the crowd by disputing me on specific poker advice about specific hands. Mike Caro used to do that often many years ago. He doesn't much any more. I get a little touchy about that in case you haven't noticed.
PS. Mason plays a lot better now Chico. But you are right about Peter Goldberg.
There may be more than one way to play this hand given the parameters mentioned. I did not specify how I thought he would react to bets or raises, rather only how he would react to a check call on the flop followed by another check. I wasn't trying to have this taken literally when making my point, just the general nature of the question.
Now before you get in a tizzy and say "how can you do this to us, Caro is right that questions don't have precise answers" the fact is that even this question that I had not thought through in detail, can be analyzed rather precisely (but would never be tackled by my competitors) as long as you examine the possibble trees, saying for example: If I think that a check raise on the flop will always be only called with the intention of being raised if a blank hits and I bet out again then---because---but if----then---because---.
Then you take a weighted average of the EVs of these plays given the mathematical liklihood of the three hands (16-6-6 unless an ace or king shows) as well as the probability in your mind that he will play the hand in a certain way. Let's see other authors do that.
I suspect in this particular hand a check raise on the flop followed by a bet if called, is the simplest solution. On the flop you have him down to 6 wins 16 out of 28 times and you have 6 wins the rest. But it is not clearcut without doing the math. Obviously if this fellow would fold immediately with only AK you should not bet on fourth st. If this fellow will occasionally reraise on the flop with AK it might change things. And playing like a little girl does allow you to know for sure if you are beaten on the end with the parameters given.
Now I don't suggest that you should be able to do this in the heat of battle. But the more of these types of problems you mull over at home in the correct way the more prepared you will be when you encounter similar situations at the table.
Now I don't suggest that you should be able to do this in the heat of battle. But the more of these types of problems you mull over at home in the correct way the more prepared you will be when you encounter similar situations at the table.
That's the most important paragraph in this entire discussion, IMO. Of course many of these problems are not computationally tractable, and even if they are, they can take hours to work out the possible EV's. So many players and authors would say that that is a waste of time.
But if you get used to doing that exercise, it gives you a feel for the situation that you can use at the table. And sometimes you can gain insights that you never knew existed. For example, the EV of a particular play may boil down to a overwhelming variable like the chance that the opponent is raising with AA. Sometimes these insights leap out of the math.
But most importantly, as you say, analyzing poker is a mental discipline, and the more you engage in it at your leisure away from the table, the more you'll engage in it at the table, and the easier it will become.
Strangely, however, David tried to discourage a discussion of what important variables ought to be considered when deciding how to play a hand like Ts9s when you flop something like Ad7c6h and are first to act with a pretty big pot.
He had a similar reaction when a debate broke out about playing a mediocre pair in early position with a big pot.
Post deleted at author's request
Gary do you purposely not read all the words in my posts? I AGREED with you that writing is not a zero sum game. As to the poker problem I was just trying to illustrate an example of the TYPE of question that that tends to have definite reasoning and arguments for a precise answer. The example just popped into my head at the moment while I was writing, and I could have done a better job coming up with one. But I did not want to lose my train of thought at the time. I am sorry that some people thought that that specific problem was something special.
Post deleted at author's request
it was nothing special, just something interesting.
scott
'
did you accidently his post message?
scott
What is the deal with these so called "Laws of Caro"? Does this guy see himself as some sort of modern day Isaac Newton or what?
Case in point, I'm over at deja.com yesterday, and America's Mad Hatter makes reference to what he calls "Caro's Law of Loose Wiring." It states: "If choices are not clearly connected to their benefits, people USUALLY interact in ways that make outcomes unpredictable. If choices are clearly connected to their benefits, people SOMETIMES act in ways that make outcomes unpredictable.
Usually? Sometimes? Newton's Laws aren't a bunch of vague explanations of events that MAY or SOMETIMES occur SOMEWHERE within the universe--USUALLY! Newton's Laws are UNIVERSAL, and CONSTANT. If they WEREN'T, then we would no longer refer to them as LAWS. GET IT?
Sincerely, Dale with the boring name, according to some BOOB named Ray Zee that is.
Dale,
I started a similiar thread a few days ago. No responses. I agree with you about Caro. He puts out these "Law's" that are inane and IMO counter productive. I have read posts here defending some of his work. There may be some good stuff out there by him but that is even more of a reason not to read his articles. If he has contributed some good work to poker literature and one now puts his faith in his words (a mistake for any advanced player of any poker writer) you will be misled. It is one thing to put out a well thought iut theory for scutiny and review but I don't see any thought or at least not "well thought out" stuff coming from this guy in his Card Player articles. Maybe it's me?
Vince.
Please clarify something in your post'its a mistake for an advanced player to trust any poker writer'.As someone who is working to become and advanced player,and has read virtually every good book,I've come to the conclusion that they are very useful in making you think,but when it comes down to it ,its the players ability to apply and develop skills that will make him a winner.Caro uses that law stuff as a marketing gimick,others use the we are the only source that has a clue gimick.
In re-reading your post I clearly did'nt post your quote verbatum,hope the meaning was'nt altered.
"I've come to the conclusion that they are very useful in making you think,but when it comes down to it ,its the players ability to apply and develop skills that will make him a winner"
No need forme to clarify my thought, you've done it for me. I specifically used the word "faith" in my comment and really meant "blind faith". Advanced players use book material as a quick review of fundamental concepts for various reasons. Maybe things aren't going well at the time. Maybe they haven't cracked a book in a while. Maybe a particular tough game is in the future. It is a good idea to periodically review S&M's material if for no other reasin than to refresh your memory. But thier material is exactly that fundamental for an advanced player. Once one understands the fundamental concepts that are useful for becoming a winning player they must then find a way to win. Books, discussions with those you respect, experience are all fundamental to winning but they are not enough. I repeat, you must find a way to win. Regardless of how much you can learn from Sklansky, Malmuth, Carson, Badger, Z et al they cannot play for you. Consequently once you advance in poker you shold take everything you hear with a grain of salt. Think about what they are telling you. Think if what they are telling you makes sense. Is logical. Most importantly think of how what they tell you is applicable to your game. If you are an aggressive player and Gary Carson tells you that you are better off checking mid pair to a large field, question how or even if you want to play that way. Playing poker is not like playing Black Jack. In blackjack you follow a specific strategy regardless of your own personal makeup. In poker, fortunately, you can tie your game to your personal makeup. Of course if your a maniac I would be a little careful but I think you get the idea.
Remeber that these are my opinions and that's all they are. If you want more you better talk to Sklansky.
Vince.
Post deleted at author's request
"This idea of matching your action to your own psychology starts with game selection. "
In fact Gary, it ends with game selection. Why play in an unfriendly game. And I do not mean play a game with your friends. There is nothing worse than playing in a game in which you are uncomfortable. Whatever the reason for the uncomfort. Whether it is because you are bored or if the level is above your economic comfort level or if the guy next to you smells why play in a game that doesn't suit your style. Just because a game maybe full of "those morons" that Sklansky is fond of referring to does not make it a good game for you.
Vince.
BTW - My refernce to your position on betting into a large field was not meant to criticise but as an example of a point I was trying to get across.
Post deleted at author's request
Now Gary don't piss me off. I'm much better at attacking than Sklansky, Malmuth and Z combined. If you persist in referring to a poker hand as "pissant" the poker gods will certainly show thier immense disdain for your attitude. You may think that I am kidding but you will see. Your'e whole game will be plagued with beats of House over flush, flush over straight, straight over (big) set. Mark my words, buddy. Treat any 2 cards with respect. For as all Great Holdem players KNOW. Any two cards can win! Just ask Doyle Brunson. What's the EV of T,2o? Again ask Brunson.
Vince.
Vince:
Cut Doyle a little slack...wasn't one of the T2's suited?
C
When the blinds and antes are that high, as in the WSOP, it's minus EV not to see a flop with any two cards. Don't forget, it was heads up.
You'd be better off have multiple poker "personalities" and choose the best one for the game. By this I mean having multiple consistent strategies to choose from.
Some games you should play squeaky tight and passive, and let them bet themselves to death; a "weak-tight" personality. Some games you should be straight forward since they are tricking themselves to death. Some games you should consistently be "tricky" (such as slow playing) since they like to bet-and-fold themselves to death. Some games you should be less selective and bet routinely, since they like to check-and-fold themselves to death.
This last is my natural "personality" and I admit I have some difficultly playing in other manners. But I do better in the first strategy if I think and act like a little-old-man; such as sitting in the 1 seat, keeping a small neat stack of chips, and say very little.
I think, anyway.
- Louie
Louie,
Interesting post. 20 years ago I used to own a beef jerky distributing company called Cactus Jack's Wholesale Snacks. The company motto was: "You might beat my prices, but you can't beat my meat!"
Anyway, one of the problems I encountered in myself and my sales people was that we all had "call reluctance". In poker, call reluctance is probably a good thing, but in sales, it can be a killer. Sometimes, I just couldn't bring myself to go stand in front of another potential customer and make my corny sales pitch. In desperation, I finally decided to dress up in a cowboy costume complete with ten gallon hat and fancy boots. Since I am 6'8 1/2" tall, I stood about 7 1/2 feet tall in that outfit. I became "Cactus Jack". Since I was just playing a character, not anything like my real self, any fear I had about looking or soundy goofy just vanished. I was able to start really enjoying myself and became even more outrageous in my sales pitch; it wasn't me making a fool of himself, it was "Cactus Jack".
That was a long time ago. When I play poker now, I always remember that lesson; so, a good percentage of the time, when I'm sitting in a game, I'll be playing one of many styles pretty much as you described above. Some of these styles are silent, where I just adjust my play. Sometimes though, I'm pretending to be a certain character and can switch playing styles so that I'm playing opposite the style that my character's speech might suggest. I'm not certain it makes me more money, but I sure have a lot of fun doing it.
I think this is interesting, because people try to determine your personality by the way you dress. When you put on a costume, you can get a chance to act a little more to throw them off. It will give you a new perspective and it's a lot of fun.
Post deleted at author's request
"You are who you are. You're not going to be able to change that on a whim. Don't try."
My psyciatrist disagrees. But seriously ... Actors change their personalities all the time. Football teams do as well. While one may have a single "natural" personality changing it to the situation isn't that hard. Imagine yourself at dinner with the Queen. Imagine yourself arguing with a mob who's about to hang you. I'm confident you will act very different in these situations. And it you can ACT as if you have a different personality, well then for now you do.
Heck, you've no doubt read some "nice" posts of mine? :)
I agree being natural is easier than not but I disagree one should always avoid games requiring a different personality strategy. Doing so will mean playing in a poor game because a great game is not to ones "liking".
- Louie
Maybe Caro's "laws" are made up of the same stuff that Sklansky's "theorem" is. As neither the "laws" nor the "theorems" are what they claim to be, maybe we should conclude that all poker authors are just out to skim a buck off of us?
On the other hand I doubt that neither Sklansky nor Caro is just out to make a buck, all evidence to the contrary aside.
- Andrew
Post deleted at author's request
I believe that Mike Caro is in fact smart enough to meet my challenge, debate specific poker situations rationally and give a good account of himself without resorting to vagueness or alluding to the "it all depends" copout. However he would occasionally make mistakes and be caught redhanded by others (as Mason did with Mike's Holdem report) and this would reduce the aura of invincibility that he puts forth. Other writers, however would be torn to pieces if they engaged in debates either here or on rgp. Specifically I would like Bob Ciaffone to try to defend his recent assertions about back door flush draws or 98suited on the button.
To be fair to the other authors... There are only so many hours in a day. When I get fully involved on 2+2 I sometimes kill 3 hours a day here. And if I were an author with a reputation to protect, I'd have to take even more time to double-check everything I write, expecially when other authors are waiting to pounce on me for any little slipup to show everyone my faulty logic.
And if I do participate, and never slip up, what is my upside? Am I going to sell a lot more books? I doubt it. So engaging in debates on this board simply would not be in my own self-interest. I think that's a reason you can fully appreciate, if I understand your philosophy correctly.
You are right Dan. There is little upside and big downside for them. But answering specific questions and entering debates and acquitting themself well should help them sell books. And they do post about generic subjects. Believe me they don't post on rgp, let alone here, about specific hands because they fear they will be exposed, not because of time constraints. However with my challenge I hope to change that upside vs downside ratio for them. Ignoring my challenge now adds more downside to not posting on these subjects. Hopefully people will be watching to see if they accept and put themselves through that scrutiny. Remember, we do everyday. PS The reason I single out Bob Ciaffone and his recent comments about backdoorflushes (in Card Player) and 98 suited on the button (in the Conjelco Catalogue) is because he directly and disdainfully disputes us without mentioning us by name. In the case of 98 suited he says that the idea of calling a double bet on the button in a multiway pot is "revolting" and will cost you a half a bet in the long run. He admits he says this on feel and that he did no math or computer run. And people wonder why I get nasty sometimes.
Post deleted at author's request
No, Gary. Ciaffone said that he has never met a player who plays too tight and he is referring to pre-flop play. He is basing this on the many pros he has associated with plus all the students he has tutored over the years. I have only met one player in the dozens that I know who I think plays too tight pre-flop. Now I know a lot of players who play too passively by not raising aggressively on their good hands but this is a different phenomnenon.
Post deleted at author's request
I have a lot of respect for Ciaffone, but his attitude regarding suited connectors is nuts. I seem to recall that he said that you could always fold hands like 87s, even on the button, because they don't make you any money.
AlwaysAlwaysAlways! NeverNeverNever! PokerPokerPoker!
You figure it out!
Vince.
David writes: "PS The reason I single out Bob Ciaffone and his recent comments about backdoorflushes (in Card Player) and 98 suited on the button (in the Conjelco Catalogue) is because he directly and disdainfully disputes us without mentioning us by name."
I've been a student of Bob's for a year now. He's added to my bankroll the price of tuition by 50 fold. No, he's not without his flaws and niether am I. He is an excellent teacher and he gives it to you straight, no equivocation. His phone is 517-792-0884. If he doesn't put money in your pocket then you probably don't want to win anyway.
Lastly, I'm fairly sure Bob Ciaffone has unequal distain for the S + M duo. I'm fairly sure he'd be interested in discourse with David. I'm certain he wouldn't relieve himself on Mason if Mason were on fire.
I hate to break the news to you but Bob is actually a pretty good friend of mine. But that doesn't mean that this advice isn't wrong.
I'm sure Bob's on your Christmas card list just like Lee Jones and Mike Caro. Time for you meds Mason.
Since you are one of Bob's premier students, why don't you check with your mentor. I'm sure that he will tell you that what I stated above is 100 percent true. Furthermore, if you look at my reviews of books which appear in my Gambling Theory book you will see that all of Bob's books are rated (by me) highly. I can't say the same for the other authors that you mention.
Caro's law of recall: "Exaggerating Principles into Laws makes them easier to recall."
Get it?
There are plenty of vague laws; there are many laws refering to what "reasonable people" would think. Newton's "Laws" are certainly NOT absolute, since they fall apart when considering relativity.
- Louie
why do people always argue by analogy, make a mistake and prompt some twit (here i am the twit) to correct their irrelevent mistake? anyway, here it goes. although it is the most common form of his second law, newton did not state that f = m*a. f = m*a does not hold relativistically. newton wrote that the the force equals the derivative of momentum with respect to time. f = m*a comes from assuming that the mass is constant with respect to time, which is not true under relativity. newton's second law is actually invariant under a lorentz transformation and is a ok with relativity.
i know that wasn't your point. but whatever. it is done. i've wasted enough of your time.
scott
Actually, technically, didn't newton write something in latin that translates roughly to the sum of the external forces on an object is equal to the change in that object's momentum with respect to time?
Yeah, I kinda miss people telling me to shut up at least once per round.
-Joe
No, No Joe,
What he wrote was, the momentum of the object's sum times the velocity of the external forces acting upon the relatives in the living room will eventually cause disruption in the nucleus resulting in a disfunctional family.
He was going to publish his findings in the Harvard PsychoPhysics Astrological Weekly, Jan 5, 1852 Vol IIIx69, but Sigmund beat him to it 40 years later! Such is life.
Vince.
Louie,
So what you are saying is that Caro acknowledges his observations aren't laws at all huh? Good, because they aren't.
Burt
Stick to poker Louie, and leave the thinking to those who can.
-Jerry
I think perhaps you confuse "annoying" or "vociferous" with "stupid". That's a potential disaster if made at the table.
I will be pleased to engage all insulters via Email; at least for those who don't need their anonomity to feel brave. This will reduce the noise/signal ratio of the forum pretty much to everyone's benefit.
- Louie
"at least for those who don't need their anatomy to feel brave."
Listen Lucy, maybe you don't need certain parts of your anatomy to feel brave, but I sure do. So please don't be so damn conedescending.
-Zack
from a smart-ass caltech student, 2+2's resident physics expert.
Scott already handled the fact that remnants of newton's laws of motion still hold, however Newton's laws are not absolute, and it has nothing to do with relativity.
Entre Quantum Mechanics. It turns out that a proabablistic interpretation based in wave mechanics provides the best theory. This theory (Relativistic Quantum Mechanics) Is super absolute up to energies around 100 GeV. That's less than a joule in point of fact, but at the atomic, and subatomic particle scale, that's a huge amount of energy. So these RQM theoriies are as close to ABSOLUTE law as we can get. (Never mind that we can't calculate a single thing with more than two bodies interacting) However, we know for a fact that this theory is wrong, becasue it has no Gravity. And empirically, this presents a difficulty. Now, some people argue that the probabilistic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics means that the theory does not evolve in a definate manner. The people who say this are morons. As a complete theory (w/out gravity) Quantum Mechanics thinks of itself as an Absolute theory and it is wrong.
Shut up, chiral boy. Maybe you know physics, but who falls for the one card delay every single time I slowplay a flush?
actually, it isn't. but I thought this would be a good way to talk about what I want to. And what I want to talk about is.........snacks. I think poker rooms should upgrade the quality of their snacks. I'm sick and tired of the same themed food in poker rooms. Where are the little hot dogs, where are the little egg rolls. Where is the giant noodle soups, the fried dumplings. Furthermore, I think it is important to talk about the best way to eat these snacks. Not like a lot of the fat people do, and grease up the cards so that they have to get changed a lot. The solution? Just as quantum physics must seek to incorporate gravity, bio-suits must seek to incorporate snacks. And until they do, there will be no unified theory.
that is all.
alex
I think i'm gonna have to agree with alex here. as far as i'm concerned, the best poker food i've ever had was made by Ted's mom, and man, it was AMAZING. I highly recommend that more casino's try (most likely in vain unfortunately) to replicate Ted's mom's cooking, cause it's just, well, really really good. I think that would open up poker to a whole new genre of players, most of whom would concentrate too much on the food, and lose money. You know, come to think of it, I don't think I've ever had a winning session at Ted's house... hmmm... Anyway, yes, food.
Here's the ticket. Serve turkey. There's something about that turkey meat that makes everyone tired and lose their edge. Next time you're at the Casino, tell everyone that the carved turkey is delicious (ha ha ha).
"Celebrity Death Match" on MTV. Now if we can get enough people to call into MTV....and if we can appeal to Caro's alter-ego....and if we can convince David that it's all in the mathematics....who knows what could happen. I can picture it now.
Early in the fight, Sklansky scores with a few clotheslines and several belly to belly supplexes. But Caro counters with a stone cold stunner. Unfortunately for Caro, the referee wouldn't be able to do the 3 count. He has been hit with a chair by Malmuth and is now unconscious. But look who enters the arena, it's Tom McEvoy!!! He does a double leg takedown on Malmuth and the two tangle evenly outside the ring. The crowd goes wild....
In the entrance ramp lurks a buxom, sexy babe in spiked heels just waitng to aid Caro. She approaches the ring in a cloud of smoke. When she emerges, Sklansky recognizes her. It's Barbara Yoon.....Dave's worst nightmare. What is he to do? Is there no one to help Dave?? Where's Wonder Woman when you need her???
I think Dave's ass is grass and Babs is the lawnmower.
More later
There is a speed trap.
The sheriff stops almost everyone and they get to pay a fine.
The federal gov’t looks at who is arrested and sees:
99 out of 100 arrested are Black.
96 out of 100 arrested are White.
Should the gov’t bring an anti discrimination suit by
claiming that the odds are over 4 to 1 that those
arrested are more likely to be Black than White?
Bad math. The odds are 99 to 96 -- about 1.03 to 1.
Post deleted at author's request
ah, man.. you're assuming noone can be both black and white. ...everyone of us is every color, man...
scott
Post deleted at author's request
Are you saying that out of 100 blacks pulled over, 99 are arrested? And 96 of 100 pulled over whites?
No way is there enough information to suggest discrimination. Heck, he could easily be a black Sheriff indiscriminatly pulling over all the whites, speeding or not, hoping he can catch them on SOMETHING. Often, he won't get anything on them including a speeding ticket.
A better statistic would be out of 100 black speeders going between 15-20 miles over the speed limit, how many are pulled over. And how many such whites. Or better yet, how many ultimatley get arrested.
- Louie
I think that this was an attempt on your part to put your "odds fallacy" problem into a concrete example. Except that it doesn't work. Events A and B below are stated to be independent events. Not so with this example. If 99 out of 100 people ticketed are black then there's NO WAY 96 of 100 people can be white (unless you are talking about the town of Oreo, Texas:).
I sense that you are still perplexed by the odds fallacy problem. I admit my explanation of where I think you went wrong was a poor one. If you are still scratching your head, feel free to E-mail me and I'll try to explain it better (although I have to say I am no math whiz like our man scott).
SKP,
Finally I get a chance to respond to one of your responses again. Missed you old buddy. When you goin to Vegas again?
Hey you are TOTALLY WRONG! I was born in a small town. I was raised in a small town. In my small town 99 out of 100 residents were white and 96 out of a 100 were black. Now how could that be you ask? I was born in a small town near the North Pole. We counted penguins as residents. Makes you wonder about the makeup of the city now doesn't it?
Vince.
a penguin to just be walking around.
adam sandler is a genius. He's already discovered that penguins are from the north pole. Carry on in serious discussion of american discriminatory practices, I am sorry for having interrupted.
there aint no penguins at the noth pole. dem penguins live south of the equator.
Scusa Misser Z but de Penquines is boids, you see. In factoid dem penguines is de only boids that fly nord fo de vinter. Dey be migratroies type boids. Dey live at de Sout poole in de sumner and nord poole in de vinter. Dis way dey git to see Santa Klaus fly mit rudy on xmas twips.
Vince.
I hope my Montanaese bear language is correct. I tried very hard to get it right. I even went to the library and got a Montana Bear Talk Dictionary to help me. Funny there is no word for Penguin in the dictionary. Seems that in Montana a boid is a boid is a boid.
sorry Vince penguins dont fly either. they waddle or swim. and its a myth that santa spends all his time at the north pole, check your local shopping center for details.
it is quite obvious that both the black and the white are being discriminated against. in texas a large number of the people driving by are mexican. why doesnt the sheriff stop them also?
And why don't they post here?
You people have too much time on your hands.
and you were!
Erin,
I think it is important to remember that the "odds" we often talk about are really an odds ratio. Take rolling a die. The odds of rolling a six is one in 6. However, for gambling purposes we are interested in the ratio of 'odds against' to 'odds for'. Thus the gambling "odds" for rolling the 6 is 5 to 1.
To extend this to the odds falacy question, lets say that on a given day event A occurs 99% of the time and event B occurs 96% of the time. I offer you $1 against your $50, that event A will not happen tomorrow, and the same bet on event B, should you accept either bet? You quickly figure your gambling "odds". Event A odds ratio 99 to 1(99/1), event B odds ratio 24 to 1(96/4). Compare these odds ratios to the odds my bet is offering 50 to 1 and you see that you should accept the bet on event A and not event B. This is basic gambling math. So why the confusion?
When comparing odds ratios, it is incorrect to say that event A is 4 times more likely than event B, because people will assume that you are comparing the 'odds for' event A to the 'odds for' event B, as many people tried to say, 99 to 96. Either that or they try to change your reasoning around to say the 'odds against' event B happening is 4 times the 'odds against' event A happening(4 to 1).
The way I like to phrase it is to say that I am 4 times as confident in event A occuring than event B(99 to 24). Accordingly, I am willing to risk 4 times as much money on event A than event B.
Hope this clears up the question.
Wayne
After plowing through much of that "author bashing" thread, I found the real gem:
"Now I don't suggest that you should be able to do It just goes to show you ... but I'll let others elaborate.
- Louie
In sports, there is a concept called "muscle memory conditioning". It means that the more you repeat a certain movement (a serve, a swing, a throw, a jab, etc.) in your training away from the arena, the more natural that movement will become for you once you actually compete in the arena, in "the heat of battle". I guess, Sklansky believes that this applies to our mental muscles as well. I agree. I'm reminded of what golfer Gary Player once said:"The more I practice, the luckier I become".
Percentage of Very Good, Excellent & W.C. for Middle Limit Holdem
In Gambling for a Living, there is an essay titled “Your Hourly Rate” (page 249) that shows various hourly win rates for three categories of players. In particular, I am interested in the $15/30 and $20/40 Limit Texas Holdem games. The following win rates are stated for a “very good player”, “excellent player” and “world class player”--- $25, $35 & $40 per hour for the $15/30 players and $25, $40 & $50 for the $20/40 players. These figures are for the less-selective players that will generally play in the better games but are not highly selective. The article also quotes various higher figures for selective players that scout out the superior game situations but are forced to play only about 20-30 hours per week.
I have a very interesting question for Mason and Dave that I would like them to address. I believe their answer to that question would not only serve to more precisely define these three categories of abilities, but also clarify in practical terms how rare or limited are players that possess these skills and abilities to qualify in these three categories.
I think it’s extremely obvious that the majority of $15/30 and $20/40 DO NOT even qualify in ANY of these three categories. Most players (even at this limit) are losers or small winners in the long run. I play often in the Los Angeles area at these limits on a regular basis. During the peak hours on a regular weekday (about 6pm to 1am), the three big cardrooms (Commerce, Hollywood Park and the Bike) have about 100 players (a convenient figure coincidentally) actively participating in $15/30 and $20/40 Texas Holdem game.
Of these 100 active players on a given random night in L.A., how many are “very good”, “excellent” and “world class” in abilities as defined in the essay? I have my opinion on these numbers…let’s hear what others have to say those numbers are. In particular, we look forward to hearing Mason and Dave’s expertise on those numbers in the Los Angeles area $15/30 & $20/40 holdem games.
I'm interested in the response you get,but I'm wondering if you can estimate what % of those players,read,study,think poker,are disciplined,can mange money/stress,don't have other problems(ie substance abuse etc.)I'd be more interested inwhat % of the above described are winners.
Yours is an excellent question and I would be interested in hearing their responses. For what it is worth, I play $20-$40 here in the Gulf Coast area and I average about $30 per hour. I know dozens of players and there are only two that have better hourly rates than I have for over 500 hours of play. Of all the players I know, there is only one that I would put in the "excellent" category. There might be 4 or 5 that I would put in the "very good" category. In my opinion, less than 5% of the players are in the "very good" category and less than 1% our in the " excellent category". I know of no one in the gulf coast who plays $20-$40 that is a "world class" limit hold-em player. I know probably over 100 players that play at this level. We do have a few "world class" pot limit hold-em players (e.g.-Tommy Venus, Junior Prejohn, Billy Mac.)
As aside, I believe the hourly rates that Sklansky and Malmuth put together in their excellent book "Gambling for a Living" are the most accurate available. Most of the hourly rates I hear from other sources including some posts on this forum awhile back are grossly overstated and simply ridiculous (e.g.- 4 to 5 big bets per hour in a $15-$30 game).
Seeking opinions, advice... When you sit down at a table, what method do you use to get a read on the players as quick as possible? Pick a couple and watch thier play? Try to get a general feel for the whole table, then focus on one or a couple of players at time? Are there things you look for that will tip you off about a player's style right away? One thing I've been noting is who is willing to fold cards on the button or BB if there is just one raise. With this type of player, at least I know they have at least some clue about playing good poker, as opposed to those who, once invested in the pot, will throw in more chips no matter what (at least pre-flop, and perhaps further). I await wisdom, or something like it.
Initially, you want to focus on the type of table that you are playing in not on the specific types of players that your opponents are. Is it a loose aggressive table? a tight aggressive table? a loose passive table? a tight passive table? Once you've figured out what kind of table it is, start asking yourself the question: Which specific player(s) is making this table so and so? For example, if this table is tight aggressive, which specific player(s) is making this table the tight aggressive table that it is? This is an important question as it helps you pin point who has the most influence in this game - the trend leader so to speak. My point is that you should start with the general (table type) before you narrow your focus down to the specifics (player types). Of course this can always be expedited thru the act of observing various tables before you sit down and play, that is while you're still on the list waiting for your name to be called. Consider doing table analysis and player analysis BEFORE you sit down and play. It's a great time saver.
Objectively, these factors are high on then list for evaluating the table as a whole: ==1== How many players see the flop ==2== %age of unraised pots ==3== Number of players who call the flop ==4== %age of showdowns.
For an individual player, these factors are high: ==1== number of hands played in early position ==2== bet/call/fold ratios on the flop ==3== %age hands won without getting in the last bet.
- Louie
Louie, do you believe that it is possible to come up with a simple point count system to make one's weighing of these relevant factors less subjective? Is there an objective table evaluator and player evaluator point count system in existence that you know to be dependable?
Caro had one, "simple and powerful" of course, but I don't recall where. Perhaps it was in the "12 Days to Holdem Success".
If memory serves when I was inclinded to do frequency calculations, it seemed to me that following the 2+2 by-rote starting hands that a player would volentarily play about 1 hand in 8; not counting easy folds when UTG raises and easy weak calls after several other calls. Since the BB is regularly in, this would lead me to suspect that the "correct average" number of players taking the flop should be about 2.4. <-- Crude guess.
- Louie
1st thing I do is check out the piles of chips big stacks are my concern.
I see who the live action is - who is playing all the hands and who is playing the blinds and button smart.
If they are playing J8 UTG and on the button or are they playing premium on the button and loosening up as position advances.
If they are playing J8 UTG and on the button or are they playing premium on the button and loosening up as position advances.
Should Read:
If they are playing J8 UTG and on the button or are they playing premium hands UTG and loosening up as position advances. Also, are they playing all their small blinds.
I want to start a thread of responses about on-line gambling (HE poker specifically)in regards to the difference in strategy necessary to be a winning player. This a subject I haven't seen talked about anywhere yet Let's assume an honest game 5-10,10-20, 20-40 HE and that you will get paid :). These are my thoughts in no significant order:
1) The expert player loses some advantages: Tells no possible (other than delays on the Internet or on purpose but unable to detemine this in real time).
2) The expert player may lose some mathematical advantage as some non-mathematical players may have the odds in front of them when making decisions about a call or raise etc.
3) The very agressive player loses the phsycological edge of being at a table and use his manerisms, fake tells etc.
4) The limitation of 4 raises even with 2 players diminishes the extra raises a player may get from a maniac that doesn't realise he is drawing dead or does not have the best hand.
5) Tight agressive seems to take the money.
6) More bad players are joining the on-line gambling making these easier to beat.
7) Advantages?????
For the experts out there can estimate the loses to an expert player because:
a) Limits on the numbers of raises with 2 people in the pot.
b) The phsycological edge.
Any comments is appreciated
Sergio
Sergio, does your Mom know that you're an underage gambler?
1)Tells don't add up to that much in Stud Games. Reading hands by a player's actions is really all an expert needs.
2)You can play two games at once.
3)You can take notes on your opponents easier.
4)You can get a total recap of any hand, and who had what on the river. (as long as they called)
5)In Stud you can write down what cards were Folded.
CV
Ya.. but you can't tell who is on the phone with other players tell each other their down cards. You get a group of players who know each other and there on the phone telling each other what they have and you have no chance.
LOL (but please! keep pumping your money in the middle
your *skills* may help you lose a bit less)
HA,HA,HA,HA,HA
Thanks for your donations, onlinecheat
It is stated in HEFAP that to draw to a Runner Runner Flush is 1/5 * 1/5
(or at the bottom of the page it's 10/47 * 9/46)
Calc: 10/47 = 4.7
9/46 = 5.1
(4.7 * 5.1) = 23.97:1 or 24:1
Ok I see this but shouldn't it be,
Calc (47-10/10) * (46-9/9)
Odds of the 10 outs is 47-10 = 37
37/10 = 3.7
3.7:1 to hit the first flush card
odds of the 9 outs: 46 - 9 = 37
37 / 9 is 4.1:1
Then we get 3.7. * 4.1 = 15.17:1 or just 15:1
What am I missing here??
Thank you
You are misplacing your decimal point - 1/5 x 1/5 is .20 X .20 or 4% or 1:25.
All this math gives me a headache - just don't play for runner runner EVER and you'll be money ahead.
Never???
6 players cap-it pre-flop(24 sb) I have AsQd on the button.
On the Flop of: 2s 9s Kh
5 call the flop 29sb to me on the button (30 after I call)
I know that the BB only goes on AA, and I should FOLD??
R U sure about this Rounder?
Rounder nor i would call 6 bets with ace queen especially when we knew someone had aces. you should amend your cheating ways.
Let's see.
"Rounder nor i would call 6 bets with ace queen especially when we knew someone had aces. you should amend your cheating ways. "
Z is UTG, Rounder is sitting on his left shoulder giving him advice. That's because Z plays better than Rounder or so says the WC. Anyway they agree and Raise with A,Qo, 7 callers to BB, BB loose player raises, Z calls (raises if you prefer), all call to SB, another loose player, raises, BB calls. Z What folds? I don't think so. He calls, and this continues in a Casino where there is a six raise limit. The last player to raise is the only solid player and would not raise with less than AA in this situation. So Rounder and Z throw way their hand for one more bet. I don't think so.
Vince.
NO! NO! NO! HELL NO! I don't play that game besides not calling a capped pot with AQ specially if I know the BB is on AA (hour a huge underdog) I am just flat not getting in a drawing contest with the odds at 25 to 1 I will hit a flush.
Hey Rounder! Where do you stand in the Sklansky-Ciaffone debate on backdoor flush draws? Ciaffone says they rarely turn a fold into a call on the flop except in jammed pots. Sklansky says Ciaffone is seriously mistaken.
Jim - I don't think it would come to a suprist to anyone that unless I have something else going for me like Over cards or a pair, I'm flat not drawing to a long shot.
You are missing some math lessons. Let's do this quickly before Dave sees your post and has a fit.
When expressing chances in terms of odds, we use for example 5 to 1 to describe an event that has one chance in six (not five). There will be 5 "bad" events and 1 "good" event on average, six in total, ok? The probability of this event expressed in fractions is 1/6 (one sixth). It's the same thing as 5 to 1, expressed in a different notation. An event with probability of 1/6 happening is 5 to 1 dog.
The way to do probability math is of course to use fractions. You multiplied the odds. Big mistake.
---
That's why I asked
Thanks
Izmet
Is this the same as Abdul's "Theory of Sucking out" as posted on your web site?
Abdul's text you mention is a detailed study on "playing behind" (=drawing). It's hardly the same as my humble post.
Izmet
Is the table on pages 15 and 16 intended for all HE or limit ring ganes?
For that matter since tournaments are not discussed (so far as I have gotten) is the book intended for ring games?
The authors state in the preface that HPFAP is intended for a full tabled $10-$20 game and higher up to limits around $40-$80. The starting hand guidelines are designed for what the authors view as a "typical" $10-$20 game.
What do you mean by a ring game? My definition is a full table. Secondly the precepts contained within work quite well for limit holdem tournaments for the most part, once you realize that a tournament table tends to be like a tightish side game table.
I undervalue the suited cards and make them only 1 group better than their unsuited counterpart, if that.
Losing players always make the mistake of overvaluing suited cards and I don't want to make that mistake. I see the point of them but I just don't like to overvalue them.
I think it is a big big mistake to over value suited cards (suprise) specially in tournaments when you can't buy more chips. To be calling raises with 98 suited (group 4)is just bad strategy where as calling a raise with KJs (also group 4) in late position is acceptable.
Also I like to put AK just under TT - since you can win more pots unimproved with TT and you have two of the key cards for a big straight that can go from 6 low to A high.
I would also value A9s and Axs at least a 4 if not a 3 as opposed to the J9s which I won't even play.
I appreciate your book and am looking forward to reading it on my next flight (next thursday).
Rounder, I don't know about tournaments but I believe big slick is a much better starting hand than pocket Tens. The odds are very much against pocket Tens improving to the best hand if several players take the flop whereas big slick can improve over one third of the time when you consider possible nut straight and nut flush draws available in addition to top pair/top kicker. In addition, I think you can cold-call legitimate raises from early position players with big slick and have a lot more security than with pocket Tens although I would cold-call with Tens as well. Against a solid early position raiser you are a big dog to an over pair and only a slight favorite the other times with Tens. With slick, when I flop top pair/top kicker I beat QQ,JJ, TT along with AQ,AJ suited, and KQ suited which many players raise on in early position. If the flop misses me when I have big slick and the pre-flop raiser bets the flop I have an easy fold. With pocket Tens, you are in a guessing game if an over card flops and the pre-flop raiser bets into you on the flop.
Jim I am talking about tournaments where you are mostly heads up. TT will be eneough to take the pot if it doesn't improve where as your AK can't beat 22 if it doesn't bet better.
I agree with your reevaluations in tighter games and in tournaments.
Its not that suited cards are just one group higher than their unsuited counterparts; its the unsuited hands that are much inferior to their suited counterparts.
87o is terrible; 87s is "much better" but still not that high.
- Louie
I haven't seen this activity happen yet. I'll let you know when I find it. If there is cheating on-line it sure isn't affecting my outcome yet.
cv
I don't know why my Replies keep getting moved?
One last thought is that I have never got put in the middle. Though it could be easy to get a group of players to talk to each other about their hole cards, I don't see how they could make much money by it with out getting carried away and getting caught.
There is a passive way to play partners just because you would know about more cards than the other players, and can make better decisions. I don't think it would be worth the effort to form a partnership.
There is also the problem about getting caught. With all the Bad players on-line, I'd hate to run the risk of getting banned just because I was trying to up my win rate in the short term.
Later, CV
%0
The normal form of this cheating is that only the partner with the "better hand" would play.
Lets see; Opponent has T9s, I've got AQ and can save money since my partner has AK. Opponent has TT, I've got 87d and partner had A2d. Opponent raises with AK, I've got Js and partner has Qs. In all these cases, most opponents would PREFER that I play since I have little additional chance to beat them.
If you OR I were in a 3 handed contest but got to play 2 hands (of course each hand paying its fair blinds) but could not bet with one and raise the other; this advanatage is so great that I believe either of us would have a fair shot at any of the authors.
In live games this form of cheating is near impossible to detect. More profitable but MUCH more obvious is raising your partner when he's got the nuts.
- Louie
I am afraid Louie is right.
What is a "kill" game? Also, what's a must move game?
Some games are designated that when someone wins two pots in a row or scoops a split pot, this person must "kill" it by posting an additional blind, bigger than the BB, and this next hand is of the higher stakes. For example, there are 6/12 hi/lo games where if someone scoops a $100 pot then he must post $9 on the next hand, and that hand is played $9/18. I have no idea why the word "kill" applies here.
"Kill" also seems to mean "take the last raise".
"Must Move" is an attempt to protect the "main game". If there is a 10/20 game going the house may spread an additional "must move" 10/20. When a seat comes open in the main game the "next" player in the 2nd table "must move" to the main game.
- Cluey
A "kill game" is how you refer to a game that has cleaned you out/killed, and then you must move.
Now that's what I thought!
Not really, thank you for your response.
When considering river play, or seventh street, or post draw, or whatever you call the final round of betting in your game, I suggest that there is a paradox that says, the weaker your hand, the more likely the correct play is to bet. I am interested if others share this view as well.
Wayne
I don't see it as a paradox. It comes down to compareing your EV relative to your options of check-fold, check-call, check-raise, bet-fold, bet-call, or bet-rereaise. You might choose to bet-fold or bet-call if you think the combination of the chance you have your opponent beat and the chance he will fold makes your bet more profitable then the other choices. You often check-call to either induce a bluff, protect against an opponent that might bluff-raise you into an uncomfortable spot, or against a hard to read opponent when you have a middling hand. This does lead to betting weak hands against opponents that might fold a better hand and checking middling hands against opponents that might bet a weaker hand.
Sometimes it is wrong to try to simplify too much. The chapter called Head Up on the End in the Theory of Poker, pretty much says what needs to be said about this subject and there is no way to condense that lenghty chapter into a few words.
Thank you,
Am just reading Theory of Poker for first time(currently on semi-bluffing). I look forward to this chapter.
Wayne
I disagree. Its always wrong to simplify TOO much ;)
My post wasn't to explain the issues in detail but to point out there ISN'T a general pradox.
In general, the pot is bigger on the last round than on the earlier round(s)... thus in general, "it is better to lose a bet than to lose a pot" in the last round. Your insight that in the last round it is likely that a bet with a weak hand is the correct play is valid. Think expected value. Think expected value. Think expected value.
A omniscient being (for all you know, he has never guessed wrong) offers you a choice. There is box A and box B. box A contains 10,000, and box B might contain a million dollars. The being guesses (remember he has never guessed wrong), and then you are allowed to open a, b, or both. If he guesses that you will open both, then he does not put the million in. but if he guesses that you will only open b, then the million will be there.
so he guesses, and you can open. what do you do? do you follow his guesses because he's never been wrong? but if the million is there, it ain't gonna disappear.
alex
If you have a weak hand yes. If you have a strong hand no. Weak-but-reasonable hands should have the least likelyhood of betting on the end; weaker hands bluff more and stronger hand bet more for value.
No paradox here.
- Louie
If we consider that there are three types of hands, winning hands, average which will win about half the time and loosing hands. With winning hands it is always right to bet and with loosing hands it is never right to call obviously.
What to do with average hands, which give you a positive EV if you call. It is generally unclear whether your EV on the hand will be increased if you raise, however that is not really the point. In an optimized game there are only a limited number of times one should bluff which is dependant on the number of winning hands you have and the pot odds. If you use one of these ‘bluffing slots’ up with an average hand, there will be less loosing hands that you can bluff with. In other words by calling with an average hand you have either deceased the number of hands with a positive EV or increased number of hands you bluff from the optimal number, in either case value of your game as a whole should have decreased..
Interesting algorithm. Balancing Bluffing against betting with a middle hand. But I have considered bluffing mostly a product of opponents likelihood of folding. Perhaps this is the nature of the limits I have played(LL only).
Interestingly, I believe that this limit also fosters betting middle hands, as players are more likely to call with losing hands.
Thank you to everyone, obviously my statement was a product of oversimplification. However, while reading the TOP and posts here, it realy sunk in that the worse a hand is, the more likely a bad hand above you would fold. If playing 7stud, you find yourslf on the river with a pair of Js. To bet in a play for the pot, you have to have a player with a pair of Qs or higher fold. However, instead you find yourself KQ high, now all it takes is a player folding an A high to win the pot. Obviously, someone folding a pair of Qs is less likely than the same person folding an A high. Thus, against a given opponent or even a field of opponents, the worse your hand, the more likely the correct play would be to bet. That doesn't mean it would be correct, it just means that the odds you would consider would be better. Of course, you have to be pretty sure they might have a hand bad enough to fold. As someone posted, it all comes down to EV.
Thanks again,
Wayne
ps I saw this as a paradox, because when my father taught me to "play" poker he said, if you think you have the best hand bet, if you think you have the worst hand fold, and if you are not certain call. He considered bluffing a decision that was made before the hand started, so that you would always play as if you had a certain holding.
If you want to build bridges you must pass a few calculus courses. A doctor must learn organic chemistry. Though both rarely use this knowledge in their day to day work, relying instead on other experts and formulas, it does occassionally come into play. Universities understand that it is impossible to become competent in a field without knowing the underlying basis behind that field. Calculus for civil engineers and chemistry for doctors are critical components for their endeavors along with many other subjects
Though run of the mill engineers and doctors often forget a lot of their science, that is certainly not the case with those who WRITE about the field. No engineering or medical book would dare to say that chemistry and calculus plays only one part of their field so it is okay to not study it and to learn from a textbook where the author does not know it.
There are at least a million people in this country who could pass a basic probability exam. And probability is surely a component to successful poker play. So isn't it rather incredible that most poker writers could not pass such a test?
What is the basis for your assumption that most poker writers wouldn't pass this basic probability exam?
I'm not sure that I understand the purpose of these posts. Is it that you don't like competition from poker writers with inferior poker knowledge? Is it that you don't believe your ideas should have to compete with the ideas of others? You can't possibly be contending that poker writing is in need of licensing for expertise before one is permotted to publish? What is it that you are trying to accomplish?
There is certainly room for many more poker books. I pretty much purchase all of them. Even the ones that don't contain 100% correct strategy usually contain enough useful information to make it worth the cover price.
I think some smart tournament director should hold a mixed game invitational tournament for poker writers to play in. I think a $10,000 entry fee with an additional $25,000 added by the tournament host would be sufficient. Some poker writers would need backers to raise the entry fee, but most would be capable of paying their own way in. I see it as a winner take all event with the winner having bragging rights until the next event were held. Those poker writers that failed to enter would be making a statement about where they felt they stood in playing ability against the ones who chose to enter.
I would like to watch that tourney event. I would expect that a lot of good players would be inspired to write a book themselves in order to be eligible to compete in future events. What do you say David, would you and Mason and Ray be willing to enter and compete?
David,
Why not just write a computer program to play the game.
Math is a part of the game it isn't the entire game not even close in NL, some bearing in PL and of major imort in limit but still not the whole game.
Let's face it David, most of your "high level math" can be broken down to how many "outs" out of from 50 to 47 cards do I have and the statistical possibilities of making those "outs". I'd say someone competant it 6th grade math could figure out these probabilities with out much trouble.
Let me just preface this by stating I usually don't post on this forum, as I prefer simply to make fun of my fellow "Ivy-leaguers", as we have been dubbed. But even though I admit I don't understand a lot of the intricacies of the game and could probably not beat more then a 5/10-10/20 (I'm going to be testing this over winter break at my first trip to a casino), I can still appreciate the levels of math that are necessary for a thorough understanding of the game. To say that a person with 6th grade math could fully comprehend this game is faulty, for it takes away from one aspect of this game that makes it an art. And obviously it is not the sole important part of the game, but I feel someone who has been trained in game theory has a distinct advantadge over someone who simply picks up the basics through experience. But as for a sixth grade math student being able to figure this out, I sincerely doubt it.
Maybe when you actually play in a REAL game some day you might just figure it out.
I said most of the calculations take 6th grade math level to work out. That's all. Can you prove differently.
I'd be willing to bet huge money you and your band of Ivy League pals couldn't crack a 2-4 game in the real world.
Maniac Mark is making a simple point here. Do you know what sixth grade math is? Perhaps when you were in sixth grade it was pretty much the extend of the average person's compulsary education. But since that time, we have had a nice progressive movement american education. Now, perhaps pot odds are capable of being understood by an average sixth grader, but reverse implied odds are not, nor as Mark puts it is game theory. Now, it has come to my attention that math is not the strong part of your game, and many have claimed that you choose not to believe in concepts such as pot odds, but just because you don't doesn't mean you have to disclaim your lack of knowledge by claiming that they were taught in a grade level that you never reached.
Oh, and as regards us cracking 2/4? why do you feel the need to say that. who knows, I think I did beat the San Diego 2/4 game for about 200 dollars over three days. I think Niels did beat the 1-3 stud game for a week.
So, here's the solution to all of you old-timers out there who think we couldn't beat anything. Call it a challenge. We're all going home to Montgomery county Maryland next week, and will for the most part be there for about a month. Why don't you take a vacation to see DC, and stop by and sit in our game with us. It'll be fun, and we promise it will be at Ted's house so you can have some drop dead chinese food. But don't wear your ganster clothing Rounder, we prohibit costumes.
I'd like to add that I also kicked butt in the tournaments.
In addition, we've had at least one guy who can beat the 2-4 casino game sit in with us. We tore him up.
We have a low limit game 25-50 cent/10-50 cent with the grad students in my lab. They are too poor for too much higher. Follow up in Other topics.
Todd
How about instead of "following up" on the Other Topics you place your initial post there!
It always amazes me how people who write so well can not read and comprehend. I challenge you Alex to put into a few sentences what Rounder's poker philosophy is. He has posted volumes and argued his position very well, but if you insist that pot odds are something that Rounder does not consider then you have a severe reading comprehension problem.
actually to before I started posting. in talking with scott I have understood that he is generally more conservative than pot odds would dictate, and although i did not see the posts directly, other's joke posts have led me to arrive to similar conclusions.
thank you for saying I write nicely. I'm also a good cook. But not a thinker. So please don't make me feel bad about myself. I have enough self-esteem problems as it is.
if you'll excuse me, the Hardy Boys are about to discover the secret to the haunted football stadium.
alex
On the 2/4 in the real world, you must mean casino, because the various 2/4 hold em "home games" I've sat down to at conventions seem incredibly soft. Specifically, I've played a few 2/4 HE kill games, and beat them for $57/hr and $160/hr in different sessions. I have yet to average less than 10bb/hr here, and these are guys who play way too much poker.
And I'm a direct product of the high school game, early loser who enjoyed poker enough to do something about it.
Wow, I made a distinct attempt to be cordial in my last response and simply say that I disagreed with you. That, however, is no longer the tone. You apparently have a tightly held bitterness against our little group shown in this past post and others that does you no credit. You also accused me of not being able to prove that a sixth grader could not do it. Did you find me one that could? No, you simply proved yourself to be a loud mouthed buffoon who's figured out how to type. And as for cracking a 2-4 game, we have. But I really have to get going, I have exams coming up. But it would add a lot to these discussions if you didn't let your petty emotions cloud your reasoning
XX
I said the math was 6th grade not the logic.
Like I said come back when you grow up.
xx
x
Rounder,
You are absolutely right, a sixth grader has all the tools needed, there are four: (1)addition,(2)subtraction, (3)multiplication, (4)division. There is nothing else that is EVER done with a number at a poker table. Probability is just a fancy way of performing one, or a combination of these 4 functions of math.
-Don
Richard Feynman taught a series of lectures on how the great majority of math and quantum physics could be understood by counting. That's 3rd grade math, or maybe 6th for you.
but a 6th grader wouldn't get the lecture. how silly, you said it yourself, probability is fancy simple math. I've got a secret for you, ALL math is fancy simple math
alex
I was just reiterating Rounder's point about the math, and he's right. And I agree with your statement about all math.
-Don
Let me see. . . Probability. I think I did learn that stuff around 6th grade! Yeah! Probability! The famous "bag of black and white marbles" problems. Yeah! The "deck of cards" problems. I remember that. Sixth grade! Or was it earlier? Well, anyway, that was where the probability foundation was laid. It's all coming back to me. And I even went to public school for grade school! Sure! Everything else in poker is just building on that foundation that was created in sixth grade.
Jon Ranted: "Everything else in poker is just building on that foundation that was created in the sixth grade."
You're right, it's that simple.
1. I don't rant. "Ranting" implies that words used were not carefully and meticulously chosen.
2. My comments were confined to the context (you do know what context is?) of probability calculations in poker. I'll stand by my assertion that the foundations of probability math are laid in/around sixth grade.
Jon said: "You do know what context is?"
Why does everybody have to be so damn condescending around here? I don't blame Rounder one bit for wanting to take a hiatus from this place.
rather than tell you why, why don't you read your post, and then read my post
that should clear it up
alex
hope you still have those marbles
Post deleted at author's request.
...haven't been reading for a while.
Badger actually makes sense in the middle of all this smoke everybody is blowing...
Why the ivy league bashing? Why does a school preclude one from being a good poker player.
Sorry to say to those guys that 3 sessions is not very significant...
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Post deleted at author's request
Gary, even if everything you said about me was correct it would not change the fact that it is inexcusable for a writer on poker to not know probability. After all even Mike Caro and Gary Carson COULD pass that test so how hard could it be?
Post deleted at author's request
"That's not the point, David. How hard could it be to read Strunk and White? But, you write for a publisher who wants to believe that it's not important for a writer to be able to write."
Gary:
Again you sound like a broke author in desperate need of a publisher. I wish I could help, but your reputation precedes you.
Post deleted at author's request
The problem with your analysis Badger, is that a knowledge of simlple probability is far more than 5% of the game. And while a lucky few are instinctively close without actually knowing the subject it is inexcusable for writers not to know it just like it is inexcusable for a writer on medicine to not know chemistry. The subject is apt to creep in when analyzing any situation and the writer doesn't know this part eveything he says from that point on about the situation is suspect.
I think that both badger post and your responses make excellent points. However as a reader rather than a critic of poker literature, I disagree with your assumption that authors should understand probability, or that a book is not in some way valid if the author isn’t up on his Maths.
Different people have different strengths and weaknesses, and for instance if you are generally a much stronger player than someone else, you can still learn from them in the one area where there understanding is better than yours. For example I would consider it extremely worthwhile to read a book on tells by someone who one of the best in the world at this, even if he/she were hopeless at probability. I could easily ignore or parse out, the bits of the book involving 'doggy' maths and concentrate on important new ideas. (Even despite the fact that I flunked my Maths PhD only getting a MPhil)
I consider a book to have paid for itself if it has taught one new idea that has allowed me to win a pot or extra bet, irrespective if the rest of the book is crap.
Piers
Certainly if someone is writing about a purely psychological aspect of poker he may not need to know probability. What does that have to do with my general point? But even here it is not so clear. For instance a good book on tells should take into account Baye's Theorem. By this I mean that you can't say that a particular tell is merely x percent accurate. Rather you must also include your original assessment of the opponent's hand and adjust from that point. In other words a strong hand tell may change your opinion that the guy has it, from 50 to 90% and thus you fold. The same tell in a situation where you were almost positive the guy is bluffing before you saw the tell, will not be enough to change your play.
I do not know if Mike Caro mentioned this concept in his book or not. In any case he is obviously not one of the authors I was alluding to, as he certainly knows probability. My only real problem with his thoughtful and incitefull book is that it is by definition too easily doublecrossed. And my only real problem with him, is that he won't admit Mason Malmuth (let alone Ray ZEE)knows holdem better than he does.
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger, you and I are getting a lot closer on this issue. And again you make good points. But there are still bones to pick. For one , even writers who don't write about probability are still apt to give poker recommendations based on incorrect probability. For instance, suppose a writer based a piece of advice on the fact that an opponent probably had aces, kings or AK but didn't realize that AK was 16-12 over the other two combined?
Secondly below a cetain level of excellence a poker book IS worth less than no book at all to non advanced players. If only 80% of the advice is right any player who follows all of the advice is bound to go broke.
Meanwhile you are saying these things apparently without reading too many books yourself. Specifically you mentioned that you have never read Theory of Poker. Obviously this is because you think you don't need to. So here is my deal. Send Mason thirty bucks. He will send you the book. If after reading it you say that there was nothing in it that could make you good money, that you did not know already, I'll refund the money plus $200. In other words I am out two hundred if you don't publicly admit on this forum that you made a mistake by not getting this book sooner. Do we have a deal?
Post deleted at author's request.
Same deal.
Badger says, "But on a subject I know a lot about, like- MOVIES, -I look for something that will stimulate my thinking."
When it comes to movies, would you peg Badger as more of a Woody Allen type, or a Cannonball Run, Smokey and the Bandit type of guy?
-Pete
Badger, IMO, probably goes for indies in a big way. Steve Buscemi cracks him up and he hates the blatant scientific impossibilities in movies like Armagedon and Indepenence Day. Just a guess.
BTW, could you please tell me what IMO is short for?
Thanks, Paul
IMO stands for "In My Opinion". Click on to "abbreviations" and you will see all the commonly used abbreviations used on these posts.
Thank you Jim.
-Paul
I would peg Badger as more of a,"Lady Gambler Does Dallas" kinda guy. Oh, and The Cannonball Run, definitely.
Dale
Dale,
What are you trying to imply? That I am new in town; I got the body but no money and I need to have money so when you offered money to play "poke'r" with me, I scored and you scored too? WOW!!! Your imagination must be better than mine!! But you lose bigtime, Dale. You did not score at all because I took all your money at the table and you have not even played "poke'r" with me!! You are left with that empty feeling and you don't even understand why.
When it comes to movies, would you peg Badger as more of a Woody Allen type, or a Cannonball Run, Smokey and the Bandit type of guy?
-Pete I'm fed up with imbecilic morons like yourself that insists on posting "RGP" type "banter" on this forum. Your post and the responses to it are wasting my F*cking time! I DON'T WANT TO READ IT. THE GODDAMN POSTS HERE TAKE FOREVER TO LOAD AND YOU MORONS CAN TAKE IT TO E-MAIL.
Quit your bitching, it's occasionally fun when a thread lightens up.
When it comes to movies, would you peg Badger as more of a Woody Allen type, or a Cannonball Run, Smokey and the Bandit type of guy?
-Pete
I'm fed up with imbecilic morons like yourself that insists on posting "RGP" type "banter" on this forum. Your post and the responses to it are wasting my F*cking time! I DON'T WANT TO READ IT. THE GODDAMN POSTS HERE TAKE FOREVER TO LOAD AND YOU MORONS CAN TAKE IT TO E-MAIL OR THE EXCHANGE FORUM.
What a bunch of jerks.
Post deleted at author's request
Gary , you are going to drive me to drink. If someone doesn't know how to compute it himself he might not KNOW that AK vs AA or KK combined is 4-3. Even if he knows that (actually he can't really know it but rather trusts what he has read to be true), there will certainly be other things he can't simply look up.
As for the other point that readers who can't think for themselves are doomed to failure anyway. That is most often true but not always in the case of beginners. Besides, you seem to use this fact to somehow excuse the large number of unarguable outright errors in poker books. Would you be as lenient with chess or bridge or blackjack authors?
What are the technical standards that need be met by those who write on the topic of Poker(other than merely having a flare for writing)? What's the criterion? None! Nada! Zip!! David is right about that, no question about it. But should it be necessary, I don't think so.
Let's assume the number 20, that Badger pulled out of his ass, is the correct number of components that make up a competent poker authority and/or player, no offence Steve. Unlike tells and game selection, probability is one of two areas**(bottom of page), of the 20 components, where a person can acually go to school, master the material, then be accurately tested for level of competency.
Except for strategy, most of the remaining components are not unique to poker: memory, physical stamina, competitiveness/desire, observational alertness, mental & emotional toughness/resilience/stamina, motivation, having an emotional-suport system,etc...
Anyway, David really only points out that he's amazed that "most poker writers could not pass a test" on probability. But I get the impression it's somewhat insulting to David that ANYBODY can be percieved as a Poker authority, by means of authoring a book/s, or column, without having to meet ANY academic standards. (I don't mean to put words in his mouth, but it makes for a more interesting post if I do.) Should they have to? Well, of course not, since there is no governing body they have to answer to.
Besides, there certainly are a number of other fields where ANYBODY can represent themselves as authorities. Fitness and diet comes to mind; Richard Simons, Susan Powders/or Powers, Suzanne Summers,..... Have any one of these people taken and passed college courses pertaining to body chemistry, anatomy, Physical therapy, etc.., Maybe, butI doubt it very much.
What about psycho-babbling self help authors. Certainly ANYBODY can write this $h_t, and thousands of non-doctors do just that! Is Tim Robins a Doctor? I don't think so. He'll tell you he's read every self help book ever written, but never any mention of an academic degree to confirm he's competently versed in the area of psychology.
Fitness, diet, and the human psyche are all areas where you'd think it would, or should be manditory to have achieved a certain level of traditional education, before being aloud to unleash some book into society that may do more harm than good. But it's not! And since winning or losing a few more bucks at the poker table is infinitely less important than your physical and mental health, I think it's ok if we let Poker writers do their thing without having to pass some silly probability exam. Don't you?
Just my meandering opinion, Martin D
**(psycology being the other[as I recall,psychology majors must take and pass probability courses])
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger,
What a copout, don't leave us hanging. Other than strategy, psychology, and probability, what are a few of these alleged 20 "areas" of poker you claim that a person can go to school and learn? And you can't even learn poker strategy in any school for that matter, unless you're talking about the Caro Class at Hollywood Park?
-Barry
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger,
I did miss your point, thanks for stating it more clearly. I'm a High School dropout, and need all the help I can get.
But I do disagree with you, when you say Martin takes a simplistic view of schooling. I think he was merely taking a concrete, or literal view, in reaction to Sklansky's literal statement, about the absence of traditional education poker writers have(when it comes to thoroughly understanding probability)that started this thread, that's all.
-Barry
Post deleted at author's request.
"Why would anyone care about traditional education?" "That's a ridiculous way of looking at the issue".
Ridiculous to who? Certainly not to Sklansky. And, "Why would anyone care?" Well I guess for the reasons Sklansky makes reference to in his opening post for a start, but that just takes us around in a circle.
I'm assuming you only mean in regards to poker, when you say "why would anyone care about traditional education?", don't you?
-Barry
Post deleted at author's request.
Senor Badger,
When you say, "If the result is the same", that's where I take issue. How can you trust the results to be the same, like when you go to the Doctor, if your doctor has no standards that need be met,(other than your hearing that he's been educated)? How would you know? What, by word of mouth? "I've seen his work", like when somebody gets a nose job from a Plastic Surgeon. It's true that some people are going off to Mexico for some types of minor surgeory, but here's where I think your argument is at fault.
What about when you've had a near fatal accident, at 4 in the morning, while you're out of town, 600 miles away from your regular Doctor who has no degree but that's ok because he's been treating you for years. In this situation, with a straight face, you're going to try and tell me that it wouldn't be to your benifit to be taken to a hospital,like in America, where the people who are going to be trying to save your life, have clear educational standards that must be met?
Just to backtrack for a second. People are going off to Mexico for minor surgeory, and to get perscriptions filled by doctors with questionable standards. But when it really counts, nobody with money is rushing to Mexico to get major surgeory performed, NOBODY. And that's because of one overriding reason. Nobody trusts them! When it comes to putting ones life in the hands of another, there is no substitute for a highly traditionally educated Dr.
At least that's the way I look at it. Barry
Post deleted at author's request.
"I don't get it."
What's new?
Post deleted at author's request.
I would guess that 90% of the people in this country have no idea what undergraduate school, gradute, school, hospital of internship or rank in graduating class of their primary care provider. It's reputation.The two most widely respected and successful pediatricians in my town went to Gudelajara, for their medical training.
I get my butt kicked all the time by semi-illiterates who play the game instinctively well. However, when I ask them how specifically they play poker so well despite having "not read a single poker book", they just give me a blank stare and say, "I just play according to feel" or "I play from my gut" or "I don't really know how I do it. It's just instinct, I guess". And these guys really mean it when they say that they do not know exactly how they do it. And yet they do it exceedingly well. Badger, have you met some of these people? And if you have, have you learned anything from them? And how did you get them to express consciously the concepts that they only know by feel? I'm very envious of how these "naturals" extract money so regularly from poker, money that the mathematicians can only dream about. In a recent "hand of the week" article, Hellmuth wrote about dreams and human will. Would you be able to elaborate on this. It seems like there's something out there that is empowering some select players to became extremely very effective that somehow many of the theorists have totally missed. In your opinion, can it be learned and replicated? How?
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger wrote: "they do so because they [believe] they can-"
Ciaffone wrote: (-an inner [belief] in one's superiority is usually sufficient to cancel out any benefits of this superiority."
they wouldn't need your advice or your books, would they?
Praise the lord. Makes the game so much easier.
John(MO)
The majority of poker literature, especially for Hold'em, is crap. Most books do not even show how to figure out a simple probability. But, I believe the biggest problem is that they do not show you how to balance your strategy using probabilities and logic to determine the correct course of action.
For example, I have not read one book yet, that instructs the reader correctly for starting hand requirements in a tournament. If the blinds in a tournament increase every half hour, you are dealt approximately 16 hands. What percentage of the possible 169 hands that you are dealt should you play? Well there is no simple answer, but you would think that some poker writer would have written a book on it. Instead, what we get is "common sense" logic.
Of course, this common sense logic does not make any sense. What you end up with is a whole group of numskulls ranting that they are the ones that are right.
But, I believe that correct course of action can be determined. By combining probabilies and logic. For example, If your opponent plays 50% of the hands that are dealt, you should be able to use this information to help you determine a strategy. But, the crap that we get from poker authors is to catagorize opponents by how loose, tight, aggressive, and passive just to name a few. But, how loose is loose, or, does it appear to be loose, but is not.
I done ranting. Have a nice day.
Mah,
I have learned from a lot of your posts. This is one I will disagree with. I agree that one could develop tables and decision algorithms for the scenario you suggest, instead of using "common sense" rules, based on percentages of hands each opponent plays from his position and yours and relative to the distribution of hands and your skill level considering each of theirs and their level of aggression/tendency to raise given their opinions of you and each of their opponents and their stack sizes compared to the blinds and their opponents'. Then you could analyze each possible hand set that is in play against every possible flop (then board) and weight the hand set by its frequency to determine the set of profitably playable hands.
Now you can use this to develop a strategy. Unfortunately, the assumption set you use would almost certainly be very inaccurate in many parameters (making the conclusions worthless). or if you desired to cover every reasonable assumption set you would be at page 100,000 in no time, and produce a "strategy" no human could employ.
This is a simple situation compared to lots of other poker situations, but from a mathematical point of view it is way too complex to show a true "solution" on paper. If it were otherwise, someone would have done it.
Notice the "exact solutions" and most examples of a correct play we see are about VERY specific situations, especially in the "exact solutions" case. This is not a shortcoming of the writers, it is the nature of complex poker games.
We rely on "common sense" approaches because there is no better practical alternative.
Dan Z.,
I read your response, thought about it for a while, and now I have a question. You said," Unfortunately, the assumption set you use would almost certainly be very inaccurate in many parameters (making the conclusions worthless). or if you desired to cover every reasonable assumption set you would be at page 100,000 in no time, and produce a "strategy" no human could employ."
I have trouble understanding this statement. I do not think that there are as many perameters to consider. For example, if a tournament lasts for 6 hours, you will be dealt approximately 192 hands during that time. If one of your opponents averages to play only 8 hands, like one of our posters here, what hands would he be playing in a No-Limit Hold'em tourney? With this information you could quantify a strategy to use against him.
I agree with you, if you make all of the opponents this predictable, you probably don't need to consider play post flop - or at least the problem becomes easy because their possible # of holdings has dropped off dramatically. If this is a limit game. A no - limit game would be somewhat tougher to find a near optimal strategy.
But if you have 10 human opponents who aren't the ultimate in weak-tight, and you don't know how well or what hands most (or even some) of them play, you have an enormous problem to solve.
I did title this "here you go" for a reason. Against the opponent you describe, or even several clones of such an opponenet (only playing the best 8 hands possible), here is a near optimal strategy - I would raise every time, and I would fold if reraised with anything but aces. Now you have it.
Unfortunately, I don't think this would work very long. But for the assumption set of 1 to a few ultra - tight players, this has to be pretty good.
I was just trying to provide a simple example. If you ever read the books on tournament pokert hey advise to play real tight. But, since the odds of getting pocket Aces are 220:1, I'll probably not get them. In the last two tournaments I played, I did not get pocket Aces once. These books are bad. Here I go again. Thanks for your respones.
Probability is so important, that everyone alive in any profession where making money is important, should be able to pass the test, let alone a poker writer. Even a doctor needs to understand probability.
Hard as it is, it is much easier to become a great poker player without knowing probability than it is to become a great poker writer or teacher. Furthermore it is not these great instinctive players (with the possible exception of Badger and Vince Lepore) who are trying to teach others but rather people who have neither knowledge NOR great instinct. Rather they are mediocre plyers and thinkers who should give thanks everyday that Stanford Wong doesn't take up poker or that Huck Seed doesn't take up writing.
This, of course, is not to say that I believe poker writers should be licensed or something like that. Rather this is simply an alert to our readers about the mediocrity that is out there.
Now except for a vocal minority who insist on being argumentative, I know most posters agree with me. But I am a little bugged that some of the heavyweight players and brains out there don't come to my defense more often. Cmon Patri Friedman, Tom Weideman, Abdul Jalib and others. Why do you only e-mail me privately with your agreements? I can hold my detractors off singlehandedly if need be but I would prefer your help. These guys don't bite.
Post deleted at author's request.
I was trying to throw you a compliment but I guess you threw it back. But didn't you just say that poker was math and 19 other things?
Post deleted at author's request.
"but there are two components in poker: math and interpersonal relationships. "
Gee, I guess self-control, discipline and patience play no part at all in the game. How interesting. Oh. I get it interpersonal relationships includes intrapersonal relationship.
Makes sense now.
Vince
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request
The fact that people with high mathematical ability would like to see mathematics rated higher in importance by the general population because it will be to their personal benefit does not prove they are wrong. You overlook this key point Gary, in your argument. The fact that I have a lot to gain as do Patri, Abdul and Tom if the public accepts my points is a reason to be skeptical of what I say. But be that as it may, I am right and I think you know it.
Post deleted at author's request
An excellent writer who explains other people's work simply is useful as long as he knows which is the good advice to explain. Lou Krieger is an example. But it was also Lou Krieger who a few years ago mentioned a Mike Caro statement involving how many bets an hour a certain mistake would cost you. Sadly I do not remember the article but I do remember the statement was way off. In any case I was not arguing that all writers should be great analysts. But how can you excuse them not knowing simple probability? Writers are expected to know the basic science that is sometimes used in their craft when discussing backgammon, reading x-rays, erecting buildings, evaluating psychological experiments, and a host of other subjects. Maybe not the practitioners but certainly the writers. Why do you want to cut them so much slack.(By the way I am not sure which writers understand probability and which don't. The discussion is mainly philosophical.)
But there is SO much more to communicating effectively. For instance, it's possible for a writer to write a poker book that contains absolutely impeccable math but leads a novice player seriously astray, simply by overemphasizing trivial things at the expense of important things, either because the writer didn't take the time to formulate his thoughts better, or simply because he was unable to communicate the larger concepts beyond the math.
For example, I can write a long mathematical description of probabilities and how they relate to pot odds, and put it at the front of my book. Then I can either skim over the notion of reading people for bluffs, or ignore it completely. I haven't said anything 'wrong', but I'll generate a whole new crop of players who will sit there and calculate to the second decimal place the pot odds required to draw to hit their second pair, while not realizing that the person betting has nothing. And if they fold, they just made an error much bigger than the error they'd make if they called when the pot wasn't laying them quite enough money.
And in fact, this happens to be a characteristic of a lot of players who have read S&M. They can talk pot odds all night, but often miss the big picture. I don't know if that's the fault of the books or not, but I've seen it.
So while I can agree with you that a poker writer should know his math at least at least to the point of simple probabilities, this is just one of many things a writer should have. And if you are weak in any of these other areas while still accepting payment for what you write, you should not throw stones.
Myself, I'm a live and let live kinda guy. I think Bob Ciaffone is a world-class player, and I've heard he's a nice guy. And his books have helped my game. Good enough for me. There is a line there somewhere that separates the 'good' from the 'bad, with the John Patricks of the world on the other side of it. But Mike Caro and Bob Ciaffone are nowhere near it.
Post deleted at author's request.
What you are saying Dan, is that knowledge of probability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to be a good poker writer and that the same is true for other attributes. But it IS a necessary condition. That it all I was ever saying. Mike Caro does have that knowledge. But many of the writers I am quite sure do not. Based on some of his recent comments I think that Bob Ciaffone is part of that latter group. As to the players who put undue emphasis on math, maybe, partly because of a misreading of our books; you can be sure that their results , though not what they should be, are better on average than those who have studied only our competitor's books (except conceivably Roy Cooke's).
I've spoken to several people who read Lee Jones book through a couple times and then went to a cardroom for the first time and made money playing 2-4 or 3-6. There have been even more cases of people posting on RGP to that effect. I purchased the book and believe it has earned me many times its purchase price. Most people don't start in 10-20 or 15-30, so they need a primer for that game. "Winning Low Limit Hold-em" is, without question, a very decent primer. It claims to be nothing else.
That's true in some cases, but not in others. For instance, I can point to a number of books that gave me faulty advice on HE when I first started playing, and I don't think anybody who was just learning the game could have known how bad that advice really was. When a writer tells you that you should only raise preflop with AQs or better NO MATTER WHAT, then that writer is wrong. Period. But when you're first learning how to play, there's no way to logically deduce that this advice is incorrect.
Of course, there are plenty of books out there-- on poker, but more on gambling in general-- that a thinking person will immediately dismiss a worthless. I don't know much about blackjack, but I knew from my first read that the book by Donaldson (?) was total trash, and I figured out that Patterson's books were shit after about two reads (give me a break, I'm a slow learner). But I had no idea that the Scott Frank book was no good, simply because I'm a) not very mathematically inclined, and b) did not have the tools or resources at my disposal to determine whether or not the 'CORE' system could be successfully utilized.
Does this make me a dumb ass? Maybe. But I still don't think that lousy gambling books are hard to stay away from, particularly since it can be so difficult to determine whether or not the writer is full of it.
Johnny Chan can't write. He can barely talk. He probably doesn't know much probability either. Yet, I don't see anybody on THIS forum playing in HIS game. Nuff said.
I'll jump in here and say that this has nothing to do with writing poker books that are very accurate.
Anytime Johnny Chan wants to play 15-30 or 20-40 Holdem or Stud, I'm game! I played in Vegas at the Bellagio from January to June and Johnny never once jumped in my game. Do you think he's afraid of me?
Vince.
Post deleted at author's request
Let's hear them.
Please don't invite Mark Glover into this discussion, it's been so fun up to now.
-Don
And for the sake of this debate Gary, those mistakes cannot be merely bad English, misprints, or advice that is a matter of opinion. I am talking about analytical mistakes. (For instance in perusing Lee Jones book for the first time, I noticed he said that you should not change your strategy in a Jackpot Game. He then goes on to say he has not researched the issue so he may be wrong. Researched it!! Sounds like he is admitting he can't think for himself but is rather spouting other peoples ideas. How hard is it to figure out, for example, that with a high jackpot you should virtually always call with a pocket pair when the flop contains two aces and an undercard? Yet he says not to do it if you would normally fold. It is hard to imagine advice both so obviously wrong and so horribly costly. You would never make this mistake. Why are you so intent on defending those who do.)
Post deleted at author's request
David,
The books published by 2+2 are, in my opinion, nearly mistake free. In fact, they have many valuable insights which give more than just a "mathematicians" view.
The biggest "mistake" is that they are almost totally indecipherable in a first reading. It really IS about presentation. There are SO many gems in those books that are burried in the sixth sentance of a long paragraph.
But if you want *one* solid mistake, which is really and truly a mistake, and nothing but. It is the claim that you should "back off" with a flush draw when someone re-raises you. (I wish I had the exact quote.)
This is simply not universally true. If you are head to head, then YES back off. If you are three-way, strongly consider backing off. If you are four-way, mildly consider backing off. If there are four or more opponents then RAISE.
Of course, having four+ opponents in the game which HEFAP describes is very rare, so this error is not really that grand if you consider the book in its context.
- Andrew
"Of course, having four+ opponents in the game which HEFAP describes is very rare, so this error is not really that grand if you consider the book in its context."
In the games I play in I have this many opponents all the time.
"Of course, having four+ opponents in the game which HEFAP describes is very rare"
Of course if this happens, make sure it IS the NUT flush you are doing all this raising with.
Vince
"Of course, having four+ opponents in the game which HEFAP describes is very rare"
Of course if this happens, make sure it IS the NUT flush you are doing all this raising with.
Vince
This is simply incorrect.
Really,
Well then why don't you SIMPLY explain why it is incorrect.
Vince
Vince wrote: "Of course if this happens, make sure it IS the NUT flush you are doing all this raising with."
This advice can be incorrect because, like many poker situations, "it depends."
If the re-raiser frequently pumps with flushes that are worse than yours, you might want to raise the betting again.
If you think the re-raiser could be pumping trips (which sometimes can be correct), you might want to raise the betting again.
> He then goes on to say he has not researched...
Actually he states that up front.
> Sounds like he is admitting he can't think for himself
Actually it sounds to me like he is supporting his assertion earlier in the section that jackpots are not good for the players. Vaguely reminds me of some of Mason's anti-big bet diatribes. Its a stretch of reality that is conceivable and often true (in both cases).
Hopefully this isn't the only or the worse example of an error you can find in Mr. Jones book.
For those interested the section in question is on pg. 139-140 entitled "Jackpot Games". After 1-2/3 page describeing jackpot games and giving the opinion they are bad for the players the following two paragraphs finish the section:
Are there strategy variations for jackpots?
Before we say anything about this subject, we want you to understand one thing: we have not done significant research on this topic.
That said, we do not believe that you should make any particular strategy adjustments if you are in a jackpot game. Any hand that is big enough to become involved in a jackpot is big enough to play anyway. What little simulation we have done indicates that jackpot opportunities are so infrequent that you are wasting time (and probably money) worrying about them.
Play your best game; if you hit the jackpot, congratulations.
That is the passage allright. And you don't think that this is a horrible display of poker thinking? If he had said something like "don't go overbard in adjusting your strategy but rather call with a few more hands only when it was close to being a "correct" call anyway (and the jackpot is conceivable), OR when there is a truly reasonable chance of hitting a large jackpot (in which case you can make an otherwise horrible call). I have not researched the exact points where these calls would not be worth it, so again don't go overboard and when in doubt play your normal game (except that you should keep in mind that OTHERS are playing for the jackpot which can also affect your strategy").
The fact that he said nothing like this, is totally unrelated to his earlier condemnation of jackpot games. It also can't be simply because he thought the concept was too complex for his readers. (He tips that off with his comment about "research".) Rather he must have said what he said because he believed it was true. I doubt one regular poster on this forum would not instantly realize that his advice was major evidence of a weak poker thinker (actually I have other evidence that makes my case ironclad but it would not be appropriate to share it.)
I am amazed Mr. Hunter, that you thought quoting the passage would strengthen his case. In fact I would be surprised if Mr. Jones himself hasn't already realized how bad that advice was.
Some issues.
1) You misrepresented him in your original statement (even if it was only by the placement of when he said his disclaimer). As Mason said in the other conference much of the Author/Poster bashing has been done based up incorrect regurgitation of the situation. I hadn't read that section is over 12 months and recognized the perversion of the original text immediately. I felt others should see it also. That was not in defense of Lee but in defense of fairness.
2) This is the second time (just on this topic) I've seen you quote unsupportable data or "silent" others (patri, tom, and abdul was the other). If you can't say it, don't try to get milage out of implying it. YOur miles above Doug Grant and thats the last person I saw try that technique.
3) I like your version of his paragraph better. But for a beginner who probably plays way too many hands (his target audience) his suggestions are probably best (although not "correct"). That may very well be the difference between a teacher and an analyst (this theme seems to also have occured recently between you and Bob C.).
4) You seem to have some respect for Lou K. as a teacher type. Lee places his book in the same position paying huge homage to 2+2 as the place to continue on after introduction. I don't see how Lee's ability as a "Poker Thinker" effects that end. An example from real life is the pre med who takes O-chem (since you like that example). From my standpoint he has just memorized a bunch of goo that is meaningless to him unless he also has some deeper understanding of P-Chem. But I bet there are a bunch of med students out there TA'ng (successfully) pre-med O-chem students (possible more succesfully then a more advanced student due to their closeness to that specific learning process) without having any or a strong grasp on P-chem. Another example is the importance of logic in Poker but your inability to correctly identify a Russel paradox. Ooo, horrible mistake. Don't think I'll ever ignore your books because you made it.
5) As far is that a horrible display of Poker thinking? No. Its more of a mistake in analyzing a simple gamble (really independent of poker specific issues). Funny enough research has shown its a human tendency to overrate longshots. Again, it might be the smart teacher who attempts to curb his students natural tendencies or it might be a mistake. Does this type of thinking permeate the whole book? Obviously you think so. I don't care. I think the core ideas are correct and put the student on the right path (right into correctly buying your books FWIW).
But Michael, He WASN'T just trying to curb beginners natural tendency to play too many hands. That is obvious from his comment about not doing the research. He just didn't understand a extemely simple concept. (My extra information that convinces me it is true, I did not post because it would be unfair to Lee Jones. I doubt that is Doug Grant's reason. In any case this extra information has little bearing on my point. It just makes me feel a little more comfortable that my conclusion is right.)
As far as originally not quoting the paragraph perfectly accurately, I don't see any real difference. It was certainly unintentional.
As to your comment that you still value my writing even though I misnamed a Russell Paradox when it wasn't, that is an abysmal analogy and you know it. Labeling things and thinking are two differnt things. Besides I may have just used poetic license. Any idiot knows that Russell paradoxes involve the set of all sets that do not contain themselves.
Lets see if my Reply post comes after David's.
Here is Paradise's responce to our thread. Just E-mailed it to them. Of course, Paradise would never say that they have a hard time tracking it.
Hello Chris,
This is an excellent question, and the answer is yes that we can catch this type of collusion. If we receive a report internally or externally from a player regarding "potential" collusion for whatever reason (and there are many variables that trigger a report), part of our monitoring is exactly what you are referring to in your email.
We closely look at hands that players do NOT play based on what a potential partner is playing. Your example of AK and AQ is a great example and if we are investigating potential collusion and see that one player folds AQ in a situation that would truly warrant not folding while his potential partner holds AK it strongly furthers the evidence against them and strengthens our position to close the accounts and ban them permanently from Paradise Poker.
Thanks again Chris and we hope you are enjoying the games.
Sincerely,
Paradise Poker Security
%
R.O.F.L.M.A.O
I am on the button with AT offsuit. The player to my immediate right inadvertantly exposes his hand. He shows a T. Is it correct to still try a steal? How does this knowledge effect my play?
You don't need much more than the A to make the steal. The T being out means one less out for you.
"Steal"? No, AT is clearly the best hand on the button when nobody else has played. It will win many showdowns without a pair. Easy Raise even if a Ten is gone.
"Stealing" would be a funcion of the calling frequency of the blinds much more than the value of your hand.
Now if the cut-off seat raised and you have AT which you believe is in the hunt; the absence of a T may turn this into a fold.
- Louie
with ace ten on the button you are hoping to win the blinds unless you have a player in the blinds that plays really badly. dont think of it as a steal hand as it is a good hand to have in this spot. if you get played with its not bad news unless a tight player calls.
We are playing limit holdem. The blinds are 10 and 15. The first position raises and middle position calls the button makes it three bets with KK. The original raiser caps the pot before the flop. All call. The flop comes QQQ. The original raiser checks the original caller bets. The pocket KK's folds and proudly shows me his hand and says "I made up my mind years ago that if a flop comes with three of a kind and I didn't have the fourth one I would always fold." No kidding.
It sure is - I feel like if A I have an A and 3 come on the board I have a great chance.
Rounder, you eternal optimist you ;-)
Just the other day at $5-$10. 5 people see the flop of JJ5. 4 see the turn of 5. 3 see the river of 6. Pocket 2's called all bets and two raises on river. Mind you he did not initiate the betting, he called all bets and raises.
I am glad I found you Chico. I posted something awhile back that had a misprint. I wrote "Mason plays better Chico" I meant to write "Mason plays better than Chico thinks". Not knowing who you are I could not have written the former. Besides I would never write something as immature as "Mason plays better than you" or something of that nature (Unless of course I thought it would get somebody so irritated that it would make him put up a bunch of inflammatory posts enticing more people to read the soap opera script, thus allowing us to charge more for our ads)
Whew! I thought this post was gonna be about me.
Brett
That's the worst play you've seen? How long have you been playing? I estimate a 20-30% chance KK beaten there by AA or Q.
Here's worst play I have seen (I am not making this up):
10-20
Guy beside me (1 off button) calls raise, and shows me his 72o. Button reraise, cap. He's in for 4 bets preflop.
Flop comes A25. Turns out one early player has flopped set of 5, other one has flopped a bike. Bike comes out betting, trips raise. My buddy reraises with his pair of dueces. Bike caps it.
Turn card a 7. Bike bets, trips raise again. My buddy honestly believes he's holding a monster now. He reraises. Bike caps.
River card? You guessed it. 7. From here on in our hero plays it right. It's capped, and he scoops a monster pot as he explains "I thought you guys were bluffing".
The amount of author bashing that goes on here and in other 2+2 forums reminds me strongly of RGP. Maybe discussing the details of mistakes we perceive instead of painting everything with a broad brush stroke might increase the signal to noise ration. Theorizing about market entrance criteria for authors is another windmill tilting expedition that could easily be done without esp. for somebody that couldn't get simple set theory right!
I propose a very simple and friendly rule for bashing an author: BASH THE IDEA, NOT THE AUTHOR. Disagreements about ideas are useful because they all help us to become aware of different point of views that can help us improve as players. This is, afterall, a goal that all of us share. But attacking a person is just plain counterproductive. BASH THE IDEA, NOT THE AUTHOR.
Bashing the idea rather than the author is fine for advanced players. The problem is that those authors are holding themselves out as an authority to beginners without having the requisite background.
If a paramedic started writing about medicine, even emergency medicine, it would border on criminal, since his lack of deep knowledge would occasionally lead him astray. Doctor's would be quick to renounce him even if the majority of his recomendations were correct.
Only a complete idiot don't read critically. Preaching to the complete idiots isn't a positive direction for the web forum.
Sir,
Poker is a game - a serious game because it concerns money. And, I believe that you and Mason are "the" authorities on this game since you approach it in both a scientic and artistic manner. You have stated many times, correctly, that you are willing to enter the fray and back up your writing with your reputations. Great.
But, to equate poker expertise, or the lack of it, with renouncing people who purvey dangerous medical information is an unfounded metaphor. Put another way: So what if their information is wrong. Eventually, the smart people will figure that out. Further, your information is correct. All you should be concerned about as to new player is to provide truth. You do that.
Finally, the author bashing is at its basis, very boring.
Thank you for the help your books have given me.
Are you implying that poker advice is less important than medical advice? This forum really is attracting all sorts of wierdos.
I am sufficiently chastised.
Sklansky's attitude is typical of the bureaucratic mind. If something can't be administered by "experts" it should not exist. Oh for the days when poker was wild and freewheeling. Before corporate organisation for profit, before mass tournaments, before Power Poker which gave us Sklansky and his ilk, before the net, before poker "universities", and before the newest attempt to completely destroy the game - sponsorship by business with sycophants like Sexton now crowing for "codes of behaviour" and eliminating those who don't conform, all so he and his like can scam a few pennies from their new masters, to compensate their paltry egos perception of failure at actually playing the game.
David, you have a fine analytical intelligence as applied to probability and card logic, but as the back part of Poker, Gaming and Life illustrates, you ain't no thinker.
If someone puts out information on something that is wrong on a mathematical or logical basis, well so what. Get down from your anal throne of absolute rationalisation and LET IT RIDE BABY! That was the original spirit of this country which the GAME of poker once reflected beautifully. Poker was once a potential escape route from the system, and not a system itself. Mike Caro is a great image of difference, and so are all the other small time writers. Forget the theory, focus on the cornocupia of hope and despair that poker straight jacks through everyone who partipates in it.
Post deleted at author's request
Excellent idea! In fact that acceptable use policy says that only gambling and/or strategic related posts are acceptable. Since many of the bashing posts have either relied on repeating previously posted information over and over and over or havn't added any real gambling or strategic information they are against the acceptable use policy.
Why not. The athletes do it all the time. Musicians do it (rock, country, classical). Doctors do it (believe me they do it a lot). Journeyman do it (carpenters, electricians). Engineers do it (more so civil and double E's).
Actually, authors have been doing it for centuries. It makes for critical discourse. Let the people decide. If "X" bashes "Y", let "Y" set the record straight. Lets have the discourse.
Newton, Einstein, Ptolemy, Pauling, Arthur Laffer (well, he was flat out wrong) -- all were bashed.
Bashing....no problem. The truth wins out.
Ignoring the poor examples you give (heh, Mason as Marilyn Manson), in the scientific community such "battle" is done via a peer review process on, at least somewhat, common grounds. Haveing to go into another authors home territory subject to his censorship isn't exactly what I'd call fair, reasonable, or economically viable.
If Mason and David wanted to create a peer reviewed poker or gambling journal [1] and in that laid out arguments as to why certain popularized poker concepts were not well founded it wouldn't seem so petty and disingenuous. Here is just lowers the S/N.
[1] Are the biannual gambling conferences peer reviewed? Have Mason or Dave published their ideas in the proceedings of that conference?
“Spock”
“Captain”
“Spock, Mr. Sulo reported a meteor heading our way, analysis please”
“Yes, Captain”
“ Time Mark, Mr Sulo”
“30 Parsecs to impact Sir,”
“Captain”
“Yes, Mr. Spock”
“Computer determined 4 divergent strategies”
“Time. Sulo”
“20 Parsecs to impact, Sir”
“Hold her steady Sulo”
“Aye Captain”
“Quickly Spock”
“Captain, Quadrant 2, %62 probability of survival, Quadrant 3 % 58 and Quadrant 4 60% “
“15 Parsecs Captain”
“O.K Sulo “
“What about quadrant 1 Spock?”
“ The data is inconclusive. Computer estimates less than %50 survival with available data”
“Recommendation Spock”
“Captain, logically our best chance of survival is quadrant 2”
“Not very good odds Spock”
“10 Parsecs to impact Captain”
“Scotty, Engine Status”
“All, a go Captain”
“On my Mark Sulo”
“Aye, Captain, Quadrant 2 Sir?”
“I’ll give the command Sulo”
“5 Parsecs Captain”
“Ready Sulo, 4, 3, 2, 1. Thrusters right Quadrant 1”
“Aye Aye Captain , Quadrant 1”
“Meteor passed Captain!”
“Damage report Scotty”
“All systems go Captain”
“Keep her steady Mr Sulo”
“Congratulations Captain”
“Thank you Mr Spock, but we were just lucky”
“Sir, If I may why did you choose quadrant 1?”
“Just a feeling Spock”
“Sir”
“You’re a student of Ancient Human Civilizations aren’t you Spock?”
“Yes Captain”
“Well Spock, Human Gamblers of the mid 20th Century called this feeling a “gut feeling”
“ A human, Hunch?”
“ Exactly, Spock. Something I imagine your logical mind could never understand”
“Do you understand it Captain?”
“No Spock. Sometimes we humans do things for reasons even we don’t understand.”
“Tell me Captain, these Gamblers, were they before Sklansky and Malmuth”
“Of course, although a few did survive their rein of logic”
“Hmmmm, very interesting, sir. I must think about this”
“Mr Sulo take us home!”
“Aye! Aye! Captain.”
n/t
**
You missed the point, Vince. Kirk didn't make decisions on a whim or a gut feeling. The difference between Kirk and Spock was that Spock's decisions were based on pure cold logic. Kirk on the other hand used his knowledge of human emotions and quirks in addition to logic.
Spock would beat the hell out of Omaha, but Kirk would rule at Holdem.
And for cryin' out loud, the name is SULU! (Maybe you were thinking about Napoleon Solo).
Brett
"Kirk on the other hand used his knowledge of human emotions and quirks in addition to logic. "
3 Bett. Should you carefully analyze the above you will see that you are saying that Kirk's decisions were pure logic as were Spock's. Implied by the above is that Kirk's own emotions and human quirks played no part in his decision process. He just used the knowledge he possessed to make logical decisions. Or did I miss the point again? How about clearing that up for me too, fella!
xx
xx
Vince,
Prince vs Lennon
Manning vs Griese
Corvette vs Corvette
Over vs Under
46 vs 16
Tiger vs Nicklaus
Apples vs Oranges
paul
x
"He's dead, Jim!"
.
i made a post stating that with ace ten on the button you want to win the blinds unless the players play really badly. and i said that if a tight player calls thats bad new for you. this may be generally right but there are some more things to think about before this could be correct. can someone find them for me.
Welcome To The Acid Forum Zee,
Re: Exposed cards
Posted By: Ray Zee
Date: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 1:21 p.m.
In Response To: Exposed cards (Chico)
with ace ten on the button you are hoping to win the blinds unless you have a player in the blinds that plays really badly. dont think of it as a steal hand as it is a good hand to have in this spot. if you get played with its not bad news unless a tight player calls.
I would think that if AT on the button is unlikely the favorite if called then the player isn't calling you nearly often enough and you should steal shamelessly. I think you SHOULD still be the favorite when called.
But I agree you do better winning now unless you have a premium hand. But that doesn't mean, as others seem to have suggested, that you are "stealing". If I bet QQ after 5 players call my pre-flop raise; well I want to win now, thank you very much, even if I'm still the favorite when called.
- Louie
Those professional winners who file quoterly time to do your taxes by dec 15. I wonder how many winners are there amongst you geniouses who are actually pay taxes. Anyway marry Xmas and happy new year to all you wieners.
Mr Sklansky,
Since you totally ignored Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock I have one that you can't ignore. Before I get there though I don't see how you missed tyhe opportunity to tear away at the seat of the pants authors with my Kirk example. Obviusly Kirk was wrong in his decision unless of course the truth be known but you didn't like that so here we go!
No I'm not Gary Carson.
1. The situation (sound familiar): The game is $20 straight lowball with a 5-5 and $10 blind. (warmer) You open for $20 in middle position with a 7,7,6,4,2. (is your memory getting real hot). The player behind you calls and all the other players, including the blinds, fold.
The play: Stand pat and come out betting $20 into his one card draw! (O.K. Dec 3-16 Poker Digest - Sklansky Column, yeah that's you)
You go on to say that this play is so powerful and so little known that it should never be shown if at all possible. If you are called... say you were snowing...
Question: How, if you act first, do you know that the player behind you is drawing? Are you assuming that because you raised and he just calls and doesn't reraise that he will throw away a made hand of 8 or better? Big assumption if you ask me, especially if it's been "snowing" quite a bit from your hand!
4. The situation - That's as far as I go! In this example the game is draw poker jacks-or-better and you have me throwing away a Jack high straight flush! O.Kay. Thank you very much. I needed that.
Vince.
I wrote that column 15 years ago but I haven't changed my mind.
Been lurking long enough. Time for some input.
I play a lot of Draw Poker. For a statistics guru (I'm not necessarily proud of that label), draw especially blind opening low ball is our game. You'll never beat us as long as we can count. Right Ray?
This problem interested me so much that I took the time to do the math (simple arithmetic actually). Sadly enough, all you Sklansky bashers, Boy Wonder Dave might just be right.
Seem that if he holds 77642 and you calculate the probabilities that the other 7 players might have a better hand, you'll find that the value of Dave's hand is in the 75 percentile before any action. Dave's betting out and standing pat before others announce makes his hand even stronger.
Furthermore
1. The chances of the one-card draw pairing in which case he would not call are significant.
2. The fact that Dave held 5 of the possible cards that could help the other player is a big factor. Assuming a normal distribution, the others who folded must have held a significant number of low cards that would have helped both Sklansky and the opponent.
3. The fact that Dave stood pat before any other decision was made by the opponent. It is a different game if the opponent stands pat.
4. The decision to play after the draw is squarely on the opponent's back causing him to make a decision (pressure), and he is not getting enough odds to make his play profitable over time. Another active player changes the game too.
5. Heads up, Sklansky wins this about 60% of the time against players who have some brain function left.
Score after 1 is
Dave 1 --- Bashers 0
I'd like to see Dave loose an argument, but he wins this one. Sorry Vince. You are still awsome, but don't let anger get in the way of reason.
And Dave, stay off the phones and play cards. You leave the table too muck to BS. That is one complaint I hear a lot about you.
Does anyone know where to purchase "Sklansky, The Seminar" in Las Vegas or on the web??
Thanks
It is good but to short.
Check out the main page for 2+2.
Click here and have your credit card ready. ---
Hi all,
Thank you for this sight which I have only recently looked at and happy christmas to all.
I have just started playing poker and am wondering if I should just stick to (trying) to make "value" decisions based on pot odds? It's just that I notice on the movie "Rounders" (don't laugh!!) that it's all about "reading the man" and "tells" etc etc. but I am thinking that for the moment I should be basing all my decisions on pot odds. I should expect to come out mildly behind though playing this way until I incorporate player reading, is that correct?
Kind Regards Steve
YOu don't say what limits you are playing but if they are where many start out (1-2 through 10-20) then half the time the man you are trying to read doesn't know what he has so reading him is sorta hard. Most of your profit will be from just playing correctly (e.g. payin attention to pot odds). But you can still use opening tells and a few of the more blatant "I've got a monster" tells right off the bat. Some games you might as well have the button every hand (esp. preflop) for all the information people are giveing you. You might as well use it.
My criticism of other writers is truly not for economic reasons. I'll tell you those reasons at a later date. And it is not for ego reasons either. Because the fact of the matter is, that even 2+2 books are not great (although I'd like to think that the Theory Of Poker comes close.) They are merely good. Luckily for us though, almost all other poker books suck.
I use these adjectives in comparison to books on subjects such as chess, backgammon, bridge, blackjack, or even something like weightlifting. There ARE many excellent books on those subjects by quite a few different authors.
The reason poker books do not meet these standards is NOT because it is less cut and dried. Well actually it is indirectly one of the reasons. Since much poker advice is somewhat debatable, that allows mediocrities and charlatons to get away with dubious advice without often being shown to be outright wrong. More importantly however is the fact that the vast majority of people who could write good books choose not to do so. There are a few reasons for this which I will get into at another time.
The point is that unwary readers probably assume that poker writers are about as competent as writers on other subjects but they are not. The top 5 blackjack players are all topnotch thinkers and no one PLAYS significantly better than them. Ditto for the other subjects for the most part. But the best thinkers and the best poker players almost all avoid writng about the subject. That leaves an opening for people who have great command of the English language but are mediocre both as thinkers and players. Poker is one of the few subjects where this occurs. (Sports betting is another.)
I would estimate that there are 500 people out there who could write better poker stuff than most of what is written now. With a month to study there are probably another 5000, for example Stanford Wong, Arnold Snyder, Paul Magriel, or Stephen Hawking. Some of those 500 who could do it now include at least 20 who regualarly post on this forum. Add to that about half of the players who regularly beat 60-120 games or higher. Even many of the 20-40 players can both think and play better than almost all of the poker writers out there. Again this situation is not the case for writers of most other similar subjects. Both Mason and I for slightly different reasons are so hard on these guys because they truly deserve it. They just don't know their stuff as well as you would expect a writer on a subject to know it. They suceed in niches we don't often write about, because they are not competing against the likes of Howard Lederer, Chip Reese, Mark Weitzman, Huck Seed, Bobby Hoff, Lenny Martin, Jason Lester, John Feeney, Abdul Jalib, Tom Weideman, Mike Souchak, Annie Duke, Cissy Russo, David Hayden, Danny Robinson, Roger Penrose and yes Gary Carson, Badger as well as a host of others. People of similar ilk do write about other subjects. If some of the people on this list start writing books you can be sure I will not be spouting the kind of criticisms you hear now. In fact it will make me get off my butt and do some more work if I want to say our stuff is still the best.
---
Quit your ranting.
This so called "ranting" is just what I have been waiting for.
We are fiinally going from the three word responses to some truly interesting thinking.
I am waiting patiently for David to get "really" wound up.
This forum is finally starting to find it's "voice."
"This forum is finally starting to find it's voice."
Here! Here!
The forum never lost its voice. Listen to Izmet, Abdul, Badger, Jim, John, Greg, Vince, Rick, every Scott (case insensitive), David, skp, Rounder and every one else that puts their play "out there" to be ripped apart or learned from. With all due respect if David, Mason and Ray never posted again it would not diminish the quality of this forum.
"With all due respect if David, Mason , and Ray never posted again, it would not diminish the quality of this forum."
Don't forget Badger too.
no, no. i know it's just hyperbole (and i am honored to have been mentioned), but i need to assert how valuable the authors are. for starters, ray is super cool. i am sure noone will argue with that. second of all, mason has started some of the most interesting threads ever. i am not sure if you looked through the archives since you began posting, but i did. mason also explains his thought processes rather well. and david, he can say more in 15 words than most people can say in a book. (even nietzsche allowed himself 10 lines.) i wish he had never learned how to type. ray is like that too. super concise.
i, for one, would sorely miss their input.
scott
In no way did I intend to dismiss the contributions the authors make. My point was to underscore what David has been posting the last few days. The contributors to this forum, my apologies to Badger, Paul and so many others that didn't come to mind this morning, could easily write a book better than whats out there. It seems to me, and I have only been posting about 4-5 months, that there is no question or situation that could be offered that would not be resolved without the authors stepping in to help. Yes, like good educators they pose situations to the "panel" to illucidate a point, but without even that this forum would be a formidable learning tool for all levels of play. I give the authors all the credit in the world for making this site available to us.
You and others write about poker like it is a science and it should be looked at as an art.
Now consider the source - I am just an ignorant a**hole who doesn't know what he doesn't know. But I think a lot of you gurus would do your readers a big service by spending a little more time on the 19 or so other aspects of poker that come into the game.
"You and others write about poker like it is a science and it should be looked at as an art. "
Rounder,
You are far from "ignorant". I don't know you well enough to judge if you are a a**hole but I doubt it from your participation here. But you are not correct and you are correct, depending on your point of view, about the game of poker. Poker is not a "science". Neither is it an "art". Nor is it "life". Perhaps the guy that views poker for what it most resembles is Gary Carson. I believe that Gary considers poker to be a Game, the same as I do. I think he stresses that in his posts here. Sklansky knows that it is not a science but that there is a science side to playing poker. That's the side he loves writing about. And does so very well I might add. Mason also knows that there is a science side to poker but tempers his writing to account for the human aspect of the game. From both, however, it is easy to get the impression that "Science" rules.
The "art" face of poker is gleaned from the human aspects of the game. Badger calls them "interpersonal retationships". Because of the nature of poker playing, the "it depends", explanatories of poker situations one gets the feeling that one must be an artist or creative innovator to find and make the winning play. Roy Cooke's hand analysis sometimes borders on art, in that the thought process he claims to go through, although logical, is at the same time close to mystical.
Poker has been demonized and saintified as if it were a being or an "existence" unto itself. No one has ever, at least not to me, been able to specifically pin down exactly what poker truly is. I doubt that will ever happen.
Vince.
s
Poker is a game. Poker is war. Poker is psychology. Poker is art. Poker is life. Poker is a sport. Poker is sex. Poker is business. Poker is like a job. Poker is a gift. Poker is a religious experience. These are just some of the most common metaphors of poker. And you know what? They are all true depending on what image one sees of oneself as a player. If one sees oneself as a "game player" then poker is a game. If one sees oneself as a "warrior" or "gladiator" or a "master strategist" then poker is war. If one sees oneself as an "athlete" then poker is a sport. If one sees oneself as a "creative person" with great "people skills" then poker is art. If one sees oneself as a "rational person" then poker is a science. If one see oneself as an "hourly expectation grinder" then poker is a job. If one sees oneself as a "capitalist" or "entrepreneur" then poker is a business. If one sees oneself as an "all around game player" then poker is a game. And so on. My point is that whatever you think poker is you're absolutely right. My advice to any player is be flexible in the image that you have of yourself as a player and in the metaphors that you use to see, hear, and feel this thing called poker. Don't be like those impulsive people who always treat poker as an art. Or those square scientists who always think that poker is a science. Or those steamers who always think that poker is hell. You have the opportunity to jump into any of these labels and experience poker in it's many aspects. Enjoy and keep learning.
a pirate. Now, let me tell you guys what poker is. Vince, again you're awesome. I agree with you completely. And just for you, I have decided the reconcile the KOJEE school with the Vince school (i'm in the vince school) all at once. Vince says poker is hard to pin down, Kojee (are you related to Kofi Annan?) anyway, he says poker is a reflexive aspect of human nature.
I say it is the second and the first, but it is absolute. It is piracy. At the table, everyone thinks they are on the high seas. They all want to pillage, plunder, get some booty, get some snacks.
See? Why do they call chips, chips? Is it because it satisfies both the pirate's desire for snacks and money? ehhh? catching on now, ain't you. Furthermore, pirate's always win the WSOP. Who looked more like a pirate in the 1998(7?) one, Scottie or that fruitcake whatever his name was. Scottie was the pirate, and he cleaned up. Amarillo is a cowboy, which is like being a pirate of Texas. And? What do you get when you win the WSOP? A gold chain! Who likes gold chains? Pirates!
I rest my case. Oh, and scott, I pillaged and plundered that lit hum final. How'd ya do.
alex
Pirate...pirate?... that's good... I'll try this metaphor on today... seriously... plunder time!!!!!
"get some booty"
What's love got to do with it?
Vince.
Because many partners prefer to associate love with booty. Just like many lesser players associate "losing" with "playing bad" and "winning" with "playing good".
Go figure.
- Louie
Since you mention blackjack, I might note a couple of ghastly mathematical errors similar to those found in the poker books you find so offensive.
In the book that sets the standard for mathematical analysis of blackjack (Don Schlesinger's BJ Attack), Don recommends learning only 18 playing indices. That's right, even though it may be correct to double down on the hard 5 vs a dealer 6 in extreme counts Don recommends the mathematically incorrect play. Stick to basic strategy except for the 18 main variations, he says. The other cases happen too infrequently, or EV is too insignificant to have much of an effect on your hourly win rate. Such blasphemy in a book that strives for mathematic correctness.
Lee Jones says stick to your normal strategy in jackpot games. This, in a book that does not claim to have the last word on the topic, he is simply providing a strategy that should help a beginner win in typical low-limit games. Egads, you can construct an example where this leads to a play that does not maximize the EV of the hand! Really, just how often do these situations arise and how much does it affect your hourly rate? How is this different from Don's advice of sticking to basic strategy, even though obscure cases make it incorrect?
I read Lee's book and found it well written, with a sound strategy to play in the games he talks about. Rather than claiming he has the final and definitive word on anything, he then recommends other books to develop other skills that he doesn't cover.
Frankly, your continuous ranting on the topic is starting to make Doug Grant look sane in comparison. I find it amusing that neither you nor Doug bother attacking the truly bad authors, like John Patrick. I guess you both have your reasons.
Jaeger
Applying the principle of "diminishing returns" and recommending ignoring obscure mathematical truths is NOT mathematical blasphemy.
Heck, there is a bunch of people like me who would be DELIGHTED if we could memorize basic strategy, keep a good-enough count perfectly, and deviate in only 18 variations. Improving ones concentration and energy levels has GOT to be more profitable than memorizing all the criteria for that obscure 19th variation; which I MAY get to use once a month for a $2 profit.
- Louie
Jaeger,
You are so right about John Patrick, I wish sklansky would do just one paragraph on that guy. Just ONE!!!
As an owner of perhaps 150 chess books I have to agree completely with your characterization.
The main point I think is that there is virtually no published material for poker. For holdem there is HFAP, IYP Ciffone, Roy Cooke and I think Lee Jones is great for beginners. And that is it. I have more books on the Yugoslav variation of the Dragon Variation of the Scicilian defence.
I am pretty sure that without the internet it would have been extremely difficult to learn to play as well as I do ( however poorly that is whatever ). I believe in the past you would have to have a friend in the know that would help you. Even with the internet you need to do a huge amount of research to separate the wheat from the chaff, especially while you are just starting out.
D.
Poker is both an art an a science, Rounder. My point was that most of our competitors know NEITHER of these aspects as well as writers on other subjects know theirs. Many of the people I named as prospective tough competition were not scientists, but rather super PLAYERS who also could think and write well if need be. It is from people of similar ilk that usually draw the authorities on other subjects rather than the second or third rate practitioners who write about poker.
The analogy between Don Schlesinger and Lee Jones is absurd. First of all Schlesinger knew exactly how much you give up by his simplification. JOnes had no idea. Secondly Jone's mistake not only showed ignorance but is actually quite costly. For instance suppose you have two kings and a tight player bets into a flop of A73. Playing 5-10 with a $10,000 jackpot to the loser, makes this an easy call. You win the jackpot one in a thousand. You win a pot over $50 at least one in ten. You lose $15 the rest of the time. And what about the time there are TWO ACES on board? Throwing away a medium pair just because you are sure you are beaten, could be as much as a FIVE HUNDRED DOLLAR ev mistake. Since Jones in essence says you should make this fold, you could say that he gave propotionally the worst advice ever given in any gambling book of all time. Even when you factor in the rarity of these situations it still adds up to a lot of money, money that someone who is playing in jackpot games can ill afford to throw away.
My two cents. I haven't read Jones's book but I believe it is geared towards low limit. Jackpot games, in my experience, ar usually universally low limit. This compounds the error that I believe David has correctly identified in Jones handling of Jackpot play strategies. Since he is speaking of low limit those that read and head his advice can suffer dramatically if they find themselves in a Jacpot game. Something not hard to imagine.
Vince.
Now he's not just a little thick when it comes to numbers, he is actually the author of the WORST GAMBLING ADVICE OF ALL TIME. Prefaced with the advice that jackpot games are best avoided, and with the disclaimer that he hadn't personally researched which plays might be worthwhile, this little paragraph in an addendum of his book now ranks as the WORST GAMBLING ADVICE OF ALL TIME. Obviously, the advice will not optimally extract EV from the jackpot. That failing, according to a reknowned author, now ranks as THE WORST GAMBLING ADVICE OF ALL TIME.
Now all this time I thought John Patrick was bad, or maybe the infamous Martingale. Of course, Patterson and his TARGET advice includes examining ash trays at a blackjack table. I thought this might be a worthy contender, along with some wonderful insight found at www.winningways.com. But no, now I understand the worst of worst is to be found in Lee Jones' book.
Doug Grant step aside, there's a new player in town.
Jaeger
Now you know what I mean. If that one piece of advice is religiously followed, it will occasionally occur that you make a $500 mistake in a 5-10 poker game. In that sense it is hard to top. Obviously it is not as bad as weak advice about frequently ocurring situations but it is still pretty bad.
If the "Never play differently in a Jackpot Game" advise by Lee Jones "is religiously followed" it will also prevent the routine common "Jack-Pot" mistakes like calling tripple bets before the flop with A2 or 54s or calling raises with 44 in Jacks-or-Better or drawing to joker-2 in lowball, or all those other silly things some players do.
Brain-dead types will do BETTER if they "religiously follow" this advise then if they don't. Reasonable players will do better IGNORING it. Or better yet finding that obscure essay you guys wrote on it.
- Louie
I can never figure out which post David Sklansky is responding to since he doesn't place it directly under.
Lee Jone's book will get you winning in the low limit games at least it did for me. At the higher limits it starts making more sense paying attention to every detail and special cases that come up. It would be silly to poor through WLLH over and over again to figure out how to play all these cases . With HFAP, it can be used much more as a reference book and the details will matter more also.
D.
David,
Imagine a triangle made from a rubber band. Label one side of the triangle "Subject," label another side "Writer," and label the third side "Reader." All good writers should be aware that these three sides constitute the rhetorical situation. Since no rhetorical situation is ever the same, the triangle which represents the rhetorical situation will never be an equilateral triangle. The rubber band image allows us to see that the sides of the triangle will stretch to fit the rhetorical situation.
So, what's this got to do with poker writers and good or bad advice? It's easy to visualize. Many poker writers--and most writers of self-help manuals--assume that readers have "problems" that need to be fixed. Therefore, the "reader" side of the triangle stretches further than the other two sides--sometimes to the point of breaking. The result is a book like "Zen and the Art of Poker."
Other writers place so much value on the "subject" side of the triangle, while ignoring the needs of the reader, that the "subject" side threatens to snap. Too much information, poorly delivered, can overwhelm the reader, especially the novice.
By far the worst, however, is the writer who stretches the "writer" side out of proportion. These writers neglect both the demands of the subject and the needs of the reader. (This writer has far too much ego and should be writing memoirs.)
The best writers, therefore, will pay attention to the tension placed on the rubber band and carefully balance the rhetorical situation. Of course, I'm assuming that the idea is to educate readers by providing them with solid information.
I would also like to add that the best poker writers should know the subject and know how to write. Writers who claim to know the subject yet dismiss writing skill in general need to realize that the best information, poorly delivered, confuses rather than illuminates readers. Even Hemingway and Fitzgerald enlisted the considerable skills of Max Perkins, that great editor.
Sincerely,
John
Post deleted at author's request
Gary,
Yes, good writers visualize an audience, but I'm not sure how that audience (or imagined person) can change throughout a particular piece. For example, a HE book for beginners will need to explain the "flop," but an advanced book will not include this information. I know this may be an extreme example, but for the writer to project a different reader at this point will make the writing incoherent. That is, unless you mean that you can now visualize a reader who knows what "the flop" means, and move from learned old information to new information.
Regards,
John
Post deleted at author's request
Good for you Gary. Meanwhile you must be having trouble finding something to disagree with in my Prospective Competion post (which included you as a worthy competitor). If you agree with ten things I say and disagree with one, you almost always write only about the latter. Surely you can find one thing to try to refute. Otherwise you will lose your position as Executive Director of Shelters Concerned with Author Morons (SCAM).
see ds post above for answer CC=cha ching $500 it's that easy maybe I should tell Abdul since he has gone into the business of cha chingin around the xmas tree for presents.
santa
Post deleted at author's request
Writing is creation. One thing I've learned that some of history's most creative people do when they made their masterpieces is that they tend to shift point of views constantly. Creative political negotiator Mahatma Gandhi would jump into the shoes of a Muslim, a Hindu, a British, and Indian before going into an important meeting. Walt Disney would literally become a child, a parent, a creator, a critic when he making up all those cartoon characters. Einstein would imagine himself riding in front of a beam of light, seeing himself over there on a beam of light, and back in front of the blackboard while he was coming up with the theory of relativity. General MacArthur would pretend to be in a variety of his enemies shoes (general, private, platoon commander) while planning out an offensive move. Incidentally, Tuna Lund admitted in a Cardplayer interview that he did what MacArthur claimed to do, that is to step into his opponent's shoes and see himself from that perspective,as if looking at himself in front of a mirror! I believe good writers do the same when they write their "works".
So you think David should climb into Gary's shoes before writing. Now that would be quite a sight! Mason would just die!
Vince.
Was there something in your post John that you expected me to disagree with? Do you feel that my previous posts have contradicted what you said? My tape recorded books could be improved upon for the reasons that you gave but they are still good and are read avidly by professional writers who play poker. My written books, I believe totally meet your equilateral triangle standards.
One thing however is sure. No matter how great a writer you are, if you do not understand the subject you are writing about, the book will be much worse than readers have a right to expect. In the case of poker, following the advice in that book will often do more harm than good in a quest to become a player who actually wins real money. As I said, there are thousands of people out there who are capable, perhaps with a bit of editing, of writing good poker books. Most of my competitors out there are not. (By the way. That last statement is basically COMMON KNOWLEDGE among most of the top players . The reason they do not jump to my defense in this debate is because it is not in their best interests to do so. Think about it. However in private these same players dismiss our competiton with a contempt that surpasses mine.)
David,
You flatter me--nothing to disagree with? Actually, I was trying to point out that even those writers who do have superior knowledge may have trouble communicating that knowledge while pointing out some reasons for this. I surely agree that writers without a real foundation in theory and knowledge will never write effectively, even if they know grammar. I guess my point is that the best writers have all these tools--theory, knowledge, and writing skills--at their diposal.
BTW, you seem to be hinting at some vast, underground conspiracy, a hush-hush, spooky world at the end of your response. Perhaps you might discuss this further?
Regards,
John
No conspiracy. Just the simple fact that professional poker players welcome bad poker books.
This confirms what i've been suspecting for awhile: pro players love Mike Caro for his misdirection. In my experience, players who claim that they prefer Caro's advice are the easiest to beat.
Remember, Caro rhymes with "arrow" and whatever that has to do with poker (from the self proclaimed world's most respected authority) sure helps me win from the players who are busy rhyming away.
I wish Caro would pin all his "graduates" so I could more easily pick a game by the most players wearing an arrow Caro pin.
Then again as soon as I hear players discussing "group" hands I grab a seat and start (semi!)bluffing.
Write on!
In the movie Horse Feathers Professor "Groucho Marks" when lecturing his class looks at a picture of a donkey and says, "That reminds me, where's my son."
One of the people on David's list, John Feeney, is now hard at work on a poker book. We expect to publish it next summer.
not our friend john feeney, surely? you'd think he would have told us. you're going to publish him? i thought 2+2 had standards. you'll let anybody into your party. he can't write anything longer than a couple a pages. how is he going to write a book? he'll probably just stable all his articles together and call it a book. mason, you just like him because he is as tight as you are.
what about the rest of the superstars? i need to get a job for this summer and i'm getting sick of math research. do you have any openings?
scott
Scott:
I don't know if you are ready yet, but I suspect that in the future you will start to put a pretty good poker book together. When this happens let me know and we will take a look at the manuscript.
Scott,
Don't let Mason patronize you. He's said the same thing to me. The "I don't know if your ready yet" thing I mean.
Vince.
alex thinks you're awesome. i agree. write a book.
scott
aw, shucks. thanks. i was just kidding. if i ever get any ideas, i'll write them down. if they start to accunulate, i'll let you know. but i fear that you may be mistaken. i'll let you in on a secret. i'm an idiot, i am just smarter than most other idiots. i am always amazed at what i don't know. don't give me too much credit. any would be too much.
scott
Hey scott, John Feeney has written some excellent articles for Poker Digest magazine. He wrote a marvelous article just recently where he examines some real life situations in Hold-em and explains how a novice thinks versus an experienced player and what the relevant factors are. He also plays $40-$80 hold-em which is a very high limit by my standards and I assume he does well so he must be a very good player. Last time I checked I don't think Lee Jones or Roy West were playing that high.
i know. i was just making some fun. i read that article and the one on the pd website. i agree they were good. and, unless i can find one in an alley, i will buy john's book.
scott
There are certainly many alleys in N.Y. Just ask AlexB; he lives in one. (To avid the wrath of "Fed up with idiots..." follow up on other topics Alex, if you must - from your alley.)
.
Thanks for the good review Jim. I was wondering if that article would lead to "Feeney problem #1", but it looks like I may have squeeked by this time. Still, I know my day will come. :-/ (face included for Scott's benefit)
John, you will know that you have arrived when Brier starts his "Feeney Problem No. 1" post.
BTW, we don't get PD here in Canada. John has always been nice enough to send copies of his PD articles to me. I mentioned this to him by e-mail and I'll say it here - his most recent piece on how players think differently is the best article on poker I have read in a long long time. Keep up the great work.
Which issue did the article appear?
thanks
i really don't know, but john emailed it to me on the 11th. he said it was in the latest issue. "a couple of days ago" so that's my guess.
scott
.
..
Scott,
I'm with you. we may just have to boycott Feeney!
Vince
i am with you, man. to the bitter end.
scott
My first boycott. Cool!
Mason,
When I see someone I know and like leafing though the latest Poker Digest, I have them read Feeney's latest. It is well written and top notch. His will be a great book.
Regards,
Rick
Bridge and Go are two games that I have been playing and studying a lot longer than poker (around twenty years rather than less than one year). My impression is that both the quality and quantity of literature on Bridge and Go is considerably higher than that of Poker literature.
I think this is due largely to the nature of the game. The Chapter in "The Biggest Game in Town" where Doyle Brunson talks about Super/system suggests the reason quite clearly. You know the chapter that ends "If I had it to do again, I wouldn't write that book.".
Piers
The book will be called
"Settling for the BETTER of it cause "The Best of It" costs too much."
cc
Dear David:
What's up?
- Louie
why do bad things happen to good people
AlexB,
This is a serious question and I'll try to throw in a short but serious answer.
If only good things (like good health) happened to good people and bad things (such as getting in a serious accident) only happened to bad people the world would be an awful place.
People who try to to good shoud try to do good for goodness sake and because they have a strong moral center and want to develop their soul. They should not be induced into doing so by greater reward in life other than the happiness that trying to do the right thing brings.
Regards,
Rick
Thank you for the three letters.
define 'good'...
I've never met a 'good' person that didn't have a 'bad' side (or vice versa for that matter). Certainly never met a person that 'deserved' anything good from God on his/her own merit...
Um, I'm a little drunk, so I won't attempt eloquence.
god lives in a castle. I've heard he has died, but have not yet made it there to find out. In any case, the messengers are late, and the light from the fire has made me worry.
alex
==1== Because while I can and sometimes DO intervene, I pretty much let nature and natural laws do their things. Their things are oblivious to good and evil.
==2== To give you the opportunity to pretend like there IS a correlation, so you can use a bad event to trigger introspectiveness and self improvement.
==3== To make shmucks ask questions. :)
==4== To make wan-a-be but never-will-be types believe that if they lost a pot they MUST have played it wrong. And if they won the MUST have played it right.
==5== Because.
- Hmmm...
I picked up a poker book several years ago. In the lengthy introduction our hero was chatting with some Bridge Legend who told these two stories:
==1== Draw poker. Legend bet, anti-hero raised, Legend Raised, raise, raise, raise, Legend calls. Legend had 44 (only).
==2== Legend opens in Draw, a different Anti-Hero raises, raise, raise, Legend calls. Both draw 2. Legend bets (cannot check-raise in THIS game), raise, raise, raise, and Legend shows the table quad Kings and folds.
Hero (the author) disgustedly belittled the legend's stories since its not possible that either of these two stories cold POSSIBLY be true. In the first case, after bluffing multiple times ones options are to raise again or fold. In the second case, one can never lay down such a strong hand and MUST call. The Legend should stick to Bridge.
Should I wish to continue reading this poker book?
- Louie
david used to be funny and concise. but some hooligan taught him how to type and now he has taken up a crusade. a long crusade. i don't agree or disagree with it. i don't know anything about the issue. i only looked at a couple bad poker books before i found 2+2. and i have only read a few of 2+2's works. i don't have access to all these magizines, so i don't read the articles.
besides, everyone knows john feeney writes the best articles. have any of david's arcticles spawned a revolution like alexb's biosuit?
but even if i agreed or disagreed with the whole thing, i wouldn't really care. as far as i am concerned, there hasn't been any poker on the theory forum for a couple of weeks. and it is not any of my hooligan friends' fault.
hey david-how about another theoretical question? isn't that what this forum is for?
scott
I'm done Scott. I made my point. I have a larger agenda, not related to poker writers and this was a necessary first step. But I'll let it rest for a while.
David’s opening paragraph of his "Prospective Tough Competition" post: >>My criticism of other writers is truly not for economic reasons. I'll tell you those reasons at a later date. And it is not for ego reasons either. Because the fact of the matter is, that even 2+2 books are not great (although I'd like to think that the Theory Of Poker comes close.) They are merely good. Luckily for us though, almost all other poker books suck.<< I will agree that the Theory of Poker 2+2 book that comes the closest to greatness. I wonder why the effort isn’t made to write other books of the same quality from 2+2? For instance HFAP is a good book but by your own admission it could be better. It seems to me that there could be several reasons for this: Personally I would enjoy reading more "great" poker books because I find the subject very interesting and not necessarily because I would win more money (hard to believe but true). If it is reason 1), then apparently it is more profitable to play poker than to write about poker. If it is reason 2), then I feel that it is too bad that there is not more competition. If it is reason number 3) then I can understand why the effort to produce "great" books is not undertaken. Personally I feel that it is a combination of reasons 1) and 2), which I feel is unfortunate, and perhaps a bit short sighted. Tom Haley
I have read a lot of poker books, I disagree with David Sklansky that 2+2 does not publish great books. Here are a few great poker books and my rationale:
1. Seven Card Stud for Advanced Players by Ray Zee, Mason Malmuth, and David Sklansky
This is the greatest poker book ever written. With hardly any background in public poker, I read this book I within a month I was beating $1-$5 and $2-$10 stud games for almost one top bet per hour even though it was designed for a $15-$30 structure game with an ante. It provides a step by step guide to becoming a winning low limit and medium limit stud player. Roy West wrote his book long after this one and frankly it is not nearly as good. George Percy's stud book is a sick joke compared to this book.
2. Theory of Poker by David Sklansky
How can anyone not view this as a great poker book? For me, who knew next to nothing about poker, this book was like giving a blind man sight. I had never heard of or even considered plays like "semi-bluffing". I always thought that you only raised when you had the best hand otherwise you called or folded. Key concepts which are second nature now like semi-bluffing, check-raising, free cards, etc. were first written about and intelligently discussed in this book.
3. Gambling Theory and Other Topics by Mason Malmuth
This was the first book ever written that provided detailed, accurate information about fluctuations and bankroll which are critical to becoming a successful player. I have personally seen otherwise competent players go broke and stop playing because they simply did not understand bankroll, the long run, fluctuations, and other concepts discussed in this book. I am amazed at how many players post problems on this forum concerning bankroll, long run, etc. and they have never read this book.
I think poker essays by Mason Malmuth are good. I believe that "Gambling for a Living" by Sklansky and Malmuth is the ONLY source of accurate information on realistic win rates for various limit poker games. The other stuff I have read or heard on hourly rates is simply hogwash.
Hold-em Poker For Advanced Players-New Edition is a good book but it is complicated because the authors are trying to deal with concepts and situations where a lot of variables are involved. The problem is that community card games like Hold-em are counter-intuitive and some of the plays recommended in HPFAP are problematic for most of us.
The advanced strategies you mention were first published by David Sklansky in Hold'Em Poker in 1976.
SammyB
Hey Tom,
Do you think I ought to write a poker book about Kirk and Spock. Or maybe Roy and Trigger or Batman and Robin, Yeah that's it Batman and Robin meet Superman at Bellagios. What a story!
Vince.
I believe Data, with 12 quintillion calculations per second could probably even out think Roy Cooke. But, Rounder would take on Data in a heartbeat. He loves those math guys.
.
You know there was a Star Trek episode where they were playing poker. Data was playing "weak tight" and Riker bluffed and won the pot.
Substitute Rounder for Riker and Sklansky for Data.
BTW Kirk used to beat Spock at chess as well.
nm
.
.
Well, almost, and it stemmed from lack of familiarity and/or interest in the subject. There are virtually no good books on weightlifting, or more properly - weight-training. In fact, the more famous the author, the worse the book. And the bodybuilding magazines at stores are without question the most harmful and misleading widely available magazines on any subject in the entire history of publishing.
Without drowning in this, here are some reasons why. The two fields most contaminated with scam artists are those that deal with physical and financial improvement. I'll let ya'll fill in the human nature blanks here. The use of performance enhancing drugs and the total disregard for long term health have completely skewed all athletics (bodybuilding is not a sport, of course). Plus, very successful athletes have overwhelming genetic and (almost as important) environmental advantages, that are almost impossible for anyone (including themselves) to understand. Any top athlete, when asked in an interview to advise others or explain "how they did it", always gives some variation of, "I love playing this game and the competition, and I've worked very hard". Lotta truth there, but useless to a beginner.
David, assuming you have no preference or predisposition, do you think you'd be more successful after 500 hours of guitar lessons from Eddie Van Halen, or 500 hours of weightlifting lessons from Naim Suleymanogylou (Pocket Hercules, 3-time Olympic Gold medalist)? I guarantee that a genetically average, raw beginner would be far better off financially after reading Lee Jones than he would be physically after reading Arnold Schwarzenegger. (I also object to the adjective "many" in regards to execellent chess books, though this area has improved dramatically with the collapse of the Soviet Union.)
Two quick thoughts: Imagine if there were only three two-table public poker rooms in the country. How good would the players there be and what would they do to the kitchen/basement playing masses when they finally got a chance to sit in? I also think that a Tiger Woods-Pete Sampras poker equivalent would seriously destabilize whatever room/tournament they played in, primarily because there's no (and never will be a) huge in-flow of sponsorship/TV money. Imagine someone who wins $300 per hour in the Bellagio $30-60 HE or has won the WSOP four years in a row. Think I'm exaggerating? Take a look at the PGA money list and world ranking point totals, or consider that among the top eight tennis players, Sampras has won twelve Grand Slam titles, Agassi five, Kafelnikov two, Kuerten one, and the other four have three runner-up finishes combined.
I'm not sure if you are right or not but I am sure you are too strong to argue with.
"Actually I believe that skipping low limits might not be that bad an idea. The reason is that small games don't prepare you very well for the bigger games and that NOBODY makes decent money at stakes below 6-12 in public cardrooms." DS
Dave quoted the above statement a month ago or so. Today I believe he is correct if you fall into a certain category.
1) Money isn't a problem.
2) Your comfortable in a casino atmosphere.
3) You've read a good or great book on what your playing. 7CS/HE/O/O8.
4) Start at 5-10 or above if you meet the three top criteria because I believe you end up hurting your game more than helping it at the lower stakes.
I say this because I believe although I only played 100 hours in 1-5 7CS I probably should of moved up after 50 hours because the thrill was gone. My reason for starting low was because I was in fear of the casino set-up when I first started.
I don't know if it is true of other games besides 7CS but from what I've read on this forum it appears the same to me.
Fire At Will!!
Paul
Post deleted at author's request.
I think you guys are not that far off in agreement. Playing 50 or 100 hours is not much time. It is certainly the best way to satisfy Paul's #2 point of getting confortable in the casino.
The real issue is not whether to play 0,50 or 100 hours of 2-4 but whether you should spend much more time and also generate your bank roll from the 3-6 to play 6-12. I think moving up or taking lots of shots is the way to go for new players who are doing very serious study and preparation.
D.
Of course rank beginners should play very small for a while. If there are many players beating 3-6 jackpot games for $10 an hour (something I find very difficult to believe), than why the hell aren't they playing higher?
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request
"Most any thoughtful person can easily beat mid-limit poker if they have the bankroll"
Badger,
Most thoughtful people would be careful in making statements like the above. Mid limit poker is not easily beaten by anyone. It takes more than being thoughtful and having money.
Vince.
Post deleted at author's request.
Simple. They are overbetting their bankrolls. So they keep crashing them to zero and starting over.
I know lots of winning players beating 3-6 games for $10/hr or more. But their bankrolls are often in the under $1000 range, and they don't grow them because they live off their poker earnings. To their risk of ruin is sky-high, and they keep busting out of the game.
And if the only way they can rebuild a bankroll is to drive cab or work construction, it's hard to take that near-minimum-wage income and play 10-20 and up. Psychologically. So they stay in the low limits and ride the roller coaster.
Of course rank beginners should play very small for a while. If there are many players beating 3-6 jackpot games for $10 an hour (something I find very difficult to believe), than why the hell aren't they playing higher?
As a professional that has played "low limit poker" for many years I would like to respond.
Playing low limit poker for a living is a good way to get nowhere fast. You simply can't stay ahead of the wolves. It is a constant struggle and if I didn't need the money I wouldn't even think about playing the game.
I took all kinds of shots at bigger games and sometimes did very well but my problem was that I just kept playing higher and higher until I hit that inevitable snag and had to go back to playing low limit. What a grind.
Eventually I wised up and took a shot in a 10-20 game. (I had no other choice, because you can never really save up enough money to build a big enough bankroll, with expenses and everything.) It was a tough struggle and I eventually "squeezed" ahead but this time I STAYED at 10-20 for a long long time until I DID build up a big BR. If the 10-20 games are good and you are a decent player you can eventually build up a bankroll for bigger games. This is about the minimum game for doing that I would say, with the possible exception of a good 6-12 game. But even for 6-12 you need a decent bankroll.
Now I play fairly high and am able to save money, build my BR, pay expenses, make investments, new clothes, car, trips, etc. I can do things now I could never even think of doing playing small. It was always a struggle to stay ahead of the rent. Every dollar was precious. It still is but not to the same degree. Many, many times my whole bankroll was sitting right on the table.
In short if you want to get ahead playing poker you have got to get up to at LEAST 10-20 as soon as possible and preferably higher before you can start to relax a little bit and enjoy the scenery.
Low limit poker is a constant struggle on short funds with an outrageous proportional rake and something I wouldn't want to have to do again or wish upon a dog.
One of the reasons it is so tough is because your risk of ruin goes up substantially if you are always taking shots at bigger games as your bankroll grows. Mason's bankroll suggestions never cover this, nor do most of the bankroll suggestions put forth by authors in blackjack books, etc.
In short, if you have a bankroll sized to give you a 5% risk of ruin, that sizing typically assumes a constant growth in the bankroll as winnings are reinvested. Without reinvestment, the risk of ruin skyrockets. (Cumulative RoR = 1-(1-ROR)^n, where n is the number of potential bankroll doublings).
If a person is playing a 5% risk of ruin without investment, and is playing enough that he should double his bankroll 4 times a year, then if he spends his winnings instead of building the bankroll his chance of busting out is almost 20%. After 5 years, his chance of that bankroll surviving is only about 35%.
Now there is player B, who has a risk of ruin of 15% (maybe a $1000 bankroll at 3-6). He invests everything he wins back into the bankroll, but every time it grows enough to have the same risk of ruin at a higher level, he moves up. He goes through 5-10, 10-20, 15-30, 20-40, and up to 40-80.
His chance of surviving that runup to get to the 40-80 level is only about 50%, assuming his win rate and therefore his risk of ruin stays the same. This is rarely the case, and it may be the case that at least at first he's playing a losing game at some of the bigger limits. Given that, a 'good' player's chance of climbing through the poker ranks to the higher limits on strictly poker winnings is very, very small, unless they are already starting with a large bankroll. Maybe after the 3rd try at it they might have the skills to actually maintain a decent win rate at the higher limits, but most people don't have the psychological strength to keep trying when they are living in near poverty and watched a $20,000 bankroll get blown away twice. So they settle into the lower limits and stay there, where a bankroll represents a month's wages and the loss of it is not quite so psychologically devastating.
Many of these players are playing with risks of ruin more in the 20-30% range, IMO, and are virtually certain to bust out of the game at some point.
Dan,
This is a great post except for one thing you do not show how to determine a players risk of ruin.
You wrote:
"One of the reasons it is so tough is because your risk of ruin goes up substantially if you are always taking shots at bigger games as your bankroll grows"
This statement implies that you can determine a poker player's risk of ruin. I don't believe you can. You may, and I emphasize may, be able to specify a range applicable to a specific player. But contrary to what you and Mr. sklansky profess "poker playing" is not an exact science. It is not governed by poker hand probabilities similiar to the exact probabilities of tossing dice.
Vince.
I agree with you Vince, but I was setting up a simplified situation to clarify the point.
In the real world, the 'human factors' of poker almost all make the situation worse, and not better. Players will almost certainly not have the same win rate as they move up in limits. If a person loses half his bankroll, he will often play worse, making the risk of ruin higher. A person who is losing often gets run at by other players, making it tougher to win, etc.
But my main point is that if you have a fixed bankroll that never grows, you WILL bust out of the game if you play long enough (depending on the size of that bankroll, 'long enough' may be longer than your lifespan, but for normal 3-6 type bankrolls that is not the case). So, there are a lot of 'pros' at the 3-6 level who make $10/hr, but spend it all on living expenses, and then eventually bust out of the game and have to start all over again. They never move up in limits, or at least not for long, even though they have the skills to do so.
"To advocate somebody should set fire to 5,000 or 10,000 dollars to learn the game-"
Badger,
That's priceless phrasing! What I'd give to be able to think like you do.
Don
Badger,
"To think a person who has never played poker before should sit down in a 10-20 game, well, if they've hit the friggin' lottery or have a 2+2 jet in the garage, otherwise it's nuts."
I didn't say anything about never playing poker before and I don't think DS is talking about that person. I've played all my life, but not in a casino atmosphere. It's a big difference from playing with your friends playing call station to the end.
Hopefully your over your cold and you won't read this.
paul
Paul,
Aren't you satisfied with just Z hating you? Are you trying to add Badger to your list. Don't worry, even if everyone else (correctly) hates you, old Uncle Vinnie will still think kindly of you.
Vince.
Post deleted at author's request.
I think the low-limit games are good for learning the basics. How do you expect to beat a 10-20 game if you can not beat a low limit game? Well, you can study the books and practice with a poker PC game (Note that, beating the poker game on a computer is irrelevant. The game is just good for practicing what you study, otherwise, I would have won the WSOP ten times by now).
What I think Sklansky is saying, is all the advanced strategies that you learn from his and Mason's books are not really going to help you make any money in a 3-6 game. I believe he considers the maximum amount of profit you can make in this game is just not worth the effort if you are ready to play at a higher level.
In a low limit game you just play basic poker. You show down the best hands. So, basic mathematics will win the money in a low limit game. Logic does not apply most of the time when people are willing to call raises with 92s and Ax unsuited. With these starting hands there is no way you can put them on a hand.
Post deleted at author's request
Yup. I can put them on any two cards. Any ace, any two suited cards, any pair, and any two connected cards. They will call raises and even capped pots with any two suited cards.
Whatever, my point is that these players play such a wide variety of any two cards it's difficult to use logic on about 60% of them (the 60% is just an average based on my experience). It's easier just to play tighter to win the money and not get fancy.
I've never played above $10-20 and I have dropped back down to 5-10 for a while before taking another crack at 10-20. But, I believe the difference between a 3-6 game and a 10-20 game is huge compared to the difference between 10-20 and 15-30 and 20-40.
There is something about the players at the lower limits that disappears when you move up.
All of a sudden you get punished for your mistakes at 10-20 where at 5-10 a person can flop trips and not bet them until the river and by that time you filled your stratight. A person can flop middle pair top kicker and pay you all the way to the river with four of a suit on the board. You can raise from the sb, checkraise a flop of akx bet out on the turn and river and ger called by a pair of jacks. This is very comfortable and I'm not quite sure I want to give it up again just so I can be able to get a better read on my opponents because they are playing more consistent starting hands. I'm not trying to make a living out of poker, I just want to win more than I lose as a recreational thing, but if you prick me I will bleed and if you tickle me I'll probably kick you in the nuts.
Just my two cents on this debate about the competence of poker writers. The first section in HEPFAP (pre 21st cent edition which may be better but I haven't read) dealing with starting hands is extremely misleading, poorly organised and will cost you a lot of money if followed. S&M just shove various hands into groups and vaguely advise to play such and such a group in either early, middle or late position in such and such a way (with an addenda to make sure you vary your play). As Sklansky would say, this is just poor generalisation that takes no account of the precise mathematical correct way to play high unsuited cards, pairs and the other hands based on the exact number of players to act behind you (if first in) or how many and in what position other players have acted if you come in later.
There is no recognition of domination (high unsuited cards) or the shifting value of, in particular, medium pairs, based on whether there is 9 or 5 or whatever players behind you. (And no recognition of what to expect from the flop with pairs from 88 to JJ and the sliding differences as you go up from 88 to JJ).
As Malmuth wrote once, no matter how well you play after the flop, if your pre-flop selection is bad (especially in a typical mid level aggressive HE game with the usual 3-5 players) you will get killed. You will just trap yourself too many times.
HEFAP is great on post flop play. But its preflop strategy (for the typical semi-tough aggressive game) stinks. I know, I lost money before sitting down and wiping my mind of HEPFAP starting strategy and analysing starting hand values for myself.
John,
Are you sure you were reading the information given by Sklansky/Malmuth? I have read their work many of times and always come away with something new. Their book-"Hold'em for Advanced Players has helped me improve my game hundred times over. I suggest you read the material a few more times. I may sound bias but tell me who even comes close in writing good material on Hold'em or poker for that matter? NO one!!! (That's my opinion).
Dice
Post deleted at author's request
"I know, I lost money before sitting down and wiping my mind of HEPFAP starting strategy and analysing starting hand values for myself. "
What we have here is a Genius! He has found a better strategy than S&M and now will share it with us! O.K. Go ahead tell us that Starting Hand Value strategy that will undoubtably make you rich in your great americn poker book you must have in the works. I think you are another phoney that criticizes and then can't back up their claims.
Have a nice day!
Vince.
Post deleted at author's request
I love the way Gary misquotes me and then attacks that misquote. So yet again I must say that I AGREE with Gary that starting hand guidelines are overrated. I have said this on numerous occasions. And Gary I think you are wrong when you say that slavery was a good thing.
Post deleted at author's request
Memorizing hand groups will not cure cancer or save one's marriage. But buying our books will.
David is being a little liberal here. buying our books will not cure cancer. however he is right on them saving marriages. our book buyers( i made a survey of 40,000 or so of them) make so much extra money that their marriage problems are moot. it has been shown that money problems are the main causes of marriage problems. also those that are not married get the best mates and are the happiest people in the world. to achieve the most from our books you must buy them all and read them and buy extra copies and give them away to friends.
I'll bet our buying of the books does wonders for the authors' marriages as well, for the same monetary reasons.
John
I appriciate your point, and would consider the sections on pre flop play the worst part of the book. Unfortunatly its the best explantion of pre flop play I have been able to find in print, perhaps you can recommend a better source.
Piers
Thanks for the responses. Some replies:
1. Not the whole book, which is overall excellent and the best out there, just the starting hand section.
2. Figure it out yourself. I do not claim that improving on S&M starting hand strategy will allow you to beat HE, only playing excellently from pre to river will do that. But correcting the misleading, poorly organised and written section on starting hands will definitely save you money, especially if you are in the moderate class of experience with the game. For the long term experienced, if they persist and are winners (ie naturals for the game), correcting the starting strategy will come naturally through learning from disasters and poker intuition.
I'm just curious. Are you referring to the new 21st Century edition or an older version?
Mason
I have the 1994 edition and have not read the 21st.
I think if you look at the 21st Century Edition you wil see that we added much material into the sections that you are complaining about.
Part of the debate a few lines down, hinges on Badger's assertion that there are many 3-6 players who make $10 an hour. The more I think about it, the more I doubt it. With that rake, plus the fact that great games are also slow games, I believe that only excellent players, who can, and do already play much higher, can achieve these results. Six dollars an hour maybe; but there is a big difference between these two numbers.
$10 an hour is frequently achieved in the short term, like for several months, in a $3-6 game. But there is a lot of fluctuation in poker results. Such an achievement over several years would be monumental, if not impossible. Surely somebody that good would never be in a position to get such a result, as playing a little higher would seem automatic. I think a lot of playes think they are achieving a win rate of a bet an hour or more...but discount bad streaks where they lose interest for a while in keeping records.
Would you and David be interested in a wager on whether there are players who can make $10.00 net per hour, or more, who regularly play 3-6 Hold-em only? I'm saying that there are people who do that five or six days per week, week after week at the Commerce in L.A. We make the bet, allow the player to pick the table, or tables that he wants, and have him play for eight hours. At the end of eight hours, we count him down and settle the bet. And, because I like you, I'll let you double the bet and try it a second eight hours if you lose the first time. Interested?
Eight hours? Why so long?
Let's make it eight minutes! ;-)
Since this is a repeatable experiment, why not make a new bet everyday? It is similar to a coin toss, IMO. I know several people that I believe are much better than 50-50 to win >$10.00 per hour, on a daily basis, in the 3-6 HE at L.A. cardrooms. I like to make wagers on events where I believe I have an edge.
David and Bob have both expressed their opinions, stating that people who can beat the 3-6 for $10.00 per hour or more don't continue playing at that level; I disagree. My belief is based on several years of careful observation of the games and players in question. David and Bob might walk past these games while heading to or from the games they play, but I doubt that they've paid much attention to either the games themselves or the people that play in them.
So, in answer to your unasked question of why I arbitrarily picked eight hours as the time basis for the bet, it was because that is a typical workday and these people treat their low limit play strictly as a job. Most of them sit down at a minimum of 3 or 4 different 3-6 games during that eight hour period when playing at the Commerce. A few of them prefer playing in games that are newly starting. Some like to play at loose/aggressive tables, others prefer the loose/passive games. They all share in common the ability to beat the games that they spend their time playing. I'm willing to bet on it. Perhaps you'd care to propose different parameters for this wager?
I propose the following perameters:
The wager will be settled after every hand. Each hand will be timed. After each hand the player's stack will be counted. If he won an average of $10 per hour or more (calculated based on the time of the hand) you win. If he won less, I win. We'll bet $10 per hand and let it run for 100 hands.
Sorry George, I'm going to have to take a pass on that one. It is obvious that you and David believe I was trying to trick you into making a bad bet. In fact, I was trying to express my conviction that there are people that can and do beat these games for that amount hourly. It was never my intention that I be the player for betting purposes. There are plenty of low limit players that play rings around me.
It comes down to whether or not you believe that there are players who routinely take >$10.00 per hour average out of the 3-6 games. These players stay at this level for a variety of reasons, but they do stay there. I believe some players are unable to beat mid-limit games due to lack of discipline in starting hand selection. In low limit, this failing isn't nearly as readily exploited.
Do you wanna flip coins? 8 hrs. won't prove anything. 80 hours won't prove anything!
You are probably thinking that I want to prove that a coin toss over 100,000 trials will approach 50,000/50,000 heads/tails. Not so. What I want to do is bet someone that a player I can pick will win $80.00 or more in an eight hour shift playing 3-6 Hold-em, a game that he regularly plays in that cardroom. I don't want to prove that he is a winning low limit hold-em specialist; I want to win some money on a proposition that I am absolutely certain provides me with significant +EV. I leave proving that something is impossible or highly unlikely to the theorists; my profit comes from wagering that they are sometimes wrong in their conclusions. So, who do you like in this bet, Sklansky and Ciaffone on the Don't, or Big John on the Do? I can be available for this proposition Monday thru Saturday from Noon til Midnight. Minimum daily wager $300. Maximum subject to restrictions.
My actual results when playing 3-6, were a win rate of $10.36/hr, measured over a total time span of 963 hours.
Assuming a stddev of 15 BB/hr in these high variance games, my results were certainly somewhere between $8.00 and $13.00/hr.
I know several other people who have had similar results to mine or better, playing in the same cardroom.
What you're all forgetting is that while the rake is high, the errors made in these games are monumental. If you have 2 players in every pot throwing $9 in while drawing completely dead, you've pretty much covered the rake.
Post deleted at author's request
This is such a common scenario for good players playing lower limits that I'm really surprised that David and Bob don't realize how much of it goes on at the lower limits. The assumption that people who win regularly at low limits will almost always move up and out of those limits indicates to me that either they had big bankrolls when they started, had other sources of income, or were lucky.
Post deleted at author's request
"Every cardroom I've ever spent any time in had players in 3/6 or 1488 holdem or 1-5 stud who were consitently making $10 or so an hour. "
Gary,
C'mon give me a.. This type of statement, from you! sounds similar to: "Some of my best friends are..." It's meaningless except for the fact that it comes from Gary Carson. Big John says the same thing" At least 20 (is that = many?) players in L.A..win $9-15/hour". I respect both of you fellows but I am skeptical. I have to say Show me the Money! You, Badger anf BJ together 3 guys a lot of us look up to should be able to prove comments like these. Although I guess "Take my word for it must be good enough" even if we don't let Sklansky get away with that.
Vince.
Post deleted at author's request
Vince,
I never said "take my word for it"; what I said was "I'm willing to bet you that I have people who can do it on a daily basis." Big difference.
I've stated similar beliefs before. It is seldom that people keep insisting they are right and I am wrong when I offer to bet on the proposition that I've proposed. Usually, there is some backpedaling along the lines that 20 isn't many. I say 20 is many when compared to the 0 that was alleged. In fact, there are quite a few more than 20, but some of these are people who can't be depended on because of their alcohol, drug or psychological problems.
While I don't have as many hours as Dan, my earn rate is almost identical. I've been winning at a rate of $11.06 per hour at full table 3/6 over the last 358.18 hours. Why don't I move up? I do, but I also play 3/6 quite a bit because the players are SO bad, and making money there is a cakewalk.
- Andrew
I really think that $10 per hr in 3-6 Omaha/8 is very difficult at least in the AC rooms. I know 4 pros who play 3-6 and higher. None of them admits to achieving $10 in Omaha. They all say that $6-8 per hr is great. They include all their costs. They do better in HE but like the play of OH. I do know players in 10-20 stud who make $20/hr over long hauls and 5-10 players who claim to do about $15/hr
Incidentally, the rake in the game I was playing is about double what the rake is in Vegas (5% of the pot, to a maximum of $5.00).
Dan,
I don't doubt your hourly average numbers and I would bet on Big John knowing twenty players in Los Angeles who can beat 3/6 holdem for $10 an hour. But Big John seems to know everybody (he had inside information on me before I even met him!), and there are a lot of 3/6 players around town to chose from.
Anyway, you wrote: "Incidentally, the rake in the game I was playing is about double what the rake is in Vegas (5% of the pot, to a maximum of $5.00)."
That is a very high rake but keep in mind that it is taken from the pot and the loose players are claiming most of the pots. I'm not saying you are a rock (i.e., I'm sure you steal more than your share at higher limits), but clearly you had to be one of the tightest players in the game. And there is no doubt that the games just had to be very loose at that time.
Also note that the $5 is only taken on pots of $100 or more. Compare that to Los Angeles, where the $3 drop is taken dead from the button no matter what. I have not played 3/6 holdem in Los Angeles county since the law was changed in January of 1989 (except for social reasons).
I'd ramble more but I need to "digestify" this entire thread.
Regards,
Rick
Dan,
Rick has that one right. I have played in Canada and have found the games up there to be as good as the ones in LA; without the huge drop. In LA I would not play anything lower than 6-12 and I try to avoid that game also. This particular wager being discussed isn't about "any" 3-6, but 3-6 in LA (I think specifically the Commerce)
Randy
David,
Although I respect Badger's accomplishments I like you do not believe "many" win $10 an hour at 3-6. I assume that Badger is referring to a constant win rate. I also wonder if you are correct in your assertion that "excellant players" that play higher could achieve this win rate at 3-6. It requires a lot of self discipline to cope with the psycological struggle one faces when trying to adjust to the play at lower stakes than accustomed. You should understand that better than anyone. You know it's an ego thing. I think that for someone to play successfully at a lower limit than they are comfortable with they would have had to have lost or had some other catastrophe occur to thier bankroll. Then, maybe.
Vince.
Vince,
In L.A., there is a group of at least 20 players who play only 3-6 Hold-em. They have evolved a strategy of play that makes them a steady 1.5 to 2.5 BB's per hour on a consistent basis. Some of them play in the same cardroom everyday, and others move around in search of minor perks such as a floorman who'll reward their hours of play with a daily meal comp. Think of them as "specialists". I would venture a guess that all of them have tried higher limit games in the past and came to the conclusion that 3-6 was the most profitable level for their style of play. Not everyone has the necessary prerequisites to move up to the mid-limit levels.
It isn't unusual to have a person with limited intelligence outperform a genius in some areas of endeavor. I'd be willing to bet that most plumbers have lesser I.Q.'s than brain surgeons. I'll also bet that most plumbers are better at building block walls than the brain surgeons, and could drive a 10 wheel truck backwards, while staying on the road at speeds in excess of 32 miles per hour for longer distances.
Some people are more willing to accept lesser accomplishment than others. We might be committing a disservice when we assume that winning low limit players that don't aspire to move up to mid limit play are somehow failures; if that were true, what about successful mid limit players who don't move up to high limit? What about the $100-200 players that shy away from the $300-600? There are few enough winning poker players as it is, without denigrating some of them for sticking to the limits they are certain they are capable of beating. The truth is that most losing mid limit players would probably be losing low limit players as well. That is a function of factors that are only indirectly related to poker skills, but could loosely be termed "psychological considerations".
I appreciated your point about "specialists". I had a college professor who once put us hotshots into place by challenging us to a math test against a civil service worker.
He brought in a New York subway token clerk and used the 35 cent times table as a test.
We didn't stand a chance.
Of course, at the time subway tokens were selling for 35 cents.
Let me put this as simply as I can. Almost anybody who can make $10 an hour at 3-6, can make more than that at 4-8 or 6-12. Bankroll requirements are not that high if you are this good, eg $2000 or so. That is all I was saying. The same principle does not apply in bigger games. Most of the regular 3-6 players who don't play higher, even if there are opportunities to do so, are either mistaken about their hourly rate (when the smoke clears) or are fools not to be playing in at least somewhat bigger games.
I accept that. My point was that, whether it is intelligent for them to do so or not, these "specialists" do exist now, and are growing in number. Cumulatively, they are making low limit games harder to beat every year. You can only feed so many predators from a single carcass; when the prey is gone, the predator's must fight among themselves, with nobody getting fed except the unbeatable drop box.
Post deleted at author's request.
Steve,
I can say that they did very well in the 3-6 and 4-8 Omaha H/L, 3-6 and 6-12 Hold-em and 3-6 stud. (I'm speaking about the real players, not the guys who simply like to sit in a cardroom and touch cards) In the yellow chip games, they didn't do nearly as well. I still have most of the information on a spreadsheet that I copied onto a floppy. If I can find it, I'll blank out individual names and post it to you by email. It covered a little over 5,000 cumulative hours of play from 23 separate players. There was a core of seven individuals that made up 70% of the playing time.
IMO, none of those players could beat the 3-6 Hold-em for >$10.00 per hour on a consistant basis, primarily due to the fact that they wouldn't adapt their style of play to take advantage of the "edges" that those games offer. The "specialists" that I refer to are players that you've seen for years at the Commerce who can systematically tear up any of those low limit games day in and day out.
Nevertheless, they exist.
- Andrew
Andrew,
"Nevertheless, they exist. "
That sounds suspiciously like the arguement that there are extraterresteral (speeling, aliens from another planet) beings. Neither the proponents of the 'alien" theory nor you offer concrete proof.
Vince.
Vince,
I am one of them, see my other post.
- Andrew (who feels like he's from outer space now)
Post deleted at author's request.
Since this debate has apparently degenerated into how many people have $2000 over and above their living expenses I am almost done with it. But there are two reasons I still think I am probably right even though I have never really played 3-6.
1. Many people overestimate their hourly rate. Furthermore you have a skewed sample because only people on the right side of the tail report their results. Thus when Dan Hanson says his results are 9.00 plus or minus 4 the fact is that this is not a bell curve (since he was not picked randomly) and thus 9.00 minus x is more likely than 9.00 plus x.
2. In the specific case of 3-6 versus 6-12, it is especially hard to believe that a ten dollar an hour 3-6 result wouldn't result in a lot more if 6-12 was played. The reason is not just because the game is twice as big while not that tougher. Rather it is because of the RAKE (especially including tokes). It takes such a large proportion of your profits in 3-6 but doesn't usually increase in 6-12. Thus assuming a $4 rake and four pots won an hour, a ten dollar an hour 3-6 winner has beaten others out of $34. If the 6-12 was identical he would win $68 minus that same $24 or $44 dollars an hour! That is 4 1/2 times as much!
Finally bringing in living expenses into the picture argues for my side as well as Badger's. With a $300 a week nut, you ACCUMULATE 2.50 an hour at 3-6 and maybe ten dollars an hour or more plying 6-12. Thus if you may be more likely to reach a comfortable cushion playing higher.
David writes:
Thus assuming a $4 rake and four pots won an hour...
I know that you are trying to support your argument, but the expenses of 3/6 are a long ways away from this. I would put the price of playing poker in a 3/6 game closer to $10-$15 per hour, not at $24 which your post implies.
Still, rake does make a big difference. On Badger's side though, I am sure there are people out there who have the particular strategy that allows them to beat 3/6 soundly in CA, but gives them troubles at 6/12. When I played 3/6 and 6/12 in CA I noticed a very distinct difference in the skill levels of my opponents. If I wasn't able to adapt to it, making money would be more difficult at that level.
- Andrew
I started playing at the same time a friend of mine did. I helped set up his spreadsheets, and his win rate was almost the same as mine, over more hours because he played the lower limits for a longer time than I did. I think Dunc Mills who posts here has a similar win rate, over a much longer period of time. One of the young guys who is a regular in our 10/20 game now built his bankroll in 3-6 while living at home. I know 2 or 3 other players who do nothing but play poker at the 3-6 level.
This is all in one city in Canada, with a $5.00 rake. You've seen posts from a number of people here who claim the same thing. So you can keep asserting that this is impossible or very rare, but it isn't. Sound, solid play will earn you at least $8.00/hr in your average 3-6 game, rake and all. Why do you refuse to admit this?
Perhaps Dunc can fill us in on this a bit more. He's been beating the 3-6 game for years, yet he doesn't move up. I've told him to do it many times, but he doesn't seem to want to. He has his reasons, and I can assure you that he's not stupid.
Are you telling me that this fellow who makes eight dollars an hour at 3-6 has an opportunity to play a bit higher with the same rake and chooses not to? That either means he is lying about his hourly rate or the games are strangely much tougher at this small increase in stakes, or the guy has some sort of problem. And I find it hard to believe that there are as many people out there similar to him as you seem to think.
David,
I think you are missing something very important. Not everyone plays poker to make money. We all have different utility functions which determine how we spend our time.
Is it so illogical that someone could win at poker AND enjoy the unique atmosphere that 3/6 provides? Let's face it, most people CAN'T earn more money playing poker than they can working. By your logic, no one should play poker ever, they should just WORK all the time.
- Andrew
I thought we were talking about $10 per hour, not $8. That's 1/3 of a big bet, a big difference.
I'm sure that there are some people on the planet who have done this, but probably less than 5% of those who claimed so (over a long period of time).
It's not just the rake (and tokes!) which make it hard. At the lower limits the hands take longer to play. There are more players in the pots and the players take longer to act. Getting less hands per hour is a big factor! In a game where the players deal themselves and use two alternating decks, then you can get more hands per hour and have a higher win rate.
Post deleted at author's request.
Actually, David has a valid point in there... If you are playing 3-6 at a level that doesn't allow you to grow your bankroll, and your bankroll is very small, you WILL bust out. From that standpoint, your risk of ruin is lower playing 10-20 and being able to reinvest wins into the bankroll than playing 3-6 with no reinvestment.
I've always recommended to people at the low limits to hang onto a job, and every time they have enough for a couple of buyins to sit down at the 10-20 game and take a shot. Small bankrolls don't have to be protected like big ones do, and you'll eventually get lucky and win a few big sessions in a row. At that point, you've got a fighting chance at growing a real bankroll that will let you be a pro. Playing 3-6 and spending all the winnings means you'lll ALWAYS go broke, and never move up.
But very few players understand how bankrolls work, especially at a visceral level. So they don't take the advice.
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request
Gary just said "If you've never gone gone busted then you really don't have anything to offer on the subject of gambling for a living, David." Yes he just said that. I swear HE JUST SAID THAT.
Post deleted at author's request
I've read many poker books and articles over the years. The only good information I've read on bankroll requirements, win rates and standard deviations with respect to poker was written by Sklansky or Malmuth, or by some of the posters here on 2+2.
Now I'm reading posters questioning Sklansky whether he understands bankroll requirements and win rates.
Viva la freedom of speech!
Gary:
Since you are obvioulsy familiar with going broke, here's another affirmation for you -- "I'll play my best, and try to lose less." Remember say this at least 30 times before you play.
Well done Mason, a sense of humor and a personal attack all evident in the same post! I'm impressed.
How does a player acquire enough poker skills to win $10 an hour at $3-6 over a sustained period without acquiring enough money to play $6-12? If such an animal exists, perhaps he should move to a locale that lets him play a little higher?
Perhaps he has to eat and sleep and buy new underwear with this $10.00 per hour? Perhaps he can only beat a game with "really" poor opposition? Perhaps he likes to spend all his excess money on booze and drugs or sports betting? Perhaps he spends every extra $300 he makes purchasing a one hour poker lesson from David Sklansky?
It is much easier to beat the Commerce 15-30 than the Bellagio 30-60. I don't understand why all those Commerce players don't run to Las Vegas and sit in that game if they are capable of beating the Commerce 15-30?
If Mason Malmuth has the bankroll for the $300-600 game, why doesn't he play it? Is it because he doesn't have the ego need to be considered one of the top limit poker players in the world? Is it because he knows the competition is softer in the mid limit games?
Asking why 3-6 players who win at >$10.00 an hour don't always move up, then denying that they even exist, is like saying that 15 year old girls shouldn't be having babies and therefore concluding that they don't. There are many reasons why people prefer playing at the level they have had success at. Bottom line, it usually comes down to game selection. If you *need* to win, you have to take your shot where you believe this is most likely.
Gary, please help me out here. Are you saying that because someone has never gone broke they are less qualified or simply not qualified to discuss bankroll requirements? Isn't this like saying that a doctor is not qualified to treat cancer because he has never had cancer himself?
In addition, if a person can make $10 per hour in a $3-$6 game and they can make $20 per hour in a $6-$12 game you seem to be suggesting that bankroll considerations could make it logical for them to stay at the lower level. But bankroll requirements can be determined with a high degree of statistical certainty once the hourly standard deviation and hourly expectation are determined. Furthermore, the bankrolls that we are dealing with at these limits are no more than a few thousand dollars which is well within the grasp of most any able-bodied person. One could at least get a small loan for few thousand and be set. At $20 per hour it would take no more than a few months of full time play to double that bankroll and pay back the loan. Of course, this all assumes that a person can truly average $20 per hour in a game where their standard deviation is only about $120 per hour (10 large bets).
"Isn't this like saying that a doctor is not qualified to treat cancer because he has never had cancer himself? "
Jim, I think it's actually like saying that a doctor is not qualified to treat cancer expertly unless he has really botched up a few cases first. It's a Gary thing, I think.
Ever tried to get a loan by listing your occupation as 'poker player'?
I don't think you quite grasp the financial situation of many of these 3-6 players. They are literally playing with the rent money. Many of them are consistently in debt to friends and relatives, so whenever their bankroll grows a bit they have to give it to people they owe money to. Some of playing off of credit cards, and carrying 20% financing charges that they have to pay out of their winnings. Some of them have bankrolls on the order of two or three buyins, and that's it. By the time they win a few hundred, they are another month behind on the rent and away goes the bankroll again, except for another couple of buyins.
For someone to say, "Hey, it's only a few thousand dollars, how hard can that be to get?" indicates to me that they've never really known financial hardship. I've been in situations where a couple of thousand dollars would have felt like winning the lottery. I think for the first 15 years of my life my entire family never had more than $1000 in the bank at any time.
Well, Dan if what you are saying is true than I would argue that these people should not be gambling at all but getting a full time job that pays health benefits, retirement, etc. What you are outlining is a situation where a person is gambling with money they cannot to afford to lose. That is simply stupid regardless of what level of poker they play at.
Jim, isn't a professional gambler's bankroll by definition money he can't afford to lose? He can't make a living without it, and he can't make a living at his chosen profession without putting it at risk.
Once a person has put his mind to earning a living a certain way, they usually don't listen to a lecture that they should get a steady job. This applies to self-employed people of most professions, and those trying to start a small, risky business. They can be told all the negatives by everyone they know, but there is something about their personality that does not fit with a 9-5 job. So they soldier on in spite of the obstacles.
Jaeger
Most pros do not play with money they cannot afford to lose if they want to keep playing at the level they are at. Most pros that I have talked with avoid games that are too big for their bankroll unless the game is so weak they are willing to take a shot or until they can grow their bankroll sufficiently to allow them to get into the long run with the game. Many of them have kept two separate accounts-one for living and one for gambling. The account they live from is usually good for 6 months or so. But I am talking about $10-$20 and above. I must confess that I have never talked to anyone who plays $3-$6 for a living. This must be a unique California situation.
Jim,
I'm not sure what "Ivory Tower" world you live in, but where I live, most "pros" are doing constant juggling trying to balance the need to live against the "heater" they are hoping to soon be on. A lot of them acquire an adequate bankroll three or four times a decade, through a big tournament score or a 10 or 12 session "monster rush". Between these fortuitous occurrances, they must somehow find a way to survive the pressures of playing and living off a bankroll which is generally not adequate for either function.
When you've had long periods of financial success playing poker, there is a tendency to want to enjoy an elevated standard of living. You allow your monthly "nut" to creep up to the point where you are obligated to spend 3 or 4 thousand per month just to maintain it. If you are playing 15-30 with a $20,000 bankroll, paying out that kind of monthly expense presents monumental problems when you undergo a dry period.
I know three people right now who have blown off six figure bankrolls in the past five years. One of them just gave up and went back to live with his parents. Another has gotten himself back up to about $25,000 through loans and a couple good tournament finishes. The last one is spending most of his time trying to get put into tournaments and side games. He is certainly no longer a winning player and is sliding downhill emotionally, ethically and physically. There aren't too many pros who ever make it up to having a 6 figure BR. If these guys are vulnerable, how about those operating with between 25 and 50 and living off their earn?
. I must confess that I have never talked to anyone who plays $3-$6 for a living. This must be a unique California situation.
Playing 3-6 for a living is not a living...it is an existence.
Post deleted at author's request.
Jim, people make bad life choices all the time. I would argue that everyone should go to college, save 10% of their paychecks, carry full health insurance, save for their kid's college education, marry a good person, etc.
In the real world, people make bad choices. Or they are temperamentally unsuited to certain lifestyles.
Why do I have the feeling that there are only about 3 or 4 of us in this thread that don't come from wealthy, insulated backgrounds?
You make an excellent observation about people who post on this forum. I would add that most people who play poker have some discretionary income.
Gary Carson, Big John, and yourself might be right in what you say. It is just that people tell me all the time that "So and so is a great player, he just doesn't have the bankroll to play higher than $3-$6". But when I watch "so and so" actually play I see him making plays that I believe are wrong. In addition, I use to play a lot of $3-$6 when I started out a couple of years ago. But I discovered that as I won, it was as natural as breathing to move up to bigger games. I have noticed that the better players do in fact move up almost without exception. I also know a small number of professionals who derive their income from playing poker. They all play $10-$20 or higher. None of them play $3-$6 or $6-$12. What you guys are pointing out is totally alien to my experience base.
Post deleted at author's request
Your rationale doesn't follow.
In order for a player to prove that he/she wins $10+ per hour at 3/6 then that player must have results over thousands of hours (Perhaps over a year or two). If that player does this, then his/her bankroll should be $20,000 - $40,000 or more. So why is this player still playing 3/6? If he/she still only has a bankroll of $2000 or so, where's the proof of $10 per hour?
True, it's possible some players have no job and play poker for a living at the lower levels, and use their winnings to pay their living expenses. But one would indeed be a fool to do so. Better to get a job to cover your "nut" and play poker part time to build your bankroll, eventually to play in higher limits. Then you can quit your job to play poker full time, and get something for your trouble.
Welcome back George. By the way, this bet of Big John's is not takable since he could be the favorite to win it even if he earned far less than ten dollars an hour on average. I am sure you see why.
Hi David,
I do, and so does he.
Even at $8.00 per hour, the win rate incudes sessions at less that $8.00 per hour and losing sessions as well. To make $8.00 per hour overall, the majority of sessions would have to be $10+ per hour. An easy winner for BigJohn.
Now if the loser paid an amount based on the difference between the win rate and $10, then we might have an interesting wager. But the player must tip the dealers. ;-)
I don't think you have it right. The problem is that the the average can be 10/hr but the session average distribution might favor some big wins with not a lot of big losses. The result will be that less then half the time the session average will be bigger then the long run average.
D.
Post deleted at author's request
O.K. David,
I will point out five different players in the Commerce 3-6 games and let *you* pick the one you want to bet against. Neither of us will do or say anything to affect the outcome other than to tell that person we have a wager as to how he will come out after playing for the next eight hours. Now, do you like that proposition?
It's just not that simple for most people. The pitfalls in bankroll management are severe. A common one is for people to feast when they are winning, and blow their winnings. I know lots of people like that, and I've been guilty of it myself. When you win $1000 in a night, it's hard not to resist the urge to buy a $20 steak dinner. After all, it's just one big bet to a 10/20 player. Or you've been running good for a couple of months, and your bankroll is 10K higher than it was two months ago. Surely it's okay now to buy that used car you've been thinking of, or to buy that new stereo, or to go on a trip to Vegas, or...
People have a hard time saving money. I know people who lived paycheck to paycheck when they were making minimum wage, and now that they make $50,000 a year... are STILL living paycheck to paycheck. This is so common it's a cliche, and it's deadly to someone who aspires to be a professional gambler.
You know, becoming rich isn't that hard. Take 10% of your paycheck and invest it soundly. Do it every day, and you'll be a millionaire by and by. Yet very, very few people ever manage to do that. Are they all morons? Are YOU a millionaire? If not, why?
Post deleted at author's request.
Hello!
And of those people who do this, how many of them make $10 per hour at 3/6?
I'd prefer playing poker full time to working myself. But I would never waste my time in 3/6 trying to make a living, even if I could make $10 per hour. I'd tolerate a job to pay the bills and build a bankroll to play at a limit where I could make $20+ an hour. So would anyone else with that kind of talent.
But even at 3/6, there would be periods where your bankroll would grow big enough (when running good and playing well) to justify playing 4/8 or 6/12.
Post deleted at author's request.
I am so glad you are back George. Where were you? Meanwhile that Big John bet is even better for him than you indicated. If the side bet is huge he can tailor his play to give himself a great chance to win. As an example I could easily lay ten to one that I would be $80 ahead after an eight hour session at the crap table. Big John's proposition is not as strong but I would venture to say that a break even player could make himself 75%. Now I am not saying Big John had this ploy in mind when he offerred the bet. Even if he did there's nothing wrong in trying. But surely he did not think he could get it past me
Post deleted at author's request
Good points.
Now read the second paragraph.
Do you know people who support their families on 3/6 holdem? Really?
Yes.
Not exclusivly 3/6, and not exclusivly poker, but the answer is yes.
- Andrew
David,
My student and I have just had the pleasure of meeting Big John (and Rounder) and hope to see more of them in the future (don't worry Big John, I'm not looking for a backer). My guess is that he may or may not have realized how good his bet was when he offered it.
At the same time, I believe he knows a group of twenty players that could average more than $10 per hour in a 1500-hour year. Of course this group would contain some members who would fall short but most would not (BTW, my over/under is 14 make more and 6 make less but I need juice :-) ). Anyway, he would win that bet. I do assume that this group would stiff the dealer (except a good dealer on a big pot) which saves about $2 per hour.
BTW, I have no personal experience at 3/6 holdem (in Los Angeles County) since the drop was taken up front starting in 1989. I was fortunate to have moved up into time games by then.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Have you taken one of those "Mavis Whomever Teaches Typing" CD courses. You seem far more prolific lately.
P.P.S. I originally tried to post this two hours ago and have written some other posts since. If anything seems out of sequence I apologize.
Are we talking about HE or Omaha/8? No way would my meager skills allow me to regularly profit in a low limit HE game. Omaha/8 is another matter. There I can easily earn $10 -$20 or even more over long periods of time. The reasons should be obvious.
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger,
I think there are some doing quite a bit better than that. It is the only 3/6 game I will play in Los Angeles, and the game has helped during periods when my concentration wasn't up to playing 15/30 holdem. I think you can play low limit Omaha at 90% effectiveness even if your alertness is severely impaired for whatever reason. This is not so for holdem, even low limit.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I thing Badger has written about why Omaha allows a higher win rate on RGP and I have some posts elsewhere on this matter. I'm just to tired to look for them now.
Post deleted at author's request.
Yet again, I believe many players can win $10 an hour at 3-6. I just don't believe that most of those who can are not reguarly playing higher. And if they are not, they should be, even if it means driving a cab for a few weeks.
Post deleted at author's request.
David,
Are you unable to conceive of a player capable of beating 3-6 for >$10.00 per hour but unable to beat a 6-12 for even that much? Hand selection alone would account for a considerable drop in earn between these two games. You might be able to play hands like Axs, J10s, and Kxs out of position profitably for two bets cold in a 3-6, but might get destroyed doing that in 6-12 where the players are, incrementally, more aware and capable of punishing observed mistakes.
I'm thinking that a modified "Peter Principle" is at work here also. Some people have the intelligence, drive and committment to advance from low limit to high limit; others might advance from low limit to mid limit. You have had at least one student under your direct tutelage for almost 20 years who hasn't progressed out of mid-limits yet. Not everyone can make it to the "major leagues" in any profession. Some winning 3-6 players have risen to their "level of incompetence", failed, then moved back down to a place where they can enjoy some success.
Big John writes:
You have had at least one student under your direct tutelage for almost 20 years who hasn't progressed out of mid-limits yet.
I think this example is one we should all look at when trying to understand why someone might play 3/6 and win but not play 6/12 regularly. Doubling the limits also increases the skill level of your opponents. Often times this means that the game can be:
1) less fun
2) less profitable
3) more stressfull
4) more risky
People find their limit and stay with it. The come to know it, they become comfortable, and they stick with what they know.
Otherwise, shouldn't every working pro who beating his main game of 15/30, move to 20/40 or 30/60?
- Andrew
Andrew, I believe we are dealing with a non-linear function here. In my opinion there is very little difference between a $3-$6 game and a $6-$12 game. There is a noticeable difference between a $6-$12 game and a $10-$20 game. There are not a big differences between $10-$20 vs $15-$30 vs $20-$40 (Level I play at) other than session swings and bankroll considerations. There is a big difference between $20-$40 versus $30-$60 or between $20-$40 versus $40-$80 based on my personal playing experience. Between $6-$12 and $10-$20 the games usually get tighter because for most players the money seems to mean more. Between $20-$40 versus $30-$60 the games are lot more aggressive with players capable of a wide variety of moves and plays. You rarely had 6 people taking a flop in the $30-$60 and $40-$80 games that I have played in. Raises get a lot more respect and are a major weapon in games at this level. I believe that when you get beyond $40-$80, the games get shorthanded with the primary skill being able to read your lone opponent. I also suspect that at the higher limits, the ability to withstand huge swings (e.g.- 15 grand in a single session) both financially and emotionally are critical.
Jim, you wrote: "In my opinion, there is very little difference between a 3-6 game and a 6-12 game."
In So. Cal., there is a significant difference. Both games use a dead button drop, and both games have venues where the drop for both games is the same amount. In the vast majority of cases, David is correct when he states that players capable of beating 3-6 for >$10.00 hr. will naturally progress to the 6-12. Because of the "discounted rake" of 6-12, there is an incentive to move up. This creates something of an anomaly; some players, despite the rake being the same for both games, make more money facing the weaker competition than they can in the 6-12 games against stronger competition.
Jim writes:
In my opinion there is very little difference between a $3-$6 game and a $6-$12 game.
I can't speak for the world globally, but for the most part I have found a VERY BIG difference between the lowest of the low limit games a casino offers and the next limit up. In my experience, the lowest limit is almost always 80% filled with people who know that they lose at poker (or lose at the higer limits) and are offsetting their losses by playing the lowest limit that they can.
I don't know how much 3/6 you play, but I started there, and even though I play 10/20 now, I still go there quite a bit. Sometimes it is nice to relax and watch the chips fly by and not have to worry about whether player X semi-bluffs with a 3 flush on the board or not. In my experience the 3/6 players are easiest to classify, whereas the 6/12 players have just enough knowledge to make them dangerous and deceptive enough to force me to think twice about what I'm doing.
- Andrew
You are bringing up a different issue. You are saying that 6-12 is quuite a bit tougher than 3-6. I have no knowledge of that subject for todays games. If that is right, then you are right. Again however, given no increase in rake, 6-12 has to be A LOT tougher to make it less profitable for someone who is good enough to beat 3-6 out of ten dollars an hour.
As to the argument that some people just enjoy playing and do not want to move up, that is reasonable EXCEPT for players who could beat 3-6 out of ten dollars an hour. Players who go to the trouble to get this good, invariably do want to move up in my experience.
As to Gary Carson's argument that even if a player could make twenty an hour in 6-12 and ten an hour in 3-6, bankroll considerations often force you into the smaller game; that argument doesn't stand up well at these figures. If we were talking about ten vs. thirteen he might be right. But someone who can truly beat 6-12 for this much more, and does in fact have aspirations to play higher, should jump into to the bigger game as soon as possible. Even more so if living expenses are a consideration. (and Dan I believe you are letting some unusual personal experiences cloud your normally lucid thinking on this issue.)
"bankroll considerations often force you into the smaller game; that argument doesn't stand up "
David,
Thes guys that are claiming bankroll considerations are the reasons players stay at 3-6 and don't move up are full of bull. The only reason a > 1.5 BB/hr player at 3-6 would stay there is because that is where they are most comfortable. I can't say that there are two guys I respect more than Badger or Gary on this forum but I think their ego's got the better of them here. They really needed something to jump on you about. Something that you obviously can't prove with your calculator. Bankroll this!
Vince.
vince
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger,
I've played a lot of low limit poker.
vince.
Badger, like I said in response to one of Dan's posts, the kind of people you are referring to have no business gambling at all. They should simply get a job since they cannot afford to lose.
Jim writes:
Badger, like I said in response to one of Dan's posts, the kind of people you are referring to have no business gambling at all. They should simply get a job since they cannot afford to lose.
On the other hand, the DO exist, and they do what they do for reasons of their own.
- Andrew
Post deleted at author's request
Gary,
You just proved my point. "Because they were afraid of the risk". It isn't the bankroll it's the "fear" These guys are comfortable at the 1-5 level. They know how to handle the situations that arise. They can handle the beats, the swings, etc.. There is such a thing as comfort level. Certainly bankroll is a factor in comfort but not the driving factor. I find it very difficult to believe that a poker player good enough to win $10 an hour at 1-5 will not understand that it is to his advantage to move up if for no other reason than the rake proportionality.
Vince.
Post deleted at author's request
I might agree, except that I see so much of it. I have had literally dozens of late-night conversations over coffee or beer with various low-level 'pros' who wanted to know how to get out of their vicious cycle. They all want to play higher, and most do on occasion, but they always wind up back in the small limits.
I came close to doing that just recently. Blew most of a $15,000 bankroll before recovering. I could have been out of the game, despite making close to 2 BB/hr at 10/20 - 20/40.
It made me think hard and long about bankroll management and risk of ruin. And I came to the realization that Mason's numbers for bankroll requirements are way, way to low, unless the bankroll is strictly a playing bankroll and allowed to grow untouched from winnings. The minute you start screwing with it, your chance of trouble skyrockets.
And that's just what the low limit players are doing. I'd guess that many of these guys are playing bankrolls that mathematically have their chance of ruin before doubling somewhere in the 20-40% range. They are always on the edge.
Now, imagine playing for two years, through 8 potential doublings, with that kind of risk of ruin. The chance of hitting a cold streak that wipes you out is about 85% - 98%.
Take that same player, and let him double his bankroll and then move up to twice the limit. His risk of ruin is now even higher, because A) he's playing scared money out of his comfort zone, and B) his win rate is probably lower in the tougher games. The net result is a life of perennial low-limit poker, salted with the occasional rush that gets you a bankroll big enough to try the larger games. One player in 10 may actually get lucky right off the bat and suddenly have a pretty decent bankroll. But then other perils rear their ugly heads. Now the wife is spending money like crazy, because you got a winfall. Or the roof on your house has needed fixing for 10 years, and you finally have the money to do it, so you spend half your bankroll, thinking that you're still in the 'safe zone'.
Along comes a smallish cold streak, and bam, you're back playing 3-6 again.
You may think this is a bizarre set of circumstances, but I can assure you that this scenario is so common that it's almost a cliche.
At the bigger limits when you double your stakes you need more than double your bankroll because your hourly rate does not double. I am talking specifically about 3-6 with that monumental rake.
Here's a formula you can use to estimate your needed bankroll
(9)(sd)(sd) BR = -----------
(4)(WR)
I usually increase this estimate by 10 to 20 percent to account for the fact that your win rate and/or standard deviation is not the same every time you play. (You can derive this formula from the equations in my Gambling Theory book and first appears in my book POKER ESSAYS.)
For example, if your win rate was $20 per hour and your standard deviation was $300 per hour you need a little over $10,000.
(9)(300)(300) 10,125 = ---------------
(4)(20)
If you increase this by approximately 20 percent you end up with a requirement of $12,000.
The reason I put this up is for most of you to notice that there is a relationship between the standard deviation and your win rate. The higher the standard deviation the more money you need. The higher the win rate the less money you need. If both the win rate and the standard deviation are increased by approximately the same percentage, you will need more money since the standard deviation is squared. If on the other hand the win rate is increased by a high percentage and the standard deviation is only increased by a small percentage your bankroll requirements can actually drop.
And that bankroll size is too small for someone who expects to live off his bankroll, with no other sources of income. One simple reason is that the 'win rate' is before expenses. In the real world, a person making $20/hr will spend at least $10/hr on living expenses. So, cut the win rate in half, and double the bankroll size needed. For a person in lower limit games earning $10/hr but spending $8/hr, the bankroll has to be MUCH bigger.
For that matter, what's the formula for the bankroll required if a person can't move down in limits if the bankroll shrinks? Is your formula based on a Kelly approximation? If so, it's not valid for someone with a 'working' bankroll. If I have fixed expenses of $10 and a win rate of $20, my risk of ruin is double what it would be if I could reinvest it all. But if I have to drop down to a limit where my win rate equals my expenses, my risk of ruin is now 100%. So proportional betting models break down when removing a fixed amount from the win rate.
Now let's consider a player who plans to move up in limits when his bankroll doubles. This person's risk of ruin just went up by 41%. Better add to that bankroll.
Now let's consider a player who has to take money out of his bankroll whether he plays or not. Perhaps he'll get sick for a couple of weeks, or want to take a holiday, or there won't be a game. But he still has to take his monthly 'nut' out of the bankroll. Better increase it some more.
Real-world bankrolls for professional gamblers need to be much bigger than a simple risk-of-ruin formula would suggest.
Now let's consider a player who plans to move up in limits when his bankroll doubles. This person's risk of ruin just went up by 41%. Better add to that bankroll.
41%...how do you figure that?
A typical formula for risk of ruin involves calculating the chance of a person losing his bankroll before doubling it. If you take the earnings out of the bankroll, your risk of ruin increases by the square root of the number of doublings. In a hurried momement I just took the square root of two, which is not correct. Here's the correct way, which is still close to that:
Let's say that I play with a 20% risk of ruin, and would normally double my bankroll in a month. If I play two months without reinvesting my winnings in my bankroll, my risk of ruin is calculated like this:
Chance of having a bankroll at the end of the month: 80%.
Chance of having a bankroll after two months = 80% X 80%, or 64%. Therefore, my risk of ruin has gone from 20% to 36%.
The actual formula is ROR(without replacement)=1-(1-ror)^n, when n is the number of potential doublings.
If the same player plays a bankroll sized for a 20% risk of ruin for one year (through 12 doublings), his risk of ruin is about 93%.
As you can see, not reinvesting your bankroll is disastrous.
Now let's assume a player playing 10/20, with a $10,000 bankroll. His risk of ruin is pretty low, maybe 5%, if he can go down in limits if the bankroll shrinks. This is usually key to risk of ruin calculations, because they assume proportional betting. If moving down in limits puts him in a situation where his earnings don't cover his expenses, his risk of ruin is much, much higher. If he only invests half of his winnings into his bankroll, his risk of ruin is double. Overall, instead of 5% it might be closer to 20%. Now if he plays a year, through maybe four potential doublings, his risk of busting out of the game is 60%.
Working bankrolls have to be very big to have the same risk of ruin as a bankroll that is completely separate and has all winnings reinvested in it.
If he only invests half of his winnings into his bankroll, his risk of ruin is double. Overall, instead of 5% it might be closer to 20%. Now if he plays a year, through maybe four potential doublings, his risk of busting out of the game is 60%.
When you say if he plays a year through four potential doublings are you implying that he is moving up in stakes each time? If not I fail to see how his risk of ruin increases when he hasn't raised his stakes but increases his bankroll.
The assumption is that he either won't reinvest in his bankroll, or he'll move up in limits proportionally to his bankroll size, which has the same effect.
The essay "Poker: Bluffing and Game Theory" in Sklansky's GETTTING THE BEST OF IT (1997) contains an error.
In describing his "Sklansky Bluffing System," David gives an example from draw poker where the hero has a flush draw and determines she must bluff, on average, 3 out of 47 times.
"A simple way to make this random decision is to use the card you caught on the end as a randomizing device. In this example, let's say you were drawing to four hearts. Just pick 3 other cards such as the ace, deuce, and trey of clubs to bluff with. You bet if you catch a heart or 1 of those 3 cards. You now can be sure of bluffing with an exact probability of 3/47."
Rarely will you be bluffing with an exact probability of 3/47. The reason, of course, is that the cards in your opponent's hand effect the chances of your receiving one of the three cards you select as bluffing cards.
In draw poker (especially jacks-or-better draw poker), for instance, you can expect the opener's hand to contain, on average, a disproportionate number of high cards. If an early-position player opens and you decide to bluff if you receive the As, Ad, or Ac, then you will bluff considerably less than 3 out of 47 times.
Please don't misunderstand my point. I'm not suggesting that it is important to bluff "exactly" 3 out of 47 times. Nor am I saying that three carefully selected cards (perhaps even the Ac, 2c, and 3c) will fail to get you close to that 3/47 figure. All I am saying is that David is wrong to claim that you "now can be sure of bluffing with an exact probability of 3/47."
Some might argue that my pointing out this error will not save you very much money at the poker tables. I agree.
But the specific application of the "Sklansky Bluffing System" will not save you very much money at the tables either. I suspect David wrote the essay mainly to help his readers think about poker more accurately. Understanding the fundamentals of poker improves your game (and bankroll) in many small ways that quickly become significant.
If you seek to understand poker fundamentals, then it is best to learn them correctly.
Post deleted at author's request
Post deleted at author's request
You are right Mark. I made a mistake. I should have not used the word "exactly". Barbra Yoon will be proud of you.
David, my Pappy would be proud of you for admitting your mistake.
Mark, I often make mistakes of this nature. Recently someone sent me a long letter berating me for calling the joker in lowball a wild card when in fact it is the lowest unpaired card in your hand. Someone else wrote me to say that what I call a 5-1 favorite should be called a 1-5 shot. Barbara Yoon made a big deal out of my overlooking a trivial hand matchup category.
But Mark, you should not aspire to be in the above mentioned category. You are wasting your obvious poker talents in your quest to find trivial errors. The others have no choice in their quest for self esteem because they are not smart enough to really be good at anything; poker or even math for that matter. Do you think an excellent poker player or mathmetician would pore over stuff merely to find a careless as opposed to a conceptual error? Your well reasoned posts shows me that you could make lots of money at this game. Time to concentrate on that.
You seem to agree with Mark that other players' holdings will in some way affect the probability of getting one of the three cards picked. I say this is a conceptual error of probabilities, as opposed to a careless one.
This is an error on two counts. First, as Gary pointed out, what other players hold has no impact on the probability of the next card drawn. They had no control over what cards they were given, and thus have no impact on the cards remaining in the deck.
Second, and more importantly, even if Mark does claim that the remaining deck is not equivalent to a full, freshly shuffled deck, IT STILL HAS NO EFFECT ON THE PROBABILITY OF GETTING ONE OF THE THREE CARDS. In fact, Mark can stack the deck any way he likes and it will not affect the probability one iota.
I doubt Mark believes that, so I will illustrate with an example. Suppose Mark tries to foil my attempt to get a random card and takes all of the clubs out of his deck. Now when I pick a card at random and he deals me a card, what is the probability of getting a card of the same suit as I pick? Answer, 0.25. Of the same rank? 1/13. The same card? 1/52. His effort to stack the deck has no effect.
In fact, it doesn't matter if I pick a card out of a stacked deck either. Let's say someone comes and short my deck of aces. Now when I pick a card from my deck, and he deals one from his what are the probabilities they match? Again, no change in the slightest. In case anyone doesn't believe me, here is the math:
Probability of drawing cards of same suit: Prob both clubs = 12/48 * 0/39 = 0 Prob both spades = 12/48 * 13/39 Prob both hearts = 12/48 * 13/39 Prob both diamonds = 12/48 * 13/39 Prob both same suit = 3 * 12/48 * 13/39 = 1/4.
Probab of same rank: Prob both aces = 0/48 * 1/13 Prob both are same of any other rank = 12 * 4/48 * 3/39 = 1/13.
Again, no change. In his example, it is not sufficient to say that the remaining deck of cards has been biased in some way. Nor is it sufficient to say that the three cards the player picks are biased in some way. He must prove both of those conditions, AND prove that there is some correlation between the way the two are biased. This is clearly not the case, because we can pick any three cards that are not in our hand. We can pick them randomly, or we can pick them according to a rigid system. What the other players hold has no affect - NONE - on the probability of receiving them. Saying the probability is EXACTLY 3/47 is quite correct.
Believing otherwise is an example of making a conceptual error. It is an attempt to use information that is in fact irrelevant to the probability at hand.
Jaeger
At the moment I am writing this, I have no idea whther jaeger is correct or not. The reason is that I did not really read Mark Glover's post in detail. I just glanced at it and it seemed he was saying something about the card that you pick to bluff with doesn't have "exactly" the probability stated because of what you may know about your opponent's cards.
I guess I will now have to wade through the posts to see who is right. If my verdict is still wrong I will be guilty of a conceptual error. Until then I plead guilty only to laziness.
Yes, he said if you pick a card to bluff with, the probability of it falling next will be influenced by the opponents' holding. This could only be true if you use your knowledge of the opponents' holdings to influence which card you pick.
For example, assume in Hold'em five people enter pre-flop and raise each other until the betting is capped. It would be reasonable to assume that someone has aces or kings, and that the remaining cards are less likely to have aces or kings. If you then use that info to decide which card you are going to pick, then it is true that the probability of it falling is influenced. If you select a card any other way, the probability is not influenced at all. Not even a tiny bit. I may not have explained it very well, but I could create a simpler example if necessary.
Jaeger
David wrote: "You are wasting your obvious poker talents in your quest to find trivial errors."
Perhaps this error is not so trivial. So far, at least two reasonably bright forum participants appear to remain unconvinced that it is an error. They are so unconvinced that they are willing to go public with their disagreements. (I am glad. I believe thoughtful discussion is one of the main benefits of this forum.)
After acknowledging your mistake, even you had to take another look at the issue before acknowledging your mistake a second time (although you did your best to obscure this fact).
Just as your chapter on bluffing and game theory helped promote a better understanding of certain fundamental aspects of poker, I believe this discussion made a contribution in that regard as well.
And, as I noted in my original post, "if you seek to understand poker fundamentals, then it is best to learn them correctly."
of couse, you are right. and david is right that it is trivial. bunching effects are miniscule with reasonable opponents or with lunatics. only with super rocks or very predictable post flop players would this significantly affect your bluffing strategy. and if you just pick apparant blanks it works fine.
a much more important issue is your style. you are extremely condenscending to all who "discuss" with you, other than the authors. and towards them you are ridiculously accusatory. if you insist on repeatedly making trivial or misguided points, please do so politely.
scott
In my original post, I pled: "Please don't misunderstand my point. I'm not suggesting that it is important to bluff 'exactly' 3 out of 47 times."
scott wrote: "and david is right that it is trivial. bunching effects are miniscule with reasonable opponents or with lunatics."
scott continued: "only with super rocks or very predictable post flop players would this significantly affect your bluffing strategy."
Against super rocks and very predictable players, you probably would be well advised to not employ the "Sklansky Bluffing System" at all.
scott claimed: "you are extremely condenscending to all who "discuss" with you, other than the authors."
I often try to explain my arguments in rather simple terms. First, because it can be difficult to accurately ascertain the mathematical and reasoning skills of the 2+2 participant to whom I am responding.
Second, my intended audience usually is broader than just the person to whom I am responding. Forum readers have a wide range of mathematical and reasoning skills.
scott also alleged: "and towards them [the authors] you are ridiculously accusatory."
I hope scott will be kind enough to offer at least one example.
i agree with "against rocks and ... predictable players, ... not employ the "Sklansky Bluffing System" ..."
"I often try to explain my arguments in rather simple terms."
i believe you when you say you only do this to be better understood. but it often seems excessive. one thing about written communication is people can reread your writing if they fail to grasp it the first time. i suggest that you merely try to be more concise. your posts will be shorter, which is good, and you will have less room to appear to condenscend.
and don't try to claim that
"Thank you for participating in this debate. Although your conclusion is wrong, you put forth your arguments in a convincing fashion."
isn't patronizing.
you asked for "one example" (by the way, you asked in a rather condenscending way.)
here -- "He did his best to obscure this admission"
this is not the best example, but, if you go over some of your past threads, you will see what i mean. you have claimed that david is trying to supress discussion on this or that topic etc.
the fact of the matter is that i have, on more than one occasion, disagreed with david. we have always come to a resolution and there is no percieved ill will on anyone's part. that's my point. i have no idea what your intentions are and, if you say they are to make everyone better understand poker, i believe you. but there is percieved bad blood between you and the authors. you appear to be on a crusade. if this is not the case, you should consider what elements of your writing style allow for such a widespread misperception.
scott
scott wrote: "one thing about written communication is people can reread your writing if they fail to grasp it the first time."
Then again, some people might not reread it, even when they fail to grasp it the second time. This might be the case with Jaeger, which could explain several of his posts in this thread.
It also might explain why scott commented, "and david is right that it is trivial. bunching effects are miniscule with reasonable opponents or with lunatics" even though, in my original post, I asked, "Please don't misunderstand my point. I'm not suggesting that it is important to bluff "exactly" 3 out of 47 times."
Yes, there are times when my writing style can be considered patronizing. When forum participants personally attack me, I sometimes choose to ignore their comments. Other times, however, I respond in a condescending manner. I prefer not to stoop to personal attacks myself.
In his "Sorry, try again" post, Jaeger wrote: "In an effort to find a pedantic mistake of no importance whatsoever, you have unwittingly uncovered a failure to understand a basic probability concept."
In his "I agree this is nitpicking" post, Jaeger wrote: "Mark is clearly wrong in this case, but it is unbelievably pedantic."
I felt some sort of patronizing comment would not be entirely unjustified.
scott wrote:
>>you asked for "one example" (by the way, you asked in a rather condenscending way.)
here -- "He did his best to obscure this admission"
this is not the best example<<
Actually, what I asked for was at least one example of my being "ridiculously accusatory" towards the authors, which is what scott "accused" me of being.
I certainly hope this is not the best example scott could produce. Perhaps he would be kind enough to reread David's "The Verdict" post and tell us again just how ridiculous my "accusation" was.
scott wrote: "but there is percieved bad blood between you and the authors. you appear to be on a crusade. if this is not the case, you should consider what elements of your writing style allow for such a widespread misperception."
I realize some forum participants seem to almost worship the 2+2 authors. When anybody questions one of these author's comments or writings, some will consider this to be blasphemy. Their bias will cause them to misperceive my arguments regardless of my writing style.
I'm not really writing for this audience. My arguments are aimed at the more reasonable members of this forum.
As I have said before, I respect David and his work. But I believe all the 2+2 authors are human and imperfect, even when it comes to gambling concepts.
i understood what david meant when i read it. i understood from your first post that you thought this subject was trivial, but later you seemed displeased when others called it so. that is what i was refering to. i chose that example because it was in this thread. i am not going back to find your most vicious words. why would i?
understand that i am not against you. all i am saying is that your tone impedes discussion. as i want to promote discussion, i would like to see you change your tone. you are, of course, free to continue as you wish. i am done with this thread.
scott
scott claimed: "i understood from your first post that you thought this subject was trivial, but later you seemed displeased when others called it so."
Earlier, scott observed: "one thing about written communication is people can reread your writing if they fail to grasp it the first time."
I suggest scott reread my first post, where he will find that I wrote:
>>Please don't misunderstand my point. I'm not suggesting that it is important to bluff "exactly" 3 out of 47 times. Nor am I saying that three carefully selected cards (perhaps even the Ac, 2c, and 3c) will fail to get you close to that 3/47 figure. All I am saying is that David is wrong to claim that you "now can be sure of bluffing with an exact probability of 3/47."
Some might argue that my pointing out this error will not save you very much money at the poker tables. I agree.
But the specific application of the "Sklansky Bluffing System" will not save you very much money at the tables either. I suspect David wrote the essay mainly to help his readers think about poker more accurately. Understanding the fundamentals of poker improves your game (and bankroll) in many small ways that quickly become significant.
If you seek to understand poker fundamentals, then it is best to learn them correctly.<<
When David attempted to trivialize the conceptual aspect of his error, I responded with a post entitled "Perhaps not such a 'trivial' error," where I referred to my first post and explained why I did not believe this subject was trivial.
In that post, I noted: "Just as your chapter on bluffing and game theory helped promote a better understanding of certain fundamental aspects of poker, I believe this discussion made a contribution in that regard as well."
I believe scott probably read my "Perhaps not such a 'trivial' error" post, because that was the post to which he initially replied. Yet, scott still insists, "i understood from your first post that you thought this subject was trivial . . ."
. . . sigh . . .
In his initial contribution to this thread, scott asserted: "and towards them [2+2 authors] you are ridiculously accusatory."
I said: "I hope scott will be kind enough to offer at least one example."
scott answered:
>>here -- "He did his best to obscure this admission"
this is not the best example<<
I noted: "I certainly hope this is not the best example scott could produce. Perhaps he would be kind enough to reread David's 'The Verdict' post and tell us again just how ridiculous my 'accusation' was."
scott now writes: "i chose that example because it was in this thread. i am not going back to find your most vicious words. why would i?"
Notice that I did not ask scott to go back and find my most vicious words. I merely asked him to back up his allegation by offering even one example of my being "ridiculously accusatory" towards the 2+2 authors.
Mason made a similar charge when he asserted that I have misquoted or misrepresented hands. He, too, has yet to substantiate this claim.
Why should scott substantiate his accusation? Perhaps because he appears to share my desire of wanting to encourage rational discussion on this forum.
.
It's actually worse than that. It's oficial Two Plus Two editorial policy to write "5-to-1," not "5-1." I've been telling this to Sklansky for years, but I bet if Mark G got on his case we would finally straighten him out.
Actually, Mason, I was a little surprised to learn that Two Plus Two has an official editorial policy.
I guess a sentence like "You bet if you catch a heart or 1 of those 3 cards" passes Two Plus Two standards. Personally, I would prefer "You bet if you catch a heart or one of those three cards."
Would you consider this suggestion and perhaps bring it up at your next editorial staff meeting?
Thanks.
Perhaps Mason would be kind enough to express his opinion on whether this is a trivial thread.
I recently came across this comment of his:
"In poker the thought process and the logical reasons behind it are frequently more important than what the play was. If you are thinking about things correctly, it is only a matter of time before you begin to play well." (Mason Malmuth, 14 December 1999.)
The implication that Mason's comments argue for the non triviality of at least some of your posts is wrong. There can be deep thinking involved regarding plays that add little to your profits. These are worth discussing. Nitpicking either semantics or trivial points is another story altogether.
Some readers might not be aware that this thread actually is an orphaned sub-thread. It originally was part of the 19 December 1999 "Sklansky randomization error" thread, much of which has been archived. I posted the query because Mason seemed to agree with BillM's contention that the thread simply concerned a misused adverb.
As far as David's comments are concerned, it is important to note that relatively simple concepts are not necessarily trivial issues. In fact, their simplicity is a good reason for serious poker players to spend the time needed to understand them. The "Sklansky randomization error" thread was a good example of this.
It isn't that difficult to understand the concepts of conditional events and independent events. David probably was careless when he failed to consider a conditional event in one of his GETTING THE BEST OF IT examples.
Some readers, however, seemed to have difficulty grasping this important aspect of probability. Discussion ensued. Apparently a better understanding was achieved. One of the main benefits of this forum was realized.
I didn't originate the "randomization" thread because I felt it was important for poker players to bluff "exactly" 3 out of 47 times in certain situations. I started that thread because I felt serious poker players should understand conditional vs. independent events. Conditional events occur rather frequently at the poker table, and they can greatly effect whether you make correct decisions.
Put another way:
"In poker the thought process and the logical reasons behind it are frequently more important than what the play was. If you are thinking about things correctly, it is only a matter of time before you begin to play well." (Mason Malmuth, 14 December 1999.)
Mason was only thinking out loud there. He really didn't mean it. Maybe. I think. Could be. Aa little nit picky if you ask me. very Very trivial. Delete it quickly Mason before you are forced to defend yourself. Help! Help! David! David! What's wrong with this Glover guy anyway. Who does he tink he is? I'm on your side Mason. Maybe. I think. Could be.
Vince.
In an effort to find a pedantic mistake of no importance whatsoever, you have unwittingly uncovered a failure to understand a basic probability concept.
The probability of the next card matching one of the three cards you pick is exactly 3/47, so there is no mistake in the text. However, you can take heart in the fact that he readily agreed with you, which displays an error in thinking that is more basic. It is a failure to understand a basic probability concept, which is rather disturbing to see from a poker author, given the stones he has been casting at others.
Jaeger
Strictly speaking,if you RANDOMLY pick three cards to bluff with, your probability of catching one of those cards is 3/47. But that is before you NAME the cards. Once you do, however, there are very tiny changes in probability given the fact that you know something about your opponents hand. Gary Carson is wrong when he postulates (ironically in defending me)that in a full ring game the chances of you catching a card is not changed by a little information about one hand becuse the other hands cancel it out.
If the way I phrased my original advice was "pick three cards at random and your chances are exactly 3/47" then jaeger was right when he said that I was wrong when I said that Mark was right when he said that I was wrong. But If I said something like "pick three cards at random, for instance if you pick the ace deuce and three of clubs, you are 3/47, then Mark was right in thinking that jaeger is wrong in thinking I was wrong in thinking Mark is right.
Now since my exact words were probably the former, that means that techniclly Mark was wrong. HOW DOES IT FEEL MARK? The shoe is now on the other foot. The spirit of your thought was correct but you may have made a semantic nitpicking error.
As far as I am concerned whichever words I used in the book were just fine. But even if the words were a true conceptual error it is ridiculous to say that I shouldn't throw stones at other authors. Their errors occur at a rate at least ten times as often as ours and are far more serious to boot.
I cannot imagine a subject that would contribute less to the win rate, unless discussing it results in better understanding.
Mark is clearly wrong in this case, but it is unbelievably pedantic. I haven't read exactly what Gary wrote in the other cases you referred to, so I won't pass judgement.
Jaeger
At 11:23 a.m. on 20 December 1999, Jaeger wrote: "First, as Gary pointed out, what other players hold has no impact on the probability of the next card drawn. They had no control over what cards they were given, and thus have no impact on the cards remaining in the deck."
At 3:50 p.m. on 20 December 1999, David wrote: "Gary Carson is wrong when he postulates (ironically in defending me) that in a full ring game the chances of you catching a card is not changed by a little information about one hand becuse the other hands cancel it out."
At 4:12 p.m. on 20 December 1999, Jaeger wrote: "I haven't read exactly what Gary wrote in the other cases you referred to, so I won't pass judgement."
Jaeger, I was wondering if you've had a chance to reread Gary's post, your claim, David's reply, and my replies. Do you still believe Gary's assertion was correct?
Post deleted at author's request
At 3:08 p.m. on 19 December 1999, Gary wrote: "Also, I think that you'll find that conditioning on the distribution of the cards in all the opponents hands, including those that where folded, you'll find that the prob of the Ac being the next one of the stub is 1/47."
At 2:15 p.m. on 24 December 1999, Gary wrote: "But, conditioning on everything brings you to a wash in at least some situations."
One such situation: You are playing heads-up draw with no opening requirements against one opponent who always opens with any five cards and five opponents who always fold with any five cards. You look down and do not see the Ac in your hand. There is a 1 in 47 chance that the next card in the stub is the Ac.
Post deleted at author's request
At 3:08 p.m. on 19 December 1999, Gary wrote: "Also, I think that you'll find that conditioning on the distribution of the cards in all the opponents hands, including those that where folded, you'll find that the prob of the Ac being the next one of the stub is 1/47."
This is your statement with which I disagree, Gary.
I knew scott's advice to be more concise would get me into trouble. To prove that Gary's latest statement is theoretically true, I offerred a very warped scenario that supported his claim. Gary seems to believe that I think this warped scenario is a realistic situation. He wrote: "But, whatever you want to believe is fine Mark. Maybe you could move in next door to John Feeney, on that fantasy world."
I hope scott will indulge my extra words as I attempt to straighten out the record.
At 3:08 p.m. on 19 December 1999, Gary wrote: "Also, I think that you'll find that conditioning on the distribution of the cards in all the opponents hands, including those that where folded, you'll find that the prob of the Ac being the next one of the stub is 1/47."
This statement had a reasonably direct bearing on the main topic of this thread. I had criticized this statement by David: "Just pick 3 other cards such as the ace, deuce, and trey of clubs to bluff with. You bet if you catch a heart or 1 of those 3 cards. You now can be sure of bluffing with an exact probability of 3/47."
Both David's and Gary's statements were incorrect. David explicitly acknowledged his mistake. Gary's admission was a little more implicit. At 2:15 p.m. on 24 December 1999, Gary modified his claim: "But, conditioning on everything brings you to a wash in at least some situations."
Theoretically, Gary's latest claim is true. If you bend reality far enough, there will be some rare situations where players' pre-draw strategies will result in the Ac having exactly a 1 out of 47 chance, on average, of being at the top of the stub.
I offerred one such situation: You are playing draw poker with no opening requirements. Your opponents include one player who always opens with any five cards and five players who always fold with any five cards. You look down and do not see the Ac in your hand. The chance that the next card in the stub being the Ac is exactly 1 out of 47.
Is this a realistic scenario? Of course not. I never claimed it was. Does this unrealistic scenario prove that Gary's latest statement is true? Yes, it does. Does this unrealistic scenario prove that Gary's latest statement has much relevance to this thread. No, not really. Nor was it intended to do so.
But wait a minute. Perhaps, Gary used the word "wash" to mean that the Ac will have "approximately" a 1 in 47 chance of being at the top of the stub. This would make his statement much more true--and much less relevant to the main topic of this thread. Nobody is suggesting that the Ac will not have approximately a 1 in 47 chance of being the next card.
If somebody wants to start a new thread to debate how "approximate" to 1/47 that Ac will be drawn, they are welcome to do so.
The subject is irrelevant to poker but not to blackjack. Gary's error is equivalent to a blackjack counter who comes upon a half played four deck shoe and watches a hand where only eight low cards are played. The two decks remaining appear to be rich in high cards. Some would say you are now playing gainst a double deck with an AVERAGE count of +8. Gary Carson might say that that is wrong because the two decks already played figured to be rich in high cards and it will be a wash on average. Both views are wrong. The actual answer is that you should assume you are playing against 4 decks with a +8 count. In the case of poker it is much closer and Gary is much closer to being right. Furthermore the above analogy does not perfectly mirror what Gary is saying. I use it merely to point out that the EXACT wash conclusion is wrong. (Interestingly Gary's idea could theoretically go BEYOND washing. For instance suppose all ten players will play with any ace. If one person steals the ante, the chances the next card in the 32 card stub is an ace has gone UP rather than down in spite of the fact that the opener is likely to have an ace.)
David's analysis is generally correct. But David somehow failed to realize that in certain theoretical situations (unrealistic though they might be), there will be an EXACT wash. So, Gary's MODIFIED conclusion logically is true (if not particularly useful).
Perhaps David (once again) just glanced at my post. To make it a little simpler, I'll quote the most relevant section:
>>At 2:15 p.m. on 24 December 1999, Gary modified his claim: "But, conditioning on everything brings you to a wash in at least some situations."
Theoretically, Gary's latest claim is true. If you bend reality far enough, there will be some rare situations where players' pre-draw strategies will result in the Ac having exactly a 1 out of 47 chance, on average, of being at the top of the stub.
I offerred one such situation: You are playing draw poker with no opening requirements. Your opponents include one player who always opens with any five cards and five players who always fold with any five cards. You look down and do not see the Ac in your hand. The chance that the next card in the stub being the Ac is exactly 1 out of 47.<<
David,
In case you are interested . . .
Ending a sentence with the word "Period" might indicate you emphatically believe your statement. But it does not make your argument any more convincing (at least to me).
In this instance, you might be wishing you were a little less emphatic in expressing your opinion.
O.K. was it David Sklansky or Mr. Sklansky, David's dad, who wrote this response? Certainly sounds like something from a Columbia Professor. Certainly does not sound like the "Let Vince elaborate" lazy David Sklansky we are all used too. If it is David I think that he must be on a holiday downer and is trying to get over a depressive state. David, St, John's Wort really works.
Vince.
BTW - Whoever (whomever) (whatever), answers the question correctly gets to watch Mason play 15-30 Holdem at Bellagios for a whole week one night during January. A sight to make sore eyes!
On page 129 of GTBOI-1997, David wrote: "A simple way to make this random decision is to use the card you caught on the end as a randomizing device. In this example, let's say you were drawing to four hearts. Just pick 3 other cards such as the ace, deuce, and trey of clubs to bluff with. You bet if you catch a heart or 1 of those 3 cards. You now can be sure of bluffing with an exact probability of 3/47."
In his above post, David wrote:
>>If the way I phrased my original advice was "pick three cards at random and your chances are exactly 3/47" then jaeger was right when he said that I was wrong when I said that Mark was right when he said that I was wrong. But If I said something like "pick three cards at random, for instance if you pick the ace deuce and three of clubs, you are 3/47, then Mark was right in thinking that jaeger is wrong in thinking I was wrong in thinking Mark is right.
Now since my exact words were probably the former, that means that techniclly Mark was wrong. HOW DOES IT FEEL MARK?<<
It makes me feel sad, David. Believe it or not, I actually respect you and your work. It saddens me to see you make these foolish statements.
I guess I'll just attribute it to your self-acknowledged laziness. Perhaps you were too indolent to click on my original post and re-read the relevant portion of your chapter.
Or perhaps you didn't trust my quotation. Mason has accused me of misquoting or misrepresenting hands, although we are still waiting for him to offer even one example. But I cited the book and chapter, in case you wanted to crack open your copy. In the future, I'll try to include the page number as well.
By the way, David, if you are using cards as a simple randomizing device, what device are you using to randomly select the three cards? And why don't you just use that alternate device to make all your random decisions?
Finally, jaeger is wrong. And so are you, if you still agree with him. But this post has gone on long enough already. Check elsewhere for details.
Thank you for participating in this debate. Although your conclusion is wrong, you put forth your arguments in a convincing fashion. So convincingly that you almost misled David once again.
What you are failing to understand is the distinction between conditional events and independent events. Perhaps some examples will illuminate this concept for you.
Suppose six hands of draw poker are dealt. You look at your cards and see AhKcJh7h3h. This is a friendly home game, so nobody complains when you immediately turn over your hand and proclaim that you can guess which card is on the top of the deck. Assuming the cards are unmarked, you haven't seen any flashed cards, etc., then what should be the fair odds for your correct guess?
As you so eloquently explained, you have a 1 out of 47 chance of guessing correctly. So you should be getting 46-to-1 odds on your bet. This is because you know absolutely nothing about your opponents' cards.
Now, let's look at a second example. To make this simple, imagine a rather bizarre cross between seven-card stud and draw poker. Eight players each ante $1 and are dealt three down cards. The player to the dealer's left has the option of opening for $5 or folding. To open the betting, however, a player must hold three aces. After the first player acts, the player to his left acts.
In this second example, the first-to-act player opens. At this point, you turn over your hand (AhKc3h) and proclaim that you can guess which card is on the top of the deck. Now what should be the fair odds for your correct guess?
You probably realize that, in this case, you do not have a 1 out of 49 chance but rather a 1 out of 46 chance of guessing correctly (assuming the opener has a valid opening hand and assuming you do not foolishly guess the As, Ah, Ad, Ac, Kc, or 3h). So, you should be getting 45-to-1 odds on your bet. This is because you know something about an opponent's hand. Indeed, you know quite a lot about that hand. In fact, you might as well be looking at his cards, for you know he has the As, Ad, and Ac.
Let's look at one last example. The game is a modified version of draw poker where you must have aces-or-better to open. Only two of you are playing. Your opponent opens. You turn over your hand (AhKcJh7h3h) and proclaim that you can guess which card is on the top of the deck. Now what should be the fair odds for your correct guess?
Unless your opponent has a very strange opening strategy, your chances of guessing correctly are better than 1 out of 47. No, you don't know precisely which five cards are in your opponent's hand. But you know there is a better than average chance that her hand contains at least one ace. So, you would be wise not to guess that the next card in the deck is the As, Ad, or Ac. Surely you would not offer me 46-to-1 odds that I could not correctly guess the next card.
While it is a bit more difficult to intuitively understand, my point continues to be valid even if more than two players are involved in that third example. And it continues to be valid even if the opening requirements are jacks-or-better to open. And it continues to be valid even if there are no opening requirements but rational people are playing.
Which gets us back to my original post. ***After knowing that somebody opened the betting***, David almost certainly was wrong to state, "Just pick 3 other cards such as the ace, deuce, and trey of clubs to bluff with. You now can be sure of bluffing with an exact probability of 3/47."
After reading this post, if you still are having trouble understanding why David was wrong, then ask me for an even simpler explanation. I'll do my best to accomodate.
In a later post, Jaeger, you wrote: "I cannot imagine a subject that would contribute less to the win rate, unless discussing it results in better understanding."
I hope that discussing this topic has resulted in a better understanding, not just for you but for other readers as well. As I noted in my original post: "Understanding the fundamentals of poker improves your game (and bankroll) in many small ways that quickly become significant. If you seek to understand poker fundamentals, then it is best to learn them correctly."
Jaeger, you also wrote: "Mark is clearly wrong in this case, but it is unbelievably pedantic."
I hope that conclusion is now less clear to you. In "The Verdict" that David rendered, he repeated his acknowledgement that my original post was correct. (He did his best to obscure this admission, but re-read the first paragraph of that verdict.)
Pedantry at its best, Mark. David wrote in his book "just pick three cards, for example ....". Nowhere does he say you should condition this pick based on what you know of the betting so far and what effect that has on the cards that are likely out. "just pick three cards" is pretty simple, and I think we can interpret that to mean pick any three cards without thinking too hard. They don't have to be picked randomly using an exotic randomizing device. They can be picked sequentially, systematically going through A,2,3 the first time, 4,5,6 the next time and so on.
You would have to consciously think about what cards are likely out AND use that info to pick the cards, exactly as you pointed out in your example. Since that's not what "just pick three cards" means to me, I guess we'll just leave it at that.
Jaeger
Mark wrote: === To open the betting, however, a player must hold three aces. After the first player acts, the player to his left acts.
In this second example, the first-to-act player opens. At this point, you turn over your hand (AhKc3h) and proclaim that you can guess which card is on the top of the deck. Now what should be the fair odds for your correct guess? ==== I think this is a good example of how someone can misinterpret written words. God knows, the 2+2 writers have been accused of unclear or obfuscated writing, but I think this is a case of malicious misinterpretation. Keep in mind the context of what Sklansky was writing about, that being a method to create a reliable randomizing technique to create a probability of 3/47.
You describe an example of having 47 cards left, and then proceed to logically deduce which cards are more or less likely to fall. In other words, actually attempting to undermine exactly that which we are trying to create. True, Sklansky didn't say don't do this. It is possible to undermine the randomness if you specifically put your mind to it, yet this is a patently unreasonable interpretation of his words.
So when you try to enlighten me about conditional events versus independent events, I guess you really should explain why it is obvious that the conditional event applies. The conditional interpretation undermines that which we are trying to create, while an independent selection of cards does not. It seems quite unreasonable to think that Sklansky actually meant we should try to undermine the randomness of the event, when it is a random event that we are trying to create. In any case, I'm done with this topic.
Jaeger
In reference to my second example, Jaeger wrote: "I think this is a good example of how someone can misinterpret written words. God knows, the 2+2 writers have been accused of unclear or obfuscated writing, but I think this is a case of malicious misinterpretation."
In offering my second example, I was not interpreting anything that David wrote (at least anything that I'm aware of). So, it would be difficult for me to misinterpret, maliciously or otherwise. The example was my own expression of my own (admittedly bizarre) idea.
I provided that second example as an extreme instance of a conditional event. I.e., given that you know your opponent's cards as well as your own, how does that effect your chances of guessing the deck's top card. Extreme examples often can help clarify somewhat confusing concepts.
In this case, I was hoping it would help Jaeger understand what I meant when I explained:
>>Which gets us back to my original post. ***After knowing that somebody opened the betting***, David almost certainly was wrong to state, "Just pick 3 other cards such as the ace, deuce, and trey of clubs to bluff with. You now can be sure of bluffing with an exact probability of 3/47."<<
Jaeger continued: "So when you try to enlighten me about conditional events versus independent events, I guess you really should explain why it is obvious that the conditional event applies. The conditional interpretation undermines that which we are trying to create, while an independent selection of cards does not."
Jaeger misunderstood my comments. The conditional event is the fact that somebody opened the betting, presumably with a opening strategy that produces a better than average chance that his hand is rich in high cards. This, in turn, means there is a better than average chance the stub is rich in low cards.
Suppose you hold AhKcJh7h3h and decide to bluff with a likelihood of exactly 1/47. If you randomly pick the Ac, you will bluff, on average, less than 1 out of 47 times. If you randomly pick the 2s, you will bluff, on average, more than 1 out of 47 times.
If your objective is to bluff with a likelihood of exactly 1/47, then you probably should not randomly select the card with which you will bluff.
I'm sorry I did not more clearly explain the concept of conditional events in my previous post. I hope this follow-up helps rectify this.
Mark wrote: Suppose you hold AhKcJh7h3h and decide to bluff with a likelihood of exactly 1/47. If you randomly pick the Ac, you will bluff, on average, less than 1 out of 47 times. If you randomly pick the 2s, you will bluff, on average, more than 1 out of 47 times.
If your objective is to bluff with a likelihood of exactly 1/47, then you probably should not randomly select the card with which you will bluff. ============ Sigh. I said I was done, but then you go and write that. In my long post I provided the math to support why randomly selecting the card with which you will bluff guarantee's exactly that objective. I even gave an example of a deck that had no clubs in it at all and demonstrated that the probability of the bluff happening was entirely unchanged.
In short, you don't care about the exact probability of the next card. The deck can be short a few cards. You also don't care if the method the person uses to pick a card is completely random. He may have a favorite suit, or he may never pick fives. This will impact the probability of the match happening if and only if there is a correlation between the way the cards are picked and shorting of the deck.
Shorting the deck is necessary, but not sufficient to change the probability of the cards matching. The person picking the cards must also have some bias in the way he picks cards. That is also necessary, but not sufficient to change the probability calculation used. The probability is only impacted if there is a correlation between the two. I demonstrated this with an example. Did you find a flaw in the math in the example?
The thing to remember is that we are talking about the probability of the next card falling. We are talking about the probabilty of it matching the card that was picked. Maybe a simpler example is required after all. Let's say we have a jar with 51 red marbles and 49 blue marbles. I would like to create a random event with 50% probability, but I'm not sure if the jar is fair or not. So I simply alternate guessing red then blue. Even if the jar is not fair the way I pick colours is not correlated with it.
Prob of match on red: .5 * .51 = 0.255 Prob of match on blue: .5 * .49 = 0.245 Prob of match = 0.5
Just like the jar, the remaining deck does not have to be completely fair. If its composition has been impacted by a players' opening strategy that will affect the probability of a match if and only if you use the opening strategy to affect the way you pick cards. And if you don't see it now, I give up.
Jaeger
Jaeger,
What you said in your latest post basically is true.
What I said also is true.
We now are talking about two different things.
David Sklansky, BTBOI-1997, p. 129: "A simple way to make this random decision is to use the card you caught on the end as a randomizing device. In this example, let's say you were drawing to four hearts. Just pick 3 other cards such as the ace, deuce, and trey of clubs to bluff with. You bet if you catch a heart or 1 of those 3 cards. You now can be sure of bluffing with an exact probability of 3/47."
If you co
Posted by: KOJEE KABUTO
Posted on: Friday, 10 December 1999, at 1:22 p.m.
Posted by: FredAces
Posted on: Saturday, 11 December 1999, at 8:36 p.m.
Posted by: MS
Posted on: Saturday, 11 December 1999, at 10:29 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 2:13 p.m.
Posted by: Specs (rkr@well.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 12 December 1999, at 3:22 p.m.
Posted by: KOJEE KABUTO
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 2:08 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 6:59 p.m.
Posted by: KOJEE KABUTO
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 1:17 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 6:09 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 7:12 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 8:18 p.m.
Posted by: Sergio (le_blanc_99@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 12 December 1999, at 5:48 p.m.
Posted by: FBI
Posted on: Sunday, 12 December 1999, at 6:24 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 1:11 a.m.
Posted by: onlinecheat (onlinecheat@gonet.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 10:37 a.m.
Posted by: TableGuy (TableGuy@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 10:17 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 10:39 a.m.
Posted by: onlinecheat (onlinecheat@gonet.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 10:54 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 11:39 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 4:15 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 11:56 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 12:15 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 12:21 p.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@siol.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 12:27 p.m.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Posted by: TableGuy (TableGuy@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 2:13 p.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@siol.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 1:46 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 12:11 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 12:18 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 12:21 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 1:03 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 2:25 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 10:25 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 2:28 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 7:02 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 12:57 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 1:25 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 6:50 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 1:30 a.m.
Posted by: clueless
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 5:48 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 6:34 p.m.
Posted by: pdc
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 7:15 p.m.
Posted by: clueless
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 7:38 p.m.
Posted by: Wayne (considin@erols.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 6:21 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Monday, 13 December 1999, at 7:27 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 1:26 a.m.
Posted by: Wayne (considin@erols.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 6:24 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 8:10 p.m.
Posted by: KOJEE KABUTO
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 1:37 p.m.
Posted by: AlexB
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 4:58 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 6:29 p.m.
Posted by: Piers
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 7:39 a.m.
Posted by: Wayne (considin@erols.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 11:52 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 2:02 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 2:41 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 3:14 p.m.
Posted by: Maniac Mark (mlundqui@seas.upenn.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 4:17 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 4:28 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 4:29 p.m.
Posted by: AlexB
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 4:47 p.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 5:02 p.m.
Posted by: Todd (thrawn@compuserve.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 5:51 p.m.
Posted by: Wrong Forum Man (wrongforum@wrongforum.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 11:56 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 10:09 p.m.
Posted by: AlexB
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 10:33 p.m.
Posted by: Joe (joelott@wam.umd.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 9:56 p.m.
Posted by: Maniac Mark (mlundqui@seas.upenn.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 4:49 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 4:55 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 5:01 p.m.
Posted by: AlexB
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 9:09 p.m.
Posted by: Jon (JIngrisano@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 11:52 p.m.
Posted by: Don from O.C.
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 3:33 p.m.
Posted by: AlexB
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 8:02 a.m.
Posted by: Don from O.C.
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 8:12 a.m.
Posted by: Jon (JIngrisano@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 11:09 a.m.
Posted by: Zack
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 11:41 a.m.
Posted by: Jon (JIngrisano@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 1:10 p.m.
Posted by: Donald M
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 6:02 p.m.
Posted by: AlexB
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 8:54 p.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 5:06 p.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 5:52 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 6:32 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 3:42 a.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 7:28 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 2:41 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 3:48 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 3:38 a.m.
Posted by: Piers (piers@vossnet.co.uk)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 8:17 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 2:35 p.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 3:38 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 4:57 p.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 8:10 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 11:26 p.m.
Posted by: Pete B
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 3:55 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 5:09 p.m.
Posted by: Paul Willer
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 5:30 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 6:15 p.m.
Posted by: Paul Willer
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 8:01 p.m.
Posted by: Dale
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 11:13 p.m.
Posted by: Lady Gambler
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 10:43 p.m.
Posted by: Mr. X
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 7:48 a.m.
Posted by: Derek
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 8:23 a.m.
Posted by: Fed up with idiots
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 7:53 a.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 10:23 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 11:24 p.m.
Posted by: Martin D
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 8:00 a.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 3:07 p.m.
Posted by: Barry Beckett
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 7:54 p.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 8:13 p.m.
Posted by: Barry Beckett
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 8:46 p.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 9:01 p.m.
Posted by: Barry Beckett
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 9:59 p.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 10:05 p.m.
Posted by: Barry Beckett
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 11:38 p.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 12:29 a.m.
Posted by: pdk
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 2:04 a.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 3:32 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 1:29 a.m.
Posted by: KOJEE KABUTO
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 1:24 p.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 3:19 p.m.
Posted by: Justin G
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 1:16 p.m.
Posted by: John(MO) (johnjmp@operamail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 11:40 p.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 3:01 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Z.
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 6:12 p.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 5:12 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Z.
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 6:24 p.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 2:49 a.m.
Posted by: anon
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 11:55 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 3:07 p.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 3:27 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 4:25 p.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 7:13 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 9:44 p.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 10:06 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 4:06 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 4:37 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 10:38 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 11:13 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 11:40 p.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 11:55 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 1:19 a.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 3:08 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 6:31 a.m.
Posted by: Mr. X
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 10:15 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@acm.org)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 2:12 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 5:32 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 1:25 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 2:02 p.m.
Posted by: Don from O.C.
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 2:19 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 3:48 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 8:00 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 12:03 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 12:28 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 6:20 a.m.
Posted by: Mr. X
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 8:15 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 10:46 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 1:39 a.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 12:31 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 1:57 a.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 3:13 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 3:49 a.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 3:06 p.m.
Posted by: TableGuy (TableGuy@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 December 1999, at 4:44 p.m.
Posted by: Chico
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 2:55 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 8:54 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 12:21 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 1:21 p.m.
Posted by: Chico
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 3:11 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 8:52 a.m.
Posted by: CrazyJim (gallen@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 2:30 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 11:01 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 2:47 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 8:04 p.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb_llb@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 2:25 a.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 1:13 p.m.
Posted by: KOJEE KABUTO
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 1:32 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 2:08 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 3:10 p.m.
Posted by: Pyramid (pyramid@mm.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 5:20 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 6:02 p.m.
Posted by: Pyramid (pyramid@mm.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 8:54 a.m.
Posted by: Jay Michaels
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 11:57 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 1:01 a.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 3:08 p.m.
Posted by: ratso222 (ratso222@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 9:30 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 11:59 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 5:06 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 6:58 p.m.
Posted by: Tim (tdelaney@cascadesa.org)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 6:59 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 7:58 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 9:37 p.m.
Posted by: AlexB
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 8:31 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 December 1999, at 9:49 p.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney (Feen9876@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 9:19 a.m.
Posted by: Joe (joelott@wam.umd.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 11:34 a.m.
Posted by: KOJEE "bones" KABUTO
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 4:19 p.m.
Posted by: McCoy
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 2:26 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 1:37 p.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney (Feen9876@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 2:26 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 6:04 p.m.
Posted by: gman
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 8:32 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 9:32 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 12:58 a.m.
Posted by: Poisson
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 9:00 a.m.
Posted by: Kim T (tkimt@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 11:30 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 11:39 a.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@siol.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 11:55 a.m.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Posted by: steve wood (sjohnwood@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 11:56 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 12:09 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 5:17 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 5:46 a.m.
Posted by: DDT
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 8:01 a.m.
Posted by: Mr. X
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 8:33 a.m.
Posted by: Derek
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 10:36 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 1:15 p.m.
Posted by: Jerry
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 5:25 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 6:58 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 7:31 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 11:37 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 1:42 p.m.
Posted by: Jon (JIngrisano@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 2:24 p.m.
Posted by: KOJEE KABUTO
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 2:59 p.m.
Posted by: AlexB
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 3:08 p.m.
Posted by: KOJEE KABUTO
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 3:25 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 4:06 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 4:57 p.m.
Posted by: jaeger (jaeger63@mailcity.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 12:32 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 5:05 p.m.
Posted by: Donald M
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 5:35 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 12:59 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 1:43 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 1:48 p.m.
Posted by: jaeger (jaeger63@mailcity.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 3:00 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 3:19 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 5:17 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 10:21 p.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole@ccri.cc.ri.us)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 3:11 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole@ccri.cc.ri.us)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 12:42 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney (Feen9876@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 5:00 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 12:45 a.m.
Posted by: KOJEE KABUTO
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 3:53 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 4:09 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 3:38 p.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole@ccri.cc.ri.us)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 4:02 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 11:06 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (chrispoker@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 11:33 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 12:54 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 8:24 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 8:41 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 8:48 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 9:38 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 5:28 a.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 5:27 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 8:55 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 9:04 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 7:32 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 7:34 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 7:26 a.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 3:08 a.m.
Posted by: rjk
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 6:32 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 6:39 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 7:05 p.m.
Posted by: rjk
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 7:13 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 9:36 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 5:29 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 7:20 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 12:34 p.m.
Posted by: Piers
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 7:41 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 2:52 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 3:11 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 5:24 p.m.
Posted by: AlexB
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 8:56 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 10:30 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 11:13 p.m.
Posted by: rjk
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 12:12 a.m.
Posted by: AlexB
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 12:35 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 8:34 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 6:09 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 6:11 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 11:18 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@acm.org)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 7:33 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 8:40 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 10:19 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 9:41 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 December 1999, at 10:22 p.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 12:45 a.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 2:16 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 12:28 p.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 2:38 a.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 12:46 a.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 12:48 a.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 2:34 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 1:35 p.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney (Feen9876@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 9:33 p.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 10:26 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 December 1999, at 11:21 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 1:43 a.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 2:50 a.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 3:36 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 9:24 a.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 5:11 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 2:57 a.m.
Posted by: Carter Stevens
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 7:46 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 1:56 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 2:53 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 4:15 p.m.
Posted by: Donald M
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 3:19 a.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney (Feen9876@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 7:23 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 9:27 a.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 5:23 p.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 2:08 a.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 2:21 a.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 3:01 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 10:06 a.m.
Posted by: John
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 3:15 a.m.
Posted by: Dice
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 3:55 a.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 3:59 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 9:21 a.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 2:53 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 3:19 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 3:29 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 3:37 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 3:59 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 4:13 p.m.
Posted by: Piers
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 5:18 p.m.
Posted by: John
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 12:18 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 9:47 p.m.
Posted by: John
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 10:16 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 11:37 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 1:21 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Ciaffone (coach999@concentric.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 1:49 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 3:36 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 3:42 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 4:28 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 1:19 a.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 2:31 a.m.
Posted by: KOJEE KABUTO
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 4:23 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 4:45 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 3:56 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 4:09 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 5:00 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 6:12 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 6:22 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 6:30 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 12:08 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 5:07 p.m.
Posted by: ratso222 (ratso222@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 9:00 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 3:58 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 2:55 a.m.
Posted by: Randy (refeld@netzero.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 10:09 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 2:43 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 4:04 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 4:25 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 4:32 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 4:53 p.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 5:52 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 11:48 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 5:09 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 6:12 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 7:20 p.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 5:47 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 9:31 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 9:52 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 12:36 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 12:48 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 4:44 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 12:56 a.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 12:50 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 12:59 a.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 1:08 a.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 1:02 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 1:10 a.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 1:21 a.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 1:29 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 1:35 a.m.
Posted by: Student
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 10:32 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Ciaffone (coach999@concentric.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 9:04 a.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 12:35 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 11:40 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 4:50 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 9:02 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 11:17 a.m.
Posted by: jaeger (jaeger63@mailcity.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 11:42 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 12:30 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 12:58 p.m.
Posted by: Bob
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 7:47 p.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 9:03 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 2:54 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 3:12 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 9:49 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 12:11 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 12:20 a.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 12:31 a.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 2:23 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 4:52 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 2:05 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 12:29 a.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 12:32 a.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 12:44 a.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 12:55 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 12:59 a.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 1:25 a.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 1:38 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 4:57 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 4:51 a.m.
Posted by: Maurice (len@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 4:20 p.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 1:02 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 3:23 a.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 4:37 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 4:13 p.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 4:44 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 5:00 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 5:17 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 5:35 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 6:19 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 8:33 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 10:55 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 11:09 p.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 2:12 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 11:22 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 11:25 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 1:42 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 3:43 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 11:20 a.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 12:38 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 11:27 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 11:53 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 3:30 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 3:46 a.m.
Posted by: Chester H.
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 9:50 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 December 1999, at 3:09 a.m.
Posted by: Chester
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 December 1999, at 2:33 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 December 1999, at 7:30 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 2:26 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 3:03 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 3:08 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 3:07 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 8:45 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 December 1999, at 8:58 p.m.
Posted by: jaeger (jaeger63@mailcity.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 11:23 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 3:06 p.m.
Posted by: jaeger (jaeger63@mailcity.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 3:25 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 2:31 a.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 2:51 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 11:49 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 December 1999, at 12:13 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Friday, 24 December 1999, at 1:50 a.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 24 December 1999, at 2:22 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Friday, 24 December 1999, at 12:05 p.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 2:45 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 4:27 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 1:57 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 26 December 1999, at 6:33 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 December 1999, at 4:56 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Thursday, 30 December 1999, at 11:16 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 December 1999, at 6:38 p.m.
Posted by: jaeger (jaeger63@mailcity.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 7:42 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 3:50 p.m.
Posted by: jaeger (jaeger63@mailcity.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 4:12 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Friday, 24 December 1999, at 12:28 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 December 1999, at 2:15 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Friday, 24 December 1999, at 6:11 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 December 1999, at 7:41 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Friday, 24 December 1999, at 10:14 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 26 December 1999, at 10:57 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 December 1999, at 3:35 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Friday, 31 December 1999, at 9:59 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Friday, 31 December 1999, at 10:09 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 4:52 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Monday, 20 December 1999, at 11:59 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 1:49 a.m.
Posted by: jaeger (jaeger63@mailcity.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 10:03 a.m.
Posted by: jaeger (jaeger63@mailcity.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 3:09 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 December 1999, at 11:20 p.m.
Posted by: jaeger (jaeger63@mailcity.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 December 1999, at 5:47 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Friday, 24 December 1999, at 12:47 a.m.